while participating in the AMC movie theatre thread, i was reminded of a movie i would really like to have seen at this point, but promised myself i would avoid due to it being HEAVILY populated with loud-mouthed, anti-gun, celebritards. the departed looks very entertaining; it got terrific reviews as well. but look who is in it. mark wahlberg, matt damon, martin sheen...........that's just too much for me. i know that my 8 or 10 bucks does very little to contribute to their paychecks, but in the end, however little, i am still contributing. what are your opinions? assuming you really enjoy movies, as i do, is it worth denying yourself that pleasure in the name of NOT contributing to the wealth of ignorant, mis-informed, delusional, self-obsessed hypocrites??
does it make sense to boycott movies with rabid anti-gun actors?
- Thread starter carlrodd
- Start date
- Status
well...if the mere thought of matt dameon disgusts you, you wouldn't enjoy the movie. If you can look past that then why not? Your money goes to more evil people than hollywood anti-gunners. Think where the money from tennis shoes go to. I only avoid movies where the mere image of an actor/actress disgusts me that I can't enjoy anything else. Like Nicolas Cage in anything...
Ramius
Member
Not only a good idea, it's WORKING
I think it's a great idea, and even though the movie companies act as if they don't know or care, they ARE getting the message, slowly.
Been keeping up with movie attendence figures? They are way down this year, again, with a few exceptions- and most of those exceptions do not involve anti USA, anti Freedom movies.
I personally plan to pass on the next James Bond flick, after hearing some of the quotes from the actor playing Bond. Doesn't hurt that the movies keep getting sillier and sillier.
Hang in there- we are winning!
I think it's a great idea, and even though the movie companies act as if they don't know or care, they ARE getting the message, slowly.
Been keeping up with movie attendence figures? They are way down this year, again, with a few exceptions- and most of those exceptions do not involve anti USA, anti Freedom movies.
I personally plan to pass on the next James Bond flick, after hearing some of the quotes from the actor playing Bond. Doesn't hurt that the movies keep getting sillier and sillier.
Hang in there- we are winning!
Cosmoline
Member
95% of movies today are garbage anyway. Most of what I watch was made before 1960. Almost all the major actors in them are long dead. James Mason may have had some bizarre political ideas, but who cares? Besides Ward Bond balances him out.
In 20 years, people are going to look at Sillywood's A list films and wonder what the devil we were smoking. The good stuff these days is on TV, such as the new "Battlestar Gallactica"--a show that happens to feature one of the only surviving actors from "The Thin Man" series.
In 20 years, people are going to look at Sillywood's A list films and wonder what the devil we were smoking. The good stuff these days is on TV, such as the new "Battlestar Gallactica"--a show that happens to feature one of the only surviving actors from "The Thin Man" series.
Deanimator
Member
I don't go to see crappy movies on general principle.
Most of the movies featuring prominent nitwits are garbage anyway.
I see MAYBE 1-2 movies a year.
I'd rather watch a good movie on Turner Classic Movies.
If it's a choice between Saw III and The Maltese Falcon, it's not a hard choice...
Most of the movies featuring prominent nitwits are garbage anyway.
I see MAYBE 1-2 movies a year.
I'd rather watch a good movie on Turner Classic Movies.
If it's a choice between Saw III and The Maltese Falcon, it's not a hard choice...
Joe Demko
Member
If you are on a quest for ideological purity, then don't buy anything made in PRC, Pakistan, or assorted other repressive places from which we import consumer goods. Matt Daemon has done far less than the PRC government to violate human rights, if it makes you feel better to boycott him, please go ahead and do so. Oh, and don't forget the money you give those swell Saudis every time you tank up.
M2 Carbine
member
Most anti gun actors are also anti military, anti Constitution, anti American, leftest liberals, so I despise them for what they are, not only because of their anti gun stupidity.
I can't stand to hear them speak and I sure don't want to see them in a movie.
Not that I have been to a movie theater in thirty years anyhow.
I can't stand to hear them speak and I sure don't want to see them in a movie.
Not that I have been to a movie theater in thirty years anyhow.
I only avoid movies where the mere image of an actor/actress disgusts me that I can't enjoy anything else. Like Nicolas Cage in anything...
oooops....sorry to be off-topic in my own thread, but +1 on nicolas cage....he's the worst. and for being exlusively about firearms, that lord of war was awful.
in the past, i have been able to overlook the personal politics of actors, but in the past couple of years, i just have a very hard time even watching some of these guys. i saw an interview with matt damon on some news program....he was being asked about how he felt being in such a violent movie(the departed), given that he has such strong views on violence and guns. he claimed that the violence in the movie came with severe consequences for all the characters. wow. he should run for office with those sorts of responses. i'm sure his multi-million dollar paycheck helped asuage the guilt too.
oooops....sorry to be off-topic in my own thread, but +1 on nicolas cage....he's the worst. and for being exlusively about firearms, that lord of war was awful.
in the past, i have been able to overlook the personal politics of actors, but in the past couple of years, i just have a very hard time even watching some of these guys. i saw an interview with matt damon on some news program....he was being asked about how he felt being in such a violent movie(the departed), given that he has such strong views on violence and guns. he claimed that the violence in the movie came with severe consequences for all the characters. wow. he should run for office with those sorts of responses. i'm sure his multi-million dollar paycheck helped asuage the guilt too.
jason10mm
Member
By not paying to see their movies you will reduce the box office take, whihc will reduce the actors take from the next movie, which will eventually snowball, forcing the actor into marginal roles and limit the national soapbox they have access to. Look at Danny Glover. He was HUGE at one point, but really just a footnote now. Maybe that was due to poor movie roles, maybe it was due to a huge national cold shoulder marginalizing him.
One good thing is that these brouhahaing actors will eventually hang themselves if given enough attention. Look at Sean Penn, Tom Cruise, etc. They will all self-destruct eventually. That combined with the liberals insatiable need for new faces means we rarely have to tolerate any one particular "actor turned spokesperson" for very long.
Personally I could care less if an actor is anti-gun, I think most of them are self-deluded wastes of space anyway. Think about all those "theater majors" know knew in college and high school. Where they really the most stable and manly of men?
But it really gets me when an action star makes a few blood soaked flicks and then pontificate about how immoral it all is. I suppose most of it comes from the crowd most actors associate with. When all your feedback is from pansey California/NYC/Miami liberals, naturally any conservative/pro-gun sentiments dive underground.
One good thing is that these brouhahaing actors will eventually hang themselves if given enough attention. Look at Sean Penn, Tom Cruise, etc. They will all self-destruct eventually. That combined with the liberals insatiable need for new faces means we rarely have to tolerate any one particular "actor turned spokesperson" for very long.
Personally I could care less if an actor is anti-gun, I think most of them are self-deluded wastes of space anyway. Think about all those "theater majors" know knew in college and high school. Where they really the most stable and manly of men?
But it really gets me when an action star makes a few blood soaked flicks and then pontificate about how immoral it all is. I suppose most of it comes from the crowd most actors associate with. When all your feedback is from pansey California/NYC/Miami liberals, naturally any conservative/pro-gun sentiments dive underground.
jsdavenport
Member
I did go see the departed, for the record we had free coupons so technically I didn't give them any money. lol 
Anyway, IMO you didn't miss/aren't missing anything. I think it was one of the worst things ever put on film. The better half and I started to leave after about 30 min's into it but we dedided it "had to get better" so we stayed. It did get better though, when the credits started and we could leave, it was a lot better.
But anyway, long story short, it sucked and yes I should have boycotted it.
Anyway, IMO you didn't miss/aren't missing anything. I think it was one of the worst things ever put on film. The better half and I started to leave after about 30 min's into it but we dedided it "had to get better" so we stayed. It did get better though, when the credits started and we could leave, it was a lot better.
But anyway, long story short, it sucked and yes I should have boycotted it.
Joe Demko
Member
I'm curious why you find this to be a trait of liberals.
I think it's funny how liberal movie directors make the most violent films.
John Mctiernan said the scene in Predator where they fire a huge barrage of ammuntion into the jungle at the Predator was basically an anti-gun statement. After the scene the characters go search the area to see if they killed it. The one character states: "We hit nothing", which is meant to show the impotence of guns. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but whatever.
I also think it's funny that the biggest anti-gun advocates are people who have never fired a real gun and have no interest in them other than to ban them. It's easy to be for banning something you have no interest in. I'm sure half these anti-gun actors have bodyguards who carry some sort of firearm. Thats fine though, when you an elitist you know whats good for everyone else.
John Mctiernan said the scene in Predator where they fire a huge barrage of ammuntion into the jungle at the Predator was basically an anti-gun statement. After the scene the characters go search the area to see if they killed it. The one character states: "We hit nothing", which is meant to show the impotence of guns. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but whatever.
I also think it's funny that the biggest anti-gun advocates are people who have never fired a real gun and have no interest in them other than to ban them. It's easy to be for banning something you have no interest in. I'm sure half these anti-gun actors have bodyguards who carry some sort of firearm. Thats fine though, when you an elitist you know whats good for everyone else.
Last edited:
I don't know what he meant, but here's what I see:
Environmental extremist groups, "animal rights" groups, peaceniks, anti-gunners, et al. do try to get or create fresh celebrity faces to represent them.
This is not a trait of everyone who is a "liberal"; it's a trait of various "liberal" movements.
Yes.
Especially if those hypocrites are starring in an action movie where the bodycount is in the hundreds/thousands and they use a firearm themselves.
If they really think guns are bad then they should put their money where their mouth is instead of glorifying violence and murder and lawlessness and then blaming it on me.
Screw em all, I haven't wasted money on a seat in a theatre since Star Wars Ep3 and I don't plan on going back.
Especially if those hypocrites are starring in an action movie where the bodycount is in the hundreds/thousands and they use a firearm themselves.
If they really think guns are bad then they should put their money where their mouth is instead of glorifying violence and murder and lawlessness and then blaming it on me.
Screw em all, I haven't wasted money on a seat in a theatre since Star Wars Ep3 and I don't plan on going back.
Gordon Fink
Member
I see that some of you set aside your righteous indignation long enough to come out of your caves and post messages on the Internet.
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
To add to my previous post, I don't think my behind has seen the inside of a theater since 1999, so I guess I've been boycotting for quite some time by now. I've only began to think of it as a boycott over the last two or three years though. I feel that if they want to use their fame to promote agendas I don't agree with then I shouldn't contribute to that fame. Besides, I'd rather watch an old Humphrey Bogart movie for the tenth time than anything Tom Cruise has done lately anyway.
“The United States has become a place where entertainers and professional athletes are mistaken for people of importance.”
-Robert A. Heinlein
“The United States has become a place where entertainers and professional athletes are mistaken for people of importance.”
-Robert A. Heinlein
No
If an actor is a poor actor or the director is a poor director or the writer is a poor writer I'm not interested in their product any more than I'm interested in a poor quality product produced by any company. If an employee of that company is vocally anti-something that doesn't mean that they speak for that company. As long as the quality of the product is sufficient I don't hold the company acountable for the non-work related activities of their employees.
If the movie, on the other hand, intentionally works against our RKBA goals then that movie, that company, is against me and I won't use their product.
If an actor is a poor actor or the director is a poor director or the writer is a poor writer I'm not interested in their product any more than I'm interested in a poor quality product produced by any company. If an employee of that company is vocally anti-something that doesn't mean that they speak for that company. As long as the quality of the product is sufficient I don't hold the company acountable for the non-work related activities of their employees.
If the movie, on the other hand, intentionally works against our RKBA goals then that movie, that company, is against me and I won't use their product.
ZeSpectre
Member
I try to vote with my wallet as much as possible. See I've had to spend a portion of my (very precious to me) time in order to get that money so I am pretty fussy about who/what/where I'll spend it on.
Does anyone have evidence to back the opinion that boycotting anti-gun movies/actors is the reason box office takes are depressed?
Calling it "boycotting" may not even be the right word, since it implies some form of organization and protest - the party you're boycotting needs to know that you're doing it.
Calling it "boycotting" may not even be the right word, since it implies some form of organization and protest - the party you're boycotting needs to know that you're doing it.
Prince Yamato
Member
...And that ladies and gentlemen is why I stick to Lindsay Lohann movies, not only is she hot, but she said that she wanted to learn to shoot a gun (for personal protection) before she visited the troops in Iraq.
bogie
Member
I think that we, as a group, can have an effect on marketability... If they don't put butts in seats, they don't get hired again. Works for me. Look at the Dixie Chicks, Rosie O, etc., etc...
Too many of these folks think that they're as important as their publicists say they are... So I avoid them. I like early U2, for instance, but I don't really wanna put bux in bono's pockets...
Too many of these folks think that they're as important as their publicists say they are... So I avoid them. I like early U2, for instance, but I don't really wanna put bux in bono's pockets...
- Status