Mel Gibson Gets On His High Horse About Sequels

What an incredibly annoying and biased piece this is. He's apologized, get over it.

Reply

Besides, you are making one of the worst mistakes you can when analysing a persons claims - mistaking the person for the claim. What does it matter if his films do or don't fulfill the things he claims we are looking for. The question is 'is that what we are looking for'.

Reply

What's the timeframe for "getting over" these things, Ben? I'd like to know, as I'm quite sure lots of people are looking forward to "getting over" their contempt for Michael Richards as well.

By the way, did he take this opportunity to apologize for Lethal Weapon IV?

Reply

Wow. Speaking of 'arrogant spins.' So you are saying that "Passion of the Christ" was not a 'valid' hit because christians went to see the movie? By that logic "Happy Feet" isn't a 'valid' hit since it's really only families with children going to see the movie. I wonder who the 'right people' are in your list of 'movie fanatics' that qualify to make a movie a real hit?

And exactly why is his opinion about one of his many hit movies and about making movies arrogant when your opinion presumably is not? He's making movies based on the opinions and ideas he's stated and he's made movies like nobody else has made. If finding some similar themes or styles makes those movies not valid in some way then by that logic no movies by Hitchcock, Capra, Ford, Jackson or anybody are valid.

And using the review by James Rocchi to validate your opinion/hit piece on Mel Gibson isn't much cover. If you'll notice in the comments for that review he's pretty much called out for expressing his distaste for Mel Gibson rather than reviewing a movie and the only support he gets is from Scott Weinberg. Look, hating Mel Gibson is righteous and perfectly understandable. Saying you won't go see any of his movies or buy his Christmas album is great. Advocating to people that they shouldn't go see his movies or buy his Salad Dressing because he hates blacks,jews and gay people is great. Write that piece, this other stuff is just lame.

Reply

When did Gibson's drunken rant against Jews turn into a "He hates Blacks too" spin? Has Danny Glover ever said that he thought Gibson was a fake friend? Has Gibson ever being quoted saying hateful things against Blacks? Maybe I'm uninformed.

Also, why do some people want Gibson's career to come to an end because of that one phrase he uttered but, as someone already said, those same people have no trouble admiring the likes of Roman Polanski.

Reply

It's obviously no secret that I'm no longer thrilled with Mr. Gibson, and I'm anxious to see him publically work to right that fateful night if he actually doesn't agree with his drunken words.

Neil - I'm assuming he's had a change of heart since his collection of sequels, which is why I didn't add it in. :)

I think Gibson's rationale is worth questioning. While he hasn't been directing sequels, there is a definite, recognizable theme running through his work that makes his comments sound arrogant and contradictory. I'd like to see him change it up, maybe take the Linklater route and direct some remarkably different films.

Gadlaw - My use of the word "valid" was only in reference to there being an abundance of sequels. I think it is safe to say that a good part of the film's success was due to the strong support by Christian audiences, and that Christians only make up a part of the the entire collection of movie buffs out there. I also think the movie's almost 50-50 critical response reflects that. It's not about being the right audience, but only being part of a larger whole.

As for James' review, it is not a validation, but merely a point he made that was true. Gibson's last three films have, indeed, been historical and violent.

Reply

Keep digging!

Reply

"I would argue that it isn't so much movie fanatics that made it successful, but Christian audiences that patronized the movie by the bus load."

Hmmmm.... let me read that again....

"I would argue that it isn't so much movie fanatics that made it successful, but Christian audiences that patronized the movie by the bus load."

Hmmmm.... no wait... I don't think twice was enough....

"I would argue that it isn't so much movie fanatics that made it successful, but Christian audiences that patronized the movie by the bus load."

Okay, now let me get this straight...

1.) Christians don't like movies

2.) Christians aren't starved for entertainment that speaks to their personal values and beliefs

3.) The liberals who run Hollyweird aren't cutting their own throats financially year in and year out for purely political and ideological reasons because they don't want to produce anything that might be seen as catering to Christians or supporting Christian beliefs.

Yes.

That's nice.

I think I'll go play dodgeball with the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy now...

Reply

Jmchez, What I find surprising is the victim stance. It implies "ping" marketing is just an attack on Gibson and that his political statements regarding the premise of the film were not a useful marketing tool.

This victim stance is not only quite remarkable to see, it would be amusing to observe if it were not for the hundreds of thousands of global citzens killed in the midst of chaotic violence.

The marketing ploy in itself appears to be more cunning than genius, especially since at the heart of this historically metaphoric and political movie making process we have an American Dad style family values persona with this darker than Dexter alter ego. This package comes complete with a slap me I'm thick skinned marketing campaign.

Kind of a dual edged sword that weighs way too heavy on the dark side for unique marketing purposes as opposed to the purported social value.

Take it as you will, but I kind of get the feeling buying into the victim stance here is like eating sausage made from the Texas Chain Saw Massacre meat stand. ( I could not bring myself to see the gore of that beast either).

I guess in the end, it is surprising to see the victim stance surface when the buyers know exactly what butcher shop they are patronizing. It must be the unique kind of family values and sense of personified victim hood that keeps it all together.

Have a good one!!

Reply

I'm not even sure what some of these comments mean. However, I've been doing this whole online thing for far too long to be surprised by the vast and varied lengths people will go to make sure they feel insulted and victimized.

The amount of crap some posters are pulling out of innocuous statements is astounding. The point that was being made in the original post re: Christians making up the audience, is a valid point. Gibson took the film to Churches, various religious leaders, heavily advertised in areas with a high Christian population, etc.. The Nativity Story is currently doing the same thing. On top of that, poll after poll of these audiences confirmed that the majority of the attendees hadn't gone to a movie in years, yet had seen The Passion multiple times. Masses had speakers telling the congregation to see the film, and organizing group outings. Now, this is obviously because Gibson had given THIS PARTICULAR DEMOGRAPHIC what they wanted. But to say he knows what people want IS arrogant because The Passion sure doesn't speak to the other major religions on this planet, and actually offended some of them. THIS is the point the post is trying to make, NOT that a largely Christian audience is irrelevant.

I wonder how quick the same posters would jump to defend a movie about the story of Krishna if it made $600 million due to a large turnout of Hindus. Or would they simply ignore the movie?

Reply

I was going to post a reply, but but damn if gadlaw didn't already say it.

Reply

I love a good discussion. It smells like brains thinking in the morning. I'm sorry jmchez my friend, I don't recall hearing anyone say that Mel Gibson hated black people too, it just seemed like the logical extension of 'he hates gay people and jewish people,' - A bit of hyperbole on my part, I thought when I mentioned boycotting his salad dressing and christmas album the gentle reader would have noticed I entered into the hyperbole zone.

And to further answer your musings on why some people want Gibson's career to come to an end it is because they find his previous behavior completely over the top and in the PC world his crime is pretty much the worse crime you can commit. Peodophile tendencies of Roman Polanski, daughter marrying Woody Allen and Hugo Chavez supporting Danny Glover, - you could make a list a mile long of directors, actors, writers and celebrities whose crimes and attitudes you or I would find unacceptable on some level but who find clear sailing with the media. The thought crime of possibly or actually being prejudice is the worst crime of all. I mean, unless you are a minority in which case hating whites is okay. That's just the way it is.

gstevens I've read your comment and I admit to being a bit dense at times so most of it was confusing to me. I think you said near the end that you won't be seeing Apocalypto on account of the gore. An excellent reason when it comes from someone who said they didn't go see Texas Chain Saw Massacre on account of the gore. I didn't go see TCSM either because basically gore for the sake of gore isn't something I like to see.

Thanks Chris at ccs178.com. Other Chris, humm. The part of the review by Monika Bartyzel that says Passion was marketed to Christians and attended by Christians in good numbers is just fact. Nobody can argue that, a bit of brilliant marketing you'd have to agree. Happy Feet gets marketed through toys and McDonalds, Passion gets marketed by giving free tickets and posters to churches - Brilliant and smart. What people are arguing with Monika over is when she said that it wasn't 'movie fanatics' but rather christian audiences who made Passion successful. The implication that many posters drew from that was the that the makeup of the audience makes it less of a valid movie success. Which is a ridiculous assertion.

I don't know if there is a movie about Krishna making 600 million but movies in India are their own entity. Bollywood as it's called makes more movies and sells more tickets than does Hollywood. Foreign films have their own audiences and if we get a nice breakthrough film from Bollywood like we've gotten from Chinese cinema wouldn't that be great? A good Krishna movie wouldn't have as much built in hostility and would be fairly reviewed. Where do I get my Krishna movie?

Now I'm off to stand in line to see the movie that kicked up this hornet's nest. I love matinees.

Reply

Gadlaw - That implication being drawn just isn't there. She's pointing out Gibson's own arrogance and convenient blind spot in his statements. Gibson implies that he knows what the general public wants, but in reality he made a film that catered largely to one specific demographic. The difference with Happy Feet is that the creators aren't denying that it's squarely aimed at kids and families. Nobody's claiming that Christian (or any group) interest is less valid than another group.

*I* read "movie fanatics" as your usual theatre-goers. As I said in my first reply, it's been pointed out time and again that a large number of the audiences for Passion were NOT regular movie-goers. Hence, the statement is that it was a non-traditional audience (in the movie-going sense) that made it successful.

Oh, and the arguments about Gibson marketing to Christian groups are mine, not Monika's. She mentions them nowhere in her post.

Reply

Just back from the first matinee of the first day of opening day for Apocalypto and I stunned. Wow. Just wow. If Mel Gibson doesn't have a high horse then somebody needs to get him one. This movie is simply awesome to say the least.

Reply

POTC grossed $370 million in the U.S. and $611 million worldwide. I don't think all those dollars came from church sales. Suppose $100 million of the gross came from ordinary "movie fanatics" -- not bad for an R movie filmed in Latin and Aramaic starring no-name actors, eh?

What if Apocalypto -- a movie filmed in Yucatec Mayan and with hardly any professional actors -- does well? Will you concede that he indeed "knows how to give us what we want"?

Reply

Darn it, the comment system ate my thoughtful, insightful and entertaining reply Chris. And it's one that I didn't write and save in notepad first. Well, to recap then let's first of all say that I'm sure you meant to that that 'in your opinion' the implication of Christian bashing wasn't there. I've got five other poster who like myself came away with the opposite opinion. You could say to yourself that it's really just a bunch of Bill O'Reilly inspired Christians who see insults where none exist. Humm, I'm a Keith Olberman Buddhist myself and you know, I don't have a dog in this fight but I do have a brain and what I see is what I see. We can agree to have different opinions. To me, and in my opinion, Monika's clarification even sounded anti Christian (to me).

The arguments about marketing to Christian groups was your argument and I discussed them in a paragraph with your name at the top so I was addressing you Chris. And while my reply was brilliant, it's my fault it wasn't as clear as it should have been. My defense is that I didn't reread and edit my post to an entertainment blog site (a good one, the most educated and thoughtful entertainment blog/site at that) as I would have if I was writing a legal document to the Court, my bad. Again, a movie that makes over 600 million dollars is a successful movie regardless of whether it was marketed to Christians, Hindus, 18-24 year old men or whatever combination of any group you'd care to mention. To single out one group of
people who went to see the movie and say 'yeah but it was marketed to Christians' is to illustrate your problem with that one group.

Back to the original point which got lost a bit in the all the smoke. I would say that Mel Gibson, like most every director and actor has an ego and a point of view. For a director or actor that Monika or James or Erik- likes that ego and point of view would be characterized as confidence and vision. Monika's personal disagreement with his confidence and vision would have been been qualified and reasoned instead of
the emotional and visceral dislike that is apparent. My opinion is that actors and directors without confidence and vision make industrial training films and cookie cutter forgettable movies. The other kind of director has a chance to make films which are unique and intriguing. A director that Monika likes
would have a 'style' and one she doesn't like makes cookie cutter similar movies. Nobody has refuted my point that directors like Hitchcock, Ford, Jackson, make the same style of movies and are thought to be brilliant.

Is Gibson's point that people are hungering to be enriched valid or worthy of the derision and scorn that many are heaping upon him? Well, he's taken his words and backed them up again with a movie that nobody else would have been able to make. His time, effort, blood, sweat, money and reputation as a film maker are all on the table as is true with a man of vision and ego. Love him or hate him he's put himself
out there to be judged by us all. And as I read the overnights for Friday he has won the first round and as keypuncher mentions, he's doing it in the Mayan language, with few professional actors and I might note -not marketed to the apparently easily dismissed Christian audience. What say you Monika and James?

Reply

How ironic that the Christians ferverently protect Mel Gibson and his disgustingly violent films (yes, I've seen two out of the three) yet they'll holler and picket over a love story because the two leads happen to be of the same gender...kinda makes you wonder about the "loving" religion, doesn't it? And Mel certainly doesn't give this person the kind of movie I want to see. Give me a movie by Woody Allen or Roman Polanski ANY day over gore obsessed Gibson!

Reply

I think there should be Irony Education Camps where people who can't stop using the word are forced to learn what it means.

I have yet to see any Christians leading angry demonstrations in favor of "Braveheart" or "Apocalypto". Nor have I seen any angry demontrations against either movie by anyone, although I understand the English were not too pleased with "Braveheart." (I haven't seen it.)

Christians who supported POTC did so because they thought it was one of the greatest depictions of the central act of their religion -- Christ's sacrifice for mankind -- that they had ever seen. Those who protested "Brokeback Mountain" (a much smaller number) did so because they thought homosexuality sinful and wrong. This has been a universal Christian belief (and very widespread human belief) for the last 2000 years, though it is less common now. So there is no irony, no hypocrisy and no contradiction in liking "Passion" and not liking "Brokeback." People who feel that way simply don't share your values. Of course, you are welcome to criticize their values and their movie preferences....

Reply

The irony is that they cheer on violence yet spew hatred towards love....I thought that was pretty easy to understand, keypusher...

Reply

Irony is having hatred and prejudice against a whole group of people because you have stereotyped the whole group of people as having hatred and prejudice for other stereotyped groups of people.

Reply