“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.

If you think the national news media is biased, spend some time rummaging through the world of entertainment news. Today’s L.A. Times piece about the marketing of “G.I. Joe” has an especially priceless whopper:

Yet overseas, where big action films often earn 60% or more of their ticket sales, rah-rah American sentiment doesn’t play well. So those references have vanished from the advertising.

The Great Lie told by Leftist Hollywood and the media who shill for them is that in order to make money the likes and dislikes of an “international” audience must be considered, and international audiences loathe Americanism.

Let’s see how that’s working out with some overseas numbers for a few “big action films.”

To excuse the stripping of Superman’s Americanism (and masculinity), a lot of fanfare was made over the need for “Superman Returns” to appeal to the foreign box office, and yet the film bombed both here and abroad, making only $191 million overseas. 

Compare that to the international box-office for Sam Raimi’s ”Spider-Man” trilogy, which never shied from its hero’s unique Americanism or an iconic shot of the stars and stripes:

Spider-Man: $418 million

Spider-Man II: $410 million

Spider-Man III: $554 million

Some will argue ”Spider-Man” doesn’t quite qualify as “rah-rah.” If Hollywood actually produced true “rah-rah” there might be stronger examples, but here’s the international box-office for some “big action” films from the last fifteen years unafraid, and in some cases proud, of their Americanism:

National Treasure: $174 million

National Treasure II: $237 million

Pearl Harbor: $251 million

Armageddon: $352 million

Independence Day: $511 million

I Am Legend: $329 million

Hancock: $396 million

Hollywood’s concern over “international box office” holds even less water when looked at another way. If overseas box-office is such an important factor, can someone explain this years-long glut of anti-American films we find ourselves in?

At best, Leftists can argue “pro rah-rah” is a box-office wash outside the states, but “anti-rah-rah” has zero appeal to international audiences, and yet Hollywood refuses to stop making them. Here are the overseas numbers for those with so-called “bankable” stars attached:

Lions for Lambs: $43 million 

In the Valley of Elah: $22 million

Rendition: $17 million

Stop-Loss: $291 thousand

Body of Lies: $75 million

A Mighty Heart: $9 million

Grace is Gone: $887 thousand

Don’t confuse my argument here. I am not saying ”rah-rah American sentiment” does sell overseas What I’m arguing is that it’s wholly dishonest for anyone to flatly and matter-of-factly state it does not.

If a “big action” movie kicks ass, no one cares about “American sentiment.” Except, of course, the anti-American Leftists currently controlling the levers of media and entertainment power; those who know very well ”rah-rah” does increase ticket sales here in the states. After all, the entire ”G.I. Joe” marketing campaign is counting on it. 

This myth about international box-office was created to give Hollywood a “business” excuse when they refuse to portray America in a positive light or turn Superman into a flying symbol of United Nations conflicted meterosexuality. The unquestioning entertainment media jumps right on board because it’s yet another way for them to spread dishonest propaganda regarding America’s unpopularity overseas.

Except at the box office, it’s a win-win.

I’m not certain I have anything of worth to say about “Watchmen,” prior to actually seeing it tomorrow, when the rest of the world also gets its chance, but since I was very politely asked (as a comics books industry insider, albeit one who doesn’t rate an invitation to one of the six thousand, or so, advance screenings) to post something on Watchmen Eve, and since, as a professional writer, waiting until I actually had something of worth to share would be career suicide, I’ll venture a few predictions about the movie and how it will alter the American entertainment world in its wake.

1. It will be quite successful, financially, and will not, as many have predicted, suffer a sudden drop-off once the hardest of the hard core geek contingent all see it on opening weekend. This is just a gut feeling. I have no evidence or inside information to support it.

2. This success will inspire those who currently run Hollywood to do other “Watchmen”-like projects, only to be dismayed when they discover there aren’t any similar properties available.

3. “Watchmen’s” success will not then inspire those same those-who-currently-run-Hollywood to take the next most obvious step towards producing original “dark” superhero projects, not based on previous material. I suspect I know just enough about how Hollywood works right now to know that the twin fetishes of “Does this already have a built-in following?” and “I’m not going to consider any superhero movie, without seeing the graphic novel in my cold meaty hand first,” still pertain.

4. Therefore, adding to the silly lesson learned from the success of the “The Dark Knight,” about two dozen dark (oh, how I am growing to loathe that word) versions of previously not-dark (light?) superhero properties will go into production. Basically Hollywood is about to embark on the “grim and gritty” era of superhero movies that the actual funnybook business is just beginning to crawl out of. Get ready for “Dark Superman Returns Yet Again,” “Dark Captain America,” “Dark Fantastic Four III,” and so on.

5. Serious discussions about “Watchmen Two” will begin inside two weeks, but nothing will ever come of it, other than causing a huge and impassioned ruckus inside the funnybook business.

6. Despite all of the above, “Watchmen” will further strengthen the comics-make-viable-movies Renaissance we are currently enjoying.

7. About twenty minutes into the film, about half of the audience will realize this isn’t a superhero movie, even though it was marketed as such. They will be shocked to discover that it is in fact something quite the opposite in superhero drag. This will be a glorious revelation to the kids who were brought by their parents, thinking this was the superhero film they were promised, and a horrifying revelation to those parents (at least those who don’t simply drop their kids off to fend for themselves). A small degree of public outrage, and at least one lawsuit, will ensue.

8. At least one self-appointed victims group will express its indignation that the presence of Gunga Diners in the city scenes are an intentional slight against (East) Indians, and probably the Muslim world to boot.

9. Alan Moore, who wanted nothing to do with the film, will never see it.

10. The character Rorschach will enter the greater public consciousness as an icon of the left’s view of extreme right wingers — which, of course, includes all conservatives.