Letters to the Editor
Tideswimmer
Published Letters: 383 Editor's Choice: 47
-
@christiaonjb
[Read the article: The paranoid withdrawal fantasy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm no expert, but what used to work in all the bad sci-fi shows I grew up with is to "reverse the polarity." You could try that. It's really powerful. Say a planet has exploded or something, you reverse the polarity, and bang! The planet is back again!
Or say our environment goes into total collapse and forests become deserts and coastal areas become swamps and human populations are forced to relocate by the millions, and economies fail and existing infrastructures aren't worth shit anymore -- Well, IF that happens, we can always just reverse polarity. But until that time, I say there's no reason to worry at all.
Anyway, try reversing polarity on your sub-atomic quantum thingies.
-
Hmmph!
[Read the article: Tom the Dancing Bug]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So predictable. Just another librul anti-capitalist rant. To paraphrase a senator at the Blackwater hearings "You're here today because some people can't stand the idea that you're making a profit."
Look: When one group of people wears brown loincloths and another group wears yellow loincloths, war is just going to be an inevitable fact of life. Might as well cash in.
-
It's a crazy business - male or female
[Read the article: Chicks behind the flicks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The discussion the women had illustrates, to me, the problem with the film industry as a whole: If it doesn't open wide the first weekend, it's worthless. And if the female director can't helm a big-budget picture, she's not really in the industry.
But the industry is eating itself. It is designed solely to vacuum as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time from the pockets of young kids. That's its only purpose.
There should be tiers to distribution, and there are none, now. Not really. What's wrong with a modestly budgeted picture designed to reap modest profit? Such a film also has the benefit of being able to become a sleeper hit. I know the audience is there and hungry for such a film. I have a friend who runs an independent theater. I've sat many times and watched his customers file in, and I'd say that 75 percent of them are women. Another theater owner friend did very well recently with "Waitress." Women do like movies, but they do not always like the boom crashers. Nor do I think that most female directors are interested in making the boom crashers. Hollywood is missing out on a fantastic opportunity.
One last point. The odds of anyone - male or female - becoming a top-tier director in Hollywood are very very low. I tried it myself for a few years - film school, the endless hustle and jumping - until it stopped being any kind of fun. My friends still remaining in the business long ago got comfortable with the idea that it might not be the career they dreamed of, but there are many jobs available and you can make a living at that level, and probably have more fun with it than at other jobs.
Oh, one final last point - Nora Ephron is truly a terrible director. If I ever wrote a script and she got the directing nod, I would burn the set to the ground like Gary Cooper burned his building in "The Fountainhead." Just kidding, of course; someone might get hurt that way, but I would definitely have it as a clause in the contract or something. The "No Nora" clause; and sexism would have nothing to do with it.
-
King Corn
[Read the article: Beyond the Multiplex]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just viewed a screener copy of this documentary and want to second what you wrote about it. It is obvious, I think, that most Americans haven't got the slightest clue about what they are eating and where it comes from. The beauty of the documentary is that there is almost no preachiness to it. It merely shows you the food chain.
I especially appreciated the respectful attitude toward Earl Butz, the man who, you might say, made a nation turn fat. They just show up dressed in nice suits and let him explain his side of the story.
The bottom line is Americans want cheap food, first and foremost. When all other considerations come a distant second, what really is the solution?