• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

'The Undefeated' bombs at the box office

Undesired Walrus said:
Quote: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2083284,00.html

The movie may tempt even the most ardent conservatives to emulate their idol's tenure as governor and walk out halfway through.
Click to expand...

That is a funny line.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
Do you suppose both positions are equally valid?

And I'm not just talking about "liking" the movie as a matter of taste. I'm talking about their evaluation of the movie.

ETA: Oh---I get to Godwin the thread: Some people really liked Hitler and some people really hated him. People who like him probably think history was unfair to him. Those who hated him probably think history was pretty accurate.
Click to expand...

I would think both positions would be better described as equally invalid. Both are very biased.

Whether you like her or not it might be possible to make an interesting documentary. She is basically a nobody who became Govenor of Alaska and a vice presidential candidate, she is somewhat flamboyant, unique in many ways and certainly outspoken.

I would enjoy seeing a good documentary / or read a good book on Hitler rise to power and subsequent fall. Any suggestions (Aside from the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich)
 
eeyore1954 said:
I would think both positions would be better described as equally invalid. Both are very biased.

Whether you like her or not it might be possible to make an interesting documentary. She is basically a nobody who became Govenor of Alaska and a vice presidential candidate, she is somewhat flamboyant, unique in many ways and certainly outspoken.

I would enjoy seeing a good documentary / or read a good book on Hitler rise to power and subsequent fall. Any suggestions (Aside from the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich)
Click to expand...


But we're not talking about a "good documentary" or just any documentary, but one that is unabashed adulation of the subject--even to the point of an absurd title!

So you think the opinion of people who think this is a good film is equally valid (which includes "not at all valid" by the way) as that of people who think it sucks?

ETA: By the way, Sarah Palin is listed as one of the writers of the movie, and the movie is "inspired by" her book Going Rogue: An American Life. A lot of the narration is merely Palin's audiobook recording of Going Rogue.

ETA: Also, the actual movie critics are pretty unanimous in panning the movie as a thinly-veiled propaganda piece. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1961604/externalreviews
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
Naturally, my first reraction was:

:dl:

There is, of course, the chance that Ms Moosemeat will still see some money out of this fiasco when it goes to DVD and all the loyal teatards buy it in case lots and send it as Christmas gifts to all of their liberal acquaintances in the hope that it will open their eyes.

(Hey, it works for the Coulter critter.)
Click to expand...

My thought is that it will be like those books that candidates sell in bulk to supporters. Instead of making a contribution of $50,000 they'll buy 2500 copies of the movie on DVD.
 
Love it or hate it, you better get used to it.

Some folks aspiring to high public office in the USA are going beyond writing books (or having books written for them) and are going to have flattering "documentaries" made about themselves, as well as unflattering documentaries made about their opponents. The documentaries will all be touted as "independent," but those that truly are independent will become more and more rare.

Naturally, the candidate himself/herself will not control the work, but will hope to benefit from it; and equally naturally, those who perform the work will naturally expect some sort of compensation for their efforts. None dare call it "bribery," of course, because bribery is a crime and the making of phony-baloney documentaries is not a crime.
 
Brown said:
Love it or hate it, you better get used to it.

Some folks aspiring to high public office in the USA are going beyond writing books (or having books written for them) and are going to have flattering "documentaries" made about themselves, as well as unflattering documentaries made about their opponents. The documentaries will all be touted as "independent," but those that truly are independent will become more and more rare.

Naturally, the candidate himself/herself will not control the work, but will hope to benefit from it; and equally naturally, those who perform the work will naturally expect some sort of compensation for their efforts. None dare call it "bribery," of course, because bribery is a crime and the making of phony-baloney documentaries is not a crime.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but if they really want to be effective they should at least make a good film. If you make something that not even the converted will go out and see, you've basically wasted your money.
 
Spindrift said:
A little update:


The movie has taken in $112,000 after 3 weeks. Apparently even the Palinistas aren't
willing to put out $10 to watch such a reportedly awful movie.
Click to expand...

So that's roughly 11,200 people across the country. Palin's revolution is setting the country on fire, pretty soon the number of her followers will start rivaling NAMBLA.
 
Spindrift said:
A little update:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=undefeated11.htm

The movie has taken in $112,000 after 3 weeks. Apparently even the Palinistas aren't
willing to put out $10 to watch such a reportedly awful movie.
Click to expand...

The only way they'll get theater owners to run it now is to take a "four-wall deal". That's when the owner looks at the draw and says, "I can't open my doors for $1200 in ticket sales for a weekend, but if you're so sure it's going to make money, give me $2500 a day for the hall, and I'll staff it and keep the concession revenue". If you've got a soliid team out there promoting it, some films actually make money that way,... once or twice, for a dedicated Kiwanis Club or something like that.

It's down to four houses and averaging $1200 on a weekend. That's forty patrons a day.

Maybe Mencken was wrong?
 
NotJesus said:
1st weekend -- $65,000
2nd weekend -- $25,000
3rd weekend -- $5,000

I think I'm seeing a trend here.
Click to expand...

Dang. I guess it won't make it to New York. I was willing to shell out $10, out of morbid curiosity. But then movies here cost $13 or more, so double alas.
 
Brown said:
Love it or hate it, you better get used to it.

Some folks aspiring to high public office in the USA are going beyond writing books (or having books written for them) and are going to have flattering "documentaries" made about themselves, as well as unflattering documentaries made about their opponents. The documentaries will all be touted as "independent," but those that truly are independent will become more and more rare.

Naturally, the candidate himself/herself will not control the work, but will hope to benefit from it; and equally naturally, those who perform the work will naturally expect some sort of compensation for their efforts. None dare call it "bribery," of course, because bribery is a crime and the making of phony-baloney documentaries is not a crime.
Click to expand...

Where is Leni Riefenstahl when you need her?
 
Expect to see more such movies produced as a sort of back-door campaign add for other candidates as well. It would even make sense to form a corporation to launder money from sources that would be illegal even under Citizens United. It is questionable whether or not this propoganda piece was intended to turn a profit as long as it put the Artic Quitter back in the spotlight.

On the other hand, its being such an utter turkey does not help the cause greatly.

Maybe the world would have been better off had someone of the same caliber as Ed Wood had made "Triumph of the Will."
 
hgc said:
Dang. I guess it won't make it to New York. I was willing to shell out $10, out of morbid curiosity. But then movies here cost $13 or more, so double alas.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. They probably won't wait very long to release it on DVD at this rate.

So, it cost $1 million to make. looks like it's going be a money-loser. At least they they didn't spend $10 million making it. :D
 
Ferguson said:
It's not wasted money once your PAC buys tens of thousands of copies on DVD ;).

SarahPAC spent $63,000 on copies of Going Rogue.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/sarah-palin-pac-buy-book/story?id=9718024
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that any part of movie ticket or DVD sales go into Palin's pocket though. Presumably they would go to the guy who produced and financed the movie. With the book, I think that Palin got most of that money after the publisher and ghostwriter took their cuts.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
I'm not sure that any part of movie ticket or DVD sales go into Palin's pocket though. Presumably they would go to the guy who produced and financed the movie. With the book, I think that Palin got most of that money after the publisher and ghostwriter took their cuts.
Click to expand...

Again, the movie credits Palin as a writer and much of the narration is Palin's voice from the audiobook version of Going Rogue. She may not be getting profits from it directly, but at the very least it's a promotion of her book, and she certainly can't claim not to have been involved in the making of the movie. At the very least she had to have given permission to use the audiobook that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom