NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a simple question for anyone who's seen the movie. Does it deserve all the acclaim that it's given, or is it simply because it's the "gay cowboy" movie? (What I'm asking is not are gay movies bad or can't be best picture quality but more like becausethe subject is about gay romance is it getting accolades it wouldn't have gotten otherwise?)

I think it may in fact be a good movie, but even if it is, it can't possibly avoid having its popularity being influenced by the buzz surrounding the subject matter.

On the other hand, aren't all great movies, deep down, really about gay cowboys?

Frankly, I do think it's success is agenda driven. I went to see it (with my women), and I wasn't really impressed. It's not a bad movie by a long shot, but I don't think it is that deserving. Others may have an opinion that differs from mine, but I thought it was undeserving.

Frankly, I do think it's success is agenda driven. I went to see it (with my women), and I wasn't really impressed. It's not a bad movie by a long shot, but I don't think it is that deserving. Others may have an opinion that differs from mine, but I thought it was undeserving.
Yeah I thought it was fairly good

But when you think about it are not just about every big blockbuster hype or topic driven

In the end its not usualy their quality that gets the people in the seats
Its the gimics movie people use to trick you into geting there

I haven't seen it yet

but I'd liek to get me some of that gay cowboy action

It was a very gay movie. lol sorry I just had to say that lol.

I dunno, is this really the first "gay cowby" movie? What about all those movies that idiots see during the Film Festival? I think this is just the first gay cowboy movie that made it to the big time. I don't know if I'm going to see it or not, probably not. I like movies that are known for their storylines, plots, etc. instead of it being a "gay cowboy" movie.

Here's the thing, kids-there are a lot of gay movies out there. They're made every year. So if a movie is going to get accolades for being a movie with a gay theme the 'Best Movie' category would be chalked full of gay movies.

It's enough of a trend that Cartman characterized independent movies as "Gay cowboys eating pudding."

The fact of the matter is that most of the acclaim focus' on the movie being about the closing of the west and the end of a way of life, that happens to be told through the life of two gay cowboys.

So all this hand wringing and accusations of 'agenda' is really ignoring the landscape of films that are released every year.

Also, I was quite offended that Pudding was not mentioned nor was it seen.

Success often is agenda driven but I don't think there's nothing wrong with it.

Haven't seen it yet.

It was a very gay movie. lol sorry I just had to say that lol.

I dunno, is this really the first "gay cowby" movie? What about all those movies that idiots see during the Film Festival? I think this is just the first gay cowboy movie that made it to the big time. I don't know if I'm going to see it or not, probably not. I like movies that are known for their storylines, plots, etc. instead of it being a "gay cowboy" movie.
The 'gay cowboy' film dates all the way back to the 1923 Laurel and Hardy film The Soilers (http://imdb.com/title/tt0011722/). So this is nothing new-it's the story telling not the story.

(And that doesn't mean everyone is going to like it. I have no idea why people are so fond of the movies that Clint Eastwood directs, and while sometimes I'll joke about a conspiracy, it's just a difference of taste.)

The 'gay cowboy' film dates all the way back to the 1923 Laurel and Hardy film The Soilers (http://imdb.com/title/tt0011722/). So this is nothing new-it's the story telling not the story.

(And that doesn't mean everyone is going to like it. I have no idea why people are so fond of the movies that Clint Eastwood directs, and while sometimes I'll joke about a conspiracy, it's just a difference of taste.)

I like Clint Eastwoods movies. Both the one he directs and the one that he has a part in. Clint rules man!

I like Clint Eastwoods movies. Both the one he directs and the one that he has a part in. Clint rules man!
Loved him in milion dollar baby

Loved him in milion dollar baby

Yea, that was a great movie. I have it on DVD. I loved it when he would joke with the Father. It showed that even clergymen are humans.

When hasn't movie accolades been agenda-driven?

Take LOTR III. Was it a good movie? Definitely. Did it deserve to win all those oscars?
Maybe. mayyybbbeee not. But it was payback for Peter Jackson for having rescued Miramax.

Million Dollar Baby.
I thought it was far too simplistic, with caricutures instead of characters. Direction ham-fisted and the overcontrasted cinematography banal. But again, payback to Clint Eastwood cause he's a pretty big name in Hollywood these days. And they have a tendency to hand out oscars to people once they get to a certain age.

Same thing happened to Paul Newman. Finally gets an long-overdue oscar for Colour of Money. Why? Pretty much cause that was one of the last movies he did and he missed out on all his other, much better, roles.

'Schlinder's List' is another good example. It wasn't bad, there's better Holocaust movies out there, the b+w photography was crap and Liam Nesson's overacting at the end was truly appalling.
However, ya think a critic's going to stand up against the huge Jewish influence in Hollywood and say a Holocaust movie ain't that good? Instant career death there.
Best way to gain instant repesctibility is to make a tragic Holocaust movie. Just look at whatsisname in 'Life is Beautiful'.

Critics are like lemmings or sheep. Once a few start bleating that this is the best movie ever, all join in.

Find me one critic who had bad things to say about 'Lost in Translation' - an awful cliche-ridden movie if ever there was one, or 'Sideways' - not bad, but in the end a cliche movie about two friends coming to terms with their middle-age crisis and changed lives.


I may go see brokeback mountain, but I ain't expecting much. It'll be good, but it won't be great. I suspect many critics are prob a bit afraid of being called homophobic if they say it sucked.


Yeah, I am cynical.

I have no doubt that there were some people who went to see it to support an agenda--I'm sure some people went to Passion of the Christ for precisely the same reason, after all. But the fact that it's still pulling down over $3 grand a screen per day well over a month into its release tells me that there's more than an agenda at play here.

Besides, I've seen it. It's a damn fine movie. Best of the year? Not sure, but definitely in the top five I saw at the theater in 2005. Heath Ledger deserves every accolade he's gotten for his performance, and after "Knight's Tale," believe me, I never would have expected to have typed those words.

When hasn't movie accolades been agenda-driven?

Take LOTR III. Was it a good movie? Definitely. Did it deserve to win all those oscars?
Maybe. mayyybbbeee not. But it was payback for Peter Jackson for having rescued Miramax.

Million Dollar Baby.
I thought it was far too simplistic, with caricutures instead of characters. Direction ham-fisted and the overcontrasted cinematography banal. But again, payback to Clint Eastwood cause he's a pretty big name in Hollywood these days. And they have a tendency to hand out oscars to people once they get to a certain age.

Same thing happened to Paul Newman. Finally gets an long-overdue oscar for Colour of Money. Why? Pretty much cause that was one of the last movies he did and he missed out on all his other, much better, roles.

'Schlinder's List' is another good example. It wasn't bad, there's better Holocaust movies out there, the b+w photography was crap and Liam Nesson's overacting at the end was truly appalling.
However, ya think a critic's going to stand up against the huge Jewish influence in Hollywood and say a Holocaust movie ain't that good? Instant career death there.
Best way to gain instant repesctibility is to make a tragic Holocaust movie. Just look at whatsisname in 'Life is Beautiful'.

Critics are like lemmings or sheep. Once a few start bleating that this is the best movie ever, all join in.

Find me one critic who had bad things to say about 'Lost in Translation' - an awful cliche-ridden movie if ever there was one, or 'Sideways' - not bad, but in the end a cliche movie about two friends coming to terms with their middle-age crisis and changed lives.


I may go see brokeback mountain, but I ain't expecting much. It'll be good, but it won't be great. I suspect many critics are prob a bit afraid of being called homophobic if they say it sucked.


Yeah, I am cynical.
For Lost in Translation-
"Coppola lacks a firm grip on this material, and it starts to get away from her midway through." Lawrence Toppman, Charlotte Observer

"When work this potentially satisfying remains flatly obvious, it's almost worse than being flat-out bad."
-- Gregory Weinkauf, NEW TIMES

For Sideways-
"...suffers from Alexander Payne's recurring broad brushstrokes...reductive, anti-intellectual..."
-- Rick Curnutte, THEFILMJOURNAL.COM (OHIO)

"plodding, standoffish and seriously overrated."
-- Beth Jones, ROANOKE TIMES (VIRGINIA)

"Makes you feel like you're trapped at dinner with a wiseass who's trying to convince you what a sensitive guy he is."
- Charles Taylor, SALON.COM

And most reviews come out at about the same time, making it a little hard for them to try and immitate each other.

For Lost in Translation-
Lawrence Toppman, Charlotte Observer


-- Gregory Weinkauf, NEW TIMES

For Sideways-

-- Rick Curnutte, THEFILMJOURNAL.COM (OHIO)


-- Beth Jones, ROANOKE TIMES (VIRGINIA)


- Charles Taylor, SALON.COM

And most reviews come out at about the same time, making it a little hard for them to try and immitate each other.
Wow, the Ranoke times! Now there's an outstanding widely-read publication! ;)
OK, I stand corrected. Some critics do have a mind of their own. But the big ones gushed themselves silly about those movies. True most reviews come out aroundthe same time, but the big guys usually get their review copy first. What do you think would happen if they start slagging off the next big oscar-winner?
They don't get their advance copy and they're out of a job.

Wow, the Ranoke times! Now there's an outstanding widely-read publication! ;)
OK, I stand corrected. Some critics do have a mind of their own. But the big ones gushed themselves silly about those movies. True most reviews come out aroundthe same time, but the big guys usually get their review copy first. What do you think would happen if they start slagging off the next big oscar-winner?
They don't get their advance copy and they're out of a job.
First, it's interesting to imply that the only way to establish that they have a mind of their own is for them to write a bad review.

Further, I don't see Roger Ebert being all that concerned with being frozen out of his advanced screening privileges. Especially since they give them even to community college film reviewers...

EDIT: This is way after the fact and no one's likely to come back to the thread, but Lord of the Rings was released by New Line, not Mirimax. Mirimax actually passed on Lord of the Rings after Jackson didn't want to do it as two movies instead of three. It didn't 'save' New Line either, but rather made them a bigger player at the table. This kind of thing is not generally rewarded by the Academy per se. Mirimax actually hasn't been saved and instead we now have the Weinstien Company. The only 'conspiracy' related to the Oscar for Return of the King was that the Best Picture Oscar was withheld from the previous two to anticipate the last one. Whether that's true or not, you'd have to talk to the voting members.

Oh, yes, the homosexual agenda. :rolleyes: That must be it. It can't be that other people can like things you don't.

Just a simple question for anyone who's seen the movie. Does it deserve all the acclaim that it's given, or is it simply because it's the "gay cowboy" movie? (What I'm asking is not are gay movies bad or can't be best picture quality but more like becausethe subject is about gay romance is it getting accolades it wouldn't have gotten otherwise?)
It's success has a lot more to do with Ang Lee, who basically specializes in intimate portraits of families and the imperfections surrounding love despite it's ultimately nourishing nature. It's what he does. What gets awarded are performances that reveal some universal truth about intimacy. They draw out deep feelings, and they're difficult achievments because ultimately these people are pretending to grapple with shades of the inner demons everyone recognizes from their own lives. Thus Awards.

I'll point you to his other highly acclaimed works which are almost certainly more than a little familiar. Eat Drink Man Woman and The Ice Storm, to name but two. Soon it will be to the point where a movie gets awards just because it's Ang Lee's.

The only people who give a crap about gay cowboys are so called Christians who were much happier when priests and Elvis were fucking children and everyone was polite enough to never talk about it. People like me, who like Ang Lee, but neither gay cowboys nor Wyoming, don't go see the movie while still managing to live rich fullfilling lives.

I haven't seen it yet.
I read an article on it, praising it to no ends. I also saw the Crictics awards thing and the Golden Globes. So its done pretty well. I guess I'll go see it because of all this.

It's success has a lot more to do with Ang Lee, who basically specializes in intimate portraits of families and the imperfections surrounding love despite it's ultimately nourishing nature. It's what he does. What gets awarded are performances that reveal some universal truth about intimacy. They draw out deep feelings, and they're difficult achievments because ultimately these people are pretending to grapple with shades of the inner demons everyone recognizes from their own lives. Thus Awards.

I'll point you to his other highly acclaimed works which are almost certainly more than a little familiar. Eat Drink Man Woman and The Ice Storm, to name but two. Soon it will be to the point where a movie gets awards just because it's Ang Lee's.

The only people who give a crap about gay cowboys are so called Christians who were much happier when priests and Elvis were fucking children and everyone was polite enough to never talk about it. People like me, who like Ang Lee, but neither gay cowboys nor Wyoming, don't go see the movie while still managing to live rich fullfilling lives.
Ang Lee is not a magic wand yet. Remember before this film people where saying that The Hulk had ruined his career. After this I almost think he should go on a Jay & Silent Bob-esque cross country tour knocking on the doors of everyone who said that so he can point and laugh.

Ang Lee is not a magic wand yet. Remember before this film people where saying that The Hulk had ruined his career. After this I almost think he should go on a Jay & Silent Bob-esque cross country tour knocking on the doors of everyone who said that so he can point and laugh.


Hulk Get mad!

Hulks movie sucked!


As for Bareback...err...Brokeback Mountain, havent seen it, maybe I'll rent it.
Im secure enough with who I am to watch a movie if its good, (sometimes, epecially if its bad!).

Im sure half the people who are unwilling to watch something like that, is becuase they think they might be gay, if they let themselves enjoy a move with two gay leading roles.

Hulk Get mad!

Hulks movie sucked!


As for Bareback...err...Brokeback Mountain, havent seen it, maybe I'll rent it.
Im secure enough with who I am to watch a movie if its good, (sometimes, epecially if its bad!).

Im sure half the people who are unwilling to watch something like that, is becuase they think they might be gay, if they let themselves enjoy a move with two gay leading roles.
I would venture to say that there are probably more people not watching the movie because of its gay themes than there are who are watching it because of its gay theme.

EDIT: In all reality, Hulk didn't have much of a chance of being a good movie, really. Not that the movie didn't bring its own faults to things, but really he was fighting an uphill battle with that character. And while the Hulk is really the Hulk when he's smashing military equipment, it still had the same common weakness of superhero themed shows and movies that fall a little short-no super villian. His dad in the great mush battle doesn't cut it. You can only watch a super-being beat on normal dudes for so long before you want a real fight.

I would venture to say that there are probably more people not watching the movie because of its gay themes than there are who are watching it because of its gay theme.


And yet, those same people LOVED "Thelma and Louise."

Or "Monster."

or even "Spartacus".

God forbid, one day we live in a world where films reviews, and awards are given for the quality of the film, and nothing else.

I would venture to say that there are probably more people not watching the movie because of its gay themes than there are who are watching it because of its gay theme.

EDIT: In all reality, Hulk didn't have much of a chance of being a good movie, really. Not that the movie didn't bring its own faults to things, but really he was fighting an uphill battle with that character. And while the Hulk is really the Hulk when he's smashing military equipment, it still had the same common weakness of superhero themed shows and movies that fall a little short-no super villian. His dad in the great mush battle doesn't cut it. You can only watch a super-being beat on normal dudes for so long before you want a real fight.

As a comic fan, I can tell you that there are a plethora of Hulk villians to choose from.
Thats why Spider-Man'd films are better than average.
No shortage of plots.

The Hulk was poor, becuase it delivered very little of what made the Hulk cool.
Not just the smashing, and the breaking...
The fact that inside Bruce Banner, was a monster, capable of wreaking terrible havoc, and having to deal with ocassionally being responsible for such havoc.

Weak plot, coupled with even weaker final showdown, makes for a crummy superhero movie.

And yet, those same people LOVED "Thelma and Louise."

Or "Monster."

or even "Spartacus".

God forbid, one day we live in a world where films reviews, and awards are given for the quality of the film, and nothing else.
I don't think the people that are not watching Brokeback Mountain because it's gay are the same people that loved Thelma and Louise or Monster. Spartacus I'll give you, and even add Red River-where you can see gay cowboy foreplay with pistols. And that one's got John Wayne in it. And really, totally gay.

Not to pat my or Nazz's back or anything, but we totally called the success of this movie (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=457885&page=2).

God forbid, one day we live in a world where films reviews, and awards are given for the quality of the film, and nothing else.
Sorry to go for a double quote, but I got wrapped up in another response and forgot to address this and the EDITs where getting on my nerves. Not that this is less irratating or takes any more or less...anyway...

If the subject matter was what was driving this movie, then why didn't it drive the other 168 other gay themed films and shows (http://us.imdb.com/List?year=2005&&tv=on&&keywords=gay-interest&&nav=/Sections/Years/2005/include-commongenres&&heading=8;gay-interest;2005) of 2005?

Again, if gay themed was all it took to get a nomination, all the nominees would be gay movies. It's not enough, the movie has to be good.

Its a love stroy- doesn't matter to me whether its homo or hetero- I HATE LOVE STORIES.

Yes, I'm a cynic, a hard hearted bastard, have-no-soul etc etc... but I hate watching love stories. I find them forced and too blatently bloody obvious.

I blame my Mother...making me watch Remains of the Day when I was younger...BAH!
*storms off in a huff*

As a comic fan, I can tell you that there are a plethora of Hulk villians to choose from.
Thats why Spider-Man'd films are better than average.
No shortage of plots.

The Hulk was poor, becuase it delivered very little of what made the Hulk cool.
Not just the smashing, and the breaking...
The fact that inside Bruce Banner, was a monster, capable of wreaking terrible havoc, and having to deal with ocassionally being responsible for such havoc.

Weak plot, coupled with even weaker final showdown, makes for a crummy superhero movie.
Marvel character should really make better movies because of their inherent complexity. They are conflicted heroes, troubled with the ramifications of what they do and why they do it. The Hulk is the pinticle of that in some ways because The Hulk is just rage, not doing the right thing. That occasionally rage ends up doing the right thing makes it all the more troubling. But it's still a hard thing to do in a movie. It could have been good, but it was an up-hill battle. (They had a great chance for a grey Hulk vs. green Hulk-they totally set it up...ah well...)

I've read some of what's being said about the up coming Ghost Rider and they're missing the boat. They're characterizing it like he was Spawn, taking this devilish gift and tricking him by doing good. Ghost Rider is way more complex than that-Johnny Blaze wants vengance for what he feels are the wrongs done and like any good tale of selling one's soul to the devil, the devil gives him what he wants. The demon is vegence, that it enacts that vengance on the wicked isn't a trick on Blaze's part, it's what the demon does and what the devil intended. What Ghost Rider does is problematize vegence-Can Blaze handle vengence, is it really what he wanted once he is faced with its realities? He grapples with everyones internal battle over sense of anger and revenge and actual justice, and whether or not we can trust ourselves to be the judge. It's one of the better characters and there hasn't been a better time to do that character.

Instead they're doing Spawn on a chopper. Very dissapointing.

If the subject matter was what was driving this movie, then why didn't it drive the other 168 other gay themed films and shows[/url] of 2005?

Again, if gay themed was all it took to get a nomination, all the nominees would be gay movies. It's not enough, the movie has to be good.

Thats what Im trying to get at.

So many people are choosing not to see this movie, simply becuase of its gay cowboy theme.

However, since so many others ARE watching it, maybe theres something to it?

If more people just relaxed a little, and let a good movie entertain them, they'd find another world of entertaiment out there, that they had denied themselves before.

Im not implying all staight men should go and see a draq queen stripper becuae they might have fun, but lightening up ones views, on what to watch, just might open up some other possibilities than what they were accustomed to.

I love movies.
All kinds.
I love good movies, and even bad....really bad...ones too.

My most recent purchase is "The Godmonster of Indian Flats."
A film so horrible, Ed Wood would be jealous.
Its the winner of the BackwoodsSquatches "Worst Monster in a monster movie" or:

"The Golden Turd" Awards.

Another past winner...

Worst Physical Representation of the Devil:

"Satan", in:
"The Asylum of Satan"

Hoooo-boy, that was a stinker.

I'll occasionally go see a movie cold, not knowing anything or knowing very little, and man sometimes those are the most spectacular experiences. eXistenZ and Steamboy I had the opportunity to see like that.

But as a gerenal rule, if a movie doesn't pique something in me, there's no point in seeing it. Not every movie is for everyone. And while on occasion a little stretching can be good, one definately has to pick their moments. If one is looking at a preview and their instincs are screaming "BORING. NEXT." Probably a good idea to listen. That choice, and it's a choice made for any number of reasons, is a lot of inertia to overcome. All the accolades, and even genuine greatness struggle in the face of that.

I'll occasionally go see a movie cold, not knowing anything or knowing very little, and man sometimes those are the most spectacular experiences. eXistenZ and Steamboy I had the opportunity to see like that.

But as a gerenal rule, if a movie doesn't pique something in me, there's no point in seeing it. Not every movie is for everyone. And while on occasion a little stretching can be good, one definately has to pick their moments. If one is looking at a preview and their instincs are screaming "BORING. NEXT." Probably a good idea to listen. That choice, and it's a choice made for any number of reasons, is a lot of inertia to overcome. All the accolades, and even genuine greatness struggle in the face of that.
You know they actually call that 'overcome,' the natural reaction is to actually resist a movie and the marketing of the movie is to counter that is called 'overcome.' Every movie has it's own degree of resistance built into it, some more than others.

Brokeback Mountain Success - Deserved or Agenda Driven?
Yes.

It deserves the success because the agenda is such a worthy one. I'm not talking about advancing values of respect, equality, and social awareness, or even about killing the noxious stupidity of homophobia...I'm talking about making all the insecure, homophobic, whimpering little boy-men out there look like the silly and petulant children they are :).

Making homophobes eat their words is a worthy cause, in my opinion. Even if the movie is a sappy yawnfest.

Yes.

It deserves the success because the agenda is such a worthy one. I'm not talking about advancing values of respect, equality, and social awareness, or even about killing the noxious stupidity of homophobia...I'm talking about making all the insecure, homophobic, whimpering little boy-men out there look like the silly and petulant children they are :).

Making homophobes eat their words is a worthy cause, in my opinion. Even if the movie is a sappy yawnfest.
It was fun watching them squirm at the make out scene too lol

It was fun watching them squirm at the make out scene too lol
Yeah, I get more turned on at the thought of pissing off homophobes than I do at the thought of two admittedly-yummy cowboys getting it on.

Everybody I know who saw it said it was pretty good. Most of them cried, even some guys. Quite the chick flick, though.
I'm looking forward to seeing some of that hot man on man action.:D

I haven't seen it, but I like it already.. Why? Because, every poor sap with a bleeding-heart liberal girlfriend is gonna have to waste two hours pretending to enjoy it in the theater, regardless whether it's a great film or crap.. :p

I haven't seen it, but I like it already.. Why? Because, every poor sap with a bleeding-heart liberal girlfriend is gonna have to waste two hours pretending to enjoy it in the theater, regardless whether it's a great film or crap.. :p
Oh god... you brought back long-repressed memories there.
I had to endure Titanic cause of my then g/f. I managed to sit through the first hour before I'd had enough and told her I was going to the bar opposite the theatre. I asked the usher on the way out what happens and he said 'in an hour they shag, 10 minutes later the boat sinks'. Went over, downed a couple or so and headed back just in time to see the shagging in the car scene.
Perfect timing.
g/f didn't speak to me for a while after that of course.

I haven't seen it, but I like it already.. Why? Because, every poor sap with a bleeding-heart liberal girlfriend is gonna have to waste two hours pretending to enjoy it in the theater, regardless whether it's a great film or crap.. :p
My GF is republican

Still had to sit through it

I haven't seen it, but I like it already.. Why? Because, every poor sap with a bleeding-heart liberal girlfriend is gonna have to waste two hours pretending to enjoy it in the theater, regardless whether it's a great film or crap.. :p
Hon, I hate to break it to you, but it's not about the "bleeding heart." You know how lots of hetero guys enjoy watching two hot chicks make out? Well, a lot of hetero girls enjoy seeing two hot guys making out. I know this terrifies all those VERY VERY HETEROSEXUAL guys out there, but there's a good chance your girlfriend would enjoy watching you make out with a dude.

Yes.

It deserves the success because the agenda is such a worthy one. I'm not talking about advancing values of respect, equality, and social awareness, or even about killing the noxious stupidity of homophobia...I'm talking about making all the insecure, homophobic, whimpering little boy-men out there look like the silly and petulant children they are :).

Making homophobes eat their words is a worthy cause, in my opinion. Even if the movie is a sappy yawnfest.
I don't get it. I'm supposed to be a whimpering, insecure, homophobic little boy if I don't go see a movie where two guys make out with each other?

WTF?

I find depictions of gay (male) sex a little disgusting. Doesn't mean I'm insecure, only that I know what I like and don't like. Doesn't mean I'm homophobic. I've got no problem with equal rights for gays. All it means is that I'm mature enough not to go out of my way to watch something that I don't like just to prove that I'm tolerant.

I find depictions of gay (male) sex a little disgusting. Doesn't mean I'm insecure, only that I know what I like and don't like. Doesn't mean I'm homophobic.

Actually, it does. If seeing straight couples kiss doesn't make you sick, but seeing gay couples do so, you are homophobic. You may not be Phelps homophobic, but there are degrees of homophobia.

I've got no problem with equal rights for gays. All it means is that I'm mature enough not to go out of my way to watch something that I don't like just to prove that I'm tolerant.

No, what it means is that you are so immature as to let a kiss and whatever slight discomfort it may cause you stand in your way from seeing an entire film.

Hollywood have an agenda?!?!?!?!?!?! Say it isn't so!

I doubt the movie is doing well simply because people want to push a gay agenda.

People are strange. Heck many LOVED Star Wars 1-3. People paid money to see Gigli!

Hmmm what was the Denzel Washington quote on the Oscars? ;)

People are strange. Heck many LOVED Star Wars 1-3. People paid money to see Gigli!

Not much; it only earned $5.6 million total :D

When i watch a cowboy movie, it had better have shootouts, a stagecoach, and some guy with a sam Elliot moustache falling off a saloon roof. If I want a gay love story, I'll ask my friend Geoff how he met his boyfriend.

Also, doesn't look like there's an exploding helicopter in this movie, so I'm not paying ten bucks.

Actually, it does. If seeing straight couples kiss doesn't make you sick, but seeing gay couples do so, you are homophobic. You may not be Phelps homophobic, but there are degrees of homophobia.

Well okay, what if I disliked seeing horses fuck? Am I equinophobic?

I can imagine someone would be homophobic for being fine with watching a male and a female horse fuck, but dislikes watching two stallions go at it.

But I just have a blanket non-interest in sexual activity that neither arouses, nor amuses, nor involves me. Is that so wrong?

When i watch a cowboy movie, it had better have shootouts, a stagecoach, and some guy with a sam Elliot moustache falling off a saloon roof. If I want a gay love story, I'll ask my friend Geoff how he met his boyfriend.

Also, doesn't look like there's an exploding helicopter in this movie, so I'm not paying ten bucks.
I agree. Westerns aren't supposed to be love stories, hetero or homo. They're supposed to be about vengence, justice, and other themes that lead to violent conflict.

Well okay, what if I disliked seeing horses fuck? Am I equinophobic?


Eww an opening. Resist. Resist! Sorry I can't

Maybe you wish you had better equipment! :p

Eww an opening. Resist. Resist! Sorry I can't

Maybe you wish you had better equipment! :p

With equipment that size he'd need a forklift liscense and would be bankrupt on pants.

Just a simple question for anyone who's seen the movie. Does it deserve all the acclaim that it's given, or is it simply because it's the "gay cowboy" movie? (What I'm asking is not are gay movies bad or can't be best picture quality but more like becausethe subject is about gay romance is it getting accolades it wouldn't have gotten otherwise?)
Golden Globes and Oscars and all those other worthles awards they pretend are Gold but are really just spray painted tin foil.
Holywood has it's own agenda and this proven by the number of awards the LOTR Trilogy recieved.

I agree. Westerns aren't supposed to be love stories, hetero or homo. They're supposed to be about vengence, justice, and other themes that lead to violent conflict.

Dont forget Josie Wales spitting tobacoo juice on a snake oil salesman's coat.

Eww an opening. Resist. Resist! Sorry I can't

Maybe you wish you had better equipment! :p

For the record, if I'm driving by a ranch and there's two horses getting down and dirty in the field, I stop the car and watch! Oh yeah!

Dont forget Josie Wales spitting tobacoo juice on a snake oil salesman's coat.
A fine film about the power of violence to heal one from the scars of earlier violence.

I don't get it. I'm supposed to be a whimpering, insecure, homophobic little boy if I don't go see a movie where two guys make out with each other?

WTF?

I find depictions of gay (male) sex a little disgusting. Doesn't mean I'm insecure, only that I know what I like and don't like. Doesn't mean I'm homophobic. I've got no problem with equal rights for gays. All it means is that I'm mature enough not to go out of my way to watch something that I don't like just to prove that I'm tolerant.
That's a lovely straw man you've got there.

Of course, what I actually said was that I like pissing off the homophobes. If you feel that you are a homophobe, then I guess I would enjoy pissing you off. If you're just a fellow who isn't interested in seeing Brokeback Mountain, then my post didn't apply to you.

My own boyfriend isn't interested in seeing it. Frankly, neither am I, at least not for the movie itself. I am interested in it simply because of the people throwing tantrums over it...the movie itself is the kind of sappy "chick flick" that puts me to sleep. Nothing wrong with being uninterested in the film.

That's a lovely straw man you've got there.

Of course, what I actually said was that I like pissing off the homophobes. If you feel that you are a homophobe, then I guess I would enjoy pissing you off. If you're just a fellow who isn't interested in seeing Brokeback Mountain, then my post didn't apply to you.

My own boyfriend isn't interested in seeing it. Frankly, neither am I, at least not for the movie itself. I am interested in it simply because of the people throwing tantrums over it...the movie itself is the kind of sappy "chick flick" that puts me to sleep. Nothing wrong with being uninterested in the film.
My bad. I thought you were saying that guys who don't see it are homophobes.

I personally cannot stand any award shows. It disgusts me to see people that act gladhand and backslap each other in displays of wretched excess. There are whole shows devoted to what these mindless whores are wearing to the events.
I'm not a fan of any of the award shows.

For the record, if I'm driving by a ranch and there's two horses getting down and dirty in the field, I stop the car and watch! Oh yeah!

you shouldnt be allowed to watch for free.

you shouldnt be allowed to watch for free.

But if I pay the rancher, I fund sex worker exploitation.

A fine film about the power of violence to heal one from the scars of earlier violence.

c'mon-dont pretend you dont like that movie.

But if I pay the rancher, I fund sex worker exploitation.

So join in and make a little cash. Now, now, don't tell me you're equinophobic.

But if I pay the rancher, I fund sex worker exploitation.


Nah-some of those horses live better than humans.

So join in and make a little cash. Now, now, don't tell me you're equinophobic.

I have nothing against horses, but who would pay me? It's a dead end job you're trying to get me into. Plus, the ranchers get upset.

I have nothing against horses, but who would pay me? It's a REAR end job you're trying to get me into. Plus, the ranchers get upset.

Fixed that for ya.

I have nothing against horses, but who would pay me? It's a dead end job you're trying to get me into. Plus, the ranchers get upset.

your dry cleaner would be upset too...

I have nothing against horses, but who would pay me? It's a dead end job you're trying to get me into. Plus, the ranchers get upset.
I've heard that they actually pay people to give the horses hand jobs to gather sperm for in vitro fertilization and to get them horny before breeding them normally. Kinda like an equine fluffer.

Fluffer:

A fluffer prepares the cocks of pornstars for action on the set of an adult movie before the shooting of an explicit sex scene.

courtesy of http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fluffer&f=1

your dry cleaner would be upset too...

I think you mean vacuum cleaner.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00008Z9XZ.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

I think you mean vacuum cleaner.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00008Z9XZ.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

That little guy looks real eager to suck.

I think you mean vacuum cleaner.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00008Z9XZ.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

I did mean dry cleaner, thinking of the spattering you might withstand and maybe also being driven into the dirt.

I'm biased in the first place, considering I hate love stories. Add gay cowboy sex, and Heath Ledger, and I'd probably rather scratch through a brick wall with my fingernails.

I've heard that they actually pay people to give the horses hand jobs to gather sperm for in vitro fertilization and to get them horny before breeding them normally. Kinda like an equine fluffer.

Fluffer:



courtesy of http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fluffer&f=1


How are fluffers compensated?
Do you have to tip a fluffer ?
Do bad fluffers finish the performer? Is their fluffer malpractice if they ruin a shoot?

How are fluffers compensated?
Do you have to tip a fluffer ?
Do bad fluffers finish the performer? Is their fluffer malpractice if they ruin a shoot?
Their pay is direct deposited into a sperm bank.
No, you don't have to tip, but it's just good manners.
Yes, bad fluffers give the old happy ending.
There's insurance for fluffer malpractice, but because of the price many fluffers are going into less risky fields.

I am a cowboy, horses, work, etc., and I think that this damn movie is a complete insult to all the hardworkers, and the only reason this movie got its publicity is because them screwed up in the head actors think their cowboys cause they wear shit kickers, when their just light in their lofers, its a contridiction, and again an insult. As much as I dislike Utah, Im glad their theatres agreed to not play this movie, good for them.

until i watch it I can't comment

Their pay is direct deposited into a sperm bank.
No, you don't have to tip, but it's just good manners.
Yes, bad fluffers give the old happy ending.
There's insurance for fluffer malpractice, but because of the price many fluffers are going into less risky fields.

*L* Thanks