Rip-off artists

  • Thread starter Thread starter aether
  • Start date Start date
Kelly said:
Interesting outlook you've got there
Click to expand...

Thank you ;)
... an entire class of information is suspect
Click to expand...

What makes you think only that class is suspect? It just happens to be the
one under discussion because the earlier poster brought it up in reply to
my request for evidence.

I wouldn't take an opinion piece, or propaganda, as 'evidence' regardless
of the medium used.
because of the way it's recorded and transmitted,
Click to expand...

Different means of communication have characteristics that influence how
they're used. For example, you seldom see someone use a public movie
theater screen to tell the wife they're working overtime and will be late
for dinner.

While film can, and is, used to record events it is seldom, if ever, seen
uncut, unedited, and without comment; and certainly not in what is
colloquially called a 'movie'. The closest thing would be the so called
"documentary," although Michael Moore may have, single handed, destroyed
the meaning of that term.

By nature of the medium, as it is currently employed, 'movies' reflect the
creative vision of the producer, director, writer, actor(s), et al, and
while an airplane disaster movie might even appear realistic I wouldn't
accept it as 'evidence' that all airplanes are inherently unsafe because,
the simple fact of the matter is, you can make anything appear to happen in
a movie. As a friend once commented about Jurassic Park "the special
effects are so good you can't tell the real dinosaurs from the fake ones."
while those who
question this are somehow not quite right.
Click to expand...

If you mean "not quite right" as in "incorrect" then, of course. People who
disagree generally think the other person is incorrect ;)

If you mean "not quite right" as in demented, then no. I didn't say movies
were demented but, rather, simply not necessarily a reliable, or complete,
image of reality. So "living in a movie" simply means one is seeing things
colored by that imperfect lens.

Of course, "living in a movie" isn't any kind of negative at all if you
*do* believe they're "a reliable source of good factual 'real world'
information" and I've known people who think they'd be a great place to
live precisely because they aren't ;)
I would at first think that
you're serious, but then I have to remember where I'm reading it. ;-)
Click to expand...

As well you should ;)
In an effort to drag this thread back on topic (fruitless, I know), I'll
ask if mebbe someone could sell me two unopened sticks of 512MB PC3200
for, hmmmm ... twenty bucks. That's what I've got left in my pocket after
upgrading everything, so that's currently what my market can bear.
Click to expand...

A "market" is both sides and I think you're short one.
And if you think THAT sounds riculous, well, when I have the transaction
put on film you'll know that it couldn't POSSIBLY be for real.... ;-)
Click to expand...

I didn't say that something on "film," or even in a movie, couldn't be
real. I said "movies" weren't a "reliable source" with the point being that
just because you saw it in a movie doesn't necessarily make it so.

And, if you want, I'll bring over a couple of sticks and let you record as
we exchange memory and money as long as you give them back after the
filming is over ;)
 
|
| I didn't say that something on "film," or even in a movie, couldn't
be
| real. I said "movies" weren't a "reliable source" with the point
being that
| just because you saw it in a movie doesn't necessarily make it so.


No truer words have been spoken about movies. Take Fahrenheit 911,
for example. What a genius maneuver to create a movie that bashes the
current republican administration with a near certain expectation that
about half the population (the democrats) were sure to want to see the
movie either by renting or seeing it in a theater, and even more to
the marketing genius, that republicans would want to see just to know
what the democrats are watching and talking about. Some say the movie
is a grand expose of the current administration, but as for me, I say
the underlying genius of that movie is the guaranteed audience/sales
the creator(s) surely envisioned. Don't ever think a movie is made
purely for the artistic or "truthful" content therein. I believe the
primary driving force behind any movie is the potential for profits.
 
obviously you've never seen Dokument vom Reichsparteitag 1934 (Triumph of
the will)
 
No truer words have been spoken about movies. Take Fahrenheit 911,
for example. What a genius maneuver to create a movie that bashes the
current republican administration with a near certain expectation that
about half the population (the democrats) were sure to want to see the
movie either by renting or seeing it in a theater, and even more to
the marketing genius, that republicans would want to see just to know
what the democrats are watching and talking about. Some say the movie
is a grand expose of the current administration, but as for me, I say
the underlying genius of that movie is the guaranteed audience/sales
the creator(s) surely envisioned. Don't ever think a movie is made
purely for the artistic or "truthful" content therein. I believe the
primary driving force behind any movie is the potential for profits.
Click to expand...
let me guess....a republican
 
soinie said:
Oh look, it's Archie Bunker. How's your ugly wife Edith?
Click to expand...

Great point. That's the sort of response one expects when trying to engage
a leftist weenie in a meaningful debate.
 
| No truer words have been spoken about movies. Take Fahrenheit 911,
| > for example. What a genius maneuver to create a movie that bashes
the
| > current republican administration with a near certain expectation
that
| > about half the population (the democrats) were sure to want to see
the
| > movie either by renting or seeing it in a theater, and even more
to
| > the marketing genius, that republicans would want to see just to
know
| > what the democrats are watching and talking about. Some say the
movie
| > is a grand expose of the current administration, but as for me, I
say
| > the underlying genius of that movie is the guaranteed
audience/sales
| > the creator(s) surely envisioned. Don't ever think a movie is
made
| > purely for the artistic or "truthful" content therein. I believe
the
| > primary driving force behind any movie is the potential for
profits.
| > --
| > Best regards,
| > Kyle
| let me guess....a republican
|


LMAO, let me guess, a democrat!!!!

You probably think that movie is "truth" also, rotflmao. Some parts
are true, no doubt, media clips ans the like, however, much of the
commentary plays to an audience of substantial size.
 
(way off topic now)

Nope, never seen it, but here's a review snipit from the web:

Reviews
“Possibly the most powerful propaganda film ever made, Triumph of
the Will is also, in retrospect, one of the most horrifying”

Hal Erickson, New York Times

So what's your point? Looks to be a propaganda film, as most films
that were commissioned by the Nazis.
--
Best regards,
Kyle
| obviously you've never seen Dokument vom Reichsparteitag 1934
(Triumph of
| the will)
| | > | >
| > |
| > | I didn't say that something on "film," or even in a movie,
couldn't
| > be
| > | real. I said "movies" weren't a "reliable source" with the point
| > being that
| > | just because you saw it in a movie doesn't necessarily make it
so.
| >
| >
| > No truer words have been spoken about movies. Take Fahrenheit
911,
| > for example. What a genius maneuver to create a movie that bashes
the
| > current republican administration with a near certain expectation
that
| > about half the population (the democrats) were sure to want to see
the
| > movie either by renting or seeing it in a theater, and even more
to
| > the marketing genius, that republicans would want to see just to
know
| > what the democrats are watching and talking about. Some say the
movie
| > is a grand expose of the current administration, but as for me, I
say
| > the underlying genius of that movie is the guaranteed
audience/sales
| > the creator(s) surely envisioned. Don't ever think a movie is
made
| > purely for the artistic or "truthful" content therein. I believe
the
| > primary driving force behind any movie is the potential for
profits.
| > --
| > Best regards,
| > Kyle
| >
|
|
 
Kylesb said:
|
| I didn't say that something on "film," or even in a movie, couldn't
be
| real. I said "movies" weren't a "reliable source" with the point
being that
| just because you saw it in a movie doesn't necessarily make it so.


No truer words have been spoken about movies. Take Fahrenheit 911,
for example. What a genius maneuver to create a movie that bashes the
current republican administration with a near certain expectation that
about half the population (the democrats) were sure to want to see the
movie either by renting or seeing it in a theater, and even more to
the marketing genius, that republicans would want to see just to know
what the democrats are watching and talking about. Some say the movie
is a grand expose of the current administration, but as for me, I say
the underlying genius of that movie is the guaranteed audience/sales
the creator(s) surely envisioned. Don't ever think a movie is made
purely for the artistic or "truthful" content therein. I believe the
primary driving force behind any movie is the potential for profits.
Click to expand...

I understand your cynicism and, of course, a lot of movies are created for
the purpose of making money but to conclude that is the sole motivation is,
IMO, just as short sighted as blindly trusting them to be fountains of 'truth'.
 
the point is the person to whom I responded made some all encompassing
comment that movies or films if you prefer, were strictly profit motivated.
One example that his(or her) statement is patently untrue is triumph of the
will which was pure NAzi BS.
 
| No truer words have been spoken about movies. Take Fahrenheit 911,
| > for example. What a genius maneuver to create a movie that bashes
the
| > current republican administration with a near certain expectation
that
| > about half the population (the democrats) were sure to want to see
the
| > movie either by renting or seeing it in a theater, and even more
to
| > the marketing genius, that republicans would want to see just to
know
| > what the democrats are watching and talking about. Some say the
movie
| > is a grand expose of the current administration, but as for me, I
say
| > the underlying genius of that movie is the guaranteed
audience/sales
| > the creator(s) surely envisioned. Don't ever think a movie is
made
| > purely for the artistic or "truthful" content therein. I believe
the
| > primary driving force behind any movie is the potential for
profits.
| > --
| > Best regards,
| > Kyle
| let me guess....a republican
|


LMAO, let me guess, a democrat!!!!

You probably think that movie is "truth" also, rotflmao. Some parts
are true, no doubt, media clips ans the like, however, much of the
commentary plays to an audience of substantial size.
Click to expand...


Let me guess, a moral majority Bush supporting fascist. And what is
your point since you don't appear to be making any much like the other
fellow? Did you see the documentary? Probably not but your willing
to comment on it based on Rush Limbaugh's opinion?
 
| Kylesb wrote:
|
| > | >
| > |
| > | I didn't say that something on "film," or even in a movie,
couldn't
| > be
| > | real. I said "movies" weren't a "reliable source" with the point
| > being that
| > | just because you saw it in a movie doesn't necessarily make it
so.
| >
| >
| > No truer words have been spoken about movies. Take Fahrenheit
911,
| > for example. What a genius maneuver to create a movie that bashes
the
| > current republican administration with a near certain expectation
that
| > about half the population (the democrats) were sure to want to see
the
| > movie either by renting or seeing it in a theater, and even more
to
| > the marketing genius, that republicans would want to see just to
know
| > what the democrats are watching and talking about. Some say the
movie
| > is a grand expose of the current administration, but as for me, I
say
| > the underlying genius of that movie is the guaranteed
audience/sales
| > the creator(s) surely envisioned. Don't ever think a movie is
made
| > purely for the artistic or "truthful" content therein. I believe
the
| > primary driving force behind any movie is the potential for
profits.
|
| I understand your cynicism and, of course, a lot of movies are
created for
| the purpose of making money but to conclude that is the sole
motivation is,
| IMO, just as short sighted as blindly trusting them to be fountains
of 'truth'.
|


Since you appear to have overlooked the specific language I carefully
chose, I'll quote myself: "I believe the primary driving force. . . ".
Now primary is just that, and there are secondary and tertiary driving
forces and so forth.
 
Ah yes, in a dictatorial society where propaganda is a primary tool of
the ruling powers, then yes, the basis for such a movie might just be
propaganda rather than profit, I'd agree. Hitler's propaganda machine
had a very substantial budget. Now, what's your point? My post
suggested the primary driving force behind a movie is profit, yet
there are certainly other forces at work also. There are certainly
many reasons or motivations behind movies. Where a movie is marketed
in the fashion of the products of Hollywood, the primary motivation is
profit.

--
Best regards,
Kyle
| the point is the person to whom I responded made some all
encompassing
| comment that movies or films if you prefer, were strictly profit
motivated.
| One example that his(or her) statement is patently untrue is
triumph of the
| will which was pure NAzi BS.
|
 
|
|
| Let me guess, a moral majority Bush supporting fascist. And what is
| your point since you don't appear to be making any much like the
other
| fellow? Did you see the documentary? Probably not but your willing
| to comment on it based on Rush Limbaugh's opinion?

You must be a democrat

I saw the movie, and I saw it for what it really was, maybe you saw
something different. It is without doubt that the party in power will
be "taking care of friends and associates" during its tenure, this is
a truism with government.
 
Please share with us your understanding of where the "profits" went.
The only publicly available information on this question is that
Miramax and Disney's profits, per agreement with the Weinstein
brothers, will be donated to some unspecified charity, yet there is no
information available as to where the remainder of the profits
were/are funneled. I suspect the Weinstein brother's may not be so
benevolent with their share of the profits, nor IFC nor Lion's Gate.
 
Back
Top