Citing Politics, Studio Cancels Documentary

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Sep 4, 2004.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    gee, who needs gov't-enforced censorship when everyone's so frightened, they'll do it themselves?
     
  2. ~kilroy~ macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Location:
    Deep South
    #2
    Maybe they forgot to register as a 527 first. :)
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    Are you saying that partisanship in what's supposed to be general-audience material is all well and good? We should maybe have the Dems and Reps starting up their own movie studios?

    I have no objection to any movie which shows, say, an anti-war message. I do object to one that's too easily seen as partisan, and distributed in an election year. The people of a movie studio are free tohave whatever political opinions suit them. The studio itself should be apolitical.

    We have enough trouble with those reporting the news, interjecting their own personal views (doesn't matter whether conservative or liberal) into what should be straight, factual reporting. Opinions belong on the editorial page or in a TV discussion-show about "What does it mean?"

    'Rat
     
  4. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    what does that mean?

    artists make movies. studios fund them, to make money. when the studio starts making decisions based on content, good or bad, it compromises the artistic vision.

    i guess it doesn't matter if all we get from hollywood are explosions, gushing limbs, rapes and "america wins always." god forbid we actually do a documentary showing the horrors of war.

    from what i can tell, the doc is anti-war, not anti-GOP. or do we all just assume that's the same thing these days?
     
  5. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    rat, i'm wondering if you feel the same way about book publishers. should they be also refrain from publishing books w/ political themes?

    same w/ art galleries and radio stations. maybe the FCC should prevent political talk from being aired at all. they've certainly taken that liberty w/ certain words and sexual themes. i'd always thought you were against this kind of corporate / governmental nannying.
     
  6. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #6
    How do you get from "Warner Brothers has decided..." to "...governmental nannying."? Do you think somebody from the White House called up and said, "Hey! Don't release that!"?

    Sure, the studios, and of course publishers, are perfectly free to do as they wish. But political books are obviously political books, and the views are open and obvious. Movies are not generally obvious about the politics, and apparently the studio in this case decided that an anti-war theme at a time we have guys dying in war would piss off a lot of the viewing audience. An anti-war movie in peacetime doesn't face that risk.

    Studios are in business to make money, regardless of their views of any given message in any movie. Generally, studios are apolitical--that is, they don't show obvious support for either side. They try to sell into a mass audience, and that's most easily done by leaving politics out of the flick.

    I note there have been a good number of anti-war movies in the past. I assume this one could be released sometime next year; dunno; but I'd bet we'll see more anti-war movies in the future.

    "Artistic vision" From Hollywood? :D:D:D

    'Rat
     
  7. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    by hopefully crossing your line. (i.e. you seem okay w/ the WB action, but i suspect you're not okay w/ the FCC stuff)

    honestly, i don't know. maybe it's more subtle than that, like w/ Disney and its florida tax breaks possibly or possibly not threatened to be reviewed.

    you cite WB making it a financial decision, though i'd say they'd already figured out it would be profitable, given how far along the project was. so i believe some additional consideration was given to whom it might piss off. consumers? lobbyists? local representatives? national representatives? i don't know. but imo the result is self-censorship.

    again, who needs the gov't to censor when everyone else is so intimidated that they'll do it voluntarily?
     
  8. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #8
    The part I find disturbing/amusing is that being anti-war has now become a partisan issue. So the Republicans are the pro-war party and the Democrats are the anti-war party? Do the Republicans really want to be known as the pro-war party? What a Kerry commericial that would make!
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    Kerry would lose on such a platform.

    We live in interesting times, where war is no longer a bad thing. Rather, it's now really cool: we kick ass, kill bad guys, blow stuff up and flex our muscles.

    It's like Playstation cool.

    Those who lead us into wanton war are no longer considered murderous madmen but tough, moral leaders who are strong, steady and reliable.
     
  10. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #10
    Are you refering to Osama, or Sadam as the madmen, or the sen from mass that voted to invade afganistan, or the democratic administration who jumped into the balkins quiagmire? Which madmen..or are they all.
     
  11. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #11

    I've come to the conclusion that I like animals better than humans.

    This is why. People are basically stupid.
     
  12. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #12
    Neserk, if you're correct about people, ya gotta believe that Card's comment about Bush's view of himself as a father-figure is correct...

    :D

    "again, who needs the gov't to censor when everyone else is so intimidated that they'll do it voluntarily?"

    zim, do you say or do whatever strikes your fancy? Anytime, anywhere? If not, are you not, then, self-censoring? Do you do this due to "intimidation"? Or are there other factors entering into your decision?

    'Rat
     
  13. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #13
    Too bad Bush is the biggest idiot of them all.


    I don't doubt it is correct. The problem is it isn't appropriate!
     
  14. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #14
    Yeah, well, y'all have sumpn in common, Neserk.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    Job-huntin'.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Just teasin'...

    'Rat
     
  15. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #15
    in general, no (i'd be in jail if i did). now ask me about my art.
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    I think that individual NRA members can and should hold whatever views they want. But the NRA itself should be apolitical.

    How's that for fair? ;)
     
  17. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #17
    The shame of it is that the public wants to be spoon fed the information. Maybe it is the long commutes. Maybe it is soccer parents not having enough time. Or maybe it is simply we have gotten away from reading, and rather sit in front of the TV or a movie screen.

    I paid my money to see F-911. And I would have paid to see a movie that supported Bush's stance in the post 9-11 world.
     
  18. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #18
    Rat, since we have become the nation not of the people, but the money; sadly it doesn't take a call like that. WB and others back the MPA. The MPA is trying to get laws passed that would benefit the studios. If too many studios release movies that are bad for the current party, then the laws never see the light of day.

    And with the merging of studios with the rest of media compounds the issue.
     
  19. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
  20. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #20
    Are you referring to Three Kings or the documentary?

    There doesn't seem to be an issue with the movie, just the documentary.
     
  21. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #21
    Movie. There is a documentary? That would imply that it is a true story.
     
  22. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #22
    Read the first post of the thread:

    In thinking about it further. I am not sure that the documentary has a place in the DVD release. I would hope that WB would release the documentary as a separate DVD and/or in the theaters. In the very least let the SunDance Channel show it.
     
  23. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #23
    The Studios always make decisions based on content. That's nothing new. Unless you are one of the very few super heavy-weight writers/directors/actors/producers in Hollywood the studio will always weigh in and release the movie *they* want (tough crap to what the people making the moive want). The Studios are a business and if they think something will be bad for business they won't release it. Censorship or pragmatism? Don't the Studios have the right to run their business as they see fit? Is forcing them to release it any better than forcing them not to release it?

    WB isn't even preventing the doc from being distributed (they are giving rights back to the creator even though they could "shelf it" forever if they wanted to) they just don't want to be the distributers at this piont in time. I don't see what's wrong w/that. I'm sure someone else will be more than willing to pay for distribution. Political movies are very popular right now. Just not w/the big Studios who don't want to p.o. the mainstream.

    Hell, WB pulling this doc from the DVD is probably the best thing that ever happend to it. Free national press and buzz about your doc verse having it released as a bonus feature on a DVD that most people (even those that buy the DVD) will never know about let alone watch.


    Lethal
     

Share This Page