If you are inclined to agree with Rush Limbaugh, it is possible you agree with his contention that The Dark Knight Rises is liberal propaganda smearing Mitt Romney.
“Do you think it is accidental that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed, whatever-it-is villain in this movie is named Bane?" Limbaugh asked on his radio show. He added, “So this evil villain in the new Batman movie is named Bane. And there's discussion out there as to whether or not this was purposeful and whether or not it will influence voters. It's going to have a lot of people. The audience is going to be huge. A lot of people are going to see the movie. And it's a lot of brain-dead people -- entertainment, the pop culture crowd -- and they're going to hear Bane in the movie and they're going to associate Bain.”
Never mind that Bane was created and introduced in 1993. Or that the third entry in director Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy basically went into production the second after The Dark Knight hit theaters in 2008 and selected Bane as its villain long before Romney was the last GOP presidential candidate standing.
Limbaugh’s reaction was predictable. He and many other conservatives never pass on an opportunity to bash Hollywood and lament what they see as rampant liberalism in mainstream movies. It happens at least a few times a year. Back in February The Lorax was accused of brainwashing kids with pro-environment propaganda.
The problem with these claims is that Hollywood only cares about one color, and it’s not blue. Yes, there is no shortage of liberals in the entertainment industry. But that is a matter of personal politics. Movie studios need their products to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. They are aggressively seeking the best possible return on their investments.
The fact is movie studios now are part of huge corporations. Universal is controlled by Comcast. Columbia is part of the Sony family. Paramount is part of Viacom. And what are the primary objectives of corporations? Maximize shareholder value and turn a profit. Make as much money as humanly possible. Everything else is secondary.
Hollywood will jump on any trend if it thinks there is money in it. Right now cheaply made “found footage” horror movies are popular. They are low risk, high reward.
Another example of this is faith-based films. After the runaway success of The Passion of the Christ, numerous studios got involved in producing and distributing movies aimed at viewers of faith. Sony Pictures Entertainment has Affirm Films. Their titles include Courageous and Fireproof. Samuel Goldwyn Films occasionally releases faith-based films including this year’s October Baby. New Line, part of Warner Bros. Entertainment, released The Nativity Story.
Often studios hold advanced screenings for churches to generate positive word of mouth with “spiritual” audiences even if the movie isn’t overtly faith-based. Prior to releasing Secretariat in 2010, Disney held screenings at large churches across the country.
The studios saw new revenue streams with these viewers. There was demand so they made sure to meet it. The same is true for the low-budget horror movies. After Paranormal Activity, everyone jumped on the bandwagon. The studios and the people running them just see dollar signs.
Warner Bros. spent $400 million to make and market The Dark Knight Rises. It needs to make far more than that to become profitable. The studio is not going to risk alienating millions of potential ticket buyers by making an overtly political film.
As The Hollywood Reporter points out today, there was a lot of debate about the politics of The Dark Knight. Both conservatives and liberals found ideological messages in it and the same will probably be true of The Dark Knight Rises. Many viewers will read into it what they want to and seek to find messages that are aligned with their beliefs.
However one feels about the movie and its content, the only thing the studio cares about is whether or not you buy a ticket.
Maybe you should, so you would have a more rounded view for your next blog. Otherwise "So is the sucker actually the one making assumptions without really knowing what they speak of?", is nothing more than a commentary on yourself.
You don't consider Lionsgate to be a major Hollywood player? They're publicly traded on the NYSE for heaven's sake! They have more quarterly output and revenue than is generated by MGM/UA! "The art house divisions are not really for direct-to-DVD movies." Really? And how many Fox Searchlight pictures received a theatrical release? The art-house divisions are where the studios tend to put the documentary product that they pick-up, isn't it? And how is a majority of the product that is released and distributed through the art-house divisions done exactly? I'll help you out here - direct-to-video. "They are for Oscar bait and serious stuff more than anything." You mean they're not all about making money? Many of those films are funded with government tax credits and art endowment grants. "I think people probably see the bias they want to see in the films HBO makes." Yeah, because it's totally not apparent. Game Change (2012) was 100% historically accurate and provided an accurate depiction of the people portrayed in the film, right? But isn't there a problem when the actual people who are portrayed in the film come out and say that the film is little more than a politically biased hit job that totally distorts the truth of what really happened? Come on!
Lionsgate is a major Hollywood player, sure, now more than they were back when they released Moore movies. They're not Paramount or Universal though.
Obvious left wing connection if you ask me...
I believe Rush would call this a media tweak and fell face first into it.
When Lionsgate merged with Trimark Pictures, their combined rental and home video distribution system became far better than anything that either Viacom (Paramount) or MCA Universal has in such regard.
While some of these polititainment shows are interesting, they are no substitute for independent research and should serve as a starting point for that research rather than oracles. There are many Batman movies and I have seen very few of them. I'll confess I enjoy movies for entertainment value, but real life is far more exciting!
As far as radio pundits go, there is no comparison to the great Michael Savage!
I think I told you my fondness for the Burton/Keaton Batman films once before, on FB, and you had the same reaction :-) How can Batman get any better than Burton directing, Keaton as Batman, Nicholson as the Joker, Michael Gough as Alfred, the best Batmobile ever to grace the screen, and a soundtrack from Prince?!?! That film inspired a ride at Six Flags for heaven's sakes, and the sequel a live stage show at the theme park! OK, I admit I love B-movies and am biased to the '80's/'90's nostalgia factor! Not to mention that I find it hard to embrace most of the new / young blood acting talent, although Bale's not bad. I also prefer Roger Corman's unreleased 1994 version of the 'Fantastic Four' to the Hollywood films!
The Schumacher films were absolutely HORRID stinkers not worthy of the franchise!!!
BTW - we haven't had a blog in quite some time from you!
The latest pack is grim and excessive. How many times can Bruce Wayne get wiped out?
That's funny - I would have figured you for a George Clooney as Batman fan! Come on - Burton also benefited from Danny Elfman's score and original music from Prince which is far more iconic and 'Batman like' than Hans Zimmers work and any of the songs used in the Dark Knight series. Just compare these two scenes and you'll see there's no comparison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc_encIvqQ8 Now, let's compare the stats on Batman: The Ride vs The Dark Knight Coaster: Batman: The Ride Height 105 ft Length 2,694 ft Speed 50 mph Inversions 5 Duration 2:00 The Dark Knight Coaster: Height 45 ft Length 1,213 ft Speed 30 mph Inversions 0 Duration 2:00 See, even Six Flags recognizes that Burton and Keaton own Nolan and Bale! Case closed ;-)