![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Declaration Entertainment
Jun. 28th, 2010 10:16 amSo, over at Simberg's Flying Circus, Rand is hyping the launch of Declaration Entertainment. This is a membership-based program where the membership fees are used to fund "pro-American" movies. As far as I can tell, the leader of the organization is Bill Whittle, a conservative blogger who has had some involvement in Hollywood movie-making.
Now, don't get me wrong. If Bill Whittle, Rand Simberg or whomever want to form their own movie company and make movies, more power to them. Heck, if the movies are any good, I'll go see them. I may have to tear up my Super Secret Liberal Card, but I actually liked the 1984 movie Red Dawn, and will probably go see the remake, if it ever gets to a screen.
I do, however, think that The Usual Suspects are operating under faulty assumptions. See, Rand, et. al., are arguing that Hollywood is "blacklisting" conservatives, and deliberately making "anti-American" movies because they sell well overseas and to foreign investors. First off, if true, all I can say is "welcome to the free market, boys." (See why movie businessmen are murderers for another example of faulty assumptions.)
Second, I don't think it is true. To understand that, read Kun Fu Monkey's take on the conservative flop An American Carol. David Zucker got $20 million to lampoon Michael Moore. His movie grossed just under $8 million.
Corporate Hollywood is like any other large corporation. They want to make a product that appeals to the largest audience possible, which usually means as non-controversial as possible. Yes, controversial movies do get made. But, they tend to be small-budget pictures with limited release, done to please major Hollywood players. For example, Redacted, Valley of Elam, two movies that were released to a mere handful of screens. An American Carol released to 1600 screens, was supposed to be a big hit.
In short, it appears to me that movies get made based on that free-ist of free market principles, what the money people think will sell. So I sincerely wish Bill Whittle well. If one of his projects is a hit, I suspect Hollywood will come knock on his door, checkbook in hand. If not, they won't.
Now, don't get me wrong. If Bill Whittle, Rand Simberg or whomever want to form their own movie company and make movies, more power to them. Heck, if the movies are any good, I'll go see them. I may have to tear up my Super Secret Liberal Card, but I actually liked the 1984 movie Red Dawn, and will probably go see the remake, if it ever gets to a screen.
I do, however, think that The Usual Suspects are operating under faulty assumptions. See, Rand, et. al., are arguing that Hollywood is "blacklisting" conservatives, and deliberately making "anti-American" movies because they sell well overseas and to foreign investors. First off, if true, all I can say is "welcome to the free market, boys." (See why movie businessmen are murderers for another example of faulty assumptions.)
Second, I don't think it is true. To understand that, read Kun Fu Monkey's take on the conservative flop An American Carol. David Zucker got $20 million to lampoon Michael Moore. His movie grossed just under $8 million.
Corporate Hollywood is like any other large corporation. They want to make a product that appeals to the largest audience possible, which usually means as non-controversial as possible. Yes, controversial movies do get made. But, they tend to be small-budget pictures with limited release, done to please major Hollywood players. For example, Redacted, Valley of Elam, two movies that were released to a mere handful of screens. An American Carol released to 1600 screens, was supposed to be a big hit.
In short, it appears to me that movies get made based on that free-ist of free market principles, what the money people think will sell. So I sincerely wish Bill Whittle well. If one of his projects is a hit, I suspect Hollywood will come knock on his door, checkbook in hand. If not, they won't.
