Warbler doesn’t care about preserving American film culture.
I don’t?
He’s referring to Knick Knack…
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.
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.
Cretin is not how I’d describe all of them, mostly they’re just people wasting their time and energy getting worked up about nothing. Framing the potential agenda in positive terms is just natural, there’s nothing nefarious about removing something that many people find demeaning to women, whether it objectively is or isn’t (of course, hard to apply objectivity in something such as this).
As for fighting against the “PC agenda,” I’ll rarely ever find that not silly.
The old PotC display was more demeaning to pirates, imho. The women were obviously victims portrayed in a sympathetic light and in no way condoning the treatment. That’s why I’m fine with seeing it go. Pirates are kind-hearted souls when it comes down to it. If you don’t believe me, go watch the movies.
Just remembered I saw Close Encounters this past fall. Don’t know how I could’ve forgotten that, saw it in the Cinerama Dome and cried my eyes out.
This story has stuck with me since I first heard it:
In a making-of documentary commemorating the 20th anniversary of the 1977 film, [Spielberg] said, “I would never have made Close Encounters the way I made it in ‘77, because I have a family that I would never leave. That was just the privilege of youth.”
That’s offensive.
Why does your picture not have a circle around it?
he has altered the circle.
How in the blue f**k has they done that?
Pray I don’t alter it any further.
I’m a cloud floating in the sky and my preferred pronoun is “your royal highness.”
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.
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.
Will no one think of the chicken‽
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.
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.
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.
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’s offensive.
So you’re a fan of the walkie talkies in ET? Or just annoyed with anybody who questions such a choice?
I haven’t seen evidence of “coordination.” I will be surprised if it results in findings of collusion and charges you describe. The proof will be in the pudding.
You make a good observation that, “Scandal can even happen around events that never actually transpired, or are completely routine events.”
Some of the revelations however unseemly or ethically dubious are not really shocking. Foreign countries try to influence our policy all the time with direct lobbying or through intermediaries, or through people who agree with them. Under a harsh light I think we’d find unclean hands in any administration and especially among hangers on.
An argument could be made for a permanent special counsel to keep an eye on these things in every administration.
I’ll be surprised if the GOP holds the House. Why are you so…pessimistic?
Relevant to this topic and Wook’s post, blasters removed from Solo movie posters: https://movieweb.com/han-solo-movie-posters-gun-free/
Who cares?
I will spare the meme and spoil the child.
Your question is better directed at those making these strange changes.
Relevant to this topic and Wook’s post, blasters removed from Solo movie posters: https://movieweb.com/han-solo-movie-posters-gun-free/
They should’ve replaced it with a walkie-talkie.
😄 I wish LFL would hire OT members - the ideas and projects that come out of here are better than what they come up with.
Relevant to this topic and Wook’s post, blasters removed from Solo movie posters: https://movieweb.com/han-solo-movie-posters-gun-free/
There’s worse things for a child to see.
Do you have recommendations?
I can’t wait to get home tonight so I can show my seven-year-old daughter Saw.
Do it!
EDIT: Don’t show her Saw since Saw sucks, but at least show her Silence of the Lambs or something that is both gruesome and artistic.
I’d show my daughter Phenomena. Not only is Jennifer Connelly’s character a strong, capable female protagonist, there’s a swimming pool full of putrescent corpses, too.
Might inspire interest in STEM!
So for those watching the Mueller witness show (making inferences from minor public announcements, because that damn ship doesn’t leak), there’s the carrots (Flynn, Gates, etc) and the sticks (Manafort). But Mueller just handed out an unusually large carrot. Complete immunity, granted to a nasty piece of work who could easily go down for a lot of unsavory shit. I’m hoping he got something equally large in return. And I hope Nader has a security detail, because he could be ratting on any or all of about four different organizations that like to assassinate people for fun and profit.
Questions I have include:
- What is the crime?
- Does this have anything to do with Russia?
You mean the crime being granted immunity or the crime being investigated? If the former, Nader is ick personified – there’s some indicators of that in the article of the sort of crimes being granted immunity. If the latter, we don’t know even that much – all of the specifics are behind the scenes and we don’t see any results until there’s an indictment. As I said, the Mueller team just doesn’t leak so you have to infer a bit. Nader organized the Seychelles meeting between Russian bankers/mobsters and the Trump team (Kushner et al and for some reason Erik Prince IIRC), so that’s the likely link to the Russia investigation. But again, we don’t know much until the indictments come out.
I think it was only Prince, a big supporter of Trump, who was at the Seychelles meeting.
Do you think a big scandal of collusion will be uncovered?
Jeremey Piven had extreme mercury poisoning from the copious amounts of sushi he ate.
They’re not. But I doubt anyone had an issue with it until recently. It’s a slippery slope. Give an inch, they’ll demand a yard. Somebody is going to have a cow over the headhunters on the Jungle Cruise ride if they haven’t already.
If there’s a Jabba’s palace section in the forthcoming Star Wars land, forget about any slave girls.
Mostly this.
I think it’s fine to update rides to suit modern tastes but I worry about that slippery slope.
There is a new kind of Puritanism behind these changes. It’s amazing what was permitted in children’s entertainment 40/50 years ago. There was a Muppet Show sketch/song where a pregnant Miss Piggy in a wedding dress was left standing at the church by her already married boyfriend, played by Kermit. I guess our society was more broad-minded in those days!
So for those watching the Mueller witness show (making inferences from minor public announcements, because that damn ship doesn’t leak), there’s the carrots (Flynn, Gates, etc) and the sticks (Manafort). But Mueller just handed out an unusually large carrot. Complete immunity, granted to a nasty piece of work who could easily go down for a lot of unsavory shit. I’m hoping he got something equally large in return. And I hope Nader has a security detail, because he could be ratting on any or all of about four different organizations that like to assassinate people for fun and profit.
Questions I have include:
Many are trolls in love with their Troll-in-Chief.
I have no idea what Mrebo’s problem is though.
I think it’s hilarious that such simple and good advice needs to be presented to him like he’s 5 years old and he’s still unable to follow it. And at the end of the day, this doesn’t change anything.
“An American president does not lead the free world by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections,” said Sen. John McCain
(I meant to post this earlier but I forgot)
It was also offensive when Trump congratulated Duterte. The phonecall with Putin was an opportunity for Trump to express U.S. opposition to Russia’s actions on the territory of an ally and Trump should have done so.
Ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned and died in London in 2006. In 2012, Obama congratulated Putin on winning the election. Obviously the timing of the two events was different. And I’m not excusing Trump or saying Obama was right or wrong. These are facts and historical context. Also of note, Obama signed a law a few months after congratulating Putin that imposed sanctions on certain Russians for the killing of a lawyer in Russia who exposed corruption (which really annoyed Putin and led to Russia prohibiting Americans from adopting Russian children). Right now the Trump Administration is looking at the possibility of further sanctions and other diplomatic actions against Russia.
The constant outrage some express about everything Trump does and doesn’t do must be tiring. I think a bit of gallows humor goes a long way.
Many are trolls in love with their Troll-in-Chief.
I have no idea what Mrebo’s problem is though.
I think it’s hilarious that such simple and good advice needs to be presented to him like he’s 5 years old and he’s still unable to follow it. And at the end of the day, this doesn’t change anything. I don’t know what’s wrong with you humorless knuckleheads.
It would be funny if it were a tv show. It’s not, and it’s not.
Unfortunately Trump either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about the consequences of anything he does, and it seems neither do you.
What do you think are the consequences of congratulating?
I know, nothing he says or does matters.
You’re deflecting. You pretend I’m saying things I’m not.
In the words of Willie Scott, “I’m right here!”
When it comes to these symbolic acts like congratulating Putin or Pence not standing for the NK Olympic team, you’re all
Many are trolls in love with their Troll-in-Chief.
I have no idea what Mrebo’s problem is though.
I think it’s hilarious that such simple and good advice needs to be presented to him like he’s 5 years old and he’s still unable to follow it. And at the end of the day, this doesn’t change anything. I don’t know what’s wrong with you humorless knuckleheads.
It would be funny if it were a tv show. It’s not, and it’s not.
Unfortunately Trump either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about the consequences of anything he does, and it seems neither do you.
What do you think are the consequences of congratulating?
Many are trolls in love with their Troll-in-Chief.
I have no idea what Mrebo’s problem is though.
I think it’s hilarious that such simple and good advice needs to be presented to him like he’s 5 years old and he’s still unable to follow it. And at the end of the day, this doesn’t change anything. I don’t know what’s wrong with you humorless knuckleheads.