Why No One Will See "Suburbicon"

[Billy_Kinetta]

People don't like message films, especially when the message has already been rejected.

Venice: Matt Damon Calls ‘Suburbicon’ “The Definition of White Privilege”

 

[WinterBorn]

It has gotten pretty good reviews. It stars some big names. People will go see it. It won't break any box office records, but this sort of film rarely does.

 

[Pogo]

People don't like message films, especially when the message has already been rejected.

Venice: Matt Damon Calls ‘Suburbicon’ “The Definition of White Privilege”

It's not "message" --- it's actual history. One that in fact I wasn't even aware of even while growing up in that same area. So yes I'll definitely go see it, and I'm normally not one for movies at all.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

People don't like message films, especially when the message has already been rejected.

Venice: Matt Damon Calls ‘Suburbicon’ “The Definition of White Privilege”

It's not "message" --- it's actual history.

Of course it is. It's a Hollywood film.

 

[Pogo]

It has gotten pretty good reviews. It stars some big names. People will go see it. It won't break any box office records, but this sort of film rarely does.

From my past experience living briefly with movie freaks, and thus hearing the soundtracks while not watching the films, I deduced that most Hollywood shit consists of but three elements:

1. Explosions and gunfire
2. Car chases (or other vehicle if different era)
   
3. Women screaming

Lather, rinse repeat, recycle ad nauseum. BORing. Appeal to the basest sensationalism will always sell tickets, which is generally an inverse relationship with redeeming social value.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Leftists will flock to it to recharge their hatred against whites....while being white

 

[Pogo]

People don't like message films, especially when the message has already been rejected.

Venice: Matt Damon Calls ‘Suburbicon’ “The Definition of White Privilege”

What completely sails blithely over the OP's head here is ---- unless you're monetarily invested in the film, "how many people go see it" is utterly irrelevant.

Summa these wags still can't figure out the difference between "attention" and "approval".

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

People don't like message films, especially when the message has already been rejected.

Venice: Matt Damon Calls ‘Suburbicon’ “The Definition of White Privilege”

What completely sails blithely over the OP's head here is ---- unless you're monetarily invested in the film, "how many people go see it" is utterly irrelevant.

Agreed.

Summa these wags still can't figure out the difference between "attention" and "approval".

All I said was "people" don't like message films. Do you disagree?

 

[Pogo]

People don't like message films, especially when the message has already been rejected.

Venice: Matt Damon Calls ‘Suburbicon’ “The Definition of White Privilege”

What completely sails blithely over the OP's head here is ---- unless you're monetarily invested in the film, "how many people go see it" is utterly irrelevant.

Agreed.

Summa these wags still can't figure out the difference between "attention" and "approval".

All I said was "people" don't like message films. Do you disagree?

No, that's not all you said --- you said something about "rejected".
I already noted that it's centered on a real historical event. Are you saying historical events have been "rejected"?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

People don't like message films, especially when the message has already been rejected.

Venice: Matt Damon Calls ‘Suburbicon’ “The Definition of White Privilege”

What completely sails blithely over the OP's head here is ---- unless you're monetarily invested in the film, "how many people go see it" is utterly irrelevant.

Agreed.

Summa these wags still can't figure out the difference between "attention" and "approval".

All I said was "people" don't like message films. Do you disagree?

No, that's not all you said --- you said something about "rejected".
I already noted that it's centered on a real historical event. Are you saying historical events have been "rejected"?

No, I'm saying the message of white privilege proffered by the film has been rejected by the rational minded among us.

It does not modify the statement that people don't like message films, it merely enhances it for this particular type of film.

 

[Pogo]

People don't like message films, especially when the message has already been rejected.

Venice: Matt Damon Calls ‘Suburbicon’ “The Definition of White Privilege”

What completely sails blithely over the OP's head here is ---- unless you're monetarily invested in the film, "how many people go see it" is utterly irrelevant.

Agreed.

Summa these wags still can't figure out the difference between "attention" and "approval".

All I said was "people" don't like message films. Do you disagree?

No, that's not all you said --- you said something about "rejected".
I already noted that it's centered on a real historical event. Are you saying historical events have been "rejected"?

No, I'm saying the message of white privilege proffered by the film has been rejected by the rational minded among us.

It does not modify the statement that people don't like message films, it merely enhances it for this particular type of film.

We're starting over now?

Once again --- it's not a "message" film; it's a history film. This is a real event, that really already happened. Exactly sixty years ago.

​

Again I've never been a moviegoer but even I know movies based around historical events are a very common approach. Always have been. This particular one is of special interest because it happened in my own back yard.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Toldja -

Weekend Box Office: George Clooney's 'Suburbicon' DOA; 'Jigsaw' Heads for No. 1

 

[Pogo]

People don't like message films, especially when the message has already been rejected.

Venice: Matt Damon Calls ‘Suburbicon’ “The Definition of White Privilege”

What completely sails blithely over the OP's head here is ---- unless you're monetarily invested in the film, "how many people go see it" is utterly irrelevant.

Agreed.

Summa these wags still can't figure out the difference between "attention" and "approval".

All I said was "people" don't like message films. Do you disagree?

No, that's not all you said --- you said something about "rejected".
I already noted that it's centered on a real historical event. Are you saying historical events have been "rejected"?

No, I'm saying the message of white privilege proffered by the film has been rejected by the rational minded among us.

It does not modify the statement that people don't like message films, it merely enhances it for this particular type of film.

We're starting over now?

Once again --- it's not a "message" film; it's a history film. This is a real event, that really already happened. Exactly sixty years ago.

​

Again I've never been a moviegoer but even I know movies based around historical events are a very common approach. Always have been. This particular one is of special interest because it happened in my own back yard.

You actually think it's "funny" that a family was forced out of their own home by bigotry huh?

Doesn't that speak volumes.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What completely sails blithely over the OP's head here is ---- unless you're monetarily invested in the film, "how many people go see it" is utterly irrelevant.

Agreed.

Summa these wags still can't figure out the difference between "attention" and "approval".

All I said was "people" don't like message films. Do you disagree?

No, that's not all you said --- you said something about "rejected".
I already noted that it's centered on a real historical event. Are you saying historical events have been "rejected"?

No, I'm saying the message of white privilege proffered by the film has been rejected by the rational minded among us.

It does not modify the statement that people don't like message films, it merely enhances it for this particular type of film.

We're starting over now?

Once again --- it's not a "message" film; it's a history film. This is a real event, that really already happened. Exactly sixty years ago.

​

Again I've never been a moviegoer but even I know movies based around historical events are a very common approach. Always have been. This particular one is of special interest because it happened in my own back yard.

You actually think it's "funny" that a family was forced out of their own home by bigotry huh?

No, I think it funny that two Hollywood top-of-the-A-list Democrat supporters have another dismal failure on their hands.

 

[Pogo]

Agreed.

All I said was "people" don't like message films. Do you disagree?

No, that's not all you said --- you said something about "rejected".
I already noted that it's centered on a real historical event. Are you saying historical events have been "rejected"?

No, I'm saying the message of white privilege proffered by the film has been rejected by the rational minded among us.

It does not modify the statement that people don't like message films, it merely enhances it for this particular type of film.

We're starting over now?

Once again --- it's not a "message" film; it's a history film. This is a real event, that really already happened. Exactly sixty years ago.

​

Again I've never been a moviegoer but even I know movies based around historical events are a very common approach. Always have been. This particular one is of special interest because it happened in my own back yard.

You actually think it's "funny" that a family was forced out of their own home by bigotry huh?

No, I think it funny that two Hollywood top-of-the-A-list Democrat supporters have another dismal failure on their hands.

Unfortunately none of that was what my post was about. Nor do you have a basis for "failure" anyway, since it's not your place to declare what the "objective" was.

On the contrary my post was about a specific real historical event depicted in the film, complete with video documentary documenting that real event, and that's what you rated "funny".

And that, as I already noted, is revealing.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No, that's not all you said --- you said something about "rejected".
I already noted that it's centered on a real historical event. Are you saying historical events have been "rejected"?

No, I'm saying the message of white privilege proffered by the film has been rejected by the rational minded among us.

It does not modify the statement that people don't like message films, it merely enhances it for this particular type of film.

We're starting over now?

Once again --- it's not a "message" film; it's a history film. This is a real event, that really already happened. Exactly sixty years ago.

​

Again I've never been a moviegoer but even I know movies based around historical events are a very common approach. Always have been. This particular one is of special interest because it happened in my own back yard.

You actually think it's "funny" that a family was forced out of their own home by bigotry huh?

No, I think it funny that two Hollywood top-of-the-A-list Democrat supporters have another dismal failure on their hands.

Unfortunately none of that was what my post was about.

But that is what the OP was about. Your concerns are inconsequential to the issue.

 

[K9Buck]

The bottom line of so-called "white privilege" is that white people have unfairly acquired wealth. If Matt Damon truly believes his own remarks on "white privilege", why hasn't he given all of his wealth to minorities? You see, liberals like Matt Damon don't have a problem with wealth; liberals like Matt Damon have a problem with your wealth.

 

[Pogo]

No, I'm saying the message of white privilege proffered by the film has been rejected by the rational minded among us.

It does not modify the statement that people don't like message films, it merely enhances it for this particular type of film.

We're starting over now?

Once again --- it's not a "message" film; it's a history film. This is a real event, that really already happened. Exactly sixty years ago.

​

Again I've never been a moviegoer but even I know movies based around historical events are a very common approach. Always have been. This particular one is of special interest because it happened in my own back yard.

You actually think it's "funny" that a family was forced out of their own home by bigotry huh?

No, I think it funny that two Hollywood top-of-the-A-list Democrat supporters have another dismal failure on their hands.

Unfortunately none of that was what my post was about.

But that is what the OP was about. Your concerns are inconsequential to the issue.

But you weren't rating the OP. You were rating my post, which is specifically about the historical event. It was also specifically in response to your characterization of the film, articulating what it's specifically about.

Quit trying to weasel out of it You own it.

Don't think you ever essplained what this "message that has been rejected" is either.

 

[BlackSand]

No, that's not all you said --- you said something about "rejected".
I already noted that it's centered on a real historical event. Are you saying historical events have been "rejected"?

I just wish they would make up their minds.

They want us to tear down statues of Columbus, Washington, Jefferson and Jackson so history isn't shoved in our face.
Then they want to make movies about this mess so history is shoved in our face ... Camouflaged as intellectual prowess.

Meh ... I'll put Borne Supremacy in the DVD player ... Watch it on the huge screen with an awesome sound system in the living room ... And hit pause if I need to pee.
If Matt Damon wants to discuss "White Privilege" with me ... I'll pass him the chips and pico then tell him to be quite while we are watching the movie.

.

 

[Pogo]

No, that's not all you said --- you said something about "rejected".
I already noted that it's centered on a real historical event. Are you saying historical events have been "rejected"?

I just wish they would make up their minds.

They want us to tear down statues of Columbus, Washington, Jefferson and Jackson so history isn't shoved in our face.
Then they want to make movies about this mess so history is shoved in our face ... Camouflaged as intellectual prowess.

Meh ... I'll put Borne Supremacy in the DVD player ... Watch it on the huge screen with an awesome sound system in the living room ... And hit pause if I need to pee.
If Matt Damon wants to discuss "White Privilege" with me ... I'll pass him the chips and pico then tell him to be quite while we are watching the movie.

Nobody "wants to tear down statues of Columbus, Washington, Jefferson or Jackson" (depending on which Jackson you're talking about). There are however municipalities that have taken back control of their own (agian the key phrase there is "their own") public spaces that were commandeered as propaganda transmitters a century ago by a revisionist history propaganda group called the United Daughters of the Confederacy --- but that's got nothing to do with Columbus, Washington, Jefferson or Jackson" (depending on which Jackson you're talking about), nor does it have anything to do with history, since statues and monuments are not how we record history in the first place.