They remake old classics becuase their spaced out on dope and boooze

So if the big Gorilla had the hots for Jack Black it would have been box office gold?

How can I be as cool as spurwing? I try so hard.

adolfo:

Spurwing has got this rambling misspelled stream-of-consciousness thing going that's kind of hypnotic. It's almost like looking into the id of the Internet itself. It's almost like a Zen koan.

Consider:

They remake old classics
because their spaced out
on dope and booze

OM! OM! OM!

I'm spaced out on dope and booze too; however, I think King Kong sucked, also gay sheep herder sex isn't all it's cracked up to be either. Don't ask me how I know, I just know.

Monty, I prefer to think that if we could see the source code of the world around us, like in the Matrix movies, it would be made up of a mixture of spurwing plover and Paul Anka quotes.

The zen KOAN comparison was very good though. Thanks for that.

Sometimes you just have to push the sheep through the fence...

A stunning 88% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Has taken in $15mil ($14mil to produce, already in the black).

$13,455 per screen, a hair over twice that of "Narnia" ($6,666/scr).

Up for more awards than I can count.

It really kills you to see a movie about gay guys do well, doesn't it? Though I bet there wouldn't be a peep if it was two hot dykes. Gotta love those double-standards. Theists are so predictable.

Well get used to it. You'll be hearing about this movie.

All. Year. Long.

Regards,
bodhi

What the hell Jason, got a gerbil up your ass or something?

Jason, on the contrary. If you spent any time around here, you'd know that these guys would be making more than just a "peep" if it were about lesbians.

It isn't the fact that it's about gay sheepherders that bothers me. It's the fact that according to many, it's a fairly lame movie, yet it still is getting award nominations due to the subject matter rather than any actual merit.

See Jason,

What we don't like is that the people touting this movie, such as you are prepared to lie to forward it. I just went on Box office mojo, and it was not doing 13,000 per screen. Also, why would it be surprising that a film that appeals to mainly to gays and is shown in targeted theaters (217 of them) would have more per screen revenues that a movie that has been released to 3500+ screens? Are you saying that making 15M off a 14M budget (does that budget include marketing?) really compare favorably to making $200M off or a 100M budget? That is what your agenda reduces you to.

If you look at the ads the quotes describing Brokeback as the greatest thing ever is enough to drive me away.

Eh. I don't watch chick films.

The movie business isn't like running a garage sale; making $1 more than the cost of production doesn't mean a movie is in the black. The theaters have to pay their employees and their electricity bill, so they're getting some of that $15 million too. The movie's got a little way to go before the studio is turning a profit on it.

Dino Delarintus remade KING KONG back in 1976 and did a crappy job at it no wonder he was called DINO DEHORRINDUS becuase of his lousie movies

Spurwing has a point. I was on Matt Drudge's pay-per-view email list in the 90s way before he had a web site and one time he asked rhetorically, 'why does Hollywood greenlight such crappy movies?' I emailed back a one word response: 'cocaine.' He wrote back and said 'you're probably right.'

Given Brokeback's stunning success, I smell SEQUEL!!!

The Men From Snowy River - Jack divorces Jess, moves down from the mountain, and seeks the open-range companionship of Clancy.

Yaron,
Whether you liked KK or BM (it's subjective), you might want to check your facts before posting:

"That's why neither movie is doing well. They're stealing customers from each other,"

KK has grossed almost 400 million worldwide and is still garnering over $8,000 per screen, which is very, very good.
BM is still in extremely limited release (269 theatres) and is doing a very good business.

cranky-d writes:
It isn't the fact that it's about gay sheepherders that bothers me. It's the fact that according to many, it's a fairly lame movie, yet it still is getting award nominations due to the subject matter rather than any actual merit.

Now there's a lucid argument. It's also one that cannot be refuted so it's easy to lob.

Of course it flies in the face of countless other gay movies that only did OK at the box office or flopped outright. By your logic they'd all do great.

Could it be that this movie is really good? ... NAAAAAAAAAAAH. It never even enters your head.

Conservative Chris writes:
What we don't like is that the people touting this movie, such as you are prepared to lie to forward it. I just went on Box office mojo, and it was not doing 13,000 per screen.

When I orginally posted, I added some links specifically to the sites I referenced. The post got rejected due to "questionable material" (or some similar wording) and specifically noted "R*tten Tomatoes." I assumed it didn't like the link so I removed all the links in my post just so I didn't have to go through repeat post attempts to figure out which one the software was rejecting.

Earlier today I tried to post a reply but it rejected the mere words "R*tten Tomatoes." Why, I have no idea. The point is that I attempted to post references to my claims.

Just now, I attempted to find the exact site through google (the way I found it originally), the one that I originally used and was unsuccessful. What's funny is that when I look at Box Office Mojo, based on the formatting, I'm 90% sure that's the site I got my data from.

But lo!, I did find this:

http://m0vieweb.com/movies/box_office/daily/film_daily.php?id=2457&nr=1&ns=1&nv=1&nb=1&nn=1

(replace the 0 with an O, the software rejected this string too.)

Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Total US Gross: $15,620,000
Per Theater Average: $1,933

So I guess you're right and I was wrong! Brokeback Mountain is doing even better than I claimed!

Thanks for clearing that up!

Also, why would it be surprising that a film that appeals to mainly to gays...

A claim with no basis. It's as absurd as saying that straight movies appeal mainly to straight people. Has it occurred to you that good movies appeal to a broad spectrum of people?

It doesn't occur to you because you think of gays as being broken somehow.

...and is shown in targeted theaters (217 of them) would have more per screen revenues that a movie that has been released to 3500+ screens?

Hey, you actually made a valid point there! Nice job.

Are you saying that making 15M off a 14M budget (does that budget include marketing?) really compare favorably to making $200M off or a 100M budget?

No, didn't say that at all.

What I am saying is that a movie that has been only out in limited release for four weeks covering it's cost is very impressive. The fact that it drives homophobes bonkers is just icing.

That is what your agenda reduces you to.

The fact that you believe I have an agenda reveals yours.

See, I don't pay a lot of attention to gays because I don't pay a lot of attention to people's private lives. I treat gays like I treat anyone else. This might come as a bit of a surprise to you. Maybe even an epiphany. But I doubt it.

Wanda writes:
The movie business isn't like running a garage sale; making $1 more than the cost of production doesn't mean a movie is in the black. The theaters have to pay their employees and their electricity bill, so they're getting some of that $15 million too.

Completely incorrect. I strongly suggest that before you make such claims, you talk with someone who actually owns/runs a theatre and ask them how the system works.

I know how they work because my best friend owned one for a spell. He drilled it into the ground, but that's another story entirely.

Regards,
bodhi