The following Dodgers have been smited by the JDK for their crimes against Jam:
All the girls! for picking on the JDK and damaging his already delicate self esteem!
The Basserd Who Nicked Copper's Stuff For the offense of nicking Copper's stuff. You are a tw*t, whoever you are and we all hope you get run over by a tram in Nottingham. Or Liverpool. Or whereever else they have trams!
Copper For the crime of playing with her Wii instead of her Jammie pals!
here's a news article about the fact two big cinema groups in the usa are refusing to show the movie were president bush is assassinated (how many s's are in that word? i'm getting confussssed)
anyway. i think that's a very good decision - love him or hate him, it's entirely uncivilised to display the murder of a real human being.. under all the presidency stuff he's a real guy. i think the content for this movie is awful and should never have been made.
It's not the first time the assassination of a public figure has been shown on film, and believe it or not it's not the first time the public figure has still been alive.
However, it is the first time a film has been based around current events coming from a controversial "war on terror", they are simply extrapolating to the point where the president is assassinated.
The reason given for holding back the film that I heard was "the president is already a controversial figure and this sort of irresponsible film making could give people ideas".
Sorry mate, but I think people already have those ideas ... and have done for quite a long time.
The problem I have with this decision is one of censorship. The subject of the movie is certainly of questionable taste, an issue that could have been avoided simply by giving the president a different name. Who are the cinema chains to tell us that the subject of a movie is unsuitable for us? We have movie censors (for right or wrong) who's job it is to make that call. That said, the cinema's do have the right to choose which movies they want to show and which will make them the best return. Lets just not pretend they've made some sort of moral stand!
Henglegert Rinkerdink wrote: It's not the first time the assassination of a public figure has been shown on film, and believe it or not it's not the first time the public figure has still been alive.
.. i'm not saying there aren't any.. but i can't think of one
the jdk wrote: The problem I have with this decision is one of censorship.
like you say, in this situation, it's not so much censorship as it is the cinema's choice to not show it (be it for moral or financial reason) (if it is for financial.. then we have to presume they believe the majority of people would take the view i have and not go see it?)
Henglegert Rinkerdink wrote: It's not the first time the assassination of a public figure has been shown on film, and believe it or not it's not the first time the public figure has still been alive.
.. i'm not saying there aren't any.. but i can't think of one
Aside from the multiple films covering the assassination of John F Kennedy, there was a film in '72 depicting the assassination of Trotsky. While not an actual assassination, the attempted killing of Pope John Paul the II was made into a film in '81 and another straight to video iirc in which the assassination was successfull. There are very few where the "victim" is a alive and the events fictional I grant you ... however, just checking my facts on this turned up literally hundreds of assassination movies relating to public figures. Most notably American produced.
Worth noting there is also a drama in production about the assassination of Tony Blair by a suicide bomber.
To be honest, I'm only arguing in the sense that I feel depicting an assassination in the future to make a point about the situation brewing in the world is fine, as long as it makes it's point (which I'm guessing the FilmFour one will, I'm going to watch it tomorrow night on More4 and make up my own mind there) but if it's just gratuitous then I agree with you.
I'd like to know which states this decision has been made in, and whether there is a Bush family member in office there.
All that said, please don't think I'm having a go at you, I'm most certainly not.
oh i totally know you're not having a go. this is why it's open to discussion.
i thought of the kennedy thing but like you said he was also dead and yes i know there are a ton of assassination type ones but mostly they're people who are dead already too - it was more the alive ones i was worried about, kinda putting myself in his shoes... you know when i'm really rich and famous, it would suck to have people watching my murder as a form of entertainment!
-- Edited by bonniepirateanne at 21:02, 2006-10-08
bonniepirateanne wrote: ... it would suck to have people watching my murder as a form of entertainment!
How about people watching you teeth-brushing as a form of entertainment?
Out of interest, where do you guys draw the 'taste' line on movies about real people? Should we only make films about dead people. Should we only make 'nice' films about living people? What about the depiction of stars in shows such as South Park - remember the Tom Cruise incident? Barabara Striesand? Saddam Hussein?