What film did you watch last night?

[Punkawallah]

I watch it some time ago and thing that confused me was the language or rather some of the words included. Whilst there is a historical context, even so these some of the words used cause a massive outcry in any context for any reason. Without wanting to stray into aspects limited to "the other place" the aspect that confused me was eg massive outcry when individual suffering Tourette's syndrome uses a word once and massive outcry yet film uses the same language repeatedly and it appears accepted.

It’s not just historical fiction. Modern music/television, all have examples like this.

 

[Dave7]

Carry on Cowboy shootout in Stodge city or how the west was lost

That was just too violent for me

 

[Electric_Andy]

eg massive outcry when individual suffering Tourette's syndrome uses a word once and massive outcry yet film uses the same language repeatedly and it appears accepted.

The difference is, in the film, the word was used a lot and carried huge negative weight, which if not included in the film would have been quite insulting, not to mention grossly insensitive to how bad things really were. The John Davidson outcry wasn't scripted, nor was it used in a film, but for many was seen as rude and insensitive to have not been bleeped out on the recording. On the other hand, he can't help it and as with other disabilities, he was rightly (IMO) allowed to attend even though there was a risk that he'd shout that.

 

[ianrauk]

Masters Of The Universe.
Absolute great reboot of a classic. You could really see the makers wanted the audience to have fun. And that's what you got. Fab action scenes, Fab characters, fab humour and some great easter eggs.
A solid 4 OUT OF 5. Only dropping a point as they could have cut 15/20 mins easy.

"BY THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL - I HAVE THE POWER!"

Don't think I've seen a cinema so packed for a movie in years.

 

[nogoodnamesleft]

Have you never seen a Tarantino film before?!

Many. What I didn't understand was quite why in some instances (as I raised) massive outcry whilst other eg Tarantino film(s) seems not to cause any issue. It's that distinction I have problems understanding, not the issue of the language itself.

Edit: To clarify, I generally consider offence when something is intended to offend ie I only take something as offensive wher eit is used with the intention to offend. So not talking about myself being offended when I raised this aspect.

 

[Drago]

Masters Of The Universe.
Absolute great reboot of a classic. You could really see the makers wanted the audience to have fun. And that's what you got. Fab action scenes, Fab characters, fab humour and some great easter eggs.
A solid 4 OUT OF 5. Only dropping a point as they could have cut 15/20 mins easy.

"BY THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL - I HAVE THE POWER!"

Don't think I've seen a cinema so packed for a movie in years.


View attachment 810748

No one can play He Man like Dolph Lundgren.

 

[Pblakeney]

Many. What I didn't understand was quite why in some instances (as I raised) massive outcry whilst other eg Tarantino film(s) seems not to cause any issue. It's that distinction I have problems understanding, not the issue of the language itself.

Edit: To clarify, I generally consider offence when something is intended to offend ie I only take something as offensive wher eit is used with the intention to offend. So not talking about myself being offended when I raised this aspect.

The difference with the John Davidson example is that it wasn't live and could have been bleeped. That was an "artistic decision" same as Tarantino but when you watch a Tarantino film you know what to expect. Expectations for an awards ceremony are different.

 

[AndyRM]

Many. What I didn't understand was quite why in some instances (as I raised) massive outcry whilst other eg Tarantino film(s) seems not to cause any issue. It's that distinction I have problems understanding, not the issue of the language itself.

Edit: To clarify, I generally consider offence when something is intended to offend ie I only take something as offensive wher eit is used with the intention to offend. So not talking about myself being offended when I raised this aspect.

What I'm having a problem understanding is why you think the two are remotely comparable.

 

[nogoodnamesleft]

The difference with the John Davidson example is that it wasn't live and could have been bleeped. That was an "artistic decision" same as Tarantino but when you watch a Tarantino film you know what to expect. Expectations for an awards ceremony are different.

I appreciate that but was thinking more about all the US commentators (quite a few) going on about how the individual should never have been allowed to attend (ie focusing on what happened in the event more than what was broadcast).

But maybe straying into "other place" territory now?

 

[Pblakeney]

I appreciate that but was thinking more about all the US commentators (quite a few) going on about how the individual should never have been allowed to attend (ie focusing on what happened in the event more than what was broadcast).

But maybe straying into "other place" territory now?

I am unaware of the bit in bold.
My response is - Who cares what you think. Sort your own country out. Yeah, probably straying...

 

[lazybloke]

Backrooms.
At the flicks.
Wow. One of the best movies all year. Stark, creepy, unsettling. Think the dread of Blair Witch crossed with the starkness and the claustrophobia of The Shining. Absolutely fabulous movie.

Ah yes, I saw that yesterday; very enjoyable. One of the jumpscares made my wife scream.
I've not experienced anything so unsettling since my first watching of Blair Witch.

Your description is very accurate; I thought the 90s Canadian film "Cube" might also have been influential ?

 

[C R]

Modern Times, still relevant even ninety odd years later.