PDA

View Full Version : Anastasia: WOW-The 90s have no respect for Russia



TheArsenal
2011-11-27, 03:15 AM
This movie offended me. It seriously did.

Im not one to get offended by "Evil" russians in movies and cartoons.

I laugh at the phony accents and the stupid motivations, but sometimes it goes too far.

In Salt (The movie), its plot was outright bull****. But what realy hurt me was that in a movie based around "Russia" the russian was HORRIFIC. I get saying stuff for the lols like "I must break you" but when EVERYBODY in the movie sound like somebody just wrote them the SOUNDS of the russian and then asked them to read them of a computer moniter 3 miles away.

In Anastasia. Just no.


"We live in a Magical time".

I love russian history. It shows just how off the wall insane the russian people are when it comes to their country.

But this was truly offensive. Saying that the reign of the Tzars: a reign with the mass prevalence of slavery, and crippling wars? And portraying "Bloody Nicholas" as mister friendly uncle? They guy whos policies resulted in horrible losses at war?

Wow. Its like if I wrote a happy fairytale about the civil war in america!

Serpentine
2011-11-27, 03:21 AM
I don't remember it being offensive, exactly, but it was certainly crappy.

However, I vaguely suspect there has been a fairy tale-type story set in the civil war in the US... There definitely is one set in the Spanish civil war (and it ain't pretty).

Gaelbert
2011-11-27, 03:27 AM
I don't remember it being offensive, exactly, but it was certainly crappy.

However, I vaguely suspect there has been a fairy tale-type story set in the civil war in the US... There definitely is one set in the Spanish civil war (and it ain't pretty).

Pan's Labyrinth. It has many magical and fantastical elements, but I wouldn't consider it a fairy tale in the happy sense. It is quite dark. An excellent movie, but still very dark.

Serpentine
2011-11-27, 03:39 AM
Oh yeah, he specified "happy fairy tale", didn't he...

Mystic Muse
2011-11-27, 03:56 AM
Wow. Its like if I wrote a happy fairytale about the civil war in america!

Would now be a bad time to bring up the animated movie about titanic where the ship gets saved by a gigantic Octupus?

Yes, that apparently exists.

Pokonic
2011-11-27, 03:58 AM
Pan's Labyrinth. It has many magical and fantastical elements, but I wouldn't consider it a fairy tale in the happy sense. It is quite dark. An excellent movie, but still very dark.

Taught me more about the insides of a giant toad than I ever needed to know.


Would now be a bad time to bring up the animated movie about titanic where the ship gets saved by a gigantic Octupus?

Yes, that apparently exists.

Is it the one with talkinh animals? I think its the one with talking animals.

Trazoi
2011-11-27, 03:59 AM
The film is rubbish but the introduction of Zombie Rasputin and that song he sings is hilarious.

Mystic Muse
2011-11-27, 04:04 AM
Is it the one with talkinh animals? I think its the one with talking animals.

Yep. I think it involved talking dolphins, a talking octopus, and other stuff I can't remember. I need to see the Nostalgia Critic's review of it again.

Tebryn
2011-11-27, 04:10 AM
Am I the only one saying...so what? If it offends you...don't watch it. Simple as that. Your offense isn't going to get rid of the movie, it's not going to make the people who saw it to forget it. Just don't watch it. Why seek to take offense.

TheArsenal
2011-11-27, 04:13 AM
Am I the only one saying...so what? If it offends you...don't watch it. Simple as that. Your offense isn't going to get rid of the movie, it's not going to make the people who saw it to forget it. Just don't watch it. Why seek to take offense.

Oh frankenwagnel! This excuse again!

By that logic you should never dislike ANYTHING.

Point is that I watched the cartoon to find it offencive, stupid, and crap.

Comrade
2011-11-27, 04:13 AM
Eh. From what I recall of it (and admittedly I recall little, but of what I do) the description of Russia/Russians just seemed rather stereotypical and not altogether well-informed (loved the badly pronounced 'dos vidanye!' Anastasia says to Fictionalised Zombie Rasputin at the end there...which I believe was the only actual Russian used, but I can't remember). But it wasn't offensive in any real capacity.

Tebryn
2011-11-27, 04:29 AM
Oh frankenwagnel! This excuse again!

By that logic you should never dislike ANYTHING.

Point is that I watched the cartoon to find it offencive, stupid, and crap.

Ok...? It's not an excuse, it's something called logic.

The logic doesn't say "Don't dislike anything ever" it says "Don't go after things you dislike" and I think that's pretty valid. You don't eat things you hate unless your forced to. You shouldn't listen or watch anything you dislike either because really...unless your forced it seems a pretty poor use of your finite time. You watched the movie because you wanted to be offended...well then you got what you wanted. But complaining about it is like the kid who burns himself on the hot iron after knowing it was hot.

TheArsenal
2011-11-27, 04:34 AM
The thing is I watched the movie. Will I watch it again? NO! Will I go on a rally to ban it? No.

But you told me that getting offended won't do anything so why bother.


But complaining about it is like the kid who burns himself on the hot iron after knowing it was hot.

Its more like a guy that just bough some candy only to get food poisoning out of it.

Yes, when people get offended people tend to whine about it. I have the right to do so as well.

Did you say "Don't get offended" to Transformers 2?

Tebryn
2011-11-27, 04:42 AM
No you don't. You're not banned from whining, there's no laws for it but it's not a -right- you have. You don't get to whine and not be called on it for example. Taking offense isn't a right either. It's going to happen because...heck...it's human nature. But it's still not a right afforded to you. No one has the right to whine.

And no, I didn't tell people to "Not be offended by Transformers 2". I didn't tell you not to be offended. I just said that you watching it and being offended and then coming and telling people you were offended when you knew that was going to be the outcome...doesn't lend itself to sympathy. I won't tell anyone not to be offended, but I will tell them that their offense doesn't mean anything. So what if you got offended. I get offended, we all get offended. So what?

Coidzor
2011-11-27, 04:53 AM
Well, you know, the 80s weren't that long ago in the 90s, after all. :smallwink:

Besides, what did you expect of a movie which blames a curse from Rasputin for the fall of the Tsar? :smallconfused: And that one song, if you've ever seen snippets of that on youtube before watching the thing proper... hoo boy.

Serpentine
2011-11-27, 04:53 AM
When did he say he "knew what to expect"? :smallconfused: By your logic, we should never watch or read anything out of fear of it being offensive.

Tebryn
2011-11-27, 04:54 AM
When did he say he "knew what to expect"? :smallconfused: By your logic, we should never watch or read anything out of fear of it being offensive.



Point is that I watched the cartoon to find it offencive, stupid, and crap.

Right there.

Comrade
2011-11-27, 04:56 AM
Right there.

I think he meant 'to find it offensive, stupid, etc' as in 'only to find it...'. As in, he watched it, and found it offensive, stupid, and crap. Not that he watched it with the intention of finding it as such.

Coidzor
2011-11-27, 04:57 AM
When did he say he "knew what to expect"? :smallconfused: By your logic, we should never watch or read anything out of fear of it being offensive.

I'm surprised that he hadn't found out it was bad by now either second hand or through clips on youtube or through clips through internet reviewers or whatever it was that sparked his interest enough to go back and view something like Anastasia in the first place.

Frankly I don't even have a clue of what you were trying to erroneously read into what I said. :smallconfused:

Tebryn
2011-11-27, 05:00 AM
It's not what he typed. If it's what he meant then sure, fine. He was offended. Points remain. So what. Don't watch it again. Him or anyone finding offense with anything doesn't really mean anything. Life's to short to really focus on what offends. Focus on the bigger things like injustices and other things we can't talk about on these boards. Offense over negligibly things...just seems a waste of time to me.

Trazoi
2011-11-27, 05:08 AM
Besides, what did you expect of a movie which blames a curse from Rasputin for the fall of the Tsar? :smallconfused: And that one song, if you've ever seen snippets of that on youtube before watching the thing proper... hoo boy.
That song is so much better when you see it within the framing of a weird Disney Princess knock-off film. I was laughing for a week.

Coidzor
2011-11-27, 05:18 AM
That song is so much better when you see it within the framing of a weird Disney Princess knock-off film. I was laughing for a week.

You mean that it's what'shisface's version of "Cinder-elly" or whatever the proper name for that one song with far too many mice/rats from Cinderella?

Rockphed
2011-11-27, 05:33 AM
If you were a member of the ruling class, much less the ruling family, I doubt you would find much wrong with how Russia was run under the Tzars. In fact, that can be said of just about any nation and government. Might you have problems with specific policies? Sure. But if you are at the top of the heap you probably won't spend much time worrying about the people that get ground to bits to get you there.

As for Anastasia, aside from historical inaccuracy I don't recall anything inherently wrong with it. But then it was a fairy tale, what did you expect but historical inaccuracy? How many fantastical tales are attached to Joan of Arc? Robin Hood is often set against the backdrop of the crusades. Both settings are full of violence, betrayal, death, etc and yet nobody complains about them.


But this was truly offensive. Saying that the reign of the Tzars: a reign with the mass prevalence of slavery, and crippling wars? And portraying "Bloody Nicholas" as mister friendly uncle? They guy whos policies resulted in horrible losses at war?

Finally, the movie is not the first telling of that story, just the silliest. I think there was a reasonably serious one from the 50s, though I only know of it because I wandered past as my mother watched it, so I could be off by decades. Furthermore, do you have any evidence that Tzar Nicolas wasn't a reasonable father? As memory serves, he employed Rasputin because Rasputin claimed power to heal his son. Not every failure of a military commander was also a failure of a father. It has been years since I watched the film, but I don't recall any mention of his ability to win wars(or lack thereof).

Trazoi
2011-11-27, 05:33 AM
You mean that it's what'shisface's version of "Cinder-elly" or whatever the proper name for that one song with far too many mice/rats from Cinderella?
It's more how the movie starts off with this whitewashed version of the Russian Revolution to veer it straight into making some kid friendly princess movie about Anastasia, so there's already there's weird off feeling about the whole thing - but it's all in the back of your mind building up so your subconscious is thinking "what's going on? Are they really making a Disney Princess style movie about this?"

And then they get to this bit, and suddenly out of nowhere - BAM! Zombie Rasputin. And he sings this kickass song with hilarious uber-bass singing bugs.

TheArsenal
2011-11-27, 05:35 AM
I don't know, I just saw it in a video store, and decided to watch it. I didn't really hear about it beforehand. Its happened to me before with NGE. Now it turns out its a widely known shtik.

And another thing saying that there are bigger things to worry about is true. I worry about them more. I found this offensive, moaned about it for a bit and thats it. I think thats a normal reaction for finding something offencive.


It has been years since I watched the film, but I don't recall any mention of his ability to win wars(or lack thereof).

Wiki it up. This man was a monster.

Rockphed
2011-11-27, 05:37 AM
It's more how the movie starts off with this whitewashed version of the Russian Revolution to veer it straight into making some kid friendly princess movie about Anastasia, so there's already there's weird off feeling about the whole thing - but it's all in the back of your mind building up so your subconscious is thinking "what's going on? Are they really making a Disney Princess style movie about this?"

And then they get to this bit, and suddenly out of nowhere - BAM! Zombie Rasputin. And he sings this kickass song with hilarious uber-bass singing bugs.

I don't care how horrible the rest of the movie might be, Zombie Rasputin makes it all worth it.

SaintRidley
2011-11-27, 05:41 AM
It's more how the movie starts off with this whitewashed version of the Russian Revolution to veer it straight into making some kid friendly princess movie about Anastasia, so there's already there's weird off feeling about the whole thing - but it's all in the back of your mind building up so your subconscious is thinking "what's going on? Are they really making a Disney Princess style movie about this?"


I gave up on historical accuracy in animated films a long time ago. Also on the ability of a studio to select mytho-historical events that would be remotely appropriate, come to think of it. Disney's Hercules has a way of doing that to you.

Trazoi
2011-11-27, 05:44 AM
I gave up on historical accuracy in animated films a long time ago. Also on the ability of a studio to select mytho-historical events that would be remotely appropriate, come to think of it. Disney's Hercules has a way of doing that to you.
The best take on that I've seen was CNNNN's plugs for the animated Oedipus Rex. :smallbiggrin:

TheArsenal
2011-11-27, 05:47 AM
Disney's Hercules has a way of doing that to you.

Treat it like a badly written piece of fanfiction.

SaintRidley
2011-11-27, 05:49 AM
Oh dear. I sort of want Disney to tackle that now.

Or, if they couldn't do Oedipus, then at least a Disneyfied Titus Andronicus.

Rockphed
2011-11-27, 05:55 AM
This man was a monster.

I never said he wasn't. Just that the film never portrayed any part of his life where said monstrosity was at all relevant. Unless you mean he was a monster to his own family, in which case your outrage is entirely justified.

As an asside while Wikipedia might be good for science, I don't always trust it to be accurate about people whose deaths were quite so politically motivated as the last Tsar's was, so if I ever actually care, I'll go ask my historian brother for suggestions of books about that era. At present I don't care, partially because I like liking the movie we are discussing.

Serpentine
2011-11-27, 05:55 AM
Frankly I don't even have a clue of what you were trying to erroneously read into what I said. :smallconfused:They weren't in response to you at all.

Tebryn: So what you're saying is... people shouldn't have conversations about things they have opinions on? Is that it?

Sometime after Anastasia came out, I really wanted to see it but never got around to it. Then a friend of my mum's had a copy of a cartoon called Anastasia, so I watched it thinking it was the other. Turns out it was some dodgy no-brand version that ended with Anastasia dancing around in the snow shouting "I remember! I remember!" with no closure to anything at all.
Gawd that sucked.

TheArsenal
2011-11-27, 05:57 AM
I never said he wasn't. Just that the film never portrayed any part of his life where said monstrosity was at all relevant. Unless you mean he was a monster to his own family, in which case your outrage is entirely justified.

I meant that it "Nicely" removes all mention of masscers that he did and the people he abused.

Instead talking about how "We live in a magical time"

Trazoi
2011-11-27, 05:58 AM
Oh dear. I sort of want Disney to tackle that now.
Guess what, I found a link. :smallbiggrin: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL22EE1DB9001E6AFB&feature=player_detailpage&v=xJmczSpqAIA#t=197s) (fair warning: it is Oedipus Rex)

Rockphed
2011-11-27, 06:10 AM
I meant that it "Nicely" removes all mention of masscers that he did and the people he abused.

Instead talking about how "We live in a magical time"

Unless I misremember, the Narrator of that segment was the monster in question's mother or mother-in-law. Who probably spent 6 weeks in Russia a year. And lived in Paris (which at the time was probably much closer to any war than St Petersburg) the rest of the year. While in Russia, she went to parties, balls, banquets, and so forth. I doubt, aside from the servants in the palace, that she ever saw anyone who ranked below count(or whatever the Russian equivalent is). Also, she is describing the whole thing through the lens of 10 or 12 years of nostalgia. "Ah, I remember when I used to go to St Petersburg! We used to have these wonderful balls, and the food was divine. Nothing like the stuff we have to suffer with here. I mean we barely get 3 courses for lunch. And people say French cooking is supposed to be good. Back in Russia, my Nicolas would have banquets with dozens of courses all served by dashing footmen. Here I have but one servant, and she is as dour as lemons are sour! Oh what I would give to have proper parties again."

In short, if the entire story is about how you regained one of your grandchildren, are you really going to stop and editorialize about how malicious and cruel your son or son-in-law was?

TheArsenal
2011-11-27, 06:12 AM
Not realy, but I highly doubt that the story was shown that way intentionaly.

More because they wanted a fairy tale instead of a brutal masscre story.

KillianHawkeye
2011-11-27, 07:49 AM
Once again, are people arguing over something so completely meaningless?? :smallconfused:



Also, this is America. We're never going to have respect for Russia.

darksolitaire
2011-11-27, 08:00 AM
Once again, are people arguing over something so completely meaningless?? :smallconfused:

By choosing to argue, people sort of agree that it isn't so meaningless to them, don't you think?



Also, this is America. We're never going to have respect for Russia.

No, this isn't. This is Sparta.

The Glyphstone
2011-11-27, 08:06 AM
Wow. Its like if I wrote a happy fairytale about the civil war in america!

Well, there's Disney's Song of the South - immediate post-Civil War, if not the Civil War itself. Also famous for being banned for inordinate amounts of racism, so there you go.:smallbiggrin:



Also - it was the 90's. Did the 90's have respect for anything?

thubby
2011-11-27, 08:43 AM
this is Don Bluth's work we're talking about.

is he any farther off than he is in all his other movies?

druid91
2011-11-27, 10:37 AM
Well, there's Disney's Song of the South - immediate post-Civil War, if not the Civil War itself. Also famous for being banned for inordinate amounts of racism, so there you go.:smallbiggrin:



Also - it was the 90's. Did the 90's have respect for anything?

My grandma has that movie... unfortunately the tape is almost dead.

Traab
2011-11-27, 11:00 AM
Yeah.... its a disney movie, have they ever been accurate on history? I admit to being less than offended by this one myself, but thats because I have no interest in russian history, so I didnt know how much they ruined it. But disneys hercules will forever cure you of expecting a disney movie to have any accuracy towards source material at all. I actually got pissed at that movie. I was a big greek myth fan at the time and I actually couldnt stop myself from shouting, "WHAT?!" at some point or another in the theater when things got too far off base. Its been so long I cant remember exactly what it was, but I suspect it was pegasus. Possibly the satyr. Maybe it was the muses being black soul singers. Urge to rage..... rising.

thubby
2011-11-27, 11:06 AM
Yeah.... its a disney movie, have they ever been accurate on history?

NO IT'S NOT!!!:smallfurious:
*summons squid of anger*

Traab
2011-11-27, 11:14 AM
NO IT'S NOT!!!:smallfurious:
*summons squid of anger*

Oops, my bad, it just reminds me of a disney movie in every way. Are you sure disney didnt make it, then give it to bluth because they were ashamed?

thubby
2011-11-27, 11:22 AM
Oops, my bad, it just reminds me of a disney movie in every way. Are you sure disney didnt make it, then give it to bluth because they were ashamed?

positive. he was the only consistent competition they had at the time, but he started as a disney animator which is why his style is so similar. (or rather, a lot of disney stuff is partially his)

Mauve Shirt
2011-11-27, 11:26 AM
You know what? There aren't any 300-foot waterfalls in Virginia, and I've never once seen a talking animal! Disney has NO RESPECT for Jamestown!

Also, Rasputin being a demon zombie is NOWHERE NEAR as far-fetched as Leningrad being called St. Petersburg. :smalltongue:

Kurgan
2011-11-27, 12:20 PM
Unless I misremember, the Narrator of that segment was the monster in question's mother or mother-in-law. Who probably spent 6 weeks in Russia a year. And lived in Paris (which at the time was probably much closer to any war than St Petersburg) the rest of the year. While in Russia, she went to parties, balls, banquets, and so forth. I doubt, aside from the servants in the palace, that she ever saw anyone who ranked below count(or whatever the Russian equivalent is). Also, she is describing the whole thing through the lens of 10 or 12 years of nostalgia. "Ah, I remember when I used to go to St Petersburg! We used to have these wonderful balls, and the food was divine. Nothing like the stuff we have to suffer with here. I mean we barely get 3 courses for lunch. And people say French cooking is supposed to be good. Back in Russia, my Nicolas would have banquets with dozens of courses all served by dashing footmen. Here I have but one servant, and she is as dour as lemons are sour! Oh what I would give to have proper parties again."

In short, if the entire story is about how you regained one of your grandchildren, are you really going to stop and editorialize about how malicious and cruel your son or son-in-law was?

Been too long since I've seen the movie, but I believe you hit the mark there.

From the point of view of a member of the elite there, who always came and saw these beautiful, picturesque parties, but none of the bad things like the struggling lower classes, you might think Russia was a booming society with no reason whatsoever to overthrow its monarch. After all, the monarch was the one who made sure the country was so beautiful and picturesque.

Now you need to explain why such a happy, harmonious people decided to go ahead and overthrow the king. Well, they were happy, and Nicholas was doing a fantastic job, I mean, just look at how extravagant a lifestyle all of Russia had back then!

So it obviously had to be magic, from an evil man who had a personal grudge against the Czar.

Also, gonna have to agree, Zombie Rasputin really makes this movie for me.

Gaelbert
2011-11-27, 12:40 PM
No you don't. You're not banned from whining, there's no laws for it but it's not a -right- you have. You don't get to whine and not be called on it for example. Taking offense isn't a right either. It's going to happen because...heck...it's human nature. But it's still not a right afforded to you. No one has the right to whine.

And no, I didn't tell people to "Not be offended by Transformers 2". I didn't tell you not to be offended. I just said that you watching it and being offended and then coming and telling people you were offended when you knew that was going to be the outcome...doesn't lend itself to sympathy. I won't tell anyone not to be offended, but I will tell them that their offense doesn't mean anything. So what if you got offended. I get offended, we all get offended. So what?

I'm sorry for bringing this up again, but just in general, this is a terrible line of reasoning. I can see not whining or arguing about being offended because of the quality of the movie, but when the substance relies on racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes, then being loudly offended about it makes sense. (I've never watched Anastasia, but just in general). Whenever I see something, say, with subtle levels of anti-semitism or other types of prejudice, I make sure the people I'm watching with pick up on that too. Things like that are offensive and all too often they go unnoticed, only to be subliminally accepted by the audience and tied into their weltanschauung. So, yes. There's a point in being loudly offended and whining about certain movies, even beyond just when they target your own ethnicity for discrimination & etc.

KillianHawkeye
2011-11-27, 12:45 PM
Also, this is America. We're never going to have respect for Russia.

No, this isn't. This is Sparta.

The movie was made in America, even if you are in Finland.

Dr.Epic
2011-11-27, 12:54 PM
This movie offended me. It seriously did.

Im not one to get offended by "Evil" russians in movies and cartoons.

I laugh at the phony accents and the stupid motivations, but sometimes it goes too far.

In Salt (The movie), its plot was outright bull****. But what realy hurt me was that in a movie based around "Russia" the russian was HORRIFIC. I get saying stuff for the lols like "I must break you" but when EVERYBODY in the movie sound like somebody just wrote them the SOUNDS of the russian and then asked them to read them of a computer moniter 3 miles away.

In Anastasia. Just no.


"We live in a Magical time".

I love russian history. It shows just how off the wall insane the russian people are when it comes to their country.

But this was truly offensive. Saying that the reign of the Tzars: a reign with the mass prevalence of slavery, and crippling wars? And portraying "Bloody Nicholas" as mister friendly uncle? They guy whos policies resulted in horrible losses at war?

Wow. Its like if I wrote a happy fairytale about the civil war in america!

If you think this was bad, don't ever watch Rocky IV.

Also, in Soviet Russia, film make historically inaccurate you.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-27, 01:06 PM
I like All Dogs Go to Heaven and its sequel. Saw the former in cinema as a kid with my sister (who told me about Bluth's connection with Disney).

You know what animated film ticks me off? An American Tail, also by Bluth. The film in itself handles the serious topics pretty well. However, it's the conception of the film that irks me.

You see, it originally was meant to be a film directed or produced by Steven Spielberg, and it was meant to be based on Maus. Yes, that Maus. The graphic novels by Art Spiegelman. Which used anthros to seriously depict family issues and the Holocaust.

Now, you may very well say that this was for the best, and you may very well be right. But here's the deal-breaker: Spielberg thought that an animated film about the Holocaust would be too sad.

Whut?

But the pograms are all right to depict to children? Gee whiz, maybe you can be a little bit pregnant, maybe there is something called "torture lite". :smallsigh:

This relate to a degree how Indiana Jones 4 irks me. Again, not the film in it self, including Irina Spalko. (Dayum, I know she's evil, but dayum, is she hotness or not?) No, the reason is that Spielberg didn't want to make a film with Nazis after having done Schindler's List.

Because the Red Terror, Holodomar, GULAG, the plundering of Manchuria, the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Hungary, etc, were all walks in the park? :smallconfused:

TheArsenal
2011-11-27, 01:22 PM
If you think this was bad, don't ever watch Rocky IV.


Yeah but it was funny! It portrayed that russians at least gave a single shat about boxing. That it did not become a broadway show! It also had a native russian speaker in it at the very least.


You know what? There aren't any 300-foot waterfalls in Virginia, and I've never once seen a talking animal! Disney has NO RESPECT for Jamestown!

Except its like it has no respect for the Titanic, rather then Virginia.

TheThan
2011-11-27, 01:32 PM
Well, there's Disney's Song of the South - immediate post-Civil War, if not the Civil War itself. Also famous for being banned for inordinate amounts of racism, so there you go.:smallbiggrin:



Also - it was the 90's. Did the 90's have respect for anything?

Actually the Bríer Rabbit stories (including the tar baby story) are much older than Disney, and were actually created by African slaves in the south. So how can it be racist? Itís a representation of ďďrural black cultureĒ here in the states, a culture that seems to be dying compared to the sheer pervasiveness to the ďhip hop cultureĒ, in the US.

But yes, the 90s had no respect for anything.

The Glyphstone
2011-11-27, 01:37 PM
Actually the Bríer Rabbit stories (including the tar baby story) are much older than Disney, and were actually created by African slaves in the south. So how can it be racist? Itís a representation of ďďrural black cultureĒ here in the states, a culture that seems to be dying compared to the seer pervasiveness to the ďhip hop cultureĒ, in the US.

But yes, the 90s had no respect for anything.

The Br'er Rabbit stories, sure. It's not SotS's subject matter that was racist, but the movie itself.

TheThan
2011-11-27, 02:08 PM
The Br'er Rabbit stories, sure. It's not SotS's subject matter that was racist, but the movie itself.

HUH? Think you can be a bit more specific?
I mean isnít "the movie itself" its subject matter? I'm just trying to understand your statement.

Anyway we're getting off topic.

Anastasia is a cartoon, made for children's entertainment; not a documentary. So they are naturally going to gloss over all the horrible things that happened in the time period the story takes place.

Now if you didn't know the show was going to offend you, that's one thing and it makes sense to complain a bit and express your opinion. But if you knew it was going to offend, then why watch it?

I think if people grew thicker skins, then people wouldn't be as easily offended.

Tengu_temp
2011-11-27, 02:42 PM
It's not what he typed. If it's what he meant then sure, fine. He was offended. Points remain. So what. Don't watch it again. Him or anyone finding offense with anything doesn't really mean anything. Life's to short to really focus on what offends. Focus on the bigger things like injustices and other things we can't talk about on these boards. Offense over negligibly things...just seems a waste of time to me.

Offensively inaccurate movies actually do cause harm, because they make people think reality was at least a bit similar to what they portray.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-27, 02:58 PM
HUH? Think you can be a bit more specific?
I mean isnít "the movie itself" its subject matter? I'm just trying to understand your statement.

Anyway we're getting off topic.

Anastasia is a cartoon, made for children's entertainment; not a documentary. So they are naturally going to gloss over all the horrible things that happened in the time period the story takes place.

Now if you didn't know the show was going to offend you, that's one thing and it makes sense to complain a bit and express your opinion. But if you knew it was going to offend, then why watch it?

I think if people grew thicker skins, then people wouldn't be as easily offended.

Tintin in the Congo is a comic book made for children.

TheThan
2011-11-27, 03:27 PM
Tintin in the Congo is a comic book made for children.

Ok I had to look that comic book up because I havenít heard of it.
You know what I noticed?

People didnít start complaining about it until about seventy years after its release. In fact it was a best seller in the Belgian Congo. Which means people didnít start getting offended by it until recently.

Like others have said, if you come across something you find offensive, DONíT INTERACT WITH IT. So if you see this book on the shelves of your local bookstore, and are offended by it, donít buy it.

For example I find a lot of black comedians extremely racist towards whites, so I donít watch their specials or attend their stand up acts. I donít hear the offensive crap they spew out, so it doesnít hurt me (I still have the knowledge that they say horrible things, and I dislike it, but I canít do anything about it anyway except what I have already chosen to do).

Tebryn
2011-11-27, 03:37 PM
Tebryn: So what you're saying is... people shouldn't have conversations about things they have opinions on? Is that it?

Is it? It's certainly not what I typed so I don't think it is. If that's what you got out of it then maybe it is what I was saying even if I didn't know it. Are you saying that avoiding what offends us is a bad idea when we know it'll offend us?

I really don't understand where you're coming from however, because you're going after things I haven't said what so ever. There's really no way to discuss it with you either because I can't respond to a question on a position I never took.

Parra
2011-11-27, 04:51 PM
Am I the only one seeing the irony in someone complaining that someone shouldn't be complaining?

tensai_oni
2011-11-27, 05:01 PM
Like others have said, if you come across something you find offensive, DONíT INTERACT WITH IT. So if you see this book on the shelves of your local bookstore, and are offended by it, donít buy it.


This is a bad attitude to have. Ignoring offensive things just gives their creators more confidence that they can get away with them. Because no one will do anything about them, just ignore them.

As for the Tintin example, this is because time passes and sensitivities change. What was considered inoffensive in the past could be very insulting today. Not because people have gone thin-skinned. But because boundaries of tolerance or historic/cultural awareness have been pushed - maybe minorities who could not complain in the past about unfair portrayal can do so now, or maybe people didn't care and now they do.

Tebryn
2011-11-27, 05:08 PM
Is there anyone saying they shouldn't complain? :smallconfused:

tensai_oni
2011-11-27, 05:12 PM
Is there anyone saying they shouldn't complain? :smallconfused:

Allow me to quote your first post in this thread.


Am I the only one saying...so what? If it offends you...don't watch it. Simple as that. Your offense isn't going to get rid of the movie, it's not going to make the people who saw it to forget it. Just don't watch it. Why seek to take offense.

Tebryn
2011-11-27, 05:33 PM
I'm glad you quoted that, because now you can point out where I said not to complain in that exact quote.

Slayn82
2011-11-27, 05:46 PM
I love the crazy singing lich. Too bad he never had a chance to be in a kingdon hearts game.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-27, 05:46 PM
This is a bad attitude to have. Ignoring offensive things just gives their creators more confidence that they can get away with them. Because no one will do anything about them, just ignore them.

As for the Tintin example, this is because time passes and sensitivities change. What was considered inoffensive in the past could be very insulting today. Not because people have gone thin-skinned. But because boundaries of tolerance or historic/cultural awareness have been pushed - maybe minorities who could not complain in the past about unfair portrayal can do so now, or maybe people didn't care and now they do.

This.

I would like to note that while the Charlie Chan films were very popular in East Asia during the 1930's, because those were among the very few (Western) films that portrayed Asians in a positive light, lots of Chinese-Americans are offended by the stereotypes today.

Then again, I've read at least one positive Amazon review of the Fu Manchu novels by a Chinese woman (living in Denmark), who thought it was funny and "so bad it was good".

I have no doubt that Tintin in the Congo is still very popular in Congo-Kinshasa. But that doesn't mean that the Congolese who live in Sweden and UK aren't right to find it offensive. We do need to discuss stereotypes and prejudices in fiction openly.

However, I do (generally) object to censorship for moralist reasons.

Gaelbert
2011-11-27, 06:12 PM
Edit: Whoops.

Closet_Skeleton
2011-11-27, 06:19 PM
You know what? There aren't any 300-foot waterfalls in Virginia, and I've never once seen a talking animal! Disney has NO RESPECT for Jamestown!

The Disney version of Pocahontas doesn't seem that off from the synopsis I read. Not that they had much to go wrong. "English guy goes to America, experiances mild peril, meets some girl, leaves" doesn't have that much to it really. It's "Disney's Pocahontas" not "Disney's founding of Jamestown and the subsequent violent conflicts".


The Br'er Rabbit stories, sure. It's not SotS's subject matter that was racist, but the movie itself.

Song of the South isn't even that racist, its actually an anti-racist film. Just a naive one made during a time of rapidly changing values that thus aged really badly. To me Disney hiding the thing seems just as dodgy as them making it. The money the black actors got for working on that film probably did them more good than any harm the film had on people watching it. It was apparently criticised for showing black people in the south as singing their own local music and singing in their local dialect, which seems a bit like saying if you want to show blacks as equal to whites they have to speak in white accents and sing white music (which would have been a disaster, black americans invented modern music, if you say you prefer rock to hip hop that just means you like old black music better than modern black music).

The stereotypes in Song of the South are mostly rural stereotypes. They're more in the same bag as the Bevily Hillbillies level of offensiveness than deeply racist.

TheThan
2011-11-27, 07:10 PM
This is a bad attitude to have. Ignoring offensive things just gives their creators more confidence that they can get away with them. Because no one will do anything about them, just ignore them.


Wait, so your saying I should force myself to watch (or otherwise interact with) something I find offensive?

Iím afraid it doesnít work that way. See there is this thing called ratings (in the instance of TV), the more ratings a show gets, the more money they pull in. Every person that tunes into a specific program adds to that showís ratings. So by watching a show I donít like, I give them better ratings which encourages the makers to continue to produce the show (and make spin offs and copies) that I already donít like.

By not watching said show, the creators are discouraged from continuing that show or making spin offs because itís getting bad ratings. Also raising a fuss about a show can make that show more popular, as people might tune in out of curiosity, or just choose to watch it because it makes others upset.
This is true for any other media device, movies, books, music, YouTube vids you name it. If you ďmakeĒ that show unpopular it will go away.

Unfortunately Iím only a single individual so the effect of me choosing to not interact with media is negligible at best.

Iím not saying stick your head in the sand. Iím saying when you come across something you know is going to offend you, simply donít interact with it, you know itís going to make you upset or anger, so donít suffer it. Now when you come across something you found offensive, and had no way of knowing beforehand, thatís a little bit different, and complaining about it may be an opposite course of action (its really dependent upon the nature of the offense and the seriousness of it).

The Glyphstone
2011-11-27, 07:11 PM
The Disney version of Pocahontas doesn't seem that off from the synopsis I read. Not that they had much to go wrong. "English guy goes to America, experiances mild peril, meets some girl, leaves" doesn't have that much to it really. It's "Disney's Pocahontas" not "Disney's founding of Jamestown and the subsequent violent conflicts".



Song of the South isn't even that racist, its actually an anti-racist film. Just a naive one made during a time of rapidly changing values that thus aged really badly. To me Disney hiding the thing seems just as dodgy as them making it. The money the black actors got for working on that film probably did them more good than any harm the film had on people watching it. It was apparently criticised for showing black people in the south as singing their own local music and singing in their local dialect, which seems a bit like saying if you want to show blacks as equal to whites they have to speak in white accents and sing white music (which would have been a disaster, black americans invented modern music, if you say you prefer rock to hip hop that just means you like old black music better than modern black music).

The stereotypes in Song of the South are mostly rural stereotypes. They're more in the same bag as the Bevily Hillbillies level of offensiveness than deeply racist.

I'll admit I've never actually seen it myself, I only know it by reputation. You may be right.

Pokonic
2011-11-27, 08:21 PM
I'll admit I've never actually seen it myself, I only know it by reputation. You may be right.

He is, from someone who owns a tape of it.

tribble
2011-11-27, 09:03 PM
Wiki it up. This man was a monster.

What, Tsar Nicolas? He was weak, and incompetent, and generally a bad ruler, but I'd be hesitant to call him outright evil...

Horrorshow
2011-11-27, 09:13 PM
This movie is horrible.

It presents a happy, glossy, simplistic view of one of the most chaotic times in all of Russian history - a history that could kindly be termed "a ten-car clusterf***." For this reason alone every copy should bear a warning sticker and accompanying text on real Russian history. Young minds are at stake.

But who cares?? Jim Cummings!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1vDqgsbyhQ

Tengu_temp
2011-11-27, 09:14 PM
What, Tsar Nicolas? He was weak, and incompetent, and generally a bad ruler, but I'd be hesitant to call him outright evil...

His reign was filled with executions and peasants dying from starvation.

Dr.Epic
2011-11-27, 09:24 PM
This relate to a degree how Indiana Jones 4 irks me. Again, not the film in it self, including Irina Spalko. (Dayum, I know she's evil, but dayum, is she hotness or not?) No, the reason is that Spielberg didn't want to make a film with Nazis after having done Schindler's List.

Well, you have to realize Harrison Ford is kind of mortal and is subject to the aging process. So between 1989 and 2008 he kind of aged a decade or two and having the film still take place during WWII wouldn't make sense. Or they could have CGI'd the age off his face to make him look about as creepy as the Patrick Stewart cameo in X-Men Origins: Wolverine except instead of a 5 second cameo, it'd be the protagonist of a feature length film.

nyarlathotep
2011-11-27, 10:49 PM
I'd have to agree, it's about as offensive as say Hetalia.

The problem is that it was made based off of this mystique that some people felt surrounded the possibility that one of the Tsar's family might have survived. They had a story they wanted to tell using that plotpoint and weren't going to let facts get in the way.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-27, 11:04 PM
Well, you have to realize Harrison Ford is kind of mortal and is subject to the aging process. So between 1989 and 2008 he kind of aged a decade or two and having the film still take place during WWII wouldn't make sense. Or they could have CGI'd the age off his face to make him look about as creepy as the Patrick Stewart cameo in X-Men Origins: Wolverine except instead of a 5 second cameo, it'd be the protagonist of a feature length film.

If Spielberg wanted to have Commies as villains because the film takes place in the 1950's, he could have just said so.

Also, there were a lot of fiction with Nazis during the 1950's, like the James Bond novel Moonraker.

It's the implication that Stalinists aren't as "bad" as Nazis that irks me, that having the latter makes Spielberg sad but not the former. Surely he must have known about the Holocaust before he did Schindler's List.

Also, the very thought that Maus had anything to do with An American Tail makes me ill. How many kids did even get that the latter was about anti-semitism anyway? Most, I reckon, thought of it as another "Mice are good, cats are bad" type of fiction.

Starbuck_II
2011-11-28, 12:09 AM
You guys, keep saying movies are bad that I liked. I loved American Tale, Anatasia ("in the Dark of the night" is an awesome song), etc.

I admit Pocohantas peeves me, but only because I lived in Virginia and there were no waterfalls (plus, they made her way older than she was by like 10 years in the movie. Maybe they thought it seemed too creepy to be historically accurate).

Traab
2011-11-28, 12:22 AM
Heh, alot of history is far too creepy or disturbing to ever be put into a kids movie as is. Take Hercules as an example. He is a product of infidelity, and thats the least wrong part of his history. Not only that, but zeus actually snuck baby hercules into his wifes room and had him breast feed off her to gain demigod status. Thats freaking creepy. In retribution, hera later made hercules go crazy and murder his family. Once again, a wee bit grim for disney. So are several versions of some of the tasks he had to complete and what happened while he was doing them. So while I was enraged at the butchering of greek mythology, I also could understand why it was done that way, though some of it was just stupid crap that served no purpose other than to butcher the actual story.

KillianHawkeye
2011-11-28, 12:24 AM
Well, you have to realize Harrison Ford is kind of mortal and is subject to the aging process. So between 1989 and 2008 he kind of aged a decade or two and having the film still take place during WWII wouldn't make sense. Or they could have CGI'd the age off his face to make him look about as creepy as the Patrick Stewart cameo in X-Men Origins: Wolverine except instead of a 5 second cameo, it'd be the protagonist of a feature length film.

It worked okay in Tron: Legacy.

Tiki Snakes
2011-11-28, 02:04 AM
For some reason I vaguely recall hearing that the characters and rough situation of Pocohontas was actually pretty close. Only, not to the people they named the characters after?
It was probably on QI. That show needs a Wiki.

Also American Tale was genuinely special.

ThirdEmperor
2011-11-28, 02:11 AM
Anastasia may have been a bad movie, but damn, it's main villain was awesome. "In the dark of the night"? One of the best Disney-style villain songs of all time.

Serpentine
2011-11-28, 05:07 AM
Is it? It's certainly not what I typed so I don't think it is. If that's what you got out of it then maybe it is what I was saying even if I didn't know it. Are you saying that avoiding what offends us is a bad idea when we know it'll offend us?

I really don't understand where you're coming from however, because you're going after things I haven't said what so ever. There's really no way to discuss it with you either because I can't respond to a question on a position I never took.Someone started a thread expressing an opinion, and you leapt down his throat for doing so. So yeah, that's the message you're sending to me - "don't have conversations about things you have opinions on, at least not if I don't think it matters".

TheArsenal
2011-11-28, 06:38 AM
Let me put it this way:

*Shows a video of ballroomdancing nazis"

"We live in a magical time, filled with magic- Until the EVIL red menace destroyed such happiness"

Cause thats what Anastasia was essentially doing.

Avilan the Grey
2011-11-28, 07:25 AM
Wiki it up. This man was a monster.

Okay, I was curious, because I never heard anything overly terrible about him. So I "wikied it" and I am not sure what you are talking about and is so upset about? I mean yes, he was a dictator that defended his position with violence if need be, and inept at foreign policy, but he was no more a monster than 95% of all European Monarchs in history.

Can you point to something specific that really stands out in his reign? Because I can't find it.



Let me put it this way:

*Shows a video of ballroomdancing nazis"

"We live in a magical time, filled with magic- Until the EVIL red menace destroyed such happiness"

Cause thats what Anastasia was essentially doing.

Again: What? How do you even get close to that definition? Especially since the two rulers after him in Russia killed hundreds of thousands of more people than he did.

Serpentine
2011-11-28, 07:27 AM
Yeah... A "reign filled with executions and starving peasants" is pretty much standard.

Parra
2011-11-28, 07:29 AM
No more a monster than others, does not make him any less of a monster.

But I get your point that he wasnt anything 'exceptional'

Avilan the Grey
2011-11-28, 07:32 AM
Yeah... A "reign filled with executions and starving peasants" is pretty much standard.

Russia never got into the whole "democracy" thing, or even "parliament" thing; their farmers had always been "owned" by the nobility, unlike western Europe and especially Scandinavia (where the king could do nothing unless he had the political support of the farmers); so far as I understand it the only one that wanted to change it was Katharine the Great, and she only wanted it done because she realized that happier farmers = more taxes and more money, since they produced more. She never managed to change it though.

Serpentine
2011-11-28, 07:34 AM
Why is that in response to me? And I meant in terms of general history, not just Russian.

Tengu_temp
2011-11-28, 10:00 AM
Yeah... A "reign filled with executions and starving peasants" is pretty much standard.

Nowhere near close to the extent we're talking about here. Just why do you think the revolution happened, hmm?

Mewtarthio
2011-11-28, 10:15 AM
Anastasia may have been a bad movie, but damn, it's main villain was awesome. "In the dark of the night"? One of the best Disney-style villain songs of all time.

It's a shame he's mostly irrelevant the main plot. Seriously, you could cut out every scene with Rasputin in it, and the story would still make perfect sense.

Then again, this is Singing Zombie Rasputin we're talking about. Maybe it's more accurate to say that all that stuff about the amnesiac girl regaining her memory is mostly irrelevant to him.

Tiki Snakes
2011-11-28, 10:25 AM
Having never seen the film, all this talk of in the dark of the night got me curious.
Yes, it really is quite a good song.

Though it's also that one voice actor guy, and now I'm going to be even more weirded out in Skyrim all the time, given he voices like a third of the characters in it.

Knaight
2011-11-28, 10:50 AM
Nowhere near close to the extent we're talking about here. Just why do you think the revolution happened, hmm?

Attributing the Russian Revolution entirely to the wealth disparity and cruelty of Tsar Nicholas ignores a few major causes. Starting with WWI, moving into the ineptitude of Tsar Nicholas as a civilian leader due to his training with the military, so on and so forth. That isn't to say that Russia wasn't worse than many other countries when it comes to the treatment of the peasants - the starvation was worse, the upper class was more blatantly ostentatious, the execution rate was high, and then there were the ridiculous displays of cruelty on top of that*, all of which did contribute to the Russian Revolution. Still, things like WWI and the existence of certain people undermining the credibility of the monarchy (Rasputin) or inciting rebellion (Lenin) in ways far beyond their contemporaries are also highly relevant.

*For those who aren't familiar with Russian history: There were cases where members of the court would take farmers away from farming, have them dig long ditches, and then have them pull boats up them all so they could arrive to a ball "in style". Draft horses were apparently too expensive.

Terraoblivion
2011-11-28, 10:51 AM
What, Tsar Nicolas? He was weak, and incompetent, and generally a bad ruler, but I'd be hesitant to call him outright evil...

Right, apart from having peaceful petitioner gunned down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_%281905%29), ordering the worst persecution of Jews prior to the holocause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogroms), executing political opponents and being one of the most aggressive rulers in Russian history, he was not a bad man at all. It's all listed in a useful summarized form near the beginning of his wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_II).

Edit: I wouldn't really attribute too much of the February Revolution to Lenin. The October Revolution was the Bolsheviks of course, but the February Revolution was broadbased and primarily led by liberals and social democrats who had also been involved in the revolution of 1905.

TheArsenal
2011-11-28, 11:09 AM
In addition the movie attributed the very REVOLUTION to "Just evil zombie Rasputin". Look the communist times where just as brutal but saying that such a bloody and painfull revolution of the common man just wanting freedom and equality was caused by a zombie is just ****ing awful. Its disrespectful.

Arminius
2011-11-28, 12:23 PM
I don't think Nicholas II was all that harsh as far as Tsars go. He was incompetent more than anything else. Bloody Sunday looks more like panicked soldiers freaking out because of a large group of people coming at them en masse. The Tsar wasn't even in the palace where the shootings took place and found out about it after the fact. As far as the pogroms go, all that really points to is that the Tsar and the Russian people in general at the time were anti-semitic, not a particularly strange attitude for the time. Even then, it seems more like he was taking advantage of and encouraging pre-existing attitudes and actions to shore up support for his government. As to aggression, the Tsars were always aggressively expansionist, Nicholas II just sucked at it.

At the same time, lets not fool ourselves, Tsarism was not a nice form of government. Autocracy cannot be a nice government with lots of political freedom and civil liberties. But for sheer cruelty, you need to look at people like Ivan IV. Even good Tsars like Peter I and Catherine II brutally suppressed rebellions. Was Nicholas II unusually cruel for a Tsar? I don't think so. He was probably average. He was also an incompetent ruler at a difficult time in history. When difficult times and incompetent rulers coincide, governments fall.

Mistral
2011-11-28, 12:26 PM
Russia never got into the whole "democracy" thing, or even "parliament" thing; their farmers had always been "owned" by the nobility, unlike western Europe and especially Scandinavia (where the king could do nothing unless he had the political support of the farmers); so far as I understand it the only one that wanted to change it was Katharine the Great, and she only wanted it done because she realized that happier farmers = more taxes and more money, since they produced more. She never managed to change it though.

Alexander II, the Liberator, also tried, and he even signed an Emancipation Edict in 1861. He was blown up by angry revolutionary students from the common classes for his efforts, and his son was so incensed at this "ingratitude" that he completely crushed any attempt at dismantling the autocracy. Likewise, his uncle Alexander I initially strove to be the very model of a modern enlightened monarch, granting the right to own land to serfs, establishing state councils and abolishing the old collegiates in favor of proper modern bureaucracies, but after a few circumstances (invasion of Russia by Napoleon, a conspiracy in his old guard with Jacobin sympathies, an attempt to kidnap him before the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, and the murder of his agent in the Germanies by revolutionaries), he became one of the most reactionary rulers in Europe. As for his heir, a failed rebellion by the Decembrists after Alexander I's death put the kibosh on any hope of Nicholas I ever supporting any form of constitutionalism (as well as having various other side-effects; imagine how 1848 would have turned out if the sentiments that motivated the Decembrists had been able to fester for the intervening two decades instead of moving in the 20s, discrediting themselves and leaving Russia untouched in that year of chaos as a bastion of reaction).


Right, apart from having peaceful petitioner gunned down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_%281905%29), ordering the worst persecution of Jews prior to the holocause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogroms), executing political opponents and being one of the most aggressive rulers in Russian history, he was not a bad man at all. It's all listed in a useful summarized form near the beginning of his wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_II).

Edit: I wouldn't really attribute too much of the February Revolution to Lenin. The October Revolution was the Bolsheviks of course, but the February Revolution was broadbased and primarily led by liberals and social democrats who had also been involved in the revolution of 1905.

Really? After the pogroms of 1903-1906 came to light, he dismissed the Minister of the Interior responsible, recalled the administrators for trial, and though he privately thought it was a jolly good idea (which was not uncommon in that era, sadly enough), his actions at least tried to bring a stop to it. As for Bloody Sunday, he wasn't even in Moscow when it occurred (at the behest of his ministry), and frankly, troops for crowd control was standard practice in this era; you didn't have things like tear gas or rubber bullets, and you frequently barely had a functional civilian constabulary that you would trust to police that many civilians all gathered in one place, especially in Russia. Yes, it was stupid and foolhardy in the extreme, especially with the benefit of hindsight and our own knowledge of just what tends to happen when you put people trained to fight and kill (and poorly, at that; this was the nepotistic pre-war Imperial Russian army) on crowd control duty, but it was hardly actively malicious. Finally, are you really saying Nicholas was one of the most aggressive rulers in Russian history? The entire era was one of build-up and unrest; there were two wars in his reign. The first was triggered by a Japanese sneak attack on Port Arthur, the second ultimately by the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia. Neither occurred at his behest, and in both, he tended to show an expressed tendency to be catching up with affairs that seemed to be moving entirely past him. In contrast, Russian foreign policy before him tended to be far more aggressively assertive, in things like the Crimean War, the Russo-Turkish Wars of 1877 and 1828, and the Russo-Persian War of 1804 and the subjugation of the Caucasian khanates and Transcircassia.

Frankly, the man was incompetent, a vacillator, a defiant and frequently nonsensical optimist despite all odds, and had an unfortunate tendency to wash his hands of affairs he should have taken an active hand in while meddling in those affairs he shouldn't have, but he wasn't really actively evil.

As for the Revolution itself, Terra's correct that it is attributable to far more than just Bolshies and Lenin (who wasn't even in Russia for the Tsar's fall, still being in Swiss exile), but really, the ramshackle state of Russia would not have fallen in spite of its leadership if not for the war effort. The crippling of the Russian Army and its repeated retreats were necessary to end the people's belief in the strength of the military arm of the state, and more pertinently, the co-option of the limited rail lines and train capacity for military use is what directly led to famine, as food simply could no longer be shipped to where it was needed. Likewise, the first revolution had occurred in 1905, in the wake of the failures of the Imperial Russian Army against Japan. The contrast between powers like Russia, the Sublime Porte, and Austria-Hungary; and powers like France, Germany, and the United Kingdom was the ability of the state to respond to domestic threats to its power, not in the "good" or "evil" of the rulers alone. In Germany, attempts to create a socialist republic in Bavaria were answered by the military and ex-military Freikorps, as were the Spartacists in a manner few would ever consider "good", or even "justifiable". In France and the BEF, the mass mutinies across the French Front and at …taples were answered by trial, conviction, and sentence of execution (rarely carried out), and also an end to the pointless assaults that were buying nothing but blood-stained ruin, and the sense of victory helped reduce tension after the end of the war. In contrast, Italy, a nominally victorious power that instead felt cheated out of its rightful gains, saw societal collapse culminating in the March on Rome, despite (and because of) the fact that its liberal government was generally well-meaning and genial, which left it unable to come to accord with either the nationalist or the socialist militias. No one had ever fought a war like the Great War before, and the strains of war on an industrial scale were what brought many of these societies to the breaking point. It wasn't about good or evil; it was competent or incompetent, win or lose, and the willingness and ability of the state to either bend with the times to accommodate the needs and demands of the people (as the French) or enforce the state's natural monopoly of violence to suppress those demands (as the German).

"The nation of Russia has only ever had two great enemies - its neighbors and its leaders."

ThunderCat
2011-11-28, 01:41 PM
Since people were talking about the offensiveness of Pocahontas earlier, I feel obliged to link to this:

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/team-nchick/nostalgia-chick/1880-pocahontas

Knaight
2011-11-28, 02:44 PM
As for the Revolution itself, Terra's correct that it is attributable to far more than just Bolshies and Lenin (who wasn't even in Russia for the Tsar's fall, still being in Swiss exile), but really, the ramshackle state of Russia would not have fallen in spite of its leadership if not for the war effort. The crippling of the Russian Army and its repeated retreats were necessary to end the people's belief in the strength of the military arm of the state, and more pertinently, the co-option of the limited rail lines and train capacity for military use is what directly led to famine, as food simply could no longer be shipped to where it was needed.
However, the Bolsheviks are non negligible. Russia was a mess even prior to WWI, but WWI was only capable of destroying the royalty to the point it was because of existing enemies. Many of these enemies were just people disenfranchised by the upper class, which basically translates into most everyone not in the upper class*. However, people who weren't as poor were critical to actually getting the revolution moving, including the February revolution. That included the extreme factions, most notably the Bolshevik, even though the coalition that took power was linked to the Menshevik more than most of the others.

Lenin is critical because of his role as a leader of the Bolshevik, and as an administrator. He received funding while abroad, mostly due to Germany funneling cash into everything likely to cause a revolution in Russia, as the German leadership in WWI understood just how much they stood to gain from Russia leaving the war. While most of this was more relevant to the October revolution, if you look at the communications established prior to that Lenin keeps showing up. This isn't surprising - from 1920-1924 Lenin increased the amount of radios in most areas by an order of magnitude or so, organized their use, distributed written Russian where literacy was common, and in general demonstrated the effective use of communication for propaganda purposes, which was exactly what was done earlier, if at a drastically reduced scale.

In any case, ignoring Lenin, the Menshevik leaders, and WWI so as to claim the Russian Revolution was entirely due to the way Tsar Nicholas ran the country is disingenuous, and it was that claim that started this tangent.

*I'm avoiding Marxist terminology, and many of the attached concepts, as that would throw this conversation into the political instantaneously, instead of just the historical.

Terraoblivion
2011-11-28, 03:23 PM
Before the February Revolution the Bolsheviks were not a very big factor. Much of their important leadership were in exile and they were a relatively small faction compared to various liberal groups, as well as social democrats. On top of that they were among the more radical groups around, calling for greater changes than most urban inhabitants of Russia were interested in. They really only took center stage in the chaos following the first revolution and especially the decision to keep fighting on the part of the provisional government. This was what allowed for them to perform the coup that would later become known as the October Revolution and then win the backing of the public.

Strong agitation against the rule of the czars existed, but the Bolsheviks weren't all that notable until after the monarchy had fallen. Far too many other groups were involved and often with substantially more influence.

And Mistral, evil is such a tricky term and I prefer not using it, even for the classic cases such as Hitler or Stalin. However, that does not change that as a ruler Nicholas II was not a very nice person. In addition to general repression, he did lead a government that performed ethnic purges, that kind of thing doesn't come about without at least the idea that the guy in charge would approach. His insistence on keeping fighting after millions had died and the productive capacity of the country was strained far beyond the breaking point isn't just incompetence either, it is rather morally questionable to do so. He also had a great tendency to seemingly not care about obvious injustices before they reached the point where they caused him trouble, if at that. Even if his actions were not caused by intentional malice, which they ultimately rarely are, he still reached a point where his decisions were hardly morally defensible no matter the motives and that does make him a fairly bad person.

On top of that there is the fact that as czar he was more than just an individual, but ultimately an embodiment of the imperial Russian system, which was neither effective nor just. In looking at him as a role he was undoubtedly morally wrong as the entire system her represented, like that of most dictators and absolutist monarchs, was thoroughly corrupt and destructive for the population it existed to govern. This is probably more important than whatever the man Nicholas thought, he was the czar and the government was centered around the supposition that he ultimately was the government. That government was definitely neither morally nor well-meaning but inept and that ultimately falls back on the position of czar and whatever unfortunate wretch was holding it at the time it became too much. That Nicholas II wasn't really the most moral person around, even if his lack of morals stemmed more from incompetence than intention of hurting people, just didn't help the issue much.

Mistral
2011-11-28, 03:23 PM
However, the Bolsheviks are non negligible. Russia was a mess even prior to WWI, but WWI was only capable of destroying the royalty to the point it was because of existing enemies. Many of these enemies were just people disenfranchised by the upper class, which basically translates into most everyone not in the upper class*. However, people who weren't as poor were critical to actually getting the revolution moving, including the February revolution. That included the extreme factions, most notably the Bolshevik, even though the coalition that took power was linked to the Menshevik more than most of the others.

Lenin is critical because of his role as a leader of the Bolshevik, and as an administrator. He received funding while abroad, mostly due to Germany funneling cash into everything likely to cause a revolution in Russia, as the German leadership in WWI understood just how much they stood to gain from Russia leaving the war. While most of this was more relevant to the October revolution, if you look at the communications established prior to that Lenin keeps showing up. This isn't surprising - from 1920-1924 Lenin increased the amount of radios in most areas by an order of magnitude or so, organized their use, distributed written Russian where literacy was common, and in general demonstrated the effective use of communication for propaganda purposes, which was exactly what was done earlier, if at a drastically reduced scale.

In any case, ignoring Lenin, the Menshevik leaders, and WWI so as to claim the Russian Revolution was entirely due to the way Tsar Nicholas ran the country is disingenuous, and it was that claim that started this tangent.

*I'm avoiding Marxist terminology, and many of the attached concepts, as that would throw this conversation into the political instantaneously, instead of just the historical.

The Mensheviks did play a key role, as did the Kadets and SR. However, Lenin really was a non-entity, as were the Bolsheviks as a whole, as far as the original February Revolution was concerned. He did not make contact with the Germans, much less reenter Russia, until April 1917, two months after the Tsar had abdicated and the Provisional Government had been formed, and he was quickly forced out again in July, where he remained in exile in Finland until shortly before the overthrow of that body. The Civil War is where Lenin played his key role as an administrator and propagandist which you outline, but that did not start as we know it (neglecting Greens and various nationalist uprisings) until the Bolsheviks, Trotsky's followers in the Mensheviks, and the Left SR made their putsch. In fact, the Bolsheviks, from 1905 to February 1917, were systematically marginalized and undermined by the existence of the more palatable Menshevik majority, until the repeated failures of the Provisional Government the Mensheviks had lent their support to began to reverse that trend. Even in the elections to the Russian Constituent Assembly, carried out under Bolshevik auspices, the SR came out with a commanding lead with the Bolsheviks in second, and Lenin's distrust led to it being disbanded after only 13 hours of deliberation. While they ultimately shaped the fate of the Provisional Government and the path of Russia as a whole, Bolshevik work and planning did not facilitate the origin of the Revolution itself. In other words, with or without Lenin and the entire Bolshevik wing of the RSDLP, if all else remained unchanged, revolution would still have occurred in 1917, and in likelihood, civil war would also still have occurred when the voting for the Constituent Assembly returned an outcome unpalatable to the Kolchaks, Denikens, and Wrangels of Russia, and when whatever Russian government in power was finally forced to come to terms with the Germans and abandon the Entente.

EDIT: No double-posting, so...


On top of that there is the fact that as czar he was more than just an individual, but ultimately an embodiment of the imperial Russian system, which was neither effective nor just. In looking at him as a role he was undoubtedly morally wrong as the entire system her represented, like that of most dictators and absolutist monarchs, was thoroughly corrupt and destructive for the population it existed to govern. This is probably more important than whatever the man Nicholas thought, he was the czar and the government was centered around the supposition that he ultimately was the government. That government was definitely neither morally nor well-meaning but inept and that ultimately falls back on the position of czar and whatever unfortunate wretch was holding it at the time it became too much. That Nicholas II wasn't really the most moral person around, even if his lack of morals stemmed more from incompetence than intention of hurting people, just didn't help the issue much.

I would argue that this makes the system evil, not necessarily the man. Even if the myriad actions and inactions that came out of the system of governance in Imperial Russia can be characterized as evil (which I'm not disputing at all; the thing was a horrendous mishmash of conflicting interests and cross-purposes), it does not make the person, even at its nominal head, evil. If he had actively aided and supported it in these things, I would agree, but as much as he alone, many of the actions so decried were taken either independently (the First Kishinev massacre, for instance, was triggered by a false rumor surrounding the recent murder of a boy spread by local papers), were standard practice (troops for crowd control, leading to the 1905 massacre; Russia had then and still has no gendarmerie). Yes, in hindsight, his failure to end the war after 1915 was also a mistake, but from his perspective, there were several reasons not to conclude a separate peace, not the least of which include leaving his allies in France and Britain out to hang, and the onerous nature of German requirements for peace (as epitomized in what could ultimately be seen in the initial proposals for and finalized version of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk). The fact that Russia proved unable to turn the situation around was not known at that time; as far as he knew, replacing Sukhomlinov with Polivanov would provide the necessary shift in strategic vision to utilize the Russian Army properly. To be fair, with what was coming down the pipe, they did manage to take the advantage through 1916 by effectively crippling the Austro-Hungarian forces; the front wouldn't actually collapse until the democratization of the army command structure in the wake of the Revolution. A lot of it, too, was sunk costs fallacy and an insistence on not having lost all of that for nothing, but psychological flaws in human nature affect many more people than Czars and Kaisers, though rarely at such cost.

As well, since you bring up how "evil" is a tricky word, I suppose my aversion to it is partially my own nature, too. I'm strongly averse to the use of "evil" for people in general. Evil actions, evil deeds, but people are people, and the use of "evil" to simply describe them seems to dehumanize them, making it seem like "people" people can't have other motivations for unworthy deeds. Not that I think this is what you're doing, not at all; it's just my own hang-up about the word. Besides, I think that malice is a key component of being evil; incompetence alone, no matter how gross, even if it results in horrible outcomes, is not evil.

nyarlathotep
2011-11-28, 06:13 PM
Nowhere near close to the extent we're talking about here. Just why do you think the revolution happened, hmm?

Because Nicolas was just as cruel as tsars before him but was far less competent at putting down dissenters.

Tengu_temp
2011-11-28, 06:54 PM
Because Nicolas was just as cruel as tsars before him but was far less competent at putting down dissenters.

And most tsars were cruel leaders even by the standards of their times.

Serpentine
2011-11-29, 02:13 AM
Nowhere near close to the extent we're talking about here. Just why do you think the revolution happened, hmm?As opposed to, say, the French Revolution? The English? The Belgians in the Congo? Ivan the Terrible? Etc, etc, so on and so forth.

But uh... I think Politics, guys <.<

Morph Bark
2011-11-30, 02:25 PM
Saying that the reign of the Tzars: a reign with the mass prevalence of slavery, and crippling wars?

This sounds like an incomplete question. What is being said about them?



And portraying "Bloody Nicholas" as mister friendly uncle? They guy whos policies resulted in horrible losses at war?

To be fair, many "evil" world leaders often turn out to take real good care of and are very kind towards their family.

thubby
2011-11-30, 05:26 PM
To be fair, many "evil" world leaders often turn out to take real good care of and are very kind towards their family.

probably has to do with the fact that no one believes they're evil.

Starbuck_II
2011-12-01, 11:57 AM
probably has to do with the fact that no one believes they're evil.

Nah, natural generic instinct to keep similar genes survival. It insures some of your genes survive (your faimly/kids are your genes, except your spouse but you get the love thing there) and after all, creatures wish to keep self alive.

Dienekes
2011-12-01, 12:59 PM
So this movie did to Russian politics what every single movie of the medieval ages, classic ages, and so on did. Portray the main characters as positive while ignoring the injustices of the common people. Don't really see the problem really, if you care about Russian history you'll know they took liberties with the characters. If you don't know about Russian history I hope you're intelligent enough to not take the cartoon as a serious historical work, especially because it has a zombie Rasputin doing whatever it was he was doing.

H Birchgrove
2011-12-01, 01:37 PM
You want to know a good way to deal with "secret history", without offending the reader's/viewer's intelligence? Read this Graphic Novel. (http://www.comicsreview.co.uk/nowreadthis/2009/06/30/the-shadow-1941-hitlers-astrologer-a-marvel-graphic-novel/)


So this movie did to Russian politics what every single movie of the medieval ages, classic ages, and so on did. Portray the main characters as positive while ignoring the injustices of the common people. Don't really see the problem really, if you care about Russian history you'll know they took liberties with the characters. If you don't know about Russian history I hope you're intelligent enough to not take the cartoon as a serious historical work, especially because it has a zombie Rasputin doing whatever it was he was doing.

Yeah, but what if the kids watching it don't know Russian history? Even if they understand that zombie Rasputin ain't for real, they may still think the other stuff is.

Dienekes
2011-12-01, 01:44 PM
Yeah, but what if the kids watching it don't know Russian history? Even if they understand that zombie Rasputin ain't for real, they may still think the other stuff is.

They're kids, who cares? They still believe in Santa Claus, and wish to meet Elmo. Let them believe that there were times in history that were generally good and magical, before too long they'll learn that parts of history were just more history. Generally the most memorable stuff is people doing bad things to other people and forgetting about the commoners who are required for society to function.

Hell, my little brother grew up with Pocahontas. Trust me, since then he has learned that the entire expansion problem was more complicated than one man was really greedy and in general settlers and Native Americans acted pretty much like crap to each other. He admittedly probably hasn't learned much on the Tsar's, but then he was never really interested in history anyway.

Axolotl
2011-12-01, 01:49 PM
Yeah, but what if the kids watching it don't know Russian history? Even if they understand that zombie Rasputin ain't for real, they may still think the other stuff is.Well what if they do? Knowing the history of pre-revolutionary Russia is really not needed to funtion in modern society, I highly doubt any one would grow up to start campaigning for the bourgeoisie because of a Disney knock-off they saw as a child. Besides as the person you quoted pointed out this is nessesary unless you want everything set before about the 1600's to just be A Song of Ice and Fire which is fine on it's own but hardly child-friendly.

H Birchgrove
2011-12-01, 03:38 PM
Hergť made a comic book for children, The Blue Lotus, about the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and Shanghai. Sure, he didn't depict the aerial bombardment and its effects (and similar war crimes), but otherwise it's almost history text book worthy. (Kinda like a Graham Greene novel.)

Also, no one stops you from inventing fictional nations.

Avilan the Grey
2011-12-01, 03:47 PM
Yeah, but what if the kids watching it don't know Russian history? Even if they understand that zombie Rasputin ain't for real, they may still think the other stuff is.

But how is this worse than any other country? What story about royalty or nobility ANYWHERE does this in these kind of stories?

H Birchgrove
2011-12-01, 04:03 PM
But how is this worse than any other country? What story about royalty or nobility ANYWHERE does this in these kind of stories?

I don't understand your last sentence. :smallconfused:

I remember a children's program about some time-travelling kids, made in the 1970's or 1980's, which showed what an utter [censored] king Gustav Wasa was. That's at least ONE example.

Dienekes
2011-12-01, 04:33 PM
And both your examples are showing a rather cruel world of destructive bombings and power mad kings. Kid's will learn this all in due time, why can't we let them have their princesses who aren't gaining their wealth of the labor of the disenfranchised, and their national heroes who weren't blindingly racist bigots as most all of them turn out to be?

Ultimately it is harmless, and can be rather entertaining. Whether you liked Anastasia or not (let's be honest here, it was crap) the story of a forgotten princess saved from the jaws of death by a loyal peasant is a fine story. Setting it in Russia adds the touch of realism to the plot and can develop an interest in the Russian culture in the child audience. If they enjoy the story enough and care enough that it sticks with them they can then learn the tangled and sordid history, and suitably have their dreams of an elegant past crushed one murder, genocide, and war at a time.

Tengu_temp
2011-12-01, 04:41 PM
The problem is that a lot of people will never learn more but the very trivial basics about the history of countries other than their own (and often about their own too), so their perception of them will be painted by what pop culture shows. And pop culture will tell them that pre-revolution Russia was a fairytale-like paradise, that Soviet Russia didn't have money or private property, that during the Middle Ages everyone had rotting teeth and being 35 was considered old age, and that Christopher Columbus was a benevolent explorer and visionnaire.

Avilan the Grey
2011-12-01, 04:54 PM
I don't understand your last sentence. :smallconfused:

Disney and Disney-ish stories.

Dienekes
2011-12-01, 04:58 PM
The problem is that a lot of people will never learn more but the very trivial basics about the history of countries other than their own (and often about their own too), so their perception of them will be painted by what pop culture shows. And pop culture will tell them that pre-revolution Russia was a fairytale-like paradise, that Soviet Russia didn't have money or private property, that during the Middle Ages everyone had rotting teeth and being 35 was considered old age, and that Christopher Columbus was a benevolent explorer and visionnaire.

Personally, I don't exactly care. Let them have their Columbus Day. The knowledge is right there if they ever want to know. If they choose to live in their fairy tale history I really don't see what's wrong. Sure it's choosing to be stupid, but hey it's their choice.

Tengu_temp
2011-12-01, 05:01 PM
No. Stupidity is harmful. If you don't believe that, look around and see how many problems are caused by people believing some ridiculous bullcrap instead of proven historical or scientific knowledge.

H Birchgrove
2011-12-01, 05:20 PM
Disney and Disney-ish stories.
Snow White, Cinderella and Shrek are fictional characters, living in fictional rhealms.


And both your examples are showing a rather cruel world of destructive bombings and power mad kings. Kid's will learn this all in due time, why can't we let them have their princesses who aren't gaining their wealth of the labor of the disenfranchised, and their national heroes who weren't blindingly racist bigots as most all of them turn out to be?
They can have stories about heroes who do good things because they are good, not because they are aristocrats or royalties.

"Let me strive, every moment of my life, to make myself better and better, to the best of my ability, that all may profit by it. Let me think of the right, and lend all my assistance to those who need it, with no regard for anything but justice. Let me take what comes with a smile, without loss of courage. Let me be considerate of my country, of my fellow citizens and my associates in everything I say and do. Let me do right to all, and wrong no man."
- The Code of Doc Savage

Also, again, fictional countries/settings.


Ultimately it is harmless, and can be rather entertaining. Whether you liked Anastasia or not (let's be honest here, it was crap) the story of a forgotten princess saved from the jaws of death by a loyal peasant is a fine story. Setting it in Russia adds the touch of realism to the plot and can develop an interest in the Russian culture in the child audience. If they enjoy the story enough and care enough that it sticks with them they can then learn the tangled and sordid history, and suitably have their dreams of an elegant past crushed one murder, genocide, and war at a time.

That's why Heroic Fantasy exists. And why should Russia's modern history suffer through bowdlerization, but not, lets say, Germany's?


No. Stupidity is harmful. If you don't believe that, look around and see how many problems are caused by people believing some ridiculous bullcrap instead of proven historical or scientific knowledge.
THANK YOU! :smallsigh:

Dienekes
2011-12-01, 06:18 PM
No. Stupidity is harmful. If you don't believe that, look around and see how many problems are caused by people believing some ridiculous bullcrap instead of proven historical or scientific knowledge.

People can do harm no matter what they believe in. Arrogance and aggression exist no matter the accuracy of the belief, even a philosophy based upon logic and the new developments of science brought on the Reign of Terror in France. Not because of the accuracy of their science or history but because humans can and do violent and destructive things.

Also, I find it a fairly large stretch that some kid watching Anastasia will be so motivated by the inaccuracies as to create some sort of mass global problem.

So to please the folk here in order to make a generally happy kids show entire worlds need to be invented, because it was so terrible for them to ignore the labor of the peasants for a good story. Whatever happened to artistic license? Are movies like Gladiator not allowed to be made? How about the classics such as the Godfather. Should they not be told the Tale of King Arthur, because it's representation of the aristocracy is fundamentally flawed?

Stories are stories, they are art, they can be beautiful, and completely and utterly false. That's part of the great things about them, they are not tied to accuracy authors are free to make the story they want, in the setting they want.

Axolotl
2011-12-01, 06:33 PM
The problem is that a lot of people will never learn more but the very trivial basics about the history of countries other than their own (and often about their own too), so their perception of them will be painted by what pop culture shows. And pop culture will tell them that pre-revolution Russia was a fairytale-like paradise, that Soviet Russia didn't have money or private property, that during the Middle Ages everyone had rotting teeth and being 35 was considered old age, and that Christopher Columbus was a benevolent explorer and visionnaire.Which is their problem brought upon themselves by their own apathy and possibly the failings of their parents and education system. It's not the fault of Don Bluth because he wanted to romanticise the last Tzar. You shouldn't insist that all historical fiction must be as miserable and unpleasent as the history itself just because it'll mislead the ignorant, the ignorant won't know in any caseso why stoop to accomadte for them. Personally I like the fact that there are western's that aren't Blood Meridian, that the Pirates of the Caribbean film wasn't just an exercise in murder and rape and that I can watch films set in ancient Rome which have sympathetic and moral characters. I don't see why I should give those up just because of the willfullly ignorant.

Lord Seth
2011-12-01, 07:01 PM
And pop culture will tell them that pre-revolution Russia was a fairytale-like paradise,I've never heard this in popular culture. Maybe you can say this movie said it, but one movie does not equal popular culture.


that Soviet Russia didn't have money or private property,Haven't heard of this either, popular culture seems more neutral on this than anything else.


that during the Middle Ages everyone had rotting teethNever heard that in pop cultue either. If anything, pop culture portrays the Middle Ages as cleaner than it actually was.


and being 35 was considered old age,Again not something I've seen in popular culture thing outside of a general idea that people lived shorter lives then (which is true!), but even then you seem exaggerating.


and that Christopher Columbus was a benevolent explorer and visionnaire.This is the first one in your list I kind of agree with, though I'm not sure pop culture portrays the guy as "benevolent," and seems more neutral in respect to that. I will agree, however, that there's a heck of a lot of misinformation about the guy, such as the idea he was the first one to make it to America (Vikings beat him) or the fact people wrongly thought the world was flat and he was convinced it was round (people knew the Earth was round long before he was born and even had a good idea how big it was...Columbus incorrectly asserted that Europe and Asia were closer than people believed and lucked out by finding America). Still, these seem to be diminishing.

Tengu_temp
2011-12-01, 07:28 PM
Also, I find it a fairly large stretch that some kid watching Anastasia will be so motivated by the inaccuracies as to create some sort of mass global problem.

Who is talking about mass global problems now? I'm talking about things like children dying because their parents think that vaccines cause cancer, or people who don't believe in evolution demanding that it wasn't taught in schools, or minorities being mistreated for one reason or another. Those are everyday problems that result mostly from people being ignorant idiots.


So to please the folk here in order to make a generally happy kids show entire worlds need to be invented, because it was so terrible for them to ignore the labor of the peasants for a good story. Whatever happened to artistic license? Are movies like Gladiator not allowed to be made? How about the classics such as the Godfather. Should they not be told the Tale of King Arthur, because it's representation of the aristocracy is fundamentally flawed?

There is a fundamental difference between a story that takes liberties with reality in order to tell an interesting tale, and one that goes "remember that vile real life tyrant? Gee, he sure was a swell guy!".

---

@Lord Seth - the examples I gave here are all things I heard on these very forums, some of them multiple times. Go figure.

Dienekes
2011-12-01, 07:53 PM
Who is talking about mass global problems now? I'm talking about things like children dying because their parents think that vaccines cause cancer, or people who don't believe in evolution demanding that it wasn't taught in schools, or minorities being mistreated for one reason or another. Those are everyday problems that result mostly from people being ignorant idiots.

The information is there, they choose to be idiots. A fantasy version of a dead princess isn't going to be causing any of those problems. Are their negative consequences to free will? Of course, but personally I would not change it for the world. People have the right to choose to be as thick as they want.


There is a fundamental difference between a story that takes liberties with reality in order to tell an interesting tale, and one that goes "remember that vile real life tyrant? Gee, he sure was a swell guy!".


Not really, I once read a book that put Alexander the Great in a rather swell light. Alexander, the violent loony who burned down a conquered capital, and his entire career was a violent rampage to feed his ego.

It was a pretty damn good book.

Tengu_temp
2011-12-01, 08:03 PM
The information is there, they choose to be idiots. A fantasy version of a dead princess isn't going to be causing any of those problems. Are their negative consequences to free will? Of course, but personally I would not change it for the world. People have the right to choose to be as thick as they want.

Some people choose to be idiots, but there's a lot of those who are misinformed and simply don't know any better. They repeat what other idiots are telling them. And it's crucial that those people will know the truth.

Freedom without any limitations is just anarchy. If you let everyone do whatever they want, soon you're left with no society.


Not really, I once read a book that put Alexander the Great in a rather swell light. Alexander, the violent loony who burned down a conquered capital, and his entire career was a violent rampage to feed his ego.

It was a pretty damn good book.

:smallsigh: I'm not talking about quality, I'm talking about historical inaccuracies that might, and usually can, cause harm. Or are you saying that you're fine with the way KKK is portrayed in Song of the South too?

The biggest reason Anastasia didn't cause any harm is because the film bombed. But if it became big, it'd probably offend a lot of people - and those people would have the right to be offended. Not to mention causing the same controversies as the Lion King.

Dienekes
2011-12-01, 08:31 PM
Some people choose to be idiots, but there's a lot of those who are misinformed and simply don't know any better. They repeat what other idiots are telling them. And it's crucial that those people will know the truth.

Freedom without any limitations is just anarchy. If you let everyone do whatever they want, soon you're left with no society.

Anarchy. From a kid's movie. Rightio.
There's a rather large difference between letting a story tell some blatant lies and letting society crumble into lawlessness. I really don't see how you can link the two.


:smallsigh: I'm not talking about quality, I'm talking about historical inaccuracies that might, and usually can, cause harm. Or are you saying that you're fine with the way KKK is portrayed in Song of the South too?

The biggest reason Anastasia didn't cause any harm is because the film bombed. But if it became big, it'd probably offend a lot of people - and those people would have the right to be offended. Not to mention causing the same controversies as the Lion King.

What's the line? I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. Tsar Nicholas was an incompetent, buffoon of a leader. Alexander was a monster. I'm perfectly fine with making the latter a hero in a book, and I see no reason why the other couldn't be made one as well. Just as I'm fine with reading a book on Thomas Jefferson that doesn't mention his affair with Sally Hemings. Or a movie making Sir Francis Drake not a total douchebag (I honestly think this is the best way to describe him).

Also, Lion King controversies? Really? I'm almost afraid to ask.

Lord Seth
2011-12-01, 08:32 PM
The biggest reason Anastasia didn't cause any harm is because the film bombed.For as much as this claim gets repeated, what harm would it have caused? Maybe giving people a rosier-than-actual view of Russian history? Would that somehow impact someone's ability to function in society in even the slightest way? Would it harm their or anyone else's health?

Some people complain that Twilight sets poor examples for girls and that this will supposedly influence them to accept abusive relationships. Now I'm not sure how much stock I put into that claim, but at least if the perceived influence exists, it would be influencing something that matters, rather than just giving someone the wrong idea about something that doesn't affect them.


Not to mention causing the same controversies as the Lion King.Anastasia also allegedly took ideas from Kimba the White Lion? :smallconfused:

Tengu_temp
2011-12-01, 08:46 PM
Anarchy. From a kid's movie. Rightio.
There's a rather large difference between letting a story tell some blatant lies and letting society crumble into lawlessness. I really don't see how you can link the two.

Dude, this part was not about Anastasia anymore. You said that people have the right to stay uneducated morons with ignorant opinions, I said no - because it's harmful. If you let people freely and without consequences state their opinions about everything, no matter how ignorant, offensive and hateful those opinions are, then we're getting closer to anarchy.

Not saying that Anastasia is a hateful movie. But what you seem to believe in is absolute freedom of speech for movies... Which would just be catastrophic. This opens a gate to stories filled with hatred - and not as a narrative device, I mean ones that literally propagate hatred towards this and that group. I'm sure you can see why is that harmful.


Also, Lion King controversies? Really? I'm almost afraid to ask.

Basically, both movies go all "oh man, absolutist monarchy is freaking awesome!" - and I can see how it can offend people.

Dienekes
2011-12-01, 09:05 PM
Dude, this part was not about Anastasia anymore. You said that people have the right to stay uneducated morons with ignorant opinions, I said no - because it's harmful. If you let people freely and without consequences state their opinions about everything, no matter how ignorant, offensive and hateful those opinions are, then we're getting closer to anarchy.

Not saying that Anastasia is a hateful movie. But what you seem to believe in is absolute freedom of speech for movies... Which would just be catastrophic. This opens a gate to stories filled with hatred - and not as a narrative device, I mean ones that literally propagate hatred towards this and that group. I'm sure you can see why is that harmful.

This is odd for me, as I tend to be the one who points out that humans as a whole can be petty, irrational, violent, evil, bastards. But even I don't have this low opinion of human kind.

I'll tell you something though, I think you're wrong. There actually is music you can buy that is pro-Nazi in America. It is nearly universally regarded as disgusting trash and few people listen to it. I'm willing to bet they make movies too, but I don't know about them so I can't confirm it.

Despite the idiots speaking out, society marches on. If anything today's society is as fair as it's ever been and folks are trying hard to make it better. Let the idiotic buggers have their say, society has developed that we can rally against it or ignore it. But to actually prevent them from speaking, that is too far.

nyarlathotep
2011-12-01, 09:28 PM
Not saying that Anastasia is a hateful movie. But what you seem to believe in is absolute freedom of speech for movies... Which would just be catastrophic. This opens a gate to stories filled with hatred - and not as a narrative device, I mean ones that literally propagate hatred towards this and that group. I'm sure you can see why is that harmful.


Any limitation of any kind on freedom of speech in a public medium is evil. You have to give the power to decide what is allowed to someone. This in effect allows them to decide what is an allowable thought. This is evil and cannot be allowed, because no matter how harmful a word can be the power to stop a word is even more so.

Lord Seth
2011-12-01, 09:31 PM
Basically, both movies go all "oh man, absolutist monarchy is freaking awesome!" - and I can see how it can offend people.I've never seen any controversy of The Lion King from that perspective. There were some controversies, but they were instead about things like the claim that it stole ideas from Kimba the White Lion and a part where some dust seems to spell out the word sex (it actually was supposed to be SFX in reference to special effects). Heck, even under the "controversies" part of Wikipedia's article, it only lists those, some legal issues over the usage of The Lion Sleeps Tonight, and an allegedly unfair portrayal of hyenas. Never anything about monarchies. Where was this alleged controversy that The Lion King caused in its portrayal of monarchies?

Heck, considering the negative portrayal of Scar's rule, I'm confused as to how you could get an "absolutist monarchy is freaking awesome" idea from it in the first place.

nightwyrm
2011-12-01, 09:33 PM
Basically, both movies go all "oh man, absolutist monarchy is freaking awesome!" - and I can see how it can offend people.

But Lion King is just Hamlet, with lions.

Lord Seth
2011-12-01, 09:36 PM
But Lion King is just Hamlet, with lions.Not really. While there's clearly some inspiration from Hamlet, The Lion King is quite different from Hamlet in terms of both plot and characters.

Avilan the Grey
2011-12-02, 12:24 AM
Snow White, Cinderella and Shrek are fictional characters, living in fictional rhealms.

...

That's why Heroic Fantasy exists. And why should Russia's modern history suffer through bowdlerization, but not, lets say, Germany's?


THANK YOU! :smallsigh:

And I counter with Pocahontas, a movie at least as offensive.

And.... are you seriously comparing what I think you are comparing? Isn't that Godwin's law?


Not really, I once read a book that put Alexander the Great in a rather swell light. Alexander, the violent loony who burned down a conquered capital, and his entire career was a violent rampage to feed his ego.

Yeah... Alexander i generally treated as either a hero, or a neutral figure, in western culture, while if you look at it, he was one of the most evil men of all times, conquering other people for fun and profit. Or take any movie about the American revolution, which tend to forget that most people were AGAINT independence until forced into the war.

Or...

Or...

Basically humans are bastards. Live with it.

nightwyrm
2011-12-02, 01:19 AM
Yeah... Alexander i generally treated as either a hero, or a neutral figure, in western culture, while if you look at it, he was one of the most evil men of all times, conquering other people for fun and profit. Or take any movie about the American revolution, which tend to forget that most people were AGAINT independence until forced into the war.

Or...

Or...

Basically humans are bastards. Live with it.


Fate/Zero has him as an epic badass and the best friend any man could hope for. His nickname within that work is "King of Conquerers" and that is portrayed as something that is respectable. Fans have actually given him the nickname of Broskander the Great.

The point is that artistic licenses are used everywhere in entertainment, whether movies, literature, etc. If one is looking for historical accuracies in entertainment, one is bound to be disappointed. I expect my non-fiction books to be accurate, not my fiction.

As for humans being bastards, I expect most people to be kind to their friends and cruel to their enemies, whether you're a Tsar or a peasant. That's just the way things are.

Lord Seth
2011-12-02, 01:24 AM
Or take any movie about the American revolution, which tend to forget that most people were AGAINT independence until forced into the war.What about 1776?

AtlanteanTroll
2011-12-02, 01:46 AM
You want to talk offensive movies? The Birth of a Nation was a freaking, roaring hit (from an economic standpoint at least). It may also very well qualify for a happy Civil War movie, depending on whom you ask.

Avilan the Grey
2011-12-02, 02:45 AM
What about 1776?

As far as I remember, almost 50% were still AGAINST the declaration of independence at that point.

Lord Seth
2011-12-02, 03:04 AM
As far as I remember, almost 50% were still AGAINST the declaration of independence at that point.So you're saying 50% of the people who voted for the Declaration of Independence were against it when they voted for it? :smallconfused:

Avilan the Grey
2011-12-02, 03:20 AM
So you're saying 50% of the people who voted for the Declaration of Independence were against it when they voted for it? :smallconfused:

I am saying that among the general populace, from all over the colonies, a very large part were not interested in gaining independence, and even less interested in a war on their doorstep...

Dienekes
2011-12-02, 03:36 AM
So you're saying 50% of the people who voted for the Declaration of Independence were against it when they voted for it? :smallconfused:

I'm pretty sure he is referring to the population of the colonies, not just the folks at the meeting. Though I'm not 100% sure on his numbers. The way I heard it around half wanted rebellion, and the rest were split between the royalists and those that just didn't care. So only 25% or so were actively against the rebellion. Mind you this is from the twisted confusing mass of half forgotten thoughts of my memory so it's probably wrong.

And while I really enjoyed 1776 it was still fairly romanticized. See the sequence of how much Jefferson loved his wife, the fact that most of those arguing against slavery still owned slaves. Jefferson himself writing several works about how the Africans were an altogether inferior people. Adams and the rest being rather startlingly class conscious and taking large steps to make sure that the common folk would have little say in the coming years, believing them to be vile, rough, and stupid. Not to mention several of their own blatant lies used to motivate the common people to their cause.

Still love that movie though. I still crack up whenever I hear the New York delegation say anything.

Tengu_temp
2011-12-02, 05:04 AM
Despite the idiots speaking out, society marches on. If anything today's society is as fair as it's ever been and folks are trying hard to make it better. Let the idiotic buggers have their say, society has developed that we can rally against it or ignore it. But to actually prevent them from speaking, that is too far.

And some of the big factors that make society progress and become more open-minded are: educating people about truth, spreading tolerance, and quelling opinions that are against truth and against tolerance. And there's still a lot of work to be done, society can't just sit back and say "I'm better than I used to be, this is enough".


Any limitation of any kind on freedom of speech in a public medium is evil. You have to give the power to decide what is allowed to someone. This in effect allows them to decide what is an allowable thought. This is evil and cannot be allowed, because no matter how harmful a word can be the power to stop a word is even more so.

So, if a movie that is filled with hate towards <insert minority of choice here> and outward tells its audience to kill them, then banning it is evil? And do you consider the very rules of this forum to be evil?

Terraoblivion
2011-12-02, 07:15 AM
I'm not sure where Tengu has said that entertainment with hateful or uncomfortable themes should be banned with legal force. From what I can tell, he just say that as individuals we should oppose hatred and stupidity in entertainment, which isn't the same as trying to introduce censorship.

Zen Monkey
2011-12-02, 09:50 AM
Getting bad ideas out into an open discussion allows people to see exactly why they are bad ideas. Censoring or banning bad ideas forces them out of the public debate, making it harder for some people to hear and understand what makes them bad assertions in the first place. That exchange of ideas allows someone new to the discussion to be able to make an informed choice, but censorship of a topic forces that person to form an opinion entirely on their own and with less information.

H Birchgrove
2011-12-02, 10:01 AM
And I counter with Pocahontas, a movie at least as offensive.
I temporarily forgot that one, though the discussion was about princesses. (Yeah, she was the daughter of the chief, but still, this is why I didn't think of that film when I posted.)

I like that right after Pocahontas, we got the bowlderized adaptation of The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (after which I stopped watching Disney films for some significant time), which pointed finger at Europe against "our" treatment of the Roma. Talk about moral myopia hyperopia.


And.... are you seriously comparing what I think you are comparing?

Yeah, I do compare the situation in pre-Revolution Russia with the situation in the Weimar Republic in the 1920's and early 1930's.

What is it with the word "compare" (= "jšmfŲra") that makes people so anxious? Comparing a glass of water with a glass of wine isn't the same as saying that a glass of water is a glass of wine.

Or, more to the point, saying that Cyber-Men are about as bad as Daleks doesn't mean that Cyber-Men are Daleks. Both are, however: 1. cyborgs, 2. from space, 3. totalitarian, 4. a threat toward life and civilization in the Dr Who universe, and 5. kinda stupid-looking, but we accept that because the show is cult.


Isn't that Godwin's law?

Technically, yes, because Godwin's law only states that Hitler and/or Nazis will eventually be mentioned in a thread, not that it's for a good or a bad reason. Godwin's law isn't the same as "Argumentum ad Hitlerum". There is nothing wrong with comparing one dictatorship with another dictatorship. Or even a flawed democracy with a dictatorship. (Or else you may as well accuse Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison and several others for logical and rheatorical flaws.)

Closet_Skeleton
2011-12-02, 10:03 AM
Freedom without any limitations is just anarchy. If you let everyone do whatever they want, soon you're left with no society.

You know, not to go into politics or anything but there are these people called anarchists.


Or are you saying that you're fine with the way KKK is portrayed in Song of the South too?

You mean Birth of a Nation.



And.... are you seriously comparing what I think you are comparing? Isn't that Godwin's law?

Godwin's Law is for situations where bringing in Nazis isn't really appropriate. It doesn't apply to discussions where Nazis are already on the table.


I am saying that among the general populace, from all over the colonies, a very large part were not interested in gaining independence, and even less interested in a war on their doorstep...

They also don't like telling people about the guys who did want independance but were more interested in being free from Britain's border treaties with the natives than in "no taxation without representation".


And while I really enjoyed 1776 it was still fairly romanticized. See the sequence of how much Jefferson loved his wife, the fact that most of those arguing against slavery still owned slaves. Jefferson himself writing several works about how the Africans were an altogether inferior people. Adams and the rest being rather startlingly class conscious and taking large steps to make sure that the common folk would have little say in the coming years, believing them to be vile, rough, and stupid. Not to mention several of their own blatant lies used to motivate the common people to their cause.


Someone could write a pretty massive book on misconceptions about the founding fathers. In fact they probably have.

Dienekes
2011-12-02, 10:41 AM
And some of the big factors that make society progress and become more open-minded are: educating people about truth, spreading tolerance, and quelling opinions that are against truth and against tolerance. And there's still a lot of work to be done, society can't just sit back and say "I'm better than I used to be, this is enough".

Of course, and we make society better through argument, rhetoric, vote, non-violent activism, and boycott of the offensive goods and services. You don't have someone silence the opposition.

In a way it's already happening. You don't see overly-racist movies because as a society we don't watch them, and the producers are smart enough not to fund such a project due to loss of public appearance, not because they are not allowed to. The racist music I mentioned, no one really knows about it because as a society we are boycotting it without even knowing about it. But it is so unpopular that virtually no one hears it.


So, if a movie that is filled with hate towards <insert minority of choice here> and outward tells its audience to kill them, then banning it is evil? And do you consider the very rules of this forum to be evil?

I think the rules of this site are stifling to educational argument, and the development of thought, often over-zealously followed, and at times ridiculous. But this site is not the world at large and follows different rules.

There is a difference between a group of people agreeing that there are certain topics that will not be discussed within the confines of this site, and if you do not like them you are free to leave, and saying that everyone in the world must abide but a certain set of imposed ideologies.


I'm not sure where Tengu has said that entertainment with hateful or uncomfortable themes should be banned with legal force. From what I can tell, he just say that as individuals we should oppose hatred and stupidity in entertainment, which isn't the same as trying to introduce censorship.

Look right above your post.

Terraoblivion
2011-12-02, 11:12 AM
"Society" does not mean "the government" and it's the latter which legislates, you know. Society can take a stand against something without the government banning it. Neo-nazi literature, in places like the US or Denmark where it is legal, is a great example of that and for that matter so is hostility towards Adult Only video games making game developers strive to make sure that won't be the label they get. No law is involved in either case, but there is still active opinion and attempt at opposing specific content on a social level.

Tengu_temp
2011-12-02, 12:01 PM
You mean Birth of a Nation..

Yes. My bad.

Rockphed
2011-12-02, 12:29 PM
The problem is that a lot of people will never learn more but the very trivial basics about the history of countries other than their own (and often about their own too), so their perception of them will be painted by what pop culture shows. And pop culture will tell them that pre-revolution Russia was a fairytale-like paradise, that Soviet Russia didn't have money or private property, that during the Middle Ages everyone had rotting teeth and being 35 was considered old age, and that Christopher Columbus was a benevolent explorer and visionnaire.

And those people are ridiculed on every hand for their ignorance and sloth. Politicians who say stupid things are ridiculed no more than anyone else, they just get more screen time for it.

And the middle ages age thing is probably based on a faulty understanding of life-expectancy. When the infant mortality rate is 40%, a life expectancy of 30 translates into people living to 50 or so. But most people don't get that general life expectancy includes infant mortality, partially because most first world nations have such low infant mortality rates that it barely matters.


Which is their problem brought upon themselves by their own apathy and possibly the failings of their parents and education system. It's not the fault of Don Bluth because he wanted to romanticise the last Tzar.

Technically, he was romanticizing the last Tsar's daughter. Also, childhood memories.

nyarlathotep
2011-12-02, 01:39 PM
So, if a movie that is filled with hate towards <insert minority of choice here> and outward tells its audience to kill them, then banning it is evil? And do you consider the very rules of this forum to be evil?

Forum rules are different because they are in a private environment. If I want to ban a film from being my house that is fine, if a store wants to ban a film, but if you prevent some from making it in the first place through law then yes it is. The problem is that any time you give the power to decide a permissible thought to anyone beyond and give them the power to enforce that idea on other people they will abuse it, so even if we have a movie that shows a baby being raped to death (A Serbian Film) you have to allow it to preserve all the other movies out there. Freedom of speech do not mean anything if you amend it with "as long as I'm okay with it".

VanBuren
2011-12-02, 05:34 PM
Forum rules are different because they are in a private environment. If I want to ban a film from being my house that is fine, if a store wants to ban a film, but if you prevent some from making it in the first place through law then yes it is. The problem is that any time you give the power to decide a permissible thought to anyone beyond and give them the power to enforce that idea on other people they will abuse it, so even if we have a movie that shows a baby being raped to death (A Serbian Film) you have to allow it to preserve all the other movies out there. Freedom of speech do not mean anything if you amend it with "as long as I'm okay with it".

Well... perhaps not that one, if the investigations reveal that actual crimes took place during the filming. Or have they finished the investigation? I haven't paid attention in so long.

I once said that I thought the rules of this forum would ensure that no conversation here could ever truly become insightful and educational. I believe this discussion has forced me to eat those words.

Avilan the Grey
2011-12-02, 06:36 PM
I definitely disagree; of course I am not American, so my view of Free Speech and it's limits are different. In my view there are definitely things that should be banned to say or show.

Lord Seth
2011-12-02, 07:38 PM
I am saying that among the general populace, from all over the colonies, a very large part were not interested in gaining independence, and even less interested in a war on their doorstep...Which still fits with the film (though, to be fair, it was more about trying to assert independence than the subsequent fight for it), so I'm not sure what you were really complaining about.

I am still a little curious about your claim of 50% though. Did someone conduct a random sampling with extrapolation at the time?
And while I really enjoyed 1776 it was still fairly romanticized. See the sequence of how much Jefferson loved his wife, the fact that most of those arguing against slavery still owned slaves. Jefferson himself writing several works about how the Africans were an altogether inferior people. Adams and the rest being rather startlingly class conscious and taking large steps to make sure that the common folk would have little say in the coming years, believing them to be vile, rough, and stupid. Not to mention several of their own blatant lies used to motivate the common people to their cause.Well to be fair, most of those things didn't have much reason to be in the film. It did show off how abrasive Adams was though.

ThirdEmperor
2011-12-02, 09:00 PM
Well, I just learned something terrible; Me and my fellow classmates will be watching Anastasia in history class, as part of our studies on Russia. Of course, when I dared mention that the movie was both historically inaccurate and just plain wrong in so many ways, one of my classmates proceeded to yell at me to shut up and "Stop ruining her favorite movie".

What I've taken from this is I should no longer expect anything even remotely resembling the truth from history class, and that I am apparently no longer allowed to express my own views should they not meet with that of the majority.:smallfrown:

Mauve Shirt
2011-12-02, 11:09 PM
Well, I just learned something terrible; Me and my fellow classmates will be watching Anastasia in history class, as part of our studies on Russia. Of course, when I dared mention that the movie was both historically inaccurate and just plain wrong in so many ways, one of my classmates proceeded to yell at me to shut up and "Stop ruining her favorite movie".

What I've taken from this is I should no longer expect anything even remotely resembling the truth from history class, and that I am apparently no longer allowed to express my own views should they not meet with that of the majority.:smallfrown:

It's like how I prefer not to be reminded that in the real world, Nala and Simba were probably at least half siblings, and Mufasa likely would have killed Simba. :smalltongue: Though some of my classes would play kids' movies that went with the subject (Sword in the Stone and Pocahontas are the ones I recall off the top of my head) we were never encouraged to consider them factual.
Sad fact: You're absolutely allowed to express your own views. However, if they prove unpopular, you will probably get yelled at.

Dienekes
2011-12-02, 11:28 PM
Well, I just learned something terrible; Me and my fellow classmates will be watching Anastasia in history class, as part of our studies on Russia. Of course, when I dared mention that the movie was both historically inaccurate and just plain wrong in so many ways, one of my classmates proceeded to yell at me to shut up and "Stop ruining her favorite movie".

What I've taken from this is I should no longer expect anything even remotely resembling the truth from history class, and that I am apparently no longer allowed to express my own views should they not meet with that of the majority.:smallfrown:

Well let's be honest here. Very few students will tell a teacher "No, I do not want to waste time watching a movie," that's like being that guy who reminds the teacher that they forgot to collect the assignment, a real scum of the earth type. Movies can be rather relaxing, and much needed rests from work. My suggestion, turn off your brain and enjoy the singing zombie. Or doodle, that's what I did when I was forced to watch that insipid "Shakespeare in Love" flick for my British Lit class.

Mewtarthio
2011-12-02, 11:30 PM
My suggestion, turn off your brain and enjoy the singing zombie. Or doodle, that's what I did when I was forced to watch that insipid "Shakespeare in Love" flick for my British Lit class.

There's a singing zombie in Shakespeare in Love?

nyarlathotep
2011-12-02, 11:30 PM
Well... perhaps not that one, if the investigations reveal that actual crimes took place during the filming. Or have they finished the investigation? I haven't paid attention in so long.

I once said that I thought the rules of this forum would ensure that no conversation here could ever truly become insightful and educational. I believe this discussion has forced me to eat those words.

Oh dear, I was unaware that actual crime had taken place while filming. In such a case the reason for it being illegal would be the actions themselves rather than what they are portraying.

My backup film would be one specifically condoning the killing of oilrig workers (On Deadly Ground) I personally find it a disgusting self masturbatory work of a narcissist, but I have no right tok prevent him from thinking that it is okay to kill someone who works for a company that pollutes. If he puts those thoughts into action then he should be arrested, but he must be allowed to have the thought if he wishes and share it with any others who are willing to listen.

Dienekes
2011-12-02, 11:34 PM
There's a singing zombie in Shakespeare in Love?

If there was a singing zombie I wouldn't be calling the movie insipid now would I?

Mewtarthio
2011-12-02, 11:39 PM
Hmph. Way to get me all excited over nothing. :smallannoyed:

Dienekes
2011-12-02, 11:54 PM
Hmph. Way to get me all excited over nothing. :smallannoyed:

My sincerest apologies, I can only imagine the disappointment you must be feeling. Damn my confusing sentence structure! When will I learn!?!

madtinker
2011-12-03, 12:00 AM
Can I say here the number one reason I dislike that movie is because every American I've ever heard pronounces the title WRONG!

Lord Seth
2011-12-03, 12:32 AM
Well, I just learned something terrible; Me and my fellow classmates will be watching Anastasia in history class, as part of our studies on Russia.Well, that doesn't mean much of anything. You're watching it, and...and what? Are you just watching it? Are you watching it and discussing it, probably with an explanation of the things the movie got wrong and got right? You can't just say "we're watching it" without a qualifier.
What I've taken from this is I should no longer expect anything even remotely resembling the truth from history class, and that I am apparently no longer allowed to express my own views should they not meet with that of the majority.:smallfrown:That of the majority? You had one person complain because it was, according to them, their favorite movie. How does one person equal the majority? Unless you're saying your opinion skewed with the majority but that was the only person of that group that spoke out, but you'd need to explain how you know that's majority opinion.

kpenguin
2011-12-03, 05:55 AM
The Modguin: Locked for Review