I will not go see the movie because the main thought is about gays.
For all ya'll that want to be a cowboy. I got news. Its dirty, smelly, cold in the winter, hot in the summer, low pay, long days, nsaty work. Some mondern day cowboys I know would do it even if they wern't paid. Me, I'd rather eat them than work with them.
I nearly always find these threads amusing, if for no other reason than, some people who were in a cult (or, high demand group, if you prefer) can find it in their hearts to be judgmental about what someone else does. I guess I just don’t see how what someone does in the privacy of their own bedroom affects me (unless, of course, it’s my bedroom). If someone could help understand this, I would greatly appreciate it.
I guess you're right...and it even applies to LCM, doesn't it?
Nice try, but disingenuous.
What LCM does in the privacy of his bedroom now does not concern me. But the fact that he, as a minister, thought he had a right to my wife, and that we would be disobedient to God if we did not let him use her as a receptacle for his lust: well, you're darned right that would concern me. (disclaimer: I was speaking in the hypothetical. This never happened to me).
Yes Lifted Up even lcm as long as they are consenting. Of course not married ones.
That consenting issue can get sticky, as I pointed out of the "you be the jury" thread. But the main point is that there are exceptions to that blanket statement.
Of course, even it it does affect you, it doesnt necessarily mean there should be no right to "do it".
Black/white tunnel vision thinking...the very thing that made the cult attractive in the first place...
Not to mention the inability to take control of one's life and change the channel...
What blows my mind is how much complaining is done about how twi was always in one's business and damning anybody for anything that wasn't up to twi snuff...
Then along come the anti homo threads, the anti wiccan threads, the anti welfare threads, the anti this and anti that threads.
You can take the person out of the cult, but can you take the cult out of the person?
My point?
WTF does it matter?
Gay people have always existed and always will exist. Same as poor people, pagan people, fat people, 'ugly' people, etc, etc.
Declaring such people as 'ungodly' or 'unAmerican' or somehow otherwise 'unworthy' leads only to violence.
Didn't we learn that in the cult?
And how damn stupid can a person get if their minds are so closed that they REFUSE to consider the views, feelings, artistic talents, etc of someone/something they don't agree with? I mean, with that kind of thinking our maps would show us the edge of the world and our religions would be centered around how to keep from falling off or how to fall off correctly.
Duh people.
First do no harm.
If one can accomplish that, then maybe one will have enough time to tackle one's inferiors.
And those who think that they are soooooooooo smart applying such logic to lcm, murderers, rapists, etc...
Take a few courses in logic.
(Yes...I'm in a mood...and I'm tired of shutting up just to avoid conflict. If I offended somebody...Good! Maybe they'll look at themselves in a mirror sometime and figure they've got enough to worry about.)
I'm confused by this LU. What exactly are you saying?
You obviously cannot understand South Dakota logic anymore heh heh.
Actually I'm just referring to your statement about whether or not something someone does in the privacy of his/her own bedroom affects you. I think a lot of times it can. even if indirectly and/or not right away. But just because it affects you doesn't automatically kill their right to do it.
I probably have a right to eat a casserole loaded with onions and garlic in the privacy of my own bedroom. But if I am suddenly discover it is later than I think and have to rush out very quickly to a business meeting with you, that act of mine done in private is going to affect you.
Yes, I know what you mean, considering the subject of this thread. And I agree that we can't afford to go to the Orwellian 1984 theme of NOT being able to do anything in private. But I think what we do in private can affect others, even if not at the moment.
I nearly always find these threads amusing, if for no other reason than, some people who were in a cult (or, high demand group, if you prefer) can find it in their hearts to be judgmental about what someone else does. I guess I just don’t see how what someone does in the privacy of their own bedroom affects me (unless, of course, it’s my bedroom). If someone could help understand this, I would greatly appreciate it.
I nearly always find these threads amusing, if for no other reason than, some people who were in a cult (or, high demand group, if you prefer) can find it in their hearts to be judgmental about what someone else does.
Just for curiosity's sake,
In your opinion, if a person was in a cult:
- does that mean that he should permanently recuse himself from expressing disapproval of another person's choices?
- does that mean that he should permanently recuse himself from expressing a potentially controversial opinion?
- does that mean that he should permanently recuse himself from expressing an opinion at all?
If not, for how long must one, in your opinion, recuse himself before his opinion is valid?
(Oh, btw, my opinion about this movie is that it is a 'chick flick.' I don't do 'chick flicks,' whether homosexual or heterosexual in orientation...so any opinion will be strictly second hand)
So how successful is it (a good, valid measure)?
Well, it has been showing since 12/9/2005. According to Box Office Mojo, (http://www.boxofficemojo.com) it has grossed $32.8 million. It is showing in 683 theaters. That works out to an average of $43K per theater (gross). Another high-class movie, King Kong, which opened on 12/14, has grossed $204 million and is on 3,278 theaters...which is about $62,333 per theater.
So what does that tell me? Brokeback Mountain may be a "better" movie, but, by any measure, it obviously isn't terribly popular with "the unwashed masses." (At least, a horrible movie like King Kong is blowing it away)
Now, when I learned communications, I learned that it is the responsibility of the sender to get his message across. It's apparent that the "sender" of this communication has failed, despite the rave critical reviews and awards.
I guess the people are just too stupid to recognize quality when they see it.
Your box office analysis failed to note that Brokeback Mountain is almost certainly adults only, while whole families are going together to see King Kong. Limited audience means limited box office, but that doesn't mean the filmmaker's message is not getting through.
Comparing Brokeback Mountain's grosses to King Kong's is like comparing Jay Leno's ratings to CSI's. If CSI had Leno's ratings, it would be thrown off the air faster than you could say "Manimal."
Your box office analysis failed to note that Brokeback Mountain is almost certainly adults only, while whole families are going together to see King Kong. Limited audience means limited box office, but that doesn't mean the filmmaker's message is not getting through.
Comparing Brokeback Mountain's grosses to King Kong's is like comparing Jay Leno's ratings to CSI's. If CSI had Leno's ratings, it would be thrown off the air faster than you could say "Manimal."
It's rated R, Kong is PG-13. So your point is taken.
Well, then a valid comparison would be to Hostel. Now, Hostel has only been open since Jan 6th, yet it's already grossed $37M. And, again, without all the free publicity.
How about the 40 year old virgin? Also rated R. By 1-1/2 months, it had grossed $96M. Again, no free publicity.
Your point is taken with Kong, but there are plenty of other "valid" comparisons.
Neither of those are serious films. Compare it to serious R-rated films. Compare it to Crash, or Million Dollar Baby. Let me know what you find.
And again, you're leaving out that the first several weeks of Brokeback Mountain's box office was in limited release. How's it doing since it's been in wide release?
Notice something about these numbers?
$5,726,662 (USA) (8 January 2006)
$4,847,443 (USA) (1 January 2006)
$2,951,071 (USA) (25 December 2005) (217 Screens)
$2,508,494 (USA) (18 December 2005)
$547,425 (USA) (11 December 2005)
They're climbing.
Box office numbers typically decline weekend to weekend. This film's numbers are going up!
I'm not saying it proves anything, but it doesn't disprove anything either.
- does that mean that he should permanently recuse himself from expressing disapproval of another person's choices?
- does that mean that he should permanently recuse himself from expressing a potentially controversial opinion?
- does that mean that he should permanently recuse himself from expressing an opinion at all?
If not, for how long must one, in your opinion, recuse himself before his opinion is valid?
It is not so much that one is expressing an opinion. It is the degree of intensity. One time my ex mother in law said to me when I was being a little $*@!, "Have you ever been so sure about something and been wrong?"
I don't claim to know much, especially when it involves things religious. Spirituality (there may be a difference, but I would be hard pressed to see it) may have it's place, but it isn't up to me to define it for someone else. What goes on between one person and their god, is none of my damn business. The only way it would be is if their actions directly affected me.
Lifted Up said,
"But I think what we do in private can affect others, even if not at the moment."
In relation to the thread's topic, can you expand on this?
Neither of those are serious films. Compare it to serious R-rated films. Compare it to Crash, or Million Dollar Baby. Let me know what you find.
And again, you're leaving out that the first several weeks of Brokeback Mountain's box office was in limited release. How's it doing since it's been in wide release?
Notice something about these numbers?
$5,726,662 (USA) (8 January 2006)
$4,847,443 (USA) (1 January 2006)
$2,951,071 (USA) (25 December 2005) (217 Screens)
$2,508,494 (USA) (18 December 2005)
$547,425 (USA) (11 December 2005)
They're climbing.
Box office numbers typically declineweekend to weekend. This film's numbers are going up!
I'm not saying it proves anything, but it doesn't disprove anything either.
Raf,
It's been a long time since I've wasted $50 on going to a movie, I don't care how good. So I am no judge on the quality of the movie. I am simply talking about commercial success. What I see is a movie that is being propped up and pushed by the critics and by the media. It won the Golden Globes best drama -- not an award usually garnered by a small, limited release flick. The previous two years: the Aviator, Lord of the Rings, both of which grossed well over $100M. I'll admit that sometimes the Golden Globes don't go to commercial successes, but at least in my memory, I can't think of the last time that the Best Drama award went to a low budget, limited release flick like this one. And to get four of them? I don't buy it (literally)
As to it's numbers and theaters going up: look at the press the movie has been getting. They couldn't pay for the advertising that they are getting for free as the result of its news coverage. That's been going on since the film opened.
Again, I said so in my first post on this thread and will repeat it again: I haven't seen the flick. I am not judging the flick for it's artistic merit one way or the other. The genre of the flick is not one that I appreciate...so I have no interest in seeing it (and won't comment on its tastefulness one way or another)
I just find it funny that a relatively limited release flick (very limited in its original weeks, as you point out), is being placed up there on a pedastal. I think there is some very sly marketing going on here...
IMO, a person who has been in a cult is a person who has had experience with closed-mindedness and knows the end results...with which a person is usually not happy.
Cause and effect understanding is something that I expect would come out of such an experience.
In this case the point, for me, is that the cause is closed-mindedness and the effect is non-thinking bigotry.
It is one thing for someone to 'walk the straight and narrow' in their own lives...quite another for one to impose one's understanding of 'the straight and narrow' onto another's life.
I don't care what others do in their private lives, but this isn't about that.
This is about Hollywood making a promotional public service announcement film to promote a lifestyle many might consider to be unnacceptable and then propping it up artificially with bogus awards...much like Michael Moores idiotic wastes of cellulose and silver nitrate.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
7
7
10
Popular Days
Jan 20
29
Jan 18
25
Jan 23
12
Jan 19
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 13 posts
CoolWaters 7 posts
J0nny Ling0 7 posts
markomalley 10 posts
Popular Days
Jan 20 2006
29 posts
Jan 18 2006
25 posts
Jan 23 2006
12 posts
Jan 19 2006
9 posts
justloafing
Ron..............24 was on. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Rump Wranglers Rassle Rewards for Risque Riding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nellie
i liked the movie.
love
horses
scenery
it's all good for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Thank you, Nellie!
And for the record please tell us how much anal sex was actually shown in the film. Or as Ron put it "anal assaulting" - which to me sounds like rape.
Hell, they probably showed more on Nip/Tuck last season...
Edited by karmicdebtLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex70sHouston
I will not go see the movie because the main thought is about gays.
For all ya'll that want to be a cowboy. I got news. Its dirty, smelly, cold in the winter, hot in the summer, low pay, long days, nsaty work. Some mondern day cowboys I know would do it even if they wern't paid. Me, I'd rather eat them than work with them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Poole
Oh yeah... one more thing...
Doesn't a "cowboy" work with.... COWS???? Duh!!!!
sorry just a detail......... sssseeeesh!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
I nearly always find these threads amusing, if for no other reason than, some people who were in a cult (or, high demand group, if you prefer) can find it in their hearts to be judgmental about what someone else does. I guess I just don’t see how what someone does in the privacy of their own bedroom affects me (unless, of course, it’s my bedroom). If someone could help understand this, I would greatly appreciate it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I guess you're right...and it even applies to LCM, doesn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
justloafing
I'm with you Sushi. To me people are people. There are good ones and bad ones whether white, black, yellow, hetrosexual or homosexual.
Yes Lifted Up even lcm as long as they are consenting. Of course not married ones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Nice try, but disingenuous.
What LCM does in the privacy of his bedroom now does not concern me. But the fact that he, as a minister, thought he had a right to my wife, and that we would be disobedient to God if we did not let him use her as a receptacle for his lust: well, you're darned right that would concern me. (disclaimer: I was speaking in the hypothetical. This never happened to me).
Please tell me if I misread you.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
That consenting issue can get sticky, as I pointed out of the "you be the jury" thread. But the main point is that there are exceptions to that blanket statement.
Of course, even it it does affect you, it doesnt necessarily mean there should be no right to "do it".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
I'm confused by this LU. What exactly are you saying?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Black/white tunnel vision thinking...the very thing that made the cult attractive in the first place...
Not to mention the inability to take control of one's life and change the channel...
What blows my mind is how much complaining is done about how twi was always in one's business and damning anybody for anything that wasn't up to twi snuff...
Then along come the anti homo threads, the anti wiccan threads, the anti welfare threads, the anti this and anti that threads.
You can take the person out of the cult, but can you take the cult out of the person?
My point?
WTF does it matter?
Gay people have always existed and always will exist. Same as poor people, pagan people, fat people, 'ugly' people, etc, etc.
Declaring such people as 'ungodly' or 'unAmerican' or somehow otherwise 'unworthy' leads only to violence.
Didn't we learn that in the cult?
And how damn stupid can a person get if their minds are so closed that they REFUSE to consider the views, feelings, artistic talents, etc of someone/something they don't agree with? I mean, with that kind of thinking our maps would show us the edge of the world and our religions would be centered around how to keep from falling off or how to fall off correctly.
Duh people.
First do no harm.
If one can accomplish that, then maybe one will have enough time to tackle one's inferiors.
And those who think that they are soooooooooo smart applying such logic to lcm, murderers, rapists, etc...
Take a few courses in logic.
(Yes...I'm in a mood...and I'm tired of shutting up just to avoid conflict. If I offended somebody...Good! Maybe they'll look at themselves in a mirror sometime and figure they've got enough to worry about.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
You obviously cannot understand South Dakota logic anymore heh heh.
Actually I'm just referring to your statement about whether or not something someone does in the privacy of his/her own bedroom affects you. I think a lot of times it can. even if indirectly and/or not right away. But just because it affects you doesn't automatically kill their right to do it.
I probably have a right to eat a casserole loaded with onions and garlic in the privacy of my own bedroom. But if I am suddenly discover it is later than I think and have to rush out very quickly to a business meeting with you, that act of mine done in private is going to affect you.
Yes, I know what you mean, considering the subject of this thread. And I agree that we can't afford to go to the Orwellian 1984 theme of NOT being able to do anything in private. But I think what we do in private can affect others, even if not at the moment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OnionEater
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Just for curiosity's sake,
In your opinion, if a person was in a cult:
- does that mean that he should permanently recuse himself from expressing disapproval of another person's choices?
- does that mean that he should permanently recuse himself from expressing a potentially controversial opinion?
- does that mean that he should permanently recuse himself from expressing an opinion at all?
If not, for how long must one, in your opinion, recuse himself before his opinion is valid?
(Oh, btw, my opinion about this movie is that it is a 'chick flick.' I don't do 'chick flicks,' whether homosexual or heterosexual in orientation...so any opinion will be strictly second hand)
So how successful is it (a good, valid measure)?
Well, it has been showing since 12/9/2005. According to Box Office Mojo, (http://www.boxofficemojo.com) it has grossed $32.8 million. It is showing in 683 theaters. That works out to an average of $43K per theater (gross). Another high-class movie, King Kong, which opened on 12/14, has grossed $204 million and is on 3,278 theaters...which is about $62,333 per theater.
So what does that tell me? Brokeback Mountain may be a "better" movie, but, by any measure, it obviously isn't terribly popular with "the unwashed masses." (At least, a horrible movie like King Kong is blowing it away)
Now, when I learned communications, I learned that it is the responsibility of the sender to get his message across. It's apparent that the "sender" of this communication has failed, despite the rave critical reviews and awards.
I guess the people are just too stupid to recognize quality when they see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mark,
Your box office analysis failed to note that Brokeback Mountain is almost certainly adults only, while whole families are going together to see King Kong. Limited audience means limited box office, but that doesn't mean the filmmaker's message is not getting through.
Comparing Brokeback Mountain's grosses to King Kong's is like comparing Jay Leno's ratings to CSI's. If CSI had Leno's ratings, it would be thrown off the air faster than you could say "Manimal."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
It's rated R, Kong is PG-13. So your point is taken.
Well, then a valid comparison would be to Hostel. Now, Hostel has only been open since Jan 6th, yet it's already grossed $37M. And, again, without all the free publicity.
How about the 40 year old virgin? Also rated R. By 1-1/2 months, it had grossed $96M. Again, no free publicity.
Your point is taken with Kong, but there are plenty of other "valid" comparisons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Neither of those are serious films. Compare it to serious R-rated films. Compare it to Crash, or Million Dollar Baby. Let me know what you find.
And again, you're leaving out that the first several weeks of Brokeback Mountain's box office was in limited release. How's it doing since it's been in wide release?
Notice something about these numbers?
$5,726,662 (USA) (8 January 2006)
$4,847,443 (USA) (1 January 2006)
$2,951,071 (USA) (25 December 2005) (217 Screens)
$2,508,494 (USA) (18 December 2005)
$547,425 (USA) (11 December 2005)
They're climbing.
Box office numbers typically decline weekend to weekend. This film's numbers are going up!
I'm not saying it proves anything, but it doesn't disprove anything either.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
It is not so much that one is expressing an opinion. It is the degree of intensity. One time my ex mother in law said to me when I was being a little $*@!, "Have you ever been so sure about something and been wrong?"
I don't claim to know much, especially when it involves things religious. Spirituality (there may be a difference, but I would be hard pressed to see it) may have it's place, but it isn't up to me to define it for someone else. What goes on between one person and their god, is none of my damn business. The only way it would be is if their actions directly affected me.
Lifted Up said,
"But I think what we do in private can affect others, even if not at the moment."
In relation to the thread's topic, can you expand on this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Raf,
It's been a long time since I've wasted $50 on going to a movie, I don't care how good. So I am no judge on the quality of the movie. I am simply talking about commercial success. What I see is a movie that is being propped up and pushed by the critics and by the media. It won the Golden Globes best drama -- not an award usually garnered by a small, limited release flick. The previous two years: the Aviator, Lord of the Rings, both of which grossed well over $100M. I'll admit that sometimes the Golden Globes don't go to commercial successes, but at least in my memory, I can't think of the last time that the Best Drama award went to a low budget, limited release flick like this one. And to get four of them? I don't buy it (literally)
As to it's numbers and theaters going up: look at the press the movie has been getting. They couldn't pay for the advertising that they are getting for free as the result of its news coverage. That's been going on since the film opened.
Again, I said so in my first post on this thread and will repeat it again: I haven't seen the flick. I am not judging the flick for it's artistic merit one way or the other. The genre of the flick is not one that I appreciate...so I have no interest in seeing it (and won't comment on its tastefulness one way or another)
I just find it funny that a relatively limited release flick (very limited in its original weeks, as you point out), is being placed up there on a pedastal. I think there is some very sly marketing going on here...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Mark,
IMO, a person who has been in a cult is a person who has had experience with closed-mindedness and knows the end results...with which a person is usually not happy.
Cause and effect understanding is something that I expect would come out of such an experience.
In this case the point, for me, is that the cause is closed-mindedness and the effect is non-thinking bigotry.
It is one thing for someone to 'walk the straight and narrow' in their own lives...quite another for one to impose one's understanding of 'the straight and narrow' onto another's life.
Which is the basis of any good cult, btw.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
I don't care what others do in their private lives, but this isn't about that.
This is about Hollywood making a promotional public service announcement film to promote a lifestyle many might consider to be unnacceptable and then propping it up artificially with bogus awards...much like Michael Moores idiotic wastes of cellulose and silver nitrate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Well, Ron, there are many people who feel the same way about The Passion of the Christ.
Who is right and who is wrong?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.