Mike Gabrawy, the producer of Running With Arnold, the documentary about Schwarzenegger that has yet to find a distributor, emails me how "it's been a rough week for us" and responds to Alec Baldwin's weekend explanation of his decision to run away from the film. "I knew we'd get resistance to a film about the most prominent Republican in California. We're all just a bit shocked that it's coming from a supporter of the film and arguably the most outspoken Democrat. The [Third Reich] images that Mr. Baldwin mentioned were used to make points about Waldheim and Arnold's father. Alec's legal action has caused delays in our distribution strategy including our turning down the Hamptons Film Festival to premiere the film. We are currently scrambling to rectify the situation. The film is complete with Mr. Baldwin's narration and will remain as such. We tried several times to screen the film for Mr. Baldwin who, for the record, didn't see the rough cut of the film until weeks after he recorded. He was offered to record the narration to picture and he refused. We also provided him with the script four weeks in advance of our recording which was delayed a month to accommodate Mr. Baldwin's television schedule. What's also surprising about Mr. Baldwin's about-face is that while the film is edgy it is also, in our opinion, a balanced and well-rounded profile of Mr. Schwarzenegger that highlights his myriad accomplishments while criticizing some of his political policies and the unbridled ambition that drives him."

Previous: UPDATE: Alec Baldwin Explains Why He's Running From Documentary On Arnold, Is Alec Running From Arnold?

In response to my posting on Friday Why Is Alec Running From Arnold?, Alec Baldwin today has explained in a HuffPo blog. One minute he's narrating the doc Running With Arnold; the next minute he wants out. "I read the script and agreed to do the narration. I went to a studio here in NY and recorded the text to picture, which I had not seen before. The film's producers had offered to screen the film for me, but I did not have time to see it. I based my decision on the script I read and went ahead. When I recorded the tracks, I was somewhat dismayed by some of the images I saw... The filmmakers hammer Schwarzenegger over his private behavior and his record as governor. But Schwarzenegger deserves to be treated fairly and the film's images of Nazi rallies were over the line. I asked that my voice and name be removed from the film and I returned the fee I was paid, which was earmarked to be donated to charity, and I had an attorney issue a cease and desist order against the filmmakers so that they would comply with my demands. The filmmakers have thus far refused to accommodate my requests and have claimed that they have delivery deadlines for distribution that prohibit them from granting them. Running with Arnold is not a bad film. It isn't a good one either. The people of California have the right to reelect an unqualified man to lead their state, and they have the right to do so without unfair and ultimately offensive images of the Third Reich thrown in for bad measure."

How interesting that Warner Bros. has just moved up the release of Leo DiCaprio's Blood Diamond from December 15th to December 8th. Usually, these dates are carefully calculated based on what else is opening, so making a last-minute change like this is unusual. Especially when director Ed Zwick, producer Paula Weinstein and others are huddled in London trying to put the finishing touches like music on the film. The studio, which has started showing it around, claims it made the move "in response to strong reactions from early screening audiences" and "building positive buzz." Actually, I think it's a risky move for box office but a smart play for Oscar chatter. One thing is for sure: it'll have a lot more rivalry on its new opening day. On the 15th, Blood Diamond's main competition was only The Pursuit of Happyness, starring Will Smith in an Oscar-touted dramatic turn (Sony's gonna be thrillled their pic now has that date almost to itself). Small movies like Venus and Painted Veil also were opening. Now, on the 8th, Blood Diamond goes up against some big guns: Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, and George Clooney's The Good German from Steve Soderbergh (in limited run), and Cameron Diaz's The Holiday from Nancy Meyers, as well as smaller pic Breaking and Entering. One box office guru explained: "I think it was praise of Pursuit of Happyness 12/15 . Trouble is, The Holiday on 12/8 is good, too. They think they can beat Apocalypto in the drama department."

'Saw III' Cuts Thru Competition For #1; 'Departed' Up To #2 and 'Prestige' #3; 'Marie Antoinette' Dies; Brad Pitt's 'Babel' Best $$$ Per Screen

I couldn't believe what I was watching: there was Dave Letterman bitchslapping Fox News Channel blowhard Bill O'Reilly on The Late Show Friday night. It did my liberal soul proud. Full video here. But, then, I've written before about Letterman's fearlessness when it comes to politics. In Dave The Brave (April 2004), I praised the TV host for having "the brass balls to go where the cowardly White House news corps and corporate suck-up Leno fear to tread: presenting Dubya in all his dumb-ass glory." Dave's performance was in sharp contrast to that of Jay Leno, who softballed recent guests Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ann Coulter. (And Leno still won't give equal time to Arnold's Democratic gubernatorial opponent Phil Angelides, which stinks.) Letterman's audience cheered when Dave called Bill "a bonehead" and won round after round. O'Reilly wasn't able to level even one decent comeback, instead continually turning to the crowd to claim Dave was "acting" and "we're really friends and in a bowling league together." (Bill repeated that over and over -- even though it didn't get one laugh.) Actually this was Round 2 of Dave vs Bill (first round this year took place in January). The Fox talker started off the segment by entering with a sword and shield, as if he were ready for a fight. Letterman looked at O'Reilly's childish show-and-tell items disdainfully, cutting him down with: "That’s cute. You came out with toys.” Here's a rough account of what went down from Letterman's own Wahoo Gazette show online newsletter:

Dave jumps in, “Am I right about this? You guys over there at FOX and guys like Rush Limbaugh, you guys know it’s all a big goof, right? You’re just horsing around. You’re doing it because you know it’ll be entertaining.”
Bill wants some clarification: “What is it we’re ‘doing’?”
Dave begins to answer, but then says, “Well, see here you got me, because I’ve never seen . . . .”
Bill shakes his head and points out, “You’ve never seen the show?”
Dave says he doesn’t even know how to find the show. He says when he turns on FOX, it’s always The Simpsons.
Dave asks Bill 'How will this election turn out?'
Bill says he thinks it’ll turn towards the Democrats. And says it’s because the citizenry is depressed. They are angry about the war in Iraq. They want a change. He says, “They don’t want to watch news, they don’t want to watch Iraq. They’d rather watch Bowling for Dollars and Dancing with the Stars.” Bill stops and changes direction and asks, “Are you going to be in Dancing with the Stars?”
Dave scoffs at the suggestion and says to Bill, “You bonehead!”
Dave outlines his feelings about our being in Iraq: "After September 11th, we felt we needed to do something. Something terrible was done to us and we felt we needed to do something. Iraq? The Administration said so, so, yeah, Iraq. And then when one American died, and then a dozen, and then a hundred and then a thousand . . . . we’re left to wonder if we are causing more harm and damage and carnage than it is worth. So should we be there?"
Bill says "Do you want the United States to win in Iraq? It's an easy question..."
Dave interrupts, “No, it’s not easy for me because I’m thoughtful.” Dave continues: “What I would like is for Americans to stop dying and to have stability in that part of the world. Is that possible? And since stability is questionable, let’s stop Americans from dying.”
Bill later admits that we were wrong about Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Dave doesn’t understand and wonders why, if we were wrong, do we think staying and having Americans killed is right.
Bill explains there are complicated geopolitical implications involved and says if we left Iraq now, Iran would come in and take over the oil supply and distribution.
Dave mutters, “So it’s all about the oil. We are there because it’s the oil.
Bill answers, “Yes, it’s always about the oil.”
Bill asks if Dave thinks Bush is evil?
Dave says no, but he thinks Bush is "misguided and we felt we had to do something. We followed him."
Bill isn't listening and insinuates that Dave thinks Bush is an evil liar.
Dave jumps in and says, “I never said he was an evil liar. You are putting words in my mouth . . . just the way you put artificial facts in your head.”
Dave holds up O’Reilly’s book, Culture Warrior, [on the cover, Bill is wearing an expensive rain slicker]. “I looked at the cover and said . . . ‘What is it, a book on sailing?’”
Dave concludes: “I don’t know what I’m talking about . . . and neither do you.”

SUNDAY AM: It turned out to be a big $100+ million weekend at the movies, up 10% over last year. Brad Pitt's opener, Oscar contender Babel, had the best per screen average ($21,037 on Saturday, which sounds like people were sitting on laps!). But I hate when this happens: yet another horror movie made No. 1 at the box office this weekend as the studios knew it would (which is why it had no big rivals). I'm told that Lionsgate's Saw III cut through the competition by opening huge with $14 million Friday and $11.3 million Saturday (down 19% from the previous night) from 3,167 theaters for what was a $33.4 weekend. That massive debut was better than Saw II (which earned $12.1 mil its first day out for a $31.7 mil weekend). Disney's holdover from last week The Prestige, dropped from #2 Friday ($2.9 mil, -43% from last) to #3 after Saturday ($4.1 mil) for what was a $9.4 mil weekend and a new cume of $28.6 mil. Instead, 2nd best went to Warner Bros. holdover The Departed, stretching its legs for its fourth weekend and increasing its Best Picture/Best Director Oscar chances (because Academy voters always take note of how popular possible contenders are with the public). Down only 33%, the Marty Scorsese-directed drama starring Jack Nicholson /Leo DiCaprio /Matt Damon /Mark Wahlberg, raked in $2.8 million Friday and a powerful $4.8 mil Saturday for what turned out to be $10.5 million weekend added to its cume now at $91.7 mil. (As I said last week, Departed should go $125+ mil domestically.) In 4th place was Paramount /Dreamworks' holdover Flags Of Our Fathers with $1.9 mil on Friday (down 46%), and $2.8 mil Saturday. Though critically lauded, the Clint Eastwood-directed war movie with no stars continues to be a box office disappointment; it had only a $6.3 mil weekend and a new cume of just $19.9 mil. Even after five weeks out, Sony's first homegrown animated pic Open Season continues to outperform expectations for No. 5, earning $1.4 mil Friday and $2.3 mil Saturday (that kiddie bounce) for a strong $5.5 mil weekend and a cume around $76.7 mil. Fox's family friendly holdover Flicka made $1.4 million Friday (down 44%) and $2 mil Saturday for #6. That was a $4.9 mil weekend and cume of about $14 mil. Universal's Man Of The Year, after three weeks out, expanded its theater count to earn $1.4 mil Friday and $2.2 mil Saturday for 7th place and a $4.7 mil weekend and cume around $28.8 mil -- disappointing for a Robin Williams starrer. Coming in #8 was Sony's The Grudge 2 which, even after three weeks out, made $1.1 mil Friday and $1.3 mil Saturday for a $3.1 mil weekend but a cool cume around $35.8 mil. Sony is heartsick over its No. 9 holdover Marie Antoinette, directed by Sofia Coppola and starring Kirsten Dunst, which eked out $0.89 million Friday and $1.2 mil Saturday from 859 theaters, for what was only a $3 mil weekend and a rough new $9.9 mil cume. Making it into the Top 10 for the first time was Sony's classy comedy Running With Scissors, starring Annette Bening and cameos from lotsa younger stars. After expanding into 586 theaters its second week out, the pic took in $0.79 mil Friday and $1.1 mil Saturday for what a $2.7 mil weekend and a $3 mil cume. Another movie opening this weekend was Universal/Focus Features' Catch a Fire, which took in just $.64 mil Friday and $.87 mil Saturday even though it was playing in 1,305 theaters (obviously empty ones), for a disastrous $2 mil weekend. Also new on the big screen was Paramount Vantage's Babel (platforming in 7 theaters) starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett and directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. It represented a new opening weekend record for the helmer. Touted for an Oscar nod, it earned $0.115 mil Friday with a great per screen average of $16,495, and $0.147 Saturday with an astounding per screen average of $21,037 for a $0.365 mil weekend. Newmarket's very controversial Death of a President (91 theaters) did only $.06 mil Friday and $.08 Saturday with a pathetic per screen average of $673/$920 for was just a $0.21 weekend. The Weinstein Company's Dixie Chicks documentary Shut Up & Sing (4 theaters) took in $0.01 mil Friday and $0.02 Saturday but its $2,867/$5365 per screen average was only so-so for a $.04 mil weekend. First it was Fox, CNN and NPR refusing to run ads for Death of a President about the fictional assassination of Dubya. Then it was NBC refusing to air ads for Shut Up & Sing because it "disparaged" the president. This political vetting of movie ads by the Big Media is becoming a trend. (Weekend figures include Sunday estimates.)

UPDATE: Alec Baldwin Explains Why He's Running From Arnold Documentary.

I'm told that Alec Baldwin is suddenly trying to run from his involvement with the documentary Running With Arnold. And those associated with the movie (a reportorial look at Schwarzenegger's jump from actor to California governor) don't know why cuz he's not explaining. Baldwin was the big-name actor who replaced Richard Belzer as narrator. Hardly anyone has actually seen the near-finished film with Baldwin (though a really rough much earlier cut was shown to a few dozen people), yet The Governator's supporters claim it's a slam pic, while the filmmakers themselves claim it's not. From the info I've gathered, it's a critical look at how the heck this guy got to where he is today. Interesting that the producers didn't get it out into theaters before the November 7th election. No matter its politics, sources tell me Baldwin did a great job narrating the movie. Besides, Baldwin is a progressive Democrat, right? Or is he suddenly being influenced by all those Hollywood Democrats turncoating to support Arnold? Or is he worried about the impact on his current gig as a star of the NBC sitcom 30 Rock? (The latter all the more interesting given NBC's refusal to run the ad for the Dixie Chicks' Shut Up & Sing because it disparages Dubya.) All I know is everyone associated with the documentary is perplexed by Baldwin's sudden about-face, which unlike so many conflicts doesn't have anything to do with money, I understand. But suddenly, this week, Baldwin's people fired off a letter to the movie's producers asking for the out. The documentary doesn't have a distributor yet, but there's a reworked and updated version out to the Industry.

They're both very strange movies competing head-on the weekend of November 10th. But when it comes to early tracking, I'm told that Fox's A Good Year starring Russell Crowe (who's been off the screen for a while) isn't firing. But Mandate/Sony's Stranger Than Fiction, starring Will Ferrell (hot off Talladega Nights), is smokin'. (As one of my esteeemed colleagues just emailed me when he read this post: "Hide all the telephones and tell all the hotel workers to strap on helmets.") It's too weird: here's Russell, the great dramatic thesp, in what's supposed to be a light-hearted romance, and Will, the great dumb guy actor, doing a dramedy. Don't get me wrong; neither pic looks to be huge. That's because both actors go against type, plus they'll have a lotta competition coming from the screen expansions of holdovers Borat and Santa Clause 3. Oscar-platforming Babel also goes wider that week. So that weekend, it looks like a close race with all the pics in the mid-to-high teens with Stranger Than Fiction topping out with at least $15 million and maybe as much as $18 mil.

Of course, this weekend is all Lionsgate's Saw III, in 3,167 theaters. As for the week of November 3rd, read my previous: UPDATED: Fox Trimming 'Borat' Screens and 'Santa Clause 3' Is Tracking BIGGER Than Hyped 'Borat'. For the week of November 17th, read my previous: EXCLUSIVE: Bond vs Birds Will Be BIG; Early Tracking Shows 'Casino Royale' & 'Happy Feet' Running Neck-And-Neck

I don't see how Republicans, through their radio pit bull Rush Limbaugh, thought they could win with the electorate by impugning the integrity of one of the most beloved TV and movie actors, Michael J. Fox, now afflicted from Parkinson's Disease. Have they forgotten that this little guy played a rabid right-winger on his megahit TV series, Family Ties? Of course, by now, everyone knows that Fox appeared in a political ad for Democrat candidate Claire McCaskill in her tight race for Missouri's U.S. Senate seat because allowing stem cell research is an issue close to the ailing actor's heart. But then Limbaugh questioned whether Fox was truly shaking or just acting in the 30-second TV spot. UPDATE: *Michael J. Fox responded today on CBS: "The notion that you could calculate for effect ... People out there with Parkinson's are going, 'Would that we could.'"* Meanwhile, I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out why the GOP and its loudmouth surrogate would slander Fox (much less think this was a reasonable strategy). I may have a clue. The actor starred as Marty McFly in Back to the Future II where, in one version of 1985, a newspaper reports: "Nixon to Seek Fifth Term". But when the real year was restored, the Nixon article changed to "Reagan to Seek Second Term; No Republican Challengers Expected". The Great Communicator, a one-time Democrat, then Republican, and changed back to a DEMOCRAT? Unthinkable.

Here's yet another reason why the FCC needs to crack down on Big Media so it can't become Monstrous Media. First it was Fox, CNN and NPR refusing to run ads for the Newmarket film Death of a President (opens this weekend) showing the fictional assassination of Dubya. Now, it's NBC refusing to air ads for a Dixie Chicks' documentary on, irony of ironies, freedom of speech. The cynical among us might see this as a novel promotional campaign in that today's news helps the film get publicity before it opens this weekend. But this political vetting of movie ads by the Big Media who decide what we see on TV is also rapidly becoming a new and alarming trend. The Weinstein Group told the media today that "NBC claims that the network 'cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush.” The new documentary is a behind-the-scenes look at the incredible 2003 political and media fallout after Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines said she was "ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." The film opens in theaters in NY and Los Angeles on Friday, and in theaters nationwide on November 10th, from The Weinstein Company. Co-chairman Harvey Weinstein issued this statement to the Drudge Report: “It’s a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America. The idea that anyone should be penalized for criticizing the president is sad and profoundly un-American.” The Drudge Report says The Weinstein Company is "exploring taking legal action." The rejected commercials for “Shut Up & Post” can be viewed at http://www.shutupandpost.com.

Drudge Report also posted tonight that The CW nixed the promos for Shut Up & Sing as well. But Variety quotes CW flack Paul McGuire as saying, "That's not true. The spot was not declined. In fact, we were told they were not going to make a national spot buy on CW." An email exchange obtained by Variety between a media buyer for TWC and a CW standards and practices rep seemed to back that up. 

Previous: CNN & NPR Refuse to Run Ads for 'Death Of A Prez'

I find it fascinating that, in all this incredible and incredulous publicity being generated by Madonna and her attempt to adopt that 13-month-old Malawian boy, almost no media outlets have mentioned this happens to coincide with the publication of her latest kids' book, The English Roses: Too Good To Be True. With a publishing date of October 24th -- two days ago -- it just happened that the Queen of Self-Promotion fighting back tears on Oprah wasn't exactly an impromptu appearance. In fact, she was set to appear there, and other U.S. talk shows over the next days and weeks, to promo the book, a sequel to her first children's book, The English Roses. The sequel's plot is about four little girls who, "with a whirling dervish of a teacher and a sprinkle of magic fairy dust, learn valuable lessons about friendship and surviving their first crush." The older-by-the-minute pop diva's first children's story, The English Roses, was published simultaneously around the world Sept. 15, 2003, and topped The New York Times' children's list for the Oct. 5 edition. "It demonstrates once again that Madonna has an extraordinary gift for communicating with children of all ages," Nicholas Callaway, CEO of Callaway Arts & Entertainment, the book's U.S. publisher, said at the time. According to Nielsen BookScan, which tracks sales in the United States, Madonna's first kids' book sold 57,369 copies in its first full week and ranked No. 5 overall. (Previous to that, her best known literary work was entitled Sex.) That kiddie book was kept under wraps: no early review copies were released, and no books were provided to guests at a launch party in London. The gimmick worked. But leading up to its publishing, Madonna grabbed headlines doing wacky stuff in the weeks leading up to its publishing. First, she smooched then 21-year-old pop star Britney Spears during the MTV Video Music Awards show on August 28th in New York City and created a media frenzy over the girl-on-girl action. Then, just days before the book was published, she told the press a deeply personal secret (like she wanted to have another child at age 45 but was having trouble doing it and was consulting doctors "because of my exercising and this that and the other, I've kind of screwed up my cycle a bit.") But now the media is invading her privacy? Maybe I'm way too cynical, but this latest adoption episode really does seem to bring book publicity to a new barf level. Or is it a blowback?

The New York Times asks the question whether one-time Hollywood mogul Barry Diller -- presently chairman & CEO of IAC/InterActiveCorp (electronic retailing, Internet and interactive media, local media services, online personals, real estate and financial services) -- is the highest paid chief executive in America. Well, business reporter Geraldine Fabrikant says it depends on how you figure his wealth. "Diller was not on the lists earlier this year because his company filed its proxy after most of the initial surveys, based on samples of a few hundred companies, were done. But one recent study that looked at a broader universe of companies estimated his total compensation last year at $295 million -- while another recent survey -- using a different calculation -- figured he was paid $85 million." If it makes you feel better, Diller’s salary at IAC/Interactive last year "was a relatively modest $726,115" and supposedly did not draw a salary or receive a bonus in some of the early years of the company. His much more exorbitant payout was in the form of stock options. "In all, Mr. Diller reaped $469.7 million last year from salary, bonus, other perks and the exercise of existing stock options at IAC/Interactive and Expedia." Story fronts NYT Business section for Thursday as part of its ongoing Guilded Paychecks series. (And, to think, I remember the days when Diller used to complain bitterly to his pals about working for cheapskates Marvin Davis and Rupert Murdoch at Fox.) My question is: Have IAC shareholders done as well as Barry? Diller tells the NYT his compensation was appropriate, considering “the wealth created for shareholders over the last 11 years, me certainly among them.” Earlier this month, Motley Fools' "Fool On The Street" column was high on Diller and his built-by-acquisition company: "Since acquiring the former AskJeeves search engine in March of last year, and the successful relaunch of Ask.com earlier this year, IAC has experienced a financial renaissance of sorts."

Interestingly, though Diller's financial info came too late for the Forbes 400 list of U.S. wealthiest, he was interviewed this week by former Disney CEO Michael Eisner at the Forbes MEET 2006 confab held at the Beverly Hills Hotel. Diller took the opportunity to snipe at his ex-Old Media colleagues. Eisner asked if Diller saw old media absorbing most of the new media companies in a panic, "All of these companies were based upon being dictatorial and telling people how they would do business with them," Diller replied. "As they get more diversified they get less well managed." Meanwhile, to put Diller's New Media $$$ into Old Media perspective, remember that Viacom's recently fired Tom Freston, a 25-year company veteran who oversaw the Paramount Pictures film studio and the MTV and BET television networks, is to receive severance payments of $58.9 million, the media company disclosed in a regulatory filing. Freston also reached a deal with Viacom to serve as an adviser to the company for the next three years, for which he will receive an additional $1 million per year, an arrangement he can cancel with two week's notice. In addition to the termination payments, Freston will also receive $7.4 million in deferred compensation and $5.7 million in a retirement account, according to the filing. The payments consist of his salary, target bonus and deferred compensation from the time he resigned through June 30, 2009. So that's a heckuva golden handshake worth nearly $85 million -- what Diller earned last year if the lower number is to be believed.

Print media have gone Hollywood agency-crazy. Today, United Talent and ICM each get stories in The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal respectively. Loser was the Los Angeles Times, which had a Business section story in-the-works on all the major agencies' Internet biz -- but then got beat by the NYT reporting just on UTA's new dedicated online unit "devoted to scouting out up-and-coming creators of Internet content — particularly video — and finding work for them in Web-based advertising and entertainment, as well as in the older media." Actually, all the major agencies are scouting the talent, just not as a dedicated unit. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a softball plug. (Though the angry LAT reporter did rip UTA a new one this AM.) The Wall Street Journal piece is timed to, well, nothing. It first reads like a boring ICM history lesson and inexplicably waits until the 11th paragraph to talk about ICM's $70 mil deal for TV powerhouse Broder Webb Chervin Silbermann Agency which it called a "solid start" to ICM's turnaround after a period of problems. "So far this year, the two firms together have sold about 145 pilots into development, say ICM officials, and a new spirit of teamwork has helped Broder clients cross over into ICM projects and vice versa, they say." The next media workups on agencies? I'm told both the Los Angeles Times and Variety are each working on agency film-financing stories.

There was an after-dinner chat with Brad Grey last night at the Forbes MEET 2006 confab held at the Beverly Hills Hotel. PaidContent.org filed on the Paramount Pictures chairman & CEO's talk. (The website is a media sponsor of the confab.) According to Staci Kramer, "Grey, whose desire to stay at Viacom was questioned in the wake of Tom Freston’s departure, was quite careful to distance himself from Chairman Sumner Redstone’s way of handling both Freston and Tom Cruise—and was equally careful to do respectfully. 'Sumner Redstone, in my opinion, is Sumner Redstone .. that’s his prerogative and that’s his privilege. He owns the candy store.' He quickly corrected himself given Viacom’s status as a public company — 'the majority of the candy store.' As for Freston, he said he feels badly and misses him 'but this is high-stakes poker.' Grey is a funny guy — he actually had a pretty tired audience laughing out loud with his tales of business life with Michael [Eisner], Barry [Diller] and Sumner — but he’s quite serious when it comes to Paramount’s new media future. The subject didn’t come up until the end of the after-dinner conversation with Brent Pulley, Forbes senior editor, but Grey got his message across: 'Everybody would be very foolish not to embrace technology,' he said, adding later, 'For us not to embrace it would be insanity.' Paramount is approaching it 'in a robust way, as aggressive a way as we can. We’re embracing it and really trying to understand the smartest digital distribution future.' Deals have been announced (Akimbo)and more are coming. 'We want consumers to enjoy what we produce in every form we can... What we can’t do is we can’t afford to lose the revenue from the physical DVD business we now enjoy... We want to learn, we want to experiment and we want to be profitable.' On electronic sell thru, Grey said he’d been hearing for 15 years that easy movie downloads were on the way. Now, he’s finally beginning to believe it."

So I reached Staci at the Polo Lounge today to hear some of those "funny" stories Brad told. "He was asked a question how he ended up buying his company Brillstrein-Grey back multiple times, and he started talking how it came to be that Disney ended up owning half the company. There was the time he said Diller said to him in an elevator, 'Let's have lunch tomorrow at the Four Seasons,' and Brad wakes up the next day and find out that Barry has been given charge of Universal by Edgar. And the time that Brad and Bob Iger flew up to Aspen on the Disney jet to discuss with Eisner the fact that Disney, in buying ABC, now had acquired half of Brillstein-Grey, And Disney hates owning just half of a company. So Eisner met them at the Aspen auirport and suddenly Brad sees a guy in a Disney cap chasing a labrador dog down the runway, and it's Eisner."

Kramer also filed on the opening session and "the 100-foot view" from IAC’s Diller as interviewed by Eisner. The forty-plus years of competition and friendship showed as CEO-turned-talk-show host Eisner peppered Diller with questions and Diller just as quickly edited them. (Yes, the obvious thought cropped up - Diller adjusted early and is firmly new media now; Eisner didn’t and has a show on CNBC.) Some highlights: Eisner asked if Diller saw old media absorbing most of the new media companies, suggesting that when you look in the eyes of Rupert Murdoch or Sumner Redstone and the rest, you see panic. Diller said whatever happens we’re on the eve of change as we move away from the distributors of scarcity. 'All of these companies were based upon being dictatorial and telling people how they would do business with them.' That’s not how it works anymore. As for the morphing old media, 'as they get more diversified they get less well managed.' Would Diller buy NBC with its proven multiples but current problems or YouTube for $1.6 billion? Diller suggested a better question: 'Would I buy either? The thing is I didn’t buy either.' As for the YouTube price tag, from his perspective Google isn’t paying anything for the ballyhooed acquisition because it is just a sliver of stock. Diller:  'I don’t think they paid anything for it. ... I think the people who received that paper for the time they can cash it in (get something) ...' As for NBC, he views the local affiliates as the network’s greatest assets. Asked if he would buy Tribune, he singled out the television stations but upshot is he doesn’t want to buy any. Been there, done with that. Diller values editorship, so much so that he repeated the point. The more content, the more editorship 'as clear, as narrow as possible, is going to be prized.' (I’ve heard similar thoughts more than a few times in the last 24 hours.) The final convergence: Asked about Steve Jobs, Apple iTV and convergence in the home, Diller said he has no doubt it will happen but when and who is TBD. 'No question [there will be] a system in the home that will receive all this data that’s coming in ... a home system that will throw what comes in there to any form factor that comes into your house.' For the transaction-fixated Diller, it will include an execute button (not for humans, he clarified) that puts transactions a click away. “That really is the final convergence.' "