This week’s theme: pornography for various tastes
__________
At a time when most media companies can barely pay for cake at going-
away parties, Bloomberg appears to be rolling in dough.
Stephanie Clifford and Julie Creswell, “At Bloomberg, modest strategy to rule the world,” NYT 11/14.
__________
Porn vibes. In public. Flooding the recycled air of the plane.
Monica Hesse, “Publicly, a whole new lewdness,” Washington Post, 11/12, on the increasing ubiquity of porn thanks to technological advancements
__________
After a quiet stretch at the North American box office, Hollywood discovered once again that audiences want to see the world and a cast of B-list actors ripped into pieces in a blitz of computer-generated effects.
Brooks Barnes, “2012 opening earns $65 million,” NYT, 11/15. In very rare cares, I endorse when journalism takes an appropriate — even if modest —- advocacy role borne out of informed indignation.
__________
If any vegans came over for dinner, I could whip them up a salad, then explain my philosophy on being a carnivore: If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat? I always remind people from outside our state that there’s plenty of room for all Alaska’s animals – right next to the mashed potatoes.”
Sarah Palin, reportedly excerpted from her book, Going Rogue, in Huffington Post, 11/14. Just the best thing you could hope for someone to say.
__________
And I’m sure that, you know, I’ll see excerpts printed and, you know, snippets of interviews as I, you know, channel surf in, in Singapore and in Shanghai and in Beijing.
Hillary Clinton, Meet the Press, 11/15
SICK BURN
Inverted Soapbox 
“2012” basically sucked, but the CGI effects in that movie were ridiculously awesome. Seriously. If that movie had been well-assembled, it could have been fantastic. Like, if Peter Jackson made it, it would have been sick. (Regardless, John Cusack managed to come out of unscathed. He really is an enjoyable actor.)
But I see no need for indignation. The success of “2012” will ensure a lot of other, cooler movies get made. People should honestly be really pleased it’s making so much money. In filmmaking, the money is just as important as the art — if not more so.
Is this true? A giant action blockbuster makes money that feeds directly into the making of other, cooler movies? I would think they’d funnel that income into making more blockbusters, keep the income rollin. honestly curious, I don’t know much astudio system funding.
A lot of blockbusters lose money (or don’t turn a profit) so they spread out their cash on everything from small-budget ($10-$25 million) movies to midsize movies to blockbusters. Each year, some pretty good, pseudo-indie flick (“Juno,” “Sideways,” hell, even “There Will Be Blood”) turns a massive profit. The studios try to make those movies too. But they have to spend carefully, which is why you seen blockbusters. A lot of indie movie fans who don’t pay attention to this stuff tend not to realize that their favorite movies are either co-financed or distributed by massive studios because they know small-budget movies can make money.
When the Japanese CEO of Sony first decided he was going to get into the movie business, he met with some studio head (I think it was Warner Bros.) and asked him about profits. The studio head said, “Well, we make about 15-20 movies a year. Generally, only about five of them make a profit, and the profits from those have to cover the losses of the other movies and also turn at least a small profit.”
The Sony guy looked puzzled and asked, “Well, why don’t you just not make the movies that lose money?”
The guy didn’t understand that couldn’t really predict any of that.
That’s why studios don’t put blockbuster profits solely back into blockbusters. Because it wouldn’t guarantee them anything.
Cares?
i should be a sony exec. I seem qualified.