Remember how on the last post that Mel Gibson and his Icon Productions were interested in Michael Moore's upcoming project. Well, it seems that Gibson has placed his reputation over dollar signs (and yes, that is usually a good thing) and has dropped Moore's upcoming film due to both Gibson's time constraints (i.e., still working on post-production of THE PASSION, I can't wait to get a real laugh out of it) and the fact that Moore's material was "too hot to handle".
Also, remember how I said Gibson has two choices, which were:
A.) Mel works with Moore, putting their politics aside, due to BOWLING FOR COLLUMBINE, a documentary on a measily budget of $3 million that brought in $44 million in it's release, and seeing that Moore is definately a money maker.
B.) Due to Mel being a Conservative-Republican and that if he worked alongside Moore, a Liberal-Democrat, he would be criticised as a hypocrite and another Hollywood elite that's after some more cash, which could ruin his social status.
Yet I'm suprised how Mel went with reputation over dollar signs. I mean, Gibson's recent body of work (i.e., WHAT WOMEN WANT, WE WERE SOLDIERS, THE PATRIOT) are an example of him just taking the money and run, with nary a thought of performance value. And hey, sometimes you need the money to live and pay the bills, but putting some emphasis in the character that he plays in the films I mentioned adds more to the performance, which he sadly doesn't do most of the time. Yet, I'm suprised by Mel's decision. I thought he would have jumped at the chance, yet dollar signs didn't matter to Mel this time around I guess. In either case, what's done is done. Oh well.
In the meantime, Moore has signed up with Michael Eisner with one of the Disney subsidiary production companies (can't recall which one at the moment) and the project is being funded. Now who didn't see this one coming? I sure as hell didn't!
Comments or questions?
Wow! Moore did a lil expose on Disney on his old show, The Awful Truth. So that is a shocker. I love Moore and can't wait to see his new movie! I want to email him and ask if he has a son my age. Us bleeding hearts have to stick together. ;0)
Deena
so working with somebody that has different political views than you makes you a hypocrite?
I, personally, don't think that working with somebody else who has different political views would make me or anybody else a hypocrite at all. Sadly, that is what most of the audience will believe when they see the results.
You have to realize that Mel Gibson has made it known that he is a Conservative-Republican, that he supports George W. Bush and the recent war. Michael Moore has made it known that he is an extreme Liberal-Democrat, that he hates Bush with a passion and that he was not for the war. Here are two men with different political takes and dislike their opponent party. Now if they are willing to work together, putting their politics behind them (as I feel it should be), both Moore and Gibson could have worked together successfully. But then, why didn't Gibson go on with the project? Simple: the material was just too controversial for him and his Icon Productions, with the possibility that his reputation will be at stake if he went through with it (after all, the audience knows about these two guys position on politics), and thus he canceled the pre-production of Moore's project. If he did go through with it, it could have made some money, depending on how well it turns out, yet Gibson would then end up being harshly criticized for being a hypocrite on his political position by the audience.
Again, I don't think your political status is important. Yet, the audience believes it is. Take a good look at Susan Sarandon, a Liberal-Democrat that protested the war, is against Bush, and such with the result of her fan base and audience dimming. Even her made-for-TV movie tha premered on Easter bombed as THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, a 50-year-old film, beat it out. Same goes to Tim Robbins and George Clooney.
In either case, what's done it done.
Yeah, but I'll still watch Rocky Horror, and Bull Durham for that matter.
I've got no problem with actors working with each other even though they have different political view points. Now, if an actor is in a movie that has a decidedly political viewpoint which is opposite their own view, then I could see that as cynical money grubbing.
raj wrote:
> Yeah, but I'll still watch Rocky Horror, and Bull Durham for
> that matter.
Oh don't get me wrong, raj. I'll still watch ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW and put the political viewpoints aside as I don't care at all. As for BILL DURHAM, I didn't think it was not that great of a film. Not because of political viewpoints mind you, but because it just didn't hold my attention.
In either case, other audiences will see it all differently. I remember listening to Sean Hannity during the whole protesting-the-war subject wayback for which he mentions Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins involved: he recieved quite a number of callers that said they will no longer watch a Sarandon or Robbins film ever again, to which Hannity applauded them for their actions. Of course, this is all the act of an audiences decision of their viewing choice, which I have no problem with. After all, this is a free country. Yet, it does show that some audiences will watch a film based on an actors/actress political stantz, rather than their talent or performance to offer.
> Now, if an actor is in a movie that has a decidedly political viewpoint
> which is opposite their own view, then I could see that as
> cynical money grubbing.
I have two words for you: Martin Sheen. Here is a guy who one minute protests war and is against it, yet the next minute he is narrating a World War 2 documentary.
Chris K. wrote:
> raj wrote:
>
> > Yeah, but I'll still watch Rocky Horror, and Bull Durham for
> > that matter.
>
> Oh don't get me wrong, raj. I'll still watch ROCKY HORROR
> PICTURE SHOW and put the political viewpoints aside as I don't
> care at all. As for BILL DURHAM, I didn't think it was not that
> great of a film. Not because of political viewpoints mind you,
> but because it just didn't hold my attention.
I liked Bull Durham because I'm a bit of a baseball nut, but to each his own.
> > Now, if an actor is in a movie that has a decidedly political
> viewpoint
> > which is opposite their own view, then I could see that as
> > cynical money grubbing.
>
> I have two words for you: Martin Sheen. Here is a guy who one
> minute protests war and is against it, yet the next minute he
> is narrating a World War 2 documentary.
Has he said he's against all war, or just wars started by Bushes/Republicans? In which case he'd be in favor of the Spanish American war, WWI & WWII, Korea, Vietnam. . . (and it is kinda hard to be against WWII)
Michael Moore should make a movie called, I SHOULD NOT USE THE ACADEMY AWARDS AS A FORUM TO SHOOT OFF MY BIG, FAT MOUTH.
Maybe he can get Susan Sarandon to star in it.
I'm a cynic. I think Gibson probably dropped the Moore project because of issues with The Passion. He wants it in theaters next Easter and has to get the movie completed and a distributor for it. Moore wants his documentary in theaters by Election 2004. Those are pretty intense working schedules for a small company. While I think Moore could probably have his pick of distributors (his comments have done nothing but add cash to the already huge profit intake of both his book, Stupid White Men and his movie Bowling for Columbine) Disney gives him the unique chance to get a far larger than average budget AND a large studio to distribute his product to a far wider audience, and if anything goes south...well he can rage against the corporate machine in an all new documentary (Michael And Me? Mousetrap? The Mouse that Whimpered?) or book.
raj wrote:
> Has he said he's against all war, or just wars started by
> Bushes/Republicans? In which case he'd be in favor of the
> Spanish American war, WWI & WWII, Korea, Vietnam. . . (and it
> is kinda hard to be against WWII)
Last I remember hearing, Martin Sheen is against all war. At least to what I can remember reading.
The backlash about anti-war comments from people like the Dixie Chicks, George Clooney, Tim Robbins, and Susan Saradon amazes me. Frankly, if you're a Dixie Chicks fan, did you become one because of their political views or because you like their music?
Dixie Chicks sales are up, but I wonder what the demographics of the sales are. Bet they are in the north east and the west and not the south, which is where almost everybody listens to Country and Western music and Country and Western fans are mostly conservative.
I think most of the 'backlash' against stars and such was media driven, to make everything look more lively than it actually was. Heck, the Baseball Hall of Fame cancellation of the Bull Durham (don't want those living in sin leftie nutsos Sarandon and Robbins flapping their Anti-American yaps at an All-American Celebration of the America's Fave-o-rite Pastime!) blew up in the faces of those that called it off more so than Robbins or Sarandon. Most of these boycotts will blow over and things will quiet down, for awhile. Until something else gets everybody in a shouting match.
Bubba wrote:
> The backlash about anti-war comments from people like the Dixie
> Chicks, George Clooney, Tim Robbins, and Susan Saradon amazes
> me. Frankly, if you're a Dixie Chicks fan, did you become one
> because of their political views or because you like their
> music?
Sadly, I'm not a big Dixie Chicks fan. Not because of their politics mind you, I'm not to big on country music. And yet Bubba, you bring up an excellent point: are you a fan because of their political views, or because you like their music/movies? But sadly, some audiences will go for political stantz rather than tallent. I go for the latter category, and I am sure some of those on this forum do so as well.
are you a fan because of their political views, or because you like their music/movies?
Well, then you get bands like U2, who's views actaully influence what they sing/write about.
Fearless Freep wrote:
> Well, then you get bands like U2, who's views actaully
> influence what they sing/write about.
Well then, this has to be a slightly different case then. What do you say about it, Fearless?
To be honest I don't know anything about the Dixie Chicks or much else about popular music these days. As such, I really didn't even follow what they said. Being a popular entertainer doesn't mean you are any wiser than anyone else, you just tend to have a larger stage on which to voice your (often simplistic and misguided) opinion. I tend to ignore when celebrities make news by their political statements.
U2 I have a lot of respect for. I know when they started out they had some pretty strong opinions and thoughs and they were good at carrying them through. I think they got sucked into the machine, though, and took up political causes more as a kneejerk reaction then for any really well thought out reasons.
Interestingly, I find Neil Peart to have some of the most well thought on ideas and concepts expressed in lyrics, although philosophically I often disagree with him.
The Dick Hicks (in addition to making some of the worst mucisc the world has ever known) are just out for attention and publicity. Why else would they appear on EW nude? Because their passionate artists trying to communicate to the public fro their hearts on a personal issue (like the husbands they sing about killing) or they're stupid bimbos?
Ani Difranco is a great example of a political musician. She does write some personal stuff, but the great mass of her work is political. She's awesome and I agree with most of her views, I love her music, and her wordplay is awesome. It all depends on the artist whether you have to like their views or not. I don't see the Dixie Chicks as being very political, I can't say I've heard much of their stuff, but what I have heard doesn't seem very political, so in that case, I'd say that the fans are there for the music, which does not express many policy views.
"Give the big oil companies the finger"-- Ani Difranco 'Self Evident'
Deena
I had respect for moore once, but not anymore hes just being so....stupid now. I liked his show and I loved 'the big one' but lately hes becoming.. an ambulance chaser with his anti republican views.
i was being rhetorical...i hate politics...most likely because "politics" and hypocrisy are basically the same thing
What if OJ Simpson starred in a new movie, would anyone here pay to go see it?
What celebrities do in their private lives does affect the way people view them. I used to think Jane Fonda was hot in her earlier movies, but then I heard about what she did during the Vietnam war. Now when I see her in a movie, all I can think about is how much I'd like to smack her.
Chadzilla wrote:
"Heck, the Baseball Hall of Fame cancellation of the Bull Durham...blew up in the faces of those that called it off more so than Robbins or Sarandon."
One of my favorite stories of late, that is.
"Politics has no place in the Hall of Fame...There was a chance of politics being injected into the Hall during these sensitive times, and I made a decision to not take that chance."
--Baseball Hall of Fame Chief Dale Petroskey--a former White House assistant press secretary under President Reagan--who was so "concerned" about politics that he invited White House spokesman Ari Fleischer to speak at a Hall of Fame event last year. Petroskey claimed that Robbins and Sarandon's "recent comments ultimately could put our troops in...danger." 9_9
___________________________
"Remember: War Is The Tool Of The Sexist Death Merchants"
--The new Richard Perle (http://slate.msn.com/id/2082676/) seminar! Reserve seats now!!
Thanks for the info. It does sound hypocritical. I wonder how he'd have dealt with Hitler & Tojo.
JohnL wrote:
> What if OJ Simpson starred in a new movie, would anyone here
> pay to go see it?
I can't stand to watch old movies with him in it, like Naked Gun. Besides he's busy scouring golf courses looking for the real killer.
> What celebrities do in their private lives does affect the way
> people view them. I used to think Jane Fonda was hot in her
> earlier movies, but then I heard about what she did during the
> Vietnam war. Now when I see her in a movie, all I can think
> about is how much I'd like to smack her.
I haven't seen any Hanoi Jane movie in years, except for Barbarella (bought the dvd recently, love that flick.) She did repudiate her anti-Viet Nam actions a while back, I think.
A co-worker of mine got the form letter from Petroskey (he wasn't taking any calls, I wonder why?) when she called in to blast the Hall for what they did. Both sad and funny as hell.
Perhaps Mel was just afraid that Fat Bastard would eat him.
Quote:
"Disney has again come under attack from conservatives as a result of the decision by its Miramax unit to back Michael Moore's ("Bowling for Columbine") next documentary, "Fahrenheit 911." On Wednesday, Steve Wood, who operates the Republican website GOPUSA.com, took note of the fact that some conservatives are talking about boycotting Disney products and cancelling vacations at the Disney theme parks, "and I'd have to say that we will certainly think twice now about spending our hard-earned money at Disney, knowing that it might be used to support someone like Michael Moore. ...Disney has every right to fund Michael Moore, but we also have every right to take that into consideration when we choose how to spend our disposable income."
Tom Perrault of the Christian-conservative Crosswalk website wrote Wednesday that Disney ought to "refrain from actively supporting an anti-family and/or anti-conservative agenda." Perrault also objected to the fact that the voice of Ellen DeGeneres is featured in the upcoming Pixar/Disney cartoon, "Finding Nemo." He concludes: "With literally hundreds and hundreds of perfectly viable options, Disney goes with someone whose personal lifestyle is antithetical to the throngs of families who are supposed to eagerly flock to the theaters on May 30th [when "Nemo" opens]."
--Where Else? The IMDB
(1) Wait, I thought right-wingers were already boycotting Disney over the whole "lettin' them damn queers into Disney World" thing. And Miramax's "Kids." And that boner they thought they saw in "The Little Mermaid." And Divine.
(2) The only people who care about what Ellen DeGeneres does are pathetic homophobes like Jerry Falwell...and Tom Perrault. Normal people quit giving a crap about her ages ago. Wait--I though Hollywood was filled with nothing but dirty heathens! Now there are "hundreds and hundreds of perfectly viable options?"
(3) "Disney has every right to fund Michael Moore..." Wow, that's darn white of you, Steve. I'm surprised you didn't call for the execution of the Disney board under the Sedition Act. Going to bide your time, huh? *snicker*
(4) Yes, by all means, make a fuss. Look how you put the Dixie Chicks out of business.
----------------------------------------
He's wearing a flight suit! He must be a war hero!!
> Has he said he's against all war, or just wars started by
> Bushes/Republicans? In which case he'd be in favor of the
> Spanish American war, WWI & WWII, Korea, Vietnam. . . (and it
> is kinda hard to be against WWII)
As celeb pundits have demonstrtaed hundeds of times before they could care less about a war started if it was a democrat. No Sarandon protests when he bombed Bagdhad.
By "he" I mean Clinton. Sorry.
And I suppose the fact that I'm a Christian conservative who supports Bush makes me one of these horrible people right. Pleez Squish. Last time you brough up politics you made a complete ass of yourself to anyone with an IQ higher than 2.
Moore is not a real bleeding-heart. he's just some pompus idiot trying to make some bucks on the bloody-heart ticket. Your actually stabbing real blood-hearts in the back by supporting him.
Again, I'm for arguing viewpoints. But I don't think Andrew wants to go through the rules with us again on how to act here. So, let's just semer down and stick with the main agenda of the subject.
The thread here was just getting good and I don't want it closed down, like the other one was.
Wow, four posts in a row. I'm sorry--I don't take anyone who lit into Chadzilla with a profanity-laced tirade for being a "liberal" seriously...especially when they lecture me about IQs. Remember how that ended for you, Creepo? Here's a reminder:
"...Oh."
NOW tell me about making a complete ass of oneself. You have the experience.
Your still a dumbass. That's never changed.
Oh, and don't tout yourself as "liberal" either. You're just an ass.
Tell that to the babbling moron, Squishy.