Radio callers have bones to pick with Hollywood

Disconnect discussion: In speculating about why moviegoing is down this summer insiders are starting to ask if there's a disconnect between the public and Hollywood over politics and social issues.

Studio executives have already cited weaker product, pre-show commercials, high ticket prices and DVD competition as contributing to the summer slide. What's even more troubling is the possibility that audiences are being turned off by their general perception of Hollywood's morality and politics. To some observers it seems that as more and more movie stars go public with their personal views on national and international issues, people across the country are starting to take offense.

Although I've heard the thought expressed privately in conversations with insiders, I was surprised to see how vocal the public is starting to be on the subject when I guested Saturday afternoon on CNBC anchor Ron Insana's syndicated Westwood One radio program. In the course of a one-hour conversation, in which MSNBC entertainment editor Dana Kennedy also took part, caller after caller complained about the movies Hollywood is making and the headlines the stars are generating.

Insana's show is heard nationally, including New York powerhouse talk station WABC, but it unfortunately doesn't air in Los Angeles. As a result, I thought it might be helpful to present in today's column some of the opinions voiced by those who called. As you'd expect, there were calls from around the country and from a mix of men and women, all of whom sounded like adults, exactly the audience Hollywood says its trying to get to do more moviegoing. What these callers also shared was their overall unhappiness with the high cost of moviegoing, the kind of movies they have to choose from and celebrities' increasingly big mouths.

As the show was airing Saturday, the preliminary Fourth of July weekend numbers I had in front of me suggested that ticket sales for the holiday period would be down about 18% based on projections from Friday's grosses. As the weekend progressed, however, that decline sharpened to around 24%. Even with a $112.7 million six-day launch for Paramount and DreamWorks' "War of the Worlds," there was no way to come close to last year's holiday fireworks sparked by Columbia's blockbuster franchise sequel "Spider-Man 2" and Michael Moore's sleeper hit documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11." Comparing the four day weekend (Friday through Monday) shows that last Fourth of July Spidey and "Fahrenheit" grossed $137.8 million between them while this time around "War" and Warner Bros.' "Batman Begins" together took in $96.4 million for four days. That's a drop of about 30% this year for the top two films on the holiday chart.

Listening to Saturday afternoon's callers, it's clear that their view of the world differs significantly from how Hollywood and its increasingly vocal movie stars see things. "This hour we're talking about what's wrong with Hollywood when even a 'War of the Worlds' can't help Hollywood win the battle of the boxoffice," Insana explained at the start of the program. "Boxoffice receipts (have been) down now for 19 straight weeks. That is the worst period for Hollywood in modern history. So what's wrong? Is it new technology? Bad movies? A lack of originality? A combination of all that? Or is it now the fact that you can build a movie theater in your house, wait three and a half months, pay a couple of bucks and watch the film at home (on DVD)?"

The show's first caller, Victor from Maryland, said there were "two reasons why I won't watch movies anymore. One is personal. One is political. The personal is I'm legally blind and the movies have gotten to the point now where they're much too visual. If I do go to a movie, I have to bring a sighted friend along to describe what's going on because there's no dialogue any more. It's too visual.

"The political part of it is, I'm sick and tired of the '9/11' type movies, the Bush-bashing type movies, the Jane Fondas, the bashing of the conservatives. So why should I spend my money so they can just run their mouths and run the country down?"

Responding to the point about movies emphasizing visuals over dialogue these days, Kennedy said, "That's a totally fair criticism. Hollywood's been so enamored of special effects for so long. That's a big problem with 'War of the Worlds.' It's tremendously visual, but when you get to the end and you wait for this big pay-off and there isn't one, you feel a little cheated. But I think that caller has a really good point...Last year was big at the boxoffice and one of the reasons it was so big was a little movie called 'Passion of the Christ' (that appealed to) all these Christian audiences that don't normally go to the movies, that don't come out to the multiplexes. (They) came out in droves. If I were a Hollywood filmmaker, I would start looking at...those audiences."

Focusing on the political point the caller raised, I commented that, "One top Hollywood executive, who definitely wanted to be anonymous, said to me recently, 'I wonder if the Hollywood stars who are so out in front with their anti-Bush point of view have turned off Middle America?' Clearly, this is one caller, but he's reflecting that point of view instantly. I think it's a serious issue because Hollywood has gone so public with its point of view politically, which seems to be so far different from the mass audience across the country."

The next caller was Melanie from somewhere in the West, who observed, "I'm definitely not an expert in this area, however, I am a consumer. Paying $7 and $8 and $9 and $10 to go see a movie per person is outrageous when I can do pay-per-view for $3.95 and the whole family can see a movie. The other piece to that is, I guess, spiritual in the sense that there's a lot of movies out there that have no substance just like the other caller was saying. And I think that everybody's speaking of that. It's not just me or him, it's everybody (saying there's) no substance."

Insana noted that he'd done "a quick tally the other night about what it costs for just two people to go (to see a movie) in New York. If you happen to live in New Jersey, you're going to pay a $6 toll to go over the bridge. You're going to pay, if you order your tickets online, about $11.50 for each ticket. That's 30 bucks. Then you're going to pay $20 for snacks. That's 50 bucks. You're going to pay $30 to park your car. That's 80 bucks. You're going to pay $40 for a babysitter. You're at $120 and you haven't even had dinner yet in New York City. It's totally priced out of the market."

"It adds up quickly," I agreed. "The answer is people will spend that money, but they only will spend it to see something that jumps off the page as something they want to see. Let's call them the event films -- the tentpole films, as Hollywood calls them. These films -- the 'War of the Worlds,' the 'Batman Begins,' the 'Star Wars' -- get their audience...People are going to see those movies, but anything smaller they don't want to bother to spend the money or take the time or put up with the inconvenience."

"There was a very big AP-AOL poll," Kennedy pointed out, "taken just two weeks ago saying that 73% of all adults prefer watching movies on DVD and, in fact, do so. That's an enormous figure. I think that the movie industry is really facing a...crisis, but it's good news for the consumer because we didn't have this kind of power before."

The next caller, Douglas from Queens, N.Y., also cited the expense of moviegoing as a factor that keeps him out of theaters: "Basically, it's the cost of everything else. I have to work seven days a week to make the mortgage and gas and electric. If I had any time off -- I've got four kids -- and (if) I had a little money, I'm going to take them to something we have to see. 'The Incredibles' is the last movie we saw as a family because we had to see it on a big screen...I would love to go see 'Fantastic Four' or 'Batman' or 'War of the Worlds.'"

"People's disposable income right now is getting a little pinched by high housing (costs), by gasoline prices going up, by health care and education costs," Insana commented. "There's some real competition for money out there."

"Given the average person -- never mind your last caller with four kids and working seven days a week -- Hollywood's lucky they're getting anybody in the multiplexes," Kennedy added. "They're really looking death in the eye by forcing us to watch not only a million trailers, which give away all the movies, but all these ads, as well. I think they're really missing the boat and they should take a hard look at what's going on this summer and think about a way to appeal to the regular guy...who doesn't have a ton of extra money to spend."

Sharon calling from Iowa complained bitterly about movie stars' behavior: "We're sick and tired of seeing their elaborate way of life. They spend $3 to 4 to 5 million dollars on a wedding. They're married for two years and divorced. And then we're supposed to be so sad for them! We're supposed to go to all their movies. We're just sick of their elaborate lifestyle."

"Are we oversaturated (with celebrity news)?" Insana asked. "Have we gotten to that point? Is it possible to get to that point where the American public, which was once insatiable when it came to watching the lives of the rich and famous, are maybe now just sick (of it)?"

The public, I replied, may well be turned off by celebrity news because, "We now have so much media spotlight on these stars and the stars have become so public about telling us what they believe down deep sincerely and it's so different from what the rest of the country believes that, of course, it has a negative effect. And then the behavior of the stars (is an issue)." Although there have been a number of incidents involving celebrities who have run afoul of the law, Russell Crowe's arrest this summer in New York for heaving a telephone at a hotel desk clerk's head probably makes him today's poster boy for bad movie star behavior.

"You know," Insana added, "between sports stars and movie stars you get this behavioral environment that probably most people don't want their kids to see yet alone have to endure themselves."

On the same point, Kennedy noted, "We have to blame the so-called entertainment media...A lot of people that are 'reporting' on Hollywood are basically fans with notebooks. Billy Bush, my new hero, of 'Access Hollywood,' was in fact one of the few reporters who didn't sign an agreement (with publicists) not to ask Angelina Jolie about her personal life during a recent junket. So you can't trust the people who are so-called 'covering it.' It doesn't help what we're seeing as far as the explosion of celebrities and their elaborate lives. David Spade has a new show coming out on Comedy Central making fun of these entertainment shows and it could be a minor tipping point (in terms of how the public regards such programs)."

The hour's last caller, Mark from the Bronx, N.Y., pointed out, "One of the problems I see here is that it's soulless accountants and less Hollywood actors and all the rest that are driving the movie industry. The bottom line is the most important thing (to studio executives today)."

"It's become a cliche to say they're all MBA's (running Hollywood now)," Kennedy said, "but your caller is still right. There's still much more coming from the business end in many cases. There aren't that many crazy dictators (running studios now) like those guys in the '30s and '40s so much any more. There are more 25-year-old committee members."

Although these callers really just scratched the surface of some serious issues in the brief time they were able to have on the air, it's clear that the public feels it has some bones to pick with Hollywood. If the film industry is smart, it will do some research to see how prevalent these opinions actually are across the country. If it turns out that highly critical views of Hollywood are truly widespread, it would certainly make sense for the industry to try to reverse the situation.

In Hollywood's Golden Age, the studios were able to control their stars' behavior mostly because the talent was working under contract and could be fired or suspended for disobeying the moguls. Today, of course, it's a very different story because under today's system it's the studios that must romance the stars to persuade them to appear in films. Nonetheless, it's the studios' money that fuels those movies and the resulting lifestyles of the rich and famous. The time may be coming when studios will want to start exercising more control over the public behavior of the stars they're bankrolling, at least when it comes to what they say when they're out on the media trail promoting their movies.

Putting a lid on what stars can talk about when they're supposed to be telling the media how great their expensive new films are makes a lot of sense because the opinions stars voice influence how audiences feel about seeing their movies. On the other hand, when stars aren't promoting new films and just happen to feel like doing interviews on their own because they care passionately about something, it's hard to argue that they shouldn't be able to say what's on their minds. Moviegoers, of course, could still react to what they say and hold it against them the next time that they do have a film in theaters.

Martin Grove is a regular contributor to CNN Headline News' "Showbiz Tonight" weeknights live at 4-5 p.m., PT (7-8 p.m., ET) with repeats at 7 & 9 p.m., PT (10 p.m. & Midnight, ET).

From what I've read, it doesn't have to be a particularly Michael Moore-type movie. It sounds as if they get their digs in on conservatives any way they can.

Disconnect discussion: In speculating about why moviegoing is down this summer insiders are starting to ask if there's a disconnect between the public and Hollywood over politics and social issues.

sshhh...don't tell them- they've done such a good job....for our side!!

Anytime someone asks me "have you seen this movie or that movie?" I always respond with "I have not been to the movies in five years as I do not and will not support hollywood!"

I resolved a few years ago to stop putting my money into the pockets of liberal Hollywood types.

It takes a lot for me to pay to see a movie these days. I average one or two a year in theaters and maybe four or five DVD rentals a year.

This is down from what I used to do four or five years ago----probably 8-12 a year in theaters and a couple of dozen or more DVD rentals.

The fact that most of what Hollywood is producing is crap makes it even easier.

The fact that most of what Hollywood is producing is crap makes it even easier.

Given the current technology, the Bewitched remake could have been something to see; that is, if they had not come up with a stupid plot.

One top Hollywood executive, who definitely wanted to be anonymous, said to me recently, 'I wonder if the Hollywood stars who are so out in front with their anti-Bush point of view have turned off Middle America?

Could someone break out those Captain Obvious graphics please. We need them on aisle Hollywood.

I look forward to buying used DVDs of movies that have people in them that I do not want to profit from my money. Once sold, no more royalties make it back to the "star(s)" with a resale, and I get what I want for less and make an editorial comment in the "star(s)" pocketbooks...it's a win-win-win situation.

I love e-bay.

A few movies are made for the BIG screen. The vast majority are not. I am new to NETFLIX and really like the convenience of movies at home.

There were many excellent points made throughout the article, particularly about the cost of going to a movie, and the issue of big-mouthed celebrities ranting on and on about politics and how much they hate President Bush. ...Another point that isn't discussed in the article but is bought out by Ben Shapiro in his latest book Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism is Corrupting Our Future is the amount of gratuitous sex found in most of today's 'adult' films (or more specifically some of the PG-13, and R rated films), and the need for the Hollywood gatekeepers to instate an updated version of the old 1934 Hays Motion Picture Code. And it would also help for script writers to rely on some good old-fashioned intelligent adult dialog as opposed to diatribes laced with f- and s-bombs.

Look very carefully at the Hollywood types. The are marginally talented and semi-good looking. If it weren't for endless PR crap, they would be working at Home Depot. For me, the celebrity magic wears off very quickly when one opens his/her mouth on some PR visit to a talk show and spews leftist blather. That they are stupid is obvious and that leads to noticing how little talent they have.

And, once you notice how unfunny a guy who is supposed to be funny is, a $10 ticket seems very high. Further, just because you are related to a celebrity, doesn't automatically make you a movie star, especially, if the older releative was commie scum, too.

I hate to say this, but , maybe, an American Idol type show is the way to pick tomorrows's movie stars. Let's select folks who are talented rather than just related to some one who is owed favors.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.