I agree, but the problem is the softly-softly intelligent rational debate approach isn't working.
First, you don't know that it isn't working. For example...within my own circle of friendship, worship, faith, influence I don't see/experience the kind of stuff you seem to be seeing.
Second, have you considered that this stuff is not nearly as big as you think it is, but its just that the loud ones (however small a minority they might be) are the ones that get the press attention? You know the press is all about ratings/readership right? Could it be that no one really cares to see a bunch of ordinary Christians living their lives, trying to live morally pure lives, taking care of their families...not cheating on their wives...not molesting children...not beating up homosexuals...or whatever? And so we don't really see much of it? It doesn't make for very interesting headlines or evening news.
Third, what is it that I should do (according to you)? How should "stand up and be counted"?
Oliver Stone is blaming you ignorant redneck Bible-thumpers for the abject failure of his most recent movie:
Often-controversial director Oliver Stone has blamed the failure of his epic film Alexander on the "raging fundamentalism" in the U.S. South.
The film, which stars Irish actor Colin Farrell in the story of the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great, was greeted with derisive reviews.
It was also a failure at the box office. Budgeted at roughly $150 million U.S., it has pulled in only $34 million so far.
"I was quite taken aback by the controversy and fierceness of the reviews about a character we don't really know too much about," Stone said before the film's British premiere on Wednesday.
Ollie, I am not a fundamentalist. You know why your movie did so poorly?
Because it_ s u c k e d_.
My favorite comment from a reviewer:
Watching Oliver Stone's Alexander is like being strapped to a motion-simulator seat in an ancient history theme park. You can scream but you cannot escape.
Heh.
Stone faults "fundamentalism" for film flop
Matt_Bramanti
Oliver Stone is blaming you ignorant redneck Bible-thumpers for the abject failure of his most recent movie:
Often-controversial director Oliver Stone has blamed the failure of his epic film Alexander on the "raging fundamentalism" in the U.S. South.
The film, which stars Irish actor Colin Farrell in the story of the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great, was greeted with derisive reviews.
It was also a failure at the box office. Budgeted at roughly $150 million U.S., it has pulled in only $34 million so far.
"I was quite taken aback by the controversy and fierceness of the reviews about a character we don't really know too much about," Stone said before the film's British premiere on Wednesday.
Ollie, I am not a fundamentalist. You know why your movie did so poorly?
Because it_ s u c k e d_.
My favorite comment from a reviewer:
Watching Oliver Stone's Alexander is like being strapped to a motion-simulator seat in an ancient history theme park. You can scream but you cannot escape.
Face facts, the groupthink in Hollywood produced a lame piece of crap. They avoided the whole gay issue in "Troy", and it didn't do so well anyway.
Unfortunatly both movies also avoided THE FRELLING STORY. The reason "Gladiator" did so well was NOT the special effects, but becuase It had a story. And a very pagan story at that.
No matter what it is definitely not Stone's fault the movie flopped. And despite the fact that his noelib pals back in hollywood will lap this tripe up it's all true!
Scott is correct, it is not the Producer's or Director's responsibility to produce a marketable product -- only to spend millions with the vauge hope that the movie might make it.
But, back to Gladiator. Russell Crowe is worshipping Idols for crap's sake!! I didn't hear shitski about how evil the movie was -- or how Scott (Ridley) was wontly promoting pantheism.
No, not a word.
But the STORY was there, and regardless of where you believe Crowe's character would end up after death, you identified with some age-old themes that the STORY had laid out.
Also, I just watched _The Door in the Floor_, it was filled with TOTALLY GRATUITUS shots of Kim Bassinger fully naked in just about every sexual position a woman of her age can get into. The problem? It wasn't necesarry. It could have been done off camera, but the little pervert director didn't have the skill to pull it off -- probably because he was to busy taking the dailies home and beating off to them. The whole issue of putting the amount of sex into the current crop of crap comming out of Hollywood is bizzarre.
So the fact that yes, most men don't like male on male romance, probably didn't faze them --- they may have even realized that after focus grouping the movie that "hey we don't have a story, lets sell it on breaking a taboo or two."
I actually had my doubt on Crowe's acting ability. I thought he was pretty flat --- until I saw _A Bueatiful Mind_ --- his redition of the John Nash as very old was amazing. Usually you can see the actor under the makeup, I couldn't undestand why they gave the Oscar to ding dong instead for rolling around on the pavement yell "my niggah!" in _Training Day_.
Agreed - but just because a movie doesn't make it doesn't make it bad.
Some of the best movies of the last 10 years (arguably most of them) never made it. Certainly I'd rather personally take my chances with a movie that is panned by the mob than a Hollywood Blockbuster. Every time.
I actually had my doubt on Crowe's acting ability. I thought he was pretty flat --- until I saw _A Bueatiful Mind_ --- his redition of the John Nash as very old was amazing.
that is the most over rated piece of mythologizing garbage this side of . . . . well . . . . other bad 'serious' films from Hollywood
People liked it because it pandered to their pretensions to intelligence, making people congratulate themselves for watching a movie about a 'smart' man . . . it was weak!
that is the most over rated piece of mythologizing garbage this side of . . . . well . . . . other bad 'serious' films from Hollywood
People liked it because it pandered to their pretensions to intelligence, making people congratulate themselves for watching a movie about a 'smart' man . . . it was weak!
I didn't say the movie was good, only Crowe's performance. There was a bit more to Dr. Nash than they showed. I don't think Hollywood is capable of accuratly relating anything outside of sexual positions.
I didn't say the movie was good, only Crowe's performance. There was a bit more to Dr. Nash than they showed. I don't think Hollywood is capable of accuratly relating anything outside of sexual positions.
you didn't have to watch it. Infact, I expect you enjoyed every moment of the perversions, but then the guilt set in, so you thought you'd better mouth off about it to appease God.
Why didn't you turn it off the moment a tit flopped out?
you didn't have to watch it. Infact, I expect you enjoyed every moment of the perversions, but then the guilt set in, so you thought you'd better mouth off about it to appease God.
Why didn't you turn it off the moment a tit flopped out?
"Ding dong"? Do you mean Denzel Washington? I thought Training Day was really quite good and that Denzel was excellent.
( oh gosh, here I go...opening a can of worms here. )
I like Washington. I really do. I think his acting in Training Day was great. I thought Crowe deserved the Oscar that year though (or even Tom Wilkinson for that matter). It seem rather evident to me that that year was the "Black Oscar Awards Night". No I am not a racist in any way, shape or form. I am only stating my observation about that night. It was just so damn obvious. Denzel Washington. Halle Barry (vs. Sissy Spacek and Judi Dench!). And lifetime award for Sydney Poitier...who I love and appears to be one of the classiest guys in Hollywood. No question he deserves the lifetime achievement award/recognition. The whole thing seem rather staged to me is all.
( oh gosh, here I go...opening a can of worms here. )
I like Washington. I really do. I think his acting in Training Day was great. I thought Crowe deserved the Oscar that year though (or even Tom Wilkinson for that matter). It seem rather evident to me that that year was the "Black Oscar Awards Night". No I am not a racist in any way, shape or form. I am only stating my observation about that night. It was just so damn obvious. Denzel Washington. Halle Barry (vs. Sissy Spacek and Judi Dench!). And lifetime award for Sydney Poitier...who I love and appears to be one of the classiest guys in Hollywood. No question he deserves the lifetime achievement award/recognition. The whole thing seem rather staged to me is all.
That's a rather rough way to describe a remarkable night.
( oh gosh, here I go...opening a can of worms here. )
I like Washington. I really do. I think his acting in Training Day was great. I thought Crowe deserved the Oscar that year though (or even Tom Wilkinson for that matter). It seem rather evident to me that that year was the "Black Oscar Awards Night". No I am not a racist in any way, shape or form. I am only stating my observation about that night. It was just so damn obvious. Denzel Washington. Halle Barry (vs. Sissy Spacek and Judi Dench!). And lifetime award for Sydney Poitier...who I love and appears to be one of the classiest guys in Hollywood. No question he deserves the lifetime achievement award/recognition. The whole thing seem rather staged to me is all.
Sure, I agree completely. This is why I don't really watch the Oscars. When Russell Crowe gets the Oscar for "Gladiator" when he's CLEARLY getting it for The Insider...that's the kind of stuff that pisses me off.
Berry was glorious in Monster's Ball, and I think she should've won the Oscar.
Comments
Originally posted by MarcUK
I agree, but the problem is the softly-softly intelligent rational debate approach isn't working.
First, you don't know that it isn't working. For example...within my own circle of friendship, worship, faith, influence I don't see/experience the kind of stuff you seem to be seeing.
Second, have you considered that this stuff is not nearly as big as you think it is, but its just that the loud ones (however small a minority they might be) are the ones that get the press attention? You know the press is all about ratings/readership right? Could it be that no one really cares to see a bunch of ordinary Christians living their lives, trying to live morally pure lives, taking care of their families...not cheating on their wives...not molesting children...not beating up homosexuals...or whatever? And so we don't really see much of it? It doesn't make for very interesting headlines or evening news.
Third, what is it that I should do (according to you)? How should "stand up and be counted"?
From Lonestar Times:
Stone faults "fundamentalism" for film flop
Matt_Bramanti
Oliver Stone is blaming you ignorant redneck Bible-thumpers for the abject failure of his most recent movie:
Often-controversial director Oliver Stone has blamed the failure of his epic film Alexander on the "raging fundamentalism" in the U.S. South.
The film, which stars Irish actor Colin Farrell in the story of the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great, was greeted with derisive reviews.
It was also a failure at the box office. Budgeted at roughly $150 million U.S., it has pulled in only $34 million so far.
"I was quite taken aback by the controversy and fierceness of the reviews about a character we don't really know too much about," Stone said before the film's British premiere on Wednesday.
Ollie, I am not a fundamentalist. You know why your movie did so poorly?
Because it_ s u c k e d_.
My favorite comment from a reviewer:
Watching Oliver Stone's Alexander is like being strapped to a motion-simulator seat in an ancient history theme park. You can scream but you cannot escape.
Heh.
Stone faults "fundamentalism" for film flop
Matt_Bramanti
Oliver Stone is blaming you ignorant redneck Bible-thumpers for the abject failure of his most recent movie:
Often-controversial director Oliver Stone has blamed the failure of his epic film Alexander on the "raging fundamentalism" in the U.S. South.
The film, which stars Irish actor Colin Farrell in the story of the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great, was greeted with derisive reviews.
It was also a failure at the box office. Budgeted at roughly $150 million U.S., it has pulled in only $34 million so far.
"I was quite taken aback by the controversy and fierceness of the reviews about a character we don't really know too much about," Stone said before the film's British premiere on Wednesday.
Ollie, I am not a fundamentalist. You know why your movie did so poorly?
Because it_ s u c k e d_.
My favorite comment from a reviewer:
Watching Oliver Stone's Alexander is like being strapped to a motion-simulator seat in an ancient history theme park. You can scream but you cannot escape.
Heh.
Unfortunatly both movies also avoided THE FRELLING STORY. The reason "Gladiator" did so well was NOT the special effects, but becuase It had a story. And a very pagan story at that.
Originally posted by Scott
No matter what it is definitely not Stone's fault the movie flopped.
How can you possibly say that?
( oh wait, maybe you are being sarcastic? emoticons please. )
But, back to Gladiator. Russell Crowe is worshipping Idols for crap's sake!! I didn't hear shitski about how evil the movie was -- or how Scott (Ridley) was wontly promoting pantheism.
No, not a word.
But the STORY was there, and regardless of where you believe Crowe's character would end up after death, you identified with some age-old themes that the STORY had laid out.
Also, I just watched _The Door in the Floor_, it was filled with TOTALLY GRATUITUS shots of Kim Bassinger fully naked in just about every sexual position a woman of her age can get into. The problem? It wasn't necesarry. It could have been done off camera, but the little pervert director didn't have the skill to pull it off -- probably because he was to busy taking the dailies home and beating off to them. The whole issue of putting the amount of sex into the current crop of crap comming out of Hollywood is bizzarre.
So the fact that yes, most men don't like male on male romance, probably didn't faze them --- they may have even realized that after focus grouping the movie that "hey we don't have a story, lets sell it on breaking a taboo or two."
Can anyone say "bullshit"?
Originally posted by segovius
Agreed - but just because a movie doesn't make it doesn't make it bad.
Some of the best movies of the last 10 years (arguably most of them) never made it. Certainly I'd rather personally take my chances with a movie that is panned by the mob than a Hollywood Blockbuster. Every time.
I agree.
Originally posted by dmz
I actually had my doubt on Crowe's acting ability. I thought he was pretty flat --- until I saw _A Bueatiful Mind_ --- his redition of the John Nash as very old was amazing.
that is the most over rated piece of mythologizing garbage this side of . . . . well . . . . other bad 'serious' films from Hollywood
People liked it because it pandered to their pretensions to intelligence, making people congratulate themselves for watching a movie about a 'smart' man . . . it was weak!
Originally posted by dmz
I couldn't undestand why they gave the Oscar to ding dong instead for rolling around on the pavement yell "my niggah!" in _Training Day_.
"Ding dong"? Do you mean Denzel Washington? I thought Training Day was really quite good and that Denzel was excellent.
Originally posted by pfflam
that is the most over rated piece of mythologizing garbage this side of . . . . well . . . . other bad 'serious' films from Hollywood
People liked it because it pandered to their pretensions to intelligence, making people congratulate themselves for watching a movie about a 'smart' man . . . it was weak!
I didn't say the movie was good, only Crowe's performance. There was a bit more to Dr. Nash than they showed. I don't think Hollywood is capable of accuratly relating anything outside of sexual positions.
Originally posted by midwinter
"Ding dong"? Do you mean Denzel Washington? I thought Training Day was really quite good and that Denzel was excellent.
hmmmm.. I think it's too easy to play a bad guy.
Originally posted by dmz
I didn't say the movie was good, only Crowe's performance. There was a bit more to Dr. Nash than they showed. I don't think Hollywood is capable of accuratly relating anything outside of sexual positions.
you didn't have to watch it. Infact, I expect you enjoyed every moment of the perversions, but then the guilt set in, so you thought you'd better mouth off about it to appease God.
Why didn't you turn it off the moment a tit flopped out?
Originally posted by MarcUK
you didn't have to watch it. Infact, I expect you enjoyed every moment of the perversions, but then the guilt set in, so you thought you'd better mouth off about it to appease God.
Why didn't you turn it off the moment a tit flopped out?
Oh, behave.
Originally posted by midwinter
"Ding dong"? Do you mean Denzel Washington? I thought Training Day was really quite good and that Denzel was excellent.
( oh gosh, here I go...opening a can of worms here. )
I like Washington. I really do. I think his acting in Training Day was great. I thought Crowe deserved the Oscar that year though (or even Tom Wilkinson for that matter). It seem rather evident to me that that year was the "Black Oscar Awards Night". No I am not a racist in any way, shape or form. I am only stating my observation about that night. It was just so damn obvious. Denzel Washington. Halle Barry (vs. Sissy Spacek and Judi Dench!). And lifetime award for Sydney Poitier...who I love and appears to be one of the classiest guys in Hollywood. No question he deserves the lifetime achievement award/recognition. The whole thing seem rather staged to me is all.
Originally posted by dmz
There's no denying Washingtion is a great actor.
Totally agree.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
( oh gosh, here I go...opening a can of worms here. )
I like Washington. I really do. I think his acting in Training Day was great. I thought Crowe deserved the Oscar that year though (or even Tom Wilkinson for that matter). It seem rather evident to me that that year was the "Black Oscar Awards Night". No I am not a racist in any way, shape or form. I am only stating my observation about that night. It was just so damn obvious. Denzel Washington. Halle Barry (vs. Sissy Spacek and Judi Dench!). And lifetime award for Sydney Poitier...who I love and appears to be one of the classiest guys in Hollywood. No question he deserves the lifetime achievement award/recognition. The whole thing seem rather staged to me is all.
That's a rather rough way to describe a remarkable night.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
( oh gosh, here I go...opening a can of worms here. )
I like Washington. I really do. I think his acting in Training Day was great. I thought Crowe deserved the Oscar that year though (or even Tom Wilkinson for that matter). It seem rather evident to me that that year was the "Black Oscar Awards Night". No I am not a racist in any way, shape or form. I am only stating my observation about that night. It was just so damn obvious. Denzel Washington. Halle Barry (vs. Sissy Spacek and Judi Dench!). And lifetime award for Sydney Poitier...who I love and appears to be one of the classiest guys in Hollywood. No question he deserves the lifetime achievement award/recognition. The whole thing seem rather staged to me is all.
Sure, I agree completely. This is why I don't really watch the Oscars. When Russell Crowe gets the Oscar for "Gladiator" when he's CLEARLY getting it for The Insider...that's the kind of stuff that pisses me off.
Berry was glorious in Monster's Ball, and I think she should've won the Oscar.
But I agree with you. The whole thing is staged.