Not really a review, since no self-respecting gunperson would contribute money to the makers of this movie, which depicts the poor, underfunded gun-control movement battling the huge, powerful, omnipresent NRA. But that’s precisely what makes Lott’s article so interesting. The stats:
Poorly funded gun-control advocates are shown doing battle with the big, bad National Rifle Association. Of course, Michael Bloomberg is never mentioned. He would spoil the story, since he gives $50 million a year to his regulation-pushing Everytown for Gun Safety. This is 2.5 times more than the NRA spends on political activities. From 2013 to 2016, Bloomberg donated a total of $48 million to candidates running for federal office. The NRA contributed just $2.1 million. And that’s not even mentioning the hundreds of millions that Bloomberg, George Soros, and others funnel into producing gun-control research.
Indeed, if it weren’t for Bloomberg, there wouldn’t be a gun-control movement today. The continually repeated claim that 80 to 90 percent of Americans favor background checks on private transfers of guns is an illusion of poorly done polling. Bloomberg’s Nevada ballot initiative eked out a win this November by less than one percentage point, and only because of the almost $20 million spent on it, amounting to an incredible $35.30 per vote. In Maine, the same initiative failed by eight percentage points despite equally unlimited spending. Even in Washington state, which passed the initiative with 59 percent of the vote, Bloomberg and his supporters outspent those opposed to it 33-fold.
Lott gives some pretty good stats about the degree of box-office flopitude Miss Sloane represents, also. Unlike many cataclysmic flops, this movie wasn’t poorly made, under-promoted, then buried in a slow movie month. On the contrary, it was among the most heavily promoted films of the year and released in one of the two prime moviegoing seasons. Its makers expected it to do very well. And down it went into instant obscurity.
I don’t think it was all that heavily promoted. I’d never even heard of it until I saw people talking about what a flop it was. Certainly there was nothing like the level of promotion for Rogue One, or even Suicide Squad.
Actually, KH, according to its advertising budget and the number of ads that ran for it, Miss Sloane was heavily promoted. It may have been promoted where you (and I) never saw, but according to Lott’s figures, serious promotional money was spent on it.
It was heavily advertised on CNN/HLN. I think I even saw ads on Faux Snooze. Rogue One was more heavily promoted but, around here anyway, it got
lessmore ad time than Suicide Squad.But I have to disagree with Lott’s assessment on the point of “poorly done polling.” When I could see raw questions and data, everything was carefully crafted to generate that 90+%. Which never seems to match actual voting, even where crap passes.
But one “survey” in New Hampshire a few years back… Done by UNH (commonly referred to as the University of North Massachusetts locally). Claimed that 94% of NH residents want universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence. They refused to release any raw data. At all. And I could never find anyone who would admit to participating in the alleged survey, pro or con victim disarmament.
80 to 90 percent of Americans favor background checks
How could anyone believe that?
1. If 80% of Americans wanted the sky to be green, Congress would drop everything else to pass a Green Skies Act, and the President would immediately and very publicly sign it. The simple fact that the law hasn’t passed should tell anyone not blindly anti-gun that it isn’t nearly that popular.
2. And on some level even the anti-gun folks know it. They keep saying Congressmembers should “show courage by voting for background checks.” But wait! Why would voting for an overwhelmingly poplar measure take “courage?”
Too bad there isn’t some Fourth Estate to ask these questions in public.
As you say, this isn’t a review, but merely a diatribe against the anti-gun crowd along with some statistics on how badly the movie flopped. I certainly don’t disagree with anything he said, but I still have interest in seeing the movie (although perhaps not in a theater) simply so see how they portray the activities of lobbyists. For a political activist (even on the other side of the issue) it could be a useful tutorial.
Okay, I can sorta see your point, Laird. But can a movie that depicts an underfunded gun-control movement and a monolithic, all-powerful NRA be counted on to give a reliable view of how the lobbying process works?
After years of seeing movies get things that I do know about (computers and guns in particular) wrong to an absurd, laughable degree, I now just assume that everything in movies that I don’t personally know about is just as completely inaccurate.
I haven’t seen the movie, and never will, but I *did* see a ton of ads for it leading up to its release. The first time I saw one of the ads after Trump won I laughed long and hard – I mean really laughed out loud. I knew this movie was counting on a Hillary landslide, and would fail enormously once she lost.