|EvilHomer - 2012-12-03 |
Ebert's a fat, smug, patronizing bastard who panned KickAss and Pink Flamingos. But oh, Pulp Fiction was cool, because blarf blarf Boomer hipster douche.
Whatever. Five stars down.
I also like how quick they are to call Senator Drole on his support for film censorship and paternalistic moralism, but take special care to never attack the idea of censorship itself. Instead of addressing the central problem here- whether state censorship of film and media is ever just- they leave it as is, preferring instead to focus on showing how Dole "got the film wrong" or "is a rightwing partisan derf derf ad hominem". The closest they get to actually saying anything of substance about censorship, in and of itself, is gibberish to the effect of "well, Tipper wants to censor THIS stuff over here, why not that too guys".
Another five stars for reminding me how evil the 90s were.
COUNTERPOINT: Kickass, while significantly better than the comic book it was based off of, was not that great! And he didn't pan Pink Flamingos, simply decided it was "unrateable" and therefore got zero stars.
pulp fiction is good.
|Chocolate Jesus - 2012-12-03 |
Ebert is an ugly populist / moralist, but KickAss is a shitty movie and neither of these gentlemen support state censorship or the MPAA. I think you're misreading something here Homer.
They're addressing the issue moral equivalence, not suggesting the other material needs to be censored.
I'm not saying they "support" censorship, at least not in the same way Dole or Lieberman did, I'm saying that they don't particularly want to oppose it, either. The whole "moral equivalence" argument, especially in this context, is utterly absurd without further qualifiers as to how genuine the suggestion is. Let's say I claimed to be against throwing Muslim Americans into camps, because we're not also considering throwing Evangelical Americans into camps. Am I making a statement about the absurdity of internment camps? Or am I tacitly acknowledging the utility of internment camps, and quietly suggesting that they be used for more "socially just" purposes? There's a big difference between the two messages, and it may not always be clear in context which one we're being asked to accept. It's not like Siskbert are above doing the latter; they use a "moral equivalence" argument in precisely this manner later in the video, when they discuss Washington's opposition to "fantasy violence" and then use that to springboard off into a totally genuine (I assume?) pro-gun control bit.
And KickAss was too a great movie. It had guns and 'splosions and little girls swearing.
I mean, really. One hour of this stuff, and the only concrete messages I got were "Bob Dole is a poop head" and "violence is bad *unless* it's tempered with stuff that tickles my monocle".
|Chocolate Jesus - 2012-12-03 |
Their argument is that violence without signification is objectionable, not that it should be censored.
Ebert's a shit for putting spoilers in his movie reviews on a dismaying basis (check out his review of James Gunn's "Super" for an example), but on the other hand I remember thinking it was significant that I agreed with his one-star review of Bad Boys 2. If I had been 15 when that movie came out I would've thought of him as a doddering old man for finding it distasteful, but hey: sometimes using violence as entertainment really is a shitty way to make a movie.
The worst action movies ever made came out in the 80s?
What the FUCK???
Void just came here in a Delorean. He isn't aware yet that things have gotten so bad in the future year 2012, that we look back at the 80's wishing we had it that good.
So Commando, Predator, Robocop, Indiana Jones, and DIE HARD only became good when compared to today?
I don't want to explain my joke.
|positively - 2012-12-03 |
Watching this clip from the global internet computer network
|Blue - 2012-12-03 |
Censorship is shitting up our movies. The problematic violence and sex isn't happening despite the censors, it's happening because of them. Is it really a good idea to get rid of objectionable violence? Violence should be objectionable. They cut the edges off and make all the violence cartoonish and they wonder why there's so much of it and why people don't seem so put off by it. You did that, you fucking assholes.
Oh and don't forget sex. A religious organization that has shitty attitudes about sex censors our movies and for some reason our movies have shitty attitudes about sex? These people were cool with that chick in that Hostel movie getting bled out over her naked breasts, but that one shot of a woman's face during sex in "Boys Don't Cry" was two seconds too long?
These people have shitty fucking values and the children need to be protected from them.
If you haven't seen This Film Is Not Yet Rated, it involves a lesbian couple detective team who outs the identities of the MPAA censors. They find out what happened when This Film Is Not Yet Rated is submitted to the MPAA for rating.
|That guy - 2012-12-03 |
This is a pretty interesting talk on several fronts.
|Simillion - 2012-12-04 |
Is this when they doused siskel and ebert with lethal doses of radiation to doom them both to painful cancer deaths? I bet it was.
Oh shit, was I not supposed to say that? OOOOOPS! *^_____^*
| Register or login To Post a Comment|