Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not about the money. Hollywood could make more money if they were more apolitical or moderate.
.
I love statements based on a complete lack of facts.
Truth is, the hundreds of MILLIONS from single films...and sometimes BILLIONS when all is said and done (revenue over the decades) is a hefty sum.
Comedy is liberal.
This is a very silly thread...because, according to those who pray at the altar of capitalism, if this giant market existed for "moderate" or "conservative" films and plays, there would be LOTS of them.
If there are not - well, the proof is in the pudding. Period.
The problem here is with people who start threads like this and hold such world views. They are authoritarian in nature and do not accept the freedom of expression we have here in the west. We could call them the Taliban of Entertainment.
Next thing they'll be talking about Star Trek being liberal (well, most of the actors were/are) because of the diverse crew.
I think it started in the 70's...I noticed that when watching a lot of older shows from the 70's and 80's if you know what to look for, you can spot the early seedlings of that kind of Hollywood activism embedded within sitcom show themes and scripts.
I think it started in the 70's...I noticed that when watching a lot of older shows from the 70's and 80's if you know what to look for, you can spot the early seedlings of that kind of Hollywood activism embedded within sitcom show themes and scripts.
I'd say it started with the Greeks and their plays. Continued with Shakespeare.
I'm glad people like you "know what to look for" and "can spot" that liberal cancer!
Hollywood is very capitalistic. Risking hundreds of millions upfront with no guarantee of a return. Hollywood has no ideology beyond making money, and would make more right wing movies with right wing stars if they thought they could make a profit.
And trying to make money on overtly conservative films has been a failure. The Atlas Shrugged trilogy only made $9 million in total on all 3, far less than the production costs. What was most discouraging was the first film almost returned its production costs, but every film that followed made increasing less and less money. The last film made less than $1 million.
All of them took about $5 million each to produce. That's the cost of a documentary these days, and the movies looked like they were made on the cheap.
To be a hit these days, any movie has to make around $9 million on the opening weekend. And that's if there is no competition. When two or three are released at the same time, one will have to make around $12 million on the opening weekend to be the biggest hit of the 3.
And at the cost of moviegoing these days, it seems that conservatives have given up going. The kids are the biggest audience by far now, and the movies always follow the audience.
Any flick that hopes to capture a mature audience has to have very well known actors, producers and directors that the older folks all know and respect. The script quality has to be exceptionally good, too.
The fact is, a religious theme can still turn a profit in today's movie theaters, but not politics.
The notion that everything Hollywood issues is liberal is nonsense. The themes of many of the most popular recent movies over the past decade are deeply conservative, even if the actors in them are not.
A good example is Meryl Streep's portrayal of Margaret Thatcher. That movie was a modest hit, but the viewers probably came in knowing what Streep's politics are. But as Maggie Thatcher, she was still very believable and very much in character to the real person.
That's an actor's job. They all leave their affiliations at the door when it comes to doing their job, and always have.
Last edited by banjomike; 06-25-2017 at 01:03 AM..
I think it stems largely from the Jews that were instrumental in creating Hollywood who are largely very liberal and virulently anti-Christian. They will and have done their best to their part in destroying and minimizing Christians and conservatives influence and culture. So the will has been there for a long time and their mission has accelerated with their successes.
I suspect actors have always been a bit more liberal, on average.
Actors like roles that challenge them. Part of the challenge is portraying a character that is essentially different in nature from who they are as a person.
But in their personal lives, actors are just as conservative as any other group of Americans. Liberal or conservative, most never let their affiliations be shown in public at all, because most don't have careers so solid they can afford to lose a job that's offered to them.
Few have the luxury of being able to let their politics show. It's a dog eat dog business, and always was.
There are few actors who can survive being typecast, so when a role comes up that can show a totally different side to them, actors tend to go for it just to show they have enough range to do such work.
Back when the movies were the only visual entertainment to be had and the studios were all grinding them out, typecasting was a good thing; movies were more like television then, so a moviegoer would go in, knowing what to expect.
But once TV stole away the audience, and allowed most of the most typecast actors a steady income, looking for alternatives has always been a challenge for the studios ever since.
I suspect actors have always been a bit more liberal, on average.
My best friend and college roommate is an actor and he leans conservative but doesn't dare let anyone in the business know that...I do agree with your generalization though. Just keep in mind these actors are trying to get parts from liberal and oftentimes Jewish producers and will say what they think they want to hear.
I think it stems largely from the Jews that were instrumental in creating Hollywood who are largely very liberal and virulently anti-Christian. They will and have done their best to their part in destroying and minimizing Christians and conservatives influence and culture. So the will has been there for a long time and their mission has accelerated with their successes.
Confirmed my theory about the Greeks and even Romans.
Neither used entertainment to evangelize.
Yes, Spielberg is a plot and his elevation of Oscar Shindler to Hero is part of that anti-anti you are talking about.
His film about Lincoln is especially anti-anti.
Saving Private Ryan - yep, another one talking about how bad average American (Christians) are.
Can you guys please confirm that everyone on this thread is over 60? or 70?
I'd be despondent if real Americans held these views.
PS. When you have time, look up the history of "conservatism". It didn't exist until recently as a way of describing politics (other than describing some who approved slavery)...so the views being expounded here are just repeated propaganda.
It was really Barry Goldwater who started the modern strain - and even a radical like he would have trembled reading this stuff (above).
To Quote Barry:
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
That's what a REAL conservative thinks about Christians. Let's take another one from way back. Mr. Thomas Jefferson...but first, let's touch on Ben Franklin.
Ben did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. To show how far backwards Christians have laid our politics, he was never even asked this question until later in his life - and he answered it in writing, so we know for sure.
But Thomas Jefferson - that rich indebted slaveholding founder - is more the hero of some modern conservatives. He has a book full of quotes about Christians, besides having personally created his own Bible by cutting our references to Jesus and Miracles.
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it (i.e. the Book of Revelations), and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherence of our own nightly dreams."
I love the uneducated - just like Mr. Trump does. They are my favorite followers. They are, as TJ notes, either fools or hypocrites. Pick one. Some are both.
They preach the opposite but when an industry becomes a worldwide success and makes BILLIONS of dollars and becomes, in many way, the symbol of America all around the world....they HATE it.
To answer the OP would take some generalizations...Hollywood is, like many advanced trades, heavy with people of Jewish backgrounds (note - vastly more Jews are Nobel Prize Winners, Top Doctors, etc.).
1. Jews tend to be liberal - as well as creative and good business people.
2. Jews are creative - history forced Jewish people into many roles because they were not allowed to do "normal" things like own land - so they educated their children and went into things like writing plays, being doctors and bankers, etc.
3. Smart and Creative people tend to have open and inquisitive minds.
4. California is quite diverse in terms of the general population - people from all over the country and world settled there and there were no "Baptist Preachers" or "KKK" or "Confederates" to sway them to "conservative" ways.
5. In terms of true entertainment, history, documentaries, etc - there is very little which fits the conservative mode except for killing in certain ways (American Sniper, etc.). Subject matter is therefore, by definition, liberal. This is why liberals would tend to read more books and understand many world views as opposed to thinking "traditionally" like a conservative would.
Those are the main reasons. But the question is somewhat like asking why pot smokers and LSD users tended (years ago) to be liberals or to become liberals. When your world view and mind are expanded, you usually don't hole up and go to the local white supremacist meetings.
There it is! Liberals believing that using drugs will expand your mind rather than burn you out so much that you don't realize what they are doing to you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
