Sean Penn and His Buddies Will Sink Hollywood
by Ted BaehrThe Academy Award members painted themselves as a bunch of Commie rats last night, when they applauded madly during Communist sympathizer Sean Penn’s gleeful greeting to them after winning an award for portraying an assassinated homosexual leader, “You Commie, homo-loving sons of guns!”
In the past, Penn has expressed support for Hugo Chavez, the Neo-Marxist dictator of Venezuela, and Communist dictator Fidel Castro of Cuba.
What Sean Penn and other Communist sympathizers in Hollywood refuse to recognize (at least publicly) is that American moviegoers usually reject movies that unabashedly promote a Communist or socialist viewpoint.
For seven years, MOVIEGUIDE® has been looking at the political content of the Top 250 English-language movies that open nationally each year in the United States. An examination of the domestic box office averages for movies promoting an unabashedly socialist or Communist viewpoint shows that such movies averaged only about $15.5 million and $7 million per movie from 2002 through 2008.
And, that includes the pro-Communist, socialist diatribes of Michael Moore, whose success at self-promotion leaves all other lefty filmmakers in the dust!
In fact, this year, MOVIEGUIDE® calculates that movies released in 2008 coming from a more liberal or leftist sensibility (including Steven Soderbergh’s movie honoring Che Guevara, “Mamma Mia!” and Bill Maher’s “Religulous”) averaged only $11.4 million at the box office, but that movies with more conservative content, including the new Indiana Jones movie where the villain is a spy from the Soviet Union, “Prince Caspian” and the Christian movie “Fireproof,” which attacked the porn industry, averaged $81.2 million.
American moviegoers reject the radical left and its policies. Only when the left is able to successfully hide its agenda from the American people is it able to fool America’s citizens.
Commie rats will sink the entertainment industry if Hollywood continues to listen to them and applaud their propaganda.
Note: Dr. Ted Baehr is Publisher of MOVIEGUIDE® and www.movieguide.org, which the New York Times noted is the most conservative, traditional movie review website. Dr. Tom Snyder, Editor of MOVIEGUIDE®, contributed to this article.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
140 Comments
And in the biggest scam of all, we elected a full-blown socialist into office who is ramming a socialist agenda through as fast as he can get Congress to write and vote. And still people keep saying we need to give him a chance … Is that script a tragedy or a comedy and how big is the take on this one so far?
I'm confused, at the Oscars, a movie set entirely in Mumbai that didn't mention American politics ONCE, won 8 Oscars. Oh, yeah, and that movie has pulled in $100 million in the US alone. You'd swear reading this blog that it had been Milk winning 8 Oscars and Slumdog 2 instead of the other way around.
I believe it to be the case that the corporate taxes paid by movie production companies are calculated upon the aggregate earnings over a given year. If that is, in fact, the case, then it actually makes good business sense for these companies to produce a reliable string of losers, to offset the earnings from movies that the public actually attend.
That they also get to crank out drivel that supports their political viewpoint may be merely an added bonus.
Watching these people, so oblivious to how offensive they are to most Americans, drive themselves and their industry off a cliff is fascinating. One wonders how they manage to get financing for these projects. The only reason I can think of is that they offer some kind of tax write-off an otherwise profitable investor may need. Their hubris is breathtaking. Perhaps these films are funded by money launderers or Venezuelan dictators who know the power of film? The implicit arrogant assumptions about sex, politics, stereotypes, social positions, etc., that seem to be the premises of their films, assumptions that they appear to believe potential viewers to share, are astonishing.
[...] Who knew? [...]
Having not watched the show, or caring enough to read about the results, I can't answer. Did any of the Slumdog cast or crew trash America on stage? Maybe that's the reason for the attention being paid to the others.
Will sink? I thought Hollywood was already sunk.
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
Milk lost the Oscar because it was of TV movie quality otherwise it would have won easily. If you want to win an Oscar, you have to make some attempt at quality. The next Oscar movie will be a gay communist dictator being picked on by some evil capitalist – BUT it will need to be of good quality. Nobody will watch it but the movie will send a chill up the legs of the Hollywood dbags. After winning the Oscar, they will slap themselves on the back because they brought awareness to the plight of gay communist dictators.
Everytime I see that photo of Del Toro my stomach lurches…not in a good way.
WILL SINK? HA! Everyone I know refuses to spend money with them already. While there is still participation from the masses for an escape – most people have become tired of these folks for awhile.
I believe the boat is already under the water line – the mast may still be sticking up – but their hopes are dashed.
LOL! Writer X – sorry to have duplicated – didn't read em all first
Read The Creature from Jekyll Island. All this talk about "communism" is largely a show. The evil globalist elite are the real threat and they don't care if they deal with a communist or Bush so long as they do what they are told. That is the REAL reason for this propaganda against Iran, Venezuela and Russia – they aren't going along with the plan.
"Prince Caspian" was a flop. Why do you think Disney dropped the movie. "Mamma Mia!" , on the other hand, is one of the most successful movie of the year.
Seems par for the course, movies nobody sees, seem to win these days. Slum Dog is suppose to be a good move, and The Reader as well, Micky Rorke should have won, but he didn't instead he has come back and will make movies people will want to see, and in the end, he will have the last laugh and a much better pay check. I never cared for Penn as an actor, or for that matter pay money to see anything he is in. That is just me. He is not going to have the Staying power of say Paul Neuman. In thirty years its going to be Oh that guy, the fag movie. While guys like Neuman , people will stay up to 3AM to catch one of his. I didn't watch the Ocars, I have not since Bob Hope was not MC ing the event. That is so telling, How many MC's have they had since?
Chris Johnson & WTFO: please explain how it makes good business sense for movie studios or investors to lose money on movies to save on taxes? Do you even understand how taxes work? If you invest $1,000 in a movie and get nothing in return, you can write off the $1,000 and reduce your taxable income. You would save 35% of the $1,000 in taxes (or $350). However, you still lost the initial $1,000, resulting in a net loss of $650. If you never invested the $1,000 you'd have to pay $350 in taxes, but you'd still have $650 left over.
Let's have a rational discussion on how these movies get made, not some nonsense.
How is "Momma Mia!" in any way considered a leftist movie? While not nearly as entertaining as the show, you are way off base with your comparisons.
I haven't been to a movie theatre in over a year.
Hope Sean and Del Torro are not counting on this capitalist to support their lifestyles.
Still waiting for the Great One to increase taxes on the rich to 90% (their fare share). Then we will see how long they still love him.
American moviegoers reject the radical left and its policies. Only when the left is able to successfully hide its agenda from the American people is it able to fool America’s citizens.
Nothing makes me happier to see conservatives wallow in their own overinflated egos and exalted stupidity like this. You couldn't possibly get this more wrong. Kudos! AS IF we feel like we have to hide who we are from you! ROFL! You still think we have to answer to you! You still think you have some sort of power! LOL.
If I WERE a Communist – wait for it – I WOULD SAY SO! The notion that I would feel any kind of shame about who I am is preposterous. YOU have failed this country, not me, Dr. Ted Bundy. You're not coming back until YOU (as in not me) begin to feel some shame and take some responsibility.
At last something I can agree with Sean Penn about.
Hollywood IS a bunch of commie, homo-loving sons of guns!
First off, no. Hollywood is not sinking. And despite being a conservative, I love movies and I don't want it to. And you look ridiculous stating such a thing. If none of your friends have spent any money on Hollywood recently, I would suggest you get a more exciting group of friends. I mean what do you do for fun, sit around in a circle and read The Bible to each other?
It is funny, if Sean and his buddies find Cuba and Venezeula such Paradises, why aren;t they locating at least their summer homes there. Answer: They will be stolen from them whenever it suits the dictators there.
Ditto any income they would derive. So, theres is a SLIGHT sense of hypocristy here, no?
Also, if Sean were to do some homework, he would see that there are only a handful of countries in the world that allow homosexual marriages. Cuba and Venezuela are not two of them.
Where is the outrage?????????
Imagine, Sean criticising Islam for ritual female genital mutilation and the like. Can't he find any outrage over this?
I’m amazed you Obamabots are off your knee’s seeing that the most merciful, “One,” had only finished his blessings at around 10 eastern. Your love of the Magic “O” has no bounds, blessed be the Messiah, for he has spoken, and you as a brave disciple fearlessly attack productive Americans, to be certain that your $13.00 a week are not diminished. While you mindlessly flog away where you’re not wanted, you pray for a fulfilled life of worthless mediocrity, and government servitude, that one day, maybe you can be Section eight’ed near the blessed “One.” So charge on you, “useful idiots,” and spread misery across, “the fruited plain,” and know that your love of the Imperial Federal Government is greatly appreciated, and the “O” gives you a smile, and a hearty thumbs up. Masa’ Soros says, “now, back on your knee’s slave, and grovel!
Ha-ha! I've heard of this guy. He call himself "Dr. Ted Baehr" but he's not a doctor of anything. Great. Another faux-conservative opinion from another conservative poser.
You make less sense everytime you post here. What is up, off your meds? And if you are a communist, it just means you don't know anything about history. That is nothing to be ashamed of, right?
America fought the wrong enemy in WW 2, and the chickens have come home to roost.
[...] Via Big Hollywood by Dr. Ted Baehr [...]
Funny, my nine year old daughter was so jazzed about the Caspian film. She saw Disney's first Narnia installment, and was unimpressed. "They changed it from the book" she said. (Which they did, in parts.) …But when she heard that Disney had Lucy have a crush on Caspian in the new film, she refused to see it. I had it in my hand, and sent it back to Netflix unwatched. …Heh.
That was a bit of a diversion away from the topic, but there y'go.
How is sitting in a dark movie theater with a bunch of people being quiet an exciting group of friends? When I'm out with my friends, we go to dinner and talk and laugh and have a good time. If we want something a little more exciting, we usually play board games. That way, we can still talk, laugh, and have a good time. Hollywood needs/will get none of my money for the drivel they make.
Actually, Penn and his ilk are giving self respecting communists a bad name… all of these losers go home to their Brentwood or Malibu estates and consume, consume, consume… the sheer hypocrisy is breathtaking!
That's why when you have an Ed Begly Jr you gotta respect him 'cause at least he walks the walk…
I'd love to see the criteria Dr. Baehr uses to judge a film's "political content."
Given the three choices he lists, you could also argue that two were extremely boring movies, and one featured the music of ABBA, (which may, in itself, have driven people away from it.)
There's no denial, though, that the play "Mama Mia" is a big hit, so it's not the content that is the problem. Perhaps it is the fact that the people who wanted to see it already saw it on Broadway. You don't know that for sure until you do some deeper research.
It's a bit reckless to lump disparate films together and say "this category sells" and "this category doesn't." That would be like saying, "Iron Man" and "Dark Knight" did well because their comic book-based movies, but "the Spirit" bombed because it was a comic book-based movie, and now all comic book-based movies will bomb. This kind of judgment disregards items like the quality of writing, direction, and the stars in the film.
So, Benicio flips ya' stomach?
Good Lord, now you've got thinwits pimping web sites? C'mon, John. Exercise just the tiniest amount of editorial control. You're turning the place into a virtual soap box where anyone, no matter how deluded, is welcome to rant. On the other hand, maybe "commie rats will sink the entertainment industry" is the level of discourse you both understand and are looking for. Sometimes I wonder.
Oh, wait. I get it. You were impressed because he's a 'doctor.' Heh.
They're not "losing" the $1,000, they're spending it as they wish as opposed to paying additional net taxes.
The same principle applies to corporations paying bonuses at the end of the year, or buying new company vehicles, or other equipment, etc. They pay taxes only upon the net earnings after all business expenses. In the movie business, those expenses can be lavish salaries for actors and filmakers that produce movies that need not be expected to attract audiences, at least in the American market. I have no idea if they have to include earnings overseas in their U.S. income, though I doubt it.
I'm just looking for some logic that might explain what appears on the surface to be poor business practice. What is nonsense is the constant outflow of product that does poorly at the U.S. boxoffice. That be be rationally explained if corporations wish to reduce earnings in a country that has comparatively high corporate income taxes and boost earnings in countries that have more favorable tax laws. I'm no expert in this, but I'm willing to bet that there is an aspect of this in play when decisions are being made.
Ouch–I made two mistakes in my last post. I assumed from the context that Mamma Mia was not a hit. After looking over the MovieGuide article, I see it was in the top 25 of the year.
Second, the article listed the criteria Movieguide uses. Many of its "objective" ratings depend on taking scenes (i.e., nudity) out of context, or assuming the movie projects a certain worldview that I have often found is subjective among reviewers. Not very useful, but at least now I understand the criteria.
Bozo
I'm going to guess you're not a doctor, nor a Timelord either.
Theatrics aside (pun intended), the author of this piece has a point. It's not about whether the films are entertaining, it's about what makes money. 81 million vs. 11 million, on average? The boards of directors of the big entertainment corporations don't care too much about the politics or content of the movie, they care about whether the darn thing will make a buck. Miley Cyrus is making a lot more money than Michael Moore, or Sean Penn, for that matter. So, in a time of recession (which Mr. Obama is emphasizing more every day), the films that are not certain moneymakers will just not be made. The movie moguls will go with the sure thing every time.
The politics of Hollywood are not right or left, they are the politics of money, because Hollywood is a capitalist town. Come visit sometime and see for yourself; we'd welcome your tourista dinero.
And another thing you damn kids. GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!
Everyone you know! That ought to show those supercilious Hollywood marketing muckety-mucks. "CommonSense's" friends don't patronize Sean Penn movies. He's BOX OFFICE POISON!
Are you guys M. D.s or Ph. Ds or exactly what kind of "doctors" do we have here? Movie doctors who are somehow qualified to post a warning that Hollywood will SINK? Are you kidding me? Let's have some qualifications, "Doctor", then let's have some information from some reputable sources beyond the one you write. You know, real scholars and medical doctors base their conclusions on peer-reviewed, carefully designed, research studies with control groups, etc. Why not give that a try and report back? OR…might it be too late? Blub, blub, blub, down I go….
Amen, Harley. Earth to John: what will sink Big Hollywood are nuts like Dr. Whatever ranting like it was 1950-something. Next he will be asking for "lists of names". Please….intelligent discussion. or none.
You could not make it up! Now Penn is to play Joe Wilson in the new Valerie Plame movie/PROPA-GANDA-RAMA!
No problem. Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.
In the words of my very wise Dad; The bad-seed has taken power.
I have not yet seen the movie (my wife loathes ABBA songs), so could someone please tell me what makes Momma Mia leftist?
It might be a data point that it's not necessary to promote liberal politics in order to win Oscars… but it's also a data point that the movies that make money don't trash America.
It is also another very interesting data point suggesting that "Hollywood" is sinking… it wasn't a Hollywood film. Mumbai dwarfs Hollywood in the world in any case, even though Bollywood is generally off our radar.
It's worthwhile to point out that what determines a movie's profit isn't what it brings in, it's also what the movie cost to make. So Fireproof is arguably more successful than most of the top 25 because of its return on investment.
It's also worthwhile to point out that many movies make more money on DVD rentals than they do in theatres, so this "report" ignores the true gross of these movies.
You really identified with Lucy in those old Charlie Brown cartoons, didn't you? I can see you now… pounding your fists… crossing your arms… face turning red… kicking things…
"Listen, all of you! You've got to take direction! You've got to have discipline! You've got to have respect for your director!"
THanks for the meMORies!
Commie rats have an unraveled ability to destroy everything good. You are right on, Dr. Baehr. I am a fellow contributor to Big Hollywood and I write a lot on the subject of coummie/leftist infiltration of Hollywood and their destructive power. http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?s=Kochar
Agreed, Ed does what he says, which is more than you can say for the rest of the twerps.
Well if you think being physically ill upon seeing such a visage as HIS is good? I mean hey maybe you Cuneo also have an addiction to Exlax? Visual exlax….Del Toro …I think it works.
wow… no one has overinflated egos quite like the left- they're absolutists- and therefore cannot see their own stupidity. Stalin, when asked what weapon the west had that he most coveted said "Hollywood'"…
they routinely hide leftist messages and deny a voice to mainstream America. I know- I worked there…
Prince Caspian was only a "disappointment" because the first Narnia movie was so wildly successful. Caspian is still a blockbuster by any standard. Not surprisingly, rival studio Fox quickly picked up the franchise.
In retrospect, Caspian was hurt because it was released around the same time as Iron Man, which appeals to the same audience. Incidentally, the blockbuster success of Iron Man proves Movieguide's research that conservative films do WAY better than Far Left fare.
you betcha, buddy… and twerps is being kind…
As humorously portrayed in "An American Carol," liberals like Penn won't dare criticize Islam for fear of being beheaded.
So much for being "courageous."
Good article except you forgot to mention the Anti War movies which have one after another lost money. __Yet I understand a movie is being made of Navy Seal, Marcus Latrelle's, heroic autobiographical Lone Survivor which will make a "killing" at the Box Office.
I think Dr. Baehr's report may have hit too close to home for some people. If you think "conservative = lousy flop," then you're truly shocked that the superb blockbuster Dark Knight really leans right.
you call that a comeback?
I'm not going to take being referred to as an Obamabot by polesmoking Republican fluffers like yourselves. Really, you people could not have inserted yourselves farther up George Bush's Freedom Canal and you think that you're making some kind of point with your fake alarm over the popularity of Obama. You're not convincing anyone besides yourselves.
The One, huh? Ok, bootlickers.
He's off to a good start bitching about "commies."
"…exactly what kind of "doctors" do we have here? Movie doctors who are somehow qualified to post a warning that Hollywood will SINK?
Hey, Sheldon…
Dr. Baehr holds a degree in literature from Dartmouth and a Juris Doctor from the New York University School of Law, as well a resume that includes director of the television center at the City University of New York.
Took 15 seconds to find this information, dumbass. (For future refence, it's called Google. You'll have to find it on your own, tho.) Somehow I'm guessing you really aren't that concerned with credentials. Last I checked Sean Penn barely escaped high school with a diploma, so…
No I don't call it a 'comeback'. It was an observation. It obviously found ground with you as you seemed to have overcorrected.
So if conservative movies are making more money than movies from teh far left as DOCTOR Ted Baehr concludes, doesn’t that contradict Big Hollywood's mission to prove that unwashed Chavez-loving commie liberals control the entire entertainment industry?
Or is it that Big Hollywood has to superimpose liberal smackdown scenarios ("And Slumdog wins! Milk's feeling the snub." Wait, what?) onto any event before they can relax and enjoy. But at least, in their emotional crippled way, they're having fun.
No, no, Lola, I was making a reference to The Usual Suspects, when during the police investigation, BDT says, "I'll flip ya'."
"LEFT LEANING; newspapers, tv and cable news, radio talk shows, and Hollywood are all tanking. For 8 years they
tore apart an economy that had one of the best unemployment numbers on record. They showed their hate for
Bush whenever they could, truth be dammed. Now they are paying the price for it and it's about time.
"…doesn’t that contradict Big Hollywood's mission to prove that unwashed Chavez-loving commie liberals control the entire entertainment industry?
Not remotely. It's a matter of public record that liberals control the entire entertainment industry. (Literally. Check the campaign donations ratio.) They just know what side their bread is buttered. Truly conservative movies slip through from time to time (Dark Knight, 300, Passion of the Christ) but the bulk of films Ted Baehr is talking about could also be termed traditional, family-friendly, non-liberal movies.
Hollywood is still capable of entertaining. They have to be in order to support their addiction to message movies that don't make a dime but do give them a false sense of purpose in life.
I have seen 2 movies in the town theatres this year: Gran Torino and Taken, both great. Gran Torino was, in fact, magnificent.
I watched 'Apocalypso' via DVD at a friend's home… he is of the opinion that it is a work of genius. Truly, it is most beautiful. I will never forget the images of the glittering walls of leaves.
It is a great mystery to me as to why there continues to be money for a George Clooney rant against Amerikkka. Perhaps it is a combination of being able to feed off bloated 'expenses', plus people will put up money to invest in a Clooney movie because they get to meet the glamorous acting crew? If so, then we may see such silliness disappear as such investors recede to the breadlines.
Anyway, I think much of the really good work is going on in series TV. Example? NCIS. Foyle's War. The Closer.
This Big Hollywood site, by the way, is expensive for me. Amazon has just received ANOTHER list of DVDs that I want to purchase, all because of reviews on this site.
I think because the mom was promiscuous and does not know which of three men is the father of her child—and whatever stems from that that might glorify her lifestyle, rather than giving her daughter a father. I have not seen the movie, because I love ABBA songs, and my ears still hurt from hearing Brosnan destroy one in a clip. So, just a guess.
Heather, part of me wants to suggest you try your local library, where movies are often borrowed for free; but that is where I get films of people I don't want to get my money (Julia Roberts, Clooney) sometimes even they make a decent film…..
try half-ebay.com for some deals, and enjoy! While I know quite a bit about classic cinema, even I have learned a bit from this website.
Nope. The success of conservative films is the result of moviegoer support not who runs Hollywood.
For example, Hollywood eagerly promotes gay "romance" films while still freaking out over a Black actor kissing a Black actress. This is amusing since Black romance films on average are more lucrative than gay "romance" films. However, due to racism and heterophobia, many Hollywood bigwigs can't accept these trends in moviegoer tastes. So, Tinseltown keeps pushing Far Left films that their audience doesn't like.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Every time I hear a Shawn Penn or Bill Maher wax poetically about how stupid Yale and Harvard grad Bush is, I always wonder just what their educational credentials are, if any. There was once a time when you had to have achieved some educational standing to be taken seriously. High school class clown doesn't qualify. BTW If they want to make a movie about what's happening right now in the financial meltdown, they should check out a book I read called A Distant Crossing. Fiction has become fact.
Ed is also humble about his beliefs and lifestyle. You won't catch him on a soap box, telling people he is better than them. He believes energy conservation is the best way, then lives that lifestyle. It's a very effective way to forward your cause.
My family and I recently finished watching the entire run of Little House on the Praire. The final episode proved to be one of the best. How refreshing it was to watch a show which promoted the sacrifice of our forefathers, the importance of property and the value of doing the right thing in the face of dire consequences.
I wish Hollywood understood that I want to see more programming like that, not pro-commie garbage. The only thing I've seen remotely close in recent years was Jericho. That show stirred my pride in America.
BTW, Fireproof rocks! It'll challenge any husband to be better.
Funny how Liberals always tell us that Conservatives are against higher-education, yet the second someone with one writes or says something they disagree with, it's the first thing they attack. Just like with minorities, who are called any number of hateful slurs by the "Tolerant Left" when they don't think "the correct way."
I love it! Sean is the anchor that Hollywood is clutching to its bosom as sinks to the bottom. Good riddance.
I see where people are mourning the fact that a wholesome film like 'Caspian' did not do as well at the box office as predicted. Ironically, I see 'Caspian' as a success story. I saw the film and – trust me – it deserved not to do well because it was not a well made film – poorly acted, directed, lousy dialogue, timing, etc. Yet, with all that going against it, the film made a very good profit. Why? Because the audience for wholesome, decent films that honor moral values, faith and which have respect for the audience will sell no matter whether they are well made or not. THIS is the fact which Sean and his ilk are utterly blind to. Which is why Sean and his ilk are sinking Hollywood to the bottom of the ocean.
Good. I couldn't think of a bunch of jerks who better deserve their fate. Bon voyage!
Welcome to BH ! Hope to see your articles often.
Benicio Del Toro was in a movie called "Christopher Columbus: The Discovery" where he gets speared to death. That was the 2nd best part of the movie. The best part were the naked native women….
This is classic "whistling past the cemetary" blather. Or maybe TEHSTUPID really is. Or maybe it depends on what the definition of is "is". Or….
I watch everything from Saw to Amelie to I am Legend to Born into Brothels to the Wrestler, but there are plenty of movies that I won't watch. Anything with an obvious agenda. I and the public have seen enough of Syrianna, Sicko and Che to last an eternity. Judging from the poor box office receipts so has everyone else. I'm not a bible-beater with only a passing interest in films outside of religious films. Nor am I a movie-going teenager buying a ticket to the latest crapfest action flick. I have a varied taste, but I won't give any money to Redford, Sarandon, Clooney, Penn and all the hatemongers who forcefeed their agendas via their crappy films.
On a side note, the latest Friday the 13th remake (aren't they all remakes really??) made more money in one weekend than MILK, The Reader and Frost/Nixon will make in their entire run combined. That's gotta frost them.
Sorry, I gotta laugh anytime anyone asserts that "Dark Knight" is a conservative film. I know some columnist claimed that Batman = GWBush, but I didn't think anyone actually took that seriously.
All the elements of that film have been explored in the comics since the '40s, so it's a mistake to push "conservative" or "liberal" absolute values on the movie.
The one new item (and the one I think conservatives can claim) might have been the cell phone monitoring computer batman used to monitor the entire city at once. However, he recognized the moral trap and destroyed the device once the danger was over (which is a conclusion that liberals can use to claim "Dark Knight" as a liberal film).
Des! I get that, and I have no problem with any group reviewing movies according to their own world view. But two things. John Nolte wouldn't take the man's organization seriously if you put a cap gun to his head. But worse? My primary complaint is with the astonishingly stupid "commie rats' line of thinking, and it's a stretch to call it thinking. It's the worst kind of generalization, if only because it betrays an almost complete lack of familiarity with the town (I can say with some surety that folks here are much more interested in money than Marx), and is the kind of thing that incites people to absurd and sometimes dangerous degrees.
How'd you like the comment about America 'fighting the wrong enemy' in WWII? That's what this kind of stuff leads to.
"Judging from the poor box office receipts so has everyone else:"
Sicko: Production Budget: $9 million / Worldwide gross: $35,767,758
SYRIANA: Production Budget: $50 million / Worldwide gross: $93,974,620
You are absolutely correct, but what I find hilarious is that communist regimes tend to criminalize homosexuality. The hypocrisy and stupidity of Sean Penn and his followers doesn't surprise me, but I do love pointing it out!
Under the article title one may click on the author's name that is underlined in red. If you click on Dr. Baehr's name underlined in red his resume comes up.
Probably the longest resume of anyone writing for this site. I have read his articles elsewhere. Most conservatives know who he is.
It was so long this comment section wouldn't allow me to post it all.
no doubt- yet one of the funnier Simpson parodies has Begly driving off in a car powered simply by 'his sense of self esteem'… he has been a responsible and serious advocate of his beliefs and deserves respect.
thanks for using the words "commie rats" I use it on occasion myself- just to see the startled look on peoples faces !
Sarah, Not interested in the politics of the article but merely wanted to point out that Narnia grossed $419, 651,413 worldwide in 16 weeks after costing approx. $200 million to make. All the profits from Home DVD's and game sales are not included in this total.It is becoming more aparent recently why Disney chose to drop the movie particularly the pressure they received after marketing the first Narnia untraditionally to the christian community. The fact that it made this amount of money despite PC overkill speaks volumes to the market for spiritual family entertainment. Fox has no such qualms and there will be more artistic freedoms to make the movie closer in intent to the original text I believe. Final word: Disney were complete idiots to drop this franchise and they know it now.
As a Christian who LOVES to read God's Word, especially in groups of friends, I would have to say that: yes, reading the Bible is fun!
Of course, to me so is watching Christian movies such as Fireproof, or movies based off Christian licenses, such as The Chronicles of Narnia, or geeky movies that have comic book heroes, giant robots, fantasy or sci-fi.
So was Taken.
So what's your point exactly? That you have to watch movies to be considered exciting? I don't need useless drivel thrown into my cranium to have an exciting life; as much as I LIKE those movies, I don't need them. Our Creator has plenty of excitement for me
Rexter is right. "The Creature from Jekyll Island" is an AMAZING book. If you think Bush or Obama or Republicans or Democrats are really in control, you're wrong. The ultimate power in this country is weilded by the banking cartel known as the "Federal Reserve". Peter Jennings even ADMITTED this on the air (probably by mistake) back when W took office; the first thing W did was meet with Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, whom Peter Jennings referred to as "the most powerful man in America".
Late reply, but have to agree with neocon – the attempt to label Mamma Mia as a "leftist" movie is spurious at best. BORING – yes! Longest two hours I ever spent anywhere. Turned to my wife afterwards and told her "Now you have proof positive of how much I love you!"
Where does it say anything about Slumdog Millionaire in the article? That's right, nowhere. The article is about the audience applauding Sean Penn's remarks. Nice try attempting to avoid that argument. Next you'll probably bring up Joe the plumber.
I quit going to the movies a few years ago. These idiots don't get any of my money. I'm waiting for Obama to put a $500,000 cap on those idiots for a years worth of play acting.
Moderation? Why? It's because of the "brown shirt" crack, huh. Sorry!
Wow, I'm humbled…I prostrate myself before the administrator…."I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy…"
I did that at Fantasia one time….great animation, LOOOOOOONNNNGGGGG. Fell asleep in the aisle…embaressing…
As for me, if the movie is entertaining, I'll watch it. If the movie's message / agenda / presentation style falls over the line I call "offensive", I won't watch the movie – in the theater or at home.
Let's leave Hollywood out of this argument. I don't cast blame at an entire city associated with the entertainment industry; I'm much more precise in tattoo-ing individual actors and producers as social misfits and merchants of trash.
To Penn, Moore, and whoever ; ) my best wishes in whatever you do. But don't lose any sleep waiting for a royalty check for when I watched any of your crap.
That would explain the runaway success of BigYahtzee.com. And that would also explain you're over here posting instead of over there.
So you're saying you don't believe in the market. You think big brother should dictate their earnings based on what you think their public worth is rather than the dollars they bring in? Hm.
I agree. Who finances these propoganda pcs? It is clearly someone who doesn't care if he loses money and no one bothers to watch the likes of Rendition, Milk, etc. No one goes and yet these expensive turkeys still get made – it can't be Soros financing them all?
Wait. This conflicts totally with what my Secret Obama Decoder Ring told me. I got something about badger taxidermy… and frozen yogurt. I think.
No, skillet's telling me I'm all wrong. Never mind.
Well, I didn't claim the guy is agenda-free (or even a particularly great thinker). I was just responding to the knee-jerk reaction that he shouldn't be writing here. I think that perspective is really important (although I could live with some toned-down rhetoric), because it allows us to ask the questions (and possibly get a few answers). It's not the generalizations that incite people, it's the segregation from those who think differently that allows them to easily depersonalize the individuals or groups. It's easy to hate someone you don't know (or want to know). That's why I find some groups on the Left particularly distasteful. Dennis Prager was speaking about an East Coast "Intellectual" he knew (a female writer) who told him that she'd "never met a Conservative."
Seriously, anyone who is that vapid and shallow shouldn't be writing for a living, they should get a real job (or at least make an effort to seek out people who disagree with them so they can find an understanding of the perspective). People who seek out a bubble of like-minded individuals in order to exlude those they disagree with are the very definition of a bigot.
Did you know that prisoners use a lot of bolded words and caps when communicating with the outside world? I think it shows deep frustration.
Batman has always been considered a Conservative super-hero (just as Superman is). He believes in black and white justice (no shades of gray). He will do practically anything to go after criminals, and isn't particularly concerned with the niceties of the judicial system (like miranda rights and roughing up criminals apprehended in the act). He also shows the good side of corporations, because of the good they can do with the money they generate (not just his crime-fighting persona, but in the charitable things supported by him and his father before him).
There is nothing Liberal about him, although I'm not a big proponent of worrying about an author's intentions behind the making of a film. It's a film people can get behind who feel that justice isn't often done in the case of criminals because of a legal system that has been bankrupted by lawyers and feel-good policies of the politicians who use the poor and disenfranchised to get elected.
Let's not forget that Sean Penn beat the crap out of Madonna back when they were married. Woody Allen, the exalted director started banging his daughter and then married her. Bill Maher was sued by an ex-girlfriend he verbally abused by calling her racial slurs…the list goes on. Would you be friends with any of these types of people in your lives?
These people are the worst. Why anyone would waste anytime listening to a mindless simpleton like Sean Penn is beyond me. His good work ended with Jeff Spiccoli. Now he's just a nuisance.
Agreed. The bubble has its place. But when it becomes an end in and of itself? That's when your brain starts to wilt.
Is there anyone out there that is willing to put the money up to produce movies American families want to watch? Excluding the current Hollywood folks that speak against America in roles would be helpful. Is this unrealistic? Is the issue that no conservative has the money or not willing to challenge Hollywood? Thoughts? I hear many complaining about the current "stars" and choice of movies but there doesn't seem to be much of a choice. Is there some "secret" or "game" us outsiders do not understand? Just trying to make sense of what I see and hear.
I was actually surprised that Slumdog beat Milk. My theory is that if the margin between the technical or creative quality of two films is wide enough, then the politics of the lesser film won't justify the win.
Maybe it's a result of the backlash after Crash won in 2005. Creatively, it was below mediocre, but saturated with the right political messages to push it over the top.
Still skulking around blogs for those who share an opposing view? Are you so full of yourself that you honestly can't resist correcting anyone who believes differently than you?
"Nothing makes me happier to see conservatives wallow in their own overinflated egos and exalted stupidity like this."
If you honestly meant this you would remain silent and let us continue "wallowing". Fact is it's your ego that needs constant stroking otherwise you would not be here correcting our backwards thinking. You may not be ashamed of who you are but you certainly seem to take pleasure in trying to make others feel ashamed for disagreeing with you. You need counseling IMO.
I believe that 'Bammy ring said… er, uh…well, uh, ya know, urp…ya er Saul Alinsky says…er ummm. yep. Thank you, GOODNIGHT L.A.! You've been mahvelous!
Then you vote "present"
I’m sorry Mr. STUPID, you jump to the defense of Barry so fast, I thought for sure you, well love, “his Majesty. You haunt a conservative “blog, complaining incessantly always giving advice on how it should be, so I assumed you were the loyal opposition, I guess you just wanna be a, -(you pick the verb)! ? As far as “W,” is concerned a decent man, but a Washington politician to the core and loves government as much as any worthless lefty. Not trying to convince anyone it’s just fun to play with any government loving Myrmidon.
As an avid comics fan for 30+ years, I can assure you that it is not the case that Batman has always been considered a conservative hero. I could go back and cite '50s and 60s comics where Batman and the Wayne Foundation worked to rehabilitate criminals, not just imprison them. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that conservatives tend to believe that criminals should be given maximum sentences to protect the public, and are skeptical about any kind of reformation, unless it's religion-based). But that's only tangential to the "Dark Knight" discussion.
I think there are some common misconceptions about what liberals believe (and of course I must say that I don't speak for all liberals, just the ones I know). Liberals do believe in some cases that there is black and white justice, good and evil. We are just as happy when he puts the Joker or the Scarecrow behind bars, because they are presented as evil and irredeemable. (Batman's relationship with Catwoman has–since her first appearance in 1939–been much more complex and doesn't fit in the Good vs. Evil model.
As for the Wayne Corporation being a model corporation, that's true. But Wayne Enterprises and Stark industries are really examples of what liberals would like corporations to be. (And notice in "Dark Knight" the chairman of the board was corrupt and misusing W.E. assets).
As for roughing up criminals, that's true. But he draws the line at killing even the Joker, and he never, ever uses a gun.
See–Dark Knight is a almost a Rorschach test. You can see liberal and conservative viewpoints in it. So I just don't think claiming the movie for one side or the other works. It was just a good story told well. (IMHO)
Do you know what a "Juris Doctor" is? It's a law degree, the same one any ambulance chaser or divorce hack has. One can get a "doctorate" in law, of course, after getting a "juris" and a "masters" after that … but Mr. Baehr has neither. (Got that from Google.) I have no problem with anyone expressing an opinion, merely one's attempt to elevate that opinion above others by embellishing one's credentials. It's kinda dishonest. And BTW, I think Sean Penn is an ass.
"If I WERE a Communist – wait for it – I WOULD SAY SO! "
Awesome. Could you do me a favor and install the same sense of hubris in the clueless plastic mannequin you just installed in the White House? Because, were he to admit as much, it would certainly make his poll numbers plummet even faster than the machinations of his own reckless stupidity have (psst — now lower than – wait for it – George W. Bush's at this point in his presidency!).
As a lover of my country, I'd really appreciate it if this vapid, hyper-corrupt, shortbus-riding garbage were shoveled out of Washington as soon as possible. Thanks in advance.
I love "Dark Knight," and Clint Eastwood and John Wayne and Ted Nugent for that matter. My point was simply that this Baehr guy is not a "doctor" of anything. So what good is his report when he's not who/what he says he is?
"That would explain the runaway success of BigYahtzee.com. And that would also explain you're over here posting instead of over there. "
That would be super-snarky-cool, except for a few tiny problems. Like the domestic revenues of Hollywood are in the toilet and, for social as well as technological reasons, will never, ever recover. And, dude, seriously — who the hell goes to movies with friends and then crows about it as some kind of "exciting" social experience? Are your friends that incredibly boring that you have to go somewhere where communication is prohibited in order to "have fun"?
Ever heard of a bar? Try alcohol some time — it'll liven you up and make you less of a constipated preening jackass.
Well, maybe not the constipation part.
No, I'm pretty sure he's saying that he's going to enjoy the schaudenfraude of watching Plastic Jesus stick it to the very same Renfields that have been ceaselessly on their knees for this populist, "stick-it-to-the-man" bread-and-circuses vampire. And I concur.
But that's just me. Guess I've just got more experience interpreting the pretty unambiguous intent of conservative blog posts than you do. You'll get there.
But maybe you're right. I mean, it's not like he expressed his "vote" in the free market by admitting his choice to boycott Hollywood in the first two sentences of the very same post to which you were referring. Oh, wait…
"I have no problem with anyone expressing an opinion, merely one's attempt to elevate that opinion above others by embellishing one's credentials."
Agree wholeheartedly.
Now why, exactly, was Barack Obama — a guy who had never held a job until a few weeks ago — elected to be President of the United States again?
Actually he has a legitimate organization that has reviewed and categorized movies for quite some time. Obviously his group uses their subjective standards for classifying the movies, but the results are interesting. It's a claim that Christian groups have made for years (that family movies do much better), and drives people crazy about Hollywood (i.e. why do they constantly make movies that seem determined to lose money, but also happen to fit many people's spoken political agenda?). It's perfect fodder for Big Hollywood exactly because it's the kind of thing that seems counter-productive to people who understand business. Thus, people who approve these projects are either dense, or they're doing it on purpose (at least that's what it seems).
just words…
"Che, Mamma Mia, and Religulous averaged only $11.4 million at the box office" Really? Sounds like Conservative math to me. The three films total domestic box office was 158 million, divide that by three and you get what? 52.6 million. Must be that "Voodoo Economics" that HW Bush was talking about.
And what about this nugget, "…such movies averaged only about $15.5 million and $7 million per movie from 2002 through 2008. And, that includes the pro-Communist, socialist diatribes of Michael Moore"? Really?
Mr Moore's three films from those years, Bowling, Fahrenheit, and Sicko ALONE made a combined total of 166 million domestic, which is an average of 55 million dollars.
The author is purposefully bunching Mr. Moore's HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL documentaries in with other films he deems "promoting an unabashedly socialist or Communist viewpoint" (films he doesn't list by name or provide numbers for, here or on his amusing, little website) from a six year period in order to make it appear as though Moore's films were not as successful as the FACTS prove them to be. In FACT, Mr. Moore's "Fahrenheit"is still, by far, the highest grossing documentary film in the history of cinema, both domestically and worldwide. In FACT, it is sill more successful than EVERY Christian-themed movie (with the exception of Gibson's Passion)
And really, Mr. Baehr, "Commie Rats?" I thought red-baiting went out of style even long before the end of the Cold War? You're a walking anachronism. A dinosaur. Impotent and obsolete, you're a cranky old fogey whose time in limelight has long since passed. You'd think in your what, 80 (90?) years of life, you would have developed a stronger moral core as opposed to the rotten core you've developed by skewing statistical data in order to convince others that your paranoid delusions are, indeed, true. (Oh, how ethical and Christ-like of you!) And to think that Mr. Penn was making fun of you,,,and your brethren, too.
Sources: Media By Numbers, Box Office Prophets, Box Office Mojo. I wonder where he got his, the Focus on the Family website OR, did he just make them up OR, does he have a faulty calculator OR, is he using some archaic system found on a piece of Papyrus with Yahweh's signature at the bottom and has yet to get the hang off this Godly system of percentages? Again, I can't help but wonder, and I can help but ask, what would Jesus do?
I know Benicio kinda looks like Che', and NO, they don't all look alike, stop it! (I'm half Mexican, and I AM a MexiCan, not a MexiCan't!) Does Sean "Commie Kisser" Penn look like Harvey Milk? Can there be two similarly weird looking dudes from Cali in the same century? Someone ask THESTUPID…he seems intimately involved wih maleness and the love there of.
That and Penn and his ilk not so secretly admire totalitarian rule, ya know, for all the "little people". Like his yardman, asst. yardman, gardener (he likes flowers, lots of flowers!) maid, butler, driver, poolboy (for the ol'lady, wink, wink!) cook, footman, man servant, valet, wash maid, accoutants helper, make up artist, personal trainer (aerobic), personal trainer (free weights), personal trainer (machine weights), administrative assistant, assistant dishwasher, car wash boy (for the pool boys day off, ya know for the ol' lady, wink, wink!) guy to rake thesand on the front beach (it's SOOO pre 9/11 to have a lawn, you have beach, ask Babs!), limo driver, guy to drive the hybrid over to the next block so Sean can exit limo, enter hybrid, drive one block, exit hybrid,….."it's SOOOO hard to get GOOD help these days….
Ernie, prisoners also use code words to pass instructions to their "homies" back in the barrio. TEHSTUPID is also saying…hold on, gotta break the code here…umm, he wants somebody to feed his pet chicken crayons and something about Mickey Roarke (his spelling, I only break code, not correct it!) in 9 1/2 Weeks…nude scene..move outta the way stupid Kim girl…lemme see…Man o' man, did ya see the back of the "A" section, uh NYT, ya New Yo, no LA Times…room to let, no rent, no, renter wanted, cosy cell, warm companionship. No fatties or drugies..WHAT TEHSTUPID? Discriminating?
Funny how Liberals always tell us that Conservatives don't respect higher-education, yet the second someone with such an education writes or says something they disagree with, it's the first thing they attack. Just like with minorities, who are called any number of hateful slurs by the "Tolerant Left" when they don't think "the correct way."
I had a thought about Mr. Penn just now. His Oscar speech about gay marriage was edited out of the broadcast in parts of the Islamic world. If it wasn’t, would Mr. Penn accept the fact that he did something to make Muslims hate us if some of them attacked us again?
Pete, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
I do believe in the markets, I'm just waiting for this administration to stick their nose on more places it doesn't belong. I don't want them tell anyone how to live or what they should be able to make if they produce a product people will buy. I don't have to buy their product if I don't want to.
[...] Sean Penn and His commie loving leftist Buddies Will Sink Hollywood Sean Penn and His Buddies Will Sink Hollywood [...]
Really Fred? Because Movieguide's supposed research is complete B.S.
"Che, Mamma Mia, and Religulous averaged only $11.4 million at the box office" Really? Sounds like Conservative math to me. The three films total domestic box office was 158 million, divide that by three and you get what? 52.6 million. Must be that "Voodoo Economics" that HW Bush was talking about.
And what about this nugget, "…such movies averaged only about $15.5 million and $7 million per movie from 2002 through 2008. And, that includes the pro-Communist, socialist diatribes of Michael Moore"? Really?
Mr Moore's three films from those years, Bowling, Fahrenheit, and Sicko ALONE made a combined total of 166 million domestic, which is an average of 55 million dollars.
The author is purposefully bunching Mr. Moore's HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL documentaries in with other films he deems "promoting an unabashedly socialist or Communist viewpoint" (films he doesn't list by name or provide numbers for, here or on his amusing, little website) from a six year period in order to make it appear as though Moore's films were not as successful as the FACTS prove them to be. In FACT, Mr. Moore's "Fahrenheit"is still, by far, the highest grossing documentary film in the history of cinema, both domestically and worldwide. In FACT, it is sill more successful than EVERY Christian-themed movie (with the exception of Gibson's Passion)
And really, Mr. Baehr, "Commie Rats?" I thought red-baiting went out of style even long before the end of the Cold War? You're a walking anachronism. A dinosaur. Impotent and obsolete, you're a cranky old fogey whose time in limelight has long since passed. You'd think in your what, 80 (90?) years of life, you would have developed a stronger moral core as opposed to the rotten core you've developed by skewing statistical data in order to convince others that your paranoid delusions are, indeed, true. (Oh, how ethical and Christ-like of you!) And to think that Mr. Penn was making fun of you,,,and your brethren, too.
Sources: Media By Numbers, Box Office Prophets, Box Office Mojo. I wonder where he got his, the Focus on the Family website OR, did he just make them up OR, does he have a faulty calculator OR, is he using some archaic system found on a piece of Papyrus with Yahweh's signature at the bottom and has yet to get the hang off this Godly system of percentages? Again, I can't help but wonder, and I can help but ask, what would Jesus do?
Those who refer to those who agree with President Obama's policies as Obamabots or Obamatons are the VERY same DOUCHEBAGS that gladly refer to themselves as DITTOHEADS, Hmm, now let's see.
Would I rather follow an Harvard and Columbia educated guy OR the College dropout Rush Limbaugh?
Or, maybe you're not in Rush. How about the guy who didn't even get that far, who never went to college, Sean Hannity? Or Glenn Beck or…Oh wait, I se pattern starting to develop here.
You're an IGNORANT twit, just like the nattering nabobs of Conservative talk and your fellow brethren who blindly follow them. It's a simple case o the DUMB and uneducated leading the DUMBER and even less educated. Talk about ROBOTS.
OUR creator? You arrogant fool.
A BIT reckless? This article is an OUT and OUT LIE!!
"Che, Mamma Mia, and Religulous averaged only $11.4 million at the box office" Really? Sounds like Conservative math to me. The three films total domestic box office was 158 million, divide that by three and you get what? 52.6 million. Must be that "Voodoo Economics" that HW Bush was talking about.
And what about this nugget, "…such movies averaged only about $15.5 million and $7 million per movie from 2002 through 2008. And, that includes the pro-Communist, socialist diatribes of Michael Moore"? Really?
Mr Moore's three films from those years, Bowling, Fahrenheit, and Sicko ALONE made a combined total of 166 million domestic, which is an average of 55 million dollars.
The author is purposefully bunching Mr. Moore's HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL documentaries in with other films he deems "promoting an unabashedly socialist or Communist viewpoint" (films he doesn't list by name or provide numbers for, here, or on his amusing, little website) from a six year period in order to make it appear as though Moore's films were not as successful as the FACTS prove them to be. In FACT, Mr. Moore's "Fahrenheit"is still, by far, the highest grossing documentary film in the history of cinema, both domestically and worldwide. In FACT, it is sill more successful than EVERY Christian-themed movie (with the exception of Gibson's Passion)
And really, Mr. Baehr, "Commie Rats?" I thought red-baiting went out of style even long before the end of the Cold War? You're a walking anachronism. A dinosaur. Impotent and obsolete, you're a cranky old fogey whose time in limelight has long since passed. You'd think in your what, 80 (90?) years of life, you would have developed a stronger moral core as opposed to the rotten core you've developed by skewing statistical data in order to convince others that your paranoid delusions are, indeed, true. (Oh, how ethical and Christ-like of you!) And to think that Mr. Penn was making fun of you,,,and your brethren, too.
Sources: Media By Numbers, Box Office Prophets, Box Office Mojo. I wonder where he got his, the Focus on the Family website OR, did he just make them up OR, does he have a faulty calculator OR, is he using some archaic system found on a piece of Papyrus with Yahweh's signature at the bottom and has yet to get the hang off this Godly system of percentages? Again, I can't help but wonder, and I can help but ask, what would Jesus do?
A legitimate organization, huh? Really DES? Then why does this legitimate organization LIE repeatedly on their website and, as the good "doctor" has done in the article above?
"Che, Mamma Mia, and Religulous averaged only $11.4 million at the box office" Really? Sounds like Conservative math to me. The three films total domestic box office was 158 million, divide that by three and you get what? 52.6 million. Must be that "Voodoo Economics" that HW Bush was talking about.
And what about this nugget, "…such movies averaged only about $15.5 million and $7 million per movie from 2002 through 2008. And, that includes the pro-Communist, socialist diatribes of Michael Moore"? Really?
Mr Moore's three films from those years, Bowling, Fahrenheit, and Sicko ALONE made a combined total of 166 million domestic, which is an average of 55 million dollars.
The author is purposefully bunching Mr. Moore's HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL documentaries in with other films he deems "promoting an unabashedly socialist or Communist viewpoint" (films he doesn't list by name or provide numbers for, here or on his amusing, little website) from a six year period in order to make it appear as though Moore's films were not as successful as the FACTS prove them to be. In FACT, Mr. Moore's "Fahrenheit"is still, by far, the highest grossing documentary film in the history of cinema, both domestically and worldwide. In FACT, it is sill more successful than EVERY Christian-themed movie (with the exception of Gibson's Passion)
And really, Mr. Baehr, "Commie Rats?" I thought red-baiting went out of style even long before the end of the Cold War? You're a walking anachronism. A dinosaur. Impotent and obsolete, you're a cranky old fogey whose time in limelight has long since passed. You'd think in your what, 80 (90?) years of life, you would have developed a stronger moral core as opposed to the rotten core you've developed by skewing statistical data in order to convince others that your paranoid delusions are, indeed, true. (Oh, how ethical and Christ-like of you!) And to think that Mr. Penn was making fun of you,,,and your brethren, too.
Sources: Media By Numbers, Box Office Prophets, Box Office Mojo. I wonder where he got his, the Focus on the Family website OR, did he just make them up OR, does he have a faulty calculator OR, is he using some archaic system found on a piece of Papyrus with Yahweh's signature at the bottom and has yet to get the hang off this Godly system of percentages? Again, I can't help but wonder, and I can help but ask, what would Jesus do?
Rob,
I think you twisted Baehr's words regarding liberal films . Here is the full quote, emphasis mine:
"In fact, this year, MOVIEGUIDE® calculates that movies released in 2008 coming from a more liberal or leftist sensibility (INCLUDING Steven Soderbergh’s movie honoring Che Guevara, “Mamma Mia!” and Bill Maher’s “Religulous”) averaged only $11.4 million at the box office…"
The word "including" means that you must count the liberal flops of 2008 along with hits like "Mamma Mia!" Since the flops are so numerous, the average box office for last year liberal films is going to seriously decline. If you ignore the flops, then the average goes up significantly.
So, Dr. Baehr's math is accurate as well as reinforces his argument that liberal films are rejected by many moviegoers.
There are atheist and agnostic astronomers who've concluded that the Big Bang Theory points to God creating the cosmos and us. So, you don't have to be a Christian to believe we were created by Someone supernatural.
You do have to be a Christian to put your faith in this Creator and receive Him as your Savior.
Rob,
I think you twisted Baehr's words regarding liberal films . Here is the full quote, emphasis mine:
"In fact, this year, MOVIEGUIDE® calculates that movies released in 2008 coming from a more liberal or leftist sensibility (INCLUDING Steven Soderbergh’s movie honoring Che Guevara, “Mamma Mia!” and Bill Maher’s “Religulous”) averaged only $11.4 million at the box office…"
The word "including" means that you must count the liberal flops of 2008 along with hits like "Mamma Mia!" Since the flops are so numerous, the average box office for last year liberal films is going to seriously decline. If you ignore the flops, then the average goes up significantly.
So, Dr. Baehr's math is accurate as well as reinforces his argument that liberal films are rejected by many moviegoers.
Um, NO. I am not wrong.
If you read what I wrote further down, "The author is purposefully bunching Mr. Moore's HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL documentaries in with other films he deems "promoting an unabashedly socialist or Communist viewpoint" (films he doesn't list by name or provide numbers for, here, or on his amusing, little website) from a six year period in order to make it appear as though Moore's films were not as successful as the FACTS prove them to be. In FACT, Mr. Moore's "Fahrenheit"is still, by far, the highest grossing documentary film in the history of cinema, both domestically and worldwide. In FACT, it is sill more successful than EVERY Christian-themed movie (with the exception of Gibson's Passion)" the same could be true when applied to Momma Mia a movie that made what? 350 plus million worldwide and over 100 million stateside?
My point is that by choosing NOT to list all of these films with a so-called "liberal or leftist agenda", the one's he's using to come up with this average, he is not simply being intellectually dishonest, but statistically speaking, his methodology would be considered tainted by any reputable and or professional number cruncher because he LUMPS THEM TOGETHER.
He never explains the parameters used to decide which films are liberal and of leftist and WHY they are according to his guide. That's problem number one.
Number two: It is a fallacy to suggest or assume that those films (which has not provided a list for, NOR the one's he has listed) were not successful BECAUSE they have a so-called liberal or leftist bent.
He can't prove that had ANYTHING to do with box office receipts. In fact, Bill O'Reilly in his monthly tirade against George Clooney often makes the same mistake, though I don't think really think it's a mistake at all, I think it's willful exclusion of a greater truth and I think O'Reilly damn well knows it.
On more than one occasion, Mr. O'Reilly has claimed that America doesn't want to see Mr. Clooney's films because he's a leftist and then pointed to numbers for "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" and, strangely, "Good Night and Good Luck" (which was quite profitable, given that it was about 1950's journalist and shot in black and white. By the way, the second highest grossing black and white film after Schindler's List in the last 25 years. And yes, I looked it up.). Dangerous' box office tally was low because it was an independent film with very little money put into marketing it and was about a kooky game show host who may or may not have been a CIA operative…hardly Middle American Multiplex fare. And that is true of Che, too (a three hours plus epic shot largely in SPANISH) The material in and of itself was NEVER going to make a lot of money, but there is NO EVIDENCE (you know, actual, empirical data) to PROVE that they numbers are a reflection of anything but audience antipathy or a greater interest in seeing a popcorn picture instead. Oh, and here's yet another intellectually dishonest thing about what he said, he didn't include the fact that Che was only about TEN screens in the U.S or Religulous, which was only on about 150 as compared with the average of the so-called GOOD films on his website, which averaged how many screen per theatrical release….2800 plus! Go ahead, Do the math. And besides, INDEPENDENT films that are not meant to appeal to a WIDE-RANGING audience are NOT EXPECTED TO MAKE THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AS BIG BUDGET "Audience Friendly" fare, that's why they don't COST AS MUCH TO MAKE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Third, and finally: As I've said some many times now, but feel the need to reiterate it once more…
By purposefully LUMPING together HUGELY successful films with GIANT BUDGETS and GIANT MARKETING BUDGETS BEHIND THEM with smaller, Independent films with tiny budgets for the sake of having one number drag down the other OR vice-versa, is a MANIPULATION OF DATA to suit a preconceived notion that you wish that data would fit into, but does not. For example, who is considered to be the single biggest "Socialist" filmmaker in this country according to Conservatives? Michael Moore.
Okay well, do you have ANY idea how well his films have done? And they're DOCUMENTARIES. By lumping less successful films together with his HUGE successes the author is PURPOSEFULLY trying to skew the statistics to make it appear as though his films are NOT successful. And that is SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. Oh, and you know what else is doing brisk business right now, MILK. So much for those liberally minded films tanking at the box office.
Rob,
I think you've twisted Baehr's words regarding liberal films . Here is the full quote, emphasis mine:
"In fact, this year, MOVIEGUIDE® calculates that movies released in 2008 coming from a more liberal or leftist sensibility (INCLUDING Steven Soderbergh’s movie honoring Che Guevara, “Mamma Mia!” and Bill Maher’s “Religulous”) averaged only $11.4 million at the box office…"
The word "including" means that you must count the liberal flops of 2008 along with hits like "Mamma Mia!" Since the flops are so numerous, the average box office for last year liberal films is going to seriously decline. If you ignore the flops, then the average goes up significantly.
So, Dr. Baehr's math is accurate as well as reinforces his argument that liberal films are rejected by many moviegoers.
You must be logged in to post a comment.