Slashdot Mirror
2017: The Year That Horror Saved Hollywood (qz.com)
A reader shares a report: If there's a silver lining in any of that for America's film industry, it's that the horror genre is still plugging merrily along, seemingly immune to the financial troubles that have befallen most studios. As the rest of Hollywood flounders in 2017, horror is in the midst of its highest-grossing year ever. On the backs of huge hits like It and Get Out, the horror genre has combined for a record $733.5 million in the US this year, according to box office data compiled by the New York Times (paywall). The year has proven that horror films are more than just cheaply made movies for niche audiences and can still cross into the mainstream to become bona fide successes. Ticket sales during the 2017 summer movie season, billed by Variety as "The Summer of Hell," were down nearly 11% from last year due to a series of epic flops, namely King Arthur: Legend of the Sword and The Dark Tower. Arguably the only saving grace was It, the adaptation of the novel of the same name by Stephen King that became the highest-grossing horror film of all time in September (not adjusted for inflation). Today, it has made a very fitting $666.6 million (seriously) worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo. Following a solid first half of 2017 with Dunkirk and Wonder Woman, It helped Warner Bros. rebound from the disastrous King Arthur and the disappointing Blade Runner 2049 -- to say nothing of this month's box office catastrophe, Geostorm.
for America's film industry, it's that the horror genre is still plugging merrily along, seemingly immune to the financial troubles that have befallen most studios
The horror genre is not immune to the studios' problems, there just happen to be some very good horror genre movies this year. The studios should be ignoring any trends like these and simply make good movies. Entertaining movies nearly always do well at the box office. If Get Out or It were bad movies, they would have done bad at the box office regardless of being horror movies.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I mean yes obviously, those reduced millions are still coming in from somewhere.
But I haven't heard anyone I know - in years - saying they were going to go to a theater and watch a movie. I think the last thing I personally saw in a theater was the first half of Kill Bill. None of my friends have said anything about going to a movie since I can't remember when.
I've considered that maybe I'm just getting old and I don't go out as much, and that's skewing my perception of things. But I have nephews and other family that are younger. And babysitters and neighborhood kids that come over to hang out with my kids.
Nobody seems to talk about going to the movies anymore.
Do people actually go to the movies these days? I can't think of anyone that does. Whatever it is that you want to see - it'll be on blu-ray in a month and you can watch it at home, without the sticky floors and ten dollar popcorn. A gigantic LED tv doesn't cost all that much, and you have one for your XBox already anyways.
Who the hell goes to the movies these days?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Ask the producers of Amityville the awakening
Nullius in verba
Lots of Hollywood horror stories about sex predators masking as producer and directors.
I was considering going to Blade Runner with my wife. However it had been so long since I had last seen the first one I thought it would be nice to see it again before seeing the new one. So I checked the usual retailers - in my case Best Buy, Target, WalMart - and couldn't get it there as it was not available. I can't stream it on NetFlix either. I checked Barnes and Noble as well, no dice. I checked Amazon; they couldn't guarantee it either (only available through third parties).
Disney did the same thing with Tron when they released the new one a few years ago. If you shut out the fans who want to see it, you'll end up getting less money for the new product. In my case I just simply gave up and figured it's not that important. I can go spend my money on something else.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Are we going to talk about the abomination called Mother! ? Is that horror too?
Modern movies all fit a very tight formula, which is admittedly very powerful and compelling, but it prevents certain types of creativity from shining. Atop that, movie studios refuse to take risks on new material, instead making adaptations, reboots, remakes, and encores. This further limits what a movie can do.
This is an arena that televisions series have stolen from movies; most episodes are designed to fit that tight formula while advancing a larger arc (better yet, multiple larger arcs!) while a few can break the mold with minimal risk to audience retention (for example, instead of the plot twist being half to three-quarters through, it can be elsewhere, or even a build-up for a larger surprise in the next episode).
Horror movies are rarely heavy in sophistication. They just go in for emotional investment so they can lead you to a series of surprises, some of which will startle you and others that might haunt you. This adapts to that oversimplified formula very very well. Additionally, horror has its own tight formulae, so audiences get what they expect and are only disappointed when there wasn't the anticipated level of startles, eeriness, or innuendo. There's no risk to the hook being problematic since it's pretty much always shown in full force in the movie's trailer.
(Also note that It is a remake (and an adaptation), though Get Out is not.)
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
... like every year.
Flops don't kill Hollywood. It's not hooked up that way.
Honestly, until Hollywood stops trying to shove their alt left agenda down our throat, they will continue to do poorly. The fact about the left is that their ideology is just theoretical, and when they try to apply it in the real world, it is jarring, as in ruin the entire movie jarring (the hero, after killing mountains of henchmen, spares the evil mastermind because he is "better than that" even though the dude murdered the hero's children and made his wife a zombie plaything. Everyone knows that in reality that the villain would be red paste on the wall, or at the very least, beaten within an inch of his life. (This is why The Walking Dead did so well and Fear the Walking Dead spin-off is total garbage, one is a realistic drama about how normal people would act, the other is a liberal jerk off session about how they think they would act in the same situation). That is why the superhero movies did so well, at least at first. They were based on what is by today's standards, a conservative narrative, with a struggle between good and evil. But now even those stories are being polluted by the liberal agenda (Iron Man sequels anyone?) instead of staying true to the original material.
We need to get back to the classical theorem for our action/epic movies, where there are good guys (albeit still flawed humans) and some evil to overcome (not corporate suits, not CEOs, or other stupid Hollywood retardedness) who do evil things because evil is in their hearts and they want more power to spread their evil. Pick a genre (fantasy, scifi, horror, post apocalypse, apocalyptic, etc.) and away you go.
I predict that Hollywood knows this, and they will make a few "pandering" movies next year to refill the coffers, then go back to putting out their dog shit laced libtard brownies...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I talked to a number of cinephile friends who, along with myself, saw Get Out as genuinely abysmal. It pandered, it was predictable, and most importantly it merely kept up stereotypes and fears that are genuinely abhorrent and useless in this day and age.
It was poorly-directed, but did have a good lead. Everyone else was wooden, beige, and the even the humor wasn't really any good. The only reason it got eyeballs was because it was a social justice issue; what it tried to do has been done elsewhere and better.
I was embarrassed at the theater, with people yelling and screaming that, "Whitey should DIE! Yeah fuck whitey!" It was a racist, violent movie that has no business in a theater.
Nice enough sets, though.
BR2049? Another overpumped piece of junk, it's what a teenager would create if they made bladerunner: It beats the viewer over the head to feel something; it makes the most amateur mistakes in cinema: It narrates instead of illustrating.
Blech. Those two movies, along with the wooden, strangely emotionless "Lucky" last weekend have now completely put me off modern movies.
I promised a friend I'd see "Mother" but I've not much hope there, either.
-
By not "compromising that pleasure" you are doing just that; the film is meant to be seen on a huge screen. It really is a masterpiece, and I don't care how nice your system is, it just won't be the same. Trust me.
Yesterday they told you you would not go far, that night you open and there you are
Next day on your dressing room they've hung a star, let's go on with the show!!
You might have to suck a dick or two. That's show business! Woka Woka!
Global Warming Climate Change Day After Tomorrow, the media scares everyone, so let's make a movie to capitalize on it, and toss in some government weather conspiracy stuff!! All the boogeymen in one. And it probably started out as a Scy-fy script, but those Nadosharks are popular too, then you got some big name stars and the budget went crazy.
I have only seen the trailer, but it looks like a decent plot for a 1970~1980's era James Bond movie.
#DeleteFacebook
A huge screen is not the only component needed to appreciate a movie. Watching something in a theatre is like trying to read a book in a fast food joint at lunch time.
#DeleteFacebook
I saw the trailer for Geostorm the other day and said, "Gee, that looks exactly like Day After Tomorrow." And my friend remarked, "No, it reminds me of 2012." We eventually agreed we were both right.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Modern movies all fit a very tight formula, which is admittedly very powerful and compelling, but it prevents certain types of creativity from shining. Atop that, movie studios refuse to take risks on new material,
Have you seen Victoria and Abdul?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, but you can appreciate a movie like Bladerunner 2049 *better* on a larger screen. There are certain scenes that evoke a sense of grandeur...and you miss grandeur by definition on a smaller screen.
So you define progressive values as "evil"?
Progressive, verily. Hollywood has progressed from molesting adults to molesting kids. Such goodness!
Honestly, who wants to see a movie with the prefix 'Geo'?
Have you seen Victoria and Abdul?
No, and I therefore cannot comment on how soundly it may or may not break "the formula" but there are exceptions to every rule. This does not appear to be one, however, since it is not a Hollywood film (sorry, I failed to quantify my remark by that characteristic). It's also an adaptation.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Don't forget "Glockwork Orange"
Table-ized A.I.
Nah, I personally taste like chicken.
Table-ized A.I.
Stop watching Alex Jones you idiot.
Walter Peck from the EPA was a secondary antagonist in Ghostbusters
http://ghostbusters.wikia.com/...
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
horror movies are trash, for people with fucked up minds.
1. Hollywood has a strangle hold on movie and TV media in the US, and for the most part, conservatives are not interested in playing dress up in front of a camera. This doesn't preclude us from pointing out shitty, trivial garbage that comes out of Hollywood. If you want to see what a good story looks like, there is plenty of content from the 1950s and 1960s, as well as some from the 1980s.
2a. Unions are not evil, but public employee unions in a democracy are a bad thing (they have cross interest with the country and can sway elections to hire their own boss).
2b. Most progressives in the US are not evil, and that was not what I said, but rather have a believable story of good versus evil.
2c. Aside from movies like Erin Brochovich, most "evil CEO/business man/etc." are totally irrational and stupid. Do CEOs screw their employees, the public and customers sometimes? Sure. How many have thousands of armed guards with full auto machine guns willing to die for minimum wage (like OCP in Robocop, a liberal homage to the action movie genre)? Answer: NONE. When white collar criminals get caught, they go quietly to jail, because that shit is pure fantasy.
2d. You don't like big corporations, that is fine, neither do I (Google, Facebook and Comcast are at the top of my shit list), but that doesn't mean they make a good villain for an action or super hero movie. I guarantee you won't find 10 businessmen in the entire US willing to fire an Uzi into a crowd on the street for $100 million dollars. I bet more than half the current or former population of any jail would go for it though, especially if you backed up an armored truck filled with the cash.
3. The real list of evil qualified for the bogeyman role in an action/hero movie is:
Sentient evil: criminals, serial killers, gangs, drug cartels, rogue nations, aliens, etc.
Natural evil: Earthquake, fire, flood, plague, asteroid impact, technology, AI, etc.
There are probably a lot more, but notice that there are no CEOs or companies on the list because companies don't kill people on purpose.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Have you seen game of thrones? They took risks and broke out of the simplified formulas
Game of Thrones is not a Hollywood movie either. See my second paragraph. The "multiple larger arcs" was written with GoT chief in mind.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Headline!
Bad movies do poorly at the theater... ORLY? Shocking I tell you, shocking.
Anyone who's seen the trailer for King Arthur or Geostorm could have told you that they were going to be terrible. I mean really. While I had high hopes for the Dark Tower, the bottom line is they are fitting like 5000 pages of book in one movie, yeah a little might get lost in translation. As for Blade Runner, who knows, I know I wanted to go see it, but just didn't get a chance.
As for IT, well it did very well because by all accounts it is a very well done movie, same goes for Dunkirk, and Wonder Woman (who also tick off a lot of demos going for it).
Anyway the whole bad movies doesn't do very well while good movies do isn't exactly all that shocking really. What might be more shocking is that while most horror movies are horrible, every now and again one comes along that is very well done like IT, which is a bit newsie I guess. Descent is another one that comes to mind (however that was like a decade ago). It is pretty rare a horror movie gets an +80% rating.
Horror flicks generally don't have fakey car chases with impossible automotive gymnastics done on streets that are always, always, always wet, including inside parking garages, no matter what the weather was 30 seconds before the cut to the car chase. They also usually don't feel the need to introduce seriously fakey CGI that doesn't work, isn't believable, and just destroys my ability to get "into" the movie.
For me, movies have to make sense. Dark Tower made little sense to me, King Athur made absolutely no sense. Then there's things that happen just because "its in the script", and so those things can't even be attributed to the characters' brainy endeavors. There's lots of idiot stuff such as Clooney dangling from a rope / wire in that space movie "Gravity" and about to "fall." WTF, you can't "fall" in orbit, there's no gravity. All she'd have to have done was give the rope a slight tug and he'd have floated right to her. And then there's King Kong where they somehow get an engine-powered raft from a 1940's fighter plane to go upstream (or something like that) when 1) all the fuel was burned completely when the fighter plane crashed and 2) it was decades ago, and you're telling me if there was some fuel saved from such a crash, it wouldn't have been used for something else in the interim?
Movies have to make sense to be enjoyable, but, well, horror movies not quite so much since the monsters mostly don't exist and the methods in use don't exist (Jumangi simply requires magic / enchantments - we don't question those...) so,
Damnit, tell me a good story, don't make things happen just because "its in the script", have stuff make sense, and maybe you'll come up with something plausible and entertaining like Jaw or Jurassic Park. Even a little suspension of scientific disbelief can be tolerated to follow along with Star Wars and Star Trek and so forth. Transformers? Naw, there's too much mass resultant from too small a volume when transforming a car into a 30 ft high robot. But, c'mon, get real... at least mostly.
Oh, yeah, then there's the upcoming Pacific Rim sequel. Good grief, what a way to attack the problem. You got monsters coming out of the sea? I'm the only one that has ever seen "The Guns of Navarrone?" Shore batteries, lots of them. Any critter that can be defeated by hand to hand combat with a giant robot can have his shit blown to smithereens by an appropriately sized artillery round. Again... get real...
Don't forget the other part of the theater that makes watching movies in them more "real." That is, the sound. If an artillery shell lands closeby in a movie theater showing, you not only hear it, but you hear it loudly and you feel it. That's "immersion." That's outstanding. I see virtually everything in the theater, because I enjoy the ultra-real experience that is more like "being there" than watching it at home on even a 40" screen. Getting a projection TV system in the next year or 2, and aim to use my 90's vintage component stereo 120 watts per channel Pioneer receiver with the Cerwin Vega speakers that weigh 95 lbs each to hopefully partially recreate the movie theater experience. But I'll still see it initially in the theater, nevertheless. Its just that old flicks I want to watch, will be better experience too at home.
So you seem bothered by oligopolies who use their size to limit outside firms. Hmmm.
I doubt that's statistically true, but assuming it is, I'm not sure what your bigger point is. It's hard to find conservative actors?
So can biz. I'd be willing to cut their influence if we ALSO cut biz buying elections. Anyhow, unions are a big side topic.
Sure, movies are often based on exaggeration. That's not news. Think of it as Wells Fargo's billing scam on steroids: low-level employees pressured to rip off customers to keep their jobs. Concepts and patterns from real life are exaggerated to create drama. Dinosaurs probably didn't roar and bellow very often before eating/chasing their prey, but most people love that movie meme: it's drama.
If you want to see reality, watch documentaries. They exist, but are not popular with either partisan group.
There are movies about them, but most cannot really relate to them. But, many deal with corporations either at their own work and/or via consumer transactions. Thus, they are closer to everyday life of movie goers.
Table-ized A.I.
"Sure, movies are often based on exaggeration. That's not news. Think of it as Wells Fargo's billing scam on steroids: low-level employees pressured to rip off customers to keep their jobs. Concepts and patterns from real life are exaggerated to create drama. Dinosaurs probably didn't roar and bellow very often before eating/chasing their prey, but most people love that movie meme: it's drama."
There is an un-bridgeable gap between being pressured to create extra banking accounts (that cost the customer nothing) and murdering random strangers/dying for your job. Show me one instance in the US or any other civilized first world country in the last 60 years where a corporation collaborated internally (more than 2 people working together at the direction of the CEO or board of directors) to kill people. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. EVER.
I am fine with a certain level of artistic license and exaggeration, but pull it out of your ass BS that has never happened and will never happen ON EVERY SINGLE MOVIE FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS is mental deficiency or derangement. Look at any action movie set in the modern era in the last 20 years. 90% plus of the time the murderous villain turns out to be a businessman...
As for businesses buying elections, last time I checked, businesses can't vote, and buying elections traditionally means bribery of election officials to help your candidate to win. That doesn't happen and is a felony. Regarding influencing elections (which is what you are actually complaining about), if you properly educate your population and teach them how to think (instead of what to think) in the state run, mandatory schools, it is impossible for businesses to influence elections through advertising unless they have a valid position, but teaching kids how to think would destroy the liberal progressive method of propagation (brainwashing kids in school and college), so we can't do that. Fake news companies like CNN and manipulators like Google and Facebook can definitely sway opinion and potentially can throw elections, so they need to be regulated as public utilities to behave in a fair, impartial and neutral manner, and I am all for making all paid lobbying by companies much more limited and having stricter laws about former lobbyists in the government (Obama had 65 people in his cabinet and close officials who were current or former lobbyists when hired).
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
The plot is no more silly than men in tights with superpowers from a spider bite or meteorite. And biz violence did happen in the mob heyday: it was REAL.
Campaign donations and pro-candidate ads are legal. It's pretty damned close to direct bribery. He with the most money can hire the most shouters.
You give the electorate way too much credit. The situations are often nuanced and most won't investigate the nuances such that over-simplified sound-bites "work".
And the candidate's position can be quite valid, but they can fail to tell you related details that undermine their position. For example, deregulation may indeed make a business more profitable and thus hire more people. However, it may also result in more birth defects. The pro-dereg candidate will NOT tell voters that in their ads. They will only give the up-side to dereg. Cherry-picked details.
And if Fox "News" is more accurate/balanced than CNN, I'll eat a live toad on TV.
Table-ized A.I.
Lol, only this time no one else made almost the exact same movie. Stormbringer would be a good name.
I saw the trailer for Geostorm the other day and said, "Gee, that looks exactly like Day After Tomorrow." And my friend remarked, "No, it reminds me of 2012." We eventually agreed we were both right.
Well, they were all made by Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin, so there's a reason for that. After working together on Stargate, Independence Day, and Godzilla, they went their separate ways, though clearly they're still making like.. the same kinds of movies that they were when they were together.
No, but Kevin Spacey is.
Show me one instance in the US or any other civilized first world country in the last 60 years where a corporation collaborated internally (more than 2 people working together at the direction of the CEO or board of directors) to kill people.
How about the entire tobacco industry? They knew for sure that their product was deadly and killed people, they suppressed any and all research and news that spread that information so people would make their own choices.
That's as close to murder as it gets without actually dropping a bomb on someone's house.
I have known a number of people in my on life who smoked their entire life and died in their 80s, so while I agree that smoking is bad for you, it is hardly the death sentence that the alt left makes it out to be. It largely depends on how much you smoke and your genetics. OTOH, virtually the entire left wing in the US is pro pot and see nothing wrong with smoking pot, which is arguably just as bad for you as cigarettes, if not worse and far more addictive and destructive to your life.
Lung cancer, the number one killer associated with smoking was not well understood for decades, and many of the "evil" tobacco company CEOs smoked themselves, hardly a practice they would engage in if they thought that smoking was deadly and will kill you. It is much more reasonable that science learned over 80 years as both knowledge and science developed that smoking was bad for you and the industry and public lagged behind the science. At worst you can argue that they ignored and stifled early signs and scientists who warned of the long term health problems associated with smoking. But making equivalence between selling cigarettes who no one has to by and which have been used in this country for centuries and hiring goons to murder some innocent is a stretch too far for me, it is not even on the same scale...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
You give the electorate way too much credit. The situations are often nuanced and most won't investigate the nuances such that over-simplified sound-bites "work".
I agree that the current electorate is like this, by liberal progressive design. 150 years ago, people were focused like a laser on politics and far better informed and educated than today. As a result, today the idiots votes can be persuaded with enough air time, and that is the only way the liberal progressives who want to abridge half the bill of rights ever get elected. My point was, eliminate the state run public schools, teach students how to think, and they will no longer be easily manipulated by the media or political ads.
As far as CNN, you can start with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And this: http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/2...
Off the top of my head, CNN predicted that Comey would testify that he did not tell Trump he was in the clear regarding Russia, the next day Comey testified that he did in fact tell Trump that he was not under suspicion.
CNN has played this Trump Russia collusion thing non stop for 9 months, and it turns out the people getting indicted are Democrat operatives and they are being indicted for actions taken before joining the Trump campaign and in collusion with the Democrats... including Hillary Clinton.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
Oh, and you probably haven't even heard about this if you watch CNN (Bill and Hillary's bribery scheme to sell and illegally export 20% of US Uranium reserves to Russia) where they made over $100M for their foundation, that pays for all their living expenses except their house and their meals... http://www.breitbart.com/radio...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Suuure it is.
As far as news controversies, there's also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and http://www.politifact.com/trut...
And National Review and Breitbart are known to be biased. They have no cred with me. The GOP can go ahead and put Hillary on trial if they really think there are laws broken.
Table-ized A.I.
Virtually every incident on the Wikipedia link involves either a personal issue for some person not affecting broadcast content, or something that offends liberal sensibilities instead of a factual error on the words reported or spoken, unlike with CNN, or errors by guests and interviewees (who are not affiliated with Fox news) or racking errors (wrong tape with similar content that materially changes nothing in the story gets loaded by some intern and the host doesn't realize it until later). A fair chunk of the Wikipedia article appears to have been written by Politifact shills (I can see their conflation at work between the lines).
Only fools go to Politifact as what was once a semi-neutral entity has been completely consumed by the liberal progressives and is now just shilling for the DNC. I am just waiting for the news that they are being directly funded by George Soros and the DNC for the circle jerk that is Politifact to be complete. They routinely twist and conflate statements and facts, and almost always build strawman arguments to allow for their desired outcome, rather than going to actual source material and honestly analyzing claims and positions. If you can't see this after reading a few of their articles you are either blinded by your ideology or not smart enough to be involved in political discussion in the first place.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
List 3 bad ones from that list of 50.
Table-ized A.I.
It is simple. As I said, Politifact is a shill for the alt left progressives, and they rely on your weak logic skills, and lack of both knowledge and curiosity. Take a look at the FIRST "LIE"...
1. "In July 2010 the government said small businesses -- 60 percent -- will lose their health care, 45 percent of big business and a large percentage of individual health."
Sean Hannity, Nov. 11, 2013
Yet if you read the actual article here: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
You will find that:
By the end of 2013, government analysts said half of all group or employer-based plans would change to the point that they would need to meet the new standards -- which is about what Hannity said.
Essentially every "lie" is along these same lines, twisting the truth and trying to weasel around.
Furthermore, virtually every news agency was reporting the same thing, further highlighting the bias of Politifact and John Stewart and their BS, and the reality is that if Obama had not illegally issued waivers and not enforced the letter of the ACA law, that is exactly what would have happened. https://ballotpedia.org/Health...
NBC News reported that between 50 percent and 75 percent of the 14 million who buy individual health insurance would likely receive a cancellation notice over 2014 because their plans did not meet the requirements of the ACA.[3]
CBS News reported that more than two million Americans were told they could not renew their insurance policies for 2014.[11]
According to NBC News, the Obama administration knew in July 2010 that more than 40 percent to 67 percent of people in the individual market would likely not be able to keep their existing policies.[3]
Health policy consultant Robert Laszewski estimated 80 percent of individual insurance buyers would have to find new policies.[3]
In order to make their alt left claim that Hannity lied, they ignore the fact that this was widely reported at the time and twist the truth of what he said, and try to infer that Hannity said that these people would permanently lose their health insurance, which from the quote is clearly not what he said, and obviously, anyone with a brain can see that. As a viewer, I know this is not what he was saying, but rather that it would be major upheval, and the new plans would cost more, and people losing their existing plans would also directly make a liar out of Obama, who said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor (proven lie, that they, including the architect of Obamacare knew was a lie from the beginning) and if you like your plan you can keep your plan (same deal, bold faced lie that they knew was a lie from the start). That has always been Hannity's position, not that people would permanently lose their health care and health insurance, but that Obama and the Dims were lying out of their asses the entire time about Obamacare.
Hannity and we conservatives were right, BTW. Millions of people lost their doctors and lost their affordable insurance plans and the replacements were far more expensive. Suck on this headline for a minute: "Average Individual Health Insurance Premiums Increased 99% Since 2013, the Year Before Obamacare, & Family Premiums Increased 140%" https://news.ehealthinsurance....
So you can take anything from Politifact and blow it out your ass, because they have no interest in fact, only shilling for the alt left. 95% of the"lies" of Fox news from John Stewart and Politifact are like this, and the oth
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
A changed plan and "losing healthcare" are very different. As quoted, Sean used the word "lose", which to most English speakers implies one's healthcare outright going away.
Table-ized A.I.
If you had actually been paying attention:
Barak Hussein Obama and the Dims: "If you like your plan you can keep your plan."
Sean Hannity and the conservatives: "In July 2010 the government said small businesses -- 60 percent -- will lose their health care, 45 percent of big business and a large percentage of individual health."
Reality: A huge majority of small business and individual plans were discontinued and those on it LOST THEIR PLANS (mitigated only by Obama's unlawful waivers and failure to enforce the law). Most of those who lost their plans were forced onto much higher priced DIFFERENT plans. You are attempting to conflate meanings in the same way that Politifact tried to. You can lie to yourself all you want, but I have been paying attention for about 40 years and actually remember what was going on.
The best defense against the alt left propaganda is intelligence and the ability to think rationally, I have both, so take your BS elsewhere.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Lose existing plan and lose HC are very DIFFERENT things. Sorry, but my interpretation is what a jury of normal English speakers would agree with. I'm confident in that and would even bet money on it. Your bias appears to make you read it to fit your preconceptions. Good Day, Sir.
Table-ized A.I.