▆▆▆ t ◆ r ◆ i ◆ v ◆ i ◆ a ▆▆▆ 2 ◆ 0 ◆ 1 ◆ 5 ▆▆▆

Previous Thread Next Thread
B

buttercup

Active member
Feb 28, 2005
2,571
11
38
Ceiling Cat said:

Click to expand...
I thought it when I first saw the film, and it's strongly reinforced seeing it again now -- If ever a scene in a movie should have been banned for violence, this is it.

Most of the violence in RotLA is fantasy violence. It does not suggest to impressionable youngsters that they should do the same, being quite unrelated to any situation the casual young viewer would conceivably get into. I would not ban fantasy violence, no matter how graphic.

But this scene depicts shooting someone to death merely because they pose a hindrance. It depicts the most casual attitude to taking your gun out and killing someone. It depicts resorting to killing as a first resort -- not as a last resort.

Many young viewers will have access to a gun; this scene is highly suggestive that, even to an admirable characters like indiana jones, the way to brush an annoyer away is to shoot him to death.

The scene depicts an admirable manly character - a strong role-model for young kids - showing kids that the way a real man reacts to being hindered or provoked is to kill the annoyer. No messing. Especially when there is a crowd watching.

And killing someone - appalling enough in its own right - is doubly bad when the shooting is done in a crowded forum where the chance of hitting a bystander is very high.

I do draw the line (or I would if I believed in censorship) at a scene that depicts:
- resorting to lethal casual easy killing, as a first resort;
- especially when the weapon used is readily available to viewers;
- especially when the killing is done by a character portrayed as manly and heroic;
- especially when the portrayed provocation /reason is at a level likely to resonate with many viewers in their everyday lives.
 
S

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,291
9,920
113
Toronto
buttercup said:
I thought it when I first saw the film, and it's strongly reinforced seeing it again now -- If ever a scene in a movie should have been banned for violence, this is it.

Most of the violence in RotLA is fantasy violence. It does not suggest to impressionable youngsters that they should do the same, being quite unrelated to any situation the casual young viewer would conceivably get into. I would not ban fantasy violence, no matter how graphic.

But this scene depicts shooting someone to death merely because they pose a hindrance. It depicts the most casual attitude to taking your gun out and killing someone. It depicts resorting to killing as a first resort -- not as a last resort.

Many young viewers will have access to a gun; this scene is highly suggestive that, even to an admirable characters like indiana jones, the way to brush an annoyer away is to shoot him to death.

The scene depicts an admirable manly character - a strong role-model for young kids - showing kids that the way a real man reacts to being hindered or provoked is to kill the annoyer. No messing. Especially when there is a crowd watching.

And killing someone - appalling enough in its own right - is doubly bad when the shooting is done in a crowded forum where the chance of hitting a bystander is very high.

I do draw the line (or I would if I believed in censorship) at a scene that depicts:
- resorting to lethal casual easy killing, as a first resort;
- especially when the weapon used is readily available to viewers;
- especially when the killing is done by a character portrayed as manly and heroic;
- especially when the portrayed provocation /reason is at a level likely to resonate with many viewers in their everyday lives.
Click to expand...
It looks like stand your ground.
 
N

NorthernBear

Dirty (Not So) Old Man
Jun 13, 2009
2,529
2
0
North of GTA
buttercup said:
I thought it when I first saw the film, and it's strongly reinforced seeing it again now -- If ever a scene in a movie should have been banned for violence, this is it.

Most of the violence in RotLA is fantasy violence. It does not suggest to impressionable youngsters that they should do the same, being quite unrelated to any situation the casual young viewer would conceivably get into. I would not ban fantasy violence, no matter how graphic.

But this scene depicts shooting someone to death merely because they pose a hindrance. It depicts the most casual attitude to taking your gun out and killing someone. It depicts resorting to killing as a first resort -- not as a last resort.

Many young viewers will have access to a gun; this scene is highly suggestive that, even to an admirable characters like indiana jones, the way to brush an annoyer away is to shoot him to death.

The scene depicts an admirable manly character - a strong role-model for young kids - showing kids that the way a real man reacts to being hindered or provoked is to kill the annoyer. No messing. Especially when there is a crowd watching.

And killing someone - appalling enough in its own right - is doubly bad when the shooting is done in a crowded forum where the chance of hitting a bystander is very high.

I do draw the line (or I would if I believed in censorship) at a scene that depicts:
- resorting to lethal casual easy killing, as a first resort;
- especially when the weapon used is readily available to viewers;
- especially when the killing is done by a character portrayed as manly and heroic;
- especially when the portrayed provocation /reason is at a level likely to resonate with many viewers in their everyday lives.
Click to expand...


My nephews were 6 and 8 when they first viewed this movie and they adored the Indiana Jones character however not once did they ever think that it was okay to shoot someone simply because they got in their way.
Maybe it is for the same reason that they do not toss anvils onto poor coyotes heads or poke their friends in the eyes with their fingers just because they are acting like a stooge.

It is because they are brought up knowing that shooting other people is wrong regardless of what they see in movies or television.

If any medium is trying to teach kids that ultra violence is acceptable behavior it is the creators of first person shooter video games like Grand Theft Auto.
 
B

buttercup

Active member
Feb 28, 2005
2,571
11
38
buttercup said:

Approx how much did the British government pay for a Lancaster Bomber, during WW2?
In GB pounds: (a) 20,000 (b) 60,000 (c) 100,000 (d) 150,000?
(Multiply the 1940s pound by about 70, to get modern CA$.)
Supplementary question: approx how much did it cost to send Lancasters on bombing missions, per aircraft, per sortie? GBP. (a) 500 (b) 1,000 (c) 2,000 (d) 5,000?
Click to expand...
The typical Lancaster cost (b) about GBP60,000. That's CA$4,200,000 in today's money. Each, of course.

7377 were made (many in Canada). 3498 Lancasters were lost on operations (each with a crew of 7).

How much did each sortie cost? That would be (d) -- about GBP5,000 per sortie, per plane. That's CA$350,000.

When the war ended, the remaining Lancasters had basically no value. Many of the survivors that had been made in Canada, were given back to the Canadian government.

It has been said that Britain was still recuperating from the monetary costs of staging the Strategic Bombing Offensive, well into the 1970s.

What did the S.B.O. achieve? It has been said that its main achievement was to convince Stalin that the Western Allies were as determined as Russia, never to stop short of unconditional surrender.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom