Is a Hollywood liberal conspiracy keeping 'Red Dawn' from release?

[Dusty Ayres]

It seems that one remake might not be seen at all due to the financial problems of it's studio:

If we could wave a magic wand and do just one thing that would bring true happiness to the right-wing blogosphere, what would it be? Make sure Nancy Pelosi got tossed out as speaker of the House after the Democrats lose big in the November elections? Guarantee that the next Sean Penn movie would be a big bomb? Ensure that President Obama would be brutally skewered by Jon Stewart every night, just as he was Tuesday night?Right now, if we could measure things on our trusty conservative ecstasy meter (which has just emerged from the repair shop after bursting into flames after Elton John performed at Rush Limbaugh's wedding), I'd say that the winner would be the news that Hollywood is about to release a remake of "Red Dawn," the 1984 John Milius Cold War fantasy-thriller about a courageous scrum of young patriots who fend off a Soviet invasion of America. The original film has long been a cult favorite among conservatives, who rarely find any movies to call their own coming off the liberal Hollywood assembly line.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but I have grim news: "Red Dawn" isn't coming Nov. 24, as the conservative blogs have all promised. In fact, no one knows when the movie will ever be released. Although it sounds like yet another liberal Hollywood conspiracy, the movie (which was filmed in Detroit last year) is suffering from a far bigger problem: It was made by MGM, and MGM has run out of money. The troubled studio managed to make several movies recently, one that was already released ("Hot Tub Time Machine"), one that is being released next year by Sony ("The Zookeeper") and one, "Red Dawn," that is in the can but may stay there for quite a while, at least until someone buys MGM or provides the kind of big investment needed to market and distribute new films.

Is a Hollywood liberal conspiracy keeping 'Red Dawn' away from theaters?

Count me as very pleased about this happening (I still want MGM to survive, though.)

[Pingfah]

So the answer is no then.

[Hermiod]

I was hoping that it was just being held back because it's a ridiculously dumb idea for a movie.

Suspension of disbelief doesn't come in to it here, unless the Chinese armed forces have access to magical wizards who can transport their troops in to the United States because their Navy certainly isn't up to the job.

You see, invading the United States would involve somehow getting past their navy - which is larger than the next thirteen navies combined - and having enough ships left afterwards to land the troops (which would have to number in the millions), equipment and supplies necessary to successfully invade a country of 260m people where civilian gun ownership is common.

[Caliburn24]

I could care less about the politics, I was just looking forward to the movie. I hope it gets released eventually.

[Rii]

I don't see why American conservatives would have such a hard-on for Red Dawn. After all, it was in large part a reflection of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And who're the invaders now? I'm sure we can look forward to such faithful translations as American soldiers being executed by brave, tenacious Afghanis to cries of 'this is our land!', right?

[Mr Light]

I had no idea that Red Dawn was a movie for conservatives...

[Christopher]

Hollywood is run by businessmen. Who are rich. And therefore mostly conservative. And who care more about the bottom line than politics in any case, and generally won't care what message a film sends as long as it makes them richer. The whole "Hollywood run by liberals" thing is just another right-wing boogeyman. Sure, there are plenty of celebrities in Hollywood who are liberal (and we've got to outgrow this childish notion that that's a bad word), but there are plenty of others who are conservative, and in either case it's a mistake to confuse celebrity with power or authority.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Besides, who's to say that the remake would have such clear-cut politics as the original did? Remakes these days are all about ambiguity and gray areas and all that crap. The "Red" in this version might mean something totally different. It might mean Red states vs. Blue states.

[Mr. Adventure]

Do conservatives enjoy films showing the military to be ineffectual in dealing with our adversaries? I guess it would be seen as a positive in boosting the importance of the Second Amendment but it seems a mixed message.

[Christopher]

Maybe the link between Red Dawn and conservative doctrine is less clear today, but at the time it came out, it was pretty much an illustration of the worst-case scenario that Reagan and his ilk warned against and used to justify a lot of their policies: "This is what will happen if we don't toughen the military/build more nukes/cut social programs to pay for the above/etc." So taken as a cautionary tale, it aligned pretty well with the narrative of 1980s American conservatives.

[Lindley]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

Besides, who's to say that the remake would have such clear-cut politics as the original did? Remakes these days are all about ambiguity and gray areas and all that crap. The "Red" in this version might mean something totally different. It might mean Red states vs. Blue states.

Or....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3baqyANDM3A

[John Picard]

Christopher wrote:

---

Maybe the link between Red Dawn and conservative doctrine is less clear today, but at the time it came out, it was pretty much an illustration of the worst-case scenario that Reagan and his ilk warned against and used to justify a lot of their policies: "This is what will happen if we don't toughen the military/build more nukes/cut social programs to pay for the above/etc." So taken as a cautionary tale, it aligned pretty well with the narrative of 1980s American conservatives.

I am curious if you would have considered Representative Carl Vinson, to be a predecessor of "Reagan and his ilk"

Funny how the build-up of the 80's eventually led to the downfall of the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War. How did Johnson's War on Poverty turn out?

[Mistral]

Christopher wrote:

---

Hollywood is run by businessmen. Who are rich. And therefore mostly conservative. And who care more about the bottom line than politics in any case, and generally won't care what message a film sends as long as it makes them richer. The whole "Hollywood run by liberals" thing is just another right-wing boogeyman. Sure, there are plenty of celebrities in Hollywood who are liberal (and we've got to outgrow this childish notion that that's a bad word), but there are plenty of others who are conservative, and in either case it's a mistake to confuse celebrity with power or authority.

Damn right! The abuse that word has gotten in the mouths of conservatives over the years is scary.

Mr. Laser Beam said, "The "Red" in this version might mean something totally different. It might mean Red states vs. Blue states. "

I believe that's the Orson Scott Card movie due out next year.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

They're probably just worried about pissing off the Chinese.

It is rather disturbing that a foreign power can essentially keep us from releasing a movie that we ourselves made.

[Greg Cox]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

They're probably just worried about pissing off the Chinese.

It is rather disturbing that a foreign power can essentially keep us from releasing a movie that we ourselves made.

That's not the situation at all. Did you read the article? MGM is simply broke. They can't even afford to make a new James Bond movie.

MGM's financial woes have also delayed THE HOBBIT. And, as far I know, the Chinese have nothing against Tolkien!