Lights, camera - agenda!

This is a truly idiotic editorial--what, running out of trumped up issues to smear the President? You fail to take into account THE COST of making any of these movies. Do you think "Humpday"--a ultra-low-budget indie film--cost the same to make and promote as "Transformers"?! BTW, "Milk" was an excellent film. I have always thought Sean Penn to be be grossly overrated as an actor, but "Milk" was wonderful. And, of course, it cost considerably less to make than the latest Harry Potter flick. Why don't you just come out and say that you hate movies that explore gay themes and you don't think Hollywood should make them...instead of coming up with this bogus economic argument?

its only HyperHyped if you pay attention to the hype. Call me willfully ignorant, but hardly a day goes by when I turn on the television, or the radio. If its not in a newspaper, magazine, or online, I have no use for it. If you think these movies are sick, consider it a reflection of todays sick culture. Personally I'd rather watch Milk than Spiderman V. And a few explicit scenes nonwithstanding.. Bruno was a hilarious commentary on how intolerant or foolish we Americans can be. Besides, whats wrong with taking an independent company taking a gamble on a low budget movie? Unless you're calling out the MPAA on being some kind of film cartel.. I don't really see the point of this editorial.

Oh yeah, HOTFOOT, Hollywood never made such epics as "W," or "Sicko," or "Lions and Lambs." The entertainment industry makes this crap on a regular basis when Republicans are in charge, but for some strange reason, you don't see them when the Dems have power. These films rarely make money, or even break even for that matter. But, Hollywood feels it their duty to make them when they don't like the administration. Don't worry, you won't see one while Obama is in office. As for "Milk," it doesn't surprise me that an actor like Sean Penn, with a liberal agenda of his own, played the lead roll. But, this doesn't take away from a valid point. The entertainment industry does have a liberal agenda. But you seem more interested in doing a little A/C bashing because it doesn't like films that "explore gay themes." I never saw any criticism of "gay theme" films in the editorial. But, that's typical for liberals. If there isn't a charge, make one up.

Wow, Bruno grossed $60 million and Pride and Prejudice grossed $38 million. I guess they shouldn't make any more Jane Austen movies either. I can't speak of Humpday, haven't seen it probably never will, and the same of Bruno, Sacha Baron Cohen grates my nerves, but Milk was a pretty darn good movie. It wasn't just about a hero of the gay rights movement, but a biogarphy of a San Fran Assemblyman who, along with the mayor of San Fran was assassinated by nutcase Dan White (he reportedly wanted to assassinate 2 more). The all white middle class jury ( gays and minorities were excused) then acquitted White of murder and found him guilty of only manslaughter (diminished capacity due to eating sugary foods, the famous "Twinkie" defense)). You would think the "law and order" Chronicle would be more upset about that than them making a movie about the man who was assassinated. Another reach for the AC to find a non-story.

HotFoot is right. If you don't like a movie, no one makes you watch it. Film makers can make whatever they want and I can watch whatever I want. My libertarian philosophy tells me it's none of my business if they choose to make gay films. Likewise, don't try to tell radio they can't have conservative programming. People decide what they want, not the government or newspapers (or anything else) deciding what's right for us.

southern: Penn, Streisand, the Dixie Chicks,and other liberals are critcized for having a political opinion, but it's ok for those on the right such as Reagan, Fred Thompson, Sonny Bono, Charleton Heston, Ben Stein, Chuck Norris, etc to foster theirs, and in some cases be elected to office (although I would say calling Chuck Norris an actor is a bit of a stretch).

If Hollywood wishes to make agenda films then they should. It's their money. Personally, I find all gay agenda movies to be redundant. Pro-gay doesn't have a lot of aspects to it. However, that being said, many that wish to appear "diversified" like going to these type of movies. Let the market and the investor decide what films should be made.

river: I have no problem with radio having conservatives on the air. I DO have a problem with a handful of compaines owning the majority of radio staions and deciding that's ALL that will be on the air. As I've posted before, 66% of the radio stations in Augusta are owned by only 3 companies. If nothing else, they have made music radio s*ck.

TechLover, didn't you see Firewalker? Norris could have passed for an actor in that one.

opiner: Milk was d*mned good. I don't care if it was about a gay charcater or not. Sad thing is that it's not fiction. Some of the best films I have seen were little announced and promoted and were definetly not blockbusters, Last of the Dogmen, and The Education of Little Tree come to mind. Even if it's a good "family" movie (actually, especially if it's a good family movie) I'll wait until I can see on the home theater and not have to sit in the theater with a bunch of kids. The screen's not as big but I like my sound system better, and the snacks are WAY cheaper.

Missed that one. Hope he didn't sing the theme like he did on Walker, Texas Ranger.

agreed techlover, if only the GPB radio station at ASU could share airtime with students.. but they've been refusing to for the past 20 years or so.. grah.. you have to go to Athens to hear anything i'd call music.. that hasn't been played a bajillion times. But thats why the lord created friends who burn random cds for their friends.. i spose. (its in leviticus)

I wouldn't describe the films you rattled off as wholesome. Unless you consider violence and overdone special effects to be wholesome. How about Broke Back Mountain? It grossed over 180 million? Why the inane editorial coming seemingly out of nowhere? Perhaps ACES is trying to distract the readers from the more serious issues of the day? Remember to have you kids tune in to hear the president today!!

Golly, AC, maybe some film makers aren't in it for the money. You think?

southernguy, the three films ACES chose to highlight ALL had gay themes. I didn't make that up to fit my agenda. Go back and READ the editorial this time. And no one has addressed the fact that it takes very little for a teeny-tiny indie movie like Humpday to make a profit because of its miniscule budget (and NO promotion) whereas the net on special effects-fests is a much smaller percentage due to production and promotional costs. Yeah, movies like "W" flop....but that's because Oliver Stone can be a nincompoop (actually, I understand it was sympathetic to Dubya) and people were probably sick to death, at that point, of the whole idea of George W. Bush. Filmmaking is a risky business. But the essential economics remain and ACES chose to ignore them.

omno: The endowment the ASU radio station received makes it different than most college radio staions. If I remenber correctly I used to listen to rock music on it, probably in the 60's. Then they received an endowment from someone who stipulated that it had to have a certain amount of classical music and it took control away from the students.

Wow! Why bother writing creative books that only a fraction of the book-buying audience will read, much less like? Perhaps film, much like writing, isn't always a fully capitalistic endeavor. And, even if it is, it's not always so easy to predict which pieces will succeed or fail in the marketplace.

Thank you "Hollywood" for pushing the envelope so the thinking parts of America aren't limited to the equivalent of McDonalds-level, consistently easy on the palate film.

Oh, and since when did ultra-violent films like Transformers become "family-fare" while the inspiration story of Harvey Milk breaking new ground in the civil rights battle is to be seen negatively? Shame on "Hollywood" from persuing an agenda of equality! Shame!! ;->

Oliver Stone is a well known leftist who pals around with Hugo Chavez. And "W" was not sympathetic to Bush, Hotfoot. Hollywood is way out of touch with the everyday american. I cant believe people actually care what the Sean Penns and Angelina Joiles of the world have to say.

The poor ACES have gotta turn off the radio. This article is not an example of intellectual thought-provoking material, in fact, its stupid and here is why: Rating, money, great success, is not what normal citizens seek. Those businesses that brag that their ratings are good, or great numbers of people paid to see....are all poor example of "success." Hollywood is not a good example either because if the US citizens were sooo smart, why would anyone be worried that a movie could influence real life. Bill Maher had it right, "Americans are stupid."

Maher was right about two Americans .... you and himself.

TECH, what world do you live in? You think the conservatives you mentioned and others aren't catching Hell everyday because of their beliefs? HERE'S YOUR SIGN! And JUSTUS, if this paper is such a rag, why do you read it and post here everyday? There are plenty of other papers, most of which are of your liberal mindset. Try reading Cynthia Tucker's "unbiased" pieces over at the AJC. Better make it quick, with their readership down as much as it is, I look for it to declare bankruptcy any day now. And please, you're quoting Bill Maher? He got his butt kicked off broadcast tv and had to go running to cable, and even then, most Americans are saying, "Bill who?" Glad to see you have such a low opinion of the people that put Obama in power. I'll have to agree with you there. Thanks also for no mention of the "non-minority media."

LolaJean, I don't give a damn about what celebrities say or think about anything. I don't take my cues from them, just as I don't take my cues from Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the other entertainers who are paid to have over-the-top opinions to generate controversy. Contrary to rightwing mythology, the liberals I know find preening Hollywood types and their political pontificating obnoxious, not inspirational. Only idiots take their cues from entertainers.

This "editorial" does not deserve the attention it is getting. I am a heterosexual "right winger" and even I see this as a very lame editorial. Freedom of speech comes in all types of packages! Live with it! If you don't want to see it, don't buy a ticket.

southern;Never said folks on both sides didn't catch h*ll for their beliefs. Somehow if any celebrity on the left takes a stand, you here on Faux and elsewhere the "they're just an entertainer, why should they have a say" line, and then they'll trot out Charlie Daniels, Chuck Norris, or The Marshall Tucker Band (or the one remaining guy from MTB and all the fill ins) to comment on issues. Yes, I've actually seen them talk on Faux. As to Maher, he's a little too risque for OTA tv anyway. Maybe Billy Morris should do a story about companies being close to bankruptcy, but that might hit a little too close to home.

This may prove to be the dumbest editorial yet from the good ol' AC. I think it exposes an agenda all right; just not the one it describes.

Pardon me TECH...I'm lauging at your ridiculous post so much, it's difficult to type. If you don't think conservatives, including conservative entertainers, aren't lampooned by "unbiased" journalists like Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews on MSNBC, then I've got that oceanfront property in North Dakota ready for your signature. I'll throw in the Golden Gate Bridge...free!

southern: I know they are, but on their opinions. They don't claim they shouldn't have a say just because they are entertainers as I have heard on Faux. If Faux wants to gripe about what Penn said, then gripe about the merits of his comments. Anyone in the US has a right to their opinions, even entertainers. I don't have a problem with Faux bringing on Charlie Daniels, the MTB, or whoever. The problem lies with them then blasting those on the left, not just on their opinions, but because they are entertainers.

I don't know what Hollywood's agenda is and I really don't care. I don't pay attention to their hyperbole about politics either. Most actors seem to be very liberal when it comes to their personal morals and ethics so it would follow their political morals, ethics, and ideas are pretty liberal. I don't know about acting but Chuck Norris can kick. I very seldom see a movie unless I buy the video and watch it at home. I like the atmosphere in my home better than the theater. It all boils down to, its kind of like the tv, if you don't like what is on, turn the channel; if you don't like what is in the theater, don't go.

LOL..you lib dudes are a hoot !!...now come over and decorate my house.

roesch: I agree about the home thing. Last time we went to a movie at the theater, we had recieved a $20 gift cert for Christmas. We went to a matinee, had a Coke apiece and split a popcorn and had to come out of pocket. WAY too expensive. PPV under $5, watch when we want, sit in comfortable chairs, and have whatever snacks we want, even an adult beverage. As I posted above, the screens smaller (I know some have giant flatscreens but we're happy with the old 27" Sony Trinitron from the early '80's). Have old JBL 4311B studio monitors for sound, plus a cheap surround sound from Fred's( highly recommend, it's a cheapie but works well and I think we got it on sale for $35.95, we actually have one for several tvs in the house, and it came with the plug to plug in an ipod to use it as a stereo. We've even given several as gifts, nieces and nephew use it more for the ipod.).