[quote]lixy wrote:
God, I suck at debating, so I will hide behind 7th grade sarcasm and hope no one notices![/quote]
Fixed it for you.
[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]
And The Last Samurai. Again, sort of.
This isn’t complicated.
People are largely ignorant of Mao and Stalin and it would be difficult to create and engaging movie about what they did.
WW2, (to regrettably reduce it to such terms) is a screenwriter’s wetdream. Lots of events that make for incredible stories that are easily recognized.
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
This isn’t complicated.
People are largely ignorant of Mao and Stalin and it would be difficult to create and engaging movie about what they did.
WW2, (to regrettably reduce it to such terms) is a screenwriter’s wetdream. Lots of events that make for incredible stories that are easily recognized.
[/quote]
I agree with this.
It’s simple to write a compelling movie that American audiences will understand when using WWII as a backdrop.
Not so much with Russians or Chinese.
Not only that, the Nazis are “safe” villians. We kicked their ass, after all.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
This isn’t complicated.
People are largely ignorant of Mao and Stalin and it would be difficult to create and engaging movie about what they did.
WW2, (to regrettably reduce it to such terms) is a screenwriter’s wetdream. Lots of events that make for incredible stories that are easily recognized.
I agree with this.
It’s simple to write a compelling movie that American audiences will understand when using WWII as a backdrop.
Not so much with Russians or Chinese.[/quote]
Blasphemy. It must be those damned liberals.
Some of the posters here need to take the stick out of their ass quick before it punctures that tiny brain one more time.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:
God, I suck at debating, so I will hide behind 7th grade sarcasm and hope no one notices!
Fixed it for you.
[/quote]
LOL, classic.
[quote]Guerrero wrote:
The Patriot did well though, I actually think the Patriot was one of the most bombass movies ever made.[/quote]
Agreed. Does this mean the left wing let that one slide through by accident?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saying it is so doesn’t prove anything at all other than your own elitist opinion.
You have a bit of a glass jaw, Prof.
“Elitist”? Heh. Comedy gold. [/quote]
I asked you for specifics because movies are one area I do know quite a bit about. You keep throwing out these huge generalizations when the truth is, more evidence points to the desire to avoid criticism of our own government in film (save for films like F-9/11, which I never watched or even wanted to, which were pushed through as lower budget film projects that made quite a bit of change from it) than matches your viewpoint.
You seem to want a film that glorifies right wing views? What would those be exactly? In detail, please explain the content of a “right wing war movie”.
I am truly wondering what your “vision” of a movie like that even is. I am wondering even more if anyone would give a shit to PAY to see it.
Finkelstein (yes, a Jew!) has a a very insightful book called “The Holocaust industry” in which he touches upon the issue. An excerpt follows:
�??The claims of Holocaust uniqueness are intellectually barren and
morally discreditable, yet they persist. The question is, Why? In the first place, unique suffering confers unique entitlement. The unique evil of the Holocaust, according to Jacob Neusner, not only sets Jews apart from others, but also gives Jews a �??claim upon those others.�?? For Edward Alexander, the uniqueness of The Holocaust is �??moral capital�??; Jews must �??claim sovereignty�??
over this �??valuable property.�??�?? He goes on to write, �??In effect, Holocaust uniqueness–this �??claim�?? upon others, this �??moral capital�??–serves as Israel�??s prize alibi. �??The singularity of the Jewish suffering,�?? historian Peter Baldwin suggests, �??adds to the moral and emotional claims that Israel can make . . . on other nations.�??�??
Haha, I guess so.
I think it mostly has to do with that even after all the “GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS A SLAVE OWNAH” Bullshit thrown around. There is still some semblance of national identity that remains sacred to all of us, to the point we can all get in on some limey ass kicking every one in a while.
It’s nice to know that there is still some parts of American culture that haven’t been balkanized.
O NOEZ WE MIGHT OFFEND THE CANADIAN LOYALIST DESCENDED PEOPLE.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saying it is so doesn’t prove anything at all other than your own elitist opinion.
You have a bit of a glass jaw, Prof.
“Elitist”? Heh. Comedy gold. [/quote]
Maybe you want to look into movie financing a bit more.
A large part of Hollywood movies in the 80s and 90s and until very recentlly have been produced by German tax evasion funds that work best when financing big budget movies.
They are interested in money and money alone.
Since they pool the money of hundreds of investors they have no political agenda and the manager of such a fund is primarily interested in keeping his job.
All these hippie millionaires that are dying to throw their money away to further their agenda are a myth, like unicorns.
The only prominent example I know is Mel Gibson and the “Passion of the Christ” was hardly a left wing movie.
Even Micheal Moore, who comes closest to your little fantasy, is raking in millions.
Left wing actors/directors/producers, etc. do occasionally use the money they make from their Blockbuster successes to make small political films that don’t make any money and are just about their art and message. But those political films are a tiny portion of the movies hollywood churns out, and any money that might be lost on their production, if it turns out they do not make a profit, is nothing to the people who made them.
So yes, left wing hollywood people occasionally piss away money on left wing hollywood movies, but they are few and far between.
The original topic was, why so many holocaust movies? Because they have proven to be popular and profitable.
Also, there was a movie made about Pol Pot, and the killing fields of Cambodia. It was called “The Killing Fields” and won three oscars.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Left wing actors/directors/producers, etc. do occasionally use the money they make from their Blockbuster successes to make small political films that don’t make any money and are just about their art and message. But those political films are a tiny portion of the movies hollywood churns out, and any money that might be lost on their production, if it turns out they do not make a profit, is nothing to the people who made them.
So yes, left wing hollywood people occasionally piss away money on left wing hollywood movies, but they are few and far between.
The original topic was, why so many holocaust movies? Because they have proven to be popular and profitable.
Also, there was a movie made about Pol Pot, and the killing fields of Cambodia. It was called “The Killing Fields” and won three oscars. [/quote]
Someone mentioned The Passion Of The Christ which was clearly NOT some left wing movie yet it was pushed through by Mel Gibson. It also did well at the box office. If both sides of the aisle are able to get movies produced with some being successful, why do so many still believe in some mass conspiracy?
Why the magnification of “left wing movies” while completely ignoring those that clearly aren’t?
Are some people just looking for shit to bitch about?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Left wing actors/directors/producers, etc. do occasionally use the money they make from their Blockbuster successes to make small political films that don’t make any money and are just about their art and message. But those political films are a tiny portion of the movies hollywood churns out, and any money that might be lost on their production, if it turns out they do not make a profit, is nothing to the people who made them.
So yes, left wing hollywood people occasionally piss away money on left wing hollywood movies, but they are few and far between.
The original topic was, why so many holocaust movies? Because they have proven to be popular and profitable.
Also, there was a movie made about Pol Pot, and the killing fields of Cambodia. It was called “The Killing Fields” and won three oscars.
Someone mentioned The Passion Of The Christ which was clearly NOT some left wing movie yet it was pushed through by Mel Gibson. It also did well at the box office. If both sides of the aisle are able to get movies produced with some being successful, why do so many still believe in some mass conspiracy?
Why the magnification of “left wing movies” while completely ignoring those that clearly aren’t?
Are some people just looking for shit to bitch about?[/quote]
I agree that there is no mass conspiracy here.
With that being said, the passion is probably a poor example to prove your point.
Despite the obvious marketing potential of the film, no Hollywood studio was willing to touch it. Gibson ended up having to put up his own money to get film made.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Left wing actors/directors/producers, etc. do occasionally use the money they make from their Blockbuster successes to make small political films that don’t make any money and are just about their art and message. But those political films are a tiny portion of the movies hollywood churns out, and any money that might be lost on their production, if it turns out they do not make a profit, is nothing to the people who made them.
So yes, left wing hollywood people occasionally piss away money on left wing hollywood movies, but they are few and far between.
The original topic was, why so many holocaust movies? Because they have proven to be popular and profitable.
Also, there was a movie made about Pol Pot, and the killing fields of Cambodia. It was called “The Killing Fields” and won three oscars.
Someone mentioned The Passion Of The Christ which was clearly NOT some left wing movie yet it was pushed through by Mel Gibson. It also did well at the box office. If both sides of the aisle are able to get movies produced with some being successful, why do so many still believe in some mass conspiracy?
Why the magnification of “left wing movies” while completely ignoring those that clearly aren’t?
Are some people just looking for shit to bitch about?
I agree that there is no mass conspiracy here.
With that being said, the passion is probably a poor example to prove your point.
Despite the obvious marketing potential of the film, no Hollywood studio was willing to touch it. Gibson ended up having to put up his own money to get film made.
[/quote]
Considering his own damage done with his own mouth, one could argue it isn’t hard to see why.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Left wing actors/directors/producers, etc. do occasionally use the money they make from their Blockbuster successes to make small political films that don’t make any money and are just about their art and message. But those political films are a tiny portion of the movies hollywood churns out, and any money that might be lost on their production, if it turns out they do not make a profit, is nothing to the people who made them.
So yes, left wing hollywood people occasionally piss away money on left wing hollywood movies, but they are few and far between.
The original topic was, why so many holocaust movies? Because they have proven to be popular and profitable.
Also, there was a movie made about Pol Pot, and the killing fields of Cambodia. It was called “The Killing Fields” and won three oscars.
Someone mentioned The Passion Of The Christ which was clearly NOT some left wing movie yet it was pushed through by Mel Gibson. It also did well at the box office. If both sides of the aisle are able to get movies produced with some being successful, why do so many still believe in some mass conspiracy?
Why the magnification of “left wing movies” while completely ignoring those that clearly aren’t?
Are some people just looking for shit to bitch about?
I agree that there is no mass conspiracy here.
With that being said, the passion is probably a poor example to prove your point.
Despite the obvious marketing potential of the film, no Hollywood studio was willing to touch it. Gibson ended up having to put up his own money to get film made.
Considering his own damage done with his own mouth, one could argue it isn’t hard to see why. [/quote]
So what.
He owns Malibu.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Not only that, the Nazis are “safe” villians. We kicked their ass, after all.[/quote]
Not really. Americans themselves didn’t get into WW2 full scale until D-Day. By then the Soviets and Germans had been murdering each other for 3 years. The war on the western front was a side show compared to the one of eastern front. The statistics certainly support this: Some 15-20 million Soviets killed and about 3-4 million Germans. 80% of all german military losses were against the Soviets. All of the biggest battles of WW2 were fought in Russia: Stalingrad,Moscow,Kharkov,Kursk. By 1944 the German army was a mere shell of what it was in 1940. They were pretty much already beaten.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I asked you for specifics because movies are one area I do know quite a bit about. You keep throwing out these huge generalizations when the truth is, more evidence points to the desire to avoid criticism of our own government in film (save for films like F-9/11, which I never watched or even wanted to, which were pushed through as lower budget film projects that made quite a bit of change from it) than matches your viewpoint.[/quote]
Asinine, but when have you ever just stopped talking when you didn’t know what you were talking about?
Avoiding criticism of our government in film? Are you serious? Off the top of my head:
Rendition
Lions for Lambs
Redacted
In the Valley of Elah
Syriana
Fahrenheit 9/11
V for Vendetta (allegory)
There is no desire to “avoid criticism of the government” - only in your ignorant fantasy world you keep trying to pass off as reality.
As usual, a strawman - do you get any better at this? Ever?
I have no particular interested in a “right wing” movie, whatever that even means. The main point, that I have addressed over and over and over, is that Hollywood makes plenty of political movies, and they are almost all categorically left-wing.
That’s good evidence of an institutional bias, and that in turn is good evidence of why movies critical of left-wing politics are likely not to be made. End of story.
It has nothing to do with wanting a particular kind of movie made - seriously, every time you invent a viewpoint I don’t have, you end up looking like a moron…again.
I don’t have a vision of any kind of movie being made - I am analyzing the current state of filmmaking as it pertains to political films. In a perfect world, we’d get all kinds of political movies - but I have no interest in a “right wing” movie of your idiotic leaps of argument.
Focus on what is being argued, and address that - otherwise, go back to telling 15 year olds how “intimidating” you are, and stop wasting my time.
[quote]orion wrote:
Maybe you want to look into movie financing a bit more.
A large part of Hollywood movies in the 80s and 90s and until very recentlly have been produced by German tax evasion funds that work best when financing big budget movies.
They are interested in money and money alone.
Since they pool the money of hundreds of investors they have no political agenda and the manager of such a fund is primarily interested in keeping his job.
All these hippie millionaires that are dying to throw their money away to further their agenda are a myth, like unicorns.
The only prominent example I know is Mel Gibson and the “Passion of the Christ” was hardly a left wing movie.
Even Micheal Moore, who comes closest to your little fantasy, is raking in millions.[/quote]
Orion? Are you still posting here?
Actually, Hollywood cares quite a bit about money, but that doesn’t address my point. Awash in entertainment dollars from blockbuster money-makers, producers and directors and actors use those cash reserves to fund pet projects when they want to do “art”. The success of the blockbuster films subsidizes smaller, less commercial projects.
One episode of “Inside the Actor’s Studio” can get anyone up to speed on how this works. Seriously.
Holllywood loves to make buckets of cash, so they can indulge in lavish lifestyles and also take risks in film. Like any investor, the more capital you have, the more you can take risks you want to take. “Art” and “political” films are being made with little consideration of profit in mind because message is more important than money.
And, that shouldn’t be taken as a criticism - that doesn’t bother me. “Art for the sake of art” is a good thing - and, for one, I am glad to see films getting made that aren’t solely about putting asses in seats and ringing up ticket sales. I am not critical of Hollywood for this practice - just as I wouldn’t be critical of hedge funds donating money to art galleries.
Nor am I particularly critical of Hollywood being institutionally left-wing - it’s America, they can be whatever they want and make whatever kind of movies they want with their money - but that institutional bias, in my view, explains why movies that are critical of left-wing politics wouldn’t get made.
Which was the original question.