Doesn't Hollywood justify its products by meeting viewer "demands"? Someone didn't do their marketing analysis very well.
2006-09-30 16:56:11 · 14 answers · asked by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
because Hollywood is NOT Christian, they're Anti-Christians
2006-09-30 17:00:59 · answer #1 · answered by I-C-U 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
May not be so much him finding anyone, many would have jumped at it, even though the subject matter is senstive.
More like control. If he had people actively backing it, he'd had to go through committee.
MOST studios would NOT have allowed it to be done in Latin. Movies with subtitles tend to be sudden death.
So that would have been the first NO and He may have approached every studio and without exception I can tell you they would say ENGLISH must be spoken.
Their caution is self evident. How many subtitled films have you watched before it and after it.
Generally they take a film, such as La Femme Nikita and re-make it into an English speaking film with Ameican actors to assure more success.
You will note, Francois Truffetts biggest success financially was his English speaking film versioin of "Farenheit 451"
Have you seen Fannie and Alexander? Have you seen Z? Those are two big subtitled films with wide distribution. I've seen them both. Along with "Cries and Whispers" by Bergman.
I think he made a FATAL mistake historically, because they should have been speaking Greek. Ancient Greek. Latin was his Roman Catholic influcence as a child when they spoke everything in LAtin.
2006-09-30 17:04:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
From what I've heard Hollywood still has not figured out that Christians will attend movies like this that are Biblically accurate or reflect good values (not like the Noah film produced by Hallmark that was so inaccurate it looked like the author did not actually read the Bible before writing the script).
But that means that writer's have to be willing not to push the envelope for artistic reasons. Instead, if Hollywood decides to cater more to the family values, I think you will see that Christians will go to more movies.
Right now, there are a lot of movies I cannot stomach and won't send my family to see because the logic and moral values are so twisted.
2006-09-30 17:02:23 · answer #3 · answered by Searcher 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hello did you watch it? My husband and I cried like babies from almost the beginning of it. I will not be able to watch it again. I would say it was a profound statement that needed to be made and the movie was probably less violent than what actually took place but I am a mother. I could not deal with what Mary must have felt. However, Hollywood is about money. And since religion is not what one would call a lucrative film making investment in general, I think they were just afraid to spend the kind of money the project would require in order to be tastefully done. And many of the big wigs in show biz are Jewish and were offended because it showed them in a negative light.
2006-09-30 17:06:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Hollywood is out of touch with the public. Have you ever noticed that a very high percentage of the films coming out of there are either remakes or sequels. They have no idea what will work so they just keep coming out with formula movies that have worked in the past.
2006-09-30 19:16:29 · answer #5 · answered by unicorn 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not a failure on Mel's part. The failure lies with seriously bigoted and anti-Christian Hollywood.
If you look at what Hollywood considers good movies, it should make the stomachs of decent people sick. Their idea of a movie with good values is Brokeback Mountain a movie about an abomination to God.
2006-09-30 17:06:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Lol, i'd not evaluate it to be a "sadomasochist snuff" movie even with the indisputable fact that it develop into particularly undesirable, truly between the most violent ones I truly have ever considered. "could human beings be put in detention middle and their kids put in protecting amenities for permitting their little ones to work out it?" definite, no newborn should be observing that movie.
2016-12-04 02:13:01 · answer #7 · answered by Erika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Could it be because most of H-wood is owned by Zionists and they don't much like Christ?
It was rated R? I didn't know that. Why? Lots of films nowadays have lots of (fake) blood and (fake) violence.
It had no English or subtitles? I didn't know that.
I thought it was pretty good.
"a politician ain't got an HMO" - Rodney Carrington
2006-09-30 17:39:38 · answer #8 · answered by sincere12_26 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Could it have something to do with the fact that he wanted the entire film done in a DEAD LANGUAGE WITH NO SUBTITLES?!?!?
Get your conspiracy-laden heads out of your a**es and look at practicalities.
2006-09-30 17:09:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because Hollywood didn't want to be associated with a Movie that very accurately depicted the last days of Jesus Christ. And because it was a Christian movie. I have seen the movie, and I loved it. Cried every time I watched it. But it's very powerful and moving, because it is a depiction of how much Jesus loves us, that he gave his life to take away our sins.
2006-09-30 17:00:54 · answer #10 · answered by Bryan M 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think the plot line just seemed too violent and unbelievable.
2006-09-30 17:08:09 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋