 | | Shrek 2
|
| Went and saw Shrek 2 Saturday night. Funny beyond words, this is a movie everyone's gotta see. -Tim (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Shrek 2
|
| (...) The Pinocchio scene was just wrong. S P O I L E R ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ IF Schrek really loved Fiona, he would have remained human and not let her remain an Ogre. JOHN (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Shrek 2
|
| (...) Yeah, it was inappropriate. But, it was unbelievably hilarious too. You're right, John. I have a big problem with teaching kids that young about erotic attire and attitudes. One example I especially loathe -- and you may have seen this in your (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Shrek 2
|
| (...) John, I think you missed the boat on this one. Although Shrek would have stayed human to make life easier for Fiona, she didn't want him to because she knew that being an ogre is what makes him who he is and who she fell in love with. (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Shrek 2
|
| Spoilers... + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + How on earth was the Pinocchio scene "wrong"? And why should the man get to obey the woman's desire more than the opposite? Fiona loved Shrek as an Ogre and Shref loved himself as an (...) (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Shrek 2
|
| (...) No it wasn't wrong. or inappropriate. They didn't refer to anything sexual. It's a feminin underwear. No mentions as to what it could mean, i.e. being a transvestite or being sexy. It was simply an underwaer. A Thong! What's wrong about that? (...) (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Shrek 2
|
| (...) If I have to explain, you probably wouldn't understand anyway. The premature sexualization of our youth is one of the biggest evils of our society. (...) Why did anyone have to change? Kind of a mixed-racial message, no? I was thinking about (...) (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| |
