DVDizzy Forum

Disney Duster wrote:Oh sorry I thought you'd display common courtesy like a gentleman when talking to a gay guy and be appropriate and respectful on these forums like you should be. But you wanted to be mean to me instead just because we fight a lot. Gotcha.

When do we ever "fight"? And... "gotcha"?! Do you think I'm playing games? Seriously, dude, don't take everything so seriously.

Oh, and "common courtesy" and "not being respectful"...? Since when is the word 'vagina' not respectful? Do gentlemen not use the word 'vagina'? I could see you being upset if I haid said 'pussy' or 'tw@t' or 'c*nt'... but I didn't. We're not children anymore, Duster. We don't have to call a penis a 'willie' or a vagina a 'thingamabob' anymore.

Disney Geek wrote:2)The way that the character with the wig (I can't remember his name) drops the F bomb so much. It became annoying to me

Oh, that's just Joe Pesci. He has done that in every role he has ever played. It has become one of his trademarks.

Disney Geek wrote:I'm probably sounding very stupid. Maybe I should give the film another chance By the way, if that "too talky" reference is a Homer Simpson or Peter Griffin quote, I take back all criticism of JFK

You're not sounding stupid at all. We all have our reasons for not liking certain films. But as you've said, those are three really minor points. I don't know why Stone put in the scenes between Garrison and his wife. Maybe he wanted to show what his dedication to uncovering the coup d'état (as I call it, like Mr. X in the movie) did to his personal life? Personlly, I found it to be distracting and it should've been taken out. "Too talky" is often used as a criticism of movies that are dialogue-heavy. The Godfather-films also get accused of it by people who didn't like them. Sometimes, I think it's used as a way of saying there was too little action. But, in JFK, the talk *is* the action.

Well Goliath, I don't think you'd talk about...boy's parts around lesbians, out of respect? And boys aren't supposed to talk about girls' parts around girls either unless you know the girl is okay with it. It's the same thing here. I try to be more sensitive with those words unless I know I am around people who don't mind.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:Probably not by your logic.

forgot add the comma.



I also don't understand Duster being offend by people saying "penis" either. Cause I said that word in person right next him.

Goliath wrote:What would you do if you had to go to see a doctor because you had a problem with your genitals and the doctor happened to be a woman? Would you say "ehm, I have a problem with my thingamabob"?

Actually I have been in similar situations and say "male parts" when I can and "penis" when I have to. The doctors, girls or guys, get it.

Anyway, if you were around enough gay people, you would know that some don't like to hear opposite sexual terms. You may have been around a number that didn't mind.

Super Aurora...I think I explained it now.

Disney Geek wrote: By the way, Duster, getting upset about scientific terms is pathetic.

By the way, Disney Geek being hurtful to a member by calling them pathetic, and with exaggeration/generalization about the person, is mean.

Disney Duster wrote:

Disney Geek wrote: By the way, Duster, getting upset about scientific terms is pathetic.

By the way, Disney Geek being hurtful to a member by calling them pathetic, and with exaggeration/generalization about the person, is mean.

Stop being oversensitive; Disney Geek has a point.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

I also don't understand Duster being offend by people saying "penis" either. Cause I said that word in person right next him.

I think it's just a decorum thing. Hanging around with friends is different. And UD has always had a "professional" kind of vibe to it.

Since when do professionals constantly fight each other outside the Ring?

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Alien and Star Wars Saga[...]

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaamn! Oh, that's good! I like you! *high-fives*

Dr. Frankenollie wrote:The Shawshank Redemption-An overlong, melodramatic and predictable film with a great performance from Morgan Freeman, but a bad one from Tim Robbins.

Oh no, you di'n't! One of my all-time favorites! Why, Frank, why?!

Disney Duster wrote:Anyway, if you were around enough gay people, you would know that some don't like to hear opposite sexual terms. You may have been around a number that didn't mind.

What, gay people are allergic to opposite sexual terms?

Disney Duster wrote:By the way, Disney Geek being hurtful to a member by calling them pathetic, and with exaggeration/generalization about the person, is mean.

Hey, leave her alone!

Disney Duster wrote:I think what he meant is that certain things in Star Wars are for kids. I know that his sentence does not literally say that, but I still think that's what he really did and really means.

Well of course you do. After all, when you can read the minds of people who have been dead for over 40 years, it's only logical you can read lving person's minds as well! Even though Lucas said something completely different, I'm sure you know what he meant to say. Thank God we have you to 'translate' what people were actually saying!

Disney Duster wrote:Goliath...so...you do act a certain different way around girls.

What are you talking about? I asked you why you think gay people are allergic to words describing the opposite sex's genitals. Because I didn't know they were. I've never seen a lesbian faint upon hearing the word 'penis'. So could you please clear that up for me?

Disney Duster wrote:Disney Geek, well, I can take it either way, but the point is, if certain words bother certain people, and you can find a way around it, especially if the person bothered provides alternative words you can use such as "lower parts" or something, then it's just a nice thing to do to not use the other words when talking to those people. So people on here don't want to be nice? Well, that's just how it is then, I suppose.

No, we are not nice! We're just a big bunch of meanies! And we are going to stay mean just to make you feel bad! That's how mean we are! Ha!

Now do you want me to call you a whaaaaaaambulance before or after I've gotten off your lawn?

David S. wrote:Fair enough, but I doubt he intended them to be EXCLUSIVELY for children. He probably meant that because he wanted children to enjoy them too, he put the cute and comic relief stuff in there. Maybe he meant they are for the child in ALL of us, as Walt often said (see my sig!) It seems you are just basing your opinion on quotes from the films' producers rather than the reality of the films themselves.

Hey, another member for your mind-readers club, Duster!

Goliath wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Goliath...so...you do act a certain different way around girls.

What are you talking about? I asked you why you think gay people are allergic to words describing the opposite sex's genitals. Because I didn't know they were. I've never seen a lesbian faint upon hearing the word 'penis'. So could you please clear that up for me?

Gay people do not like those words and some are bothered by it not allergic or fainting don't exaggerate while anyways I was talking about the way you acted to Disney Geek. You've never said anything like "Leave him alone!" before.

Disney Duster wrote:Gay people do not like those words and some are bothered by it

I'd like to hear from Disney's Divinity, Jack Skellington, PatrckvD and our other gay members if they're bothered by the word 'vagina'. Hey, I have an idea! Let's do a poll on it! Let the gay members pick between 'vagina' or 'thingamabop'!

David S. wrote:Lucas said in that quote that they are for children, but he did not say they were ONLY for children.

Yup! And like he also said, the Star Wars films are a nit too dark and violent with a woman in too revealing clothing for Lucas to have really made the films just for children.

Goliath wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Gay people do not like those words and some are bothered by it

I'd like to hear from Disney's Divinity, Jack Skellington, PatrckvD and our other gay members if they're bothered

Disney Duster wrote:Gay people do not like those words and some are bothered by it.

Okay, I'll take the bait.

dvdjunkie wrote:Those of you haters of "Star Wars I-VI" are either just too young to understand what George Lucas was doing, or you are just a person that thinks if Disney didn't do it, it's crap.

And people who believe in climate change are clueless tree-huggers. And people who don't think pre-marital sex is evil, have had a lousy upbringing. And teen girls on the Disney Channel need to get a nose-job. And people who don't agree with your tastes in movies are just naive whippersnappers... Got any more wisdoms you've gathered in all your years in this world?

dvdjunkie wrote:All of you haters out there need to get a job making movies and let's see what you come up with that EVERYONE will like!!!! I doubt that will happen, so I won't hold my breath.

I will save this and throw it back in your face the first time you're criticizing a movie again.

dvdjunkie wrote:I would defy you, however, to name a film series that has grossed more money at the box office in these modern times. I don't think there is a series of films, including the Die Hard series, that even comes close.

The Alvin and the Chipmunks CGI movie grossed a lot of money. By your logic, this must be a terrific film. If money equals quality, then I guess I watch crappy films most of the time. You know, the ones with actual stories to them, and developed characters, and mature themes, and those scary subtitles? You know, the kind of movies that cannot rival Transformers in its brilliantly written, wonderfully acted, thought-provoking magnifigence. We know that was good film, because it grossed so much.

ajmrowland wrote:Good argument,

Dr Frankenollie wrote:dvdjunkie has spoken more sense than anyone on this page,

What? So now "people who disagree with me are stupid kids" and "high gross = quality" passes for 'good arguments' and 'make a lot of sense'?

Just because you share his views on the Star Wars-movies, does not, in any way, make his argument good. Hell, if anybody said what dvdjunkie said about The Godfather, a movie that I love, I would *never* say he made a lot of sense... because he didn't!!! People dislike movies for all kinds of reasons, not just because "they're too young to understand". Especially someone of your age, Frank, should take offense to something like that. His remarks were, *as always*, condescending and belitteling.

Disney Duster wrote:Yup! And like he also said, the Star Wars films are a nit too dark and violent with a woman in too revealing clothing for Lucas to have really made the films just for children.

Wait... what?! Now a woman in bikini is not suitable for children?

Disney Duster wrote:Gay people do not like those words and some are bothered by it.

Yeah, you said "some" people are bothered by it, but right before that, you say "gay people". Not "some gay people". But just "gay people", as in: "gay people". And I would like to hear about one gay person other than you, who is "bothered" with the word 'vagina'. (I hope I didn't shock you too much there.)

Disney Duster wrote:It makes perfect sense that the words I'm talking about would bother me being someone who gay,

Why does that make perfect sense? I didn't really care before, but now I want to know. See, if you had just said the word is offensive to you because it's meant to describe a woman's private parts, I would understand. I would still think you were overly prudish and over-dramatizing it all, but still... I could see where you're coming from. But what does the "gay"-part have to do with it?! So because you like men instead of women, does that mean everything related to women is taboo?! You talk about it like it's something dirty. In fact, you talk about it like five year old boys talk about girls: they're jucky and they'll give you cooties!

Disney Duster wrote:And you're not gay so, do you really think you can understand fully?

But you're not speaking on behalf of all gay people! You're only speaking on behalf of yourself! The gay-factor has nothing to do with it! I'm convinced of this.

Disney Duster wrote:Just have courtesy for other members, if you want to be nice, that is.

But, Duster, if we "had courtesy" for you, we could also not say we think Pixar's Brave has the look and feel of a classic Disney film. Because that would "hurt" you and we would have to "take it back". See, we just can't go on censoring ourselves over perfectly normal, accepted, widely used expressions because you are so easily upset over nothing.

Disney Duster wrote:Well, I'll state two facts, not opinions: One: The majority of the world see the kind of darkness, violence, death, and revealing almost sexual clothing in Star Wars as not for kids,

This is an opinion. Unless you've done a poll or have a link to poll that revealed that "the majority of the world" thinks this.

Goliath wrote:

ajmrowland wrote:Good argument,

Dr Frankenollie wrote:dvdjunkie has spoken more sense than anyone on this page,

What? So now "people who disagree with me are stupid kids" and "high gross = quality" passes for 'good arguments' and 'make a lot of sense'? ..................People dislike movies for all kinds of reasons, not just because "they're too young to understand". Especially someone of your age, Frank, should take offense to something like that. His remarks were, *as always*, condescending and belitteling.

I get that, and I'm 21. It's just that there really are a lot of whiners when it comes to SW. I actually think most of them are too *old* to understand. It's come to the point where I'd desperately go with anyone's statements so long as they're lashing out against the crybabies.

Disney Duster wrote:Well, I'll state two facts, not opinions: One: The majority of the world see the kind of darkness, violence, death, and revealing almost sexual clothing in Star Wars as not for kids,

[/quote]

Tell that to the millions of 10 yr olds who were in line to see the OT.

And I've always been of the opinion that nudity is *not* inherently sexual or inappropriate.

Goliath wrote:Especially someone of your age, Frank, should take offense to something like that. His remarks were, *as always*, condescending and belitteling.

Sorry, Goliath, you're right; to be honest, I simply skimmed through most of what he said, and the only thing that I really was interested in was:

dvdjunkie wrote:There are not too many film series who can tell a story the way that George Lucas did, and, yes, he went a little overboard with some of his additions to the original three, and I am in total agreement that he screwed with them too much.

And I still think he made sense when he said 'There are not too many fiflm series that can tell a story the way that George Lucas did' because when I was younger, I was completely enthralled and interested in this whole new universe. Now that I've read dvdjunkie's post properly, I've realised that he was being incredibly patronising, and I'm going to edit my post. I'm a little embarrassed by the fact that I didn't notice he was saying that if a film is successful it's good.

Disney Duster wrote:Well, I'll state two facts, not opinions: One: The majority of the world see the kind of darkness, violence, death, and revealing almost sexual clothing in Star Wars as not for kids,

Just like Goliath said Disney Duster, this is just an opinion.

To be fair, when Disney Duster first posted about the revealing clothing, that was when the debate was about whether Star Wars films were made ONLY for kids. So I don't think he was saying it's inappropriate for kids as much as saying, if they were ONLY "kiddie" movies and not family films, they probably wouldn't have as many elements like the violence, darkness, revealing clothing, etc.

I can't think of one instance where a movie intended for kids and kids ONLY (as opposed to "family films") has been rated PG instead of G. So if Lucas made the Star Wars saga ONLY for kids (which was the debate that led to all these other posts in the first place) it would have had a G rating and a lot of these elements would have had to have been toned down.

Someone said "Titanic" has an "unecessary" love story? I just wanted to say, it does ad to the film in that by caring about the people, or at least seeing people who care about each other, the immense tragedy that happens to them is all the more powerful. However, I must say that I don't think you can think the romance is bad, at least not that bad, because those two, Leo and Kate, really worked well together and were a good fit, so good they came together again in Revolutionary Road. So their love was good/believable at least to some degree.

Goliath, all I can tell you is I know I speak the truth because I have witnessed so many times where it is on varying levels. From gay people who grimaced when they heard one of those words, from gay people who said the word and then grimaced, not wnating to have said it, to gay people who deal with the word once or twice but upon hearing it more than that, get out of the conversation or the very room very quickly.

On the Colbert Robert, even, that faux-conservative Colbert said the word "vagina", on purpose to get a reaction, to a real life gay man in some government position (forget which), and he made a disgusted face, clearly bothered by it and clearly not accustomed to hearing even a "scientific term" about sexual parts in his respectable position, or maybe because people who knew he was gay respected him, but if you and others here don't want to respect people, then we know you're not respectable.

As for your comparison to calling something Disney when I don't like it, I asked the guy to take it back, he has since not replied, and I have let it go. It's different. Anyway, common decency is not about doing things others don't like all tghe time, just when you are around them and they ask, and not using words about sexual parts in public when you can avoid it, which you could because I provided the way to buy using a different way to talk about it like saying looking "below the waist".

As for the thing you sya is opinion about the majority of people thinking those things are not for children, it is true that the majority of people think that, but if you think that's opinion, you have to prove to me it's not fact! Ajmrowland, 10 year olds seeing the movie doesn't mean there aren't things in the movie that are meant specifically for adults alongside the "children stuff".

dvdjunkie wrote:But let's face it, as a general rule if the movie hits the 1 billion dollar mark in box office, there must be something about it that the general public likes.

The general public is stupid. There, that's another unpopular opinion.

ajmrowland wrote:[...] It's just that there really are a lot of whiners when it comes to SW. [...] It's come to the point where I'd desperately go with anyone's statements so long as they're lashing out against the crybabies.

But why are they "whiners" and "crybabies"? Why do you have to be so insulting? Just because they diss a film you like? Surely you're not that petty? I know you're not! Besides, this thread IS called "Unpopular opinions you hold about movies". So what else did you expect when you walked in?

ajmrowland wrote:And I've always been of the opinion that nudity is *not* inherently sexual or inappropriate.

Agreed. Nudity doesn't have to be sexual at all. In fact, the fact that so many people complain about it says a lot more about their preoccupations that it does about the people who put the nudity in the particular movie. Nudity is just something completely natural.

@ Disney Duster: I believe you were seeing things that weren't there and filled in what these people were thinking for yourself (something you're very good at, as you've proved on this forum). Or maybe they didn't like the word because they're prudish, but it doesn't have anything to do with them being gay? Anyway, I still call bullshit.

but if you and others here don't want to respect people, then we know you're not respectable.

It took you that long to figure that out?

Disney Duster wrote:
On the Colbert Robert, even, that faux-conservative Colbert said the word "vagina", on purpose to get a reaction, to a real life gay man in some government position (forget which), and he made a disgusted face, clearly bothered by it and clearly not accustomed to hearing even a "scientific term" about sexual parts in his respectable position, or maybe because people who knew he was gay respected him, but if you and others here don't want to respect people, then we know you're not respectable.

Stephen Colbert is not a conservative Republican. He's a Democrat. His show is a parody of conservative media.

Goliath wrote:

ajmrowland wrote:And I've always been of the opinion that nudity is *not* inherently sexual or inappropriate.

Agreed. Nudity doesn't have to be sexual at all. In fact, the fact that so many people complain about it says a lot more about their preoccupations that it does about the people who put the nudity in the particular movie. Nudity is just something completely natural.

Which is why the majority of the public walk around naked all the time, because it's so "natural"!

But seriously, it may be "natural" in theory, but since it's something that you will NEVER see in public (unless you grow up in a nudist colony or something), it is not something that actually does occur "naturally" in the reality of human society as it is actually lived. People wear clothes, and therefore, seeing people without them can be quite shocking and quite out of the ordinary. This does NOT mean that ALL people who are shocked by nudity and would prefer not to see it are viewing it in a "sexual" way or have "preocupations" with "sex". There are just certain standards that exist about what is considered appropriate, and if these standards didn't exist, people would be running around naked, and dropping the F-bomb all the time. Well, unfortunately, I guess the standards have really been lowered regarding that last item!

I really HATE it when people who are offended by things in R-rated movies are called "prudish" or assumed to be "preoccupied" with the things they object to. Just speaking in general terms here.

David S. wrote:
Which is why the majority of the public walk around naked all the time, because it's so "natural"!

I'm really going off topic here, but you clearly dont know how easily the mind is conditioned to think the body is sexual and shameful, when in fact, a nudist and their experiences even without growing up with it says how easy it is.

By your logic, we were all born with clothes on our backs, toddlers would *want* their parents to dress them, and artists would really be perverts and pedophiles.

But as you say, it doesnt occur in most of human society, but only because we're taught that it's wrong and to never question it and to just follow the herd. Teen pregnancies are down in countries where nudity is more lax. with proper exposure, kids would have fewer questions, parents could be more open about sex, our "urges" would be much more easily restricted, and the whole "hot vs. not" mentality would pretty much disappear along with all its pressures thus leading to the near downfall of modelling agencies. Oh, and the numerous physical health benefits.

Maybe what you say about not everybody who's shocked by nudity is thinking about sex, but it did sort of stem from there when some millennia ago, the churh decided "nudity=xxx" and told everyone to cover up. Nowadays, a lot of people are shocked because they dont like change at all. Doesnt mean that a couple of hours at a nude swimming pool or a beach wouldn't easily dispatch such attitudes in all but the most stubborn of people. Dont believe me? I can quote true stories.