Alert! Mickey Rourke, (Sin City) on O'reilly Factor tonight!

[wonderfly]

Hey, I just got done watching the O'rielly Factor tonight, and Mickey Rourke of Sin City was on it. The topic was movie violence, and why it seems like the more violent the movie is, the more "thumbs up" it seems to get from movie critics. What was really interesting was that Rourke, (in preparation for his appearance on the O'Rielly Factor) called up Frank Miller today, and asked Frank to give a quote to Bill O'Rielly. So Rourke handed Bill a piece of paper from Frank Miller, and Bill read it. So in a way, Frank Miller was on TV tonight! ;)

The first airing of tonight's show has already passed, but if you're interested, you can catch the rebroadcast at 11 pm Eastern Standard Time, 10:00 pm Central Time, and I don't believe the show has aired yet in the Mountain and Pacific Time Zones. So tune in and come back here and discuss!

I'll bring up what they specifically said later on, I figured I'd give everyone a chance to see the segment first. This specific segment of the show airs in the last 15 to 20 minutes of the show, so now you know what time to look out for...

I put this in the Comic Book Culture forum because of interest to me was that they brought up Frank Miller and the original comic, but if a moderator deems it, I suppose it could be moved to the Entertainment forums, (or wherever...)

[randomguy]

I put this in the Comic Book Culture forum because of interest to me was that they brought up Frank Miller and the original comic, but if a moderator deems it, I suppose it could be moved to the Entertainment forums, (or wherever...)I've taken the liberty of mirroring it on the Entertainment Board, for all the folks who saw the Sin City movie but don't frequent the CBC.

Anyhow, this sounds most interesting. Thank you very much for the heads-up. I appreciate it.

There's already been a decent amount of debate on the Sin City talkback thread regarding the film's violence, so I'd say it's a valid area of discussion. It'll be interesting to see what opinions O'Reilly, Rourke, and Miller bring to the table, and how everyone here reacts to them. I'll try get a transcript of the interview, either from O'Reilly's site or from the Nexis, for anyone who can't catch this segment.

Do remember to keep it civil though, folks.

[wonderfly]

Well, it should've aired in all timezones by now. For those of you that missed it, I'll try and do a summary. But anyway, here's my thoughts:

I've seen Bill attack Hollywood before now, and sometimes it gets messy. And truthfully, sometimes Hollywood needs attacked. But I think Bill misunderstands what these movies are supposed to be like. Not every film is supposed to be wholesome entertainment. I saw a segment a couple years back where he was complaining about the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Kill Bill vol. 1, and he got into a fight with a Hollywood scriptwriter. The guy accused Bill of endorsing censorship, and it wasn't pretty.

This time around, things went much smoother. I think it's because Bill knew he was going to be painted a censorship freak, (which I don't believe is true), and I think he wanted to give Mickey Rourke the benefit of the doubt.

Rourke's hair was totally goofy tonight. I for one wish he had come in wearing the "Marv" Prostetic. That would've rocked. :cool:

Bill basically phrased it like this: Back in the 1970's, when we had violent films like Dirty Harry, the film critics hated those type films, calling Clint a Fascist, (Bill's a big Clint Eastwood fan, mind you). Now the films are even more violent, and yet now, they're getting big thumbs up the more violent they are. Bill asked Rourke just why that is. Rourke just shrugged it off as the changing of the times.

Rourke really didn't paint himself as the brightest of guys. From what I've heard of the man, he's a bit of a Hollywood drunkard, (he very much fits the Marv persona). His answers were mostly one liners, and he kept glancing around. He seemed a bit tense given his surroundings. But he was pleasant and so was Bill.

Rourke at one point said this film was better than other comic book films like Spiderman and Superman. I forget the context of why he brought those other films up.

Bill asked why Rourke would star in a film like this, and Rourke said because he's worked with Director Rodriguez before, and he's enjoyed it. He says he'll do any film if he's working with a good director or with a good cast. Rourke went on to say that he had been in contact with Frank Miller today, and he wrote down a quote from Miller. So he pulls out this piece of scrap paper, and asks Bill to read it because "You're probably a better reader than I am." Again, Rourke wasn't really suceeding in portraying himself as an intellectual. So Bill reads the note which basically says, "There has always been violence in films. Without violence, there would be no great films like Seven Samurai." And Bill folded up the note, (I'm not sure if there was more words on it, and Bill just cut Frank Miller short) and said, "Okay, I can see your point, but that's not my concern."

Bill's concern is the children who don't have guidance from parents, and who see this film. Bill asked Rourke if he had any kids. Rourke said no. Bill asked if he had a 16 year old son, would he let the son see this film. Rourke said, "16? Yes." Bill asked why. Rourke said, "Because they should be able to tell that it's based off a comic book. It's a very comic book style film."

Bill said, "But I hear it has cannabalism in it." Rourke said, "But it's tongue in cheek." Bill said, "Literally!" and they both got a laugh. :sweat:

That's basically how the interview went down. Overall, it was kinda mundane. I was expecting the knock down drag out fight that Bill gave the last time he approached the subject of Hollywood violence.

Knowing Frank Miller like I do, he hates censorship in any form. So I'm sure he was watching Bill tonight, (especially since Rourke called to ask for help) but I would like to think that Miller, (while probably cussing Bill) would be satisfied that Bill didn't grind Sin city down as being "evil" or something...

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

For those who missed Mickey on O'Reilly, FoxNews.com has posted a partial transcript (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153191,00.html) which was edited for clarity.

-- Ed/Ace

[screw on head]

Thanks for that link, Ace!

I won't be able to see it tonight, so thank God for that transcript. I saw Mickey Rourke on David Letterman last night, and all he talked about was his dog :sweat:, so it's nice to read some talk about the movie.

I'm not much of a Bill O'Reilly fan at all. I must admit I'm a little surprised with how smoothly that interview went. My favorite part is of course when Bill O'Reilly's hot on discussing the subject of violence in the film, but then once O'Reilly reads the quote from Frank Miller, he shys away with:


I'm not going to disagree with that. I'm more interested, though, in the actors.What? :D At least he's consistant...

[Anthonynotes]

Fox News?! Ewwww...

Mickey Rourke was on last night's episode of "The Tonight Show". I'd forgotten how, well, haggard he's looked in recent years (vs. the fairly handsome man he was in the 80's)---guess sinking into B-list celebritydom (or the steroids I heard he was taking at some point) took its toll...

-B.

[Sharklady]

I do hope you 'Sin City' fans caught the story about it on 'Sixty Minutes 2' this evening (5/13). It was mostly about how they did the special effects.

[randomguy]

Well, having watched the entire interview, I actually thought it was kind of anticlimatic. I disagree with O'Reilly's central thesis, which, if I understand it correctly, is that today's critics are somehow more receptive to violence. I don't think that's accurate at all.

I wasn't crazy about the way he brushed off Frank Miller's comments, only taking a small amount of time to read a portion of them. As wonderfly said, Mickey Rourke is hardly the most articulate guy, so Miller's opinions would have been nice to hear more of. Oh well.

All in all, it was a pretty toothless segment that didn't really seem to say much or go anywhere. The movie wasn't made out to be a representation of society's ills or anything like that, though, which is a plus.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


I do hope you 'Sin City' fans caught the story about it on 'Sixty Minutes 2' this evening (5/13). It was mostly about how they did the special effects.
Courtesy of the Beat, here's the link to the 60 Minutes story transcript (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/12/60II/main687601.shtml).

The fact that O'Reilly completely (and clumsily) changed the subject after reading some of Frank Miller's comments was not lost on me, but that's only more evidence to me that he's a just a rotten journalist before you get to any accusations of partisanship.

-- Ed/Ace

[wonderfly]

The fact that O'Reilly completely (and clumsily) changed the subject after reading some of Frank Miller's comments was not lost on me, but that's only more evidence to me that he's a just a rotten journalist before you get to any accusations of partisanship.

-- Ed/Ace
Well, I'm not going to argue partisanship either, but maybe it was more O'Reilly saying "Look Rourke, if you're not going to come in here and fight your own battles, I'm not going to read off what you had others write up for you." Yeah, O'Rielly blew off the note from Miller, but I think he did so because he felt it silly for Rourke to be passing notes on live television. It made for an ackward segment.