FIRM Discussions April 21, 1999 - May 13, 1999
Columbine High School Shooting
James Jaeger
11:31 am Wednesday April 21, 1999I knew I would be making this exact post sooner or later.
As you must be aware, we now have the worst dramatization of violence FROM the movies INTO the high school ever manifest.
What can be said?
James Jaeger
Who Controls Hollywood
Joe Goldenberg
0:33 am Friday April 23, 1999Here's the list of who has been in control of the major Hollywood movie studios for the past 90 years. Confront it, dudes. These are the guys directly or indirectly responsible for the violent movies and cultural bastardazation that has the children acting like maniacs. Joe Goldenberg
Hi Mr. Jaeger. My name is Tony.I have been reading your articles which I think are great.
So far, two have really got me thinking. Your articles Why Invest In Movies and New Distribution Paradigm . . . my goal is to eventually get into executive producing and investing in motion pictures. But I had the typical doubts as to the great risk and shadiness when it comes to motion picture investing. Yet I still know in the back of my mind that motion picture investing can be immensely rewarding and profitable, especially in this day and age when movies are just as popular as ever and technological advancements are making motion picture viewing more and more fascinating and demanded, whether in the theater or at home.
Movies will never go out of style and will always be popular. We have definitely seen some mesmerizing movies up to now. But from what I have been hearing, we've just begun to scratch the surface in regards to computer technology and applying it to movie special effects. That potential, along with the Showscan technology and increasingly better theatrical sound systems means that the most awe-inspiring movies are yet to come. That is very exciting and I want to be a part of that.
I know that movies are, by and large, great investments. Your article "Why Invest In Movies" was awesome! I know it was a "radical, upside view", but I believe you were coming from the heart and really had good reason for your arguement.
I have been working on creating more and more focus in my life. Your articles, the whole website for that matter, are really helping me to strongly realize that my main interest as a business minded as well as creative person lies in the area of "picture entertainment", most especially movies. In the future, I know I would like to become a major movie investor/executive producer.
I have also always been very interested in motion picture distribution. I have always wanted to have a strong knowledge of how that all works since I am business minded and do understand that the distributors and exhibitors get their hands on the money before the producers and investors do. I know that this gives the distributors and exhibitors an unfair advantage over the non-studio financiers and movie creators. I never have liked that scenario and did not even want to get into creating movies unless I could get "gross deals" as a set percentage of the distributor's gross. That is better than the system in effect for the most part now. But there is still the concern about the exhibitors and lessening the chances for them to cheat the distributors, thereby indirectly cheating the creators. Your article "New Distribution Paradigm" was a real "eye opener" to me. I like the idea of using technology to insure that all participating entities get their just due right from the box office instantaneously. It is obviously a fair and justifiable distribution paradigm, especially since we have the technology to implement it. It is so good, that it would be difficult for me to produce and invest in movies with the same old unfair paradigm that is in place now.
However, we have a battle ahead of us in order to get a plan like that instituted. It is basically revolutionizing theatrical movie distribution in favor of the "product" creators. I know General Cinemas Corp. and Paramount Pictures will fight against that. But something seriously needs to be done because it is just not fair that the ones who put forth the "blood, sweat, and tears" to create the product run the risk of not being compensated fairly, if not at all for it.
I live in New Jersey and just turned 30 years old. I have a college degree in Speech and Theatre with a concentration in Broadcasting from Montclair State University. Since 1993, the year I graduated, my work experience has been mainly in the area of television. I have worked as a master control operator, floor manager, studio cameraman, production assistant, tape operator, program evaluator, and off-line editor. While in school, I worked for two years in the video rental department of my public library. I think that work experience was good in showing me, by and large, how the public acts and what they demand when it comes to motion pictures and home video.
Circumstances worked out so that I have formal work experience and education in television rather than motion pictures. I don't regret it or consider it wasted time since I am very much interested in the potential and medium of television as well. I believe that basically the same arguement you used in trumpeting movie investing can be used for television as well since they both are intimately related, practically symbiotic, and will benefit greatly from the "leisure age of increasingly high-tech digital entertainment". But I have always been interested in theatrical motion pictures just as much as, if not more so, than television. It's just that up to now, my education and experience in motion pictures has been mainly self-study and personal observation.
I will study your site more and will definitely keep in touch. I hope in the future we will meet and possibly even work together on something.
Regards,
Tony
Regal Cinema's R-Rrated Policy
James Jaeger
7:33 pm Tuesday April 27, 1999I am reporting back to you in connection with my previous post entitled "Night Terror" as to whether I received a response from Regal Cinema's CEO, Mike Campbell, regarding my suggestion that his company adopt a similar policy as AMC has, i.e., that children under the age of 18 not be allowed in to see R-rated movies EVEN when they are accompanied by an irresponsible parent.
To my dismay, Mike did not return my phone call even though I left the basic reason I called on his voice mail at (423) 922-1123. This must be an over sight on his part because REGAL is an excellent chain and I believe Mike would be concerned about this. I plan to call again, or you feel free to call if you wish.
James Jaeger
The Constitution v. The Media
James Jaeger
4:07 pm Wednesday April 28, 1999I have been carefully watching how the Hollywood-infested media has been handling this latest high school massacre.
20/20, an ABC/Disney mouthpiece, simply shifted all the attention immediately over to the parents of the two gun-children. Little or no expensive MPAA-owned airtime allocated to the idea that it could be violence in the movies or TV here - only an obligatory mention of it in passing.
Then the millisecond after the 20/20 video carrier terminated, ABC, put on one of its endless TV spots for MR. MURDER. MR. MURDER next week, MR. MURDER tonight, MR. MURDER, MR. MURDER, MR. MURDER plastered all over the network and U.S. airways. It was, and continues to be so obvious and obnoxious, that I could not help thinking that Barbara Walters, who I believe is a caring, sensitive woman, MUST have been totally embarrassed to have been just doing a show touching on senseless violence and then have her Disney-owned network plaster these spots all over the place -- especially the millisecond after she said "good night" on 20/20 (with that serious tip of the head and characteristic "where are we headed for" look in her eyes.
I then watched producers Breech, Kramer and McDermott's (to name a few) show, MR. MURDER, for several minutes to get the flavor of it and all I heard was the words "murder, death, felony, murder, death. . ." ad nausium and lines like "…the crime this boy is being charged with. . ." and after turning the channel, I wondered what new twist the writers of THAT show would use to justify having written it for their most recent weekly pay check.
I enjoyed how ACCESS HOLLYWOOD has been paying their obligatory "respects" to the massacre by covering it superficially at the top of their show before going back to promoting Hollywood's upcoming violent product. But I never heard anything about their little movie studios having anything to do with it because their job is to increase the marquee value of all the studio-owned property around Hollywood - like the people we call stars.
Steve Allen is, so far, the only one that I have seen that has had the guts to come out and JUST SAY IT: 'Anyone who does not acknowledge that violence in the movies is a major cause of this violence we are seeing in our society and the high schools is either lying or just plain stupid.' (paraphrased)
To the news media, the events of killing in our Society are just "news stories." MSNBC called the Columbine massacre "an enormous news story" (exact quote) as of 20 April 1999. That's all peoples' lives are to them - NEWS STORIES! Wanna be bugged for the rest of your TV-viewing life: Just note the cold and continual use of the word "STORY" every time you watch the evening news. Note the eyes of the reporter too: kind of like a shark as he chews off a leg.
But members of the public are finally getting it right as witness the DISNEY and FOX BOYCOTTS and the fact that a class action or two have been filed against WARNER and lately the $130 million law suit which has been brought against the movies studios for their part in the LAST massacre at the last high school. And of course Leonardo could not have chosen a worse movie to be in after TITANIC - crashing into a classroom with a shotgun. Ho hum, lawyers for the victims at Columbine are going to have all the meat they can chew on this. Certainly they are working right now to file their inevitable law suits for the killing of 13 children and 2 gun-children. I predict theses next suits will be in the area of $250,000,000 to $1 billion against MPAA studios - and of course this should extend to the stars and the producers who earned money off movies that exploit violence - especially if such were GROSS participants - because not only are they earning money at the ultimate expense of Society (through the exploitation of violence) - but they are also screwing all their "fellow" crew members and net profit participants on the picture.
The fact that Congresswoman McCarthy, who wants an anti-gun bill passed in the Congress, is having such a hard time getting this through makes me highly suspect of Congress and it intentions about guns.
The Framers of our Constitution, 200 years ago, had just dealt with sassy governments in Europe and knew very well the NATURE OF GOVERNMENTS - and they have a reality on the ABSOLUTE FACT OF THE UNIVERSE, such being, that governments will become tyrannical INVERABLY if and when they have their hands on A) the money throttle (as our does with the wanton monetizing of money through the Federal Reserve System) AND B) they have exclusive hands on the military. (James Madison wants you to note that very important word "exclusive".)
This is why the "second" Amendment is SECOND in the list: because none of the other Amendments HAPPEN if the Second Amendment DOESN'T HAPPEN. This Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." (my capital letters). Stupid little, tiny, glass see-through individuals that don't understand the NATURE OF GOVERNMENTS and/or the intentions and REASONS of our FRAMERS who want all guns taken away so "kids don't get shot in high school" just don't get it. Who gives a damn about 15 children in a Colorado high school when a government, with a standing army of paid mercenaries (and the Second Amendment in the trash) will come in and kill, without hesitation, 50,000 children (AND their parents, whether they deserve it or not) in order to retain their tyrannical power over the People (and justify a little rape here and there).
The government, which is heavily in bed with the media (because congressmen can't get elected unless CEO Michael at DISNEY says it's okay for them to use his multi-billion dollar TV network to promote their platform), will use every one of these shootings at high schools TO JUSTIFY THEIR AGENDA OF GUN CONTROL so that they are in a better position to cease power from the People of our Nation by attempting to invalidate the Second Amendment. It is the right of the People in each of their states to have a militia that is SENIOR to Congress's right to have an ARMY. The Framers of our Constitution preferred to have the MAJOR POWER to bear arms in the hands of THE PEOPLE rather than in the hands of THE GOVERNMENT. Hence, the gun lobby is totally justified in holding its position on this right. This is NOT to say that BETTER gun control cannot, and should not, be effectuated - but the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms", must not be infringed - and will not be infringed.
So if you have become a soft-headed old mOron lately about the nature and extent of the document that governs your good-life here in the USofA, (i.e., the Constitution), you need to seriously book-up on it before you cause some damage with your ignorance. A good place to start is a book that has just come out by Yale Law School writer Akhil Reed Amar, and Hartwick College writer, Alan Hirsch, entitled FOR THE PEOPLE - What the Constitution Really Says About Your Rights. You can probably get it at Amazon
James Jaeger
An Enormous News Story
James Jaeger
4:19 pm Wednesday April 28, 1999Once upon a time, my Grandfather was the only neurosurgeon west of the Mississippi River. He used the film medium (16mm color cameras) to produce the world's first medical training films so that other doctors could learn how to save lives.
When I stop to consider how certain elements in Hollywood use the film medium: to provoke, exploit and glamorize the TAKING of human lives, I feel that these exact individuals have forfeited their right to medical services. In fact, as the doctors and hospitals refuse to allow these individuals into operating rooms, we could follow them around with a camera crew and document their slow death.
Hell, wouldn't this make an enormous news STORY?!
James Jaeger
Movie ticket prices
Tony
8:07 pm Wednesday April 28, 1999I'd just like to make my opinion known on movie ticket prices. I recently heard that some governmental action may be taken to get a Sony Theatres establishment in New York City to lower their prices. Personally, I think this is wrong and a violation of peoples' right to do business as they see fit for their establishment. It's ok for people to rant and rave about the ticket prices. That is their right. And they have the right to go someplace else. But they are not the owners of the establishment nor do they know the revenue and expenses regarding it. How would they like it if somebody was telling them how much they could charge for a product or service they were selling in business? I definitely don't think governmental involvement and the regulation of ticket prices is something the public should support. It can lead to other inappropriate governmental involvement in business.
I am not crazy about having to pay 9-10 bucks to catch a movie in a theater during primetime. But the fact remains that I have the right to try and see it during a matinee or somewhere else where I could possibly get in for less..or..I can do what people are doing for most movies today and wait for video. I would rather do that than try to regulate how much a theater can charge for a ticket.
And what happens when Showscan and other amazing theater presentation and sound technologies become the norm. Are we going to have the nerve to tell theater owners how much they can charge? People just have to realize that technology is expensive and the expense of it will unavoidably affect the entertainment industry as it gets more and more technologically innovative. If we want the best, we are going to have to pay for the best.
Tony
Fake Butter
James Jaeger
0:16 am Tuesday May 4, 1999I wonder how long it will be before someone who can use digital technology to the Nth degree simply shoots a feature, and then drops the digital face of say a John Travolta or a Sharon Stone into the movie thus replacing the face of their no-name star with the digital face of a name-star?
Then they just announce that they have a John Travolta picture or a Sharon Stone picture in the can at all the major film festivals and sell the thing for millions. By the time the star's lawyers catch up with this fraud, and by the time it goes to court to get an injunction and to prove that the perfectly morphed faces of Travolta and Stone in the movie are actually NOT Travolta and Stone, and all the digital expert witnesses are brought in to substantiate all this -- I bet the movie could generate millions or hundreds of millions of dollars in the international market. The injunctions would only block release in valid jurisdictions so if the picture were sold out of the U.S. -- like at MIFED or Cannes and if the movie were called something like FACE ON, the filmmakers could claim that Travolta's charge that it was NOT really his face in the picture was a lie because his face in the picture was designed to just LOOK like a fake, digital face because the movie, FACE ON, is all about putting fake faces on people and making a normal looking face just look a little digital. You could have all the "expert" witnesses so screwed up with whether it was a good digital effect that was SUPPOSED to look like a bad fake OR whether it was a real person that was supposed to look as fake as a fake digital person might look if the digital tech were not done perfectly enough to make a supposed fake person ON the screen look like a real person OFF the screen that was actually an altered version of a digital, fake person in reality.
All this "expert" testimony would probably confuse the jury so much they would not be able to give a verdict for years. And not only that, what if the jury were wrong - would they risk falsely convicting their favorite movie stars or would they hold them in contempt for trying to pull a publicity stunt and want to punish them as much or more than an ordinary person? No matter what, the public would be fascinated to know the truth - was it a fake or was it really Sharon Stone and thus the value of the movies would go up even higher due to all the controversy.
"Better" yet, if several movies, say five or ten, star-vehicles were morphed up in advance of the release of any one of them - by the time the lawyers and the stars and the agents and the film festivals and the producers got all the law suits together - there would be millions of dollars in some foreign bank to pay lawyers practically forever to fight the legal case with "expert" witnesses, bumbling all over the place as above described. Just while they were fighting one picture - bamboo - another star-vehicle would hit the market - this time a new "Harrison Ford" picture called MORPHING MONSTER -- then bang, while Harrison's lawyers were eating after those bastards - bap - another bogus star picture is released - this one with "Julia Roberts" in it - called AN ILLUSION OF LOVE.
THEN, after all this OJishness-type criminality really got picked up and fanned by the studio-owned media - the fans of all these stars would rent and pirate these fraud movies with abandon -- just to see what all the hoopla was about for themselves (and whether Julia Roberts was as good as "Julia Roberts"). Hundreds of millions more money would pour in for the legal defense of Bogus Bros. Entertainment. This could go on forever. And think of the black market this would create for the pictures at the very least. Jack Valenti would probably quit - and then you could morph him up in a movie, MPAA MANIAC, actually make a fake morphed movie or documentary about "Jack" visiting all the morphed up stars that had been morphed into pirate movies. Then you would have a movie with an all "star" cast to bootleg and a morphed "Jack" himself trying to get to the bottom of it all.
I am wondering, not if, but when someone is going to play this type of prank. (And no, it would never be me because if it were going to be me, I certainly would not have published this on the Internet where 50 million people can read it.) ((And no, I'm not trying to use reverse psychology on you to make you think that the very fact that I published this on the Internet would make me the least suspect of considering such a thing.)) (((And no by saying this I am not trying to make you think that I'm just trying to punch out the "reverse psychology" button.)))
Ironically all this nonsense might help reform the movie industry. Given enough bogus star-vehicles floating around the international markets, studios and movie investors, or at least the E&O insurance companies, might become so paranoid they would cease green lighting star-vehicles for fear of fraud. Then there would be no gross participation being paid out to the stars to suck up all the money from the other cast and crew. Suddenly many more people in the industry would be able to eat. Or, another thing could happen - all the faked star-vehicles might be just as acceptable to the public as the actual stars hence they would not be needed anymore. Why pay a star $20 million when you can pay $200,000 and simply glue Jack Nicholson's digital face over a normal actor with a similar body-style.
Hey - everyone who goes to a movie KNOWS the butter is fake - but they still EAT the popcorn.
In all seriousness however, I would never advocate using the digital image of most of the above stars as they have been pretty good people and given a lot of fans value. They worked very hard to develop their franchise too. On the other hand, the stars that have spent their entire careers making and exploiting violence-oriented movies - well these people need to make amends to the civilization which they have helped destroy. Perhaps the toughest of these stars, the ones that have pulled a trigger the most - perhaps these stars should be "cast" in a few fairy-type, peter panish movies that that would challenge their acting dynamics.
James Jaeger
re: Movie ticket prices
James Jaeger
1:11 am Tuesday May 4, 1999Tony,
I agree that the government has no business either fixing the prices of movies or censoring movies and I am definitely against both - in fact I am a Libertarian so you can see right now that the less government involvement the better in my opinion. The Constitution, as written, is just fine as it is.
On the other hand, don't you think it's a little strange that almost all movie ticket prices are basically the same? This we are told is due to the inelastic rubber band of demand or some such nonsense - but I see it as simple price-fixing by the MPAA motion picture cartel.
Since movies are being made more and more by computer (hence more and more subject to Moore's Law, no pun intended), and since there is a vast over-supply of employable people willing to make those movies, not to mention the rampant runaway production in the film industry today (to Canada and Mexico) for tax credits and cheaper labor!, one would think that the price of movies in a free market economy would keep going down, down, down -- and it would if these prices were not being propped up by the MPAA cartel which owns or influences all aspects of today's distribution and exhibition.
And the government doesn't pay much attention to the movie industry's monopoly or restraint of trade practices any more these days either because, after all, almost all the networks (that run election campaign spots) are owned, directly or indirectly, by the MPAA studios - those same rubber band-demand guys that price-fix your movie tickets.
But now the movie studios are going to get their peckers chopped off because the people out there are sick and tired of their children going to high schools where kids see the cafeterias, library and hallways as nothing more than the moon base in DOOM or the lobby of a virtual reality federal building in THE MATRIX.
When folks decide to release SHOWSCAN in theaters all over the place, I will be happy to pay more for THAT technology - an increadible technology that most people, unfortunately have not seen, (but which I was fortunate to see when Doug Trumbul first created it back in 1984 or 5).
James Jaeger
re: Essay of race of Film Executives
Mark
2:12 am Wednesday May 5, 1999Whatever historical factors may have resulted in the concentration of politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males at the top of the Hollywood-based U.S. industry that can be observed today, they can no longer be used as justification, for the continuation of that concentration.
You refer to factors like 'natural law', brains, guts, vision & competitiveness? There is little benefit in replacing strong, capable people with weaker ones just beacause they 'want a turn.' To do it, you must win the battle, without the help of the government.
My thesis is that movies to a large extent tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers, thus the only way to insure diversity on the screen is to insure that we have diversity at the highest levels of the film industry.
Sounds like you want some government committee to appoint new leaders to the movie industry. What would come out of Hollywood then? Also, despite the horrible injustices that occurred some 50 years ago in Europe, that experience cannot be used to justify the ongoing prejudice and discrimination directed toward non-Jews, religious Jews, Jewish women and politically conservative Jews that is occurring in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry today.
Huh? BTW, This question "Is Hollywood Responsible For Effects It Creates?" is a little to biased to be taken seriously. Its obviously written by some very angry people. Sorry if you're not in the group with power, but racist whining will get you nowhere.
re: Hypocritical Media-Jews
Matt Huntington
9:54 am Thursday May 6, 1999If anyone wants to criticize an extreme case of an elite power group, try looking at the Catholic Church. What other group forces its ideals on the world on such a massive scale?
Look at the overpopulation and AIDS epidemic in Africa. This is a direct result of the religious education Africans receive which calls birth control and safe sex (ie condoms) a Sin. What could be more preposterous?
The Christian missionaries who attempted to "colonize" Africa laid waste to the people they found by bringing unheard of diseases with them like influenza and small pox. Now that the "savages" are "civilized" they are again being slaughtered by a preventable disease, AIDS. The rapid ongoing overpopulation in Africa is causing the spread of disease, famines and genocidal civil wars.
The Catholic CHurch is the wealthiest organization in the world yet it is the least progressive, most exclusive and most destructive.
What other religions presume to tell its followers what they can and cant do with their own bodies. Or more outrageously, that control of your own incorporation is a Sin and will damn you to a torturous eternity in Hell.
I'm sure that if the film industry were established by Catholics that the films made in Hollywood would be more corrupt, but corrupted from the central ideals and dogmatism of the "power group" and not by the market forces that have made violence profitable in today's American films.
PS- Check most European films and find that they have little or no violence. Yet, Europe is the home of the Catholic Church, and has been the locale of some of the most violent events in modern times (WWI and WWII). How have they avoided the violent film trend? Someone should study their system for guidance. The Hollywood power group being Jewish has nothing to do with the violent content of films. It has more to do with the people buying the tickets. The only thing the Jews in Hollywood can be accused of is being effective Capitalists.
re: Fake Butter
ryan
2:06 pm Thursday May 6, 1999You are looking at the most implausible case scenario and strectching it, looking years into the future predicting every step in a chain reaction which will never happen. With any scenario like this, surely somebody will spot what is going on so near to the actual conception of such a stupid idea that it wouldn't even begin to move never mind get off the ground, you are trying to build on a fantasy that will never come true and I hope you realise what a stupid idea it is before you decide to post it on the- damn, too late.
Oh, and James, your narrow minded insights and crusades againts movie violence stink of regurgitated tabloid panics, when will you learn that 95% of the arguments you are fighting for, have been pushed and balled around the hearts and minds of men for years..get over it.
peace...ryan
re: Fake Butter
Guy Fix
1:32 am Friday May 7, 1999After reading your article on the digital 'revolution' I began to contemplate various situations where this is already a problem and has been for quite some time.
If you think about Hollywood impeding on itself time and time again from the early seventies on, it is always trying to imitate itself, not by digital technology but by perpetual imitations of itself. This being represented by stock good looking actors and actresses with virtually no talent. Used for every feature until they become Parodies of themselves.
John Travolta and Harrison Ford are excellent examples, they no longer act but play hemselves from their past great movies. I like both these actors in particular movies, but I think most of what they do now is pure shlock.
Advertising has been the harlot of blasphemous usage of Music, Actors(dead and alive). That's where it started and that's where it will gain it's most lethal inertia to infiltrate the cinema. Have you seen the Spike Lee/Pizza Hut commercial? Or the computer animated Bruce Lee selling Brisk? I am most sure Bruce would NOT have approved.
Soon dead actors will be resurrected to star in the next blockbuster. This is definite. But first it wil be like,"Awe shit, Travolta's sick, what are we going to do????",,,,"I know! We'll digitize him!", or "Harrison Ford's doing another movie?,Harrison we'll pay you $3,000,000 for doing nothing!, what do ya say?" And, he will say yes because I don't think we can really depend on these post modern actors to represent any node of integrity.
How many songs, from Mozart to Marley to Elvis to Sinatra have been ruined from Advertising? People know Tchaikovsy(or identify) from a friggin truck commercial. Soon we'll see Cagney, Gable, Bogart etc. star in brand new releases. Kid's won't know the difference and the bulk of mindless baby boomer's, gen x'ers simply WON'T CARE!. I think though, for what you say, first a genre will have to evolve of the digital revolution, from circumstance(actors sick,unavailable,impossible to work with etc), then eventually the actors and the patron's will embrace it like they embrace all the other shit on this planet.
A good book to read dealing with this particular thought is Simulations and Simulacra by Jean Baudlliard, meaty and fascinating. They even used the text for a prop in The Matrix. I see you are kind of averted (perhaps) to these types of films, did you see the Matrix? Anyways got to run. On Monday I go to the Queen Charlotte's to tree plant. In the silent wilderness, above the noise, pollution, and temptation, over and out.
GUY FIX
re: Fake Butter
James Jaeger
1:52 am Friday May 7, 1999You are probably right Ryan, something like FACE ON could not happen - except in the movies (or maybe the movie industry).
Oh, and James, your narrow minded insights and crusades againts movie violence stink of regurgitated tabloid panics, when will you learn that 95% of the arguments you are fighting for, have been pushed and balled around the hearts and minds of men for years..get over it.
I have no idea what you are saying here re: "tabloid panics" as I don't read tabloids.
And when you say "get over it," are you saying that just because people have fought for some ideal, or better condition, "for years" and such condition has not yet materialized, that everybody should just quit, give up and resign themselves to living in an environment of movie-instigated violence that provides some sort of reinforcement for kids to manifest their negative sides and others to create atrocities, like Columbine High School?
I think you need to grow up a little and stop being a Hollywood apologist. Do you have any kids of movie-going age?
James Jaeger
re: Fake Butter
ryan
12:25 pm Sunday May 9, 1999No James, I do not have children of my own, and I will grow up when I begin to believe that movie violence is corrupting the youth of today, is that right?
"And when you say "get over it," are you saying that just because people have fought for some ideal, or better condition, "for years" and such condition has not yet materialized, that everybody should just quit, give up and resign themselves to living in an environment of movie-instigated violence that provides some sort of reinforcement for kids to manifest their negative sides and others to create atrocities, like Columbine High School?"
I'm saying that you are preaching this crap to people who have heard it hundreds of times before and you have nothing original to say so your arguments are pointless. But the "movie instigated violence environment" you talk about does not exist and will never exist. My point is not that nobody has ever commited a violent act because they saw a violent film, but you are basing your whole argument on the one example of Columbine high school, and one or two isolated cases involving mentally unstable youths who's way out is to murder some people and then the media's excuse for them is "violent films". Here in england recently "evil dead" has been blamed for a guy who liked the film who killed his friend. He liked the damn film, that's all. Books? what about books? American Psycho...a book soon to be turned into a film, do you have a problem with the book? A book regarded as a modern classic...when it becomes a film...is it then that you "come into action" and turn into the moral crusader to save the morals of the rest of us...I'm sorry but it's not working with me James...and I don't see how having an opinion that differs from your own turns me into a hollywood apologist, if you think that is what I am then fair enough, but next I have an opinion of my own I'll remember not to share it with you, I wouldn't want to be accused of standing up to the moral crusader of the late 90's and his band of merry opinions.
Peace
ryan
Bulger
CASTOR
12:43 pm Sunday May 9, 1999I have to say that I disagree, in part, to Ryan's theory. I think that some inpressionable people, be it the mentally ill or children, can be effected by film. That is to say that these impressionable people can also be influenced by books, TV, or fuckin' music. (Take the killing of John Lennon) So to single out films, from a wealth of multimedia that todays youth are exposed to, is both inept and hypocritical. To vilify film in the way that the rest of the media does only detracts from the other elements people are exposed to. Stupid people like you shouldn't be allowed to share your views with others, as it is people like you, who are willing to have these debates (hence allowing for the possibilty that it COULD be film that's responsible) who give the mentally weak the excuse to kill, and blame it on society.
Snootchy Booties,
CAGE
violence
guy fix
3:57 pm Monday May 10, 1999This is an off the cuff remark regarding violence in the media. The media is just an extension of society, it doesn't represent it directly nor does it imitate it. But the arguement of life imitating art, art imitating life is an age old one that really has not been resolved. I myself am not opposed to violence in film. Defining violence is a feat unto itself. What I am opposed to is the way in which violence is fuelling the arts. Anyone who wants to argue that violence in film hasn't reached an unprecedented, and very disturbing role in the media, (not to mention,books, society, music, international relations,family life) is full of friggin beans. What is disturbing is the amount of apathy there is to fighting violence's stronghold in the world. Everyone is trying to determine with hopelessly narrow analysis on just why those kids at Columbine did what they did, and why so many copycats are surfacing, and trying to determine a solution as to prevent it from happening again. Who are the people who ARE prone to violences role models? Maybe NATO, maybe Vincent Vega from pulp fiction, maybe Dirty harry. I loved Pulp Fiction, but I have never even concieved of using a gun to resolve my conflicts. Frankly it's silly to blame film for violence in our society. What about the parents? What about school bully? Innefficient social programs? What about the lack of enthusiasm for movies without violence? I agree though, as a wannabe film maker, making a film that is appealing and has little violence if none at all is probaly the biggest challenge, if one want's to reach a mass audience.But blaming violence in film for atrocities in the world is ridiculous. I would say the amount of violence in the media is not the problem but more the symptom of a deranged world.
violence
guy fix
3:57 pm Monday May 10, 1999This is an off the cuff remark regarding violence in the media. The media is just an extension of society, it doesn't represent it directly nor does it imitate it. But the arguement of life imitating art, art imitating life is an age old one that really has not been resolved. I myself am not opposed to violence in film. Defining violence is a feat unto itself. What I am opposed to is the way in which violence is fuelling the arts. Anyone who wants to argue that violence in film hasn't reached an unprecedented, and very disturbing role in the media, (not to mention,books, society, music, international relations,family life) is full of friggin beans. What is disturbing is the amount of apathy there is to fighting violence's stronghold in the world. Everyone is trying to determine with hopelessly narrow analysis on just why those kids at Columbine did what they did, and why so many copycats are surfacing, and trying to determine a solution as to prevent it from happening again. Who are the people who ARE prone to violences role models? Maybe NATO, maybe Vincent Vega from pulp fiction, maybe Dirty harry. I loved Pulp Fiction, but I have never even concieved of using a gun to resolve my conflicts. Frankly it's silly to blame film for violence in our society. What about the parents? What about school bully? Innefficient social programs? What about the lack of enthusiasm for movies without violence? I agree though, as a wannabe film maker, making a film that is appealing and has little violence if none at all is probaly the biggest challenge, if one want's to reach a mass audience.But blaming violence in film for atrocities in the world is ridiculous. I would say the amount of violence in the media is not the problem but more the symptom of a deranged world.
Do Feature Films Pollute Our Cultural Environment?
Film Distributor Schemes
John Cones
12:40 pm Wednesday May 12, 1999FILM DISTRIBUTOR SCHEMES
The ongoing Katzenberg-Disney trial (Jeffrey Katzenberg suing Disney for the payment of an estimated $250,000 million owed on a promised 2% bonus) has revealed a complex Disney scheme for underreporting income and over-reporting expenses to profit participants. A memorandum prepared by Bill Clark, the Disney employee who for many years was responsible for profit-participation accounting at Disney, was introduced at the Katzenberg trial and reportedly lists ten categories in which revenue to profit participants was underreported. As an example, the memo states that revenues from sales at Disney Stores were never reported, revenue from intracompany licenses to the Disney channel and ABC were reported well below market levels and rebates from vendors such as Kodak and Technicolor were never credited back to the revenue stream. Seven overreported expense categories included a potential for hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign taxes, which are taken as expenses when, in fact, Disney received full credit in the U.S. for such overseas payments. Of course, these film distributor schemes for underreporting income and overreporting expenses to profit participants are nothing new in Hollywood (see the extensive discussion of such practices in The Feature Film Distribution Deal, Southern Illinois University Press, 1997) [Source: Daily Variety, April 30, 199, pages 1 & 43].
John Cones
HOLLYWOOD DISCRIMINATION
Originally posted: 12:45 pm Wednesday May 12, 1999
Two out of three acting jobs last year went to performers under 40 years of age, according to figures released April 21, 1999 by the Screen Actors Guild. Casting data from 1998 shows men had an easier time finding work than women aged 40 and beyond. The guild said women over 40 were "significantly under- represented on television and in films". A polite statement issued by SAG, which has more than 96,000 members, said "ageism" remains a "critical issue for American performers". [Source: Daily Variety, April 22, 1999, page 5]. On the other hand, SAG is not willing to go to the mat over these and other important issues relating to long-standing discrimination in Hollywood.New casting figures compiled by the Screen Actors Guild for 1998, show a marked decline in film and television roles for Latinos, African-Americans and American Indian performers. The SAG statistics released May 3, 1999 reveal that the reduction in roles for minorities compared with the previous year was the largest since the Guild began tracking employment figures by ethnicity, gender and age in 1992. The casting data showed that most ethnic groups continue to be severely under-represented on U.S. television and in film, with the country's ever-increasing Latino population the most dramatically behind when their proportion of the population is taken into account (Source: Daily Variety, May 4, 1999, pages 1 & 23).
SAG noted that while Latinos make up roughly 10.7% of the nation's population, their roles in films and television represent only 3.5% of total casting. Of course, many of those roles over the years have been negative or stereotypical portrayals of Latinos [Source: Daily Variety, May 5, 1999, pages 1 & 30].
A women's panel discussion held in May of 1999 in Santa Monica pointed out that the top spots at major film studios are predominantly filled by men. Questions were also raised during the discussion about the lack of women directors in the film business. Statistics were also cited indicating that film crews are 70% to 80% male. [Source: Daily Variety, May 10, 1999, page 22].
QUESTIONS FOR ANALYSIS: If it is ok to conduct studies of the ethnicity, gender and age of actors, directors and film crews, why is it not ok to also conduct similar studies of the backgrounds of studio executives? If it is ok to study the ethnicity, gender and age of actors, directors and film crews why is also not ok to include the religious/cultural backgrounds of such persons in these same studies? If it is ok to determine and write about who the minorities are in Hollywood (i.e., Latinos, African-Americans, American Indians, women over 40, etc.) why is it not ok to reveal similar facts about who the majority is in Hollywood?
COMMENT: My own studies and writings, have demonstrated that this "Hollywood majority" gained and has maintained its dominance over the film industry through the use of unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive, predatory and illegal business practices (see The Feature Film Distribution Deal and How the Movie Wars Were Won), including those described above as the Disney profit participation accounting practices. In addition, my work reveals that this same "Hollywood majority" has used the power these siphoned revenues provides them to discriminate against all minorities in Hollywood. Further, that this has been going on for about 90 years, but nobody including our Federal government has the guts to do anything about it.
John Cones
re: Fake Butter
James Jaeger
10:42 am Thursday May 13, 1999You know, Ryan, rather than arguing with you over your points, why don't you just see guy fix's post of May 10, 1999 entitled "Violence."
He pretty much sums is up.
James Jaeger
re: Hollywood Discrimination
Wanda Haight
11:09 am Thursday May 13, 1999Hello!
I am one of your readers and I have to say that I do find it interesting that the film industry has gone back to 'young, beautiful and white' actors. I'm African-American and it is hard for me to go to the movies only seeing people of color in negative or stereotypical roles. In fact, I don't go to the theater at all these days because I don't see positive movies about people of my race represented.
I've submitted my script, Lady Knight, to several companies and I do feel that the reason it isn't accepted is because my main character is an African-American woman. I'm told that my writing's good but they don't know where they could sell it.
One thing I do believe that contributes to this is that most writers of color only write about the negative images we see around us.
I truly believe that we can make a change, as writers and producers, but only if we are active in our roles. For instance, why not take a chance on a 'different' script and see how it develops as a movie? If production companys are only interested in 'the bottom line' then all we will see is what 'sells'.
VHS Babysitters
James Jaeger
12:35 pm Thursday May 13, 1999What I am opposed to is the way in which violence is fuelling the arts. Anyone who wants to argue that violence in film hasn't reached an unprecedented, and very disturbing role in the media... is full of friggin beans.
I agree. And this is obvious to all but a small handfull of Hollywood apologists and/or the inner circle of executives and stars making money off exploiting same.
Frankly it's silly to blame film for violence in our society.
Yes, it would be silly to blame ALL violence in our society on the movies - no one is doing that.
What about the parents?
It would be silly to over look the role parents can, and should, play in causing their kids to be loving adults that respect law, human life and the good aspects of our civilization. When parents are not home, or their kids are in day care all the time, those kids don't get the kind of guidance or love that a caring parent could give and all hell breaks out. (See HOME ALONE and LORD OF THE FLIES) This should be so 101-obvious, it's a shame that it actually has to be said here again. . . When kids don't have the parents home, or around during the day and/or nights, other entities, that don't care as much about them, oversee their introduction to life. These entities=nannies, daycare attendants, babysitters and VHS tapes/Intendo cartridges.
If one of those entities happens to be movies, games or network TV - with the kind of insensitive and non-stop violent attitudes and actions we see in them - then the kids eventually emulate these attitudes in their actions and very being.
No it's not all the movies fault. It's parents using VHS tapes as their babysitters. It's women that cannot confront the incredible challenge of properly raising a child by ducking out to work - as if that's more important. Oh, and then she justifies it by saying: "Hey it takes a two-income family to live." People other than selfish pigs do not NEED 2 incomes to "live" on. Parents that DON'T realize that their presence with their kids (instead of their VHS's presence with them) is more important than a second car or another meal out or a new entertainment center, or a trip, or one more pair of shoes or more dresses, or this or another that - are selfish pigs and do not deserve to have children. There is just no other word for them. So it's not ALL the movies, it's also selfish parents.
Meanwhile these kids hate them for all this selfishness and they find in movies an expression of this hate. They feel they have a friend in the movies. The movies feed this hate, this parental rejection. They hate more then they individuate more. And finally, some percentage of them think quietly to themselves, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more" -- and then bullets start to fly. They are just trying to give back to Society what Society, and their parents, gave to them. But this is not the scary part - for every kid that ACTS in violence - a ten or a hundred thousand must be THINKING it.
What about school bully?
He was created by the above.
Innefficient social programs?
They are created by the socialist, inefficient weed-like government we have allowed to crop up the last 200 years.
What about the lack of enthusiasm for movies without violence?
Once the film-goers and the movie-makers are addicted . . .they're addicted. Now they have to get back on their own, go to church or die a slow and painful death - and unfortunately, people on the way down always try to take as many others with them as possible. It makes them feel more comfortable. Justifies their mistakes.
...I would say the amount of violence in the media is not the problem but more the symptom of a deranged world.
It is a symptom, but it is also a MAJOR part of the problem for exploiting and co-creating this vicious cycle. When kids come into this world, they are clean slates - we adults create the environment they will grow up in and when you have the most powerful communications machine ever devised by human-kind blasting out movies 24-hrs a day with the word "murder" in their title - you just cannot say those adults are caring or responsible. More people exist in Hollywood who hate children - or who have no plans to have any - than exist at any other place in the world. Look at the guy in Jurassic Park who didn't even want to sit in the same tram as a little boy. Totally typical, but totally on the brains of the writers and greenlighting-executives that slither around in the Hollywood soup.
James Jaeger
FIRM Visits Are Anonymous
James Jaeger
1:15 pm Thursday May 13, 1999I know that some of you are afraid that, by coming here or taking an active role in FIRM, you may be jeopardizing your film career . . . and in fact you may be. . . as the Hollywood Black List, unfortunately, is alive and well today.
I want to assure you, however, that no one knows when you visit this site. FIRM retains no cookies or other records of the identities or IP Address of anyone who visits and reads the material anywhere on this site.
The only times we, and others, will know who you are is if you want us to by posting something to the discussion forum here with your name and/or email; OR you fill in one of the research/guest book forms around the FIRM site. Otherwise, your identity is completely unknown.
So don't hesitate to crawl all over the FIRM site. It's here for you. The research and books are here for you. We want you to learn and grow. We are on your side. We want you to be totally informed about YOUR industry. Don't hesitate to learn and dissolve the myths that may seriously be effecting your view of the movie industry, your film career and your strategies for success.
I give you my personal word on this: YOUR VISITS TO FIRM ARE ANONYMOUS, unless you want to show the world who you are and what you think.
James Jaeger
| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |