It's the unions in Hollywood that control the sets and equipment. The teamsters have complete control of equipment used on location and in studios.
It is Hollywood's union leadership that controls an actor's work option. Actor's will say anything and sometimes do things they do not want to do such as sexual favors in order to continue working.
So the garbage coming out of their mouths is to please the union leadership there. Very few actors go against the union party line there.
Hollywood and its industry is mostly very dirty, very scummy. Unless one reaches a stable work situation in which case it can become very affluent and to the opulent extreme, there is very little else with respect to living quality. So those that come to its affluence or have a chance to, will say and sometimes do anything to stay or get there.
There is also an enormous gay influence in the union leadership. That helps explain alot of the union party line.
Good grief. People will sell their soul for money, won't they?
Interesting post and I'm sure that is true in many circumstances. One would think though, that the likes of Julia Roberts and Whoopi Goldberg would be big enough stars that they could at least refrain from outlandish remarks.
Some big actors seem to have be able to circumvent the unions. Thinking Tom Hanks for example, I don't recall him ever publically swinging right or left. His wife may play surrogate in his case though.
Prairie
Thank you! I have posed a question on these threads in the past....that has never really been answered (well, to my satisfaction, anyway!). I think this union-control thing may be the key, and I hadn't thought of it. Also, is it not true that there are a very limited # of film ditributors (power in the hands of few), and they gotta be 'kept happy' or no one sees your film?
Here's the question (with set-up):
Isn't it obvious (to Freepers at least, I think) that Hollyweird is not about the $$?
It is odd, to me, that this is an exception to the 'love of money' rule!
Think about it! How many more Zillions of dollars would they have, if they made quality films? Do they not see this?
Where is today's "10 Commandments"? Charlton Heston? Audie Murphy? Gary Cooper? John Wayne? Jimmy Stewart? (FReeper film wonks could certainly add to the list!) With the exception of Mel Gibson, "The Incredibles", and very few others, we get what? one or two family-watchable films a year?
I don't buy the notion it's "about money"! I think it's more about power, and their little isolated enclaves of self-congratulatory holier-than-thou, save-the-whales/environmental bloviation. The've got a higher purpose, don't you stoopid red-stater, bible-thumpin hicks get it?
Gay Teamsters?!? LOL!!!