{{welcome|sig=[[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 22:56, 31 May 2014 (EDT)}}

== Two quick points ==

Thanks for your additions to the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] article.

Two quick points:

1. Voltaire was actually a deist.[http://deism.com/voltaire.htm]

2. Could you please footnote your additions [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist_hypocrisy#Atheism_and_free_speech HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:23, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

You're welcome, and to respond to the two quick points:

1. No, Voltaire was an atheist, fully. Timothy Dwight made that very clear in his speech, or at the very least that he fully intended to implement irreligion and atheism in place of religion. Deists, being people who believe in God, would not care if people were Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or heck, even Jewish or Muslim so long as they believe in a god, while Voltaire wanted to make sure all religion was destroyed, hence he was an atheist, not a deist.

2. Just did, and while I mainly based it on [http://www.wnd.com/2006/04/35810/ WND's "Dan Brown and the Voltaire Code" article covering that aspect], the truth is you can find that speech anywhere on the web, though admittedly in fragments. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 11:35, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
:::Two additional points: 1) Thank for adding the citation. 2) ""What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason." - Voltaire[http://deism.com/voltaire.htm] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:47, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

::::You're welcome regarding the first point. As far as the second, Darwin also mentioned a "creator" in some of his works, yet he was clearly lying. And besides, if he believed in a creator, why would he want to destroy all religious beliefs, especially Christianity in both Protestant and Catholic forms, as well as possibly Judaism and maybe even Islam? Those all involved a creator, yet as made clear in Timothy Dwight's statements and even Voltaire's "Crush Infamie" claim, he wanted all of them destroyed, which is not befitting of a deist (which, really, had I been a deist, why should I care if they exist since they believe in a god anyways? No harm to me since at least we all share the belief in at least one god). Dwight even speculated that this was one of the reasons for the French Revolution. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 11:49, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
I added the atheistic Darwinism point to the article. And seeing that Voltaire was a deist, I removed the material about the six stage plan. Thanks for mentioning the additional point about free speech, namely, atheistic Darwinism. It improved the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:05, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
:::::Was it really necessary to remove the six stage plan? Diderot also had a huge role in that plan, so at least keep it in for him, and Diderot is unambiguously an atheist (Voltaire is in the gray area largely because of claims he was a deist while people like Timothy Dwight made very clear he was atheistic). But if it needs to be removed, I guess I can't do a thing to stop it. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 12:28, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

No offense intended. I reverted the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] edit. Want to keep it all examples of atheists/New Atheists. You can incorporate the material in the Voltaire article or create an anti-Christian article that incorporates the information. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:19, 12 November 2014 (EST)

:Problem is that Timothy Dwight explicitly refers to Voltaire's views as being "irreligious and atheism", certainly he promoted the views. Not to mention there is at least one work that flat out spells it out. http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/voltaire.htm [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 12:28, 12 November 2014 (EST)
::You could create an article called [[Anti-Christian deceptions]] and include this information in it along with other information. I can definitely see a need for such an article and it would be interesting too. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:42, 12 November 2014 (EST)
:::Please read [http://www.adherents.com/people/pv/Voltaire.html THIS]. This is further evidence that Voltaire was not an atheist. Please do not add the Voltaire material into the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 13 November 2014 (EST)
::::I read it, and that doesn't make it any more correct.
::::And maybe I should remind YOU that I gave you plenty of sources for Voltaire actually BEING an atheist, like Sullivan County and a transcript of the Timothy Dwight sermon, made in July 4, 1799.
::::And BTW, Voltaire basically deeding a church doesn't mean he was any less of an atheist, just that he sees some use for it or more likely just wanted a show. Don't forget, during World War II, Stalin actually allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to actually be open in its religion, mostly as a morale booster than any actual personal belief in it, and used it as a sock puppet (this is what Moses the Raven represented, especially regarding Napoleon's influence, in George Orwell's ''Animal Farm''), and he was a militant atheist. Heck, even China today has state-controlled churches rather than absolute obliterations of them outright, and that's despite China being as atheistic as the USSR (itself extremely atheistic). So no, we're keeping Voltaire in there. Besides, even his Conservapedia article notes that he died unsaved, and his own bedside nurse denies he actually converted at all, and she observed his final moments, so that's one error your link has. And need I really remind you that Darwin also expressed a belief in writing about a creator, something he made clear was a false belief specifically to con people into thinking he had any religious beliefs when he actually didn't? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 20:05, 13 November 2014 (EST)
::::EDIT: Here's some sources just for you, and this time, actually try to read them: http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/voltaire.htm; http://www.wnd.com/2006/04/35810/#LFe1HvZ0eTHxBBmT.99;
I don't believe those two articles provide a sound historical argument that Voltaire was an atheist. Some principles I believe should be used to make historical claims/arguments are given at:
[http://amorebeautifulquestion.com/historians-view-of-questioning/ Some keen insights from Pulitzer Prize–winner David Hackett Fischer] and [http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2009/10/7-habits-of-highly-effective-historians.html 7 habits of highly effective historians]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:34, 14 November 2014 (EST)

== thanks for catching the conflation ==

Thanks for catching the Sartre/Russell conflation.[http://books.google.com/books?id=j7kVPMgVo3cC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=%22in+his+old+age+Jean-Paul+Sartre%E2%80%94notorious+for+his+sexual+escapades+with+female+students,+often+procured+by+his+colleague+and+lover&source=bl&ots=fb2LQg144N&sig=YSqT6L0u9mZamHZ-XV8zMlXE4_Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XFwOVJCYHcbGsQTso4Ag&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22in%20his%20old%20age%20Jean-Paul%20Sartre%E2%80%94notorious%20for%20his%20sexual%20escapades%20with%20female%20students%2C%20often%20procured%20by%20his%20colleague%20and%20lover&f=false]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:50, 8 September 2014 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== is this guy right or wrong? ==

I don't follow anime/manga, but is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDecxr8GAjw this guy] right about CNN doing sloppy reporting about this issue? I just decided to err on the side of caution if necessary and just pull CNN claim. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:52, 3 March 2015 (EST)

:Can't say anything about CNN, but I do know PJMedia had an article citing this sort of thing as one, actually, a third of the reasons people steer clear of anime (half if one counts fanservice), and the guy who did the article is a huge Anime fan: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/10/17/6-reasons-why-people-avoid-anime/?singlepage=true I also had some encounters on the web about how moe characters and loli characters are controversial due to the implications of child porn. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 22:52, 3 March 2015 (EST)
::In hindsight, I see that you did not cite the CNN report. My apologies. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:19, 4 March 2015 (EST)

==Marx and Mass Murdering==

The reason I'm not sure that "Mass Murderer" is a good description of Marx is that he never actually murdered anybody. If you look at the people listed under the "Mass Murderer" category, they're either people, like James Holmes or Seng-Hui Cho, who actually killed a bunch of people themselves, or else they were leaders or top officials of murderous regimes, like Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, and Fidel Castro on the one hand, or Heinrich Himmler, Leon Trotsky, and Reinhard Heinrich, on the other. Marx doesn't fit into either of those categories. He certainly advocated violence, and had he been in charge of a government, probably would have had a bunch of people killed, but as things actually turned out, Marx, while he engaged in a lot of character assassination of his opponents, spent most of his time sitting in the library of the British Museum writing stuff and hitting up Engels for money. "Mass murderer" doesn't fit.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 18:12, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
:He was the founder of Communism, and not only was it his ideas that led to a LOT of the deaths in the 20th Century and maybe the 21st Century if we count Cuba, North Korea, and to some extent Southeast Asia, but he also specifically told the Communists to reenact the year 1793 (I'm not kidding, he actually said this. I quote: “There is only one way of shortening, simplifying, and concentrating the bloodthirsty death-throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new--revolutionary terror. . . . [...] Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793. [...] We are pitiless and we ask no pity from you. When our time comes, we shall not conceal terrorism with hypocritical phrases. . . The vengeance of the people will break forth with such ferocity that not even the year 1793 enables us to envisage it. . . .”). If that doesn't sound like an order to kill as many people as they want and thus qualify him as a mass murderer, I don't know what does. And bear in mind, I'm not even calling the Enlightenment people mass murderers, since while it IS obvious that they held enough anger regarding the Catholic Church to harbor genocidal beliefs towards it, they never to my knowledge explicitly told their readers to kill the church or anyone else, unlike Marx, who specifically made clear he wanted the Communists to reenact the year 1793, aka, Robespierre's Reign of Terror. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:44, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
::I agree with you, Marx did call for violence, and he looked forward to a time when the working class would rise up and slaughter all their class enemies. (That quote comes from Marx's final editorial in his newspaper, when it was closed and he was forced to leave Cologne. But again, as violent as Marx was in his rhetoric, he didn't kill anybody, and he wasn't the leader of a state who did. States that adopted his ideas certainly did, and classing the leaders of those states as mass murderers are certainly appropriate. But it seems enough to condemn Marx for what he actually did do. In my mind, mass murderers murder people. But I guess it doesn't matter. I won't win this, and if I take it off again, you'll just put it back on.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 21:26, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
:::Actually, I want to thank you for actually identifying where exactly it came from (I knew it came from correspondences between Marx and Engels because that's what Socialist Sucks! on Facebook stated and cited the Clairmont Institute for this finding, but I couldn't find it anywhere else), and also ask if there was a way to actually read that article, like an internet link or something? It may actually be necessary if I'm going to get the full picture and especially as a citation for the blog Marx and Friends (which is an anti-Marx blog) to give to them. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 21:42, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
::::It's actually a few quotes mashed together there. During the revolutions of 1848, Marx was the editor of a newspaper in Cologne called the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung" (New Rhenish Newspaper), published by the Communist League. The newspaper generally took an anti-Prussian (Prussia controlled Cologne), pro-republican stance and was a big supporter of 1848, and called for a unified Germany with a constitution and universal suffrage. In 1849, in the aftermath of the 1848 revolutions and the crackdown, the Prussian government shut down the newspaper and expelled Marx. so in the last edition, Marx published an open letter to the Prussian government, which can be found here:

::::https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/05/19c.htm

::::That's the origin for the "We will not make excuses for our terror" quote. The "vengeance of the people will break forth...." quote comes from Engels' "The Condition of the Working Class in England" He's talking about how industrialization and English trade policy is increasing the difference between rich and poor, and that the English government doesn't seem to care about the welfare of the working class and warns. "If, up to that time, the English bourgeoisie does not pause to reflect—and to all appearance it certainly will not do so—a revolution will follow with which none hitherto known can be compared. The proletarians, driven to despair, will seize the torch which Stephens has preached to them; the vengeance of the people will come down with a wrath of which the rage of 1793 gives no true idea. The war of the poor against the rich will be the bloodiest ever waged. " You can find that on Project Gutenburg here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17306/17306-h/17306-h.htm

::::The "There is only one way in which the murderous..." quote comes from an earlier edition of Neue Rhenische Zeitung, from the November 6, 1848 article "The Victory of the Counter Revolution in Vienna", about the retaking of Vienna, which had been in revolt, by the Austrian army. That quote is "The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.", and it can be found here https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm

::::As for the "Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793.", Solzhenitzn, in one of his books quotes Marx as saying "Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793. We'll be considered monsters, but we couldn't care less.", citing a Soviet collection of Marxist writings, but I can't find the actual quote by Marx, just Sonzhenitzn's quote. The closest I can find so far is from an interview Engels gave to a French newspaper in 1892, when, asked about the Alsace-Lorraine question, he responded

::::"I hope that the German socialist party will be in power in ten years or so. Its first concern will be to put the people of Alsace-Lorraine in a position to decide their own political future. Consequently the question will be settled without a single French soldier having to stir. On the contrary, a war between Germany and France would be the only means of preventing the socialists' coming to power. And if France and Russia in alliance attacked Germany, the latter would defend to the death its national existence, in which the German socialists have an even greater interest than the bourgeoisie. The socialists, then, would fight to the last man, and would not hesitate to resort to the revolutionary means employed by France in 1793."--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 01:18, 1 August 2016 (EDT)

:::::Thanks. And hope that specific quote regarding the Reign of Terror and their not caring if they were considered monsters turns up in your search (since if he did cite a Soviet collection of Marx's writings, it should be in the place it was cited at). And anyways, this is where I found the excerpt: https://www.facebook.com/373757305985421/photos/a.373910375970114.102939.373757305985421/819295658098248/?type=1 And honestly, either way, it goes to show that whoever the guy who came up with the truism "whoever fails to learn their history will be doomed to repeat it" obviously hadn't conceived of someone like Marx, because he most certainly didn't fail to learn from history (he knew full well the French Revolution and especially the Reign of Terror was a major bloodbath), yet he STILL intended to repeat it anyways. Same deal with all those so-called intellectuals that came after him and even, in the case of the French Enlightenment philosophers, before him (though at least in the latter case, they COULD be argued to not know their history beyond thinking delusionally that pagan Rome was better than Christianity). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:09, 1 August 2016 (EDT)

== Merry Christmas ==

[[Image:Merry Christmas.gif|cebter|260px]]
{{clear}}
Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:44, 24 December 2016 (EST)

== Happy New Year==

It's good to see you back. I had worried that my peremptory block would have chased you away forever.

I'm sorry I blocked you. Other, wiser heads prevailed and convinced me that I was wrong.

I look forward to seeing many more wonderful contributions from you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:17, 1 January 2017 (EST)
== Thanks! ==

You helped make [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com THIS] happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "[[best of the public]]" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)
==Quick project==
Dear Pokeria1:
Our state articles list the members of Congress from each state, but they have not be updated for 2014 or 2016. If five editors could update 10 states each, we would be done quickly. Could you please take a look at [[Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory]]? Thanks in advance, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:52, 16 February 2017 (EST)
:I'll see what I can do. I took care of my home state of Georgia (there wasn't much else to update there, just adding a vacancy note next to Tom Price's name and changing the link from Henry Johnson to Hank Johnson since I suspect those two are one and the same), but I'll see what I can do about the other states. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:25, 16 February 2017 (EST)
:Okay, took care of all states from Arkansas up to Georgia, except for Connecticut, since that remained unchanged (though I did cross it out due to the fact that it didn't need any changes and thus was essentially done). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (EST)

== Could you please write this article? ==

Could you please write this important article: [[Atheism and ethics]]?

I may ask another writer or tow to contribute to it also. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:04, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:I'll see what I can do, but I do need directions regarding sources before I do. Obviously, I don't want to come across as talking out of my butt without at least some sources to back this wiki up. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:21, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

::Thanks, I put some sources below. Ideally, I would like it to be one of Conservapedia's flagship articles. So please try avoid making it a stub article. I have asked a few people to help. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:40, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:::I believe that [[User:1990'sguy]] will be helping you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:57, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
=== Sources ===

*[https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/04/ethics-for-atheists/# Would human life be sacred in an atheist world?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheism_determinism_morality.html Does Atheism (Determinism) Negatively Impact Morality?]

*[http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2015/03/atheism-ethics-and-immorality.html Atheism, Ethics, and Immorality]

*[https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2016/01/good-nothing-make-atheist-ethics-better-christian/ Being Good “For Nothing” — Does That Make Atheist Ethics Better Than Christian?]

*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-on-atheism-ethics-and-marital-conflict Questions on Atheism, Ethics, and Marital Conflict]

*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics]

Secular sources:

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Additional sources:

*[http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality] by Paul Copan
*[http://www.equip.org/articles/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality/ Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality] by Chad Meister
*[http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-amorality-of-atheism The amorality of atheim] by Rob Smith
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-godCan Can we be good without God?] by William Lane Craig]
*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics and morality] by Ken Ammi
*[http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec06/AtheisticExplanations.html Atheist explanations of morality and common sense]
*[http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/09/does_being_an_atheist_interfer.html Does being an atheist interfere with being moral?] by Lydia McGrew
*[http://americanvision.org/2742/nietzsche-slaps-down-dawkins-on-the-illusion-of-atheist-morality/ Nietzsche slaps down Dawkins on the illusion of atheist morality] by Dr. Joel McDurmon

Thanks. Just about finished, though I fear that, even if not quite a stub, it may require significant work, since I'm not exactly that good in regards to giving multiple statements per source. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:26, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

== IRC ==

Hello, 
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|Andy's]]) it has been decided that I start an [[Internet Relay Chat]] channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know! 
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net 
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:43, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Bye! ==

[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:18, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

:Nice try, you're not a mod and thus don't have the authority to throw me under the bus. Besides, we also listed the whole bit about conservativism playing a role in the counterexamples anyways, so undoing that edit is pointless, especially we have to cite all evidence, whether confirmation or not, to any argument, that being the purpose of an encyclopedia. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:19, 31 May 2017 (EDT)
::Of course I don't have the authority. There's plenty of people who do though. You've had a good run - never particularly funny, like, but you managed to slip in some silliness here and there. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:27, 31 May 2017 (EDT)
:::You know I just responded to your talk page, right? So it's pretty clear the mods think I can still be here (not to mention I just looked over your page, and Conservative and the other mods voiced no intentions of banning me or anyone who reverts the edits). Besides, I've made several contributions to actual articles, while you seem to stick with talk pages in a violation of the 90/10 rule, not to mention the few edits you have made to Conservapedia's articles have largely been lacking constructive effort. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:34, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

===My apologies===
Further research indicates you're likely for real. I was certain that Pokemon edit to Greatest Conservative Movies was parody. Appears you actually meant it.

Sorry again. [[User:JZ17|JZ17]] ([[User talk:JZ17|talk]]) 18:47, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

*Don't know why you are apologizing since you didn't seem to remove any of my edits, but apology accepted either way. And yeah, I do mean it. Wouldn't have added them in at all if there weren't some conservative messages in those films (that said, though, there may be some entries that need to be moved, but we'll get to that when that ship comes). One last thing, is there a reason why your comment for the edit included this link: https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sjsoqcokhvkgix/stuv/p1 [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:52, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

== BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! ==

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:18, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

:I'm hesitant to do so, since I fear I'll become as bad as the mods on various other wikis or forums. I'll do it if I must, though. How long should the block last? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:24, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

== Galactic Empire (Star Wars) ==

So if you're a supporter of the Star Wars Galactic Empire, what do you think of the breakaway warlord factions from the [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_Civil_War Imperial Civil War] such as Zsinj's Empire, the Pentastar Alignment, the Empire of the Hand, Eriadu Authority, and Greater Maldrood? Not to mention the Imperial Remnant and Fel Empire that existed afterward. [[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 09:48, 19 September 2017 (EDT)
:Sorry for the late response, needed to mull it over. Anyways, regarding the Imperial factions, it's largely a dependent manner. Some are good, some aren't. I do know that the First Order definitely ranks the worst for me (plus, since they're actually based on Nazis, not on America, unlike the Empire, I won't have to worry about violating my rule against rooting for villains). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:22, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

== BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! ==

You are aware that you have block powers, right? And that massive vandalism is considered a no-no, right?

I recommend a block duration of 13.7 billion years (the age of the universe), though 6000 years should be enough.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:30, 16 November 2017 (EST)

:You do realize he can't block me right? [[User:Jim Morrison|Jim Morrison]] ([[User talk:Jim Morrison|talk]]) 14:32, 16 November 2017 (EST)

::I actually ''can'' block people, but I'm very hesitant to use it because I'm actually afraid that once I start blocking someone for serious infractions, sooner or later, I'll start blocking people for very trivial reasons. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 14:39, 16 November 2017 (EST)

:::You need to work on developing your power of discerning clear-cut issues. This one is a no-brainer. Are you actually '''that''' reluctant to use your power? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:43, 16 November 2017 (EST)

::::I need to make sure I'm not too severe, though. One screw up, and I'll have to live with it. I've already had to deal with mods who used their power and flaunted it many times, and I fear via slippery slope that I'll ultimately descend to their level. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 14:53, 16 November 2017 (EST)
::::Okay, I blocked him, with a timeframe of infinite. I hope I don't turn out like other mods on various wikis and various forums who have used their block powers for very trivial matters. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 14:57, 16 November 2017 (EST)

You should have more confidence in your God-given powers of intellect, wisdom, and judgment. You have free will. No one will turn you into a monster without your consent. (Well there are a few ways that that people can be turned toward evil without realizing it, but generally people's common sense prevails.)

Your block of infinity was the right length. Infinity to the infinitieth power would have been too severe. :-)

Yes, there are nasty people who are given power, and abuse that power, in many situations, including internet forums and wikis, including this one.

You have the gratitude of Conservpedia.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:21, 16 November 2017 (EST)

:I concur with SamHB. You should use your blocking authority more often. Now, because nobody blocked the vandal sooner, the first 200-or-so most recent edits are either vandalism or reverting vandalism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:25, 16 November 2017 (EST)

== False Marx Quote ==

"The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way…. They must perish in the “Revolutionary Holocaust"– Karl Marx ( Marx People’s Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981"

is a bad quote. The first part..."The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way" comes from an 1853 article by Marx in the New York Tribune titled "Forced Emigration" about emigration from Ireland and Scotland that Marx is claiming is due to economic pressure by English landlords.

The second part "All the other large and small nationalities and peoples [of Austria] are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm comes from an 1849 article by Engels in the Neue Rheinsiche Zeitung called "The Magyar Struggle" about the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. Engels is arguing in the essay that, of the nations of the Austrian Empire, only the Germans, the Hungarians, and the Poles have any sort of revolutionary spirit, and the other nations that make up the Empire reflexively support it, and therefore, will be swept away by the nationalist revolution, because they lack a national consciousness.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 12:59, 26 December 2017 (EST)
:I found it on a site commemorating Holodomor, [https://holodomorinfo.com/documents/ a youtube video posted by them] more specifically, and that was the citation they said it came from. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 13:18, 26 December 2017 (EST)

==Louis Grignon==
This might help you.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Grignon_%28militaire%29 [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 23:52, 10 March 2018 (EST)

== The PG-13 rating ==

The PG-13 rating has existed since 1984. Red Dawn was the first PG-13 film. It was created in response to Gremlins, Poltergeist, and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom being to dark and violent for the PG rating, but not high enough for the PG-13 rating. Unfortunately, most 80s films still got away with the PG rating for content that would get the PG-13 Rating today, including Roger Rabbit.
:Yeah, learned that from Karajou undoing my edit on Jurassic Park and made sure to add the (should be PG-13) note back into Roger Rabbit's entry. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 12:44, 25 March 2019 (EDT)

== thanks ==

Thank you Pokeria1

== Metal Gear ==

I think you might like to know that Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops was made without Kojima's involvement, hence why it doesn't push the same liberal nonsense. The anti-nuke sentiment can be easily blamed on simply being Japanese. Virtually no Japanese know the truth about why the US dropped the bombs nor do they acknowledge any of Japan's war crimes (in fact I challenge anyone to find even one single person in all of Japan who does). [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 00:07, 11 April 2020 (EDT)
:Well, very little of Kojima's involvement, anyhow. Apparently, he did insist that Portable Ops's story be directly tied to MGS4's storyline.
:And yeah, I definitely liked Portable Ops as a game and especially as a story (also helps that, the whole Null business aside, it was surprisingly faithful to the lore thus far, which is a breath of fresh air especially considering that Kojima seems to have an obsessive need to constantly retcon his storyline). Probably the only game actually MADE by Kojima beyond a producer role that I actually liked is Snake Eater, mostly because it's surprisingly conservative especially by the usual standards pushed with Hideo Kojima games. It certainly came the closest to actually promoting patriotism in a positive light (sure, it did come across as being a bit closer to Nazi/Soviet-style patriotism with The Boss's speech, but it still was better than other Kojima-made games where the main character was either forced to serve their country or otherwise being very anti-American in outlook, while the villains generally tended to be very patriotic to America [mostly the secret villains].). That, and it for once depicts the Communists as full-on villains, not either as the lesser of two evils at best or genuinely heroic at worst.
:Other than that, Metal Gear Solid did have an arguable pro-life or at least anti-abortion statement, from Liquid, oddly enough, since he explicitly compared the abortions during the Super Baby Method to murder. Of course, that being said, Liquid at the same time seemed to attribute himself and his brothers as murderers, or at least accomplices to murder since before they were even born during that time, when in actuality, they were closer to outright victims. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:38, 11 April 2020 (EDT)

==HAHAHA==
As you said, "if I must be honest yet again"...no no no, please. Be yourself. Be dishonest. Don't let me inconvenience you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 07:24, 30 January 2021 (EST)
:I actually try to be honest. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:44, 30 January 2021 (EST)
::Well, maybe you don't try enough. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 07:48, 30 January 2021 (EST)

== Image for Netanyahu ==

:Hi Pokeria. I think the image for Netanyahu needs to be changed to this [[https://www.google.com/search?q=funny+face+netanyahu&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiht5P-y9HwAhXGK98KHZJ-BaAQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=funny+face+netanyahu&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIGCAAQCBAeOgUIABCxAzoCCAA6BwgAELEDEEM6BAgAEEM6CAgAELEDEIMBOgQIABAYUIlvWPiCAWDwhAFoAHAAeACAAU6IAcAIkgECMjCYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ7ABAMABAQ&sclient=img&ei=LNeiYKHxBsbX_AaS_ZWACg&bih=969&biw=1920&hl=EN#imgrc=pNIWpk3mxeo7eM]].[[User:Bytemsbu|Bytemsbu]] ([[User talk:Bytemsbu|talk]]) 16:52, 17 May 2021 (EDT)
::Hmm, what is this, a pro-Iranian anti-Likudnik conspiracy? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 17:01, 17 May 2021 (EDT)

== are you into video games? ==

I found this essay earlier: [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Video Games]], and appears you wrote it. Apparently [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] allows gaming coverage as long as it's family friendly, informative, and not gossipy ([https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Rules_for_coverage.3F source). Just wondered if this sounds of interest to you. Perhaps there can be a wikiproject for video games. [[User:Patriotic Gamer|Patriotic Gamer]] ([[User talk:Patriotic Gamer|talk]]) 09:27, May 29, 2021 (EDT)
:just came here to say thank you for helping on the gaming articles. i wanted to ask about getting the ball rolling on it as well because nowadays it appears that liberal bias is being inserted into even innocuous subjects, and it feels like a matter of time before they start subverting things like [[Mario]], which is one of few things in entertainment industry that hasn't been corrupted by leftist virtue signaling yet (although Nintendo of America did do that one tweet). On [[Mario Kart DS]] article, I added a review from a Christian video game website rather than leftist journalists like [[IGN]]. [[User:Patriotic Gamer|Patriotic Gamer]] ([[User talk:Patriotic Gamer|talk]]) 15:47, May 30, 2021 (EDT)
::Huh? If you think leftist corruption of children's minds in popular culture is something new, I got a couple of lots in the Florida Everglades for sale, cheap. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:02, May 30, 2021 (EDT)

== Special invite ==

Hi Pokeria1, if you happen to be interested in joining a Discord server for Conservapedia I started, [https://discord.gg/e953Rag3 here's] the invite link. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Sunday, 21:08, July 10, 2021 (EDT)

== Question ==

You seem very defensive of The Little Mermaid. Why is that so? Did you see the argument I sent? [[User:Admiral_Farmer|Admiral_Farmer]] ([[User talk:Admiral_Farmer|talk]])
:Sorry for not responding, I'm trying to distance myself from Conservapedia due to a certain sysop who if you ask me is ruining the site with his pro-Putin love, even when evidence is coming to light that he's absolutely NO different from the ChiComs ultimately. Like I said, you're pretty much the only reason I made any edits fairly recently. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 05:28, June 25, 2022 (EDT)
::Pokey, sorry, we're not going to shoot all communists or hang them from lampposts as you suggest, nor add Putin to your kill list based on your flimsy evidence. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 11:13, June 25, 2022 (EDT)
:::^Case in point regarding why I'm not editing on here much. And if God damns you to hell for refusing to shoot all Communists or hang them from lampposts, or even adding Putin to the list of communist enemies, don't cry to me, I tried to warn you. God, after all, is totalitarian, won't tolerate the very existence of Communists since they disrupt his rule. Besides, those weren't flimsy evidence at all, not when they came from ACTUAL conservative sites and sources. Heck, [[Sebastian Gorka]] is one of those. And even Trump made it very clear early into his term that Putin is bad news, scolded Merkel for becoming his puppet as well. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:30, June 25, 2022 (EDT)
::Anyways, if its that argument you sent that I replied to before RobS got all smart-alecky, yes, I saw it. And I still fail to see how The Little Mermaid was all THAT feministic anyways (maybe if you count American Suffragette [the group Susan B. Anthony, a well-known pro-lifer who was against abortion, belonged to] stuff as feminist, I MIGHT possibly see how it could be such, but beyond that, it really isn't feminist enough to qualify as even moderately liberal. Any more than Sleeping Beauty does, and that movie had three female fairies being the closest the film has to actual protagonists, being the ones who direct the plot, even saving the prince when Maleficent abducted him and aided him in defeating her.). Besides, apparently, the film we got, the changes to the story made in it, were actually proposed by Walt Disney himself in his planned take (I think the only significant difference might be the part where Eric rams Ursula with a derelect ship, since that was forced in last minute by Katzenberg to emulate Die Hard), and Walt was a huge conservative last I checked (conservative enough to willingly aid HUAC and fire a guy who tried to prey on a boy at the pool, was even known to be a Goldwater supporter.). At the very least, they were coincidental similarities based on what the Platinum and 2006 audio commentary and bonus featurettes, respectively, claimed. And I also explained a bit on why I'm defensive as well. It's largely because, [[Hunt for Red October]] aside, it's my first movie, and Ariel if anything helped out with my struggles with my autism, alongside my parents. And even IF I were to toy with the idea that they were pushing a liberal agenda, the problem is there was literally NOTHING from the developers of the film that even remotely indicated they were trying to push an agenda when making the film, much less a leftist one (unlike, say, Beauty and the Beast, where Linda Woolverton, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Paige O'Hara, and even Don Hahn to an extent made it repeatedly clear BATB was meant to push the radical feminist agenda, or even Star Wars, where George Lucas and close associates repeatedly made it clear that they were trying to push Vietcong propaganda when making the movie.), so there's literally nothing to suggest there was an ulterior motive behind its creation (and I highly doubt that Walt Disney would have made similar changes to his planned take to The Little Mermaid if it was indeed meant to be leftist in outlook). I've grown extremely sensitive towards any pushing of left-wing agendas, to the extent that all it takes is one development note making clear they were doing such to write it off as liberal, never mind whether it's overt in its intentions. That's even why I ended up disassociating myself from BATB and Star Wars, also Metal Gear to a lesser extent. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:23, June 25, 2022 (EDT)

I do see what you’re trying to say. I don’t hate The Little Mermaid, and I’ll admit it’s a guilty pleasure of mine, but I can’t find much information on what Walt Disney’s plans were. From what I managed to find, Disney and MGM were co-collaborating on a biopic on Hans Christian Andersen, with MGM doing the main stuff, with Disney doing animated shorts based on his stories, one of which was The Little Mermaid. Given that it’s in a biopic about the author, it would’ve ended the same way as the book, but I heard it was going to be darker with the mermaid dying, and NOT becoming a sister of the air. Also, maybe it’s different views, as you saw it as a child, and I avoided it until this year because I saw it as a girl movie, and something I would hate. Although I will say, it’s definitely less feminist than the likes of Beauty and the Beast, Pocahontas, Mulan, Brave, and Moana. Some liberals who defend it do say it was about her exploring the human world rather than Eric, but remember the look on her face when she heard Eric say that the right girl is out there somewhere, and he hasn’t found her yet? So think what you will, but those are my thoughts. [[User:Admiral_Farmer|Admiral_Farmer]] ([[User talk:Admiral_Farmer|talk]]) 12:46, June 28, 2022 (EDT)
:I can tell you where I got that information on Walt's rendition having coincidental similarities to the one we DID get, at least: It was first stated in ''Treasures Untold: The Making of Disney's 'The Little Mermaid''', a documentary featurette included in the 2006 DVD release as a bonus feature. It also was mentioned again by John Musker in the audio commentary for the Platinum Edition for the same movie. I guess that seems to imply that Disney wanted to do a full-length animated feature at some point for The Little Mermaid as well as planning to do an animated short for MGM. Wouldn't be the first time Disney would do something like that. Cinderella technically started off as an animated short by Disney, but then he made the full-length feature film we all know and love sometime later. And as far as the bit about what liberals say and the contrast of going solely for Eric, who says it can't be both? She clearly already dreamed about actually wanting to become human, at the very least experiencing the human world, so it's not like she only desired to become human because of Eric. But on the other hand, Eric WAS a major factor in her actually GAINING the determination to become human. Before then, she merely had an aspiration rather than an actual plan to get there or even an endpoint. Besides, I'm doubtful God necessarily forbade women from taking action if needs be. Heck, one of our saints, [[Joan of Arc]], actually became that precisely because of that in the name of God himself (not to mention being burned at the stake by consequence). Also, it was only fairly recently that The Little Mermaid was actually marketed as a girl's film. Back in the early 1990s, it actually was geared to kids of all ages, implicitly saying both sexes could watch it. As for me, I actually liken it to an action film, to be honest. Almost like Dragon Ball Z, if you want a good comparison. So a straight guy like me actually COULD enjoy the film (if anything, I'm more irritated at their insistence at marketing it exclusively to girls. Same goes with Aladdin, and that movie actually WAS a guy's film.). And personally, I actually preferred the Disney version to Hans Christian Andersen's rendition, not caring if the latter's the original (to be honest, I honestly felt THAT book promoted selfish rebellion FAR more than the Disney version did, especially when the mermaid STILL got what she wanted in the end, DESPITE her sisters, her grandmother, and her father meeting misfortune as a direct result of HER actions and them NOT being alleviated of it, despite their doing absolutely NOTHING to deserve it outside of MAYBE the grandma admitting merpeople lacked souls (which if you ask me was an EXTREMELY stupid plot point. You expect me to believe that sapient lifeforms like mermaids, who resembled us humans, who were created to be God's ultimate creations, hence why we have souls, would LACK souls themselves. That would point to God screwing up, which is NOT something I want to see of God.). Actually, if you ask me, the ending SHOULD have been that the mermaid gets the soul for sparing the prince, but then is sent to Hell for the other selfish actions she did in the story, not have her become a daughter of the air. Seriously, at least Ariel cleaned up HER mess late in the film and ensured EVERYONE got a happy ending, not just her. So that was a definite improvement. And I really always found sad endings to be extremely overrated anyhow.). And I had a similar experience with Beauty and the Beast, albeit in reverse. Used to have fondness for Belle. But nearly being brainwashed in College by radical leftists as well as doing personal study of the causes of the French Revolution, plus Linda Woolverton's not only constantly propping Belle up by kicking down her predecessors, but actually having the gall to claim that her trashy Maleficent movie was derived from BATB pretty much wrecked that fondness for Belle (to be fair, I still have a small amount left, so she got off easy compared to the Rebel Alliance thanks to similar boasting from George Lucas, but still...). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:49, June 28, 2022 (EDT)

Ariel cleaning up her mess? Don’t get me wrong, she did try, as after Ursula apparently won in the end, she tries to avenge her father right away, and does save Eric from being blasted, which did lead to Eric killing Ursula, and saving her father and the merpeople that fell victim to Ursula’s deception, but a lot of that was on Eric wanting to save her rather than Ariel playing housewife. Although to her credit once again, she was ready to accept that her and Eric were not meant to be (Shout-out to Glen Keane for animating Ariel especially in this scene he did a great job). As for the “Girl film” comment, maybe you’re right when you said “marketed” but one of Jeffrey Katzenberg’s concerns was that The Little Mermaid wouldn’t do well as he thought it was a girl’s film. Although he backpedaled before the film came out. [[User:Admiral_Farmer|Admiral_Farmer]] ([[User talk:Admiral_Farmer|talk]]) 19:38, June 28, 2022 (EDT)
:True, but then again, she DID save Eric from being blasted by Ursula (even disabled her means of long-reaching observance in the process, aka, her pet eels), thus ENSURING he could ram her with the derelict ship, and she DID attack Ursula with enough force to actually stun her temporarily shortly after Triton was cursed. Plus it allowed Eric to pay Ariel back twice for the two times she saved him, so not like I have any reason to complain about that bit. It's still a heck of a lot more of a clean-up than what the mermaid did in the original tale, where the only reason SHE ascended was due to literally not trying to stab the Prince and his bride in their sleep (and even THEN, just committing suicide by throwing herself into the waves, which in Catholic doctrines Suicide basically means you're going to Hell, meaning there was NO way she should have even gone to purgatory. Maybe if the storyline tried to justify that decision by revealing that the minute a mermaid dies outside of water, they release toxic particles as they dissolve that kill any land-dweller in the immediate area, it would have come across as an ACTUAL sacrifice showing she saved the Prince twice during that time and slightly redeems her [probably not enough to actually let her become a Daughter of the Air, though], rather than just flat out suicide especially when merely standing and letting herself be dissolved would have worked all the same.), and even when doing that, pretty much left her family and even the prince to some extent with misfortune and severe sadness anyways, heck, irreparable damage as well. And personally, when the beginning of the film has fighting off a shark or a huge-scale action-oriented final battle (not to mention the villains dying in a manner that's very reminiscent to the likes of Dragon Ball Z in fact), I would NOT call that a girl's movie, more like a guy's movie (the fact that Ariel, in mermaid form, anyways, was very scantily clad certainly helps as well). Besides, just because there's a female protagonist doesn't necessarily mean it's automatically a girl's movie or what have you, any more than a movie's automatically for guys just because a guy is the main protagonist. Just look at Metroid, for example, or Dead or Alive, or even Tomb Raider for that matter. Girls are the main protagonists in those entries, yet the actual intended audience is guys, even in the instances where it delves into romance. Same goes for Red Sonja or Lady Death, where they are the main protagonists of their stories, yet the actual works they star in are clearly intended for guys, not girls. In any case, Katzenberg's judgment isn't exactly the best when you get right down to it. He also predicted that The Lion King would be a huge bomb purely because, I kid you not, talking animals are in it. Clearly he forgot that The Little Mermaid had PLENTY of talking animals in there (pretty much all the underwater denizens who AREN'T merpeople/cecilians. In fact, I can literally count on my hand only a handful of undersea creatures that DON'T speak or even laugh at all), and even Aladdin had a talking animal that acted as one of the more popular characters in the movie, Iago. In fact, right now there's a growing consensus that Katzenberg's contribution to the Renaissance might have been overrated, and that if anything, it happened in SPITE of Katzenberg rather than because of it. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 20:11, June 28, 2022 (EDT)

The only thing I can recall that Katzenberg did that was a great move (or at least proved to be so) was when he hired Howard Ashman to be The Little Mermaid’s lyricist. Although speaking of that, he gave it the red light due to being similar to Splash, but when he did give it the green light, he wanted to cut Part of Your World, despite John Musker, Ron Clements, Alan Menken, and Howard Ashman all saying it’s a bad idea. Even with Ashman threatening to quit. Katzenberg didn’t listen to any of them, but Glen Keane convinced him to let him finish animating the sequence, and screen it to a more mature audience. Of course, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin were big hits, but the road to that was very bumpy considering that he rejected two drafts for Beauty and the Beast, and forced the Aladdin team to write a completely new story in eight days. Everyone take about his work on the Renaissance, but fewer talk about his first impression with the animation department by cutting over 10 minutes of The Black Cauldron because it was too dark and scary, although he wanted Woody to be a psychopath in Toy Story. As for the female protagonist, you’re right in that regard. After all, I liked Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs when I was little, and I enjoyed Tangled when I saw it in theaters. Overall, you’re free to enjoy The Little Mermaid, and like I said, it’s a guilty pleasure of mine. I’m sure Disney will butcher it in the upcoming live-action remake. Everyone’s taking about black Ariel, but are the sea creatures going to be photorealistic like in The Lion King? If so, “Under the Sea” will be terrifying. I’m 65% sure “Kiss the Girl” will be cut. [[User:Admiral_Farmer|Admiral_Farmer]] ([[User talk:Admiral_Farmer|talk]]) 20:43, June 28, 2022 (EDT)
:Personally, I never understood why they insisted on the "photorealistic" aspect for the TLK remake. Wouldn't it have made more sense to just use real animals and have people voice the animals in the background, sort of like the Homeward Bound movies? And quite frankly, if they do use photorealism for the fauna, they seem to be forgetting kids aren't exactly likely to be all that fond of it. Heck, Raiders of the Lost Ark outright SCARRED me regarding my views of God. Personally, I also think the Beauty and the Beast rendition he chose, while not dark per-se, was also downright cynical, possibly to the level of Toy Story's Black Friday reel, including having the village up and out cheer the villain openly boasting with his toady trying to blackmail a woman to force marriage. Heck, if anything, I'd argue Beauty and the Beast was arguably even MORE cynical in that sense than Black Friday. At least Black Friday had the toys be rightfully disgusted with Woody after he confirms their suspicions that he deliberately tossed Buzz out the window. And that's not even getting how the movie arguably wrecks Beast's development in the ending by having him let Gaston and the villagers try to at a bare minimum loot the castle, possibly KILL the inhabitants when they inevitably discover they are alive, not to mention was initially willing to just up and out let Gaston kill him without a fight. Such behavior was something not even pre-redemption Beast would have done (as much of a massive jerk he was in the beginning of the movie, you at least got the sense he was perfectly willing to protect his servants and that his motivation for breaking the spell was AS much for restoring his servants human form as it was for himself). I'm wondering why the heck Richard Purdum's rendition would have been considered "dark." It's as dark as Snow White to be honest (and that movie was surprisingly dark when you get right down to it, since attempted infanticide is a major part of the film. If kids could handle that film back then, most kids would handle Purdum's take). Though at least Purdum had that as an excuse for being cut. Cox had it even WORSE if you ask me, since he never even had a reason provided for why it was cut beyond "no one bats a thousand" (and considering Eisner, back when he actually DID attempt to respect Disney's legacy, was the one who personally requested for Cox to write a full story treatment before Katzenberg flat out rejected it, I wouldn't even be surprised if Katzenberg did that behind Eisner's back). Heck, I'd even go so far as to state that it was BECAUSE of Katzenberg ultimately that Disney became left-wing (he's probably the most political animal out there other than maybe Iger, one who willingly chooses political statements over ALL else). Come to think of it, looking at BATB's budget, it's probably better off being a DTV film. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:22, June 29, 2022 (EDT)

Eisner clearly changed once Frank Wells died. After that, he surrounded himself with yes-men. As for Disney’s left wing turn, Eisner has a good amount of fault, but he at the very least blasted the Weinstein brothers for releasing Micheal Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” documentary before the 2004 election. As he viewed it as the company taking a public political stance. After Eisner left, things went haywire. The company hasn’t made enjoyable movies in years, and I don’t see any sign of it getting a revival anytime soon. I’ll be honest, I’ve never saw any live-action remake except 101 Dalmatians which I didn’t see in many years. They just make them worse, although some detail changes make sense. Such as clearly showing the Beast getting cursed as an adult rather than implying he was no older than 11. Although having Mulan be this unbeatable badass rather than having her use smarts to beat the Huns was a questionable at best change. I also wonder what Aladdin would have been like before Katzenberg got involved. The only real change I understand is having the Genie grant three wishes instead of as many as you want. [[User:Admiral_Farmer|Admiral_Farmer]] ([[User talk:Admiral_Farmer|talk]]) 10:46, June 29, 2022 (EDT)

:I know Eisner definitely was to blame for Gay Days. Not sure what else, pre-Wells' demise, I mean, he was to blame for. Quite frankly, 101 Dalmations is the only live action remake I've actually WATCHED. I think the only other definite sensible change to the 2017 remake for Beauty and the Beast besides making clear Adam was an adult when he was cursed rather than a child [too bad Agathe still cursed Chip] was making SURE Belle had actual foils befitting the moral of the tale. Let's be honest, those blonde triplets made for terrible foils for Belle in the original movie, being way too nice with not even a HINT of anything that points to inner ugliness on their part (heck, they don't even participate in the Mob Song later in the original movie, and it's also left ambiguous as to whether they were even AWARE Gaston was trying to blackmail Belle by having Maurice arrested since a pan-away shot just before Maurice's arrival and getting kicked out implied the triplets were going to be in the back preparing orders at that time, unlike the other villagers that were in the tavern, who very obviously knew due to seeing the whole thing). Vanessa in The Little Mermaid, even with her limited screentime (not to mention technically not even being her own character), put her status as a foil towards the main protagonist to VERY good use by comparison where we actually DO see how she's ugly in overall character, even ignoring her role as Ursula's disguise, and that movie wasn't even specifically trying to promote the moral of true beauty coming from within. I'd actually argue that was probably the most damaging part of the movie, more than even the feminist stuff, especially when the triplets were the only ones shown to have any respect for traditional marriage (at least enough that they were implied to actually WANT to give Belle her blessing to marrying Gaston and if anything were shocked that she refused). Belle obviously didn't, and it's extremely unlikely that featherduster had any real respect for marriage given she's sexually loose alongside her boyfriend Lumiere. At least Aladdin didn't end up insulting any girls who DID want traditional marriage. The fact that the triplets are given the kinds of bodies that Barbie, Lara Croft, and the vast majority of Dead or Alive girls possess (heck, Jessica Rabbit as well) yet are implicitly considered uglier than Belle outer beauty wise at least also doesn't help matters either (and also came across as outright DEMONIZING outer beauty. That's another problem with the Disney rendition, one which Katzenberg amplified with Shrek, to be honest, where the film seemed to imply being physically uglier is preferable to being good-looking, and in fact, if you're good looking, you're automatically ugly on the inside.). I think Eisner also deserves chops for avoiding commenting one way or another on the near-attempt at undoing Roe v. Wade back in the 1990s as well (the one Kennedy blew the chance at ending it for the time being). I know if it were Katzenberg or Iger in his stead, they'd be all in on either decrying the Supreme Court for even CONSIDERING removing Roe v. Wade, or otherwise praising the heck out of them for keeping it in. I already have a good idea what a Katzenberg-run Disney would have been like based on Iger's performance (that guy clearly cares more about pushing a message over any profitability). We actually got a sense of that when Georgia tried to push the heartbeat bill TWICE with Disney trying to threaten boycotts both times. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:17, June 29, 2022 (EDT)

Very well. Thank you for this talk, and thank you for watching my video. Any other thoughts on it? [[User:Admiral_Farmer|Admiral_Farmer]] ([[User talk:Admiral_Farmer|talk]]) 20:08, June 29, 2022 (EDT)
:Actually, I haven't even gotten a chance to watch the video yet (part of it involved work, part of it also entailed risking looking for it on the talk page, and I REALLY didn't want to end up replying to RobS). I'll see what I can do regarding watching it, though I can't say whether or not I'm going to agree entirely with it if they are going to claim it's Simone de Beauvoir-style feminism or even Margaret Sanger-style Feminism. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 20:56, June 29, 2022 (EDT)

Here it is:

BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/EXfOh2xYPIez/

YouTube: https://youtu.be/leUjd_1s0Ss

[[User:Admiral_Farmer|Admiral_Farmer]] ([[User talk:Admiral_Farmer|talk]]) 20:08, June 29, 2022 (EDT)

==Evidence==

You may have doubted it when I told you, but we gotta learn the hard way. Here we have evidence that a childhood film of yours promoted an evil agenda. Prove me wrong. [https://youtu.be/euXi03tGoDE| Here is how Howard Ashman put his life into The Little Mermaid’s songs]. Ashman may have not said it publicly, but it was there. In defense of him, I couldn’t find anything that connects with it except “Part of Your World.” That being said, it was the most important song in the film’s story. In Ashman’s words, [https://youtu.be/y04xePQaDgA| “The leading lady usually sits down on something, and sings about what she wants in life. And the audience falls in love with her, and then roots for her to get it for the rest of the night.”] and it aligns with Ashman being an outcast for being a homosexual, much like Ariel who’s an outcast for wanting to be apart of the human world. Heck, in the Howard Ashman documentary, it ends with Ashman singing the song. Now of course, Ashman’s words I linked which were said before the film came out may contradict my claim, and you said that you use sources that were made around the time of the film such as feminist stuff in Beauty and the Beast and Vietcong propaganda in Star Wars. Speaking of Star Wars, you also said it can’t be from years later as George Lucas said he always intended the Special Edition changes such as Greedo shooting first. As for my claim, of course, I can’t find much information on what the crew was saying about it other than it pushed Glen Keane (A straight Christian) to animate not only animate Ariel, but him being the one that ultimately convinced Jeffrey Katzenberg to keep the song in the movie where John Musker, Ron Clements, Alan Menken, and Ashman (who threatened to quit) failed. Overall, I’ll admit, I kind of like it. [https://www.bitchute.com/video/EXfOh2xYPIez/| I had to sit through it while making that analysis video I showed you, and it’s stuck in my head.] And due to who wrote the song, and co-produced the film, I call it a guilty pleasure. [[User:Admiral_Farmer|Admiral_Farmer]] ([[User talk:Admiral_Farmer|talk]]) 16:48, July 3, 2022 (EDT)
:Eh, I'm not entirely sure that's a promotion of the homosexual agenda, to be honest. All that indicates is that it was a way to have Ariel be sympathetic due to being an outcast (and besides, she still fell in love with Eric, who is a MAN, not a WOMAN, last I checked, so it simply CANNOT be considered a promotion of the homosexual agenda from that reason alone). Now, if he had specifically had Ariel sing in Part of Your World wanting to mate with a girl, THEN I can see where it would be going regarding a promotion of the homosexual agenda. But as it is? Let me put it this way, I related to Ariel's desire due to my being autistic and ALSO going through a really rough development growing up because of it, and I'm straight, and very much conservative and Christian (even if my own personal views of God are by my own admission downright warped thanks to Raiders of the Lost Ark, with stuff like Dragon Ball Z, the Matrix, Metal Gear Solid 2, and heck, even Jonathan Edwards' sermon not helping with my views of God at all.). Heck, put another way, since I constantly have to keep my conservative views silent while at college and nearly let my professors brainwash me even WITH my critical thinking that my parents instilled into me, and having to put up with my bosses openly talking about their leftist agendas at my old job at GoodWill within earshot while I myself can't even so much as mention my conservative views in front of them, that if anything makes Ariel even MORE relatable to me than before. There's a difference between merely relating to a character for being an outcast while using as an offhand example being homosexual for what qualifies as an outcast (which can be interchangeable for stuff like Autistic as well, or even Christian and Conservative), and using a very specific framework that literally cannot be viewed in any other way (the latter being the problem with The Mob Song in Beauty and the Beast due to Don Hahn stating that Howard Ashman SPECIFICALLY used the whole anti-AIDS thing as the basis behind the villager's fear). Besides, they modeled Ursula after Divine, a notorious drag queen, and made her the bad guy. I'm pretty sure if they wanted to promote such an evil agenda, they would NOT do it with the actual villain (aka, the kind of person you're specifically meant to root AGAINST).
:As far as George Lucas, I never said it couldn't have been years later. I if anything said the exact opposite, that George Lucas lied about having always intended for it to be that (I even mentioned as a response to that bit that Lucas specifically wrote in the 1977 shooting script that Han Solo ultimately vaporized Greedo before he could fire). In fact, the writers' tendency to lie as a way of puffing themselves up is PRECISELY the reason why I intended to go to the SGA archives, specifically to make SURE they weren't puffing themselves up. The Vietcong bit is unfortunately actually always intended, since he made THAT clear in his 1973 first story draft, meaning unlike with Greedo shooting first, the Vietcong bit actually WAS backed up by development notes. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:02, July 11, 2022 (EDT)

User talk:Pokeria1

2022-06-30T00:56:36Z

Pokeria1: /* Question */

User talk:Pokeria1

2022-06-29T19:17:05Z

Pokeria1: /* Question */

User talk:Pokeria1

2022-06-29T11:22:41Z

Pokeria1: /* Question */

User talk:Pokeria1

2022-06-29T00:11:59Z

2022-06-25T20:23:54Z

Pokeria1: /* Question */

Beauty and the Beast

2022-06-25T20:04:51Z

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2022-06-22T02:16:02Z

Pokeria1: /* The Little Mermaid (1989) */

[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive1|Archive 1]]
 [[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive2|Archive 2]]

== Public Discussion Here ==

(post comments here by clicking "Edit this page")

Okay who keeps mispelling "Mr. Skeffington"? THERE IS A G IN THE NAME see www.imdb.com/title/tt0037094/

The Conservapedia entry for "Gen. George S. Patton" has a great section on the classic 1969 film, "Patton;" why is it not on the list?? A few years back "National Review" listed 100 great conservative films ("A Man for All Seasons" led NR editors' list). Immediately readers (including me) sent in their own nominations and "Patton" came in #1!!!!

CW Miller PhD

:It should be. Would you like to add it? Note, however, that the film was not as conservative as the person it featured!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

I think 'Tears of the Sun' should've definitely been on the list. Its extremely pro-military.

:Perhaps, would you like to add it with an explanation of why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

What is the conservative message taught by "The Way We Were"? Just curious.

:Pretty obvious, isn't it? The [[liberal]] rants predictably got too tiresome for the man to put up with, and he inevitably broke off the relationship with the woman in order to find a replacement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
::And in the process of breaking off the relationship, he broke his marriage vows and committed adultery. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:44, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

I think The Graduate (1967) needs to be on this list. This is a film about a boy growing up, by facing harsh reality, owning up to his mistakes, and making a decision about his life, thus becoming a man. It's also about how we can overcome sin and corruption by taking control of our lives. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 14:47, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not too sure about that one. A common interpretation of the ending is that Benjamin has actions in the climax were purely spur-of-the-moment, at that he's just figuring out in doing so he's failed to accomplish anything meaningful and is left with a wholly uncertain future. --[[User:Lord Zedd|Lord Zedd]], 11 January 2017

Another film is the 1948 Alfred Hitchcock film Rope, starring James Stewart, John Dall, and Stewart Granger. Based loosely on the Leopold-Loeb killing, Rope is about two Harvard scholars who decide to kill an acquaintance of their simply for the sake of killing, because they believe they are superior to others, all taught from one of their headmasters (James Stewart). This film goes into one of the reasons why we have laws, why we cherish human life, and slightly goes into the immorality taught by ivory tower intellectuals that seems so prevalent today.--[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:00, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Hud (1963), starring Paul Newman, Melvyn Douglas, and Patricia Neal, needs to be in this roster too. At the heart of Conservative Philosophy lies the strength of a man's character and how that character influences others. Hud, played by Newman, is a man who's completely selfish in a way that liberals are. He doesn't care about anyone but himself, and his own ego, and he gives no restraint to his appetites. He doesn't give a damn about anything, because to him the world is full of excrement. And that sooner or later, you're going to have to swim in that muck like everybody else. A great line is said that "The look of the country changes by the people we admire." As you watch this film, things get progressively worse for the ranch that Hud lives on, part and parcel because of his own crass behavior. Hud's willingness both to pass bad beef off onto his neighbors and take the ranch out from his old father indicates the sourness of his character. A brilliant film about human character.--[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:28, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Man of Steel ==
Could it not be argued that the movie is promoting idolatry by having the people of Earth view Superman, a non-human, as a "Christ-like redeemer?"

Not likely. Superman never sought the worship of people. Neither did Zod for that matter. Interestingly, in this movie, Zod is an anti-hero. He may have intended well, as his patriotism is to be admired, and I really don't blame him for killing some corrupt self-absorbed Kryptonian government officials that had doomed the planet due to their own self-interest, but, tragically, in the planned economy, he was predesigned to be a warrior to continue the corrupt planned economy of Krypton. True, there is free will in the predesigned society (Jor El and his wife did break the law by having Kal naturally and Jor El broke the law by taking Kal from the Genesis chamber and sending him to earth. It was that Jor El believed that the whole society was too corrupted to be continued along the Krypton way and thus that Zod's idea of only keeping the good bloodlines, as he put it, wouldn't solve the problem. What made Zod a villain wasn't his efforts to save Krypton, but his efforts to kill everyone on earth when he could have just assimilated like Kal. (So the movie isn't pro-open borders either (though I heard a super man comic was lately!!!) as Kal adjusts but the alien Zod comes in and tries to transform the planet to his liking just like the illegals and Muslims are trying to transform the USA.) Also, Kal El/Clark Kent just wanted to be left alone (even ticking off the military when they tried to track him and he destroyed some pricey equipment to get them off his back). [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 01:53, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

== Bio-Dome ==
Granted this film is a blunt crude stoner comedy. However upon analysis, years later the film reigns true the themes of inconsistancy of modern environmentalism.
Namely despite the stupidity and antics..... the films message is that the environment is salvageable with a lot of hard work.
The film ridicules contemporary education especially college, modern environmentalism (and what weve seen 20 years later) and social trending.
Despite being college students, the two girlfriends are for lack of better word poorly educated on environment around them. They question the tactics of "raising awarness" of those who think sit ins and hackey sack are suitable ways for environmental stewardship yet contribute no actual work. Their concerns are only satiated by activism; not labor. Environmentalism is a very labor intensive practice. Meanwhile the two slackers inherit a mess (admittedly one of their doing) and when their backs are against the wall; work very hard to fix it all whilst gaining social outlook, popularity and press attention. The film brings to light public/celebrity endorsement of environmental awareness, where it's popular and trendy. The dissertation from the Pope and various media outlets when Bud/Doyle are known for locking themselves inside.
The film attacks the insanity of utopian dreamers (Faulkner and the other scientists) who have grand visions for the environment and world around them only to break down and quit at the sight of reality. Doyle (stephen baldwin) passionate plea.
"Now, you guys have spent your whole lives trying to make the world a better place, right? Well, here's your chance. Only its not perfect. Its like it is out there." With passion and now incentive, they fix the calamity with a lot of hard work, ingenuity. Incentive and hard work are more important than facts and data crunching; they turn their focus on cleaning a degraded environment around them unlike the scientists that began having shuttered themselves in a pristine one.

== Leaving Las Vegas ==
While clearly not originally intended to portray a conservative message, I feel that one strongly comes across in the film. Semi-autobiographical story of an alcoholic writer who loses everything because of his drinking and continues to spiral until it eventually costs him his life. opinions? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:07, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

:Not quite sure as to how this portrays a 'conservative message' of any kind. --[[User:Lord Zedd|Lord Zedd]], 11 January 2017

== The Blind Side ==
It's a story about the shortcomings of public education and how the power of private Christian charity helped a young homeless man overcome his disadvantages and play in the NFL.[[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:03, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Brokeback Mountain ==

I was thinking about this topic earlier and had an interesting thought about a seemingly non-conservative movie that, in a way, is actually quite so. I'm going to throw this out there for some (hopefully productive and civil) debate and see what people think.

The movie is Brokeback Mountain. Now hold on to your outrage, people. I have justifications for my point. Please hear me out. (Oh, and spoilers, just in case you planned to see/read it and hadn't)

As you probably know, the movie (and the novella on which its based) is about two men who fall into a homosexual lifestyle. But what struck me as conservative about this film is that it doesn't glorify the lifestyle; the two mens' choice to indulge in homosexuality is a disastrous choice that ends up ruining both their lives. One man's marriage is destroyed and his relationship with his child is forever tainted. The other man's choice actually leads to his violent death (Incidentally, I'm not saying that killing someone for being gay is a conservative value. But the point is that this movie is actually very up-front about acknowledging the catastrophic consequences of a homosexual lifestyle).

Considering all that, my next though was whether this movie might be unintentionally conservative, in which case it certainly doesn't belong on this list. But I don't think it is (haven't seen it since it first came out though, so I could be wrong).

So, there's my point. I would appreciate some discussion. I imagine some CPers will think I'm trolling or just trying to start an argument. Not so. I feel like it's a valid point but that there are probably strong arguments for and against, and I'd really like to hear what other people think. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 17:11, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

:You are partially right, but I think the homosexuals were meant to be sympathetic and on that basis alone, I don't think that movie belongs on this list. [[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:05, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

: I agree that the movie is anti-homosexuality. Based on the publicity, I expected the movie to be pro-homosexuality, but I was quite surprised by what was actually in the movie. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:This would be true, except that you have to consider the film's intent. It's not necessarily suggesting that what these men did is the result of their choice. It's suggesting that what happens to these men is the result of bigotry, prejudice, and hate on the part of the world around them. That they are blameless, in spite of their choices. A stark contrast, which I think also ought to be listed as a Conservative Film, would be Midnight Cowboy. In Midnight Cowboy, Joe Buck (played by Jon Voight) recognizes that the life he chose, as a male prostitute, and begins to make an effort to change, to get out of New York, with Ratso (Dustin Hoffman). Ratso's death underscored the decadent life they had led in NYC, and how Joe barely escaped with his own. In Brokeback Mountain, you do not see such recognition on the part of Ennis and Jack. They don't really consider what they did as wrong, necessarily. So where Midnight Cowboy underscores the devastation the immoral life can lead, Brokeback Mountain places the responsibility for that devastation on everyone else but the two men most responsible. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 19:56, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== U-571 ==

I deleted U-571 from this list. It portrays the capture of an Enigma machine from a German U-boat by US forces. As pretty much everyone with any interest in WW2 knows, the naval Enigma machine was stolen by Polish forces and decoded by British code-breakers at Bletchley. My Brit friends think U-571 is a joke because it minimises the role of the British ("you arrogant Yankees"). Poles are offended because it cuts out the Polish involvement altogether - including the very brave men who risked their lives to steal an Enigma machine and hand it over to British Intelligence. (BTW, Britain and Poland were allies of ours in WW2 and still are now.) Deceit isn't a conservative virtue - so I crossed U-571 off the list. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 16:51, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

: I'd say it's very questionable whether there's any deceit involved. The movie makes an on-screen written acknowledgment that the the first (and the majority) of enigmas were captured by British sailors. The whole movie is so over-the-top that nobody with a lick of intelligence would believe it's true. American sailors did capture an enigma machine during the war too, so this movie is obviously "inspired by a true story" even if it's not especially true. Most of the movie-going public knows that Hollywood "true" stories are highly fictionalized. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:13, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

==The Lives of Others==

Where on earth is The Lives of Others? it is, surely, the best recent critique of Communism and, for that matter, one of the best films ''of any type'' released in the past five years. It certainly deserves a place ahead of, for example, the obscure Dark Matter. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:13, 28 November 2010 (EST)

: It's in German, right, and about the former [[East Germany]]? I'll add it on your recommendation, but I can't agree it ranks higher than the English-language Dark Matter, which speaks to today and not just the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::Fair enough, Andy. Though I don't quite understand the argument against foreign-language films. If the issue is obscurity, The Lives of Others was seen by far more people in the US than Dark Matter. A glance at Box-Office Mojo confirms that Dark Matter took in a staggeringly tiny $30,591 on its domestic run. The Lives of Others took in $11,286,112 in the US (plus another $66 million in the rest of the world). I am, however, content to abide by your criteria. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 15:40, 28 November 2010 (EST)

:::Oprah Winfrey's daytime talk show rakes in far higher revenues than both, but I'm not sure what that proves. Dark Matter was apparently victimized and downplayed by liberals who finally figured out its conservative message, after it won first place in one of the Sundance Film Festival categories. The liberal backlash against Dark Matter is particularly surprising given that Meryl Streep starred in it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::::P.S. Your suggestion of "The Lives of Others" is a fine addition. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:02, 28 November 2010 (EST)
http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.png
::::No problem. Keep up the good work. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 20:47, 28 November 2010 (EST)

== Fiddler on the Roof? ==

A film celebrating the value of community, tradition, family, and faith, all against the historical context of the harm done by the rise of Communism in Russia...worthy of a spot on the list? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Sounds good to me ... please add it as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:I disagree. Look at the overall film/play. This was definitely a counter-culture film thinly disguised as a quaint musical drama. The message was that Tradition is bad, illogical, and keeps people stuck in their ways when they should embrace the new, simply because it's new. When Tevye explains the traditions and why they're there in the beginning, he mentioned that they keep their heads covered and they wear their prayer shawl. He then asks, "How did this tradition get started?," and he responds, "I don't know." This sets up the rest of the show. Because never do they explain why they use a Matchmaker, or why they don't let people arrange their own matches, or why men and women dance separately. They even have the old rabbi getting down with the new changes, never defending what was before. Message: Traditions are stale and old and have no place in the modern world. Relax and just let things happen. Then the film gives us the drama of Chava marrying a Christian, marrying outside of her faith, and that's where Tevye can't abide it. By then, it seems that Tevye's objection is only based on ridiculous emotion, rather than anything objective. All this, in spite of the fact that change is coming, one that cannot be stopped by the traditions these people hold. This is not a Conservative message at all, but one that is quite subversive. If this had been written from a Conservative approach, we would've gone into the reasons behind the traditions, because they're not irrational or unreasonable. The reason for a Matchmaker, the way they dress, and the way they eat, and the dancing, all is meant to preserve their heritage as Jews living in Tsarist Russia. The Matchmaker keeps the Jewish men and women within the community, and within the faith, all the while helping to maintain peace and stability within the community itself. The point I'm making is that Traditions have a purpose, even if we disagree with them. And the notion that happiness comes from something material, as in the case of the marriage between Motel and Tzeital, is a direct message against a person's obligations to his or her duty, both to themselves and their community they live in. No, I'd say Fiddler on the Roof is not a Conservative film. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 20:15, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

: I disagree Wayfinder. Much of Jewish culture is based around the concept that Jews follow tradition for no other reason than because God expects us to. Take Kosher laws. Certainly, there can health reasons for being Kosher, but that is not why Jews become Kosher; it is because it is expected by God. Kosher laws don't change or update with new dietary findings. There are no Kosher fad diets. Ask a random Jewish person who keeps Kosher why he/she does and, 9 times out of 10, they will either say, "Because I always have" or "Because God expects me to". In the later case, performing an act because God expects it is logical, in an of itself.

And in Fiddler, there is an extra point to tradition. As Tevye says, "Because of tradition, we've kept our balance for many, many years." To wit, tradition is the only thing keeping Jews from falling into the abyss. And, in fact, the more Tevye gives in to the modern times, the more his culture is ravaged until he is forced to leave his homeland. Tradition is deeply respected in the film, as much as, and for the same reasons as, it is in the Jewish culture. And for that reason, I would consider it a Conservative film. --[[User:Sirreality|Sirrealtiy]] 12:16, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

: You make some good points, Sirrealtiy, but I must reiterate that the film isn't about Tradition's strengths, but giving into change for its own sake. Not once does Tevye ever consider why there are these traditions in the first place. When he argues with himself over Tzeitel marrying Motel or Hodel marrying Perchik, and so forth, he never considers the traditions at all or even explains their use. He almost casually disregards them. When it comes down to Chava, though, he can't get around it, and, again, he has no real good reason for any of them. So Tevye comes off as rigid and petty. This is important because Fiddler on the Roof came out at the height of the first wave of hippy counter-culture in America, and it ran with it. By the time the film gets to the conclusion, that the Tsar is running them out of Anatevka, the message is loud and clear: You can't resist change at all, so don't even try. This would, on the other hand, be more of a conservative film if we went into the reasons for these traditions, a lot of which would've been known, especially to the likes of the Rabbi, before casually discarding them. : --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 01:45, 24 January 2013 (EST)
Fiddler on the Roof is a classic movie.

A remember this: "Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if a man says to his father and mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6 he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8 ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men’.” 10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean’.” 12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you not know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” 13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

So not all traditions are good.

I love Thanksgiving though. And I like eggnog on December 25. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:54, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

== Gattaca ==

A condemnation of genetic experiments on humans, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely controlled society. No matter how much scientists play to be God, and try to improve the human race by using genetics, there will always be an individual, based on original God design, who, despite his health shortcomings, will triumph over this genetically modified, supposedly perfect human beings.

I don’t immediately put it on the list because the movie is a bit atheist. In the final scene, the hero finally managed to travel to space and cites the phrase: “They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home."

So, I’ll say that the movie has a conservative message, unfortunately diluted with atheist overtones. I’ll wait for someone else opinion before posting this. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:03, 10 March 2011 (EST)

:Feel free to post this with the caveat you mention. Thanks for explaining it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::We talked about this movie at my fellowship a few months ago - pure hokum about a guy who might have been alright on his own but for a disgusting patriarchy forcing human engineering. I'll write this if AlejandroJ doesn't. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:51, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, I posted it. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 15:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

The argument that this film has atheistic overtones actually adds to this film. It shows how we have reduced a person not to his ability but to purely material characteristics, and the effects this has on society. In Gattaca, people are judged not by their ability, not by their merit or accomplishments, but their potential. Gore Vidal, who plays the director of Gattaca, says "No one exceeds their potential." This is, I think, a fundamental statement in the whole movie; that it is the potential that is important, not the action, not the accomplishment. If Vincent became exposed even after he is confirmed to go to Titan, we know what would happen; he would be expelled from Gattaca, and possibly imprisoned for using a "borrowed ladder." Which also points to Eugene's suicide and why he took his own life. Eugene doesn't value his life, but his potential. "Jerome Morrow," he said, "was never meant to be one step lower on the podium." In such an atheistic society that only values the material, the potential, the beautiful, but not the competent or the accomplished, Eugene's suicide underscores this conceit. Eugene could not be anything less than what he felt his potential was. Or, put it another way, he could not be anything less but what others said he should be. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 14:58, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Disney cartoons ==

Most, and perhaps all, of the Disney cartoons for the past 15 or so years have pushed the [[feminist]] ideology. I welcome any counterexamples, but doubt there are any. Hence the reversion of the "Princess and the Frog (2009)" addition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:''The Lion King'', a 1994 Disney movie, is definitely conservative. A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory. I'll add it with your approval. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 15:45, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

::Sounds like a good choice. Please add and if anyone has a different view of the movie, then he can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:26, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Added. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 16:41, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly I would agree with your reversion of my contribution of the Princess and the Frog if that movie were feminist-ideology-promoting (like, for instance Mulan (1998)) but frankly, it is not a feminist movie. I am not a woman, nor a feminist - I am staunchly conservative. The Princess and the Frog promotes monogamous marriage (which feminism does not) as well as the other conservative values I listed (such as saving money, hard work, free enterprise etc). In fact, the main character is so pro-marriage that she changes her licentious friend's behavior from debauchery (which feminism promotes) to monogamy. It is possibly the most conservative-value-laden animated movie I have ever seen.

''The Lion King'' on the other hand promotes re-incarnation with its "Circle of Life" song. Jack, the hero of ''Titanic'' commits fornication and mocks a man reciting the 23rd Psalm; Cal, the main antagonist is depicted as a church-service-attending hypocrite.

You are doubtless correct about the feminist ideology pushed by many Disney animations, but this is not one of them. I respectfully request that you consider returning my contribution of 'The Princess and the Frog'. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 23:17, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:I have to disagree with you about The Lion King. As far as I can interpret, "The Circle of Life" is either about the bond all humans share or the journey from life to death and the afterlife, not reincarnation. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 00:36, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::Spotsbunch, I think you have a valid point about the Lion King, but from what I've heard about the "Princess and the Frog," it's feminist claptrap with the woman wearing the pants and doing everything except having children and homeschooling her kids. It's more Disney tripe about a successful businesswoman towing along an inept man, which is hardly typical in the real world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Arguably, any movie where people turn into frogs, or where in Beauty and the Beast, people have transmogrified into furniture is not "real world". Fantasies they may be, (like many movies listed here) but they are still conservative. I (finally) put it to your kind consideration that if you would watch the Princess and the Frog, you would find it contains less feminism and more conservativism than Beauty and the Beast. Whatever your judgment, I respect your decision and will refrain from further debate, even though I (thus far) disagree. Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 08:43, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Feminism]] is unmistakable: it has women acting like men and vice-versa, contrary to reality. Disney cartoons have been ''heavily'' feminist for at least 15 years. ''Beauty and the Beast'', made 20 years ago, was not feminist in any way. But having a "Princess" act like a businessman and aspire to run a restaurant is feminist. What's next - Cinderella aspires to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::Is there any reason a woman can't run a restaurant or a fortune 500 company? No really, Andy, I want to know. Why is it feminist to portray a woman doing anything but cooking, cleaning, and rearing children? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 13:40, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::Who said anything about cooking and cleaning? And, no, there isn't a reason why a woman can't aspire to any field, such as plumbers (almost no women plumbers), gas station attendants (ditto), or professional football players (ditto). The fact is that the vast majority of women ''do not aspire'' to do such activities (or running a restaurant or a Fortune 500 company), and it's false for feminists or feminist movies to repeatedly pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::I apologize for my abrasiveness, it just seemed that you were implying that's all they're supposed to do. I can see where you're coming from. While a woman can do what she wants, feminists are wrong for telling woman that they should only aspire to do things traditionally done by men. Men normally aren't beauty consultants, clothing designers, or nail salon technicians, so why don't we see any men urging more men to do these things? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Feminism]] repeatedly tries to persuade women not to have children and raise them, pretending that aspiring to work in a job is somehow better. I can't think of a single Disney movie in the last 15 years that has been realistic about the homemaker role that most women prefer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Up. A key part of the story is that the old man's wife had given up her dreams of being an explorer as real life concerns around the home took precedence. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 15:03, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::As promised, I will make my petition no further. However, as others have continued this debate, I will contribute to that. The Bible, our ultimate authority, disagrees (as I read it) that "a woman aspiring to run a business" (restaurant or otherwise) is feminist. Proverbs 31:10-31 describes at length "the wife of noble character" to be involved in business by working with eager hands; importing food from merchant ships; providing food for her family; purchasing property for farming; trading profitably; making and selling expensive cloth and having enough money left over to give to the poor. Anyone with a definition of feminism which includes activities like these, who also respects the Bible as God's authoritative Word should reconsider his definition. Respectfully and with kindest regards, [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 19:15, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Not surprisingly, you left out the verse saying "her children wake up, and call her 'blessed,' so does her husband" ([[CBP]] version), as well as several other verses that feminist movies do not include.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Then would it be acceptable to put the Princess and the Frog in the "Debatable Whether Conservative" section of this page? [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:44, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::There are high quality movies in the "Debatable" section. The [[feminist]] "Princess and the Frog" doesn't even come close to that level of quality and arguably conservatism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:46, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::Since we're talking Disney cartoons here, would films like The Little Mermaid qualify under Conservative or Liberal? I want to make sure so I don't end up making a big mistake later on. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 16:56, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::Actually, I think Beauty and the Beast would qualify as feminist propaganda, and thus make its Conservative status debatable. True, it didn't have Belle trying to work as a CEO or something (then again, given the time period, I don't think "CEOs" even existed at that time) unlike the films for the past 15 years, but it does push the feminist propaganda that women couldn't get an education until the 1960s, and all education was supplied to rich white males, and that Belle was somehow breaking societal standards by reading (which there have been women who read during that time as well and wasn't even looked down upon. Marie Antoinette for one.). Trust me, I'd recognize that propaganda when I see it because I had to be subject to that propaganda from a militant feminist professor by the name of Heather Lucas (who did actually imply the above thing about women not getting an education until the 1960s). Plus the fact that she was refusing to marry for children can easily be construed as being anti-family. Also, as some people pointed out, there were some left-wing stuff in Titanic as well (I think Jack basically made some comments that were negative towards capitalism in that film. That as well as the aforementioned scene with Rose qualifying as pornography, and heck, technically she was committing pedastry with Jack as well). I took the liberty to moving them to the debatable whether Conservative section. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 22:36, 10 December 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Edit: It should also be worth mentioning that the village, while "shallow," was not really materialistic, not under the definition of matter being the most important thing, and certainly not in regards to the aspect of wealth, race, and jobs. Probably the closest they've gotten to materialism was their considering Belle to be "odd" due to her reading a book all the time, which even then seems to speak more to the feminist propaganda of Women not being educated at all until the 1960s. There wasn't exactly anything materialistic about the village. I had removed the reference to the village as being materialistic since it really didn't fit the definition at all. Also, the so-called "wedding" had a brief shot of a priest (specifically when Gaston makes that opening joke), making materialism in the village even less likely (materialism is atheistic, and the presence of a priest likewise implies the village was Christian, something that cannot intermingle with each other). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 17:26, 17 December 2013 (EST)

:Actually, after giving it some thought, I think The Princess and the Frog would qualify more as conservative at this point (certainly far more than the 1991 ''Beauty and the Beast'' ever did, which even Linda Woolverton, its screenwriter, not to mention Don Hahn, has admitted to being feminist claptrap since Jeffrey Katzenberg demanded for its third rewrite.). Technically, at least from what I gather as I haven't actually seen the film, the only reason why Tiana is even trying to run a shop is because her dad was dead and there was no male heir to run it, so under that sense, it's not actually feminist (and aside from that, it also somewhat condemns her obsession with trying to act as a CEO, especially when the main villain Dr. Facilier actually does try to convince her to pursue her dreams as a form of tempting her, and her ultimately rejecting it upon realizing what truly matters). I might as well point out that the film has Charlotte LeBeouf, a girl who most certainly is not a feminist, and if anything very traditionally feminine, who is actually portrayed in a very positive light, being a genuine friend for Tiana, and even attempting to restore Tiana and Naveen from the curse when granted the opportunity to do so (and only failed because Marti Gras ended at the worst possible time). And as another person pointed out, The Princess and the Frog actually DOES promote traditional marriage, and as a matter of fact, is the first Disney Feature Length film to actually do so since ''The Little Mermaid'' two decades before. Not saying it really should be listed as one of the greatest conservative films of all time (it's got evidence of plagiarizing ''The Little Mermaid'' at times, and aside from that, it did depict Voodoo in an ambiguous light, meaning that at best it can go under debatable whether Conservative or debatable whether Great), but it definitely shouldn't really be listed as a liberal film, period. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:33, 1 January 2019 (EST)

== Titanic ==

The movie ''Titanic'' also shows the rich and privileged getting on the half-empty life boats while the poor and lower class passengers are locked below (which is actually historical). Should it truly be included in this list? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:50, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:No, I disagree. The movie accurately portrays the wealthiest men on the boat (Guggenheim, Astor, etc.) giving up their lives so that poorer women and children could be saved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:53, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

::While I'm ''not'' denying there were individual acts of chivalry and that Guggenheim et al declined seats (although there is historical conflicting testimony about Astor) on the lifeboats (of which there were too few given the number of people on the ship), the numbers show a definite declining survival rate by class. This was also a theme in the movie and not one that should be ignored.

::The movie showed the lower class passengers being locked in the bowels of the ship, blocking escape. There is historical conflicting testimony on this subject as well: several people reported gates between decks being locked and armed guards blocking passageways while one steerage passenger testified that the gates were not locked. Another passenger stated that not only did the staff ''not'' sound an alarm in third class, but that steerage passengers who came up on deck were told to return to their rooms because there was no danger.

::'''First Class''' Women - 4/141 died (97% survival rate)1; Children: 1/7 died2 (86% survival rate); Men - 104/171 died (39% survival rate); Totals: 109/319 died (66% overall survival rate)

::12 of the 4 first class female passengers who died chose to remain with their husbands. *corrected mistype.

::2Lorraine Allison remained on board with her family because they had been separated from her infant brother, who was on a lifeboat with his nurse. The entire family died, with the exception of the baby.

::'''Second Class''' Women: 13/92 died (86% survival rate); Children: 0/25 died (100% survival rate); Men: 135/152 died (11% survival rate); Totals: 148/269 died (45% overall survival rate)

::'''Third Class''' Women: 91/179 died (49% survival rate); Children: 55/80 died (31% survival rate); Men: 381/440 died (13% survival rate); Totals: 527/699 died (25% overall survival rate)

::'''Staff and crew''' Female: 2/22 died (91% survival rate); Male: 701/896 died (22% survival rate); Overall: 703/918 died (23% overall survival rate)

::There are some servants left out of these numbers due to confusion

::Sorry for the over-long reply, but the ''Titanic'' has been a subject of fascination to me since my teenage years (about a century ago!) so I'm rather verbose about it. 8^) I don't agree with you on the subject, but I won't remove the movie from the list. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:51, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

Conservative? Some guy says all the right words to a vulnerable girl, then gets her to strip naked so he can draw her (that's porn). Then he gets her into the back of a car and they fornicate. Not exactly my definition of conservative. --[[User:Crubs|Crubs]] 15:58, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

==Move The Dark Knight To the Debatable category?==
I'm wondering whether of not The Dark Knight should be truly considered conservative-while it does have the message of not giving in to terrorist, it also includes themes of everyone being corruptible and having their limits (like the good public defendant, Harvey Dent, turning into a villain, Two Face) and seems fascinated with darkness and chaos ("Madness is like gravity all you need is a little push"). Given this all, and the fact that Patrick Leahy had a cameo in it, I think this might well be reconsidered. Thoughts?
Armond White, who generally sees through liberal bias and is a more conservative viewer, wrote this about it: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fTJ_tj1IKooJ:www.nypress.com/article-18545-knight-to-remember.html+armond+white+the+dark+knightr&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com]

:Thanks for your comments. I'll move "Dark Knight" to the debatable category as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

::I watched it when it came out, and I didn't notice anything particularly Conservative about it. The only thing really good about it was the citizen response to the terrorist dilemma the arch-villain sets up, whereby two boatloads of passengers "must" each ensure their own survival by blowing up the other's boat; a quick-witted passenger takes the remote control and throws it overboard. But this has nothing to do with Batman.

::The movie shows how vicious bad people can be, and how bullies support (and recruit) other bullies. But that is hardly fodder for the liberal-conservative debate. Both sides claim to despise bullying.

::I daresay the [[Batman]] character of the 1960s comic books had some "[[conservative]]" qualities, such as the ''noblesse oblige'' of the superior man and idea that society can be benefited by the actions of a heroic individual. Both of these run counter to Communist ideas of history. But the Batman movies I've seen are about a different, darker man. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

:Let me help explain why this film needs to be in the list. At the beginning of this film, crime had been quelled enough that when you saw the Bat-Signal a drug dealer, who probably would've made a quick buck and easily got away with it, chose not to make a deal (you see this guy just refuse a deal to some other man in a car). But this didn't mean that the city was totally crime free, or that corruption was gone. Bruce realized that Batman could not change Gotham. He could help, but he was only one man. Gotham needed someone to be the influence Batman could never be. And that man was Harvey Dent. This speaks to how important culture is to a society. There's a great saying from another film, called Hud, which says "The look of the country changes by the people we admire." Meaning, that if you want a good, upstanding, moral society, you back people who are good, upstanding, and moral. You choose good, even if it means your death. I think the best moment in this film is where the Joker has got the two ferries, one loaded with convicts and the other loaded with civilians, each rigged to blow. But it's a convict that understands the problem, and makes a decision not to play Joker's game. What does this mean? I nearly cried when I saw that scene. It meant that someone understood that there's more to life than living. There's more to life than just existing. There's more to life than doing what is expected, rather than doing what is GOOD. Because GOOD has VALUE, which, I believe, is at the heart of the Conservative Philosophy. Liberals believe quite the opposite. Or rather, they believe that there is no Good or Evil, that everything is relative. Just as the Joker believes. It is what we stand for, and are willing to die for, that make us good or evil. This is what Christ said. To take up your Cross, even if it means your death, even if it means the deaths of others, because Life is not predicated strictly on comfort or survival, but on the propagation of Good. That's why The Dark Knight needs to be here. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:20, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::He may be darker in the movies, that's not to say he still doesn't have conservative values, and he does whatever he can so other people don't go through what he want through. [[User:Jm920|Jm920]] 19:00, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== "The Sandlot" as 1950s America as a time when "every boy had a chance to be great." ==

I suppose, maybe. It's harder to achieve greatness when one couldn't necessarily ride at the front of the bus/use the same drinking fountain/eat at the same counter/go to the same university as other folks. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 14:15, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

: Your point is valid. Feel free to include your point in the entry itself. I don't think the 1950s were as [[conservative]] as today. In addition to your comment, [[homeschooling]] was prohibited in the 1950s, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:29, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rollerball (1975) ==

Rollerball (1975) is frequently overlooked as one of the great conservative films. A dystopian tale in which a corporate oligarchy maintains control over the peoples of the world by distracting them with a hedonistic culture of sex, drugs, and violent entertainment. Rollerball was designed by the corporations to hypnotize and distract the minions with gladiatorial combat disguised as sport. The world watches these spectacles and subconsciously receives the message their corporate masters are feeding them - that individual achievement is not possible, because every Rollerballer ultimately faces the same gruesome fate. However, when Jonathan E (James Caan) proves dominate and (more importantly) invincible in the sport - the corporations attempt to force him to retire through an ever horriflying series of rule changes designed to bring about his death or capitulation.
Jonathan E's defiance is a captivating and uplifting example of a man asserting the freedom of the individual in the face
of totalitarianism. JFarren 17:38, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

== Indiana Jones ==

I am very surprised that the Indiana Jones films are not included in here, when they are certainly conservative. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Would you like to add them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuilt ==
I've rewritten the page as a table. Everything is sortable now. The gross is the US gross value, not worldwide (with one referenced exception). Everything else is the same. Films listed with NA - TV means that they were a TV program, and thus did not have a gross. NA - DVD means that they were released straight to DVD. None of the values are adjusted for inflation. While that would be interesting to do, I don't think wikis support computed columns, and it seems like a waste of time to update every number here. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Well done. Your format is better, and your additional information about revenues is interesting, although not of great significance due to (1) inflation and (2) popularity typically doesn't mean much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

==Space Jam is not a "Great" film==
Conservative or not, Space Jam sucks! It must be removed.

== Two Thoughts ==

1. What about "Fiddler on the Roof"? About the important role of tradition in societies.

2. Also, the caption for "Hilary: The Movie" is awkward if not misleading. It didn't result in the McCain-Feingold Act being overturned so much as it was the impetus for the lawsuit. The current description seems to imply that it was a crucial piece of evidence or something similar.

Would anyone be opposed to these changes? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 14:17, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

==Film suggestions==

The Whit Stillman film, "Metropolitan", has been included on various lists of conservative films, including one by National Review. The story is of a group of bourgeois college students who meet a middle-class socialist peer. he later becomes good friends with them. Another National Review's list is "Ghostbusters" for its portrayal of an EPA bureaucrat as the main antagonist human antagonist and a message that "the solution to a public menace comes from the private sector". Another on the list I think may be worthy of inclusion is "Groundhog Day."

The full article from National Review can be viewed here [http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=YWQ4MDlhMWRkZDQ5YmViMDM1Yzc0MTE3ZTllY2E3MGM=] --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 22:42, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:update; Another film I saw a while ago, while containing some crude humor, may still qualify. It would probably fit in the "debatable whether great" category. The film is "House Arrest" and is about some teenagers who go to extreme lengths (locking them in the basement) to stop their fighting parents from getting a divorce. --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 13:46, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== The Iron Lady ==

I highly suggest seeing The Iron Lady. I'm not sure how widespread the release was but it received critical acclaim in Britain, and a good insight into the other side of the Atlantic during the time of Reaganism. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 15:06, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== Add "Back to the Future" to the Debatable category? ==

According to the article for [[Back to the Future]], the film contains both positive and negative values. Should it be included in the "Debatable" category?--[[User:GOPFan2011|GOPFan2011]] 23:52, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

==Batman 3==

This review [http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/occupy-batman-storms-gotham-city/] calls "The Dark Knight Rises" a conservative film which compares the Occupy movement to the ill-fated French Revolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:04, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

==Zulu==

Zulu is definitely a Conservative film. Since when do Leftists (I never call them Liberals) have the character to do their duty even if it means their death? What you see here is an emergency situation, where the officers in command put aside both their differences and their peculiar ways of life to do what was important. Chard put away being an engineer for a couple of days, and Bromhead put aside being a societal-gentleman/officer. They were determined not only to do their duty, but to win. If they abandoned their post, they cede it to the enemy and they probably would've been hunted down and destroyed, as the force at Isandwana was. They fought for reasons a bit higher than themselves, and in the end they prevailed. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 15:34, 11 February 2013 (EST)

== Additional films to consider ==

*Saving Private Ryan-World War II, June 1944.
*We Were Soldiers-based on the memoir by Lt. Col. Hal Moore; 1965, Vietnam.
*Cinderella Man-The story of James Braddock; heavyweight champion from 1935–37.
--[[User:JohnJustice|JohnJustice]] 23:32, 9 February 2013 (EST)
:I still believe the three above should be included. --[[User:JohnJustice|JohnJustice]] 20:36, 3 June 2015 (EDT)
::I suggest that you bring this up on the [[Community Portal]] page. Pages sometimes find themsevles in a frenzy of vandalism, and the administrators lock the page. Then the vandalism stops, obviously, and people forget that the page was locked. This page has been locked long enough that it's probably safe to unlock it, and so you should request that. Or at least the admins could directly act on your three requests. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:42, 3 June 2015 (EDT)

== Bee Movie ==

Why is Bee Movie a conservative Movie?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 06:27, 7 December 2013 (EST)

== 187 ==

I thought 187 should be on this list --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 17:44, 16 February 2014 (EST)

:Don't know about that. Doesn't ''187'' portray [[public schools]] as a victim, rather than the cause of the problems?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 16 February 2014 (EST)

I suppose one could see it that way. And obviously in real life I detest Samuel Jackson's radical racial politics. I don't remember much whining in the film about more money being the solution or celebration of teacher's unions. To me the overriding message was that we have degenerate youth in this country who wish to be decadent and apathetic and do not value a good education and a teacher who believes that students should be motivated and want to learn has finally had enough. Thomas Sowell has discussed the youth in inner city schools who actually want to learn being denied that by the thugs ruining the learning environment or because they get beat up for wanting to achieve. The film captures this unacceptable state of affairs wonderfully. That part struck a chord with me as a conservative. I certainly didn't see apologia for the public school system going on. The lack of discipline and the complicity of bureaucratic nonentities is thoroughly critiqued. Obviously, I would agree with you that breaking the public school government created monopoly is the solution. But this film as I see it is more about the problem than the solution. --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 21:15, 16 February 2014 (EST)

:You make great points, and please feel free to add the movie to the entry. That said, I doubt that outside gangs are a major reason why so many kids are not learning basic skills in public school. The real problem is that the liberals who control public schools don't want kids to learn and be able to think for themselves. Someone who can't read is more likely to vote a straight Democratic Party-line ticket than someone who can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 17 February 2014 (EST)
You're absolutely right. Most of the time, there's no difference between the hooligan thugs and the liberals, as lack of discipline in our public school system facilitates their existence. Also, with bureaucratic control, and the war on homeschooling, cadres of teachers who care about their job and not education are protected and those who could provide a better education (because they are motivated, because they don't teach a mindless curriculum and because they believe in discipline) see their schools shutdown by teachers who would sacrifice a child's future (much like a child sacrifice in the heathen societies of old) on the altar of their precious careers. It's high time parents held them accountable. And for that, we will need an end to the century old progressive inspired idiocy of government control of schools and a free market in education. At least the progressives were honest about their intentions back then, as they quite explicitly stated that their purpose was to mold, indoctrinate, and otherwise turn children into loyal and obedient servants of the state, as opposed to God or family or their own individuality. Children are taught to lap up content free curriculum like cattle. It's disgusting. --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 17:26, 7 May 2014 (EDT)

==National Treasure==

It has positive messages of patriotism, respect for history and the founding fathers, standing up for what you believe in rather than going alone with the crowd, and many others.
:It also promotes the Free Masons, so I'm not confident this should be here. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:40, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

== Star Wars conservative? ==

Hi.

Can we really list the entire Star Wars films as being solidly conservative? I'll give you the first film and Empire Strikes Back (original releases, at least: The first film's rerelease may be debatable now thanks to George Lucas deciding to rework a certain scene to effectively promote gun control), but Return of the Jedi is debatable as while it ''does'' promote good over evil, and actually features redemption in the form of Vader giving up his life to save Luke from the Emperor, it also was mentioned by George Lucas to promote the Vietcong's exploits against American soldiers during the Vietnam War via the Ewoks. Similarly, the Prequel Trilogy seems to hint at a morally relativistic view, and ironically the bad guys are stated to believe in moral absolutes at one point (Obi-Wan, shortly before dueling with Anakin Skywalker-turned-Darth Vader, mentioned "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" after Vader said that Obi-Wan's his enemy if he's not with him), and there have been quite a few unsubtle jabs at the Bush administration in the Prequel Trilogy (and in the case of Return of the Jedi, the Nixon administration, even though Nixon was the one who ended the Vietnam War, while Johnson was the one who pretty much expanded the conflict and Kennedy was effectively the one who started it). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 08:07, 5 June 2015 (EDT)

== Reopening the page ==

Hi.

Can someone reopen the page? I think it's been long enough for that person to have lost interest. And besides, there have been several movies that came out anyways. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:08, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

:Unlocked as requested. Thanks for asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:31, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

::You're welcome. I took the liberty of moving Star Wars to "Debatable whether conservative" largely because there actually have been some hints at a left-wing agenda in the film (I think Empire Strikes Back is the only film with narely a shred of leftism, actually), including promotion of the Vietcong and demonizing American involvement in the Vietnam War, as well as adding in some sources and additional stuff to the Beauty and the Beast thing (that reminds me, I may need to make a new topic regarding that). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:10, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

== Should Beauty and the Beast really be on here? ==

Hi.

Should Beauty and the Beast really be among even the Debatable whether Conservative page, let alone the Greatest Conservative Movies section?

I initially moved it from the Greatest Conservative movies section to Debatable whether Conservative section due to certain things that were being subtly pushed in the film (and speaking as someone who had to be forced to ingest a lot of tripe in college that was the same as what BATB pushed, I can recognize it when I see it and am doubtful it makes for conservative material), but right now, I'm not sure whether it even belongs there, either. If anything, it's probably a better fit for the Worst Liberal Movies article.

The first reason why I think this is simple: [http://articles.mcall.com/1991-11-22/features/2825583_1_beast-s-castle-fairy-tale-madame-gabrielle There] [http://time.com/2798136/maleficent-beauty-beast-writer/ are] [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-01-25/lifestyle/9201241028_1_linda-woolverton-belle-show-scripts more] [http://www.mouseplanet.com/8500/Linda_Woolverton_and_Belle than] [http://girlsincapes.com/2014/04/07/princess-evolution/ a] [https://web.archive.org/web/20111009063303/http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/1991/11/17/just-the-way-walt-made-em.html few] [http://www.urj.ucf.edu/vol5issue2/dickens/essay.php articles] on the development process that make it pretty clear from the writing staff, especially Linda Woolverton, that the film was supposed to push the feminist agenda (heck, Woolverton herself even explicitly stated that she modeled Belle after the Women's Movement in Time Magazine), and Woolverton also made it pretty clear in interviews that she believed the princesses before her were weak, insipid creatures that only wanted marriage and love as goals, and only waited for their prince to come (she even included, rather insultingly, Ariel from ''The Little Mermaid'' among those characters despite that character being very proactive). There was also a rather subtle anti-family/anti-marriage agenda being pushed considering Belle reacted with disgust to the idea of even having children and also being treated as being in the right for shoving her suitor into the mud instead of just saying no and apparently taking amusement in ruining a wedding. It also doesn't help that the opening song and Gaston himself strongly implied that Belle's literacy was not supported at all by the rest of the village. It also doesn't help that most of the men aren't really treated in a very flattering light (let's see, Gaston, LeFou, and most of the village males are painted in a rather negative light, Cogsworth was depicted as a pompous jerk, Lumiere's a womanizer, and Beast was mostly a jerk even with his complexity), and the women who actually seem to value marriage weren't treated well either (those blonde triplets were called the bimbettes despite their not actually doing anything that would mandate them being called bimbos besides supporting marriage). Heck, Lumiere's womanizing is treated as an implied virtue as well, and Belle ends up being treated as being in the right far too many times especially in instances that actually were largely her own fault (like the wolf attack scene). Heck, the film actually seems to push [[misandry]], and the [http://beautybeast.enchanted-rose.org/library/displayimage.php?pid=13702&fullsize=1 Disney Comics] and [http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20141210031917/disney/images/2/20/Tumblr_ng92xaGNbc1r2nlopo1_500.jpg WDW pins] don't exactly help in quelling any concerns for the film's agenda either. Heck, Belle was even cited by Woolverton to be based on herself. If feminism could get Princess and the Frog and Pocahontas onto the Worst Liberal Movies page, this most certainly can as well.

Probably the second reason, and probably the most damning, is the fact that Beauty and the Beast and some of its writing was actually reused for the 2014 ''Maleficent'' movie (which, BTW, both films were even written by the same person: Linda Woolverton). Keep in mind, the ''Maleficent'' movie was the kind of film that ''The Federalist'' actually [http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/06/maleficent-once-upon-a-screed/ denounced] as pushing an extreme left-wing agenda, so if Beauty and the Beast inspired a movie in writing that was probably undebatably one of the worst liberal movies, that's a strong case going against Beauty and the Beast being even a slightly conservative film. Maybe I'm a bit screwed up in my thinking, maybe I am actually right. I don't know. But what I do know is that there's plenty in the film that would strongly suggest against it even being debatably conservative, let alone fully conservative. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:48, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

== Politics of ''Captain America: Civil War'' ==

I'm debating whether ''Captain America: Civil War'' should be included on this list, similar to the first two films in the ''Captain America'' trilogy, as even though the film contains some obvious conservative messages due to Captain America refusing to give into intimidation by the government and the United Nations by signing the Zakovia Accords, in addition to both the federal government and international governments shown to be corrupt with the villain Baron Zemo infiltrating the facility in Europe to brainwash the Winter Soldier and unleash chaos (in that regard showing proof that regulating the Avengers is illogical when the superheros are banned from taking action in the event a threat emerges on the inside which the government is unaware of, as I viewed it).

However, the film also arguably contains some liberal messages as demonstrated by Iron Man's side in agreeing to the Zakovia Accords as a consequence for the civilian deaths caused by the Avengers, which presents an "anti-war" message, which is further pushed by the villain's actual plot to initiate conflict between the Avengers as revenge for the death of his family during the events of "Avengers: Age of Ultron".

Should the film be included in the list, or under the "Debatable" section? --[[User:GOPFan2011|GOPFan2011]] ([[User talk:GOPFan2011|talk]]) 12:50, 13 May 2016 (EDT)

:I haven't seen it, but from what you say, it sounds a bit questionable. Even the liberals admit the government is corrupt--they just blame it on the conservatives while the same liberals continue making it worse. I'd call it "Debatable" at best, but I can't say for sure, since as I said, I haven't seen it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:23, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

== Gods and Generals ==

I don't know if any of you have seen it, but should Gods and Generals be on this list? It's a hard movie to find (after release, it was "censored" by a number of companies, which means few people know much about it) but it shows loyalty to God, country, and beliefs. It takes place during the Civil War, I believe, though it's been a long time since I've seen it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 13:04, 13 May 2016 (EDT)

==Star Wars==
While it is clear that Star Wars is, as this page speaks of, about good vs. evil, I question whether it should really be labelled as even a "Greatest Conservative Movie." I find a number of things concerning, including:
*The teaching of a universal force, ''which is neither good nor evil'' (There is no such thing as a neutral God-like power)
*The general idea there there is no God and Satin, but just a neutral power that can be used by men (and aliens) for God-like or Satan-like purposes
*The teaching of "trust your feelings" and that what is needed can be found withing you (see Jeremiah 17:9, and others)
*The trance-like state which is required to learn from and use the force (demon possession, anyone?)
*The "worship" of "the force." (They do call it a Jedi ''temple'', after all)
*And while I'm making points against this series: almost all Sci-Fi fiction implies if not states that there is not God. Life of many different kinds simply appeared or evolved on many different planets, and there are many life-supporting planets on which there being live.
Need I go on? I could, but I think I've made my point. If everyone wants to keep this on the list, I will not argue about it, but I would not have put this movie here. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:14, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
:In all fairness, I had moved it to the Debatable whether Conservative section for a reason.
:And technically, Star Wars isn't "sci-fi", it's "space fantasy," so the bit about there lacking a god or supernatural elements won't apply.
:I do agree that it's status as a conservative film is debatable, though. Heck, the heroes were explicitly derived from the Vietcong in the original trilogy, which alongside the Empire being explicitly based on America during that time period would alone destroy any ideas of it being conservative. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:26, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
:EDIT: BTW, think you can comment on my topic regarding whether Beauty and the Beast can truly be considered even debatably a conservative film, let alone one of the greatest conservative films? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:29, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

::You're right--I'd missed the section break there at first, but still thought I'd argue the point. I forgot to go back and change that. I must say I didn't know there was a difference between "sci-fi" and "space fantasy," but I still say that it does matter somewhat how they present the fantasy, as to whether with or without God. 
''"...the heroes were explicitly derived from the Vietcong...alongside the Empire being explicitly based on America during that time period..."'' 
::You've got to be joking... So why is this still on the list? 
::Also, you're welcome, but I don't know how helpful I can be. I really don't watch a lot of television. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:35, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
:::No, I'm not joking about the Rebels and Empire's inspiration. That said, I really WISH I were. You can read more here:
*http://www.yomyomf.com/star-wars-is-a-metaphor-for-the-vietcong-kicking-american-ass-in-the-vietnam-war/
*http://www.inquisitr.com/1491688/star-wars-was-meant-as-protest-against-vietnam-war-new-book-claims/
:::In fact, it's precisely BECAUSE of that bombshell that I am even an Empire supporter now after years of loyalty to the Rebel Alliance under the naïve belief that they were derived from the American Minutemen or even the French Resistance during World War II.
:::Probably the only reason why it's still on the list is because ultimately, it's still a film about good vs. evil, which is a conservative viewpoint. That, and possibly Ronald Reagan invoking Star Wars when denouncing the USSR as the Evil Empire.
:::As far as Beauty and the Beast, I was meaning the Disney version, not the TV series. You can read up my commentary on why it may need to be removed from the article altogether here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies#Should_Beauty_and_the_Beast_really_be_on_here.3F [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:43, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
=== I removed Star Wars ===

I removed Star Wars. See editors commentary above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:11, 20 February 2017 (EST)

:Thanks. BTW, think you can look over Beauty and the Beast and see whether it should stay or begone? It seems to have more liberal values than conservative values in there, especially given what Linda Woolverton repeatedly stated. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 14:54, 20 February 2017 (EST)
::I will remove it. As far as future edits, you can remove any movie you wish as you have good judgment and have been a productive editor for some time.

::In addition, I haven't watched a lot of movies for awhile. I just haven't liked the quality of many movies that Hollywood has put out in recent times.

::Lastly, I don't have much interest in this topic/article. I don't want to edit that article for the foreseeable future given my knowledge of recent movies and my interest level of this topics. I do realize that entertainment effects the culture though and would appreciate your edits. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:02, 20 February 2017 (EST)

:::Okay, fair enough. I'm not sure we should automatically dismiss any Disney films from being Conservative due to Disney being left-wing right now, though (which is what you implied when you removed it in the comment section). The Lion King and The Little Mermaid did push definite conservative themes in there, and I do know The Incredibles pushed very conservative ideas. And that's not even counting the three original DP movies (ie, Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty).

:::I'll also keep your suggestion about not needing to ask for permission in mind. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:10, 20 February 2017 (EST)

== Wall E duplication ==

We seem to have some disagreement as to whether Wall-E is a liberal or conservative movie. As a result, it is listed both here and [[Essay:Worst Liberal Movies]]. I'm in no position to say one way or the other, but someone should probably remove it from one list, or perhaps both, if it can't be either "greatest conservative" or "worst liberal." --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 02:33, 24 July 2016 (EDT)

== Why is the room here? ==

To me this seems to be the work of trolls.The Room is an absolutely awful film and even if it was conservative, (which it isn't, the main character has premarital sex) it cannot be considered "great" in any regard. Terrible acting, subplots that lead to nowhere, rampant sex and hedonism as well as a poorly written story. I'm starting to doubt the integrity of this page if a film of such poor constitution made it on the list of Greatest Films. If anything the film should be considered an accidental comedy.

:Sure is entertaining though. --[[User:Lord Zedd|Lord Zedd]], 11 January 2017

== The Incredibles is extremely conservative, and should not be in the debatable section ==

Recently The Incredibles, was moved to the debatable section, for one slight detail. I do not believe it should remain in this section, I believe that it should be put back in the Greatest Conservative Movies sections for many reasons. First of all it might be the most conservative animation film ever made. Second it's only reason for being debatable is very minor. Almost every film has at least one conservative and liberal aspect. Third you really have to push it, to say that the boss; Gilbert Huph is a demonization of Capitalism. Yes he is heartless, but he is just a person, and to be fair to him he does not know that Bob Parr has superhero powers, all he knows that Bob Parr is not focusing on his work, with that logic, you could argue that J. Jonah Jameson is demonization of capitalism, as he is Peter Parker's boss, and he twists the paper, and often displays Spider-man in the paper as a bad guy, (and he too is unaware of his worker's powers). Fourth one of the reasons that Gilbert Huph, tells Bob not help his costumers, is because when Bob asks if he should, Gilbert Huph tells him that "the law requires that I answer no", which in no ways a negativity on capitalism, as the government is requiring him not help people and not the business. Finally the movie does promote capitalism, as the main lesson of the movie is to shown the negativity of an enforced mediocrity, from the government, which highly mocks socialism, not capitalism.
*Okay, fair enough. Feel free to revert, I just was concerned especially when [http://pixar.wikia.com/wiki/Gilbert_Huph#Trivia Gilbert Huph's page] on Pixar Wiki made it sound as though he WAS a demonization of capitalism (and it doesn't help that Wallace Shawn was specifically mentioned to not only be the opposite of Huph, but also implied he was a socialist due to his appearing in Michael Moore's film "Capitalism: A Love Story" and being a friend of Moore). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 14:39, 10 December 2016 (EST)

== There needs to be some kind of criteria for inclusion here ==

I'd seriously like to know how so many rated "R" movies, especially slasher films like Halloween, classify as "conservative movies." It seems someone has been adding just about everything which doesn't hug trees or glorify liberalism to this list. Do any senior administrators have any objection to me removing some of these apolitical films from the list? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 12:55, 31 December 2016 (EST)

:I removed Halloween, Scarface and Saw. See paragraph below about gratuitous violence and movies.

:Biblical criteria for Christian behavior could be used since Christianity has been a very influential force in the West for an extended time. For example, the Apostle Paul says to dwell on good things. While I understand that there is violence in war movies, the is the concept of Just War in Christendom. Horror movies are just violence for entertainment sake.

:The article [[conservative]] probably would be helpful in establishing criteria too.

:One problem is just the sufficient policing of the article.

:Another problem is that there was no very dominant founder or founders of conservatism who defined what exactly what it means to be a conservative. So you have competing notions of what is truly conservative. You also have completing notions due to differing notions of what it is to be a conservative due to countries/regions having different political definitions of what it means to be a conservative. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

:Fair enough about removing Saw. I realize more or less shut down my own argument, when I said that Jigsaw was playing God. [[User:newconservative|newconservative]] ([[User talk:newconservative|talk]])
::Then most of these belong in the debatable section, because it is debatable depending on how one defines "conservative." Many of these have conservative elements, but few of them are strictly conservative. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 23:48, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

== Suggestion to remove suicide squad and zootopia. ==

I feel both should be removed for their own respective reasons. Zootopia's themes are decidedly liberal, and as critics pointed out there seems to be quite a bit of anti-Donald Trump, pro-gay subtext that I feel effectively rules this film out as "conservative.]," so to speak. While certain "conservative" themes may or may not be present, the general intent of the filmmakers have to be taken into account, and this film certainly leans to the left in that regard (still a great movie though). At the very least, I believe this should be moved to 'debatable.' I'm also quite confused to the addition of Suicide Squad. Besides the obvious fact that the received, at best, mixed critical and audience reception, the movie doesn't appear to have any sort of real political agenda aside from making money. Harley Quinn's fantasies about becoming a housewife become less inspiring when you take into a account that she's a deluded psychopath trapped in an abusive relationship with an equally insane partner who also happens to be underworld crime boss, and that the scene was more likely intended as a satirical jab at the "nuclear family" stereotype.--[[User: Lord Zedd|Lord Zedd]] 11 January 2017

== Fake news in "Pride and Prejudice" ==

Elizabeth is tricked by Mr. Wickham's lies about Mr. Darcy. This is akin to CNN and other media presenting false, disparaging information based on a single source. I won't roll back your edit, but I don't agree with it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:07, 8 July 2017 (EDT)

:I think a better way to describe it is that Wickham lied to her about Darcy. People lie all the time, including in works of fiction. Fictional stories would be much less interesting (and real life would be less interesting too!) if everyone told the complete truth. Wickham and Darcy told very different stories about each other, and Elizabeth had to decide who was telling the truth. She made the wrong decision at first.

:Elizabeth's low opinion of Darcy came from two sources, apparently equally: what Wickham said, and the fact that Darcy separated Jane from Mr. Bingley, which neither Darcy nor anyone else lied about. Elizabeth's "who's telling the truth?" instincts failed her. Darcy's cold and aloof manner contributed to this.

:I can't believe that two men are discussing ''Pride and Prejudice''! :-) :-) :-) You realize that this is a women's story, a "chick flick", right? In fact, the fact that men can't relate to the story is discussed in the movie ''You've got Mail''. But I do like the story and the BBC serialization, even if Colin Firth in wet clothing doesn't do it for me. :-) Now I guess I have to go watch a baseball game to reset my equilibrium, [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:02, 8 July 2017 (EDT)

::I daresay the notion that men can't understand a women's story is [[fake news]]. Eh, what? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:35, 8 July 2017 (EDT)

== Debatable whether conservative movies and debatable whether great movies were piles of junk ==

With the exception of Frank's Capra's classic movie ''It's a Wonderful Life'' the "Debatable whether conservative" movies and "debatable whether great" movies were piles of junk. I deleted those sections. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:21, 9 July 2017 (EDT)

:If they aren't allowed, I guess they aren't allowed. Don't know why they were created in the first place, if they weren't going to be anything more than junk. Must admit, some of them did have some conservative principles. Also, wouldn't pro-War, being the opposite of anti-War, be Conservative while the latter's more liberal? Just asking... [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:38, 9 July 2017 (EDT)
::I don't see the point of having a "Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies" and then having a big list of movies that are debatable. Newspapers don't publish "Best vacation spots" or "Best stocks to buy" and then also include a big list of debatable contenders in those type of articles.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:30, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
:::Fair point. Think we can create separate articles dealing with each debatable category? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 05:30, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
::::Go for it if you want. I don't think they will be popular articles though. It is kind of like people abandoning liberal Christianity. People want the real thing or not be bothered with it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:21, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::Well, okay, I probably won't bother with a debatable whether conservative article (as you said, most people wouldn't want an article that doesn't even deal with real and pure conservativism, like how people don't want Liberal Christianity). But I can create a "debatable whether great" article. At least those films conservative principles are not in question, just whether they are actually good films. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:01, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
These edits may be good, but they removed about 70,000 bytes of information, possibly that other editor might find useful. I am recording the edits here before they got lost in the page history. Here they are: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359742&oldid=1359725][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359743&oldid=1359742][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359744&oldid=1359743][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359746&oldid=1359744][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359748&oldid=1359747][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359749&oldid=1359748] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:37, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

== Inside Out? ==

Other than some celebration of family unity in the end, that movie seems politically neutral to me. Who put it on the list, and why is it conservative?
--[[User:MacTavish|MacTavish]] ([[User talk:MacTavish|talk]]) 14:53, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

== Bambi ==

How exactly is Bambi pro-family? Now I am not saying that it is not, but is it conservative enough to even be the debatable section? --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 15:40, 1 September 2017 (EDT)
*Well, for starters, Bambi's mom gave her life to make sure Bambi survived when the hunter killed her. There's also the fact that the Prince and the Forest escorted both Bambi and his mom away in Man's first appearance. Plus, the Prince of the Forest, who is heavily implied to be Bambi's father, goes out of his way to save him in the climax during the forest fire. Actually, I think there's at least one other thing that makes it conservative: It also refutes the homosexual agenda with the character Flower, who is initially shown as a very effeminate skunk despite being male, yet by adulthood, he clearly is in love with a female skunk, thus being ahead of its time in proving that animals do not embrace homosexuality by nature contrary to what gay activists might claim. And to be fair, technically, "Man" is closer to a poacher than a true hunter (a true hunter does NOT target fawns or any does that are nursing fawns). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:33, 18 February 2018 (EST)

==Lion King should be labeled conservative==

There is another reason for it. It is a very good at showing why some people (like the hyenas) should be kept OUT of a country (and so isn't open borders) because they will only hurt the place (quite unlike the "let the Muslims and the illegals in" message being given today.). Furthermore, Scar's speech to the hyenas about getting even and what is owed to them could have a few words altered from "Be Prepared" and be an Obama speech. Scar essentially brings in foreigners who will back him and in exchange he gives them goodies, though, he openly admits he'll get most of them (which is true that politicians and the elite are the ones REALLY benefiting from open borders.). What the hyenas get is, presumably, the lionesses to get all the food for them and deplete the food supply and turn the ones great Pride Lands into a ruin (a great picture of what the Democrats and open borders are doing to America!) and, then, when things get low, kinda like Venezuela, he coldly tells his own hyena allies to "eat Zazu" (they don't do it, luckily) when they are hungry. And he even sells out his own allies, blaming them for Scar's death, when it is convenient for him (just like the Left), a move that, ironically, leads to his own demise. All in all, I think the movie has a very anti-open borders message, something that is needed nowadays! [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:45, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

Note, I don't know about Lion Guard, the latest TV Series with Lion King, if it's conservative (it's probably not with Iger at the helm). I do know that the statement that Timon and Pumba are gay, which I've seen going around, is false. Timon had a girlfriend in one the Timon and Pumba TV Series episodes. What caused him to leave is that he could never see Pumba again, and Pumba was his best friend and the meerkat village was bigoted against warthogs. (Also, his girlfriend could have come with him if she loved him enough, but she didn't, so it's HER fault then.) However, that said, I would NOT be surprised if Iger made Timon and Pumba gay in the upcoming Lion King live action. (After the gay LeFou, I wouldn't put it past him.) [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:45, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

Also, I do think Finding Nemo and Finding Dory are conservative. Ellen DeGeneres at least makes a good Dory, if not a human being. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:45, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

:I'll make sure to note the bit about it being anti-open borders on The Lion King's entry.

:So far as Lion Guard and/or The Lion King With Timon & Pumbaa, that's better fit with [[Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows]], so you might want to note that bit there.

:As far as Finding Nemo and Finding Dory, Finding Nemo is definitely already listed on here. I'll see if I can list Finding Dory on here (though given that it's technically a retread of Finding Nemo due to being a sequel, I'm not sure if it qualifies as truly great.). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:06, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

I believe that Finding Dory should be considered great, despite being a sequel. There are other sequels on this list that are considered great. Plus it got great reviews and is the fourth highest grossing animated film of all time. --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 10:25, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

:Okay, point taken. Moved it. May need an expansion, though. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:31, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

:BTW, Speaking of Iger and Lion King and gays, I just uncovered something very interesting. Turns out, the oft-reported bit about how LeFou was gay in the movie, according to Josh Gad, [https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2017/03/03/josh-gad-lefou-beauty-and-the-beast/98679284/ wasn't even in the actual script for the film], which strongly suggests that the whole "gay promotion" thing was on the part of the producers like Bill Condon mouthing off and not the actual film itself (and may also imply that the brief scene with Stanley and LeFou was an ad-lib added in by Condon.). Not that this is at all a good thing because it isn't, but in that light, we can probably assume that the script at least didn't intend to promote the gay agenda. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:47, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

==What about the Movie "Up"?==

It's kinda borderline. It does promote faithfulness in marriage and other good traits. The beginning part of them trying to force him out of his house could be considered anti-capitalism, but, on the other hand, eminent domain was only supposed to be used for public use, but it appeared that some company wanted the land and he wasn't willing to sell so they went and tried to make him look like he was getting senile or something so they could take him away and use his land, which is little better than the government doing the same to someone with the EPA and they, like the Obamacare panels, ruled him a burden on society rather than a human being with value. Also, it could possibly have an environmental theme, as they did try to save a rare bird. On the other hand, with the kind of brain to develop the talking device for the dogs, Mentz could have done other things with his life than spend all of those years trying to get that bird and be willing to take her away from her children. Also, I don't think the movie is really anti-capitalistic as it was left open if Mentz was good or bad until the moment he went after the bird and even went so far as to try and kill Russel and Fredrickson to do it. Also, on the other hand, Fredrickson was a sort of father figure to Russel as his father was never around. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 20:15, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

"Up" is actually on this list, you do make some good points on the film being borderline. Yes, they try to save the bird, but it's not really in an environmental way, it's more in a human saving a pet way as Russell found this specific bird, and he was saving that bird because it was like his friend, not because it was an endangered bird. Plus Mentz was almost like a poacher, so I do really think the film could be considered environmental. --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 21:12, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

==I think All Dogs Go to Heaven should be removed==

I don't know why All Dogs Go to Heaven is on here. Generally I'd put all of the Don Bluth works on here, but this one is the EXCEPTION, due to the fact that pretty much all scoundrels (Charlie, Itchy, Car Face, etc) are able to get into heaven and the concept of damnation is pretty much an afterthought. Now if Charlie had reformed at the end of the first movie, that would be one thing, but apparently, in the sequel, he's back to his old ways again. All in all, it's generally not good if the "hero" of your story is little better morally than your villain. Also, it does send the liberal message that you can do whatever the heck you want in life and there are no consequences for it (save that Car Face finally got his at the end of the second movie, though Charlie kept getting breaks for his bad behavior.) [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 23:47, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

I am confused are you saying that is not good if the hero is more moral than the villain? --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 00:09, 14 October 2017 (EDT)

The opposite. I'm saying it's not good if the hero is little more moral than the villain. Now, it would be one thing if the hero was more of an antihero and learned their lesson at the end and changed and became better in the sequels, but that's not the case with Charlie. If anything, we could argue he was even worse in a way in the sequel. (In the first movie, the most damage he did was to himself, but in the second movie, his actions allowed one of the devil creatures to imprison most of the dogs in dog heaven and his actions were more selfish than noble that led him to giving away that horn. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 21:43, 14 October 2017 (EDT)

==I think the Princess and the Frog deserves a chance===

Here is another reason: the portrayal of Tiana's father. While Lotti's (I think that's her name) father spoils her rotten, Tiana's father teaches her the value of hard work, that love is more important than money or possessions, was the one who inspired her to open her own restaurant (it was her father's dream and she finished what he started after he died) and he was in the military and was killed in action in WWI (good portrayal of the military in this movie). You don't often see the father portrayed in a good light in Disney movies, or, indeed, many modern movies in general. Triton seemed always to always be holding Arial back, Aladdin's father Kassim was the King of Thieves and had abandoned him and his his mother to go after the Hand of Midas, (Mufasa was good to Simba, I admit, but, then again, Lion King was listed as conservative on this list), Marlin, albeit too paranoid, was good (but Finding Nemo was also on this list), Lilo's parents weren't around in Lilo and Stitch (though they both died in some accident I think), Russel's father wasn't really around for him in Up, we never see Andy's father in Toy Story (only his mother and sister) (Heck, we don't see Sid's father either and we only see the mother of Jessie's former owner, never her father, so apparently fathers were unimportant in Toy Story (yeah, I know it's about the toys, not the people, but that still is disturbing if you look at it.), etc.

Come to think of it, that is a good argument against the claim that Princess and the Frog is a feminist movie. It was also later stated by Dr. Facilier that Tiana's father would sometimes do double and triple shifts to try and aim for his planned restaurant, yet he always made sure, despite being bone tired, to find time for his family.

Also, another thing to consider is Lottie, though spoiled, rich, and white, she is NOT a villain, but was actually the one who bought a lot of stuff (admittedly with daddy's money) to help Tiana get enough money for her restaurant. (They even said so in the director's commentary that she was designed that way.). That's another thing that makes the film anti-liberal. If it'd been a liberal film, Lottie and her father would have been villainous jerks, not supporting good guys.

Also, lest someone bring in that the film's agenda is racist, it should be noted that it appears that the film's villain, Dr. Facilier, is darker skinned (not quite black, but not white either).

Also, I might add that originally, Louis the alligator, was going to be a human turned into an alligator by Dr. Facilier, but the plot was dropped on that part. However, that said, Lois the alligator and Ray the firefly (who actually died fighting Facilier), were also portrayed in a good light and not as incompetent. That is another strike against it being a feminist movie. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:27, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

Also, I might add that Tiana and Naveen do seem more like a reasonable couple. Naveen is lazy and rich. Tiana, though poor and hardworking, perhaps is quite possibly going over the line on working TOO hard, as even her own mother points out to her. And she never bothers to spend time with her friends as she's always busy working. In the end, Naveen becomes less lazy and Tiana learns to have fun once in a while. If it was a more feminist film by the way, it would have Tiana remain the same while Naveen became less lazy. However, Naveen changed Tiana too for the better. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:34, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

:Even King Triton at least was willing to trade his freedom for Ariel's when push came to shove, so he wasn't all that bad (I'd argue Sultan and to a lesser extent Maurice got far more raw of a deal, TBH). I'm still not sure about Louisiana Voodoo being treated in a positive light though. We probably could move it to Debatable, IF Aschlafly allows it. Ultimately, he has the final say since he was the one who had it be designated liberal in the first place. And personally, even with the whole restaurant bit, Tiana came across as less feminist than Belle did in Beauty and the Beast. Plus, it's actually one of the few Disney feature movies that DOESN'T demonize marriage outright (and the first Disney Princess feature movie to actually treat traditional marriage in a positive light since The Little Mermaid two decades prior), so that's probably another aspect pointing to it being conservative. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:54, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

I think that even one movie you called conservative (Lion King 2: Simba's Pride) could be considered feminist. Both the central protagonist (Kiara) and the central antagonist (Zira) are females and generally seem to be portrayed to be the most competent. On the flip side, the only male, other than Rafiki of course, portrayed in a good light was Kovu (and he was originally bad but turned good when he fell in love with Kiara. Also, after being unjustly banished, Kovu suggested that they run away together and escape their problems. It was Kiara who suggested that they go back and stop the fighting. Again, another arguement that Lion King 2: Simba's Pride could be labeled feminist.). (Also, I might add that poor Nunca was allowed to be neglected, try and take out Simba to get Zira's love, and die trying. Vitani, on the other hand, was allowed to live to see Zira for what she was and to be able to get redemption.) Even Simba was portrayed as a father who just didn't seem to want what's best for his daughter (however, to Simba's defense, I don't recall Nala having that many lines at all in Lion King 2). If Lion King 2 can be labeled conservative, so should The Princess and the Frog. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 23:57, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

:To be fair regarding Simba, he actually DID have a valid point considering the Outlanders had served Scar earlier (and quite frankly, he's still an A-Okay Dad overall compared to Maurice and Sultan (who many times actually NEEDED rescuing by their daughters and usually don't succeed in saving their daughters even once. Not to mention more than once were largely depicted as doofuses.), or ESPECIALLY King Stefan from Maleficent). Besides, not all females were depicted as being good or even redeemable in the film. Zira most certainly wasn't. But yeah, like I said, we probably should wait for Aschlafly's response, since he's the one who decreed it a worst liberal film in the first place. For that matter, I'll see what Asclafly's response regarding Simba's Pride is. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:20, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

==I think Hacksaw Ridge should be removed from debatable==

While the film's main protagonist is against the practice of killing and the handling of a weapon (attributed because of his strong faith) the film at no point espouses gun control. At worst, it espouses gun ownership preference, as the film does take time to demonstrate and explain the necessity for firearms and killing in accordance with war. Hacksaw ridge was based on the real life of Desmond Doss and to change that aspect of his character would invoke historical revisionism and strike face of his moral christian beliefs. --[[User:AirForceMan92|AirForceMan92]] ([[User talk:AirForceMan92|talk]]) 01:36, 1 November 2017 (EDT)

== TV specials go under Movies or TV Shows? ==

Hi.

I was thinking of adding in some TV specials of various conservative and liberal stripes (and will go in the respective articles). However, I need to know, where do TV specials best qualify? Are they movies, or TV shows? I know made-for-TV movies are best placed here, but I'm not sure about TV specials. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:02, 11 December 2017 (EST)

That is a tough one, I know we have A Charlie Brown Christmas listed here. But Perhaps to avoid confusion on the TV Shows page, we could add another section labeled "TV Specials." Also maybe we should add A Charlie Brown Christmas to that section as well. --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 16:47, 11 December 2017 (EST)

:Yeah, that might work. For now, I added various specials on the animated films section here. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:57, 11 December 2017 (EST)

I fixed it and added a TV Specials section because they really belong in the TV page not the Movie Page. [[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 14:44, 15 December 2017 (EST)

:Fine by me. Seemed odd that they'd be here anyways. BTW, speaking of TV specials, should ''[https://youtu.be/S3a5j8PgQxg The Star Wars Holiday Special]'' go under Greatest Conservative TV shows or Worst Liberal TV shows? I'm tempted to put it under the latter due to Itchy basically... well, let's just say he ends up doing something EXTREMELY inappropriate in front of his own family, ESPECIALLY considering the family nature of the special. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:00, 15 December 2017 (EST)

That I do not know I have never seen the movie. [[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 15:09, 15 December 2017 (EST)

== Home Alone 2 a critical failure? ==

Home Alone 2 was recently moved into the debatable whether great section for being a critical failure, but I do not believe this is true. I believe both the original and the sequel have gained popularity throughout the years and became cult classics. Yes, it recycles the same format, but it introduces new characters, new jokes, and some other new situations. If anything its the sequels after the second film, that are debatable whether great. [[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 15:41, 12 December 2017 (EST)

:Thank you for saying that. Tell that to MacTavish if he changes it again. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 18:35, 28 December 2017 (EST)

::I also lean towards keeping it out of the "debatable" section, but I'm open to counter-arguments. I haven't thoroughly thought it through, so I could be missing something.
::I thought it was cute how they made it obvious that it was a play on the first, and added too it. (i.e. rather than just two paint cans at the stairs, it was those then a pipe. If you have the extended version, he also cuts the rope, dropping the pipe on them afterwards.) I think it was their intention to play on and too the first. Doing that with the third might have been pushing it, but they didn't. In the fourth, I think they went too far in the other direction, and made it too different. It didn't have the same creative flair as in its prequels. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:06, 28 December 2017 (EST)

==Correction on Alladdin 3==

I think that whoever wrote that article calling Alladin's father the main villain didn't really pay much attention to the movie. Even a casual watching of the movie would show that Saluk (and perhaps, to a lesser extent, the other thieves) was the actual villain. At worst, Kassim was like Iago in Return of Jafar, more like an anti-hero who couldn't be quite called good or bad. (Heck Iago isn't perfect in this one here as he helps Kassim try to steal the Oracle.) --Unsigned comment by [[User:PatriotMongoose]]

:I know, and I did actually watch the film pretty closely as a kid (and yes, Iago does help steal the Oracle as well, I can confirm that), but Cassim technically was the central antagonist to the story since a large part of the story involved Aladdin trying to redeem him. Think of it like the Original Trilogy of Star Wars. Technically, Palpatine was the main antagonist of the three films, but the central antagonist was Darth Vader, the one who gets the most screentime and played a large prominent role in the overall plot. That's what the edit was trying to convey. I'll reword it to "central antagonist" rather than "main antagonist" since that's more accurate. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:29, 17 December 2017 (EST)

== Where does RoboCop fit on the spectrum? ==

It's pro-law and order, anti-crime and anti-drugs. But it's also anti-capitalism with the way OCP is represented and its creators are very liberal.

== Songs of the South ==

Hi.

I was thinking of adding the movie Songs of the South by Disney (which unfortunately thanks to race-baiters can't be watched other than via bootleg, which is a shame, as Uncle Remus actually seemed like a very good role model for his race), which effectively acted as an adaptation of the Uncle Remus stories. Problem is, I'm not entirely sure where to place it due to the split between live-action and animated films. After all, Songs of the South technically has elements of both, so I can't exactly place it in one category only. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:12, 30 October 2018 (EDT)

== Some suggestions ==

A suggestion:
- '''The Aviator''' (2004) - yes, it is directed by Martin Scorsese, whose films are often quite violent and include a lot of profanity, but this film is almost entirely free of both and seems to advance a conservative agenda. It is a biopic that lauds the life of Howard Hughes (a Republican and supporter of Richard Nixon), portraying him as exemplifying American values of commerce, vision and entrepreneurialism. Hughes is a tragic figure who struggles with mental illness, obsessive-compulsive disorder and politically-motivated and fabricated allegations of war profiteering (which were levied against him by the corrupt senator Owen Brewster, who was formerly associated with the Ku Klux Klan). Despite never overcoming his mental illness, Hughes does manage to expose Brewster's corruption and double-dealing - a victory for an individualist, capitalist entrepreneur against bureaucratic government authority and cronyism. The film also portrays left-wing actress Katherine Hepburn in a negative light, ironically juxtaposing her belief in socialism with the luxurious life she enjoys in the New York 'jet set' (a 'champagne socialist'), and depicting how she treats Hughes coldly and abandons him when his obsessive-compulsive disorder worsens. - [[User:LibertyMatters]] 17:29, 06 November 2018 (GMT)

In fact, I have a couple more suggestions now:
- '''The Hunt for Red October''' (1990) - an atmospheric and tense thriller about a Soviet naval captain trying to defect to America during the Cold War. The film overall has a very positive view of America as an oasis of freedom, with the Soviet officers desperate to escape the totalitarian communist police state - one of the Soviets is surprised when he learns that in America, unlike in Soviet Russia, one is allowed to travel between states, a vivid illustration of just how repressive the USSR must have been. Based on a thriller by conservative author Tom Clancy.

- '''Inception''' (2010) - Christopher Nolan, who directed this well-received science fiction film about lucid dreaming, is considered one of the most conservative Hollywood directors (he directed the war film Dunkirk, which already appears on this list). Inception at first appears a completely apolitical film, but some reviewers have pointed out a subtle but definite Christian allegory at play here.

Buckle up, because this one - as befits a complex film - is a complicated one. But I really don't think I'm reading more into it than is actually there, and plenty of people have pointed this out. Spoilers are very much coming up, too, as a warning.

A quick précis of the plot - Cobb, the main character, is an 'extractor', who performs corporate espionage by attempting to infiltrate the subconscious of targets while they are dreaming and extract information. He has been hired by Saito, an unscrupulous businessman, to perform an act of 'inception' - placing the germ of an idea in someone's subconsciousness. In return, Saito will clear Cobb of a (false) murder charge and allow him to come back home to his children in America.

To embed an idea in someone's subconsciousness, it requires creating a 'dream within a dream within a dream' and embedding the idea deep within the bottom layer so that the person will not reject it as foreign. The way to wake up from a deeper dream layer into the one above it is to die in that layer (the idea that we have to die to wake up should suggest where this might be going). But there is also the possibility of getting lost in 'limbo' - a world so deep in the subconscious that the dreamer can construct the entire world with their own mind, and risks forgetting they are in a dream at all. Cobb, as is revealed later on, was once trapped in limbo with his now-deceased wife Mal, who spent years in limbo (the equivalent of hours in the real world) constructing a world out of their own memories.

The film opens with a shot of a fake vision of Cobb's children in Limbo, who are building sandcastles on a beach. It ends with a shot of Cobb reunited with his real children, James and Philippa (both named after Christian apostles), who, in the final line of dialogue in the film, say that they are building a house 'on the cliff.' Some reviewers have puzzled over the meaning of this line. To me, it's pretty clear. The film is bracketed by the two halves of the parable of the wise and foolish builders (Matthew 7:24).

What does this mean in context? It means that limbo is identified with the mortal world, where the foolish builders construct their lives on materialism rather than faith. In limbo, people have the power to use their imagination to make the world whatever they want it to be, as Cobb and Mal did for years - but none of it is real, it is just a figment of the subconscious. Near the end of the film, Cobb encounters a subconscious projection of Mal (malevolent?), who tries to persuade him to stay with her in limbo - not on the grounds that it is real, but that "you don't believe in anything anymore." Cobb rejects this materialistic relativism, in favour of an affirmation in the objective reality that his children do exist in the real world, 'up above' - in other words, he repudiates the temptation to live in a faithless world where mankind sets himself up as all-powerful and can build whatever he wants, instead having faith in the idea that there's something more real and meaningful than this.

The film is thus metaphorical. Cobb starts as essentially a glorified thief, obsessed with the idea of 'buying his way home' back to his children through his deal with Saito. Having failed to get his way into heaven (which, for him, is a return to his children) this way, he takes a leap of faith. He rejects Mal's temptation, refuses to use violence against a character who betrays the team, and risks his life to save that of Saito (who is in danger of getting lost in limbo). After this act of self-sacrifice, he dives into a river (a metaphorical baptism promising both death and rebirth), wakes up in reality on a plane, passes through immigration and customs (a metaphorical judgment of one's sins), is reunited with his father-in-law and finally returns to an Eden-like garden where his children are waiting for him. Whether this is intended to be a literal journey to heaven or a more metaphorical spiritual experience, the symbolism is all pretty clear. Once more, we end with the dialogue of constructing a house on the cliff - on the real and tangible substance of faith, a line that makes no sense without being viewed in a Christian context.

Christianity is admittedly not synonymous with conservatism, but I think the religious metaphor of this film is something conservatives would tend to appreciate. There is plenty more symbolism, which is summarised best in this article:
http://popupchinese.com/Inception.pdf
If we pop this one on the list it might be better to link to the article as this takes so long to explain. But I thought I'd lay out all the reasoning for you.

[[User:LibertyMatters]] 23:14, 10 November 2018 (GMT)

== Letters From Iwo Jima ==

I've been thinking about putting letters from Iwo Jima on one of these lists. If you truly understand it, it is a film that, while it paints the rank-and-file Japanese field soldier in a sympathetic light, it depicts the higher Japanese leadership in a negative light. For instance, it depicts Japan's "Kenpeitai" (the Japanese equivalent of the Russian Commissars) in a very negative light. The impression given by the movie is that young Japanese men are being drafted against their will to fight in a war that they don't understand. With all of the anti-war films that Hollywood makes, I think this one is different in that it shows the terrible battlefield conditions faced by the country that actually really started the war in the first place. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 01:14, 24 December 2018 (EST)

== Ace Ventura: Pet Detective Not Great? ==

Should Ace Ventura Pet Detective really be in the debatable if great section? It is one of my favorites, it was moved there for its crude behavior and because it stars liberal Jim Carrey, but there are other movies on this list, with crude behavior and other Jim Carrey movies.
--[[User:SaltLakeCityLover|SaltLakeCityLover]] ([[User talk:SaltLakeCityLover|talk]]) 10:06, 7 June 2019 (EDT)

I think it's definitely conservative (in fact, given how Pixar is going Left, it may be the LAST conservative one they ever make as they've fallen a long way from the conservative days of Toy Story and A Bugs Life)) but it also has a weak storyline and was Pixar's first box office disappointment. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 15:15, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
:Wait, I don't see how Ace Ventura has anything to do with Pixar. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:55, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

Okay, I am going to move it back.
--[[User:SaltLakeCityLover|SaltLakeCityLover]] ([[User talk:SaltLakeCityLover|talk]]) 12:01, 4 January 2020 (EST)

==A mild concern about a Dog's Purpose and a similar recent film (also mostly conservative), The Art of Racing in the Rain (2019)==

Both of them seem to promote reincarnation. In A Dog's Purpose, Bailey comes back as several other dogs (including a female, once, which I wondered if it was a subtle transgender reference). In Art of Racing in the Rain, Enzo dies (off screen) at the end and, per his long time desire, appears to have come back as a human boy named Enzo. I'm just wondering if these movies are secretly pushing Hinduism or that mentality. I suppose every film has it's questionable elements, though. Otherwise two good movies.

[[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:52, 28 August 2019 (EDT)

==Batman V Superman and Zack Snyder's Justice League==
As these movies are sequels to Man of Steel, and have been considered as righ-wing for some of the themes touched. Here are some articles about it:

https://www.filminquiry.com/zack-snyder-master-right-wing-propaganda/

https://elamerican.com/zack-snyders-justice-league-is-not-the-leftist-justice-league-anymore/

--[[User:Davidurso2d|Davidurso2d]] ([[User talk:Davidurso2d|talk]]) 11:04, January 30, 2022 (EST)

== Jesus (1979) ==
I'm quite surprised that nobody has mentioned the 1979 film adaptation of the Gospel of Luke. It is a very good flick about the Christ, in my opinion, definitely better than overly violent The Passion of the Christ (2004), so maybe we should mention this movie on the list.

== The Little Mermaid (1989) ==

I took it off of “Greatest Conservative Animated films” and put it in debatable wether liberal due to the fact it promotes feminism and rebellion. Also, if lyricist Howard Ashman being a homosexual, and having that kind of theme in The Mob Song in Beauty and the Beast was enough to knock into debatable, why is The Little Mermaid getting a pass with Part of Your World?<ref>https://www.pride.com/movies/2019/7/08/little-mermaid-was-originally-metaphor-unrequited-gay-love</ref> {{Unsigned|Admiral Farmer}}
:It appears to be a deletion of nearly 1,000 words or so, when I look at the [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay%3AGreatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1866478&oldid=1859023 difference in the history]. Why not let the readers decide?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:15, June 18, 2022 (EDT)
::Admiral Farmer should provide citations for any of these claims, otherwise he's just arguing with the air. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 18:27, June 18, 2022 (EDT)

:First of all, Admiral Farmer, the issue with The Mob Song in Beauty and the Beast was not the fact that Howard Ashman was homosexual in and of itself, it's that [https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/03/beauty-and-the-beast-gay-lefou-howard-ashman he specifically wrote the song as a way to essentially lash out against the anti-AIDS thing by inferring society discriminates AIDS victims out of ignorance due to his impending death (gee, I don't recall society ostracizing that virgin girl who got AIDS from a dentist routine by her AIDS-succumbing doctor. If anything, they were downright sympathetic to her and rightfully disgusted with the dentist in question who gave it to her as a way of lashing out over his having it.)]. So far as I know, there's literally no agenda for The Little Mermaid outside of trying to ensure audiences sympathized with Ariel. A better comparison would be more Part of Your World and Little Town development wise (and the latter definitely had some demeaning of small town values by some choice lyrics of Belle). You need specifically stated authorial intent regarding whether or not something's conservative or liberal in outlook, and there's nothing pointing to either regarding Part of Your World in other words (case in point, the audiences might think the Rebel Alliance from Star Wars was modeled after the American Minutemen, yet George Lucas made explicit that he modeled the Rebels after the Vietcong, and if anything, the characters actually modeled after America in any way was the Empire).
:Second of all, I'm not so sure The Little Mermaid truly promotes rebellion, since the one time Ariel actually rebelled willingly (NOT as a spur of the moment thing like the shipwreck exploration bit or even surfacing to Eric's ship, but calculatively decided to do so) it nearly ended in disaster, and Ariel ended up having to spend the climax cleaning up her mess (and even regarding the willing part, she was also shown throughout the deal to be extremely reluctant to even go through with it in the first place). Even if it DID promote rebellion, that's not necessarily a liberal aspect to the film, nor for that matter is it conservative, it's effectively neutral and literally depends on what the actual motivations are for rebellion. Using that argument, we could just as easily argue the [[White Rose Rebellion]] and the [[Vendee Rebellion]] are liberal/leftist if rebellion itself is a liberal trait regardless of motivations, not to mention our own country of America would be deemed irredeemably leftist under that argument, and even you'd realize that is just insane.
:Third of all, regarding feminism, Ariel wanted to marry a guy, and she also wanted to live life as a human, presumably adopting their cultural aspects INCLUDING most likely being a housewife in the end. Not to mention Prince Eric was depicted in an awesome light, including when Ariel was abducted going out of his way and risking his life to rescue her, and even King Triton even at his worst at least was depicted as actually giving a darn for his daughter, ultimately wanting to do what's best for her, and ultimately chose to sacrifice himself to save her, with his daughter returning the favor by cleaning up her mess alongside Eric and stopping Ursula, so I really fail to see how that is a promotion of feminism (at most, it might promote Suffragette-style feminism, which is surprisingly conservative in outlook due to it actually being against abortificants). In fact, the only character who actually DOES give feminist talking points (namely, claiming men only care for a woman's looks and cannot stand them even speaking at all) is the main villain, Ursula, meaning it if anything was a condemnation of feminism, not a promotion, since obviously someone who is the villain isn't intended by the story to be agreed with (not to mention, you know, the fact that she specifically was LYING about that bit in order to trick Ariel into giving up the one thing that might allow Eric to identify her). Oh, and the one who made those statements was female, not male, meaning it's obviously a different situation from, say, Gaston making similar comments in Beauty and the Beast, where in THAT case, Linda Woolverton obviously was trying to make the case that was indeed true and pushing an agenda even if he was the villain.
:One last thing, the article you posted a link to overall from what little I COULD gather from summaries on places such as Bing, (couldn't read the entire one on the site itself because it required a privacy statement, and I have ZERO intention of consenting to that since I'm straight. Would have gone with Cached if such was available.) was specifically talking about the original Hans Christian Andersen book, NOT the Disney film (they even specifically mentioned Ariel marrying the prince and exposing the sea witch was a stark change in the film). Meaning you're literally talking about the wrong version (not that I'm going to claim one way or another if the Hans Christian Andersen version was a gay metaphor or not. The only thing that's certain is that he modeled it after an unrequited crush. I've heard differing versions that he also was writing specifically regarding an unrequited crush on a woman). At most, the Hans Christian Andersen version of the story was the one that's debatable whether Conservative (heck, it's debatable as to whether it was even an actual promotion of homosexuality since Andersen originally intended to have her flat out die and enter oblivion. He actually tacked on a semi-happy ending where she became a daughter of the air later on.), and is a better fit for the Greatest Conservative Books/Worst Liberal Books page. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:12, June 21, 2022 (EDT)

Okay. Maybe this should be viewed to make my point. https://www.bitchute.com/video/EXfOh2xYPIez/ [[User:Admiral_Farmer|Admiral_Farmer]]

:I'll try to watch it on my phone later (right now, I'm playing DOAXVV, and since it's in Japanese, I can't turn on the sound). But as far as anti-feminist, if it promotes the institution of marriage and doesn't demonize it as a woman's worst nightmare, if it treats the male characters respectfully and not as weaklings or idiots or monsters (heck, both times Eric needed saving, he did a VERY badass thing like risking his life to save his dog, or heck, saved Ariel from being killed by Ursula), if it doesn't promote at the very least the idea that men think of women as inherently inferior and are specifically demonized in the storyline for it [and no, having the villain claim such doesn't count, ESPECIALLY if said villain was a woman herself and doing so specifically to try and lie to the protagonist for her own ends], as far as I can tell, it's anti-feminist, period (the closest it's going to go for feminism is the Susan B. Anthony model). Heck, the fact that certain film critics specifically DENOUNCED Ariel as being "cloyingly sexist" simply for even GOING for Eric at all was [https://www.cbr.com/movie-legends-revealed-the-feminist-origins-of-disneys-beauty-and-the-beast/ precisely the reason] why Jeffrey Katzenberg hired the likes of [[Linda Woolverton]] and did a radical rewrite of Beauty and the Beast, all SPECIFICALLY to ensure it had enough of a feminist twist to appease those critics, and what do you know, Woolverton bashed Ariel by saying that unlike her or her predecessors, Belle didn't focus on love, marriage, or "sat around and waited for her prince to come" not to mention had Belle basically hating the very idea of marriage even in the 1991 film with the film demonizing it to such an extent that in the one instance a wedding was shown, we're expected to ROOT for Belle when she shoves Gaston into a mud pool, most if not all of the guys, even the ones the story specifically WANTS us to sympathize with like Maurice or the Beast, being treated like complete and total crap, and all of that. That tells me ALL I need to know as to whether The Little Mermaid is feminist or not (if they had to rewrite Beauty and the Beast to be more feministic and borderline misandric specifically to ensure the critics don't complain about the lead character being cloyingly sexist like they did with Ariel, it clearly wasn't feminist, period). And personally, I'd rather go by what the actual creators say on the matter rather than what fans claim since sometimes us fans can be gravely mistaken (if we go by fan views, we'd think the Rebel Alliance was the American Minutemen and that George Lucas must have been promoting America, when in reality it was the exact opposite, they were meant to be the Vietcong and that the actual Americans were supposed to be the Galactic Empire). If you've got comments by one of the guys who produced the film stating it was feminist (and just so we're clear, when I say "feminist", I specifically mean something in the vein of something like Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, or heck, even that old lady from Britain who was a marxist and huge feminist. And as an additional bit, make sure their comments are based on their development notes, just to make sure they aren't trying to puff themselves like Lucas's claims about always intending for Greedo to shoot first despite his shooting script making clear it was Han who shot first. And yes, I do intend to do the same thing myself with Beauty and the Beast. Actually, I was planning on doing exactly that two years ago by going to the SGA archives and researching Linda Woolverton's various drafts and notes for BATB when going to a wedding in California for my cousin twice-removed. Unfortunately, those plans alongside the wedding itself ended up cancelled after the COVID lockdowns.), THEN we can consider moving it. But not a second too soon. That's also why I DIDN'T add in, say, the claim that Belle may become a Jacobin down the line in Beauty and the Beast or that the film ultimately promotes the French Revolution. That may be my suspicions, but unless directly stated by the writers of the film, and not just in interviews, but also in their development notes, they're not confirmed. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:59, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::tl;dr. Are you guys really into gay sex? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 16:41, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
:::Not really. But I attempted to check the article he linked to just to make sure I got all his arguments down to see if there was anything requiring a rebuttal. Since it required to agreeing to a privacy acceptance, I rejected it, and had to contend myself with brief blurbs. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:08, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::::Oh. Just wunderin what woke you up from hibernation to spend more time discussing ''The Little Mermaid'' than most adults on the planet ever spent watching the movie. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 18:52, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
:::::Well, for starters, Ariel was one of my influences regarding my actually trying to overcome my autism. And I didn't appreciate seeing someone try to decry it as a liberal movie. And for the record, I was actually attracted to Ariel as a teen. That's more than enough to tell me I'm straight. Either way, I'm planning on going back to hibernation from this site, not much I can do after what you did to it anyways. We got away from Wikipedia for this!? This is NOT the Conservapedia I joined years back. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:09, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::::::TMI. Rest well, my friend. Looking forward to the next time you get all excited about gay sex and come out of hibernation again. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 19:30, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::Ugh... I'm NOT excited for gay sex (actually, to be honest, it repulses me, sickens me, ESPECIALLY the male male stuff. And considering that we've got too many sexuality swaps as of late by insecure people like Greg Berlanti, I if anything have a massive hatred of homosexuality right now for wrecking too many characters.), I was literally taking a peek on this site trying to find something Andy Schlafly wrote that I needed mom to look at regarding the Bible and [[Essay:Adultress Story|a certain story]] in there when I stumbled upon this topic in the watchlist. In fact, I only brought up the whole gay element at all specifically to address Farmer's comment about it somehow being tied to homosexuality and citing a freaking article on it. Just so you know, the only thing I get excited for are the opposite sex, Females in my case. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:42, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::God bless you for that. One other thing: you don't want to round up all the gays on the planet and shoot them like you do the communists, do you? Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 19:48, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::I'd rather not regarding the gays. The only thing I WILL say, however, is that I MAY be required to do drastic measures if push comes to shove (not killing them, but definitely something I may end up regretting later). To give a hint, lesbian vampires, show that as a metaphor for what that truly is, try to ensure that despite the graphics, the people are horrified, not aroused, especially not the kids (we've already got gay agenda pushing in the likes of Lightyear and Arthur, not to mention Supergirl and the Arrowverse as a whole, so it's at this point do or die.). Besides, unlike Communists, you can do reparative therapy for gays, so it's not like you even need to go to that extreme anyways (unlike with Communists, who even those guys are too much of a risk at feigning conversion to take down Christianity. Just look at Pope Francis for example). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:57, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::Pope Francis has courageously taken a stand against Nazism. I wouldn't call this the stopped clock phenomenon. Let's give credit where credit is due. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 20:01, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::::Being against Nazism is not exactly enough for me (especially when we have far too many people misdefine Nazism as conservativism dating as far back as the McCarthy hearings, thanks no less to the likes of Stalin and the Frankfurt School). I've had to deal with radical left people who ALSO stuck it to Nazis yet had no problems rooting for explicit Communists. Some of whom, BTW, were my college professors. Besides, Supergirl on the CW technically was ALSO anti-Nazi, yet they blatantly shilled for radical left SJW politics, and in fact, they generally used their anti-Nazi spiel to, Season 2 onwards, basically flip the bird to Donald Trump (not to mention demonize conservatives). Here's an idea, if you're going to go against leftism, you go against ALL of it. Don't support Nazis OR Communism, want both dead. Oh, and when condemning Communism, don't settle for just the easy-peasy Maoist flavor or Stalinist flavor. Go against even the Che Guevara and Castro flavor, not to mention the Ho Chi Minh flavor and the Lenin flavor. Also the Robespierre flavor, let's not forget the French Revolution, as even Marx noted, inspired Communism. And just as an FYI, Putin after taking over freedom square [https://www.outono.net/elentir/2022/04/30/russians-put-up-a-statue-of-the-communist-dictator-lenin-in-nova-kakhovka-ukraine/ installed a Lenin statue recently]. Unless you want to decide to root for Lenin, I suggest you back off of supporting Putin. Even if you do not wish to support Ukraine, don't support Putin either. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 20:13, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Looks like Columbia just joined the anti-NATO Nazi alliance. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 21:23, June 21, 2022 (EDT)

:::::::::::::And your link is pretty weak - it makes you sound like a Ukrainian Nazi propagandist. The statue was erected by the citizens and taxpayers of a hick town in the Republic of Kherson. Putin had nothing to do with it.

:::::::::::::If you wanna play the propaganda game, you get a failing grade in Propaganda 101 for that argument. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 21:30, June 21, 2022 (EDT)

::::::::::::::See, it's the inconsistencies of Nazi propagandists and apologetics that is its undoing. A quick Google search finds these gems from recent years: [https://www.google.com/search?q=putin+lenin&sxsrf=ALiCzsYNZzxYB_S2OMflEOer8x24Ge3YgQ%3A1655861594614&source=hp&ei=WnGyYvyxIrutptQPpp23wAM&iflsig=AJiK0e8AAAAAYrJ_aoPjpeY82BnSLYatBky_3TtA96ua&ved=0ahUKEwj8xpCR9b_4AhW7lokEHabODTgQ4dUDCA8&oq=putin+lenin&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAwyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEOg4ILhCABBCxAxDHARCjAjoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6EQguEIAEELEDEIMBEMcBEKMCOggIABCABBCxAzoFCAAQsQM6CwguEIAEEMcBENEDOggILhCABBCxAzoFCC4QgAQ6EQguEIAEELEDEMcBEKMCENQCOgsILhCABBDHARCvAToICC4QsQMQgwE6CAgAELEDEIMBOgYIABAeEBZKBQg8EgExUABYwDNgqYMBaAFwAHgAgAGuBogB0UOSAQU1LTMuOZgBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz]

:::::::::::::::*Vladimir Putin denounces Russian revolutionary leader Lenin ..., The Guardian Jan 26, 2016

:::::::::::::::*Putin says Modern Ukraine was created by communist Russia, TRT World Now Feb 21, 2022

:::::::::::::::*Blame It on Lenin: What Putin Gets Wrong About Ukraine https://nationalinterest.org Feb 24, 2022

:::::::::::::::*Vladimir Putin accuses Lenin of placing a 'time bomb https://www.theguardian.com Jan 25, 2016

:::::::::::::::*Putin Disses Lenin | The New Yorker Sep 3, 2014

:::::::::::::::*Fact-checking Putin's speech on Ukraine - The Washington Post Feb 23, 2022 — Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized the West and referred to ... He harshly criticized Lenin for pushing for a confederation ....

::::::::::::::Now you claim Putin is a Lenin fanboy. So your consistent in your criticism of Putin, you're just not consistent in any facts. As a Yank, it's comical to watch and listen to you Brits' Russophobia which dates back at least to the Crimean War of 1854. The UK has always considered Russia its biggest threat to the Empire - from China, India, Central Asia, the Middle East, Turkey, the Mediterranean, Baltic, North Sea, and North Atlantic. Wherever they turn around, they see a Russian staring them in the face. No wonder they buried the hatchet and hooked up with the United States after the 19th century. But we Yanks are getting a little tired of fighting your wars for you - and your bombastic talk and exaggerations to provoke wars you have no intention or ability to fight yourselves. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 21:53, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::::::First of all, outono, aka Counting Stars, is a conservative and anti-Communist site, and has done [https://www.outono.net/elentir/?s=Nazis&x=0&y=0&category_name=eng plenty of articles condemning the Nazis] (and has also if anything supported Donald Trump as well, and just as an FYI, even Trump denounced Putin's actions, and also made it VERY clear he was against Putin as early as when he attended that Davos thing where he scolded Merkel for essentially funding Russia and Putin a few years back. Heck, both the Brookings Institute and Town Hall [https://townhall.com/columnists/jeffdavidson/2020/07/25/trump-continues-to-be-exceedingly-tough-on-russia-n2572999 made it repeatedly clear] [https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia that he was tough on Russia.]). Second of all, this was far from the only incident regarding them installing Soviet apparel. Heck, aside from [https://www.outono.net/elentir/2022/04/22/soviet-flags-and-a-statue-of-lenin-the-russian-communist-paraphernalia-in-ukraine/ their installing at least one flag for the Soviets, which, BTW, is actually eclipsing the ACTUAL Russian Federation flag], we've even got [https://www.outono.net/elentir/2022/02/25/a-russian-army-tank-advances-through-ukraine-waving-a-soviet-flag/ a Russian tank flying a Soviet flag] in a pretty blatant manner. And then [https://www.outono.net/elentir/2022/06/21/the-satellite-images-showing-the-massive-robbery-of-ukrainian-grain-by-russia/ we've got satellite footage making clear that Putin is reenacting the whole Holodomor bit] that Stalin was infamous for. Heck, on the subject of Nazis, [https://www.outono.net/elentir/2022/03/01/the-alliance-of-pro-russian-communists-and-nazis-fighting-against-ukraine-in-donbas/ a lot of the Nazis that occupied Ukraine right now are actually under Putin's employ, at the very least working together with pro-Russian Communists]. The only one who's falling for propaganda, quite frankly, is actually you. That's of course assuming you are indeed falling for it and not a fellow traveler. And for the record, your behavior and how you're influencing the site for the worse is precisely why I stopped editing Conservapedia lately. I did NOT sign up to Conservapedia to basically sing praises for a communist. And BTW, I can name Diana West, JR Nyquist, and Trevor Loudon, also New American, who make VERY clear that Putin is a Communist. Heck, even Sebastian Gorka is against Putin. Oh, and as far as his "dissing" Lenin, he only dismissed his tactics, not his motives or character. If I were in his position, and I truly wanted to diss Lenin, I'd hang Lenin from a lamppost, and make sure to bulldoze Lenin's tomb, also do mass arrests against ALL of his followers, and also make sure the education system teaches he was a complete and total psychopath who wanted to destroy the entire world. THAT'S how I'd diss him in his shoes. And BTW, Nyquist [http://jrnyquist.com/misreading-putin.html pointed that bit out] about him, years before. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:16, June 21, 2022 (EDT)

== Treasure Planet (2002) ==

I added it to “Debatable Wether Great” due to the values shown in it, but also noting it failed at the Box Office. It’s also a shame no one talks about it.

==What does demonology have to do with conservativism==
? [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&curid=38288&diff=1867152&oldid=1866761] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 16:44, June 21, 2022 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2022-06-22T00:13:18Z

Pokeria1: /* The Little Mermaid (1989) */

[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive1|Archive 1]]
 [[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive2|Archive 2]]

== Public Discussion Here ==

(post comments here by clicking "Edit this page")

Okay who keeps mispelling "Mr. Skeffington"? THERE IS A G IN THE NAME see www.imdb.com/title/tt0037094/

The Conservapedia entry for "Gen. George S. Patton" has a great section on the classic 1969 film, "Patton;" why is it not on the list?? A few years back "National Review" listed 100 great conservative films ("A Man for All Seasons" led NR editors' list). Immediately readers (including me) sent in their own nominations and "Patton" came in #1!!!!

CW Miller PhD

:It should be. Would you like to add it? Note, however, that the film was not as conservative as the person it featured!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

I think 'Tears of the Sun' should've definitely been on the list. Its extremely pro-military.

:Perhaps, would you like to add it with an explanation of why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

What is the conservative message taught by "The Way We Were"? Just curious.

:Pretty obvious, isn't it? The [[liberal]] rants predictably got too tiresome for the man to put up with, and he inevitably broke off the relationship with the woman in order to find a replacement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
::And in the process of breaking off the relationship, he broke his marriage vows and committed adultery. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:44, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

I think The Graduate (1967) needs to be on this list. This is a film about a boy growing up, by facing harsh reality, owning up to his mistakes, and making a decision about his life, thus becoming a man. It's also about how we can overcome sin and corruption by taking control of our lives. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 14:47, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not too sure about that one. A common interpretation of the ending is that Benjamin has actions in the climax were purely spur-of-the-moment, at that he's just figuring out in doing so he's failed to accomplish anything meaningful and is left with a wholly uncertain future. --[[User:Lord Zedd|Lord Zedd]], 11 January 2017

Another film is the 1948 Alfred Hitchcock film Rope, starring James Stewart, John Dall, and Stewart Granger. Based loosely on the Leopold-Loeb killing, Rope is about two Harvard scholars who decide to kill an acquaintance of their simply for the sake of killing, because they believe they are superior to others, all taught from one of their headmasters (James Stewart). This film goes into one of the reasons why we have laws, why we cherish human life, and slightly goes into the immorality taught by ivory tower intellectuals that seems so prevalent today.--[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:00, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Hud (1963), starring Paul Newman, Melvyn Douglas, and Patricia Neal, needs to be in this roster too. At the heart of Conservative Philosophy lies the strength of a man's character and how that character influences others. Hud, played by Newman, is a man who's completely selfish in a way that liberals are. He doesn't care about anyone but himself, and his own ego, and he gives no restraint to his appetites. He doesn't give a damn about anything, because to him the world is full of excrement. And that sooner or later, you're going to have to swim in that muck like everybody else. A great line is said that "The look of the country changes by the people we admire." As you watch this film, things get progressively worse for the ranch that Hud lives on, part and parcel because of his own crass behavior. Hud's willingness both to pass bad beef off onto his neighbors and take the ranch out from his old father indicates the sourness of his character. A brilliant film about human character.--[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:28, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Man of Steel ==
Could it not be argued that the movie is promoting idolatry by having the people of Earth view Superman, a non-human, as a "Christ-like redeemer?"

Not likely. Superman never sought the worship of people. Neither did Zod for that matter. Interestingly, in this movie, Zod is an anti-hero. He may have intended well, as his patriotism is to be admired, and I really don't blame him for killing some corrupt self-absorbed Kryptonian government officials that had doomed the planet due to their own self-interest, but, tragically, in the planned economy, he was predesigned to be a warrior to continue the corrupt planned economy of Krypton. True, there is free will in the predesigned society (Jor El and his wife did break the law by having Kal naturally and Jor El broke the law by taking Kal from the Genesis chamber and sending him to earth. It was that Jor El believed that the whole society was too corrupted to be continued along the Krypton way and thus that Zod's idea of only keeping the good bloodlines, as he put it, wouldn't solve the problem. What made Zod a villain wasn't his efforts to save Krypton, but his efforts to kill everyone on earth when he could have just assimilated like Kal. (So the movie isn't pro-open borders either (though I heard a super man comic was lately!!!) as Kal adjusts but the alien Zod comes in and tries to transform the planet to his liking just like the illegals and Muslims are trying to transform the USA.) Also, Kal El/Clark Kent just wanted to be left alone (even ticking off the military when they tried to track him and he destroyed some pricey equipment to get them off his back). [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 01:53, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

== Bio-Dome ==
Granted this film is a blunt crude stoner comedy. However upon analysis, years later the film reigns true the themes of inconsistancy of modern environmentalism.
Namely despite the stupidity and antics..... the films message is that the environment is salvageable with a lot of hard work.
The film ridicules contemporary education especially college, modern environmentalism (and what weve seen 20 years later) and social trending.
Despite being college students, the two girlfriends are for lack of better word poorly educated on environment around them. They question the tactics of "raising awarness" of those who think sit ins and hackey sack are suitable ways for environmental stewardship yet contribute no actual work. Their concerns are only satiated by activism; not labor. Environmentalism is a very labor intensive practice. Meanwhile the two slackers inherit a mess (admittedly one of their doing) and when their backs are against the wall; work very hard to fix it all whilst gaining social outlook, popularity and press attention. The film brings to light public/celebrity endorsement of environmental awareness, where it's popular and trendy. The dissertation from the Pope and various media outlets when Bud/Doyle are known for locking themselves inside.
The film attacks the insanity of utopian dreamers (Faulkner and the other scientists) who have grand visions for the environment and world around them only to break down and quit at the sight of reality. Doyle (stephen baldwin) passionate plea.
"Now, you guys have spent your whole lives trying to make the world a better place, right? Well, here's your chance. Only its not perfect. Its like it is out there." With passion and now incentive, they fix the calamity with a lot of hard work, ingenuity. Incentive and hard work are more important than facts and data crunching; they turn their focus on cleaning a degraded environment around them unlike the scientists that began having shuttered themselves in a pristine one.

== Leaving Las Vegas ==
While clearly not originally intended to portray a conservative message, I feel that one strongly comes across in the film. Semi-autobiographical story of an alcoholic writer who loses everything because of his drinking and continues to spiral until it eventually costs him his life. opinions? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:07, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

:Not quite sure as to how this portrays a 'conservative message' of any kind. --[[User:Lord Zedd|Lord Zedd]], 11 January 2017

== The Blind Side ==
It's a story about the shortcomings of public education and how the power of private Christian charity helped a young homeless man overcome his disadvantages and play in the NFL.[[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:03, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Brokeback Mountain ==

I was thinking about this topic earlier and had an interesting thought about a seemingly non-conservative movie that, in a way, is actually quite so. I'm going to throw this out there for some (hopefully productive and civil) debate and see what people think.

The movie is Brokeback Mountain. Now hold on to your outrage, people. I have justifications for my point. Please hear me out. (Oh, and spoilers, just in case you planned to see/read it and hadn't)

As you probably know, the movie (and the novella on which its based) is about two men who fall into a homosexual lifestyle. But what struck me as conservative about this film is that it doesn't glorify the lifestyle; the two mens' choice to indulge in homosexuality is a disastrous choice that ends up ruining both their lives. One man's marriage is destroyed and his relationship with his child is forever tainted. The other man's choice actually leads to his violent death (Incidentally, I'm not saying that killing someone for being gay is a conservative value. But the point is that this movie is actually very up-front about acknowledging the catastrophic consequences of a homosexual lifestyle).

Considering all that, my next though was whether this movie might be unintentionally conservative, in which case it certainly doesn't belong on this list. But I don't think it is (haven't seen it since it first came out though, so I could be wrong).

So, there's my point. I would appreciate some discussion. I imagine some CPers will think I'm trolling or just trying to start an argument. Not so. I feel like it's a valid point but that there are probably strong arguments for and against, and I'd really like to hear what other people think. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 17:11, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

:You are partially right, but I think the homosexuals were meant to be sympathetic and on that basis alone, I don't think that movie belongs on this list. [[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:05, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

: I agree that the movie is anti-homosexuality. Based on the publicity, I expected the movie to be pro-homosexuality, but I was quite surprised by what was actually in the movie. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:This would be true, except that you have to consider the film's intent. It's not necessarily suggesting that what these men did is the result of their choice. It's suggesting that what happens to these men is the result of bigotry, prejudice, and hate on the part of the world around them. That they are blameless, in spite of their choices. A stark contrast, which I think also ought to be listed as a Conservative Film, would be Midnight Cowboy. In Midnight Cowboy, Joe Buck (played by Jon Voight) recognizes that the life he chose, as a male prostitute, and begins to make an effort to change, to get out of New York, with Ratso (Dustin Hoffman). Ratso's death underscored the decadent life they had led in NYC, and how Joe barely escaped with his own. In Brokeback Mountain, you do not see such recognition on the part of Ennis and Jack. They don't really consider what they did as wrong, necessarily. So where Midnight Cowboy underscores the devastation the immoral life can lead, Brokeback Mountain places the responsibility for that devastation on everyone else but the two men most responsible. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 19:56, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== U-571 ==

I deleted U-571 from this list. It portrays the capture of an Enigma machine from a German U-boat by US forces. As pretty much everyone with any interest in WW2 knows, the naval Enigma machine was stolen by Polish forces and decoded by British code-breakers at Bletchley. My Brit friends think U-571 is a joke because it minimises the role of the British ("you arrogant Yankees"). Poles are offended because it cuts out the Polish involvement altogether - including the very brave men who risked their lives to steal an Enigma machine and hand it over to British Intelligence. (BTW, Britain and Poland were allies of ours in WW2 and still are now.) Deceit isn't a conservative virtue - so I crossed U-571 off the list. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 16:51, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

: I'd say it's very questionable whether there's any deceit involved. The movie makes an on-screen written acknowledgment that the the first (and the majority) of enigmas were captured by British sailors. The whole movie is so over-the-top that nobody with a lick of intelligence would believe it's true. American sailors did capture an enigma machine during the war too, so this movie is obviously "inspired by a true story" even if it's not especially true. Most of the movie-going public knows that Hollywood "true" stories are highly fictionalized. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:13, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

==The Lives of Others==

Where on earth is The Lives of Others? it is, surely, the best recent critique of Communism and, for that matter, one of the best films ''of any type'' released in the past five years. It certainly deserves a place ahead of, for example, the obscure Dark Matter. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:13, 28 November 2010 (EST)

: It's in German, right, and about the former [[East Germany]]? I'll add it on your recommendation, but I can't agree it ranks higher than the English-language Dark Matter, which speaks to today and not just the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::Fair enough, Andy. Though I don't quite understand the argument against foreign-language films. If the issue is obscurity, The Lives of Others was seen by far more people in the US than Dark Matter. A glance at Box-Office Mojo confirms that Dark Matter took in a staggeringly tiny $30,591 on its domestic run. The Lives of Others took in $11,286,112 in the US (plus another $66 million in the rest of the world). I am, however, content to abide by your criteria. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 15:40, 28 November 2010 (EST)

:::Oprah Winfrey's daytime talk show rakes in far higher revenues than both, but I'm not sure what that proves. Dark Matter was apparently victimized and downplayed by liberals who finally figured out its conservative message, after it won first place in one of the Sundance Film Festival categories. The liberal backlash against Dark Matter is particularly surprising given that Meryl Streep starred in it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::::P.S. Your suggestion of "The Lives of Others" is a fine addition. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:02, 28 November 2010 (EST)
http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.png
::::No problem. Keep up the good work. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 20:47, 28 November 2010 (EST)

== Fiddler on the Roof? ==

A film celebrating the value of community, tradition, family, and faith, all against the historical context of the harm done by the rise of Communism in Russia...worthy of a spot on the list? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Sounds good to me ... please add it as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:I disagree. Look at the overall film/play. This was definitely a counter-culture film thinly disguised as a quaint musical drama. The message was that Tradition is bad, illogical, and keeps people stuck in their ways when they should embrace the new, simply because it's new. When Tevye explains the traditions and why they're there in the beginning, he mentioned that they keep their heads covered and they wear their prayer shawl. He then asks, "How did this tradition get started?," and he responds, "I don't know." This sets up the rest of the show. Because never do they explain why they use a Matchmaker, or why they don't let people arrange their own matches, or why men and women dance separately. They even have the old rabbi getting down with the new changes, never defending what was before. Message: Traditions are stale and old and have no place in the modern world. Relax and just let things happen. Then the film gives us the drama of Chava marrying a Christian, marrying outside of her faith, and that's where Tevye can't abide it. By then, it seems that Tevye's objection is only based on ridiculous emotion, rather than anything objective. All this, in spite of the fact that change is coming, one that cannot be stopped by the traditions these people hold. This is not a Conservative message at all, but one that is quite subversive. If this had been written from a Conservative approach, we would've gone into the reasons behind the traditions, because they're not irrational or unreasonable. The reason for a Matchmaker, the way they dress, and the way they eat, and the dancing, all is meant to preserve their heritage as Jews living in Tsarist Russia. The Matchmaker keeps the Jewish men and women within the community, and within the faith, all the while helping to maintain peace and stability within the community itself. The point I'm making is that Traditions have a purpose, even if we disagree with them. And the notion that happiness comes from something material, as in the case of the marriage between Motel and Tzeital, is a direct message against a person's obligations to his or her duty, both to themselves and their community they live in. No, I'd say Fiddler on the Roof is not a Conservative film. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 20:15, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

: I disagree Wayfinder. Much of Jewish culture is based around the concept that Jews follow tradition for no other reason than because God expects us to. Take Kosher laws. Certainly, there can health reasons for being Kosher, but that is not why Jews become Kosher; it is because it is expected by God. Kosher laws don't change or update with new dietary findings. There are no Kosher fad diets. Ask a random Jewish person who keeps Kosher why he/she does and, 9 times out of 10, they will either say, "Because I always have" or "Because God expects me to". In the later case, performing an act because God expects it is logical, in an of itself.

And in Fiddler, there is an extra point to tradition. As Tevye says, "Because of tradition, we've kept our balance for many, many years." To wit, tradition is the only thing keeping Jews from falling into the abyss. And, in fact, the more Tevye gives in to the modern times, the more his culture is ravaged until he is forced to leave his homeland. Tradition is deeply respected in the film, as much as, and for the same reasons as, it is in the Jewish culture. And for that reason, I would consider it a Conservative film. --[[User:Sirreality|Sirrealtiy]] 12:16, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

: You make some good points, Sirrealtiy, but I must reiterate that the film isn't about Tradition's strengths, but giving into change for its own sake. Not once does Tevye ever consider why there are these traditions in the first place. When he argues with himself over Tzeitel marrying Motel or Hodel marrying Perchik, and so forth, he never considers the traditions at all or even explains their use. He almost casually disregards them. When it comes down to Chava, though, he can't get around it, and, again, he has no real good reason for any of them. So Tevye comes off as rigid and petty. This is important because Fiddler on the Roof came out at the height of the first wave of hippy counter-culture in America, and it ran with it. By the time the film gets to the conclusion, that the Tsar is running them out of Anatevka, the message is loud and clear: You can't resist change at all, so don't even try. This would, on the other hand, be more of a conservative film if we went into the reasons for these traditions, a lot of which would've been known, especially to the likes of the Rabbi, before casually discarding them. : --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 01:45, 24 January 2013 (EST)
Fiddler on the Roof is a classic movie.

A remember this: "Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if a man says to his father and mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6 he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8 ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men’.” 10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean’.” 12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you not know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” 13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

So not all traditions are good.

I love Thanksgiving though. And I like eggnog on December 25. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:54, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

== Gattaca ==

A condemnation of genetic experiments on humans, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely controlled society. No matter how much scientists play to be God, and try to improve the human race by using genetics, there will always be an individual, based on original God design, who, despite his health shortcomings, will triumph over this genetically modified, supposedly perfect human beings.

I don’t immediately put it on the list because the movie is a bit atheist. In the final scene, the hero finally managed to travel to space and cites the phrase: “They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home."

So, I’ll say that the movie has a conservative message, unfortunately diluted with atheist overtones. I’ll wait for someone else opinion before posting this. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:03, 10 March 2011 (EST)

:Feel free to post this with the caveat you mention. Thanks for explaining it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::We talked about this movie at my fellowship a few months ago - pure hokum about a guy who might have been alright on his own but for a disgusting patriarchy forcing human engineering. I'll write this if AlejandroJ doesn't. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:51, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, I posted it. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 15:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

The argument that this film has atheistic overtones actually adds to this film. It shows how we have reduced a person not to his ability but to purely material characteristics, and the effects this has on society. In Gattaca, people are judged not by their ability, not by their merit or accomplishments, but their potential. Gore Vidal, who plays the director of Gattaca, says "No one exceeds their potential." This is, I think, a fundamental statement in the whole movie; that it is the potential that is important, not the action, not the accomplishment. If Vincent became exposed even after he is confirmed to go to Titan, we know what would happen; he would be expelled from Gattaca, and possibly imprisoned for using a "borrowed ladder." Which also points to Eugene's suicide and why he took his own life. Eugene doesn't value his life, but his potential. "Jerome Morrow," he said, "was never meant to be one step lower on the podium." In such an atheistic society that only values the material, the potential, the beautiful, but not the competent or the accomplished, Eugene's suicide underscores this conceit. Eugene could not be anything less than what he felt his potential was. Or, put it another way, he could not be anything less but what others said he should be. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 14:58, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Disney cartoons ==

Most, and perhaps all, of the Disney cartoons for the past 15 or so years have pushed the [[feminist]] ideology. I welcome any counterexamples, but doubt there are any. Hence the reversion of the "Princess and the Frog (2009)" addition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:''The Lion King'', a 1994 Disney movie, is definitely conservative. A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory. I'll add it with your approval. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 15:45, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

::Sounds like a good choice. Please add and if anyone has a different view of the movie, then he can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:26, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Added. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 16:41, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly I would agree with your reversion of my contribution of the Princess and the Frog if that movie were feminist-ideology-promoting (like, for instance Mulan (1998)) but frankly, it is not a feminist movie. I am not a woman, nor a feminist - I am staunchly conservative. The Princess and the Frog promotes monogamous marriage (which feminism does not) as well as the other conservative values I listed (such as saving money, hard work, free enterprise etc). In fact, the main character is so pro-marriage that she changes her licentious friend's behavior from debauchery (which feminism promotes) to monogamy. It is possibly the most conservative-value-laden animated movie I have ever seen.

''The Lion King'' on the other hand promotes re-incarnation with its "Circle of Life" song. Jack, the hero of ''Titanic'' commits fornication and mocks a man reciting the 23rd Psalm; Cal, the main antagonist is depicted as a church-service-attending hypocrite.

You are doubtless correct about the feminist ideology pushed by many Disney animations, but this is not one of them. I respectfully request that you consider returning my contribution of 'The Princess and the Frog'. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 23:17, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:I have to disagree with you about The Lion King. As far as I can interpret, "The Circle of Life" is either about the bond all humans share or the journey from life to death and the afterlife, not reincarnation. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 00:36, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::Spotsbunch, I think you have a valid point about the Lion King, but from what I've heard about the "Princess and the Frog," it's feminist claptrap with the woman wearing the pants and doing everything except having children and homeschooling her kids. It's more Disney tripe about a successful businesswoman towing along an inept man, which is hardly typical in the real world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Arguably, any movie where people turn into frogs, or where in Beauty and the Beast, people have transmogrified into furniture is not "real world". Fantasies they may be, (like many movies listed here) but they are still conservative. I (finally) put it to your kind consideration that if you would watch the Princess and the Frog, you would find it contains less feminism and more conservativism than Beauty and the Beast. Whatever your judgment, I respect your decision and will refrain from further debate, even though I (thus far) disagree. Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 08:43, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Feminism]] is unmistakable: it has women acting like men and vice-versa, contrary to reality. Disney cartoons have been ''heavily'' feminist for at least 15 years. ''Beauty and the Beast'', made 20 years ago, was not feminist in any way. But having a "Princess" act like a businessman and aspire to run a restaurant is feminist. What's next - Cinderella aspires to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::Is there any reason a woman can't run a restaurant or a fortune 500 company? No really, Andy, I want to know. Why is it feminist to portray a woman doing anything but cooking, cleaning, and rearing children? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 13:40, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::Who said anything about cooking and cleaning? And, no, there isn't a reason why a woman can't aspire to any field, such as plumbers (almost no women plumbers), gas station attendants (ditto), or professional football players (ditto). The fact is that the vast majority of women ''do not aspire'' to do such activities (or running a restaurant or a Fortune 500 company), and it's false for feminists or feminist movies to repeatedly pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::I apologize for my abrasiveness, it just seemed that you were implying that's all they're supposed to do. I can see where you're coming from. While a woman can do what she wants, feminists are wrong for telling woman that they should only aspire to do things traditionally done by men. Men normally aren't beauty consultants, clothing designers, or nail salon technicians, so why don't we see any men urging more men to do these things? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Feminism]] repeatedly tries to persuade women not to have children and raise them, pretending that aspiring to work in a job is somehow better. I can't think of a single Disney movie in the last 15 years that has been realistic about the homemaker role that most women prefer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Up. A key part of the story is that the old man's wife had given up her dreams of being an explorer as real life concerns around the home took precedence. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 15:03, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::As promised, I will make my petition no further. However, as others have continued this debate, I will contribute to that. The Bible, our ultimate authority, disagrees (as I read it) that "a woman aspiring to run a business" (restaurant or otherwise) is feminist. Proverbs 31:10-31 describes at length "the wife of noble character" to be involved in business by working with eager hands; importing food from merchant ships; providing food for her family; purchasing property for farming; trading profitably; making and selling expensive cloth and having enough money left over to give to the poor. Anyone with a definition of feminism which includes activities like these, who also respects the Bible as God's authoritative Word should reconsider his definition. Respectfully and with kindest regards, [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 19:15, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Not surprisingly, you left out the verse saying "her children wake up, and call her 'blessed,' so does her husband" ([[CBP]] version), as well as several other verses that feminist movies do not include.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Then would it be acceptable to put the Princess and the Frog in the "Debatable Whether Conservative" section of this page? [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:44, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::There are high quality movies in the "Debatable" section. The [[feminist]] "Princess and the Frog" doesn't even come close to that level of quality and arguably conservatism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:46, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::Since we're talking Disney cartoons here, would films like The Little Mermaid qualify under Conservative or Liberal? I want to make sure so I don't end up making a big mistake later on. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 16:56, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::Actually, I think Beauty and the Beast would qualify as feminist propaganda, and thus make its Conservative status debatable. True, it didn't have Belle trying to work as a CEO or something (then again, given the time period, I don't think "CEOs" even existed at that time) unlike the films for the past 15 years, but it does push the feminist propaganda that women couldn't get an education until the 1960s, and all education was supplied to rich white males, and that Belle was somehow breaking societal standards by reading (which there have been women who read during that time as well and wasn't even looked down upon. Marie Antoinette for one.). Trust me, I'd recognize that propaganda when I see it because I had to be subject to that propaganda from a militant feminist professor by the name of Heather Lucas (who did actually imply the above thing about women not getting an education until the 1960s). Plus the fact that she was refusing to marry for children can easily be construed as being anti-family. Also, as some people pointed out, there were some left-wing stuff in Titanic as well (I think Jack basically made some comments that were negative towards capitalism in that film. That as well as the aforementioned scene with Rose qualifying as pornography, and heck, technically she was committing pedastry with Jack as well). I took the liberty to moving them to the debatable whether Conservative section. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 22:36, 10 December 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Edit: It should also be worth mentioning that the village, while "shallow," was not really materialistic, not under the definition of matter being the most important thing, and certainly not in regards to the aspect of wealth, race, and jobs. Probably the closest they've gotten to materialism was their considering Belle to be "odd" due to her reading a book all the time, which even then seems to speak more to the feminist propaganda of Women not being educated at all until the 1960s. There wasn't exactly anything materialistic about the village. I had removed the reference to the village as being materialistic since it really didn't fit the definition at all. Also, the so-called "wedding" had a brief shot of a priest (specifically when Gaston makes that opening joke), making materialism in the village even less likely (materialism is atheistic, and the presence of a priest likewise implies the village was Christian, something that cannot intermingle with each other). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 17:26, 17 December 2013 (EST)

:Actually, after giving it some thought, I think The Princess and the Frog would qualify more as conservative at this point (certainly far more than the 1991 ''Beauty and the Beast'' ever did, which even Linda Woolverton, its screenwriter, not to mention Don Hahn, has admitted to being feminist claptrap since Jeffrey Katzenberg demanded for its third rewrite.). Technically, at least from what I gather as I haven't actually seen the film, the only reason why Tiana is even trying to run a shop is because her dad was dead and there was no male heir to run it, so under that sense, it's not actually feminist (and aside from that, it also somewhat condemns her obsession with trying to act as a CEO, especially when the main villain Dr. Facilier actually does try to convince her to pursue her dreams as a form of tempting her, and her ultimately rejecting it upon realizing what truly matters). I might as well point out that the film has Charlotte LeBeouf, a girl who most certainly is not a feminist, and if anything very traditionally feminine, who is actually portrayed in a very positive light, being a genuine friend for Tiana, and even attempting to restore Tiana and Naveen from the curse when granted the opportunity to do so (and only failed because Marti Gras ended at the worst possible time). And as another person pointed out, The Princess and the Frog actually DOES promote traditional marriage, and as a matter of fact, is the first Disney Feature Length film to actually do so since ''The Little Mermaid'' two decades before. Not saying it really should be listed as one of the greatest conservative films of all time (it's got evidence of plagiarizing ''The Little Mermaid'' at times, and aside from that, it did depict Voodoo in an ambiguous light, meaning that at best it can go under debatable whether Conservative or debatable whether Great), but it definitely shouldn't really be listed as a liberal film, period. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:33, 1 January 2019 (EST)

== Titanic ==

The movie ''Titanic'' also shows the rich and privileged getting on the half-empty life boats while the poor and lower class passengers are locked below (which is actually historical). Should it truly be included in this list? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:50, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:No, I disagree. The movie accurately portrays the wealthiest men on the boat (Guggenheim, Astor, etc.) giving up their lives so that poorer women and children could be saved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:53, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

::While I'm ''not'' denying there were individual acts of chivalry and that Guggenheim et al declined seats (although there is historical conflicting testimony about Astor) on the lifeboats (of which there were too few given the number of people on the ship), the numbers show a definite declining survival rate by class. This was also a theme in the movie and not one that should be ignored.

::The movie showed the lower class passengers being locked in the bowels of the ship, blocking escape. There is historical conflicting testimony on this subject as well: several people reported gates between decks being locked and armed guards blocking passageways while one steerage passenger testified that the gates were not locked. Another passenger stated that not only did the staff ''not'' sound an alarm in third class, but that steerage passengers who came up on deck were told to return to their rooms because there was no danger.

::'''First Class''' Women - 4/141 died (97% survival rate)1; Children: 1/7 died2 (86% survival rate); Men - 104/171 died (39% survival rate); Totals: 109/319 died (66% overall survival rate)

::12 of the 4 first class female passengers who died chose to remain with their husbands. *corrected mistype.

::2Lorraine Allison remained on board with her family because they had been separated from her infant brother, who was on a lifeboat with his nurse. The entire family died, with the exception of the baby.

::'''Second Class''' Women: 13/92 died (86% survival rate); Children: 0/25 died (100% survival rate); Men: 135/152 died (11% survival rate); Totals: 148/269 died (45% overall survival rate)

::'''Third Class''' Women: 91/179 died (49% survival rate); Children: 55/80 died (31% survival rate); Men: 381/440 died (13% survival rate); Totals: 527/699 died (25% overall survival rate)

::'''Staff and crew''' Female: 2/22 died (91% survival rate); Male: 701/896 died (22% survival rate); Overall: 703/918 died (23% overall survival rate)

::There are some servants left out of these numbers due to confusion

::Sorry for the over-long reply, but the ''Titanic'' has been a subject of fascination to me since my teenage years (about a century ago!) so I'm rather verbose about it. 8^) I don't agree with you on the subject, but I won't remove the movie from the list. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:51, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

Conservative? Some guy says all the right words to a vulnerable girl, then gets her to strip naked so he can draw her (that's porn). Then he gets her into the back of a car and they fornicate. Not exactly my definition of conservative. --[[User:Crubs|Crubs]] 15:58, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

==Move The Dark Knight To the Debatable category?==
I'm wondering whether of not The Dark Knight should be truly considered conservative-while it does have the message of not giving in to terrorist, it also includes themes of everyone being corruptible and having their limits (like the good public defendant, Harvey Dent, turning into a villain, Two Face) and seems fascinated with darkness and chaos ("Madness is like gravity all you need is a little push"). Given this all, and the fact that Patrick Leahy had a cameo in it, I think this might well be reconsidered. Thoughts?
Armond White, who generally sees through liberal bias and is a more conservative viewer, wrote this about it: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fTJ_tj1IKooJ:www.nypress.com/article-18545-knight-to-remember.html+armond+white+the+dark+knightr&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com]

:Thanks for your comments. I'll move "Dark Knight" to the debatable category as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

::I watched it when it came out, and I didn't notice anything particularly Conservative about it. The only thing really good about it was the citizen response to the terrorist dilemma the arch-villain sets up, whereby two boatloads of passengers "must" each ensure their own survival by blowing up the other's boat; a quick-witted passenger takes the remote control and throws it overboard. But this has nothing to do with Batman.

::The movie shows how vicious bad people can be, and how bullies support (and recruit) other bullies. But that is hardly fodder for the liberal-conservative debate. Both sides claim to despise bullying.

::I daresay the [[Batman]] character of the 1960s comic books had some "[[conservative]]" qualities, such as the ''noblesse oblige'' of the superior man and idea that society can be benefited by the actions of a heroic individual. Both of these run counter to Communist ideas of history. But the Batman movies I've seen are about a different, darker man. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

:Let me help explain why this film needs to be in the list. At the beginning of this film, crime had been quelled enough that when you saw the Bat-Signal a drug dealer, who probably would've made a quick buck and easily got away with it, chose not to make a deal (you see this guy just refuse a deal to some other man in a car). But this didn't mean that the city was totally crime free, or that corruption was gone. Bruce realized that Batman could not change Gotham. He could help, but he was only one man. Gotham needed someone to be the influence Batman could never be. And that man was Harvey Dent. This speaks to how important culture is to a society. There's a great saying from another film, called Hud, which says "The look of the country changes by the people we admire." Meaning, that if you want a good, upstanding, moral society, you back people who are good, upstanding, and moral. You choose good, even if it means your death. I think the best moment in this film is where the Joker has got the two ferries, one loaded with convicts and the other loaded with civilians, each rigged to blow. But it's a convict that understands the problem, and makes a decision not to play Joker's game. What does this mean? I nearly cried when I saw that scene. It meant that someone understood that there's more to life than living. There's more to life than just existing. There's more to life than doing what is expected, rather than doing what is GOOD. Because GOOD has VALUE, which, I believe, is at the heart of the Conservative Philosophy. Liberals believe quite the opposite. Or rather, they believe that there is no Good or Evil, that everything is relative. Just as the Joker believes. It is what we stand for, and are willing to die for, that make us good or evil. This is what Christ said. To take up your Cross, even if it means your death, even if it means the deaths of others, because Life is not predicated strictly on comfort or survival, but on the propagation of Good. That's why The Dark Knight needs to be here. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:20, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::He may be darker in the movies, that's not to say he still doesn't have conservative values, and he does whatever he can so other people don't go through what he want through. [[User:Jm920|Jm920]] 19:00, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== "The Sandlot" as 1950s America as a time when "every boy had a chance to be great." ==

I suppose, maybe. It's harder to achieve greatness when one couldn't necessarily ride at the front of the bus/use the same drinking fountain/eat at the same counter/go to the same university as other folks. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 14:15, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

: Your point is valid. Feel free to include your point in the entry itself. I don't think the 1950s were as [[conservative]] as today. In addition to your comment, [[homeschooling]] was prohibited in the 1950s, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:29, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rollerball (1975) ==

Rollerball (1975) is frequently overlooked as one of the great conservative films. A dystopian tale in which a corporate oligarchy maintains control over the peoples of the world by distracting them with a hedonistic culture of sex, drugs, and violent entertainment. Rollerball was designed by the corporations to hypnotize and distract the minions with gladiatorial combat disguised as sport. The world watches these spectacles and subconsciously receives the message their corporate masters are feeding them - that individual achievement is not possible, because every Rollerballer ultimately faces the same gruesome fate. However, when Jonathan E (James Caan) proves dominate and (more importantly) invincible in the sport - the corporations attempt to force him to retire through an ever horriflying series of rule changes designed to bring about his death or capitulation.
Jonathan E's defiance is a captivating and uplifting example of a man asserting the freedom of the individual in the face
of totalitarianism. JFarren 17:38, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

== Indiana Jones ==

I am very surprised that the Indiana Jones films are not included in here, when they are certainly conservative. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Would you like to add them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuilt ==
I've rewritten the page as a table. Everything is sortable now. The gross is the US gross value, not worldwide (with one referenced exception). Everything else is the same. Films listed with NA - TV means that they were a TV program, and thus did not have a gross. NA - DVD means that they were released straight to DVD. None of the values are adjusted for inflation. While that would be interesting to do, I don't think wikis support computed columns, and it seems like a waste of time to update every number here. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Well done. Your format is better, and your additional information about revenues is interesting, although not of great significance due to (1) inflation and (2) popularity typically doesn't mean much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

==Space Jam is not a "Great" film==
Conservative or not, Space Jam sucks! It must be removed.

== Two Thoughts ==

1. What about "Fiddler on the Roof"? About the important role of tradition in societies.

2. Also, the caption for "Hilary: The Movie" is awkward if not misleading. It didn't result in the McCain-Feingold Act being overturned so much as it was the impetus for the lawsuit. The current description seems to imply that it was a crucial piece of evidence or something similar.

Would anyone be opposed to these changes? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 14:17, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

==Film suggestions==

The Whit Stillman film, "Metropolitan", has been included on various lists of conservative films, including one by National Review. The story is of a group of bourgeois college students who meet a middle-class socialist peer. he later becomes good friends with them. Another National Review's list is "Ghostbusters" for its portrayal of an EPA bureaucrat as the main antagonist human antagonist and a message that "the solution to a public menace comes from the private sector". Another on the list I think may be worthy of inclusion is "Groundhog Day."

The full article from National Review can be viewed here [http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=YWQ4MDlhMWRkZDQ5YmViMDM1Yzc0MTE3ZTllY2E3MGM=] --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 22:42, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:update; Another film I saw a while ago, while containing some crude humor, may still qualify. It would probably fit in the "debatable whether great" category. The film is "House Arrest" and is about some teenagers who go to extreme lengths (locking them in the basement) to stop their fighting parents from getting a divorce. --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 13:46, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== The Iron Lady ==

I highly suggest seeing The Iron Lady. I'm not sure how widespread the release was but it received critical acclaim in Britain, and a good insight into the other side of the Atlantic during the time of Reaganism. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 15:06, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== Add "Back to the Future" to the Debatable category? ==

According to the article for [[Back to the Future]], the film contains both positive and negative values. Should it be included in the "Debatable" category?--[[User:GOPFan2011|GOPFan2011]] 23:52, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

==Batman 3==

This review [http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/occupy-batman-storms-gotham-city/] calls "The Dark Knight Rises" a conservative film which compares the Occupy movement to the ill-fated French Revolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:04, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

==Zulu==

Zulu is definitely a Conservative film. Since when do Leftists (I never call them Liberals) have the character to do their duty even if it means their death? What you see here is an emergency situation, where the officers in command put aside both their differences and their peculiar ways of life to do what was important. Chard put away being an engineer for a couple of days, and Bromhead put aside being a societal-gentleman/officer. They were determined not only to do their duty, but to win. If they abandoned their post, they cede it to the enemy and they probably would've been hunted down and destroyed, as the force at Isandwana was. They fought for reasons a bit higher than themselves, and in the end they prevailed. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 15:34, 11 February 2013 (EST)

== Additional films to consider ==

*Saving Private Ryan-World War II, June 1944.
*We Were Soldiers-based on the memoir by Lt. Col. Hal Moore; 1965, Vietnam.
*Cinderella Man-The story of James Braddock; heavyweight champion from 1935–37.
--[[User:JohnJustice|JohnJustice]] 23:32, 9 February 2013 (EST)
:I still believe the three above should be included. --[[User:JohnJustice|JohnJustice]] 20:36, 3 June 2015 (EDT)
::I suggest that you bring this up on the [[Community Portal]] page. Pages sometimes find themsevles in a frenzy of vandalism, and the administrators lock the page. Then the vandalism stops, obviously, and people forget that the page was locked. This page has been locked long enough that it's probably safe to unlock it, and so you should request that. Or at least the admins could directly act on your three requests. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:42, 3 June 2015 (EDT)

== Bee Movie ==

Why is Bee Movie a conservative Movie?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 06:27, 7 December 2013 (EST)

== 187 ==

I thought 187 should be on this list --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 17:44, 16 February 2014 (EST)

:Don't know about that. Doesn't ''187'' portray [[public schools]] as a victim, rather than the cause of the problems?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 16 February 2014 (EST)

I suppose one could see it that way. And obviously in real life I detest Samuel Jackson's radical racial politics. I don't remember much whining in the film about more money being the solution or celebration of teacher's unions. To me the overriding message was that we have degenerate youth in this country who wish to be decadent and apathetic and do not value a good education and a teacher who believes that students should be motivated and want to learn has finally had enough. Thomas Sowell has discussed the youth in inner city schools who actually want to learn being denied that by the thugs ruining the learning environment or because they get beat up for wanting to achieve. The film captures this unacceptable state of affairs wonderfully. That part struck a chord with me as a conservative. I certainly didn't see apologia for the public school system going on. The lack of discipline and the complicity of bureaucratic nonentities is thoroughly critiqued. Obviously, I would agree with you that breaking the public school government created monopoly is the solution. But this film as I see it is more about the problem than the solution. --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 21:15, 16 February 2014 (EST)

:You make great points, and please feel free to add the movie to the entry. That said, I doubt that outside gangs are a major reason why so many kids are not learning basic skills in public school. The real problem is that the liberals who control public schools don't want kids to learn and be able to think for themselves. Someone who can't read is more likely to vote a straight Democratic Party-line ticket than someone who can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 17 February 2014 (EST)
You're absolutely right. Most of the time, there's no difference between the hooligan thugs and the liberals, as lack of discipline in our public school system facilitates their existence. Also, with bureaucratic control, and the war on homeschooling, cadres of teachers who care about their job and not education are protected and those who could provide a better education (because they are motivated, because they don't teach a mindless curriculum and because they believe in discipline) see their schools shutdown by teachers who would sacrifice a child's future (much like a child sacrifice in the heathen societies of old) on the altar of their precious careers. It's high time parents held them accountable. And for that, we will need an end to the century old progressive inspired idiocy of government control of schools and a free market in education. At least the progressives were honest about their intentions back then, as they quite explicitly stated that their purpose was to mold, indoctrinate, and otherwise turn children into loyal and obedient servants of the state, as opposed to God or family or their own individuality. Children are taught to lap up content free curriculum like cattle. It's disgusting. --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 17:26, 7 May 2014 (EDT)

==National Treasure==

It has positive messages of patriotism, respect for history and the founding fathers, standing up for what you believe in rather than going alone with the crowd, and many others.
:It also promotes the Free Masons, so I'm not confident this should be here. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:40, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

== Star Wars conservative? ==

Hi.

Can we really list the entire Star Wars films as being solidly conservative? I'll give you the first film and Empire Strikes Back (original releases, at least: The first film's rerelease may be debatable now thanks to George Lucas deciding to rework a certain scene to effectively promote gun control), but Return of the Jedi is debatable as while it ''does'' promote good over evil, and actually features redemption in the form of Vader giving up his life to save Luke from the Emperor, it also was mentioned by George Lucas to promote the Vietcong's exploits against American soldiers during the Vietnam War via the Ewoks. Similarly, the Prequel Trilogy seems to hint at a morally relativistic view, and ironically the bad guys are stated to believe in moral absolutes at one point (Obi-Wan, shortly before dueling with Anakin Skywalker-turned-Darth Vader, mentioned "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" after Vader said that Obi-Wan's his enemy if he's not with him), and there have been quite a few unsubtle jabs at the Bush administration in the Prequel Trilogy (and in the case of Return of the Jedi, the Nixon administration, even though Nixon was the one who ended the Vietnam War, while Johnson was the one who pretty much expanded the conflict and Kennedy was effectively the one who started it). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 08:07, 5 June 2015 (EDT)

== Reopening the page ==

Hi.

Can someone reopen the page? I think it's been long enough for that person to have lost interest. And besides, there have been several movies that came out anyways. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:08, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

:Unlocked as requested. Thanks for asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:31, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

::You're welcome. I took the liberty of moving Star Wars to "Debatable whether conservative" largely because there actually have been some hints at a left-wing agenda in the film (I think Empire Strikes Back is the only film with narely a shred of leftism, actually), including promotion of the Vietcong and demonizing American involvement in the Vietnam War, as well as adding in some sources and additional stuff to the Beauty and the Beast thing (that reminds me, I may need to make a new topic regarding that). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:10, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

== Should Beauty and the Beast really be on here? ==

Hi.

Should Beauty and the Beast really be among even the Debatable whether Conservative page, let alone the Greatest Conservative Movies section?

I initially moved it from the Greatest Conservative movies section to Debatable whether Conservative section due to certain things that were being subtly pushed in the film (and speaking as someone who had to be forced to ingest a lot of tripe in college that was the same as what BATB pushed, I can recognize it when I see it and am doubtful it makes for conservative material), but right now, I'm not sure whether it even belongs there, either. If anything, it's probably a better fit for the Worst Liberal Movies article.

The first reason why I think this is simple: [http://articles.mcall.com/1991-11-22/features/2825583_1_beast-s-castle-fairy-tale-madame-gabrielle There] [http://time.com/2798136/maleficent-beauty-beast-writer/ are] [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-01-25/lifestyle/9201241028_1_linda-woolverton-belle-show-scripts more] [http://www.mouseplanet.com/8500/Linda_Woolverton_and_Belle than] [http://girlsincapes.com/2014/04/07/princess-evolution/ a] [https://web.archive.org/web/20111009063303/http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/1991/11/17/just-the-way-walt-made-em.html few] [http://www.urj.ucf.edu/vol5issue2/dickens/essay.php articles] on the development process that make it pretty clear from the writing staff, especially Linda Woolverton, that the film was supposed to push the feminist agenda (heck, Woolverton herself even explicitly stated that she modeled Belle after the Women's Movement in Time Magazine), and Woolverton also made it pretty clear in interviews that she believed the princesses before her were weak, insipid creatures that only wanted marriage and love as goals, and only waited for their prince to come (she even included, rather insultingly, Ariel from ''The Little Mermaid'' among those characters despite that character being very proactive). There was also a rather subtle anti-family/anti-marriage agenda being pushed considering Belle reacted with disgust to the idea of even having children and also being treated as being in the right for shoving her suitor into the mud instead of just saying no and apparently taking amusement in ruining a wedding. It also doesn't help that the opening song and Gaston himself strongly implied that Belle's literacy was not supported at all by the rest of the village. It also doesn't help that most of the men aren't really treated in a very flattering light (let's see, Gaston, LeFou, and most of the village males are painted in a rather negative light, Cogsworth was depicted as a pompous jerk, Lumiere's a womanizer, and Beast was mostly a jerk even with his complexity), and the women who actually seem to value marriage weren't treated well either (those blonde triplets were called the bimbettes despite their not actually doing anything that would mandate them being called bimbos besides supporting marriage). Heck, Lumiere's womanizing is treated as an implied virtue as well, and Belle ends up being treated as being in the right far too many times especially in instances that actually were largely her own fault (like the wolf attack scene). Heck, the film actually seems to push [[misandry]], and the [http://beautybeast.enchanted-rose.org/library/displayimage.php?pid=13702&fullsize=1 Disney Comics] and [http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20141210031917/disney/images/2/20/Tumblr_ng92xaGNbc1r2nlopo1_500.jpg WDW pins] don't exactly help in quelling any concerns for the film's agenda either. Heck, Belle was even cited by Woolverton to be based on herself. If feminism could get Princess and the Frog and Pocahontas onto the Worst Liberal Movies page, this most certainly can as well.

Probably the second reason, and probably the most damning, is the fact that Beauty and the Beast and some of its writing was actually reused for the 2014 ''Maleficent'' movie (which, BTW, both films were even written by the same person: Linda Woolverton). Keep in mind, the ''Maleficent'' movie was the kind of film that ''The Federalist'' actually [http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/06/maleficent-once-upon-a-screed/ denounced] as pushing an extreme left-wing agenda, so if Beauty and the Beast inspired a movie in writing that was probably undebatably one of the worst liberal movies, that's a strong case going against Beauty and the Beast being even a slightly conservative film. Maybe I'm a bit screwed up in my thinking, maybe I am actually right. I don't know. But what I do know is that there's plenty in the film that would strongly suggest against it even being debatably conservative, let alone fully conservative. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:48, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

== Politics of ''Captain America: Civil War'' ==

I'm debating whether ''Captain America: Civil War'' should be included on this list, similar to the first two films in the ''Captain America'' trilogy, as even though the film contains some obvious conservative messages due to Captain America refusing to give into intimidation by the government and the United Nations by signing the Zakovia Accords, in addition to both the federal government and international governments shown to be corrupt with the villain Baron Zemo infiltrating the facility in Europe to brainwash the Winter Soldier and unleash chaos (in that regard showing proof that regulating the Avengers is illogical when the superheros are banned from taking action in the event a threat emerges on the inside which the government is unaware of, as I viewed it).

However, the film also arguably contains some liberal messages as demonstrated by Iron Man's side in agreeing to the Zakovia Accords as a consequence for the civilian deaths caused by the Avengers, which presents an "anti-war" message, which is further pushed by the villain's actual plot to initiate conflict between the Avengers as revenge for the death of his family during the events of "Avengers: Age of Ultron".

Should the film be included in the list, or under the "Debatable" section? --[[User:GOPFan2011|GOPFan2011]] ([[User talk:GOPFan2011|talk]]) 12:50, 13 May 2016 (EDT)

:I haven't seen it, but from what you say, it sounds a bit questionable. Even the liberals admit the government is corrupt--they just blame it on the conservatives while the same liberals continue making it worse. I'd call it "Debatable" at best, but I can't say for sure, since as I said, I haven't seen it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:23, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

== Gods and Generals ==

I don't know if any of you have seen it, but should Gods and Generals be on this list? It's a hard movie to find (after release, it was "censored" by a number of companies, which means few people know much about it) but it shows loyalty to God, country, and beliefs. It takes place during the Civil War, I believe, though it's been a long time since I've seen it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 13:04, 13 May 2016 (EDT)

==Star Wars==
While it is clear that Star Wars is, as this page speaks of, about good vs. evil, I question whether it should really be labelled as even a "Greatest Conservative Movie." I find a number of things concerning, including:
*The teaching of a universal force, ''which is neither good nor evil'' (There is no such thing as a neutral God-like power)
*The general idea there there is no God and Satin, but just a neutral power that can be used by men (and aliens) for God-like or Satan-like purposes
*The teaching of "trust your feelings" and that what is needed can be found withing you (see Jeremiah 17:9, and others)
*The trance-like state which is required to learn from and use the force (demon possession, anyone?)
*The "worship" of "the force." (They do call it a Jedi ''temple'', after all)
*And while I'm making points against this series: almost all Sci-Fi fiction implies if not states that there is not God. Life of many different kinds simply appeared or evolved on many different planets, and there are many life-supporting planets on which there being live.
Need I go on? I could, but I think I've made my point. If everyone wants to keep this on the list, I will not argue about it, but I would not have put this movie here. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:14, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
:In all fairness, I had moved it to the Debatable whether Conservative section for a reason.
:And technically, Star Wars isn't "sci-fi", it's "space fantasy," so the bit about there lacking a god or supernatural elements won't apply.
:I do agree that it's status as a conservative film is debatable, though. Heck, the heroes were explicitly derived from the Vietcong in the original trilogy, which alongside the Empire being explicitly based on America during that time period would alone destroy any ideas of it being conservative. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:26, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
:EDIT: BTW, think you can comment on my topic regarding whether Beauty and the Beast can truly be considered even debatably a conservative film, let alone one of the greatest conservative films? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:29, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

::You're right--I'd missed the section break there at first, but still thought I'd argue the point. I forgot to go back and change that. I must say I didn't know there was a difference between "sci-fi" and "space fantasy," but I still say that it does matter somewhat how they present the fantasy, as to whether with or without God. 
''"...the heroes were explicitly derived from the Vietcong...alongside the Empire being explicitly based on America during that time period..."'' 
::You've got to be joking... So why is this still on the list? 
::Also, you're welcome, but I don't know how helpful I can be. I really don't watch a lot of television. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:35, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
:::No, I'm not joking about the Rebels and Empire's inspiration. That said, I really WISH I were. You can read more here:
*http://www.yomyomf.com/star-wars-is-a-metaphor-for-the-vietcong-kicking-american-ass-in-the-vietnam-war/
*http://www.inquisitr.com/1491688/star-wars-was-meant-as-protest-against-vietnam-war-new-book-claims/
:::In fact, it's precisely BECAUSE of that bombshell that I am even an Empire supporter now after years of loyalty to the Rebel Alliance under the naïve belief that they were derived from the American Minutemen or even the French Resistance during World War II.
:::Probably the only reason why it's still on the list is because ultimately, it's still a film about good vs. evil, which is a conservative viewpoint. That, and possibly Ronald Reagan invoking Star Wars when denouncing the USSR as the Evil Empire.
:::As far as Beauty and the Beast, I was meaning the Disney version, not the TV series. You can read up my commentary on why it may need to be removed from the article altogether here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies#Should_Beauty_and_the_Beast_really_be_on_here.3F [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:43, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
=== I removed Star Wars ===

I removed Star Wars. See editors commentary above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:11, 20 February 2017 (EST)

:Thanks. BTW, think you can look over Beauty and the Beast and see whether it should stay or begone? It seems to have more liberal values than conservative values in there, especially given what Linda Woolverton repeatedly stated. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 14:54, 20 February 2017 (EST)
::I will remove it. As far as future edits, you can remove any movie you wish as you have good judgment and have been a productive editor for some time.

::In addition, I haven't watched a lot of movies for awhile. I just haven't liked the quality of many movies that Hollywood has put out in recent times.

::Lastly, I don't have much interest in this topic/article. I don't want to edit that article for the foreseeable future given my knowledge of recent movies and my interest level of this topics. I do realize that entertainment effects the culture though and would appreciate your edits. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:02, 20 February 2017 (EST)

:::Okay, fair enough. I'm not sure we should automatically dismiss any Disney films from being Conservative due to Disney being left-wing right now, though (which is what you implied when you removed it in the comment section). The Lion King and The Little Mermaid did push definite conservative themes in there, and I do know The Incredibles pushed very conservative ideas. And that's not even counting the three original DP movies (ie, Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty).

:::I'll also keep your suggestion about not needing to ask for permission in mind. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:10, 20 February 2017 (EST)

== Wall E duplication ==

We seem to have some disagreement as to whether Wall-E is a liberal or conservative movie. As a result, it is listed both here and [[Essay:Worst Liberal Movies]]. I'm in no position to say one way or the other, but someone should probably remove it from one list, or perhaps both, if it can't be either "greatest conservative" or "worst liberal." --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 02:33, 24 July 2016 (EDT)

== Why is the room here? ==

To me this seems to be the work of trolls.The Room is an absolutely awful film and even if it was conservative, (which it isn't, the main character has premarital sex) it cannot be considered "great" in any regard. Terrible acting, subplots that lead to nowhere, rampant sex and hedonism as well as a poorly written story. I'm starting to doubt the integrity of this page if a film of such poor constitution made it on the list of Greatest Films. If anything the film should be considered an accidental comedy.

:Sure is entertaining though. --[[User:Lord Zedd|Lord Zedd]], 11 January 2017

== The Incredibles is extremely conservative, and should not be in the debatable section ==

Recently The Incredibles, was moved to the debatable section, for one slight detail. I do not believe it should remain in this section, I believe that it should be put back in the Greatest Conservative Movies sections for many reasons. First of all it might be the most conservative animation film ever made. Second it's only reason for being debatable is very minor. Almost every film has at least one conservative and liberal aspect. Third you really have to push it, to say that the boss; Gilbert Huph is a demonization of Capitalism. Yes he is heartless, but he is just a person, and to be fair to him he does not know that Bob Parr has superhero powers, all he knows that Bob Parr is not focusing on his work, with that logic, you could argue that J. Jonah Jameson is demonization of capitalism, as he is Peter Parker's boss, and he twists the paper, and often displays Spider-man in the paper as a bad guy, (and he too is unaware of his worker's powers). Fourth one of the reasons that Gilbert Huph, tells Bob not help his costumers, is because when Bob asks if he should, Gilbert Huph tells him that "the law requires that I answer no", which in no ways a negativity on capitalism, as the government is requiring him not help people and not the business. Finally the movie does promote capitalism, as the main lesson of the movie is to shown the negativity of an enforced mediocrity, from the government, which highly mocks socialism, not capitalism.
*Okay, fair enough. Feel free to revert, I just was concerned especially when [http://pixar.wikia.com/wiki/Gilbert_Huph#Trivia Gilbert Huph's page] on Pixar Wiki made it sound as though he WAS a demonization of capitalism (and it doesn't help that Wallace Shawn was specifically mentioned to not only be the opposite of Huph, but also implied he was a socialist due to his appearing in Michael Moore's film "Capitalism: A Love Story" and being a friend of Moore). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 14:39, 10 December 2016 (EST)

== There needs to be some kind of criteria for inclusion here ==

I'd seriously like to know how so many rated "R" movies, especially slasher films like Halloween, classify as "conservative movies." It seems someone has been adding just about everything which doesn't hug trees or glorify liberalism to this list. Do any senior administrators have any objection to me removing some of these apolitical films from the list? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 12:55, 31 December 2016 (EST)

:I removed Halloween, Scarface and Saw. See paragraph below about gratuitous violence and movies.

:Biblical criteria for Christian behavior could be used since Christianity has been a very influential force in the West for an extended time. For example, the Apostle Paul says to dwell on good things. While I understand that there is violence in war movies, the is the concept of Just War in Christendom. Horror movies are just violence for entertainment sake.

:The article [[conservative]] probably would be helpful in establishing criteria too.

:One problem is just the sufficient policing of the article.

:Another problem is that there was no very dominant founder or founders of conservatism who defined what exactly what it means to be a conservative. So you have competing notions of what is truly conservative. You also have completing notions due to differing notions of what it is to be a conservative due to countries/regions having different political definitions of what it means to be a conservative. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

:Fair enough about removing Saw. I realize more or less shut down my own argument, when I said that Jigsaw was playing God. [[User:newconservative|newconservative]] ([[User talk:newconservative|talk]])
::Then most of these belong in the debatable section, because it is debatable depending on how one defines "conservative." Many of these have conservative elements, but few of them are strictly conservative. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 23:48, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

== Suggestion to remove suicide squad and zootopia. ==

I feel both should be removed for their own respective reasons. Zootopia's themes are decidedly liberal, and as critics pointed out there seems to be quite a bit of anti-Donald Trump, pro-gay subtext that I feel effectively rules this film out as "conservative.]," so to speak. While certain "conservative" themes may or may not be present, the general intent of the filmmakers have to be taken into account, and this film certainly leans to the left in that regard (still a great movie though). At the very least, I believe this should be moved to 'debatable.' I'm also quite confused to the addition of Suicide Squad. Besides the obvious fact that the received, at best, mixed critical and audience reception, the movie doesn't appear to have any sort of real political agenda aside from making money. Harley Quinn's fantasies about becoming a housewife become less inspiring when you take into a account that she's a deluded psychopath trapped in an abusive relationship with an equally insane partner who also happens to be underworld crime boss, and that the scene was more likely intended as a satirical jab at the "nuclear family" stereotype.--[[User: Lord Zedd|Lord Zedd]] 11 January 2017

== Fake news in "Pride and Prejudice" ==

Elizabeth is tricked by Mr. Wickham's lies about Mr. Darcy. This is akin to CNN and other media presenting false, disparaging information based on a single source. I won't roll back your edit, but I don't agree with it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:07, 8 July 2017 (EDT)

:I think a better way to describe it is that Wickham lied to her about Darcy. People lie all the time, including in works of fiction. Fictional stories would be much less interesting (and real life would be less interesting too!) if everyone told the complete truth. Wickham and Darcy told very different stories about each other, and Elizabeth had to decide who was telling the truth. She made the wrong decision at first.

:Elizabeth's low opinion of Darcy came from two sources, apparently equally: what Wickham said, and the fact that Darcy separated Jane from Mr. Bingley, which neither Darcy nor anyone else lied about. Elizabeth's "who's telling the truth?" instincts failed her. Darcy's cold and aloof manner contributed to this.

:I can't believe that two men are discussing ''Pride and Prejudice''! :-) :-) :-) You realize that this is a women's story, a "chick flick", right? In fact, the fact that men can't relate to the story is discussed in the movie ''You've got Mail''. But I do like the story and the BBC serialization, even if Colin Firth in wet clothing doesn't do it for me. :-) Now I guess I have to go watch a baseball game to reset my equilibrium, [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:02, 8 July 2017 (EDT)

::I daresay the notion that men can't understand a women's story is [[fake news]]. Eh, what? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:35, 8 July 2017 (EDT)

== Debatable whether conservative movies and debatable whether great movies were piles of junk ==

With the exception of Frank's Capra's classic movie ''It's a Wonderful Life'' the "Debatable whether conservative" movies and "debatable whether great" movies were piles of junk. I deleted those sections. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:21, 9 July 2017 (EDT)

:If they aren't allowed, I guess they aren't allowed. Don't know why they were created in the first place, if they weren't going to be anything more than junk. Must admit, some of them did have some conservative principles. Also, wouldn't pro-War, being the opposite of anti-War, be Conservative while the latter's more liberal? Just asking... [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:38, 9 July 2017 (EDT)
::I don't see the point of having a "Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies" and then having a big list of movies that are debatable. Newspapers don't publish "Best vacation spots" or "Best stocks to buy" and then also include a big list of debatable contenders in those type of articles.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:30, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
:::Fair point. Think we can create separate articles dealing with each debatable category? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 05:30, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
::::Go for it if you want. I don't think they will be popular articles though. It is kind of like people abandoning liberal Christianity. People want the real thing or not be bothered with it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:21, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::Well, okay, I probably won't bother with a debatable whether conservative article (as you said, most people wouldn't want an article that doesn't even deal with real and pure conservativism, like how people don't want Liberal Christianity). But I can create a "debatable whether great" article. At least those films conservative principles are not in question, just whether they are actually good films. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:01, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
These edits may be good, but they removed about 70,000 bytes of information, possibly that other editor might find useful. I am recording the edits here before they got lost in the page history. Here they are: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359742&oldid=1359725][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359743&oldid=1359742][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359744&oldid=1359743][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359746&oldid=1359744][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359748&oldid=1359747][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359749&oldid=1359748] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:37, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

== Inside Out? ==

Other than some celebration of family unity in the end, that movie seems politically neutral to me. Who put it on the list, and why is it conservative?
--[[User:MacTavish|MacTavish]] ([[User talk:MacTavish|talk]]) 14:53, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

== Bambi ==

How exactly is Bambi pro-family? Now I am not saying that it is not, but is it conservative enough to even be the debatable section? --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 15:40, 1 September 2017 (EDT)
*Well, for starters, Bambi's mom gave her life to make sure Bambi survived when the hunter killed her. There's also the fact that the Prince and the Forest escorted both Bambi and his mom away in Man's first appearance. Plus, the Prince of the Forest, who is heavily implied to be Bambi's father, goes out of his way to save him in the climax during the forest fire. Actually, I think there's at least one other thing that makes it conservative: It also refutes the homosexual agenda with the character Flower, who is initially shown as a very effeminate skunk despite being male, yet by adulthood, he clearly is in love with a female skunk, thus being ahead of its time in proving that animals do not embrace homosexuality by nature contrary to what gay activists might claim. And to be fair, technically, "Man" is closer to a poacher than a true hunter (a true hunter does NOT target fawns or any does that are nursing fawns). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:33, 18 February 2018 (EST)

==Lion King should be labeled conservative==

There is another reason for it. It is a very good at showing why some people (like the hyenas) should be kept OUT of a country (and so isn't open borders) because they will only hurt the place (quite unlike the "let the Muslims and the illegals in" message being given today.). Furthermore, Scar's speech to the hyenas about getting even and what is owed to them could have a few words altered from "Be Prepared" and be an Obama speech. Scar essentially brings in foreigners who will back him and in exchange he gives them goodies, though, he openly admits he'll get most of them (which is true that politicians and the elite are the ones REALLY benefiting from open borders.). What the hyenas get is, presumably, the lionesses to get all the food for them and deplete the food supply and turn the ones great Pride Lands into a ruin (a great picture of what the Democrats and open borders are doing to America!) and, then, when things get low, kinda like Venezuela, he coldly tells his own hyena allies to "eat Zazu" (they don't do it, luckily) when they are hungry. And he even sells out his own allies, blaming them for Scar's death, when it is convenient for him (just like the Left), a move that, ironically, leads to his own demise. All in all, I think the movie has a very anti-open borders message, something that is needed nowadays! [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:45, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

Note, I don't know about Lion Guard, the latest TV Series with Lion King, if it's conservative (it's probably not with Iger at the helm). I do know that the statement that Timon and Pumba are gay, which I've seen going around, is false. Timon had a girlfriend in one the Timon and Pumba TV Series episodes. What caused him to leave is that he could never see Pumba again, and Pumba was his best friend and the meerkat village was bigoted against warthogs. (Also, his girlfriend could have come with him if she loved him enough, but she didn't, so it's HER fault then.) However, that said, I would NOT be surprised if Iger made Timon and Pumba gay in the upcoming Lion King live action. (After the gay LeFou, I wouldn't put it past him.) [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:45, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

Also, I do think Finding Nemo and Finding Dory are conservative. Ellen DeGeneres at least makes a good Dory, if not a human being. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:45, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

:I'll make sure to note the bit about it being anti-open borders on The Lion King's entry.

:So far as Lion Guard and/or The Lion King With Timon & Pumbaa, that's better fit with [[Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows]], so you might want to note that bit there.

:As far as Finding Nemo and Finding Dory, Finding Nemo is definitely already listed on here. I'll see if I can list Finding Dory on here (though given that it's technically a retread of Finding Nemo due to being a sequel, I'm not sure if it qualifies as truly great.). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:06, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

I believe that Finding Dory should be considered great, despite being a sequel. There are other sequels on this list that are considered great. Plus it got great reviews and is the fourth highest grossing animated film of all time. --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 10:25, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

:Okay, point taken. Moved it. May need an expansion, though. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:31, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

:BTW, Speaking of Iger and Lion King and gays, I just uncovered something very interesting. Turns out, the oft-reported bit about how LeFou was gay in the movie, according to Josh Gad, [https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2017/03/03/josh-gad-lefou-beauty-and-the-beast/98679284/ wasn't even in the actual script for the film], which strongly suggests that the whole "gay promotion" thing was on the part of the producers like Bill Condon mouthing off and not the actual film itself (and may also imply that the brief scene with Stanley and LeFou was an ad-lib added in by Condon.). Not that this is at all a good thing because it isn't, but in that light, we can probably assume that the script at least didn't intend to promote the gay agenda. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:47, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

==What about the Movie "Up"?==

It's kinda borderline. It does promote faithfulness in marriage and other good traits. The beginning part of them trying to force him out of his house could be considered anti-capitalism, but, on the other hand, eminent domain was only supposed to be used for public use, but it appeared that some company wanted the land and he wasn't willing to sell so they went and tried to make him look like he was getting senile or something so they could take him away and use his land, which is little better than the government doing the same to someone with the EPA and they, like the Obamacare panels, ruled him a burden on society rather than a human being with value. Also, it could possibly have an environmental theme, as they did try to save a rare bird. On the other hand, with the kind of brain to develop the talking device for the dogs, Mentz could have done other things with his life than spend all of those years trying to get that bird and be willing to take her away from her children. Also, I don't think the movie is really anti-capitalistic as it was left open if Mentz was good or bad until the moment he went after the bird and even went so far as to try and kill Russel and Fredrickson to do it. Also, on the other hand, Fredrickson was a sort of father figure to Russel as his father was never around. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 20:15, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

"Up" is actually on this list, you do make some good points on the film being borderline. Yes, they try to save the bird, but it's not really in an environmental way, it's more in a human saving a pet way as Russell found this specific bird, and he was saving that bird because it was like his friend, not because it was an endangered bird. Plus Mentz was almost like a poacher, so I do really think the film could be considered environmental. --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 21:12, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

==I think All Dogs Go to Heaven should be removed==

I don't know why All Dogs Go to Heaven is on here. Generally I'd put all of the Don Bluth works on here, but this one is the EXCEPTION, due to the fact that pretty much all scoundrels (Charlie, Itchy, Car Face, etc) are able to get into heaven and the concept of damnation is pretty much an afterthought. Now if Charlie had reformed at the end of the first movie, that would be one thing, but apparently, in the sequel, he's back to his old ways again. All in all, it's generally not good if the "hero" of your story is little better morally than your villain. Also, it does send the liberal message that you can do whatever the heck you want in life and there are no consequences for it (save that Car Face finally got his at the end of the second movie, though Charlie kept getting breaks for his bad behavior.) [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 23:47, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

I am confused are you saying that is not good if the hero is more moral than the villain? --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 00:09, 14 October 2017 (EDT)

The opposite. I'm saying it's not good if the hero is little more moral than the villain. Now, it would be one thing if the hero was more of an antihero and learned their lesson at the end and changed and became better in the sequels, but that's not the case with Charlie. If anything, we could argue he was even worse in a way in the sequel. (In the first movie, the most damage he did was to himself, but in the second movie, his actions allowed one of the devil creatures to imprison most of the dogs in dog heaven and his actions were more selfish than noble that led him to giving away that horn. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 21:43, 14 October 2017 (EDT)

==I think the Princess and the Frog deserves a chance===

Here is another reason: the portrayal of Tiana's father. While Lotti's (I think that's her name) father spoils her rotten, Tiana's father teaches her the value of hard work, that love is more important than money or possessions, was the one who inspired her to open her own restaurant (it was her father's dream and she finished what he started after he died) and he was in the military and was killed in action in WWI (good portrayal of the military in this movie). You don't often see the father portrayed in a good light in Disney movies, or, indeed, many modern movies in general. Triton seemed always to always be holding Arial back, Aladdin's father Kassim was the King of Thieves and had abandoned him and his his mother to go after the Hand of Midas, (Mufasa was good to Simba, I admit, but, then again, Lion King was listed as conservative on this list), Marlin, albeit too paranoid, was good (but Finding Nemo was also on this list), Lilo's parents weren't around in Lilo and Stitch (though they both died in some accident I think), Russel's father wasn't really around for him in Up, we never see Andy's father in Toy Story (only his mother and sister) (Heck, we don't see Sid's father either and we only see the mother of Jessie's former owner, never her father, so apparently fathers were unimportant in Toy Story (yeah, I know it's about the toys, not the people, but that still is disturbing if you look at it.), etc.

Come to think of it, that is a good argument against the claim that Princess and the Frog is a feminist movie. It was also later stated by Dr. Facilier that Tiana's father would sometimes do double and triple shifts to try and aim for his planned restaurant, yet he always made sure, despite being bone tired, to find time for his family.

Also, another thing to consider is Lottie, though spoiled, rich, and white, she is NOT a villain, but was actually the one who bought a lot of stuff (admittedly with daddy's money) to help Tiana get enough money for her restaurant. (They even said so in the director's commentary that she was designed that way.). That's another thing that makes the film anti-liberal. If it'd been a liberal film, Lottie and her father would have been villainous jerks, not supporting good guys.

Also, lest someone bring in that the film's agenda is racist, it should be noted that it appears that the film's villain, Dr. Facilier, is darker skinned (not quite black, but not white either).

Also, I might add that originally, Louis the alligator, was going to be a human turned into an alligator by Dr. Facilier, but the plot was dropped on that part. However, that said, Lois the alligator and Ray the firefly (who actually died fighting Facilier), were also portrayed in a good light and not as incompetent. That is another strike against it being a feminist movie. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:27, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

Also, I might add that Tiana and Naveen do seem more like a reasonable couple. Naveen is lazy and rich. Tiana, though poor and hardworking, perhaps is quite possibly going over the line on working TOO hard, as even her own mother points out to her. And she never bothers to spend time with her friends as she's always busy working. In the end, Naveen becomes less lazy and Tiana learns to have fun once in a while. If it was a more feminist film by the way, it would have Tiana remain the same while Naveen became less lazy. However, Naveen changed Tiana too for the better. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:34, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

:Even King Triton at least was willing to trade his freedom for Ariel's when push came to shove, so he wasn't all that bad (I'd argue Sultan and to a lesser extent Maurice got far more raw of a deal, TBH). I'm still not sure about Louisiana Voodoo being treated in a positive light though. We probably could move it to Debatable, IF Aschlafly allows it. Ultimately, he has the final say since he was the one who had it be designated liberal in the first place. And personally, even with the whole restaurant bit, Tiana came across as less feminist than Belle did in Beauty and the Beast. Plus, it's actually one of the few Disney feature movies that DOESN'T demonize marriage outright (and the first Disney Princess feature movie to actually treat traditional marriage in a positive light since The Little Mermaid two decades prior), so that's probably another aspect pointing to it being conservative. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:54, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

I think that even one movie you called conservative (Lion King 2: Simba's Pride) could be considered feminist. Both the central protagonist (Kiara) and the central antagonist (Zira) are females and generally seem to be portrayed to be the most competent. On the flip side, the only male, other than Rafiki of course, portrayed in a good light was Kovu (and he was originally bad but turned good when he fell in love with Kiara. Also, after being unjustly banished, Kovu suggested that they run away together and escape their problems. It was Kiara who suggested that they go back and stop the fighting. Again, another arguement that Lion King 2: Simba's Pride could be labeled feminist.). (Also, I might add that poor Nunca was allowed to be neglected, try and take out Simba to get Zira's love, and die trying. Vitani, on the other hand, was allowed to live to see Zira for what she was and to be able to get redemption.) Even Simba was portrayed as a father who just didn't seem to want what's best for his daughter (however, to Simba's defense, I don't recall Nala having that many lines at all in Lion King 2). If Lion King 2 can be labeled conservative, so should The Princess and the Frog. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 23:57, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

:To be fair regarding Simba, he actually DID have a valid point considering the Outlanders had served Scar earlier (and quite frankly, he's still an A-Okay Dad overall compared to Maurice and Sultan (who many times actually NEEDED rescuing by their daughters and usually don't succeed in saving their daughters even once. Not to mention more than once were largely depicted as doofuses.), or ESPECIALLY King Stefan from Maleficent). Besides, not all females were depicted as being good or even redeemable in the film. Zira most certainly wasn't. But yeah, like I said, we probably should wait for Aschlafly's response, since he's the one who decreed it a worst liberal film in the first place. For that matter, I'll see what Asclafly's response regarding Simba's Pride is. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:20, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

==I think Hacksaw Ridge should be removed from debatable==

While the film's main protagonist is against the practice of killing and the handling of a weapon (attributed because of his strong faith) the film at no point espouses gun control. At worst, it espouses gun ownership preference, as the film does take time to demonstrate and explain the necessity for firearms and killing in accordance with war. Hacksaw ridge was based on the real life of Desmond Doss and to change that aspect of his character would invoke historical revisionism and strike face of his moral christian beliefs. --[[User:AirForceMan92|AirForceMan92]] ([[User talk:AirForceMan92|talk]]) 01:36, 1 November 2017 (EDT)

== TV specials go under Movies or TV Shows? ==

Hi.

I was thinking of adding in some TV specials of various conservative and liberal stripes (and will go in the respective articles). However, I need to know, where do TV specials best qualify? Are they movies, or TV shows? I know made-for-TV movies are best placed here, but I'm not sure about TV specials. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:02, 11 December 2017 (EST)

That is a tough one, I know we have A Charlie Brown Christmas listed here. But Perhaps to avoid confusion on the TV Shows page, we could add another section labeled "TV Specials." Also maybe we should add A Charlie Brown Christmas to that section as well. --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 16:47, 11 December 2017 (EST)

:Yeah, that might work. For now, I added various specials on the animated films section here. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:57, 11 December 2017 (EST)

I fixed it and added a TV Specials section because they really belong in the TV page not the Movie Page. [[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 14:44, 15 December 2017 (EST)

:Fine by me. Seemed odd that they'd be here anyways. BTW, speaking of TV specials, should ''[https://youtu.be/S3a5j8PgQxg The Star Wars Holiday Special]'' go under Greatest Conservative TV shows or Worst Liberal TV shows? I'm tempted to put it under the latter due to Itchy basically... well, let's just say he ends up doing something EXTREMELY inappropriate in front of his own family, ESPECIALLY considering the family nature of the special. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:00, 15 December 2017 (EST)

That I do not know I have never seen the movie. [[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 15:09, 15 December 2017 (EST)

== Home Alone 2 a critical failure? ==

Home Alone 2 was recently moved into the debatable whether great section for being a critical failure, but I do not believe this is true. I believe both the original and the sequel have gained popularity throughout the years and became cult classics. Yes, it recycles the same format, but it introduces new characters, new jokes, and some other new situations. If anything its the sequels after the second film, that are debatable whether great. [[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 15:41, 12 December 2017 (EST)

:Thank you for saying that. Tell that to MacTavish if he changes it again. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 18:35, 28 December 2017 (EST)

::I also lean towards keeping it out of the "debatable" section, but I'm open to counter-arguments. I haven't thoroughly thought it through, so I could be missing something.
::I thought it was cute how they made it obvious that it was a play on the first, and added too it. (i.e. rather than just two paint cans at the stairs, it was those then a pipe. If you have the extended version, he also cuts the rope, dropping the pipe on them afterwards.) I think it was their intention to play on and too the first. Doing that with the third might have been pushing it, but they didn't. In the fourth, I think they went too far in the other direction, and made it too different. It didn't have the same creative flair as in its prequels. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:06, 28 December 2017 (EST)

==Correction on Alladdin 3==

I think that whoever wrote that article calling Alladin's father the main villain didn't really pay much attention to the movie. Even a casual watching of the movie would show that Saluk (and perhaps, to a lesser extent, the other thieves) was the actual villain. At worst, Kassim was like Iago in Return of Jafar, more like an anti-hero who couldn't be quite called good or bad. (Heck Iago isn't perfect in this one here as he helps Kassim try to steal the Oracle.) --Unsigned comment by [[User:PatriotMongoose]]

:I know, and I did actually watch the film pretty closely as a kid (and yes, Iago does help steal the Oracle as well, I can confirm that), but Cassim technically was the central antagonist to the story since a large part of the story involved Aladdin trying to redeem him. Think of it like the Original Trilogy of Star Wars. Technically, Palpatine was the main antagonist of the three films, but the central antagonist was Darth Vader, the one who gets the most screentime and played a large prominent role in the overall plot. That's what the edit was trying to convey. I'll reword it to "central antagonist" rather than "main antagonist" since that's more accurate. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:29, 17 December 2017 (EST)

== Where does RoboCop fit on the spectrum? ==

It's pro-law and order, anti-crime and anti-drugs. But it's also anti-capitalism with the way OCP is represented and its creators are very liberal.

== Songs of the South ==

Hi.

I was thinking of adding the movie Songs of the South by Disney (which unfortunately thanks to race-baiters can't be watched other than via bootleg, which is a shame, as Uncle Remus actually seemed like a very good role model for his race), which effectively acted as an adaptation of the Uncle Remus stories. Problem is, I'm not entirely sure where to place it due to the split between live-action and animated films. After all, Songs of the South technically has elements of both, so I can't exactly place it in one category only. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:12, 30 October 2018 (EDT)

== Some suggestions ==

A suggestion:
- '''The Aviator''' (2004) - yes, it is directed by Martin Scorsese, whose films are often quite violent and include a lot of profanity, but this film is almost entirely free of both and seems to advance a conservative agenda. It is a biopic that lauds the life of Howard Hughes (a Republican and supporter of Richard Nixon), portraying him as exemplifying American values of commerce, vision and entrepreneurialism. Hughes is a tragic figure who struggles with mental illness, obsessive-compulsive disorder and politically-motivated and fabricated allegations of war profiteering (which were levied against him by the corrupt senator Owen Brewster, who was formerly associated with the Ku Klux Klan). Despite never overcoming his mental illness, Hughes does manage to expose Brewster's corruption and double-dealing - a victory for an individualist, capitalist entrepreneur against bureaucratic government authority and cronyism. The film also portrays left-wing actress Katherine Hepburn in a negative light, ironically juxtaposing her belief in socialism with the luxurious life she enjoys in the New York 'jet set' (a 'champagne socialist'), and depicting how she treats Hughes coldly and abandons him when his obsessive-compulsive disorder worsens. - [[User:LibertyMatters]] 17:29, 06 November 2018 (GMT)

In fact, I have a couple more suggestions now:
- '''The Hunt for Red October''' (1990) - an atmospheric and tense thriller about a Soviet naval captain trying to defect to America during the Cold War. The film overall has a very positive view of America as an oasis of freedom, with the Soviet officers desperate to escape the totalitarian communist police state - one of the Soviets is surprised when he learns that in America, unlike in Soviet Russia, one is allowed to travel between states, a vivid illustration of just how repressive the USSR must have been. Based on a thriller by conservative author Tom Clancy.

- '''Inception''' (2010) - Christopher Nolan, who directed this well-received science fiction film about lucid dreaming, is considered one of the most conservative Hollywood directors (he directed the war film Dunkirk, which already appears on this list). Inception at first appears a completely apolitical film, but some reviewers have pointed out a subtle but definite Christian allegory at play here.

Buckle up, because this one - as befits a complex film - is a complicated one. But I really don't think I'm reading more into it than is actually there, and plenty of people have pointed this out. Spoilers are very much coming up, too, as a warning.

A quick précis of the plot - Cobb, the main character, is an 'extractor', who performs corporate espionage by attempting to infiltrate the subconscious of targets while they are dreaming and extract information. He has been hired by Saito, an unscrupulous businessman, to perform an act of 'inception' - placing the germ of an idea in someone's subconsciousness. In return, Saito will clear Cobb of a (false) murder charge and allow him to come back home to his children in America.

To embed an idea in someone's subconsciousness, it requires creating a 'dream within a dream within a dream' and embedding the idea deep within the bottom layer so that the person will not reject it as foreign. The way to wake up from a deeper dream layer into the one above it is to die in that layer (the idea that we have to die to wake up should suggest where this might be going). But there is also the possibility of getting lost in 'limbo' - a world so deep in the subconscious that the dreamer can construct the entire world with their own mind, and risks forgetting they are in a dream at all. Cobb, as is revealed later on, was once trapped in limbo with his now-deceased wife Mal, who spent years in limbo (the equivalent of hours in the real world) constructing a world out of their own memories.

The film opens with a shot of a fake vision of Cobb's children in Limbo, who are building sandcastles on a beach. It ends with a shot of Cobb reunited with his real children, James and Philippa (both named after Christian apostles), who, in the final line of dialogue in the film, say that they are building a house 'on the cliff.' Some reviewers have puzzled over the meaning of this line. To me, it's pretty clear. The film is bracketed by the two halves of the parable of the wise and foolish builders (Matthew 7:24).

What does this mean in context? It means that limbo is identified with the mortal world, where the foolish builders construct their lives on materialism rather than faith. In limbo, people have the power to use their imagination to make the world whatever they want it to be, as Cobb and Mal did for years - but none of it is real, it is just a figment of the subconscious. Near the end of the film, Cobb encounters a subconscious projection of Mal (malevolent?), who tries to persuade him to stay with her in limbo - not on the grounds that it is real, but that "you don't believe in anything anymore." Cobb rejects this materialistic relativism, in favour of an affirmation in the objective reality that his children do exist in the real world, 'up above' - in other words, he repudiates the temptation to live in a faithless world where mankind sets himself up as all-powerful and can build whatever he wants, instead having faith in the idea that there's something more real and meaningful than this.

The film is thus metaphorical. Cobb starts as essentially a glorified thief, obsessed with the idea of 'buying his way home' back to his children through his deal with Saito. Having failed to get his way into heaven (which, for him, is a return to his children) this way, he takes a leap of faith. He rejects Mal's temptation, refuses to use violence against a character who betrays the team, and risks his life to save that of Saito (who is in danger of getting lost in limbo). After this act of self-sacrifice, he dives into a river (a metaphorical baptism promising both death and rebirth), wakes up in reality on a plane, passes through immigration and customs (a metaphorical judgment of one's sins), is reunited with his father-in-law and finally returns to an Eden-like garden where his children are waiting for him. Whether this is intended to be a literal journey to heaven or a more metaphorical spiritual experience, the symbolism is all pretty clear. Once more, we end with the dialogue of constructing a house on the cliff - on the real and tangible substance of faith, a line that makes no sense without being viewed in a Christian context.

Christianity is admittedly not synonymous with conservatism, but I think the religious metaphor of this film is something conservatives would tend to appreciate. There is plenty more symbolism, which is summarised best in this article:
http://popupchinese.com/Inception.pdf
If we pop this one on the list it might be better to link to the article as this takes so long to explain. But I thought I'd lay out all the reasoning for you.

[[User:LibertyMatters]] 23:14, 10 November 2018 (GMT)

== Letters From Iwo Jima ==

I've been thinking about putting letters from Iwo Jima on one of these lists. If you truly understand it, it is a film that, while it paints the rank-and-file Japanese field soldier in a sympathetic light, it depicts the higher Japanese leadership in a negative light. For instance, it depicts Japan's "Kenpeitai" (the Japanese equivalent of the Russian Commissars) in a very negative light. The impression given by the movie is that young Japanese men are being drafted against their will to fight in a war that they don't understand. With all of the anti-war films that Hollywood makes, I think this one is different in that it shows the terrible battlefield conditions faced by the country that actually really started the war in the first place. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 01:14, 24 December 2018 (EST)

== Ace Ventura: Pet Detective Not Great? ==

Should Ace Ventura Pet Detective really be in the debatable if great section? It is one of my favorites, it was moved there for its crude behavior and because it stars liberal Jim Carrey, but there are other movies on this list, with crude behavior and other Jim Carrey movies.
--[[User:SaltLakeCityLover|SaltLakeCityLover]] ([[User talk:SaltLakeCityLover|talk]]) 10:06, 7 June 2019 (EDT)

I think it's definitely conservative (in fact, given how Pixar is going Left, it may be the LAST conservative one they ever make as they've fallen a long way from the conservative days of Toy Story and A Bugs Life)) but it also has a weak storyline and was Pixar's first box office disappointment. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 15:15, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
:Wait, I don't see how Ace Ventura has anything to do with Pixar. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:55, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

Okay, I am going to move it back.
--[[User:SaltLakeCityLover|SaltLakeCityLover]] ([[User talk:SaltLakeCityLover|talk]]) 12:01, 4 January 2020 (EST)

==A mild concern about a Dog's Purpose and a similar recent film (also mostly conservative), The Art of Racing in the Rain (2019)==

Both of them seem to promote reincarnation. In A Dog's Purpose, Bailey comes back as several other dogs (including a female, once, which I wondered if it was a subtle transgender reference). In Art of Racing in the Rain, Enzo dies (off screen) at the end and, per his long time desire, appears to have come back as a human boy named Enzo. I'm just wondering if these movies are secretly pushing Hinduism or that mentality. I suppose every film has it's questionable elements, though. Otherwise two good movies.

[[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:52, 28 August 2019 (EDT)

==Batman V Superman and Zack Snyder's Justice League==
As these movies are sequels to Man of Steel, and have been considered as righ-wing for some of the themes touched. Here are some articles about it:

https://www.filminquiry.com/zack-snyder-master-right-wing-propaganda/

https://elamerican.com/zack-snyders-justice-league-is-not-the-leftist-justice-league-anymore/

--[[User:Davidurso2d|Davidurso2d]] ([[User talk:Davidurso2d|talk]]) 11:04, January 30, 2022 (EST)

== Jesus (1979) ==
I'm quite surprised that nobody has mentioned the 1979 film adaptation of the Gospel of Luke. It is a very good flick about the Christ, in my opinion, definitely better than overly violent The Passion of the Christ (2004), so maybe we should mention this movie on the list.

== The Little Mermaid (1989) ==

I took it off of “Greatest Conservative Animated films” and put it in debatable wether liberal due to the fact it promotes feminism and rebellion. Also, if lyricist Howard Ashman being a homosexual, and having that kind of theme in The Mob Song in Beauty and the Beast was enough to knock into debatable, why is The Little Mermaid getting a pass with Part of Your World?<ref>https://www.pride.com/movies/2019/7/08/little-mermaid-was-originally-metaphor-unrequited-gay-love</ref> {{Unsigned|Admiral Farmer}}
:It appears to be a deletion of nearly 1,000 words or so, when I look at the [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay%3AGreatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1866478&oldid=1859023 difference in the history]. Why not let the readers decide?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:15, June 18, 2022 (EDT)
::Admiral Farmer should provide citations for any of these claims, otherwise he's just arguing with the air. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 18:27, June 18, 2022 (EDT)

:First of all, Admiral Farmer, the issue with The Mob Song in Beauty and the Beast was not the fact that Howard Ashman was homosexual in and of itself, it's that [https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/03/beauty-and-the-beast-gay-lefou-howard-ashman he specifically wrote the song as a way to essentially lash out against the anti-AIDS thing by inferring society discriminates AIDS victims out of ignorance due to his impending death (gee, I don't recall society ostracizing that virgin girl who got AIDS from a dentist routine by her AIDS-succumbing doctor. If anything, they were downright sympathetic to her and rightfully disgusted with the dentist in question who gave it to her as a way of lashing out over his having it.)]. So far as I know, there's literally no agenda for The Little Mermaid outside of trying to ensure audiences sympathized with Ariel. A better comparison would be more Part of Your World and Little Town development wise (and the latter definitely had some demeaning of small town values by some choice lyrics of Belle). You need specifically stated authorial intent regarding whether or not something's conservative or liberal in outlook, and there's nothing pointing to either regarding Part of Your World in other words (case in point, the audiences might think the Rebel Alliance from Star Wars was modeled after the American Minutemen, yet George Lucas made explicit that he modeled the Rebels after the Vietcong, and if anything, the characters actually modeled after America in any way was the Empire).
:Second of all, I'm not so sure The Little Mermaid truly promotes rebellion, since the one time Ariel actually rebelled willingly (NOT as a spur of the moment thing like the shipwreck exploration bit or even surfacing to Eric's ship, but calculatively decided to do so) it nearly ended in disaster, and Ariel ended up having to spend the climax cleaning up her mess (and even regarding the willing part, she was also shown throughout the deal to be extremely reluctant to even go through with it in the first place). Even if it DID promote rebellion, that's not necessarily a liberal aspect to the film, nor for that matter is it conservative, it's effectively neutral and literally depends on what the actual motivations are for rebellion. Using that argument, we could just as easily argue the [[White Rose Rebellion]] and the [[Vendee Rebellion]] are liberal/leftist if rebellion itself is a liberal trait regardless of motivations, not to mention our own country of America would be deemed irredeemably leftist under that argument, and even you'd realize that is just insane.
:Third of all, regarding feminism, Ariel wanted to marry a guy, and she also wanted to live life as a human, presumably adopting their cultural aspects INCLUDING most likely being a housewife in the end. Not to mention Prince Eric was depicted in an awesome light, including when Ariel was abducted going out of his way and risking his life to rescue her, and even King Triton even at his worst at least was depicted as actually giving a darn for his daughter, ultimately wanting to do what's best for her, and ultimately chose to sacrifice himself to save her, with his daughter returning the favor by cleaning up her mess alongside Eric and stopping Ursula, so I really fail to see how that is a promotion of feminism (at most, it might promote Suffragette-style feminism, which is surprisingly conservative in outlook due to it actually being against abortificants). In fact, the only character who actually DOES give feminist talking points (namely, claiming men only care for a woman's looks and cannot stand them even speaking at all) is the main villain, Ursula, meaning it if anything was a condemnation of feminism, not a promotion, since obviously someone who is the villain isn't intended by the story to be agreed with (not to mention, you know, the fact that she specifically was LYING about that bit in order to trick Ariel into giving up the one thing that might allow Eric to identify her). Oh, and the one who made those statements was female, not male, meaning it's obviously a different situation from, say, Gaston making similar comments in Beauty and the Beast, where in THAT case, Linda Woolverton obviously was trying to make the case that was indeed true and pushing an agenda even if he was the villain.
:One last thing, the article you posted a link to overall from what little I COULD gather from summaries on places such as Bing, (couldn't read the entire one on the site itself because it required a privacy statement, and I have ZERO intention of consenting to that since I'm straight. Would have gone with Cached if such was available.) was specifically talking about the original Hans Christian Andersen book, NOT the Disney film (they even specifically mentioned Ariel marrying the prince and exposing the sea witch was a stark change in the film). Meaning you're literally talking about the wrong version (not that I'm going to claim one way or another if the Hans Christian Andersen version was a gay metaphor or not. The only thing that's certain is that he modeled it after an unrequited crush. I've heard differing versions that he also was writing specifically regarding an unrequited crush on a woman). At most, the Hans Christian Andersen version of the story was the one that's debatable whether Conservative (heck, it's debatable as to whether it was even an actual promotion of homosexuality since Andersen originally intended to have her flat out die and enter oblivion. He actually tacked on a semi-happy ending where she became a daughter of the air later on.), and is a better fit for the Greatest Conservative Books/Worst Liberal Books page. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:12, June 21, 2022 (EDT)

Okay. Maybe this should be viewed to make my point. https://www.bitchute.com/video/EXfOh2xYPIez/ [[User:Admiral_Farmer|Admiral_Farmer]]

:I'll try to watch it on my phone later (right now, I'm playing DOAXVV, and since it's in Japanese, I can't turn on the sound). But as far as anti-feminist, if it promotes the institution of marriage and doesn't demonize it as a woman's worst nightmare, if it treats the male characters respectfully and not as weaklings or idiots or monsters (heck, both times Eric needed saving, he did a VERY badass thing like risking his life to save his dog, or heck, saved Ariel from being killed by Ursula), if it doesn't promote at the very least the idea that men think of women as inherently inferior and are specifically demonized in the storyline for it [and no, having the villain claim such doesn't count, ESPECIALLY if said villain was a woman herself and doing so specifically to try and lie to the protagonist for her own ends], as far as I can tell, it's anti-feminist, period (the closest it's going to go for feminism is the Susan B. Anthony model). Heck, the fact that certain film critics specifically DENOUNCED Ariel as being "cloyingly sexist" simply for even GOING for Eric at all was [https://www.cbr.com/movie-legends-revealed-the-feminist-origins-of-disneys-beauty-and-the-beast/ precisely the reason] why Jeffrey Katzenberg hired the likes of [[Linda Woolverton]] and did a radical rewrite of Beauty and the Beast, all SPECIFICALLY to ensure it had enough of a feminist twist to appease those critics, and what do you know, Woolverton bashed Ariel by saying that unlike her or her predecessors, Belle didn't focus on love, marriage, or "sat around and waited for her prince to come" not to mention had Belle basically hating the very idea of marriage even in the 1991 film with the film demonizing it to such an extent that in the one instance a wedding was shown, we're expected to ROOT for Belle when she shoves Gaston into a mud pool, most if not all of the guys, even the ones the story specifically WANTS us to sympathize with like Maurice or the Beast, being treated like complete and total crap, and all of that. That tells me ALL I need to know as to whether The Little Mermaid is feminist or not (if they had to rewrite Beauty and the Beast to be more feministic and borderline misandric specifically to ensure the critics don't complain about the lead character being cloyingly sexist like they did with Ariel, it clearly wasn't feminist, period). And personally, I'd rather go by what the actual creators say on the matter rather than what fans claim since sometimes us fans can be gravely mistaken (if we go by fan views, we'd think the Rebel Alliance was the American Minutemen and that George Lucas must have been promoting America, when in reality it was the exact opposite, they were meant to be the Vietcong and that the actual Americans were supposed to be the Galactic Empire). If you've got comments by one of the guys who produced the film stating it was feminist (and just so we're clear, when I say "feminist", I specifically mean something in the vein of something like Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, or heck, even that old lady from Britain who was a marxist and huge feminist. And as an additional bit, make sure their comments are based on their development notes, just to make sure they aren't trying to puff themselves like Lucas's claims about always intending for Greedo to shoot first despite his shooting script making clear it was Han who shot first. And yes, I do intend to do the same thing myself with Beauty and the Beast. Actually, I was planning on doing exactly that two years ago by going to the SGA archives and researching Linda Woolverton's various drafts and notes for BATB when going to a wedding in California for my cousin twice-removed. Unfortunately, those plans alongside the wedding itself ended up cancelled after the COVID lockdowns.), THEN we can consider moving it. But not a second too soon. That's also why I DIDN'T add in, say, the claim that Belle may become a Jacobin down the line in Beauty and the Beast or that the film ultimately promotes the French Revolution. That may be my suspicions, but unless directly stated by the writers of the film, and not just in interviews, but also in their development notes, they're not confirmed. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:59, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::tl;dr. Are you guys really into gay sex? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 16:41, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
:::Not really. But I attempted to check the article he linked to just to make sure I got all his arguments down to see if there was anything requiring a rebuttal. Since it required to agreeing to a privacy acceptance, I rejected it, and had to contend myself with brief blurbs. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:08, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::::Oh. Just wunderin what woke you up from hibernation to spend more time discussing ''The Little Mermaid'' than most adults on the planet ever spent watching the movie. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 18:52, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
:::::Well, for starters, Ariel was one of my influences regarding my actually trying to overcome my autism. And I didn't appreciate seeing someone try to decry it as a liberal movie. And for the record, I was actually attracted to Ariel as a teen. That's more than enough to tell me I'm straight. Either way, I'm planning on going back to hibernation from this site, not much I can do after what you did to it anyways. We got away from Wikipedia for this!? This is NOT the Conservapedia I joined years back. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:09, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::::::TMI. Rest well, my friend. Looking forward to the next time you get all excited about gay sex and come out of hibernation again. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 19:30, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::Ugh... I'm NOT excited for gay sex (actually, to be honest, it repulses me, sickens me, ESPECIALLY the male male stuff. And considering that we've got too many sexuality swaps as of late by insecure people like Greg Berlanti, I if anything have a massive hatred of homosexuality right now for wrecking too many characters.), I was literally taking a peek on this site trying to find something Andy Schlafly wrote that I needed mom to look at regarding the Bible and [[Essay:Adultress Story|a certain story]] in there when I stumbled upon this topic in the watchlist. In fact, I only brought up the whole gay element at all specifically to address Farmer's comment about it somehow being tied to homosexuality and citing a freaking article on it. Just so you know, the only thing I get excited for are the opposite sex, Females in my case. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:42, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::God bless you for that. One other thing: you don't want to round up all the gays on the planet and shoot them like you do the communists, do you? Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 19:48, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::I'd rather not regarding the gays. The only thing I WILL say, however, is that I MAY be required to do drastic measures if push comes to shove (not killing them, but definitely something I may end up regretting later). To give a hint, lesbian vampires, show that as a metaphor for what that truly is, try to ensure that despite the graphics, the people are horrified, not aroused, especially not the kids (we've already got gay agenda pushing in the likes of Lightyear and Arthur, not to mention Supergirl and the Arrowverse as a whole, so it's at this point do or die.). Besides, unlike Communists, you can do reparative therapy for gays, so it's not like you even need to go to that extreme anyways (unlike with Communists, who even those guys are too much of a risk at feigning conversion to take down Christianity. Just look at Pope Francis for example). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:57, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::Pope Francis has courageously taken a stand against Nazism. I wouldn't call this the stopped clock phenomenon. Let's give credit where credit is due. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 20:01, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::::Being against Nazism is not exactly enough for me (especially when we have far too many people misdefine Nazism as conservativism dating as far back as the McCarthy hearings, thanks no less to the likes of Stalin and the Frankfurt School). I've had to deal with radical left people who ALSO stuck it to Nazis yet had no problems rooting for explicit Communists. Some of whom, BTW, were my college professors. Besides, Supergirl on the CW technically was ALSO anti-Nazi, yet they blatantly shilled for radical left SJW politics, and in fact, they generally used their anti-Nazi spiel to, Season 2 onwards, basically flip the bird to Donald Trump (not to mention demonize conservatives). Here's an idea, if you're going to go against leftism, you go against ALL of it. Don't support Nazis OR Communism, want both dead. Oh, and when condemning Communism, don't settle for just the easy-peasy Maoist flavor or Stalinist flavor. Go against even the Che Guevara and Castro flavor, not to mention the Ho Chi Minh flavor and the Lenin flavor. Also the Robespierre flavor, let's not forget the French Revolution, as even Marx noted, inspired Communism. And just as an FYI, Putin after taking over freedom square [https://www.outono.net/elentir/2022/04/30/russians-put-up-a-statue-of-the-communist-dictator-lenin-in-nova-kakhovka-ukraine/ installed a Lenin statue recently]. Unless you want to decide to root for Lenin, I suggest you back off of supporting Putin. Even if you do not wish to support Ukraine, don't support Putin either. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 20:13, June 21, 2022 (EDT)

== Treasure Planet (2002) ==

I added it to “Debatable Wether Great” due to the values shown in it, but also noting it failed at the Box Office. It’s also a shame no one talks about it.

==What does demonology have to do with conservativism==
? [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&curid=38288&diff=1867152&oldid=1866761] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 16:44, June 21, 2022 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2022-06-21T23:57:53Z

Pokeria1: /* The Little Mermaid (1989) */

[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive1|Archive 1]]
 [[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive2|Archive 2]]

== Public Discussion Here ==

(post comments here by clicking "Edit this page")

Okay who keeps mispelling "Mr. Skeffington"? THERE IS A G IN THE NAME see www.imdb.com/title/tt0037094/

The Conservapedia entry for "Gen. George S. Patton" has a great section on the classic 1969 film, "Patton;" why is it not on the list?? A few years back "National Review" listed 100 great conservative films ("A Man for All Seasons" led NR editors' list). Immediately readers (including me) sent in their own nominations and "Patton" came in #1!!!!

CW Miller PhD

:It should be. Would you like to add it? Note, however, that the film was not as conservative as the person it featured!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

I think 'Tears of the Sun' should've definitely been on the list. Its extremely pro-military.

:Perhaps, would you like to add it with an explanation of why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

What is the conservative message taught by "The Way We Were"? Just curious.

:Pretty obvious, isn't it? The [[liberal]] rants predictably got too tiresome for the man to put up with, and he inevitably broke off the relationship with the woman in order to find a replacement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
::And in the process of breaking off the relationship, he broke his marriage vows and committed adultery. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:44, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

I think The Graduate (1967) needs to be on this list. This is a film about a boy growing up, by facing harsh reality, owning up to his mistakes, and making a decision about his life, thus becoming a man. It's also about how we can overcome sin and corruption by taking control of our lives. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 14:47, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not too sure about that one. A common interpretation of the ending is that Benjamin has actions in the climax were purely spur-of-the-moment, at that he's just figuring out in doing so he's failed to accomplish anything meaningful and is left with a wholly uncertain future. --[[User:Lord Zedd|Lord Zedd]], 11 January 2017

Another film is the 1948 Alfred Hitchcock film Rope, starring James Stewart, John Dall, and Stewart Granger. Based loosely on the Leopold-Loeb killing, Rope is about two Harvard scholars who decide to kill an acquaintance of their simply for the sake of killing, because they believe they are superior to others, all taught from one of their headmasters (James Stewart). This film goes into one of the reasons why we have laws, why we cherish human life, and slightly goes into the immorality taught by ivory tower intellectuals that seems so prevalent today.--[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:00, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Hud (1963), starring Paul Newman, Melvyn Douglas, and Patricia Neal, needs to be in this roster too. At the heart of Conservative Philosophy lies the strength of a man's character and how that character influences others. Hud, played by Newman, is a man who's completely selfish in a way that liberals are. He doesn't care about anyone but himself, and his own ego, and he gives no restraint to his appetites. He doesn't give a damn about anything, because to him the world is full of excrement. And that sooner or later, you're going to have to swim in that muck like everybody else. A great line is said that "The look of the country changes by the people we admire." As you watch this film, things get progressively worse for the ranch that Hud lives on, part and parcel because of his own crass behavior. Hud's willingness both to pass bad beef off onto his neighbors and take the ranch out from his old father indicates the sourness of his character. A brilliant film about human character.--[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:28, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Man of Steel ==
Could it not be argued that the movie is promoting idolatry by having the people of Earth view Superman, a non-human, as a "Christ-like redeemer?"

Not likely. Superman never sought the worship of people. Neither did Zod for that matter. Interestingly, in this movie, Zod is an anti-hero. He may have intended well, as his patriotism is to be admired, and I really don't blame him for killing some corrupt self-absorbed Kryptonian government officials that had doomed the planet due to their own self-interest, but, tragically, in the planned economy, he was predesigned to be a warrior to continue the corrupt planned economy of Krypton. True, there is free will in the predesigned society (Jor El and his wife did break the law by having Kal naturally and Jor El broke the law by taking Kal from the Genesis chamber and sending him to earth. It was that Jor El believed that the whole society was too corrupted to be continued along the Krypton way and thus that Zod's idea of only keeping the good bloodlines, as he put it, wouldn't solve the problem. What made Zod a villain wasn't his efforts to save Krypton, but his efforts to kill everyone on earth when he could have just assimilated like Kal. (So the movie isn't pro-open borders either (though I heard a super man comic was lately!!!) as Kal adjusts but the alien Zod comes in and tries to transform the planet to his liking just like the illegals and Muslims are trying to transform the USA.) Also, Kal El/Clark Kent just wanted to be left alone (even ticking off the military when they tried to track him and he destroyed some pricey equipment to get them off his back). [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 01:53, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

== Bio-Dome ==
Granted this film is a blunt crude stoner comedy. However upon analysis, years later the film reigns true the themes of inconsistancy of modern environmentalism.
Namely despite the stupidity and antics..... the films message is that the environment is salvageable with a lot of hard work.
The film ridicules contemporary education especially college, modern environmentalism (and what weve seen 20 years later) and social trending.
Despite being college students, the two girlfriends are for lack of better word poorly educated on environment around them. They question the tactics of "raising awarness" of those who think sit ins and hackey sack are suitable ways for environmental stewardship yet contribute no actual work. Their concerns are only satiated by activism; not labor. Environmentalism is a very labor intensive practice. Meanwhile the two slackers inherit a mess (admittedly one of their doing) and when their backs are against the wall; work very hard to fix it all whilst gaining social outlook, popularity and press attention. The film brings to light public/celebrity endorsement of environmental awareness, where it's popular and trendy. The dissertation from the Pope and various media outlets when Bud/Doyle are known for locking themselves inside.
The film attacks the insanity of utopian dreamers (Faulkner and the other scientists) who have grand visions for the environment and world around them only to break down and quit at the sight of reality. Doyle (stephen baldwin) passionate plea.
"Now, you guys have spent your whole lives trying to make the world a better place, right? Well, here's your chance. Only its not perfect. Its like it is out there." With passion and now incentive, they fix the calamity with a lot of hard work, ingenuity. Incentive and hard work are more important than facts and data crunching; they turn their focus on cleaning a degraded environment around them unlike the scientists that began having shuttered themselves in a pristine one.

== Leaving Las Vegas ==
While clearly not originally intended to portray a conservative message, I feel that one strongly comes across in the film. Semi-autobiographical story of an alcoholic writer who loses everything because of his drinking and continues to spiral until it eventually costs him his life. opinions? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:07, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

:Not quite sure as to how this portrays a 'conservative message' of any kind. --[[User:Lord Zedd|Lord Zedd]], 11 January 2017

== The Blind Side ==
It's a story about the shortcomings of public education and how the power of private Christian charity helped a young homeless man overcome his disadvantages and play in the NFL.[[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:03, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Brokeback Mountain ==

I was thinking about this topic earlier and had an interesting thought about a seemingly non-conservative movie that, in a way, is actually quite so. I'm going to throw this out there for some (hopefully productive and civil) debate and see what people think.

The movie is Brokeback Mountain. Now hold on to your outrage, people. I have justifications for my point. Please hear me out. (Oh, and spoilers, just in case you planned to see/read it and hadn't)

As you probably know, the movie (and the novella on which its based) is about two men who fall into a homosexual lifestyle. But what struck me as conservative about this film is that it doesn't glorify the lifestyle; the two mens' choice to indulge in homosexuality is a disastrous choice that ends up ruining both their lives. One man's marriage is destroyed and his relationship with his child is forever tainted. The other man's choice actually leads to his violent death (Incidentally, I'm not saying that killing someone for being gay is a conservative value. But the point is that this movie is actually very up-front about acknowledging the catastrophic consequences of a homosexual lifestyle).

Considering all that, my next though was whether this movie might be unintentionally conservative, in which case it certainly doesn't belong on this list. But I don't think it is (haven't seen it since it first came out though, so I could be wrong).

So, there's my point. I would appreciate some discussion. I imagine some CPers will think I'm trolling or just trying to start an argument. Not so. I feel like it's a valid point but that there are probably strong arguments for and against, and I'd really like to hear what other people think. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 17:11, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

:You are partially right, but I think the homosexuals were meant to be sympathetic and on that basis alone, I don't think that movie belongs on this list. [[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:05, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

: I agree that the movie is anti-homosexuality. Based on the publicity, I expected the movie to be pro-homosexuality, but I was quite surprised by what was actually in the movie. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:This would be true, except that you have to consider the film's intent. It's not necessarily suggesting that what these men did is the result of their choice. It's suggesting that what happens to these men is the result of bigotry, prejudice, and hate on the part of the world around them. That they are blameless, in spite of their choices. A stark contrast, which I think also ought to be listed as a Conservative Film, would be Midnight Cowboy. In Midnight Cowboy, Joe Buck (played by Jon Voight) recognizes that the life he chose, as a male prostitute, and begins to make an effort to change, to get out of New York, with Ratso (Dustin Hoffman). Ratso's death underscored the decadent life they had led in NYC, and how Joe barely escaped with his own. In Brokeback Mountain, you do not see such recognition on the part of Ennis and Jack. They don't really consider what they did as wrong, necessarily. So where Midnight Cowboy underscores the devastation the immoral life can lead, Brokeback Mountain places the responsibility for that devastation on everyone else but the two men most responsible. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 19:56, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== U-571 ==

I deleted U-571 from this list. It portrays the capture of an Enigma machine from a German U-boat by US forces. As pretty much everyone with any interest in WW2 knows, the naval Enigma machine was stolen by Polish forces and decoded by British code-breakers at Bletchley. My Brit friends think U-571 is a joke because it minimises the role of the British ("you arrogant Yankees"). Poles are offended because it cuts out the Polish involvement altogether - including the very brave men who risked their lives to steal an Enigma machine and hand it over to British Intelligence. (BTW, Britain and Poland were allies of ours in WW2 and still are now.) Deceit isn't a conservative virtue - so I crossed U-571 off the list. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 16:51, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

: I'd say it's very questionable whether there's any deceit involved. The movie makes an on-screen written acknowledgment that the the first (and the majority) of enigmas were captured by British sailors. The whole movie is so over-the-top that nobody with a lick of intelligence would believe it's true. American sailors did capture an enigma machine during the war too, so this movie is obviously "inspired by a true story" even if it's not especially true. Most of the movie-going public knows that Hollywood "true" stories are highly fictionalized. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:13, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

==The Lives of Others==

Where on earth is The Lives of Others? it is, surely, the best recent critique of Communism and, for that matter, one of the best films ''of any type'' released in the past five years. It certainly deserves a place ahead of, for example, the obscure Dark Matter. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:13, 28 November 2010 (EST)

: It's in German, right, and about the former [[East Germany]]? I'll add it on your recommendation, but I can't agree it ranks higher than the English-language Dark Matter, which speaks to today and not just the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::Fair enough, Andy. Though I don't quite understand the argument against foreign-language films. If the issue is obscurity, The Lives of Others was seen by far more people in the US than Dark Matter. A glance at Box-Office Mojo confirms that Dark Matter took in a staggeringly tiny $30,591 on its domestic run. The Lives of Others took in $11,286,112 in the US (plus another $66 million in the rest of the world). I am, however, content to abide by your criteria. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 15:40, 28 November 2010 (EST)

:::Oprah Winfrey's daytime talk show rakes in far higher revenues than both, but I'm not sure what that proves. Dark Matter was apparently victimized and downplayed by liberals who finally figured out its conservative message, after it won first place in one of the Sundance Film Festival categories. The liberal backlash against Dark Matter is particularly surprising given that Meryl Streep starred in it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::::P.S. Your suggestion of "The Lives of Others" is a fine addition. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:02, 28 November 2010 (EST)
http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.png
::::No problem. Keep up the good work. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 20:47, 28 November 2010 (EST)

== Fiddler on the Roof? ==

A film celebrating the value of community, tradition, family, and faith, all against the historical context of the harm done by the rise of Communism in Russia...worthy of a spot on the list? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Sounds good to me ... please add it as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:I disagree. Look at the overall film/play. This was definitely a counter-culture film thinly disguised as a quaint musical drama. The message was that Tradition is bad, illogical, and keeps people stuck in their ways when they should embrace the new, simply because it's new. When Tevye explains the traditions and why they're there in the beginning, he mentioned that they keep their heads covered and they wear their prayer shawl. He then asks, "How did this tradition get started?," and he responds, "I don't know." This sets up the rest of the show. Because never do they explain why they use a Matchmaker, or why they don't let people arrange their own matches, or why men and women dance separately. They even have the old rabbi getting down with the new changes, never defending what was before. Message: Traditions are stale and old and have no place in the modern world. Relax and just let things happen. Then the film gives us the drama of Chava marrying a Christian, marrying outside of her faith, and that's where Tevye can't abide it. By then, it seems that Tevye's objection is only based on ridiculous emotion, rather than anything objective. All this, in spite of the fact that change is coming, one that cannot be stopped by the traditions these people hold. This is not a Conservative message at all, but one that is quite subversive. If this had been written from a Conservative approach, we would've gone into the reasons behind the traditions, because they're not irrational or unreasonable. The reason for a Matchmaker, the way they dress, and the way they eat, and the dancing, all is meant to preserve their heritage as Jews living in Tsarist Russia. The Matchmaker keeps the Jewish men and women within the community, and within the faith, all the while helping to maintain peace and stability within the community itself. The point I'm making is that Traditions have a purpose, even if we disagree with them. And the notion that happiness comes from something material, as in the case of the marriage between Motel and Tzeital, is a direct message against a person's obligations to his or her duty, both to themselves and their community they live in. No, I'd say Fiddler on the Roof is not a Conservative film. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 20:15, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

: I disagree Wayfinder. Much of Jewish culture is based around the concept that Jews follow tradition for no other reason than because God expects us to. Take Kosher laws. Certainly, there can health reasons for being Kosher, but that is not why Jews become Kosher; it is because it is expected by God. Kosher laws don't change or update with new dietary findings. There are no Kosher fad diets. Ask a random Jewish person who keeps Kosher why he/she does and, 9 times out of 10, they will either say, "Because I always have" or "Because God expects me to". In the later case, performing an act because God expects it is logical, in an of itself.

And in Fiddler, there is an extra point to tradition. As Tevye says, "Because of tradition, we've kept our balance for many, many years." To wit, tradition is the only thing keeping Jews from falling into the abyss. And, in fact, the more Tevye gives in to the modern times, the more his culture is ravaged until he is forced to leave his homeland. Tradition is deeply respected in the film, as much as, and for the same reasons as, it is in the Jewish culture. And for that reason, I would consider it a Conservative film. --[[User:Sirreality|Sirrealtiy]] 12:16, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

: You make some good points, Sirrealtiy, but I must reiterate that the film isn't about Tradition's strengths, but giving into change for its own sake. Not once does Tevye ever consider why there are these traditions in the first place. When he argues with himself over Tzeitel marrying Motel or Hodel marrying Perchik, and so forth, he never considers the traditions at all or even explains their use. He almost casually disregards them. When it comes down to Chava, though, he can't get around it, and, again, he has no real good reason for any of them. So Tevye comes off as rigid and petty. This is important because Fiddler on the Roof came out at the height of the first wave of hippy counter-culture in America, and it ran with it. By the time the film gets to the conclusion, that the Tsar is running them out of Anatevka, the message is loud and clear: You can't resist change at all, so don't even try. This would, on the other hand, be more of a conservative film if we went into the reasons for these traditions, a lot of which would've been known, especially to the likes of the Rabbi, before casually discarding them. : --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 01:45, 24 January 2013 (EST)
Fiddler on the Roof is a classic movie.

A remember this: "Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if a man says to his father and mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6 he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8 ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men’.” 10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean’.” 12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you not know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” 13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

So not all traditions are good.

I love Thanksgiving though. And I like eggnog on December 25. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:54, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

== Gattaca ==

A condemnation of genetic experiments on humans, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely controlled society. No matter how much scientists play to be God, and try to improve the human race by using genetics, there will always be an individual, based on original God design, who, despite his health shortcomings, will triumph over this genetically modified, supposedly perfect human beings.

I don’t immediately put it on the list because the movie is a bit atheist. In the final scene, the hero finally managed to travel to space and cites the phrase: “They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home."

So, I’ll say that the movie has a conservative message, unfortunately diluted with atheist overtones. I’ll wait for someone else opinion before posting this. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:03, 10 March 2011 (EST)

:Feel free to post this with the caveat you mention. Thanks for explaining it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::We talked about this movie at my fellowship a few months ago - pure hokum about a guy who might have been alright on his own but for a disgusting patriarchy forcing human engineering. I'll write this if AlejandroJ doesn't. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:51, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, I posted it. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 15:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

The argument that this film has atheistic overtones actually adds to this film. It shows how we have reduced a person not to his ability but to purely material characteristics, and the effects this has on society. In Gattaca, people are judged not by their ability, not by their merit or accomplishments, but their potential. Gore Vidal, who plays the director of Gattaca, says "No one exceeds their potential." This is, I think, a fundamental statement in the whole movie; that it is the potential that is important, not the action, not the accomplishment. If Vincent became exposed even after he is confirmed to go to Titan, we know what would happen; he would be expelled from Gattaca, and possibly imprisoned for using a "borrowed ladder." Which also points to Eugene's suicide and why he took his own life. Eugene doesn't value his life, but his potential. "Jerome Morrow," he said, "was never meant to be one step lower on the podium." In such an atheistic society that only values the material, the potential, the beautiful, but not the competent or the accomplished, Eugene's suicide underscores this conceit. Eugene could not be anything less than what he felt his potential was. Or, put it another way, he could not be anything less but what others said he should be. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 14:58, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Disney cartoons ==

Most, and perhaps all, of the Disney cartoons for the past 15 or so years have pushed the [[feminist]] ideology. I welcome any counterexamples, but doubt there are any. Hence the reversion of the "Princess and the Frog (2009)" addition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:''The Lion King'', a 1994 Disney movie, is definitely conservative. A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory. I'll add it with your approval. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 15:45, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

::Sounds like a good choice. Please add and if anyone has a different view of the movie, then he can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:26, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Added. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 16:41, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly I would agree with your reversion of my contribution of the Princess and the Frog if that movie were feminist-ideology-promoting (like, for instance Mulan (1998)) but frankly, it is not a feminist movie. I am not a woman, nor a feminist - I am staunchly conservative. The Princess and the Frog promotes monogamous marriage (which feminism does not) as well as the other conservative values I listed (such as saving money, hard work, free enterprise etc). In fact, the main character is so pro-marriage that she changes her licentious friend's behavior from debauchery (which feminism promotes) to monogamy. It is possibly the most conservative-value-laden animated movie I have ever seen.

''The Lion King'' on the other hand promotes re-incarnation with its "Circle of Life" song. Jack, the hero of ''Titanic'' commits fornication and mocks a man reciting the 23rd Psalm; Cal, the main antagonist is depicted as a church-service-attending hypocrite.

You are doubtless correct about the feminist ideology pushed by many Disney animations, but this is not one of them. I respectfully request that you consider returning my contribution of 'The Princess and the Frog'. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 23:17, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:I have to disagree with you about The Lion King. As far as I can interpret, "The Circle of Life" is either about the bond all humans share or the journey from life to death and the afterlife, not reincarnation. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 00:36, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::Spotsbunch, I think you have a valid point about the Lion King, but from what I've heard about the "Princess and the Frog," it's feminist claptrap with the woman wearing the pants and doing everything except having children and homeschooling her kids. It's more Disney tripe about a successful businesswoman towing along an inept man, which is hardly typical in the real world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Arguably, any movie where people turn into frogs, or where in Beauty and the Beast, people have transmogrified into furniture is not "real world". Fantasies they may be, (like many movies listed here) but they are still conservative. I (finally) put it to your kind consideration that if you would watch the Princess and the Frog, you would find it contains less feminism and more conservativism than Beauty and the Beast. Whatever your judgment, I respect your decision and will refrain from further debate, even though I (thus far) disagree. Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 08:43, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Feminism]] is unmistakable: it has women acting like men and vice-versa, contrary to reality. Disney cartoons have been ''heavily'' feminist for at least 15 years. ''Beauty and the Beast'', made 20 years ago, was not feminist in any way. But having a "Princess" act like a businessman and aspire to run a restaurant is feminist. What's next - Cinderella aspires to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::Is there any reason a woman can't run a restaurant or a fortune 500 company? No really, Andy, I want to know. Why is it feminist to portray a woman doing anything but cooking, cleaning, and rearing children? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 13:40, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::Who said anything about cooking and cleaning? And, no, there isn't a reason why a woman can't aspire to any field, such as plumbers (almost no women plumbers), gas station attendants (ditto), or professional football players (ditto). The fact is that the vast majority of women ''do not aspire'' to do such activities (or running a restaurant or a Fortune 500 company), and it's false for feminists or feminist movies to repeatedly pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::I apologize for my abrasiveness, it just seemed that you were implying that's all they're supposed to do. I can see where you're coming from. While a woman can do what she wants, feminists are wrong for telling woman that they should only aspire to do things traditionally done by men. Men normally aren't beauty consultants, clothing designers, or nail salon technicians, so why don't we see any men urging more men to do these things? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Feminism]] repeatedly tries to persuade women not to have children and raise them, pretending that aspiring to work in a job is somehow better. I can't think of a single Disney movie in the last 15 years that has been realistic about the homemaker role that most women prefer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Up. A key part of the story is that the old man's wife had given up her dreams of being an explorer as real life concerns around the home took precedence. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 15:03, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::As promised, I will make my petition no further. However, as others have continued this debate, I will contribute to that. The Bible, our ultimate authority, disagrees (as I read it) that "a woman aspiring to run a business" (restaurant or otherwise) is feminist. Proverbs 31:10-31 describes at length "the wife of noble character" to be involved in business by working with eager hands; importing food from merchant ships; providing food for her family; purchasing property for farming; trading profitably; making and selling expensive cloth and having enough money left over to give to the poor. Anyone with a definition of feminism which includes activities like these, who also respects the Bible as God's authoritative Word should reconsider his definition. Respectfully and with kindest regards, [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 19:15, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Not surprisingly, you left out the verse saying "her children wake up, and call her 'blessed,' so does her husband" ([[CBP]] version), as well as several other verses that feminist movies do not include.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Then would it be acceptable to put the Princess and the Frog in the "Debatable Whether Conservative" section of this page? [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:44, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::There are high quality movies in the "Debatable" section. The [[feminist]] "Princess and the Frog" doesn't even come close to that level of quality and arguably conservatism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:46, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::Since we're talking Disney cartoons here, would films like The Little Mermaid qualify under Conservative or Liberal? I want to make sure so I don't end up making a big mistake later on. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 16:56, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::Actually, I think Beauty and the Beast would qualify as feminist propaganda, and thus make its Conservative status debatable. True, it didn't have Belle trying to work as a CEO or something (then again, given the time period, I don't think "CEOs" even existed at that time) unlike the films for the past 15 years, but it does push the feminist propaganda that women couldn't get an education until the 1960s, and all education was supplied to rich white males, and that Belle was somehow breaking societal standards by reading (which there have been women who read during that time as well and wasn't even looked down upon. Marie Antoinette for one.). Trust me, I'd recognize that propaganda when I see it because I had to be subject to that propaganda from a militant feminist professor by the name of Heather Lucas (who did actually imply the above thing about women not getting an education until the 1960s). Plus the fact that she was refusing to marry for children can easily be construed as being anti-family. Also, as some people pointed out, there were some left-wing stuff in Titanic as well (I think Jack basically made some comments that were negative towards capitalism in that film. That as well as the aforementioned scene with Rose qualifying as pornography, and heck, technically she was committing pedastry with Jack as well). I took the liberty to moving them to the debatable whether Conservative section. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 22:36, 10 December 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Edit: It should also be worth mentioning that the village, while "shallow," was not really materialistic, not under the definition of matter being the most important thing, and certainly not in regards to the aspect of wealth, race, and jobs. Probably the closest they've gotten to materialism was their considering Belle to be "odd" due to her reading a book all the time, which even then seems to speak more to the feminist propaganda of Women not being educated at all until the 1960s. There wasn't exactly anything materialistic about the village. I had removed the reference to the village as being materialistic since it really didn't fit the definition at all. Also, the so-called "wedding" had a brief shot of a priest (specifically when Gaston makes that opening joke), making materialism in the village even less likely (materialism is atheistic, and the presence of a priest likewise implies the village was Christian, something that cannot intermingle with each other). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 17:26, 17 December 2013 (EST)

:Actually, after giving it some thought, I think The Princess and the Frog would qualify more as conservative at this point (certainly far more than the 1991 ''Beauty and the Beast'' ever did, which even Linda Woolverton, its screenwriter, not to mention Don Hahn, has admitted to being feminist claptrap since Jeffrey Katzenberg demanded for its third rewrite.). Technically, at least from what I gather as I haven't actually seen the film, the only reason why Tiana is even trying to run a shop is because her dad was dead and there was no male heir to run it, so under that sense, it's not actually feminist (and aside from that, it also somewhat condemns her obsession with trying to act as a CEO, especially when the main villain Dr. Facilier actually does try to convince her to pursue her dreams as a form of tempting her, and her ultimately rejecting it upon realizing what truly matters). I might as well point out that the film has Charlotte LeBeouf, a girl who most certainly is not a feminist, and if anything very traditionally feminine, who is actually portrayed in a very positive light, being a genuine friend for Tiana, and even attempting to restore Tiana and Naveen from the curse when granted the opportunity to do so (and only failed because Marti Gras ended at the worst possible time). And as another person pointed out, The Princess and the Frog actually DOES promote traditional marriage, and as a matter of fact, is the first Disney Feature Length film to actually do so since ''The Little Mermaid'' two decades before. Not saying it really should be listed as one of the greatest conservative films of all time (it's got evidence of plagiarizing ''The Little Mermaid'' at times, and aside from that, it did depict Voodoo in an ambiguous light, meaning that at best it can go under debatable whether Conservative or debatable whether Great), but it definitely shouldn't really be listed as a liberal film, period. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:33, 1 January 2019 (EST)

== Titanic ==

The movie ''Titanic'' also shows the rich and privileged getting on the half-empty life boats while the poor and lower class passengers are locked below (which is actually historical). Should it truly be included in this list? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:50, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:No, I disagree. The movie accurately portrays the wealthiest men on the boat (Guggenheim, Astor, etc.) giving up their lives so that poorer women and children could be saved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:53, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

::While I'm ''not'' denying there were individual acts of chivalry and that Guggenheim et al declined seats (although there is historical conflicting testimony about Astor) on the lifeboats (of which there were too few given the number of people on the ship), the numbers show a definite declining survival rate by class. This was also a theme in the movie and not one that should be ignored.

::The movie showed the lower class passengers being locked in the bowels of the ship, blocking escape. There is historical conflicting testimony on this subject as well: several people reported gates between decks being locked and armed guards blocking passageways while one steerage passenger testified that the gates were not locked. Another passenger stated that not only did the staff ''not'' sound an alarm in third class, but that steerage passengers who came up on deck were told to return to their rooms because there was no danger.

::'''First Class''' Women - 4/141 died (97% survival rate)1; Children: 1/7 died2 (86% survival rate); Men - 104/171 died (39% survival rate); Totals: 109/319 died (66% overall survival rate)

::12 of the 4 first class female passengers who died chose to remain with their husbands. *corrected mistype.

::2Lorraine Allison remained on board with her family because they had been separated from her infant brother, who was on a lifeboat with his nurse. The entire family died, with the exception of the baby.

::'''Second Class''' Women: 13/92 died (86% survival rate); Children: 0/25 died (100% survival rate); Men: 135/152 died (11% survival rate); Totals: 148/269 died (45% overall survival rate)

::'''Third Class''' Women: 91/179 died (49% survival rate); Children: 55/80 died (31% survival rate); Men: 381/440 died (13% survival rate); Totals: 527/699 died (25% overall survival rate)

::'''Staff and crew''' Female: 2/22 died (91% survival rate); Male: 701/896 died (22% survival rate); Overall: 703/918 died (23% overall survival rate)

::There are some servants left out of these numbers due to confusion

::Sorry for the over-long reply, but the ''Titanic'' has been a subject of fascination to me since my teenage years (about a century ago!) so I'm rather verbose about it. 8^) I don't agree with you on the subject, but I won't remove the movie from the list. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:51, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

Conservative? Some guy says all the right words to a vulnerable girl, then gets her to strip naked so he can draw her (that's porn). Then he gets her into the back of a car and they fornicate. Not exactly my definition of conservative. --[[User:Crubs|Crubs]] 15:58, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

==Move The Dark Knight To the Debatable category?==
I'm wondering whether of not The Dark Knight should be truly considered conservative-while it does have the message of not giving in to terrorist, it also includes themes of everyone being corruptible and having their limits (like the good public defendant, Harvey Dent, turning into a villain, Two Face) and seems fascinated with darkness and chaos ("Madness is like gravity all you need is a little push"). Given this all, and the fact that Patrick Leahy had a cameo in it, I think this might well be reconsidered. Thoughts?
Armond White, who generally sees through liberal bias and is a more conservative viewer, wrote this about it: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fTJ_tj1IKooJ:www.nypress.com/article-18545-knight-to-remember.html+armond+white+the+dark+knightr&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com]

:Thanks for your comments. I'll move "Dark Knight" to the debatable category as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

::I watched it when it came out, and I didn't notice anything particularly Conservative about it. The only thing really good about it was the citizen response to the terrorist dilemma the arch-villain sets up, whereby two boatloads of passengers "must" each ensure their own survival by blowing up the other's boat; a quick-witted passenger takes the remote control and throws it overboard. But this has nothing to do with Batman.

::The movie shows how vicious bad people can be, and how bullies support (and recruit) other bullies. But that is hardly fodder for the liberal-conservative debate. Both sides claim to despise bullying.

::I daresay the [[Batman]] character of the 1960s comic books had some "[[conservative]]" qualities, such as the ''noblesse oblige'' of the superior man and idea that society can be benefited by the actions of a heroic individual. Both of these run counter to Communist ideas of history. But the Batman movies I've seen are about a different, darker man. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

:Let me help explain why this film needs to be in the list. At the beginning of this film, crime had been quelled enough that when you saw the Bat-Signal a drug dealer, who probably would've made a quick buck and easily got away with it, chose not to make a deal (you see this guy just refuse a deal to some other man in a car). But this didn't mean that the city was totally crime free, or that corruption was gone. Bruce realized that Batman could not change Gotham. He could help, but he was only one man. Gotham needed someone to be the influence Batman could never be. And that man was Harvey Dent. This speaks to how important culture is to a society. There's a great saying from another film, called Hud, which says "The look of the country changes by the people we admire." Meaning, that if you want a good, upstanding, moral society, you back people who are good, upstanding, and moral. You choose good, even if it means your death. I think the best moment in this film is where the Joker has got the two ferries, one loaded with convicts and the other loaded with civilians, each rigged to blow. But it's a convict that understands the problem, and makes a decision not to play Joker's game. What does this mean? I nearly cried when I saw that scene. It meant that someone understood that there's more to life than living. There's more to life than just existing. There's more to life than doing what is expected, rather than doing what is GOOD. Because GOOD has VALUE, which, I believe, is at the heart of the Conservative Philosophy. Liberals believe quite the opposite. Or rather, they believe that there is no Good or Evil, that everything is relative. Just as the Joker believes. It is what we stand for, and are willing to die for, that make us good or evil. This is what Christ said. To take up your Cross, even if it means your death, even if it means the deaths of others, because Life is not predicated strictly on comfort or survival, but on the propagation of Good. That's why The Dark Knight needs to be here. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:20, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::He may be darker in the movies, that's not to say he still doesn't have conservative values, and he does whatever he can so other people don't go through what he want through. [[User:Jm920|Jm920]] 19:00, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== "The Sandlot" as 1950s America as a time when "every boy had a chance to be great." ==

I suppose, maybe. It's harder to achieve greatness when one couldn't necessarily ride at the front of the bus/use the same drinking fountain/eat at the same counter/go to the same university as other folks. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 14:15, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

: Your point is valid. Feel free to include your point in the entry itself. I don't think the 1950s were as [[conservative]] as today. In addition to your comment, [[homeschooling]] was prohibited in the 1950s, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:29, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rollerball (1975) ==

Rollerball (1975) is frequently overlooked as one of the great conservative films. A dystopian tale in which a corporate oligarchy maintains control over the peoples of the world by distracting them with a hedonistic culture of sex, drugs, and violent entertainment. Rollerball was designed by the corporations to hypnotize and distract the minions with gladiatorial combat disguised as sport. The world watches these spectacles and subconsciously receives the message their corporate masters are feeding them - that individual achievement is not possible, because every Rollerballer ultimately faces the same gruesome fate. However, when Jonathan E (James Caan) proves dominate and (more importantly) invincible in the sport - the corporations attempt to force him to retire through an ever horriflying series of rule changes designed to bring about his death or capitulation.
Jonathan E's defiance is a captivating and uplifting example of a man asserting the freedom of the individual in the face
of totalitarianism. JFarren 17:38, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

== Indiana Jones ==

I am very surprised that the Indiana Jones films are not included in here, when they are certainly conservative. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Would you like to add them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuilt ==
I've rewritten the page as a table. Everything is sortable now. The gross is the US gross value, not worldwide (with one referenced exception). Everything else is the same. Films listed with NA - TV means that they were a TV program, and thus did not have a gross. NA - DVD means that they were released straight to DVD. None of the values are adjusted for inflation. While that would be interesting to do, I don't think wikis support computed columns, and it seems like a waste of time to update every number here. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Well done. Your format is better, and your additional information about revenues is interesting, although not of great significance due to (1) inflation and (2) popularity typically doesn't mean much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

==Space Jam is not a "Great" film==
Conservative or not, Space Jam sucks! It must be removed.

== Two Thoughts ==

1. What about "Fiddler on the Roof"? About the important role of tradition in societies.

2. Also, the caption for "Hilary: The Movie" is awkward if not misleading. It didn't result in the McCain-Feingold Act being overturned so much as it was the impetus for the lawsuit. The current description seems to imply that it was a crucial piece of evidence or something similar.

Would anyone be opposed to these changes? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 14:17, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

==Film suggestions==

The Whit Stillman film, "Metropolitan", has been included on various lists of conservative films, including one by National Review. The story is of a group of bourgeois college students who meet a middle-class socialist peer. he later becomes good friends with them. Another National Review's list is "Ghostbusters" for its portrayal of an EPA bureaucrat as the main antagonist human antagonist and a message that "the solution to a public menace comes from the private sector". Another on the list I think may be worthy of inclusion is "Groundhog Day."

The full article from National Review can be viewed here [http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=YWQ4MDlhMWRkZDQ5YmViMDM1Yzc0MTE3ZTllY2E3MGM=] --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 22:42, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:update; Another film I saw a while ago, while containing some crude humor, may still qualify. It would probably fit in the "debatable whether great" category. The film is "House Arrest" and is about some teenagers who go to extreme lengths (locking them in the basement) to stop their fighting parents from getting a divorce. --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 13:46, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== The Iron Lady ==

I highly suggest seeing The Iron Lady. I'm not sure how widespread the release was but it received critical acclaim in Britain, and a good insight into the other side of the Atlantic during the time of Reaganism. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 15:06, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== Add "Back to the Future" to the Debatable category? ==

According to the article for [[Back to the Future]], the film contains both positive and negative values. Should it be included in the "Debatable" category?--[[User:GOPFan2011|GOPFan2011]] 23:52, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

==Batman 3==

This review [http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/occupy-batman-storms-gotham-city/] calls "The Dark Knight Rises" a conservative film which compares the Occupy movement to the ill-fated French Revolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:04, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

==Zulu==

Zulu is definitely a Conservative film. Since when do Leftists (I never call them Liberals) have the character to do their duty even if it means their death? What you see here is an emergency situation, where the officers in command put aside both their differences and their peculiar ways of life to do what was important. Chard put away being an engineer for a couple of days, and Bromhead put aside being a societal-gentleman/officer. They were determined not only to do their duty, but to win. If they abandoned their post, they cede it to the enemy and they probably would've been hunted down and destroyed, as the force at Isandwana was. They fought for reasons a bit higher than themselves, and in the end they prevailed. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 15:34, 11 February 2013 (EST)

== Additional films to consider ==

*Saving Private Ryan-World War II, June 1944.
*We Were Soldiers-based on the memoir by Lt. Col. Hal Moore; 1965, Vietnam.
*Cinderella Man-The story of James Braddock; heavyweight champion from 1935–37.
--[[User:JohnJustice|JohnJustice]] 23:32, 9 February 2013 (EST)
:I still believe the three above should be included. --[[User:JohnJustice|JohnJustice]] 20:36, 3 June 2015 (EDT)
::I suggest that you bring this up on the [[Community Portal]] page. Pages sometimes find themsevles in a frenzy of vandalism, and the administrators lock the page. Then the vandalism stops, obviously, and people forget that the page was locked. This page has been locked long enough that it's probably safe to unlock it, and so you should request that. Or at least the admins could directly act on your three requests. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:42, 3 June 2015 (EDT)

== Bee Movie ==

Why is Bee Movie a conservative Movie?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 06:27, 7 December 2013 (EST)

== 187 ==

I thought 187 should be on this list --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 17:44, 16 February 2014 (EST)

:Don't know about that. Doesn't ''187'' portray [[public schools]] as a victim, rather than the cause of the problems?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 16 February 2014 (EST)

I suppose one could see it that way. And obviously in real life I detest Samuel Jackson's radical racial politics. I don't remember much whining in the film about more money being the solution or celebration of teacher's unions. To me the overriding message was that we have degenerate youth in this country who wish to be decadent and apathetic and do not value a good education and a teacher who believes that students should be motivated and want to learn has finally had enough. Thomas Sowell has discussed the youth in inner city schools who actually want to learn being denied that by the thugs ruining the learning environment or because they get beat up for wanting to achieve. The film captures this unacceptable state of affairs wonderfully. That part struck a chord with me as a conservative. I certainly didn't see apologia for the public school system going on. The lack of discipline and the complicity of bureaucratic nonentities is thoroughly critiqued. Obviously, I would agree with you that breaking the public school government created monopoly is the solution. But this film as I see it is more about the problem than the solution. --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 21:15, 16 February 2014 (EST)

:You make great points, and please feel free to add the movie to the entry. That said, I doubt that outside gangs are a major reason why so many kids are not learning basic skills in public school. The real problem is that the liberals who control public schools don't want kids to learn and be able to think for themselves. Someone who can't read is more likely to vote a straight Democratic Party-line ticket than someone who can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 17 February 2014 (EST)
You're absolutely right. Most of the time, there's no difference between the hooligan thugs and the liberals, as lack of discipline in our public school system facilitates their existence. Also, with bureaucratic control, and the war on homeschooling, cadres of teachers who care about their job and not education are protected and those who could provide a better education (because they are motivated, because they don't teach a mindless curriculum and because they believe in discipline) see their schools shutdown by teachers who would sacrifice a child's future (much like a child sacrifice in the heathen societies of old) on the altar of their precious careers. It's high time parents held them accountable. And for that, we will need an end to the century old progressive inspired idiocy of government control of schools and a free market in education. At least the progressives were honest about their intentions back then, as they quite explicitly stated that their purpose was to mold, indoctrinate, and otherwise turn children into loyal and obedient servants of the state, as opposed to God or family or their own individuality. Children are taught to lap up content free curriculum like cattle. It's disgusting. --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 17:26, 7 May 2014 (EDT)

==National Treasure==

It has positive messages of patriotism, respect for history and the founding fathers, standing up for what you believe in rather than going alone with the crowd, and many others.
:It also promotes the Free Masons, so I'm not confident this should be here. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:40, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

== Star Wars conservative? ==

Hi.

Can we really list the entire Star Wars films as being solidly conservative? I'll give you the first film and Empire Strikes Back (original releases, at least: The first film's rerelease may be debatable now thanks to George Lucas deciding to rework a certain scene to effectively promote gun control), but Return of the Jedi is debatable as while it ''does'' promote good over evil, and actually features redemption in the form of Vader giving up his life to save Luke from the Emperor, it also was mentioned by George Lucas to promote the Vietcong's exploits against American soldiers during the Vietnam War via the Ewoks. Similarly, the Prequel Trilogy seems to hint at a morally relativistic view, and ironically the bad guys are stated to believe in moral absolutes at one point (Obi-Wan, shortly before dueling with Anakin Skywalker-turned-Darth Vader, mentioned "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" after Vader said that Obi-Wan's his enemy if he's not with him), and there have been quite a few unsubtle jabs at the Bush administration in the Prequel Trilogy (and in the case of Return of the Jedi, the Nixon administration, even though Nixon was the one who ended the Vietnam War, while Johnson was the one who pretty much expanded the conflict and Kennedy was effectively the one who started it). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 08:07, 5 June 2015 (EDT)

== Reopening the page ==

Hi.

Can someone reopen the page? I think it's been long enough for that person to have lost interest. And besides, there have been several movies that came out anyways. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:08, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

:Unlocked as requested. Thanks for asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:31, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

::You're welcome. I took the liberty of moving Star Wars to "Debatable whether conservative" largely because there actually have been some hints at a left-wing agenda in the film (I think Empire Strikes Back is the only film with narely a shred of leftism, actually), including promotion of the Vietcong and demonizing American involvement in the Vietnam War, as well as adding in some sources and additional stuff to the Beauty and the Beast thing (that reminds me, I may need to make a new topic regarding that). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:10, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

== Should Beauty and the Beast really be on here? ==

Hi.

Should Beauty and the Beast really be among even the Debatable whether Conservative page, let alone the Greatest Conservative Movies section?

I initially moved it from the Greatest Conservative movies section to Debatable whether Conservative section due to certain things that were being subtly pushed in the film (and speaking as someone who had to be forced to ingest a lot of tripe in college that was the same as what BATB pushed, I can recognize it when I see it and am doubtful it makes for conservative material), but right now, I'm not sure whether it even belongs there, either. If anything, it's probably a better fit for the Worst Liberal Movies article.

The first reason why I think this is simple: [http://articles.mcall.com/1991-11-22/features/2825583_1_beast-s-castle-fairy-tale-madame-gabrielle There] [http://time.com/2798136/maleficent-beauty-beast-writer/ are] [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-01-25/lifestyle/9201241028_1_linda-woolverton-belle-show-scripts more] [http://www.mouseplanet.com/8500/Linda_Woolverton_and_Belle than] [http://girlsincapes.com/2014/04/07/princess-evolution/ a] [https://web.archive.org/web/20111009063303/http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/1991/11/17/just-the-way-walt-made-em.html few] [http://www.urj.ucf.edu/vol5issue2/dickens/essay.php articles] on the development process that make it pretty clear from the writing staff, especially Linda Woolverton, that the film was supposed to push the feminist agenda (heck, Woolverton herself even explicitly stated that she modeled Belle after the Women's Movement in Time Magazine), and Woolverton also made it pretty clear in interviews that she believed the princesses before her were weak, insipid creatures that only wanted marriage and love as goals, and only waited for their prince to come (she even included, rather insultingly, Ariel from ''The Little Mermaid'' among those characters despite that character being very proactive). There was also a rather subtle anti-family/anti-marriage agenda being pushed considering Belle reacted with disgust to the idea of even having children and also being treated as being in the right for shoving her suitor into the mud instead of just saying no and apparently taking amusement in ruining a wedding. It also doesn't help that the opening song and Gaston himself strongly implied that Belle's literacy was not supported at all by the rest of the village. It also doesn't help that most of the men aren't really treated in a very flattering light (let's see, Gaston, LeFou, and most of the village males are painted in a rather negative light, Cogsworth was depicted as a pompous jerk, Lumiere's a womanizer, and Beast was mostly a jerk even with his complexity), and the women who actually seem to value marriage weren't treated well either (those blonde triplets were called the bimbettes despite their not actually doing anything that would mandate them being called bimbos besides supporting marriage). Heck, Lumiere's womanizing is treated as an implied virtue as well, and Belle ends up being treated as being in the right far too many times especially in instances that actually were largely her own fault (like the wolf attack scene). Heck, the film actually seems to push [[misandry]], and the [http://beautybeast.enchanted-rose.org/library/displayimage.php?pid=13702&fullsize=1 Disney Comics] and [http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20141210031917/disney/images/2/20/Tumblr_ng92xaGNbc1r2nlopo1_500.jpg WDW pins] don't exactly help in quelling any concerns for the film's agenda either. Heck, Belle was even cited by Woolverton to be based on herself. If feminism could get Princess and the Frog and Pocahontas onto the Worst Liberal Movies page, this most certainly can as well.

Probably the second reason, and probably the most damning, is the fact that Beauty and the Beast and some of its writing was actually reused for the 2014 ''Maleficent'' movie (which, BTW, both films were even written by the same person: Linda Woolverton). Keep in mind, the ''Maleficent'' movie was the kind of film that ''The Federalist'' actually [http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/06/maleficent-once-upon-a-screed/ denounced] as pushing an extreme left-wing agenda, so if Beauty and the Beast inspired a movie in writing that was probably undebatably one of the worst liberal movies, that's a strong case going against Beauty and the Beast being even a slightly conservative film. Maybe I'm a bit screwed up in my thinking, maybe I am actually right. I don't know. But what I do know is that there's plenty in the film that would strongly suggest against it even being debatably conservative, let alone fully conservative. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:48, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

== Politics of ''Captain America: Civil War'' ==

I'm debating whether ''Captain America: Civil War'' should be included on this list, similar to the first two films in the ''Captain America'' trilogy, as even though the film contains some obvious conservative messages due to Captain America refusing to give into intimidation by the government and the United Nations by signing the Zakovia Accords, in addition to both the federal government and international governments shown to be corrupt with the villain Baron Zemo infiltrating the facility in Europe to brainwash the Winter Soldier and unleash chaos (in that regard showing proof that regulating the Avengers is illogical when the superheros are banned from taking action in the event a threat emerges on the inside which the government is unaware of, as I viewed it).

However, the film also arguably contains some liberal messages as demonstrated by Iron Man's side in agreeing to the Zakovia Accords as a consequence for the civilian deaths caused by the Avengers, which presents an "anti-war" message, which is further pushed by the villain's actual plot to initiate conflict between the Avengers as revenge for the death of his family during the events of "Avengers: Age of Ultron".

Should the film be included in the list, or under the "Debatable" section? --[[User:GOPFan2011|GOPFan2011]] ([[User talk:GOPFan2011|talk]]) 12:50, 13 May 2016 (EDT)

:I haven't seen it, but from what you say, it sounds a bit questionable. Even the liberals admit the government is corrupt--they just blame it on the conservatives while the same liberals continue making it worse. I'd call it "Debatable" at best, but I can't say for sure, since as I said, I haven't seen it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:23, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

== Gods and Generals ==

I don't know if any of you have seen it, but should Gods and Generals be on this list? It's a hard movie to find (after release, it was "censored" by a number of companies, which means few people know much about it) but it shows loyalty to God, country, and beliefs. It takes place during the Civil War, I believe, though it's been a long time since I've seen it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 13:04, 13 May 2016 (EDT)

==Star Wars==
While it is clear that Star Wars is, as this page speaks of, about good vs. evil, I question whether it should really be labelled as even a "Greatest Conservative Movie." I find a number of things concerning, including:
*The teaching of a universal force, ''which is neither good nor evil'' (There is no such thing as a neutral God-like power)
*The general idea there there is no God and Satin, but just a neutral power that can be used by men (and aliens) for God-like or Satan-like purposes
*The teaching of "trust your feelings" and that what is needed can be found withing you (see Jeremiah 17:9, and others)
*The trance-like state which is required to learn from and use the force (demon possession, anyone?)
*The "worship" of "the force." (They do call it a Jedi ''temple'', after all)
*And while I'm making points against this series: almost all Sci-Fi fiction implies if not states that there is not God. Life of many different kinds simply appeared or evolved on many different planets, and there are many life-supporting planets on which there being live.
Need I go on? I could, but I think I've made my point. If everyone wants to keep this on the list, I will not argue about it, but I would not have put this movie here. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:14, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
:In all fairness, I had moved it to the Debatable whether Conservative section for a reason.
:And technically, Star Wars isn't "sci-fi", it's "space fantasy," so the bit about there lacking a god or supernatural elements won't apply.
:I do agree that it's status as a conservative film is debatable, though. Heck, the heroes were explicitly derived from the Vietcong in the original trilogy, which alongside the Empire being explicitly based on America during that time period would alone destroy any ideas of it being conservative. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:26, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
:EDIT: BTW, think you can comment on my topic regarding whether Beauty and the Beast can truly be considered even debatably a conservative film, let alone one of the greatest conservative films? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:29, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

::You're right--I'd missed the section break there at first, but still thought I'd argue the point. I forgot to go back and change that. I must say I didn't know there was a difference between "sci-fi" and "space fantasy," but I still say that it does matter somewhat how they present the fantasy, as to whether with or without God. 
''"...the heroes were explicitly derived from the Vietcong...alongside the Empire being explicitly based on America during that time period..."'' 
::You've got to be joking... So why is this still on the list? 
::Also, you're welcome, but I don't know how helpful I can be. I really don't watch a lot of television. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:35, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
:::No, I'm not joking about the Rebels and Empire's inspiration. That said, I really WISH I were. You can read more here:
*http://www.yomyomf.com/star-wars-is-a-metaphor-for-the-vietcong-kicking-american-ass-in-the-vietnam-war/
*http://www.inquisitr.com/1491688/star-wars-was-meant-as-protest-against-vietnam-war-new-book-claims/
:::In fact, it's precisely BECAUSE of that bombshell that I am even an Empire supporter now after years of loyalty to the Rebel Alliance under the naïve belief that they were derived from the American Minutemen or even the French Resistance during World War II.
:::Probably the only reason why it's still on the list is because ultimately, it's still a film about good vs. evil, which is a conservative viewpoint. That, and possibly Ronald Reagan invoking Star Wars when denouncing the USSR as the Evil Empire.
:::As far as Beauty and the Beast, I was meaning the Disney version, not the TV series. You can read up my commentary on why it may need to be removed from the article altogether here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies#Should_Beauty_and_the_Beast_really_be_on_here.3F [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:43, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
=== I removed Star Wars ===

I removed Star Wars. See editors commentary above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:11, 20 February 2017 (EST)

:Thanks. BTW, think you can look over Beauty and the Beast and see whether it should stay or begone? It seems to have more liberal values than conservative values in there, especially given what Linda Woolverton repeatedly stated. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 14:54, 20 February 2017 (EST)
::I will remove it. As far as future edits, you can remove any movie you wish as you have good judgment and have been a productive editor for some time.

::In addition, I haven't watched a lot of movies for awhile. I just haven't liked the quality of many movies that Hollywood has put out in recent times.

::Lastly, I don't have much interest in this topic/article. I don't want to edit that article for the foreseeable future given my knowledge of recent movies and my interest level of this topics. I do realize that entertainment effects the culture though and would appreciate your edits. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:02, 20 February 2017 (EST)

:::Okay, fair enough. I'm not sure we should automatically dismiss any Disney films from being Conservative due to Disney being left-wing right now, though (which is what you implied when you removed it in the comment section). The Lion King and The Little Mermaid did push definite conservative themes in there, and I do know The Incredibles pushed very conservative ideas. And that's not even counting the three original DP movies (ie, Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty).

:::I'll also keep your suggestion about not needing to ask for permission in mind. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:10, 20 February 2017 (EST)

== Wall E duplication ==

We seem to have some disagreement as to whether Wall-E is a liberal or conservative movie. As a result, it is listed both here and [[Essay:Worst Liberal Movies]]. I'm in no position to say one way or the other, but someone should probably remove it from one list, or perhaps both, if it can't be either "greatest conservative" or "worst liberal." --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 02:33, 24 July 2016 (EDT)

== Why is the room here? ==

To me this seems to be the work of trolls.The Room is an absolutely awful film and even if it was conservative, (which it isn't, the main character has premarital sex) it cannot be considered "great" in any regard. Terrible acting, subplots that lead to nowhere, rampant sex and hedonism as well as a poorly written story. I'm starting to doubt the integrity of this page if a film of such poor constitution made it on the list of Greatest Films. If anything the film should be considered an accidental comedy.

:Sure is entertaining though. --[[User:Lord Zedd|Lord Zedd]], 11 January 2017

== The Incredibles is extremely conservative, and should not be in the debatable section ==

Recently The Incredibles, was moved to the debatable section, for one slight detail. I do not believe it should remain in this section, I believe that it should be put back in the Greatest Conservative Movies sections for many reasons. First of all it might be the most conservative animation film ever made. Second it's only reason for being debatable is very minor. Almost every film has at least one conservative and liberal aspect. Third you really have to push it, to say that the boss; Gilbert Huph is a demonization of Capitalism. Yes he is heartless, but he is just a person, and to be fair to him he does not know that Bob Parr has superhero powers, all he knows that Bob Parr is not focusing on his work, with that logic, you could argue that J. Jonah Jameson is demonization of capitalism, as he is Peter Parker's boss, and he twists the paper, and often displays Spider-man in the paper as a bad guy, (and he too is unaware of his worker's powers). Fourth one of the reasons that Gilbert Huph, tells Bob not help his costumers, is because when Bob asks if he should, Gilbert Huph tells him that "the law requires that I answer no", which in no ways a negativity on capitalism, as the government is requiring him not help people and not the business. Finally the movie does promote capitalism, as the main lesson of the movie is to shown the negativity of an enforced mediocrity, from the government, which highly mocks socialism, not capitalism.
*Okay, fair enough. Feel free to revert, I just was concerned especially when [http://pixar.wikia.com/wiki/Gilbert_Huph#Trivia Gilbert Huph's page] on Pixar Wiki made it sound as though he WAS a demonization of capitalism (and it doesn't help that Wallace Shawn was specifically mentioned to not only be the opposite of Huph, but also implied he was a socialist due to his appearing in Michael Moore's film "Capitalism: A Love Story" and being a friend of Moore). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 14:39, 10 December 2016 (EST)

== There needs to be some kind of criteria for inclusion here ==

I'd seriously like to know how so many rated "R" movies, especially slasher films like Halloween, classify as "conservative movies." It seems someone has been adding just about everything which doesn't hug trees or glorify liberalism to this list. Do any senior administrators have any objection to me removing some of these apolitical films from the list? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 12:55, 31 December 2016 (EST)

:I removed Halloween, Scarface and Saw. See paragraph below about gratuitous violence and movies.

:Biblical criteria for Christian behavior could be used since Christianity has been a very influential force in the West for an extended time. For example, the Apostle Paul says to dwell on good things. While I understand that there is violence in war movies, the is the concept of Just War in Christendom. Horror movies are just violence for entertainment sake.

:The article [[conservative]] probably would be helpful in establishing criteria too.

:One problem is just the sufficient policing of the article.

:Another problem is that there was no very dominant founder or founders of conservatism who defined what exactly what it means to be a conservative. So you have competing notions of what is truly conservative. You also have completing notions due to differing notions of what it is to be a conservative due to countries/regions having different political definitions of what it means to be a conservative. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

:Fair enough about removing Saw. I realize more or less shut down my own argument, when I said that Jigsaw was playing God. [[User:newconservative|newconservative]] ([[User talk:newconservative|talk]])
::Then most of these belong in the debatable section, because it is debatable depending on how one defines "conservative." Many of these have conservative elements, but few of them are strictly conservative. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 23:48, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

== Suggestion to remove suicide squad and zootopia. ==

I feel both should be removed for their own respective reasons. Zootopia's themes are decidedly liberal, and as critics pointed out there seems to be quite a bit of anti-Donald Trump, pro-gay subtext that I feel effectively rules this film out as "conservative.]," so to speak. While certain "conservative" themes may or may not be present, the general intent of the filmmakers have to be taken into account, and this film certainly leans to the left in that regard (still a great movie though). At the very least, I believe this should be moved to 'debatable.' I'm also quite confused to the addition of Suicide Squad. Besides the obvious fact that the received, at best, mixed critical and audience reception, the movie doesn't appear to have any sort of real political agenda aside from making money. Harley Quinn's fantasies about becoming a housewife become less inspiring when you take into a account that she's a deluded psychopath trapped in an abusive relationship with an equally insane partner who also happens to be underworld crime boss, and that the scene was more likely intended as a satirical jab at the "nuclear family" stereotype.--[[User: Lord Zedd|Lord Zedd]] 11 January 2017

== Fake news in "Pride and Prejudice" ==

Elizabeth is tricked by Mr. Wickham's lies about Mr. Darcy. This is akin to CNN and other media presenting false, disparaging information based on a single source. I won't roll back your edit, but I don't agree with it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:07, 8 July 2017 (EDT)

:I think a better way to describe it is that Wickham lied to her about Darcy. People lie all the time, including in works of fiction. Fictional stories would be much less interesting (and real life would be less interesting too!) if everyone told the complete truth. Wickham and Darcy told very different stories about each other, and Elizabeth had to decide who was telling the truth. She made the wrong decision at first.

:Elizabeth's low opinion of Darcy came from two sources, apparently equally: what Wickham said, and the fact that Darcy separated Jane from Mr. Bingley, which neither Darcy nor anyone else lied about. Elizabeth's "who's telling the truth?" instincts failed her. Darcy's cold and aloof manner contributed to this.

:I can't believe that two men are discussing ''Pride and Prejudice''! :-) :-) :-) You realize that this is a women's story, a "chick flick", right? In fact, the fact that men can't relate to the story is discussed in the movie ''You've got Mail''. But I do like the story and the BBC serialization, even if Colin Firth in wet clothing doesn't do it for me. :-) Now I guess I have to go watch a baseball game to reset my equilibrium, [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:02, 8 July 2017 (EDT)

::I daresay the notion that men can't understand a women's story is [[fake news]]. Eh, what? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:35, 8 July 2017 (EDT)

== Debatable whether conservative movies and debatable whether great movies were piles of junk ==

With the exception of Frank's Capra's classic movie ''It's a Wonderful Life'' the "Debatable whether conservative" movies and "debatable whether great" movies were piles of junk. I deleted those sections. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:21, 9 July 2017 (EDT)

:If they aren't allowed, I guess they aren't allowed. Don't know why they were created in the first place, if they weren't going to be anything more than junk. Must admit, some of them did have some conservative principles. Also, wouldn't pro-War, being the opposite of anti-War, be Conservative while the latter's more liberal? Just asking... [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:38, 9 July 2017 (EDT)
::I don't see the point of having a "Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies" and then having a big list of movies that are debatable. Newspapers don't publish "Best vacation spots" or "Best stocks to buy" and then also include a big list of debatable contenders in those type of articles.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:30, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
:::Fair point. Think we can create separate articles dealing with each debatable category? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 05:30, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
::::Go for it if you want. I don't think they will be popular articles though. It is kind of like people abandoning liberal Christianity. People want the real thing or not be bothered with it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:21, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::Well, okay, I probably won't bother with a debatable whether conservative article (as you said, most people wouldn't want an article that doesn't even deal with real and pure conservativism, like how people don't want Liberal Christianity). But I can create a "debatable whether great" article. At least those films conservative principles are not in question, just whether they are actually good films. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:01, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
These edits may be good, but they removed about 70,000 bytes of information, possibly that other editor might find useful. I am recording the edits here before they got lost in the page history. Here they are: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359742&oldid=1359725][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359743&oldid=1359742][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359744&oldid=1359743][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359746&oldid=1359744][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359748&oldid=1359747][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1359749&oldid=1359748] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:37, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

== Inside Out? ==

Other than some celebration of family unity in the end, that movie seems politically neutral to me. Who put it on the list, and why is it conservative?
--[[User:MacTavish|MacTavish]] ([[User talk:MacTavish|talk]]) 14:53, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

== Bambi ==

How exactly is Bambi pro-family? Now I am not saying that it is not, but is it conservative enough to even be the debatable section? --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 15:40, 1 September 2017 (EDT)
*Well, for starters, Bambi's mom gave her life to make sure Bambi survived when the hunter killed her. There's also the fact that the Prince and the Forest escorted both Bambi and his mom away in Man's first appearance. Plus, the Prince of the Forest, who is heavily implied to be Bambi's father, goes out of his way to save him in the climax during the forest fire. Actually, I think there's at least one other thing that makes it conservative: It also refutes the homosexual agenda with the character Flower, who is initially shown as a very effeminate skunk despite being male, yet by adulthood, he clearly is in love with a female skunk, thus being ahead of its time in proving that animals do not embrace homosexuality by nature contrary to what gay activists might claim. And to be fair, technically, "Man" is closer to a poacher than a true hunter (a true hunter does NOT target fawns or any does that are nursing fawns). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:33, 18 February 2018 (EST)

==Lion King should be labeled conservative==

There is another reason for it. It is a very good at showing why some people (like the hyenas) should be kept OUT of a country (and so isn't open borders) because they will only hurt the place (quite unlike the "let the Muslims and the illegals in" message being given today.). Furthermore, Scar's speech to the hyenas about getting even and what is owed to them could have a few words altered from "Be Prepared" and be an Obama speech. Scar essentially brings in foreigners who will back him and in exchange he gives them goodies, though, he openly admits he'll get most of them (which is true that politicians and the elite are the ones REALLY benefiting from open borders.). What the hyenas get is, presumably, the lionesses to get all the food for them and deplete the food supply and turn the ones great Pride Lands into a ruin (a great picture of what the Democrats and open borders are doing to America!) and, then, when things get low, kinda like Venezuela, he coldly tells his own hyena allies to "eat Zazu" (they don't do it, luckily) when they are hungry. And he even sells out his own allies, blaming them for Scar's death, when it is convenient for him (just like the Left), a move that, ironically, leads to his own demise. All in all, I think the movie has a very anti-open borders message, something that is needed nowadays! [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:45, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

Note, I don't know about Lion Guard, the latest TV Series with Lion King, if it's conservative (it's probably not with Iger at the helm). I do know that the statement that Timon and Pumba are gay, which I've seen going around, is false. Timon had a girlfriend in one the Timon and Pumba TV Series episodes. What caused him to leave is that he could never see Pumba again, and Pumba was his best friend and the meerkat village was bigoted against warthogs. (Also, his girlfriend could have come with him if she loved him enough, but she didn't, so it's HER fault then.) However, that said, I would NOT be surprised if Iger made Timon and Pumba gay in the upcoming Lion King live action. (After the gay LeFou, I wouldn't put it past him.) [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:45, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

Also, I do think Finding Nemo and Finding Dory are conservative. Ellen DeGeneres at least makes a good Dory, if not a human being. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:45, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

:I'll make sure to note the bit about it being anti-open borders on The Lion King's entry.

:So far as Lion Guard and/or The Lion King With Timon & Pumbaa, that's better fit with [[Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows]], so you might want to note that bit there.

:As far as Finding Nemo and Finding Dory, Finding Nemo is definitely already listed on here. I'll see if I can list Finding Dory on here (though given that it's technically a retread of Finding Nemo due to being a sequel, I'm not sure if it qualifies as truly great.). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:06, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

I believe that Finding Dory should be considered great, despite being a sequel. There are other sequels on this list that are considered great. Plus it got great reviews and is the fourth highest grossing animated film of all time. --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 10:25, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

:Okay, point taken. Moved it. May need an expansion, though. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:31, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

:BTW, Speaking of Iger and Lion King and gays, I just uncovered something very interesting. Turns out, the oft-reported bit about how LeFou was gay in the movie, according to Josh Gad, [https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2017/03/03/josh-gad-lefou-beauty-and-the-beast/98679284/ wasn't even in the actual script for the film], which strongly suggests that the whole "gay promotion" thing was on the part of the producers like Bill Condon mouthing off and not the actual film itself (and may also imply that the brief scene with Stanley and LeFou was an ad-lib added in by Condon.). Not that this is at all a good thing because it isn't, but in that light, we can probably assume that the script at least didn't intend to promote the gay agenda. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:47, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

==What about the Movie "Up"?==

It's kinda borderline. It does promote faithfulness in marriage and other good traits. The beginning part of them trying to force him out of his house could be considered anti-capitalism, but, on the other hand, eminent domain was only supposed to be used for public use, but it appeared that some company wanted the land and he wasn't willing to sell so they went and tried to make him look like he was getting senile or something so they could take him away and use his land, which is little better than the government doing the same to someone with the EPA and they, like the Obamacare panels, ruled him a burden on society rather than a human being with value. Also, it could possibly have an environmental theme, as they did try to save a rare bird. On the other hand, with the kind of brain to develop the talking device for the dogs, Mentz could have done other things with his life than spend all of those years trying to get that bird and be willing to take her away from her children. Also, I don't think the movie is really anti-capitalistic as it was left open if Mentz was good or bad until the moment he went after the bird and even went so far as to try and kill Russel and Fredrickson to do it. Also, on the other hand, Fredrickson was a sort of father figure to Russel as his father was never around. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 20:15, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

"Up" is actually on this list, you do make some good points on the film being borderline. Yes, they try to save the bird, but it's not really in an environmental way, it's more in a human saving a pet way as Russell found this specific bird, and he was saving that bird because it was like his friend, not because it was an endangered bird. Plus Mentz was almost like a poacher, so I do really think the film could be considered environmental. --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 21:12, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

==I think All Dogs Go to Heaven should be removed==

I don't know why All Dogs Go to Heaven is on here. Generally I'd put all of the Don Bluth works on here, but this one is the EXCEPTION, due to the fact that pretty much all scoundrels (Charlie, Itchy, Car Face, etc) are able to get into heaven and the concept of damnation is pretty much an afterthought. Now if Charlie had reformed at the end of the first movie, that would be one thing, but apparently, in the sequel, he's back to his old ways again. All in all, it's generally not good if the "hero" of your story is little better morally than your villain. Also, it does send the liberal message that you can do whatever the heck you want in life and there are no consequences for it (save that Car Face finally got his at the end of the second movie, though Charlie kept getting breaks for his bad behavior.) [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 23:47, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

I am confused are you saying that is not good if the hero is more moral than the villain? --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 00:09, 14 October 2017 (EDT)

The opposite. I'm saying it's not good if the hero is little more moral than the villain. Now, it would be one thing if the hero was more of an antihero and learned their lesson at the end and changed and became better in the sequels, but that's not the case with Charlie. If anything, we could argue he was even worse in a way in the sequel. (In the first movie, the most damage he did was to himself, but in the second movie, his actions allowed one of the devil creatures to imprison most of the dogs in dog heaven and his actions were more selfish than noble that led him to giving away that horn. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 21:43, 14 October 2017 (EDT)

==I think the Princess and the Frog deserves a chance===

Here is another reason: the portrayal of Tiana's father. While Lotti's (I think that's her name) father spoils her rotten, Tiana's father teaches her the value of hard work, that love is more important than money or possessions, was the one who inspired her to open her own restaurant (it was her father's dream and she finished what he started after he died) and he was in the military and was killed in action in WWI (good portrayal of the military in this movie). You don't often see the father portrayed in a good light in Disney movies, or, indeed, many modern movies in general. Triton seemed always to always be holding Arial back, Aladdin's father Kassim was the King of Thieves and had abandoned him and his his mother to go after the Hand of Midas, (Mufasa was good to Simba, I admit, but, then again, Lion King was listed as conservative on this list), Marlin, albeit too paranoid, was good (but Finding Nemo was also on this list), Lilo's parents weren't around in Lilo and Stitch (though they both died in some accident I think), Russel's father wasn't really around for him in Up, we never see Andy's father in Toy Story (only his mother and sister) (Heck, we don't see Sid's father either and we only see the mother of Jessie's former owner, never her father, so apparently fathers were unimportant in Toy Story (yeah, I know it's about the toys, not the people, but that still is disturbing if you look at it.), etc.

Come to think of it, that is a good argument against the claim that Princess and the Frog is a feminist movie. It was also later stated by Dr. Facilier that Tiana's father would sometimes do double and triple shifts to try and aim for his planned restaurant, yet he always made sure, despite being bone tired, to find time for his family.

Also, another thing to consider is Lottie, though spoiled, rich, and white, she is NOT a villain, but was actually the one who bought a lot of stuff (admittedly with daddy's money) to help Tiana get enough money for her restaurant. (They even said so in the director's commentary that she was designed that way.). That's another thing that makes the film anti-liberal. If it'd been a liberal film, Lottie and her father would have been villainous jerks, not supporting good guys.

Also, lest someone bring in that the film's agenda is racist, it should be noted that it appears that the film's villain, Dr. Facilier, is darker skinned (not quite black, but not white either).

Also, I might add that originally, Louis the alligator, was going to be a human turned into an alligator by Dr. Facilier, but the plot was dropped on that part. However, that said, Lois the alligator and Ray the firefly (who actually died fighting Facilier), were also portrayed in a good light and not as incompetent. That is another strike against it being a feminist movie. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:27, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

Also, I might add that Tiana and Naveen do seem more like a reasonable couple. Naveen is lazy and rich. Tiana, though poor and hardworking, perhaps is quite possibly going over the line on working TOO hard, as even her own mother points out to her. And she never bothers to spend time with her friends as she's always busy working. In the end, Naveen becomes less lazy and Tiana learns to have fun once in a while. If it was a more feminist film by the way, it would have Tiana remain the same while Naveen became less lazy. However, Naveen changed Tiana too for the better. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:34, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

:Even King Triton at least was willing to trade his freedom for Ariel's when push came to shove, so he wasn't all that bad (I'd argue Sultan and to a lesser extent Maurice got far more raw of a deal, TBH). I'm still not sure about Louisiana Voodoo being treated in a positive light though. We probably could move it to Debatable, IF Aschlafly allows it. Ultimately, he has the final say since he was the one who had it be designated liberal in the first place. And personally, even with the whole restaurant bit, Tiana came across as less feminist than Belle did in Beauty and the Beast. Plus, it's actually one of the few Disney feature movies that DOESN'T demonize marriage outright (and the first Disney Princess feature movie to actually treat traditional marriage in a positive light since The Little Mermaid two decades prior), so that's probably another aspect pointing to it being conservative. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:54, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

I think that even one movie you called conservative (Lion King 2: Simba's Pride) could be considered feminist. Both the central protagonist (Kiara) and the central antagonist (Zira) are females and generally seem to be portrayed to be the most competent. On the flip side, the only male, other than Rafiki of course, portrayed in a good light was Kovu (and he was originally bad but turned good when he fell in love with Kiara. Also, after being unjustly banished, Kovu suggested that they run away together and escape their problems. It was Kiara who suggested that they go back and stop the fighting. Again, another arguement that Lion King 2: Simba's Pride could be labeled feminist.). (Also, I might add that poor Nunca was allowed to be neglected, try and take out Simba to get Zira's love, and die trying. Vitani, on the other hand, was allowed to live to see Zira for what she was and to be able to get redemption.) Even Simba was portrayed as a father who just didn't seem to want what's best for his daughter (however, to Simba's defense, I don't recall Nala having that many lines at all in Lion King 2). If Lion King 2 can be labeled conservative, so should The Princess and the Frog. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 23:57, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

:To be fair regarding Simba, he actually DID have a valid point considering the Outlanders had served Scar earlier (and quite frankly, he's still an A-Okay Dad overall compared to Maurice and Sultan (who many times actually NEEDED rescuing by their daughters and usually don't succeed in saving their daughters even once. Not to mention more than once were largely depicted as doofuses.), or ESPECIALLY King Stefan from Maleficent). Besides, not all females were depicted as being good or even redeemable in the film. Zira most certainly wasn't. But yeah, like I said, we probably should wait for Aschlafly's response, since he's the one who decreed it a worst liberal film in the first place. For that matter, I'll see what Asclafly's response regarding Simba's Pride is. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:20, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

==I think Hacksaw Ridge should be removed from debatable==

While the film's main protagonist is against the practice of killing and the handling of a weapon (attributed because of his strong faith) the film at no point espouses gun control. At worst, it espouses gun ownership preference, as the film does take time to demonstrate and explain the necessity for firearms and killing in accordance with war. Hacksaw ridge was based on the real life of Desmond Doss and to change that aspect of his character would invoke historical revisionism and strike face of his moral christian beliefs. --[[User:AirForceMan92|AirForceMan92]] ([[User talk:AirForceMan92|talk]]) 01:36, 1 November 2017 (EDT)

== TV specials go under Movies or TV Shows? ==

Hi.

I was thinking of adding in some TV specials of various conservative and liberal stripes (and will go in the respective articles). However, I need to know, where do TV specials best qualify? Are they movies, or TV shows? I know made-for-TV movies are best placed here, but I'm not sure about TV specials. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:02, 11 December 2017 (EST)

That is a tough one, I know we have A Charlie Brown Christmas listed here. But Perhaps to avoid confusion on the TV Shows page, we could add another section labeled "TV Specials." Also maybe we should add A Charlie Brown Christmas to that section as well. --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 16:47, 11 December 2017 (EST)

:Yeah, that might work. For now, I added various specials on the animated films section here. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:57, 11 December 2017 (EST)

I fixed it and added a TV Specials section because they really belong in the TV page not the Movie Page. [[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 14:44, 15 December 2017 (EST)

:Fine by me. Seemed odd that they'd be here anyways. BTW, speaking of TV specials, should ''[https://youtu.be/S3a5j8PgQxg The Star Wars Holiday Special]'' go under Greatest Conservative TV shows or Worst Liberal TV shows? I'm tempted to put it under the latter due to Itchy basically... well, let's just say he ends up doing something EXTREMELY inappropriate in front of his own family, ESPECIALLY considering the family nature of the special. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:00, 15 December 2017 (EST)

That I do not know I have never seen the movie. [[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 15:09, 15 December 2017 (EST)

== Home Alone 2 a critical failure? ==

Home Alone 2 was recently moved into the debatable whether great section for being a critical failure, but I do not believe this is true. I believe both the original and the sequel have gained popularity throughout the years and became cult classics. Yes, it recycles the same format, but it introduces new characters, new jokes, and some other new situations. If anything its the sequels after the second film, that are debatable whether great. [[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 15:41, 12 December 2017 (EST)

:Thank you for saying that. Tell that to MacTavish if he changes it again. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 18:35, 28 December 2017 (EST)

::I also lean towards keeping it out of the "debatable" section, but I'm open to counter-arguments. I haven't thoroughly thought it through, so I could be missing something.
::I thought it was cute how they made it obvious that it was a play on the first, and added too it. (i.e. rather than just two paint cans at the stairs, it was those then a pipe. If you have the extended version, he also cuts the rope, dropping the pipe on them afterwards.) I think it was their intention to play on and too the first. Doing that with the third might have been pushing it, but they didn't. In the fourth, I think they went too far in the other direction, and made it too different. It didn't have the same creative flair as in its prequels. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:06, 28 December 2017 (EST)

==Correction on Alladdin 3==

I think that whoever wrote that article calling Alladin's father the main villain didn't really pay much attention to the movie. Even a casual watching of the movie would show that Saluk (and perhaps, to a lesser extent, the other thieves) was the actual villain. At worst, Kassim was like Iago in Return of Jafar, more like an anti-hero who couldn't be quite called good or bad. (Heck Iago isn't perfect in this one here as he helps Kassim try to steal the Oracle.) --Unsigned comment by [[User:PatriotMongoose]]

:I know, and I did actually watch the film pretty closely as a kid (and yes, Iago does help steal the Oracle as well, I can confirm that), but Cassim technically was the central antagonist to the story since a large part of the story involved Aladdin trying to redeem him. Think of it like the Original Trilogy of Star Wars. Technically, Palpatine was the main antagonist of the three films, but the central antagonist was Darth Vader, the one who gets the most screentime and played a large prominent role in the overall plot. That's what the edit was trying to convey. I'll reword it to "central antagonist" rather than "main antagonist" since that's more accurate. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:29, 17 December 2017 (EST)

== Where does RoboCop fit on the spectrum? ==

It's pro-law and order, anti-crime and anti-drugs. But it's also anti-capitalism with the way OCP is represented and its creators are very liberal.

== Songs of the South ==

Hi.

I was thinking of adding the movie Songs of the South by Disney (which unfortunately thanks to race-baiters can't be watched other than via bootleg, which is a shame, as Uncle Remus actually seemed like a very good role model for his race), which effectively acted as an adaptation of the Uncle Remus stories. Problem is, I'm not entirely sure where to place it due to the split between live-action and animated films. After all, Songs of the South technically has elements of both, so I can't exactly place it in one category only. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:12, 30 October 2018 (EDT)

== Some suggestions ==

A suggestion:
- '''The Aviator''' (2004) - yes, it is directed by Martin Scorsese, whose films are often quite violent and include a lot of profanity, but this film is almost entirely free of both and seems to advance a conservative agenda. It is a biopic that lauds the life of Howard Hughes (a Republican and supporter of Richard Nixon), portraying him as exemplifying American values of commerce, vision and entrepreneurialism. Hughes is a tragic figure who struggles with mental illness, obsessive-compulsive disorder and politically-motivated and fabricated allegations of war profiteering (which were levied against him by the corrupt senator Owen Brewster, who was formerly associated with the Ku Klux Klan). Despite never overcoming his mental illness, Hughes does manage to expose Brewster's corruption and double-dealing - a victory for an individualist, capitalist entrepreneur against bureaucratic government authority and cronyism. The film also portrays left-wing actress Katherine Hepburn in a negative light, ironically juxtaposing her belief in socialism with the luxurious life she enjoys in the New York 'jet set' (a 'champagne socialist'), and depicting how she treats Hughes coldly and abandons him when his obsessive-compulsive disorder worsens. - [[User:LibertyMatters]] 17:29, 06 November 2018 (GMT)

In fact, I have a couple more suggestions now:
- '''The Hunt for Red October''' (1990) - an atmospheric and tense thriller about a Soviet naval captain trying to defect to America during the Cold War. The film overall has a very positive view of America as an oasis of freedom, with the Soviet officers desperate to escape the totalitarian communist police state - one of the Soviets is surprised when he learns that in America, unlike in Soviet Russia, one is allowed to travel between states, a vivid illustration of just how repressive the USSR must have been. Based on a thriller by conservative author Tom Clancy.

- '''Inception''' (2010) - Christopher Nolan, who directed this well-received science fiction film about lucid dreaming, is considered one of the most conservative Hollywood directors (he directed the war film Dunkirk, which already appears on this list). Inception at first appears a completely apolitical film, but some reviewers have pointed out a subtle but definite Christian allegory at play here.

Buckle up, because this one - as befits a complex film - is a complicated one. But I really don't think I'm reading more into it than is actually there, and plenty of people have pointed this out. Spoilers are very much coming up, too, as a warning.

A quick précis of the plot - Cobb, the main character, is an 'extractor', who performs corporate espionage by attempting to infiltrate the subconscious of targets while they are dreaming and extract information. He has been hired by Saito, an unscrupulous businessman, to perform an act of 'inception' - placing the germ of an idea in someone's subconsciousness. In return, Saito will clear Cobb of a (false) murder charge and allow him to come back home to his children in America.

To embed an idea in someone's subconsciousness, it requires creating a 'dream within a dream within a dream' and embedding the idea deep within the bottom layer so that the person will not reject it as foreign. The way to wake up from a deeper dream layer into the one above it is to die in that layer (the idea that we have to die to wake up should suggest where this might be going). But there is also the possibility of getting lost in 'limbo' - a world so deep in the subconscious that the dreamer can construct the entire world with their own mind, and risks forgetting they are in a dream at all. Cobb, as is revealed later on, was once trapped in limbo with his now-deceased wife Mal, who spent years in limbo (the equivalent of hours in the real world) constructing a world out of their own memories.

The film opens with a shot of a fake vision of Cobb's children in Limbo, who are building sandcastles on a beach. It ends with a shot of Cobb reunited with his real children, James and Philippa (both named after Christian apostles), who, in the final line of dialogue in the film, say that they are building a house 'on the cliff.' Some reviewers have puzzled over the meaning of this line. To me, it's pretty clear. The film is bracketed by the two halves of the parable of the wise and foolish builders (Matthew 7:24).

What does this mean in context? It means that limbo is identified with the mortal world, where the foolish builders construct their lives on materialism rather than faith. In limbo, people have the power to use their imagination to make the world whatever they want it to be, as Cobb and Mal did for years - but none of it is real, it is just a figment of the subconscious. Near the end of the film, Cobb encounters a subconscious projection of Mal (malevolent?), who tries to persuade him to stay with her in limbo - not on the grounds that it is real, but that "you don't believe in anything anymore." Cobb rejects this materialistic relativism, in favour of an affirmation in the objective reality that his children do exist in the real world, 'up above' - in other words, he repudiates the temptation to live in a faithless world where mankind sets himself up as all-powerful and can build whatever he wants, instead having faith in the idea that there's something more real and meaningful than this.

The film is thus metaphorical. Cobb starts as essentially a glorified thief, obsessed with the idea of 'buying his way home' back to his children through his deal with Saito. Having failed to get his way into heaven (which, for him, is a return to his children) this way, he takes a leap of faith. He rejects Mal's temptation, refuses to use violence against a character who betrays the team, and risks his life to save that of Saito (who is in danger of getting lost in limbo). After this act of self-sacrifice, he dives into a river (a metaphorical baptism promising both death and rebirth), wakes up in reality on a plane, passes through immigration and customs (a metaphorical judgment of one's sins), is reunited with his father-in-law and finally returns to an Eden-like garden where his children are waiting for him. Whether this is intended to be a literal journey to heaven or a more metaphorical spiritual experience, the symbolism is all pretty clear. Once more, we end with the dialogue of constructing a house on the cliff - on the real and tangible substance of faith, a line that makes no sense without being viewed in a Christian context.

Christianity is admittedly not synonymous with conservatism, but I think the religious metaphor of this film is something conservatives would tend to appreciate. There is plenty more symbolism, which is summarised best in this article:
http://popupchinese.com/Inception.pdf
If we pop this one on the list it might be better to link to the article as this takes so long to explain. But I thought I'd lay out all the reasoning for you.

[[User:LibertyMatters]] 23:14, 10 November 2018 (GMT)

== Letters From Iwo Jima ==

I've been thinking about putting letters from Iwo Jima on one of these lists. If you truly understand it, it is a film that, while it paints the rank-and-file Japanese field soldier in a sympathetic light, it depicts the higher Japanese leadership in a negative light. For instance, it depicts Japan's "Kenpeitai" (the Japanese equivalent of the Russian Commissars) in a very negative light. The impression given by the movie is that young Japanese men are being drafted against their will to fight in a war that they don't understand. With all of the anti-war films that Hollywood makes, I think this one is different in that it shows the terrible battlefield conditions faced by the country that actually really started the war in the first place. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 01:14, 24 December 2018 (EST)

== Ace Ventura: Pet Detective Not Great? ==

Should Ace Ventura Pet Detective really be in the debatable if great section? It is one of my favorites, it was moved there for its crude behavior and because it stars liberal Jim Carrey, but there are other movies on this list, with crude behavior and other Jim Carrey movies.
--[[User:SaltLakeCityLover|SaltLakeCityLover]] ([[User talk:SaltLakeCityLover|talk]]) 10:06, 7 June 2019 (EDT)

I think it's definitely conservative (in fact, given how Pixar is going Left, it may be the LAST conservative one they ever make as they've fallen a long way from the conservative days of Toy Story and A Bugs Life)) but it also has a weak storyline and was Pixar's first box office disappointment. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 15:15, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
:Wait, I don't see how Ace Ventura has anything to do with Pixar. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:55, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

Okay, I am going to move it back.
--[[User:SaltLakeCityLover|SaltLakeCityLover]] ([[User talk:SaltLakeCityLover|talk]]) 12:01, 4 January 2020 (EST)

==A mild concern about a Dog's Purpose and a similar recent film (also mostly conservative), The Art of Racing in the Rain (2019)==

Both of them seem to promote reincarnation. In A Dog's Purpose, Bailey comes back as several other dogs (including a female, once, which I wondered if it was a subtle transgender reference). In Art of Racing in the Rain, Enzo dies (off screen) at the end and, per his long time desire, appears to have come back as a human boy named Enzo. I'm just wondering if these movies are secretly pushing Hinduism or that mentality. I suppose every film has it's questionable elements, though. Otherwise two good movies.

[[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:52, 28 August 2019 (EDT)

==Batman V Superman and Zack Snyder's Justice League==
As these movies are sequels to Man of Steel, and have been considered as righ-wing for some of the themes touched. Here are some articles about it:

https://www.filminquiry.com/zack-snyder-master-right-wing-propaganda/

https://elamerican.com/zack-snyders-justice-league-is-not-the-leftist-justice-league-anymore/

--[[User:Davidurso2d|Davidurso2d]] ([[User talk:Davidurso2d|talk]]) 11:04, January 30, 2022 (EST)

== Jesus (1979) ==
I'm quite surprised that nobody has mentioned the 1979 film adaptation of the Gospel of Luke. It is a very good flick about the Christ, in my opinion, definitely better than overly violent The Passion of the Christ (2004), so maybe we should mention this movie on the list.

== The Little Mermaid (1989) ==

I took it off of “Greatest Conservative Animated films” and put it in debatable wether liberal due to the fact it promotes feminism and rebellion. Also, if lyricist Howard Ashman being a homosexual, and having that kind of theme in The Mob Song in Beauty and the Beast was enough to knock into debatable, why is The Little Mermaid getting a pass with Part of Your World?<ref>https://www.pride.com/movies/2019/7/08/little-mermaid-was-originally-metaphor-unrequited-gay-love</ref> {{Unsigned|Admiral Farmer}}
:It appears to be a deletion of nearly 1,000 words or so, when I look at the [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay%3AGreatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=1866478&oldid=1859023 difference in the history]. Why not let the readers decide?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:15, June 18, 2022 (EDT)
::Admiral Farmer should provide citations for any of these claims, otherwise he's just arguing with the air. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 18:27, June 18, 2022 (EDT)

:First of all, Admiral Farmer, the issue with The Mob Song in Beauty and the Beast was not the fact that Howard Ashman was homosexual in and of itself, it's that [https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/03/beauty-and-the-beast-gay-lefou-howard-ashman he specifically wrote the song as a way to essentially lash out against the anti-AIDS thing by inferring society discriminates AIDS victims out of ignorance due to his impending death (gee, I don't recall society ostracizing that virgin girl who got AIDS from a dentist routine by her AIDS-succumbing doctor. If anything, they were downright sympathetic to her and rightfully disgusted with the dentist in question who gave it to her as a way of lashing out over his having it.)]. So far as I know, there's literally no agenda for The Little Mermaid outside of trying to ensure audiences sympathized with Ariel. A better comparison would be more Part of Your World and Little Town development wise (and the latter definitely had some demeaning of small town values by some choice lyrics of Belle). You need specifically stated authorial intent regarding whether or not something's conservative or liberal in outlook, and there's nothing pointing to either regarding Part of Your World in other words (case in point, the audiences might think the Rebel Alliance from Star Wars was modeled after the American Minutemen, yet George Lucas made explicit that he modeled the Rebels after the Vietcong, and if anything, the characters actually modeled after America in any way was the Empire).
:Second of all, I'm not so sure The Little Mermaid truly promotes rebellion, since the one time Ariel actually rebelled willingly (NOT as a spur of the moment thing like the shipwreck exploration bit or even surfacing to Eric's ship, but calculatively decided to do so) it nearly ended in disaster, and Ariel ended up having to spend the climax cleaning up her mess (and even regarding the willing part, she was also shown throughout the deal to be extremely reluctant to even go through with it in the first place). Even if it DID promote rebellion, that's not necessarily a liberal aspect to the film, nor for that matter is it conservative, it's effectively neutral and literally depends on what the actual motivations are for rebellion. Using that argument, we could just as easily argue the [[White Rose Rebellion]] and the [[Vendee Rebellion]] are liberal/leftist if rebellion itself is a liberal trait regardless of motivations, not to mention our own country of America would be deemed irredeemably leftist under that argument, and even you'd realize that is just insane.
:Third of all, regarding feminism, Ariel wanted to marry a guy, and she also wanted to live life as a human, presumably adopting their cultural aspects INCLUDING most likely being a housewife in the end. Not to mention Prince Eric was depicted in an awesome light, including when Ariel was abducted going out of his way and risking his life to rescue her, and even King Triton even at his worst at least was depicted as actually giving a darn for his daughter, ultimately wanting to do what's best for her, and ultimately chose to sacrifice himself to save her, with his daughter returning the favor by cleaning up her mess alongside Eric and stopping Ursula, so I really fail to see how that is a promotion of feminism (at most, it might promote Suffragette-style feminism, which is surprisingly conservative in outlook due to it actually being against abortificants). In fact, the only character who actually DOES give feminist talking points (namely, claiming men only care for a woman's looks and cannot stand them even speaking at all) is the main villain, Ursula, meaning it if anything was a condemnation of feminism, not a promotion, since obviously someone who is the villain isn't intended by the story to be agreed with (not to mention, you know, the fact that she specifically was LYING about that bit in order to trick Ariel into giving up the one thing that might allow Eric to identify her). Oh, and the one who made those statements was female, not male, meaning it's obviously a different situation from, say, Gaston making similar comments in Beauty and the Beast, where in THAT case, Linda Woolverton obviously was trying to make the case that was indeed true and pushing an agenda even if he was the villain.
:One last thing, the article you posted a link to overall from what little I COULD gather from summaries on places such as Bing, (couldn't read the entire one on the site itself because it required a privacy statement, and I have ZERO intention of consenting to that since I'm straight. Would have gone with Cached if such was available.) was specifically talking about the original Hans Christian Andersen book, NOT the Disney film (they even specifically mentioned Ariel marrying the prince and exposing the sea witch was a stark change in the film). Meaning you're literally talking about the wrong version (not that I'm going to claim one way or another if the Hans Christian Andersen version was a gay metaphor or not. The only thing that's certain is that he modeled it after an unrequited crush. I've heard differing versions that he also was writing specifically regarding an unrequited crush on a woman). At most, the Hans Christian Andersen version of the story was the one that's debatable whether Conservative (heck, it's debatable as to whether it was even an actual promotion of homosexuality since Andersen originally intended to have her flat out die and enter oblivion. He actually tacked on a semi-happy ending where she became a daughter of the air later on.), and is a better fit for the Greatest Conservative Books/Worst Liberal Books page. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:12, June 21, 2022 (EDT)

Okay. Maybe this should be viewed to make my point. https://www.bitchute.com/video/EXfOh2xYPIez/ [[User:Admiral_Farmer|Admiral_Farmer]]

:I'll try to watch it on my phone later (right now, I'm playing DOAXVV, and since it's in Japanese, I can't turn on the sound). But as far as anti-feminist, if it promotes the institution of marriage and doesn't demonize it as a woman's worst nightmare, if it treats the male characters respectfully and not as weaklings or idiots or monsters (heck, both times Eric needed saving, he did a VERY badass thing like risking his life to save his dog, or heck, saved Ariel from being killed by Ursula), if it doesn't promote at the very least the idea that men think of women as inherently inferior and are specifically demonized in the storyline for it [and no, having the villain claim such doesn't count, ESPECIALLY if said villain was a woman herself and doing so specifically to try and lie to the protagonist for her own ends], as far as I can tell, it's anti-feminist, period (the closest it's going to go for feminism is the Susan B. Anthony model). Heck, the fact that certain film critics specifically DENOUNCED Ariel as being "cloyingly sexist" simply for even GOING for Eric at all was [https://www.cbr.com/movie-legends-revealed-the-feminist-origins-of-disneys-beauty-and-the-beast/ precisely the reason] why Jeffrey Katzenberg hired the likes of [[Linda Woolverton]] and did a radical rewrite of Beauty and the Beast, all SPECIFICALLY to ensure it had enough of a feminist twist to appease those critics, and what do you know, Woolverton bashed Ariel by saying that unlike her or her predecessors, Belle didn't focus on love, marriage, or "sat around and waited for her prince to come" not to mention had Belle basically hating the very idea of marriage even in the 1991 film with the film demonizing it to such an extent that in the one instance a wedding was shown, we're expected to ROOT for Belle when she shoves Gaston into a mud pool, most if not all of the guys, even the ones the story specifically WANTS us to sympathize with like Maurice or the Beast, being treated like complete and total crap, and all of that. That tells me ALL I need to know as to whether The Little Mermaid is feminist or not (if they had to rewrite Beauty and the Beast to be more feministic and borderline misandric specifically to ensure the critics don't complain about the lead character being cloyingly sexist like they did with Ariel, it clearly wasn't feminist, period). And personally, I'd rather go by what the actual creators say on the matter rather than what fans claim since sometimes us fans can be gravely mistaken (if we go by fan views, we'd think the Rebel Alliance was the American Minutemen and that George Lucas must have been promoting America, when in reality it was the exact opposite, they were meant to be the Vietcong and that the actual Americans were supposed to be the Galactic Empire). If you've got comments by one of the guys who produced the film stating it was feminist (and just so we're clear, when I say "feminist", I specifically mean something in the vein of something like Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, or heck, even that old lady from Britain who was a marxist and huge feminist. And as an additional bit, make sure their comments are based on their development notes, just to make sure they aren't trying to puff themselves like Lucas's claims about always intending for Greedo to shoot first despite his shooting script making clear it was Han who shot first. And yes, I do intend to do the same thing myself with Beauty and the Beast. Actually, I was planning on doing exactly that two years ago by going to the SGA archives and researching Linda Woolverton's various drafts and notes for BATB when going to a wedding in California for my cousin twice-removed. Unfortunately, those plans alongside the wedding itself ended up cancelled after the COVID lockdowns.), THEN we can consider moving it. But not a second too soon. That's also why I DIDN'T add in, say, the claim that Belle may become a Jacobin down the line in Beauty and the Beast or that the film ultimately promotes the French Revolution. That may be my suspicions, but unless directly stated by the writers of the film, and not just in interviews, but also in their development notes, they're not confirmed. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:59, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::tl;dr. Are you guys really into gay sex? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 16:41, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
:::Not really. But I attempted to check the article he linked to just to make sure I got all his arguments down to see if there was anything requiring a rebuttal. Since it required to agreeing to a privacy acceptance, I rejected it, and had to contend myself with brief blurbs. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:08, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::::Oh. Just wunderin what woke you up from hibernation to spend more time discussing ''The Little Mermaid'' than most adults on the planet ever spent watching the movie. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 18:52, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
:::::Well, for starters, Ariel was one of my influences regarding my actually trying to overcome my autism. And I didn't appreciate seeing someone try to decry it as a liberal movie. And for the record, I was actually attracted to Ariel as a teen. That's more than enough to tell me I'm straight. Either way, I'm planning on going back to hibernation from this site, not much I can do after what you did to it anyways. We got away from Wikipedia for this!? This is NOT the Conservapedia I joined years back. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:09, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::::::TMI. Rest well, my friend. Looking forward to the next time you get all excited about gay sex and come out of hibernation again. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 19:30, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::Ugh... I'm NOT excited for gay sex (actually, to be honest, it repulses me, sickens me, ESPECIALLY the male male stuff. And considering that we've got too many sexuality swaps as of late by insecure people like Greg Berlanti, I if anything have a massive hatred of homosexuality right now for wrecking too many characters.), I was literally taking a peek on this site trying to find something Andy Schlafly wrote that I needed mom to look at regarding the Bible and [[Essay:Adultress Story|a certain story]] in there when I stumbled upon this topic in the watchlist. In fact, I only brought up the whole gay element at all specifically to address Farmer's comment about it somehow being tied to homosexuality and citing a freaking article on it. Just so you know, the only thing I get excited for are the opposite sex, Females in my case. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:42, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::God bless you for that. One other thing: you don't want to round up all the gays on the planet and shoot them like you do the communists, do you? Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 19:48, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::I'd rather not regarding the gays. The only thing I WILL say, however, is that I MAY be required to do drastic measures if push comes to shove (not killing them, but definitely something I may end up regretting later). To give a hint, lesbian vampires, show that as a metaphor for what that truly is, try to ensure that despite the graphics, the people are horrified, not aroused, especially not the kids (we've already got gay agenda pushing in the likes of Lightyear and Arthur, not to mention Supergirl and the Arrowverse as a whole, so it's at this point do or die.). Besides, unlike Communists, you can do reparative therapy for gays, so it's not like you even need to go to that extreme anyways (unlike with Communists, who even those guys are too much of a risk at feigning conversion to take down Christianity. Just look at Pope Francis for example). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:57, June 21, 2022 (EDT)

== Treasure Planet (2002) ==

I added it to “Debatable Wether Great” due to the values shown in it, but also noting it failed at the Box Office. It’s also a shame no one talks about it.

==What does demonology have to do with conservativism==
? [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&curid=38288&diff=1867152&oldid=1866761] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Z+]] 16:44, June 21, 2022 (EDT)