Brokeback Mountin Bombs at Box Office; Holiday BO smells

data from Box Office Mojo ^ | 12/17/05 | Dangus

[commish]

Nothing more appealing to American men than gay cowboys, for sure

Only if they are eating pudding.

[Palladin]

Thanks for warning people about the anal sex scene, lest they be lured to this movie by the secular reviews.

[zbigreddogz]

It doesn't matter if it's in arthouse theaters or not, $11,000 per theater is a good average, especially for a non-kid-friendly film. It's nearly what King Kong did, and most successful films of this sort do not do as well on opening weekend.

And actually, even if it wasn't a good average, whomever posed this thread jumped the gun, because the average over the weekend grew to $34 thousand per theater, which is insanely good.

Although I do admit, the average being that high does mean you are right that most of them probably arn't art-house theaters.

Conservatives really need to stop being so insanely narrow when it comes to art. You don't have to think 'Piss Christ' is a great work of art to have tastes that are bigger then movies about Jesus or Harry Potter, and just because you like strange art films and poetry readings doesn't mean that those same people want government in their pocket and that they don't want the country defended against radical islam. The fact that people are rallying, in vain I may add, against this movie merely because it's about gay people is insanely stupid. We alienate a big chunk of libertarian-leaning types in artistic communities because of crap like this.

[swain_forkbeard]

I don't get it. A gay cowboy movie? Who wouldn't that appeal to?

On the other hand, a modern, technically sophisticated remake of King Kong by the guy who did LOTR? Who wouldn't that appeal to?

[zbigreddogz]

Well, I'm a libertarian leaning conservative. If that is unacceptable, I guess I should probably leave. I don't think gays have the right to have us sanction their marrages, but I don't give a rat crap if they have movies made about them. I also have gay friends. I don't agree with their lifestyle, and if I ever thought they wanted my opinion, I'd give it to them, but I'm not their mother or their judge.

And yes, you are right that a moral decline will eventually lead to a lack of freedom, but if a movie about gay cowboys is your main concern as far as a lack of morality in society, you have seriously warped priorities.

[Lady Heron]

And yes, you are right that a moral decline will eventually lead to a lack of freedom, but if a movie about gay cowboys is your main concern as far as a lack of morality in society, you have seriously warped priorities.

LOL! No, it is not my main concern it just highlights just one more little slide down the slope and I will in no way support it or condone it. My priorities and morals are as warped as our founders were...

[grammarman]

It's not about gay cowboys. It's about gay sheepherders. Where I come from that's a big difference.

I can't think of a single gay cowboy. Sheepherders have a particular smell. I can't speak for there proclivities, perverse or otherwise.

[EdJay]

"If it wasn't an allegory, then it either wasn't intended to a have religious theme or Christ really was a lion."

Isn't the the best authority on this point Lewis himself?
Lewis always denied Narnia was an allegory.
Lewis differentiates allegory from something he calls supposal. In a December 1959 letter to a young girl named Sophia Storr, he explains the difference. He wrote to Sophia: "I don't say. 'Let us represent Christ as Aslan.' I say, 'Supposing there was a world like Narnia, and supposing, like ours, it needed redemption, let us imagine what sort of Incarnation and Passion and Resurrection Christ would have there.'"
According to Lewis, Aslan isn't an allegory of Jesus Christ. He's a supposal. Lewis makes the point in a December 1958 letter to another correspondent, a Mrs. Hook:
"[Aslan] is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question 'What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all."
In an allegory, the ideas, concepts, and even people being expressed are true, but the characters are make-believe & always behave in a way reflective of the underlying concepts they're representing. In a "supposal" the fictional character becomes "real" within the imaginary world, taking on a life of its own and adapting to the make-believe world as necessary. If, for example, you accept the supposal of Aslan as true, then Lewis says,
"He would really have been a physical object in that world as He was in Palestine, and His death on the Stone Table would have been a physical event no less than his death on Calvary."

[zbigreddogz]

My point was, that opposing a movie like this is a little like telling a sick kid to stop sneezing. His sneezing isn't the problem, but what's causing him to sneeze. Until then, its rediculous to attack him for sneezing.

[I'm ALL Right!]

That's what they get for making a movie only to which 3% of the population can relate. Honestly, I don't know ANYONE with the exception of the my one gay relative, who would care to see this movie...even if they support "the cause", watching it play out in full-screen Cinema-sized images is not anything that interests normal heterosexuals.

[chilepepper]

eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwweeeeeee!

[wtc911]

"While many members of this board think that gays are odd, subject of ridicule, school yard humor etc., it is good to remember that for a growing part of the demographic (particularly 15-30) that is just not the case. The fact that a friend is gay is somewhat interesting perhaps but pretty much so-what with a lot of this age group."

In other words...the yahoos lost and you good guys have won the minds of the young.

==================================================

"My wife and I are going to see it. I don't happen to be gay."

Got it, you're not queer and you have a wife.

=============================================================

"The fact that the made such a good peice of work (techically and actistically)"

But you (and your wife, can't forget her) haven't seen it yet.

=====================================================

" Personally as a conservative capitalist I am glad to see this........They will be making a very nice profit off this which as a conservative capitalist I think is a proper reward for such excellent work and business execution."

Got it, you're one of us, a Conservative Capitalist (said it twice so it must be so) and as such you applaud the fact that it might make a profit and to hell with the cultural message. You must really love porn - micro budgets with huge profits.

So basically you're just a typical non-gay Conservative Capitalist (times two) with a wife who really likes this film although you haven't seen it yet, who is really glad that it will (maybe) turn a profit and who signed up today just to let us know this.

[wtc911]

see 371 and 373 down the thread for real moral equivication (and reply)

[wtc911]

Yes, but more importantly yrs trly nailed a slick troll on this thread an hour ago....five hunting days left in 2005.

[No Truce With Kings]

I went to see Narnia with the family today. The film is on two screens at the multiplex. Each showing sold out 30-40 minutes before it began. Kong played to half-empty theaters.