The simple reason that there is no obvious homosexuality (although it doesn't have to have that label- in a prison where
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — General Discussion
harry_maskers123 — 18 years ago(March 26, 2008 03:14 PM)
The simple reason that there is no obvious homosexuality (although it doesn't have to have that label- in a prison where is the choice?) is because the makers wanted to take a really good, thought provoking book and turn it into a 1 dimensional ,futuristic action film.
Along with all the other changes the film made, in the book a man is outcast because he is gay, not because he fell asleep on duty. The reason I dislike this bit of film is when Liotta raises a toast to "all their victims"- bearing in mind his military past I cannot believe he'd have any sympathy for someone outcast for that reason considering their situation, and he was a repeat offender) but if it had been because he was gay, that would have put a different slant on things. -
underworld101 — 14 years ago(May 28, 2011 03:36 PM)
I think that one young guy, who idolizes Ray Liota, is the village-homo. He's grooming Ray from the moment he arrives. And when they meet that "trader" guy who collects things that was up on shore, his first words to him are "don't touch him" - telling the trader that he's got dibs on Liota. Also, when the trader mentions underwear, they exchange an awkward pause/knowing glance. Like "Yeah, I'm thinking about his underwear too".
Just saying. -
CannibalCraig — 14 years ago(November 26, 2011 01:52 PM)
In all honesty, you are totally right. It is very hard to believe that this was not at least somewhat touched on. But think about it, in 94, when this was released, it was a somewhat "hot" topic. The country was still sort of conservative (even with Clinton in office). Issues like this are far more open in today's more liberal society. It doesn't affect the way I look at the film, as I did find it rather enjoyable for what it was.
I'm just a guy that likes horror flicks. -
SnoozeAlarm — 13 years ago(July 04, 2012 01:59 AM)
Sure, I always find it weird when a movie doesn't have at least sum homosexual anal sex.
I mean what were the producers thinking to not have a least a bit of homosexual anal sex in this film?
Absolutely shocking and disgraceful.
I for one think that the classic film Twelve Angry Men would have been vastly superior had it featured an orgy of all the jurors.
OP, here's something that should brighten your day:
http://meatspin.com/
http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c -
SnoozeAlarm — 13 years ago(August 30, 2012 03:23 AM)
Oh, boy, here we go again.
No, I'm not claiming that heterosexual anal sex is appealing. The thought of a heterosexual couple engaging exclusively in anal sex, to the exclusion of vaginal sex, would be unappealing to me.
But the frequency of anal sex among heterosexuals is a drop in the bucket, so to speak, compared to homosexuals.
I have my doubts whether you'll agree with even that obvious point.
http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c -
billwenham — 13 years ago(August 30, 2012 04:20 AM)
Well, I'm guessing it's actually only half of the homosexual population that has anal sex to begin with, unless there's a lot of kinky lesbians out there.
And even then, I don't think it's nearly as frequent as you may think. But at least when gay men do it, it's for a reason. You know, with the prostate being the male G-spot and all. -
SnoozeAlarm — 13 years ago(August 30, 2012 04:52 AM)
Well, I'm guessing it's actually only half of the homosexual population that has anal sex to begin with, unless there's a lot of kinky lesbians out there
I'll greet that statement with a hearty duh.
And even then, I don't think it's nearly as frequent as you may think
Knew you'd say that. The other half I was waiting for is that heterosexuals engage in it far more frequently than I'd like to believe.
Buddy, you and I have no common ground. Our viewpoints are incompatible. Let's leave each other alone. Of course, after you post your inevitable "final word" comments.
http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c -
billwenham — 13 years ago(August 30, 2012 04:59 AM)
Well, never one to disappoint, I just find it odd that you'd think I was going to say heterosexuals engage in it far more frequently than you'd like to believeas I have no idea how frequently you think heterosexuals engage in it.
I'm not sure exactly what makes our viewpoints incompatible. I never even gave you my viewpoint. -
lee1741 — 13 years ago(October 11, 2012 09:31 AM)
Why don't movies where there's a totally ripped male lead show him going to the gym six times a week to get his body that way? We all know he's got to be spending a significant time in the gym, and working it in to his daily schedule, which would in turn affect events that happen in the movie.
The reason is because some stuff just isn't essential to the story, even if it is obvious that it has to be happening behind the scenes. -
jlgas — 10 years ago(August 09, 2015 01:46 PM)
Great point, many films concentrate on lead roles getting it together without this being particularly fundamental to the plot - eg. lead male and lead female find time in a film to have sex, at which time a trivial point or two about their personal histories come out