posted
While looking for a trailer for libertarian commentator Larry Elder's film Michael & Me, I stumbled across info on this conservative film festival in LA, where the film will be screened.
Oh, man, are we right-wingers bad at HTML. The site, and the .gif ads all over it--oh, man. Embarrassing.
Most of the sites linked to aren't much better.
Holy cow.
So why point out our technical incompetence? Because some of the trailers still show some spark of potential. (Warning: These are documentaries. Some violence and language may be offensive.)
Sadly, still no Michael & Me trailer.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow.... I love the 9/11 images on the ad for the film that is supposedly about Ronald Reagan's battle with communism. Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hah, after seeing this site. I feel sorry for moderate republicans. I'm sorry these raving jackasses hijacked your party.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As opposed to the communist/anarchists nutjobs that infest the Democrats?"
You know, I'd actually love to see a study that indicated what percentage of each party was made up of fringe nutjobs. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we should all be able to agree that anyone who titles their film "Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at which the Brain Begins to Die" qualifies.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think we should all be able to agree that anyone who titles their film "Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at which the Brain Begins to Die" qualifies.
So is anyone who calls theirs "Fahrenheit 9/11" but then again, Michael Moore definately qualifies, so you might be right.
They might BOTH be nutjobs. Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And someone who names their film, "Farenheight 911: The Temperature at Which Truth Burns" is so much better. Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this is quite refreshing, though it is a sad state for conservative filmmaking. The conservative filmmakers were saddened that "Hollywood doesn't make movies for mainstream America" yet the best they can do is a couple fringe festivals...which seems to counter their opinion. If conservative movies sold, we would have such pictures in the multiplexes every week. The fact is, heavy propaganda films don't really sell, especially amateurish ones. For every F9/11 movie out there, there are literally thousands of ones no one will hear about, and many much better. The fact is that hype pushed Michael's movie and what is sad is that so many conservatives have to do defensive knock-offs in response, which makes them look kind of petty. At least the Reagan one was about a subject matter near and dear to that particular filmmaker (though I agree that using images from 9/11/01...of which Reagan had no part...was kind of pushing it). "Michael and Me" and "Celcius 41.11" seem like something that would be funny in a small television comedy sketch but not enough for a full-length picture.
Mel Gibson made a high-caliber, professional quality film that made buckets of money. He was, ahem, passionate about the material and it showed. Who cares if the Jewish people hated or liberal Christians hated it. It was a conservative film that made gobs of money. I think this is the lesson Conservative filmmakers need to take to heart...make a movie people want to see, not some reactionary and defensive picture that comes off as embarrasing and shrill.
posted
Who was it who said that when Zeus distributed media influence, the democrats got TV and movies, while the republicans got talk radio? It's ironic considering what either party is supposed to stand for.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mel Gibson made a high-caliber, professional quality film that made buckets of money. He was, ahem, passionate about the material and it showed. Who cares if the Jewish people hated or liberal Christians hated it. It was a conservative film that made gobs of money. I think this is the lesson Conservative filmmakers need to take to heart...make a movie people want to see, not some reactionary and defensive picture that comes off as embarrasing and shrill.
I agree with you on that one, fil. I haven't seen many conservative/Christian movies that have been of high quality, apart from the The Passion. But even that took a lot of heat and got lower-than-deserved reviews because of the controversy surrounding it. There was controversy with F-9/11, but movie critics didn't take that into account when they judged the quality and effectiveness of the movie.
My point is that I don't believe a well-done conservative or Christian movie will ever get a fair shake when it comes to critics, while a controversial left-leaning film--especially in this (I'll use your word) shrill anti-Bush environtment--gets a pass almost without question.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
CStroman, I am perfectly willing to admit that the Democrats have plenty of raving nutjobs on their side, and I would be the last to defend communists. They are nasty ideologues who fall victim to the dangerous illusion of utopia. This is the same criticism I have of neoconservativism.
What I don't believe is that communist nutjobs have hijacked the democratic party. Michael Moore is certainly an ideologue, but he isn't the chief exectutive, nor ever will be (thank God). The Democrats are ralling around boring, moderate policy wonks and debasturbators, not extremists. The neocons essentially control every level of the federal government, and control the GOP. Frankly, that scares me.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...I don't believe a well-done conservative or Christian movie will ever get a fair shake when it comes to critics..."
Only a few people pay much attention to what the critics say: even the most favorable reviews are good only for boosting audiences on opening night, and maybe a bit on the following night. Most folks read a review only to find out if the stars/director/writer and subject/plot might interest them. Whether a film continues to draw an audience depends on person-to-person word-of-mouth.
A high priced movie which is a stinker to its target audience is gonna rapidly sink after opening night. No matter what the critics say, no matter how much is spent on advertisement. If you've got a movie which feels effective to the audience for which it is intended, it'll make megabucks in profit. No matter what the critics say, no matter how little initial media publicity it receives. If its intended audience loves it, the media will eventually cover the fact that its audience loves it, and the word will spread from there.
The reality is most critics will praise any film, no matter how crummy, if they think it will make lots of money. They operate under the principle that if they can successfully call what will draw the largest audiences, they will become reknowned for their critiquing skills. Half the critics 'll praise a crummy film unlikely to make any money in hopes that such sycophancy will get them a free buffet, free comp to a premiere screening/party for that studio's next film. Them little doggie bags of studio gifts/trash are so preciousss...
posted
Oh, and while we are on the topic of movies:
I hereby order all of you who have a passing interest in speculative ficition to see Primer. I have a thread on it which I will ressurect. It contains information, a link to a trailer and a listing of dates and locations it is showing. I have spoken!Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that it really doesn't have anything to do with reviews. Note the top 5 box office movies as taken from "Rotten Tomatoes" website (for those that don't know, RT is a site that brings together all the major reviewers along with many minor ones to create an aggregate score...Rotten or Fresh):
38% The Forgotten $21.0M 74% Sky Captain and the... $6.7M 59% Mr. 3000 $5.1M 23% Resident Evil: Apoc... $4.0M 10% First Daughter $4.0M
Most of these movies are rated as "Rotten" with the exception of "Sky Captain" and that is on the edge of Rotten by their scoring standards.
How many of these are "conservative" movies? I mean, "Garfield" is still on this list...if a movie can't be made that is somewhat easier to sell than this...conservative or not....sheesh.
Maybe there just aren't as many dedicated conservative filmmakers out there with craft and vision. Would the Clancy movies be considered "Conservative?" How many of the linked list are "liberal?" (Not including the obvious F911, of course). Maybe "De-Lovely" because it talks about (gasp) a homosexual man and his marriage. Or maybe "Silver City?" But really, what is so liberal about most of those movies? "Forgotten" has been even argued as an anti-abortion movie, but not having seen it or not knowing the premise, I don't know why.
I think it may also be the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" with regards to movies. A movie like "Citizen Ruth" is probably considered by conservatives as liberal because it shows two sides to the abortion debate whereas liberals might call it "fair and balanced" since it clearly pokes holes into both side's arguments and methods. Just a thought.
posted
I consider a review to be good if I can tell whether I would like the movie based on the review. I don't need to agree with the conclusion reached by the critic, as long as they present enough information about the movie (without spoilers, of course) for me to make a reasonably accurate prediction.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
