1 line
1.8 KiB
Plaintext
1 line
1.8 KiB
Plaintext
Osmosis, I don't care whether you liked the film or not. That's a personal choice. Personally, I thought it was great. 'Fraudulently obtained' taxpayer money? Fraudulently obtained obviously because you didn't like it. It didn't fit into your box. Does a film that you like that I don't (that has been funded by Government Filmcorps) also fall into the 'fraudulently obtained' category. I'm guessing not. I've always been amazed at this line of thought. Money wasted you say. I'm quite happy to let Government bodies fund crap films until the cows come home. As long as about one in ten is a classic. Which usually happens. Good public money spent! And what is a quasi-plagiarist rip-off? You're either a plagiarist or you're not (no quasi about it) and plagiarist rip-off is the oxymoron of all oxymorons. And I've got to add: "Obviously the American Film Industry has been totally conned into believing our mainstream people have talent which explains the constant stream of ever worsening quality of films these days." That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Do you mean the American Film Industry has taken all our talent so now there's no-one left and as a result our films are crap or do you mean that Americans are making our films huge box-office hits, through their naivety (being conned), and so we keep making the films you don't like. The latter premise is nonsense because our films don't make big Hollywood money whilst the first premise is self-evident by your logic. As Tarantino had Michael Madsen say 'I'm betting you're a big Lee Marvin fan'. I'm betting you're a big Crocodile Dundee fan. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I have it myself. But there's different ways to watch different films. I hate Elton John's music but I can understand why people like it. You obviously have an oligarchical problem with some film board. Script rejected? |