How Hollywood Thinks We Live

Off Topic
21

[quote]Polish Rifle wrote:
Regardless of where the OP lives and his relative income level, I’d have to agree with him about Hollywood being completely out of touch with the average citizen.

What bothers me is the fact that a large portion of our population puts these fucksticks up on a pedestal. People magazine and E! Entertainment profit on the stupidity of the masses.

And the machine grows stronger…[/quote]

The points in your post contradicted themselves. You say Hollywood is out of touch, yet “the masses” put these people up on a pedestal.

Sounds like they really do know what they’re doing.

22

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Polish Rifle wrote:
Regardless of where the OP lives and his relative income level, I’d have to agree with him about Hollywood being completely out of touch with the average citizen.

What bothers me is the fact that a large portion of our population puts these fucksticks up on a pedestal. People magazine and E! Entertainment profit on the stupidity of the masses.

And the machine grows stronger…

The points in your post contradicted themselves. You say Hollywood is out of touch, yet “the masses” put these people up on a pedestal.

Sounds like they really do know what they’re doing.[/quote]

The OP sounds like a rich kid.

To this day I can’t stand people who grew up devoid of any knowledge that most people aren’t as well off or anywhere near it.

23

Define slob. I would say compared to the house I lived in most people would qualify as slobs. My Grandmother raised my brother and I on SS and a pension she had from Georgia Pacific.

We all cleaned and while we didn’t have much it was nice. Lots of my friends houses would not hold up to the same standard of cleanliness but does that make them slobs?

I never understood why some people’s houses were not as well kept but I thought they probablly thought the same thing about my house.

24

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
Professor X wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
A lot of people do live like that. I cleaned houses when I was younger, and many people are just fucking disgusting.

Don’t take it so personally.

Agreed. I haven’t met the hoards of average people driving brand new cars who have spotless houses and live like the Huxtables. Most families are barely making 50-70k a year between them all so, yes, many people might just be shopping at Goodwill. I used to go there with my grandmother when I was a kid so the idea isn’t that unsettling as it seems to be to the OP.

I am more interested in where the OP lives that he thinks most people in the country are upper middle class.

It’s not about being upper-middle class or not. It’s about people taking some pride in what they have. I’m from a one income household growing up that never earned more than 50K in a year. We had a clean home, clean clothes and established grooming habits.

Most of these movies portray average Americans as slobs who come home from their shit-bag jobs and collapse on the couch amid a pile of filth. Am I being optimistic to hope that’s NOT the case with great majority of this county? Shit. I guess I’m wrong.

You are. My dad was military. We didn’t keep a dirty house. However, I was able to tell even as a kid that not everyone was raised anywhere near that level of consciousness about cleanliness. We didn’t have much when I was real little but my clothes were always clean.

Most people DO have jobs they don’t like but work at anyway. They have to in order to make ends meet.

Maybe I am reading you wrong, but you seem to be lumping having a “shit-bag job” with being a slob.[/quote]

You are reading me wrong. First off, this was intended to be a bit of light hearted post, poking fun at myself for being a reactive, over-the-top and dramatic for what amounts to no reason. With that, I also intended to convey that I think that most people are better than those portrayed in films of this sort. Not “better off” but better in their approach to life: Pride in what they do, pride in their appearance, pride in their homes (be they high-rise apartments or government housing).

I threw out the term ‘shit-bag’ job in reference to how I see these jobs portrayed in film (ala ‘Fight Club’ or ‘Wanted’). I know many people on government assistance who take pride in what they do have. In fact, I’ve found that - often times - the people who have the least value it the most and work hardest to maintain it.

Personally I do not belive that there is such a thing as a ‘shit-bag’ job, lest someone chooses to make it that. Those jobs are opportunities. And if looked upon as such will lead to better jobs and better opportunities. I can say that because I know a man who I first met as a drug-user, homeless, jobless, highschool drop-out. He was living with a friend of mine, who was about to throw him out.

I put together a package of information for this guy, places that could help him, government programs in place that he could take advantage of. He was thrilled! Then did nothing. Got thrown out of my friend’s house for stealing, living on the street again. I found the guy, gave him enough money for one week in an extended stay hotel (split that expense with my OL coach).

Told him he’d get another week there if he filled out all the paperwork I’d given him. He did and got the extra-week. After that he moved in with my coach. In exchange for room and board he painted his house, did yard work, etc.

This lasted six weeks or so. He then got a job. Fast food. Locally owned place. We found him an apartment downtown, helped him with the deposit. He paid us back. Anyway, that was 8 years ago (WOW! Has it been that long?) and he’s now a business analyst for a local consulting firm. He got his GED and shortly thereafter enrolled in night school. Got is BA.

He never needed an ounce of financial help from us since that deposit. I spoke with his PM a few weeks back and was told he does great work, has a good mind for analysis and he can see him being a PM one day. He’s studying for his PMP right now.

What’s the point of all this? I don’t know. One is that you have me pegged wrong, I think. Two is that this guy came from shit. But he was not surrounded by it. The world was not as dirty as I see it in film sometimes. That first place he had? Cleanest place you ever saw. He took pride in that because it was HIS.

Fuck it, man. It was not all that serious a post anyway.

25

[quote]Professor X wrote:

The OP sounds like a rich kid.

To this day I can’t stand people who grew up devoid of any knowledge that most people aren’t as well off or anywhere near it.[/quote]

Agreed. I’ve talked to a lot of social workers…Tons actually since I’m one also. But they’ll come back with pics of a home which they think is dirty and un fit for kids. And after arguing with them, I start to realize ok, they grew up with money and think anything less than what they had, is unfit. Some people can’t realize it’s OK to live differently.

26

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Doug Adams wrote:
Polish Rifle wrote:
Regardless of where the OP lives and his relative income level, I’d have to agree with him about Hollywood being completely out of touch with the average citizen.

What bothers me is the fact that a large portion of our population puts these fucksticks up on a pedestal. People magazine and E! Entertainment profit on the stupidity of the masses.

And the machine grows stronger…

The points in your post contradicted themselves. You say Hollywood is out of touch, yet “the masses” put these people up on a pedestal.

Sounds like they really do know what they’re doing.

The OP sounds like a rich kid.

To this day I can’t stand people who grew up devoid of any knowledge that most people aren’t as well off or anywhere near it.[/quote]

Rich kid? I guess that’s relative, huh? My dad worked in a factory for 38 years. He made 50K one year, after putting in more than 500 hrs. of OT.

He is still pretty proud of that. My mom made the money stretch. Most years we made it on 30-40K, he says. I guess that’s not bad money for the 70s and 80s. I never felt poor but we were certainly not rich and I was never considered a rich kid. My dad’s brother worked in the same factory. Both my grandfather’s died broke. My uncle took care of my grandmother until the day she died, broke.

My brother-in-law drives a forklift and my sister is a secretary. I have an uncle who’s been unemployed for 12 years and lives on assistance, he’s got two grown kids that are on assistance. His wife works part-time at Sam’s club. She’s a teacher and has not taught for 20 years.

I’m sure there is something wrong with my background and my life. And I’m sure you’ll tell me what it is.

27

[quote]lostinthought wrote:
Professor X wrote:

The OP sounds like a rich kid.

To this day I can’t stand people who grew up devoid of any knowledge that most people aren’t as well off or anywhere near it.

Agreed. I’ve talked to a lot of social workers…Tons actually since I’m one also. But they’ll come back with pics of a home which they think is dirty and un fit for kids. And after arguing with them, I start to realize ok, they grew up with money and think anything less than what they had, is unfit. Some people can’t realize it’s OK to live differently. [/quote]

Look, lady. I worked in social services from IV-A to IV-D to IV-E. I’m not talking about what’s fit for kids and what’s not fit for kids. I was talking about how supposedly middle-class people are protrayed in movies, for Christ’s sake! There is a difference between what’s cluttered and unoranized and what’s unsafe for kids.

Not only have done home visits but I’ve adopted a child. I never said anything is unsafe for kids. Rat poison on the floor is unsafe for kids. Open windows on the third floor are unsafe for kids. Five foster-kids and one stoned parent…that’s usafe. And it’s also not what I was talking about.

28

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Doug Adams wrote:
Polish Rifle wrote:
Regardless of where the OP lives and his relative income level, I’d have to agree with him about Hollywood being completely out of touch with the average citizen.

What bothers me is the fact that a large portion of our population puts these fucksticks up on a pedestal. People magazine and E! Entertainment profit on the stupidity of the masses.

And the machine grows stronger…

The points in your post contradicted themselves. You say Hollywood is out of touch, yet “the masses” put these people up on a pedestal.

Sounds like they really do know what they’re doing.

The OP sounds like a rich kid.

To this day I can’t stand people who grew up devoid of any knowledge that most people aren’t as well off or anywhere near it.

Rich kid? I guess that’s relative, huh? My dad worked in a factory for 38 years. He made 50K one year, after putting in more than 500 hrs. of OT. He is still pretty proud of that. My mom made the money stretch. Most years we made it on 30-40K, he says. I guess that’s not bad money for the 70s and 80s. I never felt poor but we were certainly not rich and I was never considered a rich kid. My dad’s brother worked in the same factory. Both my grandfather’s died broke. My uncle took care of my grandmother until the day she died, broke. My brother-in-law drives a forklift and my sister is a secretary. I have an uncle who’s been unemployed for 12 years and lives on assistance, he’s got two grown kids that are on assistance. His wife works part-time at Sam’s club. She’s a teacher and has not taught for 20 years.

I’m sure there is something wrong with my background and my life. And I’m sure you’ll tell me what it is.
[/quote]

Well, 50k for the 1970’s WAS a lot of money, especially if he was making that by himself. My mom was a teacher in the early 80’s and started making less than 20k a year. Before my dad became a teacher, I am sure he was making about the same.

I am not trying to “out-poverty” you. I am just pointing out that your perspective seems a bit skewed. I grew up around people who had MUCH less than I did. In fact, we were considered the “rich” family on the block because both my parents were educators.

Just to keep the thread on track and avoid personal attacks, most people in that environment were living paycheck to paycheck. They weren’t well off at all and clothes were passed down from the oldest kid to the youngest.

It just sounds like you don’t have much experience with this.

29

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
lostinthought wrote:
Professor X wrote:

The OP sounds like a rich kid.

To this day I can’t stand people who grew up devoid of any knowledge that most people aren’t as well off or anywhere near it.

Agreed. I’ve talked to a lot of social workers…Tons actually since I’m one also. But they’ll come back with pics of a home which they think is dirty and un fit for kids. And after arguing with them, I start to realize ok, they grew up with money and think anything less than what they had, is unfit. Some people can’t realize it’s OK to live differently.

Look, lady. I worked in social services from IV-A to IV-D to IV-E. I’m not talking about what’s fit for kids and what’s not fit for kids. I was talking about how supposedly middle-class people are protrayed in movies, for Christ’s sake! There is a difference between what’s cluttered and unoranized and what’s unsafe for kids.

Not only have done home visits but I’ve adopted a child. I never said anything is unsafe for kids. Rat poison on the floor is unsafe for kids. Open windows on the third floor are unsafe for kids. Five foster-kids and one stoned parent…that’s usafe. And it’s also not what I was talking about. [/quote]

First, most of us haven’t seen whatever movies you are using as examples of this. Maybe you should pick examples from movies that are more popular. Grabbing examples of some barely seen chick flick and then acting like all of hollywood is producing the same doesn’t make much sense.

30

let us not forget that most Hollywood movies are written by rich hollywood writers and directed by rich directors who direct rich hollywood actors.

31

[quote]B rocK wrote:
let us not forget that most Hollywood movies are written by rich hollywood writers and directed by rich directors who direct rich hollywood actors.

[/quote]

That was kind of my point. But it’s turned into a contest to see who grew up poorest. Professor X wins, I guess. You made it, X. And you’re the moral authority of T-Nation. Well done.

32

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
lostinthought wrote:
Professor X wrote:

The OP sounds like a rich kid.

To this day I can’t stand people who grew up devoid of any knowledge that most people aren’t as well off or anywhere near it.

Agreed. I’ve talked to a lot of social workers…Tons actually since I’m one also. But they’ll come back with pics of a home which they think is dirty and un fit for kids. And after arguing with them, I start to realize ok, they grew up with money and think anything less than what they had, is unfit. Some people can’t realize it’s OK to live differently.

Look, lady. I worked in social services from IV-A to IV-D to IV-E. I’m not talking about what’s fit for kids and what’s not fit for kids. I was talking about how supposedly middle-class people are protrayed in movies, for Christ’s sake! There is a difference between what’s cluttered and unoranized and what’s unsafe for kids.

Not only have done home visits but I’ve adopted a child. I never said anything is unsafe for kids. Rat poison on the floor is unsafe for kids. Open windows on the third floor are unsafe for kids. Five foster-kids and one stoned parent…that’s usafe. And it’s also not what I was talking about.

First, most of us haven’t seen whatever movies you are using as examples of this. Maybe you should pick examples from movies that are more popular. Grabbing examples of some barely seen chick flick and then acting like all of hollywood is producing the same doesn’t make much sense.[/quote]

It’s really not that important, right? Fuck.

33

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Doug Adams wrote:
Polish Rifle wrote:
Regardless of where the OP lives and his relative income level, I’d have to agree with him about Hollywood being completely out of touch with the average citizen.

What bothers me is the fact that a large portion of our population puts these fucksticks up on a pedestal. People magazine and E! Entertainment profit on the stupidity of the masses.

And the machine grows stronger…

The points in your post contradicted themselves. You say Hollywood is out of touch, yet “the masses” put these people up on a pedestal.

Sounds like they really do know what they’re doing.

The OP sounds like a rich kid.

To this day I can’t stand people who grew up devoid of any knowledge that most people aren’t as well off or anywhere near it.

Rich kid? I guess that’s relative, huh? My dad worked in a factory for 38 years. He made 50K one year, after putting in more than 500 hrs. of OT. He is still pretty proud of that. My mom made the money stretch. Most years we made it on 30-40K, he says. I guess that’s not bad money for the 70s and 80s. I never felt poor but we were certainly not rich and I was never considered a rich kid. My dad’s brother worked in the same factory. Both my grandfather’s died broke. My uncle took care of my grandmother until the day she died, broke. My brother-in-law drives a forklift and my sister is a secretary. I have an uncle who’s been unemployed for 12 years and lives on assistance, he’s got two grown kids that are on assistance. His wife works part-time at Sam’s club. She’s a teacher and has not taught for 20 years.

I’m sure there is something wrong with my background and my life. And I’m sure you’ll tell me what it is.

Well, 50k for the 1970’s WAS a lot of money, especially if he was making that by himself. My mom was a teacher in the early 80’s and started making less than 20k a year. Before my dad became a teacher, I am sure he was making about the same.

I am not trying to “out-poverty” you. I am just pointing out that your perspective seems a bit skewed. I grew up around people who had MUCH less than I did. In fact, we were considered the “rich” family on the block because both my parents were educators.

Just to keep the thread on track and avoid personal attacks, most people in that environment were living paycheck to paycheck. They weren’t well off at all and clothes were passed down from the oldest kid to the youngest.

It just sounds like you don’t have much experience with this.[/quote]

He made 50K in 1994. His averge in the 70s was 20-25K, 30-35 in the 80s. I called him to ask. That’s how we rich fuckers roll. We have cell phones.

34

I get where you’re going with this, OP.

Remember “American Beauty?” Everyone in the suburbs is a closeted homosexual, a pedophile, an adulterous career woman, etc. “Hollywood” is the west side of Los Angeles (usually north of the 10 fwy) where all of the “industry people” in “show business” live. They tend to have a lot of money or put on a front like they do and are really disinterested in anything outside of their own insular world.

35

[quote]B rocK wrote:
let us not forget that most Hollywood movies are written by rich hollywood writers and directed by rich directors who direct rich hollywood actors.

[/quote]

Going to have to disagree with you a little bit here. While there are some high profile people in the business who take up lots of page space there is a lot more going on in the world of Motion Pictures than multi-million dollar budgets and what not.

There are also 100s of other craftsmen (and women) who are involved in the process that make it possible. 1000s of movies are made in America every year and many are stunning. (Sure a ton of them suck but every niche of life has wanna bes. Look around the gym tonight.)

It is an industry but not the way that celeb-zines right about.

(Hijack Over)

In the OPs defense I will say that the USA is one hell of a whole lot more lazy than they use to be. Our culture confuses being “busy” with “working.”

36

[quote]RWElder0 wrote:
B rocK wrote:
let us not forget that most Hollywood movies are written by rich hollywood writers and directed by rich directors who direct rich hollywood actors.

Going to have to disagree with you a little bit here. While there are some high profile people in the business who take up lots of page space there is a lot more going on in the world of Motion Pictures than multi-million dollar budgets and what not. There are also 100s of other craftsmen (and women) who are involved in the process that make it possible. 1000s of movies are made in America every year and many are stunning. (Sure a ton of them suck but every niche of life has wanna bes. Look around the gym tonight.)

It is an industry but not the way that celeb-zines right about.

(Hijack Over)

[/quote]

Thank you. I posted something similiar on page 1 but apparently everyone got lost in the “who knows poor people” game.

The general public thinks Hollywood is nothing but shiny people and magic. It’s anything but.

37

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I get where you’re going with this, OP.

Remember “American Beauty?” Everyone in the suburbs is a closeted homosexual, a pedophile, an adulterous career woman, etc. “Hollywood” is the west side of Los Angeles (usually north of the 10 fwy) where all of the “industry people” in “show business” live. They tend to have a lot of money or put on a front like they do and are really disinterested in anything outside of their own insular world. [/quote]

How do you and others take one movie and act like ALL movies are made this way? I keep pointing to the blockbusters over the last 2 or 3 years and they do NOT seem to have the issues you think plague all of Hollywood. Even here you had to go back to 1999…A WHOLE DECADE AGO to talk about American Beauty. No other movies that did well at the box office that show this in 10 years?

38

What’s wrong with tuna melts?

39

I think the OP’s on to something, but not the way he thinks.

If you want a make a ‘realistic’ film, it has to be more ‘realistic’ than ‘realistic’ in order to be sensationalized enough to be interesting.

A movie about a two-parent household who are making ends meet and raising a son and a daughter which are nice and eventually find good jobs and spouses is not interesting.

Unless, of course, one has this odd habit of sniffing cocaine, or whatever.

IRL, people try to avoid conflict and pain. Movies are built on them. You see the inherent dichotomy.

One thing about the backgrounds of successful directors and actors in the film industry- They’ve got money. It takes an obscene amount of ca$h to send your kid to film school or acting school. That money takes… money. With the exception of Antoine Fisher, they guy who wrote Boyz in the Hood and maybe the girl from Million Dollar Baby, they walked into Hollywood with cash.

40

[quote]Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I get where you’re going with this, OP.

Remember “American Beauty?” Everyone in the suburbs is a closeted homosexual, a pedophile, an adulterous career woman, etc. “Hollywood” is the west side of Los Angeles (usually north of the 10 fwy) where all of the “industry people” in “show business” live. They tend to have a lot of money or put on a front like they do and are really disinterested in anything outside of their own insular world.

How do you and others take one movie and act like ALL movies are made this way? I keep pointing to the blockbusters over the last 2 or 3 years and they do NOT seem to have the issues you think plague all of Hollywood. Even here you had to go back to 1999…A WHOLE DECADE AGO to talk about American Beauty. No other movies that did well at the box office that show this in 10 years?[/quote]

If you read my original post I said that this type of filmaking has become a specific style or form. They are never blockbusters. Although, the critics love them and they win awards. There is usually some humor or dark humor in the movies. The scenery is always dank, shitty cars, shitty homes, shitty lives. I guess that’s the point. It’s someone’s perception of reality. That’s cool. I was mainly just posting about something my wife and I ended up laughing about: My OWN weird perceptions of things.