‘Independence Day 2′: Exhibit #13,987 Proving Hollywood’s Not Money-Driven
by John Nolte
Director Roland Emmerich at his London home.
“Independence Day” is one of the most profitable films in history — and after the original “Poseidon Adventure,” one of the greatest bad films ever — but there was no sure-fire, money-making blockbuster sequel because President Bush — The Abraham Lincoln of the Middle East — won the presidency:
“In Independence Day, it was about a king who leads his country into a fight against an outside invader. I didn’t want to make that movie during the Bush years. It was not thought that George W. Bush would have made a great king. Now with Obama, it’s another story.”
That’s straight from the director, the ball-less Roland Emmerich.
Sure, Hollywood is packed with the worst kind of greedy people who demand higher taxes as they shelter millions — who intend to hang on to their platinum health-care plans as they push rationed care – who demand Big Business pay their “fair share” as they beg for tax incentives… Sure, Leftist Hollywood wants to make money, bucketloads if possible, but…
….not at the expense of The Leftist Cause.
If “G.I. Joe” and “Superman Return”s can make money, great! But if Americanism is necessary for them to make money, no way in hell.
Make a gajillion off an “Independence Day” sequel? Not if it helps Bush. In other words…
No Obama. No sequel. No gajillions.
Hollywood understands this is an ideological war. And if you look at their behavior through that lens, it all makes sense.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
84 Comments
[...] the article here: ‘Independence Day 2′: Exhibit #13,987 Proving Hollywood’s Not Money-Driven This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Duh. Bush was a horrible president. What's wrong with what Roland said?
BHO. The King of Pay-off-the-special-interests-with-tax-money-while-the-average-guy-is-unemployed-and-broke-land. The enemy he leads us into battle against: Freedom and Prosperity.
"The Abraham Lincoln of the Middle East "?
In a sense, yes. Both used the military to destroy foreign governments that were no threat to them.
Roland Emmerich does NOT make me angry. What DOES make me angry are conservatives who have (or have access to people who have) the time, money and influence to make our own movies . . . but who choose to do nothing instead.
I just spent a week in Ann Arbor. The people I met there knew I was a conservative filmmaker, about to release a first documentary. A couple of them had met Michael Moore personally, and they thought I would get along just fine with MM should I ever meet him – dispite our ideological differences. I agree. I resepect Moore (and Emmerich) because they are willing and able to express their views on film. I do not respect conservatives who complain about lefty filmmakers while never lifting a finger to promote their own views on film. The left recognizes this sad fact, and they're taking full advantage of it. Can you blame them?
"Now with Obama, it’s another story.” Can we expect a scene in which the aliens are invading Earth and Obama leans back in his chair, with hands behind his head and feet on his desk saying " let's see how all this plays out first". Or will it be more like Honduras where his knee-jerk reaction is to put his support behind the aliens. Or will he just keep ignoring the agressive acts by the aliens as he continues to negotiate with them like he does with N. Korea and Iran. Yup, those are the mark of a great leader allright.
"It was not thought that George W. Bush would have made a great king. Now with Obama, it’s another story.”
DUH. America 'don't do' that royalty thingy Troy. It's bad enough that they hoodwinked many Americans into thinking he was the messiah. Since that didn't work lowering the loftiness to 'king' is the next downward progression just before Lame Duck comes to town.
"The Abraham Lincoln of the Middle East"? Well, I guess he is partially responsible for an Iraqi civil war, but I don't really see connection you're trying to make.
I'm not sure I get the crack at GI Joe and Superman Returns either.
But I think Emmerich makes a good point. If he made Independence Day 2 during the previous presidency, it would no doubt be misinterpreted as a metaphor for Bush's war on terror (300 and The Dark Knight ran into that very problem).
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Joshua Maher. Joshua Maher said: 'Independence Day 2′: Exhibit #13987 Proving Hollywood's Not Money-Driven http://bit.ly/14ASf5 [...]
Troy,
The problem with Roland think is that if eveyone based their thinking this way, then a majority of Americans won't want to help Obama. Oh wait, I agree with Roland's thinking.
King Obama. It really highlights the Hollywood leftist mentality. Tyranny can be good if it's their guy in office. They're willing to sacrifice millions of dollars to further their ideology. Worship at the altar of Obama. Use entertainment as propaganda, all other goals being secondary. Does Emmerich even realize we don't have a monarchy here in the states?
“It was not thought that George W. Bush would have made a great king. Now with Obama, it’s another story.”
Of course Bush would not make a great king he is about freedom and liberty. Obama, on the other hand, is for government control much like the guy in that image behind Emmerich.
That’s the guy responsible for the death of 70,000,000 people. Just the image this nit-with would have in his living room.
Emmerich is as disgusting as was his champion Mao.
Much as I enjoyed the original Independence Day, if this one was 'inspired' by the current administration, I have no interest in seeing it. Besides, Emmerich's last few movies have been at best marginally watchable.
So's all you have to do is just Gin up a few bucks, make a movie and put it in the theater?! Damn, I am quitting my job ASAP to develop a Space Opera called "Cliff Conservator vs. the Obamabots!"
Sorry if that was too snide, but this site should have made it abundandly clear to most people by now that the problem is NOT money. The Path to 9-11 is STILL not on DVD and that wasn't even Conservative, it just was close to the truth which made dems look bad.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jeff Smith, Danny Dunmore. Danny Dunmore said: 'Independence Day 2′: Exhibit #13987 Proving Hollywood's Not Money-Driven: Big Hollywood (blog) If “GI .. http://bit.ly/1kirkP [...]
I would call Emmerich a turd, but the comparison wouldn't be fair to turds.
Duh, how old are you, Troy?
Hmm Bush as the Abe Lincoln of the Middle East. The parallel is scary. Bush, like Lincoln, freed people from tyranny. The Democrats of Bush's era, like the Democrats of Lincoln's era, supported the tyrants and opposed freeing the oppressed. After the war was won, the Democrats of Bush's era encouraged the defeated oppressors to continue waging a war of terror upon the newly freed people of Iraq just as the Democrats of the post-Civil War era continued to wage a war of terror upon the freed blacks. Like I said, the parallel is scary.
I can only imagine that the invaders of Emmerich's new movie will be a metaphor for capitalist investors coming to help rebuild the world. To the left, that would be an enemy worth fighting.
Jim – I didn't say the problem was "only" money. My point is that not enough conservatives are willing to spend the time, money and effort to promote their own views. They'd rather complain, play golf, and pass whatever money they do have on to their children. That is their choice, but it leads to the very result they cry about: a tsunami of lefty films.
There is no conspiracy to somehow "block" conservative film. The real trouble is the left makes far better films than we do. We need to assemble our own money and talent. Great films are watched and remembered – but making great film is a daunting task, one that requires sacrifices that our side has (so far) been unwilling to make.
Roland's quote is proof that Leftists want to be ruled.
If he truly is inspired by the worst president since Carter, he must rename it: "Dependence Day 2"
You are 100% correct.
It's not all money. Let's say there's a politically conservative millionaire that owns a chain of diners in five states. His daughter, who is going to the University of Texas for a business degree meets the lone conservative Christian film student and they fall in love. She asks daddy to fund her boyfriend's independent romantic comedy but millionaire daddy knows a million reasons why this sissy artist boyfriend of hers will waste the family money on stupid crap movies "just like in Hollywood"
It's not just the money problem–it's a mindset problem. We have to encourge more conservative artists to do their thing and do it well.
Anyone who has a painting of Mao in his living room shouldn't be taken serious about anything. And seeing how idiotic his films have been that proves my point.
Horrible is a relative term.
The horribleness of our current president and his administration eclipses any and all horribleness of any and all administrations in this country's noble history.
Regrettably, Conservatives, by their inherent nature, are not herd animals.
The Liberal Dims have no problem turning loose hordes of their myrmidons on a given issue. I'm damned glad I'm not like that. Conservatives think for themselves and sometimes (albeit shortsightedly) think the overwhelming logic of their positions will win the day.
Given Keeyotta's (Carter's) recent mumblings, they could call it Depends day.
Didja hear about the once-a-month Depends with Sham-Wow technology?
This guy's an idiot. He has a poster of Mao in his house and he passed up the opportunity to make a lot of money because he didn't like the last president.
Similarly, I read in the WaPo this week that Christian Louboutin (of the very expensive stilletto-heel shoe fame) refused to visit Washington, DC during the past eight years, even when asked to make an appearance at the stores that sell his shoes.
"President Bush — The Abraham Lincoln of the Middle East — won the presidency"
Wtf? Abraham Lincoln of the Middle East, are you f*****g kidding me? Bush deserves credit for allot of things, but he was not by any standards a Good or Even Mediocre President. In other words, he sucked. And lets not forget that he handed America over to Obama and the Democrats almost single handidly.
Now, of course Emmerichs an idiot yada yada yada, but I could care less what he thinks. What really concerns me is that there are still people in the Republican/Conservative Movement that think Bush was a good President over all.
PS. All that said, I don't subscribe to this libertarian populist nonsense about forming a New party and shoving all the moderates out, and I sure as hell don't like Palin for President.
What really pisses me off was that I really loved Independence Day, then now discover that that the guy who made it is such an asshole. Maybe it wasn't a great movie by filmmaking standards, but it was FUN. And while I understand the frustration with "rich" conservatives not financially supporting conservative filmmakers, it's all about worldview and experience. The conservative experience is not about propaganda, and requires thought, while the herd mentality of liberalism just alows people to follow the path of least resistance, and is very susceptible to being propagandized by the people who control pretty much all the facets of the entertainment media.
Obama makes Bush look like a great president.
Since we all will be taxed to death because of the deficit, health scare and crap and trade, I'll be more than happy not to spend any more money on leftist idiot movies like this moron's. The picture of the murderer Mao behind him speaks volumes about this idiot. Mao killed upwards of 70 million of his own people and was known to rape women. Just like Communism, only the good little lap dogs are allowed to be rich while the rest of us are slaves for a fictional utopia.
President Bush and Mrs. Bush went to visit the soldier's wounded at Fort Hood while this man child occupant of the White House couldn't muster up enough sympathy for the people who lost their lives the other day. A real president would have gotten on a plane and visited that young cop who risked her life to save others. Character speaks volumes about people and just like this director, the One has none.
Roland Emmerich is nothing new and comes from a long line of liberty-hating, self-loathing, pseudo-idealistic, pretentious sods the so-called art industry is noted for. Much like the supercillious Gore Vidal and ever-narcissistic Obama, he plays to a small segment in our society that has both a child-like fascination with theatrical drivel and short attention span. To say that the arts would survive if he were to quit now would be overstatement. "Roland who?" one might ask.
http://tinyurl.com/Aliens-return-Glenn-Miller
As long as we get Glenn Miller back and give them Roland Emmerich in exchange.
Roland Emmerich and Anita Dunn idolize Mao Tse Tung and now they want Premier Obama to follow in their hero's bloody footsteps. We are well and truly fugged! Cono, I should have stayed in Cuba!
Right on, Scott. I'm sure your scenario has played out in reality. Conservatives don't really WANT to help fund the arts. They've ceded the arts to the left, and they'll tell you that our side shouldn't have to "stoop down" to expressing our views in film.
An equal issue is the dearth of real talent on our side of the political fence. My own experiences talking with conservatives is that they don't seem to appreciate the role of irony in fiction. They want "on the nose" stories about a 6'4" Marine who chicken-chokes Taliban machine gunners with one hand while writing a letter to his eight year old daughter with the other hand. Nope, won't work.
I don't think a lot of people on the Left do realize that. Since the elections, we've seen case after case of people wanting more of a king than a president. From the Dear Leader worship songs in schools to blatant media adulation to awarding him the Nobel Prize based on potential rather than actual accomplishment, we've been presented with plenty of evidence that his supporters want someone to worship and bow down to, not a President who works for the people and is accountable for his actions. Perhaps it comes as a result of the Hollywood mindset, where celebrities are thought of as superior beings to us fly-over folk simply by virtue of their looks, charisma and fame; perhaps it comes as a result of secular humanism which has no room for God yet needs an outlet for worship (and rejects or never learns the lesson that man is not a fit thing to be worshipped); or perhaps it just comes from a political philosophy that desires an absolute ruler wielding the power of a government that dictates how its subjects must live.
I could believe that "2012" is inspired by the current administration…
I've been saying this for a long time. The conservative money men, if they're not actually RINOs, still see investing in The Arts as the equivalent of throwing their money down a storm drain. If the liberals had been equally skeptical about the power of art, then in all likelihood we wouldn't even be in the current mess.
Given how few truly family-friendly movies Hollywood produces, I have had no trouble believing that most directors and producers were driven more by political ideology than profit. As I understand it, family movies do better financially than most 'R'-rated movies. But what a terrible thing it would be to portray the traditional nuclear family as anything but stifling or sinister while pretending that sexual immorality is perfectly normal and healthy behavior. It doesn't fit the liberal Baby Boomer ideological paradigm, so it's corny and outre'.
Logic is next to useless in the society the Left has created among us.
"Against stupidity even the gods contend in vain."
I contend there's a market for a well-made action movie about a Taliban-choking Marine… but scripted movies require a lot of work by a lot of talented people that need to be paid. I am thrilled that some high net worth Christians fund movies with Christian themes, but they aren't really helping the cause if those movies are are no better than amateur home video versions of hammy after school specials from 30 years ago.
There are plenty of talented actors and filmmakers that are politically conservative. For example, Big Hollywood has featured videos from Zo and Steven Crowder that are really good. Sometimes their stuff is trying too hard to make a political point (which is exactly what most of us hate about TDL, Family Guy, et. al.) which is pigeonholing those two guys as "O N0ES IZ UNKLE T0M & TEH PO0FY HAIR R3THUGLICAN!!1!"
Now, would a mass audience go see those two guys in a PG-13 rated loose remake of "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" at the local cineplex? Yes, I believe they would. But who's going to fund it, make it, distribute it, and market it to a mass audience?
Ah yes King Obama… Is his next movie going to be about how Obama turns the country into some sort of monarchy then? Divinity casts Obama as savior and heir to the throne of America? Makes sense from a liberal director.
Scott, you've yanked my chain. The big problem with 'conservative comedy" is it's way too timid. Lefties know how to go for the jugular. In those VERY rare cases when parody from our side breaks out of the box and nails the left, it works – but well-established names like Zucker and Judge are by and large unwilling to stretch the envelope.
A story about a soldier in Iraq would work only if there is a STORY. As a quick example, imagine a movie about a soldier who was EXTREMELY reluctant to be deployed, tried to join forces with his brother the attorney to get out of it, and agrees to supply copy to a lefty magazine about what he sees. Our hero then CHANGES his mind based on what he experiences in the field, infuriating the magazie. That's a story. But conservatives I know don't want a story like that. They just want the John Wayne thing.
Bush wasn't a great president, but he wasn't "horrible" either. To say so simply shows how gullible people have listened to what they've been told instead of thinking for themselves. An honest appraisal of his presidency shows a rather mediocre 2 terms but certainly not horrible. It really is time people start to think for themselves once again instead of just regurgitating the rhetoric they hear…both left and right.
"Hollywood understands this is an ideological war."
Right on point, John. Like Warner Brothers not releasing Hanoi Hilton on DVD until the day after Election Day 2008 so McCain couldn't benefit, and likewise the MSM's all-out desecration of Sarah Palin, which included Oprah Winfrey choosing not to interview Palin on her show for the same reason.
The Leftist / Democrat / MSM Industrial complex has a scorched-earth policy towards conservatives – no survivors. Nothing conservatives do has ever been right or honorable – as long as THEY are (re)writing the history books.
And I'll agree with Glenn Damato – if David Zucker can make An American Carol without any Leftist interference, we should all be trying to get our stories out there.
Duh. Obama is a horrible president. That's wrong with what Roland said.
I stopped watching Roland Emmerich movies after he stopped an alien invasion using a Macintosh.
I don't know who continues to watch this guy's movies, but I blame them.
Zucker and Judge would be called "racist" if they pushed the envelope with their satire. McFarlane and Colbert are not a racist because, you know, their satire is the "good" satire.
(300 and The Dark Knight ran into that very problem).
No that was only a problem with liberals who don't like to see anything else different from their views. Oh and Bush is completely responible for freeing Iraq from a murdreous thug. Should mention that 300 and The Dark Knight " movies with that problem" were huge hits? We do have the ID4 for Obama its called V about some very attractive and well spoken strangers who promise to fix all our problems for free just as long as we give up any say in our future and we find that it isn't free it's going to cost us everything.
OK let's see Hollywood millionare with picture of Mao in his multi-million dollar pad, (isn't it so post post modern?) who brags about not making a movie and makes it seem almost heroic and also brags about insulting the people he knows won't hurt him but stopping at the people who will. What's funny is he fails to see the irony of it all. Folks any doubt you had that Hollywood is filled with morons look no further.
Gutfeld's "Greg-alogue" said it all Friday night…I was gonna see the movie (I like VFX) but I won't now. Nor will I ever see any of his garbage. F.U. Hollywood.
Well after all, you can't really know the motives of the aliens…
Is the Mao mural a political statement or is he just a rich, clueless English male version of Edina Monsoon, who kept a Che portrait and Saddam statue because it was cool.
My question to you is why should Emmerich care how the movie was interpreted? He made gobs of money off it, and it's one of my favorite movies (I can recite the battle speech from memory). Anyway, that's the problem with the left, they always have an agenda in their movies, which obviously the left loves. The rightwingers are usually pushing some moral position which turns off said hypocrite lefties. The movie Fireproof was a good example. Great movie but only to the religious right.
Hollywood sucks and all the people in it. I love how they think we give to shits what they think about pretty much everything. If they "cared" so much about everything they'd put their money where their mouth is and share the wealth.
Scott – the story idea is not a work in progress – it was just an idea I came up with to illustrate a point I discovered while talking about story ideas with conservatives. They don't seem to want any characters who arc at all. They seem to be alergic to irony. The left, of course, is far better at developing ideas, and they've given us Norma Rae and Born on the Fourth of July.
But if I was to write such a script, of course there would be plenty of action. I took a couple of writing classes at UCLA this year to develop a dark comedy about Islamic fanatics. The instructor and most of the students thought it was "offensive" and "went too far" and would "piss off too many people" so I suppose I may be on the right track.
His boyfriend is probably an a-hole, too. Uh, wait, I should rephrase that.
Obama is starting to make Carter, FDR and Wilson look like good presidents.
*And before you respond about FDR and Wilson be prepared to defend 20% unemployment in 1939 after SEVEN years of "new deal" failed policies.
Both Wilson and FDR imprisoned political enemies who spoke against their policies.
We have Obama's Czars speaking kindly of Mao, and Chavez as command and control policies for controlling the media.
*As for Roland Emmerich, what should I expect from Hollywood? His statement is indicative of what Leftist's want.. They want a "wise" elite to rule over the rest of us and make us equal.
They thought they got that in Obama, but lucky for us, he's actually accomplished very little compared to his fascist predecessors.
Funny picture and the same story.
http://robotspider.typepad.com/robot-spider/
Adores Mao and fears the ragheads. What's up with that?
Don't call them aliens you racist, right-wing extremist.
At least Bush was a leader. Obama is a celebrity, nothing more.
'The Dark Knight' was about Bush. Bush confronted evil dictators, Obama appeases them. Next year violence will escalate throughout the world, because dictators and tyrants know that Obama has no spine. What a shame that your warped liberal ideology blinds you to this – many people will suffer and die because of the clown in the White House.
can you say 'Visa revocation?' I can! Why don't we let the eunuch stay in Munich and keep his crappy movie!
Conservatives turned away from the NY Times, WaPo, and CNN. I hope that conservatives turn away from Hollywood.
What's wrong with what Roland said? Hell, what's RIGHT with what you said?
We have.
What would an Obama styled president do to an alien invasion?
1. Give them free health care
2. Prosecute anyone that called them aliens
3. Bend over and spread 'em for their leader
4. Impress them with his Nobel Peace Prize
5. Give them all iPods pre-loaded with his favorite speeches
6. Give a shout out to Michael Jordan's tailor and misidentify him as a Pulitzer prize winner just before glibly announcing to the American public that Virginia was just nuked off of the face of the earth. (Ah what the hell, there's 56 more states where that one came from)
Hey, it's simple, really…..I don't watch this guy's movies anymore.
Keep it up Hollywood. Soon you'll all be sitting around in each other's basements, sharing your genius with each other, because no one else will want to bother. That will probably suit you just fine, more the pity.
I wonder if they'll ever figure out why their box office is down so drastically.
Probably not.
You're right Junket, how rude of me. They are "undocumented extraterrestrials".
To everyone offended by the Mao picture in his living room, his decor goes far beyond that. Communist iconography is all over the place. His glass end tables house dioramas of the JFK assassination, Abu Ghriab, and Tiananmen Square. Open a door under the stairs and you'll find a full-size waxwork of a smiling Pope John Paul II reading his own obits. One wall has a painting of a crucified Jesus in one of Katharine Hamnett's fatuous t-shirts. Plus, of course, the requisite assortment of wood, marble, rubber and plastic phalli insistently poke out from various shelves.
Here's a link to an article with pictures:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/oct/2...
Michael Medved outlined all of this in Hollywood vs America.
G movies, American value movies, SELL, and sell billions. But what does Hollywood trot out? Trash just so they can get other Hollywood trash artists to kiss kiss on the cheek and get a shiny oscar that is virtually meaningless now.
"300 and The Dark Knight ran into that very problem"
It was only a problem for drones like you. Just like the Iraq war.
What do you expect? Emmerich is a typical German who grew up in the 1970s and on top of that has nothing but movies in his brain. He never made a good one, though some are decent timewasters. And no, I never praised ID4 for being patriotic like many of you probably did, because it was obvious that that was a joke at your expense. I have a suspicion that any elements that made his earlier movies remotely fun are due to writer/producer Dean Devlin.
A couple of years ago, I leafed through a magazine in a hotel in Cologne and there was an interview with the German director of "Flight Plan". He described his first days of working in Hollywood and guess what? Everyone he met, they bonded over Bush-bashing. He explicitly mentioned it (approvingly of course).
Modern Hollywood is not in America. America has no movie industry. France does.
Jeez, guys I just want to talk about movies. Chill out. And don't act like you know me, man.
How's that Hope & Change going for you, bunky?
O!bama: a 10 month failure.
"And don't act like you know me, man."
It´s the internet. How can you be sure I´m a man?
Presidents should never be kings. How could they, without discovering they're some heirless king/queen so-and-so's long lost 2nd cousin, andprobably renouncing their American citizenship? I think they could accept a title (with the approval of Congress) but not become king. And they should certainly never be kings of America!
Um, I would watch that.
OMG do it. There's a lot of potential there. When this CSMonitor reporter was kidnapped (in Iraq, I think) a couple years ago, her captors watched Tom and Jerry. I think, from the comfort of our faux-suede couches, that could be hilarious.
Glenn,
I agree with your larger point. We need some sort of training ground with support in order to develop new writers and movie guys.
But, a character arc is not the only way to tell a story. Louis L'amour talked about how the critics did not like his novels because his characters did not change. But thats a valid story–the hero is right, and he has to plow through the wicked. And he was enormously popular with the readers, if not the critics.
One problem many of my fellow writers don't get is that there are many types of stories to tell. We need Conservative high art, and Conservative low art (even if I don't like those terms). We need stories about a Taliban choking Marine (wasn't it weird that Team America: World Police was a satire of a movie sub-genre that did not exist?), and thumbsuckers about earnest liberals becoming conservative warriors, and every other possible sub-sub-genre.
Your suggestion for a story is what I call 'flipping around' which is where we take a liberal idea, and reimagine it as a conservative idea. It would be a good thing to write a list of the Hundred Most Influential Liberal Pics, and then sit down and start coming up with ways to 'flip them around'. Supposedly Tolkien unmade Wagner's ring of power with LOTR. We need to do likewise. Unmake the liberal furniture in our minds, break it down, and replace it with ideas that are true and cool or true and beautiful. One benefit, not the greatest one, will be to give us shorthand symbols to use in arguements.
"I knew it! I'm surrounded by Assholes!"
~ Dark Helmet, Spaceballs
[...] Morris points out in a comment below, John Nolte has an astute post on Roland Emmerich, who said he didn’t want to make a movie about America defeating an evil [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.