Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

The Wrestler


182 replies to this topic

#151 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 12:55 PM

Poor Mickey. Nice shout-out from Sean Penn though.



And the winner is...Political Correctness. Sean Penn will accept on PC's behalf.


Have you seen MILK?

No, the only "PC" that let Mickey Rourke down on was that it stood for "political comeback" to THE WRESTLER's publicists - a somewhat belated oversight when you realise he'd already done that cinematically and publically four years ago in SIN CITY delivering pretty much the same performance.

#152 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 01:33 PM

Have you seen MILK?


I haven't. Any cop?

#153 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 02:00 PM

Have you seen MILK?


I haven't. Any cop?

Yes. It's a very good film about a very relevant subject and American hero.

So if Hollywood gives an Oscar to Sean Penn in Milk it's because he's playing an important Gay figure and they're only giving it to him because of Political Correctness. But if they don't give the Best Picture award to Brokeback Mountain it's because the central characters are gay, and they obviously made that decision because they're too homophobic. They can't win, basically.

Exactly.

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN didn't fail to nab the Best Picture because Hollywood doesn't like gay films that manage to break into the mainstream. BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN failed to nab the main prize as it is a gay film that the general audience didn't pay money to go and see. The Academy Awards are about honouring talent and talent that makes HollywoodLand money. MILK is also quite subtly anti-California (the political establishment anyway) and certainly makes wry parallels to now and the hateful likes of Prop 8 and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

MILK was the better film than SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE without a doubt (though the latter is a great, great film - if a slightly safer retread of CITY OF GOD). But SLUMDOG is less of a hot potato politically and Hollywood is in the business of making cash. MILK will not set the box office alight. But an underdog film about someone making money is obviously going to do better and break into the consciousness of many generations the world over. Hollywood rewards at the Oscars what makes it money - THE FUGITIVE, TITANIC, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, THE DARK KNIGHT, FORREST GUMP...).

Also, there was a VERY big campaign surrounding Celador's best advert for their best selling show whereas MILK was never going to crack everyone's eggs. So artistically the Academy can rightfully honour Sean Penn, but businesswise it cannot give it Best Picture. It's not right, but it shows that maybe Hollywood - which is run by non PC gays (!) - can only mirror society's wallets.

#154 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 02:08 PM

And no one ever says that Kate Winslet got the Oscar for PC reasons in that classically ye olde PC cinema genre that is the Holocaust.

#155 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 02:11 PM

So Brown is more profitable than Gay?

#156 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 02:13 PM

So Brown is more profitable than Gay?

In case I misread your intent here and answer with some very crude response involving what some people are into....(?!) I better own up now and say I don't know what you mean...?

#157 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 02:25 PM

So Brown is more profitable than Gay?

In case I misread your intent here and answer with some very crude response involving what some people are into....(?!) I better own up now and say I don't know what you mean...?


Surely you can see the irony?

You suggested that the white-picket-fence folk at the academy make $ driven decisions...so they wouldn't vote MILK. Yet they did Slum Dog or whatever...hence I used the term "Brown".

#158 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 02:29 PM

So Brown is more profitable than Gay?

In case I misread your intent here and answer with some very crude response involving what some people are into....(?!) I better own up now and say I don't know what you mean...?


Surely you can see the irony?

You suggested that the white-picket-fence folk at the academy make $ driven decisions...so they wouldn't vote MILK. Yet they did Slum Dog or whatever...hence I used the term "Brown".


Sorry. I see.

I'm not saying that the Academy is "white picket fence". I don't think I even suggested that. I was suggesting that they reward what rewards them and it is the cash paying American public that often decides that.

#159 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 02:38 PM

So Brown is more profitable than Gay?

In case I misread your intent here and answer with some very crude response involving what some people are into....(?!) I better own up now and say I don't know what you mean...?


Surely you can see the irony?

You suggested that the white-picket-fence folk at the academy make $ driven decisions...so they wouldn't vote MILK. Yet they did Slum Dog or whatever...hence I used the term "Brown".


Sorry. I see.

I'm not saying that the Academy is "white picket fence". I don't think I even suggested that. I was suggesting that they reward what rewards them and it is the cash paying American public that often decides that.


But back to my original question: Is Brown more profitable than Gay? (and I don't mean brown baths! LOL :( )

#160 Agent 76

Agent 76

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7080 posts
  • Location:Portugal

Posted 23 February 2009 - 02:42 PM

So Brown is more profitable than Gay?

In case I misread your intent here and answer with some very crude response involving what some people are into....(?!) I better own up now and say I don't know what you mean...?


Surely you can see the irony?

You suggested that the white-picket-fence folk at the academy make $ driven decisions...so they wouldn't vote MILK. Yet they did Slum Dog or whatever...hence I used the term "Brown".


Sorry. I see.

I'm not saying that the Academy is "white picket fence". I don't think I even suggested that. I was suggesting that they reward what rewards them and it is the cash paying American public that often decides that.


But back to my original question: Is Brown more profitable than Gay? (and I don't mean brown baths! LOL :( )

They said somewhere that Will Smith is the king of box-office.

#161 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 02:46 PM

So Brown is more profitable than Gay?

In case I misread your intent here and answer with some very crude response involving what some people are into....(?!) I better own up now and say I don't know what you mean...?


Surely you can see the irony?

You suggested that the white-picket-fence folk at the academy make $ driven decisions...so they wouldn't vote MILK. Yet they did Slum Dog or whatever...hence I used the term "Brown".


Sorry. I see.

I'm not saying that the Academy is "white picket fence". I don't think I even suggested that. I was suggesting that they reward what rewards them and it is the cash paying American public that often decides that.


But back to my original question: Is Brown more profitable than Gay? (and I don't mean brown baths! LOL :( )


Well as Bollywood is annually the highest grossing film industry in the world, I would say yes (going by your "brown" and "gay" references). And finally Hollywood has married Bollywood, albeit in an arranged marriage with the rich uncles and studio heads looking on sternly...

#162 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 02:46 PM

Will Smith is "African American", not, um, "brown".

#163 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 02:47 PM

Will Smith is "African American", not, um, "brown".

That's not where this one is headed I'm afraid.

#164 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 02:50 PM

So Brown is more profitable than Gay?

In case I misread your intent here and answer with some very crude response involving what some people are into....(?!) I better own up now and say I don't know what you mean...?


Surely you can see the irony?

You suggested that the white-picket-fence folk at the academy make $ driven decisions...so they wouldn't vote MILK. Yet they did Slum Dog or whatever...hence I used the term "Brown".


Sorry. I see.

I'm not saying that the Academy is "white picket fence". I don't think I even suggested that. I was suggesting that they reward what rewards them and it is the cash paying American public that often decides that.


But back to my original question: Is Brown more profitable than Gay? (and I don't mean brown baths! LOL :( )


Well as Bollywood is annually the highest grossing film industry in the world, I would say yes (going by your "brown" and "gay" references). And finally Hollywood has married Bollywood, albeit in an arranged marriage with the rich uncles and studio heads looking on sternly...


Ok.

What do I know anyway! I mean I think Q0S was the best movie of 2008 by far.

As for Bollywood being big. They maybe big with the hindus and moslems...but they aren't big in North America.

#165 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 02:58 PM

So Brown is more profitable than Gay?

In case I misread your intent here and answer with some very crude response involving what some people are into....(?!) I better own up now and say I don't know what you mean...?


Surely you can see the irony?

You suggested that the white-picket-fence folk at the academy make $ driven decisions...so they wouldn't vote MILK. Yet they did Slum Dog or whatever...hence I used the term "Brown".

It's not so much that people didn't vote for MILK. It's more that MILK's box office business and prospects were never going to - in Hollywood's eyes - warrant an Oscar campaign. Obviously there was an Oscar awareness of the film as Penn won and so did the Screenplay, but Penn was always going to get noticed as it is the actors who vote for the actors (with a little billboard reminding from the likes of Miramax et al) and Sean Penn is an "actor's actor" with widespread respect.

PHILADELPHIA did not make a bit of money and some Oscars because it was a a worthy gay film about "the AIDS". It did so because a major American movie star (Tom Hanks) was in the lead role.

So Brown is more profitable than Gay?

In case I misread your intent here and answer with some very crude response involving what some people are into....(?!) I better own up now and say I don't know what you mean...?


Surely you can see the irony?

You suggested that the white-picket-fence folk at the academy make $ driven decisions...so they wouldn't vote MILK. Yet they did Slum Dog or whatever...hence I used the term "Brown".


Sorry. I see.

I'm not saying that the Academy is "white picket fence". I don't think I even suggested that. I was suggesting that they reward what rewards them and it is the cash paying American public that often decides that.


But back to my original question: Is Brown more profitable than Gay? (and I don't mean brown baths! LOL :( )


Well as Bollywood is annually the highest grossing film industry in the world, I would say yes (going by your "brown" and "gay" references). And finally Hollywood has married Bollywood, albeit in an arranged marriage with the rich uncles and studio heads looking on sternly...


Ok.

What do I know anyway! I mean I think Q0S was the best movie of 2008 by far.

As for Bollywood being big. They maybe big with the hindus and moslems...but they aren't big in North America.

What?!! Since when did North America become the centre of the compass for how the world creates and consumes cinema?

But if you think SOLACE was one of the best films of 2008, then we will always have to agree...!

And its "Muslims".

#166 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 03:02 PM

So Brown is more profitable than Gay?

In case I misread your intent here and answer with some very crude response involving what some people are into....(?!) I better own up now and say I don't know what you mean...?


Surely you can see the irony?

You suggested that the white-picket-fence folk at the academy make $ driven decisions...so they wouldn't vote MILK. Yet they did Slum Dog or whatever...hence I used the term "Brown".

It's not so much that people didn't vote for MILK. It's more that MILK's box office business and prospects were never going to - in Hollywood's eyes - warrant an Oscar campaign. Obviously there was an Oscar awareness of the film as Penn won and so did the Screenplay, but Penn was always going to get noticed as it is the actors who vote for the actors (with a little billboard reminding from the likes of Miramax et al) and Sean Penn is an "actor's actor" with widespread respect.

PHILADELPHIA did not make a bit of money and some Oscars because it was a a worthy gay film about "the AIDS". It did so because a major American movie star (Tom Hanks) was in the lead role.

So Brown is more profitable than Gay?

In case I misread your intent here and answer with some very crude response involving what some people are into....(?!) I better own up now and say I don't know what you mean...?


Surely you can see the irony?

You suggested that the white-picket-fence folk at the academy make $ driven decisions...so they wouldn't vote MILK. Yet they did Slum Dog or whatever...hence I used the term "Brown".


Sorry. I see.

I'm not saying that the Academy is "white picket fence". I don't think I even suggested that. I was suggesting that they reward what rewards them and it is the cash paying American public that often decides that.


But back to my original question: Is Brown more profitable than Gay? (and I don't mean brown baths! LOL :( )


Well as Bollywood is annually the highest grossing film industry in the world, I would say yes (going by your "brown" and "gay" references). And finally Hollywood has married Bollywood, albeit in an arranged marriage with the rich uncles and studio heads looking on sternly...


Ok.

What do I know anyway! I mean I think Q0S was the best movie of 2008 by far.

As for Bollywood being big. They maybe big with the hindus and moslems...but they aren't big in North America.

What?!! Since when did North America become the centre of the compass for how the world creates and consumes cinema?

And its "Muslims".


Oscar is US, non?

Remember your words "Cash paying American public which decides..."???

And it is also "moslems", hence the derivative "mosque". Look it up. :)

May Allah provide you with great fortune and bless your abode with an abundance of golden showers! LOL

:)

#167 Agent 76

Agent 76

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7080 posts
  • Location:Portugal

Posted 23 February 2009 - 03:06 PM

Will Smith is "African American", not, um, "brown".

Hey I never said he wasn't. :(

What I meant to say was, that it's interesting to see that the most profitable movie "star" in the box-office business is after all an african-american, when we all know the barriers that still exist in the movie industry.

I hope my writing is not confusing guys, sorry.

#168 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 03:10 PM

Will Smith is "African American", not, um, "brown".

Hey I never said he wasn't. :(

What I meant to say was, that it's interesting to see that the most profitable movie "star" in the box-office business is after all an african-american, when we all know the barriers that still exist in the movie industry.

I hope my writing is not confusing guys, sorry.


Well, he's certainly the most consistently bankable these days as long as he's doing action, sci-fi or comedy. If he does "drama" then he is less consistenly bankable, though still relatively bankable.

Cruise was like that...and Harrison Ford before that. Right now it's Smith.

#169 Agent 76

Agent 76

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7080 posts
  • Location:Portugal

Posted 23 February 2009 - 03:14 PM

Will Smith is "African American", not, um, "brown".

Hey I never said he wasn't. :(

What I meant to say was, that it's interesting to see that the most profitable movie "star" in the box-office business is after all an african-american, when we all know the barriers that still exist in the movie industry.

I hope my writing is not confusing guys, sorry.


Well, he's certainly the most consistently bankable these days as long as he's doing action, sci-fi or comedy. If he does "drama" then he is less consistenly bankable, though still relatively bankable.

Cruise was like that...and Harrison Ford before that. Right now it's Smith.

Agreed. :)

#170 dodge

dodge

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5068 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 23 February 2009 - 05:36 PM

With all due respect to Penn, whom I do respect as a terrific actor, Mick got robbed like an old lady in Central Park. :(


Absolutomondo. If Mick's wrestler had been gay...

He'd have been a gay washed-up wrestler giving a great performance in an average film.

Rourke was very good in THE WRESTLER, but Sean Penn was light years ahead in terms of nuance, understanding of his role and showing a character develop over time. MILK was also a film that had a few spikes and an edge to it. THE WRESTLER was extremely formulaic (in a good watchable way), but was no classic. Doing the "comeback" thing is not enough to bag an Oscar.
And to be honest, the gay angle has nothing to do with why Penn won his second Best Actor Oscar (well unless you remember that a great many queens work in Hollywood, are Oscar voters and know a decent performance when they see one).

Do we claim that SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE won because it featured poor Indian people and that shows we have a heart? No, of course not.


Oh, poppycock. Penn will bag a third Oscar by portraying Gandhi's martyer tri-sexual son.

#171 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 05:44 PM

And no one ever says that Kate Winslet got the Oscar for PC reasons in that classically ye olde PC cinema genre that is the Holocaust.

Actually, I've heard that said many, many times.

#172 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 23 February 2009 - 06:54 PM

And no one ever says that Kate Winslet got the Oscar for PC reasons in that classically ye olde PC cinema genre that is the Holocaust.

Actually, I've heard that said many, many times.


And it's even a gag in EXTRAS, delivered by Kate Winslet herself, no less!

#173 danslittlefinger

danslittlefinger

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3680 posts
  • Location:“If not here . . . then elsewhere.”

Posted 23 February 2009 - 07:49 PM

I actually had tears in my eyes as Mickey lost but in my mind, he gave the performance of a lifetime.

#174 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7706 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN

Posted 23 February 2009 - 10:37 PM

And no one ever says that Kate Winslet got the Oscar for PC reasons in that classically ye olde PC cinema genre that is the Holocaust.

Actually, I've heard that said many, many times.


And it's even a gag in EXTRAS, delivered by Kate Winslet herself, no less!

Yep, a bit which is a little ironic now. I, too, have heard many who agree about the Oscar-bait nature of Holocaust movies. Not so much that the filmmakers are trying to garner awards, but that you just can't turn a Holocaust movie away in favor of one with less sensitive material. I've found that to be largely true. Just how I see it, though.

#175 baerrtt

baerrtt

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 467 posts

Posted 25 February 2009 - 02:33 PM

And no one ever says that Kate Winslet got the Oscar for PC reasons in that classically ye olde PC cinema genre that is the Holocaust.

Actually, I've heard that said many, many times.


And it's even a gag in EXTRAS, delivered by Kate Winslet herself, no less!

Yep, a bit which is a little ironic now. I, too, have heard many who agree about the Oscar-bait nature of Holocaust movies. Not so much that the filmmakers are trying to garner awards, but that you just can't turn a Holocaust movie away in favor of one with less sensitive material. I've found that to be largely true. Just how I see it, though.


That's what happens when you have an older membership (and mentality) that thinks that important subjects= great movies.

Looking at their history, at the best of times, I sometimes wonder what the nominations for best picture would've been like if you had people who watched movies with an open mind, irrespective of genre or subject matter, and not people who, I suspect, have a tick sheet of Oscar bait cliches when they're trying to deem what's deserved.

#176 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 25 February 2009 - 02:54 PM

And no one ever says that Kate Winslet got the Oscar for PC reasons in that classically ye olde PC cinema genre that is the Holocaust.

Actually, I've heard that said many, many times.


And it's even a gag in EXTRAS, delivered by Kate Winslet herself, no less!

Yep, a bit which is a little ironic now. I, too, have heard many who agree about the Oscar-bait nature of Holocaust movies. Not so much that the filmmakers are trying to garner awards, but that you just can't turn a Holocaust movie away in favor of one with less sensitive material. I've found that to be largely true. Just how I see it, though.


That's what happens when you have an older membership (and mentality) that thinks that important subjects= great movies.

Looking at their history, at the best of times, I sometimes wonder what the nominations for best picture would've been like if you had people who watched movies with an open mind, irrespective of genre or subject matter, and not people who, I suspect, have a tick sheet of Oscar bait cliches when they're trying to deem what's deserved.

Let Ms Winslet add her own comment on this one....



#177 dodge

dodge

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5068 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 26 February 2009 - 12:16 PM

And no one ever says that Kate Winslet got the Oscar for PC reasons in that classically ye olde PC cinema genre that is the Holocaust.

Actually, I've heard that said many, many times.


And it's even a gag in EXTRAS, delivered by Kate Winslet herself, no less!

Yep, a bit which is a little ironic now. I, too, have heard many who agree about the Oscar-bait nature of Holocaust movies. Not so much that the filmmakers are trying to garner awards, but that you just can't turn a Holocaust movie away in favor of one with less sensitive material. I've found that to be largely true. Just how I see it, though.


That's what happens when you have an older membership (and mentality) that thinks that important subjects= great movies.

Looking at their history, at the best of times, I sometimes wonder what the nominations for best picture would've been like if you had people who watched movies with an open mind, irrespective of genre or subject matter, and not people who, I suspect, have a tick sheet of Oscar bait cliches when they're trying to deem what's deserved.

Let Ms Winslet add her own comment on this one....



Never trust an artist--I mean any artist--when they're commenting on their own work.

#178 dodge

dodge

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5068 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 04 April 2009 - 03:25 PM

One of MR's new projects sounds interesting to me:

The actress (Megan Fox)has now signed on to star opposite Mickey Rourke in Passion Plays, a 1940’s set dramatic thriller. The Transformers star’s character is described as “a slender beauty with wings who is part of a carnival.”


According to The Hollywood Reporter:

“Rourke will play a down-on-his-heels trumpet player, and Fox will play an angel in 1950s Los Angeles, with Rourke finding redemption in Fox after he attempts to save her from a gangster. Those familiar with the project describe it as a dramatic but heartwarming tale.”

Heartwarming and redemption? Period setting? Does anybody else think that this will get Mickey Rourke another Oscar nomination?


#179 danslittlefinger

danslittlefinger

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3680 posts
  • Location:“If not here . . . then elsewhere.”

Posted 04 April 2009 - 05:34 PM

One of MR's new projects sounds interesting to me:

The actress (Megan Fox)has now signed on to star opposite Mickey Rourke in Passion Plays, a 1940’s set dramatic thriller. The Transformers star’s character is described as “a slender beauty with wings who is part of a carnival.”


According to The Hollywood Reporter:

“Rourke will play a down-on-his-heels trumpet player, and Fox will play an angel in 1950s Los Angeles, with Rourke finding redemption in Fox after he attempts to save her from a gangster. Those familiar with the project describe it as a dramatic but heartwarming tale.”

Heartwarming and redemption? Period setting? Does anybody else think that this will get Mickey Rourke another Oscar nomination?


Even thought it wasnt set in the 1950's and it was a different theme, "Angel Heart" and it's sweatiness and hell metaphors, was a great period piece.
Mickey fits into those well I think.

#180 bondrules

bondrules

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2190 posts
  • Location:America

Posted 06 April 2009 - 09:18 PM

WrestleMania 25 - Chris Jericho vs Mickey Rourke

Staged, but cool.

Enjoy....