Harvey Weinstein announced that "the change starts here" and that he will no longer be producing and releasing movies with a lot of violent content.
Why is this a dumb move?
1. Hypocrisy. First Harvey one doesn't get the impression that Harvey's acting entirely out of altruistic love of humanity. The cause of this impression is that he only made the pledge after being called a hypocrite for making violent movies while declaring that he will end gun violence by "destroying" the National Rifle Association with a film called The Senator's Wife starring Meryl Streep.
2. Possibility. How many of you believe that Harvey will keep his pledge if it means passing on the next project by his pet golden boy Quentin Tarantino, or another film that could make him a lot of money, or win an Oscar?
Come on raise your hands.
Okay, those of you with raised hands, put a hammer in that hand and smack yourself on the head with it.
3. Rationality. Folks on the left and the right like to point the finger at violent content in movies and TV shows as the cause of real world violence and that they should have the power to censor content to save the children. Yet no one has been able to actually prove a causal relationship.
Think of this, a study says that TV is more violent than ever, and if you go by cable news channels it is impossible to go outside without being gunned down by a maniac with an assault weapon, but reality tells a different story.
Real world violence is down.
Way, way down.
I'm talking a little over half of what it was in the 1990s, which itself was down from the peak levels that were around in the 1970s.
Which means Lee Marvin was right.
Tell it like it is Lee.
But seriously folks, the western world does not have a violence problem. What it has is a people in the media and politics overreacting to violence problem. That problem has a tendency to make normally smart people do and say some pretty stupid things.
Oscar nominated billionairess turned movie producer Megan Ellison has sold out her stake in the Terminator franchise and won't fund Terminator: Genesis, leaving that to her brother and Paramount, but she will keep an Executive Producer credit.
Good for her.
Not for the usual reason people have been iffy on her involvement, the one saying that the project was an anomaly among her more auteur/art house projects, but for a reason of my own: SUPERSTITION!
I've said it about half a dozen times on this blog but I think it bears repeating. The Terminator franchise is jinxed, at least for the people that make the films. Look at the list:
Produced the first movie, defunct, but that was the happiest ending. That company appeared to go defunct by choice.
First distributor, went bankrupt.
Made Terminator 2: Judgement Day, bankrupt.
An attempt to revive Carolco with Terminator 3 & the Sarah Connor Chronicles almost went belly-up and avoided bankruptcy by selling out to--
Made Terminator: Salvation and Sarah Connor Chronicles, but went bankrupt soon after.
Now you might think I'm being superstitious, but as I like to say you don't need to believe in ghosts to know it's best to stay out of the allegedly haunted house where people tend to die horrible deaths.
So here's a slow clap for Ms. Ellison.