Nimona was a funny character. Not sure what she was exactly. I have many questions. If they explained it, then I sure missed it. Has a few twist here and there. And I'm not down with dudes smooching. Even in cartoons.
I felt it was worth watching, tho.
It was pretty good, I like when they use graphic novels as source material, they are always visually interesting. At this point, if two animated guys kissing bothers you maybe you should figure out why.
shareYes, let's figure that out.
Maybe it's because it was totally not part of the story, setting, characters, intended audience or anything else AND it was obviously forced in because of a fucking agenda?
Or is it because the OP is a homophobe, possibly nazi too?
What's the agenda?
sharePush "diversity" anywhere possible (like homosexual knights in a cartoon for kids).
That's THE agenda of the past 10 years at least. Where have you been?
Like I said, it seemed out of place and extremely forced in.
Yes, the agenda is acceptance of lgbt. To me that's a great agenda. To you its the end of the world. Are you religious by any chance? You speak like you might be an evangelical?
shareI am certainly not.
Nor I have anything against any sex orientation.
I like good filmmaking and art.
I just think there is a time and place for everything.
A cartoon like this can have as many homosexual characters it wants. As long as they are not forced in following an agenda.
The AGENDA is the problem, and how it's forced into a movie no matter how out of place it is.
How is it out of place? Homosexuals exist. An agenda of teaching children to accept that there are homosexual relationships isn't a bad thing.
shareAgain, you keep moving the argument.
The AGENDA is the fucking problem, that is what is OUT OF PLACE.
Not the homosexuality or straightness of the character.
I don't know, let's say Luke Skywalker is bisexual.
Does he act on it? Does he do anything to imply he is or not bisexual?
DO WE GIVE A FUCK ABOUT IT?
But let's cram that in the movie with no reason, JUST TO SHOW HIS BISEXUALITY because....we have our "good" reasons.
What are those reasons? An agenda to "teach children to accept that there are bisexuals".
IS A STAR WARS MOVIE THE CORRECT PLACE TO DO THAT?
Even better, SHOULD WE PAINT A LITTLE ASIAN DUDE NEXT TO THE MONA LISA BECAUSE WE SHOULD TEACH CHILDREN "to accept that there are asians"???
Why not?
You know the reason all this bullshit is being shoved down our throats.
Especially in cartoons for kids.
Programming kids for LGBT garbage from before their brains fully develop and have the critical thinking to protect themselves from brain rot.
Sexual deviants and freaks have completely taken over Hollywood.
"Put a chick in it and make her lame and GAY!!!"
How am I moving the argument? The agenda, as you said yourself, is to push diversity. I believe that agenda is a good thing.
Of course we give a fuck about people's sexuality in movies and television. It's not there for no reason, it's there for representation and it promotes acceptance.
Your 'painting an asian' next to the Mona Lisa is nonsense. What does that have to do with a NEW piece of art that reflects out current culture?
"Of course we give a fuck about people's sexuality in movies and television. It's not there for no reason, it's there for representation and it promotes acceptance."
Of course we do NOT.
But you are again pursueing the fucking agenda of "promoting acceptance".
I call it forcing crap into art that does not fit it.
I think art integrity is more important, you think that agenda is. I doubt we will agree.
The Mona Lisa has been retooled and will be reinterpreted till the end of times, since it is the most famous piece of art.
My paradoxical idea fits your agenda perfectly, and it clearly is a moronic artistic choice.
Like the one you keep defending in Nimona.
Cartoons are usually aimed at kids.
Kids are impressionable and easily manipulated.
Overexposure and overrepresentation of LGBT in media is above and beyond the number of actual LGBTs that exist in real life.
It makes it look cool and hip to be LGBT, which is a big fat lie, especially for poor bastards outside of US.
Promotion =/= Acceptance.
Sexual deviants and freaks have existed forever sure. Doesn't make it normal.
I'd say it was a fairly intrinsic part of the story. They were in love and had an extremely strong bond, that's what created the conflict in their decision making all the way through the film.
Ask yourself if you'd have considered it forced if they'd have been heterosexual and kissed? (and there's a million movies in the past with similar themes where that's the case, no one gets their knickers in a twist about them). There are gay people in the world, quite a lot of them. Why should it only ever be the majority represented? To me it doesn't matter if they were hetro or homo, the story is the same regardless. People get uncomfortable with this stuff and throw out the woke agenda nonsense, they should really just grow up.
The OP has demonstrated he's clearly a homophobe.