Post: #101

^ (edit: I was responding to one post above, and MOVSM nailed it before me)

I don't think it was much less diverse. There were certainly a lot of European directors, writers, and actors involved in the classic era.

But then I guess the modern leftist doesn't consider white Europe to be diversity, so...

Post: #102

(01-09-2017 01:10 PM)Silver_Tube Wrote:  I watched this for the first 30 minutes and had to turn it off. Nearly every joke, speech and monologue was a slight towards Trump, his so called ignorant voters, and general sour attitudes about 2016. Fallon had one comment to the effect of 'game of thrones is here with multiple nominations, I know many of you wondered what the show would be like if King Jauffrey wasn't killed, well we're going to find out in 2017.' Every award was given to the most PC nominee, a bunch of shows I had barely heard of and had no interest in. Clearly our demographic is not the target market, good riddance.

Its so condescending to have Hollywood talking down to the masses as if they know what regular people's lives are like. It was all cringe worthy Hollywood circle jerk. We already have redpill news outlets cropping up, it wouldn't hurt to get some art and entertainment going as well. What are some good recent non-hollywood shows and movies that you like? I was already an MMA fan, I might have to become an even bigger MMA fan just to spite them.

Men are not watching TV or movies anymore, most younger people prefer play video games, this was part why they were so interested into hijacking video games.

Most people are cutting the cable and not attending theaters, the only reason Hollywood movie are still making money is due to the rise in tickets prices, not because people are attending.

(01-09-2017 01:50 PM)Last Parade Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 11:28 AM)durangotang Wrote:  Reactions of some of the more based audience members:

The Vince Vaughn image doesn't even do it justice, he was stone cold for multiple seconds. As one reaction noted, "the water in his glass was moving more than he was." It's true!






As for her speech, how easy is it to dissect strawmen:

-Are any of your Hollywood stars listed illegal immigrants? No? They're all working and living legally in the U.S.? Good, then fuck off.
-The Trump "mocking reporter" bit (which has been disproven time and again) was from 2015, not from "this year", so fuck you again!
-Her name was Carrie Fisher and it's nice you consider her "your friend" when you refer to her by a movie role rather than her fucking name
-How about using your lifetime achievement award speech to really honour the people you worked with and brought you to this point? Way to not care about any of them.

Pretty much coincidental, but despite her legendary career I only remember seeing two movies with her in them (Doubt, Manchurian Candidate remake) and didn't like her in either of them, so Trump's "overrated" comment seems pretty good to me! Though I still need to watch Deer Hunter, damn...

She has name recognition not work recognition, most people can't name a movie she was.

If you try to compare to somebody else without as much awards like Keanu Reeves, you normally picture The Matrix or John Wick.

Street is simple name, but not remarkable work. People don't decide to watch a movie because she is in it.

(01-09-2017 06:06 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  A DP (director of cinematography) I worked with was from Romania. Very talented guy.

He dated one of the girls in their major acting school (I'm guessing it is run by the state). Said that they were encouraged by their teachers to all fuck each other -- boys with girls, girls with girls, boys with boys. Shower together and live with one another, being naked often, etc. So they could be totally open with each other and always feel comfortable doing anything on stage and be able to put their own feelings on hold to surrender to the moment.

On one hand, I see how that would work and be helpful. There is nothing worse than a fridged actor who is unwilling to properly play romantic with their co-star. But on the other hand you can see how taking an already overly emotional attention whore personality with a proclivity to ignore reality, and then breaking them even further to de-personalize the wonderful and joyous acts of love and sex... would produce some of the mindsets we often observe in performers.

They are essentially prostitutes, absolutely.

I believe that is why you see the more normal ones as being the guys/gals who just play "types". They pretty much play themselves over and over, and we love it because they are interesting people. But they rarely win awards or become as celebrated as their chameleon peers. Yet they maintain a bit of their humanity.

Gary Sinise comes to mind. The guy is pretty normal.

Post: #103

(01-16-2017 01:18 AM)Latinopan Wrote:  Gary Sinise comes to mind. The guy is pretty normal.

Harrison Ford also, whose sanity is demonstrated by the fact he seems determined to live hundreds of miles away from Hollywood on a farm. Yes he's a lifelong Democrat and doesn't like Trump, but neither does he seem to virtue signal for it. The guy is apparently good friends with Gerry Spence; Spence tells a story where Ford happened to show up unexpectedly at a trial lawyers' conference where Spence was lecturing, and when cajoled to explain the most important thing about acting, his answer was: "He needs to be real. The actor has to become the person, feel the person -- be who he is. He has to honestly portray who the person is he's become. If you're not honest, no one will believe the person you've become."

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #104

Yeah - Hollywood without foreign actors, directors and producers would be gone indeed.

There is only tens of thousands of struggling native actors, writer and directors out there who would instantly jump on the occasion and be rich and famous, but I am sure they are all morons for not having an Israeli dual citizenship (that is usually the most Hollywood preferred credential that they care about).

Give me a break - if they fired everyone, then by next week would they be all staffed with locals - Hollywood is one of the most competitive industries out there and only tribe membership or connections get you any meaningful leg up.

Post: #105

(01-15-2017 11:39 PM)MOVSM Wrote:  

(01-15-2017 07:26 PM)Robert High Hawk Wrote:  Hollywood was was MUCH better when there were less foreigners and outsiders.

I like to dispute this claim: List of Jewish actors. Russian Americans. German Americans. Greek Americans. Hungarian Americans.

The lists are full of actors/comedians/celebrities from various European countries. Hollywood was always full of foreigners. Hollywood was built by foreigners.

I looked over the entire Russian AMERICAN list you cited. First and foremost, that list, and I presume the other ones you posted above, cite ridiculously loose immigrant connections such as: "Amanda Bynes, actress, mother of Russian Jewish descent", or "Jennifer Connelly, actress, mother is of Russian Jewish and Polish Jewish descent" etc... for at least 80% of the names on that list. So actual Russian born immigrants on the list... not so much. Furthermore, about half of the names on the last are from fairly recent actors (about past 10 years), which was exactly point. I will go over the German American list next for my own interest, but I suspect that the number of actual German born immigrants on that list is equally small.

This is an entirely different argument over what constitutes "American" but if we go by the definition that being native born means you are American, well, that list doesn't show a whole lot of non-Americans, and again even most of those were quite recent.

That said, to agree somewhat with your point, Hollywood in the 40s was much more diverse than your average Pennsylvania steel mill (which was probably manned by largely Czech immigrants).

My (admittedly poorly stated) point was that simply due to the fact that interests, tastes, and art were incredibly less globalized than today, talent, creation, production, and distribution was performed by and catered to distinctly less diverse America, with less foreigners involved. And it is my contention the art of those earlier (let's say up until the 70s), was at the very least as good, or better, than the filth that comes out today.

Merryl Streep said without diversity there would be no good American art, and my argument is back when there was less diversity, the art was as good or better than today, so her statement is wrong. Admittedly my knowledge of historical Hollywood is weak at best, so apologies if this wildly ignorant or inaccurate.

Post: #106

(01-16-2017 02:26 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Yeah - Hollywood without foreign actors, directors and producers would be gone indeed.

There is only tens of thousands of struggling native actors, writer and directors out there who would instantly jump on the occasion and be rich and famous, but I am sure they are all morons for not having an Israeli dual citizenship (that is usually the most Hollywood preferred credential that they care about).

Give me a break - if they fired everyone, then by next week would they be all staffed with locals - Hollywood is one of the most competitive industries out there and only tribe membership or connections get you any meaningful leg up.

And nepotism is rampant, it has to be one of the most nepotist industries in the world, is all about who you know and what last name you have.

Look at the Smith kid, despite his mediocre acting he gets acting roles.

Post: #107

(01-16-2017 09:54 AM)Robert High Hawk Wrote:  My (admittedly poorly stated) point was that simply due to the fact that interests, tastes, and art were incredibly less globalized than today, talent, creation, production, and distribution was performed by and catered to distinctly less diverse America, with less foreigners involved. And it is my contention the art of those earlier (let's say up until the 70s), was at the very least as good, or better, than the filth that comes out today.

Merryl Streep said without diversity there would be no good American art, and my argument is back when there was less diversity, the art was as good or better than today, so her statement is wrong. Admittedly my knowledge of historical Hollywood is weak at best, so apologies if this wildly ignorant or inaccurate.

Streep's comment is moronic. However, I would argue that diversity was not a major factor in the quality of movies, one way or the other.

There are so many points that could be brought up, and so many moving parts, who can really say. I'll attempt a few brief ones.

- 70s American cinema (my favorite American cinema) is the first generation of film school students really coming of age. Often, the first wave of anything that harshly rejects the previous wave contains some great stuff. It has the craft and tradition of the old wave, with the vitality of the fresh ideas that haven't become completely dislocated and decadent. It is also the initial full flowering of "show whatever you want on screen" cinema. So you can have sex and violence and nudity, finally, but since it is the first bit of complete openness, it hasn't yet become heavy handed.

- 30's-50s is the golden age of the sound era (with '39 considered the apogee of the classical style). But you have the Hayes code restricting what can be on screen. Partially it is helpful, because filmmakers have to be inventive to show "adult" situations, leading to greater creativity. But on the other hand it is censorship, and the films seems more naive because of it. You also still have the guild system, and there is no such thing as "film school" (there were a few programs, but I wouldn't call them creative type programs).

- the studio system giving way to antitrust laws (bullshit state interference), changing who controlled the distribution of pictures. This coincided with a massive counter-culture shift, resulting in the old guard of Hollywood admitting they did not know what audiences wanted anymore, and handing over the keys to the kingdom to a bunch of hippies (late 60s)

- the rise of the "event film" in the late 70s-early 80s (Spielberg, Lucas, Simpson-Bruckheimer)... ugh

- any art form, in its infancy, goes through the growing pains of being cumbersome and inauthentic. Then it reaches a level of realistic representation (the apex). Then it begins its steady slide down into navel gazing and mummification. Once middle class kids start to study something in university, you can pronounce it irrelevant. See jazz (sadly).

- the little bump of decent films we saw in the 90s may have been due to the first generation of video store kids getting to make films. That is, you could educate yourself in films without expensive screening fees, nor attending a film program. There was also a break in the studios, where small films could be found in festivals, or even developed by the minor wings of major studios (Miramax is the best example of this, where their art films where actually supported by their horror division).

- now, you have the full effects of cultural relativism. You have entire groups of people seriously taking movie classes in university. Of course, you have no high level craft demands or serious guild system to ensure quality. So the truly talented work on the mindless event films (trying to appeal to everyone -- sort of impossible), while the hacks work on art films... paid for with GRANT MONEY (that is to say, your money). The middle ground, of expertly crafted genre films and serious adult dramas, is squeezed dry. A studio won't have a wing that develops small budget talent anymore. They will go to festivals and buy it for zero dollars, and fuck you because this is the only chance you have to get your movie seen.

Post: #108

(01-09-2017 01:50 PM)Last Parade Wrote:  The Vince Vaughn image doesn't even do it justice, he was stone cold for multiple seconds. As one reaction noted, "the water in his glass was moving more than he was." It's true!

(01-12-2017 12:18 AM)puckerman Wrote:  Here is the video. It's 1:11:

Gibson is like, "wtf is this hypocrite talking about ?"

Vaughn thinking, "You stupid ignorant quim."

Ford almost looks disgusted with the crowd at 0:55.

I could see any one of these guys dropping the Bruce Wayne speech once the Emperor takes office..

Post: #109

He wasn't acting:

Post: #110

(01-09-2017 07:01 PM)kinjutsu Wrote:  Can anyone here name a Canadian actor?

Shatner!

That's all I've got, oh and Michael J Fox I guess.

Post: #111

(01-17-2017 01:28 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 09:54 AM)Robert High Hawk Wrote:  My (admittedly poorly stated) point was that simply due to the fact that interests, tastes, and art were incredibly less globalized than today, talent, creation, production, and distribution was performed by and catered to distinctly less diverse America, with less foreigners involved. And it is my contention the art of those earlier (let's say up until the 70s), was at the very least as good, or better, than the filth that comes out today.

Merryl Streep said without diversity there would be no good American art, and my argument is back when there was less diversity, the art was as good or better than today, so her statement is wrong. Admittedly my knowledge of historical Hollywood is weak at best, so apologies if this wildly ignorant or inaccurate.

Streep's comment is moronic. However, I would argue that diversity was not a major factor in the quality of movies, one way or the other.

There are so many points that could be brought up, and so many moving parts, who can really say. I'll attempt a few brief ones.

- 70s American cinema (my favorite American cinema) is the first generation of film school students really coming of age. Often, the first wave of anything that harshly rejects the previous wave contains some great stuff. It has the craft and tradition of the old wave, with the vitality of the fresh ideas that haven't become completely dislocated and decadent. It is also the initial full flowering of "show whatever you want on screen" cinema. So you can have sex and violence and nudity, finally, but since it is the first bit of complete openness, it hasn't yet become heavy handed.

- 30's-50s is the golden age of the sound era (with '39 considered the apogee of the classical style). But you have the Hayes code restricting what can be on screen. Partially it is helpful, because filmmakers have to be inventive to show "adult" situations, leading to greater creativity. But on the other hand it is censorship, and the films seems more naive because of it. You also still have the guild system, and there is no such thing as "film school" (there were a few programs, but I wouldn't call them creative type programs).

- the studio system giving way to antitrust laws (bullshit state interference), changing who controlled the distribution of pictures. This coincided with a massive counter-culture shift, resulting in the old guard of Hollywood admitting they did not know what audiences wanted anymore, and handing over the keys to the kingdom to a bunch of hippies (late 60s)

- the rise of the "event film" in the late 70s-early 80s (Spielberg, Lucas, Simpson-Bruckheimer)... ugh

- any art form, in its infancy, goes through the growing pains of being cumbersome and inauthentic. Then it reaches a level of realistic representation (the apex). Then it begins its steady slide down into navel gazing and mummification. Once middle class kids start to study something in university, you can pronounce it irrelevant. See jazz (sadly).

- the little bump of decent films we saw in the 90s may have been due to the first generation of video store kids getting to make films. That is, you could educate yourself in films without expensive screening fees, nor attending a film program. There was also a break in the studios, where small films could be found in festivals, or even developed by the minor wings of major studios (Miramax is the best example of this, where their art films where actually supported by their horror division).

- now, you have the full effects of cultural relativism. You have entire groups of people seriously taking movie classes in university. Of course, you have no high level craft demands or serious guild system to ensure quality. So the truly talented work on the mindless event films (trying to appeal to everyone -- sort of impossible), while the hacks work on art films... paid for with GRANT MONEY (that is to say, your money). The middle ground, of expertly crafted genre films and serious adult dramas, is squeezed dry. A studio won't have a wing that develops small budget talent anymore. They will go to festivals and buy it for zero dollars, and fuck you because this is the only chance you have to get your movie seen.

THAT is exactly the kind of insightful, informative, and objective comment that finally made me join this forum, and I sincerely appreciate your perspective on it. It's interesting how you see the evolution of cinema over the years, and from what you said the diversity or lack thereof is merely an tangential aspect of era's relative value. So I concede I was probably mistaken if I implied that the (relative to today) lack of diversity in older films was somehow a significant factor in making movies better or worse. But, also, as you say, there is nothing to say diversity in Hollywood made things better either. Cultural relativism associated with poor films today is at least correlated with significant diversity though....

Quick side note, my old statistics professor loved films and Hollywood, and enjoyed applying statistics to it. He mirrored much of your argument, and had some statistics behind it too. Ever since the "blockbuster" phenomenon took over, starting with Jaws, studios started to heavily skew their funding towards blockbusters only (or event films as you say), in the hopes of getting more profits. Now only those blockbuster formulaic films get all the money, about 2 or 3 a year per studio, where as before all the funds were evenly distributed across around 10 films, which aside from increasing the diversity (ha!), gave greater odds that out of those 10 films, at least one or two of them would be truly "good", original and inspiring. The odds of that happening now with only one or two blockbusters funded, and based on safe and formulaic plots/actors, are much, much lower.

Post: #112

For kicks, I took a few minutes on the can this morning to watch Strep Throat's speech.

Something in the first couple of minutes raises my eyebrows.. especially at the 1:59 mark:





As Strep's starts naming names and birthplaces at 1:29, every time she drops a name, the camera switches to that person.

But that ain't Natalie Portman at the 1:59 mark. That's Ruth Negga. Who Strep mentions at 2:07..

How the hell did the cameraman know who to pan to BEFORE Strep drops her name ?

This wasn't just some 'actress' rattling off her personal opinion. This was a planned hit.

Fuck Strep, Polanski, and the rest of these fucks.

Post: #113

(01-09-2017 05:44 PM)ivansirko Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 11:38 AM)Teedub Wrote:  On the Rogan podcast, Jordan Peterson was saying how in ancient Greece/Rome, actors were seen as a similar thing to prostitutes - they provide entertainment and pleasure but why else would you seek their counsel? Hopefully we are genuinely witnessing their influence waning.

http://www.stgenesius.com/actorsrome.html

Quote:In lifestyle Roman actors did not enjoy a good reputation and their morals challenged even the decadence of Roman society. Their performances could be lewd, highly sexual and offensive, even going as far as to appearing naked on stage and engaging in sexual acts. They could also be highly critical of the political status quo and so ran the gauntlet of emperor and senator. As expected, some emperors were as critical of them and took certain measures in an attempt to counteract their notoriety: Emperor Julian the Apostate forbade the pagan Roman priests from attending theatrical performances to avoid giving the performances respectability, and the more enlightened Emperor Tiberius would not allow people of the stage to have any contact with the upper classes. Far from being great dramas most Roman plays were whimsical, more mimes and pantomimes; the classics we know and respect were in the minority.

I didnt know that was the case. Its possible this was a reaction to the content of Theater at the time.

Yes, and many cases acting was assumed to be a mental illness, anybody pretending to be somebody else in front of others was assumed to be mad in the head.

Unlike singing, which has always been appreciated by humans, acting did not serve any valuable purpose to a nation. Imagine living in times of war without modern medicine, and lucky to not die before turning 20 and and someone telling you they want to pretend to be somebody else as a profession.

Fun thing, in the game Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood you have to kill some ancient Greek actors in the coliseum.

Post: #114

She's a colossal retard, in addition to being delusional, narcissistic, and pretentious.

Hollywood is DEVOID of non-white Americans while MMA is about 80% foreign.

Post: #115

I gotta defend Polanski a bit. The girl he fucked may have been 13, but she was left there alone by her parents during a drug-fueled 1970s party - she was left there in a Hollywood party in a whirlpool.

If you leave your daughter at a Justin Bieber party and see everyone doing coke, then don't expect her to come home as a virgin. Especially if you wave goodbye to her as she goes into the whirlpool of Justin Bieber, then how high are the chances that nothing will happen to her?

Polanski in life fucked a lot of girls and started out early in his teens (surprisingly he was what we call a natural). Also losing his wife shortly before to Charles Manson in the bloodbath would have been an additional point that should have been brought during a trial. He also did not display any pedophile-tendencies later in life.

Personally I think that the girl was drunk, maybe on coke and actually wanted to make out. She may not have wanted sex, but who knows.

By the way - possibly that the entire speech was not entirely her idea, but someone wrote it for her and the operator even knew who to point at.

Post: #116

^

This is a hard road to go, but I have to agree with you. The parents are a lot more to blame.

I'm sure we can say that it would have been nice if Polanski had chosen an already defiled 16-20 year old and left this 13 year old alone (or given her some gentle guidance as a platonic mentor), but also who is to say what she did or wanted or what really went down.

If this case it's more of being a decent person or a lech, versus a criminal.

As an aside, he is a very talented director. I am not going to condone what he did, but the "victim" has publicly forgiven him as far as I know, and it doesn't take away from his output.

Post: #117

< I remember reading about him as he went around as a 15-16yo short guy asking girls striaght away: "Are you banging already?" That is some approach skill - full frontal opener and it yielded results as it was so utterly brazen and put forward with some charm and a twinkle in the eye. He already had a reputation as a teenage womanizer mostly by sheer lack of scruples - after a time and having banged dozens you get the self-confidence naturally.

Post: #118

He had to make up for his half-midgetry somehow.

Post: #119

Polanski gave the girl quaaludes and alcohol - the Cosby special - then fucked her in the ass. He himself admitted it; the documents can be read online. This further shows the hypocrisy of Hollywood. Cosby did drugs with and fucked grown women, now persona non grata. Polanski with a 13 year old girl, a revered genius.