Printable View
...Brokeback Mountain was a story the two main protagonists of which were women, rather than men?
Having just re-read the story (I first read it about 5 years ago), and now observing the dynamic of it's marketing as a movie, and also being desirous of some sheer speculative effort by my forum buddies, I ask for your thoughts.
I still wouldn't watch it. Only because it just seems a dull movie.
Have you an opinion on whether a similar marketing effort would have been expended, or how such a movie might be received by the movie-going public?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I'd see it, if there was some hawt secks, and the ladies were sexy.
Otherwise - meh.
Boring stuff.
what part of the marketing are you concerned with?
probably slightly more people (well men) would be more comfortable watching 2 women kissing, but IMO those that are morally objecting to the format as is probably wouldn't give a darn if women replaced men.
The christian right have probably helped this movie no end.
Sorry, I haven't read it.
So changing the gender of the main characters makes little difference to me.
If you want total speculative efforts can I suggest that it would not have worked so well. In the current climate same sex burd on burd action is seen as lascivious. Whereas same sex man on man action is seen as artistic (in the mainstream, obviousement). So the popular bourgeoisie dollar would go to watching the "artistic" poofery, rather than the lesboid action.
It's a "liberal" backlash, if that's not too oxymoronic in the current climate.
Given it has not actually attracted record numbers, I'd reckon those numbers would be even lower if it was about women.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
What kind of sales-job would have to be done to make that work?
I mean, the story had to be about shepherds in order to create the premise two men would be in a situation of isolation.
I don't know that females are attracted to that particular activity in sufficient numbers to lend credibility; what might females do that would leave them similarly situated?
Extremely attractive women would be a stretch, too.
How would Hollywood do it?
This is why I started the thread, vid: speculate!
The location is probably of no issue, it could have just as easily be located in a big city. even with all those people there are many that are literally alone. Titanic was a love story, but one can only run so far with two people meeting and "getting it on", so films need a setting to make it seem like a new film that differs from all the others. Brokeback tried to make the love story itself the difference. Let's face it the only reason the film is being given such scrutiny is because it involves homosexuals, and that in itself gets the christian right shouting "agenda agenda"
So is the thread about marketing or suggesting that an agenda is being pushed by hollywood?
I don't get the theory or objections made about hollywood trying to force an agenda. The reason being, it's a film, nobody is being forced to go see it, so how is anything being "forced upon us" ?
On the bit about it not making record numbers as a guide to success, I find it odd that this is never used as an issue with the vast majority of movies which don't hit the " blockbuster" status. Nobody ever says "america is not ready for this kind of movie" when a film about a dog getting lost and finding home again doesn't break box office records.
i'd probably watch it, if they changed the pooflords to women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I am treating this strictly as a matter of curiouslty, vid, but it is apparent you do not share my inquisitive attitude about the selectivity (or even whether such exists) with which this movie has been treated by Hollywood and the media.
You are fixated on the sensationalism you feel is exclusively caused by the "Christian Right".
I think you are entirely too preoccupied with religion in general, actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Don't mind me...
Well which other groups are raising a hoo har ?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Why do you think "Hollywood and the media" are holding this film out? as oppose to how they treated other movie in the past.
So someone made a film about gay cowboys and by all accounts the acting was good and it was a well made movie.
But apparently this means hollywood is out of touch with middle america. Does every movie have to capitulate to the views of middle america
Did you have this inquisitive attitude about Gahndi, shakespear in love, schindlers list or lord of the rings ? Probably not. .............. I could be wrong.
the media would call it crap, just controversy and sex to sell tickets.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I still wouldn't go to the movie theater to watch it. It's a friggin love story.
The only way I possibly in this world would have gone is if it was a white woman and a black man set during slavery....and that would only be because of the setting and not the love story.
The hype for this movie would not have worked with 2 woman 'cause that is seen all the time in movies already and accepted more by society.
muchpl3 said there was even a damn jizz shot in the movie....an obvious attempt at being provocative.:dry:
(although it sounds like muchpl3 saw the director's cut special extreme edition at the special lisp members only screening in Al's Pleasure Cinemas :unsure: )
If you don't want to engage in speculation, ignore this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Do you want to re-hash those movies?
Start your own thread, and I wll respond as you wish.
You're off the mark in this one.
Clint made western movies
after that there was no other choice than go to the extreme.
Will this movie kill american mens opinion of history vs manhood (aka spitoons etc)?
In relation to lesbo version - no
OkQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
J2: how would this movie be marketed if it were women and how would it be recieved by the audience
me: probably not much differently
J2: oh come on vid speculate
me: Well what part of the marketing are you talking about?
J2: I'm inquisitive attitude about the selectivity (or even whether such exists) with which this movie has been treated by Hollywood and the media.
Me: Has hollywood and the media treated this any differently at all compared to other movies? (insert examples of movie that got media and hollywood attention here) I note "certain groups" have, but not hollywood and the media.
j2: if you are not prepared to speculate fuck off.
I have yet to figure out why you think hollywood and the media is treating this "specially". I know why "certain groups" are and I am aware the media is reporting this. If you would care to enlighten me I may be in a better position to speculate as you desire.
Congratulations on a whole post without reference to the "Christian Right".Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
You are progressing.
If you actually need it done, I will attempt to re-capitulate as you desire, but not tonight.
I'm gonna do my nightly housekeeping here and shuffle off to some horizontal happiness.
This is just a wild stab in the dark as I haven't seen it, but are the plaudits not for good acting, a coherent love story (if you like that sort of thing) and a beautifully filmed movie.
It could be two girls but if they were pish actresses and the director forgot to take the lens cap off then it might not get such good write ups.
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
yetQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
gets meQuote:
Why do you think "Hollywood and the media" are holding this film out? as oppose to how they treated other movie in the past.
So someone made a film about gay cowboys and by all accounts the acting was good and it was a well made movie.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You still need the OMG Factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
Would a man/woman love story (even with good acting, a coherent love story and a beautifully filmed movie), get the same attention?
Not only that, it's quite possible that the acting reviews get bumped a notch by critic because of the subject matter.
PossiblyQuote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
A man/woman love story like, say, Love Story, has been done to death. So I suppose novelty value is an issue. The fact that is well done simply makes it easier to make the award in that case.
Oh and some were just looking for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
Biggles speculated.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
You did not.
It's just that simple.
I'll try to quickly re-formulate the post to clarify for you, in the interest of fairness, but you must put both feet back on the ground and start fresh yourself:
There is a movie in the works called Brokeback Hollow, about two women who experience latent urgings and consummate this in the required physical manner whilst ostensibly engaged in a semi-solitary activity; say, seasonal cultivation of a planting of the Midnight Lotus, or some such.
What would your marketing strategy be?
Remember, you must win a minimum of, oh...three Oscars.
There is always an element of politics in any award.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Edit: A bad movie will not win an oscar - but that doesn't necessarily mean the "best" movie will win either
Why man, why?:ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Okay; confession time-this is basically what I was after, as the point of discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
Love stories have been done to death.
Was the compulsion to make a love story, and lo, Brokeback... is the first thing over the transom, OR-
Is the compulsion first and foremost to make a ground-breaking movie about homosexuality, using the "love story" aspect as the vehicle?
This movie has been in the works for about five years, I gather, and from the point it was a going concern (about four years ago) the relevant chatter was of nothing but Oscar! Oscar! Oscar!
I don't even have a problem with it winning Oscars, strictly on it's merit, but a careful examination of the whole process seems to reveal the goal was purely to win an Oscar for a movie with this content, rather than to make a great movie with this content in the hope of winning an Oscar.
Get it?
I have seen this movie, and it really is a very good film. :P
I also think that if there were an equivilent movie made with two women, it probably would generate a similar response. Perhaps more guys would go see it because of the "hawt lesbos," but the same groups making a fuss over it being two men would make the same fuss over it being two women.
Guess Who's Coming To Dinner (which won two Oscars) was equally controversial in its time, since interracial couplings were not widely accepted.
I can't claim to have been following Brokeback Mountain for five years though, and it's had very little marketing up here, so I can't really comment on that aspect.
:shuriken:
Surely the only reason this movie got so much attention is the fact that male same sex experiences are viewed by the majority of half of the population ( I.e., the male part) as out of bounds.
I can't think of a single girl that has any objections to female same sex activity, whether they be lesbian, bisexual or straight.
When I speak to any of my male friends, including my boyfriend and a collection of ex-boyfriends most of them found the idea of male same sex activity repulsive. Even the ones I dated that were bisexual, did not want to WATCH any such thing despite having no objections in participating in such actions.
It's just another taboo out of the way, that's what I say
( did you like the way I made my conclusion rhyme there?)
A good rhyme, that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky1
In what way, though, is it (as a taboo) "out of the way"?
You touch on another point which strikes me; one that enters my mind, and, I suspect, most other straight males:
While I do not have a problem associating and/or interacting with gays (I find them, almost without exception, to be very genuine, and entertaining and creative into the bargain), I don't care to imagine them engaging in sexual activity, nor do I see this as necessary in order to accept them, yet that seems to be the very thing the gay "lobby" desires of the straight community. :huh:
Why do you think that ?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I has been my experience that perhaps....oh, say, less than 10% of the gays I've known are of the "flaming" variety, evincing all of the flamboyance and behaviors heretofore regarded as stereotypical.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Now, if such characteristics are not the norm among gays, why is it that either these characteristics or the sexual behaviors inherent in the lifestyle constitute the bulk of the lobby's presentation?
It's the same phenomenon that allows us to be aware the Log Cabin Republicans exist, but also ensures the spotlight never illuminates them.
The lobby chooses the most narrow and stereotypical image, and dares middle America to deny them, to the overall detriment of their cause.
what has any of that to do with
Quote:
I don't care to imagine them engaging in sexual activity, nor do I see this as necessary in order to accept them
Well, it may not occur to you, vid, but i accept you on my terms, not on yours, and I'm sure you'd say the same of me.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
This is more-or-less true of everyone, everywhere, and there is nothing wrong with that.
If the gay lobby wants larger society to accept the gay lifestyle, why stress all the ways they are different in order to accomplish this?
I doubt you would change your personality "to be accepted". You do of course hit the problematic nail squarely on the head.
"If you want to be accepted stop being you"
This is not acceptance and the only correct response should be a big F**k you.
But then when I see or hear a camp gay person I don't feel the need to imagine him having sex and I doubt they wish that I did.
If the gay lobby wants larger society to accept the gay lifestyle, why stress all the ways they are different in order to accomplish this?[/QUOTE]
Your point here, which I feel is a good one, J2, led me to thinking of the fight for female rights. I don't feel females stressed their differences to obtain the rights they have.
Nor were they encouraged to hide the fact they were female in order for society to accept them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
At least I've never heard of a "closet female".
Though it seems a likely place to find one. :P
I mean ' a taboo out of the way' as in;
There is no desire to see men having a sexual relationship, in fact, most men I know find it disturbing in one way or another and would frown upon anything alike shown freely on television.
As for that same issue that most men don't like the idea of two men having intercourse and the gay community wanting exactly that...
I'm not too sure about that one, but maybe it's some sort of objection to modern sexism. After all, no one would object to seeing some girl on girl action, so why shouldn't we watch men on men action as well?
Cuz it's just icky.