Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Quite frankly.....I'm just waiting for the DVD to be released so that I can skip the chapter in which the two gay cowboys are making out.I won't comment on the movie since I haven't seen it. And reviews and other people's comments won't divert my honest and direct opinion.
But I'm willing to bet that if this movie would have feature two very largely obese and ugly looking actors....there wouldn't be any hype. They need two good looking actors to play the roles of homosexuals cowboys.....I'm not surprise.
Cowboys aren't suppose to look like soft baby face. They're rough and tough....
...coming soon a review!
*waits for the DVD*
Nah, if the two ugly obese actors were able to actually portray the character with the same accuracy and vividness, it would be just as praised. Of course, they wouldn't be able to because it just wouldn't be believable.
Also, you could probably use that same awkward logic to dismiss any movie. Batman Begins wouldn't be nearly as credible or popular if John Goodman or Gary Coleman played Batman, and so fourth.
Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
What's so good about two homosexual cowboys? 😕
Again, you obviously haven't seen the movie because you're commiting the same fallaciously cruel simplification in regaurds to this movie that everyone else commits. It's not them being "gay cowboys" that makes the movie good. It's the quality and deepness of the characters and the honest and heartbreaking nature in which the story is told that makes it good, along with outstanding acting, directing, fitting music and cinematography.
Originally posted by BackFire
Nah, if the two ugly obese actors were able to actually portray the character with the same accuracy and vividness, it would be just as praised. Of course, they wouldn't be able to because it just wouldn't be believable.Also, you could probably use that same awkward logic to dismiss any movie. Batman Begins wouldn't be nearly as credible or popular if John Goodman or Gary Coleman played Batman, and so fourth.
Umm...no! that doesn't hold any water. The history of Batman dictates that the character must be in top looking condition (or at least appear to be in such shape) and must be charming, and also quite good looking male (Christian Bale fits perfectly) Which is what Bruce Wayne is....a Playboy millonare. Where in the book Brokeback Mountain (which is the adaption of the film) dictates that the two cowboys in the film must be good looking chaps? Or where in the book does it even give a physcial describtion of the two main characters? If you can show a paragraph of the book making descriptions then I would change my mind.
John Goodman or Gary Coleman can play the role of Batman....only if it is a spoof.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Umm...no! that doesn't hold any water. The history of Batman dictates that the character must be in top looking condition (or at least appear to be in such shape) and must be charming, and also quite good looking male. Which is what Bruce Wayne is....a Playboy millonare. Where in the book Brokeback Mountain (which is the adaption of the film) dictates that the two cowboys in the film must be good looking chaps? Or where in the book does it even give a physcial describtion of the two main characters? If you can show a paragraph of the book making descriptions then I would change my mind.John Goodman or Gary Coleman can play the role of Batman....only if it is a spoof.
Again, two fat pimplyfaced cowboys wouldn't be believable. I haven't read the book, have you? It more than likely gives a brief description of each character, and I'm sure them being obese and ugly isn't part of the description.
I know it holds no water, it was done on purpose to expose that your initial statement also holds no water and is not a valid or reasonable statement against the movie. If you're going to condemn one movie based on the looks of the characters, then you must do it for every movie that it can be done for. Even if Batman didn't have those predispositions that he must be good looking and yadda yadda, people simply wouldn't be able to take the character seriously if he was a balding fat man. Certain characters need certain looks to work properly. This is no different in Brokeback Mountain than it is for any other movie.
But, if this isn't good enough for you, the actions taken by the characters would require them being in good shape. Both are active men, both do physical activity for work and it wouldn't be logical or believable to have an obese man doing such work.
Bottom line: Their physical characteristics makes perfect sense when you watch the movie, something you should probably do before you attempt to condemn it over something so silly.
Originally posted by BackFire
Again, you obviously haven't seen the movie because you're commiting the same fallaciously cruel simplification in regaurds to this movie that everyone else commits. It's not them being "gay cowboys" that makes the movie good. It's the quality and deepness of the characters and the honest and heartbreaking nature in which the story is told that makes it good, along with outstanding acting, directing, fitting music and cinematography.
The movie is about two "gay cowboys" though. They are the stars, the main characters, and the film's central focus.
BackFire, you that you think its a "very very good" movie. Other than being about a couple of guys, how does it differ from other heartbreak stories?
By the way, the movie doesnt show them butt-humping does it? Because if it does, that totally kills it for me, ese.
Originally posted by BackFire
Again, two fat pimplyfaced cowboys wouldn't be believable. I haven't read the book, have you? It more than likely gives a brief description of each character, and I'm sure them being obese and ugly isn't part of the description.I know it holds no water, it was done on purpose to expose that your initial statement also holds no water and is not a valid or reasonable statement against the movie. If you're going to condemn one movie based on the looks of the characters, then you must do it for every movie that it can be done for. Even if Batman didn't have those predispositions that he must be good looking and yadda yadda, people simply wouldn't be able to take the character seriously if he was a balding fat man. Certain characters need certain looks to work properly. This is no different in Brokeback Mountain than it is for any other movie.
But, if this isn't good enough for you, the actions taken by the characters would require them being in good shape.
Bottom line: Their physical characteristics makes perfect sense when you watch the movie, something you should probably do before you attempt to condemn it over something so silly.
I haven't condemn the film. I even acknowledge that I haven't seen it and waiting for DVD. My only observation was the two characters look too handsome to look like rough cowboys. You said "I know it holds no water, it was done on purpose to expose that your initial statement also holds no water and is not a valid or reasonable statement against the movie." Since when do you use a negative statement to prove another negative statement?
Your bottom line is correct and at the same time way off. Yes, one must see the film before critize it. However, one can make certain observations (and possibly critique) prior to watching the film. Date Movie rings a bell? Saw the trailer...looks painfully unfunny....so and so.
There is an anal sex scene, and some people are taken aback by it. But it's short and mostly implied. They keep the camera above the waist most of the time, and when it does drop below the waist it's in a position in which nothing really can be seen.
Yes, the movie is about gay cowboys. Just like Fight Club is about a bunch of people fighting, and Godfather is about a bunch of italians whining about respect. Again, it's a cruel simplification of the movie, Quiero, there is a lot more to the movie than "two gay cowboys".
What makes it good is that it shows these characters as people, not objects too push an agenda. Real, believable people. Who are in love with eachother, but because of their own predisposed thoughts about gays that have been pushed into their heads by the society thatthey live in, they are never allowed to flourish and be happy with one another, and it's absolutely heartbreaking to watch it occur. It would work with any forbidden love theme, gay or not. The thing that seperates this film, though is this: Most movies have an outside force keeping the characters from happiness, and conflict arises because of this force. You know the characters want to overcome the force to achieve their happiness. In Brokeback Mountain, that force is the feelings and fears of the characters themselves. The characters are the ones keep themselves from achieving long term satisfaction. It's a storytelling device that is done very very well and makes it all the more sad.
Originally posted by BackFire
What makes it good is that it shows these characters as people, not objects too push an agenda.
I'm sure that was Ang Lee's intention, but it just ended up a gimmick to kick up shit and stir controversy.
Are you gay, BackFire? Just wondering, because of your elaborate posts defending the movie and your username; "back" and "fire".