M
mike182d
Guest
lol, good. I actually thought at first you meant at home somewhere, but had a 50/50 shot and took a gamble.My own basement. But yes I do and am overjoyed that someone here has the same sense of humor I do.
- Status
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Liberalsaved:
Which is an equally subjective judgement
“MtFf”, AFAIR, doesn’t even mention homosexuality. It’s also an very amusing film
The Bible mentions same-sex activity - may we assume that you’re going to avoid it ? If you aren’t going to - why not ? Come to think of it, the Bible is chock-full of filth, violence, lying, rape, incest, murder, massacre, SSA (as above), deceit, and other equally lovely things. A boycott of the Vatican and of other purveyors and promoters of this (obviously vile) publication would seem to be an urgent duty. This book carries no warnings of its content - mere children read it. mere children do not see BBM, “Dogma”, “Stigmata”, or “The Passion”; or even “Spartacus”
“Meet the Fockers” hasn’t caused wars or riots or violence or murder (neither has BBM) - the Bible has. It has borne fruit in countless evil results: slavery, massacre, persecution of many groups, to name a few. No one has ever been sacked for not believing in the perfect accuracy of BBM; they have, for that of the Bible.
The Bible is condemned by pretty well all the objections from moral arguments used against BBM, Harry Potter, and much much more - unless filth is OK as long as it is inspired. But if the Bible is OK because it is inspired, who’s to say that lesser degrees of inspiration are not an equal protection for lesser works such as films, paintings, or books ? ##
C
Celtic_FC
Guest
I concur with RLT.
M
momnmore
Guest
It is an independent film, but it is of a very liberal political slant, and Hollywood tends to be very liberal - or didn’t you know that - which is why someone might describe Brokeback as very “Hollywood”.
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
TZiggy:
Which is an equally subjective judgement
“MtFf”, AFAIR, doesn’t even mention homosexuality. It’s also an very amusing film
The Bible mentions same-sex activity - may we assume that you’re going to avoid it ? If you aren’t going to - why not ? Come to think of it, the Bible is chock-full of filth, violence, lying, rape, incest, murder, massacre, SSA (as above), deceit, and other equally lovely things. A boycott of the Vatican and of other purveyors and promoters of this (obviously vile) publication would seem to be an urgent duty. This book carries no warnings of its content - mere children read it. mere children do not see BBM, “Dogma”, “Stigmata”, or “The Passion”; or even “Spartacus”
“Meet the Fockers” hasn’t caused wars or riots or violence or murder (neither has BBM) - the Bible has. It has borne fruit in countless evil results: slavery, massacre, persecution of many groups, to name a few. No one has ever been sacked for not believing in the perfect accuracy of BBM; they have, for that of the Bible.
The Bible is condemned by pretty well all the objections from moral arguments used against BBM, Harry Potter, and much much more - unless filth is OK as long as it is inspired. But if the Bible is OK because it is inspired, who’s to say that lesser degrees of inspiration are not an equal protection for lesser works such as films, paintings, or books ? ##
My respect for all religious texts kept me from going there, but this is a very valid point.
C
Celtic_FC
Guest
Apples and Oranges 
C
Contarini
Guest
Did Last Temptation win any Oscars?
I’ve seen Last Temptation and Passion and I think Passion was a better movie, though (as movies) they were both very good. I haven’t seen Brokeback Mountain but I have yet to see a bad Ang Lee movie. The three movies I’ve seen of his were shatteringly great (Crouching Tiger), exquisitely moving (Sense and Sensibility), and very good (Hulk), respectively.
I have no doubt that the Hollywood elites are happy to endorse a movie with a gay theme, but I also have no doubt that the movie (from an artisitic point of view) deserves accolades. It would be Ang Lee’s first bust yet (that I’m aware of) if it didn’t. (I admit that I haven’t seen all his movies.)
Edwin
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
Well, for starters, a look behind the oscars would show you how little they matter. Put these together.
The AFI is run by professionals of the industry.
They almost always give the nominations to movies that release late in the year and are still at theaters. The last movie that stood nothing to gain at the box office from a win but still won was Silence of the Lambs.
Add those, and you’ll see what I say about Hollywood’s true agenda is absolutely accurate: money money money. As a result, I wouldn’t put too much stock in what Oscar thinks anyway!
The fact is, The Last Temptation is one of Scorcese’s most respected movies among true film buffs, and this is a man with no shortage of respect. And yet Oscar has passed him over, while things like Shakespeare in Love have gotten nods.
This is my reason for not caring what Oscar thinks, until this year, when every movie nominated would have been overlooked or nominated out of courtesy in previous years. I’m willing to bet five independently made and daring films like these being the noms? I bet it’s never happened before, not once.
And the addendum to that is, none of these movies could even be construed as pushing an agenda. That’s such a line I can’t fathom it. BM sends all it’s characters through Hell in one way or another. Capote’s main character, true to his life, has his life ruined by his experiences. Munich pretty much makes the entire world look bad. And in another true-to-life bit, GNAGL accurately portrays the sexist, hard-drinking, chain-smoking reporter of Murrow’s day. The only one I haven’t seen is Crash, and since I’m going to tune in for the first time in years I’ll make a point of it soon.
Whew. Now, onto the point I wholeheartedly agree with. The movie definitely deserves accolades, regardless of subject matter. I would say it and Capote are the two best on the list, followed by GNAGL and then Munich, of the ones I’ve seen. And quite frankly, when a Spielberg project of such nerve and power is a fourth at all, even a very close fourth, you know the year has been kind for Oscar noms.
Better cut this off, probably almost over the post limit.
A
Agricola
Guest
I can’t believe that people have actually tried to compare the Bible to a movie about two homosexual cowboys.
Hmm… let’s look for obvious differences shall we? We’ll forget about the fact that the Bible’s author is God for the moment. First, the Bible only has evil acts portrayed in it to the extent that they a) actually happened, and/or b) they are used as a way of showing either what evil is like, or what the consequences of evil are. Second, the Bible does not show evil actions in graphic detail. The closest thing to that is the cutting off of people’s heads, and even then the act itself is not described.
What else is strange about this thread… ah yes, the defense of a community of entertainment “elite” who ignore all potentially confining moral obligations proper to their chosen profession. Movies don’t need to be made that show graphic representation of homosexual acts. Violence, the kind that is gratuitous and illicit, is also not necessary. Some may say that ‘The Passion of the Christ’ participated in this kind of display, but there is a difference between showing a violent knifing of a fiction, and showing what Christ had to endure in order to save our souls, is there not? Yes, to answer the question, there is a difference.
I’m not endorsing a ban on creativity in film making, but I am endorsing at least the minimal use of conscience in deciding whether a film be made, shown, and watched. ‘The Last Temptation’, regardless of whether the film was of high “quality” or not, was rotten. It was a lie, masked as possible truth. No excuse can be made for it, even on an artistic level.
The argument over Hollywood’s endorsement of BBM and other films with homosexual content does not have to do with the search for more money. These films did not make the most money. They were not the most popular films. They merely had the “thumbs up” of the oft’ political, ever searching for things shocking and lurid, show-biz elite.
You may call me cynical or closed-minded, but think about it for a second. Are the things you’re defending going to lead people to God? Is the viewing of BBM or Capote going to lead the sinner to repent? Does artistic “expression” really outway moral responsibility? What exactly is the goal you are trying to achieve?
Was there something else that was bothering me? Yes, I remember… How is it that content has nothing to do with quality again? I’m sorry, I’m not convinced of this. If a porn magazine is high quality, it is still porn. No matter how well done something is, it’s character, and it’s purpose, are still found in it’s content. This cannot be ignored when looking at movies.
Wishing you all a fruitful Lent,
God bless,
Agricola
Hmm… let’s look for obvious differences shall we? We’ll forget about the fact that the Bible’s author is God for the moment. First, the Bible only has evil acts portrayed in it to the extent that they a) actually happened, and/or b) they are used as a way of showing either what evil is like, or what the consequences of evil are. Second, the Bible does not show evil actions in graphic detail. The closest thing to that is the cutting off of people’s heads, and even then the act itself is not described.
What else is strange about this thread… ah yes, the defense of a community of entertainment “elite” who ignore all potentially confining moral obligations proper to their chosen profession. Movies don’t need to be made that show graphic representation of homosexual acts. Violence, the kind that is gratuitous and illicit, is also not necessary. Some may say that ‘The Passion of the Christ’ participated in this kind of display, but there is a difference between showing a violent knifing of a fiction, and showing what Christ had to endure in order to save our souls, is there not? Yes, to answer the question, there is a difference.
I’m not endorsing a ban on creativity in film making, but I am endorsing at least the minimal use of conscience in deciding whether a film be made, shown, and watched. ‘The Last Temptation’, regardless of whether the film was of high “quality” or not, was rotten. It was a lie, masked as possible truth. No excuse can be made for it, even on an artistic level.
The argument over Hollywood’s endorsement of BBM and other films with homosexual content does not have to do with the search for more money. These films did not make the most money. They were not the most popular films. They merely had the “thumbs up” of the oft’ political, ever searching for things shocking and lurid, show-biz elite.
You may call me cynical or closed-minded, but think about it for a second. Are the things you’re defending going to lead people to God? Is the viewing of BBM or Capote going to lead the sinner to repent? Does artistic “expression” really outway moral responsibility? What exactly is the goal you are trying to achieve?
Was there something else that was bothering me? Yes, I remember… How is it that content has nothing to do with quality again? I’m sorry, I’m not convinced of this. If a porn magazine is high quality, it is still porn. No matter how well done something is, it’s character, and it’s purpose, are still found in it’s content. This cannot be ignored when looking at movies.
Wishing you all a fruitful Lent,
God bless,
Agricola
F
Fr_Chuck
Guest
I don’t care who made it,or why they made it. Making a movie showing the gay life style of sheep herders as acceptable is merley wrong. Homosexual life style is not Godly and it is not morlaly accptable, even if it has been made legal.
The film makes a it appear having a unnatural sexual affair and cheating on your spouse as a great thing.
The film makes a it appear having a unnatural sexual affair and cheating on your spouse as a great thing.
C
coyote
Guest
I think that a lot of the anti-gay movie hype is hypocritical.
Please, this is not the first work of fiction, or the first movie to utilize a “sinful” behavior or mindset as a story line. Movies are saturated with “sin”. Adultry, murder, hate, theft, coveting, envy, greed, anger…need I go on?
Why is there no rightous outrage over TransAmerica, Will and Grace, Red Dragon, Desparate Housewives, Sex and the City, the Sopranos, the GodFather ?
How can you justify singling out this one movie about this one “sin” and turn blind eyes and deaf ears to the other portrayals? Has anyone here ever spent money on a ticket to a movie or bought a book that portrayed other “sins”? If so, you are hypocrites. What, the “sins” that entertain you are acceptable and the ones that don’t are not?
How can this position be supported?
I assert that the right to personal expression is a good thing. And, fear is not adequate reason to justify oppression.
Please, this is not the first work of fiction, or the first movie to utilize a “sinful” behavior or mindset as a story line. Movies are saturated with “sin”. Adultry, murder, hate, theft, coveting, envy, greed, anger…need I go on?
Why is there no rightous outrage over TransAmerica, Will and Grace, Red Dragon, Desparate Housewives, Sex and the City, the Sopranos, the GodFather ?
How can you justify singling out this one movie about this one “sin” and turn blind eyes and deaf ears to the other portrayals? Has anyone here ever spent money on a ticket to a movie or bought a book that portrayed other “sins”? If so, you are hypocrites. What, the “sins” that entertain you are acceptable and the ones that don’t are not?
How can this position be supported?
I assert that the right to personal expression is a good thing. And, fear is not adequate reason to justify oppression.
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
An excellent point. There have been films made before on the subject. People target Brokeback only because it is getting the most exposure, all the while arguing that no one besides gays and Hollywood really care. Which is it, folks: it’s getting the most exposure or no one cares?
I often wonder what people talk about here when they talk about the golden age of film, and that’s aside from the obvious point that the golden age of film is a myth made up by critics. What I mean is, what golden age films are you talking about? Jphn Wayne movies, where he plays superior to everyone around him before killing the bad guy without a thought for moral implications? So much for turning the other cheek. Old romance movies with the heartthrobs of yesteryear, packed with enough innuendo to sink a ship?
If the lead character in those Waybe films had been gay, would it not be okay fro him to shoot the bad guy? I only mention this because there is this big furor over ruining the so-called image of the cowboy. Hard-bitten killer, that’s some image to idolize.
R
Ruthmary
Guest
You hit the nail on the head!
It’s the moral of the story that is most important. In the old cowboy and war stories, the good guy won, teaching children subliminally the importance of obeying God’s laws. These shows that are relativistic are going to lead them to hell.The devil doesn’t come to us as a monster, but as an “angel of light”. He starts by soothingly twisting the truth just enough that it gets confused in your mind, and the sin doesn’t look so bad. Remember that the devil is smarter than you are, and you need to align yourself with God Who is smarter than the devil.
Blessings,
Ruthmary
C
coyote
Guest
No number of gay themed movies or books or music is going to “turn” ME towards same sex attraction.
Any of you movie “critics” listen to Country Western music? Spend any money on Garth Brooks or Reba Macantire (sp?) CD’s?
How much actual time will anyone actually spend watching this movie? As opposed to the daily, repetitive replay of country western songs with themes like, abandon your wife and violate your wedding vows because you prefer fishing. Har, har, har.
Any of you movie “critics” listen to Country Western music? Spend any money on Garth Brooks or Reba Macantire (sp?) CD’s?
How much actual time will anyone actually spend watching this movie? As opposed to the daily, repetitive replay of country western songs with themes like, abandon your wife and violate your wedding vows because you prefer fishing. Har, har, har.
B
Bella3502
Guest
Mel Gibson’s movies are boring to downright bad…
P
pnewton
Guest
Like we used to say at high school football games, look at the scoreboard and see who’s behind. “The Passion” is the number 10 money maker of all time and has made 5 times as much as this gay film has, despite all the acclaim and Oscar nominations. I am anxious to to see if the ratings for the Oscars also fall this year. I am glad that most Americans did not support this undertaking at the ticket booth. I for one will not even surf past the Oscars this year.
D
DreadVandal
Guest
Queer cowboys? That’s just wrong. That’s like making a movie about queer ninjas. I do plan on seeing Capote because it is about a real literary figure and I anticipate it being good. I don’t have a problem with homosexuality being portrayed in film, since homosexuality is a real phenomenon and the purpose of art is to deal with all human phenomena. But gay cowboys? Some things are just wrong.
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
That’s okay. There’s no gay people in it.
D
DreadVandal
Guest
I don’t mind there being gay people in films as long as they are doing things that gay people do like hair dressing, interior decorating, eating quiche, etc.That’s okay. There’s no gay people in it.
M
MikeinSD
Guest
With hands fluttering in air, arms akimbo, and wearing tight pants. And swooning over “real men” who of course beat us up.
- Status