Christianity sells
K.C.
-Hidalgo (Islam) tanked, even with the LOTR star.
-Even the Polar Express (santa) didn't make even the cost of the movie.
In fact all of the above movies didn't make a profit for the studios.
Meanwhile, The Passion of the Christ made a 555 million dollar profit,
and other family friendly movies like Spider Man 2, The Incredibles, I
Robot, such made many millions for their studios.
When is Hollywood going to get it? If you want to sell to a Christian
land (as most of America is) make Christian or family friendly films.
However, any studio that has the pride to reject this concept with
learn through a financial fall, as is reflected above.
K.C.
http://www.providential-plan.com
DylanBD
> -Even the Polar Express (santa) didn't make even the cost of the movie.
Polar Express will break even, despite having a huge budget for a family
film. Its domestic receipts are about equal to its production cost now, and
its overseas receipts just about cover the costs of promotion. Then of
course, family films do well on video and DVD. It will end up turning a
profit.
> and other family friendly movies like Spider Man 2, The Incredibles, I
> Robot, such made many millions for their studios.
It's a bit mysterious to me that you present Polar Express as an
anti-Christian film, and The Incredibles and I, Robot as pro-Christian.
Both are secular--what criterion are you using to differentiate them?
Derek Janssen
> -Alexander (greek Gods) bombed, even with it's epic scope.
> -Hidalgo (Islam) tanked, even with the LOTR star.
> -Even the Polar Express (santa) didn't make even the cost of the movie.
Followed closely by "Christmas with the Kranks" (nice happy family
values, with Botox gags).
And as much I hate to say it in public:
- Shrek 2 (fairy godmothers and magical spells) #1 movie of 2004,
albeit followed neck-and-neck by
- Return of the King (dark lords, wizards, and Peter Jackson zombies),
#2 movie of 2004
Derek Janssen (the Nutball Movie came in...#3, I think--We're still
waiting for the "Incredibles" numbers)
dja...@charter.net
Ed Stasiak
>
> In fact all of the above movies didn't make a profit for the studios.
> Meanwhile, The Passion of the Christ made a 555 million dollar profit,
> and other family friendly movies like Spider Man 2, The Incredibles, I
> Robot, such made many millions for their studios.
"I, Robot" is family friendly?
Lincoln Spector
"K.C." <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104429270.4...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> -Alexander (greek Gods) bombed, even with it's epic scope.
> -Hidalgo (Islam) tanked, even with the LOTR star.
> -Even the Polar Express (santa) didn't make even the cost of the movie.
>
> In fact all of the above movies didn't make a profit for the studios.
> Meanwhile, The Passion of the Christ made a 555 million dollar profit,
> and other family friendly movies
consider one of the goriest R-rated films ever "family friendly," I don't
want you getting near my kids.
Lincoln
DylanBD
>> -Even the Polar Express (santa) didn't make even the cost of the movie.
>
> Followed closely by "Christmas with the Kranks" (nice happy family values,
> with Botox gags).
Is this irony? That movie was repellent (and, like Polar Express, it has
recouped its more modest budget--just barely).
> And as much I hate to say it in public:
> - Shrek 2 (fairy godmothers and magical spells) #1 movie of 2004,
> albeit followed neck-and-neck by
> - Return of the King (dark lords, wizards, and Peter Jackson zombies), #2
> movie of 2004
LotR got a lot of positive write-ups by Christian reviewers who were aware
of Tolkien's beliefs and their role in his work.
Derek Janssen
And made less money than "Polar Express", btw.
Derek Janssen (oh, the dangers of choosing only ONE fact to believe)
dja...@charter.net
Stephen Cooke
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, DylanBD wrote:
> It's a bit mysterious to me that you present Polar Express as an
> anti-Christian film, and The Incredibles and I, Robot as pro-Christian.
> Both are secular--what criterion are you using to differentiate them?
I've heard that a big influence on The Incredibles is Ayn Rand. Go figure.
swac
K.C.
DylanBD wrote:
> "K.C." <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > -Even the Polar Express (santa) didn't make even the cost of the
movie.
>
> Polar Express will break even, despite having a huge budget for a
family
> film. Its domestic receipts are about equal to its production cost
now, and
> its overseas receipts just about cover the costs of promotion. Then
of
> course, family films do well on video and DVD. It will end up
turning a
> profit.
Box Office Mojo
Total costs: 225 million (includes marketing)
Total Gross (to date): 209 million
Total Loss: about 15 million
>
> > and other family friendly movies like Spider Man 2, The
Incredibles, I
> > Robot, such made many millions for their studios.
>
> It's a bit mysterious to me that you present Polar Express as an
> anti-Christian film, and The Incredibles and I, Robot as
pro-Christian.
> Both are secular--what criterion are you using to differentiate them?
The final two are family focused without presenting a non-Christian
diety (what else would you call Santa).
K.C.
http://www.providential-plan.com
K.C.
Absolutely. The message of "purpose" in the film blew me away. Great
film.
K.C.
My Rejoice In The Bounty of Mr. Hole
>K.C. wrote:
>>-Alexander (greek Gods) bombed, even
>>with it's epic scope. -Hidalgo (Islam)
>>tanked, even with the LOTR star. -Even
>>the Polar Express (santa) didn't make
>>even the cost of the movie.
>Followed closely by "Christmas with the
>Kranks" (nice happy family values, with
>Botox gags).
>And as much I hate to say it in public:
>- Shrek 2 (fairy godmothers and magical
>spells) #1 movie of 2004, albeit followed
>neck-and-neck by - Return of the King
>(dark lords, wizards, and Peter Jackson
>zombies), #2 movie of 2004
I think you mean "Spider-man 2". LOTR was a 2003 release.
>Derek Janssen (the Nutball Movie came
>in...#3, I think--We're still waiting for the
>"Incredibles" numbers)
Sadly, its just not going to get much past 300 million, if that. I don't
know why it wasn't a bigger hit? Its disapoints me greatly that more
folks didn't go to see the film.
.
Mr. Hole
The favor of your reply is requested.
Incontinence 2005: Its not just for Grandma any more!
"You would make a destructive god, Mr. Hole, but as a human, you remain
pathetic and ineffectual." -- Heck
Incident
> Go figure.
And Ayn was just a wee bit anti-Christian ...
John Harkness
I suspect that just as many people went to see The Incredibles as went
to see Finding Nemo -- they just didn't go as often. Finding Nemo had
a huge repeat demand with family audiences. The Incredibles is really
a mid=life crisis movie.
John Harkness
K.C.
You still don't get it...do you. The film makers don't have to be
saints, only present a message saints would watch. Mel Gibson wasn't
exactly up for sainthood before the Passion.
K.C.
http://www.providential-plan.com
Incident
You're right, I don't get it.
When you run around talking about how Santa Claus is a deity, but Ayn
Rand is a positive Christian symbol (hey, dumbfuck, you're the one who
cited The Incredibles in a thread titled "Christianity Sells") despite
the fact that she absolutely despised both organized religion and the
mere belief in deities, you're right - I don't get it. I don't get how
anyone could be that damn dumb. Yet, you are.
George Peatty
>LotR got a lot of positive write-ups by Christian reviewers who were aware
>of Tolkien's beliefs and their role in his work.
An important point. Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and, by his own
statement, his faith is absorbed into the fabric of his stories without
being explicitly declared. While RotK may feature wizards and dark lords,
this is a very Christian story, appearances notwithstanding.
DylanBD
>
> Incident wrote:
>> > I've heard that a big influence on The Incredibles is Ayn Rand.
>> > Go figure.
>>
>> And Ayn was just a wee bit anti-Christian ...
>
> You still don't get it...do you. The film makers don't have to be
> saints, only present a message saints would watch.
I think their point was that The Incredibles didn't have such a message. I
agree -- while I enjoyed the movie, its value system didn't exactly have a
place for humility or "blessed are the poor in spirit."
But then I'm a weird pinko who sees Christian ethics as opposed to the right
wing's "slash-n-burn" economic and social policies, so pay no attention to
me.
Lincoln Spector
"Stephen Cooke" <am...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.10...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca...
extraordinary people being forced by society to act in an ordinary manner,
but that's about it.
Lincoln
Stephen Cooke
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, DylanBD wrote:
So then I wasn't the only one irritated by Jerry Falwell's proclamation
that we should "blow 'em all away in the name of the Lord"?
swac
Phew.
Stephen Cooke
Same could be said of the Narnia books by C.S. Lewis (also being turned
into movies by the WETA folks in New Zealand...coincidence? Probably.)
Lots of magic and talking creatures and witches and magicians and so on,
but all in the service of Christian allegory. One that's actually
enjoyable.
But hey, if Jesus had turned water into wine in Salem in the 1700s...
swac
Lincoln Spector
> diety (what else would you call Santa).
that the majority of people who call themselves Christians (certainly most
Christians I know) use Santa imagery in their Christmas celebrations to some
extent, although I don't know anyone who tells their children that he's
real.
Lincoln
Dgates
wrote:
>"K.C." <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Incident wrote:
>>> > I've heard that a big influence on The Incredibles is Ayn Rand.
>>> > Go figure.
>>>
>>> And Ayn was just a wee bit anti-Christian ...
>>
>> You still don't get it...do you. The film makers don't have to be
>> saints, only present a message saints would watch.
>
>I think their point was that The Incredibles didn't have such a message. I
>agree -- while I enjoyed the movie, its value system didn't exactly have a
>place for humility or "blessed are the poor in spirit."
I don't have any actual bible quotes to back this theory up, but it
does seem like a fairly Christian idea that deep inside the heart of
every man and woman is the desire to do some kind of good for others,
and that we do best in honoring rather than suppressing that desire.
If I'm onto anything here, feel free to provide me with an actual
quote to help me make my case.
The dethroned Mr. Incredible, who could probably have made a lot more
money as a fighter or something, instead spends his days trying to
help old ladies at his insurance firm and sneaks out at nights hoping
for a chance to save people from a burning building.
George Peatty
<Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote:
>A popular fantasy character associated with a Christian holiday. My guess is
>that the majority of people who call themselves Christians (certainly most
>Christians I know) use Santa imagery in their Christmas celebrations to some
>extent, although I don't know anyone who tells their children that he's
>real.
Most Christians I know do not, those with young children excepted perhaps,
but since I am not in that number, that is conjectural. Country singer Red
Foley produced a favorite Christmas song circa 1953 called Put Christ Back
into Christmas that expresses the feelings of many Christians concerning
public celebrations of the holiday ..
George Peatty
>I don't have any actual bible quotes to back this theory up, but it
>does seem like a fairly Christian idea that deep inside the heart of
>every man and woman is the desire to do some kind of good for others,
>and that we do best in honoring rather than suppressing that desire.
>
>If I'm onto anything here, feel free to provide me with an actual
>quote to help me make my case.
[snip]
There are quotes for and against.
For:
Luke 12:48
48 From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from
the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Against:
Matt 6:1
"Be careful not to do your `acts of righteousness´ before men, to be seen by
them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
It would appear that Bob and Frozone were okay until they went public ..
Lincoln Spector
> money as a fighter or something, instead spends his days trying to
> help old ladies at his insurance firm and sneaks out at nights hoping
> for a chance to save people from a burning building.
understand it (which I readily admit isn't by much; I've never read any of
her books). His powers don't confer greater rights, but greater
responsibility.
Lincoln
Lincoln Spector
"George Peatty" <pttyg4...@copper.net> wrote in message
news:nk19t09tgtvrspo90...@4ax.com...
as a Jew, I make a point of not celebrating Christmas out of respect for
Christians. I know I'd hate it if Passover became a ubiquitous, secular orgy
of consumerism.
Along the same lines, I'm totally confused by some of the religious right
who are now claiming that we lefties are trying to ban Christmas because we
don't want a religious holiday jammed down people's throats. If you don't
want Christmas to become a secular holiday, the last thing you want is to
rub it in non-Christians' faces.
Lincoln
Stephen Cooke
Although Santa Claus is an extension of the historical St. Nicholas...not
that we tell five-year-olds about the history of an ancient European saint
when talk of ol' jelly belly comes up.
swac
how...@brazee.net
On 30-Dec-2004, "K.C." <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In fact all of the above movies didn't make a profit for the studios.
> Meanwhile, The Passion of the Christ made a 555 million dollar profit,
> and other family friendly movies like Spider Man 2, The Incredibles, I
> Robot, such made many millions for their studios.
Are you implying that TPotC was a "family friendly movie"?
What was the previous movie to push Christianity that was a top 10 grosser
for a year?
how...@brazee.net
On 30-Dec-2004, Derek Janssen <dja...@nospam.charter.net> wrote:
> Followed closely by "Christmas with the Kranks" (nice happy family
> values, with Botox gags).
>
> And as much I hate to say it in public:
> - Shrek 2 (fairy godmothers and magical spells) #1 movie of 2004,
> albeit followed neck-and-neck by
> - Return of the King (dark lords, wizards, and Peter Jackson zombies),
> #2 movie of 2004
LOL! Very Christian movies!
how...@brazee.net
how...@brazee.net
On 30-Dec-2004, "K.C." <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Polar Express -15 million profit
> I Robot +182 million profit
It won't stay that way.
Derek Janssen
>>And as much I hate to say it in public:
>>- Shrek 2 (fairy godmothers and magical
>>spells) #1 movie of 2004, albeit followed
>>neck-and-neck by - Return of the King
>>(dark lords, wizards, and Peter Jackson
>>zombies), #2 movie of 2004
>
> I think you mean "Spider-man 2". LOTR was a 2003 release.
Depends on who lists it--
LOTR was the most successsful movie *released* in '03, but since it was
released in the last two weeks of December, some charts list who *made*
the most money in January and February as part of the '04 numbers.
And even then, Nutboy had a 1-and-2 run for his money in the first
couple weeks of February.
>>(the Nutball Movie came in...#3, I think--
Again, thanks for the correction:
Adjusting for Spidey and for ROTK's technical inclusion, "The Wheels on
the Bus Go Round and Round" actually came in #4 for the year, not 3. We
apologize for any error.
> ["Incredibles"]
> Sadly, its just not going to get much past 300 million, if that. I don't
> know why it wasn't a bigger hit? Its disapoints me greatly that more
> folks didn't go to see the film.
A) It's LONG,
B) It's Action-Packed,
C) It didn't have the preschool repeat value that "Nemo" did (and
remember, Nemo was our one saving grace during the '03 Summer of T3, we
were just setting ourselves up for false expectations),
D) It had too much of an A->B plot, which didn't lend itself to
immediate repeat value,
E) The most loyal audience was waiting for the DVD.
Suffice to say, there are a LOT more 4-9 yo. boys currently role-model
smitten with Dash than with the train-riding Hero Boy.
Derek Janssen
dja...@charter.net
Derek Janssen
>>>In fact all of the above movies didn't make a profit for the
>
> studios.
>
>>>Meanwhile, The Passion of the Christ made a 555 million dollar
>
> profit,
>
>>>and other family friendly movies like Spider Man 2, The
>
> Incredibles, I
>
>>>Robot, such made many millions for their studios.
>>
>>"I, Robot" is family friendly?
>
> Absolutely. The message of "purpose" in the film blew me away. Great
> film.
So...you LIKED it, that made it "inspirational". Oooo-kay.
Derek Janssen (nice clear definitions always make for lively debate)
dja...@charter.net)
Derek Janssen
>>>(the Nutball Movie came
>>>in...#3, I think--We're still waiting for the
>>>"Incredibles" numbers)
>>
>>Sadly, its just not going to get much past 300 million, if that. I don't
>>know why it wasn't a bigger hit? Its disapoints me greatly that more
>>folks didn't go to see the film.
>
> I suspect that just as many people went to see The Incredibles as went
> to see Finding Nemo -- they just didn't go as often. Finding Nemo had
> a huge repeat demand with family audiences. The Incredibles is really
> a mid=life crisis movie.
Well, "Nemo" had a LOT more daddy-guilt per minute of film than Mr. I
will ever have...
Just that Nemo had less of a plot and was more of an old-school Pixar
"Hang around an alternate world for a while" movie than Inc's "Defeat
the baddie" directive--
Yes, "Nemo" had a plot too, you just didn't notice it as much.
(And besides, Inc only had "Polar Express" to make it look good--
"Nemo" had T3, the Hulk, Charlie's Angels 2, Tomb Raider 2, Sinbad, and
Bad Boys II...In summer-movie comparison terms, that was enough to raise
it to "Messianic savior" status.)
Derek Janssen (I mean, people were going to "Nemo" just to piss T3 *OFF*...)
dja...@charter.net
Your Pal Brian
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, DylanBD wrote:
>
> > It's a bit mysterious to me that you present Polar Express as an
> > anti-Christian film, and The Incredibles and I, Robot as pro-Christian.
> > Both are secular--what criterion are you using to differentiate them?
>
> I've heard that a big influence on The Incredibles is Ayn Rand. Go figure.
She said one time that the best thing about Christmas was the presents; they
make folk happy in the here and now, and that's what it's all about - said she
- rather than all that hairshirt hooey.
Drafting Rand and Asimov into the pro-Christian camp shows admirable chutzpah,
though; I predict this young man will go far.
Brian
deer...@mindspring.com
>
> ...and other family friendly movies like Spider Man 2, The Incredibles, I
> Robot, such made many millions for their studios.
S2 was "family-friendly?" Sheesh, I would have thought a film about
a guy swinging through Manhattan in his underwear and unable to
commit to the woman who loves him would have set alarums a-ringing
at "Focus on the Famblee" headquarters--g!
C.
**
(Not to mention, the herione was an...actress. An _ambitious_
actress. Who showed no signs of wanting to settle down to be a good
wittle "God-fearing" wifey or moomie. And how can you have a
family-friendly film in which no one is a "Christian" and everyone
lives in Gomorrah...er, New York?)
deer...@mindspring.com
>
> Incident wrote:
> > > I've heard that a big influence on The Incredibles is Ayn Rand.
> > > Go figure.
> >
> > And Ayn was just a wee bit anti-Christian ...
>
> You still don't get it...do you.
He doesn't--and thank God most of us don't--g!
> The film makers don't have to be
> saints, only present a message saints would watch. Mel Gibson wasn't
> exactly up for sainthood before the Passion.
So, Hollywood needs to make movies that saints would watch? Um, I
don't know for sure, but I suspect St. Peter is a bit too busy to be
checking out Jerry Bruckheimer films.
C.
**
(who does suspect the saints occaionally check out stuff like VAN
HELSING and END OF DAYS just for the laughs...g!)
deer...@mindspring.com
You wussy heathens, you. The "new" Christianity is all about "faith
making right" and kicking the ass of anyone who doesn't believe like
you do.
C.
**
(Though I'm betting Jesus would have been delighted to show this
pack of unreality-based Pharisees just how wrong they are...)
deer...@mindspring.com
>
> For:
>
> Luke 12:48
>
> 48 From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from
> the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
I guess that covers SPIDERMAN 2's family-friendliness, as well--g!
>
> Against:
>
> Matt 6:1
>
> "Be careful not to do your `acts of righteousness´ before men, to be seen by
> them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
>
> It would appear that Bob and Frozone were okay until they went public ..
Yo, this is an interesting line of thought. Got any Biblical quotes
that would apply to CATWOMAN or NATIONAL TREASURE? ;)
C.
**
(or THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, even?)
Stephen Cooke
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 how...@brazee.net wrote:
> Spider Man might be seen as a deity.
o/~"Is he strong? Listen bud/Eat the body and drink the blood..."o/~
swac
Stephen Cooke
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 deer...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Yo, this is an interesting line of thought. Got any Biblical quotes
> that would apply to CATWOMAN or NATIONAL TREASURE? ;)
>
> C.
> **
> (or THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, even?)
How about "Jesus wept."?
swac
deer...@mindspring.com
Amen.
C.
**
T
I seem to have fallen behind.
TBerk
T
<snip>
> When is Hollywood going to get it?
Hahahahaha, you make point but understand little.
Could the failure of a given film be less 'it's the wrong _true_
religion!" and just be a bad film?
TBerk
T
> Spider Man might be seen as a deity.
But an animalistic one at that. Ooooh Paganism.
And wait; there is a whole Pantheon of heroes, er I meant Gods! to pay
homage to. Out the window w/ monotheism.
Why the fear of your brother who worships not as you?
TBerk
Derek Janssen
>
> I seem to have fallen behind.
No, wrong kind of "stoned"... ;)
This one is still trying to raise the conservative-PR "Everybody went to
see 'Passion' because they LIKED it!" banner, Iwo Jima style--
("All my friends will *thank* me for my secret Net campaign! :) ")
Even though most normal people now associate it with school buses, a
majority of those mainstreams who did crumble to headline-zombie
peer-pressure are starting to reconsider their ten bucks, and even the
Oscars are hesitant to touch it...And (outside of analysts pushing the
"Wow, Mel made a home movie without a studio!" angle rather cluelessly),
in general, a feeling of "Dear gods, what were we THINKING back then??"
seems to have set in to stay.
Derek Janssen (but to the hopeful, Every Day is a Chance to Fight Secret
Guerilla Campaigns in the Culture War...)
dja...@charter.net
Nick Macpherson
>This one is still trying to raise the conservative-PR "Everybody went to
>see 'Passion' because they LIKED it!" banner, Iwo Jima style--
>("All my friends will *thank* me for my secret Net campaign! :) ")
>
>Even though most normal people now associate it with school buses, a
>majority of those mainstreams who did crumble to headline-zombie
>peer-pressure are starting to reconsider their ten bucks, and even the
>Oscars are hesitant to touch it...And (outside of analysts pushing the
>"Wow, Mel made a home movie without a studio!" angle rather cluelessly),
>in general, a feeling of "Dear gods, what were we THINKING back then??"
>seems to have set in to stay.
>
The "let's make peace" compromise position on Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion
of the Christ is "well, even if you didn't like the movie, you gotta admire the
rebel stance against Hollywood the filmmaker took," which is silly because if
there's two filmmakers who understand the market and understand their audiences
it's Michael Moore and Mel Gibson--they're both exploitation filmmakers who
know just what buttons to push. F9/11 didn't bring Bush down and for all the
talk about The Passion putting the old plodding relaxing Easter telecast epics
to shame ("Those movies were phony, The Passion tells it like it really
happened!"), come next Easter everyone'll be watching those same movies again
and The Passion'll be a fading memory, if it isn't already. It's already hit
the dollar section of my neighborhood video store. .
laura capozzola
> -Alexander (greek Gods) bombed, even with it's epic scope.
> -Hidalgo (Islam) tanked, even with the LOTR star.
> -Even the Polar Express (santa) didn't make even the cost of the movie.
>
> In fact all of the above movies didn't make a profit for the studios.
> Meanwhile, The Passion of the Christ made a 555 million dollar profit,
> and other family friendly movies like Spider Man 2, The Incredibles, I
> Robot, such made many millions for their studios.
>
> When is Hollywood going to get it? If you want to sell to a Christian
> land (as most of America is) make Christian or family friendly films.
> However, any studio that has the pride to reject this concept with
> learn through a financial fall, as is reflected above.
> K.C.
> http://www.providential-plan.com
>
As far as making money goes, if every movie catered to the same
audience then no one would make any money because they'd all be
competing for the same movie audience dollars. If family movies are
rare then everyone runs out to see one, when one comes out, and it
is successful. They are filling a need. If there were 5 of them in
the theaters at the same time, they'd siphon off each other's audience.
Laura
Tony
Christian, all you brain dead born agains would claim the Hollywood Jews
were trying to pander to you and take your money.
You have determined that the world is your enemy, everyone, save for a
few madmen, like Gibson who is really into torture and condemns all
Christians along with the rest of the world to Hell because they are not
members of his rigid little sect. Even the Pope, the head of the Catholic
church is bound to go to Gibson's Hell. I think about 300 currentlly living
people (not including Gibson's wife) are going to make it to his heaven.
As for you -- too bad Charlie - You've chosen the wrong sect and Hell is
forever!
"K.C." <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104429270.4...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
deer...@mindspring.com
>
> K.C. wrote:
>
> > -Alexander (greek Gods) bombed, even with it's epic scope.
Neither it nor KING ARTHUR had Greek gods or "pagan" magic
(respectively) in them--they concentrated on telling the "real"
story. So, by KC's lame logic, shouldn't these movies have been a
success, since they didn't mention any of those icky other
religions? (What's with captializing the g in gods, dude--isn't that
giving deitistic credit to a faith you don't believe in? g!)
> As far as making money goes, if every movie catered to the same
> audience then no one would make any money because they'd all be
> competing for the same movie audience dollars. If family movies are
> rare then everyone runs out to see one, when one comes out, and it
> is successful. They are filling a need. If there were 5 of them in
> the theaters at the same time, they'd siphon off each other's audience.
Family movies that don't have _something_ for adults in them do not
do well, period. Parents are not going to spend buko bucks and waste
time sitting through something they can't enjoy. And if such movies
are perceived by kids as goody-goody or sappy or preachy, they
generally tank. Family movies are a demographic with the same
strengths and limitations that the teen-male demo has or the tween
girl demo or older-adult audience demo--to make the big money, they
have to appeal to more than one segment of the audience.
C.
**
Lincoln Spector
> do well, period. Parents are not going to spend buko bucks and waste
> time sitting through something they can't enjoy.
because one of my children wanted to see them. But yes, kiddy movies that
entertain grown-ups do better, because reaching outside your basic
demographic is always good for business.
Lincoln
deer...@mindspring.com
> Do you have kids? Believe me, I've sat through some horrible kiddy movies
> because one of my children wanted to see them.<
Ah, but have you taken your kids to go see said flicks more than
once? ;) As well, if it is a choice between spending a fair amount
at the movies for a flick you personally don't want to see or
getting a DVD/doing some other activity with your children, which do
you generally opt for?
> But yes, kiddy movies that
> entertain grown-ups do better, because reaching outside your basic
> demographic is always good for business.
And that makes for better kids' movies, as well.
C.
**
Brent McKee
"Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:CJYAd.4794$yV1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "K.C." <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1104429270.4...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> -Even the Polar Express (santa) didn't make even the cost of the movie.
>>
>> In fact all of the above movies didn't make a profit for the studios.
>> Meanwhile, The Passion of the Christ made a 555 million dollar profit,
>> and other family friendly movies
> consider one of the goriest R-rated films ever "family friendly," I don't
> want you getting near my kids.
I'm still trying to figure out how "Hidalgo" is *about* Islam, or
"Alexander" is *about" Greek gods. As far as "Alexander" bombing might it
perhaps have more to do with the fact that it is a boring (and worse a _bad_
boring) movie, or that he subject is really quite difficult to do properly,
as the 1956 Richard Burton film illustrates.
--
Brent McKee http://brentmckee.blogspot.com/
To reply by email, please remove the capital letters (S and N) from
the email address
"If we cease to judge this world, we may find ourselves, very quickly,
in one which is infinitely worse."
- Margaret Atwood
"Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more
constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of
openness to novelty. "
- Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002)
Lincoln Spector
> "Alexander" is *about" Greek gods. As far as "Alexander" bombing might it
> perhaps have more to do with the fact that it is a boring (and worse a
> _bad_ boring) movie, or that he subject is really quite difficult to do
> properly, as the 1956 Richard Burton film illustrates.
Alexander isn't a particular sympathetic person. This isn't Spartacus
fighting for his freedom and the freedom of all slaves. This is a king
slaughtering as many people as the technology allowed because of his own ego
and love of battle.
Then there's the gay issue. Now, I have absolutely no problem with the idea
of a gay action hero, but I'm not the typical action flick fan that these
movies need to attract to make back their huge budgets (and I'm not talking
about born-agains here, just young men who don't feel comfortable around
certain types of people). The fact that the movie (from what I've heard--I
haven't seen it and intend to keep it that way) wimps out on the gay issue
just made it worse, because it offended those of us who like the idea of a
gay action hero without reassuring those who object to it.
Finally, of course (again, from what I've heard), it's a bad movie.
Lincoln
Lincoln Spector
<deer...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:41D5C1BA...@mindspring.com...
John Savard
>What was the previous movie to push Christianity that was a top 10 grosser
>for a year?
You probably have to go back in time to things like Ben-Hur or The Robe
to find movies with an explicitly Christian theme that were also major
in terms of their box-office presence.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
John Savard
<Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote, in part:
quoting someone:
>> The final two are family focused without presenting a non-Christian
>> diety (what else would you call Santa).
>A popular fantasy character associated with a Christian holiday. My guess is
>that the majority of people who call themselves Christians (certainly most
>Christians I know) use Santa imagery in their Christmas celebrations to some
>extent, although I don't know anyone who tells their children that he's
>real.
How about a Polish saint named Nicholas?
Some years back, two studios made big "Santa Claus" movies for
Christmas. For some reason, movies are made in pairs by Hollywood:
"After you've seen the real thing, come enjoy the cheap imitation".
One of these days, we may yet see a Santa Claus movie that begins with
the real, historical St. Nicholas... and proceeds to show an angel
fixing him up with a bunch of elves left over from before the Flood or
before the Earth became "without form and void" ... i.e., with hints
just subtle enough to avoid a lawsuit from the Tolkien estate.
Santa Claus: The Real Story!
Maybe they can even work in some dwarves, wresting titanium and
magnesium from the bowels of the Earth... (Mithril: the lustre and
corrosion resistance of platinum, the lightness of magnesium, and the
strength of maraging steel... the metal for your next missile design!
Dwarvish Metals, Inc.)
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
John Savard
part:
>Why the fear of your brother who worships not as you?
If all religions *confined* themselves to telling people to be nice to
each other, that might be a reasonable question.
But when religion M says:
Religion and government shouldn't be separate. People who don't belong
to religion M, if they don't convert, can be killed or enslaved, unless
they belong to religion J or religion C, which we accept as having
originated from revelations by our God, although having fallen into
apostacy. These people may retain their faith when living among us, but
they must show submission, and their testimony is to have no weight
where it contradicts that of a believer in religion M.
Or when denomination C-1 of religion C says:
It is not permitted to take medicines, or undergo an operation, or use
any artificial measure, to close off the possibility that the
consummation of marriage may result in a pregnancy.
Or when religion J and religion C both say:
If you find someone (who you think is) practising sorcery, do not permit
her to live.
Or, for that matter, when religion S says:
Our emperor, a lineal descendant of the Sun Goddess, is the rightful
ruler of the whole world.
it would seem that a certain amount of trepidation is justified.
Organizing humans into larger groups than the hunting-and-gathering band
has always been a very difficult task.
It generally is true that diverse societies have higher rates of social
deviancy.
While people recognize reciprocal rights and obligations with the human
beings who share their language, culture, and religion, their respect
for members of the tribe over the hill or across the river is
considerably more tenuous. This is a well-known fact of human
experience. Intra-tribal relations are characterized by amity;
inter-tribal relations tend to, at their best, take on more of the
character of an armed standoff.
Generally speaking, I think humanity would be better off if we
acknowledged this fact, instead of harboring unrealistic goals, and
scrupulously avoided setting up political units which place people of
different tribes *in direct competition for scarce resources*.
To build mutual respect, on which mutual trust and amity can be later
constructed, one *first* has to ensure that members of different tribes
are not killing, abusing, or exploiting each other, thus creating new
grievances and further delaying the time when humanity can unite.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
John Savard
part:
>K.C. wrote:
>> ...and other family friendly movies like Spider Man 2, The Incredibles, I
>> Robot, such made many millions for their studios.
>S2 was "family-friendly?" Sheesh, I would have thought a film about
>a guy swinging through Manhattan in his underwear and unable to
>commit to the woman who loves him would have set alarums a-ringing
>at "Focus on the Famblee" headquarters--g!
I don't know about Spiderman 2. But I do remember the *first* Spiderman
movie. There was a scene in which the Mary Jane character was menaced by
street thugs which contained gratuitous rain... so I'm sure that movie
wasn't considered friendly to families!
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
news:41d82879...@news.ecn.ab.ca...
[deletion]
> How about a Polish saint named Nicholas?
[deletion]
> One of these days, we may yet see a Santa Claus movie that begins with
> the real, historical St. Nicholas . . .
[deletion]
The real, historical St. Nicholas was not Polish, but rather lived long
before there was a Poland. He was bishop of Myra on what is now the southern
coast of Turkey during the persecutions of Diocletian (early 4th century).
--
Frank in Seattle
___________
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"I leave you now in radiant contentment"
-- "Whistling in the Dark"
DylanBD
> The real, historical St. Nicholas was not Polish, but rather lived long
> before there was a Poland. He was bishop of Myra on what is now the
> southern coast of Turkey during the persecutions of Diocletian (early 4th
> century).
Somewhat off-topic, but Benjamin Britten's choral piece for Christmas, Saint
Nicholas, is a Christian piece about Santa Claus -- retells a few of the
medieval legends about him, and emphasizes his faith and his role as bishop.
Very charming and very fun to sing.
T
<snip>.
>
> Generally speaking, I think humanity would be better off if we
> acknowledged this fact, instead of harboring unrealistic goals, and
> scrupulously avoided setting up political units which place people of
> different tribes *in direct competition for scarce resources*.
>
> To build mutual respect, on which mutual trust and amity can be later
> constructed, one *first* has to ensure that members of different tribes
> are not killing, abusing, or exploiting each other, thus creating new
> grievances and further delaying the time when humanity can unite.
>
> John Savard
> http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
I agree, with much if not all posted. I would suggest the global
unification model is a dual edged sword; it has both pro and con but
damn if we couldn't get over the whole 'those over the hill are no
longer our family anymore...' thing.
Evolution, not of our physical selves necessarily but of our communal
selves may well settle out a better working model to follow.
For now we drag the history, both good and bad, forward into the
present. Warts and all.
In the mean time I will try to do the least harm I can to others. Until
they raise their hand against me.
TBerk
part saint, part caveman.
The PhAnToM
T wrote:
> John Savard wrote:
> <snip>.
> >
> > Generally speaking, I think humanity would be better off if we
> > acknowledged this fact, instead of harboring unrealistic goals, and
> > scrupulously avoided setting up political units which place people
of
> > different tribes *in direct competition for scarce resources*.
> >
> > To build mutual respect, on which mutual trust and amity can be
later
> > constructed, one *first* has to ensure that members of different
tribes
> > are not killing, abusing, or exploiting each other, thus creating
new
> > grievances and further delaying the time when humanity can unite.
> >
> > John Savard
> > http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
>
>
>
> I agree, with much if not all posted. I would suggest the global
> unification model is a dual edged sword; it has both pro and con but
> damn if we couldn't get over the whole 'those over the hill are no
> longer our family anymore...' thing.
Bah. We all know families which are mostly functional and filled with
good people but for a few selfish bastards who, because of their own
character disorders, do nothing but cause problems for everybody. I
suggest we psychologically profile such people in all nations and then
banish the lot of them to some large island somewhere... like
Australia, so the rest of us can work and live in peace.
T
Heh, heh. We would have to restrict their ability to create long range
transportation and weapons manufacturing.
:])
TBerk
deer...@mindspring.com
> I don't know about Spiderman 2. But I do remember the *first* Spiderman
> movie. There was a scene in which the Mary Jane character was menaced by
> street thugs which contained gratuitous rain... so I'm sure that movie
> wasn't considered friendly to families!
"Gratuitous rain," eh...g!
C.
**
(who is surprised paint didn't peel off theater walls across the
country behind that particular kiss...)
Eldritch
> There are quotes for and against.
> For:
> Luke 12:48
> 48 From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from
> the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
>
Isn't this the basis for Communism?
E
The PhAnToM
David
>> > Luke 12:48
>> > 48 From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from
>> > the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
>>
>> Isn't this the basis for Communism?
>Jealousy, envy, hatred, and laziness are the bases for Communism.
How do you know it isn't acid reflux?
The PhAnToM
James Gifford
>> Isn't this the basis for Communism?
> Jealousy, envy, hatred, and laziness are the bases for Communism.
Whereas only the first three are bases for capitalism. With the fourth
being awfully common anyway.
--
|=- James Gifford = FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY -=|
|=- So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? -=|
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <1107128744.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "The
PhAnToM" <victorth...@gmail.com> wrote:
Given the amount of bile you generate, no bloody wonder.