Brokeback Mountain
- Thread starter Zoglog
- Start date
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Too much talking and not enough action.
I don't get it. What's the story? Why is it worthy of a feature film presentation?
Everything I hear about this movie is "Gay Cowboys", which seems gimmicky to me.
EDIT: Read IMDB description. It's another love story, I don't usually like those even if it is something I can relate to. Though I did get a chuckle out of this thread title: "Homophobes, before you post Jesus asks: have you helped the poor today?" That should be a signature.
Everything I hear about this movie is "Gay Cowboys", which seems gimmicky to me.
EDIT: Read IMDB description. It's another love story, I don't usually like those even if it is something I can relate to. Though I did get a chuckle out of this thread title: "Homophobes, before you post Jesus asks: have you helped the poor today?" That should be a signature.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='Zoglog']http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v116/elouisa/dominic%20monaghan%20and%20picspam/brokeback-mountain-animatio.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v116/elouisa/dominic%20monaghan%20and%20picspam/trial3-1.gif
no action WHAT!?[/QUOTE]
eh, I can see kisses on g and pg rated tv shows like fresh prince of belair, or I could just walk around a city for a while.
It sounds like a good story, I just wish stories dealing with romantic interests between homosexuals weren't relegated to the gay film industry or pseudo romances like this film. It seems like a very good movie in its own right, it just says something when a movie like this is presented as a "gay movie". Basically, there should be plenty of other movies that involve gay romances that this isn't presented as a "gay love film".
From what I understand its about 2 guys who, if they lived in a more accepting society, would be romantically involved but are forced to ignore their desires and live a heterosexual family life. Though at least, from what I've heard, they aren't stereotypical gay guys.
Too bad films like "Better than chocolate" (even though it was too short and didn't delve deep enough into the characters and relationships) weren't more mainstream.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v116/elouisa/dominic%20monaghan%20and%20picspam/trial3-1.gif
no action WHAT!?[/QUOTE]
eh, I can see kisses on g and pg rated tv shows like fresh prince of belair, or I could just walk around a city for a while.
It sounds like a good story, I just wish stories dealing with romantic interests between homosexuals weren't relegated to the gay film industry or pseudo romances like this film. It seems like a very good movie in its own right, it just says something when a movie like this is presented as a "gay movie". Basically, there should be plenty of other movies that involve gay romances that this isn't presented as a "gay love film".
From what I understand its about 2 guys who, if they lived in a more accepting society, would be romantically involved but are forced to ignore their desires and live a heterosexual family life. Though at least, from what I've heard, they aren't stereotypical gay guys.
Too bad films like "Better than chocolate" (even though it was too short and didn't delve deep enough into the characters and relationships) weren't more mainstream.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']eh, I can see kisses on g and pg rated tv shows like fresh prince of belair, or I could just walk around a city for a while.[/QUOTE]
Try Degrassi: The New Generation. Men kissing isn't that much of a taboo even on television anymore.
That having been said, I imagine that the problem people have with this movie is that it is marketed as a "gay" movie. Regretfully, so few movies that focus on homosexual relationships have been made that the film industry requires a few films to "break new ground" (even though many films about gay relationships were made way before this).
Filmmakers are in a catch-22; if they don't use the gay aspect as a selling point, they'll be accused of subtle propoganda, and moreover, they'll be forced (by virtue of treating it as a "normal" major release) to put it out in markets where the movie will bomb, and bomb hard. If they focus on selling it as a "gay" movie, accusations fly that it should be marketed as a "love" story.
Look, no matter how they market the movie, it isn't gonna fly in Kansas. By marketing it as they have, and releasing it in major urban areas, they are doing the right thing in terms of marketing and business.
With any luck, we will advance to a point where romance movies about gay relationships will be a dime a dozen, like shitty romances and romantic comedies. At the moment, homosexuality is an anomaly as a topic in hollywood, and to think otherwise is denial of reality.
Try Degrassi: The New Generation. Men kissing isn't that much of a taboo even on television anymore.
That having been said, I imagine that the problem people have with this movie is that it is marketed as a "gay" movie. Regretfully, so few movies that focus on homosexual relationships have been made that the film industry requires a few films to "break new ground" (even though many films about gay relationships were made way before this).
Filmmakers are in a catch-22; if they don't use the gay aspect as a selling point, they'll be accused of subtle propoganda, and moreover, they'll be forced (by virtue of treating it as a "normal" major release) to put it out in markets where the movie will bomb, and bomb hard. If they focus on selling it as a "gay" movie, accusations fly that it should be marketed as a "love" story.
Look, no matter how they market the movie, it isn't gonna fly in Kansas. By marketing it as they have, and releasing it in major urban areas, they are doing the right thing in terms of marketing and business.
With any luck, we will advance to a point where romance movies about gay relationships will be a dime a dozen, like shitty romances and romantic comedies. At the moment, homosexuality is an anomaly as a topic in hollywood, and to think otherwise is denial of reality.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
I'm surprised no one has made a "cowboys eatin puddin" comment yet.
Kirin Lemon
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']eh, I can see kisses on g and pg rated tv shows like fresh prince of belair, or I could just walk around a city for a while.
It sounds like a good story, I just wish stories dealing with romantic interests between homosexuals weren't relegated to the gay film industry or pseudo romances like this film. It seems like a very good movie in its own right, it just says something when a movie like this is presented as a "gay movie". Basically, there should be plenty of other movies that involve gay romances that this isn't presented as a "gay love film".
From what I understand its about 2 guys who, if they lived in a more accepting society, would be romantically involved but are forced to ignore their desires and live a heterosexual family life. Though at least, from what I've heard, they aren't stereotypical gay guys.
Too bad films like "Better than chocolate" (even though it was too short and didn't delve deep enough into the characters and relationships) weren't more mainstream.[/QUOTE]
What he said. I'm very anxious to see the film when it starts showing in my area.
It sounds like a good story, I just wish stories dealing with romantic interests between homosexuals weren't relegated to the gay film industry or pseudo romances like this film. It seems like a very good movie in its own right, it just says something when a movie like this is presented as a "gay movie". Basically, there should be plenty of other movies that involve gay romances that this isn't presented as a "gay love film".
From what I understand its about 2 guys who, if they lived in a more accepting society, would be romantically involved but are forced to ignore their desires and live a heterosexual family life. Though at least, from what I've heard, they aren't stereotypical gay guys.
Too bad films like "Better than chocolate" (even though it was too short and didn't delve deep enough into the characters and relationships) weren't more mainstream.[/QUOTE]
What he said. I'm very anxious to see the film when it starts showing in my area.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']With any luck, we will advance to a point where romance movies about gay relationships will be a dime a dozen, like shitty romances and romantic comedies. At the moment, homosexuality is an anomaly as a topic in hollywood, and to think otherwise is denial of reality.[/QUOTE]
I didn't see it, but wasn't "Alexander" pretty explicit on this point?
However I don't think you're going to see many homosexual romances anytime soon. Only chicks goto romance movies, and what chick wants to see two dudes getting it on? That would be like one of us guys wanting to see two chicks having sex with each other - disgusting!
I didn't see it, but wasn't "Alexander" pretty explicit on this point?
However I don't think you're going to see many homosexual romances anytime soon. Only chicks goto romance movies, and what chick wants to see two dudes getting it on? That would be like one of us guys wanting to see two chicks having sex with each other - disgusting!
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Try Degrassi: The New Generation. Men kissing isn't that much of a taboo even on television anymore.
[/QUOTE]
Degrassi is canadian though, the religious right isn't as large or as powerful up there and people are more likely to tolerate their presence on tv. I admit I've never watched degrassi, but if what you say is true I wonder if there wouldn't have been a bigger issue if it was american made, instead of just something being shown on american telivision. Also, isn't degrassi shown on a relatively minor station and not one of the mainstream networks?
[/QUOTE]
Degrassi is canadian though, the religious right isn't as large or as powerful up there and people are more likely to tolerate their presence on tv. I admit I've never watched degrassi, but if what you say is true I wonder if there wouldn't have been a bigger issue if it was american made, instead of just something being shown on american telivision. Also, isn't degrassi shown on a relatively minor station and not one of the mainstream networks?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Degrassi is canadian though, the religious right isn't as large or as powerful up there and people are more likely to tolerate their presence on tv.[/quote]
It's still available on my 'merican TV.
Camoor, I've never seen "Alexander," so I have no idea. Hell, I've never even seen Malcolm McDowell's "Caligula."
It's still available on my 'merican TV.
It's on the Noggin, a station that I feel, as an adult male, am not the prime targeted demographic (pre-teen and early teen females). Degrassi is actually a fantastic show that covers a lot of heavy topics very well (much like the original, which was only on PBS in the states). It could be that it's relative non-presence in mainstream programming is part of the reason for the religious homophobes not bitching about it; however, that implies an argument that the religious right doesn't make "mountain out of a molehill" complaints, something we all know isn't true.
Camoor, I've never seen "Alexander," so I have no idea. Hell, I've never even seen Malcolm McDowell's "Caligula."
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
Aren't all cowboy movies a little bit gay anyway? (excluding, of course, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly 
)
)
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Aren't all cowboy movies a little bit gay anyway? (excluding, of course, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly )[/QUOTE]
thats true, even the manly film tombstone had the very out and about Billy Zane and the closet gay guy from 90210
)[/QUOTE]thats true, even the manly film tombstone had the very out and about Billy Zane and the closet gay guy from 90210
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Aren't all cowboy movies a little bit gay anyway? (excluding, of course, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly )[/QUOTE]
I loved that movie.
)[/QUOTE]I loved that movie.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
Should be accurately titled "Bareback Mountain".
Followed up next year with a "spiritual successor" about two lesbian whale watchers studying two lesbian whales to be titled "Munching Tuna".
Gotta love the hypocracy of Hollywood. They want to make money they release family, spiritual to religous films like Narnia, Passion of the Christ, Shrek 2, LOTR.
They want to feel good about how
ing liberal they are they make "Bareback Mountain" and gush about how wonderful and sensitive it is even though it will make less than "The Island" or "Stealth" in wide release. Then the American public will be blasted about how uneducated, unenlightened and backwards they are because they didn't bend over (HAHAHAHAHA) backwards to go see a movie about two guys playing Rump Rangers on horseback.
Followed up next year with a "spiritual successor" about two lesbian whale watchers studying two lesbian whales to be titled "Munching Tuna".
Gotta love the hypocracy of Hollywood. They want to make money they release family, spiritual to religous films like Narnia, Passion of the Christ, Shrek 2, LOTR.
They want to feel good about how
ing liberal they are they make "Bareback Mountain" and gush about how wonderful and sensitive it is even though it will make less than "The Island" or "Stealth" in wide release. Then the American public will be blasted about how uneducated, unenlightened and backwards they are because they didn't bend over (HAHAHAHAHA) backwards to go see a movie about two guys playing Rump Rangers on horseback.[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Should be accurately titled "Bareback Mountain".
Followed up next year with a "spiritual successor" about two lesbian whale watchers studying two lesbian whales to be titled "Munching Tuna".
Gotta love the hypocracy of Hollywood. They want to make money they release family, spiritual to religous films like Narnia, Passion of the Christ, Shrek 2, LOTR.
They want to feel good about howing liberal they are they make "Bareback Mountain" and gush about how wonderful and sensitive it is even though it will make less than "The Island" or "Stealth" in wide release. Then the American public will be blasted about how uneducated, unenlightened and backwards they are because they didn't bend over (HAHAHAHAHA) backwards to go see a movie about two guys playing Rump Rangers on horseback.[/QUOTE]
While I don't share PAD's bluntness, I do kind of agree with what he has to say. I mean the chief way they have been hyping this movie is that its worthy of all these awards and nominations and that its about gay cowboys. They haven't really said a whole lot else about it which is very plainly evident in the beginning of this thread where everyone had heard of it but didn't know anything about it except the gay theme.
I could care less if a movie has a gay plot and/or subplot but it can't be the guiding reason why it is worthy of winning awards. Just being edgy or dealing with tough issues shouldn't earn you awards.
Followed up next year with a "spiritual successor" about two lesbian whale watchers studying two lesbian whales to be titled "Munching Tuna".
Gotta love the hypocracy of Hollywood. They want to make money they release family, spiritual to religous films like Narnia, Passion of the Christ, Shrek 2, LOTR.
They want to feel good about how
ing liberal they are they make "Bareback Mountain" and gush about how wonderful and sensitive it is even though it will make less than "The Island" or "Stealth" in wide release. Then the American public will be blasted about how uneducated, unenlightened and backwards they are because they didn't bend over (HAHAHAHAHA) backwards to go see a movie about two guys playing Rump Rangers on horseback.[/QUOTE]While I don't share PAD's bluntness, I do kind of agree with what he has to say. I mean the chief way they have been hyping this movie is that its worthy of all these awards and nominations and that its about gay cowboys. They haven't really said a whole lot else about it which is very plainly evident in the beginning of this thread where everyone had heard of it but didn't know anything about it except the gay theme.
I could care less if a movie has a gay plot and/or subplot but it can't be the guiding reason why it is worthy of winning awards. Just being edgy or dealing with tough issues shouldn't earn you awards.
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Just being edgy or dealing with tough issues shouldn't earn you awards.[/QUOTE]
You'd think creativity would be worthy of awards (at least decent looking creativity), which could be defined as "edgy". A dignified and meaningful take on a tough issue that gets someone to think should be award worthy too, don't you think?
Unless you think that awards should only be given to which ever movies make the most money or are the most popular. That being said, I know nothing about the movie, yet, I seriously doubt PAD's rants from right field hold much credence.
You'd think creativity would be worthy of awards (at least decent looking creativity), which could be defined as "edgy". A dignified and meaningful take on a tough issue that gets someone to think should be award worthy too, don't you think?
Unless you think that awards should only be given to which ever movies make the most money or are the most popular. That being said, I know nothing about the movie, yet, I seriously doubt PAD's rants from right field hold much credence.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I'm not certain that I understand PAD's point; given his high-school level grammatical jabs (remniscent of the genii he so often cites from - c'mon, Michael Moore-on! GUFFAW!), I think his overall point was completely lost.
To me, it seemed like he was chiding hollywood for making films for christians and homosexuals alike. Hell, he even threw in people with bad taste (The Island, Stealth). Yet, his post manages to look like he's complaining about the diversity of films released, as if he's somehow obligated to watch any more than the ones he wants to.
To me, it seemed like he was chiding hollywood for making films for christians and homosexuals alike. Hell, he even threw in people with bad taste (The Island, Stealth). Yet, his post manages to look like he's complaining about the diversity of films released, as if he's somehow obligated to watch any more than the ones he wants to.
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not certain that I understand PAD's point; given his high-school level grammatical jabs (remniscent of the genii he so often cites from - c'mon, Michael Moore-on! GUFFAW!), I think his overall point was completely lost.
To me, it seemed like he was chiding hollywood for making films for christians and homosexuals alike. Hell, he even threw in people with bad taste (The Island, Stealth). Yet, his post manages to look like he's complaining about the diversity of films released, as if he's somehow obligated to watch any more than the ones he wants to.[/QUOTE]
Really? Sounded more like he was making the film industry out to be one large liberal conspiracy. Which reminds me, I need the minutes from our last liberal conspiracy meeting.
To me, it seemed like he was chiding hollywood for making films for christians and homosexuals alike. Hell, he even threw in people with bad taste (The Island, Stealth). Yet, his post manages to look like he's complaining about the diversity of films released, as if he's somehow obligated to watch any more than the ones he wants to.[/QUOTE]
Really? Sounded more like he was making the film industry out to be one large liberal conspiracy. Which reminds me, I need the minutes from our last liberal conspiracy meeting.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Really? Sounded more like he was making the film industry out to be one large liberal conspiracy. Which reminds me, I need the minutes from our last liberal conspiracy meeting.[/QUOTE]
If, by liberal conspiracy, he means that the liberal conspiracy exists when people make blatant christian propoganda like "Narnia" or "Brokeback." I don't think he's thating stupid, that no matter what comes out of Hollywood, it reinforces its liberal intentions.
Then again, he probably did laugh out loud when typing "Bareback" instead of "Brokeback," so given that he would applaud himself for such mediocre witticisms, perhaps I am wrong.
The minutes were posted online yesterday (Judy's starting to get *really* slow in typing them out and getting them up); you know the drill.
If, by liberal conspiracy, he means that the liberal conspiracy exists when people make blatant christian propoganda like "Narnia" or "Brokeback." I don't think he's that
ing stupid, that no matter what comes out of Hollywood, it reinforces its liberal intentions.Then again, he probably did laugh out loud when typing "Bareback" instead of "Brokeback," so given that he would applaud himself for such mediocre witticisms, perhaps I am wrong.
The minutes were posted online yesterday (Judy's starting to get *really* slow in typing them out and getting them up); you know the drill.
[quote name='capitalist_mao']You'd think creativity would be worthy of awards (at least decent looking creativity), which could be defined as "edgy". A dignified and meaningful take on a tough issue that gets someone to think should be award worthy too, don't you think?
Unless you think that awards should only be given to which ever movies make the most money or are the most popular. That being said, I know nothing about the movie, yet, I seriously doubt PAD's rants from right field hold much credence.[/QUOTE]
Umm, aren't awards given because of popularity...? Or is the only popularity that counts is the popularity it gets from elitist film critics who think they are better than the movie going public?
I don't think movies should only be given to big box office sellers but on the other hand that shouldn't disqualify a film from being award-worthy either. My two favorite movies this year, Walk the Line and Chronicles of Narnia, were both box office hits and I think they both deserve awards. Chronicles, not so much for the acting but that's another story.
Unless you think that awards should only be given to which ever movies make the most money or are the most popular. That being said, I know nothing about the movie, yet, I seriously doubt PAD's rants from right field hold much credence.[/QUOTE]
Umm, aren't awards given because of popularity...? Or is the only popularity that counts is the popularity it gets from elitist film critics who think they are better than the movie going public?
I don't think movies should only be given to big box office sellers but on the other hand that shouldn't disqualify a film from being award-worthy either. My two favorite movies this year, Walk the Line and Chronicles of Narnia, were both box office hits and I think they both deserve awards. Chronicles, not so much for the acting but that's another story.
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Umm, aren't awards given because of popularity...? Or is the only popularity that counts is the popularity it gets from elitist film critics who think they are better than the movie going public?
I don't think movies should only be given to big box office sellers but on the other hand that shouldn't disqualify a film from being award-worthy either. My two favorite movies this year, Walk the Line and Chronicles of Narnia, were both box office hits and I think they both deserve awards. Chronicles, not so much for the acting but that's another story.[/QUOTE]
It all depends on the awards show. Some may be solely determined by how much money they made. Whereas others are based on a vote from peers. So, while a daring film may not make a ton in the box office, it may pique enough people's interest.
I don't think movies should only be given to big box office sellers but on the other hand that shouldn't disqualify a film from being award-worthy either. My two favorite movies this year, Walk the Line and Chronicles of Narnia, were both box office hits and I think they both deserve awards. Chronicles, not so much for the acting but that's another story.[/QUOTE]
It all depends on the awards show. Some may be solely determined by how much money they made. Whereas others are based on a vote from peers. So, while a daring film may not make a ton in the box office, it may pique enough people's interest.
[quote name='CheapyD']Just when you thought Ang Lee couldn't make a movie even more gay then The Hulk...[/QUOTE]
Myself and all of the fans of "The Hulk" are mad at you for saying that. In fact, both of us might just send you a nasty letter.
I would echo PAD's sentiment, it does seem like a bit of hypocrisy, but then I realised that "Hollywood" isn't some homogenous organization, but made up of many different people with many different agendas.
The issue I want to take up is the reporting of this movie as hugely successful, when so far, it has only opened at five theaters. I could probably find enough people to fill five theaters with the amount of controversy this has been generating.
Myself and all of the fans of "The Hulk" are mad at you for saying that. In fact, both of us might just send you a nasty letter.
I would echo PAD's sentiment, it does seem like a bit of hypocrisy, but then I realised that "Hollywood" isn't some homogenous organization, but made up of many different people with many different agendas.
The issue I want to take up is the reporting of this movie as hugely successful, when so far, it has only opened at five theaters. I could probably find enough people to fill five theaters with the amount of controversy this has been generating.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
Let's see, what is it up against.
Remnants of Harry Potter, Narnia, Munich and the literal 2,000 lb gorilla King Kong (Whose success will undoubtedly pay for this movie since both are Universal).
I'm as worried about this movie making a dent in box office as I am about Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy or Harry Reid becoming President Elect.
The point, since many of you have problems with reading comprehension, is that Hollywood knows that if it wants to make money it releases family fare. When it wants to feel good about itself and get praise from the sycophantic liberal movie press it releases Brokeback Mountain and touts its diverse content.
If you think the American public wants to see a tale of men popping each other in the pooper, in love and on horseback you're delusional. This is a press generated movie event not an event the public or market would or could create on its own.
Remnants of Harry Potter, Narnia, Munich and the literal 2,000 lb gorilla King Kong (Whose success will undoubtedly pay for this movie since both are Universal).
I'm as worried about this movie making a dent in box office as I am about Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy or Harry Reid becoming President Elect.
The point, since many of you have problems with reading comprehension, is that Hollywood knows that if it wants to make money it releases family fare. When it wants to feel good about itself and get praise from the sycophantic liberal movie press it releases Brokeback Mountain and touts its diverse content.
If you think the American public wants to see a tale of men popping each other in the pooper, in love and on horseback you're delusional. This is a press generated movie event not an event the public or market would or could create on its own.
[quote name='capitalist_mao']It all depends on the awards show. Some may be solely determined by how much money they made. Whereas others are based on a vote from peers. So, while a daring film may not make a ton in the box office, it may pique enough people's interest.[/QUOTE]
Let's see, if its based on box office then its whether the public liked it... If its based on peer voting its based on whether or not the peers liked it. EITHER WAY enough people have to like it in order for it to win awards.
Let's see, if its based on box office then its whether the public liked it... If its based on peer voting its based on whether or not the peers liked it. EITHER WAY enough people have to like it in order for it to win awards.
Cheese
CAGiversary!
Ahh PADdy...
Don't worry Christmas is safe from the gay cowboys, BBM is only playing in like 5 theaters across the country currently (it doesn't get wide release until mid January) besides, I don't think their target audience is the same as the Narnia, Harry Potter or Kong crowd. Don't worry, BBM cost nothing to make so it's nearly guaranteed to make it's money back, in spades. Expect more homo-cowboy films for years to come.
Something like 70% of films make little or nothing of their production costs back. It's the huge, safe blockbusters that make money for studios. But it's the experimental film that breaks ground and creates the techniques used in the blockbuster of tomorrow. And the bonus is you never know when you're going to get a huge hit like say Boogie Nights that cost pennies to make.
When Hollywood wants to make money it makes safe family fare like say, Titanic, with it's nudity, murder and gratuitous death scenes; but it shows it's liberal guts when it makes flops like STEALTH? Do I have that right?
Someone else asked weather awards were based on popularity, that depends on the award. The Blockbuster Awards are based on sales, the Oscars are voted on by members of the Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Golden Globes are voted on by the International Press Association. If the general public popularity were the yardstick the aforementioned Titanic would be considered the best film of all time (psst - it's not, actually, it kinda blows).
I also don't think they made this film to be 3dgy, Ang Lee has a long reputation of making some of the deepest US produced films of the last 10 years. I think that's why people hated Hulk so much, he mistakenly tried to add pathos to the character when all we really wanted to see was, "HULK SMASH!"
Don't worry Christmas is safe from the gay cowboys, BBM is only playing in like 5 theaters across the country currently (it doesn't get wide release until mid January) besides, I don't think their target audience is the same as the Narnia, Harry Potter or Kong crowd. Don't worry, BBM cost nothing to make so it's nearly guaranteed to make it's money back, in spades. Expect more homo-cowboy films for years to come.
Something like 70% of films make little or nothing of their production costs back. It's the huge, safe blockbusters that make money for studios. But it's the experimental film that breaks ground and creates the techniques used in the blockbuster of tomorrow. And the bonus is you never know when you're going to get a huge hit like say Boogie Nights that cost pennies to make.
When Hollywood wants to make money it makes safe family fare like say, Titanic, with it's nudity, murder and gratuitous death scenes; but it shows it's liberal guts when it makes flops like STEALTH? Do I have that right?
Someone else asked weather awards were based on popularity, that depends on the award. The Blockbuster Awards are based on sales, the Oscars are voted on by members of the Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Golden Globes are voted on by the International Press Association. If the general public popularity were the yardstick the aforementioned Titanic would be considered the best film of all time (psst - it's not, actually, it kinda blows).
I also don't think they made this film to be 3dgy, Ang Lee has a long reputation of making some of the deepest US produced films of the last 10 years. I think that's why people hated Hulk so much, he mistakenly tried to add pathos to the character when all we really wanted to see was, "HULK SMASH!"
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Let's see, if its based on box office then its whether the public liked it... If its based on peer voting its based on whether or not the peers liked it. EITHER WAY enough people have to like it in order for it to win awards.[/QUOTE]
Shows that are based around peers voting may not necessarily be because all the peers really liked it. It may be because a lot of peers thought the ingenuity was good, or that the integrity of the movie was high, or that the issues it dealt with were done well.
Shows that are based around peers voting may not necessarily be because all the peers really liked it. It may be because a lot of peers thought the ingenuity was good, or that the integrity of the movie was high, or that the issues it dealt with were done well.
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Shows that are based around peers voting may not necessarily be because all the peers really liked it. It may be because a lot of peers thought the ingenuity was good, or that the integrity of the movie was high, or that the issues it dealt with were done well.[/QUOTE]
But if they need to vote, its based on popularity!
But if they need to vote, its based on popularity!
[quote name='RedvsBlue']But if they need to vote, its based on popularity![/QUOTE]
Think of it this way: I didn't care much for the film Schindler's List, but I understand that many aspects of the film were done really well.
Popularity denotes a wide appeal that everyone appreciates it for. A film may not have a wide appeal, but have a few things done really well in it. Just because a lot of people like a couple aspects of a film doesn't make it popular. It may make that aspect popular, but not the entire film.
Think of it this way: I didn't care much for the film Schindler's List, but I understand that many aspects of the film were done really well.
Popularity denotes a wide appeal that everyone appreciates it for. A film may not have a wide appeal, but have a few things done really well in it. Just because a lot of people like a couple aspects of a film doesn't make it popular. It may make that aspect popular, but not the entire film.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Let's see, what is it up against.
Remnants of Harry Potter, Narnia, Munich and the literal 2,000 lb gorilla King Kong (Whose success will undoubtedly pay for this movie since both are Universal).
I'm as worried about this movie making a dent in box office as I am about Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy or Harry Reid becoming President Elect.
The point, since many of you have problems with reading comprehension, is that Hollywood knows that if it wants to make money it releases family fare. When it wants to feel good about itself and get praise from the sycophantic liberal movie press it releases Brokeback Mountain and touts its diverse content.
If you think the American public wants to see a tale of men popping each other in the pooper, in love and on horseback you're delusional. This is a press generated movie event not an event the public or market would or could create on its own.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because movies like Spartacus, Tombstone, and Lawrence of Arabia (a double doozy for it's sympathetic portraits of Arabs and homosexuality oh my my my) didn't make any money off of the Americans, these movies were all funded by Mickey Mouse cartoons.
Do me a favor and look up the box office receipts for "Tootsie" or "Traffic". Idiot.
Remnants of Harry Potter, Narnia, Munich and the literal 2,000 lb gorilla King Kong (Whose success will undoubtedly pay for this movie since both are Universal).
I'm as worried about this movie making a dent in box office as I am about Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy or Harry Reid becoming President Elect.
The point, since many of you have problems with reading comprehension, is that Hollywood knows that if it wants to make money it releases family fare. When it wants to feel good about itself and get praise from the sycophantic liberal movie press it releases Brokeback Mountain and touts its diverse content.
If you think the American public wants to see a tale of men popping each other in the pooper, in love and on horseback you're delusional. This is a press generated movie event not an event the public or market would or could create on its own.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because movies like Spartacus, Tombstone, and Lawrence of Arabia (a double doozy for it's sympathetic portraits of Arabs and homosexuality oh my my my) didn't make any money off of the Americans, these movies were all funded by Mickey Mouse cartoons.
Do me a favor and look up the box office receipts for "Tootsie" or "Traffic". Idiot.
Metal Boss
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I'll stick with clint eastwood westerns...
crystalklear64
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Aren't all cowboy movies a little bit gay anyway? (excluding, of course, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly )[/QUOTE]
Magnificent 7 BIATCH!
)[/QUOTE]Magnificent 7 BIATCH!
Metal Boss
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Magnificent 7 is borderline, its redemtion is that it's a remake of a real classic
crystalklear64
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Metal Boss']Magnificent 7 is borderline, its redemtion is that it's a remake of a real classic[/QUOTE]
The samurai movie was better IMO, but its not a cowboy movie >
The samurai movie was better IMO, but its not a cowboy movie >
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22287
It describes how the normalization of homosexuality, spearheaded by films like brokeback mountain, will ruin male friendships. This has already been started, and has led to increased sexual aggression among boys, and adult male relationships have been reduced to drinking in bars and watching sports. The argument is summed up in this paragraph:
It also states that the common reaction to a scene in LOTR is that frodo and sam were gay. The scene is where Sam finds Frodo and believes him to be dead, so he picks him up a bit and holds his head.
It describes how the normalization of homosexuality, spearheaded by films like brokeback mountain, will ruin male friendships. This has already been started, and has led to increased sexual aggression among boys, and adult male relationships have been reduced to drinking in bars and watching sports. The argument is summed up in this paragraph:
It also states that the common reaction to a scene in LOTR is that frodo and sam were gay. The scene is where Sam finds Frodo and believes him to be dead, so he picks him up a bit and holds his head.
Kirin Lemon
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
Birth control and voting rights for women... surely these are the root causes of homosexuality in America.
... Cool, now I have an excuse!
[quote name='alonzomourning23']http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22287It also states that the common reaction to a scene in LOTR is that frodo and sam were gay. The scene is where Sam finds Frodo and believes him to be dead, so he picks him up a bit and holds his head.[/QUOTE]
Let us not forget Smith's love for O'Brien in 1984, not as a love in any sexual term, but in the same way that he would love Big Brother.
Let us not forget Smith's love for O'Brien in 1984, not as a love in any sexual term, but in the same way that he would love Big Brother.
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Let's see, what is it up against.
Remnants of Harry Potter, Narnia, Munich and the literal 2,000 lb gorilla King Kong (Whose success will undoubtedly pay for this movie since both are Universal).
I'm as worried about this movie making a dent in box office as I am about Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy or Harry Reid becoming President Elect.
The point, since many of you have problems with reading comprehension, is that Hollywood knows that if it wants to make money it releases family fare. When it wants to feel good about itself and get praise from the sycophantic liberal movie press it releases Brokeback Mountain and touts its diverse content.
If you think the American public wants to see a tale of men popping each other in the pooper, in love and on horseback you're delusional. This is a press generated movie event not an event the public or market would or could create on its own.[/QUOTE]
GOD you're aing idiot! They do both sides because they want the money from both idiot, FNC/American Dad and Family Guy. Regardless of chunk's comment Hollywood scouts for smart little flicks because if they're good enough most likely they WILL make money, COUGHMementoCOUGH. They're also there to help mid actors pad their resume and strike even bigger with a few good performances so they can get the money film or just big name one.
PAD do us all a favor and watch Middle Sexes on HBO.
Remnants of Harry Potter, Narnia, Munich and the literal 2,000 lb gorilla King Kong (Whose success will undoubtedly pay for this movie since both are Universal).
I'm as worried about this movie making a dent in box office as I am about Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy or Harry Reid becoming President Elect.
The point, since many of you have problems with reading comprehension, is that Hollywood knows that if it wants to make money it releases family fare. When it wants to feel good about itself and get praise from the sycophantic liberal movie press it releases Brokeback Mountain and touts its diverse content.
If you think the American public wants to see a tale of men popping each other in the pooper, in love and on horseback you're delusional. This is a press generated movie event not an event the public or market would or could create on its own.[/QUOTE]
GOD you're a
ing idiot! They do both sides because they want the money from both idiot, FNC/American Dad and Family Guy. Regardless of chunk's comment Hollywood scouts for smart little flicks because if they're good enough most likely they WILL make money, COUGHMementoCOUGH. They're also there to help mid actors pad their resume and strike even bigger with a few good performances so they can get the money film or just big name one.PAD do us all a favor and watch Middle Sexes on HBO.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22287
It describes how the normalization of homosexuality, spearheaded by films like brokeback mountain, will ruin male friendships. This has already been started, and has led to increased sexual aggression among boys, and adult male relationships have been reduced to drinking in bars and watching sports. The argument is summed up in this paragraph:
It also states that the common reaction to a scene in LOTR is that frodo and sam were gay. The scene is where Sam finds Frodo and believes him to be dead, so he picks him up a bit and holds his head.[/QUOTE]
Pretty funny that christians and their barely cloaked "family values" groups are picking apart movies to witch-hunt homosexuals, yet it's fine for 50 cent to openly glorify crack-dealers and pimping in his new blockbuster. Really - which group of people threatens society more?
I believe in the first amendment, so I don't think anything should be censored, I just think it points out the depths of christian (particularly baptist and fundamentalist) bigotry in this country.
It describes how the normalization of homosexuality, spearheaded by films like brokeback mountain, will ruin male friendships. This has already been started, and has led to increased sexual aggression among boys, and adult male relationships have been reduced to drinking in bars and watching sports. The argument is summed up in this paragraph:
It also states that the common reaction to a scene in LOTR is that frodo and sam were gay. The scene is where Sam finds Frodo and believes him to be dead, so he picks him up a bit and holds his head.[/QUOTE]
Pretty funny that christians and their barely cloaked "family values" groups are picking apart movies to witch-hunt homosexuals, yet it's fine for 50 cent to openly glorify crack-dealers and pimping in his new blockbuster. Really - which group of people threatens society more?
I believe in the first amendment, so I don't think anything should be censored, I just think it points out the depths of christian (particularly baptist and fundamentalist) bigotry in this country.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
The "it will ruin male friendships" argument holds true upon one major contingency: bigotry in the form of the continued fear of homosexual relationships. That is, if men are comfortable being around homosexuals, and being hit on by homosexuals whilst still remaining heterosexual, then this thesis could never hold true.
OTOH, let's presume the opposite holds true, and that homophobia and, more specifically, the fear of being hit on or - the greatest fear of all - kissed by a man, continues to persist, then perhaps male relationships will be ruined. However, for this to be the case (that distrust of males, and the resultant broken friendships, as a result of fear of homosexuality), this movie, nor any other movie, need be part of the equation. (The same can be said of acceptance; the movie isn't a crucial component in either direction).
In the end, what this thesis suggests hides the true relationship: that hatred or acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle will affect male friendships. Granted, I don't think that's necessarily true (proof, fact, and factorum: we all have male friends who are far closer than drinking pals, right?), but that's not the point.
What is most ironic about this thesis is that the proposers claim that *normailization* and *acceptance* of homosexuality as a lifestyle will ruin male friendships, when in reality it is a logical impossibility for that to be the case; contrarily, positioning men against each other as a consequence of identifying one group as "normal," and one group as the "other" leads to greater friction and conflict *by virtue* of the fact that "other" always means "different," and society can not have an "other" without establishing a heirarchy, in which one is superior and one is inferior. So how delightful that the arguments being made by this group not only exist independent of this, or any other, major motion picture, but are also logically impossible to occur!
That having been said, allow me to say this: tee-hee.
OTOH, let's presume the opposite holds true, and that homophobia and, more specifically, the fear of being hit on or - the greatest fear of all - kissed by a man, continues to persist, then perhaps male relationships will be ruined. However, for this to be the case (that distrust of males, and the resultant broken friendships, as a result of fear of homosexuality), this movie, nor any other movie, need be part of the equation. (The same can be said of acceptance; the movie isn't a crucial component in either direction).
In the end, what this thesis suggests hides the true relationship: that hatred or acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle will affect male friendships. Granted, I don't think that's necessarily true (proof, fact, and factorum: we all have male friends who are far closer than drinking pals, right?), but that's not the point.
What is most ironic about this thesis is that the proposers claim that *normailization* and *acceptance* of homosexuality as a lifestyle will ruin male friendships, when in reality it is a logical impossibility for that to be the case; contrarily, positioning men against each other as a consequence of identifying one group as "normal," and one group as the "other" leads to greater friction and conflict *by virtue* of the fact that "other" always means "different," and society can not have an "other" without establishing a heirarchy, in which one is superior and one is inferior. So how delightful that the arguments being made by this group not only exist independent of this, or any other, major motion picture, but are also logically impossible to occur!
That having been said, allow me to say this: tee-hee.
bread's done