I like how you try to color the issue at hand by clouding my response in a way that you think makes what you said something less than an all out personal attack. My response clearly laid out where I thought you were out of line, and yet you either glossed over it or don't have the ability to understand it. However, you pretty much regurgitated your complete b.s. on the matter when you continued on with the following:
Again, you seem to be asserting that getting a "job" (yes, job, a.k.a. a business.) making feature films is so incredibly easy that anyone can do it, anyone can pay their rent, their bills, ect. and that since I'm apparently slumming it out in the corporate world, the reason for that is, apparently to your mind, that I simply have no creativity in my body, no artistic sense whatsoever. Of course, what you fail to realize is that I do have narrative work on my Vimeo page...guess it's much easier to slam me personally instead of doing the research needed to ensure that you're not simply talking out of your ass? I mean, just the idea alone that making a living working in filmmaking is so incredibly easy that anyone who has any creative bent at all can do it is so appallingly dense that I can't fathom how someone with your experience can sit there and type it out with a straight face.
Because the studio took control of his personal expression because, as I'm saying, film is primarily a business. The version we have of The Magnificent Ambersons is not Welles' artistic vision (where, as you pointed out Citizen Kane is) because the studio took control, as they can do when money is at stake (aka business).
Plus, the chances of anyone having any semblance of control over their own work with anything that is budgeted properly to pay the myriad of people who work on it what they are worth for their time and effort is very nil.
