Why can't a thread be allowed to get interesting?

New subject: The production trucks are out on Lex. and 57th St. They are filming "Arthur".

Is this a re-make of the Dudley Moore "Arthur", and can that movie possibly be improved upon?

Noticed the same thing...
I googled the phenomena a while back and found this...

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2] Put another way, Godwin puts forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions —regardless of topic or scope —inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis.

Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

truth - yes, it is. and no, it cannot. rarely have a movie and its lead been better fit. but what remakes are better than the original?

People are interested in Nazis, in general. Not only online. Parties, dinner parties. On the beach. Reading about them. T.V. shows about them.

Did you catch "GhostHunters International" on Wed.? They went to Poland, to "Wolf's Lair" to hunt for the ghost of Hitler, and some of his Nazi bodyguards. They picked-up an interested E.V.P. of a female ,who was identified as a Polish model who was bedding a Nazi bigwig there. She was a spy for the U.S.A. Her voice spoke in English: "Where is Hitler?"

A friend of mine is a screenwriter (and was a script reader/assistant for an A-list star). She gave me the low down, a lot of which I already knew.

Hollywood doesn't care if things can be improved upon. Nor about making something new. They only care about the probability that it will make money. Anything original is considered riskier than something already "tried and true" so they just remake classics.

If they really had the balls and wanted to make a hit, they should try remaking something that had real promise but was a bomb for some reason. Remake something like "The Postman" which was a great post-apocalytic novel which was very transferrable to the screen but ruined because it became a vehicle for the start/producer. Or remake "Starship Troopers" so it actually resembles the novel.

But too many of the writers grew up on TV sitcoms and that this the only world they know. I would bet too few have read actual books, which had been the source for much of the classics when the screenwriters didn't have TV, and movies before that, to refer to.

Remake Mel Gibsons "what women want" so instead of the characters transformation being quick and unbelievable it can be believed in the way we believe several thousand Groundhog Days can change Phil.

(Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.)

If there was a Hitler Channel, I'd subscribe. I'd even subscribe to The Stalin Channel.

AvUWS, you know why? b/c somewhereelse shows up.

I could possibly see Mel Gibson playing Arthur. :)

RS - Very fa;miliar with Godwins rule. In fact it is a good one to use to challenge yourself when making an argument: Consider yourself as having lost if you break it.

I set another for myself. I force myself to do three things in an argument (and soooo wish others in NY did the same);
1- Don't curse.
2- Always argue from the other persons point of view (for one thing, it requires you to try and understand it).
3- Don't ever lose your cool.

Riversider, your post was in very poor taste.

printer: Yep, agreed.

AvUWS: That's how they do things out in Hollywood land. Everything is a re-make these days. Hard to get an original script into production. It usually goes into turn-around.

SteveF - REALLY? REALLY? Your addition to the discussion is for YOU to point out that SWE showed up? At least he added a new twist to a new and unique thread. Your addition only threatens to bring us back to the old arguments.

Did the topic not last an hour before being hijacked?

And whatever movies they make or remake, please let it be done in its entirety on a backlot in the San Fernando Valley, or in Budapest or Montreal -- anywhere but the streets of New York.

But if they really really must shoot in New York, why do they have to have 400 movie-industry trucks with license plates from Pennsylvania and Georgia. I mean Georgia? Seriously?

By the way, there was a "Hitler Channel". The old History channel, prior to the existence of The Military Channel, was nicknamed by my friends exactly that. It was all reruns of "wings", "World at War", etc.

AvUWS, ya really really. wtf r u talking about dude? swe showed up to trash my opinion for printers real estate question. Tell her to mind her own f'n business and stop trashing everyone else's opinion. That's all she does.

Still waiting for a proper remake of Logan's Run.

The World at War. Now that's some good stuff.

Truth, I have a picture of them filming it. Apparently the plot involves Arthur and the back to the future car.

Anyway, back to the discussion at hand:

Alanhart: Yes, a lot of trucks from Georgia. They drive up from there, that's where they are based. So many of them, so often. But it brings money into the City. They are a pain . I saw Ted Danson walking on my block a couple of weeks ago. I forgot what he was filming, but it was nice to see him.

"But it brings money into the City."
... HOW?

It always amazed me how authoritative "World..." seemed at the time and yet pretty much all historians until 1974 were clueless about a major factor in the conduct of the war.

Alan: Because they have to pay to film here. A lot of money.

I love History Channel. The military Channel is really good, too.

Alanhart - while I am always suspect of the "it brings in money" arguments, especially regarding projects like Stadiums that also costa lot of taxpayer dollars but seem to benefit only a small group in the private sector, there is certainly an argument that money flows into the city from this.

A major film also hires lots of local sub-contractors (from set designers, stylists, film production unions to caterers). Also, those trucks tend to be expensive equipment, or carry expensive equipment, and if not from local companies (some are, some probably aren't, regardless of registration) they also have to be crewed and stored somewhere. If the crews aren't local they have to be put up locally. If they are...

Many locations will be compensated for being turned into a set.

The list goes on.

What is a losing proposition is having non-businessman type bureaucrats determine what tax-breaks they should give out to lure the productions. This is where there can often be actual losses to the tax-payer. That is the kind of thing the Nazis would have done. (Sorry, I couldn't resist).

Nat Geo too......Locked Up Abroad is a great show.

And in general its pretty hard to go wrong with a "war" movie. I don't think it's about the sadistic rubbernecking of sanctioned murder, more the compelling brotherhood between brothers in arms.

Sidenote: For something so unbelievably wonderful and probably the best war "thing" Ive ever watched, "Band of Brothers," the shock to see from the same people produce "The Pacific," probably the worst war "thing" Ive ever watched.

Truth - hard to go wrong? Look at "Drop Zone". Never heard of it? Probably for a reason. I hadn't seen it but heard it sucked. They tried to cross Kelly's Heroes with A Bridge Too Far, but with friendlier and more cuddly Germans.

Generally war movie fans will forgive a lot in the plot if the execution of the combat, tactics and equipment are accurate. When they get that with a decent plot (and true life is a better source than fiction in war, or so is my belief) they guarantee a winner. That, more than effects, are what made the great war movies great. And why people will watch "Zulu" or "Gettysburg" for decades.

(I would throw "Master & Commander" out there as another good example of a great war movie, and wish someone would produce Sharpe's Rifles or Horation Hornblower on a bigger budget.)

NYC is smart to court the entertainment industry. Films shot in NYC a great advertisement for tourism and the crews and actors spend money here.

Stadiums on the other hand, have been proven study after study to be money losers.

RS - to make an NYC movie as advertisement for tourism is a weak argument. Let them make a movie "located" in NY but filmed elsewhere for all I care.

One of Woody Allen's movies (sorry, forgot which, was in the '80s) was filmed in some expansive NY pre-war apartment. Except it wasn't. The interiors were filmed in a mansion in Riverdale. But I bet it kept people dreaming of moving to NY, making it big, and buying such an apartment even though no one with such an apartment wants film crews traipsing through their trophy home.

"SteveF - REALLY? REALLY? Your addition to the discussion is for YOU to point out that SWE showed up? At least he added a new twist to a new and unique thread. Your addition only threatens to bring us back to the old arguments."

ROTFL.

I just don't get it ... the Teamsters all live in NJ, the sound, lighting, food, etc. are all from NJ or way beyond, the coffee-fetching Vassarettes are all from suburbs of Anycity USA, the (not so hefty) filming fees probably don't even cover administrative and police fees, the movie could be a great advertisement for the city, or it could be Escape from New York, and worst of all it means having to be in the vicinity of actors. Ptuee.

At least when they say "Would you mind walking on the other side of the street" I can say "yes, I would mind", and continue on my way.

But seriously, we exiled this noxious, dreary manufacturing industry from NYC nearly a century ago for good reason, and sent them clear to the other side of the country, and not merely across the river, to drive home the point.

"Alanhart - while I am always suspect of the "it brings in money" arguments, especially regarding projects like Stadiums that also costa lot of taxpayer dollars but seem to benefit only a small group in the private sector, there is certainly an argument that money flows into the city from this.

major film also hires lots of local sub-contractors (from set designers, stylists, film production unions to caterers). Also, those trucks tend to be expensive equipment, or carry expensive equipment, and if not from local companies (some are, some probably aren't, regardless of registration) they also have to be crewed and stored somewhere. If the crews aren't local they have to be put up locally. If they are..."

Alan, avus is right. I read Crain's regularly, and when the tax credit dried up, there were countless articles about placing closing shop because of reduced business.

Forget just the employees (who can be shipped in I guess)
You still have all the hotels and spending.

But also consider:

Equipment rentals (all those mobile units, the lights, the cameras)
CAR rentals (I mean the on-screen kind one place apparently did all the rentals of ferraris and cop cars and stuff like that)
All the facilities that do some post-production. You might be editing the film in LA 3 months later, but the dailies, thats sort of thing (I'm not a film production guy, but I know they use the services during the shoots)

AvUWS
You are also not including all the industries that support actors, providing food, beverages, props, hotels.
I'm fairly sure this is money positive. I will do a few googles later on.

http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/04/27/apnewsbreak-nyc-to-start-charging-300-for-film-permits-which-have-always-been-free-54421/

Rising costs come as the Bloomberg administration has spent years trying to undo New York’s reputation of being a difficult and costly location for film and television shoots. The industry is a $5 billion-a-year business in New York, employing more than 100,000 people.

And I forgot... a lot of casting people in this area. AND most of the studios have at least some office space available here. There are lots of indirect revenues that the city gets.

Also... rehearsal spaces! soundstages, etc. Stuff that you need even before shooting.

Exactly. Keep the motion picture and film industry. It is a net-contributor.

Absolutely. There is a reason other states went to match our tax credit. CT has been making a very strong push as well, and I believe with the same tax credit. Supposedly some mid-west states, too. Its the $$$ they're after.

24 did a decent job filming NYC in LA in the last season.
THough the notion that NYC streeet cameras have that kind of hidef resolution was pretty laughable.

I still think it's a lot of book-cooking, and I continue to be amazed at all the Equipment rentals (all those mobile units, the lights, the cameras) that are from out of state. And when the trucks are from out of state, so is all the indirect spending (i.e. food for craft services ... a PA truck isn't going to load up in NYC).

States matching other states' lures don't necessarily operate rationally ... stadiums are a perfect example.

It's a shame that our Federal policies pit states, counties and municipalities against one another, competing to see who can reach bottom fastest.

Alan,
This is just a microcosm for what goes on internationally. In the 1970s New Jersey stole many New York businesses( textile is one example) only to lose them to the the South-East and then eventually China

Vancouver is often used instead of NYC in film shoots. The viewers rarely notice and think they are viewing Manhattan.

And then to climax.

Having just said on another thread that I am totally opposed to censorship, and I remain so, this is starting to skirt on the grey area. There are some things, of which Hitler and the Nazis, 9/11 is the other that immediately comes to mind, that should just not be joked about in an open forum (or at all but NO one should regulate private speech). The reason being that geography and demography determined that people in New York are more likely to have personal ties to these horrors than other Americans. When I worked in Richmond, VA I was shocked at how casually people joked about Hitler...these being the same "good Christians" (not meant on as a slur on any person of the Christian faith) who would condemn people due solely on how they happen to be wired for sex.
I guess its part of my same belief that personal attacks don't belong on the board. Remember, for some of us Hitler and 9/11 aren't just history, they are wounds that still sting.

liz - people referred to Hitler, but I don't see where anyone actually called someone else by that name. or anything else derogatory, for that matter - am i missing something?

Liz the point was that any conversation on a site if continued long enough degrades in a predictable fashion.

No one actually called anyone Hitler, I was just suggesting the entire topic should be off limits in the interest of taste and consideration. No one was called anything derogatory on this thread but there has been way too much highly personal vitriol as well as sexism, homophobia and not so thinly veiled racial comments.

RS, if you think a conversation you are involved with is degrading...step out of it or steer it back to real estate and specifically subjects apart from "how many angels dance on the head of a pin", "is it better to rent or buy" and "are we in a bull or bear re market"?

LY: I don't agree. You can't start limiting talk on one topic based on "sensitivity". I detest the slippery slope argument, but this applies here.

Out of curiosity, I go on Aryan Nationesque/Illuminati/crock'o'sh#t forums. They think they make absolute sense.

liz, i am very much against the name calling. so agree with you there.

I'm very much against deceptive use of sources, but I don't continually whine to se about it.

I'm very much against deceptive use of sources, but I don't continually whine to se about it.

Excuse me?

sorry avUWS. your point has been proven. how about those movies?

Riversider, you're such a hoot.

so no one can mention Hitler, homosexuality, race, or women in any context because it might lead to derogatory name-calling? wow, that's taking PC to the extreme. If someone is saying something repugnant, I have found the 'report abuse' to be effective on a couple of occasions, and the 'ingore' feature is imperative for certain posters.

I guess a thread about , "The Producers is off limits....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGp0hCxSg98

After a short break to do something important, such as work:

I come back to see that, for the most part; we have a very good, civil discussion going on here. (Except for the guy who tried to bring somewhereelse into it, before he was even on here.)

Alanhart and Lizyank: Please, relax. I come from a family of holocaust survivors. Concentration camp survivors. (That's why I'm against bullies of any kind, in any place.)
Riversider's comment did not insult me. He was not making a joke. In any way.
But, it's O.K. if you somehow managed to try to make it sound offensive, and tried to call him out on it.

So, let's review:
"Arthur", the movie.
The movie-making industry, and N.Y.C.
Nazis ( sorry Liz and Alan, it's a big part of history. Please, go find a cave to live in, if you are so easily offended by the mere mention of Nazis. Thank you.)

Note to StreetEasy: See how well we can get along?
No cursing banshees.
No trolls.
No problems.

"My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard,
and their life is better than yours...
I would teach you,
but I'd have to charge..." ("My Milkshake" , Kelis )

Oh God no, Printer the last thing I thought I'd ever expect anyone to think of me is PC (I guess PG would be odd as well) and I enjoy a really, really bad joke among friends as much as the next person but I guess rather than have to "report abuse" (maybe its the "no snitching" creed) I'd rather have people think for a second whether what they are saying as a joke could maybe not be taken as such by someone they don't know.
(How people define "knowing" in this context is highly variable. When I was a kid--no not another Old New York tale--I favorite show was "Hogan's Heroes". My father, a WWII vet and ardent Zionist, refused to let me watch saying "there is nothing funny about Nazis". Until he found out the actor who played Colonel Klink was Jewish and the one who play LeBeau was a survivor of Buchenwald. Then he deigned to watch the show, laughed his ass off and was forever a huge fan...since he knew it wasn't the creation of people who held Nazis in high, or humorous, regard.)

10023, years ago I was driving through Idaho and wanted to stop in Hayden Lake, HQ for all those Ayran Nation groups, walk into a bar and introduce myself as a "New Yorker" just to see what would happen. Can you believe my girlfriend who was driving missed the turn to Hayden Lake and then refused to go back? Wasn't that bad of her????

Whatever. Unless you lost family members in the holocaust,and/or concentration camps; your right to be offended by a non-offensive comment about Nazis is lame. Get real.

Truth , I'm first generation from a survivor favmily, and I agree with you.

more bullshit

Yes CC the holocaust was a hoax. Nobody could ever pull the wool over your eyes.

no...the holocaust was a terrible thing.

you're the one who's full of shit.

who in their right mind brags about being from a survivor family?

you.....the bullshit artist.

I think this thread is getting too interesting.

and yet not.

Re "Inappropriate":
Words that think for us
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/11/words-that-think-for-us/

wamus, very interesting article. morality/social norms are interesting to me. for many people it's entirely acceptable to be deceptive, or be almost devoid of compassion, or be nasty without calling someone a specific name.

My father always said that "ladies" don't swear. others say that the educated don't swear. both, of course, are wrong.

Riversider: Yes. Exactly.

we should only keep valued posters who add to the discussion and limit comments to real estate

columbiacounty
35 minutes ago
stop ignoring this person
report abuse

more bullshit

"My father always said that "ladies" don't swear. others say that the educated don't swear. both, of course, are wrong. "

Thought you hated your father?

I think this thread is getting too interesting.
and yet not.

isn't that just like hfscomm1...repeating?

repeating is so mundane

why repeat when you can wish someone be hit by the second avenue bus?

cc, yes it is.

C.C: DO NOT TAKE THE aboutready BAIT.

"10023, years ago I was driving through Idaho and wanted to stop in Hayden Lake, HQ for all those Ayran Nation groups, walk into a bar and introduce myself as a "New Yorker" just to see what would happen. Can you believe my girlfriend who was driving missed the turn to Hayden Lake and then refused to go back? Wasn't that bad of her????"

Were you just going to say, "Hello, my name is Liz, and I'm a New Yorker" or "Hello, my name is Liz, and I'm a New Yorker, and this is my girlfriend"?

Knowing what I know of your hoodlum past ;), I'd have been scared shitless of the latter.

Liz & Inonada.... I grew up near Hayden Lake and have vacationed there summers over the past twenty years right down the street from the Ayayan Nation HQ. About ten years ago, the Ayayan Nation lost a civil rights law suit and lost the compound and 10 acres. The property was acquired by the Carr Human Rights Foundation (Harvard U) and burned to the ground. The property today contains the "Peace Institute" of North Idaho Community College.

Who cares if I can't spell. The story still might be true.

NYCDreamer: For a person who says he doesn't post here often, you are up late posting comments.

But, you are O.K. No cursing people out. Thank goodness for that.

AvUWS; We were moving along very well, until the inevitable happened. Would you like to try again?

We may have better timing, this time.