Hollywood Is Taking Beating At Box Office

[insein]

I was referring more towards the non-political movies. Syrianna and Munich notwithstanding. I think people get enraged by those (Syrianna, et. al) movies, and it overflows into reduced interest in everything else. There's gotta be an anti-conservative message in King Kong somewhere...

I'm waiting for someone to use the analogy that its a symbolism of how the white man enslaved the black race and then kept them from succeeding in modern society. Come on its right there people. Jesse? Louis? Obama? Harry Reid? Anyone want to take a stab at it? I know your itching too.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'm waiting for someone to use the analogy that its a symbolism of how the white man enslaved the black race and then kept them from succeeding in modern society. Come on its right there people. Jesse? Louis? Obama? Harry Reid? Anyone want to take a stab at it? I know your itching too.

It's already been done, but I'm guessing you knew that, considering it was on Drudge a week or two ago

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

 

[insein]

Ha! maybe that was subliminal. I look at Drudge every other day and might have seen that headline and ignored it. I honestly didnt think anyone had used it till now.

 

[MtnBiker]

I think the biggest cause, and it hasnt been mentioned, is the political activism of so many hollywood people.

The political activism of hollywood people may very well play some part in people's decision whether or not see a movie, but if the assumption that the biggest spending demographic of movies are males the age of 15 to 34, then the political activism wouldn't be to big.

The members of this board are generally politically aware, however just looking at voting demographics the male group of 15 to 34 typically are not. I don't want to discount your theory, I just do not believe it to be the biggest factor.

A poor product offered by the moive studios really is the most likely case.

 

[sitarro]

It is a combination of numerous things. Price has severely hurt the music industry and it is doing the same for the movie industry. Who wants to spend that kind of money to see a remake of a television show that wasn't that good in the first place or a cd by notalent posers that can't hold a tune or play an instrument. Just like the music industry there is a serious lack of creativity in Hollywood, too much special effects taking the place of an actual story.

There has been some really entertaining movies lately though, some I would have enjoyed seeing on a really large screen, but I have refused to go to a theater since the original Matrix. . . I'm tired of paying a lot of money to be subjected to the asshole public. Idiots talking to each other, cell phones going off, kids crying or running up and down the aisle, beer cans and wine bottles rolling down the floor, poor sound quality or screen . . . I have seen one movie since then, "The Passions of The Christ" and the theater was totally silent, even during the credits, it was an incredible contrast to what is a normal experience.

As in concerts, I would rather not deal with the hassles, I'll wait for the DVD. For the price of a bad seat at a concert I will buy DVDs of numerous concerts that I might be interested in.

The actors and music industry players need to take a lot of responsibility also. These guys are as much salespeople as anything else and a sales person does best by keeping as many options open as possible. The Sean Penns, Tim Robbins and Carlos Santanas ruin the illusion when they speak against a solid 50% of the buying public. I cannot seperate Sean Penn from the character he is trying to portray anymore, he has made himself too visible in real life to be believable as someone else. That is the danger of having such a public life. I have hated Tim Robbins since his prepubescent scream from the back of Tom Cruise's F-14 in "Top Gun"(http://www.geocities.com/timrobbinspage/html/film.html) and the hatred was cemented with the asshole he played in "Bull Durham". . . liked the movie, hated him. I also liked "Shawshank Redemption" but more for Morgan Freeman than him, his part could have been played better by a more competent actor. He was also such a fag as Ian in "High Fidelity".

I have been a fan of Santana for over 30 years but I don't want to pay money to be insulted by this ignorant clown. He has not only sold out his sound(playing backup to dildo talkers with nothing to say) for a few more dollars, his vocalizations of political views against half of his fans and the country that has made him famous while taking full advantage of a free capitalist society is hypocritical at best. I walked away from a concert where in between songs he spouted out a bunch of lies and rumors against conservative voters. He can have whatever belief he wants, just don't insult me by getting me to pay to hear music and use the stage as a soap box to push an agenda.

Besides that, I can crank up my home theater system and be free to do anything I want in my own environment. If I want to smoke a pipe or a cigar, I can. If I want to drink some Don Julio shots and a beer I have the freedom to do that. Or even more important, if I want to work on the computer or paint while I watch a movie, I'll can do it.

The public could also be tired of the rediculously overpaid actors and the music mogles that constantly whine. Imagine making 20,000,000 dollars for a few months of work while all the while having your ass kissed and then bitching. It's very hard to sympathise with the Michael Jacksons of the world when we are privy to how they lead their lives.

 

[5stringJeff]

One word: Netflix.

Going to the local movie theater, I pay $16 for two tickets to see a movie once, in a room full of inconsiderate (and sometimes sick) people. Add the obligatory popcorn that my wife won't do without and a small snack for me (since I don't like popcorn) and we're up to $25. For one movie.

Netflix is $18 per month. This first month that we've had it, we've seen 10-12 movies, in our family room, when we wanted to. And it didn't matter if the wife was nursing, or if my daughter wanted to be in her pajamas, or if I wanted to have a beer while watching the movie. For just the tickets for three people to watch 10 movies, I'd have paid $240. To rent 10 movies at Blockbuster, it would have been $41. So it's certainly cost-effective. Plus, it's a two-day turn-around to get a new movie - not bad at all, considering we have three movies out at any given time.

If you like movies, go get Netflix.

 

[007]

I might be helping it keep afloat right now, but did you miss the part about the 8 months where there was nothing? To keep me out of a theater that long is rare. I was sort of agreeing with you... that many of the movies that have come out over the last 8 months were of no interest to me.

I caught that.

I think, to a certain extent, many of you have developed a blind hatred for Hollywood the way many have developed a blind hatred for George Bush. Suddenly EVERYTHING is a subversive plot to propogandize you, and unless it's overtly done by a conservative for a conservative, you can't stomach to watch it because it's so totally obvious that everything is a liberal idea pusher.

Well, "I think", that you accusing people of "BLIND HATRED" of hollywierd, and the trash that's coming out of it, is a little over the top, and inconsiderate of others here and myself. The word "HATE" is a POWERFUL word, and one should not toy with it. I myself have voiced my "displeasure" with hollywood, and the wierdo's that inhabit it, but NOWHERE did I say "HATE". So out of common courtesy, I'll ask you to please refrain from saying I "HATE" something, if that is NOT what I specifically said.

As far as hollywood being "subversive" in it's ever going propogandizing, there's nothing "subversive" about it. It's in your face, and about as blatant as it can get. And for someone to suggest hollywood ISN'T pushing their agenda, is ignorant. Sorry.

I "LOVE" a good movie as much as the next person. Did you catch that? A "GOOD" movie.

Which is fine, I understand your frustration with the industry... but I think that your hatred is affecting your preceptions before they're actually formed...

Again, don't tell me I "HATE" something if that isn't what I said.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I caught that.



Well, "I think", that you accusing people of "BLIND HATRED" of hollywierd, and the trash that's coming out of it, is a little over the top, and inconsiderate of others here and myself. The word "HATE" is a POWERFUL word, and one should not toy with it. I myself have voiced my "displeasure" with hollywood, and the wierdo's that inhabit it, but NOWHERE did I say "HATE". So out of common courtesy, I'll ask you to please refrain from saying I "HATE" something, if that is NOT what I specifically said.

If you want to get into semantics, then fine. Hate wasn't the word I meant to use, displeasure or disgust is more appropriate. But as long as we're being technical, I technically didn't say you hated anything. I was careful to generalize it so as not to pick out any one person.

As far as hollywood being "subversive" in it's ever going propogandizing, there's nothing "subversive" about it. It's in your face, and about as blatant as it can get. And for someone to suggest hollywood ISN'T pushing their agenda, is ignorant. Sorry.

Don't be, it's ok; you misunderstood me. I didn't claim there wasn't a Hollywood agenda. I agree there is. I did claim that it doesn't exist in every single movie that gets put out, yet many people believe that to be true. If it's not OVERT, then it must be there SUBCONSCIOUSLY. I disagree with that sentiment.

I "LOVE" a good movie as much as the next person. Did you catch that? A "GOOD" movie.

Besides Passion of the Christ, what were the last couple good movies that came out that you loved? I'm actually quite curious.

Again, don't tell me I "HATE" something if that isn't what I said.

Again, don't tell me I told you you hated something when I didn't.

 

[Annie]

Gee.... I wonder if it has anything to do with making movies like the faggot propaganda trash flick BareButt Mountain?

Here's to ya' hollywierd... Couldn't happen to a worse bunch of over indulgent, over paid, self consumed, liberal trash. Hollywood and filthy, immoral crowd that inhabits it shouldn't be an example to anyone.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...,1966401.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Part of the problem:

Hollywood's bad guy problem
Max Boot

December 28, 2005

WHEN YOU THINK about it, World War II was far from black and white. Sure, the German and Japanese militarists were evil, but Britain and the United States did terrible things too. They killed hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians, and they allied themselves with the Soviet Union, which was every bit as awful as the Axis. The outcome was ambiguous because, although Germany and Japan were defeated, the Iron Curtain descended from Eastern Europe to North Korea.

Yet for 60 years, Hollywood has had no problem making movies that depict World War II as a struggle of good versus evil. Rightly so. Because for all the Allies' faults, they were the good guys.

For some reason, Hollywood can't take an equally clear-eyed view of the war on terrorism. The current conflict, pitting the forces of freedom against those of Islamo-fascism, is every bit as clear cut as World War II. Yet fashionable filmmakers insist on painting both sides in shades of gray, as if Israeli secret agents or American soldiers were comparable to Al Qaeda killers. Two of the most serious holiday flicks — "Syriana" and "Munich" — are case studies in mindless moral relativism and pathetic pseudo-sophistication.

"Syriana" purports to shed light on the relationship between oil, terrorism, the United States and the Middle East. Unfortunately, the plot makes almost no sense. Even the title is puzzling. Writer/director Stephen Gaghan claims that he heard "Syriana" used in "think tanks in Washington" to refer to a "redrawing of the boundaries in the Middle East." I work in a think tank with a large D.C. office, and I've never heard that term. Neither have Middle East experts I consulted. In any case, the movie has nothing to do with redrawing boundaries. In short, the title is an attempt at a knowing insider allusion that only illuminates Gaghan's cluelessness.

To the extent that "Syriana" has any message, it seems to be that greedy oil companies, corrupt politicians and malevolent CIA big shots are the bad guys in the Middle East. Two of the most positive characters are a Hezbollah kingpin, who offers CIA operative Bob Barnes (George Clooney) safe passage, and a Pakistani laborer who is driven to become a suicide bomber after being laid off by an American oil company.

The Bob character is said to be based on former CIA officer Robert Baer, but "Syriana" has nothing in common with his memoir, "See No Evil," which depicted his struggles in the 1980s against Hezbollah and in the 1990s against Saddam Hussein.

In real life, Baer got into trouble for plotting to kill Hussein, a terrible dictator. In reel life, Bob gets in trouble for trying to kill a nice Persian Gulf prince who apparently offends Washington by wanting to sell oil to a Chinese, not an American, firm. That's quite a difference. News flash to Gaghan: Canada has agreed to sell oil to China, and the CIA isn't bumping off Canadian leaders.

"Munich" is a more compelling film but just as specious morally. It tells the story of a Mossad hit team sent to avenge the murders of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics by eliminating 11 Palestinian terrorists. The Israelis become tortured by their assignment. As one team member says: "All this blood comes back to us." The movie reinforces this cycle-of-violence theme with constant references to all the terrorist attacks carried out by the PLO after the Olympics. The implication is that if the Israelis weren't killing PLO operatives, they would stop killing Jews.

Director Steven Spielberg has made clear that's his view, telling Time magazine: "A response to a response doesn't really solve anything. It just creates a perpetual-motion machine…. The only thing that's going to solve this is rational minds, a lot of sitting down and talking until you're blue in the gills."

Where has Spielberg been for the last 15 years? Israel tried his "blue in the gills" approach in the 1990s, but the Oslo process only led to greater bloodshed. Israel defeated the second intifada not by chatting with terrorists but by fighting them. "Munich" depicts assassinations as pointless. In reality, Israel's policy of targeted killings has dramatically reduced the threat from Hamas and other extremist groups.

The lesson of World War II still stands: Civilized countries must use violence to defeat barbarians. Why is that so hard for Hollywood to understand?

 

[Bonnie]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...,1966401.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Part of the problem:

I would think Hollywood portrays evil as shades of gray because that's how they see their own morality and want for everyone else to see it that way also. Makes them more dazzling to not be seen tainted with a stain of sin.

 

[Annie]

I would think Hollywood portrays evil as shades of gray because that's how they see their own morality and want for everyone else to see it that way also. Makes them more dazzling to not be seen tainted with a stain of sin.

Only now is 'indicisiveness' passed off as moral. It's not. Sometimes there is evil, it has to be removed.

 

[007]

If you want to get into semantics, then fine. Hate wasn't the word I meant to use, displeasure or disgust is more appropriate. But as long as we're being technical, I technically didn't say you hated anything. I was careful to generalize it so as not to pick out any one person.

Again, don't tell me I told you you hated something when I didn't.

C'mon Clay... let's not get foolish. You used the "quote" function to respond to "me", and then went on to say...

Which is fine, I understand your frustration with the industry... but I think that your hatred is affecting your preceptions before they're actually formed...

If that isn't addressing "me", then I don't know what is. Forget semantics.

Besides Passion of the Christ, what were the last couple good movies that came out that you loved? I'm actually quite curious.

Star Wars III, Batman Begins, Lord Of The Rings, The Incredibles, to name a few.

 

[insein]

Star Wars 3 is the only movie Ive seen in the theater in the past 2 years.

 

[007]

Star Wars 3 is the only movie Ive seen in the theater in the past 2 years.

That, and Lord of the Rings, Return of the King are the only ones I've seen in the theater in the past two years.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

C'mon Clay... let's not get foolish. You used the "quote" function to respond to "me", and then went on to say...



If that isn't addressing "me", then I don't know what is. Forget semantics.

Technically, it's not. In the post, in the second paragraph, I say "many of you." From there on out, until I change the focus of who I am talking to, words like "your" refer to "many of you," so in effect I am saying: "I think that many of you's hatred for..." of course that sounds funny, so I said "your" instead of "many of you's".

In effect, I have taken "many of you" and now refer to it much like you would say "you would think Clay would just let it go already." You're not adressing that "you" to anyone in particular.

Is it semantics? Most definitely. Am I nitpicking? Certainly. Was I referring to you specifically? Only in the first paragraph.

 

[Annie]

Pale, it seems you picked a 'hot topic',

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/a...ID=/20051229/OPINION03/512290312/1110/OPINION

Posted on: Thursday, December 29, 2005

COMMENTARY
Hollywood's misunderstood terrorists

By Victor Davis Hanson


When terrorism goes to the movies in the post-Sept. 11 world, we might expect the plots, characters and themes to reflect some sort of believable reality. But in Hollywood, the politically correct impulse now overrides all else. Even the spectacular pyrotechnics, beautiful people and accomplished acting cannot hide it.

Instead, moviegoers can anticipate before the opening credits that those characters who work for the American government or are at war with terrorists will likely be portrayed as criminals, incompetents or people existing on the same moral plane as killers.

Take this fall's "Flightplan," in which the U.S. air marshal on board and a flight attendant turn out to be the true terrorists. Meanwhile, four Middle Eastern males are unfairly put under suspicion in the lynch-mob atmosphere on the plane.

The film warns us that the real threat after Sept. 11 is certainly not young Middle Eastern males on planes who might hijack or crash them into iconic American buildings. No, more dangerous in Hollywood's alternate universe are the flight officials themselves — who in reality on Sept. 11 battled terrorists only to have their throats cut before being blown up with all the passengers.

A slickly filmed "Syriana" is the worst of the recent releases. The film's problem is not just that it predictably presents the bad, ugly sheik as a puppet of American oil interests while the handsome and good independent crown price is assassinated for championing his oppressed people against Western hegemony. Or that the conniving corporate potentates have big bellies and Southern accents while the goodhearted, sloppily dressed George Clooney is double-crossed by his stylish, pampered CIA bosses safe in the Washington, D.C., suburbs.

"Syriana" also perverts historical reality. Everything connected with the oil industry is portrayed as corrupt and exploitative, with no hint that petroleum fuels civilization. Hollywood producers might not see many oil rigs off the Malibu coast, but someone finds and delivers them gas each morning for their luxury cars.

And who are the really greedy? Do the simple arithmetic of pumping petroleum in the desert: After expenses of typically under $5 a barrel, rigged cartels in the Middle East — run by Iranian mullahs, Gulf royals or Libyan autocrats — sell it on the world market for between $50 to $60. They don't merely price-gouge Americans in their SUVs, but also Third World struggling economies in places like Africa and Latin America.

Plus, in the real world outside Hollywood, does the United States really assassinate Gulf royalty who wish to liberalize their economies and give women the right to vote?

Contrary to the premise of "Syriana," the gripe against contemporary American foreign policy is just the opposite. Realists, isolationists and leftists alike damn the United States as naive or foolish for obsessing over democratic reform in Afghanistan and Iraq, pressuring Saudi Arabia and Egypt to hold valid elections and insisting that the terrorist patron Syria leave the voters of Lebanon alone.

The price of gas skyrocketed after the American invasion of Iraq. And oil companies, especially French and Russian, were furious when Saddam Hussein's kleptocracy fell — and their sweetheart deals were nullified by a new democratic Iraqi government.

Moral equivalence is perhaps the most troubling of Hollywood's postmodern pathologies — or the notion that each side that resorts to violence is of the same ethical nature. Steven Spielberg best summed up the theme of his recently released film about the 1972 murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics and the subsequent Israeli hunt of the perpetrators: "A response to a response doesn't really solve anything. It just creates a perpetual-motion machine."

Spielberg's "Munich" assumes just such a false symmetry between the killers who murdered the innocent athletes and the Israeli agents who hunted them down — each in their own way victimized and caught in a cycle of "perpetual" violence.

Lost in this pop moralizing is the reality of 1972, when none of Israel's neighbors were willing to accept the existence of the Jewish state within even its original borders. Then there was no chance that Israeli agents would storm an Olympic event and murder athletes — but every probability that the Soviet bloc, Western Europeans and Middle East autocracies would never hunt down international terrorists who had done so to Israelis.

Actors, producers, screenwriters and directors of Southern California live in a bubble, where coast, climate and plentiful capital shield the film industry from the harsh world. In their good intentions, these tanned utopians can afford to dream away fascist killers and instead rail at Western bogeymen — even in the midst of a global war against Middle East jihadists who wish to trump what they wrought at the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

If Hollywood wants to know why attendance is down, it is not just the misdemeanor sin of warping reality, but the artistic felony that it does so in such a predictable manner.

 

[007]

Technically, it's not. In the post, in the second paragraph, I say "many of you." From there on out, until I change the focus of who I am talking to, words like "your" refer to "many of you," so in effect I am saying: "I think that many of you's hatred for..." of course that sounds funny, so I said "your" instead of "many of you's".

In effect, I have taken "many of you" and now refer to it much like you would say "you would think Clay would just let it go already." You're not adressing that "you" to anyone in particular.

Is it semantics? Most definitely. Am I nitpicking? Certainly. Was I referring to you specifically? Only in the first paragraph.

Clay... your colors REALLY show through in this post, and it's one of the BEST examples of liberal psycho-babble I've ever seen. This is exactly why I have such a hard time talking to liberals sometimes. PSYCHO-BABBLE!

It's very reminiscent of slick willie saying, "that depends on what the definition of IS, is".

 

[007]

Pale, it seems you picked a 'hot topic',

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/a...ID=/20051229/OPINION03/512290312/1110/OPINION

I love the conclusion of that article Kath...

If Hollywood wants to know why attendance is down, it is not just the misdemeanor sin of warping reality, but the artistic felony that it does so in such a predictable manner.

Thanks for posting that. That was an excelent article. I wish I could rep you again... but you know how it goes.

I've ALWAYS said liberals are "predictable". That's one of the things I always say about bullpulit that he hates.

 

[Annie]

I love the conclusion of that article Kath...



Thanks for posting that. That was an excelent article. I wish I could rep you again... but you know how it goes.

I've ALWAYS said liberals are "predictable". That's one of the things I always say about bullpulit that he hates.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I would think Hollywood portrays evil as shades of gray because that's how they see their own morality and want for everyone else to see it that way also. Makes them more dazzling to not be seen tainted with a stain of sin.

I agree, Bonnie. My epiphany for movies came watching American Beauty. It is an excellent example of Hollywood's penchant for making movies where the white suburban married male is ignorant, shallow and immoral, and needs to learn what is truly important in life, while the gay character (or poor, or black, etc.) has his head on straight and can teach the suburban guy so much. Once your eyes are opened to this not-so-subtle agenda, you start to notice it in many of the movies that Hollywood not only produces, but nominates for honors year after year.