Disney "Were gonna excludes Tim Allan who always voiced Buzz Lightyear do to conflicting political ideology" Disney "How dare the audience reject our movie just because they have a different political ideology then the one we are selling" Modern Hollywood in a nutshell, without respect we reject.
To remind, Disney threw out JD because of no reasons. Aldo, Disney threw out Director of Guardians of Galaxy because of no reason, AND returned him back eventually!
I honestly just tuned out of Disney so I didn’t even know that part. They just lost all of my good will after a while. Original movies are few and far between, they’re constant bigotry and hypocrisy. Why would I care what they make at this point?
I love that Chris Evans made a comment about "dying out like the Dinosaurs" then Lightyear was crushed by Jurassic World. That sort of irony always tickles my funny bone.
Equivalent of Lightyear got stomp by T-rex, T-rex wants to eat it but then decide not because of the color and then either piss or dump the motherload on that space ranger and idle away😆
Chris Evans really is one of the best actors in all of Hollywood. How he went so many MCU movies pretending to be an American patriot who cares about compassion, freedom, justice, and morality is truly an impressive feat of acting.
What makes you think he doesn't have those qualities? Compassion, freedom, justice and morality aren't defined solely by your perception and preference for such. They are viewed broadly and variably between cultures and within the same culture. America is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of others being free to be what you want. An American patriot should know that.
so I will say this, that isn't an issue. unless there is something medically wrong with him, he can have children until the day he dies and here is a simple truth. for sexual marketplace value, he is at his peak. he has money, has status, has authority and is viewed as a peer by many. so he can say "OKAY, I'm looking to get married." and he would have HOARDS of women go after him. so I'm sorry........ that isn't an argument. Men reach their SMV peak at around 35. now, if Chris was a Christine Evans, THEN you would have an argument. but a man....... nah mate, he is at his peak in value, sorry. btw, this isn't me saying I'm supporting him mind you
@@scorpionlord9175 Sure, for Chris Evans himself, you're right. But the thousands of people who share his beliefs but NOT his movie star status aren't so lucky. And progressives are much more likely in general to be non-reproductive.
@@melgibsonafter5beers626 okay, see, this is where SMV comes in. men that don't have their value, they cant typically. but my comment was directly about Chris Evans. and its the same with ALL men. so men, in general, cant do a lot of things cause they aren't valuable enough. like for example, but truthful to women. but high value men, they can be truthful. they can say I'm gonna go sleep with other women. they can say your getting fat. they can say I make the rules, not you. i get to set these bounds, not you. cause they have the status and authority cause guess what, they are rare, they actually are special. but those women? they are a dime a dozen. he can replace you at a snap of a finger. so yeah, if we are talking the average guy? sure, GL progressives. but people like Chris Evans? nah. he is gonna have zero issues getting a woman.
@@scorpionlord9175 The movie had a chance somewhere if he didn't run his mouth calling the people and countries on the fence about watching it idiots. Also I get what the dude is saying. You can make movies for kids all day long you want but that's not a guarantee you know a thing or two about kids. I'm not familiar with Chris Evans but don't bite the hands that feed you.
"Lightyear bombed, and it's your fault!" Me: "You're goddamned right I made it fail, and I'd do it again, without even thinking about it. I'll take that as a win."
If you told me as long as a 2 months ago that I'd be watching a bunch of Mormons discussing what's wrong about gay kissing in a Disney movie I would've laughed in your face. And here I am, not only watching but agreeing with most of what's being said. Life really do be like that sometimes.
I disagree with a lot of Mormons and definitely not built for Amish life but ze great reset is here my friends these people are going to outlive us I think
I’m tired of Disney trying to turn everything into political attacks. It’s as if no one can make honest criticism about their shows without being called an “ist” or an “ism” of some kind. I don’t like to give them money anymore.
There was a direct to video movie, Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, that served as a pilot for a short lived series. To me, that will always be the real Buzz Lightyear movie. This new movie looks so bland by comparison. The original movie and show are severely underrated in my opinion.
I remember being scared as a kid by the first watch of that movie. The screaming monsters that Buzz fought with Warp, and the despair of seeing Star Command temporarily lose against Zurg, those got me. But then I watched again and again because I loved seeing Buzz & his team win in the end.
@@ottovonbearsmark8876 Sadly, no. I can't find the show on streaming services, and I can't even find it on DVD. You can find used DVD's of the direct to video movie, but that's all. The show itself eludes me, which is a real shame.
It isnt a right, its a duty, an obligation for parents to guide their children properly and be respectable members of society with the proper set of morals and beliefs that are their own and not some stupid corporations
A gay kiss has nothing to do with morality or not being respectable within society. There is littlery nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. And don't pull the religous bull crap on me. The Bible supports killing children and slavery. God litterlly smites children by his own hands throughout the entire old testament. Religous perspectives are a joke.
Straight men finding gay sex repulsive is the same as finding your parents having sex repulsive.Doesn't mean you hate them, just that you don't want to see them having sex.
So by that logic, we should just do away with sex scenes in movies altogether. We have established that straight people are repulsed by gay sex (of the same sex as them usually) and by the same logic, as stated by Shad in a previous video, gay people are most likely repulsed by straight sex. If someone is going to be repulsed either way, why put sex scenes in at all? One way or another, you are alienating a part of your audience, and catering to another.
@@firemetal9655 Its also worth mentioning that Homosexual intercourse is unnatural as opposed to heterosexual intercourse. Reason is in hetero, the male a female genitalia are interacting according to design.
This to me is the real issue as a parent. Yes, I will have these conversations with my kids when I feel like they are ready for it. But "they" don't trust me to do that. So the goal is to try and slip it into stuff so I'm forced to have the conversation. Or in some cases even have the conversation with them wothout me knowing so my kids aren't influenced by my opinions. There is a time and a place to have conversations. I love Lord of the Rings. But I'm not showing it to my toddler because he isn't old enough for concepts like there being evil monsters in the world who need a good stabbing.
The only good thing that came out of "Lightyear" is that people are now giving "Buzz Lightyear: Of Star Command" a watch. It's a fun cartoon that I'm glad people can enjoy.
so just a quick question. for you, is Tim Allen not voicing Buzz in the new movie a deal breaker? and this is ignoring why they didn't hire him. is it Tim Allen didn't voice this, so NO!
@@scorpionlord9175 im not the guy but i assume you want a sample of opinions. for me, tim allen removed from buzz is a huge deal, but not a deal-breaker. the new va will need to fight an uphill battle to 1) be seen as at least an /okay/ replacement and 2) save the movie experience from being soured by a "you're not the real Buzz" reaction throughout. if you've seen any gameplay of the new lego star wars game, you'd see what i'm talking about when you hear the voice they casted for Qui-Gon. You've got the wrong Buzz!
@@kusakabe3264 well here is why i ask the question specifically to the people that bring up the show, how good it was, and blah blah blah(it was mind you, i love the show). cause if they say yes, like Shad, that Tim Allen not voicing Buzz is a deal breaker, then they cant sit there and say they love the show cause well........... Tim Allen didn't voice Buzz. Patrick Warburton did. so by their own logic, they hate the show, its garbage, its trash, cause Tim Allen didn't voice Buzz. that's why its such a stupid argument. Tim Allen hasn't been the only guy to voice Buzz.
@@kusakabe3264 yep, he voices both. and in case you don't know, Patrick voiced Kronk in the Emperors New Groove. that's the only reason why I bring that up. its silly to say "ITS A DEAL BREAKER THAT TIM ALLEN ISNT VOICING THIS" yet at the same time swoon over the show/movie, that WASNT voiced by Tim Allen. that's my entire point. its being a bit disingenuous
To be entirely honest, I don't think the gay kiss would have been that controversial if Disney weren't crowing about putting it in. Because that's all Disney does, they are preformatively progressive while actually shafting creatives like Dana Terrance and Alex Hirsch who want to have good writing alongside progressivism.
I think The Owl House handles LGBT stuff better and they don't abuse it like it's some last minute surprise. I mean they let you know what's gonna be in the show. That's why I'm more forgiving to them unlike Lightyear which tosses it in at the last second just to push their shit on people. I know LGBT individuals that are getting sick of this which is saying something.
@@josephrowe849 oh god YES! owl house didn't just push it's lgbtq+ as the only thing of actual value in the show it had CHARACTERS story and was building up to that kind of thing getting you invested in it as you saw the people go about their lives learning and growing. it may not be very well liked but its like garnet from steven universe she was a whole character not just focusing on a single aspect to the exclusion of all else and when the component gems separated they had development of themselves as individuals and as the combined person known as garnet. those shows are how you handle that kind of stuff. too bad more don't do that kind of thing
It's the equivalent to a Sex Scene or a Useless Plot Device: if it doesn't enhance or serve the story, THEN WHY EVEN PUT IT IN!??!? Oh wait, ""diversity""" of course....
Disney had the template of Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, a really good tv show from back in the day. With alien and human characters, it was really good with an array of colourful characters. Lightyear could have used that, made some interesting xenos and, hell, they could have done a Mass Effect with a female only species or something with the lesbians. This just seems... lazy.
Same thing happens with how they are handling Star Wars, decades of good stories and characters but they refuse to make any established properties to be successful.
The point now is not to make money. It isn't even to pander, though they are pandering. They show you something full of woke crap. You say that it was bad. Maybe you disliked it for being woke. Maybe you disliked it because it was dry, soulless, and rather meh. Either way, they call you a bigot. Their job is to "other" you. That's all they are doing, and all they are trying to do.
@@dix0n778 : What Disney and Paramount are doing to established franchises is taking existing brand names and putting in bland, generic plots which are far removed from the original source material.
so I have a quick question real fast. lets see how you answer. is Tim Allen not voicing Buzz in this new movie a deal breaker for you? and this question is ignoring WHY they didn't hire him. purely is him not voicing Buzz a big reason why you didn't like the new movie?
I have to be honest, I saw this coming half a mile away. And if they at least made this movie to be like the Buzz Lightyear of Star Command animated series and had all those characters, the movie would have performed better and it would have made people who saw the series feel nostalgic.
on the other hand even without being a movie version involving the starcommand material this movie could have been big if it had stuff like you know good characters competent writers good plotline y'know just some general stuff like that
I used to wonder why some older Christians would have "cutoff points" when it came to consuming any kind of entertainment media and would immediatly scorn almost anything modern as "amoral, godless trash". I don't anymore, though.They apparently saw what we have now coming from miles off... At this point, a decent, wholesome film or show by even the most lenient standards (I'm not even talking "safe for Christians specifically to consume", but rather "tolerably moral for the general population") is the rare exception, not the rule.
I'm getting around 60 and decent, wholesome films haven't been the rule in my lifetime, other than those intended for children... which is apparently going by the wayside. One would probably have to go back to the 40s and 50s for that to be more the standard.
The funniest thing is that all these media with strange values are done by the same ethnic group that killed Christ. There is a reason for this that you only understand when you see the fact that Disney, Google, Facebook, news media in the west, banks, and so on are owned and operated by an ethnic group that is less than 2 percent of the US population. Kathleen Kennedy, JJ Abrahams, Avi Goldman, Epstein, and so on and so on... Lechaim.
To be fair, some religious types think Pokemon is a "cutoff point" because it depicts magic. There are reasonable things to cut out of children's entertainment, and then there's just overzelous stupidity. Shad seems more or less reasonable enough, but that doesn't mean religious pearl-clutching isn't a problem. Used to be that the Right primarily did that stuff, but now it's both sides--probably even more so on on the left.
As an atheist (but not liberal, Im moderate conservative) I always wonder how right wing (in economics) Christians pretend Jesus/early Christians werent some sort of protosocialists. "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". (Matthew 19:23) "All who believed stayed together and shared all things in common. They sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among themselves, according to every man’s need". (Acts 2:44-46)
One of the reasons "people" say that they can't identify with people that are not like them. But humans can anthropomorphize a toaster, empathize with animals and more. The only time you can't do that is if you are a Psychopath. If what they say is true then you should not be able to identify with any animation since you are not a animation character. Also then you should not be able to identify with a movies if you aren't an actor.
It's simple. They're just liars. They don't care about "identifying with a movie character", they just want to groom your children. And they'll use any excuse to do it.
I'm gay myself, this film hurted my heart more that bad cholesterol to a big person Everytime DISNEY makes a gay scene, it's so poorly, like Beauty and the Beast for example, the writing is so dumb, like is this really the film Andy watched?...
I'm bisexual, and even I find the corporate pandering shit. If you want to write a good love story, WRITE A GOOD LOVE STORY. League of Legends did it fantastically with Arcane. You truely believe in Cait and Vi's relationship and wish the best for them. It doesn't come across in your mind that they're trying to check box "Strong female character" with Mel, Vi, Jinx, or Cait because you SAW how they became who they are. I and so many others didn't give a shit about the gay relationship because it was WRITTEN WELL. Meanwhile most modern Disney movies just feel like they're clicking check boxes that can be easily erased for Chinese audiences (because they are).
Indeed. Disney has all the subtlety of a lead brick, and it had absolutely zero impact on the story or characters at all. It was pointless to the extreme. Though no doubt it will bring about an entire generation of confused children whom will now think that somehow two women can make a baby by slamming their clams together….
I never comment, but I just have to say I'm very happy to have found Knight's Watch. I believe many candles are hidden under bushels, but you guys are a city on the hill. That, and Oz is as hilarious as he is right!
Great points about keeping parents in charge of what to address and when to address it with their own children. As a father of five myself, I am finding that I have to be even more proactive and intentional than my parents were, simply because of the greater number of sources through which today's children are potentially exposed to subversive content. So I appreciate it when things like this are called out, allowing me to preemptively avoid or teach my kids.
With the fact that sexual topics, attraction included, are bring brought up by strangers to the parents to their kids, it's no wonder that people are resorting to homeschooling their children. People often forget that teachers are strangers to parents.
as a gay man I am just so done with woke bs in the film industry. I hate that I can recognize a gay man in the first 3 seconds because they have to make it so damm obvious with the way they talk or dress/look like. with their only characteristic and story in the serie/movie being gay. I'm so done with it. the only time I felt happy with how gay characters were portrayed was in arcane. because every character in arcane is though out and fleshed out, they feel like real characters with actual flaws
I certainly don't disagree with you, but to be fair to Hollywood... Ha! Never thought I'd say that... Anyway... Hollywood thrives on stereotypes. You can usually identify the hero, the hero's love interest, the traitor, the villain, etc. within a few minutes. And there's nothing wrong with that as such. Done correctly, stereotypes can help the story progress at pace. Problem is when those stereotypes becomes something to be pushed.
Right. It's like a dumb, out-of-nowhere sex scene. If you can cut it out (literally in China and Christianity's case) and not miss anything, or if it does nothing to enhance or serve the story, THEN WHY EVEN HAVE IT???
but you see, that requires a degree of admitting that youre in the wrong, and disney just isnt built for that(well, not anymore since theyre all woke at this point)
The sad thing is it stopped being something we could discuss a while ago it became gay people are just born that way now I don't care about gay people just like I couldn't give two shits about straight people but the instant we stop conversation to learn not to be correct but just learn new things we have a serious problem
I didn't even mind the gay scenes at all...if anything it was the people defending the movie that we're being too preachy about gay politics. Also, as much as I would luv to see us have the ability to artificially create babies in the future I wanna first see all abandoned children of the world get adopted first and see our population go on a massive decline b4 we start justifying the need for gay couples or other exceptional couples to start being able to have kids of their own.
Honestly I can’t care what people do. we can see some people demand to go out wearing a furry suit- if all they had was 500$ gift card to some xxxToy store and they demand you to accept that which I’m fine with even if they go to schools- as long as they accept someone retaliating against them. They can’t stand that even as they force people to violate their religious beliefs. Those people then act and hold ‘I am weak’ as a shield and demand ‘compassion’ as leverage to demand government send cops, agents and even soldiers to anyone who disagrees with them. The civil war was fought to bring agents to your house and it was fight to create Lobbyists. That is where the term came from- after Lincoln’s ‘American system’ was made people would be in the lobby to make deals that Lobbyists was a coin termed at the time since it wasn’t common until Lincoln’s American system. And let’s not mention that Lincoln didn’t want to look bad for how many people he was going to execute so instead he signed a paper that was to remove certain people from their land- leading to the trail of tears. Nobody says that the people who fought in the north did the trail of tears. Let that sink in.
They released a poster featuring Andy sitting in a packed movie theater for Lightyear. If they wanted to be more accurate. They should have had him sitting in a theater all too himself. Would have been more accurate. Lol
I saw the movie, it was a mistake. It was bad-they humiliated Buzz, made a strong black woman (and then her granddaughter) be the alpha over him, made Buzz the bad guy (Emperer Zerg), all characters were neurotic and full of guilt, and it was boring in many parts. The gay kiss just a sprinkle on the crap donut that was the movie.
Lol! This comment is hilarious? Are you serious? Must have gone into the movie with some massive preconceptions and bias. There's also an evil Buzz in Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, complain about that too? Lol!
You guys are a breath of fresh air! I’ve watched shad for a while, but I’m very glad I found this channel too! Looking forward to more from you guys in the future!
It reminded me of the controversy around the fact that Mario wouldn't be voiced by Charles Martinet. But at least that made sense, to an extent. As far as I know, Martinet doesn't have any huge success from acting in films. He's a successful video game actor, and Mario is a character who doesn't tend to audibly talk much anyway. So, it might be fair to assume he couldn't really handle a film role. And who knows, maybe Chris Pratt can do a decent impersonation of Martinet's style? I doubt it, but maybe. We don't know yet. But Tim Allen is completely different. He's highly experienced and a very successful film actor. It just makes no sense at all to replace him outside of ideological bias.
Tim Allen is one of the few openly conservative actors out there who is actually good at his job. But it’s not a bias against conservatives and “right-leaning” people, it’s a bias against white men. PERIOD. Trevor Fletcher, who was in the latest Daily Wire movie “Terror on the Prairie” is a fairly progressive guy and HE got rejected purely because he was a white man. And the fact that he had talent didn’t help him either.
@@NathanCassidy721 You may be right in some cases. But in this case, they replaced Tim Allen with another white man, so I don't think this is one of those times. This case was probably just ideological, pure and simple.
For me, I don’t trust Disney to make anything decent nowadays. Taking ideology out of it, they just don’t have the capability to tell a basic story anymore. I describe it as thus: Their ego says: “Im going to write the next classic on par with War and Peace.” Their talent says: “No you can’t. Because you can’t even write the outline of The Hungry, Hungry Caterpillar without making a sexual reference.”
@samuel fox I never saw it and forgot about it honestly. It just struck as a pathetic attempt to "represent latinx". And the Latinos and Latinas have rejected their bullshit.
I've said this before: If you can't depict an interpersonal relationship without physical intimacy, you only think of a relationship as access to physical intimacy. Sacrifice, loyalty, cooperation, respect, honor, patience. These are a few aspects of a relationship that can be explored, give a strong message to audience of all standings and ages, and is not controversial in the slightest. For some reason, every time I hear about "gay scene in *insert movie here*" its always a kiss and it always adds nothing to the film.
Well, gay characters are considered "controversial", so of course characters showing signs of being gay will be reigned in from being "too gay", and will more likely be side-characters (particularly ones that can be edited out). So of course we get basically no "good" gay romances, because that takes character development, it's something that's not afforded to gay characters. A kiss is simply a very simple, wholesome way to unmistakable acknowledge that two characters are a couple, unless you have time to listen to them give some epic account of their whole relationship. Also, I don't think gay kisses are very common. Let's look at other Disney properties. There was that character in the Beauty and the Beast remake who was supposed to be a sort of token gay character, but all he ever did was dance with a dude, I think? I remember something about two women in the Finding Nemo sequel who were sort of kind of rumored to be an implied couple, they certainly didn't kiss. Luca is probably the closest to a Disney movie about gay characters, and they don't kiss. Of course, that movie is primarily about metaphors for being gay, more so than it is about them being technically gay. I feel like you're somehow trying to hold gay characters to a standard you wouldn't hold straight characters to, or at least one that it's pretty much impossible for gay characters to meet, as long as they're not actually allowed to have gay character development.
@@tobiashagstrom4168 I disagree with that strongly. In particular I point to Old Guard there's a gay couple and one that's very heavily implied to be at least bi and they're all main characters. I don't like gay characters by and large, I don't support LGBTQ, but I'm fine with them in movies like Old Guard because I'm not beat over the head with it. I'm not seeing a cheesy stereotype. And gay characters have been appearing in more and more stuff regardless of quality of presentation and the only time I hear about it being controversial is when they try to slip it in kid movies.
@@nekrosprime8415 Again, as long as gay characters are confined to small token appearances, they're certainly not going to be very compelling. Give them more space to breath and they... well, I wouldn't say they will all be good, in fact they might be just as shitty as most throwaway straight romances are. Let's face it the "include a romance sub-plot" is really fricking common, a lot of movies just do it as a box-ticking exercise. So don't pretend that heterosexual portrayals in movies is some refined and respect beautiful artform that gay relationships can never live up to. What I want are positive portrayals of gay people. If you haven't noticed, having villain characters who are somewhat queer-coded is not that uncommon, characters who are flamboyant, emotive with their hands, sassy, often look like they're wearing makeup, etc. This is basically true for a lot of Disney villains. There was also some weird gay stuff going on with villains in that one James Bond movie, or the BBC Sherlock show. Now, I often love me some mischievous gay villains, but you can probably understand why that's gotten really bitter-sweet over time for me. I don't want media to reinforce the idea that queer people are dangerous or untrustworthy. I want wholesome queer characters. In fact, form what I hear about it, the couple in the Lightyear movies seems pretty up my alley. They get a wholesome moment, it establishes something of what Buzz I protecting, and it establishes him as a sympathetic guy who is happy when others are happy. So whilst it's not a queer main character, it seems pretty good from what I've seen of it. So I'm very disheartened by people freaking out over it.
@@tobiashagstrom4168 but my point is they aren't token side characters. They're all over the place now. They're standard. How they appear and people's reaction is more about writing than people reacting. Haven't seen the movie, but from the sounds of it it's just a small kiss. So why is Disney acting like it's a big deal? And if Disney gets to act like it's a big deal positive, no reason for those against to act like it's a big deal negative.
@@nekrosprime8415 I'm not the most plugged in media hawk, but I'll dare to go out on a limb and say queer characters are not "all over the place", largely because they're generally considered "risky" to have, when there is resistance to their inclusion, their inclusion is pretty much always going to be charged as an act of "activism", because it's a statement to have them. I wouldn't need to be a statement if people didn't mind it. I wouldn't even be surprised if the EVENTUAL natural state of this is for queer characters to be slightly over-represented compared to real life, because it adds variety, although that could just be bisexual wishful-thinking. "...people's reaction is more about writing than people reacting" Bullshit. This is NOT a standard you have for straight characters, don't even pretend. I mentioned earlier how the scene in this movie seems like it makes perfect sense according to writing logic, it's a simple "you know these are the good guys because they're wholesome" type storytelling, and it establishes Buzz as a guy who likes it when other people are happy, there is nothing wrong with that writing-wise. "So why is Disney acting like it's a big deal?" Because people are making a big deal out of it, that's why. How can you act like that isn't happening, like it isn't something you're effectively part of? It SHOULDN'T be a big deal. If we somehow lived in a world where straight characters were not acceptable, but gay ones were, then yes, it would be a big deal if they started putting straight characters on the screen. Even though it SHOULDN'T be a big deal, because it's a fine thing to do, just as letting queer people feel like they're accepted as part of society and culture as anything better than villains and crazy people is also good. "And if Disney gets to act like it's a big deal positive, no reason for those against to act like it's a big deal negative." This sounds like you want me to accept some sort of subjectivist free-for-all cultural nihilism. Well, the problem with that is that I think there's a right and a wrong answer to whether at the very least some amount of representation is good or not. The reason you shouldn't act like its a big deal in the negative is because that'd be *wrong*. Like how Star Treck featuring an interracial kiss back in the day was a big deal, even though it shouldn't have been, it was a big deal in the positive because it was in defiance of the people who incorrectly thought it was a big deal in the negative.
Tim Allen actually re-dubbed Buzz Lightyear for the first 3 episodes of the Buzz lightyear of Star Command, they put those 3 episodes together and made it a movie.
Chris Evans is a guy who had been carried by RDJ for the past ten years. Without RDJ, Chris lost his relevance and commenting something like this made it even worse.
Not to call you out for your atheism, but you might find that a lot of this stuff being pushed is being done by people who would be considered sectarian. In the greasiest irony in history, we have a bunch of godless individuals have found religion in the form of “social justice”.
“We are all pawns of something even greater: memes, the DNA of the soul. They shape our will. They are the culture. They are everything we pass on. Expose someone to anger long enough, they will learn to hate. They become a carrier. Envy, greed, despair: all memes, all passed on.” - Monsoon from Metal Gear Rising
I didn't see what the big deal was about the kiss at first but you guys did an excellent job explaining it from a parent's viewpoint. I hadn't even considered that.
But it's only 1 second long, and not even in-focus. How is this worse than Minnie Mouse kissing Micky in a close-up for 3 seconds? Why is it suddenly less child-friendly?
@@rasmuskock8077 bc it is not just a kiss. The most confusing part (for many kids) is that one of the women is pregnant. Now, I have no problem with this making it’s way into a Marvel or R rated movie, but I would prefer it be kept out of PG content. I don’t feel like explaining to my 8 and 4 year old how two women make a baby after leaving the theater. Plus there was more overt affection beside the 1 second kiss. I used to think I was part of Disney’s intended audience. Now, I see I am clearly not, but Disney is happy to sneak their messaging into their animated features to indoctrinate my kids. There was no hint of the lgbt relationship in the trailers I saw. If they are so proud of it, it should be transparent and in the trailers.
@@TradMom I feel like the problem you stated about kids wondering about making babies would still apply even if the characters had been a straight couple, based on your argument about one of them being pregnant in the scene.
I work in child care and have seen that kids don't understand the concept of gay or straight. Once I was siting with three children (two girls and one boy) one of the girls said "she was gonna marry the other girl", the boy then said that "she couldn't because only boy and girls could marry," the girl then said something like, "she would do it anyway." I know this sounds like one of those made up stories for clout but the funniest thing was that at no point did these kid look up or stop drawing, They were just trying to understand the world around them, the girl doesn't know the deference between plutonic and romantic love and since she understand that mum and dad love each other and she loves her friend, she thinks "why wouldn't I marry her. The boy however is seeing marriage as between his mum and dad so he stated his understanding not to argue but because that is how kids learn and at no point did these kids get emotional in fact they didn't even seem invested. I was dumbfounded by their conversation and ended up saying nothing, but there was nothing for me to say, it wasn't my place to inform them that's up to their parent. This wasn't the first or last time something like this has happened but I worry about people that WANT to influence children because it is very easy.
This is a great discussion. Kinda surprised it hit so close to home. I was initially excited in seeing the movie. I was a fan of the cartoon and this gave me similar vibes, but like everyone else apparently, the wokeness, dumping tim allen, ruined it for me. The biggest problem though is that it reminded me in full force how many scummy and despicable things disney has done(Mulan camps) and i just cannot justify giving them any money for anything.
They don't reproduce the biological way, but the ideological way - control the schools, control the media, control the mind, control the future. They don't have to have the baggage of an emotional connection or investment at all - they have no clue of what it means to be a parent even though they call them 'their kids' and the actual parents 'caregivers'. Parasites.
The few people I've heard speak of this movie have said that it was ok Not good but ok Apparently (second hand info here) the woke stuff in the film is rather light but was pushed to the front by Disney Add to that that people seem to be getting sick of politicizing everything would make this film (and plenty of other forms of media) flop more than they should
Sounds like Pixar is losing its magic, then. This should be the easiest thing to make completely awesome (and they have all the goodwill in the world to start with because it’s Buzz Lightyear) and the best they can pull off is “okay”? That’s just sad.
Shad at 13 mins your nature vs nurture is sooooooooo true. I can anecdotally add that this plays out similarily in social settings. My sister at 13 in the 8th grade has been bullied for a couple years fornot identifying on the alphabets. She literally isnt in high school and these fucks are grooming and pushing the agenda
Agree with everything said here. What’s more though is the movie is a nonsensical time travel story. No kid would understand or enjoy it so the idea it was Andy’s favorite is laughable. Also, Chris Evans can get bent.
Good on you for sticking to your principles i disagree with you about the metaphysical nature of reality but i can respect the hell out of your commitment. Have a nice day.
They put Kant in one camp with Marx and declared Nietzsche, THE Nihilist himself, the good guy of the Enlightenment. They have not the faintest idea what they are talking about.
There's a level of scuffed and informality to this channel that makes it feel like I'm just chatting with the boys. It's a nice contrast to Shad's main channel which feels like a medieval history lecture with the cool college professor.
Wait, have you guys been demonetised because you talk about “controversy” Supreme UA-cam Leader Su’Zhan must really hate you lads Keep up the good work!
No way! Susan awarded herself a "free speech" award, there's no way she could be in favor of censorship! Are you saying she lied???? CEOs would NEVER lie. Ever. In a million years. 🤔
If they're going to take someone's lively hood over their stupid politics then I am also going to take away some of their source of income and not watch the dang movie.
_"Oh, Hollywoke celebrity insults me so hard he/she convinced me to spend my hard earned money into a movie I dont like."_ SAID NO SANE PERSON WITH SELF RESPECT. GO WOKE, GO BROKE.
Always love your takes guys. Appreciate the spot where a point was made that whatever your kids decided you would still love them no matter what. Hollywood needs to back off and stay out of politics and trying to push our kids in their direction. Let them decide and the parents be parents
In the nature vs nurture argument regarding sexuality, my understanding is fundamentally its nature, but influenced by nurture. The influence of nurture only significantly takes hold if nature allows for flexibility. For example, my observation is that the number of people who are bisexual by nature is far higher then generally understood, but many bisexual people dismiss their same sex attractions due to upbringing/culture/ect (sometimes this also goes the other way, weather due to culture, or sometimes trauma). If nature doesn't allow for flexibility, as with people who are entirely straight or entirely gay, forcing them into the wrong box is exponentially more harmful for them then it is for people who have that inbuilt flexibility.
Although I am not religious. I was raised in a Catholic background and I agree with Christian morality. I think it is conversative morality and for too long we on the Right have let the Left push us and take ground in the name of progressive values. There needs to be a more balanced approach and a promotion of wholesome family life. In order to do this we need to help socialism and feminism implode and at the moment wokeness is doing that. They cannot claim abortion is a women's rights issue if they cannot define a woman. We should adhere to the classical seven sins and call out lust and pride the same way we are called homophobes or racists for simply wishing to coexist.
Reminds me of Rome when they accepted Christianity and then made it their own religion. The idea of people talking about how God was going to judge all the evil rulers and peoples just didnt paint their authority in a good light, so they changed the meaning of the end times to be metaphorical. Its what happens when the original material becomes corporate, they meddle with the original themes of the content because they dont want to lose their authority and power. Theyd rather it point to them instead. Thats what disney did to star wars, marvel and any other material they acquired.
I'm an atheist and I support social progress. I don't really subscribe to any political orientation. But I also agree with you Shad. I don't think any kiss, gay or straight is appropriate in movies that are very much made for children. I really don't like inclusion just for the sake of inclusion and lazy relationship portrays. I should add that the majority of progressive people don't want this either. It's just that twitter and hollywood are loud af.
Why shouldnt kissed be portrayed in children's media? We have that for ages, people kiss all the time in reality in front of them too, so what is the issue?
@@Soapy-chan_old depends on the age a movie is targetted to. Something like toy story is watched by really young children. If its targetted towards teenagers, it is fine to have kisses, gay or not. I think a portray of relationship development is better to focus on than a kiss but it is Disney, they don't know what story is anymore. Also, with real life kisses, children will see it from their parents and they will generally know it is a sign of affection and realize that for other people as well, but movies, it depends on the story really. It can be portrayed in a lot of different ways and parents want some control over that.
@@soulwynd There are many movies and cartoons marketed for kids that have kisses in them though. (Edit: Also many movies will be shown to kids regardless of them being targeted or not) So when in those movies the kisses are shown as a sign of affection by the story, then where is the problem?
@@Soapy-chan_old True, children will end up watching stuff above their age. I suppose it's more of a parental decision other than anything. I don't really have a problem with it. I just don't think it's appropriate for ages under 8 or so. I'd more likely not let my children watch this toy story cause it's a bad movie, not because of the kiss.
I will be honest, I don't like Mormons. but I find your contents and standards very entertaining and very agreeable. This is the tolerant that society nowadays just lacking.
@@KNIGHTSWATCH You can’t win me over because I drink a lot of tea everyday 😛 But jokes aside, I really don’t care what other people’s religions are. I don’t push against them, and they won’t push against me. As long as I can enjoy a meal with someone and have civil conversation, my guest’s religious beliefs wouldn’t change anything.
I figured that the Disney controversy regarding their attempts to dictate the policies of one of the states over - as you discussed - a parent's right to have a say in what their child is taught, rather than staying out of it, played a huge role in it. Or if not a huge part, then certainly very important.
Even though I'm Catholic, the gay kiss BY ITSELF doesn't affect me or rub me in any wrong way. But I do have one question: Hawnthorne is a LESBIAN with a WIFE. Buzz ends up in the far future where he meets her GRANDDAUGHTER that LOOKS JUST LIKE HER. If Hawthorne had a wife, how did she have a granddaughter with her genetics? Is there an explanation in the movie? Cloning? Biological grandfather? How?
I've said this before and been called a homophobe for it, but I strongly believe that kids should be kids. That you shouldn't be teaching them anything related to sex until they reach an age where they are starting to ask questions, entering puberty, and are mentally mature enough to start to understand such things. That they should be allowed to figure out who they are in their own time and what they're attracted to based on the examples they see in their everyday life. Not what they see on a screen. "B-b-b-b-but there's gay people everywhere and it's normal. Representing them on a screen isn't going to confuse kids, it's just going to show them what's normal." Let children figure out who they are based on what they see in their lives. Not what's on a screen. Because the LGBTQXYZ community is a small percentage of the populace. But, because of the mainstream pushing their lifestyle so much, there have been people who've literally told that they make up 50% of the populace... that's how delusional some people are. I mean, in that case, we need more heterosexual representation because apparently, I'm part of a 50% minority as well. If your sexuality is what defines you, what gives you worth, then that's pretty sad...
I'm half convinced this movie wasn't supposed to be about Buzz Lightyear, it was originally gonna be its own original thing but execs made them slap Buzz Lightyear on it thinking it would sell well.
I loved the Lightyear movie. I was excited when I saw the first teaser trailer, and was not disappointed. The last time I was excited about a movie, I was incredibly disappointed, so I was very relieved, especially since I was worried a few weeks before I watched the movie. It's a Pixar movie anyway, so I should've expected it to be good (or at least about as okay as Onward was, which isn't awful). I would say that Pixar is still a beacon of hope in the garbage fire that Disney has created for themselves.
"Lightyear bombs and it's your fault" I knew I did something good today.
We should get ribbons or something...at least a cookie
@@jeffreytroublefield4265 we do deserve cookies 🍪
we are doing our part
I did my part by buying a movie ticket to Top Gun Maverick for a third time. Giving my money and support to movies I love and appreciate.
👏
Disney "Were gonna excludes Tim Allan who always voiced Buzz Lightyear do to conflicting political ideology"
Disney "How dare the audience reject our movie just because they have a different political ideology then the one we are selling"
Modern Hollywood in a nutshell, without respect we reject.
To remind, Disney threw out JD because of no reasons.
Aldo, Disney threw out Director of Guardians of Galaxy because of no reason, AND returned him back eventually!
Oof
Pretty much, a lot of Hollywood movie drama can be boiled down to "How dare you not share our ideology!"
Fuck Hollywood and Disney straight to Hell!!! 👿👹
I honestly just tuned out of Disney so I didn’t even know that part. They just lost all of my good will after a while. Original movies are few and far between, they’re constant bigotry and hypocrisy. Why would I care what they make at this point?
I love that Chris Evans made a comment about "dying out like the Dinosaurs" then Lightyear was crushed by Jurassic World.
That sort of irony always tickles my funny bone.
Yea, that's becoming quite the meme right now.
Equivalent of Lightyear got stomp by T-rex, T-rex wants to eat it but then decide not because of the color and then either piss or dump the motherload on that space ranger and idle away😆
A franchise about dinosaurs that most people see as on its way out out, of all things.
Lmao
I cannot believe I had not thought of that, brilliant comment. Really laughed out loud.
Mine too
Chris Evans really is one of the best actors in all of Hollywood. How he went so many MCU movies pretending to be an American patriot who cares about compassion, freedom, justice, and morality is truly an impressive feat of acting.
Best burn ever!
He also played an idiot surprisingly well....
What makes you think he doesn't have those qualities? Compassion, freedom, justice and morality aren't defined solely by your perception and preference for such. They are viewed broadly and variably between cultures and within the same culture. America is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of others being free to be what you want. An American patriot should know that.
@@kevinarnold8634 because he is hoping for the death of everyone that disagree with him. Virtue signaling will not be tolerated.
He told people not to discriminate against the lgbtq+ community.
"People who aren't like me will die out like dinosaurs," said the 41 year old man with no children.
Sally: "Charlie Chaplin had a kid when he was 71."
Harry: "Yeah, but he couldn't pick him up."
so I will say this, that isn't an issue.
unless there is something medically wrong with him, he can have children until the day he dies and here is a simple truth. for sexual marketplace value, he is at his peak. he has money, has status, has authority and is viewed as a peer by many. so he can say "OKAY, I'm looking to get married." and he would have HOARDS of women go after him. so I'm sorry........ that isn't an argument.
Men reach their SMV peak at around 35.
now, if Chris was a Christine Evans, THEN you would have an argument. but a man....... nah mate, he is at his peak in value, sorry.
btw, this isn't me saying I'm supporting him mind you
@@scorpionlord9175 Sure, for Chris Evans himself, you're right. But the thousands of people who share his beliefs but NOT his movie star status aren't so lucky. And progressives are much more likely in general to be non-reproductive.
@@melgibsonafter5beers626 okay, see, this is where SMV comes in. men that don't have their value, they cant typically. but my comment was directly about Chris Evans.
and its the same with ALL men. so men, in general, cant do a lot of things cause they aren't valuable enough. like for example, but truthful to women. but high value men, they can be truthful. they can say I'm gonna go sleep with other women. they can say your getting fat. they can say I make the rules, not you. i get to set these bounds, not you. cause they have the status and authority cause guess what, they are rare, they actually are special. but those women? they are a dime a dozen. he can replace you at a snap of a finger.
so yeah, if we are talking the average guy? sure, GL progressives. but people like Chris Evans? nah. he is gonna have zero issues getting a woman.
@@scorpionlord9175 The movie had a chance somewhere if he didn't run his mouth calling the people and countries on the fence about watching it idiots. Also I get what the dude is saying. You can make movies for kids all day long you want but that's not a guarantee you know a thing or two about kids. I'm not familiar with Chris Evans but don't bite the hands that feed you.
"Lightyear bombed, and it's your fault!"
Me: "You're goddamned right I made it fail, and I'd do it again, without even thinking about it. I'll take that as a win."
"Don't tread on us Disney scum"
"We meet again Buzz Lightyear for the last time!"
If you told me as long as a 2 months ago that I'd be watching a bunch of Mormons discussing what's wrong about gay kissing in a Disney movie I would've laughed in your face.
And here I am, not only watching but agreeing with most of what's being said.
Life really do be like that sometimes.
Mormons n Amish. Both are looking pretty good right now.
@@alwayscensored6871 I agree.
@@alwayscensored6871 Nah, there are pretty disturbing stuff about them. It’s just common sense to think that.
I disagree with a lot of Mormons and definitely not built for Amish life but ze great reset is here my friends these people are going to outlive us I think
@@justincarlozmaxino1100 Aww, I'm sure you'll be fine.
Attacking the customers and calling them names is never a good idea and then Disney wonders why the box office is not as it should be.
I’m tired of Disney trying to turn everything into political attacks. It’s as if no one can make honest criticism about their shows without being called an “ist” or an “ism” of some kind. I don’t like to give them money anymore.
Disney is full of dumbasses who don't care about anyone but themselves. I spent my money to see the Elvis film instead of Lightyear.
There was a direct to video movie, Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, that served as a pilot for a short lived series. To me, that will always be the real Buzz Lightyear movie. This new movie looks so bland by comparison. The original movie and show are severely underrated in my opinion.
I joke that the new Lightyear movie is actually a shitty Disney reboot film of the film Andy watched as a kid
I remember being scared as a kid by the first watch of that movie. The screaming monsters that Buzz fought with Warp, and the despair of seeing Star Command temporarily lose against Zurg, those got me. But then I watched again and again because I loved seeing Buzz & his team win in the end.
I watched a few episodes of the show back in the day. Do you know anywhere it’s available to watch?
@@ottovonbearsmark8876 Sadly, no. I can't find the show on streaming services, and I can't even find it on DVD. You can find used DVD's of the direct to video movie, but that's all. The show itself eludes me, which is a real shame.
Yup. The scenes with Zurg’s giant AA battery live in my head rent free.
It isnt a right, its a duty, an obligation for parents to guide their children properly and be respectable members of society with the proper set of morals and beliefs that are their own and not some stupid corporations
For real, are we gonna let the Soulless Corp raise our kids for us? God forbid!
I don't think "stupid" is the right word. A consistent pattern of underhanded behavior that is fiercely defended and/or denied isn't an accident.
A gay kiss has nothing to do with morality or not being respectable within society. There is littlery nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. And don't pull the religous bull crap on me. The Bible supports killing children and slavery. God litterlly smites children by his own hands throughout the entire old testament. Religous perspectives are a joke.
True, but then I'd call into question just how capable said parents will prove to be at dealing with change in those few decades after childbirth.
Straight men finding gay sex repulsive is the same as finding your parents having sex repulsive.Doesn't mean you hate them, just that you don't want to see them having sex.
THIS
So by that logic, we should just do away with sex scenes in movies altogether. We have established that straight people are repulsed by gay sex (of the same sex as them usually) and by the same logic, as stated by Shad in a previous video, gay people are most likely repulsed by straight sex. If someone is going to be repulsed either way, why put sex scenes in at all? One way or another, you are alienating a part of your audience, and catering to another.
@@firemetal9655 I'm fine with its total removal. It's a cheap way to get people interested in a movie anyway.
@@firemetal9655 Its also worth mentioning that Homosexual intercourse is unnatural as opposed to heterosexual intercourse. Reason is in hetero, the male a female genitalia are interacting according to design.
@@Justin-pe9cl People who already disagree with you are not going to be swayed in the slightest by that.
This to me is the real issue as a parent. Yes, I will have these conversations with my kids when I feel like they are ready for it. But "they" don't trust me to do that. So the goal is to try and slip it into stuff so I'm forced to have the conversation. Or in some cases even have the conversation with them wothout me knowing so my kids aren't influenced by my opinions. There is a time and a place to have conversations. I love Lord of the Rings. But I'm not showing it to my toddler because he isn't old enough for concepts like there being evil monsters in the world who need a good stabbing.
Just give them some swords to practice with and they'll figure it out when they're old enough.
@@insensitive919 already done.
OH NO! A KISS! SAVE THE CHILDREN! Why can't people just dislike the movie based on it being a bad movie?
@@SnakeWasRight because thats part of why they consider it a bad movie.
@@solarmyth1945 yeah, that's stupid. Now, the impulse and REASON WHY it's in the movie is why it's bad, since it's just tokenism.
The only good thing that came out of "Lightyear" is that people are now giving "Buzz Lightyear: Of Star Command" a watch. It's a fun cartoon that I'm glad people can enjoy.
so just a quick question.
for you, is Tim Allen not voicing Buzz in the new movie a deal breaker?
and this is ignoring why they didn't hire him. is it Tim Allen didn't voice this, so NO!
@@scorpionlord9175 im not the guy but i assume you want a sample of opinions.
for me, tim allen removed from buzz is a huge deal, but not a deal-breaker. the new va will need to fight an uphill battle to
1) be seen as at least an /okay/ replacement and
2) save the movie experience from being soured by a "you're not the real Buzz" reaction throughout. if you've seen any gameplay of the new lego star wars game, you'd see what i'm talking about when you hear the voice they casted for Qui-Gon.
You've got the wrong Buzz!
@@kusakabe3264 well here is why i ask the question specifically to the people that bring up the show, how good it was, and blah blah blah(it was mind you, i love the show).
cause if they say yes, like Shad, that Tim Allen not voicing Buzz is a deal breaker, then they cant sit there and say they love the show cause well........... Tim Allen didn't voice Buzz. Patrick Warburton did. so by their own logic, they hate the show, its garbage, its trash, cause Tim Allen didn't voice Buzz.
that's why its such a stupid argument. Tim Allen hasn't been the only guy to voice Buzz.
@@scorpionlord9175 I guess he did a really good job, then. I didn't see the show, only the star command movie and never noticed any difference.
@@kusakabe3264 yep, he voices both. and in case you don't know, Patrick voiced Kronk in the Emperors New Groove.
that's the only reason why I bring that up. its silly to say "ITS A DEAL BREAKER THAT TIM ALLEN ISNT VOICING THIS" yet at the same time swoon over the show/movie, that WASNT voiced by Tim Allen.
that's my entire point. its being a bit disingenuous
To be entirely honest, I don't think the gay kiss would have been that controversial if Disney weren't crowing about putting it in. Because that's all Disney does, they are preformatively progressive while actually shafting creatives like Dana Terrance and Alex Hirsch who want to have good writing alongside progressivism.
I think The Owl House handles LGBT stuff better and they don't abuse it like it's some last minute surprise. I mean they let you know what's gonna be in the show. That's why I'm more forgiving to them unlike Lightyear which tosses it in at the last second just to push their shit on people. I know LGBT individuals that are getting sick of this which is saying something.
@@josephrowe849 oh god YES! owl house didn't just push it's lgbtq+ as the only thing of actual value in the show it had CHARACTERS story and was building up to that kind of thing getting you invested in it as you saw the people go about their lives learning and growing. it may not be very well liked but its like garnet from steven universe she was a whole character not just focusing on a single aspect to the exclusion of all else and when the component gems separated they had development of themselves as individuals and as the combined person known as garnet. those shows are how you handle that kind of stuff. too bad more don't do that kind of thing
It's the equivalent to a Sex Scene or a Useless Plot Device: if it doesn't enhance or serve the story, THEN WHY EVEN PUT IT IN!??!? Oh wait, ""diversity""" of course....
Gotta agree, I saw the movie and don't actually recall seeing it. Marketing department did the movie dirty, it was pretty good.
Disney had the template of Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, a really good tv show from back in the day. With alien and human characters, it was really good with an array of colourful characters. Lightyear could have used that, made some interesting xenos and, hell, they could have done a Mass Effect with a female only species or something with the lesbians. This just seems... lazy.
Same thing happens with how they are handling Star Wars, decades of good stories and characters but they refuse to make any established properties to be successful.
That cartoon was really cool. I loved it back in the day. It really is very disappointing they didn't use nothing of it.
The point now is not to make money. It isn't even to pander, though they are pandering. They show you something full of woke crap. You say that it was bad. Maybe you disliked it for being woke. Maybe you disliked it because it was dry, soulless, and rather meh. Either way, they call you a bigot. Their job is to "other" you. That's all they are doing, and all they are trying to do.
@@dix0n778 : What Disney and Paramount are doing to established franchises is taking existing brand names and putting in bland, generic plots which are far removed from the original source material.
so I have a quick question real fast. lets see how you answer.
is Tim Allen not voicing Buzz in this new movie a deal breaker for you?
and this question is ignoring WHY they didn't hire him. purely is him not voicing Buzz a big reason why you didn't like the new movie?
I have to be honest, I saw this coming half a mile away. And if they at least made this movie to be like the Buzz Lightyear of Star Command animated series and had all those characters, the movie would have performed better and it would have made people who saw the series feel nostalgic.
on the other hand even without being a movie version involving the starcommand material this movie could have been big if it had stuff like you know good characters competent writers good plotline y'know just some general stuff like that
I used to wonder why some older Christians would have "cutoff points" when it came to consuming any kind of entertainment media and would immediatly scorn almost anything modern as "amoral, godless trash". I don't anymore, though.They apparently saw what we have now coming from miles off...
At this point, a decent, wholesome film or show by even the most lenient standards (I'm not even talking "safe for Christians specifically to consume", but rather "tolerably moral for the general population") is the rare exception, not the rule.
I'm getting around 60 and decent, wholesome films haven't been the rule in my lifetime, other than those intended for children... which is apparently going by the wayside. One would probably have to go back to the 40s and 50s for that to be more the standard.
How is this amoral godless trash? Why can't it just be trash?
The funniest thing is that all these media with strange values are done by the same ethnic group that killed Christ. There is a reason for this that you only understand when you see the fact that Disney, Google, Facebook, news media in the west, banks, and so on are owned and operated by an ethnic group that is less than 2 percent of the US population. Kathleen Kennedy, JJ Abrahams, Avi Goldman, Epstein, and so on and so on... Lechaim.
To be fair, some religious types think Pokemon is a "cutoff point" because it depicts magic. There are reasonable things to cut out of children's entertainment, and then there's just overzelous stupidity. Shad seems more or less reasonable enough, but that doesn't mean religious pearl-clutching isn't a problem. Used to be that the Right primarily did that stuff, but now it's both sides--probably even more so on on the left.
As an atheist (but not liberal, Im moderate conservative) I always wonder how right wing (in economics) Christians pretend Jesus/early Christians werent some sort of protosocialists.
"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". (Matthew 19:23)
"All who believed stayed together and shared all things in common. They sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among themselves, according to every man’s need". (Acts 2:44-46)
One of the reasons "people" say that they can't identify with people that are not like them. But humans can anthropomorphize a toaster, empathize with animals and more. The only time you can't do that is if you are a Psychopath. If what they say is true then you should not be able to identify with any animation since you are not a animation character. Also then you should not be able to identify with a movies if you aren't an actor.
It's simple. They're just liars. They don't care about "identifying with a movie character", they just want to groom your children. And they'll use any excuse to do it.
Very risky of Chris Evans to VICIOUSLY attack the world's Muslim community like this 0_0
Yes, he gets away with his islamophobia....the planets 2nd biggest religion is invisible...hmmm!
Go talk to them, Chris. They'll listen to you.
I doubt he'd have the guts to say that to our faces. He knows we stand by our views.
This Buzz Lightyear is falling without style.
I'm gay myself, this film hurted my heart more that bad cholesterol to a big person
Everytime DISNEY makes a gay scene, it's so poorly, like Beauty and the Beast for example, the writing is so dumb, like is this really the film Andy watched?...
Hurt*
@@rockinHurley777 thank you
I'm bisexual, and even I find the corporate pandering shit. If you want to write a good love story, WRITE A GOOD LOVE STORY. League of Legends did it fantastically with Arcane. You truely believe in Cait and Vi's relationship and wish the best for them. It doesn't come across in your mind that they're trying to check box "Strong female character" with Mel, Vi, Jinx, or Cait because you SAW how they became who they are. I and so many others didn't give a shit about the gay relationship because it was WRITTEN WELL.
Meanwhile most modern Disney movies just feel like they're clicking check boxes that can be easily erased for Chinese audiences (because they are).
Indeed. Disney has all the subtlety of a lead brick, and it had absolutely zero impact on the story or characters at all.
It was pointless to the extreme. Though no doubt it will bring about an entire generation of confused children whom will now think that somehow two women can make a baby by slamming their clams together….
I never comment, but I just have to say I'm very happy to have found Knight's Watch. I believe many candles are hidden under bushels, but you guys are a city on the hill. That, and Oz is as hilarious as he is right!
We're honored to have you join us.
@@KNIGHTSWATCH do you guys think you can change orientation? Do you have a reason not to be lgbt?
Great points about keeping parents in charge of what to address and when to address it with their own children. As a father of five myself, I am finding that I have to be even more proactive and intentional than my parents were, simply because of the greater number of sources through which today's children are potentially exposed to subversive content. So I appreciate it when things like this are called out, allowing me to preemptively avoid or teach my kids.
With the fact that sexual topics, attraction included, are bring brought up by strangers to the parents to their kids, it's no wonder that people are resorting to homeschooling their children.
People often forget that teachers are strangers to parents.
as a gay man I am just so done with woke bs in the film industry. I hate that I can recognize a gay man in the first 3 seconds because they have to make it so damm obvious with the way they talk or dress/look like. with their only characteristic and story in the serie/movie being gay. I'm so done with it. the only time I felt happy with how gay characters were portrayed was in arcane. because every character in arcane is though out and fleshed out, they feel like real characters with actual flaws
I certainly don't disagree with you, but to be fair to Hollywood...
Ha! Never thought I'd say that...
Anyway... Hollywood thrives on stereotypes. You can usually identify the hero, the hero's love interest, the traitor, the villain, etc. within a few minutes. And there's nothing wrong with that as such. Done correctly, stereotypes can help the story progress at pace. Problem is when those stereotypes becomes something to be pushed.
@@chaoscarl8414
Hollywood can't do stereotypes right, so they shouldn't even try. Hell, they don't know how to do anything but lazy tropes.
yes, stereotypes are issue
Arcane is the best thing to come on screen in the last decade, in my opinion.
Right.
It's like a dumb, out-of-nowhere sex scene. If you can cut it out (literally in China and Christianity's case) and not miss anything, or if it does nothing to enhance or serve the story, THEN WHY EVEN HAVE IT???
for the record as a fan who is gay, y'all are fine and ain't homophobes, some people need a spine and learn there faults to become a better person.
but you see, that requires a degree of admitting that youre in the wrong, and disney just isnt built for that(well, not anymore since theyre all woke at this point)
The sad thing is it stopped being something we could discuss a while ago it became gay people are just born that way now I don't care about gay people just like I couldn't give two shits about straight people but the instant we stop conversation to learn not to be correct but just learn new things we have a serious problem
I didn't even mind the gay scenes at all...if anything it was the people defending the movie that we're being too preachy about gay politics. Also, as much as I would luv to see us have the ability to artificially create babies in the future I wanna first see all abandoned children of the world get adopted first and see our population go on a massive decline b4 we start justifying the need for gay couples or other exceptional couples to start being able to have kids of their own.
Honestly I can’t care what people do.
we can see some people demand to go out wearing a furry suit- if all they had was 500$ gift card to some xxxToy store and they demand you to accept that which I’m fine with even if they go to schools- as long as they accept someone retaliating against them. They can’t stand that even as they force people to violate their religious beliefs.
Those people then act and hold ‘I am weak’ as a shield and demand ‘compassion’ as leverage to demand government send cops, agents and even soldiers to anyone who disagrees with them.
The civil war was fought to bring agents to your house and it was fight to create Lobbyists. That is where the term came from- after Lincoln’s ‘American system’ was made people would be in the lobby to make deals that Lobbyists was a coin termed at the time since it wasn’t common until Lincoln’s American system.
And let’s not mention that Lincoln didn’t want to look bad for how many people he was going to execute so instead he signed a paper that was to remove certain people from their land- leading to the trail of tears.
Nobody says that the people who fought in the north did the trail of tears. Let that sink in.
Thank you :) How do you define "homophobe"?
2 same sex people kissing is immoral and yet if it was 2 different genders kissing it would be fine like what da fuk? hmm.....
They released a poster featuring Andy sitting in a packed movie theater for Lightyear. If they wanted to be more accurate. They should have had him sitting in a theater all too himself. Would have been more accurate. Lol
I saw the movie, it was a mistake. It was bad-they humiliated Buzz, made a strong black woman (and then her granddaughter) be the alpha over him, made Buzz the bad guy (Emperer Zerg), all characters were neurotic and full of guilt, and it was boring in many parts. The gay kiss just a sprinkle on the crap donut that was the movie.
Sounds like crap tbh.
That's pretty much what I thought just reading the plot on wikipedia, the gay couple didnt even cross my mind...the plot just sounded boring.
Lol! This comment is hilarious? Are you serious? Must have gone into the movie with some massive preconceptions and bias. There's also an evil Buzz in Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, complain about that too? Lol!
You guys are a breath of fresh air! I’ve watched shad for a while, but I’m very glad I found this channel too! Looking forward to more from you guys in the future!
It reminded me of the controversy around the fact that Mario wouldn't be voiced by Charles Martinet. But at least that made sense, to an extent. As far as I know, Martinet doesn't have any huge success from acting in films. He's a successful video game actor, and Mario is a character who doesn't tend to audibly talk much anyway. So, it might be fair to assume he couldn't really handle a film role. And who knows, maybe Chris Pratt can do a decent impersonation of Martinet's style? I doubt it, but maybe. We don't know yet.
But Tim Allen is completely different. He's highly experienced and a very successful film actor. It just makes no sense at all to replace him outside of ideological bias.
Tim Allen is one of the few openly conservative actors out there who is actually good at his job.
But it’s not a bias against conservatives and “right-leaning” people, it’s a bias against white men. PERIOD. Trevor Fletcher, who was in the latest Daily Wire movie “Terror on the Prairie” is a fairly progressive guy and HE got rejected purely because he was a white man. And the fact that he had talent didn’t help him either.
Charles Martinet seems like a fine guy, but the only "voice acting" he needs to do is "wa-hoo" and "lets-a-go."
@@NathanCassidy721
You may be right in some cases. But in this case, they replaced Tim Allen with another white man, so I don't think this is one of those times. This case was probably just ideological, pure and simple.
@@Arassar he also did paarthurnax from skyrim
@@AkatsukiEmpire and the villain in jet set radio
Chris Evans is 41 with no kids and telling people with multiple kids that they're the ones who will die off
For me, I don’t trust Disney to make anything decent nowadays. Taking ideology out of it, they just don’t have the capability to tell a basic story anymore. I describe it as thus:
Their ego says: “Im going to write the next classic on par with War and Peace.”
Their talent says: “No you can’t. Because you can’t even write the outline of The Hungry, Hungry Caterpillar without making a sexual reference.”
Agreed.
Smol hat nepotism in Hollywood. What else is new?
@samuel fox That movie was forgotten 2 Weeks after it came out... I forgot about it until I saw yer post...
@samuel fox I never saw it and forgot about it honestly.
It just struck as a pathetic attempt to "represent latinx". And the Latinos and Latinas have rejected their bullshit.
I've said this before: If you can't depict an interpersonal relationship without physical intimacy, you only think of a relationship as access to physical intimacy.
Sacrifice, loyalty, cooperation, respect, honor, patience. These are a few aspects of a relationship that can be explored, give a strong message to audience of all standings and ages, and is not controversial in the slightest.
For some reason, every time I hear about "gay scene in *insert movie here*" its always a kiss and it always adds nothing to the film.
Well, gay characters are considered "controversial", so of course characters showing signs of being gay will be reigned in from being "too gay", and will more likely be side-characters (particularly ones that can be edited out). So of course we get basically no "good" gay romances, because that takes character development, it's something that's not afforded to gay characters. A kiss is simply a very simple, wholesome way to unmistakable acknowledge that two characters are a couple, unless you have time to listen to them give some epic account of their whole relationship.
Also, I don't think gay kisses are very common. Let's look at other Disney properties. There was that character in the Beauty and the Beast remake who was supposed to be a sort of token gay character, but all he ever did was dance with a dude, I think? I remember something about two women in the Finding Nemo sequel who were sort of kind of rumored to be an implied couple, they certainly didn't kiss.
Luca is probably the closest to a Disney movie about gay characters, and they don't kiss. Of course, that movie is primarily about metaphors for being gay, more so than it is about them being technically gay.
I feel like you're somehow trying to hold gay characters to a standard you wouldn't hold straight characters to, or at least one that it's pretty much impossible for gay characters to meet, as long as they're not actually allowed to have gay character development.
@@tobiashagstrom4168 I disagree with that strongly. In particular I point to Old Guard there's a gay couple and one that's very heavily implied to be at least bi and they're all main characters. I don't like gay characters by and large, I don't support LGBTQ, but I'm fine with them in movies like Old Guard because I'm not beat over the head with it. I'm not seeing a cheesy stereotype. And gay characters have been appearing in more and more stuff regardless of quality of presentation and the only time I hear about it being controversial is when they try to slip it in kid movies.
@@nekrosprime8415 Again, as long as gay characters are confined to small token appearances, they're certainly not going to be very compelling. Give them more space to breath and they... well, I wouldn't say they will all be good, in fact they might be just as shitty as most throwaway straight romances are. Let's face it the "include a romance sub-plot" is really fricking common, a lot of movies just do it as a box-ticking exercise. So don't pretend that heterosexual portrayals in movies is some refined and respect beautiful artform that gay relationships can never live up to.
What I want are positive portrayals of gay people. If you haven't noticed, having villain characters who are somewhat queer-coded is not that uncommon, characters who are flamboyant, emotive with their hands, sassy, often look like they're wearing makeup, etc. This is basically true for a lot of Disney villains. There was also some weird gay stuff going on with villains in that one James Bond movie, or the BBC Sherlock show.
Now, I often love me some mischievous gay villains, but you can probably understand why that's gotten really bitter-sweet over time for me. I don't want media to reinforce the idea that queer people are dangerous or untrustworthy. I want wholesome queer characters.
In fact, form what I hear about it, the couple in the Lightyear movies seems pretty up my alley. They get a wholesome moment, it establishes something of what Buzz I protecting, and it establishes him as a sympathetic guy who is happy when others are happy. So whilst it's not a queer main character, it seems pretty good from what I've seen of it. So I'm very disheartened by people freaking out over it.
@@tobiashagstrom4168 but my point is they aren't token side characters. They're all over the place now. They're standard. How they appear and people's reaction is more about writing than people reacting. Haven't seen the movie, but from the sounds of it it's just a small kiss. So why is Disney acting like it's a big deal? And if Disney gets to act like it's a big deal positive, no reason for those against to act like it's a big deal negative.
@@nekrosprime8415 I'm not the most plugged in media hawk, but I'll dare to go out on a limb and say queer characters are not "all over the place", largely because they're generally considered "risky" to have, when there is resistance to their inclusion, their inclusion is pretty much always going to be charged as an act of "activism", because it's a statement to have them. I wouldn't need to be a statement if people didn't mind it. I wouldn't even be surprised if the EVENTUAL natural state of this is for queer characters to be slightly over-represented compared to real life, because it adds variety, although that could just be bisexual wishful-thinking.
"...people's reaction is more about writing than people reacting" Bullshit. This is NOT a standard you have for straight characters, don't even pretend. I mentioned earlier how the scene in this movie seems like it makes perfect sense according to writing logic, it's a simple "you know these are the good guys because they're wholesome" type storytelling, and it establishes Buzz as a guy who likes it when other people are happy, there is nothing wrong with that writing-wise.
"So why is Disney acting like it's a big deal?" Because people are making a big deal out of it, that's why. How can you act like that isn't happening, like it isn't something you're effectively part of?
It SHOULDN'T be a big deal. If we somehow lived in a world where straight characters were not acceptable, but gay ones were, then yes, it would be a big deal if they started putting straight characters on the screen. Even though it SHOULDN'T be a big deal, because it's a fine thing to do, just as letting queer people feel like they're accepted as part of society and culture as anything better than villains and crazy people is also good.
"And if Disney gets to act like it's a big deal positive, no reason for those against to act like it's a big deal negative." This sounds like you want me to accept some sort of subjectivist free-for-all cultural nihilism. Well, the problem with that is that I think there's a right and a wrong answer to whether at the very least some amount of representation is good or not. The reason you shouldn't act like its a big deal in the negative is because that'd be *wrong*. Like how Star Treck featuring an interracial kiss back in the day was a big deal, even though it shouldn't have been, it was a big deal in the positive because it was in defiance of the people who incorrectly thought it was a big deal in the negative.
Tim Allen actually re-dubbed Buzz Lightyear for the first 3 episodes of the Buzz lightyear of Star Command, they put those 3 episodes together and made it a movie.
You guys handle this subject delicately and with honesty.
Disney thought they cancelled Tim Allen
What Disney did was cancelled Buzz Lightyear 2.
Chris Evans is a guy who had been carried by RDJ for the past ten years.
Without RDJ, Chris lost his relevance and commenting something like this made it even worse.
Great take.
@in desperate need of a scotch TONY STANK
Apparently Captain America doesn't know how biology works if he thinks straight people are going to die off like dinosaurs lmao
I was unsure about watching it, thank you for saving me the trouble, I do appreciate it.
Remember, one of the best things you can do is ignore this movie and go watch Maverick.
The shills are sad, strange little people and they have my pity.
They don’t need it or deserve it.
It’s because of them that we are in the spot we are in right now.
I understood that reference
Good riddance to the loonies, I say.
Even as an atheist, I find the level of effort put forward by Hollywood feels super toxic.
To the propagandist, all culture exists to serve the cause. It's done with purpose. There are plenty of words for it.
They're trying to push a circle, and then blame you for not calling it progress.
Not to call you out for your atheism, but you might find that a lot of this stuff being pushed is being done by people who would be considered sectarian.
In the greasiest irony in history, we have a bunch of godless individuals have found religion in the form of “social justice”.
“We are all pawns of something even greater: memes, the DNA of the soul. They shape our will. They are the culture. They are everything we pass on. Expose someone to anger long enough, they will learn to hate. They become a carrier. Envy, greed, despair: all memes, all passed on.” - Monsoon from Metal Gear Rising
@@TrueMentorGuidingMoonlight based Monsoon
I didn't see what the big deal was about the kiss at first but you guys did an excellent job explaining it from a parent's viewpoint. I hadn't even considered that.
But it's only 1 second long, and not even in-focus. How is this worse than Minnie Mouse kissing Micky in a close-up for 3 seconds?
Why is it suddenly less child-friendly?
@@rasmuskock8077 bc it is not just a kiss. The most confusing part (for many kids) is that one of the women is pregnant. Now, I have no problem with this making it’s way into a Marvel or R rated movie, but I would prefer it be kept out of PG content. I don’t feel like explaining to my 8 and 4 year old how two women make a baby after leaving the theater. Plus there was more overt affection beside the 1 second kiss. I used to think I was part of Disney’s intended audience. Now, I see I am clearly not, but Disney is happy to sneak their messaging into their animated features to indoctrinate my kids. There was no hint of the lgbt relationship in the trailers I saw. If they are so proud of it, it should be transparent and in the trailers.
@@TradMom I feel like the problem you stated about kids wondering about making babies would still apply even if the characters had been a straight couple, based on your argument about one of them being pregnant in the scene.
Not liking a movie just because there is a gay kiss? How that’s not homophobic?
I work in child care and have seen that kids don't understand the concept of gay or straight. Once I was siting with three children (two girls and one boy) one of the girls said "she was gonna marry the other girl", the boy then said that "she couldn't because only boy and girls could marry," the girl then said something like, "she would do it anyway."
I know this sounds like one of those made up stories for clout but the funniest thing was that at no point did these kid look up or stop drawing, They were just trying to understand the world around them, the girl doesn't know the deference between plutonic and romantic love and since she understand that mum and dad love each other and she loves her friend, she thinks "why wouldn't I marry her. The boy however is seeing marriage as between his mum and dad so he stated his understanding not to argue but because that is how kids learn and at no point did these kids get emotional in fact they didn't even seem invested.
I was dumbfounded by their conversation and ended up saying nothing, but there was nothing for me to say, it wasn't my place to inform them that's up to their parent. This wasn't the first or last time something like this has happened but I worry about people that WANT to influence children because it is very easy.
This is a great discussion. Kinda surprised it hit so close to home. I was initially excited in seeing the movie. I was a fan of the cartoon and this gave me similar vibes, but like everyone else apparently, the wokeness, dumping tim allen, ruined it for me. The biggest problem though is that it reminded me in full force how many scummy and despicable things disney has done(Mulan camps) and i just cannot justify giving them any money for anything.
the terrible pacing and clunky plot can be added.
Just think of it this way, there is one group which is having significantly less children than the other.
But said group is the one teaching those children so as to undermine the parent's ideals.
They don't reproduce the biological way, but the ideological way - control the schools, control the media, control the mind, control the future. They don't have to have the baggage of an emotional connection or investment at all - they have no clue of what it means to be a parent even though they call them 'their kids' and the actual parents 'caregivers'.
Parasites.
@@kaimagnus5760 Homeschooling rates were raising even pre-2020, and have only exploded since. There's still hope
The few people I've heard speak of this movie have said that it was ok
Not good but ok
Apparently (second hand info here) the woke stuff in the film is rather light but was pushed to the front by Disney
Add to that that people seem to be getting sick of politicizing everything would make this film (and plenty of other forms of media) flop more than they should
Sounds like Pixar is losing its magic, then. This should be the easiest thing to make completely awesome (and they have all the goodwill in the world to start with because it’s Buzz Lightyear) and the best they can pull off is “okay”? That’s just sad.
Oh My GOSH!!!! You guys actually let the music finish this time!!! That’s bugged me every video. Thank you SO much!!
Somehow I never knew until now just how BASED Shad is.
Can't be my fault if it's not available to watch in my country in the first place.
Oh it's definitely your fault. 😆 🤣
take pride in it being your fault :P
In mine too. Russia has a specific situation...
Lol! Yall so fun! And you making so many good points!
If I ever have kids, I'm going to be teaching them to write creatively. They'll need it.
If this keeps up, when i have kids they'll grow up on the same stuff as i watched as a kid smh.
You should do that regardless
They could grow up with a worse version of old stuff
As long as I'm some elite's pain in the ass, I feel I'm doing something right.
A movie review has never entertained me this much before
Shad at 13 mins your nature vs nurture is sooooooooo true.
I can anecdotally add that this plays out similarily in social settings. My sister at 13 in the 8th grade has been bullied for a couple years fornot identifying on the alphabets. She literally isnt in high school and these fucks are grooming and pushing the agenda
People be getting put in lockers for not being with the alphabet gang
Hey. Hope she’s doing ok.
Huh... like reading the alphabet, or?
(and if you don't want to talk about it, that is 100% fine with me. Hope everything is going well though.)
Thank you guys, I appreciate what you do. God bless your families
Agree with everything said here. What’s more though is the movie is a nonsensical time travel story. No kid would understand or enjoy it so the idea it was Andy’s favorite is laughable. Also, Chris Evans can get bent.
The Buzz Lightyear television show did have a time travel episode but it was a lot better than this movie
Good on you for sticking to your principles i disagree with you about the metaphysical nature of reality but i can respect the hell out of your commitment. Have a nice day.
They put Kant in one camp with Marx and declared Nietzsche, THE Nihilist himself, the good guy of the Enlightenment.
They have not the faintest idea what they are talking about.
There's a level of scuffed and informality to this channel that makes it feel like I'm just chatting with the boys. It's a nice contrast to Shad's main channel which feels like a medieval history lecture with the cool college professor.
2:01, I have no problem with that because Patrick Warburton played him in the Buzz Lightyear cartoon
I'm sorry, Shad, but this is now officially Oz's channel now.
Which one is Oz? The Fat one?
@@adrenjones9301 They're all Oz.
I had no idea that we shared these beliefs! There's so much craziness online these days, I'm so glad you guys are here to cut through the fog.
It is my fault. I took my son to see Bad Guys on Saturday morning instead of lightyear. Glad I contributed.
Thank you for your contribution XD
I saw The Bad Guys too and it gave me amusement and not socialist garbage.
Wait, have you guys been demonetised because you talk about “controversy”
Supreme UA-cam Leader Su’Zhan must really hate you lads
Keep up the good work!
HA!! It took me a bit to figure out that you were saying "Susan".
No way! Susan awarded herself a "free speech" award, there's no way she could be in favor of censorship! Are you saying she lied???? CEOs would NEVER lie. Ever. In a million years. 🤔
If they're going to take someone's lively hood over their stupid politics then I am also going to take away some of their source of income and not watch the dang movie.
"it's like poetry" I got that man, very nice quote
_"Oh, Hollywoke celebrity insults me so hard he/she convinced me to spend my hard earned money into a movie I dont like."_
SAID NO SANE PERSON WITH SELF RESPECT. GO WOKE, GO BROKE.
Buzz Lightyear of Star Command is the only background story and show that really rings true nothing else was needed.
there are some ideas I would like to re use in a setting of my own from the show.
I knew I liked you guys and now I have even more reasons to like you guys.
It's my fault that Lightyear is bombing? Good. Goooood.
Let the hatred flow trough you, and your journey to destroying Disney will be complete
Never knew you had a political channel, instantly subscribed
THE OUTRO DIDN'T CUT OUT JARRINGLY. What a wonderful day.
So Andy saw a movie in 1995 with a same sex couple….in 95 for a kids movie. Ok
LOL exactly.
I'm so proud to be responsible for this
I wanted to see it. After the nonsense I wasn't going to take my boys to see it.
Always love your takes guys. Appreciate the spot where a point was made that whatever your kids decided you would still love them no matter what.
Hollywood needs to back off and stay out of politics and trying to push our kids in their direction. Let them decide and the parents be parents
DUDE! I legit did not know you were a brother in the faith. Awesome! Love your videos.
I hate Disney now a days
Edit: I deeply hate Disney
I don't watch anything from Disney.
Fyi, nowadays is one word.
Don't forget everyone! Being blamed for this guarantees citizenship! Probably!
I'm doing my part!
In the nature vs nurture argument regarding sexuality, my understanding is fundamentally its nature, but influenced by nurture. The influence of nurture only significantly takes hold if nature allows for flexibility. For example, my observation is that the number of people who are bisexual by nature is far higher then generally understood, but many bisexual people dismiss their same sex attractions due to upbringing/culture/ect (sometimes this also goes the other way, weather due to culture, or sometimes trauma). If nature doesn't allow for flexibility, as with people who are entirely straight or entirely gay, forcing them into the wrong box is exponentially more harmful for them then it is for people who have that inbuilt flexibility.
Oz, your shilling of the patreon was one of the most unexpectedly funny things I’ve seen.
Although I am not religious. I was raised in a Catholic background and I agree with Christian morality. I think it is conversative morality and for too long we on the Right have let the Left push us and take ground in the name of progressive values. There needs to be a more balanced approach and a promotion of wholesome family life. In order to do this we need to help socialism and feminism implode and at the moment wokeness is doing that.
They cannot claim abortion is a women's rights issue if they cannot define a woman. We should adhere to the classical seven sins and call out lust and pride the same way we are called homophobes or racists for simply wishing to coexist.
Andy couldn't have watched this movie in 1995 because nobody would greenlight the gay kiss then
Reminds me of Rome when they accepted Christianity and then made it their own religion. The idea of people talking about how God was going to judge all the evil rulers and peoples just didnt paint their authority in a good light, so they changed the meaning of the end times to be metaphorical. Its what happens when the original material becomes corporate, they meddle with the original themes of the content because they dont want to lose their authority and power. Theyd rather it point to them instead. Thats what disney did to star wars, marvel and any other material they acquired.
I'm an atheist and I support social progress. I don't really subscribe to any political orientation. But I also agree with you Shad. I don't think any kiss, gay or straight is appropriate in movies that are very much made for children. I really don't like inclusion just for the sake of inclusion and lazy relationship portrays.
I should add that the majority of progressive people don't want this either. It's just that twitter and hollywood are loud af.
Why shouldnt kissed be portrayed in children's media? We have that for ages, people kiss all the time in reality in front of them too, so what is the issue?
@@Soapy-chan_old depends on the age a movie is targetted to. Something like toy story is watched by really young children. If its targetted towards teenagers, it is fine to have kisses, gay or not. I think a portray of relationship development is better to focus on than a kiss but it is Disney, they don't know what story is anymore.
Also, with real life kisses, children will see it from their parents and they will generally know it is a sign of affection and realize that for other people as well, but movies, it depends on the story really. It can be portrayed in a lot of different ways and parents want some control over that.
@@soulwynd There are many movies and cartoons marketed for kids that have kisses in them though. (Edit: Also many movies will be shown to kids regardless of them being targeted or not)
So when in those movies the kisses are shown as a sign of affection by the story, then where is the problem?
@@Soapy-chan_old True, children will end up watching stuff above their age. I suppose it's more of a parental decision other than anything.
I don't really have a problem with it. I just don't think it's appropriate for ages under 8 or so. I'd more likely not let my children watch this toy story cause it's a bad movie, not because of the kiss.
@@soulwynd But WHY isn't it appropriate for 8 or under? It doesn't make sense and we had this forever and nothing bad happened!
I will be honest, I don't like Mormons. but I find your contents and standards very entertaining and very agreeable. This is the tolerant that society nowadays just lacking.
We'll win you over eventually ^_^
@@KNIGHTSWATCH You can’t win me over because I drink a lot of tea everyday 😛
But jokes aside, I really don’t care what other people’s religions are. I don’t push against them, and they won’t push against me. As long as I can enjoy a meal with someone and have civil conversation, my guest’s religious beliefs wouldn’t change anything.
Mormons are pretty chill but they’re a bit of a meme here in the US.
@@aroniasdecus Here in Utah, Utah members are memes to other members across the states. It's kinda funny to see
@@neversaydiegaming4868 In Southern Utah, it's those up in the Wasatch area that are memes to us.
So much for ‘to infinity and beyond’
Love how that was a joke to make lightyear look dense. There is nothing beyond ♾️ now they are using it as a battle cry against the critics. 😆
To Identity-Politics and Beyond!
@@jeffreytroublefield4265 Always thought the "and beyond" was a light-hearted reminder that there is ALWAYS something new to discover.
This is the Disney Star wars of the Toy Story Universe which is lol
I figured that the Disney controversy regarding their attempts to dictate the policies of one of the states over - as you discussed - a parent's right to have a say in what their child is taught, rather than staying out of it, played a huge role in it. Or if not a huge part, then certainly very important.
Even though I'm Catholic, the gay kiss BY ITSELF doesn't affect me or rub me in any wrong way. But I do have one question: Hawnthorne is a LESBIAN with a WIFE. Buzz ends up in the far future where he meets her GRANDDAUGHTER that LOOKS JUST LIKE HER. If Hawthorne had a wife, how did she have a granddaughter with her genetics? Is there an explanation in the movie? Cloning? Biological grandfather? How?
Disney makes little sense lol... Watch Disney Star Wars lately?... They care little for stories making sense...
Her wife is a pre-op trans, because transwomen can be lesbians also 😮🤮🤮🤮🤮
Top gun maverick: *Has a message before showing thanking the fans
Lightyear: *makes a tweet that shuns the Fans
I've said this before and been called a homophobe for it, but I strongly believe that kids should be kids. That you shouldn't be teaching them anything related to sex until they reach an age where they are starting to ask questions, entering puberty, and are mentally mature enough to start to understand such things.
That they should be allowed to figure out who they are in their own time and what they're attracted to based on the examples they see in their everyday life. Not what they see on a screen.
"B-b-b-b-but there's gay people everywhere and it's normal. Representing them on a screen isn't going to confuse kids, it's just going to show them what's normal."
Let children figure out who they are based on what they see in their lives. Not what's on a screen.
Because the LGBTQXYZ community is a small percentage of the populace.
But, because of the mainstream pushing their lifestyle so much, there have been people who've literally told that they make up 50% of the populace... that's how delusional some people are.
I mean, in that case, we need more heterosexual representation because apparently, I'm part of a 50% minority as well.
If your sexuality is what defines you, what gives you worth, then that's pretty sad...
“Weapon to surpass metal gear” got me 😂
I can't wait for the pendulum to swing back. I wish I would've known about that scene before my son saw it at his summer camp.
I'm half convinced this movie wasn't supposed to be about Buzz Lightyear, it was originally gonna be its own original thing but execs made them slap Buzz Lightyear on it thinking it would sell well.
So when can we expect a review of the finale of the REEEEVA show?
You mean the Reva prequel, Kenobi? That went up already.
If it was based more on the cartoon series they made for Buzz Light Year, it might have been cooler.
I loved the Lightyear movie. I was excited when I saw the first teaser trailer, and was not disappointed. The last time I was excited about a movie, I was incredibly disappointed, so I was very relieved, especially since I was worried a few weeks before I watched the movie.
It's a Pixar movie anyway, so I should've expected it to be good (or at least about as okay as Onward was, which isn't awful). I would say that Pixar is still a beacon of hope in the garbage fire that Disney has created for themselves.
I'm also not really on social media at all, so I never heard any reviews or anything about the movie before I watched it (other than the trailers).