But I do > believe there is a "crisis in creativity" where not only to producers, > executives, agents not know what is good, but people writing scripts have > little left to say. An over-abundance of media entertainment? Do we > really look forward to 100+ channels of television, and still little worth > watching? > David Desser,UIUC Cinema Studies Well. . . perhaps you're right, although I suspect there are a number of scriptwriters lurking out there who would strongly disagree. I'm also not sure there is an overabundance of any substantial media entertainment. Each new and current cable channel I see replicates Springsteen's song, "57 Channels and Nothing On"; nothing, that is, except for endless reruns and infocommercials. For example, I was intrigued when I learned of the "Sci-Fi Channel," although very wary since no trufan ever would be caught dead calling SF, "Sci-Fi." My fears were realized when I first got an opportunity to view the channel; it is sheer drivel, unless of course you happen to enjoy the 1970's "Buck Rogers" program. There's a part of me that can't help thinking that the old studio system, in spite of its many flaws, was much more effective in cranking consistently fresh entertainment. And as far as overabundance is concerned: In 1939, the five major studios alone were each producing 500 full-length feature films, not to mention thousands of shorts, cartoons, and news. Anyway, I have to believe that the site of exhaustion is located in the current studios/networks--the bean counters' bottom line and not the writers. In other words, the talent is still there but execs are too timid to use it. --Patrick