There are simpler expalnations which do not involve resort to conspiracy theorizing,or even intemperate reference to your least favorite group.
The period running roughly from October to the start of the New Year traditionally sees the release of two types of flics:things expected to bomb out and lose money, and smallish, art-type movies, without or w/o names attached to them, which may make $$$$ but are expected to garner nominations for the major movies awards [Oscars, Golden Globes, etc...]. Perfect example:"Revolutionary Road" based on a turgid novel by Richard Yates written around 1960, dealing with the ever-original,done-to-death,John Updike/John Cheever territory of American suburban angst,starring Leo DiCaprio, Kate Winslett,and directed by Sam Menzes.This may or may not make money,but it's defintely going to get nominated for a bunch of awards.To release a movie like this in the summer blockbuster period would be foolish, as it would be swamped by space aliens,gangbangers,horny teenagers,Bruce Willis and other assorted genres the American cinema might easily do without.
Turning to Valkeyrie:possibly released at this time because of the percieved wierdness of Tom Cruise, specifically the belief/fear that he's lost his box-office appeal?As for Retribution,I find no mention of this film anywhere,so i cannot say.
Something for you, though.Check out a film "Waltz With Bashir."It's a foreign film, part live action and part animation, examinimg the "complicity" of the Israelis in the massarces of the Palestinains at the refugee camps in Beirut in September 1982.Directed by an Israeli, it's probably not as "truthful" as you and some others might like,but give it a go perhaps if it ever hits cable?
The timing on two movies from the obviously ethnically balanced Hollywood (yeah right) is kinda curious to me. One is called Valkerie and I saw a preview for another yesterday, some one word title, something like Retribution or something like that.
Anyway the plots seem similar, both movies are based on World War 2. I thought the masses were kinda turned off by any type of historical topic, especially as a basis for a 2 or 3 hour movie. That's probably a bit simplistic but I don't know, I just don't know how many regular people out there could give a damn about the fact that there was a plot to kill Adolf Hitler (the plot of Valkerie)?? I mean is there anyone who is going to see this who is not seeing it because Tom Cruise is in it.
Of course some jews will go see it to get there rocks off, another movie in which they are the "poor persecuted dears". I have already made a couple of wagers on the almost certainty that following the end of the movie there will be a somber display, complete with pictures and illustrations that "there were six million jews .....blah blah blah....that's a bonafide certainty unless I miss my educated guess. Not sure how I will be able to find out for sure if I am right because I don't intend to fork over a cent to see the cow splatter.
Anyway I think it is more than a coincidence that these movies are coming out now, with the world's economy crumbling (of course at no fault whatsoever of those persecuted dears) maybe meant to check the changing thoughts of those seeing reality despite having viewed schindlers list and all of the other guilt trip cryfests.
I just don't see the population as a whole giving a good goddamn about the premise of either of these movies. There are real problems people are having to deal with in the here and now and people are growing tired of this insistance that they mourn for people that they had no responsibility for "holocausting".
Aren't these flicks supposed to make money??? Why make them if they don't make money, for reasons of propaganda maybe???
First off, its "Valkyrie". Its not even a movie about the Holocaust, but a thriller from the director of "The Usual Suspects" about a plot to knock off Hitler from the inside. Third, IMDB currently lists it as the 4th highest grossing movie this weekend. So apparently you don't know shit about this either. Or is IMDB another Jewish-controlled media plot?
As for why did it come out now? You say because of the economy? Jesus, you are stupid. Do you think the movie just went into production within the past few months? Do you have any idea how long it takes to line up financing, coordinate schedules, film, edit, and then distribute? Or was it all planned so far in advance to be ready just now because two years ago or more some Jew behind a desk somewhere in Hollywood predicted a recession to occur now? By the way, did you notice that "Marley & Me" also came out now? Must be a plot by dog-lovers to distract us from their involvement in the current recession.
Next, IMDB does not even list any movie called "Retribution" as 2008.
Finally, what good is a wager from you? You've never owned up to the $100 self-made bet here on P&R when you were then PROVEN wrong.
I never claimed it was a movie about the holocaust (as if there could ever be too many right??), but my prediction on the ending still stands. I would have never claimed a movie about the holocaust would not have been a money maker, a large amount of people still like to pay for a good 3 hr guilt trip if they feel it will lessen their supposed responsibility for it all.
Tom Cruise sells movie tickets, never said that wasn't true.
I never said the movie was put into production for anyone purpose, the question was an open query to people who might not have as their number one agenda the defense of the tribe. You don't think the release of a certain movie would not be held off for one reason or another?? I don't know much about the industry, and don't care to know, but I am sure movies don't go straight to the theaters or even to video the day after they are finished in the studios.
I guess everything is one big coincidence to the most dim-minded among us.
I still don't recall this bet you insist I made, but please tell me how one would deliver $100 to your whiny ass, a way in which I could escape the possibility of you sending something less desirable back my way.
-- Modified on 12/28/2008 2:48:09 PM
"By the way, did you notice that "Marley & Me" also came out now? Must be a plot by dog-lovers to distract us from their involvement in the current recession."
Now that you have brought it up aren't there a lot of dogs named Barney???
well, I can think of one purple dinosaur. Must be an infiltrator.
Well at least your using a different tactic now. Instead of calling me names like a 2nd grader, your using the old "lets act as if anyone who doesn't speak of zionism and jews in a glorius light is a conspiracy nut who makes yearly treks out to Roswell for reunions."
Did Jon Stewart (why change the last name ey,were all just one big happy family Jon) teach you that tactic????
I find that using that tactic in reverse is starting to cause increasing laughter in the other direction - at the chosen.
There are simpler expalnations which do not involve resort to conspiracy theorizing,or even intemperate reference to your least favorite group.
The period running roughly from October to the start of the New Year traditionally sees the release of two types of flics:things expected to bomb out and lose money, and smallish, art-type movies, without or w/o names attached to them, which may make $$$$ but are expected to garner nominations for the major movies awards [Oscars, Golden Globes, etc...]. Perfect example:"Revolutionary Road" based on a turgid novel by Richard Yates written around 1960, dealing with the ever-original,done-to-death,John Updike/John Cheever territory of American suburban angst,starring Leo DiCaprio, Kate Winslett,and directed by Sam Menzes.This may or may not make money,but it's defintely going to get nominated for a bunch of awards.To release a movie like this in the summer blockbuster period would be foolish, as it would be swamped by space aliens,gangbangers,horny teenagers,Bruce Willis and other assorted genres the American cinema might easily do without.
Turning to Valkeyrie:possibly released at this time because of the percieved wierdness of Tom Cruise, specifically the belief/fear that he's lost his box-office appeal?As for Retribution,I find no mention of this film anywhere,so i cannot say.
Something for you, though.Check out a film "Waltz With Bashir."It's a foreign film, part live action and part animation, examinimg the "complicity" of the Israelis in the massarces of the Palestinains at the refugee camps in Beirut in September 1982.Directed by an Israeli, it's probably not as "truthful" as you and some others might like,but give it a go perhaps if it ever hits cable?
You bring up some good points and facts there in that post.
I want to make known that I don't see the release of this movie, its timing, or anything surrounding either of them as a conspiracy of any kind. Hidden and stealthy conspiracies are really yesterdays news in the present text as America's and the West's enemies seem as if they care not to really conceal their outrages anymore, call it arrogance I guess. I just think they(the movies) are a little self serving but hey its their business on what movies they produce I guess.
I can appreciate a good film or even an individual (I was a casual supporter of Ron Paul) that speaks "a little bit of the truth" regarding the ills of the West at present though I don't believe that is the proper way to confront things, I prefer the direct approach. I will keep my eyes out for that film.
-- Modified on 12/28/2008 3:07:47 PM
There's so much wrong here it's hard to figure out where to start, but here are couple of points. If you think that "the masses were kinda turned off by any type of historical topic, especially as a basis for a 2 or 3 hour movie" then you are completely out of touch. The biggest moneymaker of all time with more than $1.8 billion was a 3 hour and 14 minute movie of a historical topic, Titanic.
The appeal of this movie for me has nothing to do with Tom Cruise. It's an interesting topic -- a plot to kill Hitler -- and its from the same writer and director who created The Usual Suspects, one of my favorite movies ever. The track record of the people behind the camera is usually a better indicator of the potential for a movie than the people in front.
As I said the historical comment was simplistic. The point was that the overall topic with regard to specific dates, names and figures is lost on most of the public. I mean most people can't even tell you who the last vice president was before Cheney, why should anyone think they should know anything about "some guys that wanted to assasinate Hitler".
Again star appeal will sell the film. I would surmise that a large majority of the people still wont be able to name the players involved in the plot even after viewing the film, certainly not a week afterward.
And it seems as if something else might be risked in this whole matter. The media always paints Hitler out to be a paranoid crank, especially toward the end of the war. Doesn't this production give some credance to this supposed paranoia being totally justified?? Was it blind paranoia if the threat was indeed real??? The masters know better than to be concerned that joe and jill sixpack will even think about this but what about the perceptive minority??
-- Modified on 12/28/2008 4:20:25 PM
Nah, went to that site once and I wasn't that impressed. Believe it or not I really wouldn't fit in that well with the ku kluxers and the like.
Your ignorance is only exceeded by your stupidity. No name calling involved here, just the facts.
Let's see. Ignorance can be overcome by knowledge, stupidity OTOH is forever. Yep, you got it right. His ignorance "IS" exceeded by his stupidity. lmao
You are babbling again.
Joel Stein no doubt wrote this with tongue-in-cheeck intent,but it's easy to see how this could be misconstrued,especially if one undertakes either Talmudic or Jesuitical parsings of the word "control."Perhaps it makes an ironic coda to today's exchange.
Whether a movie (or TV program, or book) is popular is more a question of the the quality of the treatment than the specific plot.
As has been pointed out numerous times, there are only a handful of plots (e.g., see Shakespeare).
To keep the WWII theme going just a bit longer, one example of a very unpromising plot concerns Allied POWs locked up in a camp deep in Germany. The POWs plan a break-out of several hundred, but only a handful escape to freedom. All the rest are captured, and in the penultimate scene over 50 of them are taken out (on Hitler's direct orders) and machine-gunned to death.
I'll admit it doesn't sound very promising as a high-budget Hollywood film. But with some high-powered stars of the time like Steve McQueen and James Garner, a world-class director like John Sturges, a screenplay by James Clavell (later author of "Shogun"), and an energized musical score by Elmer Berstein (yes, another one of those "jews"), and you have one of the best movies of 1963. Indeed it's repeatedly been voted one of the best 'guy' movies of all time.
It's been shown recently over the Holidays on Turner Classic Movies (TCM on your cable).
It's all a question of execution.
But then, ts26, I suppose I've already lost your interest, as I mentioned Jews only once and then in a positive light.
-- Modified on 12/29/2008 12:56:22 PM
Very Good Movie. ts26:
I'm sure I allowed it be made since it rarely talked about Jews at all. I really must have been out of the office that day. Remember, all the WWII movies made about the Pacific Theatre were meant as a distraction. You are one of the very few who realize we are still trying to brain wash America to think that Jews are perfect and can do no wrong. It is difficult to overcome the small, intelligent portion of the county who know we are trying to destroy Christmas with the current recession. We control all the banks in the county so we can afford the heavy losses. If you want, you can come to our weakly meeting at Katz Deli downtown where we decide the fate of the movie industry and county. This week we are plotting against the non-believers who are money managers.
How does this all sound. When you read this does it really ring true? You couldn't be that brain dead that you can not think for yourself.
What you said is so laughable, there is no good place to start. Sorry I rambled. I must have stumbled into Alice and Wonderland.