Gi joe

[KittenKoder]

no I'm talking about the clear and obvious liberal message of so many movies today attempting to socially condition everyone to it's liberal agenda, such as

blame and shame that we've ruined the planet (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Day After Tomorrow are the more obvious)
requiring at least a token homosexual especially in kids movies, though this has toned down
even beastiality innuendo in kids movies
portraying Christians as evil and insane <---seriously on the rise
glorifying one night stands, (it's amazing how many chick flicks are about divas clinching their lifelong soulmates after jumping his bones the first time they met)
portrayals of dad as an idiot

Those themes are subltey in most recent releases. Screenwriters know that if they want their work accepted, adding those themes helps their chances immensely

I don't think you see these so much in action movies as you do comedies, chick flicks, family films and the big box-office investments. Action films at least focus by definition on men being men (or women trying to be men)

Wow ... you suck at movie history. First, The Day the Earth Stood Still is based on a novel from a long time ago and you really missed the point of that one. The Day After Tomorrow was one you actually got right. Now, your "bestiality for kids"? You must be talking about Disney, since they are the closest, or Pixar, but both are just huge misses, since Pixar's only moral is to have fun with life and Disney just cannibalizes old fairy tales. The "Christians being insane" ... I am guessing you don't like history much at all, since every movie that shows the dark side of that religious following has been factually true to some level, except the DeVinci Code ... that was a stretch. Disney (which is a right wing christian owned and operated company) is responsible for much of the glorifying sex to children, and romantic comedies are trash that are produced evenly across the board (Ashton, the biggest scum in Hollywood, is a right wing christian BTW).

Enough of that part, I could go on forever with that. But your last point shows you also have seen very few action movies, since a lot are often not about "men being men" but are about *gasp* action and adventure! Many of which have very strong women role models who ... kick some serious ass. Good action movies break stereotypes, because there are a lot of strong women in the world, I am talking about physically strong. The only reason co-ed sports don't work is because women tend to put men to shy in them.

I recommend you watch more movies.

Methinks you went a bit far in your last paragraph. While there ARE exceptions which I don't believe anyone has claimed there aren't, women in general CAN'T keep up with men, and pound for pound, are nowhere near as strong.

That's not saying women do not have their strengths in areas that would make most men squeal. But it isn't in athletic endeavor. Part of the reason for that is women trying to play man's games, designed by men for men. Automatic disadvantage.

Ever notice how men's and women's gymnastics are not the same? Because each is designed to play to the strengths of the respective genders. It is one athletic endeavor where the playing field is actually level. At the same time, the exercises themselves are hardly comparable.

Men and women are different. Women seem to have a much harder time with this than men. We are supposed to compliment one another, not try to be better at being the other than they are.

There are several factors, I was over generalizing yes, mostly for effect, also because ... well ... I like being tough myself.

It is possible for women to develop the same level of strength, even if not the same method or technique. While the muscle groups vary, they are still muscles.

 

[KittenKoder]

Not really, look at who owns and operates it.

Its largest shareholder is Steve Jobs. Its President and CEO is Robert Iger. They have a "Gay Day" in Disney World, for Pete's sake. So again I ask, are you kidding?

Just because they have a "Gay Day" doesn't mean they agree with it, they do have to use gimicks like everyone else to make money, that's just smart commercialism. The largest disposable incomes are gay people.

 

[KittenKoder]

oh sure, that's why they all jumped to produce "The Passion of the Christ", one of the biggest money making films of all time

Um ... they weren't all available to do it, plus not all were offered (the writer has a lot of cay in who produces it) ... and it wasn't one of the biggest money makers, it was mid level compared to movies since then, factoring in the economic state. Also, the producers have almost no way of knowing it would do that well, most documentaries (no matter how fictionally based they are) tend to do poorly, no matter what the subject matter is, unless the producer is a big name, thus one reason why Mel was chosen for that out of those who did have an interest. The other reason Mel was chosen was because he had the same vision as the writer for the movie and Mel is crazy enough to direct non-sexual BDSM.

KK, Mel was desperate to find a distributor and all producers were blocking it, threatening anyone who helped him.

PLENTY of people had plenty of opportunity to get in on that, he almost didn't get it released at all. Why? Because they cared more about pushing their own agenda than making a buck. Most of the truly elite of Hollywood can afford to do that.

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps that they feared outrage from some groups that didn't like the interpretation of the story? Also, just because they are offered the chance doesn't mean they can do it, sometimes they have to guess at what the next blockbuster will be and take a chance, if they invest in a movie that flops they lose a lot of money. It's not as sinister as you think, it's just business.

 

[JenT]

Wow ... you suck at movie history. First, The Day the Earth Stood Still is based on a novel from a long time ago and you really missed the point of that one. The Day After Tomorrow was one you actually got right. Now, your "bestiality for kids"? You must be talking about Disney, since they are the closest, or Pixar, but both are just huge misses, since Pixar's only moral is to have fun with life and Disney just cannibalizes old fairy tales. The "Christians being insane" ... I am guessing you don't like history much at all, since every movie that shows the dark side of that religious following has been factually true to some level, except the DeVinci Code ... that was a stretch. Disney (which is a right wing christian owned and operated company) is responsible for much of the glorifying sex to children, and romantic comedies are trash that are produced evenly across the board (Ashton, the biggest scum in Hollywood, is a right wing christian BTW).

Enough of that part, I could go on forever with that. But your last point shows you also have seen very few action movies, since a lot are often not about "men being men" but are about *gasp* action and adventure! Many of which have very strong women role models who ... kick some serious ass. Good action movies break stereotypes, because there are a lot of strong women in the world, I am talking about physically strong. The only reason co-ed sports don't work is because women tend to put men to shy in them.

I recommend you watch more movies.

Methinks you went a bit far in your last paragraph. While there ARE exceptions which I don't believe anyone has claimed there aren't, women in general CAN'T keep up with men, and pound for pound, are nowhere near as strong.

That's not saying women do not have their strengths in areas that would make most men squeal. But it isn't in athletic endeavor. Part of the reason for that is women trying to play man's games, designed by men for men. Automatic disadvantage.

Ever notice how men's and women's gymnastics are not the same? Because each is designed to play to the strengths of the respective genders. It is one athletic endeavor where the playing field is actually level. At the same time, the exercises themselves are hardly comparable.

Men and women are different. Women seem to have a much harder time with this than men. We are supposed to compliment one another, not try to be better at being the other than they are.

There are several factors, I was over generalizing yes, mostly for effect, also because ... well ... I like being tough myself.

It is possible for women to develop the same level of strength, even if not the same method or technique. While the muscle groups vary, they are still muscles.

I've seen seemingly scrawny men lift weights that have shocked me. I have seen beefed up brawny women lift almost nothing.

I think just from my own observation that square inch to square inch of muscle between men and women, we women just do not have the power men do. It blows my mind but its true.

Men. Some are just "wirey" but I never underestimate their strength. Not if they're really men and not a confused woman on hormones

 

[KittenKoder]

Methinks you went a bit far in your last paragraph. While there ARE exceptions which I don't believe anyone has claimed there aren't, women in general CAN'T keep up with men, and pound for pound, are nowhere near as strong.

That's not saying women do not have their strengths in areas that would make most men squeal. But it isn't in athletic endeavor. Part of the reason for that is women trying to play man's games, designed by men for men. Automatic disadvantage.

Ever notice how men's and women's gymnastics are not the same? Because each is designed to play to the strengths of the respective genders. It is one athletic endeavor where the playing field is actually level. At the same time, the exercises themselves are hardly comparable.

Men and women are different. Women seem to have a much harder time with this than men. We are supposed to compliment one another, not try to be better at being the other than they are.

There are several factors, I was over generalizing yes, mostly for effect, also because ... well ... I like being tough myself.

It is possible for women to develop the same level of strength, even if not the same method or technique. While the muscle groups vary, they are still muscles.

I've seen seemingly scrawny men lift weights that have shocked me. I have seen beefed up brawny women lift almost nothing.

I think just from my own observation that square inch to square inch of muscle between men and women, we women just do not have the power men do. It blows my mind but its true.

Men. Some are just "wirey" but I never underestimate their strength. Not if they're really men and not a confused woman on hormones

Physical size has little to do with ability. Body builders do not focus on actual strength, but looking bigger, though sometimes they do coincide, they don't always. Women do not have to take hormones to be as strong or a tough as men, they just have to know how to work out correctly to do so. Body builder women focus on building muscles that are not normally strengthened in women, which tends to alter their natural hormone levels.

 

[Jon]

Not really, look at who owns and operates it.

Its largest shareholder is Steve Jobs. Its President and CEO is Robert Iger. They have a "Gay Day" in Disney World, for Pete's sake. So again I ask, are you kidding?

Just because they have a "Gay Day" doesn't mean they agree with it, they do have to use gimicks like everyone else to make money, that's just smart commercialism. The largest disposable incomes are gay people.

Still, while I agree with your counterarguments here, I think you're mistaken on who runs Disney. They are far from rightwingers.

 

[KittenKoder]

Its largest shareholder is Steve Jobs. Its President and CEO is Robert Iger. They have a "Gay Day" in Disney World, for Pete's sake. So again I ask, are you kidding?

Just because they have a "Gay Day" doesn't mean they agree with it, they do have to use gimicks like everyone else to make money, that's just smart commercialism. The largest disposable incomes are gay people.

Still, while I agree with your counterarguments here, I think you're mistaken on who runs Disney. They are far from rightwingers.

I would think it's about even really, but many of their older movies were right wing style (modern right wing zealot specifically) and were "softened" and watered down versions of original fairy tales, which were originally very dark, the "old witch" always being evil is a good example of such, in the fairy tales they were more like Wizard of Oz ... half good, half bad.

 

[JenT]

Um ... they weren't all available to do it, plus not all were offered (the writer has a lot of cay in who produces it) ... and it wasn't one of the biggest money makers, it was mid level compared to movies since then, factoring in the economic state. Also, the producers have almost no way of knowing it would do that well, most documentaries (no matter how fictionally based they are) tend to do poorly, no matter what the subject matter is, unless the producer is a big name, thus one reason why Mel was chosen for that out of those who did have an interest. The other reason Mel was chosen was because he had the same vision as the writer for the movie and Mel is crazy enough to direct non-sexual BDSM.

KK, Mel was desperate to find a distributor and all producers were blocking it, threatening anyone who helped him.

PLENTY of people had plenty of opportunity to get in on that, he almost didn't get it released at all. Why? Because they cared more about pushing their own agenda than making a buck. Most of the truly elite of Hollywood can afford to do that.

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps that they feared outrage from some groups that didn't like the interpretation of the story? Also, just because they are offered the chance doesn't mean they can do it, sometimes they have to guess at what the next blockbuster will be and take a chance, if they invest in a movie that flops they lose a lot of money. It's not as sinister as you think, it's just business.

I think it was the ADF that demanded certain things be taken out and Mel went to the limit to add things to soothe tempers. For instance, just when the whole audience was having a meltdown about how hard it was for Christ to carry the cross, and the Ethiopian showed up and showed compassion in helping him, Mel took an artistic license and had a Roman soldier dramatically criticize the Ethiopian by loudly shouting at him, with emphasis on, YOU JEW!!!

Every Christian in that audience looked at that JEW with nothing but respect and gratitude beyond words, which was exactly the effect Mel intended.

(not to mention that Jesus and all the disciples were all Jews, Mel also clearly emphasized, showing how all anti-semites who claim to hate the Jews because of Christ are completely
insane)

There was NO backlash aimed at the Jews for that movie and those fears were an excuse to try to stop the film release because it didn't fit in the mold of what Hollywood producers want to impose on society, liberal atheist views completely opposite of what most Americans believe and are screaming for but will not receive because of liberal idealogues.

 

[KittenKoder]

KK, Mel was desperate to find a distributor and all producers were blocking it, threatening anyone who helped him.

PLENTY of people had plenty of opportunity to get in on that, he almost didn't get it released at all. Why? Because they cared more about pushing their own agenda than making a buck. Most of the truly elite of Hollywood can afford to do that.

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps that they feared outrage from some groups that didn't like the interpretation of the story? Also, just because they are offered the chance doesn't mean they can do it, sometimes they have to guess at what the next blockbuster will be and take a chance, if they invest in a movie that flops they lose a lot of money. It's not as sinister as you think, it's just business.

I think it was the ADF that demanded certain things be taken out and Mel went to the limit to add things to soothe tempers. For instance, just when the whole audience was having a meltdown about how hard it was for Christ to carry the cross, and the Ethiopian showed up and showed compassion in helping him, Mel took an artistic license and had a Roman soldier dramatically criticize the Ethiopian by loudly shouting at him, with emphasis on, YOU JEW!!!

Every Christian in that audience looked at that JEW with nothing but respect and gratitude beyond words, which was exactly the effect Mel intended.

(not to mention that Jesus and all the disciples were all Jews, Mel also clearly emphasized, showing how all anti-semites who claim to hate the Jews because of Christ are completely
insane)

There was NO backlash aimed at the Jews for that movie and those fears were an excuse to try to stop the film release because it didn't fit in the mold of what Hollywood producers want to impose on society, liberal atheist views completely opposite of what most Americans believe and are screaming for but will not receive because of liberal idealogues.

It wasn't "liberal ideologues" that decided that in all cases, and even then, don't you think that most liberals would enjoy seeing some guy they didn't like be beaten to a bloody pulp in the BDSM scene if they really didn't like it for the religious aspects?

 

[JenT]

Not really, look at who owns and operates it.

Its largest shareholder is Steve Jobs. Its President and CEO is Robert Iger. They have a "Gay Day" in Disney World, for Pete's sake. So again I ask, are you kidding?

Just because they have a "Gay Day" doesn't mean they agree with it, they do have to use gimicks like everyone else to make money, that's just smart commercialism. The largest disposable incomes are gay people.

oh please, Disney is all about promoting homosexuality. They ignore the family protests, they've lost money and credibility as a "family" organization, they're struggling to stay alive because so many families are boycotting them, or calling to make sure it's not a "gay day" before coming, because they don't want their children to walk in on sexual activities happening in broad daylight.

 

[KittenKoder]

Its largest shareholder is Steve Jobs. Its President and CEO is Robert Iger. They have a "Gay Day" in Disney World, for Pete's sake. So again I ask, are you kidding?

Just because they have a "Gay Day" doesn't mean they agree with it, they do have to use gimicks like everyone else to make money, that's just smart commercialism. The largest disposable incomes are gay people.

oh please, Disney is all about promoting homosexuality. They ignore the family protests, they've lost money and credibility as a "family" organization, they're struggling to stay alive because so many families are boycotting them, or calling to make sure it's not a "gay day" before coming, because they don't want their children to walk in on sexual activities happening in broad daylight.

Um ... just wow ... do you pay much attention to what business is doing? They are by no means "struggling" ... they keep making a fortune off their movies and their theme parks are doing better than projected. The only thing making more money than the film industry right now is casinos.

 

[JenT]

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps that they feared outrage from some groups that didn't like the interpretation of the story? Also, just because they are offered the chance doesn't mean they can do it, sometimes they have to guess at what the next blockbuster will be and take a chance, if they invest in a movie that flops they lose a lot of money. It's not as sinister as you think, it's just business.

I think it was the ADF that demanded certain things be taken out and Mel went to the limit to add things to soothe tempers. For instance, just when the whole audience was having a meltdown about how hard it was for Christ to carry the cross, and the Ethiopian showed up and showed compassion in helping him, Mel took an artistic license and had a Roman soldier dramatically criticize the Ethiopian by loudly shouting at him, with emphasis on, YOU JEW!!!

Every Christian in that audience looked at that JEW with nothing but respect and gratitude beyond words, which was exactly the effect Mel intended.

(not to mention that Jesus and all the disciples were all Jews, Mel also clearly emphasized, showing how all anti-semites who claim to hate the Jews because of Christ are completely
insane)

There was NO backlash aimed at the Jews for that movie and those fears were an excuse to try to stop the film release because it didn't fit in the mold of what Hollywood producers want to impose on society, liberal atheist views completely opposite of what most Americans believe and are screaming for but will not receive because of liberal idealogues.

It wasn't "liberal ideologues" that decided that in all cases, and even then, don't you think that most liberals would enjoy seeing some guy they didn't like be beaten to a bloody pulp in the BDSM scene if they really didn't like it for the religious aspects?

no, not at all. Because the message of the cross is spiritual, and those who live and breathe darkness are even aware of it. Ever notice in the Bible, often it was the demon possessed that recognized who Christ really was first.

 

[KittenKoder]

I think it was the ADF that demanded certain things be taken out and Mel went to the limit to add things to soothe tempers. For instance, just when the whole audience was having a meltdown about how hard it was for Christ to carry the cross, and the Ethiopian showed up and showed compassion in helping him, Mel took an artistic license and had a Roman soldier dramatically criticize the Ethiopian by loudly shouting at him, with emphasis on, YOU JEW!!!

Every Christian in that audience looked at that JEW with nothing but respect and gratitude beyond words, which was exactly the effect Mel intended.

(not to mention that Jesus and all the disciples were all Jews, Mel also clearly emphasized, showing how all anti-semites who claim to hate the Jews because of Christ are completely
insane)

There was NO backlash aimed at the Jews for that movie and those fears were an excuse to try to stop the film release because it didn't fit in the mold of what Hollywood producers want to impose on society, liberal atheist views completely opposite of what most Americans believe and are screaming for but will not receive because of liberal idealogues.

It wasn't "liberal ideologues" that decided that in all cases, and even then, don't you think that most liberals would enjoy seeing some guy they didn't like be beaten to a bloody pulp in the BDSM scene if they really didn't like it for the religious aspects?

no, not at all. Because the message of the cross is spiritual, and those who live and breathe darkness are even aware of it. Ever notice in the Bible, often it was the demon possessed that recognized who Christ really was first.

Regardless, if the "liberals" were so against christianity then why wouldn't they enjoy seeing an idol of that religious belief being beaten?

 

[KittenKoder]

Hell, the only reason I like horror movies is because I enjoy seeing people get scared and tortured. It's my outlet so I don't feel the need to do it IRL.

 

[JenT]

Just because they have a "Gay Day" doesn't mean they agree with it, they do have to use gimicks like everyone else to make money, that's just smart commercialism. The largest disposable incomes are gay people.

oh please, Disney is all about promoting homosexuality. They ignore the family protests, they've lost money and credibility as a "family" organization, they're struggling to stay alive because so many families are boycotting them, or calling to make sure it's not a "gay day" before coming, because they don't want their children to walk in on sexual activities happening in broad daylight.

Um ... just wow ... do you pay much attention to what business is doing? They are by no means "struggling" ... they keep making a fortune off their movies and their theme parks are doing better than projected. The only thing making more money than the film industry right now is casinos.

If they are its not surprising, there is a huge shift in our culture happening right now. Largely because Hollywood is succeeding in social conditioning through movies, tv, all avenues they've so stubbornly promoted.

I think it's why Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and previously Bill O'Reilly shot so high, many Americans are sick of watching what's happening in our society, but many are buying into it.

 

[JenT]

It wasn't "liberal ideologues" that decided that in all cases, and even then, don't you think that most liberals would enjoy seeing some guy they didn't like be beaten to a bloody pulp in the BDSM scene if they really didn't like it for the religious aspects?

no, not at all. Because the message of the cross is spiritual, and those who live and breathe darkness are even aware of it. Ever notice in the Bible, often it was the demon possessed that recognized who Christ really was first.

Regardless, if the "liberals" were so against christianity then why wouldn't they enjoy seeing an idol of that religious belief being beaten?

I've already said it. Because on a spiritual level, it has an impact.

 

[KittenKoder]

oh please, Disney is all about promoting homosexuality. They ignore the family protests, they've lost money and credibility as a "family" organization, they're struggling to stay alive because so many families are boycotting them, or calling to make sure it's not a "gay day" before coming, because they don't want their children to walk in on sexual activities happening in broad daylight.

Um ... just wow ... do you pay much attention to what business is doing? They are by no means "struggling" ... they keep making a fortune off their movies and their theme parks are doing better than projected. The only thing making more money than the film industry right now is casinos.

If they are its not surprising, there is a huge shift in our culture happening right now. Largely because Hollywood is succeeding in social conditioning through movies, tv, all avenues they've so stubbornly promoted.

I think it's why Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and previously Bill O'Reilly shot so high, many Americans are sick of watching what's happening in our society, but many are buying into it.

No, it's an effect of the economic downturn, the "liberal" talk hosts are also up, because they are free to watch or listen to and right now politics is "in". What's wrong with our society is that we are becoming too extremist in either direction and too many people are unwilling to see that the world just doesn't revolve around them. To put is simply, it's because there are too few moderates and independent thinkers now.

 

[JenT]

Hell, the only reason I like horror movies is because I enjoy seeing people get scared and tortured. It's my outlet so I don't feel the need to do it IRL.

Really? I used to watch those with my not-husband. He loved them. Kinda made me nervous as we were going through our "stuff".

LOL, in fact, when he took me to Ragged Point for the weekend, I instinctively stayed away from all cliffs in his presence...

 

[KittenKoder]

no, not at all. Because the message of the cross is spiritual, and those who live and breathe darkness are even aware of it. Ever notice in the Bible, often it was the demon possessed that recognized who Christ really was first.

Regardless, if the "liberals" were so against christianity then why wouldn't they enjoy seeing an idol of that religious belief being beaten?

I've already said it. Because on a spiritual level, it has an impact.

I didn't see anything spiritual about it while I saw it ... it was just another Hollywood drama ... got bored through most of it but watched the guy getting beaten, that was a decently choreographed scene, pretty realistic in the special effects, though the camera shots were a bit sub-par, over-all it was a good scene though. Mostly I don't like subtitles though, thus why I just fast forwarded most of it just to see the few special effects.

Not an ounce of "spiritual impact" here, and most I talked to, the only ones that didn't like it were christian oddly, they didn't like the interpretation.

 

[JenT]

Regardless, if the "liberals" were so against christianity then why wouldn't they enjoy seeing an idol of that religious belief being beaten?

I've already said it. Because on a spiritual level, it has an impact.

I didn't see anything spiritual about it while I saw it ... it was just another Hollywood drama ... got bored through most of it but watched the guy getting beaten, that was a decently choreographed scene, pretty realistic in the special effects, though the camera shots were a bit sub-par, over-all it was a good scene though. Mostly I don't like subtitles though, thus why I just fast forwarded most of it just to see the few special effects.

Not an ounce of "spiritual impact" here, and most I talked to, the only ones that didn't like it were christian oddly, they didn't like the interpretation.

KK I considered myself a Christian all of my life, even during my 20s. But I had no idea who God was and I don't know if God would agree with me or not that I was a Christian.

Being Christian isn't something that happens because you were baptized when you were an infant, but a lot of people consider themselves so. Only God knows our hearts, who are His and who aren't, and we can be surprised, as I would have been when I was 20 if I wasn't. Only God knows. God and the angels that separate the tears from the wheat.