Category Archives: Hollywood

Say It Ain’t So, Jean-Luc!

This story is just depressing. It’s really sad that Patrick Stewart wants to become and American citizen to America to disrupt it and hate… Why should he be let in with that attitude?

Why can’t he be a builder, not a breaker?

It’s so childish. It’s part of the liberal mentality.

Jane Fonda: I’m a Victim, Too!

This interview, “Me, Jane,” stinks and wreaks of attention-seeking. Jane Fonda obviously feels she’s being left behind in the all-consuming race for attention that governs most actors.

It’s also part of a seemingly new phenomenon, victimism. Certainly it’s never been as strong as it is now — the desire by so many to be seen as victims. In this case we have a highly successful, world famous, high-profile, award-winning multimillionaire yearning to be seen as a victim.

A few points.

Fonda says, “It took me 60 years to learn how to say no,” and portrays herself as some kind naive hayseed. She seems to have confused herself with young Cat Ballou.

Does anybody believe that Fonda has been a shrinking violet her whole life? She grew up in Hollywood, the daughter of Hollywood royalty. Her brother was Peter Fonda, who was on the cutting edge of every hippy hipster experimental lifestyle movement that came down the pike.

She claims she discovered feminism after seeing “The Vagina Monologues,” which debuted in 1996.

Okay, here you already know we’re being snowed. Jane Fonda was already active in feminism in the 1970s. The interviewer doesn’t bring this up.

“The men in my life were wonderful, but victims of a [patriarchal] belief system,” she says.

Would that include Henry Fonda, darling of classic America Hollywood liberalism?; Peter Fonda (see above)?; Free Love playboy Roger Vadim?; or Commie pinko icon Tom Hayden? That’s a pretty broad leftwing spectrum of male chauvinist pigs ya’ got there, Janie.

She worries that the Hollywood Blacklist is coming back because of so many stars speaking out (from the left). She means the one against liberals not the one that the liberals, who control Hollywood, have against conservatives.

The poor thing relates that she recently went to protest a pipeline in Alberta, Canada, and the locals at the airport had the nerve to tell her to go home, they didn’t want her around. She whimpers that so many people disagree with her and they (unjustly) complain that she’s a spoiled, ignorant, elite brat. She apparently says this with a straight face.

Poor, Jane, the world just doesn’t understand how lucky it is to have her speaking out. Snap to it, people, Janie has places to be, people to meet, clothes to model, glamor to bask in. What do you have, peasant!?! Learn your place!

She worries that the health care “infrastructure” will collapse when Planned Parenthood is defunded. You see, so many women get their health care from PP, according to Jane.

Uh, no they don’t. It’s an abortion mill franchise almost exclusively. That’s like describing “Hour Eyes” as a full service medical establishment.

Of course a Hollywood woman who got her start playing on her looks now complains that women are judged on their looks and that’s not fair to older women, which said complainer has become. She then leaps eagerly into a photo shoot to demonstrate what a hot MILF she is.

And people wonder why liberals so often come across as airheads.

Much of the interview is little more than a mutual tongue bath between Fonda and “activist and actress,” typically narcissistic Millennial Brie Larsen (who constantly inserts herself into the interview – Brie, honey, you’re dimwitted doll, but this isn’t about you.).

Jane regales us with the numerous times that she stood up to her “boss.”

When did Jane Fonda ever have a “boss”? When she was known as the daughter of Hollywood power Henry Fonda? Not bloody likely. Who’s going to cross Henry Fonda? When she was a producer, award-winning actress and bankable star in the 1970s-80s? Who was going to commit occupational suicide battling her? When she was Tom Hayden’s running buddy trying to pull the Democratic Party to the left and revolutionize America? Good luck getting any invites to Hollywood’s coolest parties. When she was “feeling the burn”? At the time she was one of the most recognizable and influential celebrities on the planet.

The biggest bombshell here is the claim to have been raped and sexually abused. She doesn’t name names and is quite coy on that, simply stating it as if noting she was on a plane few times. It has a “me too,” feeling about it. As if no one would ever admit they hadn’t been on an airplane, how gauche.

Sexually abused? I’m a bit skeptical but maybe when she was very young; before she was “liberated.” A lot of that free love and Hollywood swinging back in the 1960s and 1970s is now considered “abuse.” (Remember how these very same people accused people who behaved themselves back then of being squares and uncool, now they have flipped their viewpoint but refuse to acknowledge that the uncool squares back then were really right! Ah, being a liberal means never having to say you were wrong!)

Who knows, maybe she’s referring to liberal icon Tom Hayden or superswinger Roger Vadim? Both are now conveniently dead as are all those patriarchal producers, directors and male co-stars. I’m assuming she’s referring exclusively to men…

Jane obviously doesn’t want these young women hogging all the attention with their rape and sexual abuse stories. Those founding mothers of feminism are showing the young whippersnappers that they can match them for victimization. In fact, they were victims before these neophyte feminist small fry were glints in the eye of their mothers’ turkey basters… Double in fact, they practically invented victimization.

 

The Walking Dumb

Yup!

I have no idea what actor Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s politics, and they shouldn’t matter, but I hope he’s one of us or at least not being a liberal after this ridiculous incident — “‘Walking Dead’ Star on T-Shirt Hassle: ‘People Are Stupid.’

Ian Lucraft is a loser looking to be offended. Most people, probably 99% of them, are not going to have any idea what Lucraft’s whining about so how can the masses he alludes to be “offended?”

Can you be offended if you don’t realize that you’re supposed to be offended? Can you be offended if you aren’t, um, actually offended?

Buddhist koans have been built on less.

Perhaps Mr. Lucraft is angling to be Secretary of Offense (without portfolio).

Hey, Lucraft, you missed an offense — the differently-abled, legless division, are offended by the mention of “toe.” They are missing some of theirs. The trauma! The horror!

Mr. Lucraft, a lot of things offend me but I don’t demand that they be removed from the public. I understand that there might be people who like those things. I’m willing to take one for the team, obviously you aren’t. You demand that everyone kowtow to your tastes. (Ooooh, ‘kowtow,’ that’ll crank Lucraft’s Offense-O-Meter to 11).

You, sir, are a Nazi.

I’m offended by Lucraft’s stupidity. I guess it’s too much to hope he’ll be pulled.

A Big Lie

While out running errands on Saturday I popped into the barbershop. The barber keeps the TVs on Fox News. Not bad, so much better than CNN, but I’d have preferred the MLB Network or NHL Network. Fox can be annoying too.

I tried not to pay any attention but one story caught my attention. There was some rally for “Immigrant Rights” in Hollywood or featuring Hollywood celebrities.

The babbling actors and actresses kept pretending that Pres. Trump had simply banned foreigners and immigrants. Mass deportations and house-to-house searches were about to happen (applause and boos).

I wondered as I listened, why do they so grossly mischaracterize what Trump is doing? Do they not know what he is doing?

That’s a possibility considering the way the lamestream media misreports all things Trump. They probably also rely on their friends and other fellow libs in the hermetically-sealed Media-Entertainment Complex bubble. Actors and actresses are generally not too bright but often want to be thought highly of by appearing studious and thoughtful.

And there is the possibility that they know they are lying but do it anyway — to be popular and signal their virtue. And maybe they want to have anyone, from anywhere, be allowed to come to the United States whenever they wish. It would be nice if they just honestly admitted that, rather than accusing Trump of calumny.

It gets frustrating watching reporters, politicians, activist groups and celebrities try to dupe the public by conflating illegal aliens with standard immigrants — who are not threatened by Trump’s orders.

If only we had a group of people who would transmit the actual facts to the general public. That’s such a great idea. I wonder if I can copyright that????

What Would Loki Do?

Maybe you caught actor Tom Hiddleston’s act of pusillanimity at the recent Golden Globe Awards, or rather after them.

Hiddleston was being rewarded for his performance as the spy in John Le Carre’s “The Night Manager.” (Not a bad little mini series.) Hiddleston imparted the typical little tale of fame — that some aid workers in Sudan had said they had enjoyed his performance. It had brought a little joy into their generally hard life.

No sooner had those words passed his lips than the professionally aggrieved came out of the Twitter shadows and unleashed a hellstorm upon Hiddleston for daring to use such noble folks for cheap sentimentality.

Hiddleston is possibly better known to big screen audiences as Loki, from the Marvel Comics series. Loki is Thor’s ambitious and devious half-brother. He does not suffer fools gladly.

So the spectacle of Loki groveling before a bunch of hypersensitive offense seekers for what was merely an innocent comment is absurd.

Man, grow a set and tell these cretins to eff-off. That’s the least Loki would do.

Amy Schumer as Barbie?

This story about Amy Schumer being cast as Barbie in a live action Barbie movie makes one scratch their head.

This isn’t a spoof of Barbie, according to the story.

Schumer isn’t going to ever be confused with the statuesque doll with the “impossible” figure. And her image as of late has morphed from schlub loser chick (where she made her name) to a more politically aggressive “smart” progressive romantic comedy actress. Again, not exactly the resume for Barbie.

Is it possible that Schumer could play it straight?

One would assume that a Barbie movie would be aimed at little girls. Can’t see Schumer going there.

Could she be going for a lighthearted romantic comedy? Maybe but what would be the point of hauling “Barbie” into it since Barbie has never been associated with comedy.

Could this be yet another Baby Boomer fixation, something they can’t seem to let go no matter how much it needs to be pried from their nearly dead hands. They just “have to do something.” That’s the genesis of so many bad ideas that they have inflicted upon humanity over the last five decades.

Can the producers or Schumer be planning to turn their “Barbie” movie into a more political movie? A “rebooted” Barbie? Issuing a feminist slap back at the 1950s and the childhood doll of so many Baby Boomers? Having modern Barbie as a snarky female executive breaking the glass ceiling and proving superior to modern beta male Kens. Her Skipper sidekick could be played by the nouveau svelte Melissa McCarthy.

And never have to rely on her looks.

Or maybe they’ll “doll”-up Schumer and then humiliate her — “proving” that modern frumpiness is the answer to everything and always wins Ken. Or maybe wins Skipper since the LGBTQWERTY crowd needs to be acknowledged at every turn these days.

What would be the point beyond being another vanity project that will cost a surprisingly large amount of money to make, get a huge marketing effort and then lose a lot of money.

Or the idea might just disappear, like so many other Hollywood projects.

But not to let some Hollywood disasters disappear, here’s some more election night treats. Dontcha just love Chelsea Handler’s waterworks. Yeah, Chelsea, women aren’t emotional… Thanks for checking the box on that “stereotype.” Melt, snowflakes! Melt!

Is There Nothing the Kochs Can’t Do?

As a prime example of just how deranged the modern liberal movement is, check out this recent story — “Did the Koch Brothers Just Kill the Film and TV Business in Florida?

Is there nothing the Koch Brothers can’t do? (Or can’t be blamed for?) They even get blamed for being against tax breaks for the rich! (Assuming that they were actually behind any of this, which they weren’t beyond providing a lot of initial funding for a deregulation/taxpayer watchdog group many years ago and supporting like-minded politicians.)

Wait, a minute, according to smart people like Hillary Clinton, tax breaks for the rich have no trickle down effects. They only benefit the rich. But the union goons in the article talk about all the little who were helped by these tax breaks… I’m confused.

The article, clearly coordinated with the Democratic Party, liberal groups and unions, tries to argue several contradictory points — the tax incentives are small yet vast creating employment for thousands; very few projects actually used them yet without them all filming dries up instantly; and if there are no incentives no one would have any reason to film in Florida yet the incentives aren’t why people are coming to film in Florida.

Not surprisingly, the Florida legislature’s decision that giving taxpayer money to wealthy filmmakers (or betting on less-than-wealthy filmmakers) is a bad use of that money, is portrayed as a terrible idea. And it is implied that every Florida legislator that voted that way is a puppet of the Kochs and their group. They were incapable of making that decision otherwise.

So why are the Kochs doing this? The article doesn’t venture any theory beyond implying the Kochs are bad. It doesn’t even try to make a hypertenuous attempt to nebulously connect them to the film & TV industry.

Deadline just provided nothing more than Democratic Party propaganda. It’s just another tool of the party and no longer a legitimate journalistic venture. Treat it as hostile.