Hollywood takes it on the chin w/ Anti- war movies by AURaptor

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I guess with as bad as things are going for those of your ideology, you have to tout any victory, no matter how trivial.

So, good for you. A movie that no-one (on either side of the debate) wants to see bombed. Bravo.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

It simply shows that folks aren't buying the Hollywood Left's vision of a evil, bad America being the cause of all the world's ills. If things are going bad for freedom, which is my idealogy, then we should all worry, not just those on the right.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 10:59 AM

SUCCATASH

LOL, this thread makes no sense.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Saddam-Hussein-Beats-Tom-Cruise-In-Popu
larity-Poll-20458.shtml

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 11:06 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It simply shows that folks aren't buying the Hollywood Left's vision of a evil, bad America being the cause of all the world's ills. If things are going bad for freedom, which is my idealogy, then we should all worry, not just those on the right.

Not really. It just shows people aren't into seeing stories set in that theatre, yet. The series "Over There" wasn't anti-war, and it still bombed. Musicals were the genre of choice durring WWII. Movies depicting that was weren't popular untill it was over.

But if you think that this is some sort of evidence of anyone rejecting a "liberal" agenda, you're kidding yourself (which isn't exactly a rare thing, but still...).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 11:42 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

While I like Redford, there seems to be a consensus from the critics that the movie says nothing new, and is more preachy than insightful...

in short, it appears not to have worked so well...

odd that all those "liberal" movie critics would weigh in on this movie negatively, don't you think Auraptor?

Sometimes a movie just bombs...It's not glitzy, it didn't generate any good buzz from any circle,

so few people went to see it.

big whoop.

It suggests nothing about the message itself, or the noted agreement that Americans have now about the current war...

why do you post crap like this?

Do you actually go to a movie just hear a certain version of propaganda?

If so, I guess that really does highlight the differences between liberals and conservatives, doesn't it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
If so, I guess that really does highlight the differences between liberals and conservatives, doesn't it?

Liberals often try to dismiss Hollywood’s detachment from the reality of US opinions, but the fact is that Hollywood often misjudges the American public. And with the current trend of anti-war movies, there’s no doubt that this is exactly what happened. Hollywood invested in several big budget, big name films designed to capitalize on what they perceive, from their Postmodern Liberal perspective, to be an anti-war, anti-Bush and possibly even somewhat anti-American trend in the American public. And I have no doubt that such films appeal to similar Left-leaning individuals, most of whom are on the coasts in the cities like New York and San Francisco, but they don’t appeal, and rarely have, to middle America - to people in my neck of the woods - where the majority of population is. And it doesn‘t make a lot sense to sink so many millions into films that only appeal to 20% of the population, but Hollywood does it all the time, and their confident that these films will appeal to so many people that they often don‘t even try to make the films any good. It‘s particularly evident in their propensity for racy R-rated type films that push the envelope, when simple somewhat conservative family films have shown, time and time again, to bring in bigger bucks.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 12:42 PM

FLETCH2

It's product that's all. If the war was going well and had 70% approval then we would have positive war movies. Hollywood makes what they think will sell movie tickets.

If this proves anything it proves the point someone made in another thread (Frem?) the American public is sick of hearing about the war rather than being sick of the act of war. The mistake these movie folks have made it to equate the two. If people are sick of hearing about the war that's ALL news about it, pro or anti, and that seems to have been born out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
If this proves anything it proves the point someone made in another thread (Frem?) the American public is sick of hearing about the war rather than being sick of the act of war.

Actually that was a point I made several times, some time ago. The American public is sick of hearing about the war. They aren’t sick of hearing about success in the war though, just failure (or more accurately ongoing lack of success). Frem I think originally disagreed with it, somewhat vehemently as I remember, but seemed to warm up to the idea later.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 1:50 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

I like Redford... nearly as much as I dislike Tom Cruise

While I enjoy writers like Tom Clancy, I oppose many of the position the characters take in those novels,

It is possible to be entertained by things you do not support

Such as Bush's losing war... I do not support it, and if it wasnt costing so many lives I'd likely be entertained by it.

The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 2:29 PM

FREDGIBLET

I think it's interesting how the leap is made from "this anti-war movie is doing poorly" to "people don't want to see anti-war movies". Take Lions For Lambs for instance, I haven't seen it and I'm not going to see it, why? because the previews aren't descriptive, it has Tom Cruise who I'd rather not support and I've got other things to watch.

I want to see The Kingdom which (I've heard) is an anti-war movie, I love several other anti-war movies (Team America, Full Metal Jacket) I have just not seen any reason to be interested in Lions For Lambs. This has no bearing on my views or the likelyhood of my watching any other given anti-war movie, I am just not interested in this particular movie.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 2:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I want to see The Kingdom which (I've heard) is an anti-war movie, I love several other anti-war movies (Team America, Full Metal Jacket) I have just not seen any reason to be interested in Lions For Lambs. This has no bearing on my views or the likelyhood of my watching any other given anti-war movie, I am just not interested in this particular movie.

You heard wrong. The kingdom is not an anti-war movie. I’ve heard it described as “patriotic escapism,” which I think is a fairly apt description, as far as two-word descriptions go, but it‘s certainly not anti-war. For that matter, Team America wasn‘t an anti-war movie either. It’s another “patriotic escapism.” You might even go as far as to call it a pro-war movie.

Full Metal Jacket was an anti-war movie. I guess one out of three - well, you should pay more attention to the movies you watch.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 3:10 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Not really. It just shows people aren't into seeing stories set in that theatre, yet. The series "Over There" wasn't anti-war, and it still bombed. Musicals were the genre of choice durring WWII. Movies depicting that was weren't popular untill it was over.

But if you think that this is some sort of evidence of anyone rejecting a "liberal" agenda, you're kidding yourself (which isn't exactly a rare thing, but still...).

And you'll keep ignoring the fact that a blockbuster cast ( Cruise, Redford,Streep ) still can't draw in a crowd because it's a anti-American themed movie. ALL the anti war movies, Redacted, Valley of Elah, this one....all bombed. Wonder why? Hmmmm...

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 3:47 PM

I've always wondered how the neo-con apologists on this board rationalize away the central message of "Serenity". Must take some heavy duty mental gymnastics.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 5:14 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I've always wondered how the neo-con apologists on this board rationalize away the central message of "Serenity". Must take some heavy duty mental gymnastics.

SergeantX
]

Not being a neo con, i wouldn't know. But since this IS a Firefly fans board, I felt it logical to compare this box office bomb to the lower than hoped for premier of our own BDM. You know, the one which was underbudgeted, with no major box office stars, derived from a cancelled t.v. show....basically had everything go against it. ALl that , and it did far better than the HUGE star studded anti-war movie.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 5:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not being a neo con, i wouldn't know. But since ...

Ahh, the dodge and feint.

Ok, so how do you get around the strongly anti-interventionist ethos of Serenity and Firefly? How did you dodge the pointed criticism of the Bush administration's GWOT and their attempts to remake the middle east, to 'make people better'? How do you square Firefly's firmly anti-authoritarian message with your own enthusiasm for the 'Alliance' style tactics of our own government?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Ok, so how do you get around the strongly anti-interventionist ethos of Serenity and Firefly? How did you dodge the pointed criticism of the Bush administration's GWOT and their attempts to remake the middle east, to 'make people better'? How do you square Firefly's firmly anti-authoritarian message with your own enthusiasm for the 'Alliance' style tactics of our own government?

If Islamo-fascists stayed out in the black with the Reavers there would be no war in the Middle East to complain about. It seems that you are ignoring a pretty important chunk of story.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 6:24 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Ok, so how do you get around the strongly anti-interventionist ethos of Serenity and Firefly? How did you dodge the pointed criticism of the Bush administration's GWOT and their attempts to remake the middle east, to 'make people better'? How do you square Firefly's firmly anti-authoritarian message with your own enthusiasm for the 'Alliance' style tactics of our own government?
If Islamo-fascists stayed out in the black with the Reavers there would be no war in the Middle East to complain about. It seems that you are ignoring a pretty important chunk of story.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Mind you , if the US stayed out of trying to run other countrys by proxy your point would be true in the fact that conflict would be reduced...

It seems that you are ignoring a pretty important chunk of story yourself

.

The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 6:34 PM

Yeah... I'm not sure if the 'Islamo-Fascist' angle is a good tact for you Finn. Honestly. Auraptor's 'plausible deniability' is probably a better bet. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the Reavers were stand-ins for the terrorists, but that leads you into all kinds of thorny questions, like how the Reavers/terrorists were created or why the Alliance was hiding the truth from it's citizens, etc ...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 6:38 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Not really. It just shows people aren't into seeing stories set in that theatre, yet. The series "Over There" wasn't anti-war, and it still bombed. Musicals were the genre of choice durring WWII. Movies depicting that was weren't popular untill it was over.

But if you think that this is some sort of evidence of anyone rejecting a "liberal" agenda, you're kidding yourself (which isn't exactly a rare thing, but still...).

And you'll keep ignoring the fact that a blockbuster cast ( Cruise, Redford,Streep ) still can't draw in a crowd because it's a anti-American themed movie. ALL the anti war movies, Redacted, Valley of Elah, this one....all bombed. Wonder why? Hmmmm...

That has nothing to do with what I said. Christ, you are consitant in your slippery discourse.

The star power has nothing to do with it. All "War on Terror" movies and shows have failed, regardless of ideology or star power.

And as to the star power, Redford hasn't been a huge draw in decades. Neither has Streep. Cruise has recently gone throguh a public image meltdown, loosing a huge chink of his fanbase.

And the movie looked boring. There are plenty of reasons it could have, and did fail, all on it's own.

But my point, which you totally ignored, was that people are not interested in these stories yet. Unless you can point to a pro-war success recently (300 doesn't count).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 6:48 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not being a neo con, i wouldn't know. But since ...

Ahh, the dodge and feint.

Ok, so how do you get around the strongly anti-interventionist ethos of Serenity and Firefly? How did you dodge the pointed criticism of the Bush administration's GWOT and their attempts to remake the middle east, to 'make people better'? How do you square Firefly's firmly anti-authoritarian message with your own enthusiasm for the 'Alliance' style tactics of our own government?

SergeantX

Easy. I wasn't comparing plots, just how well they premiered. Firefly / Serenity are fiction, where as what is going on in the Middle East is real life. Real life men are really trying to blow up innocent folks to force them to convert to their religion , or die.

Big difference.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 6:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Yeah... I'm not sure if the 'Islamo-Fascist' angle is a good tact for you Finn. Honestly. Auraptor's 'plausible deniability' is probably a better bet. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the Reavers were stand-ins for the terrorists, but that leads you into all kinds of thorny questions, like how the Reavers/terrorists were created or why the Alliance was hiding the truth from it's citizens, etc ...

I can understand why you want to ignore that angle, but the fact remains that it renders your whole point moot. You notice how no one in Serenity or Firefly ever seemed concerned about the civil rights of Reavers. They were just ruthless monsters for which there was only one recourse for dealing with - kill or be killed. The second problem with your analogy is that no one is trying to make anyone in Iraq “better,” at best we are liberating them from a ruthless tyrant, at worst we are trying to put their country into a stable position after deposing a ruthless tyrant. I can believe Saddam was a rotten dictator who needed to be removed and that Iraq should be stabilized and given a chance for success after doing so, while simultaneously believing that there is a limit to the extent that the government should practice social engineering. There’s really nothing to reconcile.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 7:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You notice how no one in Serenity or Firefly ever seemed concerned about the civil rights of Reavers. They were just ruthless monsters for which there was only one recourse for dealing with - kill or be killed

Exactly, just like no one is concerned about the terrorists' civil rights now. Still, the crew saw the injustice in what the Alliance did to the people who were turned into Reavers - and sought to expose it.

Quote:
second problem with your analogy is that no one is trying to make anyone in Iraq “better,”...

I'm fairly certain the Iraqis would agree with you, but it was on the sales brochure for the war. Or was that covered by the disclaimer? It's not easy to tease apart the real reasons for the war from the litany of shifting excuses.

This is fun.

Are you seeing GW as the Operative? I got Ron Paul all lined up for Mal. Maybe Cheney could be that doctor guy at the start, 'cause it'd be cool to see Bush kill Cheney with a sword.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 12, 2007 7:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Exactly, just like no one is concerned about the terrorists' civil rights now. Still, the crew saw the injustice in what the Alliance did to the people who were turned into Reavers - and sought to expose it.

And I see the injustice in Middle Eastern dictators and warlords that create terrorist lords.

Then of course the question can be turned toward you - how do you reconcile your beliefs with Serenity and Firefly, if you believe that the Reavers represents Islamo-fascists and that they should have civil rights?

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm fairly certain the Iraqis would agree with you, but it was on the sales brochure for the war.

Yes, stabilizing Iraq under a representative government was a condition of removing the previous government. That seems only fair, and as long as the Democrats can keep from throwing a wrench into the deal, hopefully it will be a condition we won’t renege on.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
This is fun. Are you seeing GW as the Operative? I got Ron Paul all lined up for Mal. Maybe Cheney could be that doctor guy at the start, 'cause it'd be cool to see Bush kill Cheney with a sword.

I can’t see George Bush as the Operative. The whole personality of the Operative was that he had a demeanor that was 007-ish. I have a hard time, seeing Bush with a vodka martini and Katana. I can’t see Ron Paul as Mal either. I suspect that they might share similar political philosophies, but Ron Paul doesn’t strike me as much of a swashbuckler.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:00 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Not really. It just shows people aren't into seeing stories set in that theatre, yet. The series "Over There" wasn't anti-war, and it still bombed. Musicals were the genre of choice durring WWII. Movies depicting that was weren't popular untill it was over.

Lets ask the Duke:

The Flying Tigers, 1942
The Fighting Seabees, 1944
Back to Baatan, 1945
They Were Expendable, 1945 (if you loved PT boats...)

and there are other classics:
Destination Tokyo, 1943 w/Cary Grant
Gung Ho!, 1943 w/Randolph Scott (not in a Western?)
Lifeboat, 1944 a Hitchcock classic
Objective Burma, 1945 w/Errol Flynn
Sahara, 1943 w/Bogart
Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, 1944 w/Spencer Tracy (an all time favorite of mine)

I think the reason why movies like these did well and became classics while today's movies fail, is because..."all this stuff you’ve heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball player, the toughest boxer. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans."

Edited to add: Shouldn't Hollywood make at least one movie that shows America kicking ass for God and Country? One movie that shows the bravery and fighting prowess of the American fighting man and leaves the enemy exposed for what they truly are, cowards and thugs who are better off dead. How about a movie that shows the American flag raised in triumph standing for freedom and justice rather then sorrow and regret? Thats a movie I'd go to see.

Why not a movie like 'We Were Soldiers'? That movie is just about the greatness of the American soldier (and in many ways the Vietnamese soldiers too) without comment to the political context of the fight. That movie is as true to what happened as can be...funny how in that truth we find out more about the character of the conflict then in any of the fictionalized movies out there.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:48 AM