Wedding Wars

I know there was a thread on it already but it got a little diluted. So here's a place for you to post your review and thoughts.

I finally got around to watching it. The recording was taunting me on my DVR every time I switched it on. And to be honest, I didn't expect much because I didn't want to be disappointed. And even with my low expectations, I couldn't have been more disappointed. :(

My random thoughts...

It was a steaming, heaping pile of crap!

It was obvious to me that not one single gay person was involved with the production of the movie. It was like a fucking high school play and even less subtle. The stereotypes that we were joking about in the other thread... they were in the movie in spades.

The only gay character that got any real screen time was John Stamos' character. And this was a "gay" movie?!

The only gay kiss in the movie was about as romantic as an Aunt's kiss at Christmas.

John Stamos couldn't have been less convincing as a gay man. Can he even act? I can't bear to watch ER, so I may never know.

The only fun and original thought in the movie... about gay people going on strike, got very little play. Wouldn't you like to see what country would be like if that happened? It got about 2 minutes in the entire 2 hour movie and that included a graphic of flags popping up across a map... indicating the strike's spread across the country.

Some very uncomfortable moments...
- The main character dancing with his brother at the reception. EEEWWW!
- The main character's boyfriend watches the news and sees a political candidate talking about how gay marriage would cause people to marry their dogs. He looks at the dog and says "Don't even think about it." Then he wakes up the next morning with his arm draped across his dog who is laying on his/her back with it's legs apart. WHAT THE FUCK?! I think it was suppose to be funny but all I could do was try to suppress my gag reflex.
- The evil but nice governor goes for a night stroll in his yard and happens across John Stamos peeing on the other side of the tree that he's peeing on. It was completely unnecessary and didn't develop the plot even the tiniest amount. Just another ICK moment in a movie chock full of them.

Some "scratch your head" moments...
- Why did the very sensible bride let the replacement wedding planner do such tasteless things? Oh, I get it! It was comic relief. How stupid of me. You could tell that they wanted to cast Kathy Najimi for the part but she obviously had the good sense to STAY AWAY.
- Why did the "strike" crowd get to camp on the governor's property? We all know from Camp Casey that politicians don't allow that. Protesters only get to camp in the ditches.
- Why would the president attend the governor's daughter's wedding in the first place? We can assume the governor was a democrat because his opponent was a raging conservative. Both candidates were (not surprisingly) anti-gay marriage. But everyone is glaringly aware that inter-party socialization doesn't happen anymore.
- The main character poo-poos civil unions and equates it to riding at the back of the bus. And then he says that civil unions have none of the legal benefits of marriage. Excuse me?! They have very similar benefits as marriage except for not being recognized by other states as legally binding. Give me an inch and I'll take it a mile.
- The happy ending... the governor walks down to the lake during the reception with Mr. Stamos' character. The governor says I only said I was anti-gay marriage to get reelected. HAHA! Isn't hypocrosy funny? HAHA!


Oh I could go on! Why did I waste 2 hours watching it and then 20 more minutes bitching about it? Because it PISSED ME OFF. That's why. :D

I have to agree with every point you made. I would almost compare it to a Disney movie for kids, but I think even they could of handled this much better... they don't always have a happy ending to their movies. What could of been a very dramatic movie was made into something shallow and humourous - at our expense.

there are very few "gay-theme" movies produced in "mainstream" which are any good and/or "present" gay's in a positive light (i would hate to be a teen in the midwest and have to rely on "birdcage" , "to wong fu , love julie newmar" , "etc. to be my "rolemodels" in developing my "character")
now if you took something like "armagedon" had "b*uce willis" as the lead gay character with "b*n affleck" as "the boy-toy always in trouble" threw in the "the spike bar" oil rigging crew (there needs to be alot more "shirtless" and "scantly-clad" clothing scenes , perhaps nude swimming for this to truly be "box-office" effective!) and had them save the world for all of mankind (gays and straights alike) proving once and for all that not all gays are "hairstylists" and "limp-wristed" fairy-wand carrying nymphomaniacs spreading our message of "style" and "gay-conversion" to men & women across the land. (the deleted scene would be liv tyler as the stripper in a men's club who is a lesbian who must endure the indignities of not only being a "piece of meat" but also must hide her sexuality in order to "turn a buck!")
i don't see "heterowood" changing anytime soon (not enough stars "comming-out") so probably the best way to "combat" this would be not to "support" this type of media (the only thing hollywood understands is ticket sales so hit them where it hurts!) and write "negatively" to keep others from it. (this unfortunately does not always work , you tell someone something is bad and they go to see it , to see "just how bad" it is!)

sincerely ~ ..."a band of hairstylists"... :fool:

I have to say, i only caught the first 5-10 minutes of it because Sleeper Cell was on, i didnt have very high expectations because it was on 'A&E' but its nice to see my expectations of what it was going to be were met :)

Perhaps i wont catch it on a re-run after all.

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bec

I would almost compare it to a Disney movie for kids...

---

That comment hits the nail on the head! A really bad Disney movie for kids. Lol

I generally disagree with gay people who scream "bloody murder" about things like this. To me, anyone who thought that Brokeback Mountain was bad for gays has their head up their own ass. Most of the time, these movies aren't created FOR the gay community. They are put together with the intentions of hoping to open up the minds of others. Therefore, I think it beehoves us not to get all bent out of shape when gay sexuality isn't represented as authentically as we live it.

The black community went through the same thing. First it was that most black characters were presented as slaves, then servants, then they started getting their own films, but they were all exploitation films (which, as we know, some black people claim were empowering, while others dismiss them as being very racist), then they started playing more flattering roles, but only in supporting turns. And finally, they started to get lead roles in mainstream films in which they were presented the same as whites. Today black people are more fully represented in films, and often carry films completely. But even black actors still claim that the roles aren't forthcoming enough for their tastes.

It's going to be the same way with the gay community. Our "gaysploitation" period didn't really hit until much more recently, in the late '90s and early '00s, and we're still pretty much in the post-gaysploitation period. (Interestingly enough, however, it's worth noting that OUR period of exploitation came at the hands of our own people, not the straight community. Many of the HORRIBLE representations of the gay community have come directly from gay filmmakers whose visions of their own people were rather limited in scope and depth. And this is still going on. I mean, just look at Noah's Ark on Logo and Dante's Cove on here! to see just what kind of "three dimensional, accurate" GAY-CREATED gay programming is going on.)

At any rate, we still have some catching up to do until we are more fully and authentically integrated into movies and TV created by and (most importantly) FOR the mainstream. There are still going to be silly movies like Wedding Wars, but instead of us attacking them as not being fully representative of our community, we need to view them and accept them and tolerate them for what they are -- harmless, well-meaning, diplomatic and SAFE movies intended to increase visibilty of gay characters in order to make way for more challenging and fully realized stories and characters.

It's not going to happen overnight. Sometimes we just have to take it all with a grain of salt and go, "Oh, those silly straight people. One day they'll get it." At least that's what I think.