You don't understand, Osgood. Aaaahhh...I'm a man!
Well, nobody's perfect.
Posted on 06/22/2004 6:56:15 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
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 a 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 pinnochio 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 suggetsts 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.
This reads like a parody written by liberals with the intent of presenting conservatives as morons with broomsticks up their butts.
" Bugs would sometimes ... kiss him on the lips."
Now that I think about it, Bugs did this often - right after screwing over one of his cartoon foils. A big smooch and then he'd haul ass away, always getting the last laugh.
"That must have been my sick imagination. "
Well then, we're both a coupla sickos.
Puss in boots, Antonio Banderas, is reason enough to buy a ticket to Shrek 2. That, plus it is a much better film than the first one, IMO.
There were a few scenes that I though were inappropriate and unneccessary but all in all a fun movie!
That's how societal norms are established. By ridiculing unacceptable or antisocietal behavior. How else would people learn the limits on what a society considers appropriate and normal?
So which is it, funny and harmless or sinister and foreboding? I've read through the replies here and am flabbergasted at the amount of attention these items are receiving.
Man-dressing-as-woman is a staple of American comedy. Taking offense or reading ulterior motives into it is the same as thinking a whoopee cushion crassly makes light of serious gastrointestinal disorders.
A friend of mine's kid developed a crush on the Little Mermaid. Did that make him some sick, mythical-fish-beast lover?
I'm sure kids and our culture will survive Shrek 2. However, one certain way to confuse them is to point out all the sinister things you see in their harmless fun.
The absurd is funny.
Transexuals (and/or extremely ugly stepsisters) are funny. What difference does it make anyway? Should we not allow people to become transexuals if their wacked out brain so desires? The fact is, transgenderism exists. Although it is, as I said, absurd to me, I couldn't care less that they do exist. This issue is so unimportant. I don't want to kiss male rabbits, light dynamite on my back in order to go really fast on roller skates, eat burgers in one single gulp, or smack my friends and coworkers with anvils DESPITE the cartoons I watched growing up. It's all absurd.
{Tin Foil Hat}This is exactly what the politicians want. While we bicker and complain about a quasi-transexual in a ridiculous little film, they enact more regulations, raise more taxes, and cement their positions as supreme commanders of our individual lives.{/tin foil hat}
1. A. There are many gay activists who are putting heavy pressure on having homosexuality accepted, not tolerated mind you, within schools.
B. Gay activists are seeking to have transgenderism taught as 'normative' within schools. and in many schools it presently is being taught as 'ok' behavior.
C. Numerous movies have been made that address crossdressing/transgenderism, now in Shrek2 it is promoted as harless fun, which is the first step.
2. A.I see no "witchcraft" groups, like Wicca, putiing pressure on schools to have witchcraft accepted.
B. I see no witchcraft groups wanting witchcraft being taught as normative.
C. Numerous movies have been made showing witchcraft as harmless.
See the difference betwwen the two?
Your introduction to thinking logically has ended. Let me know if you need any further courses.
There is a class of individual who sees evil in everything. Dana Carvey used to lampoon these folks.
1) It was never presented in a distasteful manner. Yes, there is some "ugliness", but it's just a feeling of sadness, knowing something's wrong, really. And at least it was reality, as well as NOT some sympathetic characters who did the deed. We're don't see Bambi or his mom behave in some crude manner, yet made to feel they're the "good guys". IOW, it's NOT an "anti-hero" movie.
2) How did you know the guys were white? It was just scary that humans were coming to kill them. Reality for a deer at least.
Bottom line is these movies are not presented from the "criminal" viewpoint (anti-hero e.g., "Godfather"), not sympathetic to bad behavior of ANY kind. Even crude remarks, rudeness, or crass behavior is never *presented* - much LESS glorified as "funny".
HUGE difference. To paraphrase the German Shepherd breed standard for this occasion, "Difficult to describe, but unmistakeable when present". Apparently I need my Common Sense tagline restored.
I don't see the ogre lifetyle being taught within some schools, like crossdressing is.
I agree. We saw the movie the other night and enjoyed it with our children. Believe it or not, there are folks who act as the wicked stepsister who worked in the sleazy bar where sleazy characters hung out and where the evil fairy godmother held meetings. Wasn't the point of the movie that beauty isn't everything? And that changing ones looks to make one beautiful does not necessarily make one good-hearted? And that the ugly on the outside can be beautiful inside? Should parents keep their children away from all exposure to evil?
I remember going to New Orleans on New Year's Eve one year when I was in college. Talk about some strange characters! Somewhere along the way I learned of the existence of such people. And I learned there is a better way. BEFORE I saw it in real life.
I agree with you. I clicked on this thread and started reading it with my jaw dropping to the floor. The thing is there will always be something that will offend someone somewhere.
There are also those people (some on this thread) that see boogeymen everywhere they turn. I am so thankful I don't have to go through my life being hypersensitive to everything.
The really sad thing is the kids whose parents censor based upon perceived offenses will be the kids who rebel the hardest. They'll remember not being able to see Schrek 2 (or other activities) while all of their little friends got to see it. They'll remember how restrictive their parents were and they'll go out and try to experience everything they can. It's sad because these parents use everything as a battle and don't know when to pick their battles appropriately.
Lew Sheldon has simply got to get a life.
Or a really, really, really ugly woman who either smoked a lot, or went hoarse from screaming abuse at Cinderella.
How you handle the problem of crossdressing/transgenderism is to have it taught within schools as a deviant behavior and as a mental disorder, and that those who practice them should get help for their mental disorders.
Laughing at them wont suffice. In fact, it does very little in the long run, even if that was the intent of the Shrek2 producers, which I seriously doubt it was.
Antonio Banderas' swashbuckling kitten was hilarious! I think FR admin mods should induct him into the "Viking Kitten Troll Zotter Squad."
Last week, I also watched the DVD of the latest version on "Peter Pan" which is supposed to be faithful to the 100-year-old original J.M. Barrie stage script. Apart from the garish CGI special effects, this made it just as much of a museum piece as the low-tech TV production of Mary Martin dangling from piano wires. Besides, I couldn't get Michael Jackson out of my mind.
Best version of "Peter Pan" that has ever been made, IMO, is Steven Spielberg's which starred Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman.
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.