| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Flangepart
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
2329 Posts |
 Posted - 02/15/2006 : 2:56:35 PM
|
P.J.O'Rourke's book EAT THE RICH, as a documentery.
It made more sense of Economics then any book i ever read before, and was a lot funnier to boot!
Yea, Ken!
"Cole, stop handing Dr. Doom the Keys to the Baxter building." Brent Sienna/PvP.
"I speak 34 different languages. But gibberish is not one of them."- Danger Mouse.
|
 |
|
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 3:32:55 PM
|
I think you are already seeing one company producing films that attract, for lack of a better term, red-staters and that is Walden Media. If you look at their line-up for the next couple of years, they have films that are at least family friendly. Here is the lineup:
[url]http://us.imdb.com/company/co0073388/[/url]
I tend to agree with Long Cut that someone will step in to make the films. I don't know if Hollywood will do it because they tend to come out with the Cheaper by the Dozen 2 type films. Most likely they will find production companies that have a better feel for what the "other" people want. However, I think you will see a shorter leash in that they won't be as tolerant of failure. On the other hand, you can expect Hollywood to keep turning out films like Jarhead and be confused about why people don't like it.
I also think Ken is correct in that there are films out there to be made with a different political/religious slant. One problem is that you can get away with making a kid's movie that supports certain views. However, if you make, let's say a Rosenbergs movie, what is the likelihood of you being blackballed in Hollywood. You'll still get jobs, but only with Ewe Bolle or the latest anti-American Turkish film.
The ROPe gives you three options, convert, submit, or die. There is a fourth, resist. |
Edited by - Terrahawk on 02/15/2006 3:33:31 PM |
|
|
|
TimLehnerer
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
USA
95 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 4:03:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Long Cut
Economics tells us that where there is demand, there WILL be supply. "Red" and "Blue" areas might prefer different focus to their entertainment, but the demand for the entertainment itself is still there. The collective industry we refer to as "Hollywood" is in business to ultimately make money, and lots of it. It is also perfectly capable of supplying both demand-groups.
So, if the trends continue and America becomes more and more split along ideological lines, you can expect more films like "Capote" and BBM, in addition to more along the lines of "Passion". It did NOT escape Hollywood's notice that Mel Gibson made nearly a billion dollars on a movie that they mostly discounted, and his success certainly flagged the Heartland as a new vein of money to be mined.
I would submit that this is already happening, and has been for at least ten years or so. After all, it isn't big studios making The Omega Code, Left Behind, Raging Angels and the various other fundamentalist-Protestant exploitation movies. I'd say it's a VERY rough parallel with blaxploitation or redneck movies. There's a market, a distribution channel, and people who would like to see movies about people like themselves. Nathan Shumate's reviewed a couple of Mormon-specific films at Cold Fusion Video if memory serves, which shows that there's enough of a market among the Church of LDS to make Mormon movies profitable as well.
I wish the Control Voice webzine was still around--they had a fantastic series of articles on Rapture movies from the 1970s to the 1990s that I'd love to be able to link to in order to support my claims. |
|
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 6:35:02 PM
|
There are a whole bunch of wrongful assertions being promulgated in this thread, and they annoy me.
The first is the whole "red state" vs. "blue state" jazz. You don't need me, at this point, to tell you that there are plenty of Bush voters in "blue" country and Kerry voters in "red" country, right? And that, in fact, the statistical difference between most "red" and "blue" states is razor-thin, right? And that this myth is merely a function of the outdated electoral college, right? And that it only works to the advantage of those who want unquestioning brand loyalty, right? ("I'm in Wisconsin, so I have to vote Bush.") Right. Moving on.
The second is the so-called Box Office Bust story. This happened when some genius, halfway through 2005, compared the BO receipts to those of 2004 and noticed that they didn't stack up. This, of course, came from "The Passion of the Christ" being an atypical early-spring hit, thus skewing the numbers, but it made a good story, and eventually certain people with an agenda started using it to trumpet their "Hollywood's values are out of whack with the heartland, hence lower box office" spin job. Never mind that, by now (with Harry Potter and the ChronicWhatCles being smash hits) the 2005 receipts have mostly caught up; there's still a bit of ambiguity, but nothing like the overwhelming plunge most people are claiming. The two years are about the same. More to the point, if there IS a downward trend at the movies (and I'd argue that the constant repetition of this "fact" may, ironically, start to affect the BO numbers; the lie may become true) the idea that it was caused by Good Ol-Fashioned Heartland America standing up to Hollywood Immorality makes little sense: why NOW, specifically? Hollywood has supposedly been a sewer of evil liberal values for decades, people always lapped up their product. (And indeed, I'd argue that the majority of mainstream, "morally-neutral" Hollywood movies can be claimed by conservatives as easily as liberals; see The Incredibles, Chronicles of Narnia, Spiderman, LOTR, etc.) The more politically and socially active movies have NEVER made a lot of money, with a few exceptions; indeed, if anything you can argue that these movies have experienced a resurgence on both sides of the aisle.
Anyway, the success of Brockback Mountain (possibly caused by the fact that it's, I dunno, a GOOD FILM) pretty obviously shoots down that theory, which is why Certain People are trying to spin it. (Bill O'Reilly did a report on the "box office failure" of Brockback the weekend after it opened, saying it had only made $15 million. That's in its first weekend. JACKASS.)
This leads to the next, and most baffling assertion, the idea that making a movie about gay people is somehow an attack on conservative values. I saw Brockback at the Toronto Filmfest, long before the controversy erupted, and was struck by how non-polemical it was. It didn't for a second feel like it was trying to rub a pro-homosexual, or pro-anything, agenda in anyone's face. The ultimate message is that homosexuals ruin lives (not just their own) when they deny their own natures, but it's a point that's made (SHOCK) subtly. I hate polemics, and that's why I enjoyed the flick. I vaguely thought it might be controversial, but I had no idea. It's a shame, because it really is a good movie that deserves to be seen without baggage. The vast number of people who've seen the film (I suspect there's a large fanbase of teen girls) can probably understand that, which accounts for the acceptance it's found. Most Americans, divorced of militant prosetylizing, have no problem with gay people; most Americans have no problems with this film.
Finally, we've got the idea that Conservatives are censored in Hollywood, or that Hollywood is a big ol' propaganda factory for the left. OK, here there's no denying that, in the movies, there's a left-wing streak. But again, you have to ask: why? If conservatives have such issue with Hollywood, why don't they make their own movies? Of course, they do: Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man, Left Behind, etc., but the results are fairly laughable. As I mentioned above, there's plenty of movies that could be (somewhat ambiguously) pegged as right-wing, but there don't seem to be any investigative, well-made films that try to intelligently tackle a topic and end with a conservative argument. Even Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ", considered in a vacuum, isn't overtly conservative; you have to be aware of Gibson's own personal beliefs to make that statement. So...why? Why, indeed, aren't there any pro-Iraq war movies (not considering stuff like that pro-Bush autobiographical TV movie that aired last year)? The supposed "Hollywood gatekeepers" can only be blamed for so much. If a fiery, passionate creative type with genuine moviemaking skill believed strongly in the Iraq war, surely we would have got such a movie by now. Could it be that...there just aren't any such people?
(PANTS FOR BREATH)
OK, I'm done. Thank you. Good Night, and Good Luck.
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 11:08:17 PM
|
| I'm surprised Prankster didn't get his knickers in a twist over the term "flyover country". Doesn't anyone in middle America drive anymore? |
|
|
|
Triviachamp
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
254 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 11:50:13 PM
|
As far as I'm concerned the Red State/Blue State stuff is a creation of the news media. For some reason in 2000 everyone decided to make Republicans Red and Democrats Blue, nevermind that red is a traditional symbol of leftism while blue is a symbol of conservatism.
"Blue" areas are mainly cities while "Red" areas are mainly rural areas which leads to all the stuff about Blue cities in red states, etc. Ugh. The winner take all format in the elctoral college results in much of this nonsense too. Prankster is certainly right about how much the margins in most states were small. Though there are many counties with large margins. |
Edited by - Triviachamp on 02/15/2006 11:55:49 PM |
|
|
|
CobraCmdr
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
70 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 09:12:19 AM
|
If you wanted to make a conservative/libertarian movie, I think the real trouble would be attracting any kind of star talent to the project. I don't think there's any denying that most movie stars and famous directors are left-leaning in their political views, or at least travel in social circles that are. There's no way you're going to get a A-list star other than Mel Gibson to star in anything with conservative themes, so even if you could get funding you would have to cast your movie with unknowns, or settle for washed up 80's Actions stars, Born Again ex-sitcom kids, or Country Music singers in all your lead roles. I think a lot of people would fear being associated with a conservative movie could be damaging to their careers or alienate them from their peers.
|
|
|
|
TimLehnerer
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
USA
95 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 11:05:22 AM
|
I think both sides of the "liberal / conservative" divide can point to virtually anything made in the last fifty years and find plot elements to support whichever side they'd like to say is influencing moviemakers. If you want to act like you're in charge, you say that your side is making movies with content you agree with. If you want to portray your side as under siege from cultural warriors controlling Hollywood, you say the other side is making movies that they agree with. You could likely point to the same film and select different aspects of it to make your point.
Personally, I'd say the last movie I saw in the theater with genuine left-leaning political content was Land of the Dead; the film excoriates the rich for fleeing the scene of an impending city-wide disaster while leaving the poor to die.
Of course, nothing like this could ever happen in real life. |
|
|
|
TimLehnerer
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
USA
95 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 11:09:56 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by zombiewhacker
I'm surprised Prankster didn't get his knickers in a twist over the term "flyover country". Doesn't anyone in middle America drive anymore?
My understanding of the term "flyover country" was that it referred to everything between the East Coast and West Coast--the super-super rich and powerful would have an apartment in Manhattan and a house in California, but have to cross over all that inconveniently large Midwest to get from one to the other. |
|
|
|
Dirk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
237 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 11:34:59 AM
|
I was involved in an interesting discussion about the film a few days ago. We were speculating as to whether Brokeback would be as successful if the gay main characters were something other than cowboys... like, if they were gay bank tellers or gay circus performers. Or if the film featured two bald, overweight homosexuals in their 50's rather than the handsomely chiseled teen heartthrob stars of Brokeback. Any thoughts?
(P.S. - Was the electoral college outdated before the 2000 election? There were several elections decided by the college in the late 1800's, with the last being the 1888 Harrison/Cleveland election. I mention this because the partisan split in America at that time was just as razor-thin and intense as it is now. The popular and electoral votes had coincided for so long that people forgot that it doesn't work that way. In the words of Eric Cartman: Quit your bitchin'.) |
|
|
|
Ken HPoJ
Supreme Potentate
USA
1530 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 12:33:59 PM
|
Prankster, I think you're being a tad too literal. The Red State Blue State meme is the current shorthand. Everyone pretty gets what we mean when it's used, so whether it's precise or not is a bit beside the point.
Triviachamp is correct; when you break it down it's more accurate to use regional thinking rather by by states. So maybe Red America / Blue America would be better, but I can't see making this big of a deal about it. We get your point, and indeed I'm pretty sure everyone here got it themselves without having it pointed out, but it's workable enough not to worry about, surely.
I also agree with Triviachamp regarding how confusing labeling conversative (in all the myriad meanings of that word) half of America as the 'Red' half. That continues to throw me.
PEGGY: I don't see how having a girl on the team would ruin it. Did a woman judge ruin the Supreme Court?
HANK: Yes, and that woman's name was Earl Warren.
--King of the Hill |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 1:19:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by TimLehnerer
quote:
Originally posted by zombiewhacker
I'm surprised Prankster didn't get his knickers in a twist over the term "flyover country". Doesn't anyone in middle America drive anymore?
My understanding of the term "flyover country" was that it referred to everything between the East Coast and West Coast--the super-super rich and powerful would have an apartment in Manhattan and a house in California, but have to cross over all that inconveniently large Midwest to get from one to the other.
Um... that was a joke, Tim. |
|
|
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 3:05:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dirk
(P.S. - Was the electoral college outdated before the 2000 election? There were several elections decided by the college in the late 1800's, with the last being the 1888 Harrison/Cleveland election. I mention this because the partisan split in America at that time was just as razor-thin and intense as it is now. The popular and electoral votes had coincided for so long that people forgot that it doesn't work that way...
Dirk, the electoral college decides every election. ;-)
The electoral college really serves some good purposes. One, it makes election fraud somewhat harder. Let's say the Whigs (don't want to offend anyone here except my former neighbor) managed to rig the election in three of the bigger states so that 90% of the vote went for one candidate. With a straight vote count, that would most likely tilt the election for the Whigs. However, with the electoral college, the size of the majority doesn't effect the electoral votes, thus the vote rigging doesn't hurt. A second benefit is that it prevents one region of the country from dictating everything based on having overwhelming support from that region. Thus it helps to moderate the views of candidates. I like the electoral college.
The founding fathers really weren't big on democracy and preferred a republic. Most people tend to forget that you didn't get to vote for Senators until the Constituition was amended. In all honesty, I wish we would go back to having the state government appoint senators.
The ROPe gives you three options, convert, submit, or die. There is a fourth, resist. |
|
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 8:39:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Terrahawk
The electoral college really serves some good purposes. One, it makes election fraud somewhat harder. Let's say the Whigs (don't want to offend anyone here except my former neighbor) managed to rig the election in three of the bigger states so that 90% of the vote went for one candidate. With a straight vote count, that would most likely tilt the election for the Whigs. However, with the electoral college, the size of the majority doesn't effect the electoral votes, thus the vote rigging doesn't hurt.
Except that it means vote rigging in just a few key states can have a much stronger impact. It actually makes electoral fraud EASIER.
quote:
Originally posted by Terrahawk
A second benefit is that it prevents one region of the country from dictating everything based on having overwhelming support from that region.
That just boils down to unequal representation. With two candidates for the whole country, they're going to have to moderate their stances no matter what. That, of course, can be a problem as easily as a virtue. But it wouldn't go away if it changed to a simple majority vote. As it is, we have "key regions" anyway (Ohio, Florida, etc.)
I don't care if the red state/blue state thing is a "meme", it's one we shouldn't encourage. It's all part of the stupid, divisive manipulativeness being played out right now. The one that says liberals are against Christians, that conservatives hate black people, and so on. It makes people less and less likely to compromise on vital issues on which we SHOULD be compromising, and more likely to cling to a blind loyalty to "their team".
You're absolutely right when you say Hollywood should be making more movies covering a wide spectrum of thought; I think there's more honest debate going on than most of you guys do, but I still agree there's a leftward slant, and have no problem with (putatively) conservative movies like "The Passion of the Christ". I'd like to see more of them (but please, no sermons from either side).
Meanwhile, I'd like to see less "brand loyalty" from the right. There's been some honest criticism of Bush--conveniently, since after the last election--but it mostly seems to boil down to Specter (SPEEEECTEEEEER!!!!) wagging his head and clucking his tongue, and then doing nothing. It's one thing to vote for a guy, or feel that he's the better of the two options, but there still seem to be far too many otherwise sensible people feeling like they have to side with Bush or his administration on everything, even when that makes them pro-torture or anti-gay marriage. Sure, there's reasonable discussion in many quarters, but the loudest voices seem to be coming from the extremists and spinmeisters.
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
RVHorror
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 11:02:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dirk
I was involved in an interesting discussion about the film a few days ago. We were speculating as to whether Brokeback would be as successful if the gay main characters were something other than cowboys... like, if they were gay bank tellers or gay circus performers. Or if the film featured two bald, overweight homosexuals in their 50's rather than the handsomely chiseled teen heartthrob stars of Brokeback. Any thoughts?
I think the main reason is that cowboys are archetypal “tough guys” who don’t require any story mechanics.
Obviously, the film wouldn’t have the same resonance if it was about hairdressers or tie salesman; I’m sure we’ve seen films where ordinary folks are gay characters so this wouldn’t challenge any stereotypes. Making them cowboys here is a way of opening up the “gay” stereotype.
Also, as mentioned, they don’t require any story mechanics. Making the two other kinds of “tough guys” would create focus problems. If they were police, there’d have to be a crime, if they were soldiers, there’d have to be a battle. Otherwise, making them police or soldiers would be pointless.
The problem is that the audience would focus on the crime or the battle to the exclusion of the character arc. If Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman were attracted to each other in Seven, it would be the weakest part of that film. Similarly, if someone said that Jake Busey’s character in Starship Troopers was gay and attracted to Casper Van Diem, the usual response would be “Who cares? Man, those bugs were awesome!”
Cowboys don’t seem to need any of that baggage, leaving the film free to focus on character development. Keep in mind I’m just guessing, since I haven’t seen the film.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked