Hollywood Babble On & On #262: Alpha Stomps Beta

Just when I think that Hollywood's got nothing for me to gripe about, the powers that be deliver a bounty to me, and this time their vessel of plenty is Harvey Weinstein, the head of the Weinstein Co. and producer of cable show Project Runway.

If you don't recall Project Runway was the flagship show on NBC-Universal's Bravo channel. And last year they were negotiating renewing the show's contract, and Weinstein told NBC-U's CEO Jeff Zucker seven shades of shit about trust, and friendship, while selling the show to rival Lifetime behind Zucker's back.

Well NBC-U sued, and according to reports, they not only won, they gave old Harvey the litigation equivalent of a heavy sack beating, forcing Harvey to issue a statement congratulating Zucker on his victory.

When I've written about this case in the past, (click here for all Weinstein posts) I mentioned that in the Hollywood wolf pack, Jeff Zucker is an Alpha Wolf, and Harvey Weinstein as an independent producer is a Beta Wolf. And I read somewhere that when an Beta Wolf challenges an Alpha Wolf, the Alpha can't just defeat the Beta in battle. The Alpha must pin the rebellious Beta down and piss on his head as the ultimate symbol of domination. And judging from the statements released about the case, the head-pissing has begun in earnest.

Now I want you to take a moment though, and think about what just happened.

....

...

..

.

Okay, did you think about it?

Good.

Harvey Weinstein just had his ass handed to him on a plate by Jeff Zucker.

Jeff Zucker.

Of all the people in Hollywood, it had to be him.

Now I'm sure that most of the heavy lifting was done by NBC-U's legal department, but still Harvey Weinstein put himself into a position where he loses millions of dollars in settlements and legal fees, and become Jeff Zucker's proverbial bitch.

How can Harvey Weinstein still call himself a player in showbiz if he let that happen?

How can Harvey Weinstein still look in the mirror if he let that happen?

How can Weinstein Co. investors still allow him to continue pissing away their money in easily avoidable litigation, bad movies, and opportunities lost because of even worse relations with just about everyone they've dealt with.

And here's a little personal note, a friendly word of warning for Harvey, just to show that I'm not all about griping, I try to help.

Harvey-

No one is afraid of you anymore. Sorry, but you did to yourself.

-Sincerely Furious D

It'll be a shame to see you go Harvey, because you're antics are a great source of material for me.

Hollywood Babble On & On #71: The Days of Weinstein & Roses

Well, I was worried when Robert Shaye was forced out of New Line that I wouldn't have anything to gripe about.

But Hollywood doth provideth to those who never giveth up their cynicism.

Watch this video about the latest antics of super-producer Harvey Weinstein, formerly of Miramax and current head of The Weinstein Company. Hopefully it hasn't been pulled because of threatened litigation.

Did you watch the video?

Then we can talk about it.

If the claims made in the video are true, and they are believable looking back at the Weinstein's record, the company is in serious trouble.

Harvey Weinstein and his brother Bob got their start as movie moguls with their company Miramax distributing films that the major players ignored, like concert films, and independent and art house pics.

Their shrewd marketing to audiences and shameless campaigning for award nominations made them the kings of American indie cinema during its heyday in the mid-90s. They showed that success could come outside the studio system.

Then things started to slip.

Miramax was sold to the Disney Empire, but Harvey and Bob were left in control of their company, though Disney held final say on whether or not they would distribute particularly controversial films. Miramax developed a reputation for alienating the fans and filmmakers that made the company a success by buying up films, not for release, but to sit on. Now a distributor spending money to not release movies seems counter-intuitive, but they had their reasons.

Number 1: It was not their money they were spending, but Disney's.

Number 2: Sitting on films allowed them to use relatively obscure accounting rules to offset the effects of an increasing number of money losing films.

Number 3: It also prevented independent films from competing with films produced in-house for award nominations and audience attention.

They also alienated the foreign films fans who were their biggest supporters during Miramax's early days when they started buying Asian martial arts films, sitting on them, sometimes for years, and when they were finally released, they were redubbed with new dialogue that often changed the plots and themes of the films, and the music was replaced with loud shrill rap music. (They also threatened anyone who tried to import the original subtitled versions with lawsuits, pissing off even more of the core fans.)

Harvey claimed that he did it to make the films more commercially appealing, but without the core audience making the sort of buzz necessary to sell "cult" material, most of these reworked productions fizzled financially.

In 2005 the Weinstein's stay at the company they founded came to an end. Parent company Disney started to notice that the little indie that could, had become a huge black hole sucking profits into the outer darkness, never to be seen again.

The brothers used the reputations they built during Miramax's heyday to attract venture capital to start The Weinstein Company, and land a distribution deal with MGM.

But it looks like history is starting to repeat itself. The Weinstein Company has since released a long line of predominantly financially disastrous movies. It's had a few hits, I won't deny them that, but too few for any company that hopes to survive. MGM regularly grumbles about the films they are contractually bound to release costing them millions, shareholders are reportedly unhappy with the company's poor performance, filmmakers (at least those whose names aren't Quentin Tarantino & Robert Rodriguez) are unhappy with how they and their films are being treated by the company, and now they have alienated the fans.

The definition of madness is making the same mistake over and over again, hoping that you will have a different result. And here they are making the same mistake that they made distributing Asian martial arts films. They have a film called Fanboys. It tested huge with the core audience, and instead of releasing it, they are sitting on it while someone not connected with the making of the film re-edits it to eliminate a little something called The Plot because it displeases Harvey Weinstein.

Why would Harvey order the re-edit a film he's spent money to buy that tested well and had potential to be a small scale success if marketed properly?

The answer is basically contempt.

The Weinstein Company basically holds the audience in contempt. I think I could summarize Harvey Weinstein's mindset with the phrase: "If they knew what they liked they'd be me, and not the stupid audience!"

Instead of using the goodwill of the film's core audience, Weinstein has actively sought to alienate them, effectively calling them idiots, and daring them to boycott the film.

Goodwill toward any Hollywood project is an extremely rare commodity these days. In fact it has become so rare, that when it does show up, they don't know what to do with it. Instead, they see the goodwill as a sign of stupidity, and they promptly spit on it.

The Weinstein Co. should have used that goodwill generated by the preview screenings to help market the film. Goodwill generates good buzz. Good buzz generates good ticket sales.

You win the core-audience by giving them what they want, it creates positive feelings toward the film. This good feeling is infectious to the general audience, and can make a relatively minor film a success.

Will it make it a blockbuster smash?

Probably not.

But I'd bet dollars to donuts that it would be profitable, and that it would do way better than any re-hashed, re-edited, and bowdlerized version that would only serve to attract venom from the core-fans that are needed to reach a wider audience.

No one wants to see a film that's getting nothing but vitriol about everything that's wrong with Hollywood these days. There's a wisdom to crowds, as well as an empathy, and any film that has nothing but harsh negative vibes associated to it, will not attract an audience. Audiences want a good time at the theatre, not be looked down on by folks whose only virtue is money.

And that's my two cents.

UPDATE: Cinematical reports that the Weinstein Co. are considering releasing 2 versions of the film on DVD, or maybe in theatres, or great Xenu knows what. Apparently they're really trying to avoid having Star Wars fans, and their brethren Comic Book Geeks from boycotting The Weinstein Co's upcoming Superhero Movie. I personally think the original version, that tested so well, will ever see the light of day. Harvey Weinstein has invested too much company money ($2,000,000), and, more importantly to him, too much of his own ego to admit defeat and let the film go out as it was meant to be.

The fact that such a controversy erupted in the first place shows a certain amount of managerial dysfunction at the Weinstein Co. that the investors should look into.

Maybe I should be campaigning for his job like I did for HBO and New Line? If the shareholders aren't willing to change its name to The D Company, I can change my name to Furious Weinstein. I'm flexible.

________________________
CLICK HERE TO PLAY THE REMAKE GAME

Hollywood Babble On & On #174: It Doesn't Just Rain, It Pours...

If this stuff keeps up there's a chance, albeit slim, that I might begin to pity Harvey Weinstein, despite the words "horrible human being" popping up in just about every account people have of dealing with him. First a judge puts the kaibosh on his rather sneaky move of Project Runway from Bravo to Lifetime, MGM is reported as dumping his films from their release slate, then he puts his foot in his mouth offering a million bucks to charity if Nikki Finke can produce an e-mail outlining his antics at Sydney Pollack's deathbed, which she does, which then makes him a target of cruel mocking by internet louts like me, and, as the cherry on top, producer Scott Rudin confirms not only the existence of the e-mail, but the veracity of its content.

Now what does this tell us, not about Harvey Weinstein specifically, but the situation that he's in?

Well, it tells me that he is in a truckload of trouble, with a few more truckloads lining up to dump on him. And this goes beyond simple karmic realignment, with all the abuse he's dished out coming back to haunt him like a tainted burrito.

While the animosity against him is the root of all this, fact that it's all happening now is that no one in show business, who isn't under his direct employ, is scared of him anymore.

There once was a time, during the glory days of Miramax, when he'd stomp and scream, and howl like a sasquatch with road rage, and all would kowtow before him, because he was Harvey-fucking-Weinstein and he wasn't going to let anyone forget it. Academy Awards just couldn't happen without him, and everyone had to kiss his ass and call it ice cream.

Then came the string of stinkers, with only the occasional modest money-maker, stripping the sheen off what was once indie film's golden boy. Couple that with exponentially increasing numbers of actors, writers, directors, producers, and investors expressing their displeasure not only with the company's poor performance, but also its business practises.

Then came the shenanigans over Project Runway, which put Harvey in the sights of the massive NBC-Universal conglomerate.

That was the ultimate nail in the coffin of Weinstein's power. In a way, Hollywood is like a wolf pack, a fat and relatively slow moving wolf pack, but a pack nonetheless. In this pack the major studios are the alphas and the smaller independent producers the betas. When Harvey pulled of that Runway stunt, his beta swiped a piece off of NBC alpha's deer carcass.

Do you know what an alpha wolf does to a beta wolf that pulls a stunt like that? The alpha pins down the beta, and pisses on the beta's head. It's essential to establish dominance in the pack.

In Harvey Weinstein's case, not only will NBC-Uni seek to re-establish their dominance, the other "alpha" players will get in on the act, to make sure that the incident doesn't inspire similar shenanigans. In order to preserve the movie business food chain, Harvey Weinstein is going to be on the receiving end of the business equivalent of a golden shower party.

And any man with a target that big on his back, will not be able to bully and get revenge, being too busy trying not to drown.

So, what sort of lessons can we glean from this whole brouhaha:

1. Act with integrity: While you might think you're being clever by backstabbing people, it's an illusion, an intoxicating illusion. If you get away with it for any length of time, you will get drunk on the illusion of your own cleverness, and you will do something stupid. Something like pissing off someone much bigger than you. And then you'll discover that you have no allies, because no one trusts you enough to watch their back to watch yours. Having your word as your bond, and being a person that honours their commitments, will save you a fortune in both litigation and frustration and make you a more appealing partner.

2. Be Diplomatic: I'm not saying that you should take shit from people, but a certain level of tact and people skills can take you a long way. Especially in a business where image is everything, and if you have the image of being someone who, while not a doormat, is not an exercise in frustration, you can get a lot more done with less hassle. Bullying people is a self-defeating strategy, because it requires a level of paranoia that no one can really maintain. You guard will stumble eventually, and that's when your past victims will pounce.

3. Remember That Like Attracts Like: You set the attitude of your company. A dysfunctional company will not only attract dysfunctional people, but turn normally functional people into dysfunctional wrecks as long as they're in your sphere of influence. A healthy, happy workplace, where pride in work and success takes precedence over fear and treachery, is more productive, and more profitable for everyone involved.

4. Remember, It's Business, Not War: While the strategies of Sun Tzu and Macchiavelli are helpful when dealing with hostile entities, you can't forget that you are in a business. The purpose of business is that everyone is supposed to walk away with what they want. That precious "double thank you" moment is what you are aiming for. It's not about grabbing your piece of the pie out of the mouth of the other, it's about getting the right ingredients together, and making a fresher, bigger pie with the filling of your choice. For you to win it is not essential that the other person much lose. With reasonable business people there is always a win/win option somewhere. It just takes a little imagination and work to find it.

Hollywood Babble On & On #491: Looking Into The Future!

Welcome to the show folks...

Some folks got some egg on their face yesterday by reporting rumors that the Weinstein Bros. regained their company Miramax, but Disney was quick to poo-poo those reports, and say that the auction was still on with no clear winner yet.

Which got me thinking. The Weinstein Bros. are backed by supermarket billionaire Ron Burkle and hedge fund Fortress-Colbeck, and I wondered if the Freres Weinstein would treat them the same way that they have reportedly treated investors in the past.

Luckily, my hobby is mad science, and that would provide me the answers I seek. So I cranked up COLOSSUS my mega-super-computer, hooked it up to my time machine, hooked both of those to my alternate dimension portal generator, making me able to record a telephone call from a possible future where the Weinsteins win back Miramax, and reproduce the transcript here for you.

TRANSCRIPT OF PHONE CALL BETWEEN BILLIONAIRE INVESTOR RON BURKLE & PRODUCER HARVEY WEINSTEIN.
RECORDED ON MAY 27th, 2013 FROM ALTERNATE FUTURE 318-OMEGA-B.

BURKLE- Hi, Harvey, it's Ron here.

HARVEY- Burkle baby, how the f*ck are you?

BURKLE- Well, Harvey, I've been talking to the guys over at Fortress-Colbeck--

HARVEY- What the f*ck are you saying? Are you f*cking talking sh*t about me behind my f*cking back!

BURKLE- No one is talking sh*t Harv. We just have some concerns about how Miramax is being run.

HARVEY- What the f*ck do you know about the f*cking movie business you grocery peddling f*ckwad! I'm Harvey f*cking Weinstein, I've forgotten more about the f*cking movie business than a f*cking cabbage f*cking f*ckface will ever f*cking know!!

BURKLE- Calm down Harv.

HARVEY- I AM F*CKING CALM!! CAN'T YOU HEAR JUST HOW F*CKING CALM I AM!

BURKLE- We're not questioning your experience Harvey. We just want to know why, after we spent over $600 million to buy the company, and several hundred million dollars more for productions and acquisitions, yet there hasn't been a single film released.

HARVEY- You can't f*cking tell me where and when I can f*cking release the f*cking movies I spent f*cking millions of your f*cking dollars making or buying! If I want to f*cking sit on a f*cking movie until all f*cking interest in it is f*cking wasted, and along with it all that f*cking money, I'LL SIT ON THAT F*CKING MOVIE! I'm f*cking rich, and that proves I'm f*cking right!

BURKLE- Technically Harv, I'm actually a lot richer than you--

HARVEY- You f*cking rat soup eating f*cking honky motherf*cker! You f*cking think you know better than me! Do you!?! I'll f*cking sink this f*cking company and you won't f*cking see a single f*cking dime from this sh*theap! NOT ONE F*CKING DIME! You'll never get that f*cking Oscar I f*cking promised you either! I'll f*cking sink that f*cking movie with f*cking Kate Winslet as the f*cking mentally retarded f*cking Nazi with terminal f*cking cancer who f*cking teaches f*cking inner city kids how to f*cking love f*cking Shakespeare through f*cking interpretive dance!

BURKLE- Sheesh Harv, don't you think you're over-reacting?

HARVEY- Are you f*cking saying I'm f*cking over-reacting? YOU F*CKING BAG-BOY! I'LL DESTROY THIS F*CKING COMPANY & YOU WON'T F*CKING GET F*CKING ANYTHING! NOT ONE F*CKING DIME!

BURKLE- Is that how you feel about this Harvey?

HARVEY- Don't f*cking push me you donkeyf*cker! I built this f*cking company, and I'll f*cking destroy it if I f*cking want to! Now f*cking gimme another f*cking $300 million, or I f*cking swear, I'll f*cking burn this whole f*cking thing to the f*cking ground!

BURKLE- Oh, Harvey, you so crazy. How can I stay mad at you?

A stunning vision of a possible future, if I do say so myself.

Hollywood Babble On & On #211: You Don't Have To Be A Genius, But It Helps

I'm really starting to think Harvey Weinstein has given up on actually being in the movie business.

Back when the Weinstein Company was showing cracks Harvey was his usual ebullient self, declaring that the video distribution company Genius Products was going to see them through in style.

Not exactly.

According to the inestimable Nikki Finke and others Genius is now losing money like every other division of the Weinstein Company.

It seems that Genius didn't know the rules of being a home video distributor.

1. Release movies people want to see.

2. Make sure the people who want to see those movies know they exist.

3. Make sure those films are available to the people who want to see those movies.

If you look at the Weinstein Company's record lately it's known more for not releasing movies than for releasing them. I've lost count of the number of stories of films being bumped (The Road), slumped (Zack & Miri...), or just plain dumped (Death Defying Acts) by the various and sundry facets of the increasingly convoluted Weinstein Company.

They are releasing films that the majority of the audience clearly does not want to see. Films that people want to see, even if only out of curiosity, get bumped back farther and farther until all potential interest has wasted away into nothingness, or get dumped without fanfare into DVD discount bins.

How can a film company make money when they aren't doing anything to actually make money?

And it's not just the films and the investors that are suffering. There are even more stories about filmmakers raging about their treatment at the hands of the Weinstein Company, and to be more specific, Harvey. Anyone who doesn't belong to some sort of elite "Friends of Harvey" club are treated with all the respect one would show to something found on the sole of one's shoe.

Now how can a film company make money when you reach a saturation point in pissed-off people and none of the people who actually make films will work for you?

So you have to wonder why is all this happening? Why is a company supposedly run by a master deal maker and movie business maven dissolving like a sandcastle in the rain?

Because Harvey's heart and his brain don't seem to be in it anymore, only his ego.

There's no real passion in his work, simply a desire to control, dominate, and assert that he is Harvey -Fucking- Weinstein and don't you forget it compelling him to make irrational business decisions. The ultimate symptom is how he's treating The Reader. The film's style, stars, and subject matter means that its commercial appeal is limited, so profit is not the motive. Yet Harvey fought like hell, pressuring everyone involved to get it released in time to qualify for the Oscars, at great expense, not only of money, but of relationships, both business and personal and even of other films on the Weinstein Co. release slate.

Harvey doesn't seem to care who his steps on, how much money his investors lose, or how many of his films suffer, he wants another goddamn Oscar on his shelf and nothing is going to get in the way. As if another Oscar would somehow make everything all right.

It won't, the impact of the Oscars are dwindling, and the odds are that he's made too many enemies among Academy voters to get what he covets most.

To succeed in the movie biz, one needs to passionately believe in their work, smart enough to get that work made and sold right, and have just enough ego to withstand the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. But when all you have is ego, and it's become more than a defence, transforming into the major decision maker, it's time to get out of the business, because you're only going to make a fool of yourself and get snarked on by smart-ass know it all bloggers like me.

Hollywood Babble On & On #231: Pulling Over Push?

Well, one thing is for certain, some lawyers are going to get paid, though I don't know where Harvey Weinstein is going to get the money for it.

Maybe I should explain for those folks too lazy to click this link.

You see, during the recent Sundance Festival a film called Push (not the one with the psychic Dakota Fanning) won awards, critical praise, and the endorsement of Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry. The Weinstein Company wanted it, Lionsgate wanted it, and a company called Cinetic was contracted to broker some sort of deal where either one would land the film, or they would share it.

Weinstein claims that Cinetic sent him an e-mail claiming that they had agreed to go with TWC, but then signed a contract with Lionsgate. Now Harvey Weinstein is suing everybody, and Lionsgate is suing back.

Since we're talking about an urban drama that the people who liked it described as extremely well made, but bleak, depressing and a very hard sell to ticketbuyers, the only folks that will probably make money on Push will be the lawyers.

But it does raise a question.

Why was The Weinstein Company even in the running?

Think about it for a second.

TWC doesn't have MGM to distribute their films anymore, there were just too many jokers in that deck, and that's just counting the films that TWC actually released. The company is notorious for sitting on movies, sometimes for years, or dumping it in one theatre through their 3rd Rail distribution arm. Even Harvey's pet project, the pederast Nazi Oscar-bait flick The Reader has made around the same amount in ticket sales in its entire pre-Oscar run that Paul Blart: Mall Cop made in its opening weekend.

It seems obvious to me that TWC was more interested in winning the movie than in actually winning with the movie.

Does that make any sense?

Allow me to explain.

You see, TWC is almost completely driven by the Ego Drive. Back in the glory days of Miramax, there was some balance between the Ego Drive and the Money Drive, leading to profitable, and award winning movies, but now Ego's in the driver's seat, while Money doesn't even seem to be in the car anymore. Probably because it was other people's money anyway.

I believe that Harvey Weinstein is more interested in adding another Sundance Award winner notch on his cinematic bedpost, than doing anything with the film that might reward the filmmakers and the investors who actually made the damn thing. And any filmmaker who doesn't know that by now, probably shouldn't be in the movie biz.

At least Lionsgate will at least try to make something from the film, they don't have a choice right now, it's a matter of survival for them.

I guess you can figure out who I'm rooting for right in this fight. I'm rooting for the people who made Push, and hope their film gets the release they deserve.

Hollywood Babble On & On #125: Random Summer Musings...

1. Quentin Tarantino has finally finished his script for the remake of The Inglorious Bastards and he and producer Harvey Weinstein are shopping it around Hollywood, and it's reported that Weinstein will co-produce it with returning Tarantino producer Lawrence Bender.

Now I'm a Tarantino fan, and I have been since I saw Reservoir Dogs while in Film School, and saw how it was still possible to do a hell of a lot of movie for very little money, I loved Pulp Fiction, enjoyed Jackie Brown, and got positively orgasmic over the 2 Kill Bills. I even liked From Dusk Til Dawn, even though George Clooney brought all the charisma of a pine 2x4 to his role as the vampire slaying anti-hero.

But Grindhouse kinda lost me. I think he lost what made him great which was taking the familiar, but mostly forgotten corners of pop-culture and not only rehashing them, but reviving and reinventing them with his own personal style. Grindhouse had the rehashing, but lacked the revival and reinvention that he did so well in just about every other film. It was a little too close to his beloved inspiration. And rumours that the script for the Inglorious Bastards is big enough for two epics, made me worry about poor Quentin.

Now I am a little heartened by the reports of Lawrence Bender being involved, and I hope they're true. Tarantino has a lot of talent, but very little self control, and needs someone to give him enough rope to get the job done, but not enough to hang himself. Weinstein tends to indulge Tarantino like his favourite child, all the while treating just about everyone else like an unwanted red-headed step-child. He needs someone to whisper in his ear: "Take the camera off Uma's feet and get the story going again."

I wish Tarantino luck, Hollywood needs someone who can bring a little danger back to movies.

2. Now some of you have been wondering why Harvey Weinstein would shop around this production instead of making it with his Weinstein Company. Well, according to Defamer and its sister site Gawker the Weinstein Company is having some major money troubles. Not only has TWC been hit with more turkeys than a Thanksgiving cook-off, attempts to build a media empire have stalled, and the Weinstein's stake in a home video distributor has nose-dived in value, and investors, led by the firm of Goldman Sachs are sharpening their knives.

Now while there is the temptation to revel in schadenfreude at Harvey's ill fortune, due to the accumulating tales of ill treatment told by filmmakers, writers, employees, and legions of former assistants, I'm going to fight it. I'd hate to see another independent company sink into oblivion, its assets sold off to pay debts, and its employees scattered to the four winds, their futures uncertain. What I would like to see is an independent company survive as a viable independent company. So either Harvey has to have a Road to Damascus moment, repent his sins of ego, and change his ways to save the company, or he has to be replaced by someone who can.

3. AFTRA ratified their deal with the moguls. SAG spent their load campaigning against AFTRA's deal, and is now in a strange sort of purgatory known as the strike that's not a strike.

And it isn't a strike. A strike has to be called by the union when contract talks fail. What's happening in La-La Land is a Soft Lockout. The moguls aren't talking, they made their offer, and all they have to do is sit back, and not start any productions until SAG caves in.

As I've said before, the moguls are not the shark's they like people to think they are. They are more like cats, lazy, self-centred, and loyal only to their own comforts. If they can get what they want by doing nothing, they will do nothing, and let their parent companies carry them. SAG has failed to properly prepare for these negotiations, and will most likely have to eat dirt and sign the final offer, and then get ready for the next contract in 2011.

Hollywood Babble On & On #1111: Oh Harvey, You So Whacky.

Harvey Weinstein is going to change America, and he's going to do it with a film called The Senator's Wife, starring Meryl Streep. This movie, he claims, will expose the evils of the National Rifle Association and he went on the Howard Stern Show to say: “they’re (the NRA is) going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.”

There is really only one reaction a sane person can have to such a declaration.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

*cough*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Oh, Harvey, you're so full of shit, I'm surprised it's not dribbling out of your ears.

This reminds of the Sundance Channel's announced plan to do a TV series about the NRA called Cold Dead Hands, and I predicted that if they go through with it, it will fail.

If you're too lazy to click the link, I'll do some explaining.

There is a little thing that Hollywood does not understand when it comes to treating controversial subject matter that I call the "Offend/Bore Matrix."

You see people living in what I call the "Axis of Ego" the amorphous community, centred in Hollywood, where almost everyone in the media lives has a problem. They honestly believe that they are the standard of normal and that anyone who doesn't live like them is somehow abnormal or subnormal.

So when it comes to political issues, like the War on Terror, the Tea Party, and Gun Control, Axis of Ego residents assume that everyone else gets their news like they do. From reading what other celebrities write about politics on The Huffington Post, and watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC or Bill Maher on HBO, and think Michael Moore's films are modern day gospel truths.

They also assume everyone in America watches HBO's Girls.

As you can see, assuming something because everyone in your social circle does it, doesn't make it true for the rest of society.

This means that Harvey's Senator's Wife is doomed to fail.

Why?

Because those that disagree with Harvey about how the NRA is the root of all evil, who make up the majority of Americans, will avoid the film because they know it will do nothing but OFFEND or insult them.

Meanwhile, those who agree with Harvey and want all guns not being carried by their professional bodyguards seized and destroyed, will also avoid the film. Because why would they want to waste their money going to be told something they already know, hence they think it will be a BORE.

But what about those who don't know where they stand on the issue of gun control?

They too will avoid the film, because these "low information voters" would stay at home, blasting  digital zombies, aliens, and terrorists with digital guns on their video game consoles. They will not spend money to watch Meryl Streep in something called The Senator's Wife.

Which is why I call it the Offend/Bore Matrix, and if you're in it, your going to lose your investment.

It's why all those anti-war films Hollywood pumped out during the Bush administration disappeared without a trace except for the red ink their producer's ledgers.

So why is Harvey Weinstein investing his time and effort on something that could not possibly attain the goals of commercial success and political change?

Well, Harvey isn't stupid, and it doesn't matter how ideological he is, he knows that this film will not achieve anything near the hype he's trying to drum up for it. The NRA isn't some penniless indie filmmaker who he can crush like a bug. It's a large, politically powerful organization that will most likely ignore the movie, because it's just a proverbial sermon for the proverbial choir.

I suspect there's some sort of ulterior motive behind all this. I don't know the details, and can't read his mind, but it's probably got something to do with buttering up people in Anti-NRA bastions like the upper social echelons of Hollywood and New York. The sort of people who will praise Harvey for his "courage" in wasting other people's money on a film none of them actually paid to see.

Basically Oscar voters and investors who don't mind losing a few million on a turkey because it's a great tax dodge.

--------------

UPDATE: Harvey Weinstein's had a "Whoops, I look like a flaming hypocrite, so I better cover my ass" moment.

Hollywood Babble On & On #424: Business Blatherings

Welcome to the show folks...

HARVEY CASHES IN CLAUSE IN CONTRACT WITH SATAN

There's a report going around that some unidentified person or business is in talks with the floundering Weinstein Company to set up a fund for TWC to acquire independent films for distribution.

Which makes me ask a question for this as yet unidentified investor.

Why?

True there was a time when the Brothers Weinstein were considered the masters of independent film acquisition. But now folks are questioning if that truly was mastery, or if it was just a combination of dumb luck and good timing, because they certainly don't have that reputation now.

Their current reputation, one they've had way back in the days of Miramax, is to buy independent films, and either chop the living shit out of them until they were unrecognizable to the people who made the film, or to just shelve them, sometimes for years, before unceremoniously dumping them in the DVD discount bin, because they somehow didn't fit in with Harvey Weinstein's personal fits of whimsy.

The reputation of buying films and hustling them hard into profitability and awards is as long dead and dust covered as most of TWC's past independent film acquisitions.

Which raises another question.

How many independent producers are still willing to sell their films to TWC?

I know that indie film distribution is hurtin' for certain, but a simple look at the Weinstein scorecard shows that going into business with them carries the potential to seriously damage your movie, your money, and possibly even your health from extreme stress. And there are just too many stories of filmmakers going through this intense hell, and still end up with their film collecting dust on a shelf. To show anyone that it's worth going into business with TWC, you have to show some sort of evidence that Harvey Weinstein's undergone the sort of radical personality change that recently transformed Tim Robbins into a closet Republican.

I'm beginning to suspect that Harvey's true talent isn't hustling movies anymore, it's convincing investors that they can still trust him to not run a company into the ground, despite all the evidence.

THREE AMIGOS FEEL SOME VERVE

A trio of agents (Bill Weinstein, Bryan Besser and Adam Levine) have left mega-agency WME to form Verve, their own agency.

Personally, I think it's good to see a new business open up shop, because competition, not conglomeration, is what keeps the agency industry healthy, and that same competition is pretty darn good for clients too.

I wish the Verve trio good luck.

CABLE, CASH, AND CRAP

First Fox and Time-Warner Cable fought it out, now it's Cablevision and the Scripps Network going at it like two chihuahuas over a steak, resulting in Scripps yanking the popular Food Network and Home & Garden TV off of Cablevision.

I know that I wrote, somewhat glibly about the Time-Warner Cable/Fox Broadcasting feud, but this situation illustrates something that I think not only afflicts the entertainment business, but other industries as well.

This is when I put on my Strother Martin hat, and matching cosh and declare that what we have here is a failure to negotiate.

Both sides are infected with the false notion that life is a zero-sum game, and that for someone to win, someone else must lose. This creates a destructive pattern where people forget that in a true free market system, there is always a way for all sides to win, and that is through NEGOTIATION.

So what do they have to do to negotiate successfully?

First, identify the parties who have a stake in the negotiation. In this case it is:

1. CABLE CARRIERS- These are the guys who rent the use of their cables that carry a variety of channels to homeowners.

2. CHANNEL PRODUCERS- These guys own and operate the channels that carry the programming that make renting the cable worthwhile.

3. CABLE CUSTOMERS- These are the people who rent the cables that carry the programs that run on the channels that come over the cables.

Then you identify what each party in the negotiation wants.

1. CABLE CARRIERS- To make money renting out cables that carry a variety of programming.

2. CHANNEL PRODUCERS- To make money putting programming to run on the cables.

3. CABLE CUSTOMERS- To watch the shows they like at a reasonable price.

Now this where things get tricky, because only two of the three parties involved are directly active in the negotiations. This can lead to two potentially harmful traps:

A. The Cable Co. and the Channel Co. make the negotiation into a contest to see who could screw the other out of something.

or

B. The Cable Co. and the Channel Co. stop screwing each other, and start screwing the customers.

Both traps are caused by the two sides forgetting the fundamental basis of every business, which is to make money by giving people what they want to pay for. When this basic fact is forgotten you get a business that repulses customers, raises prices beyond what market forces call for, and rationalizes piracy.

Right now Cablevision is looking at losing a lot of customers over this feud, meanwhile Scripps is losing the revenue those very same customers could have been making them during the time it takes for them to switch their cable providers. Hell, if I was one of Cablevision's competitors, I'd be on their customers like stink on shit, and it serves them right for making this fundamental mistake.

To prevent these fiascoes I offer this 4 point plan:

1. The companies remember their reason for existence: To profit from pleasing customers by giving them a good or service they want to pay for.

2. The companies remember that they have a symbiotic relationship, where they can both mutually profit with a viable business model that operates without deception or coercion.

3. Formulate a co-operative instead of adversarial plan to maximize their profits by maximizing consumer satisfaction. This is by calculating the best service they can provide while making a profit with a price that the market will bear.

4. Put plan into action.

You'd be surprised how simple business can be when there's a little common sense put in the mix.

Hollywood Babble On & On #1039: Battle Over The Butler?

HAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry, it's just that I can't help but laugh when big important Hollywood people get into a really immature pissing contest. It warms my little flint heart.

The latest involves Lee Daniels' follow-up to his movie Precious: Based On The Novel "Push" By Sapphire that was supposed to be called The Butler, and tell the heavily fictionalized story of a White House butler through the last half of the 20th Century and eight presidents. 

Before this kerfuffle The Butler was mostly known for the stunt casting of actors known for their loathing of Republicans as Republican historical figures like John Cusack as Richard Nixon and Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan. A move guaranteed to generate conservative media outrage and up the film's chances for some politically motivated Oscar nominations.

However, all that may change because The Butler may not be The Butler if Warner Brothers get their way.

You see a few weeks ago the Weinstein Company, which is releasing The Butler, asked Warner Brothers to change the name of their upcoming film The Good Lie because they said it was too close to their upcoming title The Good Life. TWC eventually backed down on their claim, but Warner Brothers decided to get some payback.

They filed a complaint with the MPAA saying that TWC's The Butler was too similar to a 1917 short film called The Butler, and demanded that TWC change it.

Now Warner Brothers won the first round, but the Weinsteins are getting riled up for a fight, and are going to take it to court.

Now films with similar titles pop up all the time. Anyone remember these two films...

David Cronenberg's Crash was released in 1996 and was about an underground group that sexualizes car crashes. Paul Haggis' Crash from 2004 was about liberal guilt. They were very different films, but with exactly the same title and no one appeared to have raised a stink about it.

So why is Warner Brothers sticking it to The Butler?

My theory is that it is all about the personality of TWC head Harvey Weinstein. Harvey is not known for his diplomacy. In fact, Harvey has a gift for rubbing people the wrong way. And after he rubs them the wrong way, he does it again, with sandpaper, and then calls you a rude name.

I think when TWC made a little noise over the whole Good Lie/Good Life thing, it was the straw that broke the camel's back for someone high up at Warner Brothers. They looked at what Weinstein had coming out, ordered their minions to look for a similar title in their own library and the rest is history.

This is a win-win situation for Warner Brothers if their motive is just to piss off Harvey Weinstein. Remember, the costs of fighting this case in and out of court is relatively negligible to a mega-corp like Warner Bros. However, The Weinstein Company has a much thinner capital cushion in comparison, so even if Harvey wins the case, he would have lost a mint, and it's unlikely he could easily afford to lose a mint.

The Oscar Noms Are Out!

And here they are...

Nominees for the 81st Academy Awards

Best motion picture of the year
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount and Warner Bros)
A Kennedy/Marshall Production
Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall and Ceán Chaffin, Producers

Frost/Nixon (Universal)
A Universal Pictures, Imagine Entertainment and Working Title Production
Brian Grazer, Ron Howard and Eric Fellner, Producers

Milk (Focus Features)
A Groundswell and Jinks/Cohen Company Production
Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, Producers

The Reader (The Weinstein Company)
A Mirage Enterprises and Neunte Babelsberg Film GmbH Production
Nominees to be determined

Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight)
A Celador Films Production
Christian Colson, Producer

Performance by an actor in a leading role
Richard Jenkins in The Visitor (Overture Films)
Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon (Universal)
Sean Penn in Milk (Focus Features)
Brad Pitt in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount and Warner Bros.)
Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler (Fox Searchlight)

Performance by an actress in a leading role
Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married (Sony Pictures Classics)
Angelina Jolie in Changeling (Universal)
Melissa Leo in Frozen River (Sony Pictures Classics)
Meryl Streep in Doubt (Miramax)
Kate Winslet in The Reader (The Weinstein Company)

Achievement in directing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount and Warner Bros) David Fincher
Frost/Nixon (Universal) Ron Howard
Milk (Focus Features) Gus Van Sant
The Reader (The Weinstein Company) Stephen Daldry
Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) Danny Boyle

Performance by an actor in a supporting role
Josh Brolin in Milk (Focus Features)
Robert Downey Jr in Tropic Thunder (DreamWorks, Distributed by DreamWorks/Paramount)
Philip Seymour Hoffman in Doubt (Miramax)
Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight (Warner Bros.)
Michael Shannon in Revolutionary Road (DreamWorks, Distributed by Paramount Vantage)

Performance by an actress in a supporting role
Amy Adams in Doubt (Miramax)
Penélope Cruz in Vicky Cristina Barcelona (The Weinstein Company)
Viola Davis in Doubt (Miramax)
Taraji P. Henson in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount and Warner Bros.)
Marisa Tomei in The Wrestler (Fox Searchlight)

Original screenplay
Frozen River (Sony Pictures Classics) Written by Courtney Hunt
Happy-Go-Lucky (Miramax) Written by Mike Leigh
In Bruges (Focus Features) Written by Martin McDonagh
Milk (Focus Features) Written by Dustin Lance Black
WALL-E (Walt Disney) Screenplay by Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon
Original story by Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter

Adapted screenplay
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount and Warner Bros) Screenplay by Eric Roth
Screen story by Eric Roth and Robin Swicord
Doubt (Miramax) Written by John Patrick Shanley
Frost/Nixon (Universal) Screenplay by Peter Morgan
The Reader (The Weinstein Company) Screenplay by David Hare
Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) Screenplay by Simon Beaufoy

Best animated feature film of the year
Bolt (Walt Disney) Chris Williams and Byron Howard
Kung Fu Panda (DreamWorks Animation, Distributed by Paramount) John Stevenson and Mark Osborne
WALL-E (Walt Disney) Andrew Stanton

Best foreign language film of the year
The Baader Meinhof Complex, A Constantin Film Production, Germany
The Class (Sony Pictures Classics), A Haut et Court Production, France
Departures (Regent Releasing), A Departures Film Partners Production, Japan
Revanche (Janus Films), A Prisma Film/Fernseh Production, Austria
Waltz with Bashir (Sony Pictures Classics), A Bridgit Folman Film Gang Production, Israel

Best documentary feature
The Betrayal (Nerakhoon) (Cinema Guild), A Pandinlao Films Production, Ellen Kuras and Thavisouk Phrasavath
Encounters at the End of the World (THINKFilm and Image Entertainment), A Creative Differences Production, Werner Herzog and Henry Kaiser
The Garden, A Black Valley Films Production, Scott Hamilton Kennedy
Man on Wire (Magnolia Pictures), A Wall to Wall Production, James Marsh and Simon Chinn
Trouble the Water (Zeitgeist Films), An Elsewhere Films Production, Tia Lessin and Carl Deal

Best documentary short subject
The Conscience of Nhem En, A Farallon Films Production, Steven Okazaki
The Final Inch, A Vermilion Films Production, Irene Taylor Brodsky and Tom Grant
Smile Pinki, A Principe Production, Megan Mylan
The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306, A Rock Paper Scissors Production, Adam Pertofsky and Margaret Hyde

Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original score)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount and Warner Bros) Alexandre Desplat
Defiance (Paramount Vantage) James Newton Howard
Milk (Focus Features) Danny Elfman
Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) A.R. Rahman
WALL-E (Walt Disney) Thomas Newman

Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original song)
"Down to Earth” from WALL-E (Walt Disney) Music by Peter Gabriel and Thomas Newman, Lyric by Peter Gabriel
“Jai Ho” from Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) Music by A.R. Rahman, Lyric by Gulzar
“O Saya” from Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) Music and Lyric by A.R. Rahman and Maya Arulpragasam

Achievement in art direction
Changeling (Universal)

Art Direction: James J. Murakami, Set Decoration: Gary Fettis
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount and Warner Bros.)
Art Direction: Donald Graham Burt, Set Decoration: Victor J. Zolfo
The Dark Knight (Warner Bros)
Art Direction: Nathan Crowley, Set Decoration: Peter Lando
The Duchess (Paramount Vantage, Pathé and BBC Films)
Art Direction: Michael Carlin, Set Decoration: Rebecca Alleway
Revolutionary Road (DreamWorks, Distributed by Paramount Vantage)
Art Direction: Kristi Zea, Set Decoration: Debra Schutt

Achievement in cinematography
Changeling (Universal) Tom Stern
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount and Warner Bros) Claudio Miranda
The Dark Knight (Warner Bros.) Wally Pfister
The Reader (The Weinstein Company) Chris Menges and Roger Deakins
Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) Anthony Dod Mantle

Achievement in costume design
Australia (20th Century Fox) Catherine Martin
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount and Warner Bros.) Jacqueline West
The Duchess (Paramount Vantage, Pathé and BBC Films), Michael O’Connor
Milk (Focus Features) Danny Glicker
Revolutionary Road (DreamWorks, Distributed by Paramount Vantage) Albert Wolsky

Achievement in film editing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount and Warner Bros.) Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall
The Dark Knight (Warner Bros) Lee Smith
Frost/Nixon (Universal) Mike Hill and Dan Hanley
Milk (Focus Features) Elliot Graham
Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) Chris Dickens

Achievement in makeup
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount and Warner Bros), Greg Cannom
The Dark Knight (Warner Bros), John Caglione, Jr. and Conor O’Sullivan
Hellboy II: The Golden Army (Universal), Mike Elizalde and Thom Floutz

Best animated short film
La Maison en Petits Cubes, A Robot Communications Production, Kunio Kato
Lavatory - Lovestory, A Melnitsa Animation Studio and CTB Film Company Production, Konstantin Bronzit
Oktapodi (Talantis Films) A Gobelins, L’école de l’image Production, Emud Mokhberi and Thierry Marchand
Presto (Walt Disney) A Pixar Animation Studios Production, Doug Sweetland
This Way Up, A Nexus Production, Alan Smith and Adam Foulkes

Best live action short film
Auf der Strecke (On the Line) (Hamburg Shortfilmagency), A Media Arts Cologne Production, Reto Caffi
Manon on the Asphalt (La Luna Productions), A La Luna Production, Elizabeth Marre and Olivier Pont
New Boy (Network Ireland Television), A Zanzibar Films Production, Steph Green and Tamara Anghie
The Pig, An M & M Production, Tivi Magnusson and Dorte Høgh
Spielzeugland (Toyland), A Mephisto Film Production, Jochen Alexander Freydank

Achievement in sound editing
The Dark Knight (Warner Bros) Richard King
Iron Man (Paramount and Marvel Entertainment) Frank Eulner and Christopher Boyes
Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) Tom Sayers
WALL-E (Walt Disney) Ben Burtt and Matthew Wood
Wanted (Universal) Wylie Stateman

Achievement in sound mixing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount and Warner Bros) David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce and Mark Weingarten
The Dark Knight (Warner Bros) Lora Hirschberg, Gary Rizzo and Ed Novick
Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight), Ian Tapp, Richard Pryke and Resul Pookutty
WALL-E (Walt Disney) Tom Myers, Michael Semanick and Ben Burtt
Wanted (Universal) Chris Jenkins, Frank A. Montaño and Petr Forejt

Achievement in visual effects
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount and Warner Bros) Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton and Craig Barron
The Dark Knight (Warner Bros) Nick Davis, Chris Corbould, Tim Webber and Paul Franklin
Iron Man (Paramount and Marvel Entertainment) John Nelson, Ben Snow, Dan Sudick and Shane Mahan

I'll go over the list and post my analysis later, but to satiate your appetite for my special brand of cynical cranking, here's my last FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AD.

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

"A GROUNDBREAKING FILM THAT WILL OPEN YOUR HEART TO PEDERASTY AND NAZISM"-HELMUT VON YUNGCHASER, BUENOS AIRES WEEKLY EXPATRIOT

"IT'S GOT BAKING, UNDERAGE SEX, NAZIS, AND KATE WINSLET NAKED, IT'S PERFECT" -DAVID MANNING, RIDGEFIELD PRESS

"GIMME MY FUCKING OSCAR!" -HARVEY WEINSTEIN

BEST PICTURE
HARVEY WEINSTEIN & ONLY HARVEY WEINSTEIN
PRODUCER

BEST ACTRESS
KATE WINSLET

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
THE PILLSBURY DOUGHBOY

BEST DIRECTOR
SOME GUY, YOU KNOW, HE DID THAT OTHER FLICK... ANYWAY HE DOESN'T MATTER GIVE THE OSCAR TO HARVEY!