I don't want Brokeback Mountain to sweep the Oscars

[The STE]

Originally posted by Zero
to be honest, i think a lot of the people criticizing the film (and its oscar chances) ought to see it first. . . .is it a love story about two men - yes - but its more than that in so many ways. i really think it is a great film (the best this year? not for me, but still great)

to criticize it only because it has two male lovers seems remarkably narrowminded to me

I don't care about the man-on-man lovin'. It just seems like...a lackluster choice for best movie of the year

[The STE]

:D

[AUSTIN316426808]

Well, ya got what ya wanted.


Those are my favorite shows when everything's spread around and everybody gets their props.

[The STE]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
Well, ya got what ya wanted.


Those are my favorite shows when everything's spread around and everybody gets their props.

Only problems were:
1) Sin City got nothing. Not even a visual effects nomination
2) Good Night and Good Luck got nothing
3) The Meaning of Life did not get motherfucking nominated for best animated short. I actually refused to watch this portion of the Oscars because of this.

[Despare]

Do you think Brokeback Mountain would've got as many nominations if it wasn't about guy guys? I mean, even if it was lesbians instead do you think it would've gotten as much acclaim? Anyway, I wanted History of Violence to get more nominations and it didn't, I was surprised to learn that March of the Penguins made more than all of the best picture nominees.

[The STE]

Originally posted by Despare
Do you think Brokeback Mountain would've got as many nominations if it wasn't about guy guys? I mean, even if it was lesbians instead do you think it would've gotten as much acclaim? Anyway, I wanted History of Violence to get more nominations and it didn't, I was surprised to learn that March of the Penguins made more than all of the best picture nominees.

got into a big argument on the IMDB board over this.

I'm not saying yes or no. My stance is simply this: Who gives a shit? Seriously, why argue about how much acclaim it would or would not get if it were a different movie?

[Despare]

I'm asking if it was the same story with different genders playing the roles with only slight changes made to accomidate the sexes. Do I really care? No, it was more rhetorical. But why ask questions about what would happen at all in that case? Everybody likes a little speculation.

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by The STE
Only problems were:
1) Sin City got nothing. Not even a visual effects nomination

Too graphic and sexual I guess.

Then again with the way things are now, you'd think graphic and sexual would be more accepted than gay cowboys.

Having said that...although I believe Crash is the better film, I think the academy wasn't ready to present an oscar to an homosexual themed movie. Just my little theory.

[AUSTIN316426808]

The reason it's acclaimed is because of the statement involving homosexuality. And aside from that, the directing and acting is very good. The Best Picture films had either social or political statements with very well done direction and acting.

[The STE]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
Too graphic and sexual I guess.

Then again with the way things are now, you'd think graphic and sexual would be more accepted than gay cowboys.

Having said that...although I believe Crash is the better film, I think the academy wasn't ready to present an oscar to an homosexual themed movie. Just my little theory.

They nominated A Clockwork Orange for best picture. Graphic and sexual had nothing to do with it. Robert Rodriguez telling the DGA to stick it had everything to do with it.

BTW, CAPOTE WAS GAY!!! They gave Hoffman an Oscar, and he played a gay character. The homosexuality has nothing to do with anything