Blacklist Hollywood? Yes? No? Maybe so?

I think what annoys most people (and me) about actors, is not that they speak their mind...but that they are SO MONOLITHICALLY in favor of the Democrat Party.

I mean...is there something in the water in Hollywood?

it probably has something to do with them not being mouth-breathing rednecks or Xtian fanatics. if it is something in the water, though, i wish they would spike the water in the rest of the country. it's getting scary out there...

 

If a Blacklisting of Hollywood were to occur, this list may prove useful. Not every anti-war celebrity is listed, but a good amount are:


1. Martin Sheen
2. Alec Baldwin
3. Jessica Lange
4. Sean Penn
5. Susan Sarandon
6. Ed Harris
7. Woody Harrelson
8. John Cusak
9. Mike Farrell
10. Robert Altman
11. George Clooney
12. Barbara Streisand
13. Tyne Daley
14. Ed Asner
15. Bradley Whitford
16. Danny Glover
17. Casey Kasem
18. Sally Kirkland
19. Oliver Stone
20. Sheryl Crowe
21. Michael Moore
22. Harry Belafonte
23. Jane Fonda
24. Tim Robbins
25. Kevin Spacey
26. Joan Cusak
27. Gillian Anderson
28. Kim Basinger
29. Ed Begley, Jr.
30. Jackson Browne
31. (REM)Peter Buck and Michael Stipe
32. Diahann Carroll
33. Don Cheadle
34. Jill Clayburgh
35. Peter Coyote
36. Lindsay Crouse
37. Matt Damon
38. Vincent D?Onofrio
39. David Duchovny
40. Olympia Dukakis
41. Charles S. Dutton
42. Hector Elizondo
43. Cary Elwes
44. Mia Farrow
45. Laurence Fishburne
46. Sean Patrick Flanery
47 Bonnie Franklin
48. Jeananne Garafalo
49. Melissa Gilbert
50. Elliott Gould
51. Robert Guillaume
52. Ethan Hawke
53. Ken Howard
54. Helen Hunt
55. Anjelica Huston
56. Samuel L. Jackson
57. Jane Kaczmarek
58. Melina Kanakaredes
59. Tea Leoni
60. Wendie Malick
61. Camryn Manheim
62. Marsha Mason
63. Richard Masur
64. Dave Matthews
65. Esai Morales
66. Ed O'?Neill
67. Chris Noth
68. Alexandra Paul
69. CCH Pounder
70. Bonnie Raitt
71. Carl Reiner
72. Tony Shalhoub
73. Gloria Steinem
74. Marcia Strassman
75. Loretta Swit
76. Studs Terkel
77. Lily Tomlin
78. Blair Underwood
79. Dennis Weaver
80. Bradley Whitford
81. James Whitmore
82. Alfre Woodard
83. Noah Wyle
84. Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream
85. Dustin Hoffman
86. Richard Gere
87. Spike Lee
88. Barry Pepper
89. Martin Scorsese
90. Rosario Dawson
91. Kirsten Dunst
92. Jake Gyllenhall
93. Maggie Gyllenhall
94. Kelly Lynch
95. Jamie Lee Curtis
96. The View on ABC (Star Jones, Meredith Vieira, Joy Behar)
97. Fred Durst
98. Chryssy Hynde
99. The Beastie Boys
100. Dixie Chicks
101. Warren Brothers
102. Spearhead
103. System of a Down
104. John Cougar Mellencamp
105. Alanis Morissette
106. Run-DMC
107. Cat Stevens
108. Jonatha Brooke
109. George Michael
110. Chuck D
111. Yo La Tengo
112. The Neptunes
113. David Byrne
114. Lou Reed
115. Jay-Z
116. Emmylou Harris
117. Missy Elliott
118. Caetano Veloso
119. Dave Matthews
120. Rosanne Cash
121. Nanci Griffith
122. Me?Shell Ndegeocello
123. Al Franken
124. Richard Dreyfuss
125. Alfonso Cuaron

These people are safe from the list:

1. Clint Black
2. Drew Carey
3. Jim Caviezel
4. Charlie Daniels
5. Bo Derek
6. Shannon Doherty
7. Mel Gibson
8. Patricia Heaton
9. Charlton Heston
10.Jay Leno
11.David Letterman
12.Wayne Newton
13.Ted Nugent
14.Steve Martin
15.Jackie Mason
16.Dennis Miller
17.Ozzie Osborne
18.Jane Russell
19.Arnold Scharzzenegger
20.Tom Selleck
21.Ron Silver
22.Ben Stein
23.Bruce Willis
24.James Woods
25.Gena Nolin
26.Ed McMahon
27.Jean-Claude Van Damme
28.Kelsey Grammer
29.Kid Rock
30.Matt LeBlanc
31.Morgan Freeman
32.Pat Sajak
33.Robert Duvall
34.Shirley Jones
35.Tiger Woods
36.Wayne Gretzky
37.Brian McKnight

 

Heck, let's see. List A has talent and a few existing careers.

List B has some talent and some has beens.

**** if you blacklist Hollywood then we'll see more films like Collateral Damage!

E_S

 

Or we are back to thought censorship, where perhaps some people in list A came out as anti-war because it was the 'thing' to be in Hollywood as far as work goes.

 

Or maybe this topic is meaningless. Picking what your a fan of based on people's politics is madness.

 

Ender Sai Celebrities think they're informed, and they're not.

Granted, I'm late coming to this thread...but I found Ender Sai's comment particularly apt.

Or as said in South Park...

"Just because you're on TV doesn't mean you know crap about the government!"

I'm all for people speaking their minds...but its their tone that I don't appreciate.

I don't need to be lectured by some actor who dropped out of school when he/she was 10, or some singer who treats everyone around her like dirt, on how to run our government.

EDIT: TripleB - are they coming out with KOTOR for PS2? A friend of mine who has the PS2 wants to know. If so, I can sneak over to his house.

 

TripleB, memorize that above list and make sure for the rest of your life you check the titles and the credits to make sure that you don't pay to see any of their movies.

 

56. Samuel L. Jackson

No Episode 3 for Trips...

 

I suggest that everyone stop baiting TripleB here. Keep to the issues and keep the personal comments out.

Such comments only exist to elicit a negative reaction.

Kimball Kinnison

 

KK - I only wanted to know if KOTOR is coming out for PS2?

 

I didn't know Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream could be blacklisted ?

The thing you learn.

 

Just to add my two cents, I feel that celebs are as much entitled to their views as anyone else is. However I strongly disagree with the attitude that many of them have when they say things like how they know better than the President or other national leaders. What gives these actors the right to say that? All they do for a living is pretend to be someone else! They memorize stuff, not make it up on their own policies. Sheen is a good example of this! He seems to think that he would be a great President seemingly because he plays such a great one on TV. The man doesn't do anything but memorize scripts! He makes me roll my eyes every time I hear him try to talk politics.

Actors are anything but the most knowledgable people on the planet. I highly respect the actors that keep their opinion within their own inner circle and don't abuse their celeb status by trying to push their views on others. A couple of them, like Dustin Hoffman, don't agree with Bush but they also recognize that he is in a position in which he is privy to more information than they are and therefore they have no right to say that "they know better." People like him, Tom Cruise, and others know when to draw the line between expressing opinion and pushing personal agendas.

Just my opinion.

 

Death Star said

EDIT: TripleB - are they coming out with KOTOR for PS2? A friend of mine who has the PS2 wants to know. If so, I can sneak over to his house.

No, actually. KOTOR is exclusive to the X-Box, and I highly doubt Microsoft will let this licence get away from them, seeing how successful this game has been for MicroSoft so far. Which means the only console KOTOR or any sequel/prequel (they basically have left the door open to do a TOTJ era game, set before KOTOR), it will all be on X-Box

To the rest of you, Obi-Wan, etc, etc, in keeping with KimballKinnison's suggestion on baiting, I will just leave it at that. Unless KK is ok with me responding to it. I will say, in the spirit to DeathStar 1977, the ONLY thing I did not like about STAR WARS:KNIGHTS OF THE OLD REPUBLIC was at the end, after passing the game when the SW Credits rolled up, I saw that Ed Asner had been teh voice of Jedi Master Vrook. I won't deny I was PISSED when I saw that. Be that as it may, the only actors who work I will boycott are those who have taken dissent to a new low.

 

Wow, this topic is still going. I guess the stock prices in Bull**** are going through the roof.

E_S

 

Heh. Clever.


Any objections to locking this thread? I think it is time.

 

please god lock it, I can't believe it's been open this long.

 

Why is it that entertainers are expected to be better human beings than the rest of us?

We all believe that our own views are right, and in most cases, superior to those of persons who disagree with us. We wouldn't hold the views we did, otherwise, and this thread wouldn't have continued this long, if we didn't. Many of us also hold political beliefs we can't back up with reasons why we're right.

We all will, at times, talk about issues we think we know more about than anyone else, whether we really do or not. And we make a case for our view being right, and someone else's wrong. We try to persuade others to hold similar beliefs to our own. Hello, that is what Politics is- getting people to do what you want them to. Throughout the last few pages, you've all been lecturing to each other, on what you think is wrong with each other's views, and why your own view is correct. Does being a celebrity make one suddenly required to cease this natural, human behavior?

Freedom of thought and freedom of speech are not defined conditionally in the Constitution, as applying only to certain kinds of speech, though certain particular kinds of speech which violate other standards, are to some extent exempted, by current precedent. Freedom of speech is freedom to attempt to persuade, or freedom to argue. Therefore, actors, singers, etc. have every right to use their position to argue their point of view, as everyone else does everyday.

No one is forcing you to listen to the remarks of an entertainer with whose views you disagree. If you don't like what they're saying, do something else, don't come moaning about how they should be punished for betraying the perfect holy country and its leaders, which can do no wrong.

Note also that the Bill of Rights is not there to protect popular speech- that is not necessary, because the popular will protects it. The Bill of Rights exists to protect unpopular speech. Get over it. It's not the end of the world, if people you disagree with get to speak their minds.

The Black Lists of the 1950s were unnecessary and immoral. Individuals' careers were ruined, because they happened to hold unpopular political views, or were, or had once been, Communists- which was not in itself illegal. I see no need for a Black List now. Now, if anything, dissenting voices need to be heard more than ever.

We would do well to keep in mind, as an analogy, evolution, and the effects of in-breeding. Lack of diversity kills. In the same way, diversity of thought and opinion is necessary for a healthy, functional democracy- assuming one should ever be established south of the 54th parallel.

 

Red, lock it!!!!

E_S

 

I disagree that this should be locked. It hasn't become a flame war in quite some time, and has been known to die for months at a time and later resurface, much like several other threads. As long as things are not out of hand, it shouldn't be locked since, as eaglejedi showed, there are still people willing to express their views on this issue.

What purpose would locking it serve?

Now, to respond to eaglejedi:

Freedom of thought and freedom of speech are not defined conditionally in the Constitution, as applying only to certain kinds of speech, though certain particular kinds of speech which violate other standards, are to some extent exempted, by current precedent. Freedom of speech is freedom to attempt to persuade, or freedom to argue. Therefore, actors, singers, etc. have every right to use their position to argue their point of view, as everyone else does everyday.

You are wrong on this count. Protection of speech is conditional in the Constitution. It is protected from the government, not from private individuals. A performer has the right to speak as they wish but they cannot demand my support (financial or otherwise) in doing so.

Note also that the Bill of Rights is not there to protect popular speech- that is not necessary, because the popular will protects it. The Bill of Rights exists to protect unpopular speech. Get over it. It's not the end of the world, if people you disagree with get to speak their minds.

Wrong. The Bill of Rights protects unpopular speech from the government. You could still get fired by your boss for unpopular speech, it's just that the government can't punish you for that.

The Black Lists of the 1950s were unnecessary and immoral. Individuals' careers were ruined, because they happened to hold unpopular political views, or were, or had once been, Communists- which was not in itself illegal. I see no need for a Black List now. Now, if anything, dissenting voices need to be heard more than ever.

Any government-sponsored blacklist based on beliefs or speech is wrong. (Blacklists like those for child molestors and sex offenders are a different story.) However, a private organization should be able to blacklist anyone they want if they disagree with their views.

Kimball Kinnison

 

What purpose would locking it serve?

Perhaps because this thread really isn't about "Blacklisting"? What you are referring to, KK, is public boycotting, not government or corporate blacklisting.

Since no blacklisting is happening, and no blacklists are being called for... is there really a need to keep this thread open?

I think not.

 

Perhaps because this thread really isn't about "Blacklisting"? What you are referring to, KK, is public boycotting, not government or corporate blacklisting.

That was expressed back on page 1 as well. What has changed since then?

It is still (mostly) on topic. If you look back at the first post, it has always been about boycotts and not blacklists (except for the occasional accusation that there was a blacklist being used in Hollywood).

I'd say at most re-title the thread to be "Boycott Hollywood? Yes? No? Maybe so?", but leave it open. We shouldn't just declare topics over and lock unless they are out of hand, off-topic, or redundant. As this is none of those, it should be allowed to go its course and fade naturally like the hundreds of other threads in the Senate Floor that are below page 1 but not locked.

Kimball Kinnison

 

THis thread has been a farce since it's inception and should be closed.

 

THis thread has been a farce since it's inception and should be closed.

No, it hasn't. I started as a discussion of an issue that was getting quite a bit of coverage in the press at the time. Since people have continued to discuss it here, without significant difficulties for almost 6 months, off and on. It has died off as interest has waned, but come back when interest has resurfaced. It has never been locked and has remained mostly civilized for the past about 4 months (despite some initial problems).

Just because you do not agree with the premise of it does not make it a mockery or farce.

If the thread has run its course, then it will fall off the first pages. If you don't care for the topic, don't post here and don't worry about what happens in it. There is no real basis to lock it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well, since part of this thread was done when it appeared that american citizens might decide to boycott Hollywood artists for the stances they are taking on War in Iraq, is there a different standard when pressure is put against a movie that might not be 'PC'? Of course, we are not talking about some Michael Moore or Tim Robbins garbage but rather......


Fox Declines Mel Gibson's 'Passion'
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Monday, Sept. 3, 2003
Rupert Murdoch's 20th Century Fox, which usually distributes Mel Gibson's films, has turned thumbs down on "The Passion," the film about Jesus of Nazareth's last hours and crucifixion, the New York Daily News reports.
The paper said other Hollywood studios appear less than enthusiastic about taking the project on, which could make it diffiuclt for movie goes to see the film when it is released early next year.

According to the New York Times, which has been a frequent critic of the film, Hollywood executives say that "The Passion," which the Times describes as chronicling "in bloody detail" the last hours of Jesus' life," and "potentially inflammatory -- not commercial enough for a high-profile mainstream studio like Fox."

Fox's decision to drop any plans to distribute the film came just before a demonstration Thursday by a small group of protesters in front of Murdoch's News Corporation's Manhattan headquarters.

The demonstration was led by Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a conservative Democrat, who said the film could incite anti-Semitic violence.

Hivkin's allegation drew an angry response from Catholic League president William Donohue.

?The furor over Mel Gibson?s film has now reached a fever pitch," Donohue said. "Assemblyman Hikind?s response is an example of how reaction to ?The Passion? has spilled into hysteria."

'Nonsense'

He added: ?The contention that the film ?will spur anti-Semitic fervor? is nonsense. Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, after seeing the film, commented, ?You can quote me -- Mel Gibson?s 'The Passion' is not anti-Semitic. I did not see any anti-Semitism in it.?"

But concerns about anti-Semitism may have been the main reason Fox decided to pass on the film.

"Icon [Gibson's production firm] told us that it has a number of alternative distribution options that it is pursuing," Florence Grace, a spokeswoman for Fox, said. "In light of this, Fox and Icon agreed late last week that Fox will not be involved in the release of the film."

"Rupert Murdoch doesn't need the aggravation," an entertainment executive, speaking anonymously, told the Times.

The Times says the executive told them that International Creative Management, Gibson's Hollywood talent agency which is helping him find a United States distributor, has begun approaching some major studios like Warner Brothers and Miramax to see if they are interested in seeing the movie, adding that Icon executives are also talking to smaller distributors.

Alan Nierob, a spokesman for Gibson, told the Times that Fox executives had seen an early version of the film, but that the final version was still not complete. "He has to finish it first. He's got to do the music. It's almost ready to be shown."

Nierob also said the film might be best suited for a small boutique distributor, adding that "Icon is going to dictate the terms."

Already Gibson has shown the film to representatives of the Christian and Jewish community, and has made changes based on criticisms and suggestions he has received.

 

is there a different standard when pressure is put against a movie that might not be 'PC'?

Neither blacklisting nor boycotting. It's rubbish really. after all, 20th Century Fox almost turned down Star Wars, too. It thought it wouldn't make money.

With movie studios, it's always all about the Bennies.