Surprise! Hollywood Producer Targets NRA

[KyJim]

Emily Miller of the Washington Times reports about an interview Howard Stern did with movie producer Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein, a big Obama supporter, says he is taking on the NRA in a movie he is making with Meryl Streep, "And they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ing-movie-att/.

Weinstein seems to think it's okay to use guns in self-defense in instances of genocide. However, as Miller noted:

Mr. Weinstein does not seem to know that the Nazis were able to confiscate the guns that the Jewish people owned based on Germany’s government registry.

Also, the producer said he would have used a gun to stop from going to a concentration camp if he “found a gun, and if that was happening to my people.”

Mr. Weinstein has been watching too many movies if he thinks the good guys find fully loaded firearms in convenient locations to use only when necessary.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2qalzJZHI.

Joseph Stalin once said that a single death was a tragedy; a million deaths was a statistic (paraphrasing). This actually makes sense in a perverse way. A million deaths in Rawanda barely makes the news but a photo of a single death changes history. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGrsw6m9UOY. I guess the tragedy of a single death must appeal to the movie maker in Weinstein.

[SIGSHR]

Probably be as successful as "Err America" and the Michael Moore "documentaries".

[JWT]

Use of top stars like Streep might give such a movie some traction. Ignoring it as a threat would be a big mistake IMO.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by JWT

Use of top stars like Streep might give such a movie some traction.

Then again, IMDB does not reflect the existence of this project. In Hollywood producer lingo, "I'm going to make a movie with [name of actor]" often translates to "[Name of actor] and I had dinner at a swanky restaurant, we discussed this idea, and I agreed to give [name of actor] top billing IF the movie actually happens. If. Once I find investors. And a studio. And a director. Maybe."

Originally Posted by JWT

Ignoring it as a threat would be a big mistake IMO.

So would overreacting. Publicity generates ticket sales. Hollywood studios are profit-focused businesses. If they don't think many people will watch it, it won't get made.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

They already rewrote John Grisham's bestselling Runaway Jury to make gun companies the evil villain of that film - and then had John Cusack, Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman star in it circa 2003. As of 2013, that movie still had a domestic gross around $10 million less than its production cost. And that movie had no noticeable effect on the 2004 gun legislation which was good for us despite the pre-midterm setbacks due to the Senate makeup then.

But if Weinstein wants to spend his money to bring us an anti-gun movie before the 2014 midterms, I sure won't stand in his way. I hear the story is going to be a dramatized Carolyn McCarthy bio. I imagine they'll leave the "shoulder thing that goes up" part out.

[Kreyzhorse]

I'm not so sure the NRA is losing sleep over this just yet.

Talk is cheap Mr. Weinstein but I guess there is no such thing as bad publicity right?

[Tom Servo]

I really doubt anyone is going to come forward to bankroll a feature film that's basically a political hit piece. He may achieve something modest on the college/indie circuit, but not enough to reach mainstream audiences.

On a moral note, I don't recall gun-rights advocates sinking to this kind of rhetoric:

I’m going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we’re going to take this head-on. And they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.

[jmr40]

Bring it on. I promise it will have the opposite effect he is going for. I'd expect another run on guns and ammo and more shortages shortly before the debut.

[Tom Servo]

Weinstein is the founder of Miramax, a company known for producing wholesome family films that teach nonviolent solutions to life's problems. Pulp Fiction, Death Proof, Sin City, Django Unchained, and Inglourious Basterds are just a few of the heartwarming movies he's bankrolled and produced.

I'm not sure what kind of redemption he's seeking by blaming instruments of violence while his movies celebrate the act itself.

[BarryLee]

These folks rant about the NRA as if it were an individual being and not an advocacy group representing millions of Americans. Maybe if they could venture outside their insular little worlds and see what’s really going on in “fly-over” country they’d have a different opinion of gun owners.

Then again based on his rhetoric he sounds like some hate filled bully that is intent on telling everyone how they should live their lives. The scary part is that regardless of how small his audience may be there are actually people listening.

[LockedBreech]

It's perpetually amusing that strong anti-gun moves by anti-gun people, when they have any level of success, generate truly massive gun sales spikes, and usually don't result in new laws. The practical result of the latest gun control push was to put millions more guns in the hands of Americans, many of whom might never have owned a gun without the specter of them being banned. My boss at a summer job, a very mild-mannered guy not remotely interested in guns before the last gun control push, asked for my help shopping and now owns a small gun safe with a Gen 4 Glock 17 and a shiny Colt LE6920, and took classes for both, just because he was worried he couldn't have one in the future.

Similar case in point, when they announced the administrative rules that were going to ban a range of incandescent light bulbs, my dad bought pallets of the suckers.

Americans don't like being told they can't have stuff, especially not in a paternalistic manner. I'm not sure how many things we have to try and prohibit or ban before that lesson sinks in.

[Tom Servo]

It's perpetually amusing that strong anti-gun moves by anti-gun people, when they have any level of success, generate truly massive gun sales spikes, and usually don't result in new laws

In a way, I hope he makes his movie. I hope it costs eleventy billion dollars to make, has an all-star cast, and stomps all box office records.

The result? Another surge in gun sales, and a corresponding surge in NRA memberships. Weinstein can tell himself whatever he needs to sleep well--people will see through this the same way they saw through Bowling for Columbine.

[Kreyzhorse]

Just of note, it is also widely reported that Mr. Weinstein uses a security detail for protection according to an article on the Blaze...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...nti-nra-movie/

So, a purveyor of violent, gun filed movies, who uses a security detail is going to bring down the NRA...

I wonder if his security detailed is armed.......

[Fishing_Cabin]

So he makes some shoot'm up movies and feels that firearms are bad for the public to have for sport, collecting, or self defense, but its perfectly A O.K. for some of the actors to portray violence and murder with firearms in his films, as well as it seems from the blaze article that he has a protection detail as well.

Glad I haven't gone to the movies in a long while. Beyond that, I have no plans. Instead, if he does what he says he is going to, why shouldn't us as firearm owners donate the price of 2 movie tickets to our preferred firearm rights group?

[coldbeer]

Meryl Streep is still alive?

[JN01]

Not that many people will actually see the movie. With Meryl Streep as the star, most of the audience will be asleep 15 minutes into it.

[TXAZ]

(If I was a betting man) $20 says it's a flop, IF it even makes it to the theaters.

[.22lr]

they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.

Umm...

I can see that the NRA having to hire more people to deal with the sharp spike in memberships and donations could cause some stress; I just can't see the NRA wishing they weren't alive. I mean interviewing applicants can be stressful, but not THAT stressful.

The shock jock asked whether the film was going to be a documentary. Mr. Weinstein said no, that it would be a “big movie like a ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’”

Ah, fiction...gotcha.

[KMAX]

Meryl who? Sorry. Is she really having to stoop to these rolls? She was once in demand a few years back. Oh well, I guess you can't stay on top forever.

The guy needs to get rid of his security detail before he goes telling others they can't carry their guns. I would call him a nitwit, but that might get my response deleted.

[kilimanjaro]

I'm like Tom, hope it costs eleventy billion dollars to make, but we differ on one point : I hope it loses most of that eleventy billion dollars at the box office.

[44 AMP]

I think Mr Weinstein and others like him probably justify the violence and gunplay in their movies with the response that it isn't real. It's fantasy. No one is actually shot, no one seriously injured, no one killed, etc. SO, harmless, right?

What boggles my mind, and has for some time is the amount of outright hate and lies the anti gun people constantly throw out, most aimed at the NRA.

I can understand disagreement, even dislike, but its not just that, it is outright "hanging's too good for 'em, they should be tortured to death, first!" kind of hate.

College professors, media moguls, sometimes even politicians spewing real venom, and given a pass, or worse, a pat on the back from reporters all over the country.

As long as its about guns. If its about one of their personal sacred cows, the scream long and loud and want the offender nailed to a wall. Such kind, tolerant people.....

[Tom Servo]

I can understand disagreement, even dislike, but its not just that, it is outright "hanging's too good for 'em, they should be tortured to death, first!" kind of hate.

That's what got me about the guilt and shame rhetoric when the UBC bill failed. At one point, I read an editorial that said the blood of the children of Sandy Hook was on the hands of those of us who opposed it.

Good heavens. What right do they have to expect a civil discussion when they come out of the gate with sentiments like that?

[44 AMP]

What right do they have to expect a civil discussion when they come out of the gate with sentiments like that?

They don't expect a civil discussion. They don't want a civil discussion. They want us to die, in agony as they feel we are personally responsible for every mis use and criminal abuse of a firearm. The kinder ones would allow us to live, I think, as long as we renounced not only our own gun ownership, but everyone else's as well.

The most radical of them make the kind of public statements that, if the subject was something other than guns, would get them sued, or prosecuted. Yet they get away with it, constantly.

As far as I know, and I've been involved in the situation for more than half a century now, while people in the NRA sometimes say things they shouldn't, they are doing so as individuals, not NRA spokesmen. The NRA has never advocated breaking any law, never made personal attacks on anyone, or represented any group in any way other than honestly.

Why does the other side heap such hatred on the NRA? Is it just because they are the visible flagship of the pro gun viewpoint? Or is there something else, perhaps, darker, at work?

[shortwave]

Maybe Weinstein can get Bloomberg to bankroll his project. Maybe Bloomberg to even star in the movie along with Streep.

Will be interesting to see what the total cost of the movie will be versus the total $'s in revenue for the gun industry after it comes out.

Maybe the NRA along with ammo and gun manufacturer's need to draft
a 'letter of appreciation' to Weinstein and movie supporters for increased membership/sales ready ahead of time.

[ClydeFrog]

It's "hip" in Hollywood to be "anti-gun" or anti-2A(see the huge wave post-Sandy Hook in 2012) but many actors & film industry professionals own guns, get CCW licenses or go target shooting/skeet shooting.

The 2000s era film The Runaway Jury is a great example. The plot is based on writer John Grisham's novel. But in the book, big tobacco companies are the evil baddies. The major US tobacco firms settled all the civil actions & were not as big of a social issue so Hollywood & the production company/studio of The Runaway Jury switched the content to the US gun industry & firearms.
The problem there was that by the time the feature film was released, many state governments & local elected leaders passed or were on track to get new state laws/statues that prevented gun makers/companies from civil actions or wrongful death actions.
So the dramatic content & story of The Runaway Jury is in fact completely unrealistic & implausible in many areas of the US.
The feature film was a turkey at the US box office & didn't really change any minds about gun rights or firearm ownership.