[Giving a review on the movie "Ratatouille."]
111 comments
The entire post (emphasis added on the new stuff:I found “Ratatouille” to be extremely offensive. Their were a few scenes in which the rat pranced around the kitchen wearing no undergarments. And you call this a children's film? Also, the main character in this film's main ambition was to take over the world with his food. He also is a very disobedient son, and shows greed on many occasions by only wanting the money that will be produced through the rat's cooking skills. Also, there is blood, including an extreme amount of violence and torture towards the rats. And these are animals created by God? Just to be abused?
*rubbing temples*
Pleas be a Poe...
I'm sure this all stems from that well-known, nude, homosexual icon, Bugs Bunny, as well as from the evil influence of that icon of the homosexual tolerant Disney Corp., the underwearless Mickey Mouse!
The rat never wore any clothing (other than a chefs hat). What the hell were you talking about?
And world domination through food? Are you talking the man or the rat? Either one just wanted to be a chef.
And why do I think you'd be the first person screaming for poison, glue traps and shotguns if you had rats in your kitchen.
It was a cute little story. The only lesson to be learned from it was to follow your dreams. What kind of twisted miserable fuck are you to see all this hatred in a simple little cartoon?
Yes. Yes, I call it a children's film.
You, on the other hand, call it rat porn. Which makes me worry about you.
Yeah the comments on that website are just retarded. Cartoon violence is not going to make your kids violent... Real violence does. Are you hiding your kids from CNN where real people get shot? Seriously, I come from a farming area. We know while mickey mouse is cute, in real life rats are a pest. A dangerous pest that must be killed. But we know the difference between cartoon and reality.
However these morons do not...
As for rats wearing clothes... Do you know how disturbing if all animals suddenly started wearing clothes? For starters it would make it a lot harder to kill a chicken in a waistcoat or a sheep in a leather jacket?
This has to be a joke. What about the old lady with the gun, or when the chef gets the other guy drunk? Did you miss those parts because you were too busy going OMG no undergarments???
I really liked that movie, but seriously?
"I found “Ratatouille” to be extremely offensive. Their were a few scenes in which the rat pranced around the kitchen wearing no undergarments. And you call this a children's film?"
Are you fucking kidding me? This reminds me of the urban legend about Donald Duck being banned in Finland because he didn't wear pants.
Someone tell me this moron is a Poe.
HE'S A RAT. What next, you want pants edited into Bambi so that there aren't naked animals in that?
Then again, I'd bet my Ratatouille DVD this one's a troll, because I'm that confident I wouldn't lose it.
Was the cartoon rat anatomically correct? I mean, boy rats seem to have huge packages in proportion to their body size.
Donald Duck was banned somewhere for not wearing pants....
I know what's going on here. It's like when somebody admits to something awkward that everybody does but nobody has the guts to say "yeah, actually I do that too".
Clearly me and Mark Torch are the only ones bold enough to confess that we couldn't focus on the plot of the film thanks to that sensuous CGI rodent covorting it's sexy little bod around the screen. If only they had offered it some garments I might have been able to take my eyes of the titillating chest, the provocative thighs, and that arse! My God, what an arse on that rat! I spoke of little else that evening, much to the dismay of my book club.
Their were a few scenes in which the rat pranced around the kitchen wearing no undergarments.
And you think a mouse wearing pants is less disturbing? Mickey Mouse is not an accurate representation of actual rodentia.
Anthropomorphizing much? (even more than the animators, that is)
Ya know, Daffy Duck is naked AND he lisps. Hmmmmm. Oh, and let's not forget Snagglepuss.
Go do something constructive. Barring that, DIAF, you're using my air.
*For the record, (and having not seen this particular movie) I think anyone/thing prancing around in undergarments would be more provocative and therefore more offensive (and, of course, more hilarious).
@Septic Sceptic:
Oh Christians and their superior sense of morality...you've caught us. Trying to convert children into homosexual Satanists by exposing them to the unbridled horrors of unclothed animals and aspirations for wealth, we just couldn't resist. They will never recover, I'm afraid....but you've foiled us again!
Now, it's back to relying on Harry Potter, the liberal media and Japanimation to convert unsuspecting children to the dark side...
Septic Sceptic:
Mark Torch:
Frankly, I'd have found it way, way more offensive if the rat WERE wearing undergarments.
Doesn't this guy know cartoon animals wear underwear below their Tex Avery-issue fur suit?
This is just incredible fail, even for most other fundies of my faith.
Adam & Eve were nude in the beginning, has he actually forgotten about that?
I mean, come on! It's a freaking rat!
@cyborgtroy:
So... does this mean that if you see a rat race across your kitchen floor, you'll cover your children's eyes to protect them from its "nudity?"
Pfft....
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
"I found “Ratatouille” to be extremely offensive. Their were a few scenes in which the rat pranced around the kitchen wearing no undergarments. And you call this a children's film?"
PROTIP: What you saw on the screen was merely a bunch of 0s and 1s. CGI =/= RL.
But then, you knuckle-draggers shout & scream at the TV whenever you watch WWE. Not taking into account the fact that they can't hear you, what the wrestlers are doing is merely an act . As in it's NOT REAL.
And so is "Ratatouille". Hell, you probably think the 'rat' in the episode of "Fawlty Towers" was real - especially when it appeared in the tin of biscuits?
(*facepalms *) I despair of humanity sometimes. At least subhumans like Mark Torch are in the minority. I hope so, anyway.
And as you can see, children, this is what happens when you read fiction and believe it to be real. It warps your mind, to the extent that you can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. And the likes of Mark here believe one particular mind-warping fiction book to be real . It's called the Bible.
Who said it was a children's film? Not all animated films are for children nowadays, you know.
Isn't it the fact that the rat is in the kitchen that is offensive. Whether or not he's wearing undergarments is of lesser importance.
No one can seriously be this sheltered from life, could they? I mean if he's also like this everytime he sees an animal everytime he steps out of his own home then I seriously feel sorry for him, its got to be a poe.
"I found the old testament to be extremely offensive. There was a scene in which Moses slaughtered Amalekite men, women, children, infants, and animals yet kept 32000 virgins to rape later. And you teach this shit to children?"
I think children realize that rats generally do not wear any clothing, neither do hamsters, gerbils , rabbits or cats and dogs, horses, pigs or chickens.
This person should do stand-up, because that was fucking hilarious.
... Wait, they're serious?
*Flips table and storms out of the room*
This is obviously a Poe, btdubz.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
