Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

War of the Worlds screenwriter says Martians slaughtering humans are metaphore for U.S. military
Larry Elder Talk Radio Show on KABC AM 790 Los Angeles ^ | Tuesday, July 19, 2005 | Larry Elder

Posted on 07/19/2005 5:35:21 PM PDT by FraudFactor.com

War of the Worlds screenwriter David Koepp admits political propaganda in movie

KABC talk show host Larry Elder said today that David Koepp, one of the two War of the Worlds screenwriters, stated in a recent interview for a Canadian publication that the Martians slaughtering the humans are a metaphor for the adventurism of the American military forces, i.e., for the Bush Administration's war on terrorism, and the human civilians are a metaphor for the Iraqi people. He stated that this is going back to the original H. G. Wells book upon which the movie is loosely based.

However, the original story took place in England, and as Larry Elder pointed out, the book was written in the late eighteen hundreds (first published in 1898) at a time when British imperialism was at its peak, when the British Empire had authority over one out of every four human beings on Earth. Clearly, the United States is not an imperialist country, especially when compared to England, France, Spain, Portugal, Russia, and the communist Soviet Union, Turkey/The Ottoman Empire, and the Arab Muslims.

One of Larry Elder's callers pointed out that we should expect leftist political propaganda in any movie directed by Steven Spielberg and including actor Tim Robbins, an outspoken critic of the Bush administration.

Tim Robbins played a survivalist named Ogilvy, who is the Hollywood-left's stereotype for a conservative - a distasteful "red neck" character portrayed as a crazy shotgun-wielding suspected child molester. He was in one of the two anti-gun scenes in the movie. This is another example of the bigotry of the Hollywood-left.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: antibush; anticonservative; antimilitary; antiwar; davidkoepp; hollywood; larryelder; left; leftist; movie; propaganda; review; rogerebert; screenwriter; socialistdemocrats; waroftheworlds
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last
When we see leftist political propaganda in movies and television, including negative stereotypes, language, messages, and symbolism, the rational conclusion is that it is there on purpose and not by accident. It is there with the specific intent of manipulating or "shaping" public opinion to influence election outcomes and to change societal norms.

If the propaganda were there by accident, based on random chance, then we would expect approximately 50 percent of the bias to favor conservatives, rather than 90 to 100 percent favoring leftists and unfairly and dishonestly attacking conservatives. This is the same as if you are always short-changed. This is not a random error or bias. You are being cheated if you are not given comparable amounts of extra change half the time there is an error.

Capitalism gives us the ultimate freedom, because we can vote for the products and services we like and against those we dislike (or that dislike us), every time we spend our money. This voting process helps improve the quality of products and services provided by the free market. Let's vote intelligently!

1 posted on 07/19/2005 5:35:30 PM PDT by FraudFactor.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com

His movie bombed


2 posted on 07/19/2005 5:36:39 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com

I guess this clown is unaware of the fact that when H.G. Wells wrote the book it was considered a metaphor for a war between England and Germany.


3 posted on 07/19/2005 5:37:41 PM PDT by Armigerous ( Non permitte illegitimi te carborundum- "Don't let the bastards grind you down")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com
the two anti-gun scenes

well, i suppose if you are anti-gun, a virus will have to do on the occasion that you are invaded by martians. that's peaceful and loving and non-violent.

man, these doofuses blow.

4 posted on 07/19/2005 5:38:55 PM PDT by wildwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Armigerous

Frankly, I liked the original with Gene Barry. This new one sounds like a clunker.


5 posted on 07/19/2005 5:41:13 PM PDT by asp1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
His movie bombed

I wish I had a $449million bomb on my resume. (Not including future box office, DVD and TV income.)

Yeah. REAL big bomb.

6 posted on 07/19/2005 5:41:21 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dean won't call Osama guilty without a trial, but DeLay and Rove should be in jail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: asp1
I read this idiot's BS about the script being about us in Iraq a few weeks ago and simply put it out of my mind while I watched. As a huge fan of the original, I have to admit this one is far superior--it's closer to the book, the FX are great, and I was just drawn into the movie.

I don't go to movies for the fool moviemakers's political "thoughts" since I assume they're all libs, anyway. But the movie itself was terrific.

7 posted on 07/19/2005 5:42:56 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dean won't call Osama guilty without a trial, but DeLay and Rove should be in jail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wildwood
"metaphor for U.S. military"

Treason is not difficult to define. Treason is when your country is at war and you want the other side to win. If America is like evil invading Martians, then we are evil and should be destroyed.

I am so glad that I didn't go see this film and never will now. We have got to stop feeding the beast even if we can't stop it.
8 posted on 07/19/2005 5:46:40 PM PDT by garjog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

I wish I had a $449million bomb on my resume. (Not including future box office, DVD and TV income.)

Yeah. REAL big bomb."

Production Budget: was $132 million. I don't know what the marketing cost was. But $449 million gross (given all they hype) does not give them much profit once you subtract the marketing costs and overhead.


9 posted on 07/19/2005 5:47:26 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wildwood
the two anti-gun scenes

well, i suppose if you are anti-gun, a virus will have to do on the occasion that you are invaded by martians. that's peaceful and loving and non-violent.

man, these doofuses blow.
Actually, there are two explicit anti-gun scenes, plus the overall anti-gun (and anti-military) theme where the military weapons are useless against the aliens (presumably Martians), but simple bacterial or viruses do the job. Note that this occurs through "Mother Nature", rather than biological warfare. What a missed opportunity to improve a bad movie!

One explicit anti-gun scene involves the shotgun-wielding survivalist. The other is the scene involving handguns where the car that Tom Cruise stole is stolen from him.

10 posted on 07/19/2005 5:52:40 PM PDT by FraudFactor.com (Support redistricting reform to end gerrymandering and achieve more honest and responsive government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Awwwww shoot!...There went my day. ;o)

I will have to wait for the DVD. Because I never, but never go to the movies anymore. Thanks, Darkwolf377, I will give it try.

11 posted on 07/19/2005 5:53:14 PM PDT by asp1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

A cruise missile that veered off course.


12 posted on 07/19/2005 5:56:34 PM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

War of the Worlds or Snore of the Worlds movie?


War of the Worlds or Snore of the Worlds movie?


Here is an example of their expensive marketing, with some improvements (added to the photo, of course - we are not leftists who destroy other people's property!)

13 posted on 07/19/2005 5:59:51 PM PDT by FraudFactor.com (Support redistricting reform to end gerrymandering and achieve more honest and responsive government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

IMDB is showing a gross of 192 million for War of the Worlds as of the July 15 week. Is 449 million a world wide gross?


14 posted on 07/19/2005 6:02:01 PM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com
One explicit anti-gun scene involves the shotgun-wielding survivalist. The other is the scene involving handguns where the car that Tom Cruise stole is stolen from him.

I saw the movie, have read the book and love the 1953 version of the movie. I disagree that the scenes you have described are "anti gun". I took the scene with the survivalist to show that often times violence is the only way to assure survival. I did not see it as anti gun. As for the car scene, it said to me, don't go into a hostile environment with a lack of sufficient firepower.

I believe that I am as sensitive to Leftist propoganda as the next and did not find the movie as anti military. The US fighting forces were shown to be doing their job, fighting with great bravery against overwhelming odds. The reason their weapons were no good against the invaders is central to the theme of the book and the 1953 movie.

15 posted on 07/19/2005 6:04:37 PM PDT by Lawgvr1955 (Never draw to an inside straight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: xp38
A Tomahawk Cruise missile that veered off course?



16 posted on 07/19/2005 6:04:37 PM PDT by FraudFactor.com (Support redistricting reform to end gerrymandering and achieve more honest and responsive government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xp38

"Is 449 million a world wide gross?"

yes


17 posted on 07/19/2005 6:09:54 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com
The Islamic world thinks we are decadent and that's Hollywood's fault in large measure.

Just another reason NOT to spend my entertainment dollars on Hollywood and it's ANTI-AMERICAN majority.

18 posted on 07/19/2005 6:12:09 PM PDT by Doctor Raoul (Support Our Troops, Spit On A Liberal Reporter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

Haven't seen the movie, but one review described how the alien whatevers were blowing buildings and occupants to smitherines at random, then, when the liberal shows up, they start going door to door. What does that signify?


19 posted on 07/19/2005 6:15:12 PM PDT by Ilky Hucktar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com
did you think it was a bad movie?

i am a movie buff and was dying to go see it, but decided not to for a number of reasons, including the facts that i 1) despise tom cruise 2) despise scientology 3) did not want to relive 9/11 4) caught wind of this anti-American bias 5) did not want to see scads of people squished 6) felt the anxiety of seeing it would depress me for days.

i see it dropped to 4th place last weekend.

20 posted on 07/19/2005 6:16:39 PM PDT by wildwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
oduction Budget: was $132 million.

actually i heard it stated several times that the production budget was 180 mill and advertising costs exceeded 40 mil, bringing the total to 220 mil that needed to be surpassed.

21 posted on 07/19/2005 6:18:51 PM PDT by wildwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wildwood

advertising costs are only part of "marketing costs"


22 posted on 07/19/2005 6:20:42 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
Production Budget: was $132 million. I don't know what the marketing cost was. But $449 million gross (given all they hype) does not give them much profit once you subtract the marketing costs and overhead.

LOL If you're planning to work for a studio, don't quit your day job. First of all, all the merchandising deals lopped off millions from the studio's investment; marketing didn't eat up about $320 million, and "hype" is what a studio is trying to get, so I don't understand what you're trying to say--that somehow it's a bomb because it will only net a couple to three hundred mil profit? There have been movies hyped far in excess of this (what movie ISN'T hyped these days?). When you put it all together, you can pooh-pooh it all you want, but an excess of $200 million profit before DVD and other income is a huge hit. Calling it a bomb is simply wrong, and there's no two ways about it.

Any studio head who thinks $200million + clean profit is a bomb won't have a job in the morning.

23 posted on 07/19/2005 6:22:36 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dean won't call Osama guilty without a trial, but DeLay and Rove should be in jail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: asp1
If you like the Spielberg of Jaws and Duel I think you will enjoy it. It has some of Spielberg's dysfunctional family garbage in it, but I was pleased that it also has a lot of hard-edged stuff. The violence isn't fun, it's "Holy cow, get the heck outta here, it's the end!" kinda violence. There are several really imaginative, unique moments.

(Very minor spoiler) There is a moment in which people are waiting for something, and then we see one of the machines walking towards them from the horizon, and there's just this very powerful sense of impending doom.

I like end of the world type movies that make you think "Wow, this could be it!" as opposed to Independence Day goofy stuff like giving computer viruses to alien technology.

24 posted on 07/19/2005 6:26:35 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dean won't call Osama guilty without a trial, but DeLay and Rove should be in jail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

"Any studio head who thinks $200million + clean profit is a bomb won't have a job in the morning."

Your not including all the post production costs. Somehow I think you know that.

Anyway, considering what they planned it to be, it was a bomb.


25 posted on 07/19/2005 6:26:43 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Lots of people seem to have an agenda about this movie, and they aren't all lefties.


26 posted on 07/19/2005 6:28:05 PM PDT by Lawgvr1955 (Never draw to an inside straight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
"Any studio head who thinks $200million + clean profit is a bomb won't have a job in the morning." Your not including all the post production costs. Somehow I think you know that. Anyway, considering what they planned it to be, it was a bomb.

Dude, post production is included in the budget. Obviously you don't know that. Any movie budget that doesn't include post-production is going to result in no movie being made--what do you think the huge bulk of that budget is for, location work? No--its MOSTLY post. If you cut the post costs from that, the budget would be only about $70 mil.

I happen to work on the fringes of the business and have several friends IN the business. You can keep going up against me, but I know a lot more about this stuff than you, quite obviously.

You can keep saying this stuff, but you simply don't know what you're talking about, and I do. "What they planned it to be" doesn't even make sense--they planned it to be a big, profitable hit, and it was. You're just trying to deny the success of someone we both don't like, but that's what DUmmies do; we should simply observe reality.

We can keep this up if you want, but maybe you should learn some facts first. I don't claim to know much, but you're playing in my sandbox here.

27 posted on 07/19/2005 6:31:40 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dean won't call Osama guilty without a trial, but DeLay and Rove should be in jail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lawgvr1955
Agreed. I don't care for the politics of anyone involved, but I don't go through life only dealing with people whose politics I like when it doesn't matter. Life's too short. I like movies. That's all.

Koepp is a boob and an ignoramus, but I wanted to see this movie, and I saw it, and shockingly my support of the war didn't drop one bit!

28 posted on 07/19/2005 6:33:52 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dean won't call Osama guilty without a trial, but DeLay and Rove should be in jail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Dude, they said production costs were $440 million, not marketing and not post production. We can only go by what they say.

Reference,
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=waroftheworlds.htm





29 posted on 07/19/2005 6:34:52 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul
You make a very good point.

Hollywood goes out of their way to inject gratuitous obscene language and nude and sex scenes in movies that do not add to the plot, and often distract and detract from the movie. These scenes often serve as filler footage in lower quality movies. They also produce movies with in-your-face homo-centric ("GLBTQ") characters and themes in their attempt to mainstream deviant sexual behavior and lifestyles. They then export these movies throughout the world. Also, they publicly support laws and court rulings to impose same-sex marriage on society.

Also, I believe most of the softcore and hardcore pornography distributed world-wide over the internet is produced in the U.S., probably in the San Fernando Valley part of Los Angeles.

This must appear to be the work of the Devil threatening the world to backwards Islamic societies where women must cover up all of their body except their hands and faces, and in some cases also cover up their faces with veils or burqas. The Hollywood movies, pornography, and politics must be highly effective recruiting aids for the Islamo-fascist terrorists who want to kill all "infidels".

The leftist Democrats are really misguided for opposing our military and instead supporting the Islamo-fascist terrorists, whom they refer to as "activists", "militants", and "insurgents". If the Islamo-fascist terrorists succeed, they will kill and destroy everything the leftist Democrats claim they support and believe in, including homosexuals, freedom of religion (or atheism), free speech, women's rights, civil rights, and voting rights.



An Afghan woman and child in Parwan Province, Afghanistan. Photo by Sgt. Sean A. Terry, USA.

Source: DefenseLINK Information presented on DefenseLINK is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.     http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2002/n09272002_200209264.html

30 posted on 07/19/2005 6:41:46 PM PDT by FraudFactor.com (Support redistricting reform to end gerrymandering and achieve more honest and responsive government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

I have never seen Independence Day. (Probably the only person on the planet who can say that!) My favorite sci-fi are the real old black and white movies. Them! is one of the best of that genre. I also like the hokey ones where you can see the zipper on the creature's costume. :o) They're the best!


31 posted on 07/19/2005 6:43:36 PM PDT by asp1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
Dude, they said production costs were $440 million, not marketing and not post production. We can only go by what they say. Reference, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=waroftheworlds.htm

DUDE--the production costs were not $440 million.

Marketing is separate from the budget--BUT POST PRODUCTION IS NOT. If that won't sink in, I can't help you.

Marketing is SHARED--it differs from movie to movie based on the participants.

The budget was @$130:

http://www.waroftheworldsfilm.com/archive/news_29.shtml

WOTW Budget is 128 million, not 200 An article in The New York Times "Arts" section yesterday about the filming of "The War of the Worlds" in Bayonne, N.J., misstated the size of the film’s budget. "It is $128 million," a spokeswoman for Paramount Pictures said, "not $200 million." We shall see how much that budget changes in the next couple of months....I say the minimum would be $145 million. As a matter of fact, just a few weeks ago, Paramount supposedly said that their budget was $90 million.

End quote

You're not taking into account all kinds of income streams and participants, either, like distribution costs and cuts, the huge foreign market and its lower costs, etc.

Educate yourself about the industry before you go head to head with me, 'kay bud? ;) I don't mind discussion on the issue, but obstinate insistence that our political enemies haven't just made a big, fat hit is luncay.

32 posted on 07/19/2005 6:44:01 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dean won't call Osama guilty without a trial, but DeLay and Rove should be in jail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Thanks, I am trying. The source I reference did include foreign income in the $440 million.

please view it.


33 posted on 07/19/2005 6:48:09 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: asp1
I just got 10, count 'em, 10 Mystery Science Theater episodes based on 50's movies. Hee hee hee!

I love 50's SF, including the bad ones, but I love the good ones, too. One in particular re-uses the War of the Worlds ships, called Robinson Crusoe on Mars. Terrific movie. Also a huge fan of Journey to the Center of the Earth, Time Machine... I love the sense of wonder.

Ack, we could go on about this all night. I have a Heinlein book on the to-read shelf--am getting back into old SF novels, the new ones stink.

34 posted on 07/19/2005 6:49:05 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dean won't call Osama guilty without a trial, but DeLay and Rove should be in jail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
Thanks, I am trying. The source I reference did include foreign income in the $440 million. please view it.

Dude, what is your problem?

I know it includes foreign income--but you claimed that was its production cost. It's not--that's the worldwide gross. I mentioned the foreign income because the amounts listed are grosses; the studio, depending on the deal, will get to keep more of that depending on the territory and the distribution deal; and marketing costs are shared.

I did view it, before you did, actually. The difference is I understand what it means. Give it up until you understand the numbers.

35 posted on 07/19/2005 6:52:18 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dean won't call Osama guilty without a trial, but DeLay and Rove should be in jail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Dude, I am trying to understand the numbers. Actually trying to get to a net figure, which doesn't seem to be out there. Even with your help.


36 posted on 07/19/2005 6:54:21 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: asp1

I've seen it and it sort of runs out of gas about halfway through but it was worth it to stick around to the end to see the cameo appearances by Gene Barry and Ann Robinson who were the protagonists in the original


37 posted on 07/19/2005 6:55:22 PM PDT by Armigerous ( Non permitte illegitimi te carborundum- "Don't let the bastards grind you down")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
"Koepp is a boob and an ignoramus"
You are right on! How can the "professionals" do such a bad job selecting/defining the characters and writing the plot when there was so much opportunity to do better?

Ordinary people who are not industry professionals can see the many flaws and logical holes and inconsistencies which spoil the movie.

The movie industry is selling us a lot of junk with a few real gems in the mix (e.g., the three Lord of the Rings movies).

The movie industry gets their bad movies into the theaters by forcing the theater operators to buy packages of movies in order to get the good movies. The theater operators cannot cherry-pick only the good or best movies. They have to buy the junk movies to get the good ones. To help make up for this, the theaters jack up their prices on the food concessions and show paid advertisements for up to twenty minutes after the official start time of the movie.

What a racket!

38 posted on 07/19/2005 6:58:49 PM PDT by FraudFactor.com (Support redistricting reform to end gerrymandering and achieve more honest and responsive government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
There isn't a net figure to find. The studios don't publish net figures. They charge a bookkeeping fee to themselves and recycle the accounting so movies never, or rarely, go into the black to people on the outside. They charge overhead to a movie's profits, they have all kinds of profit participation and distribution deals, and they charge THEM for the accounting--which the studio itself performs. They do this everytime they give an accounting to one of their participants, so the "profit" keeps dropping to the naked eye while the studio enjoys the profits.

It's one of the reasons why if you were to write a screenplay or act in a movie and are offered net points, you should laugh very hard, because you will never see them. And only a handful of people earn gross points. Spielberg is one of them, but he also owns Dreamworks, so technically his participation would cut into the net-except he's profitting.

Stop looking for the net; you won't find it.

39 posted on 07/19/2005 7:04:19 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dean won't call Osama guilty without a trial, but DeLay and Rove should be in jail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com
You are right on! How can the "professionals" do such a bad job selecting/defining the characters and writing the plot when there was so much opportunity to do better?

I liked it. :) Not how I would have done it, but I can't argue with its success. This "dysfunctional family" crap isn't my kind of thing, but it works.

Ordinary people who are not industry professionals can see the many flaws and logical holes and inconsistencies which spoil the movie.

There's no room for me to go into this here, but the truth is (and this may shock you) that almost no movie really makes sense when you look at it.

The movie industry is selling us a lot of junk with a few real gems in the mix (e.g., the three Lord of the Rings movies). The movie industry gets their bad movies into the theaters by forcing the theater operators to buy packages of movies in order to get the good movies.

Nope--that's illegal now.

The theater operators cannot cherry-pick only the good or best movies. They have to buy the junk movies to get the good ones. To help make up for this, the theaters jack up their prices on the food concessions and show paid advertisements for up to twenty minutes after the official start time of the movie. What a racket!

That's not really true. Block booking is illegal, and has been since the fifties. Some claim that the practice of offering movie X to get movie A still exists, and it does, but it's not the same thing because movies still get pulled from theaters if they're not selling tix. It's more complicated and subtle than I'm saying, but it's not really the same thing as block booking, a practice that died in anti-trust litigation in the 50's or 60's. Now it's more a case of the theaters NEEDING the shows because they need twenty films at a time.

40 posted on 07/19/2005 7:11:22 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dean won't call Osama guilty without a trial, but DeLay and Rove should be in jail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com
Brit Hume just reported this tonight on The Grapevine.


From the Grapevine -
Actor Tom Cruise might not have known it, but in his new movie "War of the Worlds" he's playing someone that the film's screenwriter thinks represents the Iraqi insurgents. Screenwriter David Koepp, quoted by the Canadian magazine Rue Morgue, said, "…the Martians [in the movie] ... represent American military forces invading the Iraqis, and the futility of the occupation of a faraway land is again the subtext." And, in an interview with USA Weekend, Koepp said, "You can read our movie several ways. It could be 9/11 paranoia. Or it could be about how U.S. military interventionism abroad is doomed by insurgency, just the way an alien invasion might be."
41 posted on 07/19/2005 7:12:57 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong. (1 Corinthians 16:13))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Oh my gosh, a soul-mate. I love MST3K. Do you know that Tom Servo is a Freeper? That show is the best.

Have you ever seen Target Earth (1954)? I saw it when I was a kid and didn't sleep for a month. Last week I bought "14 Features Sci-Fi." The set contains: Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet, War of the Robots, The Brain That Wouldn't Die, and so many more. These movies are the worst I've ever seen. I love them.

Journey to the Center of the Earth is one of my favorite movies. How about Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea? James Mason stars in both of those movies. He has the most incredible voice. Most of the girl's were swooning over Pat Boone. Me? I was in love with James Mason. I think I have seen Robinson Crusoe on Mars. Is that the one where an astronaut is stranded on Mars with a monkey?

42 posted on 07/19/2005 7:17:42 PM PDT by asp1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: asp1
Do you know that Tom Servo is a Freeper? That show is the best.

Are you kidding me??? Cool! I know Mike Nelson is a very vocal Bush fan.

Have you ever seen Target Earth (1954)? I saw it when I was a kid and didn't sleep for a month.

I may have to do a search on that one, it's vaguelly familiar.

Last week I bought "14 Features Sci-Fi." The set contains: Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet, War of the Robots, The Brain That Wouldn't Die, and so many more. These movies are the worst I've ever seen. I love them.

I think the same company put out the one I have, which is a set of *50* flicks, including those, I LOVE ...Prehistoric Planet, which was a Russian flick which was re-used in ANOTHER movie. (I bet you know which one.)It was re-cut for American release by Peter Bogdanovich.

Journey to the Center of the Earth is one of my favorite movies. How about Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea? James Mason stars in both of those movies. He has the most incredible voice. Most of the girl's were swooning over Pat Boone. Me? I was in love with James Mason.

I'm assuming you're a woman... :) I get my MSTs from a site with good prices, btw. (No I'm not connected to it.)

http://www.mstjunkie.com/

I think I have seen Robinson Crusoe on Mars. Is that the one where an astronaut is stranded on Mars with a monkey?

Yup. It's got this sense of alienness most pricey FX movies can't touch.

43 posted on 07/19/2005 7:22:45 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dean won't call Osama guilty without a trial, but DeLay and Rove should be in jail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com

Not to mentioned the movie was not that good.

I was very disapointed and left feeling like I feel after watching most of the crap that comes out of Hollywood these days. empty and robbed.


44 posted on 07/19/2005 7:36:20 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Thanks for the feedback.


"I liked it. :)"
Did you like it primarily for the special effects? There was not much of a plot and it had an anticlimax ending.

I thought the early special effects looked jerky, but there were some good special effects later. I thought Terminator 1 and 2 and the Lord of the Rings were superior "chase" movies.



"There's no room for me to go into this here, but the truth is (and this may shock you) that almost no movie really makes sense when you look at it."
Thanks. I am aware of this. In the industry, this falls under the subject of "voluntary suspension of disbelief" on the part of the audience. When a movie contains too many or too extreme logical holes and inconsistencies, it is more difficult for the audience to engage in voluntary suspension of disbelief, resulting in distraction from the plot and a lower quality of entertainment.



"The movie industry is selling us a lot of junk with a few real gems in the mix (e.g., the three Lord of the Rings movies). The movie industry gets their bad movies into the theaters by forcing the theater operators to buy packages of movies in order to get the good movies."
"Nope--that's illegal now."
"The theater operators cannot cherry-pick only the good or best movies. They have to buy the junk movies to get the good ones. To help make up for this, the theaters jack up their prices on the food concessions and show paid advertisements for up to twenty minutes after the official start time of the movie. What a racket!"
"That's not really true. Block booking is illegal, and has been since the fifties. Some claim that the practice of offering movie X to get movie A still exists, and it does, but it's not the same thing because movies still get pulled from theaters if they're not selling tix. It's more complicated and subtle than I'm saying, but it's not really the same thing as block booking, a practice that died in anti-trust litigation in the 50's or 60's. Now it's more a case of the theaters NEEDING the shows because they need twenty films at a time."
It should be illegal. However, the owner of a chain of movie theaters told me some time in the mid-1990's that he had to buy (i.e., rent) blocks of movie prints, including the bad movies, to get the good movies. I assumed there have been no legal changes since then, which may be incorrect.

He did not state the specific details, such as the method that was used to impose this scheme on theater operators. Perhaps the scheme is imposed through the price structure and "discounts" for buying the suggested blocks of movies. I believe the cost to rent a movie print includes some fixed price plus some amount per ticket sold. I don't know if it includes a percentage of profit from concessions sold.



"movies still get pulled from theaters if they're not selling tix"
I have sat in movie theaters that had an audience with only six to ten people including myself. Perhaps they were waiting until the particular day of the week when they change their movie schedule, but this has happened a number of times, usually after the movie has been in the theaters for a while.

45 posted on 07/19/2005 7:49:09 PM PDT by FraudFactor.com (Support redistricting reform to end gerrymandering and achieve more honest and responsive government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Do a search on FR for Tom Servo and you will see his latest postings. (I love the little puppet, too.)

Target Earth is about a robot invasion from Venus. The entire city is evacuated except for a few stragglers, who must hide from the occupying robots. The funny part about the movie is the fact that there is supposed to be this huge invasion except you only see one robot. Special effects really weren't involved in this one. :o)

Richard Denning is the star of Target earth. Denning is also in The Creature From The Black Lagoon. Ok, I give up what is the American release of Prehistoric Planet? I should know this and I'm ashamed that I don't. :o)

Thanks for the MST site. I will check it out.

I only saw half of Robinson Crusoe on Mars. I have never seen the end of the movie. I will have to keep an eye out for it.

46 posted on 07/19/2005 7:50:21 PM PDT by asp1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com
Did you like it primarily for the special effects? There was not much of a plot and it had an anticlimax ending.

I enjoyed it overall, with some qualifications, but I really liked the ending, which was accurate to the book. It breaks the "rules" of drama, but it speaks to the theme of the book, and I thought it was oddly appropriate in this time of debate about religion. Think about it, the ending is basically God watching mankind almost be vnaquished and then calling the fight. ;)

I thought the early special effects looked jerky, but there were some good special effects later. I thought Terminator 1 and 2 and the Lord of the Rings were superior "chase" movies.

I liked all of them to varying degrees. I also think Terminator 3 was an adequate follow-up, and in fact had a very brave ending in that it pushed the series to the point of no return and dealt with the idea that the machine takeover was inevitable.

In the industry, this falls under the subject of "voluntary suspension of disbelief" on the part of the audience. When a movie contains too many or too extreme logical holes and inconsistencies, it is more difficult for the audience to engage in voluntary suspension of disbelief, resulting in distraction from the plot and a lower quality of entertainment.

Yeah, it's a basic concept, but there's no fast and loose rule. Certain movies are "realistic" and strain credulity, and it's not like there's a one-size-fits-all standard. Movies some folks love I find ridiculous; movies others hate I love because for all their flaws they have value.

It should be illegal. However, the owner of a chain of movie theaters told me some time in the mid-1990's that he had to buy (i.e., rent) blocks of movie prints, including the bad movies, to get the good movies. I assumed there have been no legal changes since then, which may be incorrect.

Again, it depends on how you look at it. You have to buy books you don't think are gonna be hits--midlist books--to fill out your shelves so you don't just sell Harry Potter. Same for movies.

He did not state the specific details, such as the method that was used to impose this scheme on theater operators. Perhaps the scheme is imposed through the price structure and "discounts" for buying the suggested blocks of movies.

Yep, and there's nothing illegal or unethical about it, IMHO.

I believe the cost to rent a movie print includes some fixed price plus some amount per ticket sold. I don't know if it includes a percentage of profit from concessions sold.

If you check out your favorite movie house's profit statements you often find they are listed as food vendors, because that's where their $$ comes from. To the best of my knowledge no movie studio gets a cut of that; if they wanted a cut I imagine they'd just jigger with the amount they take from the rentals.

"movies still get pulled from theaters if they're not selling tix" I have sat in movie theaters that had an audience with only six to ten people including myself. Perhaps they were waiting until the particular day of the week when they change their movie schedule, but this has happened a number of times, usually after the movie has been in the theaters for a while.

Sure, that's expected for the reasons you say. You have to remember that outside of the weekends, the theaters have to survive and pay their employees, give them 40 hours or whatever a week, etc. Twenty years or more ago, a movie like Star Wars was in theaters for one solid year. Now they have these massive theaters and can show the same movie a half dozen times, then cut back as the crowds thin out. Movies simply don't last as long, which means they have to get as many shows in EARLY as possible, but then what do you do? You can't show nothing during the week when fewer people are going. And there aren't that many Star Wars movies showing. But if you have 10 people in there, that's ten people buying your food that you wouldn't have if you showed nothing, and you were obliged to keep the movie there because the movie company agreed to spend X amount of money on advertising, tie-ins, etc. If the studio is spending an agreed-upon amount on ads, you're obliged to have the movie THERE for the potential audience.

Nice chatting with you!

47 posted on 07/19/2005 8:01:22 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dean won't call Osama guilty without a trial, but DeLay and Rove should be in jail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: asp1
Target Earth is about a robot invasion from Venus. The entire city is evacuated except for a few stragglers, who must hide from the occupying robots. The funny part about the movie is the fact that there is supposed to be this huge invasion except you only see one robot. Special effects really weren't involved in this one. :o)

Doesn't it take place in a bar for the most part?

48 posted on 07/19/2005 8:03:00 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dean won't call Osama guilty without a trial, but DeLay and Rove should be in jail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

thank you


49 posted on 07/19/2005 8:05:03 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Lawgvr1955
I agree with you about having the right tools to do the job.

However, Hollywood is directing their propaganda at those who do not have your knowlege or position. The conservatives and leftists tend to be quite firm in their positions. The political battle and culture war is to win the hearts and minds of those who are undecided, or malleable.

In the car theft scene, Tom Cruise was in control of the situation but did not employ the correct tactics and situational awareness to prevent the car thief from gaining control.

Here is an excerpt from my review on FraudFactor.com ( http://www.fraudfactor.com/reviews/movies/ffmoviereview0502.html ):

Leftist Propaganda and Rhetoric

As expected, War of the Worlds contains the typical Hollywood-left obligatory anti-gun scenes, dysfunctional broken family, distasteful "red neck" character (represented as a crazy shotgun-wielding suspected child molester), and out of place, awkwardly inserted anti-President Bush rhetoric with anti-Iraq war statements criticizing military occupation. The movie even starts off with unnecessary labor union rhetoric. Tom Cruise, a dock worker who operates a crane, is confronted by his boss who tells him to come back to work another shift without enough time to sleep. Cruise grins as he tells his boss that would violate the union rules.

<snip>

The anti-gun scenes conveyed the dangerously inaccurate and irresponsible message that you are worse off having a gun than not having one. And that even if you do have one, you will not be able to use it effectively for self-defense, and it will only fall into the wrong hands and be used for criminal purposes. The lack of military battle scenes helps to reinforce the primary theme of the movie, that pacifism is just as effective as fighting against evil with military weapons and personnel.

In one anti-gun scene, Tom Cruise has driven a long distance to escape the aliens, but is stopped by a large impassable mob of people who want a ride or want to steal his car. The mob is banging their fists on the car windows in a threatening manner. Cruise tries to push some of these people out of the way by driving forward. The mob then attacks the car, breaking the windows and trying to pull Cruise and his two children (or was it just his daughter?) out of the car. Cruise stands outside the car, and fires two warning shots into the air with his revolver handgun. The crowd stops attacking him and steps back. But a man with his own handgun steps forward on the left side of Cruise, points his gun at Cruise's head, and orders Cruise to drop his gun. Cruise complies and the man steals Cruise's car. But before the car thief drives off, another man grabs Cruise's revolver from the ground, runs up to the car, and shoots the car thief several times. He gets in the car, pushes the car thief out of the car, and drives off, stealing the car himself.

In another anti-gun scene, Cruise uses an axe rather than an available shotgun to attack the alien war machine's probe tentacle. This scene was constructed in a way to make an axe attack seem more feasible than a shotgun attack.

The political propaganda message here is that guns are evil and of no use to good people. Also, as usual in Hollywood-left movies, firearms are shown in irresponsible and criminal misuse, rather than responsible and safe use which are significantly more common in real life. The last twenty-five years of scientific criminological research has shown that gun control increases violent crime, costing thousands of lives each year, and endangering everyone including those who choose not to own firearms. Defense with a firearm is significantly safer and more effective than any other method. And firearms are used at least five times more often for self defense than they are misused in all crimes, suicides, and accidents combined, usually without having to shoot the attacker. Mere possession and display of a firearm is almost always an adequate defense. Yet the Hollywood-left wants everyone to believe the opposite.


50 posted on 07/19/2005 8:19:33 PM PDT by FraudFactor.com (Support redistricting reform to end gerrymandering and achieve more honest and responsive government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson