Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Help Save The King's Speech By Refusing To See It? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Help Save The King's Speech By Refusing To See It?
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What bizarre logic. Apparently enough people have complained about the language in The King's Speech, that the studio is cleaning up the language and re-releasing it. This is outraging the film community because ... well, I'm not exactly clear on that part, but it is outraging the film community.

quote:
You Can’t Solve A Problem By Making It Worse
The Weinstein Company wants to censor the film because they believe they can get more people to see it that way. They’re probably right. Some people are avoiding The King’s Speech because of its rating. There is a small segment of the population which refuses to see R-rated films, no matter what they actually contain. But the problem isn’t with the movie or the words it uses, the problem is with the ratings system which has labeled it incorrectly. Almost everyone who’s seen it agrees that the film contains no offensive content of any kind. Even the usage of curse words (which earned it the R-rating), in context, is entirely appropriate for very young audiences who have been properly parented.

I'm missing the logic here. Because there is a large group of people who would like to see this movie without the swearing, we shouldn't accommodate them because most of the people who have already seen it don't have any problem with the language in the film?

quote:
This Will Endanger Your Children
The King’s Speech, a quiet and gentle movie about a man heroically overcoming a disability, has been given the same rating as Saw VI, a brutal horror film about a sadistic killer who tortures and murders dozens of innocent victims. Here’s an even bigger head scratcher: The Ring, a movie about a murderous dead girl who leaps out of televisions and kills people, was rated PG-13. The MPAA’s rating system recommends The Ring as more appropriate viewing for your children than the R-rated King’s Speech. By bowing to their faulty logic and censoring this movie to suit their faulty decisions, we’re rubberstamping the MPAA to go right on rating movies incorrectly. That doesn’t protect your kids, it puts them in increasingly grave peril every single time you walk into a movie theater, by making it impossible for you to know what it’s safe for them to see.

Wait, what? Because of this movie removing the swear words and getting a lower rating, parents will now not be able to determine which movies are safe for their children to see? I don't even know how to begin responding to this.

quote:
Every PG-13 King’s Speech Ticket Purchased Is A Request For Hollywood To Make Movies Worse
Anyone who buys a ticket for the censored version of King’s Speech is sending them a loud and clear message, and that message is this: I don’t care if you make good movies as long as they receive the right rating. You’ve chosen not to watch the best possible version of this movie, in favor of something less than. You’ve told Hollywood that it’s ok if their movies aren’t as good as they could be, and they will be listening. The King’s Speech just won Oscar’s best picture. If the studio system can make more money by making a such a high profile movie worse, that has huge implications for other movies released down the road. Making good movies is hard, why put in all that extra effort if it doesn’t really seem to matter to your audience?

Could someone explain to me how swearing at the pivotal moment in the movie makes it better? Is what's-his-name not a good enough actor to convince us that he really has strong feelings at this point in the movie without resorting to swearing?

quote:

This Is The Beginning Of End For R-Rated Movies
If the PG-13 version of The King’s Speech (one of last year’s most well-known, popular, beloved films) generates a significant amount of money, the next time Weinstein Company (or any other studio for that matter) finds themselves in a similar situation they won’t bother with the R-rated version of the movie at all. Our movies are made by artists but they’re owned and distributed by corporations who exist only to make a bottom line profit. If there’s more money to be made in censorship than in artistic integrity, they’ll censor right from the start as a way to maximize their profits. That artistically complete version of a film, in The King’s Speech case that better version of the film, will never been seen at all.

I think that this is a good thing. Make what the audience wants, or don't get paid as much to make what you want. Isn't that the way it works everywhere else?

This one makes me start to wonder if the piece is satire.
quote:
It's A Slap In The Face To Anyone Struggling With Similar Disabilities
The King’s Speech is the story of a man’s struggle to overcome a debilitating disability. Those curse words being so callously and greedily censored from the movie? They’re a pivotal part of his struggle in this story. Whether or not that sort of therapy is still used today, in this telling it’s those curse words that first give Bertie a taste of what it’s like to speak without a stutter. In the process he’s an inspiration to thousands of others struggling with the same problem, people like me for instance, who grew up grappling with a speech impediment as a child and who even today still occasionally finds himself without words in his mouth. Or people like the movie's screenwriter, who during his acceptance speech after winning "Best Original Screenplay" for writing those curse words, talked about his own real-life struggles with stammering.

Not showing people with a stammer swearing is a slap in the face to anyone struggling with a similar problem?

If this was satire it is brilliant, if it was meant to be serious, it is disturbing.

[ February 28, 2011, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: philnotfil ]

Posts: 3382 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Could someone explain to me how swearing at the pivotal moment in the movie makes it better?
'...in the real world, stammerers often find that while they cannot speak without interruption, they can sing and they can swear without a hint of a stammer.

That's right -- once we code various words as "forbidden" in our brains, they actually emerge on a different mental track (so to speak), and a stammer that blocks normal speech does not stop the curses.

So part of the therapy is for Bertie to let rip with strings of foul language. The very fact that Bertie is not a swearing man makes this all the more poignant. '

From Orson Scott Card's review of the movie.

Posts: 2997 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Could someone explain to me how swearing at the pivotal moment in the movie makes it better?
Watch the movie. With the swear words in. It is a pivotal plot point.
Posts: 19689 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This may not apply to this movie but I remember when it was suggested that DVDs and later BluRay could be created to allow users to select which rating version you wanted to watch. So just as some allow you to choose between widescreen and full screen, you could theoretically select either the theatrical release or the "edited for television" version. Unfortunately I have never seen this in real life or I would have purchased a number of movies that I felt were just a little too extreme for my kids. Instead, I've recorded the made for tv versions with my vcr or bought from companies like CleanFlicks that later got sued into oblivion.

Maybe in this case the edited for television version could be like "What About Bob"'s fake Tourette's:

"Butthead! Dingleberry Butt! Vulture Vomit!..."

Posts: 3630 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Right, singing or using words that are coded as forbidden are ways of getting around the stammering. Why did they choose to use words that are swear words in our current society? How would the movie be different if they had him use words that were offensive in that time, but not in ours?
Posts: 3382 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well it was not that long ago. I have seen the movie and I think most of the words were swear words then as well as now. He also uses words that are condsidered worse in English society than ours, IIRC.

msquared

Posts: 3970 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why did they choose to use words that are swear words in our current society?
Like "bloody," "bunghole," "bugger," "cheever," and "arse?"

*laugh* To be fair, he does say "****" and "****" as well. But the film actually makes a joke of both of those, since they're so clearly in their own realm of offensiveness (for some reason) that he actually needs to steel himself for it -- and, when trying to say what his instructor calls "the F-word," actually blurts out "f...f...fornicate" first. [Smile]

Posts: 19689 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheRallanator
Member
Member # 6624

 - posted      Profile for TheRallanator   Email TheRallanator       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
Right, singing or using words that are coded as forbidden are ways of getting around the stammering. Why did they choose to use words that are swear words in our current society? How would the movie be different if they had him use words that were offensive in that time, but not in ours?

WOrds that were offensive in that time? You mean like s**t? [Big Grin]
Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Phil:
Could someone explain to me how swearing at the pivotal moment in the movie makes it better? Is what's-his-name not a good enough actor to convince us that he really has strong feelings at this point in the movie without resorting to swearing?

Phil, since you are an intelligent person, I have to guess that you are asking this because you have not actually seen The King's Speech.

If I am correct, there is little point in my trying to explain any further, because there is nothing I can say at this point that will convince you more eloquently than watching the film itself. Otherwise, trust those of us who did: the swearing in this scene could not possibly be more crucial and integral to the plot.

Posts: 2134 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Otherwise, trust those of us who did: the swearing in this scene could not possibly be more crucial and integral to the plot.
And, frankly, the funniest scene I've watched in a movie in a long long time.
Posts: 1707 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It continues to boggle my mind that in the USA today, some large portion on the parenting population finds that words for 'poo', 'body part' and 'coitus' are more dangerous to their adolescent children than copious amounts of bloodshed, serial killers, bullets splattering grey matter across the screen, misogyny and Keanu Reeves' acting. Or so one would think by looking at the US movie ratings system.

Phil, do you really not understand that the initial text you quoted has nothing to do with 'accommodating people' as you argue, but with providing consumers with a meaningful rating system? It seems like you missed the point in just about every section of text you quoted above.

It seems like you support the current movie rating system in its entirety (at least in respect to what defines 'PG-13' and 'R') but you never explain why, not even when responding to arguments quite clearly explaining how the current system fails in its job as an accurate content descriptor.

Posts: 9956 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are two separate issues addressed in the article. One is the rating system, which I agree is useless, the other is the role of swearing in entertainment. I don't mind swearing in entertainment, but I do choose to skip entertainment that uses it. What I object to is the idea that if there isn't swearing then the entertainment isn't as entertaining, and that I shouldn't have the opportunity to see a "clean" version of an entertainment that contains swearing in its original form.

My actual purpose in posting this article wasn't to discuss the appropriateness of swearing in entertainment or my desire to be entertained without such language, it was to discuss the absolutely ludicrous logic being used by the author.

Posts: 3382 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I do choose to skip entertainment that uses it.
Why?
Posts: 19689 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wait, what? Because of this movie removing the swear words and getting a lower rating, parents will now not be able to determine which movies are safe for their children to see? I don't even know how to begin responding to this.
Not "will now" but "will continue". The point is that the blind over-emphasis on swearing currently makes it impossible for parents to be unable to meaningfully interpret what "R" actually means. The author's contention is that playing the game lends additional credibility to a broken system instead of helping push to get it tossed in favor of something more informative.

[ March 02, 2011, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 8061 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
philnotfil:
[One issue] is the role of swearing in entertainment.

I get that you seem to be taking issue with the article, rather than the film itself, but I really want to be sure you understand the specific example we are discussing here. The scene in question is not dropping swear-words to be gratuitous. The scene is about swearing. The swearing could not be more self-conscious and relevant to the plot unless the movie were called, The King Drops Some F-Bombs.

The king is attending speech therapy. The king is asked to swear by his therapist as a therapeutic exercise. It is an exploration of the neurological implications of swearing, and the psychological release that it provides the king. The scene is set in 1930s Britain, and swear-words then aren't much different from swear-words now.

It simply is not possible for such a scene to be done without swearing, and it is unreasonable to expect it to be.

Posts: 2134 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Next up:
a version of "Hamlet" without any killings
a version of "Eyes Wide Shut" without nudity
a version of "Rocky" without people punching each other

Posts: 2997 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I still remember from college a Christian group advertising a showing of the family version of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." [Big Grin]
Posts: 7433 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
There are two separate issues addressed in the article. One is the rating system, which I agree is useless, the other is the role of swearing in entertainment. I don't mind swearing in entertainment, but I do choose to skip entertainment that uses it. What I object to is the idea that if there isn't swearing then the entertainment isn't as entertaining, and that I shouldn't have the opportunity to see a "clean" version of an entertainment that contains swearing in its original form.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I will have to ask this based on what I do know about the movie.

The movie is based in large part on events that *really happened* and a significant part of what the movie is about is his going through the speech therapy process. If use of profanity was an integral part of his speech therapy, then the use of profanity(at least in those parts) has nothing to do with "entertainment value" and much more to do with being true to the story being told.

Based on other comments made, you probably are also in the camp of people that would only watch a censored version of Schindler's List or Glory. With that being the case we're probably talking to a wall, as you're going to be oblivious to the point regardless of how much we try to argue otherwise.

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
You Can’t Solve A Problem By Making It Worse
The Weinstein Company wants to censor the film because they believe they can get more people to see it that way. They’re probably right. Some people are avoiding The King’s Speech because of its rating. There is a small segment of the population which refuses to see R-rated films, no matter what they actually contain. But the problem isn’t with the movie or the words it uses, the problem is with the ratings system which has labeled it incorrectly. Almost everyone who’s seen it agrees that the film contains no offensive content of any kind. Even the usage of curse words (which earned it the R-rating), in context, is entirely appropriate for very young audiences who have been properly parented.
I'm missing the logic here. Because there is a large group of people who would like to see this movie without the swearing, we shouldn't accommodate them because most of the people who have already seen it don't have any problem with the language in the film?

I agree that you are missing the logic here, but its there and basically sound. He's saying "Because there is a large group of people who would like to see this movie if it were not rated R , we shouldn't accommodate the broken ratings system because most of the people who have already seen it don't find the use of profanity, in this case, to warrant an R rating.

[ March 02, 2011, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Adam Masterman ]

Posts: 4426 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
phil has said that the use of profanity is enough to exclude him from the audience. In this case it happens to correlate with the R rating, but he would still avoid seeing the movie even if it wasn't rated but he knew it had profanity in it, from what he has said.

I'm inferring that he would not agree with the argument that this is an example of a broken ratings system.

I think the ratings system is broken (but not useless), but alternative sources of insight already exist. If you aren't bothered by profanity that is integral to the story, but you don't want to see a movie with a realistic looking sex scene, you can presently figure out which movies to see without relying on the MPAA.

Perhaps the best alternative for this specific case is to release a new edit without submitting it to the MPAA for a rating, and provide their own guidance: "Suitable for adults and older children but contains some language" or something.

Posts: 5611 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vegimo
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for vegimo   Email vegimo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I still remember from college a Christian group advertising a showing of the family version of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory."
I would guess that it would have been the same movie without the acid-trip boat ride.
Posts: 222 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My actual purpose in posting this article wasn't to discuss the appropriateness of swearing in entertainment or my desire to be entertained without such language, it was to discuss the absolutely ludicrous logic being used by the author.
The odd thing is that you did not even touch on the logic being used by the author but rather focused on an argument that the author did not actually make.
Posts: 9956 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
phil has said that the use of profanity is enough to exclude him from the audience. In this case it happens to correlate with the R rating, but he would still avoid seeing the movie even if it wasn't rated but he knew it had profanity in it, from what he has said.

I'm inferring that he would not agree with the argument that this is an example of a broken ratings system.

I think the ratings system is broken (but not useless), but alternative sources of insight already exist. If you aren't bothered by profanity that is integral to the story, but you don't want to see a movie with a realistic looking sex scene, you can presently figure out which movies to see without relying on the MPAA.

Perhaps the best alternative for this specific case is to release a new edit without submitting it to the MPAA for a rating, and provide their own guidance: "Suitable for adults and older children but contains some language" or something.

Thank you. I was starting to get worried that my communication skills were completely lacking.
Posts: 3382 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I do choose to skip entertainment that uses it.
Why?
I don't find swearing to be entertaining. It has its place, and that place is for the conveying of intense emotion. I don't find intense emotion to be entertaining, whether it is my own emotion, or voyeuristically partaking in someone else's strong emotions.
Posts: 3382 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
My actual purpose in posting this article wasn't to discuss the appropriateness of swearing in entertainment or my desire to be entertained without such language, it was to discuss the absolutely ludicrous logic being used by the author.
The odd thing is that you did not even touch on the logic being used by the author but rather focused on an argument that the author did not actually make.
Then what was that stuff that I wrote in the OP?
Posts: 3382 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What I object to is the idea that if there isn't swearing then the entertainment isn't as entertaining, and that I shouldn't have the opportunity to see a "clean" version of an entertainment that contains swearing in its original form.
To be fair, phil, here you seem to be ignoring the point of the original article and many of the people who chimed in here. I haven't seen the movie myself, but I do believe that sometimes-offensive content can be sometimes-crucial. What you seem to be ignoring is that the argument is not that "if there isn't swearing then the entertainment isn't as entertaining" - it is that in THIS movie, the swearing is not gratuitous, and removing it actually hurts the story being told.

I don't object to the idea that if the movie has swearing, you will find it to be a worse experience than otherwise. (I do wonder if you have thoroughly tested this principle, though, and wonder if watching THIS film [in it's R-rated form] would change your mind.)

But I can't tell if you are recognizing the distinction between gratuitous swearing and swearing that contributes something other than conveying intense emotion.

Edit: I don't like the way I wrote that last paragraph. What I mean is, I don't know if you are acknowledging the story value that swearing can add other than conveying intense emotion, in this example.

[ March 02, 2011, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 5611 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
Then what was that stuff that I wrote in the OP?

In the OP, in the very first sentence, you yourself admitted that you were not clear about why people were complaining, and you admitted that you were missing the logic. (but strangely you seemed to think such failure in understanding was an argument against the *other* position, rather than against yours.)

Given such lack of understanding, you failed to make any meaningful rebuttal on the points you quoted, because you misunderstood every single one of them.

- You didn't realize what role the swearing played in the movie (not just to show "strong emotion")
- you didn't realize why people claimed it made the movie better
- you didn't realize in what way removing it would be a false (and thus potentially offensive) portrayal of people experiencing similar stammering problems.

By now that you keep on thinking you made valid points seems like mere stubborness on your part. They weren't valid points, they weren't even relevant points: because you didn't understand the opposing position in the first place.

[ March 03, 2011, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 2997 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For my part, I think jumping on phil for this is a bit petty. But I'm also baffled by the idea that he dislikes strong emotion in entertainment; one of the points of entertainment, to me, is to produce strong emotion.
Posts: 19689 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the article was only about The King's Speech, I would agree with most of the author's points. However, the author keeps seeming to try to generalize the points that apply to The King's Speech to movie-making (and rating) in general. How many movies in the past ten years have used swearing in a such a way that the movie would be less meaningful without the swearing?

Perhaps I am misreading the article, but that is how I read it.

Posts: 3382 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Phil:
I don't find swearing to be entertaining. It has its place, and that place is for the conveying of intense emotion. I don't find intense emotion to be entertaining, whether it is my own emotion, or voyeuristically partaking in someone else's strong emotions.

I read that about three times to convince myself that you were saying what I thought you were saying and I wasn't misconstruing you. Like Tom, I was very surprised, but I suppose it is a matter of preference; perhaps you are uncommonly sensitive, which is something that I can relate to.

However, I think that a few of us are feeling a lack of closure—however petty—on one particular issue. Although you later state that your principal objections were to generalisations in the article, you did make several very specific points about the particular film under discussion:

quote:
Apparently enough people have complained about the language in The King's Speech, that the studio is cleaning up the language and re-releasing it. This is outraging the film community because ... well, I'm not exactly clear on that part, but it is outraging the film community.
quote:
Could someone explain to me how swearing at the pivotal moment in the movie makes it better? Is what's-his-name not a good enough actor to convince us that he really has strong feelings at this point in the movie without resorting to swearing?
quote:
Not showing people with a stammer swearing is a slap in the face to anyone struggling with a similar problem?
quote:
Why did they choose to use words that are swear words in our current society? How would the movie be different if they had him use words that were offensive in that time, but not in ours?
A few people have responded to these very specific points. Though I can only speak for myself, I doubt I am alone in wondering if you remain unclear about why people are upset by this particular instance of censorship, and why the swearing was not incidental, but an important and unavoidable requirement were that part of the story (true or fictional) to be told at all.
Posts: 2134 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can get what people are saying about the swearing being critical to the film and that it can't be edited out. Fair enough. What I suspect phil predicts (and what wouldn't surprise me, either) is that Hollywood COULD find a creative way to edit it that may not be as powerful but still got the message across.

If, a year from now, an edited version is put out on NBC and American Airlines in-flight movies that uses tamer language or bleeps or is silent or whatever phil and many others will be left scratching their heads wondering why, despite all the demand, this new version will not be released on dvd or in theaters.

Posts: 3630 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:
If, a year from now, an edited version is put out on NBC and American Airlines in-flight movies that uses tamer language or bleeps or is silent or whatever phil and many others will be left scratching their heads wondering why, despite all the demand, this new version will not be released on dvd or in theaters.

It also is possible that The King's Speech could be broadcast in its unedited form and carry strong parental guidance warnings instead. Much like they did for the broadcast showing of Schindler's List.

Which isn't to mention that if a certain ruling is allowed to stand, chances are they wouldn't have much to fear from the FCC anyway.

[ March 03, 2011, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: TheDeamon ]

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whoops. Jordan brought up an earlier point that I either missed or had forgotten. So the studio IS releasing an edited version. Why does that outrage the film community? Will the unedited version no longer be available? Have the outraged people even seen the edited version to know that it has lost its power? Why does the article believe that editing the movie is "rubberstamping the MPAA" and putting kids "in increasingly grave peril every single time you walk into a movie theater"?

If the movie maker really can't edit a movie without losing the essence of it, fine. But if the makers of the movie feel they can pull it off, why does that offend people before they've even seen the edited version?

Or maybe I missed something. Has anyone here seen both versions?

Posts: 3630 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's nothing about the movie or even the editing- it's about lending legitimacy to a broken ratings system by playing to its rules.

Specifically, the assertion is that it's not the swearing itself that's limiting the audience, but the rating. By changing the movie to get a more accessible rating instead of standing up to the ratings system to get it replaced with something more informative, they're perpetuating the current state of affairs where the rating does not provide useful information to actually make informed decisions.

Posts: 8061 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What exactly would "standing up to the rating system" entail and why is the onus on the makers of The King's Speech to do the standing up as opposed to every single moviemaker that edits their movies to get a particular rating (whether it be G, PG, PG13 or R)?
Posts: 3630 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Will the unedited version no longer be available?
Do you know for *sure* it will be legally available? Can you guarantee that for all over the world?

Thankfully, we still have illegal downloading.

quote:
Have the outraged people even seen the edited version to know that it has lost its power?
If the edited version is better or equally good, why wasn't it edited in this manner in the first place? Why did they wait for the unedited version to win the Oscar first before they edited it?

Now a movie different to the one that won the Oscar will be advertised as if it did win it. Morally that's fraud.

quote:
as opposed to every single moviemaker that edits their movies to get a particular rating (whether it be G, PG, PG13 or R)?
What makes you think we don't have a problem with those moviemakers too? Is your question seriously "Why are we paying attention on this year's Oscar-winner more than on some random other movie?"

[ March 03, 2011, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 2997 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:
Whoops. Jordan brought up an earlier point that I either missed or had forgotten. So the studio IS releasing an edited version. Why does that outrage the film community?

I imagine the issue here could also be a question of whether or not the Producer/Director of the movie supports the edited version that the studio is contemplating. As that was where a lot of outrage over things like editing Schindler's List came from, as Steven Spielberg was saying "leave it as it is."

From what I'm seeing, the director/creator of the film is on record(when they were fighting over the rating for the version released to theaters) as saying the profanity was vital and important to the story. However, he appears to have been struck mute on the matter of a PG-13 edited version being available at this time. The Actor who played the title character is on record as viewing the edited version as a mutilation of the story.

The production company that is responsible for the "marketability change" of the movie by censoring it, says they wouldn't be doing it w/out the director's consent... So it's murky at the moment as to what exactly is going on with the thing and whose views are what on the matter.

[ March 03, 2011, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: TheDeamon ]

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Do you know for *sure* it will be legally available? Can you guarantee that for all over the world?

Of course not. That's why I asked. It's their movie, though. I don't see why they have to release the version you want (though it would be nice of them and probably a smart financial move, too).

quote:

Thankfully, we still have illegal downloading: I won't have to worry in the DVD store about whether the version they have is the edited or unedited one.

Yes, this is a nice perk of them making the changes after the fact. Unfortunately I can't download the PG version of the PG13 movie that threw in a pointless sex scene or bare bum for the sole purpose of upping the rating because the PG version was never released in the first place.


quote:
If the edited version is better or equally good, why wasn't it edited in this manner in the first place?
I don't know which version is better but I'm guessing that they didn't realize how many people would avoid it until after the fact.

Here's the thing: Most movies are edited beforehand not just to make it better but to get the rating they want and the length that they want. Why weren't the Lord of the Rings movies released in their extended version? Why are there so many Director's Cut DVDs out that are different from the theatrical release?

The reality is that some people think one version is "better" while others like a different version. I don't have a problem with that. I do hope they release both versions of King's Speech on DVD and I expect they will if it will bring in more money for them.

quote:

Why did they wait for the unedited version to win the Oscar first before they edited it?

Because after the Oscars people consider movies they hadn't heard of or considered before. If they heard a lot of, "Dang, I wish this was PG-13. I'd love to see this with my kids," after the Oscars that likely got them to consider catering to that market as well.

quote:

Now a movie different to the one that won the Oscar will be advertised as if it did win it. Morally that's fraud.

I agree that they should note that it is an edited version but if they do that, I don't see it as any different than the edited for television movies. People know they are getting a modified version in cases like that and "better" is in the eye of the beholder.

When Star Wars was rereleased it was called a special edition even though many people didn't like the changes and considered it a worse edition. No fraud, just disagreement and disappointment by some.

quote:
What makes you think we don't have a problem with those moviemakers too? Is your question seriously "Why are we paying attention on this year's Oscar-winner more than on some random other movie?"
I'm sure there are people who have a problem with all moviemakers. However, I find it a bit surprising that this movie is complained about in a way that doesn't seem to acknowledge that this is kind of par for the course. I only have the excerpts that phil posted so perhaps I'm wrong.

It just sounds like the author is up in arms and wants us to be up in arms, too, but there isn't much of a justification for why it's such a big deal when we've been getting along fine with it for years already. *shrug* Can YOU explain why this edit puts our kids at "increasingly grave peril"? It's hyperbole.

Here's the thing. Any rating system people come up with will have those who disagree with it. Violence vs. Sexuality. Realistic Violence Vs. cartoony violence. What language is severe? Sure the MPAA could be improved. The problem would then be to communicate how it's changed so that people don't think tomorrow's PG13 is yesterday's PG13. Having moviemakers fight to change the rating system could be considered just as much a fraud as what you're talking about if it isn't publicized well enough.

Personally, I think most people "get" that the rating system is imperfect and a given movie might be more accurately rated one more or one less than the rating it received.

However, I believe that most people who don't see R movies altogether are the ones that avoid many PG13 movies, too. As a general rule, I don't let my kids see R movies, period. There have been some PG13 movies I've been okay showing my kids on DVD (particularly when I'm there with them and can fast forward or pause and explain things to them as necessary). But there are tons of PG13 movies I wouldn't want my kids to see.

The rating system is a bit of a shortcut for me on the extremes. G I can show my kids without any research at all. PG I generally feel safe showing my kids if I've seen a preview and gotten a general feel for it (and honestly most times when I haven't even seen a preview). PG13 is the rating I want to see first to decide. There are also a few PG13s that I don't want to see myself. Usually a preview gives me enough of a warning to know if a movie is crude enough that I should research further before watching it with my wife.
Finally, R I know I don't need to research at all to not show it to my kids. If I heard rave reviews and strong justification from friends I might consider looking into it, but even then I'd probably hope to find an edited version somewhere.

Yes, I know that many Rs are more like a high PG13 and some PG13s would be better rated as a low to mid R. Maybe in this rare case the R should have been more like a high PG. I'm sure those do happen on occasion. However, in those cases, I imagine that a creative moviemaker could more easily bring it down a notch. Maybe all it'd take is changing one F word to an S word and be done with it. There's no reason to assume that it isn't still an awesome film.

Maybe if you have a particular hatred for the MPAA I can see how you'd wish for a high profile clearly misrated film would fight The Man to get the whole system changed but it really shouldn't come as any surprise that they didn't.


[edited to fix the quote coding]

[ March 03, 2011, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: LoverOfJoy ]

Posts: 3630 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From what I've read, what is driving this is the difference in how the movie performed in the UK vs the US. In the UK, the movie obtained a waiver for the language was rated 12A instead to the 15+(their version of an R) it would have had otherwise.

The assumption is that if they give it a PG-13 rating, more families will take their children out to the theaters to watch it like what they saw in the UK with the lower rating.

But as mentioned already, I doubt that is likely to happen in any significant numbers, as most of the families that will avoid movies that are rated R will avoid the PG-13's anymore.

The real test would be if they offer a PG-13 version, and a R-rated "Director's Cut" version or however they want to label to uncensored one. I'd expect, and hope, that the PG-13 sales would be such to make it clear to the movie industry that while yes, there is a market divide happening there. The difference isn't likely to be very significant(in home video sales).

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm still gobsmacked that The King's Speech [DOH] of all movies got an 'R' rating. Your country is messed up.

To contrast, in Quebec the movie is rated 'G' with a parental advisory of 'offensive language' and in Ontario, the movie is rated 'PG' also with a parental advisory of 'offensive language' .

Having a single dimension designation like the MPAA does is, quite frankly, stupid; which is why every year, the MPAA gets slagged for rating a movie like Mary Poppins or The Lion King with 'R' or PG-13 (that's just hyperbole - it is not meant to be histoically accurate if you did not get it)

Posts: 9956 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1