Comments on: Independent Christian Film, Hollywood’s Best Investment in ‘08

By: "FIREPROOF" Independent Christian Film, Hollywood’s Best Investment in ‘08 – Big Hollywood | Political News Now

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:50:12 +0000

[...] via Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Independent Christian Film, Hollywood’s Best Investment in ‘08 . [...]

By: urban vinyl designer toys

urban vinyl designer toys — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:30:20 +0000

Hello there,very nice place

==
http://www.vinyladdiction.tv/sitemap.xml

By: miley cyrus

miley cyrus — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:12:59 +0000

Hello, this is information about miley cyrus

By: Amy Sterling

Amy Sterling — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:38:48 +0000

Russ – maybe your best place to post comments would be YouTube. This article isn’t advising Hollywood to make any type of film so much as its pointing up a large audience that isn’t being served as much as it could be. In addition to being a writer, I’m a college teacher. A lot of my students don’t necessarily want to see the most violent, sex-filled films, even the guys. The majority of them aren’t interested in politically-motivated stories of any type (I hadn’t heard of the “Che” film and found out it was a two-parter showing only in Beverly Hills). Film, television and book publishing is primarily about making money. If the Christian films are making money, and they seem to be (remember “Passion of the Christ” – it made a couple bucks), then this is a market and audience worth pursuing. Like many things, it helps to have the creative people knowledgable about and respectful of their audience. People “vote” with their feet and their dollars. If Christian films continue to increase in audience and moneymaking, my bet is that there will be more of them. And my bet is also that other films on any topic people aren’t much interested in will still probably be made as well. Hard to believe people didn’t have a clue that a giant, two-parter about Che Guevara wouldn’t be the most popular film out there. “Maw, why don’t anybody wan to sit through it?” There’s only a small portion of masochists that extreme.

By: Webutante

Webutante — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:58:14 +0000

Thanks for giving this good movie a plug. A wonderful and inspirational movie on a hip, new conservative Hollywood site. Who could ever have thought it?

By: Krebstar

Krebstar — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:45:40 +0000

American Girl,

What an excellent post in just a few words.

One of the conceits of Tinseltown that is being exposed by this website is that edgy, depraved and dark = quality. There are many quality movies that may be dark in tone, but the Golden Age made it clear that, to use your phrase, constructive movies can also be quality pictures as well.

It requires more courage to try to display sincerity than it does irony. The example of Fireproof is a good one. Cameron’s performance was solidly workmanlike at the least. His deft handling of some fairly saccharine dialog at a few points was actually worthy of notice. And yet he will receive no acknowledgment for that, but will get plenty of ridicule from the Golden Globe crowd and their armchair proxies.

I wonder how Jimmy Stewart would fare if he was starting out in Hollywood today? His sincerity was pretty sincere and his detached irony tempered by a good nature.

By: Kevin J waldroup

Kevin J waldroup — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:40:19 +0000

Georgiawood

http://www.sherwoodpictures.com/

By: Abbreviated

Abbreviated — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:24:54 +0000

There is a couple’s Bible Study guide that goes with Fireproof.

By: American Girl

American Girl — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:29:05 +0000

I enjoy movies that are constructive – not destructive.

If Hollywood would make more Fireproofs, I’d go to the movies more often. And I’m not alone.

By: OregonMuse

OregonMuse — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:17:47 +0000

I had to admit I really didn’t read the whole post, or really any of your comments but I am confused; are you people trying to tell Hollywood how to spend their money? Isn’t that uhh, oh what is the word I am looking for, uh … socialist.
Actually no. Writing an opinion telling Hollywood what it should spend money on is not socialist. For the government to tell Hollywood what it should spend money on, and enforcing it with legislation or executive order, now that would be socialist. See the difference?