Posted on 06/12/2004 1:10:44 PM PDT by Cracker72
Excuse me, but how do we know it was a cross-dresser? Some females have facial hair as they age, haven't we all seen the Halloween caracature of the witch with the hairs coming out of warts? And getting Larry King's gravelly voice to do the Ugly Stepsister was no more of a gender-bender than getting Nancy Cartwright to do the voice of Bart Simpson. You're just going for an effect, and the idea was to make the Ugly Stepsister look ugly and sound ugly!
I can at least see the point about Pinocchio with the women's underwear looking like a bit of cross dressing, but in my opinion, it was mostly trying to make fun of thong underwear, which is pretty silly stuff, when you think about it. Every little boy has been told not to wear his sister's underwear, and vice-versa, so to have a puppet that is carved to resemble a boy wearing female undergarments that are silly to begin with, is just designed to be funny.
Children are smarter than you think. They won't get it in theater. You're probably right about that. But what about when mom and dad bring the DVD home and the little tots watch it over and over as a substitute babysitter? It is just not appropriate, and our culture is to adult self-gratifying to even protest (for the most part). I think it's sad.
I saw Shrek 2 last weekend and I must admit it did seem to subtly promote a pro-gay agenda. There were two characters that especially seemed gay - Kyle the driver and the clerk at the perfume factory. The she-male disturbed me too.
Agree completely. Do gays and transgenders have an agenda, and does that agenda appear in the media and films?- yes. But is it in THIS film?. He's seeing G/L/TG bogeymen behind every bush. Like the mismatch between a womans appearance and a masculine voice has never been seen before in comedy. Ever heard of monty python?, or flip wilson, or dame edna?
CC
Bugs Bunny used to get dressed up to marry Elmer Fudd. I just never considered it a transgender issue. Just something silly.
I didn't say anything about banning anything. I was just commenting on the self-centerness of parents and child caregivers who can't be bothered with caring about content anymore.
I thought we couldn't post articles from The Onion ?
Bugs Bunny was in a disguise. It was totally different.
Are these the same people who saw Satan in the clouds of "The Lion King" movie? Sometimes I think these people must inadvertently be putting the wrong kind of mushrooms on their hamburgers. Or maybe they are getting bad ice cubes in their drinks.
Depends on context. For Shrek II, imo -- PG-13, at least. Maybe R. To me, some of the fairy godmother scenes were beyond the limit.
Some of it was neither abstract nor "adult innuendos". IIRC, cross-dressing was said to be okay -- good even.
Really??? Does it really mean bisexuality? I never heard that.
You see? It was very subtle. There's more, but I've no desire to go watch the movie again to list them.
Was that movie geared towards 6-year-olds? I don't think so. Hey, whatever your conscience can take. By all means, poke fun of those who worry that joking about Pinnochio wearing women's thong underwear might not be appropriate humor for kindergarteners. As long as it eases your conscience, that's all that matters.
1 - The bartender wasn't a transgender...she was Cinderella's Ugly Step-Sister. Which is why she kissed Prince Charming at the end.
2 - Pinocchio was wearing ladies underwear, but he was laughed at and picked on because of it.
IMO - this isn't something to get worked up over. Disney's Lilo & Stitch series on Disney Channel has a blatantly gay alien. That sh!t bothers me.
Shrek 2 was hysterical.
Well, under the Hayes Office, which had power in 1959, movies exhibited in the U.S. were required to conform to standards slightly looser than "G", but more stringent than "PG", so no films were supposed to be particularly unsuitable for children. For men to dress up as women to disguise themselves was thus apparently considered less objectionable than for a man and woman to have a single kiss last more than 3 seconds (unless the man was a soldier or sailor departing for The War--some of those film kisses were allowed to last a lot longer).
BTW, note that cross-dressing for theatrical or humorous purposes goes back a long time, and was not considered to have anything to do with sexual deviancy.
That's nice. Only, we are talking about a familiar fictional character dressed in WOMEN'S THONG UNDERWEAR. We are also talking about a male dressed as a women who drools all over another man. This for the preschool and grade school crowd. I think it's inappropriate. Oh yeah...and some of the female characters were wanting to see Shrek naked and commented on his tight butt. Relate that back to the good old days.
Ah, but they never had any physical contact with Shrek. OTOH, Bugs Bunny physically French-kissed Elmer Fudd while dressed in drag several times. I saw it on TV.
Ain't I A Stinka?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.