There are 45 comments.

1. Coolidge
   kedavis

   @kedavis

   12:12 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 16, 2020

   colleenb (View Comment):
   Which leads us back to what the Academy is currently doing with their new rules. At some point, the movie people really are going to run out of other people’s money.

   We can hope.  But if they keep “laundering” money through bad movies that they get from other profitable businesses – the various millionaires/billionaires that are continually “investing in” (bailing out) Hollyweird – that reckoning could be a long way off still.

2. Coolidge
   Taras

   @Taras

   12:17 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 16, 2020

   colleenb (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   Taras (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   OccupantCDN (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):
   I don’t know, they keep making liberal claptrap flops and don’t seem to mind losing money on those. Are we supposed to believe they just can’t stand to lose money on woman-directed flops?

   This is the kind of the point I have been making – Not so much about bomb vs hit, but that the project size. An average top tier TV show costs $5 to $7 million per episode. The average studio movie costs $65 million plus publicity and distribution costs, it can easily top out at over $100 million. Its a matter of trust – It takes a fair bit of experience to build a reputation that someone could handle a project of this size.

   But if those over-$100-million projects are still liberal claptrap that flop, how much “experience” is really needed to “handle a project of that size?” What is the value of losing money on liberal claptrap flops, but it’s okay as long as they’re directed by men?

   Actually we’ve seen that woman-directed liberal claptrap flops are just blamed on sexism, so maybe that’s a fall-back excuse: it didn’t fail because it’s liberal claptrap, or badly written, or even badly directed; they say it failed because people won’t see movies directed by women. Therefore it’s not THEIR fault.

   Remember, making liberal claptrap guarantees good reviews (and positions you in the Hollywood community for future projects). The reviewers are to the left of the film producers.

   A movie like Olivia Wilde‘s Booksmart , ostensibly a raunchy, role-reversal comedy about two lesbian students on the last day of high school, gets good reviews because of the subject matter, regardless of execution. In spite of critical hosannas and a huge publicity effort, it “underperformed” at the box office, I’m guessing, as potential audiences learned what it is really about.

   How this qualifies Wilde to direct a big Marvel action movie, I don’t know. Maybe Ava DuVernay, who bungled A Wrinkle in Time, was busy with her next flop.

   I’m not sure if even the best director in the world could have saved Wrinkle, given how it was written and cast to conform with various PC requirements likely imposed by the studio.

   Which leads us back to what the Academy is currently doing with their new rules. At some point, the movie people really are going to run out of other people’s money.

   Next question:  Are the other major movie awards going to follow suit?

   According to Wikipedia, A Wrinkle in Time lost $130 million and “received mixed reviews, with critics taking issue ‘with the film’s heavy use of CGI and numerous plot holes’, while others ‘celebrated its message of female empowerment and diversity’.”  The former critics are probably older and on their way out; the latter, young and “woke”.

3. Member
   DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow

   @DrewInWisconsin

   12:33 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 16, 2020

   Taras (View Comment):
   According to Wikipedia, A Wrinkle in Time lost $130 million and “received mixed reviews, with critics taking issue ‘with the film’s heavy use of CGI and numerous plot holes’, while others ‘celebrated its message of female empowerment and diversity’.” The former critics are probably older and on their way out; the latter, young and “woke”.

   Yes. Because all that matters to modern critics anymore is a film’s political message. Art? Fuggedaboudit. Art is dead.

    

4. Member
   Arahant

   @Arahant

   2:21 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 16, 2020

   DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):
   Art? Fuggedaboudit. Art is dead.

   Poor art. I knew him, Horatio,

5. Inactive
   flownover

   @flownover

   2:58 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 16, 2020

   Thanks Rob for the tip on Dolly podcast, had been thinking about her and a night many years ago when I saw her and Porter sitting in the Snow White cafe in St Joe as we were cruising the parking lot about 11pm. I immediately went to episode three and voila ! the whole story. Additionally gracias for Gilbert Gottfried tambien.

6. Inactive
   Nostalgic Present

   @NostalgicPresent

   10:30 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 17, 2020

   Living Single! I watched that whole show as a kid like a hawk. I was smitten. So woke and so young. I never watched Friends because it was lame and super gaaaaaaaayeeeeee until it was on Netflix.

   I never realized how woke I was until now. Thank you GLOP. Although I think I was possibly enamored with all the girls with big errr “brains”. Good times.

7. Member
   Arahant

   @Arahant

   10:40 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 17, 2020

   Nostalgic Present (View Comment):
   Although I think I was possibly enamored with all the girls with big errr “brains”.

   

8. Coolidge
   kedavis

   @kedavis

   11:32 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 17, 2020

   Arahant (View Comment):

   Nostalgic Present (View Comment):
   Although I think I was possibly enamored with all the girls with big errr “brains”.

   

   I think there were other reasons why Living Single wasn’t really the equivalent to Friends, and not just because of the casts.  But it may be that the single biggest reason why Friends was a hit and Living Single wasn’t, is what I mentioned before:  Friends got wide exposure on NBC, and Living Single got much less exposure on Fox.  Indeed, one of the ongoing gags on “Married With Children” was when they would assume “Fox Network Viewing Positions!” which involved all of them spreading out with various pieces of wire and foil etc, in an attempt to receive the Fox Network.

9. Inactive
   Kevin

   @JaredSturgeon

   5:41 AM EDT ⋅ Sep 18, 2020

   I am the rare person who thought Tenet was brilliant.  The teenage boys I took to the movie decided it was their new favorite movie.  None of them had trouble following the plot.  Nolan does a good job following his rules.  But I know I am rare because most seem to not enjoy it.   I highly recommend it if only for respect of Nolans craft and that he doesn’t use a lot (sometimes no) CGI so his movies age perfectly unlike most the Marvel movies which look worse each year.

10. Inactive
    Kevin

    @JaredSturgeon

    5:42 AM EDT ⋅ Sep 18, 2020

    Taras (View Comment):

    Apparently the movie is so confusing even Jonah, who liked it, thinks it begins in Moscow, Russia. It’s actually Kiev, Ukraine (according to Wikipedia and the Sub Beacon).

    And the sign they focus on the front of the Opera house clearly telling us where we are.

     

11. Inactive
    Kevin

    @JaredSturgeon

    5:46 AM EDT ⋅ Sep 18, 2020

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    If you care at all about art, I don’t know how you can endorse the new rules for the Academy Award.

    Art is dead. Political didacticism killed it.

    And supposedly “conservatives” are not only ok with it but cheering it on.  Sadly, it comes off as very tribal and their tribe is pro-multicultural at any cost.  

12. Coolidge
    kedavis

    @kedavis

    9:12 AM EDT ⋅ Sep 20, 2020

    Everybody on the podcast is so busy and has to go and do other things?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpOGB4SkcM4

13. Member
    Charlotte

    @Charlotte

    

    10:08 AM EDT ⋅ Sep 22, 2020

    Can’t a bunch of male directors just identify as chicks for the duration of awards season? Problem solved.

14. Coolidge
    Taras

    @Taras

    10:19 AM EDT ⋅ Sep 22, 2020

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Can’t a bunch of male directors just identify as chicks for the duration of awards season? Problem solved.

    Logical consistency is part of the oppressive system of white privilege.

    Progressive logic is “heads I win, tails you lose.“

15. Coolidge
    kedavis

    @kedavis

    11:08 AM EDT ⋅ Sep 22, 2020

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Can’t a bunch of male directors just identify as chicks for the duration of awards season? Problem solved.

    If they identify as chicks, the left might just send them to the nearest Tyson plant.