Who else misunderstood the scene between the two characters at the end as homosexual in nature?
I'm glad that they added in the final scene where Ned meets the other girl, becuase I thought that was a weird turn to the film.
[deleted]
I know, right? Good thing they added that girl. OOOOHH, a guy-on-guy homosexual relationship. SO BAD. OOOOOHHHH. But girl-on-girl, so hot. OOOH.
Take a *beep* chill pill dude. OP didn't say it was bad, just that it would have been a weird turn to the film. And it would have. Both of these straight men, who shared a woman, are now sleeping together? With no previous mention of either of them being "free spirited lovers" (isn't that what Paul calls Zooey?) or bisexuals? It would have been out of left field and worthless.
Mac Attack!
Why would you think they were a couple because of that? That's crazy. I never once thought that's what was going on.
SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR A VERONICA MARS MOVIE: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=97750248959
It had already been clearly established that Ned isn't gay. People don't change their basic nature, and a guy being in business with a guy doesn't mean they're gay. What a strange assumption to make.
Not that there's anything wrong with being gay, of course. There isn't.
No, of course there isn't. I don't know why it jumped into my head. I agree it is a strange association.
shareI think just knowing a few people like this, I understand there's nothing gay between two hippie-esque dudes running a candle shop.
That said, if you read some kind of man-love there, I don't think it was homosexual. There was likely some love, as that tends to be the general concept of the world for guys like this. I believe they love each other, just not "that" way, if that makes sense. I mean, they bonded and wound up being better friends than the girl they both liked, so there's a measure of love, just non-gay-style.
It was just a sweet bro-mance, nothing more as far as I could tell... ;)
shareBecause they really made a point about Ned being straight earlier in the film, it SHOULD NOT have been seen as a potential homosexual relationship. All the scenes with Ned, Janet, and Janet's new boyfriend made it clear that the men would get along better than either of them get along with Janet. People go into business partnerships all the time. That doesn't mean they are are lovers. The addition of the woman at the end seemed contrived and actually made the ending weaker. But I think it was added as an after thought because of the very reactions I've just read here. Test audiences must have had the same reaction.
shareI thought that ending was weak too. Same kind of ending ruined Ruby Sparks. I mean the film as a whole( Ruby Sparks) I enjoyed, but the ending kind of undermined the whole film for me. But in this movie it sort of came out of nowhere. And didn't feel necessary.
I'm not ugly. I'm avant-garde
Yeah. The way they were both men and in a scene together really made me uncomfortable. Me and all the girls I was with (because I'm not gay) were really weirded out.
shareI think if you thought it was gay you're a very uptight person. I thought it was so funny. Like they're both such laid back guys and love everything type. Making candles and such is a very hippie thing to do.
share