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.
by acploof (Sat Sep 3 2011 21:41:02)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
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.
This entire thread has made me laugh much more than it should. Great thread!
----------------------------------------
"Another brilliant post Steinberg..."
It's not that I thought it was sexual, I didn't. I just saw them comparing candles (which could be considered a phallic object) and my mind went there.
I'm an English Major, so I pay attention to symbolism. Especially Freudian ones.
It wouldn't have made any sense, so I thought it was a major curve ball to throw the audience because it didn't match the characters or the situation. It would have been horrible had it been that way. Not because I would have found it offensive, but because it would have been terrible writing.
[deleted]
[deleted]
What was far more bizarre and gratuitous to me was the strange scene in which the Paul Rudd character has sex with a woman he meets at a party, and then her gay friend attempts to join the fun and turn it into a threesome, at which point the Paul Rudd character loses his interest because he himself is straight. That's a reasonable response and the scene itself is not homophobic.
What IS homophobic is its inclusion into this particular movie for no earthly reason other than to give one straight character a chance to turn down a gay character's sexual advances. And what does this scene have to do with moving the story forward? That's correct -- absolutely nothing. The entire scene should have been edited out.
Paul Rudd's character is not your typical dude. He always thinks about others before himself.
Bunch of homophobes in this thread. Nothing gay about running a candle shop. These guys are hipsters dude.
Billy: Nothing like two dudes and a dog making candles.
Ned: Such a cliche.
Cracked me up...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexual attraction is natural to those who feel it. For those that are not, homosexual it is natural to be repulsed and to feel uncomfortable about it. This is why it is in so many movies, it is funny to have people in uncomfortable situations, in particular sexual situations. I'm not bothered by it, nor am I bothered when people don't like it. Although, I do not understand the term "homophobic". How is it phobic to make fun of it to get a laugh? If someone makes a joke about a spider, is that arachnophobia? I think an actor willing to let another man kiss him for a movie joke shows no fear at all about it. If someone doesn't like homosexual activity, so what. If someone finds humor in homosexual activity, so what. Lastly, if someone enjoys homosexual activity, so what?
shareI just saw them as kindred spirits. Even from the beginning of meeting, they were never hostile or mean to one another. They seemed pretty similar, so it made sense to me that he work with someone like himself. I thought it was a nice, warm thing to show in the film.
shareThey were eskimo brothers.
share