Brokeback Mountain

**travelinman** · January 6th, 2006, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by The Big Sexy:

People in Biblical times weren't hung up about homosexuality like they are today.

If that's true then whose to say the the term wife ment women only. All Judeo-Christian religions are male dominant and a priest or rabbi would never translate the original text to say that a man would be subservient in a relationship like the Old Testament does to women.

**reason** · January 6th, 2006, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by travelinman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by The Big Sexy:
Last I heard, it lead most if not all movies in revenues per screen.

Yes because it was a limited release in "gay friendly" areas. You even said that yourself.

Face it, if it was showing at the Showcase Cinema in Springdale against Walk the line, Munich, King Kong, The Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter, Memoirs of a Geisha and Fun With Dick & Jane to name a few it wouldn?t pay for the electric to run the projector and the HVAC system in that one theater.<hr /></blockquote>So? It apparently is very profitable for those theaters running the film, and due to the fact that it's groundbreaking in certain respects it only makes sense that they release it differently than they do your general multiplex flick.

Those who made the film understood ahead of time the complexities of the release. They wouldn't have done it if they didn't think they could be profitable. Pure capitalism.

It looks to me like on this one they hit a home run. They'll make money.

**jumper69** · January 6th, 2006, 03:04 PM

Sean Pa,

I was only implying that Greg's comments were homophobic. Whenever a subject turns towards homosexuality, specifically man v man, Greg has a tendency to protest very loudly his anti gayness. Some might argue TOO loud.

I, in no way, meant to imply that anyone who chooses not to see this movie is homophobic. D2 and I want to see it because it is supposed to be a good story. The fact that there is homosexulality in it is irrelevant to me. Maybe it's not to others but like you said, that's "their cuppa"

**reason** · January 6th, 2006, 03:07 PM

If that's true then whose to say the the term wife ment women only.

Given that women were pretty much considered man's property, it only makes sense that the Commandment tell you not to covet her.

Dudes coveting other dudes wasn't covered, and apparently didn't matter much.

**travelinman** · January 6th, 2006, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by The Big Sexy:
Why point ME out? A lot of people want to see this movie. You should understand that.

Yes I understand, but you?re an easy reference. I could have just as easily used my lesbian daughter, my gay cousin, the lesbian couple across the street from us or even that gay communist two house down from us that you get along with so well, but the posters here don?t know them.

**reason** · January 6th, 2006, 03:11 PM

All Judeo-Christian religions are male dominant and a priest or rabbi would never translate the original text to say that a man would be subservient in a relationship like the Old Testament does to women.

A lot of that comes from Leviticus, which spells out a plethora of rules and behaviors for the jews to separate themselves from the gentiles.

Of course, most of those rules are ignored today by those same priests or rabbis, yet many want to keep selective ones, particularly ones that deal with homosexuality. The jewish faith tends to be a bit more tolerant on such issues, so don't be lumping them all together.

**reason** · January 6th, 2006, 03:19 PM

that gay communist two house down from us that you get along with so well,

Just to clarify that trav is kidding on that one.

Must go. Took some time off between conference calls.

**travelinman** · January 6th, 2006, 03:23 PM

Yea, yea but today?s reality is different. It is completely obvious to anyone who is willing to look that currently the liberal thinks it?s ok to be gay and have affairs outside of a committed relationship as long as your being true to yourself.

**reason** · January 6th, 2006, 05:51 PM

I don?t want to see a gay cowboy movie that?s main theme is adultery (for any reason)

But you don't know that. Earlier you said it glorifies adultery. According to the weekend section of today's Enquirer, the reviewer says the movie actually takes into account the pain of wives who suspected something was fishy.

Given that this has been described as a very sad movie (fill in the blanks), I'm inclined to believe this movie isn't about glorifying adultery.

Those who have actually seen the movie seem to portray it much differently than you do. Clinging to perceptions you don't even know are true leaves one open to accusations of stupidity and homophobia.

[ January 06, 2006 01:55 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]

**travelinman** · January 6th, 2006, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by The Big Sexy:
But you don't know that. Earlier you said it glorifies adultery. According to the weekend section of today's Enquirer, the reviewer says the movie actually takes into account the pain of wives who suspected something was fishy.

Given that this has been described as a very sad movie (fill in the blanks), I'm inclined to believe this movie isn't about glorifying adultery.

Those who have actually seen the movie seem to portray it much differently than you do.

That may be true, but I am judging from the adverts on TV. I have to assume that what they portray are what the producers intend them to portray.