Not about the money, hollywood and ticket selling

[billc]

Michael Medved, a conservative radio host, covers hollywood a lot. He always quotes Barnum, or Bailey or some other entertainer that essentially says, "It is better to sell two tickets than one," as it applies to entertaining people. If you have a successful show, and you have an audience that is attracted to your show, shouldn't you at least show them some respect. Here is an article about the show Glee. Apparently they took a cheap shot at the tea party in a recent show.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/s...conservatives-wins-glaad-award-for-tolerance/

I haven't really watched Glee, but the premise seems like something people from a conservative end of the spectrum might like. Why alienate half of your audience, just for the sake of a cheap shot. And no, it's not about not being able to take a joke, this seems to be just a cheap shot.


From the article:

The initial reviews of this episode are pretty lousy, even from the show’s fans. And they all seem to single out the Kathy Griffin character as a “dud”. But, none of them understand the real reason why her character was a dud. I’ll explain it for them: Because it was a two-dimensional depiction of a conservative that was not based in any kind of reality or truth. The character was a cartoon image of a “Tea Partier” drawn by a group of writers who probably have never had a real conversation with one of us.

 

[Steve]

I'm not sure I've seen the episodes in question. My wife and 13 year old daughter really like Glee and I have enjoyed the episodes I've watched.

My impression is that the show is entirely about establishing and then breaking stereotypes. No single character is ALWAYS the hero OR the villain, even the glee coaches arch enemy, the cheerleader coach. You have slutty cheerleaders, dumb jocks, a black diva, a gay diva, a neurotic counselor, a mohawked delinquent and just about every other common high school stereotype represented.

In a vacuum, I can think of several specific episodes that could be misinterpreted, but the bottom line for me is that the show is lighthearted and positive. It's self aware, in that the kids in the glee club are teased (not uncommon for them to get large slushies dumped on them in the hallways), the coach is given a hard time about his 80's hair cut and that self awareness often makes it funnier.

And given time, each one of the characters breaks type. It doesn't happen all in one episode, though.

I think that anyone looking too hard at this show should consider why Desperate Housewives is so popular in the bible belt. There's the real head scratcher.

 

[Steve]

Okay. Watched the clip. That was an obvious parody of Sarah Palin. In that clip, you have a nun/former exotic dancer talking about "staying off the pole", and a dim news anchor who doesn't see anything wrong with gay hairdressers raising little wigs, and the tea partiers are upset about a sarah palin dig?

If it fell flat, I can tell you why. Sarah Palin isn't funny anymore. She was hilarious 3 years ago, but it's been done.

 

[billc]

The new Movie "Paul" is out at the box office and is another example of hollywood types driving away a large chunk of their potential box office reciepts. Word has gotten out that it is a very anti-religous movie. This is fine on its own,but they apparently do it in a mean way. I don't think that any group or topic should be off limits but there are ways to have a laugh without driving away that particular group from your movie. Apparently "Paul" doesn't do it that way. too bad. Here's the review.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/paul-is-brain-dead/

From Me: I have to say I am not a fan of Seth Rogan. I don't think he is funny, and all the drug humor and vulgar humor is just not funny, and it is, in my opinion, a lazy way to get laughs.

 

[Archangel M]

The new Movie "Paul" is out at the box office and is another example of hollywood types driving away a large chunk of their potential box office reciepts. Word has gotten out that it is a very anti-religous movie. This is fine on its own,but they apparently do it in a mean way. I don't think that any group or topic should be off limits but there are ways to have a laugh without driving away that particular group from your movie. Apparently "Paul" doesn't do it that way. too bad. Here's the review.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/paul-is-brain-dead/

From Me: I have to say I am not a fan of Seth Rogan. I don't think he is funny, and all the drug humor and vulgar humor is just not funny, and it is, in my opinion, a lazy way to get laughs.

I wonder why these Hollywood types never ask themselves the question “Would I insult Muslims like this?” Obviously they wouldn't. Why? And why then is it OK to take shots at Christianity?

 

[billc]

From Screenrant.com, a review of "paul" and a comment on it's anti-christian theme.

http://screenrant.com/paul-movie-re...+ScreenRant+(Screen+Rant+-+TV+and+Movie+News)

From the review:

Let’s hit the controversy, now, shall we? The inclusion of a heavy anti-religion message feels very out of place, and I think even folks who don’t have “Judeo-Christian beliefs” (quote from the film) will sense that. The supposed humor is wielded like a club – there’s no subtlety like in Monty Python’s Life of Brian or Kevin Smith’s Dogma (two films that poked fun at religion that I enjoyed). Now ruminate on that for a moment – I’m calling a Monty Python film subtle in comparison to this. Some people have stated that in this regard the film is not mean-spirited, and on that I call complete B.S. It could hardly be meaner – including a scene at the very end where there might have been a chance for at least a small bit of grace (yes, that’s an appropriate word for this), but instead it was another slap in the face. Oh, there’s also a cheap shot at the fact police use, like, GUNS here in the U.S.. I wouldn’t mind if it was actually funny – but again, club, over the head.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Michael Medved, a conservative radio host, covers hollywood a lot. He always quotes Barnum, or Bailey or some other entertainer that essentially says, "It is better to sell two tickets than one," as it applies to entertaining people. If you have a successful show, and you have an audience that is attracted to your show, shouldn't you at least show them some respect. Here is an article about the show Glee. Apparently they took a cheap shot at the tea party in a recent show.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/s...conservatives-wins-glaad-award-for-tolerance/

I haven't really watched Glee, but the premise seems like something people from a conservative end of the spectrum might like. Why alienate half of your audience, just for the sake of a cheap shot. And no, it's not about not being able to take a joke, this seems to be just a cheap shot.


From the article:

The initial reviews of this episode are pretty lousy, even from the show’s fans. And they all seem to single out the Kathy Griffin character as a “dud”. But, none of them understand the real reason why her character was a dud. I’ll explain it for them: Because it was a two-dimensional depiction of a conservative that was not based in any kind of reality or truth. The character was a cartoon image of a “Tea Partier” drawn by a group of writers who probably have never had a real conversation with one of us.

So... you are telling me the Tea Party is half responsible for the popularity of glee?... Bastards!

 

[yorkshirelad]

I wonder why these Hollywood types never ask themselves the question “Would I insult Muslims like this?” Obviously they wouldn't. Why? And why then is it OK to take shots at Christianity?

What about "Zohan" and "Team America World Police"?

 

[billc]

Team America made fun of everyone, in an actual funny way. They also showed the real bad guys in the world as the bad guys. Muslim Terrorists, Kim JUng Il, bugs from space, hollywood actors, all the bad guys were made fun of. And most of it was funny. You can make fun of everyone, and I repeat, no group should be exempt from being made fun of, but do it so people, especially the people being made fun of, can say, yeah, you got us, that is funny. I didn't like the throwing up scene and some of the over the top sex stuff was...a bit over the top.

Here is the question for Zohan, and I'll include Team AMerica, ( I didn't see Zohan), did it make fun of regular muslims or only the muslims that kill innocent people?

I guess the real seperating point, especially for team america is that they made real fun of the real bad guys. In my opinion there is no hands off policy on that. We should use all of the weapons we have against them, and one of them is humor.

***Even if they made fun of Muslims, or christians I would ask, could the muslims and christians also laugh at the jokes. When you make fun of men for example, most of the time guys will say, yeah, in a way that is us, so we will laugh. When it is mean, and meant to attack unfairly, that is the problem.

 

[billc]

A discussion about "paul" and "battle:L.A." from fim critic John Nolte at bighollywood.com. He points out that by attacking christians, they risked making money.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/j...geles-beats-debut-of-christian-trashing-paul/

From the article:

Why two actors, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, who bought an enormous amount of audience goodwill with “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” would choose to go out of their way to antagonize Christians with a $40 million investment on the line is beyond me. I guess their bigotry just got the best of them. Once you add advertising costs to that budget, you’re probably looking at another $25 million, which means the sci-fi comedy will probably have to clear somewhere in the area of $120 million just to break even. Good luck with that.

Word got out fairly early that “Paul” intended to sucker punch we Jesus freaks and it was a controversy that dogged the film in almost every interview I came across with the film’s two stars. Obviously, they tried to downplay the religious bigotry, which is odd. After all, if the entertainment industry is driven only by profit and greed, the Christian-bashing must have been a financial decision, not a political one — so why try to spin it away if it’s going to put more butts in seats?
When sympathetic, left-wing critics wondered if ”Paul’s” Christian bashing would be too much, you had to assume it was even worse than advertised. Well, according to our friends at Screen Rant, from both a decency and artistic standpoint, it’s even worse than I thought it would be:

 

[girlbug2]

What about "Zohan" and "Team America World Police"?

I didn't see Zohan, but about Team America World Police: Matt and Trey (the creators) have an avid hatred of Hollywood celebrities, and they stated that is the main reason they used puppets instead. They created, wrote, directed, and voiced their own movie.