Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1
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

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!--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?--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.--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. --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. --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. --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.--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.--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). PatriotMongoose (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2017 (EDT)


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? Fnarrow 11:07, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

Not quite sure as to how this portrays a 'conservative message' of any kind. --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.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. 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. 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. 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. --Wayfinder 19:56, 3 November 2011 (EDT)


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. 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. 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. --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.--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. --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.--Andy Schlafly 18:48, 28 November 2010 (EST)
P.S. Your suggestion of "The Lives of Others" is a fine addition. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 19:02, 28 November 2010 (EST)

No problem. Keep up the good work. --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? --Benp 18:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)

Sounds good to me ... please add it as you think best!--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. --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. --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. : --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. :) Conservative (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2017 (EDT)


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. --AlejandroH 23:03, 10 March 2011 (EST)

Feel free to post this with the caveat you mention. Thanks for explaining it.--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. Nate 00:51, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
Thanks, I posted it. --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. --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.--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. 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.--Andy Schlafly 16:26, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
Added. 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'. 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. 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.--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 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???--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? 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.--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? 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.--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. 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, 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.--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? 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.--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. 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. 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). 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. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2019 (EST)


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? 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.--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. 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. --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: [1]

Thanks for your comments. I'll move "Dark Knight" to the debatable category as you suggest.--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. --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. --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. 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. 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.--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. NickP 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

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


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. 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.--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? 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 [2] --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. --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. 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?--GOPFan2011 23:52, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

Batman 3

This review [3] calls "The Dark Knight Rises" a conservative film which compares the Occupy movement to the ill-fated French Revolution. --Ed Poor Talk 21:04, 23 July 2012 (EDT)


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. --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.

--JohnJustice 23:32, 9 February 2013 (EST)

I still believe the three above should be included. --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. SamHB 22:42, 3 June 2015 (EDT)

Bee Movie

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


I thought 187 should be on this list --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?--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. --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.--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. --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. --David B (TALK) 09:40, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

Star Wars conservative?


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). Pokeria1 08:07, 5 June 2015 (EDT)

Reopening the page


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. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

Unlocked as requested. Thanks for asking.--Andy Schlafly (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). Pokeria1 (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

Should Beauty and the Beast really be on here?


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: There are more than a few 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 Disney Comics and 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 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. 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? --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. --David B (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. --David B (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. --David B (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. 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? 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. --David B (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:
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: Pokeria1 (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

I removed Star Wars

I removed Star Wars. See editors commentary above. 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. 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. 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. 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." --David B (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. --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 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). 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? 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. 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. 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. 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.--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. --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, 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? ;-) --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. 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... 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.Conservative (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
Fair point. Think we can create separate articles dealing with each debatable category? 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. 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. 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: [4][5][6][7][8][9] --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? --MacTavish (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2017 (EDT)


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? --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). 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! 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.) 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. 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.). 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. --GrantN (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

Okay, point taken. Moved it. May need an expansion, though. 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, 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. 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. 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. --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.) 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? --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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. --AirForceMan92 (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2017 (EDT)

TV specials go under Movies or TV Shows?


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. 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. --GrantN (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2017 (EST)

Yeah, that might work. For now, I added various specials on the animated films section here. 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. 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 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. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2017 (EST)

That I do not know I have never seen the movie. 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. GrantN (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2017 (EST)

Thank you for saying that. Tell that to MacTavish if he changes it again. 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. --David B (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. 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


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. 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: 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. 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. --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. PatriotMongoose (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

Wait, I don't see how Ace Ventura has anything to do with Pixar. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

Okay, I am going to move it back. --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.

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:

--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” 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, is The Little Mermaid getting a pass with Part of Your World? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Admiral Farmer (talk)

It appears to be a deletion of nearly 1,000 words or so, when I look at the difference in the history. Why not let the readers decide?--Andy Schlafly (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. RobSZ+ 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 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. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:12, June 21, 2022 (EDT)

Okay. Maybe this should be viewed to make my point. 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 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. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:59, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
tl;dr. Are you guys really into gay sex? RobSZ+ 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. 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. RobSZ+ 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. 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. RobSZ+ 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 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. 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. RobSZ+ 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). 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. RobSZ+ 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 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. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:13, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
Looks like Columbia just joined the anti-NATO Nazi alliance. RobSZ+ 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. RobSZ+ 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: [10]
  • 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
  • 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. RobSZ+ 21:53, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
First of all, outono, aka Counting Stars, is a conservative and anti-Communist site, and has done 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 made it repeatedly clear that he was tough on Russia.). Second of all, this was far from the only incident regarding them installing Soviet apparel. Heck, aside from their installing at least one flag for the Soviets, which, BTW, is actually eclipsing the ACTUAL Russian Federation flag, we've even got a Russian tank flying a Soviet flag in a pretty blatant manner. And then 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, 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 pointed that bit out about him, years before. And for the record, I'm no Brit, I was born and raised in America. Born in Darien, Connecticut, moved to Dunwoody Georgia at age two, around the time UPS moved its regional headquarters. Actually, if anything, I'm ashamed at NATO, Britain included, for effectively CAPITULATING to Putin. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:16, June 21, 2022 (EDT)
"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." OK, you made your Banderite point. I suppose you'd tear down statues to Robert E. Lee, too (which Trump opposed as well}. That would definitively make you a racist. RobSZ+ 12:12, June 22, 2022 (EDT)

Okay. Made the change back to debatable. I believe I cited the sources well. Like this video I made on the topic. Admiral_Farmer (talk) 17:16, July 3, 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. Admiral_Farmer (talk)