MovieChat Forums > Threadkiller > Replies
Threadkiller's Replies
So your oddly specific lesbian fantasy scenerio would have made a better film?
It was blotchy but he used makeup & skin creams to even out his skin tone
Michael Jackson's career was far from ever being over. OP is being a hyperbolic clown (Who's clearly an obsessed Michael Jackson hater, judging by this person's numerous unhinged thread topics) who clearly doesn't have a firm understanding of the real history. Speaking of History, that was a huge event in the U.S. & his tour was hugely successful. Invincible was an obligatory album that that may have only been a modest success by his standards & he still completely sold out his tour right before his death
I know that was meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek, but I was more or less about to say something along those lines. I thought Monica Bellucci was quite curiously cast in a role that Burton would very typically have given to his longtime partner Helena Bonam Carter, only to discover that they were no longer together & he was in fact now in a relationship with Bellucci. Seems almost like a deliberate middle finger to his ex.
"My recommendation is that you do what more and more people on this board are doing - ignore his obnoxious, phoney interrogations and just use him as a plaything - call out his BS and kick the shit out of him for fun."
In general, I'll probably just try avoiding people who argue in circles, in total bad faith, who are just trying to waste time. Apparently "running out the clock" when engaging in discourse is a win for some people
I don't know what "wokification" is supposed to mean but as far as your general point, I'm definitely getting that impression here. I don't mind having a debate with someone with a different opinion, but I hate giving someone the benefit of the doubt, only for it to turn out that they're arguing in bad faith and just trying to waste your time.
I see you're going to keep asking the same exact questions, including my favorite of "So what?" even after I give you definitive answers. Is it REALLY going over your head or is getting the last word that important to you? You seem to just enjoy getting people to go around in circles with you. Have at it then because this became quite repetitive a long time ago.
You are quite determined to miss the point repeatedly. The disproportionate number of non-straight female characters was the primary point.
No. As I said more than once, it just indicates the writer(s) personal priority being non-straight women.
Obviously i'm just a person on the internet using a degree of conjecture based on an observation. Again, the over-representation of non-straight women appear to have been the pet priority of the writer(s) over the representation of homosexual men. Are you literally going just keep asking the same questions? I didn't say Donna was a lesbian. The issue is that you labeled her straight when there was no evidence of that at least in S1.
You got it. Pretty much the agenda of "let's arbitrarily make a point of making the majority of the female characters non straight because I wish that's how it was in real life & also because we can."
I forget all the names but you must have left out one half of the lesbian fiancé relationship in your examples. Donna is the old lady who was depicted quite "ambiguously" with no romantic relationship ever mentioned, yet you listed her in your examples of "straight" female characters for some reason.
It hardly takes a "big conspiracy". All it takes is merely one writer of influence with an agenda & no qualms about not bothering to hide it which seemed to be more or less the case here.
On the point about the majority of female characters being "not straight", you left out the lesbian fiancé & Fatima's girlfriend. Also two of your "straight" female examples are old ladies who I don't recall the subject of relationships ever coming up. Donna in particular was quite "ambiguous" from what I recall. Either way, that's majority "not straight" by season 2.
"That's not what I said. You can criticise it, but you claimed it has some internal consistency that bringing in Kristi's GF would somehow violate. There's no reason to believe this."
Bottom line is it was very contrived, lazy writing that of all people it would be the lesbian fiancé to break the precedent of strangers brought to the town entirely at random. And with everything else supports idea of clear agenda at play with the writers.
No, it was established that they believed it was random.
"If the show was interested in pushing lesbian propaganda, they would've not detoured her into making her storyline prominently about her and Ellis."
Says you. Perhaps the writers felt that establishing Fatima (and others) as lbgtq early on was enough & that the shoe-horned lesbian relationship drama in S2 would suffice as a main focus. So yeah, "There can't be any sort of agenda unless every female character is actively in a lesbian relationship" is not a good argument.
"So fucking what.
Notably there are no gay men in the series. Does that mean it's anti-gay men?"
"So what" is that it's something very noticeable & that I found strange and worth pointing out. So effing what is it to you? The show seemingly having no gay men is statistically probable but again irrelevant to the point that the writers clearly seemed to have a peculiar interest in establishing the majority of the female characters as something other than straight.
"It's a fictional show so it internal consistency is irrelevant" is not a good arguement. It was firmly established in season 1 everyone in the town was trapped there at random, perhaps for years. The town randomly breaking this established precedent to bring in the lesbian fiancé is contrived writing. There's no getting around it.
You're basically repeating an irrelevant strawman in regard to Fatima. Her relationship with a man is irrelevant unless you believe that being in a committed relationship with a man suddenly discounts her established interest in women & open relationships. The point is that she was one of the several female characters curiously piling up in season 1 who were established to have some degree of lesbian tendencies in a rather small cast of characters.
It's definitely more agenda than "dime-dozen love triangle" when it bends over backwards, breaking its own established rules to facilitate the contrived lesbian relationship drama & the lesbian fiancé being magicked to the town is about as contrived writing as it gets. Fatima (the hippie lady) not shown making out with her gf after season 1 is again quite irrelevant.
"some degree of lesbian tendencies"
As i said. "Female characters with some degree of lesbian tendencies" That applies to lesbians, bisexuals and whatever else. So there is no need to repeatedly point out the distinction as it is entirely irrelevant to the point being made, which I'm now reminded was your big focus in the previous discussion. In season 1 Fatima (the hippie lady) was clearly shown kissing a woman in a romantic/sexual way & essentially states that she's in an open relationship with her male partner after the teenage girl with the budding lesbian attraction towards her asked her about the kiss. So yeah everything is still applicable. The lesbian fiancé showing up in season 2 was just the most gratuitous example of an already established agenda with the frankly, rather unimaginative writers.
I don't think there was even 20 named characters in the show but however you want to rationalize it, it's definitely a rather high concentration of female characters shown to have some degree of lesbian tendencies. Especially given the tiny population & small cast. Clearly the writers had an agenda which they are entitled to have but it's an agenda, nonetheless.
I don't know wtf the OP is going on about "wokeness" but there definitely seemed to be a weird agenda with excessive lesbianism. I started a post about this over a year ago about how even in the first season there was a weirdly high concentration of lesbianism for an other dimensional void town of "maybe" 20 people where it is established that it traps strangers there at random. You had the nurse chick who had a lesbian fiancé back in the real word, the hippie commune lady & her lesbian side girlfriend, & the bratty teenage daughter showing newfound lesbian tendencies towards the hippie lady. That's already 20 percent of the total population.
Then in Season 2, for the first time ever the town breaks its own rules & brings someone with a close connection to someone it had previously trapped there & can you guess who this person turns out to be? The nurse chick's lesbian fiancé of course! Great! The town apparently loves lesbian relationship drama. How about that. I'm surprised the pathetic friendzoned Asian "deputy" in love with the nurse didn't kill himself. The town aka the writers clearly had a specific agenda to pull such a contrived move.
You know it's funny as it randomly occurred to me recently how peculiar it was how there was all of this early buildup of David and his gang, culminating with Michael being recruited & then they abruptly drop out of the film until they reappear antagonistically later in the film. In retrospect, it always subconsciously felt a bit disjointed & a bit of a missed opportunity to flesh out Michael's dynamic with David & his vampire gang in the middle parts of the film before becoming fully antagonistic
Typically, Snipes being an otherwise upstanding citizen with no criminal history would have been given probation, but the judge decided to be massively unprofessional & gave him the maximum possible sentence for each misdemeanor count, admitting that it was to make an "example" of Snipes because he personally didn't like how the media was reporting that Snipes had essentially beaten the case after being cleared of the more serious charges.