Hollywood’s latest anti-Second Amendment movie has historically horrible opening weekend
- Thread starter CoRoMo
- Start date
- Status
Deanimator
Member
It's like all of the dim witted "anti-war" (anti-American, really) movies made during the Bush administration.
To paraphrase a famous show business saying, "Give the public what they don't want, and they won't turn out for it."
The producers live in their own little pocket universe, inaccessible by normal people.
They might as well be making documentaries on 15th century Tuscan shoemakers...
To paraphrase a famous show business saying, "Give the public what they don't want, and they won't turn out for it."
The producers live in their own little pocket universe, inaccessible by normal people.
They might as well be making documentaries on 15th century Tuscan shoemakers...
Squire Western
member
The pre debut reviews were mainly quite scathing and many predicted a bomb. They were correct. Short of a miracle it will never get back its production costs of 20 million.
Guns are in. Anti- gun movies are box office poison.
Guns are in. Anti- gun movies are box office poison.
everydefense
Member
I might've seen one advertisement for this movie, but I had no clue this was the topic. Glad to see it is failing miserably. Star Wars: Rogue One will take center stage and stomp out any last gasps at relevancy for this movie later this week, and that will be that.
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
The elites in Hollywood assume that they know more than the people of Middle America what was better for them.
At no point in modern times has the yawning schism between the left-leaning, out-of-touch media elite and average, working Americans been more apparent.
VThillman
Member
Hah. They could have done it for less than $20,000,000, seems like. that's not making significant pocket change.
Shanghai McCoy
Member
fastbolt
Member
It appears as though the concession snack bars probably made more money. I wonder how quickly it will be pulled from the theaters? They're in business to attract customers, after all.
sirgilligan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2010
- Messages
- 895
Absolutely correct. Many many many people thought Hillary had this. This was timed for her win. I can even imagine that Hillary would have given the movie a shout out in an interview. And if there had been an incident that made the national news Hillary and others would have leveraged the incident to boost the movie and prepare everyone for Hillary's common sense new restrictions.
Dog Soldier
member
The Anti-Second Amendment Orgs are fading away. The rise in firearms ownership the most in history. The fastest growing sector of gun ownership is female. 
Squire Western
member
The Anti-Second Amendment Orgs are fading away. The rise in firearms ownership the most in history. The fastest growing sector of gun ownership is female.
Sounds like a great trifecta to me!
RPRNY
Member
Wow. You mean the average American movie goer ISN'T interested in an inside-baseball film about lobbyists and public policy? That shocks me. Really. If only Clooney were in it, it could have done even worse.
Old Dog
Member
Hollywood has yet to figure out that most movie-goers don't spend the ridiculous prices it costs to go to a theater these days just to get preached at. We don't want a message, we want to be entertained.
Hard to make money with films not aimed at adolescents.
Your average American moviegoer appears to be a 14 year old boy that likes comic books, car chases, zombies, magic and post apocalyptic melodrama.
AZAndy
Member
Even though Ms. Chastain is an exceptional actperson, her involvement is not enough to make me want to see it.
AlexanderA
Member
The East and West Coast media and academic circles are living in their own bubble. They had Hillary convinced that gun control was a winning issue. Actually, her stance on gun control cost her the critical margin among blue-collar voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. I believe that history will show that gun control was as much a disaster for the Democrats in 2016 as it was in 1994.
First time I've heard that. Where'd you read that?
Dog Soldier
member
AlexA, Thanks for your analysis. That has to be the facts. But will anyone publish these facts. They were worried about women with college degrees that lived in urban areas? They should have worried about gun owners who are NRA Members.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
I'd like the hard stats, too; I've seen it inferred elsewhere, but was not aware of explicit polling (i.e. they extrapolate the demographics of new CHL permits or people who poll in opposition to gun control vs. last election & try to determine how many of them "would have" voted Democrat last go around, but didn't this time presumably from gun control).
The idea of gun owners costing Hillary the election is pretty straightforward, though, especially considering how the election worked out as far as popular vs. electoral college vote. Rural, sub-urban, and many red-state urban areas strongly disfavor gun control at this point, and her entire campaign was predicated on the blue metropolis' outweighing the representation of everyone else. In hindsight, it's a needless handicap to one's ambitions because of the amplifying effect the electoral college has on rural states (i.e. in specifically alienating those folks by chasing unpopular measures like gun control, you have effectively raised the margin by which you must win to at least several percentage points above a bare majority; a really dumb tactic when your only support comes from people who are quite unenthusiastic to start with)
To be fair, it's not all Hillary's fault, and the tactic worked great at half-rallying the base during the primaries. Though she certainly did her best to re-stoke the 90's era fires of gun control, it's not like we would have been any less leery had she kept mum like Obama during his run. I'd say a good 3/4 of the blame lies with her party which has made itself such a shameless tool of civilian disarmament, that onetime-Democrat supporters who have any fondness at all for the RKBA can no longer expect even cheap lip service from their party. Heck, even a slight majority of self-identified Democrats now disfavor an assault weapons ban, yet Hillary was talking about Australian confiscation; what a fiasco.
TCB
The idea of gun owners costing Hillary the election is pretty straightforward, though, especially considering how the election worked out as far as popular vs. electoral college vote. Rural, sub-urban, and many red-state urban areas strongly disfavor gun control at this point, and her entire campaign was predicated on the blue metropolis' outweighing the representation of everyone else. In hindsight, it's a needless handicap to one's ambitions because of the amplifying effect the electoral college has on rural states (i.e. in specifically alienating those folks by chasing unpopular measures like gun control, you have effectively raised the margin by which you must win to at least several percentage points above a bare majority; a really dumb tactic when your only support comes from people who are quite unenthusiastic to start with)
To be fair, it's not all Hillary's fault, and the tactic worked great at half-rallying the base during the primaries. Though she certainly did her best to re-stoke the 90's era fires of gun control, it's not like we would have been any less leery had she kept mum like Obama during his run. I'd say a good 3/4 of the blame lies with her party which has made itself such a shameless tool of civilian disarmament, that onetime-Democrat supporters who have any fondness at all for the RKBA can no longer expect even cheap lip service from their party. Heck, even a slight majority of self-identified Democrats now disfavor an assault weapons ban, yet Hillary was talking about Australian confiscation; what a fiasco.
TCB
From this movie's initial conception back in '14:
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/harvey-weinstein-nra-movie-meryl-streep-1201060811/
How's that working out, Harvey?
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/harvey-weinstein-nra-movie-meryl-streep-1201060811/
How's that working out, Harvey?
Dog Soldier
member
Bill and Hillary Clinton along with Gore were instrumental in the ASWB of 1994. I doubt that I could be very forgiving of her. The Coastal Elite politicians are not aware of the importance of the 2nd Amendment to the Middle Class. The NRA alone has over 5 million members and that many followers. We are dedicated to protecting our RTKABA.
Who invested the funds in the movie, and did they actually consider it would make a profit? Historically, these extravaganzas of liberal politics rarely make a dime. It's not about box office or stardom, it's about "educating" the public and convincing them there are dark forces working in the background who are pulling the strings.
The Leaks did that better than a movie - people could see there ARE dark forces working in the background, and they had names, their faces were on camera, they were saying they were in it to win at all costs, they would do whatever it took to accomplish it. They hired thugs and when cops were shot played that up, they hired liars to falsely testify of indecencies that never happened, and they discussed their programs which they had already proven to work to inflate their candidates votes. (The recounts were showing 125% voter participation in urban districts. Again.)
It was all free, it went on for weeks, it had salacious scandal, deaths, intrigues, backstabbing, false front candidates, and the media complicit with it. So now they want you to PAY to see a two hour propaganda film with boring dialogue that screeches about the right wing conspiracy to force people to accept guns in their lives?
We already got the reality based show on the screen and we're now into the second season post election. Their lame version trying to deflect attention from their conspiracies isn't going to be a hot choice in entertainment.
The Leaks did that better than a movie - people could see there ARE dark forces working in the background, and they had names, their faces were on camera, they were saying they were in it to win at all costs, they would do whatever it took to accomplish it. They hired thugs and when cops were shot played that up, they hired liars to falsely testify of indecencies that never happened, and they discussed their programs which they had already proven to work to inflate their candidates votes. (The recounts were showing 125% voter participation in urban districts. Again.)
It was all free, it went on for weeks, it had salacious scandal, deaths, intrigues, backstabbing, false front candidates, and the media complicit with it. So now they want you to PAY to see a two hour propaganda film with boring dialogue that screeches about the right wing conspiracy to force people to accept guns in their lives?
We already got the reality based show on the screen and we're now into the second season post election. Their lame version trying to deflect attention from their conspiracies isn't going to be a hot choice in entertainment.
Charlton Heston is a good touch haha.
I'm glad but kind of surprised it bombed. I watched Bowling for Columbine (knowing it was going to be anti) and could pick out the lies/propaganda in it but I would bet to the average non-gun owner watching it would seem pretty legit. Anyway it at least sends a clear enough message for investors for future movies, even though the die hard anti-gunners won't care.
I'm glad but kind of surprised it bombed. I watched Bowling for Columbine (knowing it was going to be anti) and could pick out the lies/propaganda in it but I would bet to the average non-gun owner watching it would seem pretty legit. Anyway it at least sends a clear enough message for investors for future movies, even though the die hard anti-gunners won't care.
- Status