Kowabunga

It's becoming more difficult every day to take Hollywood seriously (Sorry John!). The reason is they simply don't get it when it comes to war, politics and, yes, global warming. This has been made very clear when it comes to the war in Iraq in a piece posted on BreitBart.

Hollywood is mystified over the poor returns of the anti-war films they have been turning out, films focused on the war in Iraq. After all, many of these films were well received at the Cannes Film Festival prior to their release. The films are not only performing dismally at the box office, the reviews they are getting are also fairly brutal.

Redford's "Lions for Lambs" and De Palma's "Redacted" are due out soon. The chances are they will also under perform. I wonder why?

Now I admit that I have had zero interest in seeing any of these films thus far. There may be one, reported to be in pre-production now, which I may go see, but that is a long way off. Oh, and that one is on Afghanistan, not Iraq.

From BreitBart:

Lew Harris, the editor of website Movies.com, said the films have struggled to be successful because the subject matters of Iraq and 9/11 remain too close to home. And in many cases, the films have not been entertaining enough.

"These movies have to be entertaining," Harris told AFP. "You can't just take a movie and make it anti-war or anti-torture and expect to draw people in.

Harris has a very good point, although I think if you are pushing an anti-war theme you will have to have a lot more going for it than being entertaining and having Redford and Cruise in it. It has to have substance, and be accurate in the facts. Whether or not these films are can be debated, but not be me as I haven't seen any of them.

Harris then points out that the Iraq war is too current and that Hollywood didn't start making movies about the Vietnam War until years after. Like "The Green Berets" (1968). Okay, it wasn't until 2002 that we got a truly great Vietnam War film in "We Were Soldiers…", so there may be something to the claim that it may be years before we see a good film on the war in Iraq.

"M*A*S*H' was a highly successful anti-war film. It was made at the time of Vietnam War, but set in Korea for the reasons Harris mentions: it was contemporary to Vietnam. It was also highly entertaining and, as I was a kid, never realized it was an anti-war film. But then I was a kid at the time, so maybe I missed something.

Even Steven Bochco admits that it is hard to make a film or series successful about the war in Iraq as it is perceived as being a "hugely unpopular war." Who ever heard of a popular war? There are wars that need to be fought, and wars that shouldn't be fought, and it all comes down to the perpetrators of the conflict. WW2 was made necessary by the Nazi's and by Japan. That does not mean it was a popular war, especially if you were one of the ones drafted into the Army to fight it (on either side).

Bochco continues (also from BreitBart):

Iraq films remain a difficult sell for audiences because of the swirl of confusion surrounding the rights and wrongs of the conflict, he added.

"World War II was hugely romanticized in terms of its fiction. There were unambiguous villains, and the feeling we were fighting the right people over the right issues, as opposed to this war, which many people feel is misguided.

And this explains why Hollywood doesn't understand why their anti-war films about Iraq are doing miserably: Because they believe it is misguided and there no "unambiguous villains" then everyone must feel that way.

Until Hollywood realizes that the Iraq war has had a whole series of unambiguous villains from Saddam Hussein and his sons, Uday and Qusay (with their rape rooms and torture chambers) to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr, and the various sectarian death squads.

Instead of focusing on how the U.S. led coalition is doing good for the people of Iraq, Hollywood brings us films like "Redacted" where we are treated to the brutal rape/murder of an Iraqi girl by several soldiers, all of whom have been convicted of this heinous crime and serving long prison sentences (hopefully taking big rocks and turning them into little rocks, or something like that). Yes, the subject matter of "Redacted" is important, however I believe Hollywood could better spend their energies making movies showing the good side of the war and the heroics of our armed forces, and those of the coalition partners (especially the new Iraqi military). I have no doubt that if Hollywood were to do so they will also find such a film quite profitable. Unless they were to cast Julia Roberts in it as Cindy Sheehan.

Tags:

Hollywood Movies Iraq War Bochco

Posted by Sqotty at 6:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Hollywood, and this time Paramount Pictures in particular, has veered far-left yet again. They are changing an all-American icon of heroism into a globalized entity for the sake of political correctness and "International appeal." What are we talking about? G.I. Joe is being transformed from "Government Issue Joe" into "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity." Say what?

A lot of us as kids had G.I. Joe action figures. Who wants to play with a "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity?" Entity? Good God, they aren't even people, but entities?

From FoxNews:

Paramount has confirmed that in the movie, the name G.I. Joe will become an acronym for "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity" - an international, coed task force charged with defeating bad guys. It will no longer stand for government issued, as in issued by the American government.

The studio won't elaborate, saying filming hasn't begun and details are still in the works, but the behind-the-scenes rumblings are that the producers have decided to change the nature of G.I. Joe in order to appeal to a wider, more international audience.

The word is that in the current political climate, they're afraid that a heroic U.S. soldier won't fly.

Okay, so we have some pack of numbnuts who would rather appeal to the International market rather than to the American people. As usual, Hollywood is clueless.

Here's an idea. Instead of changing G.I. Joe from being the original American hero into some P.C. dehumanized and emasculated object, how about keeping him as is: male, heroic and American. Instead of making films like Redacted how about a film where we have a group of G.I. Joe's teamed up with their Coalition equivalents (especially some guys like the El Salvadorans who made headlines a few years back) and Iraqi soldiers, all equally heroic and representing their nations, battling the evil terrorists and insurgents in Iraq, spreading freedom and democracy in their wake?

Let me guess, they don't think it would appeal internationally. I suppose that it is too much to ask for from Hollywood to produce something that will appeal to Americans, especially those who have answered duties call by serving in the Armed Forces.

Retired Army Col. David W. Hunt, a FOX News military and terrorism analyst, called the scheme to make a whole new Joe "a shame."

"G.I. Joe is a U.S. guy," Hunt said. "What are we going to call it - Global Joe? International Joe? It's kind of stupid. It's ridiculous that they're doing that."

Paramount wouldn't say whether an American would be part of the new "global entity," nor would it offer specifics about the storyline or the characters.

So, has Paramount figured out what will be so appealing to Americans to see a film about a bunch of global entities?

Does Hollywood hate our military so much that they have to distance themselves from all of the important, and good, American military icons? do they believe that Americans would rather view a bunch of "Global Entities" rather than American Heroes? Do they even care? Or are they suffering a total disconnect?

From IGN:

Who needs A Real American Hero? Not Paramount or Hasbro it seems. The studio's live-action feature film version of G.I. Joe will no longer revolve around a top-secret U.S. special forces team but rather an international operation.

In a follow-up to their confirmation that Stephen Sommers will direct G.I. Joe, Variety offers this new description of the team: "G.I. Joe is now a Brussels-based outfit that stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, an international co-ed force of operatives who use hi-tech equipment to battle Cobra, an evil organization headed by a double-crossing Scottish arms dealer. The property is closer in tone to X-Men and James Bond than a war film."

Wow. A Real Globally Integrated Hero! Can we assume that this "double-crossing Scottish arms dealer" is Destro since he was one in the comics? And does that mean there will be no Cobra Commander in it?

So why the changes? Hasbro and Paramount execs recently spoke about the challenges of marketing a film about the U.S. military at a time when the current U.S. administration and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are at a low-point in global polls. When a studio makes a film as expensive as G.I. Joe will likely be, they want to know that as many people as possible around the world will want to see it. In other words, G.I. Joe -- "A Real American Hero" -- is a tough sell.

So they will instead come up with an X-Manish style film with International appeal as it will sell better in France, rather than depicting "A Real American Hero" winning battles and risking his life to save a fallen comrade.

Let the X-Men do X-Manish films and leave James Bond to Sean Connery, and put the hero back into G.I. Joe.

When G.I. Joe becomes G.I.J.O.E., it will no longer be anything I will want to see.

See also Conservablogs' write-up on de-Americanizing of G.I.Joe.

Tags:

G.I. Joe Paramount

Posted by Sqotty at 4:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Scotsman has a piece on Ridley Scott ranting about how technology is killing big-screen cinema.

THE Hollywood director, Ridley Scott, warned yesterday that new technology is killing off the big-screen experience. The Oscar-winning County Durham-born movie mogul said mobile phones and computers threatened movie-making on an epic scale.

Is Scott right? Is high tech and the Internet bringing about the demise of the big-screen movie experience?

"People sit there watching a movie on a tiny screen. You can't beat it, you've got to join it and deal with it and also get competitive with it. But we try to do films which are in support of cinema, in a large room with good sound and a big picture."

However, Scott admitted: "I'm sure we're on a losing wicket, but we're fighting technology. While it has been wonderful in many aspects, it also has some big negative downsides."

Actually, I don't like watching movies on my computer screen or via youtube. I like a nice viewing space so I can capture the richness of the film. this is not to say that eh Internet and youtube video doesn't have a place or serve a purpose. It's not suitable for watching The Wrath of Khan, but it is okay for catching video clips from the campaign trail.

The piece goes on to talk with Mark cousins, a former director of the Edinburgh Film Festival. He points out that the demise of the film industry has been predicted since the introduction of sound, and then again with the rise of television. Yet film making still goes on.

Mr Cousins said: "We still go to big cinemas at weekends collectively, but we also watch movies individually at home with our big TVs and sound systems."

He added that the message was more important than the medium. Mr Cousins said: "I take the view that content is king - it's the story and it's not what format it presented on. That has always been the case."

I think Cousins has it right. It's the quality of the product that is important. The number of great films being produced is no where near what it once was. This is not a reflection on Ridley Scott who has made some great films, including Blade Runner, but on the bulk of product being produced. Remakes up the wahzoo! Many not even close to being as good as the originals they masquerade as.

Some examples: Mission Impossible which takes the legendary Mr. Phelps from the TV series and makes him into a bad guy. This was such a put off for me I refused to see any of the subsequent entries into the series. Star Trek, the series I grew up with, was hit or miss with the series of ten movies produced. Even the various new TV incarnations ranged from dismal to excellent, depending on the episode and specific incarnation.

Ocean's Eleven, a classic Rat Pack picture, was remade with chickendove George Clooney, and sent the message of crime does pay, unlike the message of the original, where they pulled off the crime only to see all of the cash go up in flames.

That is probably one of the biggest problems with modern film (and television) productions: they send the wrong moral message: Crime, infidelity, promiscuity, drug abuse, and so on. The bad guy wins.

It used to be that films sent out positive messages: Heroism, integrity, criminals go to prison, and the good guy always wins.

Another probable cause contributing to the demise of film is the cost of going to the theater. The price of movie tickets varies wildly across the U.S. It's sufficiently high that one is better off waiting for the DVD release and buying or renting it on DVD and watching it in your home.

A great film with a inspiring story, like Harry Potter, can overcome the box office price hurdle, where as the upcoming release of Get Smart will most likely disappoint the Hollywood moguls.