Dec 032010
 

A little while ago I challenged one of the socialist trolls to name a few Hollywood movies that featured fictional Republican politicians as the hero of the movie. As expected, there was no intelligible reply. Largely due to the fact that in Hollywood, Republicans are considered *evil,* while Democrats are the clear good guys.

When this point is raised as evidence that the is a leftist bias in the Hollywood media, often the response is to point out that Hollywood is run by corporations looking to make a buck, and that somehow this means that Hollywood must therefore have a right-wing bias. But the problem is… this is rubbish. Hollywood movie studios are more than happy to crank out movie after movie that they have got to *know* are going to tank, but since the movies feature a left-wing slant… out they come.

A recent example of this is the Sean Penn flick “Fair Game,” which is apparently an alternate history story about how the Bush administration outed Valerie Plame as revenge against her heroic husband providing proof that the Iraqis had no WMD program. Of course, actual facts are that Wilson, by his own admission, sat on his ass and did no real investigating… and Plames identity was outed by Richard Armitage, a career civil servant, not Bush or Cheney. But as Hollywood so often does, reality can’t stand up to the screenwriters.

So, how is “Fair Game” doing? According to Box Office Mojo, as of this writing it has made $6.3 million domestic, $6 foreign, for a total of $12.3 million… with a  production budget of $22 million. By any usual standard, after a month in release, “Fair Game” is a flop.

And it’s hardly the first. The movie theaters have seen their share of “Iraq/Afghanistan War Movies” since 2003. How have they done? Let’s take a look at the numbers from some movies that cast the US as the bad guys, the Bush administration as the bad guys, the soliders as either bad guys or victims of the Evil Republicans:

“Rendition” (2007) Dom: $9.7M For: $17.3 M Budget: N/A ($27.5 M, IMDB)

“Lions for Lambs” (2007) Dom: $15M, For: $48 M Budget: $35M

“Valley of Elah” (2007) Dom: $6.7M, For: $22.8 M Budget: N/A

“Stop-Loss” (2008) Dom: $10.9 M, For: $0.3M Budget: $25M

“Home of the Brave” (2006) Dom: $0.05M(!), For: $0.5M Budget: N/A ($12M, IMDB) 

“Redacted” (2007) Dom: $0.065M(!), For: $0.7M Budget N/A ($5M, IMDB)

“Green Zone: (2010) Dom: $35M, For: $59.8M, Budget $100M

Now, it could be said that perhaps the reason why these movies all tanked was because the public just ain’t interested in “War On Terror” movies. Alright, it’s a worthy hypothesis. Let’s take a look at some other “War On Terror” movies that *don’t* preach about the evils of the US/the Republicans:

“United 93” (2006) Dom: $31.5M, For: $44.8M, Budget: $15M

“World Trade Center” (2006) Dom: $70.3M, For: $92.7M, Budget: $65M

“A Mighty Heart” (2007) Dom: $9.2M, For: $9.8M, Budget: $16M

“From Paris With Love” (2010) Dom: $24M, For: $28.7M, Budget: $52M

“The Hurt Locker” (2008) Dom: $16.4M, For: $32.2M, Budget $15M

“Generation Kill” (2008) OK, a TV Miniseries, so budget numbers are kinda irrelevant. But I understand it got really good ratings.

Now, I may be no lightnin’ calculator, but to my eye it looks like there’s a bit of a difference… the movies that *don’t* wield a leftist agenda like a club at least tended to make their money back. Those that did… didn’t. Or at least tended to do dismal business in the States.

Hollywood is not run by a pack of idiots, despite what some of the evidence shows. The studio heads who sign off on these flicks *tend* to have some idea of what the movie-going public is actually interested in. Take, for example, some relatively non-political Blow Stuff Up flicks:

“Red” (2010): Dom: $86.4M, For: $67.5M, Budget: $58M

“The Expendables” (2010): Dom:$103M, For: $163M, Budget: $80M

“The A-Team” (2010): Dom:$77.2M, For: $99.7M, budget: $110m

“Skyline” (2010): Dom: $20.5M, For: $26.3M, Budget: $10M

People *do* like to watch stuff get all blowed up, so that’s no excuse for Iraq/Afghanistan movies tanking. And when HolLywood does a straight “war movie,” like “Generation Kill” or “Hurt Locker,” it tends to do pretty well.

The point? Hollywood has flushed a vast sum of money down the sewar in order to produce “message movies” with leftist messages. And with evidence that a war movie set in Iraq/Afghanistan (or at least set agains the backdrop of Islamic terrorism) *can* make buckets of money… Hollywood has made shockingly *few* movies of that kind.

Now, back to the challenge I mentioned at the very top of the page: anyone know of a recent (last 20 years or so) movie or even TV show where the hero is explicitly a modern Republican? A bunch can be rattled off where a Dem is the hero… “An American President,” “Dave,” “Independence Day,”  TV’s “24” (all featured heroic – or at least positive – Dem Presidents), “The Contender” and “Shoot ‘Em Up” feature heroic Dems standing up against evil right-wingers. There are numerous others, but I’m bored.

 Posted by at 9:53 pm

  9 Responses to “Another one bites the dust”

  1. I liked An American President the first time I saw it. Then I rewatched it after I started reading libertarian stuff, and realized it was basically a portrayal of good Dems fighting for the little guy while conservative Republicans engaged in character attacks and touting of “family values.” It was completely done according to a left-wing view, with the Dems fighting for basically everything on the left-wing wish list and the Republicans having nothing better to offer than character attacks, outright lies, and irrationality in the form of religiously-based social values. I still enjoyed the love-story aspect of it, and the humor, but the re-education really ruined for me a movie I used to enjoy 🙁

  2. “When this point is raised as evidence that the is a leftist bias in the Hollywood media, often the response is to point out that Hollywood is run by corporations looking to make a buck, and that somehow this means that Hollywood must therefore have a right-wing bias.”

    I’ve got news for people. Fascism is socialism run by major corporations. People forget that fascist governments always claim to be helping the people while lining the pockets of their wealthy supporters. They had plenty of social programs to buy off voters while doing everything they could to make themselves richer.

  3. > Fascism is socialism run by major corporations.

    Not quite. Fascism is socialism that *runs* major corporations. When Hitler was coming to power, the German corporatiosn thought they had him in their pocket. Before long, though, he had them in his. He let the corporate heads keep their jobs and their riches… so long as they let him tell them what to do.

  4. Independence day had a dem pres ?
    He was a fighter pilot, that just doesn’t wash.
    Alien invaders, computers compatible with earth Software,
    mind control, area 51, air to air missiles against flying mountains,
    etc., sure. But I just don’t buy a democratic fighter pilot president.

    -Gar.

  5. Now, to his credit McGovern, was a WWII vet, where tail-gunner Joe never saw a tail gunner’s position.

    Fascism is more than what my old textbook called “authoritarian capitalism.”

    That was separated I.G Farbin from Boeing. There, the DoD heavily influenced the civilian with the need to move past bombers as tankers. Podded engines were probably on the way anyway, but much is still owed to the 367-80/KC-135/707.

    It was a big risk for Boeing, and without the need for tankers, it might not have gone through at that time. Now where Boeing benefited from Government involvement in the need for a tanker, we wouldn’t call it fascist like we would German tri-motors and the like.

    IG Farbin was going to be in business anyway. Gov’t influenced them–they made money and people died. Von Braun on the other hand, was trying to make the best of a bad situation, and Nordhausen would have been used to make other things had he not lived. I’m just glad the Mossad wasn’t around to knock him off like they did Gerald Bull. That’s where I part company with the IDF, although I can’t say as I blame them either…

  6. > Independence day had a dem pres ?

    It’s left vague in the movie (there are hints in the way of who the moviemakers have criticizing him on TV before the attack), but he’s explicityl referred to as a Dem in the official novelization.

    And consider: it’s 1996, the President is a young guy, is considered attractive, sees himself as a hero, has a daughter and isn’t really bothered that much by the thought of his wife dying. How is this *not* an idealized Bill Clinton? Of course, had the movie granted him superpowers and a religiopus following, it would have been an early movie version of Obama…

  7. It’s 2010, and people are surprised that Hollyweird pushes agitprop and calls it entertainment? They’ve only been doing it since, what, the invention of motion pictures?

  8. I don’t think much of anyone is *surprised.* I think a lot of people are in *denial.*

  9. […] have previously blathered forth about how when Hollywood makes an “America sucks” war movie, it doesn’t do so […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.