The answer for movies - 3-D

In an economy that sucks for everyone, how can movie studios make the most bang for their buck? That is the question plaguing Hollywood as the recession continues.

One option that has been popular is to make revisioned movies. Just take a successful film (or television show) and redo it. The name alone will draw in fans, and if you throw out the original premise you can add lots of sex scenes, explosions, and/or anything else to draw a younger audience that has no idea what the movie should be about or why it was popular originally.

This business model has brought us great films like Land of the Lost, Dukes of Hazzard, and the Halloween remakes. Yes, they all were flops to varying degrees. But because many are so cost effective there will be even more of them - Nightmare on Elm Street may well be next on that list.

Still Hollywood is not happy (of course neither are movie audiences, if that matters). They want more money. They need blockbuster films. So what do you do?

Yet another idea has ben conversion films. If it's been in a book or comic book it needs to be a movie. That's been the trend for a long time in Hollywood, but right now it's hot. So hot that all the biggest books and comic books have been used up. X-Men is done, Spiderman is used up, Iron Man is still going so far, Lord of the Rings is almost finished and Harry Potter is down to the final book. Say it isn't so.

It isn't.

The X-Men are being used to make spin-offs (so far of low quality). Spiderman is being revised as we speak to start over for a new young generation. Harry Potter is being drawn out to fill 2 films just to make a bigger payday.

Then there are the lesser ideas. The Avengers film, Thor, Green Lantern, Twillight, and a host of other 2nd rate conversions are set to flood theaters. Because a trend is only as good as the money you can pull from it.

But that still doesn't generate real money. The money that creates secure jobs in Hollywood. Which leaves the latest scam. 3-D.

Avatar has made more money than anything. Even Titanic was sunk by this blue alien hype. All because of the 3-D technique. Because it adds $3 per ticket to see. And that's a gimmick you know Hollywood can't let go. Thus the start of the latest trend is beginning. The word is that the Harry Potter films will be in 3-D too. And since that will be a success, you know there will be more. Maybe Iron Man 3-D, or Twillight 3-D. and on and on.

The thing is that none of this is real. These films are mostly doing big numbers because of the cost of tickets, not viewers. Tickets cost $9 now in many places, as opposed to less than $5 some 20 years ago. So the same number of people going to see Seargent York in 1941 ($16 million at the time) equals a collossal failure for a film like Tooth Fairy ($14 million last week) or Jennifer's Body ($16 million in 2009). Except that isn't true.

Seargent York, adjusted for inflation is worth $358 million. The 69 year old film is the 97th higest rated film ever. Because it was good.

In fact the best films, in adjusted for inflation dollars, don't include a single film since 2000 before 26th place. And that is Avatar. In other words, 25 films made without 3-D, most without any form of CGI, made significantly more money. Because they didn't need gimmicks. They were good movies.

The top 5 films are all 28 or more years old. If Hollywood wants to make big money, maybe they want to make quality films that have great storylines and solid actors? But that takes work.

So enjoy the 3-D craze that is sure to follow Avatar. Because Hollywood just wants your money.

Push: the television series

There is somethig about sci-fi on television that just makes you wonder. Occassionally you can get great shows like Farscape, Dr. Who, The Invisible Man, the original Battlestar Galactica, even The Six Million Dollar Man and Eureka fall into this category. But more often you get shows like Homeboys in Space (be happy you didn't see it), The Battlestar Galactica remake, Santuary, Demons, the V revisioned series and soon Push.

Push is the failed movie that most in the world never bothered to watch. It was a January 2009 release that can be summed up as a revisioned cross between X-Men and Firestarter. To say that it was a waste of time is to give the film credit.

But in Hollywood, where useless ideas and revisioning of anything someone else did is better than an original idea, a failed movie is exactly what television needs. Thus Push is about to become a television show.

So far there are no entertainers attached to the proposed show. Which is no surprise because I can't imagine who would need the money that badly if they are established. There is also no television network admitting they want the idea, broadcast or cable. My guess is that this will wind up on the SyFy Network, because they have proven they have no clue what good sci-fi is.

The plot is unknown but a couple of conclusions can be made. There will be omnipresent bad guys who are Government agents. There will be a young guy and woman that are being chased by the agents. There will be a huge world of pther people that are equally hiding from agents, mostly criminals, that will want to use the guy and woman as much as the agents do. At the end of each episode the duo will escape and continue to evade everyone, ala Bill Bixby at the end of every episode of The Hulk (the 70's television show which wasn't bad for the time).

Most likely the summation I just made will be more exciting and far easier to understand than the show will be. Because if you start with an inferior base, and then strip out the better qualities, you really get junk unworthy of anything put mindless goo. Which is not what sci-fi is about.

Could I be wrong about Push the television series? Sure, just as I was wrong about Demons (I hoped it would be new and different, but it turned out to be a rehash of Buffy the Vampire Killer). But betting odds are in my favor that this will be closer to the short-lived Mutant X (anthor show trying to score off of the X-Men movie craze) than Star Trek, Andromeda, Farscape, or even Ark II (based on the bad Damnation Alley movie, and something only those around since the 70's will have any clue about).

Wall Street 2 - what to expect

Ok, so Tiger Woods has a couple of girlfriends on the side. NO shock, so do most men with his kind of fame and wealth. If he were a rockstar or actor no one would be surprised. But this is a family matter for him, so I won't speak on the subject further. Celebrities and enetertainers deserve some degree of privacy too.

Moving on to other news I have no problem speaking about, Wall Street 2 is getting ready to hit theaters in 2010. Oh the joy. The theme of this movie? Greed is legal.

Yes, Oliver Stone has made the sequel to the very good 80's film. It will again star Michael Douglas as the powerful and successful Gordon Gekko. But this time Gekko is not the massive power broker he was in the first time. No the banks are the ultimate bad guys.

This falls directly in line with the views of extremist Stone. It also happens to be right in line with the ultra-liberal tone that Hollywood has been promoting for years now. But the question is if this will make a good movie?

Since about 2000 or so, Hollywood has increasingly made movies that are more political propodanga with filler than movies the public can enjoy. Not that politics has been something foreign to films. Dr. Strangelove is anti-war, anti-nukes, and against the cold war but it was still entertaining. Lions for Lambs, War Inc., and dozens of other recent films that no one watched in theaters of DVD are anything but entertaining.

From the sounds of what Oliver Stone has been saying, Wall Street 2 is more akin to War Inc. than the original Wall Street. It sounds as if it will be yet another film that pushes Stone's political agenda a the cost of the tickets audiences will pay. Which does not motivate me to see the film, which is a shame since I did enjoy the original.

"Wall Street can be the engine of capitalism" and create opportunity, Stone said to one student. "But they increasingly have not done that because there's more money in speculation."

That seems to sum up the view that the new film will be taking. It's a warped and skewed overly simplistic view of finance, capitalism, and Wall Street but that is fine if that is not the movie's theme. I don't want to go to a movie to debate politics, I do that for a living. I want to see a film to be entertained.

Well here is what I understand is the plot of Wall Street 2. Gekko gets out of prison and is a reformed man. He sees an implosion on the horizon and tries to warn the industry, but is ignored since he is a convict. At the same time he is trying to re-establish his relationship with his daughter. His daughter wants nothing to do with him.

His daughter is engaged to upcoming hedge-fund trader Jacob (Shia LeBouf). Jacob's boss gets killed, possibly by the top boss of the fund (Josh Brolin). Jacob wants revenge.

So Gekko decides to help Jacob in exchange for help with his daughter. Cue the laugh track, or whatever.

I'm bored just writing the synopsis. Considering the views of Stone, and Brolin, I don't get a good feeling about the film. Thinking of Gekko as a powerless good guy doesn't work for me. The fact that the simplistic acting skills of Shia LeBouf are the driving force of this movie (to attract younger moviegoers) is another strike against the film. Oh, Charlie Sheen is reported to have a cameo too.

Still the trailers are not yet out. But some stills are available.



If this were a stock, I'd buy the leap put option.

The top (and worst) actors per dollar in 2009

In Hollywood it is often said that

you are only as good as your last film.

While still somewhat true, there are those that are worth the money they make on each film and then there are those that are not. Generally, the quality of the actor often matches the box office bucks they generate.

But every year the best and worst actors per dollar they bring to the box office is figured out. Still Hollywood doesn't always pay attention.

So here are the very worst actors that money can buy

Will Ferrell - he was great in Elf. Then he kept doing the same character in every subsequent film - most recently in the bomb Land of the Lost revisioning. At this point his films are just really long, and bad, Saturday Night live skits. Of course he keeps getting paid too well not to be stuck in the mud. He generated $3.29 for every dollar he made.

Ewan McGregor - was a decent Obi Wan. Too bad he hasn't used the force to read any of the scripts of the films he has done since. He brought in $3.75 per dollar to him.

Billy Bob Thornton - been a while since that name was attached to something anyone saw. It's also been a while since his movies brought in a profit. I guess the mojo of Angelina Jolie's blood has worn off. $4 per dollar he made.

Eddie Murphy - was a superstar when he was young. Now, if you are under 15 you probably still think he is great. But his box office numbers look like somebody's allowance. His $4.43 per dollar he earned almost pays for a DVD of Meet Dave.

Ice Cube - not really an actor, but getting there. He's still earning his chops but it seems that his rap fans won't stick around in theaters to watch the lessons. I can't say I blame them. He made $4.77 in the box office for what he got paid.

Tom Cruise - yep, believe it or not he is overpaid. Thank goodness he has his own studio. Of course if he keeps making films like Lions for Lambs he will earn a permanent place on the overpaid list. But MI:4 might help him out. $7.18 per dolloar he got overpaid.

Drew Barrymore - there had to be at least one girl on the list. Yes she is pretty, and seems like a nice person. But none of that seems to matter when she is in a film like Lucky You. Too bad producing a film is not counted otherwise she might have brought in more than $7.43

Leonardo DiCaprio - overpaid and overhyped. You don't have to agree but more do than don't. The proof is in the $7.52 he brought to the box office versus what he got.

Samuel L. Jackson - it hurts me to have him on this list. Still my personal like of the actor and some of his work does not prevent Snakes on a Plane and Soul Man from happening. He made $8.59 in box office for every dollar paid to him. Not good.

And the final top 10 overpaid actor is Jim Carrey. He just made it to the list, but with good reason. Either his movies are huge hits, like The Grinch, or they are bombs like Number 23. Considering how much he gets paid per film I'm sure Hollywood execs were hoping for better than $8.62 at the box office.

Ok, now that you have suffered the pain and if you are still with me, here are the best actors per dolloar. But again, don't assume quality with earnings.

Shai LeBeouf - proof that ability has little to do with anything. He was in all the right films and tops the list with $160 brought in for every dollar he earned. Expect this to go way down since there's only so many Transformer movies that can be made - I pray.

James McAvoy - Not familiar with the name? Well he filled theaters when WANTED came out - or was that because of the scene with a bare backed Jolie? Either way he brought studios $114 for every dollar they brought him.

Michael Cera - not one of the leading male actors in looks, but he brings home the bacon at the box office. Even with films like Year One, he still pulled off $102 per dollar he got paid. But can he do it 2 years in a row?

Daniel Radcliffe - is still riding high off of Harry Potter. That franchise alone put him almost at the top with $93 in the box office for what he earned. Considering he's almost all grown now, will he keep the young girls swooning in his roles after Hogwarts? Maybe.

Robert Downey Jr - Probably the best actor on the list. He is phenomenal when he is sober, and better than most when he isn't. Possibly the only actor to be stuck in a proverbial can and still out earn most any film where you can see the acting. He brought in $78 at the box office for every dollar, and would have done better if he didn't get roped into Tropic Thunder. Iron Man 2 and Sherlock Holmes can't come out fast enough.

Javier Bardem - don't know his name? Well like Cera you went to see him, over and over again. To the tune of making $73 at the box office for what he was paid. Maybe you'll remember his name next time since he will likely get a lot more films.

Ryan Reynolds - I'm glad he made the list. He's just a funny guy, that can do action at least as well as anyone on this list. And who didn't want to see him in X-Men Origins: Wolverine after watching the movie trailer (too bad the film was a waste of time). Expect higher numbers than the $61 in the box office for his pay once Green Lantern and Deadpool hit screens in 20011-12.

Christian Bale - he terminated the competition as a Dark Knight. The franchises have been good to him and to the box office of Hollywood. $55 for his every dollar. And more sequels are coming.

Aaron Eckhart - he doesn't make big bucks himself, but compared to what his movies bring in... Suffice to say that even with PC Hollywood he made smoking interesting again. $45 to the box office for ever dollar getting him on-screen.

Dennis Quaid is the old man of the list. He brought in $43 for every wrinkled dollar he earned. Lucky for him The Day After Tomorrow was not part of the calculations.

Well that's the lists. Love it or hate it, there you are. I'm glad Forbes made the list because figuring it all out just takes too long.

V - the 2009 television series

Last night I had the chance to watch the original V series. I remember the television miniseries from back in the 80's when it was originally shown. It was a moving work of television at its best back then, and now.

But in watching the original, which was promoting the upcoming "revisioned" television series, I thought about what we know is different now in the coming premiere on ABC on Tuesday. Sadly, I doubt the impact, message, or interest will survive this "reimagined" program.

Right off the back there are a few things that are readily seen. The first is that the city this will be highlighting is New York City instead of Los Angeles. Another is that unlike the original, and unlike NYC, the diversity of the characters has gone out the window. Add to that the fact that several of the main characters have had their race and gender changed.



In 20 years, somehow NYC has become a place where people of color are incredibly unseen (or more accurately underseen). Which is amazing since NYC is possibly the most diverse population anywhere in the world. And it is that diversity which is a major theme of the program. That ALL human beings are involved and affected. That this can happen to anyone, everywhere. But in the new version, basically if you are a person of color, you just don't matter.

The original had several major characters that were women, or people of color. They were not authorities or people invested with the way of life. Just ordinary people that had to rise to the circumstances they found themselves in. The leader of the resistance is a woman who had no aspirations of power or leadership. But she became more than she knew she could be.

The new version will have women assuming several roles of the male characters from the original. The father that is divorced yet still tries to maintain a good relationship with his ex-wife and son is gone. The image of a strong man, that can work with and support a strong female leader is gone. The thought of ordinary people being more than they ever envisioned is gone.

I can only guess if the Holocaust survivor character will remain, but I doubt it. I can only guess that the hard working factory employee Black single father is also gone. I would bet that the references to social climbing succubi - as portrayed in the original - will be gone. In fact I expect every female character to be a version of Wonder Woman, and every male character to be little more than a boy Robin at best and more often a pack of impotent Renfield's. Just to suck up to the current political correctness of the day.

In the original the change from everyday freedom to a totalitarian society takes mere weeks. The change is fast but based in the very credible fears and weaknesses we all hold. And the Visitors obviously learned a lot about us, as they took the prime example of Hitler and the Nazis to implement their plans.

The new version will forgo that idea. Instead they will focus on a post-9/11 world. Aliens are among us, and have been for years. They have infiltrated our lives and we don't know it. And the world has been prepped for a siege none of us are ready for.

But that takes away from the story. It forgets that some of the most dangerous times in the world have been not when we are under attack (even unknowingly) but when we are feeling completely safe. When the Government and laws change ever so little, but sliding away from what we grew up with.

These are things that have been changed to suck in younger viewers. Because they never saw the original. Because Hollywood executives are sure that younger viewers will not understand the impact of the Nazis or how that could happen in America. Because they believe that feeding off of the hype of recent events is more entertaining than providing a lesson about how history repeats itself when we watch with dull minds.

The fact that this will be a weekly series means that people will not have to pay attention to what is going on. That if you missed something you can just wait for reruns to get it. That watching the show out of sequence will not destroy the meaning of what is going on. And it loses a lot in that.

The original series hit people because it left no stone unturned. It happened in a real world of people from all facets of life. It involved the real issues we all face. It delved into the need for security and comfort of routine. Even with a sci-fi background, it was something everyone could relate to.

The new series proposes to substitute a false image of the world. Where a great number of people don't exist. Where the frailties of society are replaced with the hype of politics. Where some will be able to hide - even if that is just a subliminal effect of what they have done. It is a watered down, self-serving, and quite possibly useless exercise in grabbing ratings.

I will watch the show. I will be more than happy to write a post detailing exactly how wrong I was on every point I have made. I will be delighted to headline a post with my failure to see the benefit of this "revisioned" show. But I wouldn't place a bet in Las Vegas that any of that will happen. Not because I am unwilling, hell I'm hoping, but because there won't be enough substance to cause it to happen.

In addition this new V series will be a ratings whore. It will be shaped by the number of viewers it will get. It will be modified by the popularity of the stars involved. Because every television show is. And when they aren't they get canceled for low viewership.

Television has always been an escape. A way to be amused by the antics that we all can feel safe are restricted to a small screen. When it is at its best and true to the purpose of its creation, television informs and educates. And that happens best in a small dose that has no regard for weekly ratings, star power, salaries, or fickle Hollywood executives. Roots is another great example of what can be done in a miniseries that cannot in a television series.

Will this version of V be interesting? I hope so. Will it provide the same political and societal message? Not at all. Will it rise to the highest goals of television? Most likely not. Will it last? Undoubtedly only a season or 2 at best.

I hope to be wrong. I hope to see a great program that is well written. But what I know I will see is a show that panders to popular political ideals, and seeks to garner ratings over delving into real issues.

The worst films since 2000

Having watched Stargate Universe, and learning of the upcoming V revisioned television series, I natually started to think about the worst that Hollywood and the entertainment industry has provided viewers. The list I could imagine is hardly small. And I wasn't the only one to come up with such a list.

It seems that the people at Rotten tomatoes had a similar thought. But I think the end of the decade had more to do with it than the latest slew of forgettable television fare. Still there is nothing like a list, especially of the worst as it confirms what you already knew.

I won't go thru the list of the worst films of the decade. There are 100 and the list contains several of the films you would expect. I will give you the top ten worst films, and several I think should have rated higher on the list of the worst excuses to steal your money.

10. Witless Protection
9. Redline
8. 3 Strikes
7. Strange Wilderness
6. Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2
5. National Lampoon's Gold Diggers
4. King's Ransom
3. Pinocchio
2. One Missed Call
1. Ballistic: Ecks Vs. Sever

If you saw any of these films I really feel for you. I sadly saw King's Ransom and Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever. The pain still haunts me in nightmares from time to time.

But the following I think were misrated on the list.

The New Guy - rated 94 was light on logic. laughs, or anything else, but it was cute in a 10 year old way. I wouldn't have put it on the list, but I wouldn't want to pay money to see it either.

Larry the cable guy: Health Inspector - rated 85. Any film with this character should be in the top 20 worst films ever, unless of course you happen to not have teeth, love moonshine, and got all your education when you finished 3rd grade.

Doogal - rated 83 should be much higher. In fact if there was a list of films for kids that should be illegal to show kids, this would be in the top ten. Truly, if you don't like to abuse children then don't show them this film.

Gigli - rated 73. It only made it to 73? The rest of the list has to be really bad.

The Fog - rated 66 is the first remake on the list. Considering how bad the first film was, why did they remake it anyway? Another in a long list of films proving why revisioned films suck.

BloodRayne - ranked 48. A decent game, a miserable movie. Bad writing, horrible acting, terrible action scenes. There is nothing in the film worth watching, except the leading ladies if you are pre-pubescent.

Zoom - rated 41 is really not that bad. I'm not saying it was a good movie, it wasn't. But for bored kids that don't have another choice on television or DVD this will work. it definitely isn't worse than the films I've already commented on.

Codename: The Cleaner - rated 37 it is the Black equivalent of Larry the cable guy. Cedric may be many things, but he is NOT entertaining as a lead actor in any movie. Someone stop giving him movie lead roles.

The Whole Ten yards - rated 36. It actually deserves this rating. Nothing from the original film carries over to this film, made just to get your money. Bruce Willis slipped big on this one.

Rollerball - rated 28. Remake and revisioned. That is almost all I need to say. Perhaps it might have worked if the director and/or writers ever saw the original movie.

But I know what you are thinking. There are movies missing from the list. Notably:

Soul Plane - perhaps the worst film ever. At least the worst I have seen. It as so bad I had to fast forward through sections to stay awake.

Little Man - the Wayans family are generally talented. Shawn and Marlon are so bad in this film as to make you wonder if they were adopted.

Ghost Rider - the special effects were too good to put it on the worst list, but the acting and script really tried.

No doubt there are other bad films. I'm sure that the list of 100 had others I would have hated. Thankfully I did not see more on the list. And I can't remember more horrible films at the moment (likely blocked from memory).

So do you agree? What do you think was the worst film since 2000?

Television preview: V (2009)

In yet another in the long line of revisioned entertainment, ABC will be reworking a true classic. V was one of the big mini-series of the 80's. It was a hit, with great writing decent effects and better than average acting. Now it will become likely something far less.

Hollywood has sometime ago abandonded any pretense at trying to create anything new. Movies have rehashed even the least interesting of television shows, and even some of the more obscure comic books. So it is no surprise that television would follow in this trend. At least it's not yet another "reality" program.

V is basically a story of aliens that come to Earth. They appear as good guys, they help us with issues ranging from disease to feeding the world. They do all this just out of the goodness of their hearts. And billions of people, plus their Governments, fall in line to almost worship there aliens. Plus they look just like us!

Then we learn that all is not as shiny and gold as it appears. The aliens have sinister plans. They have the book, How To Serve Man. Thus a small group try to fight to remove the aliens.

How all of this will be played out on ABC today is another question. Likely there will be massive changes. The original had huge references to the growth of the Nazi Party. They hit upon issues like natural resources, freedom, and quality of life. I doubt any of that will be in the revisioned remake.

The first clue to what may happen is the fact that this seems to be planned as a television series. So it will not hold the same punch as the original episodes did. Add to that the fact that many of the main characters have been changed (like the lead becoming a single woman with a child instead of a man and a child). Plus the nature of the media to spin political rhetoric is far more abundant today than then, so be prepared to see a flood of pro-liberal imagery.

Early reviews state

"E! Online rated the pilot episode "on a scale of 1 to 10, we give it an 11. V is the best pilot we've seen in, well, forever." The website Seat42F rated the pilot episode A+, applauding its cast and effects and naming it one of the best pilots in years. USA Today's Robert Bianco named V on his list of the top ten new shows, stating that the remake is well-made and "quickly establishes its own identity."

Pretty good reviews for a remake. Which means either the reviewers are like many watching tv now, and never saw the original or television has gotten so bad that anything above mundane is exceptional. I tend to believe both will be accurate.

The cast will include:

• Elizabeth Mitchell as Erica Evans
• Morris Chestnut as Ryan Nichols
• Joel Gretsch as Father Jack Landry
• Lourdes Benedicto as Valerie Stevens
• Logan Huffman as Tyler Evans
• Morena Baccarin as Anna, the leader of the Visitors
• Laura Vandervoort as Lisa, a Visitor
• Scott Wolf as Chad Decker, a reporter

Chestnut and Wolf are probably the best know of the whole cast. So who knows if the acting will be good.

Overall I find revisioned television shows, and movies, to generally be inferior to the originals they copy. Writers generally change the best aspects of the original and destroy the intent. Directors focus on trivial or far less interesting aspects of the original. And it's really bad news when a director, with the writers, decide that they found a way to improve on the original (ie. Dukes of Hazzard, Starsky & Hutch, Battlestar Galactica, ect).

Will V become a sensation? Can it provide the impact and drama that caused the original to be a massive hit? Will even I be interested enough to watch broadcast television again?

Probably not. But the premiere might be worth watching. For those that never saw the original it will likely be fantastic, for those that have boredom may ensue. I'd like to be wrong, but I doubt it. Odds are 3 - 1 that it does not get renewed.

media tuning of race relations

The following is a question posed to Michael Vass by Logan Calder at Black and White Blog where I am co-author.

Michael,
I would like to get your opinion on what I noticed recently in television. In almost every add that has a mixed race couple, it is always a Black male and a White female. Almost never is there any other type of mixed race shown. This seems disproportionate to me, as I see mixed races of all variety (including my own) and am wondering if you think there may be some political significance to this?

**Rather than responding as a comment, I wanted to add my thoughts to the post of Logan. In this way readers can have a full thought to respond to, in addtion to allowing search engines more access to this post. I hope that Logan does not mind.**

Logan,

Well that is a good question. But I think you are somewhat mistaken in your premise.

There are many, and I believe more, mixed race couples in advertisements that are Hispanic and White than any other group. The reasons for this are

1) Hispanics - light skinned - are often mistaken for Whites. (ie, Andy Garcia among many others)

2) Hispanics are the fastest growing 'minority' group in America

3) Hispanics comprise one of the bigger buying groups, and tend to purchase more big ticket items (which is reflected in the ads they appear in)

But as for the Black/White mix... well that is harder to define.

In part there are the old stereotypes that are continuously promoted in movies and television shows of the mandingo. Add to that the old view of implied status of a Black man with a White woman. I disagree with both thoughts, though I know many who still ascribe to these thoughts.

Another part is the theory held only in Hollywood (I hope) that audiences can only react positively to something if people of the same racial background are represented.

This has been one of the main reasons that television shows (and movies) are 90%+ dominated by White actors in virtually every aspect. That means the background actors, the supports, and the headliners. In fact, in 2007 - 2008 I randomly selected channels several times over several days and investigated various program line-ups. I found that roughly 2% of all television programming, including cable television, involved non-White actors of any nature, COMBINED (movies were slightly higher though not even 10%).

Thus a commercial, according to this theory, must contain Whites to be effective. It is also the reason that most commercials (with the exception of many racially targeted commercials by McDonald's - but not all) that target specific groups of people of color still maintain White actors in the surrounding roles.

Thirdly I suspect that the use of mixed race couples is a subtle acceptance that America, in reality, is far more diverse and intermixed than what television has been promoting since 1950's. That reality must be reflected as fully 1/3 of the audience is a person of color and thus by the archaic standards of Hollywood need to be shown.

Lastly there is the Obama Effect. Advertisers are cashing in on the positive imagery of African Americans that must exist since the President is a person of color. This I feel is the ultimate commoditization of Black culture that has been beforehand seen predominantely in the Hip Hop culture and advertisements.

The political significance of all this is unknown.

In one respect the benefit of all this is to create more acceptance of people of color in political groups, particularly in the Democrat and/or Liberal organizations. Name an ad, movie, or television show where the people of color are Conservative or Republican - as best as can be discerned relative to its content. I cannot think of one off the top of my head.

Beyond that, which is speculation I admit, I cannot think of a political end to using mixed races. Which does not mean there is or is not one.

Perhaps other readers may have a better answer than I.

Porn stars upset over lack of exposure

Some things you just cant make up. In France, at the Cannes, there was a small group of porn actresses that were getting a bit of coverage. The reason they were there was to try to gain attention for the revival of the Hot d’Or Film Festival.

The Hot d’Or Film Festival ran from 1992 until 2001, and occurred at the same time as Cannes Film Festival. Like the U.S. Adult Video News Awards (AVN Awards), the Hot d’Or was a showcase of new porn movies. Awards were given out for Best Director, Best American and European Film, Best Actor/Actress, plus a few industry specific honors like Best Box Cover and New Starlett (American/European).

Now I have no problem with an industry awarding the best of it’s own. I just find it interesting on 2 points. The first is the fact that any event or activity related to porn has ever ended amazes me. The porn industry makes more money than all of Hollywood and Eurpoe combined, from just the U.S. alone. Which always amazes me since no one ever buys porn, of course. So to see any of their events end or fail seems to be shocking considering their success.

The second thought is the fact that porn needs more exposure to succeed. It just seems odd considering that I can’t think of another industry that receives as much exposure for it’s exposure. And in non-prudish France of all places. I mean if this were Britian I could understand the plea. But France?

There is no real point to the post. Just an observation. It caught my attention. I’m sure that no one has ever seen a porn movie anyway, let alone to be at an awards ceremony. Though I think it would be interesting to interview people in the industry or to cover an awards show. Maybe if you my readers express interest I will look into it.

Part 4 of the Michael Vass interview with Sundance noted director Dennis Dortch

Continued from Part 3 of the Michael Vass interview with Sundance noted director Dennis Dortch

Michael Vass : Well its all yours that’s true. Do you think that in your next film since this is more of an art house film are you going to look to the future to main stream traditional Hollywood or are you going to stay in more of the art house film direction?

Dennis Dortch : My next film that I am setting up right now and writing is going to be a mix of art house and commercial. I don’t think I’m ever going to go straight commercial it would just bore me. So I’d like to make money I’d like to make a living but I think at the same time when you try to do something that’s not you and try doing commercial your going to fail like you're not don’t doing the best you can do any way. My next film is definitely going to be a bigger film and a little more traditional in having more of a plot line maybe in the story, but I think the approach is going to be exactly the same.

I mean its going to say kind of that art house feel. I mean Steven Soderburg has probably the career I’d most likely follow that makes sense. Where he can go back and forth between Shay which is an art film, an epic art film. You know Erin Brochovich and then go do another small independent film and then do something else. All these films and retain their sensibility. Remain art house to a degree, you know what I mean. So I think that’s probably what I would like my career to follow. So I can have my hands in both worlds where I don’t feel boxed in on anything. I have that white script coming too, that’s going to break the mold a little bit.

Michael Vass : I imagine that was something that was going to come down the line at some point.

Dennis Dortch : It didn’t interest me at first until my lawyer brought the idea to me and I just really went with it. And I think probably coming out with Black & Sexy and the next film will be a surprise for me but I will definitely do it my way. But my heart really is in making black films always.

You know these kettle black films, how people say 'oh you only want to make black films'. No, I want to make good black films. I like black people but we’re not doing enough of our own films so there’s plenty of material and there’s plenty of opportunities. I think if you make good black films you’ll definitely be working, its just if you make a bad black film then your not.

Michael Vass : Well here’s something you touched on something that’s very important. Because you’ve gotten the recognition out of Sundance which is well deserved, is that influencing the… has that helped you in getting your next film? Are you looking forward to getting other work? Is that working for you? Or…

Dennis Dortch : Oh yes certainly. Its opened a lot of doors and has got people looking at me. I mean if I had the same film at another smaller festival or black festival per say , I would still have not gotten the attention I’ve got now. Its just something about Sundance and major film festivals that really opens the doors for you with the same damn film.

Michael Vass : Are we possibly going to see some of the bigger black actors and actresses or are you still looking to work with people who are lesser known and build them up? I mean if you can have Denzel in a movie would you go with him or a lesser known actor?

Dennis Dortch : Not at this point in my career, I mean if it happens I’m not going to sneeze at it and go ahh no. It hasn’t even crossed my mind because of the way I approach the film is very realistic. I like the characters to meld, the actors to meld to the characters. You don’t know who they are you just let form.

Denzel is such a good actor you just recognize him so much that my first instinct is not to use him. But you know there is a certain point in my career where you know the box office potential will be a factor. Then I’m going to have to consider the casting. And quite honestly this next film I’m thinking about is probably going to be set up somewhat bigger than my house as far as a studio. And that will probably come up but for now I will keep it out of my mind because I want the characters to be more themselves.

Michael Vass : You don’t want them typedcast, like Morgan Freeman. You look at him and you have this image of gravitas immediately. So your trying to stay a little bit away from that?

Dennis Dortch : Exactly I don’t want to write for an actor per say, I want the actor to act for the roll.

Michael Vass : That makes perfect sense and if Denzel reads this he should keep an eye out for the future. Because I think you both could do some great work together.

Coming towards the end of this I just want to ask you a question which is some what more detracting from what you’ve actually done. But something that I always find interesting to ask.

I find it very important you mentioned presenting a very positive image of African Americans. There’s a lot of things that are being said and to see that more of us are making positive statements is always important to me. But there are also a lot of things that we have not said. Are there issues or humanitarian aid that you’d like to emphasize or are looking to emphasize at some point.

Myself I do a lot of promotion of the work towards Darfur and the Child Soldier Prevention Act which you may or may not be familiar with. And a few other issues; is there anything like that, that your looking at that you either privately or publicly maybe emphasizing in the future?

Dennis Dortch : You know I’ve thought about a documentary form and make something a bit more narrative. This is more of a broad issue its not really a particular specific issue. Black on black crime, that’s something that I care about, because I do work in the child delinquent system and I just don’t like seeing kids sort of glorify gangs or violence or treating people in a certain way. It seems more difficult but seeing real kids believing this stuff and having a warped perception of what a real black man is and what a man is, that really bothers me a lot.

Its really our down fault overall and as people in this particular country we just are not organized and moving forward. Even having our own distribution system for our own stuff is really rooted in distraction by mosaic bull shit.

I know we’re kind of sort of sick and insane from the slave trade and a lot of issues that we have and some other races in this country do have. But I just think it handicaps us more than any one else. I think literally we are the first people on this earth , we’ve got the greatest minds and the greatest athletes and the greatest talent. Everyone wants to be like us, but we have this real sickening disease of being degenerate to ourselves. Those of us who were raised around it either got out of it or aren’t in it is great.

But kids growing up in it may not know what it means to be a man. You know a man is someone who takes care of his people, his family. That’s probably an issue I’d like to hit on probably in a narrative feature, in a documentary at some point. But those are some of the things I care about for me.

All the other issues I do care about, but it goes along with the honesty thing like the politics you can only be so honest. But it’s… a lot of it falls under the umbrella…but if your talking about art the biggest thing is going to be black on black crime. Us killing each other that is a small percentage but in the percentage that we are doing it and not seeing that as our brother or our sister, really its just kind of doing someone else’s work. It seems crazy to me, you know.

Michael Vass : No I understand that completely. I follow a lot in the writing that I do so I can understand the direction that your coming from. I agree that’s one of the big issues out there and I’ve addressed it a lot and I’ve been yelled at about it a lot. But its good to have that out there and speak about it so I understand completely.

Along that same line is something else which is more akin to what your doing. For those who are looking to get into the industry either as an actor, writer or director, and knowing that Hollywood is so two-faced in a sense where they maybe promoting a whole bunch of movies that maybe very liberal but at the same time there is almost ...what? Five percent of people of color in front of or behind the cameras when you look at the entire industry as a whole. For those who are looking to come up into this industry to become actors to become writers to become directors or a camera man or a sound man ...what ever it maybe. What in your experience would you say would be a way for them to do that? Are the opportunities getting bigger what do you think about that? Is there something you can say to them?

Dennis Dortch : Well you know I’m still outside the Hollywood system, I don’t even have an agent you know what I mean. I’m not really in the system, I’ve never worked in the system. So I don’t know much about the system and I don’t really think you have to be.

Michael Vass : So there’s another path ?

Dennis Dortch : There is another path, and its an interesting time for entertainment in general, it’s the era of DIY, the do it yourself film making. I mean literally we all have a cameras to HDV’s and they're affordable. All the equipment you need to do it yourself and the internet is suddenly exploding. I mean NBC, ABC everybody is getting online. Its almost the same playing field but it’s a little bit slanted towards the industry. But there is still a way to get in and do your thing if you have something different. Do it. You don’t have to try and get into the system if you have the talent.

People that get into the system know that they can do it and they have the talent and the gift of gab and they really know how to play the game. But for those of us who don’t, like me, if you have a vision then Hollywood will come to you. You know what I mean because they are always looking for the next new voice, the next new commercial thing. So all you have to do is do your thing.

I could have waited for an investor but I just took the money out of my house and made my film. I don’t have time and I’m not waiting. I have my collection of friends, my philosophy from college, and people that are sort of creatively my match; and they sort of share my sensibilities. We all got together and made the film. So that’s the way to do it is just make the film.

Michael Vass : Ok, that makes a lot of sense.

Concluded in Part 5

Dom DeLuise passes at 75

Some of my younger readers may not be familiar with the comedic actor Dom DeLuise. Some might just know him as a chef. But that would be a severe misunderstanding as this was a very funny and accomplished man.

Dom DeLuise was not just an actor. He was a director, an actor, writer of several children's books, and a chef. Which says nothing of his being a father to 3 sons, each of which went on to have success of their own.

If you were alive in the 1980's you could not miss DeLuise. He was in a host of movies with Burt Reynolds including: Canonball Run, Smokey and the Bandit II, and All Dogs Go To Heaven. If you are a fan of Mel Brook's movies you again would note DeLuise as he was in Blazing Saddles, Spaceballs, Robin Hood: Men In Tights to name just a few. But he was a biger actor than just this selection of his work. He was in Johnny Dangerously with Michael Keaton. He was star of his own ABC hour-long comedy show. And if you wondered about his range, pay attention to the original Fail-Safe to see him in a serious role. He even did operetta at the Metropolitan Opera.

This is no small career. His career spanned 50 years, just counting movies and television. 67 movies, 33 television series or shows, the voice of over a dozen animated characters, 7 children's books, and 4 cookbooks. All this from a man from Brooklyn who lived a quiet life, never on the tabloids or in scandals.

Dom DeLuise may not have been the leading man or mega-star status of Burt Reynolds, or other Hollywood entertainers, but he was a fixture of Hollywood in the way that counts most. He helped make the movies and television shows he was in better. He worked consistently because he was skilled. He was a good man.

I am saddened to hear of his loss. Though there is some comfort to know that he passed in his sleep, without pain or suffering. For 50 years Dom DeLuise gave the world laughter and a reason to smile, such a loss cannot go without being noticed.

My condolences to his family and friends.

Will Adam Lambert win American Idol? If so, for what reason.

So here is a question that I recently was pondering. Does it matter if a contestant on American Idol is gay?

I personally find the question to be dumb. Seriously there should not be a question on this subject. Because it really does not matter. Not even in the slightest.

But it seems that there are some out there that find this to be important. Why is quite beyond me. I suppose they are the universe balancing out all those incensed by the response of Miss California. Which itself was an issue that should not have grown to the extent it has.

No matter the private sexual preferences of Adam Lambert, he is a singer. Since I take it that he is in the running to win American Idol (I don't follow the show as I like my brain cells) I would assume he is quite good. Thus until technology exists where listening to music will instigate direct sexual intercourse with the music, only his voice is important to the competition.

Still there is a flip side to all of this. Adam Lambert should not win American Idol if his sole or main qualification is the perception of his sexuality. If his current position is being bolstered or altered due to the hype and mystery of his private life, which some want to use to advance a political agenda, then he must lose. It's just that simple.

Hollywood loves to show a face of ultra-liberal beliefs. It glorifies those that agree with it's ideals and/or supports them. And those that diverge in any way from its dictates find themselves shunned. Just read what the late Ron Silver stated. Look at how the major media backed Perez Hilton in his attack on Miss California.

This of course flies in the face of what Hollywood does. Like the disparity of people of color in front of and behind the cameras. Plus the promotion of various stereotypes, like the gangsta rap genre as an example, without shame. And the non-stop love affair with President Obama, as opposed to the critiques of virtually every President beforehand in my lifetime.

Hollywood would love to have an openly gay, or bisexual, American Idol winner. It matches the showboat of ideals that it flourishes daily. It flies in the face of those that have whatever issue on sexuality (which is itself wrong), and reinforces the views that caused Perez Hilton to attack Miss California over.

By the way, the actions of Perez Hilton were upsetting. To attack someone for having an opinion you don't like is no less wrong if the person is Archie Bunker or Perez Hilton. It's a small minded way to dismiss someone, for something they should be free to choose. The First Amendment works both ways.

But back to my point. Who cares what Adam Lambert does in his private life. Beyond selling extra teen magazines, there is nothing worth knowing. And anyone that would judge him, either way, on that basis is biased. Either he is a good enough singer or not.

So will Lambert win American Idol? I could care less. That is up until the point where winning is more of a political statement than proof of ability and performance.

Jamie Foxx vs. Miley Cyrus - Foxx is a loser

"It takes a lifetime of work to create a reputation, and mere moments to destroy one."

I think we all have heard some variation of the above quote. Everyone except Jamie Foxx it would seem. Honestly, I know his grandmother taught him better than that.

Yes I am speaking about the attack that Jamie Foxx made against Miley Cyrus. Carried on Sirius Satellite Radio, it contains massive profanity and horrendous comments.

**Warning, the following has language not suitable for young visitors.**


Now I am no fan of Hanna Montana or Miley Cyrus. In fact I have never heard or seen a thing she has done. But she is a young child. She does not deserve this. No child does.

When this starts off, I was not instantly offended. Celebrities and entertainers all learn to have thick skins quickly as they are all critiqued and subjects of comments both fair and foul. While it's in poor taste to take on a child about their looks, as a celebrity it's not much different than when an entertainer walks the red carpet and hoards of bloggers and the media harshly comment about the clothes worn.

But the fact that someone would call the child a B**** just because of something they overheard about her is harsh. Even worse is that anyone would say that about a child because they don't like the child's choice. Such action is low, and speaks poorly of the person who does so. Even if they are in the Hollywood industry.

It's when Jamie Foxx starts into his tirade, calling for Cyrus to

"..make a sex tape and grow up. Get like Britney Spears and do some heroin... Do like Lindsey Lohan and [garbled] lesbian and get some crack in your pipe... Catch Chlamydia on a bicycle seat; That's what I want."

I just lost all respect for the man.

He is goading the child to do drugs. To ruin her life - professionally and personally. To become physically ill. What real man says these things to a child?

I somehow doubt that comments like this were the reason for Foxx's success. But such arrogance and insensitivity could likely be a cause for his failure. No matter how good he has proven himself to be, such behavior is unconscionable.

The difference between these comments and those of Don Imus are minor. While Cyrus is a celebrity and thus open to public comment, she is still a child and deserves respect and a modicum of decency. And the only real saving grace for Foxx is that he is on private radio. People made the choice to pay for this service and to hear such language and commentary, drivel really. Thankfully this is not something available on public airwaves. Had it been so, I would demand his being fired and a boycott, just as I did with Imus.

But while Foxx may save his work for now, his image is tarnished forever I believe. And he can only blame himself for this. His ego has written a check that his ass is going to cover to his detriment.

The thing that I don't get is that listening to Foxx speak about the lessons he was taught by his grandmother would seem to be diametrically opposed to the behavior he has displayed on the radio. I don't think its Cyrus that has something to fear but Jamie Foxx. He sounds like a man falling into the trap of quick fame that has claimed the lives and careers of countless Hollywood stars and entertainers.

That Oscar will not make fans, nor drive people to see his movies. That chip on his shoulder will not encourage people to see his portrayals in theaters. The audacious and blatant disrespect for a minor will definitely light a fire in families and kill ticket and DVD sales for a long time to come. And he deserves every bit of such retribution and displeasure.

If a man said such things about Jamie Foxx's sister, or grandmother, I bet he would be in a rage and want to kick their ass. How are his words any different? If a White man said such things about a Black woman, there would be an outrage among liberals across the nation. This there should be. But that same righteous indignation deserves to be directed at Jamie Foxx now.

"Stupid is as stupid does"

Living proof of that can be found in the words of Jamie Foxx and his cohorts on the radio. This isn't a Black/White thing. It's a dumbass thing.

Jamie Foxx needs to get on national television and apologize sincerely to Miley Cyrus. Because he should at least be man enough to do that. I'm sure his grandmother raised him well enough to know that.

If Someone's Gotta Go, it should be the producers of the show

With television programs you usually have the choice of bottom of the barrel, idiotic, brazen, a complete copy, or boring. Since the advent of cable television programming this has widened a bit to the sophomoric, the original, the good, and the blatantly wild/violent. On rare occasion, mostly by accident, we even sometimes get a great show. But rarely is an idea on cable or broadcast television so far into bad taste as what I have heard is now in production.

Fox Network is creating a new reality television program, yes yet another one. But this on has a twist. A bitter hemlock sort of twist. The show, made with Endemol USA – responsible for Fear Factor and Deal or No Deal – is called Someone’s Gotta Go. There is your first clue how bad the taste in your mouth will be.

Someone’s Gotta Go is the opposite of the Apprentice. The premise is that a small company of some 15 – 20 employees, cannot continue to keep everyone in this economy. So the books are opened up, co-workers gather and likely plot to isolate an employee, and then a vote commences. The winner of the vote gets fired.

No joke. No punchline. They are now part of the expansive number of people on unemployment in this nation. And you get to watch this happen on national tv.

Now there is one consolation for the loser. They will receive an undisclosed severance pay. It is unclear, but likely, that the television show will pay that severance.

But that hardly makes up for the loss of a job, the search for a future position, and the embarrassment of the worker and/or their family. I mean what is that person to do? Walk into an interview and be recognized as the guy (or gal) who everyone at their old job said goofed off and thus was fired. Well that really will help the resume.

What about the family of that former employee? Imagine the kid that has to go to school with the stigma that their parent was so incoherent that they lost their job on national tv the day before. Kids would never use that public display of incompetence to pick on someone. Plus the fame of being a loser and useless is just the kind of self-esteem building experience that every kid, or adult for that matter, needs in a time of economic crisis the likes of which most have never seen before.

I can’t understand one aspect of this show that is entertaining, fun, family-oriented, or positive. If you can, please do share that with me.

I understand that all good ideas seem to have dried up in Hollywood. I understand that a ‘reality’ program is the most cost-effective way to keep couch potatoes vegetative for an hour at a time. But where is the decency. Where is the respect for another human being?

And if this show, somehow, becomes better than the bottom of the Neilsen ratings what comes next? A show about kids dropping out of school? A show following the homeless begging? A show where someone gets to lose all their money – oh wait, that’s the Obama economic plan.

Look, I understand that television today is all about the lowest common denominator. That the cheapest, fastest television programming is the first line of approach. Still there has to be some modicum of quality and sensitivity involved. Or have we all just gotten to the point where when we are given sand we will drink it like water?

Star Trek 11 - the end of the line?

Speaking of films that are mixing old ideas in a new ‘revisioned’ theme, I saw something today about the next Star Trek movie. This adds to my growing unease about this film. I am becoming more and more filled with dread about how this film will ultimately turn out.

It seems that there is already a plan to make a sequel. Yes, already the storyline for the next film is being hashed out. Without the movie having hit theaters yet. I presume the interest and debate over the movie trailers is propelling the rush to production.



This bodes poorly for the new generation seeking to fill the uniforms of the original cast. Without a single review or public viewing, they are already working the Hollywood system to create the next films in the “rebirth” of the franchise.

“They're hoping to have a draft in by Christmastime in order to get the cameras (and CGI) rolling in time for a summer 2011 release.”

Rushing a film, and a plot, to cash-in on a hoped for success virtually always ends up with a horrible film that bombs in the box office. Especially when the film in question is taking old favorites and turning them on their heads.

I can only recall a couple of films that were so bold as to plan and announce their efforts to create sequels at the same time, or before, the movie in question hit theaters. That would include Superman 3, and the James Bond films. You could also argue that Iron Man and the Incredible Hulk (with Ed Norton in a far superior film to the Ang Lee fiasco) did the same.

The Hulk series has been officially dumped by Marvel (though Norton did a fantastic job of resurrecting the series). Superman made it to one more movie (which bombed horribly) before the series was cancelled and laid dormant for nearly 2 decades. James Bond has survived due to changes in the lead, mostly due to Pierce Brosnan resurging interest after the near demise made by the Welsh-American Bond (Timothy Dalton). And Iron Man hinted at other movies, without guaranteeing their creation.

So in looking at what happens when Hollywood assumes a success, and moves forward with engines at flank, is that the film and/or series usually dies. Not a great sign at all for this ‘rebirth’ of Star Trek. Then again, neither was this



But with the film coming out soon, we the public will decide it all soon enough.

Ron Silver has passed at 62

Sad news today. I was shocked to hear that actor Ron Silver died this weekend of cancer. He was only 62.

Silver was probably best known to the public for his work in Ali, Silkwood, Timecop, The Arrival and on television in Law & Order. I personally found his work on the West Wing to be a standout among his television and movie performances.

Of course Silver was a true activist. He was a passionate supporter of America and our ability to choose. He co-created the non-partisan Creation Coalition – an advocacy group for entertainers. And he famously stunned Hollywood with his visible and vocal support of conservative values and President Bush after 9/11.

It was that change of political affiliation that virtually left him an outcast in Hollywood. In the industry that preaches democracy, activism, and freedom he spoke to the wrong goals in their eyes, and that meant he was persona non grata. I never ceased to be amazed how liberals, especially those in Hollywood, believe in free speech – as long as it agrees with their views, and seek to squash such speech when it does not.

“Often when I walked onto the set of 'The West Wing' some of my colleagues would greet me with a chanting of 'Ron, Ron, the neo-con.' It was all done in fun but it had an edge," Silver wrote in a Nov. 15, 2007, entry of his blog on the Pajamas Media Web site.”

But no matter how much Hollywood turned their backs on Silver, audiences did not. He is well-remembered and respected.

I believe that it is not the political affiliation that describes a true intent to see the best for America, rather it is the heart-felts commitment that is made to that goal. In that Ron Silver succeeded where so many activists for a day entertainers fall severely short. And it was that same kind of passion that made him such a wonderful actor.

My condolences to the Silver family.

Forbes recognizes the obvious about Will Smith and people of color

Oh how shocking. Will Smith is the most bankable entertainer in Hollywood. With the record for the most movies grossing over $100 million in a row, who could have guessed?

Honestly I am not amazed. But I really hope that the executives in Hollywood are paying attention to the numbers. Because it flies in the face of the notion that

“American audiences want to only watch people similar to themselves.”

That is the industry code words for the functional equivalent of “White only” - to me - which is present in the overwhelming number of television shows, movies, and even work behind the camera.

In fact, according to Forbes, the top of the Star Currency list includes Denzel Washington at number 8. On the Celebrity 100 list the start is with Oprah Winfrey and Tiger Woods. That list goes on to include Beyonce Knowles and Jay-z in the top 10.

Yet for all of that, and the many other people of color that made each of the lists, Hollywood avoids us. Which is odd for an industry that is best known for copying anything that is successful to death.

Just look at the 30 remakes that are going to hit screens or announced so far in 2009. Look at all the copycat stories that fill the television screens and theaters; they even copycat success from other countries (Life on Mars, Leverage, Bangkok Dangerous, ect.). And there is hardly any escape from some form of reality programming on every network including cable television. There are few original ideas in the industry, especially over the last decade or so. Except if it involves people of color. Then there are really none.

Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Laurence Fishburne, Samuel Jackson, Jamie Foxx and Eddie Murphy are the key male African Americans that fill screens and bring in revenue. Halle Berry and Queen Latifah are the Black female counterparts. Several of them have been doing so for decades. Yet Hollywood ignores the majority of Black actors, preferring to fill the ranks of new actors with virtually only White faces. And it’s not because there is a lack of a potential pool of actors to select from.

Television shows like the Cosby Show, A Different World, My Wife and Kids, The Fresh Prince of Bel Aire dominated the small screen. And once they were off the air nothing even close replaced them. The various networks didn’t even try to copy the shows.

It’s not that I expect every show to have people of color in them. I don’t want to see a television schedule of crap that is made to have people of color fill the screens and then be rejected with a casual ‘well we tried.’ But to honestly expect that in the 21st century, as people are declaring the era of “post-racial America”, we see almost the same number of African Americans, Latino/Hispanics, Asians and so on in any medium you wish to chose as were around in the 70’s. It’s deplorable.

Perhaps I wouldn’t get as upset if other aspects of the media were better. But news media still loves to depict people of color as violent and guilty of any wrong-doing or lack of success whenever a video is needed. And it is conspicuously remiss in reporting any news event that identifies people of color as victims of crimes via police brutality or other circumstance.

Just look around for the coverage of Oscar Grant, Adolph Grimes, or Robbie Tolan. All you will see is continuing coverage of Casey Anthony and the Petersen case in Ohio. Or how about the last time you saw national attention of a Black child that was missing?

But at least Forbes is taking notice that America loves it’s celebrities and entertainers of color as much as anyone else. Hopefully one day Forbes might just get involved in entertainment and things will improve. Or the racially blind execs in Hollywood will be replaced by open minded people. If only.

Woody Harrelson respects soldiers - finally

I am happy to say that the level of insensitivity and stupidity in Hollywood has dropped slightly today. It may not change much, but any change is a positive there.

Now you might wonder what I am referring to. I mean Woody Harrelson,

“I've been an outspoken peace activist for good reason. But what was missing from my own philosophy was a real understanding of what these soldiers go through. The time we spent with them working on the film left me with profound respect and compassion for these people who are going to Iraq and Afghanistan.

They're putting their lives on the line because they believe they're trying to help and doing something for their country. However you feel about the war, I have a lot of respect for these soldiers. I hope this film gives the warriors the light they deserve."

No shit.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the acting ability of Harrelson. I deeply respect his strong position of being a peace activist. And I would die to protect his ability to keep those views or make any statement he likes.

I just think it is a statement of complete arrogance and stupidity to not realize that every single freedom every American enjoys is directly connected to the service provided by the military. People like Hanoi Jane Fonda never figured it out, but it seems that Harrelson has, to some degree. And it’s nice to hear – finally.

Now I am not advocating war, nor all the political decisions made that place our soldiers in harms way. But there is a huge difference between what a soldier has pledged to do, up to and including sacrificing their lives, and what politicians give them orders to do.

Were it not for the blood spilled in service to the nation, Harrelson, and all of Hollywood, could never do what they do for a living. People like Hanoi Jane Fonda and Moveon.org would never be able to say what they do.

I think its well beyond time that Hollywood, and celebrities making individual comments, regained a bit of respect when addressing our soldiers and what they do. Harrelson has taken a step towards that, we can hope that Hollywood will too.

Faye Dunaway vs. Hilary Duff: an unfair fight

Ok, call me slow but I just heard about the Bonnie and Clyde remake. And the blow-up it has created between Faye Dunaway and Hilary Duff. Before I go farther I will say this is like a fight between Muhamad Ali and a crackhead. But before I go there...

First off is my gripe about remakes. It just amazes me how Hollywood is looking backwards more every year we go forward. I really can’t believe that all the screenwriters in Hollywood are that lazy or incompetent. If they are, I don’t understand how they continue to be employed when there are huge numbers of hopefuls waiting to get their chance. Dennis Dortch is one such writer (and he directs) and I can’t see why he isn’t being given a chance at a bigger budget film for a new idea.

But with that said, the execs in Hollywood have decided to butcher (as virtually every remake in the past decade or so has done) yet another good movie. And based on the past ability of Hollywood to capture none of the qualities of the original film (revisioning is the current buzzword – which should mean diarrhea for the eyes) I expect that none of the cast, writers, director or executives have bothered to watch the full film. I’m not sure what you might call the Cliff Notes version of a film, but I would expect that may be all they know of the film.

Thus I am not surprised that Faye Dunaway may have stated that

“Couldn't they at least cast a real actress?”

Honestly they can’t. Because an actress of real talent (not a pop star with lots of exposure) might actually know the original film and want to be inspired by the work of Faye Dunaway. And that just won’t fit with the concept that it can be done better today than the original.

I don’t think even Las Vegas would take odds on this film being better, or Duff being half as good as Dunaway on a day she is ill. The chances of Hilary Duff or the new film getting 1 Oscar nomination, let alone the 10 that the original earned, is right there with Bigfoot walking into Times Square and dancing a jig – if current standards of remakes are exceeded.

In fact, as I had suspected, the new film is a revisioning. It will throw out much of the original film in favor of

“…news clippings of the famous Depression-era outlaws, found in an abandoned house on her family's property.”

Well at least some attempt at research and some level of involvement in the story has been attained.

Of course Duff had to respond.

“I think that my fans that are going to go see the movie don't even know who she is." Duff went on to say, "I think it was a little unnecessary, but I might be mad if I looked like that now, too."

What fans? At least Duff was smart enough not to compare her claim to fame, Lizzie McGuire, to anything any other actress has done. But she wasn’t smart enough to realize that Dunaway is 47 years her elder. Nor that Dunaway looks pretty damn good for her age, or that of a woman much younger. The same cannot be said of Duff.

And in case Hilary Duff can’t read, nor bothered to do a Google search she has achieved all of the following:

• Best Performance in a TV Movie or Pilot - Supporting Young Actress - Young Artist Awards
  
• Teenager of the Year – Rolling Stone
  
• Favorite Female Singer - Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards
  
• Best Young Ensemble in a Feature Film - Young Artist Awards
  

Not exactly prestigious. Nor overwhelming.

Faye Dunaway on the other hand:

• Started her career on the stage at age 21. By the time she was 26 she starred in the Oscar winning movie Bonnie and Clyde (which was just her 3rd movie and she gained an Academy Award nomination for the role).
  
  
• She has been in acclaimed movies including - The Thomas Crown Affair (and the remake 21 years later), Little Big Man, The Three Musketeers, Chinatown (another Oscar nomination), The Towering Inferno, Three Days of the Condor (a favorite of mine), and Network (won the Oscar).
  

Simply put, Duff needs to seriously get some acting lessons and experience before she deserves to insult her betters. Especially when they are right.

Connecting Cuba's Seguera and Hollywood

I have to wonder if Michael Moore ever bothered to check out the local radio station when he was in Cuba. If he did he might have noticed the dearth of diversity in the music heard there. Or at least that was how Cuba was for a long time.

I’m not saying that latin music is not diversified, nor that it is anything but great music. What I am saying is that in Cuba the type of music available (at least for a time in recent history) is anything but widespread. Or at least it was until Jorge "Papito" Serguera died.

Serguera was the man responsible for the banning of huge genres of music and artists from the airwaves of Cuba. One of the bands he restricted included the Beatles, a group he admitted to listening to in private and enjoying – though the public could not do so as well. That might have likely been due to the song Money (That’s what I wa

“Money don't get everything it's true.
What it don't get I can't use.”

Cuba is definitely one of those nations that reminds me of Hollywood liberals, China, segregation and the old USSR. The kind of mentality that divided people “for their own good” or acted to “help” the people since they can’t help themselves. The single-minded attitudes that claim equality and freedom for everyone, except if they think differently or want to act on those freedoms.

But at least Cuba, and Serguera, were upfront about their actions. Hollywood is not. Numerous executives and celebrities tout the banner of liberal, and yet so little is ever done about the disparity of movies and television to real life. Hollywood wants to shout about the injustice everywhere in the world, except in the studios and lots that it runs. Kind of like Barney Frank and the mortgage crisis.

There isn’t an overall theme in this post. I just heard about Serguera’s death and his actions to limit the minds of the people, to deny creativity, to kill the souls of freedom and expression. And I just noticed how much of that same kind of thinking exists today in Hollywood and politics.

A real shame when you think about it.

An Obama effect in Hollywood is insulting

There is something that’s been nagging at me for months. The Obama effect on media and television. The very statement is an insult. Let me explain why.

An effect is a reaction to a stimulus. As long as the stimulus is around the effect continues. Once it is gone the effect fades. An Obama effect is a temporary shift in a long held belief system. And I don’t want to accept that as good enough.

Since before, and massively since, the election President Obama has been used as a reason for media to remember that African Americans have been a vital part of this nation since inception, are a rather large part of the population, and an enormous factor to the prosperity of the economy.

Television and movies have long ignored all of that. With the exception of the Cosby Show and a few programs that were on broadcast television at that same time, the small screen in everyone’s living room is devoid of people of color. In fact, once the Cosby Show went off-air (ending the Cosby effect), the executives in Hollywood seemingly scrambled to eliminate what they had created. Proof that Americans will watch a good program no matter the color of the stars.

At this point, the 9th year in a row, the line-up of television features 2 programs with Black actors as lead. They are on the smallest and least seen public television broadcast network, and hold the worst time-slot possible. Beyond this, there are 2 prominent Black actors in drama ensembles. And then there are 2 programs on cable television that feature Black casts. That’s it, out of over 120 programs just looking at broadcast television alone.

But President Obama will cause all that to change. Kiss my ass.

I do not need, nor should it take, the leader of our nation to be Black to make me aware of the abilities of tens of millions of Americans. There have long prior been examples of success in front of and behind cameras. There has long prior been proof of our viability. And to claim that only now people can see or accept this is insulting to generations of African Americans and the American public at large. To say nothing of the even less acknowledge or seen Latino/Hispanic and Asian communities.

Back in November of 2008

“It may say something about the state of American television that there is one more black president-elect of the United States than there are black actors with individual lead roles in a network television drama.”

Recently Bill Cosby had this to say about the supposed Obama effect and television

“No, because these people are stupid," he says, referring to network bosses. "Look at how NBC is struggling. You would think they would make some changes and be talking about trying to get another 'Cosby' kind of show. But they would probably die before putting another show on about a black family and black pride."

And Bishop T.D. Jakes stated

“I think sometimes the only images we see of people of color are the images that Hollywood projects: the hip-hop, the gangs, the street life. Now, it would be wonderful for them to recognize what has always existed in the African-American community and what Obama's presidency suggests: middle-class African-Americans who are articulate, intelligent and thoughtful."

And that is the issue. Hollywood wants African Americans to be limited to gangsta rappers or such ilk. President or not, African Americans are supposed to be bad guys, poor, uneducated and in need of a hand-out. Adding more African Americans because of President Obama is just that. And once he is out of office, just like with the Cosby effect, they can go back on message.

That is insulting. I don’t want laws to tell me that I am equal. I don’t want executives in Hollywood to portray African Americans in a movie or program because they want to enlighten me to success. These things should be obvious to anyone that looks around or reads more than a high school book on history.

America does not need an effect. We need respect. For those that work everyday, that contribute to the prosperity of the economy, of those that aren’t living the commoditization of Black culture. We need to acknowledge that without African Americans, America would have failed before it could have started. And that right this second, there are tens of thousands that are qualified and capable but overlooked because they have a permanent tan.

Jaime Foxx, Denzel Washington, Laurence Fishburne, Bill Cosby, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Sidney Poitier, Angela Bassett, Terrance Howard, Gabrielle Union, Oprah Winfrey, Spike Lee, Bill Duke, and so many others are not an Obama effect. They are not an effect at all. They are representatives of a far larger, more diverse community that has been right here for as long as America has been around – they have just been mostly ignored.

Trying to placate this vital segment of America with insincere transitional leftovers is not the answer. Though it does answer a sincere question that often is asked and I think best stated in the movie The Tuskegee Airmen.

“Lt. Col. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. – Andre Braugher -
…I ask myself the most difficult question everyday. How do I feel about my country… and how does my country feel about me.”

A lie said by millions

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya - Princess Bride

Yesterday I was speaking about Good Hair, the upcoming documentary by Chris Rock. After having written about this subject I was brought back to an old pet peeve of mine. A common saying that is obtuse and an oxymoron. And everyone has heard it.

In countless films, emails, books, and nowadays internet dating sites you have seen

“Tall, dark, and handsome”

Now because of the conditioning of the media most will imagine Cary Grant, Mel Gibson, Leonardo DiCaprio or some other famous White guy. But that is completely counter-intuitive. It just is stupid.

Dark defined as:

Black, shadowed or black, having a dark hue, colored: having skin rich in melanin pigments

Since the meaning of the word is definitive, and in no application equating to white, light, pink or pale, I am at a loss of how the hell anyone can take that phrase to mean a White male of any sort.

It is solely through the manipulation of the media and Hollywood that anyone might confuse what the hell is being said. Such that “tall, dark, and handsome” should in reality bring up thoughts of Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx , Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, or Michael Clarke Duncan and so on.

It is so absurd as to be absolutely common. And I doubt many non-people of color ever thing twice about how stupid that statement is.

Is this a big deal? No, not in a change of life sense. But it does say something about long-term depictions of people of color and subtle unconscious preferences in the nation. At least I think so.

Billions are spent every year for people to go and “get some color”. Tens of millions travel the globe to have their skin darken, though temporarily, and gain a “healthy tone”. And the search for eternal love is often filled with the above statement. At every turn it is a statement of the beauty of people of color.

Yet to consciously state such in public is abominable. Instead we get so much media influence that the obvious is now the wrong answer. Talk about love and hate. No wonder western society is so screwed up.

And before I get the hate-mail, or those trying to justify the phrase, those from Mediterranean backgrounds are not dark. When I stand next to an Italian man, he does not look like me. He is not confused as Black. He may be more pink or tan than some, especially after being out in the sun, but there is no question as to whether he is Black.

Look this is not about race as much as it is about language and the meanings American society places in those words. It is a wake up call that some things are just too stupid for intelligent people in the 21st century to do. It is a reminder that if we allow such obvious blatant falsehoods to continue unabated and unquestioned, we equally allow the breeding grounds for racism and prejudice to grow,

So it’s obvious. The next time you use that phrase indicate that you are speaking about a Black person. And if you overhear a friend use the term incorrectly, remind them how dumb they are being. Because I really am beyond annoyed at hearing it used as it has been.

2008 - a year in overview

With the hours ticking away I wanted to go back one last time and look at the year 2008.

It has been quite the year. Barack Obama rose from a nuisance Senator for the Clinton machine to become the first Black President, 411 years after the first African slave was recorded in this land.

The financial system started the year with rising oil, depressed profits, and fears of inflation. Which quickly became a domino of failed institutions, buy-in, buy-outs, and bailouts - most funded by the Government. And the vortex of money sinking into the blackhole of political finger-pointing, and employment worries has yet to end. But inflation and oil are no longer concerns.

And focusing on entertainment we started the year with a mediocre talent that died from his own illogical action and was catapulted to superstardom for it. As the year progressed, serious acclaimed greats in literature, comedy, film, music, and other forms of entertainment passed - barely with attention. And it looks like even into 2009, the stupid actions of 1 man will dwarf the lifetime of achievement of dozens of others.

War continues to rage in the world and in the movies. While the atrocities in Darfur continue to be waged, the screens of America are filled with blame America-for-everything political wastes of time. These films are not bad because they are badly acted (though some are), or that the scripts are irrelevant (some are just too inane to imagine being greenlighted), or even because they don't like their home nation (one of the few in the world that allows criticism of every elected official without reprisal). They just failed to entertain.

Hollywood enjoyed a year that was filled with no surprises and even fewer attempts at innovation than the year before. More sequels, spin-offs, remakes, revisioned past favorites and direct copies on the big and small screen occurred than Bill Ayers on a LSD flashback remembering his past actions. And most were as entertaining - the new 90210 comes to mind.

Filling the void of intellect was fodder so unfit as to be like sugar mainlined into a 5 year old with ADHD. There was the usual "reality" programming that did nothing but allow the public to lose brain cells without the joy of a buzz. And there was the not so subtle loss of several programs that bucked the trend - The Shield, The Riches, among others.

Another loss to the small screen flies in the face of the change in politics in the nation. While America gains the first African American to ascend to our highest office, television descended to a vision of America not seen since 2000 (or more like 1970). Several Black actors in co-leading roles were removed, or shows canceled. Hispanics and Latinos remain virtually unseen and when seen reflecting a diversity that is easily confused with another ethnicity. Native Americans and Asians remain invisible, even in background scenery. And if that sounds bad, the environment behind the camera is 1/3 as diverse.

So in 2009 the schizophrenia will be that one of the few times a Black face will be on the national airwaves will be in the news and the rest of television will be whitewashed. The hypocrisy of Hollywood and its ultra-liberal views, as opposed to its staunch 1950's actions, is amazing to behold.

And the ethical void continues to grow. The nation was deluged with images and stories of entertainers doing the wrong thing and getting away with it. From the British Winehouse (aptly named I think) to our own disfunctional and potentially child-endangering Spears. We watched as entertainers were allowed to throw children into crowds from stages, admit drug use, carry illegal weapons, abuse animals and people alike, all without a hint of true reprimand.

And as the substitution of justice we had racial revenge. OJ provided the means for many White Americans to cry out "Justice at last" though his trial was a mockery of justice from start to finish. He may be a fool, and perhaps even guilty of past crimes, but his trial was as much a kangaroo court as in any movie.

And when it comes to the law the media was very consistent. African Americans that they labeled guilty were made to look horrible, and their claims (and even jury confirmation) of innocence went unheard - like Wesley Snipes. But for the people making the media money, in music videos and records and what some call movies, there was plenty of coverage hyping their minor convictions - like Akon and DMX.

2008 was quite the year indeed. So much happened all at once it was often hard to be sure what was the most important thing to track. And just as often what the media wanted us to watch was the least important of the issues at hand. But then again this was the year where the line between journalism and cheerleading was obscured from sight. The after-the-fact admissions of several media giants that they crossed the line, "a little", says nothing of the 'feeling in my leg' they poured into televisions and thus homes across the nation.

The news media was so bad that satirical comedy shows often were more objective and less political than the supposed "neutral" media. And networks like CNN and MSNBC wonder why their ratings are so bad.

2008 was a bad year in most every manner of accounting. From wasteful spending by the Government, to political polispeak that was fair and unfair. Even in moments of honesty - like polling from various agencies during the Primaries - America showed the world that the ugly underbelly of racism still held a grip in the nation.

I won't miss 2008 overall. While I am amazed and pleased with being able to say President Obama and that I am a homeowner, there is little else that occurred in this year that makes me wish to relive it even in memories.

But 2009 is just hours away. And with it will come a new President, with a very different set of objectives for America. The new year will usher in a new direction in American thinking, where some like it or not. And the media will be forced to adjust, because even in comic books the world is changing.

2008 was they year to say "I want change", 2009 will be the year it happens in. And we can all only hope that the change is better than the reality of the year that has ended.

The Librarian: Quest for the Judas Chalice

So tonight was the 3rd installment of the Librarian series on TNT Network. The series stars Noah Wyle as the titular character, essentially the foremost uber-nerd. His character is the vessel of facts both obscure and pertinant as documented throughout written history. And he is our vehicle to plumb the truth of many of the legends we have all heard of, to some degree.

The start of the program takes us through a very specific path through the prior 2 features. It focuses mainly on the first adventure, and the assistant to the Librarian Nicole. I found that interesting to note since the female lead in the 2nd feature was about as emaciated as fish after a cat has gotten thru with it. Seriously, all I could think about when that actress was on the screen was how anorexia is so pervasive and acceptable in Hollywood.

But focusing on this new story we find that our near hapless hero is stressed out. He can't keep a single girlfriend for more than 6 months, and its driving him mad. Or at least highly unfulfilled. And so he needs to take a vacation.

This program being what it is, the mystical and legendary take a strong role in what we learn of. Thus it is a vision of a woman calling for our hero that determines where he will vacation. And many is the guy (or woman) that wishes the person of their dreams would lead them on a vacation.

This then takes our adventure to New Orleans. The plot from this point takes it's cues from various Anne Rice and other similar pop culture on vampires.

The real question is if this entire television movie is worth the time to see it. And the answer is both yes and no. The majority of the program is enjoyable enough. Wyle is a good actor and his portrayal is humorous and likeable. At this point in the series though his character is both terribly naive and more than a bit gullible. You have to wonder, and as Bob Newhart's character notes, does he realize where he is work?

The location shots are nice. The plot is thin if not constantly in motion so as to hide the plot holes as much as possible. And the acting of all the other characters is par in general. Were this a movie in a theater it just wouldn't do, but for the small screen it's better than most offerings.

But the main problem the series has had is the casting of the female leads and love interest. For me I have to wonder why they have run from the attractive, interesting, and feminine Nicole character to generally women that look like they are suffering from starvation. Even the vampiress is woefully in need of a cheeseburger. For a woman that was born some 400 years ago, a time when only the poorest of peasant women were so thin, you wonder why a vampire would pick her as a victim.

Of course the series further developed the storyline of the purpose of the Librarian, the battle of good and evil it represents, and the boss of the librarian. This means that barring all the actresses in Hollywood going to a McDonald's and eating a burger - and thus being incapable of performing - there will be a 4th telemovie.

Perhaps in this next movie we will finally see the uber-geek get and keep a girl. Perhaps the Librarian will finally come to full terms with his job and the oddities that exist in the world. I mean he does practice swordsmanship with a floating self-aware Excaliber.

In all, I found Quest for the Judas Chalice to be a fair program. It was not on par with the first and marginally better than the second. IF the series further devolves it won't make it past a 4th. Which would be a shame as it has the potential to be a quasi-mystical geek version of James Bond. But if you see it on TNT and there isn't a copy of one of the Jason Bourne movies, or Die Hard, or so on take a look.