Russian/Chinese Genocide Movies?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Utter nonsense - look at the number of antiwar movies that have been cranked out since 2003 that have flopped in terms of receipts.

Hollywood loves politics, and loves to make political films. Unfortunately, those political films are always one-sided, and the desire to produce them is not driven by the opportunity to make money.

Hollywood - generally speaking - has no interest in producing a political movie that fits outside a left-wing narrative. Left-wing types generally like to whistle past the horrors of Communism, preferring not to answer hard questions about radical politics - that is why you will see Che Guevara t-shirts, but not Eichmann t-shirts. It is not much of a secret.

If you aren’t aware of this, just chalk it up to yet another area you aren’t particularly informed of.[/quote]

They like to make their little political films as side projects so they can feel good about themselves as “artists”. Of course, any film with a right wing message would have difficulty getting off the ground. I don’t think anyone would be out to block it, they just wouldn’t stand in line to help get it made.

Their primary motive behind 90% of what comes out of Hollywood is money.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I agree with the other poster when it comes to “where the hell are the movies about Asians being thrown into camps here in America”, [/quote]

And if you don’t mind me asking, where are all the movies about the colons screwing over the native Americans? All I ever saw, were tales of the brave and courageous cowboy (white of course!) battling hordes of savage Indians or Latinos.

Anyone?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I think your conspiracy theory point of view on this is no more out of line than what you criticize many others for when it comes to this country as a whole. I think you can chalk up the types of movies made to what the general public is willing to PAY FOR way more than some attempt by liberals to control all media.[/quote]

First, I never said it was a conspiracy, and it isn’t one. It is all about editorial choices by people who want their art to say something.

Nor does it have anything to do with trying to control the media, but why am I not surprised you are beginning down an irrelevant path?

You said Hollywood makes its political movies based on the bottom line of dollar bills. I suggested that that was completely false, and we know that from well-known information on recent Hollywood antiwar films. So, that deals with your particular bad argument in that vein. It is clear the public is not interested in paying for antiwar films, but Hollywood kept cranking them out - why? The producers and directors want to create art that drives home their pet politics.

It’s no secret. It’s easy. Your point was refuted outright by easily available information by anyone who wanted to seek it out, and predictably, your ego won’t allow you to admit that you were wrong on the matter. Second verse, same as the first.

[quote]I agree with the other poster when it comes to “where the hell are the movies about Asians being thrown into camps here in America”, but I can also see the other side that so many are against any notion that America is faulted from a historical standpoint. This is why there has been almost no media story telling of issues like the Tuskegee experiments in movies either. Do you blame that on liberals as well?

We hear from many extreme conservatives any time a movie is even made where an American soldier is represented as the villain, yet you turn around and blame liberals when a movie isn’t made about Asians thrown into camps here in America. [/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? I haven’t said anything about a movie with Asian internment as its subject - but accuracy isn’t your strong suit.

Nor have I even “blamed liberals” for making movies with soldiers as bad guys - I did, however, lament that war/political movies are amazingly one-sided, and I think that has to do with Hollywood’s collective ideology.

Goodness - still don’t know what a strawman is? After all this time? Try addressing the argument I made, not the one you made up for me.

Whether or not Hollywood has made movies about other subjects - the Tuskegee experiments, for example - doesn’t speak to my point. There are plenty of war/political movies actually made, and they are almost always of the same political slant, even when it winds up losing money for the production companies. Why is that? You don’t offer an answer - just your usual, half-informed noise.

Wrong, of course, largely because movies aren’t the “liberal media” - they aren’t journalists, genius.

Art, which movies are a part of, is always going to have a particular point of view, no one is disputing that basic idea - the claim of “liberal media” is that an objective institution is taking a subjective point of view when it isn’t supposed to (and it is unethical to).

Good lord.

And by the way, if you think Hollywood is actively trying to keep a story about the Tuskegee experiments down for political reasons, make your case. I am all ears.

I have no such thing as “omniconscience”, but I do have this weird limitation on myself that I try to opine only on things I have a decent amount of knowledge about. You, on the other hand, bloviate at will when it is clear you barely have considered the information at all - your claim that movies are driven solely by their box office take and that there is no political angle at work, as an example.

I have no idea if there are bunch of anti-Communist movies that no one will green light because of a vast conspiracy, but that wasn’t my point - Hollywood sticks to a particular, nearly uniform political narrative in almost all of its political productions. The movies generally are sympathetic to left-wing politics, even left-wing radicalism (see the “The Motorcycle Diaries”), and it is not much a leap to consider that that broad sympathy doesn’t generate much interest in producing a movie about how tragic and awful left-wing politics can be for civilization.

An easy thesis. Not complicated, even for someone without “omniconscience”. Heh.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I agree with the other poster when it comes to “where the hell are the movies about Asians being thrown into camps here in America”,

And if you don’t mind me asking, where are all the movies about the colons screwing over the native Americans? All I ever saw, were tales of the brave and courageous cowboy (white of course!) battling hordes of savage Indians or Latinos.

Anyone?[/quote]

Very true…but of course, it must be the liberals at it again.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

You said Hollywood makes its political movies based on the bottom line of dollar bills. I suggested that that was completely false, and we know that from well-known information on recent Hollywood antiwar films. So, that deals with your particular bad argument in that vein. It is clear the public is not interested in paying for antiwar films, but Hollywood kept cranking them out - why? The producers and directors want to create art that drives home their pet politics.

It’s no secret. It’s easy. Your point was refuted outright by easily available information by anyone who wanted to seek it out, and predictably, your ego won’t allow you to admit that you were wrong on the matter. Second verse, same as the first.[/quote]

I’m sorry, but how have you refuted the idea that movies are made with money as the bottom line? Do you think a sequel for a movie would be considered if the original flopped completely? Even bad movies get sequels made simply because enough people were foolish enough to go see it the first time around. No one is going to produce a movie that they truly believe will make NO MONEY. Where are you even getting this idea from? Please provide specific examples of movies made into sequels even though the original made no money at all. That alone would be how you “refute” points about the effect of money in Hollywood as if all war movies are only made because of pushing a liberal point of view regardless of whether it costs the production company money to make it in the end.

Yet you have the nerve to talk about my ego?

Holy shit.

[quote]

Whether or not Hollywood has made movies about other subjects - the Tuskegee experiments, for example - doesn’t speak to my point. There are plenty of war/political movies actually made, and they are almost always of the same political slant, even when it winds up losing money for the production companies. Why is that? You don’t offer an answer - just your usual, half-informed
noise.[/quote]

Again, you prove this by showing a movie made into a sequel even though the first installment bombed. No one can predict ahead of time exactly how a movie will fare before it is released. However, sequels are almost always based on the initial response to a movie regardless of if it sucked the first time or not.

This isn’t ‘half informed noise’ it is common sense.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I’m sorry, but how have you refuted the idea that movies are made with money as the bottom line?[/quote]

Read what I wrote: You said Hollywood makes its political movies based on the bottom line of dollar bills. Reading comprehension.

You said that political movies were no different than other movies in that they get made based on economics. That is flatly false - political movies are exactly the opposite, and we have a hash of flops from 2003 that directly refutes that idea.

We aren’t talking about non-political movies, but I don’t blame you for trying to change the subject.

No one can predict how much money a movie will make, but Hollywood’s political films aren’t even worried about it. See Uncle Gabby’s post above - Hollywood makes bucketloads of cash on other films, so it does political films as art-money-be-damned. “Spider Man III” wants to make box-office records revenue - “Rendition” does not. We are talking about different kinds of movies, and, what should be obvious, different kinds of motives in making the movies.

Political movies are made to make a point, and that is no problem - that is what they should do. The interesting question is why nearly all of Hollywood’s political movies make the same point from the same ideological stance? Well, it is an interesting question to some of us.

In your case, there is no difference between the two.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nazism was a left-wing phenomenon
[/quote]

WTF ???

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Read what I wrote: You said Hollywood makes its political movies based on the bottom line of dollar bills. Reading comprehension.

You said that political movies were no different than other movies in that they get made based on economics. That is flatly false - political movies are exactly the opposite, and we have a hash of flops from 2003 that directly refutes that idea.[/quote]

The presence of bad movies does not indicate movies are made with the belief that their expected gross means nothing. That doesn’t even make sense. If no one is going to watch it, then the “artist” has failed at getting his “vision” across.

Holy crap. That isn’t changing the subject. You can only prove your point by showing a movie is made with the specific knowledge that it won’t do well. That can only be proven by showing a movie made into sequels when the original caused no one to watch it. If you can’t show this, you can NOT prove your point no matter how much you try to degrade me.

Saying it is so doesn’t prove anything at all other than your own elitist opinion.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I agree with the other poster when it comes to “where the hell are the movies about Asians being thrown into camps here in America”,

And if you don’t mind me asking, where are all the movies about the colons screwing over the native Americans? All I ever saw, were tales of the brave and courageous cowboy (white of course!) battling hordes of savage Indians or Latinos.

Anyone?[/quote]

Dances With Wolves. Well, sorta.

[quote]lixy wrote:

And if you don’t mind me asking, where are all the movies about the colons screwing over the native Americans? All I ever saw, were tales of the brave and courageous cowboy (white of course!) battling hordes of savage Indians or Latinos.

Anyone?[/quote]

Dances with wolves,

Don’t want to derail the thread but if u get a chance watch The Grey Zone, the story of the insurrection of the X11 sonderkommando in Auschwitz in oct 1944 as seen through the camp doctor’s eyes. Is a bleak honest movie about the grey moral zone and what one would do in the same situation.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I agree with the other poster when it comes to “where the hell are the movies about Asians being thrown into camps here in America”,

And if you don’t mind me asking, where are all the movies about the colons screwing over the native Americans? All I ever saw, were tales of the brave and courageous cowboy (white of course!) battling hordes of savage Indians or Latinos.

Anyone?

Dances With Wolves. Well, sorta.[/quote]

I’ll give you that one. It also did “OK” at the box office and is considered a classic…yet there sure weren’t many follow ups the way you would normally see.

There is no end to Comic Book Movies because quite a few have made many people in Hollywood very rich. Therefore, there will be more coming.

[quote]k.elkouhen wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nazism was a left-wing phenomenon

WTF ???[/quote]

Correct.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You said Hollywood makes its political movies based on the bottom line of dollar bills. I suggested that that was completely false, and we know that from well-known information on recent Hollywood antiwar films. So, that deals with your particular bad argument in that vein. It is clear the public is not interested in paying for antiwar films, but Hollywood kept cranking them out - why? The producers and directors want to create art that drives home their pet politics.

It’s no secret. It’s easy. Your point was refuted outright by easily available information by anyone who wanted to seek it out, and predictably, your ego won’t allow you to admit that you were wrong on the matter. Second verse, same as the first. [/quote]

Repeat after me: Correlation is not causality!

People didn’t go to see the movies because they were rubbish. Got nothing to do with the idiotic theory that producers would fork over their own money and risk their career “to create art that drives home their pet politics”. Making movies is a business. It’s always nice if one could get art in them too, but it’s first and foremost about money.

Every single movie that flopped fully deserved to flop. Badly written, often poorly executed and without any added value, they were all destined to fail from day one.

Contrast with the record in the genre that Fahrenheit 9/11 set, or the success of the cunning financing scheme of Iraq For Sale.

Anti-war rhetoric sells, and sells very well. Ask Ron Paul or Michael Moore.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I agree with the other poster when it comes to “where the hell are the movies about Asians being thrown into camps here in America”,

And if you don’t mind me asking, where are all the movies about the colons screwing over the native Americans? All I ever saw, were tales of the brave and courageous cowboy (white of course!) battling hordes of savage Indians or Latinos.

Anyone?[/quote]

The Asian internment camps were covered extensively – in fact, above all else – on Ken Burns’ “The War” last fall.

As far as the Native Americans – how about, ummm, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee…from, what, a few months ago?

Now name some recent movies featuring brave and noble white cowboys battling savage Indians.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Ask Ron Paul or Michael Moore.[/quote]

Last I looked Ron Paul didn’t win the nomination based primarily on his Iraq views.

mike

[quote]Professor X wrote:

The presence of bad movies does not indicate movies are made with the belief that their expected gross means nothing. That doesn’t even make sense. If no one is going to watch it, then the “artist” has failed at getting his “vision” across.[/quote]

C’mon, Professor, stop wasting my time - movie after movie heavy-handedly criticizing the Iraq war bombed at the box office, and Hollywood kept making them with A-list actors, no less.

You need to understand what drives some of the artists - of course, they would like to make money and would love to have millions have their “eyes opened” by their film - but they make these movies as a matter of art, not money.

The “presence of these bad movies” assures us of something that is already common knowledge - Hollywood is dominated by left-wing politics, especially when it comes to political movies. The more interesting question was raised by the OP, but you don’t seem adequate to the task of offering anything worth reading on the issue.

We already know this. Not a one of these antiwar movies expected to be runaway successes, and the producers will tell you this.

Further to your nonsense - if antiwar political films were bombing financially at the box office, wouldn’t it make sense that these political filmmakers interested in making some coin would make something political that wasn’t antiwar? But they didn’t. After flop after flop, dedicated filmmakers wanted to make a political point through their craft, and profits be damned.

You are suggesting that these antiwar films were just trotted out as plain old movies looking to make a buck telling a story, little different from a romantic comedy. Horseshit, and everyone being intellectually honest will admit it.

By the way, that doesn’t bother me - political films are naturally going to take a stance. But why are they categorically left-wing? That has been the interesting question all along - one you still haven’t addressed, and likely won’t.

It doesn’t have to be “proven” to you, because the thing speaks for itself, if you spend any time on it. Hollywood’s penchant for political films since the days of Vietnam is only news to you.

Moreover, I’m not “degrading” you - I just won’t indulge your predictable empty bluster.

You have a bit of a glass jaw, Prof.

“Elitist”? Heh. Comedy gold.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Repeat after me: Correlation is not causality![/quote]

The very definition of irony, this coming from you. Read below.

Nonsense - Hollywood can’t wait to trot out political films that have no interest in making money. How do we know? We know because the other films that generate millions underwrite political films. Big producers don’t care about losing money on political films because their other investments are paying out to cover.

This isn’t news.

Also, your drivel isn’t accounting for the entire sub-industry of independent films, which most political films purport to be. These films are “art for the sake of art”, and any profits are considered icing on the cake. This is common knowledge.

[quote]Every single movie that flopped fully deserved to flop. Badly written, often poorly executed and without any added value, they were all destined to fail from day one.

Contrast with the record in the genre that Fahrenheit 9/11 set, or the success of the cunning financing scheme of Iraq For Sale.

Anti-war rhetoric sells, and sells very well. Ask Ron Paul or Michael Moore.[/quote]

Yeah, if Ron Paul were a stock, I would have shorted him 9 months ago, and made money. How’d all your predictions play out?

As usual, you don’t describe things as they are, you describe them as you want them to be.

The antiwar films may have been poorly written, badly directed, badly acted, whatever - and all of that is…wait for it…irrelevant. What is important is that these films are being made hand over fist, even as they continue to flop.

What that demonstrates is Hollywood’s desire to make films that stick to a particular political view, with little diversity. That’s no problem - but it explains other phenomena as well.

[quote]Hollywood loves politics, and loves to make political films. Unfortunately, those political films are always one-sided, and the desire to produce them is not driven by the opportunity to make money.

Hollywood - generally speaking - has no interest in producing a political movie that fits outside a left-wing narrative. Left-wing types generally like to whistle past the horrors of Communism, preferring not to answer hard questions about radical politics - that is why you will see Che Guevara t-shirts, but not Eichmann t-shirts. It is not much of a secret.

If you aren’t aware of this, just chalk it up to yet another area you aren’t particularly informed of.[/quote]

The Alamo movie flopped.

The Patriot did well though, I actually think the Patriot was one of the most bombass movies ever made.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Ask Ron Paul or Michael Moore.

Last I looked Ron Paul didn’t win the nomination based primarily on his Iraq views. [/quote]

Last I looked, he got plenty of dough based primarily on his foreign policy views. And generally, they were anti-war-of-aggression.

I know that you and the old doc don’t see eye to eye on the issue of Iraq, but you have to admit that his no-compromise (or was it no-nonsense?) foreign policy is the common denominator that garnered him so much support.

But tell me Mike, do you believe the people behind the anti-war movies TB’s alluding to sunk money and time into the projects knowing they’d fail? Do you think that, in general, people in Hollywood would rather make a point than make money?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[/quote]

I get it now. Them commie-loving smelly gayass hippies in LA ain’t out to make a living; All they want to do is indoctrinate the masses and turn them against the American way of life.

Shit, I hear some of 'em terrorist-sympathizers don’t even wear flag pins and even - gulp - make fun of the Commander in Chief (bless his soul).

Blasphemous twats!