mormont Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Um, no, it's not. It's actually a great example as to why that is true. We're talking about a 5 second clip of a joke in a trailer setting off a call for boycott. Think about the quantity and scope of racial humor in Blazing Saddles and tell me you could make that film today. Think about the scene with Robert Graves taking the little boy on a tour of the cockpit in Airplane! and tell me you could shoot that scene today. Not likely to happen.Not only could you do so, but people actually are making films with comparable humour, often aimed at minorities, and again, you only have to look at this trailer or at any comedy film released in the last decade to confirm that. 'Borat'. 'White Chicks'. 'The Ridiculous Six'. 'Get Hard'. 'The Hangover'. Making fun of minorities is not only still possible, it's the staple fare of the majority of Hollywood comedies being made today. And it's usually being done a lot more crudely and with less actual humour than it was in either Airplane! or Blazing Saddles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch-MaesterPhilip Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Um, no, it's not. It's actually a great example as to why that is true. We're talking about a 5 second clip of a joke in a trailer setting off a call for boycott. Think about the quantity and scope of racial humor in Blazing Saddles and tell me you could make that film today. Think about the scene with Robert Graves taking the little boy on a tour of the cockpit in Airplane! and tell me you could shoot that scene today. Not likely to happen.I think Mel Brooks himself said Blazing Saddles would be impossible to make now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 24, 2015 Author Share Posted November 24, 2015 Not only could you do so, but people actually are making films with comparable humour, often aimed at minorities, and again, you only have to look at this trailer or at any comedy film released in the last decade to confirm that. 'Borat'. 'White Chicks'. 'The Ridiculous Six'. 'Get Hard'. 'The Hangover'. Making fun of minorities is not only still possible, it's the staple diet of the majority of Hollywood comedies being made today. And it's usually being done a lot more crudely and with less actual humour than it was in either Airplane! or Blazing Saddles.Yeah, much like a Sith, I've been dealing in absolutes of late. I have to watch myself.That being said, Borat I think is a bit of an exception in that it is clearly straight satire. It's protected. White Chicks makes fun of whites (the majority) so it gets a pass. The Hangover has one over-the-top asian stereotype, I'll give you that, but in terms of quantity and scope I don't think it can be compared to Blazing Saddles. I'm not familiar with the other two films you mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Creighton Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Exactly! I used to be a big fan of South Park but kind of got tired of it after awhile. I was impressed that no one was immune to Parker and Stone's mocking. I'd forgotten about Isaac Hayes' reason for leaving. Ol' Chef couldn't take the heat so he took himself out of the kitchen. Hollywood always adopts a cause, how do you not know this? They have entire sections in magazines devoted to Hollywoods latest cause, it's an actual term used by people in Hollywood. Sure fur is murder came before Transgenders are people too, but they always adopt a cause. Where are you getting the whole liberal thing from? Did you make that part up? Have you ever seen me in a political debate in your life? This has nothing to do with politics for me, I don't like politicians, I don't have a side, and I could care less about them. You may want to debate politics, but I am not going to do that because I don't give a shit about politics.By the way wonderful argument, basically "you don't like what I like so you are stupid."Look sorry that your hyper sensitive false indignation got bent out of shape because Transgenders are trending, but Stiller has been doing stupid shit for decades. Look at JonCon's post, nobody gave a shit about Zoolander when it came out, but nothing she is saying is wrong. But now this is offensive. Nobody really seemed to care when the movie came out, and nobody is really mentioning how stupid Zoolander is, but lets pretend to be shocked by Stiller being stupid? This has nothing to do with politics for me, or how wish to try to force some label on me or what I said. This has to do with people who will latch onto anything that is trending but don't care much if it isn't. I live in a place where every year hundreds of people are killed do to gang related violence. Nobody really gives a shit and you never really see it go national. Not the only city with that problem, but we don't really here about those other cities either. Nobody really seems all that interested in fixing that problem. I could debate you on the subject but what do you know? Stiller being stupid surprises you, you never heard of Hollywood adopting causes, and you could give a shit about something I consider a big problem like gang violence because it is not popular to talk about.http://heyjackass.com/Benedict giggling and and Stiller making stupid movies is not high on my list of problems in world.See that is an actual problem it just doesn't get covered much by anyone. Has nothing to do with liberals, at least not that I know of. Do you think I am a republican? Where did you get the bases for that argument, I don't recall mentioning political parties at all, or are you trying to change the argument? Cause that is what you want to do right? You seem to want to get into an argument about politics. Sorry not going to happen, I don't care about your politics, because I don't really care about politics, like at all.You know what offends me people who pretend to be offended by whatever is trending. How on earth can me basically stating Stiller makes stupid movies, then showing a picture of the clear over the top stupidity, have offended you? How? How does it even surprise anyone? And where were you during Zoolander? All the other shit he has done was okay but this wasn't? And somehow I am an ass because I point that out. Hey if you feel guilty that you really don't care, then that is your problem. You needed to call someone stupid because you couldn't understand a simple point being made.Yes I take Stiller with a grain of salt because it's Stiller and he has been doing this for decades and it does not surprise me at all. The only thing that surprises me are people going OMG Ben Stiller did something offensive. Like what planet have you been living on? See that little link I posted? That's my job, I deal with that everyday, up to my elbows in that. But that does not offend you, me pointing out that it should not be surprising that Stiller does something stupid offends you. Whatever, have a nice life, please don't reply I don't want to here about your political fantasies you have about me, you can go ahead and not share that with me, I think I know where I stand on the matter better than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Ser C: please watch your terminology. There is no such thing as 'transgenders'. There are trans people.Also, it's never a good idea to tell someone else that their feelings are not their feelings. If someone is offended, and you don't have any good reason to think it's false, don't accuse them of pretending just because you don't share that feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Well, like i've tried to say several times now, i believe you can say whatever you like. Words are just that: words. The moment that speech takes form of Action is when one should have some caution, and if im not mistaken, a boycott is exactly that.I would also be carefull to associate the validity of an argument with number of people who profess it. Edit for poor english which gave the wrong message.Here's the thing, a comedy flick like this exists to profit from entertaining an audience. That's literally its sole purpose. If enough people are offended by the film's portrayal of a character that they are able to organize a boycott that would actually reduce the film's profits to the extent that the producers no longer consider it in their best interests to produce the movie, it doesn't matter if there's a "valid argument" behind the boycott: the film has failed to fulfill its intended purpose, which is to entertain enough people to turn out a worthwhile profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theda Baratheon Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Here's the thing, a comedy flick like this exists to profit from entertaining an audience. That's literally it's sole purpose. If enough people are offended by the film's portrayal of a character that they are able to organize a boycott that would actually reduce the film's profits to the extent that the producers no longer consider it in their interests to produce the movie, it doesn't matter if there's a "valid argument" behind the boycott: the film has failed to fulfill its intended purpose, which is to entertain enough people to turn out a worthwhile profit. You keep bringing out the eloquent responses that I want to write but can't find the right words to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePrunesThatWasPromised Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Robert Downey Jr did actual blackface just 7 years ago and nobody boycotted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 24, 2015 Author Share Posted November 24, 2015 Here's the thing, a comedy flick like this exists to profit from entertaining an audience. That's literally its sole purpose. If enough people are offended by the film's portrayal of a character that they are able to organize a boycott that would actually reduce the film's profits to the extent that the producers no longer consider it in their best interests to produce the movie, it doesn't matter if there's a "valid argument" behind the boycott: the film has failed to fulfill its intended purpose, which is to entertain enough people to turn out a worthwhile profit. Not so sure all of this falls in line though. Let's say it fails on the lack of its' own merit. It's just a bad film that was likely to fail whether or not a boycott had been called against it. Or alternatively it could be wildly entertaining and successful, but still manage to offend enough to provoke a boycott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 24, 2015 Author Share Posted November 24, 2015 Robert Downey Jr did actual blackface just 7 years ago and nobody boycotted.Yeah, that example came to mind for me when Mormont made his list. You also had Tom Cruise in a fatsuit playing a stereotypical Jewish movie producer in the same flick./ETA: The more I think about it, the Robert Downey Jr role was kind of genius in that it was so satirical. A guy playing a guy who's playing a character in blackface. It was like satire squared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Not so sure all of this falls in line though. Let's say it fails on the lack of its' own merit. It's just a bad film that was likely to fail whether or not a boycott had been called against it. Or alternatively it could be wildly entertaining and successful, but still manage to offend enough to provoke a boycott.The boycott shouldn't seriously impact the film's profit if it's wildly entertaining and successful. I'm far from a libertarian, but in the case of fucking entertainment flicks, honestly, let the market dictate what's going to be successful or not. Edit: if someone decided to unilaterally boycott the entirety of the film studio's future output, I'd agree that it'd be potentially over the top. But if someone is offended by the content of a film, and can find enough people who are also offended by the content of that film to forego seeing it in a concerted and successful effort to hurt the profits of that one film, then I see no ethical or practical qualm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 25, 2015 Author Share Posted November 25, 2015 Edit: if someone decided to unilaterally boycott the entirety of the film studio's future output, I'd agree that it'd be potentially over the top. But if someone is offended by the content of a film, and can find enough people who are also offended by the content of that film to forego seeing it in a concerted and successful effort to hurt the profits of that one film, then I see no ethical or practical qualm. That kind of goes back to something Robin of Hill House posted earlier. She was saying that a boycott like this could actually prevent future films with transgender characters in them from being made. I think this is a very slippery slope that could potentially marginalize this group even further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theda Baratheon Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 no...stops potential comedy using offensive jokes based on trans people...not stopping films portraying trans people...bloody hell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 25, 2015 Author Share Posted November 25, 2015 no...stops potential comedy using offensive jokes based on trans people...not stopping films portraying trans people...bloody hell How are you going to guarantee that? Let's say this boycott picks up steam, and the film ends up failing and the perception is that the boycott killed the film. Say some big studio has another film in the hopper that features a trans character. Do you think they'd be likely to greenlight that film under those circumstances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 That kind of goes back to something Robin of Hill House posted earlier. She was saying that a boycott like this could actually prevent future films with transgender characters in them from being made. I think this is a very slippery slope that could potentially marginalize this group even further. Maybe B-rate comedies like Zoolander 2 would stop portraying trans characters at all, rather than abstain from making stupid as fuck, offensive anatomical metaphor. If that happens, I really couldn't give a shit. I doubt that this kind of boycott would have any impact on whether or not serious films attempt to portray trans characters in ways that are actually not dumb and/or problematic, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theda Baratheon Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 i don't want to seem rude or bitchy but i think some of you are being a bit too dramatic about the boycott thing, like it's going to create some dystopian society or something...it's not. and comedy will always be hugely in demand and if something stops being funny...then that wont be in comedies but you don't need to be worried about comedies not being made anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theda Baratheon Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 and if someone who is trans tells you they would rather no representations than NEGATIVE (potentially dangerous/harmful representation) then why would YOU care if somehow this boycott stops films ever portraying a trans character ever again ???? doesn't effect you, evidently. i don't know - i think the reaction to the boycott is a bit too hysterical ''ITS PC GONE MAD !!!!'' for my taste...i don't want to seem like i am personally attacking anyone here tho...im not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 How are you going to guarantee that? Let's say this boycott picks up steam, and the film ends up failing and the perception is that the boycott killed the film. Say some big studio has another film in the hopper that features a trans character. Do you think they'd be likely to greenlight that film under those circumstances? Do you actually think a studio would refuse to greenlight a movie like Boys Don't Cry because of a boycott started over a distasteful hot dog bun trans joke? Sorry, I just don't see it. I have to agree with Theda here, you're being fairly hyperbolic here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 25, 2015 Author Share Posted November 25, 2015 i don't want to seem rude or bitchy but i think some of you are being a bit too dramatic about the boycott thing, like it's going to create some dystopian society or something...it's not. and comedy will always be hugely in demand and if something stops being funny...then that wont be in comedies but you don't need to be worried about comedies not being made anymore...Yeah, I agree this whole issue is likely to turn out to be much ado about nothing. That being said, I've enjoyed the back and forth.To answer IamMe 90 directly, I would certainly hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Human Abstract Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Hmmmm.. I can only think of The Crying Game as an example. Oh yeah. Maybe It's Always Sunny.... Neither seemed negative. I dont believe there's a slippery slope of course. And on the other hand, this petition will also have no effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.