Posted on 06/12/2004 1:10:44 PM PDT by Cracker72
TVC Weekly News: Parents Beware: 'Shrek 2' Features Transgenderism And Crossdressing Themes
Summary: The DreamWorks' animated film, "Shrek 2," is billed as harmless entertainment but contains subtle sexual messages.
Parents who are thinking about taking their children to see "Shrek 2," may wish to consider the following: The movie features a male-to-female transgender (in transition) as an evil bartender. The character has five o'clock shadow, wears a dress and has female breasts. It is clear that he is a she-male. His voice is that of talk show host Larry King.
During a dance scene at the end of the movie, this transgendered man expresses sexual desire for Prince Charming, jumps on him, and both tumble to the floor.
In another scene in the movie, Shrek and Donkey need to be rescued from a dungeon where they are chained against the wall. The rescue is conducted by Pinocchio who is asked to lie so his nose will grow long enough for one of the smaller cartoon characters to use it as a bridge to reach Shrek and Donkey. Donkey encourages him to lie about something and suggests he lie about wearing women's underwear. When he denies wearing women's underwear, his nose begins to grow.
An earlier scene in the movie features a wolf dressed in grandma's clothing and reading a book when Prince Charming encounters him. Later, one of the characters refers to the wolf's gender confusion.
TVC's report, "A Gender Identity Disorder Goes Mainstream," explains the transgender agenda and the effort to deconstruct the biological reality of male and female. DreamWorks is helping in this effort by promoting cross dressing and transgenderism in this animated film.
I don't care who likes the movie. But I think it is sad that adults can't even admit that the jokes are inappropriate for the very young audience the movie draws. Is everyone really that self consumed?
I saw Shrek 2 and was thoroughly ticked off with the trans-gender issues. I had my 6, 8 and 10 year old with me and it was entirely inappopriate for that age group.
Am I counting right that it took 23 posts in this conservative news forum for ONE person to agree that the moral, agenda-issue is worth consideration?
Dan
didn't watch too much Bugs Bunny growing up did you?
That was a pretty good book. Another place you can find some of that, is in the creative airbrushing used on playboy centerfolds....
If kids have heard the F-word, they will get the double-entendre "Farquaad". And even if they don't, it's pretty crass to try to trick little kids into using profanity.
When did they start doing THAT!?
You mean those centerfold women are not that perfect in real life?
I'm SHOCKED!
ROTFL...Actually, I meant going back (Probably around the time the book was still in vogue) you could find some suggestive verbiage, in the airbrushing....Much like the gin glass, but far more subtle, though I always thought some smart pants artist was more to blame than any manipulative attempt.
Kids get more than adults seem to think they get. There was some inappropriate humor in Shrek 2. That's all I am saying.
Kids are very literal. They also deeply internatize the compromising they see adults in their life do. They do not get why mom and dad say such and such is wrong, yet the do it themselves sometimes.
When my son was 5 or so, we went to see Fivel Goes West. He became very put out when a tribe of something (it's been a long time -- indians or something) thought the cat was a god and began to literally worship him. To me, I understood the joke. To him, he insisted we leave the theater on principle. I explained it to him later and we returned to see the rest of the movie. I always wondered if I should have explained it or just left it alone. I was proud of him standing up for what was right. Yet, I wanted him to understand that they were not really worshiping a false god.
Another time, my little boy was at a house where there were many scary halloween decorations. (We were big on Bible stories.) He looked around disgusted and stood in the doorway to their kitchen, put his hands on both sides of the doorway, and pushed with all his might. He thought he was being Sampson and that God would bring down the house. LOL! It was adorable, but of course we couldn't tell the home owners that we knew why and what he was doing. LOL!
My point is that kids are very literal. It is a wonderful time to teach them right from wrong and about being principled. But you have to be careful, because they learn more than you think sometimes. And they see every hypocrisy.
Barney seems gay. How about Bert from Sesame Street?
8, 6, 2, and 5 months.
I was disgusted with the transgender theme running through the movie. It was hilarious, but NOT for kids, and I'm sick of this agenda being pushed on us.
I'm surprised that the "transgender" "community" isn't up in arms about the movie. The reason that cross-dressing is funny at all is that it is not the norm. The idea of Pinocchio wearing women's underwear is funny, because it's perverse. Children laugh because even they know it's wrong. I haven't seen the movie yet, so my judgment is subject to change, but the clips I have seen make cross-dressing an object of ridicule.
I'll grant you that having Pinocchio wearing a thong was a bit too much (they could have found some other thing for him to lie about, to make his nose lengthen), but I still think that there's a possibility that the Ugly Stepsister was just a really ugly woman. I suppose its not politically correct to make fun of women who are not beautiful by society's standards, and this might have been just such a faux pas, if my interpretation of it was right. I do think they were trying to make fun of Prince Charming by having him appear overly concerned with his appearance, in the manner that we traditionally associate with women. I've seen liberals complain in movie reviews about that!
Only if you want it to, Sweet Cheeks.
Give me a break!!!!! These are the kind of guys who see dirty pictures in Rorschach Test ink blots! I saw the movie and thought it was terriffic.
Give me a break. There was no reading anything into anything. It was what it was. For those who can't remember, little kids believe a red-suited fat guy squeezes down their chimney and bestows gifts on them once a year. They think a fairy comes into their bedroom every time they place a lost tooth under their pillow, exchanging the tooth for money. They think a bunny hops into their houses once a year and leaves them a basket of candy. CONSIDER THE AUDIENCE! That's my only point. Those kinds of jokes are inappropriate for small children.
I guess there are folks who are happy if they get a fairly equal number of complaints from both sides! Other than a very few things, the movie was great. Producers know that if something is rated "G", rather than "PG", it will not get the free-spending teens to come, and they want that revenue. I think they could have risked the "G" rating, and still made a pile of money. Maybe they'll respond to some criticism when they edit Shreks 3 and 4, that are now in the works.
There is no disagreement that the hunmor was intended for a very diverse (age) audience, but to characterize it as an"Agenda" is being way too theatric. Are you implying that Uncle Miltie had the same agenda and that there was something kinda wierd about the relationship between Hopalong Cassidy and Gabby Hayes too.
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.