![]() |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Polls Discuss Sean Penn to play Harvey Milk in film at the General Forum; Originally Posted by AlicornsPrayer The movie may have grossed big bucks, but that doesn't mean the movie was any good...Yes, ... |
| View Poll Results: Do the actors/actresses influence decisions to see a movie negatively? | |||
| Yes - I ain't paying to see that idiot |
|
1 | 12.50% |
| No - I don't care if the story is a good one |
|
7 | 87.50% |
| Unsure |
|
0 | 0% |
| Voters: 8. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack (2) | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Furthermore, the public DID agree with me that the movie was horrible. Unfortunately though, they can't get refunds on their movie tickets or on the dvd sales once they opened the packages and played them... Quote:
And for those that couldn't get into the theaters, they bought the dvds to watch the movie, believing the hype. And again, they weren't impressed. But like above, they couldn't get a refund on the dvd once it was viewed. The movie was not good in the least. It was a poorly directed script, with too much emphasis on the blood scenes rather then focusing on the story of Christ or his followers. The reason it had low approval rating, was cause of AFTER the viewing of the movie itself...People, Christian and non-Christian were put off by the over emphasis of the blood scenes. Period. It wasn't anti-anything, let alone 'anti-right wing Christian voting' that got those votes. The majority of people that lined up to see the movie, or those that bought the movie going on what the media hype led them to believe, were sorely disappointed once they actually paid to see the movie. And the number one gripe about why it wasn't all it was made out to be, was cause of the lashing scene and the spear piercing scene with the gallons of blood showering/gushing in those scenes. The second gripe being that the story itself gave no input on what Jesus may/may not have felt/thought/or done cause the focus of the whole movie was on the spewing of gallons of blood in each single scene...In otherwords, the movie script itself lacked any stamina, foundation, or input about Jesus period, cause the focus of Mel Gibson's filming was around the blood scenes. So yes, it sold...Cause media still makes a hype about it and people want to buy the movie to see what the fuss is about. But once they do see the movie, the reviews suck cause of Mel Gibson's poor presentation of a story that should have been more interesting and a classic. Last edited by AlicornsPrayer; 11-18-2007 at 06:14 PM. |
|
||||
|
A. I was one of those people who paid for two tickets to that movie. I also paid to see Titanic and The English Patient. They sucked too. However, my ticket sales are included in their grosses.
Face it, the vast overwhelming majority of people who are NOT interested in a religious movie about Jesus' torture and crucifixion would NOT have seen this film...so, it's not surprising that almost 3/4 of the people who saw it enjoyed it. As far as connecting Mel Gibson with a right wing Christian zealot, if you READ ONE INTERVIEW with him during the release of his Jesus gore-athon - or read what he thinks of Jews (coming from a family well-known for their ant-semitism)- it's not that far a jump to come to that conclusion. ![]() When I see George W. Bush, I make a connection to GOP - it's not a leap. |
|
||||
|
Hell--I don't even know what half the famous actors look like, let alone their politics. I gave up knowing that stuff when I didn't have to anymore. I do remember Sean Penn sticking his nose into (was it Iraq?) someplace that I didn't think was especially appropriate as an American at the time, but I forget the particulars.
Would I refuse to see his movie? Not if it's a good movie, although I probably wouldn't go see a Tom Cruise move because although I enjoyed Rainman immensely he just bugs the fug out of me these days. Personally I would like it a whole lot better if singers and actors just stuck to that, but they have freedom of speech rights too. Personally if I was to boycott a musician it would be Ted Nugent. I saw him once and enjoyed the concert, but that was before I knew he was into trophy hunting. Hunting for food is one thing. Hunting just for a rack is another and that repulses me. Oh--I didn't see that Mel Gibson torture-fest. Had no interest. Last edited by team_barlo; 11-19-2007 at 11:52 PM. Reason: Added last sentence |
|
||||
|
Quote:
That means 24% of the people who went to see it who expected to like it didn't. I know, I didn't want to see it, and have no intention of ever seeing it. |
|
||||
|
Let's get some perspective, here, there redd.
Blades of Glory, the Will Farrell up-chucker, did $143,000,000 worldwide, with an additional $28,000,000 in DVD sales. Box office sales don't mean anything when it comes to whether a movie is good or not. And let's not forget the gore filled movie "Hostel" or "Saw". And their sequels. Last edited by knot_e_lady; 11-21-2007 at 01:41 PM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
More, even, since at least they have talent. |
| The Following User Says Thank You to knot_e_lady For This Useful Post: | ||
|
||||
|
If you're good at what you do I can appreciate what you're good at despite your other apparent flaws. Sean Penn seems like a real dip$hit but I've seen a few movies where his acting was great so I can over look the fact that he's a goof in real life.
On the flip side though occasionally someone will do something or get known for something that's unforgivable meaning that it overshadows everything they try to do later and it is impossible for me to enjoy watching them because it isn't worth the effort of trying to get over my inner disgust with them in general. This is rare but is has happened. Basically I guess if I think someone is a moron, dip$hit, dumba$$, ect I can forgive all that and appreciate their talents. However if I think they are EVIL and have done unforgiveable mean things then it becomes a problem. |
|
||||
|
For example Sean Penn is just your typical run of the mill Hollywood a$$hat right up there with Barbara Streisand. Yet both of them have put out enjoyable films so I could give a $hit about their general a$$holery.
Now OJ Simpson has transgressed so far into EVIL that I wouldn't even want an autograph from the guy. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Maybe some people didn't get it because they weren't raised traditionally with the stages of the cross being a big part of their religious thinking. Catholics have meditated on Christ's suffering as part of their religious observance. I think this movie was meant to do something similar to what early Christian plays did for the illiterate populace. And that was to bring the story to life. Then it was because people couldn't read for themselves; nowadays it's because people are too busy to meditate. The story line followed a combination of the four gospels impeccably. Once upon a time as Christians we were asked to ponder Christ's humiliation and torture. We as a modern society don't ponder much any more. So I can see where Mel Gibson as a Catholic would think this was a good thing to present to the public. And as for the whipping. The Romans were masters at torture and beating. The very reason the Bible states how many lashes Jesus had, was because that was the exact amount to give the average man to the point of death but not beyond.
__________________
________________________________________ Salty THANKSGIVING MENUS AND TIPS A GREAT PLACE TO SHOP |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/polls/533-sean-penn-play-harvey-milk-film.html
|
||||
| Posted By | For | Type | Date | |
| Harvey Milk :: BoardReader | This thread | Refback | 01-23-2008 02:58 PM | |
| Untitled document | This thread | Refback | 01-09-2008 02:29 PM | |