June 27, 2005
{...}It was the 18th weekend in a row the box office declined, passing a 1985 slump of 17 weekends that had been the longest since analysts began keeping detailed figures on movie grosses.{...}Theater revenues have skidded about 7 percent compared to last year. Factoring in higher ticket prices, movie admissions are off 10 percent for the year, according to box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.
{...}If the slump continues, Hollywood is on course for a third straight year of declining admissions and its lowest ticket sales since the mid-1990s.
"We're working with a pretty huge deficit that would take a lot of business to overcome," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations. "Just breaking the slump is not enough. We would have to reverse the trend and see attendance on a big uptick."
Well, kids. If the problem is low ticket sales, perhaps you should:
a. stop putting out crap
b. lower your ticket prices
Because option a flows into option b. I can't tell you how many times I've been subjected to full-priced crapola. I get tired of paying full price for crapola. You people have put out so much crapola over the years, and yet you expect us, the paying customer, to shell out our hard earned money for the pleasure of watching said crapola. Perhaps you should think about your business model, because you're not really paying attention to the laws of basic economics, are you? Supply and demand, kids. If you want to make money on the demand portion, you have to supply a product people are willing to pay for. It's pretty simple stuff, on the whole.
I was horrified to learn that a very good film we watched this weekend, The Machinist, was rejected by the American studios. The director had to go to Spain to get it made. Apparently, they know how to tell a story in Spain, whereas if the American studios had made this film, it probably would have been hacked to death to fit some stupid marketing demographic. I'm sad I didn't get the opportunity to see this one in the theater. I would have paid good money to see it in the theater because that action promotes the kind of movie I would like to see more of.
The choice now rests with the consumer. You have to please us or we won't spend the money. You do realize that, don't you? I sincerely hope so. Your expectations, Hollywood, are out of whack and you're now receiving this message loud and clear. Most people make certain calls nowadays about when to see a movie: they go to the theater only for stuff they want to see in the theater; if they're somewhat lukewarm, they'll wait for the DVD; if they really don't care all that much, they'll wait for it to come on cable. You people just seem to assume we're going to go to the theater, then we're going to purchase---or at the very least rent---the DVD, and then that we'll watch it again on cable. That's not the case. We're not made of money, kids. We have to be discriminating consumers nowadays because a trip to the movies can make a serious dent in your wallet.
Now, the basic underlying problem comes in when you go to the theater to see something that looks appealing, you fork over the $8.50 ticket price (and I know this more expensive elsewhere) and then you come out of said theater two hours later, disappointed. You've been forced to sit through God only knows how many commercials and trailers before the film even started...and then the film turned out to be crap. The story was disjointed and poorly told. The overpaid actors didn't do their job very well. The director refused to use a stead-i-cam and you felt like you were going to puke when the action scenes started. All of these things will keep people away from the theater. Because if you want to charge $8.50, you might want to make a product most people would consider worthy of that amount of money, and you haven't done it lately. Perhaps they'll rent it on DVD later on, or maybe they'll watch it on cable. Who knows? But the overall point remains clear: you can only burn us so many times before we start voicing our objections by not buying your product. Do you get it yet?
You don't? Well, let's talk about ticket prices, shall we? This is where you could make up some losses. Because if it didn't cost $8.50 to go and see a movie, more people would go. It's pretty simple. It might become affordable for people. But right now you people don't seem to think that this is an expensive activity. Let me disabuse you of that notion, because it is. When the husband and I go to see a movie, we try to go to a matinee, which costs us a whopping $6.50 per ticket. Not much of discount, eh? And furthermore the local movie theater just informed us the other day that any show after four p.m. on Friday, Saturday and Sunday was going to be the full-price $8.50. Do the math: if we go to see a matinee, it's $13. If we go after four on a weekend, well, it's $17. Imagine buying tickets for a family with four kids and two adults at these prices. The kid price at the local movie theater is $4.50 for a matinee and $6.50 for evening. That's $31 for a matinee showing and $43 for an evening showing. That's hardly affordable and that's just to see the movie. Then if you perhaps want the whole meal movie deal, like a soda or a bag of popcorn, you'll get raped at the concession stand. A small soda costs $3.00. In what universe are you people living? That's affordable? That's fair market value? That's baloney and you know it. People should not have to take out debt to see a movie. And that's what a lot of people do: they use their credit cards to pay for this treat. Because that's ultimately what a movie is: a treat; an entertainment. You make your money on entertaining people. That's fine and dandy, but perhaps you might want to realize you've built your business model on a foundation made of sand. Your product is not necessary in our lives. It's fun and it's cool, but it's not necessary. Your product is the first thing that gets cut from a family budget that needs to be tightened. I know you'd like to think that Art--with a capital A---is as necessary to life as breathing, but really, when the choice comes down between eating or going to a movie, you're going to lose every time.
So, you see, it all adds up. This is our bottom line. We have to pay attention to that like you have to pay attention to yours. We've made our adjustments. You, on the other hand, haven't. You expect business to go on as usual: with us forking over the cash for crap product, and you laughing all the way to the bank.
Not anymore.
Posted by: Kathy at
03:21 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1215 words, total size 7 kb.
June 26, 2005
And charge for it, too!
Remember, if you really want to get somewhere in this world, nothing will get you there quite so speedily as pandering to the ass fucking whimsies of every straight man out there.
And you'll have some spare cash in your pocket, too! What could be better?
UPDATE Oh, and I almost forgot about the offer from Playboy to pose for wanking shots! Every Playboy subscriber could, conceivably, be delivering you millions of pearl necklaces! What could be more satisfying than that?
Posted by: Kathy at
09:18 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
June 24, 2005
NEW YORK: Tom Cruise criticized NBC "Today" show host Matt Lauer on Friday when Lauer mentioned Cruise's earlier criticism of Brooke Shields for taking anti-depressants. Cruise told Lauer he didn't know what he was talking about. "You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do," Cruise said.The interview became more heated when Lauer, who said he knew people who had been helped by the attention-deficit disorder drug Ritalin, asked Cruise about the effects of the drug.
"Matt, Matt, you don't even — you're glib," Cruise responded. "You don't even know what Ritalin is. If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt, OK. That's what I've done."
{empahsis mine}
Tommy Boy: world renowned expert in psychiatry. He knows the psychoses and he knows FOR A FACT that drugs are bad, mmmkay!
Because he's done the research.
I have two questions. First, isn't it a bit odd that Tommy Boy can say he's more knowledgeable about psychiatry than Matt Lauer when he never bothered to graduate from freakin' high school? And second, isn't it a bit of a cheap shot to go after Lauer on who knows more about what? Sheesh. Show some kindness, eh?
I'm going to one up my prediction from last week: War of the Worlds is going to tank worse than Gigli, not that it's just going to be another Gigli.
Has anyone actually heard anything about what this movie is about in the midst of all this PR hubbub? I certainly haven't. If Tommy Boy is out there and is supposedly "promoting the film" one would think I would have heard something about the film itself. I haven't. Have you?
UPDATE: Here's the video. If you're running Firefox or some other non-IE browser, you'll need to load up IE to view it.
I cannot get over how much Tommy Boy thinks he knows better than actual doctors because, you know, he's read the research. Ummmmm. Ooooookay. My conclusion: it's dangerous. Seriously dangerous. Some poor soul who is struggling with mental illness will watch that and they will go off their meds because Tommy Boy told them there is a "better way" and that "chemical imbalances don't exist." And something horrible could happen. What he's proposing is dangerous because he makes no room for exceptions.
That's scary, folks.
While I will not argue that perhaps he has a point where this sort of medication is being abused and that there is work to be done even if you're on these drugs, his whole attitude scares me. Because it's one thing to say that if you're mildly depressed you don't need to go on meds. That's one thing. It's completely, entirely, another to lump all mental illness under one umbrella and to say people can handle this stuff better on their own.
A few years ago, a member of our extended family was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Yep. He had all of the usual symptoms they show you on tee vee: delusions about the CIA, voices in his head, etc. His family was forced to commit him when the voices started telling him to kill himself. The only reason this man is alive today is because of psychotropic medications. They brought him out of the dangerous fantasy world this illness had forced on him. He has a job now. He's working. He's getting married later this summer. He's living a productive, satisfying life because of these medications. Now, in Tommy's world, this illness doesn't exist, hence there's no need to medicate for it. Furthermore, Tommy would advocate that it's dangerous to medicate anyone for something of this nature, because those drugs change things.
Well, duh, you asshole. Of course they change things, but when the change was forced on you in the first place, through no fault of your own, what exactly are these people to do? Huh? Run down to the Celebrity Center in L.A.? Do you have a Scientology cure for paranoid schizophrenia? Do you have one for bi-polar disorder, too? Do you treat the mentally ill there for no cost, or do they have to pay through the nose for "enlightenment" ? It's curious, isn't it? You never hear the Scientologists talk about the medications for the mentally ill folks who WANT TO KILL THEMSELVES OR OTHERS, do you? They'll bleat on until the cows come home about ADD/ADHD medications or anti-depressants, but they never do talk about the serious stuff, do they? Why is that, do you think? Are they afraid of being sued? Of having all that money they earmarked for the Celebrity Center going to pay off judgments of people who've sued them for their bad advice instead?
I'll repeat: this is dangerous. There is enough of a stigma attached to mental illness that people already don't seek treatment for serious problems because they're afraid of what people will think about them if they do. The last thing anyone needs is for an uneducated celebrity to stick their nose into the situation, heightening that stigma. It's scary and it's dangerous. And someone who is not healthy and in their right mind could die because of it.
What will Tommy Boy say to their families then? That he's quite sorry for their loss, but, really, it's not his fault because they hadn't shot down to their local Scientology center and signed up for the full meal deal?
Posted by: Kathy at
03:26 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 926 words, total size 6 kb.
June 23, 2005
The Supreme Court today effectively expanded the right of local governments to seize private property under eminent domain, ruling that people's homes and businesses -- even those not considered blighted -- can be taken against their will for private development if the seizure serves a broadly defined "public use."In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the ability of New London, Conn., to seize people's homes to make way for an office, residential and retail complex supporting a new $300 million research facility of the Pfizer pharmaceutical company. The city had argued that the project served a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because it would increase tax revenues, create jobs and improve the local economy.
A group of homeowners in New London's Fort Trumbull area had fought the city's attempt to impose eminent domain, arguing that their property could be seized only to serve a clear public use such as building roads or schools or to eliminate blight. The homeowners, some of whom had lived in their house for decades, also argued that the public would benefit from the proposed project only if it turned out to be successful, making the "public use" requirement subject to the eventual performance of the private business venture.
The Fifth Amendment also requires "just compensation" for the owners, but that was not an issue in the case decided today because the homeowners did not want to give up their property at any price.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the case turned on the question of whether New London's development plan served a "public purpose." He added, "Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field."{...}
And what is the intended purpose of the land in question now that it's been seized by the City of New London, Connecticut?
{...}During oral arguments before the court, it emerged that the land parcels at issue were earmarked for office space and "support" for the park or marina, possibly meaning a parking lot.
Nice.
This is going to make life even more hellish for those who are fighting eminent domain. We've had quite a bit of this sort of seizure going on here in the cities. The Minnesota DOT has a nasty habit of playing bait and switch with property appraisals. Best Buy recently relocated its corporate headquarters to Richfield, one nearby burb, from Eden Prairie, another nearby burb, and the City of Richfield pretty much gave away the store in an effort to get them over there. Lots of property was seized and then destroyed so that Best Buy could put up three office buildings that look just like the ones they had in Eden Prairie. Only they're closer to the freeway, which Best Buy coughed up a lot of coin to expand. The husband has business contacts with one of the businesses that was formerly located on the spot next to 494 where a parking lot now resides. This guy, to put it bluntly, got screwed. He fought it, but wound up having to move anyway, and he received about a tenth of what the land was worth. Last I heard the guy wasn't doing so well in his new location. Not enough traffic was the complaint, if I'm recalling things correctly.
Lileks took some photos if you're interested.
Currently, they're talking about expanding Light Rail. And, not so surprisingly, one of the new lines they're talking about building would shoot right down the street I live on, because it's one of the few in the area that actually goes straight through. Most of the other streets stop and start and have been designed with traffic barriers to keep people from cutting through residential neighborhoods at high rates of speed. Now, I don't know if this is going to happen, and it probably won't because it would be a mess, but, speaking strictly in hypothetical terms, the width of the light rail lines would decree that houses and businesses on either side of this street would need to be knocked down. Because light rail operates on city streets. Where car traffic is still allowed. And they apparently can't have just one set of tracks: they have to have two, one going in either direction. This could potentially mean that the Cake Eater Pad, freshly purchased by the new landlord, would now be easily siezed. Even if they elevated it, it would be awful and would be an utter mess. Property values for the surrounding area, which are very, very high, would plummet. And my neighbors are not ones you want to get in a pissing match with about property values. They're all Type A's. It would get ugly.
Or maybe not, because the Supreme Court says it doesn't have to be like that. Because, after all, all property owners are not created equal.
UPDATE: Nice quote from Robbo:
This is the equivalent of giving a teenager the keys to the biz-tax revenue liquor cabinet based on the promise that he'll only use them if he thinks a drink would be a good idea.
UPDATE II: Russ makes a very good point in the comments clicky and read.
Phoenix gives a rural example and touches on a point that I neglected to mention: how can the supremes say this is in the public interest when many of the corporations get HUGE tax breaks when they promise to build office parks, etc.
And as far as why someone would want to build an amusement park in the middle of nowhere? Well, tax shelters would be one idea. Another would be that this ruling might, conceivably, make commercial real estate ventures a much nicer place for money launderers to clean their cash. Right now the time turnaround due to litigation is huge on some developments. That's a natural hindrance to people who would like to invest money, but need a quicker rate of return, i.e. people who have dirty money that needs washing.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with Will Collier, who calls this ruling "a license for corruption and abuse."
Posted by: Kathy at
01:54 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1067 words, total size 7 kb.
June 21, 2005
Oh, le gag.
I'd love to smash in his fat head like an overripe pumpkin on Halloween night.
Posted by: Kathy at
11:03 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.
June 20, 2005
Then the husband called. Our new landlord had called him, wondering if he was home and could walk his suddenly available plumber through a preliminary check of the place because he was stuck at work. Obviously, I was home and was more than willing to show the guy through the place. No hassles. But he was going to be there in five minutes or thereabouts. I raced through the shower---did I mention it was humid when I was at the lake?---and when I got out, well, you'd have thought night had descended upon the Greater Twin Cities area. The clouds had turned blackish-green, which, any native of the midwest could tell you usually means bad things. Like hail. And the occasional tornado.
It started to downpour, and wow, what a storm! It was the first really nasty one of the season. In between keeping an eye out for the plumber, I was watching the waterfall on the south side of the house. You see, Tweedledumb never bothered to clear out the gutters after all the leaves fell. Have I mentioned we have three oaks and five pine trees in the yard, and a few of them hang over the house? So, to put it mildly, there's a few years worth of debris in the gutters. Rather I should say there was a few years worth of detritus in the gutters because it was raining so hard it actually knocked crap out of the gutters and sent it careering to the ground. I've never seen that happen before and it was kind of cool. But no tornadoes, which is always kind of a blessing and a curse. No running to the basement, but no excitement, either. Sigh.
Well, the plumber didn't show up until two-thirty. He'd waited the storm out, but hadn't bothered to tell anyone. Which wasn't really pleasing, but was understandable. I wouldn't have wanted to drive through that storm, either. The "world coming to an end" situation comes in when the plumber left and I left the house in search of a pack of smokes.
I'd run out before I'd gone to the lake. Now, normally this isn't a hassle. Just walk down the street to Walgreens and pick up a pack. No hassles. But where we hadn't lost electricity, which I must admit is a first for this kind of storm, everyone else had. And NO ONE wanted to open up and sell their wares to people who wanted to buy stuff. Because they didn't have power.
Now, I know this is going to sound very "When I was your age, I walked five miles to school, uphill both ways, and it snowed a lot too," but what the hell is up with that? Are you that crippled without power that you can't ring things up by hand? Can't you do the math with a calculator? Can't you keep track of what you sold with a pen and a piece of paper, and then enter it in manually when you have power again? None of these things, apparently, are possible nowadays.
Back in the day when I managed for Caribou, we lost power due to an overeager construction crew one afternoon. And it was no big deal. In fact, it was an adventure. The kids working with me had a ball---when they got over their fear of performing all the transactions manually. I gave the drip brew away because I couldn't guarantee that it was hot and I was just going to have to pitch it anyway. Obviously, espresso drinks were out. But I had a boatload of of bakery products to sell, and believe you me, boy, did they sell. People were hungry. It was lunchtime, and here they were in the middle of a freakin' grocery store, loaded with food, and they couldn't buy anything. I was out of product within an hour. And all because I knew how to use a calculator and how to record things with a pen and a piece of paper, I sold stuff I normally would have pitched at the end of the day. There's opportunity everywhere, and yet, no one in this neighborhood apparently cares about capitalism. No one cares about the law of supply and demand. Because the power's out. And they can't be bothered. Because this was more of a "Woohoo, we've got the afternoon off!" situation for most of these employees, and not one where money could be made.
Not a lot of initiative there if you ask me.
Now, I realize you're thinking "well, the cash drawer locked up. They can't access it." Sorry, that one's not going to fly, because I've seen people get into the drawers at these places with a simple turn of a key. Or you might be thinking, "there's liability issues. Dark store, people bumping around, hurting themselves." Yeah, I understand that one, too, but when they've actually let friends into the store---and I can see them---and you're standing at the front door, telling me to go away because there's no power, well, that's not going to fly, either. And, yes, they had flashlights.
You should have seen this chick at Walgreens. Man, was she ever peeved with me. I told her I didn't need change, but I just needed a pack of smokes. That's all. Here's my id. Here's the three bucks. PLEASE? (Yeah, I was having a nicotine fit. But I was polite about it.) But we don't have power she said in a really whiny voice. We can't sell you anything because it would ruin our inventory. "What?" I replied, somewhat baffled, "Aren't you keeping track of sales manually? You can enter them in when the power comes back on, can't you?" When she whined some more, I finally had to play my trump card: "what are those women doing in there? They don't work here. They work at the salon across the street. How come you're selling to them and not to me?" At which point she let out an incredibly windy, My-God-Are-You-Ever-Putting-Me-Out sort of sigh and then handed over the smokes. I took them and boogied. I didn't want to "bother" her anymore.
It kind of makes you wonder what the case would be if there was a really serious outage. A days long outage. Because that's been known to happen in this neighborhood in the past because our power lines aren't buried. This happened before I moved here, but I heard nothing but goodwill stories. People helping people. Stores pitching in and helping their customers. Gas pumps were unlocked manually and no one stole anything.
I wonder if that would still be the case today. Or would it be more like this, even if it was a godawful movie.
Posted by: Kathy at
04:24 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1290 words, total size 7 kb.
In other Tom "I'm MOST DEFINITELY NOT GAY" Cruise news, did you see where he got squirted with water by a fake reporter in London? I don't exactly see how you could have missed it unless you're just checking in from the top of Everest, via a sat phone hookup. In which case, you're excused. But for the rest of you, well, gosh, isn't it striking how well Tommy can dish it, but just can't take it?
{...}Cruise initially appeared to laugh at the incident but then asked the prankster: "Why would you do that?"As the man gave a barely audible excuse, Cruise said: "Do you like thinking less of people, is that it?" The prankster tried to walk away but Cruise reached across the metal barrier, held his arm and said: "Don't run away. That's incredibly rude. I'm here giving you an interview and you do that ... it's incredibly rude."
The actor grew increasingly irritated and told the man: "You're a jerk." Footage of the incident appeared on Sky News TV on Monday.{...}
Ain't that rich?
We've been subjected to the "Tom Cruise Circus of Dysfunction" for over a month now. We've been told we should be happy because Tom's IN LOVE! That this is the reason why he's, to steal a phrase from Sheila, running around like a gibbering chimp. To make sure his new movie doesn't tank, Spielberg is being forced to give interviews defending his star. And we're supposed to feel sorry for Tommy Boy because he got squirted in the face with a little water? Furthermore, Tommy Boy has to transform the whole incident into a matter of personal philosophy. "Do you like thinking less of people, is that it?" Like Tommy Boy is a complete and utter angel and has never done anything so revolting in his life! The nerve of some people! Scientology preaches against exactly this sort of behavior and, if you'll step right over to the tent that's set up over yonder, those nice people will explain to you exactly where you're going wrong and they'll give you a personality quiz that will last, roughly, for four hours and they won't let you leave! Then they'll tell you exactly how much enlightenment costs, roughly, within the Church of Scientology. Have a good time, sucker!
Bleh.
Posted by: Kathy at
11:21 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.
June 17, 2005
Man, I simply, flat-out, cannot freakin' wait for the Baba Waba interview five years from now, when Katie announces to the world---as a part of her "comeback pr tour"---that, yes, indeedy, she made a huge mistake marrying Tommy Boy; that Scientology, really and truly, is a cult; and that---insert drumroll here---Tommy Boy really does prefer cabana boys over cabana girls. Because methinks Katie will be bitter when she finally realizes she's been used. And everything's going to be fair game at that point in time.
Have you ever seen a more self-loathing, closeted gay man? Nope. Tommy Boy really does take the cake on this one. What's really sad is that he's taking advantage of a moderately talented, but extremely naive, young woman who has a future---but doesn't now---to prop up the biggest lie he tells himself. (There is a reason he picked her, after all. Don't kid yourselves. The fact that she's naive in the extreme was a bonus for Tommy Boy.) It's sad, really. If he can't come out publicly, for obvious reasons, he could at least stop taking advantage of young women to cover his ass and, you know, just be alone, living a discreet life. Because the women keep getting younger and younger. You have noticed that, right? And, in my little world of theory, it's not because he prefers them young, per se, (look at Mimi Rogers for chrissakes) but rather because they've got little experience to suss this sort of thing out. That and his ex-es always seem to go running for men with who possess an overabundance of testosterone once they break up with Tommy Boy. Penelope Cruz has hooked up with Matthew McConaughey; Nicole Kidman was reportedly upset when Russell Crowe got married because she wanted to date him. The pattern is clear. He's using these women as uninformed beards. They've bought into the myth that is Tom Cruise. And he takes full advantage of it. It's just mean and selfish.
And when Katie does talk to Baba Waba, well, it's going to be sweet.
Oh, and just for the record, I believe War of the Worlds is going to tank. Big Time. It's going to be Gigli all over again.
Posted by: Kathy at
09:26 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 393 words, total size 2 kb.
June 14, 2005
- "This proves that justice can prevail in America," said Tara Bardella, 19, who came from Arizona two weeks ago to wait for the verdicts. "We love you, Michael!"
- "I'm shaking," said Emily Smith, 24, of London, who was among the few lucky fans who got courtroom passes. "I believe justice has been done today."
- Lifelong fan Raffles Vanexel, 29, of Amsterdam, said he "cried like a little baby" when the verdicts were read.
"I feel like I was reborn," said Vanexel, who claimed he helped lift Jackson onto an SUV for his notorious rooftop dance after his arraignment. "The best is yet to come for Michael. This time around, the world owes him something."
- Martin Stock, the founder of a Jackson fan club in Germany who stayed up past 11 p.m. to watch the outcome, said he was overjoyed, even though he had expected his idol's acquittal.
"The whole trial was laughable and Michael was treated inhumanely. I think people were trying to throw him into prison to get at his money," Stock said.
I just have one question for these so-called fans: would you leave your kid alone with this man?
If so, you deserve to have your reproductive rights cancelled. You're not intelligent enough to bring a child into this world.
Posted by: Kathy at
12:00 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.
June 09, 2005
Just goes to show that what goes around, comes around.
{Snicker}
Posted by: Kathy at
02:25 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.
Would I lie to you?
What I would like to know is this: where are these people when I need to sell them a bridge? Hmmm. Come right on down. Quality architecture for sale, right here at the Cake Eater Lot!
UPDATE: Apparently, I provide inspiration.
Posted by: Kathy at
12:00 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
June 08, 2005
Except when I'm trying to sell children's books, then I'm not a material girl. Because it's all about the children.
Or at least the message I'm trying to sell these children so I can get some of their parents' cold, hard cash.
Because, you know, Versace ain't cheap. And since Donatella gave up the coke, well, she's just not giving out the freebies like she used to.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:25 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.
June 04, 2005
This morning we have the news that the Tokyo premiere of War of the Worlds has been cancelled because "{...}a lack of measures to protect film stars during their appearances before fans and to prevent people from illegally recording the film during its showing.{...}"
In light of this post by the always effervescent Sheila, I'm thinking it wouldn't be out of line to shout, "Liar Liar, pants on fire, hanging from a telephone wire!" at the studio executives.
{...}What is fascinating about that Times piece is that it confirmed for me my own suspicions that all is not well in Cruise's La-La Land. The people working for him, as well as the studios, and the producers, are not "okay" with this new Cruise. He's been forgiven and pampered for years, and now suddenly we all have this "No comment" stuff? This is a terrible sign. (I mean, I'm not comparing this to an actual world-tragedy, please don't misunderstand me. I'm just talking about in the context of show biz shakedowns - this is pretty huge.) Like I said, I am WAY too interested in this. But I think Tom is, as we speak, going overboard with the Scientology thing, and people are not happy about it. The quotes from the guys at Paramount were particularly telling. They didn't like that Tom was going all bat-shit Scientology when he SHOULD be promoting his new film. Cruise seems to think that just showing up means promotion. But damn - his leaping about on Oprah's couch like a gibbering Dianetics-stoned chimp has taken away, definitely taken away, from the building excitement for his new film ... and so now, Paramount feels compelled to cut back on Tom Cruise's appearances. Like ... Tom Cruise is legendary for being unbelievable and tireless about promoting his own films. It's one of the things he's known for. So many actors get burnt out on that stuff really fast, but Tom Cruise has always seen it as part of an actor's job, part of being a collaborator. This has been one of his highly likable and professional qualities. And now? His presence at the junkets is now seen as a liability to the success of the film. People, this is HUGE news.I can only imagine that the Scientologists themselves (the ones in the upper echelons - the really cynical con-artist ones) wish he would just shut up as well. And I can only imagine his agent, his manager - watching this new open "sharing" and wincing about it. Unless they're Scientologists, too. His sharing about this organization has definitely morphed into a different animal, his protests notwithstanding. He has not "always talked about Scientology". No, he has not. Not to this degree. Not to this insane degree.
And now - this is incredible - the studios are having none of this. They are saying "No" to Tom Cruise. They are actually allowing him to have all this bad publicity. Tom Cruise almost NEVER has bad publicity. But now, there are a lot of people making comments anonymously because they fear retribution. Amazing. Tom Cruise is in trouble.{...}
I'm not buying the security excuse for cancelling the Tokyo premiere. Security is security is security: if you've got the coin, you can hire the best, and there is no doubt in my mind that between Tommy Boy, Paramount and the distributor, they can afford the best. Neither am I buying the "we're afraid of internet pirates" excuse either. First off, how stupid would a pirate have to be to try and videotape during a premiere? Second, the Japanese aren't notorious for this sort of thing; the Chinese, however, are. If the premiere was in Bejing or Shanghai or Hong Kong, yeah, I'd say that this is a legitimate excuse. But the premiere was scheduled for Tokyo, not Beijing, not Shanghai and not Hong Kong. Third, recent evidence seems to point to the conclusion that the movie studios are finally using BitTorrent and other P2P file sharing services as a viral marketing tool. A time-stamped copy of Revenge of the Sith makes it to BitTorrent? Before the release? Puh-leeze. That's covert marketing if I've ever seen it. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Paramount didn't release some form of War of the Worlds to a BitTorrent service to try and get the word out on the film. Furthermore, if Paramount and the distributor are really embarrassed about Tommy Boy's recent behavior, if War of the Worlds made it to BitTorrent before the release later this month, well, that would be a big tip-off to me that they're trying to find alternative ways to increase the buzz on this film without having to resort to sending Tom Cruise on press junkets. Sheila's right on the money here.
Interesting stuff. We'll have to see how all of this works out.
Posted by: Kathy at
12:43 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 825 words, total size 5 kb.
June 02, 2005
Posted by: Kathy at
11:37 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
60 queries taking 0.0635 seconds, 193 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
