On Aug 8, 7:52 pm, Derek Janssen
nospam.comcast.net> wrote:> moviePig wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 5:37 pm, nick
AOL.com> wrote:>
>>>On Aug 8, 11:18?am, "Kingo Gondo"
gmail.com>
>>>wrote:>
>>>>
hotmail.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>>>is it cuz of the republican/democrat propertarian pressure lobbies?
>>>>>vietnam for instance only had green berets during the entire 15 years
>>>>>of war. mash was produced off-hollywood.
>
>>>>It was? In what sense?
>
>>>>Also, technically, it was set in Korea, although I don't think you hear the
>>>>word, but it was scrolled by, once, at the very beginning, I think ("And
>>>>then there was Korea....").
>
>>>>Hollywood had no previous experience (is there any other kind?) in making
>>>>films about increasingly unpopular wars that the US was losing. Maybe they
>>>>will do better this time with one under their belt. But it is more
>>>>chickenshit than it was then, so don't count on it.
>
>>>Chickenshit, maybe, but how many war movies make money anyway?
>>>Eastwood's Iwo Jima movies tanked even with the good reviews. And
>>>it's maybe too much to expect audiences to pay money to see something
>>>about a war they can see for free every day on the news (except for
>>>maybe Fox, where it's buried under a mountain of stories about missing
>>>teenage girls and celebrity meltdowns). It's the same reason we
>>>don't get more movies about Arabic terrorists. Movies are escapist.
>>>It doesn't have anything to do with political correctness or kow-
>>>towing to pressure groups no matter what people like Rich say. We
>>>don't want to be reminded about how crappy things are when we go to
>>>the movies.
>
>> Also, for better or worse, the concepts of (e.g.) "Fox news" and
>> "liberal media" have forced into the public awareness that
>> fictionalizations about this stuff aren't really the commodity that's
>> in short supply...
>
>
> ...Why, it's Gaza/Blob Amnesia Day, again! :)
>
> Goodness, how a year flies by!--
> Well, let me just get out the party things...Wait for me, don't let the
> "Utter sucker for retired troll we've ignored for the past three years
> because we can spot his thread headers a hundred miles off" thread get
> too far ahead of me!
>
> (it'll be such FUN!!)
Oops. I can't speak for the other miscreants here, but *I* was
deceived by the thread's being, despite its ancestry, an apparently
interesting question that's provoked primarily coherent responses and
is, astronomical odds notwithstanding, current-movie related...
