You. Yes, You! I'm looking at YOU.

THE JAY – 12:07 a.m.

“Wassup?”

That really works for you? Or that Angel dude? The last time I said wassup to a complete stranger, she wasn't exactly begging me to bed her. I don't know about your method. Or any method for that matter. I quote Jon Lennon, "I don't believe in methods, I just believe in me." Very smart. He was the walrus you know. I could have been the walrus, but it still wouldn't change the fact that I haven't met a decent girl since a certain ex-republican back in College.

And for those of you who didn't get any of what I just wrote, well, don't worry about it, I lost myself too.

I've been trying something new, just cause what else to try, right? Instead of the usual stilted visual conversation, wherein you spy a glance, then look away when she meets your gaze, then repeat the same exchange over and over again; I'm trying what I like to call "staring". Don't worry, it's not nearly as creepy as it seems. It's fairly simple, actually. I see a girl I think is pretty, and I look at her. If she catches me watching, I don't look away. I simply let her know that yes, I am looking at her. And let me tell you, it's worked a lot better than anything I else I've picked up watching Swingers for the 547th time.

The problem in the performance is that if it works properly, she will come to you. Which could prove potentially disastrous. As this happened to me a short while ago. Two semi-attractive girls sauntered drunkenly over to me and my boy Galvez and started to spit game on how they couldn't help but noticing me staring at them, yada yada yada. They proceeded to try and talk us up further, yet it was abundantly clear that they were morons. We bolted out of that shit, left them to stumble to the next poor bastard, and hit the Tivo room right quick! And that's the problem, you find a girl worth looking at, but they ain't worth salt or spit to talk at.

But who's to know what will or will not come from any try at the random female you spy across the room at a party, bar, library, orgy, etc.

And also dude, don't give advice to our readers. All seven of them. Be the shark? Be the Rated-R guy? Who talks like that? No wonder you strike out more than Sammy Sosa without his corked bat. All this time writing about trying to get chicks, instead of actually trying to get girls...it's real sad.

Bangarang, Sosa!

Fine, we'll just make everything suck, then!

THE JAY – 2:47 a.m.

Good post, nice points. I'll tackle each argument one at a time. I'm being brief on this one. Something I'm working on.

Quick response, followed by a longer answer forthwith. Who would judge what product is worth what amount? You'd be creating an entertainment caste system that has no judge or jury. You would also be boxing out possible surprisingly good films. As expected, I have a much wittier, much better idea...

1. How to solve market saturation?
The answer is basically a modified, flipped over version of your plan. Create a price plan that is universal. Make opening night exceedingly cheap for every movie. As the films plays week to week, the price of a ticket increases. This works to reward quality films that are well liked by the public. Blockbusters with great special effects and lousy stories would open small, and flame out quickly. By capping the first week box office, it would affect the film itself. Most likely, we would come to see a decreased percentage of films tailored to a quick fix. I'm thinking of films like Catwoman, Planet of the Apes or any of those Jerry Bruckheimer/ Nicolas Cage action movies. Conversely, we would see more higher quality films, due to increased pressure to deliver a film people will not only like, but will agree to pay more for, the longer they wait to see it.

It's the same method used for home video. When a DVD is first released it is priced on sale. You can never find that DVD for as good a price, unless you go to Amoeba. As the weeks go on, and other DVD's come out, the sale ends and the price goes up. Now the consumer must choose whether or not the film is important enough to pay more for; a great test of the longevity and overall quality of a film.

If we are talking about making all films equal in the eyes of the movie going public, it's time to bring everyone to the same level. Here's my financial proposal:

Week 1: Price - $4.00
Week 2: Price - $5.00
Week 3: Price - $6.00
Week 4: Price - $7.00
Weeks 5 - Through the end of the run, all best are off. Theaters may customize their price.

As of August 31st, the average motion picture makes more than 60% of its total gross from the opening weekend. And the average drop-off for a summer blockbuster is near 55%. Since we all know that the opening weekend numbers are what determines the "success" of the film, then cap that number and give all movies a true test. This way Garden State has just as much a chance to succeed as the latest Cruiser flick. It's time to judge not by the size of the budget, but by the size of its greatness.

2. Should actors be made to work Pro-Bono
They had this method before, it was called the studio system. And it was also called a modified legal version of indentured servitude. Again, you're talking about creating a caste system that would have definitive boundaries, as opposed to the current unofficial A-list/ B-List nonsense. Your argument being that when a star reaches a certain level of acclaim and celebrity they are therefore obligated to do a certain amount of free work. But who decides when an actor hits that stature? More and more these days we have fake stars. Actors who do one successful film and are anointed the next big thing (I'm looking at you Kate Hudson), then are quickly given huge summer movies with their name above the titles, thereby making them a full-fledged "star". But it's all bullshit.

Further, forcing actors- who, by the way, may not even have the chops for indie films- to make movies for free, hurts the creative process. Who's to say that they won't just half ass their way through a budding director's first film? I would rather see Ashton Kutcher risking his ass in The Butterfly Effect (which was a small film), then to see Brad Pitt slumming it in Snatch.

Besides, I like the idea that some actors can't choose movies to save their lives. Gives me an easier time in deciding who I like and don't like. If every actor who hit a predetermined level of fame were forced by SAG to do run the same career path would take the fun out of ripping Freddie Prinze Jr. for his latest failed RomCom.

A-Train, things ain't perfect. Your argument was to create a more civilized, utopian Hollywood. but it's not gonna happen. I'd rather have it be chaotic, and thus a more suitable environment for greatness and crapola at equal levels, then to blandize all of the entertainment industry because for some products it's just not fair. Fuck fair. Bring on the crappy movies, and bring on the great ones. I'll decide who and what to spend my money on.

Bangarang, Pimpjuice!