823 comments posted · 3 followers · following 0
ABC has to know just the title alone is going to alienate 50 percent of their potential audience. That might work for HBO or Showtime, which as pay services can get away with insulting a swatch of viewers because their programs have no advertising, but the show's rationale for being is in the same vein as all those military-bashing Hollywood movies that were made between 2005 and 2008. The idea isn't to make a profit, it's to gratify their own personal ideology and beliefs, which is kind of strange for a network that lives and dies on ad rates.
If ABC wants to keep it on as a sop to the bi-coastal trendies, that's their prerogative. but I'm sure whatever show or local newscast that follows isn't going to be happy trying to pull viewers back because some programming guy or gal wants to be popular at Hollywood and Upper West Side cocktail parties.
Ideologically, the big media and Hollywood remain in lockstep, but what allows Hollywood to point out the excesses of print and/or TV journalism is that because they are celebrities, some of those excesses happen to them -- the obsessive coverage to boost ratings or circulations, to the point that the truth often gets run roughshod over by the need to be as sensationalist and salacious as possible. So you can get a "Broadcast News" or Paul Newman's 1981 "Absence of Malice" that go after the big media based on some of the same concerns you hear people on the right have about the big media.
The problem is Hollywood's only situationally mad at the media when it's excesses annoy them. Unleash the same hoards to hype or fabricate stories about people they don't like (see Palin, Sarah for the best recent examples), and Hollywood is perfectly fine with the actions of the big media (and it would be fun to query some of the folks behind "Broadcast News" on what they think of network news coverage of the 2008 and the ongoing 2012 campaigns. My guess, other than a few invective-filled rants about Fox, they'd have no problem with how the media's done their job).
11 years ago @
Big Hollywood -
But the decision to debut the movie on March 10 remains interesting, to say the least, since HBO does have to set their schedules up months in advance.
The closest thing this resembles is all the companies (including at least a couple of Hollywood studios and/or TV networks) that months in advance made major preparations to broadcast from, or tie things in with, the 1980 Summer Olympics from Moscow, only to see Jimmy Carter ban the U.S. from participating because he suddenly realized the Soviets had snookered him by invading Afghanistan. That left a lot of people having invested a lot of $$$ holding the bag, and the same thing applies here -- HBO and all those liberal stars were already well into the process of making "Game Change" when Palin opted not to run for president, leaving them with a white elephant of a movie to try and market, and at a time of the year when debuting the movie makes no sense, unless you did it specifically to link it to the biggest primary day of the year that was to take place four days earlier.
Unless you're a rabid Palin-hater, why on Earth are you going to sit home on a Saturday night and watch this movie? Non-political junkies have no reason to care about Palin now, since she's only tangentially in the spotlight, with the focus centered on Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. With no rationale to go after Palin that they could hide behind if she were in the political campaign, "Game Change" is likely going to be the political version of "Mommie Dearest" -- the 1981 film on Joan Crawford that was so over-the-top awful that it was almost entertaining in its melodramatic ineptitude (the movie also set back the careers of many of the people involved, which due to the politics of the people involved, "Game Change" won't do. But it will come across as the equivalent of the political left's wet dream).
Unlike the ESPN situation, Whitlock apologized and was neither fired nor suspended by Fox.
Christopher on the other hand knows better both about the OWS camps and about Olbermann's instability and habit of throwing out fraudulent charges. But he's decided that since he ideologically agrees with most of what the OWSers stand for, he's willing to stand with Keith on this one and pretend that his side's street protesters travel the country on unicorns and crap rainbows, because not to do so would hurt The Cause. Deliberately denying reality is in a way worse than being batshirt crazy enough to demand that reality conform to whatever you believe at the moment, which is pretty much Olby's credo.
At least they can realistically do the hostage set-up/escape plan in "Pelham 1-2-3" again. But I hate those damn bucket seats on the Flushing line.
If you're going to make a statement, at least fact-check your own claims before you post them.
But part of the cost-savings was via consolidation of both snack bars and rest room facilities. Get in the wrong theater all the way down near the fire exit, and not only is it a long walk to the snack bar (if the auxiliaries are closed) and the potty (ditto), but you're sharing them (i.e -- standing in line) with people from 23 other screens. No matter how comfortable you make it, you're not going to have the same level of accessibility as back when you had single-screen movie houses.
The theater owners don't want to go back to the single-screen concept, especially now with the number of crappy films exponentially higher than 30 years ago. At best, you might be able to segregate the types of movies into theaters showing those designed more for adult audiences and those catering the the teen cell phone texting crowd, but that would probably only work in the biggest cities, since again, the theater owners don't want to end up booking a bunch of 'artsty' films of limited interest or a bunch of teen flicks that turns the theater into something resembling the island from "Lord of the Flies".