This message was self-deleted by its author

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Making stuff up?

" More movies are made about them and more box office is harvested than by all movies about scientists and do-gooders and athletes combined."
Load of horsepucky. Just not true. You want it to be true. But it is not true. Here is a link to a list of last year's top box office films. 'Girl With the Dragon Tattoo' at number 28 is the only, the only film about murder in the entire top 50, which features such films a 'We Bought A Zoo' and 'Harry Potter' and 'Hangover 2' 'Bridesmaids'. The dominate forms are chidlren's films and comedies. Smufs, Pirates, Pandas....that's where the big money is. Year in and year out.
There are many worthy criticisms of the film media but what you are saying is what you want to say, not what is true. If it was true, you'd not be reaching back to the 80's and 90's to cite your Natural Born Freddies and such.
It's fine to hold ginned up, anti artistic sentiments I guess, but when you start denigrating the audience for watching that which they are not watching, and making large conclusions based on that falsehood, it does make others inspect the words more closely.
Also, this is not Morgan Freeman, which is why it is spelled wrong. He'd never say such idotic shit. This piece says 'don't look to gun control'.
Also, ironic that your avatar wrote so many bloody, horrific plays with so many deaths and torture scenes and rapes and kipnappings. Hundreds of years ago, the top entertainments were bloody plays and bear baiting. Now, the top entertainments are comedies and animations. I love Shakespeare. His work is very violent. Very. Some of his 'hero' figures kill serveral people in the course of a play.
So what's your issue with Kung Fu Panda? What does that say about the 'market'? I mean, you said the films that make money comment on 'the market and the media'. Or does that only count when it is the made up, fictional popularity of nonexistant films, not the actual films that fill the actual market? It seems to me a top 50 with one murder story and a few spy films is about as tame as it gets. Add all the cartoon animals and slapstick comedies in the top 50 and it is almost as if the market wants fun, laughs and some insights here and there. 'Crazy, Stupid Love' made way more money than Dragon Tattoo. As did 27 other films about subjects other than mass murder.
Which is worse? Harry Potter, or the Panda one? Which says stuff about 'the market'? Bridesmaids? Was that an indication of a society on the verge? How about the Smufs, Chipmunks? Or maybe it is Puss in Boots or Cars that are so indicative of our ruination?
The whole 'I sound like a Baptist preacher shouting about James Dean' routine is just funny to me. Yeah. It's those kids films and comedies that are destroying the world. Sure. If you say so, we can all blame Smurfs and Pandas. Why not?