How funny to watch Ackerman and Yglesias ponder why Hollywood doesn’t make more movies about them — you know, intrepid journalists (read ‘journalism/blogging in underwear with mustard dribbling down the chin’). To quote the American sage, Bugs Bunny, ‘maroons.’
Note to above maroons: *any* Hollywood movie by definition omits the ‘boring parts’ like life and reality. It’s not just your crushing burdens of calling people, waiting for return calls and cursing when Windows’ Blue Screen of Death smites just as you clicked ‘publish.’ Hollywood still churns ‘em out.
Do you think espionage movies are remotely ‘realistic?’ When was the last time your Camaro turned into a robot? Name one really realistic litigation movie. Even ‘The Insider’ was not ‘realistic’. Can you cite one ‘real’ Wall Street transactional movie? (Special honors to ‘Barbarians at the Gate’ for being so damn funny (we were exceedingly tangentially involved in that deal) but it’s not remotely accurate, nonetheless). Who could stand to watch a real dating movie without jabbing pencils into their eyeballs to relieve the pain?
‘Real movies’ are called documentaries and exist within a pocket of the time-space-continuum where they gather honors, polite applause and no audiences. It’s an existential graveyard. Even the hybrid ‘Shattered Glass’ was tolerable only for the in-group schadenfreude, truth be told.
Now, navel-gazing-padawans, as to why no one bothers to make ‘*unrealistic* movies about you.’ All you do on a blog is pontificate. Why would anyone pay $10 for a ticket, $3.50 for a soda, and $5.00 for parking to watch a movie about what they themselves do at home with their own blog? What exactly is it that you do that is remotely interesting other than promote your opinions and with factoids dropped in now and then?
One could ask “What about ‘legitimate’ journalists?’ Who, you ask? Precisely. Dana Priest and the horrific treatment of veterans, a few others come to mind. There are a few left. But ‘journalists’ are widgets in a business model. Everyone (especially them) knows it. Is the business model interesting? No. “Network’ is already in the can. ‘The Legend of Ron Burgundy’ already pointed out the obvious local news saccharinity. ‘Falling Down’ with Michael Douglas likewise explored white male lay off rage for the pink slip crowd. There’s also a surfeit of gay porn to grok the Howard Fineman/Tweety obscenities.
Besides, what’s there of interest anyway? Did ‘journalism’ do anything against the Warlord? Not really. Do anything to alert the public about our economic meltdown? Why, quelle surprise, ‘journalists’ were the biggest CEO and Bubble Economy fluffers. From 2000-2009 they made The Money Honey in the 1990s seem by comparison a homely bridesmade. The WaPo is literally selling itself to policy pimps/lobbyists.
You try and write a viable script for greenlight in that mess. Unless you’ve got some hidden Terry Southern, Larry Gelbart or even Hunter Thompson within to find the black humor, you’re screwed: won’t happen. We do recall a semi-recent movie about a web site/blog that killed people who logged in. Or some such. So you at least have something to um, shoot for.
Besides the absurdity of your original question, another quickly follows. Why would you ever need validation for what you do by Hollywood? Think about it. Jeez. If you nevertheless have an insatiable craving to see yourself reflected in broader media regardless, seek Hello Kitty. You’ll find surprising resonance and affinity.