Saturday, January 18, 2014

Harvey Weinstein is a bully and a thug (and it is probably a good thing he doesn't own guns)

For a guy who hates guns, he sure uses a lot of gun violence in movies he produces...
I am not buying that Weinstein has a "road to Damascus" moment over gun violence. What you have to understand is Harvey Weinstein is a fat bully, is rumored to take advantage of young women trying to break into Hollywood, and a hypocrite. Michael Moore accused the Weinsteins of stealing millions from him.  Even Alec Baldwin things Harvey Weinstein is a pig.  He is both despised and feared in Hollywood. So his anti gun rhetoric is really just an attempt to get attention and promote some vanity project that people won't go see.  Weinstein does this sort of thing because it makes a fat ugly thug feel good and it generates attention.

Update:
TOM: The Hollywood Blacklist is alive and well...
There is a lot of hypocrisy in Hollywood
Ed Driscoll and Instapundit: Let's all help Harvey keep his promise...

7 comments:

  1. He markets only to the chi-chi crowd.

    If he had to live in the mass market, he'd go broke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not really. His films have some x over appeal. Miramax and Weinstein was involved in many profitable films. I liked Pulp Fiction and it made a lot of money. So did Shakespeare in Love, Django Unchained, Inglorious Basterds, etc., etc.. He made a killing by his option on some of the LOTR properties. Harvey is not an artist or all that talented as a film maker but he does have a talent at making money in the film business.

      He is also (allegedly) a pig, a cheat, a bully, a misogynist, and a hypocrite. And he is truly hated by many in Hollywood.

      Delete
    2. Here is the Box Office Mojo on Django Unchained. Go down various Weinstein Company movies and you will see similar numbers (at least on the big ones). A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you are talking real money.

      The vanity chi chi projects are generally not money losers (or if they lose money it is not that much), they are cheap to make and are done for vanity purposes. There are all sorts of reasons or doing them (getting a big actor cheaper on a money making film by offering them a vanity project too, etc.). Ego is a big deal in Hollywood (even if the rest of us just ignore this crap).

      Delete
    3. Most of the pictures you cite, except for "Pulp Fiction", came later.

      Miramax was for the art houses.

      Delete
    4. Here is a list of Miramax films. Definitely art house films in there...but a lot of those films made some money (especially given what they cost to produce).

      Delete

I had to stop Anonymous comments due to spam. But I welcome all legitimate comments. Thanks.