The W
Views: 97849180
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
31.7.07 1249
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - The Hollywood Agenda: BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (contains film spoilers)
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3(166 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (45 total)
Cerebus
Knackwurst
Level: 108

Posts: 1581/3453
EXP: 13264615
For next: 255928

Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
#41 Posted on 25.1.06 1338.50
Reposted on: 25.1.13 1339.04
Liberal ZIONIST plot... Illuminati theory... Nice buzz words you got going there, but think about it.

In 2004, gay marriages were struck down all over the country in the election.

2005 sees Hollywood's worst year, creatively AND monetarily, in over a decade.

Hollywood is quite known for it's 'free love' with anything that breaths, male and female. As an industry, the entertainment business has the most homosexuals in it, percentage wise.

After a year that sees films bomb with the critics and audiences alike, a little film about a homosexual relationship comes out and gets more press then ANY film that was released during the year.

...to me, I smell a conspiracy. If it wasn't for the media trying to force this film into our heads, I wouldn't care so much, but with it being touted as the single most inspirational film going experience of the year... I call shenanigans.

Personally, I think homosexuality it wrong. Not just the man on man love either, I don't get off on seeing two women going at it either, in all honesty. It's not right. Physically, humans are made to breed. Men make the seed and woman nurture it in the womb. Two people of the same sex can not do this, so it's wrong. Bash me if you must, but this is just how I feel, and I think the majority of the world sees it the same way as I do. Strangely, those people are usually religious groups, of which I am not a part of any, which I suppose just makes me a nutcase.

    Originally posted by astroidboy
    The reason it got all the media attention is because it was the first major Hollywood release with two gay leads and had major young actors playing the roles. That's news.


Really? What about THE BIRDCAGE, which starred Robin Williams and Nathan Lane? What about STAIRCASE, which starred Richard Burton and Rex Harrison? What about TO WONG FU, which starred John Leguizamo, Wesley Snipes, and Patrick Swayze? What about PRISCILLA QUEEN OF THE DESERT, which starred Terence Stamp, Guy Pearce, and Hugo Weaving? What about RED RIVER? It featured gay cowboys. It was made way back in 1948 and starred John Wayne. It also featured Montgomery Cliff and John Ireland and obviously closeted homosexuals. This movie isn't 'news'. These people just want you to THINK it's news.
The Goon
Boudin blanc
Moderator
Level: 94

Posts: 1417/2423
EXP: 8083168
For next: 273520

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#42 Posted on 25.1.06 1346.47
Reposted on: 25.1.13 1346.49
    Originally posted by Cerebus
    I don't get off on seeing two women going at it either, in all honesty. It's not right.


Now you've gone too far!
asteroidboy
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 2217/2241
EXP: 7173938
For next: 14698

Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1345 days
Last activity: 253 days
#43 Posted on 25.1.06 1404.48
Reposted on: 25.1.13 1404.56
    Originally posted by Cerebus
    If it wasn't for the media trying to force this film into our heads, I wouldn't care so much, but with it being touted as the single most inspirational film going experience of the year... I call shenanigans.


Did you see the movie? Could it be that people are hyping the movie because it's actually GOOD, irrespective of the media hype? Again, you'd have to actually watch it to judge it on its merit, but I realize it's easier to just hypothesize.

You're trying to have it both ways. You say that you wouldn't really care about the movie, if the liberal media masters weren't trying to bombard you with it. And in your first post, you blithely said, "Personally, I could care less if a man wants to have 'relations' with another man." But then, you tip your hand...


    Originally posted by Cerebus
    Personally, I think homosexuality it wrong. Not just the man on man love either, I don't get off on seeing two women going at it either, in all honesty. It's not right.


That's cool. So don't watch the movie. But don't howl about the quality of something you've never seen either.

And if it's media saturation you're upset about, I'm sorry if you have had to sit through a few innocuous trailers during some TV shows. But forcing this fim into our heads? Come on. I must have missed the Brokeback collector cups to go along with the Brokeback Mountain happy meal at McDonalds. Or the poseable action figures (with up to seven America-destroying positions!) available for children at Toys R Us.

The Star Wars franchise... now THAT'S trying to force a movie in our heads.


    Bash me if you must, but this is just how I feel, and I think the majority of the world sees it the same way as I do. Strangely, those people are usually religious groups, of which I am not a part of any, which I suppose just makes me a nutcase.


Blatant generalization on all points.


    Really? What about THE BIRDCAGE, which starred Robin Williams and Nathan Lane? What about STAIRCASE, which starred Richard Burton and Rex Harrison? What about TO WONG FU, which starred John Leguizamo, Wesley Snipes, and Patrick Swayze? What about PRISCILLA QUEEN OF THE DESERT, which starred Terence Stamp, Guy Pearce, and Hugo Weaving? What about RED RIVER? It featured gay cowboys. It was made way back in 1948 and starred John Wayne. It also featured Montgomery Cliff and John Ireland and obviously closeted homosexuals.


Damn, I'm guilty of the same thing. I stand corrected on the "first gay movie EVER" front. Let me rephrase and say it has been the first major gay movie LATELY. Like wrestling, 10 years is an eternity in Hollywood. But to think that reporters and editors aren't going to jump on that story, if nothing else for a public reaction piece, just proves that you aren't familiar with how the media works.

It's easy to report and it involves sex, which virtually guarantees it play. Again, I'll grant you that it may point to certain bad habits of the modern media, primarily laziness and an obsession with entertainment.

As for any conspiracy to recruit your young boys into show choir, I'm gonna need to see more proof.

(edited by asteroidboy on 25.1.06 1406)

(edited by asteroidboy on 25.1.06 1407)
Leroy
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 666/2250
EXP: 7204698
For next: 264243

Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 27 min.
#44 Posted on 25.1.06 1409.33
Reposted on: 25.1.13 1409.48
    Originally posted by Cerebus

    2005 sees Hollywood's worst year, creatively AND monetarily, in over a decade.



That's simply not true.

According to Roger Ebert:

"2005 will eventually be the second or third best year in box-office history. Industry analyst David Poland at moviecitynews.com has been consistently right about this non-story."

    Originally posted by Cerebus

    Personally, I think homosexuality it wrong. Not just the man on man love either, I don't get off on seeing two women going at it either, in all honesty. It's not right.


Which is really the ONLY issue you, AWArulz, etc, have with the film. If it were ANY OTHER ROMANTIC FILM, I seriously doubt we'd hear a PEEP out of you. No, instead there must be some GAY CONSIPRACY. It's just ludicrious. And in order to "prove" your theory, you put together a bunch of assumptions, half of which are completely false, to try to prove that conclusion.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 2185/3059
EXP: 11466371
For next: 5074

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1903 days
Last activity: 1837 days
#45 Posted on 25.1.06 1438.37
Reposted on: 25.1.13 1439.24
    Originally posted by Cerebus
    Liberal ZIONIST plot... Illuminati theory... Nice buzz words you got going there, but think about it.


I appear to have thought about the issue more than you have, seeing as I've SEEN THE DAMN MOVIE.


    In 2004, gay marriages were struck down all over the country in the election.


Relevant how? Are all things gay inexorably interwebbed?


    2005 sees Hollywood's worst year, creatively AND monetarily, in over a decade.


Opinion. And also bullcrap. Brokeback, Munich, A History Of Violence, War Of The Worlds, Capote, Goodnight And Good Luck, Sin City, Crash, Batman Begins, Land of The Dead, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Wallace And Gromit, The Corpse Bride, Nightwatch, Everything Is Illuminated, Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire, King Kong, The Constant Gardner, Kung Fu Hustle, Ong-Bak. All excellent. And thats without me even trying.


    Hollywood is quite known for it's 'free love' with anything that breaths, male and female. As an industry, the entertainment business has the most homosexuals in it, percentage wise.


What the fuck is this, the Sixties? Or do you draw your facts from the Big Book O' Cliches?


    After a year that sees films bomb with the critics and audiences alike, a little film about a homosexual relationship comes out and gets more press then ANY film that was released during the year.



Seriously, I don't think I can debate a point this stupid. I'm not sure what "press" you're referring to, but I don't see Brokeback invading us through our TVs, our food, our kids' toys and every other walk of life the way Star Wars did. Or Harry Potter. Or Kong. Or even The Freaking Island. I'll scan the copies of the film-mag monthlies if you want proof, we can count the cover stories and articles dedicated to gay cowboys eating pudding.


    ...to me, I smell a conspiracy. If it wasn't for the media trying to force this film into our heads, I wouldn't care so much, but with it being touted as the single most inspirational film going experience of the year... I call shenanigans.


Oh if only so much thought went into perceivng injustice within your government, or our foreign affairs. But hey-those are unimportant compared to a movie that might spread The Dreaded Gay!


    Personally, I think homosexuality it wrong. Not just the man on man love either, I don't get off on seeing two women going at it either, in all honesty. It's not right. Physically, humans are made to breed. Men make the seed and woman nurture it in the womb. Two people of the same sex can not do this, so it's wrong. Bash me if you must, but this is just how I feel, and I think the majority of the world sees it the same way as I do.


And here we get to the REAL point of your post. Ya know what? You go ahead and think homosexuality is wrong all you want. Just don't force your views down other people's throats. And don't bitch and whine when *gasp!* some parts of society seem to accept things that you disagree with. You're big enough to do that, aren't you?


    Really? What about THE BIRDCAGE, which starred Robin Williams and Nathan Lane? What about STAIRCASE, which starred Richard Burton and Rex Harrison? What about TO WONG FU, which starred John Leguizamo, Wesley Snipes, and Patrick Swayze? What about PRISCILLA QUEEN OF THE DESERT, which starred Terence Stamp, Guy Pearce, and Hugo Weaving? What about RED RIVER? It featured gay cowboys. It was made way back in 1948 and starred John Wayne. It also featured Montgomery Cliff and John Ireland and obviously closeted homosexuals. This movie isn't 'news'. These people just want you to THINK it's news.


Jesus, you're touting The Birdcage and Too Wong Foo as groundbreaking depictions of homosexuals? This is the first mainstream movie to treat homosexuality as something other than a well-timed group of puns and stereotypes designed to make the audience feel better about their prejudices, is that better?

You know why Hollywood's pushing this? Because it's doing phenomenal business for a film of its stature, people genuinely like it, and-drum roll, please-THE STUDIO WANTS TO WIN AWARDS. They're not trying to brainwash you into some sweaty man-on-man love. They're milking their Oscar cow for all that it's worth. So don't get your panties in such a bunch; Hollywood-at-large will go back to its time-tested depictions of mincing, pansy-ass homos populating such cinematic giants as The Longest Yard just as soon as those statuettes are handed out.


(edited by oldschoolhero on 25.1.06 1417)
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2 3Thread ahead: Is a Bias toward one political slant OK for a journalist?
Next thread: Canadian Election Hits Homestretch
Previous thread: New nutjob on shortwave
(166 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - The Hollywood Agenda: BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (contains film spoilers)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.16 seconds.