‘Star Wars’ Wants Female Directors for the Franchise, Says Kathleen Kennedy

a reply to: Lysergic

Cliche? Science is a wonderful field of non existing ideologies.. Just cause it doesnt fit your purpose doesnt mean it isnt justified..

Its called something in a ideal world, non-extremism

originally posted by: Hyperia
a reply to: Lysergic

Cliche? Science is a wonderful field of non existing ideologies.. Just cause it doesnt fit your purpose doesnt mean it isnt justified..

Its called something in a ideal world, non-extremism

Excellent job of totally not comprehending what I wrote, only to reply with your own inane rebuttal.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I actually wouldn't care at all.

Until someone complains about it, and then you'd be there calling them crybabies.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Your goal posts called... they want their old spot back.

a reply to: Kali74

Another deflection. Did they use deflector shields in star wars?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No deflection; read your own posts.

First you accused me of being a hypocrite by stating that I would have called it out if a man had said that. Then when I said I wouldn't do that because I wouldn't actually care, you said I would call anyone who did a crybaby.

Deflector shields are just one type of shield used across the Galaxies.

a reply to: Kali74

Fair point.

However, Reading your posts, where you call your fellow posters insane and childish, which seems to me insane and childish, it seems you do have a problem with when, for instance, a man says he has a problem with the franchise and a female director. Are these instances of you not caring?

I have no reason or evidence to believe that you wouldn't care given the hypothetical, because obviously you care a great deal.

Now I thought all shields were deflector shields? Shows what I know.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It was absurd enough to me to say something as I've repeatedly said in the thread.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Well, Kathryn Bigelow made some kick ass war movies recently and I am pretty sure she never saw a second of combat. If someone can make an entertaining Star Wars film I will pay to see it. Hell, Jar Jar Effing Binks was a Lucas creation, she could not do any worse than that.

she made some horrible ones like zero dark thirty that was funded by CIA and bribed the Oscars to nominate it even tho no one saw it and no one liked it . . . hurt locker was propaganda too. she has no talent just gets pushed because CIA wants pro war movies and thinks no one will think a woman would be doing that (tho anyone would man or woman if given money).

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Kali74

Sure Leia had to be rescued, but she always held her own and even rescued Han.

She was definitely the smart one

:-)

Maybe some of the guys don't get that she was/is a feminist icon

she got caught by jabba pretty quick, pretty stupid woman, they both needed luke to save them

A celluloid ceiling needing to be spliced.



www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: HorusChrist

she made some horrible ones like zero dark thirty that was funded by CIA and bribed the Oscars to nominate it even tho no one saw it and no one liked it...

It grossed over $100,000,000 and has a 93% rating on Metacritic. Did the CIA bribe everyone to go and watch it and all the critics to review it?

If she can see it, she can be it.



seejane.org...

womensfilminstitute.com...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HorusChrist

she made some horrible ones like zero dark thirty that was funded by CIA and bribed the Oscars to nominate it even tho no one saw it and no one liked it...

It grossed over $100,000,000 and has a 93% rating on Metacritic. Did the CIA bribe everyone to go and watch it and all the critics to review it?

honestly . . . yes. metacritic is based on 46 paid off critics. plus I bet it's legacy gets worse over time as more such as yourself reappraise it after realizing it was CIA propaganda.

originally posted by: HorusChrist

honestly . . . yes.

So, 'honestly yes', the CIA paid everyone to go see the film? Wow, that makes sooooo much sense.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HorusChrist

honestly . . . yes.

So, 'honestly yes', the CIA paid everyone to go see the film? Wow, that makes sooooo much sense.

no honestly they paid p45 people to say it was good, and if they can cook books on unemployment numbers I'm sure the ycan cook em for box office numbers. do you know anyone that saw it, I don't. I'm sure some did but did it make 100 mill in profits, doubt it.

zero people saw it . . . sorry for the pun. but another example is oliver stone's movie "World Trade Center" it was a bomb because no one buys the official story. meanwhile farenheit 911 was a big hit cuz everyone knew implicitly W was in on it.

originally posted by: HorusChrist

no honestly they paid p45 people to say it was good, and if they can cook books on unemployment numbers I'm sure the ycan cook em for box office numbers.

So the CIA is going to inflate the movie gross that both Colombia and Universal both released how exactly?

do you know anyone that saw it, I don't. I'm sure some did but did it make 100 mill in profits, doubt it.

I know plenty of people who saw it in both the theater and on DVD.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I wrote a false positive review on metacritic.

Waiting for my CIA bucks to roll in, any day now...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HorusChrist

no honestly they paid p45 people to say it was good, and if they can cook books on unemployment numbers I'm sure the ycan cook em for box office numbers.

So the CIA is going to inflate the movie gross that both Colombia and Universal both released how exactly?

do you know anyone that saw it, I don't. I'm sure some did but did it make 100 mill in profits, doubt it.

I know plenty of people who saw it in both the theater and on DVD.

well CIA has no need to infiltrate front companies they already own . . . Columbia? come on.