The Hot Blog

It's kind of funny when I do my morning "blog browse" and half the blogs are talking about the other blogs and vice versa.

"Jacobson, 40, one of Hollywood's most respected movie executives, was fired Monday morning by her boss, studio Chairman Dick Cook, when she called him from the hospital room where her partner was about to deliver their third child. Despite the record-breaking performance of Disney's current release, "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," she was hearing rumors and wanted reassurance that her job was safe. It wasn't."

That sure sounds like Jacobson herself was surprised...despite rumors she'd be potentially axed last year, the fact that it didn't happen plus Pirates 2 plus the awful timing is what has surprised many in Hollywood. Is that so hard to believe?

Ways to improve the Hot Blog:

- less Nikki Finke (for the love of god)
- more Eric Bana
- more Clive Owen
- more Heath Ledger

Anyone who expressed reservations about Shyamalan's "scrunt" movie at the script stage obviously has her shit together. So that's a shame.

Per Nikki's point, things were no better for female artists or female moviegoers when more women were in charge.

"As of today, there's only Gail Berman at Paramount, and Amy Pascal at Sony, in positions of real power."

Only?

Even Anne Thompson, who usually plays the estrogen card, is pretty calm about it:

http://reporter.blogs.com/risky/

btw, am I late to the game or did the LA Times just out Nina?

You're late to the game, Palmy. She's been very openly out.

And Bucket... Nikki was actually on top of this breaking story. And I am pleased that she might be the condom on a non-story of this being an anti-woman thing.

I really have been trying to keep blog-on-blog browbeating off the Hot Blog... but I will have to try harder. It is the bain of our little part of the business right now.

"That’s my take, but what do y’all think?"

I think for a blog that just recently established to itself that Nikki Finke isn't worth paying attention to, we're paying a lot of attention to her.

Life is filled with ironies...

I do hear you.

What is this strange obsession Dave has with Nikki? Could it be... oh, I don't know... maybe.... suppressed sexual desire? If so, don't be ashamed, Dave: Nikki somtimes has that effect on men. Whenever she walked down the hall at The Dallas Morning News, she frequently left grown men reduced to panting adolescents in her wake. I mean, you remember Gregory Hines and his tongue in Mel Brooks' "History of the World"? Yes, that bad.

You're an odd man, Joe.

Hey man, I'm not the one with the Nikki Finke obsession. I mean, geez, you'd almost think she was Rachel McAdams.

What you guys seem to keep failing to grasp, that I believe is David's ire is - "Borderline Nikki" has much more influence and cultural capital here in Los Angeles than many would like to admit.

Frankly, because she outcrazies the crazies that run this freakshow of an industry and that scares the shit out of them.

The fact that she used to be hot, makes it all the worse.

When Dave is posting about Nikki he is really posting some inside baseball shit. If you don't want to understand or hear how someone's personal biases and media manipulation can have an effect on the content and business practices of these conglomerated companies - well then go read Wells site, where you can discuss how much a man's baldness affects his box office.

Nobody calls Nikki on her shit. Kudos to Dave for having the balls to do it.

I think, since you asked, that you need to spend less time worrying about Nikki Finke, both her blog, and the traffic it generates.

David, I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here. On the one hand your innitial post seems to attack Nikki Finke for what you call 'spinning this into a feminist issue,' while you on the other hand follow that up by posting about how you're pleased that she is showing that this is not an "anti-woman thing." Well, which is it?

If you read through Nikki's entire piece you quickly realize that she isn't spinning this into a feminist story about the Nina case so much as she's simply using the oppurtunity to point out the changing status of female exetuvies in Hollywood.

In fact she goes on to say that many, if not all, of the women who are no longer at the top did in fact greenlight a lot of bad movies, box office dissapointments and outright flops, just like many of their male counterparts. Her point is just the basic idea that women executives are held to a higher standard than executives who are men. Given that Hollywood is a business dominated by men whether it be writers, producers, actors or executives this really isn't a crazy assertion. So why all the condescension?

You write, "But plenty of male execs have found out more brutally in the interim. Try reading about it in the paper, sis." You seems to ignore a basic point here, you can't simply compare men and women as if they are coming from the same background when in fact women are professionally disadvantaged and there is a strong history in which women are seen as unfit because of biology, pregnancy, taking care of children...etc. Surely, then you can see why she mentions what happened to Dawn Steel. It's a question about the difference in context for men and women. And as Nikki herself writes, Nina was the one to call Cook from the hospital not the other way around and Nina was the one to ask about her job.

Furthermore, this following comment, "And if Nina Jacobson were to replace someone at, say, Warner Bros… would than make men an endangered species?" seems to indicate that you are completely missing the point. In her piece Nikki quotes a NYT article in order to prove the point that simply looking at the number of woman executives and declaring gender equality in Hollywood is absolutely ridiculous. It's a very superficial analysis, and now 15 months later, that is more apparant.

Please note that I don't mean this post as an attack on you, but rather just a response to this particular piece you wrote which I disagree with.

My point, Hejla, is that there is no indication of this event marking a change in the opportunities for women in this industry. There is no indication that this switch was in any way about gender - or for those who have thought about it, sexual preference.

And I find that keeping this kind of count - which is not written about nearly enough regarding women directors or non-caucasian execs, by Nikki, me or everyone else - is divisive and distracts from the real issues.

Personally, I felt I could feel the angry subtext in Claudia Eller's story... but she never crossed the line. In addition, Nikki's piece was factually inaccurate.

The count is, really, two women down. Both went down to men. Both went down to marketing execs. And that shift is far more significant to me that the issues of women vs men.

But really, I posted this not to focus on Nikki, but to elicit a discussion with people like you, Helja, who may disagree, but have something to say. I have to acknowledge that a bunch of readers see nothing but a Nikki issue here and recognize the significance, but that was not the purpose of this entry.

Will someone just post a real picture of Nikki Finke somewhere and get it over with?

Her name may sound really hot and sexy and porn star like. But that she is not.

How do you know that? Alls I'm saying is I'd like a peek!

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: