FIRM Discussions
March 5, 2000 - August 13, 2000
Hollywood: Caught in the Net! Any Suggestions? Hollywood: Days Are Numbered
James Jaeger
10:24 pm sunday march 5, 2000As I have posted many times before over the past several years at this forum and in my books: Hollywood is on its way out, its days are numbered.
If the shocking deal between Time-Warner and AOL is not evidence of the sheer desperation Hollywood is rightfully experiencing right now, I don't know WHAT is.
Here we have a major movie conglomerate, probably the biggest on the planet earth, which has been around for many decades, being in essence, BOUGHT UP by a stronger entity, AOL, a Johnny-come- lately computer company that has only been around for about one (1) decade.
Hollywood has tried to put the spin on this that both merged and that it was a "balanced" merger, but the facts are that AOL's balance sheet was stronger than Time-Warner's. These two merged their assets for basically one reason - so that AOL can distribute Warner Bros. movies over the Internet - in other words so they can do the exact same business plan we posted on the Internet in 1996 at a password secure server at http://www.pay-per-view.com/plan.
When FOX merges with Yahoo this will be another act of desperation. Nothing of merit comes from Hollywood any more -- not even the number one game show: Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (which came from Britain).
But remember there is only one WAN (Wide Area Network) like AOL. CompuServe, the original WAN, and Prodigy, just don't have the subscriber base. So most of the other six studios will be out in the cold as far as buying other WANs with built in Internet audiences, thus maybe one or two of the major studios will survive by the year 2020 as their "services" will no longer be needed. Who needs a huge dinosaur sitting on the bridge to planetary distribution/revenue that eats filmmakers and spits out endless rejection notices?
In the MOST UNLIKELY EVENT that the major studios literally steal the Internet -- as they do with net profit participation, wall street stockholders' money, and free TV networks -- everyone and their mother will be able to distribute movies and songs directly to buyers over the Net WITH NO STEALING MIDDLEMEN DISTRIBUTORS, such as the studios.
This is good. This may finally give you Artists and Technicians a change to create art and intellectual property without so much duress, without so many insane and suppressive greedy businessmen and studio executives screwing up your peaceful, purposeful, and well-meaning existence.
THIS may also give Women and people from India a chance to make more movies and bring some PEACE to the world's entertainment culture - rather than the endless VOMIT of VIOLENCE-ORIENTED SLOP that is pumped out by the same 21 people that control Hollywood with their demented little band of 5,218 Union/Guild members all signed to the same restraint-of-trade union agreement and stealing gross proceeds of distribution with the same little ragged production-distribution agreement they have been using for 90 years.
And, if you are a computer technician, don't sell out to this fungus. Don't give your services to these large corporations and conglomerates what will just use you to maintain the status quo, to cripple others in your echelon, and eventually, spit you out too, after you have been ringed dry, and there is not another sequel in your brainwashed and artistically-dead soul.
Revolt. Don't give them another a brain cell to screw you with in the end. Get employed by them, sure. Get them helplessly dependent on you, sure. . . but then quit when they need you the most. Let their systems crash. Let their 60,000,000 digital movies burn and lock up with out your expertise. Don't let them sign you to any contracts. YOU are the one in demand. YOU are the Techie or Filmmaker that has the blood and guts, which they need to suck. You are running the world now JOE TECHIE ... not the business men, not that stupid studio executive that just got his position through nepotism... you are. Wise up!
The Internet is here. It is a new distribution paradigm. There is no need for studios and record companies to any longer squeeze all the juice out of artists, musicians and technicians so that studio CEOs can get paid $225,000,000 annual salaries and so that a small handful of greedy name talents can get paid other gross sums -- while everyone else starves.
To hell with the old paradigm. Hollywood is on its way out. Push it out. Push it over the cliff, like the old junk car that it is. Its days are numbered. This is day number 7,300.
James Jaeger
Filmmakers Will Be Born
James Jaeger
11:12 pm sunday march 5, 2000Even with a barrage of films being made on weekends, excellent filmmakers will emerge.
Without the suppressive little group that is currently running Hollywood, and the restraint-of-trade unions serving their studio masters rather than the very artists and technicians they were founded to protect, GREAT FILMS and FILMMAKERS will be born.
Nothing is more important to a filmmaker than being able to HAVE an audience. The Internet will PROVIDE an audience of potentially hundreds of millions of people. The studios being NOT in the MIDDLE to muck everything up and steal the show - will HELP.
I guarantee that when 1.5 - 7.1 Mbps DSL is everywhere in the next 5 to 10 years you will see distribution phenomena like never before and filmmakers WILL emerge and the studios will CRASH into obsolescence.
Hollywood's days are numbered.
James Jaeger
Area 51-- UFO Scams
James Jaeger
11:57 pm sunday march 5, 2000Fox news ran a thing on Area 51 to continue perpetuating the myth about alien visitations. No questions were answered and no conclusions were reached on the subject: AS USUAL.
It's a shame Hollywood has to be a part of this fraud, but then if people stopped believing that:
a) Extraterrestrials were visiting Earth;
b) The U.S. Government is hiding a top secret partnership with aliens;
c) Flying saucers are everywhere;
d) Aliens are abducting people to "experiment" on, and;
e) Other nonsense;
. . . if all these things stopped, fodder to base TV shows, features, specials and other media garbage would dry up. . . and so would a stream of cash flow from the sale of advertising time on free TV and other media, mostly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the MPAA studio/distributors.
In case you are not aware: No one is here. The U.S. Government is NOT and cannot hide things from ALL the scientific community - that would be impossible - especially something such as alien contact. There are no extraterrestrials, UFOs or alien space ships, and if there were, they would NOT be visible to the naked eye (they would be microscopic and nanotech in nature).
So wake up. Stop being part of Hollywood's fraud and all the endless pseudoscience that the media pumps out to make money off you.
There has been only one movie made by Hollywood that has ANY merit as far as alien visitation or influence and that movie was CONTACT, but the public has been so brainwashed by other Hollywood nonsense, it failed to recognize the excellence of this picture and how brilliant the people behind it actually were (Sagan, Zemeckis, Foster, Obst).
Go here if you need to get your head screwed back on correctly:
http://skepdic.com/tialien.html
James Jaeger
Movie Luck
James Jaeger
3:29 am thursday march 9, 2000My sister-in-law, Cheryl, decided to try her hand at acting and she landed a starring role in a Learning Channel show on forensic science. I just saw it tonight and it was great.
Cheryl didn't tell anyone when it was being aired (over a year ago) and she didn't show anyone in the family the tape until just tonight. Her acting was good enough to get more work, perhaps even a small part in a feature.
Here's an example which shows that people who could care less about the movie business pull in all the luck and those that dedicate their entire lives in serious pursuit often get ignored or spit out by Hollywood.
James Jaeger
RE: Cones & Friends
David
2:41 pm saturday march 11, 2000Cones, you are absolutely right. People who criticize the business practices of select Hollywood power brokers who just happen to be Jewish are not necessarily anti-semitic. They're just frustrated assholes, much like yourself I'll wager.
RE: Cones & Friends
John Cones
0:16 am monday march 13, 2000David:
Thanks for the first part of your statment. The 2nd part, I'll just ignore. Have a nice day.
John
Hollywood: Caught in the Net! Any Suggestions? Comments from Roger Ebert
| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
James Jaeger
7:08 am friday march 17, 2000In his recent article entitled "Sites, Camera, Action!," Roger Ebert says that "Hollywood and the Internet are on a collision course... Hollywood today operates like the State Department a century ago...the executive who wastes hours every day in face- to-face meetings will still be ordering his Egg Beaters omlet when the next generation green-lights the projct he's considering... the day is coming when top Hollywood executives will spend most of their productive day online..there will be blood in the streets of Hollywood before it's over." "Hollywood will no longer be a place but simply an organizing principle."
If you have been visiting the FIRM site for the past several years, statements like these should sound pretty familiar by now.
Roger's entire article can be found here or starting on page 98 of the April 2000 edition of YAHOO Internet Life magazine.
James Jaeger
Movies Influence on Reality
James Jaeger
9:47 am friday march 17, 2000When I was younger, my grandfather used to invite me down to the operating room at Jefferson to watch as he cut open a person's skull and worked on their brain.
I remember looking at one once and wondering how that mass of meat and blood could think. Could it? Did it? In many ways, I still don't know the answer.
Brian DePalma's dad worked in an operating room down the hall and was a good friend of my grandfathers. I often wondered how this stuff influenced HIM, if exposure to blood and guts accounted for some of the themes in his movies.
When one considers how reality influences filmmakers and how film influences reality, it becomes a simple leap to realize that artists and technicians hold in their hands the postulates for the future of earth.
Thus, for filmmakers and movie companies to continuously make movies that are just "commercial" is a total waste and a bastardization of not only culture, but of the entire future of the world.
A movie like MISSION TO MARS, whether you liked every element in it or not, was a good application of cinema, and I applaud Brian for the job he did making it. Films such as this, showing how difficult space travel is, yet how emotional and physical problems CAN be over come, are what I have always hoped movies would do more of. Movies need to lead and inspire people - not cater to their wallets. Movies like M2M can help inspire people to eat less pizza and walk on more Mars.
In your gut, you KNOW we are going to be space-faring some day. Why not start now and save time over all the anguish? You know we MUST some day confront spending the $50 billion to go to Mars with live missions because if we can't send humans to Mars, we will never be able to send them anyplace else in the universe - and THIS future is not in the cards.
Movies like M2M can make space, and all exploration, more tangible. This is a valid use of art, NOT the purpose of making money.
In a real sense all 6 billion of us on this planet are engaged in a covert spiritual war. Some percent (the DownLookers) consider this life is all there is or all they will ever get to know and others (the UpLookers) consider that there is more to them than what is under their skull bone and the entire universe (or universes) is waiting to demonstrate.
Movies should be used to resolve these considerations.
The UpLookers make movies, products and deliver service that has as its primary motivation the improvement and freedom of the Human race and all other species on, or off, the planet.
The DownLookers make movies, products and deliver service that have as their primary motivation the exploitation of resources, disrespect for what works and socialist control of the Human race, with harm of all other species a real possibility.
You can see this in the quality of products made today. Too many people go through their daily lives just trying to make a buck or get rich, do an IPO or something. Pride of the doing has been preempted by making money. College students are even taught that the purpose of business is to "turn a profit" rather than "create a great product."
This disease has leaked into the movie business as well and is dangerous because a movie has much more influence than a pair of shoes or an audited financial.
To allow an industry (such as Hollywood), that holds so much responsibility for the possible out comes of reality to be either discriminatory (by being controlled by a narrowly defined group) or money-motivated (by constantly selling violence-oriented product), is to doom your future.
The movie industry and the media have done some great things to promote change and freedom - don't get me wrong - I am not all negative about it. . .
. . . but more needs to happen, because we STILL ain't on Mars yet. Electricity is STILL not free. There is STILL bigotry in the world. The central banks (like the FED) are STILL diluting your money. Animals STILL do not have proper rights. Children are STILL dramatizing the negative characteristics of adults who are STILL being abused by an archaic penal system. Governments are STILL mass-murdering people and calling it "war" or "capital punishment." Cars, homes, clothes, food (everything but electronics), are STILL not going down in price (even though we have had thousands of years to perfect the economies of their production). More and more of your money is STILL being spent by congressmen, rather than you. There are STILL too many signs all over the roads. People are STILL getting drunk and taking too many prescription drugs because too many STILL can't confront sexuality. We have STILL not built a Hilton on the Moon. Our fossil fuel-dependent transportation is STILL killing the environment. There's STILL a hole above the planet. We STILL have no global meteor defense system in place. People around the world are STILL getting sick and starving while others are STILL buying padparadschah sapphires.
Think about this the next time you make a movie.
James Jaeger
Hypocritical Hollywood Apologist Bigots?
James Jaeger
9:24 am sunday march 19, 2000Check out the two below quotes and tell me how they materially differ: "During the first half of the century, the American elite was a distinct, quasi-hereditary group whose members were all men, all white and almost all Protestant (quite often Episcopalian). They lived mainly along the Eastern Seaboard. . .they were English or Scottish-Irish in stock." - Nicholas Lemann, Time Magazine Vol 155 No. 7 (February 21, 2000) article in special section entitled: Who Will be the Next Elite?
"My studies demonstrate further that the most honest, accurate and fair description of the relevant characteristics and backgrounds of the members of (the) Hollywood control group is that. . . some 60 to 80 percent of these individuals who had greenlight authority over Hollywood films actually shared a common background. . .that shared background could most accurately be described as politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage." - John Cones, How the Movie Wars were Won, published by Rivas Canyon Press (April 15, 1997), available at Amazon.com.
Those Jewish (and non-Jewish) Hollywood apologists (mostly from the Newsgroup misc.writing.screenplays) that have taken issue at the FIRM site in connection with John Cone's description of the elite which controls Hollywood, should ALSO take issue with Jewish-helmed Time magazine's gall in describing the elite which controls America - that is, given they are not hypocrites or bigots themselves.
James Jaeger
The Truth About Hollywood
Mark Curran
1:39 pm wednesday march 29, 2000Dear Mr. Cones,
The power structure does routinely practice unfair and discriminatory practices and biases against other ethnic groups, but the biggest group they exclude from any consideration is the very group of people they claim to want to help: New talent.
As someone who has spent the last fifteen years working inside and outside the system trying to get projects made, I've seen the center of the cyclone, and the view isn't pretty. My heart has been sickened many times by the horrors of the Hollywood power structure, the inhumane ways people treat one another to achieve, and the cruelty of blind ambition. I would advise anyone considering a career in Hollywood to see the movie "Swimming With Sharks," starring Kevin Spacey. It masquerades as parody but I can assure you, it is more realistic than most will ever know.
One of the biggest myths about Hollywood is that it is looking for fresh ideas and new blood to bring refreshing and interesting stories to the screen. This notion is proven to be inaccurate again and again, as those in power in greenlighting films continuously reject the ideas of new, unproven talent in lieu of accepting projects from "established" entities whom they have developed self-serving "relationships" with.
The control that a handful of powerful men possess in shaping what 90% of the public will see and hear as entertainment is frightening. It is also true that the majority of those who comprise the power structure of Hollywood belong to one demographic group, and this handful of power brokers are predominantly upper class Jewish men.
Any writer that tries to get his ideas or scripts through the iron curtain is treated with contempt or disregard, sent in an endless circle jerk of protocol that includes sending letters to agents that refuse to open their doors, and taking courses on writing that will never tell them the real truth about making it in Hollywood.
The real truth is that it isn't the best ideas and the best talent that rise to the top, rather it is those who have established close relationships to the brokers in the power game that will reap the rewards. This is why the best ideas and writers are summarily rejected and denied access, while mediocre and terrible writers are able to get their scripts made into movies and released.
This is also why there are so many bad movies and television shows, and also why it takes an independent to make a film that is worthy of seeing.
The notion that it is established stars, directors, writers, or producers that make a hit movie has been disproven many thousands of times, so why does this notion still persist?
The answer is, it isn't new talent that Hollywood wants, but rather they wish to only continue to hire people who will maintain the status quo. (A corrupt New York Police department did not welcome Serpico to the team. He was idealistic, moral, fair, and unique, but he would not play the money game. Serpico's fate is not unlike the young upstart's if he persists)
The power structure has crafted an impenetrable fortress of agents, assistants, and legal jargon that prevents anyone without the proper key, access to the decision makers that greenlight projects. At the heart of the motivation for such a structure is Money, Power, and Sex. Sound like a Jackie Collins novel? It is so true, it's sad.
I came to town an idealistic young writer with fresh ideas and a lot of talent, hell-bent on changing the world with my movies. What I slowly and painfully discovered over fifteen years would make a movie in itelf, and the story would be an ironic tragedy.
I discovered that a small but mighty group of Hollywood power-brokers make all of the decisions to finance, produce, and distribute most of the movies and television shows that are seen by the public.
This power structure started with (and has continued to control) the music business as well , with only a few mega-distributors in operation that tightly control everything from signing new groups to controlling most of the radio stations which play the music.
It is no wonder why the internet scares the hell out of these people, for it is truly an effective and grass roots method for artists to control their own distribution!
So strong is their fear that the brokers have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying Congress for tighter controls of the internet. (The money always wins out in the end, and the power-brokers and the large entertainment corporations will likely control the internet.)
But let me get back to the subject.
Projects that are greenlighted in Hollywood are packaged in such a way that only a handful of established players reap the bounty of the power structure. Traditionally, lawyers work with agents to place packages of Star, Director, Writer and Producer into the production process, procure financing, and every step of the process from the idea to placing the highest bid on buying the Oscar is handled by this small group of Jewish businessmen.
They do not want ambitious young upstarts (read, Gentiles without credits) interfering with what has worked so well to line their pockets and keep their progeny in the cream. "Keeping it in the family" has been a long and time honored Hollywood tradition that persists to this day.
The greatly inflated budgets are also a blatant indication that there are moneys being pocketed in the many millions of dollars that are never placed on the screen. Where are all these millions going? It isn't going into the wardrobe department, my friend.
There are exceptions, and sometimes lucky beginners with no connections can break into the system, but it is usually through the independent film festival door. Whenever this occurs, the press has a feeding frenzy and studio heads run this example up the flagpole to point out how possible it is to break in if one only has a good enough idea. But these exceptions are precious and few, and serves to lead many hopefuls down a path lined with ravening wolves.
The notion that with the right idea, the right script, that the goldmine is theirs is the myth that needs debunked.
I contend the system is corrupt. It is so deeply entrenched and so well protected that few are able to infiltrate it, and any newcomer who tries to get his foot in the door will walk away with a very swollen foot.
New methods of independent financing and distribution are needed, and the old guard of lawyers and accountants must be removed from office if there is ever to be a fair system of moviemaking that is free from greed and power.
Hopefully the internet will give independents a head start before the money boys step in and regulate what we see and hear, and slip back behind the curtain to pull the levers unseen once again.
Mark W. Curran
Los Angeles
March 2000
Open Letter to Priceline.com
James Jaeger
6:51 pm saturday april 1, 2000You look like you have a good service but PLEASE stop using a cultural icon, William Shatner, as your sales person. Don't you have ANY respect for who he is and how valuable the STAR TREK series is from a philosophical point of view?
I know so many people that are Trekies that would NEVER use PRICELINE.COM because of your wanton bastardization of Shatner for a mundane, and amaturish, set of commercials.
PLEASE stop! Give Mr. Shatner a million dollars severance, a sincere apology and for God's sake, employ someone else to push your stuff. There is more to life than just eating and making money.
James Jaeger
Blood-Sucking Studio/Distributors
James Jaeger
10:49 pm saturday april 1, 2000Skip Press:
Hey, you're blindly defending Hollywood, as if there is nothing wrong with it. How about the terms in distribution agreements? Have you read any or have you read any books on how the studios account? They don't even use GAAP standards.
What about the catch-22 unions? Do you defend this too? Is it okay that the studio and union basic agreements are drafted as they are with the requirements as they are?
Is creative accounting okay too? Is it okay with you that private investors do not like making film investments? If you have ever tried to raise 6 or 7 figure financing you would know this to be true. And I don't know an independent producer in the field that does not concur. My phone rings constantly with their calls and the story is always the same. I suppose it's all okay with you that the large studios and distributors have muddied the financial waters with the above business practices making it difficult to fund movie projects?
You are so unreal it blows my mind. You just have no idea what investors think of Hollywood and why. And you defend all this when you defend the current MO of Hollywood studios. When was the last time you saw a Silver Screen Partnership? Ever wonder why these are gone? It's because investors in the private capital markets are tired of Hollywood's antics.
They and many others, are also tired of the violence-oriented stuff that is pumped out by basically the same circle of unionized personnel just to make a buck in the foreign territories.
I suppose you agree with all this. I have never heard one intelligent comment or suggestion for improvement come out of you (or most of the people at the misc.writing.screenplays newsgroup). All you can do is obfuscate serious issues by accusing me or John Cones of being anti-Semitic just because John lists Jewish heritage as one of the major recurring attributes of the Hollywood control group. Time magazine did the exact same thing in their article about Episcopalians yet I don't hear you yapping about them. I posted this article (entitled "Hypocritical Hollywood Apologist Bigots?") several times, after it had disappeared off the server.
You're just a blind apologist defending an industry that you know needs some improvement in various areas. Hollywood's on its way out and so are you. Filmmakers and investors are going to get what they finally deserve, a brand-new, profitable, global distribution system without the blood-sucking studio/distributors (which you defend) in the middle of the cash flow.
James Jaeger
The DeCSS Threat
James Jaeger
2:10 am thursday april 13, 2000Jim,
Question: The jobs of those of us in the creative world are threatened by free access to our work since the sale of our work is what pays us. How do you suggest we protect our work?
Answer: Yes this IS a serious issue. And I in NO WAY condone anyone stealing, or making it easier for anyone to steal from all of us filmmakers' hard-won and hand-crafted products.
But you have to look at the other side of the coin too, many producers and profit participants claim that the studio/distributors are ALREADY stealing from all us Independent film-folk to a greater or lesser degree, otherwise there would not be so many investors in our ears yapping about it all the time. So in a sense, you could look at it like these Hackers represent forces in the universe STEALING back from the STUDIOS who have been stealing from the private investors/producers and filmmakers for years. Since the Independents already make no money due to the stealing, this, ironically, simply places the major studios in the SAME, or a similar, boat, i.e., making no money due to theft.
So how do we protect our work? The salient question still remains. I don't know for sure how this will play out. It seems to me that if the DVD code has been compromised, this simply means that people can make infinite copies of movies: the exact same way they already can do with music and computer programs. But somehow THESE other two industries are managing to survive. Aren't they? MOST people ARE honest and DO pay for their software: especially if a) they LIKE the product and b) they do not HATE the supplier. So it seems that the answer to the question of how protect ones work MAY be in the direction of a) doing good work, b) putting it out at a fair and reasonable price and c) not being hated by anyone.
So, since this probably counts the studio/distributors OUT on counts a, b AND c, this leaves the Independents to fill the void. Thus, this COULD be a blessing in disguise. Since there are 200,000 people born on the planet earth each day, this means that there are also 200,000 people getting old enough to watch movies each day. Therefore if you can sell a 50 cent movie download to 10% of them every day for six months, that's $1,800,000. Deduct a fair 25% internet distribution/exhibition fee and that leaves film rental revenues of $1,350,000. If the feature film cost $500,000 to produce, what's wrong with a before tax net of $850,000?
Think of the numbers if you get more than 10% buying every day, or if you sell the film for five years rather than just six months, or you make the movie for just $30,000 or you get to collect $1.50 instead of 50 cents? No matter how you add it up -- if you don't have the studio/distributors, OR ANYONE, in the middle sucking up the cash flow, or stealing, there will be more money for the investors/producers AND the moviegoer can be charged MUCH less than the current blockbuster-type rip-off price of $3.85 per movie or the theatrical rip-off price of $7.50 or the DVD rip-off price of $20 to buy a better, more original movie (i.e., a movie NOT made by the same 5,286 catch-22 union people in Hollywood).
I don't see that people will HACK and STEAL when they are getting good product, cheaply and don't hate the studio or distributors who supply it. Thus the answer to your question, how do we protect our work? may be in the faith you have in God or the universe to be just, the basic goodness of people and that things will come out right - AND that evil will get punished sooner or later (i.e., the studio/distributors will crumble to dust).
Again, this is a serious question, because even the studio/distributors DO NOT deserve to be stolen from or HACKED as two wrongs do NOT make a right and they work hard to create their product and pay their people and deserve reward, especially if they are changing for the better, and some of them seem to be doing just this.
Thus, other than the above ironies, and the above leveling of the digital playing field, this is really and unanswered question. Plus there are many other factors involved: such as the alligation that the studio/distributors are trying to build code into the DVD standard that would inhibit movie watchers from fast-forwarding or making personal backup copies of their movies.
James Jaeger
Why Investors Hate Movie Deals
James Jaeger
5:47 am tuesday april 18, 2000Features cost generally more to produce than most other art- forms.
To the degree private investors that put up the money for their production do NOT feel comfortable with the system of recoupment that they must rely on (because of the monopolization of the means of distribution by basically seven ologopolistic entities) -- these people DO NOT invest their money. Can that be any more simple? Thus there is a paucity of production capital in the independent movie world. This means that over 2/3rds of all annually-produced feature productions (i.e., 370 out of 550) are funded at VERY modest production budgets. Why? Because investors do not want to place at risk larger sums of their capital.
Usually, the less money a product costs to manufacture the more quickly it will recoup its costs of manufacturing. Since nothing much happens until a screenplay is written by a writer (such as the hacks that hang out at misc.writing screenplays :), the screenplay, writers' fees and development costs are some of the VERY first things that an investor, who funds a movie budget, PAYS FOR. If that investor keeps paying your WRITING FEES, funds the movie for your CREW FEES and then keeps getting screwed because the movie does not recoup, let alone go into profits, because of all of the carefully explicated reasons in this book: The Feature Film Distribution Deal, then it is only a matter of time before that investor says: "Screw the movie business - it's too damn risky."
And in fact this is what 95% of all private and public investors HAVE said. Thus, all of the film projects you desire to make independently will be funded by only 5% of the planet's investors, IF that. And don't think that the studio/distributors don't love this state of affairs, with its side effect of automatically reduced competition for playdates for these folks monopolize the largest distribution channels making only 1/3rd of the movies yet preempting 90% of the gross proceeds of distribution. In other words, this cabal makes sure the films they have funded from their cash flow (and off-shore bank connections), recoup and go into profits and they squeeze out all the other independent films - thus effectively screwing the private capital investors and forcing independent producers (as well as their writers, staff and crews) to work on starvation or miniscule budgets routinely. (See http://www.homevideo.net/mid/paradigm.htm )
If you don't think this effects you and your career - you have no sense of reality. And if you can't se how this relates to the major studios and the discriminatory Hollywood system, you simply have no sense of causality (and thus should definitely NOT attempt writing screenplays or editing movies).
James Jaeger
Comment on Jack Valenti Speech
James Jaeger
4:31 pm wednesday may 17, 2000October 28, 1999
WIPO ONE YEAR LATER: ASSESSING CONSUMER ACCESS TO DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT ON THE INTERNET AND OTHER MEDIA (Source of article http://www.mpaa.org/jack/)
Statements of Jack Valenti before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives
Jack Valenti said:
I appreciate this opportunity to present the Motion Picture Association of America's views on assessing consumer access to digital entertainment and the threat of Internet piracy. This is an opportune time to assess the vast possibilities, and the dangers, of digital delivery of motion pictures and other audio-visual works on the one-year anniversary of the enactment of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (the DMCA).
I. THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE THREAT
Motion pictures are about entertainment, romance, adventure, excitement, drama, comedy, and mystery -
James Jaeger said:
>>> And motion pictures are about the ability to influence vast numbers of people politically as well as influence the attitudes and thinking of people about all kinds of subjects, including violence, sex, religion, language, etc. (See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/excerpts.htm)
intangibles that no one can put a value on except the people who watch films and the people who create them.
>>> and the people that are indirectly effected by their influence. Motion pictures are also intellectual property. The Internet and other electronic commerce media create tremendous opportunities for MPAA member companies' to market their intellectual property. The Internet also provides vast new viewing opportunities for consumers.
Motion pictures are affordably priced so that everyone can see a picture.
>>> $8 for a theatrical ticket and almost $4 for a video rental is NOT affordable to many. Also, ticket prices are influenced significantly by the huge salaries being paid to studio executives, agents, stars and directors.
Affordable pricing is possible because of the multiple markets in which the producers can amortize the cost of production, including theaters, DVDs, home video, pay TV, free TV, etc. -- and now, the Internet. If these markets are destroyed because films are placed illegally on the Internet or transmitted electronically without adequate protection, the result will be an increase in price,
>>> Why should the price increase? All the other avenues of distribution will still be open to the MPAA. This sounds like an arbitrary.
a degradation in production values
>>> Why should the production vales degrade? Will the MPAA be forced to ask its member companies to purposely put out degraded release prints and cassettes and DVDs?
and a reduction in viewing options for consumers.
>>> This might be the only legitimate effect.
When piracy flourishes, commerce shrivels. Over the years, MPAA and its members have, to our chagrin, become intimately familiar with trends and developments in the field of copyright piracy. Today, piracy of audio-visual products - movies, videos, television programs - is a $2 billion a year worldwide problem, and growing.
>>> Mostly for the MPAA because they preempt at least this amount of cash flow from Independents with their business practices. (See http://www.homevideo.net/coneslaw/ffddbro.htm)
We at MPAA are fighting it with hundreds of investigators, technicians and lawyers, at a cost of millions of dollars, in almost 80 countries around the world. In addition, our companies individually invest millions of dollars to counter this threat.
Copyright piracy on the Internet threatens to cause enormous damage to our industry, and to other intellectual property industries. If we are not successful in combating the Internet piracy threat, we could soon be faced with losses that dwarf the dollar amounts we lose today. For 1995, estimated annual losses due to foreign piracy of U.S. copyrighted works in 97 foreign countries was $14.6 billion. Estimated annual losses worldwide are approximately $18-$20 billion.
>>> So if the loss is billions of dollars, why are you just investing "millions of dollars to counter this threat." Seems to me that you are losing billions AND spending millions as well as double loss for your stockholders. Maybe it is in the better interests of your stockholders to stay away from the Net and continue exploiting your other distribution media, media you have gained an effective monopoly over to the expense of independent producers and their investors.
Without the proper legal and enforcement infrastructure, Internet piracy will engulf the world's creative community.
>>> I don't think so. MOST of the "world's creative community" is regularly rejected by MPAA companies due to the Catch-22 Unions they are signatory to (and which you apparently condone) and due to the discriminating practices of the Hollywood control group. (See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm)
We must attack this problem on a number of fronts. Technological measures to combat piracy are essential. Unfortunately they cannot solve the entire problem. Strong legal protection must be adopted and, more importantly, vigorously enforced worldwide if sufficient intellectual property incentives for creative effort are to be preserved. Last year, Congress took a major step in protecting intellectual property on the Internet when it passed the DMCA.
The remainder of my testimony today is divided into three parts: first, defining Internet audiovisual piracy; second, describing MPAA's enforcement activities on the Internet since the enactment of the DMCA and third, explaining how the MPAA has been working with the high-tech community and the consumer electronics industry to implement workable technological solutions for preventing illegal piracy.
II. DEFINING INTERNET AUDIO-VISUAL PIRACY
Internet piracy of audio-visual works comes in two varieties: "hard goods" and downloadable media. "Hard goods" are physical media such as videocassettes, DVDs, and video compact discs (VCDs). The Internet provides a worldwide marketing tool for such media by bringing pirate products to a broader potential audience than ever before and making piracy harder to detect. Pirates who peddle hard goods advertise on Websites, through spam e-mails, and Internet auction sites. MPAA uses traditional enforcement methods to staunch this flow of piracy.
>>> I have never once in 35 years, been approached by any "pirate," by spam or by regular mail. Many of the people who steal movies are poor people that cannot pay the above mentioned high prices and perhaps independent artists that resent the effective monopoly the MPAA companies hold over the distribution and financing of entertainment.
The other form of Internet piracy is downloadable media. This form of piracy poses a much greater threat to the creative community.
>>> No just to the MPAA company's over-paid top executives and a HANDFULL of over-paid talent. Everyone else in the movie business is ALREADY starving, thanks to the MPAA and their predatory and discriminating business practices.
An Internet pirate can load a single copy of a motion picture onto a computer, acting as a "server," and make it available for others to copy onto their own computers at remote locations. This is the same as illegal software downloads or illegal MP3 audio files. Currently, the motion picture industry is protected by two factors- the amount of bytes needed for a full-length motion picture and the lack of unprotected digital copies of our works. A full-length motion picture includes more zeroes and ones than almost any other type of digital product - more than a song or most software. In addition, there are not billions of copies of audiovisual works in digital forms that are not protected by technological measures, such as the DVD CSS scheme.
>>> Which was recently hacked. something I do not condone.
With the increased availability of broadband Internet access allowing for faster downloads and the companion development of higher and better levels of compression, the motion picture industry is rapidly approaching the Internet piracy problem already faced by the software, video game and music industries. Likewise, with the advent of digital recording devices and high-definition televisions, some of our member companies' works are at risk of being digitally reproduced without their permission in commercially valuable forms. Our ramparts are being breached on all sides.
Downloadable media piracy has the following unique characteristics that threaten the foundations of the motion picture industry:
1. A single pirate with a single copy of a film can allow thousands of copies to be downloaded in a matter of hours. These copies can be "mirrored" at sites all over the world, making even more copies possible. Thus, with a single keystroke, a pirate can do millions of dollars worth of damage to the potential market for a motion picture, whether or not the pirate makes a nickel from this effort.
>>> As I stated five years ago in our business plan would be the situation. http://www.mecfilms.com/plan
2. The equipment required to be an Internet pirate is widely available and costs far less than for other forms of piracy. It is also highly portable, making piracy more difficult to detect. Pirates do not need to remain in a fixed location but can upload illegal materials anywhere in the world on any computer that is linked to a network.
3. Consumers may obtain pirate products in the privacy of their own homes, rather than in the public marketplace, making it easier for the product to get to the consumer and making detection of transactions even more difficult. Moreover, this decreases the social stigma of obtaining illegal materials on the street or in flea markets.
III. CONGRESS RESPONDS - PASSAGE OF THE DMCA AND MPAA ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
In response to the threat of Internet piracy, Congress began to act more than three years ago. In 1997, Congress passed the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act. Passage of the NET Act was an important milestone, and just this past August the Justice Department began the first successful criminal prosecution under the NET Act.
However, Congress understood that the NET Act was only one step in combating Internet piracy. On October 28, 1999, the President signed the DMCA. Enactment of the DMCA provided three significant advancements in combating illegal piracy. First, the DMCA insures "adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures" that are used by copyright holders in the exercise of their rights, as required by the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (the Treaties). Second, the DMCA provides protection to copyright management information embedded in copyrighted materials, both electronically and physically. Third, as part of the DMCA, Congress created a simplified notice and takedown procedure for online service providers (OSPs) that are hosting websites with infringing materials. Following these procedures provides OSPs a safe harbor from copyright liability.
Because the DMCA is still very new, MPAA has limited experiences in DMCA enforcement. Since DMCA enactment, MPAA has filed a number of expedited subpoenas with Internet Service Providers (ISPs), to obtain information about individuals that have posted illegal audiovisual works on their websites.
MPAA has also worked closely with other portions of the copyright community to insure continued access to the domain name WHOIS database. Access to this database is essential in combating Internet piracy.
>>> No. Access to this private database is another violation of privacy. If the MPAA does not like the risks or conditions under which their product can be marketed, let them stay out of that market. I see no reason why the MPAA companies should have ANY special technological or regulatory privileges provided to them by the government just so they can attempt to monopolize yet another market (the Internet) as they have done in all other markets. I move that the MPAA product stay off the Net.
The DMCA will not work as Congress intended unless access to WHOIS is maintained. MPAA's piracy investigators must determine which website is responsible for the illegal material. The WHOIS database is the first step in determining the ultimate Internet pirate. I want to thank the members of this Subcommittee, and the members of the full Committee, for protecting free unfettered access to the WHOIS database.
>>> I would like a list of the names of each individual on the Subcommittee and the full Committee. The WHOIS database (a.k.a. InterNIC and Network Solutions) are the most effective means of Internet censorship devised. He who has access to this database and the routers/servers connected therewith, has the power to arbitrarily CENSOR THE ENTIRE WORLD WIDE WEB (although not the other aspects of the Internet, such as SMTP email, FTP, Newsgroups, WAIS, GOFER).
IV. DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGICAL PROTECTIONS
Finally, MPAA and its member companies have been working with the high-tech and consumer electronics industries to develop workable standards for the distribution of high value content over DVD, HDTV as eventually the Internet. Technology is currently in place that permits content owners to prevent the unauthorized copying of DVD material. This has made possible a thriving new market for movies, and consumer electronics devices, and has given consumers a new, improved viewing option. Intense discussions are currently taking place on technology to provide secure digital outlets for the safe transmission of digital content within digital devices, and between devices. Much of this discussion involves licensing terms, the details of which I do not know and in any case would be inappropriate for me to air them in this forum.
I can tell you in general that content owners,
>>> Most of the content owners of motion pictures are the Independent Producers. Do they have a say? THEY actually should have the senior vote since there ARE many MORE of them. Do we not live in a democracy? Why should the MPAA companies be allowed to custom-tailor yet another market (the Internet) for their advantage in the name of "helping the creative community" which, as I pointed out above, is vastly ignored, excluded or discriminated against by MPAA companies? There are seven MPAA companies (below listed) and there are over 500 independent companies. The laws you are trying to lobby Congress to make are basically in the interest of the MPAA oligopoly - 7 companies - yet another example of special interests preempting the democratic process for their own purposes. (See http://www.mecfilms.com/moviepubs/memos/moviein.htm)
and consumer electronics companies and computer companies, are working very hard to create a digital environment that offers the security necessary to attract high value content.
>>>Again, why should the entire Net have to be technologically reconfigured just so the MPAA companies can protect their "high value content" (read, excessively high-budgeted product that must be forced on movie goers with excessive advertising campaigns) especially when same's predatory practices are instrumental in preventing independent producers from even having the ability to produce "high value content" (read, good movies at reasonable budgets).
For my part, I take no position on what content should or should not be prevented from copying, or from redistribution on the Internet.
>>> So your 'dream state of affairs' would be to set up a system of "content protection" that would be mainly (and at great expense) implemented by the MPAA companies, thus leaving the Independent's product out in the cold and subject to piracy?
That is a decision that will be made by individual content owners, their distributors, and, most of all, by consumers.
>>> Oh, sure as if the customers are going to get a say in all this!
What we are trying to create is an environment where content owners have the technological option to prevent copying and redistribution of high value content, and consumers have the option of viewing high value content in the widest possible variety of times, places and formats.
>>> Let the MPAA companies stay out of TCP/IP Internet video-on-demand.
V. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the promise of the DMCA is just beginning to be fulfilled. MPAA stands committed to working with Congress and all law enforcement agencies to implement the DMCA in a fair and just manner. MPAA and its member companies are committed to making electronic commerce work, while still protecting their investments in creating entertainment valued worldwide. Inadequacies in the protection of intellectual property in the networked environment will stifle the full potential of electronic commerce. A plague of piracy - theft of intellectual property - threatens to blight this new marketplace.
Thank you for providing me this opportunity to share these thoughts with the Subcommittee today
Jack Valenti, MPAA
>>> The distribution of movies over the Net could mean a boon for the Independents unless the MPAA companies monopolize and configure this market for their minority interests. Again, the MPAA companies already monopolize the following, domestic and foreign, distribution media:
1) Theatrical
2) Home Video
3) Cable
4) Pay-per-view
5) Free TV
6) Syndication >>>Let the Independents, who produce 2/3rds of the product yet garner only 5% - 10% of the revenues (because of the MPAA monopoly on 1 - 6 above), have at least fair access to the following distribution media:1) The Internet
>>>The Internet was not originally created for commercial purposes, thus, it is not necessary that Congress change the nature of the medium just so the MPAA companies can exploit it commercially. If the MPAA companies fear their copyrighted material will be pirated on the Internet, then stay off.
>>>Thank you for allowing me to comment upon this public statement to the U.S. Congress by Jack Valenti, representing the special interest group known as the MPAA (i.e., the Motion Picture Association of America, consisting of the following companies: Walt Disney Company, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., Universal Studios, Inc. and Warner Bros.).
>>>James Jaeger, Independent Producer/Director
re: Comment on Valenti Speech
Joe Reynolds
9:42 pm thursday may 18, 2000I called in Joe Sutton's radio talk show HEART OF HOLLYWOOD on KIEV 870 AM. His guest was UCLA entertainment law professor Sky Moore--[author of THE BIZ] he was predicting in the next 5 years subscribers will pay $20 a month and $ 2.50 per movie to download any feature film off the internet to their pc hard drive and watch it on a big screen projection tv. [hopefully front projection on your wall]
I mentioned Matrixx virtual studio and other sites and asked if it were not possible that indie filmmakers around the world could go around the distribution systems and use the internet from inception to exhibition!
His answer was that the large entities would aggregate their libraries around a couple of sites and the audience would not go to the trouble to seek out smaller independent filmmakers.
Of course we know many independents are already doing just that. Besides teaching entertainment law at UCLA, his law firm does consulting work for Paramount, so you would expect an entertainment lawyer to see it from the point of view of the establishment.
Switching subjects: to other postings and cases -- I did not become a lawyer, but in 1965 I was in the freshman class at Tulane Law School in New Orleans. Jim Garrison came to address the class. As district attorney he had been prosecuted for CRIMINAL LIBEL by a group of New Orleans judges he had accused of having "mafia" ties. It was a similar case and around the time of SULLIVAN V. NEW YORK TIMES and both cases made it very difficult for public figures to sue.
In 1958, when I was still in high school I belonged to CIVIL AIR PATROL, which happened to be run by David Ferrie. The guy Joe Pesci played in Oliver Stone's film, JFK!
Now I am an independent filmmaker in Hollywood and Jim Garrison, from the grave, is still on the right side!
That movie "rocked the vote" and probably elected Bill Clinton. The election had a lot to do with congress passing and Bush signing THE JFK RECORDS ACT OF 1992. It declassified I think over half a million pages of FBI & CIA files, which were released around 1996-1998!
Names I thought I would never know are all there on the net. J. Edgar Hoover had Marilyn Monroe's house bugged and phones tapped. Everything that happened in her house the day she died was recorded and transcribed.
The names of about 60 people, some speculation, who were on the ground in Dealey Plaza are all on the net, now. [including there autopsy photos!] Most everyone has passed away. Even JFKjr! So its all coming out. But does the generation of 2000 care?
Take heart, gentlemen! The internet is changing the world! "In your hands, more than in mine, will rest the final outcome of our journey", the man said.
Afterthought
Joe Reynolds
1:24 pm friday may 19, 2000Of, course we are also still left with the legacy of LBJ: Jack Valenti at MPAA and Bill Moyers at PBS.
re: Comment on Valenti Speech
James Jaeger
8:43 am wednesday may 31, 2000I called in Joe Sutton's radio talk show HEART OF HOLLYWOOD on KIEV 870 AM. His guest was UCLA entertainment law professor Sky Moore--[author of THE BIZ] he was predicting in the next 5 years subscribers will pay $20 a month and $ 2.50 per movie to download any feature film off the internet to their pc hard drive and watch it on a big screen projection tv. [hopefully front projection on your wall]
I mentioned Matrixx virtual studio and other sites and asked if it were not possible that indie filmmakers around the world could go around the distribution systems and use the internet from inception to exhibition!
Thanks we appreciate the exposure.
His answer was that the large entities would aggregate their libraries around a couple of sites and the audience would not go to the trouble to seek out smaller independent filmmakers.
Of course we know many independents are already doing just that. Besides teaching entertainment law at UCLA, his law firm does consulting work for Paramount, so you would expect an entertainment lawyer to see it from the point of view of the establishment.
Of course. John Cones says that many of the studios employ many of the LA law firms so it ties them up in an endless conflict of interest situation should any independent producer wish to litigate his net profit participation grievance, for instance.
Take heart, gentlemen! The internet is changing the world! "In your hands, more than in mine, will rest the final outcome of our journey", the man said.
Indeed it is.
James Jaeger
Are Christians Portrayed Negatively in Movies? Christians in Movies
John Cones
10:57 am tuesday june 13, 2000In answer to the posted question, yes, since the mid-60s, Hollywood movies (certainly those produced and/or released by the major studio/distributors) have consistently portrayed Christians in a negative or stereotypical manner. This is especially true of Catholics and Catholic priests, along with Southern Baptists and their ministers. It also includes tele- evangelists. I really cannot think of anything more offensive than the fact that the top executives controlling a powerful communications medium (whose religious backgrounds are generally not Christian)would use that medium of feature film to negatively or stereotypically portray persons of a religious faith or background other than their own. That is the worst form of propaganda, and the American public is repeatedly being misled by film industry leaders into believing that movies are merely entertainment. People need to recognize that the motion picture is an important communications medium, and work to ensure that it is never again controlled by any narrowly-defined interest group, so that more diverse ideas and portrayals can be communicated through film.
John Cones
Diversity: Less of a Grind
James Jaeger
5:38 pm wednesday june 21, 2000As I said in another post, the first step in improving something is recognizing exactly what's wrong with it - not some other thing, or substituted thing. And really confronting what's wrong - not just tiptoeing all around the issues. Over the years many people have attributed Hollywood's status quo situation to an Inner Circle, a Control Group, a Club, The Club, Hollywood Insiders, Studio/Distributors, Powerful Executives, the People Who Could Green-light Movies, et cetera . . . but for fear of being lanced by the Anti-Semitic Sword, none of these researcher-writers have dared to mention, that this control group was also JEWISH (see http://www.homevide.net/FIRM/shields.htm ) even though jokingly "everybody knows" this to be true. This is like some perverted variation of "don't say, don't disavowal."
It is almost impossible to say which of the factors describing the Hollywood Control Group (i.e., WHITE, LIBERAL, NOT VERY RELIGIOUS, JEWISH, MALES of EUROPEAN HERTIAGE) is the most significant "glue" that keeps the group together, hence in power. I personally feel that it is the entire combination, probably with accent on the WHITE, MALE and EUROPEAN HERITAGE attributes.
Since the Control Group is not very religious, I don't think the JEWISH factor is the most important as there is not that religious cohesion, such as found in a mainstream religion or cult. Thus it's more likely to be heritage and common adversaries, which of course would include women, since the Control Group is predominantly male.
So I really think all these factors have to be recognized together and the disenfranchised have to realize that it's probably NOT because they are Mexican, or because they are Black or because they are Female, it's probably more because they are simply NOT a WHITE, LIBERAL JEWISH MALE THAT'S NOT VERY RELIGIONS AND OF EUROPEAN HERITAGE. In other words I do not think that the Hollywood Control Group actually goes out of its way to discriminate - they just NATURALLY do it as part of the herd instinct, out of fear or a little insecurity maybe. After all, this group HAS been treated rather badly by other groups down through the years. Haven't they? But their USING this excessively to keep themselves in power is also wrong and this is what is meant by the "anti-Semitic Sword."
I think if 1) the Hollywood Control Group eased up on their paranoia a little and welcomed the disenfranchised into their ranks a little more (in other words, they TOLLERATED OUTSIDERS GENUINLY. . . not just as tokens or quotas), AND 2) the rest of the people in Hollywood and the World started respecting Jews in general and the Hollywood Control Group for the incredible feat they have accomplished in building a significant part of the American Film Industry (when Edison was just trying to suppress others from using his camera invention) -- I don't see why the problem could not resolve in the next decade.
If this happened, the 21 top studio posts would be filled with a rich and ever-changing flow of able executives of ALL descriptions. Thus there would be true diversity in the people who had the power to green-light movies. . . thus there would be ensured a greater diversity of movies and stories coming out of Hollywood. I would think this would be fun and make the movie business less of a grind.
Those are some of my gut feelings on the subject.
James Jaeger
What's Really Going On In Hollywood!
James Jaeger
5:41 pm wednesday june 21, 2000For those of you who have been critical of FIRM and the desire to contribute to an improvement of our Industry, you might read the full text of John Cones' book, "What's Really Going On In Hollywood!" so you may better understand the background, and reasons, we are addressing these issues. http://www.homevid eo.net/FIRM/whats.htm
James Jaeger
The Cast of Characters
James Jaeger
5:49 pm wednesday june 21, 2000The ethnicity of studio execs does not matter any more than any of the other specific words in the description of the cast of characters that control Hollywood, such being: LIBERAL, NOT VERY RELIGIOUS, WHITE, JEWISH, MALES, OF EUROPEAN HERITAGE.
THIS is the demographic that has been with us for almost 90 years. It is certain Hollywood apologists that keep singling out the ONE word in the description - JEWISH. It is these apologists that are FIXATED on this ONE particular ELEMENT of the exact demographic DEFINITION and they are fixated on it because no one before John Cones had the guts to SAY it.
Everyone else uses euphemisms with descriptions like: LIBERAL, CONTROL GROUP OF HOLLYWOOD INSIDERS. No. They are almost all male. They are almost all Jewish. They are almost all of European heritage. (I might add that they might also be mostly LAWYERS - something I plan to ask John about, and IF this is the case, suggest that this TOO be added to the character description. :-)
When one does a study of the actual demographics of the studio control group, it becomes overwhelmingly evident that one of the major descriptive characteristics, the one that cannot be ignored, yet one that the Hollywood apologists want DELETED from the description, is the fact that almost everyone in there is JEWISH. What do you want us to DO? NOT SAY it? HIDE this fact? Are Jews in general, or Hollywood apologists, into hiding a few of their fellows that are culprits, who control the studios and who steal from people like Art Buchwald and Cliff Robertson? It's as if you are trying to protect the image of Jews in general, yet no one is SAYING the Jews that are in the Hollywood control group are in anyway typical of Jews in general. We are NOT saying that. Grok that. It is APOLOGISTS that are making this inference by criticizing us for simply stating the observable truth. I mean get real, check out this list of studio executives over the past 90 years and tell me how the attribute of Jewish can be ignored or deleted -
And besides that, some simply DO NOT GET the point. If the studios were run by CONSERVATIVE, RELIGIOUS, BLACK, BAPTISTS OF AFRICAN HERITAGE for 90 years, John's argument WOULD STILL STAND. Or would the apologists like the word BLACK deleted? Would they rabble rouse as much over THAT word or is it just the JEWISH word that they care about - or are intolerant of? Why don't they get up in arms about the MALE word? Do they not care that all the studios have virtually NO women running them. Do they support their little boys club? Well obviously they do, because none of them on this NG have expressed any abhorrence that there are NO women in the description. What a bunch of sexist bigots. Sheesh!!!
The point is there is NO diversity in the Hollywood CONTROL GROUP and it has been that way for almost 90 years. This leads to movies that are biased and that consistently portray large segments of our diverse population in negative or stereotypical ways. If there WERE diversity: A ONE-LINE DESCRIPTION OF THE HOLYWOOD CONTROL GROUP (10 WORDS) WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. Think about that please. . . and read John Cones' book, "What's Really Going On In Hollywood!" so you will get the full picture. The complete book is on the Net for free at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm.
James Jaeger
Guild Attitude on Racial Backgrounds
Friend of James
8:09 pm friday june 23, 2000Neither the Screen Actors' Guild, nor the Directors Guild of America hesitate (and in fact they spend a considerable amount of money periodically) analyzing the racial backgrounds of their members to determine what percentage of their relatively low paying jobs are held by African-Americans, Latinos, Asian- Americans and Native Americans. All John Cones has done is apply the same or similar analysis to the high paying jobs in the same industry, at the studio executive level. If one takes the position that it is not appropriate to conduct such a study because the facts ultimately reveal that those jobs are mostly filled by not very religious, politically liberal Jewish males of European heritage, that's tantamount to arguing that a certain class of people in our society are privileged and therefore should not be the subject of such studies. Of course, that flies in the face of the very concept upon which our society is based (i.e., that we all should be treated equally).
View From the Studio Windows
Executive Assistant
8:41 pm friday june 23, 2000The industry leans so far to the left as to give socialists/bolshevists/communists and every other American hating group orgasms in their seats. White (non-jewish) males are bad - all other groups are good - just discriminated against - by the scourge of the world, the white male. Jews are nothing but affable, kindly geniuses, always ready to help and dispense corrective info. Blacks are actually geniuses, kept down by the totally un-streetwise white man. It goes on and on., Southerners, Irish, Italians - in fact most non-jewish white males along with certain Asians and Arabs are silly, stupid, corrupt criminals - or - if intelligent, use that intelligence to take over the world, for crime, etc. , Good god, this post would go on forever. Take a look at "Nixon" - and compare it to anything on Kennedy, FDR, Truman, etc. Look at how the press handles Clinton, and he is an out and out traitor., See above., Good luck. Maybe Independence Day, with a jewish scientist and black fighter pilot saving earth. , Too numerous. We could get into the usual slew of "Holocaust" films (I hate the way the word was hijacked - and now seems only to be used in conjunction with the death camps in WWII) that come our way. Jewish characters are always (self) righteous, the cool head, the misunderstood seers of all correct. , Of course. Look at Catholics/Christians. If I were Christian, I would be outraged - as I would be if I were Moslem., Why go into this - you know the answer(s). Whether it's Bugsy Seigel falsely being given credit for "..inventing Las Vegas" or the deification of the idols of the left ... it's always the same political tilt. , See above., Italians, then Irish. Of course, the jewish mob was just as big as the Italian, but is almost never mentioned. And when the jewish mob is mentioned, it's the crap like film on Seigel (see above). The jewish mobsters tend to be shown as more cerebral, their well documented violence is never shown. (I am Irish/Italian), See above. , Hell, you should mention the many jews that complained when non-jew actors in the film portrayed jews. It was the ultimate hypocrisy, since jews play every other ethnic group under the sun in this incestuous, clannish industry., Oh please. , See above. Did you know Anton LeVay (the founder of the Church of Satan) changed his name? Original name: Anton Levy. , Please. The Star of David printed here would suffice as an answer., Didn't see it - but I did read about it. I'll refrain from the obvious., See above. , Too honest. , Sure, it's well known - I don't have the time to go into it right now. Wish I had found your site earlier. Jews do NOT want themselves presented as anything other than the kindly, liberal guy looking out for the well being of all. , Jews owned many of the ships and were entrenched in the trade. Just as they now are involved in white slavery (prostitution) in Israel - as long as the girls aren't Jewish, no problem. While not all the traders and merchants were jews (hell, black Africans sold their own into slavery) they were making real coin on this chapter of human misery. , Sure, but I stumbled on your site by accident. I'll dig up sources if you like. , No. Everyone involved is always a non-jewish white male. Because they are the epitomy of the goyim. And the object of (unadmitted) intense jealousy by many jews. , Good grief, look at the credits. Not to mention, the non-jews in the industry, many of whom are "in" because they are homosexual, or sleeping with the right person. Hell, I had a script stolen by a jewish agent (after he told me it wasn't what his agency was looing for .. the usual). Three weeks later, I pick up Variety to see that this agent has sold a script to Universal for his "client" - a black writer with no previous credits. When I got a copy from a friend at Uni - it was my story, and nowhere near as well done - but all the same incidents, etc. It's just that I wasn't a client - and I'm not politically correct. I mean, if your not jewish, the next best thing is to be a "minority". I'll give the rest of the story later., Yes. , Of course, although much worse now. Jews guard their control jealously - it gives them incredible political leverage, and control over the average American. , The jews blacklisted in the 50's were all in fact, American hating communists - and big admirers of the jews controlling the Supreme Soviet in the USSR. As late as 1970, Jews were almost 50% of the Supreme Soviet (the USSR's governing body) while being just 1% of the population. , Conservatives are blacklisted. Heterosexual white males have a hard time as actors. Non-jewish white males have a terrifically hard time trying to make it as writers, directors, etc. The few that manage to make it (without connections) could probably be counted on your hands and feet. And the jealousy is incredible. When I worked at Fox during the run of TITANIC, the snide, jealous remarks by my jewish co-workers were never ending - and all because Jim Cameron is not jewish. , Not the way it is structured now. A civil war is probably the only thing that will end the jewish grip on the industry. And the way the government is letting this country go with uncontrolled illegal immigration, anti-white preferences and such, it's coming. Don't laugh, read your history. , Jews. , Sure, just no time. , Jewish males. , Having been one the assitants for one of the BIGGEST studio heads in the industry (not at Fox) I can tell you that he openly bragged of hiring only jewish executives, his allegiance to Israel first, and his intense dislike of non-jewish whites. (I was hired on by a jewish friend of mine - and the execs almost went through the roof when this obviously non-jewish white guy showed - but I did last a few weeks until I found a better gig - one without being handed all the crap that the jewish assistants were NEVER made to do.), Of course. These jackasses are a bunch of nepostistic, hate filled hypocrites, incapable of true creativity. If you had any idea of how many ideas are stolen from non-jews (all with an air of impunity) you would be ill., Please. I am going to race through the rest of the questions, and hit one here and there. I don't have much time. E-mail me if you want any more feedback - and some answers to what must be another page of questions. I landed on this page by accident, as I was using a search engine to find another area of nepotism .... and yes, nepotism in Hollywood. , Jewish immigrants - and then a few non-jewish men from England. Jews seem to have some sort of weakness that makes them feel that any guy with a British accent is talented. Sounds silly, but it's true. , ....., >>>>>, Not many ..., They were labeled "anti- Semitic" simply because they weren't jews - or in some cases, didn't kiss jew ass, to be blunt. , Not enough time right now ...., Almost always. , Almost always. , I'll go into it when I have more time. , AH, are we talking jewish organized crime. (The so-called "Russian Mafia" has no Russians in it. They are all jews, like the guy that murdered Bill Cosby's son.), Sure. , Close to impossible. When a major studio/distributor acts like a bank, (i.e., loans production money for a film and charges interest), should they have to abide by the same or similar rules that regulate the activities of banks. I only had time to post a little. Hell, I could be blacklisted for this, I betcha.
Hollywood: the Iceberg
James Jaeger
2:21 pm tuesday june 27, 2000Reform issues are a valid discussion for here as well as the Newsgroups because the majority of the writers and filmmakers that come here will be discriminated against by the Hollywood- based U.S. film industry and they deserve to know how it happens and how they can navigate their careers around this iceberg. Certain myopic apologists that troll this site and the NGs continue attempts to ingratiate themselves with the system (more than likely because such align with the control group demographic http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm), and thus should be ignored as their "advice" and "opinions" reflect nothing but self-interest.
What is being said about Hollywood in the book, WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD! (available in its entirety on the Net for free at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm), is quite clear and substantiated and any writer or filmmaker with a level- headed determination to get to the truth will see and agree with this book and FIRM's purpose (http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM).
James Jaeger
Re: Bar the Naives
David Gwin
4:03 pm tuesday june 27, 2000Thank you for wanting my opinion. I don't really know what to say since I'm basically still on the outside looking in. I know that I am not as ignorant about the movie industry as I was when I started out seven years ago but I admit that there is still a whole nother world I have yet to experience. Just my experiences with script doctors/hacks have opened my eyes. Even though numerous doctors have told me hollywood is hungry for good scripts, their actions prove them otherwise.
For example, I feel like I have a ground breaking story with "The 9th Circle" but, yet, one doctor told me that I should trash it and write something more like "Scream 3" just because it would make more money. I wanted to vomit. I hated Scream 3 but in Hollywood's eyes it was a "good" movie because it made money. I hate to admit it but 99% of hollywood defines "good" as $$$$$ and "bad" as no$$$$$. I believe there are still some people out there who can spot talent like Mel Gibson- No one wanted to make braveheart and if it wasn't for him, I seriously doubt the Patriot would have been made.
Unfortunately, novice writers like myself cannot reach the Mel Gibsons or the Ron Howards, we have to settle for the hacks and hope we luck out. People who tell you that they "know" what will sell and what won't are the people to watch out for. Nobody knows what is going to sell and if they tell you they do, they have no idea what they're talking about. Take David Geffen when he was first starting out, -Who in their right mind would think "Little Shop of Horrors" would be a blockbuster? -Another movie that would probably not be made today which is a shame because it was highly entertaining- but too big a money risk.
I realize that hollywood is slipping into a lethargy, but there is one question I would like to ask. If you do not want to go the mainstream route (selling out to bigtime companies) then how will you get the movies made or sold. Seeing my movie on the screen is really all that matters to me. I can worry about money when I have a big enough name to do something about it.
I would like to say that Matrixx is the only company I've dealt with so far that has actually tried to do anything. And for that I would like to thank you.
David Gwin
Influence of Films
John Cones
12:35 pm monday july 17, 2000I recently watched a television ad sponsored by Philip Morris, pointing out, among other things, that the tobacco companies have agreed to stop making product placement deals for cigarettes to appear in movies. For those who still have some doubts about whether movies influence behavior, recognize the implcations of such a decision by the tobacco industry. First, the very fact that the tobacco industry formerly engaged in product placement for cigarettes in movies demonstrates that the tobacco company executives (those most informed about such matters) believed that the appearance of actors and actresses in movies smoking cigarettes would favorably impact their business (i.e., sell more cigarettes). Second, the very fact that the attorneys who settled with the tobacco companies thought it was important enough to include the cigarette product placements in their settlement agreement demonstrates that another group of informed citizens knew of the power of motion pictures on human behavior. Why then is it difficult for some to admit that movies powerful enough to influence people to engage in an activity that is clearly harmful to their own well-being, are also powerful enough to influence the thinking and behavior of all sorts of people for doing all sorts of things as seen portrayed in motion pictures, some with a favorable impact on society, but some with a negative impact on society? If movies are excessivly violent and that contributes to violence in our society, we have a right to be concerned and to seek change. Although the motion picture industry's content is protected by the first amendment, we can surely seek to ensure that all points of view get a fair opportunity to be heard/seen through this important medium of communication (i.e., that those who want to communicate more non-violent messages through film be afforded a fair opportunity to do so). The same is true with respect to the issues of prejudice and discrimination in our society. To the extent that movies offer blatant patterns of bias toward certain groups in our society, and movies influence human thinking and behavior, then, at least, we have a right to demand that the industry be reformed so as to permit more diversity at all levels, in further recognition of the fact that movies tend, to a large extent, to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers.
John Cones
James Jaeger
FATAL SUBTRACTION
5:55 pm thursday july 20, 2000I'm almost finished reading FATAL SUBTRACTION, and you know what, any of you that haven't read that book hold opinions about Hollywood, and how it operates, that may simply have no basis in reality.
But any of you who have been silently reading my posts -- and the twit "rebuttals" by a few of these green, little Hollywood apologists -- are smart enough to know that you probably NEED to read FATAL SUBTRACTION before spouting off.
So for now, forget about John Cones and his thesis that Hollywood is run by liberal, not very religious white Jewish males of European heritage, and go read FATAL SUBTRACTION (available through Amazon) just to simply find out the WHAT of what is happening rather than the WHO that is making it happen. Check out all the material Art Buchwald and Pierce O'Donnell were able to get into the public record about exactly HOW these studios (who's asses some on this NG kiss), machinate against writers, talent and private investors. Read the judge's findings for yourself -- and then tell me where I'm wrong about anything I have said about Hollywood and the need for reform. http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm
James Jaeger
Movies: NO Risky Business
James Jaeger
7:27 pm thursday july 27, 2000I just finished reading a very interesting book entitled, FATAL SUBTRACTION by Pierce O'Donnell. The book, and the litigation (Buchwald v. Paramount), may help writers and net profit participants as well as film investors . . . and hopefully it has served to encourage the studios to be more ethical in their accounting and contracts.
Turns out the "the movie industry is NOT risky." 3 out of 4 films MAKE money, not lose money! This was a major revelation of the suit and a point conceded by Paramount's attorneys. The major studios have been claiming that film production/distribution is "risky" for decades so that they were in a position to often report ZERO profits to their net profit participants. They would then "justify" such lack of profits (what amounted to fraud and theft) by claiming that the "risk" in the movie business "forced" them to cross-collateralize losses with successful films and increase their margin at the expense of net profit participants.
This is something filmmakers, producers and movie investors should know - the fact that film production is NOT inherently a high risk business - provided one does not get involved with a major studio or distributor that is using the "unconscionable contracts of adhesion" such as those Paramount - and all the major studios - were using. Again, Paramount finally conceded that the truth is that 3 out of 4 films MAKE money, and to say that 3 out of 4 LOSE money, what they, and in essence all the major studios in the oligopoly, were doing, is to misrepresent the actual situation in the name of "risk" that doesn't exist.
James Jaeger
James Jaeger
FATAL SUBTRACTION - More Info
9:40 pm friday july 28, 2000Having just completed the book FATAL SUBTRACTION by Pierce O'Donnell and Dennis McDougal, I may post some quotes and information here that writers and independent producers should be aware of. I also encourage anyone concerned about the legal history of the movie industry and where it may be headed, to purchase this book (http://www.amazon.com) even though it DID come out quite a number of years ago. Any new publications of interest, I would appreciate knowing about.
---------------------------------------------
The late Max Youngstein* (who I worked with and retained once for a project that never got produced called HIGH-TECH HIGH), was a key witness in the Buchwald v. Paramount case. Quoting from Pierce O' Donnell's book here, Max says: "They (the studios) run no risk as a company . . . all of the risks are taken by the guy who sits down and spends a year writing a screenplay. . . or the producer who spends weeks - years at times - in finding that screenplay or helping develop it."Hey does that describe any of you writers or producers on the NG misc.writing.screenplays?
Also, on page 432 of FATAL SUBTRACTION Pierce O'Donnell writes: "According to Youngstein's and Petersdorf's depositions, at least for the last decade, revenue from video, cable and pay television made it very difficult for a studio to lose money. By our reckoning, the vast majority of films made by Paramount and the other studios made money - thus demystifying the bogus 'winners must pay for losers' justification for studio profits and no net profits. . . if (one) adds in the correct overhead figures, my analysis showed even higher success ratio: three out of four films were profitable. . . and a footnote Bruce Margolius found buried in the financial section of the 1998 annual report of Paramount Communications Inc. seemed to confirm my marathon calculations. The footnote said that 94 percent of Paramount's films became profitable within three years of release."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*Max E. Youngstein was VP Distribution of Paramount from 1949 to 1950 and then General VP and Partner at United Artists from 1951 to 1962. He produced a number of features -- perhaps best known was FAIL SAFE (Walter Matthau, Henry Fonda directed by Sidney Lumet) -- and dedicated the balance of his career to consulting independent producers. I have a copy of Max's resume if anyone wants to see it . . . email me personally at jjaeger@mecfilms.com.James Jaeger
The Club Cabal
James Jaeger
10:50 pm friday july 28, 2000FATAL SUBTRACTION simply calls the people that control Hollywood "The Club" or the "studio cabal" whereas John Cones has the guts to DESCRIBE the actual demographic make up of these people who are in "The Club" as being: LIBERAL, NOT VERY RELIGIOUS, WHITE, JEWISH, MALES OF EUROPEAN HERITAGE. (See http:// www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist for research.)
I quote from Douglas McDougal, page 209 of FATAL SUBTRACTION: "A handful of greedy men with often questionable talent ran the movie business like a private emirate . . . this Hollywood executives CLUB (my emphasis) surfaced as a group from time to time: during Hollywood charity dinners, labor negotiations with the guilds, Beverly Hills bar mitzvahs, Motion Picture Association of America meetings and celebrity funerals. Most of the time, however, the studio CABAL (my emphasis) remained an informal network with one overriding credo: Don't rock the boat."
Sounds like the Hollywood apologists have "employed" that credo in order to suck up to the CABAL . . .
The Supreme Court of the United States of America even called this CLUB a CONSPIRACY (yes that word Skip Press hates) when they referred to "the genius [needed] to conceive the present conspiracy and to execute it with subtlety. . . ."
Attorney Pierce O'Donnell echoes this on page 385 of FATAL SUBTRACTION by saying that "For years, Paramount and the other studios had engaged in a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY (my emphasis) by fixing prices of theater tickets . . . the Supreme Court condemned the studios for their 'marked proclivity for unlawful conduct,' as well as "discriminating practices and predatory activities. . ."
O'Donnell and McDougal go on to say that in their observation: "Controlling over 90 percent of the distribution income, the seven major studios* -- Paramount, Warner Bros., Universal, Twentieth Century Fox, Disney, Columbia/Tri-Star and MGM/UA -- totally dominated the domestic movie market . . . If anything, the studios collective 'strategic hold on the industry' and 'marked proclivity for wrongful conduct' WAS EVEN GREATER TODAY." (my emphasis)
James Jaeger
* a.k.a. the Motion Picture Association of America (or the MPAA)
Down with F.I.R.M.
None of your busines
5:15 pm sunday july 30, 2000No one wants to hear from a bunch of ignorant, rednecks who are only concerned with circulating propaganda dealing with the wonderful success of the Jews in the entertainment industry. We deserve to be successful. If you can't deal with our success, go back to the Euro-trash slums from which you came! All of your negative spewing is surely a result of your envy-- envy of our accomplishments.
re: Down with F.I.R.M.
John Cones
7:28 pm sunday july 30, 2000Apparently when some individuals feel threatened, they try to lash out by engaging in name-calling. FIRM is all about diversity at all levels in the U.S. film industry. If members of any particular group, no matter how defined, feel that the prospect of diversity threatens their position of dominance, some are going to inevitably feel insecure. Those who have dominated the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry for some 90+ years through the use of unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive and predatory business practices do have something to fear from diversity, and in my view, diversity will prevail, all of the name-calling notwithstanding.
John Cones
No Conflicting Studies
John Cones
11:05 am tuesday august 1, 2000It is both interesting and quite revealing that throughout the entire time that this discussion relating to reform of the U.S. film industry has been ongoing, not a single one of the so- called Hollywood apologists (i.e., those who would defend the Hollywood system) have come forward and offered a study of their own, the results of which differ from the FIRM study relating to who really controls Hollywood. In other words, none of the Hollywood apologists have come forward and stated that their study shows that African-Americans, or Native Americans, or women, or Christians, or Muslims, or Mormons, or Baptists, or Asian-Americans, or Lations, or Arab-Americans, or Whites from the South, or any other group except the one already identified by the FIRM study actually controls Hollywood. And, of course, the reason for that is that no other group does control Hollywood. Those are the uncontroverted facts. What the Hollywood apologists have tried to repeatedly do is distract attention from the facts, by arguing that it is not appropriate to conduct such studies (ostensibly because the results are embarrassing to some), or that we must be prejudice because the facts are as they are, and we have the courage to report them. As noted before, movies tend to a large extent to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers, thus it is absolutely appropriate to inquire into the backgrounds of those who have the power to determine which movies will be produced and released. That's what we've done. Now it is time to set about bringing more diversity to all levels of the U.S. film industry so that we can see more diversity in what is being communicated through this powerful communications medium. Our democracy deserves no less.
John Cones
Microsoft monopoly
ME! and BTW I'M ITALIAN
1:53 pm monday august 7, 2000Hey, you guys can spend your time and money developing your own avenue like Hollywood or Microsoft has and have your own monopoly. Instead of whinning, go dominate your own field of entertainment. You don't hear "normal" people whinning that there are too many geeks in the computer field, so stop your bitching about Jews in Hollywood!
re: Microsoft monopoly
John Cones
11:09 am tuesday august 8, 2000Dear Anonymous:
In addition to not having the courage to participate in a straight forward discussion about film industry reform using your real name, you seem to be ignoring the facts. One fact is that Microsoft was found to be guilty of anti-trust law violations, and we have no desire to engage in illegal activities. The second fact is that most of the Hollywood major studios have for many years functioned like an oligopoly and also have engaged in anti-trust law violations and illegal discrimination. They have succeeded in avoiding prosecution by buying political influence at the highest levels. The third fact that you are unwilling to face is that the motion picture is an important communications medium, and that ideas communicated through movies influence the thinking and behavior of many people. Therefore, in a democracy it is extremely important that our government take steps to insure that all segments of our diverse society have a fair and equal opportunity to tell their important stories through this medium. If that does not occur our democracy is weakened. Obviously, someone did complain about Microsoft's activities, and/or the Justice Department acted on its own initiative. The Justice Department and the EEOC could also act on their own initiative to bring the Hollywood oligopoly back in line with the rest of our law-abiding civil society, but for the political interference of the White House (influenced by massive "political" contributions from MPAA PACs, along with MPAA executives and spouses). You also seem to ignore the fact that our focus has never been about who really controls Hollywood, although that fact has now been established without question as part of the research associated with the rest of the issues explored here. Our focus has always been on the wrongful behavior of those who control Hollywood and its negative impact on our diverse society. The issue of who controls Hollywood is and always has been, in our view, a side issue that has been, however, logically and reasonably discussed because movies, to a large extent, tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers. Thus, in order to explain why Hollywood movies contain the blatant patterns of bias exposed in our work, it is only logical to research the backgrounds of those who have the power to make the decisions about which films will be produced and released. On the other hand, you and some of your fellows seem to be reduced to a rather juvenile level of argument by your fear that others will eventually recognize the validity of our position and that the Hollywood insiders' advantage, gained illegitimately through the consistent use of unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti- competitive and predatory business practices will be lost.
John Cones
Some Hypocricy With Your Tea?
James Jaeger
3:08 am wednesday august 9, 2000FOX NEWS:
"Gore Picks Lieberman as Running Mate Updated Monday, August 7, 2000" "Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore asked Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman to be his running mate, and Sen. Lieberman accepted Gore's offer. The selection makes Lieberman the first Jew to run for vice president in U.S. history."
Seems to me there's a little hypocrisy going 'round in the ol' mOvie/Media Biz? To wit: it's totally NOT Okay (even "anti-Semitic") for John Cones or I to disclose to the public that Hollywood is run by liberal, not very religious white JEWISH males of European heritage, yet the full established media can blast out with 100 million megawatts that Gore's running mate is a conservative, religious white JEWISH male, and in fact make THIS some sort of an "issue" or political "curiosa" comparable with Jack Kennedy's Catholicism.Obviously religion DOES seem to matter, at least to the People in a democratic nation. (See "Hollywood's Disdain For Democracy" at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/disdain.htm )
So here's the deal: WASPS stop discriminating against BLACKS and JEWS, ETC. in government and all industries and the Hollywood control-group's JEWS stop discriminating against WASPS and BLACKS, ETC in the movie Biz. How about that?
James Jaeger
Fixed in a Formulated Phrase
James Jaeger
3:39 am wednesday august 9, 2000Although it is true that investors are finally beginning to come back to movie deals (thanks to the efforts of certain reformers and the advent of Internet distribution), over the years I have found it very difficult to operate as an independent producer, because many investors I have promoted seemed to dislike movie deals (in no small part, they told me, because many of them have been screwed by the distribution process as typified, or lead by, the studio/distributors' unconscionable contracts of adhesion -- to use some of Judge Schneider's words from the Buchwald v. Paramount case). I do not consider that this is MY failure nor do I not blame it on the "Jews" (as some have put it) because there are only a small number of people in Hollywood that have actual green-lighting power and the ability to muddy- up the private capital markets and they share this mostly with their cronies. It is true nevertheless, that the blame for the contracts of adhesion and the false image that the movie industry promotes of being "risky" (to justify cross collateralization and the MPAA studio/distributors' net profits definition) must be placed upon the policy makers who are the senior executives at these major studios. That these senior executives happen to be mostly of the demographic of LIBERAL, NOT VERY RELIGIOUS, WHITE, JEWISH MALES OF EUROPEAN HERITAGE, is not my doing -- it's just a simple fact along the way towards the public-at-large beginning to really understand WHATS REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD! (Hey, catchy name for a book!) If it were simply that I am a total incapable moron who, as Norman Wilner has said, 'tried to work as a screenwriter and a producer . . . but wasn't able to succeed at it . . . and so decided to blame it on the Jews,' then why:
a) has Hollywood rejected so many screenplays that were written by OTHER writers than myself (projects that our company hired writers for and optioned literary properties from, many writers very similar to the guys/gals on the misc.writing screenplays Newsgroup)?
b) was it that I WAS actually able to finance and execute the production of a first-time feature (which I concede sucks no worse than many first films) on one of the most modest budgets ever done in Hollywood yet this feature WAS good enough to get picked up for distribution (by an independent AFMA distributor) and do business at the three major film festivals (AFM, Cannes and MIFED) in two consecutive years? Many people have indicated that it often takes more talent to create a movie with little money than with an ample supply of financing and according to a survey done by Minolta Corp of 703 business with fewer than 500 employees, 48% of such small-business cite "Lack of Capital" as the reason they went out of business.
c) if I am so anti-Semitic, is it that a project that we spent a lot of time and money on, STALIN'S BACK ROOM, is based upon the story of a little Jewish boy?
d) is it that Lee Garmes, one of the finest and well-rounded filmmakers of all time (http://www.mecfilms.com/leebio.htm) saw some merit or ability in me when I first met him and his wife, Ruth, continues to support me personally and our company to this day?
e) is it that Matrixx is still in existence making progress since its founding in 1981? Certain Hollywood apologists, like Norman Wilner and Skip Press seem to totally measure my real or imagined success or failures upon the sole hats of producer or director or screenwriter. None of these are my paid hat at this time. My paid hat is as President & CEO of Matrixx Entertainment Corporation, a Delaware corporation with about 50 stockholders who reside in various places around the United States and abroad. It is our company that is engaged in the above and many other activities that are not necessarily apparent to most. It is my job to supervise these activities and even engage in the activity of pointing out why our competition (the MPAA studio/distributors) do not "build the better mouse trap" or provide the better employment or better investment. And yes, part of my J.O.B. is to even argue with all the Hollywood apologists out there that are perverting innocent people's understanding of WHATS REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD! (http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm and creating a problem for honest hard-working writers, talent and investors. I am only personally writing, producing, directing or editing documentaries when I have the time to get involved. I am only developing narrative dramatic screenplays on subjects that I am sincerely interested in and one or two of them I am slated to direct, if and when they are financed. Although I am involved, at an associate producer level (possibly a co-producer level should I earn the up-grade), on an $8 million feature that is in development and has a relatively major director signed, this project has already had over a million dollars spent on it's development (from private investors) and thus may or may not be able to go into production -- many of the investors are NOT very happy with business-as-usual in Hollywood and support my actions (and the action of others who are also working to remedy the various situations). This is not the only case, and it is the sum of such similar cases that I have observed over the long- term that gives me certainty about the need for reform.
Lastly, I don't consider that I, nor Matrixx Entertainment, will NOT be able to succeed (as I believe that Hollywood is a thing of the past due to many things, (See http://www.moviepubs.com/moviepubs/mpubmore.htm) among which are the Internet's ability to place the reigns of distribution and re-coupment at the hands of ALL producers and investors (not just a little Hollyweird "Club") (See http://www.mecfilms.com/paradigm.htm), and the phenomenon of peer-to-peer software such as Gnutella and Napster which has made it too risky for the MPAA studios to release their movies over the broadband Internet. Of course they will attempt to contort and control the Internet (as I addressed in my "Open Letter to Jack Valenti"-post) but I don't think that's the plan that most of the endless unemployed writers, actors, directors, producers and private capital investors have in mind. By being active in the development of Matrixx Entertainment (http://www.mecfilms.com), however slow, I am trying to demonstrate that I am NOT just interested in sitting around and bitching about the Hollywood movie industry -- but I (as is John Cones), am interested in doing the best I can to contribute towards the "building of a better mouse trap," a better industry.
James Jaeger
re: Microsoft monopoly
me again
9:13 pm thursday august 10, 2000you have WAY too much time on your hands!
The tribe
walkinman
6:10 am friday august 11, 2000Jews as a social group deserve the same scrutiny afforded a Bill Gates. Any concentration of power ultimately gets rototilled in bloody revolution if allowed to persist. The stupid "mob" finally notices when it's too late to do anything but violence, which sucks for all of us. At 2.5% of the population, Jews wield a dangerously lopsided amount of power in this country. It's just too obvious to ignore anymore and we better start an honest dialog soon before it gets out fo control. (without leaning on the tired labels of "anti-semitsim" as the only means to disarm the debate)
re: Microsoft monopoly
John Cones
6:42 pm friday august 11, 2000As you should know, it's the very busy and organized individuals who are able to get a lot done with their time.
John Cones
re: The tribe
John Cones
6:47 pm friday august 11, 2000The FIRM site is not now, nor has it ever been concerned about Jews generally. It's studies and observations are limited to the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry. Persons who feel compelled to make statements about Jews generally, should do so elsewhere, if they must. Such comments are not appropriate for this site.
John Cones
Who Has Really Won?
James Jaeger
6:46 pm saturday august 12, 2000Seven J. Weller wrote:
"Congratulations, James. You've won."
You know Steve, it's a shame you have tried to put this whole thing in such terms, as if this really has anything to do with me personally. What I, and John Cones (and a others who are brave enough to speak up) are simply trying to say is that we want EVERYBODY to win for a change -- not just the MPAA studio/distributors.
We want the Independents to win too. Over the past 22 years I have been involved in the entertainment business, I have become distressed at constantly hearing stories about Indi's struggles, their frustrations, their loss of family-closeness and their starvation . . . and so have I have decided to taken this stand - as Lee Garmes would have wanted me to - and to hell with my career if that's the ultimate outcome. THIS is more important because this is about so many. It's more important than just one career.
When an industry as pervasive as THE major MASS communications infrastructure in the world is under the almost exclusive control of ANY narrowly defined group -- as is the Hollywood based U.S. film industry -- we have a diversity problem, a problem that, in essence, acts as a huge global censor by inhibiting the rights of the disenfranchised to speak up, to make THEIR movies, to tell THEIR stories - stories that are GREENLIGHTED BY THEM - not those in the CLUB who *think* they can tell THEIR stories.
This select "CLUB" that controls the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry (let's forget the make-up of that Club, if it makes you feel more comfortable), this select Club produces 1/3 of the movies yet controls 95% of the access to the global markets and media; it engages predatory practices and prefers unconscionable contracts of adhesion (the Judge's words) for writers, producers, directors and acting talent. These contracts make it almost impossible for hard-working independent producers and their investors to recoup, let alone be rewarded for the fruits of their labor. Under these conditions I say NO ONE HAS REALLY WON EXCEPT FOR THE CLUB and their over-priced NAME "talent," name talent that contributes to the problem by knowingly preempting money from net profit participants (and even their fellow actors) by receiving cash flow from gross proceeds of distribution prior all net profit participants and then charging their fees to the pre-recoupment production budget.
My purpose is not to stir up hostilities between anyone, it's to invite you writers and independents to take a sober look at the situation, a situation that has been going on for a long time and refuse to allow it to continue. This few of you guys and gals who see fit to make this all into a Nazi Germany sideshow know you are putting up a smoke screen, as John Cones has pointed out and identified as The anti-Semitic Sword.
You want to know why people are really talking about the subjects that I, and several others, have been bringing up on this NG -- because they KNOW deep down inside that this all effects them. They KNOW it will effect their careers. The equations are simple:
- Distribution controlled by any CLUB = Inhibited distribution
- Inhibited distribution = inhibited revenues
- Inhibited revenues = Inhibited private investments
- Inhibited private investments = Anemic production budgets
- Anemic production budgets = Deferments and "Monkey" Points
- Deferments and "Monkey" Points = Little or No pay for writers, talent or indi producers
If you feel that the above topic is not worthy of discussion and you are trying to make this conversation into something else, then I would say that you are being somewhat narrow-minded, if not selfish and insensitive.
Calling me names does not erase the fact that this is a subject that is vital to writers and filmmakers. Do you want to get 20 years down the line and then realize that I was right? Think of the risks to yourself and your family if I AM correct on even half of what I'm saying. Do you want the thousands of writers and filmmakers who are entering the industry, and who may read these NGs, to be subjected to this risk without at least having both sides of the story presented to them?
"You've got the whole newsgroup buzzing about a topic that no one was particularly interested in . . . by sheer repetition and dogged persistance."
No, this IS a valid topic and I think most people are intelligent enough to see this. I don't hold it against any of you if you are antagonistic and adversarial as I believe truth CAN get hammered out this way - and I actually respect those of you who have been arguing with me because at least you probably DO CARE about your industry deep down -- even if you don't quite see what I and John Cones are talking about right now. I am confident that you will once you put down your pre-conceptions about what you THINK is being said or implyed by this. The fact still remains that few, if any, of you apologists have read the research and NONE OF YOU HAVE OFFERED ANY STUDIES OF YOUR OWN, as John points out. You are just giving this NG your heated-opinions and we are giving this NG the researched-facts.
Simple herding instinct - not real independent agreement or thinking, just back scratching and Hollywood-type networking at my expense goes on at misc.writing.screenplays and in Hollywood. . . it's hip to disagree with "Herr Jaeger"!
"[People here] have been moved to such anger that they're pissing each other off, and in the process are arguing your case for you."
They're all pissed off because they're confused if not also hung over. They KNOW what I'm saying is correct but they are confused as to why they can't seem to CONFRONT it. The reason they can't confront it is because it's too scary. It IS scary. It's no fun. Reforming things is a bitch. More fun to pop a beer and do another pay-less gig. At last you can meet some chicks maybe.
Every position (i.e., every Human being's point of view) deserves attention and respect. The fact that you would imply that my POV, or John's POV, or Filmie's POV (all Human beings I might add) do not merit debate is vanilla-flavored intolerance. Your bigotry is showing. And this is EXACTLY the same attitude the THE CLUB has when "adjudicating" which movies "merit" getting a "green-light." This is why the Hollywood control group should be more diversified.
I am interested in encouraging debate, yes. Stirring up anger, no. I am sorry if the truth about Hollywood makes some angry - but I might suggest that it is the Hollywood situation, and the dismal prospects you know you will be confronting in your careers, that you are actually angry about, not I. I am just a lowly messenger.
I would like to see the movie industry adopt a new distribution paradigm. http://www.mecfilms.com/paradigm.htm I have suggested things that could be done. I have tried to back up every statement I have ever made with a URL leading to facts, books and extensive bibliographies of other researchers. http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/resbib.htm I suggested that movies could be distributed over the Internet back in 1996 in a news interview (I was then laughed at or ignored by venture capital firms). These are my purposes - not what you accuse.
" He has very, very little to say, our jack-booted friend."
Cute Nazi reference: a covert application of the anti-Semitic Sword (See above)
"That's why he constantly repeats himself,"
I constantly repeat myself because a) there are only a certain definite and finite set of empirical facts (See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm) and b) new people are always arriving at this NG and deserve to have the information too.
"and relies on the words of others."
I rely on the facts and promulgate the words of others when I am convinced that they have it right. When I study the fine work of many different people, as I try to do, I appreciate their efforts and I try to integrate their understandings into my view of reality. Then I spend time "arguing with myself" on this view, and if it seems to make sense, objectively and subjectively, I try to share it with others. If I later discover that I am wrong about something, I don't mind correcting that in my mind. Then I like to share that TOO with others. Why not? We're all out on this little planet together. No one *really* "KNOWS" anything about existence (it's all just "theories or Gods" -- isn't it? :-)
"But every time we legitimize his rants with responses, we give him an opportunity to say it all again."
Here you go again with that holier-than-thou CLUB-attitude deciding what is "legitimate" and what is not. . . just like the studios do with their green-lighting authority. Boy have you been "groove in" by the left wing, studio-istic, pop culture!
"we've elevated his hate-filled bile into intellectual discourse. We've said, to anyone who'll listen, that we might not agree with what he's talking about, but it's certainly worth talking about."
And indeed the film careers of every person on this NG, and every person in the movie industry, deserve attention and care and anything that sheds light on the realities of what the Hollywood game out there REALLY IS -- is worthy discourse. (See WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD!)
James Jaeger
Goodbye
James Jaeger
5:17 am sunday august 13, 2000Many of you at misc.writing.screenplays and alt.movies.independent will be glad to hear this . . . perhaps some of you will not: am going on vacation and then have some things to attend to so I will probably discontinue posting to this NG, possibly until next year, around Spring. :-)
If anyone wants to ask any questions or has any constructive reform ideas you can post them over at the FIRM site. http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/archives.htm
Thanks for the lively debate. I hope you all are wildly successful in your film careers; and I mean that.
James Jaeger
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |