Jump to content

Gay kiss in the buzz light year movie


Recommended Posts

Here is what the REAL issue is…

It isn’t lore  friendly.
 

Toy story 1 takes place in 1995. Buzz light year was supposed to be a starwars equivalent for the toy story universe. 
 

There is NO way a movie released in 1995 would have been as widely accepted as StarWars if it had a gay kiss

Link to comment

Everything Disney makes now breaks the Lore. They just let woke non-fans write all their new shows. Obi-Wan Kenobi is not suppose to lose to Darth Vader, when in a New Hope, Darth acknowledges that Obi-Wan was still the master when they last met. And the Grand Inquisitor is supposed to be dead, but he's alive to be beaten and killed by a brand new diverse female character. Because the only thing they don't forget is woke messaging, so in woke world, the strong female character can't be beaten by a male character. I don't know what they have against Lore.

th-4160381616 - Copy.jpg

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Obi-Wan Kenobi is not suppose to lose to Darth Vader, when in a New Hope, Darth acknowledge that Obi-Wan was the master the last they met. And the Grand Inquisitor is supposed to be dead, but he's alive to be beaten and killed by a brand new diverse female character.

Ok… you are frankly wrong… horribly in fact.

1) Obi-wan DID best Vader. In a New Hope, Vader says “When I left you I was but the learner. Now, I am the master.”. Vader said nothing about losing in a duel. All the flashback scenes in episode 5 of the series were showing Kenobi teaching Anakin that killing your opponent is not the only way to beat them, and that his focus on besting his opponent in combat blinds him. The episode ends as a call back to that lesson. Vader was blinded in trying to capture Kenobi and was out smarted by him.

Sure, one can say that is disappointing since we were all expecting an epic duel… but it still fits perfectly. 
 

Also… there is one more episode


2) The Grand Inquositor was NOT supposed to die. The Star Wars Rebels TV series takes place after this and that is where he was first introduced into StarWars. When StarWars fans saw him get stabbed, we all knew he wasn’t dead. The Jedi Kanan beats him in a fight and he falls to his death.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Fether said:

Here is what the REAL issue is…

It isn’t lore  friendly.
 

Toy story 1 takes place in 1995. Buzz light year was supposed to be a starwars equivalent for the toy story universe. 
 

There is NO way a movie released in 1995 would have been as widely accepted as StarWars if it had a gay kiss

Yes, the traditional "lore" of marriage and family is being challenged in children's entertainment, which has become too great a part of childhood (and their parents') life experience and personal priority. Related to this "lore" are the mores concerning the sexual education and sexualization of children.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Fether said:

Ok… you are frankly wrong… horribly in fact.

1) Obi-wan DID best Vader. In a New Hope, Vader says “When I left you I was but the learner. Now, I am the master.”. Vader said nothing about losing in a duel. All the flashback scenes in episode 5 of the series were showing Kenobi teaching Anakin that killing your opponent is not the only way to beat them, and that his focus on besting his opponent in combat blinds him. The episode ends as a call back to that lesson. Vader was blinded in trying to capture Kenobi and was out smarted by him.

Sure, one can say that is disappointing since we were all expecting an epic duel… but it still fits perfectly. 
 

Also… there is one more episode


2) The Grand Inquositor was NOT supposed to die. The Star Wars Rebels TV series takes place after this and that is where he was first introduced into StarWars. When StarWars fans saw him get stabbed, we all knew he wasn’t dead. The Jedi Kanan beats him in a fight and he falls to his death.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of writing something similar up.

Link to comment

I haven't seen the show obviously, and haven't read anything about this kiss other than what's been said on this thread and one facebook post from a friend.  It's the facebook post that has me wondering something though.

In it, this sister says that anyone who has a problem with the kiss is homophobic.  She says it as if it's a given fact, but I don't know that I agree.  Personally, I probably wouldn't have an issue with it and it likely won't stop me from letting my littles watch it (if they even want to, which is doubtful), but is there room to not want to teach your kids that SS relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships in God's eyes and also not be accused of not liking gays?

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment

I think the outrage over this is pretty sad. All the problems in the world today, and some people in a cartoon kissed and that's what grown adults are in a tizzy over. 

Link to comment

Hollywood can't come up with new content so they have to keep making new editions of stuff from the past.  At least the market has decided that a new Top Gun or Jurassic Park sequel is preferred over a Toy Story one and a gay kiss is not going to make it number 1. 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

is there room to not want to teach your kids that SS relationships are equal to homosexual relationships in God's eyes and also not be accused of not liking gays?

Did you mean "that SS relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships"? If not, I don't understand your question, if you did then I think the answer is no. I believe that defining their lifestyle as immoral is grounds for believing that one does not like them. When it comes to LGBT issues, I do not think "love the person hate the sin" passes the smell test. I do not think you can separate sexuality and gender from identity. In effect we are telling them that in God's eyes they have something wrong with them that will be corrected in the next life.

I worked for a gay boss for 30 years. He became a good friend and was the best boss I ever had. I believe who he is, which includes being gay, is so fundamental to his nature that he would be a completely different person were he not gay. I partially base that on the fact he has a twin brother who was also my boss during that time and was a man I despised. Even though they were twins they was totally different people.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Did you mean "that SS relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships"? If not, I don't understand your question, if you did then I think the answer is no. I believe that defining their lifestyle as immoral is grounds for believing that one does not like them. When it comes to LGBT issues, I do not think "love the person hate the sin" passes the smell test. I do not think you can separate sexuality and gender from identity. In effect we are telling them that in God's eyes they have something wrong with them that will be corrected in the next life.

I did mean heterosexual.  I'll fix it.

Ok, but, what about those people who believe that having sex before marriage is immoral (and won't show that kind of stuff to their little kids in film) but still loves and supports their family member, or best friend, or whatever super close relationship type, who believes and lives differently?  Even going to the point of hosting a baby shower for a child happily conceived out of wedlock.

Under those circumstance, does it make sense to suggest that--despite all the love and support actively being shown--that the person actually does not like the person because they believe their lifestyle is immoral?

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I did mean heterosexual.  I'll fix it.

Ok, but, what about those people who believe that having sex before marriage is immoral (and won't show that kind of stuff to their little kids in film) but still loves and supports their family member, or best friend, or whatever super close relationship type, who believes and lives differently?  Even going to the point of hosting a baby shower for a child happily conceived out of wedlock.

Under those circumstance, does it make sense to suggest that--despite all the love and support actively being shown--that the person actually does not like the person because they believe their lifestyle is immoral?

I think in today’s climate there is not room to think quietly about one’s opinion about homosexuality.  You either love it or you hate it.  Like masks. It’s black and white.  In my opinion, this type of thinking appeals to the lowest common denominator of intelligence, and since it’s a concern for people everywhere, that’s the level of intelligence we all have to operate from. 

Since premarital sex is presently less controversial in the world at large, no one seems to care about anyone’s opinion of it.  It’s easier to “love the sinner hate the sin. “ 

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I believe that defining their lifestyle as immoral is grounds for believing that one does not like them. When it comes to LGBT issues, I do not think "love the person hate the sin" passes the smell test. I do not think you can separate sexuality and gender from identity. In effect we are telling them that in God's eyes they have something wrong with them that will be corrected in the next life.

Just a hypothetical conversation between me and a person who identifies as some LGBTQ identification  that I hope to have with someone some day. This how I see it panning out.

-SCENARIO 1-

Me: My core identity is a child of God. Will you refer to me as such?

Lgbtq individual: sure!

Me: so you believe in God?

Lgbtq individual: No

Me: but you are referring to me as a child of God? How can you do that without believing in God?

Lgbtq individual: I don’t believe in God, but I am ok referring to you as one out of respect and just being decent.

Me: will you allow me the same opportunity? To treat you with respect and decency while not agreeing with with your core identity?

 

-SCENARIO 2-

Me: My core identity is a child of God. Will you refer to me as such?

Lgbtq individual: No

Me: Why?

Lgbtq individual: Because I don’t believe in God and referring to you as a child of God would undermine my core belief.

Me: ok, fair enough, I can respect that. Can you then respect my decision to forgo your preferred pronouns and refer to you as the gender your genitalia suggests you are and type of chromosomes you have? Doing anything other than that would undermine my core beliefs.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I think in today’s climate there is not room to think quietly about one’s opinion about homosexuality.  You either love it or you hate it.  Like masks. It’s black and white.  In my opinion, this type of thinking appeals to the lowest common denominator of intelligence, and since it’s a concern for people everywhere, that’s the level of intelligence we all have to operate from. 

Since premarital sex is presently less controversial in the world at large, no one seems to care about anyone’s opinion of it.  It’s easier to “love the sinner hate the sin. “ 

I think you are right.  It really is an "all or nothing" kind of world with a lot of topics.  To our detriment.  

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Fether said:

Ok… you are frankly wrong… horribly in fact.

1) Obi-wan DID best Vader. In a New Hope, Vader says “When I left you I was but the learner. Now, I am the master.”. Vader said nothing about losing in a duel. All the flashback scenes in episode 5 of the series were showing Kenobi teaching Anakin that killing your opponent is not the only way to beat them, and that his focus on besting his opponent in combat blinds him. The episode ends as a call back to that lesson. Vader was blinded in trying to capture Kenobi and was out smarted by him.

Sure, one can say that is disappointing since we were all expecting an epic duel… but it still fits perfectly. 
 

Also… there is one more episode


2) The Grand Inquositor was NOT supposed to die. The Star Wars Rebels TV series takes place after this and that is where he was first introduced into StarWars. When StarWars fans saw him get stabbed, we all knew he wasn’t dead. The Jedi Kanan beats him in a fight and he falls to his death.

Alright, I'm sorry! So, Lore is safe then, so far...

th-2457509034.jpg

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jaydes said:

I think the outrage over this is pretty sad. All the problems in the world today, and some people in a cartoon kissed and that's what grown adults are in a tizzy over. 

I think this is an example of the "Fallacy of Relative Privation" (a/k/a "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as"), which "dismiss{es} an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems."  See here:

Quote

Example #1:

Be happy with the 1972 Chevy Nova you drive.  There are many people in this country who don’t even have a car.

Explanation: This person does have a very crappy car by any reasonable standard.  Only comparing his situation with people who have no cars, does his Chevy Nova look like a Rolls Royce.  It is fallacious to make a reasonable judgment based on these extreme cases.

And here:

Quote

How It Works

The appeal to worse problems falsely asserts that it’s impossible for both the current argument and the worst-case scenario to be true. This assertion is a false dilemma. Voicing a complaint is not the same as ignoring the suffering of others or insisting such suffering does not exist. 

I think this fallacy is often intermingled with a particular type of the "Appeal to Ridicule" fallacy.  Here I refer to the "Is this hill worth dying on?"-style rhetoric.  It goes like this:

  • Jack: "I'm really getting concerned about gender dysphoria in teens.  I just read an article stating that 'between 2009 and 2019, children being referred for transitioning treatment in the United Kingdom increased 1,000% among biological males and 4,400% among biological females,' and that 'the number of young people identifying as transgender in the US has almost doubled since 2017.'  The article also talks quite a bit about the difficulties arising from kids 'transitioning' in their teens, undergoing hugely significant medical treatments like puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, mastectomies, etc., and then they later regret it but face big problems arising from the 'irreversible medical consequences of a decision they made as minors.'"
  • Jill: "Oh, get a grip, Jack.  People are dying in the Ukraine.  We have a massive refugee crisis.  Droughts and water scarcity are getting worse by the day.  And you are focusing on media hype about teenagers?"
  • Jack: "Well, I think gender dysphoria is a serious mental health condition.  And we as a society seem to be actively encouraging gender dysphoria, and not only allowing, but encouraging children and teens to undergo these significant medical procedures.  I think children and teens are not yet situated to made such life-altering decisions, particularly given that "{e}leven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty," and "{a}mong those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults."  Additionally, countries in Europe that pioneered pediatric medical transitions 'are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes.'  We also have very little data about long-term health risks of these procedures, though we do know that "{p}uberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health," and that '{c}ross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes.'  I think these issues merit attention and serious discussion."
  • Jill: "Whatever.  I think people who complaint about this stuff are just bigoted against trans people.  Seriously, Jack, is this really a hill worth dying on?"

There are many problems in this world.  In the immortal words of Qui-Gon Jinn: "There's always a bigger fish."  No matter what topic is raised, no matter what concern is expressed, we can always outdo it by pointing to some other ostensibly more serious problem.  I think that is a fallacious way of thinking, as it essentially mandates that we pay no attention to any problem by (falsely) suggesting that we must resolve all bigger problems first.

The topic here is whether Disney/Pixar should be injecting messages about homosexuality and LGBT ideology into children's entertainment ("should" in a business/financial sense, not a Free Speech sense).  Polling data from Politico shows that a majority of Americans favor banning the teaching of gender identity and sexual orientation to kids from kindergarten through third grade, though parents are heavily divided on this issue.

I suspect that some folks are boycotting Lightyear because of this issue.  Take a look at this Newsweek article:

Quote

Its relatively disappointing debut at movie theaters was slammed by some, including lawyer and host of The Jenna Ellis Show, Jenna Ellis. Highlighting the news that Pixar's Lightyear made a "disappointing" $51 million in its domestic opening, she declared: "Go woke, go broke."
...

Right-wing author Nick Adams made his feelings very clear in a series of tweets relating to Lightyear.

"Do NOT take your children to see Lightyear, it is 100 percent woke!" he told his 310,600 followers. "I will go to the theater to watch the anti-woke Top Gun 2 movie again before going to see Pixar's woke Lightyear movie once! This country needs more patriotic movies like Top Gun and fewer woke films like Lightyear!"

Conservative author Brigitte Gabriel also called for a boycott for the "full woke" Lightyear, telling her followers to "hurt them at the box office!"

Noam Blum, chief technology officer at Tablet Magazine, gave his take on why Lightyear has underperformed and angered so many, accusing Disney of playing both sides.

"The irony of stuff like Lightyear is that Disney will put the tiniest amount of gay content in a movie so that it can easily pulled if China wants it, but keeping it in gets them accused of being just as woke as if the entire story was about queerness," he wrote on Twitter.

It is hard enough to finance and create a successful film.  It seems odd that so many folks in Hollywood keep insisting on alienating significant portions of its audience by injecting controversies pertaining to sex into children's content.

I am opposed to censorship as a matter of principle, but at the same time I am very much in favor of the "Vote with Your Dollars" sentiment.  

Also, I think many are becoming tired of these seemingly-innocuous-but-nevertheless-incremental moves toward inculcating children with controversial messaging as to matters of sexuality.  And I think the endless "You're a bigot if you oppose any of this stuff"-style disparagements have lost much of their potency.  The falsity of such shaming tactics is becoming more and more apparent.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Fether said:

Here is what the REAL issue is…

It isn’t lore  friendly.
 

Toy story 1 takes place in 1995. Buzz light year was supposed to be a starwars equivalent for the toy story universe. 
 

There is NO way a movie released in 1995 would have been as widely accepted as StarWars if it had a gay kiss

I don't know. When Star Wars first came out, there was an incestuous kiss between Princess Leia and Luke Skywalker. The Star War's trilogy did pretty well at the box office.

lukeleia.jpg?auto=webp&fit=crop&height=6

 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

I don't know. When Star Wars first came out, there was an incestuous kiss between Princess Leia and Luke Skywalker. The Star War's trilogy did pretty well at the box office.

lukeleia.jpg?auto=webp&fit=crop&height=6

 

Yes, but that was a sneaky incestuous kiss. George Lucas didn’t even know it was incestuous when it happened.

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

I don't know. When Star Wars first came out, there was an incestuous kiss between Princess Leia and Luke Skywalker. The Star War's trilogy did pretty well at the box office.

lukeleia.jpg?auto=webp&fit=crop&height=6

 

I was about to post this.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...