Its to bad that robert REDford has gone too liberal and made a bunch of crappy movies he was good in THE GREAT WALDO PEPPER and JERIMIA JOHNSON and TOM CRUISE was good in TOP GUN but they are too leftists for me anymore

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.

Looks like he was right.

As in all things, the market will decide. Too bad the lefty movie makers still don't understand that at least half of their market doesn't buy their crap.

The reason that Redford and Cruise were "better" in earlier movies has to do with the fact that they were simply actors playing a role developed by a creative team. In the case of "Top Gun", the script came out of an article written by Ehud Yonai - No Margin For Error: The Making of the Israeli Air Force. Not exactly a sop to the lefty love affair with the Islamists. "The Great Waldo Pepper" was written by George Roy Hill, a WWII marine cargo pilot who got his eduction through the GI bill after the war, not someone who viewed his fellow soldiers as criminals. You get the idea.

As to the concept that films are released in hopes of losing money. Not exactly. Some states provide incentives in the form of tax credits for productions that qualify as a "local" production. The movie producers will make these available to investors. Most of these incentives are only appicable to the state tax not the federal tax and and cannot be used to eliminate tax completely. This is where the Alternative Minimum Tax comes. If you are not a resident of that state you cannot use the tax credit.

Movies that lose money on the scale like some of these are a drain on the resources of any studio. BTW, most of the fancy accounting has been used to screw the actors out of their share. If you don't believe this ask James Garner. He had to go through lengthy litigation to get his fair share of the Rockford Files.

JIf Hollywood movies are any guide then the American moviegoing public seems to prefer pablum.

"JIf Hollywood movies are any guide then the American moviegoing public seems to prefer pablum."

It's possible to make thoughtful war movies without the dreaded "rah rah" effect that lefties fear. Only an unimaginative bore would fail to see the possibilities; they just prefer to be "rah rah" for the other side.

Anyone who looks to Hollywood to provide enlightenment/confirmation as to the meaning of their own ideologies, lifestyle, political beliefs, etc deserves exactly what they will get: delusion supported by hypocrisy and deceipt.

You can't really blame Hollywood though, if you had as much hot air blown up your butt as most actors/produces/executives then you would find it hard to keep your head in our reality as well. Must be Bush's fault somehow...

The article shows they are making three mistakes. First, releasing the movie while the war is still on. Second, being preachy. And third, being too critical of the effort. Any two of those will hurt your box office, all three will kill it.

I was really surprised this weekend, when my local reviewer on television - a clear leftist - panned "Lions for Lambs" for being preachy and boring. She gave it 1.5 stars out of four, but only because of the star power in it.

Not to be contrarion, but movies often come out during the conflict. They tend to be supportive of the conflict at the time. The regret movies come afterwards.

Mind you the conflict has been going since 2002 and 2001 if you count the Afghani conflict. 5 to 6 years is a fair length of time in Hollywood product development cycles.

But think about whne these movies would have been greenlighted and conceived. Release now means they were written and financed anywhere from 12 to 18 months. The feeling at the time was one of unmitigated disaster, and that seems to have changed. Had that feeling continued you would have had movies that relfected the culture.

This is the danger of trying to make them too quickly. There is no perspective there is no context. Yes the movies are preachy, which is exactly the problem. Sometimes people want to learn something when the go to a movie but they always want to be entertained, to escape and be moved emotionally (positively or negatively) they definitely dont want to be hectored.

Well, de Palma just blew his next movie unless he is going to do Scarface II or Untouchables II.

Redford, he'll survive, but will do a box office tear jerker soon to make up for this and Cruise....well, who the hell knows, deoending on how is Hitler assisination movie goes.

I love the marketplace, it is cruel and brutal and honest. As in democracies, the people are always right....at least at that moment....and they can always change their minds later and rent the DVD ;-)

I despise Hollywood for the fact that so many of their films intentionally fashioned to present Americans as materialistic, shallow, war mongering, intolerant, take your pick, are designed for the overseas market.

Like the NYT's, Hollywood would rather fall on its ideological sword than make make a profit. We can assist them in going broke faster.

Hey, Jose, 500 comments to the article plus the falling revenues dispute that Americans like pablum. Or, did you miss that point?

I've wondered why these Hollywood types continue to throw money and effort into these bombs.

They always say that Hollywood is only a respecter of "green" power. They make movies on subjects that bring dollars in, and beyond that they don't care.

And yet, as in the case of these war movies, they put all this effort into something that surely by this time they know will be flat at the box office.

I finally got an answer one day listening to Michael Medved. He said that the desire to have other, fully paid-up members of the Hollywood elite see a filmmaker as someone who is doing "significant" or "important" work actually trumps the desire for money. (Probably especially if they already have a lot of money.)

So apparently these guys are chiefly motivated by the idea that their peers are going to see them as some voice of social conscience or something like that. They want the production of fiction to somehow be as important, or more important, as the actual event. They want their cinematic critique ultimately to trump the flow of reality itself.

I posted this elsewhere but think it's worth posting again: it's a great post about the anti-war movies that Hollywood's churning out these days:

http://www.outsidethewire.com/blog/media/end-of-the-war-hero.html

I like these lines:

"In the latest round of war movies the heroes are not the Soldiers and Marines who every day fight and defeat a vicious and barbaric enemy--the heroes are reporters, lawyers and activists.
And since every story requires a villain, the real enemy--Mohammedan Jihadists--are replaced by neo-cons, politicians, Soldiers and Marines. . . .
the sting of [anti-military people, etc.] own cowardice is too much to bear. They are not willing to accept that they cannot be heroes.
They cannot accept that, even if they were younger or had the physical ability to confront a violent villain, they would shrink from the challenge. To alleviate their guilt they invent a new villain--Halliburton, Cheney, neo-cons, politicians, military officers, Soldiers, Marines--in short, anyone who will not physically harm them. This substituted version of the traditional hero myth allows anyone to be a hero . . ."

Back when they made GONE WITH THE WIND the word DAMN was still a pretty strong swear word now their using words like you would find in the toilet

"...Like the NYT's, Hollywood would rather fall on its ideological sword than make make a profit. We can assist them in going broke faster."

Good post, Penny. Pithy! :-)

I share your contempt. Got any suggestions as to how we can help these anti-American American studios, newspapers, etc. go broke faster? I don't buy their products and bad-mouth them on every available occasion. But if there were more we could do, I'm sure I'd just be one of millions who'd happily and diligently participate.

Dave, I've often thought that a useful conservative website would be one that acted as a directory of just who are the advertisers underwriting the most egregiously tasteless and lame lefty garbage. TV and print are most vulnerable to boycotts of their advertisers. I think we need to go after them more.

I remember when one of the networks was going to do a hatchet job docu-drama on Ronald Reagan, when the content was leaked, the advertisers were exposed on the net with contact info and they capitulated under an avalanche of angry ready to boycott viewers. Samuel Adams beer met the same fate when their owner in a appearance at a smarmy radio talk show egged on a live broadcast of a couple assigned to have sex in a Catholic church. The DJ's were fired. The weasel owner couldn't do enough public mea cuplas. Sam Adams took a big hit until public memory faded.

Debbie Schlussel does a great job reviewing these lame anti-American, anti-family, anti-war, anti-capitalism movies so we don't have to see them.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/

"As in all things, the market will decide."

Maybe in your right-wing delusion, meat.

Dave, penny, why not join forces with Bill O'Reilly.
After all, he brought France to it's knees with his boycott.

autofu,
Take a look who is running France now.
The union busting, most pro-american leader in Europe since Thatcher.
And take a look at who the most popular cable news channel and shows are. Looks like the market has decided.
enough

The market has spoken but what is it saying? I take O'Reilly seriously, therefore I'm a rightwing idiot.

I hope the BEE sting ROBERT REDFORD and TOM CRUISE right in their private parts

Canadians don't really get exactly how much the USA is not like the movies until they live there for a couple years. We literally have no idea what the place is like.

These Hollywood types HATE America. They really think Bush IS Hitler. They've been making films which show America sucks for 40 years. They've been pushing the Hate America envelope for so long that they have now reached the point of openly shilling for the enemy.

They do it all day long on TV, the movies, in print and in music. Its the friggin' America Sucks Show with Dolby Stereo sound track, 24/7.

Oddly, Americans on the whole seem disinclined to pay money for enemy propaganda. But the Hollywood set is stuck! I doubt these a-holes could make a watchable pro-America movie of any kind. They are snide, superior, hate filled and they have no class
I continue to look forward to the financial ruin of the Liberal Media Elite. Short those media stocks, baby!

autofun,
To make such a sweeping statement defies reality. Nyah, nyah everyone who read the toronto star...
You brought up france and O'Reilly. You denied that the market means anything. If you are going to reference something, you might as well make it applicable.
enough

It won’t mattter if all of these Hollywood War Films bomb at the Box Office, because they will still get Oscars for Best Picture of the Year, Best Actor and Best Actress.

I kid you not, just think Al Gore.
,

I thought Malick's The Thin Red Line was an excellent film.

I haven't seen any of these movies so I can't truly judge their artistic merit or entertainment value with any honesty and independence. So I will say this - the idea that the box office or current popularity is a good definition of the quality of a work is ridiculous of course. Millions of cheap Harlequin romance novels are sold and read - does this mean they are better than Tolstoy's War and Peace or because Micheal Jackson cd's out sold Mozart cd's through out the 90's - Jackson's music is better? Time is the only test of quality. Btw as someone who has cousins in the states and has visited twice in the last year - I didn't talk to a single american person who thought invading Iraq was a big mistake. This is by and far the popular view of american people.

Sorry A typo in my comment - I meant to say all of the american people I spoke to while down there thought the invasion was a mistake. These are not left wing types either as many members of my family served with the CF and have mostly conservative views. Most seem to think it was a kind of shock from 911 and a general ignorance of islamic terrorism and it's roots in Saudi Arabia and Eygpt that led many to support the invasion of Iraq initially. btw enjoy reading the site - I only wish people out there read more books - polite intelligent debate beats shallow attacks anytime - start with The Looming Tower -Al-Queda and the road to 9/11

cheers

In related news, my Mum tells me this year's Rememberance Day ceremonies were better attended than any in recent memory. At the Ottawa ceremonies people started applauding in the middle of the benediction, General Hillier said he'd never seen that happen before in his life.

Lefties will note you didn't hear about any of that in the MSM today. Accident, or enemy action? Phantom reports, you decide.

Doesn't bode well for the anti-war movie box office, does it?

Todd, clearly you hang with a different crowd while in the USA than I do. Try a Red state next time, see if there's any change in the consensus. Or maybe just visit a gun store instead of Starbucks.

Well, what do they know about 'fly over country?'

Most of the film (s)nobs don't know they are supposed to earn money, rather than for it to somehow magically appear.

Clint made a great and profitable war movie. But these narcissistic artistes are too consumed with their irrelevant ideology to even begin to figure out how and why.

Hopefully, one day, they'll be relegated back to their traditional role as court jesters and side show panhandlers.

Starbucks ?? I wouldn't pay $5 for a coffee if it was the last one on earth. More importantly, I not interested in the whole name calling and smears or anything else like that. Is Montana red enough for you. I'll talk take the opinions of those that have served or who have loved ones who are or have served over the juvenile rantings of someone who gives himself a superhero nickname.

What about judging the quality of art( that you haven't even seen btw) based on sales? isn't that the point of this thread.

Maybe expecting constructive debate at this site is impossible with nothing but head in sand idealogues to talk to

The Phantoms reply sounded fairly constructive.

I work with a company that deals with american law enforcement. Many of them have quite different views than what your friends/relatives expressed. it is relevant to whon you speak with. Conducting a poll on virtually any university campus would get you different results than customers at a gunshop.

Not to dismiss your claims but where were the 62 million americans who bothered to vote for Bush? The 62 million who voted to continue his policies.
enough

My comments about not being constructive where aimed at Phantom trying to insinuate that I or my friends, family are somehow leftist or non representative of ordinary americans. As far as the 62 million who voted for bush - that was 3 years ago! - alot has changed - also I heard a wide variety of opinions on what should be done now - I was talking only about the initial decision to take the US to war with Iraq. I think you find most polls agree with what I said but I admit it is not absolute.

I guess no one wants to talk about a good evaluator of art.

Yeah, Todd, what are you thinking. Go to a red state. Take in a dog fight. Or cruise airport washrooms and look for men who take a wide stance. Evaluator of art? Why, box office and ratings says it all.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5290900.html

Love the line: "carefully cultivated rage." That's it, right on the money. The "art" of these films is an art that panders to, and is cultivated for, a ready-made audience. It's not radical,brave or even distinctive one bit, especially when its creators waltz around with awards on their shelves in the very country they bash. Some fascist state, that U.S., eh? What happens to "speakers of truth to power" in Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, etc. etc.?

Todd, maybe the people in the U.S. that you've talked with are not so anti-war as anti-badly-going war (read quote below). I too, wish Bush had never gone into Iraq (and Clinton had never drawn up the whole regime-change scheme in the first place). But the U.S. did go in, and now Iraq needs to succeed. Simply has to, for the sake of everyone. Will success (peace, stability, functioning democracy) happen if the American troops leave now?

Quoted from above link:
"Americans may not be as passionately opposed to the war as the polls have led Hollywood to believe. Left-wing bloggers, hyper-rich Democratic donors and antiwar activists hate the war with biblical fury. But many average Americans are depressed by the war because, until recently, it was going so badly. The polls don't capture this distinction very well.

This illuminates an underdiscussed dynamic of our times. Americans are both antiwar and anti-antiwar. Polls show they are disgusted with Republicans and Democrats. Hollywood and the left generally have misread this political discontent thinking there's a mandate for their trite Vietnam-era nostalgia for mass protest and Joan Baez speechifying. But few Americans are eager to spend their money to listen to the Jane Fonda set say, "I told you so!" for two hours. Especially not when we've heard it all before. (Indeed, Redacted is essentially a remake of his Vietnam movie Casualties of War.)

By confusing the public's war-weariness with their own carefully cultivated rage, they've badly overreached."

Hey Todd, all I know is the people I keep in touch with in three states don't agree with you. Some of 'em are doctors, so you can give up the stereotype right off the bat. I think your sample is insufficiently large.

As to "art", we are talking about the cinematic equivalent of a crucifix in a jar of pee. I've seen the plot outline, that's all I need to know about the film to say its yet another typical anti-war, liberal propaganda flick. Maybe the cinematography is awesome, that leaves me with -really pretty- propaganda. Not on my dime, so sorry.

auntofu, earlier in this thread I talked about most Canadians not having clue one about the USA and who lives in it, due to having their brains washed by a lifetime of Hollywood shows. You get to be Exhibit A. Congratulations, great job demonstrating the effect.

Slighty skewed from the original topic but here goes:

Hollywood?
You mean the industry-town unto itself, where a smug writer, pens the phrase "penis breath"?

To be uttered,as an insult by a nine year-old, in a CHILDRENS MOVIE? I cannot for the life of me, imagine what was running thru the writers mind. This goes back a while, can you guess the movie?

Hollywood, just what the world needs, unrealisticly well off people, living unrealistic lifestyles, presented as if a realistic model for the rest of us to aspire to; with guns, gonads, and drugs all running a hundred miles an hour.

Would there be any connection between this false world, and attitudes found in todays society?

Conservatives are upset with Bush, but the biggest reason is because of his posture relative to illegal aliens in respect to the Mexican border. Additionally, we're not happy about the big government initiatives and a certain indifference to fiscal matters.

Among conservatives there is discussion about the way in which the war has been prosecuted. Many conservatives wished for a more overwhelming display of force. However, no one that I know of is sorry that the US invaded Iraq.

Our feeling is that we have seriously demonstrated to terrorists around the world that infractions will not be met with a slap on the wrist; we'll execute your dictators and take down your whole damn country. This is probably responsible for the king of Saudi Arabia making a diplomatic trip to Washington and to the Pope.

We also are very pleased with the 'flypaper' effect in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have forced al Qaeda to waste huge resources in terms of money and troop confronting us in the region. And I think we have killed something like (not exact) 15 terrorists for every Soldier or Marine we have lost. So we are taking out huge numbers of enemy combatants, and we're doing it outside of North America.

Basically, conservatives are not upset about invasion, toppling Hussein, or persuing a vigorous war in the Middle East. Whether or not democracy will emerge in Iraq and Afghanistan is another matter.

And if others are correct, these filmmakers who consider themselves to be "artistes" are playing out an old and worn-out cliche. A lot of people came of age during the Vietnam War and somehow got it into their brains as an article of faith that you automatically demonstrate your intelligence and social consciousness by iconoclasm as art.

Marshall McLuhan once wrote a book called "From Cliche to Archetype", and many of these filmmakers had not even born yet.when the Vietnam era exploded. They have no substantive grasp of what animated the New Left in the US. They are bouncing off this old and defeated idea like professors in universities dredging up the tired cadaver of communism.

They are really the true Neanderthals, because they keep trying to find an echo of something cool about a set of defeated ideological points of view that involved a group of kids trying to solve the problems of the world with misguided idealism.

And incidentally, The Phantom was not a superhero. So let's get that straight right now. He was simply thought of as The Ghost Who Walks, because his family lived secretly for many generations in the jungle, and because each new generation produced an heir to the Phantom legacy, it seemed he was immortal.

Doesn't anybody know anything?

He had really cool pistols too Greg. ~:D

These movie might be bad, like I said I haven't seen them, but my point was that judging the quality or worth of something by it's popularity is a poor method and unreliable with obvious examples. As far as the consequences for the future from the decision to invade Iraq - I guess we'll all see won't we.