At The Cinema, Do You ever Get the Feeling You're Watching The Same Movie Over and Over?

[soulsinging]

I know it's a little unusual but stick with it because Groundhog Day really comes together at the end.

 

[JunkMonkey]

It's like putting a man on the cover of a women's swimsuit magazine which was done recently.
The audience for that is tiny. They lose more people than they can gain. And they don't care--which is the most intriguing part.
Disney didn't seem to care what families think about its political agenda coming into the open.
I don't feel making money is the motivation behind any of this.
It's control and suppression of variety.

It's like the Borg Collective except they also want to make you watch their Broadway musical "Resistance is Futile."
It's bad enough to be a drone, but their dancing and singing is just so awful and it is the only show in town.

How can it be the suppression of variety when your main complaint seems to be that 'they' are changing the formula and introducing new and varied elements?

The (American) entertainment industry seems finally to have noticed the world's buying power isn't entirely in the hands of White heterosexual men and is scrabbling for a slice of the pie whilst not being quite sure what flavour the pie, is who has the pie, how big it is and how many slices they can get out of it. All power to them. Not sure what you mean about Disney not caring about what families think. I'm a dad. I have kids. I love the fact that Disney is finally opening up to having gay characters. Not that this is anything new. Go watch Ice Princess from 2005, probably the best lesbian teen movie ever made (apart from Lukas Moodysson's F**king Åmål). Of course they are doing it to make money. There's no way the Disney Corporation is introducing LGBTQ characters at the behest of some sinister cabal out to sap the vital bodily fluids of right-thinking Americans. They're doing it because there's gold in them thar hills. Lots of it.

 

[KGeo777]

How can it be the suppression of variety when your main complaint seems to be that 'they' are changing the formula and introducing new and varied elements?

We have discussed this a few times before--I don't have a problem with them making films that are a multicultural circus with some message which may not be widely popular.
That is not the problem. If I was a big Dr Strange fan I might complain that they are altering the source material and ask why are they using this for their message when they could make something else. Just do a film about a woman wizard...they have the money and promotion power to do that if they wanted.
They would rather change the perception of the character --I think to them, it is like tearing down a statue they don't like. They are striking a blow against the Man. That's part of their desire--and I don't think most audiences anywhere support that at all. Doubtful that anyone cares that there is a soldier statue in a West Virginia park for 100 years or that Dr Strange was kickass dude. Only a minority with a lot of spare time cares about that.
If they wanted to make their little social statement--fine-who cares--that is not the trouble.

The problem is they seek total domination of media and prevent alternative traditional voices-they want to suppress it-and this has killed western film art culture. It has turned it into a ghetto and destroyed professionalism in film. It feels increasingly amateur. I can't stand listening to modern actors in a scene-they sound like high school students in a group therapy session.

And it is bad for everyone. Disney, in the 1990s, said they wanted to be "entertainer for the globe."
So that means they want to go into Korea and China and Angola etc and dominate their culture too.
I don't see how anyone who appreciates art could support that.
It is a culture killer.
I am not excited that the guy who made the Witch is doing a story about Vikings. The Northman or whatever it is. I would be more excited if ten other people were, at the same time, also doing stories about Vikings. Because then you may find a Viking story that appeals to you. Different voices, different approaches.

As a Pixar executive explained-the Hollywood goal is to make a film version of a cookie that has a little bit of ingredient to appeal to all people but not satisfy anyone in particular. And that's it. The only cookie you can get.
So you end up stuck with something bland when, if the cookie makers were making them for target customers, you would be satisfying all tastes.
Different strokes for different folks.

Horror Express had a Spanish director, the writers are from all over the place as was the cast--and yet it works (for those who like that kind of film). But that is because they were doing something that had a travelogue story to it--you expect it to have a lot of variety given that it is set on a train.

That film was made for horror aficionados--it was a target audience.

You don't get variety by shutting out voices.
And this is what is going on. Cancel culture basically.

I don't think you can make a good movie if you are seeking to make a cancel culture message.

 

[JunkMonkey]

None of this is new. Disney's been stomping all over world culture and appropriating it and repackaging it back in a bland pap form for years. Hollywood has been killing world culture for decades. Why all the umbrage and 'cancel culture' labelling when suddenly it's white culture that's getting eaten? Marvel own Dr Strange. (Or whoever owns Marvel these days owns Dr Strange). He's a fictional character. He's not a historical monument. He's made up. A plaything. A toy. They can do what they like with him. Just as Hollywood has been playing with characters like Sherlock Holmes for decades. But it doesn't matter at all what they do to the character (I caught something recently that had Johnny Lee Miller as Holmes in modern day America with Lucy Liu as a female Watson. I thought it was dreadful. Not because they had made Watson an Asian woman and transplanted Holmes to America I just thought it was unadventurous plodding TV fodder (though it was not as bad as a 'truer to the original' BBC adaptation starring Rupert Everett I saw recently - that really DID stink) and it doesn't matter how naff the plots - the fact is that the originals are still there. The makers of Elementary haven't "altered the source material". No one has torn down Holmes. The Conan Doyle stories are still there to be discovered and enjoyed. If you don't like what they do with a character, don't buy it. Simples. No one is making anyone else buy it either. If it sells it's because the people who buy it want it, not because they are being forced-marched at gunpoint to the cinema (if this wasn't true and Hollywood could sell anything then no one would ever make a film that didn't make shedloads of money. John Carter would have been a hit. The Last Action Hero would have been a hit. Ishtar and Theodore Rex and Pluto Nash and gods know how many million other stupendously loss making films would have been raking in the shekels).

William Goldman said "the single most important fact, perhaps, of the entire movie industry" is that 'nobody knows anything'.

Western film art culture is alive and well. (Or as well as it has ever been.) You just don't like what they make these days. I like comics. Mainstream American comic-book culture is alive and well. I just don't like much of what what they make these days; so I don't read them. I read French comics instead. It's a big world. There's a lot of very creative people, making lots and lots of interesting stuff out there. There are also a lot of MacDonald's operations churning out corporate junk. Shop around.

 

[KGeo777]

None of this is new.

It is new in the West. It was not the case in 1980 or 1960 or even 1920 that (hetero) Europeans were shut out of western film (they invented it).
Now they are shut out. And people are noticing.

Hollywood in the silent era did seek to dominate western film but they were still using Europeans much of the time. They had to. Not by choice maybe.
I don't need to watch the new stuff--I don't care, but it still means a generations of artists are not able to get access to audiences and all because of corporations that despise the public.
How can you make culture when you despise your audience?
Is there any example in history--did Shakespeare hate his audiences?
Did Homer?
This is new territory.
Maybe the USSR would come close to this anti-social focus. I suspect that is the best example.

Let's put it another way--if Conan Doyle came along today--he would not get published by any mainstream publisher.
He would be canceled.
Which makes NO SENSE since people still read the original stories without falling on the ground in a fetal position from offense!
Nobody goes "Omigod! That white man is using his mind and leading the story! How can this be????"
The one place where you might find people who would react like that--work high up in publishing or film offices.

 

[JunkMonkey]

It is new in the West. It was not the case in 1980 or 1960 or even 1920 that (hetero) Europeans were shut out of western film (they invented it).
Now they are shut out. And people are noticing.

Welcome to the club. Black people, gays, lesbians and disabled people have been noting they've been shut out for decades. (How many black faces did the average Hollywood western have in them until recently? - nothing like the 25% or so real black cowboys that rode the range after the Civil War.)

Hollywood isn't about 'culture'. It's about money. Always has been. And TV is even worse. Any 'art' that comes out of it is down to individuals working within the system and blindsiding the corporate bean counters. Corporations have always despised people. They're an awkward necessity in the the pursuit of profit. If Corporations loved people they wouldn't cut corners. Every car would be a Rolls Royce. Every fast food meal would be five star Michelin.

You're right though. If Conan Doyle came along now he probably wouldn't be published. His books are very archaic, old fashioned and his stories, to modern eyes, hackneyed and reliant on knowledge and mores the average modern reader doesn't identify with or understand. As a stone cold start new author his books wouldn't sell in sufficient quantities for them to be worth a mainstream house's effort.

But back when he was first writing there were almost certainly plenty of other authors who were "cancelled", as you put it, because their works didn't fit societal norms of the time. For instance from Shakespear's day until the 1960s (? from memory) any plays put on on any British stage had to be approved by the Lord Chamberlain’s Office. Performances had to be licenced by the state. If they (the state) didn't like the play or if it broke any of a huge set of rules, it didn't go on. Shakespeare was a state-approved author. Oscar Wilde's Salome for instance was refused permission (cancelled) because it depicted 'biblical characters'. That's pretty cancelling.

We don't know how many other stories by black, gay, female, transgressive writers got 'cancelled' because they were cancelled. They didn't get to see the light of day. Don't exist any more.

Here's a thought. I'm on a pretty limited budget so when I go shopping for the necessities of life (and the minor luxuries) I tend to shop in places like Lidl, and Aldi, Poundstretchers and Home Bargains - all low price discount stores. One of them, Poundstretchers, has, I suspect, a policy of buying up cheaply ranges from well-known manufacturers that didn't sell well. Their shelves always seem to be full of odd flavours of biscuits and tins of fusion branding that didn't hit the marketing jackpot and were quickly discontinued. It's the way business works. Marmite flavoured Jammy Dodgers? Give it a go. Nope, that didn't sell. How about Peanut and Wasabi flavoured toothpaste? Nope. And on it goes. The entertainment industry is exactly the same. Stuff gets cancelled all the time because it doesn't sell or people get bored with it. Always has done.

I'm a white male. I'm bored stupid with white male protagonists resolving everything. Especially resolving everything with a fistfight in the final reel.

Time for something new.

Wasabi-flavoured lesbian detectives? I'll give it a go.

 

[paeng]

It's caused by incredible levels of money involved. Here's how it works:

Investors have lots of money available, and studios have spent large amounts of acquiring franchises. They want to milk the latter for all they're worth, and investors want the largest returns. That means very expensive movies shown around the world, and with the largest returns. How to do that?

Use the characters, plots, etc., from the same franchises, and release movies as fast as possible, or else competitors might take over. That means sequels, prequels, reboots, re-imaginations, spinoffs, and more, and generally rehash. Remember, unlike in the past when any sequels would come out years later, you now have to do it every year. In some cases, you can even make sequels right after making the first movie to save on setup costs.

Put in lots of special effects and make the movie as long as possible (up to three hours long) so that it will look expensive and worth viewing on the big screen. Otherwise, viewers will complain given high ticket prices.

Minimize complexity with characterization or events involving dialogue in order to cut across audiences from different cultures and who speak different languages. That means an emphasis on plot and action. The special effects also work with those.

Target PG ratings because that maximizes viewership, although there might be some exceptions.

 

[Toby Frost]

There's no big conspiracy to destroy white culture or whatever else the con-men on the internet are pedalling to their followers these days (which is itself a nice money-spinner if you solicit donations...). It's cash, pure and simple. That's why you can make a cheap, arty film with a lesbian heroine, release it locally, make your money back off the art-house and gay pounds and say you're progressive. Do it with a big-budget film and it won't be shown in the dictatorships because lesbians are ungoodthinkful, so you lose money. Cash.

Frankly I find a lot of recent films boring, usually because they're poor imitations or remakes of better old ones. I'd welcome some variety.

 

[KGeo777]

Welcome to the club. Black people, gays, lesbians and disabled people have been noting they've been shut out for decades. (How many black faces did the average Hollywood western have in them until recently? - nothing like the 25% or so real black cowboys that rode the range after the Civil War.)

You are evading the main issue.

James Whale was homosexual but he was promoted to big film productions. He certainly was not sidelined.

The important question is, should heterosexual artists have access to heterosexual audiences or should they be shut out from the cultural stream? And if so why?
And, do you think, in retrospect, heterosexual artists should have been cancelled 10-20-100 years ago if "society knew better?"
The few companies that are around discriminate against heterosexuals. Disney admitted it--they have non-heterosexual people in charge of content--especially for children. The director of POWDER was a convicted sex offender. I am just curious to know if you agree that it is time for heterosexual artists to be discriminated against.

 

[soulsinging]

You are evading the main issue.

James Whale was homosexual but he was promoted to big film productions. He certainly was not sidelined.

The important question is, should heterosexual artists have access to heterosexual audiences or should they be shut out from the cultural stream? And if so why?
And, do you think, in retrospect, heterosexual artists should have been cancelled 10-20-100 years ago if "society knew better?"
The few companies that are around discriminate against heterosexuals. Disney admitted it--they have non-heterosexual people in charge of content--especially for children. The director of POWDER was a convicted sex offender. I am just curious to know if you agree that it is time for heterosexual artists to be discriminated against.

Honestly, not sure I know what your main point is here. Nobody here has ever said anyone should be shut out of anything, many have acknowledged it happens often based mostly on corporate calculations of profitability.

And it's pretty ridiculous to claim anyone anywhere is discriminating against heterosexuals (and hugely offensive to name 2 random gay men and attempt to link them to a sex offender like that's the same thing). There were many gay people involved in film over the years but we only know that now because it was carefully hidden from the public for decades. And as a straight man, I see no shortage of films by, starring and for straight men like me.

Your anger here seems a little misplaced. I'm a 90s kid and all about "corporations are ruining art" arguments, but you have taken it in a very specific and questionable direction.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

It's caused by incredible levels of money involved. Here's how it works:

Investors have lots of money available, and studios have spent large amounts of acquiring franchises. They want to milk the latter for all they're worth, and investors want the largest returns. That means very expensive movies shown around the world, and with the largest returns. How to do that?

Use the characters, plots, etc., from the same franchises, and release movies as fast as possible, or else competitors might take over. That means sequels, prequels, reboots, re-imaginations, spinoffs, and more, and generally rehash. Remember, unlike in the past when any sequels would come out years later, you now have to do it every year. In some cases, you can even make sequels right after making the first movie to save on setup costs.

Put in lots of special effects and make the movie as long as possible (up to three hours long) so that it will look expensive and worth viewing on the big screen. Otherwise, viewers will complain given high ticket prices.

Minimize complexity with characterization or events involving dialogue in order to cut across audiences from different cultures and who speak different languages. That means an emphasis on plot and action. The special effects also work with those.

Target PG ratings because that maximizes viewership, although there might be some exceptions.

Yes, exactly. And the phrase that springs to mind - although you don't quite use it - is 'risk aversion'. A studio can take risks and get a huge hit along with a few failures. Really, I think that is exactly how they used to approach things. Now, there is a tendency to go with the predictable safe bet. Make a movie that is just like the last movie and you know how much profit you will make (ie about the same as last time). Hence every new movie seems to remind us of the last one.

Someone above (JunkMonkey?) reminded us that there are still original and exciting movies being made. Smaller movies not blockbusters. But getting to see these is actually easier said than done.

 

[KGeo777]

Your anger here seems a little misplaced. I'm a 90s kid and all about "corporations are ruining art" arguments, but you have taken it in a very specific and questionable direction.

Because you grew up in the age of centralized corporate control so you aren't going to notice the difference as much unless you watch older things frequently so you can see the differences. Frog in boiling water.
I myself did not notice it until I stopped watching newer things as much and watched older stuff more--and then I perceived the differences. It became impossible to miss.

They aren't hiding the fact that they want to dismantle traditional cultural depictions. They brag about it. The sexual orientation of the artist has become more important than the content made.
Didn't the Oscars beautifully demonstrate this? A slap was the entire focus of the show and the only movie that was talked about after the event was Gi Jane. This is the corporate money core of the industry. Was it good for business that Gi Jane was the talk of the town?
I don't see how.

 

[KGeo777]

It's caused by incredible levels of money involved. Here's how it works:

Hollywood accounting (also known as Hollywood bookkeeping) is the term used for the opaque or creative accounting methods used by the film, video, and television industry to budget and record profits for film projects. Expenditures can be inflated to reduce or eliminate the reported profit of the project, thereby reducing the amount which the corporation must pay in taxes and royalties or other profit-sharing agreements, as these are based on the net profit.

In other words, they lie.

Why do they get tax subsidies? Because they take money from taxpayers to fund their films.
No other business operates like this so openly.
The spiraling costs of films are entirely due to the corrupt management practices. When Star Wars came out, Roger Corman said it was a scandalous amount of money spent that could have been used to revitalize an urban neighborhood.
Between 1960 and 1975, film production costs were pretty stable.

And the contradictions are impossible to ignore.
How can you be populist--which Hollywood sometimes claims to be, and yet marginalize artists from a specific audience that you used to focus on? How does that work?
How can you make films that allegedly cater to China and the world at the same time?
It's looney. They keep changing their claims--Hollywood Accounting.

 

[JunkMonkey]

You are evading the main issue.

James Whale was homosexual but he was promoted to big film productions. He certainly was not sidelined.

The important question is, should heterosexual artists have access to heterosexual audiences or should they be shut out from the cultural stream? And if so why?
And, do you think, in retrospect, heterosexual artists should have been cancelled 10-20-100 years ago if "society knew better?"
The few companies that are around discriminate against heterosexuals. Disney admitted it--they have non-heterosexual people in charge of content--especially for children. The director of POWDER was a convicted sex offender. I am just curious to know if you agree that it is time for heterosexual artists to be discriminated against.

Oh gods Hollywood was full of gays that weren't sidelined as long as they didn't 'flaunt it' - behind the camera! When they were in front of the camera gay and bi actors (like Colin Clive, Hattie McDaniel, Rock Hudson, Cary Grant, Greta Garbo and all the rest) they were definitely playing very very straight.

I refuse to get further into any conversation that equates/conflates being gay with paedophilia - as you get perilously close to doing with "Disney admitted it--they have non-heterosexual people in charge of content--especially for children." Generations of kids have grown up exposed to hetero-normative role models and still grown up knowing they were gay. What's wrong with giving gay kids some role models too?

I'm against discrimination of any kind. It's the work that counts. Hitchcock may have been an abusive heterosexual sh*t - but he made great films. I don't care who the Wachowski siblings sleep with; I think their films are overrated bollocks - apart from Bound. Bound was good.

 

[JunkMonkey]

How can you be populist--which Hollywood sometimes claims to be, and yet marginalize artists from a specific audience that you used to focus on? How does that work?

Because, presumably, they've done the maths and worked out that that that 'specific audience' is shrinking or buying something else. Because there's more money to be made elsewhere. It's ALL about money. That's why there isn't a large hat manufacturing industry in the west any more. 100 years ago there was. People still have heads. It still rains. People just don't wear as many hats as they used to. Fashion and money.

 

[KGeo777]

Because, presumably, they've done the maths

You mean Hollywood Accounting maths?
You cannot take anything they say on financial matters as honest. They lie.

You say it is about calculating popularity but are you serious that when they put a biological male on the cover of a women's swimsuit magazine--that that is all about making money and popularity and not dictated by politics?

Money talks right? Most of the readers are presumably male heterosexuals. So if they do that, they are risking less sales that month.
Unless you have a convincing argument on how that will guarantee a big boost in sales. Maybe they want to replace their readership with women but I am not sure that makes any sense.

I said it before--the way Hollywood works is if it was an Italian restaurant that for decades catered to fanciers of Italian cuisine-and then gradually decided to change their recipes to include Taiwanese versions and Austrian seasonings and eventually it is no longer Italian at all. But it isn't authentically Taiwanese or Austrian either--it is more like a hodge-podge menu.
And there are no other Italian restaurants in town because buy outs and mergers and financial interests decreed authentic Italian cuisine discriminates against marginalized culinary communities so you end up with no Italian cuisine being served and chefs who specialize in it are out of luck.
And this has nothing to do with popularity or merit.
Is this a winning situation?
This is what western film culture is now.
And further proof is how many times someone says, "oh that isn't true about film--I saw a wonderful film from Korea the other day."

That reinforces my point.

 

[KGeo777]

I refuse to get further into any conversation that equates/conflates being gay with paedophilia -

Yeah but you did that automatically.
I said Victor Salva was a convicted sex offender.
But the fact remains that Disney knew that when they hired him and yet were not worried about risk or image or box office consequences. Likewise with James Gunn's social media posts.
So the argument that this is all about popularity and money is ludicrous unless most parents are in fact not so sensitive about this anymore. I think that is very dubious position to take. I wouldn't try bringing it up in a room full of parents.
And the Disney executive in charge of children's programming said she wanted to promote LGBT etc in the content she produces. She said it so, again, if we are talking about marginalized groups and popularity, is this really being fueled by audience reception? Or is it mostly political agenda from the top? And if it is not fueled by audience reception, do those at the top care?
I don't think so.

 

[JunkMonkey]

You mean Hollywood Accounting maths?
You cannot take anything they say on financial matters as honest. They lie.

You say it is about calculating popularity but are you serious that when they put a biological male on the cover of a women's swimsuit magazine--that that is all about making money and popularity and not dictated by politics?

Money talks right? Most of the readers are presumably male heterosexuals. So if they do that, they are risking less sales that month.
Unless you have a convincing argument on how that will guarantee a big boost in sales. Maybe they want to replace their readership with women but I am not sure that makes any sense.

I said it before--the way Hollywood works is if it was an Italian restaurant that for decades catered to fanciers of Italian cuisine-and then gradually decided to change their recipes to include Taiwanese versions and Austrian seasonings and eventually it is no longer Italian at all. But it isn't authentically Taiwanese or Austrian either--it is more like a hodge-podge menu.
And there are no other Italian restaurants in town because buy outs and mergers and financial interests decreed authentic Italian cuisine discriminates against marginalized culinary communities so you end up with no Italian cuisine being served and chefs who specialize in it are out of luck.
And this has nothing to do with popularity or merit.
Is this a winning situation?
This is what western film culture is now.
And further proof is how many times someone says, "oh that isn't true about film--I saw a wonderful film from Korea the other day."

That reinforces my point.

Okay. Taking up your Italian restaurant analogy which you have used before and is a really rubbish one. First up there is no such thing as an authentic Italian Pizza just as there was no such thing as an authentic American movie. Moving films were invented by a Frenchman living in Leeds in England and most of the technicians, directors, actors, producers and studio bosses of the early Hollywood days were Europeans. Europeans who were making brilliant films while Edison was still trying to work out how to take the lenscap off his stolen camera* but legged it to the safety of California when the situation in Europe got dangerous for left-wingers, intellectuals, Jews, and artists - in any combination.

They, both Pizzas and movies, have evolved away from their origins into what has become accepted to be an American norm. I notice by the way that you seem to regard American films as the sole representatives of Western film culture. (I wouldn't like to try saying that to an audience at a film festival in Cannes, or Venice, or Berlin, or London.) They're not.

For another thing you have it wrong. Hollywood is not a single Italian restaurant. Never has been. To follow your analogy Hollywood is really a global pizza manufacturing company. With a worldwide distribution network and thousands of employees and collateral deals with other worldwide pizza manufacturers. It has noticed recently that Margherita pizzas aren't selling as well as they used to. So they tried making them bigger. But they don't sell any better. So they started making different kinds of pizzas AS WELL! . They're still churning out Margheritas but making other new flavour stuff too. They try new recipes, add pineapple (for which they shall go to hell) and find that pizzas with pineapple sell and then they add ham but find they can't sell the pineapple and ham based pizzas in Muslim countries but realise could sell them if they added a different ham-like but not pork-based ingredient instead... and they can now sell the same pizzas all across the world. AND MAKE sh*tloads OF MONEY. Meanwhile Francis Ford Coppola is still making his pizzas in San Francisco they way he has always done. What IS the problem with that? I really don't see what you are getting upset about other than things change and everything isn't EXACTLY they way they have always been.

In this analogy

I myself did not notice it until I stopped watching newer things

is the same as saying, "I stopped buying Margheritas". If you're not going to buy pizzas just leave the restaurant and let us who enjoy new and interesting food combos enjoy the feast. Stop moaning.



*slight exaggeration but for the first decades of the history of film, European film making was far ahead of American.

 

[KGeo777]

Okay. Taking up your Italian restaurant analogy which you have used before and is a really rubbish one. First up there is no such thing as an authentic Italian Pizza just as there was no such thing as an authentic American movie.

I knew you are going to say that--I was going to add a qualification that "authentic Italian pizza" is what they were peddling-someone from Italy may challenge that--the point remains--they had an original consumer who went to that restaurant--and over time they stopped catering to them--worse--they removed all alternative restaurants so there were no other ones serving that "Italian" cuisine.
That is what the Majors did.
They worked together--Disney was not considered one of them because he was actually from America. He just happened to become the most famous filmmaker out of Hollywood (why? probably because he found his audience and they liked what he did).
The closest name might be Hitchcock but he was imported. He wasn't making films for England anymore--he was working for Hollywood to make a global product (although aimed at the West).

That is what Big Hollywood did. It peddled its version of "American" film, and then over time removed all alternative companies.
So now the situation is that you have a few big companies and a few tiny ones that follow the same thematic template--and no one else can enter it.

The restaurant analogy still works--how can you run a business where you cater to a specific customer and then later on just stop serving them? Or adding bleach to the recipes?

Where's the capitalist free market filling in the gap?

We know why that didn't appear in Russia because the government and cultural business were one in the same.

You are just evading the fact that European artists are sidelined now.
Is that something to celebrate?

When Brian Cox, Ian McKellan and others said that UK students from working class backgrounds were being sidelined for theater schooling is that good news? Is that healthy for the cultural stream?

It should be easy to answer.
It's either leaning good or it isn't.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I give up.

I really can't follow (or predict) your shifting goalposts and you don't seem to take onboard the very the very simple connection between you stopping watching new things (because you don't like them) and lots of other people going to watch new things (because they do). They are all, obviously, mindless sheep with no critical faculties, whereas you have seen through the huge fraud being perpetrated on western civilisation by the lizard people.

Fine.

I'm off to eat a guinea pig.