Controversial opinions about Bond films

1602603605607608705

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    You don't need to construct an impassioned response to an argument that doesn't exist, @AstonLotus. Anyone with half a brain cell knew this in 2006, and they would know it still in 2020. Any opposition is easily disputed.

    How else can we express dismay over how awful and PC the world has become?
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    I have never heard anyone complain about that sequence. Is there some discourse about it online that I have missed or are we speaking strictly hypothetically i.e. as if the film were released exactly as is, today?

    Aston Lotus was speaking hypothetically, if you read the original comment on page 632.

    He wondered if CR would be made today with the Embassy sequence the same. Which i thought was a very good question.

    I don't think the CR sequence demonises anyone so I can't see why it would be any different if it were made now. Though they did admittedly use a fictional country name to cover themselves, which was probably a smart thing to do.

    I agree. The sequence is not racist, not by the standards of the time it was made, and not by today’s standards either. I’m not aware of anyone, at all, being offended by it. The film makers could easily make the same sequence today.

    The original comment was a hypothetical. So I’ll state a hypothetical too: if CR was made today, they’d make that sequence the exact same way, and no one would bat an eyelid.

    But (some) people did bat an eyelid at the time. Doesn't mean they were right. But they did allege racism, even if they were marginal voices.

    Can't remember where now. Too long ago to find but it definitely happened.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    I don't doubt someone might have thought it was racist, just as I have no doubt fat American southern law enforcement officers felt attacked watching LALD.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    You don't need to construct an impassioned response to an argument that doesn't exist, @AstonLotus. Anyone with half a brain cell knew this in 2006, and they would know it still in 2020. Any opposition is easily disputed.
    How else can we express dismay over how awful and PC the world has become?
    It's political correctness - sorry, 'PC culture' gone mad, I tell you!
    I have never heard anyone complain about that sequence. Is there some discourse about it online that I have missed or are we speaking strictly hypothetically i.e. as if the film were released exactly as is, today?

    Aston Lotus was speaking hypothetically, if you read the original comment on page 632.

    He wondered if CR would be made today with the Embassy sequence the same. Which i thought was a very good question.

    I don't think the CR sequence demonises anyone so I can't see why it would be any different if it were made now. Though they did admittedly use a fictional country name to cover themselves, which was probably a smart thing to do.

    I agree. The sequence is not racist, not by the standards of the time it was made, and not by today’s standards either. I’m not aware of anyone, at all, being offended by it. The film makers could easily make the same sequence today.

    The original comment was a hypothetical. So I’ll state a hypothetical too: if CR was made today, they’d make that sequence the exact same way, and no one would bat an eyelid.

    But (some) people did bat an eyelid at the time. Doesn't mean they were right. But they did allege racism, even if they were marginal voices.

    Can't remember where now. Too long ago to find but it definitely happened.
    But you said it yourself, @FatherValentine. They were marginal. Nowhere close to the popular consensus. I highly doubt that would've changed if CR '06 was released today.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    octofinger wrote: »
    Still, fun to be all aggrieved about hypothetical situations that never actually happened, isn't it?

    Pretty standard.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    You don't need to construct an impassioned response to an argument that doesn't exist, @AstonLotus. Anyone with half a brain cell knew this in 2006, and they would know it still in 2020. Any opposition is easily disputed.
    How else can we express dismay over how awful and PC the world has become?
    It's political correctness - sorry, 'PC culture' gone mad, I tell you!
    I have never heard anyone complain about that sequence. Is there some discourse about it online that I have missed or are we speaking strictly hypothetically i.e. as if the film were released exactly as is, today?

    Aston Lotus was speaking hypothetically, if you read the original comment on page 632.

    He wondered if CR would be made today with the Embassy sequence the same. Which i thought was a very good question.

    I don't think the CR sequence demonises anyone so I can't see why it would be any different if it were made now. Though they did admittedly use a fictional country name to cover themselves, which was probably a smart thing to do.

    I agree. The sequence is not racist, not by the standards of the time it was made, and not by today’s standards either. I’m not aware of anyone, at all, being offended by it. The film makers could easily make the same sequence today.

    The original comment was a hypothetical. So I’ll state a hypothetical too: if CR was made today, they’d make that sequence the exact same way, and no one would bat an eyelid.

    But (some) people did bat an eyelid at the time. Doesn't mean they were right. But they did allege racism, even if they were marginal voices.

    Can't remember where now. Too long ago to find but it definitely happened.
    But you said it yourself, @FatherValentine. They were marginal. Nowhere close to the popular consensus. I highly doubt that would've changed if CR '06 was released today.

    I am not sure. I think that it would cause a stir. I think people would look for things to be offended by.

    I typed in Casino Royale racism into google and it through up a lot of negative articles.

    I think it is accepted that a lot of people out there just feel that James Bond and its associated media is irredeemably racist.

    Of course, that is offset by more who don't feel that way.

  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    edited October 2020 Posts: 2,036
    Not so much a controversial opinion, but I feel that Albert Finney is extremely underrated in Skyfall. I love his relationship with Bond, it feels very deep rooted and authentic, how he takes a liking to M, and reffers to her as Emma, and his badass attitude. “Welcome to Scotland” gets me every time.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Mallory wrote: »
    Not so much a controversial opinion, but I feel that Albert Finney is extremely underrated in Skyfall. I love his relationship with Bond, it feels very deep rooted and authentic, how he takes a liking to M, and reffers to her as Emma, and his badass attitude. “Welcome to Scotland” gets me every time.

    He's a very warm character, I agree. And yeah, he gets forgotten a lot I think.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,761
    You don't need to construct an impassioned response to an argument that doesn't exist, @AstonLotus. Anyone with half a brain cell knew this in 2006, and they would know it still in 2020. Any opposition is easily disputed.
    How else can we express dismay over how awful and PC the world has become?
    It's political correctness - sorry, 'PC culture' gone mad, I tell you!
    I have never heard anyone complain about that sequence. Is there some discourse about it online that I have missed or are we speaking strictly hypothetically i.e. as if the film were released exactly as is, today?

    Aston Lotus was speaking hypothetically, if you read the original comment on page 632.

    He wondered if CR would be made today with the Embassy sequence the same. Which i thought was a very good question.

    I don't think the CR sequence demonises anyone so I can't see why it would be any different if it were made now. Though they did admittedly use a fictional country name to cover themselves, which was probably a smart thing to do.

    I agree. The sequence is not racist, not by the standards of the time it was made, and not by today’s standards either. I’m not aware of anyone, at all, being offended by it. The film makers could easily make the same sequence today.

    The original comment was a hypothetical. So I’ll state a hypothetical too: if CR was made today, they’d make that sequence the exact same way, and no one would bat an eyelid.

    But (some) people did bat an eyelid at the time. Doesn't mean they were right. But they did allege racism, even if they were marginal voices.

    Can't remember where now. Too long ago to find but it definitely happened.
    But you said it yourself, @FatherValentine. They were marginal. Nowhere close to the popular consensus. I highly doubt that would've changed if CR '06 was released today.

    I am not sure. I think that it would cause a stir. I think people would look for things to be offended by.

    I typed in Casino Royale racism into google and it through up a lot of negative articles.

    I think it is accepted that a lot of people out there just feel that James Bond and its associated media is irredeemably racist.

    Of course, that is offset by more who don't feel that way.

    I'm afraid so, some other negative conotations come to mind as well.

    While some aspects of the older films are to be viewed in their specific time frames, there are also many other aspects that the people you mention tend to forget.

    The character of Quarrel is a good example. "Fetch my shoes" doesn't sit well when viewed today, neither does him believing dragons to exist. On the other hand, and this part tends to be forgotten, he's a valuable and skilled ally, with a likeable personality whose death upsets Bond in such a way that he tells Dr. No he'd prefer the Revenge Department so he can avenge his friend.

    Also, Bond was never meant to be a hero. He's a character, with good and bad aspects to his personlality. That makes him a very human entity. Looking for an unambiguous and 100% good-natured hero? I'm sure Zorro or Batman would be more than adequate go-to's. But Bond has never been that way, nor intended as such.

    Furthermore, the films themselves never take a stance in whichever way. Not even in full Cold War climate. It was always someone else trying to pull a trick on both sides. For instance, we've had more likeable Russians in these series than we've had Russian villains.

    It's always easy to highlight the part that serves your thesis statement better, and neglect other aspects that don't. Especially while jumping on a bandwagon.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    You don't need to construct an impassioned response to an argument that doesn't exist, @AstonLotus. Anyone with half a brain cell knew this in 2006, and they would know it still in 2020. Any opposition is easily disputed.
    How else can we express dismay over how awful and PC the world has become?
    It's political correctness - sorry, 'PC culture' gone mad, I tell you!
    I have never heard anyone complain about that sequence. Is there some discourse about it online that I have missed or are we speaking strictly hypothetically i.e. as if the film were released exactly as is, today?

    Aston Lotus was speaking hypothetically, if you read the original comment on page 632.

    He wondered if CR would be made today with the Embassy sequence the same. Which i thought was a very good question.

    I don't think the CR sequence demonises anyone so I can't see why it would be any different if it were made now. Though they did admittedly use a fictional country name to cover themselves, which was probably a smart thing to do.

    I agree. The sequence is not racist, not by the standards of the time it was made, and not by today’s standards either. I’m not aware of anyone, at all, being offended by it. The film makers could easily make the same sequence today.

    The original comment was a hypothetical. So I’ll state a hypothetical too: if CR was made today, they’d make that sequence the exact same way, and no one would bat an eyelid.

    But (some) people did bat an eyelid at the time. Doesn't mean they were right. But they did allege racism, even if they were marginal voices.

    Can't remember where now. Too long ago to find but it definitely happened.
    But you said it yourself, @FatherValentine. They were marginal. Nowhere close to the popular consensus. I highly doubt that would've changed if CR '06 was released today.

    I am not sure. I think that it would cause a stir. I think people would look for things to be offended by.

    I typed in Casino Royale racism into google and it through up a lot of negative articles.

    I think it is accepted that a lot of people out there just feel that James Bond and its associated media is irredeemably racist.

    Of course, that is offset by more who don't feel that way.

    I'm afraid so, some other negative conotations come to mind as well.

    While some aspects of the older films are to be viewed in their specific time frames, there are also many other aspects that the people you mention tend to forget.

    The character of Quarrel is a good example. "Fetch my shoes" doesn't sit well when viewed today, neither does him believing dragons to exist. On the other hand, and this part tends to be forgotten, he's a valuable and skilled ally, with a likeable personality whose death upsets Bond in such a way that he tells Dr. No he'd prefer the Revenge Department so he can avenge his friend.

    Also, Bond was never meant to be a hero. He's a character, with good and bad aspects to his personlality. That makes him a very human entity. Looking for an unambiguous and 100% good-natured hero? I'm sure Zorro or Batman would be more than adequate go-to's. But Bond has never been that way, nor intended as such.

    Furthermore, the films themselves never take a stance in whichever way. Not even in full Cold War climate. It was always someone else trying to pull a trick on both sides. For instance, we've had more likeable Russians in these series than we've had Russian villains.

    It's always easy to highlight the part that serves your thesis statement better, and neglect other aspects that don't. Especially while jumping on a bandwagon.

    Excellent comment.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    Mallory wrote: »
    Not so much a controversial opinion, but I feel that Albert Finney is extremely underrated in Skyfall. I love his relationship with Bond, it feels very deep rooted and authentic, how he takes a liking to M, and reffers to her as Emma, and his badass attitude. “Welcome to Scotland” gets me every time.

    He's a very warm character, I agree. And yeah, he gets forgotten a lot I think.

    I agree, he’s one of the best parts of the movie. A great final part for him.
  • Regarding Moonraker, if in principle I find the idea of ​​seeing Bond in space quite absurd, once this is done and it is at the heart of the marketing campaign, I consider that it should have had a larger role in the plot, reducing it to a handful of minutes as it is the case in the actual movie is meaningless. Especially since if all the posters highlight this outer space dimension. By contrast, the story is ultimately a globetrotting adventure, something that I see as disconnected from the ambitions or promises of the film.

    Thus, I really would have preferred the movie not to be half-measure or in-between as it is, but to fully embrace its outlandish promise and devote much of its plot to this adventure in space, and not just the final battle.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    You don't need to construct an impassioned response to an argument that doesn't exist, @AstonLotus. Anyone with half a brain cell knew this in 2006, and they would know it still in 2020. Any opposition is easily disputed.
    How else can we express dismay over how awful and PC the world has become?
    It's political correctness - sorry, 'PC culture' gone mad, I tell you!
    I have never heard anyone complain about that sequence. Is there some discourse about it online that I have missed or are we speaking strictly hypothetically i.e. as if the film were released exactly as is, today?

    Aston Lotus was speaking hypothetically, if you read the original comment on page 632.

    He wondered if CR would be made today with the Embassy sequence the same. Which i thought was a very good question.

    I don't think the CR sequence demonises anyone so I can't see why it would be any different if it were made now. Though they did admittedly use a fictional country name to cover themselves, which was probably a smart thing to do.

    I agree. The sequence is not racist, not by the standards of the time it was made, and not by today’s standards either. I’m not aware of anyone, at all, being offended by it. The film makers could easily make the same sequence today.

    The original comment was a hypothetical. So I’ll state a hypothetical too: if CR was made today, they’d make that sequence the exact same way, and no one would bat an eyelid.

    But (some) people did bat an eyelid at the time. Doesn't mean they were right. But they did allege racism, even if they were marginal voices.

    Can't remember where now. Too long ago to find but it definitely happened.
    But you said it yourself, @FatherValentine. They were marginal. Nowhere close to the popular consensus. I highly doubt that would've changed if CR '06 was released today.

    I am not sure. I think that it would cause a stir. I think people would look for things to be offended by.

    I typed in Casino Royale racism into google and it through up a lot of negative articles.

    I think it is accepted that a lot of people out there just feel that James Bond and its associated media is irredeemably racist.

    Of course, that is offset by more who don't feel that way.

    I'm afraid so, some other negative conotations come to mind as well.

    While some aspects of the older films are to be viewed in their specific time frames, there are also many other aspects that the people you mention tend to forget.

    The character of Quarrel is a good example. "Fetch my shoes" doesn't sit well when viewed today, neither does him believing dragons to exist. On the other hand, and this part tends to be forgotten, he's a valuable and skilled ally, with a likeable personality whose death upsets Bond in such a way that he tells Dr. No he'd prefer the Revenge Department so he can avenge his friend.

    Also, Bond was never meant to be a hero. He's a character, with good and bad aspects to his personlality. That makes him a very human entity. Looking for an unambiguous and 100% good-natured hero? I'm sure Zorro or Batman would be more than adequate go-to's. But Bond has never been that way, nor intended as such.

    Furthermore, the films themselves never take a stance in whichever way. Not even in full Cold War climate. It was always someone else trying to pull a trick on both sides. For instance, we've had more likeable Russians in these series than we've had Russian villains.

    It's always easy to highlight the part that serves your thesis statement better, and neglect other aspects that don't. Especially while jumping on a bandwagon.

    Great post.

    Bond was never meant to be a hero. Nail on the head.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,948
    Regarding Moonraker, if in principle I find the idea of ​​seeing Bond in space quite absurd, once this is done and it is at the heart of the marketing campaign, I consider that it should have had a larger role in the plot, reducing it to a handful of minutes as it is the case in the actual movie is meaningless. Especially since if all the posters highlight this outer space dimension. By contrast, the story is ultimately a globetrotting adventure, something that I see as disconnected from the ambitions or promises of the film.

    Thus, I really would have preferred the movie not to be half-measure or in-between as it is, but to fully embrace its outlandish promise and devote much of its plot to this adventure in space, and not just the final battle.

    I disagree, however outlandish, Bond should always be grounded in reality. The sole fact that he's going up in space in itself is a huge climax, as one could argue still stands today, as space travel still isn't a widely used phenomenon.

  • Posts: 1,394
    On the subject of relatively recent Bond films that would be made different today...i believe that M would not be portrayed as so grossly incompetent if Skyfall had filmed in 2019.And being replaced by a MAN???? Twitter SJW's would go nuts!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited October 2020 Posts: 8,000
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    On the subject of relatively recent Bond films that would be made different today...i believe that M would not be portrayed as so grossly incompetent if Skyfall had filmed in 2019.And being replaced by a MAN???? Twitter SJW's would go nuts!

    I think that's just your exaggerated view of twitter SJW. There were already men as M before Judi Dench came along, so her being replaced by a man is kind of a non-issue.

    Now, relegating Moneypenny to desk work... yeah, they'd probably not go that route. If anything, I would have had Moneypenny take on the same role Charles Robinson did as M's right hand agent
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    You don't need to construct an impassioned response to an argument that doesn't exist, @AstonLotus. Anyone with half a brain cell knew this in 2006, and they would know it still in 2020. Any opposition is easily disputed.
    How else can we express dismay over how awful and PC the world has become?
    It's political correctness - sorry, 'PC culture' gone mad, I tell you!
    I have never heard anyone complain about that sequence. Is there some discourse about it online that I have missed or are we speaking strictly hypothetically i.e. as if the film were released exactly as is, today?

    Aston Lotus was speaking hypothetically, if you read the original comment on page 632.

    He wondered if CR would be made today with the Embassy sequence the same. Which i thought was a very good question.

    I don't think the CR sequence demonises anyone so I can't see why it would be any different if it were made now. Though they did admittedly use a fictional country name to cover themselves, which was probably a smart thing to do.

    I agree. The sequence is not racist, not by the standards of the time it was made, and not by today’s standards either. I’m not aware of anyone, at all, being offended by it. The film makers could easily make the same sequence today.

    The original comment was a hypothetical. So I’ll state a hypothetical too: if CR was made today, they’d make that sequence the exact same way, and no one would bat an eyelid.

    But (some) people did bat an eyelid at the time. Doesn't mean they were right. But they did allege racism, even if they were marginal voices.

    Can't remember where now. Too long ago to find but it definitely happened.
    But you said it yourself, @FatherValentine. They were marginal. Nowhere close to the popular consensus. I highly doubt that would've changed if CR '06 was released today.

    I am not sure. I think that it would cause a stir. I think people would look for things to be offended by.

    I typed in Casino Royale racism into google and it through up a lot of negative articles.

    I think it is accepted that a lot of people out there just feel that James Bond and its associated media is irredeemably racist.

    Of course, that is offset by more who don't feel that way.

    I'm afraid so, some other negative conotations come to mind as well.

    While some aspects of the older films are to be viewed in their specific time frames, there are also many other aspects that the people you mention tend to forget.

    The character of Quarrel is a good example. "Fetch my shoes" doesn't sit well when viewed today, neither does him believing dragons to exist. On the other hand, and this part tends to be forgotten, he's a valuable and skilled ally, with a likeable personality whose death upsets Bond in such a way that he tells Dr. No he'd prefer the Revenge Department so he can avenge his friend.

    Also, Bond was never meant to be a hero. He's a character, with good and bad aspects to his personlality. That makes him a very human entity. Looking for an unambiguous and 100% good-natured hero? I'm sure Zorro or Batman would be more than adequate go-to's. But Bond has never been that way, nor intended as such.

    Furthermore, the films themselves never take a stance in whichever way. Not even in full Cold War climate. It was always someone else trying to pull a trick on both sides. For instance, we've had more likeable Russians in these series than we've had Russian villains.

    It's always easy to highlight the part that serves your thesis statement better, and neglect other aspects that don't. Especially while jumping on a bandwagon.

    If EON still marketed towards children like they used to back in the day, I think we'd see a much louder uproar, people complaining that Bond is an inappropriate role model/hero for youngsters. By the Brosnan era they started doing less of that, going only as far as video games aimed at teenagers. By Craig it's been aimed primarily at older audiences, though supposedly kids can still enjoy the films given that we have a sizable chunk of Bond fans looking forward to NTTD, as they were kids when CR came out.
  • Posts: 1,394
    James Bond is a hero.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2020 Posts: 7,518
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    James Bond is a hero.

    An anti-hero, if anything, I'd say. It wouldn't be nearly as interesting if it were that straightforward.

    I suppose he fits the dictionary definition of a "hero", though, so there's that.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,916
    Some kind of hero, yes.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    Exagerated? :)) That does sound like twitter.

    Step 1: Look for a reason to be offended
    Step 2: Be offended
    Step 3: Repeat steps 1 and 2

    I would rather spend 24 hours locked in DarkSydePhill's house, than join twitter.
  • Posts: 14,800
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    James Bond is a hero.

    An anti-hero, if anything, I'd say. It wouldn't be nearly as interesting if it were that straightforward.

    I suppose he fits the dictionary definition of a "hero", though, so there's that.

    The classical hero (Greek ones for instance) had more to do with our modern anti-heroes than what we now define as heroes. It mattered not that Heracles was a drinker, a philanderer and even had murdered his first wife and his children in a moment of madness (caused by Hera). He was still a hero as when required he could achieve great things. Being a decent and moral person has little to do with heroism.
    So yes, Bond is the heir of classical heroes.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    James Bond is a hero.

    An anti-hero, if anything, I'd say. It wouldn't be nearly as interesting if it were that straightforward.

    I suppose he fits the dictionary definition of a "hero", though, so there's that.

    The classical hero (Greek ones for instance) had more to do with our modern anti-heroes than what we now define as heroes. It mattered not that Heracles was a drinker, a philanderer and even had murdered his first wife and his children in a moment of madness (caused by Hera). He was still a hero as when required he could achieve great things. Being a decent and moral person has little to do with heroism.
    So yes, Bond is the heir of classical heroes.

    Ah cool, didn't know that! Thanks!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    For what it's worth, Fleming said Bond isn't a hero.
  • Posts: 2,887
    I think Fleming said that to ward off criticism of the books, which began heating up after the publication of Doctor No, when prominent critics began accusing him of "sex, sadism, and snobbery." Those objections now seem quaint today.

    Perhaps the early noir Bond of Casino Royale comes closest to being an anti-hero, but on the whole James Bond is a modern-day hero, a St. George who gets to smoke, drink, gamble, and have sex with beautiful ladies. He's a consumerist hero, which is what initially caused critics to attack Fleming.

    Nevertheless, very few of Bond's actions are morally deplorable when viewed in context. One rarely ends a Bond film or novel thinking that Bond did something disturbingly hard to justify, something that threatens to make him almost as bad as the villain.

    Bond himself became steadily less hard-edged as the series went on--look at how his thoughts on killing in cold blood develop from CR to FRWL to TLD and TMWTGG. I think a real anti-hero would be more eager to kill in cold blood than Bond.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    My favourite part of TMWTGG is Bond’s contemplations on killing in cold blood.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    For what it's worth, Fleming said Bond isn't a hero.

    Exactly.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    Still, fun to be all aggrieved about hypothetical situations that never actually happened, isn't it?

    No one's getting 'aggrieved' from what I can tell.

    A hypothetical question about if a 14 year old film would feature a certain scene in today's 'climate' is potentially an interesting debate.

    I thought it was a really good question in the spirit of the 'controversial' thread...

    Thank you LeonardPine.I just thought it would be an interesting topic of discussion given the current political climate.Even though its a hypothetical question, someone earlier in the thread mentioned that it actually came up in discussion back in the day ( Was it you? ).I find it ridiculous that somebody found the scene where the black kids are chasing Solange while shes riding her horse on the beach.I mean seriously! How is that racist!

    Igotabrudder mentioned that the film is not racist and i agree but i can guarandamntee you that there are some who do and that is their problem.But i do think some of the films content would be quite different today.Of course those who do find it offensive probably never consider that the film gave a bunch of black actors,extras,and stuntmen paid work.

    I think the kids running after Solange on horseback is a wonderful moment. It says to me she is popular among local folk and their children.

    When watching the embassy scene recently I did think to myself if this would have made it into a current film. Which is why I found your question so interesting and relevant.
    Exagerated? :)) That does sound like twitter.

    Step 1: Look for a reason to be offended
    Step 2: Be offended
    Step 3: Repeat steps 1 and 2

    I would rather spend 24 hours locked in DarkSydePhill's house, than join twitter.
    Agreed...

    So much so that many twitter users thought the SJW parody account, Titania McGrath, was an actual person... 😄
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,657
    Can someone please enlighten me what (Twitter) SJW is supposed to mean? I don't have any idea. Disclaimer: I don't have a Twitter account since I refuse to be in the same club as Donald Trump, so I may not understand some of the technicalities.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Can someone please enlighten me what (Twitter) SJW is supposed to mean? I don't have any idea. Disclaimer: I don't have a Twitter account since I refuse to be in the same club as Donald Trump, so I may not understand some of the technicalities.

    Social Justice Warrior, a derogatory term used against someone who fights for social justice.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Can someone please enlighten me what (Twitter) SJW is supposed to mean? I don't have any idea. Disclaimer: I don't have a Twitter account since I refuse to be in the same club as Donald Trump, so I may not understand some of the technicalities.

    It's a Murdoch/Fox made-up thing.
Sign In or Register to comment.