So does this whole Polanski thing mean maybe we need to chuck Hollywood? Apparently they’re just busy raping children and making “art” and that’s why we get less and less decent entertainment out of them. Why is it too much to ask to get a movie where I can unironically cheer on terrorists getting killed? Does Hollywood just sympathize too much with them because they also rape children?
News is better because we now have the new media where anyone can help spread stories, including conservatives in their spare time. Now the stories the liberals don’t like don’t just fall through the cracks. I don’t know if that will happen with movies and TV, though, as that just seems to get further out of reach of the average man. To put a decent two hours up on screen costs like $30 million or something. That’s insane. If only the average man could one day put together a blockbuster in his spare time (people with real stories to tell do other things in life than just tell stories). We’d have so many better movies, and the “art” we have now a days would end up like the newspapers.
Maybe one day.
When will we be done with Hollywood? When the Muslims takeover this country, that’s when. Not that the Muslims have a record that’s much better when it comes to having sex with under age females. However, with their hatred of everything American the Hollywood crowd should be among the first they send to the chopping block. I guess every dark cloud has it’s silver lining.
There is a project in PRoMA to create a conservative film-making studio. How they chose MA to build a conservative studio is beyond me. Oh, and they need State Congressional approval for a $530 million loan to create this conservative alternative to Hollywood, Plymouth Rock Studios. Say this slowly a few times to yourself to get the full understanding, “the liberals are going to fund a conservative film studio.” Truth, they say, is stranger than fiction.
Frank, I’d prefer if you finish “IMAO: the video game” before you get to work on your action film (Samuel L. Jackson, Fred Thompson, and Gary Busey?). God knows that’s the only way I’ll go to a theater again.
I’m afraid it probably won’t happen in my lifetime. Years ago I was encouraged by all the animated movies – at least it was putting actors & actresses out of business. Well not really. I had to be told that was Cameron Diaz’s voice in Shreik. Her voice is so unique that only she could do it. I didn’t recognize her voice nor any special quality. I got another slap down when I was told she’s already garnered over $30 mil in residuals alone for the series. Huh?
There’s still some hope. Notice how many “foreign” films are on cable these days? Note how there’s fewer films to choose from? There’s change coming, but it’ll take awhile.
Faster ……… Please
you want good entertainment? Warehouse 13, SGU, SGA, SG-1, IMAO: The beginning.
Distribution is the problem. The enemy controls that so any movie or tv show with a conservative bent simply wouldn’t be given screen space or carried on a widely carried cable channel. Note I exclude the legacy networks out of hand. Solve that and content would be plentiful.
Really, shooting a TV show doesn’t have to be expensive. Neither does a movie. JMS’ pitch for Babylon 5 was that he, being a long time industry guy, had a plan to shoot a Sci-Fi show for under $1M per episode. That was at a time when Star Trek was blowing through several times that and network dramas were in that ballpark. ANd he actually did it each of the planned five seasons the show ran. Since a big chunk of the budget for was cutting edge CGI and that is a heck of a lot less expensive now it should be possible to do likewise on 1M current devalued dollars.
Ok, so if $1M can produce a CGI heavy Sci-Fi show that should be the upper cap on the cost to produce any 1 hour TV program. Leave out the huge cash infusions to superstars and worry more about a plot than two hours of relentless computer animated mayhem and most films should be possible for 10-20M. That is a figure that should be easy to recoup if a) you could get on a decent amount of screens (movie or TV) in markets receptive to the product, b) we conservatives are actually right in believing there is an untapped market and c) the product doesn’t suck.
Sounds like an easy business plan to sell if the distribution problem is solvable. But it currently isn’t and unless downloadable content soon reorders the entertainment world it isn’t likely to be solvable. And if downloadable content ends up being tied to the internet provider (i.e. the cable co.) it still won’t matter since big hollywood will still maintain it’s gatekeeper role.
Somewhere, the ghost of Joe McCarthy is screaming, “I tried to tell you idiots, but you wouldn’t listen.”
Out: Hollywood
In: YouTube
Well, Hollywood will always have a place because the money available to it can fund cool things (I’m thinking, for example, of the first Transformers movie, in 2007, where each Transformer scene cost about $10 million; let’s not even mention the second movie).
That said, there’s already stuff happening outside of the Big H. Fireproof, for instance. We don’t need big stars or lots of FX. We need good writers, and those are available and working.
The problem with the Net is income — people are used to seeing things for free here, and they balk at paying to watch something, so this will put a limit on distribution at first. Only at first, though. Put a good product out there and people will buy it, especially if it costs a fraction of what they would have to pay in a theater and doubly so if you come up with an innovative way for everybody to watch high-quality stuff. Look what the Kindle’s doing for books, although I’m partial to the Sony Reader for purely selfish reasons (I want people eventually to download my stuff at Scribd on their Readers, when I’m good enough; won’t work for Kindle because Amazon’s in the way).
Anyway, I’ve become a silent films fan, and that’s given me perspective on Hollywood — entertainment used to be based throughout the country in vaudeville, and later on in places where you paid a nickel and watched movies on a sheet somebody put up in a room or back yard somewhere. (Yeah, quality was an issue during those early days, too.) Toward the end of the silent era was when Hollywood really started getting a stranglehold on things. Maybe the 20th century was Hollywood’s era, and now it’s over — you always get the dregs at the bottom of the glass. Maybe that’s all we’re seeing here.
Is it OK if we steal their product, as with BitTorrent, so they don’t get paid but we get to watch current commie-loving blockbusters?
“IMAO: The Video Game”??!?!?!?!
I’d buy it twice.
I can see it now: the player, as Frank J, must fight their way through hordes of liberals to rescue Sarah K from terrorists…only to find that she’s already gunned down all the terrorists by the time you get there. Joke’s on you. And then the moon explodes…
So, Hollywood is ok with Priests now?
I’m just wish they would do a sequel to Team America. Think of it. With all that has happened since the last movie – loads and loads and loads of material to work with.
Pingback: IMAO TIme Machine: When Will We Be Done with Hollywood? – IMAO