My Studios

numbersix_99 wrote:

Why would a person who's anti-war be a hypocrite for watching a War movie? They would only be so if the proceeds of the film went directly to Bush's military budget. I could argue that anti-war people are simply interested in seeing what the war is like. I don't know much about it, but is The Kingdom blatently pro-war? If so, then those opposed to Bush's war on terror should avoid it. But I imagine the film is more ambiguous, showing both sides, the heroism and the tragedy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for actors, well I think they should participate in politics. But I'd prefer if they read up on politics bit more instead of spouting generalisms. Actually, I'd prefer if they put their money where their mouth is and donated half of their earnings directly to charity. But hey, at least some Americans have heard of Darfur, and if it wasn't for actors like Clooney, nobody in the USA would have heard about what's going on. It may not change, but awareness can help.

also, isn't the kingdom a movie about a bombing in saudi arabia?? :S

My biggest frustration with politics and Hollywood is this- there is an excessive bias in the movers and shakers that clouds their creative range. There is a reason California is called called 'the left coast', and it's not only because of its geographical location. When is the last time you have seen Hollywood release anything that was pro conservative? When is the last time you have seen Hollywood actually defend an openly conservative Hollywood player? I have yet to see a pro Iraqi war documentary made through Hollywood. And all those who were ready to tar and feather Mel Gibson, where are they to capture Roman Polanski so he can serve jail time for raping a minor?

I no problem with someone in Hollywood disagreeing with my opinion- it is part of our 'freedoms' in America- to use our brains and creat perceptions of the world. But their hogging the stage is angering to me and a pathetic display of power.

Bless you Michael Bay. Armageddon is a masterpiece.

jameydunne wrote:

And all those who were ready to tar and feather Mel Gibson, where are they to capture Roman Polanski so he can serve jail time for raping a minor?

Polanski didn't rape her, it was consentual. She was just underage. Not that I think that's okay or anything.

The only film I could conceive as pro-war is World Trade Centre

numbersix_99 wrote:

jameydunne wrote:

And all those who were ready to tar and feather Mel Gibson, where are they to capture Roman Polanski so he can serve jail time for raping a minor?

Polanski didn't rape her, it was consentual. She was just underage. Not that I think that's okay or anything.

The only film I could conceive as pro-war is World Trade Centre

Just to be clear, by law having sex with a minor (in this case 14 yrs old) is considered rape. So, yes, he did rape her. Anyway...

Ah, thanks for clearing that up, Lovely. That's the last time I'll ever defend Polanski. And now I know the definition of statuatory rape. You learn something new every day!

Famous people suck. They are just idiots with money.

Ah, but cRAzY, you are missing the bigger question involving celebrites and their stupidity. The question you should be asking is this- Who is the the idiotic fool spouting moronic speeches and actions or the audience wh is voluntarily paying to watch these people do stupid things, a la Enquirer. I would easily argue the person who takes the BS and buys it, fills their head with it, and later complains about how it is petty and stupid about what he readsis the larger fool. When people boldly proclaim profoundly stupid things and you're having a long day, remember you have three answers. Shut up and allow them to talk themselves stupid. Walk a away from the sitiuation. And up and defend the innocent parties.

I would give the tazer idea, but I wouldn't reccommend it. No one will let me have one.

Nice one. I can't argue with that one because thats probably the best thing to do. I still think they should sell a mansion or two and at least get a dam ged though. Maybe even a little college? Is that too much to ask.

"Who is the the idiotic fool spouting moronic speeches and actions or the audience wh[o] is voluntarily paying to watch these people do stupid things [?]"

jamey, when I read this, I thought of Alec Guiness: "Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" Nice Jedi skills, there. Remember, though, your tricks will work only on the weak-minded. [Grin]

And I agree wholeheartedly with your philosophy / counsel, most especially "Shut up and allow them to talk themselves stupid." The truly idiotic / insane / dangerous of this world are very, very easy to identify. They always tell you exactly what they [snort, giggle] think, and the real monsters almost always tell you precisely what they plan to do, if you'll only listen to them closely enough. (This is why The Incredibles was so very, very profound in its depiction of "monologuing.")

"Celebrity" is an odd thing. There are plenty of famous, even notorious, people, in my opinion, who aren't celebrities, exactly. "Celebrity" to me implies a level of vacuous, unimpeded banality, of concentrated irrelevance and in fact utter uselessness, a crushing, brutalizing, tortured tiresomeness, that is a function of neither popularity nor visibility, nor "success." Case in point: Ben Affleck. He's (in)famous, certainly, but I wouldn't so callously insult him as to call him a "celebrity." He's done good works, he's talented, he's capable. Now, Anna Nicole Smith? Not to disparage the grateful dead, but she was pretty much the epitome of celebrity, having so little value (apart from her implicit worth as a human being, of course) that she was famous, for all intents and purposes, merely for being famous. Paris Hilton's another one, or at least has been, historically. Nicole Ritchie? Yep. Lindsay Lohan is teetering on the brink as we speak, having pissed, snorted, and screwed away (not to put too fine a point on it) her not inconsiderable gifts... and Britney Spears? Well, her talent pool got drained years ago, and it was only ever a kiddie pool at that. Put it another way -- If this were the 23rd Century, that moron'd be winging her way to Carousel, and thank God.

Btw, I hear B.S. (what an unfortunate, if decidedly appropriate, set of initials) will be "performing" (Lord, no, not AGAIN) at the Emmy Awards ceremony. I can't tell which comes off looking more irrelevant -- Britney, or the Emmys. Can you?

Identify. BLAMMO! And there was much rejoicing...

I remain, as always...

Nico.

1.The Kingdom (biggest moneymaker)

2.Eastern Promises (Best for Ultimate)

3.The Game Plan (good moneymaker because of it's rating)

calted1980 wrote:

1.The Kingdom (biggest moneymaker)

2.Eastern Promises (Best for Ultimate)

3.The Game Plan (good moneymaker because of it's rating)

You got it! I did not think that Eastern would hit of as huge as it did but I am enjoying it's success. Hopefully, I will actually be able to enjoy seeing it sometime soon!

I personally think the game plan will make the most. But thats just me. The Kingdom looks okay. But nothing more than that. Just another black hawk down for me. And I only saw parts of that one. Im not a big fan of war movies. Always the same.

cRAzY wrote:

I personally think the game plan will make the most. But thats just me. The Kingdom looks okay. But nothing more than that. Just another black hawk down for me. And I only saw parts of that one. Im not a big fan of war movies. Always the same.

nicely put

I tend to agree. In fact, the only war films I've ever seen that truly broke the mould, for me, were: Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, The Thin Red Line, Downfall, and Pan's Labyrinth. (And a few of these, honestly, can only nominally be termed "war films.") Though Band of Brothers is the (for lack of a better word) conventional war film at its very best.

Still, I hope you give The Kingdom a look, though if Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down failed to impress / nauseated you, well, perhaps there's no need for you to rush.

I remain, as always...

Nico.

My Studios

ADVICE & ANALYSIS: