In Reply to: Hollywood always has had a huge ratio of dross to gold... so what? posted by tinear on August 17, 2006 at 06:34:30:
The discussion was based on the premise that its quality went south sometime after the fifties. The counterargument was made that the seventies, in particular, were extremely rich in good films.Hard to prove one way or another, of course, but given the huge production numbers the idea of a slide appears to be a supportable notion.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- That was not the point - Victor Khomenko 06:37:29 08/17/06 (12)
- Re: That was not the point - jamesgarvin 07:21:59 08/17/06 (11)
- We will not be able to resolve this analytically, and that is not my intention - Victor Khomenko 07:42:14 08/17/06 (10)
- Well that speaks of your taste in moies and ideas of mormality. - Analog Scott 09:13:00 08/17/06 (9)
- Rather that speaking of what is normal, how about some examples of abnormal? - Victor Khomenko 07:53:07 08/18/06 (8)
- Re: Rather that speaking of what is normal, how about some examples of abnormal? - Analog Scott 11:30:10 08/18/06 (6)
- These two posts appear to be written by the same guy... before and after the four-martini lunch - Victor Khomenko 08:18:29 08/19/06 (5)
- looks like you'd rather take cheap shots at me than deal with the content of my post - Analog Scott 10:42:01 08/19/06 (4)
- Try smiling while you post - Victor Khomenko 11:03:19 08/19/06 (3)
- you are right. I should have included a big :-) - Analog Scott 11:24:41 08/19/06 (2)
- No harm done - Victor Khomenko 12:13:54 08/19/06 (1)
- Underdog stories are moderately popular but - Analog Scott 13:02:22 08/19/06 (0)
- Re: Rather that speaking of what is normal, how about some examples of abnormal? - jamesgarvin 10:25:17 08/18/06 (0)