Sorry Dafydd, your question really doesn't need an answer, but until the Hollywood "geniuses?" realize people do not like movies which paint the country in a bad light they will continue to be disappointed in the returns at the box office.

Hollywood has a more fundamental problem in that they have lost sight of the fact that their job is to entertain people, not set social policy. Most of the movies they make are so lame that only the young can stand them enough to sit through them.

Simple. Make movies that John Wayne would have starred in and you'll make a mint.

Oh, that means we have to show the US as the winner? Can't have that. Doesn't fit in teh "context".

When will we finally be done with the pernicious influence of the 68'ers and what they've done to our college youth.

Well, for one thing, this isn't an "Iraq war movie." Other than the opening sequence, nothing about it takes place in Iraq.

Nobody in this country wants to watch defeatist movies that denigrate America and preach a message contrary to that supported by the majority.

It's not like no one will watch "war movies." A year ago at this time, "300" had a smashing opening weekend at about $70 million, and did about $210 million domestically.

The interesting thing is that the top movies (in terms of total box office) still playing right now are "I Am Legend," "National Treasure: Book of Secrets," and "Alvin & the Chipmunks."

The top movies of 2007 were "Spider-Man 3" ($336,530,303), "Shrek the Third" ($322,719,944), "Transformers" ($319,246,193), "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" ($309,420,425), and "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" ($292,004,738).

Comparing these to the dreary and pessimistic story of "Stop-Loss" makes is pretty obvious what the real problem is.

Voiceguy in LA:

Well, for one thing, this isn't an "Iraq war movie." Other than the opening sequence, nothing about it takes place in Iraq.

Slicing it kind of thin there, aren't you? I understand it's a movie about how being sent to fight in Iraq and then held over a few months destroys soldiers and turns them into egg-huddled masses, as "the Eye of Argon" put it.

The war is central to the plot of the movie, even if you barely see it. It's an Iraq movie the same way that the Best Years of Our Lives is a World War II movie. Wouldn't you agree? Or have I got completely the wrong impression from the couple of reviews of the movie that I read?

Dafydd

People like movies to watch heroes. Hollywood has forgotten that.

The war is central to the plot of the movie, even if you barely see it. It's an Iraq movie the same way that the Best Years of Our Lives is a World War II movie. Wouldn't you agree?

That seems like an apt comparison, though Best Years -- which won eight Academy Awards (including Best Picture) -- is certainly in a different league as films go.

All I meant to express is that Stop-Loss is primarily a rather perverse caper movie, which follows the cast in an improbable chase around the U.S. as Ryan Phillippe's character seeks to avoid being returned to Iraq. According to the Wall Street Journal, this action is laced with some flashbacks to Iraq, so perhaps I was too simplistic in my statement. What I had in mind was merely that a film about the Iraq war perhaps ought to be set in Iraq. But I can see contrary views, particularly if the goal is not to portray the war but rather reflect on or talk about its aftermath or collateral effects.

I haven't been able to track down reliable information about whether Best Years was financially successful in 1946, irrespective of its awards. That would be interesting to know.

VG

Follow-Up:

According to this box office data listing, The Best Years of Our Lives was the second-highest grossing film of 1946, at $11.3 million. (First was Disney's Song of the South at $29.229 million.) A contemporaneous Time magazine article suggests that anything above $4 million was considered respectable in those days (remembering that movie tickets were around 35 cents).

Thus, Best Years apparently was relatively successful in its day.

==================================================

It is interesting to look back and see what the top movies have been in more recent times. According to Box Office Mojo, the #1 film for each year going back to 1980 was as follows:

2007 Spider-Man 3

2006 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

2005 Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith

2004 Shrek 2

2003 Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

2002 Spider-Man

2001 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

2000 How the Grinch Stole Christmas

1999 Star Wars: The Phantom Menace

1998 Saving Private Ryan

1997 Titanic

1996 Independence Day

1995 Toy Story

1994 Forrest Gump

1993 Jurassic Park

1992 Aladdin

1991 Terminator 2: Judgment Day

1990 Home Alone

1989 Batman

1988 Rain Man

1987 Three Men & a Baby

1986 Top Gun

1985 Back to the Future

1984 Beverly Hills Cop

1983 Star Wars: Return of the Jedi

1982 E.T.

1981 Raiders of the Lost Ark

1980 Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back

It is obvious that military-themed films such as Top Gun and Saving Private Ryan managed to find audiences. The difference, I think, is better stories that found wider appeal, most likely because the lead characters displayed courage and other positive qualities.

VG

I'm awfully puzzled as to how and why the lefties have come to assume their political and world views are mainstream opinions? Why would the Hollywood types ever assume these sorts of movies will find a big enough American audience to make money?

These movies are not made for America.

1) They are made as a show of "bravery" by the film makers. They win accolades within the film community. Of course real bravery would be to stand up to the film community and make a movie about Americans doing something right for a change.

2) They are made for the foreign markets, which are significantly more anti-American.

In a sentence? Make movies about Americans, for Americans, showing them in a good, or at least nuetral, light.

By the by, why did the Bourne movies do so well? Well, they had an American everyman stuck in a tough situation who overcame every obsticle. The forces against him were mostly American, BUT there were also Americans working to help him.

Making the American military establishment the mustache twilling vllians simply does not work. Stop doing it.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)