Mrebo said:
xhonzi was clearly being sardonic.
Ah, well, came off differently.
You're the one reading serious accusations of perversity into it (xhonzi merely raised the possibility that Ebert wants to see boobs).
No, not merely raised a possibility, but clearly acted as if this was the most sensible conclusion.
But doesn't matter since he was joking, right?
You don't have to agree, but wanting to see more sex in several family-friendly PG-13 movies is odd.
Right?
Was Ebert just being sardonic about the topic of sex in several family-friendly movies? It's certainly a possibility. But that doesn't make it "common sense." Nor a "high probability." That others have addressed this topic has nothing to do with Ebert in the context of several reviews of family-friendly movies. That you want to give Ebert the benefit of the doubt is nice of ya, but not common sense.
Actually it is, if you have common sense, and if you'd have read my previous post.
Jokes like this are made CONSTANTLY, by A LOT OF PEOPLE. Most of whom probably wouldn't mind boobs, but play up their hypersexuality for purpose. It's just a common trope.
So what's the more likely conclusion, that he employed that device, or that one of the most well-known critics read by a wide audience would accidentally slip his sexual fantasies about sex in children's movies in reviews read by a wide audience?
What you failed to consider in this thread is 'the high probability that xhonzi MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THAT SERIOUS.' He raised a possibility. You raised a competing possibility and called xhonzi names and dismissed his sardonic observation.
"I stopped reading Ebert years ago, but what's happened to the man? He seems to be very upset that PG-13 ratings are standing between him and seeing famous boobs."
"I don't recall him being so fixated back when I used to read him more regularly. It was something new- I found it odd. I thought some people here might appreciate the oddity."
You know what, doesn't seem like sarcasm to me. It reads like someone's genuinely confused by Ebert's "recent oddity".
I think you're just saying he was being sardonic so you can have a point against me.
That's what it READS like, mind you - now compare
"they grow close, but only PG-13 close, because Marvel has apparently determined that fanboys find sex to be icky."
A jab at the ones responsible, plus pointing out a rather amusing irony.
"One alien element has become almost traditional. Ever since "Alien," we've had the phenomenon of aliens who unfold to reveal wicked inner parts. The aliens here have chest cavities that open to extrude three-fingered hands, slimy with mucus. One shudders to envision the use of these limbs during sex. On their home world, there must be fortunes to be made in opening manicure shops."
Now that was fucking serious. I now certainly respect the "possibility" that he may have issues. Alien chest cavities?
I mean, sure, he could've been joking there, but he could also have been serious! We have to consider all possibilities, and common sense is like, individual and stuff!
Gimme a break...