Imagine raising a family so fragile it needs to be shielded from the Barbie movie.

He didn't say that. He said people are shunning others who take their kids to it over the Ron Burgundy level talk about men and women's roles in society that is discussed in the movie.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Or they could have just made a movie based in reality, where people across the spectrum of masculine or feminine can either be great people or *******s. The men who physically built the elaborate sets Margot and Ryan danced through and made sure the electric components worked probably weren't toxic, just masculine. And the pre-teen who cheered for Barbie is probably going to be bullied on day 1 of school by a girl in her grade who looks like a young Margot. Toxic masculinity presented as the villainous force is just so dumb, which is why I've heard of so many women watching this movie and cringing throughout.

---

This movie literally takes place in a toy world...

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I just do not understand how some of you KEEP doing this, over and over and over again - running to message boards to not only b*tch endlessly about the content of movies you haven't seen, but going so far as to shun others for taking their kids to it, just like you did in this thread, when you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I just can't imagine trusting people like Ben f/cking Shapiro, or any of the usual, ultra-bias suspects on this board, to paint an even remotely accurate portrayal of this movie, never mind trusting them to understand it in the first place.

---

Why do you give a **** what parents shield their kids from? Strange take.

People probably trust Ben Shapiro because he is right about a lot of things and they like other takes he has on current culture.

---

It's funny how you call ME out for "giving a sh*t what parents shield their kids from" and NOT the guy actually telling parents what to shield their kids from.

My opinion of it was formed by critical reviews on RT and IMDB days before Ben did his, along with several friends and acquaintances who saw it and wrote up reviews. If only we could all be as wise as you, TC, so we could "get" this movie.

Forgot, only you can do that.

And only Hollywood can get political. But if you have a problem with it, it cannot be discussed on this forum.

And Ben Shapiro is just about always right. Maybe he's wrong about this one film being woke, anti-man, and unfunny, but he is very smart and usually dead on about things so I tend to believe him more than Hollywood libs when it comes to this. Liberals don't debate him, they shout him down and drive him violently off of their campuses etc. But they can't debate him...it never ends up well for them.

Whos Juan said:

---

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Or they could have just made a movie based in reality, where people across the spectrum of masculine or feminine can either be great people or *******s. The men who physically built the elaborate sets Margot and Ryan danced through and made sure the electric components worked probably weren't toxic, just masculine. And the pre-teen who cheered for Barbie is probably going to be bullied on day 1 of school by a girl in her grade who looks like a young Margot. Toxic masculinity presented as the villainous force is just so dumb, which is why I've heard of so many women watching this movie and cringing throughout.

---

This movie literally takes place in a toy world...

---

Nothing any of these guys can say is more hilarious than the fact that they're grown men upset about a Barbie movie on a message board.

Yeah, no one is allowed to dislike anything on a message board about movies. We all have to like the projects that TC overhypes (which is a lot of them). Why do you try to gatekeep a message board that you don't run? People like and dislike movies. People agree with and disagree with the moral messages of music and movies. Grow up.

"And Ben Shapiro is basically always right."

Actually, this, right here, quite possibly takes the cake for The Most Hilarious Thing Ever Said on TexAgs.

How you guys can say stuff like this with a straight face is beyond me.

Imagine someone here trying to win an argument with you by seriously proclaiming "And Rachel Maddow is basically always right."

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Yeah, no one is allowed to dislike anything on a message board about movies. We all have to like the projects that TC overhypes (which is a lot of them). Why do you try to gatekeep a message board that you don't run? People like and dislike movies. People agree with and disagree with the moral messages of music and movies. Grow up.

---

You haven't even SEEN the movie.

All I'm asking is that you actually go SEE the movie for yourself before b*tching endlessly about its contents on the internet.

Incoming...

I think people who use the term "toxic masculinity" should be kicked in the fleshy blob between their legs. It's an absolutely eye-roll inspiring, nauseating term that the people who made this were smart enough not to touch.

TCTTS said:

---

Whos Juan said:

---

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Or they could have just made a movie based in reality, where people across the spectrum of masculine or feminine can either be great people or *******s. The men who physically built the elaborate sets Margot and Ryan danced through and made sure the electric components worked probably weren't toxic, just masculine. And the pre-teen who cheered for Barbie is probably going to be bullied on day 1 of school by a girl in her grade who looks like a young Margot. Toxic masculinity presented as the villainous force is just so dumb, which is why I've heard of so many women watching this movie and cringing throughout.

---

This movie literally takes place in a toy world...

---

Nothing any of these guys can say is more hilarious than the fact that they're grown men upset about a Barbie movie on a message board.

---

Not upset about a Barbie movie...I wouldn't give zero f***s about a Barbie movie if it was just a normal non-preachy movie...but known leftist Greta Gerwig obviously couldn't help herself. It's almost a religion for these bubble dwelling progressive weirdos in Hollywood.

I'm not even "upset" that the movie has political motives...just clowning on it and providing commentary. It's to be expected, but for some reason, I was kind of wondering if they'd be able to avoid virtue signaling preachiness with this one. I'm certainly not as upset as you were about the private views of a man who made a film to raise awareness about child sex slavery. But there is clearly a different standard for you on this forum (in your mind).

TCTTS said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Incoming...

---

If you or anyone else is about to bring up Sound of Freedom, again, for the umpteenth time, I never once b*tched about the contents of the movie itself. Only the way its star promoted it.

---

You called Tim Ballard a "lunatic". I think maybe staff deleted it, so you pretend you didn't do it. On one of your movie threads, you once lost your sh** when I brought up a disclaimer about Judd Apatow being a hateful man who despised people who didn't vote like him. Just diff sets of rules on here I guess.

There's definitely a lot of toxic masculinity going around in this thread, but pretty much all of it is coming from a single person telling everyone else how their thoughts and opinions are wrong, and that he is right.

I wasn't gonna take it there dude. You decided to tell me I couldn't speak on this because I haven't seen it when you spent literal hours of your life arguing about a movie you hadn't seen.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

I wasn't gonna take it there dude. You decided to tell me I couldn't speak on this because I haven't seen it when you spent literal hours of your life arguing about a movie you hadn't seen.

---

But he promised he was gonna see it lol

TCTTS said:

---

I just do not understand how some of you KEEP doing this, over and over and over again - running to message boards to not only b*tch endlessly about the content of movies you haven't seen

---

TCTTS said:

---

You haven't even SEEN the movie.

All I'm asking is that you actually go SEE the movie for yourself before b*tching endlessly about its contents on the internet.

---

TCTTS said:

---

This again?

---

Yes. Rules for thee...I will always call that out. You're above everyone here because you live and work in Hollywood and have seen celebs at Ralph's and Trader Joe's, or something.

TCTTS, what exactly are YOUR rules for this forum. You say that you cannot criticize a movie you haven't seen, but that you CAN criticize it's creators, and even call names, without seeing it. But when I did that on a to-be-released Judd Apatow movie thread several years ago, it was not received very well. You actually very much lost your cool over someone bringing up what a hateful man Judd Apatow was. I was just trying to warn people against giving him any of their hard earned money if they or anyone in their family voted a certain way, bc Judd Apatow basically thinks they're pieces of sh**.

Can we agree that the discontinued Barbies were pretty great? I'm kinda surprised Mattel actually let them use pregnant midge, earring magic ken, and growing up skipper.


Allan was also excellent in the film

nai06 said:

---

Can we agree that the discontinued Barbies were pretty great? I'm kinda surprised Mattel actually let them use pregnant midge, earring magic ken, and growing up skipper.


Allan was also excellent in the film

---

Let's not forget Sugar's daddy Ken! That was pretty funny. Almost as funny as the narrator telling us Margot was not the right person to make the point about not being pretty.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

TCTTS, what exactly are YOUR rules for this forum. You say that you cannot criticize a movie you haven't seen, but that you CAN criticize it's creators, and even call names, without seeing it. But when I did that on a to-be-released Judd Apatow movie thread several years ago, it was not received very well. You actually very much lost your cool over someone bringing up what a hateful man Judd Apatow was.

---

You must have missed my direct response to you in the other thread...

Quote:

---

You're of course leaving out two crucial facts to this story...

1) It was a thread for a romantic comedy called Juliet, Naked, starring Chris O'Dowd, Rose Byrne, and Ethan Hawke. A romantic comedy that had absolutely nothing to do with politics, featuring no "woke" content of any kind, set in a seaside English town. Judd Apatow neither wrote or directed it, he merely produced it, and the thread was completely movie-focused until you showed up.

2) You didn't "simply bring up the fact that Judd Apatow literally hates people who voted for him." What you then did is went on a thread-derailing screed, attempting to convince everyone in the thread NOT to see the movie, simply due to Judd Apatow's involvement.

And THAT'S what I "lost my sh*t" over. We were having a perfectly pleasant discussion about a perfectly pleasant romantic comedy, when you suddenly showed up out of now were, encouraging people NOT to see it. Not because it was a bad movie. Not because it was a political movie. Not because you disagreed with it morally. But because Judd Apatow was a producer on it. That was it.

It was objectively insane behavior, and now here you are, with the gall to try and paint us as the unreasonable ones.

Which is sadly, and predictably, par for the course in this thread.

---

^ To answer your question, THIS is the kind of sh*t I can't stand. Not seeing a movie for yourself first, while b*tching about that movie's contents endlessly on a message board, to the point of actually telling people not to go see it.

Again, I never once b*tched about the contents of the Sound of Freedom movie itself, and I never once told people not to go see it (quite the opposite, in fact). All I did was point out Jim Caviezel's rhetoric in promotion the movie.

What some of you do is CLEARLY take it a step further than I ever have or did.

TCTTS said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

TCTTS, what exactly are YOUR rules for this forum. You say that you cannot criticize a movie you haven't seen, but that you CAN criticize it's creators, and even call names, without seeing it. But when I did that on a to-be-released Judd Apatow movie thread several years ago, it was not received very well. You actually very much lost your cool over someone bringing up what a hateful man Judd Apatow was.

---

You must have missed my direct response to you in the other thread...

Quote:

---

You're of course leaving out two crucial facts to this story...

1) It was a thread for a romantic comedy called Juliet, Naked, starring Chris O'Dowd, Rose Byrne, and Ethan Hawke. A romantic comedy that had absolutely nothing to do with politics, featuring no "woke" content of any kind, set in a seaside English town. Judd Apatow neither wrote or directed it, he merely produced it, and the thread was completely movie-focused until you showed up.

2) You didn't "simply bring up the fact that Judd Apatow literally hates people who voted for him." What you then did is went on a thread-derailing screed, attempting to convince everyone in the thread NOT to see the movie, simply due to Judd Apatow's involvement.

And THAT'S what I "lost my sh*t" over. We were having a perfectly pleasant discussion about a perfectly pleasant romantic comedy, when you suddenly showed up out of now were, encouraging people NOT to see it. Not because it was a bad movie. Not because it was a political movie. Not because you disagreed with it morally. But because Judd Apatow was a producer on it. That was it.

It was objectively insane behavior, and now here you are, with the gall to try and paint us as the unreasonable ones.

Which is sadly, and predictably, par for the course in this thread.

---

^ To answer your question, THIS is the kind of sh*t I can't stand. Not seeing a movie for yourself first, while b*tching about that movie's contents endlessly on a message board, to the point of actually telling people not to go see it.

Again, I never once b*tched about the contents of the Sound of Freedom movie itself, and I never once told people not to go see it (quite the opposite, in fact). All I did was point out Jim Caviezel's rhetoric in promotion the movie.

What some of you do is CLEARLY take it a step further than I ever have or did.

---

No, you called Tim Ballard a "lunatic". Why not just own up to it?

My favorite part of that thread though is when you acted like you were concerned for your life lol.

I can't wait to see all the Alan, Sugar Daddy Ken and Earring Magic Ken Halloween costumes this fall. Earring Magic Ken has all the markings of a Poochie-like meeting decision- "you know what kids today like- earrings! Raves!" So so funny.

And for all the dudes on here complaining about the message of a movie *you haven't seen*, maybe, just maybe, it's okay that a movie speaks to people that aren't you. Every movie doesn't have to be for you. It's ok.

Maybe you can fire up the Godfather instead.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

TCTTS, what exactly are YOUR rules for this forum. You say that you cannot criticize a movie you haven't seen, but that you CAN criticize it's creators, and even call names, without seeing it. But when I did that on a to-be-released Judd Apatow movie thread several years ago, it was not received very well. You actually very much lost your cool over someone bringing up what a hateful man Judd Apatow was.

---

You must have missed my direct response to you in the other thread...

Quote:

---

You're of course leaving out two crucial facts to this story...

1) It was a thread for a romantic comedy called Juliet, Naked, starring Chris O'Dowd, Rose Byrne, and Ethan Hawke. A romantic comedy that had absolutely nothing to do with politics, featuring no "woke" content of any kind, set in a seaside English town. Judd Apatow neither wrote or directed it, he merely produced it, and the thread was completely movie-focused until you showed up.

2) You didn't "simply bring up the fact that Judd Apatow literally hates people who voted for him." What you then did is went on a thread-derailing screed, attempting to convince everyone in the thread NOT to see the movie, simply due to Judd Apatow's involvement.

And THAT'S what I "lost my sh*t" over. We were having a perfectly pleasant discussion about a perfectly pleasant romantic comedy, when you suddenly showed up out of now were, encouraging people NOT to see it. Not because it was a bad movie. Not because it was a political movie. Not because you disagreed with it morally. But because Judd Apatow was a producer on it. That was it.

It was objectively insane behavior, and now here you are, with the gall to try and paint us as the unreasonable ones.

Which is sadly, and predictably, par for the course in this thread.

---

^ To answer your question, THIS is the kind of sh*t I can't stand. Not seeing a movie for yourself first, while b*tching about that movie's contents endlessly on a message board, to the point of actually telling people not to go see it.

Again, I never once b*tched about the contents of the Sound of Freedom movie itself, and I never once told people not to go see it (quite the opposite, in fact). All I did was point out Jim Caviezel's rhetoric in promotion the movie.

What some of you do is CLEARLY take it a step further than I ever have or did.

---

No, you called Tim Ballard a "lunatic". Why not just own up to it?

My favorite part of that thread though is when you acted like you were concerned for your life lol.

---

Re: Ballard, I've never not owned up that. I've said over and over and over that I think he's a good guy doing a good thing, but ALSO someone who exaggerates his stories, is politically obsessed, and yeah, might very well be a bit of a lunatic, depending on how deep down the QAnon rabbit hole he is. He's not as far down the rabbit hole as Caveizel, but it looks like he certainly buys into some of that nonsense, and if so, the "lunatic" label is apt. Both things can be true at once and I've made that exact point, using those exact words, numerous times. It's baffling to me that you think I'm avoiding it, across two threads now. Clearly, you don't read half my posts, and simply ignore everything else you don't agree with.

As for me being "concerned for my life," that's an exaggeration and you know it. One of a few self-proclaimed QAnon believers in that thread was literally rooting for my "downfall." Their words, multiple times, in obsessive fashion. Combine that with the multiple people accusing me of being a pedophile, child sex trafficker, and evil, and yeah, I started to get a little worried one of them might try to reach out to my work or my family or whoever and accuse me of being those things, in attempt to get me fired or ruin my reputation or something. Since that exact thing has happened multiple times on F16, with psychos doxing and trying to get others fired whom they simply disagreed with politically. So it's not at all a far-fetched concern, and the fact that you just laugh it off tells me everything I need to know about you, as if I didn't already know enough.

Time to pop the 'chutes - yall be circle jerkin' again