# The Gay Cowboy Movie



## William Joyce

I saw a trailer when I went to see "Walk the Line."

It came as a huge surprise to me that homosexuality is being heavily promoted by our Hollywood minders as a rustic, down-home and wholesome activity most often found against backdrops of galloping horses, mountain streams and lush greenery.

Oh, wait.  No, it didn't. 

Maybe they can follow up with "Broke Immune System Mountain," featuring AIDS-ridden hot sexy cowboys dying of diseases transmitted by unnatural sex.


----------



## Dan

I actually had to read the short story that Brokeback Mountain was based on for a class earlier this semester.

I am really surprised that they are showing the preview for it before PG-13 rated movies, though. 



> Maybe they can follow up with "Broke Immune System Mountain," featuring AIDS-ridden hot sexy cowboys dying of diseases transmitted by unnatural sex.



Simply amazing, sir!


----------



## dmp

makes me think I'll never see another movie by either of the 'stars' of that movie.


----------



## 007

William Joyce said:
			
		

> I saw a trailer when I went to see "Walk the Line."
> 
> It came as a huge surprise to me that homosexuality is being heavily promoted by our Hollywood minders as a rustic, down-home and wholesome activity most often found against backdrops of galloping horses, mountain streams and lush greenery.
> 
> Oh, wait.  No, it didn't.
> 
> Maybe they can follow up with "Broke Immune System Mountain," featuring AIDS-ridden hot sexy cowboys dying of diseases transmitted by unnatural sex.



Well I'll be damned... this doesn't surprize me though. Hollywierd is full of faggots and supporters of faggots.

What would make me faint in astonishment is if hollywierd put out a movie in support of HETEROSEXAULITY...


----------



## BATMAN

dmp said:
			
		

> makes me think I'll never see another movie by either of the 'stars' of that movie.


Yep. I don't know how you could take them seriously in a "macho"  :2guns: movie again after a movie about their gay relationship


----------



## Dan

So, I'm assuming nobody posting in this thread is a fan of Tom Hanks? Charlize Theron? Salma Hayek?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

Dan said:
			
		

> So, I'm assuming nobody posting in this thread is a fan of Tom Hanks? Charlize Theron? Salma Hayek?


I'm pretty sure they're not a fan of most of Hollywood...


----------



## BATMAN

Dan said:
			
		

> So, I'm assuming nobody posting in this thread is a fan of Tom Hanks? Charlize Theron? Salma Hayek?


The movie Tom Hanks was in, was about a gay man dealing with AIDS. It was not about his "relationship" with his gay lover and how they dealt with they're "feelings" within for one another.


----------



## Dan

> The movie Tom Hanks was in, was about a gay man dealing with AIDS. It was not about his "relationship" with his gay lover and how they dealt with they're "feelings" within for one another.



Well, certainly his gay lover was part of the film, though, no? Much of the film definitely had to do with their feelings, I'd say.


----------



## KarlMarx

The movie's a revolution in that it's revolting.

I wouldn't want to sit through a movie showing two guys doing "whatever" and I certainly won't spend my money to watch such an abomination. I doubt most people will want to watch this, either. I can't imagine Mr and Ms Joe Average sitting in a theater, eating popcorn and drinking sodas while watching two men sodomize each other. But I CAN see a theater full of gays doing that (and probably ogling over the two guys or crying through the more poignant scenes).

The movie just is a promotion for the gay lifestyle... face it. They tried to pull the same thing last summer in the movie about Alexander the Great at the expense of historical accuracy. Of course, Alexander bombed, too.

Of course, all the Hollywood libs, the Park Avenue elites, the academics and so on are going to be falling over each other trying to get to see this movie. They'll be trying to out do each other to heap praise on this film in front of the first available camera, at cocktail parties or any available column in their local paper. It's the latest "thing", they'll want to fit in and get status.

And of course, this movie is going to win some academy award. Hollywood is going to break its back contorting itself to convince the rest of us podunks that we're missing something great.

My prediction, after the gays and the libs have watched this film and pestered the rest of us by telling us just how brilliant this movie is, it will be consigned to the bargain basement heap of films. No one is going to rent or buy it and it will soon be forgotten. The movie will be a financial failure or at best a break even proposition. And that's what Hollywood is going to pay attention to, the bottom line after all is still the bottom line to those folks.

Once Hollywood gets the message that most people aren't going to fork over their hard earned dollars to watch a movie that amounts to two men sodomizing each other, they'll think twice about producing this garbage.

Now, "Passion of Christ" won no Acadamy Awards (but was nominated for some). According to IMDB  it grossed almost 400 Million dollars (and over 200 Million in rentals)... Now if I were in pictures, I'd be paying attention to that... 

Mr and Mrs Joe Average want to see something like "Chronicles of Narnia" not "Jim and John Bend Over"


----------



## dilloduck

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> The movie's a revolution in that it's revolting.
> 
> I wouldn't want to sit through a movie showing two guys doing "whatever" and I certainly won't spend my money to watch such an abomination. I doubt most people will want to watch this, either. I can't imagine Mr and Ms Joe Average sitting in a theater, eating popcorn and drinking sodas while watching two men sodomize each other. But I CAN see a theater full of gays doing that (and probably ogling over the two guys or crying through the more poignant scenes).
> 
> The movie just is a promotion for the gay lifestyle... face it. They tried to pull the same thing last summer in the movie about Alexander the Great at the expense of historical accuracy. Of course, Alexander bombed, too.
> 
> Of course, all the Hollywood libs, the Park Avenue elites, the academics and so on are going to be falling over each other trying to get to see this movie. They'll be trying to out do each other to heap praise on this film in front of the first available camera, at cocktail parties or any available column in their local paper. It's the latest "thing", they'll want to fit in and get status.
> 
> And of course, this movie is going to win some academy award. Hollywood is going to break its back contorting itself to convince the rest of us podunks that we're missing something great.
> 
> My prediction, after the gays and the libs have watched this film and pestered the rest of us by telling us just how brilliant this movie is, it will be consigned to the bargain basement heap of films. No one is going to rent or buy it and it will soon be forgotten. The movie will be a financial failure or at best a break even proposition. And that's what Hollywood is going to pay attention to, the bottom line after all is still the bottom line to those folks.
> 
> Once Hollywood gets the message that most people aren't going to fork over their hard earned dollars to watch a movie that amounts to two men sodomizing each other, they'll think twice about producing this garbage.
> 
> Now, "Passion of Christ" won no Acadamy Awards (but was nominated for some). According to IMDB  it grossed almost 400 Million dollars (and over 200 Million in rentals)... Now if I were in pictures, I'd be paying attention to that...
> 
> Mr and Mrs Joe Average want to see something like "Chronicles of Narnia" not "Jim and John Bend Over"



 :rotflmao: ----thanks for the great piece of writing. Excellent points and you gave me a good laugh ! I owe ya some rep for this one.
It's amazing how loving people who spread AIDS is a "cool" thing to do. Reminds me of the good old days when it was cool to know someone who was black or jewish. Tokenism rules in tinseltown. The land of pretenders.


----------



## BATMAN

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> And of course, this movie is going to win some academy award. Hollywood is going to break its back contorting itself to convince the rest of us podunks that we're missing something great.


I was just logging on to say that thought had occurred to me after posting last night. 

You said it quite well. HERE HERE!


----------



## The ClayTaurus

Ok, make your predictions here. What awards will this movie win?

My guess is none.


----------



## dilloduck

how about "best movie about the poor downtrodden gay community" ?

Hell--they make up new ones every year don't they?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

dilloduck said:
			
		

> how about "best movie about the poor downtrodden gay community" ?
> 
> Hell--they make up new ones every year don't they?



I was serious. If Hollywood is going to do all this contorting, why don't we see who can best guess what this movie's going to be nominated for? Or be bold and actually predict what award it will WIN. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. Oscars? Golden Globes? MTV? Pick something, and we can see how well you know Hollywood.


----------



## Abbey Normal

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Well I'll be damned... this doesn't surprize me though. Hollywierd is full of faggots and supporters of faggots.
> 
> What would make me faint in astonishment is if hollywierd put out a movie in support of HETEROSEXAULITY...



Or making a movie with a positive message about suburban conservative families. Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## 007

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> I was serious. If Hollywood is going to do all this contorting, why don't we see who can best guess what this movie's going to be nominated for? Or be bold and actually predict what award it will WIN. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. Oscars? Golden Globes? MTV? Pick something, and we can see how well you know Hollywood.



You'd have to be able to think like a liberal to do this, and that leaves me out.

Well wait, maybe... best homosexual love scene?


----------



## Abbey Normal

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> You'd have to be able to think like a liberal to do this, and that leaves me out.
> 
> Well wait, maybe... best homosexual love scene?



Now Pale, specifying homosexual is probably discriminatory. It would have to be just "best love scene", and then it could win.


----------



## 007

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> Or making a movie with a positive message about suburban conservative families. Ain't gonna happen.



You mean like they USED to make? 

Believe it or not, hollywierd USED to be conservative. It's gone through quite a transition in the last twenty years. All for the worse.


----------



## 007

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> Now Pale, specifying homosexual is probably discriminatory. It would have to be just "best love scene", and then it could win.



Then I guess maybe hollywierds next move will be to create an award show specifically for queers.


----------



## Abbey Normal

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Then I guess maybe hollywierds next move will be to create an award show specifically for queers.



I could definitely see that happening.


----------



## KarlMarx

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Ok, make your predictions here. What awards will this movie win?
> 
> My guess is none.


I have to disagree, I believe it will win all sorts of awards (I'm sure GLAAD has awards for such movies, if not, they'll invent one for the occassion)....

but the one area where it won't win will be in the one that counts the most... box office receipts.... 

for that, it will definitely get the "Biggest Box Office Bomb Ever to Disgrace The Silver Screen Since 'Heaven's Gate'" Award 

(and those of us who are old enough to remember Heaven's Gate, most don't because it was that big of a bomb)


----------



## Dan

> Once Hollywood gets the message that most people aren't going to fork over their hard earned dollars to watch a movie that amounts to two men sodomizing each other, they'll think twice about producing this garbage.



If this movie amounts to "two men sodomizing each other", then The Passion amounts to "a guy gets nailed to a board".

That said, I don't think it will do well, either. I think you're right that the average moviegoer won't want to see this. However, the only reason it's recieving so much press is because its stars are kind of the "it" thing (or at least they were a couple years ago). Movies about homosexuals is nothing new.


----------



## KarlMarx

Dan said:
			
		

> If this movie amounts to "two men sodomizing each other", then The Passion amounts to "a guy gets nailed to a board".
> 
> That said, I don't think it will do well, either. I think you're right that the average moviegoer won't want to see this. However, the only reason it's recieving so much press is because its stars are kind of the "it" thing (or at least they were a couple years ago). Movies about homosexuals is nothing new.



I'll have to disagree with your opinion about the Passion. The Passion means something to most people, because most of us were raised Christian. Christianity is the basis of our culture.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is alien to most people. Most people are not homosexuals, they won't be able to understand or relate to the story and I'll wager, find the scenes repugnant. Let's face it, even people who are tolerant of gays don't particular care to watch them engage in sex.

Movies about homosexuals are nothing new, yes, but movies about homosexuals with a lot of press coverage are.

The two actors in this movie are not familiar to me, I can't say that they're that well known, but I may be wrong. 

No, I believe that the attention from the press has everything to do with the subject matter, not the two men who are playing the leading role.


----------



## insein

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> I'll have to disagree with your opinion about the Passion. The Passion means something to most people, because most of us were raised Christian. Christianity is the basis of our culture.
> 
> Homosexuality, on the other hand, is alien to most people. Most people are not homosexuals, they won't be able to understand or relate to the story and I'll wager, find the scenes repugnant. Let's face it, even people who are tolerant of gays don't particular care to watch them engage in sex.
> 
> Movies about homosexuals are nothing new, yes, but movies about homosexuals with a lot of press coverage are.
> 
> The two actors in this movie are not familiar to me, I can't say that they're that well known, but I may be wrong.
> 
> No, I believe that the attention from the press has everything to do with the subject matter, not the two men who are playing the leading role.



Heath Ledger was Mel Gibson's son in The Patriot.  Jay Gillenhal was the liberal douchebag kid of the old liberal douchebag dad in the Day after tommorrow.  

Always figured they were fags.  This just proves it.


----------



## TheEnemyWithin

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> I'll have to disagree with your opinion about the Passion. The Passion means something to most people, because most of us were raised Christian. Christianity is the basis of our culture.
> 
> Homosexuality, on the other hand, is alien to most people. Most people are not homosexuals, they won't be able to understand or relate to the story and I'll wager, find the scenes repugnant. Let's face it, even people who are tolerant of gays don't particular care to watch them engage in sex.
> 
> Movies about homosexuals are nothing new, yes, but movies about homosexuals with a lot of press coverage are.
> 
> The two actors in this movie are not familiar to me, I can't say that they're that well known, but I may be wrong.
> 
> No, I believe that the attention from the press has everything to do with the subject matter, not the two men who are playing the leading role.





Agreed!!! I've heard a few lefties say things like, "This is the movie that the right-wing Bible-thumpers don't want you to see." I could care less if you go see that movie, it's a free country! Just so you know, you're a complete moron if you honestly believe that it has one teeny smidgen of historical fact whatsoever.


----------



## KarlMarx

insein said:
			
		

> Heath Ledger was Mel Gibson's son in The Patriot.  Jay Gillenhal was the liberal douchebag kid of the old liberal douchebag dad in the Day after tommorrow.
> 
> Always figured they were fags.  This just proves it.



So a pair of Clark Gables or Humphrey Bogarts, they're not....

I have a feeling that 10 years from now, no one will remember their names.


----------



## Bonnie

> Pale Rider..What would make me faint in astonishment is if hollywierd put out a movie in support of HETEROSEXAULITY...




They have it's called "Fatal Attraction", "Sex Lies and Videotape"..Heterosexual Monogomy at it's finest


----------



## Bonnie

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> I have to disagree, I believe it will win all sorts of awards (I'm sure GLAAD has awards for such movies, if not, they'll invent one for the occassion)....
> 
> but the one area where it won't win will be in the one that counts the most... box office receipts....
> 
> for that, it will definitely get the "Biggest Box Office Bomb Ever to Disgrace The Silver Screen Since 'Heaven's Gate'" Award
> 
> (and those of us who are old enough to remember Heaven's Gate, most don't because it was that big of a bomb)



Of course it will be critically acclaimed and celebrated by every elite Hollywood award ceremony...citing how "groundbreaking" it is, and how it makes us all much more aware of the Gay cowboy plight.

They don't make movies to appeal to people ---they make movies like that to win eachothers praise.


----------



## MtnBiker

John Wayne is rolling in is grave.

Imagine that pitch session. 

Pitch man - "O.k. John here is how the screen play will go. You and your buddy are off on a hunting trip then have fantastic gay sex with each other. Then you go through life with tremendous confusion and pain trying to live in denial of your real feelings."

John Wayne - " What the fuck!  "


----------



## Bonnie

MtnBiker said:
			
		

> John Wayne is rolling in is grave.
> 
> Imagine that pitch session.
> 
> Pitch man - "O.k. John here is how the screen play will go. You and your buddy are off on a hunting trip then have loving gay sex with each other. Then go through life with tremendous confusion and pain trying to live in denial of your real feelings."
> 
> John Wayne - " What the fuck!  "



 :rotflmao:  sounds even more ridiculous when you spell it out...


----------



## Shattered

3 pages of reading, and all I can say is... ...


----------



## KarlMarx

I was looking for box office figures for this movie on IMDB (not available yet), I noticed a forum for user comments at the bottom of the page... one comment is....

_"Homophobes, before you post Jesus asks: have you helped the poor today?"_

Don't you just hate it when the Left is judgemental, preachy and sanctimonious???... oh wait, silly me, I forgot, the Left isn't capable of those things... they're ENLIGHTENING us... yeah, that's it!!!!

P.S. C.S. Lewis' "Chronicles of Narnia" --- $65 Million so far and it's only been one weekend!!!! 

P.P.S. *--- another Karl Trivia Attack!!!!! ---* C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien were fellow professors at Oxford and good friends. In fact, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien each encouraged the other to continue writing their works. 

P.P.P.S. *--- bonus trivia attack!!!! -----* C.S. Lewis died the same day as fellow author, Aldous Huxley ("Brave New World"). Their deaths occurred on November 22, 1963... *the same day JFK was assassinated*...


----------



## Bonnie

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> I was looking for box office figures for this movie on IMDB (not available yet), I noticed a forum for user comments at the bottom of the page... one comment is....
> 
> _"Homophobes, before you post Jesus asks: have you helped the poor today?"_
> 
> Don't you just hate it when the Left is judgemental, preachy and sanctimonious???... oh wait, silly me, I forgot, the Left isn't capable of those things... they're ENLIGHTENING us... yeah, that's it!!!!
> 
> P.S. C.S. Lewis' "Chronicles of Narnia" --- $65 Million so far and it's only been one weekend!!!!
> 
> P.P.S. *--- another Karl Trivia Attack!!!!! ---* C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien were fellow professors at Oxford and good friends. In fact, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien each encouraged the other to continue writing their works.
> 
> P.P.P.S. *--- bonus trivia attack!!!! -----* C.S. Lewis died the same day as fellow author, Aldous Huxley ("Brave New World"). Their deaths occurred on November 22, 1963... *the same day JFK was assassinated*...




Now Karl don't you know that Hollywood *invented * sex??


----------



## fuzzykitten99

Dan said:
			
		

> So, I'm assuming nobody posting in this thread is a fan of Tom Hanks? Charlize Theron? Salma Hayek?



I like all 3 of those actors, and the movies they played homo characters in. This is because the movies were not solely based on homosexuality and did not show actual homo sex. They didn't show the characters romping and rolling around together. I liked Philadelphia, because of the whole aspect that Hanks' character was discriminated against, and he stuck up for himself.

I like the movie "The Birdcage" simply because I find the whole thing just hilarious, and don't care about the other stuff. They make fun of BOTH liberals and conservatives. But they don't show Robin and Nathan romping together in bed.

This cowboy movie plays against the whole American visualization of the old West. Not that there were not any gay lovers back then, I just prefer not to think about someone like John Wayne, wearing pink panties. Guys dressing like women or even just feminine, in movies isn't a new concept, it's just the character types in this movie that have most people not wanting to change how they see the cowboys.

Plus, I think most Americans accept that the homos aren't going away, and definitely aren't gonna shut up about themselves, and we kind oftolerate it, because of this reason. Most of us just prefer not to watch a movie where we SEE them um, doing more than just dressing the part and touting off funny one-liners.


----------



## 007

fuzzykitten99 said:
			
		

> I like all 3 of those actors, and the movies they played homo characters in. This is because the movies were not solely based on homosexuality and did not show actual homo sex. They didn't show the characters romping and rolling around together.



Well, actually fuzz, and I hate to be the one to point this out, because I think Salma Hayek is extremely hot, but in the movie "Frida", she did a lesbian love scene, and yes, they were naked, and romping and rolling around together.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

Let's be honest, the real problem many have is with male homo sex, not general homo sex. People will line up all day long to watch girl on girl action.


----------



## 007

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Let's be honest, the real problem many have is with male homo sex, not general homo sex. People will line up all day long to watch girl on girl action.



From a man's prospective, no, I don't find woman on woman sex as revolting as men. But I attribute that to the fact that I'm a male, and I'm attracted to women.

Now on the other hand, I would expect a woman to be as disgusted with woman on woman sex as I am with man on man. But... maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## BATMAN

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Oscars? Golden Globes? MTV? Pick something, and we can see how well you know Hollywood.


Here's a story:



> 'Brokeback Mountain' Leads Globe Nods
> BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. - The cowboy romance "Brokeback Mountain" led Golden Globe contenders Tuesday with seven nominations, among them best dramatic picture and honors for actors Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams and director Ang Lee, positioning itself as a key Academy Awards competitor.



The contorting has begun.


----------



## KarlMarx

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> From a man's prospective, no, I don't find woman on woman sex as revolting as men. But I attribute that to the fact that I'm a male, and I'm attracted to women.
> 
> Now on the other hand, I would expect a woman to be as disgusted with woman on woman sex as I am with man on man. But... maybe I'm wrong.


Regardless, whether it's gay or whether it's lesbian isn't the point.

A movie that featured explicit sex scenes wouldn't have been shown years ago. Any theater owner that did so, risked criminal prosecution. 

That all changed when somewhere along the line (I'm going to guess that it was the Supreme Court) decided that pornography is protected under the First Amendment. I have to say that was a wrong decision and not one that the founding fathers intended.

My understanding is that the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment applies to political speech only, not to pornography. 

The irony is that political free speech has been under attack for years, yet pornography has enjoyed all sorts of First Amendment protections and no one seems to realize the irony of it all. One of the biggest attacks in recent history is Campaign Finance Reform, which prohibits negative political ads within "n" number of days before an election. If that isn't a violation of the First Amendement, what is?


----------



## theHawk

How can anyone _not_ be a Salma fan...


----------



## Abbey Normal

My husband saw an article today that discussed the "Oscar buzz" for Brokeback Mountain. (Sorry, he doesn't remember whose article it was). 
So, those of you who predicted that Hollywood would fall over themselves to honor this pic were correct. 

Btw, for anyone interested, the tag line for the movie is "Love is a force of Nature"


----------



## Bonnie

What Im wondering is just who exactly is this movie supposed to relate to??  Im assuming gay men which makes up what about 5% of the population?   The joke here is that Hollywood actually thinks mainstream anyone is interested in Cowboy gay love.  So I have to think this movie was made in the hopes that people other than gay men will see it and somehow be inspired to "understand the gay cowboy dilemna??  OR they just wanted to praise eachother at how open minded and tolerant they all are in Hollywood and we the little people are supposed to be educated to this and gravel at their feet yelling "thank you for enlightening us"..........


----------



## Bonnie

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> My husband saw an article today that discussed the "Oscar buzz" for Brokeback Mountain. (Sorry, he doesn't remember whose article it was).
> So, those of you who predicted that Hollywood would fall over themselves to honor this pic were correct.
> 
> *Btw, for anyone interested, the tag line for the movie is "Love is a force of Nature*"



Oh yea that just tells us everything right there....


----------



## Abbey Normal

Great tag line, Bonnie!


----------



## Bonnie

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> Great tag line, Bonnie!



Hollywood is telling us Gay love is a force of nature= natural


----------



## dmp

Bonnie said:
			
		

> What Im wondering is just who exactly is this movie supposed to relate to??  Im assuming gay men which makes up what about 5% of the population?   The joke here is that Hollywood actually thinks mainstream anyone is interested in Cowboy gay love.  So I have to think this movie was made in the hopes that people other than gay men will see it and somehow be inspired to "understand the gay cowboy dilemna??  OR they just wanted to praise eachother at how open minded and tolerant they all are in Hollywood and we the little people are supposed to be educated to this and gravel at their feet yelling "thank you for enlightening us"..........




People are clammering to praise the film, and will see the film not because they are interested in the subject matter; they'll see it in an attempt to show OTHERS just how 'tolerant' they are.


----------



## Abbey Normal

Oops, Bonnie I meant great signature line- yours about Vietnam. It's so perfect.


----------



## Bonnie

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> Oops, Bonnie I meant great signature line- yours about Vietnam. It's so perfect.



I thought you liked the dancing bananna....   :halo:


----------



## Nienna

Hopefully, conservatives will just blow this off. If people think it's that big of a deal, they will go see it just to see what the controversy is. Remember the _Last Temptation of Christ_... that movie would never have gained the notoriety it did if conservatives wouldn't have put up such a fuss.

Gay sex is yucchy. Let's just leave it at that.


----------



## Hagbard Celine

I don't know why, but for some reason I thought this movie was called, "Bareback Mountain." I don't know why I would've thought that!


----------



## 007

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> *The movie just is a promotion for the gay lifestyle... face it.* They tried to pull the same thing last summer in the movie about Alexander the Great at the expense of historical accuracy. Of course, Alexander bombed, too.
> 
> Of course, all the Hollywood libs, the Park Avenue elites, the academics and so on are going to be falling over each other trying to get to see this movie. They'll be trying to out do each other to heap praise on this film in front of the first available camera, at cocktail parties or any available column in their local paper. It's the latest "thing", they'll want to fit in and get status.
> 
> And of course, this movie is going to win some academy award. Hollywood is going to break its back contorting itself to convince the rest of us podunks that we're missing something great.



You nailed this one to the cross Karl. Outstanding...    

P.S. Tried to rep you for that Karl but, as usual, have to spread some around.


----------



## 007

theHawk said:
			
		

> How can anyone _not_ be a Salma fan...



... if you're a homo.


----------



## archangel

however after reading some of the comments...well now I know what the term "Gay Rodeo" is! They never ride the bulls or stallions or cows or mares..they can only seem to stay on the Geldings...figures! They should rename this movie..."Gelding Summer"


----------



## BATMAN

mom4 said:
			
		

> Hopefully, conservatives will just blow this off. If people think it's that big of a deal, they will go see it just to see what the controversy is. *Remember the Last Temptation of Christ... that movie would never have gained the notoriety it did if conservatives wouldn't have put up such a fuss.*


True. Scorsese thanked the protesters for drawing such attention to the film.
But I don't think people are going to actually picket theatres on this one.


----------



## BATMAN

Bonnie said:
			
		

> Im assuming gay men which makes up what about 5% of the population?


Actually, that percentage is the total of gay men *and* women.
Some surveys put it lower than that. 
Which makes wonder why the movie was made for such a small audience all the more. Except to endorse a lifestyle.


----------



## fuzzykitten99

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Well, actually fuzz, and I hate to be the one to point this out, because I think Salma Hayek is extremely hot, but in the movie "Frida", she did a lesbian love scene, and yes, they were naked, and romping and rolling around together.



oh, I just saw Tom Hanks and Charlize Theron. I guess I must have skipped over Salma's name. I never saw Frieda, let alone know what it is about.

besides, from what I hear of 99% of men I either talk to, hear, or read about, most guys would like to witness lesbians playing around. 

Honestly, I don't think two women together is as gross to my mind as two men. Don't know why, though.


----------



## Bonnie

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> I don't know why, but for some reason I thought this movie was called, "Bareback Mountain." I don't know why I would've thought that!



A much more fitting name   
or
How about "Bareassed Mountain"


----------



## MtnBiker

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Let's be honest, the real problem many have is with male homo sex, not general homo sex. People will line up all day long to watch girl on girl action.



I disagree. The actual sexual content in the movie is problem quite limited. Movie goers are not going so they can see two men getting it on rather to see the story of the men in a contrary lifestyle and how they and others live with that. I am equally disinterested in seeing the same scenario if it was about about two women.


----------



## Dan

> I disagree. The actual sexual content in the movie is problem quite limited. Movie goers are not going so they can see two men getting it on rather to see the story of the men in a contrary lifestyle and how they and others live with that. I am equally disinterested in seeing the same scenario if it was about about two women.



I agree. As (probably) the only person here who's read the story the movie is based on, it is not just a big depiction of gay sex. The two leads are actually only around each other for about a third of the story. The main part of the story is their trying to carry on after what happens on the range.

And the story wasn't trying to say that all cowboys are gay, or "gay up" the cowboy lifestyle. It's simply a story about two men who are gay and also happen to be cowboys.

EDIT: MtnBiker, I tried to give you rep points for your post, but I gotta spread the love a little. Anyway, point is, great post.


----------



## Dan

> Which makes wonder why the movie was made for such a small audience all the more. Except to endorse a lifestyle.



Well, to be fair, a good amount of younger people (early to mid 20s) are not really sickened by gay guys the way most of you guys are. And, don't think I'm trying to be an elitist here: while I have no problem with people being gay, watching two guys do "gay" things does make me uncomfortable. And, honestly, no doubt I will not see this movie for this very reason.

But, I don't see this movie playing to a strictly gay crowd. You don't have to be a drug addict to enjoy Requiem for a Dream, or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, I think it's the same thing here.

In addition, this was an independently produced film, made for very little money (well, by film standards, anyway), so I don't think the studios are too worried about making their money back.


----------



## SaucySuzieScorp

The Gay Cowboy 


			
				KarlMarx said:
			
		

> My prediction, after the gays and the libs have watched this film and pestered the rest of us by telling us just how brilliant this movie is, it will be consigned to the bargain basement heap of films. No one is going to rent or buy it and it will soon be forgotten. The movie will be a financial failure or at best a break even proposition. And that's what Hollywood is going to pay attention to, the bottom line after all is still the bottom line to those folks.
> Once Hollywood gets the message that most people aren't going to fork over their hard earned dollars to watch a movie that amounts to two men sodomizing each other, they'll think twice about producing this garbage.
> Now, "Passion of Christ" won no Acadamy Awards (but was nominated for some). According to IMDB it grossed almost 400 Million dollars (and over 200 Million in rentals)... Now if I were in pictures, I'd be paying attention to that...



I was thinking about how Jesus was so hated before he was loved.  I wonder if there would be any movies about his life if he had not been crucified.
Sometimes we may be in danger of becoming who or what we despise so much.  I agree with everything you said about the reasons this kind of filth should not be made.
   SaucySuzieSCorp


----------



## KarlMarx

SaucySuzieScorp said:
			
		

> I was thinking about how Jesus was so hated before he was loved.  I wonder if there would be any movies about his life if he had not been crucified.
> Sometimes we may be in danger of becoming who or what we despise so much.  I agree with everything you said about the reasons this kind of filth should not be made.
> SaucySuzieSCorp


He wouldn't have come to this Earth if it wasn't to be crucified. He was supposed to be the sacrifice for our sins.....


----------



## SaucySuzieScorp

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> He wouldn't have come to this Earth if it wasn't to be crucified. He was supposed to be the sacrifice for our sins.....



Of course what you say is true, but my meaning tries to go a little deeper into the correlation between what happened to Jesus whom we adore today..and how despicable he was to many people.  I think there be some caution in despising anything or anyone way overboard...  That's all.

Saucy Suzie Scorp

PS:  this is 2nd time i have posted.  Don't even know how to show who I am respoinding to yet.  Bear with me please.


----------



## Annie

SaucySuzieScorp said:
			
		

> Of course what you say is true, but my meaning tries to go a little deeper into the correlation between what happened to Jesus whom we adore today..and how despicable he was to many people.  I think there be some caution in despising anything or anyone way overboard...  That's all.
> 
> Saucy Suzie Scorp
> 
> PS:  this is 2nd time i have posted.  Don't even know how to show who I am respoinding to yet.  Bear with me please.


Don't worry about reponses showing. More interesting is that you are going deeper than Jesus. Interesting, want to illuminate more?


----------



## SaucySuzieScorp

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Don't worry about reponses showing. More interesting is that you are going deeper than Jesus. Interesting, want to illuminate more?



I would like to do that, but perhaps since I'm new here, I should just carry a tiny stick and speak softly.  
    I think that His very acts throughout his life, we could learn from the positive and the negative aspects.  Today, we might perceive that this filthy film should be banded or scensored or just thrown out.  Jesus was a rebel and they wanted to throw him out for good!  But then, He transcended all these earth games and arose.

SaucySuzieScorp


----------



## Bonnie

Dan said:
			
		

> Well, to be fair, a good amount of younger people (early to mid 20s) are not really sickened by gay guys the way most of you guys are. And, don't think I'm trying to be an elitist here: while I have no problem with people being gay, watching two guys do "gay" things does make me uncomfortable. And, honestly, no doubt I will not see this movie for this very reason.
> 
> But, I don't see this movie playing to a strictly gay crowd. You don't have to be a drug addict to enjoy Requiem for a Dream, or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, I think it's the same thing here.
> 
> In addition, this was an independently produced film, made for very little money (well, by film standards, anyway), so I don't think the studios are too worried about making their money back.



Honestly Dan the gay love part of this movie is nothing compared to the transperency of Hollywood using it to attempt to make homosexuality mainstream.  I love movies and there are very few that I would not see if the subject was in the least bit interesting to me, but what is so bothersome lately to me anyway is the way in which Hollywood seems obsessed with making films to push their morality or lack of on the rest of us which is exactly why you are right in that they don't care if the movie makes any money.  All the film is- is a reaffirmation to all the gay Hollywood producers, writers, actors etc to eachother that they are "okay"  when in reality no one outside Hollywood really cares who in Hollywood is gay or bi, or likes it with sheep.  Look back at many of the films that win awards, look at the other film that the "Desperate Housewives" star just made about a Transexual which is also getting high praise.  There are a lot of good indie films that never get accolades simply because they don't tackle taboo subjects.

The academy might as well just put out a brochure that says any filmaker or actor looking to recieve awards had better just make anything that deals with a pro homosexuality, bi-sexuality, abortion, gay or pedaphilic priests, any kind of activist, anti-corportation movies, adultery, men haters, agenda etc.


----------



## SaucySuzieScorp

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> I was serious. If Hollywood is going to do all this contorting, why don't we see who can best guess what this movie's going to be nominated for? Or be bold and actually predict what award it will WIN. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. Oscars? Golden Globes? MTV? Pick something, and we can see how well you know Hollywood.



I can't think of anything offhand.  After all, Linda Lovelace is not in her prime and I don't even know if Carol Doda is around anymore.  Seriously though, it's going to be difficult to come up with an award that could stand give proudly to a dog...let alone another human being.


----------



## SaucySuzieScorp

SaucySuzieScorp said:
			
		

> I can't think of anything offhand.  After all, Linda Lovelace is not in her prime and I don't even know if Carol Doda is around anymore.  Seriously though, it's going to be difficult to come up with an award that could stand give proudly to a dog...let alone another human being.



  Hope springs eternal.  It is my hope that this horse we are beating on will soon die and be forgotten.


----------



## dilloduck

SaucySuzieScorp said:
			
		

> Hope springs eternal.  It is my hope that this horse we are beating on will soon die and be forgotten.




Don't say anything about beating your horse or they will make a sequel out of it.


----------



## SaucySuzieScorp

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Don't say anything about beating your horse or they will make a sequel out of it.



Thanks for the warning.  They might have to make a sequal called?
        1.  The Gay Cowboy's Sad Horse
        2.   or, The Gay Beaten Horse Who Cowboyed Up
  nah..not too good...


----------



## The ClayTaurus

SaucySuzieScorp said:
			
		

> I can't think of anything offhand.  After all, Linda Lovelace is not in her prime and I don't even know if Carol Doda is around anymore.  Seriously though, it's going to be difficult to come up with an award that could stand give proudly to a dog...let alone another human being.



I missed your point, it isn't very clear, sorry. (welcome, btw)


----------



## Said1




----------



## The ClayTaurus

Said1 said:
			
		

>


That looks more like eating a dead horse, than beating one... or maybe it's the last head nibble by the smilie on the left that makes me think that...


----------



## Said1

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> That looks more like eating a dead horse, than beating one... or maybe it's the last head nibble by the smilie on the left that makes me think that...




Oh look, it's the "beating a dead horse smilie" police. Sorry officer, won't happen again.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

Said1 said:
			
		

> Oh look, it's the "beating a dead horse smilie" police. Sorry officer, won't happen again.


It doesn't look like the one of them is trying to eat the horse's head? It's freaky. Like smilie pirhanas.


----------



## Said1

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> It doesn't look like the one of them is trying to eat the horse's head? It's freaky. Like smilie pirhanas.



Maybe a little.






 Better?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

Said1 said:
			
		

> Maybe a little.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better?


Yeah, that's better. Although, for your next one, put a giant cartoon hammer in his hand. That'd be perfect.


----------



## Abbey Normal

SaucySuzieScorp said:
			
		

> Of course what you say is true, but my meaning tries to go a little deeper into the correlation between what happened to Jesus whom we adore today..and how despicable he was to many people.  I think there be some caution in despising anything or anyone way overboard...  That's all.
> 
> Saucy Suzie Scorp
> 
> PS:  this is 2nd time i have posted.  Don't even know how to show who I am respoinding to yet.  Bear with me please.



Welcome, Triple S! Hope you enjoy it here. 

PS. I like your name...


----------



## theHawk

*COMING TO A THEATRE NEAR YOU* (no pun intended)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051214/en_nm/goldenglobes_brokeback_dc



> LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Director     Ang Lee fielded congratulatory calls on "Brokeback Mountain's" leading seven Golden Globe nominations from his lonely hotel room in Minneapolis Tuesday.
> 
> 
> "The hardest thing for me is to stay calm," said the Taiwanese director, who is known for just that. "This is great news for us. It's a wonderful feeling."
> 
> Lee was nominated for his direction, while actors     Heath Ledger and     Michelle Williams were also cited. The picture also picked up nods for best drama, screenplay, score and song.
> 
> What made Lee happiest was knowing that after a strong opening weekend and support from not only the Globes but also the New York and L.A. film critics,* the gay cowboy romance now will reach a wider audience*.
> 
> "When we started making the movie, we assumed it would have a very limited release," he said. "It will be interesting to see how it plays when it goes wider, out of the art houses. We don't know what to expect. We have had great response. Maybe there was so much love put into the movie that in the nicest way, people embrace the movie and encourage other people to see it."
> 
> The Golden Globes will help to bring attention to the film around the world, Lee said.
> 
> "Usually, cowboy movies are not a popular genre outside the U.S., but we are learning every day how people respond. It's a love story, so it shouldn't have any boundary."
> 
> Lee will continue on the promotion trail he has been on since the Venice International Film Festival in August. "Every other day I'm in a different city," he said. "We still have some ways to go. The film has just been released, so we still have some follow-up to do. They don't teach you this in film school."
> 
> "Brokeback Mountain," a tale of thwarted love between cowboys played by Ledger and     Jake Gyllenhaal, earned almost $550,000 from just five theaters during its first weekend.
> 
> *"The numbers are telling us that someone walking on the sidewalk in front of a theater playing 'Brokeback Mountain' is likely to be vacuumed inside," * (umm riiight.....)said James Schamus, co-president of the film's distributor, Focus Features. "'Brokeback Mountain' was a movie made so modestly that as of 3 p.m. yesterday afternoon, we were in profit."
> 
> "Brokeback" is performing well without the firestorm of controversy many predicted. "The amazing thing about the controversy is there is no controversy," Schamus said. "Media folks are waking up, trying to figure out how to write up a controversy story where there is none."
> 
> Reuters/Hollywood Reporter


----------



## Said1

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's better. Although, for your next one, put a giant cartoon hammer in his hand. That'd be perfect.



Anything pour vous, Senor Smilie.


----------



## 007

> "Brokeback" is performing well without the firestorm of controversy many predicted. "The amazing thing about the controversy is there is no controversy," Schamus said. "Media folks are waking up, trying to figure out how to write up a controversy story where there is none."
> 
> Reuters/Hollywood Reporter



Translation:
The liberal MSM is on our side. They're in complete support of our homosexual agenda, and will give us a complete pass for making our faggot cowboy movie, and sinfully promoting it as if it were some sort of warm and fuzzy wholesome film made for the whole family to watch. Especially the young boys. We want them to all turn into little queers kissing and feeling and licking and dicking each other, so we can all smile and tell them how cute they are, and how proud of them we are.

Excuse me now... I have to go get sick.


----------



## Hagbard Celine

So King David 'experimented' in college huh? I guess when you're a king you've got it coming from all angles. Am I right?


----------



## Nienna

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> So King David 'experimented' in college huh? I guess when you're a king you've got it coming from all angles. Am I right?


King David (of the Bible) and Jonathan were FRIENDS! WHy is that hard to understand? I hug my friends. I have even kissed my best girlfriend on the cheek. But that doesn't mean I want to...  Excuse me... I need to find my husband FAST!


----------

