So...sell me on all the anti-Hollywood stuff

[The STE]

Seems like every 3rd post on this board is someone saying "man, I hate Hollywood!" or "Hollywood is dying!" or "I wish Hollywood would just burn to the ground" or something like that. Seems a bit much to me. Can anybody here think of a convincing arguement against Hollywood, or why one should hate Hollywood?

[pinkfloyd45769]

No way, I looooove Hollywood!!! I think they are all jealous!!! :D

[VampiricClown]

Not me:confused:

[The STE]

Originally posted by VampiricClown
Not me:confused:

Ok, what, then?

[VampiricClown]

Originally posted by The STE
Ok, what, then?

oops.... my bad ..... Should have specified. I was saying I don't have anything against Hollywood. My apologies:(

[The STE]

Wonderful. All the Hollywood bashing going on, and there's actually a thread ABOUT Hollywood bashing, and it's getting ignored.

[AUSTIN316426808]

Hate to burst your bubble anymore but I don't have a problem with it either.

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

Originally posted by The STE
Seems like every 3rd post on this board is someone saying "man, I hate Hollywood!" or "Hollywood is dying!" or "I wish Hollywood would just burn to the ground" or something like that. Seems a bit much to me. Can anybody here think of a convincing arguement against Hollywood, or why one should hate Hollywood?

Holywood sux all teh gurlz iz bleched an dum!!!!

ps dem movies r teh sux0rs aswell!!11!oneoneoneeleven

[The STE]

Originally posted by X¤MurderDoll¤X
Holywood sux all teh gurlz iz bleched an dum!!!!

ps dem movies r teh sux0rs aswell!!11!oneoneoneeleven

that's a terrible reason

[IDrinkYourBlood]

Originally posted by The STE
that's a terrible reason Im pretty sure she was just fuck'n around. I just want Hollywood to get more creative. With the dribble that been out lately its like they lost there edge. I mean there's been how many remakes to come out this year as well as sequels. I mean do we really need a King Kong remake thats twice as long as the original. Or whats so bad about watching the original. I mean you can call me a stupid basterd but did anyone actually like Robots? or Shark Tales? Anybody? And whats with all the rappers getting into the movie buisness, I mean Get Rich or Die Trying has the word LAME written all over it. Or how about Zethura A.K.A. Jumaji in space. I mean there are some good movies out there, for example The Ice Harvest or Walk the Line or Rent. But sadly most of the theater is taken up by Yours, Mine and Ours and Just Friends. So I just want Hollywood out there to start getting the creative juices flowing again. Bring us movies with impact and heart ach, laughter and joy, Adrenalin and thrills. Not Into the Blue and Chicken Little.

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

Originally posted by The STE
that's a terrible reason

omgz... ur a terribal reezon! :mad: :rolleyes: :o

[The STE]

Ok, remake stuff first, from the Oldboy Remake thread:
"since 1980 there've been around 150 remakes (credit: Box Office Mojo), which seems like a lot, until you consider that there's been over 10,346 movies made since 1980. That means that ~1.5% of the movies since 1980 have been remakes."
Addendum: average of 5 remakes a year. That's not a lot, really.

Zathura was based on a book by the same guy (Chris Van Allsburg) who wrote the book that Jumanji was based on. The blame for that goes to Allsburg.

Like you said; there are good movies out that came from Hollywood. And the bad ones you mentioned are making money. If they didn't make money, there would be no reason to make them.

[The STE]

Originally posted by X¤MurderDoll¤X
omgz... ur a terribal reezon! :mad: :rolleyes: :o

Your FACE is a terrible reason!
OMG BURN!

[Elvis_Christ]

Bloated over hyped stars and boring unoriginal films are what pisses off and makes me dubious of Hollywood. The Hollywood establishment (Ritchie Cunningham, the Man Boy Love Association president Steven Speilberg, ect, ect) have put out the same formulaic film over and over again for the last 15 years.
Overblown untalented "stars" (Tom Cruise, Russel Crowe) feed the world's overzealous celebrity worship and transmit values of greed while getting away with murder. Hollywood is a fine example of everything that art shouldn't be.....

Every now and then a Hollywood film does come out to rock the boat and shake things up a bit but those ideas end up reassimilated into the mainstream, dumbed down and cloned endlessly with the sole purpose of making money not art.

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

Originally posted by The STE
Ok, remake stuff first, from the Oldboy Remake thread:
"since 1980 there've been around 150 remakes (credit: Box Office Mojo), which seems like a lot, until you consider that there's been over 10,346 movies made since 1980. That means that ~1.5% of the movies since 1980 have been remakes."
Addendum: average of 5 remakes a year. That's not a lot, really.

Zathura was based on a book by the same guy (Chris Van Allsburg) who wrote the book that Jumanji was based on. The blame for that goes to Allsburg.

Like you said; there are good movies out that came from Hollywood. And the bad ones you mentioned are making money. If they didn't make money, there would be no reason to make them.

I have no problem with Hollywood. There have always been good movies, bad movies, and unoriginal movies.

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

Originally posted by The STE
Your FACE is a terrible reason!
OMG BURN!

i h8 u 4evah now

dear deadjournal

[The STE]

Originally posted by Elvis_Christ
Bloated over hyped stars and boring unoriginal films are what pisses off and makes me dubious of Hollywood. The Hollywood establishment (Ritchie Cunningham, the Man Boy Love Association president Steven Speilberg, ect, ect) have put out the same formulaic film over and over again for the last 15 years.
Overblown untalented "stars" (Tom Cruise, Russel Crowe) feed the world's overzealous celebrity worship and transmit values of greed while getting away with murder. Hollywood is a fine example of everything that art shouldn't be.....

Every now and then a Hollywood film does come out to rock the boat and shake things up a bit but those ideas end up reassimilated into the mainstream, dumbed down and cloned endlessly with the sole purpose of making money not art.

The star/celebrity worship isn't really a Hollywood thing, more of an overal media thing. The type of shit that they put on the E! Network.

And as for "rocking the boat and shaking things up" why is that the exception for all the "same old shit" category? A movie doesn't have to be Pulp Fiction to be a really good movie. To use a previously mentioned example, The Ice Harvest is a very good movie, but isn't some innovative masterpiece.

[IDrinkYourBlood]

Originally posted by X¤MurderDoll¤X
I have no problem with Hollywood. There have always been good movies, bad movies, and unoriginal movies. Thats the dumbest damn thing you said all night. :p

[Elvis_Christ]

Originally posted by The STE
The star/celebrity worship isn't really a Hollywood thing

Don't be stupid.

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by IDrinkYourBlood
Im pretty sure she was just fuck'n around. I just want Hollywood to get more creative. With the dribble that been out lately its like they lost there edge. I mean there's been how many remakes to come out this year as well as sequels. I mean do we really need a King Kong remake thats twice as long as the original. Or whats so bad about watching the original. I mean you can call me a stupid basterd but did anyone actually like Robots? or Shark Tales? Anybody? And whats with all the rappers getting into the movie buisness, I mean Get Rich or Die Trying has the word LAME written all over it. Or how about Zethura A.K.A. Jumaji in space. I mean there are some good movies out there, for example The Ice Harvest or Walk the Line or Rent. But sadly most of the theater is taken up by Yours, Mine and Ours and Just Friends. So I just want Hollywood out there to start getting the creative juices flowing again. Bring us movies with impact and heart ach, laughter and joy, Adrenalin and thrills. Not Into the Blue and Chicken Little.


There are different movies for different people, 4 of the ones you mentioned are kids movies, they have some adult humor and references to keep parents from falling asleep but they're made for kids.

There's great,good,just ok,bad and horrible hollywood movies and that's the way it's always going to be, nothings perfect, hollywood is no exception.

[The STE]

Originally posted by Elvis_Christ
Don't be stupid.

Don't be a prick. Is Hollywood PART of it? Yes, I didn't claim that it wasn't. But the celebrity worship crap encompasses far too much for it to be called a Hollywood thing.

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

Originally posted by IDrinkYourBlood
Thats the dumbest damn thing you said all night. :p

Oh really? ;)

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

Originally posted by trippin_the_rif
I never did understand the whole "OMG, I JUST MET BRAD PITT!!!" or "OMG, I JUST MET NICOLE KIDMAN!!!" I will admit, it is a thrill to meet a Hollywood star, but it's not world ending events. As far as Hollywood, I dont hate it, but I dont see a big deal with it. Everyone affiliated with the business puts theire clothes on and takes them off the same way we do. Only difference is, they have people do it for them.:p

Being rich would be awesome just so that you could have tons of servants doing jobs you could easily do yourself... Like putting on your own pants. hah

[The STE]

Originally posted by trippin_the_rif
...takes them off the same way we do. Only difference is, they have people do it for them.:p

*fap fap fap*

[The STE]

Originally posted by trippin_the_rif
I might consider disrobing you if you payed good enough.:p :p

Screw him, I'll disrobe you for free.

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

Originally posted by The STE
Screw him, I'll disrobe you for free.

Sold. You need a suit though.

[The STE]

That argument I agree with. When $4 million is a low budget, something is wrong

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

Originally posted by trippin_the_rif
We wouldnt be needing the suit, Goth-Gurl.;) :p

There will be no fooling around, this is serious business. Put on the suit, pants monkey. :D

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by trippin_the_rif
I also think that the bill on filmaking is rediculous. Bruce Willis has been offered 60 mil for a 4th installment to Die Hard. To make the film would cost 300 mil and production would last 6 to 16 months. Where as Million Dollar Baby cost about 100 thou to make and 37 days to produce. MDB earned all 3 actors Oscars. Who's the real Hollywood dream team?


The movie's going to make somewhere around 5 or 6 hundred, that's a 3 hundred profit. It's ridiculous but it's going to make money and that's the ultimate goal.(to the producers)

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

Originally posted by trippin_the_rif
No fooling around? I'll have to pass on that carreer move then. Sorry, sweets.;) :p

Bah, you'll never work in this business again!

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

Originally posted by trippin_the_rif
I understand what their goal is, but it is a risk, the movie might not make all the money back and then some. Lets face it, Die Hard: with a Vengance wasnt exactly a box office blockbuster.

The masses do love helicopter explosions though. :rolleyes:

[The STE]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
The movie's going to make somewhere around 5 or 6 hundred, that's a 3 hundred profit. It's ridiculous but it's going to make money and that's the ultimate goal.(to the producers)

Ok, but imagine how much money they would make if they made it for only 28 Million (the original Die Hard's budget. It made over 117 mil, btw). Or hell, 90 million (DHwaV's budget). That's over 4 or 5 million profit. 600 profit for a 28 movie is 572 million dollars profit. Why not lower the budget and increase the profits?

[The STE]

Originally posted by X¤MurderDoll¤X
Bah, you'll never work in this business again!

That's why I'm a volunteer.

[Elvis_Christ]

Originally posted by The STE
Don't be a prick.

Never.

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

Originally posted by trippin_the_rif
I'll say again.

I'll still have my dignity.:p

You miss out on the respect and honor associated with such an important position. ;)

[The STE]

Originally posted by trippin_the_rif
I'll say again.

I'll still have my dignity.:p

And I'll have naked pictuers of murderdoll

[Elvis_Christ]

Originally posted by trippin_the_rif
I'll say again.

I'll still have my dignity.:p

hmmmmmm 3 more posts away from losin' that? Maybe we should take bets :)

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by The STE
Ok, but imagine how much money they would make if they made it for only 28 Million (the original Die Hard's budget. It made over 117 mil, btw). Or hell, 90 million (DHwaV's budget). That's over 4 or 5 million profit. 600 profit for a 28 movie is 572 million dollars profit. Why not lower the budget and increase the profits?


I agree with you completely I was just pointing out that it still works. A lower budget would probably bring out a litte more creativeness in the crew instead of them throwing money at every tough fx scene they run into.

[The STE]

Originally posted by trippin_the_rif
You can get naked pics of anyone off the net. Where's the thrill in that?:rolleyes:

these are of murderdoll. It's different having naked pictuers of someone you "know"

[MisterSadistro]

The sooner Hollywood withers away from it's own uncreativity the better :D . Of course when tv forcefeeds everyone the same crappy reality shows (cheaper to make since no writers), even bad remakes, SNL skits, old sitcom-turned-movies, etc seem like entertainment. People are lemmings and will watch whatever is put in front of them. I pray for another wave of great indie filmmakers to appear as they did in the early 70s. Maybe that will add something to the void.
CK

[AUSTIN316426808]

There's just as many uncreative indie films as hollywood films you just don't hear about 'em. If a hollywood movie bombs or is the same ol same ol of course you hear about it but if a guy gets a few grand and makes a piece of crap that ends up in the back of the corner store rental section you'll probably never hear of it. Most of the indie films you hear about are the good ones that made it to the surface. There's just as much crap(if not more) in indie as there is in hollywood.

[The STE]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
There's just as many uncreative indie films as hollywood films you just don't hear about 'em. If a hollywood movie bombs or is the same ol same ol of course you hear about it but if a guy gets a few grand and makes a piece of crap that ends up in the back of the corner store rental section you'll probably never hear of it. Most of the indie films you hear about are the good ones that made it to the surface. There's just as much crap(if not more) in indie as there is in hollywood.

Exactly, and one could make the same argument towards foreign films.

[Elvis_Christ]

Originally posted by MisterSadistro
I pray for another wave of great indie filmmakers to appear as they did in the early 70s.

The late 80s early 90s had a good run like that. Grunge Neo-Realism style of shit..... till it got bastardised by unoriginal hacks. I think the next couple of years will have some greakbreaking stuff. Each decade kinda finds its voice towards its end and culturally reinvents itself to lash out at the old and established conventions.

[Elvis_Christ]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
There's just as much crap(if not more) in indie as there is in hollywood.

Originally posted by The STE
Exactly, and one could make the same argument towards foreign films.

At least the aesthetic of a indie or forgein film is instanltly more interesting than the usual star driven Hollywood cockbuster.
There a bit more unpredictable and 9/10 times more original, inventive and many of them have a lot more heart.

[AUSTIN316426808]

I don't see why it's a crime if everything isn't a big groundbreaking,genre defining classic. You're not going to get The Godfather or Reservoir Dogs everytime you go to the theatre.

[PR3SSUR3]

Seems like every 3rd post on this board is someone saying "man, I hate Hollywood!" or "Hollywood is dying!" or "I wish Hollywood would just burn to the ground" or something like that. Seems a bit much to me. Can anybody here think of a convincing arguement against Hollywood, or why one should hate Hollywood?


The money involved in these Hollywood films is so vast, that fatcat producers dare not make a single mistake in the crafting or marketing of their latest baby to their target audience.

This means big Hollywood films are mechanical, formulaic and glossy but with empty hearts (some might say, mirroring the target audiences themselves...).

As an example of how cash registers mean creative censorship, consider how test audiences can dictate the outcomes of filmed stories - it is wonderful but rare when a director will win the fight to keep his original darker vision intact in the face of idealistic souls who want the leave the cinema unchallenged (the producer will always side where the money is, unless he takes a gamble with successes like Seven).

This argument is based upon a typical big budget/A-list production.

[Zero]

given that hollywood is now owned mainly be multinational corporations and makes most of its boxoffice money from overseas - i would say we no longer have a 'hollywood' or anything like an 'american' cinema at all.

[Haunted]

Does anyone remember the old expression, "To sing for one's supper?"

I think these big celebs should have to do the film, with whatever props they've got, and depending on whether it's actually good or not bases what and how much they get paid. If their performance sucks we get to run them out of town.


But don't mind me. I'm just a cynical nihilistic little puke today.

[The STE]

Originally posted by Elvis_Christ
At least the aesthetic of a indie or forgein film is instanltly more interesting than the usual star driven Hollywood cockbuster.
There a bit more unpredictable and 9/10 times more original, inventive and many of them have a lot more heart.

Not necessarily. Indy movies can be predictable as hell, too.

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
The money involved in these Hollywood films is so vast, that fatcat producers dare not make a single mistake in the crafting or marketing of their latest baby to their target audience.

This means big Hollywood films are mechanical, formulaic and glossy but with empty hearts (some might say, mirroring the target audiences themselves...).

As an example of how cash registers mean creative censorship, consider how test audiences can dictate the outcomes of filmed stories - it is wonderful but rare when a director will win the fight to keep his original darker vision intact in the face of idealistic souls who want the leave the cinema unchallenged (the producer will always side where the money is, unless he takes a gamble with successes like Seven).

This argument is based upon a typical big budget/A-list production.

Them being mechanical, formulaic, glossy, and heartless is a generalization, not all of them are like that, but I assume that you didn't mean ALL of them, blah blah blah, so I'll move on.

Not all darker endings to movies are good. This isn't a big budget A-list production, but the best example I can think of is Clerks. There is no way the movie would've been as good if they'd have left on the ending where Dante dies. Point being, there are times, not always, but they do exist, where the darker isn't ALWAYS better. Also, a good amount of the time, the darkness is just for sake of darkness, not because that's the better direction to go, and that's just as bad as idealism for idealism's sake.

[Haunted]

True, but even now, darker and/or ironic endings are becoming vogue.

Now, do I really want to say that silly endings, ex. Blazing Saddles, would be the new juice, especially in horror films. I must admit that it would be interesting to see...but I think you could only do it a couple of times before it became hackneyed.

[Yellow Jacket]

It's not that I hate Hollywood completely, it's just that they're making WAY too many remakes now. Take a god damn break for once and come up with something new. There are thousands of fresh scripts out there just waiting to be made into a movie. Now, I do love Hollywood for one reason: The Devil's Rejects! Talk about a straight-up homage to teh horror movies of the '70's. But, that's a whole other story.

[Haunted]

I understand much of the displeasure with remakes. However, there are some films that could stand to be remade:

The Thing...Imagine how they could do that now. Modern movie makers could actually amplify the scare factor.

Rosemary's Baby....I fuckin' hated Mia Farrow.

Sorry, Sam.

We should get back to the topic.

[scouse mac]

Hollywood is lovely, full of lovely people. Great teeth!

[PR3SSUR3]

To put a finer point on things, when a Hollywood production "sucks" it has failed its mega budget, mega stars and mega hype.

When an independent film "sucks" it has failed to get the best out of its limited resources, its part-time actors and its genuine artistic intentions.

To see a low-budget story derivative, badly told and badly executed pisses us off - we could probably do better, we think to ourselves (before pausing to remember the time and effort involved).

But to sit through a Hollywood blockbuster with similar failings pisses us off even more. Something about that old chestnut... money. And the thought of the cocaine-snorting fat guys in suits responsible for it all, rather than the over-enthusiastic film-school geeks.

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
To put a finer point on things, when a Hollywood production "sucks" it has failed its mega budget, mega stars and mega hype.

When an independent film "sucks" it has failed to get the best out of its limited resources, its part-time actors and its genuine artistic intentions.

To see a low-budget story derivative, badly told and badly executed pisses us off - we could probably do better, we think to ourselves (before pausing to remember the time and effort involved).

But to sit through a Hollywood blockbuster with similar failings pisses us off even more. Something about that old chestnut... money. And the thought of the cocaine-snorting fat guys in suits responsible for it all, rather than the over-enthusiastic film-school geeks.



A failure is a failure, does it really matter if it cost 5 million or 5 grand? Point is it sucked, if a movie with the guy down the street is bad and a movie with Tom Cruise is bad, then they're both bad,doesn't matter why.

Where do you think indie filmmakers are trying to get to? Hollywood, walk up to any indie guy/girl and offer 'em a hundred million dollars,twenty million dollar lead of their choice ect. ect. and odds are they're going to take it.

[nebae]

I don't hate hollywood completely. I just hate the majority of the crap it churns out. It seems most of the films are made to generate profit from it's merchandise rather than the content by over-hyping everything before it's even released. Especially when producing films of already popular stuff (X-men etc). They stick to the same formulas over and over and rarely come up with anything original. As soon as one type of film comes out (i.e. the Matrix) and does well they milk the formula for all it's worth, producing dozens of variations on the same theme/style. I'm so fed up of seeing bullet time in films. They do it with dialogue as well. I can't remeber how many times I've heard the phrase "the clock is ticking" since Harvey Keitel said it in pulp fiction. Why do all the good guy characters these days have to be wise cracking badasses?

At least when a quality film comes out you really apreciate it, as these days, it's an exception.

But you get to rip the really bad films apart afterwards!!! That's almost as good as seeing a good film.

[meetthecreeper]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
A failure is a failure, does it really matter if it cost 5 million or 5 grand? Point is it sucked, if a movie with the guy down the street is bad and a movie with Tom Cruise is bad, then they're both bad,doesn't matter why.

Where do you think indie filmmakers are trying to get to? Hollywood, walk up to any indie guy/girl and offer 'em a hundred million dollars,twenty million dollar lead of their choice ect. ect. and odds are they're going to take it.

I think the expectations of a film that is made for huge amounts of money is pretty high and then when it tanks.....


"The Postman" with Costner had a budget close to 100 million, almost laughable, and barely made 18 million.

Seems trying to capture the magic of "Dances with Wolves or Bull Durham" can be a little difficult no matter who stars in the film.

I would expect a little more quality of a film though for that kind of money.

[meetthecreeper]

Originally posted by Haunted
The Thing...Imagine how they could do that now. Modern movie makers could actually amplify the scare factor.



Remaking "The Thing" ?????

Blasphemy!!!!

[nebae]

Originally posted by meetthecreeper
Remaking "The Thing" ?????

Blasphemy!!!!

I totally agree.

There is no way you could mke that fim any better.

Back off...

Way off.

[AUSTIN316426808]

nevermind

[nebae]

Yeah, there's also alot of indie companies out there just trying to make a quick buck by jumping on the bandwagon of some other already succesful ones.

i.e straight to video stuff.

Like you said, if it's a crap film it's a crap film - whatever the budget.

[The STE]

Originally posted by Yellow Jacket
It's not that I hate Hollywood completely, it's just that they're making WAY too many remakes now. Take a god damn break for once and come up with something new. There are thousands of fresh scripts out there just waiting to be made into a movie. Now, I do love Hollywood for one reason: The Devil's Rejects! Talk about a straight-up homage to teh horror movies of the '70's. But, that's a whole other story.

An average of 5 a year is not a lot. It's just that the remakes are noticed more.

[PR3SSUR3]

A failure is a failure, does it really matter if it cost 5 million or 5 grand? Point is it sucked, if a movie with the guy down the street is bad and a movie with Tom Cruise is bad, then they're both bad,doesn't matter why.

Of course it matters, for the reasons already offered.

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Of course it matters, for the reasons already offered.

Bad is bad. I wouldn't want to watch a bad Hollywood movie any more than a bad indie movie, and vice versa.

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Of course it matters, for the reasons already offered.



So you're saying every indie film would be good if it had sufficent resources? I think you're giving them a bit too much credit.

[Elvis_Christ]

I think you're injecting negativity.

Not that I don't but.....

I dunno I got a soft spot for the fringe underdog artists without the big money backing.

Yo Return:

THE IDIOTS:
http://www.timeout.com/film/img/posters/75817/cover.w145.jpg
vs
http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/9d/2a/176676-resized200.jpg

Peace out and merry Xmas brothas

[PR3SSUR3]

No, Austin - I don't know where you're getting that from.

When an independent movie is rubbish, the makers have failed to use their limited resources wisely and effectively. Back to the drawing board, and try to be more creative next time and you may get a more appreciative audience with maybe even a cult following.

When a Hollywood blockbuster is rubbish, the makers have spent maybe fifty thousand times the budget to make rubbish. Their rubbish may still sell however, due to familiarity, expensive stars and hype.

This is the argument for a negative view of Hollywood, as they are greedy wasters who play it safe to lure the masses with the same old empty gloss time and time again.

It surprises me some are still unable to distinguish between these two artistic failings, but there you go.

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
This is the argument for a negative view of Hollywood, as they are greedy wasters who play it safe to lure the masses with the same old empty gloss time and time again.

Again, the blame in that situation can be placed directly on the heads of the masses. If people didn't go to see the same old crap every time, then they'd stop putting it out. I don't think doing something to make money is a bad thing. If they weren't also putting out some good movies, like The Ice Harvest (which, btw, is doing crap at the box office), I would completely agree, as it would be a fantastic argument. But they're putting out good movies in addition to cookie cutter movies made almost exclusively to make money (although SOME of the 'cookie cutter' type movies are pretty good).


BTW, Elvis, The Celebration > The Idiots

[MisterSadistro]

I blame the parents :D
CK