My Kind of Mogul: Rupert Murdoch ‘Pushing’ For ‘Avatar’ Sequel
by John Nolte
Rupert Murdoch is the CEO and Chairman of News Corporation, which owns in whole or in part, an unbelievable amount of assets in the film, television, news and publishing world. Murdoch is a Mogul and then some. His personal politics are widely considered to be right-of-center, but how interesting that the man who saved America with Fox News is also pushing for a sequel to the most rabidly anti-American, anti-military movie to come out of Hollywood in, well, months:
Asked about potential “Avatar” sequels, chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch said on his quarterly earnings call Tuesday that the conglomerate is in “very early talks about it.” Director James Cameron “has ideas” for a sequel, he said, adding: “We will be pushing for one.”
You know what that makes Murdoch in my mind?
My kind of mogul.
If only every entertainment mogul was as profit-driven as Rupert Murdoch.
If only every Hollywood executive with the power to greenlight a television series, film or novel was as supportive of projects that didn’t fit his or her worldview.
What a testament to Murdoch’s belief in the free market, artistic freedom and letting the best ideas win that he can help to nurture Fox News into a real powerhouse and then turn around and risk a half-billion dollars on Cameron’s hippie-screed.
Pop-culture frequently demonizes Murdoch as some kind of Machiavellian nemesis to freedom. But if every entertainment mogul was as tolerant of differing points of view and unafraid of opposing ideas as Rupert Murdoch, I’d have to find another way to make a living.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
86 Comments
I agree fully John! He is more then likely either right or center yet he wants more of the most left film I have ever seen? Shows he is open minded, but also is willing to be so for the free-market and money. Bravo Rupert!
If everybody worried about his own wallet, instead of thinking about what he could take out of my wallet to put in some other guy's wallet, the world would be a better place.
Uhm, was there ever a mogul who turned down the opportunity to make 2 billions dollars (or whatever) in 45 days?
I do enjoy your continuing tortured Hollywood spin, though…
"Nobody wants to see anti-American movies, Hollywood!"
("rabidly Anti-American" Avatar comes out, most popular movie of all time)
"Good job, Murdoch! make another one! If only liberal moguls were like you!"
Hear, hear.
Murdoch is a not right of center. He supported Hillary Clinton, and gives a lot of money to Demoncrats.
And Roger Ayles is the real brains behind Fox News — he's a visionary, and a warrior for truth and balance. Murdoch's leftist sons think Ayles is too conservative, and are trying to work him out of the door.
*It's Roger Ailes — my bad.
WOW!!! HOW ABOUT WILLIAM SHATNER AND STAR TREK MEET AVATAR!
Uhh… just sayin', ya know?
If Avatar is the best Hollywood thing going then pity Murdoch; the standard has bottomed out, he'll never have an opportunity to produce masterpieces on the level of a Gone with The Wild.
"Gone with The Wild"
Is that anything like "Girls Gone Wild?"
(snicker) I'd pay to see that.
Scarlett O'hara flashing Rhett on the balcony–now THAT'S a movie
his wife is a Chinese national- and she has ties to the Chinese government, so there's that as well…
Then he deserves credit for nurturing Fox News. My point remains the same. He did hire Ailes.
What his kids think has nothing to do witgh my overall point. Right or left of center, more Murgoch's please.
Are you high?
You don't just disagree with Avatar's message (as you see it); you think it's *hateful*. That's what being anti-American and, especially, anti-American military is – insulting, distorting and potentially damaging. It isn't simply a "different point of view", any more than any other form of bigotry is.
And now, after beating the "Avatar hates America!" horse to the point of mutilation you *celebrate* a billionaire media mogul for being so slavishly devoted to every last penny that he will peddle what is (again, in your view) not merely a contrarian viewpoint, but a hateful one?
…what?
Avatar 2: The Wealth of Pandora
The Na'vi people learn to mine their rich natural unobtanium resource and trade with the Sky People, ushering in generations of economic growth and a plentiful way of life. Their flying dinosaurs receive the best veterinary care and their beautiful landscape is made available to tourists from far and wide. Their bows and arrows are replaced with effective defensive tools. Jake and Neytiri found a peace-loving and just democratic form of government for Pandora and put the planet's wealth to use protecting peace and freedom throughout the galaxy. Unfortunately, a distant and populous planet becomes bent on galactic dominance of their backward way of life and wreak barbaric, unprovoked violence on the peaceful Na'vi. Jake reunites with the Sky People and, together, the galactic super powers turn the hearts of the marauders toward peace and coexistence.
All I can say is, Avatar would have sucked a lot harder if they had gone the Dances with Wolves route and made Jake Sully give up his actual name for something native, like whatever "Bedder of Chiefs' Daughters" translates into Na'Vi.
I would think that someone who pursues projects purely for profit with no thought to the harmful ideological message they send would be anathema to you, Nolte. So making money now trumps a hateful message? We should go for the bucks no matter who gets slandered? It seems an odd change of heart for someone who's been sounding the "Avatar hates America/ the military/apple pie & mom" mantra since December. Have you given up, since it's become the indisputable box office champ of all time? Or did Murdoch buy out Big Hollywood and he's now your boss and you're kissing his wrinkled old fanny?
Uhm, I thought I was celebrating a mogul who wasn't an ideologue and the free artistic expression that results from that.
I'll read it again for what you wrote and clarify where necessary.
No, the artistic freedom that results from faith in a free market is what appeals to me.
I just threw that info about Ailes' sons out there, and to illustrate that Ailes is the real force behind Fox News giving conservatives a fair shake.
Your point is solid — and I completely agree with it.
Cameron will film the Avatar sequel in 3D, I'm assuming, but he should also take it to the next level by adding Smell-O-Vision. Failing that, force feedback theater seats would be good, too.
Your lack of consistency and awareness is honestly staggering. I'd say you're being intellectually dishonest but that would presuppose you're intentionally stonewalling with irrelevant boilerplate like "I love living in a country where it can be made", whereas I think you're really just lost.
Do you not see the difference between disagreement and hatred? Avatar *slanders* the US Marines and their honorable service; your own (paraphrased off the top of my head, but could well be verbatim) words. That's not merely a different point of view; it's outright bigotry.
But yeah, lets trumpet the guy who chases the dollar and throws all other concerns to the wind.
This is the single most blatant and concise example of the shameless, disingenuous mess that the modern conservative movement has become. Job well done.
Any movie that features a plot device called "Unobtanium" should be forever barred from Oscar consideration. For simple-minded childishness, Unobtanium ranks right up there with Smurfberries, Scooby Snacks, and Tanooki Suits.
Rupert Murdoch is Gail Wynand, the semi-villain of Rand’s The Fountainhead. Wynand built his publishing empire by catering to the prejudices, wishes, and crassness of the masses. When he decided to defend something he thought was right, the masses wouldn’t let him. He surrendered. Murdoch’s “money-chasing” endorsement of a sequel to “Avatar,” which is, as Nolte describes it, “rabidly anti-American, anti-military movie to come out of Hollywood in, well, months,” is evidence that Murdoch hasn’t even the scruples of Wynand. Nolte could’ve also added, anti-business to his description. Murdoch is a businessman. But American businessmen are notorious for backing their enemies (such as Hillary Clinton, as did Warren Buffet, while George Soros went the mile and endorsed the socialist-in-progressive-disguise, Obama, no halfway, timid betting for him), in a kind of knee-jerk, cowardly way of fulfilling Lenin’s prophecy that capitalists will manufacture the rope with which they will be hanged.
Nolte remarks, “If only every entertainment mogul was as profit-driven as Rupert Murdoch.” Well, they are. And look at the culture. Anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-American, anti-freedom. You saw how Obama sneered at the Supreme Court, right to its face, over the First Amendment ruling. Would the collectivists, socialists and Marxists in and out of political office been able to rise to power on their own dime and powers of persuasion? No. They had the invaluable help of most American capitalists, who are too pragmatically “practical” to adhere to principles, and back not candidates who advocate living up to their oaths of office, which is to uphold the Constitution and protect individual rights, but any random power-luster who promises not to hurt them.
This just turn my view of Murdoch on its head. I always assumed he was a right-of-center person. But perhaps he is just a brilliant businessman. Seeing that the market was for conservative-leaning news was unserved, he took advantage of it and was handsomely rewarded. I see no problem with this.
Late 1960s Captain Kirk would bed every blue girl in the village.
I don't think he cares about Avatars politics. You would be crazy not produce a sequel to the most successful film since Titanic. If Avatar is going to gross around 700$ million domestic, 2.5 billion worldwide, I can't even imagine what a good sequel will earn. If Cameron delivers on the sequel (and he has a history of making great sequels) it could earn a billion dollars just domestically.
You're thinking for yourself, Jon.
Please get in line and believe what we tell you.
I very much doubt it. The way you get box office performance like Avatar, not simply a blockbuster but a film that obliterates the largest of records both domestic and abroad, outperforming everything in recent memory, is the curiosity factor. The overwhelming word of mouth, buzz and cultural permeability is what gets people into theaters who normally wouldn't go.
These people will not show up for a sequel, regardless of quality. It's why The Empire Strikes Back, though widely viewed as better than the original Star Wars, didn't come close to its precursors gross. You just can't repeat this staggering level of success with the same property.
Hey John, do you think Avatar would've done the same box office if it was released in the summer?
I guess this one went over my head. I don't see how a media mogul could be anything BUT "profit-driven" and remain a "media mogul". And the fact that Murdoch is pushing for another one of Cameron's sparkly blue turds just so he can make an easy buck doesn't endear him to me, either.
The "profit-driven" Larry Flynt makes a lot of money selling porn because a lot of people are willing to buy it. He rakes in the cash without any regards to the damage his filth is doing to our society and culture. That doesn't make him a capitalist hero. It makes him a sleazy, opportunistic douchebag.
This doesn't change my mind at all about Murdoch. He is a very rich man that wants to be richer. His business decisions have NOTHING to do with politics. Doesn't make him good, doesn't make him bad, but as long as he has any association with Fox News, the libs will not let up on him. That is guaranteed.
What? Both "Pirates of the Caribbean" sequels did better than the original, one them becoming the fourth biggest film of all time.
"The Dark Knight" is either the fourth of fifth Batman sequel. Curiosity factor way done by this point.
The "Rings" trilogy–each sequel outgrossed the one before it.
Biggest "Spiderman" movie? The third one.
The second "Matrix" did almost twice what the first one did.
This is like a few weeks ago experts were telling us how "Avatar" could never outgross "Titanic."
Is theatrical bigotry illegal?
Business is business. Politics is politics. Until the politician gets into business. Then it just becomes a mess. If Murdoch wants to put up an MSNBC clone, fine, that's his choice. I don't need to watch it if I choose not to. I'd squawk if he did it at the same time as taking down FNC, but as a business man, I doubt he'd make that decision.
Amen to the free market. John is spot on.
The market place is the great equalizer. Pretend all media was conservative only in 1996. Murdoch would have created a liberal leaning news channel. He would have seen an entire segment of society with no voice. That is the beauty of capitalism. Profit motive benefits all involved, creating true diversity.
[...] more from the original source: My Kind of Mogul: Rupert Murdoch ‘Pushing’ For ‘Avatar’ Sequel This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
By your same logic would you admire, say, a successful porn producer for his business sense even though you might despise pornography itself? I'm not so sure I get your logic, either, John–we've been repeatedly exhorted (by you and other columnists) here to not support actors/writers/television shows (and their networks, producers, etc) who produce films/tv that are America-bashing/too far left, and yet you're totally cool with Murdoch, who's reaping the benefits of a film you've frothed so strongly and repeatedly against since your first review, because…he's a good businessman? Did I miss the piece where you also praise James Cameron for twice creating films that enthralled the globe and earned untold riches? I only seem to remember the myriad posts where you trashed him.
[...] And almost curiously, it’s Rupert Murdoch – generally considered a Righty – pushing for it (“it” being the biggest puke-inducing Leftard wet dream piece of propaganda movie out [...]
Your type of Mogul is one who goes for profit entirely without any thought into the effect? Or perhaps in other words, someone who endorses or finances an artistic endeavor without regard to his personal morality? Rephrased again: artistic projects should be free from moral restrictions.
OK, at least your position is clear enough.
Soooo…. It's somehow wrong to not finance something you personally think is wrong. Yet it is right to finance something you think is wrong because it promotes artistic freedom and makes you money.
Hmm..
"artistic projects should be free from personal moral restrictions?"
Nowhere in the initial post was there anything concerning what the artist should do, or be constrained by. Merely the financier.
Then to assume a slippery slope argument into something like decadence for profit is taking those words you've already misconstrued into an entirely different realm.
You've railed for the past several weeks against the poor filmmaking, poor writing, and idiotic, atavistic 'message' in this movie, and now you're praising it, for this reason?
AVATAR was a gross slander against the entire military mindset, a triumph of political correctness over good sense, and a pseudo-humanistic piece of nihilist filth — I don't give a s__t how much money it made. I have only two words for anyone (including Rupert Murdoch) who willingly associates with such a project or wishes to extend it, and I think everyone here can guess within a reasonable approximation what those two words are.
I enjoy Big Hollywood because of what it offers me as a conservative who still wants to enjoy popular culture. I respect the opinons of "most if not all the contributors here on Big Hollywood. Still, I urge everyone here to allow the writers to "express" their opinions, especially if they are being honest. Agree or disagree, I think the most important thing is that we have a dialogue. Also, make up your own minds. You don't have to see Avatar if you don't want too. I think John was on point in his review of the movie. I know this because my wife dragged me kicking and screaming to watch it. My only saving grace is I made her pay for the tickets and the addtional 20 dollars for the overpriced snacks. I knew it was a movie I didn't want to support financially since I read John's (and others) review here on BG Hollywood. Let Roger Ailse make his money, I don't worship the man, or any man for that matter. At least he did bring us Fox News which is better than any Avatar or Avatar 2 sequel for that matter.
LOL! Enacting Smell-O-Vision for an Avatar sequel might just kill the box office, literally. Toxic Pandoran atmosphere and all.
He is in fact conservative however he is not conservative to the detriment of his business. He backed Hilary because there was no conservative alternative worth thinking about plus she was instrumental in getting as he put it "good things for the city" at the time. Back here in australia he owns several papers considered to be right wing however none of his papers restrict liberal commentary which has been a key to his success. Look at Fox News, they have many many liberal pundits where as messynbc have wall to wall libs with token conservatives that are really liberal conservatives and there is not many of them either. The head of Fox Studios until recently Peter Chernin is a big lib however he was one of the best at running a studio. He has now gone out on his own but is releaqsing through Fox. Biography Channel has a pretty good documentary on the Murdoch dynasty which is worth a look. gives a good insite on the man himself and what drives him.
One big reason for Avatar´s success is that there´s nothing else out there offering escapism.
Your missing the point entirely Jon, there is a huge difference in being a harsh critic of a product but being able to admire the guts it takes to back a half billion dollar risk. I remember not so long ago when Avatar's budget was announced and immediately all the hate site bloggers celebrated with "thats the end of Fox". Pure guts and a project of this magnitude gets green lit from the very top.
So you would prefer another studio makes the sequel? Sure that would make a lot of sense to the shareholders I'm sure.
A common mis-understanding is big venture capitalists and wall st heavies are right of centre, not so, these are the people who are progressives in all they do and are also big Obama supporters. That is why a lot of them populate the administration. They are like minded. Don't get sucked in by the "noise" from Obama of these evil big corp heavies, they all dine at the same table.
So tell me Jake, if you were in his place and you had a sure fire winner but didn't care for the subtext of the story, you would say nah, take it to warners, Universal etc let them make all the money. want to know how long you would remain in business with that attitude?
Hmm. With those blue chicks checking in at ten feet tall, I think it'd be more like that Futurerama episode, "Amazon Women in the Mood."
You've never seen happier skeletons with crushed pelvises.
cannot understand that hate against Murdoch, he is just a good entrepraneur and funded some of the best media we have today
No, I'd prefer that a sequel not be made by anyone. One collectivist, hi-tech instance of ideological eye-candy was enough.
It's not my misunderstanding. Henry Ford was sympathetic to the Nazis, as was IBM. Later, many American industrialists, such as Armand Hammer, did their best to prop up the Soviets. None of that heinous behavior would've been possible without State Department assistance, or the Department turning a blind eye to it. All this is possible only in a mixed economy — one with government controls over the private sector.
I saw a little refrigerator magnet in the latest "Entertainment Earth" catalogue, which featured Han Solo & the line "Never Tell Me The Odds!" Name one great line in "Avatar" that a geek like me will purchase in magnet form 30 years from now. You can't.
I didn't and won't give money to this cartoon ever. This kind of trash does not entertain me. I am not wowed by cartoons and propaganda combined.
The big Hypocrisy here is James (I Don't Do Sequels) Cameron. The man who for the last 20 years has refused to do sequels to all of his most cherished and money making projects since 1983 is not going to do a sequal to a piece of crap like Avatar. I wonder what the difference is now as opposed to then?
Avatar 2 on Broadway….
That's BRILLIANT…!
+1 for you…!
The NY Post has a great op-ed page and cheesecake. My kinda rag. Go Murdoch!
Biggest statement in the fewest words I've read in a long time.
I'm defending Murdoch because he's a mogul who's not ideologically driven in his decision-making. He deserves credit for that. If they were all like him — put the free market first — the entire climate of pop culture would look different.
Smut peddlers are the most ideologically driven "moguls" in entertainment. They are attempting to normalize all kinds of deviancy. And to confalte the two is a poor argument. What's next drug dealers?
You are really conflating an ideologically-driven smut peddler with my defense of Murdoch, who I praised for not being ideologically driven and believing in the market?
Imagine how much better our pop culture world would be if all decision-makers in Hollywood put ideology aside and let the market be their guide.
But, really, conflating my argument with porn? Why not just conflate it with child prostitution, slavery and drug dealing?
"I would think that someone who pursues projects purely for profit with no thought to the harmful ideological message they send would be anathema to you, Nolte."
Why would that be anathema to me. The problem with the industry today is that we have hordes of execs making their own decisions as to what is and is not "harmfully ideological." The problem is that they disagree with you on what the definition of that is which is why we are under siege with leftie product.
Yes, I believe in the free market and I believe in the American people and I believe that if every mogul was as tolerant and open-minded as Murdoch our pop culture world would look a whole lot different.
The thought of right-wing mogul killing left-wing projects is as troubling to me as the way it is now. I'm not afraid to let the left have their say.
That's right! Capt. Kirk was not discriminating, green, blue or brown, he was ahead of his time in more ways than one.
I respectfully disagree with the author's point of view here. The continual funding of those who advocate anti-freedom ideas is a major cause of why they persist. Freedom of speech is an inalienable right, but no one has a moral obligation – nor is it wise – to provide the means for others to further your destruction.
Unfortunately, you're getting into "if we do X to fight the bad guys then we're just as bad as they are" territory. I'm not saying it's correct – but it is an argument used to great effect by those defenders of freedom/promoters of socialism.
I'm working on a script for the sequel, here's the current working points:
- The newly elected president of the United States (I'm thinking Tom Selleck) is furiously demanding that all available forces available search for Colonel Miles Quaritch who lead a band of pirates and UN operatives to indoctrinate and pilfer the planet moon Pandora. Unknown to the president the Na'vi killed and ate the entire force before they landed
- Real Na'vi chicks look like the love child of Ernest Borgnine and Helen Thomas
- Jake Sully is found passed out in an alley where he's been living on a diet of cheap wine and hallucinogens since being kicked out of Marine basic training for bed wetting. The entire story of his adventures is merely a drug induced hallucination, spurned on by the treatment of his abusive mother (Truckstop waitress Grace Augustine).
- through a series of very improbable coincidences (hey! Cameron's directing, he based a career on filming improbably coincidences) Jake is enlisted in the USAF where he defends the earth from the attacks of the blood thirsty Na'vi – slave race ruled by evil an evil tyrant.
- the Earth is saved by the heroics of Col. Josh Carter (Adam Baldwin) who rallies the forces and drives the Na'vi back to their barren desert world of Pandora.
Tell Rupert I'll be waiting for his call.
Sorry MftI, I don't follow your reasoning here. Refraining from morally and/or financially supporting a cause you think destructive – whether you take the side of capitalism or socialism – is bad? If a socialist declares his intent to fund the Center for Progress I think he's directing his support to a bad cause, but it's still an act of integrity and provides for clarity.
The alternative is to support no causes or all causes equally, on pain of – what? – being considered 'intolerant'? That would eliminate having any genuine views at all, or at least eliminate any action in reality to support them. Only the evil can profit from that approach.
If socialists want to support socialist ideas, that's their inalienable right. Their property and speech is theirs to direct as they wish. Those who advocate capitalism and freedom should support that, and not aid it's destruction. I'm confident who will be the winner in that case. It's when capitalists support socialists – as has been the case for 100 years now – that capitalists – and everyone else – suffers.
Avatar is no more liberal than Pocahontas and Bambi. While it has a liberal message, its pretty cartoonish and simple. Its also has alot of good messages about doing the right thing despite social pressure, property rights, and cross-cultural understanding.
There is no point to get all riled up against it. It has made a billions all over the world, and Cameron is a brilliant director who gave us Terminator and Aliens, I am happy he is working again.
Forgive me but I have to say no you are wrong. I think if people worried less about having three cars instead of two and instead helping the poor and in need the world would be a better place. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins. The American economy is flawed in many ways, but Obama wants to turn it into a train wreck so for now I'd like to keep it, but in the end Greed is Wrong. Now I'm not saying tax the rich more then the middle-class or this or this, but as a middle-class American I do more to help the boor and in need then the Rich. High time money became less in life and God, our familes, and helping those who have nothing become more our world would be better.
I'm sorry I meant poor not boor
Death by Snoo-Snoo!
No doubt. Kirk would go in there, sleep with ALL of the best looking blue chicks, then while they were all distracted he'd have Scotty beam all of the "Unobtanium" up to the cargo hold and everybody would be happy.
Every CEO worth his blue suit makes sure to donate to both parties and to get cozy with as many major political players as they can. And that goes double for a media CEO.
ps. The current GE/NBC brain-trust are NOT worth their blue suits.
I usually enjoy your columns, Mr Nolte, but think this one is as wrongheaded as Mr Shapiro's regarding overrated directors. Rupert Murdoch has a right to make his money as he sees fit, but I have always thought it to be a conservative virtue that one should seek to be responsible. Films like avatar create huge cultural damage and make it difficult to have a sensible debate about many issues without being shouted down in the local alehouse by someone whose values have been formed by such things. This is one step up from pagan porn and it would be hard to someone here justify a financier funding that due to free market actions.
The fact that Avatar has made oodles of cash only guarantees more similar propaganda will be made; indeed if you think Avatar is extreme, it will be as of nothing to what will follow it.
The free market is not an excuse to make money on anything that will sell. Good old fashioned values and taste should be part of the equation.
I guess you can celebrate living in a country where a) Avatar can get made, b) the people who backed it get filthy rich, and c) people can bitch about its awfulness in forums like these. Whatever. People love this Avatar shit for the same reason they loved Mickey Mouse, Davy Crockett, hula hoops, the Beatles, Disco, The Fonz, Star Wars (especially the Ewoks), singing Divas, Les Miz, Cirque du Soleil, The Simpsons, Titanic, and every other bit of trivia that took the country by storm. It's not about culture or ideology – it's about sheer consumption. Leisure. Pleasure. Spectacle. Distraction. Bread and circuses. "Here we are now, entertain us."
Avatar defenders keep coming around telling us that people have spent billions of dollars to see the movie and what that fact says about the quality of the movie. I'd like to know what it says about those all people. I'd like to know whether Cameron and Murdoch are laughing at them.
The original Pirates, Dark Knight, Rings, Spidey and Matrix were blockbusters, but not on the level of something like Avatar or Titanic or Star Wars (New Hope). Avatar is going to do perhaps close to $3 billion in business before all is said and done. That isn't regular blockbuster territory, which is impressive, but well tread. That is unrepeatable, everyone-and-their-mother has seen it domination. And it comes from tapping not just the regular market, which will go see most any blockbuster to varying degrees, but having the movie become so much a part of the zeitgeist that it brings in people who otherwise wouldn't go/to see Rings/Matrix/Big Tentpole Franchise Entry Summer Release.
No sequel to Avatar will *come close* to matching the original, no matter how good.
That's what they said about "Titanic." A fluke, no one could beat it.
Yet the same guy beat it.
So, yeah, it's more than possible Cameron could top himself–again.
Yes, the same *guy* beat it. And it's possible he could beat Avatar, too. Just not with Avatar 2, or 3, or whatever.
There's nothing wrong with letting your ideology dictate your actions, as long as it isn't a destructive ideology. Pop Culture has been on a downward spiral since at least the 60's for many reasons, not the least of which is that it's been 100% market driven. When the decision-makers let the market be their sole guide, we get Jerry Springer. We get cop-killer gangsta rap. We get mainstream movies that are increasingly pornographic. We should be lamenting the fact that not enough ideology-driven media moguls have stood up and said "You know, I can make a fortune selling this garbage, but I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I did."
The entire AVATAR is "anti-American" trailer-park-thinking-mentalty is old, tired, and boring. And losers who need attention for their websites and blogs flail on about AVATAR, because it only gets them attention. This is an old Hollywood slight-of-hand: attack something popular, call it evil, and you get noticed, because any attention is good attention. How is it that the government in China thinks AVATAR is anti-communism? Hugo Chavez thinks it's anti-Chavez. And somehow it is anti-American too; but the movie is evil, but investing in it's sequel is wonderful-brilliant and pro-American?! Duh, you got some inner-demons/issues going on there buddy. Just hustling for more readers, huh? Now that truly is American!
Not much competion either. It appears that none of the blue males has much in the way of *ahem* "equipment".
Uh… 2 billion and counting….cha ching.
… [Trackback]…
[...] Read More: bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/02/03/my-kind-of-mogul-rupert-murdoch-pushing-for-avatar-sequel/ [...]…
… [Trackback]…
[...] Find More Informations here: bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/02/03/my-kind-of-mogul-rupert-murdoch-pushing-for-avatar-sequel/ [...]…
… [Trackback]…
[...] Informations on that Topic: bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/02/03/my-kind-of-mogul-rupert-murdoch-pushing-for-avatar-sequel/ [...]…
You must be logged in to post a comment.