Sanders is absolutely correct. Modern Hollywood has become little more than a
left-wing organization bent on destroying every traditional moral value that
forms the basis of this Country's historic greatness. Tarantino has led
this charge.Modern Hollywood has an open and stated agenda of
promoting recreational violence and recreational sex. Ideed, violence is
glorified as not ony acceptable, but absolutely desirable. Sex is also portrayed
as a purely recreational activity that should be engaged in at any time with any
person whenever the urge arrises. In addition, Hollywood would have the public
believe that the more deviant the sex is, the better it is.Sadly,
Tarantino and his ilk have swayed a large portion of the gullible public. Even
sadder still, the ignorant hordes are now immitating the attitudes and behaviors
that are portrayed in these vile and pernicious movies. It is time
for all patriotic Americans to speak up. Remaining silent will allow our society
to devolve into nothing more than violent anarchy, in which sexual deviancy
Very interesting. I simply cannot understand why so many people who should know
otherwise attend garbage movies and watch televised trash.My own
kids, who are strong LDS members, all went to see Jack Reacher. They said
afterward that its extreme violence was very disturbing. They were amazed it is
rated PG-13 and complained about that, too.When I asked why they
went to see it, their reply was that they "needed a break" and it was
the only movie available that night in Tooele. All I could do was shake my
head.I remember a time when the LDS church published lists of
recommended and not recommended movies and TV shows. Why did they stop? Was it
because of all the snide comments made around the nation? I notice that even
the Baptists no longer make similar lists.But what might happen if
our churches -- of all varieties -- would speak up -- very loudly.If
movie attendance dropped sharply, would Hollywood get the idea?Or
have Americans of all kinds simply become desensitized?
Rant rant rant. I'm done. Of course you don't need to
watch these movies you can watch cowboy and Indian films from the 30's like
John Wayne's "Stagecoach" where nobody gets killed cause it was 80
years ago and everything was pure and good then and they would never have shown
someone getting killed....If Hollywood is the source of all your
problems then YOU are watching too much TV. FOX I presume.
[more profitable, child-friendly G and PG rated]I am so tired of
hearing this sorry myth. They can be more profitable, but they are usually more
expensive, bigger risks, and massive failures. When family movies bomb, they can
destroy a studio/publisher. With R-rated movies its easier to recoup an
investment through late night TV, foreign markets, and niche viewership. They
can also be sold for longer. Family/kids movies show their age fast.Seriously, this is like the 5th or so article on the DesNews in the last few
weeks calling out Tarantino by name. He isn't even the edgiest director out
there. His movies play it safe by having bad guys kill bad guys.You
can see far more violent, sexual, and disturbing movies here every January at
Sundance. Remember, Tarantino got his start through the Sundance screenwriting
program.These movies and games are here to stay because a lot of
people like them, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.The
world is healthier and safer than its ever been, a fact that doesn't mesh
well with world views that rely on "prophecies" that it should be
Reservoir Dogs & the Vampire movie w/ Clooney were QT's best and they
were average.re: one old man 6:47 p.m. Jan. 7, 2013"My own kids, who are strong LDS members, all went to see Jack Reacher.
They said afterward that its extreme violence was very disturbing. They were
amazed it is rated PG-13 and complained about that, too."I
dislike Cruise but thought it was a great movie. The violence IMO was no any
worse than Nolan's Batman trilogy. Then, I must be one of the few where
dialogue affects me more than visual carnage.re: Screwdriver 7:37
p.m. Jan. 7I love Fox's Sunday night lineup but Wall St is a
bigger thorn in my side than Hollywood.
So, we are all about personal responsibility until it comes to what your
children are watching - then it is everyone else's responsibility to make
sure they only watch what you approve of....All those access sources
mentioned have two things in common: they are paid services and they have
parental control options. Children don't have access unless the parents
participate in providing it. It is not Brad Pitts' job to raise
your child. And G and PG movies - not such huge money makers anymore
- usually because they are so vapid parents can't stand to watch them. If you don't like what Hollywood has to offer, don't watch it
- but stop demanding they parent your child.
I'm so tired of people who deny empirical reality, and do it with an
arrogantly condescending flair. It has basically become consensus that the
"lower" the movie rating, the greater the average profitability and the
greater the likelihood of being successful, i.e. making a profit at all.
Mukkake is making claims contrary to reality. Actually, it is R rated movies
that age badly; viewership and profit figures bear this out time and again.
Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. Or look in the bargain bins at
your local Wal Mart, and then look at the full price shelves. Violent
"adult", i.e. R & PG-13, movies dominate those huge $5 or less bins,
sometimes only months after leaving theatres, and the Disney/Pixar/family movies
sit on the $10-20 shelves for years. It's not even close.And
seriously...you're trying to defend Tarantino as NOT edgy!? Well sure
there are more violent directors..."playing it safe" isn't exactly
the first words to mind of any honest Tarantino viewer, fan or not.And wanting more socially responsible movies does not equal asking "Brad
Pitt to raise our child". Did I really have to actually say that?
My secretary is taken to every violent new movie that comes out by her husband.
Years ago she would complain that she had to go with him, but now she sees
Django Unchained and says she's seen way worse - all while counseling
everyone else in the office not to subject ourselves to the horrible scenes in
the movie. I don't think it's any surprise that she's less
sweeter than she once was.
@ VoR: "... we should reframe the debate to focus on the needs of children.
... It is time to come together to consider the minds of our children.""... why don’t actors, screenwriters, directors, producers and
distributors of games and movies make the moral and economic choice to invest in
and inspire the next generation?""... I appeal to the civic
virtue of self-governance. ... the entertainment industry should redirect its
collective creative brilliance to elevating and inspiring our children to
achieve the highest ideals of humankind."Hmm - needs of
"our" children, minds of children, invest and inspire, elevate and
inspire - sounds exactly like raising children. Why is it Hollywood's
responsibility instead of the parents'?
In an era where the Hollywood elite are financing their insane lifestyles off of
productions that numb our awareness with violence, and then those same elite are
horrified with the idea of an armed citizenry ... I say, lets bootstrap controls
on the mass media with any gun control!These movies are far from
obscene and profane. The viewers are emotionally abused and assailed ... but
the firearms manufacturers are to blame when impressionable people choose to
re-enact something they saw in a movie, where as the weapons manufacturer is to
blame when a firearm is used.
Hollywood is a business.With very few exceptions, they play to the
bottom line, as most businesses do.Do you really think that movie
makers make a conscious decision to produce film A when they know film B will
make lots more money?Many believe that everything in life should be
geared to a 10 year old. I am thankful that it is not.Geez people.
Go see the movies that you want and stop ranting about movies that you
don't. It's called choice.
@voryour anecdotal experience s not the same as impiriical evidence. A
leafing through the movies at your local store gives you an idea of what that
store owner believes his local customers want and nothing more.
Adjusting for inflation, etc., the #9 highest box office grossing movie of all
time worldwide was Toy Story 3, #12 is Alixe in Wonderland (2010), #18 is Lion
King - the rest of the top 20 are pg-13 or r. That is empirical evidence.
Hollywood makes pg-13 and r rated movies because they sell - not just in the US,
but worldwide. @ Normal Guy: So your secretary has a husband who
forces her to participate in activities she doesn't enjoy instead of
respecting and honoring her and you think it is the activities that are changing
her behavior? Did you ever stop to think it may be her relationship with her
husband that is the problem, not the movies?Gladiators, bull fights,
Wild West shoot outs, sitting on the sidelines watching the battles of the Civil
War while eating a picnic lunch - humans have long had a fascination with
watching violence. Statistical evidence shows a decrease in violent crimes. This
is reality. Violent movies have not changed society for the worse.
[Violent "adult", i.e. R & PG-13, movies dominate those huge $5 or
less bins, sometimes only months after leaving theatres, and the
Disney/Pixar/family movies sit on the $10-20 shelves for years. It's not
even close.]Thank you for proving my point. Violent movies from
decades ago are the ones being manufactured, not family films. What you see in
that bargain bin is tiny portion of movies ever made and there are so many that
aren't in there.Disney keeps its films valuable by using the
"Disney Vault". They keep the supply low and the demand high. Disney
also has a lot of family films that almost killed them, and it takes them years
to recover the costs.Also, violent movies are usually the ones that
get "special editions" or "director's cuts" years later
(usually to be more violent). Even now Jurassic Park is the one getting an
expensive 3D conversion, not E.T. or Goonies. Meaning these properties are
valuable enough for reinvestment.There is no empirical reality to
"lower-rating=higher-profit". Its cause and effect. A wide release movie
looks for a wide release rating. A niche release; a niche rating.
There is no limit to the level of hipocrisy in Hollywood. And yes, inexplicably
producers and directors do make violent, sexy movies even though they know they
are less profitable because they have an agenda
Those who feel threatened and powerless in their own lives/society are at great
risk for committing violent acts. They, like the mentally ill and the
emotionally disturbed, are the humans committing these horrendous crimes. Can our society conjure up a plan to keep violent entertainment away from
these folks?Fame and fortune awaits the person with a logical, workable
I just think it is funny that Hollywood would take the position that their
violence in films has no effect on human behavior. If that were true then why
do they promote political candidates with the hope that their media influence
would cause someone to vote for the candidate (usually Democrat) that they want
JCS is sometimes correct in what he posts here, but his obsessive hatred and
fear of the ephemeral ghosts of "liberals" that haunt his dreams destroy
any validity to what he has to offer.In reality, it is not just
those "liberals" (whatever that might be) that contribute violence to
our society. I must ask if he has stopped to consider that the supposedly
"conservative" FOX network constantly features some of the most raunchy
and violent TV that pours into our homes.And it certainly is not
"liberals" who are constantly telling us we need more guns.With all due respect, JCS needs to learn to look at things from more than just
one very narrow and obsessive viewpoint.
Seldom have a I read such a well-written and well-conceived editorial.
Why is it that saying Hollywood has moral responsibilities somehow magically
becomes “parents want to abandon their responsibilities”? I know
this is a shocker, but responsible parents don’t want to abandon their
children to Hollywood, but they ALSO want Hollywood to be more responsible.
Can't we pretty please have both?George, it’s one
anecdotal experience in support of, not in place of, the overwhelming empirical
consensus. Here’s two studies I found in about 30 seconds online, more
time would yield others:“Film Profitability Study 2012”,
The Dove Foundation, 2012 (updated annually, widely considered the industry
benchmark on the subject & quoted by safely liberal entities everywhere)And since some minds may not have enough room for anything but
liberal/progressive sources:Sundaram, Sridhar (2006)
"Profitability Study of MPAA Rated Movies," Seidman Business ReviewAnd actually, here are the REAL top 20 grossing movies’ ratings of
all time, adjusted for inflation:7 G9 PG3 PG-13And
exactly one R (The Exorcist)This ground has already been plowed,
people. R-rated movies just aren’t nearly as historically profitable as
G, PG or PG-13 movies.
VOR:[And actually, here are the REAL top 20 grossing movies’ ratings
of all time]The problem there is... that some ratings have
changed... PG-13 wasn't introduced until 1984. Before that G, PG (GP), R,
and NC-17 (X) were different buckets than they are now. So the only fair way to
gauge success is based on recent successes and ratings. If you track the last
few decades, PG-13 is the highest grossing bucket.The other problem
is the issue of "GROSSING". High grossing films are also high expense
films. Hollywood prefers to diversify their investments, which means smaller,
higher-concept films more often. These films are often R or PG-13.The reason Tarantino is successful is because his films are still pretty cheap
to make, because actors will drop their fees to be in his movies. They're
portfolio pieces. As many actors owe Tarantino for jump-starting, or reviving
(John Travolta), their careers as he does for them participating in his
movies.A profit is a profit. A 20 million movie that makes 60
million is a 3x profit. A 300 million movie that makes 600 million is a 2x
We have 1 or 2 way to go here....Pue unrestrained Capitalism, and
let the Free Market decide [the Conservative approach].orRestrict
and Regulate...because Businesses will say, do or sell anything for a buck,
regardless of the damage done to Society [the Socialist approach].From my life's experience, Captialism is like fire -- kept in
check, it proved heat, light, and benfit all mankind.left un-checked, it
can frighten, intimidate or burn your house down...and only those holding the
hose or the matches have the control.In other parts of the world --
i.e., "Socialist" Europe and "Socialist" Asia -- movies can and are routinely banned for sex and violence.The
question is then, How are we going to control the fire?
R and PG13 rated movies do well at the box office, G and PG movies do well on
video. Sounds like both free market and parenting are handling
things appropriately. What's the problem?
@vorThank you for using terminology correctly and providing
references to support your claims, I will check them out. See that was not so
I do not mean to throw a monkey wrench into this whole debate about profits and
ratings but I do have an observation and a question that leads out of it. It
appears that everyone wants to turn the attention away from what ever actions
they participate in and focus on the effects others have on our society and in
this case violence. So hear is may question for the posters on these threads.
Should we be more accountable for the words we use when debating on these
threads everyday. Should we be held accountable for the way we talk about the
poor in our society (calling them professional victims etc..), how about when we
use words of fear both in support of and to argue against gun control and second
amendment rights? how about when we use terms like liberal and conservative
with derision? Is it really only the other guy that feeds our social ills? Just
as one example we have several cases of homeless people being set on fire and
brutilized, is it possible the way the poor are painted in comment sections of
papers may be prompting this type of violence?
If people were not influenced by the media they encounter, then the entire
advertising business would be out of business.
here not hear sorry.
Senator McCarthy was right about Hollywood and should be recognized as a
national hero for his effort to defend against the evils of socialism and
communism which have found a safe place in Hollywood over the last 50 years.
As for churning out smaller & cheaper movies, you're really talking
about measuring movies' Return On Investment, which tends to favor
smaller-budget movies as you say. The top 15 movie ROIs of all time:PG: 6PG-13: 3R: 6So the Rs fare a bit better by ROI,
but still take a backseat to PG-13 & above. You have to remember, Hollywood
is interested in big numbers, not just a high ROI, else we'd be seeing a
lot more Blair Witch Projects. Since ROI is just a ratio, you can achieve the
world's most profitable movie ROI by filming your cousin belching on your
dad's camcorder (essentially zero expenses) and then charging $100 to a
room full of viewers. Want big ROI? Go to Sundance. Oh, and the bottom 20 ROI
movies of all time? 15 are Rs; the rest PG-13 or not rated."A
20 million movie that makes 60 million is a 3x profit. A 300 million movie that
makes 600 million is a 2x profit."Yes, but you also have 300
Million vs. 40 Million. Hmmm, I wonder which...
@catsSo how about responding to spring street? I think they ask a far
question, do you bare any responsibility for your comments on these threads? if
you do not want to take reasonability, should you be calling others hypocrites?
Should anyone on these threads be calling other hypocrites?
@john charity springstraditional moral values? such as women and children
being property? allowing the beating of women and children as long as the stick
is not bigger then your thumb? slavery? lynching? going down to the battle field
to watch the war with your picnic lunch? Maybe we should go all the way back to
the "founding fathers" who engaged in physical fights and gun duels?
which values exactly should we return to John? Maybe the values of feeding those
that do not share our social values to the lions?
VOR:[The top 15 movie ROIs of all time:PG: 6PG-13: 3R:
6]I don't doubt you numbers, but I wish I knew which films they
were or the source.Once again, I have an issue with
"all-time". PG and PG-13 were the same before 1984. How many of those
"6" PG films would be classed as PG-13 or R by modern standard. Also,
when people claim to adjust box-office gross for "inflation", what they
are usually doing is taking the gross and dividing by the AVERAGE ticket price
for that year, then multiplying by the current average ticket price.The problem with that system is that the rise in ticket prices aren't
just because of increased inflation, but also decreased demand (Film viewership
never really recovered from TV), and increased cost of theater technology
(Stereo, Surround Sound, 3d, etc.).This is why I said earlier, that
if you run the numbers for the last 20-25 years you're gonna get much
different results. This is also more relevant as current viewer preferences are
mostly the same over the last 2-3 decades and therefore a better model for
@Tolstoy,You've had an unhealthy overdose of Hollywood's
tortured, highly sensationalized and over dramatized version of American
History, it was for this reason the efforts of Joseph McCarthy to keep Communist
sympathizers out of the American entertainment industry was so important but
unfortunately in the end futile as too many entertainment starved mike t.v.
Americans have and still, now more than ever, get their information from the
anti-American Hollywood propaganda wing of the Democrat Party and then vote for
whomever the 'stars' tell them to.
OK...top 20 grossing movies last 365 days (can't get much more current than
that):PG: 6PG-13: 11R: 3 (2 of which are 19 &
20)R-rated movies are still, in this current year, holding to their
historical pattern of being far, far less profitable than "cleaner"
ratings. The fact that some PGs from the mid-80's & prior might have
been PG-13s today doesn't change that well-established trend in the
slightest. And I seriously doubt any PGs from the pre-PG-13 era would ever have
been rated R...mostly because that rating was available to them at the time.
All Hollywood cares about is $$$! Not only is it the drastic, disturbing
violence in so many movies and TV nowadays, but also all the violent interactive
games people play -- shooting at people that gives them an adrenalin rush. If
it's argued that subjecting our citizens/children with these disturbing
scenes doesn't hurt them, then why are companies so willing to pay millions
of dollars for a short advertisement on Super Bowl Sunday. Years ago cigarettes
weren't allowed to be shown in entertainment because of the bad effect and
risk of cancer from tobacco, so Obama should encourage his buddies in Hollywood,
and the media to tone down the violence and use of guns in movies, and other
forms of entertainment. Yes, there were westerns in the
"old" days, but the shooting was so mild, no blood & gore, and
lasting only a short time, that it isn't even fair to compare the two
@americanfirstI really hope you are trying to be humerious otherwise I
would be very affraid of what they are teaching in CA schools.
A few incredibly obvious points that seem to have occurred to no one.Portrayal does not imply advocacy. A genuinely anti-violent film may well
include violent scenes. The interaction between audiences and
entertainment and subsequent activities by audience members is incredibly
complex and does not lend itself to these facile conclusions.There's
no such thing as 'Hollywood.' Most mainstream films are made by one
of 80 production companies, marketed and distributed by one of 7 studios, but
with many many other entities producing and releasing films. All these companies
compete with each other for audience share and profits. A direct
correlation exists between incidence of graphic violence in films and reductions
in actual violence. A lot of directors/writers/producers just aren't
interested in writing and directing for children's audiences. Some are
interested in that kind of material; even fewer are really good at it. Not
every studio can function like Pixar, great as they are.
We can blame it on Hollywood but at the end of the day if people didn't
watch violent and graphic movies, they wouldn't get made. So is society to
blame or Hollywood? The answer is both so let's make sure we spread the
Eric's claim of an inverse relationship between media-portrayed violence
and real-world violence is absolutely wrong. In reality, there is a broad
academic consensus for a direct, statistically significant correlation between
violence portrayed in films and media and increased aggression in consumers of
such media over a sustained time. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to matter
if graphic violence is glorified or portrayed ironically or as a negative; the
important thing seems to be if the graphic violence is portrayed at all. THe
American Academy of Pediatrics, APA, and numerous other professional medical
organizations explicitly recognize the growing consensus for this reality, which
frankly follows common sense. A majority of academic research confirms this
link. And while there is still a lot of research suggesting no link, any
research actually suggesting an inverse link, i.e. that movie violence actually
DECREASES real aggression & violence, is extremely far removed from the
mainstream and is highly contrarian.Proof of correlation is not
proof of causation, to be sure, but it is strong evidence for a causal link at
the very least.
@vorYou where doing a really good ob of building your artument upto the
last couple of lines. jPlease look up causation and causall link vor. You are
not using your terms correctly again.
John Charity Spring - Quentin Tarantino has made himself wealthy by offering the
public a fantasy visual experience. The fantasy world is just that, a staged
and scripted form of entertainment brought to life using the amazing tools
available to film makers today. You should be happy. To deduce
that "ignorant hordes are now imitating the attitudes and behaviors that are
portrayed in these vile and pernicious movies", should be noted as the
alarmist statement of the day. While walking through my
neighborhood yesterday, I didn't spot one member of an "ignorant
horde". I also saw no examples of "violent anarchy" or
"sexual deviancy" being displayed anywhere. What I did see were joggers
and walkers and people cleaning up their yards. Several weeks ago, while
walking on the beach, my wife and I saw a snowy owl for the first time in our
lives. We giggled like children.
@VORonce again your misuse of terms makes it hard to take your comments
serious. please learn what terms like causal link and causation mean before
American FirstMerced, CA@Tolstoy,...it was for this
reason the efforts of Joseph McCarthy to keep Communist sympathizers out of the
American entertainment industry was so important...5:14 p.m. Jan. 8,
2013============ Joe McCarthy was right?Really?I guess the rumors are indeed true.The John Birch Society is alive
and well in the moderan American Tea-Party movement...BTW -- I
suspect the extremeists in the Tea-Party movement and their wild birther,
voting, Benghazi, conspiracies will end-up right beside old Joe McCarthy and his
witch-hunt, and the John Birch Society and the Government mind-control
conspiracies with flouride.Tea-Party to me means one thing, and one
thing only --- Tin-Foiled hats.
SIGH . . this debate has been beaten to death. It's really about taste more
than any active campaign to corrupt the minds of our precious youth. Depictions
of violence have been entertaining people for hundreds, if thousands of years.
If Tarantino films aren't in your wheelhouse, I completely understand, but
the protestations aren't converting any existing fans. There is
a chasm between enjoying a movie that depicts violence and actually advocating
violence. If that doesn't make sense to you, I don't know what to say.
Some of us know the difference between make-believe and reality. It's long
been a mistake of the hand-wringers to equate a depiction of violence (or drug
use, or crime in general) as an endorsement. Simplistic nonsense. "Ooh, that
character's shooting herion; the filmmakers are promoting herion use!"
Seriously, if your adult mind works that way, seek help.I agree with
Maudine . . a large percentage of so-called "family films" are mushy
pablum that appeal to the least demanding moviegoers. If "inoffensive"
is the primary quality you look for in entertainment, we're just not going
to be seen in the same theaters very often.