If Adam Sandler can do it, why not the government?

[BnG_Hevn]

I don't know the exact numbers, but apparently Adam Sandler has made money hand over fist by producing movies.

Now, granted, he has a pretty good feel for the pulse that makes Hollywood work, but why wouldn't the government set aside, say, $100 million, and invest in movies?

I mean, $100 million is a "drop in the bucket" compared to the amount wasted, so why not invest in movies.

I'm not saying it is a silver bullet, but like anything else, you diversify and instead of trying for a knock out punch, you take a lot of "jabs".

There are so many cheesy movies made b/c the return is there. You spend $5 million on a movie and as lame as it is, if you make 7 or 8 million you turned a profit.

I can't imagine the B and C rated movie count mattering much. Plus, you "employ" MANY actors that are "out of work" so in Obama's case, he can actually claim, with honesty, that he "created jobs.

[GoSlash27]

You get the government involved in the domestic production and dissemination of movies, and I guarantee you they're going to have a say in who gets "investments", what their message is, etc. And like everything else, once they get their fingers involved, you will never, ever get them out again.
Graft, political cronyism, government waste, and domestic propaganda. No thanks.

[Count Steeler]

Government must DECREASE it's roll, not look for areas of expansion.

[BnG_Hevn]

I'm not talking about "taking over", I'm talking about investing money in movies looking for investors.

Not creating their own production company.

[Count Steeler]

I'm not talking about "taking over", I'm talking about investing money in movies looking for investors.

Not creating their own production company.

I hear ya, but I just can't see government showing any kind of restraint. And they would surely find some scheme to royally screw everything up.

[st33lersguy]

The government couldn't run a hotdog stand and allowing a worthless bureaucrat to run a movie is a bad idea

[Craic]

I don't know the exact numbers, but apparently Adam Sandler has made money hand over fist by producing movies.

Now, granted, he has a pretty good feel for the pulse that makes Hollywood work, but why wouldn't the government set aside, say, $100 million, and invest in movies?

I mean, $100 million is a "drop in the bucket" compared to the amount wasted, so why not invest in movies.

I'm not saying it is a silver bullet, but like anything else, you diversify and instead of trying for a knock out punch, you take a lot of "jabs".

There are so many cheesy movies made b/c the return is there. You spend $5 million on a movie and as lame as it is, if you make 7 or 8 million you turned a profit.

I can't imagine the B and C rated movie count mattering much. Plus, you "employ" MANY actors that are "out of work" so in Obama's case, he can actually claim, with honesty, that he "created jobs.

I don't want the govt. involved in something like that at all. As others said, it'd lead to a whole bunch of horrid things.

What I WOULDN'T mind seeing however, is instead of bailouts and other types of things, if for the fed. govt. to actually invest money in the companies in such a way that they are, by law, considered silent partners with no ability to influence the company by vote share. Hence, they must remain neutral. That way, then can buy when stocks are low and sell when they're high.

The only problem with is that it'd open up an entire new avenue of political cronyism.

[GoSlash27]

I'm not talking about "taking over", I'm talking about investing money in movies looking for investors.

Not creating their own production company.

I know you're not. But the politicians in DC are very adept at twisting what *you* want into what *they* want.

[GBMelBlount]

I don't know the exact numbers, but apparently Adam Sandler has made money hand over fist by producing movies.

Now, granted, he has a pretty good feel for the pulse that makes Hollywood work, but why wouldn't the government set aside, say, $100 million, and invest in movies?

I mean, $100 million is a "drop in the bucket" compared to the amount wasted, so why not invest in movies.

I'm not saying it is a silver bullet, but like anything else, you diversify and instead of trying for a knock out punch, you take a lot of "jabs".

There are so many cheesy movies made b/c the return is there. You spend $5 million on a movie and as lame as it is, if you make 7 or 8 million you turned a profit.

I can't imagine the B and C rated movie count mattering much. Plus, you "employ" MANY actors that are "out of work" so in Obama's case, he can actually claim, with honesty, that he "created jobs.

Better yet, why not have people like Adam Sandler who not how to make things work efficiently and profitably involved in teaching the governmnent how to operate in the black instead of at a 16 trillion dollar deficit.

Oh wait, that would be admitting Romney who has been successfully doing this for 25 years is our best option to save our country from going off a fiscal cliff...forget it.

Spin, deflection, and equating this type of success being meaningless when it comes to fixing our country and Romney is no better than Obama, we need a gridock libertarian....blah blah blah....3.......2.....1.....

[BnG_Hevn]

I know you're not. But the politicians in DC are very adept at twisting what *you* want into what *they* want.

Yeah, I guess I think too much on the sensible side b/c you're right.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess they'd be like the suits in the production of Dukes of Hazzard. They had a true money cow until the suits got involved and then it went straight down hill.