posted
After hearing OSC's previous rant on how terrible the Oscars were, how slighted the good movies were, and how biased the whole industry is --- it's interesting to read this week that he hasn't seen either Benjamin Button or Slumdog Millionaire.
Did they push any other movies? Were any other movies big wins? The whole theme this years was honoring these two movies (and throwing a few bones to a couple of other ventures).
I'm certainly glad that the Academy is in charge. I couldn't stand it if Get Smart or Jumper walked away with the award.
OSC - I won't criticize your politics, but please --- don't criticize the Oscar picks if you haven't seen them. It just makes you sound petulant.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would announce that OSC has crossed over into a twilight zone in which up is down, black is white, and nothing is as it appears... but the thing is I already said that a long time ago, and it's still true.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't watch Jumper. It is a dumb waste of time. The only things that came close to redeeming it was Samuel L Jackson and the car scene in Tokyo (because I was trying to figure out where exactly they were). Seriously, read the books, watch something else. If you watch this movie you will probably want your two hours back.
Posts: 86 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Movies too loathsome to spend money on in the first place: Frost/Nixon; Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo; The Love Guru; Milk; W.; Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Between political correctness, historical lies, artistic pretension, and absolutely unfunny comedy, I cringed even at the promos, and blessed my own life by not adding these films to my memory.
Bolding mine.
Combine that with
quote:Going to most of these movies would be an unpleasant duty -- like having to clean up somebody else's vomit because they threw up on your carpet.
... Orson is acting like he is destined to be at odds with the Oscars because they refuse to not award any accolades to movies that are favorable and supportive towards gay lifestyles and causes.
There is one thing that I would want to factor into this hypothesis, though. What's his opinion on Ellen?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Sam, OSC would say that the liberal media leftaliban elite support gay causes and portray gay lifestyles in a way that is positive only because it is the group-think/cool thing to do. When OSC portrays gays positively, he is doing it because he is a real artist. He doesn't have to even see this movie to know that there is no way that it is an honest portrayal of a homosexual person or lifestyle, because of course only he is capable of that, and not the leftaliban.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Best talk show: Ellen deGeneres's tv show, called, unsurprisingly, The Ellen DeGeneres Show. (In our area, it's on at ten a.m. on WXLV, 45 broadcast, channel 7 on Time-Warner cable; then on cable it's rebroadcast a week later on Oxygen at 11 p.m. You can also catch her monologue every day on the website http://ellen.warnerbros.com.)
I found her hard to watch her old sitcom, because her character was so excruciatingly embarrassing that I couldn't laugh.
But on a talk show, she reminds me of just how bad Dave, Jay, Conan, and what's-his-name on CBS after Letterman are. Ellen's monologue is actually funny, and feels like it comes from a real person, not a joke factory. Her interviews are human and witty and generous.
She can only be compared to one talk-show host, folks: Johnny Carson. She's different, but she's the only host that comes within shooting distance of Carson's ability as monologuist and conversationalist. We've had a long wait since Carson retired before we got a talk show whose host is actually good at the job."
and
"Ellen DeGeneres was, in my opinion, a wonderful Oscar host. Very low-key, sharp-witted, yet never mean. So in a year when I didn't care much about any of the nominated movies (except, of course, that the deceptive, anti-scientific religious documentary starring Al Gore as Savior was bound to win), it was nice to have her to make the evening entertaining. "
and
"We had hopes for the books Sand in My Bra and More Sand in My Bra. These books consist of travel writing by female comedians. Unfortunately, the only writer in the books worth reading aloud was Ellen Degeneres. Nobody else was able to translate their shtick into print -- but Degeneres was so good we decided the books were worth the price just to have her bits."
and
"Categories that should exist, but don't:
Best voice acting performance: Ellen DeGeneres in Finding Nemo."
Maybe it is time to tone down the bitterness? It is not attractive.
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I completely agree with him on Ellen, with the one exception that that-guy-that's-on-after-Letterman is the funniest man on television. We record Craig Ferguson and watch him the next night every night when Letterman and Leno are on, because I can't stay up till 1:30 and they're not worth watching anymore anyway. Ferguson generally has me in tears.
Uh, just to continue the derail.... Sorry.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's some lesbian artists he likes. You can still be a fan of someone cool like Ellen and various musicians and still be rather... impolite about gay people to put it mildly... Harsh... It gets irritating. I'll have to try to ignore it and focus on sandwiches, butterflies, moths and chocolate and tea.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Samprimary. I was responding more to Orincoro's rant...
So you're saying that OSC in fact *doesn't* believe these things about Hollywood? Or were you referring to his ability to know, sight unseen, that movies are loathsome and beyond redemption simply by virtue of having seen the previews? Do you think he can't do this?
I agree with you. But of course, and again, and as always, and as will probably continue to be, you offer your rebuttal with no attempt at an actual point- making sure to ignore the evidence, the facts, and all that liberal nonsene. Good job. You are representing your point of view well. And by that I mean you are doing so in exactly the style I have come to expect from you, from OSC, from Rush Limbaugh, and from the other wing nuts constantly turning, on all sides.
After all, there is really no reason to substantiate anything at all when all you have to do is restate something using words that make your opinions sound factual. It's constantly appalling that you and the other ditto-heads, again on all sides, never seem to see this happening, even as people like OSC make grandiose proclamations about propaganda and intellectual dishonesty, relying on propaganda to get that message across.
No, but what I was doing was "ranting." When OSC does it, it's cool. Except it wasn't a rant (this *is,* if you want to draw a comparison) it was mocking. Actually I'd love for you to tell me where in my mockery of OSC, I portrayed his position inaccurately. The best part of his rhetoric is that it is so crudely loaded with broad-to-the-point-of-absurdity jargon that it's criminally easy to show how foolish it is.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QB] I actually want to come back to this:
quote:Movies too loathsome to spend money on in the first place: Frost/Nixon; Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo; The Love Guru; Milk; W.; Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Between political correctness, historical lies, artistic pretension, and absolutely unfunny comedy, I cringed even at the promos, and blessed my own life by not adding these films to my memory.
Bolding mine.
I'm afraid to ask, what loads of historical lies were in Milk? "Loathsome" is diametrically opposed to the words I would've used, but then again I saw the film.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: I'm afraid to ask, what loads of historical lies were in Milk? "Loathsome" is diametrically opposed to the words I would've used, but then again I saw the film.
I assumed that he was applying historical lies to Frost/Nixon and W, and political correctness to Milk.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: I'm afraid to ask, what loads of historical lies were in Milk? "Loathsome" is diametrically opposed to the words I would've used, but then again I saw the film.
I assumed that he was applying historical lies to Frost/Nixon and W, and political correctness to Milk.
Well it's not clear, and in either case I'm not sure...There are groups of people who stand for one way or another on the issues presented in the film. Some actually support gays, but is Card saying "supporting gays" = "you're just being politically correct/groupthink?"
Actually I might agree with him on that considering how few Academy/hollywood types supported (EDIT) NO on Prop 8. Ellen, Brad Pitt...that's all I heard.
Either way, he isn't clear in the article and seems more interested in expressing "grr!".
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually I might agree with him on that considering how few Academy/hollywood types supported (EDIT) NO on Prop 8. Ellen, Brad Pitt...that's all I heard.
Forgive me for my denseness, but I think that actually runs *against* the idea that support for gay rights is a popular culture phenomenon. Indeed, it says something to me that it took the Mormon church a billion plus dollars to muster a small majority in the vote- especially considering that opposition to the amendment was not a key political lodestone of any major state or national politician, and as you say, support for gay rights didn't *seem* (at least to me) like a bandwagon politically correct issue.
Really though, that's all a convoluted way of saying that gay rights and the public position on them is not a function of popular culture, but of a real moral growing period.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mormon church a billion plus dollars to muster a small majority in the vote
Neither the church nor a billion dollars should exist in that sentence to make it true.
quote:Really though, that's all a convoluted way of saying that gay rights and the public position on them is not a function of popular culture, but of a real moral growing period.
And that's a rather convoluted way of saying numbers of adherents somehow affect truth, while those who do not agree with you are moral degenerates.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really though, that's all a convoluted way of saying that gay rights and the public position on them is not a function of popular culture, but of a real moral growing period.
And that's a rather convoluted way of saying numbers of adherents somehow affect truth, while those who do not agree with you are moral degenerates.
Your logic is twisted: Orincoro is assuming that the granting of gay rights is moral and, because it is increasingly popular, moral growth has occurred. He is not claiming that because something is popular it is moral, as you seem to be reading him.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mormon church a billion plus dollars to muster a small majority in the vote
Neither the church nor a billion dollars should exist in that sentence to make it true.
quote:Really though, that's all a convoluted way of saying that gay rights and the public position on them is not a function of popular culture, but of a real moral growing period.
And that's a rather convoluted way of saying numbers of adherents somehow affect truth, while those who do not agree with you are moral degenerates.
I can't tell if you're referring to the major religions or not but it can cut both ways. After all, we no longer believe we're the center of the universe anymore. That took some time didn't it?
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: We record Craig Ferguson and watch him the next night every night when Letterman and Leno are on, because I can't stay up till 1:30 and they're not worth watching anymore anyway. Ferguson generally has me in tears.
Uh, just to continue the derail.... Sorry.
Just so you know you can watch every episode of each of these shows online in widescreen (though Conan is obviously no longer available).
OSC likes Ellen because he likes Ellen. Because he likes Ellen he doesn't need to think of some "petulant" reason to dislike her (even though she's a gay activist, even on her shows, as much as any of the Hollywood folk he hates). OSC likes sunny things, and Ellen certainly is.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Really though, that's all a convoluted way of saying that gay rights and the public position on them is not a function of popular culture, but of a real moral growing period.
And that's a rather convoluted way of saying numbers of adherents somehow affect truth, while those who do not agree with you are moral degenerates.
No, it's just a very straightforward way of saying that Hollywood is not pushing some twisted personal agenda on the American people, but merely reflecting the rest of their country.
As the author of the "other" Oscar thread and a few other similar rants, maybe it's time for me to finally stop reading OSC's columns and stick to his books. Reading or listening to something inconsistent and unpleasant just because it makes me angry is no way to go - I kicked talk radio for the same reason.
Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your logic is twisted: Orincoro is assuming that the granting of gay rights is moral and, because it is increasingly popular, moral growth has occurred. He is not claiming that because something is popular it is moral, as you seem to be reading him.
If granting gays more and more "rights" is inherently moral, than to oppose it can be easily interpreted as morally backwards.
quote:I can't tell if you're referring to the major religions or not but it can cut both ways. After all, we no longer believe we're the center of the universe anymore. That took some time didn't it?
Certainly it did, but so what? I don't think every person on earth always believed the earth to be the center of the universe until folk like Galileo came around. Rather the idea was posited, made popular, and then dissent was stifled.
quote:No, it's just a very straightforward way of saying that Hollywood is not pushing some twisted personal agenda on the American people, but merely reflecting the rest of their country.
I do not think it's a sound argument to say that the media is merely a mirror for the rest of society. We give awards out to people who are considered, "ahead of their time." But the debate about whether the media reflects what's popular or influences popular opinion is a very long convoluted one.
quote:As the author of the "other" Oscar thread and a few other similar rants, maybe it's time for me to finally stop reading OSC's columns and stick to his books. Reading or listening to something inconsistent and unpleasant just because it makes me angry is no way to go - I kicked talk radio for the same reason.
I often find more to enjoy in Mr. Card's literary contributions as opposed to his political rhetoric. I find his World Watch essays to a mix of things I agree and disagree with, lately I tend to disagree a little bit more than usual, but I don't think he is categorically wrong about everything.
We do not know the world he inhabits, the company he keeps, the interactions he experiences. I find Mr. Card to be extremely insightful in his characterizations, and I believe if I "knew" him, I could more clearly see why he writes what he does in World Watch.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your logic is twisted: Orincoro is assuming that the granting of gay rights is moral and, because it is increasingly popular, moral growth has occurred. He is not claiming that because something is popular it is moral, as you seem to be reading him.
If granting gays more and more "rights" is inherently moral, than to oppose it can be easily interpreted as morally backwards.
I didn't say the act of granting more and more "rights," as you put it is in itself "inherently moral." If I did say that, I retract it. What I want to say is that I think the granting of those rights (as well as public support for them) is a sign of moral growth. I also think that the opposition to those rights, on the basis of religion, is a sign of being morally backwards. At one time, the argument against gay marriage was the argument against interracial marriage. Then as now, the rights of people to stick with their religious convictions (however uninformed by the actual scriptures they read), was upheld. However, certain religious people felt that their morality and faith was so powerful, that it must be imposed on the civil lives of individuals who did not share their beliefs- then as now.
Ultimately, I don't really care about your religion at all. I think it's dumb for a thousand reasons before this one- this one is just a distant echo of the basic objections I have. But marriage, and more properly the civil rights of individuals to be recognized in their legal and civil responsibilities to each other, is not any religions business unless that person wants it to be. Clearly, the gays could give a crap what you think, and so don't seem to be too eager to go around destroying the world with their awful unions. Of course, I'm secure in the knowledge that the churches know nothing useful about the subject anyway, and have only gained political power for the sake of some long forgotten desire to build an empire in Jerusalem- a desire that has long since short circuited into a community of people who have no idea why they do the things they do.
That all being just my opinion.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't say the act of granting more and more "rights," as you put it is in itself "inherently moral." If I did say that, I retract it. What I want to say is that I think the granting of those rights (as well as public support for them) is a sign of moral growth.
I can certainly agree that the public's seeming growing willingness to give homosexuals rights stems most likely from empathy rather than from somewhere else.
quote:At one time, the argument against gay marriage was the argument against interracial marriage.
And at one time people were saying that without eugenics we'd all degenerate back to being uncivilized, and at another without some sort of control on atomic bombs we'd all be blasted back the stone age. SSM and Interracial marriage are not really related, though people like to throw them up together since they both involve marriage. Concerns regarding interracial marriages have no strong basis in any religious doctrine, it was all a mix of tradition and pseudoscience.
quote:Ultimately, I don't really care about your religion at all. I think it's dumb for a thousand reasons before this one- this one is just a distant echo of the basic objections I have.
I'm sorry you feel this way, I hope subsequent conversations may enhance your admiration of my religion.
quote:But marriage, and more properly the civil rights of individuals to be recognized in their legal and civil responsibilities to each other, is not any religions business unless that person wants it to be.
It becomes everyone's business as we all live in the same society. Homosexuals do not live in a proverbial vacuum, their ethics and values will be promoted amongst society just as surely as mine are.
quote:Of course, I'm secure in the knowledge that the churches know nothing useful about the subject anyway,
My experience says otherwise, religion has been phenomenal in assisting me with my marriage for example.
quote:...and have only gained political power for the sake of some long forgotten desire to build an empire in Jerusalem- a desire that has long since short circuited into a community of people who have no idea why they do the things they do.
If you think Christians spend all their time hoping for an empire in Jerusalem you have definitely missed the forest for the trees. I'd argue with you about whether Christians know why they do the things they do but to some extent I agree with you, many do not.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't think most modern Christians want an Empire in Jerusalem- I just see the Christian religion as an outgrowth of a political and social movement that started there thousands of years ago, and slowly swallowed up and digested elements of philosophy and political ideology, and became an institution primarily interested in maintaining its political power. That is, the institution itself, regardless of the motivations of the individuals, seeks survival in this way.
Now, what the individuals do, they do for reasons that are not obviously connected to that will. Still, looking at the bible and the church in its present form, the contradictions and the myriad baffling details, the patterns inside of patterns inside of labyrinthine patterns of traditions- the uncanny silliness of it all in that regard strikes me every time I consider it.
quote: And at one time people were saying that without eugenics we'd all degenerate back to being uncivilized, and at another without some sort of control on atomic bombs we'd all be blasted back the stone age. SSM and Interracial marriage are not really related, though people like to throw them up together since they both involve marriage. Concerns regarding interracial marriages have no strong basis in any religious doctrine, it was all a mix of tradition and pseudoscience.
I agree insofar as you go. I think the two *are* connected, in that the psuedo-science of eugenics comes from the same place as the religious objection to homosexual behavior. Religions codified folk-wisdom and wrongfully derived conclusions about their own societies, just like our own modern society has often wrongfully codified the roles of genetics and heritage, (and continues to do so today). I think the religious taboo against homosexuality comes, ultimately from the same place as later ideas about race- the world of the old testament was not one in which the cultural breadth of humanity was understood, but homosexuality was present then in all societies- it's the result of the same pattern of false reasoning.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
