An Open Response to Bill Smith (Bill491)
Drama Queen
*smile*
Gee Bill, how private can it be when you send a copy to Carla?
But since you've granted me the permission to do with it what I will,
...I will. Thank You
>
> Dear DQ,
>
> Thanks, DQ, for your alt.acting posts, DQ, written in your typical
> "diplomatic style."
You are very welcome.
>
> I was planning on resigning from alt.acting this weekend until I read
> your post this Monday am.
>
> And now, I think I will lurk and occasionally contribute, as I see fit,
That would be great Bill. It would be a shame to lose someone of your
caliber.
> and maybe resign and maybe play a little guerrilla warfare.
That's the problem my dear. You view this as a war, ...it isn't.
>
> I once had respect for you, DQ.... you have written a few posts that I
> felt were helpful, insightful and indeed.... contributed to the biz and
> the art.
Thank You. I do try to be helpful when and where I can.
> But that was while ago..... since then, you've written
> nothing but trash.
I dispute that claim, ...but to each his own.
>
> You had an opportunity, DQ, to participate in re-making alt.acting into
> a legitimate newsgroups (which it once was) about the business and art
> of acting,
The opportunity is not lost. As long as alt.acting remains a newsgroup,
it's evolution, and/or transformation is possible. That transformation
isn't accomplished by any *one* person, or any *two* people. It comes
about by people controlling themselves and not trying to control someone
else. What do you expect people to do when they are attacked? They fight
back. If you want this NG to be about serious business and serious art,
...then for goodness sakes, take some initiative and post threads that
deal with serious aspects of the business and the art. Don't bitch &
whine because someone else chooses not to be serious. Ignore it. Jumping
in with an attack on a thick-skinned person is just a colossal waste of
time, and contributes nothing positive to your spirits or the
knowledge bank or the transformation you desire to bring about.
> and you claimed to have a secret plan to control Starmaker,
I never said I had a secret plan to control Starmaker. You asked for
requests for a plan to control him. All I said was that I was going to
try an experiment. An experiment is done to discover information, not to
control the subject of that experiment or the outcome. I did my
experiment, and I discovered Starmaker isn't the complete obnoxious
asshole he would have us believe. He may not be a professional actor,
but his outside approach can add a breath of fresh air or perhaps give
one a fresh way to tackle a dilemma. He can also point out the errors
that newbies take. Errors that you or I would probably never even
consider because we are so far removed from the process of starting a
career.
> and instead, you have indeed become a part of them problem with your
> trashy and semi-cute rejoinders full of sexual innuendo.
I have become part of *your* problem Bill! Maybe you should take a
lesson from Hector. Those lurkers and posters with a little depth who
look further than the surface will see he is a perfect example of 'how
to survive in the business'. "WHAT, ARE YOU ON DRUGS?!!" you ask? Not at
all, this guy has been snubbed, kicked around, insulted, judged,
rejected and rebuked, etc., etc., etc., and he won't go away. It's that
type of undaunted faith in oneself and sense of belonging that one needs
to survive the cruelties of this business. He is basically harmless. I
don't believe he even believes some of the things he says. I think he
just says a lot of things in an attempt to tweak our sensitivities. If
we didn't act so darned priggish, he'd have no ammunition with which to
fire his bullets, and I suspect he would get slightly bored. He likes to
tease, ...but I don't believe he likes to intentionally inflict pain.
(At least, not on *most* posters anyway).
> When and if you start to talk seriously about the business and art of
> acting, I will respond to you, with respect, on alt.acting. And in the
> meantime, I will take great pleasure in ignoring all your posts, and
> your flames. And when and if I resign, I will do it at my own
> convenience, thank you.
I don't believe I ever told you to resign. I pointed out that you said
you were going to. You also said that you were going to urge others to
resign as well. If that is how you derive great pleasure Bill, you need
to get out more often ;^) Go see a movie, ..catch a play, or a concert,
or even just a walk in the park communing with nature. etc.
The main problem as I see it Bill, is you have a tremendous desire to
control something that is not yours to control. I noticed areas where
you've gone off on Starmaker for something that was *obviously* meant as
humour, and was in fact humour of a *tasteful* variety, yet you still
flipped out. It seems to me it is his mere presence here that can send
you into a tizzy, and that is unfortunate because none of us can control
who accesses a Usenet newsgroup or for that matter who posts to one.
>
> I do not, dear DQ, promote my Studio, anymore than Ed Hooks does his
> Studio or his books. Ed lives and operates in SF, I do my thing in
> Colorado. I hardly expect that I'll gain a new client or two as a
> result of of my infrequent postings..... infrequent or late, because
> this once dedicated group have become dominated in the last year by you
> and SM, and a few other voices.
So drown us out with posts that you feel are relevant.
>
> It happens that I am familiar with TMJ, and it so happens that I have
> been hired in this area by the Denver Center Theatre Company's
> voice/speech division which is doing state-of-the-art research in
> voice/speech/pathology regarding acting and singing professionals. The
> staff includes laryngolosists, speech pathologists, and voice/speech
> professionals actors and actor/coaches.
>
> On a more professional scale, outside of the cess-pool called
> alt.acting, I contribute frequently to Vastavox, a listserver dedicated
> to the professional study of voice/speech/physiology for the actor and
> the singer.
>
> I contribute, DQ..... and you may think that it's about my selling
> classes.... that's your truth, and it tells me a lot about where you are
> coming from.
That's not my truth, ...and I sincerely regret having posted that.
I doubted your integrity for a split second due to your mentioning to me
with a little wink, in a private post how being in NGs and on
listservers have been very profitable to you over the years. That
coupled with your obvious objective of pissing me off without
provocation in another one of your private posts, led me to that
split-second doubt. I'm glad that Christopher Jahn piped in as quickly
as he did to both chastize me and validate what you had written. It was
a very valid response to the original posters inquiry. Believe me I
regretted it the moment I hit the send button because I realized I had
just done what I have urged Hector not to do, ...that is to attempt to
bring into question the integrity of valuable posters and contributors
to this group with stuff that has nothing to do with the quality of
advice they contribute. Oh well, ...I suppose we all from time to time
make mistakes, ...even absolutely perfect goddesses such as myself. ;^)
>
> I have on occasion enjoyed your defence of the Canadian market, though
> you could tone down the volume..... but that's just my humble opinion.
Mice need to roar, when they're next to elephants. 8^)
> I have many acting/directing colleagues based in Toronto and
> Vancouver.... but you decided to do your nationalistic statement in
> response to a harmless post I sent to Opus on that particular thread,
> because I was commenting on SAG/AFTRA commission rates in the USA.
I wasn't trying to flame you, I was just letting off a little steam.
In all honesty though, ...I thought after a few minutes that a complete
newbie unaware of the different unions or their jurisdictions might have
found it a little confusing because the thread did say Canada.
> Get, it, DQ, the USA passed fair trade acts..... the basic beginnings of
> free trade in '96. And you chose to flame yours truly, rather than to
> understand that I AM in the business of sharing information, across the
> borders.... internationally, globally.
I wasn't trying to flame you in that thread, ...another question maybe,
but not the other one. I already sent you my big flame privately.
>
> There is nothing better than sharing information about how it works in
> Canada, versus the USA.... maybe one day, your unions and mine can join,
> collaborate.
I thought our unions already collaborated.
>
> What you are missing, DQ, is that there are many people who lurk,
> because they are terrified of your style of personal attack, or
> Starmaker troller games.
I believe I only attack when attacked. I have to admit though, ...alot
of times, my humour is misconstrued. I've had others write me privately
to find out whether or not I was serious, or just joking with them. Even
Roger Bamkin in England had to clarify whether I was serious or not.
> And I'll be honest.... you both have
> discouraged beginners, wanna-be's and working professionals from
> participating.
Sorry to hear that. I don't think I've been anything but nice to
beginners and wanna-be's. As for working professionals, ...if they can't
hack it, they should get the heck out of the business before it chews
them up and spits them out. They are in for much tougher fights out in
the real cutthroat world of this biz.
>
> Look, DQ, I know that in a public post on alt.acting about Starmaker, I
> outted you.... and I did that for my own good reason....
Do you mind sharing it with me. If I don't know the method behind your
madness, I can only assume it is because you are a "FUCKING IDIOT". Were
those my exact words? ...or did I call you a "MORON"? I can't remember,
I was a little hostile at the time if you recall.
> you made a
> promise privately, and you did NOT follow through.
I did not promise to control SM. He is not a puppet and I'm not a
puppeteer. I said I was going to try an experiment, ...which I did. I
drew my conclusions based on my observations and I made them public. Is
that what has you so irked. The fact that I said I was beginning to like
the guy.
> And DQ, in a private
> post, copied to Opus, I also purposefully insulted you.... unlike others
> I deal with on the web.... you break agreements, you insult people,
> wanna-be's and professionals.
What agreement? I made no agreement to control anybody, other than to
try to control my own sometimes potty mouth. I insult people who need
to be insulted. ...and that includes those who insult me. If I feel the
insult hurled my way was deserved, ...I won't insult back. And for my
edification, when did I insult a wanna-be? I consider that to be one of
the most offensive things a professional actor can do to a would-be
actor. There *are* however a few professionals who could do with a good
insult once in a while though, and I don't have a problem taking off the
gloves and bareknuckling it with them if needed.
>
> And I don't think you're gonna change, but that is your choice. Though
> I sense at times that you have so much more to say, so much more
> potential as an actor, an artist.
Are you kidding? I AM A GODDESS!!!! My potential is *UNLIMITED*!! ;^)
>
> Listen, DQ, you won, you and Starmaker, have co-jointly changed
> alt.acting into your own image. Posters are leaving in droves, or are
> lurking.
I never knew this was a contest or a "war" as you put it.
Since you insist on calling it a war, let me suggest a battle strategy
that would guarantee you come out on the winning side.
You ready.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Here it is, start posting threads that you feel contribute to the
serious business and craft of acting. Make them interesting and topical
so that everyone can both understand and contribute to them. Take a
lesson from Ed Hooks. That man is eloquence in action. I'm sure he could
respond and post threads wherein he uses terms outside the grasp of
newcomers, but he doesn't. He keeps it simple, relevant and to the
point. And he's not afraid of showing his sense of humour. Even when he
gets pissed off or obviously annoyed with someone, he handles it in his
own unique and eloquent style while still maintaining his dignity,
self-respect and courtesy to the offender. Do that, and do it often, and
you will win this imaginary war.
>
> I will lurk or contribute as I see fit, DQ. And in the meantime, I will
> ignore you publicly. Now if you really wanna make a fool of yourself,
> then by all means attack me on alt.acting. It will hasten the ultimate
> demise of alt.acting.... when it's down to you and SM.... it'll die out
> of non participation.... and then re-emerge, one day.
You are welcome to ignore me if you wish, ...however ignoring posters
just because of who they are rather than what they've said is IMO what
is going to hasten the demise of alt.acting
>
> Or.... DQ, you'll start talking and contributing like a real actor.....
Hmmm "talking and contributing like a *real actor*", what is that?
...coachspeak for "sucking up to the acting coach?" 8^)
I am a real actor, ...and I talk and I contribute,
so I'm a little confused here. wanna clarify 8^)
> and who knows.... maybe you will actually DO something for your acting
> career.
I do things for my career everyday.
>
> Break a leg,
> Bill Smith
Come on Bill, fess up. You meant that literally didn't you? 8^)
Drama Queen
--
"The physicians cure you, the lawyers can handle your conflicts,
the businessmen move the money, but we artists make life a little more
worth living."
--Edgar Bergen
Bill491
I am genuinely impressed, Drama Queen, with your post. A little surprised,
actually.... since when I read the subject title, I figured you were gonna do
a real "number".... and you didn't. Your post shows restraint,
thoughtfulness.... and you go a long way in clarifying your positions and
you've done it in something approaching in a style that I might almost call
"diplomatic."
No, DQ, I'll never get down on my knees to worship you, that's not my style;
but maybe in the future, I'll just take some of your personal style with a
grain of salt, and a little more humor.
Drama Queen wrote:
> > A private post.... not copyrighted.... you can do what you will with it.
> *smile*
>
> Gee Bill, how private can it be when you send a copy to Carla?
> But since you've granted me the permission to do with it what I will,
> ...I will. Thank You
Both choices were intentional, DQ..... I believe that you and Carla ("Opus" to
the rest of alt.acting) have a lot more in common that you demonstrate in
adversarial style. No, I'm not aiming to be a peacemaker.... I gave up on
that life model some decades ago. But sometimes I wish that you and Carla had
come to know each other a bit more.
This will be tedious, I'm quoting you entire post, DQ..... much of what you
say makes a lot of sense... and when I comment or reply, it's simply a matter
of my clarifying where I come from.
But once again, DQ, you and I will not always agree.... so much of this is
subjective opinion, personal style.... but I will say this: you taught me a
few things about my own moments of being reactive, emotionally impulsive. And
I have done this, DQ, on a few occasions of late, especially with you. I
won't make that mistake again.
> > Dear DQ,
> > Thanks, DQ, for your alt.acting posts, DQ, written in your typical
> > "diplomatic style."
>
> You are very welcome.
>
> >
> > I was planning on resigning from alt.acting this weekend until I read
> > your post this Monday am.
> >
> > And now, I think I will lurk and occasionally contribute, as I see fit,
>
> That would be great Bill. It would be a shame to lose someone of your
> caliber.
I have no caliber, DQ..... I'm just a working actor/coach. My mentor, Bobby
Lewis, was the most self-effacing genius I've ever met. And I am no genius, I
don't have all the answers.... in in fact, my real reason for participating in
in newsgroups and listservers is to offer what I can, and learn a few tips
from other actors, directors, coaches.
> > and maybe resign and maybe play a little guerrilla warfare.
>
> That's the problem my dear. You view this as a war, ...it isn't.
No, it isn't and wasn't. And it should not have become a war. At least it
shouldn't have been between you and yours truly.
> > I once had respect for you, DQ.... you have written a few posts that I
> > felt were helpful, insightful and indeed.... contributed to the biz and
> > the art.
>
> Thank You. I do try to be helpful when and where I can.
And you have been. That was my point.
> > But that was while ago..... since then, you've written
> > nothing but trash.
>
> I dispute that claim, ...but to each his own.
Good point, DQ, but understand, please, that for the better part of '99, I
deleted most alt.acting posts, as soon as a thread deviated into personal
attacks. I don't have the time or patience for that, I've got my own career,
my own artistic and business goals. And yes, I have deleted most posts on
this group..... the good, the bad and the ugly.
> > You had an opportunity, DQ, to participate in re-making alt.acting into
> > a legitimate newsgroups (which it once was) about the business and art
> > of acting,
> The opportunity is not lost. As long as alt.acting remains a newsgroup,
> it's evolution, and/or transformation is possible. That transformation
> isn't accomplished by any *one* person, or any *two* people. It comes
> about by people controlling themselves and not trying to control someone
> else. What do you expect people to do when they are attacked? They fight
> back.
Good advice DQ. I know that when I am attacked, I can either respond
reasonably, or emotionally, or just ignore the attacker (you know, take the
high road, turn the other cheek.) You're talking about self-restraint, and
once again, you've demonstrated a lot of restraint in this post, in response
to my "semi-private" post to you, copied to Carla.
And we all know that some folks like the controlled environments of
listservers like Acting-Pro (I was one of the co-founders of that group, and
eventually resigned), or Stage and Screen, or Green Room or Vastavox. I still
subscribe to some of those groups, and yet there is something appealing to me
about the the anarchy of alt.acting.
> If you want this NG to be about serious business and serious art,
> ...then for goodness sakes, take some initiative and post threads that
> deal with serious aspects of the business and the art. Don't bitch &
> whine because someone else chooses not to be serious. Ignore it. Jumping
> in with an attack on a thick-skinned person is just a colossal waste of
> time, and contributes nothing positive to your spirits or the
> knowledge bank or the transformation you desire to bring about.
Good advice, DQ, but it is still an adjustment, maybe even a cultural shock,
for some of the folks who have stuck out alt.acting from a time more than a
year or more ago in which most of the posts were about the biz to the last
year when it have been dominated by trash talk and trollers.
> > and you claimed to have a secret plan to control Starmaker,
>
> I never said I had a secret plan to control Starmaker. You asked for
> requests for a plan to control him. All I said was that I was going to
> try an experiment. An experiment is done to discover information, not to
> control the subject of that experiment or the outcome. I did my
> experiment, and I discovered Starmaker isn't the complete obnoxious
> asshole he would have us believe. He may not be a professional actor,
> but his outside approach can add a breath of fresh air or perhaps give
> one a fresh way to tackle a dilemma. He can also point out the errors
> that newbies take. Errors that you or I would probably never even
> consider because we are so far removed from the process of starting a
> career.
Let's look at this matter of control..... that was NOT the term I used
initially some months ago in private posts, at least not the "control" of a
single individual..... no not on a newsgroup. Listservers are moderated, with
various degrees of "control." SM has as much a right, in the spirit of
democracy and anarchy to state his opinions as you, I, Ed Hooks, Mary, Opus,
Reg, and any number of other frequent posters or newbies.
Recall, DQ, that what I was suggesting was that the best way to bring
alt.acting back to a forum for pro and newbie actors was to IGNORE the
trollers; and to focus on the biz and the art, and also to accept that an
unmoderated group like this one can and should indulge OT topics and
acknowledgements and friendly chit-chat.
I know where my delete key is, and I can chose to delete or read a post or a
poster. It's democracy in action, freedom of speech, measured sometimes and
sometimes not with a little discretion, some amount of self-control.... or
not.
> > and instead, you have indeed become a part of them problem with your
> > trashy and semi-cute rejoinders full of sexual innuendo.
>
> I have become part of *your* problem Bill! Maybe you should take a
> lesson from Hector. Those lurkers and posters with a little depth who
> look further than the surface will see he is a perfect example of 'how
> to survive in the business'. "WHAT, ARE YOU ON DRUGS?!!" you ask? Not at
> all, this guy has been snubbed, kicked around, insulted, judged,
> rejected and rebuked, etc., etc., etc., and he won't go away. It's that
> type of undaunted faith in oneself and sense of belonging that one needs
> to survive the cruelties of this business. He is basically harmless. I
> don't believe he even believes some of the things he says. I think he
> just says a lot of things in an attempt to tweak our sensitivities. If
> we didn't act so darned priggish, he'd have no ammunition with which to
> fire his bullets, and I suspect he would get slightly bored. He likes to
> tease, ...but I don't believe he likes to intentionally inflict pain.
> (At least, not on *most* posters anyway).
You know, DQ, you force me to admit that every once in a while, even SM has a
purpose, a value.... every once in a while, from his troller position, he
offers a bit of insight from his admittedly "know-nothing" position..... there
was actually a political party in the late 19th century called the "Know
Nothing" party. Their credo was that they knew nothing, or almost nothing,
they were grunt-of-the-earth.... mostly farmers and small business-owners,
just struggling to survive.
But SM.... hmmmm.... he has a website and perhaps other agendas. I have a
website, along with a sig line that directs folks to The Acting Studio.... so
maybe I have an agenda, as well.. So.... whom do you trust? No one in this
business, at least not absolutely.... Caveat Emptore. Buyer beware.
> > When and if you start to talk seriously about the business and art of
> > acting, I will respond to you, with respect, on alt.acting. And in the
> > meantime, I will take great pleasure in ignoring all your posts, and
> > your flames. And when and if I resign, I will do it at my own
> > convenience, thank you.
>
> I don't believe I ever told you to resign. I pointed out that you said
> you were going to.
No, you didn't, DQ, tell me to resign.... and yes, you reminded me that I was
on the verge of resigning.... and for the moment, I won't. I won't.... for a
couple of reasons.... I am curious about what's gonna happen with the
evolution of this newsgroup..... NO, it's not a sociological study, nor
should it be a game of politics and egos.... the "serious" actors versus those
who enjoy this group for different reasons.
> You also said that you were going to urge others to
> resign as well.
No, DQ, that's not my intent..... My bulletin board lists alt.acting, along
with the moderated listservers.... I urge freedom of choice.... I suggest that
actors shop around.... yet maybe I do convey to some that they'll get more
value from Stage and Screen. I have nothing invested in alt.acting.... even
though I've been reading and subscribing to this newsgroup for five or more
years..... and I will most likely continue to read, if not contribute. I do
observe, DQ, that many folks (actors) I have urged to explore alt.acting....
along with the listservers.... drop out of alt.acting rather quickly.....
especially in the last year. But, good gosh.... I won't recommend to any actor
that he/she resign or unsubscibe from alt.acting.
> If that is how you derive great pleasure Bill, you need
> to get out more often ;^) Go see a movie, ..catch a play, or a concert,
> or even just a walk in the park communing with nature. etc.
I'll let go of this one comment, DQ..... you know little about me, and I know
little about you. Maybe one of these days, we'll come to know a bit more
about each other.... our life-styles, our fears and worries and desires. I do
all of the above, in my own pace, with friends and fellow actors and
colleagues.... with great pleasure, just as you do.
> The main problem as I see it Bill, is you have a tremendous desire to
> control something that is not yours to control. I noticed areas where
> you've gone off on Starmaker for something that was *obviously* meant as
> humour, and was in fact humour of a *tasteful* variety, yet you still
> flipped out.
And precisely, how many times, DQ, have I sent posts that express my
"tremendous desire to
control something that is not yours to control?" I've tried to stay out of
the politics, have ignored most of the flame wars.... and YEP, you are
absolutely correct.... I lost it (my sense self-control) of when SM made a
slight comment about a colleague, Ed Hooks. Can you understand, DQ, that I
chose THAT moment, whether SM deserved it or or did not..... to take a stand,
knowing full well that he would dismiss me, as he did.... and knowing full
well that I would alienate you and others?
Some of us take these risks, DQ..... and you have taken a risk, at your own
time, in your own pace to write this post.
I ought to apologize to you for confronting you, publicly and privately. In
fact, I do. And in that spirit, thanks for your graciousness.
> It seems to me it is his mere presence here that can send
> you into a tizzy, and that is unfortunate because none of us can control
> who accesses a Usenet newsgroup or for that matter who posts to one.
Me.... in a tizzy? Heck, I need to resume my TM, my aikido, and my centering
exercises. Most of the actors I work with (face-to-face) think I'm just so
laid-back, so sensible, that they WISH I would let loose, be a little more
"tizzier."
> > I do not, dear DQ, promote my Studio, anymore than Ed Hooks does his
> > Studio or his books. Ed lives and operates in SF, I do my thing in
> > Colorado. I hardly expect that I'll gain a new client or two as a
> > result of of my infrequent postings..... infrequent or late, because
> > this once dedicated group have become dominated in the last year by you
> > and SM, and a few other voices.
>
> So drown us out with posts that you feel are relevant.
That used to be so easy, DQ, before last March.... we alt.acting subscribers
talked and chatted about the biz and the art and the craft. Today, I do not
have the time to "drown out" anybody.... I contribute less and less, 'cause,
most posts about the biz and the craft and the art tend to be ignored.
> > It happens that I am familiar with TMJ, and it so happens that I have
> > been hired in this area by the Denver Center Theatre Company's
> > voice/speech division which is doing state-of-the-art research in
> > voice/speech/pathology regarding acting and singing professionals. The
> > staff includes laryngolosists, speech pathologists, and voice/speech
> > professionals actors and actor/coaches.
> >
> > On a more professional scale, outside of the cess-pool called
> > alt.acting, I contribute frequently to Vastavox, a listserver dedicated
> > to the professional study of voice/speech/physiology for the actor and
> > the singer.
> >
> > I contribute, DQ..... and you may think that it's about my selling
> > classes.... that's your truth, and it tells me a lot about where you are
> > coming from.
>
> That's not my truth, ...and I sincerely regret having posted that.
> I doubted your integrity for a split second due to your mentioning to me
> with a little wink, in a private post how being in NGs and on
> listservers have been very profitable to you over the years.
Clarification, Drama Queen.... the profit I mentioned is not necessarily
financial. Oh, that happens, from time to time.... some wanna-be or pro actor
reads one of my posts. or look at my website and decides to explore further,
contacting me, privately. More often, DQ, I engage with a working union actor
in NY, or a coach in Oakland, or a director doing his/her first Shakespeare
production.
Living and producing and directing and acting and coaching in Colorado.....
just outside of any mainstream market, but just inside of a viable regional
market, yeah, DQ, from time to time, I get a direct contact as a result of my
occasional comments on this and other newsgroups and listservers.
> That
> coupled with your obvious objective of pissing me off without
> provocation in another one of your private posts, led me to that
> split-second doubt.
Yep, DQ, you have pissed me off, publicly and privately. We are both inclined
to reacting, to acting out.... and I respect you all the more, for being the
first person to admit this. Now.... it's my turn to reciprocate.... to make
amends.... no, not amends, yet.... maybe just to say, thanks, DQ, for being so
candid, and so thoughtful.....
> I'm glad that Christopher Jahn piped in as quickly
> as he did to both chastize me and validate what you had written.
You know, this group needs a few more mediators and reasonable voices.
Thanks, C.J. for bringing some perspective into this.
> It was
> a very valid response to the original posters inquiry. Believe me I
> regretted it the moment I hit the send button because I realized I had
> just done what I have urged Hector not to do, ...that is to attempt to
> bring into question the integrity of valuable posters and contributors
> to this group with stuff that has nothing to do with the quality of
> advice they contribute. Oh well, ...I suppose we all from time to time
> make mistakes, ...even absolutely perfect goddesses such as myself. ;^)
Well, points taken, DQ. And I have regretted more than a few posts in the
instance after "Send."
And that points out a difference between listservers and private posts, versus
Usenet posts. With lists and private email, I can always "save" a re-post for
a day or so, measure what I'm saying, and either edit it or delete it. But we
are inclined, aren't we, to respond reactively on newsgroups.
Well, DQ, I'm responding impulsively this time, hopefully in the spirit of
your post.... with respect, and just as thoughtfully.
> > I have on occasion enjoyed your defence of the Canadian market, though
> > you could tone down the volume..... but that's just my humble opinion.
>
> Mice need to roar, when they're next to elephants. 8^)
I treasure close relationships with working actors and directors in Vancouver
and Toronto..... and yes, that may sound like a PC remark, but you know.....
the only time I had to consider working in your fair country was in the late
60s..... when I almost had to move there because of my anti-war politics. But
good gosh, I came to love Canada, and made many friends, and I understand what
it's like..... I understand the fact that runaway films tend to hire LA or NY
actors for principals, and relegate bit parts and extra work to the locals.
Colorado actors are often treated the same way with runaway films, or
episodics that happen to shoot in our market.
> > I have many acting/directing colleagues based in Toronto and
> > Vancouver.... but you decided to do your nationalistic statement in
> > response to a harmless post I sent to Opus on that particular thread,
> > because I was commenting on SAG/AFTRA commission rates in the USA.
>
> I wasn't trying to flame you, I was just letting off a little steam.
Good for you. I get it.
> In all honesty though, ...I thought after a few minutes that a complete
> newbie unaware of the different unions or their jurisdictions might have
> found it a little confusing because the thread did say Canada.
I get the point, the thread said "Canada," and I should have made it clear in
my opening comment that I was commenting on USA SAG/AFTRA scale and commission
rates.... or should have changed the subject title. That's a matter of
protocol, and we all have to be sensitive to protocol, but y'know, DQ, that
sometimes we just respond impulsively to the immediate post.... in my case, to
Carla's mention of the commission rates she was paying in her own (USA)
market. It was not meant as a slight to you and my Canadian fellow actors and
actresses..... but I will make it a point, in the future to either change the
subject title, or to acknowledge my union and non-union fellow travellers from
across the artificial border..
> > Get, it, DQ, the USA passed fair trade acts..... the basic beginnings of
> > free trade in '96. And you chose to flame yours truly, rather than to
> > understand that I AM in the business of sharing information, across the
> > borders.... internationally, globally.
>
> I wasn't trying to flame you in that thread, ...another question maybe,
> but not the other one. I already sent you my big flame privately.
Hmmmm, are there major style differences between a public flame, versus a
private flame? Is there such a thing as a private flame? Methinks that
private posts are just nice or nasty or neutral or naughty, or dulllll. I
like, DQ, that you and I shared a few private or semi-private posts.... that
we went off-line, off-the public record, and aired a few griefs and bitches
and moans..... and that we did that outside of the domain of alt.acting.
Frankly, I wish that more of alt.acting stuff would go off-line, but I
recognize that that's not gonna happen. It's just my style and my humble
opinion that most of what goes on in alt.acting oughtta be done privately.....
but that's just a preference, not a control issue.
And who will be the first person to define the style differences between
public and private and usenet and Listservers posts and get it quickly
published.... the pro's and con's, the protocols and the freedoms.... well
someone will be make a few million bucks in the next year. But this
best-seller will have to include at least a few anecdote, and the "ten best"
list of how to do this, that or the other.
> > There is nothing better than sharing information about how it works in
> > Canada, versus the USA.... maybe one day, your unions and mine can join,
> > collaborate.
>
> I thought our unions already collaborated.
Not yet. We have an uneasy peace.... and some scales.... but not much more.
Trust me <g> <wink, wink>. Your union makes it impossible for me to work in
Canada, unless I AM PRE-CAST in a USA imported production. And Canadian
actors trying to work in the USA have to deal with our INS and Green Card
policies. I don't see it happening for a good many years, but I envision a
future in which actors are members of the universal community, wherein we can
cross borders and work, or wherein we can stay in our own geography, and be
treated with respect by runaway producers.
> > What you are missing, DQ, is that there are many people who lurk,
> > because they are terrified of your style of personal attack, or
> > Starmaker troller games.
> I believe I only attack when attacked.
Nope, with all respect, you take pot-shots, from time to time.
> I have to admit though, ...alot
> of times, my humour is misconstrued. I've had others write me privately
> to find out whether or not I was serious, or just joking with them. Even
> Roger Bamkin in England had to clarify whether I was serious or not.
And I have had the same feedback from time to time, and I reflect on that
feedback.... and sometimes I work more at making myself clearer.... even with
my own brand of humor or seriousness.
> > And I'll be honest.... you both have
> > discouraged beginners, wanna-be's and working professionals from
> > participating.
> Sorry to hear that. I don't think I've been anything but nice to
> beginners and wanna-be's.
Truth be told, I don't read wanna-be posts much anymore, especially the
threads that follow. I used to..... used to respond, and I still do care, but
I'm running out of time.... so I keep my fingers crossed that someone is
giving good solid information..... and doing it responsibly.
> As for working professionals, ...if they can't
> hack it, they should get the heck out of the business before it chews
> them up and spits them out. They are in for much tougher fights out in
> the real cutthroat world of this biz.
Good point, DQ. But you know, I've been doing things a little differently of
late.... with the actors and directors and CD's with whom I work, I will agree
or disagree, collaborate or not.... but I figure that there is NOT a lot to be
gained by being competitive, or by playing ego games.
> > Look, DQ, I know that in a public post on alt.acting about Starmaker, I
> > outted you.... and I did that for my own good reason....
> Do you mind sharing it with me. If I don't know the method behind your
> madness, I can only assume it is because you are a "FUCKING IDIOT". Were
> those my exact words? ...or did I call you a "MORON"? I can't remember,
> I was a little hostile at the time if you recall.
Yep, I recall, and I don't really blame you. You've been as nasty with me as
I have with you. Which came first.... chicken or the egg.... it's irrelevant
now.
> > you made a
> > promise privately, and you did NOT follow through.
>
> I did not promise to control SM.
Again, DQ, I never used the word, "control" applied to SM.
> He is not a puppet and I'm not a
> puppeteer. I said I was going to try an experiment, ...which I did. I
> drew my conclusions based on my observations and I made them public. Is
> that what has you so irked. The fact that I said I was beginning to like
> the guy.
Begrudgingly, Drama Queen, I note that on rare occasions, SM has made an
occasional remark that makes sense, whether for the newbie, or the pro.
On occasion.... rare occasions. For the most part, I still maintain that he
is dangerous.... but that's just my humble opinion. And on the other hand,
when he is doing his sexist or trolling crap.... FOR PROFIT.... then maybe he
does serve a purpose. I hope that SM always maintains a presence on
alt.acting.... and it's up to each one of us to figure out how to deal with
him.... no not control him.... just know that he is there, for eternity.
Faust needs his Mephistopheles. And maybe SM will either get bored, or he
will will become a bit more sophisticated.... but I doubt it. The "trickster"
grows, even while playing a self-serving game.
> > And DQ, in a private
> > post, copied to Opus, I also purposefully insulted you.... unlike others
> > I deal with on the web.... you break agreements, you insult people,
> > wanna-be's and professionals.
>
> What agreement?
You're correct, DQ.... we made no agreement.... I misspoke. I had hoped for
an agreement, an understanding, but neither of us took the time to come to
know or respect each other.
> I made no agreement to control anybody, other than to
> try to control my own sometimes potty mouth. I insult people who need
> to be insulted. ...and that includes those who insult me. If I feel the
> insult hurled my way was deserved, ...I won't insult back. And for my
> edification, when did I insult a wanna-be?
I can' t recall, DQ, that you ever did a number on a wanna-be.... clearly I
generalized..... admittedly, from my perception.... that you have trashed
other folks.... again, that's just my perception, and I haven't really read
many of your public posts of late..... and nothing's changed, I still have
projects more important that to read the hundreds of posts that alt.acting
generates every week.
> I consider that to be one of
> the most offensive things a professional actor can do to a would-be
> actor. There *are* however a few professionals who could do with a good
> insult once in a while though, and I don't have a problem taking off the
> gloves and bareknuckling it with them if needed.
Well, do I know, DQ.
> > And I don't think you're gonna change, but that is your choice. Though
> > I sense at times that you have so much more to say, so much more
> > potential as an actor, an artist.
>
> Are you kidding? I AM A GODDESS!!!! My potential is *UNLIMITED*!! ;^)
Yeah, yeah. And I do my pseudo serious thing, of late, and you do your
goddess thing..... we have different styles, and maybe none of us should be
taken for face value.... maybe there is more substance underneath our facades.
> > Listen, DQ, you won, you and Starmaker, have co-jointly changed
> > alt.acting into your own image. Posters are leaving in droves, or are
> > lurking.
>
> I never knew this was a contest or a "war" as you put it.
> Since you insist on calling it a war, let me suggest a battle strategy
> that would guarantee you come out on the winning side.
> You ready.....
Always.
> Here it is, start posting threads that you feel contribute to the
> serious business and craft of acting. Make them interesting and topical
> so that everyone can both understand and contribute to them.
Easier said than done, DQ. The handful of "serious" posts that have been
posted on alt.acting for the last year, even those that are both topical,
interesting, well written, engaging and balanced between the scholarly and the
practical, the art and the craft..... and even salt and peppered with
anecdotes and a little humor, have been ignored.
What draws attention are those threads go off in a different direction..... no
more comments on that area..... I've made my preferences know, and they would
just invite another series of posts.
> Take a
> lesson from Ed Hooks. That man is eloquence in action.
Ed and I had a rough start some years ago..... we did not always see
eye-to-eye, and yet after a period of time, we grew to respect each other, met
face-to-face last Thanksgiving in San Francisco. I like Ed's style, and I am
not Ed. He's taught me a few things, not so much about eloquence, as much as
tolerance and pragmatism.
> I'm sure he could
> respond and post threads wherein he uses terms outside the grasp of
> newcomers, but he doesn't. He keeps it simple, relevant and to the
> point. And he's not afraid of showing his sense of humour.
Good qualities on Ed's part. I admire him. And I am not Ed.
> Even when he
> gets pissed off or obviously annoyed with someone, he handles it in his
> own unique and eloquent style while still maintaining his dignity,
> self-respect and courtesy to the offender. Do that, and do it often, and
> you will win this imaginary war.
One more time, I am not Ed..... just as you are gonna be true to your personal
style, I will be true to mine. If I've learned anything from this exchange,
it's that I should have kept my own style of restraint or diplomacy when SM
did his "humorous" number on Ed..... but I caved in to my own baser instincts.
> > I will lurk or contribute as I see fit, DQ. And in the meantime, I will
> > ignore you publicly. Now if you really wanna make a fool of yourself,
> > then by all means attack me on alt.acting. It will hasten the ultimate
> > demise of alt.acting.... when it's down to you and SM.... it'll die out
> > of non participation.... and then re-emerge, one day.
>
> You are welcome to ignore me if you wish, ...however ignoring posters
> just because of who they are rather than what they've said is IMO what
> is going to hasten the demise of alt.acting
Point taken, DQ. Well, I'm clearly not ignoring YOU, am I <g>? So, maybe
I'll throw in a comment from time to time, when I feel I have something to
contribute.
> > Or.... DQ, you'll start talking and contributing like a real actor.....
>
> Hmmm "talking and contributing like a *real actor*", what is that?
> ...coachspeak for "sucking up to the acting coach?" 8^)
Nope. Though I understand that that is your perception of me. Nope, DQ, I
am also capable of being defensive, over reactive.... and it really
accomplishes nothing, does it?
> I am a real actor, ...and I talk and I contribute,
> so I'm a little confused here. wanna clarify 8^)
I never questioned you, DQ, about you acting and your commitment to acting.
Well.... maybe I have. Maybe I've only perceived you from a narrow bandwidth.
> > and who knows.... maybe you will actually DO something for your acting
> > career.
>
> I do things for my career everyday.
Good, I believe you. Share more, when you have the time..
Today, I have no auditions, but I'm working on a VO gig for an industrial
which tapes next Tuesday. I've got workshop to prepare for tonight.... and
two of those actors are working on scenes from Ibsen's Doll's House which we
will be show-casing this spring, along with some scenes from Shakespeare. I
am directing three actors in a collection of enacts, THREE VIEWING by Jeffrey
Hutchens. I am also working on a proposal to fund my next film project....
the proposal has to artfully tie in the fact that my last short film, PULSE,
won 1st place in the Colorado Independent Film Festival.
I don't talk about my work as a SAG/AFTRA actor or stage or film director on
this group. Doesn't seem that there is much point to it..... there are folks
who have more credits than I and who work in national markets, not just a
regional market like Colorado. My contribution to alt.acting comes from what
I know and practice as an actor, and yes, the coach me sometimes is obvious.
But I am here to learn and network, DQ.
> > Break a leg,
> > Bill Smith
>
> Come on Bill, fess up. You meant that literally didn't you? 8^)
Nope. I am an ageing pacifist and conscientious objector. Yes, sometimes a
fighter and a scrapper, much to my chagrin..... but I don't even like to cause
harm to spiders and flies.
breaknobones,
bill
--
THE ACTING STUDIO
http://gvtg.com/theactingstudio
The Starmaker
> No, DQ, I'll never get down on my knees to worship you, that's not my style;
I cannot understand how any man can say
he cannot worship Drama Queen.
It doesn't matter if she calls herself a Goddess
or a Queen.
That fact is, she is a *Women*!
That is enough reason to worship her.
At least any part of her body can be worshipped.
A womans neck is very pretty. Every artist worships a womens neck.
A womans lips are a work of art.
The eyes.
The Legs! (I'm a leg man myself)
The Breast! (I don't care what size they are)
That Ass! (I know some of you guys are into that stuff)
I save the best for last!
That _______:) is driving guys crazy for eternity.
That's enough reason to go downn on your hands and knees.
So when I see guys saying they cannot worship DQ, I don't get it.
I'm missing something.
Even the guy who hates her the most will jump on her in a second,
if she lets him.
Hell, I worship her shoes!
The Starmaker
Of course, there could be one reason why a guy wouldn't worship
Drama Queen.
He's gotta be a fuckin fag!
ADan327830
part.
now why did you have to ruin a perfectly good description of women with that?
and gay men think women are beautiful too... they just don't try getting into
our pants.
>starmaker says
>I cannot understand how any man can say
>he cannot worship Drama Queen
snipped
angie
southern cali sure is warm!
The Starmaker
>
> you know, SM, you were doing really good until you came to the F*cking f*g
> part.
> now why did you have to ruin a perfectly good description of women with that?
>
> and gay men think women are beautiful too... they just don't try getting into
> our pants.
Angie,
You gonna have to learn how to take the good with the bad.
By now you should have learn that I always end my post with a dose of
reality.
I don't want anybody to get the impression that I'm a good person. It's
bad for my reputation.
The Starmaker
ADan327830
>I don't want anybody to get the impression that I'm a good person. It's
>bad for my reputation.
>
you know... Harrison Ford has a rep as a good person. So doe Spielberg. Works
for them.
The Starmaker
>
> >
> >I don't want anybody to get the impression that I'm a good person. It's
> >bad for my reputation.
> >
>
> you know... Harrison Ford has a rep as a good person. So doe Spielberg. Works
> for them.
You're missing one very important factor Angie. Those are actors. They
are
in front of the scene. I'm not an actor, I'm a starmaker. We are behind
the
scenes people. It's a different world behind the scenes. It's a ugly
world
behind the scenes...but I like it that way.
While you're doing Leno, I'm in the green room watching you on their
small cheap
color tv monitor. I'm the guy that kills the cow and chops it up, gets
blood
all over myself so you can have a filet mion steak.
I'm the guy that gets rid of your boyfriend that you no longer want
because he
tore up all your pictures. I'm the guy who takes not 10%, 15% or 25% of
your
money but 75%! Plus, I have to let you know I OWN YOU. You don't make a
move
unless I give you the word. You...belong....to...me. Plus I have sex
with you
whether you want to or not. So don't tell I should be a good person.
It's bad
for business...it isn't good for your career, and being good takes too
much
energy anyway. It much easier to be bad...at least for me. And it's fun
for me.
The Starmaker
I smell killfile.
The Starmaker
>
> Spielberg is not an actor
>
> he's basically supreme ruler of Hollywood.
>
> And appears to be a very nice guy.
> angie
>
> southern cali sure is warm!
The problem with guys like Spielberg is they don't give other directors
a chance
to direct.
The only reason he keeps making good movies is because *they* keep
giving him
more money to make movies.
*They* are afraid to give anybody else the money to make movies. Cause
*they* are
afraid of losing money.
So these guys say, we give him the money and he makes good pictures that
make
money.
They are afraid to give the money to a good director who has not any
history.
They are lots of good directors. They just don't have the same money
being thrown
at them.
So it gives the impression that Speilberg is a great director but in
reality he
is just a director who has money backing him.
Any director can make great movies if they had the money behind them.
Spielberg keeps making great movies cause they keep giving him the money
to do it.
If they didn't give him the money, you would never have heard of him.
Any artist can make a great painting if they had the time and money
behind them.
It's the money not the director that makes him great.
Why were there so many great artist in the 16th, 17th, and 18th century?
Because there was no tv, radio, movies, cars etc.
They had nothing else to do! So they can spend all year painting a
picture.
You take all year to paint a picture, I guarantee you it'll be a great
painting
by the time you finish.
Now, if you're an artist, they want the painting done within the hour.
I didn't mean to bust your bubble, but reality bites.
There is something about you that gets me going, I don't know what it
is.
The Starmaker
Drama Queen
Was this your tribute for "International Woman's Day"?
...or was it just a co-incidence? 8^)
Drama Queen
The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Bill491 wrote:
>
> > No, DQ, I'll never get down on my knees to worship you, that's not my style;
>
> I cannot understand how any man can say
> he cannot worship Drama Queen.
>
> It doesn't matter if she calls herself a Goddess
> or a Queen.
>
> That fact is, she is a *Women*!
>
> That is enough reason to worship her.
>
> At least any part of her body can be worshipped.
>
> A womans neck is very pretty. Every artist worships a womens neck.
>
> A womans lips are a work of art.
>
> The eyes.
>
> The Legs! (I'm a leg man myself)
>
> The Breast! (I don't care what size they are)
>
> That Ass! (I know some of you guys are into that stuff)
>
> I save the best for last!
>
> That _______:) is driving guys crazy for eternity.
>
> That's enough reason to go downn on your hands and knees.
>
> So when I see guys saying they cannot worship DQ, I don't get it.
>
> I'm missing something.
>
> Even the guy who hates her the most will jump on her in a second,
> if she lets him.
>
> Hell, I worship her shoes!
>
> The Starmaker
>
> Of course, there could be one reason why a guy wouldn't worship
> Drama Queen.
> He's gotta be a fuckin fag!
--
ADan327830
ADan327830
nah.
that would be too easy
Laura Wilson
"The Starmaker" <hld...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:38C746...@ix.netcom.com...
> ADan327830 wrote:
> >
> > Spielberg is not an actor
> >
> > he's basically supreme ruler of Hollywood.
> >
> > And appears to be a very nice guy.
> >
> > southern cali sure is warm!
>
> a chance
> to direct.
> The only reason he keeps making good movies is because *they* keep
> giving him
> more money to make movies.
Who is this mysterious *they* you keep referring to?
> *They* are afraid to give anybody else the money to make movies. Cause
> *they* are
> afraid of losing money.
> So these guys say, we give him the money and he makes good pictures that
> make
> money.
What else are studios execs going to say? "Hey, Speilberg may be good, but
*this* guy sucks! Let's give him some money and let him make some crappy
piece of shit ?"
> They are afraid to give the money to a good director who has not any
> history.
Define "history" please. Are you referring to directors who haven't made
any movies for a major studio before? Directors who have made only one or
two indie shorts? Or directors who have made a short "concept piece" using
a camcorder to film a couple of their friends freaking out in the woods of
Maryland?
> They are lots of good directors. They just don't have the same money
> being thrown
> at them.
Neither did Speilberg when he started. Amblin was filmed on a shoestring.
And have you seen what the budget was for American Grafitti?
> So it gives the impression that Speilberg is a great director but in
> reality he
> is just a director who has money backing him.
No. Speilberg is a great director who, through a lot of hard work and
effort over time, has managed to gain the financial backing he now enjoys.
> Any director can make great movies if they had the money behind them.
Bullshit. You obviously never saw Ishtar or Cimino's Heaven's Gate!
> Spielberg keeps making great movies cause they keep giving him the money
> to do it.
> If they didn't give him the money, you would never have heard of him.
Bullshit. Spielberg, like Lucas, Scorsese, Stone, and Coppolla, was given a
break after making a low-budget student film.
> Any artist can make a great painting if they had the time and money
> behind them.
> It's the money not the director that makes him great.
> Why were there so many great artist in the 16th, 17th, and 18th century?
> Because there was no tv, radio, movies, cars etc.
> They had nothing else to do! So they can spend all year painting a
> picture.
Nothing to do... let's see... between the 16th and 18th centuries, wars were
raged and new governments were forged; the Christian church split and split
and split again as different religious leaders called for various reforms;
the Christian Bible was re-drafted, edited, and reconstituted numerous times
to serve the political agendas of Kings and Pontifs; people fled the lands
of their birth on arduous sea journeys to an unknown, possibly hostile new
world to escape religious persecution; men, women, and children were dragged
from their homes, imprisioned, their property seized and sold off to pay for
the cost of torturing, burning, hanging, and drowning them as heretics,
witches, or because they were Jews who refused to convert to Christianity;
the practice of midwifery began to disappear as the "medical profession"
took over obstetric care... do I need to continue? Or do you get the
picture?
> You take all year to paint a picture, I guarantee you it'll be a great
> painting
> by the time you finish.
If that were true, Adolph Hitler would be remembered alongside Rembrandt and
Van Dyke instead of Vlad the Impaler. He was a mediocre artist, at best.
And all the time in the world would not have allowed him to paint anything
comparable with the Mona Lisa or Monet's Water Lillies.
> Now, if you're an artist, they want the painting done within the hour.
You don't seem to know much about art history. The painters and sculptors
of the Renneisence or the next few centuries that followed it didn't have
all the time in the world to create their masterpieces. These were
commissioned pieces of work with definite deadlines behind them. The Pope
was constantly interrupting Michaelangelo during the painting of the Sistine
Chapel, nagging him on and on about finishing the work (and then he
complains when none of the people in the scenes are dressed!). Many of
Leonardo da Vinci's pieces were never finished because he was working on so
many different projects. Sargeant got paid only because his portraits never
failed to flatter their subjects (think of what masterpieces of realism he
might have created without those restrictions).
And lets not forget the composers! Mozart died a pauper, yet do you really
think he could have written anything that matches the musical legacy he left
us if he had been favored by wealthy patrons (the patronage didn't seem to
do much for his more fortunate peers--most of their works are forgotten by
all but a few classical music scholars).
> I didn't mean to bust your bubble, but reality bites.
What makes you think your post did anything of the kind?
> There is something about you that gets me going, I don't know what it
> is.
Ya, know. I'm beginning to feel the same way about you. Maybe it's your
habit to speaking flippantly on topics you know nothing about.
Just a thought.
Laura Wilson
The Starmaker
>
> "The Starmaker" <hld...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:38C746...@ix.netcom.com...
> > ADan327830 wrote:
> > >
> > > Spielberg is not an actor
> > >
> > > he's basically supreme ruler of Hollywood.
> > >
> > > And appears to be a very nice guy.
> > > angie
> > >
> > > southern cali sure is warm!
> >
> > The problem with guys like Spielberg is they don't give other directors
> > a chance
> > to direct.
> > The only reason he keeps making good movies is because *they* keep
> > giving him
> > more money to make movies.
>
> Who is this mysterious *they* you keep referring to?
Moe, Larry and Curly.
>
> > *They* are afraid to give anybody else the money to make movies. Cause
> > *they* are
> > afraid of losing money.
> > So these guys say, we give him the money and he makes good pictures that
> > make
> > money.
>
> What else are studios execs going to say? "Hey, Speilberg may be good, but
> *this* guy sucks! Let's give him some money and let him make some crappy
> piece of shit ?"
Such language coming from a girl with such a pretty name like Laura.
>
> > They are afraid to give the money to a good director who has not any
> > history.
>
> Define "history" please. Are you referring to directors who haven't made
> any movies for a major studio before? Directors who have made only one or
> two indie shorts? Or directors who have made a short "concept piece" using
> a camcorder to film a couple of their friends freaking out in the woods of
> Maryland?
What's 'indie'?:)
By "history" *honey*, I mean box office history.
>
> > They are lots of good directors. They just don't have the same money
> > being thrown
> > at them.
>
> Neither did Speilberg when he started. Amblin was filmed on a shoestring.
> And have you seen what the budget was for American Grafitti?
I'm talking about directors with box office history...for some reason
they stopped giving them more money to do films.
>
> > So it gives the impression that Speilberg is a great director but in
> > reality he
> > is just a director who has money backing him.
>
> No. Speilberg is a great director who, through a lot of hard work and
> effort over time, has managed to gain the financial backing he now enjoys.
He doesn't have a monopoly over hard work and effort.
>
> > Any director can make great movies if they had the money behind them.
>
> Bullshit. You obviously never saw Ishtar or Cimino's Heaven's Gate!
Ohhhhh, honey...you sound bitter, angry....I have a feeling you're a hot
chick!
Is there more of this coming? I think I'm falling in love!
>
> > Spielberg keeps making great movies cause they keep giving him the money
> > to do it.
>
> > If they didn't give him the money, you would never have heard of him.
>
> Bullshit. Spielberg, like Lucas, Scorsese, Stone, and Coppolla, was given a
> break after making a low-budget student film.
Two "Bullshits" in a row! You're are hot!! I always say, angry chicks
are the
best sex.
Funny, you name directors names that only most people can remember.
Doesn't that
tell you something? 500 motion pictures were made last year but you
could
only remember the same directors, year after year after year after year.
>
> > Any artist can make a great painting if they had the time and money
> > behind them.
> > It's the money not the director that makes him great.
> > Why were there so many great artist in the 16th, 17th, and 18th century?
> > Because there was no tv, radio, movies, cars etc.
> > They had nothing else to do! So they can spend all year painting a
> > picture.
>
> Nothing to do... let's see... between the 16th and 18th centuries, wars were
> raged and new governments were forged; the Christian church split and split
> and split again as different religious leaders called for various reforms;
> the Christian Bible was re-drafted, edited, and reconstituted numerous times
> to serve the political agendas of Kings and Pontifs; people fled the lands
> of their birth on arduous sea journeys to an unknown, possibly hostile new
> world to escape religious persecution; men, women, and children were dragged
> from their homes, imprisioned, their property seized and sold off to pay for
> the cost of torturing, burning, hanging, and drowning them as heretics,
> witches, or because they were Jews who refused to convert to Christianity;
> the practice of midwifery began to disappear as the "medical profession"
> took over obstetric care... do I need to continue? Or do you get the
> picture?
I got the picture. You are great in bed! But I hope you don't talk that
much in bed...are you a moaner or a screamer?
I happen to be an expert on discussing topics I know nothing about.
I'm always swimming in uncharted waters. I go where no man has gone
before.
I find people who talk about things they know about very boring.
I find people who talk about things they know nothing about very
stimulating.
I like to surround myself with stupid people.
Why don't you talk about things you know nothing about....like sex!
>
> Just a thought.
"Just a thought"! Are you kidding!! How far back did you have to go to
find something
on me to chew on. What happen? You can't stand stupid talk?
You know what your problem is honey? You need to be banged correctly.
>
> Laura Wilson
The Starmaker
Or is it you don't like my stupid name?
Laura Wilson
> Laura Wilson wrote:
> >
> > "The Starmaker" <hld...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:38C746...@ix.netcom.com...
> > > ADan327830 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Spielberg is not an actor
> > > >
> > > > he's basically supreme ruler of Hollywood.
> > > >
> > > > And appears to be a very nice guy.
> > > > angie
> > > >
> > > > southern cali sure is warm!
> > >
> > > The problem with guys like Spielberg is they don't give other
directors
> > > a chance
> > > to direct.
> > > The only reason he keeps making good movies is because *they* keep
> > > giving him
> > > more money to make movies.
> >
> > Who is this mysterious *they* you keep referring to?
>
> Moe, Larry and Curly.
Oh, you mean the leading candidates for your paternity. I get it now.
>
> >
> > > *They* are afraid to give anybody else the money to make movies. Cause
> > > *they* are
> > > afraid of losing money.
> > > So these guys say, we give him the money and he makes good pictures
that
> > > make
> > > money.
> >
> > What else are studios execs going to say? "Hey, Speilberg may be good,
but
> > *this* guy sucks! Let's give him some money and let him make some
crappy
> > piece of shit ?"
>
> Such language coming from a girl with such a pretty name like Laura.
I bet you don't get out much, do you? Or is it that you don't get any?
>
> >
> > > They are afraid to give the money to a good director who has not any
> > > history.
> >
> > Define "history" please. Are you referring to directors who haven't
made
> > any movies for a major studio before? Directors who have made only one
or
> > two indie shorts? Or directors who have made a short "concept piece"
using
> > a camcorder to film a couple of their friends freaking out in the woods
of
> > Maryland?
>
> What's 'indie'?:)
> By "history" *honey*, I mean box office history.
Was that *honey* intended to get a rise out of me. Ahhh, too transparent.
>
> >
> > > They are lots of good directors. They just don't have the same money
> > > being thrown
> > > at them.
> >
> > Neither did Speilberg when he started. Amblin was filmed on a
shoestring.
> > And have you seen what the budget was for American Grafitti?
>
> I'm talking about directors with box office history...for some reason
> they stopped giving them more money to do films.
And I was saying that everyone starts somewhere. Not every director is
going to have the same chance of getting mega-bucks backing for their film.
In some cases, it's not fair. In others, it's a damn shame. In still more,
it's a damn *good* thing (having just come home after seeing a disappointing
example of the latter). I'm not supporting the Hollywood System by any
means. Getting the backing of a major studio for a project isn't always
based on the highest asthetic and it's as much a matter of schmoozing,
reputation, trend, and marketing as it is the quality of a director's
portfolio. That doesn't mean that talent doesn't count for anything.
Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List are, like most of his works, based
on subjects that most of us (those who haven't experienced them first hand)
only think about in the abstract: war, the holocaust, and the war years of
the 30's and 40's in general. But where Speilberg rises above the studio
execs' low opinion of what the public will *buy* is that he makes those
topics personal and life-sized. You get to know the characters in his
movies, become intimate with them. And yes, you *can* see the money in
those movies (big name stars, the latest technical/computer graphic effects,
etc.), but I'd be willing to bet you'd still see the same comittment to plot
development, depth of characterization, and thematic concern whether the
film cost $40K or $40M.
>
> >
> > > So it gives the impression that Speilberg is a great director but in
> > > reality he
> > > is just a director who has money backing him.
> >
> > No. Speilberg is a great director who, through a lot of hard work and
> > effort over time, has managed to gain the financial backing he now
enjoys.
>
> He doesn't have a monopoly over hard work and effort.
Didn't say he did. But he's a good example to follow: he knew from
childhood that what he wanted to do was make films and he put every ounce of
energy and drive into persuing that goal.
>
> >
> > > Any director can make great movies if they had the money behind them.
> >
> > Bullshit. You obviously never saw Ishtar or Cimino's Heaven's Gate!
>
> Ohhhhh, honey...you sound bitter, angry....I have a feeling you're a hot
> chick!
> Is there more of this coming? I think I'm falling in love!
More pathetic attempts to make this a gender flame war. Sorry. Not taking
the bait.
>
> >
> > > Spielberg keeps making great movies cause they keep giving him the
money
> > > to do it.
> >
> > > If they didn't give him the money, you would never have heard of him.
> >
> > Bullshit. Spielberg, like Lucas, Scorsese, Stone, and Coppolla, was
given a
> > break after making a low-budget student film.
>
> Two "Bullshits" in a row! You're are hot!! I always say, angry chicks
> are the
> best sex.
Tsk. Tsk. Still trying? Oh, well. Some people never learn.
>
> Funny, you name directors names that only most people can remember.
Okay. How about Sam Fuller?
> Doesn't that
> tell you something? 500 motion pictures were made last year but you
> could
> only remember the same directors, year after year after year after year.
I was using those particular directors precisely because they are the type
of *big names* that seem to have a grudge against in order to point out
that they all started as lowly film school students, trying to get 40
minutes of celluloid looked at by somebody, somewhere.
You seem overly concerned with sex. Are you sure you're posting to the
right newsgroup?
I can see that.
> I'm always swimming in uncharted waters. I go where no man has gone
> before.
Whoopee. I am so deeply impressed that I can now depart this life knowing
that there really was a purpose to it all: so that you could do your
impersonation of William Shatner on Usenet. Thank you. I'll remember you
in my will.
> I find people who talk about things they know about very boring.
That's only because you have no idea what their saying.
> I find people who talk about things they know nothing about very
> stimulating.
> I like to surround myself with stupid people.
Why? So that you can feel intelligent?
> Why don't you talk about things you know nothing about....like sex!
Again with the sex. Like I said, you must not be getting any. My
sympathies.
> >
> > Just a thought.
>
> "Just a thought"! Are you kidding!! How far back did you have to go to
> find something
> on me to chew on. What happen? You can't stand stupid talk?
>
> You know what your problem is honey? You need to be banged correctly.
I suppose this is the climax of your lackluster efforts to get me to fly off
at you about being a sexist, male chauvanistic, woman-hating pig. I have to
say, I'm disappointed. I've seen much better, online and off.
> >
> > Laura Wilson
>
>
> The Starmaker
>
> Or is it you don't like my stupid name?
You can call yourself The Fecalmaker for all I care. More power to ya.
The Starmaker
> I bet you don't get out much, do you? Or is it that you don't get any?
That's what I'm trying to do right now! Give me time.
I haven't figure out which buttons to press...or if you
even got any buttons to press.
But I do know one thing....I want you!
The Starmaker
Sex doesn't work with you.
Flowers, I don't think so.
I might just have to *slap* you, just to get your attention.
mary
I thought you wanted me :(.....Boo hoo. What shall I ever do now?
BTW...its like that tingle you get from Static Electricity. Multiply it 5
score :)....
The Starmaker wrote in message <38D1D7...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Laura Wilson wrote:
>
>> I bet you don't get out much, do you? Or is it that you don't get any?
>
The Starmaker
>
> Ahh Starmaker...
> I thought you wanted me :(.....Boo hoo. What shall I ever do now?
I still want you Mary...I never said I wanted *only* you.
The Starmaker
mary
Guess I'll just move on along then.........I'm way too selfish for you then.
The Starmaker wrote in message <38D2EC...@ix.netcom.com>...
The Starmaker
>
> WEll Shucks ;P ...burst my bubble why don't you.
> Guess I'll just move on along then.........I'm way too selfish for you then.
I thought you were free minded?
I thought you were a free bird?
You want me locked up in your bird cage?
You want me on a ball and chain?
As long as you can do whatever you want then I'm seeing other women.
The Starmaker
Don't play games with my heart. It hurts enough not being with you.
Telling me you'll 'just move on along then'...even hurts me more.
What am I supposed to do?
I really don't know what to do?
I'm a very impusive person. If you tell me do whatever your hearts tells
you to do,...do you know what I would do?
I would be with you now.
Okay, I'll tell you this...you *are* the one I always wanted!
I'm hanging up this phone line because my heart hurts too
much...bye............