Weird that they made him gay in this one. That was the one part that was a little too strange for me. Maybe I'm just not used to seeing him like that. He's a great actor, but I didn't see it.
Pretty sure you knew what I meant, genius. The fact that you thought enough of this borderline homophobic rubbish of a post that it deserved its own topic, after spewing the same ignorance in another topic says a lot. If his character *was* gay, that's just your interpretation. Most people on here would like to believe that flashback never even actually happened. If it did, he was clearly demeaning and torturing the son of a man he had every reason to hate. Why not just call the son gay while you're at it and tell us all how you didn't much care for that either. Are straight men in prison who engage, or are forced to engage, in homosexual activity gay? I realize that you're just trolling, but it's ignorant and starting to become a bit pathetic. I'm under the impression that you didn't care for the film, based on some of your other posts, and now you're just starting to make *beep* up for the hell of it, either to try and get other like minded ignorant individuals on your side, or to get a rise out of those of us who actually enjoyed this film. Grow up.
Hold on. So you're telling me that you're not an ignorant, homophobic, trolling p.o.s.? So you make posts like this for some other reason?
Wait a minute. Are you saying on this board that not only does everyone have to believe that one man sucking another man off is a wonderful thing as you seem to be think, but that we also can't be curious if a certain character is gay? Your bully tactics won't work on here you silly little deviant.
reply share
I don't think you understand what he's saying.... He's not saying getting a blowjob from a man is a wonderful thing. He's saying that it wasn't a story about a gay man. It was he story of a man demeaning another man and that's all.
You're wrong. The Major was enjoying it too much. It's not demeaning unless other people know about it. If he hadn't met the father, no one would have known what happened.
I don't have a problem with gays. Live and let live, do whatever they do. The problem is when they try to SHOVE their lifestyle in your FACE . You go to see a violent western, you're not going to have two men having oral sex SHOVED in your face! After some googling, I'm just now realizing that Tarantino does this in a lot of his films. He's either straight up gay, switch hitting, or has some...odd...fetishes. I'll gladly watch two hot chicks going at it ! Two...men? Uh...no.
Amazing Fact: Thor 2 outgrossed Winter Soldier in 72% of the territories, and sold more Blu rays.
Most people on here would like to believe that flashback never even actually happened. If it did, he was clearly demeaning and torturing the son of a man he had every reason to hate. Why not just call the son gay while you're at it.
The son was clearly sexually assaulted. That's pretty messed up to compare it to a consensual act.
Assuming he actually did that, he's catching, not pitching. He made the guy do that to humiliate him. An evil thing to do (even if the guy was asking for it), but not inherently gay. If he had somebody he liked do that, when he had the option of a female doing it instead, THAT would be gay.
GradyQ, if this is at all a serious post....it had nothing to do with him being gay. He did it because it was the most degrading thing he could do to his enemy at the time. He didn't get sexual satisfaction out of it.
Thats if the flashback actually even took place. Jackson could've fabricated that whole story just to get the general so enraged that he attempts to shoot him enabling SLJ to kill him.
SLJ was not gay in this. That story was most likely just a lie to get the general to draw his weapon on him. Even if it was a true story, still doesn't make him gay. It was just more of a demeaning act of torture..
Dude, you've been pwned and humiliated time and again on these boards. First you try to play the "film purist" card, but you were met with people who knew much more about the subject than you apparently do. Then it was discovered you went to film school then tried your hand in Hollywood but crapped out. So you left town a failure, tail between your legs. Yes, let's all listen to you about film. Or cinema, as you like to call it. You're an expert.
Now you've stooped to name calling and insults, adding nothing to the conversation. The troll here is you. Go back to working for your non-profit that is probably subsidized by tax payers. You're safe there. Here you might be met with differing opinions, which I know you can't stand.
This post, particularly the second paragraph is hypocritical as all hell. This thread is CLEARLY meant to troll people and isn't adding anything remotely intelligent or meaningful to the conversation about the film at all. So, I guess it's apiece of 90% of the other threads on here. Congratulations, you are clearly a bitter and lonely little man, with the mentality of an immature bully. And if you are, in fact, Native American, then I imagine it must be difficult for you to watch your ancestor's plight take a backseat to that of the Blacks in this country.
LOL. On the contrary, I've humiliated others, such as yourself, and I was never a production person, I earned my degree in film history, theory and criticism.
Now, how aboit you tell the world, what your story is, besides just being a troll and a homophobe, and a creep?
"Digital Filmmaking" is an oxymoron #film #realfilm #Super8mm #16mm #35mm #70mm #filmforever
And you just proved yourself wrong. Exactly....u don't have to be erect to have someone perform fellatio on you.
If he performed anal sex on the guy, you'd have an argument because he'd have to be erect for that obviously showcasing sexual stimulation. He made him perform fellatio because it's the most degrading/humiliating thing that could be done to a straight man. It shows absolute dominance on SLJ's part and he was laughing because of the vengeance he was receiving. Who laughs out loud when they're enjoying a blowjob?