"Every now and then the two graph lines meet, so to speak"

Yeah, like in Star Wars.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message .

"If we judge the success of the Oscars by the number of people who
watch them, then we're as guilty as Hollywood studios who judge the
success of movies by how many people see them," he said."

Um...excuse me, but I thought the whole idea of making a movie is to
entertain the maximum number of people possible in order to make the
maximum amount of money or, as we capitalists put is, ROI.

Honest to pete - these people can't be that stupid - or can they?

Its not stupidity, its merely the nature of the business. I'd guess
about 85% of moviemakers are in it for entertainment and profit. The rest
are driven by the art. Every now and then the two graph lines meet, so to
speak. I think most of the actors would prefer to engage in truly high
quality filmmaking, but have to do the blockbusters so they can afford to
be involved in the money-losers. I can't recall the exact quote, but I
think it was Henry Fonda who said 'You have to make the "_________" so you
can afford to do the "Twelve Angry Men".

Of course, there's also the contingent that use their money and fame to
advance whatever p.c. social or political causes happen to hold their
interest. For example, its essential these days to pander to gay and/or
minority issues in movies and tv shows. If you arrived today from another
planet and just watched American TV and movies, you'd conclude, among
other things, that the population is about 20% gay and about 35% black,
when in reality it is only about 4% and 13% respectively. You might also
conclude that there are whacked out Christian fanatic/ white supremicists
in every small town in the country, whereas there are probably only a few
thousand total, hiding in the woods in Idaho drinking beer and bitching
about the gummint. Such is the nature of the power of PC money.