You can post your little polls, but the reason that people have shifted to home entertainment is because they are tired of gambling as much as you spend on a decent meal on a movie that is going to SUCK 80% of the time.

I don't doubt that's why they're not going, I just fail to see any relation between Hollywood activism and Box Office numbers as Gideon implies. I usually go to a movie every week, and a lot of them suck. That's a gamble I'm willing to take and can afford to take. Seeing a movie like Crash makes me forget about a lot of the crap ones I see.

I do love your use of the word little to decribe the poll. I keep forgetting that people around here don't respect the opinion of the many. They seem only to put value in their own opinion and those in their circle...kinda like some people think of the Hollywood activists.

So, sure. If they want to take their industry and turn it into a preachy sack of know-it-alls who berate and preach to the people who pay for their million dollar vacation homes, of COURSE they have the right to do it. We, though, should have the right to tell them to shut the hell up and make a decent movie for a change.

I can't make the same case for a lot of other actors, but in general, Clooney has done some great movies;

Out Of Sight
The Thin Red Line
Three Kings
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Ocean's Eleven
Welcome To Collinwood
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
Good Night, And Good Luck
Syriana

"I don't doubt that's why they're not going, I just fail to see any relation between Hollywood activism and Box Office numbers as Gideon implies."

The relation is their preachy movies suck most of the time. The point in entertainment is to entertain. If you are an adept artist you can provide deeper meaning and still entertain. Modern Hollywood, though, thinks that the message itself is entertaining, even if they are preaching hellfire to most of the audience.

"I do love your use of the word little to decribe the poll. I keep forgetting that people around here don't respect the opinion of the many. "

No, I don't respect using a poll in the way you did. It doesn't ask about the preachiness of Hollywood. When it talks about the cost of going to movies, the preference for DVDs, etc., people could easily be annoyed at the activism involved in many movies and switching based on that.

You just wanted it to say that people liked DVDs just because they like DVDs, and that isn't what is being asked or said. It's a crappy little poll, frankly, because it offers options that don't tell you anything about the mind of the moviegoer. People will pay big to see something they really want to see, so when you talk about value it isn't just how much something costs, but the quality of the product.

"I can't make the same case for a lot of other actors, but in general, Clooney has done some great movies;"

I'd debate the term 'great' in terms of most of those on your list. A couple have seem to have stuck in the consciousness of fans, but most of them are the product of the era that have turned people AWAY from theaters.

I for one am sick to death of entertainers thrusting their political agendas in my face.

I for one am sick of hollywood doing the same thing.

nteresting. I didn't take it that Clooney was calling anyone "stupid." What he was saying, in my opinion, was "if you want to call me out of touch, that's fine, but I still stand by what I believe." He didn't call anyone any names--he only refuted the name he was called.

I agree. Clooney is well respected as an actor. I personally like him because he takes roles that have very touchy subjects to America. That takes balls. I dont think he sits at home and thinks to himself "hmm, what will people think of me?"

Syriana is a movie that involves the oil industry. It 'hints' at Washington having lots of interest and many hands tied to it. Hmm, this couldn't possibly be true, could it?

Good Night and Good Luck was a movie about a politician who milked and exploited the fears of the American people during the 50's. This is done all the time...Reps and Dems battling back and forth, spewing political agendas.

The problem is that Hollywood, for the vast majority of itself....is playing it too safe with movies. They are pressured to hold back (maybe they just dont want to risk it), making movies that put a thought in peoples heads.

Brokeback mountain...a movie about Gay cowboys...raked in about 70 million dollars. A movie that many people havent seen. I say that because it was pretty much popular (as I quote below) in only a FEW chunks of the country, compared to other movies that did made much more money and did well Everywhere.

The following is a excerpt from a daily radio clip by Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries. Why, yes it is a Christian view...but it makes a pretty big point.

"If all goes as expected at this Sunday’s Academy Awards, Brokeback Mountain will win in the “Best Picture,” “Best Director,” and perhaps even “Best Actor” categories. Even if it doesn’t do as well as expected, the film is already being hailed as a “breakout” event, a kind of cultural watershed of sorts—which it almost certainly is not.

By “breakout,” I mean the idea, most famously advanced by New York Times columnist Frank Rich, that the movie would do well in the “heartland,” and that this, in turn, would signal an increased acceptance of same-sex relationships.

As USA Today summarized it, the film would change “how Hollywood portrays gay characters [and] also how gay men and lesbians are accepted by mainstream America.”

Well, it turns out that the reports of a breakout were greatly exaggerated. While admittedly, Brokeback did well at the box office, its audience was exactly whom you would have predicted all along: people in the Northeast and on the West Coast. The film made far more money in Canada than in the Great Plains or the Rocky Mountain states.

There’s nothing new in this pattern. As Mickey Kaus of Slate pointed out, it’s the same pattern we saw with Fahrenheit 9/11, the anti-Bush documentary. Then, as now, reports about the film’s alleged popularity in middle-America were treated as harbingers of a cultural shift. Then, as now, these reports were shown to be equal parts wishful thinking, spin, and propaganda.

But even if we concede that Brokeback’s $70 million-plus at the box office “is a sign of American mainstream status,” we are still left with another question. “What is $288 million or even . . . $370 million” a sign of?

This question was posed by columnist Terry Mattingly. The numbers he’s citing are the comparable box-office takes for The Chronicles of Narnia and The Passion of the Christ, respectively. These films not only made many times what Brokeback did, they did well in every part of the country. By Rich and company’s logic, this would place them and their Christian messages squarely in the “mainstream.” But don’t hold your breath waiting for such an acknowledgment.

The truth is that, as Mattingly writes, “Brokeback Mountain is a solid, artistic niche movie for the hard left in American life.” This group is “dominated by Oscar voters and Hollywood’s most loyal supporters in blue zip codes.”

The insular worldview of this group is why the “Best Picture” nominees are, as the Los Angeles Times put it, “five movies most people haven’t seen.” This year’s Oscars are a celebration of one particular group’s ideals and tell us little about what constitutes mainstream American attitudes.

That’s why we need to ask ourselves another of Mattingly’s questions: Who will make commercially successful movies that “force Hollywood people to grit their teeth when it comes time for the Oscar voting?”

For Mattingly, whose new book Pop Goes Religion looks at the relationship between faith and popular culture, the obvious answer is “Christians.” If we can learn how to make good films—and we’re beginning to do so—that people will want to see, we could then witness a real breakout: one that leads away from Hollywood’s insular worldview and in a much more positive direction."


Cloony is willing to do what many other actors can not....making a movie that some in the political machine do not want people to see.

I think "Date Movie" and the remake inundation is a far more dangerous trend in Hollywood than politically-based movies. I mean, if you really think about it, the so-called silver age of American cinema(the late 1960's through about 1980) was an age of very political and socially-oriented films.

My god, so films with substance, even when said substance is about a subject matter that one finds distasteful, should at least be admired for actually striving to be more than a string of catch phrases and predictable and juvenile situations. I know they all don't have to be masterpieces, but some of the shit that gets foisted upon the viewing public as blockbuster material is FAR more insulting than anything said during the Oscars. (Like Ultraviolet, Big Momma's House 2 and Annapolis come to mind). I mean, come on. Seriously. People actually went and spent money to see those movies, and the producers actually don't feel bad about that.... and they'll do it again.

I mean, I think it really says something when most video games now have better character development and plot structures than your average mid to big budget movie. So if you are going to rail against something Gideon and the rest of you, go after them for It's Pat, Battlefield Earth and the other sludge that they are making which actually insult your intelligence. I for one would rather be pissed off by a movie because of an intellectual idea that I disagree with in it than a 200-million dollar CGI wank with no story and the most expensive "talent" they can find that is utterly devoid of even entertainment value, let alone an underlying social agenda.

And I should hope it isn't just me either.

"The problem is that Hollywood, for the vast majority of itself....is playing it too safe with movies. They are pressured to hold back (maybe they just dont want to risk it), making movies that put a thought in peoples heads."

I don't buy that. If anything the people who fund their efforts simply want to be entertained. You can address values and ideals without making your movies look like dramatized documentaries or after school specials on 'sensitivity'. Movies that Hollywood makes to be purely entertaining are either just stuffed full of special effects or comedy that was old when I was young.

I think that living in gated communities and paying people to find out what people like destroys your merit as an artist. That's why people tend to make far better movies early on than later. Once they have lost the feeling of awe an ordinary person can have in a film, they've lost the ability to inspire it.

Look at the Star Wars movies. The first ones dealt with good and evil, right and wrong, freedom and oppression, and didn't feel like an heavy-handed allegory of current events. Then Lucas makes some new ones and starts poking in political digs at the Bush administration and thinks that a gazillion dollars worth of bangzoom will cover his total lack of enthusiasm.

regarding to your comments historyishere ... i dont want to always goto movies and watch some political drama or some shit with a plot.. i somtimes goto theatres to get a good laugh or have a good time... not sit and contemplate on what i watched ... so movies like i.e. big momma's house 2 or 40 year old virgin... i would consider to be a good break from movies with "substance" ... im sure you cant sit and watch the news for 24/7 because it has substance comapred to say Seinfield but heythat might be your choice (im perfectly ok with that)... im just tring to say basically relaxing from "life" might be why "People actually went and spent money to see those movies..."

as for people saying that Hollywood projects an image etc... its true... so do most news outlets and political figures... matter of fact we Project an image everytime we step out in public... the point is .. its in your hands to take it or spit it....

regarding to your comments historyishere ... i dont want to always goto movies and watch some political drama or some shit with a plot.. i somtimes goto theatres to get a good laugh or have a good time... not sit and contemplate on what i watched ... so movies like i.e. big momma's house 2 or 40 year old virgin... i would consider to be a good break from movies with "substance" ... im sure you cant sit and watch the news for 24/7 because it has substance comapred to say Seinfield but heythat might be your choice (im perfectly ok with that)... im just tring to say basically relaxing from "life" might be why "People actually went and spent money to see those movies..."

as for people saying that Hollywood projects an image etc... its true... so do most news outlets and political figures... matter of fact we Project an image everytime we step out in public... the point is .. its in your hands to take it or spit it.... i.e. switching to another channel is a finger away (or couple of steps if your remote is broken )

respect views ... and spread love
peace.

"Look at the Star Wars movies. The first ones dealt with good and evil, right and wrong, freedom and oppression, and didn't feel like an heavy-handed allegory of current events. Then Lucas makes some new ones and starts poking in political digs at the Bush administration and thinks that a gazillion dollars worth of bangzoom will cover his total lack of enthusiasm."

out of interest how did he go at Bush with star wars?

BakerStreet:

Look at the Star Wars movies. The first ones dealt with good and evil, right and wrong, freedom and oppression, and didn't feel like an heavy-handed allegory of current events. Then Lucas makes some new ones and starts poking in political digs at the Bush administration and thinks that a gazillion dollars worth of bangzoom will cover his total lack of enthusiasm.

Zee:

out of interest how did he go at Bush with star wars?

Lines like "you're either with me, or you're my enemy" sounded an awful lot like the Bush ultimatum about harboring terrorists. And the "death of democracy" scene in the Senate... only problem with that movie is that Natalie Portman DID see it as digs against Bush. Just like she probably sees "V For Vendetta" as an anti-Bush allegory.

Ziggy:

That’s why we need to ask ourselves another of Mattingly’s questions: Who will make commercially successful movies that “force Hollywood people to grit their teeth when it comes time for the Oscar voting?”

How about Return of the King? That made a gazillion dollars, won Best Picture, and was a Christian/WWII allegory.

histroyishere, it's a free market.  People are free to make crappy movies of all types and people are free to throw their money away watching them...or not.  My problem isn't with what kind of movies people like Clooney make.  My problem is that I am tuning in to see him be an actor and get an award for being an actor not for being a politician.  I couldn't care less what actors think of politics unless they are in a political forum.

If it is a political show I am forwarned and can choose to tune in or not.  I am tired of tuning in to be entertained and instead get preached politics to by an entertainer.  If I want to be entertained, I tune in to people who entertain for a living.  If I want politics, I tune in to people who do that for a living.  I don't want to watch Condi Rice sing and dance any more than I want to hear what Clooney or Sarandon or whoever talk about politics...well, maybe I do.  I think Condi might be more entertaining

Baker:

You can post your little polls, but the reason that people have shifted to home entertainment is because they are tired of gambling as much as you spend on a decent meal on a movie that is going to SUCK 80% of the time.

The reason I have stayed away from theaters is just that: $9 a head, with five paying people in my family? Only things I'm gonna shell out that kind of money for is Harry Potter, Wallace & Gromit, and March of the Penguins (which were my only three movies for 2005).

How about Return of the King? That made a gazillion dollars, won Best Picture, and was a Christian/WWII allegory.

Hmm...I dunno...I never made that connection.

How about Return of the King? That made a gazillion dollars, won Best Picture, and was a Christian/WWII allegory.

I thin kit was simply the third book of the trilogy.  Just like The Two Towers was not a reference to 9-11.

I watched the Oscars and enjoyed it. I laughed my head off at some of the funny stuff that Jon said and some of the antics of the crowd. It was all in the name of entertainment as it should be. I really think you guys are taking things abit too seriously. I didn't get that "you're too stupid" message from George Clooney at all. I didn't even read anything political into his statement. But then I wasn't looking for it. Why is everything always revolved around politics anyway? Why can't it just be something else? He made a smart comment I thought, but it didn't bother me in the least.

As for Hollywood and "those" people who are a part of that world, I appreciate them for what they do. They take people's mind of some of the more serious stuff in their lives. Sometimes it's good to laugh, and even live a bit of a fantasy through their eyes. They might be just as opinionated and as "out-there" in their views as many Americans are, and have the freedom and right to be, but what they do is what I'm more interested in, not their politics. But that doesn't say they can't let themselves be heard if they so choose.

I like Jon Stewart. He's a super funny guy.

I am a Jon Stewart fan as well. While he and I don't agree 100% politically, he has an EXCELLENT sense of humor about it. He usually takes out both dems and republicans with equal fervor.

Shades,

When Clooney drew the comparison to Hattie McDaniel, I believe he was making it clear that he was right and the rest of us "deluded simpletons" would catch up in 20 years. That may not have been what he intended, but it's the way I took it and the way many others I know took it. If it's not what he meant, it was certainly poorly phrased.