Chat Thread - Free Discussion

1109110112114115152

Comments

  • Posts: 15,322
    I was a kid in the 70s and I saw it. A few years after the premiere.

    Couldn't had the same rating back then?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Joe Don Baker Street
    Posts: 40,788
    I doubt it.
  • Posts: 15,322
    I doubt it.

    Very unusual if the rating gets stricter years later. Wasn't it Life of Brian that got banned here? It's rated "15" now, I think.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Joe Don Baker Street
    edited April 2018 Posts: 40,788
    It s so long ago. Maybe I saw it on tv a couple years after, I really can t remember.

    Life of Brian was banned, yes. For blasphemy.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 30,466
    It was definitely R back in '73. I remember being excited that I was seeing an R rated film.
  • edited April 2018 Posts: 15,322
    It s so long ago. Maybe I saw it on tv a couple years after, I really can t remember.

    Life of Brian was banned, yes. For blasphemy.

    Ah, yes. Blasphemy was the reason. Didn't it then get a "18" rating too, before the "15" one it has now? In any case, a "15" rating for Life of Brian is a bit much, if you ask me.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    I doubt it.

    Very unusual if the rating gets stricter years later. Wasn't it Life of Brian that got banned here? It's rated "15" now, I think.
    @Torgeirtrap, I actually think it'd be more unusual if things got looser and more relaxed when it comes to how we handle the rating of films and books. Our culture is constantly in a dovetail of regression such that we now seem to view everything through the eyes of a child. If a swear is thrown out and-heaven forbid-a nipple is implied or fully shown, the cavalry must be called in. The trailblazing and challenging movies of the 70s could hardly ever be made in a climate like the current one that never wants to take risks or present opposing viewpoints to the cultural norms, lest we offend someone and hurt their sensitive feelings. If we get more truly original and challenging films from this point on, it will be in spite of the climate and not because of it, and that's a real sad day for art.
  • edited April 2018 Posts: 15,322
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 With Life of Brian, I think it's proof of the opposite. Read through the Wikipedia article of the film, and it looks like the film was originally stopped upon release in 1980, when the Norwegian Media Authority felt it violated the blasphemy paragraph. This led to the Swedes advertising it as «The film that's so funny it's illegal in Norway!»

    After two theologians (guess that's the right term) reviewed the film (one seeing it as blasphemy, and the other as not), and an upheld ban, with the film getting reviewed further, it was eventually released with the "18" rating later the same year. Apparently it was released with an "11" rating in 2004, when the film was re-released. Not bad going from "banned" to "11"! Then again, it's a comedy for Christ's sake.

    This was a special case, of course. I'm sure I've seen foreign films (mostly American) with an "R" rating originally, get released with the "11"/"12" rating here - at the cinema, or on TV. Can't remember if we use "11" or "12" these days. Think it changed some years ago. The more challenging 70's movies most likely have a "15"/"16" rating, I think.

    One question, though: Do you have rating for books in the U.S.?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Joe Don Baker Street
    Posts: 40,788
    Then again, it's a comedy for Christ's sake.

    Flagged for blasphemy.

    And the age limit is still 12 here, it was the 16 limit that was changed to 15.
  • Posts: 15,322
    Then again, it's a comedy for Christ's sake.

    Flagged for blasphemy.

    And the age limit is still 12 here, it was the 16 limit that was changed to 15.

    I might be mistaken, but wasn't the "12" limit "11" before?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Joe Don Baker Street
    Posts: 40,788
    Then again, it's a comedy for Christ's sake.

    Flagged for blasphemy.

    And the age limit is still 12 here, it was the 16 limit that was changed to 15.

    I might be mistaken, but wasn't the "12" limit "11" before?

    Yes, you are right, until 2014 when the new rules came about. But it was 12 when I grew up, in the 70s. No idea why they keep changing these back and forth.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Joe Don Baker Street
    Posts: 40,788
    Back then it was 5, 7, 12, 16 and 18. Now it s everyone, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18. If you bring your parents you are allowed entry to one age limit above your own, but not to "18" films, that is an absolute limit.
  • Posts: 15,322
    Then again, it's a comedy for Christ's sake.

    Flagged for blasphemy.

    And the age limit is still 12 here, it was the 16 limit that was changed to 15.

    I might be mistaken, but wasn't the "12" limit "11" before?

    Yes, you are right, until 2014 when the new rules came about. But it was 12 when I grew up, in the 70s. No idea why they keep changing these back and forth.
    Back then it was 5, 7, 12, 16 and 18. Now it s everyone, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18. If you bring your parents you are allowed entry to one age limit above your own, but not to "18" films, that is an absolute limit.

    I can't understand why they waste their time changing these age limits. What difference does a year make, really?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Joe Don Baker Street
    Posts: 40,788
    These people need to earn their wages.
  • Posts: 15,322
    These people need to earn their wages.

    Very true!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 With Life of Brian, I think it's proof of the opposite. Read through the Wikipedia article of the film, and it looks like the film was originally stopped upon release in 1980, when the Norwegian Media Authority felt it violated the blasphemy paragraph. This led to the Swedes advertising it as «The film that's so funny it's illegal in Norway!»

    After two theologians (guess that's the right term) reviewed the film (one seeing it as blasphemy, and the other as not), and an upheld ban, with the film getting reviewed further, it was eventually released with the "18" rating later the same year. Apparently it was released with an "11" rating in 2004, when the film was re-released. Not bad going from "banned" to "11"! Then again, it's a comedy for Christ's sake.

    This was a special case, of course. I'm sure I've seen foreign films (mostly American) with an "R" rating originally, get released with the "11"/"12" rating here - at the cinema, or on TV. Can't remember if we use "11" or "12" these days. Think it changed some years ago. The more challenging 70's movies most likely have a "15"/"16" rating, I think.

    One question, though: Do you have rating for books in the U.S.?

    @Torgeirtrap, I'm not familiar with that particular story, I was just speaking from the experience I've had in America where a lot of movies (including the old Bond films) are called offensive and unsavory because of their content that fit with the culture in that time and place, but that has a target on its back in the PC culture of today.

    I'm not aware of book ratings, but as with everything there are banned books lists that usually contain the kinds of books that really shouldn't be banned (Harry Potter was on there all the time when I was a kid, hilariously). So it's more of what you see with movies: really illogical bans of things that should be judged on their merits and not taken to task because they may challenge perceptions we find uncomfortable to imagine.
  • Posts: 684
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 With Life of Brian, I think it's proof of the opposite. Read through the Wikipedia article of the film, and it looks like the film was originally stopped upon release in 1980, when the Norwegian Media Authority felt it violated the blasphemy paragraph. This led to the Swedes advertising it as «The film that's so funny it's illegal in Norway!»

    After two theologians (guess that's the right term) reviewed the film (one seeing it as blasphemy, and the other as not), and an upheld ban, with the film getting reviewed further, it was eventually released with the "18" rating later the same year. Apparently it was released with an "11" rating in 2004, when the film was re-released. Not bad going from "banned" to "11"! Then again, it's a comedy for Christ's sake.

    This was a special case, of course. I'm sure I've seen foreign films (mostly American) with an "R" rating originally, get released with the "11"/"12" rating here - at the cinema, or on TV. Can't remember if we use "11" or "12" these days. Think it changed some years ago. The more challenging 70's movies most likely have a "15"/"16" rating, I think.

    One question, though: Do you have rating for books in the U.S.?

    @Torgeirtrap, I'm not familiar with that particular story, I was just speaking from the experience I've had in America where a lot of movies (including the old Bond films) are called offensive and unsavory because of their content that fit with the culture in that time and place, but that has a target on its back in the PC culture of today.

    I'm not aware of book ratings, but as with everything there are banned books lists that usually contain the kinds of books that really shouldn't be banned (Harry Potter was on there all the time when I was a kid, hilariously). So it's more of what you see with movies: really illogical bans of things that should be judged on their merits and not taken to task because they may challenge perceptions we find uncomfortable to imagine.
    Probably the closest we've come to having book ratings are trigger warnings.
  • edited April 2018 Posts: 15,322
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 With Life of Brian, I think it's proof of the opposite. Read through the Wikipedia article of the film, and it looks like the film was originally stopped upon release in 1980, when the Norwegian Media Authority felt it violated the blasphemy paragraph. This led to the Swedes advertising it as «The film that's so funny it's illegal in Norway!»

    After two theologians (guess that's the right term) reviewed the film (one seeing it as blasphemy, and the other as not), and an upheld ban, with the film getting reviewed further, it was eventually released with the "18" rating later the same year. Apparently it was released with an "11" rating in 2004, when the film was re-released. Not bad going from "banned" to "11"! Then again, it's a comedy for Christ's sake.

    This was a special case, of course. I'm sure I've seen foreign films (mostly American) with an "R" rating originally, get released with the "11"/"12" rating here - at the cinema, or on TV. Can't remember if we use "11" or "12" these days. Think it changed some years ago. The more challenging 70's movies most likely have a "15"/"16" rating, I think.

    One question, though: Do you have rating for books in the U.S.?

    @Torgeirtrap, I'm not familiar with that particular story, I was just speaking from the experience I've had in America where a lot of movies (including the old Bond films) are called offensive and unsavory because of their content that fit with the culture in that time and place, but that has a target on its back in the PC culture of today.

    I'm not aware of book ratings, but as with everything there are banned books lists that usually contain the kinds of books that really shouldn't be banned (Harry Potter was on there all the time when I was a kid, hilariously). So it's more of what you see with movies: really illogical bans of things that should be judged on their merits and not taken to task because they may challenge perceptions we find uncomfortable to imagine.

    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I see. Haven't really picked up a lot of PC culture towards Bond here - or movies in general, but you never know, that might change. I only picked up Blazing Saddles as a strange case where a stricter rating might have been made (or not). Life of Brian the prime example of a rating getting lowered (or loosened, if you like).

    Misunderstood your comment, thinking that you have ratings for books. Surprising to hear that there are banned books, though, as I've never heard of any recent incidents of that before. The last book to be banned here, was way back in 1966, Uten en tråd (Without a Thread). It's available now, of course. Are banned books common in the States?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    Strog wrote: »
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 With Life of Brian, I think it's proof of the opposite. Read through the Wikipedia article of the film, and it looks like the film was originally stopped upon release in 1980, when the Norwegian Media Authority felt it violated the blasphemy paragraph. This led to the Swedes advertising it as «The film that's so funny it's illegal in Norway!»

    After two theologians (guess that's the right term) reviewed the film (one seeing it as blasphemy, and the other as not), and an upheld ban, with the film getting reviewed further, it was eventually released with the "18" rating later the same year. Apparently it was released with an "11" rating in 2004, when the film was re-released. Not bad going from "banned" to "11"! Then again, it's a comedy for Christ's sake.

    This was a special case, of course. I'm sure I've seen foreign films (mostly American) with an "R" rating originally, get released with the "11"/"12" rating here - at the cinema, or on TV. Can't remember if we use "11" or "12" these days. Think it changed some years ago. The more challenging 70's movies most likely have a "15"/"16" rating, I think.

    One question, though: Do you have rating for books in the U.S.?

    @Torgeirtrap, I'm not familiar with that particular story, I was just speaking from the experience I've had in America where a lot of movies (including the old Bond films) are called offensive and unsavory because of their content that fit with the culture in that time and place, but that has a target on its back in the PC culture of today.

    I'm not aware of book ratings, but as with everything there are banned books lists that usually contain the kinds of books that really shouldn't be banned (Harry Potter was on there all the time when I was a kid, hilariously). So it's more of what you see with movies: really illogical bans of things that should be judged on their merits and not taken to task because they may challenge perceptions we find uncomfortable to imagine.
    Probably the closest we've come to having book ratings are trigger warnings.
    @Strog, ugh, just you mentioning that triggers me. The thing that triggers me more than anything else is those who are triggered about being triggered.
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 With Life of Brian, I think it's proof of the opposite. Read through the Wikipedia article of the film, and it looks like the film was originally stopped upon release in 1980, when the Norwegian Media Authority felt it violated the blasphemy paragraph. This led to the Swedes advertising it as «The film that's so funny it's illegal in Norway!»

    After two theologians (guess that's the right term) reviewed the film (one seeing it as blasphemy, and the other as not), and an upheld ban, with the film getting reviewed further, it was eventually released with the "18" rating later the same year. Apparently it was released with an "11" rating in 2004, when the film was re-released. Not bad going from "banned" to "11"! Then again, it's a comedy for Christ's sake.

    This was a special case, of course. I'm sure I've seen foreign films (mostly American) with an "R" rating originally, get released with the "11"/"12" rating here - at the cinema, or on TV. Can't remember if we use "11" or "12" these days. Think it changed some years ago. The more challenging 70's movies most likely have a "15"/"16" rating, I think.

    One question, though: Do you have rating for books in the U.S.?

    @Torgeirtrap, I'm not familiar with that particular story, I was just speaking from the experience I've had in America where a lot of movies (including the old Bond films) are called offensive and unsavory because of their content that fit with the culture in that time and place, but that has a target on its back in the PC culture of today.

    I'm not aware of book ratings, but as with everything there are banned books lists that usually contain the kinds of books that really shouldn't be banned (Harry Potter was on there all the time when I was a kid, hilariously). So it's more of what you see with movies: really illogical bans of things that should be judged on their merits and not taken to task because they may challenge perceptions we find uncomfortable to imagine.

    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I see. Haven't really picked up a lot of PC culture towards Bond here - or movies in general, but you never know, that might change. I only picked up Blazing Saddles as a strange case where a stricter rating might have been made (or not). Life of Brian the prime example of a rating getting lowered (or loosened, if you like).

    Misunderstood your comment, thinking that you have ratings for books. Surprising to hear that there are banned books, though, as I've never heard of any recent incidents of that before. The last book to be banned here, was way back in 1966, Uten en tråd (Without a Thread). It's available now, of course. Are banned books common in the States?
    @Torgeirtrap, I've noticed some recent criticism of the 60s Bonds, the gender politics in them and all the rest, commented on by people who are sensitive about their content and pretty unwilling to experience another cultural time period. I'm surprised the old Bonds get so much criticism as they are very feministic all things considered, and boast some of the strongest female characters of that period that were more than just beautiful women. They had personalities, desires, depth, etc. Even how Fleming wrote the women originally was impressive and very much forward thinking. Instead of writing damsels he crafted some genuinely dimensional women that are still able to be appreciated.

    Bond is now under fire for what so much is now, where everything about the old films has to be microanalyzed for offensive materials. Bond telling Quarrel to get his shoes must undeniably be racist, just as it was a crime against humanity to put Joseph Wiseman in makeup that made him look Asian. Just tiresome, all of it.


    To address your banned books comment, I'm not sure how widespread the movement is, but we do always have some books people are getting fired up by. In my experience the lists usually hold no sway, and the choices of books are curious too. I mentioned Harry Potter, for instance, and I struggle to imagine what about them deserves to get them banned. Banned books seem to get that distinction because the groups deciding what are to be banned do so because something in them content or message wise conflicts with their agenda, like how a religious banned books list would contain anything that wasn't 100% pro-Christian or maybe even was pro-gay or atheistic in its messages.

    As a lifelong book lover, the only way a book should be banned is if it's horridly written, and that's it. Any and all content must be allowed, as that's the nature of the art form.
  • Posts: 5,750
    As a lifelong book lover, the only way a book should be banned is if it's horridly written, and that's it. Any and all content must be allowed, as that's the nature of the art form. [/quote]

    Uh... then @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 .. you and I both know that would include someone we both know... and if his planned "book" was banned, I think he'd act even more terribly!
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 30,466
    It s so long ago. Maybe I saw it on tv a couple years after, I really can t remember.

    Life of Brian was banned, yes. For blasphemy.

    Ah, yes. Blasphemy was the reason. Didn't it then get a "18" rating too, before the "15" one it has now? In any case, a "15" rating for Life of Brian is a bit much, if you ask me.


    When it played at a theatre near me ( I was a senior in high school), I remember going opening night and a bunch of old religious bags were protesting with signs ("The Life of Christ is not a Joke"), one was a mother of a track teammate; how embarrassing for him.
  • mattjoesmattjoes matthaujoes
    edited April 2018 Posts: 4,222
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 With Life of Brian, I think it's proof of the opposite. Read through the Wikipedia article of the film, and it looks like the film was originally stopped upon release in 1980, when the Norwegian Media Authority felt it violated the blasphemy paragraph. This led to the Swedes advertising it as «The film that's so funny it's illegal in Norway!»

    After two theologians (guess that's the right term) reviewed the film (one seeing it as blasphemy, and the other as not), and an upheld ban, with the film getting reviewed further, it was eventually released with the "18" rating later the same year. Apparently it was released with an "11" rating in 2004, when the film was re-released. Not bad going from "banned" to "11"! Then again, it's a comedy for Christ's sake.

    This was a special case, of course. I'm sure I've seen foreign films (mostly American) with an "R" rating originally, get released with the "11"/"12" rating here - at the cinema, or on TV. Can't remember if we use "11" or "12" these days. Think it changed some years ago. The more challenging 70's movies most likely have a "15"/"16" rating, I think.

    One question, though: Do you have rating for books in the U.S.?

    @Torgeirtrap, I'm not familiar with that particular story, I was just speaking from the experience I've had in America where a lot of movies (including the old Bond films) are called offensive and unsavory because of their content that fit with the culture in that time and place, but that has a target on its back in the PC culture of today.

    I'm not aware of book ratings, but as with everything there are banned books lists that usually contain the kinds of books that really shouldn't be banned (Harry Potter was on there all the time when I was a kid, hilariously). So it's more of what you see with movies: really illogical bans of things that should be judged on their merits and not taken to task because they may challenge perceptions we find uncomfortable to imagine.

    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I see. Haven't really picked up a lot of PC culture towards Bond here - or movies in general, but you never know, that might change. I only picked up Blazing Saddles as a strange case where a stricter rating might have been made (or not). Life of Brian the prime example of a rating getting lowered (or loosened, if you like).

    Misunderstood your comment, thinking that you have ratings for books. Surprising to hear that there are banned books, though, as I've never heard of any recent incidents of that before. The last book to be banned here, was way back in 1966, Uten en tråd (Without a Thread). It's available now, of course. Are banned books common in the States?
    I've noticed some recent criticism of the 60s Bonds, the gender politics in them and all the rest, commented on by people who are sensitive about their content and pretty unwilling to experience another cultural time period. I'm surprised the old Bonds get so much criticism as they are very feministic all things considered, and boast some of the strongest female characters of that period that were more than just beautiful women. They had personalities, desires, depth, etc. Even how Fleming wrote the women originally was impressive and very much forward thinking. Instead of writing damsels he crafted some genuinely dimensional women that are still able to be appreciated.
    I agree completely.
  • Posts: 684
    In my experience the lists usually hold no sway, and the choices of books are curious too. I mentioned Harry Potter, for instance, and I struggle to imagine what about them deserves to get them banned.
    Witchcraft, apparently? One would think the 1990s were the 1690s. Harry Potter was sort of a huge missed opportunity for the church. Those books are full of symbolism that reflects rather well on Christianity, sort of like the Narnia series. I believe Rowling herself is also rather devout. She of all people must have been thoroughly caught off guard by the response at the time.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,683
    Then again, it's a comedy for Christ's sake.

    Flagged for blasphemy.

    And the age limit is still 12 here, it was the 16 limit that was changed to 15.

    Better make that two
  • Posts: 15,322
    Strog wrote: »
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 With Life of Brian, I think it's proof of the opposite. Read through the Wikipedia article of the film, and it looks like the film was originally stopped upon release in 1980, when the Norwegian Media Authority felt it violated the blasphemy paragraph. This led to the Swedes advertising it as «The film that's so funny it's illegal in Norway!»

    After two theologians (guess that's the right term) reviewed the film (one seeing it as blasphemy, and the other as not), and an upheld ban, with the film getting reviewed further, it was eventually released with the "18" rating later the same year. Apparently it was released with an "11" rating in 2004, when the film was re-released. Not bad going from "banned" to "11"! Then again, it's a comedy for Christ's sake.

    This was a special case, of course. I'm sure I've seen foreign films (mostly American) with an "R" rating originally, get released with the "11"/"12" rating here - at the cinema, or on TV. Can't remember if we use "11" or "12" these days. Think it changed some years ago. The more challenging 70's movies most likely have a "15"/"16" rating, I think.

    One question, though: Do you have rating for books in the U.S.?

    @Torgeirtrap, I'm not familiar with that particular story, I was just speaking from the experience I've had in America where a lot of movies (including the old Bond films) are called offensive and unsavory because of their content that fit with the culture in that time and place, but that has a target on its back in the PC culture of today.

    I'm not aware of book ratings, but as with everything there are banned books lists that usually contain the kinds of books that really shouldn't be banned (Harry Potter was on there all the time when I was a kid, hilariously). So it's more of what you see with movies: really illogical bans of things that should be judged on their merits and not taken to task because they may challenge perceptions we find uncomfortable to imagine.
    Probably the closest we've come to having book ratings are trigger warnings.
    @Strog, ugh, just you mentioning that triggers me. The thing that triggers me more than anything else is those who are triggered about being triggered.
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 With Life of Brian, I think it's proof of the opposite. Read through the Wikipedia article of the film, and it looks like the film was originally stopped upon release in 1980, when the Norwegian Media Authority felt it violated the blasphemy paragraph. This led to the Swedes advertising it as «The film that's so funny it's illegal in Norway!»

    After two theologians (guess that's the right term) reviewed the film (one seeing it as blasphemy, and the other as not), and an upheld ban, with the film getting reviewed further, it was eventually released with the "18" rating later the same year. Apparently it was released with an "11" rating in 2004, when the film was re-released. Not bad going from "banned" to "11"! Then again, it's a comedy for Christ's sake.

    This was a special case, of course. I'm sure I've seen foreign films (mostly American) with an "R" rating originally, get released with the "11"/"12" rating here - at the cinema, or on TV. Can't remember if we use "11" or "12" these days. Think it changed some years ago. The more challenging 70's movies most likely have a "15"/"16" rating, I think.

    One question, though: Do you have rating for books in the U.S.?

    @Torgeirtrap, I'm not familiar with that particular story, I was just speaking from the experience I've had in America where a lot of movies (including the old Bond films) are called offensive and unsavory because of their content that fit with the culture in that time and place, but that has a target on its back in the PC culture of today.

    I'm not aware of book ratings, but as with everything there are banned books lists that usually contain the kinds of books that really shouldn't be banned (Harry Potter was on there all the time when I was a kid, hilariously). So it's more of what you see with movies: really illogical bans of things that should be judged on their merits and not taken to task because they may challenge perceptions we find uncomfortable to imagine.

    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I see. Haven't really picked up a lot of PC culture towards Bond here - or movies in general, but you never know, that might change. I only picked up Blazing Saddles as a strange case where a stricter rating might have been made (or not). Life of Brian the prime example of a rating getting lowered (or loosened, if you like).

    Misunderstood your comment, thinking that you have ratings for books. Surprising to hear that there are banned books, though, as I've never heard of any recent incidents of that before. The last book to be banned here, was way back in 1966, Uten en tråd (Without a Thread). It's available now, of course. Are banned books common in the States?
    @Torgeirtrap, I've noticed some recent criticism of the 60s Bonds, the gender politics in them and all the rest, commented on by people who are sensitive about their content and pretty unwilling to experience another cultural time period. I'm surprised the old Bonds get so much criticism as they are very feministic all things considered, and boast some of the strongest female characters of that period that were more than just beautiful women. They had personalities, desires, depth, etc. Even how Fleming wrote the women originally was impressive and very much forward thinking. Instead of writing damsels he crafted some genuinely dimensional women that are still able to be appreciated.

    Bond is now under fire for what so much is now, where everything about the old films has to be microanalyzed for offensive materials. Bond telling Quarrel to get his shoes must undeniably be racist, just as it was a crime against humanity to put Joseph Wiseman in makeup that made him look Asian. Just tiresome, all of it.


    To address your banned books comment, I'm not sure how widespread the movement is, but we do always have some books people are getting fired up by. In my experience the lists usually hold no sway, and the choices of books are curious too. I mentioned Harry Potter, for instance, and I struggle to imagine what about them deserves to get them banned. Banned books seem to get that distinction because the groups deciding what are to be banned do so because something in them content or message wise conflicts with their agenda, like how a religious banned books list would contain anything that wasn't 100% pro-Christian or maybe even was pro-gay or atheistic in its messages.

    As a lifelong book lover, the only way a book should be banned is if it's horridly written, and that's it. Any and all content must be allowed, as that's the nature of the art form.

    Agree on the old Bond's. Compared to a lot of work of that time, the Bond films were quite forward thinking, with strong female characters and all. I think most people would be able to view a work as "of it's time, but there will always be a surprising amount of people who for whatever reason can't - and it's these people who are always flagging their opinions in the media. I have however, never read criticism of that kind towards Bond here. If anything, it's criticism in a review of a film, and that's all.

    I'm surprised to read that there are books being banned in the States still - even if only a few. As I wrote, the last that time happened here was in 1966, so this just sounds so bizarre. I was really taken by surprise by this! There are always books that for whatever reason get criticized, of course, but that usually just ends up in a debate. Some years ago, a priest here in Norway wrote a book called «Sex In The Bible». That didn't go down too well in religious circles, haha!
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It s so long ago. Maybe I saw it on tv a couple years after, I really can t remember.

    Life of Brian was banned, yes. For blasphemy.

    Ah, yes. Blasphemy was the reason. Didn't it then get a "18" rating too, before the "15" one it has now? In any case, a "15" rating for Life of Brian is a bit much, if you ask me.


    When it played at a theatre near me ( I was a senior in high school), I remember going opening night and a bunch of old religious bags were protesting with signs ("The Life of Christ is not a Joke"), one was a mother of a track teammate; how embarrassing for him.

    You did tell him you saw his mother protesting, I presume?
    The amount of free advertising Life of Brian must have got for being controversial must have been very effective, really.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Joe Don Baker Street
    Posts: 40,788
    I didn t see Life of Brian in the cinema, but there were christian protesters outside the theatre, handing out leaflets, when The Last Temptation of Christ was shown.
  • Posts: 19,339
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHNkOAPjsAe4wP567U7Jos7eMQuMjHBsg2MlhOZ6vG39xlVaEKSQ
  • mattjoesmattjoes matthaujoes
    Posts: 4,222
    Did anybody watch Conan in Italy? It was hilarious! Could've been twice as long. Conan seemed to be losing his mind by the end. Probably had something to do with the increased exposure to Jordan Schlansky.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 4,333
    Why is it called Risico?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Joe Don Baker Street
    Posts: 40,788
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Why is it called Risico?

    Foreign for risk.
Sign In or Register to comment.