Skip to comments.Can't bury 'Treasure' [Hollywood Hope: National treasure, Incredibles still on top! ]
Posted on 11/29/2004 5:00:45 AM PST by SolutionsOnly
More moviegoers used the Thanksgiving weekend to catch up with the hits "National Treasure" and "The Incredibles" than to see the year's two biggest holiday-theme flicks or the new epic "Alexander." "National Treasure," in which Nicolas Cage follows a centuries-old legend to a mother lode of historical riches, finished in first place by earning an estimated $33.1 million from Friday to yesterday.
Pixar Animation's "The Incredibles," the bemused tale of superheroes put out to pasture in suburbia, took second with an estimated $24.1 million.
The weekend's two new movies, "Christmas With the Kranks" and Oliver Stone's "Alexander," both settled into the middle of the pack.
"Kranks," a much-hyped film starring Tim Allen and Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple that tries to skip Christmas, overcame terrible reviews to finish third with $22.7 million.
"Alexander," which stars Colin Farrell as Alexander the Great and cost $155 million to produce, earned a disappointing $13.5 million to finish sixth.
The other major holiday-theme film, "The Polar Express," which stars Tom Hanks in a heartwarming Christmas adventure done with high-tech animation, earned an estimated $20.1 million. That brings its total to $82.2 million, less than half of what it cost to produce.
Much happier were the producers of "SpongeBob SquarePants," the animated sponge who made his reputation on Nickelodeon and has earned $58.6 million at the movie box office. He finished fifth this week with $19.6 million.
At the same time, I take some satisfaction is seening 'Alexander' flop. I haven't seen it despite my love of history. I essentially boycott movies that have inject political agendas or make appeals to the darker side of human nature. It's heartenening to see I'm not alone. And these box office numbers send a strong message to Hollywood - we're not interested in rewriting history subject to your warped values!
I love me some Spongebob..
The fact that Stone thinks his target audience for that movie, probably males 20 to 50 would go see it the way he made it. You would think he would have more sense that that.
ITS ABOUT MAKING MONEY YOU IDIOTS!
I love SpongeBob. Gary the snail is the smartest one in the bunch. *meow*.
No sex, no foul language, no PC nonsense, interesting plot, lots of action and suspense.
Hollywood should take notice, but it won't.
Alexander truly was a fascinating character.
I hope someone makes a good movie about him, someday.
You forgot, Hollywood believes that most people believe like they do, i.e. "gay is good". Because many of the people they work with on a daily basis are homosexual, their movies' subtle undertones of pro homosexual panderings are seen as normal in their world. The history cannot be re-written, only the future can be changed., and that is precisely the goal. Change the future to their likenesses. The people of Jesusland are not buying it........
Regarding the Alexander movie, For some it's more much about advancing an agenda than anything else. I think they operate wearing blinders.
Too bad they poisoned the subject of Alexander the Great. It could have been a phenomenal movie had it been done by someone like Mel Gibson. Fortunately, the History Channel just recently did a good documentary on Alexnder the Great. It's worth seeing.
I guess a lot of folks aren't interested in seeing a gay guy conquer the world. Who woulda' guessed? /s
Just watched bootleg version of Incredibles in a bar here, good quality, funny film, have to pick up the DVD for a few bucks...
Daniel, chapter 8
"1": In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.
"2": And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.
"3": Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.
"4": I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.
"5": And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes.
"6": And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had there seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power.
"7": And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.
"8": Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
"9": And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
"10": And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
"11": Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
"12": And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
"13": Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
"14": And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
"15": And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.
"16": And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.
"17": So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.
"18": Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright.
"19": And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.
"20": The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
"21": And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
"22": Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
"23": And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
"24": And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
"25": And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
"26": And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.
"27": And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.
No,no,no,no, we are out of touch.
They create worlds and put it on film.
We step up, plunk down our money , walk in and become mesmerized.
Fantasy, reality are just in the mind of the viewer.
Don't you realize, that without Hollywood conjuring up
shit like this entertainment our lives would be almost completely meaningless. < / sarcasm >
I did see the History Channel's show but certain historians on that hinted the guy was gay. That would be like the Greeks doing a movie, or their historians trying to convince the world Washington was gay because he loved Hamilton.
A movie about the life of Daniel would be fantastic, if done right.
Now that is funny!LOL
I agree it was a very good story . Even the 6 year old enjoyed it.
I wonder why anyone would see an Oliver Stone movie.
The people of Jesusland will. The exiles of Jesusland in Blue states will. The Jewish readers will. Most FReepers, I believe, will. Anyone left, won't.....
Thanks for any info you could give me.
"I wonder why a man cannot have another man for a friend without him being gay?".
Because gays are fanatical about homosexuality. It's the lens they see through.
But for the rest of us there are still many examples
"The Lord of the Rings" Trilogy stands out in this respect.
"Last of the Mohicans", "Band of Brothers"...etc .
Man, I hope you are right.
A large percentage of Christians in this country are the Clinton type, go to Church on Sunday to either feel good or look good.
Few too many of them, don't crack their Bibles open unless the preacher says "follow me while I read this passage"
If we claim that a Biblical prophecy such as Isaiah 7:14 has been fulfilled in Jesus, those committed to disbelieving it find some alternative explanation, so that it cannot have been fulfilled.
If a prophecy such as Daniel 8 or 11 is so detailed that there is no other possible rational explanation, then it must have been written after the event.
The problem is not in the evidence. It is in the faulty philosophical pre-commitments, the premises, of the would-be critic.
I refer to those Christians as Punchcard Christians. They go only to get their ticket punched for that week. When help is needed for projects or witness or positions in the church, they are "too busy" or "can't seem to find the time"......
Nice analogy. They probably have hanging chads too!!!
I found The Incredibles... OK, but not great. I kept thinking that it wanted to be a live action film with digital special effects rather than an all-digital toon.
The History Channel had a good special on Alexander the Great before the movie opened.
The also did a History vs. Hollywood on him, but I didn't catch that.
Here's a little prophecy for you that usually gets overlooked:
1 Kings, chapter 13
"2": And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.
This was predicted a few hundred years before the birth of Josiah. Imagine, a prophecy that calls out by name the person who will fulfill it!
And you wonder why people boycott these types of movies en masse in the red states. Movies that push a blatant liberal political agenda usually don't make money in first-run theatrical release.
It will be very interesting to see if Martin Scorcese's The Aviator will try to push a political agenda; so far, just about everyone who has seen the just-completed final cut of the movie loved the film from what I've read.
Sure they will. They'll come out with a lame "National Treasure II" and "National Treasure III", as well as a couple of poorly written knock-offs. And in the process they'll completely forget that it was the writing and acting that made the first movie so fun.
I saw Colin Farrell on one of the late night shows. He brought his promo clip from "Alexander", what looked like a pre-battle scene trying to evoke "St. Crispin's Day". Alexander was galloping back and forth before the troops, exhorting them to fight for...something.
To me, it was just a bald-faced copy of Mel Gibson's famous scene in Braveheart. That one clip led me to think Alexander would just be a big rip-off of other great movies. Now that I know about its agenda, I'm even less inclined to see it.
Looks like a full-blown consumer revolt against the millionaire leftists in Blueland.
It was a direct ripoff from "Braveheart" - and it was a pale imitation.
Actually, I didn't totally get it. Does that mean I hail from the land of Satan? I found what you implied pretty offensive. I am sorry that I am not as familiar with the Bible as you are, but that doesn't make me evil by default.
Yep, National Treasure was a great time. Best "clean" flick I've seen in years.
Yeah, but it isn't their money - it belongs to the investors in the film studio. Same psychology that our Congressional Democratic Socialists have about social spending programs: "If it saves the life of one child, it's worth it." For these scriptwriters, I suppose their version is: "If it allows one 12-year-old boy to become comfortable with his sexual identity (and decide to meet me behind the poolhouse after the screening), it's worth it."
Strange people are in control of the entertainment industry.
Me and my wife manged to sneak out of the holiday festivities long enough to go to the theatre. We watched "The Grudge". I usually don't like horror movies, but this was the creepiest film I have seen in years. Plan to go see National Treasure this weekend.
You are not evil, and I'm sorry if you thought I implied you were. You must be a citizen of Jesusland living in exile. It is a place in the heart not a physical locality. The MM's of this world are out to destroy all that pertains to God and Jesus, hence their derogatory reference to Jesusland, which now has become a Badge of Honor instead of a derisive comment by a misanthrope......Please, do not take anything I say offensively. I now have a new reason for my old name, Red Badger, which was from a long time ago before FR was in existence.......
In case you missed it, the explanation is there. This is a biblical prophecy concerning Alexander. In fact, when Alexander came upon Jerusalem, the Jewish leaders of the day knew he was coming and told him about the prophecy.
Josephus wrote: The high priest then showed Alexander the passages in the prophecy of Daniel indicating that a Greek would destroy the empire of the Persians. Alexander, of course, accepted the prophecy as a reference to himself, and declared that God had ordained him to conquer Persia, which he proceeded to do. Furthermore, Alexander not only refused to execute any sanctions against Israel but bestowed upon that nation all kinds of favors and benefits, which was contrary to his usual custom.
One of the things I like about FR is that I routinely come across wonderful bits of knowledge. There is no reason to be offended by what you don't understand.
Yeah, that one blew me away too. Talk about prophesy!
It's quite all right. I probably just overreacted (Those darn pg hormones get me everytime, lol). So I hereby tender my apologies as well.
No, no no! LOL, I wasn't offended by what I didn't understand. I was simply rubbed the wrong way by what the other poster was trying to say...I misunderstood his statmments, that is all.
I appreciate the explanation. I didn't know that that prophecy referred to Alexander...guess I've never been properly "churched", lol. Most of my experiences with church growing up were pretty unsettling to me. I always believed in God, but never felt comfortable with organized religion (thinking all churches were the same as the ones I went to as a child) until after I had children of my own. I have a lot of catching up to do, obviously. LOL
I hope "Kinsey" tanks.
Did you see Alexander, though? I hear a lot of criticism from people who didn't. Personally, I didn't see much of a political agenda, although when Alexander was describing to his generals how the Persians "needed" Greek "enlightenment," because they were suffering under one barbaric tyrant after another, I did wonder if there wasn't a comment about Iraq injected in there. But it wasn't negative at all: Alexander is clearly the hero in this film.
In this movie, Alexander's army of 40,000 or so Macedonians attack and rout 250,000 Persians by attempting to divide the Persian lines and directly attack and kill the Persian's king, Darius. The Macedonians do manage to drive a wedge through the Persian lines, but Darius escapes.
Later Alexander comments that while Darius is in hiding, he still poses a threat, because the Persians "still believe in him." That had a little whiff of Osama on the loose, even while most likely dead still being used as a propaganda vehice to prop up jihadi sentiment.
I don't know that these elements were introduced deliberately - sometimes the history of these Middle Eastern wars tends to repeat over the centuries because the people and the geography tend to not change that much.
It's a movie you have to bring something to - like an already-established knowledge of the history and peoples of the time. Personally, I found it good entertainment and visually breathtaking, especially the scenes from the (eventually doomed) Library of Alexandria, and the stunning entry of the Macedonian troops into Babylon.
Revisionist history is not selling which is heartening. Stone and the studio suits probably thought all PR is good PR.
This article is being waaaaaay too kind. This will forever be stone's "gay" movie. IOW box office poison. (heck anyone even holding the DVD is suspect.)
Actually stone rejected the historic assistance of Greeks because the historic evidence was not supporting his "vision" for Alexander.
homosexuality in ancient greece is an myth created by present day homoadvocates.
Re: Alexander being "gay." He was *not,* at least not in the sense that gay activists use the term.
Men in the Greek-speaking world (Sparta, Greece, Macedonia, the islands, etc.) had very close friendships with other men their own age. These friendships were *not* supposed to be sexual (that was reserved for pre-adolescent or early adolescent boys), but sometimes they were. As long as you married the "right" woman from the "right" family and raised up sons to carry on the family name, any other kind of relationship with one's wife was unimportant. Women in Greek society were basically locked up in the women's rooms (the "gynaceum"), and any friendship or companionship between men and women was reserved for the "heteraie" (the high-class mistresses of wealthy men.)
Alexander is shown having a very close lifelong friendship with another man his own age, the general Hephaistion. It is NOT clear in the movie that they have an explicitly sexual relationship, but they do have a very emotionally deep and committed one. This again was NOT unusual for the age.
Also, Alexander, like many powerful kings of his age, had concubines both male and female. In the film, one of those concubines (a Persian eunuch named Bagoas) is shown. This has nothing to do with a "gay agenda" - it's *history.*
Finally, Alexander is shown falling in love with and marrying the Bactrian tribal princess Roxana, which infuriates his generals. Marrying for love was *not* something a man in Alexander's position, especially, was supposed to do. The generals want him to marry a Macedonian princess and raise a Macedonian heir. (Later, in the history, Roxana's son by Alexander is murdered, probably by Macedonians who didn't want him to take the throne.) All of this again is historically consistent - if not in all the details, certainly in the sense of how things were done at that time.
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.