# So Melissa Leo Dropped a Bomb?



## TheFuhrer02 (Mar 1, 2011)

I know this news is starting to get a bit old, but what the heck, just want to share it.

[video=youtube;25aHqm5E4yQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25aHqm5E4yQ[/video]
Melissa Leo: The Acceptance Speech F-Bomb - TMZ

Not really expecting her to win. I was more inclined to have Helena Bonham Carter bag this one, but I guess it was not meant to be, huh? 

Nevertheless, King's Speech won three awards anyway, including Best Picture, so I guess losing the Best Supporting Actress award was fine. X\'D


----------



## Dudester (Mar 1, 2011)

Today's actors are immature unseasoned brats who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Speaking of mouths, the fact that they are always running their mouths (instead of listening) is a very real problem. I know I hate using heigth as a measure of a person's worth, but another real problem is that the vast majority of today's actors are under 5'6".

In the old days, you had over six footers, like Cary Grant, John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, Glenn Ford, and Henry Fonda. Add in that all of these were World War 2 veterans who understood sacrifice, patriotism, and decorum. Today's actors, by comparison, are a bunch of bigmouth Napoleon complexed, immature wannabees.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 2, 2011)

Reminds me of Norma Desmond: "I am big! It's the pictures that got small!"

With the possible exception of Fonda, most of those old actors would stick out like sore thumbs in today's movies. Today, it's a whole different level of acting. Many of the old stars were one-note personalities, John Wayne for instance, if you can call what he did acting. While some of the old movies still hold up, much of the acting is contrived and stiff. And as long as the movie and the acting are good, I don't care how tall the actors are or what they do or say off-screen. Who cares?


----------



## InsanityStrickenWriter (Mar 2, 2011)

> Not really expecting her to win. I was more inclined to have Helena Bonham Carter bag this one, but I guess it was not meant to be, huh?


I wanted Helena Bonham Carter to win as well. Partly because I'm British, (and therefore biased), but also because I think she's a great actress, and she doesn't seem fake in real life. The one who did win, Melissa Leo, came off _so_ false in her speech, and the way she exagerated so many of her words irritated me  

If Helena had won it, then the Oscars would have been much more interesting. Did anyone see her speaches at the British Acadamy Awards this year? Pretty damn funny


----------



## alanmt (Mar 2, 2011)

Dudester said:


> Today's actors are immature unseasoned brats who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Speaking of mouths, the fact that they are always running their mouths (instead of listening) is a very real problem. I know I hate using heigth as a measure of a person's worth, but another real problem is that the vast majority of today's actors are under 5'6".
> 
> In the old days, you had over six footers, like Cary Grant, John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, Glenn Ford, and Henry Fonda. Add in that all of these were World War 2 veterans who understood sacrifice, patriotism, and decorum. Today's actors, by comparison, are a bunch of bigmouth Napoleon complexed, immature wannabees.


 
OX?  I didn't think you were allowed to have multiple accounts.


----------



## caelum (Mar 2, 2011)

I wanted Helena Bonham Carter to win as well.  She's got a great, quirky personality from what I've seen of her in interviews.


----------



## Dudester (Mar 2, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Reminds me of Norma Desmond: "I am big! It's the pictures that got small!"
> 
> With the possible exception of Fonda, most of those old actors would stick out like sore thumbs in today's movies. Today, it's a whole different level of acting. Many of the old stars were one-note personalities, John Wayne for instance, if you can call what he did acting. While some of the old movies still hold up, much of the acting is contrived and stiff. And as long as the movie and the acting are good, I don't care how tall the actors are or what they do or say off-screen. Who cares?


 
Fifty-sixty tears ago, Hollywood had in place what was called "the studio system". Under the studio system a Director and/or a Producer picked up a script, liked it, and the movie was cast. The actors were then obligated to follow the script. In the 1970's, the studio system fell apart and actors were free to do whatever they wanted. Since then, movies have lost purpose and meaning. Watch the 1939 version of Wuthering Heights. Now, name one present day American A list actor who could reel off the dialogue and pull that off. 

You can't-why ? Because in today's world, actors are lazy. They see a script aand don't like parts of it. They have a hack writer onscene to rewrite pages of a script. What's worse, because today's movies rely so heavily on visual spectacle, that Dudester's axiom applies:"Spoon fed garbage long enough, people will acquire a taste for it."


----------



## JosephB (Mar 3, 2011)

Dudester said:


> Fifty-sixty tears ago, Hollywood had in place what was called "the studio system". Under the studio system a Director and/or a Producer picked up a script, liked it, and the movie was cast. The actors were then obligated to follow the script. In the 1970's, the studio system fell apart and actors were free to do whatever they wanted. Since then, movies have lost purpose and meaning. Watch the 1939 version of Wuthering Heights. Now, name one present day American A list actor who could reel off the dialogue and pull that off.
> 
> You can't-why ? Because in today's world, actors are lazy. They see a script aand don't like parts of it. They have a hack writer onscene to rewrite pages of a script. What's worse, because today's movies rely so heavily on visual spectacle, that Dudester's axiom applies:"Spoon fed garbage long enough, people will acquire a taste for it."



I guess you know a little about the studio system, but you don’t seem to realize that the studios were even more about churning out predictable, derivative and formulaic pablum for the masses. The movies from that era that we still watch and talk about today are the exceptions -- the cream of the crop. They made thousands of lousy to mediocre, assembly-line movies in those days, and the ratio of bad to good was even more lopsided than it is today. You’re looking at the studio era through a haze of nostalgia and pining for something that never was.

  The collapse of the studio system allowed for a new level of realism and creativity. Countless brilliant movies have been made since then and in recent years. Too many to list -- and I’m not going to bother trying, seeing as how your mind is closed. Anyone who has an appreciation for good film making knows that. But if you prefer the simplistic, predictable and overacted movies of the studio era, hey, knock yourself out. Some of them do hold up well, and others can be appreciated for introducing innovative techniques.

Many directors don’t allow for script changes or improvisation on set. Some rewrite as they shoot – and even then, the actors often don’t have any real say in it. There are exceptions – but so what? There's nothing wrong with a collaborative process. And many movies today are dialog and character driven, and have nothing to do with "visual spectacle." Where are you getting this stuff? 

  Of course there are plenty of bad movies being made today, just as there were in the old days -- but to say that "movies have lost purpose and meaning" because "lazy" actors have somehow commandeered the film making process is absurd. And it doesn't even make sense. If they are so lazy, they wouldn't bother with changing the scripts.

Sorry, but in regard to movies today, “Dudester's  axiom” is just a narrow-minded generalization.


----------



## Baron (Mar 3, 2011)

Kirk Douglas looks like he's been embalmed but hasn't yet realised.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 3, 2011)

Baron said:


> Kirk Douglas looks like he's been embalmed but hasn't yet realised.



:lol:

Some old movies were good, some not. Arguably, Hollywood has broadened and gotten better and worse. There's a lot of modern films I'd prefer to some of the cliche, formulaic films Joseph was talking about.

I don't know what the rant against actors today has to do with the OP though? And anyone that needs to yap on about height (what does that have to do with acting?) seems to indicate to me they're the one with a height complex. Maybe it's resentment Mike Tyson held the heavyweight belt. Who knows. Or maybe its anger the lower weight divisions still produce fabulous gladiators (like Manny Pacquiao) compared to the heavyweight division. Who is the heavyweight today anyways? :scratch:

Or maybe it's just anger over the fact Sammy the Bull Gravano got more p_____ than them. LOL


----------



## Baron (Mar 3, 2011)

Wait until the penny drops that Cary Grant was English.

Height does obviously make a difference; think about Audey Murphy, James Cagney, Mickey Rooney and all those other giants...


----------



## JosephB (Mar 3, 2011)

Baron said:


> Wait until the penny drops that Cary Grant was English.



Yeah, ha ha. And that John Wayne, the big movie war hero, ducked service in WWII.


----------



## Dudester (Mar 3, 2011)

Writ-with-Hand said:


> :lol:
> 
> Some old movies were good, some not. Arguably, Hollywood has broadened and gotten better and worse. There's a lot of modern films I'd prefer to some of the cliche, formulaic films Joseph was talking about.
> 
> ...


 
Here's my issue: Does anyone know Cary Grant's political leaning ? How about Gregory Peck ? Eddie Albert ? Martin Balsam ? 

And today's crowd-Owen Wilson, Jennifer Aniston, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, etc-I can tell you exactly how they feel because they not only make no secret of their political feelings, they tell us about their feelings with the inclusion that they feel this way because they're brilliant. 

A list stars of forty to fifty years ago just acted and kept their leanings to themselves. Today's actors infer that they are brilliant and much more brilliant than everyone else. Their emotional age is in the teens and is stunted there. I would pay heed to them if they had done like their predecessors and had actually served in the military, instead they mock people in uniform (military, Police, Security, etc.)-*and that's my issue*.


----------



## Baron (Mar 3, 2011)

As I said in another thread, it's disturbing that some views expressed imply that there are still Americans who learned nothing from this:

McCarthyism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I watch a film then I'm interested in the plot and the quality of acting, not the political views of the actors.  As people, they're free to express their beliefs and views as anyone else is.  Nobody has to take them seriously unless they happen to be running for office.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 3, 2011)

Dudester said:


> Here's my issue: Does anyone know Cary Grant's political leaning ? How about Gregory Peck ? Eddie Albert ? Martin Balsam ?
> 
> And today's crowd-Owen Wilson, Jennifer Aniston, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, etc-I can tell you exactly how they feel because they not only make no secret of their political feelings, they tell us about their feelings with the inclusion that they feel this way because they're brilliant.
> 
> A list stars of forty to fifty years ago just acted and kept their leanings to themselves. Today's actors infer that they are brilliant and much more brilliant than everyone else. Their emotional age is in the teens and is stunted there. I would pay heed to them if they had done like their predecessors and had actually served in the military, instead they mock people in uniform (military, Police, Security, etc.)-*and that's my issue*.



I disagree with the politics of many Hollywood actors. But I care about their politics about as much as I care about the political leanings of the guy who does my dry-cleaning. It's about the movies and the acting. I don't care what they say or do off-screen.

And EVERYONE signed up for service in WWII - actors included. (Except for John Wayne.) And if you were able-bodied, you'd be drafted if you didn't. Since when is military service a prerequisite for acting? 

Whenever I hear anything about, "today's movies," or "today's actors" or "today's music" or "today's" anything -- I feel pretty good about ignoring what comes next. Painting anything with such a broad brush is a sure sign of of narrow thinking -- that is if you're younger than 80. If you're over 80, I'll cut you some slack.


----------



## Baron (Mar 3, 2011)

JosephB said:


> I disagree with the politics of many Hollywood actors. But I care about their politics about as much as I care about the political leanings of the guy who does my dry-cleaning. It's about the movies and the acting. I don't care what they say or do off-screen.
> 
> And EVERYONE signed up for service in WWII - actors included. (Except for John Wayne.) And if you were able-bodied, you'd be drafted if you didn't. Since when is military service a prerequisite for acting?
> 
> Whenever I hear anything about, "today's movies," or "today's actors" or "today's music" or "today's" anything -- I feel pretty good about ignoring what comes next. Painting anything with such a broad brush is a sure sign of of narrow thinking -- that is if you're younger than 80. If you're over 80, I'll cut you some slack.


 
Ox doesn't have a hope.


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Mar 3, 2011)

Baron said:


> Kirk Douglas looks like he's been embalmed but hasn't yet realised.



:lol: So true, eh?



JosephB said:


> Of course there are plenty of bad movies being made today, just as there were in the old days -- *but to say that "movies have lost purpose and meaning" because "lazy" actors have somehow commandeered the film making process is absurd.* And it doesn't even make sense. If they are so lazy, they wouldn't bother with changing the scripts.


 


JosephB said:


> I disagree with the politics of many Hollywood actors. But I care about their politics about as much as I care about the political leanings of the guy who does my dry-cleaning. *It's about the movies and the acting.* I don't care what they say or do off-screen.
> 
> And EVERYONE signed up for service in WWII - actors included. (Except for John Wayne.) And if you were able-bodied, you'd be drafted if you didn't. *Since when is military service a prerequisite for acting?*
> 
> Whenever I hear anything about, "today's movies," or "today's actors" or "today's music" or "today's" anything -- I feel pretty good about ignoring what comes next. *Painting anything with such a broad brush is a sure sign of of narrow thinking.*



^ To these concepts, I couldn't agree more. After all, many of the actors of "today," despite their airy, boastful personalities, or irritating political leanings, or, er, low heights, are still damn good actors, whether you like them or not. 

As Baron himself had said:



Baron said:


> If I watch a film then I'm interested in the plot and the quality of acting, not the political views of the actors.  As people, they're free to express their beliefs and views as anyone else is.  Nobody has to take them seriously unless they happen to be running for office.



Just my two cents, of course. 

And oh, I was just wondering, are the likes of Andy Garcia, Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Nicholas Cage, Bruce Willis, John Malkovich and George Clooney still considered "Actors of today?" I mean, they're not exactly young. But they do very, very good acting (and this, I believe, is an understatement).


----------



## Dudester (Mar 3, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Yeah, ha ha. And that John Wayne, the big movie war hero, ducked service in WWII.


 
Inside every liberal's home is a little box containing 3X5 cards. Each card has a talking point. Under the Hollywood section, the first card reads "John Wayne didn't serve in the military". 

Riddle me this mister talking points, Why is John Wayne the patron saint of the US Marine Corps ?


----------



## Dudester (Mar 3, 2011)

Item the first, It is said that when one goes to the ballet, one should not sit too close to the stage, lest it ruin the illusion. In a movie or TV show, an actor is supposed to pretend to be someone else. They are supposed to set up an illusion that creates entertainment. Everyone's definition of entertainment varies-widely, this is why we have torture porn, pro sports, really bad movies, reality TV, and sitcoms (to name just a few). Actors are paid huge sums to be good at their craft. This money comes from a variety of sources, but mainly it's an entertainment hungry public. Because actors are paid so much to create an illusion, they should live in such a way that we buy the illusion. Some can't help but tell every person within listening distance how they voted, and how everyone that isn't an idiot should vote. This ruins the illusion. When one watches a TV show or movie, the viewer should think "This is great", but some can't help but think "Hey, that guy playing the protagonist is a communist loving socialist who hate the UNited States but is more than happy to collect a paycheck from the same capitalist Americans that he despises." Yeah, it really ruins the illusion.

Item the second. I don't know about the experiences of others on this board, but I've had the unfortunate luck of being within spitting distance of some actors. Several times in the military, I was ordered to teach actors how to walk, talk, shoot, fight, and look military. Also, when I was the fire department, I had a run in with Hollywood folk.

A movie company came to town to make a movie. I was at the fire station when we learned that the movie folk were going to demolish a house. We went over to check their safety precautions. To our horror, we found that the house in question was still hooked up to utilities. We brought it to the director's attention, but he ordered us off of the property, had the fuzz (that he paid well) run us off, while he said something about a shooting schedule.

Riddle me this: What happens to a flattened house that is still hooked up to electricity and natural gas ? 

Yep, about two hours later it all went up in flames. The rubble endangered several of the firefighters. 

So, my patience with Hollywood folk is spent. Because of all this exposure I'm down to seeing eight movies a year and about two hours of TV a week.


----------



## Leyline (Mar 4, 2011)

Dudester said:


> Inside every liberal's home is a little box containing 3X5 cards. Each card has a talking point. Under the Hollywood section, the first card reads "John Wayne didn't serve in the military".



It's also well known to non-liberals with an interest in film history. It's also true.



> Riddle me this mister talking points, Why is John Wayne the patron saint of the US Marine Corps ?



He's not. The USMC has no recognized patron saint.


----------



## Dudester (Mar 4, 2011)

Leyline said:


> It's also well known to non-liberals with an interest in film history. It's also true.
> 
> 
> 
> He's not. The USMC has no recognized patron saint.


 
Try again Leyline. I served in *U*ncle *S*am's *M*isguided *C*hildren.


----------



## Leyline (Mar 4, 2011)

Serving in an organization does not give you leave to invent patron saints. Also, John Wayne was never canonized. The process was halted when that bagel with his image failed to heal anyone. Also, he wasn't Catholic, which annoyed the Pope.

And, the fact remains, Wayne never served in the military. He wasn't a draft-dodger, as many claim, his avoidance was legal. But he didn't serve and many friends say that he considered that one of his great failures in life, and had serious issues concerning the whole situation.


----------



## Dudester (Mar 4, 2011)

Leyline said:


> Serving in an organization does not give you leave to invent patron saints. Also, John Wayne was never canonized. The process was halted when that bagel with his image failed to heal anyone. Also, he wasn't Catholic, which annoyed the Pope.
> 
> And, the fact remains, Wayne never served in the military. He wasn't a draft-dodger, as many claim, his avoidance was legal. But he didn't serve and many friends say that he considered that one of his great failures in life, and had serious issues concerning the whole situation.


 
Leyline, go serve in the Corps, then get back to me on that.  Geez, I love it when someone who has never been at a place or served in an organization considers themself the ultimate master of knowledge.As long as they have access to wikipedia, they know all.


----------



## Leyline (Mar 4, 2011)

I wouldn't serve in 'The Corps' if the pay were gold plated Cadillacs filled with naked super-models. And just to be clear: I, personally, have nothing against draft dodging. If anyone tried to enslave me in that fashion I'd feel morally justified in killing them in self defense.

Maybe you should have just said: "Me and my buddies really like John Wayne" rather than hilariously lame "riddle me this" garbage about patron saints.  To be honest, I couldn't give two ***** about what you and your pals used to chat about in the shower-room.

And strangely, almost unbelievably -- it's still true that John Wayne never served in the military. It's almost as if your off topic and irrelevant comments made no difference whatsoever to that fact! I'm stunned -- you being a former Marine and all, and a quite devout follower of it's apparently mysterious religious Canon. What's the world coming to these days?


----------



## JosephB (Mar 4, 2011)

Dudester said:


> Inside every liberal's home is a little box containing 3X5 cards. Each card has a talking point. Under the Hollywood section, the first card reads "John Wayne didn't serve in the military".



I'm not a liberal. But I've noticed you're a master at generalizing and jumping to conclusions. Keep up the good work. And you're the one who included John Wayne in a list of actors who were WWII vets -- so maybe it's you who needs the 3 x 5 cards to keep your facts straight.



Dudester said:


> When one watches a TV show or movie, the viewer should think "This is great", but some can't help but think "Hey, that guy playing the protagonist is a communist loving socialist who hate the UNited States but is more than happy to collect a paycheck from the same capitalist Americans that he despises." Yeah, it really ruins the illusion.



There are many fine actors -- I would contend the majority -- who keep their politics mostly to themselves. But true to form, you've managed to paint all of them with the same broad brush based on the more vocal minority. And last time I looked at the calendar, it was 2011, not 1954 -- the McCarthy hearings have been over for some time now.

All of this is irrelevant to the people who enjoy good movies, and who have the imagination and mental capacity to separate movie characters from the actors who portray them.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 4, 2011)

Dudester said:


> Here's my issue: Does anyone know Cary Grant's political leaning ? How about Gregory Peck ? Eddie Albert ? Martin Balsam ?
> 
> And today's crowd-Owen Wilson, Jennifer Aniston, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, etc-I can tell you exactly how they feel because they not only make no secret of their political feelings, they tell us about their feelings with the inclusion that they feel this way because they're brilliant.
> 
> A list stars of forty to fifty years ago just acted and kept their leanings to themselves. Today's actors infer that they are brilliant and much more brilliant than everyone else. Their emotional age is in the teens and is stunted there. I would pay heed to them if they had done like their predecessors and had actually served in the military, instead they mock people in uniform (military, Police, Security, etc.)-*and that's my issue*.



I've got no beef with actors expressing their political or moral beliefs publicly. I've also got no problem with them using their celebrity status to draw attention to political or moral issues they believe in - even if it's contrary to my own views. 

Brad Pitt and his wife do a lot of good and I believe their hearts and minds are sincerely directed with well and charitable intentions. That's not to suggest good intentions always mean supporting or doing the right thing. 

The only thing that really irks me from a good number of celebrities is that it's not uncommon to find some of them speaking condescending about things they know little about - or fail to really understand. And their celebrity status gives their public opinion far more weight than the average Jane or Joe.

The craft of acting can really be quite rigorous at times. I'm amazed at times what some actors go through to shoot a scene or entire movie. :shock:

In best case scenario you'll have a thespian that is well educated (self taught or formal education), very reasonable, balanced in thought, and uses their celebrity status to move the political and social world towards some better direction.

Military service has its goods and it can promote better character in some ways. It's not the easiest way of life. But military orders - like the paramilitary organized police force - has its limitations. They promote uniformity, obedience to orders, and in this way protect the status quo. It took me at least a year out of the Marine Corps to realize I was brainwashed while I was in the Corps. 

Of course... you need to brainwash Marines and soldiers. It's normal human instinct to run away from gunfire not at it. So, in this way brainwashing actually works for the good - if you want to win battles and wars.  

Military and law enforcement tends to have a lot of conservative minded people. I think that's why you don't like actors today - most of them publicly express their liberal views.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 4, 2011)

Dudester said:


> Riddle me this mister talking points, Why is John Wayne the patron saint of the US Marine Corps ?



I did four years in the Corps. I don't recall anything about John Wayne to be honest with you.

Of course as an 0311 who volunteered for Security Forces during SOI, and was accepted and skated by doing all his time in Security Forces, I often was reminded by Marines coming from the Fleet that I was not touring "In the _real_ Marine Corps." :lol: Dress Blues and tennis shores and all. :lol:

So, maybe in the Fleet it's different.

Nonetheless, I've heard Chesty Puller's name so many times my ears probably should have fallen off. My memory fades after all these years (and drug and alcohol abuse) - to my great surprise - but who were some of the other ones? Dan Daily? That name sounds right in my head. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly or badly misspelling.

I'm stating all this as one formerly regarded as "A good Marine." Which as you know... carries the connotation of the type of Marine the Corps likes to re-enlist. I should have been court martialed once or more but my "Good Marine" card pulled me out the hole a number of times. :lol: It's why I never had my security clearance taken away after I got in trouble back home on leave with a 17 year old girl. And the DA was calling my CO to try and have me screwed. But that DA evidently did not understand the ways of the Corps. The Corps stood behind me. Had I been regarded as a "s*^% bird" things would have evolved much differently. 

I know comments of mine on this site like, "I respect his pimpin," would lead a jarhead to believe I was a "s*^% bird" while in the Corps. The opposite is true. My brother has reminded me once, that I once came home on leave and was going to physically harm him for talking down on the United States. I raised my voice at him - then in college and very liberal - and told him to either love the U.S. or leave it. The greatest nation on earth. :lol:

I've changed dramatically over the years - in no small part helped by crack addiction. Frankly, I don't believe anything I was formerly led to believe from grade school through my tour in the Corps. 

(With the exception of the saints in Catholicism perhaps. My views about women, country, race, power, and just about most things have changed)


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 4, 2011)

Eh... I should probably add I never had office hours although I did acquire a page 11 in my service record book. :lol:

But I think it was General Gray - who if I'm remembering correctly was the cammies wearing Commandant when I was in - that said, "You're not a real Marine until you get office hours."

So, from the old salty dog himself, I guess I was never a real Marine. :lol:

(my point being the Corps was never simply a Boy Scout organization that simply produced law abiding citizens with the moral conduct of 1950's American TV)


----------

