This film has such a scathing political subtext I am surprised a major Hollywood Studio gave this the greenlight.
-
freerun250 — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 03:12 PM)
"That's exactly what I am saying. If Carpenter had been honest in that interview and said the movie was a depiction of how the modern world worked under Jewish control, you, and millions of sleeping people like you, would call him crazy, mock him, and boycott his movies. "
Instead we'll just call YOU a conspiracy theorist and anti semite! ANd we'd be right! -
scarycaroler — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 04:07 PM)
Instead we'll just call YOU a conspiracy theorist and anti semite! ANd we'd be right!
A prefect example of why you are Jewish owned livestock. No rational arguments, just ineffective responses the Jew media taught you to say without thought.
Well done, sheeple. -
Toilet_Clogger — 3 years ago(September 14, 2022 06:54 PM)
I recently watched "They Live" for the first time in maybe 20 years recently. It certainly appears as though the "aliens" in this movie are supposed to be Jews, not Republicans. I know that Carpenter said that this movie was a criticism about consumerism and Republicans, but he may have just said that so that he can continue making movies in Hollywood. Republicans certainly aren't the ones who overwhelmingly control the media like the aliens in this movie.
-
jbaker1-2 — 11 months ago(May 03, 2025 10:49 AM)
Republicans certainly aren't the ones who overwhelmingly control the media like the aliens in this movie.
Oh, really? You must be one of those delusional right-wingers who believes the "liberal media" myth.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it. -
jbaker1-2 — 11 months ago(May 03, 2025 10:47 AM)
Are you naturally that stupid, or is it an acquired skill? Just because
you're
an anti-Semitic asshole doesn't mean John Carpenter (or anyone else) is.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it. -
scarycaroler — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 06:02 PM)
This film has such a scathing political subtext I am surprised a major Hollywood Studio gave this the greenlight.
I suspect that it flew in under the radar. Before it was made, it was probably easy to sell the concept of the movie to studio heads and Hollywood executives on the idea that the "they" in They Live were to be nothing but apolitical aliens or ghouls. After all, Carpenter had made those types of movies before. It probably wasn't until after the movie was finished that it became apparent who the aliens/ghouls truly represented in society. At that point, the money to make the movie had already been spent, and the only way to recoup their investment was to release it and make some of it back at the box office. -
DracTarashV — 9 years ago(December 05, 2016 04:28 PM)
To Hollywood's credit, they have in fact approved other films with the same message, some even done in a more serious manner than They Live (Wag the Dog, Eyes Wide Shut, Dark City, 1984, Society). And why even allow it? Well, a movie like They Live (probably the best of its kind) can easily be considered nothing more than fun entertainment, so I doubt they were reluctant to release that one. And with the others? I assume there's actually some folks in Hollywood that want us to think. Or perhaps they're just mocking us! #notarightwingconspiracynut
You want something corny? You got it! -
kgwrote-854-104240 — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 11:49 PM)
and wanted to see what others said. I feel like Roddy Piper walking around after putting on the glasses.
lol
I bought the Reaganomics explanation for years because I just saw the Dan Quayle hairstyle and assumed the Democrats were more people oriented. I never thought about Jewish power until this election.
Then I read what others had said through history.
Cicero, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Voltaire, Mark Twain, HG Wells, Henry Ford, Walt Disney.
When you think about it, and look at Jewish conspiracy theories, it fits Jews much better.
Consider the wealthy woman in the supermarket with a very New Yorkish accent.
Or the Gene Siskel Roger Ebert aliens. They are usually assumed to be liberal types. Why are they there?
Why all the magazines with subliminal messages? Did Reagan take control of the media?
When I heard about Mel Gibson saying jews caused all the wars in the world I just assumed he was drunk and reacting to the Lebanon bombing Israel was doing at the time.
But now I see that Iraq was destroyed for Israel. Libya was destroyed for Israel. Syria-Israel. Clinton met with Goldman Sachs to discuss Iran and Syria being bombed.
Even WW 2 appears to have been agitated by Jewish interests in the UK and US (and most disturbing of all, the architects and proponents of a nuclear bomb program were Jews: Szilard/Einstein/Wigner/Teller/Frisch/Meitner. They "claimed" the Nazis could develop a bomb but there was no proof that the Germans planned to!
HG Wells in 1940 wrote:
"The whole question turns upon the Chosen People idea, which this remnant cherishes and sustains, which it is the "mission" of this remnant to cherish and sustain. It is difficult not to regard that idea as a conspiracy against the rest of the worldAlmost every community with which the orthodox Jews have come into contact has sooner or later developed and acted upon that conspiracy idea. A careful reading of the Bible does nothing to correct it; there indeed you have the conspiracy plain and clear. It is not simply the defensive conspiracy of a nice harmless people anxious to keep up their dear, quaint old customs that we are dealing with. It is an aggressive and vindictive conspiracy. People are apt to catch up and repeat phrases about the nobility of the Book of Isaiah on the strength of a few chance quotations torn from their context. But let the reader take that book and read it for himself straightforwardly, and note the setting of these fragments. Much of it is ferocious; extraordinarily like the rantings of some Nazi propagandist. The best the poor Gentile can expect is to play the part of a Gibeonite a hewer of wood and a drawer of water for the restored elect."
Charles Lindbergh:
In a speech at an America First rally at the Des Moines Coliseum on September 11, 1941, "Who Are the War Agitators?", Lindbergh claimed the three groups, "pressing this country toward war [are] the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration",[150] and said of Jewish groups,
Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation.[151]
In the speech, he warned of the Jewish people's "large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government". He went on to condemn Nazi Germany's antisemitism: "No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany." Lindbergh declared,
I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.[152]
The speech was heavily criticized as being anti-Semitic.[153] In response, Lindbergh stated again he was not anti-Semitic, but he did not back away from his statements.
Lindbergh's wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, had concerns about the reaction to the speech and how it would affect his reputation, wrongfully in her view. From her diary:
I have the greatest faith in [Lindbergh] as a person in his integrity, his courage, and his essential goodness, fairness, and kindness his nobility really How then explain my profound feeling of grief about what he is doing? If what he said is the truth (and I am inclined to think it is), why was it wrong to state it? He was naming the groups that were pro-war. No one minds his naming the British or the Administration. But to name "Jew" is un-American even if it is done without hate or even criticism. Wh -
SealedCargo — 6 years ago(May 19, 2019 11:13 PM)
LOL
Hollywood doesn't like political subtexts?
as long as it's against Republicans, it's okay with Hollywood, they turn it out by the thousands…
this movie is more universal though.
The Fearmakers Blog
https://thefearmakers.blogspot.com/ -
Woodyanders — 3 years ago(September 15, 2022 02:01 AM)
John Carpenter made a two picture deal with Universal to do a couple of movies for them that were made on very modest budgets. They Live was made for four million while the other movie Prince of Darkness was done for three million. So the modest budget basically gave Carpenter the creative freedom that he needed to make this film they way he wanted to.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything.
Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 