Replies

The Groupthink is that every movie regardless of who made it or the circumstances surrounding it's behind made is always part of some monolithic system and is really what 'Hollywood' thinks. I attribute art to the creator and no one else. The character in the movie was an abuser as well. She's certainly not what anyone would take to be a run of the mill Christian. I would say that Reds showed how Communism eventually betrayed the working class they were supposed to represent. The Preacher from Footloose turns out to be a noble character albeit overly protective. I think people left the movie thinking that.

Soon all actors will be replaced with computer graphics.

It won't be a problem then.

The Groupthink is that every movie regardless of who made it or the circumstances surrounding it's behind made is always part of some monolithic system and is really what 'Hollywood' thinks. I attribute art to the creator and no one else. The character in the movie was an abuser as well. She's certainly not what anyone would take to be a run of the mill Christian. I would say that Reds showed how Communism eventually betrayed the working class they were supposed to represent. The Preacher from Footloose turns out to be a noble character albeit overly protective. I think people left the movie thinking that.

It's not groupthink to simply point out that it just so happens that 99% of Hollywood product is anti-Christian. As an agnostic, I think it's laughable to look at this as being coincidental and not something that's part of the system itself--HOLLYWOOD is the entity guilty of groupthink here; those pointing it out are merely stating the obvious.

Hollywood is not simply a distribution center that rubberstamps what the moviemakers do--they say Yes or No to movies depending on the message, the profitability. If anyone needs evidence of this, look at one of the biggest-grossing movies of 3004--The Passion. Where are all these conservative religious movies that are being greenlit to cash in on this? But there are always ripoffs and "homages" being made to EVERY movie that makes money--why not in this situation?

The creators of the movies have little say in what the studio approves or cuts out. And they stop proposing conservative-themed movies because they know they only get to pitch so many times before they stop getting callbacks. I speak from the experience of friends--that's how it works. If you think someone keeps proposing conservative movies to the studios gets called back as often as someone who proposes liberal-themed movies, no offense, but you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

As for Carrie, you're micro-analyzing--she's a religious wacko in the book and movie but in the book the abusive part is emphasized just as much, as an element of her overall abusive personality and hatred for her ex-husband; coming away from the movie you think "She's a religious wacko." The icons and candles etc. are the visual cue that religion is the SOURCE of her abusive behavior; in the book, it's more complex.

You may have left Footloose with that impression, but I will wager that 99% of people describing his character will NOT say "John Cleese played this noble misguided character" but "John Cleese played this rightwing Bible thumper nutcase who wants to ban DANCING! What a wacko!"

It's not groupthink to merely report on the herdlike behavior of Hollywood studios.