Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

[Poll] Next Movie Series (Patreon)

Published:
2023-02-07 18:25:16
Imported:
2023-02

Content

Help us pick which movie series we should watch next. We just finished watching John Wick and plan to start Rocky/Creed next since Creed III will be hitting theaters soon. However, we would love to know which movie series you want us to watch the most.

Feel free to suggest any other series in the comment.

UPDATE: Our goal is to do all of these movie series but need your help to prioritize the list :)

Comments

Anonymous

Not a movie but you can also check out alchemy of souls

jose giron

Tarantino's filmography would make the perfect reaction journey imo

xMaestro21

Harry Potter! I'm glad it's so popular in the poll because it's great, also because some outraged cancel-weirdos arent going to like it lmao

Anonymous

If yall do Harry Potter do some kind of Transgender fundraiser.

Anonymous

Hunger games would be so fun with you guys plus the discussions after

Rosemary

Can we have big couch crews for Harry Potter and Hunger Games pleaseee

dom

to the harry potter haters the normies are still reacting to joss whedons buffy(which gets shit views btw) so if they havent dropped that theyre definitely not dropping harry potter

Anonymous

Cornetto trilogy, then blade.

Adam Vialpando
>>101433901

I just don't see why people are so excited about Harry Potter. They are decently made films that are fairly enjoyable but there's nothing in them that I feel is ao good that I feel everyone needs to see it. The good things about these films have been done better in other films. Most of the actors and actresses have also been in better films than this too.

Poison Ivy
>>101455836

I wouldn't say it gets shit views considering the Buffy premium posts are among the ones with the most likes and people ask about it whenever it's not coming early in the day. But I agree, the showrunner behind the series is trash even though the show is brilliant.

dom
>>101455836

look at the youtube views for buffy right now its 16k consistently. those are the same numbers dexter was getting when they dropped it

Rufus May
>>101455836

Maybe, but Whedon isn't going on Twitter saying "people watching Buffy is proof that they support my behaviour".

Anonymous
>>101433901

Did you reply to every single Harry Potter comment? With how many times you posted how it’s not that you don’t like Harry Potter it’s just not good makes me think you just don’t like it lol

Rufus May
>>101455836

Would you like me to explain exactly what JKR's views are that makes people see her as transphobic, or do you prefer to just make snide remarks without having to actually have a conversation about it? Either way, my point was simply that while Whedon appears to be laying low, Rowling is basically daring people to boycott her, so it's not surprising that there's a different response to their respective works.

Gevin Tipsword

you know im just happy to watch some harry potter with the crew. cant wait (:

Rufus May
>>101455836

Separating the art from the artist is not exclusive of not wanting to support the artist, because the question of whether you want to support them has (in this case at least) nothing to do with your opinion of the art itself. You're only not separating them if your opinion of the artist determines your opinion of the art. That is, "HP is bad because JKR is bad" = not separating them, "HP is good but I still don't want to support JKR" = separating them.

Joao
>>101433901

They have the right to be angry, love Harry Potter but I don’t support JK views on trans people and it’s toxic and dangerous because she has a big platform to speak on issues that dosent concern her. I’m not one but they have the right to be angry I don’t think that trying to cancel her is the good way to do it and I still love Harry Potter no matter what. It’s not for me or you to judge them. It’s like judging any minorities everyone should have the right to live the way they want to live no matter the sexuality, skin colour, race…

Rufus May
>>101455836

Okay, 'laying low' was giving him too much credit. But the point remains that he's not pointing to the popularity of his shows and movies as proof that the public supports him as a person (or if he is it's not widely known), so it's reasonable that his critics are less concerned about that. Whereas Rowling has specifically made that connection and consequently encouraged people to make that choice.

GoldArthur
>>101433901

No, the JK haters are the toxic ones. She's entitled to her opinion no matter how big her "platform" is. Not to mention that she's been entirely respectful with her opinions. Trying to cancel people for having a different opinion, whether it's right or wrong is the truly toxic behavior.

GoldArthur
>>101436127

That's an utterly ridiculous expectation. You are bringing awful attention to the LGBT community with this kind of behavior. You're literally breeding hatred towards them by associating them with the kind of toxic entitlement.

HIM

What, No "3 Ninjas" Trilogy? Shame.

Anonymous
>>101436127

The people like J.K. Rowling do harm with their words and actions. Material harm that cause real world consequences to vulnerable people. It isnt entitlement to say "Hey its a good idea to do a fundraiser for the victims of the authers online abuse if you are gonna draw attention and funds to her work." The only sort of people who that draws hatred from is the most hateful sort of people.

FryLord
>>101433901

Being openly hateful to people because of their identity is no where near respectful. Why are you simping over a washed out author?

Chaos T
>>101455836

Rufus, a child actor, who was a minor at the time of filming, claimed there was a rule on set where Whedon couldn't be allowed to be alone with her in the same room. There's a lot more allegations from numerous party's surrounding him. "Whedon appears to be laying low" is not a really good point. Popularity and one's ability to hide is meaningless to the discussion. There's a lot of goal post moving if you're not only making wrong free speech a worse offense than real accusations but you're also minimizing real documented issues to make a point. You have to separate the art from the artists because a lot of artists are absolute shit bags.

Rufus May
>>101455836

Chaos, I think you don't understand anything I've said because you're inferring a lot of claims I haven't made or points that I specifically argued against, for example that boycotting Rowling vs Whedon is based on which is accused of something worse (although to be fair Dom deleted his posts in shame so it's understandable if the conversation now seems confusing). Whether one or the other 'deserves' to be boycotted more is irrelevant to the actual argument. Also you like many here need to take a moment to understand what separating the art from the artist actually means because you keep throwing it around where it doesn't apply, particularly when it comes to supporting the artist as opposed to appreciating their work. Enjoying the work or not regardless of your opinion of the artist is separating the two, supporting the artist or not has nothing to do with it.

GoldArthur
>>101436127

Words are not harm. If we live in a world where verbal offense is considered physical harm, then we might as well be robots with no personality. And it comes down to whoever is the most sensitive and offended holds the most power. That is not a world worth living in. Not to mention, that most trans people don't want that either. Most trans people I've known (a lot of them) just want to live a normal life and are happy to talk with people that disagree with them. Heck, most I know AGREE with Rowling on the "transphobic" topics, like trans-women in female sports. Stop treating trans people like some overly sensitive matched set. They are individuals, and don't all agree with everything the political movement pushes for.

Chelsea
>>101455836

Chaos, you do realize that it law that child actors are never allowed to be alone on set, they always have to have a parent or guardian? Until the actress you mentioned chooses to give more details all I can assume is that he yelled or ridiculed her at some point like he's done with most of his other actors.

Anonymous

Hunger Games! Loved these movies when they came out, and they really do still hold up quite well.

GoldArthur
>>101433901

Nothing she said was "openly hateful" of anyone's identity. Not to mention that there are 2 identity groups in this discussion here. Trans people and women.

Anonymous
>>101436127

Words influence opinion and opinions cause harm. Its very simple. All bad actions start with words and delegitimazing identities leads to suffering.

xMaestro21
>>101433901

I grew up with Harry Potter and the game looks awesome, nothing more to it. People can hate or boycott it i don't care, just stop trying to spread your hate to others.

GoldArthur
>>101436127

@Joseph No, not all bad actions start with words, but all reasonable discussions do. However, all bad actions start with thoughts. All thoughts start with someone being born. How far back are we gonna go here? The only people that will suffer are oversensitive people that can't handle hard conversations about what is the best course of action. Doing what's right often requires a little suffering. This particular topic is a conflict of identities between trans and women. One way or another, you are delegitimizing an identity. If you have no other value to base your decisions on, then it makes sense to prioritize the larger group. In this case, women. At no point did Rowling ever suggest that trans people should be disrespected, devalued, or disliked. She merely stated that when weighing trans rights against women and girl's rights, women/girl's rights should take priority. That stance is entirely understandable, and she absolutely has a right to express it without people harassing others for enjoying her unrelated work.

Rufus May
>>101436127

@GoldArthur For just one example, Rowling claims that allowing trans women to use women's spaces such as bathrooms poses a safety risk to cis women. This is false, as that specific issue has been studied and no change in crime rates was found. Statements from women's crisis shelters and law enforcement have said the same. That is not to say that women are never assaulted in bathrooms, including in rare cases by people who identify as trans, however the frequency of those attacks does not change whether trans women are allowed in those spaces or not. That should be obvious by common sense - if someone is going to commit a serious crime, "you aren't allowed in this bathroom" isn't going to change their mind, and if they intend to claim to be trans to gain access they could simply claim to be a trans man instead of a trans woman and accomplish that either way. Rowling has been informed of this many times but continues to perpetuate that myth, not only lying about the risk (even describing trans people as not deserving the presumption of innocence) but falsely portraying the situation as an encroachment on women's rights when in reality trans women have been legally entitled to use those spaces in the UK for over a decade, even longer in practice. This causes harm to trans people indirectly by demonizing them as dangerous perverts trying to gain access to women, and directly as studies have found that trans people in jurisdictions which exclude them from living according to their gender identity have significantly higher rates of depression and anxiety. So if we're having that 'hard conversation', the stance you're defending is a deliberate lie that harms trans people and doesn't protect cis women. But for all your bluster about oversensitive people you aren't strong enough to accept that, it's easier to just bury your head and pretend everything's fine. Never mind your own false framing of the issue as one of women vs trans people, as though many women don't support trans inclusion (in fact more women than men do).

GoldArthur
>>101436127

@Rufus 1) There's no way that has been thoroughly studied, and there is so little data to pull from to reach that conclusion. In addition, despite there being so few opportunities, there are already tons of reports of that exact thing happening, and one time is too many, especially when several of them involve young girls. The reason we don't allow biological men in in women's restrooms is primarily the same reason male and female bathrooms were separated in the first place; to give biological women a safe space and privacy from biological men. Our bathrooms don't operate differently because of social conditioning. Our bathrooms operate differently because of biological differences. Would you feel better if we started calling the women's bathroom the "female bathroom"? Cause that's the only difference here. Or do you care to explain why an adult's discomfort with sharing a bathroom with someone that dresses different should override a child's discomfort (or confusion) about sharing a bathroom with someone with a completely different body type and being exposed to it? 2) It's not a myth. It's an opinion, and one founded on good reasoning in my opinion. 98% of sexual crime is committed by men towards women and girls. Even if the suggestion that allowing biological men in girls' bathrooms hasn't increased abuse yet (which I've yet to see anything so far to convince me is NOT the case), then you at least can't deny, that it would give predators the perfect excuse to be in private quarters with young girls, where exposing yourself is common and expected. This would put way too many women and girls at risk, even if the vast majority of trans people would never do such a thing. Even if the only people that would do it aren't genuinely trans. It still creates the risk. And if that creates depression for trans people, I'm sorry. Not all of us can have what we want. I'd like to be given a large plot of land in an area around nature, and I like to think I'm more depressed without it than I would be with it, but that's just too bad. Other people can recognize someone's gender as what they identify as, but THEY should be able to admit the reality of their sex, and the differences that makes. 3) And there you go with the character attacks. No, this is a disagreement. Neither side is "lying". I'm not falsely framing anything. This IS a conflict of women's rights vs trans rights. Yes, plenty of women AND MEN, supports trans rights. Including me. I'm literally engaged to a trans-man. But that does not mean that they agree on this one issue. And, for all your talk of false framing, you falsely portray all trans people as believing they should be able to use any bathroom. That is also not true. Contrary to what so many think. Most trans people think logically and understand the reality of their sex and the difference between societal gender barriers and societal sex barriers.

Rufus May
>>101436127

It has been studied, and because it has been studied we know it's a myth. Just because you don't like that doesn't make it untrue. But if it's truly so dangerous, why is it that there's no evidence showing so and in places where exclusion has been the law for years or even decades the sky still hasn't fallen like you claim it will? And yes you're falsely framing this as trans rights vs women's rights because in fact many women support those trans rights. The rest of your arguments are likewise nonsense. "it would give predators the perfect excuse" I already pointed out they don't need that excuse and can make the same excuse either way the law goes. "one time is too many" But not if it's a young trans girl being hurt right in the men's bathroom right? And of course this directly contradicts your earlier statement that "Doing what's right often requires a little suffering". I guess suffering is only okay when it's happening to trans people, but when some Karen doesn't want a trans woman in her bathroom her feelings must be protected. "I haven't seen anything to convince me it's NOT the case" That's literally the opposite of how proof works. And so on, I'm not going through all of them but overall you're desperately appealing to emotional arguments because you can't win on facts. At the end of the day, in the real world this has already happened and there was objectively no increase in harm to cis women. All you're doing now is proving that you don't care about the truth, you'll just say whatever you can think of to support your existing belief. Not to mention your casual dismissal of the effect discrimination and exclusion has on trans people's mental health. "Well I want a bunch of land but you don't see me crying about it" yeah real compassionate buddy, totally believe you support trans people. I never said there are no trans people who are against those rights, so that's another false statement on your part. And you're wrong about the origin of sex segregated bathrooms, look it up if you care to educate yourself but the short version is that it was part of a larger trend of believing women were mentally and physically to weak to function independently in the world so needed special places.

Rufus May
>>101436127

But hey, we don't have to go through long back and forths on every point. How about a simple litmus test to show that you aren't just pulling things out of your ass. You claimed that most trans people believe they should only use the bathroom of their assigned sex at birth. Okay, prove it.

GoldArthur
>>101436127

You can't study that when there's so little data to base it on. And yes, thank you for proving my point that bathroom separation was originally based on biological differences with the protection of women and young girls in mind. Strange that you're so desperate to take away that protection and expose them to harm... hmm. And when talking about a trans person in the men's bathroom, I believe you are referring to a trans man, not a trans woman. Learn the right terms. And while yes, that is also a tragedy, it's a bit less so, because they are choosing to put themselves in that situation, while cis women and girls are having the space that was set aside for their protection invaded by biological males. The very thing the space was meant to keep out. You're trying to take away the privacy of women and young girls. And yes, I DO dismiss people that throw a fit about not getting their way at the expense of other people and children. That is, once again, being overly sensitive. Luckily, that is not most trans people. And to answer you question; do I have a way to prove that most trans people aren't overly-emotional entitled people that put their own wants over a far larger group filled with children? No, I don't have proof of that. I just assume the best in them, because I believe most trans people are good people. If you want to refute that, then you just show your own bigotry (more than you already are towards women).

Rufus May
>>101436127

I see a lot of mistakes in your comment here (for example, a trans girl would be in the men's bathroom because you want to require people to use facilities according to their assigned sex at birth), but in short: No you can't prove what you claimed? You just made it up? Just like when you made up the claim that there was an increase in risk, despite having no evidence to support that either? Whereas I'm looking at the actual evidence and making a decision based on that, not rejecting it because it doesn't suit what I already believe. Pretty well summarizes are two positions, wouldn't you say?

GoldArthur
>>101436127

No, you are not looking at evidence. You're looking at hastily put together "studies" that were bought and paid for by corporations. I am using real logic and rationality. No amount of papers published can deny the fact, that allowing biological males an opportunity to be around young girls in the privacy of a bathroom will be abused by predators (ignoring the fact that it already has been). And no, I can't prove that most trans people understand why bathrooms are biologically segregated, just as I can't prove that most trans people believe that children should be discouraged from transitioning before they become an adult, beyond anecdotal evidence. I can state as a fact that there are a lot of them. And I choose to believe it's the majority, because I have faith that the majority of trans people are not selfish and don't wish take comfort for themselves at the expense of so many others. And can you explain why we should take seriously, a trans person feeling uncomfortable about using the bathroom of their biological sex, but not a mother feeling uncomfortable about sending her daughter in a restroom with biological males, whom are the source of 98% of the sexual abuse of biological females?

Rufus May
>>101436127

So what you're saying is, you have no evidence? You just imagine things and then state them as though they were fact (or in your words, you take them on faith)? You do keep mentioning that individual incidents do occur, but I assume you know that happens whether facilities are trans inclusive or not so it's a pointless thing to bring up unless you're actually basing your arguments on emotion not "logic and rationality" You also discount every study that shows no overall increase. I guess you don't find it strange that in this argument that has been ongoing for decades, which you believe has such an obvious conclusion, no one on 'your side' has been able to find the evidence that they're correct, and all the studies that show the opposite are scams. To me that sounds like a pretty big reach to avoid accepting reality, but alright. The problem there is, if it's true that there's no evidence, then given that you're making a positive claim "logic and rationality" dictates that claim should be discarded until evidence to support it is found.

Rufus May
>>101436127

And to answer your question, I think both people's opinions should be considered. It seems like a stupid question though, there are always people with differing viewpoints who will be unhappy with whatever society at large decides to do, that doesn't mean they get to veto it. We'd still have racial segregation if that's how it worked.

GoldArthur
>>101436127

Funny how you end by saying that you think both people should be considered and that there will always be people with different viewpoints, yet you want to cancel Rowling and insist that other do the same for having... a differing viewpoint... Yeah, I think that's where I'll drop off here; you directly contradicting your core argument.

Rufus May
>>101436127

I didn't say I wanted to cancel Rowling, whatever that even means, nor did I say that anyone else ought to. I also don't see where the contradiction is between thinking someone is wrong or bigoted and considering different people's viewpoints when implementing social policy, or what's strange about acknowledging that whatever policy you adopt someone will disagree with it. Are you sure you aren't just trying to distract from the fact that you have no evidence to support your position before you run away? I guess in the end the person who couldn't handle a hard conversation was you.

GoldArthur
>>101436127

It's not about running away. It's about not wasting time on somebody that keeps repeating the same thing you've clarified over and over again. You're a broken record, stuck on repeat. This discussion is a waste of my time now. You're not bringing up anything new.

Rufus May
>>101436127

I don't need to bring up anything new, until you provide actual evidence then "you have no evidence" is sufficient to dismiss your claims. You've already admitted that your belief is based on faith, we just disagree on whether that's a bad thing or not.

GoldArthur
>>101436127

Yes, I have already admitted that my opinion that most trans people are good people is based on faith, rather than statistics. So, why do you keep bringing it up? You seem really desperate to throw trans people under the bus and assign a damaging policy to them as a group. Me thinks you aren't really as supportive of trans people as you pretend to be. Almost like you're trying to take them down as a group by making everyone think they advocate for taking away private safe spaces from women and girls, when they don't.

Rufus May
>>101436127

A more accurate description of that opinion is "I'm definitely right and I know they agree with me because of how right I am". But this also applies to your claims that trans inclusiveness is harmful, that I'm cancelling JKR, and so on. All these opinions are just fantasies you've advanced without or in spite of evidence and defended only by emotional arguments like "you just disagree with me because you hate trans people".

GoldArthur
>>101436127

You are claiming that the author is deliberately lying to harm an identity group, and trying to convince people not to watch a movie because of that, but say you aren't trying to cancel her? And no, I know they agree with me, because I spend a lot of time around trans people. Again, I am engaged to a trans-man.

Rufus May
>>101436127

"and trying to convince people not to watch a movie because of that" In fact I have not tried to convince anyone to boycott Rowling, because while I respect someone else's decision to do so I don't personally think it's necessary. But you imagined it was true and are now presenting it as fact even though it's incorrect. "I know they agree with me, because I spend a lot of time around trans people" Even if this were true, it would be very poor reasoning to make any kind of argument about what 'most' trans people believe. Do you need me to explain why or do you think you can figure it out if you try really hard?

GoldArthur
>>101436127

If you are not trying to interfere with them watching them movie, then I don't see why we are having this conflict in the first place. The very fact that you replied to this thread about watching the movie and people expecting them to do things to make up for it, bashing the author, and contradicting people that say there's nothing to make up for, very much implies that you are trying to boycott it. If that's not the case, then great. But perhaps you can elaborate a bit more on what your motivation here was.

Rufus May
>>101436127

I have two motivations here, first to correct you in your various mistaken statements, such as the false claim that Rowling has done nothing to harm trans people, and second to explain that you're an idealogue incapable or unwilling to engage in critical examination of your own beliefs. That is why we're 'having this conflict': I am explaining to you what the evidence shows in the real world, while you are insisting in believing in fantasies to avoid admitting that you (or Rowling) are wrong and remaining willfully ignorant of the harm your beliefs cause to others.

Anonymous

Are there Normies that have never watched Harry Potter?

GoldArthur
>>101436127

Yet you dismiss the real world examples of it occurring and hide behind low sample statistics from select areas. Seems to me that YOU are the one incapable of examining your own beliefs.

Ferdinand Buot

The Devil Wears Prada 2006 is an amazing movie to react to!

Anonymous

I'm not really keen on re-watching HP, I personally don't think it's worth the clicks to support a transphobe sorry. I know you guys will honour the poll if it wins, I'm just sad it was included as an option in the first place

Bastion33
>>101732204

You should realize the "Movies" and other projects having to do with HP are more than just the Author of the books. So many people have a hand in the arts that have created the world so many people love. We need to support those people too.

Champion Bescos
>>101732204

Ya'll boycotting the entire HP universe are wild. You do this shit online against Rowling because its the absolute path of least resistance while still putting yourselves on a pedestal. Rowling has not said anything that trans people I know and love have considered transphobic, but the narrative on places like Twitter don't allow that level of thought. Any dissenting opinion from within the community that doesn't serve their agenda is immediately written off and buried. It's a joke. Go down to the Wizarding World and boycott in person if you really have beef with the woman, don't hide behind a keyboard judging others for enjoying something wholesome and not remotely offensive. Grow up.

Anonymous

Any update when you will react?

Rufus May
>>101436127

Real world incidents of what occurring? Women being attacked? Yes, that happens. Women being attacked more frequently because of trans inclusive policies? There's no evidence of that. Every time it's been investigated the result has been that there's no increase. You call it low sample size but we've had decades to find this increase in cities all over the world yet there's nothing. It's a fiction.

Anonymous

YESSS HARRY POTTER

dom

whens the harry potter reactions starting?

Anonymous

In all honesty who gives a fuck what Jk Rowlings personal beliefs are, a lot of people say and believe stupid things but if youre one of these people that are trying to gatekeep and ostracize people for enjoying something youre no better, Harry Potter has nothing to do with her views on trans people and it actually made a lot of kids feel included, whether they were lonely, didnt fit in, had a poor home/family life, I could go on forever. Everyone meets hate with hate these days and it solves nothing and invites the worst kinds of people

Anonymous

Cant wait for you guys to get amongst the Harry Potter reactions

islandgirlshantal1

ugh everybody has already seen hairy potty why not vote for something they haven't seen yet like Planet of the Apes or Blade