Sign In

Warbler

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
7-May-2003
Last activity
24-Apr-2018
Posts
26380

Post History

Post
#1186985
Topic
Pirates of the Caribbean and the Political Correctness Craze
Time

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Handman said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I hate that they added Johnny Depp to the ride.

have you been on the ride since Johnny Depp was added?

Yes, and it’s dumb.

was it dumb before? i mean, its a kids ride right?

I don’t like Johnny Depp. I just don’t. That ride is part of my childhood memories. I don’t it being changed in that way.

how about the child who grew up with Johnny Depp being part of the ride. If you get your way and have him removed, maybe you will be ruining their childhood memories!

Basically, asking for things to never change is a selfish worldview.

I doubt I’ll have my have way and it will be removed. But I was more wishing they had never added Depp in the first place. I don’t see why asking for certain things to never change is a selfish worldview.

Post
#1186963
Topic
NFL
Time

http://6abc.com/sports/eagles-de-michael-bennett-indicted-in-texas/3251468/

*sigh*

How the hell did the Eagles miss that this was going on when they were considering trading for him?

Also while pushing a 66 year old paraplegic is totally unacceptable and Bennett is scumbag for doing so and deserves whatever punishment is coming his way, what is a 66 year old paraplegic woman doing working security at a Superbowl?

Post
#1186960
Topic
Pirates of the Caribbean and the Political Correctness Craze
Time

dahmage said:

Handman said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I hate that they added Johnny Depp to the ride.

have you been on the ride since Johnny Depp was added?

Yes, and it’s dumb.

was it dumb before? i mean, its a kids ride right?

I don’t like Johnny Depp. I just don’t. That ride is part of my childhood memories. I don’t it being changed in that way.

Post
#1186610
Topic
Pirates of the Caribbean and the Political Correctness Craze
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

So you’re a fan of the walkie talkies in ET? Or just annoyed with anybody who questions such a choice?

Are you talking to me? I literally said “it’s not like they’re removing guns from the movie, it’s just a poster.” There’s a big difference between a film and its marketing materials.

As for ET, I’ve legitimately never understood the walkie talkie complaint. I mean sure, was that really necessary? Nah. But honestly is it that big a deal? Judging by the reaction you see about it on the internet you’d think they’d replaced ET with the alien from Mac and Me, everyone acts like this small change ruins the whole movie.

Some of us don’t like it when they go back and change movies. Some of us prefer movies how they originally were. Welcome to originaltrilogy.com.

This is true.

http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-Knick-Knack-Boobs-Restoration/id/17679/page/1

Thank god for the anti-PC heroes at originaltrilogy.com. I sleep easy at night knowing you guys are here to make the world great again.

I am not even sure how that thread applies to me. I have no idea what it is about and I don’t remember ever posting in it. Nonetheless, this site is dedicated to the idea the movies should be preserved how they originally were. You know, the whole “Han Shoots first” bit?

Warbler, you do realize that Frink was agreeing with you, right?

He was? could have fooled me.

Maybe next time actually figure out what Frink is trying to say before you assume he’s antagonizing you and fly off the handle for no good reason?

Maybe next time he could be more clear as to what he was saying(if indeed he was agreeing with me). He could also learn to be less antagonizing so that one wouldn’t so readily assume that is what he was doing.

Post
#1186608
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Mrebo said:

The video from the self-driving Uber car was released.

The victim is visible about 1.5 seconds before the collision. Not a lot of time for a driver to react but I would expect a self-driving car to be able to detect far better than this. Doesn’t help that the person behind the wheel wasn’t watching the road and the car was a couple miles over the speed limit.

Theoretically, if the self-driving car was done right, you wouldn’t have to watch the road.

Post
#1186603
Topic
Pirates of the Caribbean and the Political Correctness Craze
Time

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Eh, the movie is about cheap thrills and space action. It’s not like wanting to advertise First Blood without weaponry because there’s more to the Rambo character (in that movie) than violence.

First Blood is a really bad example, I take it you haven’t seen that film in awhile - it’d actually more sense if Rambo didn’t have a machine gun on the poster.

I know the movie. I’m saying that’s a movie that they wouldn’t want to advertise the violence in because there’s more to it than that.

Oh, I completely misread the comparison you were making (missed the word “not” in “it’s not like…”). My bad.

DominicCobb said:

Anyway, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have guns on the poster, just saying it’s not that egregious if they don’t.

You don’t find it kind of uncomfortable that they delete things to avoid offending people? Granted, this isn’t art, it’s a marketing object, but it’s still close.

I don’t think it’s done to avoid “offending people.” The sight of guns doesn’t “offend” people (the word “offend” is misused way too often these days). It’s marketing materials, like you said. So the goal is to cater to the audience, if they think the audience is less likely to see it if every character is holding a gun, that’s a fair marketing move to make.

I get what you’re saying. I’m not bothered by this because it’s “censorship” because it’s not. I’m not bothered by it at all because it’s just marketing, but I think it’s a clear example of laziness. They want a character shot without a gun so they just erase the gun and have it look like crap. Ugly. Sad. Lazy.

Mhm. And like Wook says, Brazil has its own standards.

To Dom’s point, people care about these kinds of things more than they might when they perceive a political or social agenda at work, whether or not it’s true.

That doesn’t make the outrage any less silly.

I don’t think so, Dom.

If Disney changed the PotC ride decades ago in response to religious objections, I think people would be reasonably annoyed about it.

Depends what the alterations were. In the case of the most recent alteration to the ride, the reasoning could be construed as “the feminist agenda,” which absolutely makes the outrage silly (how dare we not demean women!). In the case of removing guns from a poster, the connection to an agenda is tenuous - some of these posters don’t feature characters with guns which means they’re promoting gun control? By that logic any poster that doesn’t feature guns is promoting gun control.

Can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not. Seems to me that both the agenda of those making a change as well as what the change is can reasonably bother people. If it’s not clear from my first post, this change to the Disney ride doesn’t bother me.

You frame the possible agenda here in positive terms so that any objector is a cretin. But the objection as I understand it has to do with political correctness and a view that the old ride didn’t demean women. People can argue that amongst themselves.

My initial statement (that if they’re outraged because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly), was in regards to the subjects in question. These particular outrages are silly, and that they think it’s because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly.

A silly hypothetical follows: Imagine they replaced the gold idol at the start of Raiders with a big diamond because the Bible says something about gold idols being bad. It would be a minor aesthetic change that doesn’t alter the story but it would really annoy me on multiple levels including the imposition of an ideology on a creative work. I’m not being absolutist, but that’s how I would feel about this kind of change. And I think that’s reasonable.

Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?

Huh? the original version of Raiders is different than the theatrical cut of Raiders???

Read that exchange again, we’re talking about a hypothetical.

You asked if the theatrical cut would be worse than the original, the only way that could be is if they are different.

That wasn’t what I said.

Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?

Post
#1186589
Topic
Pirates of the Caribbean and the Political Correctness Craze
Time

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Eh, the movie is about cheap thrills and space action. It’s not like wanting to advertise First Blood without weaponry because there’s more to the Rambo character (in that movie) than violence.

First Blood is a really bad example, I take it you haven’t seen that film in awhile - it’d actually more sense if Rambo didn’t have a machine gun on the poster.

I know the movie. I’m saying that’s a movie that they wouldn’t want to advertise the violence in because there’s more to it than that.

Oh, I completely misread the comparison you were making (missed the word “not” in “it’s not like…”). My bad.

DominicCobb said:

Anyway, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have guns on the poster, just saying it’s not that egregious if they don’t.

You don’t find it kind of uncomfortable that they delete things to avoid offending people? Granted, this isn’t art, it’s a marketing object, but it’s still close.

I don’t think it’s done to avoid “offending people.” The sight of guns doesn’t “offend” people (the word “offend” is misused way too often these days). It’s marketing materials, like you said. So the goal is to cater to the audience, if they think the audience is less likely to see it if every character is holding a gun, that’s a fair marketing move to make.

I get what you’re saying. I’m not bothered by this because it’s “censorship” because it’s not. I’m not bothered by it at all because it’s just marketing, but I think it’s a clear example of laziness. They want a character shot without a gun so they just erase the gun and have it look like crap. Ugly. Sad. Lazy.

Mhm. And like Wook says, Brazil has its own standards.

To Dom’s point, people care about these kinds of things more than they might when they perceive a political or social agenda at work, whether or not it’s true.

That doesn’t make the outrage any less silly.

I don’t think so, Dom.

If Disney changed the PotC ride decades ago in response to religious objections, I think people would be reasonably annoyed about it.

Depends what the alterations were. In the case of the most recent alteration to the ride, the reasoning could be construed as “the feminist agenda,” which absolutely makes the outrage silly (how dare we not demean women!). In the case of removing guns from a poster, the connection to an agenda is tenuous - some of these posters don’t feature characters with guns which means they’re promoting gun control? By that logic any poster that doesn’t feature guns is promoting gun control.

Can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not. Seems to me that both the agenda of those making a change as well as what the change is can reasonably bother people. If it’s not clear from my first post, this change to the Disney ride doesn’t bother me.

You frame the possible agenda here in positive terms so that any objector is a cretin. But the objection as I understand it has to do with political correctness and a view that the old ride didn’t demean women. People can argue that amongst themselves.

My initial statement (that if they’re outraged because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly), was in regards to the subjects in question. These particular outrages are silly, and that they think it’s because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly.

A silly hypothetical follows: Imagine they replaced the gold idol at the start of Raiders with a big diamond because the Bible says something about gold idols being bad. It would be a minor aesthetic change that doesn’t alter the story but it would really annoy me on multiple levels including the imposition of an ideology on a creative work. I’m not being absolutist, but that’s how I would feel about this kind of change. And I think that’s reasonable.

Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?

Huh? the original version of Raiders is different than the theatrical cut of Raiders???

Read that exchange again, we’re talking about a hypothetical.

You asked if the theatrical cut would be worse than the original, the only way that could be is if they are different.

Obviously. So are the walkie talkies. But who cares?

HAN SHOOTS FIRST!

You’re missing my point.

aren’t I always?

Post
#1186556
Topic
Pirates of the Caribbean and the Political Correctness Craze
Time

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Eh, the movie is about cheap thrills and space action. It’s not like wanting to advertise First Blood without weaponry because there’s more to the Rambo character (in that movie) than violence.

First Blood is a really bad example, I take it you haven’t seen that film in awhile - it’d actually more sense if Rambo didn’t have a machine gun on the poster.

I know the movie. I’m saying that’s a movie that they wouldn’t want to advertise the violence in because there’s more to it than that.

Oh, I completely misread the comparison you were making (missed the word “not” in “it’s not like…”). My bad.

DominicCobb said:

Anyway, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have guns on the poster, just saying it’s not that egregious if they don’t.

You don’t find it kind of uncomfortable that they delete things to avoid offending people? Granted, this isn’t art, it’s a marketing object, but it’s still close.

I don’t think it’s done to avoid “offending people.” The sight of guns doesn’t “offend” people (the word “offend” is misused way too often these days). It’s marketing materials, like you said. So the goal is to cater to the audience, if they think the audience is less likely to see it if every character is holding a gun, that’s a fair marketing move to make.

I get what you’re saying. I’m not bothered by this because it’s “censorship” because it’s not. I’m not bothered by it at all because it’s just marketing, but I think it’s a clear example of laziness. They want a character shot without a gun so they just erase the gun and have it look like crap. Ugly. Sad. Lazy.

Mhm. And like Wook says, Brazil has its own standards.

To Dom’s point, people care about these kinds of things more than they might when they perceive a political or social agenda at work, whether or not it’s true.

That doesn’t make the outrage any less silly.

I don’t think so, Dom.

If Disney changed the PotC ride decades ago in response to religious objections, I think people would be reasonably annoyed about it.

Depends what the alterations were. In the case of the most recent alteration to the ride, the reasoning could be construed as “the feminist agenda,” which absolutely makes the outrage silly (how dare we not demean women!). In the case of removing guns from a poster, the connection to an agenda is tenuous - some of these posters don’t feature characters with guns which means they’re promoting gun control? By that logic any poster that doesn’t feature guns is promoting gun control.

Can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not. Seems to me that both the agenda of those making a change as well as what the change is can reasonably bother people. If it’s not clear from my first post, this change to the Disney ride doesn’t bother me.

You frame the possible agenda here in positive terms so that any objector is a cretin. But the objection as I understand it has to do with political correctness and a view that the old ride didn’t demean women. People can argue that amongst themselves.

My initial statement (that if they’re outraged because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly), was in regards to the subjects in question. These particular outrages are silly, and that they think it’s because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly.

A silly hypothetical follows: Imagine they replaced the gold idol at the start of Raiders with a big diamond because the Bible says something about gold idols being bad. It would be a minor aesthetic change that doesn’t alter the story but it would really annoy me on multiple levels including the imposition of an ideology on a creative work. I’m not being absolutist, but that’s how I would feel about this kind of change. And I think that’s reasonable.

Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?

Huh? the original version of Raiders is different than the theatrical cut of Raiders???

Obviously. So are the walkie talkies. But who cares?

HAN SHOOTS FIRST!

Post
#1186540
Topic
Pirates of the Caribbean and the Political Correctness Craze
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

All I know is what originaltrilogy.com is about, and that is preserving the original versions of movies.

So…the problem is that knick knack boobs is a short and not a movie?

I don’t give a shit about whatever it is.

So you don’t think it should be preserved? Isn’t that inconsistent with your previous statement?

whatever.

You might consider that your reaction to this current line of discussion is more about who is saying it than what is being said.

If it was someone else asking the difference between Star Wars, E.T., and Knick Knack Boobs, I wonder if you wouldn’t see why the question was reasonable.

Someone else wouldn’t have brought whatever the stupid Knick Knack Boobs is, into this.

[citation needed]

ok.