New Simpsons episodes.

But Megara, this is the way I disagree with, you are not able to see that universal truth "we are all different, we are all the same". Why do you think we can't understand the same kind of humour? I love Seinfeld (yes, I know, it's American and I love it, kick me for that ) and I love some programs from other countries, but although you love something you can criticize whatever you dislike inside that you love.
I love The Simpsons, but in the last seasons, they have changed some parts of their humour, and those are all effects from 11S, and what I disagree is why do you have to make all the humour or culture industries change their way of working because you must protect the spectators from "don't know what the fuck"?
I don't know if you know what I mean...
For example, since Iraq war start, they put in The Simpsons a lot of humour against the French, and I think it's curious, or just a coincidence?

 

well i havent watched the simpsons regularly for about 4 years now..it has gone way down hill, so no argument with me.


They always make lots of french and british jokes, but yeah they did up the amount when the controversy was happening. I think they cater to their audience. America has always ragged on france, heck many of our founding fathers were vehemently anti french(alexander hamilton). I wouldnt say thats a new thing..and come on, like we are the only ones who rag on the french. I wouldnt chalk it up to some great big US media conspiracy to attack the french, they just take whats going on in the world and work it into their routine.

 

Of course, I agree, we were occupied by France 200 years ago we were at war for our independency, and we also have a lot of jokes against the French, but anyway that was not the point.

 

I made a generalisation based on characteristics found in most mainstream tv-shows. Of course there are also a lot of shows that dare to do things differently. These shows are usually no big hits though, despite rave reviews by critics and such. The reason for this is, imho, exactly what you said above.

Of course there's a bunch of crappy tv-shows in the European countries as well. The biggest problem over here is that they often try to copy American shows which never leads to good results. We've had a few Married With Children type of shows in Sweden as well, but they all sucked because they were based on American culture. I used to love MWC too (not showing anymore), but when I watch shows like that I think of the culture in which they were made. They're not that funny in a Swedish context, because we don't have, for example, the same 'fear of sex' (if you don't know what I mean by this, think of "Nipplegate" - we have much worse things every day on Swedish tv). Sex jokes are easy in the U.S., in Sweden they're not. We need more perversity in order to laugh. I love Seinfeld btw, and Curb Your Enthusiasm is the best American comedy I've seen in years (I don't mean anything bad by this, but it feels more European). Of the European shows (mainly British, I admit), my favourites include The Office, which is sadly over now.

Which makes Hollywood extremely dull in the long run, since the same ideas repeat themselves in film after film (or 'movie'). I'm not exactly a mainstream guy, I hate popular music and hence I also hate (many, not all) mainstream films and tv-shows. There are exceptions though, for which I am very grateful. I have nothing against American programmes, but it's the notion that the artists don't have the freedom they deserve, but have to adjust to sponsors and market interests (ratings! ratings! ratings!) that deeply saddens me. I believe that this is where the biggest difference lies between the way you make tv and films in the U.S. vs. other parts of the world (by this I don't mean that this is something American viewers are happy about). One of my professors at the university (from NYC) said not long ago: "in Europe you make art; we make entertainment". Thoughts on this?


peace,
-Pat

 

hehe, well, fortunately, it's all Hank Azaria over here. If they had dubbed it, however, he would probably sound Arabic. It's much harder to spot the origin of foreign accents in Swedish than it is in English.

 

Now you made me remember my visit to the Czech Rep, when the only English I heard was through "movie of the week" on Thursday nights, when they - for once - would skip the dubbing. I used to watch this on a small tv in my room just to get some contact with a language I could understand. Then, after only two weeks, they started showing "Crime and Punishment", a Russian mini-series of three feature-length episodes. WTF!? :$

peace,
-Pat

 

i thought that the simpson had stopped taping because the ladie who did lisa's voice decided she didn't want to do it anymore.

 

No, she's still on, as far as I know. They all got a raise earlier this year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3676677.stm

 

i agree, each country needs to make shows based on their culture...a swedish married with children would be laughable...

But as i said, american media is huge, far bigger than anyone elses or combination of others. So you cant lump all or even most of american movies into one category. "Hollywood" films you probably could, but we have a huge independent market in this country too. Hollywood has also created some of if not the best movies ever(think lord of the rings most recently). Yes i would agree that we are entertainment driven more than 'art driven'(not exactly sure what that means to be honest). Anyways, whenever someone tells me a movie is artistic, i usually take that as to mean it is abstract and sucks. something that was conjured up while on acid and shoudl only be watched while on acid.

I'm not an actor so i dont really know what freedom they have, if they want to make 30 million dollars a movie as some of them do, they have to work in hollywood...however, someone like tom cruise or nicole kidmen could work in any movie industry in the world, yet they work in hollywood predominately. why is that? Is it for the money? Is it because hollywood is the best? A combination thereof? I dont know.

Personally i think hollywood makes many crap movies, but they also make many, many amazing movies. Are they redundant? *shrugs* i enjoy watching movies every year and gladly fork over hundreds of dollars a year to see them, so i'm content.

 

well in that case, what a relief! now im just waiting for a new episode, i hope they'll be better than some of the other newer ones.

 

One of my favorite Simpson-moments was when Homer had a bucket on his head (with 2 holes for the eyes) while driving. After driving through the schoolyard full with kids, and thereafter crashing into a shelter, his relaxed excuse/comment (said in a very satisfied and heroic way) is:


"It had nothing to do with the bucket!!!"

 

The independent market is great, I never said anything about that. I don't fully agree that the LOTR films were Hollywood productions though. Hollywood-based studio, yes, but it was made in and by people mainly from New Zealand (actors aside, who were from all over the planet). Anyway, when I'm being clumsy and lump all Hollywood films together, I mainly think of things like standard-format action films and romantic comedies which keep flooding the repertoire of the world's cinemas, leaving no room for smaller productions. These are HUGE genres, but even of the really successful films, the majority are pure crap (IMHO of course).

Apocalypse Now, Lost In Translation, Mystic River, Fight Club, Pulp Fiction, Twelve Monkeys; a few examples of old and new films which are by my definition artistic. Sure, the last one might be an acid trip, but hardly the rest. I would also call The Matrix and M. Night Shyamalan's films artistic. Basically anything on the independent scene, since it's driven by the art of filmmaking and not by market desires.

Probably a combination. For actors, it's important to be seen. Nicole Kidman has been active in other places lately though. She was here in Sweden, making a few films in our "Trollywood" studios (lame name, I know), and many American actors have been involved in British productions lately. I don't see why though, since their fake British accents always lower these films' credibility.

peace,
-Pat

 

I dont know why you wouldnt consider LOTR a hollywood production. 400 million dollars all paid by US companies, a host of actors. Yes Peter Jackson is a New Zealander, yes New Zealand played host to the scenary..but what exactly makes it anything but hollywood? Hollywood is more than just 'american.' Hollywood includes the best from around the world. No peter jackson isnt american, but neither is nicole kidmen, and i think you'd be hard pressed to prove she isnt a hollywood actress. No one other than hollywood could have put together such a production.

Heck, peter jackson's weta group thanked george lucas for showing him the technology(HIS techonology) to help create the movie.

Anyways, i dont know how it couldnt be hollywood. No one would have put up 50 million for the movies, let alone 400 million. But like i said, hollywood isnt american, its an industry that exists without borders(IMHO)

Oh i agree, 60-80% of movies out there are crap, from every country. But the ones that get it right sure do get it right.

I think we have a different interpretationi of artistic, i loved all the movies you listed...i think of movies more like adaptation as artistic.

I agree, americans with fake british accents suck, madonna needs to stop pretending cause she sounds really stupid.

Oh, i also think its a bad sign when all these movie places have nicknames that are ripoffs of hollywood...bollywood..wellywood..trollywood? Maybe hollywood has TOO much influence.

edit: let me clarify something. When i said no one but hollywood could have pulled this off i dont mean only america could have. I'm saying hollywood has the means and the resources to pull the best from around the world to join in such a huge and gigantic undertaking which no other film industry could fathom of undertaking.

 

Cool, Pat. Apocalypse Now is not like all the other predictable Vietnam-movies. It goes more on the psychological aspect, and that's what made this film a legend. Probably the best film I've ever seen... and a warning against idealizing war as any kinda solution (keeping Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq in mind).

The field of coincidence is dying of a flesh wound...

 

Am I to interpret that as you not liking Adaptation? I thought it was brilliant. :H

peace,
-Pat

 

Absolutely. Definitely one of my favourite films ever.

peace,
-Pat

 

its one of the few movies i've ever watched and regretted wasting my time..the worst was about schmidt..god i've never been more depressed than after that movie.

 

How could I forget to mention Chechnya? The most meaningless war of them all (not "most", actually, but just as meaningless - "meaningless" can't be grammatical compared).
I think I forgot to mention because I'm angry at my own government, because it supports Sharons war at palestines, and Bushs war in Afghanistan and Iraq). I'm also quite pissed at Putin, that clown. But despite how stupid and hopeless the danish government is, they support chechnya liberation (probably not of filantropic reasons afterall, but because Russia is in a conflict with USA, our political leaders leader.)

love,¨
noose.