A new maxim of conservative thought: any statement made about “Hollywood”, or popular entertainment in general, if relying on “facts”, is immediately and forthrightly wrong.

I say this not because I disagree with the conservative interpretation of Hollywood as a cesspool of filth and anti-Americanism. I say this because they’re always wrong.

As everyone from Peking to Peoria knows, Hollywood 2005 has had a record breaking year, but the record being broken isn’t one the studios want to announce with a full-page ad in Variety boasting “MOVIE BIZ IN THE PITS: THE NOT-SO–SWEET SMELL OF HOLLYWOOD B.O. â€Â?

With a slump in ticket sales that has surpassed the fifteen week Slump of ’85 (and seems to have much longer “legs�), the question currently on every Hollywood prognosticator’s mind is: what do movie audiences want?

Well, here’s something - the box office has actually been up the past four weeks. I have a theory why, but let’s look at Craiggers’ explanation:

One can only guess. Or take countless polls. Personally, I like to divine my answers the old fashioned way – by using the prescient power of history. Everything we need to know is usually lurking in the past somewhere, and as George Santayana (non-pro) once said, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.â€Â? Or in the case of Hollywood, doomed to remake it…only worse. So let’s fire up the Flux Capaciter, program our DeLorean time machine for 1985, and go in search of lessons to bring back to the future.

Like the bizarre series of similarities found in the Lincoln/Kennedy assassinations, the box office “assassinations� of 1985 and 2005 share some eerie similarities and coincidences.

Both slumps began in a year following the November re-election of a president who was despised by the coasts, the media, and Bruce Springsteen. Both of these re-elected presidents liked to wear cowboy hats and boots. Both presided over ambiguous, hard-to-define wars: the Cold War, the War on Terror. During both campaigns the who’s-who of hip Hollywood actors (who now probably need hip replacement) such as Warren Beatty, Dustin Hoffman, Jane Fonda, Barbara Streisand and Ed Asner came out in support of their guy (hint: not the one in the cowboy hat).

The cowboy candidates, then and now, had Chuck Norris. During both campaigns, Bruce Springsteen took a tour on the road to encourage people not to vote for the guy in the cowboy hat. The “bad guysâ€Â? in the world–Godless Russian commies in the 80’s; Our-God-4-Allah-ya Islamic Terrorists in the 00’s–also didn’t want the guy in the cowboy hat to win. But they didn’t particularly care for Springsteen either.

Yep - people stopped seeing movies because people who weren’t actually in many of the movies released that year made political statements. It also explains why a movie starring both Hoffman and Striesand, released right after Bush’s reelection, became one of the top grossing movies of all time. Or why one of the most profitable movies of 2005 starred Jane Fonda.

Apparently, the American people are stupid cows tempted to the movies to see people they absolutely hate. Or else, they’re not seeing movies for some reason besides die-hard support of Bush. My philosophy’s the second, this guy’s is obviously the first. Why do conservatives hate Americans, Billy? Why?

It doesn’t take Doc Brown to see that the national landscapes preceding the B.O. slumps were as alike as two Rob Schneider movies.

There are also similarities in the reason given for the slumps. The Hollywood-Know-It-Alls in the panic induced by both the Slump of ’85 and the current Slump of ’05, were quick to finger all the new-fangled home entertainment technology as the culprit. In 1985 videocassettes, VCRs, Commodore home computers, and Ms. Pac-Man were allegedly sucking us away from theaters. In 2005 DVDs, plasma screen televisions, chat rooms, and “Destroy All Humans� are supposedly doing the job. In 1985, this proved to be untrue as Hollywood rebounded and had some of the best years of its life in the tech-filled decades to come. It’s untrue now as well.

So what caused the slump of ’85? And what is causing the Slump of ‘05? The eerily similar political climates preceding the slumps have led some to suggest that moviegoers who liked the guy in the cowboy hat were holding a grudge against Hollywood by staying away from the multiplexes. After all, even in a landslide election, the nation is pretty much evenly split between the reds and the blues.

Publicly picking a side is bound to alienate you from half of everyone. If just a small percentage of these moviegoers turned their backs on Hollywood, it could have a devastating effect on the bottom line.

At no point in the past 20 years has Hollywood ever been accused of being too conservative, or, in fact, conservative at all. Why is 2005 the year of conservative dissatisfaction with the movies and not, say, 2002, when Bush’s popularity was at its peak? And what movies this year have actually been categorically liberal? Constant Gardener? Land of the Dead? Lord of War? Pooh’s Heffalump Movie? Of the three “liberal” movies, two made their money back. The proliferation of liberal movies (or, more accurately, the complete lack thereof) explains exactly nothing.

In order to understand this comparison, let’s look at what came out in 1985. Two Stallone movies, a lot of ill-advised sequels, gimmick movies serving either as star vehicles or merchandising opportunities, two major reissues, and a lot of movies that were just plain bad. In 2005? Lots of mediocre-to-bad PG-13 horror movies, some ill-advised sequels, way too many remakes and television adaptations, and yes, you guessed it, lots of bad movies.

Amazingly, when Hollywood releases crap, people don’t go to see it. It’s almost as if people want to be entertained, and don’t particularly care who the stars or directors donate to come election time.

Whether or not the slumps were due to any form of conscious or unconscious backlash is purely speculative. I like to deal in facts. And the most important fact is this: there seems to be no end in sight for the Slump of ’05. The questions Hollywood needs to be asking is not what caused the slump, but what will end it? What brought audiences back to the movies in ‘85? And what is it audiences now want that Hollywood 2005 isn’t delivering? The movies tell the tale.

No end in sight…except for the end that came four weeks ago. Other than that end, though, he’s right - no end at all. Ever.

When the Slump of ’85 began, the Top 10 films included Police Academy 2, Friday the 13th Part V, Porky’s Revenge, and The Care Bears Movie. Given a choice like that I’d stay home with Ms. Pac-Man too. The first major breakout hit during the slump was Code of Silence, the first of All-American hero Chuck Norris’s 1985 two’fer. It stayed at the top of the box office for two weeks and proved to be a modest, yet highly profitable, hit despite the slump. Hmmm. Didn’t Norris support Reagan just a few months earlier?

Code of Silence was a “major breakout hit” in the same way the Arizona Cardinals are the “runaway favorites” to win the NFC Championship. It had two weekends of competiion from movies that I’ve never heard of, and was quickly buried under much larger releases. It won very weak weekends against very weak competition, but because it starred a Reagan supporter, it was the single most important movie in all of cinema that year.

Chuck’s Silent reign at the top of the box office was overthrown by another American Hero: Vietnam War veteran and Purple-Heart recipient John J. Rambo. Rambo:First Blood Part II became a gigantic international hit, stayed at the top of the box office for five weeks, and went on to gross the equivalent of $270,000,000 dollars in today’s market. Slump be damned. In this film Rambo fights evil Russians (the “bad guys� in the real world at the time), and rescues forgotten American soldiers in Vietnam. It was pro-soldier, anti-Commie, and kept its opinions about Vietnam to itself.

Rambo’s b.o. rampage ended, however, when a sweet, optimistic film about a group of old folks in a nursing home in the red state of Florida came to town in Ron Howard’s slump-defying sleeper hit Cocoon.

Uh…what? Rambo was a sequel to a hideously popular movie starring a very hot actor. If you’ll notice, in 1985, Rocky IV was right behind Rambo II that year - and Rocky fought a Russian, sure…but as a “political” movie, it ranks right up there with the Breakfast Club. America good, Russia bad was the theme of the entire 1980s in film - flops and successes.

Cocoon as a conservative movie because it was set in a Republican state? It was 1985. Reagan had just won 49 states. If it was a movie set in America, it was probably set in a goddamn red state - and it was one of the worst box office years ever. This proves that people hate seeing Republican America on film, you know.

A week later, a Republican mayor playing a preacher in a cowboy hat rode to the top of the charts: Clint Eastwood in Pale Rider.

Next on top, one of the films that helped make the Slump of ’85 a thing of the past, Back to the Future. The time-travel film (which, incidentally, had Islamic Terrorists for bad guys) became the highest grossing movie of the year, spent 11 weeks at number one, and grossed $377,000,000 in 2005 dollars. What’s even more amazing about Back to the Future is that it was made without any big movie stars.

The star of the film, Michael J. Fox, was a television actor known only for his role as Alex Keaton, a Reagan-loving College Republican in “Family Ties.�

You heard that right - people went to go see Back to the Future because of the Libyans. Also, Alex Keaton was played for laughs against the rest of the family - you see, that’s why Fox was known as a hot comedic actor - he played an object of comedic derision on the show, even though he was sympathetic. There was a picture of Nixon on the kid’s wall, for God’s sake.

The Future’s 11-week run at the top of the charts was briefly interrupted by a film debuting at number one in the week that finally saw the credits roll on the 15-week slump. That film: National Lampoon’s European Vacation. In this outing the Griswalds, a “typical� American family, wreak havoc upon and make a mockery of all those countries that would later refuse to join the “Coalition of the Willing.�

American audiences loved it more than “Freedom Fries� and Hollywood prospered right out of the slump.

You know what 1985 and 2005 have in common? In 2005, a movie starring a guy who could stretch really, really far was a pretty big hit. In order to have 1985 come off as a hot year for “Republican” movies, you’ve got to stretch really, really far. For instance, purporting that a movie succeeded in 1985 because of a political fight 18 years later? Mr. Fantastic can’t pull that shit off.

Oh, and nobody loved Freedom Fries.

For the remainder of the year, Hollywood continued to prosper with more red, white, and blue movies: Invasion U.S.A., an unabashedly pro-American/Anti-Communist film starring, once again, Chuck Norris; Commando, starring Reagan-loving actor Arnold Schwarzenegger; Death Wish 3, a 2nd Amendment-friendly Charles Bronson film; and Rocky IV, a film that personified the American/Russian conflict in a mano y mano boxing match between Rocky Balboa and Ivan Drago. This installment of the Rocky franchise was marketed with a picture of Rocky draped in an American flag, contained James Brown’s pro-American anthem “Living in America,� and became the third highest-grossing film of the year. As Rocky beat the Red Hope to a bloody pulp, Hollywood beat its Red Ink into oblivion. The slump remained dead and buried for twenty years.

Here’s another explanation - they were all action movies. People wanted to see action movies. Movies with guns and fighting and shit constitute, you guessed it, action movies. Take, for instance, 1986. One of the top-grossing films of the year was an anti-Vietnam film made by Oliver Stone. It was, however, a really, really good movie. Top Gun was about young asshole pilots fighting each other to be the best. Crocodile Dundee was a part of the short-lived fascination with Aussies, and Karate Kid II was set in the red state of Japan.

But these films were optimistic in a time of fear, and they didn’t endlessly bag on their own country or send a negative message to the world implying that America is full of corrupt, greedy, selfish, dishonest, Capitalist pigs and that the Russians have every right to hate us and nuke us. On the contrary, these films wore the flag proudly, celebrated American valor and the American spirit, and used the real world villains as the reel world villains.

Just as important as the positive effect these films had on Hollywood’s bottom line is the positive effect they had on American’s image in the world. It has been said that American pop culture was as responsible as anything else for bringing down the Berlin Wall. If that’s the case, then what are our current films doing for the world, and for our own security, here and now in 2005?

The Berlin Wall came down because of Code of Silence? Fuck me with a spoon, I had no idea!

Hollywood history is not hard to learn. When the studios make movies that leave ticket buyers feeling good about their country, that celebrate the everyday heroes who live among us, and that aren’t afraid to turn the people who want to destroy our way of life (today, Islamic terrorists) into movie villains then moviegoers, red and blue, will flock to the theaters. Yes, Hollywood can and should throw the occasional provocative and controversial bone to the fringes and profit quite nicely (as was proven by The Passion of the Christ and Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004).

But if all the bones are thrown in any one direction, Hollywood loses the mainstream, the lifeblood of a healthy and prosperous box office. And once lost, they may never come back.

What America-critical movies have been released this year? Did I miss the part of Be Cool where the Rock goes on a diatribe about America’s role in the world, or the secret ending of Son of the Mask where Jamie Kennedy enlists al-Qaeda to help him wreak havoc?

The good news: if they came back in 1985, they’ll come back now. All they need is the right stuff. Just look at the first big hit after the election of ’04 (and one of the last big hits before the Slump of ‘05 began): National Treasure.

The Big Lesson from the Slump of ‘85 is that American movie audiences, like Rambo, know exactly what they want: for the movie studios to love their country as much as they love it. That’s what they want!

By the way, this guy wrote Scooby-Doo (the Freddie Prinze, Jr. version) and Cheaper by the Dozen. He also penned legendary David Arquette comedy See Spot Run and idiotic TV show Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon?

Taking script selection advice from the man whose major contribution to cinema was stacked Velma…people, the future is now.