The Folk Prophet

Separating from entertainment -- has the time fully come

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@Godless's point was that we cannot love our neighbor without knowing them -- and logically therefore we must watch movies about them so we can know them. 

I would challenge that on every level as absolutely false.

 

No, you don't have to watch LGBT-promoting movies to acknowledge/love a neighbor who happens to be LGBT. I didn't really get that from @Godless either. Rather, that preventing kids from any exposure to the existence of same-sex attracted people would make it difficult for us and our children to 'love' them.

I saw a recent video of a street preacher being confronted by another Christian--a petite, cute, 20-something who felt that his style of preaching was off-putting, judgmental, etc. She kept saying, "It breaks my heart to hear/see you speak as you do. It's just making these people angry." At one point she asks him how many people he's converted and he responds, "That's not relevant. The Bible commands us to preach..."

He was right, but not effective. She was overly-focused on feelings, but raises a fair point. If what we are doing is not working, then how can we comport with scripture (and modern revelation) in a way that works well? I suggested that we should indeed shield/shelter our very young from immoral topics. However, as they grow into teen/young adulthood they see/hear more and more. We transition from telling to counseling and encouraging.

@Godless can speak for himself, but I perceived he was reacting to the implied "Don't tell the kids that some people are LGBT" message, more than saying we should immerse our children in immoral media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Rather, that preventing kids from any exposure to the existence of same-sex attracted people would make it difficult for us and our children to 'love' them.

I did not suggest, of course, that we do that. Though I'm not certain we have to be exposed to people to love them. I've never been exposed to, for example, Nazis or KKK member. I don't know any Muslims (Utah's moderately secluded in that regard). I've never met (that I know of) a serial killer. And I'm not sure I've ever met or interacted with a flat-earther. And yet I am commanded by God to love all these.

6 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I perceived he was reacting to the implied "Don't tell the kids that some people are LGBT"

Which he may have been...but that's not something that was actually implied. It was only inferred.

6 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

more than saying we should immerse our children in immoral media.

The strong implication was that if we don't take our children to the kids' movies with LGBT couples in them then we're making a wrong choice. That is, after all, the whole question on the table.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

At one point she asks him how many people he's converted and he responds, "That's not relevant. The Bible commands us to preach..."

He was right, but not effective.

How you deal with people matters, even if you (generic) don't think it does. The street preacher obviously fails to comprehend that. I see that all the time in life. People who are smart, well spoken, they work hard, they are passionate-but for some reason or another they just can't get along with people and they are miserable. And on the flip side, I've seen people who aren't terribly bright, curse a lot, barely graduated high school-but for some reason or another, they get along great with people and they are vastly successful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vort said:

Who cares? The idea that we are "in the world" is a statement of fact, not a commandment. We cannot escape the world. But we are commanded to flee Babylon. I can't think of anything more Babylonian than Hollywood.

I'd argue that the missionaries who came to my door yesterday believed they were commanded to go into the world. GIGO...garbage in garbage out. We all get it. How are we going to be tough enough to love those who cuss, who get inebriated, who lie, commit adultery, and who lie with same-gendered partners, if we are so busy fleeing that we get shell-shocked every time we have an accidental encounter with an infidel? No need to wallow in badness, but we should not lose our ability to see the image of God in those who's action we oppose.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I did not suggest, of course, that we do that. Though I'm not certain we have to be exposed to people to love them. I've never been exposed to, for example, Nazis or KKK member. I don't know any Muslims (Utah's moderately secluded in that regard). I've never met (that I know of) a serial killer. And I'm not sure I've ever met or interacted with a flat-earther. And yet I am commanded by God to love all these.

Which he may have been...but that's not something that was actually implied. It was only inferred.

The strong implication was that if we don't take our children to the kids' movies with LGBT couples in them then we're making a wrong choice. That is, after all, the whole question on the table.

I suspect that we all agree, for the most part. You want to emphasize a parent's responsibility to shield their children from moral filth. Others want to emphasize that we're commanded to love sinners, and hiding from or constantly criticizing doesn't work. Church members who make it in Hollywood (or even AGT) are celebrated here. LDS music groups who do cross-over successfully are applauded. I suspect that many Republican members were at least somewhat gratified that Senator Reid rose as far as he did in political ranks (even if his policies were loathed). Why? It's great to see God's people having a positive impact in difficult terrain. I still remember when my supervisory chaplain announced to me, "Did you hear? The new AG (Attorney General) is AG (Assemblies of God)." He knew that I would be pleased that one of our own had risen to such power.

Politics is dirty. Hollywood is immoral--bigley so! Our little ones must be shielded/shelter/protected from exposure. BUT...as we mature, led by the Spirit, we make inroads where we can, influence where we find opportunities. We work, and even play, alongside folks who do that which we oppose. We love them and hate what they do. Chances are, in the best moments, they are the same towards us. AND...in opportune moments, they will see our good works and give glory to our God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Godless said:

Gratuitous displays of violence and sexual acts can have a negative impact on children, and you should absolutely use parental discretion to keep you kids from being exposed to that, as I do mine. But to equate things like that to the depiction of a loving family with same-sex parents seems way off base to me.

 

48 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If there are things that we should keep our children away from, as you agreed to, then your argument that exposing them to certain things is de facto good for them isn't true across the board. That is the argument you made. So are you shifting the goal post a bit here now? Because you said if something is a reality of the world we live in, and Hollywood puts it on the screen, then if kids will learn of it one day anyhow, then not going to see a movie is "hiding from it", and not a good plan.

This discussion is VERY VERY clear to me.  You'll never be able to resolve this conversation because Godless thinks same sex parents are good and even if he doesn't say it, it is pretty clear that he harbors the feeling that those who do not think so are the problem rather than the same sex parents.  TFP, of course, holds the complete opposite position.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Remember @Godless, moral outrage is largely self serving. https://reason.com/2017/03/01/moral-outrage-is-self-serving/. That's why people of all political stripes love to engage it it. Like the article says, it makes them feel noble, moral, heroic, etc. 

 

From someone who wrote that post to make him feel noble, moral heroic... because, you know, he's so edgy and all while them religious bigots are so stuck up.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

How you deal with people matters, even if you (generic) don't think it does. The street preacher obviously fails to comprehend that. I see that all the time in life. People who are smart, well spoken, they work hard, they are passionate-but for some reason or another they just can't get along with people and they are miserable. And on the flip side, I've seen people who aren't terribly bright, curse a lot, barely graduated high school-but for some reason or another, they get along great with people and they are vastly successful. 

Obviously you do not know many engineers - we hardly (bairly) get along with anyone and yet we are still quite successful in many things far beyond money (which is what most people measure as success).

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

No, you don't have to watch LGBT-promoting movies to acknowledge/love a neighbor who happens to be LGBT. I didn't really get that from @Godless either. Rather, that preventing kids from any exposure to the existence of same-sex attracted people would make it difficult for us and our children to 'love' them.

I saw a recent video of a street preacher being confronted by another Christian--a petite, cute, 20-something who felt that his style of preaching was off-putting, judgmental, etc. She kept saying, "It breaks my heart to hear/see you speak as you do. It's just making these people angry." At one point she asks him how many people he's converted and he responds, "That's not relevant. The Bible commands us to preach..."

He was right, but not effective. She was overly-focused on feelings, but raises a fair point. If what we are doing is not working, then how can we comport with scripture (and modern revelation) in a way that works well? I suggested that we should indeed shield/shelter our very young from immoral topics. However, as they grow into teen/young adulthood they see/hear more and more. We transition from telling to counseling and encouraging.

@Godless can speak for himself, but I perceived he was reacting to the implied "Don't tell the kids that some people are LGBT" message, more than saying we should immerse our children in immoral media.

How effective was Jesus - his teachings got him killed.  Not by g-dless (no reference to the forum poster) infidels but by those that belonged to the most correct religion (at the time) on the planet.  

Brigham Young once said that when personnel pleasure is involved reason gets thrown out the window.   Reason is a most interesting companion but I must be honest most people are unreasonable when it comes to what they want - it has been my experience that especially for those profaning religion - if it does not fit their paradigm that will argue against it - often with unreasonable notions.  This is also true of the LBGT community - if it does not fit their paradigm - it must be opposed.  Back when I was on the debate team in high school our coach taught us that if we could not argue the opposing point of view better than them - (meaning that we have researched and understand) that we ought to concede the argument.

Anyway some thoughts.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

This discussion is VERY VERY clear to me.  You'll never be able to resolve this conversation because Godless thinks same sex parents are good and even if he doesn't say it, it is pretty clear that he harbors the feeling that those who do not think so are the problem rather than the same sex parents.  TFP, of course, holds the complete opposite position.

 

The irony in your assessment is that @Godless hangs out here. It's likely that he does think that most LGBT parents are good. HOWEVER, I suspect that he thinks most LDS ones are too. If he perceived that most of us devout were bigoted, and narrow-minded, he wouldn't bother dialoging with us. Likewise, whatever TFP thinks about LGBT, as well as those who would say they are 'godless,' he takes time to interact with @Godless--I suspect because he hopes to at least communicate the why of his perspective. So, perhaps the conversation will not resolve with either changing viewpoints. However, it may lead to both sides having better understanding, and perhaps a measure more of mercy towards those we disagree with.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Obviously you do not know many engineers - we hardly (bairly) get along with anyone and yet we are still quite successful in many things far beyond money (which is what most people measure as success).

:: snickers :: No, I don't know many engineers. But I get that feeling that if an engineering company hired someone who did nothing but argue all day with everyone else, use foul language, etc they wouldn't be employed long. 

Of course there is always the exception. Yes, you might know an abrasive person who has no charisma yet is successful and happy. But my point is still 100% correct. How you get along with people is vastly important. Especially if you want to influence them. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

The irony in your assessment is that @Godless hangs out here. It's likely that he does think that most LGBT parents are good. HOWEVER, I suspect that he thinks most LDS ones are too. If he perceived that most of us devout were bigoted, and narrow-minded, he wouldn't bother dialoging with us. Likewise, whatever TFP thinks about LGBT, as well as those who would say they are 'godless,' he takes time to interact with @Godless--I suspect because he hopes to at least communicate the why of his perspective. So, perhaps the conversation will not resolve with either changing viewpoints. However, it may lead to both sides having better understanding, and perhaps a measure more of mercy towards those we disagree with.

You must have misunderstood my post.  I did not say anything about bigoted. 

There's good and there's bad - or not good.  For example - let's take a simple forum discussion - zil thinks fountain pens are good.  mirkwood thinks fountain pens are not, ballpoint pens are.  Zil, of course, thinks the problem is not with fountain pens - because they are good - but with mirkwood thinking it isn't good.  Another one - mirkwood thinks guns are good, Sunday21 thinks guns are bad.  Mirkwood, of course, thinks the problem is not guns - because they are good - the problem is Sunday21 thinking guns are bad.

In the case of Godless and TFP - I wrote that specific post because unless they talk with those perspectives clearly understood, they're never going to resolve the "entertainment" discussion even with agreeing to disagree.  Because, when one thinks same sex parenting is good, then, of course, it's fine for it to be in kids shows as something, not only normal, but good.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

In the case of Godless and TFP - I wrote that specific post because unless they talk with those perspectives clearly understood, they're never going to resolve the "entertainment" discussion even with agreeing to disagree.  Because, when one thinks same sex parenting is good, then, of course, it's fine for it to be in kids shows as something, not only normal, but good.

Part of what feels disingenuous in some of these discussions is that I'm fairly sure that what we believe IS clearly understood. But instead of just being, "it's good" vs. "it's bad" there's all this underhanded love your neighbor and sheltering children is a mistake nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

A lot of people blew off the Beauty and the Beast "gay" scene as no big deal. Anecdotally, my sister told me that after they went to it (unawares) that afterward they did, indeed, get that awkward question moment from their exceptionally bright child.

What about the bestiality, or at the very least zoophilia (being sexually or romantically attracted to animals)?   Isn't that worse?  It can be argued that Belle and the Beast might not have had sex while he was still a beast, but they were definitely romantically involved.

The "gay" scene doesn't imply that the two in question were sexually active either, so why would it be worse?

Why is the gay scene worse than the bestiality or zoophilia?

And, you can't say that the beast was really human at the time.   Both the animated and live action films make it clear that the beast and the rest of the castle inhabitants were no longer human after the transformation.

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scott said:

What about the bestiality, or at the very least zoophilia (being sexually or romantically attracted to animals)?   Isn't that worse? 

Haha. I saw this same argument being made on facebook back when this was being discussed. I laughed at its stupidity then too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Haha. I saw this same argument being made on facebook back when this was being discussed. I laughed at its stupidity then too.

It is a valid arguement.   Explain why it isn't.   Be specific.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scott said:

It is a valid arguement.  

Only if by "valid" you mean "idiotic".

Just now, Scott said:

Explain why it isn't.

No. Because I don't believe for a second that you believe such nonsense either. You, like others, have a "gotchya" point to win an argument. But no one but an idiot would actually believe such a thing. So either you're an idiot, in which case explaining wouldn't do any good, or you have a "gotchya" point that you're using to grind an ax and support an agenda, in which case explaining isn't going to do any good.

But even more importantly: it's entirely irrelevant. It's a total misdirect. Even if I conceded and absolutely agreed with the point and decided to never let my children watch Beauty and the Beast again, burning all copies of it I could get my hands on because of the "bestiality", it would have absolutely NOTHING to do with the appropriateness of putting "gay" stuff in children's shows or not. So even if you double down and demand that you really and truly believe Beauty and the Beast promotes romantic love and sex with animals :glare: it doesn't make any difference to the concern I and others have.

And your (and other's) point isn't actually to get me to burn all copies and never watch it again, which would be the point if you actually believed such a moronic thing, but rather your intent (agenda) is to get people to admit that they shouldn't consider the gay stuff a big deal -- which demands that no one can find anything offensive unless they concede that what you say is offensive must be as well. Which is ridiculous. How can you possibly expect such a tactic to work? Have you ever seen anyone who finds the gay stuff offensive converted to thinking the gay stuff was not offensive by this approach? What did you expect of me? "Oh...bestiality. Oh my goodness. Well then...I guess the gay stuff's okay after all."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Scott said:

It is a valid arguement.   Explain why it isn't.   Be specific.  

Because the entire premise of Beauty and the Beast is not about being attracted to the Beast.  The entire premise of Beauty and the Beast is the metaphor of a human's failings leading them to do "beasty" things (hence, he got turned into a beast because... it's a fairy tale)... but that even with these failings, a person can still reach out to their goodness within to bring out their humanity and overcome their beastly nature.  And it is THIS humanity that the Beauty fell in love with.

Now... give me the metaphor of an obviously effiminate man being attracted to Gaston.

And, of course, @The Folk Prophet hits it right on the nose... grasping for gotchas to excuse the obvious presence of the normalization of homosexuality as... not only a normal thing but a good thing to religious people.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Only if by "valid" you mean "idiotic".

No. Because I don't believe for a second that you believe such nonsense either. You, like others, have a "gotchya" point to win an argument. But no one but an idiot would actually believe such a thing. So either you're an idiot, in which case explaining wouldn't do any good, or you have a "gotchya" point that you're using to grind an ax and support an agenda, in which case explaining isn't going to do any good.

But even more importantly: it's entirely irrelevant. It's a total misdirect. Even if I conceded and absolutely agreed with the point and decided to never let my children watch Beauty and the Beast again, burning all copies of it I could get my hands on because of the "bestiality", it would have absolutely NOTHING to do with the appropriateness of putting "gay" stuff in children's shows or not. So even if you double down and demand that you really and truly believe Beauty and the Beast promotes romantic love and sex with animals :glare: it doesn't make any difference to the concern I and others have.

And your (and other's) point isn't actually to get me to burn all copies and never watch it again, which would be the point if you actually believed such a moronic thing, but rather your intent (agenda) is to get people to admit that they shouldn't consider the gay stuff a big deal -- which demands that no one can find anything offensive unless they concede that what you say is offensive must be as well. Which is ridiculous. How can you possibly expect such a tactic to work? Have you ever seen anyone who finds the gay stuff offensive converted to thinking the gay stuff was not offensive by this approach? What did you expect of me? "Oh...bestiality. Oh my goodness. Well then...I guess the gay stuff's okay after all."

Your missing the point.  PS, you can be offended with anything you want.

Let me put it a different way.

You are upset about the "gay moment" in Beauty and the Beast.

You also made this comment:
 

Quote

 It used to be that Disney/Pixar movies were a pretty safe bet. They no longer are.

Disney/Pixar movies for at least the past few decades have always had adult content hidden in them, some of which is worse than the "two moms scene".   Why is it only the two mom's scene (or Beauty and the Beast) that matters?  

Let's just set aside zoophilia and focus on all sexuality, are you upset and vocal about straight or any other immorality as well?

For example, do you speak out against other sexuality in children shows?   How about in other movies?    

Are you singling out all sexual immorality in other Disney/Pixar movies (or all other shows) or just the "gay stuff"?    

If you are against all sexual immorality, then I would agree with you.   Maybe you do.   If so though, why just single out the homosexual issues?

Take for example, this one in Cars:

the-strip-club-in-_cars_-photo-u1?w=650&

I think it's pretty obvious as to what this implies.  

I'm not saying that you can't speak out against a "gay scene" in a Toy Story 4 is wrong, but if it is, you just be also speaking out against all immorality.   That is the gotcha.  

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MormonGator said:

It doesn't effect you at all. You are born that way. 

This assertion was always deeply over-simplified; and, having now mostly outlived its political usefulness, we’ll probably be seeing much less of it going forward.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Scott said:

Your missing the point. 

I don't think I'm am. Now you're just shoveling the same crap another way.

55 minutes ago, Scott said:

Disney/Pixar movies for at least the past few decades have always had adult content hidden in them

A) No they haven't. Sometimes there is some adult content hidden. It is far from "always" and B) "hidden" is pretty key here, don't you think?

55 minutes ago, Scott said:

Why is it only the two mom's scene (or Beauty and the Beast) that matters?  

It's the subject at hand.

55 minutes ago, Scott said:

but if it is, you just be also speaking out against all immorality.

Well, duh.

Why would you presume that I'm okay with the "hidden" adult content once I'm made aware of it? And, again, what does that have to do with whether gay characters are appropriate in children's movies or not.

55 minutes ago, Scott said:

the-strip-club-in-_cars_-photo-u1?w=650&

This is hilarious. The kind of joke I'd make around my extremely conservative family. Apparently "worse" is, decidedly, subjective.

Edit: I realize that in saying "why would you presume I'm okay with..." and then immediately state how I'm okay with a so-called "dirty" joke I kind of shoot myself in the foot. But I maintain -- "worse" is subjective. I'm not okay with some things. Okay with others. And none of that has anything to do with whether gay characters are appropriate in children shows.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fether said:

I’m not sure how much “exposure” to these things really effect our eventual outcome.

I tend to agree with this. It's not merely the "exposure" that matters so much.

The entertainment we intentionally consume is not merely exposure though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the most sacred relationship outside on one's relationship to G-d is the covenant relationship of marriage.  Perhaps even more than profaning G-d himself or excepting that, I do not know a single thing more misused and misunderstood than marriage.  Our relationship to G-d can be somewhat ambiguous because we never (or almost never) actually see G-d as we would our spouse - but that is the point - in this life we deal with others (our neighbor) face to face.  I would say that it is impossible to know G-d if one cannot understand the sacred nature of marriage.  That the very creation, be it Big Bang or a divine wave of a magic wand - one cannot understand the creation and purpose of life and not be loyal the the principle of marriage between a man and a woman from which every man that existed was created.

It matters not what the world teaches or ridicules.  The divine principle of sexuality will survive - in all intelligent life, at whatever level of intelligence they live and propagate their species, that to endure requires surrendering to the enduring love that sustains and propagates life more than pleasure or personal individual achievement.  I believe that this is the principle that every parent will be held responsible for teaching - both in word and in the action of example.

 

The Traveler

 

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You must have misunderstood my post.  I did not say anything about bigoted. 

There's good and there's bad - or not good.  For example - let's take a simple forum discussion - zil thinks fountain pens are good.  mirkwood thinks fountain pens are not, ballpoint pens are.  Zil, of course, thinks the problem is not with fountain pens - because they are good - but with mirkwood thinking it isn't good.  Another one - mirkwood thinks guns are good, Sunday21 thinks guns are bad.  Mirkwood, of course, thinks the problem is not guns - because they are good - the problem is Sunday21 thinking guns are bad.

In the case of Godless and TFP - I wrote that specific post because unless they talk with those perspectives clearly understood, they're never going to resolve the "entertainment" discussion even with agreeing to disagree.  Because, when one thinks same sex parenting is good, then, of course, it's fine for it to be in kids shows as something, not only normal, but good.

 

Maybe I am an optimistic sort, but I suspect that most here understand that committed Christians of most stripes believe that same-sex parenting, being an outcome of same-sex sex, is immoral--especially within our faith traditions. @Godless is surely well aware of this. Likewise, I suspect that most of the faithful would understand that the vast majority of atheists would either be affirming or libertarian in their views of same-sex sex and parenting. Since we all know this about each other, I'm convinced the real debate is not about TS4, but about how much we shield our young from immorality. Too little and we create resentment, ignorance, and fragility. Too much and we expose our young to unnecessary temptations and moral complacency.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

A) No they haven't. Sometimes there is some adult content hidden. It is far from "always" and B) "hidden" is pretty key here, don't you think?

The two moms thing in Toy Story 4 is apparently really hidden as well (I haven't seen it though).

As far as Disney/Pixar goes, all of them I have seen (I haven't seen all of them though) have adult jokes in them, some of which aren't hidden by any means (such as the genie making a joke about orgasm in one of the Aladdins and the joke about impregnating four women in Hocus Pocus-those are definitely not hidden by any means).

Disney/Pixar puts adult jokes into their movies so they appeal more to adults.  They have been doing this for years.

Serious question (for anyone):  which Disney/Pixar movies don't have adult jokes or situations in them in recent years?  I can't think of any.

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why would you presume that I'm okay with the "hidden" adult content once I'm made aware of it? 

I make that assumption from your comment implying that Disney/Pixar movies used to be a safe bet and now they aren't.

Disney/Pixar has been putting stuff into movies that is far less hidden (and in my opinion at least) worse than the hidden and obscure two mom thing, so I was just questioning why you said they were a safe bet now, but not before.

I'm skeptical that you didn't notice all the adult jokes or content in Disney/Pixar movies until now, but I guess that could be the case.

Oh and don't forget that Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a Disney movie.  Although it really isn't a kid's movie, that seems to be the movie when adult jokes/situations started to become the norm for Disney, even in kids movies.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now