How did early Christian texts just go missing?

[Secret Alias]

And from your article (which frames its discussion in terms of UNINTENTIONAL homosexual references):

Let's not kid ourselves, though. A lot of Top Gun's homoeroticism was clearly accidental. That scene in the lift? McGillis (who came out as gay herself in 2009) is only wearing a cap because the scene was shot in post-production and the actress had dyed her hair brunette for another role. Meanwhile, a lot of this reading of Maverick's relationships with both Goose and Iceman rely on subtextual interpretation, rather than any overt displays of sexual interest. (That said, the volleyball and obsession with the word "butt" we can't excuse.)

If Tony Scott had really wanted to make an action film about gay pilots, we're pretty sure he would have. After all, Top Gun was released in a decade when gay cinema was booming (see Cruising, My Beautiful Laundrette, Parting Glances and many others).

I think you've UNITENTIONALLY helped demonstrate the weakness of "gay subtext" arguments. Thanks for being so dumb ...

[rakovsky]

Have you actually matched up (a) the cited concluding rapportage by Tarantino et al and (b) the actual concluding bavardage in Top Gun. In reality (a) is not an accurate rendition of (b). Tarantino is not trying to be serious. It was a comedic moment.

Who knows. The screenwriter says it's "unavoidable", and screenwriters and directors have a big say in whatever the "secret" meaning is, since they have produced it. The actor Val Kilmer says it's true too.

When I saw X Men, I never thought it was gay at all, yet....

[rakovsky]

If Tony Scott had really wanted to make an action film about gay pilots, we're pretty sure he would have. After all, Top Gun was released in a decade when gay cinema was booming (see Cruising, My Beautiful Laundrette, Parting Glances and many others).

I never heard of any of those movies. Not exactly "booming".
I never thought for a minute of X Men as gay at all, yet despite being able to make a gay movie in a time when gay movies are coming out, they chose to make a movie to hit large audiences with a cryptic subplot.

[rakovsky]

I think you've UNITENTIONALLY helped demonstrate the weakness of "gay subtext" arguments. Thanks for being so dumb ...

If the screenwriter says it, that doesn't seem simply weak.

[Secret Alias]

You've helped justify why I have ignored your threads and comments until now. There should be a minimum intelligence requirement to participate in this forum

[rakovsky]

There would be no way I think to tell that X Men really had a gay subplot if we didn't have the cast or director's comments, AFAIK. Correct me if I am wrong about that.

In the case of Top Gun, you have the screenwriter saying that the conclusion is unavoidable because of the director's decisions and you have lead actor Val Kilmer agreeing that there was a gay subplot.

[iskander]

You've helped justify why I have ignored your threads and comments until now. There should be a minimum intelligence requirement to participate in this forum

LOL. Perhaps it should be so. Who do you think would get a licence from the genius in charge?

[rakovsky]

Hoax?:
"Pope Francis Orders Vatican Archives to Reveal God’s Name Ending Centuries of Secrecy"
http://realnewsrightnow.com/2017/02/pop ... s-secrecy/

[Ulan]

If Tony Scott had really wanted to make an action film about gay pilots, we're pretty sure he would have. After all, Top Gun was released in a decade when gay cinema was booming (see Cruising, My Beautiful Laundrette, Parting Glances and many others).

I never heard of any of those movies. Not exactly "booming".

Why do you think your personal experience is enough to judge a claim like this? You should at least know "Cruising", which had a star cast and provoked quite a public debate. The other films were smaller, though I've seen "Beautiful Laundrette".

Hoax?:
"Pope Francis Orders Vatican Archives to Reveal God’s Name Ending Centuries of Secrecy"
http://realnewsrightnow.com/2017/02/pop ... s-secrecy/

Do you really have to ask? That's a satire site.

[MrMacSon]

Many things in the gospels and early Church history are the kind of thing that someone living in the 1st or early 2nd c. could find out... Someone living in the 1st c. could check up on the facts for themselves too in controversial areas.

• But it seems nobody did.