Comments on: Hicks Nix Peacenik Pix: Movies That No One Wants To See

By: [Hollywood] Stop-Loss, ode a la desertion, est le bide de la semaine... | hilpers

Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:06:31 +0000

[...] as late-night reruns in Albania or wherever on into 2027 and beyond. A minor loss, if any." ( http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/post_257/ ) "When Peter Berg tested The Kingdom on Americans, he was horrified when the audience [...]

By: FireFireFire

FireFireFire — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:31:57 +0000

HOLLYWOOD is dead to me

By: Ruth Horton

Ruth Horton — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:18:26 +0000

Congratulations, Mr. Simon, on a very interesting essay! The flip side is that there’s a major business opportunity here for indies: someone who is willing to make an Iraq war film that people actually want to see. The public would love a film about heroes of the war, American, Iraqi, and coalition partners such as the Poles. The general topic of the Anbar Awakening — with Iraqis and Americans cooperating to skunk al-Queda — would make the hottest movie ever! Would Mel Gibson and Icon be interested? Fox News has made a bundle off the cluelessness of the old-fashioned network news shows, not to mention CNN…indies might want to learn from this example.

By: Jim Rockford

Jim Rockford — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:03:10 +0000

Christastrophe –

1. Picking a name that gratuitously insults a certain religion that is held by the majority of Americans is … illustrative.

2. Simon’s point was the social dynamics of Hollywood producing a toxic elitism. It was NOT “liberal vs. conservative” but rather elitist vs. populist.

Food for thought: Bono in Ireland was conducting one of his sermon/concerts and brought the show to a halt. He clapped his hands slowly and intoned “Every time I clap my hands, a child in Africa dies.” Hush. A male voice booms out “Then f—ing stop doing it then!” Laughter and Laughter as red-faced Bono is aghast. They’re not worshipping him. They’re laughing at him.

In a nutshell, that’s Hollywood’s problem. Unlike the old-line Lefties like say, Dalton Trumbo, they HATE the people instead of view themselves as one of them. Not a Gaghan or a Clooney could make a Spartacus. They view themselves as the Emperor. Heck Gaghan can sit and give an interview in his Malibu mansion with Porches and Ferraris in the driveway and intone how “Communism is the answer” in a self-ridiculing moment of zen idiocy.

Roger’s point about how success in Hollywood means deliberate sacrifice of any human relationship based on genuine love and affection stands out. Hollywood’s version of love is a three-picture deal based on status, power, and connections.

It’s why love stories depicted on the small and big screen are horrid. Because fundamentally Hollywood cannot understand love.

By: pst314

pst314 — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:59:14 +0000

ajacksonian: Funny you should mention Hammer’s Slammers, because the complete stories have been republished in a 3-volume series with forwards by David Drake and Gene Wolfe (both war veterans).

By: Bugs

Bugs — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:47:18 +0000

@Christastrophe: Maybe it works out like this – 1/3 of the audience avoids current anti-war movies because they’re “anti-American,” 2/3 of the audience avoids them because they’re preaching to the choir, and the entire audience – in a remarkable display of bipartisanship – avoids them because they suck! Ultimately, though, I think it’s because when you and your country are in a real, life-or-death struggle with (choose one) a) Islamist fanatics or b) Republicans, the last person you want advice from is Robert Redford.

By: Richard Jansen

Richard Jansen — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:03:59 +0000

Mission to Moscow was Hollywood’s tribute to Stalin during WWII

By: Christastrophe

Christastrophe — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:27:36 +0000

@ Bugs: You’re actually making my point for me. Nobody wanted to see this movie because it had nothing new to say and didn’t look all that interesting. It was not “important” or “a film that needed to be made” because the opinions expressed in it are already owned, shared, and felt felt by millions of people who don’t need more preaching to the choir.

Really, it’s no different than any other Hollywood trend. “Napolean Dynamite” made millions, so now all the studios are churning out quirky little awkward comedies. “Lord of the Rings” made a gajillion dollars so now we get other big-budget fantasy things like “Beowulf” and “Narnia” and whatever else. Likewise, Michael Moore broke all kinds of box office a few years ago, so Hollywood started churning out anti-war movies to chase the bucks. But they’re too late, and they’re not saying anything new or important or bold or inspiring enough to generate interest in anybody.

THAT makes sense. But Simon’s theory that these movies are bombing because the country supports a conservative viewpoint is just not supported by the facts. If this country supports the war so much, why does every poll show that a large majority want out? If this country is so pro-Republican, why did the GOP lose both houses of Congress in 2006?

By: Larry T

Larry T — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:54:18 +0000

I will not go to see these anti-war anti-american movies at the box office and support their luxurious decandent life styles. I also have a list of radical “actors” (socialist/marxist/maoist pretenders) that I will never pay to see including “Babs” Alex Baldwin Shawn belongs in the “Penn”. Lets not pay for these fools lifestyles.

By: Larry J

Larry J — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:01:44 +0000

I have well over 200 titles in my DVD collection but have not bought anything in over a year. I can walk into a Blockbuster video and examine all of their new releases only to walk out without renting anything. The fact is most of today’s movies suck. Why would I pay money for a movie that sucks? Why would I pay money to someone who goes out of their way to offend and insult me? Until Hollywood starts making better movies, they won’t get any of my money. The writers can stay of strike forever as far as I’m concerned.