Wow- you’re really reading too many right wing blogs. I loved ‘Wedding Crashers’ as much as the next guy- maybe it was one of my favorite movies of the year. But are you honestly saying it should be honored as the ‘Best Movie’ of the year?

The Grammy Awards used to use the formula that you are promoting- the highest selling albums of the year would receive the honors of ‘Best’ of the year. As a result we can look back on such timeless winners as Paula Abdul and Hughie Lewis.

Anyway- isn’t whole point of your post undermined by- your post? You are saying that Hollywood’s agenda isn’t being accepted by the American people- as proof you point to the success of Star Wars, Harry Potter, and King Kong- movies made by… Hollywood!

Left by Preston on January 19th, 2006 at 11:22 am

I wanted to check up on these seditious Golden Globe awards so I went to the home page: http://www.hfpa.org/

Hmm… the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. I guess ‘Hollywood’ isn’t responsible for the Golden Globes afterall but an organization such as that might be filled with anti-American Fifth Columnists.

So I checked out their mission statement:
1. To establish favorable relations and cultural ties between foreign countries and the United States of America by the dissemination of information concerning the American culture and traditions as depicted in motion pictures and television through news media in various foreign countries.

Typical anti-American propaganda.

Left by Preston on January 19th, 2006 at 12:34 pm

I believe the point would be that the movies that Hollywood pats itself on the back for, are not the movies that the typical American is willing to pay good money to see.

In a nutshell, more folks want to see King Kong than Brokeback Mountain. At the end of the day, it’s all about box office totals and not mission statements.

But what do I know, I’m just a yokel who’d rather see a giant ape terrorize and island than watch a couple of cowboys wrestle around in a pup tent.

Left by Christopher on January 19th, 2006 at 1:16 pm

I believe the point would be that the movies that Hollywood pats itself on the back for, are not the movies that the typical American is willing to pay good money to see.

Yeah, I’m also pissed that the Nobel Prize in Medicine went to f’in Barry Marshall!!! What about Dr. Laura or Dr. Koop or someone real people have heard about?

I can’t believe the tender sensibilities of conservatives. I hate most Hollywood movies so I don’t go- I don’t whine about how they don’t make movies about architects in Brooklyn who like to read blogs.
Do you really think that ‘King Kong’ needs validation? If the barrel-fulls of cash don’t cheer up Peter Jackson then maybe he’ll win a People’s Choice Award.

I find it to be utterly unremarkable that box office success does not perfectly correlate with what is considered ‘quality’ filmmaking by people who make their livings watching and making movies but I don’t have an inferiority complex when my taste for screwball comedy isn’t validated by an award.

Left by Preston on January 19th, 2006 at 1:57 pm

If Hollywood actors weren’t also using their celebrity pulpits to beat their liberal messages to the public (because, who could possibly doubt Tom Cruise’s credentials on psychology, or the Dixie Chicks’ on foreign policy).

If Hollywood actors/producers/directors were simply inclined to make movies and not use their celebrity status to push a political agenda, I wouldn’t have nearly the disdain for them that I now do.

But when their movies (the one’s they are most likely to “pat themselves on the back” for) start to more and more closely, and more and more often reflect their out-of-the-mainstream political agenda, then I grow more reluctant to be pay for their propoganda and rhetoric…when all I wanted them to do was entertain me.

But hey…if you like getting your political talking points from actors (who will fly their private jet across the country to speak at a protest against gas guzzling SUVs), then you’ll probalby enjoy their agenda-pushing movies, too.

Left by Robbie on January 19th, 2006 at 2:08 pm

Let me get this straight, you describe Robbie’s post and my response as being whiney, pissed off and overly sensitive but also having alluding to an inferiority complex to boot?

And here I was simply making an observation (as was the owner of this blog) that the movies Hollywood chooses to honor are not what folks want to see. If that trend stays constant, then you probably won’t see many more of the “award” winning movies because the studio execs won’t be willing to fork over the dough to make them anymore.

Hey! If that happens, we’ll both get what we want. You’ll get to go to the movies more because they’ll make more screwball comedies, and I’ll finally get the validation I’ve desparately been seeking because the types of movies I like will be the only ones in the running. Then I won’t have to whine about it while being overly sensitive.

Liberals and conservatives watching screwball comdies, together. Now that would truly be remarkable.

Left by Christopher on January 19th, 2006 at 2:29 pm

the movies Hollywood chooses to honor are not what folks want to see.

1. The HFPA isn’t synonymous with ‘Hollywood’.
2. I think the studios are more interested in accruing dollars than awards so the motivation is disproportionately in favor of making blockbusters. Throwing a couple of Golden Globes to King Kong won’t get a sequel made if the studio doesn’t foresee the movie making 300 million dollars.
3. It is a bizarre standard to hold Hollywood studios responsible for the movies that are awarded by third parties rather than the actual movies they make.

Left by Preston on January 19th, 2006 at 3:01 pm

Guess I’ll chime in here. I won’t be watching Broback Mountain or whatever it’s called even when it’s on cable for free. When I see a hunky guy in a movie, I want to drool, not vomit. I’ve seen Madagascar and nearly all the kid movies, courtesy of my namesake; have to admit Shrek was my fav..lol..and I know for sure they are marketing these kid movies as much to adults as kids…we’re the ones paying after all, and we all need a good laugh. Quite frankly, I don’t care who gets an award and who doesn’t. It’s my choice to go or not.

Left by dianne on January 19th, 2006 at 5:26 pm

And Pizza Hut makes the best pizza, and McDonald’s makes the best burger. Right?

Left by Dan on January 19th, 2006 at 9:01 pm

Dan…to whom are you speaking and what the heck are you saying? There are no burgers like Backyard Burgers and obviously you’ve never had a Chicago style pizza or for that matter a Chicago hot dog loaded with peppers and onions and tomatoes and hot hot hot.

Left by dianne on January 20th, 2006 at 9:49 am

Dianne-

Dan is making the point that just because something is popular it doesn’t mean it’s the best.

Regarding your comment about Brokeback Mountain- I suppose your feeling was echoed by opponents of interracial relationships 30 years ago. I haven’t seen the movie but I imagine the whole point of it is that they are just two humans- a condition more fundamental than being ‘gay’ or ’straight’.

Left by Preston on January 20th, 2006 at 10:18 am

Thanks, Preston.

Left by Dan on January 20th, 2006 at 11:04 am

Preston…I knew he was getting at something, but it didn’t jive with me…thanks for the clarification.

I cannot fully respond to your comparison of the acceptance of interracial marriage to the acceptance of homosexuality within the limitations of this blog, but suffice it to say, both “loves” have been around for thousands of years, but only one biologically is passed from generation to generation and will never die despite what the media or any living person says or does. The other dies with the individual of that generation despite any attempt by anyone to sustain it. Acceptance or not doesn’t matter..it never has, it never will.

Left by dianne on January 20th, 2006 at 11:37 am

but only one biologically is passed from generation to generation and will never die despite what the media or any living person says or does.

The fact that homosexuals don’t have children (we’ll put aside that they often do) doesn’t mean that their genes are not passed on.

It is similar to the way that the instict for altruism is passed on- though I may die in a fire getting my brother and sister out of the building my genes may be passed on even if I don’t have kids because they may also have recessive genes for altruism.

It is entirely within the realm of possibility (and is said to be observable in nature) that a number of homosexuals in a population is beneficial to the preservation of the group as a whole- even if that individual does not have children.

Left by Preston on January 20th, 2006 at 12:03 pm

[...] RELATED: Hollywood: Out of Step with Most of the Country [...]

Left by UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Agent Jack Bauer vs. President Mackenzie Allen on January 22nd, 2006 at 8:46 pm

sorry to get into this one so late…but…when they were calling Brokeback Mountain an Oscar front-runner, regardless of the content, it has to make you wonder.

and, as far as that list of most money making movies of this year…sequel, sequel, remake, remake, original, remake, sequel, remake, remake.

know what was the biggest movie of 2005? The Passion of the Christ. made zillions of dollars, took on a ridiculously controversial subject, and got no press. let’s check now, was it getting the same kind of glowing press that BM is getting? nope. not hardly.

any of these movie deals are sort of like watching the judging in figure skating. just ignore what the judges say, and make up your own mind.

Left by MacStansbury on January 22nd, 2006 at 11:19 pm

Mac - Passion of the Christ got no press?? On what planet?

Left by Dan on January 23rd, 2006 at 8:39 am

Why is mainstream a dirty word? You know, I don’t understand why so many actors want to change the world…I mean, if they care so much, why didn’t they just go into politics in the first place? There can only be one reason…they like hearing themselves talk even more and think that the movies is a better platform than getting into politics for real.

Personally, I think political-talk for an entertainer - which is what an actor is to me - is career suicide. I get a bad taste in my mouth when I hear an actor go totally against what I personally believe…I just can’t see them as characters as easily as before. Suddenly, they’re not really in the movie anymore to me. They’re now real people with real views…and honestly, I go to the movies to escape all that! Personally, I don’t want to know what an actor thinks about the world at large, I mean, if I wanted political commentary, I’d watch CNN, and if I wanted someone to steer my morals, I’d go to church…or stay out of church. And, as for trying to push their anti-everything, gay-loving, palestinian-loving, “it’s-all-America’s-fault” ideas on me, well, I just think, please…go to college, get an education, join the workforce and actually make money at something other than reading other people’s words…or hey, how about getting into politics for real? THEN, come back and lecture me once you know something. I love art and cinema is an artform indeed. I’d just love it if actors got a reality-check on their creditials before submitting the rest of us to their anti-mainstream agenda in the form of a movie. Until somebody jerks their ego into check, they’re going to keep on patting each other on the back for bullcrap that nobody wants to watch…and submitting the rest of us it.

Left by jodi on January 23rd, 2006 at 12:56 pm

We’ll have to get that news over to Ahnold and Charlton Heston and Ronald Reagan, too, I suppose.

The right has such a strong opposition to actors in politics that somehow hasn’t prevented electing many of them to office.

Left by Preston on January 23rd, 2006 at 2:14 pm

Take, for example, claims that, as Bill O’Reilly told his viewers back in December, the mass public would not go see “Brokeback Mountain” because it shows two men getting it on. As O’Reilly put it: “They’re not going to go see the gay cowboys in Montana. I’m sorry. They’re not going to do it.”

But they are (even, reportedly, in Missoula, Mont.). The greater public, it turns out, is not as freaked out about boys kissing boys as O’Reilly or his colleagues at Fox are, and has made the film a qualified hit. This past weekend, according to reports, “Brokeback” finished at No. 5, despite still appearing in only 1,196 theaters — twice as many as the week before, though still a modest number. The week’s top-grossing “Underworld: Evolution,” for example, debuted in more than 3,000 theaters. “Brokeback” also leapt ahead of the season’s two big blockbusters, “The Chronicles of Narnia” (No. 7) and “King Kong” (No. 11), both of which have grossed far more since their release, but have also had long runs in many more theaters (2,757 and 2,205 last week, respectively). And while “Brokeback” will surely never approach either of those films’ box office numbers, its profit margin looks awfully good; “Brokeback” has so far grossed $42 million, but was made for just $14 million. (”Narnia” has grossed a remarkable $271 million, but cost $180 million; “King Kong” has brought in $209 million, but was made for a whopping $207 million.) Should “Brokeback” get the expected Oscar attention, its numbers could swell bigger than O’Reilly’s giant head.

Left by Anonymous on January 23rd, 2006 at 3:45 pm

Gov. Schwarzenegger and President Bush left Hollywood to successfully pursue careers in politics. Which makes them former actors.

I’d have a lot more respect for Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon if they did the same. Instead, they use their Hollywood platform as a politcal pulpit. In the meantime, they’re just actors with a political agenda, but without the true sense of conviction to leave their glamorous Hollywood lifestyles for one of true service to their communities.

Left by Robbie on January 23rd, 2006 at 11:36 pm

I suspect I’m less of a fan of celebrity culture than you are but I have to say the inconsistency of this position gives you a ‘cranky old man’ appearance.

Actors are private citizens.
Private citizens may (and should) take political stances.
Those with political stances are free to convince others to do the same.

You have a pretty low opinion of the American electorate if you think Jessica Simpson and Ron Silver are going to persuade many people to start voting Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republican_celebrities

If you agree that they are ineffective it might be beneficial to your mental health to simply tune out the noise. Not every annoyance deserves a rant.

Left by Preston on January 24th, 2006 at 12:09 pm

“they’re just actors with a political agenda, but without the true sense of conviction to leave their glamorous Hollywood lifestyles for one of true service to their communities”

i’m just curious. at what level of celebrity would you (Robbie) concede your blog here? Is there a certain level of fame that stops you from pushing your political agenda. In theory a blog could reach as many people as Tim Robbins does when he speaks out against his foes. Would you have to censor yourself if (and it’s a BIG if) you became more popular? At what point would you gain the “true sense of conviction to leave (your blogging) lifestyle for one of true service to your community”?

Left by Anonymous on January 24th, 2006 at 3:21 pm

That’s a good and fair question Anonymous…

Fist, the level of celebrity of my blog is quite low. If it were a Screen Actors Guild card carrying member, my Blog would be Ghandi Jeddi.

As to At what point would you gain the “true sense of conviction to leave (your blogging) lifestyle for one of true service to your community”? — that date was August of 1991, when I enlisted in the Unites States Army during the first Gulf War.

I don’t combine my politics (blogging) with my professional life in the way that Hollywood actors do, either. During a presentation on my latest documentation plan to members of my project team, I’ve never injected a snide and inappropriate comment about John Kerry into my presentation. Why? Because it would be inappropriate.

When I’m writing a user manual for a client, I don’t inject my politics into my writing. I don’t write Software Installation Manuals aimed only at the sensibilities of heterosexual, white, conservative me.

I’d prefer if Hollywood actors wouldn’t combine their job (getting me and others to pay to see them entertain us) with their politics.

Left by Robbie on January 24th, 2006 at 3:33 pm

Preston wrote: Those with political stances are free to convince others to do the same.

I’ve never once claimed that Hollywood’s limo-liberals don’t have a right to use their celebrity status as a pulpit to preach and spread their political views.

What I am claiming is that I have a right to be off-put by it. I have a right to let them know that the reason I’m not seeing their movies these days has nothing to do with the economy, the lack of effective marketing campaigns, or the lack of good theaters to watch their movies. It’s to let them know that I’m not watching their movies specifically because of their politics.

They have a right to their views. I have a right to disagree and not purchase their products.

Left by Robbie on January 24th, 2006 at 3:37 pm