June 1, 1998 - June 4, 1998
2,300 FIRM Visits a Month
6:23 pm Monday June 1,
Whether you agree or disagree with the information posted at the FIRM site, I would
like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank you for stopping by. In the past WEEK,
there have been 595 of you who have visited the FIRM site and many visits to the
various URLs around the site. I am, however, a little disappointed that more of you are
not contributing to the discussion about how the film industry can be, at least
IMPROVED, if REFORMED is too strong of a term for you. I know this has been a
pretty rough debate at times here, but I believe with the many good people who are
passionate about film, and their industry, the future is always getting better because, in no
small part, you make it so. James Jaeger
> --- Netscape WWW Server statistics ---
> For the period between 25/May/1998:00:53:14 and
> The most commonly accessed URL's
> Number of Total
> Accesses Bytes Size 304's URL
> 595 99792 216 0 /FIRM
> 134 27738 207 0 /FIRM/control
> 73 449136 6238 1 /FIRM/fmission.htm
> 70 5790132 85149 2 /FIRM/control.htm
> 62 92024 2213 20 /FIRM/dialogs.htm
> 30 48888 1746 2 /FIRM/index.html
> 30 228690 7623 0 /FIRM/research.htm
> 27 179304 7471 3 /FIRM/observe.htm
> 22 213928 9724 0 /FIRM/victims.htm
> 20 62834 4991 7 /FIRM/guide3.htm
> 18 108165 7789 4 /FIRM/guide.htm
> 17 24400 1525 1 /FIRM/press.htm
> 17 148000 9250 1 /FIRM/disney.htm
> 16 602784 37674 0 /FIRM/myths.htm
> 15 1611765 107451 0 /FIRM/dist1.htm
> 14 41239 3749 3 /FIRM/guide2.htm
> 13 433498 33346 0 /FIRM/resbib.htm
> 12 48980 4898 2 /FIRM/guide4.htm
> 11 33950 3395 1 /FIRM/conesbio.htm
> 11 349899 31809 0 /FIRM/shields.htm
> 11 190894 17354 0 /FIRM/quotes.htm
> 11 48609 4419 0 /FIRM/books2.htm
> 11 34385 3166 0 /FIRM/25apr98.htm
> 10 94810 9481 0 /FIRM/amdebate.htm
> 10 17460 1746 0 /FIRM/index.htm
> 10 96680 9668 0 /FIRM/mgm.htm
> 9 20830 2564 0 /FIRM/guide5.htm
> 9 395874 43986 0 /FIRM/researc2.htm
> 9 82998 9222 0 /FIRM/paramoun.htm
> 9 254061 28229 0 /FIRM/religion.htm
> 9 1762290 195810 0 /FIRM/outsider.htm
> 8 351888 43986 0 /FIRM/researc2.htm%20
> 8 52280 6535 0 /FIRM/articles.htm
> 7 17360 2480 0 /FIRM/conesoth.htm
> 7 43491 6213 0 /FIRM/fox.htm
> 7 428260 61180 0 /FIRM/crimes.htm
> 7 46452 6636 0 /FIRM/conebio2.htm
> 7 390873 55839 0 /FIRM/researc3.htm
> 7 45738 6534 0 /FIRM/fleecing.htm
> 6 335034 55839 0 /FIRM/researc3.htm%20
re: LA Weekly Defamation
10:40 pm Monday June 1, 1998
: I demand an apology from each of the individuals involved,
: including Neal Gabler, a prominently placed retraction in a
: forthcoming publication, and an opportunity to author an article
: of approximately the same length accurately explaining my
: position with respect to what is really going on in Hollywood.
I agree with Joe, if LA Weekly doesn't at least let you
author an article of the same length explaining your views, you
should sue them for publishing false information or hearsay or
maybe even malpractice.
2:31 am Tuesday June 2, 1998
You are right about the MPAA and religion, but you don't have enough info. Under the
old production code some of the censors were clerics, typically Catholic priests. They
typically liked movies so Hollywood liked dealing with them rather than other clerics. Of
course the studios had to please these priests so they did, by making Catholic movies.
Under the MPAA this all changed. The MPAA was set up by Wasserman and Krim.
Lew Wasserman was head of MCA-Universal. Arthur Krim was head of UA and in
1968 he was actually a special counsel to Lyndon Johnson. They picked Jack Valenti to
head the MPAA. He was an advisor to Johnson also. They picked him because he had
good ties in the government and that is what they wanted. The whole idea was to create
a rating body that could calm people in general but be controled by the studios with
direct ties to the top of the government. The MPAA is also a lobbying agency and they
make donations to all congressmen throughout the country. They are also involved in
piracy issues which means they work with the FBI on a daily basis. Of course there are
no priests involved in the MPAA so they lost the influence from the Christian community.
3:20 am Tuesday June 2, 1998
For info about Time Warner see Connie Bruck's "Master of the Game".
Nicholas was Protestant from Time. Didn't fit in with Warner people.
Levin is Jewish also from Time, but from HBO not Time Magazine.
Daly is Irish Catholic. Came from CBS I think.
You are right about a lot of things, but you're like someone on the outside looking in and
not understanding things. You are also missing information. You can't fight something like
this unless you really know what you're talking about. Your whole strategy of pointing
out religion is never going to work because there has been too much anti-semetism in the
world. Remember that Jews were excluded from other industries in the early days so
they settled in Hollywood. You miss all sorts of important things like the relationship
between the Federal government and Hollywood, which is well documented. It started
with John Kennedy and was obvious with Reagan. These relationships have allowed
Hollywood to violate the anti-trust decision of the Supreme Court from 1948. You also
miss mafia influence. Hollywood works exactly like the mob and has long term ties to the
re: Free Speech is Dead in
3:37 am Tuesday June 2,
There never was free speech in Hollywood. That is just a slogan.
For a community that fights so hard to preserve it's own freedom of speech in movies,
and to fight censorship of any kind, you would think that the Hollywood community
would also be willing to allow those whose views differ from theirs to express their views
freely without threats and actual conduct designed to destroy the professional career of
the critic. This experience gives us a clear picture of what we are dealing with in
Hollywood, a group of people who preach tolerance through a powerful communications
medium (feature film), but who have an extremely low level of tolerance for diversity of
views when it comes to how business is conducted in Hollywood.
Brain-Dead Christian Community?
8:21 pm Tuesday June 2,
:Of course there are no priests involved in the MPAA so they lost
:the influence from the Christian community.
The Christian Community better wake up. They are asleep at the
switch as usual. They are not brain-dead when they are awake.
re: Brain-Dead Christian Community?
10:32 pm Tuesday June 2,
Asleep isn't exactly what it is. There have been several attempts to change the rating
system, but it's a big legal swamp. It's complicated and emotionalized by charges of
anti-sematism and bigotry. Beyond that most people do not understand how the highest
levels of the studio work. This is not coincidental. These are the names that don't appear
on the credits. They don't hire their relatives just because they're bigots. They're no more
or less bigots than average. They do it for the same reason the mob does it. They need to
know the secrets will be safe.
In fact the Supreme Court has ruled on the ratings issue and they ruled against the studios
in alowing local communities and courts to make decisions regarding moral judgements.
The studios, which control nearly all the media (soon Congress may allow them to buy
the newspapers) have been able to confuse people into believing the MPAA is a legal
"right" to be the only ratings system. The great joke is they claim to defend "free speech".
That's right up there with the communisits fighting for the "people". In fact local
communities have the right to set up their own ratings board, but the MPAA fights this
tooth and nail.
The worst factor is politicians across the country accept donations from the MPAA and
from individual studio executives so the MPAA is able to defeat Christians even on a
local level. Believe it or not there is an extensive paper trail that proves all of this, but it
would be difficult to get the government to investigate it. It's mixed up with campaign
Remember that Reagan was represented by Lew Wasserman and owes his fortune and
success to him. It was Reagan that paved the way for recent conglamoration. Kennedy's
father owned a studio, RKO, and JFK had his own Hollywood ties. Nixon accepted
illegal cash donations from Warner Communications. Carter raised millions from
Hollywood, but they liked Reagan better in 80. Clinton had ties to Hollywood going
back to the early 80's.
We live in a Media-State where the Media has replaced the role traditionally filled by the
Church. The Media has its own sovereignity. Our government has lost the real ability to
hold the media to legal standards. In order to be elected to a high office you must be
approved by the Media just as Kings of old were approved by the Church. Like the
Church the Media only accepts those who profess certain beliefs.
This is all unconstitutional and perhaps the courts are the best way to fight it, but the
going will be difficult as the media will spin everything. More than any issue the media
protects itself. Religion is far less important to the people in control than pure power.
None of this is new. The same group of people who founded Hollywood used the same
tactics of corruption in Europe, which in the end lead to Facism. This is why Christians
are reluctant to pursue the issue with vigor. The question is what happens if no one
stands up and tries to stop what is happening? Is Hollywood changing on its own little by
little? Can these issues be discussed and fought in court without creating hatred and
potentially bloodshed? Can Christians stand by their beliefs and not allow themselves to
be influenced by the media that surrounds them?
::Of course there are no priests involved in the MPAA so they lost
:the influence from the Christian community.
The Christian Community better wake up. They are asleep at the
switch as usual. They are not brain-dead when they are awake.
finally, mr blank speaks
0:46 am Wednesday June 3, 1998
thank you mr blank,
i have been watching this site for several weeks now and all i
have seen is a bunch of nonsense, where the hollywood
establishment or its friends have been attacking mr cones for his
views and demonstrating that they have no interest in improving
the film industry at all....
it's refreshing to finally be able to tune in and learn something
from someone new (other than all the interesting information we
have learned from mr cones...and i thank you), who seems to know
something about hollywood's power structure and is willing to
share that with us.
thank you mr blank, or should we call you "deep throat"?
CFR-Control of Hollywood
2:08 am Wednesday June 3,
:None of this is new. The same group of people who founded
:Hollywood used the same tactics of corruption in Europe, which in
:the end lead to Facism. This is why Christians are reluctant to
:pursue the issue with vigor. The question is what happens if no
:one stands up and tries to stop what is happening? Is Hollywood
:changing on its own little by little? Can these issues be
:discussed and fought in court without creating hatred and
:potentially bloodshed? Can Christians stand by their beliefs and
:not allow themselves to be influenced by the media that surrounds
Maybe it's true that the politicians have a love affair with
Hollywood and the relationship between Lew Wasserman and Ronald
Reagan is true and well-known, but as I tried to point out in an
earlier post, the Federal Reserve is tied into this as the main
source of the government's money supply.
For details, read a book called THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND by
G. Edward Griffin, a review and ordering info at
No matter what political party is "in power" basically the same
policies are implemented directly or indirectly by members of the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a non-deliberating body that,
not only has most of the media kingpins as members, "but our
presidents and their advisors, cabinet members, ambassadors, board
members of the Federal Reserve System, directors of the largest
banks and investment houses, presidents of universities and heads
of metropolitan newspapers, news services and TV networks. It is
not an exaggeration to describe this group as the hidden
government of the United States who are working to build a world
government," according to Griffin.
I agree with what you are saying about the Media taking the place
of Religion and feel that is an excellent analogy, but again, one
must NEVER FORGET where the government GETS MOST OF ITS MONEY to
do all the wonderful things it does: through the Federal Reserve
System (the nation's 4th central banking cartel) by issuing debt
instruments. Not from taxes. Income tax is just window-dressing
to keep the American people from becoming suspicious as to where
their government (or any government) gets money to wage war (hence
maintain "social control") and the Democratic and the Republican
parties are just more window-dressing to keep the American people
involved in the cock-fight so they can't comprehend what is going
on above them. The Romans used to use gladiators and wild
Because the CFR, in essence stocks, if not, controls the U.S.
government, they maintain a strong handle on the MPAA/studio
distributors so that the mainstream media does not, and cannot,
explicate a) their agenda, b) the extent of their membership or,
c) their modus operandi (which, by the way, since CFR is a
"non-deliberating body," they don't keep any minutes at their
meetings, hence there is no paper-trail of their machinations).
If this means that the CFR will originate and maintain a cozy
little relationship between Hollywood and the government (a la a
Wasserman and a Reagan and/or an MPAA and a Valenti), that cozy
little relationship is kept in place to suppress any major motion
pictures, documentaries or TV shows that might alert and educate
the public about the material Mr. Griffin has carefully
researched, AND VERY CLEARLY ELABORATED ON in his book, THE
CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND. Just about the only people that are
talking about this book are intelligent people who actually
understand mathematics, the Netizens, the elite in the Christian
community and unemployed nuts/millionaires on late-night talk
How often do you see a CFR member on network TV - not too often -
however they have been showing up a little more frequently to
"indoctrinate" the public into their cult of a one-world,
high-tech feudal society that is socialist in nature and operates
under a world bank (IMF/World Bank) with a world military of
"peacekeepers" (the UN), who will blow you (and your
ideals/freedom) away if you dare break the "peace" with any kind
of independent motion picture that does NOT fit the MPAA-formulae
So Filmmakers, get with it - conform or die, you hungry little
Christopher On Target
11:58 am Wednesday June 3,
Christopher On Target
Christopher writes that the motion picture is an information resource and that the debate
should not be about what group controls that resource, but whether any group should
control such a resource. This is exactly right in theory. However, if no one points out
the real world problem that a narrowly defined interest group actually controls the
Hollywood-based U.S. film industry, then in practical terms, there would be no need to
discuss what is right in theory (i.e., that no single group should control Hollywood).
Christopher is also correct in asserting that " . . . if your group wants to try to level the
playing field, I think that's a good thing. If your organization is simply trying to acquire
power from one group to give to another, then I don't think that's a good thing." The
very concept of a level playing field is that all groups, no matter how defined, shall have a
fair and equal opportunity to tell their important cultural stories through film. That is the
objective of FIRM. As Joe Goldenberg states, diversity is the key. We seek diversity at
all levels in the U.S. film industry, and on the screen--diversity that more accurately
reflects the makeup of our multi-cultural society.
Why Discuss Backgrounds?
12:02 pm Wednesday June 3,
Why Discuss Backgrounds?
Some continue to question why it is necessary to bring up the backgrounds of the studio
executives who have the power to determine which movies get produced and released
by the major studio/distributors. In addition to the other reasons already cited, here's
another. Remember when Bob Dole complained about violence in popular culture
including movies? He explained that he felt certain high level entertainment industry
leaders were responsible for these problems. He didn't talk about the backgrounds of
these high level entertainment industry leaders for whatever reason, but he didn't have to.
A week or so into that debate, NBC's Tom Brokow, reported on the Nightly News that
an unnamed Hollywood producer told him that Dole's phrase "high level entertainment
leaders" was merely a code phrase for "Hollywood Jews". The point being that if you
don't deal with this issue straight up, and carefully choose your own words to describe
who really controls Hollywood, anyone who criticizes Hollywood will eventually be
accused of blaming a particular interest group with words of Hollywood's choosing.
Thus, in this debate, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. I would rather
be honest and straight forward, get it out there and describe the phenomenon of
Hollywood control in my own words. No need for codes.
Technology Will Save The Day
12:03 pm Wednesday June 3,
Technology Will Save The Day
From time to time, many film industry hopefuls have made the argument that technology
will save the day. My study of the history of Hollywood does not allow me to be
persuaded by that argument. After all, similar arguments were made when sound came
in, when color was applied to film, when television was invented, when VCR's were
made available, and so forth. But, the major studio/distributor conglomerates always
seemed to figure out a way to adapt to and dominate these new technologies. I
therefore, have little reason to believe that today's new technologies will offer any greater
threat to the power of the Hollywood cartel than those other new technologies of the
re: Why Discuss Backgrounds?
7:29 pm Wednesday June 3,
Excellent point, to the point.
re: CFR-Control of Hollywood
9:07 pm Wednesday June 3,
I had not considered the Fed as being tied up in this but clearly the come close to
controling the economy. By maintaining a strong economy they help us avoid social
confrontations. I think you're going over the top a bit by suggesting wars are fought just
to keep people occupied. In fact the US avoids wars most of the time.
I think it's important not to get carried away with some of these ideas. If you want to fight
the way things are you need to be careful not to be "nutty". The way the media and a few
people like Wasserman gain power is they think very long term. Most Americans don't
so they get caught up in the present details. For example, Christian groups complained
about violence on TV so the MPAA was assigned to rate TV programs. Christian
groups may have won for the short term, but over the long term what the MPAA has
done is slowly alter their ratings systems and slightly shift our morality. They did this in the
late sixties when may Americans were liberalizing, but they also did it in the early 70's
and 80's when most Americans were becoming more conservative. In fact the MPAA
has been on a steady march toward a new "liberal" morality. This morality is often times
anti-religious. Thus over the long term Christian groups will surely suffer when the
MPAA gains more powers. They would be better off with no ratings system at all.
Although, again the Supreme Court does alow States and local courts to decide moral
issues and local ratings boards are legal.
re: View of a life long movie fan
9:34 pm Wednesday June 3, 1998
>> It seems to me that getting a movie made is not : as difficult as getting it shown. So,
would it be advantageous : for all (and it wouldn’t punish people that have been creative :
and or successful) if the creation side of the entertainment : industry were left alone and
theaters, their location and number : were examined instead? This might allow, the local
market place : to determine what films are available in local areas?>>> You are right, but
in fact the Supreme Court dealt with these issues years ago and came away with the
same conclusions as you. In 1948 the studios were forced to sell off their theaters as the
court felt they constituted a trust. Nowadays studios have been given waivers to own
cable systems, tv networks and so forth. Time Warner and TCI own 2/3 of cable
systems. TCI head owns nearly 10% of Time Warner. At the same time Time Warner
owns many of the top cable networks including HBO, CNN, TNT etc. Further, Time
Warner owns all the cable systems in New York, which is such an important media
center as well as money center and political center (NYSE, United Nations).This seems
to violate anti-trust but again these conglamorates give so much in donations and also can
be vital in support of a politicians' campaign. Remember that campaign costs are high
because of media costs. Free media support at critical times divides winners from losers.
You should also know that it is not difficult to make a movie but is difficult to distribute
one. The studios control distribution. Distribution is something most people do not really
understand, but basically it is about relationships and publicity. Theater owners have to
bid for movies before they are finished and thus do business with companies which are
established rather than companies they can not be sure of. They need to know the quality
of the movie as well as the size of the publicity campaign. Since Polygram was bought by
Universal a few weeks ago there are no mid-level distributors left outside of the MPAA
member studios. MGM bought Orion and Samual Goldwyn last year (they bought
United Artists 20 years ago).. Believe it or not this is the only time in the history of our
country where we have not had mid-level distributors. The studios have tried to fill the
gap with subsidiaries like Mirimax, which was bought by Disney five years ago, and New
Line, which is owned by Warner (bought by Turner before it merged with Warner).
These subsidiaries are owned by the same people that own the studios so there is no
"real" diversity there. These companies are often times "art house" companies and have
even less diversity than the studios themselves. Typically they are extemely "liberal" and
hostile to Christians. I consider myself liberal but not in the limited sense that Hollywood
re: Christopher On Target
9:38 pm Wednesday June 3, 1998
I responded to Christophers's post but the response is way down next to his post.
re: Technology Will Save The Day
9:57 pm Wednesday June 3,
You're probably right about Technology. The internet creates certain posibilities but it
will not change the mainstream media. Personally I don't believe the average Hollywood
movie makes a great difference in our culture. What is more important is the way the
news media has been combined with Hollywood. Now all the media is together. When
you look at the way Hollywood hires, which is entirely based on connections and
consider that this policy is sure to extend to the news we are in trouble. In the past news
magazines, papers, TV networks may have hired by connections but each company was
separate and thus you had diversity even if you had a limited hiring policy. In other
words, if you were Jewish you could get a job here, Protestants over there, Catholics
somewhere else and so forth.
It will take time before these conglamorates really control all their subsidiaries but
eventually they will. Many news "figures" were hired in the 60's or 70's at a time when
credibility was key. As these people retire they are replaced by more or less
"Hollywood" types. This means the worst is yet to come.
The genius of the people behind the media is they are able to make the average person
believe the media is the mainstream. They do this by following the mainstream 95% of
the time. They only use their power in vital occasions or in special issues. The issue that
remains vital and special is power itself. You can talk about how many of these people
are Jewish, but they don't really use their power to benefit Jews. They only care about
Clarifications, Y2K and Frozen Heads
0:33 am Thursday June 4,
:I had not considered the Fed as being tied up in this but clearly
:the come close to controlling the economy. By maintaining a
:strong :economy they help us avoid social confrontations.
If, and after, you read the book I have suggested, "THE CREATURE
FROM JEKYLL ISLAND by G. Edward Griffin - a second look at the
Federal Reserve", you may use a different word than the word
"close" as in "close to controlling the economy."
:I think you're going over the top a bit by suggesting wars are
:fought just to keep people occupied. In fact the US avoids wars
:most of the time.
No I am not suggesting that wars are fought "just" to keep people
occupied, I am actually referring to a stratagem that was released
in a think-tank study in 1966 called "Report from Iron Mountain"
which MAY have been commissioned by DOD under Defense Secretary,
McNamara. The idea being, that war is ONE way to "stabilize
society" (a quote from the Report).
:I think it's important not to get carried away with some of these
:ideas. If you want to fight the way things are you need to be
:careful not to be "nutty".
I agree, you have to seem sane otherwise "important" people will
not take you seriously, but those are the people that really don't
matter very much in the grand scheme of things. I don't deny that
I seem "nutty" at times (but I enjoy this outlet). Also, you must
realize that, when a picture is so big, or a crime so bad (such as
Hitler and the German peoples' crimes), people just don't believe
it and thus it gives these people great "comfort" to write it all
off in their minds as - Oh, they're just "nutty." If by 'nutty"
you mean illogical or irrational, that's one thing. If by nutty
you mean the purveyor of something that is not yet understood,
confronted or before its time - that's a great compliment. Edison
was nutty. So was Hershey. So was Hubble and Newton and
especially Tesla. Many nuts' inventions, and insights, now
operate the infrastructure of your Life and most of them were NOT
lawyers or accountants - who are by definition "un-nutty" or
"credible" (yet these people are actually the nuttiest beings in
the Universe because they focus-down all of their attention into
designing and enforcing the "pipework" through which the blood of
civilization (money) flows for the most trivial amounts of time. .
. while others, such as the people studying strange attractors, or
holograms, or biological systems or even the microwave background,
are learning things about God's Creation that will command the
lives of us nuts and un-nuts in short order. Then all the
"credible" and "un-nutty" accountants and lawyers will have to
tear up their papers and start all over - to fall into absolute
and unfettered alignment with the scientists - who of course -
REALLY run the Planet.
: The way the media and a few people like Wasserman gain power is
: they think very long term. Most
: Americans don't so they get caught up in the present details.
Now I agree with you here totally. We should be thinking in 1,000
and 10,000 year units of time, a nutty idea. Every one is all
upset about the Y2K problem (Year 2000 problem) when the 2 bit
date fields in many computer applications and hard-wired
processors will cause ambiguous subroutines. Want a hint: THEY
SHOULD WORRY AS THIS IS A PLANET-STOPPING PROBLEM that the
in the mainstream media have not even gone public with VERY MUCH.
When I say, if we change the date fields to be able to accept 4
integers, we'll only be good until the year 9,999. And this will
be here before you know it - don't laugh, Dude. Again, this is
NOT thinking ahead - date fields should be completely unlimited -
also, obviously, we will not continue to use Earth's rotation
around a star as our major dating system for much longer -
especially if there is a breakthrough and we become a more
spacefaring world in the next 500 years or so or people begin
freezing their heads, in greater number, for revival in the
future. When your head has been frozen to 1.7 degrees Kelvin,
9,999 years can go by VERY quickly.
:This morality is often times anti-religious. Thus over the long
:term Christian groups will surely suffer when the MPAA gains more
Why are you so fatalistic, saying: "when the MPAA gains more
powers"? This little Reform Movement John and James have
concocted, COULD WORK, you know! After all Jesus Christ DID take
over the planet for the most part and he had no MPAA to help, only
God - who has the ENTIRE rest of the yapping Universe to deal with
Any and all rating systems are just a JOKE. I say get rid of all
of them as they only advertise to the kids what the idiot grownups
don't want them to watch - and I must add, us grownups ARE idiots
by comparison as it is a physiological fact that the kids' genetic
structure, hence their mental powers, is always becoming superior
to the previous generations' because ontogeny recapitulates
Technology MAY Save the Day
4:41 am Thursday June 4,
:You're (John Cones) probably right about Technology. The internet
:creates certain possibilities but it will not change the
:It will take time before these conglomerates really control all
:their subsidiaries but eventually they will...
The way you talk about Hollywood, and new technology probably not
making much of a difference, makes me wonder if you realize what a
relatively SMALL business the movie business and even the "Media"
business really is.
Here's how one can know with simple fundamentals: Take out your
check book and/or your credit card monthly-summary, and add up
every place you have spent money on the following:
1. Movie Tickets for theatrical releases. (16)
2. Blockbuster for home video rentals. (28)
3. Monthly cable bill. (30)
4. Purchase of a VHS tape. (12)
Now, do the same thing for the following:
1. Your home mortgage payment. (800 - 2,500)
2. Your car payment. (250 - 650)
3. Money spent for food at the grocery store. (200 - 500)
4. Money spent at restaurants. (200)
5. Money spent for phone and utility bills. (150 - 300)
6. Money spent for travel/gasoline/oil expenses. (100 - 500)
Now, compare how many of your dollars went into the MOVIE BUSINESS
in 1 - 4 of above with how many of your dollars went into ALL OR
EVEN ANY ONE of the accounts 1 - 6 in the second group.
Using the figures above, you spent $86 into the MOVIE INDUSTRY.
Depending on your age, this figure could be plus or minus 50%.
Without having to do all the math, it is easy to see that you may
very well have spent between 9 and 29 times as much on your
dwelling, i.e., the housing/banking industries;
2 and 8 times as much on your car, i.e., the automobile/banking
industries; et cetera....
My point being, the MOVIE BIZ is a very fuzzy LITTLE business with
a BIG MOUTH. That's all.
Therefore, it does not make much sense to talk about the MOVIE
BUSINESS as if it will be here longer than the Pyramids of Egypt
or as if it has transcendent power to dominate world culture
forever - remember this industry only makes movies and right now,
watching two dimensional images on a screen just happens to be
popular with the kids.
We are moving into age where other things will soon have more
impact on people than sitting on one's ass watching shadows. If
you think the computer revolution is something, wait until the bio
-revolution gets under full steam. I seriously doubt if kids will
be very interested in spending much money on movies or listening
to some "mainstream" news reporter tell them about reality when
they will be able to take an excursion into low earth orbit or
up-load a facsimile of their brains into a computer and
"experience" what it is like to think at 25,000 MHz.
IBM was once the big clod on the block - until they had their
lunch eaten by all the little clones everywhere - even though IBM
created the architecture. The IBM mainframe 360's used to run
everything and now they run nothing.
Lastly, you, or John said that somehow Hollywood finds a way to
adapt and take over and new technology won't save independents.
I'm not too sure this is true this time around. Let's assume kids
in the near future WILL still want to watch movies, one of the
reasons the Hollywood movie industry got it's corner on the market
is because of its control of distribution, sure, but also because
of its access to motion picture equipment, which has always been
expensive and not available to small or independent filmmakers.
Thus they couldn't even get up to bat. Distribution is NOT your
only problem, or even necessarily your first problem, when you
need hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to
start principle photography on almost any project.
Look how quickly Camcorders wiped out Super 8 cameras which used
to be everywhere. As equipment becomes cheaper and better,
especially post production equipment, it will give almost all
filmmakers the ability to produce motion pictures that are
technically as high in quality as any MPAA/studio distributor
product. The human eye can only resolve so much. There is a
threshold. Music has already arrived at this point whereby
signals produced in the digitally exceed the abilities of the
human ear and the noise to signal ratio is a concept that almost
does not exist anymore as it did in the analog universe.
Next, any producer knows it's a buyer's market for talent and
technical help. There are so many unemployed actors, writers and
directors, as well as musicians, composers, and computer
technicians out there it is ridiculous. Hollywood would have you
believe that IT has acquired all the talent that should be
acquired or that its stars and talent are better than the vast
pool of undiscovered talent still out there on the world stage.
This is pure horse----. Those people that are quote, stars, have
no better qualities than most human beings, once you get to KNOW a
human being. Sure they have the ability to "be themselves or
someone else" while on-camera or they have the ability to memorize
lines or they have something called "good looks" or they can
handle an audience or keep out of PR trouble -- but I maintain
that you can take almost any able person, who has a genuine desire
to become a quote star and make them a star with enough training
and publicity put behind them. When Monroe came into the offices
with her brown, uneventful-hair and her everyday-looks, no one
though anything unusual of her until she was processed by the
Hollywood machine and eventually spit out years later (the fate of
almost all quote, stars).
So A) technical equipment will be plentiful, inexpensive and
state-of-the-art; B) talent is everywhere in a buyer's market; C)
making a movie is just a process like manufacturing anything else,
so any manager can learn how to produce, i.e., general contract;
this leaves distribution/exhibition and marketing.
Since image is now being carried by digital bits instead of silver
chloride compounds, the distribution thereof is becoming simple,
instant and cheap. Thus the stranglehold the studio/distributors
have over filmmakers is starting to crumble. Even if the MPAA
studio/distributors were able to SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET, there
would still be the computer industry progressing towards cheaper,
higher resolution equipment and DVDs or some other light-weight
data storage medium which is image-compatible. As image-carrying
media become light weight, they can be more easily mailed
anywhere, i.e., distributed. And with the advent of the new
digital standard and the new wide screens that will eventually be
released, 30 million BabyBoomers at least will want to watch
movies in their home theaters (unless they are house-sick and just
want to get out). What's Hollywood going to do when I can take my
feature which is on DVD and copy it 15,000 times and sell them by
direct mail or download my movie right over the Internet to
moviegoers all over the world and bill them by credit card. What
are they going to do? Keep making movie theaters plusher or more
THX-ed with bigger screens or spend more money on TITANIC-type
sets or add more violence or sex or fast cutting? The biggest movie theater screen
in the world can and will be replaced by a simple helmet-screen.
And this image is true 3-D because your entire head is immersed in
the helmet with two eyeball-sized screens right up next to your
face and stereo sound all around. And some people will eventually
get to a point whereby they want get out of the helmet and see
real people on the screen, (or in a live theater), with real
stories - not over blown Hollywood production values all the time
with the same story and the same fight scenes. Hell the FULL
MONTY cost less than $5,000,000 to make and it earned hundreds of
millions of dollars. This will happen more and more - thus making
Hollywood's infrastructure dinosaur-like. (Funny how Hollywood
has all these dinosaur movies on their brain too!) Hell look at
the popularity of amateur porn videos - these are popular BECAUSE
OF the pure lack of production value - they are real, real people
- not over stuffed actors in a Hollywood set.
Then, as I posted before, digital effects will make it possible to
paste a star's face on your no-name actor if you need it. Special
FX will also make it possible to have casts with thousands in them
- all digital people. Half the people in TITANIC were bits in a
The bottom line is this:
We are entering an era where distribution will not be king as it
was in the past, hence the middlemen, the studio/distributors will
be out of a job and will rot.
Secondly, the means of production will be more available to more
independent filmmakers, making Hollywood the center of Nothing.
No one needs constant sunlight to expose their turn-of-the-century
negative (rated at an E.I. of 8, 12 or 32) and the rest of the
world has film industries that are quickly taking back their
places from Hollywood. Plus the Hollywood criminal moguls don't
need to be near Mexico anymore to escape with the boot-legged
cameras they stole from Edison.
Thirdly, with the various revolutions coming down the pike, kids
won't give as much of a damn about watching movies hence, unless
the studios diversify tremendously, and I mean diversify in every
way, including the ways John Cones spells out, they're dead
used-up meat on a table in 10 to 30 years.
And lastly, one of the reasons Hollywood is able to maintain any
degree of control it may have is because talent from all over the
U.S. and the rest of the world migrate to Hollywood like it is
Mecca or something. Thus you get all these incredibly talented
people stuffed together to pound on the studio doors (with their
screenplays and 8x10 glossies, etc.) and essentially wait on
tables of studio executives that could care less about them. They
are operating on the MYTH that you have to go to Hollywood to
"learn the business" or they are just going out there to get some
free sex and do drugs.
As soon as it is more widely recognized that the film offices of
many states and many cities around the country are VERY SERIOUS
about building new "Hollywoods" in their areas, (with better sex)
as well as sound stages and all the rest of the infrastructure -
why would any talent leave their home town to go to Hollywood in
particular, when Northern California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas,
North Carolina, Florida, Philadelphia, New York, Boston and
Vancouver are becoming much more happening centers and bringing a
totally new, and exciting feeling, and look to the shadows on the
(c) 1998 Joe Goldenberg
All Rights Reserved
Carlos de Abreau Sacrifices Interests of
12:14 pm Thursday June 4,
Carlos de Abreau Sacrifices Interests of Independent Filmmakers
We now have the official word from Carlos de Abreau's attorney Raymond Sutton, that
the 400 or so accumulated questions and answers, formerly posted at the Investor
Financing Q&A on the Hollywood Network web site, have been destroyed. Instead of
being willing to make that body of information relating to investor financing of
entertainment projects available to independent filmmakers around the country, by
transferring the contents electronically to our newly established Investor Financing Q&A
site at http://www.homevideo/FIRM, Carlos de Abreau, owner of the Hollywood
Network site, opted instead to simply delete those items. In his rush to comply with the
demands of the Hollywood establishment, not to associate with the likes of John Cones,
Carlos de Abreau chose to disregard the interests of independent filmmakers all across
the country, who may have benefited from that accumulated information (posted over the
past several years). This irresponsible action on the part of Carlos de Abreau ought to
raise questions in the minds of many reasonable observers of the Hollywood scene, as to
exactly what Carlos de Abreau is up to. Is he really concerned in the least about the
futures of independent filmmakers, or is he simply hell bent on promoting his own future
as a film producer to care about who's interests get harmed along the way?
Blank and Adequacy of Information
12:20 pm Thursday June 4,
Mr. Blank and the Adequacy of Our Information
It is quite humorous seeing someone hiding behind the anonymity of "Blank" telling us we
"are right about the MPAA and religion" but that we "don't have enough info." If Mr.
Blank took the time to review our FIRM site bibliography, and excerpts from many of
the books already written about the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry, he would see
that the history of the MPAA, the relationship between Jack Valenti and Lyndon
Johnson, the demise of the Production Code, Lew Wasserman's long-time leading role in
Hollywood and other topics raised by "Blank" are all covered in the titles: "What's Really
Going On In Hollywood", "How the Movie Wars Were Won" and "Politics, Movies and
the Role of Government". Those books also rely heavily on such works as Ronald
Brownstein's "The Power and the Glitter--The Hollywood-Washington Connection",
Michael Medved's "Hollywood vs. America--Popular Culture and the War on
Traditional Values", Pierce O'Donnell's "Fatal Substraction--How Hollywood Really
Does Business", Hortense Powdermaker's "Hollywood: The Dream Factory--An
Anthropologist Looks at the Movie-Makers", David Prindle's "Risky Business--The
Political Economy of Hollywood", Paul Rosenfields's "The Club Rules--Power, Money,
Sex, and Fear--How It Works in Hollywood" and others.
With respect to religion, it is important that Mr. "Blank" and others recognize that the
focus of FIRM is on all of the factors that influence the kinds of movies we see, not just
religion. In addition to religious considerations, we also think that culture, race, ethnicity,
political and regional interests and other factors all play a part in helping to determine the
kinds of movies we see, or should see. We just think that no particular group, no matter
how defined, should be allowed to dominate this important communications industry.
Hollywood Disenfranchised Beyond Christians
12:22 pm Thursday June
Hollywood's Disenfranchised Goes Far Beyond Christians
Our Mr. "Blank", like so many Hollywood apologists before him, tries so hard to falsely
characterize the FIRM approach as "nothing new". He and others do not recognize what
is new about FIRM because they are stuck in old habits of thought. For example,
"Blank" suggests that the film industry reform movement pits Christians against Jews, and
that it is primarily a religious war. That is not the view of FIRM at all. As pointed out
elsewhere on this site, our research demonstrates that at least five or six distinct
populations within our multi-cultural society have been consistently portrayed through
Hollywood movies in a negative or stereotypical manner for the last several decades.
Those groups are Latinos, Italians and Italian-Americans, Asians and Asian-Americans,
Arabs and Arab- Americans, Muslims, Whites from the American South and Christians.
In addition, only in recent years have such groups as African-Americans, women,
gays/lesbians and others been portrayed in a more positive manner in Hollywood films.
Further, FIRM has never taken the position that Hollywood is controlled by "Jews",
only that the top executive positions at the dominant major studio/distributors have been
occupied by a majority of politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European
heritage, and that their behavior is not representative of Jews generally. Thus, Mr.
"Blank's" perspective of our discussion seems to be somewhat skewed, by old
arguments, and his unwillingness to more carefully read and comprehend. Trying to tie
the founders of Hollywood to "tactics of corruption in Europe" and the development of
Facism is of no interest to FIRM. Thank you very much.
Hollywood's Ties to the Mob
12:23 pm Thursday June 4,
Mr. Blank again makes the mistaken assumption that since information is not posted, we
are not aware of it. He states that we "also miss mafia influence. Hollywood works
exactly like the mob and has long ties to the mob." There is a long history of a
relationship between the Hollywood establishment and organized crime in the U.S. That
relationship is covered in the books "Hollywood Corruption" and "Politics, Movies and
the Role of Government", "What's Really Going On In Hollywood" and "How the Movie
Wars Were Won". The topic is also touched on in such works as Ronald Brownstein's
"The Power and the Glitter--The Hollywood-Washington Connection", Michael
Medved's "Hollywood vs. America-- Popular Culture and the War on Traditional
Values", Pierce O'Donnell's "Fatal Substraction--How Hollywood Really Does
Business", Hortense Powdermaker's "Hollywood: The Dream Factory--An
Anthropologist Looks at the Movie-Makers", David Prindle's "Risky Business--The
Political Economy of Hollywood", Paul Rosenfields's "The Club Rules--Power, Money,
Sex, and Fear--How It Works in Hollywood", Robert Evans' "The Kid Stays in the
Picture", Steve Wick's "Bad Company" and others. Hollywood's relationship to
organized crime figures is a primary focus of Dan Moldea's "Dark Victory (Ronald
Reagan, MCA, and the Mob)". Additional information relating to this issue appears in
Albert Fried's "The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Gangster in America" and "All American
Mafioso-The Johnny Rosselli Story". When you have caught up on your own reading,
Mr. "Blank" why don't you just add useful information to the FIRM discussion, as
opposed to playing games of intellectual snobbery.
Limiting the Discussion to Film
12:25 pm Thursday June 4,
It is not in the interest of FIRM to expand the primary focus of this discussion to topics
relating to the media in general, causes of World War II, world government, the Federal
Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc. thus without agreeing or disagreeing with
any of those observations offered by several of our visitors, we respectfully request that
the focus of this discussion forum remain on film industry reform. Thanks.
| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |