Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 22:55:29 GMT
Not including gay characters is not exactly the same as excluding them. I remember some feminist film critics that were bothered that "Kramer vs. Kramer" excluded a working mother. It had a working father. It was not as if dozens of other films didn't have working mothers in them. It's exactly the fucking same. A movie either has a gay character or it doesn't. Look how much these conservative assholes lost their shit when Sulu was gay in Star Trek: Beyond, even though it was barely noticeable. I actually missed it. I remember hearing he was gay, but when I finished the movie I was like, wasn't Sulu supposed to be gay? Are you saying that every movie should have a gay person in it? It sounds that way if you think any that do not have any are excluding gay people. Even George Takei (a liberal) was unhappy with somebody making Sulu gay when the part had always been written straight and George had played him that way. This was needless revisionism. Write a new gay character in...for heavens sake.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Mar 8, 2017 23:12:37 GMT
Are you saying that every movie should have a gay person in it? It sounds that way if you think any that do not have any are excluding gay people. Even George Takei (a liberal) was unhappy with somebody making Sulu gay when the part had always been written straight and George had played him that way. This was needless revisionism. Write a new gay character in...for heavens sake. Yeah, they should, just to piss off whiny repuglicans. 'Wah this movie is going to have a gay character! How dare they shove this reality based agenda down our throats!' Movies should have gay characters until the pathetic conservatives accept them as a fact of life. So the fuck what if Takei said that? Am I supposed to agree with everything he says? Do you not know what a 'reboot' is? Does Takei not know what a reboot is? I'm not sure he does. Are you really so stupid that you thought a sentence starting with 'Even George Takei' would have the slightest sway on me? What did you think I would say? "Oh, Takei said it was a bad idea, well then I agree it was stupid to make Sulu gay!" Get the fuck out of here!
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 8, 2017 23:30:03 GMT
The real humor here is the act of complaining about homosexuality in a musical.
'Cause if you took every homosexual out of every musical...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 23:36:00 GMT
Are you saying that every movie should have a gay person in it? It sounds that way if you think any that do not have any are excluding gay people. Even George Takei (a liberal) was unhappy with somebody making Sulu gay when the part had always been written straight and George had played him that way. This was needless revisionism. Write a new gay character in...for heavens sake. Yeah, they should, just to piss off whiny repuglicans. 'Wah this movie is going to have a gay character! How dare they shove this reality based agenda down our throats!' Movies should have gay characters until the pathetic conservatives accept them as a fact of life. So the fuck what if Takei said that? Am I supposed to agree with everything he says? Do you not know what a 'reboot' is? Does Takei not know what a reboot is? I'm not sure he does. Are you really so stupid that you thought a sentence starting with 'Even George Takei' would have the slightest sway on me? What did you think I would say? "Oh, Takei said it was a bad idea, well then I agree it was stupid to make Sulu gay!" Get the fuck out of here! Are you always so abrasive? My friends called me awfuleena but I think I might be far more pleasant than you in person. So you think all movies should have gay characters just to irritate politicians? That seems like you wish to weaponize movies. I think they should remain art and entertainment. Yes, I know what reboots are, and I don't like them. For that reason I have avoided all the faux Star Trek movies.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Mar 8, 2017 23:36:38 GMT
The real humor here is the act of complaining about homosexuality in a musical. 'Cause if you took every homosexual out of every musical... It's also troubling that they're more concerned with a side character being gay than the main plot being about abduction/Stockholm Syndrome/rape/bestiality.
|
|
|
Post by chalk2 on Mar 8, 2017 23:43:31 GMT
The issue of a gay character does not bother me. What is somewhat irritating is TV and Movies seem to suddenly feel the need to have a gay character in everything and pretty much throw it in your face. With the obvious exception of some, you wouldn't even know the person next to you is gay unless they told you.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Mar 8, 2017 23:48:49 GMT
The issue of a gay character does not bother me. What is somewhat irritating is TV and Movies seem to suddenly feel the need to have a gay character in everything and pretty much throw it in your face. With the obvious exception of some, you wouldn't even know the person next to you is gay unless they told you. Gay characters are not in everything, and they're not being thrown in anyone's face. You just feel that way because you're insecure.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 8, 2017 23:51:32 GMT
They aren't as important. This has nothing to do with equality for all but rather representation for a money making &/or vocal demographic.
There's probably a black dude in it too.
Plus it is entirely conceivable that a gay dude existed in France at the time the story took place.
So you think it will help the value of my shares? Nope. I'm saying that Disney is not hurt by including a demographic that has influence The shares will go up based on how well the movie does and the movie will do fine.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 8, 2017 23:59:30 GMT
Are you trying to say that homosexuality is not the loudest most aggressively publicity-seeking political movement of the C21? In the 21st century there has been an aggressive political movement. They have, among other things, flown planes into buildings in NY, blown up railway and subway stations in Madrid, London and Brussels, driven trucks through bystanders in Nice and Berlin, and shot cartoonists in Paris. Were they homosexuals? I don't think so. In fact, they are also known for throwing homosexuals from buildings.
|
|
|
Post by chalk2 on Mar 9, 2017 0:09:12 GMT
The issue of a gay character does not bother me. What is somewhat irritating is TV and Movies seem to suddenly feel the need to have a gay character in everything and pretty much throw it in your face. With the obvious exception of some, you wouldn't even know the person next to you is gay unless they told you. Gay characters are not in everything, and they're not being thrown in anyone's face. You just feel that way because you're insecure. Not at all. You find they are portrayed in an overly gay manner that most gay people do not behave in. I have a family member who is gay, has a partner, and has 3 children. If they stood next to you, you would never in your wildest dreams think they were gay. That's because they simply live as they are. Normal people. They are not so overtly in your face about the fact they are gay no more than anyone who's straight is about their sexuality.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Mar 9, 2017 0:18:58 GMT
Gay characters are not in everything, and they're not being thrown in anyone's face. You just feel that way because you're insecure. Not at all. You find they are portrayed in an overly gay manner that most gay people do not behave in. I have a family member who is gay, has a partner, and has 3 children. If they stood next to you, you would never in your wildest dreams think they were gay. That's because they simply live as they are. Normal people. They are not so overtly in your face about the fact they are gay no more than anyone who's straight is about their sexuality. That's just anecdotal. You don't know enough gay people to know what is normal gay behavior. Besides, TV and movies are supposed to be funny and/or dramatic with memorable characters, not boring like your boring gay brother.
|
|
|
Post by chalk2 on Mar 9, 2017 0:30:10 GMT
Not at all. You find they are portrayed in an overly gay manner that most gay people do not behave in. I have a family member who is gay, has a partner, and has 3 children. If they stood next to you, you would never in your wildest dreams think they were gay. That's because they simply live as they are. Normal people. They are not so overtly in your face about the fact they are gay no more than anyone who's straight is about their sexuality. That's just anecdotal. You don't know enough gay people to know what is normal gay behavior. Besides, TV and movies are supposed to be funny and/or dramatic with memorable characters, not boring like your boring gay brother. 1) Not all are comedies. 2) You don't know who I know - stands to reason I would know many with family that is. 3) I never said whether it is he or she. You're far too presumptive.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Mar 9, 2017 0:38:04 GMT
That's just anecdotal. You don't know enough gay people to know what is normal gay behavior. Besides, TV and movies are supposed to be funny and/or dramatic with memorable characters, not boring like your boring gay brother. 1) Not all are comedies. 2) You don't know who I know - stands to reason I would know many with family that is. 3) I never said whether it is he or she. You're far too presumptive. I didn't say all are comedies you dumb fuck. I said funny and/or dramatic. Do you know what and/or means? You made it clear you have limited familiarity with gay people. I'm glad you brought up the not-mentioned gender. I assigned one because you were deliberately evasive about it, which indicates you're subconsciously ashamed of that person's sexuality. You can say a lot when you avoid saying anything at all.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 9, 2017 0:44:36 GMT
This reminds me of when all the Baptists wouldn't allow their kids to go and see the Harry Potter movies because there was evil, witchcraft and occult stuff in them...work of the Devil etc!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 9, 2017 0:49:37 GMT
You love to say this, but when asked you never, ever provide any such evidence. Therefore, I conclude that this is something that actually just wish were true. If by "evidence" you mean "on TV," no it isn't on TV yet. It does not speak well for your understanding of science that you must wait for it to appear on TV.
|
|
|
Post by chalk2 on Mar 9, 2017 0:53:05 GMT
You are still being the presumptive dumb fuck. I have made it clear what my familiarity is when I spoke of family. It stands to reason I would then know a lot of gay people bonehead. I encouraged my sibling to be who they are so am certainly not ashamed of them. You are not entitled to know any more than I give but being the self-righteous prick you clearly are, you believe you should know everything.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Mar 9, 2017 0:57:25 GMT
You are still being the presumptive dumb fuck. I have made it clear what my familiarity is when I spoke of family. It stands to reason I would then know a lot of gay people bonehead. I encouraged my sibling to be who they are so am certainly not ashamed of them. You are not entitled to know any more than I give but being the self-righteous prick you clearly are, you believe you should know everything. Your refusal to indicate the gender indicates you don't like talking about this person, which indicates you're not particularly fond of them, which - when coupled with the fact that you're siblings - indicates that you're ashamed of their sexuality, which indicates you don't spend a lot of time with them and are not familiar with multiple gay people. Q.E.D. A normal - as in, not ashamed - person would have said something more like 'I have a gay brother, I know a bunch of his gay friends and they're normal.' But no, you're deliberately evasive. The act of hiding can be very revealing. You're like a kid covered in chocolate and crumbs saying "I didn't eat the cookies!"
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Mar 9, 2017 1:00:27 GMT
You are still being the presumptive dumb fuck. I have made it clear what my familiarity is when I spoke of family. It stands to reason I would then know a lot of gay people bonehead. I encouraged my sibling to be who they are so am certainly not ashamed of them. You are not entitled to know any more than I give but being the self-righteous prick you clearly are, you believe you should know everything. I almost commented on your post too. Just because for many people just having a gay character is interpreted as 'having their face shoved in it'. Maybe you're different, but that phrase always make me think the person is overly sensitive and personalizes things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2017 1:00:36 GMT
You love to say this, but when asked you never, ever provide any such evidence. Therefore, I conclude that this is something that actually just wish were true. If by "evidence" you mean "on TV," no it isn't on TV yet. It does not speak well for your understanding of science that you must wait for it to appear on TV. Gosh, you had no answer so you just made a whole "TV" thing up out of whole cloth and pretended I said it. Hmmm, can I do that? When you say "science", you mean "licking goat genitals". It's a shame you want to lick goat genitals before you can believe anything. Hey, this is fun!
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Mar 9, 2017 1:27:19 GMT
Judging by the length of your response this is a very sensitive issue for you Arlon. That's too bad.. I was starting to think you were a pretty smart guy.
|
|