What is up with all the gay stuff?
Why did we need to see the gay kiss or the gay man dressed like a woman so much? I thought it was about Woodstock. The movie bored me from start to finish.
shareLOL because no "gay stuff" happened at woodstock.
i was born in the mother fu_king 1990's and i obviously understand that era more than you do.
it was called the sexual revolution for a reason.
not the "let's make sure no one is uncomfortable and be loving married straight couples" revolution.
because guess what, then it wouldn't be anything special or.. revolutionary!
stupid people. god damn it. read about american fu_king history.
Signature.
THE L WORD FOREVER.
HAHA agreed.
"Sometimes it's right to do the wrong thing, and right now is one of those times."
it was called the sexual revolution for a reason.
Here's the point (and either no one is succinctly making it or several people aren't bright enough to digest it):
You are correct, the 60's were the period of the sexual revolution, and there is no problem with gay folks at Woodstock.
Here is the issue;
Let's start with a cliche, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".
In other words, using some cinematic subtlty, the guy can be clearly gay without sucking some other rump ranger's tongue down his throat on camera.
Have you ever noticed that the more successful and popular horror films keep gore at more subtle artistic levels?
Because I suspect you and a few others on this board are not exactly the sharpest tools in the drawer, I'm going to connect all these dots for you and draw the conclusion for you...
If only a small minority of people (filmgoers, film critics, the population of the world, etc) are actually gay, then making a film that goes past subtlty on the gay display is naturally a recipe for disaster.
Oh by the way, the fact that this particular film did very poorly should sufficiently prove my point.
The lesson being:
Try and cram a minority position down the throat of the majority and failure can be assured.
Gee, I sure hope I don't offend the twisted elbow with this dose of logic and common sense.
[deleted]
Also, how is two guys kissing too vulgar? I could understand if you were 10 it might seem gross, but honestly, any adult should be able to watch that without flinching. Well, unless you're overtly religious or "sensitive". ;)
Thank you for asking...First, I'm considerably older than 10, and I'm not
over(t)ly religious or sensitive.
Second, I never said that I found two guys kissing vulgar.
I was making a point about mainstream cinema as it equates to mainstream America.
Seldom will the inhabitants of Missourri, Iowa, Nebraska, Arkansas, Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania (just to mention a few states) see two guys kissing in public. So consequently if your desire is to make a mainstream film you should plan on being less than successful if you ignore what that demographic finds aberrant.
It's not about my mores, in fact I could care less, other than I can't take a movie seriously while it pushes a hidden minority agenda.
[deleted]
And that agenda would be...?
I can't educate you in this medium. You either didn't watch the movie or you had your head in a very dark place while you were watching it.
Bruno and Borat are satire. In other words a parody of the very thing you seem to take seriously.
[deleted]