|
|
 |
Kevin U. |
+ |
Monday, May 17, 2004 at 8:05 PM
Edited Monday, May 17, 2004 at 8:07 PM Anyone seen the movie yet? Drew sure didn't like it... do you agree with him? —Kevin U. |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Monday, May 17, 2004 at 8:18 PM What did you expect? Looking at the trailers you should have been able to see that unless you expected to see even more gay bate. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Kevin U. |
+ |
Monday, May 17, 2004 at 8:25 PM I haven't seen any of the trailers, just a few TV commercials - but you never know whether they will be good or not based on trailers... I haven't seen the film, just wondering if Drew's review was spot-on, or does anyone think there was anything redeeming that makes it worth seeing? Afterall, Gladiator wasn't half bad, and it seems to be the same style and/or genre. —Kevin U. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Monday, May 17, 2004 at 9:03 PM I haven't seen it...but...drew liked the Alamo. But I haven't seen that either. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Monday, May 17, 2004 at 9:12 PM Drew said he really liked "New York Minute" - but what else is he going to say?? I'm probably going to see "Troy" on Wednesday...my hopes aren't that high, but it's an action movie, and I'm a guy, so it can't be that bad. —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Monday, May 17, 2004 at 11:09 PM
Edited Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at 12:07 AM Kevin U., The commercials contain about as much as the trailers. Hearing any line from the movie or seeing any shot of Orlando Bloom or Brad Pitt should be indicative of the gay demographic they are shooting for. Gladiator did not prettify Russell Crowe. Spartacus has been so popular amongst gays it's been referred to by multiple comedians for years. This is the blockbuster Spartacus. Don't expect any hint of historical authenticity. If you are attracted to guys in skirts with long hair you might like it. They are counting on the look of the people in the movie to draw people in. That would also include hetero femmes as well as homo fims. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ilovedrdrewandadam |
+ |
Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at 3:00 AM Yeah, I agree with Drew...Troy did suck...I didn't want to see it, but my boyfriend begged me to go with him...don't waste your money... —ilovedrdrewandadam |
|
|
|
|
Passionate, Passionate Man |
+ |
Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at 5:50 PM I liked the movie. A: I don't enter a film with some sort of art critic's chip on my shoulder expecting to be wowed at its mastery of any or all film genres. If it entertains me, then I like it. B: I am a heterosexual male. I didn't think the movie was at all "homoerotic". In point of fact, Achilles' "cousin", Petrocles, is actually his lover in the Iliad. But the movie producers chose to take that little detail out of the movie. As for "historical authenticity", I don't think we should be concerned about a movie based on a mythological tale (Homer's Iliad). "Pfff, Achilles' mother didn't look like THAT. She had BLONDE hair when she dipped him in the River Styx for immortality!!" I thought the movie did an A-OK job of interpreting the myth in its own way, and I've read the Iliad in three languages. And the large battles utilizing the then-preferred "phalanx" formation of soldiers looked well done. I thought the best character in the film was Eric Bana's Hector. During the closeups, I half expected him to say "You wouldn't like me when I'm angry", but I liked his performance the best. It's a long movie (2:45ish), but I'd recommend it, unless you're the uncomfortable, homophobic type. PPM —Passionate, Passionate Man |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at 10:58 PM "...What does that tell you about yourself? —Passionate, Passionate Man Are you really this stupid? You thinking of something only says something about you . No matter how you whitewash it you are the one that chose to accuse people of being homophobic if they did not like Troy. It is very apparent that this is a movie for people attracted to men, whether you are hetero or homo. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Pan Pan |
+ |
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 5:57 AM Troy. Best.
Fucking.
Movie.
EVER. —Pan Pan |
|
|
|
|
Passionate, Passionate Man |
+ |
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 12:18 PM AC, What can I say? It's hard to argue with someone so ignorant and stubborn. I never "accused people of being homophobic if they did not like Troy". That was your irrational interpretation of my post. I simply responded to your initial post that: "If you are attracted to guys in skirts with long hair you might like it." I liked the movie and I am not attracted to guys in skirts with long hair. And I suspect I'm not alone. You took so much of a affront to my post (because it countered your idea), that you had to respond like most Internet dregs. When you respond to this post with some attack on my sexuality or intellect, I won't be responding back. It's a futile argument. PPM —Passionate, Passionate Man |
|
|
|
|
superhew |
+ |
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 12:33 PM
Edited Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 12:34 PM can someone tell me about how troy is gay? i havent seen the movie, but it sounded interesting from commercials. if its really a gay-love movie, then i guess i wont see it, but if its just guys in skirts, well, thats how the story went so get over it i guess. pan pan, you rule. —superhew |
|
|
|
|
dick suck |
+ |
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 5:03 PM superhew, you would not believe how faggy Troy is. There's one scene where Brad Pitt drops his leather skirt to reveal a huge erection, which he plunges into Eric Bana's arsehole right after Pitt kills him. So you got gay cornholing plus necrophilia. About half the audience got up and left at that point. I couldn't believe they would actually show something like that in an R-rated movie. It just gets worse from there. It figures Pan Pan liked it. There's the true acid test for gayness: Did you really like Troy? Then "You're GAY!" —dick suck |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 5:12 PM I just saw "Troy" this afternoon, and I enjoyed it. Not like a cinematic masterpiece or anything, but it was enjoyable and had plenty of good action. I'm not sure what else people are expecting. I will say that everyone was totally stunned about the whole horse thing though....LOL —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
dick suck |
+ |
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 5:15 PM That's right, puck. Thanks for reminding me about that very graphic scene showing the gang rape of Eric Bana's dead horse. That was really fucking sick. —dick suck |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 9:10 PM It was just for you babe. —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 11:13 PM "...I'd recommend it, unless you're the uncomfortable, homophobic type." -PPM "...I never "accused people of being homophobic if they did not like Troy..." -PPM Oh really? "...When you respond to this post... I won't be responding back. It's a futile argument..." -PPM Yes, it certainly is. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
sprewell |
+ |
Thursday, May 20, 2004 at 7:49 AM Let me handle this one, PPM. Adam's Crows you need to take a class in logic.
He said you wouldn't enjoy it if you were homophobic. However, he did not say
that only homophobes wouldn't enjoy it. You might also hate it if you think Wolfgang Peterson's a tool who can't control a movie this big. Just because PPM said homophobic people wouldn't enjoy it doesn't mean he was saying you were homophobic if you didn't enjoy it. You could try to interpret it that way if you had any other supporting evidence, but that statement alone doesn't logically lead to your conclusion. All he's saying is that you almost certainly won't like it if you're homophobic. —sprewell |
|
|
|
|
Lou Cypher |
+ |
Thursday, May 20, 2004 at 10:07 AM Spreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. I was just thinking the exact same thing. Umm, if I have my terms correct, it could be demonstrated in a Ven(n?) diagram. I always loved those. "Whoozits and Whatzits are gay. Zowies are gay. Therefore, Whatzits are Zowies. True or False?" It was fun, then those circles within circles that I drew. Damn, I'm lame. —Lou Cypher |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cracked |
+ |
Thursday, May 20, 2004 at 11:34 PM I'll settle this. I saw Troy today because I had nothing better to do. I already saw everything good playing. Here is a list of reasons not to see Troy: -Too many sloppy contemporary American/English accents mixed with a few attempts to sound Shakespearean.
-Stupid soap opera dialogue.
-Eric Banna can't hide his Australian white trash accent.
-There is no reason to show Brad Pitt's ass, and several times at that.
-Orlando Bloom blooms into a flowering FAG.
-Brian Cox was supposed to be a battle-seasoned warlord yet he looked as if he had never been on a chariot he was so shakey.
-The battle scenes were weakly choreographed. The bar surpassed this level on TV 10 years ago.
-The whole movie is an excuse to have lame fights. There is nothing interesting in the plot.
-The CG is overkill and obvious -implausible numbers of soldiers, ships perfectly spaced across the ocean as far as the horizon, the producers seemed to think massive numbers would impress the audience and make up for a lack of anything substantial in the screenplay, etc. This movie is trying to lure by being titilating to whoever likes Brad Pitt, surfer dudes and nights in armour trying to act nobel. As for it being gay, they make a point of showing Brad Pitt's ass several times yet there are three chicks that don't show anything. Out of all the history of women exploited in the movies they did not exercise the slightest option beyond casting nice looking women. Maybe they thought the battle action was for the guys and Pitt and the soap operatic dialogue was for the girlfriends making it an action/date flick. I don't know.
—Cracked |
|
|
|
|
MrBrando |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 12:41 AM yeah, I don't know about Drew's taste in movies, he hated adaptation because the 3rd acts was so unbelieveable because people don't act that way... that was the whole point! Anyway, he was way too harsh on this movie because it wasn't accurate to the story yet loved the alamo which was grossly inaccurate. Anyway, Troy was alright but dissapointing overall. The one on one fight scenes were good but the large scale battles sucked. The dialouge wasn't that great and sometimes laughable but I don't know why you would be expecting shakespearean considering this was a story from greek mythology. The last like 30 mins seem like the were edited greatly to cut down time. I don;t know what people are talking about seeing brad pitts butt, they never show it, all you see is the side of his and even then you get to see the side of a girls too, so it all evens out. I also like what Cracked said about an "implausible" number of soilders considering... that's the point! the greeks brought the largest army anyone had ever seen, you know that little line "launched 1,000 ships". U will say thoug the ocean seen with then all spread out looked lame. Anyway overall it was enjoyable for some fight scenes but a dissapointment it seemed the director didn't know what do do with a movie this size as someone said before. —MrBrando |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 1:11 AM He didn't like adaptation? Hmmmm. Yeah, that WAS the point, the whole use of overt Hollywood cliches. I thought it was a good flick, but it's sort of subtle in terms of how it feeds upon itself, my friend didn't like it, and I could understand why.
I think eternal sunshine was better and more accessible. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 1:32 AM
Edited Friday, May 21, 2004 at 1:34 AM If some of you guys here are not gay, you sure act like you are. The nit-picky emphasis on minutia is typical of the petty banter amongst gay men. It isn't a leap to make the inference in my last post. This isn't a debate forum. It's just general discussion tossing ideas back and forth. Adaptation: What Drew was referring to was not Nick Cage's character it was Cage's performance. He looked like an actor acting. We were not seeing a guy going through all of the neurotic preoccupations that this character was supposed to be experiencing, we were watching an actor acting like he was. It has often seemed like I was watching him act and I have not been convinced he is the character. The same thing happened in Matchstick Men. At least this is my opinion of it. I still liked the movie but I don't think Cage is that good an actor. I think the performance ought to be convincing so you forget you are looking at an actor -to suspend that fact -so you get involved in the film. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 3:25 AM That is a big problem with actors, they usually get big due to their persona more than their acting ability. But I thought he was pretty good, so it's all relative I guess. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
Jeremy |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 3:56 AM Good times though, right guys? —Jeremy |
|
|
|
|
dick suck |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 4:54 PM I hate to agree with AC on this one, but I'm afraid he might have the upper hand, Spreeeeee. PPM said: "...I'd recommend it, UNLESS you're the uncomfortable, homophobic type." This means literally that ONLY the uncomfortable, homophobic types would dislike it, in PPM's judgment. I'm sure that's not what he meant to say, but that's what, in fact, he DID say. FWIW, I thought the fight scenes were pretty good, but almost everything else about it was Grade-B movie stuff. —dick suck |
|
|
|
|
everybody has warts |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 4:58 PM unless isnt the opposite of if and only if. he just listed one condition. its doesnt infer that there are no other possible conditions. —everybody has warts |
|
|
|
|
dick suck |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 5:25 PM PPM's statement certainly does IMPLY (not "infer") that only homophobes will dislike the movie. PPM gives a blanket recommendation and then specifies the only category to be excluded: homophobes. If PPM had wanted to avoid confusion and offense, he could easily have phrased it to acknowledge other reasons for disliking the movie. When so many people "misinterpret" a speaker's meaning, the blame lies with the speaker. —dick suck |
|
|
|
|
Jeremy |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 5:33 PM When so many people "misinterpret" a speaker's meaning, the blame lies with the speaker. Two whole people on this board have "misinterpreted" what PPM said. That's not "so many", and is actually insignificant. I had no problem understanding what he meant. You people just want to argue. —Jeremy |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 5:35 PM
Edited Friday, May 21, 2004 at 6:17 PM Allow me to clarify: "...I'd recommend it, unless you're the uncomfortable, homophobic type." -PPM <= implying, homophobes will not like it. "...I never "accused people of being homophobic if they did not like Troy..." -PPM <- true you didn't "accuse" you "implied." What I would have said if I knew the words would be scutinized for perfection is that PPM "implied" that those who are homophobic will not like Troy. PPM is attempting to argue that the movie isn't tinged with gay bate at the same time saying it is gay enough to conclude homophobes will not like it. The point remains a contradiction. BTW, "infer" is to derive from an implication. "Imply" is to suggest something indirectly. EHW the correct word in this context would be "...it[s] doesnt imply that there are...." Jeremy, we have recently seen there are only a few people here so two whole people may turn out to be the majority. You seem to think two people out of 20 or 50 or some significantly greater number than two has understood the post and merely two have not. In fact, you may even be PPM. :-) —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Jeremy |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 7:20 PM And for all we know, you could be PPM. Maybe you get off on debating yourself. Who knows? —Jeremy |
|
|
|
|
superhew |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 7:30 PM for all i know, i could be jeremy, dick suck, PPM, and AC. i could get off to that... —superhew |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 7:36 PM
Edited Friday, May 21, 2004 at 7:36 PM "Maybe you get off on debating yourself..." We should all be masters of debating ourselves. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Jeremy |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 7:59 PM  Disclaimer: I didn't draw this, so don't blame me for the spelling error. —Jeremy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dick suck |
+ |
Saturday, May 22, 2004 at 8:04 PM ehw, you're talking logic, I'm talking rhetoric. The strong implication of PPM's post was that you'd have to be a gay basher to dislike Troy. Sure, PPM framed the accusation so he'd have a loophole, but we all know what he really meant. —dick suck |
|
|
|
|
Passionate, Passionate Man |
+ |
Sunday, May 23, 2004 at 2:19 AM Fershitsake, I know what I really meant. I sure as hell wasn't intentionally leaving myself a rhetorical loophole. I meant that if you have an irrational fear of homosexuality (my definition of homophobia), i.e. in the form of seeing male "non-frontal" nudity or occasional kisses on the forehead, then you very well could feel uncomfortable watching Troy. So I didn't recommend it for that person. These instances in and of themselves don't even represent or typify homosexuality, but rather they may invoke thoughts of it within homophobic individuals' (AC's?) imagination. I'm glad AC sees the error of his comment. I did indicate indirectly that homophobes would not like the movie -- but nothing more. This obviously does not mean that heterosexual medicine men from Zimbabwe would definitely enjoy it -- or if they didn't, that doesn't make them homophobes. But it does mean, in my opinion of course, that it's possible Puck from Real World and Pat Buchanan (people whom I designate as homophobic) would be uncomfortable watching it because of their own tendency to invoke homosexual thoughts from benign sources. Remember the purple teletubby? PPM This is the only profile I have... Noneya are PPM —Passionate, Passionate Man |
|
|
|
|
superhew |
+ |
Sunday, May 23, 2004 at 7:45 AM ok troy sucked, a lot of different people wont like it, a lot of people will like it. just like a lot of other movies. what is there to argue about. i believe ppm when he says that he meant what he meant, and if thats what he says than im sure thats atleast what he means now so lets all get over it. lets all agree that troy sucked, it had some butt shots, homophobes might not like it, but who cares. good times? —superhew |
|
|
|
|
superhew |
+ |
Sunday, May 23, 2004 at 7:45 AM ok troy sucked, a lot of different people wont like it, a lot of people will like it. just like a lot of other movies. what is there to argue about. i believe ppm when he says that he meant what he meant, and if thats what he says than im sure thats atleast what he means now so lets all get over it. lets all agree that troy sucked, it had some butt shots, homophobes might not like it, but who cares. good times? —superhew |
|
|
|
|
Jeremy |
+ |
Sunday, May 23, 2004 at 9:08 AM Double posting and forgetting the </i> tag is bad times —Jeremy |
|
|
|
|
sprewell |
+ |
Sunday, May 23, 2004 at 9:49 AM Ha, good one Jeremy. Another basic point to be made is that PPM recommended the movie to certain people, but his recommendation doesn't guarantee that you'll like it. So, he might recommend the movie to you but you might still dislike it. All he was saying was that you would almost certainly dislike it if you were homophobic. Which doesn't lead to the conclusion that you HAVE to be homophobic in order to dislike it. Oh, and Lou Cypher, this is definitely all about Venn diagrams. And Superhew, we don't need a wet blanket like you stifling us master debaters in the middle of our heated debate (read: circle jerk). —sprewell |
|
|
|
|
superhew |
+ |
Sunday, May 23, 2004 at 10:44 AM god damn. my internet froze up when i posted so i thought it didnt post. im retarded. fuck me. —superhew |
|
|
|
|
superhew |
+ |
Sunday, May 23, 2004 at 10:49 AM sprewell, you are wasting your "master debating" skills then. this "debate" is about a movie that sucked, and that someones comment somehow caused mass hysteria because he said something about homophobia. i believe i saw him say he meant it differently, but still people continue to argue and tell him hes wrong. that sounds like a real interesting debate, hope you feel real satisfied when you find out your an idiot for debating about how gay a gay movie is. —superhew |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Sunday, May 23, 2004 at 8:55 PM AC, I think you are wrong about Drew's critique of Adaptation. I heard that show where Drew criticized Adaptation. He didn't say anything about Nicholas Cage's acting: He was complaining that the CHARACTERS themselves were unrealistic, that they didn't act like real addicts and neurotics. (Jesus, talk about missing the point, Drew!) ADAM is the one who hates Cage and keeps saying he's a lousy actor (which he is). Can you find a link to Drew criticizing Cage's ACTING in Adaptation? MrBrando, why do you say Alamo was "grossly inaccurate"? Except for the scene showing Crockett being captured by Santa Anna (which is just a bit of dramatic license, and might even be true) the main story and most of the details conformed to the known historical facts. The bogus charge of "inaccuracy" is what pissed me off about most of the film critics' reviews (David Edelstein's, for example). Thing is, every "invention" that they complained about (such as Lt. Col. Travis opening fire on Santa Anna just as Bowie was parlaying with Santa Anna's adjutant) ACTUALLY HAPPENED! Movie critics ought to learn a little history before bitching about perceived inaccuracies--unless of course they don't give a damn about factual accuracy and only want to make a stupid political point. —hick truck |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Sunday, May 23, 2004 at 11:01 PM
Edited Sunday, May 23, 2004 at 11:07 PM hick truck, Are you actually a new member here or just another alias for one of the others posting? (I see that this is one of only two posts since joining today). If new, welcome to the forum. You say you listened to that show. Do you think I am relying on someone's description? I listened as well. I disagree that Drew needs to be that specific to have it mean what I already said. I got a different impression. Good times. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
roadrage |
+ |
Sunday, May 23, 2004 at 11:53 PM AC,... hick truck new to the forum? C'mon. Sick Fuck, Stick Buck, Fick Suck, etc. Now Hick Truck.
—roadrage |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Monday, May 24, 2004 at 12:04 AM
Edited Monday, May 24, 2004 at 12:05 AM "I meant that if you have an irrational fear of homosexuality (my definition of homophobia), i.e. in the form of seeing male 'non-frontal' nudity or occasional kisses on the forehead, then you very well could feel uncomfortable watching Troy....they may invoke thoughts of it within homophobic individuals' (AC's?) imagination. I'm glad AC sees the error of his comment. I did indicate indirectly that homophobes would not like the movie -- but nothing more..." —PPM The idea of homophobia originated in your mind. I said the movie was designed to be attractive to gay men and people attracted to men hetero or homo. I did not say it was to be feared. I myself, am repulsed when I see a guy's ass, profile or otherwise. As Adam has often ranted, it is normal for guys and girls to find gay male subject matter repulsive. These shots were not plot driven unless getting an eyeful of a naked Brad Pitt is central to the story. How many action movies can anyone name that have several male ass shots? Naked women, yes. It is hardly a victory pointing out that I saw an error in my comment. You did not accuse outright, you just said the same thing indirectly, you still contradicted yourself and you are the one concerned with homophobia. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Monday, May 24, 2004 at 12:50 AM AC: No, I don't think you are relying on someone else's description. I think you are misremembering. If someone can dig up a clip of Drew saying that what he disliked about Adaptation was the bad ACTING, and not the unrealistic CHARACTERS, then you will prove me wrong. Otherwise, I'm sticking by my guns. And, by the way, I am me. I have no other accounts at this site. —hick truck |
|
|
|
|
Jeremy |
+ |
Monday, May 24, 2004 at 11:01 AM And, by the way, I am me. I have no other accounts at this site. I never knew my phrase would get so popular. At least we know that you're just another alias for someone else. —Jeremy |
|