Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

21 comments

Hollywood airheads (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44665241)

Possibly the only thing dumber than the Congressional strain.

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44665373)

They merely present caricatures. That is their purpose, and the people that pay them are pleased.

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44665597)

What's fascinating is that, for all of the hue & cry from SoCons, there just isn't much competition. Sure, Declaration Entertainment [declaratio...inment.com] , but so?

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44665993)

...there just isn't much competition.

One stop shopping for all your propaganda needs. To paraphrase: *You supply the money, and they'll supply the message*. Anything you could possibly want is at your fingertips. What's not to like?

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44666697)

What's not to like?

About Hollywood? How do you want that report sorted?

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44667735)

I don't get it. What is it about them that is different from any other successful business?

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44667859)

There are those that build, and those that tear down. One has more admiration for the former category, though the near-term profits of the latter are undeniable.

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44667917)

Well, Hollywood builds fantasies. Who is tearing what down?

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44668713)

I suppose that as long as you're happy, that's OK.
I can't go to the theater without being distracted by arguments with which I disagree that turn the fantasy into something nightmarish.

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 10 months ago | (#44668875)

I liked Jodie in Nell.

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44669081)

I still don't follow. What does having an argument have to do with Hollywood? C'mon man! Spit it out! In real words... I mean, if you don't like the product, don't buy it. What is there about Hollywood that has you so upset?

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44671433)

To summarize, it's a stream of Postmodern effluent.

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44672593)

That's just what people are buying. With sufficient funding they will provide you with plenty of Precambrian effluent. Nobody is going to argue with you. They are a business, capitalist to the nth degree. You still have yet to single them out for anything in particular.

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44672691)

How does Gibson's "Passion of the Christ [imdb.com] " square with your theory, then?
Blatantly Christian flick does well. So there is clearly money to be made. Yet there is both a vacuum of capitalism on the Hollywood end, and, back to my original point, not much going on from the "Precambrian effluent" side of things, if I understood your term correctly.

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44673255)

How does Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" square with your theory, then?

What bloody theory?? Contracts were signed. The ebb and flow of payables and receivables was maintained for the duration of the project. People were hired and fired. As far as I know, everybody got paid. Over 600 million big ones changed hands so far. What else is there? How does Brooks' "The Producers" square with your 'theory', whatever it may be? And what is all that gibberish in the rest of your post? The question I originally posed to you could not have been simpler.. I don't understand your reluctance to provide a simple direct answer.. What is it you are trying to say with such difficulty?

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44674905)

What else is there?

So, you're saying it's not curious that, given a proven reserve of market oil, Hollywood is not trying to drill it? You're kinda funny when you put on your incurious hat.

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44676593)

No, it's not the least bit curious. Why suck the well dry so fast when you can use somebody else's? You're only proving your lack of understanding. Actually you display a fear of being too revealing. What you are trying to hide I do not know, but underneath all your stuttering there is a most profound answer. But it has to come from you, so that maybe you might reveal it to yourself. You know, make yourself consciously aware...

I'll ask again, in case you forgot the question, and for the benefit of the viewing audience:

What is there, with all the conspiracy theories running through your head right now, that makes Hollywood any different from any other big, successful business? A single word can answer that very simple question.

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44676933)

Are you serious? What "conspiratorial theory" have I implied by asking the question:
given a market, and players purportedly in that market, why are the players not playing?
I've offered specific examples (Gibson), metaphor (hydrocarbons) and yet you're interested in turning the question back on me.
As it happens, I've long since determined that you're just a troll, given to compulsive mind-fracking, so it's no biggy.
I'll just laugh at you, and accept your silliness as an admission of impotence.

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44677377)

Everything you know is based on a press release. And you're still not making sense. You are the proverbial 'conspiracy theorist', looking for things that aren't there, and missing the things that are. It can only lead me to believe you're not interested anything that is not framed by your narrative. My aim is to find out if it's intentional or not, conscious or subconscious, free will or biologically determined. Your ongoing defensiveness throughout and avoidance of direct wording has been most enlightening.

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44677563)

*Yawn*
Does it really boil down to a contest of wills, then? If so, I can only tell you that you are the BEST!

Re:Hollywood airheads (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44677633)

Contest? Nope, just a simple Q & A... But since I'm talking to the hand, there shall be no A

*Yawn*

:-) Of course!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...