jarhfive Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Hello, Verbatim from "Personality Parade", Parade magazine, February 26: Question: "...Who do male cosmetic surgery patients want to look like?": Answer: "Brokeback Mountain stars and Oscar nominees Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. 'We've seen a shift away from the heavy macho features of Ben Affleck and Russell Crowe,' say Beverly Hills cosmetic surgeon..." Rusty BTW: "Gyllenhaal" is really hard to type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattHelm Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 I think Affleck is too nacho. I'm sure Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal will appreciate their non-macho image. If the movie influenced this new look, I wonder who's going under the knife to achieve it, since no one has been to the movies to see it. Gyllenhaall might be hard to type, but I think he may be easily type-casted, after this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerBond Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 According to imdb.com, it had grossed over $66 million as of February 12th. That's a lot of no one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattHelm Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 According to imdb.com, it had grossed over $66 million as of February 12th. That's a lot of no one. Hardly a box office victory. That's about enough to finance The Shaggy Dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerBond Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 According to movies.yahoo.com, Brokeback Mountain grossed $3,846,972 in 1,600 theaters over the Feb 17-20 weekend, bringing its 11-week cumulative total to $72,089,234 That's over 5 times the film's estimated budget (source: imdb.com) of $14 million. So much for the shaggy dog spin.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 So how's that for a box-office victory? What's your beef? "Brokeback Mountain" is a huge popular and critical success. And next week, it will probably take home more Oscars than any other film (we'll see). I'm sure you have an answer (or reason) for all this hoopla, but please get your facts straight before you put them in writing. You can like the movie or you can hate the movie, but you can't dispute the facts. Ralph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattHelm Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 The fact that a movie makes many times its cost is good, but what if the movie had cost $60m to make? Would you consider it to be a big success then? That doesn't mean it would still have made several times its cost ... it would just have broken even after all this time it's been out. Don't confuse the hype and late night talk show jokes with people actually showing up in droves. 72m over a couple of months isn't exactly a big head count. Whether I hate or like the movie doesn't matter, I'm looking at figures. That's how the studios look at it, and it still translates as not many seeing it ... as will be the case with this year's Oscars. When no one sees the movies nominated, no one watches the Oscars. That's the fact, Jack. Since when does winning an Oscar mean that a movie or actor was the best anyway? Mystic River was horrible and look at all the awards it won. For all we know, one in ten may have seen Brokeback ten times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattHelm Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 So much for the shaggy dog spin.... Actually, to date it's made 75 million. Another 5 million and they'll have enough to make Pink Panther II, since the one out now cost 80m to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 But the fact is that it didn't cost $60 million to make . . . And I guess you're saying the Oscar broadcast will have low ratings, right? Again, we'll see. $72 million (and it's really more than that) is a large head count. And don't confuse the subject - we're not talking about best, we're talking about popular. Many people liked "Mystic River;" I didn't see it. I would personally like to see "Capote" win for best actor/best picture. But I don't think it will. Ralph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pktrekgirl Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Well, of the two actors listed, I like Ben's look alot better than Russell Crowe. But as actors? I don't really care for either one. I don't think Ben is that well respected anymore - especailly after his JLo adventures. But IMO, Russell Crow is vastly overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerBond Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 > The fact that a movie makes many times its cost is > good, but what if the movie had cost $60m to make? > Would you consider it to be a big success then? Only two months out of the gate, Brokeback Mountain is a substantial financial success in terms of return on investment. That was my point, and it is irrefutable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattHelm Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 The Oscars ratings were down 5% last year because their nominees weren't that popular. This year they're even worse in popularity. You might think 7.5 million people going to see a movie over three months is a lot, but the trades all describe the turnout as modest, at best. The Academy knows this year's ceremony is doomed, and are hoping that Jon Stewart can bail them out. It's sad when they focus on the host to get ratings and not the films, actors and directors. It's also curious that Brokeback was nominated yet several academy members admitted to not even seeing it due to its content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pktrekgirl Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Well, as much of a fan of Jon Stewart as I am ( ), I totally agee with you. They should NOT be looking to Jon Stewart to raise the ratings. This is NOT "The Daily Show" - it's the Oscars. And Stewart should not be a major selling point. Although I must confess...usually I don't watch the Oscars, because it's too doggone LONG and I work for a living. *lol* Plus, the results are easy to get online...even if one is not watching all the speechmaking, etc. But this year, I have to admit that *I'm* one of those who might tune in...at least for a little while at the beginning, to see Jon Stewart. Sad, but true. So I guess that, at least in this potential viewer's case, their play is working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarhfive Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 pktrekgirl, Quote: " But IMO, Russell Crow is vastly overrated" Have you had the opportunity to view "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World"? That is the one movie I have seen the last ten years I would answer yes to the question, "Does Hollywood make any movies 'like they used to'?". pktrekgirl..."Master and Commander" is a rousing adventure and Russell Crowe plays the Captain Aubrey role without any pretense. Rusty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattHelm Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 He's probably the best choice personality-wise. I don't know what attraction he'll have though outside the Comedy Central demographics. I think they may be right, he just might be the only reason to watch this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattHelm Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 pktrekgirl..."Master and Commander" is a rousing adventure and Russell Crowe plays the Captain Aubrey role without any pretense. I like how they showed how the toilet got the nickname "head." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarhfive Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 MattHelm, I was about to ask "how"? However. I guess it does not take a whole lot of imagination, on my part, to answer my own question. Rusty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pktrekgirl Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Well, yeah...I have no idea about his appeal outside of the people who know him from The Daily Show. Since I personally am a Daily Show viewer and fan, I'm by no means objective on the issue of his possible appeal outside of his already existing fanbase. Although, I'm not sure I would term myself part of the "Comedy Central Demographic". I'm a female in her mid-40's...and the ONLY thing I watch on Comedy Central is The Daily Show.... *lol* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattHelm Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 If you watch it again, there's the split second scene of the ship and a guy at the head of the ship on a ... specially designed plank, shall we say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattHelm Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 That would make you a demographic of a demographic. I'm in the same boat, I only watch the channel sporadically and when I do, it's either for a few minutes of the Daily Show or maybe MAD TV reruns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarhfive Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 MattHelm, Now, further down the 'low road'. Watched "Grizzly Man" last night (till 1:30 AM) and discovered the answer to the rhetorical question, "Does a bear s*** in the woods?". Rusty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattHelm Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Watched "Grizzly Man" last night (till 1:30 AM) and discovered the answer to the rhetorical question, "Does a bear s*** in the woods?". I watched that for the second time on Saturday night. There's something fascinating about watching the world's most dysfunctional human being caught on film. It's like Grizzly Adams meets Brokeback Mountain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeanddaisy666 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 MattHelm, wasn't that fascinating? I managed to miss the entire show, twice (it was on PBS, I think?), but what I saw made me very uncomfortable. It was like Lance Loud does Smoky the Bear. MY question...here was an OBVIOUSLY unbalanced young man. Where were those in charge who let this individual roam the woods, alone? He appeared not capable of roaming his own sidewalk, much less the woods. Watching him was like peering at a roadside accident. Oh, and Ben Affleck, Russell Crowe? Both about as attractive as phlegm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarhfive Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 stoneyburke, Lance Loud?? Dredged that name up from the depths of, what...? Good comparison to "Grizz.." Rusty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarhfive Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 MattHelm, Okay..."Brokeback Mountain". I must of been 'out' during parts of "Grizz...", what did I miss? Rusty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts