<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 10 Cinematic Clichés That Must Die!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/01/20/10-cliches-that-must-die/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/01/20/10-cliches-that-must-die/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:21:55 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Maddack</title>
		<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/01/20/10-cliches-that-must-die/comment-page-4/#comment-670246</link>
		<dc:creator>Maddack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=23445#comment-670246</guid>
		<description>I like beautiful women as much as the next guy. But does every single action or science fiction movie have to have the beautiful-yet self-assured female scientist/assassin/head of operations/pilot/leader of the expedition/weapons expert/race car driver/ass-kicker/man-killer/martial arts expert, etc,etc. - usually a &quot;model-turned-actress&quot; . What&#039;s the matter? They don&#039;t believe we&#039;ll watch any movie with a decent plot and maybe some action and suspense without the Baaaaabes?!? This is now officially a tired Hollywood cliche&#039;. Oh, that&#039;s right - it&#039;s now all for the 12-24 drooling adolescent male population with the attention span of a grapefruit. I don&#039;t even bother with the action blockbusters anymore. I just need to see the trailer with the ever-present shot of the Victoria&#039;s Secret model pointing a gun with a mean look on her face or leveling the bad guy with a Bruce Lee/ballet maneuver (with a mean look on her face), and that&#039;s enough for me to say &quot;Nope&quot;.        </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like beautiful women as much as the next guy. But does every single action or science fiction movie have to have the beautiful-yet self-assured female scientist/assassin/head of operations/pilot/leader of the expedition/weapons expert/race car driver/ass-kicker/man-killer/martial arts expert, etc,etc. &#8211; usually a &quot;model-turned-actress&quot; . What&#039;s the matter? They don&#039;t believe we&#039;ll watch any movie with a decent plot and maybe some action and suspense without the Baaaaabes?!? This is now officially a tired Hollywood cliche&#039;. Oh, that&#039;s right &#8211; it&#039;s now all for the 12-24 drooling adolescent male population with the attention span of a grapefruit. I don&#039;t even bother with the action blockbusters anymore. I just need to see the trailer with the ever-present shot of the Victoria&#039;s Secret model pointing a gun with a mean look on her face or leveling the bad guy with a Bruce Lee/ballet maneuver (with a mean look on her face), and that&#039;s enough for me to say &quot;Nope&quot;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MadMike</title>
		<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/01/20/10-cliches-that-must-die/comment-page-/#comment-670162</link>
		<dc:creator>MadMike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:38:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=23445#comment-670162</guid>
		<description>I just want to smack the kid!  
...and the writers.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just want to smack the kid!<br />
&#8230;and the writers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Big Hollywood Blog Archive 10 Cinematic Clichs That Must Die! &#124; Healthy Pet Lives</title>
		<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/01/20/10-cliches-that-must-die/comment-page-4/#comment-511630</link>
		<dc:creator>Big Hollywood Blog Archive 10 Cinematic Clichs That Must Die! &#124; Healthy Pet Lives</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 08:01:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=23445#comment-511630</guid>
		<description>[...] A nice web master created an interesting post today on Big Hollywood Blog Archive 10 Cinematic Clichs That Must Die!Here&#8217;s a short outline [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] A nice web master created an interesting post today on Big Hollywood Blog Archive 10 Cinematic Clichs That Must Die!Here&#8217;s a short outline [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ritsumei</title>
		<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/01/20/10-cliches-that-must-die/comment-page-4/#comment-225014</link>
		<dc:creator>Ritsumei</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:11:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=23445#comment-225014</guid>
		<description>While these are tired cliches, this article will never be able to accomplish its stated purpose: Hollywood isn&#039;t going to pay a bit of attention to it, and if they do it&#039;ll be mockery. You can&#039;t expect to effect any change when you spend your article insulting the very people that you want to change. 
 
1.&quot;Obviously, reality and research are a problem for you.&quot; It&#039;s NOT obvious to them. It may be obvious to you and me, but they don&#039;t get it. And this sort of tone is going to make them tune you out. 
 
2. &quot;Maybe the problem is you don&#8217;t know how to write appealing characters because you&#8217;re writing about yourself?&quot; If they weren&#039;t done reading with number one, they most certainly are here. Insults are one of the things that Hollywood is being called out for in this article. I don&#039;t know anyone that responds well to being insulted. People who perceive themselves to be powerful least of all.  
 
6. &quot;Once again, you show you have no imagination by whipping out this drivel every time you have a priest in a story (unless it involves demons or Vatican corruption). Sweeping generalizations against a group of people is something you like to accuse conservatives of doing. Hypocrisy alert!&quot; Your Hollywood &quot;audience&quot; is going to have a good laugh over this one: the charges of sweeping generalizations being hypocrisy is a shoe that fits BOTH feet in this case. Your generalizations are as sweeping as theirs. You can be sure that they will notice this and it will cost you credibility. 
 
7. &quot;And just because you can&#8217;t be imaginative enough to make complex characters rather than clich&#233;s, doesn&#8217;t excuse you from your lameness.&quot; Personal attacks are bad form. They alienate the audience. It seems to me that they also often signal a lack of useful dialog. If we want to have any kind of dialog with Hollywood then we need to refrain from personal attacks. It just leads to more and worse nastiness. 
 
9. &quot;Well, you&#8217;re asking for the same from us. Watch it.&quot; I don&#039;t know anybody that responds well to threats.  
 
 
It seems clear to me that this article was never written for Hollywood in the first place. That means that your audience must be some segment of the Conservative crowd. Thing is, by dishing this up as a &quot;serious&quot; piece, it seems nearly as condescending to the Conservative readers of your blog as it is blatantly offensive to any Liberal Hollywood supporters that may happen by. The only thing that this piece can possibly accomplish is to further divide Americans. The only ones that benefit from divided Americans are the powers-that-be who are already entrenched and want to keep us fighting with each other so that we don&#039;t ever turn all that anger on them and push them out of power. Seems to me that this sort of article plays right into that.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While these are tired cliches, this article will never be able to accomplish its stated purpose: Hollywood isn&#039;t going to pay a bit of attention to it, and if they do it&#039;ll be mockery. You can&#039;t expect to effect any change when you spend your article insulting the very people that you want to change. </p>
<p>1.&quot;Obviously, reality and research are a problem for you.&quot; It&#039;s NOT obvious to them. It may be obvious to you and me, but they don&#039;t get it. And this sort of tone is going to make them tune you out. </p>
<p>2. &quot;Maybe the problem is you don&rsquo;t know how to write appealing characters because you&rsquo;re writing about yourself?&quot; If they weren&#039;t done reading with number one, they most certainly are here. Insults are one of the things that Hollywood is being called out for in this article. I don&#039;t know anyone that responds well to being insulted. People who perceive themselves to be powerful least of all.  </p>
<p>6. &quot;Once again, you show you have no imagination by whipping out this drivel every time you have a priest in a story (unless it involves demons or Vatican corruption). Sweeping generalizations against a group of people is something you like to accuse conservatives of doing. Hypocrisy alert!&quot; Your Hollywood &quot;audience&quot; is going to have a good laugh over this one: the charges of sweeping generalizations being hypocrisy is a shoe that fits BOTH feet in this case. Your generalizations are as sweeping as theirs. You can be sure that they will notice this and it will cost you credibility. </p>
<p>7. &quot;And just because you can&rsquo;t be imaginative enough to make complex characters rather than clich&eacute;s, doesn&rsquo;t excuse you from your lameness.&quot; Personal attacks are bad form. They alienate the audience. It seems to me that they also often signal a lack of useful dialog. If we want to have any kind of dialog with Hollywood then we need to refrain from personal attacks. It just leads to more and worse nastiness. </p>
<p>9. &quot;Well, you&rsquo;re asking for the same from us. Watch it.&quot; I don&#039;t know anybody that responds well to threats.  </p>
<p>It seems clear to me that this article was never written for Hollywood in the first place. That means that your audience must be some segment of the Conservative crowd. Thing is, by dishing this up as a &quot;serious&quot; piece, it seems nearly as condescending to the Conservative readers of your blog as it is blatantly offensive to any Liberal Hollywood supporters that may happen by. The only thing that this piece can possibly accomplish is to further divide Americans. The only ones that benefit from divided Americans are the powers-that-be who are already entrenched and want to keep us fighting with each other so that we don&#039;t ever turn all that anger on them and push them out of power. Seems to me that this sort of article plays right into that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: merritt</title>
		<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/01/20/10-cliches-that-must-die/comment-page-4/#comment-219042</link>
		<dc:creator>merritt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:06:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=23445#comment-219042</guid>
		<description>Thanks Nick.  I&#039;m sure that we all have plots we don&#039;t like but we can&#039;t  get rid of them all.  If we do we will be left with nothing but Lifetime.  Oh wait, Lifetime has about 4 or 5 plots in all.  We could all go back to reading, they say it&#039;s quite pleasant at times. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Nick.  I&#039;m sure that we all have plots we don&#039;t like but we can&#039;t  get rid of them all.  If we do we will be left with nothing but Lifetime.  Oh wait, Lifetime has about 4 or 5 plots in all.  We could all go back to reading, they say it&#039;s quite pleasant at times.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/01/20/10-cliches-that-must-die/comment-page-4/#comment-218830</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:10:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=23445#comment-218830</guid>
		<description>this list kind of sucks. i think alot of characters playing these kind of roles really help create a very interesting movie/plot. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this list kind of sucks. i think alot of characters playing these kind of roles really help create a very interesting movie/plot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: merritt</title>
		<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/01/20/10-cliches-that-must-die/comment-page-4/#comment-210618</link>
		<dc:creator>merritt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:33:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=23445#comment-210618</guid>
		<description>get rid of these and what else is there? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>get rid of these and what else is there?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Big_Straight_Al</title>
		<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/01/20/10-cliches-that-must-die/comment-page-4/#comment-204454</link>
		<dc:creator>Big_Straight_Al</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:16:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=23445#comment-204454</guid>
		<description>What about gay cowboys? Perhaps it&#039;s not a trope, but once was enough. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about gay cowboys? Perhaps it&#039;s not a trope, but once was enough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: warringtonsridge.com Blog &#187; Big Hollywood</title>
		<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/01/20/10-cliches-that-must-die/comment-page-4/#comment-179902</link>
		<dc:creator>warringtonsridge.com Blog &#187; Big Hollywood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=23445#comment-179902</guid>
		<description>[...] Big Holly Wood [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Big Holly Wood [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scottie</title>
		<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/01/20/10-cliches-that-must-die/comment-page-4/#comment-173374</link>
		<dc:creator>Scottie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:53:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=23445#comment-173374</guid>
		<description>Another cliche: why does Hollywood always give so many villains an English accent? What have the poor English done? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another cliche: why does Hollywood always give so many villains an English accent? What have the poor English done?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
