bonfarr said:
What about the midgets? Will they be allowed in the update?
bonfarr said:
What about the midgets? Will they be allowed in the update?
Well, I mean, Dorothy's aunt and uncle were married, cis-gendered male and female, so there's that. And even that is just implied/assumed, and makes no difference to the story line.Saltwater Assassin said:
How many times in the original film did the movie address hetero realtionships & or sex?
Zero.
It is a kids movie, WHY DO THEY THINK KIDS NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS????????
Just let kids be kids.
Wait...wait...wait....no way this can bomb. There is a certain poster on this forum that guarantees that their is no mightier economic force than the gay dollar. According to that poster, it makes perfect sense to model your business around attracting the gays at the expense of everyone else. No way this movie can fail with so much gay cash coming in.BadMoonRisin said:
Makes a movie literally no one except for maybe 5% of the population is actually willing to see.
After the movie bombs: "We blame review-bombing, anti-LGBTQ right-winger, white nationalist trolls for the movie not doing well."
Rinse and repeat.
Of course Wikipedia has it. Thankslb3 said:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Garland_as_a_gay_iconCanyonAg77 said:lb3 said:The Wizard of Oz made Judy Garland an icon for generations of gay men. They literally can't make that movie more gay friendly.CDUB98 said:
How do you make that thing any more gay?
Help the old guy.
Why did Oz make Dorothy a gay icon? Seems I've read that Judy Garland was a friend of the gay community, are they just transferring that to Dorothy?
Maybe I don't have a sufficiently dirty mind to make the connection between gay men and Dorothy.
titan said:Serious question: Could this possibly be money laundering operation or a way it is done? Why would a studio set out to make what is almost certainly a bomb and completely unwanted out of the gate. To the point where few would even bother to go see regardless? It seems an avoidable flushing of money and capital unless that is the purpose.BadMoonRisin said:
Makes a movie literally no one except for maybe 5% of the population is actually willing to see.
After the movie bombs: "We blame review-bombing, anti-LGBTQ right-winger, white nationalist trolls for the movie not doing well."
Rinse and repeat.
Just have the Munchkins have a gay orgy in honor of Dorothy.CDUB98 said:
How do you make that thing any more gay?
coconutED said:
Director Promises Homosexuality in 'Wizard of Oz' RemakeQuote:
Kenya Barris, the director of the upcoming Wizard of Oz remake, has promised to inject homosexuality into the classic children's film.
This week, Barris said to far-left Variety, "[W]e're going to turn a mirror on where we're at right now and take disparate characters from the LGBTQ community, from different cultural communities and socioeconomic communities, and tell a story that reflects the world. I think this is the best time to do that."
Quote:
and tell a story that reflects the world.
C@LAg said:whatever the answer you get, cut it in half.WestTexasAg said:Quote:
and tell a story that reflects the world.
And what percentage of the world is gay?
Same thing with "Gone With The Wind". Now if a cable channel dares to run it, they only do so with a disclaimer.annie88 said:
When I was a kid that movie would only come on television once a year. It was a big deal because this was before VCRs or being able to rent movies or even really see them in the theater that much if it was a classic.
Crocker91 said:
Who on earth is stupid enough to invest in that movie? I predict it never gets made--not because people object to the content but rather because there aren't enough morons with real money to back the project.