We have the usual Liberal Hollywood PC crap which seems to be the norm from all the film studios out there nowadays.
20 minutes in, two men cuddling up together and spooning in the train carriage, and that was it for me, I was done.
Deckard B26354, I’m filed and monitored.
You mad..... 🤣🤣🤣
shareThe homophobia is strong with this one.
shareDeciding not to watch something because it goes down the homo road doesn't mean someone is homophobic anymore than someone choosing not to watch a movie when they realize it is pushing a Christian agenda is no proven to be "god fearing" or afraid of Christians. Look up the word homophobia it doesn't mean what you think it means. It has nothing to do with someone disliking homosexuals it has to do with having an irrational fear of homosexuals. Finding someone that is really homophobic is very rare... finding a liberal idiot that wants to miss use the word is all to easy.
shareOP is expressing an irrational fear of homosexuals. He stopped watching a movie as soon as he had to see some homosexual activity.
shareIt came across as more bored of the homosexual angle that seems to get rammed down audiences throats these days than irrational fear of homosexuals.
shareI don't like watching dubbed movies, when if I start watching a movie and find that it is dubbed and not done with subtitles I'll stop watching. I'm not afraid of dubs, I just don't like them. I suspect that's the same thing with the OP turning off Old Guard when they started showing the man on man love. If it was an irrational fear he wouldn't have turned it off he would have fled the room screaming like a little girl and been too terrified to go turn it off until the scene had finished. Now do you understand the difference between irrational fear and simply not wanting to see something? An irrational fear has some very specific symptoms beyond an aversion to what ever it is. Without INTENSE fear or anxiety it isn't considered an irrational fear. Find a food you don't like to eat, now if someone placed it on the dinner table would you avoid going to the table to get other foods to eat? Would your heart pound out of your chest causing a near panic attack if you had to reach by that food to get your dinner roll? Didn't think so. But you don't have a phobia of that food now do you. Stop being a ignorant liberal and squawking homophobe ever time someone doesn't smile and get the warm fuzzy grin when they see a man on man scene in a movie, frankly the fact that you have been clearly explain that simply not wanting to watch it isn't homophobia and your continued insistence that it is really seems more of an indication of your homosexual preference than anything else. It would make sense, if you were gay and felt insecure about it then you might want to think anyone else that didn't approve of your lifestyle was homophobia would be a possible defense mechanism.
So which are you? And insecure homosexual, or an ignorant liberal?
Why does that bother you? Nobody asked you to be a part of the spooning.
It's fine to not like that aspect of it and also fine if you don't like the whole homosexual community. Just close your eyes and get past those scenes. It's part of life. Some people are homosexual and that's that. They don't affect you nor should it bother you what 2 people do. How does it matter really?
I don't think you're a racist or bad for expressing this so my advice to you is just FF it or close your eye and done. The point of the movie is something else.
They don't affect you nor should it bother you what 2 people do. How does it matter really?
How are they "shoving it down his throat"?
*THEY* made their movie. You have 100% choice to skip it and not like it or that aspect of it or walk out which he/she did.
But again, there are people who are homosexuals. While heterosexuality is prevalent overwhelmingly this story involved these few people, out of which it is easily believable that over time 2 of them could've developed a relationship from the same sex. What's wrong in that? Sure, you don't like it and while it is not my preference either, I don't mind them being so nor did I feel it was shoved in my face. Had one been in a cuddly position with Charlize Theron, would you have complained that they're "shoving that down your throat"? Why not?
Again, it doesn't affect the story whatsoever but added to their close bonding.
You don't know what you don't want to see till you see it. Maybe there are people who don't want to see marriages or Christian depiction or Islamic or Hindu or whatnot. Maybe there are people who don't want to see black people or white people or brown people etc. in movies. Maybe there are people who don't want to see X or Y stuff. But they won't know it till they see it now, won't they?
At that point, either accept it and move on or walk out and forget it and realize you have lost on an incredible movie based on your silly prejudices and biases and intolerance.
*THEY* made their movie. You have 100% choice to skip it and not like it or that aspect of it or walk out which he/she did.
Had one been in a cuddly position with Charlize Theron, would you have complained that they're "shoving that down your throat"? Why not?
Again, it doesn't affect the story whatsoever but added to their close bonding.
At that point, either accept it and move on or walk out and forget it and realize you have lost on an incredible movie based on your silly prejudices and biases and intolerance.
You're quite biased and limited and closed in your thinking. While I understand your intolerance, I don't accept it.
There's nothing "incredible" either about infertile couples or couples who no longer want to or can have a child. Wouldn't that be degeneracy too then since you seem to imply love based relationships are only solely for the sake of procreation.
That sort of thinking is so 17th century and thankfully there are fewer and fewer of you people. When you guys are gone, that view will be gone as well and civilization will be better for it and stronger.
There's nothing "incredible" either about infertile couples or couples who no longer want to or can have a child. Wouldn't that be degeneracy too then since you seem to imply love based relationships are only solely for the sake of procreation.
That sort of thinking is so 17th century and thankfully there are fewer and fewer of you people. When you guys are gone, that view will be gone as well and civilization will be better for it and stronger.
You can take this 17th century FUD view elsewhere. These scare tactics don't work anymore.
Homosexuality was with humans for thousands of years. Our population only keeps growing. With today's tech, people can still have babies via other means (adoption, fertility through anonymous conception with a gay guy and some random woman willing to bear the child via her ovum) so humanity isn't gonna cease to exist at all that way.
The relative % of homosexuals hasn't really changed imo but they're just more open today.
I'm a straight male and married with kids and I don't see an issue if people want to be homosexual, especially in movies when it's not done for the sake of it. You clearly do and you have a problem because you can't accept the others have their own thing but you must interfere in their lives for some reason.
How about you just stop meddling in other people's lives if it doesn't affect you whatsoever?
That's what Republicans say right - stay out of my business and govt should stay out of my life?
I'm a straight male and married with kids and I don't see an issue if people want to be homosexual, especially in movies when it's not done for the sake of it. You clearly do and you have a problem because you can't accept the others have their own thing but you must interfere in their lives for some reason.
How about you just stop meddling in other people's lives if it doesn't affect you whatsoever?
That's what Republicans say right - stay out of my business and govt should stay out of my life?
By your first point logic, even straight couples/kissing and family movies should not be made. They should keep those choices to themselves. Because it is invasive.
Re. Necrophilia, bestiality - you serious? These are illegal acts unlike homosexuality. People have all sorts of fetishes and some movies do show them. You just don't watch them if you don't want. e.g. Silence of the Lambs showed cannibalism. But I bet you were fine with it.
Re. meddling, you are meddling. YOU are going to watch their movie. They're not forcing you to watch it. It's the same argument as immigrants coming to America and demanding laws change to suit them. No. F that. You come here, you live by our rules or gtfo. Same here. You go to watch their movie, you abide by what they show. Don't like it? gtfo.
I'm a liberal Democrat as you might've surmised by now and I take it you're a Republican based on your replies clearly and you can see how un-Republican you're being by wanting to impose your will and views on what people can and cannot make/do.
How about you make your Christian family values movie and watch it with an audience that might like that. Maybe include the American traitor and ultimate hypocrite of Christian values aka Loser Donald Trump in your movie too for that hypocrisy.
Bottom line - these movies are great and you're missing out based on your silly preconceived notions. While movies might have stupidity like forcing diversity checkboxes and cringy agendas like in Supergirl, this movie does not do that whatsoever. The main part of the movie has nothing to do with the 2 chars who happened to end up that way which is totally believable given the 1000s of years they've been alive.
Also, learn to maturely accept people have different points of view and if they're not hurting anyone or it doesn't affect you in any way, it is none of your business and fine.
I am done with this convo now. Goodnight.
e.g. Silence of the Lambs showed cannibalism. But I bet you were fine with it.
You go to watch their movie, you abide by what they show. Don't like it? gtfo.
I take it you're a Republican based on your replies clearly and you can see how un-Republican you're being by wanting to impose your will and views on what people can and cannot make/do.
Also, learn to maturely accept people have different points of view and if they're not hurting anyone or it doesn't affect you in any way, it is none of your business and fine.
Tell your mom what your dad did already and come out ffs.
shareNothing wrong with LGB but once it goes to TQ+ it starts to get into the degeneracy territory. You should move past it or just don't watch it which is pretty much what you did but at least give a few episodes a shot before completely dismissing it.
shareOh boy, do I have a series for you!
"SENSE8"
Such a shame really, in the right hands that concept and lore could have been elevated to artistic perfection.
But NOPE! Wachowkis turned into to "Woe is me, LGBTQ good, Straight White men evil" crap.
yup. kinda tired of them now. their single focused agenda shoved into every film always seems forced, stupid, and wrong.
they can go ahead and placate their 3% fan base, but shouldn't expect the 97 to give a crap. That's life.
I hate that kind of stuff in movies, but I didn't get too bother by the same-sex relationship. It wasn't too in your face and not the main focus of the movie. I felt the movie was more about Charlize Theron's character and the girl. Plus trying to get the girl to accept she was one of them and stuff. And they did kind of give a backstory on the two guys and how they ended up a couple. It's not like they became a thing with just a finger snap. Plus they were already in a relationship at the start of the movie. Oh and I did watch Grace Randolph's review of the movie and she gave the heads up there that there was a same-sex relationship between two guys. So I sort of knew what I was in for/what to prepare myself for when I hit the play button. But it didn't really feel forced or anything. Not in the way that I've seen in a lot of other movies and TV shows lately. My only complaint with the relationship or characters altogether was that if you removed the characters altogether, it wouldn't really change much. The movie was heavily focused on Charlize Theron, the girl, and the other guy in the group. Plus the villains/bad guys. All of them had the most screen time. But at least when they showed the two guys or it cut to them, they weren't all over each other and stuff and wanting to get it on. A lot of the other movies or TV shows I've seen with two gay guys would just have them there to please the LGBT community of showing two guys kissing or wanting to screw each others' brains out and in the most inappropriate times (like an action scene and bullets flying all over the place). So I feel things were tolerable and stuff with this movie compared to other movies or TV shows I've seen. It gets a pass.
share"A lot of the other movies or TV shows I've seen with two gay guys would just have them there to please the LGBT community of showing two guys kissing or wanting to screw each others' brains out and in the most inappropriate times (like an action scene and bullets flying all over the place)."
Fair but you also have to ask if it would bother you as much if two straight people were fucking a lot on screen or making out at inappropriate times (which happens all the time).
In many instances it doesn't matter if it's straight sex or homosexual sex, it is way too often unnecessary and sometimes distracting to a movie. When you realize a movie only has about 2 hours to tell a story, it rarely has free time to simply throw in sex scenes or make out sessions that don't serve to move the story along. More often than not the straight scenes get thrown in because the director/producer knew the movie was shit and they thought throwing in some sex scenes might distract from the shitty script... or in with the homosexual scenes they tend to get thrown in just to prove how woke the movie yet still don't actually serve any purpose in moving the story along. In this movie if the focus of the movie had been the gay guys then you might have made an argument that having them making out was part of the movie, but they weren't the focus of the film so it comes across as just pandering to the LGBT community or trying or score their woke points.
I'm quite certain that most any character in a movie has to take a shit every so often, but I don't need to see them taking a shit on film to be reminded. There were likewise much easier and quicker ways to get it across that the two gay dudes were a couple which wouldn't have wasted as much time as having them making out.
You make it sound like this movie had a heap of sex scenes. There's one 10-second kiss and some hugging from the gay couple. Your whole spiel about unnecessary sex falls flat. Also, I figured their kiss was a way to distract the guards and get them to move in close, since the next time we see them in the van all the guards are dead. So I can argue that kiss served a purpose.
"In this movie if the focus of the movie had been the gay guys then you might have made an argument that having them making out was part of the movie, but they weren't the focus of the film so it comes across as just pandering to the LGBT community or trying or score their woke points."
Judging from your posts, I'm sure you wouldn't have watched the film if the gay couple were marketed as the focus. Fine, you don't want to see a whole movie about it.
Then a few minutes of affection between them also ruins the movie (less than 10 minutes out of 120 including their kiss, scenes of them hugging, scenes of them talking romantically to one another). So in short, don't include gays at all to make you happy.
In a movie like this there was really no reason for any make out scenes gay or straight, this was an action movie. Simply throwing in a sex scene in an action movie isn't necessary and usually disrupts the movie. Want a great example, go watch an episode of Strike Back, which was an action series, but every episode they that episodes hook up scene which became a joke as it never really served a purpose and was a bit like watching an old Star Trek episode where anytime you saw hot alien you knew Kirk was going after her before th movie was over... In neither case do those scene help move the story. In Old Guard you're making up reason for it to have made sense. IF it made sense and it had been planned as the distraction you theorize it could have been used for then they should have set the scene up so you know that that was what it was actually used for, they didn't so frankly it just came across as woke moment pandering.
shareIt was a 10-second kiss man. If that is the equivalent (to you) of a full sex scene then that says a lot about you.
Again, your view just boils down to "don't have gay people on screen at all since it bothers me."
Not really paying attention are you. I was pretty fucking clear that make out and sex scene are pointless in most movies and only slow down the story. If you just have to see your gay sex sessions to feel good then just go download some porn,
shareAlso missing my point. They don't make me feel good. I just don't think a 10-second kiss ruins a movie. Anyways, read some of your other posts so I know that trying to reason with you is a waste of time.
shareWell here's a question for you...
What did them being gay add to the movie's plot?
Love adds a lot to the story. It wasn’t about being gay so much as it was the depth of love two immortal people could have for each other. The character who spoke about love for his partner was beautiful and it added complexity the the characters.
You're a child. An infant. Your mocking is thus infantile. He's not my boyfriend. This man is more to me than you can dream. He's the moon when I'm lost in darkness and warmth when I shiver in cold. And his kiss still thrills me, even after a millennia. His heart overflows with the kindness of which this world is not worth of. I love this man beyond measure and reason. He's not my boyfriend. He's all and he's more.
Love adds a lot to the story. It wasn’t about being gay so much as it was the depth of love two immortal people could have for each other.
My point is why does it matter that they are gay. Why do you even care?
shareExactly... WHY should they be gay when they can love one another without being gay?
What was the point of adding it to the movie?
I shouldn't have to care because it shouldn't be there, and you can't seem to explain why it should be there.
What is the point of there being gay people at all? They fucking exist. You don’t have to cry about it. It doesn’t make straight men who are comfortable in their sexuality uncomfortable.
shareThey fucking exist.
You sick assholes always compare gays to pedophiles. That tune is getting old Boomer.
This one was new though, I appreciate your creativity with comparing two men who love each other to dog rapists.
It says a lot about you that you have these thoughts in your disgusting head . . .thanks for sharing. 🤮
Well, my point still stands, and you used prevarication to basically prove my point:
It was pointless woke pandering to a degenerate culture.
There was no reason for them to be gay; they still could have loved each other without being gay.
And since you couldn't formulate an argument why dog rapists and pedophiles SHOULDN'T have been in the film but GAYS should, you essentially conceded to my original point.
NO...NOT COOL,DICKHEAD...PEDOPHILES AND DOG RAPISTS AND GAYS...ARE YOU COMPLETELY UNHINGED?
BY THE WAY....PEDOPHILES ARE CRIMINALS WHO COMMIT SEX CRIMES ON CHILDREN...
DOG RAPISTS ARE ANIMAL ABUSERS ALSO COMMITTING CRIMES AS RAPE IS A CRIME...
GAYS ARE JUST PEOPLE WHO FIND THEMSELVES ATTRACTED TO THE SAME SEX.
GAY PEOPLE ARE A COMMON AND NORMAL PART OF LIFE ON EARTH...PEDOPHILES AND DOG RAPISTS ARE VICTIMIZERS WITH NO CARE FOR ANYONE OR ANYTHING'S HEALTH/SAFETY OR FEELINGS.
GAY PEOPLE ARE A COMMON AND NORMAL PART OF LIFE ON EARTH