Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

Hollywood to America: "You're Too Stupid!"

▼

Hollywood to America: "You're Too Stupid!"

from JoeUser Forums

I actually like George Clooney as an actor. Even though I haven't seen the movie "Good Night and Good Luck", I appreciate Clooney's bringing the compelling story to the big screen. While I have NO desire to see "Syriana", I can respect Clooney's asking hard questions about current events, even if I wholly disagree with his conclusions.

What I CAN'T accept is Clooney's condescension towards the American public. He appreciates being "out of touch", and rightly points out that Hattie McDaniel's Oscar came at a time when segregation was still the norm in America. By doing so, he makes the obvious implication that current leftist agendas are morally comparable, and that those of us who do not agree are backwards, unenlightened, and/or morally inferior. We are, in other words, too stupid to think for ourselves.

In a year that saw a larger ticket sale drop than anytime in the last 25 years (1980 being the year of "Xanadu" and "The Blue Lagoon"), it is interesting that Hollywood activists would choose such a self destructive career path. While it is not improper to ask that we as a society allow others to live their lives as they choose, it is wholly unacceptable to repeatedly attempt to indocrinate us into the belief that such lifestyle choices are moral, decent, or normal. And yet producers continue to do just that on a regular basis by implicitly stating that we are too stupid to make such decisions without their assistance/input.

George Clooney may not be a spokesperson for all of Hollywood. But if Hollywood doesn't want their image cast by the likes of Clooney, I would suggest that a roll of duct tape over his mouth might be in order. But I'm guessing by the applause and acclaim that he perpetually receives, Hollywood DOES want him as their spokesman. And I'm further guessing that such decisions will further affect their box office intake.

Industry analysts will point to the home theater system as the reason for the decline in movie attendance. And it might well be a part of it. But I suggest that a larger part is a viewing public who is sick of the continual insults to their intelligence.

6,049 views 71 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Baker:
You can post your little polls, but the reason that people have shifted to home entertainment is because they are tired of gambling as much as you spend on a decent meal on a movie that is going to SUCK 80% of the time.

The reason I have stayed away from theaters is just that: $9 a head, with five paying people in my family? Only things I'm gonna shell out that kind of money for is Harry Potter, Wallace & Gromit, and March of the Penguins (which were my only three movies for 2005).
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
How about Return of the King? That made a gazillion dollars, won Best Picture, and was a Christian/WWII allegory.


Hmm...I dunno...I never made that connection.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

How about Return of the King? That made a gazillion dollars, won Best Picture, and was a Christian/WWII allegory.

I thin kit was simply the third book of the trilogy.  Just like The Two Towers was not a reference to 9-11.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
I watched the Oscars and enjoyed it. I laughed my head off at some of the funny stuff that Jon said and some of the antics of the crowd. It was all in the name of entertainment as it should be. I really think you guys are taking things abit too seriously. I didn't get that "you're too stupid" message from George Clooney at all. I didn't even read anything political into his statement. But then I wasn't looking for it. Why is everything always revolved around politics anyway? Why can't it just be something else? He made a smart comment I thought, but it didn't bother me in the least.

As for Hollywood and "those" people who are a part of that world, I appreciate them for what they do. They take people's mind of some of the more serious stuff in their lives. Sometimes it's good to laugh, and even live a bit of a fantasy through their eyes. They might be just as opinionated and as "out-there" in their views as many Americans are, and have the freedom and right to be, but what they do is what I'm more interested in, not their politics. But that doesn't say they can't let themselves be heard if they so choose.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

I like Jon Stewart. He's a super funny guy.

I am a Jon Stewart fan as well. While he and I don't agree 100% politically, he has an EXCELLENT sense of humor about it. He usually takes out both dems and republicans with equal fervor.

Shades,

When Clooney drew the comparison to Hattie McDaniel, I believe he was making it clear that he was right and the rest of us "deluded simpletons" would catch up in 20 years. That may not have been what he intended, but it's the way I took it and the way many others I know took it. If it's not what he meant, it was certainly poorly phrased.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Any particular reason why?

For the same reason I don't intend to see the Turkish film "Valley of the Wolves". If people want to make propaganda, fine, so be it. But I don't intend to watch it.

"Good Night and Good Luck" has historical merit, at least.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

I just fail to see any relation between Hollywood activism and Box Office numbers as Gideon implies

Let's break this down, shall we:

"King Kong", although it underperformed, pulled in over $200 million domestically. It was entertaining, not political. "The Chronicles of Narnia" pulled in about $300 million domestically. It was entertaining, not political. "Good Night and Good Luck" pulled in $31 million domestic. It was political. "Walk the Line" pulled in $118 million. It was not political. "Syriana" pulled in $49 million. It was political. "Brokeback Mountain" was by far the most successful of the political movies, pulling in nearly $80 million, roughly 2/3 the take of the LOWEST of my non-political examples. You can trust in your holy gods of pollsters all you want, but I think the facts speak otherwise. Could it be that maybe because politics weren't stated as a reason it wasn't at the forefront of people's minds?

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

I can't make the same case for a lot of other actors, but in general, Clooney has done some great movies;

Davad,

We agree, at least, on Clooney's acting ability. I like Clooney, we're just politically at odds.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
If I want to be entertained, I tune in to people who entertain for a living. If I want politics, I tune in to people who do that for a living.


It's all entertainment.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
You can trust in your holy gods of pollsters all you want, but I think the facts speak otherwise.


Those figures you quote are indeed facts. However, you can't compare King Kong and Chronicles of Narnia to those movies based solely on their grosses. The movies that you listed were not marketed as, or expected to be huge box office hits. These aren't movies that appeal to kids or teenagers, as Kong and Narnia were.

There were a lot of quality movies this year that didn't do huge numbers and they didn't have "political" themes.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
These aren't movies that appeal to kids or teenagers, as Kong and Narnia were.


And that's part of the problem, davad. When people go to a movie, they go to be entertained, not indoctrinated, and the movies that entertained were in relatively short supply this year.

I do believe Hollywood's box office numbers will continue to decline as the quality of home entertainment increases. But I also believe that if they want to retain the market of their faithful movie goers, they should rethink some of their production choices. Even "Good Night and Good Luck", a movie I desperately want to see, is a movie that most moviegoers aren't inclined to pick out when "Big Momma vs. Medeia" is an alternative choice.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brokeback Mountain cost 13 million dollars to make and has made 130 million worldwide- 10X the investment
Good Night and Good Luck cost 7 million, and has made 42 million- 6 times the investment

King Kong cost 207 million to make, and pulled in 216 domestically(538 worldwide)= twice the investment.
Narnia cost 210 and made 266 domestically(668 worldwide)- three times the investment.

While it is true that these movies with political agendas made less money, they also cost a lot less too. They are a lower financial risk generally speaking than the blockbusters, because lets face it, if they flop, you lose less than when something like Stealth or The adventures of Pluto Nash goes down in flames, studios end up eating hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.

A more apt comparison would have been between similarly budgeted titles rather than blockbusters vs. smaller films(because that's what the three films you are mentioning are.)

Illegal Immigrant: I don't think anyone really says to themselves, I want to go and watch a shitty, suckass movie. People generally want to see good movies, and I don't mean that in an elitist way(I am not saying everyone wants to watch "film"). I am not saying that everything has to have a message... but it should at least be competent. Your mentioning of Seinfeld is something I have to discuss. I think you misunderstood what I meant. Seinfeld is a well-written, decently acted show with plots that actually go somewhere. It's good. I am not asking for opera here. I am saying that the American public should say no to movies directed by Uwe Boll and the like. I don't expect a masterpiece every time I watch a movie, but it is a reasonable expectation that something that a studio is investing so much money into is at least somewhat worth the costs, but sadly this isn't the case. Even if the sole reason you are making a movie is to entertain, you should at least excel at doing that. For 250 million dollars, it should be the best damn movie I've ever seen.

Jilluser: We all use the platform that we are afforded to talk about the things that we find important. I mean, even at this modest level we all do it. Gideon's doing it, I'm doing it, you are doing it. To say that after you reach a certain level of reach you should automatically stop doing that is perhaps an unrealistic standard. It is part of who we all are as human beings.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

While it is true that these movies with political agendas made less money, they also cost a lot less too.

All of the movies I cited, though, were HEAVILY promoted in the media. While "Brokeback" made ten times its investments, it heavily underperformed its expectations, despite heavy media promotion, an almost browbeating attitude from supporters, and a dishonest distribution that saw it released in markets where it was guaranteed success to prop up its numbers.

I don't have anything against "Brokeback Mountain", per se. My understanding is that it's a well made movie despite being somewhat offensive to most heterosexual males. If they want to make it, make it. Just don't look down your nose and tell us how you're the enlightened ones leading us stupid peasants down the path to enlightenment.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally, I think that anyone who is influenced by the statements of any actor is in fact stupid. Enjoy their acting; their product. Just remember, at the end of the day they're just people who's opinion is no more or less important or valid than yours or mine. Hell, most of the entertainers I have met over the years we babbling idiots anyway.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry to go off topic:

How about Return of the King? That made a gazillion dollars, won Best Picture, and was a Christian/WWII allegory.

Hmm...I dunno...I never made that connection.

I think it was simply the third book of the trilogy. Just like The Two Towers was not a reference to 9-11.


Sorry, I was thinking of "Narnia", but in looking it up I found a wonderful examination of Christian overtones in LOTR...


If the study of literature shows nothing else, it shows that every author, consciously or subconsciously, creates his (or her) work after his (or her) own world view. Tolkien is no exception. "I am a Christian..." he writes, and his books show it. Christianity appears in The Lord of the Rings not as allegory--Tolkien despises that--nor as analogy, but as deep undergirding presuppositions, similarities of pattern, and shared symbols.

That there should be similarities between the presuppositions of of The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien's Catholic faith is to be expected given Tolkien's views on Christianity and myth. Regarding the gospel story Tolkien wrote, "The gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essences of fairy-stories.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally, I think that anyone who is influenced by the statements of any actor is in fact stupid.

Ahh, there's the answer. There are many stupid people out there who actually look to vocal celebrities as role models.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
And that's part of the problem, davad. When people go to a movie, they go to be entertained, not indoctrinated, and the movies that entertained were in relatively short supply this year.


Idoctrinated? Come on, you really exaggerating.

I found all the smaller films you listed (except for BB Mountain, didn't see it) very entertaining. Would my kids have found them entertaining? Not hardly. I didn't feel "indoctrinated" by any movie I saw this year. I was entertained by some, bored by others. Some of the movies I found entertaining, others would not. Are you saying that all movies should be entertaining in the same vein as Big Momma's House, or The Pacifier and appeal to everyone?
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

Are you saying that all movies should be entertaining in the same vein as Big Momma's House, or The Pacifier and appeal to everyone?

no, davad, I'm not. In fact, while I have no inclination to see Syriana, I will defend its production. It's just that if Hollywood focuses its efforts on these sorts of films they can expect their box office revenues to continue to drop. They're too demographic specific.

Frankly, I don't go to the movies because it's a 45 minute drive, and because Hollywood shows very little interest in putting out movies that my children and I can enjoy at the same time.

Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

Personally, I think that anyone who is influenced by the statements of any actor is in fact stupid.

Ahh, there's the answer. There are many stupid people out there who actually look to vocal celebrities as role models.

Funny how most of them appear to be democrats.

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
And I am arguing that it is the Big Momma's Houses and Pacifier-type movies that are killing Hollywood, not Syriana and Brokeback Mountain, just as Britney et al are killing the music industry in the long run.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Funny how most of them appear to be democrats.


Yeah, it's funny in the same way that most Republicans look to douchebags like DeLay and Cunningham as role models.

We were having a reasonable discussion about Hollywood. Leave it to you to bring partisan politics into it.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
There's nothing "Christian" about LOTR. Tolkien expressly denied it, and the legends and languages he went to for inspiration were solidly pagan in nature. He even denied it being about WW2, as well.

That's the beauty in true art. It is universal and you can see anything you like in it, and apply it different ways. Heavy handed drek only slices one way, and does it poorly, usually.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't have time to read all the responses today so if you repeat, forgive please.

All actors should read this.....Link


It is EXACTLY why they should never open their mouths about politics....they will be put on the list!
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
We all use the platform that we are afforded to talk about the things that we find important. I mean, even at this modest level we all do it. Gideon's doing it, I'm doing it, you are doing it.


That's the problem though. You and I and Gid aren't afforded the wide reaching platform they are. We aren't smooth, beautiful people who are accustomed to pretending to be something we're not (well, at least I'm not). Besides, we are debating on here. Clooney and his ilk aren't open to debate. They just spew away and plenty of their fans will eat up whatever they say. Heck, the ladies on the view said that he could stand up there and pick his nose and they would marvel at what a great nose picker he is because he is so suave.

Hey, I'm not arguing their right to do. I am just saying they risk turning off some fans. They risk having people like me who actually like their acting but have lost the inclination to put anymore money in their pockets or add to their box office draw power.

I didn't bother watching the Oscars because of that very sort of thing and because I don't happen to be gah-gah over celebrities. They are just people who do what they do well. I am equally astounded by my doctor and the lady who designed and created my drapes. They are just people who do their job really well. Plus, neither of them ever have tried to spew politics at me.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
"But I suggest that a larger part is a viewing public who is sick of the continual insults to their intelligence."

Then why were complete garbage movies such as "MR & Mrs Smith" so popular? That surely is an insult to anyone's intelligence, yet lots of people went to see it. It just proves that stupidity _is_ a common state of being, not just in America but everywhere.