That is favourite as in – “Did this person actually see the same film I did, or did he just bring an astonishingly inappropriate set of preconceptions to the movies?”

It’s a very simple issue, my little roasted peanut: if you think people, IN GENERAL, don’t expect to be entertained by the movies they PAY to see, you’ve a bloody difficult task ahead of you in proving it.

I think it’s pretty clear that Glen’s arguing that the phenomenon of movie-going is about a great many more things than the personal entertainment of the ticket-buyer. Apart from anything else, there’s the market-constructed social cliques and subcultures who expect their members to have seen certain movies and know the content by heart. I think I’m as ambivalent as he is about the youngsters who’re getting their jollies talking about stabbing movies amongst each other.
What the fuck individuation or collectivism or tautological home-owneroticism have to do with anything I’ve no idea, but you’re playing the demanding inquisitor with your line-by-line responses, oh smuttiest of redheads.
Next thing you’ll be demanding EVIDENCE!!!!1!!!

Karl Popper.

The nostalgia was better in the old days, wasn’t it, Haiku?

Frisco, you can be my wingman anytime.

Kudos, Earth Mother.

Mme. Pavlova, this seat is araldited to me. And, yes, that plagiarising scumbag PJK owes me royalties.

And now, to my favourite cupcake…

yawn. I am saying what I am saying. lol. you are INFERRING what you believe to be an IMPLICATION, but if I say â??No, peanut, my point is not â??making money from movies is teh badâ?? it is rather both more subtle and more complex than this and regarding the production of audiencesâ?? then you should probably realise your inferrance is wrong and try to understand how it is wrong just as I have tried to continually explain myself in various ways. again you are attacking some imaginary point (an inference to an assumed implication) by trying to defend your own stupidity (your inference).

No inference necessary, Glen; your implication was obvious on both occasions:

“And well except that it is only being used as a tool to shuffle around audience-sheep.â??

and, after I directly asked for clarification:

“Bad, if you are worried about anything beyond the economic success of this particular cultural commodity.â??

Now you want to restate, for the third time – you’re clearly a third-time lucky bloke when it comes to articulation – what you think you think you mean:

“No, peanut, my point is not â??making money from movies is teh badâ?? it is rather both more subtle and more complex than this and regarding the production of audiencesâ??.

Yes, your point is so awfully subtle and complex it’s incapable of being rendered into any known language, unlike the simple and direct question I asked you: “Sorry, is that supposed to be a bad thing?â??

Now, why don’t you spare me the tortuous bullshit evasion and snide implications and answer the question? Come on, pumpkin, I’ll make it easy for you.

Making money from movies is:

a) not a bad thing; or
b) always a bad thing; or
c) a bad thing sometimes, but I’m not going to tell you why.

I admit that you have launched an admirable defence of your stupidity and for such an attempt you must trying love it.

Dream on, Glen. It’s your defence of YOUR stupidity that proves “you must trying love it” [sic]. But, please, don’t let me stop you; show me more, oh mighty intellect.

its obvious that we have another assumption, making an ass out of u and mption. You are again trying to tell me what I was saying!!! I was talking about â??brawny naked man chestâ?? which you have correctly identified as existing in the movie, well done. Perhaps you could try to correctly identify it in my argument? In my argument I was talking about one of the functions of brawny naked man chest (to collectively individuate an audience).

Pathetic.

First, you state that viewing “phantasms of chesty-man” by some magical, unexplained process, “collective individuate a population”.

Then, when challenged to explain what the feck you mean by this you cop out with a new, bullshit evasion that, actually, WATCHING the movie has nothing to do with it. No, apparently, the “assembly” of the audience actually does the job.

When I point out to you that changing your focus from the viewing of the movie to its marketing makes no difference to your STILL unsubstantiated argument, you tell me I’m not following your argument. Bullshit.

The truth is, I AM following your argument. The problem is that your argument is going nowhere but in ascending circles in the direction of your fundament.

“LOL as much as you like, but the desire of movie goers to be entertained IS generic, i.e. felt by the general movie-going populace. A particularly stupid mistake on your part.”

do you belong to â??mainstreamâ?? australia, too? lol! Perhaps another example of how silly the notion of a â??general movie-going populaceâ?? is can be found in the similarly wrongly named â??general interestâ?? mens and/or womenâ??s magazines which are all special interest magazines organised around a discursively constructed â??genericâ?? of a specific gender and then targted demographics for class, education, age, income, etc. mainstream!!

You see, this is your problem in a nutshell, peanut: the inability to tackle an argument directly without introducing irrelevant blather.

It’s a very simple issue, my little roasted peanut: if you think people, IN GENERAL, don’t expect to be entertained by the movies they PAY to see, you’ve a bloody difficult task ahead of you in proving it. Not that I expect much in the way of proof from you, of course, as you can barely structure an argument, let alone substantiate one.

part of the much larger context of my argument is that the populations individuated as audiences for specific movies (or whatever media, talkback radio, for example) are also individuated as political constituencies. Popular culture and politics do not operate through identification, ie i want to be a spartan king or john howard, but through individuation, ie I belong to the population who feels the spartan king in this movie is cool, just like john howard. so your fervent attempts to identify the audience with the film with some sort of â??generic movie-going publicâ?? is interesting as it seems as if you are unwittingly making the same point that I am. Although I am not sure, and would not want to make any assumptions about the points you are or are not making.

No, you wouldn’t. In fact, you should steer clear, if at all possible, from making any assumptions about the points YOU are making. Judging from recent experience your ideas have all the permanence of soap bubbles, but without the clarity.

However, to address the issue you raise, I said way back when that different types of movie appeal to different types of audience. This contribution of yours only recycles that point with more useless verbiage and tedious, unfounded political baggage. If you’re going to regurgitate my points, stick to the original text, buddy. You’re on safer ground when someone else constructs your argument for you.

I agree with Adamâ??s response. Hmmm, â??get somewhere with my â??mearge intellectâ??â??â?¦ youâ??re not an undergarduate student in the new service-based university system demanding to be spoon fed ideas to â??earnâ?? a degree, are you?

What, you mean from one of those “universities” that used to teach trades? Obviously my meagre intellect couldn’t facilitate entry into one of those institutions, despite their lax entry requirements. Certainly, it wouldn’t get me into that esteemed university facilitating your PhD in…what was it again? Motor magazines?

I would be pretentious if I was pretending or had a pretence of being a smarty pants, but Iâ??m not and I donâ??t. Sorry. I actually am a smarty pants, lol

Oh, trust me – I’m laughing alright.

Just remember, kids: sometimes the audience isn’t laughing WITH you.

So, Fyodor, are you also Araldited to your seat?

Anyway, any comparisons of 300 with Kingdom Of Heaven yet?