| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"loose cannon" |
| Date: |
17 Jun 2005 11:01:37 PM |
| Object: |
New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5578
New Honeymooners The Wrong Color
by Frederick B. Meekins
Fans of the antics of Ralph Kramden will be shocked to learn that
Cedric the Entertainer will portray the blowhard bus driver in the
upcoming theatrical remake.
Those priding themselves on wearing their racial tolerance and
sensitivity on their sleeve will claim it does not matter what color
the characters are.
Would they be so broadminded if they made a White version of Sanford
and Son or a Korean cast as a new Cliff Huxtable?
If the producers weren't out to make some kind of racial statement,
wouldn't they have cast actors more in accord with the appearances of
the originals filling these roles thus keeping the parts White since
--- like it or not --- racial background determines a great deal of
appearance?
Critics disparaging America's cultural heritage of which "The
Honeymooners" played an important role as an early successful
television comedy will muse that, in order to gain the attention of the
hip urban youth of today (in other words, the vulgarians occupying our
cities), we must alter the original to comply with these new diverse
sensibilities.
But if that happens to be the case and minorities will only watch
minorities, why should White Americans waste a single penny on this
cinematic drivel?
.
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
18 Jun 2005 12:44:15 AM |
|
|
One again you prove you are a racist, and hate Blacks, as well as Jews,
Homosexuals, Women, Asians, the whole lot that doesn't conform to your
WHITE AMERICAN CATHOLIC WORLD.
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119067297.338009.306590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5578
:
:
: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color
:
: by Frederick B. Meekins
:
:
: Fans of the antics of Ralph Kramden will be shocked to learn that
: Cedric the Entertainer will portray the blowhard bus driver in the
: upcoming theatrical remake.
:
: Those priding themselves on wearing their racial tolerance and
: sensitivity on their sleeve will claim it does not matter what color
: the characters are.
:
: Would they be so broadminded if they made a White version of Sanford
: and Son or a Korean cast as a new Cliff Huxtable?
:
: If the producers weren't out to make some kind of racial statement,
: wouldn't they have cast actors more in accord with the appearances of
: the originals filling these roles thus keeping the parts White since
: --- like it or not --- racial background determines a great deal of
: appearance?
:
: Critics disparaging America's cultural heritage of which "The
: Honeymooners" played an important role as an early successful
: television comedy will muse that, in order to gain the attention of
the
: hip urban youth of today (in other words, the vulgarians occupying our
: cities), we must alter the original to comply with these new diverse
: sensibilities.
:
: But if that happens to be the case and minorities will only watch
: minorities, why should White Americans waste a single penny on this
: cinematic drivel?
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "loose cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
18 Jun 2005 02:33:42 PM |
|
|
=F8=E9=F2=E9=EF =E1=F8=FA=E5=EF=FD/Riain Barton wrote:
One again you prove you are a racist, and hate Blacks, as well as Jews,
Homosexuals, Women, Asians, the whole lot that doesn't conform to your
WHITE AMERICAN CATHOLIC WORLD.
You are a freaking moron. I don't endorse that racist crap; I was
sharing an article I came upon. I published the author's name and a
verifiable link. I made no comments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
18 Jun 2005 08:47:48 PM |
|
|
THEN STOP FUCKING POSTING IT TO OUR JEWISH NEWSGROUP!!!
WE DO NOT WANT YOU HERE!
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119123222.434032.14390@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton wrote:
One again you prove you are a racist, and hate Blacks, as well as
Jews,
Homosexuals, Women, Asians, the whole lot that doesn't conform to your
WHITE AMERICAN CATHOLIC WORLD.
You are a freaking moron. I don't endorse that racist crap; I was
sharing an article I came upon. I published the author's name and a
verifiable link. I made no comments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
18 Jun 2005 09:57:55 PM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" wrote:
THEN STOP FUCKING POSTING IT TO OUR JEWISH NEWSGROUP!!!
WE DO NOT WANT YOU HERE!
What about your top posting?
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119123222.434032.14390@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton wrote:
One again you prove you are a racist, and hate Blacks, as well as
Jews,
Homosexuals, Women, Asians, the whole lot that doesn't conform to your
WHITE AMERICAN CATHOLIC WORLD.
You are a freaking moron. I don't endorse that racist crap; I was
sharing an article I came upon. I published the author's name and a
verifiable link. I made no comments.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
18 Jun 2005 11:46:22 PM |
|
|
What about your insistence on telling other people how they should
things? ''
Are you in training to become a dictator???
Is their an actual LAW that says top posting is wrong??
I suggest you come up to speed to 2005, things change, even on the
internet, go figure, Top-Posting is no longer considered WRONG by many
people!
Why? Because software has changed, many things have changed the way the
threads run have changed -- depends on what programme you run, plus
stupid idiots that would not trim the headers. etc. meaning you would
have to scroll down pages of fucking type just to read one fucking word
or a LOL.
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<antonchekhov@seagull.com.ru> wrote in message
news:42B4DF33.5C882468@seagull.com.ru...
:
:
: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" wrote:
: >
: > THEN STOP FUCKING POSTING IT TO OUR JEWISH NEWSGROUP!!!
: >
: > WE DO NOT WANT YOU HERE!
: >
: What about your top posting?
:
:
:
: > "loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
: > news:1119123222.434032.14390@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: >
: > ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton wrote:
: >
: > > One again you prove you are a racist, and hate Blacks, as well as
: > > Jews,
: > > Homosexuals, Women, Asians, the whole lot that doesn't conform to
your
: > > WHITE AMERICAN CATHOLIC WORLD.
: > >
: > >
: > >
: > >
: >
: > >
: >
: > You are a freaking moron. I don't endorse that racist crap; I was
: > sharing an article I came upon. I published the author's name and a
: > verifiable link. I made no comments.
:
: --
: "What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
: nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
: because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
: appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
: single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
: Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
: Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree,
a
: ***** got over the wall."
: -+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
19 Jun 2005 12:47:49 AM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" wrote:
What about your insistence on telling other people how they should
things? ''
Are you in training to become a dictator???
Is their an actual LAW that says top posting is wrong??
A law?
I suggest you come up to speed to 2005, things change, even on the
internet, go figure, Top-Posting is no longer considered WRONG by many
people!
It's not considered wrong by idiots, I agree with you on that much.
Why? Because software has changed, many things have changed the way the
threads run have changed -- depends on what programme you run, plus
stupid idiots that would not trim the headers. etc. meaning you would
have to scroll down pages of fucking type just to read one fucking word
or a LOL.
Why don't you try trimming the message? You can read what I just wrote
with context, I'll get a reply with everything far from its context.
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<antonchekhov@seagull.com.ru> wrote in message
news:42B4DF33.5C882468@seagull.com.ru...
:
:
: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" wrote:
: >
: > THEN STOP FUCKING POSTING IT TO OUR JEWISH NEWSGROUP!!!
: >
: > WE DO NOT WANT YOU HERE!
: >
: What about your top posting?
:
:
:
: > "loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
: > news:1119123222.434032.14390@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: >
: > ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton wrote:
: >
: > > One again you prove you are a racist, and hate Blacks, as well as
: > > Jews,
: > > Homosexuals, Women, Asians, the whole lot that doesn't conform to
your
: > > WHITE AMERICAN CATHOLIC WORLD.
: > >
: > >
: > >
: > >
: >
: > >
: >
: > You are a freaking moron. I don't endorse that racist crap; I was
: > sharing an article I came upon. I published the author's name and a
: > verifiable link. I made no comments.
:
: --
: "What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
: nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
: because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
: appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
: single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
: Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
: Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree,
a
: ***** got over the wall."
: -+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
19 Jun 2005 01:09:40 AM |
|
|
Why don't you suck my *****, you bottom-posting BULLY.
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<antonchekhov@seagull.com.ru> wrote in message
news:42B50705.53C44AFD@seagull.com.ru...
:
:
: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" wrote:
: >
: > What about your insistence on telling other people how they should
: > things? ''
: >
: > Are you in training to become a dictator???
: >
: > Is their an actual LAW that says top posting is wrong??
: >
: A law?
:
:
:
: > I suggest you come up to speed to 2005, things change, even on the
: > internet, go figure, Top-Posting is no longer considered WRONG by
many
: > people!
: >
: It's not considered wrong by idiots, I agree with you on that much.
:
:
: > Why? Because software has changed, many things have changed the way
the
: > threads run have changed -- depends on what programme you run, plus
: > stupid idiots that would not trim the headers. etc. meaning you
would
: > have to scroll down pages of fucking type just to read one fucking
word
: > or a LOL.
: >
: Why don't you try trimming the message? You can read what I just wrote
: with context, I'll get a reply with everything far from its context.
:
:
:
: > "Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
: > <antonchekhov@seagull.com.ru> wrote in message
: > news:42B4DF33.5C882468@seagull.com.ru...
: > :
: > :
: > : "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" wrote:
: > : >
: > : > THEN STOP FUCKING POSTING IT TO OUR JEWISH NEWSGROUP!!!
: > : >
: > : > WE DO NOT WANT YOU HERE!
: > : >
: > : What about your top posting?
: > :
: > :
: > :
: > : > "loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
: > : > news:1119123222.434032.14390@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: > : >
: > : > ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton wrote:
: > : >
: > : > > One again you prove you are a racist, and hate Blacks, as well
as
: > : > > Jews,
: > : > > Homosexuals, Women, Asians, the whole lot that doesn't conform
to
: > your
: > : > > WHITE AMERICAN CATHOLIC WORLD.
: > : > >
: > : > >
: > : > >
: > : > >
: > : >
: > : > >
: > : >
: > : > You are a freaking moron. I don't endorse that racist crap; I
was
: > : > sharing an article I came upon. I published the author's name
and a
: > : > verifiable link. I made no comments.
: > :
: > : --
: > : "What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's
their
: > : nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give
in
: > : because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of
my
: > : appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
: > : single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just
Norfolk?
: > : Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before
your
: > : Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your
pedigree,
: > a
: > : ***** got over the wall."
: > : -+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
:
: --
: "What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
: nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
: because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
: appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
: single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
: Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
: Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree,
a
: ***** got over the wall."
: -+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
19 Jun 2005 09:39:22 AM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
news:yS7te.108901$8S5.84158@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Why don't you suck my *****, you bottom-posting BULLY.
Riain, I don't want to start another war with you, but you are simply wrong
here. UseNet, like just about every oother social endeavour, has it's own
ediquette. Proper UseNet ediquette is to post your reply behind the portion
of the post to which you are replying. Now, you may continue to ignore
generally accepted practices, but to then go ballistic when someone comments
on it is absurd. If you want to do things in an unconventional and
unaccepted manner, at least have the good grace to accept the consequences.
Mickey
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
19 Jun 2005 02:55:11 PM |
|
|
You don't want to, but you will because you are a;ways right and always
insist that everyone follow your rules and your way of ding things.
What you are saying is absolute rubbish -- those rules changed!!!
Why did they change because GROUP AND BLOGS were created and replaced
Usenet as the most popular forum on the net. In groups and blogs there
is not a reason to bottom post.
And stop imposing your accepted values and norms on me and
others!!!!!!!! GOOD GOD you really are a product of your ego!!! You are
not a dictator and you do not own the Usenet, You finances may allow to
control people but not all.
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Iuudnf7rb-tKHyjfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
: news:yS7te.108901$8S5.84158@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
: > Why don't you suck my *****, you bottom-posting BULLY.
:
: Riain, I don't want to start another war with you, but you are simply
wrong
: here. UseNet, like just about every oother social endeavour, has it's
own
: ediquette. Proper UseNet ediquette is to post your reply behind the
portion
: of the post to which you are replying. Now, you may continue to ignore
: generally accepted practices, but to then go ballistic when someone
comments
: on it is absurd. If you want to do things in an unconventional and
: unaccepted manner, at least have the good grace to accept the
consequences.
:
: Mickey
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
19 Jun 2005 09:13:22 PM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
news:_Wjte.110041$lQ3.50056@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
You don't want to, but you will because you are a;ways right and always
insist that everyone follow your rules and your way of ding things.
Are you hard of hearing? These aren't MY rules. Sheesh.
What you are saying is absolute rubbish -- those rules changed!!!
Yeah, because thou hast spoken?
Sheesh
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
18 Jun 2005 03:49:32 PM |
|
|
loose cannon wrote:
ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton wrote:
One again you prove you are a racist, and hate Blacks, as well as Jews,
Homosexuals, Women, Asians, the whole lot that doesn't conform to your
WHITE AMERICAN CATHOLIC WORLD.
You are a freaking moron. I don't endorse that racist crap; I was
You are a bit of a loose cannon.
sharing an article I came upon. I published the author's name and a
verifiable link. I made no comments.
You did post it, however, and you did make a comment, the subject line.
The subject line is the comment line when posting an article without any
other material. It might be straight, it might be sarcastic, satiric,
what have you, but it is a meta comment in the least.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
18 Jun 2005 04:01:11 PM |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
loose cannon wrote:
=F8=E9=F2=E9=EF =E1=F8=FA=E5=EF=FD/Riain Barton wrote:
One again you prove you are a racist, and hate Blacks, as well as Jew=
s,
Homosexuals, Women, Asians, the whole lot that doesn't conform to your
WHITE AMERICAN CATHOLIC WORLD.
You are a freaking moron. I don't endorse that racist crap; I was
You are a bit of a loose cannon.
sharing an article I came upon. I published the author's name and a
verifiable link. I made no comments.
You did post it, however, and you did make a comment, the subject line.
The subject line is the comment line when posting an article without any
other material. It might be straight, it might be sarcastic, satiric,
what have you, but it is a meta comment in the least.
No, it was a full blown comment. To suggest that any colour of
human being is wrong, when nature itself, obviously, stands quite
firmly against that, is racist. If he had said "different", that would
be fine. If he had said "distasteful", we could even dismiss it as a
bigoted opinion. But to say "wrong" is downright racist.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
18 Jun 2005 05:07:13 PM |
|
|
"PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com" wrote:
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
loose cannon wrote:
ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton wrote:
One again you prove you are a racist, and hate Blacks, as well as Jews,
Homosexuals, Women, Asians, the whole lot that doesn't conform to your
WHITE AMERICAN CATHOLIC WORLD.
You are a freaking moron. I don't endorse that racist crap; I was
You are a bit of a loose cannon.
sharing an article I came upon. I published the author's name and a
verifiable link. I made no comments.
You did post it, however, and you did make a comment, the subject line.
The subject line is the comment line when posting an article without any
other material. It might be straight, it might be sarcastic, satiric,
what have you, but it is a meta comment in the least.
No, it was a full blown comment. To suggest that any colour of
human being is wrong, when nature itself, obviously, stands quite
firmly against that, is racist. If he had said "different", that would
be fine. If he had said "distasteful", we could even dismiss it as a
bigoted opinion. But to say "wrong" is downright racist.
No what? You aren't addressing *anything* that I actually said.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
19 Jun 2005 06:15:41 AM |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
"PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com" wrote:
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
loose cannon wrote:
=F8=E9=F2=E9=EF =E1=F8=FA=E5=EF=FD/Riain Barton wrote:
One again you prove you are a racist, and hate Blacks, as well as=
Jews,
Homosexuals, Women, Asians, the whole lot that doesn't conform to=
your
WHITE AMERICAN CATHOLIC WORLD.
You are a freaking moron. I don't endorse that racist crap; I was
You are a bit of a loose cannon.
sharing an article I came upon. I published the author's name and a
verifiable link. I made no comments.
You did post it, however, and you did make a comment, the subject lin=
e=2E
The subject line is the comment line when posting an article without =
any
other material. It might be straight, it might be sarcastic, satiric,
what have you, but it is a meta comment in the least.
No, it was a full blown comment. To suggest that any colour of
human being is wrong, when nature itself, obviously, stands quite
firmly against that, is racist. If he had said "different", that would
be fine. If he had said "distasteful", we could even dismiss it as a
bigoted opinion. But to say "wrong" is downright racist.
No what? You aren't addressing *anything* that I actually said.
You suggested that it may have been a meta comment, which would be a
comment about a comment, by definition. I pointed out that it was a
direct comment and that it was a racist one at that. BTW, it's "Know
what?" not "No what?". The sentence before this one IS a meta comment.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
18 Jun 2005 01:03:58 AM |
|
|
=F8=E9=F2=E9=EF =E1=F8=FA=E5=EF=FD/Riain Barton wrote:
One again you prove you are a racist, and hate Blacks, as well as Jews,
Homosexuals, Women, Asians, the whole lot that doesn't conform to your
WHITE AMERICAN CATHOLIC WORLD.
You are barking mad!! For Christ's sake get some mental help.
"Catholic American"??? I always knew you were bigoted against
Catholics:)
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119067297.338009.306590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3D55=
78
:
:
: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color
:
: by Frederick B. Meekins
:
:
: Fans of the antics of Ralph Kramden will be shocked to learn that
: Cedric the Entertainer will portray the blowhard bus driver in the
: upcoming theatrical remake.
:
: Those priding themselves on wearing their racial tolerance and
: sensitivity on their sleeve will claim it does not matter what color
: the characters are.
:
: Would they be so broadminded if they made a White version of Sanford
: and Son or a Korean cast as a new Cliff Huxtable?
:
: If the producers weren't out to make some kind of racial statement,
: wouldn't they have cast actors more in accord with the appearances of
: the originals filling these roles thus keeping the parts White since
: --- like it or not --- racial background determines a great deal of
: appearance?
:
: Critics disparaging America's cultural heritage of which "The
: Honeymooners" played an important role as an early successful
: television comedy will muse that, in order to gain the attention of
the
: hip urban youth of today (in other words, the vulgarians occupying our
: cities), we must alter the original to comply with these new diverse
: sensibilities.
:
: But if that happens to be the case and minorities will only watch
: minorities, why should White Americans waste a single penny on this
: cinematic drivel?
They shouldn't but the rpesent generation has been so dumbed down
the tribe that controls Hollyvood believe that they can put any
kind of garbage out there and enough idiots will fork over to see it.
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of recirculation" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
17 Jun 2005 11:53:42 PM |
|
|
loose cannon wrote:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5578
New Honeymooners The Wrong Color
by Frederick B. Meekins
Fans of the antics of Ralph Kramden will be shocked to learn that
Cedric the Entertainer will portray the blowhard bus driver in the
upcoming theatrical remake.
Those priding themselves on wearing their racial tolerance and
sensitivity on their sleeve will claim it does not matter what color
the characters are.
Would they be so broadminded if they made a White version of Sanford
and Son or a Korean cast as a new Cliff Huxtable?
I don't see why not. Isn't the Aston Kutcher vehicle, "Guess Who"
(2005), just a light remake with the colours inverted of "Guess Who's
Coming to Dinner" (1967)?
If the producers weren't out to make some kind of racial statement,
wouldn't they have cast actors more in accord with the appearances of
the originals filling these roles thus keeping the parts White since
--- like it or not --- racial background determines a great deal of
appearance?
Did you complain when Eddie Murphy was remaking "The Nutty Professor"?
He doesn't look that much like Jerry Lewis, does he?
Critics disparaging America's cultural heritage of which "The
Honeymooners" played an important role as an early successful
television comedy will muse that, in order to gain the attention of the
hip urban youth of today (in other words, the vulgarians occupying our
cities), we must alter the original to comply with these new diverse
sensibilities.
But if that happens to be the case and minorities will only watch
minorities, why should White Americans waste a single penny on this
cinematic drivel?
I have no opinion about the movie because I haven't seen it or even read
about it, but I do think that this article is drivel, and it sounds like
racist drivel.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
18 Jun 2005 07:21:55 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote
in message news:42B3A8D6.702BBBA7@nuj.net...
loose cannon wrote:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5578
New Honeymooners The Wrong Color
by Frederick B. Meekins
Fans of the antics of Ralph Kramden will be shocked to learn that
Cedric the Entertainer will portray the blowhard bus driver in the
upcoming theatrical remake.
Those priding themselves on wearing their racial tolerance and
sensitivity on their sleeve will claim it does not matter what color
the characters are.
Would they be so broadminded if they made a White version of Sanford
and Son or a Korean cast as a new Cliff Huxtable?
I don't see why not. Isn't the Aston Kutcher vehicle, "Guess Who"
(2005), just a light remake with the colours inverted of "Guess Who's
Coming to Dinner" (1967)?
Not to mention, Cedric the Entertainer is one hysterical dude.
Mickey
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
18 Jun 2005 07:48:33 AM |
|
|
Mickey wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote
in message news:42B3A8D6.702BBBA7@nuj.net...
loose cannon wrote:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5578
New Honeymooners The Wrong Color
by Frederick B. Meekins
Fans of the antics of Ralph Kramden will be shocked to learn that
Cedric the Entertainer will portray the blowhard bus driver in the
upcoming theatrical remake.
Those priding themselves on wearing their racial tolerance and
sensitivity on their sleeve will claim it does not matter what color
the characters are.
Would they be so broadminded if they made a White version of Sanford
and Son or a Korean cast as a new Cliff Huxtable?
I don't see why not. Isn't the Aston Kutcher vehicle, "Guess Who"
(2005), just a light remake with the colours inverted of "Guess Who's
Coming to Dinner" (1967)?
Not to mention, Cedric the Entertainer is one hysterical dude.
Mickey
I thought the Cosby Show was a sort of black version of "Father
Knows Best". Not that it was trying to be but it had generally the
same premiss: middle class American family of the time. It didn't
matter what colour the people were. Trying, though, to pull off a
"white" version of Sanford and son would be extremely tricky. Who
would believe this "po-folk" white father and son duo living in Watts?
What believable neighbourhood would suffice? You might be able to get
away with an Hispanic version, though, set in East L.A. Although, it
might appear to be a slight tweak to the memorable Freddie Prinze
vehicle "Chico and the Man". I remember a lot of people being
surprised by "The Wiz" but now, taken in its own right, is just another
great musical. The story of Othello could be just as powerful played
by anyone; to myway of thinking, the fact that Othello was a Moor
wasn't the point to the play. Although changing fair Verona to Verona
Beach, California in the DeCaprio remake of Romeo and Juliet didn't
quite work in my opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
18 Jun 2005 07:55:01 AM |
|
|
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119098913.074684.276800@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mickey wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>
wrote
in message news:42B3A8D6.702BBBA7@nuj.net...
loose cannon wrote:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5578
New Honeymooners The Wrong Color
by Frederick B. Meekins
Fans of the antics of Ralph Kramden will be shocked to learn that
Cedric the Entertainer will portray the blowhard bus driver in the
upcoming theatrical remake.
Those priding themselves on wearing their racial tolerance and
sensitivity on their sleeve will claim it does not matter what color
the characters are.
Would they be so broadminded if they made a White version of Sanford
and Son or a Korean cast as a new Cliff Huxtable?
I don't see why not. Isn't the Aston Kutcher vehicle, "Guess Who"
(2005), just a light remake with the colours inverted of "Guess Who's
Coming to Dinner" (1967)?
Not to mention, Cedric the Entertainer is one hysterical dude.
Mickey
I thought the Cosby Show was a sort of black version of "Father
Knows Best". Not that it was trying to be but it had generally the
same premiss: middle class American family of the time. It didn't
matter what colour the people were. Trying, though, to pull off a
"white" version of Sanford and son would be extremely tricky. Who
would believe this "po-folk" white father and son duo living in Watts?
What believable neighbourhood would suffice? You might be able to get
away with an Hispanic version, though, set in East L.A. Although, it
might appear to be a slight tweak to the memorable Freddie Prinze
vehicle "Chico and the Man". I remember a lot of people being
surprised by "The Wiz" but now, taken in its own right, is just another
great musical. The story of Othello could be just as powerful played
by anyone; to myway of thinking, the fact that Othello was a Moor
wasn't the point to the play. Although changing fair Verona to Verona
Beach, California in the DeCaprio remake of Romeo and Juliet didn't
quite work in my opinion.
Not all remakes work, even if they stick to racial lines. An example of this
would be the movie I Spy, which was simply awful, even though they did cast
it along the lines of the original show. The net of it all is that race has
nothing to do with it.
Mickey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
19 Jun 2005 02:07:08 AM |
|
|
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119098913.074684.276800@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I thought the Cosby Show was a sort of black version of "Father
Knows Best". Not that it was trying to be but it had generally the
same premiss: middle class American family of the time. It didn't
matter what colour the people were.
Yes, the reason I didn't care for the show was that it was smarmy & too
focused on Cosby's mugging than anything else. Who knows - it might have
been *worse* if it was acted by white people - even less of a novelty
factor.
Trying, though, to pull off a
"white" version of Sanford and son would be extremely tricky. Who
would believe this "po-folk" white father and son duo living in Watts?
It wouldn't be Watts, it would be a "White area".
What believable neighbourhood would suffice? You might be able to get
away with an Hispanic version, though, set in East L.A. Although, it
might appear to be a slight tweak to the memorable Freddie Prinze
vehicle "Chico and the Man". I remember a lot of people being
surprised by "The Wiz" but now, taken in its own right, is just another
great musical. The story of Othello could be just as powerful played
by anyone; to myway of thinking, the fact that Othello was a Moor
wasn't the point to the play.
It turns out that I missed out on one of my early literary fantasies: it
seems Patrick Stewart did the play reversed. He was Othello, everyone else
was black. And when I found out, the play had been over for years (As well
as acorss the ocean....).
Although changing fair Verona to Verona
Beach, California in the DeCaprio remake of Romeo and Juliet didn't
quite work in my opinion.
Well, I respectfully disagree - I thought it was rather clever - especially
the young cating. My favorite bit was that the guns were given the names of
"Sword", "Dagger", etc.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
19 Jun 2005 06:34:13 AM |
|
|
Susan Cohen wrote:
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119098913.074684.276800@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I thought the Cosby Show was a sort of black version of "Father
Knows Best". Not that it was trying to be but it had generally the
same premiss: middle class American family of the time. It didn't
matter what colour the people were.
Yes, the reason I didn't care for the show was that it was smarmy & too
focused on Cosby's mugging than anything else. Who knows - it might have
been *worse* if it was acted by white people - even less of a novelty
factor.
Trying, though, to pull off a
"white" version of Sanford and son would be extremely tricky. Who
would believe this "po-folk" white father and son duo living in Watts?
It wouldn't be Watts, it would be a "White area".
What believable neighbourhood would suffice? You might be able to get
away with an Hispanic version, though, set in East L.A. Although, it
might appear to be a slight tweak to the memorable Freddie Prinze
vehicle "Chico and the Man". I remember a lot of people being
surprised by "The Wiz" but now, taken in its own right, is just another
great musical. The story of Othello could be just as powerful played
by anyone; to myway of thinking, the fact that Othello was a Moor
wasn't the point to the play.
It turns out that I missed out on one of my early literary fantasies: it
seems Patrick Stewart did the play reversed. He was Othello, everyone else
was black. And when I found out, the play had been over for years (As well
as acorss the ocean....).
Although changing fair Verona to Verona
Beach, California in the DeCaprio remake of Romeo and Juliet didn't
quite work in my opinion.
Well, I respectfully disagree - I thought it was rather clever - especially
the young cating. My favorite bit was that the guns were given the names of
"Sword", "Dagger", etc.
It just seemed a bit too contrived to me. I don't fault the
attempt, though. To make it more believable in a modern setting, the
character's names were wrong. OK, David Beckham's son is called Romeo
and there are plenty of Juliets to go around but when's the last time
you ran across a Mercutio, Tybalt or Petruchio hanging around Verona
Beach? Maybe you would have liked to have seen the ultimate weapon:
the M-16. M for Montague, that is.
At least they portayed the "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" correctly.
So many times I've seen people play that as if it means "Where are you,
Romeo?" as if she was looking out over her balcony thinking, "Why,
Romeo, aren't you here with me now?" when it means "Why are you
Romeo?", i.e., "Of all the people in the world, WHY have I fallen in
love with a Montague?"
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
19 Jun 2005 08:36:46 AM |
|
|
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119180853.663146.87730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Susan Cohen wrote:
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119098913.074684.276800@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I thought the Cosby Show was a sort of black version of "Father
Knows Best". Not that it was trying to be but it had generally the
same premiss: middle class American family of the time. It didn't
matter what colour the people were.
Yes, the reason I didn't care for the show was that it was smarmy & too
focused on Cosby's mugging than anything else. Who knows - it might have
been *worse* if it was acted by white people - even less of a novelty
factor.
Trying, though, to pull off a
"white" version of Sanford and son would be extremely tricky. Who
would believe this "po-folk" white father and son duo living in Watts?
It wouldn't be Watts, it would be a "White area".
What believable neighbourhood would suffice? You might be able to get
away with an Hispanic version, though, set in East L.A. Although, it
might appear to be a slight tweak to the memorable Freddie Prinze
vehicle "Chico and the Man". I remember a lot of people being
surprised by "The Wiz" but now, taken in its own right, is just
another
great musical. The story of Othello could be just as powerful played
by anyone; to myway of thinking, the fact that Othello was a Moor
wasn't the point to the play.
It turns out that I missed out on one of my early literary fantasies: it
seems Patrick Stewart did the play reversed. He was Othello, everyone
else
was black. And when I found out, the play had been over for years (As
well
as acorss the ocean....).
Although changing fair Verona to Verona
Beach, California in the DeCaprio remake of Romeo and Juliet didn't
quite work in my opinion.
Well, I respectfully disagree - I thought it was rather clever -
especially
the young cating. My favorite bit was that the guns were given the names
of
"Sword", "Dagger", etc.
It just seemed a bit too contrived to me. I don't fault the
attempt, though. To make it more believable in a modern setting, the
character's names were wrong. OK, David Beckham's son is called Romeo
and there are plenty of Juliets to go around but when's the last time
you ran across a Mercutio, Tybalt or Petruchio hanging around Verona
Beach? Maybe you would have liked to have seen the ultimate weapon:
the M-16. M for Montague, that is.
At least they portayed the "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" correctly.
So many times I've seen people play that as if it means "Where are you,
Romeo?" as if she was looking out over her balcony thinking, "Why,
Romeo, aren't you here with me now?" when it means "Why are you
Romeo?", i.e., "Of all the people in the world, WHY have I fallen in
love with a Montague?"
Star crossed lovers, they was :o)
Mickey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
18 Jun 2005 05:05:22 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<1119098913.074684.276800@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented broadcast on
tx.politics:
I thought the Cosby Show was a sort of black version of "Father
Knows Best". Not that it was trying to be but it had generally the
same premiss: middle class American family of the time. It didn't
matter what colour the people were. Trying, though, to pull off a
"white" version of Sanford and son would be extremely tricky. Who
would believe this "po-folk" white father and son duo living in Watts?
Well, of course, not in Watts. But there are plenty of redneck
junkyards that would work.
As to the Honeymooners, well, Jackie Gleason was a big man in
more ways than one, very well known for trying to give other
people a break in show business and being supportive of other
people's career. So I don't think he would have much problem
with the new Honeymooners. But it seems to me the Honeymooners
owed something to the times - times in which the "Greatest
Generation" had settled back into ordinary life, many of them as
bus drivers and sewer workers, when buying things on the
"installment" plan was novel enough to be a plot point. (It
occurs to me, they had a clock radio but did not even have a
TV.) I haven't seen the movie, so I am just supposing the
Honeymooners is now set in the present day, and if so, I cannot
imagine that it really captures the spirit of the original.
What if Amos & Andy (the TV show - the radio show was before my
time) were remade with a white cast? I think the TV show got a
pretty bad rap. Of course it had the legacy of the radio show,
which owed a lot of its humor to the premise that Negros are
stupid. But as I recall the TV show, black people came off
pretty well. Kingfish was a scammer and a jolly rogue, but
pretty much everyone else was goodhearted and not especially
stupid by sitcoms standards. There was a double-talking lawyer,
but nothing to compare with Jackie Whatshisname in Seinfeld.
Of course, you couldn't really call it Amos & Andy, but I bet
you could pretty much lift the scripts and make them white, and
everything would be just about as funny.
What believable neighbourhood would suffice? (To make Sanford
& Son white).
I don't know enough about LA to suggest anything in the city,
but I've seen redneck areas of, say, Fontana, where the white
Sanford & Son would fit right in.
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects,
I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them"
-- Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chad Gore" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
19 Jun 2005 12:59:06 PM |
|
|
http://www.boycottford.com/Default.asp?id=1370&sid=329189314
In our last episode,
<1119098913.074684.276800@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented broadcast on
tx.politics:
I thought the Cosby Show was a sort of black version of "Father
Knows Best". Not that it was trying to be but it had generally the
same premiss: middle class American family of the time. It didn't
matter what colour the people were. Trying, though, to pull off a
"white" version of Sanford and son would be extremely tricky. Who
would believe this "po-folk" white father and son duo living in Watts?
Well, of course, not in Watts. But there are plenty of redneck
junkyards that would work.
As to the Honeymooners, well, Jackie Gleason was a big man in
more ways than one, very well known for trying to give other
people a break in show business and being supportive of other
people's career. So I don't think he would have much problem
with the new Honeymooners. But it seems to me the Honeymooners
owed something to the times - times in which the "Greatest
Generation" had settled back into ordinary life, many of them as
bus drivers and sewer workers, when buying things on the
"installment" plan was novel enough to be a plot point. (It
occurs to me, they had a clock radio but did not even have a
TV.) I haven't seen the movie, so I am just supposing the
Honeymooners is now set in the present day, and if so, I cannot
imagine that it really captures the spirit of the original.
//////////////////
They must be really creative to keep this from becoming a flop, I
know there looking for something new (Directors). But matching the
characters will be tricky to say the least. There three generations
apart will hurt this film in more ways than one ! Today's films are
cheap , flimsy and without a foundation.
So the film will have to be sent to the sales &marketing dept., where
most of the films money is spent. And hope more people will watch it
anyway ! "Flop or not "LOL. In other words it's still more about the
money than the character of the film itself. Ralph & Alice just got
***** on by liberal America !
What if Amos & Andy (the TV show - the radio show was before my
time) were remade with a white cast? I think the TV show got a
pretty bad rap. Of course it had the legacy of the radio show,
which owed a lot of its humor to the premise that Negros are
stupid. But as I recall the TV show, black people came off
pretty well. Kingfish was a scammer and a jolly rogue, but
pretty much everyone else was goodhearted and not especially
stupid by sitcoms standards. There was a double-talking lawyer,
but nothing to compare with Jackie Whatshisname in Seinfeld.
Of course, you couldn't really call it Amos & Andy, but I bet
you could pretty much lift the scripts and make them white, and
everything would be just about as funny.
What believable neighbourhood would suffice? (To make Sanford
& Son white).
I don't know enough about LA to suggest anything in the city,
but I've seen redneck areas of, say, Fontana, where the white
Sanford & Son would fit right in.
"Clinton opened a can of worms and didn't
even go fishing".
"He just partied and left
the trash for the next party" !
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
19 Jun 2005 02:18:35 PM |
|
|
In our last episode, <42B3A8D6.702BBBA7@nuj.net>, the lovely and
talented Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
broadcast on tx.politics:
Did you complain when Eddie Murphy was remaking "The Nutty Professor"?
He doesn't look that much like Jerry Lewis, does he?
Well, I was bothered by the remake, but not because Eddie Murphy
isn't Jerry Lewis. I didn't see the point in remaking the
picture instead of making a new one altogether.
With the new "Parent Trap" and "Herbie" though, I am beginning to
see the method in Disney's madness.
Disney's strategy with its animated features has been clear for
some time. They keep a title off the market for a number of
years, then they go through the cycle of theatrical release and
then home video. Then they lock away the title for a number of
years again. People don't take it for granted, because they
cannot just rent it any time they please. And so it is a "new"
movie to a new generation. This works especially well because
their target market is children and because most of these are
fairy tales - and it's always going to be the same time in
Neverland. You don't have to make the crocidile swallow a cell
phone.
Evidently the strategy with live features, especially those set
in the "present," is to remake them from time to time. With
Congress in its pocket, Disney knows its copyrights will never
expire. Anyway, it didn't just occur to Disney one day to
remake one of their movies. It seems to be a consistent market
strategy.
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
Being a pacifist between wars is as easy as being a vegetarian between meals.
- Ammon Hennacy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of" |
|
| Title: Re: New Honeymooners The Wrong Color |
19 Jun 2005 02:29:53 PM |
|
|
Lars Eighner wrote:
In our last episode, <42B3A8D6.702BBBA7@nuj.net>, the lovely and
talented Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
broadcast on tx.politics:
Did you complain when Eddie Murphy was remaking "The Nutty Professor"?
He doesn't look that much like Jerry Lewis, does he?
Well, I was bothered by the remake, but not because Eddie Murphy
isn't Jerry Lewis. I didn't see the point in remaking the
picture instead of making a new one altogether.
Aren't we running out of new pictures to make? Even if you call it
something new, would people not note similarities between this and that?
With the new "Parent Trap" and "Herbie" though, I am beginning to
see the method in Disney's madness.
Disney's strategy with its animated features has been clear for
some time. They keep a title off the market for a number of
years, then they go through the cycle of theatrical release and
then home video. Then they lock away the title for a number of
years again. People don't take it for granted, because they
cannot just rent it any time they please. And so it is a "new"
movie to a new generation. This works especially well because
their target market is children and because most of these are
fairy tales - and it's always going to be the same time in
Neverland. You don't have to make the crocidile swallow a cell
phone.
Evidently the strategy with live features, especially those set
in the "present," is to remake them from time to time. With
Congress in its pocket, Disney knows its copyrights will never
expire. Anyway, it didn't just occur to Disney one day to
remake one of their movies. It seems to be a consistent market
strategy.
I'll keep that in mind.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
