Adam@Home by Rob Harrell for March 04, 2010

Uh, Adam? Hollywood lost it’s ‘integrity’ when it started showing full frontal male nudity in PG14/M movies.

But nobody’s ever complained about female nudity Leprechaun We all started losing our integrity a long time ago. Sad

It’s what…………………………?!

Once again, impossible lettering. I’d really like to be able to read this strip. I have a feeling that the words actually have something to do with the humor.

hollywood had integrity ?

maybe back in the 40’s & 50’s

Hollywood never had integrity. Look what it consists of. If you know your history, In the 40’s and 50’s it was communists who “blacklisted” (yes it’s a real thing) anyone not on board with their communism. You couldn’t work if you weren’t one of them. Today it’s still the same bunch, as you can tell from their constant, politically, outspoken, spectacles. They still “blacklist”, and deny it. Every TV show you watch is full of their agenda. Every movie you see funds their intentional destruction of America, because they donate millions of dollars to their cause. They (Johnny Depp is one) wear Che medallions and tee shirts, and they don’t even know that Che would never have allowed them their careers, let alone their wealth from it.

Before you flag my comment, because you like to flag anything I have to say, look it up. What I said is well known, and true, and shouldn’t be flagged just for your amusement.

I’m not going to flag you, mrslukeskywalker, because what you wrote should be preserved as a testament to just how wrong you are.

The “black listing” wasn’t done by communists to keep out others, it was done to rid Hollywood of communists. In the 1940’s through to the 1960’s, government pressure was put on the studios to identify anyone who had ever been a member of, been associated with a member of, or ever attended a meeting of the Communist Party, or any group associated with the Communist Party, or any group associated with any member of the Communist Party, or who had ever associated with a member of any group associated with a member of the Communist Party. Considering that membership in the Communist Party is not now and has never been illegal, naturally this raised some eyebrows. People were asked to name names; some did, some refused. Those who were named were likewise asked to name names; some did, some refused. If you named names, or were named yourself and then named others, you were pronounced “rehabilitated” and allowed to work. If not, you’d find yourself unemployed and unemployable. That is what the “Hollywood Blacklist” was.

Look it up. What I said is well known, and true.

“Hollywood” as a mass entity lacks integrity to the extent that it really doesn’t care about anything other than making money. Nobody ever stopped John Wayne, Walt Disney, or Charlton Heston from working because of their conservative politics. If “value-based” movies and TV shows make the studios money, that’s what they’ll turn out. If, however, sex and rebellion sells tickets and advertizing spots, that’s what they’re happy to give you.

Hollywood lost integrity when it decided to pander to people who like any kind of nudity, shootem ups, blood, gore and foul language. There are not a lot of movies out there that have any of the good old fashion values. And when those movies do show up the critics are merciless in their criticism of them. I stopped reading movie reviews after they criticized a movie farce on gangsters in the 1920s. I never got to see the movie for myself because it was yanked from the theaters soon after that review. When the vhs came out, I rented it to watch it and my whole family were rolling on the floor laughing. It was the best movie I had ever seen in a long time at that point. But because of the review I never saw it on the big screen. It wasn’t a shootem up, didn’t have nudity, blood, gore or foul language. So as far as I’m concerned, I don’t base my wanting to see a movie on a critic’s comments. If I like the previews, I’ll go see the movie. Otherwise I’ll pass. Hollywood needs to get a clue.

Theaters don’t yank movies because of bad reviews; many a movie has gotten horrible reviews and made hundreds of millions of dollars. Theaters yank movies because not enough people buy tickets. The low ticket sales may be partially the result of bad reviews, but again most people trust word-of-mouth more than critics.

If the kind of movies you like aren’t getting made, or get bad reviews, or don’t stay in the theaters long enough, have you considered the possibility that simply not enough people like the same movies you like?

By the way, the cynical thing about expanding the Best Picture nominations to 10 films rather than 5 isn’t that it’s a marketing ploy to let more pictures be known as “Nominated for Best Picture”; I actually support that, in that it draws attention to smaller, worthy films which otherwise would escape notice. “An Education” and “The Hurt Locker” had both finished their original theatrical runs, and were both considered successes compared to their budgets, but both have been re-released following their nominations. Both will reach audiences which would never have heard of them if they hadn’t been nominated. On the other hand, there are probably very few people who hadn’t already seen “Avatar” who changed their minds and saw it after it was nominated.

The cynical thing about expanding the field is that it was done primarily to increase the audience of the Awards broadcast. Audiences tune into the show in greater numbers when high-profile blockbusters like “Avatar” or “The Blind Side” are up for Best Picture, and the hope, when the nomination rules were changed, was that 10 nods rather than 5 would broaden the field from the usual “Oscar-bait” prestige pictures. “The Blind Side” was a popular movie, and I liked it myself, but there’s no way in hell I would have considered it one of the best movies of the year. That’s another one that in no way needed the addition of “Nominated for Best Picture” to sell more than a smattering of extra tickets.

May-be Clint Eastwood should have stayed unknown.

after that wrestling scene in ”borat”, i have to say full frontal male nudity is hilariousness!!!

also when he showed that picture of him and his son.

Furienna, individuals within Hollywood fall mostly on the left side of the spectrum, but that’s hardly surprising because for 400 years show business has been condemned as inherently immoral by the Conservatives. It has long provided a haven for homosexuals, atheists, vagabonds, Jews, dreamers (and dream-sellers), and all sorts of other misfits that have been considered “less than respectable” (and often “threats to public morality”) by Church and State. If actors, writers, and directors give an imbalanced proportion of money and support to Liberal causes and candidates, it’s partly because the Liberals have never tried to run them out of Dodge.

But as a collective, “Hollywood” is about as “left wing” as a beer commercial. “Find out what the audience wants, and give it to ‘em.”

The United States, for better or worse, is one of the few developed countries that doesn’t subsidize its national film industry. The Swedish government, for instance, supports Svenska Filminstitutet, to finance and promote Swedish film. In the same sense that American television has to convince advertizers that people are going to watch their shows, Hollywood doesn’t put money into movies that it thinks people aren’t going to go see. If they thought there was a market for Conservative-friendly entertainment, no studio would let anything as ethereal as a principle get in the way of making a buck off it.

FYI, “An American Carol” opened on over 1,600 screens nationwide on 10/5/08. Its weekend gross was less than $4,000,000. By 10/26 it was down to 109 screens, and that weekend’s gross was $60,000. Its total box office take was just over $7 million, on a $12 million estimated budget. And yet Kelsey Grammer, Dennis Hopper, and Jon Voight are still working, while still complaining.

And again, attending Communist Party meetings, or even being a MEMBER of the Communist Party, has never been illegal. It was quite fashionable, in the 1930’s. The House Un-American Activities Committee didn’t limit their witch-hunt to current, or active, or dues-paying members, much less anyone who was ever accused of engaging in actual subversion. It was a guilt-by-association Ponzi scheme, where, once suspected of disloyalty, the only way to keep your job was to give the HUAC other names to chase down.