Because liberals are evil?

Hollywood doesn't continue to make anti-Iraq War movies. It would be nice to have an Iraq War movie version of Platoon or Apocalypse Now. But no such luck yet.

If you want a good Iraq viewing, check out Generation Kill.

Big Oil doesn't care about what we think. Studios really do care about what we think. If they didn't care what we think, they wouldn't have money to make more movies. Normal folks don't just go to shitty-looking movies (look at Richeous Kill). They go to movies that they want to see.

In your opinion, is the "we" actually "film buffs". To me, the "we" would be "moviegoers". People seem to forget that most people just want some entertaining stuff to see with friends and kids. Movies that blur that emotionally-moving-art/entertainment line are always the best (and seem to be the most bankable). I guess that you could complain that "the general moviegoing public doesn't require art as entertainment".

Look at test screening and reshoots and stuff. Studios spend millions reshooting and stuff is some teenage kid at a test-screening didn't like how the movie ended, or how a scene 'felt'. In my opinion, this is where the studios really fuck up. But, hey, they're the ones risking all the money in the bank for these gigantic productions. One big bomb can leave a studio in debt. A few can kill it.

You got to understand it's about money. Ideas are brought to the table and the solid ideas are financed. If you (yea, YOU) had a really good idea, begged independent investors, and got something off the ground by yourself, studios WOULD pay attention. But the problem is that you probably don't. And you probably won't.

A certain elitism is built into critics. Like this inside passion that they could make something better. Or maybe it's because they spend too much private time with the greats. An anger - like the producers of Beverly Hills Chihuahua OWE us if we don't enjoy the movie.

When was the last time you went to a movie, after seeing trailers, and reading positive reviews, that felt like a big letdown? I can't say that any studio habitually misguides us. They might release junk-food entertainment. But they dont' hide it. We're rarely misguided by the trailer. And we're rarely misguided by critics. Between the two, it's like sex with a condom and birth control; if you have both, there's little possibility that it's not going to turn out like you thought it would. Nobody is forcing you to see this forgettable, zippy Hollywood fluff. I bet that 90% of the people, who do or do not read reviews, are going to like Beverly Hills Chihuahua. Why? Because they saw the trailer and then they went to see Beverly Hills Chihuahua.

You always need one or the other - good-looking movies/trailers or good reviews. When you take away one or the other, the movie usually doesn't bank well. When you have both, the movie is usually very profitable.

Then, you have to understand that most productions kick off strong (the exception is big directors who can effortlessly get films financed by friends). Then the reality of a shoot set in. Productions get stuck with uninterested actors, touchy directors, panicky financers, hasty producers and problematic crews. A strong pre-production can only carry so far.

And, to finish, a borderline high-art Batman movie got like a 200mil budget recently. Don't tell me the studios don't care.

They released a second DVD of Serenity because it was one of the studio's highest sellers. I'm not saying I think there will be any sequels, but I imagine that particular DVD has raked in a lot more cash than you imagine. I just think studios aren't paying attention. I remember when EW inducted "Office Space" into their cult-movie hall-of-fame, they had an interview with a guy at Fox Home Video who had to recheck his statistics three times when they asked him how much the DVD sold.

I think if the internet was better at really getting together and making their voice heard, things would be different. You can't win 'em all, but, for instance, I think there were enough people who were disappointed that the last Die Hard movie was rated PG-13 that had there been a truly collective, single outpouring of opinion over it, Fox might have changed their mind. Maybe. But as many have said, if the bottom line is healthy, they're not going to give a shit either way. Certainly LFoDH made enough money that even if we could have changed their minds, they don't and won't regret having made the movie a PG-13.

And as for the Snakes on a Plane example, I think that movie failed because by the time it came out, the hype was over. Had New Line done the wise thing (perhaps it was not possible, but nonetheless) and moved the movie two months forward, I think it would have made a lot more than it did. But I know my friends and I, who were all greatly amused by it when it was an internet sensation, were tired of waiting by the time the movie finally opened.