Premier Rock Forum

I find it kinda weird in general that so many people who probably don't have much legitimate business getting involved with movies have been making and producing them, acting in them, and so on. Seems like there loads of "product" these days, and a lot of it's not too hot and is ill conceived and unlikely to find an audience, but that isn't deterring anyone from churning it out.

Like, rather than having a passion for cinema, stemming somewhat from a "love of the greats," and a desire to participate in a once-sacred art form, a lot of movies now are instead an extension of "branding," some kind of extra-internet promotional tool to increase one's wingspan/revenue stream, regardless of whether they add up to much of anything.

What are the odds that this Melania "movie" isn't some kind of tax write-off, money laundering implement, or part of a larger quid pro quo scheme between Bezos and the Trump Administration?

DaveA wrote: Tue Jan 27, 2026 3:39 pm I find it kinda weird in general that so many people who probably don't have much legitimate business getting involved with movies have been making and producing them, acting in them, and so on. Seems like there loads of "product" these days, and a lot of it's not too hot and is ill conceived and unlikely to find an audience, but that isn't deterring anyone from churning it out.

Like, rather than having a passion for cinema, stemming somewhat from a "love of the greats," and a desire to participate in a once-sacred art form, a lot of movies now are instead an extension of "branding," some kind of extra-internet promotional tool to increase one's wingspan/revenue stream, regardless of whether they add up to much of anything.

What are the odds that this Melania "movie" isn't some kind of tax write-off, money laundering implement, or part of a larger quid pro quo scheme between Bezos and the Trump Administration?

Odds?

It's a straight-up bribe and money laundering.

Bizarre ACLU case attacking the rights of workers to speak about their working conditions. Like it wasn’t easy enough to get fired already.

In this short motion, the ACLU makes it clear that it wishes to submit a brief arguing that the Trump NLRB should overturn current NLRB precedent that expansively protects workers’ rights to complain about their working conditions in favor of narrower legal constructions that make it much easier for employers to fire workers for speaking up.

…the ACLU is targeting two discrete legal doctrines: (1) Board law pertaining to when speaking out in front of colleagues is considered protected activity and, (2) Board law pertaining to when an employer has the power to fire someone solely because they disapprove of the way an employee chose to speak out.

Scratch an NGO and get shit under your nails.

iembalm wrote: Tue Jan 27, 2026 4:11 pm

DaveA wrote: Tue Jan 27, 2026 3:39 pm I find it kinda weird in general that so many people who probably don't have much legitimate business getting involved with movies have been making and producing them, acting in them, and so on. Seems like there loads of "product" these days, and a lot of it's not too hot and is ill conceived and unlikely to find an audience, but that isn't deterring anyone from churning it out.

Like, rather than having a passion for cinema, stemming somewhat from a "love of the greats," and a desire to participate in a once-sacred art form, a lot of movies now are instead an extension of "branding," some kind of extra-internet promotional tool to increase one's wingspan/revenue stream, regardless of whether they add up to much of anything.

What are the odds that this Melania "movie" isn't some kind of tax write-off, money laundering implement, or part of a larger quid pro quo scheme between Bezos and the Trump Administration?

Odds?

It's a straight-up bribe and money laundering.

Okay, guess I answered my own question.

Carry on!! Cheers.

llllllllllllllllllll wrote: Tue Jan 27, 2026 4:13 pm Bizarre ACLU case attacking the rights of workers to speak about their working conditions. Like it wasn’t easy enough to get fired already.

In this short motion, the ACLU makes it clear that it wishes to submit a brief arguing that the Trump NLRB should overturn current NLRB precedent that expansively protects workers’ rights to complain about their working conditions in favor of narrower legal constructions that make it much easier for employers to fire workers for speaking up.

…the ACLU is targeting two discrete legal doctrines: (1) Board law pertaining to when speaking out in front of colleagues is considered protected activity and, (2) Board law pertaining to when an employer has the power to fire someone solely because they disapprove of the way an employee chose to speak out.

Scratch an NGO and get shit under your nails.

Bruenig knows his shit. He's been a semi-regular across a couple of podcasts I listen to. He's also a somewhat notorious sports troll on twitter with some bonkers ideas that get people pretty riled up. I don't have twitter anymore or i'd link him.

It’s a weird vanity project plus money laundering scheme.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/t ... 0746893503

This 10 min podcast explains the weirdness of it all. It opened on 100 screens in the UK with one ticket sold. The only way cinemas are showing it is if Amazon paid them straight up.

Melania got paid $28m to be in this making her the world highest paid being in a movie person.

The whole thing is just more Trump corruption.

It was also directed by Brett Ratner, who was accused by multiple women of sexual assault and multiple additional women of being a fucking creep.

Can't make this shit up.

I said it earlier in the thread, but aesthetically—from Trump and Noem to Newsom and Mamdani, despite the massive policy and ethical gulfs between them—politics is basically full Hollywood these days. Reagan cast a long shadow in that respect (and alas, in many others).

Wood Goblin wrote: It was also directed by Brett Ratner, who was accused by multiple women of sexual assault and multiple additional women of being a fucking creep.

To say nothing of him being a terrible fucking filmmaker.

Misguided vanity projects are hardly unprecedented, so much so that they popped up a bunch in vintage fiction . . .

Recall, for instance, the whole subplot of Citizen Kane where the main character forces his lady into taking on the mantle of opera singer, and even builds an opera house in Chicago for this purpose, but it goes so disastrously that, among other things, the internet eventually gets this popular animated gif:



And almost ten years earlier, there was a semi-similar subplot in Nabokov's Laughter in the Dark. The main character, basically a shitheel who leaves his family for a younger woman who barely even likes him, sinks a bunch of his money into a film starring her; she's ill-suited for the role, and not serious about it in the slightest, and, guess what, the whole thing tanks and turns out to have been a gigantic waste of time and money.

In real life, there are many examples of this sort of thing, to the point that it would require a fair amount of diligence to compile even, like, a quarter of them. Usually, when the Razzies come around this time of year, at least a few of the nominated "actors" are involved with such a production.


The larger difference here is that the Melania project exists as a more transparent form of grift, without cinematic instincts needing to come into play, beyond the subject staying in shape and making herself camera ready. I mean, it might sound sus for us to yap about a movie we haven't seen, but who on either side of the political divide expects this new "movie" to challenge any expectations whatsoever. It's not like this is being helmed by Errol Morris.