Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Movies] When Dinosaurs Ruled the Box Office

194959698100

Posts

  • VicVic Registered User regular
    It seems like you are arguing from a point of view where outrage over a crime is hypocritical unless it is split "fairly" between everyone that's ever been guilty of it, which seems like an incredibly odd position to take.

    If someone is revealed to be a child abuser, I'm comfortable with them taking a huge amount of flack for it. The fact that others get away with the very same crime does not diminish the guilt this person bears. I'm willing to accept that Hollywood is a place that has severe systemic problems of violence and sexual abuse. That is a failing of the justice system, of investigative journalism and of the Hollywood culture. One can choose to condemn Hollywood as a whole for this, which would be fair, but it's hardly the only virtuous action possible.

    If your argument literally is "Well, he did an awful thing, but other people do awful things too," then it's the most useless possible response to the situation. We are not outraged that Woody Allen "happened to get caught". We are outraged that he is a goddamn child abuser. If you think this is such a minor crime in the context of Hollywood that we shouldn't get worked up about it, the rational response should be "we need to fucking burn Hollywood to the ground", not "stop singling out this poor rapist".

    Romanian My Escutcheonchiasaur11RoyceSraphimGoatmonCentipede DamascusmasterofmetroidAistanAndy JoeSirEtchwartsMoth 13YaYaDyvim Tvarchrishallett83
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver Registered User, ClubPA regular
    With very little surprise, the amount you care about something is relateable to your proximity to it and/or your knowledge of it.

    Twitch Channel
    Steam: munkus_beaver
    Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but it dies in the process.
    http://www.ccfa.org/
    Langly
  • KingofMadCowsKingofMadCows Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Vic wrote: »
    It seems like you are arguing from a point of view where outrage over a crime is hypocritical unless it is split "fairly" between everyone that's ever been guilty of it, which seems like an incredibly odd position to take.

    If someone is revealed to be a child abuser, I'm comfortable with them taking a huge amount of flack for it. The fact that others get away with the very same crime does not diminish the guilt this person bears. I'm willing to accept that Hollywood is a place that has severe systemic problems of violence and sexual abuse. That is a failing of the justice system, of investigative journalism and of the Hollywood culture. One can choose to condemn Hollywood as a whole for this, which would be fair, but it's hardly the only virtuous action possible.

    If your argument literally is "Well, he did an awful thing, but other people do awful things too," then it's the most useless possible response to the situation. We are not outraged that Woody Allen "happened to get caught". We are outraged that he is a goddamn child abuser. If you think this is such a minor crime in the context of Hollywood that we shouldn't get worked up about it, the rational response should be "we need to fucking burn Hollywood to the ground", not "stop singling out this poor rapist".

    I'm arguing from a point of exhaustion.

    I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't be outraged by Woody Allen. Be as angry as you want. But there are so many terrible people in Hollywood that it'll generate so much anger that you'll exhaust yourself and turn movies, something that should be a source of entertainment, into a something that causes suspicion, anger, and stress.

    That's what my actor friends decided on, at least the one(s) who haven't given up on Hollywood. One gave up on Hollywood and decided to work as a dancer on cruise ships and two gave up acting completely. The ones who stayed have been through so much shit trying to get into show business that they don't get angry anymore since that'll just end up giving them high blood pressure. In order to keep their passion for acting and their dream of being on TV or movies, they've decided to just ignore that side of Hollywood and avoid it whenever possible.

    KingofMadCows on
  • PaperLuigi44PaperLuigi44 My amazement is at maximum capacity. Registered User regular
    -Tal wrote: »
    Wait did everyone else know that they're making another hitman movie and it's coming out this year

    I saw the trailer for it recently, it has him rescuing and mentoring a woman who didn't know that she was part of the same assassin program. Hopefully it's a Dredd situation where she becomes an action hero through the course of the movie.

    - Fixed a bug where the Moon was upside down.
    - Fixed a weird door.
  • Romanian My EscutcheonRomanian My Escutcheon Two of Forks Registered User regular
    Vic wrote: »
    It seems like you are arguing from a point of view where outrage over a crime is hypocritical unless it is split "fairly" between everyone that's ever been guilty of it, which seems like an incredibly odd position to take.

    If someone is revealed to be a child abuser, I'm comfortable with them taking a huge amount of flack for it. The fact that others get away with the very same crime does not diminish the guilt this person bears. I'm willing to accept that Hollywood is a place that has severe systemic problems of violence and sexual abuse. That is a failing of the justice system, of investigative journalism and of the Hollywood culture. One can choose to condemn Hollywood as a whole for this, which would be fair, but it's hardly the only virtuous action possible.

    If your argument literally is "Well, he did an awful thing, but other people do awful things too," then it's the most useless possible response to the situation. We are not outraged that Woody Allen "happened to get caught". We are outraged that he is a goddamn child abuser. If you think this is such a minor crime in the context of Hollywood that we shouldn't get worked up about it, the rational response should be "we need to fucking burn Hollywood to the ground", not "stop singling out this poor rapist".

    Thank you for saying this more succinctly than I could.

    2cf4m6f.gif
    THESPOOKY
  • Romanian My EscutcheonRomanian My Escutcheon Two of Forks Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Vic wrote: »
    It seems like you are arguing from a point of view where outrage over a crime is hypocritical unless it is split "fairly" between everyone that's ever been guilty of it, which seems like an incredibly odd position to take.

    If someone is revealed to be a child abuser, I'm comfortable with them taking a huge amount of flack for it. The fact that others get away with the very same crime does not diminish the guilt this person bears. I'm willing to accept that Hollywood is a place that has severe systemic problems of violence and sexual abuse. That is a failing of the justice system, of investigative journalism and of the Hollywood culture. One can choose to condemn Hollywood as a whole for this, which would be fair, but it's hardly the only virtuous action possible.

    If your argument literally is "Well, he did an awful thing, but other people do awful things too," then it's the most useless possible response to the situation. We are not outraged that Woody Allen "happened to get caught". We are outraged that he is a goddamn child abuser. If you think this is such a minor crime in the context of Hollywood that we shouldn't get worked up about it, the rational response should be "we need to fucking burn Hollywood to the ground", not "stop singling out this poor rapist".

    I'm arguing from a point of exhaustion.

    I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't be outraged by Woody Allen. Be as angry as you want. But there are so many terrible people in Hollywood that it'll generate so much anger that you'll exhaust yourself and turn movies, something that should be a source of entertainment, into a something that causes suspicion, anger, and stress.

    That's what my actor friends decided on, at least the one(s) who haven't given up on Hollywood. One gave up on Hollywood and decided to work as a dancer on cruise ships and two gave up acting completely. The ones who stayed have been through so much shit trying to get into show business that they don't get angry anymore since that'll just end up giving them high blood pressure. In order to keep their passion for acting and their dream of being on TV or movies, they've decided to just ignore that side of Hollywood and avoid it whenever possible.

    It's possible to be angry about abhorrent or abusive practices in the film industry without simultaneously condemning media that's harmless, or - better yet - contributes to positive change.

    Implying that you'd have to be ambivalent to, or passively condoning those same practices to enjoy all film is reductive, not to mention kind of insulting.

    Romanian My Escutcheon on
    2cf4m6f.gif
    VicChincymcchilla
  • KingofMadCowsKingofMadCows Registered User regular
    Vic wrote: »
    It seems like you are arguing from a point of view where outrage over a crime is hypocritical unless it is split "fairly" between everyone that's ever been guilty of it, which seems like an incredibly odd position to take.

    If someone is revealed to be a child abuser, I'm comfortable with them taking a huge amount of flack for it. The fact that others get away with the very same crime does not diminish the guilt this person bears. I'm willing to accept that Hollywood is a place that has severe systemic problems of violence and sexual abuse. That is a failing of the justice system, of investigative journalism and of the Hollywood culture. One can choose to condemn Hollywood as a whole for this, which would be fair, but it's hardly the only virtuous action possible.

    If your argument literally is "Well, he did an awful thing, but other people do awful things too," then it's the most useless possible response to the situation. We are not outraged that Woody Allen "happened to get caught". We are outraged that he is a goddamn child abuser. If you think this is such a minor crime in the context of Hollywood that we shouldn't get worked up about it, the rational response should be "we need to fucking burn Hollywood to the ground", not "stop singling out this poor rapist".

    I'm arguing from a point of exhaustion.

    I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't be outraged by Woody Allen. Be as angry as you want. But there are so many terrible people in Hollywood that it'll generate so much anger that you'll exhaust yourself and turn movies, something that should be a source of entertainment, into a something that causes suspicion, anger, and stress.

    That's what my actor friends decided on, at least the one(s) who haven't given up on Hollywood. One gave up on Hollywood and decided to work as a dancer on cruise ships and two gave up acting completely. The ones who stayed have been through so much shit trying to get into show business that they don't get angry anymore since that'll just end up giving them high blood pressure. In order to keep their passion for acting and their dream of being on TV or movies, they've decided to just ignore that side of Hollywood and avoid it whenever possible.

    It's possible to be angry about abhorrent or abusive practices in the film industry without simultaneously condemning media that's harmless, or - better yet - contributes to positive change.

    Implying that you'd have to be ambivalent to, or passively condoning those same practices to enjoy all film is reductive, not to mention kind of insulting.

    And how do you know which part of the industry is harmless? Abusive practices are rampant in the film industry but it's hidden. This is not a case of a few bad apples. If you look at the An Open Secret documentary, horrific abuses seems to be an industry wide problem. Based on my albeit limited experience, I'm suspicious of almost everyone in the entertainment industry of guilty of at least something bad.

    So how do you know that you are supporting something good? It's not like people doing bad things are making bad movies. There are terrible people making good and great movies. You can't tell if you're supporting a terrible person until they're exposed by a scandal. And there's a lot of terrible things that's being overlooked or covered up.

  • THESPOOKYTHESPOOKY im alucard Registered User regular
    Vic wrote: »
    It seems like you are arguing from a point of view where outrage over a crime is hypocritical unless it is split "fairly" between everyone that's ever been guilty of it, which seems like an incredibly odd position to take.

    If someone is revealed to be a child abuser, I'm comfortable with them taking a huge amount of flack for it. The fact that others get away with the very same crime does not diminish the guilt this person bears. I'm willing to accept that Hollywood is a place that has severe systemic problems of violence and sexual abuse. That is a failing of the justice system, of investigative journalism and of the Hollywood culture. One can choose to condemn Hollywood as a whole for this, which would be fair, but it's hardly the only virtuous action possible.

    If your argument literally is "Well, he did an awful thing, but other people do awful things too," then it's the most useless possible response to the situation. We are not outraged that Woody Allen "happened to get caught". We are outraged that he is a goddamn child abuser. If you think this is such a minor crime in the context of Hollywood that we shouldn't get worked up about it, the rational response should be "we need to fucking burn Hollywood to the ground", not "stop singling out this poor rapist".

    I'm arguing from a point of exhaustion.

    I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't be outraged by Woody Allen. Be as angry as you want. But there are so many terrible people in Hollywood that it'll generate so much anger that you'll exhaust yourself and turn movies, something that should be a source of entertainment, into a something that causes suspicion, anger, and stress.

    That's what my actor friends decided on, at least the one(s) who haven't given up on Hollywood. One gave up on Hollywood and decided to work as a dancer on cruise ships and two gave up acting completely. The ones who stayed have been through so much shit trying to get into show business that they don't get angry anymore since that'll just end up giving them high blood pressure. In order to keep their passion for acting and their dream of being on TV or movies, they've decided to just ignore that side of Hollywood and avoid it whenever possible.

    It's possible to be angry about abhorrent or abusive practices in the film industry without simultaneously condemning media that's harmless, or - better yet - contributes to positive change.

    Implying that you'd have to be ambivalent to, or passively condoning those same practices to enjoy all film is reductive, not to mention kind of insulting.

    It's not like people doing bad things are making bad movies.

    I mean, this whole argument started over Woody Allen.

    3715dce84e531295d5cf9e9c7b7c0b5c.png
    LanglyDyvim Tvar
  • knitdanknitdan Registered User regular
    Does the documentary name names or just kind of dance around it like "ooh you'd be so shocked if you knew!"

    I'm not going to condemn all of Hollywood based rumor and innuendo.

    If you don't know you don't know.

    But for guys like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski and Bill Cosby, we're pretty sure we know.

    Fuck Firearm Fetishism
    86 45
    Romanian My EscutcheonDex DynamoMagic PinkStraightziCentipede DamascusmasterofmetroidRainfallDyvim Tvarchrishallett83
  • VicVic Registered User regular
    Vic wrote: »
    It seems like you are arguing from a point of view where outrage over a crime is hypocritical unless it is split "fairly" between everyone that's ever been guilty of it, which seems like an incredibly odd position to take.

    If someone is revealed to be a child abuser, I'm comfortable with them taking a huge amount of flack for it. The fact that others get away with the very same crime does not diminish the guilt this person bears. I'm willing to accept that Hollywood is a place that has severe systemic problems of violence and sexual abuse. That is a failing of the justice system, of investigative journalism and of the Hollywood culture. One can choose to condemn Hollywood as a whole for this, which would be fair, but it's hardly the only virtuous action possible.

    If your argument literally is "Well, he did an awful thing, but other people do awful things too," then it's the most useless possible response to the situation. We are not outraged that Woody Allen "happened to get caught". We are outraged that he is a goddamn child abuser. If you think this is such a minor crime in the context of Hollywood that we shouldn't get worked up about it, the rational response should be "we need to fucking burn Hollywood to the ground", not "stop singling out this poor rapist".

    I'm arguing from a point of exhaustion.

    I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't be outraged by Woody Allen. Be as angry as you want. But there are so many terrible people in Hollywood that it'll generate so much anger that you'll exhaust yourself and turn movies, something that should be a source of entertainment, into a something that causes suspicion, anger, and stress.

    That's what my actor friends decided on, at least the one(s) who haven't given up on Hollywood. One gave up on Hollywood and decided to work as a dancer on cruise ships and two gave up acting completely. The ones who stayed have been through so much shit trying to get into show business that they don't get angry anymore since that'll just end up giving them high blood pressure. In order to keep their passion for acting and their dream of being on TV or movies, they've decided to just ignore that side of Hollywood and avoid it whenever possible.

    It's possible to be angry about abhorrent or abusive practices in the film industry without simultaneously condemning media that's harmless, or - better yet - contributes to positive change.

    Implying that you'd have to be ambivalent to, or passively condoning those same practices to enjoy all film is reductive, not to mention kind of insulting.

    And how do you know which part of the industry is harmless? Abusive practices are rampant in the film industry but it's hidden. This is not a case of a few bad apples. If you look at the An Open Secret documentary, horrific abuses seems to be an industry wide problem. Based on my albeit limited experience, I'm suspicious of almost everyone in the entertainment industry of guilty of at least something bad.

    So how do you know that you are supporting something good? It's not like people doing bad things are making bad movies. There are terrible people making good and great movies. You can't tell if you're supporting a terrible person until they're exposed by a scandal. And there's a lot of terrible things that's being overlooked or covered up.

    Ever heard of the term "innocent until proven guilty?"

    We respond the best we can to what we know. If you choose to condemn almost everyone in the entertainment industry, that is your pejorative, but those kinds of assumptions are dangerous, especially if you allow them to dilute your outrage to actually proven crimes.

    chrishallett83
  • RoyceSraphimRoyceSraphim Registered User regular
    I once researched Dancing Bear after learning it had conducted a group scene and "accidentally" filmed a minor and washed the whole thing off as "oopsie daisies." I discovered that two of the larger porn distribution networks, reality kings and bang brothers, are all owned by one group, headed by one man.

    In tying this to the larger discussion, once you start doing research and educating yourself, you can never go back, you will never see these mediums the same way again and will view the entire spectrum in relation to these horrible people.

    I wonder how hard it would be to get Cosby's syndication rights to his shows seized and split up among his victims?

    I wonder how many people mentioned his son to him since this happened to make it really hurt?

  • KingofMadCowsKingofMadCows Registered User regular
    THESPOOKY wrote: »
    Vic wrote: »
    It seems like you are arguing from a point of view where outrage over a crime is hypocritical unless it is split "fairly" between everyone that's ever been guilty of it, which seems like an incredibly odd position to take.

    If someone is revealed to be a child abuser, I'm comfortable with them taking a huge amount of flack for it. The fact that others get away with the very same crime does not diminish the guilt this person bears. I'm willing to accept that Hollywood is a place that has severe systemic problems of violence and sexual abuse. That is a failing of the justice system, of investigative journalism and of the Hollywood culture. One can choose to condemn Hollywood as a whole for this, which would be fair, but it's hardly the only virtuous action possible.

    If your argument literally is "Well, he did an awful thing, but other people do awful things too," then it's the most useless possible response to the situation. We are not outraged that Woody Allen "happened to get caught". We are outraged that he is a goddamn child abuser. If you think this is such a minor crime in the context of Hollywood that we shouldn't get worked up about it, the rational response should be "we need to fucking burn Hollywood to the ground", not "stop singling out this poor rapist".

    I'm arguing from a point of exhaustion.

    I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't be outraged by Woody Allen. Be as angry as you want. But there are so many terrible people in Hollywood that it'll generate so much anger that you'll exhaust yourself and turn movies, something that should be a source of entertainment, into a something that causes suspicion, anger, and stress.

    That's what my actor friends decided on, at least the one(s) who haven't given up on Hollywood. One gave up on Hollywood and decided to work as a dancer on cruise ships and two gave up acting completely. The ones who stayed have been through so much shit trying to get into show business that they don't get angry anymore since that'll just end up giving them high blood pressure. In order to keep their passion for acting and their dream of being on TV or movies, they've decided to just ignore that side of Hollywood and avoid it whenever possible.

    It's possible to be angry about abhorrent or abusive practices in the film industry without simultaneously condemning media that's harmless, or - better yet - contributes to positive change.

    Implying that you'd have to be ambivalent to, or passively condoning those same practices to enjoy all film is reductive, not to mention kind of insulting.

    It's not like people doing bad things are making bad movies.

    I mean, this whole argument started over Woody Allen.

    And the problem of so many Hollywood movies with a young woman being the love interest of a much older men.
    Vic wrote: »
    Vic wrote: »
    It seems like you are arguing from a point of view where outrage over a crime is hypocritical unless it is split "fairly" between everyone that's ever been guilty of it, which seems like an incredibly odd position to take.

    If someone is revealed to be a child abuser, I'm comfortable with them taking a huge amount of flack for it. The fact that others get away with the very same crime does not diminish the guilt this person bears. I'm willing to accept that Hollywood is a place that has severe systemic problems of violence and sexual abuse. That is a failing of the justice system, of investigative journalism and of the Hollywood culture. One can choose to condemn Hollywood as a whole for this, which would be fair, but it's hardly the only virtuous action possible.

    If your argument literally is "Well, he did an awful thing, but other people do awful things too," then it's the most useless possible response to the situation. We are not outraged that Woody Allen "happened to get caught". We are outraged that he is a goddamn child abuser. If you think this is such a minor crime in the context of Hollywood that we shouldn't get worked up about it, the rational response should be "we need to fucking burn Hollywood to the ground", not "stop singling out this poor rapist".

    I'm arguing from a point of exhaustion.

    I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't be outraged by Woody Allen. Be as angry as you want. But there are so many terrible people in Hollywood that it'll generate so much anger that you'll exhaust yourself and turn movies, something that should be a source of entertainment, into a something that causes suspicion, anger, and stress.

    That's what my actor friends decided on, at least the one(s) who haven't given up on Hollywood. One gave up on Hollywood and decided to work as a dancer on cruise ships and two gave up acting completely. The ones who stayed have been through so much shit trying to get into show business that they don't get angry anymore since that'll just end up giving them high blood pressure. In order to keep their passion for acting and their dream of being on TV or movies, they've decided to just ignore that side of Hollywood and avoid it whenever possible.

    It's possible to be angry about abhorrent or abusive practices in the film industry without simultaneously condemning media that's harmless, or - better yet - contributes to positive change.

    Implying that you'd have to be ambivalent to, or passively condoning those same practices to enjoy all film is reductive, not to mention kind of insulting.

    And how do you know which part of the industry is harmless? Abusive practices are rampant in the film industry but it's hidden. This is not a case of a few bad apples. If you look at the An Open Secret documentary, horrific abuses seems to be an industry wide problem. Based on my albeit limited experience, I'm suspicious of almost everyone in the entertainment industry of guilty of at least something bad.

    So how do you know that you are supporting something good? It's not like people doing bad things are making bad movies. There are terrible people making good and great movies. You can't tell if you're supporting a terrible person until they're exposed by a scandal. And there's a lot of terrible things that's being overlooked or covered up.

    Ever heard of the term "innocent until proven guilty?"

    We respond the best we can to what we know. If you choose to condemn almost everyone in the entertainment industry, that is your pejorative, but those kinds of assumptions are dangerous, especially if you allow them to dilute your outrage to actually proven crimes.

    Woody Allen has not been proven guilty in a court of law.

    And while some of the really dark stuff going on in Hollywood are covered up well enough not to arouse public outcries, yet, there are already tons of problems in Hollywood that are well known enough that they're practically cliches. Problems like racist casting, discrimination against women, actors having to perform sexual favors to get a role, etc. These are the kinds of things well known enough that movies and TV shows even make fun of them. These are the kinds of things are known to be rampant enough where you can't automatically assume that it's not happening with a specific movie or TV show. So can you maintain your outrage over that?

  • GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    I enjoyed the U.N.C.L.E. trailer because the teased sex scene with the woman actually had her instigating the encounter, instead of her going "come hither!" she's "I'm going hither!"

    The movie will probably disappoint me but I'm still going to try and have money to see it.
    Wouldn't it be 'thither'?

    Taminchrishallett83
  • knitdanknitdan Registered User regular
    And yon.

    Fuck Firearm Fetishism
    86 45
    chrishallett83
  • GoatmonGoatmon Property of Amara_P Registered User regular
    Vic wrote: »
    It seems like you are arguing from a point of view where outrage over a crime is hypocritical unless it is split "fairly" between everyone that's ever been guilty of it, which seems like an incredibly odd position to take.

    If someone is revealed to be a child abuser, I'm comfortable with them taking a huge amount of flack for it. The fact that others get away with the very same crime does not diminish the guilt this person bears. I'm willing to accept that Hollywood is a place that has severe systemic problems of violence and sexual abuse. That is a failing of the justice system, of investigative journalism and of the Hollywood culture. One can choose to condemn Hollywood as a whole for this, which would be fair, but it's hardly the only virtuous action possible.

    If your argument literally is "Well, he did an awful thing, but other people do awful things too," then it's the most useless possible response to the situation. We are not outraged that Woody Allen "happened to get caught". We are outraged that he is a goddamn child abuser. If you think this is such a minor crime in the context of Hollywood that we shouldn't get worked up about it, the rational response should be "we need to fucking burn Hollywood to the ground", not "stop singling out this poor rapist".

    I kinda want to frame this.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204


  • JoolanderJoolander Registered User regular
    Is it weird that I'm more excited to see U.N.C.L.E. than the new Mission Impossible?

  • SorceSorce Registered User regular
    Nope.

    steam_sig.png
    Backloggery. It's totally updated again, I swear!
    RoyceSraphimFishman
  • LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    Also that is a view very indicative of a lot of players of classic arcade games

    Not playing modern games because they'll never be as strategic as something like Donkey Kong or Galaga

    But that's not even close to true.

    chrishallett83
  • KwoaruKwoaru Registered User regular
    I saw Jurassic World yesterday, it was very good

    2x39jD4.jpg
    Raijin QuickfootFawst
  • LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    THESPOOKY wrote: »
    Vic wrote: »
    It seems like you are arguing from a point of view where outrage over a crime is hypocritical unless it is split "fairly" between everyone that's ever been guilty of it, which seems like an incredibly odd position to take.

    If someone is revealed to be a child abuser, I'm comfortable with them taking a huge amount of flack for it. The fact that others get away with the very same crime does not diminish the guilt this person bears. I'm willing to accept that Hollywood is a place that has severe systemic problems of violence and sexual abuse. That is a failing of the justice system, of investigative journalism and of the Hollywood culture. One can choose to condemn Hollywood as a whole for this, which would be fair, but it's hardly the only virtuous action possible.

    If your argument literally is "Well, he did an awful thing, but other people do awful things too," then it's the most useless possible response to the situation. We are not outraged that Woody Allen "happened to get caught". We are outraged that he is a goddamn child abuser. If you think this is such a minor crime in the context of Hollywood that we shouldn't get worked up about it, the rational response should be "we need to fucking burn Hollywood to the ground", not "stop singling out this poor rapist".

    I'm arguing from a point of exhaustion.

    I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't be outraged by Woody Allen. Be as angry as you want. But there are so many terrible people in Hollywood that it'll generate so much anger that you'll exhaust yourself and turn movies, something that should be a source of entertainment, into a something that causes suspicion, anger, and stress.

    That's what my actor friends decided on, at least the one(s) who haven't given up on Hollywood. One gave up on Hollywood and decided to work as a dancer on cruise ships and two gave up acting completely. The ones who stayed have been through so much shit trying to get into show business that they don't get angry anymore since that'll just end up giving them high blood pressure. In order to keep their passion for acting and their dream of being on TV or movies, they've decided to just ignore that side of Hollywood and avoid it whenever possible.

    It's possible to be angry about abhorrent or abusive practices in the film industry without simultaneously condemning media that's harmless, or - better yet - contributes to positive change.

    Implying that you'd have to be ambivalent to, or passively condoning those same practices to enjoy all film is reductive, not to mention kind of insulting.

    It's not like people doing bad things are making bad movies.

    I mean, this whole argument started over Woody Allen.

    And the problem of so many Hollywood movies with a young woman being the love interest of a much older men.
    Vic wrote: »
    Vic wrote: »
    It seems like you are arguing from a point of view where outrage over a crime is hypocritical unless it is split "fairly" between everyone that's ever been guilty of it, which seems like an incredibly odd position to take.

    If someone is revealed to be a child abuser, I'm comfortable with them taking a huge amount of flack for it. The fact that others get away with the very same crime does not diminish the guilt this person bears. I'm willing to accept that Hollywood is a place that has severe systemic problems of violence and sexual abuse. That is a failing of the justice system, of investigative journalism and of the Hollywood culture. One can choose to condemn Hollywood as a whole for this, which would be fair, but it's hardly the only virtuous action possible.

    If your argument literally is "Well, he did an awful thing, but other people do awful things too," then it's the most useless possible response to the situation. We are not outraged that Woody Allen "happened to get caught". We are outraged that he is a goddamn child abuser. If you think this is such a minor crime in the context of Hollywood that we shouldn't get worked up about it, the rational response should be "we need to fucking burn Hollywood to the ground", not "stop singling out this poor rapist".

    I'm arguing from a point of exhaustion.

    I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't be outraged by Woody Allen. Be as angry as you want. But there are so many terrible people in Hollywood that it'll generate so much anger that you'll exhaust yourself and turn movies, something that should be a source of entertainment, into a something that causes suspicion, anger, and stress.

    That's what my actor friends decided on, at least the one(s) who haven't given up on Hollywood. One gave up on Hollywood and decided to work as a dancer on cruise ships and two gave up acting completely. The ones who stayed have been through so much shit trying to get into show business that they don't get angry anymore since that'll just end up giving them high blood pressure. In order to keep their passion for acting and their dream of being on TV or movies, they've decided to just ignore that side of Hollywood and avoid it whenever possible.

    It's possible to be angry about abhorrent or abusive practices in the film industry without simultaneously condemning media that's harmless, or - better yet - contributes to positive change.

    Implying that you'd have to be ambivalent to, or passively condoning those same practices to enjoy all film is reductive, not to mention kind of insulting.

    And how do you know which part of the industry is harmless? Abusive practices are rampant in the film industry but it's hidden. This is not a case of a few bad apples. If you look at the An Open Secret documentary, horrific abuses seems to be an industry wide problem. Based on my albeit limited experience, I'm suspicious of almost everyone in the entertainment industry of guilty of at least something bad.

    So how do you know that you are supporting something good? It's not like people doing bad things are making bad movies. There are terrible people making good and great movies. You can't tell if you're supporting a terrible person until they're exposed by a scandal. And there's a lot of terrible things that's being overlooked or covered up.

    Ever heard of the term "innocent until proven guilty?"

    We respond the best we can to what we know. If you choose to condemn almost everyone in the entertainment industry, that is your pejorative, but those kinds of assumptions are dangerous, especially if you allow them to dilute your outrage to actually proven crimes.

    Woody Allen has not been proven guilty in a court of law.

    And while some of the really dark stuff going on in Hollywood are covered up well enough not to arouse public outcries, yet, there are already tons of problems in Hollywood that are well known enough that they're practically cliches. Problems like racist casting, discrimination against women, actors having to perform sexual favors to get a role, etc. These are the kinds of things well known enough that movies and TV shows even make fun of them. These are the kinds of things are known to be rampant enough where you can't automatically assume that it's not happening with a specific movie or TV show. So can you maintain your outrage over that?

    Your entire position is a false premise.

    I can know Hollywood is broken and still like movies.

    I can know, specifically, that woody Allen is a monster and speak out about him.

    If someone else is revealed publicly to be a criminal I can do that too. It's that easy.

    tynicturtleantSorceHermanochiasaur11Romanian My Escutcheonchrishallett83
  • ZonugalZonugal The Holiday Armadillo I'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered User regular
    Vic wrote: »
    It seems like you are arguing from a point of view where outrage over a crime is hypocritical unless it is split "fairly" between everyone that's ever been guilty of it, which seems like an incredibly odd position to take.

    If someone is revealed to be a child abuser, I'm comfortable with them taking a huge amount of flack for it. The fact that others get away with the very same crime does not diminish the guilt this person bears. I'm willing to accept that Hollywood is a place that has severe systemic problems of violence and sexual abuse. That is a failing of the justice system, of investigative journalism and of the Hollywood culture. One can choose to condemn Hollywood as a whole for this, which would be fair, but it's hardly the only virtuous action possible.

    If your argument literally is "Well, he did an awful thing, but other people do awful things too," then it's the most useless possible response to the situation. We are not outraged that Woody Allen "happened to get caught". We are outraged that he is a goddamn child abuser. If you think this is such a minor crime in the context of Hollywood that we shouldn't get worked up about it, the rational response should be "we need to fucking burn Hollywood to the ground", not "stop singling out this poor rapist".

    I'm arguing from a point of exhaustion.

    I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't be outraged by Woody Allen. Be as angry as you want. But there are so many terrible people in Hollywood that it'll generate so much anger that you'll exhaust yourself and turn movies, something that should be a source of entertainment, into a something that causes suspicion, anger, and stress.

    That's what my actor friends decided on, at least the one(s) who haven't given up on Hollywood. One gave up on Hollywood and decided to work as a dancer on cruise ships and two gave up acting completely. The ones who stayed have been through so much shit trying to get into show business that they don't get angry anymore since that'll just end up giving them high blood pressure. In order to keep their passion for acting and their dream of being on TV or movies, they've decided to just ignore that side of Hollywood and avoid it whenever possible.

    It's possible to be angry about abhorrent or abusive practices in the film industry without simultaneously condemning media that's harmless, or - better yet - contributes to positive change.

    Implying that you'd have to be ambivalent to, or passively condoning those same practices to enjoy all film is reductive, not to mention kind of insulting.

    And how do you know which part of the industry is harmless? Abusive practices are rampant in the film industry but it's hidden. This is not a case of a few bad apples. If you look at the An Open Secret documentary, horrific abuses seems to be an industry wide problem. Based on my albeit limited experience, I'm suspicious of almost everyone in the entertainment industry of guilty of at least something bad.

    So how do you know that you are supporting something good? It's not like people doing bad things are making bad movies. There are terrible people making good and great movies. You can't tell if you're supporting a terrible person until they're exposed by a scandal. And there's a lot of terrible things that's being overlooked or covered up.

    What you are describing isn't an exclusive problem within Hollywood or even the entertainment industry, you're describing the horrific underbelly of humanity.

    And to extend your "albeit limited experience" over the entire industry in a manner as to shut down all major entertainment seems pretty crippling.

    You aren't flying a banner of moral investigation but rather letting a miasma cut off the whole.

    But if this is the approach you have chosen to Hollywood and the entertainment industry it's your to make.

    I just hope you also don't support professional sports or the military or politics or basically any entity surrounding power.

    2mw6ukw.jpg
    Romanian My EscutcheonDyvim Tvarchrishallett83
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    Movies I Done Seed This Weekend

    Minions: Cute, but I wouldn't watch it again. Great soundtrack, Scarlet Overkill is one of my favorite characters ever made, LOTS of pretty dark and racy jokes in this thing.

    The Grand Budapest Hotel: Great cinematography otherwise this thing was complete shit. Muddled characterizations, almost nothing to do with the hotel, women were background setting at best and were twice as interesting as any of the main characters, etc etc etc I could go on all day.

  • McFlynnMcFlynn Registered User regular

    So, the movie made by Sony that was full of Sony computers and Sony phones happened to have one of the most recent/popular/recognizable violent Sony exclusive games on screen for a minute or two.

    That has a lot more do with product placement than old man Sandler commenting on a specific video game.


  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    jeez, I love Grand Budapest to death.

    We are very different people.

    FencingsaxFawstLanglyBlake TGrey GhostKwoaruKetarFrylockHolmesHobnailHermanoBeef AvengerDidgeridooCorporateLogoYaYaSchlagholzerEmporiumCentipede DamascusBear_thescond
  • FAQFAQ Registered User regular
    to kind of echo what speed was saying, but not trying to determine why

    I am a bit confused about the amount of talk pixels is getting,

  • -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    adam sandler has long made shitty movies, but this time he's gone too far by insulting us gamers

    -Tal on
    paBaVtZ.jpg
    Speed RacerDex DynamoHermanoStiltsCorporateLogoNeoToma
  • Bluedude152Bluedude152 Registered User regular
    That is the exact opposite on how I feel about grand Budapest

    p0a2ody6sqnt.jpg
    LanglyCentipede Damascus
  • Bad-BeatBad-Beat Registered User regular
    The Man from U.N.C.L.E. looks like a decent film but the latest trailer seemed to spell out quite clearly what'll happen in the first 4/5ths of the movie which is kind of annoying. Really not a fan of that Hollywood trend to just blurt everything out in the trailers.

    Hermano
  • AsharadAsharad Registered User regular
    Kwoaru wrote: »
    I saw Jurassic World yesterday, it was very good

    I feel like I am the only person in the world who hated Jurassic World. I wanted to love it and just couldn't.

    There is hardly a scene in the movie where the movie remembers any of the scenes that came before it.

  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2015
    That is the exact opposite on how I feel about grand Budapest

    Well I kind of agree that GBH has a bunch (a couple) of super interesting women who get to be supporting cast, but that's par for the course for Wes Anderson films. He writes movies about highly self-involved dudes, that's his thing. But it's a beautifully shot, quirky, funny movie with great characters and ridiculous situations, and I love the aesthetic. Also it has Tilda Swinton.

    tynic on
    HermanoDidgeridooEmporium
  • turtleantturtleant Gunpla Dad is the best.Registered User regular
    -Tal wrote: »
    adam sandler has long made shitty movies, but this time he's gone too far by insulting us gamers

    Nah. People have been hating on Adam Sandler for a long time, and rightfully so as far as I'm concerned. Especially considering the shit that is going down with that other movie he is working on right now.

    Pixels just happens to be a shitty movie about something that a lot of people in the general nerd culture like. So it gets on more people's radars that are predisposed to be loud on the internet.

    And I mean, there's nothing wrong with disliking a movie that treats something you like badly. It being video games doesn't change that.

    X22wmuF.jpg
    Magic PinkHermanochiasaur11Romanian My Escutcheon
  • FawstFawst The road to awe.Registered User regular
    Re: TMNT knockoffs, I liked Rockin Rollin Miner Ants. Indie comic from Maine that went nowhere.

    Also, hate the artist, not the art (unless the art is shit).

    PSN: Fawst0083
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    tynic wrote: »
    That is the exact opposite on how I feel about grand Budapest

    Well I kind of agree that GBH has a bunch of super interesting women who get to be supporting cast, but that's par for the course for Wes Anderson films. He writes movies about highly self-involved dudes, that's his thing. But it's a beautifully shot, quirky, funny movie with great characters and ridiculous situations, and I love the aesthetic. Also it has Tilda Swinton.

    I adored Tilda Swinton and she was in it for 15 seconds? Maybe? They had one woman who was supporting cast. One! Why in the hell didn't they just chuck Adrien Brodyand use the three sisters as the villains; they were 100x more interesting.

    It was absolutely beautifully shot. It was ridiculously quirky. The aethestic was amazing. I loved the set up: a girl reading a book by a dead author who was writing about himself when he was younger interviewing the owner of a hotel who, when he was younger, met a concierge that changed his life.

    All the rest failed miserably. And my god, could that CGI have possibly been worse? And why did half the cast have a New York accent in the Republic of Zubrowka?

    Magic Pink on
  • LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    "it wasn't about the hotel" is the strangest critique of the movie that I have yet seen.

    Grey GhostFencingsaxHermanoYaYachiasaur11knitdanFishmanBear_thescondTheodore Floosevelt
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    which bits? A lot of the special effects were deliberately cheap.

    We'll have to disagree on what failed, I thought it was marvellous.

    LanglyA Dabble Of TheloniusFawstjgeisBlake TKetarFencingsaxHobnailHermanoBeef Avengerchiasaur11
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    Langly wrote: »
    "it wasn't about the hotel" is the strangest critique of the movie that I have yet seen.

    The back of the DVD case said it was about the hotel, the concierge and the guests he meets there. What the movie delivered, a half baked prison story, was not that.

  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    tynic wrote: »
    which bits? A lot of the special effects were deliberately cheap.

    We'll have to disagree on what failed, I thought it was marvellous.

    Many of the backdrops stood out horribly and the skiing chase was just groaningly awful.

  • Raijin QuickfootRaijin Quickfoot I'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Welcome to the Hotel California

    HEY SATAN! HERE'S MY WISHLIST! GO NUTS YOU DEVIL!

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/1JI9WWSRW1YJI
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    And why did half the cast have a New York accent in the Republic of Zubrowka?

    The same reason the other half of the cast had accents from all around the globe. And the same reason Zubrowka doesn't exist. It's not about immersion into a believable historical setting, it's a magical realism caper.

    Blake THermanoStiltsCorporateLogo
  • LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    anderson's stuff always looks like that, it is a deliberate choice.

    tynicFawstJoolanderjgeisKetarHermanoBeef AvengerStiltsCorporateLogoFishmanTheodore Floosevelt
This discussion has been closed.