I hate market share stories.
Market Share in 2009 is one of the least valuable statistics on the planet.
Warner Bros, which leads in market share at this year end and which has had a record-breaking $2 billion domestic year, released 30% more films than the studio with the next highest number of releases. And $300 million of that domestic total is for movies the studio doesn
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Good piece, Dave – just a couple of questions:
Since I am always fascinated by the marketing of these films, do you have any idea which films had the largest marketing budgets for 2009? Just going by pure observation, I would probably assume that Terminator Salvation, Star Trek, and Sherlock Holmes are up there. But you probably know much more.
Also, with regards to Harry Potter – isn’t it a bit underwhelming that with over $900 million in worldwide grosses and NO partners, they only come home with $150 million in profits? I mean, after seven movies, why are these films still so expensive? It’s not like the are reinventing the wheel with new effects or sets, each time. I just don’t get it. How is the seventh film in this film series just about $50 million cheaper than Avatar???
Something just doesn’t wash with this…..
Well, the big effects movies are expensive to start. Each Potter increases in price, not only because they are trying to top the last one, but because talent needs to get paid to show up each time and WB doesn’t want to give up points. It’s like the Seinfeld cast showing up for the last season. If they are not spending at least $30 million more above the line for each of the most recent Potter films than for the first, I’d be shocked.
Also, they do have to pay Rowling A LOT.
I think a big part of what seems odd about it is that we have a confused idea – on the surface – of how much profit there is on these movies. A $150m profit is a whole lot. It’s over 30% return on the dollar that’s pretty much guaranteed. This is very rare.
We hear all these giant numbers, but the margins are not as fat as people think.
As far as Avatar’s cost vs other films, Avatar cost less than the last Spider-Man and Pirates. There are a bunch of $200 million price tag movies in the last five years… at least five this year. So the leap from $200+ to $310 is not that far. And the cost of marketing is pretty similar on each of these, give or take $20m on the worldwide budget.
The cost of Potter has about doubled from the first. And the last Rings film, from what I understand, was at least double the first. Happens. What is amazing is that it doesn’t happen on Bond.
MPAA erratically publish stats on movie marketing costs, although expect the numbers to be significantly massaged.
The experience curve (costs going down as you produce more of something) is… interesting. The closest impartial (as in “no overt business links”) I know in that field is Anita Elberse out at Harvard, but I don’t know if she’s looking at that specifically. Potter vs. Bond would make a very interesting comparison. I’d seperate LotR out from those two because (as I understand it) principal shooting was done in bulk rather than separately as with the other two franchises (which makes it all the more interesting that the inflation came through postproduction and marketing, but sadly fewer controls for comparison).
Great analysis. A few things I thought to add:
*Cirque Du Freak will cost Universal some as well, as it was a Relativity production partially, but 25 million on probably 60 million spent=bomb
*Princess and Frog and Old Dogs are likely additional losers for Disney.
*Cloudy With Meatballs, Julie and Julia and Zombieland were MAJOR moneymakers for Sony, which basically dominated early August to early November
“FOX
What about The Surrogates for Disney? I never read any discussion on here concerning the plight of that film and I would be shocked if it didn’t spill any red ink. $60.5m or $107.7m worldwide according to Box Office Mojo and the-numbers.com, respectively. I heard the budget ended up exploding well above $80m after production issues and a revamp on their entire CGI budget (ie: retroactively deciding to make all the surrogate faces IN EVERY SHOT appear more plastic-y).
Great piece, Dave. Fascinating stuff.
Great article, Dave. Thanks for spending your holidays playing with numbers on behalf of the rest of us.
“$46 million to Todd Phillips.”
Good lord.
I don’t see any reason why Old Dogs would be a money loser for Disney. You seem to be making the mistake of comparing it to “Wild Hogs” while forgetting how much the movie actually cost.
David, I’m most interested in how you come up with your rental revenue figures. Do you just make your projections based on a certain percentage of domestic/worldwide gross or is there more to this?
Could you please shed some light on this?
“I don’t see any reason why Old Dogs would be a money loser for Disney. You seem to be making the mistake of comparing it to “Wild Hogs” while forgetting how much the movie actually cost.”
Im assuming they spent a good deal more on advertising than average. Their ad campaign for the spring release was already in full swing when they yanked the film at the last sec for a November release.
“Surrogates” is a better call though.
Dave, thanks for the quick info on Potter.
I have to say, though, if Warners is still spending so much on even the seventh movie that they are not close to break-even until the international grosses come in, that is a bit of an issue. Some profits are being left on the table. Just surprised they didn’t lock in Radcliffe, Watson, and the rest for the whole duration of the series.
Basically, you’re saying that Paramount made a bit less profit on the second Transformers (with even Michael Bay involved) as Warners made on the seventh Harry Potter. That’s a little surprising.
Granted, this could all be a moot issue with the Potter series almost being over – are they at least going to make a killing on Deathly Hollows by spending the typical $250 million plus, but splitting into two releases? Getting almost $2 billion worldwide on even $300 million production budget sounds pretty good.
David,
Sony had TWENTY ONE releases. Not 14. And 9 of their movies grossed over $100M worldwide.
You write, “But there were not a lot of big risks or big successes or failures this year. Flat.”
ME: No, there WERE big failures this year. On average, more than half of each studio
Nowhere within these bean-counting reports are any thought given to all those employees being laid off left and right at studios while they rake in record millions and billions. That’s the real story. But instead, you have folks on their knees before these numbers without thought to who gets it all.
Yay capitalism.
Didn’t you write a column less than a month ago saying that Todd Phillips was going to get $75 million from ‘The Hangover’ residuals-why did the figure change? I’ll have to go back and look, but how are you coming up with these numbers?
When you say that someone like Spielberg, Cruise or Ford is taking a certain percentage from any BO gross, how do you know-are you talking to the lawyers/agents who made those deals? And if you are going to make those claims without showing where you got the information from, how can you criticize the NYTimes (or Finke, or anyone else) for doing the same thing? You said that you’ve sold all the ad-revenue possible for Oscar season-can you use the profit to get an MCN-Ombudsman? The entire world of bloggers gets to criticize the NYTimes (and I would agree that it’s good for journalism that they do so), but who holds people like you accountable?
IV… I was going to answer your stuff, which you clearly thought out… but none of your arguments/corrections seem to call for any response by me.
For the most part, you are taking positions that are not about what I wrote, but what you thought I should write… angles I should have taken.
Yes… I am writing about movies that opened this year. No… I am not interested in market share, as I wrote at the top of the piece.
So, does Avatar and Chips2 revenue count in my perspective on how Fox did this year? Yes. Do last December’s movies mean anything to me in terms of my perspective on how studios did this year? No. Sorry this offends your sense of how to talk about how studios did this year.
Also, I noted “Major Studios” in the headline. I will do an “Indie Studios” piece, led by Summit, when I do that piece. I think that the context will be to Summit’s benefit. No?
“FYI, best industry practice is to write Top 10, 15 20, etc. when using #
Chrisitan… pretty sure there has been more in this blog than anywhere else about the shame of layoffs at the studios. That’s not what this piece was about.
JW – He has received a check for the theatrical, which has been mentioned before as $46m. I believe when I threw out $75m in some piece projecting into his next check for post-theatrical profit.
And how do I know these things? It’s my job, JW. I talk to a lot of people about a lot of things. And I try hard to only throw out things that I actually do feel have risen to the level of “know” and not just “I hear.”
Glad to see you like spending MCN’s money for me. I would prefer to hire another writer or to pay more to the people we have than to hire someone to watch me write.
The answer to your question is that everyone/anyone holds me accountable.
And I don’t criticize Finke and NYT for not showing the source. I criticize NYT only when they get it really wrong. And I criticize Nikki (amongst other reasons) because she isn’t just giving facts – true or untrue – but she is often quite clearly spinning for someone with a vested interest. How often have you read me lead with “So and So exec is an idiot!!!” or “Studio is going down because the crossed So & So,” or “So & So must be fired.”?
I know this vexes you. Been through it before. My standards are not NYT or WSJ standards. I am what I am. And all journalism requires trust from the reader. If there is anything I have learned over the last decade, it is that… which makes my disappointment by some of these NYT stories that much more intense.
“For the most part, you are taking positions that are not about what I wrote, but what you thought I should write… angles I should have taken.”
Thanks David. I just wanted to point out some areas you wrote about that were not correct. We all make mistakes. Hopefully, you’ll revise what you wrote on the studios. I AM taking position on that. The numbers you posted just aren’t adding up. If you see an error in what I posted, please call me out on it.
IV
“My standards are not NYT or WSJ standards.”
Yet, somehow, you’re entitled to tell them the standards that you feel they should hold themselves accountable too? And I’m the ‘idiot’, for questioning that? Your argument boils down to “If the NYTimes and the WSJ don’t write the things that I believe are true, I’m going to bitch and moan about it. And if someone criticizes my bitching and moaning because I’m not providing any sources to back up my facts, I’m going to call them an idiot.” Nice…..
Love IV/Hitler ripping through DP/Poland
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Actually, I don’t agree with your “corrections,” IV. I guess my writing tone is elusive. But I am perfectly happy for you to see the numbers through your own perspective as I see them, and offer them, through mine.
And Jack… a little hysterical.
The standards of the NYT, WSJ, and others are different. Not the standards of truthfulness or even the level of sources that are given trust. Rather, they have to write stories with a certain structure. For instance, they need someone to be, at least, as excused unnamed quotable, as in, “preferred not to be named because they are talking behind the backs of others.”
That standard used to be a lot higher. But it made coverage, especially in show business, almost impossible. I hate those BS excuses, but I have become less exercised over them. I only really call them to task now when they get it wrong… really wrong.
I get your ongoing “you need to do what they do if you want to legitimately criticize them” thing. I disagree. In fact, I think it utterly misses the point. But if that’s what matters to you, that’s what matters to you.
I am fascinated by how you defend the indefensible by attacking me… not for being wrong, but for form. Odd.
great piece. great feedback. have nothing to add to the conversation other than “didn’t ninja assasain lose money for WB”
i will skulk back into the shadows.
“ave nothing to add to the conversation”
Since when did that stop anyone around here?
David, can I get a brief high level overview how you get your DVD revenue estimates?
Sorry for the late reply-I’ve been on the road. But I would like you to clarify something for the record.
“For instance, they need someone to be, at least, as excused unnamed quotable, as in, “preferred not to be named because they are talking behind the backs of others.””
So, again, we’re supposed to take your BO/revenue estimates at face value (which is the same as an ‘unnamed source’), and I can’t question you on it, in the same way that you question them, without being an ‘idiot’? Your excuse is that you don’t have the same ethical standards as the NYT or the WSJ, but yet can still hold the high ground to call them out on any mistakes that you think they might have made (without even an unnamed source to back you up!)??? What am I missing here? I would love to hear an explanation for that-do web columnists get exemptions for journalism ethics, and if you agree that they do, why do you complain about gossip columns on the internet?
It’s one thing to be Finke and cover peoples asses by feeding false information to the masses. But the ethical line between that, and citing BO/residual numbers with no legitimate sources to back you up, is…..where?
You’re agreeing with me that the standards at the NYTimes are higher than the standards that you hold yourself to, but you’re constantly criticizing their coverage of the industry that you work in. You want to complain about writing a 2000 word reply to me before-give me 2000 more words on how you’re any different than TMZ/Gawker/Entertainment Tonight, when you criticize anyone that dares to question your sources, in the same way that you question the sources/motives of everyone else, and maybe I’ll shut the hell up. If your claim is that you don’t need an Ombudsman for your work because you have your readers, I’ll remind you that your most prolific blog commentators are the ones that you tend to ban from time to time. Go ahead and ban me for this rant-maybe it will earn me a column….
Hey, Jack Walsh…
What is your deal where you have to complain about me having had “a column” (which I didn’t) several times a day when you go on your occasional warpath (which usually ends with Poland responding in kind and you douchily saying, “Okay, thanks for the reply, I’m on the road…” as if ANYONE is following this crusade but you)?
The rest of that stuff has nothing to do with me, but why throw my name in the mix every. single. time. as if it’s some referendum on DP’s integrity? Maybe it just suggests that he’s a NICE GUY.
Like “You gave LexG a COLUMN and he types in captial letters!” is your GOTCHA! moment or something. Did you ever submit any writing samples to MCN? If you’re that envious that he’d kindly offer a forum to a regular commenter, pretty sure RULE #1 just *might* be not to blow in attacking him out of NOWHERE every few months, then shrinking off when he hands it to you.
And as for that “column,” you act like DP turned over the Movie City keys to the inmates, like I suddenly was running the Editorial page at a paper or something. I submitted a couple short pieces, he seemed to liked them, and likely wanted to give a shot to movie-passionate guy who didn’t really have a venue. I blew the opportunity, or at least haven’t gone on to submit anything else, but mostly he was just being a kindly and NICE PERSON and trying to encourage someone. It’s not like I was on payroll or taking jobs away from “real critics”… he ran a couple longform rants; I definitely appreciate the forum and the sho, but you make it sound like he’s Don Hewitt turning “60 Minutes” over to The Nasty Man or something. Jesus.
Lex,
Do you not get that my main concern is ‘journalism ethics’ in everything I’ve written about? If I’m the only one following the ‘crusade’, why does Dave get a pass when he complains about other journalists and the way that they cover the industry?
“The rest of that stuff has nothing to do with me, but why throw my name in the mix every. single. time. as if it’s some referendum on DP’s integrity?”
Maybe because I think it’s hypocritical to threaten to ban someone from your comments section (on your blog no less), and then give them a forum to express their views in column form. You spend all of your time trying to provoke everyone on this blog, and then you (and Dave) get all high and mighty when I try to do the same (in a much different way).
“Like “You gave LexG a COLUMN and he types in captial letters!” is your GOTCHA! moment or something.”
I’m not looking for “GOTCHA” moments Lex. I don’t think I was the only person who was pretty shocked by the idea that Dave was giving you a column that appeared on the front page of his website, after he had threatened to ban you from the comments section. If that makes me a ‘douche’, then so be it.
“If you’re that envious that he’d kindly offer a forum to a regular commenter, pretty sure RULE #1 just *might* be not to blow in attacking him out of NOWHERE every few months, then shrinking off when he hands it to you.”
I’m not looking for a column, and I’m pretty sure that you have violated at least part of your own rule about 100+ times by attacking Dave personally, or violating his rules for blog comments.
“I submitted a couple short pieces, he seemed to liked them, and likely wanted to give a shot to movie-passionate guy who didn’t really have a venue.”
You didn’t have a ‘venue’? Maybe you should have been writing those columns in the comments section instead of “I Want to Bone K-Stew”. What is your argument here? The venue that you ended up getting is the same venue that you wasted for years with rants about being drunk and hating your life. I thought that you had at least turned it around by getting MCN to pay for it, but from your comments above, I guess I was wrong. Now let’s begin the “JW is a Douche” fest….
we all have our faults and goodness knows i’m not shy about making my feelings known when lex luthor gets a good hate-on for the sisterhood, but jack walsh, DP is the big kahuna here and it isn’t a democracy, he can do pretty much whatever he wants – and in fairness to lex, when it comes to writing about something he feels for he can put together a compelling piece with evocative imagery and passion. how is it any skin off your nose if DP gives lex an outlet, and if lex blows it, isn’t that between him and DP? i don’t get why this bothers you so
So if it isn’t a democracy, it’s a dictatorship, and that’s ok with you? Do you think Dave would agree with that logic? And if so, why are you ok with that?
“how is it any skin off your nose if DP gives lex an outlet”
It isn’t exactly ‘skin off my nose’, but do you think Dave would be happy if the NYTimes, WSJ, or the LATimes, gave editorial space to Ann Coulter to air her views on President Obama? All I’m asking for is journalism ethics consistency here!
but don’t MCN/the hot blog, specifically concerned with film/the film industry/industry-related entertainment journalism, and the NY times to use your example have a different purview? comparing coulter airing her views on obama to lex airing his personal views on the loss of movie magic due to passing over of genuine film locations to shoot every movie in blandsville, canada, seems like a bit of a stretch.
journalistic integrity is important in every pursuit, or course, but the content of MCN (and the hot blog) is as much insightful opinion on movie-related matters as it is fact-based movie news, so lex’s – or whoever’s – opinion pieces seem perfectly ethical and valid as content; it’s the content of the piece that matters, not how the author happened to be chosen for the gig (but i’m still not sure i understand what the bee in your bonnet is so i have no idea if i’ve even addressed your point, but i was genuinely curious as to why you’re so up in arms)
“comparing coulter airing her views on obama to lex airing his personal views on the loss of movie magic due to passing over of genuine film locations to shoot every movie in blandsville, canada, seems like a bit of a stretch.”
I wouldn’t compare Coulter and her rants to “Lex bemoaning the loss of movie magic because of shooting location”, and I don’t think that I did so. I think Lex gets it wrong when he thinks that I’m criticizing him-I’m much more disappointed in Dave for giving someone who has caused so many problems, for both him and everyone on the blog, for giving him a much more important forum. The better analogy in the situation would be Obama saying: “You know what Sarah Palin….you were a pain in my butt, and you have shown nobody that you’re qualified to do anything, but I’m gonna give you a shot. Why don’t you try being Secretary of State for awhile?” How well do you think that would go over?
I’m not even talking about journalistic integrity in the context of whatever Lex wants to talk about. How do you go from hating the ‘I’M DRUNK AND WANT TO F*-EVERY ACTRESS IN HOLLYWOOD’ rants, to defending him having a forum for his more serious writing? I’m not seeing the ethical line there. It’s like a CEO telling his fellow executive who has been accused of sexual harassment, and is on the verge of being fired: “You know, I think maybe I should have you give a seminar on workplace morality, and that will solve the problem!”
“the content of MCN (and the hot blog) is as much insightful opinion on movie-related matters as it is fact-based movie news, so lex’s – or whoever’s – opinion pieces seem perfectly ethical and valid as content”
Taking that sentence to the extreme-it would be ok if someone was hired by MCN to defend a pro-racism/pro-fascism (I could go on, but I’m sure you get my point) film?
EthanG – intellect + jeffmcm – dry humour = Jack Walsh
You still haven’t replied to my original comments to you JBD, so until then, I’ll just say: ‘Cowardice’ – ‘intellectual discourse ability’= JBD!
oh, i’m not defending lex having been given a venue, just that this is DP’s three ring circus and he’s the ringmaster, so you can either join in with the 30 clowns trying to fit into that one silly little car or you can heckle from the crowd i guess, i don’t really give a shit i just don’t get why you even care
Leah-I care because I don’t think that Dave should be able to run the ‘three-ring circus’, and criticize others for doing the same thing.
Let’s look at Dave vs. Michael Moore. Both have been very successful at running their operations based on their own standards, while criticizing the standards of everyone else in their professions/other professions. Both seem to hold everyone else to a higher ethical standard than they would ever hold themselves to (Dave even admitted this in his response to me when talking about the NYTimes and the WSJ). Both go on rants in their own work, and then get angry and incredibly defensive when people question anything that thev’re written, filmed, or talked about.
I don’t care that LexG got a column (especially since he said he didn’t even get paid for it). But I care that DP sits around criticizing the last surviving, and important newspapers in this country, while giving someone like LexG a forum.
Like I said before-you can’t sit around bemoaning the fall of national newspaper writers while criticizing them at the same time, on a blog that makes money based on the page views of that criticism.
Why do I care? Does it even matter? Why do you care what Dave thinks of any movie that he sees in any given week? You just do. I care because I thought Dave was the person who was finally standing up for journalism ethics, even if it was in a venue where “Paris Hilton just crapped her pants” is the top story (the internet). I guess I was wrong in thinking that other people read Dave’s writing because he at least tried to hold other journalists accountable for their work.
I don’t see the ethical issue in Dave’s allowing Lex to write columns for the site. It was clear that he wouldn’t have tolerated Lex’s all caps paeans to vag in column form. The opportunity seemed to be explicitly based on the notion that Lex had insights to offer beyond his more notorious forum persona. Lex delivered on that, but admits to squandering the opportunity by failing to submit more material.
“The opportunity seemed to be explicitly based on the notion that Lex had insights to offer beyond his more notorious forum persona.”
Yancy-have you ever gone to a job interview, drunk, and screaming “I want to fuck so-and-so” in the office, and expected to get a job doing anything? Would you not say that it’s an ‘ethical issue’ for the person interviewing you, to deny you the job, because you’re probably not only going to suck as as a worker, but you’re going to expose the company to lawsuits? There are a ton of people on this blog who have interesting insights into the film industry, and they’re not being offered columns before one of the people that causes the most problems on the blog? What happened to meritocracy?
I don’t even mean to single out Lex, but if Dave is going to keep going after the Finke’s of the world, I’m going to go after him for publishing the same crap from other people. I would think/hope that all the people that are employed by MCN think the same thing.
How is this different than the American public being outraged that the CEO’s of publicly traded companies were trying to cheat the rules/ethics of business, to increase stock prices for stocks that the American public owned?
Jack: Have you ever eaten an apple and it tasted like an orange? I simply don’t understand any of your comparisons. Lex was hired for his distinctive voice, as is often the case with columnists. That voice is grating to many in its “pure” form, but Dave undoubtedly thought that if it were tamed a bit, it could offer a different perspective than the garden variety film column. Lex did get the job on his merits, and in spite of certain demerits.
At any rate, Dave took a chance, Lex gave it a shot, and it didn’t quite work out. No harm done. In creative fields, sometimes you take a chance on an unlikely candidate. Those tend to be the ones who make a mark and stand out from the run-of-the-mill clock-punchers.
As for the crooked CEOs — huh? Even if the Lex experiment had turned into a regular column, Dave clearly had no intention of it being a forum for “blog Lex.” I doubt he would’ve run anything that he thought might anger or disgust the average MCN visitor. It’s fairly well established that “bad Lex” is something of a put-on; that he doesn’t act like that in real life, doesn’t harass women (can barely talk to them), doesn’t go to work drunk, doesn’t rant in the vocal equivalent of all caps. Giving him a venue posed no threat to the workplace, the Stock Exchange, journalism, democracy or the flower of young womanhood. Anyway, we’re both beating a dead horse at this point.
Scratch “hired.” I know Lex wasn’t hired – just given a trial run.
“I simply don’t understand any of your comparisons. Lex was hired for his distinctive voice, as is often the case with columnists.”
This blog tends to frown on ‘distinctive voices’. Finke is a ‘distinctive voice’, but that doesn’t make it right that she is paid to do what she does.
“At any rate, Dave took a chance, Lex gave it a shot, and it didn’t quite work out. No harm done.”
Doesn’t it do harm to the entire ‘journalism + internet’ experiment that has been going on for the past 10 years? I would again ask the question to Dave-why does the NYTimes not have comments sections on its website? I have an opinion on the question, but I’d like for him to give his opinion first. Apparently anything I say is toxic to the ‘comments section’ of all of these posts, so I’ll stay away until I hear back from the ‘dictator’. Meanwhile, I’ll sit here, scared that that the LexG’s of this blog, are on their way, to make sure that people like me can’t make comments….
Jack, you’re missing the obvious differences. Unlike Nikki and the NY Times, Lex wasn’t addressing hard news. He was a pure opinion column. No I’m not sure if journalistic standards exactly apply. He wasn’t lying about anyone or discussing real facts, just his musings on movies.