Quentin Tarantino: Talking trash about his critics

Apparently Quentin Tarantino was a little wounded after all about the barbed critical reception his new film, "Inglourious Basterds," got at Cannes this year. In case you forgot, although the movie got a standing ovation, the critics were for the most part unimpressed, with the Guardian calling it "an armor-plated turkey," Time's Richard Corliss dubbing it "a misfire" and Movieline's David Bourgeours saying "by the end of the film it's hard to care much about what happens to anybody on screen."

I'm heading off to see the film tonight, so I may volunteer a few thoughts myself shortly. But Tarantino, in a new interview with GQ magazine, has decided that -- ahem -- he is probably a far better critic any of the ink-stained wretches that haunt the screening rooms around town. I'm not sure that volunteering this information is going to do wonders for the reviews of "Basterds" when the film arrives next month, but tact has never been Tarantino's strong suit.

So after dismissing the bad reviews at Cannes as being the work of celebrity journalists, not the "bona fide literary film critics" that he respects, Tarantino went on to say: "I respect criticism. But I know more about film than most of the people writing about me. Not only that, I'm a better writer than most of the people writing about me. And I can write film criticism better than most of the people writing about me too."

That's called biting the hand that feeds you. And the whoosh you just heard is the sound of "Inglourious Basterds' " Rotten Tomatoes score dropping faster than the stock market on Black Friday.  

RELATED:

PREVIOUSLY: IS "INGLORIOUS BASTERDS" REALLY KOSHER PORN? 

 

There's an inevitable arc to the media's insatiable desire to over-cover a story that sells newspapers, scores website hits or earns big TV ratings. I wish I could say that the press has sunk to new lows in its Michael Jackson frenzy, but you could probably track pretty much the same arc in the media's coverage of the early 1920s Fatty Arbuckle sex scandal or Marilyn Monroe's overdose of pills in the 1960s. To put a new spin on the take of a pioneering media critic: Never underestimate the salaciousness of the American people.

So while the first days of the media's wall-to-wall absorption in All Things Michael were largely respectful, culminating with the wide-eyed coverage of what appeared to be a state funeral, the all-seeing media eye has slowly but surely become more skeptical, more trivialized and more bizarre, with even supposedly respectable network news anchors taking us on ghoulish tours of the dead star's deserted Neverland Ranch. And, of course, all of this comes before the arrival of the autopsy findings, which will surely unleash a torrent of revisionism, with media scolds coming out of the woodwork to admonish Jackson for his self-indulgent lifestyle -- and no doubt admonish the rest of us for somehow aiding and abetting his excesses.

So how low have we sunk already? Here's a few juicy current examples:

1) Michael's loyal sibling LaToya gave a truly outlandish interview to the tawdry News of the World (first question: Did she get paid? If not, why talk to a scuzzy tabloid?) In the interview, she claims that "Michael was murdered," offering the inevitable conspiracy angle by adding, "We don't think just one person was involved. Rather it was a conspiracy of people." This, of course, is great stuff. If the Kennedy assassination had a one bullet theory, soon the Michael Jackson death will have a one syringe theory.

2) An obscure Michael Jackson biographer (meaning a guy no one had ever heard of before last week) bounds forward to claim that Jackson was gay, presenting as evidence two men he says he interviewed who both said they had sex with the singer. The great touch of telling detail is that the biographer -- Ian Halperin -- identifies one source as a waiter (which, of course, is a euphemism for aspiring actor), the other as (surprise!) an aspiring actor named Lawrence, only supplying his first name (even though the spelling is a tad different, could we say Lawrence as in Olivier?).

3) The same biographer surfaces in another story, in which he claims that Joe Jackson, the late singer's notoriously all-controlling stage dad, was trying to get Michael's children to brush up on their performing skills and hit the road, going on a world tour in 2010 as the Jackson 3 -- presumably with a record deal to follow. 

I'll be watching to see who pops up next, wondering who will tempt the always-easy-to-seduce media with some new fanciful fable of Jackson excess or eccentricity. As in all things media, the only operative question is: How low can we go?

Photo: Michael Jackson at the 2006 World Music Awards. Credit: Dave Hogan / Getty Images.

When conservatives complain, as they often do, that pop culture is dominated by liberals, lefties and all sorts of eco-nuts, I always feel like responding by saying -- well, how do conservatives ever expect to make a dent if they always seem hostile to virtually every new artist trend or movement, clinging to only what was popular decades ago.

If there were ever a case in point: The Wall Street Journal has launched De Gustibus, a new weekly column today by Eric Felten, which will apparently offer a new take on arts and culture. Felten, who had been writing the "How's Your Drink?" column in the paper's Weekend Journal, offers his take on the motion picture academy's recent move to avoid giving out a best song Oscar unless enough nominees receive a certain minimum amount of votes.

Instead of debating the move on its merits, Felten uses it to take a stroll down memory lane, reliving all the great years -- like 1936 -- when there were tons of great show tunes available for consideration. Even worse, he goes out of his way to disparage modern music, in particular hip-hop, which is compared unfavorably to the wondrous melodies of yesteryear. At one point, he lists a variety of classic songs like "Over the Rainbow" and "All the Way," then saying: "Compare them to the deathless melody honored for best movie song of 2005: 'It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp.' All together now, let's all hum a few bars ... anybody?"

He also takes a shot Eminem, suggesting that no one in years to come will remember "Lose Yourself," the hip-hop artist's best original song winner in 2002, He seems entirely unimpressed by the medley of songs Beyonce sang at this year's Oscars. Once again, it's a lost opportunity for conservatives in their attempt to somehow be relevant in the always turbulent pop culture affairs of the moment. When the right was at its political height, it was because it offered provocative new thinkers with a fresh, unorthodox take on the issues of the day. If the right wants to have the same influence on pop culture, it has to be just as engaged. For a start, it has to get out of the nostalgia business.

Photo of an Oscar by Paul Hawthorne / Getty Images

It's been five lo-o-o-o-o-o-ng years since Alexander Payne last directed a film of his own, the sparkling comic romp through Santa Barbara wine country known as "Sideways." For the past few years, the filmmaker has been largely out of sight, focused on an ambitious "Dr. Strangelove"-style futuristic social statement comedy. The script is rumored to be dazzlingly original but too costly to get financing from Fox Searchlight, which distributed "Sideways," meaning that the project will be run through 20th Century Fox if it gets made inside the News Corp. empire.

Eager to take a breather, Payne has made something of a leap, directing the pilot for "Hung," the HBO comedy that debuts June 28 at 10 p.m. The show stars Thomas Jane as a woebegone but well-endowed high school PE teacher who exploits his best asset -- hence the show's title -- and embarks on a new career as a male escort. Payne was recruited by Sue Nagel, HBO's new original programming chief, who was a fan of his work and suspected that Payne's sensibility -- especially his ability to depict characters who could laugh at themselves, even in the midst of midlife crisis -- would be a perfect fit for "Hung."

In TV, the showrunner is king. So it was something of an adjustment for a final cut director like Payne to defer to "Hung's" writer-producer team of Dimitry Lipkin and Colette Burson, but those in the Payne camp say the filmmaker came away with a renewed regard for the polish and professionalism of his TV brethren.

But see for yourself. Here's a clip from the pilot episode:

Photo: Alexander Payne. Credit: Spencer Weiner / Los Angeles Times.

Yes, that's Adam Lambert striking a come-hither pose on the cover of the new Rolling Stone -- is it just me, or judging from his outfit, do we detect a major 1980s-era Prince influence? At any rate, it felt incredibly old-fashioned to see the "American Idol" songster deciding to tell all in Rolling Stone, as if it were still the 1970s and it was Led Zeppelin instead of the Jonas Brothers and Eminem getting all the breathless coverage at the world's oldest music magazine.

It's hardly a scoop for anyone who ever paid the slightest attention to "American Idol," but Lambert finally comes out and says it as plain as day: "I don't think it should be a surprise for anyone to hear that I'm gay. Right after the ["American Idol"] finale I almost started talking about it to the reporters, but I thought, 'I'm going to wait for Rolling Stone, that will be cooler.' I didn't want the Clay Aiken thing and the celebrity-magazine [blather]. I need to be able to explain myself in context."

The biggest revelation from the interview? I guess it would be Lambert's confession that he had a crush on Kris Allen. "I was like, 'Oh [crap], they roomed me with the cute guy.' Distracting? He's the one guy that I found attractive in the whole group on the show: nice, nonchalant, pretty and totally my type -- except that he has a wife."

The incredibly industrious bloggers at New York magazine's Vulture blog never take anything lying down. So Vulture's Yelena Shuster sprung into action when she read Deadline Hollywood's Nikki Finke's report yesterday in which she claimed that NBC had demanded that Jay Leno "back off booking A-list celebrities because it would encroach on Conan O'Brien's turf," meaning that the network was clearly playing favorites with its new "Tonight Show" host, at its old "Tonight Show" host's expense.

Shuster ran right out to a posh Founders Club Celebration at the Rockefeller Center Channel Garden last night where she managed to briefly ambush Zucker himself. So was it really true that the NBC Universal chief had put the squeeze on Leno, as Nikki had reported? Before Zucker could hurtle a few table tops and scurry away, here's exactly what he had to say on the subject in dialogue that I have to say sounds suspiciously like an outtake from an old Groucho Marx routine:  

Vulture: Nikki Finke reported that —
Zucker: I don't know who that is.

Vulture: Okay, well she reported that NBC is trying to block Jay Leno from booking A-list guests. Is that correct?
Zucker: Is that a serious question?

Vulture: Yes.
Zucker: No.

Vulture: She reported that NBC doesn't want him to steal the thunder from Conan.
Zucker: No. Please. There's no truth to that.

Photo of Jeff Zucker by Chris Haston/ Associated Press

When you spend $100 million on a big summer special-effects comedy, you'd like to think you made more than a one-quadrant movie. But according to Variety's Brian Lowry, Universal Pictures could be in big trouble with its upcoming Will Ferrell-starring "Land of the Lost" extravaganza, which Lowry predicts will appeal to a woefully narrow target audience: 12- to 14-year-old boys, which he describes as "about the only demo likely able to endure this laborious mess."

In many ways, the film has the air of a failed attempt at corporate synergy. As Lowry describes it in his review: " 'Land of the Lost' feels as though someone at Universal was already planning the theme-park ride spinoff before taking a painfully wrong turn with the movie. Modernizing a 1970s children's TV show known for its cheap special effects offered certain possibilities, but the filmmakers have traded in any kid-friendly elements for bathroom humor of dinosaur-sized proportions."

How unfunny is the picture? Here's how Lowry put it: "It's a never a good sign when 'Today' host Matt Lauer (more synergy here, given the NBC-Universal connection) delivers the least irritating performance in a movie." Ouch!

Photo of Will Ferrell (front), Danny McBride and Anna Friel in "Land of the Lost" from Rhythm & Hues/Universal Pictures

It's become something of an article of faith in the conservative world that the media are liberal and only interested in promoting liberal ideas and causes. So what do you do if you're a loyal conservative when a big titan of liberalism like ABC (owned by the gay-friendly Disney media conglomerate and home to the obviously left-leaning George Stephanopoulos) is about to premiere (this Wednesday at 9 p.m.) a wickedly funny new Mike Judge-created show, "The Goode Family," that mocks a family of do-gooders, including a wife who wears a "Meat Is Murder" T-shirt, a daughter who's named Bliss and a dog who is a vegan?

It's pretty clear that Judge is taking clear aim on the excesses of save-the-planet types, having said recently, of the characters he created: "Oh yeah, I know these people. They're everywhere, hanging out at Whole Foods .. .forever feeling guilty about being a human being" (see video below).

Do you embrace the show, since Lord knows, after David Zucker's hapless "An American Carol," you should be wrapping your arms around anything from a conservative bent that is actually, well, funny? Or do you prepare yourself for failure, hinting darkly that any show being produced by a bastion of liberal media wouldn't receive a fair airing? In other words, assume the worst -- surely ABC must be doing whatever it can behind the scenes to ensure that its own new show is doomed to failure. I'd say that the conservative reaction to "The Goode Family's" prospects offers an intriguing insight into the conspiratorial, vaguely pessimistic mind-set that has overwhelmed the right as it attempts to cope with the popularity of Obama-style optimism currently captivating most of the country.  

First we have the New York Post's Kyle Smith pronouncing on his blog: "I doubt ABC has the guts to keep this show on the air very long. I'm guessing they won't promote it, no one will watch it and then they'll say, 'Whoops! No one is in the mood to mock liberals these days. Our bad.' I give it a month."

At the Bruin Standard, Kelly Bowers isn't holding his breath either, saying with concern: "Will the show pull punches to appease the status quo of studio executives? An obvious worry. 'The Man' often puts a stop to themes he doesn't like in TV shows.... If Fox can tell the nearly revered Joss Whedon to turn his dark captain Malcolm Reynolds into more of a clown for 'Firefly,' NBC can probably tell Judge to stop making hippies cry (assuming that is even possible)."

For years, it was liberals who were expert in the art of self loathing, but the disease seems to have taken firm root in the conservative movement. Faced with the prospect of a well-made TV show that skewers the delicate sensibilities of ditzy do-gooders, the right-leaning cultural critics should be full of exultation. Instead, they're already sulking in their tents. You'd think conservatives would be eager for a good laugh, but the whole movement seems to have permanently misplaced their sense of humor.

Here are some excerpts, along with commentary from Mike Judge:

One of the great reads of the week was Nikki Finke's "exclusive" unveiling in her blog of "Studio Head," an irresistibly entertaining book proposal from Jon Peters, the former Sony Pictures studio mogul who was one of Hollywood's most colorful loose cannons. His tell-absolutely-all autobiography, written with William Stadiem, recently sold to HarperCollins, reportedly for $700,000. I still don't know what was better: Nikki's Def-Con Alert reaction ("I have never read a more vile betrayal of everyone and everything in Hollywood") or the unintentional humor of the proposal itself ("Imagine a contemporary, nonfiction 'What Makes Sammy Run,' but with a lovable protagonist").

Nikki's post was a great read, loaded with proposal excerpts that detail Peters' childhood, his hairdresser triumphs, his Svengali-like relationship with Barbra Streisand, his studio deals and his tumultuous partnership with Peter Guber (who gave Nikki a statement calling the proposal a "work of fiction"). Let's just say the tone of the proposal is distinctly "Dynasty"-esque. In the midst of an enthusiastic recounting of Peters' many amorous escapades, the proposal dryly notes: "When it came to women, Jon was fearless and Olympicly competitive."

I have to admit that I was impressed by Nikki's scoop, at least far more impressed than veteran Hollywood journalist Kim Masters, who complains that it's a stretch for Finke to call her post an "exclusive" when Masters did an incredibly similar post for the Daily Beast more than a month ago -- on April 15 to be exact. Masters' post includes many of the same details, including a few Finke didn't have. According to Masters, when Peters pitched the book to Random House, he not only sent a top editor there a huge pile of orchids, but included a note with an offer to cut her hair.

I'd be the first to say that Finke's post, which offers far more excerpts from the proposal than Masters' account, is the juicier read. But I also think Masters has a good case to make that, since she was first with the news, if anyone is going to brag about having an exclusive it should be her. Masters says her Daily Beast editor asked Finke to correct the "exclusive" tag, but to no avail. As I write this, it's still up.

So Masters, who co-wrote "Hit & Run," a dishy 1996 account of Peters and Guber's rise and fall, is feeling a teeny bit wronged. As she puts it: "It's funny because the book proposal recycles a lot of material that was in 'Hit & Run.' Obviously I don't have exclusive rights to the Jon Peters story but now it looks like I don't even have exclusive rights to my own exclusive. I guess you have to give Nikki credit -- she defends her exclusives even if someone else broke the story the month before."

Photo of Jon Peters by Kevin Winter / Getty Images

Peter Bart was on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday morning, though judging from his interview with the show's host, Howard Kurtz, Bart is not exactly the most reliable source on the planet. Even though Variety is virtually ad-free these days, except for its special sections, Bart insisted, with a straight face, that "I think Hollywood, more than ever, regards Variety as the bible. Just reduced to crass terms of numbers, about 77% of the advertising market in the business goes to Variety, so I think it's more predominant than ever." (The show's transcript is here.) 

Even though he was recently kicked upstairs, giving way to editor Tim Gray, Bart continues to take shots at various bloggers, myself included, claiming we don't check our facts and--how's this for a whopper--blames us for driving all the movie stars underground. As he nostalgically puts it, when he was at the New York Times, back in the 1960s, "I'd call a Paul Newman or a Steve McQueen and say, you know, let's hang. I would like to do a story about you. And you'd get a dinner, you'd get a weekend."

Ah, the glory days, when you could hang with movie stars for a weekend. It must've been a blast! Of course, what Bart doesn't get around to mentioning is that if you did a tough story on a star, you'd have your access cut off faster than one of those race cars Newman used to drive. To his credit, Kurtz didn't exactly swallow all this malarkey without a couple of burps. At one point in the program, he actually put up a quote from one of my posts about Variety, where I dissected the trade paper's "cozy reportage about the industry, with its sunny take on box-office returns and a front page filled with fanciful renderings of movie projects that would almost surely never end up being made."

Is that true, Kurtz asked? Instead of answering the question, Bart attacked me, claiming I was "irritated" now that I was a blogger as well as a columnist for The Times. (For the record, I enthusiastically volunteered to start this blog, believing that blogs are the best way for newspapers to survive in the new media universe.) Instead of letting Bart dissemble, Kurtz asked him to answer the question. Bart's response: "It's just absolutely ridiculous.... We give the stories about who's getting laid off and which company's going under. And most of our coverage in the past year has been dark. Here's the difference. We actually do the unthinkable. We check the facts before we run them."

Actually, at Variety, the unthinkable would be to ever see a hard-hitting story on the industry that wasn't filled with the trade's customary assemblage of qualifiers and anonymous quotes. If I ever see a tough, hard-nosed piece on the business, I'll be the first to offer Bart a standing ovation.

Photo: Peter Bart. Photo credit: Associated Press

PREVIOUSLY: MEMO TO PETER BART: WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

Michael Jackson conspiracy theories: The media at its tabloid best

 

There's an inevitable arc to the media's insatiable desire to over-cover a story that sells newspapers, scores website hits or earns big TV ratings. I wish I could say that the press has sunk to new lows in its Michael Jackson frenzy, but you could probably track pretty much the same arc in the media's coverage of the early 1920s Fatty Arbuckle sex scandal or Marilyn Monroe's overdose of pills in the 1960s. To put a new spin on the take of a pioneering media critic: Never underestimate the salaciousness of the American people.

So while the first days of the media's wall-to-wall absorption in All Things Michael were largely respectful, culminating with the wide-eyed coverage of what appeared to be a state funeral, the all-seeing media eye has slowly but surely become more skeptical, more trivialized and more bizarre, with even supposedly respectable network news anchors taking us on ghoulish tours of the dead star's deserted Neverland Ranch. And, of course, all of this comes before the arrival of the autopsy findings, which will surely unleash a torrent of revisionism, with media scolds coming out of the woodwork to admonish Jackson for his self-indulgent lifestyle -- and no doubt admonish the rest of us for somehow aiding and abetting his excesses.

So how low have we sunk already? Here's a few juicy current examples:

1) Michael's loyal sibling LaToya gave a truly outlandish interview to the tawdry News of the World (first question: Did she get paid? If not, why talk to a scuzzy tabloid?) In the interview, she claims that "Michael was murdered," offering the inevitable conspiracy angle by adding, "We don't think just one person was involved. Rather it was a conspiracy of people." This, of course, is great stuff. If the Kennedy assassination had a one bullet theory, soon the Michael Jackson death will have a one syringe theory.

2) An obscure Michael Jackson biographer (meaning a guy no one had ever heard of before last week) bounds forward to claim that Jackson was gay, presenting as evidence two men he says he interviewed who both said they had sex with the singer. The great touch of telling detail is that the biographer -- Ian Halperin -- identifies one source as a waiter (which, of course, is a euphemism for aspiring actor), the other as (surprise!) an aspiring actor named Lawrence, only supplying his first name (even though the spelling is a tad different, could we say Lawrence as in Olivier?).

3) The same biographer surfaces in another story, in which he claims that Joe Jackson, the late singer's notoriously all-controlling stage dad, was trying to get Michael's children to brush up on their performing skills and hit the road, going on a world tour in 2010 as the Jackson 3 -- presumably with a record deal to follow. 

I'll be watching to see who pops up next, wondering who will tempt the always-easy-to-seduce media with some new fanciful fable of Jackson excess or eccentricity. As in all things media, the only operative question is: How low can we go?

Photo: Michael Jackson at the 2006 World Music Awards. Credit: Dave Hogan / Getty Images.

When conservatives complain, as they often do, that pop culture is dominated by liberals, lefties and all sorts of eco-nuts, I always feel like responding by saying -- well, how do conservatives ever expect to make a dent if they always seem hostile to virtually every new artist trend or movement, clinging to only what was popular decades ago.

If there were ever a case in point: The Wall Street Journal has launched De Gustibus, a new weekly column today by Eric Felten, which will apparently offer a new take on arts and culture. Felten, who had been writing the "How's Your Drink?" column in the paper's Weekend Journal, offers his take on the motion picture academy's recent move to avoid giving out a best song Oscar unless enough nominees receive a certain minimum amount of votes.

Instead of debating the move on its merits, Felten uses it to take a stroll down memory lane, reliving all the great years -- like 1936 -- when there were tons of great show tunes available for consideration. Even worse, he goes out of his way to disparage modern music, in particular hip-hop, which is compared unfavorably to the wondrous melodies of yesteryear. At one point, he lists a variety of classic songs like "Over the Rainbow" and "All the Way," then saying: "Compare them to the deathless melody honored for best movie song of 2005: 'It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp.' All together now, let's all hum a few bars ... anybody?"

He also takes a shot Eminem, suggesting that no one in years to come will remember "Lose Yourself," the hip-hop artist's best original song winner in 2002, He seems entirely unimpressed by the medley of songs Beyonce sang at this year's Oscars. Once again, it's a lost opportunity for conservatives in their attempt to somehow be relevant in the always turbulent pop culture affairs of the moment. When the right was at its political height, it was because it offered provocative new thinkers with a fresh, unorthodox take on the issues of the day. If the right wants to have the same influence on pop culture, it has to be just as engaged. For a start, it has to get out of the nostalgia business.

Photo of an Oscar by Paul Hawthorne / Getty Images

It's been five lo-o-o-o-o-o-ng years since Alexander Payne last directed a film of his own, the sparkling comic romp through Santa Barbara wine country known as "Sideways." For the past few years, the filmmaker has been largely out of sight, focused on an ambitious "Dr. Strangelove"-style futuristic social statement comedy. The script is rumored to be dazzlingly original but too costly to get financing from Fox Searchlight, which distributed "Sideways," meaning that the project will be run through 20th Century Fox if it gets made inside the News Corp. empire.

Eager to take a breather, Payne has made something of a leap, directing the pilot for "Hung," the HBO comedy that debuts June 28 at 10 p.m. The show stars Thomas Jane as a woebegone but well-endowed high school PE teacher who exploits his best asset -- hence the show's title -- and embarks on a new career as a male escort. Payne was recruited by Sue Nagel, HBO's new original programming chief, who was a fan of his work and suspected that Payne's sensibility -- especially his ability to depict characters who could laugh at themselves, even in the midst of midlife crisis -- would be a perfect fit for "Hung."

In TV, the showrunner is king. So it was something of an adjustment for a final cut director like Payne to defer to "Hung's" writer-producer team of Dimitry Lipkin and Colette Burson, but those in the Payne camp say the filmmaker came away with a renewed regard for the polish and professionalism of his TV brethren.

But see for yourself. Here's a clip from the pilot episode:

Photo: Alexander Payne. Credit: Spencer Weiner / Los Angeles Times.

Yes, that's Adam Lambert striking a come-hither pose on the cover of the new Rolling Stone -- is it just me, or judging from his outfit, do we detect a major 1980s-era Prince influence? At any rate, it felt incredibly old-fashioned to see the "American Idol" songster deciding to tell all in Rolling Stone, as if it were still the 1970s and it was Led Zeppelin instead of the Jonas Brothers and Eminem getting all the breathless coverage at the world's oldest music magazine.

It's hardly a scoop for anyone who ever paid the slightest attention to "American Idol," but Lambert finally comes out and says it as plain as day: "I don't think it should be a surprise for anyone to hear that I'm gay. Right after the ["American Idol"] finale I almost started talking about it to the reporters, but I thought, 'I'm going to wait for Rolling Stone, that will be cooler.' I didn't want the Clay Aiken thing and the celebrity-magazine [blather]. I need to be able to explain myself in context."

The biggest revelation from the interview? I guess it would be Lambert's confession that he had a crush on Kris Allen. "I was like, 'Oh [crap], they roomed me with the cute guy.' Distracting? He's the one guy that I found attractive in the whole group on the show: nice, nonchalant, pretty and totally my type -- except that he has a wife."

The incredibly industrious bloggers at New York magazine's Vulture blog never take anything lying down. So Vulture's Yelena Shuster sprung into action when she read Deadline Hollywood's Nikki Finke's report yesterday in which she claimed that NBC had demanded that Jay Leno "back off booking A-list celebrities because it would encroach on Conan O'Brien's turf," meaning that the network was clearly playing favorites with its new "Tonight Show" host, at its old "Tonight Show" host's expense.

Shuster ran right out to a posh Founders Club Celebration at the Rockefeller Center Channel Garden last night where she managed to briefly ambush Zucker himself. So was it really true that the NBC Universal chief had put the squeeze on Leno, as Nikki had reported? Before Zucker could hurtle a few table tops and scurry away, here's exactly what he had to say on the subject in dialogue that I have to say sounds suspiciously like an outtake from an old Groucho Marx routine:  

Vulture: Nikki Finke reported that —
Zucker: I don't know who that is.

Vulture: Okay, well she reported that NBC is trying to block Jay Leno from booking A-list guests. Is that correct?
Zucker: Is that a serious question?

Vulture: Yes.
Zucker: No.

Vulture: She reported that NBC doesn't want him to steal the thunder from Conan.
Zucker: No. Please. There's no truth to that.

Photo of Jeff Zucker by Chris Haston/ Associated Press

When you spend $100 million on a big summer special-effects comedy, you'd like to think you made more than a one-quadrant movie. But according to Variety's Brian Lowry, Universal Pictures could be in big trouble with its upcoming Will Ferrell-starring "Land of the Lost" extravaganza, which Lowry predicts will appeal to a woefully narrow target audience: 12- to 14-year-old boys, which he describes as "about the only demo likely able to endure this laborious mess."

In many ways, the film has the air of a failed attempt at corporate synergy. As Lowry describes it in his review: " 'Land of the Lost' feels as though someone at Universal was already planning the theme-park ride spinoff before taking a painfully wrong turn with the movie. Modernizing a 1970s children's TV show known for its cheap special effects offered certain possibilities, but the filmmakers have traded in any kid-friendly elements for bathroom humor of dinosaur-sized proportions."

How unfunny is the picture? Here's how Lowry put it: "It's a never a good sign when 'Today' host Matt Lauer (more synergy here, given the NBC-Universal connection) delivers the least irritating performance in a movie." Ouch!

Photo of Will Ferrell (front), Danny McBride and Anna Friel in "Land of the Lost" from Rhythm & Hues/Universal Pictures

It's become something of an article of faith in the conservative world that the media are liberal and only interested in promoting liberal ideas and causes. So what do you do if you're a loyal conservative when a big titan of liberalism like ABC (owned by the gay-friendly Disney media conglomerate and home to the obviously left-leaning George Stephanopoulos) is about to premiere (this Wednesday at 9 p.m.) a wickedly funny new Mike Judge-created show, "The Goode Family," that mocks a family of do-gooders, including a wife who wears a "Meat Is Murder" T-shirt, a daughter who's named Bliss and a dog who is a vegan?

It's pretty clear that Judge is taking clear aim on the excesses of save-the-planet types, having said recently, of the characters he created: "Oh yeah, I know these people. They're everywhere, hanging out at Whole Foods .. .forever feeling guilty about being a human being" (see video below).

Do you embrace the show, since Lord knows, after David Zucker's hapless "An American Carol," you should be wrapping your arms around anything from a conservative bent that is actually, well, funny? Or do you prepare yourself for failure, hinting darkly that any show being produced by a bastion of liberal media wouldn't receive a fair airing? In other words, assume the worst -- surely ABC must be doing whatever it can behind the scenes to ensure that its own new show is doomed to failure. I'd say that the conservative reaction to "The Goode Family's" prospects offers an intriguing insight into the conspiratorial, vaguely pessimistic mind-set that has overwhelmed the right as it attempts to cope with the popularity of Obama-style optimism currently captivating most of the country.  

First we have the New York Post's Kyle Smith pronouncing on his blog: "I doubt ABC has the guts to keep this show on the air very long. I'm guessing they won't promote it, no one will watch it and then they'll say, 'Whoops! No one is in the mood to mock liberals these days. Our bad.' I give it a month."

At the Bruin Standard, Kelly Bowers isn't holding his breath either, saying with concern: "Will the show pull punches to appease the status quo of studio executives? An obvious worry. 'The Man' often puts a stop to themes he doesn't like in TV shows.... If Fox can tell the nearly revered Joss Whedon to turn his dark captain Malcolm Reynolds into more of a clown for 'Firefly,' NBC can probably tell Judge to stop making hippies cry (assuming that is even possible)."

For years, it was liberals who were expert in the art of self loathing, but the disease seems to have taken firm root in the conservative movement. Faced with the prospect of a well-made TV show that skewers the delicate sensibilities of ditzy do-gooders, the right-leaning cultural critics should be full of exultation. Instead, they're already sulking in their tents. You'd think conservatives would be eager for a good laugh, but the whole movement seems to have permanently misplaced their sense of humor.

Here are some excerpts, along with commentary from Mike Judge:

One of the great reads of the week was Nikki Finke's "exclusive" unveiling in her blog of "Studio Head," an irresistibly entertaining book proposal from Jon Peters, the former Sony Pictures studio mogul who was one of Hollywood's most colorful loose cannons. His tell-absolutely-all autobiography, written with William Stadiem, recently sold to HarperCollins, reportedly for $700,000. I still don't know what was better: Nikki's Def-Con Alert reaction ("I have never read a more vile betrayal of everyone and everything in Hollywood") or the unintentional humor of the proposal itself ("Imagine a contemporary, nonfiction 'What Makes Sammy Run,' but with a lovable protagonist").

Nikki's post was a great read, loaded with proposal excerpts that detail Peters' childhood, his hairdresser triumphs, his Svengali-like relationship with Barbra Streisand, his studio deals and his tumultuous partnership with Peter Guber (who gave Nikki a statement calling the proposal a "work of fiction"). Let's just say the tone of the proposal is distinctly "Dynasty"-esque. In the midst of an enthusiastic recounting of Peters' many amorous escapades, the proposal dryly notes: "When it came to women, Jon was fearless and Olympicly competitive."

I have to admit that I was impressed by Nikki's scoop, at least far more impressed than veteran Hollywood journalist Kim Masters, who complains that it's a stretch for Finke to call her post an "exclusive" when Masters did an incredibly similar post for the Daily Beast more than a month ago -- on April 15 to be exact. Masters' post includes many of the same details, including a few Finke didn't have. According to Masters, when Peters pitched the book to Random House, he not only sent a top editor there a huge pile of orchids, but included a note with an offer to cut her hair.

I'd be the first to say that Finke's post, which offers far more excerpts from the proposal than Masters' account, is the juicier read. But I also think Masters has a good case to make that, since she was first with the news, if anyone is going to brag about having an exclusive it should be her. Masters says her Daily Beast editor asked Finke to correct the "exclusive" tag, but to no avail. As I write this, it's still up.

So Masters, who co-wrote "Hit & Run," a dishy 1996 account of Peters and Guber's rise and fall, is feeling a teeny bit wronged. As she puts it: "It's funny because the book proposal recycles a lot of material that was in 'Hit & Run.' Obviously I don't have exclusive rights to the Jon Peters story but now it looks like I don't even have exclusive rights to my own exclusive. I guess you have to give Nikki credit -- she defends her exclusives even if someone else broke the story the month before."

Photo of Jon Peters by Kevin Winter / Getty Images

Peter Bart was on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday morning, though judging from his interview with the show's host, Howard Kurtz, Bart is not exactly the most reliable source on the planet. Even though Variety is virtually ad-free these days, except for its special sections, Bart insisted, with a straight face, that "I think Hollywood, more than ever, regards Variety as the bible. Just reduced to crass terms of numbers, about 77% of the advertising market in the business goes to Variety, so I think it's more predominant than ever." (The show's transcript is here.) 

Even though he was recently kicked upstairs, giving way to editor Tim Gray, Bart continues to take shots at various bloggers, myself included, claiming we don't check our facts and--how's this for a whopper--blames us for driving all the movie stars underground. As he nostalgically puts it, when he was at the New York Times, back in the 1960s, "I'd call a Paul Newman or a Steve McQueen and say, you know, let's hang. I would like to do a story about you. And you'd get a dinner, you'd get a weekend."

Ah, the glory days, when you could hang with movie stars for a weekend. It must've been a blast! Of course, what Bart doesn't get around to mentioning is that if you did a tough story on a star, you'd have your access cut off faster than one of those race cars Newman used to drive. To his credit, Kurtz didn't exactly swallow all this malarkey without a couple of burps. At one point in the program, he actually put up a quote from one of my posts about Variety, where I dissected the trade paper's "cozy reportage about the industry, with its sunny take on box-office returns and a front page filled with fanciful renderings of movie projects that would almost surely never end up being made."

Is that true, Kurtz asked? Instead of answering the question, Bart attacked me, claiming I was "irritated" now that I was a blogger as well as a columnist for The Times. (For the record, I enthusiastically volunteered to start this blog, believing that blogs are the best way for newspapers to survive in the new media universe.) Instead of letting Bart dissemble, Kurtz asked him to answer the question. Bart's response: "It's just absolutely ridiculous.... We give the stories about who's getting laid off and which company's going under. And most of our coverage in the past year has been dark. Here's the difference. We actually do the unthinkable. We check the facts before we run them."

Actually, at Variety, the unthinkable would be to ever see a hard-hitting story on the industry that wasn't filled with the trade's customary assemblage of qualifiers and anonymous quotes. If I ever see a tough, hard-nosed piece on the business, I'll be the first to offer Bart a standing ovation.

Photo: Peter Bart. Photo credit: Associated Press

PREVIOUSLY: MEMO TO PETER BART: WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

Do the Oscars really need more old songs?

When conservatives complain, as they often do, that pop culture is dominated by liberals, lefties and all sorts of eco-nuts, I always feel like responding by saying -- well, how do conservatives ever expect to make a dent if they always seem hostile to virtually every new artist trend or movement, clinging to only what was popular decades ago.

If there were ever a case in point: The Wall Street Journal has launched De Gustibus, a new weekly column today by Eric Felten, which will apparently offer a new take on arts and culture. Felten, who had been writing the "How's Your Drink?" column in the paper's Weekend Journal, offers his take on the motion picture academy's recent move to avoid giving out a best song Oscar unless enough nominees receive a certain minimum amount of votes.

Instead of debating the move on its merits, Felten uses it to take a stroll down memory lane, reliving all the great years -- like 1936 -- when there were tons of great show tunes available for consideration. Even worse, he goes out of his way to disparage modern music, in particular hip-hop, which is compared unfavorably to the wondrous melodies of yesteryear. At one point, he lists a variety of classic songs like "Over the Rainbow" and "All the Way," then saying: "Compare them to the deathless melody honored for best movie song of 2005: 'It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp.' All together now, let's all hum a few bars ... anybody?"

He also takes a shot Eminem, suggesting that no one in years to come will remember "Lose Yourself," the hip-hop artist's best original song winner in 2002, He seems entirely unimpressed by the medley of songs Beyonce sang at this year's Oscars. Once again, it's a lost opportunity for conservatives in their attempt to somehow be relevant in the always turbulent pop culture affairs of the moment. When the right was at its political height, it was because it offered provocative new thinkers with a fresh, unorthodox take on the issues of the day. If the right wants to have the same influence on pop culture, it has to be just as engaged. For a start, it has to get out of the nostalgia business.

Photo of an Oscar by Paul Hawthorne / Getty Images

It's been five lo-o-o-o-o-o-ng years since Alexander Payne last directed a film of his own, the sparkling comic romp through Santa Barbara wine country known as "Sideways." For the past few years, the filmmaker has been largely out of sight, focused on an ambitious "Dr. Strangelove"-style futuristic social statement comedy. The script is rumored to be dazzlingly original but too costly to get financing from Fox Searchlight, which distributed "Sideways," meaning that the project will be run through 20th Century Fox if it gets made inside the News Corp. empire.

Eager to take a breather, Payne has made something of a leap, directing the pilot for "Hung," the HBO comedy that debuts June 28 at 10 p.m. The show stars Thomas Jane as a woebegone but well-endowed high school PE teacher who exploits his best asset -- hence the show's title -- and embarks on a new career as a male escort. Payne was recruited by Sue Nagel, HBO's new original programming chief, who was a fan of his work and suspected that Payne's sensibility -- especially his ability to depict characters who could laugh at themselves, even in the midst of midlife crisis -- would be a perfect fit for "Hung."

In TV, the showrunner is king. So it was something of an adjustment for a final cut director like Payne to defer to "Hung's" writer-producer team of Dimitry Lipkin and Colette Burson, but those in the Payne camp say the filmmaker came away with a renewed regard for the polish and professionalism of his TV brethren.

But see for yourself. Here's a clip from the pilot episode:

Photo: Alexander Payne. Credit: Spencer Weiner / Los Angeles Times.

Yes, that's Adam Lambert striking a come-hither pose on the cover of the new Rolling Stone -- is it just me, or judging from his outfit, do we detect a major 1980s-era Prince influence? At any rate, it felt incredibly old-fashioned to see the "American Idol" songster deciding to tell all in Rolling Stone, as if it were still the 1970s and it was Led Zeppelin instead of the Jonas Brothers and Eminem getting all the breathless coverage at the world's oldest music magazine.

It's hardly a scoop for anyone who ever paid the slightest attention to "American Idol," but Lambert finally comes out and says it as plain as day: "I don't think it should be a surprise for anyone to hear that I'm gay. Right after the ["American Idol"] finale I almost started talking about it to the reporters, but I thought, 'I'm going to wait for Rolling Stone, that will be cooler.' I didn't want the Clay Aiken thing and the celebrity-magazine [blather]. I need to be able to explain myself in context."

The biggest revelation from the interview? I guess it would be Lambert's confession that he had a crush on Kris Allen. "I was like, 'Oh [crap], they roomed me with the cute guy.' Distracting? He's the one guy that I found attractive in the whole group on the show: nice, nonchalant, pretty and totally my type -- except that he has a wife."

The incredibly industrious bloggers at New York magazine's Vulture blog never take anything lying down. So Vulture's Yelena Shuster sprung into action when she read Deadline Hollywood's Nikki Finke's report yesterday in which she claimed that NBC had demanded that Jay Leno "back off booking A-list celebrities because it would encroach on Conan O'Brien's turf," meaning that the network was clearly playing favorites with its new "Tonight Show" host, at its old "Tonight Show" host's expense.

Shuster ran right out to a posh Founders Club Celebration at the Rockefeller Center Channel Garden last night where she managed to briefly ambush Zucker himself. So was it really true that the NBC Universal chief had put the squeeze on Leno, as Nikki had reported? Before Zucker could hurtle a few table tops and scurry away, here's exactly what he had to say on the subject in dialogue that I have to say sounds suspiciously like an outtake from an old Groucho Marx routine:  

Vulture: Nikki Finke reported that —
Zucker: I don't know who that is.

Vulture: Okay, well she reported that NBC is trying to block Jay Leno from booking A-list guests. Is that correct?
Zucker: Is that a serious question?

Vulture: Yes.
Zucker: No.

Vulture: She reported that NBC doesn't want him to steal the thunder from Conan.
Zucker: No. Please. There's no truth to that.

Photo of Jeff Zucker by Chris Haston/ Associated Press

When you spend $100 million on a big summer special-effects comedy, you'd like to think you made more than a one-quadrant movie. But according to Variety's Brian Lowry, Universal Pictures could be in big trouble with its upcoming Will Ferrell-starring "Land of the Lost" extravaganza, which Lowry predicts will appeal to a woefully narrow target audience: 12- to 14-year-old boys, which he describes as "about the only demo likely able to endure this laborious mess."

In many ways, the film has the air of a failed attempt at corporate synergy. As Lowry describes it in his review: " 'Land of the Lost' feels as though someone at Universal was already planning the theme-park ride spinoff before taking a painfully wrong turn with the movie. Modernizing a 1970s children's TV show known for its cheap special effects offered certain possibilities, but the filmmakers have traded in any kid-friendly elements for bathroom humor of dinosaur-sized proportions."

How unfunny is the picture? Here's how Lowry put it: "It's a never a good sign when 'Today' host Matt Lauer (more synergy here, given the NBC-Universal connection) delivers the least irritating performance in a movie." Ouch!

Photo of Will Ferrell (front), Danny McBride and Anna Friel in "Land of the Lost" from Rhythm & Hues/Universal Pictures

It's become something of an article of faith in the conservative world that the media are liberal and only interested in promoting liberal ideas and causes. So what do you do if you're a loyal conservative when a big titan of liberalism like ABC (owned by the gay-friendly Disney media conglomerate and home to the obviously left-leaning George Stephanopoulos) is about to premiere (this Wednesday at 9 p.m.) a wickedly funny new Mike Judge-created show, "The Goode Family," that mocks a family of do-gooders, including a wife who wears a "Meat Is Murder" T-shirt, a daughter who's named Bliss and a dog who is a vegan?

It's pretty clear that Judge is taking clear aim on the excesses of save-the-planet types, having said recently, of the characters he created: "Oh yeah, I know these people. They're everywhere, hanging out at Whole Foods .. .forever feeling guilty about being a human being" (see video below).

Do you embrace the show, since Lord knows, after David Zucker's hapless "An American Carol," you should be wrapping your arms around anything from a conservative bent that is actually, well, funny? Or do you prepare yourself for failure, hinting darkly that any show being produced by a bastion of liberal media wouldn't receive a fair airing? In other words, assume the worst -- surely ABC must be doing whatever it can behind the scenes to ensure that its own new show is doomed to failure. I'd say that the conservative reaction to "The Goode Family's" prospects offers an intriguing insight into the conspiratorial, vaguely pessimistic mind-set that has overwhelmed the right as it attempts to cope with the popularity of Obama-style optimism currently captivating most of the country.  

First we have the New York Post's Kyle Smith pronouncing on his blog: "I doubt ABC has the guts to keep this show on the air very long. I'm guessing they won't promote it, no one will watch it and then they'll say, 'Whoops! No one is in the mood to mock liberals these days. Our bad.' I give it a month."

At the Bruin Standard, Kelly Bowers isn't holding his breath either, saying with concern: "Will the show pull punches to appease the status quo of studio executives? An obvious worry. 'The Man' often puts a stop to themes he doesn't like in TV shows.... If Fox can tell the nearly revered Joss Whedon to turn his dark captain Malcolm Reynolds into more of a clown for 'Firefly,' NBC can probably tell Judge to stop making hippies cry (assuming that is even possible)."

For years, it was liberals who were expert in the art of self loathing, but the disease seems to have taken firm root in the conservative movement. Faced with the prospect of a well-made TV show that skewers the delicate sensibilities of ditzy do-gooders, the right-leaning cultural critics should be full of exultation. Instead, they're already sulking in their tents. You'd think conservatives would be eager for a good laugh, but the whole movement seems to have permanently misplaced their sense of humor.

Here are some excerpts, along with commentary from Mike Judge:

One of the great reads of the week was Nikki Finke's "exclusive" unveiling in her blog of "Studio Head," an irresistibly entertaining book proposal from Jon Peters, the former Sony Pictures studio mogul who was one of Hollywood's most colorful loose cannons. His tell-absolutely-all autobiography, written with William Stadiem, recently sold to HarperCollins, reportedly for $700,000. I still don't know what was better: Nikki's Def-Con Alert reaction ("I have never read a more vile betrayal of everyone and everything in Hollywood") or the unintentional humor of the proposal itself ("Imagine a contemporary, nonfiction 'What Makes Sammy Run,' but with a lovable protagonist").

Nikki's post was a great read, loaded with proposal excerpts that detail Peters' childhood, his hairdresser triumphs, his Svengali-like relationship with Barbra Streisand, his studio deals and his tumultuous partnership with Peter Guber (who gave Nikki a statement calling the proposal a "work of fiction"). Let's just say the tone of the proposal is distinctly "Dynasty"-esque. In the midst of an enthusiastic recounting of Peters' many amorous escapades, the proposal dryly notes: "When it came to women, Jon was fearless and Olympicly competitive."

I have to admit that I was impressed by Nikki's scoop, at least far more impressed than veteran Hollywood journalist Kim Masters, who complains that it's a stretch for Finke to call her post an "exclusive" when Masters did an incredibly similar post for the Daily Beast more than a month ago -- on April 15 to be exact. Masters' post includes many of the same details, including a few Finke didn't have. According to Masters, when Peters pitched the book to Random House, he not only sent a top editor there a huge pile of orchids, but included a note with an offer to cut her hair.

I'd be the first to say that Finke's post, which offers far more excerpts from the proposal than Masters' account, is the juicier read. But I also think Masters has a good case to make that, since she was first with the news, if anyone is going to brag about having an exclusive it should be her. Masters says her Daily Beast editor asked Finke to correct the "exclusive" tag, but to no avail. As I write this, it's still up.

So Masters, who co-wrote "Hit & Run," a dishy 1996 account of Peters and Guber's rise and fall, is feeling a teeny bit wronged. As she puts it: "It's funny because the book proposal recycles a lot of material that was in 'Hit & Run.' Obviously I don't have exclusive rights to the Jon Peters story but now it looks like I don't even have exclusive rights to my own exclusive. I guess you have to give Nikki credit -- she defends her exclusives even if someone else broke the story the month before."

Photo of Jon Peters by Kevin Winter / Getty Images

Peter Bart was on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday morning, though judging from his interview with the show's host, Howard Kurtz, Bart is not exactly the most reliable source on the planet. Even though Variety is virtually ad-free these days, except for its special sections, Bart insisted, with a straight face, that "I think Hollywood, more than ever, regards Variety as the bible. Just reduced to crass terms of numbers, about 77% of the advertising market in the business goes to Variety, so I think it's more predominant than ever." (The show's transcript is here.) 

Even though he was recently kicked upstairs, giving way to editor Tim Gray, Bart continues to take shots at various bloggers, myself included, claiming we don't check our facts and--how's this for a whopper--blames us for driving all the movie stars underground. As he nostalgically puts it, when he was at the New York Times, back in the 1960s, "I'd call a Paul Newman or a Steve McQueen and say, you know, let's hang. I would like to do a story about you. And you'd get a dinner, you'd get a weekend."

Ah, the glory days, when you could hang with movie stars for a weekend. It must've been a blast! Of course, what Bart doesn't get around to mentioning is that if you did a tough story on a star, you'd have your access cut off faster than one of those race cars Newman used to drive. To his credit, Kurtz didn't exactly swallow all this malarkey without a couple of burps. At one point in the program, he actually put up a quote from one of my posts about Variety, where I dissected the trade paper's "cozy reportage about the industry, with its sunny take on box-office returns and a front page filled with fanciful renderings of movie projects that would almost surely never end up being made."

Is that true, Kurtz asked? Instead of answering the question, Bart attacked me, claiming I was "irritated" now that I was a blogger as well as a columnist for The Times. (For the record, I enthusiastically volunteered to start this blog, believing that blogs are the best way for newspapers to survive in the new media universe.) Instead of letting Bart dissemble, Kurtz asked him to answer the question. Bart's response: "It's just absolutely ridiculous.... We give the stories about who's getting laid off and which company's going under. And most of our coverage in the past year has been dark. Here's the difference. We actually do the unthinkable. We check the facts before we run them."

Actually, at Variety, the unthinkable would be to ever see a hard-hitting story on the industry that wasn't filled with the trade's customary assemblage of qualifiers and anonymous quotes. If I ever see a tough, hard-nosed piece on the business, I'll be the first to offer Bart a standing ovation.

Photo: Peter Bart. Photo credit: Associated Press

PREVIOUSLY: MEMO TO PETER BART: WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

Good news for Alexander Payne fans: He's back with 'Hung'

It's been five lo-o-o-o-o-o-ng years since Alexander Payne last directed a film of his own, the sparkling comic romp through Santa Barbara wine country known as "Sideways." For the past few years, the filmmaker has been largely out of sight, focused on an ambitious "Dr. Strangelove"-style futuristic social statement comedy. The script is rumored to be dazzlingly original but too costly to get financing from Fox Searchlight, which distributed "Sideways," meaning that the project will be run through 20th Century Fox if it gets made inside the News Corp. empire.

Eager to take a breather, Payne has made something of a leap, directing the pilot for "Hung," the HBO comedy that debuts June 28 at 10 p.m. The show stars Thomas Jane as a woebegone but well-endowed high school PE teacher who exploits his best asset -- hence the show's title -- and embarks on a new career as a male escort. Payne was recruited by Sue Nagel, HBO's new original programming chief, who was a fan of his work and suspected that Payne's sensibility -- especially his ability to depict characters who could laugh at themselves, even in the midst of midlife crisis -- would be a perfect fit for "Hung."

In TV, the showrunner is king. So it was something of an adjustment for a final cut director like Payne to defer to "Hung's" writer-producer team of Dimitry Lipkin and Colette Burson, but those in the Payne camp say the filmmaker came away with a renewed regard for the polish and professionalism of his TV brethren.

But see for yourself. Here's a clip from the pilot episode:

Photo: Alexander Payne. Credit: Spencer Weiner / Los Angeles Times.

Yes, that's Adam Lambert striking a come-hither pose on the cover of the new Rolling Stone -- is it just me, or judging from his outfit, do we detect a major 1980s-era Prince influence? At any rate, it felt incredibly old-fashioned to see the "American Idol" songster deciding to tell all in Rolling Stone, as if it were still the 1970s and it was Led Zeppelin instead of the Jonas Brothers and Eminem getting all the breathless coverage at the world's oldest music magazine.

It's hardly a scoop for anyone who ever paid the slightest attention to "American Idol," but Lambert finally comes out and says it as plain as day: "I don't think it should be a surprise for anyone to hear that I'm gay. Right after the ["American Idol"] finale I almost started talking about it to the reporters, but I thought, 'I'm going to wait for Rolling Stone, that will be cooler.' I didn't want the Clay Aiken thing and the celebrity-magazine [blather]. I need to be able to explain myself in context."

The biggest revelation from the interview? I guess it would be Lambert's confession that he had a crush on Kris Allen. "I was like, 'Oh [crap], they roomed me with the cute guy.' Distracting? He's the one guy that I found attractive in the whole group on the show: nice, nonchalant, pretty and totally my type -- except that he has a wife."

The incredibly industrious bloggers at New York magazine's Vulture blog never take anything lying down. So Vulture's Yelena Shuster sprung into action when she read Deadline Hollywood's Nikki Finke's report yesterday in which she claimed that NBC had demanded that Jay Leno "back off booking A-list celebrities because it would encroach on Conan O'Brien's turf," meaning that the network was clearly playing favorites with its new "Tonight Show" host, at its old "Tonight Show" host's expense.

Shuster ran right out to a posh Founders Club Celebration at the Rockefeller Center Channel Garden last night where she managed to briefly ambush Zucker himself. So was it really true that the NBC Universal chief had put the squeeze on Leno, as Nikki had reported? Before Zucker could hurtle a few table tops and scurry away, here's exactly what he had to say on the subject in dialogue that I have to say sounds suspiciously like an outtake from an old Groucho Marx routine:  

Vulture: Nikki Finke reported that —
Zucker: I don't know who that is.

Vulture: Okay, well she reported that NBC is trying to block Jay Leno from booking A-list guests. Is that correct?
Zucker: Is that a serious question?

Vulture: Yes.
Zucker: No.

Vulture: She reported that NBC doesn't want him to steal the thunder from Conan.
Zucker: No. Please. There's no truth to that.

Photo of Jeff Zucker by Chris Haston/ Associated Press

When you spend $100 million on a big summer special-effects comedy, you'd like to think you made more than a one-quadrant movie. But according to Variety's Brian Lowry, Universal Pictures could be in big trouble with its upcoming Will Ferrell-starring "Land of the Lost" extravaganza, which Lowry predicts will appeal to a woefully narrow target audience: 12- to 14-year-old boys, which he describes as "about the only demo likely able to endure this laborious mess."

In many ways, the film has the air of a failed attempt at corporate synergy. As Lowry describes it in his review: " 'Land of the Lost' feels as though someone at Universal was already planning the theme-park ride spinoff before taking a painfully wrong turn with the movie. Modernizing a 1970s children's TV show known for its cheap special effects offered certain possibilities, but the filmmakers have traded in any kid-friendly elements for bathroom humor of dinosaur-sized proportions."

How unfunny is the picture? Here's how Lowry put it: "It's a never a good sign when 'Today' host Matt Lauer (more synergy here, given the NBC-Universal connection) delivers the least irritating performance in a movie." Ouch!

Photo of Will Ferrell (front), Danny McBride and Anna Friel in "Land of the Lost" from Rhythm & Hues/Universal Pictures

It's become something of an article of faith in the conservative world that the media are liberal and only interested in promoting liberal ideas and causes. So what do you do if you're a loyal conservative when a big titan of liberalism like ABC (owned by the gay-friendly Disney media conglomerate and home to the obviously left-leaning George Stephanopoulos) is about to premiere (this Wednesday at 9 p.m.) a wickedly funny new Mike Judge-created show, "The Goode Family," that mocks a family of do-gooders, including a wife who wears a "Meat Is Murder" T-shirt, a daughter who's named Bliss and a dog who is a vegan?

It's pretty clear that Judge is taking clear aim on the excesses of save-the-planet types, having said recently, of the characters he created: "Oh yeah, I know these people. They're everywhere, hanging out at Whole Foods .. .forever feeling guilty about being a human being" (see video below).

Do you embrace the show, since Lord knows, after David Zucker's hapless "An American Carol," you should be wrapping your arms around anything from a conservative bent that is actually, well, funny? Or do you prepare yourself for failure, hinting darkly that any show being produced by a bastion of liberal media wouldn't receive a fair airing? In other words, assume the worst -- surely ABC must be doing whatever it can behind the scenes to ensure that its own new show is doomed to failure. I'd say that the conservative reaction to "The Goode Family's" prospects offers an intriguing insight into the conspiratorial, vaguely pessimistic mind-set that has overwhelmed the right as it attempts to cope with the popularity of Obama-style optimism currently captivating most of the country.  

First we have the New York Post's Kyle Smith pronouncing on his blog: "I doubt ABC has the guts to keep this show on the air very long. I'm guessing they won't promote it, no one will watch it and then they'll say, 'Whoops! No one is in the mood to mock liberals these days. Our bad.' I give it a month."

At the Bruin Standard, Kelly Bowers isn't holding his breath either, saying with concern: "Will the show pull punches to appease the status quo of studio executives? An obvious worry. 'The Man' often puts a stop to themes he doesn't like in TV shows.... If Fox can tell the nearly revered Joss Whedon to turn his dark captain Malcolm Reynolds into more of a clown for 'Firefly,' NBC can probably tell Judge to stop making hippies cry (assuming that is even possible)."

For years, it was liberals who were expert in the art of self loathing, but the disease seems to have taken firm root in the conservative movement. Faced with the prospect of a well-made TV show that skewers the delicate sensibilities of ditzy do-gooders, the right-leaning cultural critics should be full of exultation. Instead, they're already sulking in their tents. You'd think conservatives would be eager for a good laugh, but the whole movement seems to have permanently misplaced their sense of humor.

Here are some excerpts, along with commentary from Mike Judge:

One of the great reads of the week was Nikki Finke's "exclusive" unveiling in her blog of "Studio Head," an irresistibly entertaining book proposal from Jon Peters, the former Sony Pictures studio mogul who was one of Hollywood's most colorful loose cannons. His tell-absolutely-all autobiography, written with William Stadiem, recently sold to HarperCollins, reportedly for $700,000. I still don't know what was better: Nikki's Def-Con Alert reaction ("I have never read a more vile betrayal of everyone and everything in Hollywood") or the unintentional humor of the proposal itself ("Imagine a contemporary, nonfiction 'What Makes Sammy Run,' but with a lovable protagonist").

Nikki's post was a great read, loaded with proposal excerpts that detail Peters' childhood, his hairdresser triumphs, his Svengali-like relationship with Barbra Streisand, his studio deals and his tumultuous partnership with Peter Guber (who gave Nikki a statement calling the proposal a "work of fiction"). Let's just say the tone of the proposal is distinctly "Dynasty"-esque. In the midst of an enthusiastic recounting of Peters' many amorous escapades, the proposal dryly notes: "When it came to women, Jon was fearless and Olympicly competitive."

I have to admit that I was impressed by Nikki's scoop, at least far more impressed than veteran Hollywood journalist Kim Masters, who complains that it's a stretch for Finke to call her post an "exclusive" when Masters did an incredibly similar post for the Daily Beast more than a month ago -- on April 15 to be exact. Masters' post includes many of the same details, including a few Finke didn't have. According to Masters, when Peters pitched the book to Random House, he not only sent a top editor there a huge pile of orchids, but included a note with an offer to cut her hair.

I'd be the first to say that Finke's post, which offers far more excerpts from the proposal than Masters' account, is the juicier read. But I also think Masters has a good case to make that, since she was first with the news, if anyone is going to brag about having an exclusive it should be her. Masters says her Daily Beast editor asked Finke to correct the "exclusive" tag, but to no avail. As I write this, it's still up.

So Masters, who co-wrote "Hit & Run," a dishy 1996 account of Peters and Guber's rise and fall, is feeling a teeny bit wronged. As she puts it: "It's funny because the book proposal recycles a lot of material that was in 'Hit & Run.' Obviously I don't have exclusive rights to the Jon Peters story but now it looks like I don't even have exclusive rights to my own exclusive. I guess you have to give Nikki credit -- she defends her exclusives even if someone else broke the story the month before."

Photo of Jon Peters by Kevin Winter / Getty Images

Peter Bart was on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday morning, though judging from his interview with the show's host, Howard Kurtz, Bart is not exactly the most reliable source on the planet. Even though Variety is virtually ad-free these days, except for its special sections, Bart insisted, with a straight face, that "I think Hollywood, more than ever, regards Variety as the bible. Just reduced to crass terms of numbers, about 77% of the advertising market in the business goes to Variety, so I think it's more predominant than ever." (The show's transcript is here.) 

Even though he was recently kicked upstairs, giving way to editor Tim Gray, Bart continues to take shots at various bloggers, myself included, claiming we don't check our facts and--how's this for a whopper--blames us for driving all the movie stars underground. As he nostalgically puts it, when he was at the New York Times, back in the 1960s, "I'd call a Paul Newman or a Steve McQueen and say, you know, let's hang. I would like to do a story about you. And you'd get a dinner, you'd get a weekend."

Ah, the glory days, when you could hang with movie stars for a weekend. It must've been a blast! Of course, what Bart doesn't get around to mentioning is that if you did a tough story on a star, you'd have your access cut off faster than one of those race cars Newman used to drive. To his credit, Kurtz didn't exactly swallow all this malarkey without a couple of burps. At one point in the program, he actually put up a quote from one of my posts about Variety, where I dissected the trade paper's "cozy reportage about the industry, with its sunny take on box-office returns and a front page filled with fanciful renderings of movie projects that would almost surely never end up being made."

Is that true, Kurtz asked? Instead of answering the question, Bart attacked me, claiming I was "irritated" now that I was a blogger as well as a columnist for The Times. (For the record, I enthusiastically volunteered to start this blog, believing that blogs are the best way for newspapers to survive in the new media universe.) Instead of letting Bart dissemble, Kurtz asked him to answer the question. Bart's response: "It's just absolutely ridiculous.... We give the stories about who's getting laid off and which company's going under. And most of our coverage in the past year has been dark. Here's the difference. We actually do the unthinkable. We check the facts before we run them."

Actually, at Variety, the unthinkable would be to ever see a hard-hitting story on the industry that wasn't filled with the trade's customary assemblage of qualifiers and anonymous quotes. If I ever see a tough, hard-nosed piece on the business, I'll be the first to offer Bart a standing ovation.

Photo: Peter Bart. Photo credit: Associated Press

PREVIOUSLY: MEMO TO PETER BART: WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

The Rolling Stone cover: Adam Lambert bares all

Yes, that's Adam Lambert striking a come-hither pose on the cover of the new Rolling Stone -- is it just me, or judging from his outfit, do we detect a major 1980s-era Prince influence? At any rate, it felt incredibly old-fashioned to see the "American Idol" songster deciding to tell all in Rolling Stone, as if it were still the 1970s and it was Led Zeppelin instead of the Jonas Brothers and Eminem getting all the breathless coverage at the world's oldest music magazine.

It's hardly a scoop for anyone who ever paid the slightest attention to "American Idol," but Lambert finally comes out and says it as plain as day: "I don't think it should be a surprise for anyone to hear that I'm gay. Right after the ["American Idol"] finale I almost started talking about it to the reporters, but I thought, 'I'm going to wait for Rolling Stone, that will be cooler.' I didn't want the Clay Aiken thing and the celebrity-magazine [blather]. I need to be able to explain myself in context."

The biggest revelation from the interview? I guess it would be Lambert's confession that he had a crush on Kris Allen. "I was like, 'Oh [crap], they roomed me with the cute guy.' Distracting? He's the one guy that I found attractive in the whole group on the show: nice, nonchalant, pretty and totally my type -- except that he has a wife."

The incredibly industrious bloggers at New York magazine's Vulture blog never take anything lying down. So Vulture's Yelena Shuster sprung into action when she read Deadline Hollywood's Nikki Finke's report yesterday in which she claimed that NBC had demanded that Jay Leno "back off booking A-list celebrities because it would encroach on Conan O'Brien's turf," meaning that the network was clearly playing favorites with its new "Tonight Show" host, at its old "Tonight Show" host's expense.

Shuster ran right out to a posh Founders Club Celebration at the Rockefeller Center Channel Garden last night where she managed to briefly ambush Zucker himself. So was it really true that the NBC Universal chief had put the squeeze on Leno, as Nikki had reported? Before Zucker could hurtle a few table tops and scurry away, here's exactly what he had to say on the subject in dialogue that I have to say sounds suspiciously like an outtake from an old Groucho Marx routine:  

Vulture: Nikki Finke reported that —
Zucker: I don't know who that is.

Vulture: Okay, well she reported that NBC is trying to block Jay Leno from booking A-list guests. Is that correct?
Zucker: Is that a serious question?

Vulture: Yes.
Zucker: No.

Vulture: She reported that NBC doesn't want him to steal the thunder from Conan.
Zucker: No. Please. There's no truth to that.

Photo of Jeff Zucker by Chris Haston/ Associated Press

When you spend $100 million on a big summer special-effects comedy, you'd like to think you made more than a one-quadrant movie. But according to Variety's Brian Lowry, Universal Pictures could be in big trouble with its upcoming Will Ferrell-starring "Land of the Lost" extravaganza, which Lowry predicts will appeal to a woefully narrow target audience: 12- to 14-year-old boys, which he describes as "about the only demo likely able to endure this laborious mess."

In many ways, the film has the air of a failed attempt at corporate synergy. As Lowry describes it in his review: " 'Land of the Lost' feels as though someone at Universal was already planning the theme-park ride spinoff before taking a painfully wrong turn with the movie. Modernizing a 1970s children's TV show known for its cheap special effects offered certain possibilities, but the filmmakers have traded in any kid-friendly elements for bathroom humor of dinosaur-sized proportions."

How unfunny is the picture? Here's how Lowry put it: "It's a never a good sign when 'Today' host Matt Lauer (more synergy here, given the NBC-Universal connection) delivers the least irritating performance in a movie." Ouch!

Photo of Will Ferrell (front), Danny McBride and Anna Friel in "Land of the Lost" from Rhythm & Hues/Universal Pictures

It's become something of an article of faith in the conservative world that the media are liberal and only interested in promoting liberal ideas and causes. So what do you do if you're a loyal conservative when a big titan of liberalism like ABC (owned by the gay-friendly Disney media conglomerate and home to the obviously left-leaning George Stephanopoulos) is about to premiere (this Wednesday at 9 p.m.) a wickedly funny new Mike Judge-created show, "The Goode Family," that mocks a family of do-gooders, including a wife who wears a "Meat Is Murder" T-shirt, a daughter who's named Bliss and a dog who is a vegan?

It's pretty clear that Judge is taking clear aim on the excesses of save-the-planet types, having said recently, of the characters he created: "Oh yeah, I know these people. They're everywhere, hanging out at Whole Foods .. .forever feeling guilty about being a human being" (see video below).

Do you embrace the show, since Lord knows, after David Zucker's hapless "An American Carol," you should be wrapping your arms around anything from a conservative bent that is actually, well, funny? Or do you prepare yourself for failure, hinting darkly that any show being produced by a bastion of liberal media wouldn't receive a fair airing? In other words, assume the worst -- surely ABC must be doing whatever it can behind the scenes to ensure that its own new show is doomed to failure. I'd say that the conservative reaction to "The Goode Family's" prospects offers an intriguing insight into the conspiratorial, vaguely pessimistic mind-set that has overwhelmed the right as it attempts to cope with the popularity of Obama-style optimism currently captivating most of the country.  

First we have the New York Post's Kyle Smith pronouncing on his blog: "I doubt ABC has the guts to keep this show on the air very long. I'm guessing they won't promote it, no one will watch it and then they'll say, 'Whoops! No one is in the mood to mock liberals these days. Our bad.' I give it a month."

At the Bruin Standard, Kelly Bowers isn't holding his breath either, saying with concern: "Will the show pull punches to appease the status quo of studio executives? An obvious worry. 'The Man' often puts a stop to themes he doesn't like in TV shows.... If Fox can tell the nearly revered Joss Whedon to turn his dark captain Malcolm Reynolds into more of a clown for 'Firefly,' NBC can probably tell Judge to stop making hippies cry (assuming that is even possible)."

For years, it was liberals who were expert in the art of self loathing, but the disease seems to have taken firm root in the conservative movement. Faced with the prospect of a well-made TV show that skewers the delicate sensibilities of ditzy do-gooders, the right-leaning cultural critics should be full of exultation. Instead, they're already sulking in their tents. You'd think conservatives would be eager for a good laugh, but the whole movement seems to have permanently misplaced their sense of humor.

Here are some excerpts, along with commentary from Mike Judge:

One of the great reads of the week was Nikki Finke's "exclusive" unveiling in her blog of "Studio Head," an irresistibly entertaining book proposal from Jon Peters, the former Sony Pictures studio mogul who was one of Hollywood's most colorful loose cannons. His tell-absolutely-all autobiography, written with William Stadiem, recently sold to HarperCollins, reportedly for $700,000. I still don't know what was better: Nikki's Def-Con Alert reaction ("I have never read a more vile betrayal of everyone and everything in Hollywood") or the unintentional humor of the proposal itself ("Imagine a contemporary, nonfiction 'What Makes Sammy Run,' but with a lovable protagonist").

Nikki's post was a great read, loaded with proposal excerpts that detail Peters' childhood, his hairdresser triumphs, his Svengali-like relationship with Barbra Streisand, his studio deals and his tumultuous partnership with Peter Guber (who gave Nikki a statement calling the proposal a "work of fiction"). Let's just say the tone of the proposal is distinctly "Dynasty"-esque. In the midst of an enthusiastic recounting of Peters' many amorous escapades, the proposal dryly notes: "When it came to women, Jon was fearless and Olympicly competitive."

I have to admit that I was impressed by Nikki's scoop, at least far more impressed than veteran Hollywood journalist Kim Masters, who complains that it's a stretch for Finke to call her post an "exclusive" when Masters did an incredibly similar post for the Daily Beast more than a month ago -- on April 15 to be exact. Masters' post includes many of the same details, including a few Finke didn't have. According to Masters, when Peters pitched the book to Random House, he not only sent a top editor there a huge pile of orchids, but included a note with an offer to cut her hair.

I'd be the first to say that Finke's post, which offers far more excerpts from the proposal than Masters' account, is the juicier read. But I also think Masters has a good case to make that, since she was first with the news, if anyone is going to brag about having an exclusive it should be her. Masters says her Daily Beast editor asked Finke to correct the "exclusive" tag, but to no avail. As I write this, it's still up.

So Masters, who co-wrote "Hit & Run," a dishy 1996 account of Peters and Guber's rise and fall, is feeling a teeny bit wronged. As she puts it: "It's funny because the book proposal recycles a lot of material that was in 'Hit & Run.' Obviously I don't have exclusive rights to the Jon Peters story but now it looks like I don't even have exclusive rights to my own exclusive. I guess you have to give Nikki credit -- she defends her exclusives even if someone else broke the story the month before."

Photo of Jon Peters by Kevin Winter / Getty Images

Peter Bart was on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday morning, though judging from his interview with the show's host, Howard Kurtz, Bart is not exactly the most reliable source on the planet. Even though Variety is virtually ad-free these days, except for its special sections, Bart insisted, with a straight face, that "I think Hollywood, more than ever, regards Variety as the bible. Just reduced to crass terms of numbers, about 77% of the advertising market in the business goes to Variety, so I think it's more predominant than ever." (The show's transcript is here.) 

Even though he was recently kicked upstairs, giving way to editor Tim Gray, Bart continues to take shots at various bloggers, myself included, claiming we don't check our facts and--how's this for a whopper--blames us for driving all the movie stars underground. As he nostalgically puts it, when he was at the New York Times, back in the 1960s, "I'd call a Paul Newman or a Steve McQueen and say, you know, let's hang. I would like to do a story about you. And you'd get a dinner, you'd get a weekend."

Ah, the glory days, when you could hang with movie stars for a weekend. It must've been a blast! Of course, what Bart doesn't get around to mentioning is that if you did a tough story on a star, you'd have your access cut off faster than one of those race cars Newman used to drive. To his credit, Kurtz didn't exactly swallow all this malarkey without a couple of burps. At one point in the program, he actually put up a quote from one of my posts about Variety, where I dissected the trade paper's "cozy reportage about the industry, with its sunny take on box-office returns and a front page filled with fanciful renderings of movie projects that would almost surely never end up being made."

Is that true, Kurtz asked? Instead of answering the question, Bart attacked me, claiming I was "irritated" now that I was a blogger as well as a columnist for The Times. (For the record, I enthusiastically volunteered to start this blog, believing that blogs are the best way for newspapers to survive in the new media universe.) Instead of letting Bart dissemble, Kurtz asked him to answer the question. Bart's response: "It's just absolutely ridiculous.... We give the stories about who's getting laid off and which company's going under. And most of our coverage in the past year has been dark. Here's the difference. We actually do the unthinkable. We check the facts before we run them."

Actually, at Variety, the unthinkable would be to ever see a hard-hitting story on the industry that wasn't filled with the trade's customary assemblage of qualifiers and anonymous quotes. If I ever see a tough, hard-nosed piece on the business, I'll be the first to offer Bart a standing ovation.

Photo: Peter Bart. Photo credit: Associated Press

PREVIOUSLY: MEMO TO PETER BART: WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

Jeff Zucker on Nikki Finke: Nikki who???

The incredibly industrious bloggers at New York magazine's Vulture blog never take anything lying down. So Vulture's Yelena Shuster sprung into action when she read Deadline Hollywood's Nikki Finke's report yesterday in which she claimed that NBC had demanded that Jay Leno "back off booking A-list celebrities because it would encroach on Conan O'Brien's turf," meaning that the network was clearly playing favorites with its new "Tonight Show" host, at its old "Tonight Show" host's expense.

Shuster ran right out to a posh Founders Club Celebration at the Rockefeller Center Channel Garden last night where she managed to briefly ambush Zucker himself. So was it really true that the NBC Universal chief had put the squeeze on Leno, as Nikki had reported? Before Zucker could hurtle a few table tops and scurry away, here's exactly what he had to say on the subject in dialogue that I have to say sounds suspiciously like an outtake from an old Groucho Marx routine:  

Vulture: Nikki Finke reported that —
Zucker: I don't know who that is.

Vulture: Okay, well she reported that NBC is trying to block Jay Leno from booking A-list guests. Is that correct?
Zucker: Is that a serious question?

Vulture: Yes.
Zucker: No.

Vulture: She reported that NBC doesn't want him to steal the thunder from Conan.
Zucker: No. Please. There's no truth to that.

Photo of Jeff Zucker by Chris Haston/ Associated Press

When you spend $100 million on a big summer special-effects comedy, you'd like to think you made more than a one-quadrant movie. But according to Variety's Brian Lowry, Universal Pictures could be in big trouble with its upcoming Will Ferrell-starring "Land of the Lost" extravaganza, which Lowry predicts will appeal to a woefully narrow target audience: 12- to 14-year-old boys, which he describes as "about the only demo likely able to endure this laborious mess."

In many ways, the film has the air of a failed attempt at corporate synergy. As Lowry describes it in his review: " 'Land of the Lost' feels as though someone at Universal was already planning the theme-park ride spinoff before taking a painfully wrong turn with the movie. Modernizing a 1970s children's TV show known for its cheap special effects offered certain possibilities, but the filmmakers have traded in any kid-friendly elements for bathroom humor of dinosaur-sized proportions."

How unfunny is the picture? Here's how Lowry put it: "It's a never a good sign when 'Today' host Matt Lauer (more synergy here, given the NBC-Universal connection) delivers the least irritating performance in a movie." Ouch!

Photo of Will Ferrell (front), Danny McBride and Anna Friel in "Land of the Lost" from Rhythm & Hues/Universal Pictures

It's become something of an article of faith in the conservative world that the media are liberal and only interested in promoting liberal ideas and causes. So what do you do if you're a loyal conservative when a big titan of liberalism like ABC (owned by the gay-friendly Disney media conglomerate and home to the obviously left-leaning George Stephanopoulos) is about to premiere (this Wednesday at 9 p.m.) a wickedly funny new Mike Judge-created show, "The Goode Family," that mocks a family of do-gooders, including a wife who wears a "Meat Is Murder" T-shirt, a daughter who's named Bliss and a dog who is a vegan?

It's pretty clear that Judge is taking clear aim on the excesses of save-the-planet types, having said recently, of the characters he created: "Oh yeah, I know these people. They're everywhere, hanging out at Whole Foods .. .forever feeling guilty about being a human being" (see video below).

Do you embrace the show, since Lord knows, after David Zucker's hapless "An American Carol," you should be wrapping your arms around anything from a conservative bent that is actually, well, funny? Or do you prepare yourself for failure, hinting darkly that any show being produced by a bastion of liberal media wouldn't receive a fair airing? In other words, assume the worst -- surely ABC must be doing whatever it can behind the scenes to ensure that its own new show is doomed to failure. I'd say that the conservative reaction to "The Goode Family's" prospects offers an intriguing insight into the conspiratorial, vaguely pessimistic mind-set that has overwhelmed the right as it attempts to cope with the popularity of Obama-style optimism currently captivating most of the country.  

First we have the New York Post's Kyle Smith pronouncing on his blog: "I doubt ABC has the guts to keep this show on the air very long. I'm guessing they won't promote it, no one will watch it and then they'll say, 'Whoops! No one is in the mood to mock liberals these days. Our bad.' I give it a month."

At the Bruin Standard, Kelly Bowers isn't holding his breath either, saying with concern: "Will the show pull punches to appease the status quo of studio executives? An obvious worry. 'The Man' often puts a stop to themes he doesn't like in TV shows.... If Fox can tell the nearly revered Joss Whedon to turn his dark captain Malcolm Reynolds into more of a clown for 'Firefly,' NBC can probably tell Judge to stop making hippies cry (assuming that is even possible)."

For years, it was liberals who were expert in the art of self loathing, but the disease seems to have taken firm root in the conservative movement. Faced with the prospect of a well-made TV show that skewers the delicate sensibilities of ditzy do-gooders, the right-leaning cultural critics should be full of exultation. Instead, they're already sulking in their tents. You'd think conservatives would be eager for a good laugh, but the whole movement seems to have permanently misplaced their sense of humor.

Here are some excerpts, along with commentary from Mike Judge:

One of the great reads of the week was Nikki Finke's "exclusive" unveiling in her blog of "Studio Head," an irresistibly entertaining book proposal from Jon Peters, the former Sony Pictures studio mogul who was one of Hollywood's most colorful loose cannons. His tell-absolutely-all autobiography, written with William Stadiem, recently sold to HarperCollins, reportedly for $700,000. I still don't know what was better: Nikki's Def-Con Alert reaction ("I have never read a more vile betrayal of everyone and everything in Hollywood") or the unintentional humor of the proposal itself ("Imagine a contemporary, nonfiction 'What Makes Sammy Run,' but with a lovable protagonist").

Nikki's post was a great read, loaded with proposal excerpts that detail Peters' childhood, his hairdresser triumphs, his Svengali-like relationship with Barbra Streisand, his studio deals and his tumultuous partnership with Peter Guber (who gave Nikki a statement calling the proposal a "work of fiction"). Let's just say the tone of the proposal is distinctly "Dynasty"-esque. In the midst of an enthusiastic recounting of Peters' many amorous escapades, the proposal dryly notes: "When it came to women, Jon was fearless and Olympicly competitive."

I have to admit that I was impressed by Nikki's scoop, at least far more impressed than veteran Hollywood journalist Kim Masters, who complains that it's a stretch for Finke to call her post an "exclusive" when Masters did an incredibly similar post for the Daily Beast more than a month ago -- on April 15 to be exact. Masters' post includes many of the same details, including a few Finke didn't have. According to Masters, when Peters pitched the book to Random House, he not only sent a top editor there a huge pile of orchids, but included a note with an offer to cut her hair.

I'd be the first to say that Finke's post, which offers far more excerpts from the proposal than Masters' account, is the juicier read. But I also think Masters has a good case to make that, since she was first with the news, if anyone is going to brag about having an exclusive it should be her. Masters says her Daily Beast editor asked Finke to correct the "exclusive" tag, but to no avail. As I write this, it's still up.

So Masters, who co-wrote "Hit & Run," a dishy 1996 account of Peters and Guber's rise and fall, is feeling a teeny bit wronged. As she puts it: "It's funny because the book proposal recycles a lot of material that was in 'Hit & Run.' Obviously I don't have exclusive rights to the Jon Peters story but now it looks like I don't even have exclusive rights to my own exclusive. I guess you have to give Nikki credit -- she defends her exclusives even if someone else broke the story the month before."

Photo of Jon Peters by Kevin Winter / Getty Images

Peter Bart was on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday morning, though judging from his interview with the show's host, Howard Kurtz, Bart is not exactly the most reliable source on the planet. Even though Variety is virtually ad-free these days, except for its special sections, Bart insisted, with a straight face, that "I think Hollywood, more than ever, regards Variety as the bible. Just reduced to crass terms of numbers, about 77% of the advertising market in the business goes to Variety, so I think it's more predominant than ever." (The show's transcript is here.) 

Even though he was recently kicked upstairs, giving way to editor Tim Gray, Bart continues to take shots at various bloggers, myself included, claiming we don't check our facts and--how's this for a whopper--blames us for driving all the movie stars underground. As he nostalgically puts it, when he was at the New York Times, back in the 1960s, "I'd call a Paul Newman or a Steve McQueen and say, you know, let's hang. I would like to do a story about you. And you'd get a dinner, you'd get a weekend."

Ah, the glory days, when you could hang with movie stars for a weekend. It must've been a blast! Of course, what Bart doesn't get around to mentioning is that if you did a tough story on a star, you'd have your access cut off faster than one of those race cars Newman used to drive. To his credit, Kurtz didn't exactly swallow all this malarkey without a couple of burps. At one point in the program, he actually put up a quote from one of my posts about Variety, where I dissected the trade paper's "cozy reportage about the industry, with its sunny take on box-office returns and a front page filled with fanciful renderings of movie projects that would almost surely never end up being made."

Is that true, Kurtz asked? Instead of answering the question, Bart attacked me, claiming I was "irritated" now that I was a blogger as well as a columnist for The Times. (For the record, I enthusiastically volunteered to start this blog, believing that blogs are the best way for newspapers to survive in the new media universe.) Instead of letting Bart dissemble, Kurtz asked him to answer the question. Bart's response: "It's just absolutely ridiculous.... We give the stories about who's getting laid off and which company's going under. And most of our coverage in the past year has been dark. Here's the difference. We actually do the unthinkable. We check the facts before we run them."

Actually, at Variety, the unthinkable would be to ever see a hard-hitting story on the industry that wasn't filled with the trade's customary assemblage of qualifiers and anonymous quotes. If I ever see a tough, hard-nosed piece on the business, I'll be the first to offer Bart a standing ovation.

Photo: Peter Bart. Photo credit: Associated Press

PREVIOUSLY: MEMO TO PETER BART: WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

Variety on 'Land of the Lost': A lost cause?

When you spend $100 million on a big summer special-effects comedy, you'd like to think you made more than a one-quadrant movie. But according to Variety's Brian Lowry, Universal Pictures could be in big trouble with its upcoming Will Ferrell-starring "Land of the Lost" extravaganza, which Lowry predicts will appeal to a woefully narrow target audience: 12- to 14-year-old boys, which he describes as "about the only demo likely able to endure this laborious mess."

In many ways, the film has the air of a failed attempt at corporate synergy. As Lowry describes it in his review: " 'Land of the Lost' feels as though someone at Universal was already planning the theme-park ride spinoff before taking a painfully wrong turn with the movie. Modernizing a 1970s children's TV show known for its cheap special effects offered certain possibilities, but the filmmakers have traded in any kid-friendly elements for bathroom humor of dinosaur-sized proportions."

How unfunny is the picture? Here's how Lowry put it: "It's a never a good sign when 'Today' host Matt Lauer (more synergy here, given the NBC-Universal connection) delivers the least irritating performance in a movie." Ouch!

Photo of Will Ferrell (front), Danny McBride and Anna Friel in "Land of the Lost" from Rhythm & Hues/Universal Pictures

It's become something of an article of faith in the conservative world that the media are liberal and only interested in promoting liberal ideas and causes. So what do you do if you're a loyal conservative when a big titan of liberalism like ABC (owned by the gay-friendly Disney media conglomerate and home to the obviously left-leaning George Stephanopoulos) is about to premiere (this Wednesday at 9 p.m.) a wickedly funny new Mike Judge-created show, "The Goode Family," that mocks a family of do-gooders, including a wife who wears a "Meat Is Murder" T-shirt, a daughter who's named Bliss and a dog who is a vegan?

It's pretty clear that Judge is taking clear aim on the excesses of save-the-planet types, having said recently, of the characters he created: "Oh yeah, I know these people. They're everywhere, hanging out at Whole Foods .. .forever feeling guilty about being a human being" (see video below).

Do you embrace the show, since Lord knows, after David Zucker's hapless "An American Carol," you should be wrapping your arms around anything from a conservative bent that is actually, well, funny? Or do you prepare yourself for failure, hinting darkly that any show being produced by a bastion of liberal media wouldn't receive a fair airing? In other words, assume the worst -- surely ABC must be doing whatever it can behind the scenes to ensure that its own new show is doomed to failure. I'd say that the conservative reaction to "The Goode Family's" prospects offers an intriguing insight into the conspiratorial, vaguely pessimistic mind-set that has overwhelmed the right as it attempts to cope with the popularity of Obama-style optimism currently captivating most of the country.  

First we have the New York Post's Kyle Smith pronouncing on his blog: "I doubt ABC has the guts to keep this show on the air very long. I'm guessing they won't promote it, no one will watch it and then they'll say, 'Whoops! No one is in the mood to mock liberals these days. Our bad.' I give it a month."

At the Bruin Standard, Kelly Bowers isn't holding his breath either, saying with concern: "Will the show pull punches to appease the status quo of studio executives? An obvious worry. 'The Man' often puts a stop to themes he doesn't like in TV shows.... If Fox can tell the nearly revered Joss Whedon to turn his dark captain Malcolm Reynolds into more of a clown for 'Firefly,' NBC can probably tell Judge to stop making hippies cry (assuming that is even possible)."

For years, it was liberals who were expert in the art of self loathing, but the disease seems to have taken firm root in the conservative movement. Faced with the prospect of a well-made TV show that skewers the delicate sensibilities of ditzy do-gooders, the right-leaning cultural critics should be full of exultation. Instead, they're already sulking in their tents. You'd think conservatives would be eager for a good laugh, but the whole movement seems to have permanently misplaced their sense of humor.

Here are some excerpts, along with commentary from Mike Judge:

One of the great reads of the week was Nikki Finke's "exclusive" unveiling in her blog of "Studio Head," an irresistibly entertaining book proposal from Jon Peters, the former Sony Pictures studio mogul who was one of Hollywood's most colorful loose cannons. His tell-absolutely-all autobiography, written with William Stadiem, recently sold to HarperCollins, reportedly for $700,000. I still don't know what was better: Nikki's Def-Con Alert reaction ("I have never read a more vile betrayal of everyone and everything in Hollywood") or the unintentional humor of the proposal itself ("Imagine a contemporary, nonfiction 'What Makes Sammy Run,' but with a lovable protagonist").

Nikki's post was a great read, loaded with proposal excerpts that detail Peters' childhood, his hairdresser triumphs, his Svengali-like relationship with Barbra Streisand, his studio deals and his tumultuous partnership with Peter Guber (who gave Nikki a statement calling the proposal a "work of fiction"). Let's just say the tone of the proposal is distinctly "Dynasty"-esque. In the midst of an enthusiastic recounting of Peters' many amorous escapades, the proposal dryly notes: "When it came to women, Jon was fearless and Olympicly competitive."

I have to admit that I was impressed by Nikki's scoop, at least far more impressed than veteran Hollywood journalist Kim Masters, who complains that it's a stretch for Finke to call her post an "exclusive" when Masters did an incredibly similar post for the Daily Beast more than a month ago -- on April 15 to be exact. Masters' post includes many of the same details, including a few Finke didn't have. According to Masters, when Peters pitched the book to Random House, he not only sent a top editor there a huge pile of orchids, but included a note with an offer to cut her hair.

I'd be the first to say that Finke's post, which offers far more excerpts from the proposal than Masters' account, is the juicier read. But I also think Masters has a good case to make that, since she was first with the news, if anyone is going to brag about having an exclusive it should be her. Masters says her Daily Beast editor asked Finke to correct the "exclusive" tag, but to no avail. As I write this, it's still up.

So Masters, who co-wrote "Hit & Run," a dishy 1996 account of Peters and Guber's rise and fall, is feeling a teeny bit wronged. As she puts it: "It's funny because the book proposal recycles a lot of material that was in 'Hit & Run.' Obviously I don't have exclusive rights to the Jon Peters story but now it looks like I don't even have exclusive rights to my own exclusive. I guess you have to give Nikki credit -- she defends her exclusives even if someone else broke the story the month before."

Photo of Jon Peters by Kevin Winter / Getty Images

Peter Bart was on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday morning, though judging from his interview with the show's host, Howard Kurtz, Bart is not exactly the most reliable source on the planet. Even though Variety is virtually ad-free these days, except for its special sections, Bart insisted, with a straight face, that "I think Hollywood, more than ever, regards Variety as the bible. Just reduced to crass terms of numbers, about 77% of the advertising market in the business goes to Variety, so I think it's more predominant than ever." (The show's transcript is here.) 

Even though he was recently kicked upstairs, giving way to editor Tim Gray, Bart continues to take shots at various bloggers, myself included, claiming we don't check our facts and--how's this for a whopper--blames us for driving all the movie stars underground. As he nostalgically puts it, when he was at the New York Times, back in the 1960s, "I'd call a Paul Newman or a Steve McQueen and say, you know, let's hang. I would like to do a story about you. And you'd get a dinner, you'd get a weekend."

Ah, the glory days, when you could hang with movie stars for a weekend. It must've been a blast! Of course, what Bart doesn't get around to mentioning is that if you did a tough story on a star, you'd have your access cut off faster than one of those race cars Newman used to drive. To his credit, Kurtz didn't exactly swallow all this malarkey without a couple of burps. At one point in the program, he actually put up a quote from one of my posts about Variety, where I dissected the trade paper's "cozy reportage about the industry, with its sunny take on box-office returns and a front page filled with fanciful renderings of movie projects that would almost surely never end up being made."

Is that true, Kurtz asked? Instead of answering the question, Bart attacked me, claiming I was "irritated" now that I was a blogger as well as a columnist for The Times. (For the record, I enthusiastically volunteered to start this blog, believing that blogs are the best way for newspapers to survive in the new media universe.) Instead of letting Bart dissemble, Kurtz asked him to answer the question. Bart's response: "It's just absolutely ridiculous.... We give the stories about who's getting laid off and which company's going under. And most of our coverage in the past year has been dark. Here's the difference. We actually do the unthinkable. We check the facts before we run them."

Actually, at Variety, the unthinkable would be to ever see a hard-hitting story on the industry that wasn't filled with the trade's customary assemblage of qualifiers and anonymous quotes. If I ever see a tough, hard-nosed piece on the business, I'll be the first to offer Bart a standing ovation.

Photo: Peter Bart. Photo credit: Associated Press

PREVIOUSLY: MEMO TO PETER BART: WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

'The Goode Family': Can a TV show bash tree huggers -- and survive?

It's become something of an article of faith in the conservative world that the media are liberal and only interested in promoting liberal ideas and causes. So what do you do if you're a loyal conservative when a big titan of liberalism like ABC (owned by the gay-friendly Disney media conglomerate and home to the obviously left-leaning George Stephanopoulos) is about to premiere (this Wednesday at 9 p.m.) a wickedly funny new Mike Judge-created show, "The Goode Family," that mocks a family of do-gooders, including a wife who wears a "Meat Is Murder" T-shirt, a daughter who's named Bliss and a dog who is a vegan?

It's pretty clear that Judge is taking clear aim on the excesses of save-the-planet types, having said recently, of the characters he created: "Oh yeah, I know these people. They're everywhere, hanging out at Whole Foods .. .forever feeling guilty about being a human being" (see video below).

Do you embrace the show, since Lord knows, after David Zucker's hapless "An American Carol," you should be wrapping your arms around anything from a conservative bent that is actually, well, funny? Or do you prepare yourself for failure, hinting darkly that any show being produced by a bastion of liberal media wouldn't receive a fair airing? In other words, assume the worst -- surely ABC must be doing whatever it can behind the scenes to ensure that its own new show is doomed to failure. I'd say that the conservative reaction to "The Goode Family's" prospects offers an intriguing insight into the conspiratorial, vaguely pessimistic mind-set that has overwhelmed the right as it attempts to cope with the popularity of Obama-style optimism currently captivating most of the country.  

First we have the New York Post's Kyle Smith pronouncing on his blog: "I doubt ABC has the guts to keep this show on the air very long. I'm guessing they won't promote it, no one will watch it and then they'll say, 'Whoops! No one is in the mood to mock liberals these days. Our bad.' I give it a month."

At the Bruin Standard, Kelly Bowers isn't holding his breath either, saying with concern: "Will the show pull punches to appease the status quo of studio executives? An obvious worry. 'The Man' often puts a stop to themes he doesn't like in TV shows.... If Fox can tell the nearly revered Joss Whedon to turn his dark captain Malcolm Reynolds into more of a clown for 'Firefly,' NBC can probably tell Judge to stop making hippies cry (assuming that is even possible)."

For years, it was liberals who were expert in the art of self loathing, but the disease seems to have taken firm root in the conservative movement. Faced with the prospect of a well-made TV show that skewers the delicate sensibilities of ditzy do-gooders, the right-leaning cultural critics should be full of exultation. Instead, they're already sulking in their tents. You'd think conservatives would be eager for a good laugh, but the whole movement seems to have permanently misplaced their sense of humor.

Here are some excerpts, along with commentary from Mike Judge:

One of the great reads of the week was Nikki Finke's "exclusive" unveiling in her blog of "Studio Head," an irresistibly entertaining book proposal from Jon Peters, the former Sony Pictures studio mogul who was one of Hollywood's most colorful loose cannons. His tell-absolutely-all autobiography, written with William Stadiem, recently sold to HarperCollins, reportedly for $700,000. I still don't know what was better: Nikki's Def-Con Alert reaction ("I have never read a more vile betrayal of everyone and everything in Hollywood") or the unintentional humor of the proposal itself ("Imagine a contemporary, nonfiction 'What Makes Sammy Run,' but with a lovable protagonist").

Nikki's post was a great read, loaded with proposal excerpts that detail Peters' childhood, his hairdresser triumphs, his Svengali-like relationship with Barbra Streisand, his studio deals and his tumultuous partnership with Peter Guber (who gave Nikki a statement calling the proposal a "work of fiction"). Let's just say the tone of the proposal is distinctly "Dynasty"-esque. In the midst of an enthusiastic recounting of Peters' many amorous escapades, the proposal dryly notes: "When it came to women, Jon was fearless and Olympicly competitive."

I have to admit that I was impressed by Nikki's scoop, at least far more impressed than veteran Hollywood journalist Kim Masters, who complains that it's a stretch for Finke to call her post an "exclusive" when Masters did an incredibly similar post for the Daily Beast more than a month ago -- on April 15 to be exact. Masters' post includes many of the same details, including a few Finke didn't have. According to Masters, when Peters pitched the book to Random House, he not only sent a top editor there a huge pile of orchids, but included a note with an offer to cut her hair.

I'd be the first to say that Finke's post, which offers far more excerpts from the proposal than Masters' account, is the juicier read. But I also think Masters has a good case to make that, since she was first with the news, if anyone is going to brag about having an exclusive it should be her. Masters says her Daily Beast editor asked Finke to correct the "exclusive" tag, but to no avail. As I write this, it's still up.

So Masters, who co-wrote "Hit & Run," a dishy 1996 account of Peters and Guber's rise and fall, is feeling a teeny bit wronged. As she puts it: "It's funny because the book proposal recycles a lot of material that was in 'Hit & Run.' Obviously I don't have exclusive rights to the Jon Peters story but now it looks like I don't even have exclusive rights to my own exclusive. I guess you have to give Nikki credit -- she defends her exclusives even if someone else broke the story the month before."

Photo of Jon Peters by Kevin Winter / Getty Images

Peter Bart was on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday morning, though judging from his interview with the show's host, Howard Kurtz, Bart is not exactly the most reliable source on the planet. Even though Variety is virtually ad-free these days, except for its special sections, Bart insisted, with a straight face, that "I think Hollywood, more than ever, regards Variety as the bible. Just reduced to crass terms of numbers, about 77% of the advertising market in the business goes to Variety, so I think it's more predominant than ever." (The show's transcript is here.) 

Even though he was recently kicked upstairs, giving way to editor Tim Gray, Bart continues to take shots at various bloggers, myself included, claiming we don't check our facts and--how's this for a whopper--blames us for driving all the movie stars underground. As he nostalgically puts it, when he was at the New York Times, back in the 1960s, "I'd call a Paul Newman or a Steve McQueen and say, you know, let's hang. I would like to do a story about you. And you'd get a dinner, you'd get a weekend."

Ah, the glory days, when you could hang with movie stars for a weekend. It must've been a blast! Of course, what Bart doesn't get around to mentioning is that if you did a tough story on a star, you'd have your access cut off faster than one of those race cars Newman used to drive. To his credit, Kurtz didn't exactly swallow all this malarkey without a couple of burps. At one point in the program, he actually put up a quote from one of my posts about Variety, where I dissected the trade paper's "cozy reportage about the industry, with its sunny take on box-office returns and a front page filled with fanciful renderings of movie projects that would almost surely never end up being made."

Is that true, Kurtz asked? Instead of answering the question, Bart attacked me, claiming I was "irritated" now that I was a blogger as well as a columnist for The Times. (For the record, I enthusiastically volunteered to start this blog, believing that blogs are the best way for newspapers to survive in the new media universe.) Instead of letting Bart dissemble, Kurtz asked him to answer the question. Bart's response: "It's just absolutely ridiculous.... We give the stories about who's getting laid off and which company's going under. And most of our coverage in the past year has been dark. Here's the difference. We actually do the unthinkable. We check the facts before we run them."

Actually, at Variety, the unthinkable would be to ever see a hard-hitting story on the industry that wasn't filled with the trade's customary assemblage of qualifiers and anonymous quotes. If I ever see a tough, hard-nosed piece on the business, I'll be the first to offer Bart a standing ovation.

Photo: Peter Bart. Photo credit: Associated Press

PREVIOUSLY: MEMO TO PETER BART: WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

Jon Peters' new tell-all book proposal: Who had it first?

One of the great reads of the week was Nikki Finke's "exclusive" unveiling in her blog of "Studio Head," an irresistibly entertaining book proposal from Jon Peters, the former Sony Pictures studio mogul who was one of Hollywood's most colorful loose cannons. His tell-absolutely-all autobiography, written with William Stadiem, recently sold to HarperCollins, reportedly for $700,000. I still don't know what was better: Nikki's Def-Con Alert reaction ("I have never read a more vile betrayal of everyone and everything in Hollywood") or the unintentional humor of the proposal itself ("Imagine a contemporary, nonfiction 'What Makes Sammy Run,' but with a lovable protagonist").

Nikki's post was a great read, loaded with proposal excerpts that detail Peters' childhood, his hairdresser triumphs, his Svengali-like relationship with Barbra Streisand, his studio deals and his tumultuous partnership with Peter Guber (who gave Nikki a statement calling the proposal a "work of fiction"). Let's just say the tone of the proposal is distinctly "Dynasty"-esque. In the midst of an enthusiastic recounting of Peters' many amorous escapades, the proposal dryly notes: "When it came to women, Jon was fearless and Olympicly competitive."

I have to admit that I was impressed by Nikki's scoop, at least far more impressed than veteran Hollywood journalist Kim Masters, who complains that it's a stretch for Finke to call her post an "exclusive" when Masters did an incredibly similar post for the Daily Beast more than a month ago -- on April 15 to be exact. Masters' post includes many of the same details, including a few Finke didn't have. According to Masters, when Peters pitched the book to Random House, he not only sent a top editor there a huge pile of orchids, but included a note with an offer to cut her hair.

I'd be the first to say that Finke's post, which offers far more excerpts from the proposal than Masters' account, is the juicier read. But I also think Masters has a good case to make that, since she was first with the news, if anyone is going to brag about having an exclusive it should be her. Masters says her Daily Beast editor asked Finke to correct the "exclusive" tag, but to no avail. As I write this, it's still up.

So Masters, who co-wrote "Hit & Run," a dishy 1996 account of Peters and Guber's rise and fall, is feeling a teeny bit wronged. As she puts it: "It's funny because the book proposal recycles a lot of material that was in 'Hit & Run.' Obviously I don't have exclusive rights to the Jon Peters story but now it looks like I don't even have exclusive rights to my own exclusive. I guess you have to give Nikki credit -- she defends her exclusives even if someone else broke the story the month before."

Photo of Jon Peters by Kevin Winter / Getty Images

Peter Bart was on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday morning, though judging from his interview with the show's host, Howard Kurtz, Bart is not exactly the most reliable source on the planet. Even though Variety is virtually ad-free these days, except for its special sections, Bart insisted, with a straight face, that "I think Hollywood, more than ever, regards Variety as the bible. Just reduced to crass terms of numbers, about 77% of the advertising market in the business goes to Variety, so I think it's more predominant than ever." (The show's transcript is here.) 

Even though he was recently kicked upstairs, giving way to editor Tim Gray, Bart continues to take shots at various bloggers, myself included, claiming we don't check our facts and--how's this for a whopper--blames us for driving all the movie stars underground. As he nostalgically puts it, when he was at the New York Times, back in the 1960s, "I'd call a Paul Newman or a Steve McQueen and say, you know, let's hang. I would like to do a story about you. And you'd get a dinner, you'd get a weekend."

Ah, the glory days, when you could hang with movie stars for a weekend. It must've been a blast! Of course, what Bart doesn't get around to mentioning is that if you did a tough story on a star, you'd have your access cut off faster than one of those race cars Newman used to drive. To his credit, Kurtz didn't exactly swallow all this malarkey without a couple of burps. At one point in the program, he actually put up a quote from one of my posts about Variety, where I dissected the trade paper's "cozy reportage about the industry, with its sunny take on box-office returns and a front page filled with fanciful renderings of movie projects that would almost surely never end up being made."

Is that true, Kurtz asked? Instead of answering the question, Bart attacked me, claiming I was "irritated" now that I was a blogger as well as a columnist for The Times. (For the record, I enthusiastically volunteered to start this blog, believing that blogs are the best way for newspapers to survive in the new media universe.) Instead of letting Bart dissemble, Kurtz asked him to answer the question. Bart's response: "It's just absolutely ridiculous.... We give the stories about who's getting laid off and which company's going under. And most of our coverage in the past year has been dark. Here's the difference. We actually do the unthinkable. We check the facts before we run them."

Actually, at Variety, the unthinkable would be to ever see a hard-hitting story on the industry that wasn't filled with the trade's customary assemblage of qualifiers and anonymous quotes. If I ever see a tough, hard-nosed piece on the business, I'll be the first to offer Bart a standing ovation.

Photo: Peter Bart. Photo credit: Associated Press

PREVIOUSLY: MEMO TO PETER BART: WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

Peter Bart on Variety: In Hollywood, babe, its still the bible!

Peter Bart was on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday morning, though judging from his interview with the show's host, Howard Kurtz, Bart is not exactly the most reliable source on the planet. Even though Variety is virtually ad-free these days, except for its special sections, Bart insisted, with a straight face, that "I think Hollywood, more than ever, regards Variety as the bible. Just reduced to crass terms of numbers, about 77% of the advertising market in the business goes to Variety, so I think it's more predominant than ever." (The show's transcript is here.) 

Even though he was recently kicked upstairs, giving way to editor Tim Gray, Bart continues to take shots at various bloggers, myself included, claiming we don't check our facts and--how's this for a whopper--blames us for driving all the movie stars underground. As he nostalgically puts it, when he was at the New York Times, back in the 1960s, "I'd call a Paul Newman or a Steve McQueen and say, you know, let's hang. I would like to do a story about you. And you'd get a dinner, you'd get a weekend."

Ah, the glory days, when you could hang with movie stars for a weekend. It must've been a blast! Of course, what Bart doesn't get around to mentioning is that if you did a tough story on a star, you'd have your access cut off faster than one of those race cars Newman used to drive. To his credit, Kurtz didn't exactly swallow all this malarkey without a couple of burps. At one point in the program, he actually put up a quote from one of my posts about Variety, where I dissected the trade paper's "cozy reportage about the industry, with its sunny take on box-office returns and a front page filled with fanciful renderings of movie projects that would almost surely never end up being made."

Is that true, Kurtz asked? Instead of answering the question, Bart attacked me, claiming I was "irritated" now that I was a blogger as well as a columnist for The Times. (For the record, I enthusiastically volunteered to start this blog, believing that blogs are the best way for newspapers to survive in the new media universe.) Instead of letting Bart dissemble, Kurtz asked him to answer the question. Bart's response: "It's just absolutely ridiculous.... We give the stories about who's getting laid off and which company's going under. And most of our coverage in the past year has been dark. Here's the difference. We actually do the unthinkable. We check the facts before we run them."

Actually, at Variety, the unthinkable would be to ever see a hard-hitting story on the industry that wasn't filled with the trade's customary assemblage of qualifiers and anonymous quotes. If I ever see a tough, hard-nosed piece on the business, I'll be the first to offer Bart a standing ovation.

Photo: Peter Bart. Photo credit: Associated Press

PREVIOUSLY: MEMO TO PETER BART: WHAT JUST HAPPENED?