Despite the assurances of the people who work in them, many professional fields don’t seem very creative at all. Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general doesn’t appear to favor this evaluation. This week in entertainment there are a few events that make us ask whether creative feats have any significance at all.
Significant stories:
- Limbaugh demonstrates his standards
- Joss Whedon clarifies Marvel’s Liberal Creative Control Methodology
- The Weinstein’s and MPAA look for middle ground
Limbaugh Demonstrates his Standards
If you are a fan of the kind of American political entertainment that passes as journalism than you probably heard Limbaugh’s verbal assault on student Sandra fluke. Testifying about the value of having insurance companies defer some costs for contraceptives, fluke also commented on many of the non-medical advantages of contraceptive use. Dismayed by her candor, the political commentator exploded with a range of insults that included him calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute”.
Expressions of outrage were fast and furious. The general public was so outraged by these comments that many of Limbaugh’s advertisers like AOL dropped the show immediately.
An apology was eventually released allowing Limbaugh to (partially) retract many of his statements.
Reported by the Hollywood Reporter, last week recognizing a sleazy comrade in arms, marital affairs promoting web site AshleyMadison.com pursued the radio show to make up advertising that Limbaugh lost during the previous controversy. This allowed Limbaugh to publically declare he would never accept advertising from that business. The fact that Limbaugh is only willing to play nice if advertisers object, underscores how typically nasty his program’s rhetoric really is.
Joss Whedon clarifies Marvel’s Liberal Creative Control Methodology
While making the promotional rounds for his horror film, “Cabin in the Woods”, Whedon commented on Marvel’s attitude toward his directorial authority for the hugely anticipated summer release, “The Avengers.”
Speaking to the website Den Of Geek.com, Whedon gushed over his treatment by the highly successful studio, “They really did let me make my own film. They said, ‘here are the things we need; here is the villain, we want this to happen; we need the conflict here; here’s the third act, it will involve the following’. Which I’m fine with. That’s great, give me the parameters, because then I know where I’m going, and it does some of the legwork for me. And I know what their agenda is in terms of style, and what we’re delivering, in terms of thrills and the adherence to the Marvel universe, with which I’m very familiar.” In other articles from last week Whedon, has already started discussing the sequel and a different approach to the film. Though this is good news, it isn’t new news. The other directors for Marvel’s creative properties tend to say the same.
The Weinstein’s and MPAA look for middle ground
Reported by the Huffington Post, protested by many including teenager Katy Butler, it looks like a compromise reception of sorts is in store for the powerful documentary “Bully.” After launching a PR Offensive against the MPAA for their unwillingness to minimize their “R” down to a “PG-13” rating, the Weinstein group has agreed to a Washington D.C. sit down discussion of the film and rating.
As Deadline.com reports, now D.C. public schools chancellor, Kaya Henderson, Harvey Weinstein, and the MPAA’s Chris Dodd will discuss the film at a screening and panel discussion. Deadline was quick to mention this kind of attention for a supposedly “denied” film is unprecedented treatment even for the Weinstein’s. Clearly the filmakers felt further editing challenged the initial intention to make the film.
————————————————————————
Research Resources:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rush-limbaugh-ashley-madison-sandra-fluke-advertisers-298181
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/bully-documentary-katy-butler_n_1326943.html
http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/harvey-weinstein-lee-hirsch-and-chris-dodd-to-meet-in-d-c-for-
bully-showdown
comicreleaf
comicrelief2
Comic Relief
parisienne
littlebells
Lurker
ozzie20
Open Book
LIH
linkedinhollywood.com 
The issue that I have with is that she is trying to require a private and Catholic institution to pay for her birth control. I have no problem with BC, but she could have gone to her nearest clinic and gotten it for free or nearly free. BTW: she goes to a highly expensive institution so unless she on scholarship, I would imagine she can buy condoms.
4 String,
Long time no here. Thanks for your clarification, and I hope you recognized the redraft post of the article, (though the gist of the article has not changed). Supporters and critics on both sides of the aisle have contributed a substantial amount of ideas regarding this discussion of whether insurance companies should pay for women’s contraception.
I believe most of the outrage concerning Rush’s statements pertained to the lowering of standards in American Public discourse. Why should a woman who voices an opinion, either wrong or right, become a “slut“ or “prostitute” in the midst of the debate? When advertisers removed their supportive funds from the broadcast program he insults were the issue.
When democrats discuss a right-wing “war on women,” I believe these statements are what they are talking about.
Btw, I’m no fan of Rush. My main issue is the double standard. In the media (generally speaking) it is ok to call S Palin the c-word or call H Clinton a ‘ho’ (before she bowed out of the race–the bros vs hoes tees come to mind) but to call out a.Georgetown law student out for complaining her institution won’t cover her birth control is different? Why should a private inst be required to cover this? Anyway, freedom of speech allows people to say dumb stuff as well as smart stuff.
We only covered it because it was something like politics….but more importantly it was entertainment too. What occurred financially may be unique; yet an exact, opinion on the politics may not have been necessary for this site.
Btw, I’m no fan of Rush. My main issue is the double standard. In the media (generally speaking) it is ok to call S Palin the c-word or call H Clinton a ‘ho’ (before she bowed out of the race–the bros vs hoes tees come to mind) but to call out a.Georgetown law student out for complaining her institution won’t cover her birth control is different? Why should a private inst be required to cover this? Anyway, freedom of speech allows people to say dumb stuff as well as smart stuff.
Yes, I do still read the articles on this site even if I don’t comment.
Sorry for the double post. I’m not on my computer & having issues with my mobile device.
Continued luck on mastering the mobile phone.
The thing is: I’m not sure what the poor man can do. Personally, I’d go for the clippers but I don’t think it would work uesnls he went for the almost bald cut. Shaving that front bit off completely doesn’t seem an option, though perhaps he might think of backcombing his eyebrows. The Archbishop of Canterbury is doing some interesting research in that area which might provide help for millions of men like McLaren.