Thanks for thinking of us.

My politics are probably closer to Sean Penn's than yours are, but they don't impact my moviegoing decisions any more than an actor's personal life does.

Heck, I think Tom Cruise is a really scary, creepy guy in real life, but I paid to see (and enjoyed) Mission Impossible 3.

I think Sean Penn is a great actor, but he's made a couple dud movies.
If the movie has good buzz, I'll go see it. If not, I won't.

I'm an objective level-headed(almost robotic-like) Republican...who also likes Frank Zappa...

I know, I know...shocking!...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

That is such a hack expression..."what they USED to do"

It is RARE for a singer or band to make lightening strike twice. Michael Jackson had two albums in the top 20 EVER sold - BUT they were considered failures because they didn't match "Thriller" - the biggest selling album of all time.

The Dixie Chicks' "Fly" album is in the top 50 albums sold ever.

No. They probably will never do that again.

(by the way - I think your article is about a tour that is several years ago)

They're not going hungry.

YOU were the one that commented that they were...and I quote..."selling more albums and winning more awards and getting bigger audiences than they had BEFORE all the drama."

If they will "probably will never do that again", then don't tell me they're doing it right now like your previous post did...

Nope...

The article's date in June, 2006...

I never said they were...I'm sure they made many new friends with their non-musical commentary to replace those that liked them originally for their non-political music...

But I wasn't the one saying they were doing BETTER than before...you did...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

And speaking of MJ, now there was an entertainer who was embroiled in some ultimate taboo stuff. Reminds me of Fatty Arbuckle. But Arbuckle was found innocent and the jurors even wrote an apology. But his career was still pretty much over.
MJ's problems exploded after he was already an icon (my kids had to have the Micheal Jackson lunch box), then he made it big again years later. but there are still Jackson fans out there. Most of the world thinks he's a sick puppy, but won't turn the radio down when "Man in the Mirror" comes on.
Barretta (whats-his-name?) probably did kill his wife or had her killed. I think a lot of people thought she deserved what she got. So not much flack there. Besides his career is old.
OJ Simpson, however was found INNOCENT in criminal court and has been hounded to the ends of the earth.
My question is this: Just what does it take for the common people to say enough. Do we do it on a whim? Is it follow the leader/ jump on the band wagon? Or is there a certain criteria that must be met before it's pretty much a career ender?
Thoughts?

__________________


________________________________________
Salty

THANKSGIVING MENUS AND TIPS

A GREAT PLACE TO SHOP

Personally, I tend to see movies because of the storyline. As I tend to ignore the political veiws of actors/actresses (who CARES what they think?) I am not inclined to ignore a movie because of how they believe or how they live their life.

OJ was an exception because he was the "Hertz guy" and "Nordberg" in the Naked Gun series...Society already had him pegged as the cheerful and sociable guy...If it was Robert Downey Jr. or Nick Nolte that killed their wife and a friend, society would've thought "That's not out of character."...But with OJ, it was...

As for your question, the media usually dictates the amount of "audacity and shock"...The perfect case for that is Mel Gibson...He was Hollywood's darling until he made a film on Christ...Check out how it was shunned by his own industry...

After that, he was pretty much shunned by Hollywood...so when he got drunk and went on his Jew-rant, he pretty much closed the coffin that he was already put in...

Now contrast that with Roman Polanski, a guy who was convicted of statatory rape, left the country to avoid jail, and celebrities clamor for his return to Hollywood...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

The difference with Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" is that it was a LOUSY movie. It was little more than violence-porn with a religious cover to give it validation. I'm not against the movie because it was about Christ (I'm a Christian) - I'm against it because it's a lousy movie and the right wing Christian zealots in this country got all excited at the slow-motion flogging and blood oozing and made it earn a gazillion dollars.

His anti-semitic rant was illuminating because he had - for YEARS - stated that he disagreed with the stance of his father (a well-known Australian anti-semite and holocaust denier). Then his true feelings were revealed. As hypocrites tend to do - eventually they are unmasked.

Woohoo!...An attack on "right wing Christians zealots" when Mel Gibson is mentioned!...

Like a moth to a flame...

Let's try this again...

That's not "right wing Christian zealots"...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

The movie may have grossed big bucks, but that doesn't mean the movie was any good...Yes, it raked in the bucks. But it was a horrible movie none-the-less.

Stating that isn't an 'attack on right wing Christian zealots'...It's stating a fact that the script was greatly lacking and was nothing but gallons of faked blood scenes. And because of the hype over it, the media frenzy, it still rakes in the sales. Because it's been advertised as a 'must see movie for the Christian' by Christian groups all over the country and world-wide.


Passion of Christ wasn't the first movie, nor will it be the last, that got huge sales with a lousy script. And anyone that's ever watched a Mel Gibson movie, knows he's into the lots of 'blood, gore, and meyhem' type of movie production.

Personally, I think he should have worked harder on the script and left the blood scenes to a minimum...Or at least made the blood scenes more realistic without using literally gallons lost in each second of the scenes where blood was present...

Instead of the head spewing gallons of pea soup, it was blood.