I am somewhat amazed they still have writers in Hollywood. Sure fooled me considering that writing is restricted to corporate brand stenography.
Very different from the days of Sterling Silliphant and Richard Matheson.
Hollywood really is like Soviet-era cinema where talented people were passed over because populism was considered decadent and the last thing they wanted was to have ethnic Russian artists making cultural content aimed at ethnic Russians. It had to be a one-size fits all approach and cultural identity was bad. You are a comrade, not a person.
A Pixar executive explained one time that Hollywood sees film like a cookie--and instead of making cookies that appeal to different tastes--they try to make one that has a little something for everyone but never satisfies anyone. However, that assumes that Hollywood sincerely wants to entertain or inform people and that absolutely is utter nonsense based on present reality. No one says anymore that the reason movies are so poorly-made is because that is what the people want. Why do they put men on swimsuit magazine covers? That's not about commerce or selling.
There's an agenda which is anti-populist and extremely culturally antagonistic and atavistic. It's anti-intellectual to a fascinating degree--it is like an organism breaking down into a mass of cellular mush.
It is interesting that China is letting in Hollywood films--I suspect it is to "educate" the Chinese citizens on the fruits of multiculturalism. Softening them up via Black Panther etc.
I'm from Canada and all the stuff happening now with Hollywood started in Canada--it was an incubator. 30 years ago people were saying why were Canadian movies so bad--well--it was partly because Canada, like the Soviet Union, restricted cultural production to bureaucrat-controlled apparatchiks. One of Canada's Eisensteins was Atom Egoyan. Your average Canadian has never seen an Egoyan film.
And yet the Canadian press called him the greatest Canadian filmmaker in the 1990s.
How many Russians can name Soviet-era filmmakers?
Probably not many because the films didn't speak to them.
Hollywood started with some kind of American or at least European heritage influence but over time-as mergers happened and the changing of the guard, it became more and more alien. It rejects the European or any distinct cultural identity. Who is the audience for this stuff?
Hollywood is like a car manufacturer that has come to hate tires. The tire is the traditional European heritage cultural factor--and now they are saying: we can make cars without tires.
Okay. We'll see how that works out when the car heads out of the showroom.
Very different from the days of Sterling Silliphant and Richard Matheson.
Hollywood really is like Soviet-era cinema where talented people were passed over because populism was considered decadent and the last thing they wanted was to have ethnic Russian artists making cultural content aimed at ethnic Russians. It had to be a one-size fits all approach and cultural identity was bad. You are a comrade, not a person.
A Pixar executive explained one time that Hollywood sees film like a cookie--and instead of making cookies that appeal to different tastes--they try to make one that has a little something for everyone but never satisfies anyone. However, that assumes that Hollywood sincerely wants to entertain or inform people and that absolutely is utter nonsense based on present reality. No one says anymore that the reason movies are so poorly-made is because that is what the people want. Why do they put men on swimsuit magazine covers? That's not about commerce or selling.
There's an agenda which is anti-populist and extremely culturally antagonistic and atavistic. It's anti-intellectual to a fascinating degree--it is like an organism breaking down into a mass of cellular mush.
It is interesting that China is letting in Hollywood films--I suspect it is to "educate" the Chinese citizens on the fruits of multiculturalism. Softening them up via Black Panther etc.
I'm from Canada and all the stuff happening now with Hollywood started in Canada--it was an incubator. 30 years ago people were saying why were Canadian movies so bad--well--it was partly because Canada, like the Soviet Union, restricted cultural production to bureaucrat-controlled apparatchiks. One of Canada's Eisensteins was Atom Egoyan. Your average Canadian has never seen an Egoyan film.
And yet the Canadian press called him the greatest Canadian filmmaker in the 1990s.
How many Russians can name Soviet-era filmmakers?
Probably not many because the films didn't speak to them.
Hollywood started with some kind of American or at least European heritage influence but over time-as mergers happened and the changing of the guard, it became more and more alien. It rejects the European or any distinct cultural identity. Who is the audience for this stuff?
Hollywood is like a car manufacturer that has come to hate tires. The tire is the traditional European heritage cultural factor--and now they are saying: we can make cars without tires.
Okay. We'll see how that works out when the car heads out of the showroom.
