Yesterday at work a customer came through my checkout line and was buying an old movie. We began talking about movies which led to the fact that all movies now are usually remakes, sequels, prequels, based on shows etc. Then ended up leading to the fact that there is being a sequel made to the movie "wallstreet" with Michael Douglas. Here is the part that gets interesting.
Apparently when Douglas and his wife were divorced, the settlement entitled her to a portion of certain works of his if he were to continue acting. In other words, she would receive money he earned AFTER the divorce. The customer told me this and began saying that it wasn't fair because "she didn't earn the money, Douglas did."
Irony? The customer paid with foodstamps for his food, and his own funds for the movie he was procuring.
So, does anyone consider this irony, ignorance, or have another view? I found it to be both of the formers.
6/30/2010, 22:44