After a longer explanation from Dad, I switched my focus to making movies. I wasted a ton of money processing Super-8 film and spent my weekends at the the local mall theater and the library. I would pour over books about filmmaking and filmmakers. While most pre-teen boys were asking their parents about the birds and the bees, I would quiz mine on how dual system audio worked.

I owe my life-long obsession with film to George Lucas. It was only fitting that he presided over my graduation from USC Film School. That’s right, Lucas and some guy named Steven Spielberg actually handed me my diploma. So, I hope that you can appreciate the inner turmoil, the momentous struggle that I have endured in deciding to write this.  However, duty compels me, and this must be said.

Lucas must be stopped.

The above interview that came out yesterday featuring producer Rick McCallum, who has been Lucas’ right-hand man for several years. He presided over the prequels and the recent return to the adventures of Indiana Jones. Prepare for the most terrifying six minutes of your life.

Wow.  Just wow.  Let’s break this down shall we?

Since this is a conservative site that points out the bias and subversive nature of the media, I would be remiss not to state emphatically how a “Star Wars” television series that is based on the criminals or the “one percent, like Wall Street” sounds just plain awful. And since McCallum drones on about the finances of the show for the next five minutes, I think I should point out to him that alienating more than half of your audience is probably not a good way to encourage viewership. Making a show for the less than 20 percent of Americans who fully subscribe to his ideology is a poor business plan for insuring “recoupment.”

And let’s talk about the economics for a second. Movie and sci-fi bloggers have misinterpreted what he said here. It’s not that the show needs $5 million an episode (a $250 million price tag for all 50 scripts that supposedly exist), it’s that McCallum says that $5 million is the most they can hope to make per episode. Given the grand spectacle he hopes to produce, $5 million simply isn’t going to cut it using today’s existing technology. But let’s be honest. Given the box office track record of the franchise, the rabid nature of the fans and the seemingly endless stream of merchandise potential, does one really think that $250 million is a pie in the sky? At $15 million an episode this thing could probably turn a handsome profit.

Who is this guy trying to kid?

On top of that, there are plenty of excellent, dare I say genius, works of science fiction currently on television.  These shows don’t cost $5 million an episode. I shudder to think of what goodies Lucas and Co. have cooked up that would demand that kind of price tag. Wall to wall CGI, methinks. Lots of CGI characters like the enduring Jar Jar Binks lurk inside the pages of those 50 scripts collecting dust on a shelf at the Skywalker Ranch.

Politics and money aside, the telling part of this interview is that McCallum and Lucas don’t understand the appeal of the “Star Wars” universe. Nor do they understand basic storytelling and compelling drama. What would make a “Star Wars” show great is not that it has more CGI characters, space battles or virtual sets than any other show in history; it is the characters and interactions.

Good writing and talented actors, while often difficult to secure, are not as expensive as massive space battles.  What hooks audiences is the story.  Trust me. Let’s say the first season follows a roguish, selfish, bad boy smuggler. Every episode, he makes morally gray decisions and despite the fact that he flirts with villainy, the audience can’t get enough of him. In the series finale, he finally does the right thing, he unleashes his power for good, and it turns out that he is in fact a Jedi Knight in hiding. Boom! That final scene where he pulls a lightsaber, the first lightsaber of the show, would be magic.

The value of “Star Wars” is in the rich mythology, the iconic sounds and props, and ultimately the characters inhabiting this world. That’s what makes dorks like me stand outside in a line overnight, wearing a hooded brown bathrobe and clinging a plastic laser sword, to see a movie. I could really care less about CGI. If I thought CGI was the most important thing, then “Prince of Persia” with Jake Gyllenhaal would be my favorite movie of all time. Here’s a secret – it isn’t.

McCallum dances around the subject of the show’s fate because he doesn’t want to admit the truth about the series. While Lucasfilm could easily front the money for the show, no network is willing to come on board and back their play. They would have to go it alone and in today’s marketplace, it’s a scary proposition to make that kind of financial commitment. Lucas and McCallum are businessmen, but their personal politics and inherent hypocrisy prevent them from telling the truth. They are the one percent, and good for them.

And we should be thankful that it is the free market at work here, protecting us from future installments of “Star Wars.” McCallum and Lucas have already subjected us to the soul crushing spectacle of the prequels and doubled down by trashing the Indiana Jones franchise.

Enough is enough.

There’s an episode of the new “Dr. Who” series (cost per episode between $1 and $2 million), in which the evil aliens of the universe gang up and create a prison to hold The Doctor called the Pandorica. That’s what we need. A giant, inter-dimensional space trap, impervious to time travel and sonic screwdrivers to hold Lucas, McCallum and all 50 of their TV show scripts.

I think all of us die hard “Star Wars” fans are content with the occasional video game trailer, Japanese TV commercial, fan film or appearance by Chewbacca on random awards show. Let “Star Wars” live in our imaginations and in our hearts. We have all grown tired of this creative filicide.  I look forward to seeing what McCallum and Lucas have done with “Red Tails,” mostly because there is not a Wookie or Ewok as far as the eye can see. Do other stuff, new stuff, and be content with counting your piles of “Star Wars” money you magnificent, capitalist bastards.

Oh, and may the Force be with you.

…Mila Kunis:

GQ: Your new movie is called Friends with Benefits. Ever been in one of those relationships?

Mila Kunis: Oy. I haven’t, but I can give you my stance on it: It’s like communism — good in theory, in execution it fails. Friends of mine have done it, and it never ends well. Why do people put themselves through that torture?

Wait, did a young, on the rise actress just call Communism a great failure?  Did she just say that it may sound good in practice but never works?  By golly, I think she did!

And that’s pretty awesome.  From this quote can we determine that Ms. Kunis is a Randian Libertarian?  We know based on her selection of film work and various photo shoots that she most likely isn’t a member of the Family Leaders crowd.  Should we make a YouTube video and offer her a blog spot on Big Hollywood?

Too soon to tell.  Chances are good that if we push the issue, her PR team will force her to retreat and stay apolitical.  And I say, good for her.  I simply find it refreshing that somebody in her position doesn’t shoot her mouth off and say ridiculous things in an attempt to ingratiate herself to Hollywood’s Borg hive mind.  You know, like a certain other young, very attractive actress.  Or like this overrated “thespian”.

Of course, most people in their right mind would say that Communism is a bad idea and has been a total failure every place it’s been attempted.  A majority of Americans would also wrinkle their noses at the idea of Socialism.  That’s why the left and the media have gone through such Herculean efforts to distance their ideas from their actual origins.  “Progressives” supposedly aren’t Socialists because they say so.  To call them out as such reveals “ignorance”.  It is an example of “name calling” or is currently somehow “racist”.  Whatever.  Wealth redistribution, nationalizing private companies, and elaborate currency manipulation schemes are socialist and communist ideas.  If my ideology’s resume included hits like the U.S.S.R., North Korea, Greece, and Cuba I’d probably look into some rebranding too.

Ultimately, Kunis said something obvious, but it is brave nonetheless.  Perhaps, since President Obama ascended to power like a trendy rock star, his popularity is starting to fade with the “in” crowd?  Maybe his dropping poll numbers will take his entire ideology down with him?  Hollywood, and the “in” crowd are quite fickle.  Trends come and go.  You know who was cool in 1991?  Gerardo.  “Rico Suave” baby!!  I don’t think Gerardo would sell many records or fill up Madison Square Garden today. And that’s the risk in being “popular” without substance.  It’s a fleeting thing.  Since Obama himself is so charismatic, people have a hard time blaming him personally for the misery his policies have inflected upon our great nation.  Instead, they have to blame something else.  The Progressive platform becomes the next likely target.

Hollywood will never become a socially conservative industry.  It never has been and never will be.  But I can see libertarian ideals becoming popular in the very near future.  There is something naturally appealing to “free spirits” and artists of the industry in the ideas of personal liberty and personal responsibility.  And I’ll save the snarky commenters the precious time by saying that it shouldn’t surprise anyone that many self-absorbed, narcissist actors find a kindred spirit in Ayn Rand.

Kunis may simply be too smart to fall for the nonsense that most young people, especially in Hollywood quickly embrace.  Her mother is a physics teacher and her father is a mechanical engineer.  She’s a self described computer nerd who spends hours playing “World of Warcraft”.  Most importantly, unlike the other young actresses who come from suburban Utopias or the random trailer park, Kunis was born in the former U.S.S.R..  That’s right.  Her childhood was spent in the hell hole of broken dreams, bread lines, and lack of personal freedoms that the government of California is determined to recreate.  So, at the cocktail parties, Kunis must have to bite her tongue as the Malibu raised, bespectacled junior agent drones on about the evils of Capitalism while drinking $20 cosmos on the UTA credit card.  She and her family have seen FIRST HAND the misery that the academics and progressive politicians only imagine in their fevered dreams.

Kunis has demonstrated a lot of smarts with her career.  She’s parlayed a successful television career into a series of high profile features.  She even has a starring role in Sam Raimi’s upcoming “mockbuster” of my film “The Witches of Oz”; “Oz the Great and Powerful” with James Franco.  It’s no coincidence that people who demonstrate above average intelligence in the real world trend conservative.  And I’m not talking about academic background.  I’m talking about street smarts, savvy, and rich personal experiences.  Smart people don’t walk around all the time explaining how smart they are.  Ever notice how progressives are always going on about “intellectualism” and trying to impress you with big words for obviously idiotic things?

Yeah, exactly my point.

I do think libertarianism is on the rise in Hollywood.  I recently produced a film starring the mighty James Woods.  The average age on the crew was about 27.  On set I overheard a female crew person mumbling about how she saw Woods on Fox News and that he had become a “crazy conservative.”  A male crew member, cigarette in mouth, calmly looked at her and replied “he’s not crazy, he’s right”.  I didn’t have to say a word.

Hope and change indeed.

Charlie Sheen has different ideas.

It’s early March, but I don’t think it’s too soon to declare 2011 “The Year of Charlie Sheen.”  That may actually prove to be an understatement.  Decades from now, our president, “The One,” will be a mere footnote, while Charlie Sheen will have volumes dedicated to his historical impact.

Charlie Sheen’s recent monologues and interviews, dubbed “meltdowns” by the press, have illuminated the conflicts in our culture and society.  It is a tipping point in our culture.   Let’s examine how,  shall we?

Group Think is the New Normal 

Despite all their ramblings about “freedom” and “democracy” and “individuality”, Hollywood, the left, and the youth of our nation represent the biggest bunch of robot clones to ever walk the face of the earth.  We’re supposed to think that Charlie boy is “crazy” because….why exactly?  He’s absolutely correct that he is the reason for his show’s success.  He really does turn their “tin cans into gold.”  He’s worth every cent that he’s paid.  No, he’s “crazy” because he gets on T.V. and has the balls to admit that.  His hilarious, megalomaniacal rants are downright refreshing.  Charlie Sheen sounds like an Ayn Rand character written in the vernacular.  It’s like a Howard Roark speech written by Hunter S. Thompson.  No wonder the left, who is so quick to champion “rebels” like that tool Alan Grayson or  Michael Moore, is doing its best to minimize and marginalize Charlie Sheen. Yes, he is worth the money.  Yes, he is incredibly talented.  Yes, he can do more blow than the average human.  Yes, he can simultaneously satisfy two porn stars.  He is probably better than you and he’s willing to say that.  How dreadful.  Charlie Sheen is a true rebel.  Instead of attacking “soft targets” like Christians, Sarah Palin, and “Islamophobes,” he really is “speaking truth to power.”

Producer Chuck Lorre’s response to Sheen perfectly delineates  the conflict between the faux intellectual, Borg-like automatons, and the free thinking members of our society who understand the principles of America.  It is so incoherent, so pretentious , and so full of New Age gobbledegook that after reading it I could only think of one response: F@*K YOU.

We Have A New Definition of Crazy 

How can any rational person look at the situation and declare that Sheen is completely off his rocker, yet accept the majority of statements that spew out of the mainstream media?  How is anything Charlie Sheen has said any more insane than the average Paul Krugman column?  I ask you, honestly, what’s more crazy, asserting that flying around the world in a private jet with a stock of “hotties” and blow is “winning,” or that we simply didn’t dump enough money into the “stimulus”?  Talk of “warlocks” and “Vatican Assassins” is kooky, but vast conspiracy theories about the Koch brothers is a mark of intellectual superiority?  Who’s the Nutter, the guy who declares that most men would love millions of dollars a week and their own harem, or the guy who calls the Muslim Brotherhood a “secular organization”?  THE WORD MUSLIM (a religion) IS IN THEIR FREAKING NAME!!!!!  My question is, when are we going to send in the worry police to analyze Rachel Maddow’s mental state?  Where’s the CNN special to diagnose exactly which mental illness Keith Olbermann has?  And when will child services sweep in and take Sasha and Malia to a safe haven, because their parents have clearly lost it.

**NSFW Video**

Every “ism” is a Joke

Charlie Sheen allegedly threatens to cut off his wife’s head and it makes the yahoo news headline.  A “moderate Muslim” actually beheads his wife and it’s up to a bunch of random conservative bloggers to push the story into the mainstream.  Charlie Sheen locks a porn star in the bathroom after she tries to jack his Rolex and it warrants round the clock coverage.  Do you know what a woman in Saudi Arabia calls being verbally abused by men, roughed up, and locked in a room?  Tuesday.  Yet, the “feminists” in the media who are so quick to warn us about glorifying Sheen are willfully blind to the plight of women in Islamic countries.  Sheen has decided to live a polyamorous lifestyle.  Where are the pronouncements that his “coming out” are inspirational?  Why is he not a trail blazer, yet actors who come out as gay are?  Either we follow some sort of guideline for society or we don’t.  If it’s not based on Judeo-Christian morals then what is it based on?   

You guys know me.  I don’t care what you do in your bedroom.  That’s your deal.  But I think the culture warriors are a total joke for not walking the walk when they talk the talk.  Same thing for all the race hustlers out there.  Charlie Sheen merely calls his boss by his birth name, and because it’s Jewish, he’s clearly an anti-Semite.  Of course, these same folks ignore the hate spewed by politicians and world leaders, stuff that’s real anti-Semitism, but they are so quick with a letter to condemn the “coded” racism of people’s statements.  ”Fools and trolls” I believe is the term Sheen uses, and he’s right.  All these self-righteous practitioners of “feminism” and “multi-culturalism” and those who fight “racism” whenever and wherever they find it have been revealed as frauds.  Any feminist who wastes valuable space on the pages of the New York Times ranting about “privileged, rich white men” while women are brutalized and marginalized around the world is a joke.

A funnier joke than any tin can Chuck Lorre ever wrote.

As a fellow “gnarly-gnarlington” I have to emphatically state that violence against women is clearly conduct unbecoming.  That’s a big thing to overlook, so I refuse to embrace all aspects of “The Sheen’s” behavior.  But I will say that in many ways he is showing us the path out of the doldrums and shining a light on a brighter future.  Charlie Sheen doesn’t want anything from you.  Charlie Sheen doesn’t put his fate or livelihood in the hands of the state, or a union, or another human being. He believes in Charlie Sheen.  He’s taken his natural talents and worked really hard at honing them and profiting from them.  He’s taken that profit and decided to spend  in a way that he sees fit.  I’m not going to judge him and claim to know that he’s really a sad clown putting on happy make-up.  His happy make-up is cocaine and hot chicks.  I have enough experience with those things to know, in fact, that they do produce a considerable amount of happiness.

**NSFW** 

It’s so refreshing to see people on Facebook and Twitter echoing Sheen’s catchphrases instead of empty leftist garbage.  They’re not using his terms in reference to him, but in reference to themselves.  And that’s the key.  We’ve been beat down for far too long into accepting that union membership and a middle class pension is the pinnacle of success or that there is some achievement or superiority associated with being a victim.

“The Sheen” calls his path “Epic” and “Winning.”  It used to be called the American dream.  Believe in yourself, take responsibility for your actions, and deal with the repercussions of your decisions; both positive and negative.  Watch how the fools and trolls react to the man and you can see their true motivations.  Those people are not merely against Charlie Sheen, they’re against the American Dream.

Follow his lead and start “winning.”  Charlie Sheen clearly has this down, bro.  What about you?

But the casting does reveal a couple of interesting things.

Contrary to the propaganda coming from the Hate-America crowd, we are far more open to such things than other cultures, especially the British.  There was a lot of snark when Gwyneth Paltrow and Renee Zellweger applied their best British accents to their portrayals of Emma and Bridget Jones.  Plus, I doubt that the producers ever entertained the idea of casting an American Harry Potter or a Dr. Who born in Iowa.  What about James Bond?  Not only have they never considered Americans for the lead role, but they’ve turned down both Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino as directors.  Every Bond director has hailed from a Commonwealth nation.  Apparently, it’s okay for other countries to maintain “national treasures” and “cultural icons,” but for Americans to suggest doing the same means we’re racist, nativist, and generally close minded.  You see, to the rest of the world, we don’t actually have a culture.  How can we?  We are a nation made of other nations, a population of hyphenates who lack a common identity.

Well, this Prussian-American filmmaker calls foul.

Not only is Superman a Brit, but as NBC points out, so are Batman, and Spiderman.  NBC mistakenly lumps Wolverine into the group, but any geek worth their salt knows that Wolverine a.k.a. Logan is Canadian.  And Hugh Jackman who plays Wolverine is Australian, not British.  Oh, well, more quality fact-checking from NBC.  We should be used to this by now.

But it begs the question: Why are we outsourcing all of our iconic roles?  How can it be that we can’t find American actors up to the task?  Well, it’s simple.  Our current system isn’t set up for it.  It’s a closed, tightly controlled system, that doesn’t emphasize talent.  The path of an American actor differs greatly from their counterparts across the pond, mostly to their detriment.

In the U.S. actors need to be in the actor’s union SAG if they want a good agent or the ability to get in front of big casting directors.  To get into SAG, they have two options.  They can be extras on several shows, racking up “vouchers” or they can somehow convince a producer to pay a hefty fine and admit them to the union through a process called “Taft-Hartley.”  This is difficult because most producers who are making SAG shows exclude non-SAG actors from the auditions.  If they opt for the voucher route, they have to buddy up to the production staff because the number of vouchers per show is limited.  This means that personal contacts and nepotism often play a bigger part than talent in an actor’s career path.  In the U.K., there are no restrictions. Directors and producers can hire whomever they want, seeking out the best talent possible.  Once an actor gets a paying gig, they are eligible to join British Equity, which is their version of SAG.  See how that works?  In the U.K., it’s the creatives who pick the talent.  In the U.S., it’s completely backwards, with union membership being the first roadblock an actor must cross.

Once an actor gets past the whole SAG issue, they must now secure an agent.  I have an actor friend who’s been in the business for 15 years.  He’s had at least six agents and a dozen managers during his career and he notes that not one, not a single one, ever made him audition or even asked if he could act.  It was all about his “look” and his prior experience.  Serious acting chops are not a priority.

Besides agents, managers, and SAG standing in the way of allowing strong talent into the system, we have the actual product made in the U.S. Independent films, where young actors get their first breaks, generally fall into two categories.  There are the types of films I used to make, full of monsters, guns, and fakes breasts.  At the other end of the spectrum are unwatchable, pretentious festival films.  Unfortunately, most casting directors and agents don’t take the genre films very seriously.  Running from a rubber monster doesn’t warrant their attention, no matter how convincing.  That limits the potential pool to the “art house” films, films that usually cast strong, but quirky character types.

The British produce tons of period pieces and serious dramas, both independently and for their state run television networks.  They also don’t snub their noses at genre productions (“Dr. Who” and “Torchwood” are two of their most popular shows).  This broadens the pool of potential actors, providing more visibility for “leading” types because there is no premium on “character actors” or people who are only adept at playing drug addicts, prostitutes and victims of domestic violence.

Combined with these factors is what I call the “accent effect.” American casting directors and agents aren’t the most intelligent, creative or intellectually deep lot on the planet.  They are incredibly shallow.  For the same reason these people think Sarah Palin is stupid or lacks “gravitas,” people think British actors are smarter and “better.”  It’s all about the accent.  To the shallow casting director, who can’t be bothered to watch a great performance in a low-budget horror movie, the long “a”s and slightly rolled “r”s of the English accent are the mark of superior acting talent.

Since the end of the studio system, Hollywood has been engineered to output substandard talent. It’s no accident that when filmmakers need quality, they turn to the Crown.  I personally hate the whole SAG thing, and the agent thing, and the casting director thing so I go out of my way to try and find unknown, great young actors.  But, I’m a malcontent. I really like British actors, but I believe that there are legions of talented Americans shut out by a faulty system (and I don’t like paying for transatlantic flights).  I don’t blame big time directors.  They are only choosing the best talent from the limited options presented to them by the studios, agents, and unions.  When given the choice between a reality TV “star” or a charismatic, well-trained stage actor, I’d go with the Limey too.

I have no problem with a British Superman.  Now, if he doesn’t stand for “truth, justice, and the American way”, we’re gonna have some issues.

White rose to prominence, and Internet infamy, when he became the only critic to give a big “thumbs down” to “Toy Story 3.”  That act of blasphemy inspired people to look at his other reviews.  When they did, they were shocked, shocked I tell you, to see that he had given the critical whipping boy “Jonah Hex” a glowing, and introspective review.  Intrigued by the controversy, I decided to read through dozens of White’s reviews.  You see, I don’t take the media at face value.  Decades of being lied to have taught me to research on my own and develop my own, educated opinions.  Is White simply an Internet troll, purposely dissing what others praise in an attempt to gain attention?  Or is he something more, a critic not only of film, but of the entire media?  And, in what is truly relevant to Big Hollywood, what do White’s reviews and media criticisms tell us about the ingrained leftist thought in the Hollywood/Media complex?

My research revealed that White may be the last, best hope for real, intellectual film criticism left in the age of the Internet.  We’ve talked at length on this site about how relevant film critics are nowadays.  Everyone has a voice online, and for the low cost of $50/month, some free time, and a free website template, anyone can be Roger Ebert.  But film criticism, true film criticism, is much more than that.  When we think of film critics, we think of Ebert, or Leonard Maltin, or Pete Travers.  At best, these guys are “populist” critics, giving their opinion like a sort of Consumer Reports for movies.  Is it worth your $10 bucks?  But true film criticism, practiced by the likes of Pauline Kael, Andre Bazin and Francois Truffaut is an entirely different animal.  It is an educated pursuit, one that examines film like a literary text, pulling it apart and analyzing individual films on multiple levels.

White’s writings ask many questions.  Should our opinion of a film be colored by it’s marketing approach?  Should how much a film costs affect our expectation of its quality?  Just because a film comes out of Sundance, should we consider it an “art” film when it may not be worthy of the title?  Likewise, can a B horror movie actually contain more substance than the latest winner of the IFP spirit awards?  Should we consider a film to be “adult” or “intellectual” simply because it has a coded style that differentiates it from television or other studio films?  And politically, should we accept leftist film as “truth” without examining how well or effective the film makes its case based on its own narrative and internal logic?

In other words, shouldn’t each film be judged and critiqued on its own merits?  Shouldn’t we look at a film with fresh eyes and examine what is playing before us, free from the consensus of the critical community, the film’s public history, and the activities of the studio marketing department?

Armond White says yes.  And I say, thank God for Armond White.

That’s what true film criticism is about.  Everything else that surrounds the film is extraneous and not in the purview of the critic.  It is disingenuous, cowardly, and superficial to examine a cinematic work by examining the entirety of  the process.  It doesn’t matter that a production was “troubled.”  It doesn’t matter that the studio decided to dump the film in January and cut its marketing budget.  It doesn’t matter that the film failed to attract a bigger distributor, or a bigger star.  All that matters to the true critic is the 90 minutes of images, flashing before the eyes at 24 frames per second.

Similarly, a true critic doesn’t accept the notion that films fall into certain categories based on what the press or the marketing department tell you.  Why do so many critics give the “well, for an action film its okay” excuse?  Alternately, why do so many critics excuse bad cinematography, acting, music etc. because it’s an “important film.”  Why do we accept these distinctions BEFORE we actually see the film?  Can’t an action movie, like “The Green Hornet” also contain commentary on race?  Why dismiss such an obvious element of the film simply because its supposed to be “mindless fun.”  According to who?

Armond White bravely challenges these notions.  He reviews each film in a vacuum, free from the echo chamber of the Internet and studio hype machines.  He also approaches each film from the same perspective.  He doesn’t change his expectations or his analysis based on genre or budget.  And while I may not agree with his opinions, criteria or priorities, I applaud the fact that he is willing to embrace the scholarly pursuit of true film criticism.  Especially in this day and age.

In terms of the whole “left vs. right” paradigm, White is quick to point out that the ingrained leftist culture of Hollywood gives a pass to bad films with faulty logic.  It also elevates films that are unworthy of praise simply because their message is in tune with what the Hollywood machine want to push.  In his review of “The Company Men” he explains that the film ignores the fact that the men who lose their jobs to the greed of corporate America and are forced to return to their humble beginnings, came from humble beginnings in the first place.  The upward mobility of the capitalist system is completely ignored in the narrative, making everything the film says rely on faulty, juvenile logic.  Other critics have ignored this glaring plot hole because it’s an “important, timely story”.  But would they ignore such a glowing plot hole if it occurred in the new “Avengers” film?  Why make that distinction?

Some may claim that White’s reviews try too hard to find subtext in films when it doesn’t exist.  This may be the case, but I find it far less egregious to talk about the deep meaning of “Jonah Hex” than I do to praise the intellectual dishonesty of a film like “Crash.”

Armond White’s reviews, bundled with his bold personality, echo what we’ve been saying all along.  The media, instead of being the check and balance to the system existing in direct opposition to it, have become part of it.  Modern film critics, from the pages of popular websites and newspapers down to the trolls trashing movies from their basements, have become a de facto division of the film industry’s marketing departments.  They don’t think for themselves, they don’t judge the film before them, and they certainly exist to reinforce the leftist stranglehold on the entertainment industry.

So, grab some popcorn and dive into the archives of the New York Press.  I guarantee you won’t agree with everything, or anything Armond White says, but you can’t deny that he truly is thinking for himself.  He judges the film for what it is, doesn’t hold back, and is often times condescending and downright nasty.

And that, is a breath of fresh air.

The other day, I clicked the link at the top of Big Hollywood that led me to a commentary by Michael Lee at “The Wrap.” Mr. Lee takes aim at John Nolte’s commentary about the Ricky Gervais performance at the Golden Globes.  As I waded  through the piece I quickly realized that Mr. Lee didn’t understand the basic points that John made.

And this, unfortunately, is typical.

John Nolte made the astute observation that Gervais‘ performance was awesome because he took the witty, acidic, and mean spirited humor that is usually aimed by Hollywood at the American populace and turned it on the sanctimonious, self-righteous entertainment community.   Had Gervais been ten times more vulgar but aimed it all at Sarah Palin, George Bush, and people who believed in God, there would be no discussion.  There would be no outrage.  There would be absolutely zero press.  Gervais would probably be paid double to return next year.

Lee explains that many of Gervais‘ targets, like the Bush supporting Bruce Willis or the Libertarian minded Angelina Jolie, are far from typical Hollywood leftists.  Make no mistake, Lee informs us, Gervais is no friend to conservatives.  Just because he’s making fun of Hollywood, we anti-intellectual, anti-science types need to think about who he insulted during the show.  If we just “connected the dots” we probably wouldn’t be so excited.

But the point lost on Lee is that we already have.

There’s simply no need for Lee to explain to us that Gervais is no conservative; no one at Big Hollywood has ever claimed him to be one.  Nolte was merely making light of the fact that Gervais and we at Big Hollywood just so happen to share the pleasure of taking anointed Hollywood elites down a peg.  We’re talking what’s truly edgy humor in 2011, Lee’s talking political ideology.  We’re talking apples, he’s talking space ships.

Here’s another aspect to Gervaisgate that hasn’t been touched on.  It’s an aspect that I’m sure will fall far beyond the scope of understanding by our detractors.

Even though my resume doesn’t contain a bunch of projects with “A” list celebrities, I do know them.  Personally.  You see, Leigh Scott knows how to party.  I’ve never been the guy to use those relationships to further my career because I always figured I’d be better off approaching them from a more level playing field.  I’ve always felt awkward, sitting drunk at a table at the Sky Bar, brining up a screenplay or project.  I enjoy being “the fun guy” who doesn’t talk business but can drink everyone under the table.  I like it when an actor says to me, “I didn’t know you made films.  Why didn’t you call me?”

We will see how my plans works out.

But I was there when a certain A-list actress stripped nude in the hallway of the Chateau Marmont and decided it would be fun to do cartwheels.  I’ve sat with a notorious, leftist, movie star drinking Grey Goose and hitting on UCLA sorority girls while he texted his sick wife telling her he’d be home soon.  I’ve had drinks with a certain talk show host while he entertained his high priced call girl.  And, I’ve crammed into a nightclub restroom stall with an Oscar winner and an Emmy winner to consume illegal narcotics.

I’ve seen these people at their worst.  Going off on racist and misogynist rants.  Cheating on their wives and husbands.  Crying over failed relationships and cancelled pilots.  Getting sick and throwing up all over their Mercedes 500 SL.

If you’re reading this, “you know who,” you remember that night.  Awesome, right?

My intent is not to create a Big Hollywood version of Gawker’s “Blind Items.”  The point is, I know that the politically correct nonsense, the sanctimonious lectures and soap box speeches, and the displays of charity and compassion are all for show.  Most of the people who grace our movie and television screens are insecure degenerates.  Charlie Sheen, believe it or not, is by far not the worst.  He just doesn’t try and hide it.  He doesn’t care what people think.  I kinda respect that.

What Gervais did was let us, the humble masses, in on the joke.  That wasn’t just a routine.  It’s what he would say if you were doing shots with him at the China Club.  It wasn’t that he “brought down” the elites of Hollywood, he elevated the viewer into the inner circle.  Bringing down the top appeals to progressives.  The notion of elevating the bottom appeals to conservatives.   No wonder we liked it.

Now, if he had included hookers and blow, we could have had the full experience.

To recap: Leftists are often unwilling or incapable of engaging the cogent arguments conservatives make. Ricky Gervais gave us a glimpse into the inner workings of the Hollywood social scene.  Actors are degenerates.  I just admitted to committing a felony on a conservative website.  Yeah, that about sums it up.

Let’s hope Ricky Gervais hosts another awards show, or that other hosts follow in his footsteps.

Likewise, let’s hope Michael Lee rereads John Nolte’s post and writes a commentary that actually addresses the issue at hand.

As entertainment falls further under the thumb of big business, we’re going to have fewer and fewer “movements” in media.  The grunge music of Seattle in the 90s, the pure funkadelic madness that came out of Minneapolis in the 80s, and the string of fun fantasy and sci-fi films produced by Steven Spielberg between 1981 and 1987 are a thing of the past.  The industry is more diverse, with studio executives throwing random things at the dart board, hoping something sticks.

A few things from 2010 will stick.  Here are the five albums and five films that rose above the dreck of the year.  I guess this was the worst year ever for entertainment.  Unless you count 1997.  Boy, did that year suck.

Music

I have a simple rule for music.  If it rocks, it works.  Genres are insignificant.  My ipod playlist makes no sense.  It may be the only place, besides the red carpet at the Grammys, that you can find Snoop Dogg next to Toby Keith.

Grace Potter & The Nocturnals

This eponymously named album sounds like it came out in 1992, right between the Gin Blossoms and Counting Crows.  And that is a-okay with me.  A soulful album that rocks when it needs to, rolls when it wants to.  Her vocals are great, and the orchestrations and shifts between genres elevate this band above the boring female singer/songwriters that fill the airways.  Yes, Sara Bareilles, I’m talking to you.

Covered in Gas - Evil Cowards

Frequent “Red Eye” guest Dick Valentine released this side project while taking a break from his equally awesome band Electric Six.  This album is definitely NSFW, but since when is rock and roll supposed to be safe?  Clever lyrics, crazy synthesizers, and beats that are more infectious than swine flu.  Not everybody will dig it, but if you do, your cool meter just went up from David Lee Roth to Fonzie.

Light Me Up – The Pretty Reckless

Brent Bozell over at Newsbusters has some issues with the band’s lead singer Taylor Momsen.  Point taken Brent, but unlike Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga, there is a bit of authenticity behind Momsen’s rock star persona.  You get the sense that it isn’t a bunch of Hollywood types exploiting a young girl to appeal to an oversexed male audience, but a young girl exploiting an oversexed male audience.  A messed up young girl, to be sure, but I think she’s driving the car while we all sit in the back sipping our Slurpees.  If you’re like me and you’ve worn out your Hole “Celebrity Skin” CD, this is a worthy successor.  Taylor Momsen may be the reincarnation of Courtney Love.  What, Courtney Love is still alive?  Yeah, right.  Keith Richards is “alive” too.  Suckers.

The Archandroid – Janelle Monae

This album has been discussed on Big Hollywood before.  Like most leftists, Monae confuses ideals and actions, problems with solutions.  Her personal politics may be off base, but the messages in her songs are pitch perfect.  Plus, you’ve never really heard anything like it before.  That’s the mark of a true artist.

Charleston, SC 1966 - Darius Rucker

HOOTIE!!!!   Such a great album.  “I Don’t Care” featuring Brad Paisley is country music perfection.  Smooth vocals and rock solid country stylings make an album you can listen to over and over again.  And I have.

I probably should have mentioned Kanye West’s new album.  It is pretty awesome.  But man, he is such a tool.

Movies

Were there great movies in 2010?  Why, dare I say it? “You Betcha”!  (Note to editors, you can now feel free to tag Sarah Palin in this post to drive up hits.)

Inception

The Mack Daddy of Mack Daddy movies.  An action movie.  A science fiction movie.  An exercise in existentialism.  Everything is pretty damned perfect.  It’s great to watch a master filmmaker at the top of his game.  And hey, he managed to make Leonardo DiCaprio and Ellen Page likable.  That’s some mad skills.

Kick-Ass

I already went into some detail about how this is a great Libertarian manifesto.  You can read it here.  And to sell my point further, I noticed while watching the Blu-Ray that the main character has an “Atlas Shrugged” poster on the wall in his room.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Are people so tired of Michael Cera being Michael Cera that they stayed away from one of the best movies of the year in droves?  Box office says, yes.  That’s a shame.  Edgar Wright’s homage to video games and twenty something angst is one of the most inventive films ever made.  It’s also wildly entertaining.  Although, I will say that the first time I saw it, I left the theater physically exhausted.  Yes, it’s that intense.

The Social Network

This movie is an odd experience.  It’s so well crafted, so engaging, so “interesting” that you can’t help but love it.  Yet, it is so emotionally detached at the end of the day that you feel a bit empty after seeing it.  Wait, it’s a film about Facebook and how a culture run by socially dysfunctional nerds may lack true human interaction?  Whoa, David Fincher, working on multiple levels there.  That empty feeling in my heart was the point?  Nice!

Centurion

How is crap like that new James L. Brooks movie in theaters and this movie barely got any screen time?  I mean it was in and out faster than a date with Jullian Assange.  (I kid, I kid.  You know we love you, you immature, ignorant, narcissistic, fascist douchebag).  This movie has it all.  Overacting British actors.  Ridiculous violence.  Over the top cinematography.  And hot chicks with weapons.  It’s like a Leigh Scott movie not made by Leigh Scott.  I’ll have to watch this over and over until Zach Snyder’s “Sucker Punch” comes out in March to get my fix.

There you have it.  Ten good things about 2010.  Not the worst year ever for music and movies.

Clearly, that was 2003.

And this friends, is a travesty.

It’s not just a travesty because we’re going to have to wait at least three years for the next poorly conceived direct-to-video action film starring the Shotokan Karate master. It’s a travesty because of the deafening silence surrounding his trial and incarceration.

Where are the legions of race hustlers and political opportunists who can’t wait to make every issue in our society about racism and social justice?  I haven’t heard much from Reverend Al or Jesse Jackson.  And where is the outcry from Snipes’ co-stars and the usual suspects like Danny Glover and Susan Sarandon?  Both of those actors, for instance, have been quite vocal in their support of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.  Yet, when they frog march Simon Phoenix nobody says a word.

It’s not surprising that the automatons in Tinsel Town are mum on the subject.  After all, they usually reserve their impassioned pleas and soap box orations for child rapists and wife beaters.  Wesley Snipes got into this mess not because of a shady accountant or a “rounding error.” He didn’t even use Turbo Tax.  No, Wesley Snipes is actually a tax protestor.  His legal and accounting team challenged not the amount Mr. Snipes owed, but the legitimacy of the Federal Government collecting ANY income tax.  Mr. Snipes is a card carrying member of the “taxes are illegal, and immoral” crowd.

Wesley Snipes clearly is outside the Hollywood mainstream.  Folks like Bill Maher and Aaron Sorkin are bemoaning Obama’s sellout by granting “tax cuts for the rich.”  Let’s save the whole tax cuts vs. not raising taxes distinction for another day.  Let’s just focus on the fact that nobody in Hollywood is required to hire an army of accountants and lawyers to protect them from the IRS.  Bill Maher’s taxes would be a lot different if his HBO check was made out to him personally instead of the corporation that he undoubtedly has.  There is no written law that says that you have to take deductions to which you are entitled.  On top of that, even with the exploitation of loopholes and maximizing deductions, there’s nothing that says you can’t add a couple zeros to the checks you write Uncle Sam.  Why can’t rich, Obama supporting celebrities simply put their money where their mouth is and help pay down the debt?

Paul Haggis in orange Gitmo ribbon

Perhaps the Wesley Snipes’ harsh prison sentence stems from the fact that we, as a society, treat our celebrities in the legal system tougher than we do average citizens.  You know, like the life sentences that Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Charlie Sheen are now serving.  Wait.  They got disproportionately light sentences for their transgressions?  Even Snoop Dogg walked on an accessory to murder charge.  And OJ had to kill people, and then commit armed robbery and kidnapping before we locked that sociopath up.

This is about the government letting you know, through a high profile target, that while they may not enforce laws regarding immigration, corporate bookkeeping, or the conduct of our elected officials, they are dead serious about this tax business.  The flunkies in Hollywood haven’t said boo because Snipes isn’t one of them.

People may object to me calling Wesley Snipes a victim.  He knowingly broke the law and must now pay the price.  Fair enough.  But in the context of our media and government, where there is a new outrageous outrage everyday and the rule of law is bent and broken by lawmakers and judges every hour, one can’t help but find a little irony in this situation.  In a world where we fret about the legal rights of men who try to blow up airplanes with explosive stocked tighty whities, isn’t it a bit ridiculous to be sending a harmless thespian to prison?  Even if he does fancy himself a modern day Henry David Thoreau, wouldn’t an expensive fine and a “censure” insure that he ends his dangerous tax avoidance crime spree?

We should save the harsh celebrity sentences for people who drug and rape thirteen year old girls.  We should lock up actors who violate State Department mandates so they can hang out with and perform for murderous despots.  We should throw the book at celebrities who act above the law and put the lives of others at risk when they hop behind the wheel of their $500,000 car jacked up on coke and vodka (and by “coke” I mean the really, really good kind.  Not the good kind that you drink).  And, there should be a special wing at Leavenworth for anybody and everybody associated with the film “Birdemic.”

But not Wesley Snipes.  He’s a talented guy who, unlike the rest of the bloviating windbags in our industry, actually puts his money and his freedom behind his political views.

So Wesley, if the prison that they sent you to is as nice as Gitmo, you should have the Internet.  I hope you read this and know that some of us out here, even people who work in the entertainment industry, think you got a raw deal.

In other words, it’s Christmas everyday for Libertarians.

There seem to be three consistent arguments in favor of tax dollars being spent on public broadcasting and government subsidies for “art,” First, the defenders question the amount of money actually on the table. After all, these programs are but a teeny-tiny piece of our ever expanding government. Secondly, dispensing taxpayer cash on media is “in the public interest.” In the unholy pursuit of “profits,” private broadcasters and artists often compromise their work to make money. Private news organizations like FOX and MSNBC sensationalize the news and have become hyper-partisan in order to increase ratings and advertising dollars. We need outlets that are free from the restraints of the free market. And, of course, there is the elephant in the room, which in this case is a giant yellow bird. “Sesame Street.”

What kind of Islamophobic, racist, evil, baby-blood-drinking fascist wants to send Elmo to the unemployment line?

The first argument is simply ridiculous. We’ve all had to, at one point or another, examine our household budgets and look for spending cuts. We write down a list of our expenses, organizing them in order of both cost and importance. At the top is stuff like rent/mortgages, utilities, car payments etc. Towards the bottom is the fun stuff like vacations, extra cable channels, and faster internet. Everybody always starts at the bottom. Nobody starts at the top. “Hey, let’s ditch the house and keep our annual trip to the Wisconsin Dells?”  My girlfriend always likes to try and sneak cigarettes and scotch into the non-essential category. Nice try. I always push for more mac and cheese in order to keep my subsidies of R.J. Reynolds and Pernod Ricard intact. But I digress.

The money we spend on arts and media at the federal level is never too small to ignore. I think most taxpayers would trade a free movie ticket once a year for all the Bill Moyers specials, Nina Totenberg insight, and jars of pee and crucifixes that our federal government can buy. Public broadcasting and the arts are but two of a myriad of programs with similar “insignificant” funding. You start nuking all of them and before you know it, that free ticket to AMC becomes a down payment on a car. It is the height of arrogance to imply that waste and questionable costs at any level are acceptable or insignificant. To make this argument reveals that the person making it has a grotesque understanding of the relationship between government and tax payer.

The second argument is disingenuous, but not for the reasons that you may think. There is a real and tangible value to news and media that is free from a personal or corporate bias. A news organization or television network whose motto was a Jack Webb quote would actually serve the public. Unfortunately, the CPB has failed their mission.

And what about the educational and quality entertainment like “Sesame Street”? Surely, even a miserly old curmudgeon like me can see the value in allowing quality programming to be financed without the tinkering of executives or the pressure of ratings? The answer is, without a doubt, yes. Unfortunately for you, my statist apologist advisories, all of the shows that have come from public broadcasting that are a “value to the public” have also demonstrated financial solvency in the free market. “Sesame Street” is worth more than a Dr. Evil ransom. “Austin City Limits” makes money from the live performance venues (charging admission) and from selling recordings on sites like itunes in addition to generating revenue from ads on websites like youtube.

The point is that it is up to the producers of these shows to protect the integrity of their work. There is great value in alternative financing structures, through sponsorships, donations, and merchandising. That is without question.

“Sesame Street” makes enough money through merchandising to PURCHASE air time from private networks. No need for Elmo and Co. to sell out the quality or educational value of their show. The ancillary incomes from the “Sesame Street” empire would allow the producers to make the show any way they wanted. If they stuck to their principles, it wouldn’t matter if they were on PBS or ABC Family. However, the recent Katy Perry “incident” suggests to me that even with public financing the current people behind the show may be slipping a bit. I’ve included the Katy Perry video below, purely for informational purposes. I’ve watched it 72 times to accurately shape my opinion.

—–

The free market value of shows that used to be PBS type stuff is rather apparent. The History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic channel exclusively air programming that was once solid PBS territory. As a kid growing up, I used to watch “Dr. Who” on PBS. You know, the same show that you now watch on BBC America, Syfy, or on demand on Netflix. And it’s TLC, not PBS, that has greenlit a series that showcases the wonders of Alaska as seen through the eyes of a popular American figure.

This whole debate and kurfuffle exposes a much larger truth. The bone of contention isn’t so much whether or not this type of funding, in it’s stated form, has value to our society. The problem is the human factor. On paper, we can say that these public institutions are above the fray of the free market and bias, but they aren’t. The mission of an NPR is a noble one. It is the execution that is flawed. The CPB gives us government versions of MSNBC and Air America that don’t have to worry about crappy ratings. Our tax dollars immunize partisans and people of questionable on-air talent from the grim realties of cancellation.

But isn’t that the way it always is? We are constantly lectured about the value of “public” institutions and programs vs. the evil private industries that provide the same services. But, at their root, when you introduce the human element, these “public” entities function in exactly the same way as their private counterparts, minus the checks and balances of the free market. Where are, as Milton Friedman once asked Phil Donahue, these “angels” who will manage these public programs for us?

—–

Where are they indeed, Milton.

Shouldn’t ideologues be willing to take the hit personally? Shouldn’t any organization that relies, in any part, on forcibly confiscated citizen funds be held to incredibly high standards? If someone is going to ask for all of us to pitch in, shouldn’t they lead the way, donating their blood, sweat and tears to what they believe in? It is rather egregious that NPR personalities and executives have competitive, and in some cases superior, compensation to their private industry counterparts. If you don’t like the money, can’t afford to do it, then, in the words of Chris Christie, don’t do it. On top of that, the people who work in these public sectors must themselves be above the fray, putting their own bias and ideology on the back burner to serve the greater good.

For Public Broadcasting or arts financing to have any hope of working and actually living up to their oft defended and declared mission statements, radical changes are needed. Nobody should plan on becoming rich and famous from a career in public broadcasting. Volunteer, balanced advisory boards must be created to ensure that public funds do actually serve the public, and not a small minority of small minded leftists. I’m sure Leigh Scott, John Nolte, Rush Limbaugh and Andrew Breitbart would volunteer some time to review PBS programming schedules and NEA submissions.

But nobody’s asking us. The notion of a “public interest” is undermined by the very people who champion it.  It shouldn’t be up to me, a capitalist slime ball who makes movies featuring mutants and flying monsters to be obsessed with the integrity and bias of the CPB, NEH, or NEA. It should be the obsession of the people who have dedicated their lives to these organizations and their mission statements.

But it isn’t.  So, these public programs have become the extra cable channels and Disneyland trips of the federal budget. Time to tighten our belts.  Sorry, but they gotta go.

Then, alas, came word that the script for the film was “a mess.” The oddly named “Vulture” dropped the bomb that Snyder had been hired because the studio wanted a director capable of putting together a hacky “rush job” so Warner Brothers could keep the rights to the Man of Steel. Director Darren Aronofsky, fresh off the buzz of his upcoming film “The Black Swan” passed on the project because it was in such disarray and reeked of a studio cash grab…. Great Ceasar’s ghost, what’s going on here?

If you haven’t been reading Big Hollywood, or living on Planet Earth, you might not know that Hollywood has a leftist bent to it. You also may not know that the Hollywood press is just as corrupt, self-serving and leftist as their cousins in the mainstream media. The reports of “Superman’s” death are greatly exaggerated. This is nasty spin, aimed to take down two of Hollywood’s new school power players while boosting up a critical darling who has little appeal outside the coastal critics community. It also has a lot to do with politics and ideology.

One has to feel for Darren Aronofsky. I like his films to a certain degree, but don’t think that he is a ground-breaking visionary the way that many film students, mainstream critics, and hipsters claim him to be. “Requiem for a Dream” is not some seminal milestone in the history of film. I do think he is capable and incredibly talented. He has been attached to several high profile projects, and it seems that whenever a film is hunting for a director, his name pops up. He was attached to “Batman” before Nolan and has long been rumored to be the man behind the camera for the “Robocop” reboot. Yet, instead of those films, he continues to do well received, smaller, art house projects like “The Wrestler” and “Black Swan.”

Toiling in the indie world may be emotionally and creatively satisfying, but it doesn’t satisfy a thing called your wallet. Reports indicate that he didn’t take a salary in order to get “Black Swan” made. If you are his agent or manager, you’ve got to be dying. IFP spirit awards, cocktail parties, and glowing reviews from the Village Voice don’t help pay off your Mercedes SUV. Simply put, Aronofsky needs to prove that he can handle a blockbuster. He needs the paycheck that goes along with that task.

So, when word breaks that he lost the job to Zack Snyder, his people have to go into full-fledged damage control mode. Especially when the follow up scuttlebutt is that he’ll be directing the much lower profile “Wolverine 2.” Much like the New York Times parroting Nancy Pelosi’s talking points, entertainment industry reporters and moles are all too happy to run wild with spin from a friendly source like Aronofsky’s people. Think about it. Only one person benefits from this story, and it ain’t Clark Kent.

On top of that, the entertainment press loves to attack both Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder. You can also toss Matthew Vaughn, Edgar Wright, and Sam Raimi onto that list. Just look at all the stories about “Inception” before it came out. All the prognosticating that the film was a huge “risk.” That it was stupid to make a smart film as a blockbuster. “Watchmen” was panned before they even started shooting it. And somehow “Kick Ass” is this monumental failure despite raking in over $100 million at the box office and DVD, despite having a production budget under $25 million.

These guys have all proven that they have little need for the traditional studio system. They are studios onto themselves, using complex financing mechanisms and tough as nails producing partners to bring their films to the screen. They have also managed to do what the studios have tried to do for decades and failed; to merge inventive and quality filmmaking with the “blockbuster.” Not since the heyday of the 1980s, when Zemeckis, Spielberg, Cameron and Reitman were cranking out tent pole films, have we seen so many big-budget action films that also deliver the goods on character and story. The list of directors above have brought us that rare thing, a “dumb” movie that wasn’t stupid.

And that, my friends, pisses off the mid-level executives at the studios. Their bread and butter is delivering notes and dictating the creative direction of genre films. Guys like Nolan and Snyder don’t seem to take these folks too seriously. On top of that, they’ve played their cards right and managed to financially insulate themselves from their influence. Think about it. How much fun must it be to give Brett Ratner, McG, or Paul WS Anderson notes? Nolan and Snyder take away their power, influence, and sheer joy of existence. These mid-level types are EXACTLY the same people who “leak” intel to the trades, blogs, and gossip rags. They are tight with the entertainment industry beat reporters. Christopher Nolan could care less what Nikki Finke thinks. Not so for a development person. So, it should come as no surprise that this cabal of entertainment reporters and business school grads who fancy themselves filmmakers would conspire to tarnish the reps of the only guys in the industry who “get it.”

Because the other people clearly don’t.

One should also consider what is meant by “the script is a mess.” If, hypothetically, the story didn’t fit into left-wing ideology, would that be considered “a mess” to the low-level development people and Sundance types? Let’s just throw it out there that perhaps, perhaps, the directors of “The Dark Knight” and “300” have cooked up something that will truly resonate with middle America. Something that is true to the original comic.

What if Superman travels the world as a reporter, then returns to Metropolis doubting his caped escapades? He realizes that since he can’t be everywhere at once, people have stopped trying to be self-reliant, believing that the messianic Superman will save them, rather than working to save themselves.

Enter General Zod.

Instead of waging war, Zod promises everyone that he, unlike the America-centric Superman, will be the world’s superhero. He will protect and provide for all, and all he wants in return is for you to surrender your free will and “kneel before Zod.”

Superman, knowing of Zod’s evil, launches unpopular attempts to warn the world and battle Zod. Being evenly matched, Superman must turn to an unlikely ally. The only man who has dedicated his life’s work to killing a Kryptonian: Lex Luthor.

In the end, Superman and Luthor wage a final battle against Zod before the United States, the last nation to submit, surrenders its freedom.

To a leftist, that movie isn’t a “mess,” it’s a full blown disaster.

And it’s exactly the kind of film we can expect from Nolan and Snyder.