Believe it or not i think i've just about said all i need to say on this subject. Its all futile, no matter how you counter react someones points, they still don't hear them, i've put across, all valid points. But THUNDERDOME freaks don't get it, all they show me, is the kind of person they're scared of - snicker snicker - a midget with a bald head, who lets a woman (no offence BUBBA, but this is a point alot of these dickheads are trying to make, that GAY's or women arn't powerful in this world) boss him around and tell him what to do, f**k he can't even play chicken without yelping like a bitch, when he realizes he's gotten into a game he didn't fully intend on playing properly.
f**k it CHUNDERDOME fans probably didn't even read that, too busy thinking about what they're gonna type next, instead of reading the truth and accepting it.
Interesting assumptions have been made about the Anklecranker.
Inaccurate, but assumptions are like a third orafice. Somewhere, somehow, I have been inferred to be and categorized as a ThunderdomeFreak. Wherespecifically have I been an active proponent of one movie over the other? In this debate, as with any other, I look for specifics..... Wez just does not have many true specifics to draw on. This was my point from the beggining.
Superior minds can be see more than one side. I never started on the merits(or lack there of for IronBar), but could find just as many as I did for Wez. I chose to disect Wez first to make for interesting debate. The fact that I did not review IronBar in the same light does not conclude my annointment of his superiority.
Perhaps I have been categorized as a ThunderDome freak for defending Tiziano. I did defend his passion for the tetralogy (not necessarily his views), as I would do for any other. We all have a right to voice our passions.
In response to your first paragraph...if logical thought is a long fart...can you rip one off?
I'm Blackonblack,Mighty Wez. And yes, I'm a judge in real life ( On a criminal court,by the way ). I said it in another forum, and someone joked about me being able to trial this Wez vs. Ironbar discussion. That made me wonder and look for this thread, and here I am finally. Thanks for the kind words about my comments,Uncle. Don't know wether I convinced everyone, but seems to me a fairy reasonable response to this discussion.
There's just one more thing I'd like to add, re the "Homosexuals".
In this thread, being homosexual has been treated mostly as a sign of weakeness, and that is not exactly true in history.
For example, the soldiers fom the legendary Sparta ( A greek state of about 1000 before Christ ) were all homosexual. Inside the Army, the leaders wanted that it were so, because they considered that they would fight even harder to protect his lover, than to protect their state. The men and the women ( Lesbians ) just got together two or three times in the year, as a political duty, in order to have sons. This art of doing things ensured by that time that the Spartan Army was the toughest of the world, with lots of victories.
The problem about homosexuality is that in modern states, it is tended to be considered "femalish", that is, some kind of wish of being a woman and acting like that. And that is simply not exact, except for the transexuals. But we have therefore historically linked together the woman's typical ( Again, in our society ) characteristics like weakness, emotions and little agresiveness with the homosexuals, and that is simply not true.
Possibly, the historical reason for that lies in the ancient christian idea of the homosexuality being a sign of animal behaviour, more common in primitive societies than in modern ones ( Like f**king for pleasure, and not for having sons, in fact ). But the truth is that homosexuality in fact exists more in the evolutioned societies than in the primitives ( Just look at the Romans, or the late Greeks ), or to be more precise, in the decadent phases of evolutioned societies.
The arrival of the christianism ended this all, as it was considered ( And still is ) a bad sin, and the homosexuality was simply linked together with the idea of a primitive near-beast kind of human being, while the usual machist thinking of the society ( The christianism blamed the first woman as responsable for inducting the first man to sin ), emphasized in the "female" behaviour of the homosexuals to blame them with additional negative associations.
So, seems that Miller took that topic for the Wez character trying to show his bestial behaviour...and thus falling into the historical trap that our culture has set about this question.
But I hope to have made clear enough that homosexuality=weakness is just a topic in the modern-christian-heritage society, and not something cientifically proven.
Regards all,
and keep this alive! We're going for a Guiness record,seems to me!
I never thought that Miller was gay-bashing by making Wez gay- quite the opposite if anything. Likewise MM1. This is one of the many aspects which add depth to MM1 and MM2, and distinguish them from just another trash road movie. It`s also the striking difference between the first two and MMBTD; controversial areas such as homosexuality, the injury and death resulting from violence and other such nasties were studiously avoided so the whole family could watch the movie together. But I repeat myself.....
Wez and Max have more in common than they realise. Both lost their lover to the enemy, both swore revenge at any cost.
snicker snicker - a midget with a bald head, who lets a woman (no offence BUBBA, but this is a point alot of these dickheads are trying to make, that GAY's or women arn't powerful in this world) boss him around and tell him what to do, f**k he can't even play chicken without yelping like a bitch, when he realizes he's gotten into a game he didn't fully intend on playing properly.
