Comments Posted By Publius
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 20 Comments

O'REILLY VERSUS HOLLYWOOD

Grognard your argument makes no sense. It isn't a free and open market because the barriers to entry are huge. It's not as if I can open a Conservative lemonade stand and just start competing with Dreamworks. For one thing, how many actors are willing to jeopardize their careers to work on a conservative picture? Especially if they aren't yet established and know how difficult it is to get steady-work. The libs talk about the black-list, well there are conservatives in Hollywood living in the "closet" to preserve their opportunities to work. Its about the same as being a conservative with a PhD looking to get hired by a faculty at most colleges.

The media, academia, Hollywood, the music industry (except maybe Nashville) are dominated by the Left or at least the apathetic and a-political.

The chances of relying on the "free market" to balance things out in Hollywood is as realistic as believing that a company could enter the aircraft market and challenge Boeing and Airbus. Just 'aint goin' to happen.

Comment Posted By Publius On 15.08.2007 @ 20:08

People in Hollywood will not make a conservative film for a variety of reasons, part of which is that there are very few successful and open conservative actors, writers, directors, producers, etc. Thus, the folks in Hollywood are exposed to only one world view, much like Pauline Kael's comment about "How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon" in 1972.

Next, it's just not cool to be conservative in Hollywood, and the industry seems to be more concerned about being popular than 8th grade girls. Anyone seemingly comfortable in their Conservatism either announces it after they're successful institutions or seems to find their careers side-tracked. The number of conservatives appears to be so small that you can probably count them on two hands - Bruce Willis, Charlton Heston, Tom Selleck, maybe Mel Gibson (not sure we'd want to claim Mel). And even Willis is willing to take roles supporting the liberal mindset of hidden government cabals (e.g. Die Hard II), which seems to keep his Hollywood cred.

Conservative movies can be successful, see "The Passion of Christ," but then look at what Jim Caviezel has been up to - no major roles of note. I'd say that "Team America" is represented South Park Conservatism, and you can't imagine that Matt Stone & Trey Parker are being invited to any Film Actor Guild meetings anytime soon.

I believe that there is a huge market for positive American films that show heroic military service, are pro-American, and fit an old fashioned stereotype. Blackhawk Down made $108 million in box-office and another $28 million in rental (and I don't know when they cut off the totals) http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/black_hawk_down/numbers.php

Blackdown was a movie about a military disaster, and people still want to see a positive portrayal of American heroism.

Why is John Wayne still frequently voted as the favorite actor in America?

Finally, Hollywood wants to make "serious" movies and be considered "artistic." Rick, if they were purely concerned about making money they wouldn't make the recent spate of movies about "victims" from Iraq, families left in the lurch, soldiers with PTSD, and the rest of the litany of "serious" movies that have come out or are coming out. The New York Times profiled this subject matter about two weeks ago, and mentioned that Irwin Winkler's (Fonzie) movie "Home of the Brave" a returning damaged vet film that came out last year made a whopping $44,000 at the box office - see NYT, July 25, 2007. And yet they're willing to lose money to get they're agenda across.

Finally, United 93 may not have been a box office winner, but how much publicity did it get? Great movies can be undermined if they don't get support from the studio. Also, it made more money than it cost, as I remember, and clearly the industry thought enough of Greengrass to trust him with a big budget pic like Bourne 3, so can you really say it was a failure?

Here's a simple and free suggestion to Hollywood - option "Not a Good Day to Die" about Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan by Sean Naylor, or "No True Glory" by Bing West about Fallujah, hire good actors, properly advertise and market them, and sit back and count $300 million.

Comment Posted By Publius On 13.08.2007 @ 20:42

THE MIND BLOGGLING CONSEQUENCES OF BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME

Rick, I do think it's a bit incongruous to complain about the American people being particularly susceptible to conspiracy theories and then laud the show 24. You must admit that the bread and butter of the show is continuous and nefarious plotting in the very centers of government. Previous seasons have included the military, secretary of defense, and even this year the President and a shadowy cabal of what - big oil proponents?

Popular culture reinforces the idea of vast conspiracies as much as anything else, even your beloved 24.

Comment Posted By Publius On 23.05.2006 @ 17:19

THE AVENGER (PART II)

Why didn't Jack just record the Pres confessing on the helicopter?

Unanswered questions: Who revealed Jack was still alive at the beginning? In other words, how did Henderson/Logan et al know to kill Chloe, Michelle, and Tony? That's never been answered. Who else knew?

Who was the woman that Henderson talked to in the car and told that Bauer knew nothing before he tried to blow him up in the bunker?

Since everything in the show happens in LA, can we expect the Chinese to turn around and hold him in LA instead of the ship?

Time continuity was a little ridiculous last night. You pointed out the 5 minute "hook up" and dressing with Martha and the President. How about the abduction of Jack, beating senseless, and setting out to sea in 5 minutes?

But hey I guess if I care enough to ask these questions it's an entertaining show. Thanks for your posts on each episode, and let me give another plug for the Unit which does at least on occasion kill Islamic terrorists.

Comment Posted By Publius On 23.05.2006 @ 13:39

REPRIEVED!

If Kim comes back please include the menacing mountain lion.

Comment Posted By Publius On 9.05.2006 @ 16:36

I wonder where the President, Chief of Staff, etc. have the time, what with GS-nothings regularly calling to report nefarious goings-ons in their local office. Maybe LA just really is that important, but somehow I figure if the Agent in Charge of the LA office of the FBI called the White House he'd get about as far as anyone else, but whatever.

Obviously the tape is blank, hence Miles repeatedly asking Karen if she'd listened to it, and of course the previews suggest that he was able to destroy it when he visited Chloe. My assumption is that the Sec. Def. will recover sufficiently towards the end of the next episode to be able to verify what was on the tape and rebut the presumption that everyone is going to have for the next 30 minutes that Jack made up the whole thing.

As for Audrey, no unfortunately I don't think they'll knock her off. The painful (and long) moment Jack spent with her would in years past have been time he spent with Kim, and unfortunately they haven't managed to kill Kim off yet, so I don't think we could be that lucky with Needlenose either.

Comment Posted By Publius On 9.05.2006 @ 09:24

FISKING JAMES BOWMAN'S REVIEW OF U-93

Rick, excellent counter to Bowman's review. I usually read his work and find myself in line with his thinking, but having seen U-93 I went through his review line by line trying to figure out his point, and whether we'd seen the same movie. I guess all critics (even the best ones) are entitled to a mistake every so often. I'm glad that you pointed out his errors, as I'm sure that I and others reading the Spectator wondered if we were wrong in our assessment of this fine film.

Comment Posted By Publius On 4.05.2006 @ 08:42

THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY OF THE OPEN BORDERS CROWD

You know I served with a lieutenant in Korea in the early 90's who went to West Point (so if there's anyone who should be inculcated with American values you'd assume it'd be a newly-minted West Pointer), and he'd talk about being an "Aztec warrior" and Atzlan, and how he was a Mexican first and foremost.

I was also disturbed by the accepted presence of the La Raza gangs in the military, which the authorities knew about and didn't do anything to stop.

I'm not saying that most Hispanics in the military are not patriotic and dedicated to the US, but instead that it's scary how many seem to have divided loyalties, which is real disturbing when compared to the general population (where you might expect some of this separatist nonsense).

Comment Posted By Publius On 3.05.2006 @ 12:27

WHAT'S WRONG WITH UNITED 93? JUST ASK DANA

Johnmonkey - you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and obviously if you didn't like it, that's a matter of taste.

But I think that the concept is that Greengrass filmed the movie based on what actually happened, or as much of it as they could put together. So, the cell phone calls (which Joe Morgenstern at the Wall ST. Journal in his review called the most contrived even though they were true) are based on transcripts, and apparently it really did take them that long to rush the cockpit.

My understanding is that he tried to keep things in real time. So obviously as the audience you'd love for them to have moved faster (somehow wishing that it'd turn out differently), but it doesn't. Similarly, I've also read that the way the plane moved, banked, shook, etc. was all based on the flight data and a review of the Sept. 11 report. So, he really is trying to be accurate and not affect the pacing to make it more Hollywood.

Comment Posted By Publius On 1.05.2006 @ 12:58

"Weary chuckle?" Maybe I saw this movie in a different part of the country than the Slate reviewer (in fact I'm pretty sure of that), but you could have heard the proverbial pin drop in the theater when I saw it.

There were no chuckles, in fact there was dead silence, except maybe for a sniffle or too.

I felt like I had air sickness after watching the movie.

If people were laughing in the theater they must be the type who think that Bush reading "My Pet Goat" is hilarious and somehow a meaningful insight into the man.

Rick, thanks for dressing her down. My only problem with the movie is that the people who need to see it will not. But maybe it will buck up those who do see it but have been flagging, and help them realize that we are in fact in a war, and one that we'd better win.

Comment Posted By Publius On 30.04.2006 @ 22:26


 


Next page »


Pages (2) : [1] 2


«« Back To Stats Page