Yup that is a very profound thing to say.. problem isn't lack of information - as the philosophers would say problem is not lack of answers but rather asking the wrong questions.

I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears for most, or get criticized -- but the confusion is caused by a growing tolerance of sin, ignorance of sins of those who run the government, and ignorance of crimes being committed around us. We expose children to things they would never be exposed to in the past, they grow up too fast, they grow more erratic in behavior and become less stable, they commit suicide so often, they get bullied, they are gender confused, they are harming themselves and others. Parents divorce, fathers leave or abuse their wives for selfish reasons (what other reason is there really?). The families are broken so often, and what was once considered sacred and a holy matrimony is now just another thing you can do and decide to undo if you feel like it, like it's nothing. "Till death do you part" is no longer holding any weight. Now it's more like, "Till you stop feeling satisfied do you part." As a people today, we lack morals, we don't have that moral compass like before, we started to cut corners, we hide behind a facade to hide our true thoughts and intentions, we lie, we steal, we self-serve as a country, as a species in general. (Not speaking to everyone but generalizing here.) The confusion is spread by pushing the agendas to tolerate new 'hip' things and ideas like gay marriage (and teaching kids at an early age that it's normal when it clearly wasn't since the dawn of time), abortions, getting rid of the American constitution's foundation one brick at a time, voting for people into office who should never have been considered, immorality is rampant. The internet is a one-stop shop of sinful lusts of the eyes and pleasures, and gossiping, and laziness and media that just says or shows way too much for many who are not yet ready to view such things, if ever. Things like tumblr, deviantart, porn sites, and even youtube are showing so many wrong things to our kids. Sex changes are happening to teens, and instilled as a perfectly acceptable idea to more people than ever before, even at really early ages (there are I'm sure exceptions to justifying one, but it's very rare, and again I'm just generalizing). Confusion is also spread by hating certain religions as a nation such as Christianity, which it was founded upon. How ironic that the forefathers who established this once great nation, has now become instrumental in destroying its own foundations? What does that teach us? What's right and what's wrong? Everyone is now their own decider, there is no real right or wrong anymore because everyone has their own versions. Where before humanity generally knew, at least in America we knew once upon a time how to live better in general. I wrote a book, sorry..just ranting.

Oh wow, then you have to try to take Story before he retires! (which I believe is going to be this year or the next). The Story lecture is filled with McKee's philosophy, and the man is profound. I had so many revelations in his class. I've taken it twice in the past ten years, and want to go back this spring. If you're a screenwriter, his genre classes have less life psychology, but are intensely packed days that were more valuable to me than film school.

Poindexter Q, agreed! I feel ambivalent about Robert McKee. As you say, he is capable of making profound statements, but at the same time he can sometimes come across as forceful tone and manner. For me, these signs have always smelled of a dogmatic mindset, and yet he's able to come up with gems. Because of these gems, I feel both very open, but because of the forceful signs, I feel equally skeptical. People like this whom I encounter fascinate me, especially those similar types who don't listen well but are somehow still incredibly insightful. P.s. If you are interested in the deconstruction and construction of stories, John Truby's book 'Anatomy of Story' is by far the most sophisticated manual I've found. Truly eye-opening.

Poindexter Q > If I may add, I reckon an essential problem for people today is 'delusion' ! Many people do not see that good and evil are two sides of the same coin, that our mind and body are two yet not two, and that our life and environment are also one. Our environment is (I stress) our life. Many politicians, to suit their paymasters' agenda and their own, separate good from evil. By saying, 'those people over there are bad/evil', they are in effect saying they themselves are good ! Really ? When someone points the finger at another they have three fingers pointing back at themselves. All life is inextricably linked. Each and every human being is a microcosm of the macrocosm. This is a wondrous reality. Cause and effect is real, nobody escapes; not even the judge or jury ! As we say in Texas, 'When you throw dirt, you loose ground !' But not all people in Texas have joined the dots. The key, and middle way is to create maximum value in your immediate and unique circumstances. This requires courageous faith - the path of no regret.

+Vash Rises I'm fairly sure Dr.Who has done it a few times as well. I'm not sure if they beat lost to it or not though. The show came out 2005 but the first 2 seasons were more simple when it came to plot.

Didn't "Dallas"(1978) do the 'Flash forward' technique?

^ shouted this at screen

Amen...

I like the Tv series Flash Forward but it was discontinued.

Yeah, I think it's been used in many cases. Maybe what he was saying was that "Damages" used it to a degree never tried before, i.e. letting you know a character's fate in advance, instead of coyly hinting at something drastic but never giving you enough to be sure one way or the other. "Giving the game away" in other words. Technically undercutting suspense of one kind - "what's gonna happen to this guy - will he make it?" - and replacing it with another kind - "man, now I want to see how this guy dies!"

deino117 Yeah, you have a good point. There's a difference between knowing parts of what will happen and what will ultimately happen.

Eat your hat now, eh? Amazing how quickly the tables can turn.

Only men like ugly, violent stories like Sopranos and Breaking Bad, et cetera - strictly dick flicks, you'll excuse the term. Women would rather watch Downton Abbey, now the all time most popular tv series ever made. The Durrells in Corfu, Victoria, and Poldark close behind, to PBS's everlasting credit. They're all British dramas, so that does say something about the shallowness of American television writing, which can only seem to come up with blood thirsty violence, brainless sitcom stupidity and the other moronic bilge the networks throw at us.. And futuristic-alien beings-alternate universe-creatures from outer space epics are just stupid. Mad Men was excellent, but that's the only series you mention that is good storytelling without being a bloodbath or alien nonsense. And a bloodbath is cheap storytelling and aliens don't exist.

Robert McKee

+thereisnochoiceleft That is NOT the conservative attitude. Do you REALLY think that the party most associated with Christianity is the one with the "every man for himself" philosophy, and the one most associated with atheism is the one with the philosophy of "I am my brother's keeper"? If anything Liberalism is the opposite, it is pawning off that responsibility onto a third party so liberals can feel good about themselves, "The state cares for poor people, I support the state, therefor I am a good person." The conservative attitude is that individuals and the organizations they create through free association such as churches and businesses, do a FAR better job of taking care of people than an impersonal centrally planned bureaucracy. It is the hubris of the intellectual that they know best and if only everyone would listen to them, things would be better. The intellectual however does not, cannot know better than the individual what is best for them, their family, and their friends, I don't care how smart they are. THAT is the conservative perspective. I had an acquaintance whose lifestyle choices had made him virtually unemployable (facial tattoos and scalp piercings). The state's approach to solving the 'problem' of this fellow would be to subject him to the most dehumanizing of state control so as to give him the merest pittance of handout. My approach was to talk to him enough to discover that he had friends who were bike messengers and that he would love such a job, except he didn't have a bicycle. Instead of him going on welfare, I bought him a bike. He now owns his own messenger service and employs people.

+thereisnochoiceleft I see, so you know better than the Christians what Jesus preached? So in addition to being assholes, conservatives are ignorant too. According to you it would appear, Jesus must have preached that Rome should tax the rich more so they could give more bread and circuses to the people. (Rome in fact had a robust 'welfare' system and it ultimately helped destroy Rome.) It is true that conservatives tend to favor harsh sentences for harsh criminals, but the current law of the land in the US of centrally planned minimum sentences, etc., is largely a product of the centralization of authority that liberals prefer. Left in conservative hands, must of such things would be state matters, where the competition and testing of ideas among 50 states would quickly reveal what is most conducive to reducing crime. Conservatives want a strong military because they are well aware that the easiest way to get yourself into a war is to be weaker than those who might attack you. Liberals live in a "wouldn't it be nice" fantasy land by comparison. I would further note that there is a gulf separating the paleoconservatives and the neocon warmongers. The Christian right is rapidly rebelling against the neocon usurpation of their preferred party. Conservatives most definitely oppose liberal tax grabs on the wealthy (pure might makes right theft), again because they are well aware that the impersonal bureaucracy they would give the money to will do a FAR worse job of things than if it was left where it could grow jobs and provide services people are actually willing to pay for, instead of 'their' choices being taken from them and 'your' choices being forced upon them by a smugly superior 'holier than thou' elite. Jesus preached a path to divinity, a path that meant absolutely nothing if it was not made freely by the individual. The idea that his teachings should be twisted to mean that Rome should by force of arms steal everything and apportion it as they saw fit, would be utterly abhorrent to him.

+Peter Cohen But there are Ayn Randian conservatives for instance that believe that it really is every man for himself and that there are people unworthy of love or assistance. He said "There is a spectrum." A sliding spectrum and you just are not that far right. So, you are also painting the entire right with your interpretation. Look at the 2008 Republican debate when the moderator asked Rand Paul if the man can't pay for health care do we let him die? And Rand Paul had trouble answering but the audience cheered the question, "Do we let him die?" There are people on the right that believe if you lack you do so because you are immoral and deficient and are unworthy of assistance.

+Rocko1II "There are people on the right that believe if you lack you do so because you are immoral and deficient and are unworthy of assistance." There may indeed be some insane people on the right just as there are on the left. I have never met any of them. Those who advocate for a free market understand several things that those on the left seem to be utterly oblivious to. One, they understand that a free society is a vastly wealthier society with much less poverty and much more charity available to the truly unfortunate. They also understand that in a free market, prices go down while quality goes up, and this is a perpetual pressure. This is the diametrical opposite with what is happening in socialized medicine the world over, including the frankenstein of a medical system we have now in the US, which is pretty much the combination of the 'worst' of both worlds. Back in the early days in America when medicine was mostly free market, most medical procedures cost such that most people could afford them without resort to hugely expensive insurance. 'Catastrophic' medical insurance for those times when it would be too expensive was comparatively dirt cheap. If you want the best of both worlds (as opposed to the worst we have now), get the government out of medical care completely and have a universal 'catastrophic' health insurance, but leave the other 99% of medical services outside of that.

+Peter Cohen You are missing the point entirely. He is talking about polarization, and you are talking about fuck all.

Trump lost, torilla tavataan!