PDA

View Full Version : Hollywood please just make movies.



VirtualAce
03-20-2006, 12:52 AM
Well in the past 6 months I've gone to two movies that were nothing but one side's view of how the other side's view is going to destroy this or that.

C'mon when I go to a movie I don't want to watch C-Span or the Presidential Debate and I don't give a ........ about the actor's, director's, or janitor's political view, shoe size, clothing preference, or anything else related to their life. Most of the actor's in the public limelight border on insane so why should I give a crap about what they think. In fact, I don't give a crap about what they think.

So just make movies and stop trying to prove a point. Please....just make movies because you are good at that......you are not good at making the theatre a political platform.

anonytmouse
03-20-2006, 02:52 AM
Which movies? Actors have been voted as governors of California and Minnesota as well as President, so maybe people do care about their politics. Wikipedia has a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actor-politicians). Theatre has been used to raise political and social issues for thousands of years.

sand_man
03-20-2006, 02:56 AM
Which movies? Actors have been voted as governors of California and Minnesota as well as President, so maybe people do care about their politics. Wikipedia has a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actor-politicians). Theatre has been used to raise political and social issues for thousands of years.

You will only ever see that happen in America. ;)

SlyMaelstrom
03-20-2006, 03:05 AM
You will only ever see that happen in America. ;)

Monty Python did political satire. It's not just a US thing, it's global... except for some countries in the Middle East and Central America, where they kill you for saying something negative about their leaders.

I personally agree, though, Bubba. Somewhere during the Bush administration, the average joe in america decided that they would be more political and side with one of the parties (though, they declare they're moderates) and all the sudden the demand for politics boomed. Except, god forbid they sit down and watch the real news, they need action movies and fake news comedy shows to tell them what is true.

Brian
03-20-2006, 04:57 AM
Yeah everything should be apolitical. Also we should just have one leader who decides what's best for all of us because politics sucks.

BobMcGee123
03-20-2006, 05:49 AM
I enjoy homosexual cowboys.

Which is why I voted Bush.

Thantos
03-20-2006, 08:50 AM
Well in the past 6 months I've gone to two movies that were nothing but one side's view of how the other side's view is going to destroy this or that.

C'mon when I go to a movie I don't want to watch C-Span or the Presidential Debate and I don't give a ........ about the actor's, director's, or janitor's political view, shoe size, clothing preference, or anything else related to their life. Most of the actor's in the public limelight border on insane so why should I give a crap about what they think. In fact, I don't give a crap about what they think.

So just make movies and stop trying to prove a point. Please....just make movies because you are good at that......you are not good at making the theatre a political platform.
You know you could do something crazy like read the reviews to find movies that aren't political. Crazy isn't it?

I'm taking an intro film class and we watch "Crash" which was a really good movie that if you take a few minutes to think about you can see the message. Heck we spent around 30 minutes arguing if the cop was racist or not.

Entertainment and politics have been interwoven since the dawn of both. Heck look at the orginal Star Trek. Almost every epsoide was a solical commetary. Entertainment can be used to rewrite history too. Suffered an embarassing lose? Have some type of entertainment to distract the masses while telling them how you mercifully allowed the enemy to live.

Fordy
03-20-2006, 09:10 AM
Personally I agree with Bubba. If I wanted to learn about issues, I'll get books on them and/or read the internet. I go to the cinema to get away from reality and I donít want a bunch of overpaid, over-privileged media bods selling me their political world view.

It seems most films are more like polemics these days, which is a shame.

My advice, only go see a film if it has:

Werewolves,
Vampires,
Lycra clad women with great bodies,
Zombies,
Space Travel,
Anything related to Hobbits or Jedi.

That way, you should be un-molested. Anything else, ignore the message!

psychopath
03-20-2006, 09:50 AM
>>fake news comedy shows to tell them what is true.
Hey, easy on the fake news comedy shows. ;p

WaltP
03-20-2006, 11:40 AM
My advice, only go see a film if it has:

Werewolves,
Vampires,
Lycra clad women with great bodies,
Zombies,
Space Travel,
Anything related to Hobbits or Jedi.

That way, you should be un-molested. Anything else, ignore the message!
But most of these movies you mention are just dripping with social commentary and political statements. Especially the Space Travel movies!

LotR and Star Wars was so full of poitical/religious statements I was amazed they were in this list! They are very blatant!

How about talking animals like Narnia? Don't they belong on the list?

:rolleyes:

Fordy
03-20-2006, 11:46 AM
LotR and Star Wars was so full of poitical/religious statements I was amazed they were in this list! They are very blatant!

I always aim to amaze! :cool:

As every work of fiction is written by someone, and everyone has views, then the work will include a hint of them. If you put it formally, then pretty much every statement uttered by a human offers a point of view, but I wasnt being so philosophical as that!

I dont recall Gandalf talking about the Palestine/Israel question, and I'm damned if I have ever heard Yoda talk about Kyoto. And that's the way I like it!

Thantos
03-20-2006, 03:51 PM
I have a book on the philosophies presented in LotR. Its pretty freakin heavy actually. And most movies don't run right up and tag an issue, its all about alluding to or taking something to an extreme. But yes if you look hard enough even movies like "Spies Like Us" or "True Lies" have a social commentary.

Also from what you wrote it appears you think that books aren't biased, but really they can be even more biased.

Decrypt
03-20-2006, 06:37 PM
You know you could do something crazy like read the reviews to find movies that aren't political. Crazy isn't it?
Amen. IMO, if you're laying down your money for a product you know nothing about, then decide you don't like it - tough. With admission prices what they are today, who's going to a movie knowing nothing about it?

If I want to look at drawings purely for entertainment, I go here (nataliedee.com). If I want social commentary, I'll go here (http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons). If I don't want to look at one of these sites, I just don't go to them.

Film is a form or art. You wouldn't ask a painter, sculptor, writer, or musician to stop creating in ways that comment on some social condition, why should film be any different?

There are plenty of 'fluff' movies out there. Too many IMO. There is a market for both, so both is what we have. Like Sly said, since now suddenly people give a pseudo-f**k, there are lots of movies out there to fill that demand.

SlyMaelstrom
03-20-2006, 07:45 PM
Film is a form or art.

Film is a service industry. It's entertainment, which is why it's currently very openly political. It's the hot ticket these days and they want to service the viewers. I'm not talking about a reference to a political message in a comedy or an action movie. I'm talking about movies who's sole purpose is to get political messages across. Unfortunatly, I haven't been able to get with the mainstream appeal to political movies so I've been going to movies less, lately.

Decrypt
03-20-2006, 08:06 PM
I disagree that it's a service industry. Entertainment doesn't imply service - movies are a product of the film industry. Hollywood creates a product that we can take or leave, like Rockstar makes games we can play or not play. I don't think Rockstar employees get 1/2 off drinks and no cover on service industry night. :D
As we've both said, the market is there for politically charged movies, so here they are. If you don't like those movies, don't spend your money on them. If enough people don't spend money on them, they will go away.

SlyMaelstrom
03-20-2006, 08:11 PM
Who said the a primary attribute of a service is not having the right to choose? Of course that liberty is still available, but what makes it a service is the fact that they try to appeal to as many people as they possibly can. This is why they make movies for the majority. It's a service industry.

Every hour there is atleast one screen play turned down by a production company. Is it because the film isn't artist or is it because it won't sell tickets? That's the logic of a service.

Anyway, I'd like to retract my statement a bit. Film is an art, I agree. Movie production is a service and all the things we're seeing in the theater is a movie production.

WaltP
03-20-2006, 09:14 PM
Who said the a primary attribute of a service is not having the right to choose? Of course that liberty is still available, but what makes it a service is the fact that they try to appeal to as many people as they possibly can. This is why they make movies for the majority. It's a service industry.
So explain the deluge of movies that few go to. If the purpose is to appeal to as many people as possible, why do they make art films where only a handfull of people are interested? Why are there movies like Smoke Signals (http://imdb.com/title/tt0120321/) that only a comparatively small number of people would be interested in?

They were made to cater to the few people that like that particular "message", that style of entertainment, that director/writer's viewpoint.

What makes it a service is not that they try to appeal to as many as possible, it's that they try to appeal to a particular population segment that appreciates their message, no matter how small that population segment.

Decrypt
03-20-2006, 09:22 PM
This is really a lame semantics debate now, becuase we actually agree on the more important points. I'm not saying the service industry is about not having the right to choose. I'm saying the service industry is about providing a service. I don't consider being entertained by a film a service. I consider the movie a product I can use once (if it's in the theater). I consider bartending a service job (the bar provides the ingredients, the bartender provides quality combinations of said ingredients and timely refills of my beverage.), waiting tables (same idea), etc.

The point is, some movies are made to make you think, others are nothing but eye-candy. If you don't like one flavor of movie, don't go see it. The market will decide what kind of movies the (larger) production companies will produce. It all boils down to profit.

SlyMaelstrom
03-20-2006, 09:35 PM
How many theaters did Smoke Signals open in? Thinking back I can't remember it in theaters.

Sure, all the time movies are made with low budgets and big ideas. Sometimes they're very good, but the reason it seems like a special interest movie is because it never got the chance to be mainstream. It's a movie with small time actors, a small time writer and small time director. It was produced by a small production company most likely because big production companies didn't think it would sell. If I would guess, maybe this movie would have done well with the main stream. All the reviews seem good for it and it's got a good rating, but consider that 3,064 people voted on this movie while 8,426 already voted for V for Vendetta, which has been out for what, 3 days? What does that tell you about how many people have seen this movie. I know I've never heard of it until today,

This movie backs my latest retraction that film is an art, but unfortunately movie productions are a mainstream service.

VirtualAce
03-21-2006, 12:45 AM
Well movies could practice some discretion and discontinue blatant references to common day hot buttons like blowing up buildings, religous texts (The Quran is mentioned in several films which is ok, but mentioning any other text is not ok.....see a problem here?), terrorists, etc, etc.

There are ways to get a message acrossed albeit without directly mentioning current day events. Allusions are easy to make in movies and you do your audience a dis-service by blatantly mentioning what you are alluding to. We are not stupid and we will make the connection. But V for Vendetta was a great flick until the political crapola in the middle that A) did not add to the plot, and B) was not in the original book.

V had so much going for it. It had dialogue of which I've not seen in any movie since the old black and white movies. Most of our new movies don't have much dialogue or script and rely on flashy effects and quick camera angle changes to tell the story. The old movies didn't have this resource and as such had to actually have some dialogue between characters to get the story out. I miss that a lot. But V fell flat in it's blatant mentioning of current day events and then by taking a current event completely out of context and throwing into a movie pretending the movie setting had the same context as the event did. Bad move. You can take anything out of context and make anything appear to be true based on that 'out-of-context' distortion - but that does not make it any more true.

I think the best movie I saw last year was King Kong. Hell, the ape was the best actor I saw all year and yet they gave all the awards to much less-deserving movies. Syrianna simply won for it's controversy because I know firsthand it's camera work was so shaky you felt like puking when you left the theatre.

And reviews and trailers are no longer reliable (as if trailers ever were). Two recent movies have great trailers making the movie appear to be something it's not and the reviewers also do not do the movie justice nor describe it accurately.

It is true that any work of fiction will have some bearing on reality or some commonality - but to go so far as to mention stuff that is currently on CNN, FOX and every other news channel in a movie.......just removes the fictional element from it.

So Hollywood....we just want movies. We don't give a ........ what your political viewpoint is. And if you 'do' have to make a point, do it in a more creative way instead of relying on the latest news flash.

Dissata
03-21-2006, 01:35 AM
I had this ... suspicion this thread was spawned by V for Vendeta. I agree with Bubba, the movie was very good until the random political stupidity thrown in the middle. Ruined it for me actually. :(

Fordy
03-21-2006, 03:28 AM
From WENN



Moore: "I Want Nothing To Do with 'Vendetta' Film"

V For Vendetta creator Alan Moore is desperate to be disassociated from the screen adaptation of his classic comic strip - and is begging the producers not to credit him for his work. The cartoonist, who also conceived From Hell and The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, hates seeing his work diluted by movie-makers, and refuses to put his name to the result. He says, "I want them to say, 'We're not going to give you any money for your work, you're not going to get any credit for it and we're not going to put your name on it.' To see a line of dialogue or a character that I have poured that much emotional involvement into, to see them casually travestied and watered down and distorted... it's kind of painful. It's much better just to avoid them altogether."


He's a good bloke, Alan Moore.

Govtcheez
03-21-2006, 08:26 AM
From WENN



He's a good bloke, Alan Moore.
He's gotta be in it just for the money, though. If he saw League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and still agreed to let them do V for Vendetta, there's no way he's not.

nvoigt
03-21-2006, 08:37 AM
Actors have been voted as governors of California


Importing statesmen from Austria is overrated. Leads to disaster one way or another :)



V was pretty good I think. Yes, it was a movie. And probably worse than the (comic)book. Big flashy news. The book is better than the movie. Go figure. Never noticed that with any other movie.

Underworld Evolution was fine. Popcorn right away. Vampires, Werewolves, naked women, a lot of dead people ( they will need a completely new cast for Part III, no one but the mains survived II ).

SCARY MOVIE is next. I think that one should be free from political bull........ messages.

Govtcheez
03-21-2006, 08:47 AM
Importing statesmen from Austria is overrated. Leads to disaster one way or another :)
You are awesome :)

Fordy
03-21-2006, 01:37 PM
He's gotta be in it just for the money, though. If he saw League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and still agreed to let them do V for Vendetta, there's no way he's not.

He says he gave all if the royalty money to the artist for "V".

Thantos
03-21-2006, 02:45 PM
If he's so insulted by them making movies from his work then why even give them permission?

And I liked League of Extraordinary Gentlemen....

Fordy
03-21-2006, 03:20 PM
If he's so insulted by them making movies from his work then why even give them permission?

He doesnt have the choice. That lies with DC comics, which is why he has now quit with them after many years.


And I liked League of Extraordinary Gentlemen....

The print version of the film version? If the later then god help you!

:p

bithub
03-21-2006, 04:02 PM
He doesnt have the choice. That lies with DC comics, which is why he has now quit with them after many years.Yep, and he already stated how much he hated the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie.

BobMcGee123
03-21-2006, 05:47 PM
I just saw V for Vendetta last night. On the way home, he said that he honestly thought there was absolutely nothing politically oriented in the movie.

I hit myself in the face with a frying pan.

Thantos
03-21-2006, 06:48 PM
The print version of the film version? If the later then god help you!
Film version. What can I say, I have a nonsexual man crush on Sean Connery.

JaWiB
03-21-2006, 07:45 PM
What can I say, I have a...sexual man crush on Sean Connery.

:eek:

novacain
03-22-2006, 08:33 PM
I think that the news media has mutated into such a combo of marketing and fiction these days and this is having an opposite effect on the entertainment industry.
Movies with a political message are only being made/distributed because they make money.

No longer are news programs interested in reporting the facts in an impartial way to let the viewer decide the issue, as is the major tenant of good journalism. News programs are more interested in selling product, which can be the news program itself, a political view point or its presenters.

Look at the recent trouble a few cartoons caused. Media all over the planet said we have to publish these to protect free speech.
No one mentions that the Scientology episode of South Park was not shown in the UK as it was considered offensive to Scientologists (the 'Chef' quit over the episode...)

As to movies with a social conscience, I suppose you all hated the X Men movies as it was a commentary on racism?

VirtualAce
03-23-2006, 12:31 AM
No longer are news programs interested in reporting the facts...


Agreed, however, the movies are not exactly the definition of factual information either. It is fiction unless otherwise stated in which case it's probably exaggerated non-fiction. Getting facts from movies is not a good practice IMO.

novacain
03-23-2006, 01:31 AM
>>Getting facts from movies is not a good practice IMO.

Niether is getting the facts from news programs IMO.

A Pipa study showed over 60% of Fox News viewers held serious misconceptions about Iraq (ie found WMD). This was under 20% if you watched public/community TV (PBL?).

VirtualAce
03-23-2006, 01:55 AM
The fact that you do not quote the obvious inaccuracy of other sources is rather revealing.

I agree public radio is much more accurate than any other source, mostly because they are funded by grants and listeners and therefore are not subject to airing what sells. CNN and FOX both are so huge and have their hands in so much, they both only air what sells for their sponsors and for what supports them or the ideals of their sponsors. TV ain't cheap and I bet the overhead of both of those news agencies is enormous. They probably cannot afford to air what PBS could for fear of sponsor fallout.

At least the people on this board realize that most popular news sources are not reliable. Also that movies are just that....movies - fictional or semi-fictional accounts. But there are people out there that base their political view and world view on what the media tells them instead of doing research on their own, which is scary.

I don't support one party or the other and frankly feel both have abandoned the people of the US in favor of bigger money on both sides of the issues, while the little guys, known as the workers, continually get slapped by the corporations with lower wages, cut pensions, inadequate and/or poor or non-existent health care, and more and more. I'm quite dissatisfied with the entire government entity. However, I do love my country and since I live here I know the government is not really who we the people are......but sadly the world only sees the government and I cannot blame them for hating what they see. Hell we hate what we see but many people feel there is no way to change it. It seems no matter who is in charge, things never get better - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Both parties in the United States have lost their common ground with the average American citizen. It's a great country ran by a select few (closer to an oligarchy than a democracy) who are not so great. I don't think there is anyway we can accurately represent who we are with so many misrepresentations of the average American male or female being broadcast worldwide.

A third party would be nice but they would be squashed by the big two for fear of losing their share of the power. But we desperately need a third party to actually represent the people, the lady that gets up at 8 am and goes to work to feed her 3 children and then come home and be a full-time mom. The man that simply wants to provide a decent healthy living for his family, a solid education for his kids, and a comfortable retirement for him and his wife to enjoy. The student who works 40 hours a week to make ends meet; goes to school full-time as well and is getting deeper and deeper into debt as school programs are swept out from under him. These have been forgotten.

Govtcheez
03-23-2006, 09:17 AM
Film version. What can I say, I have terrible taste in movies.
There we go.

WaltP
03-23-2006, 09:54 AM
Agreed, however, the movies are not exactly the definition of factual information either. It is fiction unless otherwise stated in which case it's probably exaggerated non-fiction. Getting facts from movies is not a good practice IMO.
Yeah... Galaxy Quest shows what happens if you believe the media...

novacain
03-23-2006, 06:56 PM
>>The fact that you do not quote the obvious inaccuracy of other sources is rather revealing.

Which other sources and reveals what? (I don't mean to be obtuse but I don't understand what you meant)

I did not think you would know whom I ment if I mentioned Ray Martin or Today Tonight (Australia's version of O'Rielly(sp?)).

SlyMaelstrom
03-23-2006, 08:40 PM
Which other sources and reveals what? (I don't mean to be obtuse but I don't understand what you meant)

I did not think you would know whom I ment if I mentioned Ray Martin or Today Tonight (Australia's version of O'Rielly(sp?)).He means where's the mention of James Carville (or perhaps the Austrailian version of James Carville) skewing the facts. I would have to admit, it is fairly revealing for you to single out a specific party for misquotations. He continues what he meant by that statement further in his post.




Film version. What can I say, I have terrible taste in movies.There we go.Heh... and here we're talking about the media misquoting people. ;)

novacain
03-23-2006, 09:52 PM
>>James Carville

Who? From google he is a democrat spin doctor.

I mentioned only the news stations with the highest and lowest values from the Pipa survey. Seemed no point in listing them all.

But here they are...
FOX 80%
CBS 71%
ABC 61%
NBC 55%
CNN 55%
Print 47%
PBS NPR 23%

This means you can not trust about half of what you see on the news.
A very sad state of affairs. Which was my point.



The PIPA survey

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

http://www.heartheissues.com/mediaspin.html

SlyMaelstrom
03-23-2006, 10:03 PM
Those surveys have a long history of spin themselves. I personally find it humorous that people could read a media article on how the media lies to you and then believe it. :)

novacain
03-23-2006, 10:52 PM
>>Those surveys have a long history of spin themselves.

Sure. Look at the Gallup (comercial) poll on the Patriot Act compared to the PIPA version.

Gallup 69% think that the Patriot Act is 'about right'
PIPA 65% think the Patriot Act goes too far
One has to be wrong but which one.

PIPA is considered one of the more trust worthy as you can look at the questions asked and it is a not for profit organisation.

I think this can be seen from the fact that some of its directors (ie Fred Steeper) are former/current pollsters for both the Bush presidents.

BobMcGee123
03-30-2006, 05:06 PM
Everyone is missing the crucial fact that while certain media entities tend to be 'inaccurate' or 'biased' or what have you, the United States Government, on the whole, doesn't control what media you have access to (i.e. compared to china, which can censor google search results). Subsequently, you can feel free to indulge in national public radio, fox, cnn, BBC, canadian news, ethiopian news, whatever. If you accept any one single news source it's probably because of biases you already have, and therefore the problem of 'brain washing via biased media' is less significant.

And I agree with everything Bubba said in his long post above.