Hollywood colludes with the CIA. Just look at war films and films about Israel. Hollywood is run by zionists. Even Sacha Baron Cohen worked with the CIA to make Bruno & Borat.
My password is password.

Exactly.
This post was sponsored by
ChatGPT
. Boiling the frog one prompt at a time.

Democrats are open to all, as long as you agree with every single thing they say.
Voting Reform UK 2029: Make Britain Great Again

Bents wouldn't enjoy it. If the artist once did something he disapproved of, everything they've ever created will be dismissed. Welcome to the modern West.
This post was sponsored by
ChatGPT
. Boiling the frog one prompt at a time.

Honestly, most right-thinking people don't expect Gibson to make any films, factually correct or not, or act in them either.

Without watching the movie…
Didn't you say movies are low level entertainment? Why is Gibson expected to make his stories factually correct?
Lefties are weird.
This post was sponsored by
ChatGPT
. Boiling the frog one prompt at a time.

Who said anything about human sacrifice? I suggested he was wrong about everything, as he usually is.

Of course it's not entirely factual, but if any scholar claims the Mayans weren't into human sacrifice then they're a liar.
Gibson doesn't stray as far from fact as the woke brigade would have you believe.
This post was sponsored by
ChatGPT
. Boiling the frog one prompt at a time.

Gibson is a white supremacist and an ass. The only decent acting he did was in the very first Mad Max. From what I've read about Apocalypto, it's completely unscholarly and inaccurate about the Mayans, and has been compared to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but set in South America.

You need to watch it. It's amazing

Classic socialist reductive thinking.

I don't trust anything Mel Gibson does, so I haven't seen it.

What did you think about Apocalypto?

Clearly my urbane prose has caused some distress. Retire from the fray while sanity remains. I shall pray for you.

I think that's quite enough out of your dirty, little **** mouth for today, you effete buffoon!
Now let's get back on topic: what is your anal damage after the election?

If only Orson himself were so witty! He's much more likely to lose his temper and start an oleaginous thread about bangers nobody has heard of or a football team nobody has ever supported.

There is nobody lowlier than me. All I stole was a loaf of bread, Jean Valjean style.
Though I also have the PhD at Oxford and the other one at Cambridge, sweetie.
Just remember to call me by full title, Bents: Dr Dr Orsen.

Are you jealous of my status as lowly university prof? What do you do? Checkout clerk? Shelf-stacker?

Which students are these? The ones at the local soup kitchen?
It was established a long time ago your academic history is fraudulent.
You didn't answer about how deep Trump's penetration was…?

What a splendid ChatGPT response! All my students sound like this!

Welcome to Filmboards. The short bus of movie chat forums.

Bents, your response raises an important critique of Hollywood’s approach to storytelling, especially in the context of disaster films. While I agree that Hollywood often leans toward speculative, visually extravagant narratives rather than nuanced depictions of reality, I think the dynamic you describe—audiences preferring escapism over introspection—reflects a deeper cultural tension.
Environmental disaster films, when grounded in realistic scenarios, inherently challenge the status quo by pointing to systemic issues—consumption, economic structures, and individual accountability. These are uncomfortable truths for a society heavily invested in convenience and growth. Hollywood, as both a cultural institution and an industry driven by profit, rarely takes the risk of alienating its audience with narratives that demand radical change or self-reflection.
Wallace-Wells’ perspective aligns with the idea that audiences resist messages about austerity, but this resistance may be more complex than a simple preference for “low-level entertainment.” It reflects our collective anxiety about change and guilt over complicity in environmental degradation. In that sense, disaster films featuring heroic figures overcoming externalized forces of evil serve as a form of psychological relief. They shift blame outward, allowing viewers to confront disaster without grappling with their own role in its creation.
However, reducing all film to mere entertainment may overlook its potential as a medium for cultural influence. Movies like Don’t Look Up or Snowpiercer have demonstrated that speculative scenarios can provoke thought and spark dialogue about systemic issues, even if they don’t always offer realistic solutions. While Hollywood does prioritize spectacle over subtlety, the tension you identify—between entertainment and philosophical truth—could be reframed as an opportunity. If storytellers were to balance escapism with meaningful critique, disaster films could transcend their usual tropes and engage audiences with deeper, more transformative narratives.
But I'm blethering. Let's get on to the nitty gritty: how deeply did Trump's victory **** you in the ass?

I think Hep's AI response summarizes the situation quite well. You can't write a story about a crisis that's a death by a thousand paper cuts.
We'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't think we're going to introduce anything new to the discussion to change either of our minds.
This post was sponsored by
ChatGPT
. Boiling the frog one prompt at a time.

Not sure what W-W would say, but I think it's an easy one. Environmental disaster targets us quite squarely–all us consumers. Movies about racism, sexism, slavery, etc allows us to say: hey that ain't me, babe. I'm sure many Germans don't want to see movies about how Germans were complcit in Nazi crimes, but enjoy movies about American racism.