# Gi joe



## Mr.Fitnah

Remember this is a movie based on toys,
I expected a rotten story line and great special effects.
The movie storyline was far better then I anticipated , so it was not as mindless as it could have been .
A fair effort was  made at character development,The scenery  and sets were excellent .
 The effects delivered But don't look to deeply into the physics of the action sequences.
I was a fun  movie , pure eye candy, suitable for kids unless you object to violence with no noticeable foul language or sexual images .
The sequel will be better , but not much.


----------



## Gudrid

Good to hear, since I suspect I will taking my younger boy to see this at some point.  I'm hoping he'll forget about the talking guinea pig movie.


----------



## strollingbones

Gudrid said:


> Good to hear, since I suspect I will taking my younger boy to see this at some point.  I'm hoping he'll forget about the talking guinea pig movie.



poop in his hand...poop in his hand.....

dont ask me why but that cracks me up every time i hear it...


----------



## Gudrid

lol.  I will admit that part of the preview made me laugh.  But the rest looks like it might be able to top Madagascar 2 in terms of parent torture.


----------



## Paulie

Gudrid said:


> lol.  I will admit that part of the preview made me laugh.  But the rest looks like it might be able to top Madagascar 2 in terms of parent torture.



Heh, counting sheep is out.

Madagascar 2 is in.


----------



## Toome

Well, I don't expect "character development" or a complicated plot from what started out as an action figure back when I was a kid.  It was better than expected, and it's suitable for young boys to see, depending on whether or not you're raising your boy to be a man.  It does contain violence.  I would, for instance, take my 9 year old nephew to see it but not a 5 year old.

For those of us who grew up with the original GI Joe, this movie does it justice.  It's tailored to the second generation GI Joe (the one that was smaller than Barbie----yeah, we *know* why they changed the size!), it's a great movie.

I had fun.


----------



## raines

Thanks.  Looking forward to taking my 8 yr. old boy.


----------



## GHook93

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Remember this is a movie based on toys,
> I expected a rotten story line and great special effects.
> The movie storyline was far better then I anticipated , so it was not as mindless as it could have been .
> A fair effort was  made at character development,The scenery  and sets were excellent .
> The effects delivered But don't look to deeply into the physics of the action sequences.
> I was a fun  movie , pure eye candy, suitable for kids unless you object to violence with no noticeable foul language or sexual images .
> The sequel will be better , but not much.



Wow I heard the movie SUCKED! I also most got dragged to it this weekend (sometimes the wife's guilt trips work to your advantage). My 2 buddies said it was horrible!

Seems the critics agree that it was horrible. Around the water cooler today, I haven't heard anyone say anything good about it!

G.I. Joe: Rise Of The Cobra Made My IQ Drop! - iReport.com
D+ average is not good:
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009) - Critics Reviews - Yahoo! Movies
Rotten Tomoates gives it a big thumbs down!
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes


You always have to be wary of a movie that doesn't allow pre-critics viewing, since you know it has something to hide!


----------



## Toome

GHook93 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember this is a movie based on toys,
> I expected a rotten story line and great special effects.
> The movie storyline was far better then I anticipated , so it was not as mindless as it could have been .
> A fair effort was  made at character development,The scenery  and sets were excellent .
> The effects delivered But don't look to deeply into the physics of the action sequences.
> I was a fun  movie , pure eye candy, suitable for kids unless you object to violence with no noticeable foul language or sexual images .
> The sequel will be better , but not much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow I heard the movie SUCKED! I also most got dragged to it this weekend (sometimes the wife's guilt trips work to your advantage). My 2 buddies said it was horrible!
> 
> Seems the critics agree that it was horrible. Around the water cooler today, I haven't heard anyone say anything good about it!
> 
> G.I. Joe: Rise Of The Cobra Made My IQ Drop! - iReport.com
> D+ average is not good:
> G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009) - Critics Reviews - Yahoo! Movies
> Rotten Tomoates gives it a big thumbs down!
> G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes
> 
> 
> You always have to be wary of a movie that doesn't allow pre-critics viewing, since you know it has something to hide!
Click to expand...


Yeah, and letting some critic's opinion make your decision for you is.......?  This movie is two hours of tanks, jets, helicopters, submarines with soldiers and supervillains, no different than when kids played pretend except now it's on the big screen with whiz-bang special effects.

Perhaps you're expecting something Shakespearian?


----------



## KittenKoder

It's an action flick with massive special effects ... anyone expecting more will be disappointed. I will be seeing this one myself, on DVD probably. But as long as it's fast moving and has a lot of explosions, I'll like it, since that's all I expect of action flicks. They need to stop pushing to mix everything into movies, it's just not possible. Now we have romance (ie sex) scenes in horror and sci-fi ... as long as GIJoe doesn't have too much of that romance crap, it will rock.


----------



## Jon

I've heard even the special effects were not that spectacular.

I'll wait for Avatar for a good action flick.


----------



## GHook93

Sorry if I like a little more than expensive special effects in my action movies. Is a good storyline and good acting too much to ask for? I like action flicks with great storylines, great acting, great character development and smooth flows in the mold of the Dark Night and Saving Private Ryan and less like Terminator 4 and Miracle at St. Anna! 

You know some critics you are agree with and some you don't, but when they are nearly unanimously against a movie you can bet with certainty that a movie sucks big time. Alao you always have to be wary of a movie that doesn't allow prescreening, because they have something to hide!




Toome said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember this is a movie based on toys,
> I expected a rotten story line and great special effects.
> The movie storyline was far better then I anticipated , so it was not as mindless as it could have been .
> A fair effort was  made at character development,The scenery  and sets were excellent .
> The effects delivered But don't look to deeply into the physics of the action sequences.
> I was a fun  movie , pure eye candy, suitable for kids unless you object to violence with no noticeable foul language or sexual images .
> The sequel will be better , but not much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow I heard the movie SUCKED! I also most got dragged to it this weekend (sometimes the wife's guilt trips work to your advantage). My 2 buddies said it was horrible!
> 
> Seems the critics agree that it was horrible. Around the water cooler today, I haven't heard anyone say anything good about it!
> 
> G.I. Joe: Rise Of The Cobra Made My IQ Drop! - iReport.com
> D+ average is not good:
> G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009) - Critics Reviews - Yahoo! Movies
> Rotten Tomoates gives it a big thumbs down!
> G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes
> 
> 
> You always have to be wary of a movie that doesn't allow pre-critics viewing, since you know it has something to hide!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and letting some critic's opinion make your decision for you is.......?  This movie is two hours of tanks, jets, helicopters, submarines with soldiers and supervillains, no different than when kids played pretend except now it's on the big screen with whiz-bang special effects.
> 
> Perhaps you're expecting something Shakespearian?
Click to expand...


----------



## Fatality

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Remember this is a movie based on toys,
> I expected a rotten story line and great special effects.
> The movie storyline was far better then I anticipated , so it was not as mindless as it could have been .
> A fair effort was  made at character development,The scenery  and sets were excellent .
> The effects delivered But don't look to deeply into the physics of the action sequences.
> I was a fun  movie , pure eye candy, suitable for kids unless you object to violence with no noticeable foul language or sexual images .
> The sequel will be better , but not much.



yep, that about sums it up, had a good time seeing it.


----------



## KittenKoder

I want their gear ... the suits, guns, all of it ... booyah!


----------



## Zoom-boing

I took my two youngest to see this (16 yr old special needs son who loves action movies and 12 yr old daughter).  I was surprised my daughter said she wanted to see this.

The movie was pretty much as Mr. Fitnah stated.  It's very action filled and very fast-paced -- so much so that sometimes my eyes were spinning watching it all up on that huge movie screen.  Might be easier to watch on dvd.

There was back story on a lot of the characters which was nice because I thought it would all be just boom, boom, pow, pow.  The character of Rip Cord provided comic relief (I liked him the best).

Familiar faces are in it.  Rachel Nichols (she played Rachel in the last season of _Alias_); Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Mr. Echo from_ Lost_); Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Tommy from _Third Rock from the Sun_); Marlon Wayans (of the Wayans brothers).  Dennis Quaid was horribly miscast in this movie, imo.

It's a fun movie for kids.  There is some language (shit 3 times or so; asshole a few times; bastard a few times) so if your kids are younger just be aware of this.  No sex stuff except for Rachel Nichols and Sienna Miller wearing low cut tops and skin-tight fitting outfits.  They looked great in them, btw. 

My biggest complaint about this movie is the sound.  It's waaay toooo fuckkkking louddddd!!!!  Seriously - painfully loud.  My son's hearing is much more sensitive than most people's (he wears glasses and his vision in one eye is low, which he compensates for with his hearing I guess).  Anyway, I wish I had bought earplugs for him.  My daughter didn't mind the loudness of it but during the action scenes even I was plugging my ears with my fingers like my son was doing.

Oh, and based on the the ending of this movie - - - - there will be a sequel!


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

I failed to notice any loudness do to Alice.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

KittenKoder said:


> I want their gear ... the suits, guns, all of it ... booyah!



Walmart.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Mr.Fitnah said:


> I failed to notice any loudness do to Alice.



Who's Alice?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Zoom-boing said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I failed to notice any loudness do to Alice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's Alice?
Click to expand...


Cooper.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

What? That was funny


----------



## Zoom-boing

Flew over my head I guess.


----------



## JenT

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Remember this is a movie based on toys,
> I expected a rotten story line and great special effects.
> The movie storyline was far better then I anticipated , so it was not as mindless as it could have been .
> A fair effort was  made at character development,The scenery  and sets were excellent .
> The effects delivered But don't look to deeply into the physics of the action sequences.
> I was a fun  movie , pure eye candy, suitable for kids unless you object to violence with no noticeable foul language or sexual images .
> The sequel will be better , but not much.



Mr. Fitnah is there a liberal message in it? I am so sick of libs trying to force their ideology through hollywood


----------



## JenT

(sudden realization sons aren't around)

So THATS where those guys are...


----------



## KittenKoder

JenT said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember this is a movie based on toys,
> I expected a rotten story line and great special effects.
> The movie storyline was far better then I anticipated , so it was not as mindless as it could have been .
> A fair effort was  made at character development,The scenery  and sets were excellent .
> The effects delivered But don't look to deeply into the physics of the action sequences.
> I was a fun  movie , pure eye candy, suitable for kids unless you object to violence with no noticeable foul language or sexual images .
> The sequel will be better , but not much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Fitnah is there a liberal message in it? I am so sick of libs trying to force their ideology through hollywood
Click to expand...


Sorry ... but that's just stupid. If by "liberal" you mean the breeding of romantic comedies or Hannah Montana ... completely wrong genre.


----------



## Dis

I wonder if Gunny's seen it.. It WAS his toy of choice, you know..  You can probably find GI Joe buried in the back yard of his childhood home very close to the decapitated and melted Barbe's...


----------



## JenT

KittenKoder said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember this is a movie based on toys,
> I expected a rotten story line and great special effects.
> The movie storyline was far better then I anticipated , so it was not as mindless as it could have been .
> A fair effort was  made at character development,The scenery  and sets were excellent .
> The effects delivered But don't look to deeply into the physics of the action sequences.
> I was a fun  movie , pure eye candy, suitable for kids unless you object to violence with no noticeable foul language or sexual images .
> The sequel will be better , but not much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Fitnah is there a liberal message in it? I am so sick of libs trying to force their ideology through hollywood
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry ... but that's just stupid. If by "liberal" you mean the breeding of romantic comedies or Hannah Montana ... completely wrong genre.
Click to expand...


no I'm talking about the clear and obvious liberal message of so many movies today attempting to socially condition everyone to it's liberal agenda, such as

blame and shame that we've ruined the planet (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Day After Tomorrow are the more obvious)
requiring at least a token homosexual especially in kids movies, though this has toned down
even beastiality innuendo in kids movies
portraying Christians as evil and insane <---seriously on the rise
glorifying one night stands, (it's amazing how many chick flicks are about divas clinching their lifelong soulmates after jumping his bones the first time they met)
portrayals of dad as an idiot 

Those themes are subltey in most recent releases. Screenwriters know that if they want their work accepted, adding those themes helps their chances immensely

I don't think you see these so much in action movies as you do comedies, chick flicks, family films and the big box-office investments. Action films at least focus by definition on men being men (or women trying to be men)


----------



## JenT

Dis said:


> I wonder if Gunny's seen it.. It WAS his toy of choice, you know..  You can probably find GI Joe buried in the back yard of his childhood home very close to the decapitated and melted Barbe's...


----------



## Gunny

Dis said:


> I wonder if Gunny's seen it.. It WAS his toy of choice, you know..  You can probably find GI Joe buried in the back yard of his childhood home very close to the decapitated and melted Barbe's...





GI Joe is in original box sealed in plastic in top of closet.  Upon being asked the whereabouts of Barbie, he categorically denies any knowledge whatsoever of her whereabouts and/or any alleged crimes being perpetrated upon her person.


----------



## Dis

Gunny said:


> Dis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Gunny's seen it.. It WAS his toy of choice, you know..  You can probably find GI Joe buried in the back yard of his childhood home very close to the decapitated and melted Barbe's...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GI Joe is in original box sealed in plastic in top of closet.  Upon being asked the whereabouts of Barbie, he categorically denies any knowledge whatsoever of her whereabouts and/or any alleged crimes being perpetrated upon her person.
Click to expand...


Ok, Mr. Clinton! 

...I mean Mr. Joe...


----------



## KittenKoder

JenT said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Fitnah is there a liberal message in it? I am so sick of libs trying to force their ideology through hollywood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry ... but that's just stupid. If by "liberal" you mean the breeding of romantic comedies or Hannah Montana ... completely wrong genre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no I'm talking about the clear and obvious liberal message of so many movies today attempting to socially condition everyone to it's liberal agenda, such as
> 
> blame and shame that we've ruined the planet (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Day After Tomorrow are the more obvious)
> requiring at least a token homosexual especially in kids movies, though this has toned down
> even beastiality innuendo in kids movies
> portraying Christians as evil and insane <---seriously on the rise
> glorifying one night stands, (it's amazing how many chick flicks are about divas clinching their lifelong soulmates after jumping his bones the first time they met)
> portrayals of dad as an idiot
> 
> Those themes are subltey in most recent releases. Screenwriters know that if they want their work accepted, adding those themes helps their chances immensely
> 
> I don't think you see these so much in action movies as you do comedies, chick flicks, family films and the big box-office investments. Action films at least focus by definition on men being men (or women trying to be men)
Click to expand...


Wow ... you suck at movie history. First, The Day the Earth Stood Still is based on a novel from a long time ago and you really missed the point of that one. The Day After Tomorrow was one you actually got right. Now, your "bestiality for kids"? You must be talking about Disney, since they are the closest, or Pixar, but both are just huge misses, since Pixar's only moral is to have fun with life and Disney just cannibalizes old fairy tales. The "Christians being insane" ... I am guessing you don't like history much at all, since every movie that shows the dark side of that religious following has been factually true to some level, except the DeVinci Code ... that was a stretch. Disney (which is a right wing christian owned and operated company) is responsible for much of the glorifying sex to children, and romantic comedies are trash that are produced evenly across the board (Ashton, the biggest scum in Hollywood, is a right wing christian BTW). 

Enough of that part, I could go on forever with that. But your last point shows you also have seen very few action movies, since a lot are often not about "men being men" but are about *gasp* action and adventure! Many of which have very strong women role models who ... kick some serious ass. Good action movies break stereotypes, because there are a lot of strong women in the world, I am talking about physically strong. The only reason co-ed sports don't work is because women tend to put men to shy in them. 

I recommend you watch more movies.


----------



## Jon

KittenKoder said:


> Disney (which is a right wing christian owned and operated company)



WHAT?!

You're joking with this, right?


----------



## Gunny

KittenKoder said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry ... but that's just stupid. If by "liberal" you mean the breeding of romantic comedies or Hannah Montana ... completely wrong genre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no I'm talking about the clear and obvious liberal message of so many movies today attempting to socially condition everyone to it's liberal agenda, such as
> 
> blame and shame that we've ruined the planet (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Day After Tomorrow are the more obvious)
> requiring at least a token homosexual especially in kids movies, though this has toned down
> even beastiality innuendo in kids movies
> portraying Christians as evil and insane <---seriously on the rise
> glorifying one night stands, (it's amazing how many chick flicks are about divas clinching their lifelong soulmates after jumping his bones the first time they met)
> portrayals of dad as an idiot
> 
> Those themes are subltey in most recent releases. Screenwriters know that if they want their work accepted, adding those themes helps their chances immensely
> 
> I don't think you see these so much in action movies as you do comedies, chick flicks, family films and the big box-office investments. Action films at least focus by definition on men being men (or women trying to be men)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow ... you suck at movie history. First, The Day the Earth Stood Still is based on a novel from a long time ago and you really missed the point of that one. The Day After Tomorrow was one you actually got right. Now, your "bestiality for kids"? You must be talking about Disney, since they are the closest, or Pixar, but both are just huge misses, since Pixar's only moral is to have fun with life and Disney just cannibalizes old fairy tales. The "Christians being insane" ... I am guessing you don't like history much at all, since every movie that shows the dark side of that religious following has been factually true to some level, except the DeVinci Code ... that was a stretch. Disney (which is a right wing christian owned and operated company) is responsible for much of the glorifying sex to children, and romantic comedies are trash that are produced evenly across the board (Ashton, the biggest scum in Hollywood, is a right wing christian BTW).
> 
> Enough of that part, I could go on forever with that. But your last point shows you also have seen very few action movies, since a lot are often not about "men being men" but are about *gasp* action and adventure! Many of which have very strong women role models who ... kick some serious ass. Good action movies break stereotypes, because there are a lot of strong women in the world, I am talking about physically strong. The only reason co-ed sports don't work is because women tend to put men to shy in them.
> 
> I recommend you watch more movies.
Click to expand...


Methinks you went a bit far in your last paragraph.  While there ARE exceptions  which I don't believe anyone has claimed there aren't, women in general CAN'T keep up with men, and pound for pound, are nowhere near as strong.  

That's not saying women do not have their strengths in areas that would make most men squeal.  But it isn't in athletic endeavor.  Part of the reason for that is women trying to play man's games, designed by men for men.  Automatic disadvantage.

Ever notice how men's and women's gymnastics are not the same?  Because each is designed to play to the strengths of the respective genders.  It is one athletic endeavor where the playing field is actually level.  At the same time, the exercises themselves are hardly comparable.

Men and women are different.  Women seem to have a much harder time with this than men.  We are supposed to compliment one another, not try to be better at being the other than they are.


----------



## KittenKoder

jsanders said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disney (which is a right wing christian owned and operated company)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT?!
> 
> You're joking with this, right?
Click to expand...


Not really, look at who owns and operates it. 

I could have pointed to just as many liberal nutjobs, but my point was that it's equal from both, Hollywood itself is not a moralistic place, they are into making money, producing what is popular, no matter what their alignment is.


----------



## JenT

jsanders said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disney (which is a right wing christian owned and operated company)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT?!
> 
> You're joking with this, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> mmmmm, you've got your quotes mixed up, I didn't say that, KK did
> 
> Good ol' walt...heh, I would very much disagree with what KK said
Click to expand...


----------



## JenT

KittenKoder said:


> jsanders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disney (which is a right wing christian owned and operated company)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT?!
> 
> You're joking with this, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, look at who owns and operates it.
> 
> I could have pointed to just as many liberal nutjobs, but my point was that it's equal from both, Hollywood itself is not a moralistic place, they are into making money, producing what is popular, no matter what their alignment is.
Click to expand...


oh sure, that's why they all jumped to produce "The Passion of the Christ", one of the biggest money making films of all time


----------



## JenT

Gunny said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> no I'm talking about the clear and obvious liberal message of so many movies today attempting to socially condition everyone to it's liberal agenda, such as
> 
> blame and shame that we've ruined the planet (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Day After Tomorrow are the more obvious)
> requiring at least a token homosexual especially in kids movies, though this has toned down
> even beastiality innuendo in kids movies
> portraying Christians as evil and insane <---seriously on the rise
> glorifying one night stands, (it's amazing how many chick flicks are about divas clinching their lifelong soulmates after jumping his bones the first time they met)
> portrayals of dad as an idiot
> 
> Those themes are subltey in most recent releases. Screenwriters know that if they want their work accepted, adding those themes helps their chances immensely
> 
> I don't think you see these so much in action movies as you do comedies, chick flicks, family films and the big box-office investments. Action films at least focus by definition on men being men (or women trying to be men)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow ... you suck at movie history. First, The Day the Earth Stood Still is based on a novel from a long time ago and you really missed the point of that one. The Day After Tomorrow was one you actually got right. Now, your "bestiality for kids"? You must be talking about Disney, since they are the closest, or Pixar, but both are just huge misses, since Pixar's only moral is to have fun with life and Disney just cannibalizes old fairy tales. The "Christians being insane" ... I am guessing you don't like history much at all, since every movie that shows the dark side of that religious following has been factually true to some level, except the DeVinci Code ... that was a stretch. Disney (which is a right wing christian owned and operated company) is responsible for much of the glorifying sex to children, and romantic comedies are trash that are produced evenly across the board (Ashton, the biggest scum in Hollywood, is a right wing christian BTW).
> 
> Enough of that part, I could go on forever with that. But your last point shows you also have seen very few action movies, since a lot are often not about "men being men" but are about *gasp* action and adventure! Many of which have very strong women role models who ... kick some serious ass. Good action movies break stereotypes, because there are a lot of strong women in the world, I am talking about physically strong. The only reason co-ed sports don't work is because women tend to put men to shy in them.
> 
> I recommend you watch more movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Methinks you went a bit far in your last paragraph.  While there ARE exceptions  which I don't believe anyone has claimed there aren't, women in general CAN'T keep up with men, and pound for pound, are nowhere near as strong.
> 
> That's not saying women do not have their strengths in areas that would make most men squeal.  But it isn't in athletic endeavor.  Part of the reason for that is women trying to play man's games, designed by men for men.  Automatic disadvantage.
> 
> Ever notice how men's and women's gymnastics are not the same?  Because each is designed to play to the strengths of the respective genders.  It is one athletic endeavor where the playing field is actually level.  At the same time, the exercises themselves are hardly comparable.
> 
> Men and women are different.  Women seem to have a much harder time with this than men.  We are supposed to compliment one another, not try to be better at being the other than they are.
Click to expand...


All I know is, if' I've got a man breaking in my house (and for some insane reason I call the police rather than reach for my own guns), and a WOMAN shows up to rescue me...

We are not men. And I think it's INSANE that women try to be men.


----------



## KittenKoder

JenT said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jsanders said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT?!
> 
> You're joking with this, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, look at who owns and operates it.
> 
> I could have pointed to just as many liberal nutjobs, but my point was that it's equal from both, Hollywood itself is not a moralistic place, they are into making money, producing what is popular, no matter what their alignment is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh sure, that's why they all jumped to produce "The Passion of the Christ", one of the biggest money making films of all time
Click to expand...


Um ... they weren't all available to do it, plus not all were offered (the writer has a lot of cay in who produces it) ... and it wasn't one of the biggest money makers, it was mid level compared to movies since then, factoring in the economic state. Also, the producers have almost no way of knowing it would do that well, most documentaries (no matter how fictionally based they are) tend to do poorly, no matter what the subject matter is, unless the producer is a big name, thus one reason why Mel was chosen for that out of those who did have an interest. The other reason Mel was chosen was because he had the same vision as the writer for the movie and Mel is crazy enough to direct non-sexual BDSM.


----------



## Jon

KittenKoder said:


> Not really, look at who owns and operates it.



Its largest shareholder is Steve Jobs. Its President and CEO is Robert Iger. They have a "Gay Day" in Disney World, for Pete's sake. So again I ask, are you kidding?


----------



## Jon

JenT said:


> mmmmm, you've got your quotes mixed up, I didn't say that, KK did



Apologies, I knew it was KK, just messed up on the quote.


----------



## JenT

KittenKoder said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, look at who owns and operates it.
> 
> I could have pointed to just as many liberal nutjobs, but my point was that it's equal from both, Hollywood itself is not a moralistic place, they are into making money, producing what is popular, no matter what their alignment is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh sure, that's why they all jumped to produce "The Passion of the Christ", one of the biggest money making films of all time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um ... they weren't all available to do it, plus not all were offered (the writer has a lot of cay in who produces it) ... and it wasn't one of the biggest money makers, it was mid level compared to movies since then, factoring in the economic state. Also, the producers have almost no way of knowing it would do that well, most documentaries (no matter how fictionally based they are) tend to do poorly, no matter what the subject matter is, unless the producer is a big name, thus one reason why Mel was chosen for that out of those who did have an interest. The other reason Mel was chosen was because he had the same vision as the writer for the movie and Mel is crazy enough to direct non-sexual BDSM.
Click to expand...


KK, Mel was desperate to find a distributor and all producers were blocking it, threatening anyone who helped him.

PLENTY of people had plenty of opportunity to get in on that, he almost didn't get it released at all. Why? Because they cared more about pushing their own agenda than making a buck. Most of the truly elite of Hollywood can afford to do that.


----------



## KittenKoder

Gunny said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> no I'm talking about the clear and obvious liberal message of so many movies today attempting to socially condition everyone to it's liberal agenda, such as
> 
> blame and shame that we've ruined the planet (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Day After Tomorrow are the more obvious)
> requiring at least a token homosexual especially in kids movies, though this has toned down
> even beastiality innuendo in kids movies
> portraying Christians as evil and insane <---seriously on the rise
> glorifying one night stands, (it's amazing how many chick flicks are about divas clinching their lifelong soulmates after jumping his bones the first time they met)
> portrayals of dad as an idiot
> 
> Those themes are subltey in most recent releases. Screenwriters know that if they want their work accepted, adding those themes helps their chances immensely
> 
> I don't think you see these so much in action movies as you do comedies, chick flicks, family films and the big box-office investments. Action films at least focus by definition on men being men (or women trying to be men)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow ... you suck at movie history. First, The Day the Earth Stood Still is based on a novel from a long time ago and you really missed the point of that one. The Day After Tomorrow was one you actually got right. Now, your "bestiality for kids"? You must be talking about Disney, since they are the closest, or Pixar, but both are just huge misses, since Pixar's only moral is to have fun with life and Disney just cannibalizes old fairy tales. The "Christians being insane" ... I am guessing you don't like history much at all, since every movie that shows the dark side of that religious following has been factually true to some level, except the DeVinci Code ... that was a stretch. Disney (which is a right wing christian owned and operated company) is responsible for much of the glorifying sex to children, and romantic comedies are trash that are produced evenly across the board (Ashton, the biggest scum in Hollywood, is a right wing christian BTW).
> 
> Enough of that part, I could go on forever with that. But your last point shows you also have seen very few action movies, since a lot are often not about "men being men" but are about *gasp* action and adventure! Many of which have very strong women role models who ... kick some serious ass. Good action movies break stereotypes, because there are a lot of strong women in the world, I am talking about physically strong. The only reason co-ed sports don't work is because women tend to put men to shy in them.
> 
> I recommend you watch more movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Methinks you went a bit far in your last paragraph.  While there ARE exceptions  which I don't believe anyone has claimed there aren't, women in general CAN'T keep up with men, and pound for pound, are nowhere near as strong.
> 
> That's not saying women do not have their strengths in areas that would make most men squeal.  But it isn't in athletic endeavor.  Part of the reason for that is women trying to play man's games, designed by men for men.  Automatic disadvantage.
> 
> Ever notice how men's and women's gymnastics are not the same?  Because each is designed to play to the strengths of the respective genders.  It is one athletic endeavor where the playing field is actually level.  At the same time, the exercises themselves are hardly comparable.
> 
> Men and women are different.  Women seem to have a much harder time with this than men.  We are supposed to compliment one another, not try to be better at being the other than they are.
Click to expand...


There are several factors, I was over generalizing yes, mostly for effect, also because ... well ... I like being tough myself. 

It is possible for women to develop the same level of strength, even if not the same method or technique. While the muscle groups vary, they are still muscles.


----------



## KittenKoder

jsanders said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, look at who owns and operates it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its largest shareholder is Steve Jobs. Its President and CEO is Robert Iger. They have a "Gay Day" in Disney World, for Pete's sake. So again I ask, are you kidding?
Click to expand...


Just because they have a "Gay Day" doesn't mean they agree with it, they do have to use gimicks like everyone else to make money, that's just smart commercialism. The largest disposable incomes are gay people.


----------



## KittenKoder

JenT said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh sure, that's why they all jumped to produce "The Passion of the Christ", one of the biggest money making films of all time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um ... they weren't all available to do it, plus not all were offered (the writer has a lot of cay in who produces it) ... and it wasn't one of the biggest money makers, it was mid level compared to movies since then, factoring in the economic state. Also, the producers have almost no way of knowing it would do that well, most documentaries (no matter how fictionally based they are) tend to do poorly, no matter what the subject matter is, unless the producer is a big name, thus one reason why Mel was chosen for that out of those who did have an interest. The other reason Mel was chosen was because he had the same vision as the writer for the movie and Mel is crazy enough to direct non-sexual BDSM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> KK, Mel was desperate to find a distributor and all producers were blocking it, threatening anyone who helped him.
> 
> PLENTY of people had plenty of opportunity to get in on that, he almost didn't get it released at all. Why? Because they cared more about pushing their own agenda than making a buck. Most of the truly elite of Hollywood can afford to do that.
Click to expand...


Did you ever stop to think that perhaps that they feared outrage from some groups that didn't like the interpretation of the story? Also, just because they are offered the chance doesn't mean they can do it, sometimes they have to guess at what the next blockbuster will be and take a chance, if they invest in a movie that flops they lose a lot of money. It's not as sinister as you think, it's just business.


----------



## JenT

KittenKoder said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow ... you suck at movie history. First, The Day the Earth Stood Still is based on a novel from a long time ago and you really missed the point of that one. The Day After Tomorrow was one you actually got right. Now, your "bestiality for kids"? You must be talking about Disney, since they are the closest, or Pixar, but both are just huge misses, since Pixar's only moral is to have fun with life and Disney just cannibalizes old fairy tales. The "Christians being insane" ... I am guessing you don't like history much at all, since every movie that shows the dark side of that religious following has been factually true to some level, except the DeVinci Code ... that was a stretch. Disney (which is a right wing christian owned and operated company) is responsible for much of the glorifying sex to children, and romantic comedies are trash that are produced evenly across the board (Ashton, the biggest scum in Hollywood, is a right wing christian BTW).
> 
> Enough of that part, I could go on forever with that. But your last point shows you also have seen very few action movies, since a lot are often not about "men being men" but are about *gasp* action and adventure! Many of which have very strong women role models who ... kick some serious ass. Good action movies break stereotypes, because there are a lot of strong women in the world, I am talking about physically strong. The only reason co-ed sports don't work is because women tend to put men to shy in them.
> 
> I recommend you watch more movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks you went a bit far in your last paragraph.  While there ARE exceptions  which I don't believe anyone has claimed there aren't, women in general CAN'T keep up with men, and pound for pound, are nowhere near as strong.
> 
> That's not saying women do not have their strengths in areas that would make most men squeal.  But it isn't in athletic endeavor.  Part of the reason for that is women trying to play man's games, designed by men for men.  Automatic disadvantage.
> 
> Ever notice how men's and women's gymnastics are not the same?  Because each is designed to play to the strengths of the respective genders.  It is one athletic endeavor where the playing field is actually level.  At the same time, the exercises themselves are hardly comparable.
> 
> Men and women are different.  Women seem to have a much harder time with this than men.  We are supposed to compliment one another, not try to be better at being the other than they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are several factors, I was over generalizing yes, mostly for effect, also because ... well ... I like being tough myself.
> 
> It is possible for women to develop the same level of strength, even if not the same method or technique. While the muscle groups vary, they are still muscles.
Click to expand...


I've seen seemingly scrawny men lift weights that have shocked me. I have seen beefed up brawny women lift almost nothing.

I think just from my own observation that square inch to square inch of muscle between men and women, we women just do not have the power men do. It blows my mind but its true. 

Men. Some are just "wirey" but I never underestimate their strength. Not if they're really men and not a confused woman on hormones


----------



## KittenKoder

JenT said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks you went a bit far in your last paragraph.  While there ARE exceptions  which I don't believe anyone has claimed there aren't, women in general CAN'T keep up with men, and pound for pound, are nowhere near as strong.
> 
> That's not saying women do not have their strengths in areas that would make most men squeal.  But it isn't in athletic endeavor.  Part of the reason for that is women trying to play man's games, designed by men for men.  Automatic disadvantage.
> 
> Ever notice how men's and women's gymnastics are not the same?  Because each is designed to play to the strengths of the respective genders.  It is one athletic endeavor where the playing field is actually level.  At the same time, the exercises themselves are hardly comparable.
> 
> Men and women are different.  Women seem to have a much harder time with this than men.  We are supposed to compliment one another, not try to be better at being the other than they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are several factors, I was over generalizing yes, mostly for effect, also because ... well ... I like being tough myself.
> 
> It is possible for women to develop the same level of strength, even if not the same method or technique. While the muscle groups vary, they are still muscles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen seemingly scrawny men lift weights that have shocked me. I have seen beefed up brawny women lift almost nothing.
> 
> I think just from my own observation that square inch to square inch of muscle between men and women, we women just do not have the power men do. It blows my mind but its true.
> 
> Men. Some are just "wirey" but I never underestimate their strength. Not if they're really men and not a confused woman on hormones
Click to expand...


Physical size has little to do with ability. Body builders do not focus on actual strength, but looking bigger, though sometimes they do coincide, they don't always. Women do not have to take hormones to be as strong or a tough as men, they just have to know how to work out correctly to do so. Body builder women focus on building muscles that are not normally strengthened in women, which tends to alter their natural hormone levels.


----------



## Jon

KittenKoder said:


> jsanders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, look at who owns and operates it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its largest shareholder is Steve Jobs. Its President and CEO is Robert Iger. They have a "Gay Day" in Disney World, for Pete's sake. So again I ask, are you kidding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because they have a "Gay Day" doesn't mean they agree with it, they do have to use gimicks like everyone else to make money, that's just smart commercialism. The largest disposable incomes are gay people.
Click to expand...


Still, while I agree with your counterarguments here, I think you're mistaken on who runs Disney. They are far from rightwingers.


----------



## KittenKoder

jsanders said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jsanders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its largest shareholder is Steve Jobs. Its President and CEO is Robert Iger. They have a "Gay Day" in Disney World, for Pete's sake. So again I ask, are you kidding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because they have a "Gay Day" doesn't mean they agree with it, they do have to use gimicks like everyone else to make money, that's just smart commercialism. The largest disposable incomes are gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still, while I agree with your counterarguments here, I think you're mistaken on who runs Disney. They are far from rightwingers.
Click to expand...


I would think it's about even really, but many of their older movies were right wing style (modern right wing zealot specifically) and were "softened" and watered down versions of original fairy tales, which were originally very dark, the "old witch" always being evil is a good example of such, in the fairy tales they were more like Wizard of Oz ... half good, half bad.


----------



## JenT

KittenKoder said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um ... they weren't all available to do it, plus not all were offered (the writer has a lot of cay in who produces it) ... and it wasn't one of the biggest money makers, it was mid level compared to movies since then, factoring in the economic state. Also, the producers have almost no way of knowing it would do that well, most documentaries (no matter how fictionally based they are) tend to do poorly, no matter what the subject matter is, unless the producer is a big name, thus one reason why Mel was chosen for that out of those who did have an interest. The other reason Mel was chosen was because he had the same vision as the writer for the movie and Mel is crazy enough to direct non-sexual BDSM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KK, Mel was desperate to find a distributor and all producers were blocking it, threatening anyone who helped him.
> 
> PLENTY of people had plenty of opportunity to get in on that, he almost didn't get it released at all. Why? Because they cared more about pushing their own agenda than making a buck. Most of the truly elite of Hollywood can afford to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that perhaps that they feared outrage from some groups that didn't like the interpretation of the story? Also, just because they are offered the chance doesn't mean they can do it, sometimes they have to guess at what the next blockbuster will be and take a chance, if they invest in a movie that flops they lose a lot of money. It's not as sinister as you think, it's just business.
Click to expand...


I think it was the ADF that demanded certain things be taken out and Mel went to the limit to add things to soothe tempers. For instance, just when the whole audience was having a meltdown about how hard it was for Christ to carry the cross, and the Ethiopian showed up and showed compassion in helping him, Mel took an artistic license and had a Roman soldier dramatically criticize the Ethiopian by loudly shouting at him, with emphasis on, YOU JEW!!! 

Every Christian in that audience looked at that JEW with nothing but respect and gratitude beyond words, which was exactly the effect Mel intended.

(not to mention that Jesus and all the disciples were all Jews, Mel also clearly emphasized, showing how all anti-semites who claim to hate the Jews because of Christ are completely
insane)

There was NO backlash aimed at the Jews for that movie and those fears were an excuse to try to stop the film release because it didn't fit in the mold of what Hollywood producers want to impose on society, liberal atheist views completely opposite of what most Americans believe and are screaming for but will not receive because of liberal idealogues.


----------



## KittenKoder

JenT said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> KK, Mel was desperate to find a distributor and all producers were blocking it, threatening anyone who helped him.
> 
> PLENTY of people had plenty of opportunity to get in on that, he almost didn't get it released at all. Why? Because they cared more about pushing their own agenda than making a buck. Most of the truly elite of Hollywood can afford to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that perhaps that they feared outrage from some groups that didn't like the interpretation of the story? Also, just because they are offered the chance doesn't mean they can do it, sometimes they have to guess at what the next blockbuster will be and take a chance, if they invest in a movie that flops they lose a lot of money. It's not as sinister as you think, it's just business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it was the ADF that demanded certain things be taken out and Mel went to the limit to add things to soothe tempers. For instance, just when the whole audience was having a meltdown about how hard it was for Christ to carry the cross, and the Ethiopian showed up and showed compassion in helping him, Mel took an artistic license and had a Roman soldier dramatically criticize the Ethiopian by loudly shouting at him, with emphasis on, YOU JEW!!!
> 
> Every Christian in that audience looked at that JEW with nothing but respect and gratitude beyond words, which was exactly the effect Mel intended.
> 
> (not to mention that Jesus and all the disciples were all Jews, Mel also clearly emphasized, showing how all anti-semites who claim to hate the Jews because of Christ are completely
> insane)
> 
> There was NO backlash aimed at the Jews for that movie and those fears were an excuse to try to stop the film release because it didn't fit in the mold of what Hollywood producers want to impose on society, liberal atheist views completely opposite of what most Americans believe and are screaming for but will not receive because of liberal idealogues.
Click to expand...


It wasn't "liberal ideologues" that decided that in all cases, and even then, don't you think that most liberals would enjoy seeing some guy they didn't like be beaten to a bloody pulp in the BDSM scene if they really didn't like it for the religious aspects?


----------



## JenT

KittenKoder said:


> jsanders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, look at who owns and operates it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its largest shareholder is Steve Jobs. Its President and CEO is Robert Iger. They have a "Gay Day" in Disney World, for Pete's sake. So again I ask, are you kidding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because they have a "Gay Day" doesn't mean they agree with it, they do have to use gimicks like everyone else to make money, that's just smart commercialism. The largest disposable incomes are gay people.
Click to expand...


oh please, Disney is all about promoting homosexuality. They ignore the family protests, they've lost money and credibility as a "family" organization, they're struggling to stay alive because so many families are boycotting them, or calling to make sure it's not a "gay day" before coming, because they don't want their children to walk in on sexual activities happening in broad daylight.


----------



## KittenKoder

JenT said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jsanders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its largest shareholder is Steve Jobs. Its President and CEO is Robert Iger. They have a "Gay Day" in Disney World, for Pete's sake. So again I ask, are you kidding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because they have a "Gay Day" doesn't mean they agree with it, they do have to use gimicks like everyone else to make money, that's just smart commercialism. The largest disposable incomes are gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh please, Disney is all about promoting homosexuality. They ignore the family protests, they've lost money and credibility as a "family" organization, they're struggling to stay alive because so many families are boycotting them, or calling to make sure it's not a "gay day" before coming, because they don't want their children to walk in on sexual activities happening in broad daylight.
Click to expand...


Um ... just wow ... do you pay much attention to what business is doing? They are by no means "struggling" ... they keep making a fortune off their movies and their theme parks are doing better than projected. The only thing making more money than the film industry right now is casinos.


----------



## JenT

KittenKoder said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that perhaps that they feared outrage from some groups that didn't like the interpretation of the story? Also, just because they are offered the chance doesn't mean they can do it, sometimes they have to guess at what the next blockbuster will be and take a chance, if they invest in a movie that flops they lose a lot of money. It's not as sinister as you think, it's just business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was the ADF that demanded certain things be taken out and Mel went to the limit to add things to soothe tempers. For instance, just when the whole audience was having a meltdown about how hard it was for Christ to carry the cross, and the Ethiopian showed up and showed compassion in helping him, Mel took an artistic license and had a Roman soldier dramatically criticize the Ethiopian by loudly shouting at him, with emphasis on, YOU JEW!!!
> 
> Every Christian in that audience looked at that JEW with nothing but respect and gratitude beyond words, which was exactly the effect Mel intended.
> 
> (not to mention that Jesus and all the disciples were all Jews, Mel also clearly emphasized, showing how all anti-semites who claim to hate the Jews because of Christ are completely
> insane)
> 
> There was NO backlash aimed at the Jews for that movie and those fears were an excuse to try to stop the film release because it didn't fit in the mold of what Hollywood producers want to impose on society, liberal atheist views completely opposite of what most Americans believe and are screaming for but will not receive because of liberal idealogues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't "liberal ideologues" that decided that in all cases, and even then, don't you think that most liberals would enjoy seeing some guy they didn't like be beaten to a bloody pulp in the BDSM scene if they really didn't like it for the religious aspects?
Click to expand...


no, not at all. Because the message of the cross is spiritual, and those who live and breathe darkness are even aware of it. Ever notice in the Bible, often it was the demon possessed that recognized who Christ really was first.


----------



## KittenKoder

JenT said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was the ADF that demanded certain things be taken out and Mel went to the limit to add things to soothe tempers. For instance, just when the whole audience was having a meltdown about how hard it was for Christ to carry the cross, and the Ethiopian showed up and showed compassion in helping him, Mel took an artistic license and had a Roman soldier dramatically criticize the Ethiopian by loudly shouting at him, with emphasis on, YOU JEW!!!
> 
> Every Christian in that audience looked at that JEW with nothing but respect and gratitude beyond words, which was exactly the effect Mel intended.
> 
> (not to mention that Jesus and all the disciples were all Jews, Mel also clearly emphasized, showing how all anti-semites who claim to hate the Jews because of Christ are completely
> insane)
> 
> There was NO backlash aimed at the Jews for that movie and those fears were an excuse to try to stop the film release because it didn't fit in the mold of what Hollywood producers want to impose on society, liberal atheist views completely opposite of what most Americans believe and are screaming for but will not receive because of liberal idealogues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't "liberal ideologues" that decided that in all cases, and even then, don't you think that most liberals would enjoy seeing some guy they didn't like be beaten to a bloody pulp in the BDSM scene if they really didn't like it for the religious aspects?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, not at all. Because the message of the cross is spiritual, and those who live and breathe darkness are even aware of it. Ever notice in the Bible, often it was the demon possessed that recognized who Christ really was first.
Click to expand...


Regardless, if the "liberals" were so against christianity then why wouldn't they enjoy seeing an idol of that religious belief being beaten?


----------



## KittenKoder

Hell, the only reason I like horror movies is because I enjoy seeing people get scared and tortured. It's my outlet so I don't feel the need to do it IRL.


----------



## JenT

KittenKoder said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because they have a "Gay Day" doesn't mean they agree with it, they do have to use gimicks like everyone else to make money, that's just smart commercialism. The largest disposable incomes are gay people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh please, Disney is all about promoting homosexuality. They ignore the family protests, they've lost money and credibility as a "family" organization, they're struggling to stay alive because so many families are boycotting them, or calling to make sure it's not a "gay day" before coming, because they don't want their children to walk in on sexual activities happening in broad daylight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um ... just wow ... do you pay much attention to what business is doing? They are by no means "struggling" ... they keep making a fortune off their movies and their theme parks are doing better than projected. The only thing making more money than the film industry right now is casinos.
Click to expand...


If they are its not surprising, there is a huge shift in our culture happening right now. Largely because Hollywood is succeeding in social conditioning through movies, tv, all avenues they've so stubbornly promoted.

I think it's why Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and previously Bill O'Reilly shot so high, many Americans are sick of watching what's happening in our society, but many are buying into it.


----------



## JenT

KittenKoder said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't "liberal ideologues" that decided that in all cases, and even then, don't you think that most liberals would enjoy seeing some guy they didn't like be beaten to a bloody pulp in the BDSM scene if they really didn't like it for the religious aspects?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, not at all. Because the message of the cross is spiritual, and those who live and breathe darkness are even aware of it. Ever notice in the Bible, often it was the demon possessed that recognized who Christ really was first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless, if the "liberals" were so against christianity then why wouldn't they enjoy seeing an idol of that religious belief being beaten?
Click to expand...


I've already said it. Because on a spiritual level, it has an impact.


----------



## KittenKoder

JenT said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh please, Disney is all about promoting homosexuality. They ignore the family protests, they've lost money and credibility as a "family" organization, they're struggling to stay alive because so many families are boycotting them, or calling to make sure it's not a "gay day" before coming, because they don't want their children to walk in on sexual activities happening in broad daylight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um ... just wow ... do you pay much attention to what business is doing? They are by no means "struggling" ... they keep making a fortune off their movies and their theme parks are doing better than projected. The only thing making more money than the film industry right now is casinos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they are its not surprising, there is a huge shift in our culture happening right now. Largely because Hollywood is succeeding in social conditioning through movies, tv, all avenues they've so stubbornly promoted.
> 
> I think it's why Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and previously Bill O'Reilly shot so high, many Americans are sick of watching what's happening in our society, but many are buying into it.
Click to expand...


No, it's an effect of the economic downturn, the "liberal" talk hosts are also up, because they are free to watch or listen to and right now politics is "in". What's wrong with our society is that we are becoming too extremist in either direction and too many people are unwilling to see that the world just doesn't revolve around them. To put is simply, it's because there are too few moderates and independent thinkers now.


----------



## JenT

KittenKoder said:


> Hell, the only reason I like horror movies is because I enjoy seeing people get scared and tortured. It's my outlet so I don't feel the need to do it IRL.



Really? I used to watch those with my not-husband. He loved them. Kinda made me nervous as we were going through our "stuff".

LOL, in fact, when he took me to Ragged Point for the weekend, I instinctively stayed away from all cliffs in his presence...


----------



## KittenKoder

JenT said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, not at all. Because the message of the cross is spiritual, and those who live and breathe darkness are even aware of it. Ever notice in the Bible, often it was the demon possessed that recognized who Christ really was first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, if the "liberals" were so against christianity then why wouldn't they enjoy seeing an idol of that religious belief being beaten?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already said it. Because on a spiritual level, it has an impact.
Click to expand...


I didn't see anything spiritual about it while I saw it ... it was just another Hollywood drama ... got bored through most of it but watched the guy getting beaten, that was a decently choreographed scene, pretty realistic in the special effects, though the camera shots were a bit sub-par, over-all it was a good scene though. Mostly I don't like subtitles though, thus why I just fast forwarded most of it just to see the few special effects. 

Not an ounce of "spiritual impact" here, and most I talked to, the only ones that didn't like it were christian oddly, they didn't like the interpretation.


----------



## JenT

KittenKoder said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, if the "liberals" were so against christianity then why wouldn't they enjoy seeing an idol of that religious belief being beaten?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already said it. Because on a spiritual level, it has an impact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see anything spiritual about it while I saw it ... it was just another Hollywood drama ... got bored through most of it but watched the guy getting beaten, that was a decently choreographed scene, pretty realistic in the special effects, though the camera shots were a bit sub-par, over-all it was a good scene though. Mostly I don't like subtitles though, thus why I just fast forwarded most of it just to see the few special effects.
> 
> Not an ounce of "spiritual impact" here, and most I talked to, the only ones that didn't like it were christian oddly, they didn't like the interpretation.
Click to expand...


KK I considered myself a Christian all of my life, even during my 20s. But I had no idea who God was and I don't know if God would agree with me or not that I was a Christian.

Being Christian isn't something that happens because you were baptized when you were an infant, but a lot of people consider themselves so. Only God knows our hearts, who are His and who aren't, and we can be surprised, as I would have been when I was 20 if I wasn't. Only God knows. God and the angels that separate the tears from the wheat.


----------



## Gunny

JenT said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow ... you suck at movie history. First, The Day the Earth Stood Still is based on a novel from a long time ago and you really missed the point of that one. The Day After Tomorrow was one you actually got right. Now, your "bestiality for kids"? You must be talking about Disney, since they are the closest, or Pixar, but both are just huge misses, since Pixar's only moral is to have fun with life and Disney just cannibalizes old fairy tales. The "Christians being insane" ... I am guessing you don't like history much at all, since every movie that shows the dark side of that religious following has been factually true to some level, except the DeVinci Code ... that was a stretch. Disney (which is a right wing christian owned and operated company) is responsible for much of the glorifying sex to children, and romantic comedies are trash that are produced evenly across the board (Ashton, the biggest scum in Hollywood, is a right wing christian BTW).
> 
> Enough of that part, I could go on forever with that. But your last point shows you also have seen very few action movies, since a lot are often not about "men being men" but are about *gasp* action and adventure! Many of which have very strong women role models who ... kick some serious ass. Good action movies break stereotypes, because there are a lot of strong women in the world, I am talking about physically strong. The only reason co-ed sports don't work is because women tend to put men to shy in them.
> 
> I recommend you watch more movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks you went a bit far in your last paragraph.  While there ARE exceptions  which I don't believe anyone has claimed there aren't, women in general CAN'T keep up with men, and pound for pound, are nowhere near as strong.
> 
> That's not saying women do not have their strengths in areas that would make most men squeal.  But it isn't in athletic endeavor.  Part of the reason for that is women trying to play man's games, designed by men for men.  Automatic disadvantage.
> 
> Ever notice how men's and women's gymnastics are not the same?  Because each is designed to play to the strengths of the respective genders.  It is one athletic endeavor where the playing field is actually level.  At the same time, the exercises themselves are hardly comparable.
> 
> Men and women are different.  Women seem to have a much harder time with this than men.  We are supposed to compliment one another, not try to be better at being the other than they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I know is, if' I've got a man breaking in my house (and for some insane reason I call the police rather than reach for my own guns), and a WOMAN shows up to rescue me...
> 
> We are not men. And I think it's INSANE that women try to be men.
Click to expand...


A female police officer?  A firearm is a GREAT equalizer and has nothing to do with physical prowess beyond the ability to aim and fire.


----------



## Gunny

KittenKoder said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow ... you suck at movie history. First, The Day the Earth Stood Still is based on a novel from a long time ago and you really missed the point of that one. The Day After Tomorrow was one you actually got right. Now, your "bestiality for kids"? You must be talking about Disney, since they are the closest, or Pixar, but both are just huge misses, since Pixar's only moral is to have fun with life and Disney just cannibalizes old fairy tales. The "Christians being insane" ... I am guessing you don't like history much at all, since every movie that shows the dark side of that religious following has been factually true to some level, except the DeVinci Code ... that was a stretch. Disney (which is a right wing christian owned and operated company) is responsible for much of the glorifying sex to children, and romantic comedies are trash that are produced evenly across the board (Ashton, the biggest scum in Hollywood, is a right wing christian BTW).
> 
> Enough of that part, I could go on forever with that. But your last point shows you also have seen very few action movies, since a lot are often not about "men being men" but are about *gasp* action and adventure! Many of which have very strong women role models who ... kick some serious ass. Good action movies break stereotypes, because there are a lot of strong women in the world, I am talking about physically strong. The only reason co-ed sports don't work is because women tend to put men to shy in them.
> 
> I recommend you watch more movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks you went a bit far in your last paragraph.  While there ARE exceptions  which I don't believe anyone has claimed there aren't, women in general CAN'T keep up with men, and pound for pound, are nowhere near as strong.
> 
> That's not saying women do not have their strengths in areas that would make most men squeal.  But it isn't in athletic endeavor.  Part of the reason for that is women trying to play man's games, designed by men for men.  Automatic disadvantage.
> 
> Ever notice how men's and women's gymnastics are not the same?  Because each is designed to play to the strengths of the respective genders.  It is one athletic endeavor where the playing field is actually level.  At the same time, the exercises themselves are hardly comparable.
> 
> Men and women are different.  Women seem to have a much harder time with this than men.  We are supposed to compliment one another, not try to be better at being the other than they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are several factors, I was over generalizing yes, mostly for effect, also because ... well ... I like being tough myself.
> 
> It is possible for women to develop the same level of strength, even if not the same method or technique. While the muscle groups vary, they are still muscles.
Click to expand...


It is possible for women to develop the same level of strength by unnatural means.  Naturally, unless they are one of the exceptions, they cannot.  This goes back to trying to compete with men at being men from my previous post.   

Muscles are FAR more complex than your statement indicates, and your statement does not include skeletal differences.  If it was as simple as that, we would all be built identically.


----------



## Gunny

JenT said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks you went a bit far in your last paragraph.  While there ARE exceptions  which I don't believe anyone has claimed there aren't, women in general CAN'T keep up with men, and pound for pound, are nowhere near as strong.
> 
> That's not saying women do not have their strengths in areas that would make most men squeal.  But it isn't in athletic endeavor.  Part of the reason for that is women trying to play man's games, designed by men for men.  Automatic disadvantage.
> 
> Ever notice how men's and women's gymnastics are not the same?  Because each is designed to play to the strengths of the respective genders.  It is one athletic endeavor where the playing field is actually level.  At the same time, the exercises themselves are hardly comparable.
> 
> Men and women are different.  Women seem to have a much harder time with this than men.  We are supposed to compliment one another, not try to be better at being the other than they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are several factors, I was over generalizing yes, mostly for effect, also because ... well ... I like being tough myself.
> 
> It is possible for women to develop the same level of strength, even if not the same method or technique. While the muscle groups vary, they are still muscles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen seemingly scrawny men lift weights that have shocked me. I have seen beefed up brawny women lift almost nothing.
> 
> I think just from my own observation that square inch to square inch of muscle between men and women, we women just do not have the power men do. It blows my mind but its true.
> 
> Men. Some are just "wirey" but I never underestimate their strength. Not if they're really men and not a confused woman on hormones
Click to expand...


Muscular size alone is not "the" indicator of strength.  Bodybuilders are bigger than powerlifters, but nowhere near as strong.  One wants to get big and look good, the other wants to pick up heavy things.  Two different goals and ways of training.

A body's natural strength is the basic key,  Tendon and ligament strength is as important as muscular strength to a powerlifter.  How tall one is, and how long one's arms and legs are are key factors.  Which muscle fibers (fast or slow twitch) dominate each muscle group are key factors.  Skeletal alignment and strength.

A far more complex issue than it appears on the surface.


----------



## JenT

Gunny said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks you went a bit far in your last paragraph.  While there ARE exceptions  which I don't believe anyone has claimed there aren't, women in general CAN'T keep up with men, and pound for pound, are nowhere near as strong.
> 
> That's not saying women do not have their strengths in areas that would make most men squeal.  But it isn't in athletic endeavor.  Part of the reason for that is women trying to play man's games, designed by men for men.  Automatic disadvantage.
> 
> Ever notice how men's and women's gymnastics are not the same?  Because each is designed to play to the strengths of the respective genders.  It is one athletic endeavor where the playing field is actually level.  At the same time, the exercises themselves are hardly comparable.
> 
> Men and women are different.  Women seem to have a much harder time with this than men.  We are supposed to compliment one another, not try to be better at being the other than they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I know is, if' I've got a man breaking in my house (and for some insane reason I call the police rather than reach for my own guns), and a WOMAN shows up to rescue me...
> 
> We are not men. And I think it's INSANE that women try to be men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A female police officer?  A firearm is a GREAT equalizer and has nothing to do with physical prowess beyond the ability to aim and fire.
Click to expand...


sure. unless it's that time of her cycle and she's feeling overemotional that day, something that DOES effect how we think and act

and just by being confronted by a woman, an attacker will be encouraged to overpower her, whether it's justified or not

I think it's completely unwise to have lessor requirements for women than men in order for women to get jobs to be politically correct. Men can be passed over in order to hire the woman and for what? So a fireman can put his life in the hands of a female partner that can't lift the weight necessary to save his life in an emergency?

So the Rosie O'Donnels of the world can pretend they have proved they are as good as a man?

In some ways we're better than men. In other ways we're not. Over all we're equal, but we have different strengths and weaknesses. Acting like we're blind to that is just stupid. It's something to be celebrated not endeavored to ignore IMHO.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

What the hell  happen to my thread?


----------



## Terry

Mr.Fitnah said:


> What the hell happen to my thread?


 I have no idea and sorry to add to the derailment but I just stopped in to tell you. Every time I see this thread title, I start singing the GI joe jingle.

Thanks!


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

JenT said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember this is a movie based on toys,
> I expected a rotten story line and great special effects.
> The movie storyline was far better then I anticipated , so it was not as mindless as it could have been .
> A fair effort was  made at character development,The scenery  and sets were excellent .
> The effects delivered But don't look to deeply into the physics of the action sequences.
> I was a fun  movie , pure eye candy, suitable for kids unless you object to violence with no noticeable foul language or sexual images .
> The sequel will be better , but not much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Fitnah is there a liberal message in it? I am so sick of libs trying to force their ideology through hollywood
Click to expand...

Not so as it ruins the fun.
It isnt Capt Planet .


----------



## Dis

Mr.Fitnah said:


> What the hell  happen to my thread?



If you have thread expectations, you might want to check them at the door.  THIS is normal.


----------



## Gunny

Mr.Fitnah said:


> What the hell  happen to my thread?



Me.  Want a new one or what?

GI Joe, known slayer of Bar ....errr ... bad guys can only get so much mileage.


----------



## KittenKoder

Mr.Fitnah said:


> What the hell  happen to my thread?



Oddly, this is closer to the original topic than some at this point.


----------



## Gudrid

JenT said:


> sure. unless it's that time of her cycle and she's feeling overemotional that day, something that DOES effect how we think and act



Men have a hormonal cycle that effects them similarly.  It's called IMS.  Not all men experience it, just as not all women experience PMS to the same degree.  But it's a good thing to be aware of, so that men don't get put in unfair position.  

Some women are stronger than some men.  You're dealing with averages.  There are not usually, for instance, different requirements for men and women firefighters.  If you get a woman there saving you, in most areas she's had to meet the same requirements as a man who was there saving you.  And I agree with you that the requirements should be the same, but I strongly disagree with the premise that there's some difference between being rescued by a man or a woman if both are held to the same standard.  Except that the guy is probably hotter, so there is that.


----------



## JenT

Gudrid said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure. unless it's that time of her cycle and she's feeling overemotional that day, something that DOES effect how we think and act
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men have a hormonal cycle that effects them similarly.  It's called IMS.  Not all men experience it, just as not all women experience PMS to the same degree.  But it's a good thing to be aware of, so that men don't get put in unfair position.
> 
> Some women are stronger than some men.  You're dealing with averages.  There are not usually, for instance, different requirements for men and women firefighters.  If you get a woman there saving you, in most areas she's had to meet the same requirements as a man who was there saving you.  And I agree with you that the requirements should be the same, but I strongly disagree with the premise that there's some difference between being rescued by a man or a woman if both are held to the same standard.  Except that the guy is probably hotter, so there is that.
Click to expand...


well I don't care what anybody says, when I need rescuing I don't appreciate it when Rosie O'Donnel shows up, I don't care if she does have a mustache and looks like a man, she's NOT.


----------



## JenT

Gudrid said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure. unless it's that time of her cycle and she's feeling overemotional that day, something that DOES effect how we think and act
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men have a hormonal cycle that effects them similarly.  It's called IMS.  Not all men experience it, just as not all women experience PMS to the same degree.  But it's a good thing to be aware of, so that men don't get put in unfair position.
> 
> Some women are stronger than some men.  You're dealing with averages.  There are not usually, for instance, different requirements for men and women firefighters.  If you get a woman there saving you, in most areas she's had to meet the same requirements as a man who was there saving you.  And I agree with you that the requirements should be the same, but I strongly disagree with the premise that there's some difference between being rescued by a man or a woman if both are held to the same standard.  Except that the guy is probably hotter, so there is that.
Click to expand...


I'm told by guys that have applied that in California it's different standards.

And that's just plain wrong.

We are not men. Apparently some of us need to have that explained to us. But I forgot, we're too busy learning about how to put condoms on cucumbers in public school instead of figuring out that we're different.


----------



## JW Frogen

JenT said:


> well I don't care what anybody says, when I need rescuing I don't appreciate it when Rosie O'Donnel shows up, I don't care if she does have a mustache and looks like a man, she's NOT.




I never thought Rosie ODonnell was a man, I thought she was a fat, pre-pubescent boy.


----------



## Gudrid

JenT said:


> We are not men. Apparently some of us need to have that explained to us. But I forgot, we're too busy learning about how to put condoms on cucumbers in public school instead of figuring out that we're different.



I don't actually know any women who fit the stereotype you're presenting.


----------



## JenT

Gudrid said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not men. Apparently some of us need to have that explained to us. But I forgot, we're too busy learning about how to put condoms on cucumbers in public school instead of figuring out that we're different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't actually know any women who fit the stereotype you're presenting.
Click to expand...


You are blessed Gudrid, you must live in the heartland


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

JW Frogen said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> well I don't care what anybody says, when I need rescuing I don't appreciate it when Rosie O'Donnel shows up, I don't care if she does have a mustache and looks like a man, she's NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never thought Rosie ODonnell was a man, I thought she was a fat, pre-pubescent boy.
Click to expand...

Greasy come to mind?


----------



## JW Frogen

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Greasy come to mind?



Rosie would make a good Fat Fonzerelli.

Un-Happy Days the Reunion.

The Fonz lets himself go after Pinki Tuscadero reveals she is really in love with Ralph Mouth.


----------



## Gudrid

JenT said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not men. Apparently some of us need to have that explained to us. But I forgot, we're too busy learning about how to put condoms on cucumbers in public school instead of figuring out that we're different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't actually know any women who fit the stereotype you're presenting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are blessed Gudrid, you must live in the heartland
Click to expand...


Lol.  Well, I do live in the heartland, but I grew up in Atlanta.  I've known plenty of women (myself included) who are all about equality, but not in the sense of men and women being the same physically and such.  Equality of opportunity and such.  Do you actually know multiple people who attempt to state that men and women are physically equipped to do the same things?  Cause honestly, the most rabid feminists I've known have never said that.  It's just a bizarre thing for someone to think.  I'm having a hard time imagining how or why someone would believe that.


----------



## JenT

Gudrid said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't actually know any women who fit the stereotype you're presenting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are blessed Gudrid, you must live in the heartland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  Well, I do live in the heartland, but I grew up in Atlanta.  I've known plenty of women (myself included) who are all about equality, but not in the sense of men and women being the same physically and such.  Equality of opportunity and such.  Do you actually know multiple people who attempt to state that men and women are physically equipped to do the same things?  Cause honestly, the most rabid feminists I've known have never said that.  It's just a bizarre thing for someone to think.  I'm having a hard time imagining how or why someone would believe that.
Click to expand...


There are TONS of people who want to believe we're all the same save for a couple of parts. And it's so sad because the differences are what make it all work. 

(she says sitting here while her husband is off on a two year drinking binge with his slut girlfriend)


----------



## Gudrid

Damn.  Women are perfectly well equipped to mercilessly beat drunken husbands and slut girlfriends with stilettos.  Just so you know.


----------



## Dis

Gudrid said:


> Damn.  Women are perfectly well equipped to mercilessly beat drunken husbands and slut girlfriends with stilettos.  Just so you know.



And yet she sits online a political board giggling about it like a school girl...

...ad can't figure out why I seriously question her mental stability and tell her to seek professional help...


----------



## JenT

Dis said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn.  Women are perfectly well equipped to mercilessly beat drunken husbands and slut girlfriends with stilettos.  Just so you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet she sits online a political board giggling about it like a school girl...
> 
> ...ad can't figure out why I seriously question her mental stability and tell her to seek professional help...
Click to expand...


awww Dis, your concern is touching  would you rather I moped around crying about it? I have a lot to be grateful for, like he's not HERE drunkenly driving my car or falling asleep with cigarettes in his hands or plotting to kill me because somehow my not drinking with him made me the bad guy. 

It's been two years this September. Life goes on. Even if I'm still married on paper.


----------



## JenT

Gudrid said:


> Damn.  Women are perfectly well equipped to mercilessly beat drunken husbands and slut girlfriends with stilettos.  Just so you know.



Stilletos??? <perk>


----------



## Gudrid

Always a good choice.  Fashionable, effective, you can carry it openly, and you don't have to register it as a weapon.


----------



## JenT

Gudrid said:


> Always a good choice.  Fashionable, effective, you can carry it openly, and you don't have to register it as a weapon.



yeah but when you dance on the hood of your boyfriend's car with them, they get upset

(the next day anyway  )


----------



## Gudrid

That never occurred to me.  I don't think I have the coordination needed to attempt dancing on car hoods in stilettos.  If I manage walking in them without looking gangling and clumsy, I feel successful.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Gudrid said:


> That never occurred to me.  I don't think I have the coordination needed to attempt dancing on car hoods in stilettos.  If I manage walking in them without looking gangling and clumsy, I feel successful.



Your a devotchka ?


----------



## JenT

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> That never occurred to me.  I don't think I have the coordination needed to attempt dancing on car hoods in stilettos.  If I manage walking in them without looking gangling and clumsy, I feel successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your a devotchka ?
Click to expand...


You're asking if Gudrid is "a four piece multi-instrumental and vocal ensemble that fuses Romani, Greek, Slavic, Bolero, Mariachi (and many more styles) music with American punk and folk roots"?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

JenT said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> That never occurred to me.  I don't think I have the coordination needed to attempt dancing on car hoods in stilettos.  If I manage walking in them without looking gangling and clumsy, I feel successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your a devotchka ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're asking if Gudrid is "a four piece multi-instrumental and vocal ensemble that fuses Romani, Greek, Slavic, Bolero, Mariachi (and many more styles) music with American punk and folk roots"?
Click to expand...


Ah ... no.A Clockwork Orange - Glossary of NADSAT Language


----------



## Gudrid

Yes, Gudrid is the name of a woman in the Icelandic sagas. And the subject of a very good book I had just finished reading when I signed up for this board.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Far-Traveler-Voyages-Viking-Woman/dp/015101440X]Amazon.com: The Far Traveler: Voyages of a Viking Woman (9780151014408): Nancy Marie Brown: Books[/ame]


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Friðr Gudrid.


----------



## Toome

Was I the only one who was impressed by Scarlett's (Rachel Nichols), um, uh, "grenades?"


----------



## Zoom-boing

Toome said:


> Was I the only one who was impressed by Scarlett's (Rachel Nichols), um, uh, "grenades?"



No, you were not alone in that.


----------



## Nevadamedic

Toome said:


> Well, I don't expect "character development" or a complicated plot from what started out as an action figure back when I was a kid.  It was better than expected, and it's suitable for young boys to see, depending on whether or not you're raising your boy to be a man.  It does contain violence.  I would, for instance, take my 9 year old nephew to see it but not a 5 year old.
> 
> For those of us who grew up with the original GI Joe, this movie does it justice.  It's tailored to the second generation GI Joe (the one that was smaller than Barbie----yeah, we *know* why they changed the size!), it's a great movie.
> 
> I had fun.



First of all G.I. Joe started as a comic book, then action figure. 

I absolutely loved this movie! I have seen it three times and going to see it a fourth. The only dissapointment is Sgt. Slaughter wasn't in it! How can that be! I hope he is in the second one! 

The other detail I didn't like is Brendan Frasier's character, Sgt. Stone. In the series it is Lt. Stone, and he should have been a bigger part of the movie and they left out Lady J and cut Dr. Mindbender almost out of the movie except for a cameo!  I did then Frasier was a perfect fir for Stone though and deserved a bigger part and they killed Cover Girl at the beginning!

I thought the cast was dead on. Dennis Quaid as General Hawk, PERFECT!

I hope to se emore Joes in the next!


----------



## Nevadamedic

Toome said:


> Well, I don't expect "character development" or a complicated plot from what started out as an action figure back when I was a kid.  It was better than expected, and it's suitable for young boys to see, depending on whether or not you're raising your boy to be a man.  It does contain violence.  I would, for instance, take my 9 year old nephew to see it but not a 5 year old.
> 
> For those of us who grew up with the original GI Joe, this movie does it justice.  It's tailored to the second generation GI Joe (the one that was smaller than Barbie----yeah, we *know* why they changed the size!), it's a great movie.
> 
> I had fun.



First of all G.I. Joe started as a comic book, then action figure. 

I absolutely loved this movie! I have seen it three times and going to see it a fourth. The only dissapointment is Sgt. Slaughter wasn't in it! How can that be! I hope he is in the second one! 

The other detail I didn't like is Brendan Frasier's character, Sgt. Stone. In the series it is Lt. Stone, and he should have been a bigger part of the movie and they left out Lady J and cut Dr. Mindbender almost out of the movie except for a cameo!  I did then Frasier was a perfect fir for Stone though and deserved a bigger part and they killed Cover Girl at the beginning!

I thought the cast was dead on. Dennis Quaid as General Hawk, PERFECT!

I hope to se emore Joes in the next!


----------

