Guest NGOG Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Mickey Rourke didn't play himself, he performed a character which mirrored his own personal storyline. That's what it made it so powerful.I like Sean Penn, Mickey Rourke would never be able to do something like I Am Sam. That said, the only reason they gave Penn the Oscar is because he portrayed a theme which might shed the Academy's conservative image.Mickey Rourke was openly disillusioned by the industry for over a decade. The same industry was more than prepared to support that self-imposed period of exile. Why? Because they can't hack anybody criticizing the industry's questionable creativity/integrity. They were never going to reward somebody that defied Hollywood by getting back into the game through the immense public affection he garners.He tried his hand at boxing during that time Have you ever read about who he sparred?He was actually three fights away from challenging for a belt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Critics and the box office disagree with you, brah.Can you explain to me why the film was crap?What's this? A hipster using critical consensus and commercial success as an indication of quality? I'm disappointed in you Daniel!!!! How...ironic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bards Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Mickey Rourke didn't play himself, he performed a character which mirrored his own personal storyline. That's what it made it so powerful.I like Sean Penn, Mickey Rourke would never be able to do something like I Am Sam. That said, the only reason they gave Penn the Oscar is because he portrayed a theme which might shed the Academy's conservative image.Mickey Rourke was openly disillusioned by the industry for over a decade. The same industry was more than prepared to support that self-imposed period of exile. Why? Because they can't hack anybody criticizing the industry's questionable creativity/integrity. They were never going to reward somebody that defied Hollywood by getting back into the game through the immense public affection he garners.He tried his hand at boxing during that time Have you ever read about who he sparred?He was actually three fights away from challenging for a belt.Um, no. Rourke's a great actor, but his pro boxing career was nothing to write about. He was given scrubs the whole way and never looked all that impressive even against minimal competition. Rumours persisted that a few guys were paid to fall down. He also fought internationally or in states with lax athletic commissions just so he would be licensed. No reputable athletic commission would have licensed him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelica Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 He also completely fucked his face up with boxing and the resulting plastic surgeries, which is why is comeback fizzled. He is a great actor, but he flushed the career he could've had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted November 16, 2013 Share Posted November 16, 2013 The Social Network was great. Not sure if I'd call it Best Picture worthy, but maybe in the discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NGOG Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 (edited) Um, no. Rourke's a great actor, but his pro boxing career was nothing to write about. According to himself, when speaking to David Haye, he was three fights away from getting a championship fight. Then again you might claim obviously he's going to say that. It would be pretty easy to dispute such a notion however and nobody has. What you clearly aren't aware of either (or are ignoring the significance of) is that Mickey was fighting in a really competitive division - super-middleweight. He had the intention of moving up to cruiserweight but that was ultimately prevented by a concerning neurological. Edited November 17, 2013 by NGOG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NGOG Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 He also completely fucked his face up with boxing and the resulting plastic surgeries, which is why is comeback fizzled. He is a great actor, but he flushed the career he could've had.Who cares? He pursued what is heart was then in. That wasn't acting, it was boxing.It's also unfair to say that he 'fucked his own face up'. He simply (and unfortunately) trusted an incredibly incompetent plastic surgeon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuloputas Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 forrest gump was such a shitty movie. it didn't deserve any award. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bards Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Um, no. Rourke's a great actor, but his pro boxing career was nothing to write about.According to himself, when speaking to David Haye, he was three fights away from getting a championship fight. Then again you might claim obviously he's going to say that. It would be pretty easy to dispute such a notion however and nobody has. What you clearly aren't aware of either (or are ignoring the significance of) is that Mickey was fighting in a really competitive division - super-middleweight. He had the intention of moving up to cruiserweight but that was ultimately prevented by a concerning neurological.Every also-ran fighter was supposedly right on the door of a title shot if not for [insert excuse here].You're saying had he moved up a weight class he would have done better? You're really blaming his lack of skill on the weight cut? Come on man. Did you watch those fights? He's just not that good. Besides, it's not like he was fighting anybody who was any good in the division he chose, the depth of the division wasn't a factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted November 18, 2013 Author Share Posted November 18, 2013 Kim Basinger won Oscar for LA Confidential? LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmarBradley Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Kim Basinger won Oscar for LA Confidential? LOL.I thought your post was a joke so I looked it up............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Many felt James Stewart's Oscar for The Philadelphia Story was awarded to him to make up for his loss the previous year for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. 1939 was probably one of the toughest calls in the history of the Oscars. They also had Olivier for Wuthering Heights, Clark Gable for Gone with the Wind, Robert Donat for Goodbye, Mr. Chips and Mickey Rooney for who knows what.The Oscar went to Donat which was a surprise because everyone thought Stewart had the best chance. So Stewart gets the Oscar next year, snubbing his friend Henry Fonda who should have won for The Grapes of Wrath. He finally got his Oscar in 1981 for On Golden Pond. I am sure Warren Beatty was pleased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted November 18, 2013 Author Share Posted November 18, 2013 Kim Basinger won Oscar for LA Confidential? LOL.I thought your post was a joke so I looked it up.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................I couldn't believe it either. Julianne Moore should have won for Boogie Nights. The "Best Actress in a Supporting Role" category in 1998 was pretty weak though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NGOG Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 (edited) You're saying had he moved up a weight class he would have done better?No - I have never claimed that Mickey was a world-class fighter. I'm merely pointing out that he and Freddie Roach were en route to a title fight. Does a title-fight automatically mean you're an accomplished fighter? Mickey fought something like 8 fights in a highly competitive super-middleweight division. He was moving up to cruiserweight in order to engineer a title shot. Having won 8 fights at super-middlewight, 3 fights at cruiserweight would have almost guaranteed him a title fight (especially because of the high-profile nature of his short-lived career). Edited November 18, 2013 by NGOG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Henry Fonda who should have won for The Grapes of Wrath.My Uncle Ray used to refer to his haemorrhoids as the grapes of wrath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bards Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 (edited) Does a title-fight automatically mean you're an accomplished fighter?Yeah, that's kind of the idea. Is this really a question?Mickey fought something like 8 fights in a highly competitive super-middleweight division.But fought no one of note. It makes no difference how deep the division is if you're fighting scrubs.Having won 8 fights at super-middlewight, 3 fights at cruiserweight would have almost guaranteed him a title fight (especially because of the high-profile nature of his short-lived career).You're pulling that out of your ass. Orlin Norris was cruiserweight champ at the time with a 42-3 record. Rourke had a handful of fights against nobodies. That would have been a mismatch that would make Tyson-McNeeley look like a bona fide superfight.Again, Rourke's a great actor and good on him for chasing a boxing dream if that's what he wanted to do. He just wasn't very good at it and romanticizing it is at odds with what actually happened. Edited November 18, 2013 by Bards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NGOG Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Mickey Rourke wouldn't have been the first average fighter that got a title fight.Norris was never the undisputed cruiserweight champion. He was WBA champion. Rourke could have fought for a lesser championship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Three 6 Mafia... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sabbath Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 PLOT TWIST: This thread is not about Mikey Rourke being a fighter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 This might be a controversial post but whatever.........The year Russell Crowe won the Oscar for best actor in Gladiator there was huge buzz that it would probably go to Denzel Washington for The Hurricane. It was supposed to be this glorious moment when a black man finally won the Oscar for a leading role but he was "robbed" and it was given to Russell Crowe. Cue people all over the world playing the race card as to why Denzel didn't get the award. Saying he didn't win because he was black.The following year Russell Crowe deserved the Oscar for A Beautiful Mind BUT they gave the Oscar to Denzel Washington for his performance in Training Day which was an absolute joke when you consider his performance was no better than Ethan Hawke's in the same movie. They basically just gave Denzel Washington an Oscar he didn't deserve as a make up call for the previous year. He basically won it because he was black. It also fit so nicely with them giving the Oscar for best actress to Halle Berry as well the same year. I always thought that was such a cheap and contrived way to make a point of saying "we at the Academy are not racists. See we gave best actress and best actor awards to black people this year....." blah blah blah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelica Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 (edited) Denzel should've won in 1992 for Malcolm X, but lost to Pacino for his relentless hamming and wholesale scenery gulping in Scent of a Woman because Pacino didn't win for any of the 70s performances he actually deserved to win for. There's all kinds if bullshit politicking with that bunch. See Scorsese finally winning for The Departed of all things, too. Edited November 19, 2013 by Angelica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 The English Patient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.