Sunday, 16 August 2009

Hollywood Babble On & On #348: More Whys?

Welcome to the show, I have a few questions, I while I think I know the answers, I'd like to know what you, all two of my readers, think.


Harvey Weinstein made a rather telling statement to a New York Times reporter that was picked up by The Wrap's Sharon Waxman. It was...

“In the end, I realized that I’m not a good C.E.O., I’m not a good manager.”

Now if I was doing the interview I couldn't resist replying to that statement with a
"No shit Sherlock!" but I'm not working for the New York Times, and will probably never work for them, because I would say something like that to someone who was probably a personal friend of the publisher.

Now Waxman raises some questions that the New York Times didn't raise about the state of the The Weinstein Co., and you can read her piece for them, but I have my own question.


Why move from the low budget/high quality films to the big budget/questionable quality films that will no doubt sink TWC under red ink?

Why did you think that buying films at Sundance because of their festival buzz, and then sitting on them, sometimes for years, until that buzz died completely, and then dump them was not going to eventually hurt your company?

Why invest so much money that you won't admit exactly how much into a "social network site for millionaires," when the sort of Type-A millionaire types you're thinking about are way too busy for social networking? I mean it would basically turn into a bunch of their assistants talking shit behind their boss' back. Why?

Why invest in a myriad other ventures, from fashion to publishing that were so alien to your experience as a movie producer?

I have one answer to all those questions, and it's the word EGO.

What do you think?


Now I'm a man who appreciates a beautiful woman. I've found a variety of women highly attractive, and I think my fantasy file can be described as diverse to say the least.

So why do I not find Megan Fox in the least bit attractive?

According to the media she's the hottest thing on the planet that doesn't involve the processing of metals, yet the most interest I can work up is a weak "Feh." I mean she has all the "parts" of what Hollywood tells me are attractive, yet the whole seems to leave me cold.

It could be the tattoos, I'm a tad old fashioned in the belief that women shouldn't put on anything that could result in scar tissue if removed. But I think there's more too it.

In almost every picture of her, which appear 10 times daily on any website with the slightest interest in showbiz, she's posing with her back arched slightly, her eyes narrowed, her lips parted slightly, and her tongue rolling around her mouth like we've just walked in on her mid-coitus when in fact, she's standing in line outside a theater for yet another premier.

Then there's her Angelina-lite image, skipping the vampirism and adopted children, and the almost constant media speculating on her sex life, usually spurred by some comment she made about her sex life when asked a question about her shoes.

I guess it boils down to her trying too damn hard. She comes across as a pose not a person, and that's not sexy to me.

What do you think?


The heirs to the co-creator of Superman have won control of the rights to Superman's name, basic appearance, and some of his powers, while DC comics has kept custody of Lex Luthor, kryptonite, and Jimmy Olsen.

This comes after decades where DC and its parent company Time-Warner used everything in their considerable power to crush the creators of their flagship character. I mean both Jerry Siegel and co-creator Joe Shuster ended up living in poverty, while Superman raked in hundreds of millions over the years, only getting a small pension from Warners when shamed into it before the opening of Superman: The Movie.

Now I can understand, but not condone, the original owners of National Publications (which later became DC) putting the screws to Siegel and Schuster. Most early comic book publishers operated like fly-by-night operators, desperately scrambling to avoid paying anyone anything because they were expecting to declare the company bankrupt at any minute and wanted to hold onto as much money as they could for themselves.

So why did Warners keep on doing it for decades after.

I know Siegel and Schuster must have had some overwhelmed lawyers for accepting some of the settlements they were given over the years, but why did Warner force those shitty deals down their throats when a little diplomacy, and a decent cut, could have made everyone happy, and make the heirs more amenable to letting Warner/DC keep the copyright?

Right now the character could easily end up in a sort of creative limbo. DC unable to use their flagship character, and the heirs unable to use it in any coherent and recognizable form with anyone else. So why did Warners let it get this far?

Do you know what I think?

I think it's because most media companies are run like fly-by-night operations desperately scrambling to avoid paying anyone anything because it might dock some spare change off their bonus, and since they're usually expecting to be fired at any moment, treat every bonus as their last big jackpot.

That's my theory.

What do you think?


  1. WTF D?

    Why did you purge my comment on this post?

  2. You asked for comments on it!

  3. I didn't purge any comments, Dirty Dingus McGee*.

    There must be some techno-shenanigans going on with blogspot, because I never saw any comments for this post until now. If you fill in the captcha thingy, and click "publish" you should have appeared.

    *in keeping with my policy on Anonymous comments in the sidebar, all those who comment anonymously will be given the name Dirty Dingus McGee.