Commie, Homo-Loving Sons of Guns Bad for Business
February 25th, 2009 at 8:37 am by CrankyFor seven years, MOVIEGUIDE® has been looking at the political content of the Top 250 English-language movies that open nationally each year in the United States. An examination of the domestic box office averages for movies promoting an unabashedly socialist or Communist viewpoint shows that such movies averaged only about $15.5 million and $7 million per movie from 2002 through 2008.
2008 boxoffice receipts prove this point.
… movies released in 2008 coming from a more liberal or leftist sensibility (including Steven Soderbergh’s movie honoring Che Guevara, “Mamma Mia!” and Bill Maher’s “Religulous”) averaged only $11.4 million at the box office, but that movies with more conservative content, including the new Indiana Jones movie where the villain is a spy from the Soviet Union, “Prince Caspian” and the Christian movie “Fireproof,” which attacked the porn industry, averaged $81.2 million.
The question remains, why can’t conservatives create an alternative to Hollywood?
Sure The Omega Code was a turd, but you can’t hold that against us forever.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Creating an alternative to Hollywood would be a tall order. Conservatives can make movies that resonate with the general public, but the distribution system is difficult to access from a conservative point of view, so to speak. A movie may be an excellent movie and conservative and because of the latter it will not be picked up by distribution companies and/or not get shown on a lot of screens, and that same film will get one-sided reviews for the most part if it gets any reviews at all. The availability on a lot of screens is what tends to drive demand. A lot of people just go to the movies and pick from whatever is showing there.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
The “Arts” crowd of virtually every civilization that ever existed has been in the forefront of bring those civilizations down with societal decay. Entertainment, by its nature is something other than an activity requisite to survival, or even constructing productive elements/assets in that society. It is the filling of slack time, it is distraction or the opposite of production.
Conservatives, especially the highly productive ones tend to be producing, or doing constructive things even in spare time. Many lead in their churches and/or communities, read, further their education or work qualifications. Many never retire, or at least, do not intend to do so. They promote their values by their actual behavior, not with empty words and symbolism. They are successful because they work, and the ones that become famous don’t set out to do what they do for that reason, but become so as a result of hard work, and high moral courage.
As it is presently structured, *entertainment* requires huge cash outlay(investment up front)and connections nation-wide for promotional and airing purposes. It isn’t only the people making crappy movies (acting, producing, directing, promoting) that want them because they promote their own values(or lack of them), but those who will show them, critique them, and put them on disc, and audiences as well. Misery loves company, as does sin in general…
February 25th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Very shortly a giant slice of America will not be able to afford to go to the movies. It is way down the list of life’s necessities…
February 25th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Wow, thanks for the insightful comments.
Regarding distribution; one of my favorite bands, Collective Soul, stepped outside of the traditional distribution model.
Their last CD was available for purchase at iTunes and at Target. It still racked up sales. I’m sure they took a hit though since the big marketing money wasn’t there pushing videos, movie tie-ins and payola. But they were pleased with the sales.
Maybe a parallel track could be developed in the film biz? I don’t know, I’m just a misanthropic software developer.