Hollywood Is Taking Beating At Box Office

[The ClayTaurus]

Damn... I'm 6' 3" in my cowboy boots. Does that mean I have to feel bad if I call somebody 'punk' from now on?

Probably ain't gonna' happen.

I dunno, ask Sitarro, he's the one who gets really sensitive about it.

 

[Nienna]

his vocalizations of political views against half of his fans and the country that has made him famous while taking full advantage of a free capitalist society is hypocritical at best. I walked away from a concert where in between songs he spouted out a bunch of lies and rumors against conservative voters. He can have whatever belief he wants, just don't insult me by getting me to pay to hear music and use the stage as a soap box to push an agenda.

Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks. Pandering their anti-American drivel cost them a soaring career.

 

[007]

Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks. Pandering their anti-American drivel cost them a soaring career.

And that is exactly where I see hollywierd heading... if they don't change their ways.

But you and I both know they won't. A liberal would rathere cut their own wrist's than purport anything conservative.

 

[Nienna]

And that is exactly where I see hollywierd heading... if they don't change their ways.

But you and I both know they won't. A liberal would rathere cut their own wrist's than purport anything conservative.

I honestly think they can't see it. They are so immersed in their own subculture, and they have absolutely no idea how the average American lives and thinks, conservatism is such an alien philosophy, that they can't see what they are doing wrong. They seriously can't get it.

 

[007]

I honestly think they can't see it. They are so immersed in their own subculture, and they have absolutely no idea how the average American lives and thinks, conservatism is such an alien philosophy, that they can't see what they are doing wrong. They seriously can't get it.

That's pretty much it. They think we're all just a bunch of close minded, unenlightened, straw chewing hicks. Of course they couldn't be more wrong. Problem for them is, "WE" pay their outragous sallaries.

I don't see any MAJOR shake up in hollywierd, but I do see maybe a changing of the gaurd so to speak. Someone that will spell it out to them... "clean it up, or go broke".

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The political activism of hollywood people may very well play some part in people's decision whether or not see a movie, but if the assumption that the biggest spending demographic of movies are males the age of 15 to 34, then the political activism wouldn't be to big.

The members of this board are generally politically aware, however just looking at voting demographics the male group of 15 to 34 typically are not. I don't want to discount your theory, I just do not believe it to be the biggest factor.

A poor product offered by the moive studios really is the most likely case.

It would actually be interesting if we could find out what demographic actually had the largest drop in movie going.

15-34 might be the largest demographic in pure numbers, but families, in making a decision I think is more powerful. PG movies do better than R movies. Why? Because a family counts for 3-8 people.

The SINGLE BIGGEST determinor in how a person votes rep or dem, is if they are married or not.

While I didnt say its the BIGGEST factor, I do belive its a BIG factor, and that it is probably 4-5 major factors involved. Poor quality being one.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

One word: Netflix.

Going to the local movie theater, I pay $16 for two tickets to see a movie once, in a room full of inconsiderate (and sometimes sick) people. Add the obligatory popcorn that my wife won't do without and a small snack for me (since I don't like popcorn) and we're up to $25. For one movie.

Netflix is $18 per month. This first month that we've had it, we've seen 10-12 movies, in our family room, when we wanted to. And it didn't matter if the wife was nursing, or if my daughter wanted to be in her pajamas, or if I wanted to have a beer while watching the movie. For just the tickets for three people to watch 10 movies, I'd have paid $240. To rent 10 movies at Blockbuster, it would have been $41. So it's certainly cost-effective. Plus, it's a two-day turn-around to get a new movie - not bad at all, considering we have three movies out at any given time.

If you like movies, go get Netflix.

The movie experience is still good though, if for nothing more than to get out of the house.

I WILL NOT allow those bastards and the factors they create to deprive me of something I enjoy thouroughly. As for cell phones and some of that stuff, we (my son is 6-3) will go over to people and tell them shut the fuck up. We have been known to throw water on really ass wipe people and got a standing ovation for it once.

What we do to overcome other factors is bring our own water, candy and food. We also see two movies for the price of one. Plus there is a cheap theatre nearby, only $3 at all times. You just have to wait for the movie to have been out for a while.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

C'mon Clay... let's not get foolish. You used the "quote" function to respond to "me", and then went on to say...



If that isn't addressing "me", then I don't know what is. Forget semantics.




Star Wars III, Batman Begins, Lord Of The Rings, The Incredibles, to name a few.

Lord of the Rings, concur. Plus it has made me quite a celebrity, many people in public actually ask me if I am Viggo Mortenson.

I also loved charlie and the chocolate factory. Very creative, just for starters.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Technically, it's not. In the post, in the second paragraph, I say "many of you." From there on out, until I change the focus of who I am talking to, words like "your" refer to "many of you," so in effect I am saying: "I think that many of you's hatred for..." of course that sounds funny, so I said "your" instead of "many of you's".

In effect, I have taken "many of you" and now refer to it much like you would say "you would think Clay would just let it go already." You're not adressing that "you" to anyone in particular.

Is it semantics? Most definitely. Am I nitpicking? Certainly. Was I referring to you specifically? Only in the first paragraph.

"....many persons hatred..."

the way you worded it, it did definately refer only to PR.

 

[007]

"....many persons hatred..."

the way you worded it, it did definately refer only to PR.

Thanks for the back up LRP, and you know it, I know it, and Clay knows it. But Clay is one of those liberals that will argue a point to death, even knowing they're wrong, just for the sake of an argument. As if they don't realize everyone can see right through the bullshit. It's a liberal trait. No common sense.

I've called him on it before, and he know's I know he does it. I think at this point, EVERYBODY knows it now.

 

[Adam's Apple]

...it is probably 4-5 major factors involved. Poor quality being one.

I would say that poor quality is probably the biggest one. Many American-made movies are so bad and embarrassing that you feel ashamed that they are being exported abroad as American products. I guess the rampant drug use in Hollywood has destroyed all the creativity and imagination in their brains--if any existed in the first place.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

"....many persons hatred..."

the way you worded it, it did definately refer only to PR.

Gramatically, it does not. But there are plenty of examples in English where being grammatically correct is confusing. I will admit it could easily be read the way it was. My point was, I was not directly referring to him intentionally.

Honestly, if I was, I would just say so. Like I give a shit if he thinks that I think he hates Hollywood...

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Thanks for the back up LRP, and you know it, I know it, and Clay knows it. But Clay is one of those liberals that will argue a point to death, even knowing they're wrong, just for the sake of an argument. As if they don't realize everyone can see right through the bullshit. It's a liberal trait. No common sense.

I've called him on it before, and he know's I know he does it. I think at this point, EVERYBODY knows it now.

But I'm not wrong, grammatically. You just decided I was wrong and stopped listening. You certainly didn't offer any explanation other than "I think so" and then ridiculed my explanation as Clinton-esque. Which is fine, I don't really care, but I'm not just going to submit to you because you throw around loosely-aimed insults. You can go on all day about the typical tactics of a liberal, but you aren't any better - I can predict how a debate with you will go almost to a T. Perhaps that's why you think everyone else is so predictable, because you are.

At the end of the day, you decided to nitpick on the fact that I used the word "hate" instead of "dislike" or whatever word you like. You started this sidetrack by making a big deal out of the word hate, because you probably feel better saying you don't "hate" anyone except for extreme cases. Whatever. Hate is a strong word. Got it. Whether it was hate or dislike, it wasn't even on par with a tertiary point that I was making, which was that board member's whatever-word-that-describes-your-displeasure-without-being-too-strong-or-too-weak-and-adequately-gauges-your-specific-feelings is affecting board member's objectivity.

I'm actually amused that you think I'd care so much about whether you hate or dislike Hollywood that I would backtrack on an opinion I made of you. If I actually meant to refer to just you, I would have just done it. I nitpicked on the grammar because you nitpicked about whether "hate" was the right word.

My point was towards the general population on this board - not just you. But, if it helps you move on, then you can say I'm wrong (and a liberal, and whatever else makes you feel warm and fuzzy), and I can say I made a typing mistake (to keep that warm and fuzziness going), and you can try to understand I wasn't talking about only you. Because I wasn't.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

But I'm not wrong, grammatically. You just decided I was wrong and stopped listening. You certainly didn't offer any explanation other than "I think so" and then ridiculed my explanation as Clinton-esque. Which is fine, I don't really care, but I'm not just going to submit to you because you throw around loosely-aimed insults. You can go on all day about the typical tactics of a liberal, but you aren't any better - I can predict how a debate with you will go almost to a T. Perhaps that's why you think everyone else is so predictable, because you are.

At the end of the day, you decided to nitpick on the fact that I used the word "hate" instead of "dislike" or whatever word you like. You started this sidetrack by making a big deal out of the word hate, because you probably feel better saying you don't "hate" anyone except for extreme cases. Whatever. Hate is a strong word. Got it. Whether it was hate or dislike, it wasn't even on par with a tertiary point that I was making, which was that board member's whatever-word-that-describes-your-displeasure-without-being-too-strong-or-too-weak-and-adequately-gauges-your-specific-feelings is affecting board member's objectivity.

I'm actually amused that you think I'd care so much about whether you hate or dislike Hollywood that I would backtrack on an opinion I made of you. If I actually meant to refer to just you, I would have just done it. I nitpicked on the grammar because you nitpicked about whether "hate" was the right word.

My point was towards the general population on this board - not just you. But, if it helps you move on, then you can say I'm wrong (and a liberal, and whatever else makes you feel warm and fuzzy), and I can say I made a typing mistake (to keep that warm and fuzziness going), and you can try to understand I wasn't talking about only you. Because I wasn't.

Hey assj@cker, did you ever find that single lie of Rush Limbaugh's? Or even just something he's wrong about?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Hey assj@cker, did you ever find that single lie of Rush Limbaugh's? Or even just something he's wrong about?

See... I never said Rush lied about anything. It's a FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION. Barrel a little empty tonight?

 

[Stephanie]

But the idea is dawning on the little minds of Hollywood that maybe the great gullible moviegoing public is fed up with junk -- the endless car chases, the mechanical sex, the gore and guts, the mindless plots and maybe even the relentless sneering at red-state values. Hollywood has forgotten how to tell a story, or to recognize one. One screenwriter who must remain anonymous so he can continue to lunch in this town says that's why there are so many remakes.


That quote right there from the article, bout sums up my feeling's on the movie industry. Also, I'm tired of listening to these silly simple minded people preach to me, who think they know it all when it come's to politics and morality and the way of the world(they don't have a clue how the average American lives and thinks). And that I really give a rat's...., and who think that their poo poo doesn't stink.. And to top it off they believe I'm going to pay them for all of the above.

 

[007]

But I'm not wrong, grammatically. You just decided I was wrong and stopped listening. You certainly didn't offer any explanation other than "I think so" and then ridiculed my explanation as Clinton-esque. Which is fine, I don't really care, but I'm not just going to submit to you because you throw around loosely-aimed insults. You can go on all day about the typical tactics of a liberal, but you aren't any better - I can predict how a debate with you will go almost to a T. Perhaps that's why you think everyone else is so predictable, because you are.

At the end of the day, you decided to nitpick on the fact that I used the word "hate" instead of "dislike" or whatever word you like. You started this sidetrack by making a big deal out of the word hate, because you probably feel better saying you don't "hate" anyone except for extreme cases. Whatever. Hate is a strong word. Got it. Whether it was hate or dislike, it wasn't even on par with a tertiary point that I was making, which was that board member's whatever-word-that-describes-your-displeasure-without-being-too-strong-or-too-weak-and-adequately-gauges-your-specific-feelings is affecting board member's objectivity.

I'm actually amused that you think I'd care so much about whether you hate or dislike Hollywood that I would backtrack on an opinion I made of you. If I actually meant to refer to just you, I would have just done it. I nitpicked on the grammar because you nitpicked about whether "hate" was the right word.

My point was towards the general population on this board - not just you. But, if it helps you move on, then you can say I'm wrong (and a liberal, and whatever else makes you feel warm and fuzzy), and I can say I made a typing mistake (to keep that warm and fuzziness going), and you can try to understand I wasn't talking about only you. Because I wasn't.

So... did you finish that whole doobie before you started that senseless rant?

I know you pretty well by now clay. You're a liberal that likes to argue. You'll argue that you're right, even knowing you're wrong. That's what clinton did. You liberals will flap your lips without stopping, defending yourself, instead of ever admitting you were wrong. That's the difference between you and I. I admit it when I'm wrong. I've done it many times here on this board. Thing about this little upset here is, I'm not wrong. You are. But you INSIST on blabbering out more and more psycho-babble.

At this point clay... whatever man. I don't give a rats ass. I know what you're about, and so does everybody else.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So... did you finish that whole doobie before you started that senseless rant?

I know you pretty well by now clay. You're a liberal that likes to argue. You'll argue that you're right, even knowing you're wrong. That's what clinton did. You liberals will flap your lips without stopping, defending yourself, instead of ever admitting you were wrong. That's the difference between you and I. I admit it when I'm wrong. I've done it many times here on this board. Thing about this little upset here is, I'm not wrong. You are. But you INSIST on blabbering out more and more psycho-babble.

At this point clay... whatever man. I don't give a rats ass. I know what you're about, and so does everybody else.

No drugs for this senseless ranter.

We both say we're right and the other person is wrong. The difference is, I've provided an explanation beyond "I think so" and you haven't. You've fallen off into the you're-a-liberal-so-I-don't-even-have-to-bother-arguing-my-point-because-I-am-inherently-right-about-everything-and-you-are-inherently-wrong-about-everything void. It's a predictable debating tactic that works well on this board, and you sir, have mastered it. Kudos at the sidestep, as you still haven't given any explanation other than "I think so."

And don't infer that I never admit fault, because I do - all the time, all over this board. What you fail to understand is that I have no problem spouting opinions about only you to you directly. So put down your cock of righteousness, because you're no better than I.

I predict another 3 (maybe 4, depending on what time of day it is) uses of the word "liberal" in the next response you post. It's your bread and butter, so keep going back to it.

 

[007]

No drugs for this senseless ranter.

We both say we're right and the other person is wrong. The difference is, I've provided an explanation beyond "I think so" and you haven't. You've fallen off into the you're-a-liberal-so-I-don't-even-have-to-bother-arguing-my-point-because-I-am-inherently-right-about-everything-and-you-are-inherently-wrong-about-everything void. It's a predictable debating tactic that works well on this board, and you sir, have mastered it. Kudos at the sidestep, as you still haven't given any explanation other than "I think so."

You're still wrong, and yes, we're different alright. You'll beat this dead horse untill it's a pile of unrecognizable bloody flesh. I won't.

I didn't NEED to provide a mile long explanation full of psycho-babble like you have. My proof was there for anyone to see... "what you yourself wrote".

And my "debating tactic", is to call a spade a spade. And yes, I realize it makes all you liberals here on the board uneasy, because if you all hate anything, it's being uncovered to the world who and what you really are. This little string of senselessness is a prime example of how you can turn one of your lies into a major incedent, rather than just admit that you did it. "Shouting down the opposition" is a "liberal trait". Well live and learn grass hopper, it doesn't work with this conservative, and many others here. You better get used to being called on the spot everytime you mess up, and you also better get used to "ADMITTING IT".

Now I'm done with you here. You've already turned this into an earth shattering event instead of admitting your guilt. I hope others reading this see what they're in for if they run into the same scenario with you. Post after post of twist and spin, liberal, psycho-babble.

Too bad. I thought maybe for a while there, that you would be a liberal one could debate with... reasonably. I see that's a farce now. You're typical, and full of liberal hot air diatribe. Straight talk is as foriegn to you as Mandrin Chinese.

I "take back" my kudo's to you, for the "most improved poster". I see no improvement here. Just another liberal arguing for the sake of an arguement.

Mmmm..b'bye.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You're still wrong, and yes, we're different alright. You'll beat this dead horse untill it's a pile of unrecognizable bloody flesh. I won't.

And yet, here you are. Did you steal my club?

I didn't NEED to provide a mile long explanation full of psycho-babble like you have. My proof was there for anyone to see... "what you yourself wrote".

At least you admit it. It was a question of grammar, not my fault that you don't care or don't understand.

And my "debating tactic", is to call a spade a spade. And yes, I realize it makes all you liberals here on the board uneasy, because if you all hate anything, it's being uncovered to the world who and what you really are. This little string of senselessness is a prime example of how you can turn one of your lies into a major incedent, rather than just admit that you did it. "Shouting down the opposition" is a "liberal trait". Well live and learn grass hopper, it doesn't work with this conservative, and many others here. You better get used to being called on the spot everytime you mess up, and you also better get used to "ADMITTING IT".

Between the two of us, you and your huge fonts and needless bolding and italicizing are guilty of trying to shout down the opposition more than I. Clean the steam from your breath off of the mirror you're looking into.

Now I'm done with you here. You've already turned this into an earth shattering event instead of admitting your guilt. I hope others reading this see what they're in for if they run into the same scenario with you. Post after post of twist and spin, liberal, psycho-babble.

Excellent tactic. Keep running further and further away from the issue.

Too bad. I thought maybe for a while there, that you would be a liberal one could debate with... reasonably. I see that's a farce now. You're typical, and full of liberal hot air diatribe. Straight talk is as foriegn to you as Mandrin Chinese.

"Reasonably" is a subjective term, especially in your case. Wait, is subjective not "straight talk" enough for you?

I "take back" my kudo's to you, for the "most improved poster". I see no improvement here. Just another liberal arguing for the sake of an arguement.

Mmmm..b'bye.

Perhaps the saddest post I've ever read. Someone hold me. Do you "hate" me yet? Or is it just a "dislike?" Have I at least made "strong-to-moderate dislike?"

And what about you being wrong about my refusal to admit fault? I thought you ponied up when you made false claims. That was conveniently missing from your last post.


EDIT: I was close! 6 uses of the word liberal!