not the most popular thread anymore, donnie darko and homos.

Started by SubstanceD, February 18, 2003, 07:02:07 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Xixax

Sphinx is just up tight because he has a dick in his butt right now.

Actually, the phrase "gay" has been used to mean "lame" "sucky" and "retarded" for as long as I can remember. It's like calling someone a fag.

I think that it's been used so much that the slang has transcended any homosexual connotations. I'm completely unoffended by its use.

That is, unless someone is calling me gay, or a fag. Then I'll have to kick their ass.
Quote from: Pas RapportI don't need a dick in my anus to know I absolutely don't want a dick in my anus.
[/size]

picolas

Quote from: XixaxI think that it's been used so much that the slang has transcended any homosexual connotations.

but, y'see...i think it really hasn't.

as long as gay means gay (in the non-"look at me! i'm having a gay old time!" way), gay will never not mean being gay...

and regardless of whether or not someone thinks the slang doesn't actually refer to someone's sexuality, someone else will inevitably pick it up that way because it's the same freakin' word.

it's like calling someone you really hate a scarf and expecting them not to think that that means you think they're a scarf and, therefore, not something good because so many people have called each other scarfs already that the word is no longer attached to scarfs. somewhere down the road...someone's going to think that "scarf" means "scarf."

:arrow:  :arrow:  :arrow:

sphinx

Quote from: XixaxSphinx is just up tight because he has a dick in his butt right now.

Actually, the phrase "gay" has been used to mean "lame" "sucky" and "retarded" for as long as I can remember. It's like calling someone a fag.

I think that it's been used so much that the slang has transcended any homosexual connotations. I'm completely unoffended by its use.

That is, unless someone is calling me gay, or a fag. Then I'll have to kick their ass.

i'm not offended by it either, i just thought it was policy, or something.  i think greg's standards have been tatooed in my brain for too long

cowboykurtis

When looking at Darko i think it is a very amature attempt at conciously making an "arthouse" film. the screenplay is so unfocused it's laughable. its almost as if he shot the treatment-- I wonder if any re-writes were done. there were so many subplots and tangents, that by themselves were nice, but when applied to the whole picture were self masturbation in a sense. instead of letting the story be told, he seemed overly anxious to prove his ability as this wonderkid. i found most of his techniques were excercized to distract the viewer from the empty characters. i think there's much more to be said for his visual sense of  directing.  THere is a shit load of potential i do agree. I think he first needs to learn how to seamlessly and  unobtrusively tell a story. If the story isn't there, which it wasn't in my opinion, it's all style and no substance.  if one can really say that using a tears for fears song, or shooting a scene overcranked is the true trademark as a genius, then we are speaking two different languages.
...your excuses are your own...

Xixax

While I completely disagree with you, Cowboy, I love the way you argue your point.

Post on, Mr. Fishburne!
Quote from: Pas RapportI don't need a dick in my anus to know I absolutely don't want a dick in my anus.
[/size]

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

Quote from: XixaxSphinx is just up tight because he has a dick in his butt right now.

.



never having had that happen to me I can not really relate to what the guy is going through, however i did once have a mishap with a broomstick while trying to show my cousin how to do the running man .

uhh that was bad , The pain the pain, the blood ohhh the blood,
and now thinking back on it well i can see how something like that will just ruin your whole day

sphinx


budgie

Quote from: Duck Sauce
Quote from: budgieI wished had been directed by David Lynch, who'd have got it by the throat instead of pussyfooting like a slavering but nervous poodle around its perimeter.

What do you mean by this?

Well, I thought some more about the movie afterwards, and decided that I probably dislike it for the same reason that I dislike Kubrick's films. While I take on board the satire of Requiem, and the way it points out our own voyeuristic and glamourising/escapist tendencies when it comes to drugs, sexual exploitation, and watching movies themselves, I find that the direction, like Kubrick's, adds up to a smug superiority that is only really possible for people who are in a comfortable position of power. I think in making such a film, or any kind of creative work that contains a socio-political comment, it's a very tempting position to take - outside the system and the petty squabbles of the masses - but ultimately I can't find that attractive or admirable, mainly because it's entirely dishonest (no one is truly outside the system), but also because I find it emotionally and erotically frigid and basically rather pathetic. A kind of scared to get your hands dirty kind of thing. The only scene in Requiem (I can remember) where the camera feels guilty is the dildo one.

What I consider to be the best satirical filmmaking isn't afraid to admit its own seduction into the world it's depicting: Fight Club is a good example of this. I think David Lynch's work is another, and his vision where dreamstates/hallucinations are concerned is also far more exciting. When i said he would take it by the throat, I wasn't talking in terms of being aggressive, but in his ability to be involved himself.

snaporaz

Quote from: budgieWhat I consider to be the best satirical filmmaking isn't afraid to admit its own seduction into the world it's depicting: Fight Club is a good example of this.

so, you think that by casting the likes of brad pitt and having him and norton's faces advertising the film on posters and what-not makes it's satire better?

i'm not sure i disagree with you, but i'd like you to explain this opinion.

Jdaniel

Quote from: SubstanceDIs it just me, or does anyone else think that Donnie Darko is overrated and sloppy.  Sloppy and without substance? I have a really hard time with this movie because each individual scene is great, I really feel this, but when put together the movie lacks coherency, which is not neccesarilly a bad thing, but when the moron director spews BS all over the commentary trying to explain the BEAUTIFUL mess of a movie he's made, he completely ruins his own picture.  Am I the only one. Talk back. I'm curious.

I believe you are the only one.  Besides being one of the most intelligent films written, I feel the directing was entirely substantial.  However, I have not heard the commentary from the director and am ignorant as to whether or not he builds altars of himself.

SubstanceD

Obviously you haven't read some of the other posts or you would know that I'm not the only one who thinks Donnie Darko is a piece of poop like your mamie.
Stubborn as a thousand born agains avoiding questions.

budgie

Quote from: snaporaz
Quote from: budgieWhat I consider to be the best satirical filmmaking isn't afraid to admit its own seduction into the world it's depicting: Fight Club is a good example of this.

so, you think that by casting the likes of brad pitt and having him and norton's faces advertising the film on posters and what-not makes it's satire better?

i'm not sure i disagree with you, but i'd like you to explain this opinion.

Casting Brad Pitt works towards the thing I'm talking about perfectly, his presence being at once seductive and ironic, thereby offering a distant and a sucked in possibility. I think Fincher uses this and admits he loves Brad's/Tyler's whole thing even while he mocks himself and us and the Narrator for loving it too.

Advertising is a side issue. I'm talking about watching the movie and the way it's shot.

polkablues

Quote from: XixaxI think that it's been used so much that the slang has transcended any homosexual connotations. I'm completely unoffended by its use.

Dammit... I thought I was done being indignant for this week.  Anytime a word like "gay" starts being used as an insult, it makes anyone the word actually literally describes into a walking insult.  Would you say to someone, "That's so fucking Hispanic"? or "Don't be so Black, dude."  The fact that you're completely unoffended by its use is the problem, not the justification.

Budgie, you're more intellectual than I am.  Back me up here.
My house, my rules, my coffee

cowboykurtis

I don'tknow if you are referring to Donnie Darko as satire, but it sure as hell isn't a satire. Richard Kelly can not even be compared to Kubrick. I do understand that some feel Kubrick's films to be cold and distant, however this by know means reflects his abilitly as a film maker, it rather reflects the stoires he chooses to tell. But as a craftsman and a storyteller he is one of the best that cinema has ever seen. The very fact that you would even compare Richard Kelly to Kubrick tells me that you are either careless with your words or uneducated. Whether you love Kubrick or hate him, to say that he his a egotistical man on a soapbox is ludacris. Look up the word satire and then watch Donnie Darko. Fight Club is a satire, Dr. Strangelove is a satire, Even Clockwork Orange is a satire.  Donnie Darko is a poor attempt at "trying" to be brilliant. A great film doesnt come about by the director striving for greatness. Greatness comes from having something to say. What the hell does Donnie Darko have to say?
...your excuses are your own...

Xixax

Quote from: polkabluesAnytime a word like "gay" starts being used as an insult, it makes anyone the word actually literally describes into a walking insult.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe the word "gay" still means "gay" and that it does still have homosexual connotations.

Nevertheless, this whole "accept anything" politically correct mentality bothers me. It's as if we're afraid to say that anything is wrong these days. This mentality attempts to drive home a thought process that says that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. It is quite probable that you and I will never agree on this subject, but I say that being gay is aberrant behavior. It's not natural. It's not inborn. It's a choice, and it is wrong.

Before anyone goes off calling me a homophobe or a gay basher, let me state that my gay friends will tell you that's not true. While I don't agree with their lifestyle, that doesn't mean that I hate them as people. Just that I disagree with their behaviour - much like I would disagree with the politics of a liberal Democrat (except that I don't have any liberal democrat friends  :roll: ).

I won't force my opinions on you, but my opinions aren't going to change either. It's just the way I feel.

Any to anyone on this board who is gay, I am sorry that you and I disagree about your lifestyle. However, it doesn't mean that we can't sit down over a beer and talk about the things we do have in common (like great films). Let's not let it get in the way of being friends. If you can get past it, I can.

These views aren't the views of the board Xixax. Just the guy who calls himself that.
Quote from: Pas RapportI don't need a dick in my anus to know I absolutely don't want a dick in my anus.
[/size]