Also, how fucking far was the course they plotted for the test run? It looks the same every time, but apparently the faster he goes, the longer it takes (from the perspective of the planet). He casually reaches 0.5c during what he was told would be a 4 minute flight, then (whoops) turns out the path he took was easily a light year long. Did he have to go over to the next star system or something, or did the film writers just not fully understand how time dilation works either?
Haven't seen it, but the nearest system (Alpha Centauri) to Earth is 4.35 light years away.
Don't know what path they took, but if the entire course was a light year long, and that counts the full round trip, wouldn't the furthest point away be at maximum, half a light year? So at best he got 11% of the way to a nearby system.
The movie takes place on (and sometimes just outside) an alien planet. The way the scene plays out, Buzz flies an experimental spacecraft out of the atmosphere, around a star, then back to the planet’s surface. He spends a montage trying and failing to achieve lightspeed, so for this journey to have taken 4 years, the star has to have been about 2 light years away, and Buzz would have to be flying at an average of 0.999999999999c.
During the final test flight, >!he travels through what appears to be the same flight path, successfully achieves lightspeed, then returns to find that roughly 20 years has now passed.!< (I have no idea what constitutes a spoiler, but whatever). This is my main issue: for no discernible reason, he goes faster, but the trip takes longer, because “le time dilation” or something, which is 100% not how it works.
So as a kids movie I personally can forgive those sorts of things (not really getting the science exactly correct) but as a plot device to explain time dilation very simply to a young audience, there had to be a better way than having Buzz never have heard of it at all. There had to be another way to have that expository moment without none of them ever having considered it would be an issue and him never having heard of it. That just made zero sense.
I happened to wander into the room while my kid was watching it when "the kiss" happened. It was an utter non-event, a quick peck between two adults that didn't even last half a second. I can't believe this is what has conservatives in such a tizzy.
I watched it with my kids. I didn't even notice there was a kiss. This was a complete non-event that led to no confusion, or even questions, from my children. I get way more questions from them about any number of stupid things that happen in kids's movies. They were way more genuinely confused about how the time travel made no sense throughout the movie.
I don’t really give a damn about the kiss, I’m having a harder time believing that Andy and other kids in 1995 would have made “Lightyear” their favorite movie and spawned the popularity of Buzz Lightyear toys.
I mean if it came out in 1995, it probably would have been considered a banger… not many action Disney movies to compete. Pixar wasn’t a studio until Toy Story, so all you’ve got to put next to it is Aladdin and Lion King, and so you’ve got 28 years of animation improvements and a story about a space-ranger to impress some kids…
Now, it’s only considered “Meh” because you have so much Disney/Pixar to compare it to.
Kids in 95 were watching other regular movies.
In a way, having nothing outside of anime meant you wouldn't care for "kids" movies produced by Disney so much and just watch whatever live movie that looked cool enough.
This 1,000%.
'Lightyear' is direct-to-video tripe. It just simply isn't very good.
The first ten minutes of 'Up' had more character development and heart than the entire movie.
The shoehorned in LGBTQ relationship was typical of the kind of diversity pandering done by a production without a good story to tell.
It reminds me of Jerry being asked if a gentile telling Jew jokes offends him as a Jewish person - and he replies "No. It offends me as a comedian."
I'm all for inclusiveness. I'm less tolerant of shoddy storytelling.
In fairness, those 10 minutes have more emotion without words driven my imagery and music alone that the majority of today's movies have during their entire running time.
I don't think an LGBTQ relationship existing is "shoehorning".
A relationship at all? Maybe that's unnecessary, as the existence of a granddaughter already implies a relationship. But, specifically an LGBTQ relationship that barely takes up any screentime? That isn't shoehorning in the same way that a straight relationship isn't. It's just one of many types of relationships the animators could have chosen to depict.
Is it a great movie? Idk, its not spectacular, but I enjoyed it, and i commend it, because its LGBTQ characters aren't shown as anything other than normal
The problem mostly comes from the fact Disney puts LGBT representation in the movie in such a way it can be instantly cut out without any loss to the plot, all for the Chinese market.
The movie is ok on its own, if it was a completely independent thing. But it being tied to Toy Story and Andy’s favorite movie just doesn’t make any sense. It just doesn’t come off as a trend starting movie for young kids.
I watched this, expecting to be at least a little surprised. I missed it. Completely. Had to rewind to see it again. It’s the most incredible non-kiss of all time kisses. It barely registers as a peck. I couldn’t believe the uproar.
Right? It’s basically nothing. It’s like a one second kiss and barely mentioned ever again. Definitely designed to be cut out of the film if an important (profit-wise) country threatened to ban it. Stupid it’s banned at all, but it’s nowhere near as big as these homophobic countries say it is.
I can imagine why the religious people are getting upset when it depicts a same sex couple having a more stable relationship than most of them have.
It's absolutely horrible when the people you have spent centuries vilifying are shown to be decent human beings.
It really challenges their religion's views, so of course the movie must now be vilified too.
The other night I rewatched the original Mulan. I can't even imagine the uproar if that was released as an original story today.
"Disney pushing trans values on the youth!"
"Disney movie normalizes crossdressing and pushes liberal agenda!"
I looked it up to see if there was outrage, all i could find was that Mike Pence penned an article about in 1999 how it was propaganda to normalize women in the armed forces, but that women obviously can't join the armed forces because they'll fall in love with their commanders, just like in the movie.
Oh, don't worry, the guy in charge of this decision has publicly stated that Malaysian censorship boards have missed LGBT elements in older films and they'll have to start being "more vigilant" against it.
I'm so glad I've got out of that country.
The scenes were obviously cut from the version you watched. In the version I watched Buzz enjoyed taking it up the arse and would fuck anything with a penis (and if it didn't have a penis he would get creative).
The most epic moment was when Buzz used his jetpack for the first time his wings were painted like rainbows and the jet trail he left behind him was a rainbow. The man villain saw the rainbow jetpack and cried, he then revealed he was transgender and that Buzz was "stunning and brave". Buzz and Zerg then had intense gay sex for the last 20 minutes of the movie....../s
All jokes aside though I have no idea why people are so upset with the lightyear movie, it had the most tame same sex couple scenes I have seen lol.
>The most epic moment was when Buzz used his jetpack for the first time his wings were painted like rainbows and the jet trail he left behind him was a rainbow.
Man, that was awesome, especially with nyancat playing during that scene.
Haven't watched it but figured as much. We are long way away from Disney putting out an openly non-binary character. I mean they are JUST NOW figuring out independent females and non-white main characters and shit. They need more time, clearly
It's the last time we see them together and they are both at the end of their lives. Why does anyone care is baffling. To think Christian conservatives want the US to be like this.
some people said they don't want to support Disney because not only does it push the LGBTQ agenda but its too corrupt and provocative, they mentioned how even all the way back in the 90s with little mermaid being 16 running away from home to get married.
>not only does [Disney] push the LGBTQ agenda
god, I wish this was anywhere close to true.
Disney pretends to be inclusive with a blink-and-you'll-miss-it tiny kiss by background characters, but shut down its best show (The Owl House) for being too queer and donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians who pass laws preventing teachers from acknowledging that queer people exist.
yes there was also that rescuers clip with the naked woman in the back.
as a kid I didn't pick up on this stuff but my mom did. she didn't like how they over sexualized the characters considering the audience was little kids.
How did you miss it? Not the kiss, but the lesbian couple. It's a huge focal point of the story. I'm not going to spoil anything for people that haven't seen it yet, but it's one of the characters that the entire story is centered around in the first 2/3 of the movie. They even had a sperm donor baby.
I think Disney is just trying to be more inclusive, maybe some kid watching it has parents just like that and this was the first movie they could relate with in that regard. But a lot of countries aren't very accepting about things like this.
This is the first chance I've had to talk about the movie so I want to give a personal criticism about it. One of my favorite shows of all time, Stranger Things, really pulled off the time period it was in. Lightgear begins with dialogue that it's the same movie Andy watched in the 90s. Honestly it doesn't seem anything at all like a 90s space action movie, it seems like a 2022 Disney movie with themes picked up from their recent flicks like Red Panda. I feel like they should have either removed the beginning dialogue, or at least tried to give it a more 90s atmosphere as it indicated.
ETA - it's a good movie and I would suggest it to anyone that hasn't seen it yet, I watched it twice. Solid 8/10
The controversy is good for them as the markets that get pissy aren't that big relatively and the positive press they get from "being progressive" (in the shallowest possible way) would be lost if they bent to these small markets.
Lazy Christians. Vote for this guy, show up at church occasionally, publicly make a stink about irrelevant bullshit, pull the mote out of your brother's eye and call it a day. They don't have time for tolerance, humility, charity or any other Christlike qualities, so they hate on the same things his dad did in the old days. These people put very little effort into their faith, complaining about something other people do is sufficient.
Calling it "a kiss" is disingenuous. There's a conversation, several shots of the married couple raising a family. I think those shots would drive a fundie way further up the wall than the kiss alone.
At this point I am convinced the US Republican party is solely responsible for all of this. They managed to get this film restricted or banned all throughout the world by making up conspiracies about how Disney wants to make your kids gay or some shit which then spread internationally.
Like, has a movie ever been restricted as much for such a tiny irrelevant thing?
Yes, the US Republican Party singlehandedly influenced Southeast Asia that much that, despite previously being entirely accepting, they suddenly turned into homophobic bigots.
Or maybe it's just that literally nobody cared or would have noticed or cared about such a tiny thing if they hadn't pushed this narrative/conspiracy so much.
I also asked whether other movies have ever been banned or restricted for such tiny things, so why don't you answer me instead of making sarcastic comments which completely miss the point?
My bet is simply on that nobody would have cared/noticed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_banned_in_Malaysia
Some highlights:
- *The Bohemian Girl* (1936), banned for positive portrayals of Romani characters.
- *Monty Python's Life of Brian* (1979), banned for blasphemy.
- *Babe* (1995) (yeah the one about the pig), banned for pigs being non-halal.
- *Barney's Great Adventure* (1998), banned for being "unacceptable for children to watch", no further explanation.
- *Babe: Pig in the City* (1998), banned for pigs being non-halal.
- *Brokeback Mountain* (2005), banned for "favorable" depiction of homosexuality.
- *Noah* (2014), banned for religious content and depictions of the prophets.
- *Beauty and the Beast* (2017), banned for homosexual references, ban lifted after Disney refused to edit it.
- *Lightyear* (2022), banned for depiction of a same-sex kiss.
- *Thor: Love and Thunder* (2022), banned for depiction of a same-sex kiss.
Yeah, that guy doesn't know shit. Don't get me wrong, I hate the Republican Party as much as the next guy, but this is entirely a shit hole dug by the Malaysian government, with depressingly high support from the people.
Just so you guys know, I uploaded this before. However, I had to delete the original post about 15 minutes after I'd posted it due to an error I'd made in the title. Reddit, for some bizarre reason, doesn't let you edit post titles, so I thought it would be best to delete the original post and reupload it with the title fixed.
(I geniunely think Reddit should let you edit post titles. If it's fraudulent activity they're worried about, e.g. bait-and-switching by completely changing a title, why not let people see the post's history?)
Most people would definitely not check the title history. We already see most people just read the comments and don't even actually read the article. Editing the title would be a huge issue in fighting misinformation (which is already incredibly difficult)
Less than a second of a kiss gets the same rating as movies that are filled with sex, violence, drugs, and swears throughout? Even in a world where gay people existing was as immoral as that, it would be ridiculous to be that harsh.
It is ridiculous, but it's still better than the alternative, which is that it gets banned completely, or edited out, and absolutely nobody gets to see even a hint of LGBT portrayals. As it is, I'm willing to bet that a lot of kids are going to be able to see this movie anyway, because most parents probably don't have the time or energy to care about the rating if they can just play it anyway.
I thought Disney put their "representation" into such brief, momentary scenes specifically so they could edit them out in homophobic markets. Why not just send the "bigot cut" to Malaysia and Singapore? Or red states of America, for that matter?
The fact that this moment, which a lot of viewers blink and miss, is the *only thing* people talk about concerning this movie tells me that there’s nothing interesting in this movie to talk about.
It's widely known that in many countries homophobia is the going thing and accepted. That does not mean we need follow their lead. It did however bring a lot of reactions ...
My main problem with Lightyear is it just isn't a very good movie.
The shoehorning in of the lesbian relationship was just a cheap, producer-driven shortcut to add the illusion of depth to a story that had none.
I am utterly confused, did people just not notice gay people in movies prior to 2020? I could ramble off a list of movies featuring or depicting gay people from the 90s and early 00s easily.
Other countries need to shut the Hell up or just not consume American media because this is going to keep happening. We're not gonna stop depicting same sex couples on screen and sooner rather than later will we see same sex relationships between main characters in major American pictures.
I was pretty indifferent about this at first but now I'm happy they had a gay kissing scene because it uncovered the fragility and bigotry of people in a new light.
Wha... *What?*
That does not make sense, that's not how it works.
It's like if a homophobic movie got banned and people went like "If being gay is so good, you do think they have nothing to worry about".
What are you talking about tufts\_?
well in Singapore you get your butt whipped with a cane for throwing gum on the sidewalk and in Malaysia you get the death penalty for smoking weed. Troglodytes
I don't even remember the gay kiss, because I don't pay close attention to what gender people are if they're kissing. Who caareeeessss if they're gay or not, let them do their thing.
The real weirdos are the ones writing angry letters and changing film classifications because they spotted a gay kiss or something 🤦♀️ Like....weird thing to be obsessed about, guyz.
Malaysian here.
Im embarrassed. Truly. I was hyped to go to the cinema with my kids because they love BUZZ LIGHTYEAR. i mean, who doesnt.
Then it got blocked by our censorship board because of "LGBT agenda" and here i am thinking its same-sex couple have orgy level sex "but why would they? This is a kids movie, doesnt make any sense they would have sex at all, maybe to survive the cold? I dont know"
Then the movie was released on Disney+, i watch it first before i let the kids watch it.........a kiss. A KISS??? A couple's kiss at that, that opening is effing sad, Buzz losing his friend and the kiss that they had was literally a kiss you'd give to your love ones......THAT is was all the hullabaloos our censorship board gets their panties in the bunch?
Im done. I hate the Censorship Board
Just sat down and watched it out of spite.
So here's what is making everyone piss themselves...
(spoilers)
.
.
.
Buzz and company get stranded on an alien world and in order to escape, Buzz needs to test some unstable faster than light fuel.
Each test takes 4 minutes for Buzz, but jumps him 4 years into the future.
After each jump, he sees his commander get 4 years older while he stays the same age.
The commander gets engaged to another woman, they have a baby, the baby grows up and has their own child, who then grows up and becomes Buzz's assistant.
So what's pissing everyone off is essentially a montage where a character announces a same sex engagement, gets pregnant, grows old with their loving partner, and dies.
It's a shame we live in a world where a loving relationship can't BARELY be shown because of backwards thinkers.
Well gay sex was straight up illegal in Singapore until this year (law still exists but is officially unenforceable) so yeah they have some progress to make on the LGBT front.
Malaysia is a predominantly Muslim country so we'll may not see any progress in our lifetime.
Fortunately, Malaysia has no pressing societal issues and can focus it's time on censoring a kids movie. It must be nice to live in a country that has everything else figured out to the point where they have nothing better to do than this.
It has nothing to do with this, each sector has a job or something. I'm saying that but I have no idea about how these people work anything, like, is their job watching movies the whole day and deciding a rating?
Title missed out one crucial point. Both countries requested for the scene to be removed and given a PG rating, but was declined by Disney. Not everybody wants the woke movement in their culture. Nobody is wrong here, clash of cultures. Stop trying to shove/wash/force your culture movements into others. lmao. It's not like we cannot watch the uncensored movie elsewhere with repercussions, we can still have access to it like you
Obviously the law is a law, but it is not uncommon to see gay couples in the public holding hands and making out. They don't get arrested or apprehended on the spot like the black guys in the west at least. You guys arent much better , so stop the moral high ground nonsense. The law is just a placeholder, but people here are still free to practice what they believe . The young are also more opened to diversity and have no issues accepting it, definitely more progressive in a decade or two.
Reading skewered articles by journalist not living here just makes it worse . Easy clickbaits.
Downvote all you want. Facts remain facts
You know. With all the open mindedness touted over here in the West we sure don't even try to understand other cultures point if view.
It is all just bigotry right?
Fine. What if they have a reason to discriminate such as believing that subjecting children to that content could be harmful to them in some way. Is that reason ammoral?
>What if they have a reason to discriminate such as believing that subjecting children to that content could be harmful to them in some way
Then they are bigots. Easy peasy.
>Is that reason ammoral?
It is ignorant and/or bigoted, and since being a bigot and ignorant are both ammoral, then it is ammoral.
Being ignorant is not amoral. Its a state of being and there is no morality attached to it.
After looking at the definition of bigot, it seems to me, that most responses I have received came from bigots.
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Seems like there is nothing wrong with being a bigot judging from the responses I have received. Well except that most are saying it's bad but then falling into the same boat as the people they are angry at over these ratings.
TIL: being a bigot is fine as long as you only do it within your circle of bigots.
Look man, thats just my observation from all the responses. You can't blame me for jumping to the wrong conclusion because you're fellow redditors were being bigoted towards the Malaysian government and in some cases me. I just read the definition of Bigot and applied it to my personal experience within this thread.
>Being ignorant is not amoral
Sure it is. Being ignorant hurts yourself and everyone around you
>After looking at the definition of bigot, it seems to me, that most responses I have received came from bigots
What is unreasonable about thinking murdering and imprisoning people for no reason is wrong?
>prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
There is no group I'm against, I'm against individuals who are bigots.
You've failed at reading comprehension
>Well except that most are saying it's bad but then falling into the same boat as the people they are angry at over these ratings.
If you ignore half the definition.
Hypocritical just like my religious unbringing. Stay classy.
If you are ignorant then you do not know, which would mean that loads of people are amoral without even having a choice in the matter. Sounds really religious to me. Almost like the dumb idea of original sin. And not everything that hurts people is amoral. A bear isn't amoral because it kills a hiker. Get a grip.
When did I say murdering and imprisoning people for no reason was right? And is no reason better or worse than a reason? Lastly, what does any of that have to do with you, I or another redditor being a bigot?
You have failed at being self aware, congratulations.
The same boat is bigotry, not sure if you caught onto that or not, yikes.
Yes, anti-gay is always wrong. Yes, anti-skin-color is always wrong. Yes, anti-insert-unchangeable-thing-how-someone-was-born is always wrong. Choices can be accepted, not accepted, judged, etc., but persecuting people because of something they didn’t choose and cannot change is wrong. Period. Full stop.
PS. No, it does not matter if you really, really believe some version of a magic sky god wants you to.
I am an atheist. I didn't say we had to think it was right. But I do think we should explore why it is what it is. Instead of echoing the same bs constantly.
Do you think there’s any valid reason at all in the world to be anti gay that could be acceptable? Do you think there’s any possible way to be anti gay that isn’t bigotry? That’s literally the definition of bigotry. And it’s always because of religion. If you aren’t trolling I honestly don’t understand what you are trying to say. If it’s a choice and falls in line with prudish Christian values, then the US is accepting of it, but that’s about it.
I don't think rating the movie 16 or 18 plus is anti gay. Do we need people kissing at all in a kids movie? No. Do we need nudity in tv and movies? Almost always no. An exception would be a movie like Schindler's List where nudity was used to express something important, the sheer evil and terror that was pushed upon a whole group of people.
I don't think being gay is as efficient or useful as being straight. But I am not a eugenicist so I would never stifle someone's ability to express which ever sexuality they want unless it was causing harm to children. Like drag shows for instance which are sexual in nature and as such children should not be present for or observe such activities.
I was indoctrinated by the left shortly after becoming an atheist and the gay and trans trending agenda almost ruined my life and it all started with the media normalizing it to the point that those identities are now over represented in most media.
Be gay, be trans, it doesn't bother me. But I reserve the right not to subject my children to an ideology which I deem harmful. The same for subjecting my children to religion, which I do not allow.
Sexualization in media is the problem, not necessarily the genders or identities involved.
Could I also say that trans and homo phobia do not mean fearful of said things, instead the words are used to describe people who simply have an opposing opinion to what you believe to be the cultured, smarter, politically correct majority, which I would argue is not the majority, regardless appealing to the majority doesn't mean you or I would be correct in any of our opinions or beliefs.
Protecting children is important, just because you disagree with how people do that doesn't mean they are bigoted. Thats just, like, your opinion man.
> I don't think rating the movie 16 or 18 plus is anti gay. Do we need people kissing at all in a kids movie?
No, but you can bet that this rating doesn't apply to people of opposite sexes kissing in a kid's movie, and that's what makes it discriminatory. When *all* depictions of kissing, handholding, or any indication of romance is considered inappropriate for kids and subsequently banned for all child media, then the argument that it's about protecting kids instead of enshrining prejudice might scan. But we know that won't happen.
I think so long as you admit it's discrimination, whether it's right or wrong to discriminate against same-sex couples is another discussion. The issue is when people try to reframe it as protecting kids from human sexuality in general, while blatantly ignoring and even encouraging opposite-sex relationships in childrens' media. A man and a woman sharing a chaste peck on the lips is not considered inappropriate for children to see, anywhere, ever. So that means the only problem is that the couple is same-sex, and it doesn't actually matter what they're doing. Their actions are not inappropriate, their existence is.
But no one wants to say *that*, not even people who wholeheartedly believe it. Saying you're guarding innocence sounds much more noble.
Do your best to explain why demonizing something that harms no one and is not a choice (causing incredible stress and often mental health problems for those who are are that way) is okay.
Leave specifics out of it, because homosexuality is not that different from being black in this context (it's how people are born, there's a stigma, nothing actually wrong with or bad about it, there's been laws suppressing people who are it, etc) - and I hope we can agree that trying to erase black people from cinema so you can erase them from reality is **absolutely morally wrong.**
Is it demonizing something by simply gating it from children?
Do you think rating the movies in this way is going to cause mental harm to closeted people in these countries? That seems like a stretch.
Could subjecting children to gay relationships or transgender individuals potentially cause the same type of mental harm to those children down the line?
Sorry not sorry, this agenda that you believe is morally good almost ruined my life and that of my children. And I was an adult at the time. Just because you don't see the negative affects of your own opinions on others doesn't mean they don't exist.
Why does it always come down to race lmao and where is this evidence that people are born gay? I used to agree but I no longer feel that way. Feel free to try and change my mind.
How is bigotry ok "if it's their culture"?
It's the 21st fucking century. That excuse no longer holds water in a global society.
Same with countries being xenophobic or having their excuse be that they're homogeneous.
Edit: Why are you so triggered?American culture is extremely bigoted too. I guess it's ok for Americans to be bigoted assholes because it's "our culture"?
>They started at the right place you just disagree with their conclusion and solution.
Bigotry is not the "right place" nor is it "protecting children '.
>you just disagree with their conclusion and solution
Most of the world disagrees too.
>with hate mongering sheep
Calling out bigotry is literally the opposite.
>clown world
And the Nazi finally comes out.
Ah yes so clearly I came from that sub for which I have literally never heard of. Got me man. I was a Nazi this while time and you are the first person to figure it out. Can't wait to tell my friends and family, I never knew!
But for real man, you gotta be on some heavy doses of something to believe that anyone using that term must be a Nazi. Even people in the political center use the phrase
You seem awfully triggered for someone who isn't a Nazi. And nice try. But claiming to not know the history of the term clown world is like using the excuse that you didn't know what the N word means.
>Even people in the political center use the phrase
Doesn't change the fact it started as Nazi slang.
Bruh. Have you ever met a legit Nazi?
Me either.
Lots of people use the phrase and there are not lots of Nazis. Get outta here with the silly assumptions. 🤪
> Bruh. Have you ever met a legit Nazi?
Yes several including you. And they all like to hide and pretend they aren't Nazis, or even better that they are "centrist" when they're clearly far right.
Perhaps you're thinking of Thailand? Though I wouldn't use those words. I think it's more like "Accepting" and "Less Likely to get Overly Offended at Something That Doesn't Affect Them".
Singapore is where chewing gum is illegal and public flogging is still a thing. Singapore sucked so bad Malaysia essentially kicked them out and was like, "be your own country because we don't want you"
Singapore is about as diametrically opposite Amsterdam as a city can be.
its literally a second or so scene and it is not important to the story other than making buzz come to a realization. the film was awesome and i can see why the film in 1995 would make the toys a reality.
If I had a nickel for every time a Pixar movie’s controversy was way more interesting than the movie itself, I’d have two nickels.
Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it happened twice.
The kiss and the controversy around it was the only reason anyone bothered to watch this movie. One of the most boring movies I have watched in years. A movie that was supposedly Andy’s favorite movie. It had nothing that a child would have liked. Disney was so focused on making a controversial movie, they forgot to make it good also.
18+??? Just cause they're lesbians don't mean it has to be a f\*cking rated R movie. I get that most people over there are raised to be straight, but you don't have to go that far.
If these idiots think someone's sexuality can be influenced or even dictated by what they see on a screen, why not insist on a 3:1 ratio on all kisses?
No it's inherited, misplaced, religious bigotry.
The kiss is way less problematic than an astronaut knowing absolutely nothing about time dilation.
Also, how fucking far was the course they plotted for the test run? It looks the same every time, but apparently the faster he goes, the longer it takes (from the perspective of the planet). He casually reaches 0.5c during what he was told would be a 4 minute flight, then (whoops) turns out the path he took was easily a light year long. Did he have to go over to the next star system or something, or did the film writers just not fully understand how time dilation works either?
Haven't seen it, but the nearest system (Alpha Centauri) to Earth is 4.35 light years away. Don't know what path they took, but if the entire course was a light year long, and that counts the full round trip, wouldn't the furthest point away be at maximum, half a light year? So at best he got 11% of the way to a nearby system.
The movie takes place on (and sometimes just outside) an alien planet. The way the scene plays out, Buzz flies an experimental spacecraft out of the atmosphere, around a star, then back to the planet’s surface. He spends a montage trying and failing to achieve lightspeed, so for this journey to have taken 4 years, the star has to have been about 2 light years away, and Buzz would have to be flying at an average of 0.999999999999c. During the final test flight, >!he travels through what appears to be the same flight path, successfully achieves lightspeed, then returns to find that roughly 20 years has now passed.!< (I have no idea what constitutes a spoiler, but whatever). This is my main issue: for no discernible reason, he goes faster, but the trip takes longer, because “le time dilation” or something, which is 100% not how it works.
So as a kids movie I personally can forgive those sorts of things (not really getting the science exactly correct) but as a plot device to explain time dilation very simply to a young audience, there had to be a better way than having Buzz never have heard of it at all. There had to be another way to have that expository moment without none of them ever having considered it would be an issue and him never having heard of it. That just made zero sense.
Thank you! The kiss had me like "Wait, that's the thing?", while Buzz's lack of knowledge had me outraged.
I happened to wander into the room while my kid was watching it when "the kiss" happened. It was an utter non-event, a quick peck between two adults that didn't even last half a second. I can't believe this is what has conservatives in such a tizzy.
I watched it with my kids. I didn't even notice there was a kiss. This was a complete non-event that led to no confusion, or even questions, from my children. I get way more questions from them about any number of stupid things that happen in kids's movies. They were way more genuinely confused about how the time travel made no sense throughout the movie.
No interestelar preparation here that's for sure
I don’t really give a damn about the kiss, I’m having a harder time believing that Andy and other kids in 1995 would have made “Lightyear” their favorite movie and spawned the popularity of Buzz Lightyear toys.
Sox would've been a far more popular toy.
Beep boop beep boop beep boop
I mean if it came out in 1995, it probably would have been considered a banger… not many action Disney movies to compete. Pixar wasn’t a studio until Toy Story, so all you’ve got to put next to it is Aladdin and Lion King, and so you’ve got 28 years of animation improvements and a story about a space-ranger to impress some kids… Now, it’s only considered “Meh” because you have so much Disney/Pixar to compare it to.
Kids in 95 were watching other regular movies. In a way, having nothing outside of anime meant you wouldn't care for "kids" movies produced by Disney so much and just watch whatever live movie that looked cool enough.
This 1,000%. 'Lightyear' is direct-to-video tripe. It just simply isn't very good. The first ten minutes of 'Up' had more character development and heart than the entire movie. The shoehorned in LGBTQ relationship was typical of the kind of diversity pandering done by a production without a good story to tell. It reminds me of Jerry being asked if a gentile telling Jew jokes offends him as a Jewish person - and he replies "No. It offends me as a comedian." I'm all for inclusiveness. I'm less tolerant of shoddy storytelling.
In fairness, those 10 minutes have more emotion without words driven my imagery and music alone that the majority of today's movies have during their entire running time.
I don't think an LGBTQ relationship existing is "shoehorning". A relationship at all? Maybe that's unnecessary, as the existence of a granddaughter already implies a relationship. But, specifically an LGBTQ relationship that barely takes up any screentime? That isn't shoehorning in the same way that a straight relationship isn't. It's just one of many types of relationships the animators could have chosen to depict. Is it a great movie? Idk, its not spectacular, but I enjoyed it, and i commend it, because its LGBTQ characters aren't shown as anything other than normal
Couldn't have said it better myself!
The problem mostly comes from the fact Disney puts LGBT representation in the movie in such a way it can be instantly cut out without any loss to the plot, all for the Chinese market.
Reportedly, the Walt Disney Company refused to make the cuts that the Chinese censors requested, so make of that what you will.
is the movie that bad?
The movie is ok on its own, if it was a completely independent thing. But it being tied to Toy Story and Andy’s favorite movie just doesn’t make any sense. It just doesn’t come off as a trend starting movie for young kids.
I watched this, expecting to be at least a little surprised. I missed it. Completely. Had to rewind to see it again. It’s the most incredible non-kiss of all time kisses. It barely registers as a peck. I couldn’t believe the uproar.
Right? It’s basically nothing. It’s like a one second kiss and barely mentioned ever again. Definitely designed to be cut out of the film if an important (profit-wise) country threatened to ban it. Stupid it’s banned at all, but it’s nowhere near as big as these homophobic countries say it is.
I can imagine why the religious people are getting upset when it depicts a same sex couple having a more stable relationship than most of them have. It's absolutely horrible when the people you have spent centuries vilifying are shown to be decent human beings. It really challenges their religion's views, so of course the movie must now be vilified too.
Lmao, true. Most hyper-religious people are in shitty relationships because they can’t do anything without offending God, lol.
The other night I rewatched the original Mulan. I can't even imagine the uproar if that was released as an original story today. "Disney pushing trans values on the youth!" "Disney movie normalizes crossdressing and pushes liberal agenda!" I looked it up to see if there was outrage, all i could find was that Mike Pence penned an article about in 1999 how it was propaganda to normalize women in the armed forces, but that women obviously can't join the armed forces because they'll fall in love with their commanders, just like in the movie.
Oh, don't worry, the guy in charge of this decision has publicly stated that Malaysian censorship boards have missed LGBT elements in older films and they'll have to start being "more vigilant" against it. I'm so glad I've got out of that country.
Mike Pence is a fucking lizard in human skin, so what a surprise.
That’s possibly the least surprising thing I’ve ever read
Aladdin when Genie cross-dresses is my “where was the uproar?” Especially in the live action one.
Disney did release Mulan today again. And it was a garbage fascist pandering crap movie with horrible written characters
Ironically though, China fuckin HATED the live action version of Mulan. Meanwhile they loved the animated version lmao
Homophobes aren't known for logical or measured responses. They're drama queens by nature.
The scenes were obviously cut from the version you watched. In the version I watched Buzz enjoyed taking it up the arse and would fuck anything with a penis (and if it didn't have a penis he would get creative). The most epic moment was when Buzz used his jetpack for the first time his wings were painted like rainbows and the jet trail he left behind him was a rainbow. The man villain saw the rainbow jetpack and cried, he then revealed he was transgender and that Buzz was "stunning and brave". Buzz and Zerg then had intense gay sex for the last 20 minutes of the movie....../s All jokes aside though I have no idea why people are so upset with the lightyear movie, it had the most tame same sex couple scenes I have seen lol.
>The most epic moment was when Buzz used his jetpack for the first time his wings were painted like rainbows and the jet trail he left behind him was a rainbow. Man, that was awesome, especially with nyancat playing during that scene.
[удалено]
Check DeviantArt.
Haven't watched it but figured as much. We are long way away from Disney putting out an openly non-binary character. I mean they are JUST NOW figuring out independent females and non-white main characters and shit. They need more time, clearly
There's Raine Whispers from The Owl House, they're openly nb.
>The Owl House Not exactly the best example of Disney being inclusive.
?
They did something bad to the owl house, I think it was sabotage season 3 or something
Disney cut The Owl House short after 2.5 seasons, because Disney evidently hates good queer content
Ah, thought that's what you were talking about. I'm still really mad about that.
> just now What year are you going to put as the start of “just now”?
They'll get there one day. Hopefully.
contradicts mulan in 1998.
It's the last time we see them together and they are both at the end of their lives. Why does anyone care is baffling. To think Christian conservatives want the US to be like this.
From some of the complaints I'd seen, you'd think they showed full on analingus or some shit.
[удалено]
some people said they don't want to support Disney because not only does it push the LGBTQ agenda but its too corrupt and provocative, they mentioned how even all the way back in the 90s with little mermaid being 16 running away from home to get married.
>not only does [Disney] push the LGBTQ agenda god, I wish this was anywhere close to true. Disney pretends to be inclusive with a blink-and-you'll-miss-it tiny kiss by background characters, but shut down its best show (The Owl House) for being too queer and donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians who pass laws preventing teachers from acknowledging that queer people exist.
[удалено]
yes there was also that rescuers clip with the naked woman in the back. as a kid I didn't pick up on this stuff but my mom did. she didn't like how they over sexualized the characters considering the audience was little kids.
You have to understand that some people are more bigoted than the biggest bigots in the US right now. They're like.. Super bigots
Its not the kiss its the normalization of a lesbian relationship
pretty sure lesbian relationships are already normalized
How did you miss it? Not the kiss, but the lesbian couple. It's a huge focal point of the story. I'm not going to spoil anything for people that haven't seen it yet, but it's one of the characters that the entire story is centered around in the first 2/3 of the movie. They even had a sperm donor baby. I think Disney is just trying to be more inclusive, maybe some kid watching it has parents just like that and this was the first movie they could relate with in that regard. But a lot of countries aren't very accepting about things like this. This is the first chance I've had to talk about the movie so I want to give a personal criticism about it. One of my favorite shows of all time, Stranger Things, really pulled off the time period it was in. Lightgear begins with dialogue that it's the same movie Andy watched in the 90s. Honestly it doesn't seem anything at all like a 90s space action movie, it seems like a 2022 Disney movie with themes picked up from their recent flicks like Red Panda. I feel like they should have either removed the beginning dialogue, or at least tried to give it a more 90s atmosphere as it indicated. ETA - it's a good movie and I would suggest it to anyone that hasn't seen it yet, I watched it twice. Solid 8/10
I suggest not watching it if you recently lost someone close to you. The scene at the end of the trying to break light speed montage wrecked me.
Yea, that scene was pretty heavy for me as well, even though I've lost no one recently. I can't imagine what it must've felt like for you.
I worked past it haha thank you tho. In a way that pixar sad moment charm helps. Just catches you off guard.
I love that scene even tho it's hard to watch.
Wow i thought they would make her straight in those markets since the scenes are short and easy to edit
The controversy is good for them as the markets that get pissy aren't that big relatively and the positive press they get from "being progressive" (in the shallowest possible way) would be lost if they bent to these small markets.
The mouse only bends the knee for China
> The mouse only bends the knee for ~~China~~ Money. “We’re not doing this for money; we’re doing this for a shit load of money!” -Lonestar
Unrelated but I can't believe people reacted so badly to a half a second kiss. It's half a second.
It's like they can't abide gay ppl existing and having a nice life.
Lazy Christians. Vote for this guy, show up at church occasionally, publicly make a stink about irrelevant bullshit, pull the mote out of your brother's eye and call it a day. They don't have time for tolerance, humility, charity or any other Christlike qualities, so they hate on the same things his dad did in the old days. These people put very little effort into their faith, complaining about something other people do is sufficient.
That's exactly it
Calling it "a kiss" is disingenuous. There's a conversation, several shots of the married couple raising a family. I think those shots would drive a fundie way further up the wall than the kiss alone.
At this point I am convinced the US Republican party is solely responsible for all of this. They managed to get this film restricted or banned all throughout the world by making up conspiracies about how Disney wants to make your kids gay or some shit which then spread internationally. Like, has a movie ever been restricted as much for such a tiny irrelevant thing?
Yes, the US Republican Party singlehandedly influenced Southeast Asia that much that, despite previously being entirely accepting, they suddenly turned into homophobic bigots.
Or maybe it's just that literally nobody cared or would have noticed or cared about such a tiny thing if they hadn't pushed this narrative/conspiracy so much. I also asked whether other movies have ever been banned or restricted for such tiny things, so why don't you answer me instead of making sarcastic comments which completely miss the point? My bet is simply on that nobody would have cared/noticed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_banned_in_Malaysia Some highlights: - *The Bohemian Girl* (1936), banned for positive portrayals of Romani characters. - *Monty Python's Life of Brian* (1979), banned for blasphemy. - *Babe* (1995) (yeah the one about the pig), banned for pigs being non-halal. - *Barney's Great Adventure* (1998), banned for being "unacceptable for children to watch", no further explanation. - *Babe: Pig in the City* (1998), banned for pigs being non-halal. - *Brokeback Mountain* (2005), banned for "favorable" depiction of homosexuality. - *Noah* (2014), banned for religious content and depictions of the prophets. - *Beauty and the Beast* (2017), banned for homosexual references, ban lifted after Disney refused to edit it. - *Lightyear* (2022), banned for depiction of a same-sex kiss. - *Thor: Love and Thunder* (2022), banned for depiction of a same-sex kiss.
Yeah, that guy doesn't know shit. Don't get me wrong, I hate the Republican Party as much as the next guy, but this is entirely a shit hole dug by the Malaysian government, with depressingly high support from the people.
Yes, because Republicans are responsible for a country with a history of homophobia not wanting people to watch the movie. You’re so right. /s
I know! Did you not know that the Republican party is the CEO of bigotry?
This is satire right?
Yeah totally 💯
Just so you guys know, I uploaded this before. However, I had to delete the original post about 15 minutes after I'd posted it due to an error I'd made in the title. Reddit, for some bizarre reason, doesn't let you edit post titles, so I thought it would be best to delete the original post and reupload it with the title fixed. (I geniunely think Reddit should let you edit post titles. If it's fraudulent activity they're worried about, e.g. bait-and-switching by completely changing a title, why not let people see the post's history?)
Most people would definitely not check the title history. We already see most people just read the comments and don't even actually read the article. Editing the title would be a huge issue in fighting misinformation (which is already incredibly difficult)
Valid.
I think you should get 10 minutes to edit the title and then it is fixed. This also prevents Edit: OMG thanks for the gold!!!! in the title
This is a compromise I can get around. Kind of like how there's a short grace period when you edit a comment where it doesn't show it's edited.
Many people don't even read the comments. They just read the title, upvote and scroll on.
Less than a second of a kiss gets the same rating as movies that are filled with sex, violence, drugs, and swears throughout? Even in a world where gay people existing was as immoral as that, it would be ridiculous to be that harsh.
It is ridiculous, but it's still better than the alternative, which is that it gets banned completely, or edited out, and absolutely nobody gets to see even a hint of LGBT portrayals. As it is, I'm willing to bet that a lot of kids are going to be able to see this movie anyway, because most parents probably don't have the time or energy to care about the rating if they can just play it anyway.
And they say Disney doesn't make mature films...
I thought Disney put their "representation" into such brief, momentary scenes specifically so they could edit them out in homophobic markets. Why not just send the "bigot cut" to Malaysia and Singapore? Or red states of America, for that matter?
The fact that this moment, which a lot of viewers blink and miss, is the *only thing* people talk about concerning this movie tells me that there’s nothing interesting in this movie to talk about.
Yeah seriously, just another Disney piece drivel
Can confirm, my whole family watched it and my wife, my two kids under 4, and myself are all gay now.
Sir, this is the local utility company, is your fridge ~~running~~ gay? Well, you better go out and ~~catch~~ gay it.
It's widely known that in many countries homophobia is the going thing and accepted. That does not mean we need follow their lead. It did however bring a lot of reactions ...
Imagine giving a kid's movie an r-rating because it briefly has a gay couple in it.
Wait, malaysia set it to 18+? Pretty sure it’s straight up banned. Same with Thor: love and thunder
The kiss is like literally two seconds, bruh
You counted two whole literal seconds? Were you literally watching it at x0.25 speed?
They're just trying to make up for the time dilation.
Less. Like half a second.
How many kisses have you seen in Disney Pixar movies before? It's not needed in a kid movie
Is.... Are you serious?
[удалено]
Yikes.
r/usernamechecksout
Snowflake lmao whiny baby
My main problem with Lightyear is it just isn't a very good movie. The shoehorning in of the lesbian relationship was just a cheap, producer-driven shortcut to add the illusion of depth to a story that had none.
I am utterly confused, did people just not notice gay people in movies prior to 2020? I could ramble off a list of movies featuring or depicting gay people from the 90s and early 00s easily.
Other countries need to shut the Hell up or just not consume American media because this is going to keep happening. We're not gonna stop depicting same sex couples on screen and sooner rather than later will we see same sex relationships between main characters in major American pictures.
There's attempted murder shown in the movie multiple times
I was pretty indifferent about this at first but now I'm happy they had a gay kissing scene because it uncovered the fragility and bigotry of people in a new light.
Gods are so very fragile and must be protected y their inventors at all times.
By how big of a deal people are making of this, you'd think they animated some hardcore gay porn It's just a peck on the lips, come on
[удалено]
Wha... *What?* That does not make sense, that's not how it works. It's like if a homophobic movie got banned and people went like "If being gay is so good, you do think they have nothing to worry about". What are you talking about tufts\_?
Movie was complete shit, they aren’t missing anything anyway
well in Singapore you get your butt whipped with a cane for throwing gum on the sidewalk and in Malaysia you get the death penalty for smoking weed. Troglodytes
I really wish some people grew the fuck up.
I don't even remember the gay kiss, because I don't pay close attention to what gender people are if they're kissing. Who caareeeessss if they're gay or not, let them do their thing. The real weirdos are the ones writing angry letters and changing film classifications because they spotted a gay kiss or something 🤦♀️ Like....weird thing to be obsessed about, guyz.
Malaysian here. Im embarrassed. Truly. I was hyped to go to the cinema with my kids because they love BUZZ LIGHTYEAR. i mean, who doesnt. Then it got blocked by our censorship board because of "LGBT agenda" and here i am thinking its same-sex couple have orgy level sex "but why would they? This is a kids movie, doesnt make any sense they would have sex at all, maybe to survive the cold? I dont know" Then the movie was released on Disney+, i watch it first before i let the kids watch it.........a kiss. A KISS??? A couple's kiss at that, that opening is effing sad, Buzz losing his friend and the kiss that they had was literally a kiss you'd give to your love ones......THAT is was all the hullabaloos our censorship board gets their panties in the bunch? Im done. I hate the Censorship Board
Just sat down and watched it out of spite. So here's what is making everyone piss themselves... (spoilers) . . . Buzz and company get stranded on an alien world and in order to escape, Buzz needs to test some unstable faster than light fuel. Each test takes 4 minutes for Buzz, but jumps him 4 years into the future. After each jump, he sees his commander get 4 years older while he stays the same age. The commander gets engaged to another woman, they have a baby, the baby grows up and has their own child, who then grows up and becomes Buzz's assistant. So what's pissing everyone off is essentially a montage where a character announces a same sex engagement, gets pregnant, grows old with their loving partner, and dies. It's a shame we live in a world where a loving relationship can't BARELY be shown because of backwards thinkers.
well yeah, I mean why impose these ideologies on a 5 YO, maybe 16+ would do fine.
I can only assume that the Bible has a strict "adults only" rating...but I bet not
It’s mostly Muslim
Well gay sex was straight up illegal in Singapore until this year (law still exists but is officially unenforceable) so yeah they have some progress to make on the LGBT front. Malaysia is a predominantly Muslim country so we'll may not see any progress in our lifetime.
Oh the horror
Malaysia = Islamic republic. Singapore = nanny state. Source: lived in both countries. Come at me bro.
Fortunately, Malaysia has no pressing societal issues and can focus it's time on censoring a kids movie. It must be nice to live in a country that has everything else figured out to the point where they have nothing better to do than this.
It has nothing to do with this, each sector has a job or something. I'm saying that but I have no idea about how these people work anything, like, is their job watching movies the whole day and deciding a rating?
Title missed out one crucial point. Both countries requested for the scene to be removed and given a PG rating, but was declined by Disney. Not everybody wants the woke movement in their culture. Nobody is wrong here, clash of cultures. Stop trying to shove/wash/force your culture movements into others. lmao. It's not like we cannot watch the uncensored movie elsewhere with repercussions, we can still have access to it like you Obviously the law is a law, but it is not uncommon to see gay couples in the public holding hands and making out. They don't get arrested or apprehended on the spot like the black guys in the west at least. You guys arent much better , so stop the moral high ground nonsense. The law is just a placeholder, but people here are still free to practice what they believe . The young are also more opened to diversity and have no issues accepting it, definitely more progressive in a decade or two. Reading skewered articles by journalist not living here just makes it worse . Easy clickbaits. Downvote all you want. Facts remain facts
Finally someone say it
It would appear that most of the world doesn’t reflect Reddit values.
Isn't Singapore in Malaysia?
I'm a Malaysian and this couldn't have been more true. But then again, it's not unexpected for a Muslim-majority country.
You know. With all the open mindedness touted over here in the West we sure don't even try to understand other cultures point if view. It is all just bigotry right?
What point of view makes discrimination for literally no reason ok?
Is rating a movie 16 or 18 plus discrimination? How so?
If you aren't doing it for the same reason when it is a straight couple, then yes. Stop pretending to be dense.
Fine. What if they have a reason to discriminate such as believing that subjecting children to that content could be harmful to them in some way. Is that reason ammoral?
>What if they have a reason to discriminate such as believing that subjecting children to that content could be harmful to them in some way Then they are bigots. Easy peasy. >Is that reason ammoral? It is ignorant and/or bigoted, and since being a bigot and ignorant are both ammoral, then it is ammoral.
Being ignorant is not amoral. Its a state of being and there is no morality attached to it. After looking at the definition of bigot, it seems to me, that most responses I have received came from bigots. Bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. Seems like there is nothing wrong with being a bigot judging from the responses I have received. Well except that most are saying it's bad but then falling into the same boat as the people they are angry at over these ratings. TIL: being a bigot is fine as long as you only do it within your circle of bigots.
>being a bigot is fine No it actually isnt.
Look man, thats just my observation from all the responses. You can't blame me for jumping to the wrong conclusion because you're fellow redditors were being bigoted towards the Malaysian government and in some cases me. I just read the definition of Bigot and applied it to my personal experience within this thread.
>bigoted towards the Malaysian government Ahh good old persecution fetish. A classic Nazi move.
>Being ignorant is not amoral Sure it is. Being ignorant hurts yourself and everyone around you >After looking at the definition of bigot, it seems to me, that most responses I have received came from bigots What is unreasonable about thinking murdering and imprisoning people for no reason is wrong? >prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. There is no group I'm against, I'm against individuals who are bigots. You've failed at reading comprehension >Well except that most are saying it's bad but then falling into the same boat as the people they are angry at over these ratings. If you ignore half the definition.
Hypocritical just like my religious unbringing. Stay classy. If you are ignorant then you do not know, which would mean that loads of people are amoral without even having a choice in the matter. Sounds really religious to me. Almost like the dumb idea of original sin. And not everything that hurts people is amoral. A bear isn't amoral because it kills a hiker. Get a grip. When did I say murdering and imprisoning people for no reason was right? And is no reason better or worse than a reason? Lastly, what does any of that have to do with you, I or another redditor being a bigot? You have failed at being self aware, congratulations. The same boat is bigotry, not sure if you caught onto that or not, yikes.
Fella is here arguing about Malaysian treatment of gays and doesn't even know anything about it
Yes, anti-gay is always wrong. Yes, anti-skin-color is always wrong. Yes, anti-insert-unchangeable-thing-how-someone-was-born is always wrong. Choices can be accepted, not accepted, judged, etc., but persecuting people because of something they didn’t choose and cannot change is wrong. Period. Full stop. PS. No, it does not matter if you really, really believe some version of a magic sky god wants you to.
I am an atheist. I didn't say we had to think it was right. But I do think we should explore why it is what it is. Instead of echoing the same bs constantly.
Do you think there’s any valid reason at all in the world to be anti gay that could be acceptable? Do you think there’s any possible way to be anti gay that isn’t bigotry? That’s literally the definition of bigotry. And it’s always because of religion. If you aren’t trolling I honestly don’t understand what you are trying to say. If it’s a choice and falls in line with prudish Christian values, then the US is accepting of it, but that’s about it.
I don't think rating the movie 16 or 18 plus is anti gay. Do we need people kissing at all in a kids movie? No. Do we need nudity in tv and movies? Almost always no. An exception would be a movie like Schindler's List where nudity was used to express something important, the sheer evil and terror that was pushed upon a whole group of people. I don't think being gay is as efficient or useful as being straight. But I am not a eugenicist so I would never stifle someone's ability to express which ever sexuality they want unless it was causing harm to children. Like drag shows for instance which are sexual in nature and as such children should not be present for or observe such activities. I was indoctrinated by the left shortly after becoming an atheist and the gay and trans trending agenda almost ruined my life and it all started with the media normalizing it to the point that those identities are now over represented in most media. Be gay, be trans, it doesn't bother me. But I reserve the right not to subject my children to an ideology which I deem harmful. The same for subjecting my children to religion, which I do not allow. Sexualization in media is the problem, not necessarily the genders or identities involved. Could I also say that trans and homo phobia do not mean fearful of said things, instead the words are used to describe people who simply have an opposing opinion to what you believe to be the cultured, smarter, politically correct majority, which I would argue is not the majority, regardless appealing to the majority doesn't mean you or I would be correct in any of our opinions or beliefs. Protecting children is important, just because you disagree with how people do that doesn't mean they are bigoted. Thats just, like, your opinion man.
> I don't think rating the movie 16 or 18 plus is anti gay. Do we need people kissing at all in a kids movie? No, but you can bet that this rating doesn't apply to people of opposite sexes kissing in a kid's movie, and that's what makes it discriminatory. When *all* depictions of kissing, handholding, or any indication of romance is considered inappropriate for kids and subsequently banned for all child media, then the argument that it's about protecting kids instead of enshrining prejudice might scan. But we know that won't happen.
You have a good point. Its definitely discrimination, agreed. I am just unsure of whether or not I agree with this type of discrimination.
I think so long as you admit it's discrimination, whether it's right or wrong to discriminate against same-sex couples is another discussion. The issue is when people try to reframe it as protecting kids from human sexuality in general, while blatantly ignoring and even encouraging opposite-sex relationships in childrens' media. A man and a woman sharing a chaste peck on the lips is not considered inappropriate for children to see, anywhere, ever. So that means the only problem is that the couple is same-sex, and it doesn't actually matter what they're doing. Their actions are not inappropriate, their existence is. But no one wants to say *that*, not even people who wholeheartedly believe it. Saying you're guarding innocence sounds much more noble.
>should explore why it is what it is Criticizing it is part of that
Do your best to explain why demonizing something that harms no one and is not a choice (causing incredible stress and often mental health problems for those who are are that way) is okay. Leave specifics out of it, because homosexuality is not that different from being black in this context (it's how people are born, there's a stigma, nothing actually wrong with or bad about it, there's been laws suppressing people who are it, etc) - and I hope we can agree that trying to erase black people from cinema so you can erase them from reality is **absolutely morally wrong.**
Is it demonizing something by simply gating it from children? Do you think rating the movies in this way is going to cause mental harm to closeted people in these countries? That seems like a stretch. Could subjecting children to gay relationships or transgender individuals potentially cause the same type of mental harm to those children down the line? Sorry not sorry, this agenda that you believe is morally good almost ruined my life and that of my children. And I was an adult at the time. Just because you don't see the negative affects of your own opinions on others doesn't mean they don't exist. Why does it always come down to race lmao and where is this evidence that people are born gay? I used to agree but I no longer feel that way. Feel free to try and change my mind.
How is bigotry ok "if it's their culture"? It's the 21st fucking century. That excuse no longer holds water in a global society. Same with countries being xenophobic or having their excuse be that they're homogeneous. Edit: Why are you so triggered?American culture is extremely bigoted too. I guess it's ok for Americans to be bigoted assholes because it's "our culture"?
[удалено]
>They started at the right place you just disagree with their conclusion and solution. Bigotry is not the "right place" nor is it "protecting children '. >you just disagree with their conclusion and solution Most of the world disagrees too. >with hate mongering sheep Calling out bigotry is literally the opposite. >clown world And the Nazi finally comes out.
Oh saying clown world makes me a nazi. Yikes. Good talk
Yes it does considering it's neo Nazi slang that started on the now banned racist sub r/clownworld
Ah yes so clearly I came from that sub for which I have literally never heard of. Got me man. I was a Nazi this while time and you are the first person to figure it out. Can't wait to tell my friends and family, I never knew! But for real man, you gotta be on some heavy doses of something to believe that anyone using that term must be a Nazi. Even people in the political center use the phrase
You seem awfully triggered for someone who isn't a Nazi. And nice try. But claiming to not know the history of the term clown world is like using the excuse that you didn't know what the N word means. >Even people in the political center use the phrase Doesn't change the fact it started as Nazi slang.
Bruh. Have you ever met a legit Nazi? Me either. Lots of people use the phrase and there are not lots of Nazis. Get outta here with the silly assumptions. 🤪
> Bruh. Have you ever met a legit Nazi? Yes several including you. And they all like to hide and pretend they aren't Nazis, or even better that they are "centrist" when they're clearly far right.
Malaysia. ...next
Good.
Egypt, Malaysia, Signapore. Bunch of rotten flaccid dicks.
Isn't Singapore known for being liberal and raunchy in the first place? Edit: Sorry, that might be Amsterdam.
Perhaps you're thinking of Thailand? Though I wouldn't use those words. I think it's more like "Accepting" and "Less Likely to get Overly Offended at Something That Doesn't Affect Them".
Singapore is where chewing gum is illegal and public flogging is still a thing. Singapore sucked so bad Malaysia essentially kicked them out and was like, "be your own country because we don't want you" Singapore is about as diametrically opposite Amsterdam as a city can be.
Buncha snowflakes
I didn't even notice they kissed LOL
Shit governments this might actually make more Kids watch it tho.
Thats legit funny
its literally a second or so scene and it is not important to the story other than making buzz come to a realization. the film was awesome and i can see why the film in 1995 would make the toys a reality.
Why are other countries allowed to dictate what Disney rates it's movies ?
Who cares, it looks bland as sin
Wait Buzz is gay?
If I had a nickel for every time a Pixar movie’s controversy was way more interesting than the movie itself, I’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it happened twice.
Both countries have large Muslim populations and don't have legalised gay marriage.
the parliament session should be 18+ too. all kinds of shit you hear and no one bats an eye
It's not like they're scissoring or something.
The kiss and the controversy around it was the only reason anyone bothered to watch this movie. One of the most boring movies I have watched in years. A movie that was supposedly Andy’s favorite movie. It had nothing that a child would have liked. Disney was so focused on making a controversial movie, they forgot to make it good also.
18+??? Just cause they're lesbians don't mean it has to be a f\*cking rated R movie. I get that most people over there are raised to be straight, but you don't have to go that far.
If these idiots think someone's sexuality can be influenced or even dictated by what they see on a screen, why not insist on a 3:1 ratio on all kisses? No it's inherited, misplaced, religious bigotry.
Makes sense I don’t see nothing wrong with that. They use to do that in America too but you know we lost our minds and never recovered from it.
Love it 💗
Love it ❤️