Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

It's upsetting the political order.

Comments Filter:
  • Possibly the only thing dumber than the Congressional strain.
    • They merely present caricatures. That is their purpose, and the people that pay them are pleased.

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

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

          • What's not to like?

            About Hollywood? How do you want that report sorted?

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

              • There are those that build, and those that tear down. One has more admiration for the former category, though the near-term profits of the latter are undeniable.
                • Well, Hollywood builds fantasies. Who is tearing what down?

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

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

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

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

                      What bloody theory?? Contracts were signed. The ebb and flow of payables and receivables was maintained for the duration of the project. People were hired and fired. As far as I know, everybody got paid. Over 600 million big ones changed hands so far. What else is there? How does Brooks' "The Producers" square with your 'theory', whatever it may be? And what is all that gibberish in the rest of your post? The question I originally posed

                    • What else is there?

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

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

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

                    • Are you serious? What "conspiratorial theory" have I implied by asking the question:
                      given a market, and players purportedly in that market, why are the players not playing?
                      I've offered specific examples (Gibson), metaphor (hydrocarbons) and yet you're interested in turning the question back on me.
                      As it happens, I've long since determined that you're just a troll, given to compulsive mind-fracking, so it's no biggy.
                      I'll just laugh at you, and accept your silliness as an admission of impotence.
                    • Everything you know is based on a press release. And you're still not making sense. You are the proverbial 'conspiracy theorist', looking for things that aren't there, and missing the things that are. It can only lead me to believe you're not interested anything that is not framed by your narrative. My aim is to find out if it's intentional or not, conscious or subconscious, free will or biologically determined. Your ongoing defensiveness throughout and avoidance of direct wording has been most enlightening

                    • *Yawn*
                      Does it really boil down to a contest of wills, then? If so, I can only tell you that you are the BEST!
                    • Contest? Nope, just a simple Q & A... But since I'm talking to the hand, there shall be no A


                      :-) Of course!

"I shall expect a chemical cure for psychopathic behavior by 10 A.M. tomorrow, or I'll have your guts for spaghetti." -- a comic panel by Cotham