quote:Donnie Darko I turned off in the first fifteen minutes because of all the swearing. That might give an indication of what is too much.
I cannot even fathom missing out on a great movie because it happened to use "naughty words". I mean, I can't even relate to this on any level whatsoever.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have NO IDEA what Farmgirl's 'w' word even is.
I saw the movie Mystic River, and I wouldn't touch the novel with tongs. I wish I hadn't watched the movie. Not because of swearing, though. It was so frelling depressing, I imagine the presence of that book would suck the joy out of ten foot radius.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xav, I wasn't clutching my pearls or anything. But it disrupted the experience and it was unpleasant enough that fifteen minutes in it wasn't worth it anymore.
I also suspect that Donnie Darko is vastly overrated, but that might be another discussion.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
ah -- you're probably right, Tom and I'm wrong. I just went with the first thing that came to my mind, and although I am familiar with the term you are referring to, it has been quite awhile since I've heard it, so I didn't think of it.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also suspect that Donnie Darko is vastly overrated, but that might be another discussion.
If I were to compile a Top 10 scenes out of all screendom that I've ever seen, the ending montage of Donnie Darko would be right up there.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to throw in some obligatory Scrabble content: the W word just finally made it into the latest Scrabble dictionary update in 2005. (Of course, that's the tournament players version; the one you can buy in the bookstore doesn't have the offensive words in it, including that danged W word.)
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:ah -- you're probably right, Tom and I'm wrong. I just went with the first thing that came to my mind, and although I am familiar with the term you are referring to, it has been quite awhile since I've heard it, so I didn't think of it.
I actually said it in an above post to see if it would get blotted out. It didn't. It's never struck me as that vulgar. But then, I'm american and a college student. And I was a high school student when I was in Scotland. So the fact that something doesn't strike me as vulgar obviously doesn't say much about how it'll strike other folks.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's just it - I don't want a word with either positive (polite) or negative (prissy) connotations. Maybe that's an indication about swearing itself - it's loaded with social meaning, whether we want it to be or not.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I cannot even fathom missing out on a great movie because it happened to use "naughty words". I mean, I can't even relate to this on any level whatsoever.
Yeah, me too. Though I've grown up around pretty regular use of curse words(not in my home, but in school and around the neighborhood). And still curse pretty regularly. And from the majority of people I know, cursing is pretty normal thing in everybody's lives. That's why Tarintino and Kevin Smith movies had such popularity. It was finally people in movies talking like *real* people. Sure it may not be indicative of all of the United States, but it was spot on in my experience.
This thread made me think of Rocco's F-bomb scene in Boondock Saints which has what? 20-30 curse words in maybe 10 seconds of dialogue?
And Donie Darko is certainly NOT overrated! Is it time for yet ANOTHER Donnie Darko thread?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the point is that if the swearing is so so prevelant that it distracts from the movie, it is not as good of a movie as it could have been.
A movie can be great with the coloring of the swearing or in spite of it, but no movie is great BECAUSE of it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think the point is that if the swearing is so so prevelant that it distracts from the movie, it is not as good of a movie as it could have been.
A movie can be great with the coloring of the swearing or in spite of it, but no movie is great BECAUSE of it.
But sometimes the prevelant swearing is a valid part of the movie. Just like sometimes graphic violence is a valid part of the movie. And sometimes, movies that make people uncomfortable are supposed to make people uncomfortable.
Edit: Like sex scenes. I've seen movies where the sex scenes just seemed to be thrown in there, but I've seen a lot more where the sex scenes actually gave some good insight into the characters.
posted
If the main thing a movie has going for it is shock value, it isn't a great movie.
I'm not impressed by a movie's depth being proven by how many people it can offend. This is venturing into subjective territory, but I believe that a great movie is more than that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Interesting that South Park holds the record for the most profanity with 399 swears in it. Who goes through these things counting, anyway?
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a counter at the bottom of the screen during that episode giving a running total of curse words throughout the show. That was kind of the point of that particular episode. If I recall correctly, once enough curse words were said the four horsemen of the apocolypse came to destroy the world, and somehow the kids saved everything.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If the main thing a movie has going for it is shock value, it isn't a great movie.
But how do you define "shock value?" Let's take a movie that most people thought was a crap, probably shock value movie. Saw (the first one). That was one gruesome, creepy, creepy movie. But I loved it partly because what scared me about it WASN'T the gore. To me, what was frightening about it, and what actually kept me up at night, was the villain himself. Now, we can throw in that the movie actually did kind of have a decent message that a lot of people didn't seem to notice. Was that movie created solely for shock value? Maybe. Maybe not. I didn't think so.
I only mention that movie because it's on my mind, since the third is coming out on Halloween. I'm rambling.
posted
So is it only profanity? Is a movie like Clockwork Orange (which happens to be one of my favorite movies of all time), which has I think ONE curse word in it, acceptable because of its artistic value, or is the nature of the content enough of a turn off?
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a bit different: I loved the book, but have no desire to see the movie.
I think because with the book I can self-censor, in other words, I can decide how I'll picture the violence and how much of it I'll really imagine, and how personally connected to it I'll get. In a movie it's all RIGHT THERE and I have no control.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the movie really isn't as violent or gory as the book. I mean, it is very violent and gory, just not as much as the book.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought of that one, too. But I didn't want to go listing the "Top 5 F-bomb Movies Ever Made".
Oh, look, somebody already did that for me.
hah, I love most of those movies. The Big Lebowski being the best movie ever made in the history of all movies ever.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed! And the drinking game that consists of taking a drink every time they say one of those curse words? It rocks.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, the movie really isn't as violent or gory as the book. I mean, it is very violent and gory, just not as much as the book.
The movie is one of my favorites as well, but I know multiple people who refuse to ever watch that movie again, or couldn't even finish watching it because it was too much for them to handle. The movie also loses a lot of the book's message by cutting out the final chapter.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Definitely! I think I read somewhere that the publishers didn't think Americans wanted to read a story where the character changes at the end and becomes a slightly better person.
But I do wonder if it is only the graphic visuals that are a problem, or if those people that can't watch the movie can read the book, even though it describes the graphic scenes in much more detail and much more close up?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly didn't think the character became a better person at the end. He just became controlled.
And JennaDean, I agree. I loved the book but couldn't stand the movie. Imagining things in my own head is much different than seeing it.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I would call "controlled" in Alex's situation a vast enough improvement that it would make him a slightly better person. I guess I also assumed that this implied that he would continue to become better in the future. I could be way off on that though.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen a single one of those movies/shows on the list Nighthawk linked to. Guess that is good.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I grew up in an environment which was free of the 'immaturity' swearing stigma. Swearing can be downright artistic in the right context, and I guess I'm happy I'm not faint of heart over words used in an Andrea Gibson performance.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh, I'll have to watch Donnie Darko again. I don't remember any swearing at all, and only one vaguely uncomfortable part (where he's at the therapist and wakes up with his hand where it shouldn't be). Strange that it went under my radar.
I too loved a lot of those movies on Nighthawk's list. The rest I haven't heard of or seen.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the point is that if the swearing is so so prevelant that it distracts from the movie, it is not as good of a movie as it could have been.
A movie can be great with the coloring of the swearing or in spite of it, but no movie is great BECAUSE of it.
Can you believe that I've neve once noticed an abundance of swearing in that movie, and I've seen it several times?
See, this is why I cannot in any way relate to your feeling. I'd guess that to most young people in America, the amount of cursing in a movie does not "shock" us, and probably barely even registers on our radars.
The cursing in Donnie Darko wasn't to shock or upset the audience. It was to represent a fairly realistic representation of angry teenager dialog. You better believe that when I was an angry teenager, I cursed a ton.
If hearing an angry teen talk like an angry teen distracts from the movie for some, I'd put the "blame" squarely on the viewer.
To me that is like complaining about all the blood and guts in Saving Private Ryan. To say that it would be a better movie without it, and that it distracted you. Well, yeah, okay. It would be a better movie for you. Not for the rest of us.
And how could you call a movie overrated after 15 minutes? Good grief. Lets read the first chapter of Ender's Game and then go argue that the book stinks, shall we?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You better believe that when I was an angry teenager, I cursed a ton.
When I was an angry teenager, I didn't. When my brother was an angry teenager, despite doing most other things the family dissaproved of, he didn't either.
"Blame"? I don't think any culpability needs to be assigned to anyone. It's not a crime or a sin to make an ineffective piece of art.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
It was ineffective. I have no idea what picture it was trying to paint. The language was so distracting it wasn't worth it.
There are a limited number of swear words and only one f-word. Using just one brush and one color of paint isn't an effective way to paint any picture unless you're Ellsworth Kelly.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I was an angry teenager, I didn't. When my brother was an angry teenager, despite doing most other things the family dissaproved of, he didn't either.
Considering the HUGE popularity of that film amongst young people, I'd imagine people like you and your brother were in the minority.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd love to see a sweet little Tom Hanks-Meg Ryan type romantic comedy that's loaded with profanity and yet convincing, so that it doesn't come off sounding like a parody, as Tom pointed out a page ago. The c-word especially. To do it well would be extremely difficult, which would make it extremely worthwhile.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't an angry teenager, and I'm not an angry adult, and yet I did, and still do, curse. Curses are just words that convey a certain meaning. That's all. And sometimes there's just nothing better to say in a given situation except for a curse word. Whether it's because of an inability to think of a more appropriate word, or for effect, or because it really happens to be the best word to convey a certain idea or feeling.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you only watched fifteen minutes of the movie, then there's no way you would know what picture it was trying to paint. I can't think of many movies that give you a full idea of what they're about in fifteen minutes. Except maybe Snakes on a Plane.
posted
I really like Donnie Darko. It's an excellent movie, IMHO. I'm sorry you didn't get to enjoy it, because there is very much there to enjoy.
Some of the things that really jar me and annoy me and sometimes offend me in movies are product placement and religious undertones. But I'm not gonna stop watching a movie because of them. I'll just say, "hmm, I really don't like that aspect, but the rest is good, so it's alright." But, ya know, to each his/her own.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
You admit that it was subjective, and then you label it universally ineffective .
quote:I have no idea what picture it was trying to paint.
Then how can you claim it is a bad painting?
quote:The language was so distracting it wasn't worth it.
The language was distracting to you, not to millions of other young people who either identified with it or didn't mind it.
quote:There are a limited number of swear words and only one f-word. Using just one brush and one color of paint isn't an effective way to paint any picture unless you're Ellsworth Kelly.
If Donnie Darko as a character was supposed to be an eloquent speaker, this might be a valid point.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just know I got Donnie Darko based on several gushing reccomendations and sat down one evening fully prepared the watch the whole thing. After fifteen minutes, it ceased being worth it and I turned it off. If it wasn't for the swearing, I wouldn't have done that.
I'm basing the rest of my opinion of it on a friend's summary of the movie rather than his opinion of it. He got me to appreciate Tool, so I think the dearth of awe is due to the movie. He even liked the movie, so there you go. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the key word here is subjective. Obviously, it was ineffective to kat, because the language was distracting to kat. Many other posters didn't find the language distracting at all. To them, it's not ineffective. People have different standards and tastes, and that's fine. Writers and directors know when they are making their movie that the choices they make about language, sex, violence, and many other things influence who will want to see their movie. They make the decisions that best fit a combination of their artistic vision and their need to sell tickets. It's unfair to say that a movie is bad because of all the swearing, or that if someone doesn't like it they have only themselves to blame. It's like the word kat is looking for to indicate someone doesn't like swearing without positive or negative connotations. Someone isn't polite or prissy because they get distracted by profanity in media. Others aren't immature or adult because it doesn't bother them, or they think it helps est the scene. It's a matter of personal taste. I'm not going to call a vegetarian restaurant ineffective at sating my hunger because I don't like mushrooms.
Added: I knew that by the time I finished this post it would be largely irrelevant.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are a limited number of swear words and only one f-word. Using just one brush and one color of paint isn't an effective way to paint any picture unless you're Ellsworth Kelly. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Donnie Darko as a character was supposed to be an eloquent speaker, this might be a valid point.
I meant the filmmakers.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you're missing the point. The language in Donnie Darko was a part of his character. It's indicative of his character. It's not like the filmmakers were sitting in a room some where going, "Heh, heh....he said boob" and giggling like morons.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. 
