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]
All the recent anti-Iraq movies spewed out by the major studios have been box office failures. I think you’d have to go back to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which was more broadly anti-Republican than narrowly anti-Iraq per se, and which was a “mockumentary” (i.e., a pseudo documentary) to find one that made money. These latest movies have been ham-handed political schpiels dressed up with poor plots and bad acting.
The modern celebration of May Day began as a working class holiday in the late 19th century. It was the culmination of a struggle of the common man for better working conditions and a demand for greater dignity. In the 20th century, various governments gave their official endorsement to the holiday with celebrations consisting of displays of military and political might. With trumpets blaring, tanks rolled through public squares and square-jawed soldiers marched in lockstep, saluting flags while the Premier reveled in the exhibition of power.
Such parades were largely a facade that hid a harsh underlying reality. While the regimes played up an image of strength and vigor to the outside world, the societies they ruled over were decaying on the inside. And the same power on display in the parades was used in carte blanche fashion to create terror, repression, brutality, and crimes against humanity. The unfortunate irony is that the common man bore the brunt of the hardship. The victims of these totalitarian states were privy to human nature at its darkest depths.
The story of their struggle has not yet been told in all its starkness.
Today, we at Catallarchy try to tell a small part of their story.
That’s a funny one. I want to bang my head against the wall when libs talk about how much they love that movie. Liberals will bring us that kind of government even faster than that douche Guiliani ever could have.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
All the recent anti-Iraq movies spewed out by the major studios have been box office failures. I think you’d have to go back to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which was more broadly anti-Republican than narrowly anti-Iraq per se, and which was a “mockumentary” (i.e., a pseudo documentary) to find one that made money. These latest movies have been ham-handed political schpiels dressed up with poor plots and bad acting.[/quote]
[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
So the deaths of hundreds of millions of Chinese, Ukrainians, Russsians, Cambodians is not worth making a movie out of? I simply stated that there are alot of Holocaust movies but no other movies on these other atrocities. Is a Jewish person’s life worth more than these people’s? [/quote]
No that’s not what I am saying. I am saying that the holocaust is more tied in with our history and hence more interesting to us. Besides it takes less time to gas some one then it does to watch them starve to death, so the movies are shorter. It does not make the holocaust worse by any stretch of the imagination.
Actually, I think now would be an excellent time to make a movie about Chinese atrocities.
As for the original question of why there is a big blind spot about communist murders, I think that this is due to the fact that communism was considered a viable alternative to democracy and as such its evils were routinely downplayed. As a matter of fact, through the 1970’s it was fairly well accepted that Stalin had killed only hundreds and jailed perhaps thousands. Claims to the contrary were promptly denounced as partisan exaggerations.
Also, many of the worst like Mao, Pol Pot loudly passed themselves off as liberators of peasants. This meant that anyone who opposed them (in the West) tended to get tarred as some fascist running dog imperialist capitalist pig. Hardly the sort of thing we want on our resumes, is it?
Still, it is so firmly not held (note that this is distinct from holding a view or its opposite) that telling someone about the excesses of communism is apt to get a shrug. They sure wouldn’t do that with the Holocaust, would they?
Oh, it’s foolish to assume some vast Jewish conspiracy as the reason the Holocaust is known. Most people immediately post WW II were still comfortably anti-semitic. What tripped our trigger was our racist past and the sinking feeling that such feelings were truly pernicious. Part of coming to grips with the Nazis was the association of them with extreme racism and this, ultimately, allowed us to reject it.
“A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.”
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.[/quote]
Bullshit. That is good evidence that this is what people will pay to see and nothing more. You haven’t proven a damn thing other than that they make movies you don’t agree with politically in majority. If people are willing to pay to see those movies, they will continue to make even more of them. Maybe you should be criticizing the audience.
[quote]
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. [/quote]
This is apparently a large issue for you to even begin to think on the level of “liberal conspiracy/bias” so why is it a huge leap to assume you want to see something else in movies? If you don’t care, why is this an issue for you at all? You’ve given it a name by even calling it “liberal bias”, yet you don’t care at all?
[quote]
I don’t have a vision of any kind of movie being made - I am analyzing the current state of filmmaking [/quote]
…and doing quite a poor job of it.
[quote]
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]
You are the one wasting mine. You’ve proven nothing but that there are many movies made that disagree with your political viewpoint. There are also some movies made that no one would consider “liberal” in nature. If people were going to pay for a movie that did nothing but glorify Bush, you can bet one would be made.
It could start with Saddam and Osama plotting together on how to carry out the 911 terror attacks. This scene would make it clear that Saddam was directly involved in the attacks on America. During the scene Osama would also explain the motivation behind the attacks. He would say something along the lines of “The reason we are attacking America is because they are so free we really hate freedom. Our motivation for attacking them is totally unrelated to US foreign policy”.
The next scene would be after the 911 attacks. Saddam would be meeting with members of Al Qaeda and discussing the possibility of providing them with WMDs for further attacks on the US. This would be used to make the audience understand just how real and imminent the threat that Hussein posed to Americas national security actually was.
The next few scenes would be a sequence involving the US military personnel heroically destroying Saddam’s military. During this sequence there would be regular cuts back to people in America supportin the troops by supportin the war.
Bush could be played by either Harrison Ford or George Clooney. The scenes with Bush would generally involve him articulately putting his point across in highly intellectual manor. It would be clear from these scenes that before invading Iraq, Bush had a very accurate understanding of the differences between the various religious factions in Iraq and was in no way ignorant on this issue. His incredible wit, intelligence and inspirational leadership would shine through in these scenes.
A nice touch would be to have a scene where some US troops save an Iraqi woman from terrorists. The final scene would then involve her gratefully saying “thank you Mr Bush”. Some soldiers would then give her a US flag as a gift and she would take it and proudly wear it as a burka.
Mission Accomplished would then flash across the screen in huge letters just before the credits roll.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Someone should make a pro Iraq war film.
It could start with Saddam and Osama plotting together on how to carry out the 911 terror attacks. This scene would make it clear that Saddam was directly involved in the attacks on America. During the scene Osama would also explain the motivation behind the attacks. He would say something along the lines of “The reason we are attacking America is because they are so free we really hate freedom. Our motivation for attacking them is totally unrelated to US foreign policy”.
The next scene would be after the 911 attacks. Saddam would be meeting with members of Al Qaeda and discussing the possibility of providing them with WMDs for further attacks on the US. This would be used to make the audience understand just how real and imminent the threat that Hussein posed to Americas national security actually was.
The next few scenes would be a sequence involving the US military personnel heroically destroying Saddam’s military. During this sequence there would be regular cuts back to people in America supportin the troops by supportin the war.
Bush could be played by either Harrison Ford or George Clooney. The scenes with Bush would generally involve him articulately putting his point across in highly intellectual manor. It would be clear from these scenes that before invading Iraq, Bush had a very accurate understanding of the differences between the various religious factions in Iraq and was in no way ignorant on this issue. His incredible wit, intelligence and inspirational leadership would shine through in these scenes.
A nice touch would be to have a scene where some US troops save an Iraqi woman from terrorists. The final scene would then involve her gratefully saying “thank you Mr Bush”. Some soldiers would then give her a US flag as a gift and she would take it and proudly wear it as a burka.
Mission Accomplished would then flash across the screen in huge letters just before the credits roll.
The end.
[/quote]
Brilliant vision, but you have created no masterpiece unless there is an American Flag in every screen shot. In fact, the climax of the movie should be the waving of one huge Flag over the entire world with its shadow cast over Iraq specifically.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Someone should make a pro Iraq war film.
It could start with Saddam and Osama plotting together on how to carry out the 911 terror attacks. This scene would make it clear that Saddam was directly involved in the attacks on America. During the scene Osama would also explain the motivation behind the attacks. He would say something along the lines of “The reason we are attacking America is because they are so free we really hate freedom. Our motivation for attacking them is totally unrelated to US foreign policy”.
The next scene would be after the 911 attacks. Saddam would be meeting with members of Al Qaeda and discussing the possibility of providing them with WMDs for further attacks on the US. This would be used to make the audience understand just how real and imminent the threat that Hussein posed to Americas national security actually was.
The next few scenes would be a sequence involving the US military personnel heroically destroying Saddam’s military. During this sequence there would be regular cuts back to people in America supportin the troops by supportin the war.
Bush could be played by either Harrison Ford or George Clooney. The scenes with Bush would generally involve him articulately putting his point across in highly intellectual manor. It would be clear from these scenes that before invading Iraq, Bush had a very accurate understanding of the differences between the various religious factions in Iraq and was in no way ignorant on this issue. His incredible wit, intelligence and inspirational leadership would shine through in these scenes.
A nice touch would be to have a scene where some US troops save an Iraqi woman from terrorists. The final scene would then involve her gratefully saying “thank you Mr Bush”. Some soldiers would then give her a US flag as a gift and she would take it and proudly wear it as a burka.
Mission Accomplished would then flash across the screen in huge letters just before the credits roll.
The end.
Brilliant vision, but you have created no masterpiece unless there is an American Flag in every screen shot. In fact, the climax of the movie should be the waving of one huge Flag over the entire world with its shadow cast over Iraq specifically.[/quote]
If Sylvester Stalone is not in it, I won’t bother to watch it.
Bullshit. That is good evidence that this is what people will pay to see and nothing more. You haven’t proven a damn thing other than that they make movies you don’t agree with politically in majority. If people are willing to pay to see those movies, they will continue to make even more of them. Maybe you should be criticizing the audience. [/quote]
This is plain embarrassing to read.
You state that the “only good evidence” I’ve presented is that people will pay to see antiwar movies and nothing more.
I can’t possibly have demonstrated that, because, had you any ability to read nearly every single post I have written here, I showed that:
Antiwar movies continue to flop commercially
And yet, they keep getting made.
As such, I have actually produced evidence of the exact opposite thing you are claiming - over and over and over. Clearly, economics are not driving the decision to produce antiwar movies, so there must be another motive.
I’ve been arguing this for many posts now - and suddenly your dumb ass blathers that the only thing I have shown is that “antiwar films are being made because people are buying up tickets”?
This is why it is useless to bother with a debate with you - you can’t even be bothered to remember to make sense. Here we are, back at the beginning of the very thing I started with - profits aren’t driving antiwar movies being made so ideology likely is, which you have never provided any refutation of - only to have you try and pretend I somehow, some way proved the opposite of what I have said.
Just dumb. This could have been an interesting discussion, were someone informed and capable - if you know anyone who fits that bill, have them PM me.
I used to think your inability to concede a point you got wrong was intentional due to your large, fragile ego - the obvious choice - now I am not unconvinced you simply have no idea what you are talking about in a basic argument. Maybe a little of both, actually - who knows, and at this point, who cares?
Actually, it isn’t a very big issue for me, because even if I don’t like the Hollywood bias of political films, I don’t have to go see them - no one is forcing me to watch them. What you keep trying to push is a Red Herring - it is irrelevant to my point, which is:
The OP wondered why Hollywood doesn’t make movies critical of left-wing tragedies
I provided a thesis on why that is: Hollywood has an institutional bias and wouldn’t be interested in bankrolling a movie that is critical of politics they are sympathetic to
I can love all of Hollywood political movies, or I can hate them all - and it is irrelevant to the points (1 and 2) above.
So, learn up - we are all getting tired of correcting your sloppiness.
Even if I were, given your obvious limitations, how could you possibly know?
Who cares about a movie about Bush? We are - or were - interested in why Hollywood makes so few films critical of communism, etc.
There are many movies that disagree with my political viewpoint - that isn’t the issue. The issue is taking a look at political films generally, noticing a trend, and trying to figure out why it trends that way.
I could do that even if I actually agreed with the political viewpoints of movies. It’s called being objective. I’d try to explain to you what that means, but getting you up to speed would take too much time.
I’ll exit this thread on that note, in search of something good to talk about, with someone up to the task.
[quote]pat wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Brilliant vision, but you have created no masterpiece unless there is an American Flag in every screen shot. In fact, the climax of the movie should be the waving of one huge Flag over the entire world with its shadow cast over Iraq specifically.
If Sylvester Stalone is not in it, I won’t bother to watch it.[/quote]
I would prefer to see a film where Rambo goes hunting for Bin Laden and friends in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
One recent film that comes to mind as possibly promoting a conservative stance on a major issue is Juno.
It could be argued that the film promotes an anti abortion message.
The same could also be said for the movie Bella.
Clearly, this means that recent movies are now adopting a “conservative bias” since both movies did well.[/quote]
No, the far left extremists who run Hollywood obviously allowed those two movies through as a diversion. They did this to try to conceal the conspiracy.
Also both movies probably contain an anti conservative / anti Bush message on a subconcious level.
Brilliant vision, but you have created no masterpiece unless there is an American Flag in every screen shot. In fact, the climax of the movie should be the waving of one huge Flag over the entire world with its shadow cast over Iraq specifically.[/quote]
Oh, a Michael Bay film?
Of course, if Spielberg directed, there would have to be a little Iraqi kid running around somewhere.
Brilliant vision, but you have created no masterpiece unless there is an American Flag in every screen shot. In fact, the climax of the movie should be the waving of one huge Flag over the entire world with its shadow cast over Iraq specifically.
Oh, a Michael Bay film?
Of course, if Spielberg directed, there would have to be a little Iraqi kid running around somewhere.[/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This is plain embarrassing to read.
You state that the “only good evidence” I’ve presented is that people will pay to see antiwar movies and nothing more.
I can’t possibly have demonstrated that, because, had you any ability to read nearly every single post I have written here, I showed that:
Antiwar movies continue to flop commercially
And yet, they keep getting made.[/quote]
I know you think you are “all that and a bag 'o chips”, but you should really read how you come across when not sitting in your mom’s living room chair at that computer.
All you have shown is that Hollywood has made SOME anti-war movies that suck (which does nothing but show that they have bad taste…as if we didn’t know that).
They will continue to have bad taste just like they always have.
Hollywood was in one gigantic slump when it came to getting people into movies until the latest crop of superhero movies saved quite a few jobs. People had quit going for a while considering many of us have home entertainment centers that make it pretty much ridiculous to spend 30-40 bucks at a theater when the dvd costs half of that and you can invite friends over (or at least one really cute one). I know, you WANT there to be some huge conspiracy, but dear Geebus, quit trying so damned hard.
Trying to make Hollywood’s poor taste into a huge liberal conspiracy is just sad…on many levels.