Looks like Mickey Rourke is about to "Norbitt" himself out of an Oscar

I couple of years ago Eddie Murphey looked like he was a shoo-in for an Oscar for his best supporting actor role in "Dream Girls". But a few weeks before the Oscar, one of the worst and most insultingly bad Murphey movies came out and reminded Oscar voters what a bad actor Murphey really is. (Murphey won the Golden Globe but lost the Oscar to Alan Arkin).

I have a feeling this little trip to wrestle in the WWE is going to end up costing Rouke an Oscar - it'll remind the voters what a nutjob he is and that this role was probably a fluke. My guess is it will go to Sean Penn for his great performance in "Milk". Or 3 of the others who haven't won but had great performances this year (Langella, Pitt and Jenkins).

Someone should have cautioned Rourke to not do this publicity stunt until AFTER the Oscars. But Rourke is showing what an idiot he always has been and will probably watch someone else take home the Oscars for this year.

I think he could handle himself in a pro wrestling ring.

Also, fuck the Oscars. His performance can probably be credited more to Aronofsky's directing, which is brilliant. But of course, Aronofsky didn't get a best director nod. The Academy is useless.

How much does WWE pay for Wrestlemania performance?

Mickey doesn't need the money but hey if they are offering it :shrug:

A film like "The Wrestler" would increase dramatically in sales and viewings if Rourke wins, and his offers for new roles would also improve because of his increased marketability. Probably more than the WWE would pay him, or rather, more than it will pay him in the brief period between now and the Oscars, after which he could then take the job.

But he's Mickey Rourke. Would we love him if he were different? (Assuming we love him now, that is).

Good point. Mickey has been picking up a lot of roles in the last few years a lot of which seems to be that people who were huge fans of his back in the day are now in the positions to make their own films and they want Mickey.

:wow:

Nothing against Aronofsky per se; I heard him on Fresh Air and he seems like a nice, very grounded guy. But Pi remains one of the most self-serious, overblown, and pretentious productions I've ever seen.

Thought so.


:eyes:

So they went with black and white, which in the end suited the narrative much better anyway.

Meandering story, ponderous voiceover, and pretentious mathematical imagery.

Fibonaccian cream-swirls in coffee? Puh-leeze!


The only thing more pretentious would be making a film with a ridiculous title like Requiem for a Dream, which--as titles go--is almost as bad as A Quantum of Solace.

How is the story meandering? It's not even an hour and a half long and there aren't really any tangential plotlines going on. And the whole film is about math, how is using imagery to illustrate that pretentious?

It's clear that we're going to have to agree to disagree. I see it as the work of a director out-to-impress, and you see it as impressive.

What a wanker!

Yeah, agree to disagree.

The problem is in the failing.

I love the namechange amnesty and its corresponding siglines!

:P

:evilgrin:

but it sure makes people irrational.

Interesting mathematical tidbit: American Pi is an irrational number, just like the metric version of pi, but it's value is slightly different: approximately 3.14158675309....

When he started getting critical acclaim, he tossed it to make dumb pop flicks to look cool. When he started selling as a pop actor, he tossed it to box. I can't figure if he just considers success undesirable, maybe views it as selling out, or if he just feels like once he's proven he can do something he has no more desire to do it.

Either way, he's an idiot loser I love to see succeed.

But because he won't ever, the Oscars mean shit.

Or Robin Hood. Who can forget the chilling reality of his "and cancel Christmas" declaration?

Rickman could win an Oscar if he ever put himself into a situation to win one. Actors respect him, the public likes him, and he's done a good mix of popular and artistic films.

But when has he done a performance that was clearly better than the others around him? I can't think of any. Oscars are given for individual performances, not for a lifetime of ability.

He does a lot of independent films, so he is mostly ignored.

:rofl: He even stands out in Harry Potter and Love Actually alongside stellar casts, but those still aren't Oscar caliber performances. He also seems somewhat humble, and doesn't take the showy roles. I still can't think of a role where he should have won but was beaten by a lesser performance.

There are a lot of actors who should win Oscars but haven't just because their best performances come against other great performances. John Goodman is one. He should have at least gotten nominated for "The Big Lebowski" and "Barton Fink," but he was up against knockout fields both times.

I don't agree with a lot of Oscars. John Goodman was better than Jack Palance in 98, but so what? The Academy sometimes gives out awards for a really good performance after a lifetime of good roles. A nomination or award means an actor has done a worthy job, but the lack of an Oscar doesn't mean an actor hasn't. I'm interested in the Oscars because it's interesting to see what the industry values in itself, and what performances the industry sees as significant, but it doesn't have any significance in any absolute sense.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250716/


And I agree with you. The main point of the Oscars is to see what the industry thinks. It's all about who sells.

It's more about what the industry likes about itself, or what they want to reward. They are like any professional organization. Like salespeople. What an outsider might think makes a great salesperson--honest, integrity, knowledge of product, lack of BS, etc--wouldn't be what impressed other salespeople. For them it would be technique and creativity, but it also might be something more immediate, like a useful solution to a common problem for the times--a better way to sell luxury items in a recession, for instance. And it might be something else, like admiration of a respected colleague who has struggled with personal issues but made a triumphant comeback.

That's what people forget about the Oscars. These are insiders giving awards based on insider criteria. There's no need to give awards for what sells, because the money itself is the reward, and the clearest measure of what sells. And there's no real way to decide what is best, since that's objective. So it all gets mixed in, and the industry decides what impresses them. That's why films like "Return of the King" win Oscars--not because it was the best directed film of the year, but because the industry knows how difficult and impressive it was to pull off such a major feat. Or Braveheart, which was an average film in a sucky year for films. The industry awarded it for being ambitious and for succeeding on all the little stuff--costumes, casting, effects, battle scenes.

And sometimes the industry understands things better than the general public, like giving Tom Cruise nominations when the general public fails to see the skill in what he does, or giving Russel Crowe the Oscar for "Gladiator," when the general audience missed the subtlety of his performance. Or Judi Dench, in "Shakespeare in Love." In cases like that, the award sometimes goes to someone the industry realizes did an underappreciated job.

If it were just popularity or selling, I think Rickman would have a better shot, since he's an odd combination of respected by peers and popular with audiences. There's all kinds of insider stuff and personal emotions in their decisions, though.

Just my thoughts. Keeps me from thinking about my job, which I'm avoiding doing. :)

:evilgrin:

I'm going to the movie to see Marisa tomie nakid'

without having to do that type of stunt.

Larry, of course, is a withered punchline, but Rourke was surprisingly entertaining. He's humble and self-effacing in a way that he wasn't, back when he was the flavor of the month. You get the sense now that he didn't (or doesn't) enjoy his image from those old days, but he's a wiser man for having come through it.

He spoke very highly of the WWE and Vince McMahon, even expressing his concern that his performance would be seen as a mockery of them. However, he was welcomed into the fold ("you're one of us now," Rourke quoted them as saying).

An interesting interview. Even worth stomaching King for a few minutes, which is really saying something!

God forbid the guy enjoy his opportunities.

If he's doing this for his own enjoyment then I think it's cool he places more importance on that than awards / money.

Plus, as has been my long-standing opinion, the Oscars are a farce anyway. I don't care how much recognition they get, they're bullshit.

I find I usually tend to agree with you on these matters.

:P

If he is doing it for fun, then more power to him. If it is for publicity, I don't think he needs it. He has really wowed the Hollywood crowd again. I am glad to see him "back". He never really left, but still.

the majority of the cast), and they for him, likely due to his boxing career as well as the fact that he's spent some time living in marginal, humbling circumstances like the character in the film.

It could be as simple as, pro wrestlers like Rourke and his honest portrayal of the character and have adopted him as one of them, and invited him to their event because they like him, and he agreed because he likes them.

Pretty much impossible to fault him for if you've seen the film. Rourke has been through enough (granted largely self inflicted) that whether or not the Academy gives a crap about him going to some WWE event probably doesn't register on his concern radar.

Don't know when his last acting gig was before this movie.

Where the hell was he getting the dough for plastic surgery?

and I think he does deserve it.

This venture into Wrestlemania will do nothing buy hype his movie and drive up his ticket sales, making him be the star of a blockbuster film beloved by critics instead of the star of a cult film beloved by critics.

I mean, it's not like he was a pro wrestler before he did this movie.

And snubbed lots of people who do.