[Hi Heels]

"List the artistic people on the left and those on the right, and compare their work: Those on the left are more creative." What??......

[Hi Heels]

Ping

[Borges]

Ask Finefrock for examples of Hollywood's liberal slant, and he rattles off films endlessly: An uptight preacher in 1984's "Footloose" has a conservative American town so juiced up that it outlaws dancing; the character representing the U.S. Marines in 1999's "American Beauty" is portrayed mostly as a homophobic lunatic; Communism is lionized in movies such as 1981's "Reds" and 2004's "The Motorcycle Diaries"; employees always come off as heroes (think 1979's "Norma Rae"), and the "system" is always evil (1987's "Wall Street"); and 1987's "Dirty Dancing" extols the virtues of abortion and 1990's "Pretty Woman" the normalcy of prostitution.

And don't get him started on Brian De Palma's classic 1976 horror film "Carrie."

I hate group think like this. Carrie was a faithful adaptation of the Stephen King novel so the blame for the characterization should go to him. 'Reds' reflects Warren Beatty's obsessions not some monolithic system (that film had trouble getting financing) And he obviously didn't watch Footloose to the end where the Preacher is shown as a genuinely good person. And fighting the 'system' is bad? Everyone does it everyday.

[Darkwolf377]

"Bullshit!" Gelbart replies, when asked if liberals make things difficult for conservatives in Hollywood. "If you're not strong enough to support a Republican administration out loud, then you're a wimp."

Gelbrat is correct here. Hollywood conservatives need to express themselves the way every other American conservative does. They're in the business of communication, and if they're too wimpy to make only movies that match their values, what good are they? "When I watch movies I'm not looking for a political agenda, nor do I see one," he says.

Now it's Gelbart who's full of bull. To say the lib agenda isn't rampant in Hollywood product is just laughable.

Hollywood Conservatives need to live with the courage of their convictions, or they're no more conservative than the RINOs in congress.

[CzarChasm]

Gelbart, with his eyes squeezed shut and his fingers in his ears said, in between chanting "la-la-LA-LA-LA I can't hear you",
    "When I watch movies I'm not looking for a political agenda, nor do I see one,"

Gelbart does acknowledge...No executive today is willing to greenlight a movie that portrays extreme Islamists as the enemy... But Gelbart believes that is a pragmatic decision having little to do with politics.

    "You make a radical Muslim mad, and he won't rip off your bumper sticker, he'll rip off your bumper -- then your car will be found in another state, and he'll put a fatwa on you," he says. "I think fearing for your life is a pretty good reason not to do it."

And thus, you [Gelbart] spineless weasel, they win.

[Robert DeLong]

I wish we could find out who said: "I'm ashamed to be an American."

He needs a good freeping.

[processing please hold]

"Bullshit!" Gelbart replies, when asked if liberals make things difficult for conservatives in Hollywood. "If you're not strong enough to support a Republican administration out loud, then you're a wimp."

"You make a radical Muslim mad, and he won't rip off your bumper sticker, he'll rip off your bumper -- then your car will be found in another state, and he'll put a fatwa on you," he says. "I think fearing for your life is a pretty good reason not to do it."

Sooooo, he's a whimp?

[Zhangliqun]

"When I watch movies I'm not looking for a political agenda, nor do I see one," Gelbart says.

But then again, fish don't look for water, nor do they see it.

[lowbridge]

"Bullshit!" Gelbart replies, when asked if liberals make things difficult for conservatives in Hollywood. "If you're not strong enough to support a Republican administration out loud, then you're a wimp."

snip

Gelbart does acknowledge a pet peeve expressed by Finefrock and many other Hollywood conservatives: No executive today is willing to greenlight a movie that portrays extreme Islamists as the enemy (though check out Fox's 1994 actioner "True Lies" to see none other than current California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger going head-to-head with crazed jihadists). But Gelbart believes that is a pragmatic decision having little to do with politics. "You make a radical Muslim mad, and he won't rip off your bumper sticker, he'll rip off your bumper -- then your car will be found in another state, and he'll put a fatwa on you," he says. "I think fearing for your life is a pretty good reason not to do it."

Gelbart the wimp.

[HHFi]

In claiming that liberals are more creative, Larry Gelbart states a fallacy rooted in arrogance and the fact that he lives in a liberal echo chamber. He and all his friends are liberals, and they know their work is better than anyone else's, so therefore, liberals must be more creative than anyone else. It's the same reason that liberals tend to believe liberal men are better in bed: they've repeated that canard for so many years in the liberal-owned media in hopes of convincing women of it. It's a phallic fallacy.

I happen to be a "creative" person (I've written advertising, TV, home video, two published books, and for the past 14 years, a daily radio comedy service). I know lots of other creative people who, like me, avoid Hollywood because they find the politics and lifestyle repulsive. We've just found other avenues for our creativity in more hospitable fields. It hardly means we are less creative than the cretins turning out the junk coming from Hollywood. If I thought my work weren't more creative than the cliche-ridden dreck in movie theaters (box office down for the 16th straight weekend and counting), the simplistic and ham-handed leftist twaddle I'm forced to sit through in live theaters as a local drama awards judge, or the garbage that pollutes most of our TV outlets ("Tonight on the Reality Channel: Paris Hilton eats a horse rectum!"), I'd just slit my wrists and get it over with.

BTW, if Gelbart calls Republicans wimps when they fear destroying their careers by supporting Bush out loud, then why does he think it's perfectly excusable pragmatism for Hollywood studios to be afraid to criticize Muslims out loud? Bit of hypocrisy there, Lar?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Gelbart traces the entertainment industry's liberal slant to something everyone in Hollywood can understand: economics. One can say what they will about the agenda behind "Carrie," "Footloose" or "Pretty Woman," but all of those movies scored at the boxoffice as few "conservative-oriented" films have.

In 1960, it was estimated that upwards of 90% of Americans went to the movies on a regular basis. By 1990, I believe that it had fallen to somewhere between 20% and 30% (these figures are from my fallible memory, so I could be wrong, but I believe that I'm in the ballpark here).

While movie prices going up through the roof has something to do with this, it might also be pointed out the style of the movies prior to the 60's was more family-oriented than the style of movies today.

[Qwinn]

""Bullshit!" Gelbart replies, when asked if liberals make things difficult for conservatives in Hollywood. "If you're not strong enough to support a Republican administration out loud, then you're a wimp.""

As opposed to those in Hollywood who supported Communism. If they did that out loud, they were "wimps" and "sellouts", and only by refusing to admit it would they be considered "heroes".

Qwinn

[Nyboe]

forget it, i've had it with Hollywood.

I say tax all profit above $1,000,000 on a movie at a 90% since the pinkos think the rich should be paying more anyway.