Hollywood makes movies that conform with its white-collar, liberal backer's sentiments - not the American people. However, landed New-England-monied hands are not about to stop funding something that flatters their idiotic preconceptions, so the original article totally missed the point. Hollywood operates in an intellectual and social vacuum - it isn't on the verge of "dying" any time soon, because it still flatters a particular wealthy segment of the population's viewpoint.
The same thing used to be true with the media in general, until people like Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black decided to step and use their hard-earned cash to force some balance on the population. Until people like Mel Gibson - willing and able to challenge the Hollywood establishment on it own terms - become more numerous, Hollywood will plow forward with its gay cowboys.
Until then, I stand by my designation as "empty-headed, shrill whining".
That's a very good point...but unfortunately everyone is too busy posting pictures of kittens to notice.
"Until then, I stand by my designation as "empty-headed, shrill whining".
___________________________________
I didn't actually see anyone designate you as such, but it is a good self observation on your part.
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?
Well, you certainly have lived up to your designation.
What is the difference between your post and her article? She got published. You only posted.