Oliver Stone's films are biopics that did not cost $400 million to make and market. Michael Moore's documentaries make money. Like I said, they are in the business of making money.

And documentaries made from the right-wing perspective on issues wouldn't make money? Wouldn't the ratings of Fox News definitely prove otherwise?

So, just because Stone's biopics didn't cost hundreds of millions to produce and market, the studio was in fact willing to "risk alienating millions of potential ticket buyers by making an overtly political film?"

While I agree that a company's primary purpose is to make money, it often appears that Hollywood does take on the risk of alienating audience members by making controversial and/or biased product. And in taking such risks when it comes to overtly political film making, Hollywood tends to lean to the left more often than the right.

You can't really avoid politics in a biopic about Kennedy, Nixon, or Bush can you? An exception every once in a while does not change the fact that it's still all about the money. Biopics are often chasing awards and prestige and that can lead to more money. And right-wing documentaries are made and released all the time. Just last weekend one played in Houston and did very well.

"And right-wing documentaries are made and released all the time."

Without going to the IMDb or other online resources, how many right-wing documentaries can you name that Hollywood funded a wide release of vs left-wing documentaries?

Yeah, I rest my case!

The studios really don't fund documentaries James. They are often picked up for distribution after they are made.

You're right, that's why I qualified my statement with "funded a wide release of," as documentarians typically don't fund their own wide releases - usually the studios do this.

And the studios tend to take on the risk of wide distribution of left-wing perspective documentaries much more than they do right-wing perspective documentaries.

Also very few documentaries receive anything close to a wide release. And the major studios are rarely involved with documentaries.

For theatrical releases, I agree. Moore is a very big exception though. However, every major studio has an art-house division for direct-to-video release and distribution of such fare. And one again, more left-wing product is consistently picked up than right-wing product for even the direct-to-video distribution. HBO Films is a perfect example of engaging in both the production and distribution of consistently left-wing biased product - even you must admit to this reality!

And Moore's last three films were released by Overture and Lionsgate, not one of the major studios. And only Fahrenheit 9/11 received a wide release. The art house divisions are not really for direct-to-DVD movies. They are for Oscar bait and serious stuff more than anything. I think people probably see the bias they want to see in the films HBO makes.

"And Moore's last three films were released by Overture and Lionsgate, not one of the major studios."

You don't consider Lionsgate to be a major Hollywood player? They're publicly traded on the NYSE for heaven's sake! They have more quarterly output and revenue than is generated by MGM/UA!

"The art house divisions are not really for direct-to-DVD movies."

Really? And how many Fox Searchlight pictures received a theatrical release? The art-house divisions are where the studios tend to put the documentary product that they pick-up, isn't it? And how is a majority of the product that is released and distributed through the art-house divisions done exactly? I'll help you out here - direct-to-video.

"They are for Oscar bait and serious stuff more than anything."

You mean they're not all about making money? Many of those films are funded with government tax credits and art endowment grants.

"I think people probably see the bias they want to see in the films HBO makes."

Yeah, because it's totally not apparent. Game Change (2012) was 100% historically accurate and provided an accurate depiction of the people portrayed in the film, right? But isn't there a problem when the actual people who are portrayed in the film come out and say that the film is little more than a politically biased hit job that totally distorts the truth of what really happened?

Come on!

Almost all Fox Searchlight movies receive a theatrical release, just not a wide one. Again, the art house divisions are for awards fare and prestige films far more than they are for direct-to-DVD movies.

Lionsgate is a major Hollywood player, sure, now more than they were back when they released Moore movies. They're not Paramount or Universal though.

So Hollywood makes bank on limited non-wide theatrical engagements? If it wasn't for the tax credits and art endowment grants to make many of those films, wouldn't many of them have produced actual losses for the producers and studios distributing them?

When Lionsgate merged with Trimark Pictures, their combined rental and home video distribution system became far better than anything that either Viacom (Paramount) or MCA Universal has in such regard.

That's because Jimmy the FOX audience aged 65+ cannot get out of their Lazy Boys, hop on their rascals and motor down to the multiplex, where they may have to tolerate being in the presence of a multicultural audience.

Don't watch Schultz or MSNBC, or Olbermann. So is the sucker actually the one making assumptions without really knowing what they speak of? I used Limbaugh to make broader points about Hollywood and accusations of liberal propaganda in film. Of course Rush is an entertainer in it for the money. That is stating the obvious.

"Don't watch Schultz or MSNBC, or Olbermann."
Maybe you should, so you would have a more rounded view for your next blog. Otherwise "So is the sucker actually the one making assumptions without really knowing what they speak of?", is nothing more than a commentary on yourself.

How would watching more MSNBC have influenced a blog about liberal propaganda in Hollywood movies?

One would think Rush is an expert at falling face first into things, since the drug addled gas bag probably does that very thing hours after his shift on the Obesity in Broadcasting Network.

@Hoffa. UGH - really? The Burton films? Oy. No way. The Nolan trilogy (I assume since TDKR isn't officially released yet) far surpass the Keaton franchise when it comes to writing, set design, directing, villains (Ledger's Joker is legend for good reason), and acting. Burton's set reminds me of cheesy B-movies in comparison.

@Heather A -

I think I told you my fondness for the Burton/Keaton Batman films once before, on FB, and you had the same reaction :-)

How can Batman get any better than Burton directing, Keaton as Batman, Nicholson as the Joker, Michael Gough as Alfred, the best Batmobile ever to grace the screen, and a soundtrack from Prince?!?! That film inspired a ride at Six Flags for heaven's sakes, and the sequel a live stage show at the theme park!

OK, I admit I love B-movies and am biased to the '80's/'90's nostalgia factor! Not to mention that I find it hard to embrace most of the new / young blood acting talent, although Bale's not bad.

I also prefer Roger Corman's unreleased 1994 version of the 'Fantastic Four' to the Hollywood films!

BTW -

The Schumacher films were absolutely HORRID stinkers not worthy of the franchise!!!

@Hoffa - *smacks my forehead* I should have remembered your fondness for B-movies & just handed you the popcorn!

BTW - we haven't had a blog in quite some time from you!

Hard to weight them Jimmy. Though the Nicholson/Burton pairing seemed good on paper, they were essentially cartons.

The latest pack is grim and excessive. How many times can Bruce Wayne get wiped out?

@Schmitzy -

That's funny - I would have figured you for a George Clooney as Batman fan!

Come on - Burton also benefited from Danny Elfman's score and original music from Prince which is far more iconic and 'Batman like' than Hans Zimmers work and any of the songs used in the Dark Knight series. Just compare these two scenes and you'll see there's no comparison:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc_encIvqQ8

Now, let's compare the stats on Batman: The Ride vs The Dark Knight Coaster:

Batman: The Ride

Height 105 ft
Length 2,694 ft
Speed 50 mph
Inversions 5
Duration 2:00

The Dark Knight Coaster:

Height 45 ft
Length 1,213 ft
Speed 30 mph
Inversions 0
Duration 2:00

See, even Six Flags recognizes that Burton and Keaton own Nolan and Bale!

Case closed ;-)

I hope that we can all agree that the worse thing to happen in the Batman universe was the Halle Berry stinker Catwoman (2004) - now there's a pos that should be erased from history by the film gods! Yes, it was even worse than the George Clooney / Schumacher film Batman & Robin (1997).

Where are the 'right-wing commenters' all supposed to be this morning?

Harry - Playing on the internet at work again?