Skip to comments.Losing hearts and minds
Posted on 03/08/2006 11:24:06 AM PST by JZelle
During the Golden Age of Hollywood in the 1930s, '40s and '50s, the major movie studios worked closely with the Protestant Film Office and the Roman Catholic Legion of Decency to reach the broadest possible audience and to avoid governmental censorship. Due to this partnership, films like "Ben Hur" and "The Ten Commandments" became the two highest grossing religious pictures of all time. Because of a withdrawal of funding by conservative denominations and in-fighting among liberal denominations, however, the Protestant Film Office shut its doors in 1966, contrary to the desires of many studio heads at the time. This invaluable advisory resource on spiritual, moral and religious matters left a vacuum in the entertainment industry.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Very interesting post. I think there's alot of truth in it.
I've not watched the "Oscars" for years, thinking the whole
shameless spectacle would be far more accurately named the " Fatty Arbuckle " awards for the self-indulgence and perversion many of the movies and celebrities represent. Nero would feel right at home with these scatballs.
So all Hollywood has to do is consult with the Protestant and the Catholic church on what kinds of movies to make and they'll make billions! LOL
I saw him (Ted Baehr) on Hannity and Colmes one night and he wouldn't even say "Meet the Fockers". He literally spelled Fockers F-o-c-k-e-r-s because I guess it was just too close to saying the actual word *gasp* What a nutcase.
That isn't the point and you know it. The article is not saying that Hollywood need consult churches before making movies. It is saying that when the Churches stopped consulting with the movie makers, the movies got seedier and profits dropped because those movies are not as popular with the populace as cleaner films. In the end, all the author proposes is that Hollywood stop pushing the envelope and make cleaner movies that appeal to more people--nothing about involvement with the church.
He's saying that these church organisations knew better what people want than movie producers do. Thats ridiculous. I dont believe his statistics either about some huge drop right after the creation of the ratings system. gimme a break. He's biased and is lying with statistics. The real numbers probably dont show that at all. Hollywood makes all kinds of movies, clean and "seedy", thats the way the marketplace works. And thats the way Hollywood dominates the world, as does all American pop culture. I can assure you that wouldnt be the case if it was up to prudes like Ted Baehr.
I dont believe his statistics either about some huge drop right after the creation of the ratings system. gimme a break. He's biased and is lying with statistics.
I don't claim to know either way, but he, at least, provided evidence. If he is wrong, prove it or hold your peace. You give a lot of inuendo about those numbers, but you provide none contradicting them.
The real numbers probably dont show that at all. Hollywood makes all kinds of movies, clean and "seedy", thats the way the marketplace works.
Regardless of whether or not it makes a difference, Hollywood makes exceptionally few clean movies.
And thats the way Hollywood dominates the world, as does all American pop culture.
To which I am guessing the author would counter that Hollywood is on the decline.
Personally, I don't think they are in the trouble that many on FreeRepublic seem to think, but that they are making, relatively speaking, less than they were a generation ago is undeniable whatever the reason. I think they are suffering from a few things: home entertainment, alternate entertainment sources (i.e. internet, etc.), and lower quality stories (on the whole; I don't deny that they can still write good stories).
It has already been amply shown that squeaky clean movies, if well done, can do phenomenally well. A lot of the movies from Hollywood's golden age that would be considered clean are still freqently watched. Why? Because, it is well done and people like it. If you need a more recent example, take Pixar. They have made high-quality clean films over the past few years and have done quite well for themselves. Despite what you may think, gratuitous violence and sex are not required for a successful or entertaining film.
I dont think all films have to have sex and violence, I never said that. I said the market demands that Hollywood make all kinds of films, and thats what they do. And 'squeaky clean films' can do poorly too. Its just that people fixate on the idea that Hollywood doens't make enough of those, whch I think isnt true. Theres all kinds of Pg and pg13 films every weeekend. In fact, theres more now than theres ever been. I think since 2000 the amount of R rated films has dropped, and yet so has the box office according to Baehr so Id be curious to know how he'd explain THAT.
I dont think Hollywood is doing poorly either. I mean, it looks like theyre making alot of money to me. Some years the BO is up a little, some years its down a little. The people trying to suggest that Hollywood is in decline (because of content) have political agendas imo. If that was true the marketplace would adjust. Theyre in the business to make money.
I question his statistics because like I said I know he hates Hollywood and has an axe to grind, but also because I know he and people like him use statistics to lie. They did it regarding "Pg vs R rated movies" by not taking into consideration production budgets. When you do that you find that R rated movies actually can do better (be more profitable) than Pg and Pg13 movies because they typically cost less to make.
Im sure I could do a search and prove him wrong but I dont feel like it. Im not just going to 'keep my peace' though because I dont have my own numbers because I know he has an agenda and know he has misled with statistics before.
One of the "jokes" was that Brabra Streisand played 'Mother Focker'. It was a rude term.
Is there anythign "bad" about the name of that taxpayer funded work "Piss Christ"?
Did you laugh at the clips from "gay conservative cowboy movies" during the Oscars?
Networks ratings are down because they put political agenda ahead of honesty or ratings. Yet they are in the business to make money too.
Read The Battle Of Brazil and you'll see that it is not uncommon at all for a studio to spike a project over petty pissing contests. Just because they work for a company doesn't mean that they work for the shareholders.
Sometimes a loss is written against someone else's unrelated film. Film financing is a crooked thing. The original Batman was setting box office records but it did not "show a profit" because among other things the screenwriter had signed on for a percentage of net profit. They went into production on the sequels for a film they said "lost money".