Why do studios keep making Iraq films when they all bomb?

Because the hollywood liberal elite have forgotten that war movies are supposed to be positive and not negative. They are too busy trying to make a political statement instead of actually making a movie that people would like to see.
All Quiet on the Western Front?
 
Because the hollywood liberal elite have forgotten that war movies are supposed to be positive and not negative. They are too busy trying to make a political statement instead of actually making a movie that people would like to see.

War = Positive. Good to know. And are you seriously concerned about agenda driven films or just the fact that they're not driving your agenda?

And no, I don't think the 'Hollywood elite' has forgotten much of anything. Saving Private Ryan wasn't clearly anti-war, but it often did have a somewhat negative tone. It went on to critical acclaim, Oscar nominations (should have won), and a huge box office. Platoon was clearly anti-war, but it became THE iconic Vietnam war film, did well at the box office, and received critical acclaim. Full Metal Jacket: Anti-War, cult classic, DVD king. (than again, so is alot of Kubrick stuff) MASH. Anti, successful, critical acclaim.

Honestly, it doesn't really seem to be the death knell that you think it is.
 
what about that movie about the rape and death of a 15 year old girl in Iraq made by Oliver Stone? i saw it in the cinema and it was rather weird but also good and defitinely an anti-war movie, which may explain it lack of success next to also it unconvential design of the movie.
 
Hollywood is run by suits, bean counters, and lawyers. Not by creative people. The result is that they are very rarely willing to try something new and interesting. That is why when someone does succeed at something out of the ordinary, there are many immediate copies. But it's also why truly "new" things tend to die an early and grisly death.
 
Because the hollywood liberal elite have forgotten that war movies are supposed to be positive and not negative. They are too busy trying to make a political statement instead of actually making a movie that people would like to see.

No one wants to go so a suck-ass negative war movie. They get enough of that crap off the tv.

yeah like "apocalypse now", or "full metal jacket" or "good morning vietnam"...
 
Hopefully they continue to produce crap movies and get ran out of business. I would approve.

I completely, wholeheartedely, and unequivocally agree with this statement.

Hollywood has become so awful that I now only go to the foreign films new release section of my local video store.

~Chris
 
Umm, are you aware of just how long it takes to make a movie? Its likely they all started production around the same time...
If they did (I'd be interested in knowing) start at around the same time, I wonder why it took so long for them to release it... additionally, I wonder how it did in market research; it seems pretty conclusively that audiences don't care to watch movies on current political issues. Seems to me like most Americans would rather save the $20 and 2 hours and just watch CNN for five minutes.
 
Because the hollywood liberal elite have forgotten that war movies are supposed to be positive and not negative. They are too busy trying to make a political statement instead of actually making a movie that people would like to see.

No one wants to go so a suck-ass negative war movie. They get enough of that crap off the tv.

I dunno, man, the Omaha scene in Saving Private Ryan was pretty damn good, and we were pretty content with thye number of casualties inflicted by the 352nd Heer Division :yeah:
 
Before you all get your knickers in a wad even further, let me say I was thinking more John Wayne type war movies than the ones you described. You know...war movies that were made while the war was being fought....

Yeah, I wouldnt describe movies like Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket as positive - however you also have to understand that those movies came out some years after Vietnam was over. I am also not so sure I would list those movies as poltically motivated considering that fact.

Now these movies being offered up by the Iraq war are being done while the conflict is still going on.

Does it make a difference? I think it does.
 
Before you all get your knickers in a wad even further, let me say I was thinking more John Wayne type war movies than the ones you described. You know...war movies that were made while the war was being fought....

Yeah, I wouldnt describe movies like Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket as positive - however you also have to understand that those movies came out some years after Vietnam was over. I am also not so sure I would list those movies as poltically motivated considering that fact.

Now these movies being offered up by the Iraq war are being done while the conflict is still going on.

Does it make a difference? I think it does.

john wayne is the past, people are now generally too educated to buy this kind of naive "war! isnt it great" glorification crap. that doesnt mean that such movies arent produced anymore or have no target audience at all, it's just not possible to make a major hollywood movie out of films like that...
not even john rambo thinks that war is fun and glorious...
 
john wayne is the past, people are now generally too educated to buy this kind of naive "war! isnt it great" glorification crap. that doesnt mean that such movies arent produced anymore or have no target audience at all, it's just not possible to make a major hollywood movie out of films like that...

John Waynes war movies were not about 'war is great' insomuch as our invovlement in the war was the right thing to do.

Slight difference there.
 
John Waynes war movies were not about 'war is great' insomuch as our invovlement in the war was the right thing to do.

Slight difference there.

it was naive and pro-war in the sense of it being populated with noble guys and noone ever lost his limbs.
"apocalypse now" for example is a political movie in the sense of it being opposed to the idea of war by showing how crazy and cruel it is. it's not so much about wether the us should have been in vietnam or not, but about how insane, brutal and uncivilized a war is, no matter if it is right or wrong to fight it.
 
it was naive and pro-war in the sense of it being populated with noble guys and noone ever lost his limbs.

Uhm. Nope. People most certainly fought and died in those films.

"apocalypse now" for example is a political movie in the sense of it being opposed to the idea of war by showing how crazy and cruel it is. it's not so much about wether the us should have been in vietnam or not, but about how insane, brutal and uncivilized a war is, no matter if it is right or wrong to fight it.

I think you are confused if you think a film is political if it shows "how insane, brutal and uncivilized a war is, no matter if it is right or wrong to fight it". I saw Apocalypse Now when it first came out in theaters back in 1979. I came out with a definite 'war is hell' impression, but not that our government was wrong for engaging in war.
 
I don't feel like paying to see a negitive story about Iraq when I can get that for free on TV. Too soon for such movies. 10 years after the war ends though...

[required McCain comment, yes MB, I know this isn't the full quote] ... I guess I'll never see them made.[/required McCain comment]
 
@Mobboss: you mention John Wayne, which is a perfect example of a shift in the audience after WWII: he tried to do with "Green berets" what he'd done in the 40's, but the sense of righteousness one got from fighting the Nazis simply wasn't there.
 
Back
Top Bottom