Article

2011-08-28 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2011-08-28 08:12|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 ....And yet these movies consistently do well (or at least break even), while anti-military flicks tend to crash/crater/burn at the box office. You'd think there was a lesson there....

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2011-08-28 08:42|| 2011-08-28 08:42|| Front Page Top

#2 I guess he didn't go to all those anti-military anti-war movies either which, pun not intended, bombed. Maybe if he'd check the polls on confidence in American government institutions, he'd discover what a few in Hollyweird have discover and which the publishers of loads of vidgames already know, that the military ranks among the highest in respect from the general public. Something else he can't grasp. Those soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines come from middle America, not the ruling caste or their publicists of the media. They know first hand who and what the military is from family and neighbors versus the crazed demonized veteran portrayed by most of Hollyweird, the MSM, and Homeland Security. First hand bets slimy propaganda any day.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-08-28 08:50|| 2011-08-28 08:50|| Front Page Top

#3 BTW, the military spends millions in recruiting advertizing. Just consider this, as the Pentagon does, product placement, another common Hollyweird practice. That's where business pays the production company to put their product conspicuously in the film or broadcast. This is just resources in kind. Do you recall any corporation that engaged in product placement in a movie that trashed what they were selling? /rhet question

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-08-28 08:59|| 2011-08-28 08:59|| Front Page Top

#4 (In other words, anti-war movies are box office suck.)

In the Valley of Elah (2007) - Production cost $23m. US box office $6.8m

Redacted (2007) - p.c. $5m. US b.o. $.06 million.

The Kingdom (2007) - p.c. $80m. US b.o. $47.4 million. (Note: Saudi Arabia does not have saguaro cacti.)

Rendition (2007) - p.c. $25.7m. US b.o. $9.7 million.

Lions for Lambs (2007) - p.c. $35m. US b.o. $15 million.

Home of the Brave (2006) - p.c. $12m. US b.o. $.04 million.

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-08-28 10:20|| 2011-08-28 10:20|| Front Page Top

#5 And the Army is reporting record suicide rates among soldiers.

Of course 3rd and 4th year legion étrangere FOB tours to an endless, no-win conflct had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Posted by Besoeker 2011-08-28 10:42|| 2011-08-28 10:42|| Front Page Top

#6 Compare the hero in Battle: LA to the 'hero' in Lions for Lambs.

If you're a young man, which one would you rather be?

The question answers itself.

Posted by Steve White 2011-08-28 11:30|| 2011-08-28 11:30|| Front Page Top

#7 Old headline: Spartan children cheer as King Leonidas and his 300 march to defend Thermopylae

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-08-28 11:34|| 2011-08-28 11:34|| Front Page Top

Posted by DepotGuy 2011-08-28 11:54|| 2011-08-28 11:54|| Front Page Top

#9 So this guy opposes any Pentagon support or access for Mission to Abbottabad?

Posted by Matt 2011-08-28 11:58|| 2011-08-28 11:58|| Front Page Top

#10 I actually liked The Kingdom. It showed the Saoodis for the back-stabbing bastards they are

Posted by Frank G 2011-08-28 12:12|| 2011-08-28 12:12|| Front Page Top

#11 American moviegoers get a flood of pro-war agitprop, from "Armageddon"

Wait a minute. Armageddon was about a buncha oilfield trash sent to save the world. Maybe it was pro-oil industry agitprop, but it wasn't military.

Posted by badanov 2011-08-28 12:44|| http://www.freefirezone.org 2011-08-28 12:44|| Front Page Top

#12 As for Top Gun, the pilots who made it must have been laughing at the plot. I talked to several former pilots -they were unanimous saying that any pilot who pulled the shit that Maverick did would have been grounded and lost their wings on the first stunt.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2011-08-28 13:02|| 2011-08-28 13:02|| Front Page Top

#13 Yeah badanov, for a second thought there was an Armageddon I hadn't seen.

Tarantino has a different take.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyN8VN4BSzM
NSFW, children, sunday school.

Pearl Harbor sux. Battle LA, after I got past some techinical questions and just watched the movie, was not just entertaining but yes military good.

Posted by swksvolFF 2011-08-28 13:26|| 2011-08-28 13:26|| Front Page Top

#14 Anonymoose, aren't those awful US box office number supposedly made up for in int'l BO, which laps up Hollywood's anti-Americanism?

Posted by Free Radical 2011-08-28 14:27|| 2011-08-28 14:27|| Front Page Top

#15 Actually, as I read the charts- 'Rendition' made :
US BOX: $9.7 mil
INTL BOX: $17.3 mil
RENTAL: $26.9 mil (!!)

So, profitable whether we like it or not...
(#s from www.boxofficemojo.com)

Posted by Free Radical 2011-08-28 14:43|| 2011-08-28 14:43|| Front Page Top

#16 Anonymoose add the military game Modern Warfare 2 in which your military isn't the bad guy and it grossed over a billion dollars in comparison. The leftards whine about not being able to sell their crap (ie - no one want [anti] war films) , but ignore the take when another media crushes their vile output. It's called supply and demand. I guess Hollyweird is preparing their narrative for a bailout. Hey, it worked for the UAW and Detroit's substandard output.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-08-28 14:47|| 2011-08-28 14:47|| Front Page Top

#17 I don't buy Sirota's thesis that Hollyweird has considerable influence on the American public. It seems to me that Procopius2k in spot on regarding: Those soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines come from middle America, not the ruling caste or their publicists of the media. They know first hand who and what the military is from family and neighbors versus the crazed demonized veteran portrayed by most of Hollyweird, the MSM, and Homeland Security. . Often, events drive enlistments such as 911 and Pearl Harbor.

Posted by JohnQC 2011-08-28 14:57|| 2011-08-28 14:57|| Front Page Top

#18 All "Top Gun" did was further reveal that people like action movies with a heart-warming end. See "Independence Day".

Posted by Deacon Blues 2011-08-28 15:21|| 2011-08-28 15:21|| Front Page Top

#19 So, profitable whether we like it or not.

Free Radical,
This is one of the dirty little secrets of holiwood: It is virtually impossible for a studio to lose money on a film nowadays, no matter how lousey it is.

Not long ago the Variety newspaper ran a story on why Hollywood has been puting out so much crap recently. It used the example of a Nickolas Cage flop that made its money on DVD rentals after it had bombed at the box office.

It also pointed out that "green light" decisions are based as more on foreign sales and product tie-ins than they are on whether the movie will be any good. E.g. "Cars 2" was made solely as an excuse to sell car toys to pre-teen kids.

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2011-08-28 15:57|| 2011-08-28 15:57|| Front Page Top

#20 "It is virtually impossible for a studio to lose money on a film nowadays, no matter how lousey it is. "

Exactly Al. By my numbers, 'Rendition' made at least a %100 profit... probably more by now. They picked a hot-button topic and let the DVD/rental market carry it.

So even if a super-majority of Americans hates the socialist crap, the production houses are not being punished on the bottom line.

I think that is because there is no alternative. If someone put a bunch of money behind a 'Fox-News' movie house, they would probably clean up financially. And I say that knowing that Fox isn't 'right-wing,' they are just to the right of their competitors.

Posted by Free Radical 2011-08-28 17:21|| 2011-08-28 17:21|| Front Page Top

#21 Don't confuse creative bookkeeping with 'profit'. When the senior holding company management directs its other subsidiaries to purchase/rent bundled products to run on Starz, HBO, Showtime, they're simply moving the money around from captured revenue to cover losses in one part of the overall accounting. It's basically no different than when the investment houses bundled bad paper with good to manipulate the books. Having to answer to institutional investors, its a nice way to even out the bean counting for the financial statements.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-08-28 17:30|| 2011-08-28 17:30|| Front Page Top

#22 Also, with the remakes. Not only is the sales pitch easy, familiarity, there is a bump in sales and television re-play of the previous versions - which are already paid for.

Saving Private Ryan, exciting especially the first couple go rounds, but I hate that movie, more each time I see it. Doesn't help that only one of the actors went on to not be a kook. The Great Raid, practically no budget or advertising in comparison, far superior movie.

Posted by swksvolFF 2011-08-28 17:39|| 2011-08-28 17:39|| Front Page Top

#23 Not all movies make a profit. All big budget movies perhaps, because they make sure they are big and dumb and will appeal to audiences foreign and domestic as much as possible.

You will notice the anti-war movies tend to be smaller budget affairs. They might make money but mostly they are made as a bone for big name actors, yes we'll take a loss on your little anti-war picture if you sign up for our big tent-pole blockbuster.

The anti-war movies also allow the producers and such involved to get positive attention at all the best Hollywood parties. Something a pro-military movie might not provide even if it made bank. That is pro-military that isn't a movie about WW2.

Posted by rjschwarz 2011-08-28 21:05|| 2011-08-28 21:05|| Front Page Top

#24 I think it is important to seperate the difference between a character movie with a military setting, and a war movie. War Movie: Tora Tora Tora...character movie: Pearl Harbor. They can be both, as with Saving Private Ryan, Thin Red Line, but they tend to be more character movies with intense action scenes.

I also think the op/ed overestimates film influence, like with Top Gun where the main character was the F-14 and the pilots filled space and set plot; and then goes on to underestimate influece, such as with gutsy call or as I call it, No Brainer, where for example what if Blackhawk Down was released in summer 1996.

Furthermore, the writer misses the obvious pro-military movies of the 80's as citation, such as Delta Force, Invasion USA, Red Dawn, Rambo II. Red Scorpian made its rounds as well. No opinion about Platoon, Full Metal Jacket? What about Glory? If this were the thesis, why not mention Predator and Die Hard, though not really war flicks showcased American Badassdom.

As this is, and I am not familiar with Sirota, but this just comes across as writing about a conversation overheard at a party.

Posted by swksvolFF 2011-08-28 23:15|| 2011-08-28 23:15|| Front Page Top

#25 Oh my, swksvolFF. That was a scalpel wielded with icy precision to cut into the heart.

Posted by trailing wife 2011-08-28 23:25|| 2011-08-28 23:25|| Front Page Top

#26 FWIW, When Paramount made 'Flight of the Intruder,' the only thing they (Paramount) did not cover was our pay (we were TAD for 'training'). They were charged the cost per flight hour we used for the OPTAR, they bought the fuel, paid for our lodging and food, and when we blew a motor and an ejection seat, they paid the going rate for replacements plus the transportation charges. What i don't know is what they were charged when we were at sea on the Independence for 11 days. They also paid for all the (concrete) bombs we dropped. And for our airframe shop to repair a 6 foot 5 rental van that the J.O.'s tried to fit into a 6 foot 3 garage. and any swag we received from them had to be 'blessed' by the on scene CHINFO rep first.

Posted by USN,Ret. 2011-08-28 23:25|| 2011-08-28 23:25|| Front Page Top

#27 Flight - Stephen Coonts authored - a great American author an supporter of America. How TF did Danny Glover (Friend of Chavez and Castro) get cast?

Posted by Frank G 2011-08-28 23:41|| 2011-08-28 23:41|| Front Page Top

#28 You mean Bird-Dog? (Bat-21)

Same as with clooney in Peacemaker? Screen Cred?

Posted by swksvolFF 2011-08-28 23:50|| 2011-08-28 23:50|| Front Page Top

#29 1960's = 1990's MADONNA = "MAVERICK" RECORDS ...

SHE-WHOM-COULD-SHOOT-DOWN-FIVE-ENEMY MIGS-IN-HER-SLEEP lives for the DANGER ZONE ...

versus

* CHINA DAILY FORUMS > FEMALE CHINESE STUDENTS RETURN FROM FRANCE [Universities = Studies, etc.]AS FLOOZIES: JUDICIAL SCHOLAR, i.e. as definitely un-Chinese, not-the-girl-we-sent, super-duper SuperSluts= "Super PAN JINLIAN" STYLE CHARACTER from the famous Chinese novel "WATER MARVEL".

[BRATZ Dolls, US%40-80 TWO-BITES-N-YOU'RE-DONE-EATING ESCARGOTS here].

Posted by JosephMendiola 2011-08-28 23:50|| 2011-08-28 23:50|| Front Page Top

00:00 JosephMendiola
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:50 swksvolFF
23:41 Frank G
23:38 JosephMendiola
23:25 USN,Ret.
23:25 trailing wife
23:17 badanov
23:15 swksvolFF
23:14 Thing From Snowy Mountain
21:56 Redneck Jim
21:49 JosephMendiola
21:42 JosephMendiola
21:22 JosephMendiola
21:08 rjschwarz
21:05 rjschwarz
20:57 tu3031
20:41 tu3031
20:39 JosephMendiola
20:35 JosephMendiola
20:27 JosephMendiola
20:13 JosephMendiola
20:12 JosephMendiola
20:04 Pappy