is that the part where WND takes hysterical fearful conclusions and projects them onto people to feed the foregone conclusions of its hysterical fearful readership?
*please note, i am also against left wing FUD. i am against Fear Uncertainty and Denial. i am against any form of partisan hysteria, demagoguery, and propaganda. this "story" is clearly only that
but WHY? why do the testicles need to be outside the body? it seems to make no sense: you have a vital organ dangling outside the body. should we also carry our livers in skin pouches out the side of our abdomen? should our spleens be held in little sacks on our chest? does that make any sense to you?
OBVIOUSLY there is a good reason for it, evolution has produced us to be this way. but what is that reason?
testicle size in simians is correlated with female permissiveness. such that, in chimpanzees, where a female in estrus is pretty much a gangbang, chimpanzees males have evolved humongous testicles. they need to, because in such a situation, the only strategy available to the male to ensure his genetic continuance is to simply overwhelm other male's sperm with sheer ejaculate volume
meanwhile, in highly monogamous simians who mate for life, such as gibbons, the testicles are tiny. there's simply no need for so much ejaculate volume, its a waste of resources. she's not going anywhere
interestingly enough, human males have intermediate sized testicles, owing to the fact that human females are semi-monogamous/ semi-polygamous
however, i've always wondered why testicles appeared on the outside of the male mammalian body. it seems a ridiculous vulnerability and i've never heard a good explanation as to why. for example, dolphins aren't swimming around with their balls out: the need to be streamlined. of course sperm need a lower temperature to develop, but thats an effect, not a cause. i'm saying wouldn't it be better to have your testicles inside your body and evolve sperm that develop at a higher temperature? its pretty ridiculous to have such an important organ dangling outside unprotected. i never understood why
of course universal rights aren't universal everywhere, of course this is because of bullshit cultural practices everywhere
and? you're simply describing the problem. i know its a problem
meanwhile: do you think culture should or should not overrrule human rights?
of course it shouldn't
that's the goal
at one time, if you asked an american if slavery would ever be overturned, he would laugh at you. he would even say its part of american culture. it was very long and hard, but it was overturned
likewise, various bullshit cultural violations of human rights today will be overturned, slowly, and with great difficulty
its the only way forward in this world
but you don't ACCEPT these bullshit cultural violations, anywhere
it does not override, modify, or negate basic human rights
if there is in fact as aspect of culture, any culture, western, indian, russian, whatever, that is an aborgation of human rights, then it is up to you, if you consider yourself someone with a sense of principles, to oppose it
i'm not saying that the chinese should eat mcdonalds, i'm saying- hell, the CHINESE are saying (as in, the actual chinese, not their autocrats) that the chinese deserve HUMAN RIGHTS
there's a reason its called HUMAN rights, and not american rights or western rights
you are truly one deluded fool if cultural differences excuses gross violations of basic human dignity
what is your take on clitorectomies? is that west african tradition something to be respected, or fought? if you fight it, are you simply a cultural imperialist, an ethnocentric westerner?
do you believe that if you cross the straights of bosporus or the straights of gibraltar or the rio grande and *snap*, magic! human beings are fundamentally different and gross violations of human rights should be respected as quaint local custom?
i am not an american. i am a human being. it is in fact, those who think of themselves as american first, and a human second, or a brazilian first, and a human second, or a muslim first, and a human second, or whatever, that is the source of all the suffering in this world. what random arbitrary tribal boundary you are born within is a far, far secondary consideration to your allegiance to your HUMANITY. or, at least it should be. too many in this world have that backwards, and they are the source of our problems
all the moral relativists will be saying you can't possibly be trying to extend american style rights and freedoms to china. that you have no right to do that and (my favorite part): trying to extend liberties in countries outside the usa is imperialism (!?)
<sarcasm> you westerners can't possibly judge china because it has a complex history and culture you will never fully understand. you should be sensitive to interesting cultural differences that makes the world an exciting place, like: the chinese enjoy being slaves of the state. that the chinese don't like individualism. that's just a western thing. the chinese like being in a giant harmonious ant colony. the chinese are like worker robots and they like it that way. because of complex historical and cultural reasons you can never grasp. the mandarins of imperial china were highly bureaucratic and so you see the chinese like this highly regimented "harmony". so just accept it. ignore those pesky calls for human rights. clearly tools of western imperialism </sarcasm>
what you need to do is suck up to the grumpy old technocrats in beijing, like every other kiss ass:
is even remotely comparable to that of the usa's, i could describe your thinking in certain diplomatic terms, but i'll just go with the more direct and honest route: you're a fucking moron
and a complete 180 from your comments above like the one where you cite 'idiocracy'
"I, on the other hand, respect people, and feel they can handle art that isn't pre-digested for them"
no, you, on the other hand, are so condescending and patronizing you can't even see it in your own words, where you prejudge what they like as something that you see a need to be improved upon, based on nothing but your own self-certain sense of knowing what is "better" for them. what is "better" for them, apparently being your own arbitrary likes. this is a pure definition of being self-centered, superior minded
charlie kaufman is awesome, and i loved eternal sunshine and have it on dvd and have enthused about it and suggested college aged visitors watch it with me and they loved it. not because i was improving them, condescendingly, as you portray your noble one man crusade, but just because i wanted to share with my equals. i don't think my love for that movie is the basis upon which to judge what other people like and i don't have a need to "show them the light". you do. you do because you have a false sense of superiority based on nothing but your arbitrary proclivities for hollywood mass marketed alternative movies. you're a fucking poster boy for self important small minded suburban rec room elitism
i realize that the complete aboutface and backtracking on your own statements in your comment immediately above is about as close as i am going to get with you admitting you are wrong, and that i have made my point, so whatever
adios! sorry i can't say well met, self-centered, patronizing little man
but let's properly describe the relationship, shall we?
the truth is, all artists live on the edge, and are open minded to edgy ideas. drug use is unfortunately an idea they should have never considered. they often also burn out. they have stresses which predispose them to abuse. this is where the drug use comes into play. that is the only point at which the drug use come into play: a destructive force. its unfortunate
These are the factors to which Davis traces his developing a heroin habit that deeply affected him for the next four years. Though Davis denies it in his autobiography, it is likely that the environment in which he was living played a part in this. Most of Davis's associates at the time had - maybe following the example of Charlie Parker - developed drug habits of their own (among them, sax players Sonny Rollins and Dexter Gordon, trumpet players Fats Navarro and Freddie Webster, drummer Art Blakey and many others). For the following four years, Davis supported his habit partly with his musical activity and partly living the life of a hustler.[11] By 1953, his habit was beginning to impair his ability to perform. Heroin had killed some of his friends (Fats Navarro and Freddie Webster). He himself had been arrested for drug possession while on tour in Los Angeles, and his habit had been made public in a devastating interview that Cab Calloway gave to Down Beat.[12] Realizing his precarious condition, Davis attempted several times to kick the habit, only succeeding in 1954, after returning to his father's home in St. Louis and detaching himself for several months from New York. During this period he played mostly in Detroit and other Midwest towns, where drugs were harder to come by at the time.
the drugs did not makes miles davis a better artist, they interfered with his ability to create art. this is the story of artist and drug time and time again
and yet there's an actual group of people out there who actually believe that if you drop acid or take dope, you are "more creative". that that is the cause and effect. that's what i am arguing against. you do understand my concern, don't you?
why don't we have michael jackson with us anymore? what do you see when you look at amy winehouse? an artist propeled via drug use to great fame? or a wasted shell of potential, destroyed because of drugs?
the relationship between artist and drug use in all of human history is great works of art stolen from us because of their drug use. not that they could be stopped, but it is a tragedy, that artists use drugs, and nothing to see anything positive of
don't even try. i have you beat 100x different ways
and you are venal: you are claiming some sort of superiority of product in your personal preferences. this is intellectually dishonest and corrupt of you. you have a false sense of superiority. you are full of false pride about supposed better tastes than some other group of people for arbitrary reasons, when the truth is, you're just another marketing segment. you look down on mass produced comic book fare when you like what? mass produced hollywood fare of a different flavor! and then you try to come across as superior in some way to the "common man" when you ARE the common man... with a chip on his shoulder. which in my mind makes you INFERIOR to the common man
i really, really am bothered by people who have the need to feel superior to other people. and your need for that is obviously huge. when you look at the common man on the street, you are looking at your equal. when i look at the common man on the street, i am looking at my equal. show some fucking humility, then i will give you my respect. i think that's a pretty basic social contract that we are all bound to, no?
i'm talking about a real-life scourge that destroys great artists en masse
this is the relationship between artist and drug:
These are the factors to which Davis traces his developing a heroin habit that deeply affected him for the next four years. Though Davis denies it in his autobiography, it is likely that the environment in which he was living played a part in this. Most of Davis's associates at the time had - maybe following the example of Charlie Parker - developed drug habits of their own (among them, sax players Sonny Rollins and Dexter Gordon, trumpet players Fats Navarro and Freddie Webster, drummer Art Blakey and many others). For the following four years, Davis supported his habit partly with his musical activity and partly living the life of a hustler.[11] By 1953, his habit was beginning to impair his ability to perform. Heroin had killed some of his friends (Fats Navarro and Freddie Webster). He himself had been arrested for drug possession while on tour in Los Angeles, and his habit had been made public in a devastating interview that Cab Calloway gave to Down Beat.[12] Realizing his precarious condition, Davis attempted several times to kick the habit, only succeeding in 1954, after returning to his father's home in St. Louis and detaching himself for several months from New York. During this period he played mostly in Detroit and other Midwest towns, where drugs were harder to come by at the time.
the drugs did not makes miles davis a better artist, they interfered with his ability to create art. this is the story of artist and drug time and time again
and yet there's an actual group of people out there who actually believe that if you drop acid or take dope, you make great art. that that is the cause and effect. that's what i am arguing against. you do understand my concern, don't you?
why don't we have michael jackson with us anymore? what do you see when you look at amy winehouse? an artist propeled via drug use to great fame? or a wasted shell of potential, destroyed because of drugs?
the truth is, all artists live on the edge, and are open minded to edgy ideas. drug use is unfortunately an idea they should have never considered. they often also burn out. they have stresses which predispose them to abuse. this is where the drug use comes into play. that is the only point at which the drug use come into play: a destructive force. its unfortunate
but if you have a proper understanding of artists and drug use, it is one of hate towards drugs for destroying so many great artists, however self-inflicted
meanwhile, you want to say maybe somebody takes a drug and maybe an idea occurs to them that maybe they turn into art. ok, well maybe if i go hiking maybe an idea occurs to me a turn into art. hypothetical imperceptible whatever versus long-standing multiply repeated story of waste and destruction of great artists at the hands of drugs
blade runner was produced through the ladd company (warner bros)
2001 was MGM
sideways was michael london, straightup hollywood producer
all of your charlie kaufman fanboy stuff: synechdoche, adaptation, being john malkovich, eternal sunshine, adaptation... hollywood produced/ distributed. charlie kaufman is straightup hollywood, he lives in pasadena and has toiled in hollywood long before his fame
brazil is the brits and terry gilliam, so i'll give you that
lost in translation is goddamn sofia coppola, which is about as nepotistically hollywood as you can possibly get
why are you such an angry little man with such a huge chip on your shoulder, yet coupled with such a poor understanding of the subject matter you inject your uneducated superiority into? you do understand the idea of production and distribution, don't you?
by your list of movies, your taste is solidly mainstream. it has that obvious stink of "i'm a suburban wannabe who buys what hollywood has marketed as 'upscale'", but this is a personality issue, not an aesthetic mark of exception. you know, for suburban douches who imagine themselves alternative, but are just another marketing segment that the hollywood dvd aftermarket panders to. sorry kid, but your tastes solidly describe you as middle of the road. it sounds like you hit the goddamn netflix "suggest other movies like this one" to make your list. you forgot "american beauty" lol
i would be worried if you responded to my challenge with a bunch of japanese or korean or indian fare, you know, clearly not hollywood, clearly intelligent, vibrant, and utterly alien to hollywood mass-produced stuff
start in japan kid. judging by your style of taste in hollywood fare, i suggest something like "love exposure" from the genius sion sono, or "fine, totally fine", which you will love if you liked sideways
then get on over to korea. see something like the sublime "M", which rivals kubrick at his best in terms of being transcendent, or then anything by mark chanwook (probably outside your tastes though). and there's always plenty in europe
there are people who are genuinely counterculture. then there are people who have pretensions and a false sense of superiority. this is a character weakness, not a mark of aesthetic exception. you're a strange little suburban angry douche. i hear the voice of squidward in spongebob squarepants when i read your comment
oops! sorry if that's too "idiocracy" a reference for you! thinking of a children cartoon character? obviously i am not a intelligent culture vulture like yourself!
intelligence is a bell curve. there is too stupid, and there is too smart. populism is about appealing to the vast middle, the bell curve. there is no "race to the bottom". nor is there is a "lead them to greater things". you are injecting all sorts of red herrings and unrelated agendas to the issue at hand: entertainment
"But we aren't talking about artists, are we? We're talking about corporate products produced by blank faced clones with all creativity squashed out of them."
name ten of your favorite movies. i will wager a majority of them are products of hollywood. so you are obviously intellectually dishonest and venal in your opinions
hollywood is where artists of great talent toil. and also some stinkers. its a mixed bag. not at all onesided as you portray. to see the bad that comes from hollywood only, and ignore the good, is simply a sign of weak perception and character on your part
sometimes artists are constrained by the money, sometimes the money frees them to do their art. hollywood is simply a pact between artistic endeavour and financial resources, and plenty of what you admire about the art of cinema is impossible without that money. and the people with the money, out of good or bad instincts, have to place their bets on what is worth pursuing and what is not in their mind. sometimes they fail spectacularly, because of the intrusions of the moneymen. sometimes that fail spectacularly because of the artist himself and a failed artistic vision. sometimes they muddle through and produce mediocre fare. but sometimes, and you are liar if you don't admit this, they hit it out of the ballpark with an amazing movie, that you admire
that's the truth. meanwhile, for someone with pretenses to intelligence, you seem to have some straightforwardly unintelligent understandings of the concepts in play here
entertainment FOR YOU must be multi-layered. good for you. but the population in general has no such prerequisites. therefore, it makes perfect business sense for hollywood to pander to the the population in general, and ignore you, the much smaller marketplace
hollywood exists to make money, not to meet your narrow criteria
and please don't conclude that your tastes are somehow superior to the general population. you just have rigid needs. it could just as easily be said that you are harder to please, which is no sign of superiority at all, simply rigidity and ossification of mind
populism rules. in fact, it is the most difficult of entertainment efforts to make that which appeals to many, rather than a small narrow group of interests
i actually thought SARS was going to be our grim reaper on the order of bubonic plague, and was shocked and pleasantly surprised at our ability to transcend petty international squabbles and monetary concerns to nip that killer in the bud
AIDS has been a slow burn killer, but even that is manageable
the bubonic plague meanwhile, occurred in the days before international media, hygiene, modern science, etc. if the bubonic plague happened today (actually, it DOES happen today, a dozen or so cases every year), it would be nipped in the bud like SARS
what i really fear is the QUICK pandemic. the one that overwhelms our ability to isolate it and adapt to it and get ahead of it with efficient countermeasures
if physics teaches us that mother nature abhors a vacuum, biology teaches is that mother nature abhors large monoclonal populations. humanity is hugely overpopulated, and somewhere, in the stew of microbes and viruses out there, is brewing our comeuppance. could be tomorrow, could be in 50 years, but its coming: some grim reaper is going to come and swing its scythe across the world population and hit it at 10-25% dead. i really think its inevitable. biological history says so
i agree with every single one of your points, and yet fail to find what the problem is. we're talking about ENTERTAINMENT. empty, pointless, useless, entertainment. of course, with that statement i am precluding the possibility of something transformational. the original star wars, for instance, is a silly space opera, and yet, including for me, its been a source of much love and awe
however, as it has degraded into a weekly animation on the cartoon network with a IM-speak trash talking teenage padawan, i find i can't hold that against lucas, not even his 3 prequels. why?
because nothing lasts forever. you fall in love with something, and it changes. there's no way around this. getting frustrated about this fact of life will not change this fact of life
a lot of fan boys need to come to grips with the fact that nothing lasts forever, that everything degrades in quality over time, and that's just the way it is, and always will be
and that hollywood, milking the cow, rebooting a desecrated corpse, is business as usual, and always will be. you need to move on and find love for some other scifi franchise when your much loved series jumps the shark. railing against the world when that happens is just pointless sour grapes and wasted effort on your part
stop hating hollywood. just realize what is inevitable in this world and realize when it is time to move on
they made works of art about the drug using lifestyle
but that doesn't mean their abilities or peceptions were made better for using drugs. in fact, show me one quote where they would even claim that. oh sure, they would defend their right to take drugs. and as would i: i am not saying you shouldn't take drugs. temporarily deranging your thoughts and senses is quite pleasurable. i would be a hypocrite if i say you shouldn't do that
but that doesn't mean i'm going to sit here and accept the pure bullshit that that temporary derangement somehow IMPROVES your thoughts or senses. and no one serious, no serious artist, not even hunter s thompson or william s burroughs, ever claims that
Slashdot Mirror
is that the part where WND takes hysterical fearful conclusions and projects them onto people to feed the foregone conclusions of its hysterical fearful readership?
for providing a forum for right wing FUD*
*please note, i am also against left wing FUD. i am against Fear Uncertainty and Denial. i am against any form of partisan hysteria, demagoguery, and propaganda. this "story" is clearly only that
but WHY? why do the testicles need to be outside the body? it seems to make no sense: you have a vital organ dangling outside the body. should we also carry our livers in skin pouches out the side of our abdomen? should our spleens be held in little sacks on our chest? does that make any sense to you?
OBVIOUSLY there is a good reason for it, evolution has produced us to be this way. but what is that reason?
are you telling me evolution can't figure out how to produce sperm at body temperature?
testicle size in simians is correlated with female permissiveness. such that, in chimpanzees, where a female in estrus is pretty much a gangbang, chimpanzees males have evolved humongous testicles. they need to, because in such a situation, the only strategy available to the male to ensure his genetic continuance is to simply overwhelm other male's sperm with sheer ejaculate volume
meanwhile, in highly monogamous simians who mate for life, such as gibbons, the testicles are tiny. there's simply no need for so much ejaculate volume, its a waste of resources. she's not going anywhere
interestingly enough, human males have intermediate sized testicles, owing to the fact that human females are semi-monogamous/ semi-polygamous
however, i've always wondered why testicles appeared on the outside of the male mammalian body. it seems a ridiculous vulnerability and i've never heard a good explanation as to why. for example, dolphins aren't swimming around with their balls out: the need to be streamlined. of course sperm need a lower temperature to develop, but thats an effect, not a cause. i'm saying wouldn't it be better to have your testicles inside your body and evolve sperm that develop at a higher temperature? its pretty ridiculous to have such an important organ dangling outside unprotected. i never understood why
36d^2 + 24x + 36 = 5'3"
this particular form was derived by an english academic knighted by the queen, a certain sir mix-a-lot
edinburgh
and... dublin!
of course universal rights aren't universal everywhere, of course this is because of bullshit cultural practices everywhere
and? you're simply describing the problem. i know its a problem
meanwhile: do you think culture should or should not overrrule human rights?
of course it shouldn't
that's the goal
at one time, if you asked an american if slavery would ever be overturned, he would laugh at you. he would even say its part of american culture. it was very long and hard, but it was overturned
likewise, various bullshit cultural violations of human rights today will be overturned, slowly, and with great difficulty
its the only way forward in this world
but you don't ACCEPT these bullshit cultural violations, anywhere
when google gets up to nexus six, then maybe we have more to fear from google than china ;-P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus-6
it does not override, modify, or negate basic human rights
if there is in fact as aspect of culture, any culture, western, indian, russian, whatever, that is an aborgation of human rights, then it is up to you, if you consider yourself someone with a sense of principles, to oppose it
i'm not saying that the chinese should eat mcdonalds, i'm saying- hell, the CHINESE are saying (as in, the actual chinese, not their autocrats) that the chinese deserve HUMAN RIGHTS
there's a reason its called HUMAN rights, and not american rights or western rights
you are truly one deluded fool if cultural differences excuses gross violations of basic human dignity
what is your take on clitorectomies? is that west african tradition something to be respected, or fought? if you fight it, are you simply a cultural imperialist, an ethnocentric westerner?
do you believe that if you cross the straights of bosporus or the straights of gibraltar or the rio grande and *snap*, magic! human beings are fundamentally different and gross violations of human rights should be respected as quaint local custom?
i am not an american. i am a human being. it is in fact, those who think of themselves as american first, and a human second, or a brazilian first, and a human second, or a muslim first, and a human second, or whatever, that is the source of all the suffering in this world. what random arbitrary tribal boundary you are born within is a far, far secondary consideration to your allegiance to your HUMANITY. or, at least it should be. too many in this world have that backwards, and they are the source of our problems
all the moral relativists will be saying you can't possibly be trying to extend american style rights and freedoms to china. that you have no right to do that and (my favorite part): trying to extend liberties in countries outside the usa is imperialism (!?)
<sarcasm>
you westerners can't possibly judge china because it has a complex history and culture you will never fully understand. you should be sensitive to interesting cultural differences that makes the world an exciting place, like: the chinese enjoy being slaves of the state. that the chinese don't like individualism. that's just a western thing. the chinese like being in a giant harmonious ant colony. the chinese are like worker robots and they like it that way. because of complex historical and cultural reasons you can never grasp. the mandarins of imperial china were highly bureaucratic and so you see the chinese like this highly regimented "harmony". so just accept it. ignore those pesky calls for human rights. clearly tools of western imperialism
</sarcasm>
what you need to do is suck up to the grumpy old technocrats in beijing, like every other kiss ass:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30292772/
thank you google, for not being that kiss ass, FINALLY
is even remotely comparable to that of the usa's, i could describe your thinking in certain diplomatic terms, but i'll just go with the more direct and honest route: you're a fucking moron
does a US company do business with regimes with poor human rights records?
specifically, does an internet company help such a government with restrictions on freedoms?
what if the company's motto is "don't be evil"?
score one for human rights
and score one for google's integrity
today is a good day
and a complete 180 from your comments above like the one where you cite 'idiocracy'
"I, on the other hand, respect people, and feel they can handle art that isn't pre-digested for them"
no, you, on the other hand, are so condescending and patronizing you can't even see it in your own words, where you prejudge what they like as something that you see a need to be improved upon, based on nothing but your own self-certain sense of knowing what is "better" for them. what is "better" for them, apparently being your own arbitrary likes. this is a pure definition of being self-centered, superior minded
charlie kaufman is awesome, and i loved eternal sunshine and have it on dvd and have enthused about it and suggested college aged visitors watch it with me and they loved it. not because i was improving them, condescendingly, as you portray your noble one man crusade, but just because i wanted to share with my equals. i don't think my love for that movie is the basis upon which to judge what other people like and i don't have a need to "show them the light". you do. you do because you have a false sense of superiority based on nothing but your arbitrary proclivities for hollywood mass marketed alternative movies. you're a fucking poster boy for self important small minded suburban rec room elitism
i realize that the complete aboutface and backtracking on your own statements in your comment immediately above is about as close as i am going to get with you admitting you are wrong, and that i have made my point, so whatever
adios! sorry i can't say well met, self-centered, patronizing little man
xoxoxoxoxox
but let's properly describe the relationship, shall we?
the truth is, all artists live on the edge, and are open minded to edgy ideas. drug use is unfortunately an idea they should have never considered. they often also burn out. they have stresses which predispose them to abuse. this is where the drug use comes into play. that is the only point at which the drug use come into play: a destructive force. its unfortunate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Davis
the drugs did not makes miles davis a better artist, they interfered with his ability to create art. this is the story of artist and drug time and time again
and yet there's an actual group of people out there who actually believe that if you drop acid or take dope, you are "more creative". that that is the cause and effect. that's what i am arguing against. you do understand my concern, don't you?
why don't we have michael jackson with us anymore? what do you see when you look at amy winehouse? an artist propeled via drug use to great fame? or a wasted shell of potential, destroyed because of drugs?
the relationship between artist and drug use in all of human history is great works of art stolen from us because of their drug use. not that they could be stopped, but it is a tragedy, that artists use drugs, and nothing to see anything positive of
don't even try. i have you beat 100x different ways
and you are venal: you are claiming some sort of superiority of product in your personal preferences. this is intellectually dishonest and corrupt of you. you have a false sense of superiority. you are full of false pride about supposed better tastes than some other group of people for arbitrary reasons, when the truth is, you're just another marketing segment. you look down on mass produced comic book fare when you like what? mass produced hollywood fare of a different flavor! and then you try to come across as superior in some way to the "common man" when you ARE the common man... with a chip on his shoulder. which in my mind makes you INFERIOR to the common man
i really, really am bothered by people who have the need to feel superior to other people. and your need for that is obviously huge. when you look at the common man on the street, you are looking at your equal. when i look at the common man on the street, i am looking at my equal. show some fucking humility, then i will give you my respect. i think that's a pretty basic social contract that we are all bound to, no?
i'm talking about a real-life scourge that destroys great artists en masse
this is the relationship between artist and drug:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Davis
the drugs did not makes miles davis a better artist, they interfered with his ability to create art. this is the story of artist and drug time and time again
and yet there's an actual group of people out there who actually believe that if you drop acid or take dope, you make great art. that that is the cause and effect. that's what i am arguing against. you do understand my concern, don't you?
why don't we have michael jackson with us anymore? what do you see when you look at amy winehouse? an artist propeled via drug use to great fame? or a wasted shell of potential, destroyed because of drugs?
the truth is, all artists live on the edge, and are open minded to edgy ideas. drug use is unfortunately an idea they should have never considered. they often also burn out. they have stresses which predispose them to abuse. this is where the drug use comes into play. that is the only point at which the drug use come into play: a destructive force. its unfortunate
but if you have a proper understanding of artists and drug use, it is one of hate towards drugs for destroying so many great artists, however self-inflicted
meanwhile, you want to say maybe somebody takes a drug and maybe an idea occurs to them that maybe they turn into art. ok, well maybe if i go hiking maybe an idea occurs to me a turn into art. hypothetical imperceptible whatever versus long-standing multiply repeated story of waste and destruction of great artists at the hands of drugs
blade runner was produced through the ladd company (warner bros)
2001 was MGM
sideways was michael london, straightup hollywood producer
all of your charlie kaufman fanboy stuff: synechdoche, adaptation, being john malkovich, eternal sunshine, adaptation... hollywood produced/ distributed. charlie kaufman is straightup hollywood, he lives in pasadena and has toiled in hollywood long before his fame
brazil is the brits and terry gilliam, so i'll give you that
lost in translation is goddamn sofia coppola, which is about as nepotistically hollywood as you can possibly get
why are you such an angry little man with such a huge chip on your shoulder, yet coupled with such a poor understanding of the subject matter you inject your uneducated superiority into? you do understand the idea of production and distribution, don't you?
by your list of movies, your taste is solidly mainstream. it has that obvious stink of "i'm a suburban wannabe who buys what hollywood has marketed as 'upscale'", but this is a personality issue, not an aesthetic mark of exception. you know, for suburban douches who imagine themselves alternative, but are just another marketing segment that the hollywood dvd aftermarket panders to. sorry kid, but your tastes solidly describe you as middle of the road. it sounds like you hit the goddamn netflix "suggest other movies like this one" to make your list. you forgot "american beauty" lol
i would be worried if you responded to my challenge with a bunch of japanese or korean or indian fare, you know, clearly not hollywood, clearly intelligent, vibrant, and utterly alien to hollywood mass-produced stuff
start in japan kid. judging by your style of taste in hollywood fare, i suggest something like "love exposure" from the genius sion sono, or "fine, totally fine", which you will love if you liked sideways
then get on over to korea. see something like the sublime "M", which rivals kubrick at his best in terms of being transcendent, or then anything by mark chanwook (probably outside your tastes though). and there's always plenty in europe
there are people who are genuinely counterculture. then there are people who have pretensions and a false sense of superiority. this is a character weakness, not a mark of aesthetic exception. you're a strange little suburban angry douche. i hear the voice of squidward in spongebob squarepants when i read your comment
oops! sorry if that's too "idiocracy" a reference for you! thinking of a children cartoon character? obviously i am not a intelligent culture vulture like yourself!
lol! cute little angry man
i'm getting the impression that hollywood runs on microsoft windows
intelligence is a bell curve. there is too stupid, and there is too smart. populism is about appealing to the vast middle, the bell curve. there is no "race to the bottom". nor is there is a "lead them to greater things". you are injecting all sorts of red herrings and unrelated agendas to the issue at hand: entertainment
"But we aren't talking about artists, are we? We're talking about corporate products produced by blank faced clones with all creativity squashed out of them."
name ten of your favorite movies. i will wager a majority of them are products of hollywood. so you are obviously intellectually dishonest and venal in your opinions
hollywood is where artists of great talent toil. and also some stinkers. its a mixed bag. not at all onesided as you portray. to see the bad that comes from hollywood only, and ignore the good, is simply a sign of weak perception and character on your part
sometimes artists are constrained by the money, sometimes the money frees them to do their art. hollywood is simply a pact between artistic endeavour and financial resources, and plenty of what you admire about the art of cinema is impossible without that money. and the people with the money, out of good or bad instincts, have to place their bets on what is worth pursuing and what is not in their mind. sometimes they fail spectacularly, because of the intrusions of the moneymen. sometimes that fail spectacularly because of the artist himself and a failed artistic vision. sometimes they muddle through and produce mediocre fare. but sometimes, and you are liar if you don't admit this, they hit it out of the ballpark with an amazing movie, that you admire
that's the truth. meanwhile, for someone with pretenses to intelligence, you seem to have some straightforwardly unintelligent understandings of the concepts in play here
entertainment FOR YOU must be multi-layered. good for you. but the population in general has no such prerequisites. therefore, it makes perfect business sense for hollywood to pander to the the population in general, and ignore you, the much smaller marketplace
hollywood exists to make money, not to meet your narrow criteria
and please don't conclude that your tastes are somehow superior to the general population. you just have rigid needs. it could just as easily be said that you are harder to please, which is no sign of superiority at all, simply rigidity and ossification of mind
populism rules. in fact, it is the most difficult of entertainment efforts to make that which appeals to many, rather than a small narrow group of interests
what you are talking about is heightening pleasure
which i don't have a problem with at all
but you haven't said a single thing about the creation of art
this subject matter confusion points to a degradation in mental faculties on your part lol
i actually thought SARS was going to be our grim reaper on the order of bubonic plague, and was shocked and pleasantly surprised at our ability to transcend petty international squabbles and monetary concerns to nip that killer in the bud
AIDS has been a slow burn killer, but even that is manageable
the bubonic plague meanwhile, occurred in the days before international media, hygiene, modern science, etc. if the bubonic plague happened today (actually, it DOES happen today, a dozen or so cases every year), it would be nipped in the bud like SARS
what i really fear is the QUICK pandemic. the one that overwhelms our ability to isolate it and adapt to it and get ahead of it with efficient countermeasures
if physics teaches us that mother nature abhors a vacuum, biology teaches is that mother nature abhors large monoclonal populations. humanity is hugely overpopulated, and somewhere, in the stew of microbes and viruses out there, is brewing our comeuppance. could be tomorrow, could be in 50 years, but its coming: some grim reaper is going to come and swing its scythe across the world population and hit it at 10-25% dead. i really think its inevitable. biological history says so
i agree with every single one of your points, and yet fail to find what the problem is. we're talking about ENTERTAINMENT. empty, pointless, useless, entertainment. of course, with that statement i am precluding the possibility of something transformational. the original star wars, for instance, is a silly space opera, and yet, including for me, its been a source of much love and awe
however, as it has degraded into a weekly animation on the cartoon network with a IM-speak trash talking teenage padawan, i find i can't hold that against lucas, not even his 3 prequels. why?
because nothing lasts forever. you fall in love with something, and it changes. there's no way around this. getting frustrated about this fact of life will not change this fact of life
a lot of fan boys need to come to grips with the fact that nothing lasts forever, that everything degrades in quality over time, and that's just the way it is, and always will be
and that hollywood, milking the cow, rebooting a desecrated corpse, is business as usual, and always will be. you need to move on and find love for some other scifi franchise when your much loved series jumps the shark. railing against the world when that happens is just pointless sour grapes and wasted effort on your part
stop hating hollywood. just realize what is inevitable in this world and realize when it is time to move on
they made works of art about the drug using lifestyle
but that doesn't mean their abilities or peceptions were made better for using drugs. in fact, show me one quote where they would even claim that. oh sure, they would defend their right to take drugs. and as would i: i am not saying you shouldn't take drugs. temporarily deranging your thoughts and senses is quite pleasurable. i would be a hypocrite if i say you shouldn't do that
but that doesn't mean i'm going to sit here and accept the pure bullshit that that temporary derangement somehow IMPROVES your thoughts or senses. and no one serious, no serious artist, not even hunter s thompson or william s burroughs, ever claims that