Hollywood and war movies

[GMM]

A lot of people try to defend what the entertaiment industry does by saying its all about money. Is it true though? For example, does this apply to movies? Especially movies about war?

If it was true then we'd see far more pro-US military movies than ones where the US military is portrayed so negatively. But we don't. Why? Because of the political worldview of the people in the movie industry. John Nolte has done a good job of summarizing recent movies that deal with the War on Terror (see link). The ones that are pro-American make a lot more money than the other kind.

Settled Science

 

[qazplm]

so if it criticizes

war in general it's "Anti-American?"

If it criticizes one part of how we do business, then it's "Anti-American?"

So unless it's 100% America, F-Yeah, it's "Anti-American?"

So Farenheit 9/11 which made 222 Million was which kind?

Tears of the Sun barely grossed more than it's production budget, and with ad costs probably lost money.
Same for Flags of our Fathers.

I'm sure we can find other "Anti-American" by your insane definition movies that did quite well.
We can also find "Pro-American" movies that did poorly.

The decision to make a movie depends on a whole host of factors. Ideology certainly can factor into both ways. Not everyone in Hollywood is liberal, so conservative folks can make a conservative movie, liberal folks can make a liberal movie, and depending on the timing, quality, acting, and environment, either of those kinds of movies can make a lot of money, or not a lot of money.

Some movies are made simply because of the clout of the director, others are made because someone thinks it's worthwhile to produce regardless of whether the profit will be huge, or small, or even minimal. There are big production companies, medium sized ones, and small ones. There are one-offs.

So, as usual, overly simplistic analysis with a pre-decided point of view ends up being utterly simple-minded.

 

[GMM]

Typical

Dumb down the definition of political propaganda and hostility to "criticism". So I guess you'd describe Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, etc. as "critics" of America.

So unless it's 100% America, F-Yeah, it's "Anti-American?"

Like I said, typical.

I'm sure we can find other "Anti-American" by your insane definition movies that did quite well.
We can also find "Pro-American" movies that did poorly.

Go ahead. It won't make a difference. The numbers are clear. Why can't you admit that the movie industry has a leftist bias? Why can't you admit they'd rather make movies that portray the US military as the villains rather than the heroes? Becuause if you and others admit it then the propaganda won't be as effective.

Not everyone in Hollywood is liberal.....

But most are and it shows in the content they produce. "Not everyone" is one of your favorite plays, isn't it? Just exaggerate the charge to point of nonsense so you can easily refute it.

So, as usual, overly simplistic analysis with a pre-decided point of view ends up being utterly simple-minded.

If by "overly simplistic analysis" you mean a clear, documented pattern and if by "utterly simple-minded" you mean obvious then, yes.

 

[qazplm]

Hollywood

producers usually want to make money.

A director or writer might very well not care about that and want to send a message.

If liberal "anti-American" movies never made money then they wouldn't be made as more than small time, minor exercises.
If conservative "Pro-American" movies always made more money, there'd be more of them.

Making a movie makes too much money to have ideology be the sole or even a major guide most of the time. Letting ideology be your guide as a producer would make studio bankruptcy a much greater likelihood, but hey liberals don't understand economics and stuff.

 

[GMM]

Re: Hollywood

If liberal "anti-American" movies never made money then they wouldn't be made as more than small time, minor exercises.

If they never made money? They have a proven track record of failure.

Explain the preponderance of anti-American movies. Your theory is bogus because you refuse to acknowledge that the people who make movies 1) enjoy pushing their worldview on us and think we deserve the lecture and 2) they care A LOT about getting approval from their fellow leftists in the entertainment industry.

If conservative "Pro-American" movies always made more money, there'd be more of them.

If they made more money? They do.

No, there wouldn't be--and aren't--more of these types of movies because the entertainment industry, filled as it is with leftists, despises conservatives, Christians, and American patriotism.

....but hey liberals don't understand economics and stuff.

Well, you're right about that.

The movie industry can make its usual batch of CGI blockbusters to subsidize the movies they really want to make. They know that movies that push their leftist political agenda won't make money. They don't care. Its just too damn important to them to push their agenda.

 

[qazplm]

Re: Hollywood

Fahrenheit 9/11, 222 million dollars. So right there, pretty ignorant statement from you (what a surprise).
Avatar is a pretty liberal movie, made quite a bit of money.
The Day After Tomorrow, a horribly bad scientific on screen presentation of climate change, made half a billion dollars in 2004.

That's just off the top of my head. So no, they make money quite frequently.


There is no "preponderance" of anti-American movies except for kooks. If there were and they "never made money" then how exactly does anyone stay in business?

How'd Left Behind do at the box office? How'd Disouza's anti-Obama screed do at the box office?
Please, plenty of conservative failures.

But you keep wearing your tinfoil hat thinking hollywood execs only do blockbusters so that they can subsidize the films they "really" want.

 

[GMM]

Re: Hollywood

Wow, you pick ONE example of an anti-American movie (Fahrenheit 9/11) to make your argument. Isn't that what you (falsely) accuse people like me of doing when it comes to Islam?

Yeah, Avatar made money because of its liberalism. What a joke! Same goes for TDAT. You're getting desperate.

There's no doubt that the movie industry inserts its worldview into movies. Its often things that have nothing to do with the plot. But rarely do movies succeed where the dominant reason for their existence is leftist propaganda.

So no, they make money quite frequently.

Wrong. Movies whose explicit purpose is to promote leftist causes, especially with regards to the War on Terror, on average fail. But since you have trouble with averages I can understand why you're confused.
This post was edited on 1/22 3:05 PM by GMM

 

[qazplm]

no I picked

three liberal movies. Off the top of my head.

An so it went from "never" to "on average"

 

[GMM]

No, you cherry picked

three movies that made money. Nice sample size ya got there! Further, only one had anything to do with the WOT which is the original topic.

Got any other movies about the WOT that showed a decisively leftist point of view that made money? If so then go ahead and throw them in the mix. Then tell us if on average those movies are more likely to make money compared to their counterparts on the right.

Face it, you can't handle the fact that your fellow leftists' propaganda efforts have failed while pro-American, pro-military movies have succeeded. The stats are clear and they show that the movie industry will push their agenda even though they know (or should know) that it will cost them millions of dollars. They pass on making profitable movies to avoid endorsing the viewpoints of people they despise.

An so it went from "never" to "on average"

As I said you have trouble with the idea of "on average". You somehow think it means there is no range.