goldendriger said:Yeah i was hoping someone would quote that =PRedlin5 said:Hang on, I'll be right back. I need to post a clip from one of my favourite abridgers here XP
Oh please. How could a movie where the male protagonists call each other cute nicknames, and play volleyball, and ride their phallic vehicles at extremely high speeds be anything but straight?Squilookle said:And no, I don't mean in the 'movie sucks' kind of way. I'm talking about the specific headhunting of homo-erotic under/overtones whether they are in there or not, intentionally or otherwise.
I mean, sure it has a fair amount of half naked men in it, but isn't that just covering all bases -as most movies do- to give the OTHER person on the date/in the relationship something to watch? Is it really that different from the romance subplots that pop up in war films all the time?
And how is it all that different from Predator, which has enough naked man-meat on display to sink a ship, yet somehow gets crowned the manliest movie ever made?
Discuss.
Er... not sure which side of the fence you're falling on here. Also how on earth is an F-14 phallic? it barely even has a nose! Maybe if they had a slo-mo scene of an in-flight refuelling, THEN they might have been phallic.SilverUchiha said:Oh please. How could a movie where the male protagonists call each other cute nicknames, and play volleyball, and ride their phallic vehicles at extremely high speeds be anything but straight?
A movie can give off "gay" vibes without depicting hardcore gay sex. And, commenting/joking about doesn't immediately make you a homophobe.sravankb said:Ok, here's the thing, listen up -
You are gay if and only if you have sexual relations with another member of the same sex.
It doesn't matter if you prance around in the meadows with your bunny friends in your favorite pink shirt. As long as you're attracted to members of the opposite sex. You're not f'ing gay (assuming you aren't attracted to both sexes, which is bisexual).
And this bullshit of gay =/= manly needs to stop. What the fuck are we, 12 year old kids? Stop being homophobic. It's not that hard; you just need to think for a few minutes.
'DVS BSTrD said:Yes, But that doesn't mean it isn't still cool
<spoiler= even in parody form>http://i.imgur.com/EMzJl.png
Guys with out shirts =/= GaySober Thal said:Guys in movies without shirts = gay?
Not in my book.
Tom Cruise without a shirt + "You can be my wing man any day." = Gay
Um... dude. I was just quoting a line from YGOTAM:BBT because that's essentially where this thread started from (seeing as how it started only a few days after it was uploaded to youtube). So... yeah... why so serious?Squilookle said:Er... not sure which side of the fence you're falling on here. Also how on earth is an F-14 phallic? it barely even has a nose! Maybe if they had a slo-mo scene of an in-flight refuelling, THEN they might have been phallic.SilverUchiha said:Oh please. How could a movie where the male protagonists call each other cute nicknames, and play volleyball, and ride their phallic vehicles at extremely high speeds be anything but straight?
Seriously, the "MiG 28s" even fit the term better. And what would THAT say about the US if it was intentional symbolism?
What baffles me is how you're trying to talk as if I'm the only person who ever brought this up.Sober Thal said:Here I thought the movie was about two rivals becoming friends when faced with great adversity. The guy gets the girl, and the rivals eventually appreciate each other. But if you see some sort of homoerotic subtext, then that's what ya see.Char-Nobyl said:Wait, what? I'm referring to actual scenes, not "fantasies." The way they approach their rivalry is a male/female one in the spades, except it cuts short of them actually exploding into a bout of hate-sex. That's why it's a homoerotic subtext. If they'd started making out, it wouldn't be 'subtext.' It would just be plain old gay.Sober Thal said:Do people inject these fantasies into the movie? Without a doubt. Did I? Nope.Char-Nobyl said:Except that you're only looking at one aspect of it. The extended periods of mass shirtlessness and aboard a vessel composed entirely of men helps the case, certainly, but look at Maverick and Iceman over the course of the film. The term 'belligerent sexual tension' comes to mind. And consider that in films with a male and a female character in competition with one another, the scene when they argue closer and closer to the other's face is almost invariably when they suddenly start making out.Sober Thal said:Guys in movies without shirts = gay?
Not in my book.
EDIT: There are shirtless guys in skirts in Braveheart, so is that 'gay' too? Conan The Barbarian? ect ect