Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on March 05, 2006, 04:52:58 PM
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
She's pretty funny! A trace of truth runs through her article, read on: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20060302/cm_ucac/speakingtruthtodeadhorsesmyoscarpredictions;_ylt=AoFBUoC311JdII1cWP2ATp47vTYC;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--)
The box office numbers for this year's favorite, "Brokeback Mountain," are more jealously guarded than the nuclear codes in the president's black box. Hollywood liberals want the government to release everything we know about al-Zarqawi, but refuse to release the number of people who have seen "Brokeback Mountain."
I shall summarize the plots of the five movies nominated for best picture below:
"Brokeback Mountain" (gay)
"Capote" (death penalty with bonus gay lead)
"Crash" (racism)
"Good Night, and Good Luck" (McCarthyism)
"Munich" (Jew athletes at Munich had it coming)
Everyone says it's going to be "Crash," but I think "Crash" is too popular with filmgoers. Moreover, Hollywood feels it has done enough for the blacks. Hollywood can never do enough for the gays. Gays in the military, gays in the Texas Rangers, gays on the range. It's like a brokeback record! As Pat Buchanan said, homosexuality has gone from "the love that dare not speak its name" to "the love that won't shut up."
Is the idea of gay cowboys really that new? Didn't the Village People do that a couple of decades ago? Am I the only person who saw John Travolta in "Urban Cowboy"?
Movies with the same groundbreaking theme to come:
"Westward Homo!"
"The Magnificent, Fabulous Seven"
"Gunfight at the K-Y Corral"
"How West Hollywood Was Won"
Snip-----------------
After consulting with the Yale admissions committee, the awards committee will give the Oscar to ... "Paradise Now," a heartwarming story about Palestinian suicide bombers. How good is it? Al-Jazeera gave it 4 1/2 pipe bombs. It's Air Syria's featured in-flight movie this month -- go figure! I don't want to spoil the ending for you, but let's just say there won't be a sequel.
continued... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20060302/cm_ucac/speakingtruthtodeadhorsesmyoscarpredictions;_ylt=AoFBUoC311JdII1cWP2ATp47vTYC;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--)
:rofl
-
She sure is a sad angry avacado.
-
Indeed, why should she give a damn if movies are made about gay guys. No one is making her watch them if she doesn't want to.
-
Rip,
Funny satire on hollywierd alright. :lol :lol
-
Everything to her is defined by 'race', 'gender' or religion..... nevermind the plot.
what a great thinker (rollseyes).
-------
She's only makeing herself look stupid--\/
-
My inner conservative laughed.
Hell, you all need to buy bigger panties if they are getting all bunched up in your bellybutton over that... it was actually funny.
-
hehe.
While the republicans control the house, senate, presidency and the supreme court they still need a scape goat to blame their problems upon.
It's all hollywood's fault of course.
-
It's kind of funny watching them trying to define outgroups.
It's kind of scarey when they are succesful.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
My inner conservative laughed.
Hell, you all need to buy bigger panties if they are getting all bunched up in your bellybutton over that... it was actually funny.
No panties bunched, I'm not pissed off she's so angry and invents things to be pissed of about...I just think it's kind of sad.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
My inner conservative laughed.
Hell, you all need to buy bigger panties if they are getting all bunched up in your bellybutton over that... it was actually funny.
Exactly!
-
Her only goal in life is to point out the stupidity and inconsistencies of liberalism...and make gobs of money at it. I can never wait for Wednesdays when her columns come out--they're a hoot.
Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.
One showed Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from the gates of heaven, saying "Stop, stop — we ran out of virgins!" — which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. Another was a cartoon of Muhammad with horns, which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular — oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence.
In order to express their displeasure with the idea that Muslims are violent, thousands of Muslims around the world engaged in rioting, arson, mob savagery, flag-burning, murder and mayhem, among other peaceful acts of nonviolence.
Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back.
Madam Hillary also said the Bush administration "will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country." While Hillary is certainly qualified to comment on what the all-time worst presidential administrations were, having had firsthand experience in one of them, I think she might want to avoid the phrase "go down in history."
-
(http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/c/c/coulter_adamsapple.jpg)
(I bet if she pulled up her skirt, she'd have a pair):O
-
I dont get what some folks say about "Munich", I saw it, and there was nothing at all "sympathetic" about the terrorists, or their point of view. I think that comes from folks who have not seen the film. Its based on the book "Vengeance" which also is not sympathetic to the Munich 1972 terrorists. If somebody can point out the supposed scene or text that was pro-terrorist, please enlighten me. It shows in fact, quite graphically, the very brutal way in which the Israeli athletes were murdered. There was nothing "pro Black September" about it .
As for the Mossad hit squad, it does show them as human beings, doing a crappy and dangerous job for their country, thats it. Doesnt depict them as saints, no, or savages, but I think its balanced, imho.
The notion that Spielberg? is on some crusade to show a movie that is biased against Jews I think is ludicrous on its face.
...As for the rest of the list, I will take a pass.
-
Its the obvious attempt at "normalizing" the lifestyle by Hollywood that turns so many people off.
"Lets see...how can we attack the image of good ol boy macho? Lets take the old standard of toughness...the cowboy..and make him gay. That way whenever anyone sees a cowboy in the future, they wont think of John Wayne, they will ask...I wonder if he is gay?"
-
Hollywood pretty smart to nominate movies the average joe doesn't agree with, it creates controversy, headlines, and later ratings for the show.
Some of these people have spent their whole life studying what will draw people in... they are performing their job admirably.
In the end, who cares... I vote for the best movie with my dollar, when i see it at the movie and buy the DVD.
-
funny stuff rip thanks for posting it
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Hollywood pretty smart to nominate movies the average joe doesn't agree with, it creates controversy, headlines, and later ratings for the show.
Some of these people have spent their whole life studying what will draw people in... they are performing their job admirably.
In the end, who cares... I vote for the best movie with my dollar, when i see it at the movie and buy the DVD.
Winner! :aok
-
Isn't it about time for a movie about a gay football team?
Nah, in the spirit of the AHBBS, there should be a movie about a gay bomber crew. The can fly around real low in a Lancaster.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Winner! :aok
Yep... Broke Back didn't win from what I heard (I didn't watch) but it gave them many more viewers for the Awards than normal.
They won too...
-
Everyone says it's going to be "Crash," but I think "Crash" is too popular .
As usual the twit doesn't know what she's talking about.
-
Wow, she couldn't predict which movie wasn't going to win with the odds heavily in her favour.
For some reason, I doubt people will remember that when Anne decides to enlighten people about Hollywood again.
-
The most true line in there
" homosexuality has gone from "the love that dare not speak its name" to "the love that won't shut up."
Right flipping on!
I dont care if a person is gay or not. or about gays in particular one way or another. Actually I have a gay couple living next door to me. Well used to. They seem to have broken up.
Bottom line is I dont care
I just dont want to constantly hear about it. Enough already.
As for Crash. I saw it and thought it was a damn good movie once It got near the end and made the rest start making sense.
Tell ya what. if you havent seen i. It has one of the dirtiest tricks ever played on an audiance in it.
Watch the movie and you will cry.
If you dont, Your not human
-
Well I was surprised King Kong won all the stuff it did given its competitors
-
It's because Peter Jackson rules. I've been a fan of his since 'Bad Taste' (1987).
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Tell ya what. if you havent seen i. It has one of the dirtiest tricks ever played on an audiance in it.
Bruce Willis was dead from the beginning and a ghost the whole time, or Pindar doesnt get naked in bend it like beckham?
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Bruce Willis was dead from the beginning and a ghost the whole time, or Pindar doesnt get naked in bend it like beckham?
Willis in "the Sixth sence" was a good trick on the audiance.
"bend it like Beckham" was rated PG-13. If you were expecting nudity in it you forgot to check the rating before you saw it LOL
Either way. Both combined pale in comparison to the outright dirty trick played in "Crash"
If you havent seen it. see it.
When you do see it be patient. About the first half of the movie makes little sense as it sems like they are trying to tell like 5 different stories. It doesnt follow a normal plot line.
Then in the second half of the movie it all starts to come together and your like "ohhh yeaaaaa ,ok"
One of those flicks where you sit there for an hour and think. "why am I watching this? This movie sucks" and once youve watched it you say "that was a damn good movie"
-
dred.... I don't like going to movies to cry.
I don't want to go to the movies to see a gay love story either tho. Unless it is lesbians and their is allmost nonstop sex of course.
momento was a good movie to confuse and was well done.
I think the guys making fun of coulter would probly crawl over 20 yards of broken glass just to see her in her underwear in real life.
Sheesh... you liberals got 95% of the screwed up comedians in the world... can't you laugh at a little conservative humor once in a great while?
brokeback had as much support as hollyweird could possibly dredge up...
so what were the box office numbers? Anyone doubt that if they were good we would be hammered with em daily?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
dred.... I don't like going to movies to cry.
lazs
Neither do I.
The wife borrowed the DVD from someone.
Untill I watched it I hadnt even heard of it let alone knew what it was about or what was going to happen.
That being said. its still a damn good movie
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
(http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/c/c/coulter_adamsapple.jpg)
Lazs thinks he's pretty.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so what were the box office numbers?
Fantastic, compare it to the production costs.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=brokebackmountain.htm
Anyone doubt that if they were good we would be hammered with em daily?
lazs
I guess your predictive capabilites about "Hollywierd" are as good as Coulters. ;)
-
Good Stuff Rip - Keep it coming :aok
-
thrawn... 78 million.... estimate? That is not exactly fantastic.. consider the hype that movie got and it would seem a dismal failure to me... never has a movie got such attention and awards (even before it came out) and adverstised and promoted so heavily...
And what did it get? 6 or 7 million people went to see it? I mean... if gays are 10% of the population like they claim... at least 30 million people had a real stake in this movie.
coulter is attractive.. way too skinny for my taste tho.
lazs
-
Nielsen ratings state that Oscar viewing was down by 8% since last year.
-
Translated: 8% of last years viewers discovered they have a brain, and it works! No matter though, as those people will no longer be a part of the ratings family. The contract is specific in that area. Part 3 of Chapter 22, sub-section 1d states, "A brain is specifically not allowed to be involved in watching your shows."
By the way Rip,..awesome read. :lol
-
movies are for people who can't handle reality.
-
I go to movies for pure entertainment. I feel sorry for people who go to them looking for a deeper meaning, or some such nonsense.
-
The top grossing movies released in 2005 were:
Revenge $380 million
Goblet of Fire $289
Chronicles of Narnia $288
War of the Worlds $234
King Kong $216
Wedding Crashers $209
Chocolate Factory $206
Batman Begins $205
Madagascar $193
Mr. and Mrs. Smith $186
The only one of the films nominated for an Oscar for best picture of the year to make it into the top 15 in terms of gross sales was:
Walk the Line
Brokeback Mountain came in at number 26 with $78 million in sales...just behind the Dukes of Hazzard.
Crash came in at number 49 with $53 million in sales.
Capote wasn't even in the top 50.
-
Well, you can't expect the viewing public to know a movie picture when they see one.
Only Hollywood insiders can recognize a good movie.
-
And keep a perfect record... not one movie has ever made a profit.
You have to wonder about an industry that is so sleazy that not one movie has ever made a profit, by their accounting standards.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
thrawn... 78 million.... estimate? That is not exactly fantastic.. consider the hype that movie got and it would seem a dismal failure to me... never has a movie got such attention and awards (even before it came out) and adverstised and promoted so heavily...
Failure? I guess it depends on the promotional costs.
-
Most Profitable Movies, Based on Return on Investment (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.html)
High return on investment, or even high box office sales don't necessarily mean it was a high quality movie. And low sales or returns don't mean it was bad.
A good example might be Clinton and Bush.
Clinton was highly popular and never had an approval rating anywhere near as low as Bush.
Nevermind.... bad example.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
And keep a perfect record... not one movie has ever made a profit.
What are you talking about??
TITANIC made in excess of 2 BILLION dollars US!!!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, you can't expect the viewing public to know a movie picture when they see one.
Only Hollywood insiders can recognize a good movie.
John Stewart
“Martin Scorsese zero Oscars-Three 6 Mafia, one”
I think Scorsese is one of the best directors of our time. I doubt I'm alone.
Ya, the Oscar judges have great taste (rollseyes)
-
MT,
Evidently, what Hollywood thinks is a great movie and what the general public thinks is a great movie are two different things.
Sci-Fi and similar movies laden with high-cost special effects will net less than low budget movies. However, the popularity of a movie is measured by the number of tickets it sells.
If the average price of a movie ticket is seven dollars, and you divide that figure into the figures for gross sales I posted above, four or five times as many people thought their money was better spent watching one of the top five movies than those "groundbreaking" or "maverick" movies nominated by the Hollywood social elite for movie of the year.
Isn't taste, as well as truth, subjective after all?
-
I was surprised last night to learn that Scorsese had not won an Oscar
-
Originally posted by Rolex
And keep a perfect record... not one movie has ever made a profit.
You have to wonder about an industry that is so sleazy that not one movie has ever made a profit, by their accounting standards.
Ever made a NET profit.
It took the peons a while to demand a % of the gross.
shamus
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Most .
Clinton was highly popular and never had an approval rating anywhere near as low as Bush.
Nevermind.... bad example. (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.html)
your right it is a bad example.
As of last week Bush's approval rating was a mere two points lower then Clintons 37% at his lowest point
Hardly what anyone can claim "Never have anything near"
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The top grossing movies released in 2005 were:
Revenge $380 million
Goblet of Fire $289
Chronicles of Narnia $288
War of the Worlds $234
King Kong $216
Wedding Crashers $209
Chocolate Factory $206
Batman Begins $205
Madagascar $193
Mr. and Mrs. Smith $186
The only one of the films nominated for an Oscar for best picture of the year to make it into the top 15 in terms of gross sales was:
Walk the Line
Brokeback Mountain came in at number 26 with $78 million in sales...just behind the Dukes of Hazzard.
Crash came in at number 49 with $53 million in sales.
Capote wasn't even in the top 50.
That settles it !!! McDonalds is a best food EVAR !!!
-
LOL, score one for FD Ski.
-
oh wow. great point. clapclapclapclapclap. Really deep argument...almost wet the soles of my shoes.
A decision to eat a Big Mac is usually determined by: A) the amount of money in one's pocket, or B) the number of children in the car.
If I'm alone, I'll stop at Red Lobster and eat king crab legs. If I have only $4.56 cents, I'll order a combo meal.
Since all movie tickets cost the same, the average citizen's choice of which movie to see is determined by his or her perception of the merits of each film. Evidently, more people saw purchasing a ticket to see The Dukes of Hazard as a better use of their money than buying one to see Brokeback Mountain.
Understand the dynamics involved?
-
I'm with the skuzzy on this one. I go to movies to be entertained not for anything else.. surely not to cry or to watch a gay love affair.
I eat to not be hungry for the most part.
lazs
-
You don't find gay love affairs entertaining? What's wrong with you?
-
if I am at the theater and I have a choice between Milla Jovovich shooting and stabbing stuff, and 2 cowboys humping, naturally my choice goes to Milla everytime.
-
yep... seems simple enough to me. shooting and fighting and gratuitous nudity of women.... good.
boys humping each other.... bad.
lazs
-
I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty that Brokeback Mountain wasn't any worse than UltraViolet. That's just not possible.
-
It's rather amazeing how much you guys care about one movie due to it's subject..... You seem obessed with it more than gay guys I know.....
No appreciation for cenimatography, or critique on acting... all you can do is walk the party line.... are you defending the 'sanctity of marriage' as something to do with gender as oppsed to the adultrous lives many live? ya ... that makes sense.
Hey look the goodyear blimp! ((steals more tax $))
And don't forget your fear for the day.
-
Hey, aren't the Brokeback cowboys have an adulterous affair? They get hitched up with womenfolk and still sneak off with each other, right?
What would that be? Gotta be adultery on one side or the other right?
If there's any obsessing, it's coming out of Hollywood.
About "the love that dare not speak its name" which has become "the love that won't shut up."
-
ya and it wasn't about hate at all from the clips I've seen.
Did you hear about the hate crime in Boston awhile back?
Next you'll be angry that hollywood likes films on Racism.
When is the last time you heard about random race shootings in U.S.? It's been awhile... though not that long.
Your allowed to not like a movie
The obbession over it is rather odd. They talked of pleanty of other movies.
And not one comment on one of the best cenimatographer-directors of our day. IMO anyway... but not one comment even. Or is there one I missed?
----------------
maybe it's just me but movies of his I've seen are beautiful works of scenery and colors. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000487/
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Your allowed to not like a movie
[/b]
Thanks, ever so.
And not one comment on one of the best cenimatographers/directors of our day. IMO anyway... but not one comment even. Or is there one I missed?
Well, let's see...
Director Credits
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
The Hulk (2003)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)
Ride With the Devil (1999)
The Ice Storm (1997)
Pushing Hands (1995)
Sense and Sensibility (1995)
Eat Drink Man Woman (1994)
The Wedding Banquet (1993)
I viewed about half of those; sadly, I remain unconvinced that he is one of the best directors of our day. I'm sure there are those that idolize him, I'm just not one of them.
I'm permitted to have an opinion on that too, aren't I? Or am I just allowed not to like a movie?
The obbession over it is rather odd.
[/b]
As has been pointed out, I believe the center of obsession with it is in Hollywood.
-
I tried to point out cenimatographer-directors for that reason .. he's not a great director in the end, he has a great sense for scenrey, for visualy appealing pictures and colors, which is something diffrent from flat directing.
I've not seen many of his movies, but the ones I have were visualy pleaseing.
I see more obbession here, with no dissussion, than I see in hollywood (at least they disscuss multiple movies intelligently.
You guys have ONE point of subject it seems to me.
-
So you think he's good with scenery?
Fine by me.
-
While I can't argue that "the love that dare not speak its name" has become "the love that won't shut up.", I'm not annoyed with Brokeback mountain.... as long as I'm not forced to go see it.
Actually, I prefer a movie that doesn't interest me at all above a movie that sounds good and turns out to be awful (like War of the Worlds): it saves me 8 €!
That being said,
Lazs said:
I go to movies to be entertained not for anything else..
I consider 'Schindler's List' as one of the best movies ever....as entertaining as being punched in the stomach, tho.
-
I never had any desire to see a movie like 'Schindler's List'. If I want drama in my life, I tell my Wife she looks fat.
That's just me. One of my favorites is 'Madagascar'.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I never had any desire to see a movie like 'Schindler's List'. If I want drama in my life, I tell my Wife she looks fat.
...then she'd ask if she can go quail shooting with you!
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
MT,
Evidently, what Hollywood thinks is a great movie and what the general public thinks is a great movie are two different things......
/B]
Exactly!
Highlander was a great movie and IT didn't even get nominated!!! WTF is THAT?!?!
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
oh wow. great point. clapclapclapclapclap. Really deep argument...almost wet the soles of my shoes.
A decision to eat a Big Mac is usually determined by: A) the amount of money in one's pocket, or B) the number of children in the car.
If I'm alone, I'll stop at Red Lobster and eat king crab legs. If I have only $4.56 cents, I'll order a combo meal.
Since all movie tickets cost the same, the average citizen's choice of which movie to see is determined by his or her perception of the merits of each film. Evidently, more people saw purchasing a ticket to see The Dukes of Hazard as a better use of their money than buying one to see Brokeback Mountain.
Understand the dynamics involved?
Wow, i guess i didn't major in movie going dynamics then. My hat off.
So let's try something were prices are even - say music.
Yo yo ma CDs are same or cheaper then Britney Spears. So i guess that means Britney is a better artist then Yo yo ma ? She's, like best EVAR ?
-
Amazing - We've gone from Ann Coulter to Britney Spears and in only 2 pages. Gotta love the O'Club :)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I feel sorry for people who go to them looking for a deeper meaning, or some such nonsense.
MAN!!!... I always thought that was what they were FOR!!
Tumor
-
BluKitty, i think you are the one obsessed with brokebutt mountain.
a gay cowboy movie, it's too bad your hero rock hudson could't star in it , then you would really get a jelly belly.
fd ski, who is yo yo ma?
-
it's a typo: actually it's yo ma ma.
-
Yo Yo Ma is a world renouned french born chinese cellist. Ma was educated in the USA, that's why he is great.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I never had any desire to see a movie like 'Schindler's List'. If I want drama in my life, I tell my Wife she looks fat.
Schindler's List is a masterfully made film.
It's also completely unenjoyable.
I wasn't at all interested in Brokeback Mountain until I learned who wrote the screenplay. Larry McMurtry (http://imdb.com/name/nm0573505/) has done some great work in the past and for this reason alone, I will watch it.
-
Again... I find myself in complete agreement with skuzzy on the movie thing... If I want to be depressed I will read a newspaper.
I also never saw nor am the least bit interested in the shindlers list movie..
and.... Like toad.. I have seen about half the movies that lee did... some were very good... others were pretty much boring bombs... certainly nothing about the man would make me sit through a gay male romance to see his style repeated.
and sandie.... I knew you would find an excuse to see the movie.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and sandie.... I knew you would find an excuse to see the movie.
lazs
I don't need an excuse. I've seen thousands of movies.
I don't expect that Brokeback Mountain will be any more graphic than the HBO series, "Six Feet Under".
It is after all is said and done... just another movie.
-
sandie.... I have seen thousands of movies too.. That does not mean that I have any obligation to see this one.
I have seen 6 feet under too... No problem... it is a lot of different stories going on. I don't think anyone will say that 6 feet under is mainly about a gay romance.
brokebutt is about nothing except a gay romance. Do you see the difference?
lazs
-
Having not seen it, I can't say that I know what it's about at all.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Larry McMurtry[/URL] has done some great work in the past and for this reason alone, I will watch it.
Wow, "Lonesome Dove". My wife had that on tape, and we spent a night not watching it several times when we started dating. Now our code phrase, is "....so do you want to watch 'Lonesome Dove'"?
*Thrawn - going for the most losely connected to the thread post evar.
-
Info nobody cares about (Brokeback)....
My wife is trying to be 'open minded' and thinks she could deal with two guys making out on screen.
However, she's not sure if she will want to see the movie because they are having an affair.
-
Heh heh FD-ski. :D
-
You're all pathetic..all o' ya!
Tough guys, Alpha males, yet whining about movies, on a bbs dedicated to intertards pretending to be WW2 avaitors. I've never seen a more pitiful, or pitiless sight.
Careful, Dr. Phil's OTW to your door with the reality check.
Maybe I can get canadien public access at this hour, I hear the seal hunt is underway. I need a pick-me-up.
-
Well Red, it may seem a little silly for the conservative members of these boards to get so worked up about what, to you, are just a bunch of movies which no one is compelled to watch.
On the other hand, while our attacks may seem silly to you, ask yourself the following question; If Hollywood's attempts at social engineering were moving hard right, would I be leading the charge?
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I never had any desire to see a movie like 'Schindler's List'. If I want drama in my life, I tell my Wife she looks fat.
snip
I'm more adventurous, I add "& lazy" for the added effect :)
culero (and boy do things get lively then! ;))
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Wow, "Lonesome Dove". My wife had that on tape, and we spent a night not watching it several times when we started dating. Now our code phrase, is "....so do you want to watch 'Lonesome Dove'"?
*Thrawn - going for the most losely connected to the thread post evar.
WOW!!... someone MARRIED YOU? ;)
*how's that for loosely connectd?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
.
On the other hand, while our attacks may seem silly to you, ask yourself the following question; If Hollywood's attempts at social engineering were moving hard right, would I be leading the charge?
See, and therein lies the heart of the problem exactly.
Hollywood attemptimg social engineering under the guise of calling it "art"
Now it can be argued that Hollywood has attemted social engineering to the right as alot of your old movies were religious based.
IT certainly would seem so by our modern eyes.
But I contend this would be inaccurate as when those movies were made we were a far more religious based society then we are now. So those movies appealed to the masses better because the majority of people could relate to the message.
The fact remains that by far, the vast majority of the population is not gay.
The Vast majority of the people cannot relate to a movie about gays.
And of that vast majority. the vast majority of people do not see being gay, and gay men in particular, as being normal behaviour.
Now it may be normal to gays. But its not normal to the rest of us.
Its also easy to say that to the majority, the thought of two men having sex or kissing, most people find utterly repulsive.
I know speaking for myself the very thought makes me want to puke.
What hollywood is attempting is not art. But social engineering and forced acceptance. And doing it to a people who is nowhere near willing to accept outright, this type of lifestyle.
We tolerate it because we see little point in doing otherwise.
But we dont want to see it. And we certainly dont want it in movies or on TV. And we dont want it flaunted in our faces.
Like I said. We tolerate it only because we see little point in doing otherwise. But the vast majority, reguardless of what people claim. do not accept it as being normal.
And we dont want Hollywood attempting social engineeering to make us think it is.
-
red bottom, sandie and blue ***** are the ones who are putting the wrong emphasis on this.
It is not a few homphobes whining about a great movie... it is allmost the entire nation laughing at hollywood and their obvious agenda.
All but a very small minority of us in this country (and probly world cept your-0-peeans) find a movie... worse... a boring drama, about male homo part time sheephearders in canada to be something to avoid..
We would have avoided it quietly with maybe a snicker but... the liberal hoolyweird gay boys keep shoving it in our face and telling us what brutes we are for not going to see it... when it comes out on video (probly in weeks) there will be another big push... blockbuster will have dozens of copies that no one will rent.
and who is dr phil and why is fd ski going on about some chelo player named yo yo that no one has heard of?
lazs
-
The social engineering argument is paranoid nonsense. If this were really the goal, Hollywood would be making films with a mass-market appeal but with a subliminal subtext that promoted the social engineering agenda. Instead you have films like Brokeback which are unlikely to appeal to anyone outside of a certain demographic which amount to little more than preaching to the choir.
Still, it makes a nice straw man for lying goons like Coulter and her fanbois to rail against.
-
momus... I think you are being silly. No one said that it was an overt and organized agenda for social engineering..
More like.... there is a huge gay and liberal population in the movie industry and, like anyone... they make what they like even if catering to the public would serve them better... they simply work a lot harder to get these gay projects out and to make them the best that they can and to promote them.
If they wanted to make more money they would spend half that effort on kids films.
lazs
-
momus... I think you are being silly. No one said that it was an overt and organized agenda for social engineering..
Actually Lazs, both Shukins and DREDIOCK attributed films like Brokeback to attempted social engineering on the part of moviemakers. Social engineering is by definition "organized" but not necessarily "overt".
there is a huge gay and liberal population in the movie industry and, like anyone... they make what they like even if catering to the public would serve them better... they simply work a lot harder to get these gay projects out and to make them the best that they can and to promote them.
So what are all these films promoting homosexuality and other "liberal" agenda items. Details please. Lets have some facts to support the hyperbole. Here's the release schedule for 2005 (http://www.film-releases.com/film-release-schedule-2005.php). Why don't you just pick out the movies you think have the type of agenda you're describing, then express the total as a proportion of the total films released. That should give a rough indication of how much effort the industry is really putting into promoting this agenda you ascribe to it.
Over to you...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
red bottom, sandie and blue ***** are the ones who are putting the wrong emphasis on this.
What was my emphasis again?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
{... and to make them the best that they can...}
See.... You guys don't say anything about the acting,... say nothing about the cenimatography, I read nothing about the music, editing or any number of things that make movies besides ONE plot point.
You are the ones hung up on that one plot point. I wonder why? Maybe it's the anti-gay republican agenda?
That makes as much sense as balmeing hollywood without a shred of rational critique.
And what about Midnight Cowboy? Why haven't you been complaining about that movie for the last 30 years?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064665/ It won 3 Oscars
Maybe it was good acting? or something else they might appreciate ... like directing ...
Brokeback got nominated for best adapted screen play.... but then agin, it is a good writer.....
You are all obbessed with a plot point so much, that apprently nothing else that goes into movies matters at all.
-
Midnight Plowboy was a terrible movie. Worst movie Dustin Hoffman ever made. Galaxy Quest was a better movie, even with its shoddy editing.
-
Bluekitty,
By any chance are you a fine arts major or studying film making?? For someone who seems to deride others opinions of a film you are the one making repeated posts about individual factors about it. If you like the film that's fine. If someone else doesn't like the film that's fine too. That is one of the indications of being free to decide things for yourself.
FWIW, claiming oscars indicate the film was a great success is a bit stilted. Oscars are awards given to members of the industry by other members of the industry. In other words they are patting themselves on the back. The true indicator of a good film is how much $ it makes by people willing to fork over money to see it. That is the only test of popularity that counts.
-
well at least argureing about money and popularity is some crtique.....
but it still has little to do with movie makeing ....
and if popularity meant good ... John Grisman would be the best writer ever (rollseyes)
Are you guys trying to miss the logic, trolling, or just don't get it?
Because a plot point is a MINOR thing in movies. If your appreciation is limited to story lines.... I pity you.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
red bottom, sandie and blue ***** are the ones who are putting the wrong emphasis on this.
You sure do enjoy referring to my name as "bottom," don't ya? Your obsession with holding hard things in your hand, the hatred of women, it's all a bit too over the top IMO
I think the closet you're hiding in is getting a little too small for you.
:D
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Midnight Plowboy was a terrible movie. Worst movie Dustin Hoffman ever made. Galaxy Quest was a better movie, even with its shoddy editing.
You never saw Ishtar?
-
Ok,..Midnight Plowboy was the worst movie, I have ever seen Dustin Hoffman act in.
For the record, I never saw Ishtar, so I cannot personally comment on it.
-
to comment on these other fine selections...
Director Credits
The Wedding Banquet (1993) never saw or heard of
Eat Drink Man Woman (1994) never saw or heard of
Sense and Sensibility (1995) SUCKED
Pushing Hands (1995) never saw or heard of
The Ice Storm (1997) sucked
Ride With the Devil (1999) has Jewel in it so didn't suck
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) sucked
The Hulk (2003) royally SUCKED
-
Originally posted by Maverick
FWIW, claiming oscars indicate the film was a great success is a bit stilted. Oscars are awards given to members of the industry by other members of the industry. In other words they are patting themselves on the back. The true indicator of a good film is how much $ it makes by people willing to fork over money to see it. That is the only test of popularity that counts.
Now... take this same logic and apply it to music.
Consider rap music.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Now... take this same logic and apply it to music.
Consider rap music.
I liked "Hot Rod Lincoln"...
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Midnight Plowboy was a terrible movie. Worst movie Dustin Hoffman ever made. Galaxy Quest was a better movie, even with its shoddy editing.
Outside of "Head Office", "Galaxy Quest" is probably the funniest move ever made
:("Oooohhhh...Look at the cute little guys...OOooohhhhhh...that one's hurt, let's help him")
: (" Don't you people even WATCH THE SHOW!!??)
-
btw, snippet from this week's Coulter column:
In case you missed the Oscars last Sunday night, here are the highlights:
-- Best song went to a musical tribute to the overseers of human sex slaves, an occupation known as "pimping";
-- best picture went to a movie about racism in Los Angeles;
-- best supporting actor went to the movie about how oil companies murder people; and
-- best supporting actress went to the movie about how pharmaceutical companies murder people.
Curiously missing from Oscar night's festivities was any reference, even in passing, to the 150,000 brave Americans currently risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You don't find gay love affairs entertaining?
Only when, like, Jill Kelly is involved.
-
Sandy,
I'd rather not consider rap "music" at all thanks. If someone wants to spend money on it and listen to it, that's fine. As long as they do not make ME listen to it as well.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Sandy,
I'd rather not consider rap "music" at all thanks. If someone wants to spend money on it and listen to it, that's fine. As long as they do not make ME listen to it as well.
In other words... popularity isn't the only test that counts. ;)
-
No on the contrary. It is the ONLY test that counts as far as I am concerned for the entertainment industry. That still does not mean it has to appeal to every sentient being in any given section of geography. It just has to apply to enough to make it worthwhile to produce the product.
I also want to exercise my right to not have it inflicted upon myself. That means I don't want to be forced to listen to it by everyone who can afford an amp and sterio. They are free to listen to it all they want. I want to be free from having to listen to it at the same time. Should be fairly easy to understand right?
-
Oh no. You said, "The true indicator of a good film is how much $ it makes by people willing to fork over money to see it. That is the only test of popularity that counts."
Using the same logic, one can say that rap is good music simply because it's popular.
My point is that popularity is not necessarily a good indication of quality or even talent.
The same can be said for movies. IMHO most of the really bad movies are those that are made purely for profit.
There are some well made movies that aren't enjoyable to watch. There are also some crap movies that are great fun. I think the very best movies are those that manage to be both enjoyable and skillfully crafted.
Ever wonder why no one makes a big deal about the "People's Choice Awards"? Popularity means dick.
-
You know, an enterprising and entreprenurial mind could probably take lemons and turn them into lemonade by starting up the "Artsy Fartsy Theater" shown late on Saturday nights. In it would be shown artsy films with off-the-wall commentary by the film audience, like with that sci-fi series making fun of B movies. Can't remember what it's called, but it was pretty darned funny.
This concept could actually be fun...and educational too.:D I mean, if the idea is to make these films popular, then a lot of people have to see them, nay, look forward to watching them. Think how many of those films there are out there, that many people haven't seen. Let these films stand on their own merits. If it's a bad film, then more off-the-wall commentary is interjected.
This is something the artsy film makers might allow if they had confidence in their films. Many would take offense at critique, their serious films might be made fun of. So permission would have to be granted with full undertanding this might happen. Have to have a thick skin for sure, but if it made people laugh it would be a service to humanity. And it would make the films more widely seen, at least the good ones.
Les
-
I guess you would have to consider who is buying along with popularity. The vast majority of people don't buy any CD music anymore. It is a very few buying a lot of music that makes rap profitable... It would be like 5 million gays all going to brokebutt mountain 10 times each.
The director in question isn't even very good.... look at all the bombs he makes. Ride with the devil was the only movie he made worth renting. Not even interested in most of his stuff like brokebutt.
momus... to say that hollywood does not have a lot of liberal gay actors, producers and directors and writers... is pretty darn silly... to say that they don't have an agenda is going against the evidence. farenheight 911 got an oscar for "best documentary'?? and all the attention that fat bitter slug got from the effite liberl hollywood crowd?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman
My point is that popularity is not necessarily a good indication of quality or even talent.
He makes a good point Maverick as do you. Sandman’s statement above can be summed up in two words – PARIS HILTON.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
momus... to say that hollywood does not have a lot of liberal gay actors, producers and directors and writers... is pretty darn silly... to say that they don't have an agenda is going against the evidence. farenheight 911 got an oscar for "best documentary'?? and all the attention that fat bitter slug got from the effite liberl hollywood crowd?
Ok, so that's Farenheit 911 and Brokeback Mountain. Two releases out of many hundreds that you claim push a certain agenda.
Two out of many....
So, is that all you've got? That's a pretty weak foundation for an argument..where are the rest? Or are you seriously arguing that two films is a valid basis for asserting the existence of an industry-wide social agenda?
-
V for Vendetta = anti-govt
Brokeback Mountan = gays have it rough
16 blocks = cops are bad
Freedomland = white woman are racist
Syriana = America is oil hungry and evil
Transamerica = transexuals are normal
Farenheit 911 = Bush is evil
These are just some of the most recent there are a lot more if you just open yours eyes.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
V for Vendetta = anti-govt
Brokeback Mountan = gays have it rough
16 blocks = cops are bad
Freedomland = white woman are racist
Syriana = America is oil hungry and evil
Transamerica = transexuals are normal
Farenheit 911 = Bush is evil
Great, so we go from 2 out of many hundreds to 7 out of many hundreds..good job on still not proving the theory....
These are just some of the most recent there are a lot more if you just open yours eyes.
A lot more..? Fine, please list them, go ahead..don't be shy..
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
V for Vendetta = anti-govt
Brokeback Mountan = gays have it rough
16 blocks = cops are bad
Freedomland = white woman are racist
Syriana = America is oil hungry and evil
Transamerica = transexuals are normal
Farenheit 911 = Bush is evil
These are just some of the most recent there are a lot more if you just open yours eyes.
:aok Thankyou. I don't know Mighty1, I'm sure some of don't think there's an agenda against Christmas also.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
farenheight 911 got an oscar for "best documentary'?? and all the attention that fat bitter slug got from the effite liberl hollywood crowd?
lazs
No it didn't.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, challenging conventional notions of Tinseltown as a knee-jerk liberal monolith, snubbed "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore's hostile documentary on President Bush, in this year's Oscar nominations, which were announced yesterday in Beverly Hills, Calif.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050126-121303-4575r.htm
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Great, so we go from 2 out of many hundreds to 7 out of many hundreds..good job on still not proving the theory....
A lot more..? Fine, please list them, go ahead..don't be shy..
I'm guessing that even if I were to go thru every movie out you would still say something like "299 out of 300 that still doesn't prove anything".
Look for them yourself. I just gave you a few examples.
-
Originally posted by EN4CER
He makes a good point Maverick as do you. Sandman’s statement above can be summed up in two words – PARIS HILTON.
I don't believe I used the terms quality or talent in my posts. I merely was stating that the measure of success for an entertainer that counts IMO is how many people are willing to fork over the $ to see/ hear their "work". It may be pure unadulterated (or very adulterated, IE, michael moore) crap with no talent or redeaming qualities at all. If the buying public likes it, it is a good measure of success for the
Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. To me the accademy awards, emmys, or any other kind of industry award is rather meaningless as an indicator of whether I should see or listen to anything the "artist" dumps on the market. I go to see and hear what I feel is something entertaining not what the "industry" decides to praise.
Frankly I think the reviews that I read here are much more relevent than what I see some "professional" put out.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. To me the accademy awards, emmys, or any other kind of industry award is rather meaningless as an indicator of whether I should see or listen to anything the "artist" dumps on the market. I go to see and hear what I feel is something entertaining not what the "industry" decides to praise.
The industry is praising the craftsmanship. They are not praising the entertainment value. So this fits.
-
In this case I believe they are rewarding the "message" not the "craftsmanship".
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
In this case I believe they are rewarding the "message" not the "craftsmanship".
Have you actually seen it?
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
I'm guessing that even if I were to go thru every movie out you would still say something like "299 out of 300 that still doesn't prove anything".
Come up with anything like that figure and you have a case. However it's my guess that you can't, hence the following bluster:
Look for them yourself. I just gave you a few examples.
Why should I go out of my way to prove your inane argument that you probably lifted directly from Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or some other cheap talking head propagandist? If you'd arrived at your opinion by considering the actual evidence available yourself then you'd be able to reproduce it here rather than trying to dodge the issue.
-
so momus... without any real proof... would you say that hollywood was more liberal and gay than the average American or less? about the same?
lazs
-
Top Grossing Films of 2005 (with subliminal message as interpreted by the Right)
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) - (Liberals lose the Senate yet still fight for the right to rule)
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) - (A sweeping condemnation of Christian values and morality)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) - (A sweeping affirmation of Christian values and morality)
War of the Worlds (2005) - (Government means nothing, the little guy will win in the end)
King Kong (2005) - (A sweeping condemnation of inter-racial bonding)
Wedding Crashers (2005) - (Makes fun of the bonds of matrimony, lightly disguised push for gay marriage.)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) - (Puts down all conservative stereotypes including Bankers, Gluttons, TV executives and Gum Chewers.)
Batman Begins (2005) - (Teacher goes bad)
Madagascar (2005) - (Running away is a good thing)
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005) - (Anti-marriage, anti-gun)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so momus... without any real proof... would you say that hollywood was more liberal and gay than the average American or less? about the same?
I don't know Lazs. I'd assume that since you and a few others are making the assertion that the movie industry has a disproportionate number of gay liberals in its ranks with a subsequent effect on content of its movie output that you might have something other than the spittle-laden rantings of Ann Coulter to actually substantiate that argument. So far it looks like I assumed incorrectly.
-
How about proving we are wrong rather than throwing insults?
You said 2 out of hundreds were not enough to change your mind so posted a few more.
You go on to say it's not enough. Fine! Don't look them up but there was no reason to start throwing out your left wing hate just because I provide more proof to the argument.
People on the left don't see hollywood as being left while the people in the center and right see it as plain as day.
Don't assume that because some of us see hollywood as nothing more than a pro-gay anti-american anti-religion propaganda machine that all our ideas come from right wing nutcases.
-
There is no doubt in my mind that a much larger percentage of people in the movie biz are liberal than compared to the general public, there is also probably a higher percentage of gays in the biz than in the general public.
That being said, the reason they are in the "biz" is the same reason that Haliburton is in the oil biz and Toyota is in the car biz......... to make money. Not to take over the world or make us all learn Japanese.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Have you actually seen it?
hey mighty1 you didn't answer Sandy's question?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
That being said, the reason they are in the "biz" is the same reason that Haliburton is in the oil biz and Toyota is in the car biz......... to make money. Not to take over the world or make us all learn Japanese.
Apparently you haven't read the Toyota corporate mission statement.
-
MT, I think your premise regarding War of the Worlds is incorrect. I see it as the Govt. cannot protect you, you are on your own to survive the situation. In actuality it's pretty darn accurate to real life in that respect.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Apparently you haven't read the Toyota corporate mission statement.
http://toyota.jp/ Oh no! It's in Japanese!
:O
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
{... but there was no reason to start throwing out your left wing hate just because I provide more proof to the argument.
Sorry ... the 'Liberals' and Sandman (no mistakeing that elephant for a liberal) ....the 'Liberals' are not insulting you by showing you or others your ignorance.
This would be closer to hateful, If not outright hate:
V for Vendetta = anti-govt
Brokeback Mountan = gays have it rough
16 blocks = cops are bad
Freedomland = white woman are racist
Syriana = America is oil hungry and evil
Transamerica = transexuals are normal
Farenheit 911 = Bush is evil
Gay's do have it rough... turn on the news (or do a search on "hatecrime, gay, boston")
Cops are bad.... turn on the news.....and bad cops endanger both good cops, and citzens
America is oil hungry
Transexuals are 'normal', just like gays or lesbieans ('normal' is a psychological grouping term that is fundmentaly illogical. What is, is) 'Normal' can only be defined by your 'z' score. (do you even know what I mean by that?)
Bush etheir lacks morals, or is stupid....long term drinking does have it's effects :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Rolex
http://toyota.jp/ Oh no! It's in Japanese!
:O
Its pretty much a restatement of the Bushido warrior code. Pretty sure anyhow.
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Sorry ... the 'Liberals' and Sandman (no mistakeing that elephant for a liberal) ....the 'Liberals' are not insulting you by showing you or others your ignorance.
LOL... My liberalness is relative.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
How about proving we are wrong rather than throwing insults?
How about you present some facts to support your case instead of demanding that I prove a negative.
You said 2 out of hundreds were not enough to change your mind so posted a few more.
You go on to say it's not enough. Fine! Don't look them up but there was no reason to start throwing out your left wing hate just because I provide more proof to the argument..
Oh stop bleating, please. Whilst I'm by no means a very frequent cinema goer, it is obvious that the idea of a liberal Hollywood busily trying to corrupt America's morals is just another right-wing myth of victimhood that isn't supported by the facts. Seven movies of varying shades of liberalness out of hundreds if not thousands proves nothing. If there were as many more examples as you claim then you would be hurling examples at me in glee, not trying to wriggle out of backing up your own argument.
Are there gays in Hollywood? Probably. Do they exercise an disproportionate editorial influence that allows them to further their particular agenda? If so, are they are doing a pretty poor job of it, no? That's not "left wing hate", its common sense and critical thinking, something you appear to lack, the irony of your signature line nothwithstanding. If you want to assign that view to a partisan political position then more fool you. Of course, if I'm wrong, you should be able to present the compelling argument you've so far avoided presenting.
People on the left don't see hollywood as being left while the people in the center and right see it as plain as day.
You're resorting to a logical fallacy known as "appeal to belief". Even if many people believe the case you are making, that doesn't mean they are right, just that they are all equally credulous or ignorant.
Don't assume that because some of us see hollywood as nothing more than a pro-gay anti-american anti-religion propaganda machine that all our ideas come from right wing nutcases.
Unitl you can provide a solid fact based argument of the type typically avoided by said right-wing nutcases, I'm afraid you are going to get lumped in with them.
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Sorry ... the 'Liberals' and Sandman (no mistakeing that elephant for a liberal) ....the 'Liberals' are not insulting you by showing you or others your ignorance.
This would be closer to hateful, If not outright hate:
Gay's do have it rough... turn on the news (or do a search on "hatecrime, gay, boston")
Cops are bad.... turn on the news.....and bad cops endanger both good cops, and citzens
America is oil hungry
Transexuals are 'normal', just like gays or lesbieans ('normal' is a psychological grouping term that is fundmentaly illogical. What is, is) 'Normal' can only be defined by your 'z' score. (do you even know what I mean by that?)
Bush etheir lacks morals, or is stupid....long term drinking does have it's effects :rolleyes:
OH-KAY......so we are ignorant because we see hollywood for what they are but you are not ignorant when you say gays and transexuals are normal only gays have it rough AND Bush lacks morals and is stupid.
-
Momus-- I love it! You say I need to keep giving you facts because you can't or won't look them up for yourself but when I do give you examples you dismiss them and throw insults.
You then say even if people believed the same way that I do they are wrong.
You don't try to disprove our statements other than by saying we don't provide you with enough proof.
You try to sound intelligent but you come off as just another closed minded liberal who will never even consider anothers point of view unless it fits into you deluded little world.
Let's make this simple for you.
You don't believe that most of hollywood has a left wing mentality. Fine! That's your opinion.
I and many others see it a different way. That should be fine too since that is OUR opinion.
-
MT... thank you for proving my point... the top grossing films are not the gay liveral socialist agenda ones. Yet... the gay liberal socialist ones continue to be made and promoted all out of proportion to what they should be if profit were the motive.
momus... you claim you "don't know" if hollywood has a liberal gay socialist bent? I think that the conversation is over since I believe that you are being dishonest or very stupid. and besides... mighty is doing an excellent job.. I will let him do the heavy lifting since I lose interest when I know the other person is not being truthful.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Momus-- I love it! You say I need to keep giving you facts because you can't or won't look them up for yourself but when I do give you examples you dismiss them and throw insults.
I'm sorry if you feel insulted by having the inane and flimsy nature of your own argument pointed out to you. You think that seven films out of uncounted hundreds is the basis for your theory? Fine, but be prepared to be ridiculed for it. If you're so sure that there are many many more examples that prove your argument then list them. You've been asked to do so more than once and you still haven't come up with the goods. It's your argument, it's up to you to back it up.
You then say even if people believed the same way that I do they are wrong.
That something is commonly believed does not automatically mean it is true; you do understand that don't you?
You don't try to disprove our statements other than by saying we don't provide you with enough proof.
If you think that a list of seven films is a convincing basis on which to condemn an entire industry as biased or as holding a specific agenda when that industry releases many hundreds of productions every year that don't fit that criteria then you are truly beyond help.
You try to sound intelligent but you come off as just another closed minded liberal who will never even consider anothers point of view unless it fits into you deluded little world.
Wow, and you are the one complaining about personal attacks? My intelligence or lack of the same isn't at issue here. What is at issue is your insistence that there are many other examples of the type of movie to which you refer coupled with your refusal to actually name them. It's patently obvious to me that you don't know what you are talking about but prefer to keep digging rather than face up to the fact. How can you call me closed minded when I'm the one asking you to provide examples that we can discuss thus giving you a chance to give weight to your argument.
Let's make this simple for you.
You don't believe that most of hollywood has a left wing mentality. Fine! That's your opinion.
If we are to judge by the output of the movie industry then yes, since only a small fraction of films released would seem to be adressing issues that you would label as "liberal".
I and many others see it a different way. That should be fine too since that is OUR opinion.
And as soon as you express that opinion in a debate you need to be able to defend it. YOU are accusing most of Hollywood of leftism and of following a liberal agenda when it comes to film making. YOU therefore should be able to provide examples as to how you arrived at that opinion. If a list of seven films is all you have then you are being irrational since that is no way a representative sample by which to judge an output of many times that number.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
momus... you claim you "don't know" if hollywood has a liberal gay socialist bent? I think that the conversation is over since I believe that you are being dishonest or very stupid. and besides... mighty is doing an excellent job.. I will let him do the heavy lifting since I lose interest when I know the other person is not being truthful.
No Lazs, I said I don't know because I don't know. I have never seen statistics on the voting habits or sexual preferences of Hollywood employees. Since you obviously have why don't you post them? Maybe you could throw Mighty1 a bone while you're at it and post a list of all these hundreds of gay/socialist themed moves that Hollywood is apparently producing every year?
-
Ok... I have seen polls in the past I will try to dig em up. I don't think anyone here except you "don't know" if hollywood has a gay liberal socialist bent or not tho and I think you are being dishonest.
I think one quick thing that would prove my point is the money that is raised for liberal democrat socialist candidates and the speakers for them compared to money that is raised for mainstream or conservative candidates..
sooo... lets see just how deep your dishonest streak is.... do you think hollywood outwardly supports more gay liberal socialist leaning candidates or more conservative candidates?
Can you name a dozen or so hollywood conservatives? Ones who threatened publicly to leave the country when klinton was elected? For every Tom Selek there are 100 rosie odonnels.
lazs
-
Why should he bother?
You don't care what is presented you will still find fault without any proof of your own and end your brilliant non-factual statement with a idiotic statement about how you are right and the rest of the world is wrong and insult us.
I'm sorry if you feel insulted by having the inane and flimsy nature of your own argument pointed out to you. You think that seven films out of uncounted hundreds is the basis for your theory? Fine, but be prepared to be ridiculed for it. If you're so sure that there are many many more examples that prove your argument then list them. You've been asked to do so more than once and you still haven't come up with the goods. It's your argument, it's up to you to back it up.
How many examples are enough for you? Hmmm? How many will it take before you don't just wave your condescending hand at the thought that you are wrong?
My guess is even if I presented every movie made you would still say you were right.
Besides I have better things to do with my life than to sit here and give you a review of hundreds of movies.
I gave you enough examples that even a child could see the pattern. But hey if you need help understanding feel free to go to the nearest grade school and let one of the kids explain it to you.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok... I have seen polls in the past I will try to dig em up. I don't think anyone here except you "don't know" if hollywood has a gay liberal socialist bent or not tho and I think you are being dishonest.
Go for it Lazs, as I said, I have no idea as to the figures, or what you think they signify.
I think one quick thing that would prove my point is the money that is raised for liberal democrat socialist candidates and the speakers for them compared to money that is raised for mainstream or conservative candidates..
That's great. When you've posted the figures perhaps you can explain how this political leaning is being translated into actual movie output, you know - that subject that I was actually adressing?
sooo... lets see just how deep your dishonest streak is.... do you think hollywood outwardly supports more gay liberal socialist leaning candidates or more conservative candidates?
Like I said above, I have no idea. Enlighten me please. Once you've done that, please tell me what it has to do with a supposed bias in movie making subject matter that you have so far failed to demonstrate even exists on any significant scale.
Can you name a dozen or so hollywood conservatives? Ones who threatened publicly to leave the country when klinton was elected? For every Tom Selek there are 100 rosie odonnels.
Not off the top of my head. Is that significant? My movie knowledge is pretty much confined to the actual content of the moves I watch, which is why I'm stuggling to think of more than a small fraction of films I've seen or heard of that have content one could describe as left wing, pro-gay or just generally liberal. Perhaps when you've finished going proving whatever you think you're proving you could actually address that point, for the second or third time of asking?
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
I gave you enough examples that even a child could see the pattern. But hey if you need help understanding feel free to go to the nearest grade school and let one of the kids explain it to you.
You get 10/10 for throwing your toys out of the playpen, but 0/10 for not actually addresssing a single point previously addressed to you. Go you!
All you have done here is post a list of seven films that as proof of a certain agenda on the part of "most of Hollywood" (your words). However, when pressed you yourself clearly think that that is not itself sufficient proof since you yourself posted:
These are just some of the most recent there are a lot more..
Great. What are all these films? What proportion of the output of the movie industry do they represent? Is it a proportion significant enough to represent the clear bias you claim? None of these questions are unreasonable in the context of the discussion. Why have you got such a problem with answering them? Could it be because if you answered them it would demonstrate that your argument is a nonsense? That's what it looks like from here.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Top Grossing Films of 2005 (with subliminal message as interpreted by the Right)
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) - (Liberals lose the Senate yet still fight for the right to rule)
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) - (A sweeping condemnation of Christian values and morality)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) - (A sweeping affirmation of Christian values and morality)
War of the Worlds (2005) - (Government means nothing, the little guy will win in the end)
King Kong (2005) - (A sweeping condemnation of inter-racial bonding)
Wedding Crashers (2005) - (Makes fun of the bonds of matrimony, lightly disguised push for gay marriage.)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) - (Puts down all conservative stereotypes including Bankers, Gluttons, TV executives and Gum Chewers.)
Batman Begins (2005) - (Teacher goes bad)
Madagascar (2005) - (Running away is a good thing)
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005) - (Anti-marriage, anti-gun)
Top Grossing Films of 2005 (with subliminal message as interpreted by the Left)
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) - (Liberals lose the Senate to a bunch of liars yet still fight for the right to rule)
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) - (A sweeping affirmation of Christian values and morality)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) - (An attempt to force Christianity down the throats of our children.)
War of the Worlds (2005) - (Guns don't help)
King Kong (2005) - (A sweeping affirmation of inter-racial bonding and how it is usually killed in the end by the white man.)
Wedding Crashers (2005) - (Makes light of gay marriage, pushes the right wing monogamous agenda.)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) - (Puts down all liberal stereotypes including midgets, Gluttons, TV executives and Gum Chewers.)
Batman Begins (2005) - (Guns don't help)
Madagascar (2005) - (Shows the plight of the animals and how freedom in Africa will overcome all obstacles.)
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005) - (If it weren't for guns this marriage might have a chance)
-
Originally posted by Momus--
What are all these films? What proportion of the output of the movie industry do they represent? Is it a proportion significant enough to represent the clear bias you claim? None of these questions are unreasonable in the context of the discussion. Why have you got such a problem with answering them? Could it be because if you answered them it would demonstrate that your argument is a nonsense?
Because there is not enough time in the day to answer all your questions nor do I have the desire to make any further attempts at proving a point you should have already gotten.
Originally posted by Momus-- That's what it looks like from here.
Maybe you should move to some place where you can get a better view.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
MT, I think your premise regarding War of the Worlds is incorrect. I see it as the Govt. cannot protect you, you are on your own to survive the situation. In actuality it's pretty darn accurate to real life in that respect.
I disagree entirely.
I see it as "If your government can't protect you no-one can protect you from Aliens except tiny little bacteria. And, if you are one of those survivalists with guns and what-have-you a small man with a small child will come along and kill you because you have gone insane."
-
Mighty.... you are getting pwned.
Keep it up tho, I bet if you call him a dirty lying homostudmuffin commie amerihater you'll win the debate forevar!
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Mighty.... you are getting pwned.
Keep it up tho, I bet if you call him a dirty lying homostudmuffin commie amerihater you'll win the debate forevar!
somehow Urchin, I don't think we will have to wait too long?:lol
-
Ok Brokeback has had it's 15 mins....Pfffffffft....
Do you think Hollywood will let it rest. I don't.
No, not untill we scream that being a butt pirate is absolutely normal and should be promoted as a healthy lifestyle will they move onto the next item on the lefts agenda.
I saw a recent diversity training publication that stated that gays now make up 12% of the population...LOL The number keeps growing with no visible means of support.
-
...and absolutely no statistics to counter it either.
:rolleyes:
-
It's fifteen minutes got about $75 million in box office.... for what 15 or 20 to make? not a bad ROI.
Larry the Cable Guy says if John Wayne were alive today, he would have a patch over both eyes.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
...and absolutely no statistics to counter it either.
:rolleyes:
I live in a rural town of about 10,000. I have a couple of friends that are gay and we have discussed the % of gays in the population. They estimate 50 people in our town are gay, they admit this might be a little on the high side. That would make the gay population in my town .5% or less.
Maybe San Francisco is 12%...still seems high to me. Yes I have been there as well as Key West on several occasions.:rolleyes:
-
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PMM23.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/11/clinton.fundraiser.reut/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/09/politics/main694054.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1203-09.htm
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/022206.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1184818,00.html
Ok... I admit that I am not that good at the google thing but there are literaly hundreds of sites that claim that hollywood supports the left and democrats.
I have seen many references to "83% of dirctors and producers vote democrat" but can't find the poll... no one seems to deny it tho.
In any case... search "hollywood fundraisers" do some research on the blacklist and you will find that.... those guys really were commies. Have they changed their stripes? I think not.
lazs
-
mt.. sorry.. you are correct.. fatso got his oscar for his other lying POS lefty "documentary" bowling for columbine.
yu admit that hollywood is mostly lefties... that is good... I think momus is being dishonest. you also say that hollywood is in it for the money.
I will agree.... for the most part but...
I think that you can see that brokebutt was hailed and promoted and advertised all out of proportion to other movies. It got nothing but rave attention from people who hadn't even seen it yet... it got 5 or six awards before it even came out... they were really straining..
and that is my point... if you are a mostly lefty outfit.... even when you know it does you no good.... you will try to sneak in some of your views.
good night and good luck? does it show that the guys on the blacklist really were for the most part commies? Whic way does it lean?
Who is made fun of when there is humor? right or left?
lazs
-
So what if the guys on the black list were commies?
When exactly did that become illegal in this Country?
-
MT,
If memory serves, some of those organizations were radically communistic. Radical to the point of being subversive, with ties to Stalin's government.
McCarthy was a demagogue, and the HUAC ruined some reputations, but they weren't wrong about everything.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Amazeing how much time can pass and people still fear a WWI issue.
And don't confuse being a socialist with a communist.
And don't confuse socialist capatilisim for flat capitalism. (FYI most nations are socialist/capatilist these days includeing U.S.)
Is the rich 'aristocracy' still afraid the people will rise up and take them down?
Do you know Lenin was sent by socalist Germans, to Russia, to start a revolution ?
Your worried about 'communists'?
The nice thing about US is your 'supposed' to have the right to say or think anything short of inciteing riot (look up "Rawanda" and "inciteing riot radio" you'll see a good case for the one true hold to freedom of speach)
You can hardly say that people that were blacklisted were inciteing riots. I'll bet there were people who tried to say Dr. King would incite riots.
So despite freedom of speech not always being followed in US, how can you call yourself a patriot and disreguard the ideal?
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
And don't confuse being a socialist with a communist.
different stages of the same, terminal disease.
-
That's great Lazs, unfortunately it does nothing to help your argument because we were talking about how Hollywood's politics, perceived or otherwise, translates into the actual movies produced, not who the denizens of Hollywood sleep with or vote for.
Let's review your earlier posts from this thread shall we?
there is a huge gay and liberal population in the movie industry and, like anyone...they make what they like even if catering to the public would serve them better...they simply work a lot harder to get these gay projects out and to make them the best that they can and to promote them.
Really? What are these gay projects Hollywood is working so hard to release? One film? Two? What proportion of the total output does that represent? Why is this proportion so significant when the majority of films show no trace of the bias of which you are accusing the industry as a whole?
to say that hollywood does not have a lot of liberal gay actors, producers and directors and writers... is pretty darn silly... to say that they don't have an agenda is going against the evidence.
Again, for the umpteenth time of asking, what evidence?. Show me how what you percieve as the leftist/gay agenda is influencing anything other than a comparatively tiny number of productions.
I think momus is being dishonest.
And I think you are being supremely clueless. You can't substantiate any of your original assertions, so you go off on a tangent to prove something that nobody was seriously disputing anyway. You haven't actually thought this through have you?
-
Don't bother with Lazs Momus... I think he is actually fairly intelligent, but he plays a clueless yet radically closeminded conservative for the most part here on "Workdays of our Lives".
-
Of all the output that Hollywood produces, I can only think of two films that have been about homosexuality. Okay, maybe three if you include Top Gun.
In fact, homosexuality etc sounds like a subject that art-house company's deal with. Hollywood tends to produce films like "Cheaper by the Dozen 2", or "I Know What You Might Have Thought You Said 6" or whatever.
Then again films like Rambo, Rocky and Total Recall clearly had a secret agenda to turn us all gay.
Of course they did.
-
"Don't bother with Lazs Momus... I think he is actually fairly intelligent, but he plays a clueless yet radically closeminded conservative for the most part here on 'Workdays of our Lives'."
Lazs is not conservative. Far from it. He's really far on the left side of the political spectrum, but of a faction that's strongly opposed to the socialists. I imagine he considers his support of the Republicans the "lesser of two evils". Lazs is actually either a type of anarchist or minarchist (depending on how pragmatic he is), a mindset which often identifies itself as "Libertarian". His unwavering insistence that the private sector can provide virtually any service more effectively than government is a dead giveaway.
J_A_B
-
I think that you are being dishonest momus. I think that you know that allmost every hollywood movie and tv show or, the vast majority are rife with lefty idealism. Maybe you are so far gone you don't notice?
Take a movie and watch it. The bad guys are rarely black say... political jokes rarely make fun of the left in movies... everyone uses an apple computer and everyone has black friends that they hang out with.
TV is even worse because it is more blatant... course... tv is hollywood too.
My politics? mielta is correct... socialism and communism are both stages of the same rot.
I believe that a weak and poor government is our servant... a strong and rich one is our master. I think the U.S. government of the 1700's before the alcohol tax was a pretty good one.
Republicans are only about twice as good for the country as democrats which makes republicans very bad for the country indeed but..... what ya gonna do? gotta vote for em or a democrat might sneak in.
lazs
-
Lol Lazs.. your arguments are ludicrous.
"OMG, commie pinko studmuffins have overrun the media and are brainwashing everyone! Just look at Brokeback Mountain!1!11! Look! It categorically proves that EVERY SINGLE movie AND TV show (Fox News excluded, I take it) is run by commie homosexhul pinko studmuffins!"
Momus - "I don't believe you... 7 movies hardly proves that all of Hollywood is under the control of some devious commie-pinko-studmuffin-traitor-Al-quida-homosexshul illuminati..."
Lazs- "LIAR! PINKO studmuffin LIAR!! COMMIE TRAITOR!!!"
Momus- "You still haven't really backed up your vie-"
Lazs- "OMG YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR!!! ANYONE CAN SEE THAT ALL OF TV AND MOVIE ARE OVERRUN BY COMMIEPINKOstudmuffinCHEGUEVA RABERETWEARINGHOMOSEXSHULS!!! THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY AND POKE YOU IN THE POOPCHUTE! THE ONLY WAY OUT IS REVOLUTION!!!"
I feel dumber just reading your drivel.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
MT,
If memory serves, some of those organizations were radically communistic. Radical to the point of being subversive, with ties to Stalin's government.
McCarthy was a demagogue, and the HUAC ruined some reputations, but they weren't wrong about everything.
Regards, Shuckins
I contend that they were wrong, on all counts.
There is NOTHING more "UnAmerican" than a government sponsored committee on "UnAmerican" activities. The simple fact that people like you and Coulter are trying to rewrite history to make that era seem more palatable is the scariest thing I've ever read on this BBS.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I contend that they were wrong, on all counts.
There is NOTHING more "UnAmerican" than a government sponsored committee on "UnAmerican" activities. The simple fact that people like you and Coulter are trying to rewrite history to make that era seem more palatable is the scariest thing I've ever read on this BBS.
Read any book Coulter writes---footnotes take up the last 25% of the book.
-
MT,
What a load of bilge. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to maintain the security and safety of the people of the United States. Do you contend that the Congress has no authority to conduct investigations to secure those ends?
Records that have been made public in the west since the fall of the Soviet Union have left no doubt as to the depth and insidious intent of Stalin's covert efforts to infiltrate and subvert the governments of the U.S. and its allies.
Whittaker Chambers has been proven to have been right about Alger Hiss. Julius Rosenbern has also been proven to have been a spy. The list of communist sympathizers and collaborators is, indeed, quite lengthy.
The HUAC did not set out to ruin the reputations of innocent Americans or make wild accusations. Yet the arrogant attitudes of some of the Hollywood Ten soured the proceedings. Indeed members of the Committee for the First Amendment, a group of liberal actors led by Humphrey Bogart), which traveled to Washington to show support for the Hollywood Ten, left in disgust after witnessing the attitudes of the Ten during questioning.
Bogart, Edward G. Robinson, and others of the CFA later admitted that they had been duped by the Communists.
In 1996 Edward Dmytryk and Abraham Polonsky, two producers who had been members of the Hollywood Ten, were interviewed during the making of AMC's documentary "Blacklist: Hollywood on Trial."
Polonsky still held to his original beliefs, that the Party had been merely a social club.
Dmytryk, when told of Polonsky's interview, was flabbergasted.
"Is he still deceiving himself? He knows better! We worked for the Cominturn, were given directions by the Cominturn, the Party was in the middle of all of it! I even came to see the Party as a menace!"
MT, it is dangerous to discount the evidence against unapologetically subversive Americans simply because some of those bringing accusations against them are unsavory characters. Such a head-in-the-sand stance is more dangerous than anything I have said in these posts.
Oh, and by the way, liberals have been rewriting the history of the period for fifty years. Compared to them, I profess to being a rank amateur.
-
Bilge indeed.
Evidence of leftist images and dialog Hollywood films was extremely slim. HUAC had to resort to citing the smiling children in Song of Russia (1944) and noting that Russian workers shouted "tovarich" (comrade) as American merchant ships that had run the Nazi submarine blockade entered a Soviet port in Action in the North Atlantic (1943). Even committee members struggled to keep a straight face when Ginger Rogers complained that her daughter "had been forced" to speak the subversive line "share alike, that's democracy" in a 1943 film scripted by Dalton Trumbo.
Whatever one's convictions, there was little room for maneuvering once called, yet two out of three who testified were unfriendly or uncooperative. A few, like Lucille Ball, were allowed to pass with garbled and meaningless testimony, but most were pinned down. Fame was no protection. A lifelong non-Communist progressive like Sam Jaffe was blacklisted for refusal to cooperate. Jaffe, who had been nominated for an Oscar for The Asphalt Jungle (1950) and was famous for roles in Lost Horizon (1937) and Gunga Din (1939), was reduced to teaching high school math and living with his sisters. He would eventually make a comeback as Dr. Zorba on the successful Ben Casey television series. Lee Grant, nominated for an Oscar for her role in Detective Story (1951), was blacklisted for refusing to testify against her first husband, screenwriter Arnold Manoff. Grant would eventually return to Hollywood and win two Oscars, one for acting and another for directing a documentary.
Regarding Bogart..
Soon after the Waldorf Statement was issued, agents were summoned to the major Hollywood studios and practically ordered to tell their clients that the studios would no longer tolerate public stances by performers on political issues deemed to be detrimental to the film industry. The Committee for the First Amendment collapsed in the wake of these open threats, threats so strong that Humphrey Bogart was forced to "write" an article for Photoplay magazine admitting he had been a "dope" for flying to Washington to appear in support of fellow actors Larry Parks, Irving Pichel and the Hollywood Ten.
And... most of those found "uncooperative" by HUAC were based un a refusal to name names. How "UnAmerican".
Do you really believe that the security and safety of the American people was in serious danger from Dalton Trumbo?
Paleese.
-
Hey MT...I can do it too...watch this:
__________________
[The publication of self-justifying and bitter memoirs] and more fundamentally the cultural shift in Hollywood to domination by a bien peasant Left that started around 1960 and accelerated in the 1970s, has led to the lionization of the Unfriendly Ten as American "rebels" and martyred 'non-conformists." Meanwhile, the anger within the current filmmaking elite at those who originally "named names" in the 1940s and 1950s has been unrelenting.
A now unalterable view of what occurred is held by people who have little knowledge of what it actually meant in the 1940s to be a Communist; that is a Stalinist. Two examples demonstrate the current political situation. On October 27, 1997, on the fiftieth anniversary of the original HUAC hearings, the Hollywood creative elite attended a gala celebration of the Ten, and major stars appeared in a reenactment of parts of the HUAC hearing. The evening was capped by an appearance of some of the surviving Ten themselves, to thunderous applause.
Then in 1999 the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences decided to award a lifetime Oscar to Elia Kazan. Kazan was the director of outstanding films such as "A Streetcar Named Desire" "Viva Zapata," "On the Waterfront," and "East of Eden." Kazan "taught Marlon Brando how to act," but he had also "named names." The award was ferociously opposed by survivors and supporters of the Ten. In the end, despite being escorted to the podium by Robert de Niro and Martin Scorsese, Kazan was greeted with stony silence by many members of the Academy.
____________________
A more balanced view from a participant in the terrible events that began in October 1947 came from Patricia Bosworth, the daughter of Bartley Crum, one of the lawyers for the Unfriendly Ten. Crum was one of only two of the seven lawyers on the Ten's defense team who were not themselves members of the Party. Bosworth says that her father vigorously defended people as long as he possibly could afford it financially, because of his deep allegiance to the principles of the First Amendment. But the experience also made him very wary of the American Communists, because they were not in fact independent individuals but were men under stern Party intellectual discipline. He found them continually deceptive as to their intentions and motives. Crum was repelled by the Communists' "rude, plodding dogmatism, their habit of secrecy," and that included the behavior of the Party lawyers assigned to work with him on the case.
-
Alvah Bessie, one of the Ten, ruefully remarked, "It began to be obvious that the party was not speaking the language of the American people. It took me almost twenty years to find this out...Pretty stupid of me."
The opinion of the famous blacklisted director Jules Dassin...is the same. The party tried very hard to present Communist or Socialist ideas as an advance in America's development that was in fact rooted in American tradition. Well, they failed in this. The American people couldn't buy it. The association with the Soviet Union was too powerful. I remember one sloga, "Defend the Soviet Union" under any and all circumstances (including conflict with the United States) were policies dictated to the CPUSA from Moscow, and accepted willingly by Party headquarters in New York. In what sense was this "rebellion" within the honorable American tradition?
_____________________________
The Hollywood Ten were not, as it happened, spies for the USSR, but they belonged to a party that as even left-wing "revisionists" now acknowlege, planted spies for the Soviet Union throughout the US government as a matter of course. Ellen-Schrecker, the chronicler of the blacklist as it function in educational institutions, has admitted that Earl Browder, the leader of the CPUSA during its most "liberal" period (1941-1945: the Second Popular Front), was in fact a key talent scout and recruiter of spies for the Soviet Union, "routing volunteers to the KGB and identifying secret Party members who could be of use."
Although only one Hollywood Communist (the minor Hollywood producer Boris Morros) is known to have been a long-term NKVD spy, that does not mean that the Hollywood Communists would not have spied for the Soviet Union if they had been asked. Indeed, the recently decoded "Venona" documents suggest that Walter Bernstein, one of those blacklisted, had offered information to the NKVD more than once. This should not come as a surprise. When Arthur Koestler secretly joined the Communist Party of Germany in 1932, he remained anewspaper reporter, but he accepted as a matter of course that he would be asked to spy on his employers in the Ullstein newspaper corporation - the same people who had saved him from penury during the depression.
-
...in the spring of 1945, when hard-line Stlainist William Z. Foster expelled the "liberal" Browder from the Party and took over as General Secretary at Stalin's behest, one of the first places he visited was the Hollywood Party.
The reason for the special importance of the Hollywood section is not hard to discern. The Soviet government had an early understanding of the crucial power of film as propaganda in a mass society. Communist influence in Hollywood filmmaking was therefore seen as both culturally and politcally important in spreading ideas among the masses to prepare for the Revolution, or at least to curb popular opposition to the USSR.
Party members boasted of "sneaking" Marxist dogma into otherwise bland Hollywood films, though they later denounced this suspicion as fascist propaganda. The intent was quite clear.
Ring Lardner, Jr., for example gleefully told the story of his blacklist period in the 1950s when he worked as a secret screenwriter for the Britis TV series "The Adventures of Robin Hood, and slipped frequent anti-capitalist messages into a show set in medieval England. His purpose, he said was to subvert the younger generations's beliefs in free enterprise.
In the Hollywood of the 1930s and 1940s, however, the anti-ideological domination of the studio moguls meant that Communist writers could only slip in a few bits here and there, and such bits could not have much effect. Rather, as Party leader Foster told the Hollywood section of the Party during his visit in 1945, the Party intended its influence on film production in Hollywood at this point to be primarily negative. Communists were to block and prevent theproduction of any films with an anti-Communist bent, or with a theme detrimental to the interests of the Soviet Union.
In keeping with this subterfuge, most Party members in Hollywood were secret Party memgbers, operating under noms de guerre. The strict cell structure of thehollywood Party, and the secret meetings of the cells, kept many people from knowing more than a dozen fellow Party members.
The Party was not organized this way by accident, or merely otu of traditional conspiratorial or paranoid mindset, though that mindset obviously existed and was fundamental. There were two specific reasons for secrecy: (1) so that opinions presented during their daily work in the studiois by secret Communists could masquerade as independent artistic opinions, since filmmakers dealing with the secret Communists would not know they were dealing with Communists, and (2) so that secret Communist operatives could control the bien pensant front organizations mostly populated by liberals and ordinary leftists.
An example of the latter is the hollywood Citizens Committee on the ARts, Sciences, and Profession. Most of the HICCASP's members were liberals and independent leftists, but the crucially influential post of executive secretary of the organization was held by a secret Communist. The Communists operated like cuckoos, as Edward Dmytryk said, laying their eggs in other birds' nests. Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that some prominent Hollywood people who wanted to join the Party were forbidden to become members, but were nonetheless trusted towield influence over Hollywood individuals and organizations on behalf of Party policies all the sam - influence all the more effective for coming from people known merely as "leftists."
-
The impact of secrecy...meant that Party members were constantly working in the interests of the USSR, and at the dictates of the USSR, while lying to and manipulating their friends and co-workers about their motives. They misrepresented their political positions as independent radical opinions when in reality those positions were dictated from elsewhere. It was a cult. Those who denounced the Reds have always been denounced as rats and betrayers, but surely there is a deep betrayal here as well. Moreover, Communist relations with non-Communists were based on a smug sense of intellectual and political superiority.
Along with the secrecy and manipulation, and with all that entailed in terms of personal behavior toward others, there was "democratic centralism," i.e. the rule of the party over its members' intellectual lives. There was a difference between the transitory rank and file, many of whom left because they could not put up with such discipline, from the long-term Party militants who constituted most of the Ten.
Though the Ten were all intellectuals, they accepted as a matter of course that there were books one was forbidden to read. Intellectuals or not, the Ten accepted the principle of Party discipline lad down by the Party's American cultural commisar, V.J. Jerome: "I asked, 'Comrade Jerome, what if a Party decision is made that you cannot go along with?' And he said, 'When the Party makes a decision it becomes your opinion.'"
Another blacklistee, Leonardo Bercovici, has expressed amazement at John Howard Lawson, the stern and rigid leaader of the Hollywood section of the Party. Here was a man who was a very talented writer, yet he devoted himself "to becoming a commissar; it was a pity..." Bercovici concluded that lawson simply had "an authoritarian character." But a moment later, in discussing the Hollywood Party's robotic obedience to whatever line came out of New York (i.e. Moscow), Bercovici asked himself, "How could Jack have submitted...?"
-
The degree to which personal itellectual opinion and creativity could be dismissed by Party diktat was most famously demonstrated in the case of Albert Maltz. In 1947 Maltz wrote an article entitled "What Do We expect of Writers?" protesting the Party's iron demands on artists and their work. Maltz argued that artists could not merely be Party political pamphleteers propounding the position of the moment, but rather they must be allowed to deal with the deepest and most permanent issues of human life, as was natural for the. Further, works of art should be judged not by the politics of their creators - as the CPUSA always did - but rather by the artistic and ethical values and human insights contained in the works themselves.
This plea for artistic and critical freedom led to a firestorm of reaction from CPUSA headquarters inNew York. Maltz was attacked for "revisionism" in Party publications. Far worse, in Hollywood he was subjected to a personal inquisitional procedure led by the dour John Howard Lawson. Almost no members of the Hollywood Party section came to Maltz's defense and those who did were themselves threatened with expulsion.
It took two brutal sessions of "critisism/self-criticism" in front of a committee of Hollywood Party members to get Maltz tyo recant his position. Most of those involved in the brow-beating of Maltz were writers themselves, including Hollywood Ten Alvah Bessie and Herbert Biberman. Two months after his first plea for artistic freedom, Maltz published a "self-criticism" and complete recantation of his plea for artistic freedom.
Maltz later went to prison rather than testify to the nature of his politics or "name names," but he told Gerda lerner that his 1946 CPUSA inquisition was "the most unsettling experience of my life, infinitely worse than going to prison; nothing compared to it."
Despite this unsettling experience, Maltz remained a Party stalwart for many years, and faithfully followed every shift in the Party line. He believed that in June 1950 South Korea had attacked the North. In 1958, in accordance with the Khrushchev thaw, he wrote a positive review of Pasternak"s " Dr. Zhivago," but when hardliners came back into power in the Kremlin, he issued yet another public recantation of his previously published views, proclaiming that he had reread the book and found it shallow. Is this man really supposed to be seen as an "American rebel" and a non-conformist"?
-
urchin said... "I feel dumber just reading your drivel."
For that I am truely sorry... you really didn't have much to spare.
If you do not see a leftist agenda in hollywood then you are not paying attention....
How much money does hollywood raise for republican candidates and how much for democratic ones..
We can turn this around.... name a conservative right wing director or actor and then I will name 5 lefty ones. I am saying that I can easily do this..
If you accept this as true then you would be naive to think that they would not have this taint their work.
lazs
-
read a book (or article).... expand your mind... Seems more people than me percieve this to be true.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Aug2003/review100803.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/fullview/CO7OURBS4G06/103-6670971-0401427?%5Fencoding=UTF8
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6508
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pubs.asp?ID=422
http://www.brookesnews.com/040902addisonhollywood.html
http://www.americandaily.com/article/2400
http://www.suanews.com/articles/editorials/february2003/stophollywood.htm
http://www.chronwatch.com/featured/contentDisplay.asp?aid=2339
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1557
or do your own search....
just type in hollywood left... 56,000,000 hits
or.. try hollywood conservatives... 3,000,000 hits many of which just talk about how few there are.
lazs
-
The truth is, this is all a plot by the islamic controlled Hollyweird, designed to cause fear and derision in the general populous of the god fear'n regular good ol' boy Amreeken.
Y'all need to git yer butts over there and bring democracy back to the actors guild! :lol
In truth, they are just movies. As Yoda would say "it is only a form of entertainment, watch or watch not".
Schindlers list: yep great movie, although tough to watch, and is able to make even this crusty old fart shed a tear.
Oh, and Rip? Great thread!:aok
Cheers,
RTR
-
Thanks yet again Lazs for demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Aug2003/review100803.html << This talks about stuff that happened half a centrury ago. Where's the relevance to Hollywood's output today? Oh that's right, it is totally irrelevant. Good work Lazs.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/li...5Fencoding=UTF8 : An arbitrary list of Hollywood figures who lean to the left. Where does it details how their beliefs are translated into movie output? Oh that's right, it doesn't. How much editorial influence do said individuals exercise? What scripts did they commision that led to productions with a left of centre theme or message? How much investment have they raised for production of liberal themed films? How about a big fat zero in answer to all these questions? Good work again, you really rock at this.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6508 : An unsubstantiated op-ed piece from an anonymous source. Wow, that's compelling. Bruce Willis gets a crappy deal from the "leftist Hollywood elite". Yeah sure he does; he hasn't been allowed to make movies in years! Oh whoops yes he has. Great source you've got there Lazs.
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pubs.asp?ID=422 : Where does this deal with how "liberal" Hollywood uses it's production output to further its agenda? Oh what a surprise, it doesn't. Did you even read beyind the introduction?
http://www.brookesnews.com/040902addisonhollywood.html : Same for this one. Again, did you even read?
http://www.americandaily.com/article/2400 : another op-ed piece dealing in personal attacks against an actor perceived as left wing. No information here of any relevance to the case under discussion. Again, did you even read it and how could you think this had a bearing if so?
http://www.suanews.com/articles/edi...ophollywood.htm : Actually, I have to give you some credit for posting this one. This is one of the funnier paranoid rants I've read anywhere, even by your own hilariously fast and loose standards. Thanks for that; shame it doesn't even by a fraction detail any evidence of bias in the movie industry's output.
http://www.suanews.com/articles/edi...ophollywood.htm : Another Op-Ed article heavy on personal attacks but light on facts. Just like your posts, who'd have thought?
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1557 : Ah at last Gun Control. My faith in you as a one trick pony gun nut is restored. BUT, Where does it detail how Hollywood is using it's output to propagandise against firearms? Oh no, it doesn't, its just a whine about a bunch of actors with a high public profile but very little actual editorial influence.
..just type in hollywood left... 56,000,000 hits..
My how very scientific of you. 56,000 hits means it MUST be true. Imagine, when I google George Bush Reptilian Alien I get 196,000 hits. I guess that means that George Bush being a reptilian alien is nearly four times more likely than Hollywood having a secret gay/socialist agenda it all its movies? Amazing!
Please keep this up; you just get better and better.
-
Lazs, when they begin attacking all of your sources, then they are truley OW3N3D! :rofl
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Lazs, when they begin attacking all of your sources, then they are truley OW3N3D! :rofl
No, I attacked the relevance of the source content, which I doubt even you could defend in your own inimitably spurious fashion (assuming that the distinction isn't lost on you altogether that is). That said, I'm sure Lazs appreciates the reach aroun.....I mean the support.
-
Lol Momus.. "george bush reptilian alien"?
What the hell led you to do a search on that?
Here, in "amerihating pinkostudmuffin commie traitor" terms, I'll give em an appeal to believe argument they'll understand, since they attribute it to every non-American (actually, everyone politically to the left of a conservative Republican).
"America is trying to build an overseas empire, and needs oil to keep the imperialist war machine running. That is why America attacked Iraq. "
There you go. Do you think that is true?
Do you think that ~ a BILLION muslims do? I do. So since a billion muslims believe it, it is true, right?
-
lol... Shuckins.
I read it and culled out the relevent line....
The Hollywood Ten were not, as it happened, spies for the USSR,
-
momus... no... I did not say 56,000 hits for "hollywood left"
I said 56 MILLION hits. I just took a few off the first page. Every one of em calims that hollywood is a leftist institution. No one but you seems to deny it.
I am simply saying that if they hold that leftist view of life then it is quite logical to assume that it will permeate their work... espcially if they consider their work "art" as hollywood does.
most of us can simply observe the leftist leaning in all the hollywood works. It seems extremely strange that you won't admit that there is at least a leaning towards it.... especially in tv and..
so far as the original thread.... brokebutt mountain is embarrassing in the amount of mindless agendized promotion it recieved.
Anyhow.... their are now 67,000,000 (million )hits for "hollywood left" do your own research or... find anyhting in the 3 million hits for "hollywood conservative" that doesn't just say the same thing (that there are very few who aren't lefties)
Now... I have never seen a lefty who didn't let his agenda get in the way of doing anything and never seen one who felt the truth was as important as his agenda.... nothing I have seen hollywood lefties produce has changed my mind about that.... it permeates their films.
lazs
-
This thread has reached the status of 'Midnght Plowboy'. Completely berift of any entertainment value.
-
Awww Skuzzy! That HURTS! :)
MT, if you read it that's something at least. I left that tidbit in there just for you.
I'm not against the principles of the First Amendment...I'm against hypocrites like some of the Ten who attempted to hide behind the protections inherent in those principles. Several members of the Hollywood Ten denied those principles to their colleagues who fell out of favor with the Party and yet cried "rape" when having to testify before Congress.
One last blurb:
_____________________________ _______________
In 1945...Edward Dmytryk and Adrian Scott were expelled from the Party for refusing to accept the crude propaganda of lawson's hand-picked screenwriter, John Wexley, for their film "Cornered." Robert Rossen faced a similar inquisition over "All the Kings' Men" in 1949. The Hollywood Party objected to this classic film's them of "power corrupts" (too close to Stalin, apparently), and forced Rossen into an excruciating "criticism" session. Rather than submit and recant his work, Rossen agrily resigned from the Party. What is stunning is that the savage "jurors" in the Rossen inquisition were the Ten themselves.
Abraham Polonsky summed up the grim situation in a 1997interview: "The Party style of Marxism didn't have a chance here {in Hollywood}, or in New York either, among intellectuals. The leadership's behavior violated the whole intellectual life of Marxism."
Despite this fine statement on behalf of intellectual freedom, throughout the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, Polonsky went along faithfully with whatever the prevailing Party line happened to be, including the condemnation of Maltz. Polonsky's personal predilections toward "liberalism" were suppressed in the Maltz case in the name of the Party.
Their studied stance of "martyrs" contrasts starkly with one of their lesser known traits...that of "stool pigeons." When the political occasion demanded, these men were perfectly prepared to be "stool pigeons" themselves. The most notorious case is that of Dalton Trumbo. The Ten have derided those people who appeared before HUAC and "named names." But in 1944, Trumbo personally invited the FBI to his house to turn over the names of people who had asked him for copies of his anti-war novel "Johnny Got His Gun."
This fiercly anti-war novel, published in 1939, had been a big hit with Communists during the period of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, but after June 22, 1941, it became a political embarrassment, and Pearl Harbor only added to the problem. The novel dropped out of circulation, so people who opposed WWII despite Pearl Harbor wrote to Trumbo to find out where they could get copies. Trumbo voluntarily denounced these people to the FBI as "defeatists, pacifists [!], and anti-Semites," and turned over names and correspondence. Needless to say, he did not notify the people whose names he had named of what he had done.
Years later, when the Communists were under pressure, historian Arthur Schlesinger suggested in print that people such as Trumbo were so ruthless politically that they would never uphold the civil rights of those with whose politics they disagreed, such as Trotskyists on the left and Ku Klux Klansmen on the right. Trumbo responded with a haughty public denial (filled with sneers at Schlesinger) that he would ever allow the government the right to investigate a person's political beliefs. But of course we now know this printed rebuttal of Schlesinger was a lie. Trumbo had already helped the FBI to do so, and at his own initiative.
Is such a man to be viewed as a hero of freedom of speech?
Regards, Shuckins
-
I knew about Trumbo and "Johnny Got His Gun". Dalton was a punk.
(BTW, if you've ever seen the movie you won't forget it. Very emotional, and scary.)
Condemning HUAC is not the same as holding the 10 up as heros of the 1st Amendment. Many of them were jerks and worse. But they deserved the same right to be a jerk as any other American.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
momus... no... I did not say 56,000 hits for "hollywood left"
I said 56 MILLION hits. I just took a few off the first page. Every one of em calims that hollywood is a leftist institution. No one but you seems to deny it.
So. What do you think that proves?
Noticed you searched "hollywood" "conservative", instead of "hollywood" "right".
I went ahead and did my own meaningless search on the latter and got...40,200,000 hits. :eek:
-
56 to 40 hollywood left wins.
-
Wait a minute.....
Hollywood leftist pinko commie bastards - 9,960!
Hollywood right wing conservative reactionary jerks - 68,200 woohoo!
I win the intardnet!!!
-
You only won because it was raining and the refs were blind!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wait a minute.....
Hollywood leftist pinko commie bastards - 9,960!
Hollywood right wing conservative reactionary jerks - 68,200 woohoo!
I win the intardnet!!!
I get 64,600.... typical of you left wing commie bastards to try to inflate the votes.
-
Lazs, your problem is as follows:
You see a number of high profile "liberals" in Hollywood as representative of the entire industry, of all the investors, commissioning editors, scriptwriters, studio heads, producers, directors etc etc. This is a leap of faith in itself because other than a series of partisan Op-ed pieces coupled with what you "feel" is the truth, you have no data to back this argument up. You just assume that the characters to which you refer are representative of the majority, and more importantly, are the only ones that wield any real influence.
You then compound this initial error by assuming that, since you think that the industry as a whole leans to the left, that this leaning is inevitably translated into bias within the actual material produced. You again have no data to back this up other than a feeling that it just "must" be true.
Arguing on the basis of your intuition rather than on the basis of evidence is a very feminine trait; are you sure there's nothing else you'd like to share with us?
So there we have it; you're basing one faulty assumption on another.
The truth of the matter is that as in any industry, most influence resides with the money men who stand in the background, and ultimately these money men all represent the large media-owning conglomerates. When you accuse the industry of having a socialist agenda to promote, you are levelling this accusation at large capitalist organizations such as Viacom, News Corporation, General electric, Sony and Time Warner. That's how ridiculous the charge really is.
-
momus... just for your own self... be honest... do the search for "hollywood left" and check the content at random... you will see that it is about left wing hollywood politics..
Do a search for "Hollywood right" and you will have to admit that it is mostly things like "Hollywood is right about blah blah blah" or "hollywood picks the right blah blah blah"
The few that use "right" politicaly seem to use it to deride the few hoolywood right wingers...
I am asking you to look at the info honestly is all.
Look at all the books written about hollywood lefties... their is not one book that I could find that even comes close to saying that hollywood is run by the right or, even that it is not run by the left.
If you don't see left leaning in media, tv, movies and actors and comedians then you are dishones or blind... watch TV...
High profile actors and hollywood typoes? I offered to name 5 lefties for every right wing guy you could name. Right wing actors and producers talk of being shunned in hollywood... ever hear a lefty complain that his politics hurt him with his peers? maybe the public but not at hollywood.
Who does hollywood raise money for? last election I believe it was 10 to one for kerry as oppossed to Bush? is that just "high profile" does that not indicate a political preference?
How can you say that holding leftist views does not influence their work? Are you saying that the despicable commies in the fifties did not taint their work with the commie infection?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
momus... just for your own self... be honest... do the search for "hollywood left" and check the content at random... you will see that it is about left wing hollywood politics..
Do a search for "Hollywood right" and you will have to admit that it is mostly things like "Hollywood is right about blah blah blah" or "hollywood picks the right blah blah blah"
The few that use "right" politicaly seem to use it to deride the few hoolywood right wingers...
I think you are being deliberately obtuse now. The onus is still on you to demonsrate how these biases described by you and the pundits to which you refer are being translated into actual movie output. You've been asked to do this time and time again; the articles you quote can't do it and you can't do it.
I am asking you to look at the info honestly is all.
The problem for you is that I have looked at it and none of it proves what you want it to prove. Some of it even contradicts your argument, for example one of the links you provided was an anonymous source bemoaning the supposed treatment of Bruce Willis by the so-called Hollywood liberal elite. Funnily enough, one of the films that is supposed to show liberal bias listed by Mighty1 (for which you thanked him at the time) is 16 Blocks, which stars......yes....Bruce Willis. So according to your case, Bruce Willis is both a victim of the liberal conspiracy and a participant in the same? This just about sums your ridiculous argument up.
Look at all the books written about hollywood lefties... their is not one book that I could find that even comes close to saying that hollywood is run by the right or, even that it is not run by the left.
Great, why don't you give us some quotes that support your argument from said books that we can discuss? Or is it just appeal to belief/argumentum ad populum again?
If you don't see left leaning in media, tv, movies and actors and comedians then you are dishones or blind... watch TV...
Such as?
High profile actors and hollywood typoes? I offered to name 5 lefties for every right wing guy you could name. Right wing actors and producers talk of being shunned in hollywood... ever hear a lefty complain that his politics hurt him with his peers? maybe the public but not at hollywood.
Marvellous. Even assuming what you say is perhaps partially true, you still haven't shown how it translates into bias within the movies made, which was your original assertion that you haven't managed to defend even once as yet over several pages of this thread. Do I need to remind you of your original and still unsubstantiated statements again?
there is a huge gay and liberal population in the movie industry and, like anyone... they make what they like even if catering to the public would serve them better... they simply work a lot harder to get these gay projects out and to make them the best that they can and to promote them...to say that hollywood does not have a lot of liberal gay actors, producers and directors and writers... is pretty darn silly... to say that they don't have an agenda is going against the evidence.
Back to your last post anyway:
Who does hollywood raise money for? last election I believe it was 10 to one for kerry as oppossed to Bush? is that just "high profile" does that not indicate a political preference?
As I said earlier, until you can demonstrate how this preference is being expressed in terms of any significant level of actual output then you are still no further on.
How can you say that holding leftist views does not influence their work? Are you saying that the despicable commies in the fifties did not taint their work with the commie infection?
It is you making a case that this influence on their work exists; it is for you to prove it. It is really that simple. According to one of your previous posts, you've seen "thousands of movies". If this is true, and if your argument that liberal bias is so widespread within Hollywood's output is correct, you should have no trouble listing sufficient examples to demonstrate the amount of bias that you claim exists.
That is all you have to do.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Give up arguing with lazs2 he is either yanking your chain or a total nutjob. Either way there is no point throwing facts at him because he either choses to ignore them or his little mind is to delusional to see them.
fixed it for you.
-
hmm... so you guys believe that the bias of the artist does not extend to his works? Really? I gave a link to top ten books on the hollywood left and they all seem to say differently.
I don't think that anyone here would say that lefty politics do not show themselves in the movies and TV..
lazs
-
Give up lazs. I have pwned you all!
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Lol Lazs.. your arguments are ludicrous.
"OMG, commie pinko studmuffins have overrun the media and are brainwashing everyone! Just look at Brokeback Mountain!1!11! Look! It categorically proves that EVERY SINGLE movie AND TV show (Fox News excluded, I take it) is run by commie homosexhul pinko studmuffins!"
Momus - "I don't believe you... 7 movies hardly proves that all of Hollywood is under the control of some devious commie-pinko-studmuffin-traitor-Al-quida-homosexshul illuminati..."
Lazs- "LIAR! PINKO studmuffin LIAR!! COMMIE TRAITOR!!!"
Momus- "You still haven't really backed up your vie-"
Lazs- "OMG YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR!!! ANYONE CAN SEE THAT ALL OF TV AND MOVIE ARE OVERRUN BY COMMIEPINKOstudmuffinCHEGUEVA RABERETWEARINGHOMOSEXSHULS!!! THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY AND POKE YOU IN THE POOPCHUTE! THE ONLY WAY OUT IS REVOLUTION!!!"
I feel dumber just reading your drivel.
You forgot Black, female, commie pinko studmuffins, Urchin.
You are CLEARLY racist and sexist. Are you on separate accts? How well do you know Mr. Black?:lol
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
You forgot Black, female, commie pinko studmuffins, Urchin.
You are CLEARLY racist and sexist. Are you on separate accts? How well do you know Mr. Black?:lol
I maintain several shades accounts, and argue with myself a lot.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hmm... so you guys believe that the bias of the artist does not extend to his works? Really? I gave a link to top ten books on the hollywood left and they all seem to say differently.
I don't think that anyone here would say that lefty politics do not show themselves in the movies and TV..
lazs
Rofl... someone smack Lazs on the back, he's stuck.
You aren't very familiar with debate, I take it.
Either that or he is seeking to invent a new method of proof... "Proof by Repetition". I suppose if this were in person he may try to combine it with "Proof by Volume"...
-
Was Ford Fairlane a lefty pinko movie? That would bum me out, it was freakin hilarious.
-
I just wanted to drop in to remind everyone how stupid they are for making this a four-page-thread-worthy issue.
:D
Edit: awwwww carp....I tipped it to five. I'm off to hang myself now.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PMM23.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/11/clinton.fundraiser.reut/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/09/politics/main694054.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1203-09.htm
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/022206.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1184818,00.html
Ok... I admit that I am not that good at the google thing but there are literaly hundreds of sites that claim that hollywood supports the left and democrats.
I have seen many references to "83% of dirctors and producers vote democrat" but can't find the poll... no one seems to deny it tho.
In any case... search "hollywood fundraisers" do some research on the blacklist and you will find that.... those guys really were commies. Have they changed their stripes? I think not.
lazs
If there is any doubt just check out their political contributions.
Link (http://www.newsmeat.com/sports_political_donations/)
-
When critics look at the movies of the 40's and 50's they see that the commie influence was indeed there. No one who studies movies denies it.
The commies that were in hollywood used their influence to taint the moveis they worked on.
http://www.powerbooksearch.com/booksearch1565847180.html
It is the same today except that there is no blacklist
http://www.loyno.edu/history/journal/1997-8/Grounds.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1339883/posts
http://www.clantt.com/sports_books/isbn1893554961.html
http://www.laalternativepress.com/v01n22/features/rampell.php
http://www.bookkoob.co.uk/book/1400050308.htm
perhaps it does not exist... perhaps all the oscar nominations lately are just coincidentaly lefty socidalist homo leaning... Perhaps most of the people who percieve hollywood to be lefty are just wrong...
But there are a lot of us and the lefties in hollywood... no matter what their number... are very high profile and very active. They contribute 10 times more than their conservative peers to lefty politics... they are at least 10 times as outspoken and... they seem to control most of the awards... that would seem to me to bear out that the conservatives in hollywood saying that they are ostricised are telling the truth... no one complains that they are being treated unfairly because they are lefty (except by customers)
I guess I would say that I agree with coulters book "Treason" on the hollywood left. In so far as she identifies the problem.\
lazs
-
Laz .... your so far 'right' the whole planet looks 'left' to you.....
-
or... you are so left that you don't even recognize left anymore.
I don't know if I am "right"... I am just observant. I really don't care what they make for entertainment... I watch what I want and I ignore some of the more insipid lefty whines and digs and not so subtle agendas.
The movies they spend all their effort on hold no interest... I won't be seeing them... those with only subtle agendas (and everyone has agendas) be they right or left.... I will enjoy the action or the gratuitous nudity or the humor and ignore the political cloying and pandering whiney agenda.
I just feel that they are wasting their con on me. I also feel that they are wasting it on you since they are preaching to the choir.
lazs
-
Pulled this out of one of lazs' links...
From the anticapitalist themes of gangster films such as 1931's Public Enemy and the explicit and, for its time, shocking antilynching message that screenwriter Hugo Butler inserted in Mickey Rooney's 1938 Huckleberry Finn to the underlying class-struggle implications of film noir and the proletarian subtext of The Wizard of Oz
"Anti-lynching" is leftist?
Wait a minute here.... How many threads have been started on this BBS extolling the virtues of the old actors and their patriotism. I thought those were the good old days... will you guys make up your minds!
-
I'm not sure if it's even worth posting on this any more since you're doing such a good job of demolishing your own argument Lazs. Maybe you should read your own links before you post them?
Quoted directly from first link you posted:
America’s increased awareness of homosexuals that resulted from the Kinsey studies and the increased attempts by the government to expel homosexuals from government agencies resulted in the increased discussion of homosexuality within the popular culture.
The implication is clear - discussion within "popular culture" of these issues was in response to what was going on in society, not the opposite as you contend.
Although Hollywood attempted to do its part to enforce the conservative agenda dominating America in the 1950s, Americans were beginning to show signs that they were willing to pay to view films containing content that the MPPDA found inappropriate, and the Production Code’s authority began to weaken by the mid-fifties.
Is any of this sinking in yet?
Changes in the acceptable images of Hollywood films reflected mainstream Americans’ limited willingness to view homosexuality in the mass media. Homosexuality could be portrayed and discussed as long as the images and discussions were "safe" and "discrete," which usually meant revealing the social condemnation of homosexuals.
Again, Hollywood refecting the tastes of society, not trying to change them.
By 1969, the media was forced to acknowledge the existence of a gay community and the issues it faced.
Read that. "Forced to acknowledge". Not "tried to force it down soceties throat".
Although American audiences in the 1990s can see healthy lesbian characters, and hear them defined as "lesbians," only an independent film has managed to completely validate lesbianism by portraying a successful relationship between two women.
I thought you were arguing that promotion of homsexuality was rife, not that it was relegated to indie films. Confused? I think you are.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1339883/posts - I'm not sure how you think this opinion article on the Passion of the Christs failure to garner oscars helps your argument; from the piece itself:
A movie that got far, far better reviews and made even more money as the seventh-ranking movie of all time -- 'Shrek 2' -- wasn't nominated for best picture either and nobody's outraged about that,"
http://www.clantt.com/sports_books/isbn1893554961.html - Great, another link that totally fails to give any information at all as to how Hollywood is promoting a left wing agenda via it's movie output.
http://www.laalternativepress.com/v01n22/features/rampell.php - again, lot of talk about about activism on the part of today's actors; very little substance when it comes to describing how this activism is being translated into film output.
I guess I would say that I agree with coulters book "Treason" on the hollywood left. In so far as she identifies the problem
Actually, I'd say the reason you identify with Coulter is that you share her knack of arriving at whichever conclusion she's chosen in advance irrespective of the quality of the evidence to hand.
Pretty poor effort all in all Lazs. Keep digging though; I'm enjoying watching you make my case for me.
-
MT... many of the actors that are reviled today like Charleton Heston and Regan were very active in civil rights and equal rights. I agree with what they were doing. They were all about the "equal" part.
I believe that most of what you are talking about is the blacklist. Those people were indeed commies and it influenced their work. I also believe that they may have been high profile but that they were not even as big of a majority as they are today so yes..... the old days were more conservative.
lazs
-
Even movies like Robocop are very influential. Now what was the theme of Robocop? Corporate takeover of a city. About that time when Robocop came out, a building design was chosen for our city hall and govt. offices that looked like something out of that movie. It was built. Makes you think.
Also about that time I noticed some university police dept. cars in this state sported the Robocop look for awhile. Flat black overall. Makes you think.
But yes, that's a small example of the influence movies have on the "movers and shakers". They built ugly and intimidating buildings and police cars under the movie's influence. The building is built, but those campus police cars painted like that weren't around long, probably because they looked sinister. The association of both designs with the movie in both cases is undeniable.
Not that the police car design was all that bad, kinda cool but definitely not politically correct by today's standards for a college campus I would think.
I agree with Lazs. Movies are influential. So are TV shows. Why do you think movies are rated, or TV shows place "warnings" before the viewing audience? Ya think they would if it wasn't the law? It's when movies (entertainment) influence action that they become under scrutiny, and rightfully so. Who here has not questioned a movie's message? I don't see why the HW elite are afraid to admit being biased, for heaven's sake. Seems most outspoken people readily admit it. It's a phony baloney world with Hollywood.
Les
-
Momus... what is "popular culture"? it is not me and my friends or even yours.... It is media including hollywood... you are destroying your own arguement if you admit that "popular culture" pushed a gay awareness or... agenda for one.
you then go on to say that... while Americans were uncomfortable with leftist ideas... Hollywood threw as much of it at them as they could get away with (make a buck) again.... simply what I have been saying.
sinking in yet?
You seem to be admitting, at least in part, what I and others are saying.... that regardless of the money... the left finds these topics to important to ignore... that they will push them at every opportunity.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Momus... what is "popular culture"? it is not me and my friends or even yours.... It is media including hollywood... you are destroying your own arguement if you admit that "popular culture" pushed a gay awareness or... agenda for one.
Reading comprehension trouble Lazs? Or is it that you don't like what you dragged up and are now trying to change the meaning? It's quite clear what the author is implying here, which is that the media, hollywood, popular culture, call it what you like, was behaving reactively rather than proactively around the subject of homsexuality.
you then go on to say that... while Americans were uncomfortable with leftist ideas... Hollywood threw as much of it at them as they could get away with (make a buck) again.... simply what I have been saying.
Where did I say that? Oh look, I didn't say that. You are just being desperately dishonest. The quote I actually used indicated that Hollywood would only portray homosexuality as long is it reflected " the social condemnation of homosexuals."
You seem to be admitting, at least in part, what I and others are saying.... that regardless of the money... the left finds these topics to important to ignore... that they will push them at every opportunity.
No Lazs, that's just wishful thinking on your part, much like most of your case to date. Furthermore you haven't even come close to proving it yourself as evidenced by this thread. I'm sure that if you keep repeating it to yourself you'll come to believe it though; that much is so far apparent.
-
He *already* believes it.. the point of a proof by repetition is that if he repeats himself often enough, other people may come to believe it as well.
-
Lazs ain't trying to prove anything, he's stating his opinion. It's you guys making a debate out of it.
You must have inside knowledge.:D
Les
-
urchin.... and yet.... you have claimed my arguement if false and that I am merely repeating myself over and over by....
by saying that 3 times and never once adding anything else to the discussion.... you do realize that is what you are doing right?
momus... Of course I realize what the author is saying but he is addmitting that the "popular culture" is leftist and then trys to argue that they are responding to a leftist "demand" in the public...
Only problem is... no pole has ever shown that the public is leftist. Just the oppossite.
lazs
-
Lol lazs... I'm not the one making a claim here, brainiac.
You "Hollywood is commie."
Momus "prove it."
You "dont have to."
Momus "yea you do."
You "Fine.. Hollywood is commie. There, I proved it."
Momus "That isnt proof, thats you saying what you said already."
You "I DID prove it. Hollywood is commie. There! I proved it TWICE."
-
urchin... you are not following the drift of the thing. You are not saying that I am simply repeating the same thing hoping it will stick when that is in fact exactly what you have done 4 times in a row.
you claim I said things that I have not. you refute not one of my points or sources... you don't refute my rebutals to momus and ....
most of all... you seem to not even notice that hollywood is left leaning. I can't come up with one example of anyone even in the business not admitting that...
I have not seen you or momus admit it either. We can't even get past that.
The whole thing started when coulter accurately described the kinds of films that hollywood honors... she then accurately pointed out the agendas in said films and you guys pretty much said..... "well...yeah but... that is just a coincidence and nothing to do with their agenda."
I say you are blind or dishonest or both.
lazs
-
Your argument is that some amorphous entity called Hollywood only produces movies that promote some kind of homosexual agenda. At least, I think that is where you started. IIRC, you then modified your case to include "commie" at some point.
It was then "proven" that Hollywood was promoting a "left gay commie" agenda by publishing an exhaustive list of 7 films.
After it was pointed out that 7 films isn't exactly a large enough sample to draw a conclusion about the population (namely, movies), you resorted to "Its obvious" and "I googled it, and there are 56 million hits".
Neither of those arguments actually prove anything.
It would be like me saying (which I said earlier, but apparently you weren't paying attention) that the US invaded Iraq just for oil. If you don't believe that you are either blind or dishonest. I can't think of one person other than you who can't admit that it is true. Heck, I even googled it and there are 58 million hits.
I even tried looking up "american invasion depose saddam" and I only got 109,000 hits, and most of those were saying "only a fool would think america invaded Iraq to depose Saddam".
I really think you are being dishonest here lazs...
-
If you haven't check out Krusher's link to political campaign contributions you need to do so. That is...if you truly have an open mind about the topic.
I dare say that, after looking at the first couple of pages, at least 80% of Hollywood's celebrities donate heavily to Democratic candidates or "special interests" and give nothing to Republican candidates.
That 80% may not be conclusive enough for some of you but would be pretty damning evidence of bias if it were being used in a civil rights lawsuit involving any other major business or corporation.
-
Ok, now show me how who "they" contribute to affects the movies "they" make.
Remember... EVERY movie that hollywood makes is pushing some "homosexual communist" agenda.
I guess I really am blind... I'll tell you the past couple movies I saw (admittedly, only parts of), and you can tell me what homocommie subliminal message I must've missed.
I just got done watching part of "The Weatherman", and yesterday I saw a bit of "The Man".
So please, tell me what the evil commiestudmuffins in Hollywood were trying to brainwash me with, since I must've missed it.
-
Urchin,
You're missing the point. Is that accidental or intentional?
Certainly Hollywood produces a wide variety of movies with a plethora of themes; some are family oriented and some social and political in nature.
It's the ones they have chosen to honor that are revealing about the nature of the Hollywood elite. Of those nominated for best picture of the year not ONE was in the top ten in terms of viewer popularity.
Don't give me that bull about them choosing to honor the pictures for their artistic quality. It was the political message, pure and simple, that earned those films their nominations.
Some of the things said by Hollywood's finest prior to and during the Oscars themselves are very revealing as to their intentions. Little phrases such as "groundbreaking" or "this is our maverick year" are quite illuminating.
A maverick is a rebel against conformity. That raises the question "What are they rebelling against?" An objective analysis might well conclude that they were rebelling against the "social and political conformities" of the "heartland" with which they seem to be so at odds.
There has been a considerable backlash against the Hollywood elite in middle America and in the conservative press during the last couple of years because of the vitriolic political statements made during the Oscars. Consequently, the number of viewers has begun to drop off. Nevertheless, entertainment's finest continue to search for new ways to parade their beliefs before the public.
The campaign contributions reinforce the view that many Americans have of Hollywood actors, which is that of self-absorbed, elitist, socialistic, biased snobs.
-
I'd just like to see Hollywood, or Anywood, make one or two good movies before I die of old age. It's all mostly crap, with crappy themes and crappy plots with crappy actors delivering crappy dialogue - crappily.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Don't give me that bull about them choosing to honor the pictures for their artistic quality. It was the political message, pure and simple, that earned those films their nominations.
There is absolutely no way for you to know that.
But consider this... Maybe the impact of the films was increased by the content thus adding to the artisic quality. A similarly filmed story about a straight love affair might not have had near the impact of Brokeback Mountain. Or are you contending that the content of the movie contributes nothing to the quality or impact?
-
MT,
Content is the crux of the matter. Think about what you just said. Brokeback Mountain was nominated for Best Picture exactly because of its "content."
People of my acquaintance who have seen it are at a loss to explain the acclaim it has garnered. These are people who are highly educated, of varying backgrounds and political ideologies, and have impeccable taste. One stated, "As far as having the qualities necessary to be nominated for an Oscar it comes up short. It's only a B-rated love story. It is actually just a vehicle for carrying a message."
They all reached pretty much the same conclusion...Hollywood's denizens would never have given it serious consideration for an Oscar had it not been for it's "content."
I have a problem understanding why some are so reluctant to admit that Hollywood airs its agenda at the Oscars. They haven't exactly been subtle about it.
-
I have no trouble admitting that leftist messages have been sent by Hollywood. The point is that it is hardly a regular occurance. It is all about the money. <--- period!
Of course rightist messages have been sent also. (The Longest Day.. Green Berets.. etc.) Then of course there are the messages about great hairy apes who climb buildings with scantily clad women... those are really the most common.
-
Green Berets...yeah...no problem there...definitely a pro-war movie.
The Longest Day??? I would REALLY like to know what type of political message it had. It was more documentary than political statement.
The Green Berets is nearly 40 years old...The Longest Day is even older.
Hollywood hasn't made a pro-war movie since the Duke died.
One of the friends I mentioned in my previous post said that King Kong was a better chick flick than Brokeback Mountain....but he's rather opinionated.
King Kong...the world's biggest womanizer. Wonder what his political affiliation is....
-
By the way...someone needs to go cut Vor's lifeless body down.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
most of all... you seem to not even notice that hollywood is left leaning. I can't come up with one example of anyone even in the business not admitting that...
I have not seen you or momus admit it either. We can't even get past that.
I'm starting to think you actually lack the capacity to conduct your argument rather than just being deliberately obtuse.
No-one has argued with you that many high profile figures within Hollywood lean to the left. What is at issue is how that political support affects actual movie output. All you have is the assumption that because many in the industry lean to the left, the movie output will be inevitably tainted as a consequence. Fine, so lets say you're correct; where are the consequences of this bias? The industry produces many hundreds of movies annually, and so far all you and your comedy sidekick Mighty1 have given us a list of..seven films....movies which may or may not even express this bias you allege.
Seven movies..that is all you have provided as evidence of the of what you termed as a widespread bias within the industry. Seven movies..
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I'd just like to see Hollywood, or Anywood, make one or two good movies before I die of old age. It's all mostly crap, with crappy themes and crappy plots with crappy actors delivering crappy dialogue - crappily.
Hang on in there Rolex, your going to wanna see this.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Film/Land-of-the-killer-sheep/2005/05/04/1115092536271.html
(http://www.wetaworkshop.co.nz/resources/images/gallery/fullsize/BlkShp01IMG.jpg)
(http://www.wetaworkshop.co.nz/resources/images/gallery/fullsize/BlkShp03IMG.jpg)
Excel
-
Now that's what I'm talking about - mutant killer sheep!
Living right on the approaches to AH runways, hiding in 200' killer trees.
-
Did anyone see this weeks Boston Legal?
I had it taped and finally watched it last night. That show alone proves hollywood is left.
The whole show was about how Bush lied about WMD was illegally wire tapping everyday citizens and how he was destroying the Bill of Rights.
It was nothing more than an hour long left wing rant.
edit: Forgot to say they even took a swipe at Fox.
-
Didn't see it, but from what I've read, Bush lied about WMD, ordered illegal wiretapping in contravention of the 1978 Surveillance Act and is chipping away at your Bill of Rights. That would make the show a right-wing rant, wouldn't it?
-
Hunh?
How?
-
Is "truthiness" right wing or left wing?
-
urchin and momus... allmost all of the movies nominated for awards this year had a leftist or homosexual or bizzare sexual theme. You seem unable to admit this.
I say that Hollywood left gets 67 million hits and that Hollywood right has allmost none. I say that no books are made that say hollywood leans two far to the right yet dozens are written that say the opposite... I say that no one in hollywood will say that hollywood is not leftist or left leaning.... shukins points out that they even brag about "breaking new ground" with all hommo movies and it is a fact that no other movie than brokebutt mountain ever recieved so many awards from so many people who never seen it.
I say that hollywood raises vast amounts of money for democrats and left leaning causes but little for conservative ones. I say that 85% of comedians are liberal... I say that all this taints the work that these people do.
I believe that all this is so obvious to most people that it is just accepted..
Coulter writes that the films nominated have agendas that are leftist... she says how and she is right. she writes a book talking about the Hollywood left and she is probly correct on that too.... I have only read parts of it and I am sure that momus or urchin have read none of it.
I offer to name 5 lefties in hollywood for every right winger momus or urchin can name. I now offer to read any book that disputes that hollywood is leftist and would be especialy interested in any book or even article... that claims hollywood is conservative.
In the "we only went to iraq for the oil" arguement. There are ample examples of papers and even books that support and refute it. I would say that none claim that it is that simple tho.
With hollywood... no one claims it is not leftist... only degree is in question and... for sake of this arguement... how much it taints the work done by said leftists.
lazs
-
bowling for columbine got all kinds of awards including best documentary when it was about 90% false...
farenheight got awards and praise even tho it was about the same amount BS and... everyone knew that both were simple politcal leftist rants... the tubby one is an avowed socialist and leftie... he lets his work be tainted to the point of intentional twisting of fact.
I am saying that the hollywood left all act as he does but simply not as much... in varying degrees but allways there. I am also saying that a right wing director and crew would probly taint their works for the conservative side.
To think otherwise seems both dishonest and naive.
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Is "truthiness" right wing or left wing?
Both and neither!
Telling the truth should be done by all and it cannot be attached to one party.
Both sides have liars so the tag of "liar" cannot be attached to one party either.
Both sides have corrupt people.
Both sides have their fringe nutjobs.
As for the show I did watch it and it gave no facts that Bush lied...none nor did it tell the truth when they said that Bush was spying on everyone. Again no facts to back up claims of wrong doing.
Just left wing Hollywood (and most Democrats) trying to make Bush out to be a criminal without ever showing one ounce of proof.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
urchin and momus... allmost all of the movies nominated for awards this year had a leftist or homosexual or bizzare sexual theme. You seem unable to admit this.
Ok Lazs, why don't you give us a quick run through this years nominees and tell us why you (not Coulter) think they are designed to advance the agenda you are claiming exists. Once you've done that, maybe you can tell us what all the other gay/liberal agenda movies are that you claim exist but have so far failed to name.
I say that Hollywood left gets 67 million hits and that Hollywood right has allmost none.
Great, and anyone with half a brain is laughing at you if you think that is any kind of valid method of data collection.
I say that no books are made that say hollywood leans two far to the right yet dozens are written that say the opposite...
All that proves is that writing books that cater to the prejudices of paranoid reactionaries is a lucrative business, or did you think Coulter writes her garbage out of altruism?
I say that no one in hollywood will say that hollywood is not leftist or left leaning.... shukins points out that they even brag about "breaking new ground" with all hommo movies and it is a fact that no other movie than brokebutt mountain ever recieved so many awards from so many people who never seen it.
Brokeback got awards from people who had never even seen it? Source? And what are all these other "homo" movies that no-one is forcing anyone to go and watch? Titles?
I say that hollywood raises vast amounts of money for democrats and left leaning causes but little for conservative ones. I say that 85% of comedians are liberal... I say that all this taints the work that these people do.
And yet when asked, you can't even list the films that you think are thus tainted other than a tiny percentage of total output based on a list drawn up by somebody else.
I believe that all this is so obvious to most people that it is just accepted..
Which means absolutely nothing in itself. 70% of Americans are said to have erroneously believed that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. Are you saying that they were right all along?
Coulter writes that the films nominated have agendas that are leftist... she says how and she is right. she writes a book talking about the Hollywood left and she is probly correct on that too.... I have only read parts of it and I am sure that momus or urchin have read none of it.
I don't need to read Coulter to know that she is talking nonsense; I just need to look at the list of nominees over the last few decades or so. Why don't you do the same and list all these gay liberal movies that are nominated year after year?
I offer to name 5 lefties in hollywood for every right winger momus or urchin can name. I now offer to read any book that disputes that hollywood is leftist and would be especialy interested in any book or even article... that claims hollywood is conservative.
You can name as many hollywood liberals as you like; you still can't list any significant number of films that promote this agenda you claim exists..that is the point that you are still trying to dodge.
In the "we only went to iraq for the oil" arguement. There are ample examples of papers and even books that support and refute it. I would say that none claim that it is that simple tho.
And yet you're more than happy to assign a similarly simplistic argument to a complex situation in this case when it satisifies your prejudices?
With hollywood... no one claims it is not leftist... only degree is in question and... for sake of this arguement... how much it taints the work done by said leftists.
Good, so why don't you just get on with proving how you think most of Hollywood is trying to advance a gay/liberal agenda via it's actual output by actually describing any significant number of the films in question, you know, like I've been asking you to do all along?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I say that Hollywood left gets 67 million hits and that Hollywood right has allmost none.
As I already posted, Hollwood right gets over 40 million hits.
-
ok... but it is not "right" as we are talking about... it is right as in "correct". If you say hollywood left, you get the political meaning... in order to get the political meaning of "hollywood right" you would have to say "hollywood conservative" and when you do that you only get 3 million hits most of which are just saying the same as the hits for "hollywood left".... that.... there is no hollywood right to speak of.
momus.... name a hollywood actor director or producer that is conservative and I will name 5 that are lefties...
Name one book that says that hollywood is mostly right wing or even balanced between right and left... I am saying that it is obvious that hollywood leans to the left and showing you by all the books and all the hits that most people take this for granted as an undeniable truth.
It's like asking if the pope is catholic.
lazs
-
Ahem... correlation and causation aren't the same thing.
-
OK Lazs... 5 for 1
Danny Aiello (Act)
Kim Alexis (Act)
Denise Austin (Sports)
Alan Autry (Act/Fresno,CA Mayor)
Bob Backlund (Wrestler/Pol. candidate)
"Sir" Charles Barkley (Sports)
Jeff "Skunk" Baxter (Music)
Orson Bean (Act)
Catherine Bell (Act)
Belamy Brothers (Music)
Tom Beringer (Act)
Jan Berry of "Jan and Dean" (Music)
Clint Black (Music)
Lisa Hartman Black (Act)
Ernest Borgnine (Act)
Bruce Boxleitner (Act)
George Brett (Sports)
Jack Buck (Sports)
Jim Bunning (Sports/KY US Senator)
Delta Burke (Act)
Kirk Cameron (Act)
Drew Carey (Act) (Libertarian)
Dixie Carter (Act)
Nell Carter (Act)
Harry Wayne "K.C." Casey of "KC and the Sunshine Band" (Music)
Tom Clancy (Author)
Harry Connick Jr (Music/Act) (Democrat)
Robert Conrad (Act)
Charlie Daniels (Music)
Tony Danza (Act)
Doris Day (Act)
Bo Derek (Act)
C.C. Deville (Music)
Mike Ditka (Sports)
Shannon Doherty (Act)
Jerry Doyle (Act/Pol. cand.)
Fred Dryer (Sports/Act)
Leslie Easterbrook (Act)
Clint Eastwood (Act) (Libertarian)
Buddy Ebsen (Act)
John Elway (Sports)
Chad Everett (Act)
Brett Favre (Sports)
Glenn Ford (Act)
Haden Fry (Sports)
John Gavin (Act/fmr. Amb. to Mexico)
Crystal Gayle (Music)
Sarah Michelle Gellar (Act)
Joe Gibbs (Sports)
Mel Gibson (Act)
Melissa Gilbert (Act)
Clarence Gilyard (Act)
Rev. Billy Graham (Religious)
Kelsey Grammar (Act)
Fred Grandy (Act/Fmr. IA Congressman)
Merle Haggard (Music)
George Hamilton (Act)
Paul Harvey (Radio)
Patricia Heaton (Act)
Charlton Heston (Act)
Catherine Hicks (Act)
Hal Holbrook (Act)
Bob Hope (Act)
Dennis Hopper (Act)
Susan Howard (Act)
Dale Jarrett (Sports)
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (Wrestler/Act)
Jimmy Johnson (Sports)
Christine Jones
Shirley Jones (Act)
Jeff Kent (Sports)
Bobby Knight (Sports)
Yaphet Kotto (Act)
Steve Largent (Sports/OK Congressman & future Governor)
John Larroquette (Act) (questionable)
Tommy Lasorda (Sports)
Jerry "The King" Lawler (Wrestler/Act/Pol. cand.)
Al Leiter (Sports)
Meat Loaf (Music/Act)
Anne Lockhart (Sports)
Heather Locklear (Act)
Mike Love (Music)
George Lucas (Director) (questionable)
David Lynch (Director)
Loretta Lynn (Music)
Norm MacDonald (Act)
Karl "The Mailman" Malone (Sports)
Barbara Mandrell (Music)
Louise Mandrell (Music)
Jackie Mason (Comedian/Act)
Johnny Mathis (Music)
Charles McCord (of Imus In the Morning)
Reba McEntire (Music/Act)
Bernard McGuirk (of Imus In the Morning)
Don McLean (Music)
Linda McMahon (Sports)
Gerald McRaney (Act)
Al Michaels (Sports)
John Milius (Director)
Lorrie Morgan (Music)
Julianne Morris (Act)
Wendy Moten (Music)
Jim Nabors (Act)
Wayne Newton (Act)
Chuck Norris (Act)
Ted Nugent (Music)
Gary Numan (Music)
The Oak Ridge Boys (Music)
Mike Oldfield (Music)
Gary Oldman (Act)
Tom Osborne (Sports/now NE Congressman)
Ken Osmond (Act)
Marie Osmond (Music/Act)
Fess Parker (Act)
Jameson Parker (Act)
Joe Paterno (Sports)
Joe Pesci (Act)
Richard Petty (Sports/Pol. cand.)
Regis Philbin (Act)
John Popper (Music)
Laura Prepon (Act)
Nancy Davis Reagan (Act/First Lady)
Ronald Reagan (Act/Governor/President)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA Congressman)
Roseanne (Act)
Kurt Russell (Act) (Libertarian)
Pat Sajak (Act)
Pete Sampras (Sports)
Rick Schroeder (Act)
Jon Secada (Music)
Tom Selleck (Act)
Paul Shanklin (Satirist)
Ricky Skaggs (Music)
Paul Sorvino (Act)
Robert Stack (Act)
Nancy Stafford (Act)
Ben Stein (Act)
George Steinbrenner (Sports)
Shirley Temple-Black (Act/fmr. Ambassador)
Dave Thomas (Act) (SCTV, not Wendy's)
Fred Thompson (Act/TN US Senator)
Dean Torrance of "Jan and Dean" (Music)
Joe Torres (Sports)
Travis Tritt (Music)
Janine Turner (Act)
Val Venis (Wrestler)
Jimmy (J.J.) Walker (Act/Radio)
Darrell Waltrip (Sports)
Julius Caesar "J.C." Watts, Jr. (Sports/OK Congressman)
Patrick Wayne (Act)
Ann Wedgeworth (Act)
Lisa Whelchel (Act)
Reggie White (Sports)
Cindy Williams (Act)
Hank Williams Jr. (Music)
Ted Williams (Sports)
Martha Williamson (Producer)
Noble Willingham (Act/Pol. cand.)
Bruce Willis (Act)
Tiger Woods (Sports)
BeBe Wynans (Music)
CeCe Wynans (Music)
ZZ Top (Music)
Go! (that's 165, you owe me 825 names)
-
Ok... I didn't say sports or music or religion tho. so that would be...
what?
Robert Altman Gillian Anderson Jennifer Aniston Ed Asner
Rene Auberjonois Alec Baldwin Kim Bassinger Ed. Begley, Jr.
Harry Belafonte Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream Jackson Browne Diahann Carroll
CCH Pounder Don Cheadle Jill Clayburgh George Clooney
Peter Coyote Lindsay Crouse Sheryl Crow Joan Cusak
John Cusack Tyne Daley Matt Damon Dixie Chicks
Vincent D'Onofrio Ani Di'Franco David Duchovny Charles S. Dutton
Steven Earle Hector Elizondo Cary Elwes Mike Farrell
Mia Farrow Lawrence Fishburne Sean Patrick Flannery Jane Fonda
Harrison Ford Bonnie Franklin Janeanne Garafolo Richard Gere
Danny Glover Elliot Gould Robert Guillaume
Woody Harrelson Ed Harris Ethan Hawke Dustin Hoffman
Ken Howard Helen Hunt Angelica Huston Chrissie Hynde
Samuel Jackson Melina Kanakaredes Casey Kasem Sally Kirkland
Jessica Lange Spike Lee Heath Ledger Madonna
Wendie Malick Camryn Manheim Marsha Mason Richard Masur
Dave Matthews Moby Michael Moore Esai Morales
Chris Noth Ed Norton Ed O'Neill Alexandra Paul
Sean Penn Bonnie Raitt Robert Redford Carl Reiner
REM Tim Robbins Julia Roberts Susan Sarandon
Tony Shalhoub Martin Sheen Kevin Spacey Gloria Steinem
Oliver Stone Marcia Strassman Barbara Streisand Loretta Swit
Studs Terkel Lily Tomlin Kathleen Turner Blair Underwood
Dennis Weaver Bradley Whitford James Whitmore Robin Williams
Alfre Woodard Noah Wyle
for a start...
lazs
-
and dennis hopper is not conservative.
-
I dont think roseanne is either.
Bronk
-
That isn't even 1 for 1 ......let alone 5 for one.
-
Anyone that doesn't think Hollywood politics are predominently liberal, and believe they don't have an agenda, needs to sit down and read a few books. I highly recommend the following (3 of which I've read)
Shut up and sing--Laura Ingraham
Off with their heads--Dick Morrison
The Death of Right and Wrong--Tammy Bruce
Tales from the Left Coast : True Stories of Hollywood Stars and Their Outrageous Politics--James Hirsen
Tales is the book I want to read next. Read this part of it: (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0761517855/ref=sib_fs_top/104-2321156-9100731?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00L&checkSum=Vj4%2BK0LzRRq4FQO%2FkYOshasZU7liX4ZUctvTG6qYFqc%3D#reader-link)
-
mt are you sure? leave out the music and sports and religion ones... I gave you politicians that were allso directors or actors too. I also gave you about 20 that I consider are more left leaning than right so... what are the numbers now?
every useless baldwin brother or relative....
Sam mendes. paul newman debra zne geof murphy dermountr mulroney merril karph gary daigler llyd ahernrichard zanuck thomas babe david wenham joseph fiennes tobey maguire skeet ulrich jewe jeffrey wright ang lee simon baker jonatan meyers james cavezeljames shamus gil bellows renee zellweger c.m. talkington tom richmond darin scott paul brooks shawn williamson isela vega kevin burnskim egan torie rosenzweig meg ryan jenifer leigh jane campian laurie parker nick damici elie samaha demian lichtenstein richard spero richard buton elizebeth taylor kevin pollack sean connery don murphy michael nelson shane west stuart townsend peta wilson
Where we at now?
As for proving that the leftist views taint their work.... surely you have all heard these empty headed socialist commies speak about their fims and the "message" they are trying to get across....
lazs
-
Hollywood sux.
Wasn't half them Bastages prior to the War voleentering for Saddams wood chipper? Then why is Johnny Depp still acting?
Hollywood is so far left Liberalistically that their own thought is "supposed" to be the pace of America. PhaaaaLeeez give me a break.
Makes me wanna puke. Act as if there is no hidden agenda....pfffft, if you believe that you're brainwashed and dead above the neck.
They say California will someday fall into the Ocean?... Can't happen soon enough. An American Colon Cleansing!
Mac
-
Has anyone ever heard of anybody being far right liberialistically?
-
rip.... I bought that book just now.... $1.75 former library copy... figured if I was gonna spout off so much and that if there were really people out there who actually didn't believe in the hollywood left...
wouldn't hurt to read a book or two..
still searching for one that claims hollywood is right wing.... maybe mt or momus could point me at one?
lazs
-
Never said Hollywood was right wing.
-
So what is your opinion on the position of hollywood on the generalistic liberialistinosity spectrum?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So what is your opinion on the position of hollywood on the generalistic liberialistinosity spectrum?
Well,
I think that in the grand scheme of all that is lefterity, the liberalosity of the commusicisiosness is personified in the absolute pinkoisticality of the producers.
-
well said, lingusticnosically speaking.