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!)
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.
His movie bombed
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.
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.
Frankly, I liked the original with Gene Barry. This new one sounds like a clunker.
I wish I had a $449million bomb on my resume. (Not including future box office, DVD and TV income.)
Yeah. REAL big bomb.
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.
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.
the two anti-gun scenesActually, 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!
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.
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.
A cruise missile that veered off course.
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?
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.
"Is 449 million a world wide gross?"
yes
Just another reason NOT to spend my entertainment dollars on Hollywood and it's ANTI-AMERICAN majority.
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?
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.
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.