Jump to content
Follow Gaga Daily on Telegram
event

"Stonewall" movie flops VICIOUSLY at box office


Supersonic

Featured Posts

The director literally said he wasn't making the movie for just gay people and that he wanted the main character to be "straight acting" so that straight people could relate to him.

1000000% deserved if not it deserved even worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

it is both sad and justified.

Sad because regardless how inaccurate it is,

it was still a film portraying the battle of our community 

for the same rights. 

People got so focused on another subject and forgetting this 

part of story.

It is like reading a map, and they only look for one specific country

than see it as a whole.

 

(ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ✧*:・゚ unknown.. despair.. a lost (*´艸`*) ♡♡♡
Link to post
Share on other sites

DrewStevens

 

I'm sorry that you feel that I am putting you down, that really isn't my intention. It's just that you aren't making much sense.

"It's not a comparison, it's putting subjects together in a certain category because they share something in common."

That is literally the definition of comparing. :lmao:


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's not the definition of 'comparing'. 

The definition of 'comparing' is: estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between. 

Classify and compare are two different things.

Classify: Lady Gaga and Beyonce are both Grammy Award winners.

Compare: Beyonce and Lady Gaga are both Grammy Award winners, but Beyonce has more Grammy awards than Lady Gaga.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not the definition of 'comparing'. 

The definition of 'comparing' is: estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between. 

Classify and compare are two different things.

Classify: Lady Gaga and Beyonce are both Grammy Award winners.

Compare: Beyonce and Lady Gaga are both Grammy Award winners, but Beyonce has more Grammy awards than Lady Gaga.

You were comparing them.

The level of hair splitting you are doing in order to prove your point is halarious. You lumped the film makers behind Stonewall in with a child rapist. Whether you were "classifying" or "comparing" is an irrelevant distinction. It was a silly and distasteful comment, if you don't agree, mozel tov.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DrewStevens

 

You were comparing them.

The level of hair splitting you are doing in order to prove your point is halarious. You lumped the film makers behind Stonewall in with a child rapist. Whether you were "classifying" or "comparing" is an irrelevant distinction. It was a silly and distasteful comment, if you don't agree, mozel tov.

The difference between classifying or comparing is indeed relevant. It's not my fault you can't see the difference between those two things. That was not the definition of comparing and you didn't say anything to prove that was the definition.

Of course the post was silly. Any post with the phrase 'another day another slay' is not meant to be serious but you had to make a big deal about it. I was not trying to compare them and I didn't. I clarified that I didn't meant to compare them in another post so I don't know what the problem is. There's nothing else to contribute to the discussion with this absurd argument about English grammar and misunderstandings.

BTW It's not mozel tov, it's mazel tov.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between classifying or comparing is indeed relevant. It's not my fault you can't see the difference between those two things. That was not the definition of comparing and you didn't say anything to prove that was the definition.

Of course the post was silly. Any post with the phrase 'another day another slay' is not meant to be serious but you had to make a big deal about it. I was not trying to compare them and I didn't. I clarified that I didn't meant to compare them in another post so I don't know what the problem is. There's nothing else to contribute to the discussion with this absurd argument about English grammar and misunderstandings.

BTW It's not mozel tov, it's mazel tov.

 

You are right, this conversation is silly and should end. So lets wrap it up with a compilation of your contradictions and nonsensical remarks.

"There's nothing else to contribute to the discussion with this absurd argument about English grammar and misunderstandings." Then you felt the need to prolong the absurdity by correcting what is obviously a typo: "BTW It's not mozel tov, it's mazel tov." Thanks Miss Streisand for the clarification.

"It's not a comparison, it's putting subjects together in a certain category because they share something in common." Then you give the definition of the word comparison which includes the phrase "note the similarity or dissimilarity between." You noted the similarity between a child rapist and the film Stonewall, there by comparing them..or similarly classifying them. 

But my favorite, "Am I saying all those people are equally horrible? No, I'm saying they are all criminals." The film makers of Stonewall are criminals, not negligent or lazy filmmakers, but criminals. Azealia Banks, not just homophobic, but a criminal. lol

This was a blast Drew.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

DrewStevens

 

You are right, this conversation is silly and should end. So lets wrap it up with a compilation of your contradictions and nonsensical remarks.

"There's nothing else to contribute to the discussion with this absurd argument about English grammar and misunderstandings." Then you felt the need to prolong the absurdity by correcting what is obviously a typo: "BTW It's not mozel tov, it's mazel tov." Thanks Miss Streisand for the clarification.

"It's not a comparison, it's putting subjects together in a certain category because they share something in common." Then you give the definition of the word comparison which includes the phrase "note the similarity or dissimilarity between." You noted the similarity between a child rapist and the film Stonewall, there by comparing them..or similarly classifying them. 

But my favorite, "Am I saying all those people are equally horrible? No, I'm saying they are all criminals." The film makers of Stonewall are criminals, not negligent or lazy filmmakers, but criminals. Azealia Banks, not just homophobic, but a criminal. lol

This was a blast Drew.

If I pointed out that it's mazel and not mozel it's because maybe you didn't know how to write the word because the a and the o are very far away from each other. I only pointed out this typo from others because it has a cultural meaning. That correction doesn't create any further argument unlike you saying that comparing is the same as classifying. 

The definition is still different. "Putting subjects together in a certain category because they share something in common" is different from "note the similarity or dissimilarity between". But anyway, even if it came as a comparison it doesn't mean I was equating them. There's nothing wrong in comparing, you can compare bad things and still not equate them in every term.

And of course you are always going to find something wrong if you don't read full sentences or just pick parts of them.

Here's the full sentence:

It's just like saying "Another day another criminal in jail. A murder, a thief and a 
rapist, all in jail". Am I saying all those people are equally horrible? No, I'm saying they are all criminals.

Where did I say Azealia and the film makers were criminals? If you read carefully you will notice that I was saying that the murderer (which I spelled wrong), the rapist and the thief from my example are all criminals. It was an example that had nothing to do with Azealia or the film makers but the argument about comparison. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

AlphaMonster

Target audience: Homos. 

Main character: A middle class men fighting for politics... 

It seems like a movie destined to flop. Make it a newly grad gay boy f*cking his boss for a raise, it will gross 10 times more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I pointed out that it's mazel and not mozel it's because maybe you didn't know how to write the word because the a and the o are very far away from each other. I only pointed out this typo from others because it has a cultural meaning. That correction doesn't create any further argument unlike you saying that comparing is the same as classifying. 

The definition is still different. "Putting subjects together in a certain category because they share something in common" is different from "note the similarity or dissimilarity between". But anyway, even if it came as a comparison it doesn't mean I was equating them. There's nothing wrong in comparing, you can compare bad things and still not equate them in every term.

And of course you are always going to find something wrong if you don't read full sentences or just pick parts of them.

Here's the full sentence:

It's just like saying "Another day another criminal in jail. A murder, a thief and a 
rapist, all in jail". Am I saying all those people are equally horrible? No, I'm saying they are all criminals.

Where did I say Azealia and the film makers were criminals? If you read carefully you will notice that I was saying that the murderer (which I spelled wrong), the rapist and the thief from my example are all criminals. It was an example that had nothing to do with Azealia or the film makers but the argument about comparison. 

 

 

Oy vey, my little Drewbie, I'm not going to bother reading that spiel. We exhausted the conversation. Why are you still kvetshing? Such plotz over this gornish? I'm a mentsh your a meshugener, so what who cares?

Have a good night Drew, shabbat shalom, As-salamu alaykum, adieu.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The director literally said he wasn't making the movie for just gay people and that he wanted the main character to be "straight acting" so that straight people could relate to him.

1000000% deserved if not it deserved even worse.

Isn't that an eternal controversy?. If you make gay characters that are flaming over the top queens, more "straight acting" gays will complain about stereotyping. If you cater to such "straight-acting" gays, you are straight-washing your gay characters.

The Cosby Show in the 80s had mass appeal because it portrayed a nice upper-middle class family who happened to have to have black skin, rather than a typical African-American family with typical black problems. Yet a lot of blacks found it aspirational or comforting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that an eternal controversy?. If you make gay characters that are flaming over the top queens, more "straight acting" gays will complain about stereotyping. If you cater to such "straight-acting" gays, you are straight-washing your gay characters.

The Cosby Show in the 80s had mass appeal because it portrayed a nice upper-middle class family who happened to have to have black skin, rather than a typical African-American family with typical black problems. Yet a lot of blacks found it aspirational or comforting.

The difference is that this isn't a quirky made up TV sitcom. This is a real life story they're trying to tell here and they need to keep it true to the FACTS. Imagine if when casting 12 years a slave they decided to cast white people to play the slaves so that white people could relate to the story more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...