>>But somewhere along the line you seem to have made a non-intuitive leap that the person who put up the web page that started this and I have no other experiences that we enjoy than watching hollywood movies. That's a heck of a jump. That person enjoyed Remington Steele and enjoys old hollywood movies, so she created this web page connecting the two things to share her enjoyment. How you then decided that therefore she has nothing else in her life, or even that she has never watched anything but Hollywood movies, I'll never figure out. Maybe you could explain?
>
>I called it as I saw it: one huge echo chamber, with about zero content seeping in from outside. The website is a second derivation of the same content. Just think of this: a TV series where most of the charm comes from frequent movie quotes with absolutely none of the movies coming from outside the U(S+K) pen. And I've seen this insular POV in so many places (*) that it finally got to my nerves.

But all you saw was that tiny part she showed you. I assume too that you never watched the show Remington Steele or you'd know that the movie quotes were a small part of the charm of the show. He did a couple of those in a show sometimes just one - out of a 40 minute show. You're not calling them as you see them, you're calling them as you want to see them. I'm beginning to get the idea that you rant just for the sake of ranting - even when there is nothing worth ranting about. To pick on that web site for a rant is ridiculous.

>
>I don't know about the rest of the girl's life; I only saw what she posted. And, should I repeat, I'm not blaming her at all. How can she know what's outside the dome?

How do you know she doesn't? You dumped all over her without having the remotest idea who she is and what she is about. Like I said, ranting for the sake of ranting.

>
>>>I guess you'd never see it that way, as in your choice of movies there isn't much of the rest of the world, and even when there is, it's never made in the country it was about. But then, I should have guessed you'd never think of movies as a source of knowledge about other countries, if you think of them as solely entertainment - but my predictions are suboptimal most of the time anyway.
>>
>>Sure I see movies as entertainment. As you are well aware, movies rarely show the truth. Or am I wrong. Do you believe everything you see in a movie? Do you automatically assume that if you saw something in a movie about a country, then that is how things really are?
>
>Of course I don't think they show things as they are - the plot itself undergoes so many changes (starting with the ideas that script writers give up, knowing they wouldn't pass)... but there are so many small things that you can see that nobody bothers to forge. Things the native viewership takes for granted, but which reveal bits of reality to a foreigner. One develops an eye for those things. For instance, when I met my first Italians, I wasn't surprised at all at how loud they are - having seen (and heard) them in their movies. Or how much gesticulation they use. Or the size of an American grocery store - having seen it in a few movies (though I didn't realize that all of them are that big - I imagined they shot the movies in the big ones).
>
>Movies can be art. Sometimes they are.
>
>----
>(*) SF anthologies by Gardner Dozois - you'd say that nobody in the world writes SF except U(S+K), with the honorable exception of the Ozzie Greg Egan, who is now too famous to skip. This guy keeps it so for 25+ years. Netflix, where there are genres like comedy, drama, action... and foreign. Other countries don't make comedies, dramas etc - they always make foreign movies.

You mean Stanislaw Lem, Jorge Lius Borges, Arkady and Boris Strugatsky aren't American? You could knock me over with a feather. yes, yes, I know they don't count because I didn't read them in their native languages.