That is dirty, stinky, polluted India for you. One country you couldn't pay me to ever visit. Posted by cdegolier at 10:00 AM : May 14, 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So who the hell is forcing you to visit that INDIA ?
......keep stay put in your differently polluted, dirty, artificially perfumed (?) den with your condescending obnoxious air & the mites & the swine-flu chasing you.......
someone'll be saving those bucks for a better cause....
It makes movies for profit. Would these kids from the slums be any better off or worse off if they weren't in the movie? Lets keep things in proper prospective. If your baby were used in a commercial, perhaps you would receive several thousand dollars. The manufactturers of the product being advertised might make millions. Same difference. ---------------------
Posted by rhs648
Because the (Oscar-winning) movie made a lot of people a lot of money and these kids weren't just some extras or in a 30 second commercial, where any actor would do, they were supporting actors and made a significant contribution to the film. In an era where a major star will ask for and get a $500,000 trailer on-set, it would be a nice gesture (not to mention good pub) for the producers to hook these kids up with some of those profits.
As inexpensive as housing must be in India, why can't the producers, directors and other backers of the SlumDog film buy these children new homes? They made a furtune off of them. Now, fix their lives! Posted by barbaraf4
Two points. You assume housing in a major city in India is cheap. Is housing in New York City, Boston, or San Francisco cheap. Of course not. Anything decent in India is probably very expensive by their standards just as New York City is prohibitive for many of us. Secondly, perhaps the producers should have hired middle class Indian children and payed them the prevailing wage. Hollywood is a business. It makes movies for profit. Would these kids from the slums be any better off or worse off if they weren't in the movie? Lets keep things in proper prospective. If your baby were used in a commercial, perhaps you would receive several thousand dollars. The manufactturers of the product being advertised might make millions. Same difference.
By what measure? The photography was beautiful, the scenery was beautiful, the acxting was beautiful, the producers were brilliant, the theme was intriguing, and the movie was though provoking, if not shocking. Perhaps you prefer Superman or Batman. Who can account for taste?
As inexpensive as housing must be in India, why can't the producers, directors and other backers of the SlumDog film buy these children new homes? They made a furtune off of them. Now, fix their lives! Posted by barbaraf4
Two points. You assume housing in a major city such as India is cheap. Is housing in New York City, Boston, or San Francisco cheap. Of course not. Anything decent in India is probably very expensive by their standards just as New York City is prohibitive for many of us. Secondly, perhaps the producers should have hired middle class Indian children and payed them the prevailing wage. Hollywood is a business. It makes movies for profit. Would these kids from the slums be any better off or worse off if they weren't in the movie? Lets keep things in proper prospective. If your baby were used in a commercial, perhaps you would receive several thousand dollars. The manufactturers of the product being advertised might make millions. Same difference.
This is what is wrong with the world. $326 million of unexpected fortune could have been shared a little. They loved those kids when they were getting rich and winning oscars. Now, the aftermath shows a different side of greedy movie makers. It wouldn't take much in India to make a difference. Shame on them!
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Posted by cdegolier at 10:00 AM : May 14, 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So who the hell is forcing you to visit that INDIA ?
......keep stay put in your differently polluted, dirty, artificially perfumed (?) den with your condescending obnoxious air & the mites & the swine-flu chasing you.......
someone'll be saving those bucks for a better cause....
Posted by rhs648
HEY! Don't be knocking The Dark Knight.
---------------------
Posted by rhs648
Because the (Oscar-winning) movie made a lot of people a lot of money and these kids weren't just some extras or in a 30 second commercial, where any actor would do, they were supporting actors and made a significant contribution to the film. In an era where a major star will ask for and get a $500,000 trailer on-set, it would be a nice gesture (not to mention good pub) for the producers to hook these kids up with some of those profits.
As inexpensive as housing must be in India, why can't the producers, directors and other backers of the SlumDog film buy these children new homes? They made a furtune off of them. Now, fix their lives!
Posted by barbaraf4
Two points. You assume housing in a major city in India is cheap. Is housing in New York City, Boston, or San Francisco cheap. Of course not. Anything decent in India is probably very expensive by their standards just as New York City is prohibitive for many of us. Secondly, perhaps the producers should have hired middle class Indian children and payed them the prevailing wage. Hollywood is a business. It makes movies for profit. Would these kids from the slums be any better off or worse off if they weren't in the movie? Lets keep things in proper prospective. If your baby were used in a commercial, perhaps you would receive several thousand dollars. The manufactturers of the product being advertised might make millions. Same difference.
Posted by spillover
By what measure? The photography was beautiful, the scenery was beautiful, the acxting was beautiful, the producers were brilliant, the theme was intriguing, and the movie was though provoking, if not shocking. Perhaps you prefer Superman or Batman. Who can account for taste?
Posted by barbaraf4
Two points. You assume housing in a major city such as India is cheap. Is housing in New York City, Boston, or San Francisco cheap. Of course not. Anything decent in India is probably very expensive by their standards just as New York City is prohibitive for many of us. Secondly, perhaps the producers should have hired middle class Indian children and payed them the prevailing wage. Hollywood is a business. It makes movies for profit. Would these kids from the slums be any better off or worse off if they weren't in the movie? Lets keep things in proper prospective. If your baby were used in a commercial, perhaps you would receive several thousand dollars. The manufactturers of the product being advertised might make millions. Same difference.