SOURCES: NBC And Hollywood Foreign Press Association Cancel Televised Golden Globes

LA Weekly ^ | 1/7/08 | Nikki Finke

[DoughtyOne]

Gibson had trouble finding a distributor for his film because it was regarded as uncommercial.

Gibson's movie has to date earned hundreds of millions in revenue.  I'd have to say the industry is fairly out of touch with a broad cross section of our society if they could miss a call that bad.

Scorsese had trouble financing 'The Last Temptation of Christ' as well which most Catholics hated. People forget that two times the production fell apart due to the studio backing out.

I don't remember the box office on that one, but I doubt it was a huge success.  The negative portrayal probably cost it in attendence.  I may be wrong about that.  I saw the movie and found it to be a disgusting offering.

Million Dollar Baby' had an admirable priest. And, laugh if you will, The Simpsons depicts an Evangelical character in a much better light then a lot of other media.

Okay thanks for the mention.  Million Dollary Baby wasn't a subject that attracted me to see it.  I haven't even bothered to see it on cable.  As for the Simpsons, it's a rather irreverent show.  I think it's good fair for adults.  Still, when you go for over the top comedy the way the show does, it's really hard to take parts of it serious, even when those parts may be rather wholesome.  Still, it is good to know they have portrayed a Christian in that manner.

If a bunch of doctors donated to Bill Clinton's defense fund would that have anyting to do with the medical industry as a whole? What percentage of people in the film industry would those who donated represent? .005%? Something like that?

If it was accepted that between 80 and 90% of the main players in the industry were avowed leftists, it might.  As for what percentage, of main players contributed, it might be a higher percentage than that.  I simply don't know.  It could also be in the neighborhood you mention as well.

People these days are obssesed with finding political overtones in something like Titanic when in the 'Golden Age' we had 'The Treasure of The Sierre Madre' who's 'money is evil' message was actually derived from a novel by outspoken communist novelist B Traven. I love the movie but I don't really have to agree with the theme.

I do think people can look too hard for overtones.  There are times when I see it here on the forum.  I will also say that people are somewhat touchy on the subject these days.  I'm not the only guy who is simply disgusted by a lot of what I see eminating from the Hollywierd community.  And that really gets folks backs up on the issue, and they read more in because it has become such a big issue for them.  If Hollywierd would back off to near normalcy, I think you'd find that just as quickly as folks got their backs up on this topic, they'd be a lot more willing to cut the industry some slack if the industry would act as if they had a clue that somewhere between 65 and 80% of U.S. Citizens believe in a supreme being.  And those folks would like to see the industry produce fair that acted like it understood that.

[Borges]

You misunderstood my point about Passion and Last Temptation. The reason people were gun-shy about financing Passion is because of the reception of movies like Last Temptation. From the point of view of a Studio Exec it looked the same...a passionate filmmaker with a fervent religious film they want to make. Before Passion, films like that were Box Office poison.

As to your final point, someone can only produce something that reflects their beliefs. Would you complain to a novelist that his work should be more 'in line' with what 'most' people believe or simply accept the idea that his work reflects him and nobody else? There's nothing preventing Believers from making their own films. You just have to hustle for financing just like everyone else. Most people of devout faith don't want to do that.

[DoughtyOne]

I accept your critique. I will say one thing though. I have never seen a kids movie where I came away thinking, boy, if only they had put more adult stuff in there. I can enjoy a movie directed at children with no problem at all.

Frankly, I think the movie industry has lost sight of the fact that the movies from the thirties and through the fifties are still very popular today. TMC, Fox and a few others play oldies. They include very little profanity and none of the PG13/R subject matter we see all too often today.

I honestly think the industry could scale it back a bit, and not be hurt at all by the box office. I’ve basicly quit doing to the movies.

I’m 56 years old. I have an extensive collection of professional DVDs and I run off my own. I’m not a prude. I have interests that run along the lines of every other red blooded male. I’ve just come to the place where I don’t think it’s necessary to show us what we know would have happened even if we didn’t see it.

I appreciate your comments.

[DoughtyOne]

You misunderstood my point about Passion and Last Temptation. The reason people were gun-shy about financing Passion is because of the reception of movies like Last Temptation. From the point of view of a Studio Exec it looked the same...a passionate filmmaker with a fervent religious film they want to make. Before Passion, films like that were Box Office poison.

I believe I did touch on the subject of the Last Temptation not making a good box office.  I'm surprised that you would suggest that the studio execs couldn't see the difference between the two movies.  One stepped all over the toes of Christians, not just Catholics, and the other reinforced what most Christians firmly believe in.  You may be right that the execs didn't see a difference, but if that is true then you have to a certain extent proven my overall assessment of the movie industry.  They just don't get it.

As to your final point, someone can only produce something that reflects their beliefs.

Perhaps we're kindof talking past each other here.  I have said that I belive the industry is turning out vile material.  I have implied I have serious problems with the caliber of people in the industry.  You are now saying that folks will turn out what reflects their beliefs.  It seems to a certain extent that we agree on that point.  And that also seems to confirm my contention of the caliber of people in the industry.  Do you disagree?

Would you complain to a novelist that his work should be more 'in line' with what 'most' people believe or simply accept the idea that his work reflects him and nobody else?

To be sure the novelist is responsible for the content of the story line.  He is not responsible for the decision to convert the novel into a movie.  As long as we're talking about adult fair here, I'm not in the business of trying to censor what filmakers wish to produce.  I will occasionally advocate for toning it down a bit, but I have no control over that.  I do wish there were less violence for kids through the age of 18.  We seem to see so many acts by kids enacting things they have seen portrayed in the media.  It is also a policy of movie chains not to keep young children out of R rated movies.  I watched a very violent movie a few years back with unattended seven, eight and about twelve year old boys.  I informed the manager and asked him to get the kids out of there.  He told me the chain policy was to let the kids watch whatever they want after the folks dropped them off.

There's nothing preventing Believers from making their own films. You just have to hustle for financing just like everyone else. Most people of devout faith don't want to do that.

I agree.

[Borges]

Most Studio Execs are Business majors that wouldn't know thematic subtlety if it bit them in #$%. Only seeing both films in general outline on paper it would be difficult for them (or many others I bet) to determine which one would offend. It's impossible to do a serious film about Jesus without offending someone somewhere.

What movie theaters do has nothing to with the filmmakers. It's like blaming Heineken because some bars serve minors beer. There have always been bad movies. More than good I dare say. That goes for music and books as well. That doesn't negate the good of which there is always a significant amount if you care to look for it. The idea that one should never be 'insulted' is best left to grievance mongers like Jesse Jackson and CAIR.

[DoughtyOne]

Most Studio Execs are Business majors that wouldn't know thematic subtlety if it bit them in #$%.

I don't discount your premise, but if the studio execs wish to make money or avoid losing it, they should get better advisors for films covering this subject matter.

Only seeing both films in general outline on paper it would be difficult for them (or many others I bet) to determine which one would offend. It's impossible to do a serious film about Jesus without offending someone somewhere.

I would only say that something better than a general outline would have to be offered before I would make a favorable decision.

As for offending people with this subject matter, it is amazing how folks come out of the woodwork to object.  Can't argue with that.  What bothers me, is some of the arguments are just silly.  It isn't to the complainer though.

What movie theaters do has nothing to with the filmmakers. It's like blaming Heineken because some bars serve minors beer.

I agree.

There have always been bad movies. More than good I dare say. That goes for music and books as well. That doesn't negate the good of which there is always a significant amount if you care to look for it.

The movie industry makes what it wants to.  If it has that right, then I have the right to criticize profusely if I think they have used poor judgement.  It is my opinion that the industry is saturated with people who make terrible decisions conserning wholesome content.  I think some things should be toned down, and might advocate for a roll back, but I have no way of enforcing that, and I don't believe I should.  When it comes to ideological truisms that are passed off as if the gospel, I view it as propaganda and don't like it one bit.  These happen all the time.

You're watching a movie.  Somewhere in the movie they slip in a comment by the main character or his side-kick, that Utah would be a terrible place to live.  The implication is that living amongst Mormons would be terrible.  I see this kind of stuff all the time.  Imagine right wingers putting out movies that stated as a matter of fact that living in San Francisco would be terrible.  That would earn the movie makers immediate censure.  The media would be all over it.

The idea that one should never be 'insulted' is best left to grievance mongers like Jesse Jackson and CAIR.

Absolutely right.  As for being insulted routinely, that's a whole different ball game.

[Borges]

I still think its impossible tp predict the way people react to religious themed films. Remember the 1980s Michael Landon series 'Highway to Heaven'? Pretty tame stuff right? He got letters calling him the AntiChrist for preaching a false Gospel. I can't blame most film studios for staying away from that subject matter.

That Utah example is pretty benign. A great movie is necessarily more than stuff like that nor should it be reduced to it.

BTW if you want to see SF bashing see Petulia. A 1968 view of the counterculture that's quite critical of it. Made by the the director who helped get the counterculture going with his two Beatles films (A Hard Day's Night and Help!).

[DoughtyOne]

I still think its impossible tp predict the way people react to religious themed films.

Even Gibson found it rather difficult to hit the target in the bulls-eye.  However, by talking to special intertest groups and trying to work with them, he actually prevailed and made hundreds of millions off the project.  I don't know too many studios that would turn down that kind of profits, with managable difficulties.  I still don't think they use their heads.

Remember the 1980s Michael Landon series 'Highway to Heaven'? Pretty tame stuff right? He got letters calling him the AntiChrist for preaching a false Gospel. I can't blame most film studios for staying away from that subject matter.

You're never going to please everyone.  You can avoid insulting just about everyone.

That Utah example is pretty benign. A great movie is necessarily more than stuff like that nor should it be reduced to it.

It's not a matter of a movie being great or not.  It's a matter of constant propaganda across the spectrum of movies produced.  It's also a matter of insulting certain groups at will, when other groups cannot be insulted without massive reaction.

BTW if you want to see SF bashing see Petulia. A 1968 view of the counterculture that's quite critical of it. Made by the the director who helped get the counterculture going with his two Beatles films (A Hard Day's Night and Help!).

That's interesting, but I don't necessarily agree with singling folks out for this type of treatment.

I do not approve of homosexuality, but that is something God is going to have to judge ultimately.  I'm not here on this earth to make anyone's existance a living hell.  That doesn't mean that I don't think it's wise to expose our children to them across the board in our education system.  I'm also not in favor of inclusion in the military.  Outside of that, I don't have a burden on the subject.