Quote:
He should obviously deny every single indicator that his mind and feelings are giving him and stay in his loveless marriage.
But think of the children!
Cliche, I know, but it fits. Seriously; what is a family man ultimately responsible for? Caring for his family, wife and children alike. You know, 'till death to us part' and all that? It's a shame some people don't really think of it that way anymore.
Yes, I'm sure the oscar's are based on what is most moral movie. Having a good moral is what makes a movie popular and rake in cash at the box office.
Well, I can say that Ebert & Roeper are generally good critics when it comes to movies - certainly much better than IGN, as Ebert's been around since, like, time immemorial and the only mistake he's really ever made was to say that ID4 would never make it in the summer box office.
Cliche, I know, but it fits. Seriously; what is a family man ultimately responsible for? Caring for his family, wife and children alike. You know, 'till death to us part' and all that? It's a shame some people don't really think of it that way anymore.
Indeed. Because, it isn't like there's such a thing as molestation or abuse in certain marital relationships. Yup, that type of family should stay together no matter what!
...Like one of my aunts who was in an abusive relationship up until about 5 years ago. The man pretty much kept her destitute through various mathods and business methods meant to keep her in check, and then tried to pull a fraud and emotional blackmail on her by signing all of his mortgages onto her name and threatening my grandma when she tried to leave him. She almost went to jail because of him, and I'm quite sure the may have also physically abused her, though I don't know myself and no one's spoken about it directly to me.
Yes, 'til death do us part' works here! Because my uncle was such a caring person!
Quote:
Indeed. Because, it isn't like there's such a thing as molestation or abuse in certain marital relationships. Yup, that type of family should stay together no matter what!
The type of family the two men of Brokeback Mountain belong to doesn't qualify for that, if I'm not mistaken.
And please don't use hyperbole like that. Do you honestly expect me to say that a woman abused by her husband (or vice-versa) should be expected to stay with him? Of course not!
Quote:
Yes, I'm sure the oscar's are based on what is most moral movie. Having a good moral is what makes a movie popular and rake in cash at the box office.
That's actually a bit closer than you might think. Not always in terms of morals, but in terms of how family-friendly a film is can be a big indicator. Think of the top ten-grossing movies in 2005.
Of the top ten, only one was rated R (Wedding Crashers).
On the top was Star Wars (despite it's PG-13 rating, it's a STAR WARS movie).
Chronicles of Narnia is self-explanatory. Madagascar is an animated film.
Harry Potter is based off of a popular book for children (pre-puberty and post-puberty...and adults as well).
War of the Worlds is probably the most adult movie short of Wedding Crashers.
Batman Begins is based off a superhero comic book that has a tremendous following (although some scenes might be too scary for younger people).
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a remake of an older kids' movie.
King Kong is a remake of an older film (some scenes MIGHT be too intense for some children...but if my 10-year-old and 9-year old sisters are any indication, it's nothing major to be concerned about. Unless you have 5-year olds with you).
Mr and Mrs. Smith is an action comedy between two secret agents who happen to be married. PG-13 though.
Now as for Brokeback Mountain...it comes in at #26. It brought in an estimate of $79,000,000. Narnia brought in roughly $289,000,000. And that's just on American shores; when factoring total worldwide revenue, and Narnia comes to about $668,000,000. Brokeback Mountain comes to about $111,000,000.
So...yeah, family-friendly (or moral. Remember how much money Passion of the Christ brought in?) movies tend to bring in more money.
Take the fact that the two cowboys (no wait, they're not even cowboys are they? They're sheepherders, right?)
They're cowboys. The first time they go to Brokeback is to herd some dude's sheep because they're down on their luck.
Even if they were trying to quit each other (as it seems to be), seeing each other anyway wouldn't really be helpful. They could have at least tried to get help otherwise.
Dude, the movie's set in the southern United States, in the 60s. Back then "help" meant a bunch of hard, pipe-hittin' good ol' boys tying you to a fencepost and hacking your dick off. Hell, even today, it still means a bunch of hard, pipe-hittin' good ol' boys tying you to a fencepost and hacking your dick off, in some parts of the world.
Now as for Brokeback Mountain...it comes in at #26. It brought in an estimate of $79,000,000.
That likely has a lot do do with it having just come out, and Coulter Fhtagn and friends telling everyone not to watch it.
...as Brokeback Mountain. And I thought Brokeback Mountain was set in Wyoming?
Isn't it about time this topic got moved to MFC2?
Just saying the Alaska wolf thread only made it to 44 replies before being moved...
Jimro
Quote:
Any suggestions?
CHUD.com is the site I usually use. Sometimes, though, Ebert will fit the bill.
Stupid double-post.
December 9th was a limited release. In fact, Brokeback was a limited release in most countries until January. Also, Narnia and the marketing surrounding it is kind of, how do you say, huge. It's unfair to compare the two solely on their box-office performance. But Star Wars, Wedding Crashers, WotW, Batman, the Branjelina movie, and Charlie all came out months and months ago.
Jake Gyllenhaal's character lives in Texas.
And please don't use hyperbole like that. Do you honestly expect me to say that a woman abused by her husband (or vice-versa) should be expected to stay with him? Of course not!
I'm just trying to stop the blanket statements is all. 🙂
But the marriages of both men in the story, while not abusive, are among the most unhappy. There are marriages that can woth out the differences, and those that cannot work out the differences no matter what. Tell me, is it better to keep up a marriage for appearance's sake if it becomes apparent that one partner has somehow deviated in some fashion from the marriage vows? That kind of marriage tends to be very self-destructive - another point that the movie tries to make.
Now as for Brokeback Mountain...it comes in at #26. It brought in an estimate of $79,000,000. Narnia brought in roughly $289,000,000...(etc).
That's so silly to say that a movie is going to do well based on morality, or to compare numbers on a film that had a wide release and loads of hype well before even last year to a film that, in my state, only, like, three cities (my city, and my theatre included) were playing for a month and only started to get real attention a few weeks before its release.
I mean, how moral is Titanic?
Quote:
Tell me, is it better to keep up a marriage for appearance's sake if it becomes apparent that one partner has somehow deviated in some fashion from the marriage vows? That kind of marriage tends to be very self-destructive - another point that the movie tries to make.
They could have at least been honest and told their wives the truth. Because when it comes to family, the most important thing about a marriage (as my father and mother will be quick to say) are the children and prepping them for adulthood. It's not just for appearance's sake; it's for the children's sake.
Quote:
Also, Narnia and the marketing surrounding it is kind of, how do you say, huge.
The commercial advertisements for Brokeback Mountain far outpaced that of Narnia (I saw at least four-seven ads for Brokeback Mountain a day...and on multiple channels. Heck, I still see an ad or two a day. Narnia? The ads stopped roughly a month or so after its release. And there were nowhere near as much Narnia ads as Brokeback ads). I wonder how much money was spent promoting BM?
Quote:
But Star Wars, Wedding Crashers, WotW, Batman, the Branjelina movie, and Charlie all came out months and months ago.
Irrelevant, as movies are in US theaters for about the same time frame: around two to three months (maybe less), depending on its success. And even though Narnia and Brokeback came out late in 2005, any money the movies still make goes toward their 2005 EXACTLY three months since both were released.
Quote:
I mean, how moral is Titanic?
I, for the life of me, cannot understand how that movie was so popular. Some say because of its accurate portrayal of the Titanic. Some say its because of the love story about a poor guy and a rich girl. Me? I'm convinced that it's because a lot of women went to see the movie again and again just to see Leonardo DiCaprio (and cry over and over again when he died. True story from an old friend of mine). Just a theory. 😛
Yeah yeah I know I'm adding to the , but that was freakin' funny.
And the movie didn't have a nationwide release till like January, and even then, not all theaters carried it. I know it took Rockford forever. *shrugs*
Either way, I don't care for the movie. It's a movie about guys who went gay for eachother. I don't see why it's controversial; just don't see it. 😛
Wait, no, this was about the oscars, wasn't it? ...
... well then I got nothin'.
Lame edit OMG 3000 go me!!!
Not everyone has ten thousand posts of one line spam. 
True.
And like you're one to talk!
...oh wait, you are. Never mind.
EDIT: MOVING TIME.
<3 Ultra
