[Nonstatist]

Well, that was a reasonable response, but I dont see her posted opinions as being mere "whining".

Hollywood can " flatter a particular wealthy segment of the population's viewpoint" without ignoring the vast majority of it's market, which is what its doing.

Where are the movies it made a mere 10 years ago, like The 12 monkeys, or Groundhog Day, and so on. You got your teenage movies,you got your gay, effete liberal movies, and a few segmented others but almost nothing that even has the whiff of "patriarchal" normalcy? Are you telling me she doesnt have a point at all?

[Haemo]

Where are the movies it made a mere 10 years ago, like The 12 monkeys, or Groundhog Day, and so on. You got your teenage movies,you got your gay, effete liberal movies, and a few segmented others but almost nothing that even has the whiff of "patriarchal" normalcy? Are you telling me she doesnt have a point at all? In any good screed there's always a kernel of truth - it's what makes it's so hard to just totally write off. In this case, she's spot on about Hollywood's output becoming less and less palatable to the American consumer.

However, she then proceeds to lambaste them for trying to "sell Americans white-liberal guilt", and call them "dinosaurs" for not becoming more conservative - and thus increasing circulation. However, as I have repeatedly argued, that's not a reaction you're ever going to see out of the Hollywood establishment.

It exists to do exactly what she's lamenting - sell films at odds with the majority of America. It's funded by people who are at odds with the majority of America and relfects its backers, not its consumers. It's classical economic at its best.