The Hot Blog

I agree that Narnia will be huge because they are extremely popular books, both for secular reading and for people who are interested in the christian aspect, like many other beloved children's books.

It was pretty easy to get to PassionOTC screenings since all the ones I had heard about had coordinated buses and many people recruited to get them to showings, yes probably becasue of the source material.

If Charlie or Batman had dozens of free organized bus trips from small towns and poor areas where people don;t have transport to get to a movie, I wonder how that would affect revenue since the Passion screening i got to (bus free, but people still had to pay $10 unless it was one of the free sneak previews in my big city).

I think if community centers, schools, churches--any place that has for any length of time a captive or audience influenced by a teacher, community leader, preacher etc--help get people to movies, then the pay off is very big.

Liking the movie that has a coordinated pick-up and drop is another story--Passion of the Christ has a 7.4 with ~11% voters giving it a 1, and ~45% voters iving it a 10. Which is actually a lower score than another movie also with beloved source material, Charlie and the choc has 7.8 with ~45% giving it a 10, and only 5% giving it a 1.

I am sure Narnia will be around the same and make a ton of money, since many people from 40s on under have read Lion Witch and the Wardrobe 50x at least and it is a much awaited movie.

the ratings numbers referenced are from IMDB users.

that narnia trailer looks downright awful.

People love the source material because they're really, really good. They resonate with the masses. Not because they're about Jesus.

do i have to read these narnia books to maybe even get the trailer at all?

bicycle bob,
The trailer is certainly odd. I liked it...but that's probably because I'm excited about the books (though I think making LWW into a solid screenplay will be a HUGE challenge...the BBC production shows just how awful a "faithful" adaptation of the books can be).

Anyway, the second half is certainly is cut with the assumption that all they need to do is throw a bunch of cool images from the books at you and you'll be hooked. I can't imagine anyone who hasn't read the books making any sense at all of those images.

The first half is odder still. It's very stereotypical (kids put in big house with strict rules). What's odd is that in the book the kids find themselves in a big house with very liberal rules and an invite to go wherever they want. I don't have a problem with the change...but this isn't a plot point I would expect savvy marketers to show when they're trying to display faithfulness to source material.

Give it another chance, bob. Hopefully, future marketing will hook you with a little more of the story's narrative.

Hey, Eric? We're gonna need to talk about your name. This could get really confusing, really fast.

I'm 37 and have never heard of the whole Narnia thing, how'd I miss that one?

As for the Passion, I always thought there was a huge curriosity factor attached to the film. Will all the buzz generated before the release. So you had a audience from that group plus the built in Christian audience which is big.

Talking to people that saw it even the people that hated it for whatever reason usually the violence, the description was enough to get other people that didn't see it right away interested in seeing it. That's why, I think the re-release wasn't so successful because by then everyone that wanted to see had already gone.

I've never heard of this Narnia thing either. It looks like a worse Jumanji.

The one thing the Christain community (that I am a proud member of) can do is see through the bullshit.

How does one become a member of the Christian community? What determines that? Is a belief in God enough? And what is this bullshit you speak of? What exactly can you see through?

Some members of the 'Christian community' see through "the bullshit" Angelus but so do many secular folks, Jewish folks, muslim folks and Hindu and many other religious/spiritual people.

People with common sense see through BS, people who are fanatics, don't.

Yes, which bullshit? There are many to choose from.

Everyone seems to be missing the fact that Diary of a Mad Black Woman was very specifically a Christian-themed movie and drew partially on that audience to score at the boxoffice.

yes mr Pratt, I am sure some of the draw was due to a traditional theme. Also, many people like myself really liked the stage plays we had seen by Tyler Perry.

The Christian Community can see through bullshit? 21, please. I think responsible for a lot of bullshit. A much better way to go with statement.

And there happens to be Chitlin Circuit out there for Tyler Perry's plays. Lota pretty much summed up how that film did so well because of the love that already existed for his plays.

Just thought I'd chime in... this where we go off the rails in here sometimes...

I'm not saying you're slurring yet, JW... but I feel a line being passed...

Just sayin'.

JW just hates Christians and religion. What do we expect from a guy who is in love with the Fantastic Four?

Saying that they are responsible for some bullshit does not mean he hates Christians and religion. Does he say that he hates those things? No. So why do you put words in his mouth? Dave, that is the real problem around here. A perfect example of it.

JW crossed one line but Panda crossed a bigger one there with his hate talk.

I think the problem tends to be all the people who make lazy arguments based on broad generalizations.

Excellent point Eric. So very true.

Just a word to Mark. You mentioned that Narnia looks like a worse Jumanji. Well I got news for you pal, the makers of Jumanji are releasing a follow up to that film called Zathura. I thought the trailer looked kinda cool. Not really impressed with the Narnia trailer though, but of late, when a trailer knocks my socks off, the film is underwhelming.

Trailers I'm not impressed with but want to see the film: The Island, King Kong, Narnia, Red Eye, Domino.

Trailers that impressed me: Harry 4, Stealth, (Film with Sam Jackson & Eugene Levy, I thinks it's The Man?), Flightplan with Jodi Foster, Chicken Little.

Trailers that got me curious: Serenity, Fun with Dick & Jane.

The trailers for Flightplan and Red Eye both give away way too much. Serenity looks boring to me. The Man looks absolutely dreadful. No way that will be funny.

Flightplan looks like last year's The Forgotten...on a plane! And they're going to have to work hard on Serenity to make it appeal to people like me who never watched Firefly, because as of right now I sure don't care.

"Flightplan" looks suspiciously like an unauthorized remake of Hitchcock's "The Lady Vanishes." With maybe a touch of "Bunny Lake is Missing" tossed in for good measure.

SNAKES ON A PLANE!!!!

I've said it before, but the only way to make that movie to work is to start with a garter snake on a Cessna and progress to an anaconda on the Spruce Goose.

eww. not snakes on a plane again. at least they aren't giant blood-sucking spiders.

yeah and I said before--an extra butterfly in or on a Cessna would send it into a tailspin jeff. garter snake=too big for Cessna.

I aint seeing Flightplan. I have a hard enough time getting on a plane as it is.

Trailers don't influence me much in the positive--a trailer will put me off a movie, but rarely will it influence me to go to one that I didn;t plan on seeing anyway.

Don't they realize that plane horror movies don't work? Ask Ray Liotta and Lauren Holly.

Stella's Boy, how about you read what JW said before you start bashing me. You can read right? I better watch it before you start crying like a baby now for saying you can't read and understand things.

Maybe you hate religious people too. It really wouldn't surprise me. Thanks for your time.

Do you just sit back and wait to get your shots in at people Stella's Boy? Or does it just come naturally? I am really interested to know actually because you have a natural gift for it.

Maybe you should read what people say before you put words in their mouth. He doesn't say that he hates Christians or religious people. Simple as that. So why accuse him of saying that? And you're welcome. It's my pleasure.

Do you just sit back and wait for the chance to defend your buddies, joefitz, regardless of what they say? Or does that just come naturally? I am quite interested because you have a gift for it.

That's what I love about this place -- so many gifted people.

That's what keeps me coming back.

Don't get that Stella's Boy angry. When he does he posts more than once. In a row. Watch your back.

I'll defend whoever I think needs it and whoever you try to get under their skin. I don't go for those games. Now be nice.

I did not cross a line. 21 crossed a line a few post back with his whole abortion rant. Sorry, that's a line, being crossed, burned, and peed upon to put out. I just have a problem with tyranny of any kind.

True there are good people everywhere of various religions. Yet, personally, I have problems with any religion forcing an agenda on me. The way the religious right in this country has been since Ronnie decided to give them a leg to stand-on. I just do not go for that, and will not sit back. While someone such as 21, who makes all of his people look bad, rambles on like this.

Panda, bob, or whomever he maybe can slag me all he wants for liking a movie. Im sure he has such great taste that the literati and film elitist on both coast like being around him, as if he were some kind of miracle drug of taste and good quality culture. His statements alone are ridiculous and border on the infantile. Coming from me, that's something.

Again, I refuse to sit back, and let someone bash anyone else because of their religious beliefs. 21 has shown this behaviour on more than one occassion. Do not cast stones over my way. Until you can see the whole picture.

Joe Fitz... Stella... come on...

And JW, I don't think that 21 was throwing stones your way. I think the point was that marketing to Christians insincerely is seen through. What does that have to do with you?

I did nothing wrong.

D-Po, this has to do with the way he made that statement and previous statements. His superiority complex I find almost as insulting as his religious statements. I also explained the rest of my statements as well.

Don't ask JW to try and explain himself...because he always already has. (Kidding!)

Boy, yoy did one thing wrong; YOU GAVE INTO THE RHYTHM OF THE NIGHT! And for that, you must, use the forbidden dance, to save the world.

NOW................DANCE!

I did explain myself! Not my fault you cant Mac! IT'S NOT MY FAULT!

You bastard... :)

Stella's Boy, you sound like an insolent kid who got caught stealing the cookie jar. This is why everyone asks you to relax. You really need to take that stick out of your buttox. Keep that in mind.

And JW, I'd love to see where I ever posted about abortion. This is a movie site. I don't care to air my views on abortion unlike some others. So stick to what I actually say. Thanks a bunch, sweetie.

Sweetie? Why I oughta! Well 21, you either have someone using your nick, or you got heavily waste over the weekend. Since you must have missed your post last week comparing every stance taken by the liberals as a response to abortion. You also stated your views about abortions before you made that post.

But hey, maybe Im just a type of guy. Who wished some people of faith had a little decorum, and didnt flaunt their religion in my face. As if it were something that needed flaunting.

Well...

Baning or a shut down is looking more inevitable.

My teen nephew and niece bait each other like this. But they are children. And they are brother and sister and have been doing this to each other for a long time.

Why can't you just take your positions without telling us what you think everyone else thinks?

And to be completely frank, linking this stuff to MCN front page, which brings in a different audience, becomes an embarrassment when the pissing matches start.

Banning people is the stupidest thing in the world to me. I started this so I could interact... to play. And now I have to be cop? What a waste!

JW: The forbidden dance? Holy smoke! You don't mean.... THE LAMBADA?

Hey D-Po, I will be the first to admit that most religious topics rub me the wrong way. Im not trying to bait anyone at all. Even if leads to that, then, my bad, but those are just my opinions.

However, the Mighty Joe in his post has pointed out the obvious; there's more to talk about in pop culture that can ignore politics and religion. So, being a very opinionated guy, Im making this pledge. Sort of in the vein of the whole "no women, no kids" bit of business in Leon. I recommend it for the rest of blog, but they could do what they wish with it.

No politics.

No religion.

No personal insults.

It would be nice to talk about politics and religion. Obviously, many of us have severely differing beliefs, and that makes seeing eye to eye difficult. If we can stick to this, then maybe D-po, might not shut the place down. Also, again Im not speaking for anyone else here, but Im not into embarassing the brother with his own blog. If I've had a hand in that in the past, then, Im sorry.

Hopefully it works out for the best. If not...we're doomed.

Flightplan does indeed look like a mixture of The Lady Vanishes and The Forgotten but will hopefully be as good (better?) than the former. I didn't see The Forgotten though but I don't think it looked very good. Stealth looks bad. If they brought in those planes it'd save a lot of lives!!! Why fight it?

Narnia looks alright, but I haven't read the books so I have no idea; However, why did they make TWW first? Isn't it the second/third book in the series? I figure it's because that one is more well known. It's the only one I've heard of, but my predominantly Christian friends have read them all and love them.

fyi, My very Christian friend and I saw The Passion of the Christ together and both thought it was absolutely horrible.

Joe, I wholeheartedly agree about your Turbulence mention. God, that was awful. And what was with Ray Liotta going all Jack Nicholson in The Shining on us?

Talking about politics never fits into this blog. I don't know why it ever comes up. Religion should only be brought up in a thread actually about it (such as this); however, boundaries should be kept.

Australians are such very practical folks.

And unless boundaries are agreed upon. It's hard to have boundaries in the first place. Societal norms are a real pisser.

seems like its always a few people who try and ruin it for everyone. and the weird part is its always the same few. sad.

The Christians. Such an easy target for some lazy people out there.

Wow, given the heated dialogue…though, I’m not so sure the term “dialogue” accurately describes the 50 or so preceding comments…there may be another element that should be added on to my initial post.

Controversy. I’m still going to stick with my initial statement that the source material is important, but to that I must add that another part of what made The Passion successful (and what will make LWW and Da Vinci successful) is that religion sparks controversy.

I know that sounds like I’m stating the obvious here…and in a way I am…but I’m beginning to think that what makes religion controversial is not necessarily the premises asserted by religious statements, but rather the baggage people carry to the table.

Take this thread as an excellent example. This is not a thread about religion. Really, it’s not. It began as a thread about marketing forces in today’s film industry. Sure, those marketing forces may be taking place with the walls of houses of worship…but no religious statements or claims were put on the table.

Even so, people read this…or more accurately: read INTO this…certain religious beliefs that they felt either offended by or defensive about. And because of this phenomenon…which I’m not sure has much of a precedence prior to the 1960s…people got all riled up and passionate about defending previously private viewpoints.

This Christmas the LWW will do this and the public as a whole will do the same thing that just happened here. The initial author, C.S. Lewis, wrote a Christian allegory, and like all allegories its meaning can only be stretched so far. Even so, people will argue about its meaning and bring their own assumptions to the table and expand the argument beyond the point of credibility. As passions rise, public interest will pique, and ticket sales increase, sequels will be greenlit, and Disney will come away as the big winner…leaving public discourse in no better shape than before the movie.

The Da Vinci Code will do even better…not because its ideas are more popular, but like F9/11, because it is conscience of the controversy it is creating and not only its tone, but its very premise is meant to stir the pot and get people all riled up and passionate.

Thanks for your comments. I may not learned much about people response to LWW, but I think I learned a lot about human nature and public discourse about private beliefs in the early 21st Century.

Eric, my friend, its always about religion.

JW, I think everybody should have a moral boundary that they know is wrong to cross.

If they don't then I feel sort of sorry for them. I hope those people don't encounter anyone in the real world that gets as heated as some people on here.

And yes JW, we are practical folk... er, sure.

We can't expect every fool out there to have morals. It is sad but thats reality.

Expecting common decency is even a little much for some of these people here. I don't think it's so hard to do.

Bluestealer,

I loved your reply.

Paul Tillich was right. Religion isn't necessarily about gods, morality, or even institutions... Religion is about people's ultimate concern.

Therefore, Bluestealer, my friend, "it's always about religion...but it's never about religion."

I think the real world gets a tad more heated than this. I don't think many take what JW says about Christians seriously. I would hope most of us here are too smart and sane for that to happen.

Camel, stating one's opinions and some facts, never deal with boundaries. This is not killing puppies or anything harsh like that. It's how you see the world, and I see the world much differently it appears.

And I love that there are people above me in this thread who talk about descency. Yet, have not once outside of their little like minded clique, shown that to other posters on this blog. You want civility? Then please act like you do.

At least they spell decency right. No one wants to listen to you prophesize about God knows what. Stick to movies, son.

I'll second that. Stick to movies where you belong. If you want to crap on Christians or other things of that sort then I am sure you can find a good site to do that on.

I knew "The Passion of the Christ" would be big when I saw the title and opening date on the highway marquee for a church in my area.

"Narnia" could do well because it's coming out at Christmas -- the one sustained period for moviegoing all year long. I stress "could" because a heavily hyped holiday release can just as easily flop.

On the other hand "Narnia" could be another "Saved!" I assume MGM handled "Saved!" as a mainstream movie in the Bible Belt and an arthouse title elsewhere.

Is that true, or are you just theorizing about Saved's release?

I do believe we just entered into WEST SIDE STORY territory with some comments by the same person; now known as the SHARKS. So, SHARKS, why doesnt anyone examine my comments, before jumping to conclusion. Again, I can make examples, but that stuff falls under LEON territory now.

Im wondering if the SHARKS can well enough because they continue to show otherwise. The SHARKS are all just one guy. We must commend him on such dedicated work.

WHEN YOURE A JET...

Living in the South, let a brother tell you that Saved received the LIMITED RELEASING all over.

I've read remarks for more than a year now about the success of Passion of the Christ and bringing out that religous movie goer. While at 37 I'm no longer a christian, I grew up as one, and we went to see movies all the time. It's the entertainment of choice over parties and cruising and other "worldly" pursuits.
Of course your religion impacted upon the types of movies you chose, and once you were'nt a radical fanatical type, most PG13 movies fit the bill. Almost all sci-fi, PG13 Action flicks, romantic comedies, and of course the all important "for your consideration" dramas were totally on the menu.
Save horrors and raunchy comedies, we saw everything. The church viewed movie going with your fellow brother as light entertainment.
I'm being long winded but Passion/Christ made a gazillion dollars because christians and non-christians turned out. It became an event flick. You don't get to those numbers with niche marketing, no matter how big your niche. And it turned out to be flick that the non-christian majority of the movie going public viewed as good flick, many assumed it would be nominated.
Narnia needs to fit all those criteria to be successful,good, event movie, possibly marketed as this years Lord of The Rings, funny though that they'll be up against King Kong that I'm sure will up the tie in to the trilogy as opening weekend draws near.

Certain religious groups wanted Saved banned and to have it's negatives burned in a big large fire. SERIOUSLY. I am not kidding. Some actually said that. Because it was the most blashphemous movie they had ever seen or some bullshit.

I am strong in my beliefs about Christianity and so forth but I am not gonna force it onto everyone here, which I would hope other people could understand as being a good thing. It honestly does seem that everyone here has a brain and it relatively smart to know when and when not to say certain things. Honestly it does.

However, I'm really pissed off at Christian groups in Australia at the moment because they are trying to get "Mysterious Skin" BANNED here. BANNED. Not only did they get "Baise Moi" and "Ken Park" banned but they very nearly got "Irreversable" "Romance", "Anatomy of Hell" and one other movie that I can remember the name of banned. Fucking hypocrits is what I call them in this situation. But a lot of my friends are Christians and know a large portion of them are not like that at all.

The whole Christian issue in films has come to a boiling point over the past 2-3 years because of time and context. People now with DVD can look at the past 20 years of film and notice not just neutral storytelling any more that omits Christianity, but a fervent 'go out of our way' attempt by Hollywood to ALWAYS portray Christians in a vitriolic and negative light.

Even in films where it is not warranted.

I rented Hostage the other night and there we go again...right off the top a lunatic 'Catholic' is slaughtering his family. In Harold and Kumar Christians are inbreds. In Sin City Catholics are cannibals. Not to mention films like Kingdom of Heaven, Kinsey and Monster which deliberately distort history to turn Christians into monsters.

For any other demo (gay, Jewish, black etc.) it would never be tolerated

People are just fed up and hence they are now going on the offensive.

I am not particulary religious...but good for them.

ken park was banned because it really was a terrible film and shouldn't have been seen by anyone.

Did you see Ken Park bob? Is it available on video? It never played anywhere near where I live.

How did Kinsey distort the truth? I don't think those accusations panned out. I don't remember the guy in the beginning of Hostage being Catholic. I guess I wasn't paying that much attention. If you're not religious, why are you so upset about it?

You should really read up on Kinsey before you post things like that. The guy had his ideas. Most didn't agree with him. But do read up on him. He is an interesting subject and the movie is pretty good too.

ken park is unwatchable. like real bad. and i really liked bully.

Why so condescending? I have read up on Kinsey Terence. I did that before the movie came out, when certain people complained about the movie even though they hadn't seen it. And from what I read, they were merely trying to smear his name because they didn't like his research or how he conducted his personal life.

I'm not surprised that Ken Park is that bad. Trailer was awful.

That guy directs child porn movies. Kids. Bully. Ken Park. One big orgy of underage kids without clothes on. It's disgusting.

I was agreeing you with Stella's Boy. This is what everyone means when they tell you to relax. Not everyone is out to get you every single day.

But you weren't agreeing with me. You told me to "read up before I post things like that," having no idea whether or not I had read up on it and knew what I was talking about. But, if I misunderstood, I apologize. However, it certainly doesn't appear that you were agreeing with me by telling me to read up before I post.

I didn't say you. I said people in general that bad mouth a guy like Kinsey and the movie when they don't know what its about and don't see it. If I want to call you out, I'll mention you by name. Like I always do. The guy can't even take someone agreeing with him. Deep breaths.

You said, "You should really read up on Kinsey before you post things like that." Was that directed towards me? I thought it was. If not, my mistake.

who cares? the movie stunk anyway and the guys research was quack filled and got refuted after he passed on. so he liked sex and figured out a lot of people do to. a visionary!

I think Kinsey is a great movie. Who refuted his research bob? How was it quack filled? Please explain.

i remember going thru all this crap about kinsey in december. i'm not about to rehash it over that movie. this is a movie site anyway. if u really think no one refuted or questioned his theories and research then theres nothing i can do for u.

I know that some very conservative religious organizations refuted his research, but that's only because they disagree with his lifestyle, and they also attacked the movie without seeing it. That, to me, destroys their credibility.

its not the movie i'm talking about. i thought the movie could have been better but liam neeson was real good. his real work has been questioned and requestioned. and its just not conservatives who have criticized it. but this is for another time.

What other time? What's wrong with now, and why would another time be better?

I don't think his research was that revolutionary. People wanted to have sex. Weird sex. A lot of sex. Common sense much?

I thought Peter Saarsgard was the best thing about that movie last year. He is a really good young actor.

I agree, Saarsgard is an excellent actor.

and he's the BOMB in WIND, yo!

Kinsey, what a horrible movie. An in-depth documentary on the man would have served the real-life Kinsey much better.

Also, if you think the christian couple in Harold and Kumar are "inbred." You apparently IGNORED that they a) were not inbred, b) were playing off of the realities of many people of faith being just as kinky as anyone else, and c) that Chistopher Milone played a guy with a really bad skin-condition.

Who ever said JW was funny? This guy a really failed comedian or something because it would explain a lot. A lot.

Kinsey was decent. But admit it. We were all expecting more from it.

JW funny? No. JW annoying? Yes.

I agree with Panda, Kinsey had a lot going for it but ultimately it fell into formulaic biopic territory.

Still haven't seen it. Haven't heard good things about it. Liam Neeson not playing a mentor character? I doubt it.

I guess I'm in the minority then. I think it's excellent, and Neeson is fantastic IMO.

I thought it was alright. Not exactly a world beater. Not exactly the oscar type film they all predicted it would be.

Thought the first half an hour of Kinsey was really funny, then it got duller and worse and then when William Sadler came into it I just didn't care anymore.

And Bob, it doesn't matter if Ken Park was really bad (I'm sure it is because it's directed by whatshisname) but the fact that a, what appears to be, perfectly normal country such as my own (er, Australia, if you didn't know by now) would go so far as to BAN it is just revolting. I'm not gonna go into it all again because I've had this discussion many-a-time everytime a Christian/Family group asks for a movie to be banned.

Of course, these people have never actually SEEN the films they are asking to be banned...

But, still, Australia has had a bunch of films Banned lately. It's just a disgrace (whoa, how do you spell that? that does NOT look right), really. BANNING! Even America doesn't ban movies, and that's saying something.

Just because a movie is "bad", whatever that means, is no reason for a free society to ban any art that doesn't involve actual child porn. What else has gotten banned in Australia?

maybe u should see it jeff before u start commenting on it. that would help wouldn't it? i wouldn't want to make too much sense to u. don't want to overload that brain of yours.

Australia is normal? I thought the Aussies took pride in not being normal.

Put another shrimp on the barbie.

Wasn't Paul Hogan there President for a time?

Bob, are you saying I should see a movie in order to be outraged by it, so then I can call for it to be banned? Have you seen it?
You're retarded.

this is the oddest thread I have ever seen. It's kinda CRAPTACULAR and should be made into a B movie instantly. The title can be "Practical Australians and the Kinsey report: dance suckers, dance!"

ok I'll leave now.

So Bob is all for censorship then? Good to know. I'll remember that.

Jeff apart from the 70s horror exploitation movies like I Spit on Your Grave (most of which have all been unbanned) I don't think there has been that many banned - especially not lately.

Ken Park and Baise Moi have been banned and Irreversable, Anatomy of Hell, Romance, Kids, Intimacy (or something with a similar name) and Kill Bill Vol. 1 have all had petitions made against them.

Movies recently that were banned but have since been revoked. Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man and Freeway starring Reese Witherspoon.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)