Pity Chrysler (was, The Dukes of Hazzard)

They refuse to allow their cars to be used in the "Dukes of Hazzard"
movie because of the Confederate flag and that movie will probably do
massive box office. But, they give the producers of "The Island"
an typical, politically-correct Hollywood movie a huge number of their
cars and it's horribly bombing.
Is this some kind of divine message to toadying international
corporations that maybe they should attempt to control everything that
people can do or think?
-Rich

RichA wrote:
> They refuse to allow their cars to be used in the "Dukes of Hazzard"
> movie because of the Confederate flag and that movie will probably do
> massive box office. But, they give the producers of "The Island"
> an typical, politically-correct Hollywood movie a huge number of their
> cars and it's horribly bombing.
> Is this some kind of divine message to toadying international
> corporations that maybe they should attempt to control everything that
> people can do or think?

Why should they let someone take their products and slap a symbol on it
that offends a rather large slice of the public? I'm white, live in
Virginia, politically conservative (many liberals think that makes me
racist) and even I can see why many people are offended by the
Confederate flag - just like Jewish people are offended by the Swastika.
It is a symbol that is strongly connected to the legitimization of
slavery. I fail to see how it can be spun into anything else. Many say
it is a symbol of southern pride but I just don't get it. Maybe someone
here can explain it for me.

IMO, DC is smart to not allow their products to be used in a way that is
offense to many people. It's good business and, IMO, the right thing to do.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:39:38 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>> They refuse to allow their cars to be used in the "Dukes of Hazzard"
>> movie because of the Confederate flag and that movie will probably do
>> massive box office. But, they give the producers of "The Island"
>> an typical, politically-correct Hollywood movie a huge number of their
>> cars and it's horribly bombing.
>> Is this some kind of divine message to toadying international
>> corporations that maybe they should attempt to control everything that
>> people can do or think?
>
>Why should they let someone take their products and slap a symbol on it
>that offends a rather large slice of the public? I'm white, live in
>Virginia, politically conservative (many liberals think that makes me
>racist) and even I can see why many people are offended by the
>Confederate flag - just like Jewish people are offended by the Swastika.
> It is a symbol that is strongly connected to the legitimization of
>slavery. I fail to see how it can be spun into anything else. Many say
>it is a symbol of southern pride but I just don't get it. Maybe someone
>here can explain it for me.
>
>IMO, DC is smart to not allow their products to be used in a way that is
>offense to many people. It's good business and, IMO, the right thing to do.
>
While from a basic tenant point of view I agree with you, some people
also just need to get over themselves. There isn't a person alive
today that had anything to do with or was impacted buy the institution
of slavery or the civil war. This is quite unlike the remaining
survivors of the holocaust who are still alive and do remember the
horror that was the Nazis.

Personally I think it was a bonehead move on Chryslers part as the
segment of the population that they were worried about offending
probably wouldn't even go see that movie to begin with. Although they
have probably generated more press & conversation about their decision
then if they hadn't made it.
--

Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition

ZombyWoof
(take the dogs when replying via e-mail)

ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:39:38 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>RichA wrote:
>>
>>>They refuse to allow their cars to be used in the "Dukes of Hazzard"
>>>movie because of the Confederate flag and that movie will probably do
>>>massive box office. But, they give the producers of "The Island"
>>>an typical, politically-correct Hollywood movie a huge number of their
>>>cars and it's horribly bombing.
>>>Is this some kind of divine message to toadying international
>>>corporations that maybe they should attempt to control everything that
>>>people can do or think?
>>
>>Why should they let someone take their products and slap a symbol on it
>>that offends a rather large slice of the public? I'm white, live in
>>Virginia, politically conservative (many liberals think that makes me
>>racist) and even I can see why many people are offended by the
>>Confederate flag - just like Jewish people are offended by the Swastika.
>> It is a symbol that is strongly connected to the legitimization of
>>slavery. I fail to see how it can be spun into anything else. Many say
>>it is a symbol of southern pride but I just don't get it. Maybe someone
>>here can explain it for me.
>>
>>IMO, DC is smart to not allow their products to be used in a way that is
>>offense to many people. It's good business and, IMO, the right thing to do.
>>
>
> While from a basic tenant point of view I agree with you, some people
> also just need to get over themselves. There isn't a person alive
> today that had anything to do with or was impacted buy the institution
> of slavery or the civil war. This is quite unlike the remaining
> survivors of the holocaust who are still alive and do remember the
> horror that was the Nazis.

I think many in the South need to get over a few things too. They lost
the Civil War. I just don't understand the drive of some to display the
Confederate flag. What exactly does it mean to them? I do think they
should have the right to display it.

> Personally I think it was a bonehead move on Chryslers part as the
> segment of the population that they were worried about offending
> probably wouldn't even go see that movie to begin with. Although they
> have probably generated more press & conversation about their decision
> then if they hadn't made it.

From a purely business standpoint I think it makes good sense. Blacks
make up 11%-12% of the population alone. Many whites and other
minorities may also be included. The number of people that may be
offended up way more than 25% of the entire population. That is a huge
number. I don't think many care at all that they chose to stay away
from the picture. Plus, I don't see this picture doing all that well
anyway. It is another poor remake of a marginal TV show.

But this is just my opinion.

ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:39:38 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > wrote:

> While from a basic tenant point of view I agree with you, some people
> also just need to get over themselves.

And some other people need to take off the white sheets and cease the
cross burning.....

TNS

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

>Plus, I don't see this picture doing all that well
> anyway. It is another poor remake of a marginal TV show.
>
> But this is just my opinion.


Marginal? You're being VERY kind. 8-) If you put 2 thirteen year old
boys together and asked them to write scripts each week, that
approximates the quality of the original series. It's right up there
(down there?) with Three's Company....

Cheers,

"Ritz" > wrote in message ...
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
> >Plus, I don't see this picture doing all that well
> > anyway. It is another poor remake of a marginal TV show.
> >
> > But this is just my opinion.
>
>
> Marginal? You're being VERY kind. 8-) If you put 2 thirteen year old
> boys together and asked them to write scripts each week, that
> approximates the quality of the original series. It's right up there
> (down there?) with Three's Company....
>

Mebbeso, but a lot of people watched and enjoyed it every week(myself
included) regardless of the poor script quality. I didn't like 3's company.

H

Hairy wrote:
> "Ritz" > wrote in message ...
>
>>Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Plus, I don't see this picture doing all that well
>>>anyway. It is another poor remake of a marginal TV show.
>>>
>>>But this is just my opinion.
>>
>>
>>Marginal? You're being VERY kind. 8-) If you put 2 thirteen year old
>>boys together and asked them to write scripts each week, that
>>approximates the quality of the original series. It's right up there
>>(down there?) with Three's Company....
>>
>
>
> Mebbeso, but a lot of people watched and enjoyed it every week(myself
> included) regardless of the poor script quality. I didn't like 3's company.

IMO, there were three basic viewers of that show. The first were girls
wanting to watch two hot guys. The second were guys wanting to watch a
long legged girl in hot pants. The third were kids wanting to see cars
jumped and trashed on a weekly basis. Maybe there were a handful of
sick SOBs with the hots for Uncle Jesse. The viewers surely didn't tune
in for the riveting plot lines.

Ritz wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> Plus, I don't see this picture doing all that well anyway. It is
>> another poor remake of a marginal TV show.
>>
>> But this is just my opinion.
>
>
>
> Marginal? You're being VERY kind. 8-) If you put 2 thirteen year old
> boys together and asked them to write scripts each week, that
> approximates the quality of the original series.

How dare you so callously insult the intellect of thirteen year old boys.

They used Chrysler cars but not with the "blessing" of DC or their
sponsorship. It appears the cars they used were privately owned.

William Claude Dukenfield wrote:
> But they did use them, so where did this rumor come from???
> ---------------------------------
> One of the original series car from the '80s was also used in this new
> movie as a close-up car. It's a converted '68 Charger to look like a
> '69. The original engine was replaced by a brand new Hemi-engine. The
> car was used for a few close-up scenes and was send back to Warner
> Bros.
>
> 26 Dodge Chargers were used for the making of this film. Several 1968
> and 1970 Dodge Chargers were converted to look like 1969 Chargers.
> Only one hemi Charger was used, the rest were 440s, 383s, and a few
> small block 318.
>
> Two Dodge Charger's were purchased for a total of $2, given that after
> the making of the film they would be sold back to the original owner
> for $1.25 a piece.
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377818/trivia
>
>
>>>>RichA wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>They refuse to allow their cars to be used in the "Dukes of Hazzard"
>>>>>movie because of the Confederate flag and that movie will probably do
>>>>>massive box office. But, they give the producers of "The Island"
>>>>>an typical, politically-correct Hollywood movie a huge number of their
>>>>>cars and it's horribly bombing.
>>>>>Is this some kind of divine message to toadying international
>>>>>corporations that maybe they should attempt to control everything that
>>>>>people can do or think?
>
>