|
|
Post by Claire on Nov 28, 2008 13:35:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dolly on Nov 28, 2008 14:13:27 GMT -5
wtf???
i'm speechless.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjefffurz on Nov 28, 2008 14:42:16 GMT -5
wtf also...that has to be one of the most ridiculous things ive ever seen
|
|
|
|
Post by Claire on Nov 28, 2008 15:27:31 GMT -5
Yeah, as you can see, it left me rather speechless too! How someone could think that such blatant discrimination, or ableism, could be legal or appropriate is beyond me. I loved the quote: "It's the exact equivalent of putting a warning on a Spike Lee film saying, 'This film contains black people.'" That's exactly it. Can you imagine?
|
|
|
|
Post by roger888 on Nov 28, 2008 16:18:35 GMT -5
Its yet another example of the BBFC being taken over by the politically correct nannies in this country.They think that no one is this country is capable of making up their own minds whether they should be watching a certain film or not.
Looking on the bright side.The director has recieved more publicity for his film than he could ever have expected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2008 19:50:05 GMT -5
I feel like Brian smacking Peter on the nose with a newspaper....
|
|
|
|
Post by roger888 on Nov 29, 2008 13:28:27 GMT -5
I feel like Brian smacking Peter on the nose with a newspaper.... A classic of cinematic history that proved there is no such thing as bad publicity...if I understand your cryptic message correctly  If it was what I think it was....  |
|
|
|
Post by roger888 on Nov 30, 2008 12:40:27 GMT -5
A classic of cinematic history that proved there is no such thing as bad publicity...if I understand your cryptic message correctly If it was what I think it was.... well it's a family guy reference, brian is a dog and in one episode he hit his owner peter on the nose with a newspaper like people do with bad dogs.... speaking of family guy, lol here's the most awesome wheelchair related cartoon clip: Here was I thinking it was a "Life of Brian" reference after the "Looking on the bright side" comment I made ;D |
|
|
|
Post by laurasweetou on Nov 30, 2008 17:27:20 GMT -5
Where would we be able to obtain a copy of this film?
|
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Nov 30, 2008 18:30:53 GMT -5
i think lots of folks are just really squeamish about anything that might be disturbing or what they perceive as negative. they just don't, don't DON'T want to deal w/it...hence these 'warnings'. i was reading some stuff online about this severely burnt woman, and there was all this 'warning! disturbing image' alerts before you saw her picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by BA on Nov 30, 2008 21:28:26 GMT -5
i was reading some stuff online about this severely burnt woman, and there was all this 'warning! disturbing image' alerts before you saw her picture. I find no longer having a face to be disturbing. |
|
|
|
Post by Chan on Nov 30, 2008 21:50:15 GMT -5
i was reading some stuff online about this severely burnt woman, and there was all this 'warning! disturbing image' alerts before you saw her picture. I find no longer having a face to be disturbing. I've got to agree with AB. Images of severe bodily mutilation (especially fresh, gaping wounds or peeling skin) definitely warrant a disclaimer. |
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Dec 1, 2008 7:06:15 GMT -5
well...how is a warning about gimps any different?! sure a woman whose face looks like a halloween mask is disturbing, but it's reality; it can and does happen. especially in this particular case bcause the girl was hot looking pre-accident...i don't know; i suppose american faint-heartedness in the face of REAL extreme shit(as opposed to stuff in games and movies or 'body modifaction', piercing and tatts and suchlike alleged transgressive ventures)has an upside: the fact that NO dead bodies or body parts were ever shown from 9/11 probably kept arabs from being lynched in the street in the days following the attack...the ban on showing dead american soldiers and iraqis is probably a factor in keeping american anti-war sentiment to manageable levels...
|
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Dec 1, 2008 12:33:21 GMT -5
well...actually...i forgot to insert a 'but' between my examples. in fact, i'm AGAINST an american presence in iraq. photos of the real effects of bombs on real human bodies make it difficult-not impossible, difficult-to be in favor of ANY military activity. such may be necessary, unfortunately, but once you've seen a little boy w/his head cracked open like an egg and his brain on the ground beside him, everything covred w/white dust...or a g.i. w/such a huge wound in his side that you can clear;ly see his heart, it's hard to be too rah-rah about warfare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ouch on Dec 1, 2008 14:57:17 GMT -5
...has an upside: the fact that NO dead bodies or body parts were ever shown from 9/11 probably kept arabs from being lynched in the street in the days following the attack...the ban on showing dead american soldiers and iraqis is probably a factor in keeping american anti-war sentiment to manageable levels... Triassic, you've hit on an important thing here. You are right that mass emotions can be managed through/by the media. In WWII, the media reported atrocities being committed by Germany and Japan. Despite huge losses of American troops, America was behind that war; and we won. But in the next 25 years, something changed. In Vietnam, the media reported every story about stressed-out American soldiers accidentally killing civilians; and stayed away from any stories about the hell that our soldiers were enduring. And what happened? A small but loud anti-war contingent developed within the American public, America lost the war, and our soldiers returned in shame. The real shame was that many of these heroes were ridiculed and spat upon. The same thing, I fear, is happening with the current war. The media doesn't show a lot of gory footage from the war. I contend that doing so would get people fired up in support of our boys over there fighting in that sandy hell; but I'm probably optimistic. What the media does report, though, is the "huge" number of casualties. However, we lose more of our young people in gang violence in our own big cities. Where is the nightly reporting of "we lost ### people in gang violence today?" Where is the public outcry over this violence and these casualties? Where is the venom for the public officials who presided over creating the system that allows - even encourages - the culture of inner-city gangs? But I digress. Yes, the media can influence and control the public's emotions through what they choose to report. 'America' didn't lose the Vietnam Conflict; the allied forces within Viet Nam, that supported the Republic of Vietnam did not 'lose' the conflict. The United States brokered a cease-fire with North Vietnam, and it was broken when the North Vietnamese Army continued to attack. The United States transitioned the protection of the Republic to the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam; unfortunately they did not stand a chance against the Soviet-backed NVA. The annexation had nothing to do with the United States citisenry. It is a shame that those whose lives were risked during the conflict, were riddiculed, or 'spat upon' as you say; such as during an United States re-election campaign that occured recently, very, very unfortunate. The United States public would be stupid to simply forget how Osama bin Laden and his allies murdered our brethren, and I am certain we're far from forgetting our tresspass, and that's why there is so much support to finish the job, which is in Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan, as well. At least in my locale, I believe the media reports honestly about both topics, our involvement in international conflict, and domestic crime. It is sad that those public officials who enabled this violence domestically to occur have not been held accountable for their decisions, such as the decisions to give such young persons the tools to carry out such violence. The media today is quite a factor in the United States' public's perception of issues that face our nation. ...though this all is totally off-topic. As for the discussion we were having here; while I can see descriptors of the content of the film being perfectly acceptable (and I think a responisble thing to do - much like a book summary); I don't think such a 'label' that was affixed to that film was necessary, nor the right thing to do. |
|
