The ET walkie-talkies is a perfect example of pathetic people attempting to avoid offending the senses of other pathetic people. “We can’t have these evil FBI agents carrying guns. What will the children think when they see that? Won’t somebody think of the children!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
I just think it’s funny that we’re expected to be entertained by violence while simultaneously pretending that there the subject is less violent than it is.
They laugh hysterically when sex slaves are fed to the Rancor.
How do you know they’re the same pigmen Luke choked? Let’s not generalize or assume.
Well, I’m assuming they only had two or three costumes.
What’s wrong with choking evil pigmen to death, trying to kill the most evil man alive, and cutting off the hand of one of the most dangerous mass-murderers in the galaxy?
Bad feelings are bad, m’kay?
Seriously, though, if Luke had slain Palpatine in rage then became God Emperor of
DuneTatooine, that would’ve made ROTJ a much better movie.
Got it, leave the emperor alive because it’s worse to kill than it is to kill a genocidal maniac. The Jedi really are a cult, aren’t they?
They laugh hysterically when sex slaves are fed to the Rancor.
There’s worse things in real life for them to see. My policy on children is to show them quality art that won’t disturb them too much (but will at least disturb them a little).
What’s wrong with choking evil pigmen to death, trying to kill the most evil man alive, and cutting off the hand of one of the most dangerous mass-murderers in the galaxy? I’d say the guy who doesn’t do that is way more evil than Luke.
There’s worse things for a child to see.
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.
It’s fine.
I wonder if someone can live with only eating sushi for the rest of your life. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I don’t know that I believe in Heaven but I’d like to think when you get there you get to have sushi for every meal and ice cream for every dessert.
So you don’t get uncooked pizza in heaven ?
Of course you do. It’s uncooked. You get it in sushi form.
I wonder if someone can live with only eating sushi for the rest of your life. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I don’t know that I believe in Heaven but I’d like to think when you get there you get to have sushi for every meal and ice cream for every dessert.
So you don’t get uncooked pizza in heaven ?
Well, you definitely won’t get uncooked pizza in hell, so I think I’d rather go there just to be safe.
Nothing makes me more sick than people who care about sheltering children from things in entertainment.
Whoops, didn’t know a family theme park was obligated to accurately portray problematic aspects of their rides’ subjects.
Fuck family entertainment. Show your kids some “problematic aspects” of things. It’ll give 'em character.
https://www.sacpd.org/newsroom/releases/liveview.aspx?release_id=20180319-026
Cops shot an unarmed man to death because they thought he had a gun even though he didn’t. These are the people that are supposed to protect us? Keep them away from me and definitely keep them away from schools.
In general, I don’t like negative campaign ads. But when you have a nazi running against you, you have to.
Or a child molester…
Or a serial sexual assaulter…
Or a witch…
If in “witch” you mean like “wiccan”, I’ll take the wiccan any day.
Nothing wrong with devil-worship.
There’s also the stupid contingent of “actually, Nazis were leftists!” rightwingers.
Well, those people are either lying or are completely unintelligent and uneducated.
In a lot of Trump-supporting circles, people actually think that it’s worse to call somebody a Nazi than it is to be a Nazi. That sounds crazy, but it’s true. They defended the alt-right for over a year with that line of thinking. “The left calls everybody Nazis,” etc. etc.
That has potential to be incredibly hilarious, but I think the comedy would only work as a fake trailer.
team_illinoisnazis
Lol, that’s hilarious. Whatever drug inspired that decision should go straight to the top of his ranking.
Under the Skin
Masterpiece.
Johnanson’s nude scene is what got all the press, but it’s an interesting, highly unusual film that I sort of observed at arm’s length for its technique and style rather than getting involved in it.
I wanted to like that, but it frustrated me to no end.
Terror Train- Utterly mediocre Halloween knockoff. Does almost nothing interesting with its setting, which some other directors would have a field day with. Not particularly gory by today’s standards, though too well-made to qualify as straight exploitation. John Alcott, Stanley Kubrick’s cinematographer, does conjure up a few interesting images and shadows. Otherwise, not shot with much style, uninteresting characters, doesn’t milk any of its ideas enough, and not outrageous enough to work as exploitation. Sadly, overall, just boring.
Wow. How do you go from lensing The Shining to Terror Train? A job is a job I guess. I’m curious enough to check it out now.
Dean Cundy was the cinematographer for Halloween and was also the cinematographer for Adam Sandler’s Jack and Jill.