Posted on 10/30/2007 8:40:06 AM PDT by Pyro7480
Bella to Anti-War Movies: Show Me the Money!
The independent pro-life film trounced Hollywood's anti-war movies in per-theater revenues, in spite of hostile mainstream media reviews.
You won’t see this fun movie fact in any mainstream media outlets, but the little pro-life movie Bella, which just opened, beat the socks off of several anti-war/anti-American movies in opening weekend per-theater revenues.
This despite the fact that Bella was panned by critics in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Variety and other mainstream outlets.(For an interesting article on how movie critics inject their politics into reviews, click here.)
Here’s the breakdown. Bella opened with a limited release, meaning it was only shown in 165 theaters, according to the Web site Boxofficemojo.com. It grossed $1,324,000 or roughly $8,024 per theater.
Compare this to the recent opening weekends for three anti-war movies: Valley of Elah, Rendition, and The Kingdom. Valley of Elah opened in 762 theaters and grossed $1,512310 or $1,984 per theatre. Rendition opened in 2,250 theaters, and grossed $4,060,012 or $1,804 per theatre. The über violent The Kingdom opened in 2,793 theatres and grossed $17,135,055 or $6,135 per theater....
Hollywood pays attention to box office numbers. Given that this little independent, pro-life movie did better than many major players, will it get an “expansion” too?
Tune in next week to find out.
(Excerpt) Read more at cultureandmediainstitute.org ...
I have met a few of these types and your summary is right on the money.
You’re correct. I picked an idiot out of the wrong hat. Think Alec Baldwin.
“Hollywood is all about money, but ideology is extremely important.”
_______________________________________________________________
Michael Medved (”Hollywood vs. America”) among others has shown that movie industry denizens care more about the adulation of their peers and their own prejudices than in making money for investors and shareholders. The numbers for years have been showing that “family-friendly” fare makes more at the box office than sex, violence and fashionable existential despair.
The hate-america genre is an especial money-loser but that sure doesn’t stop them.
Family films will always make more money because parents have to go to the movies with their kids. As opposed to teens or adults going by themselves. It’s stating the obvious. As for violent films not making money ‘Saw IV’ made a lot this last weekend. If you cede the marketplace to anti-social teenagers you’ll get what you (don’t) pay for.
Hmmm, how about a little thought experiment with that reviewer's smarmy little homily...
1. "...each with a child who is gay a necrophile. It watches as child and parent struggle with this issue until each realizes that it doesn't have to be an issue at all and that love will conquer all..."
2. "...each with a child who is gay a pederast. It watches as child and parent struggle with this issue until each realizes that it doesn't have to be an issue at all and that love will conquer all..."
3."...each with a child who is gay a practitioner of bestiality. It watches as child and parent struggle with this issue until each realizes that it doesn't have to be an issue at all and that love will conquer all..."
“The hate-america genre is an especial money-loser but that sure doesn’t stop them.”
The free market is not being allowed to work here, then.
Hollywood is defined by the gross financial over-compensation of those with limited talent. “Acting talent”......please. “Directorial genius”....yeah, right.
Hollywood needs some serious competition from a major league purveyor of video with a conservative orientation.
I think only an idiot would think “The Kingdom” was an anti-war movie.
There have been some rumblings about the Amerikka-hating genre really being made for the overseas market.
That’s what was being said about “Syriana.”
Every now and then someone takes time to mention the fact that Hollywood is our most successful export and worst ambassador.
Ask a Sumatran peasant why he thinks Americans are all a bunch of gun-waving, sex-crazed psycho a**holes, he’ll tell you he saw it in the movies.
Bump to your Medved reference.
It’s NOT about money; wish it were that easy!
It only was a moral equivalence if you believe violence is never justified. I think only pacifists take that position.
American movies have been a draw towards the U.S. which is generally depicted as a land of impossible privilege. That’s the impression a lot of immigrants I knew had in the late 70s/early 80s. They were surprised that money wasn’t lying around in the street.
Not quite true. You’re going strictly by the term “family” or “children’s”. It holds true for every “rating” - PG makes more in real $$$ and in ATTENDENCE (a # NEVER used by Hollywood) than R, etc.
It is also a comparison of eras. When disgusting displays were not allowed by common decency, movies were in real attendence more popular. There was some decline with TV, but a massive % decline after “the Code” was dropped and “the ratings system” was adopted - in the ‘60s.
It’s not as simple as “parents have to go with kids”. How many families and whole groups of relatives or friends go together whether they “have to” or not?
Sometimes, I loathe being correct in my assessment.
(I was going to say “I hate being right”, but I don’t want “right” to be misconstrued as conservative”...uh, maybe more info than what was needed...but uh, you get it, yes?)
Sort of like “Munich”?
Wow, I thought “Kingdom” was supposed to be quite good.
The conservative film industry is proving slow getting off the ground but the potential is gradually revealing itself.
Basically, any movie that isn’t obviously violence and sex-drenched, full of obscene language or anti-american, anti-christian, anti-western civilization can be called “conservative.”
Strange that such movies would be considered rare, even now.
Apropos Medved; he observed that the end of the hollywood code and the adoption of the rating system changed the industry often overnight. 1966 Oscar winner for Best Picture was “The Sound of Music”. For 1968 it was “Midnight Cowboy.”
The rest is history. According to Medved’s figures the number of people going to the movies regularly absolutely nose-dived soon after that.
___________________________________________
Not really, Hollywood is all about the 'deal' (A-list producer gets A-list director signed on to project which draws A-list talent which gets distribution). That's why we keep getting crap from them. If it were really about money we'd be getting in line to see "The Wiggles Meet High School Musical - IV".
“American movies have been a draw towards the U.S. which is generally depicted as a land of impossible privilege. That’s the impression a lot of immigrants I knew had in the late 70s/early 80s. They were surprised that money wasn’t lying around in the street.”
_______________________________________________________________
Hee! Hee! Even we seem to have to find that out for ourselves with every generation that goes out into the world.
I still can’t figure out how all those struggling youngsters in the ads/sitcoms/MTV find and afford those glamorous apartments.
Especially that gargantuan Georgetown pad Judd Nelson and Ally Sheedy had in “St. Elmo’s Fire.”
That’s been a long standing joke/complaint amongst some critics. A journalist, a teacher, a waitress...will live in a swank Manhattan loft.
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.