Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
sdpfeiffy

The Business: News, Rumours, Analysis, and More

Recommended Posts


7 hours ago, aradia22 said:

Not work with him. And Roman Polanski. And Woody Allen. 

If there's anyone I seriously side-eye, it's Kate Winslet. She gets no cookies for speaking out about things that affect her (wage gap, media representation of women's bodies) and then making all the excuses she wants to in order to work with men whose hands are not clean. 

I never said that she would have stopped anything by refusing to work with him or even coming forward and making a statement. But you don't get a cookie for not thanking him in your speech. The standard for cookies cannot be that low. 

You get no disagreement from me there regarding Roman and Woody, but my point still remains that I think people are misinterpreting the term "working together" especially when it pertains to Hollywood and a movie set.  Working with a director is a completely different set of circumstances than working with a mega producer/studio head like Harvey Weinstein.  When you work with a director you are on set everyday with them, working long hours, you have a direct relationship with that person. 

Working with Harvey could range from "I did a movie that the Weinstein company produced" to "I met Harvey after the movie wrapped and he hosted a screening" to "I met Harvey personally for an audition".  I think the general public is lumping all these experiences together when it isn't the case.  I think all these accounts speak more to the type of man that he was not that all these interactions warranted a stern response but more "look at all the check marks as they add up".

I liken it to working for a semi-large company and you have a co-worker who works in a different department who you find to be a pain in the ass, years later you find out that said employee was embezzling money from the company and you and your co-workers remark how you never liked the person in the first place.  That doesn't translate to you should have quit your job, or necessarily reported the person for being a jerk.

I think Kate like many people in Hollywood are finding this information and remarking on their own experiences with this man, some criminal, some inappropriate, and some just not having a good vibe about the guy.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

You get no disagreement from me there regarding Roman and Woody, but my point still remains that I think people are misinterpreting the term "working together" especially when it pertains to Hollywood and a movie set.  Working with a director is a completely different set of circumstances than working with a mega producer/studio head like Harvey Weinstein.  When you work with a director you are on set everyday with them, working long hours, you have a direct relationship with that person. 

OK, here's the analogy to me. I'm a freelancer. Maybe I work in something like law where I can move around (idk, not great at analogies on the fly). I'm in demand enough that I have a choice of where I can work and I'm not struggling. There are plenty of innocuous companies and also companies headed by jerks that I might work for. But there are also companies headed by people who operate in a way that is anathema to my stated values. Maybe the company dumps PCPs into the water supply by their factories. Maybe the CEO supports anti-LGBT legislation. I might not directly interact with that person. I have a choice to not represent those people and work for them even if I wouldn't be directly interacting with them that much. I have a choice to not help make them more money or bring them accolades that help obscure the more unsavory parts of their character and their past transgressions.

Now I sound like I'm making this more of a thing... I don't think she had so much power to influence things. But I am saying that knowing what she did she had a choice and these little gestures that wouldn't register for most people in the moment are pretty empty in hindsight. No cookies for you!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Glenn Whipp of the Los Angeles Times said on twitter last night, "Since this story published on Sunday, 193 additional women have contacted me to talk about Toback."

Share this post


Link to post

OK, here's the analogy to me. I'm a freelancer. Maybe I work in something like law where I can move around (idk, not great at analogies on the fly). I'm in demand enough that I have a choice of where I can work and I'm not struggling. There are plenty of innocuous companies and also companies headed by jerks that I might work for. But there are also companies headed by people who operate in a way that is anathema to my stated values. Maybe the company dumps PCPs into the water supply by their factories. Maybe the CEO supports anti-LGBT legislation. I might not directly interact with that person. I have a choice to not represent those people and work for them even if I wouldn't be directly interacting with them that much. I have a choice to not help make them more money or bring them accolades that help obscure the more unsavory parts of their character and their past transgressions.

I think what's missing here is the actual case you'd be working on. Is it something you're passionate about? Is it something that will advance your career? Are there people working on the case that you've been dying to work with? That's the type of reasoning an actor probably uses when signing onto a film. Harvey sucks, but he was funding some of the best movies in the 90's and 00's when no one else would make them. Kate's bottom line for a decade was to get an Oscar, and Harvey got people Oscars. Has she worked with him again since the Reader?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It's also the behavior involved. I work with people that annoy me all the time. The behavior isn't bad enough that I would quit my job over it. Some time the benefits that you get far outway the annoyance of the person you may work for or with. 

This is all in the context of said person being a jerk not involved in heinous criminal activity of course. 

To be fair I don't think Kate is trying to spearhead anything or garner sympathy. My guess is, she is promoting a movie and someone asked her about her experiences with Weinstein. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

3 hours ago, ChelseaNH said:

While it's nota bad article about the history of artist getting away with crappy behavior I can't quite reconcile HW being added to the list of men there, largely because of an indie wire article I recently read titled It's Time to Shatter the Harvey Myth: Weinstein was Shitty at his Job;

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/10/harvey-weinstein-producer-miramax-1201888349/

Share this post


Link to post

Spacey is being rightfully excoriated, especially by the LGBT community, for his statement. This Twitter thread pretty much sums up what's so gross about it.

Isn't he another one though that's had rumours swirling around him for years? Not about being gay, because that was more or less an open secret I believe, but about being a predator? On the one hand it's horrifying to hear these stories and learn how widespread this behaviour was and is, but the fact that the story didn't die with Weinstein and only continues to grow (and that we've started to see people face actual consequences for their actions) makes me at least a little hopeful that things might finally start to change for the better.

I really wonder how big it's going to get before it slows down, and how many others in Hollywood are sweating bullets these days.

Edited by AshleyN
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't he another one though that's had rumours swirling around him for years? Not about being gay, because that was more or less an open secret I believe, but about being a predator?

There have been rumors revolving around him and Bryan Singer's alleged barely legal sex parties for years. That's why Bryan Singer was trending after the Spacey scandal broke.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Like i said Weinstein is the tip of the iceberg..and before it was far worse honestly..since the creation of this industry men (and some women..) are using sex as a tool to exercise power...in many other industries too..our society is based on patriarchy and power struggle/power play after all.. but the entertainment industry is and has always been the more obvious..and the most hypocritical about it..

Maybe this freedom of speech we are witnessing right now will finally help evolving our society..i have hope..at the same time we could fall in confusion, maeltrom, hysteria...in the world of denunciation..where opinion is the judge and the court..it is dangerous..these issues are so complex and delicate, tricky, we have to be careful..i don't have the answer..but we have to be very careful in how to handle it.

Edited by pau
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Re: Buzzfeed Matt Damon article

I mostly get where it's coming from though I think parts of it are unnecessarily harsh and tout opinion as quasi-fact. For example...

Quote

He is charming but never interesting. It takes directors like the Coen brothers or Steven Soderbergh to make his presence memorable.

this is as reductive as the trope/type it is trying to lazily critique

Quote

the Boston movie featuring “honorable” working-class white folks committing crimes or being really sad

I feel like this captures things fairly well. 

Quote

Again, there was a clumsiness to Damon’s quotes,[...] he just sounded like someone who didn’t understand the full weight of other people’s experiences, even though he could easily blather on about it. 

I think mostly there isn't malice behind his comments. But he also benefits from/participates in/actively helps perpetuate harmful power structures which is separate from stating things clumsily every so often.

I also get this part.

Quote

With the media aggregating the news, The Great Wall was becoming the symbol of all white savior films, and Damon was in a tricky position to respond to a vague mob’s frustrations with Hollywood whitewashing. 

I worry about people who have too many interactions with that vague mob. Tumblr, twitter, reddit, 4chan. Sure, some vague mobs are worse than others but wherever the vague mob comes from, that barrage is a corrupting influence.

Quote

It’s easy to make mistakes on the internet — in fact, messing up one day doesn’t necessarily make you a villain. It is possible to apologize. It is possible to take action. It’s possible to use power in order to give other people opportunities. The thing that smarts about Damon is that he is a person with considerable political capital. At a crucial moment in Hollywood, Damon has the opportunity to use his power to shift the balance for people whose experiences he’s largely overlooked and call for meaningful structural changes. The way he chooses to use his influence suggests that he still believes that we live in a meritocracy, but one that works only for men who look just like Matt Damon.

I am curious about the "what happens next" piece of this, not just for Matt Damon but for many of those in Hollywood with considerable influence. I do think the last line is overly harsh. 

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I do think the last line is overly harsh. 

What line?  This one?

2 hours ago, aradia22 said:

The way he chooses to use his influence suggests that he still believes that we live in a meritocracy, but one that works only for men who look just like Matt Damon.

I think she's referring to the fact that he believes the first part "talent first" but that, in reality, it's the second part.  For instance, when the whole Project Greenlight thing happened, one thing I critiqued him for was the fact that I thought he really did believe in meritocracy but his view of meritocracy inadvertently perpetuated sameness.

When he just talked right over Effie's very valid point that the script they were looking at might be better served by a duo sensitive to the plight of these specific characters and instead chose a white boy whose aesthetic he preferred, he continued the cycle where white men select what appeals to them--usually created by other white men.  It wasn't intentionally moving away from diversity but it was the end result all the same.  I know he believes that his criteria for merit was probably color and gender blind because he wouldn't care about the color or gender of the person who could meet those requirements but if those requirements keep leading you to the same kind of people, maybe you need to take a closer look them and reevaluate them if you're truly committed to the idea of  diverse voices in Hollywood.

And that's why I think the critique is fair.  Matt is espousing one thing but when he has the power to really make a change, he just keeps doing the same old same old*.

*Hiring Jennfer Todd is good but not enough.

Edited by Irlandesa
  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with your characterization of the situation @Irlandesa. I just think the way it was worded in the article it comes across less as "inadvertent" (and I think even with it being inadvertent you can still put the onus on Matt Damon... a grown man, to start to educate himself and learn where he has made mistakes so he can do better) and more like Damon has constructed or is intentionally perpetuating a meritocracy that privileges white males. I don't think Matt Damon is so terrible that he believes "men who look just like Matt Damon" are the only ones who can do good work or that they should automatically be at the top of the merit-based hierarchy. But I agree with you that he probably hasn't looked critically at why his criteria for merit causes him to select things that reinforce his tastes (which are often tastes shared by creators who look like him). I feel like I'm talking in circles but basically, I agree with you and if that's what the author of the article meant, I agree with her but I think she worded it poorly and it was a bad statement to just throw at the end without unpacking. 

I think you get into complicated terrain when you talk about "merit." [From here on assume that "you" is Matt Damon or 'insert other white producer/studio head/etc.'] On the one hand, there are amazing directors, writers, actors, etc. who are capable of producing incredible work but perhaps they want to tell stories that don't immediately appeal to you (and possibly make you uncomfortable) or you need to alter the lens through which you view their work to appreciate it on its own terms and not through the criteria of what the white, Western establishment has codified as a good movie. I feel like it's an easier ask to get people to appreciate Spike Lee, Ava DuVernay, Ryan Coogler, etc. On the other hand, there are creatives who could be amazing but maybe have not had the same opportunities as their white counterparts or gotten the same support. And in that case, what is your responsibility as someone in a position of power to try and make up the difference and give them a chance or try to cultivate their talent? Of course, I also get the argument that there are plenty of mediocre white creatives who are untested but get opportunities and sometimes get opportunities to fail over and over. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that it's tricky to talk about "merit" because there's no objective measuring stick for it.  However, vis-à-vis Damon, if your personal measuring stick for merit always leads you to projects written, produced, directed, created by people who inhabit all or most of your own demographics, then maybe you've crossed over from inadvertent to intentional.  Moreover, if you become defensive when things like that or things like your own incredibly un-self-aware comments directed at other, less privileged groups are pointed out as being problematic, maybe you know it's intentional and are just not willing to concede it.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I agree with your characterization of the situation @Irlandesa. I just think the way it was worded in the article it comes across less as "inadvertent" (and I think even with it being inadvertent you can still put the onus on Matt Damon... a grown man, to start to educate himself and learn where he has made mistakes so he can do better) and more like Damon has constructed or is intentionally perpetuating a meritocracy that privileges white males.

I agree that the wording was weird.  But I think given the fact that he tries to pass himself as socially aware and has been told many times where he is tone deaf, it's starting to border on being deliberately inadvertently aware.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I hate those new demands about Star Wars, but I can't change my behaviour. Should I not go to see it? I've already bought a ticket for opening day. I saw the first two new ones a total of ten times in the cinema, and not just in the opening week either. I'm a Star Wars addict. While I may not like the dealer, I love the drug.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Whoa.  Apparently 21st Century Fox is looking downsize in order to focus on "news" and sports, so they are looking to sell off their other media properties, with Disney being the first (known) suitor for those properties.

Here's the lede from the article:

Quote

21st Century Fox has been holding talks to sell most of the company to Walt Disney Co., leaving behind a media company tightly focused on news and sports, according to people familiar with the situation.

The talks have taken place over the last few weeks and there is no certainty they will lead to a deal. The two sides are not currently talking at this very moment, but given the on again, off again nature of the talks they could be revisited.

For Fox, the willingness to engage in sale talks with Disney stems from a growing belief among its senior management that scale in media is of immediate importance and that there is not a path to gain that scale in entertainment through acquisition. The company is said to believe that a more tightly group of properties around news and sports could compete more effectively in the current marketplace.

The slimmed-down Fox would retain the FOX broadcast network, as well as FOX News and FOX Sports properties.

Edited by Just Here · Reason: auto-formatting woes

Share this post


Link to post

It would be good to have all the Marvel movie stuff in one place. An MCU X-Men would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Joe said:

It would be good to have all the Marvel movie stuff in one place. An MCU X-Men would be great.

I don't know, i like the established X-men universe, so I am not sure i want to see it painfully shoehorned into the MCU. On the other hand i am not sure I want to see a full scale mutant reboot. Although since Jackman, Stewart and probably McKellen are probably done with being mutants that wouldn't be as bad as it once was. 

The other big concern is if Disney has access to Wolverine, the MCU will become all-Wolverine all the time.

Share this post


Link to post

Ryan Reynolds has tweeted that he wonders what this will do to Deadpool.  Coincidentally, a couple of hours before that tweet, my son said "They'll screw up Deadpool!". 

Share this post


Link to post

I read about this.  On the one hand, what do I care?  On the other hand, the thought of one company (Disney, in this case) having the monopoly on just about every blockbuster franchise doesn't seem like a good idea.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/11/la-times-you-cant-read-our-thor-review-because-disney-is-mad/?amp=1

Quote

Disney had banned the [L.A. Times] from screenings of movies like Thor: Ragnarok in retaliation for its critical coverage of Disney's relationship with the city of Anaheim, home of Disneyland.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2017/11/06/why-i-wont-be-reviewing-the-last-jedi-or-any-other-disney-movie-in-advance/?utm_term=.ff373a374883

Quote

If Disney is going to try to pressure outlets through their film critics, film critics should stand up to corporate influence.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, xaxat said:

Hmm... is it the Streisand Effect?  Disney was acting punitively and coercively to affect future outcomes (although it would be a tragedy of far-reaching proportions if a newsroom actually changed its investigative activities in order to review films early) but Disney did not directly try to suppress the information that was already out there. It obviously had the same effect, by trying to punish news outlets for bad coverage (or discourage future bad coverage) they drew further attention to the original bad coverage but they went at it sideways and possibly hoped people wouldn't connect the dots?

I'm splitting hairs but I'm actually kind of interested if this is like a separate but corollary effect?

Share this post


Link to post

Whoa!

Apparently, "Plummer was actually the first choice for the role, but top studio executives wanted a bigger name."

 

More from Deadline:

Quote

 

EXCLUSIVE: In an unprecedented bold move, director Ridley Scott, along with Imperative Entertainment’s Dan Friedkin and Bradley Thomas have decided to remove Kevin Spacey from their finished movie All The Money In The World. Christopher Plummer has been set to replace Spacey in the role of J Paul Getty. Re-shoots of the key scenes are expected to commence immediately. Scott is also determined to to keep the film’s December 22 release date.

In a unified front, the cast and crew of the film, and Sony Pictures, unanimously agreed to re-shoot all of Spacey’s scenes, with Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams’ cooperation part of the mix.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

14 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

So they're reshooting his parts?

Yes.  Incredibly quickly, since the movie comes out very soon. They probably have Christopher in front of a camera as I type this.

Share this post


Link to post

Louis C.K.'s Movie Premiere Canceled in Advance of N.Y. Times Story

Quote

The New York premiere of Louis C.K.'s upcoming film, I Love You, Daddy, set for Thursday, has been canceled. Reps for the premiere, due to take place at the Paris Theatre, cited "unexpected circumstances."

A source tells The Hollywood Reporter that a New York Times story on the comedian is about to break, and the premiere was canceled in case it is damaging. Additionally, Louis C.K.'s planned appearance on CBS' The Late Show With Stephen Colbert was also canceled, with William H. Macy taking his place.

"In case it is damaging"? I'm pretty sure they know it is if they are doing this.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, xaxat said:

Louis C.K.'s Movie Premiere Canceled in Advance of N.Y. Times Story

"In case it is damaging"? I'm pretty sure they know it is if they are doing this.

It was mentioned in the Trailers thread that the movie being released at this time is really tacky considering the environment.  I have to wonder if now, it will be scrapped altogether or if there's so much invested that they literally can't not release it and hope to make some money back. 

Share this post


Link to post

Louis CK's movie is creepy on its surface.  I am shocked that anybody even thought it was a good idea to make it and to release it in the current environment.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

Apparently, "Plummer was actually the first choice for the role, but top studio executives wanted a bigger name."

I saw the photo before I scrolled down to the tweet and thought "oh, no, not Christopher Plummer, too!" Whew.

I guess it's a smaller ask (only one role) but I don't know if Ridley Scott gets points for the re-casting after the Exodus: Gods and Kings nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

I saw a trailer for All The Money in the World today in the theater, and it still had Kevin Spacey in it.  I would have thought they would have pulled them.

I used to work for a movie Theater, trailers now come on all dvd together to play in front of movies. I dont know if they have the ability to skip trailers. Plus, they have secret shopper trailer watchers to make sure trailers are being played in front of movies. They have to report back to film companies to make sure they’re being played.

 

Back in the day when I first started, projectionists had to slice together film trailers. There they could pull the trailer out.

Share this post


Link to post

Gal is also holding all of the cards.  No matter what the penalties are for breaking her contract, she'll be fine because she and her husband are quite wealthy.  On the flip side, at this point, there is no DCEU without her.  Good for her.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size