Bay is rich and successful. They can't stop him, just like they couldn't stop Gibson. Above all else, Hollywood runs on greed.
I still wonder how Bay will portray State, though. He can tease all he wants in the trailers, but if he lets State off the hook, the movie helps Hilary, and if he doesn't, it hurts her. He could also play it neutral. How he handles State's responsibility is the real suspense for me.
I wish Hollywood would run on greed. Instead, it occasionally flags in its ideological fervor long enough to let greed take precedence again. Greed in this context means "making movies people will want to pay money to see."
This is why I'm glad Hollywood operates as a for-profit business. If its ideological mission fails, it goes out of business. It can't just hit up the taxpayers for more funding.
Tom, don't forget about their "real assault rifle guns" in movies promoting gun violence in the US. Then they want more power as a result of having to "ban" it in cities after their movies have incited violence.
I'd put it like this, I think: Hollywood Priorities: 1. POWER a. Monetary b. Anti-American Political c. Sexual d. Social 2. Hedonism (see 'Power', above)
It's all about what they think will make them feel good, though of course, it never does really.
Remember, I live in this town, and see it all the time, up close. Not the everyone in Hollywood is that way, but much of it. Far too much of it.
The stunt doubles, bodyguards, service technicians and specialists behind the screens, and various other scientific and engineering jobs do not require them to be loyal to the Hollywood aristocratic creed. Mostly because half the staff would die from a falling light or some fire/electricity accident if they hired engineers on that basis.
In Hong Kong, the actor stars who do action movies must be physically fit enough to do their own stunts. Many, like Jackie Chan or Jet L, were also martial artists of their own free will and attended various Chinese and/or Hong Kong universities to study for that kind of athletic+dance career.
Tom's reference to the cheetos is perhaps a dig at the Hollywood illusion that they are real men and women, superior to the virtues developed by the rest of this country.
Without the martial artist stunt doubles that spent their entire life in conditioning, without gun shop experts and machinists and users, Hollywood "movies" wouldn't exist as entertainment. They would be more like sit coms, in the comedy vein.
The serfdom needs the serfs, and Aristocrats can't even feed themselves without taxes on the farms.
12 comments:
It may be interesting to watch the release of the movie- I would expect various and sundry shenanigans to to be employed to try to stop it.
Normally they would stop it at the funding stage... MPAA and the Left's Hollywood branch must be slipping.
Bay is rich and successful. They can't stop him, just like they couldn't stop Gibson. Above all else, Hollywood runs on greed.
I still wonder how Bay will portray State, though. He can tease all he wants in the trailers, but if he lets State off the hook, the movie helps Hilary, and if he doesn't, it hurts her. He could also play it neutral. How he handles State's responsibility is the real suspense for me.
I wish Hollywood would run on greed. Instead, it occasionally flags in its ideological fervor long enough to let greed take precedence again. Greed in this context means "making movies people will want to pay money to see."
This is why I'm glad Hollywood operates as a for-profit business. If its ideological mission fails, it goes out of business. It can't just hit up the taxpayers for more funding.
Well, I did say "above all else," not "exclusively".
Graphically, I would put it like this:
Hollywood Priorities:
1. Greed
2. Destroying America
3. Getting high
4. Cheetos
Instead, it occasionally flags in its ideological fervor long enough to let greed take precedence again
Money is fungible. The profit made by Planned Profit is used to fund other Leftist activities. So why wouldn't Hollywood do the same thing?
Tom, don't forget about their "real assault rifle guns" in movies promoting gun violence in the US. Then they want more power as a result of having to "ban" it in cities after their movies have incited violence.
Tom, you forgot infidelity.
Ha-HA! I got you BOTH!
I include promoting gun violence and infidelity with "Destroying America"!
Oh. Did you mean being unfaithful, or promoting infidelity? You may have a point ...
I'd put it like this, I think:
Hollywood Priorities:
1. POWER
a. Monetary
b. Anti-American Political
c. Sexual
d. Social
2. Hedonism (see 'Power', above)
It's all about what they think will make them feel good, though of course, it never does really.
Remember, I live in this town, and see it all the time, up close. Not the everyone in Hollywood is that way, but much of it. Far too much of it.
The stunt doubles, bodyguards, service technicians and specialists behind the screens, and various other scientific and engineering jobs do not require them to be loyal to the Hollywood aristocratic creed. Mostly because half the staff would die from a falling light or some fire/electricity accident if they hired engineers on that basis.
In Hong Kong, the actor stars who do action movies must be physically fit enough to do their own stunts. Many, like Jackie Chan or Jet L, were also martial artists of their own free will and attended various Chinese and/or Hong Kong universities to study for that kind of athletic+dance career.
Tom's reference to the cheetos is perhaps a dig at the Hollywood illusion that they are real men and women, superior to the virtues developed by the rest of this country.
Without the martial artist stunt doubles that spent their entire life in conditioning, without gun shop experts and machinists and users, Hollywood "movies" wouldn't exist as entertainment. They would be more like sit coms, in the comedy vein.
The serfdom needs the serfs, and Aristocrats can't even feed themselves without taxes on the farms.
Post a Comment