boondockdragon

Hollywood "preaches"/supports what sells, and the truth sells IF done right. Mrs. Jolie is correct that the right pieces and people have to fall into place for the film to be done right. It's been done before with great films. But nothing "falls" into place, the right people have to be found. Contact was a compromise, and it has paid the price. I think many sense that same betrayal where a good movie can be made, but lacks the commitment to integrity this storyline demands. International terrorism as a term to express Ragnar's behavior is demanded, BUT how to differentiate it from radical muslims that wish to tear down western culture is the key. He seeks to embrace western culture, it's roots, it's classical and historical foundings. And he wishes only to fight those corrupt corporations that betray capitalism by using the US and other western governments to maintain and support dictatorship style socialist themed countries which pool their starving citizens into jobs they need to live. Issues of where to stand on the war in Iraq, "war on terror", how it should be implimented and whether it's really about setting the justified stage for freedom there become things required to be settled now before the movie is made. I can see many people's dire need to wait and see the result of this war, so that they aren't half way through filming with a future which predicted it wrong. Showing how the supporting and training of horrific gov'ts to keep the USSR from influencing and overwhelming them, needs to be exposed. And how it naturally backfires into the current crisis we have now with those same monsters we have created. Creating/supporting a nationalistic religously zealous enemy to our ememy, does not strengthen freedom but can only do exactly that... create and support an enemy. All that aside, Ragnar's actions were considered impatient, while others only wished to pull out and drop from the radar, not fight. The MAIN point of socialism creeping into every gov't and taking over needs to be stressed. But as an ever increasing number of the population think "universal healthcare" is the moral path to follow it becomes VERY important to show many medical advances will be and have been stopped. An Ellis Wyatt of the medical field I think would be very helpful... showing how someone like him is held back in the name of greater good of the health of the many. Ok, that's enough from me for the moment. Mrs. Jolie, it can be done...

I'm glad I got a quick response. Heh, and yeah I "insist"ed. I figured there was a chance that many parts of what I said could be "attacked"/responded to and I'd have a lot to work out in response. Anyhow... Entertainment isn't a justification. It works out NOW easily as an excuse like tennis players. But the core root of the issue is not about TV or cable sponsorship, but if the winnings are something to be considered moral. There are office pools, chess tournaments, and many other forms that do not derive money from sponsorship. People that compete in this game, as you said sometimes don't care about "odds", don't care to know the game thoroughly, they just wish to throw their money at chance and if they figure out something randomly that gives them an edge in a particular hand they will feel like a genius. That edge WAS something to commend them for, but it's not why they are gambling. The major clear issue is that most that gamble have a problem in their lives. They are living under a lie... who lied to who is the issue.... that lie has them throwing their money as chance or lying to themselves and believing that they can win when they CAN'T against the house, or that they are more skilled or just divinly lucky above others in poker. I state that even if most people did not lie to themselves when playing poker, it would still but a moral career. It would be much harder playing against intelligent informed players. But such is the case compared to the 70's when close to no one knew the inner workings of the odds and strategies. It's a skill game. Why others play it is up to them. The rules are offered openly. The strategies are publicized for anyone to look up. As in any form of competition the most competent rise and succeed. And again, yes... people just playing for "fun" wouldn't be interested in the odds. In fact I know many that know the odds but don't care. They come to have fun and wish to through their money around. They aren't their to be serious. They enjoy the company and competitive nature of the game. Some ironically enjoy playing with people they know to be better than them or professionals, in the off chance they can outsmart them. Patrick

I'm a "professional" player of poker. In that that is how I derive my income. It appears this topic hasn't been responded to for a long while. Possibly because it's turned to strippers. I'm new here, but decided to look up this topic. I haven't read all responses as there were many. Of course I do not think it's immoral. It's as immoral as playing any sport for a living. In that those that pay you derive entertainment or fulfill a desire in doing so, whether through TV or not, those that end up giving you money voluntarily did so. I will admit poker IS a zero-sum game. It is not a creative productive enterprize because it is a game. But one can be very creative around it/ about it. TV, books, learning to understand people and why they act and live as they do, increasing your ability to react better when quick decisions must be made, learning how to get as much value out of a situation (in business this can be very useful) as possible. Of course chess and other games can possibly have the same benefits, but people bet in poker. Also I will admit that the chance element of poker can give an illusion to people. But this illusion is self delusion. When someone wins and has very little to know why, because they don't know the game they are playing... don't know the odds of winning in a certain situation or odds of winning at all if they are playing a nonpoker game. They are free to believe what they wish. That they are "lucky", that they are "better"/ more skilled, even if they have no reason to believe they are. They can run from reality. In any event, with all of the advertising by many professionals (well the popular and very successful ones) and easily searchable means of looking up how to play "correctly" or "well" according to well respected sources, there is no reason to believe poker is a "cheaters game". (realize that nearly all of my quotation marks aren't quoting anyone directly... but "cheaters game" I believe was one of the first descriptions given to poker when it started out as a riverboat gamblers game) Ok, that was more than enough for me to say... at least to start and see how you pick any of it apart and have me respond to it Patrick