# Hollywood bashing the rich...they aren't included...



## billc (Jul 10, 2013)

Again, rich, pampered and spoiled, hollywood types are doing their best to spread hate of a class of people...those who are successful in something other than "dress up," and pretending to be other people...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/07/09/conflicted-hollywood-fights-rich




> Actor Chris Evans of _The Avengers_ fame is richer than most.  The handsome star is part of two major Marvel franchises--the  aforementioned super-group series as well as _Captain America_.
> 
> He recently plunked down $3.52 million for a nearly 4,600 square foot  estate in Hollywood Hills, according to the May 27 issue of US Weekly.
> Evans will soon be seen in _Snowpiercer_, Hollywood's latest  film demonizing the rich. The movie is set in a future where the  well-to-do live in a posh portion of a train circling our doomed planet  while the poor are left to a bleak compartment.







> Evans isn't alone in picking projects that trash people with bank  accounts just like theirs. Plenty of uber-rich stars are eager to do  just the same. Consider _In Time_, the 2011 sci-fi film featuring  Justin Timberlake where the affluent live indefinitely by paying for  minutes of life, while the poor never get a chance to climb the social  ladder.
> 
> Next month, Matt Damon (who recently put his Miami home up for sale for $20 million) and Jodie Foster (selling her longtime home for more than $6 million) bring wealth bashing to potentially new highs with _Elysium_, the latest "socially conscious" project from director Neill Blomkamp of _District 9_ fame. It's plot essentially mirrors that of _Snowpiercer_,  with a 99 percent type (Damon) trying to break into the world of the  oppressive rich and famous (epitomized by Foster's character).


----------



## granfire (Jul 10, 2013)

Why am I even opening this...


Ok....Hollywood, being rich people, makes movies the poor people want to watch...

So go and beat some poor people for not wanting to see more boot licking of rich people....

Oh, BTW...I have heard Hollywood could make infinitely more money by making family movies, and I after listening to some parents I have to say it is true. There is not much out that is entertaining, clean and still intelligent for the whole family to enjoy...


Ok, back to your regular scheduled bashing of Hollywood and poor people...

No, seriously mate, do you get paid to post this stuff?
The way you sound you pull down a 7 figure income a year, just from dividends! 
Which I find hard to believe.


----------



## Steve (Jul 10, 2013)

I'm pretty sure Hollywood types make movies that they think will get butts in seats.  If there was money in it, we'd see a live action version of Richie Rich.  Historically, people turn to movies to escape the real world, but even escapist movies are typically grounded in contemporary social issues.  But, appropriately, movies are about tapping into stories that will resonate with a paying audience.

You are, of course, entitled to vote with your wallet.  And I'm sure you don't begrudge these Hollywood types their riches.  They did, after all, earn them legally (for the most part, I presume).  Why are you hating on rich people, Bill?  That's right.  They're the wrong kind of rich people.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 10, 2013)

Are you implying that producers DONT have political agendas...or use their films to espouse their politics in any way?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire (Jul 10, 2013)

Steve said:


> I'm pretty sure Hollywood types make movies that they think will get butts in seats.  If there was money in it, we'd see a live action version of Richie Rich.  Historically, people turn to movies to escape the real world, but even escapist movies are typically grounded in contemporary social issues.  But, appropriately, movies are about tapping into stories that will resonate with a paying audience.
> 
> You are, of course, entitled to vote with your wallet.  And I'm sure you don't begrudge these Hollywood types their riches.  They did, after all, earn them legally (for the most part, I presume).  Why are you hating on rich people, Bill?  That's right.  They're the wrong kind of rich people.



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110989/

just sayin....


----------



## Steve (Jul 10, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Are you implying that producers DONT have political agendas...or use their films to espouse their politics in any way?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Of course not.  I'm saying that money talks, and producers who push agendas that fail to resonate with audiences don't make many movies. Success in Hollywood is about butts in seats. The agenda is less a reflection of a producer's agenda, and more a reflection of what a producer believes people want to see.  Apparently, there is interest in this Elysium type story.  We will see how much when we get the box office returns.

And, that we can all vote with our pocketbooks.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Jul 10, 2013)

granfire said:


> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110989/
> 
> just sayin....


Exactly.   Made in 1994, barely recouped the operating budget and pretty much everyone associated with the film is now unemployed in Hollywood.  And that was when our economy was on the rise, at the beginning of the internet boom.


----------



## granfire (Jul 10, 2013)

Steve said:


> Exactly.   Made in 1994, barely recouped the operating budget and pretty much everyone associated with the film is now unemployed in Hollywood.  And that was when our economy was on the rise, at the beginning of the internet boom.



LOL, the movie sucked....
how about that for reason, not because it was about rich people....


----------



## Steve (Jul 10, 2013)

granfire said:


> LOL, the movie sucked....
> how about that for reason, not because it was about rich people....


Granfire... it's a move about Richie Rich.  How could it not suck?


----------



## granfire (Jul 10, 2013)

Steve said:


> Granfire... it's a move about Richie Rich.  How could it not suck?



LOL, Touche.

He had nothing going for him other than money...


----------



## arnisador (Jul 10, 2013)

billc said:


> Again, rich, pampered and spoiled, hollywood types are doing their best to spread hate of a class of people...



Oh the irony. Shall we hate the actors as a class, then?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 10, 2013)

Heh, I remember the movie coming out but luckily I skipped it. I learned my lesson with Howard the Duck!


----------



## billc (Jul 10, 2013)

> Why are you hating on rich people, Bill?



I don't hate anyone Steve, even hollywood types.  I think it is interesting that people who, as you pointed out, made gobs of money legally, live a lifestyle 99% of the country will never experience, will then condemn other people who also work very hard and get their money just as legally as they do.  They are silly to sit their in their multi-million dollar mansions and attack a segment of  the people who have made them wealthy.   Movie after movie which paint business people, the wealthy, as bad has an effect on society.  I have seen studies that show that of all the sorts of people portrayed as villains in movies, business people are portrayed as the villain most often.



> Shall we hate the actors as a class, then?



No.  It would be nice if they didn't make movies that encourage people to hate other successful people.  Of course, I believe in freedom of speech, so they can make whatever movies they want...it just reveals how silly they are...

Think about movies in the recent past...how many have business people as the villains...even Iron Man, Spiderman, had business people as the main villain.  The Purge, again, rich people as the bad guys.  The list is pretty substantial...


----------



## Steve (Jul 10, 2013)

Bill, I think where we disagree is that I don't believe that the typical actor is any more or less political than anyone else.  I operate under the presumption that they are mostly just making their fortunes and picking scripts that interest them and are recommended by their agents.  They want to make more money and so choose scripts that skill increase their cred.

 It appears to me that you see malice and a deeper, more deliberate intention to cause problems.  

The real question is I have is why you give them more attention than warranted?  Once again, if you disagree, you can opt to vote with your wallet.  Others do the same.  That's a conservative value.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jul 10, 2013)

I duuno about THAT Steve...you ever look into all the "off duty" political activity many of these actors are into? How many "foundations" and political action groups they support? Is it really a stretch to think that they are selected or search out roles due to their personal beliefs?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Jul 10, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I duuno about THAT Steve...you ever look into all the "off duty" political activity many of these actors are into? How many "foundations" and political action groups they support? Is it really a stretch to think that they are selected or search out roles due to their personal beliefs?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


Lots of people are political.  I said they aren't more or less political than anyone else.  Their fame does grant them more notoriety than the average joe, but that doesn't mean that they know any more or less.  

For the most part, I think it's great that they are trying to do good things, just as I think it's great when anyone does things for good reasons, regardless of how misguided they are. 

Now, before there is any misunderstanding, I am not saying that there aren't actors who are also zealots, nor am I saying that all actors do things for good reasons.  I just presume that the percentage is roughly comparable to that of the rest of us.  

Regarding the selection of roles due to personal beliefs, there's a subtle but important distinction between pursuing roles that resonate with you socially, politically or personally and pursuing roles in order to further a political or social agenda.  And while everyone makes decisions based upon individual criteria, I tend to believe that money and advancement of their career trumps personal or social concerns.  

I mean, let's think about this rationally.  Do you guys think that every actor who participates in a rape scene intends to push a social agenda advocating in favor of rape?  Do you think ANY actor does?  Or murder... common in movies?  Man, if this is true, we have genuine monsters among us, based upon the themes and actions depicted in shows broadcast on TV, such as Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad and Sons of Anarchy.  Even more so in movies.

There are some people who get to a point where they have the clout, the money and the opportunity to produce a vanity project.  Schindler's List is the one that jumps to mind, a movie Spielberg had always wanted to make and which told a story he personally believed was important.  Or Battlefield Earth, a vanity project that Travolta pushed for based upon his ties to Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.  Passion of the Christ was another notable vanity project, in which Mel Gibson produced a movie that was clearly intended to further his own religious agenda.  

But these are exceptions and not the rule.  For the most part, the movies either make money or they don't.  And when they don't, the people associated with the movie have a harder time making another, until at some point they disappear entirely.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 10, 2013)

granfire said:


> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110989/
> 
> just sayin....



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093278/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 
If you're gonna pick a bomb, pick a BOMB


----------



## granfire (Jul 10, 2013)

Big Don said:


> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093278/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
> If you're gonna pick a bomb, pick a BOMB



Steve was talking Richy Rich...not dope smoking camel!


----------



## Big Don (Jul 10, 2013)

Steve said:


> Lots of people are political.  I said they aren't more or less political than anyone else.  Their fame does grant them more notoriety than the average joe, but that doesn't mean that they know any more or less.


 No ****





> Or Battlefield Earth, a vanity project that Travolta pushed for based upon his ties to Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.


 Which was a crap book and a worse movie,which made $21million against a $40Million budget... 





> Passion of the Christ was another notable vanity project, in which Mel Gibson produced a movie that was clearly intended to further his own religious agenda.


 Which made close to half a BILLION dollars against a $30 million dollar budget...





> But these are exceptions and not the rule.  For the most part, the movies either make money or they don't.  And when they don't, the people associated with the movie have a harder time making another, until at some point they disappear entirely.


G rated movies earn more by far than PG,PG13, and R rated movies combined, and yet...
Just because something is profitable, doesn't mean it will be considered glamorous...


----------



## Tames D (Jul 11, 2013)

Steve said:


> Bill, I think where we disagree is that I don't believe that the typical actor is any more or less political than anyone else. * I operate under the presumption that they are mostly just making their fortunes and picking scripts that interest them and are recommended by their agents.  They want to make more money and so choose scripts that skill increase their cred.
> *
> It appears to me that you see malice and a deeper, more deliberate intention to cause problems.
> 
> ...



I would say the reality is that at least 90% of actors/actresses in Motion Pictures, Television and Theatre don't make a living from their craft. They will be serving you coffee at Starbucks or your grand slam breakfast at Denny's or washing your car at the local car wash on Sunset Blvd to pay the rent on their one room apartment. And when they are not working these jobs they are rushing to one auditon afer another hoping to land a role that will set them up for life. There are very few that are in a position to pick scripts that interest them and far from making their fortunes in this industry.Trust me on this one. There is a big difference between what the average movie goer thinks how actors live and the reality of the business. It's actually very sad.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 11, 2013)

I believe a majority of actors are more left leaning only because that's the type of person drawn to that profession.  Just like police work tends to draw more right leaning mentality.  With that they have a platform to be more vocal about their beliefs.  I have no issue with that other then when a media outlet tends to favor the right like talk radio they are the first ones to yell for fairness.  

But I agree with Steve here much ado about nothing.  I go see movies that I think will be good I don't really care about the actors beliefs.


----------



## Steve (Jul 11, 2013)

Tames D said:


> I would say the reality is that at least 90% of actors/actresses in Motion Pictures, Television and Theatre don't make a living from their craft. They will be serving you coffee at Starbucks or your grand slam breakfast at Denny's or washing your car at the local car wash on Sunset Blvd to pay the rent on their one room apartment. And when they are not working these jobs they are rushing to one auditon afer another hoping to land a role that will set them up for life. There are very few that are in a position to pick scripts that interest them and far from making their fortunes in this industry.Trust me on this one. There is a big difference between what the average movie goer thinks how actors live and the reality of the business. It's actually very sad.



The point is that they aren't trying to score political points or further an agenda.  As you say, they're trying to make a living.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 11, 2013)

I can't remember who said this but it reminded me of this topic.  I think it was in a Chris rock show.  The difference between rich and wealthy.  Shaq is rich but the guy who signs Shaqs pay check is wealthy.  He laughs at Shaq.

These wealthy people could care less about some actor.  The truly wealthy can buy and sell 10 A list actors and not dent their fortune.  They don't care


----------



## crushing (Jul 11, 2013)

Big Don said:


> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093278/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
> If you're gonna pick a bomb, pick a BOMB



Before clicking I wasn't sure if your link would lead to the movie it did, or this one - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102070/


----------



## granfire (Jul 11, 2013)

I actually like Hudson Hawk. 

Maybe because I watched it when my English was still a little shaky 

it was corky, for sure!


----------



## Steve (Jul 11, 2013)

granfire said:


> I actually like Hudson Hawk.
> 
> Maybe because I watched it when my English was still a little shaky
> 
> it was corky, for sure!


I liked it, too.  Kind of a cult classic for me, up there with Repoman (Emilio Estevez).  Quirky but fun.  

"Bunny!  Ball, ball!!!"


----------



## arnisador (Jul 11, 2013)

I liked him in "The Last Boy Scout" that not everyone appreciates! Esp. this scene:


----------



## elder999 (Jul 11, 2013)

You mean that Andy Griffith really was a mean, manipulative hick, like in _A Face in the Crowd/_?





and that Mary Tyler Moore really is a cold, mean ***** of a mother, like in _Ordinary People_ (actually, she *is*, but what the hell...:lfao: )






And that Henry Fonda really was a cold blooded, homicidal, amoral  child-killer, like he was in _Once Upon A Time in the West_?





Good gosh! I never thought for a minute that Tom Hanks was actually *gay!* Yet here he is in all his gay splendor, in _Phialdelphia_. I mean, he won an Oscar, so this must be the truth of things, right??? :lfao:






Or maybe they're all just people who get paid HUGE amounts of money for playing "make believe." You know....._actors_?

I mean, famous Hollywood liberal Carrol O'Connor played conservative, silent-majority bigot Archie Bunker on television for 13 years, dontcha know? And Errol Flynn-right wing Nazi sympathizer-played Robin Hood.

And the whole "evil rich" paradigm? Well, it's called "privilege" for a reason. When we've finished turning the earth into a complete ********, it will be the people with money who get to populate "somewhere else." This is a science fiction theme that goes back before Ben Bova's _Colony,_ which was about a colony in earth orbit, inhabited by the rich and privileged, after earth has become a complete $h@thole, and was written, like..._36 years ago._


----------



## Steve (Jul 11, 2013)

elder999 said:


> And the whole "evil rich" paradigm? Well, it's called "privilege" for a reason. When we've finished turning the earth into a complete ********, it will be the people with money who get to populate "somewhere else." This is a science fiction theme that goes back before Ben Bova's _Colony,_ which was about a colony in earth orbit, inhabited by the rich and privileged, after earth has become a complete $h@thole, and was written, like..._36 years ago._



Hey, the alternative to privilege is socialism, man.  And we don't want that! 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Don (Jul 11, 2013)

crushing said:


> Before clicking I wasn't sure if your link would lead to the movie it did, or this one - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102070/



I liked that movie! Except for Sandra Bernhard, what an overacting...


----------



## crushing (Jul 12, 2013)

Big Don said:


> I liked that movie! Except for Sandra Bernhard, what an overacting...



I like both Hudson Hawk and Ishtar.  Probably because they fun escapes.  Whenever I see a tollbooth, I say "TOLLBOOF?!?!?"


----------

