.jpeg?picon=3479)
As a follow-up to my post a few weeks ago, I thought I’dgive an example of what I mean about objectionable content in the media. I have to admit that I find it hard to go tothe movies these days without being bombarded by stuff I just don’t want to seeand hear, and I don’t think I’m alone.
One series of movies in recent years in which I wasdisappointment because of the content was Transformers. For a series based onchildren’s toys, it was sure full of sexually charged content. Then if youthink of many movies which are considered classics, you will see that they havevery little swearing, sexual content or graphic violence. My favorite example is Star Wars, in whichall of these things are present very little. (Unless you consider ‘scruffy-lookingnerf herder’ offensive)It got me thinking: what if Star Wars had been made todayand Michael Bay, the director of Transformers had been at the helm? I’m certainthere would be some changes. Here aresome I came up with:
All the Imperials, especially Darth Vader, woulddevelop a potty mouth, each trying to top each other.
· The ewoks would talk in over-the-topstereotypical racial dialects. (which the director would deny)
· The phrase “Who’s your daddy?” would becomeDarth Vader’s new catch phrase.
· Princess Leia would wear her Jabba’s palaceoutfit all the time, even on Hoth.
3 Comments on Move Over George Lucas..., last added: 9/19/2011
Display Comments
Add a Comment
Here here. It seems a no-brainer to me that if you make movies more family-friendly you would get more sales. Evidently, Hollywood doesn't see it that way. In normal marketing, you want to make your product as universal as possible, not see how many people you can offend with it. But, hey, I guess that's why we write the way we write.
Well said Berin. I'm not sure why Hollywood sees it this way. Alienating people is suicide and its not something you can do in a down economy especially. Has anyone actually said they didn't like a movie because there were too few swearwords in it?
I have lost track of the "movies that would be good but..." If there's a "but," then it's not good. (Compare to that glass of water with just a little poison in it. It's still good, right? There's only a little garbage in it!) I'm beginning to wonder if there's some new, secret law that says the f-bomb MUST be used at least once, even if it doesn't fit. The rating standards are sliding so badly that often *commercials* should be rated R. The offensive language, gratuitous violence, constant (and obvious) sexual innuendo, and the use of people as objects in media teaches watchers that such behavior is acceptable, even desirable.
And the outcry that filtering the trash out of otherwise good movies infringes on the artist's artistic rights is ridiculous. Isn't it better to have people viewing a filtered version than no version at all? The money in the bank is still the same amount. And if there are so many people who want to filter movies so that they can be watched without the trash, then the movie makers need to get a clue.