The Hot Blog

"[T]hey are doing their best to add to the unemployment lines by offering discounts to ad buyers who will agree not to buy from their primary trade competition, The Hollywood Reporter…"

David, this is standard business practice in publishing, and has been for as long as I can remember, going as far back to my '70s salad days in Jackson, Miss., and Shreveport, La. Back in the day, when I was at the Dallas Morning News, the ad sales people used it against the Dallas Times-Herald. When I was with the Houston Post -- the Houston Chronicle used it against us. I have no doubt that the New York Times uses it against the NY Daily News, and the News uses it against the NY Post. I know it's difficult for you to resist taking a gratuitous shot at Variety whenever you have the opportunity -- but, really, it's as cheap a shot as any McCain has lobbed at Obama. Again, you're trying to make a standard (and, BTW, entirely legal) business pratice sounds like something nefarious. Shame on you. You're usually better than that.

You love David Carr? I am glad you do because the Texans offensive line NEVER DID! HIYOOOOO!!!

IO: Good one!

That was for you, sir.

The most memorable thing about the 1991 movie "Grand Canyon" was all the "for sale" signs everywhere in the backgrounds.

People don't read much here on the trains and buses, Bart's right, but they dip out of Sirius cable news into NPR while driving. It's all anyone talks about when they arrive. That, and how, and which, and what kinds of retailers may not survive to be able to advertise; and what the treasurers are doing.

SOMEONE NEEDS TO GIVE LEXG, THE MOST BRILLIANT WRITER, ACTOR, COMIC, AND INDUSTRY COMMENTER IN THE LAST 50 YEARS, A FUCKING 200 MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT.

HIT ME UP ON MYSPACE AND WATCH THE LEXMAN TURN THIS TOWN AROUND.

I FUCKING SWEAR I AM THE MOST BRILLIANT ARTIST IN THE HISTORY OF THE FUCKING WORLD.

I AM GOD.

Joe -

I know you feel obliged to battle for your employer, but no one in publishing in this town has heard of anyone playing that game, at least not anyone who has been buying ads from the trades over the last decade or so.

You're "taking a gratuitous shot at Variety" comment is, in fact, ignorant and an overreach. Better to stick to what you know and not what you are guessing at.

You'll just have to believe me that I have not bothered to report many of Variety's anti-competition shenanigans in the last few years.

Last year, I can tell you that ad sales at Variety were pleased to be seen as predatory. And they have upped the ante this year in ways, as I say, that have been heretofore unheard of. That said, no one has bitten on this ugly offer, as far as I know.

Lex... take a nap...

"You'll just have to believe me that I have not bothered to report many of Variety's anti-competition shenanigans in the last few years." Well, no, actually, I don't have to believe you at all, because the world isn't always what you claim (or wish) it to be. And, besides, I've found too many examples of sloppiness and carelessness in your writing over the years to ever put a great deal of faith in your, shall we say, meticulous attentiveness to detail. I read this blog because it's good for laughs, and you can be very entertaining. But, frankly, if I want an authoritative source, I'll more likely consult Page Six.

On the other hand, you will have to admit that I have much more experience than you do in publishing, and what may seem extraordinary to you, given your lack of experience in this area, is business as usual to me. Mind you, I have no real connection with the ad sales people at Variety. (I'm way off in fly-over country, remember?) But I do know how things have operated at newspapers where I have worked since the 1970s, and at other newspapers where friends and colleagues have been employed. Again, what you are describing is standard operational procedure, and your outrage strikes me as pretty damn naive for someone who claims to be Mr. Insider. Gosh, next you'll tell me that some advertisers get group-rate discounts if they buy, say, 3 ads instead of 2. Or that, back in the day when the L.A. Herald-Examiner was in operation, the LA Times strong-armed its competition.

And by the way: You aren't still trying to maintain the myth that you're entirely unbiased in your reports on Variety and the NY Times, right? I mean, you're the guy who, not so long ago, was making an open pitch on your blog... excuse me, your website to merge with the Hollywood Reporter, right? Don't you think that might have at least a wee bit of effect on your credibility here?

Again, Joe... you have no experience in Oscar season ad sales. I appreciate that you have more history at more papers than I do. But continuing to try to smear me as naive on this is pretty lame. The LAT still tries to strong-arm competition. And I expect the behavior, in concept, from Variety. My concern is about the degree. (And your lack of interest in the primary story, given your experience, is surprising in comparison to your need to carry water for your employer.)

And that last bit is just stupid, Joe. "Entirely unbiased?" Never have suggested that about anything. But I am not in business with any of these companies and as far as I know, none of them have had any real effect on our business.

And the reason your whole schtick is nothing but smear is that you acknowledge that you know little to nothing about the ad territory in Hollywood. And you don't suggest that anything I have written about weak reportage by Variety, The Reporter, the NYT or anyone else is factually inaccurate. You are attacking me, not the fact. To quote "the kids" (of 5 years ago), don't hate the player, hate the game.

What's most disappointing is that you, an aggressive liberal and supporter of the underdog, is so willing to look past the principle regarding an overdog trying to damage underdogs and all the already-tenuous jobs held in those underdog companies. Desperate times...

Am I wrong in thinking that Amy Ryan's stint on The Office will earn her more money, and be seen by more people, than just about any movie she could justly hope to appear in these days?

I'm sure you're right, jeff. She's great, but it's not like the studios are interesting in finding a good lead for her (or practically any other non-A-list actress). And who knows, she may have turned down some lame wife/gf part in a big studio film to take that excellent Office role.

"The Office" would be so much better if they ditched that "Jim and Pam" bullshit. It's not the fault of the actors, who are likeable enough (though Braff-esque Krasinski probably would be pulling hotter chicks than Fischer.)

But it just has that whole ROSS AND RACHEL vibe, like it's in there for all the fat Midwestern office temps who write Jimmy Fallon fanfic while waiting for Star to play their request of Matchbox 20 "3AM."

I do like Amy Ryan though. Personally, if I were a working actor, I'd rather be 20TH BILLED IN A CLINT, RIDLEY, MANN or VAN SANT movie than the STAR of a sitcom, but that's just me.

And PETER BART OWNS.

A minor, maybe nitpicky point, but: Variety is not my "employer." I am a free-lancer, and Variety is one of my clients. I do not represent myself, and have never represented myself, as an employee of Variety, just as I have never represented myself as an employee of MovieMaker magazine or The Houston Chronicle, or any other client for whom I currently free-lance, or have free-lanced in the past. I do not speak for any other these publications, nor am I empowered to do so, and the views I express are my own, and not necessarily theirs. I am not an "employee" of "At the Movies," either, even though I have appeared twice on that program.

I think you're right about The Office Lex. As someone who's watched the American version from the beginning, it has not been as enjoyable since Pam and Jim got together.

I wouldn't be copping to that last one, Joe... it shows a McCain type of flawed judgement.

As for Variety, fair enough. But just as I expect to get a rage fit from Drew anytime AICN is mentioned in a negative way - even, as Variety was mentioned in this case, it is a minor part of the discussion - I expect you to defend Traditional Media a good 90% of the time, often with a finger wagging in my direction.

As for Amy Ryan, I don't think there is anything wrong with her working or working on a popular show. My point is that she has not enjoyed the kind of film push that she might expect after the kind of excitement that built up around her last year. I don't think there would be anything wrong with her going to Broadway either, but it's not where the brass ring that gets held out on these occasions was supposed to lead.

the market has changed. There's no denying it. The financing model is going to become much more drastic, a fine line between the mega budget and the modest budget. Hollywood has an issue with change. They only know of one way to do things, and as the game has changed, they cling to old ways. Someone will be bold enough to reshape things, but no one wants to be first.

As for Amy Ryan, what should she be starring in? She was in a really good movie that very few people saw and got a deserved oscar nom for her work. It wasn't the kind of crossover hit that gets actresses lots of offers. The Office is a perfect fit. It keeps her in the hipster loop. She's fantastic in the role, and it's a show that is enjoyed by a key demo and constantly focused on with a fervent following as well as a revolving door of top directing talent.

How many TV Shows do you know that have Harold Ramis, Joss Whedon, and JJ Abrams stopping by to do episodes.

Looking at what's in production heat, what do you think Amy Ryan should be doing?

And Amy Ryan, great as she is, isn't going to be offered the same roles as an Amy Adams or an Ellen Page.

Putting Ellen Page in the same sentence as Amy Ryan or Amy Adams is a sin, although i agree with you.

They are two different categories of casting. I just think Ellen Page is the most limited of actresses. I think Amy Adams is leaps and bounds ahead of her in terms of talent.

If you want to see how bad Page is, watch her on SNL. Not an ounce of life behind those eyes. Seems like it can be created with the right director, but she lacks natural chemistry. If you want to see the polar opposite, watch Anne Hathaway. I realize that live comedy is a different animal entirely, but you can see what is real talent and what is manufactured on set.

"...when I was at the Dallas Morning News, the ad sales people used it against the Dallas Times-Herald. When I was with the Houston Post..."

And every time I pick up a copy of the Post or the Times-Herald today, I think about how ineffective such tactics were.

RDP: You have made my point: Those tactics were effective, which is why they were used. I've been on the winning side, I've been on the losing side. Such is life.

David: Look, the new guys on "At the Movies" need time. I'm old enough to remember when Siskel and Ebert were new kids on the block. I'm not saying the Bens will ever reach the same level. But dissing them after just 7-8 weeks is, I think, a bit premature.

Ben Lyons seems like a cool dude. Mank is growing on me.

They should bring on that Govinididinidinddnindi Murty chick who hosted with Roeper once. She could be part of the roundtable with Leydon and that IFC knob. She's some kind of mega-neo-con, but is TOTALLY smoking hot, which seems to be the requirment of the middle chair.

Joe, what's the thinking of having one of the two HOSTS sit out the Roundtable section?

Bizarre.

LexG: I have nothing to do with the planning of who sits where. They just call me up and say, "Hey, Mr. Has-Been/Never-Was Nobody, you wanna be on the show with some bright young up-and-comers this week? We'll cut you a check if you say yes." And, of course, I say: Dear God, yeah.

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: