Thursday, 30 July 1998

VIEWS OF NEWS: A reader, Brian G., wrote in earlier this week to "demand" (his word) that I write about Sony's spin on Godzilla this week since I had written so much on the Armageddon spin. I wrote him back in private to explain why I felt that the Godzilla spin, which took place this week in a Daily Variety interview with Sony execs led by John Calley, was not the same beast as Disney's spin on Armageddon. Why? Because Disney actively spun the Armageddon story, while Sony was asked and answered a question as part of a much larger interview with completely different issues to spin (whether Calley will soon leave Sony and resetting the media position on the studio aprés Godzilla). Also, I believe that Sony spun toward what they really believe. Devlin and Emmerich are still, indeed, valued parts of the Sony family, and there may well be a Godzilla sequel (albeit at a much smaller price tag for the production and the hype and with Devlin and Emmerich as executive producers, not the main team.)

What really inspired me to write about this today was another story in Variety. This one is about Samuel L. Jackson dissing the Academy Awards, as he feels that the institution has dissed black movie talent. Now, I am sure that Jackson will stand by everything that he said in the article. That's not the point. The feature was titled "Actor Samuel L. Jackson picks bone with Oscars" when, in fact, Jackson was out selling The Negotiator. In that context, a reporter asked him a question, and Jackson answered honestly. But readers would likely get the idea that Jackson was on some sort of campaign against the Academy. He's not. He doesn't like them, but he's not on a Jesse Jackson-like crusade. We tend to use our perceived context as part of our determination about whether an interviewee is thoughtful or a loud mouth. Sony wasn't looking to spin Godzilla, but was certainly willing to do so. Jackson wasn't looking to talk Academy racism, but didn't shy away from it either. How can we blame them for answering when we asked the questions?

BOND BUZZ: Speaking of Sony spin, they lost the first major skirmish in the war to turn James Bond into a two-studio schizophrenic. U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie said he was "99.9 percent" sure that he'd be putting the reins on Sony even developing a script for a possible Bond movie until a December trial resolves the issue once and for all. This is Sony's second failed (so far) attempt to acquire Bond, having attempted to woo Barbara Broccoli from MGM a little over a year ago. Of course, leave it to a lawyer (Art-Buchwald-hero-turned-blowhard Pierce O'Donnell) to take a victory and turn it into absurdist hyperbole, claiming that the ruling created "one of the darkest days in the history of Sony Studios." Didn't this guy see Striptease?

WHEN YOUNG MEN'S FANCIES TURN TO SPRINGER: That Jerry Springer movie is moving full-steam ahead. After blonde bombshell Jamie Pressly made her big debut as the often-naked, white-trash title character of Poison Ivy III (and after a small role as the busty blonde of the trio of wags who complimented, then dissed Jennifer Love Hewitt in Can't Hardly Wait) she just signed up to play a lead in the too-hot-for-video movie (now known as Springers) as a trailer-park queen who claims she's having an affair with her stepfather in order to win syndicated airtime. So, what do you want to bet that she'll add the "naked" element to her work in this film, too? And the Playboy spread (so to speak) can't be far behind. Hollywood. Even when you win, you lose.

KISS AWAY YOUR YOUTH: In other trashy news, New Line Cinema has signed Kiss to appear as itself in the must-be-renamed Detroit Rock City. It's a story set in 1978 about some guys who go on a quest to meet their favorite band. One problem. I saw Paul Stanley the other day; I run into Gene Simmons now and again. And I can tell you, it may be 1978 in the movie, and they may be wearing a lot of make-up already, but making them look like twentysomethings is going to require more CG work than Spawn did.

CHAT: Friday is my Yahoo! chat day around these parts. Actually, it's called Movie Chat. It starts at 2:00 p.m. PT/5:00 p.m. ET. And I'll give you a hint: Show up a little early and start sending questions. As the hour progresses, it gets harder and harder to get a question into me.

READER OF THE DAY: From Ann Minnix: "Last week you asked what women thought of the movie Saving Private Ryan. It is one of the best movies ever made. I saw this film with a theater full of people (all ages and genders), and we all clapped when it was over. I haven't spoken to one person (male or female) who didn't love it. This is a film about humanity (and inhumanity) and all who see it will benefit. As far as I can see, any criticisms made about the film are not looked at as carefully as needed. Spielberg spent time framing, writing and editing every shot to make points relevant to his view and it must have worked, because the nearly three-hour film seemed like minutes. Saving Private Ryan was a great movie experience.

---

E ME: Is there enough perspective in entertainment coverage for you?