Thread drifting to superhero films in general, continued from...

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/thread?forumid=248951&messageid=1077199143&lp=1077422850



Matt Reed

Sorry, Matt, I should have said the DIALOGUE was without worth!

Or, another way,
I shouldn't have said the Enterprise should be hauling garbage, it should be hauled away AS garbage!

Yup. Too much coffee!



Matt Reed

Since this thread has drifted to other superhero films, has anyone else checked out the new Punisher trailer?

http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/thepunisher.html

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

First thought; What the hell has happened to John Travolta's career? He's lucky to have had a second chance after PULP FICTION, yet seems determined to piss it away like he did in the early 80s after URBAN COWBOY.

Second thought; It's obviously an adaptation of Garth Ennis' Punisher mini-series, the one he did before the title was rebooted with him at the helm. I'm hoping that the absurdist elements Ennis has made the title famous for over the last couple of years aren't there. I'm not a big fan of his Punisher stories.

Last thought; Looks like a B film. Could be all right in the vein of the Blade movies, themselves B films. I'm pretty sure, however, that I'll wait until I hear a review or two. I'm not lining up on opening weekend to see it.



Matt Reed

<<Simon and Kirby, and then Lee and Ditko, each addressed the creation of webbing -- for Silver Spider and Spider-Man respectively -- via mechanical means. Why? Because even in a comicbook it would not make sense to have the character generate webbing from within his body. He simply requires too much, too fast.>>

I'm feeling a little thick here, because I'm genuinely not seeing the distinction. Let me see if I can follow the logic.

In the comics, Spider-Man can quickly generate an enormous amount of webbing via a miniscule amount of fluid housed in an unobtrusive container not much bigger than a wristwatch.

Given how little fluid is needed, it does not seem illogical to me to assume that the same amount of fluid could easily be housed in Peter's arms, instead of his wristbands. Thus, the process could credibly be transferred from mechanics to biologics.

Now, is your objection that this webbing would not develop as a natural biologic process (or even an unnatural, radiation induced process)? That since a spider's web use is limited, any web-generating powers it bestowed would be have to be slow and of limited output? Are you saying, in short, that Spider-Man's webs are different enough from a real spider's webs that they could not reasonably be the result of the same accident that gave him the rest of his powers?

Am I even close?

One point that bothers me is the webSHOOTING. As a rule, most webs are laid in place. They follow the spider from place to place, usually with the aid of gravity.

Now, just that one premise causes me to support mechanical webshooters over biological. Mechanical can add air-pressure or other means of propulsion to webSHOOT. Biological, where does the propulsion come from?

I'm feeling a little thick here, because I'm genuinely not seeing the distinction. Let me see if I can follow the logic.

In the comics, Spider-Man can quickly generate an enormous amount of webbing via a miniscule amount of fluid housed in an unobtrusive container not much bigger than a wristwatch.

Given how little fluid is needed, it does not seem illogical to me to assume that the same amount of fluid could easily be housed in Peter's arms, instead of his wristbands. Thus, the process could credibly be transferred from mechanics to biologics.

Now, is your objection that this webbing would not develop as a natural biologic process (or even an unnatural, radiation induced process)? That since a spider's web use is limited, any web-generating powers it bestowed would be have to be slow and of limited output? Are you saying, in short, that Spider-Man's webs are different enough from a real spider's webs that they could not reasonably be the result of the same accident that gave him the rest of his powers?

Am I even close?

****


Well, first, in the comics Peter has many small packets of web fluid, which he can clip into place quickly when and if he runs out. In addition to the ones on his wrists, he carries spares on his belt. The fluid contained in these cartridges he makes in his home lab.

But here is an experiment You Can Try At Home.

Load up a water pistol. Squirt the contents into a bucket.

Now spit the same amount into the bucket.

Because even in a comicbook it would not make sense to have the character generate webbing from within his body. He simply requires too much, too fast. (JB)

That didn't stop Stan & Jack from bulking up a puny scientist into a half-ton of solid muscle in mere seconds. Where'd all that mass come from? (I remember reading in the Marvel Universe Handbook how the origin of the Hulk's extra mass, and the process by which the extra mass leaves Hulk as he "downshifts" to Banner, was at the time unknown.)

A better word, instead of priceless, would be worthless. As in, WITHOUT WORTH! (Chris)

Sez you. My mother, a citizen, and I, a longtime comic-book reader, were both cracking up along with half the theater during this scene.

Personally, I think the whole "webs" controversy is nothing compared to -- and I may not have been around here long enough to see anyone throw down over this -- the "little hairs" change. The comic book Spidey clings to walls via electrostatic force. The movie Spidey clings to walls via little hairs on his fingers and toes. Now, I think that, origin-wise, the "little hairs" scenario is ten times more plausible than the "static cling" scenario in terms of just how much willing suspension of disbelief the reader has to put out, but when it comes to utility -- i.e., is this really going to work -- "static cling" has "little hairs" thoroughly thrashed. After all, how are those little hairs supposed to get all the way through Spidey's gloves and boots?

James

Personally, I think the whole "webs" controversy is nothing compared to -- and I may not have been around here long enough to see anyone throw down over this -- the "little hairs" change. The comic book Spidey clings to walls via electrostatic force.

******


No, he most certainly does not. Spider-Man clings to walls in exactly the same way spiders do, and it has nothing to do with "electrostatic force". That was something Shooter forced into the MARVEL UNIVERISE description because he thought spiders stuck to walls, as with a sticky substance on the tips of their legs, which he declared "icky". That version -- which eliminated any need for Parker to have actually been bitten by a radioactive spider -- has been ignored by all concerned.

The "little hairs" is a good representation of how Parker's abilities would mimic those of the spider. Otherwise, I would have mentioned it myself, negatively, before now.

"Last thought; Looks like a B film. Could be all right in the vein of the Blade movies, themselves B films"
**************************
Okay, now I have to ask you what do you call a "B movie." When I hear B movie I think of movies like Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama, Toxic Avenger, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, or to name some comic movies, Captain America or The Fantastic Four. In other words, any movie that Elvira, Rhonda Shear or Gilbert Gottfried would introduce. To me movies like Blade and the Punisher, even the Dolph Lundgren one, have too much money put into them and much better scripts to be called B movies.
This has nothing to do with my liking or disliking any of the movies above, I just think it's odd to call Blade a B movie.

see ya
Richard

Byrne Victim 4 Life

Those would be closer to Z than B!!

The term "B Movie" -- which was not intended as a prejorative, by the way -- dates to the days of the Double Feature, when a night at the movies mean cartoons, newsreels, a travelogue and 2-count-'em-2 movies. The second feature, which was normally a "lesser" film was the "B Movie", and many films were made to fill this category.

Although the "B" has come, in the minds of many, to stand for "Bad" this was not always the case.

I think that the problem with the biological web shooters is that is doesn't show Peter as a genius that we all know that he is. Peter is a genius in the comics and he invented the webshooters, however Sam Rami thought that there would be no way for a kid to think that up so he got rid of it and the biological webshooters were born. Personally the whole webshooter debate doesn't bother me much. I thought that Spider-Man was a good movie.

Personally the whole webshooter debate doesn't bother me much. I thought that Spider-Man was a good movie.


*******


Which could have been even better, had Sam Raimi given some small consideration to the vision of Stan Lee and Steve Ditko being more important than his own.

This, ultimately, is my chief complaint. Fans, it seems, are more than willing to make excuses for movies like "Spider-Man", just to see even a close approximation of the comicbook characters on the screen. Yet had the adaptation been 100% faithful, would the movie have been lessened in any way? Would it not have been as "good" a movie, if the webspinners were mechanical as they are in the comics? All the previous adaptations of Spider-Man to the screen, live action or animated, have kept the mechanical webspinners. Getting rid of them was never even an issue. Why now? Why in this movie? Simply because of the director's overwhelming ego? He wasn't smart enough to make such things, so the character cannot be?

"Movies are not comics!" is the mantra. "Changes have to be made!" And, of course they do. But it seems a true fan of the original material will ask "Why that change? How did that make the whole thing better ?"

There is now, online, a short film about the making of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Almost the first words out of director Peter Jackson's mouth in this piece is to say that the story was "a huge jigsaw puzzle" and that he had to "find a way to make it all fit together." Funny -- I thought J.R.R.Tolkien had done that?

This is the central problem. The whole "Changes must be made" notion has created a mindset -- in the producers and the audience -- in which the changes seem to come first . I have said that when I did MAN OF STEEL my philosophy was "How Much Can I Keep?" Moviemakers today begin with "How Much Can I Throw Away?"

The end results are not improvements over the original source material -- and in many cases, they are actually not as good.

There are (IMO) two reasons to not like "Spider-Man":

1. It's just not a good movie. There are major plot problems that would have earned the movie a thumbs down from me even if I had gone in knowing nothing about Spider-Man.

2. I've said this before, both in here and at the "old board": "Spider-Man" commits the "one unpardonable sin" in Spider-Man storytelling. It gives Peter a perfectly valid reason to let the burglar run past him.



frank :-{>

Spidey's mechanical web-shooters have the fluid under extreme pressure, yes? That accounts for the force with which it is expelled. Spiders don't necessarily "shoot" webs out, so much as expel some web fluid onto a surface, or another web, then move away with the webline trailing behind. This is a problem with the film, but suspension of disbelief works wonders.

I agree that the movie could have easily had a short montage of Peter working at the school chem lab, or even at a mini lab in his room, creating the webs, but it was fun watching him discover his powers all at once. Including webs with those powers didn't make me hate the movie, and it sped up the pace quite a bit. I understand why it was done, and have decided not to get upset about it.

As for Peter having a good reason to let the crook go, I fail to see the problem. In the comics, he's just an arrogant jerk, and let's the crook go because he can. In the film, he does it to get payback on the promoter. How does that alter the impact of the consequences? Either way, Peter sees that his inaction resulted in the death of his Uncle. Does he feel better knowing that he had a good reason to do the wrong thing, in the film? If it was done to make Peter more sympathetic to the audience, by giving him a justification for letting the crook go, I can see why. If Peter had just let the guy run by, for no reason, everyone in the audience not familiar with the comic book origin would be saying, "What the hell did he do that for?" Then when they found out the crook killed Uncle Ben, they'd be hating Peter, rather than feeling empathy. I understand this change as well.

Making the film 100% faithful to the comic would have been good, but it would require major changes in the pacing of the story, as it played out on screen. You'd have Peter discover that he could climb walls, etc., then decide that he'd make himself some web-shooters, and the process of doing that in the lab. Then, trying out the swinging part later. You'd have to show Peter become a wrestling star, become jaded, then let the crook go because he was an arrogant jerk. Lot of difference in the pacing there. I'm not saying that would have been a bad way to go, but I understand why it was altered. It works for me as a film, and I'll leave it at that. Anyone who doesn't like it is welcome to that opinion. I'm not trying to change your mind, or make excuses for liking the film. That's just the way it is.

As for Peter having a good reason to let the crook go, I fail to see the problem. In the comics, he's just an arrogant jerk, and let's the crook go because he can. In the film, he does it to get payback on the promoter. How does that alter the impact of the consequences?

******


Can you honestly ask that question? In the comic, Peter is, as you say, an arrogant jerk -- and because of this, his beloved Uncle Ben dies. There is absolutely no reason for him to let the Burglar escape beyond his own self-centeredness. But in the movie, he is a wronged party -- he has been screwed by the wrestling promoter -- and his actions are based on an appreciation of ironic justice. The money the promoter has stolen from him is, in turn, stolen. Later, this action also leads to the death of Uncle Ben, but in this case Peter has an excuse. He can, if he wishes, actually blame the promoter for Uncle Ben's death, since it was the promoter's cheating of Peter that precipitated the sequence of events that ended with Uncle Ben's death.

In the original version of the story, Peter has no one to blame but himself -- the death of his Uncle was a direct consequence of a chain of events that began with him. In the movie, Peter is only part of a chain of events, not the catalyst. His connection to the death of his Uncle is distanced by a couple of steps -- and for no good reason. Everyone in the audience can understand the "serves him right" attitude that motivates Peter's actions in the movie. His personal responsibility is diminished.

[edited to add]:

There is another flaw in the scene as played out in the movie. If, as we see, Peter genuinely believes himself to be the wronged party, why doesn't he stop the Burglar, take the money he believes is rightfully his (leaving the rest) and go on his merry way?

"There is another flaw in the scene as played out in the movie. If, as we see, Peter genuinely believes himself to be the wronged party, why doesn't he stop the Burglar, take the money he believes is rightfully his (leaving the rest) and go on his merry way?"

Huh. That thought never crossed my mind, but it makes sense. To me that was the second-worst scene in the movie (the true worst being where Peter snaps at Uncle Ben). It almost literally turned my stomach when I first saw it in the theater.

vv

He might not have wanted to get into a situation where the promoter could accuse him of robbery.

cactusmaac

He might not have wanted to get into a situation where the promoter could accuse him of robbery.

******


The promoter could have made a case for that anyway. Peter complains that he is being ripped off, and within a minute the money is stolen by a man Peter does nothing to stop. Collusion? Accessory after the fact?

The scene does not work, no matter how you parse it.

Okay, now I have to ask you what do you call a "B movie." ... To me movies like Blade and the Punisher, even the Dolph Lundgren one, have too much money put into them and much better scripts to be called B movies.

JB's historical perspective on the term "B movie" is absolutely correct. How it's used here in H'wood has been altered to reflect the change from double to single bills. To me, the term "B movie" is not a prejorative. It simply defines the level of the cast, the budget relative to similar films, and the genre. The first Punisher film is, most certainly, a B film, fitting all three criteria. The cast was C level, the genre is considered by many to be B level, and the budget was far below even H'wood norm at the time. To give you an example, the original Punisher film was budgeted at $10 mil whereas BIG, shot the same year, was budgeted at $18 mil...almost double for a film that didn't need any kind of FX.

The original BLADE film fits into this category as well. Its' budget was only $45 mil, far below other films in the genre. Its' cast is B level as well, even Wesley Snipes, whose career has never maintained a level of A list roles. The final cog is genre, to which supernatural vampire hunter certainly fits. Sci-fi, superhero, horror...all genres that are judged to be B films because often is the case that their budgets are small and they aren't star driven. The only reason why films like BATMAN, SUPERMAN, SPIDER-MAN and HULK are A films is due to their enormous budgets and cast of A list stars. That's the biggest reason why Marlon Brando was cast in the first SUPERMAN; to elevate the film from B to A list. There are exceptions to this, however. I don't think anyone would argue that BATTLEFIELD EARTH is the very definition of a B film, even though it starred John Travolta and cost close to $100 mil to make.



Matt Reed

Matt's right. Genre had a lot to do with it. Before STAR WARS made a bajillion dollars, sci-fi was automatically B movie fare. (Remember, the first STAR WARS was not a big budget extravaganza, having cost somewhere between 9 and 11 million -- chickenfeed even at the time.)

JAWS was released in the summer because that was the dumping ground for B movies, which JAWS was seen to be. (It did not star Charlton Heston because the studio did not want to "waste" such a big star on a popcorn movie.)

Spider-Man clings to walls in exactly the same way spiders do....The "little hairs" is a good representation of how Parker's abilities would mimic those of the spider. (JB)

Okay, so, how do those little hairs get all the way through Spidey's gloves and boots/socks? And even if the hairs did manage to get through the fabric, wouldn't they get snagged up in the fabric either on the way out or on the way back in?

...it has nothing to do with "electrostatic force". That was something Shooter forced into the MARVEL UNIVERISE description....That version...which eliminated any need for Parker to have actually been bitten by a radioactive spider -- has been ignored by all concerned. (JB)

Actually, it's part of official canon. There was a three-part series in Spectacular Spider-Man in which Electro cancelled out Spidey's sticking ability after realizing the ability was based on static cling. To my knowledge, Marvel has never "redacted" this story.

In the comic, Peter is, as you say, an arrogant jerk -- and because of this, his beloved Uncle Ben dies. There is absolutely no reason for him to let the Burglar escape beyond his own self-centeredness. But in the movie, he is a wronged party -- he has been screwed by the wrestling promoter -- and his actions are based on an appreciation of ironic justice....Everyone in the audience can understand the "serves him right" attitude that motivates Peter's actions in the movie. (JB)

Maybe, but I hope (though I know it's not so) that everyone in the audience also knows that "serves him right" is not moral justification to allow something wrong to happen to another person -- something the movie's Peter had yet to learn himself, apparently.

His personal responsibility is diminished. (JB)

Not necessarily. Peter still let the burglar go for selfish reasons -- he wanted to see the promoter get a taste of his own medicine. Only later did Peter see the consequences of satisfying his selfishness.

To me that was the second-worst scene in the movie (the true worst being where Peter snaps at Uncle Ben). It almost literally turned my stomach when I first saw it in the theater. (Vincent)

I had more of a problem with Uncle Ben's using the word "ass" twice. Apparently standards for sainthood are pretty low these days.

As for the "Peter snaps at Ben" scene, I think that helps to set up the scene in which Peter lets the burglar go because it makes us realize there's already a real problem with selfishness developing in Peter. With his new powers, Peter is finally experiencing a sense of being at the top rather than on the bottom, and in his mind Uncle Ben's just trying to bring him down again. His scene with Ben, then, makes his later letting the burglar go free less of a surprise.

James

P.S.: Did anybody else, like me, go into the theater to watch Spider-Man thinking in advance that the movie was going to suck? I did, and I was pleasantly surprised. On the other hand, I went to watch Hulk with high expectations, and I was horribly disappointed. So, I was wondering if the people who are complaining the most are also the ones who were expecting the most.

I had more of a problem with Uncle Ben's using the word "ass" twice. Apparently standards for sainthood are pretty low these days.

When did "ass" become a break it deal for sainthood or used as judgement of whether the person saying it is good or not? Good God, my dad's a preacher and I've heard him say "shit" on more than one occassion. I don't think anyone is gonna judge him (execpt you James) based on using that word, or a few other salty phrases.



Matt Reed

Does this mean Matt is the only one who could ever teach me?

Speaking of which -

My gf's dad is pretty religious, which is cool - but he tried to get smart with me and the missus because Bono said "F***" on TV. He smugly pointed out that a real Christian wouldn't say "F***". - I managed to stop the arguement by asking him if he ever saw a mass in Ireland, but, wait, why now wouldn't a Christian say "F***"? Sure, it's vulgar, and as Malcolm X wisely pointed out, why say a vulgar word when you can say an intellegent one, but, I mean, there's no sin attached to it. I have a pretty good understanding of the "laws" of the bible - the old Testament, or the Jewish bible, has ten of them, none of which ban swearing, except taking the lord's name in vain, and maybe, on a technicallity you could see the "honor your mother and father" thing in that light, and the new testament, the part that separates Christians from Jews? Jesus simplifies the 10 Commandments into one easy to understand law that all people, religious or no, should have as their basic moral compass - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And... I think I can live with a person saying words - I think that falls into that category ok.

What's more - I get the impression that Josua Ben Josef probably said the aramaic equivilent of "F***" when he was overturning tables in the temple. The guy we now call "Jesus" wasn't a tree-hugging hippie - he hung out with the dregs of society, and rebeled against the hypocracies of the established religions. So, uh... I think swearing is ok by them.

My guess...

Mike O'Brien

The power we give to words is quite absurd. I have told before the story of how, in the unenlightened England of the early 50s, I had a pet cat named Nigger. This is a word that could get my house burned down if I used it inappropriately, yet for me it will always be a powerless word, simply because it was the name of my cat.

Often we forget that words are used in place of other words, and that these replacement words themselves become problem words. We fall all over ourselves looking for a word that can be used in mixed company (itself a "safe" term that avoids the word "sex") to describe the room in which we evacuate our bowels. "Bathroom" has become the more-or-less acceptable word, yet I have 5 and 1/2 and 1/2 "bathrooms" in my house, and 2 of them do not have baths of any kind. When I was a kid in England, "privee" was considered a dirty word, yet it comes from "privé", the French for "private". Sometimes we call the little room a toilet -- yet a toilet is not a place for the disposal of bodily wastes at all.

The sexual and scatalogical words mostly became "dirty" because of Oliver Cromwell and his uptight crew. Doesn't help that it was folk not unlike him who founded this country.

The prohibition against swearing and cursing is usually associated with Jesus' statement in Matthew, in which he says that what makes a man "unclean" is not what goes into his mouth, but what comes out of it. Personally, although I try not to use such language much, that Jesus was more concerned with the purpose behind someone's words and less with how one says it.

As a "man of the people" Jesus would have used language which, translated into its modern equivalents, would curl the coifs of his most devoted Fundamentalist interpreters. The English translation of the Bible, after all, was done with an eye toward keeping the language lofty and, while no longer Latin, still not instantly comprehensible to the Common (very common!) Man!

"Does this mean Matt is the only one who could ever teach me?"

Yes. But only if you look like Dusty Springfield.



frank :-{>

When did "ass" become a break it deal for sainthood or used as judgement of whether the person saying it is good or not? (Matt)

When you're dealing with the quintessential "innocent victim", it helps to make him as innocent as possible.

He smugly pointed out that a real Christian wouldn't say "F***". (Mike)

Rather, a real Christian shouldn't, but "wouldn't"? I have Christian friends who are pretty liberal in their swearing, but while they certainly shouldn't speak that way, I would never use vulgar speech alone as a litmus test to judge them or anyone else. Some people just haven't realized yet that it's wrong to speak that way.

...why say a vulgar word when you can say an intellegent one, but, I mean, there's no sin attached to it. (Mike)

Yes, there is.

But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.

I have a pretty good understanding of the "laws" of the bible - the old Testament, or the Jewish bible, has ten of them.... (Mike)

10? Try over 600! The Ten Commandments are just the best-known, and they happen to summarize some of the other 600 or so commandments.

Jesus simplifies the 10 Commandments into one easy to understand law that all people, religious or no, should have as their basic moral compass - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Mike)

No, he summarized the 10 Commandments into 2 laws, not one. The last six he summarized into the second greatest commandment: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or, more properly, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The first four of the 10 Commandments, however, he summarized into the first and greatest commandment: "You shall love the Lord your God will all you heart, mind, soul, and strength."

I get the impression that Josua Ben Josef probably said the aramaic equivilent of "F***" when he was overturning tables in the temple. (Mike)

It's not recorded that he said any such thing, so there's no reason to think he did.

The guy we now call "Jesus" wasn't a tree-hugging hippie - he hung out with the dregs of society, and rebeled against the hypocracies of the established religions. So, uh... I think swearing is ok by them. (Mike)

Jesus hung out with sinners, but he didn't condone their sins. There's a big difference there.

As a "man of the people" Jesus would have used language which, translated into its modern equivalents, would curl the coifs of his most devoted Fundamentalist interpreters. (JB)

Where do you get that idea? Just because a person isn't a hypocrite doesn't mean he has to be vulgar (which would just make him another sort of hypocrite).

James

When you're dealing with the quintessential "innocent victim", it helps to make him as innocent as possible/

And saying "ass" somehow makes a person less innocent? I'm sorry, but that is just so wrong on so many levels. Seems to me that you are applying an impossible standard to human beings. Striving to be good is one thing, but judging them (as you're often want to do evidenced by many of your posts here in this forum) as "lesser than" because they don't meet your standards runs counter to the beliefs you have stated you live by in the religion thread. In other words, you are not here to judge yet time and again you've proven that you do on a daily basis. To me, that's justification for how you have chosen to live your life and an attempt to make what you believe in "better than" those that choose not conform to your standards.

Ben Parker is a good, honest, kind man no matter if he says "ass" or not. That he may say that word shouldn't alter how people think of him. That it does for you says a lot more about you than it does about the character.



Matt Reed

Matt,

And saying "ass" somehow makes a person less innocent?

By "innocent" we generally mean "has never hurt anybody," so the less offense a person gives in speech and conduct, the more innocent that person is. Some people are offended by the use of the word "ass" when it is used in reference to human anatomy. Thus, a person who uses "behind" or "can" rather than "ass" will give less offense to people and will therefore be considered more "innocent" than somebody who is no different from the first person other than that he/she uses the word "ass" freely.

In short, take two people who are identical except that one uses vulgar speech and the other doesn't. It doesn't take much to see that the clean-speaking one is "innocent" compared to the vulgar-speaking one.

James

In short, take two people who are identical except that one uses vulgar speech and the other doesn't. It doesn't take much to see that the clean-speaking one is "innocent" compared to the vulgar-speaking one.

Phrase that as your opinion, instead of fact, and then we can talk. Otherwise, it just sounds like so much PC crap. To me (see my opinion) "ass" is not a vulgar word. I totally agree with what JB said above; that people are so hung up on the power of words that they sometimes forget what is being expressed or that it's their problem if they get offended.

You seem to get hung up on judgment, innocent and guilty, rules, regulations, commandments, etc. You appear to be the kind of person that expects others to live by the rules you've laid down for yourself, either personally and/or the faith you've chosen to live your life by. All fine and good until you start applying that, carte blanch, to everyone. It appears to me that there's some sort of hierarchy in place in your life, where people are at varying degrees of either innocent or guilty, and you feel comfortable enough to pass your own judgment on them based on that hierarchy. Sorry. I can't live my life that way and I find it incredibly hard to talk with people who do because there's always that little something in the back of my mind that says they're judging every little word I say and movement I make.

So call Uncle Ben "less innocent," whatever the hell that has to do with saying "ass" in your hierarchy, and I'll go on believing that he's just as fine a character as he's always been portrayed.

{spelling}



Matt Reed

Isn't another Bible teaching "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged Yourself"?

Why all the judging, James?

Matt,

Phrase that as your opinion, instead of fact, and then we can talk.

No, I'm not going to do that, because I think the hypothetical boundaries I set up are sufficient to warrant a factual conclusion. I said, "Take two people who are identical except that one uses vulgar speech and the other doesn't," and I then concluded, "The clean-speaking one is 'innocent' compared to the vulgar-speaking one." Why did I come to that conclusion? Because the hypothetical ground that the people are identical save for one's use of vulgar language implies that in every case that vulgar language was used by this individual, a clean-langauge option was also available; and therefore the individual's choosing to use the vulgar option instead of the clean option demonstrates that individual's lack of concern for others in comparison to the clean-language-using individual's.

Put another way, if you have the choice between saying, "Screw you," and saying, "F--k you," the better choice is to say, "Screw you," because (1) it means the same thing as the other option and (2) the language itself is less likely to offend whoever hears you. If you prefer to use the more vulgar expression, and if you don't really care who gets offended by your stooping to the use of vulgar language, you can certainly do so, but be aware that this only serves to indicate a personal problem on your part.

To me (see my opinion) "ass" is not a vulgar word.

Fine, but to other people, it is, and you therefore have to answer this question: "Am I going to think of myself only and use the word 'ass' without concerning myself with others' feelings, or am I going to put others' feelings ahead of my own and use a different word that says precisely the same thing but is less likely to offend others?"

Getting back to Uncle Ben's use of the word "ass", I suggest the screenwriter himself had a choice. He could have had Uncle Ben use the word "ass" and possibly offend some people in doing so, or he could have had Uncle Ben use an alternate word that was less likely to offend. The screenwriter, in my opinion, made the wrong choice.

James

-are just words. Like so many things in life they have no value or power except for what we chose to assign them.

RT

James, if you're so worried about how others see you, never daring to offend anyone, then you'll never really stand for anything. Seriously. You don't have a right not to be offended, since everything anyone does has the potential to offend someone. Seems like a ridiculous "code of ethics" to live by, but it's your life. I'll just leave this by saying that I think being politically correct, which you are the textbook definition of if you abide by what your wrote above, is a terrible, homogenizing blight on America, where everyone claims their right to not be offended and then expound, ad nausum, about how words like "ass" have infringed on their rights. They focus so much on being offended to the exclusion of everything else. The terms "self-righteous" and "judgmental" usually go hand in hand with being PC.

One word: Blech.



Matt Reed

Matt,

James, if you're so worried about how others see you, never daring to offend anyone, then you'll never really stand for anything.

Hold on a sec. It's one thing to offend somebody when there's no avoiding it. Jesus offended the Pharisees plenty of times when he showed them what hypocrites they were. He did not, however, offend people needlessly, and it's needless offense that I'm talking about here. The screenwriter wrote that Uncle Ben would use a word that would be needlessly offensive to some people, and I think that was a bad decision.

James