| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Enda80
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
108 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2009 : 07:17:13 AM
|
http://fora.tv/2009/05/05/Uncommon_Knowledge_Andrew_Breitbart
Breitbart goes over the rarity of counter-terrorist films in recent years.
http://supidity.informe.com/viewtopic.php?t=471
A web acquaintance of mine notes that:
With the exception of Statham I can't think of many actors who specialise in action films at the moment. Most seem to make a mix of romantic comedies, dramas and action movies. Matthew McConaughy is just as likely to make a sequel to Sahara for his next movie as he is to make a rom com.
Even Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Vin Diesel have made Disney family films
I think part of the problem is the fact that Hollywood is openly critical of the War on Terror and its incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan so we get movies like Lions for Lambs and Stop Loss and Rendition.
I honestly thought that after 9/11 we might have seen a rebirth of the action novel/movies with terrorist hunters but that never really happened.
Most new book series started since the 1990's have failed to go beyond three books
Black Ops (Kasner) 3 books,
Code Name (Johnstone) 5 books,
Home Team (Chalker & Dockery) 3 books,
Black Ops (Johnstone) 1 book,
Stark (Johnstone) 2 books,
Border War (Johnstone) 2 books
Superhawks (Maloney) 4 books |
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 3:52:59 PM
|
I think what happens here is that terrorism has (almost) become a taboo subject in Hollywood. During decades it had been used to spice up action films and thrillers, which was all fine and dandy, because the U.S.A. was free of the plague and nobody felt it was real. But since 9-11, filmmakers probably thought twice before taking the matter so lightly, or felt American audiences would be repulsed at it.
And yes, undoubtedly political correctness and liberal bias have taken their toll too. There's been a consistant decline of the use of Middle East villains, and most films that deal with the external policies of the George W. Bush administration are highly critical of them. But I still think the first reason is more relevant than that. Hollywood produces its share of political films, but let's not forget its main line of production is harmless fun, and nobody likes reality in their fun, specially if it reminds them how vulnerable they felt after the NY and the Pentagon attacks. Giant robots demolishing urban buildings? Acceptable enough to be a hit and greenlight a sequel. John McLane stopping Eurotrash mercs from doing cyber-terrorism? I did enjoy that one. True Lies 2? No, thanks.
This said, there are books and films that continue the pre-9-11 trend of using international terrorism as a backdrop for action / espionage plots. Look into the straight to DVD action films, you may found several. As for books, Tom Clancy's "The Teeth of the Tiger" comes to mind. |
 |
|
|
Greenhornet
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1791 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 7:21:03 PM
|
I lived in the sixtys and I can tell you that it's the same anti-establishment thing, only a lot bigger. They are not "anti-war", exactly, it's more anti-BUSH/conservative. Yes, Bush is out of office and it's all in Hopey McChange's lap, but it's still "Bush's war".
Several books could be written analising this subject.
"The Queen is testing poisons." CLEOPATRA, 1935 |
|
|
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 8:46:06 PM
|
This morning something dawned on me that is in a similar vein. Take WWII movies. Now most people think that during the 40's, 50's and early 60's they were all raw-raw films. However, there are quite a few that present a less wholesome picture of US soldiers. The thing is is that those films don't bother me and for the most part they are pretty good. The reason I believe is that the more positive films balance them out. In other words, the negative films don't give the impression painting in a broad brush of the military is evil, incompetent, etc. They present an additional aspect. With the recent conflicts, had Hollywood developed some positive films, I think they would have had better luck with the more negative ones.
Neville, I don't know if I agree with you conclusions there. Had Hollywood created a movie with Army Rangers whacking a horde of Al-Qaeda types, I think it would have done well. Plus, when a show like "24" does well, I think it pretty much counters your argument. The main reason Hollywood doesn't do films with Muslims as the bad guys is two-fold. One, Hollywood believes that middle America is a seething mass of hate and that if they portray Muslims as bad guys we'll be burning down a mosque a week. I remember the over-heated panic that "The Passion of the Christ" would lead to the next pogrom. Second, Hollywood typically doesn't pick on victim groups and since 9/11 Muslims have become a victim group (The logic going along the lines of America caused this due to our ignoring/causing X and causing hate in Muslim lands. Therefore, we have victimized them and must change.)
White, male, and Christian is the only allowed group to dislike in Hollywood.
I summon Bigger Fish! |
|
|
|
BT
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
USA
168 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 11:57:12 PM
|
I think you guys are missing the most obvious reason. Bruce Willis (certainly no bleeding heart liberal) said himself before filming Die Hard 4, that he had no desire to do another Die Hard film, because the idea of making a movie in which the threat of terrorism is used as entertainment, was appalling to him (apparently cyber terrorism didn't fit this bill). The movie "Executive Decision" had it's moments. Now anyone watching it is more apt to think of United flight 91 than of how entertained they are getting. In that sense, things have changed.
Yes, Hollywood is full of evil libruls, however I remain convinced that if someone pitches an anti-terrorism movie that they think will make money, all of their liberul idealism will go straight in the crapper in favor of their checkbooks.
As I stated in another thread, I was about as against the war in Iraq as you could get, but if someone makes a movie about Fallujah that is half as entertaining as "Black Hawk Down" (a movie based on a book that I am fairly certain was pretty anti-Clinton, yet still produced in Hollywood I might add), I will be the absolute first person in line to see it.
I could go on, but I'll just add this. You guys seem to think that ideology is trumping business, but it's not. No matter what Hollywood's ideology is, the fact is when Lions for Lambs and it's ilk were put into production, the general mood in this country had turned against the war. So from that perspective, it make FINANCIAL sense to produce movies which coincided with that mood. However, they made BAD movies. As a card carrying liberal, I had ZERO desire to see any of those films. Because, again, they weren't entertaining. If they make an entertaining film, either for or against the war, I'll go see it. |
|
|
|
Greenhornet
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1791 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2009 : 7:39:25 PM
|
BT, I think their fear of failer is over-riding their profit goals. It's been discussed here before that Hollywood will go for movies that are "safe" (Fadish, even cliched) rather than taking a chance on something new.
How many re-hashes of TV shows have there been? How many dramas were turned into awful comedies? How many movies were clones of another movie or several movies? One of our posters suggested that this is because "the suits" would rather make a poor movie "for the right reasons" than take a chance on something diffrent, or something that worked twenty or thirty years ago.
"The Queen is testing poisons." CLEOPATRA, 1935 |
|
|
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2009 : 8:45:18 PM
|
BT, I think John Nolte discusses part of the problem in this article about another Iraq movie soon to come out. [url]http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/06/12/%E2%80%98the-hurt-locker-hollywoods-idea-of-%E2%80%98not-political/[/url]
His one conclusion is that they are blinded to what they are actually doing by their viewpoints.
Let's take your example, Lions for Lambs. Now the mood of the country could have been divided into these categories, (a)against the war, (b)for the war and things are going well, and (c)against the war and the way it is being run is stupid. Groups (a) and (c) typically got lumped together in the negative category for reasons that were more political than honest. Group (a) might like a LfL type movie but groups (b) and (c) are not. Now I can't believe that of all of the anti-war movies created, they all stunk as films. A lot of them had major stars with significant backing. After two or three failed, it would make sense that Hollywood would create more positive films, yet they haven't. Why?
Does anyone think that Executive Decision is going to remind people of 9/11 and as such they will not like the film? I just watched on TV a couple of weeks ago and still enjoyed it. This "people don't want films that remind them of terrorism" theme strikes me as stupid. During WWII they were creating movies about actual battles that had happened a year or two before. And early on, those movies showed us losing. If we can't make a positive movie about us wiping the floor of some Islamic terrorists, then a lot of people in this country need help.
BTW, I read the book Black Hawk Down and it doesn't really bash anyone. The author lays out the facts and pretty much lets you decide who screwed up and what went wrong. I'm no fan of Clinton but Somalia wasn't something he got us into, that was Bush Sr. I do fault Clinton for switching into nation building and then running when we got bloodied.
I summon Bigger Fish! |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2009 : 1:51:37 PM
|
| Let's not forget that Middle East terrorists did receive the bad guy treatment in Iron Man. |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2009 : 2:42:06 PM
|
Oh, but Ironman was a Republican film (laughs). OK, seriously, it was as far from the leftwing agenda as you can get. It is about a multi-billionaire arms manufacturer that pacifies world conflicts using brute force and gadgets that go boom. Therefore, it made sense for it to use Middle East terrorists and so on.
As for the "people don't want films that remind them of terrorism" thing, I'm not sure it should be phrased that way. I know I mentioned it first, but what I should have said was more like: "The suits think films depicting terrorism in a too realistic fashion could cost them their jobs".
As for the recent anti-war Hollywood films, I agree with Terrahawk in which they are all pretty lousy -Brian De Palma's Redacted being specially Jabootu-worthy- but for one, In the valley of Ellah. You may agree with the message or not, but it is a powerful, well made film with a terrific performance by Tommy Lee Jones. |
|
|
|
Enda80
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
108 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2009 : 6:57:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by zombiewhacker
Let's not forget that Middle East terrorists did receive the bad guy treatment in Iron Man.
Not quite. The leader of the Ten Rings mentions Genghis Khan, in a neutral to favorable light. Well, Osama Bin Laden has mentioned Hulagu Khan, but he did so in an unfavorable light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan
An Osama bin Laden tape in which Osama bin Laden compares Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell to Hulagu and his attack on Baghdad. Dated November 12, 2002.
They mention that the Ten Rings members spoke various languages. Probable turn out as similar to the Singh Brotherhood in the Phantom or as the Mandarian's lieutenants (Mandarin, similar to Fu Manchu and Shiwan Khan, claims descent from Genghis Khan.)
|
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 07:13:00 AM
|
| Still, those guys looked a lot like the Taliban, too much for being a coincidence. |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 3:23:42 PM
|
@Neville
Iron Man depicted a hero who is horrified to discover that the military-industrial-complex that has been his life's blood is now being used to arm international bad guys and foment (rather than pacify) conflicts. Tony Stark then turns against the MIC, declaring that his company will no longer manufacture weapons. (The fact that the main bad guy is an arms-trader who wants to keep the weapons flowing freely only reinforces this point.) So I don't really see how this movie could be described as "right-wing." More like "middle-of-road" or apolitical.
@BT
I'm not sure whether I completely agree with your view that Hollywood doesn't make anti-terrorist films because the current wars are unpopular. After all, 9-11 certainly isn't "popular" with American audiences, but that didn't prevent Hollywood from making two 9-11 films, United 93 and World Trade Center. George W. Bush, we can all agree, is certainly far from popular, yet that little roadblock didn't dissuade a studio from releasing a Bush biopic, courtesy of Oliver Stone.
Given that, and also given the fact that Americans, no matter how they feel about our current state of affairs, remain very pro-soldier and very anti-terrorist, there's no reason why Hollywood shouldn't have dipped its toe in the water by now. If they don't want to make a war movie, they could at least make an action or suspense film with terrorists in it.
The only conclusion I am able to reach is that political bias does play a part in filmmakers' calculus after all. It's not simply economics.
|
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 06/16/2009 3:26:02 PM |
|
|
|
Enda80
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
108 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 6:27:21 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neville
Still, those guys looked a lot like the Taliban, too much for being a coincidence.
If, as the movie novelization indicates, they turn out as a cell of the Mandarin's organization, we will probably find out that the Mandarin has his agents blend in with the crowd, has them resemble other groups so as to confuse intelligence networks. He probably has them look for any unstable area where he can establish a power base. |
Edited by - Enda80 on 06/16/2009 6:28:03 PM |
|
|
|
BT
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
USA
168 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 6:56:59 PM
|
zombie, you've got my point backwards. I'm not saying they won't make a pro war film because it's unpopular, I'm saying they WILL make an antiwar film because the war was unpopular. My point is simply that an antiwar film can be justified as being an economic decision as opposed to a solely idealistic one.
I'm not sure I agree with your examples, either, in that I don't think 9/11 can be viewed as either popular or unpopular. Regardless, if either of those films had treated 9/11 as exploitation, say Michael Bay blowing things up, I think people would have been outraged. As far as the Bush biopic goes, his unpopularity certainly could justify making the movie from an economic standpoint, if the studio thought the Left would turn to see it under the assumption it paints an unflattering picture of Bush.
I just think that in today's studio system, greenlighting a movie because it fits your political mindset is suicide. If pro-war movies make a bunch of money, they will make more of them. But if you are going to simply make something because you agree with it's ideology, you are most likely going to regret it. And that goes both ways. Lions for Lambs was a huge bust, but despite the fact that it played like a movie directed by Sean Hannity, and even starred Bill O'Reilly, two enormously popular figures with a large segment of America, "An American Carol" played to empty theaters everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 9:14:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BT
I just think that in today's studio system, greenlighting a movie because it fits your political mindset is suicide. If pro-war movies make a bunch of money, they will make more of them. But if you are going to simply make something because you agree with it's ideology, you are most likely going to regret it. And that goes both ways. Lions for Lambs was a huge bust, but despite the fact that it played like a movie directed by Sean Hannity, and even starred Bill O'Reilly, two enormously popular figures with a large segment of America, "An American Carol" played to empty theaters everywhere.
BT, someone pointed out that virtually all of the anti-war films were cheap to make. For example, Lions for Lambs only cost $35 million and had Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, and Robert Redford. What happens is the stars do these films to establish their Hollywood bonafides. As I've mentioned on other threads about this, Hollywood is driven by personal relationships. That tends to lead to groupthink. So, no I don't believe there is some secret conference room where Hollywood people plan the agenda. But I do believe Hollywood supports left wing causes mainly due to a general herd mentality. That means Hollywood will spend a few million to make the statement film even if it doesn't make money.
I summon Bigger Fish! |
|
|
|
BT
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
USA
168 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 07:28:26 AM
|
But again, Terrahawk, I think you are proving my point. You are a studio mogul. A person comes to you with an antiwar movie, concerning an unpopular war, and can make it for 30 million dollars, since it's mostly 2 stars preaching to each other. Another person comes to you and wants to make a pro war film, that will cost 130 million dollars, since it's a lot of location shooting and things blowing up.
Which are you more likely to greenlight? And if you greenlight the first one, does that make you a liberal? Or does it make you a businessman (or businesswoman)?
That's not to say that greenlighting the second one would be a bad idea. People can like a war movie. It could make 200 million while the antiwar movie makes 5. But greenlighting the second one is clearly a much bigger gamble.
Then again, so was making "Titanic". And they did OK. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked