You keep coming back to this idea that if something makes money it must have be the 'right' thing to do (artistically or commerically or both).

And I just don't feel that's the case.

In this instance it's flawed logic for a number of reasons. The orginal drafts of those scripts that he’d had those changes ordered to, (the versions of them that had initially gained their original writers 'buzz' doing the studio rounds), those versions were NEVER filmed so we have no point of comparison. No means of directly calculating the degree to which the changes Sandler ordered and (that his studio writers) implimented to those movies, may or may not have translated directly to an increase (or decrease) in profit.

Would Alexander Payne's I now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (starring someone else) have made more money than the Barry Fanaro's Adam Sandler star vechile that we the audience actually got in the end? No one can say for certain either way. All you can do is track down different versions, read them in script form and draw your own conclusions about impact (posetive or negative) that those changes have had on the story.

Profit/loss/revenue etc in the film industry doesn’t work the way you are suggesting it does and this isn’t the time and place to get into why. But take my word for it.

Anyway...that's besides the point.

I’m coming at this from the perspective that I think writers/artists and creatives ought to have some sense of social and moral conscience with regards to the ideological implications inherent in the works they put out for public consumption. Some obligation to the audience to present that which they (in accordance to their own life experiences/and knowledge) understand to be true or valid.

So it comes back to the question...is this stuff the result of genuine misunderstanding and widespread ignorance in relation to social dynamics on the part of the writer's involved ? (something you seem whole heartedly convinced couldn't possiably be the case for some reason?)

OR is it WILLFUL misdirection (based on the assumtion that movies that sell a lie are going to SELL better/more than movies that challenge their audience with some version of the cold hard truth?).

You might well argue that none of this matters because it’s all about giving the people what they want and taking their money for doing so?

And you might well be 100% right.

But if that’s the case my next question would be:

-WHEN exactly did the ‘people’ become such a bunch of limp wristed dorks?

I suggested Adam Sandler is clearly a person with self esteem issues and suggested his body of work is evidence of this.

You suggested this couldn't be the case because he got up on a stage and told jokes to a crowd.

I was just suggesting that getting up in front of a crowd isn't nessarily an indication of high self esteem (see Kerry Katona/Jacko). Strippers get naked infront of crowds all the time, is it an indication that they (often) don't have self esteem issues or an indication that they do?

Also, I never said 'the geek never gets the girl' I said Fogel would never get 'that' girl in his current state that he is in Superbad. Now...if Fogel (without any emotional growth or development) happened to invented a new type of interface tablet that changed telecommunications forever he'd become a billionaire...that might get him a girl or 'the' girl or ten girls or a million girls or whatever...but he'd STILL be a geek.

He'd be a geek because his way of connecting to women and to the world would be as flawed as it was before. It's a theme Social Network explores. Zuckerberg's external success doesn't in anyway allow him to overcome the personal flaws and desperate and constant need for acceptance and affirmation that have propelled him towards it...

Anyways. As fun and informative as this debate has been I'll be offline most of next week so might have to park it there for now.

ur arguments are waffle.

yes films scripts are about making money

yes u have to be confident to be a comedian

yes geeks can get girls (they are girls who like geeks)

i noticed whenever u are shown a valid point, u change the wording i.e

we wer talking about low confidence, then after my point u started to call it self esteem... the two are not the same.

im out of this discussion now

They aren't waffle.

All I was getting at was basically that some people 'get it' to some extent (woody Allen/Darren Arronovsky/Arron Sorkin) and others don't (Adam Sandler). Are you saying a geek with a model wife is suddenlly no longer a geek?

What I'm saying is....Certain writers (of movies/tv etc) UNDERSTAND attraction and SOCIAL DYNAMICS/masculinity/femininity/gender dyanamics etc and this understanding is something you (I/one) can READ in the subtext of the characters and interactions they create in the stories they write. And the same goes for those that DON'T...(in my humble opinion).

If you don't agree with the above that's fine.

If you don't want to get into that discussion or engage the ideas I'm putting out there that's fine too, but nothing you've said about the commercial/financial success of certain movies or the wealth of anyone involved in them or how attractive Adam Sandler's wife is has ANYTHING at all to do with the points I've been trying to make about how those movies CHOOSE to present social interactions/attraction/gender dynamics/masculinity etc...or the ideas I'm throwing out there about why I suspect that that's the case.

Men that are rich (and or) famous don't NEED to develop any sort of understanding of women/gender dynamics in order to meet/engage and fuck them. Nor do comedians nessarily need any knowledge or understanding of women/gender/social dynamics etc in order to become successful and wealthy comedians...I just don't see the links on which your points seem to depend?

You are a lovely human being sir.