Hollywood (miniseries)

[Willie Oleson]

Hollywood is a kind of "Once Upon A Time" story. It's a basically a Fairy tale in an alternate universe

But why ? I'm trying to think of one good reason to do it that way, an artistic angle or something exciting or extraordinary.
Was ist der punkt? Quesque la pointe? Vravista dek mastaka?

 

[Crimson]

I mean, what's the point of these kinds of intentional, glaring anachronisms?

But why ? I'm trying to think of one good reason to do it that way, an artistic angle or something exciting or extraordinary.

I have not seen HOLLYWOOD, so I cannot judge its merits; I have avoided because I can't come up with a good answer to these valid questions.

The idea of telling the tales of the underdogs of Old Hollywood could have and should have been great; the adversities and triumphs of minorities who made their way through the indifference and even hostility of the dominant culture is about as inherently dramatic as one could hope for. To totally falsify that into some kind of revisionist wish fulfillment seems to have no purpose other than 2020 woke smugness.

Even if this had been false in the way FEUD was false -- basically a bunch of baloney, but kind of, sort of, maybe if you squint it looks reasonably accurate -- I would have happily jumped on board.

 

[Toni]

I finished this today, FINALLY. It´s a very big piece of gay fan fiction. I lost all hope to see a non-anonymous nude body... I must say that the Emmy nominations are not even deserved for those, even being all good, they are not great. Where is "Feud: Olivia & Joan (Fontaine)" (not that it´s even a non-developed project!)?

-"Oh Olivia darling, isn´t it wond...? Ooops!"
-"Get out of my way, you Dragon Lady!"​

 

[ClassyCo]

I wish FEUD: OLIVIA & JOAN would've been a thing. But FX cancelled the show.

 

[Crimson]

BETTE & JOAN was about 75% fiction; OLIVIA & JOAN would have to be about 95%. For all the legendary status of their "feud", it seemed to be mundane. Two competitive sisters who simply didn't like each other; other than a few snubs and some petty grievances, there hardly seemed to be anything dramatic there.

 

[darkshadows38]

i always did want to see this one

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

Ryan Murphy sure has an eye for... ahm... talent. David Corenswet just got cast as the new SUPERMAN. He does look like a tad younger Henry Cavill.

Oh boy.... Well it got very silly didn't it? I mostly enjoyed it, I just don't think I like the basic idea of it that much. The whole fantasy land approach of it, especially having read a lot about the time and actual people mentioned and events featured.

I thought the first episode based on Scotty Bowers' tales of the gas station hookers serving the carnal needs of the Hollywood elite was great. The production values were excellent, the storyline was fun and it even had a solid cliffhanger. Top notch. Very promising.

Then the next couple of episodes were still quite amusing, mostly saved by Jim Parsons' deliciously mean Henry Wilson (were we supposed to hate his character? He may have been the best thing about the show).

Then it all just went downhill fast soaking in Ryan Murphy's sugary sticky wet dream of being a woke superhero traveling back in time to right the wrongs of the past. As often the case with his shows, couldn't take a great start to a strong finish. It all falls apart along the way. And all he had to do is 7 episodes.

They really portrayed Rock Hudson as dumb as horse shit and a terrible actor when he wasn't. I don't know why they had to do that? You'd have thought someone could have objected to that.

Oh my God, I know. What horrible casting. He's a pretty boy, sure, but what was with the deer-in-the-headlights look? He came across all the time as if he pooped his pants. Rock Hudson would've never become Hollywood's megastar leading romantic man between 1954 and mid 60s with that severe lack of charm and gravitas.

I know, I know... And showing up hand-in-hand at the Oscars when you couldn't do that until the '90s. I mean, what's the point of these kinds of intentional, glaring anachronisms?

The point is tapping oneself on the back what a great human being one is and expecting to be showered with praise for such efforts accordingly (including scoring high on the infamous "Corporate Equality Index"). It's rarely about the marginalized, it's almost always about oneself.

By the way, are there any megastar leading romantic men who happen to be out and proud homosexuals today? And I don't mean any Doogie Howser types or some guy only die-hard fans have heard of.

I mean men with the kind of global star power Rock Hudson enjoyed for about a decade (and then continued to live off for another two). Maybe Ryan Murphy and the rest of the Scooby Doo gang of Hollywood wokeys should travel back to 2023 and right the wrongs of today.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

By the way, are there any megastar leading romantic men who happen to be out and proud homosexuals today? And I don't mean any Doogie Howser types or some guy only die-hard fans have heard of.

Oh, no. You can be what they call "a supporting actor" or a pop star and be out and proud today. And there's even the (rare) hip hop or country music star who emerges from the closet, but only if they find the right niche for themselves.

But openly-gay "leading men" on screen is still strictly prohibited. Supposedly, it gets in the way of female audience fantasy and straight male admiration.

I wouldn't do it.

 

[Toni]

"And just like that", their "masseuses" and "bath pals" started to tell stories...

​

 

[Willie Oleson]

Ryan Murphy sure has an eye for

When he's good he's great, and that makes the disappointments all the more frustrating.
And he's done NIP/TUCK, which I still consider the most wicked and most outrageous series I've ever watched on television. Laura Ingalls, peanut butter and a German Shepherd - oh my!

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

The idea of telling the tales of the underdogs of Old Hollywood could have and should have been great; the adversities and triumphs of minorities who made their way through the indifference and even hostility of the dominant culture is about as inherently dramatic as one could hope for. To totally falsify that into some kind of revisionist wish fulfillment seems to have no purpose other than 2020 woke smugness.

I actually wouldn’t have a problem with this “Ryan Murphy pleasuring himself” approach if they came up with at least semi-plausible idea how this could have happened in the 1940s.

But, that’s the problem in this piece of fiction — things just magically happen. The movie with non-white leads just magically becomes not only the biggest hit of 1948 but a record-shattering hit and everyone involved including all people of color gets an Oscar; Rock Hudson comes out (and with a black boyfriend!) and he’s still magically destined for stardom; and a romantic comedy about a gay couple magically gets greenlit (meanwhile, back in 2022 a movie dubbed “the first major studio gay romantic comedy” called BROS bombs hard at the box office).

And this is where woke smugness kicks in — by making it so easy, it’s as if they’re communicating: well, I guess you people in 1948 just didn’t try hard enough, if you were a little more relentless like us 2020s woke warriors, things would’ve just happened. Of course, if they could’ve just happened, they wouldn’t have been a problem in the first place.

I couldn't help think when watching it that some young people or people who just weren't very bright would see it, see that there were real people in it and believe that the events of the show were true.

Young people would’ve benefitted from a more realistic approach, perhaps even with a tragic ending, to learn - if they haven’t already - what it was actually like back then and how much has changed and how much hasn’t.

As I said, I thought they had a more-or-less good thing going in the first episode with the gas station storyline, perhaps Corenswet’s character could’ve been gay, they could’ve stayed away from real life characters like Rock Hudson or Vivien Leigh, just mention them for backstory, except, maybe Henry Wilson or a Wilson type of a villain. He makes it huge, but then has to live in the closet and fear outing, blackmail, FBI “vice squad,” etc.

I think a story of being gay in the 1940s/50s Hollywood is fascinating enough without resorting to any infantile wishful thinking, as even the recent Rock Hudson documentary on HBO proves.

Oh, no. You can be what they call "a supporting actor" or a pop star and be out and proud today. And there's even the (rare) hip hop or country music star who emerges from the closet, but only if they find the right niche for themselves.

But openly-gay "leading men" on screen is still strictly prohibited. Supposedly, it gets in the way of female audience fantasy and straight male admiration.

I wouldn't do it.

And the wokeness makes it all the more confusing. Apparently, they’re supposed to cast only gay people for gay roles, trans people for trans roles, etc. I thought actors were supposed to… you know, act.

That hot guy from the Sicily-set season of WHITE LOTUS, what’s his name, the one who got killed off by Lady Mary with her devastating charm on DOWNTON ABBEY, he was recently announced as the actor who will be playing George Michael in an upcoming biopic (following the success of Elton John & Queen movies). I do think he exudes the right looks and confidence for the part. But, cue the screeching whining from Adam Lambert, who would ideally cast himself in the role, because he believes gay roles should only go to gay actors.

Haven’t people like Michelangelo Signorille, campaigned for decades for gay men to be allowed to play heterosexual leading male roles? But if we go by woke logic, only heterosexuals should be allowed to play heterosexual roles. Or is that an exception because they are oppressors who are not allowed to participate in the woke Olympics?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I actually wouldn’t have a problem with this “Ryan Murphy pleasuring himself” approach if they came up with at least semi-plausible idea how this could have happened in the 1940s.

But, that’s the problem in this piece of fiction — things just magically happen. The movie with non-white leads just magically becomes not only the biggest hit of 1948 but a record-shattering hit and everyone involved including all people of color gets an Oscar; Rock Hudson comes out (and with a black boyfriend!) and he’s still magically destined for stardom; and a romantic comedy about a gay couple magically gets greenlit (meanwhile, back in 2022 a movie dubbed “the first major studio gay romantic comedy” called BROS bombs hard at the box office).

And this is where woke smugness kicks in — by making it so easy, it’s as if they’re communicating: well, I guess you people in 1948 just didn’t try hard enough, if you were a little more relentless like us 2020s woke warriors, things would’ve just happened. Of course, if they could’ve just happened, they wouldn’t have been a problem in the first place.



Young people would’ve benefitted from a more realistic approach, perhaps even with a tragic ending, to learn - if they haven’t already - what it was actually like back then and how much has changed and how much hasn’t.

As I said, I thought they had a more-or-less good thing going in the first episode with the gas station storyline, perhaps Corenswet’s character could’ve been gay, they could’ve stayed away from real life characters like Rock Hudson or Vivien Leigh, just mention them for backstory, except, maybe Henry Wilson or a Wilson type of a villain. He makes it huge, but then has to live in the closet and fear outing, blackmail, FBI “vice squad,” etc.

I think a story of being gay in the 1940s/50s Hollywood is fascinating enough without resorting to any infantile wishful thinking, as even the recent Rock Hudson documentary on HBO proves.



And the wokeness makes it all the more confusing. Apparently, they’re supposed to cast only gay people for gay roles, trans people for trans roles, etc. I thought actors were supposed to… you know, act.

That hot guy from the Sicily-set season of WHITE LOTUS, what’s his name, the one who got killed off by Lady Mary with her devastating charm on DOWNTON ABBEY, he was recently announced as the actor who will be playing George Michael in an upcoming biopic (following the success of Elton John & Queen movies). I do think he exudes the right looks and confidence for the part. But, cue the screeching whining from Adam Lambert, who would ideally cast himself in the role, because he believes gay roles should only go to gay actors.

Haven’t people like Michelangelo Signorille, campaigned for decades for gay men to be allowed to play heterosexual leading male roles? But if we go by woke logic, only heterosexuals should be allowed to play heterosexual roles. Or is that an exception because they are oppressors who are not allowed to participate in the woke Olympics?

Yes, it's all so regressive, while pretending to be progressive. As I've said for a long while, I feel woke-ness has been introduced to undermine the left (and, yes, I mean a deep-state, intelligence plot). But whatever the impetus or source for it, the effect is the same.

The interesting effect of recent "equity" standards (which means quotas) being rigidly applied in hiring and education in certain countries (instead of more organic equality), this social engineering approach of, say, forcing institutions to place a certain percentage of women into STEM studies and careers in which many of them aren't really interested (although few are being pushed into bricklaying or sewage careers) is that there has been an almost self-isolating or self-segregating thing going on where men and women are moving toward their old stereotypic career paths than ever.

I'm not exactly sure what parallels I'm trying to make here, but when the ultimate end-stage achievement in gay acceptance is that we all now have not only the right -- but the obligation -- to call ourselves "queer" and to run around screaming and flapping our wings in drag while reading to your toddlers from porno novels, no longer rejecting the worst stereotypes but validating them and regimenting them, I just can't believe that that's a step forward.

And it's apparently not. Because polls show that gay acceptance is now at a 20 year low, and it's because of all the asinine gender stuff going on which has gone to the center of anything "leftist".

What does this have to do with Ryan Murphy's HOLLYWOOD revisionism? Well, if you can neutralize and trivialize the history, un-closet the topic and the people retroactively, no matter how absurdly, it sure seems like there must be a contemporary motive that couldn't possibly be genuinely progressive.

The Stonewall riots of 1969, that mythologized touchstone event in gay rights history, has recently become even more mythologized by spinning it that those riots were started, fought, and won by drag queens.

Does that really help?? We've now become so goddamned normal that we're ragingly psychotic by choice, perhaps out of a recreational desire to remain "interesting."

Ultimately, women are going to wind up back in the kitchen barefoot and cooking, and gays are going back into public toilets (cooking in a different kind of way) in exactly the way God (and the conservatives, so they'll know where they can find you on their lunch hours) intended it all along.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

And it's apparently not. Because polls show that gay acceptance is now at a 20 year low, and it's because of all the asinine gender stuff going on which has gone to center of anything "leftist".

Sadly, I’m not surprised at all.

The interesting effect of recent "equity" standards (which means quotas) being rigidly applied in hiring and education in certain countries (instead of more organic equality), this social engineering approach of, say, forcing institutions to place a certain percentage of women into STEM studies and careers in which many of them aren't really interested (although few are being pushed into bricklaying or sewage careers) is that there has been an almost self-isolating or self-segregating thing going on where men and women are moving toward their old stereotypic career paths than ever.

Speaking of stereotypes, back in the 80s, even on DYNASTY, when Blake used to drone on about making a man out of Steven, everyone including Steven himself, would shut him down: “He is a man! Just not your kind of a man.”

Now a male toddler puts on mommy’s shoes (which is what kids have always done, especially if they miss a somewhat absent mommy) and — that’s it, we’ve got ourselves a trans kid here, everybody! Woo-hoo!

the obligation -- to call ourselves "queer" and to run around screaming and flapping our wings in drag while reading to your toddlers from porno novels, no longer rejecting the worst stereotypes but validating them and regimenting them, I just can't believe that that's a step forward.

LOL, that’s still one of the most bizarre things I’m seeing now. WTF?

 

[Toni]

I actually wouldn’t have a problem with this “Ryan Murphy pleasuring himself” approach if they came up with at least semi-plausible idea how this could have happened in the 1940s.

But, that’s the problem in this piece of fiction — things just magically happen. The movie with non-white leads just magically becomes not only the biggest hit of 1948 but a record-shattering hit and everyone involved including all people of color gets an Oscar; Rock Hudson comes out (and with a black boyfriend!) and he’s still magically destined for stardom; and a romantic comedy about a gay couple magically gets greenlit (meanwhile, back in 2022 a movie dubbed “the first major studio gay romantic comedy” called BROS bombs hard at the box office).

And this is where woke smugness kicks in — by making it so easy, it’s as if they’re communicating: well, I guess you people in 1948 just didn’t try hard enough, if you were a little more relentless like us 2020s woke warriors, things would’ve just happened. Of course, if they could’ve just happened, they wouldn’t have been a problem in the first place.



Young people would’ve benefitted from a more realistic approach, perhaps even with a tragic ending, to learn - if they haven’t already - what it was actually like back then and how much has changed and how much hasn’t.

As I said, I thought they had a more-or-less good thing going in the first episode with the gas station storyline, perhaps Corenswet’s character could’ve been gay, they could’ve stayed away from real life characters like Rock Hudson or Vivien Leigh, just mention them for backstory, except, maybe Henry Wilson or a Wilson type of a villain. He makes it huge, but then has to live in the closet and fear outing, blackmail, FBI “vice squad,” etc.

I think a story of being gay in the 1940s/50s Hollywood is fascinating enough without resorting to any infantile wishful thinking, as even the recent Rock Hudson documentary on HBO proves.



And the wokeness makes it all the more confusing. Apparently, they’re supposed to cast only gay people for gay roles, trans people for trans roles, etc. I thought actors were supposed to… you know, act.

That hot guy from the Sicily-set season of WHITE LOTUS, what’s his name, the one who got killed off by Lady Mary with her devastating charm on DOWNTON ABBEY, he was recently announced as the actor who will be playing George Michael in an upcoming biopic (following the success of Elton John & Queen movies). I do think he exudes the right looks and confidence for the part. But, cue the screeching whining from Adam Lambert, who would ideally cast himself in the role, because he believes gay roles should only go to gay actors.

Haven’t people like Michelangelo Signorille, campaigned for decades for gay men to be allowed to play heterosexual leading male roles? But if we go by woke logic, only heterosexuals should be allowed to play heterosexual roles. Or is that an exception because they are oppressors who are not allowed to participate in the woke Olympics?

I thought that Mr. Lambert actually was non-binary, so he should play only non-binary roles...if that stupid rule should be followed, of course.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

I thought that Mr. Lambert actually was non-binary, so he should play only non-binary roles...if that stupid rule should be followed, of course.

Agreed, but I think you’re confusing him with Sam Smith, a British singer who used to be gay and semi-cute a decade ago and now goes by ‘they’ and looks vulgar in a non-flattering way.

Lambert just likes to play with gender-fluid imagery and he praised Smith for coming out as ‘non-binary’, saying it’s like coming out as gay 10 years ago.

Of course, since if you said ‘non-binary’ 10 years ago, people would think you’re talking about a Star Trek character.