Posted on 07/24/2003 11:24:01 AM PDT by DPB101
Despite critics' claims that Mel Gibson has no distributor to put his blockbuster film "The Passion" into theaters around the country, Gibson does have at least one.
According to Fox News's Roger Friedman, Gibson's company, Icon Entertainment, which produced "The Passion," has a distribution deal with 20th Century Fox.
20th Century Fox is owned by News Corp, which also owns Fox News.
According to Friedman, 20th Century Fox has a first-look option with Icon and right of refusal.
Fox News says they also have the right to outbid another studio. As a result, "The Passion" right now is a 20th Century Fox film.
Executives from that studio and others have now seen "The Passion," and Friedman says 20th is "rumored to be very interested in distributing the film."
So when the emotionally charged film, which portrays the final 12 hours of Christ's ordeal, premiers next Easter, it shouldn't have any problems showing up in your neighborhood theater.
Distribution aside, the film remains contoversial.
Friedman writes, "As he did in Washington and in a couple of other cities, Gibson showed the controversial film about Christ's final 12 hours to politicians and clergy who would not argue with his point of view. Question-and-answer sessions after these screenings, according to one insider, have had more to do with the movie's length and whether Gibson will release it with subtitles."
More to come . . . no doubt.
A business that hails "American Beauty" as its best product of the year is in need of reflection, repentence...and cheaper popcorn.
Usually the split is 90/10 -- 90% of the ticket sales go to the movie company/distributor and 10% to the theater owner. (That's why candy/soda/popcorn concessions cost so much; they are the major profit for the theatre owner.)
My son, a good and conservative kid, said "Gods and Generals" was the most boring movie he's ever seen. That may be the reason it had such a short run in theatres.
I trust Fox to distribute Gibson's "The Passion" far and wide. It's very possible they've realized the enormous box office potential that resides in Christian America.
It's about time.
Filmmaking is an art form. I don't care how much you don't like the characters or the story line - American Beauty was an absolute masterpiece of technical filmmaking. The cinematography was as good as anything I've seen in the past 20 years.
Of course, the corollary is also true - good characters or stories don't necessarily make good film. The Patriot, for example.
I like quality film - not just film that I find to be politically or morally compatible.
My last theater trip was We Were Soldiers.
And the lighting was so delicate; and the location manager was a stand-out; the gaffers first-rate; and craft services yummy.
American Beauty was hackneyed, simplistic story-telling and a disgusting attempt to malign middle-American family values.
Filmmaking is an art form.
Do you even have a clue who owns Miramax; who controlled David Selznick; who Preston Sturges's step-father was?
If you're going to even attempt a knowledge of film you should be aware that the entire reason for film's existence in the past century has been for PROPAGANDA. Art has always finished a distant second.
But most of all, you obviously aren't aware of the identity of the grandfather of American Beauty's director, Sam Mendes. Alfred Mendes is a major British socialist/elitist who has written volumes against Bush and is responsible for more than half of the trash on the WEB today about Bush. Google him; it's an education.
In Hollywood, no one is as they seem.
Film 101 didn't do you much good. Maybe you'll have better luck next semester.
All the branches of Establishment PR power function, IMHO, to make myths. Sometimes the myth is reality--Reagan as good guy, proven out in real life--but the myth is built more-or-less independently of reality.A topical example of myth is the "courageous liberal writer" fighting for freedom of speech and freedom of association against viciously repressive Senator McCarthy. In real life the threat posed by the senator was actually to real Communists, many of them now known explicitly to have been actual agents of the Soviet Union.
But the whole PR apparat went into overdrive to build that myth, in which all each part of the apparat scratched the backs of all the other parts. In the resulting popular mythology, all parts of the PR apparat become heroes except for whatever remnant of character here and there (e.g., Ronald Reagan) refused to go along and get along.
The appeal of the myth is so powerful that few have the character to decline its allure.
LOL...liberal hate speech has the opposite effect they intend in areas other than religion too. Never considered buying a gun until Democrats got cross-eyed over them.
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.