Why does hollywood hate corporations and Christians??

[Meleagar]

In the past 30 years, I have not seen a single movie or TV show produced by the mainstream entertainment business in Hollywood that has portrayed corporations, Christianity, or banks in a good light.

Before that, I can only say that Christians were not treated so poorly, but that banks and corporations were still largely demonized.

In fact, the vast majority of movies and shows that I have seen, that have come out of the mainstream entertainment business, have depicted banks and corporations as at best uncaring and incompetent and at worst completely evil; and have depicted christians as stupid, evil, or both.

Considering that the entertainment industry is a collection of corporations that I presume use banks, and is attempting to sell a product to a population that is overhwelmingly Christian, universally use banks, and are largely employed by corporations and invest in them, it seems rather odd to me that the entertainment industry would so uniformly take every opportunity to roundly demonize, ridicule, and villify Christians, banks, and corporations.

It seems to me that if the entertainment industry was about "making money", that it would regularly produce films that spun these things into positive stories. How about a movie about a corporation doing the right thing? Or a bank going the extra mile to help people out? Or a solid Christian story about good values winnning out in the end?

Even movies that center around the christian god and angels - like Legion, the Prophecy movies, Constantine, etc., work overtime to present the Christian God in an uncaring, unflattering light (if even present and active), and render murky the motivations and character of the angels.

The Passion of the Christ demonstrated the billion-dollar potential for a solid return on investment in a solidly-Christian movie perspective ... but instead, Hollywood chose to launch bomb after bomb of anti-war (Iraq) movies, even though in the history of Hollywood, pro-America war movies have traditionally been big money-makers. Why?

It seems to me that it is obvious that the modern mainstream entertainment industry is intent on delivering a particular set of philosophical, religious and political messages whether or not they make any money, and refuse, by and large, to greenlight or fund scripts with any messages they disagree with - again, whether or not such messages will make them money. It seems to me that the so-called "entertainment" industry is not in the business of "entertaining" at all, but can more properly be called a "propaganda" industry, producing almost nothing but a unified, lock-step ideological agenda disguised as "entertainment".

[wanabe]

That's what sells. More precisely it's what makes the most profit...Why, because that's the stories people write. Probably because people got tired of hearing how great "morality" Christianity and war are. A corporation doing the right thing, for the sake of doing the right thing, and not for profit; is more unrealistic than superman.

Of course if some 'big name' makes a movie, people are going to go see it (in keeping with the theme) "if you build it {they} will come". Movies and tv are for 'sheep' as the intended primary audience(exceptions surly).

I think you and I could write a great morality play about a ceo who is spoken to by the christian god and does a good thing.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If anything, I feel mainstream "Hollywood" movies tend to be Christocentric. You don't see many movies like, A Serious Man. You just see a lot white Christian families representing white traditional Christian values. Anybody or anything else is usually treated as abnormal so subversive. I'd say movies are fairly theistic too. They don't seem to have any problem assuming their is a god in line with Christian-like theism.

As for corporations and Wall Street and all, I don't think mainstream movies need to spin anything to treat them unflattering. In my view, it's like accusing a director making a documentary about a serial murderer of making the serial murder look bad. I believe plenty of bottom-line-thinking corporations would brutally slaughter an innocent five-year-old girl if it would truly profit them; the fact that documenting this impersonal profit-over-people tendency of certain types of corporations is unflattering for those types of corporations is not the fault of the movie-makers. I'd say the same about the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I couldn't imagine a pro-Iraq-War movie.

As for the general point that mainstream art is awful unoriginal garbage, all I have to say is, of course! And Britney Spears sells more CDs than Andrea Bocelli. And McDonald's sells. That's just the nature of a mass-produced, commercialized product; it appeals to the common denominator. If you actually want a good plate of food from a great culinary artist, you're going to have to look at lot harder than it takes to find a McDonald's. And if you want a good music CD or movie, you have to take the effort to find the independent titles or else you'll end up with Britney Spears and Twilight.

[Dewey]

Considering that the entertainment industry is a collection of corporations that I presume use banks, and is attempting to sell a product to a population that is overhwelmingly Christian, universally use banks, and are largely employed by corporations and invest in them, it seems rather odd to me that the entertainment industry would so uniformly take every opportunity to roundly demonize, ridicule, and villify Christians, banks, and corporations.

It seems to me that if the entertainment industry was about "making money", that it would regularly produce films that spun these things into positive stories. How about a movie about a corporation doing the right thing? Or a bank going the extra mile to help people out? Or a solid Christian story about good values winnning out in the end?

Hi Meleagar.

Profits in the American film industry, though they vary as between individual films, are high overall year after year. As you say, the films are generally of a mass-produced, commercialized nature – like McDonald’s foods. It would seem very odd to me if the industry were to take every, or even more than an occasional, opportunity to purposely do the things you abhor for ideological reasons. Some directors/writers/actors might, but the real deciders are the producers. I cannot envision any consequential number of producers putting other ideologies ahead of profit.

I suggest you consider ascribing the problem you see to the poor tastes of the audiences catered to by a profit-seeking industry.

[Meleagar]

The argument that the industry actually produces these films (in a general sense) primarily to make money is easily disproven. For instance, hollywood produced a string of anti-war movies about Iraq that all failed miserably at the box office - and are still producing them.

In The Valley of Elah, The Kingdom, Lions for Lambs, and Redacted all bombed miserably at the box office, but Hollywood is still beating the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war drum with attempts like the box office failure Rendition and the upcoming "Fair Game"; if the industry was driven by profit, why are they still producing these politically-slanted, ideological failures? Why would any reasonable CEO geen-light a movie in a genre that has thus far only lost tens of millions of dollars per movie?

In the wake of the billion-dollar success of "The Passion of the Christ", where were the following attempts to capitalized on that success? Where is the remake of "The Greatest Story Ever Told", or "Ben Hur", or "The Ten Commandments"? Those were huge blockbusters in their day; with the modern ability for computer graphics and special effects, those would almost certainly be solid gold money-makers. Yet ... hollywood would rather make screen versions of video games (most of which either fail or do poorly) than to use an obvious source of profit: positive, Christian-oriented movies.

Scott, movies and TV shows are fiction; if they can show criminals that rob banks and activists that blow up stuff as "heroes", why are corporations and banks universally represented as evil in a capitalstic, free-enterprise country where many, if not most, people work for and invest in corporations and rely on banks? The entertainment industry isn't about "telling the truth"; it's about - supposedly - entertaining people and selling them a product they want that will make you a profit.

The idea that they are trying to give the entertainment consumer "what they want" is easily disproven, since over half of the consumers in this country consider themselves conservative and agree with the Arizona immigration law and enforcement, where are the anti-illegal immigration films? Since Obama is currently such an unpopular figure, where are the anti-Obama films? Shortly after 9-11, GW Bush was hugely popular; where are the pro-Bush films that show him and his driving of the Taliban out of Afghanistan in a pro-America, heroic film?

Where are the pro-America or pro-Bush films about those wars? Where are the Afghanistan or Iraq war movies from the perspective of the US as liberators of an oppressed people who - largely - welcomed our removal of tyrannical oppressors and established a more free society? Even if one doesn't believe that this is what occurred, why have there been no movies whatsoever with that perspective? They surely cannot bomb at the box office any worse than those that have provided the opposite perspective.

Where are the movies about the way the radical left has targeted and attacked conservative events, rallies and conventions? Where is the heroic movie about Brandon Darby, who saved the lives of who-knows-how-many republicans from a radical left-wing terroristic plot aimed at the 2008 Republican National convention?

I can go on and on about the movies that the industry doesn't make; where are the positive movies about evangelical Christians? Where are the positive movies about corporations? Where are the positive movies about banks? Where are the movies about the oppression and extreme prejudice and violence that christian missionaries around the world encounter, often putting themselves in harms way for their faith and to help others?

Where are the patriotic, pro-America, America-as-hero movies? Does anyone really think that a good old pro-America movie wouldn't at least break even? Look at what they did with GI JOE; the traditional tagline was "A Real American Hero", but Hollywood couldn't go with that - they had to make GI Joe an international unit.

The idea that the entertainment industry is only trying to give the population "what it wants" is preposterous on the face of it; the huge empty section of movies and TV shows they would and should make if that were true bears witness to that fact.

[reflected_light]

How about a movie about a corporation doing the right thing? Or a bank going the extra mile to help people out? Or a solid Christian story about good values winnning out in the end?

Sounds more like a tv special featuring howie mandell as the friendly bank manager.
This better be in 3-D.

Mel, movies either have to be beleivable, or unbeleivable (like transformers), the inbetween just doesn't make for good movies.
The bank going out of their way to help someone out? In real life...not likely, but possible I guess. I bet it has happened to someone.

A christian story eh?
Good values winning out in the end? We are too smart for that nowadays, and completely jaded.
Again, sometimes it happens, but more often not.

I do believe some movies are much like 'propaganda' and some really try to depict real life.
Don't you think that a story about a corporation doing the right thing would also be 'propaganda' because it would not be describing the 'general truth' about corporations.

[Meleagar]

Mel, movies either have to be beleivable, or unbeleivable (like transformers), the inbetween just doesn't make for good movies.

Then why do they keep making those in-between movies as long as they promote a certain ideology/perspective?

Don't you think that a story about a corporation doing the right thing would also be 'propaganda' because it would not be describing the 'general truth' about corporations.

Nowhere in my post is anything about "truth"; it's about a supposed "entertainment industry" that supposedly is driven by profit to serve the entertainment wishes of the people it is selling its product to. The entertainment industry isn't about "the truth" unless it is producing a documentary.

Also, I didn't say that I cared that it was propaganda; the point is that the propaganda the mainstream entertainment industry is offering is almost entirely one-sided, and they apparently insist on promoting that particular agenda whether it is profitable or not, and whether or not they are leaving billions in potential profit on the table by refusing to produce "entertainment" from any other point of view.

It stands to reason that if 7-8 anti-iraq-war, anti-Bush movies fail miserably, that the public is not interested in seeing an anti-iraq-war, anti-Bush movie. Why produce 7-8 anti-iraq-war, anti-Bush movies that all fail miserably and not a single pro-Iraq-war, pro-Bush movie?

Once again, it stands to reason that if Passion of the Christ made over a billion dollars (without even major distribution to start), then if the so-called "entertainment industry" which is so big on remakes and reboots was actually interested more in profit than staying true to some agenda or ideology, we would have had by now at least a half-dozen Christian-oriented movies - like remakes of Ben Hur, The Greatest Story Ever Told, and The Ten Commandments with pro-christian themes and not any snarky, malignant, anti-christian influences.

The gaping, empty chasm of pro-conservative, pro-Christian movies or TV shows from the mainstream entertainment industry, coupled with their willingness to fund bomb after bomb after bomb espousing their political and social views, reveals the indisputable fact that it is far more interested in propagandizing ideology than making money or serving the entertainment interests of its potential customer base.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

What about Inglorious Basterds? What about fictional Iron Man's huge fictional corporation Stark Industries or the CEO? What about Bigwell and his company Bigwell Industries from the movie at least while he's in control of it from the movie Robots?

Do you really think that a few years after Obama leaves office there will be that many less anti-Obama films than there are anti-Bush films now?

***

Anyway, do you really think a movie in which a fictional account of the Iraq War is shown in which Saddam really was responsible for 9/11, in which the U.S. army really did find weapons of mass-destruction, in which the war-mongers had told the truth and in which Saddam wasn't previously on the payroll of the CIA would do well? I don't.

I don't think it's the movies that make certain wars look despicable and certain war-mongers look like the bad guys.

As for the whole Christian thing, like I said, most American movies are Christocentric. For example, I can't count the movies in which the wise adviser is a Priest in a confessional or some other Christian religious figure like a Nun or a Reverend. The characters, habits and values are almost always Christian. It's the default.

Scott, movies and TV shows are fiction; if they can show criminals that rob banks and activists that blow up stuff as "heroes", why are corporations and banks universally represented as evil in a capitalstic, free-enterprise country where many, if not most, people work for and invest in corporations and rely on banks? The entertainment industry isn't about "telling the truth"; it's about - supposedly - entertaining people and selling them a product they want that will make you a profit.

Like bank-robbers and terrorists, corporations aren't universally portrayed as evil by popular movies. But I think the reality is documented in the fiction we see on screen, so even fictional bank-robbers, terrorists and corporations tend to be seen for what they really tend to be which may not be very flattering for them--like putting an ugly person in a well-lit room; you can say it's an unflattering light but that's just because it's an accurate, revealing light.

The argument that the industry actually produces these films (in a general sense) primarily to make money is easily disproven. For instance, hollywood produced a string of anti-war movies about Iraq that all failed miserably at the box office - and are still producing them.

That one of Britney Spears peers may turn out to be a financial flop or that a certain McDonald's restaurant may be a financial loss for its investors does not easily disprove that the intent of the producers was not quality art but to make money by mass-producing recycled garbage that appeals to the common denominator and is perverted by commercialism. These companies do tend to make lots of money overall.

[Abacab]

Meleagar I don`t see what you are griping about happening in Hollywood strange line of questioning, have you any sources?

Scott wrote

You just see a lot white Christian families representing white traditional Christian values. Anybody or anything else is usually treated as abnormal so subversive

As an atheist I object to the fallacious racism Scott is using against christians being only white, fallacious because the many I have seen in Hollywood movies were black creole gentlemen. Not the sterotypical pre-war sterotype the media and Scott paints them. As an atheist I have nothing against christians or any faith being portrayed in movies as long as they don`t try to sell it as a science.

[Meleagar]

Anyway, do you really think a movie in which a fictional account of the Iraq War is shown in which Saddam really was responsible for 9/11, in which the U.S. army really did find weapons of mass-destruction, in which the war-mongers had told the truth and in which Saddam wasn't previously on the payroll of the CIA would do well? I don't.

It can't do any worse than the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war movies did; the question is, why is Hollywood willing to flush any amount of money down a proven toilet to push that particular view of the war with 7-8 failures in sequence, without even trying to make money off of what a lot of americans believe is another valid perspective about the Iraq War?

As far as your view that "most movies are christocentric" or that it really is about the money, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Once again, answer this question: if it's all about money, why didn't Hollywood start remaking Bible epics after the huge success of "The Passion of the Christ"?

[Abacab]

Scott wrote:

Anyway, do you really think a movie in which a fictional account of the Iraq War is shown in which Saddam really was responsible for 9/11, in which the U.S. army really did find weapons of mass-destruction, in which the war-mongers had told the truth and in which Saddam wasn't previously on the payroll of the CIA would do well? I don't.

Meleagar wrote
It can't do any worse than the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war movies did; the question is, why is Hollywood willing to flush any amount of money down a proven toilet to push that particular view of the war with 7-8 failures in sequence, without even trying to make money off of what a lot of americans believe is another valid perspective about the Iraq War?

I agree with Scott on the real [political] and misleading information about weapons of mass destruction that never were. He is right, does Meleagar really think American Hollywood should lie about the outcome of the illegal Iraq War just to save Bush`s face? Patriotic Games it wasn`t. What planet besides twist the truth for America do you live on?

As for the Passion of Christ it was only a hit because the media made such a fuss about the Orthodox Jews objecting to it, the people who went to see it don`t watch it over again, it was a gross snuff movie. It did the christians and their christ no favors, it showed nothing of the transcendent moral teachings of Jesus you keep mentioning. It only showed a man beaten to a pulp and worshipped for his suffering. The maqui de sade would be proud of it. You mentioning it as a great movie gives me insight to where you are coming from

What I do think needs to looked at in Hollywood is their obsession with terrible horror movies! no storyline, limbs cut off, Saw 1 2 and 3 total waste of time.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Once again, answer this question: if it's all about money, why didn't Hollywood start remaking Bible epics after the huge success of "The Passion of the Christ"?

Why didn't they start remaking disaster-at-sea movies after the success of Titanic?

[Dewey]

Mealager, not you, not I, not Hollywood, no one, can read the film producers’ minds. Therefore, no one can disprove judgments other than yours as to the primary reason why so many of these producers continue to bankroll money-losing films. We can only speculate.

It’s obvious you say. You believe those producers willingly make many money-losing films that are like their previous money-losing films. For you that virtually proves that, being such radical and conspiratorial liberals, those producers are sneakily trying to subvert us decent folks. You cannot think of any other reason why they would ever throw away money like that.

I would never be so cruel as to ridicule attempts like this to cast the film producers in a predominately ideological role, but I’m afraid the very idea would draw some incredulous snickers from the industry’s cynical community of analysts.

I don’t doubt that those analysts could fill our ears all day long with their recollections of normally successful people fooling themselves into repeatedly investing and reinvesting their money in repeatedly fruitless areas. (My uncle, normally quite prudent, frequently redoubled his bets on some horse each time it lost a race, and you guessed it. The nag never won!)

The worst of it for you would be having to sit there and hear the analysts repeat producer Samuel Goldwyn’s often-quoted cliché: “If you want to send a message, call Western Union.”

Regards.

[Meleagar]

Once again: 7-8 anti-iraq war, anti-Bush movies; NO pro-Iraq war, pro-Bush movies. After the billion-dollar success of the Passion of the Christ - no follow-up biblical movies whatsoever from Hollywood.

BTW, I haven't seen the 2nd Iron Man, but in the first one the main villain was ... Stark Industries. In Avatar, the main villain is a corporation. Throughout the Alien movies, the villain behind the scenes is a corporation. In District 9, the main villain is ... a corporation. In the International, the main villain is .. a bank. The Insider .... corporation as villain. A Civil Action - corporation as villain. The Invention of Lying ridicules christians and christian beliefs, and the DaVinci code makes christianity out to be the villain. The prophecy movies and Legion make the Christian god out to be the bad guy; Constantine makes god out to be a largely uncaring, absent entity.

So, it's put up or shut up time: please name me a recent, mainstream hollywood movie that is explicity pro-christian, pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war, pro-bank, and/or pro-corporation.

When was the last time we had movies that portrayed the president of the USA in a positive or even heroic light? Let's see ... An American President, Air Force One, Independence Day, Armageddon, and Deep Impact .... all during the Clinton years. One might even say the government was portrayed heroically in some of those movies.

Then we move on to the Bush years, where the big movies are ... the Bourne movies, which are deeply anti-government.

Where are the movies with a heroic or positive president or government or military during Bush's tenure? Hmmm ... I don't see any, and I'm looking over some rather extensive lists at hollywood.com and other sources.

Why didn't they start remaking disaster-at-sea movies after the success of Titanic?

What disaster-at-sea movies would you like them to remake? The only other one that I know of is the Poseidon Adventure, and they did remake it. If you broaden the genre to "disaster movies", I think they've remade them ad naseaum. However, Hollywood simply stopped making big-budget movies based on the Bible, even though they were enormously profitable and popular.

Why is that, do you suppose? Doesn't that seem odd in a country that is supposdly comprised of about 70% self-identifying Christians?

[pjkeeley]

Don't forget about the international market and how the rest of the world views those issues you mentioned.