Comments on: Megan Ellison Hates Harvey Weinstein & More: 7 Highlights From The Juicy Vanity Fair Profile On The Annapurna Scion

By: cory everett

cory everett — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:47 +0000

A film executive is quoted as saying. âShe didnât reply to my e-mail. The most powerful people in Hollywood actually return your e-mails. Thatâs the way it works here.â

Well boo-fucking-hoo.

By: cinephile

cinephile — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:47 +0000

'many cinephiles believe'

laziest way to insert your own opinion ever

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:47 +0000

"She didnât reply to my e-mail. The most powerful people in Hollywood actually return your e-mails. Thatâs the way it works here."

Gotta give this guy credit. He's very efficient at conveying "I'm a whiney little bitch."

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:47 +0000

It's still early days with her. She's financing good films and establishing a name for herself. The films she has financed haven't really lost too much money. Plus she is rich so she can afford a few failures at the age of 26. Worst comes to worst she will be known as a cinematic philanthropist.

Remember just a few years ago Harvey Weinstein was releasing many awful films that never turned a profit.

By: Sandra

Sandra — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:47 +0000

Still my idol

By: MAL

MAL — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:47 +0000

Just based on the films she is backing, I like her! She has taste, and does not seem to be "courting the stars". Rather, she is fighting fo r quality. So what if she doesn't play by their antiquated, politicized rules.

By: dudeabides

dudeabides — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:47 +0000

This is some great gossip. Lol at the guy who doesnt get a reply email, get a fucking life and grow some balls dude! This is the same as any other industry that is male dominated. Kudos to Ellison for making really interesting films with great filmmakers, I'm sure she'll get better with the money part of the equation as time goes by. I mean she's 25 yrs old! Cant wait for Spring Breakers and The Grandmaster!

By: ben

ben — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:46 +0000

Of course she's a spoiled rich kid. Not surprising. But I only care about where she puts her money. As long as she keeps pulling out the checkbook..

By: kindred spirit

kindred spirit — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:46 +0000

LMAO as Blake Lively making outrageous salary demands. Seriously- this is the best part of the piece. Who the heck does she think she is? Girl, you are a TV actress and a big flop… SIT DOWN.

By: bohmer

bohmer — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:46 +0000

She young and have taste. Weinstein cannot stand her because she's a powerful women that wants put herself in his shoes. She doesn't seem to loose that much money and she as the rights to the Terminator franchise isn't she? That will definitely turn to profit…

By: RC

RC — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:46 +0000

Harvey killed KILLING THEM SOFTLY for one simple reason: it shined a less than messianic light on Obama. He pushed the release date until after the election while he helped Obama's re-election campaign. Isn't that obvious?

By: Huffy

Huffy — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:46 +0000

To everyone pissing and moaning about the executive complaining about not replying to an email: it's called common courtesy. Your expected to have it in any kind of profession, not just Hollywood. Not that I really care; its not me she's being rude to. And obviously she has plenty of fuck you money so she can really do whatever she wants but it isn't going to change the perception that she's a spoiled rich kid who had everything handed to her. Anyone who has had to work their way up knows connections and relationships go a long way, and pissing people off for no good reason is never a good idea if your in it for the long run. This isn't a judgement on her character, it's merely an observation. It's cool to have someone doing what all of us wish we could do (being rich enough to tell Harvey to fuck off is also a plus) but I seriously doubt that Papa Ellison is going to let her do what she pleases if her films continue to lose money.

By: DG

DG — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:46 +0000

Who gives a shit what the execs think about her as long as she keeps funding good filmmakers I say good on her. Seriously if there is even one auteur helmed film getting release that wouldn't have otherwise seen the light of day then I think she's done something worthwhile, and it seems like there are actually several. People seem to be complaining cause she's not playing by the rules but the rules are to a game that's currently produced a situation in which the Hungry, Hungry Hippos movies gets greenlit but Jim Jarmusch is talking in interviews about retiring because he can't get funding for anything he wants to do.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:46 +0000

When Hollywood starts making films based on quality, rather than franchise potential, they will then be given my permission to bitch about a young woman who is putting up her own money (regardless of the fact that it was inherited) to advance the art form. Good for her.

By: royal_t32

royal_t32 — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:46 +0000

Playlist doesn't need to run these kinds of articles. It's unethical in my book to take so much from a profile that your readership won't likely read now you've poached the best reporting from it. Stick to original content and you'll get more respect from your readership. To be sarcastic and sincere at once, I would like to see Playlist try to put together an original feature of this magnitude and quality on a single individual.

By: Serena

Serena — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:46 +0000

Any young woman who uses her money to support artists like the Coens, PTA and Kathryn Bigelow is alright in my book. Sounds like she needs to prioritize her etiquette and when to say "No," but as an audience member all I really care about is the finished product, not how much money it made/lost. And it's hard not to dislike the Oscar-hoarding Harvey Weinstein; the only cool thing he ever did was fight for BLUE VALENTINE when the MPAA slapped it with an NC-17 rating, and even that was likely due to financial reasons.

By: nightgoat72

nightgoat72 — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:46 +0000

Oh no! A young woman who doesn't care about all the Hollywood business bureaucracy and bullshit is giving away money to talented filmmakers! And she DOESN'T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT PROFITS BECAUSE SHE'S RICH?! God help us all!

Yeah, Megan Ellison is awesome. Cinema would be richer with more people like her.

By: brent wood

brent wood — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:46 +0000

once again we learn that CAA can be the most dangerous player in H'wood.
congrats for going up against the Big Bad Wolf.
what's curious is how blase Jessica is upon learning how obstructionist her agents were.
nothing with change in H'wood until the agents are brought under control and that
will only happen if actors rebel. alas, fat chance as actors really can't think. they act.

By: jingmei

jingmei — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:46 +0000

As a personal figure, perhaps she's a moviegoer with some taste indeed. But in today's world, she is rich, so inevitably it's ironic but it's true this business needs her especially when the indie films are fucking awesome.

By: Bentley

Bentley — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:41:46 +0000

Why would anyone be surprised that Megan Ellison doesn't want Harvey Weinstein to distribute Blonde after the way he botched the KTS marketing? Let this be a lesson to Harvey – if you market a movie for what it really is, then maybe, just maybe people will go to see it for what it is and won't get pissed and tell exit pollers and friends that the movie was not as advertised. It would also have been nice if TWC hadn't thrown KTS under the bus because they had too many other movies to promote during awards season and didn't have the time to devote to a proper marketing campaign for KTS. TWC lost money because of it. If he'd left KTS in it's original Sept release date instead of shuffling it back to the end of November after the election then maybe the movie would have made more money.