Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by BADWOLF on January 10, 2009 at 10:21pm

i loved this movie

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Yellowtimer on January 11, 2009 at 1:41am

I think a lot our entertainment is lacking. For example, when was the last time you went to the movie theater and came out saying "wow! That was amazing! What a deep movie." I think Hollywood tends to dumb us down by under stimulating us.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BB on January 11, 2009 at 5:18am

When they are pandering to the lowest common denominator, that is not all that surprising. Those companies make money by producing movies that appeal to a majority. People don't generally go to the movies for stimulation, they go for entertainment. Education and titillation make for rough bedfellows.

I agree though. Our entertainment is lacking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LeaT on January 11, 2009 at 5:46am

That's why I never go to the movie theater <.< But seriously, I am very selective in what I choose to see, just simply because as you said, there is probably less than 1 in every 100 movie that is actually worth seeing. Not very surprisingly, the movies that ARE deep often only fare well at the box office. Think of movies like Fight Club (think of the messages, the meaning of "that condo was ME!" for instance), Donnie Darko... There are a lot of good movies out there, unfortunately, those are never the ones that truly sell well. And I must add, I absolutely hate pseudosmart movies! One example is the Butterfly Effect, a movie which had such great potential but was completely thrown out through the window because of inane acting from Kutcher and an even more inane script.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BADWOLF on January 13, 2009 at 5:42am

lol donnie darko was good but i the ending oh man that one was hard to work out i had to look it up on the internet to work out which of my seven theories was correct and that after i watched the ending 5 times

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LeaT on January 13, 2009 at 6:41am

Watch the director's cut, it makes so much more sense. The normal version has all the important scenes that actually explains what is going on cut off for a reason I don't understand.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by damian on January 11, 2009 at 6:24am

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Father Nature on January 12, 2009 at 10:52am

If you want to add 10 points to your IQ AND have more time to reproduce, then get rid of your TV.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LeaT on January 12, 2009 at 1:35pm

Actually, your tv can be a great way of education if you like viewing documentaries and such a lot like I do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BB on January 12, 2009 at 2:10pm

It is a tool! It can be used in many different ways. Television does tend to be used for purposes that are not engaging and enlightening though :P

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LeaT on January 12, 2009 at 2:45pm

Aye, agreed, I also got a preference for using my tv for video gaming but hey, video gaming is said to improve certain brain activities as well, so (and a video game can contain a lot of logical puzzles to solve).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sarah on January 12, 2009 at 5:49pm

This is what I think started it.

Addressing a meeting of the New York City High School Teachers Association in 1909, Woodrow Wilson, then president of Princeton University, set forth the requirements of America's newborn industrial civilization. "We want one class of persons to have a liberal education," he said, "and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific manual tasks." John Dewey in 1916 defined democracy as "primarily a mode of associated living," and the schoolmasters of his generation cut the cloth of their teaching to the "needs and opportunities" of the prospective members of the national economic team, prepared to understand that what was great about America was the greatness of its gross domestic product, not the greatness of its love of liberty.

• ▶ Reply