From: your.name@isp.com   
      
   "catpandaddy"  wrote in message   
   news:he4ldh$3p1$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
   >   
   > "Your Name"  wrote in message   
   > news:he47ll$prl$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...   
   > >   
   > > "Mike Hall"  wrote in message   
   > >   
   news:00a1075d-16d4-42d0-8bb6-a66e0692b488@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...   
   > >> On 17 Nov, 19:52, "Your Name"  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> > It aint "tough" at all. It's extremely easy. There's virtually zero   
   > > talent   
   > >> > or creativity in Hollyweird these days.   
   > >>   
   > >> Why do people think that the situation was ever different?  80% of all   
   > >> films ever released to the mass audience stank to high heaven!   
   > >> Another 19% had artistic merit but probably did not interest you   
   > >> personally for various reasons (too girly, too manly etc.).  Only   
   > >> about 1 or 2 films every year make me feel that I did not waste   
   > >> valuable lifetime watching it.  From what I have read the situation   
   > >> has never been different.  For years the studios were making money   
   > >> from "actors" making funny faces in silent movies!  Those who have an   
   > >> interest in keeping the myth alive call this a Golden Era in movie-   
   > >> making!   
   > >   
   > > All true, but these days there's also very little actual creativity in   
   > > Hollyweird. Most of them simply clone someone else's good idea and / or   
   > > "remake" someone else's hard work into something barely recognisable   
   while   
   > > still re-using the same old name.   
   >   
   > You almost over that yet?  Time to move on perhaps?   
      
   As soon as Hollyweird stops butchering other people's work, which judging by   
   the release schedule won't be any time soon.  :-(   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)