first of all, I'm not homophobic or do I have any problem with peoples own sexual preference, but it seems to me these days, if you want to win an award for a not so good script, write it about a gay man/woman or couple & it's a lock. example: Philadelphia, Brokeback Mountain, & now Milk, I'm also not taking anything away from Sean Penn, he's a great actor but COME ON, Mickey Rourke was IMO much more deserving of the best actor award for The Wrestler, again just my opinion......Thoughts?...........
Locking Up Gay Awards
Started by One Way Ticket, Feb 23 2009 10:54 AM
12 replies to this topic
#2
Timothy
-
- TFHL Peep
-
- 7,286 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationWhere ever the Boss tells me to be!
Posted 23 February 2009 - 11:43 AM
I bet u typed that up on ur Ifag!!!!
Philadelphia and brokeback both had very good scripts.
While Penn and Rourke both did good work in their flick niether was great.
Too much is made of the Oscars . At the end of the day the Oscars don't mean shit.
#3
Mr. Roboto
-
- Admin
-
- 6,723 posts
Administrators
- LocationProvo Spain
Posted 23 February 2009 - 12:07 PM
I'm not sure if I agree with your hypothesis, although I understand your point. Milk was supposed to be an awesome movie, and the other two were both fantastic, in particular Brokeback. I think that perhaps since it goes against the "normal" societal grain that it is considered more cutting edge (Philly was during that time), ie more risk = more reward? I dunno....
"It was like I was in high school again, but fatter."
#4
Timothy
-
- TFHL Peep
-
- 7,286 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationWhere ever the Boss tells me to be!
Posted 23 February 2009 - 12:12 PM
I would also like to point out that none of the actors wrote the scripts/screenplays.
It's not so much cutting edge. as it is more of a large amount of these hollywood people are gay themselves so they can Identify more with these films more then say ....Rambo ,ect.
#5
freedom78
-
- TFHL Peep
-
- 6,667 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationIndiana
Posted 23 February 2009 - 06:31 PM
I don't know how the voting works. Do you get one vote, or do you get to rank them? Because if it's one vote, then Penn could have won with 20% +1 vote (mathematically...not likely, but still possible), meaning that he hardly reflects the choice. I think any reasonable system of choosing a "winner" when there are more than two choices should have some sort of ranking system involved. Maybe the Oscars does that...no idea really.
Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head
#7
freedom78
-
- TFHL Peep
-
- 6,667 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationIndiana
Posted 23 February 2009 - 06:44 PM
^Nope...looked heavy, and after two years of following politics so intently, I'm pretty much content with movies where shit blows up.
Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head
#9
One Way Ticket
-
- Members
-
- 237 posts
Members
Posted 23 February 2009 - 08:23 PM
It was a decent film, and again, Sean Penn is a great actor, it just didn't hit me like The Wrestler did, and neither movie won so I guess I am pointing more to best actor performance rather than best picture.
If you stay ready.....you never have to get ready!!!
#11
LISA
-
- TFHL Peep
-
- 4,740 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 23 February 2009 - 09:47 PM
personally I don't think it was a very big jump for Rourke to basically play himself...I am also not saying he wasn't good or deserving but when it is as close to your own life it isn't a big jump, therefore, IMO, not as hard as adopting a role of ..lets say a blind diaper tester on steroids..know what I mean?Rourke was good in the wrestler , but that film is such a rocky rip off.
and ole Mickey is a sexy bastard in a down and dirty quite of way..sure like to give him 6 weeks naked in front of my refrigerator
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
