IntenseDebate - Indipark

14 years ago @ Breitbart.com - And the Oscar winner i... · 1 reply · +5 points

Wow- winning an Oscar is a basic human right? - Incredible! I never would've known.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - 'The Woman in Black' R... · 0 replies · +1 points

I missed part of the movie as I had to run out to the bathroom so maybe this question was answered-

(spoiler alert)

- why didn't the townspeople just move, or send their children to live with friends or relatives in another town? Was that explained?

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Daily Call Sheet: Why ... · 0 replies · +3 points

Denzel Washington- to the best of my knowledge-has never caused any public controversy. The only thing I remember hearing was a remark made by a friend who was working crew on a film he was in a number of years back. One actress was throwing a prima donna fit and refused to come out of her trailer or was causing some other problems on the set ( I'm sorry as I've lost touch with the friend I don't remember who the actress was- Does anyone else no anything about it? ) Anyway-long story short- he starts screaming something like : " This movie is not about no homey white b*tch! And until it says starring a homey white b*tch get your skinny white *ss out here!"

There's a double standard about reporting comments like that (imagine if Mel Gibson had said that subbing white for black of course ) and it didn't make the papers. From what my friend told me the actress was being very difficult- so call her down for that - but did he have to make it into a race issue? Ugh. Not cool.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Your Obama Apologist o... · 1 reply · +3 points

But when dealing with UK actors, though fewer of them might set out to be "stars" I find that many view themselves as "superior" simply on the basis of having been born in the UK or gone to a UK Drama School ( and many of them drop out after the first semester.) So it becomes 6 in one, half a dozen in the other
In the end, I think we should stop being so generous to these people. Where would they be without the America they bash so much?
We have our own actors. Past time to give them the work IMHO.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Your Obama Apologist o... · 0 replies · +2 points

Thanks for responding. I think you are very right in saying that it "all comes down to how people approach acing and the culture that surrounds it."
I do find that many American actors- though of course not all- do have trouble with the "playing pretend" part and take themselves way too seriously and don't have a sense of humor about themselves (the Hollywood reaction to Ricky Grevais hosting the Golden Globes last year is a good example of this) I do find UK actors have more of a sense of humor about themseves-though there are of course exceptions. But IMHO I think this is a cultural issue, and not a question of talent or training.
.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Your Obama Apologist o... · 0 replies · +2 points

I didn't know that about her name her daughter after a communist. That's very interesting.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Your Obama Apologist o... · 4 replies · +3 points

I'm not going to disagree with you there. But ( I presume he's talking about the interview on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 2?) Radcliffe did make a comment that was something like "America does not produce good actors" which is complete BULL. The problem isn't quality of actors, it's Hollywood's Union politics that keeps good actors from being seen for parts.

14 years ago @ Big Government - Mitch Daniels Responds... · 0 replies · +2 points

Well, wasn't it back in 1992 that it was pointed out to Perot that in order to save $20 billion a year social security benefits would have to be cut off for people who make at least $56,000 a year? I'm sure the situtation hasn't gotten any better.

14 years ago @ Breitbart.com - Ga. judge orders presi... · 0 replies · +1 points

Very good point!

14 years ago @ Breitbart.com - Romney paid $3M in fed... · 0 replies · +2 points

I don't know- what's interesting is that so much of the wealth of Mitt Romney-like the wealth of most rich people-actually doesn't even exist. His wealth is in stock value, home values, property values, etc. And that can only become real money if someone-or some company-is willing to buy it. That's why the income of the rich can go up and down so much over the years.

So does the left feel that the ever increasing federal government which - to the best of my knowledge- has the largest debt in recorded history, rely more and more on the non existent money of less than 1% of the US population for it's funding?

And how far would the actual physical cash of the rich go in terms of helping the government fund it's programs and pay of it's debt?

And wouldn't increasing taxes only make the situation of over the top government spending worse?

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Indipark

People I'm following

Indipark