Topic: The Ringer

[brucegarrioch]

1) Punch Drunk Love, Spanglish, Reign O'er Me are all Comedies with a romantic or drama flavor.

Firstly, Reign O'er Me is about 9/11 -- it's not a comedy; neither are Punch Drunk Love or Spanglish -- they're dramas with an injection of comedy. Hell, Forest Gump is defined as being a comedy/drama, but very few people will actually define it as a comedy. Neither of the three movies you have mentioned are actual comedies -- they may a sprinkle of comedic value to them, but by the vast majority of people, including critics and film buffs (such as myself) none of them are what a typical comedy movie is.

Face the facts, people will complain about this movie and people will complement this movie.  Just because it's your opinion, doesn't make its right.  Let's try to look at both sides and be objective.  (Before you jump on me, I have already said that I agree with points on both arguments).

Given that this entire (weak) argument is based on a thirty-second television spot contesting that the movie offends, ironically, the very people who a) edited the script, and b) are endorsing it, throws out whatever need there is for an objective opinion.

I'd support the 'other' side of the argument more if they go out and watch the movie and then form their opinion, as well as trying to rationalize why the very people that this move is apparently offending are legitimizing it's existence.

[SzuperChicky]

How can you side with either when you haven't even seen the movie?  Sounds like a hypocrite statement to me.  (No I didn't call you a hypocrite, I called your statement one)

[TrentBlue]

How can you side with either when you haven't even seen the movie?  Sounds like a hypocrite statement to me.  (No I didn't call you a hypocrite, I called your statement one)

She called you a hypocrite...get her!

BTW - I think he's defending the "side" of not judging a book (movie) by its cover (preview) especially when it's been given the green light by the groups it allegedly may offend.  Therefore, he claims the default non-viewing position should rationally be acceptance rather than getting all upitty.

[brucegarrioch]

How can you side with either when you haven't even seen the movie?? Sounds like a hypocrite statement to me.? (No I didn't call you a hypocrite, I called your statement one)

Like Trent said, I'm suggesting 'don't judge the book by it's cover', but in a more convoluted way. I'm merely pointing out that the original argument, whose primary tenets are, a) that it is offensive to physically/mentally handicapped people, and b) it is based on a thirty-second television spot while looking as if it can go no where positive, is a weak argument.

In my quest to point out irrationality, I'm noting that one must witness the entire movie to be able to form such a strong opinion*. Moreover, I'm also suggesting -- given that the people who are supposedly offended had a hand in editing/writing the script and promoting the movie -- that the other pillar of your (not 'your' being you, 'Szuper') argument is without basis.

*? When you're arguing against the movie, it is best to have seen it -- my side of the argument can be supported by the varying groups who have had a hand in the production and the fact that I'm not saying that the movie is good/bad, but that the direction/logic behind the other side's argument is fragile

[Broken Bones]

Thanks Trent, BG, MH for ths support here... It really felt liek I was in an uphill battle here even though I was trying to think logically and use the movie's storyline and thefact that it was supported and condoned by the special olympics as my facts to rely on.

You have basically summed up my whole arguement, but said it clearer and better...

[SzuperChicky]

Here's another thread I have not been given notification of replies.  It does this a couple times each month.  I don't understand.

Anyway, I support both arguments, as I have said in the past.  I don't see how you can be for EITHER side without seeing it.  It doesn't make sense to harp on one view and not the other.

[Broken Bones]

Here's another thread I have not been given notification of replies. It does this a couple times each month. I don't understand.

Anyway, I support both arguments, as I have said in the past. I don't see how you can be for EITHER side without seeing it. It doesn't make sense to harp on one view and not the other.

It does make sense... If the movie had not had any assistance from the Special Olympics or any other organization that deals with disabilities, I would stand with you, nobody can argue for either side without seeing the movie.

However, the movie had assistance and is approved by the Special Olympics; increasing the credibility and the facts to back up the argument that the movie should not be considered offensive and the main character of the movie learns something.

People will say "I will not see the movie because I find it offensive and distasteful"... They are basing that off a 30 second trailer... I am basing my perspective from "yes, that movie seems like it could be offensive, however it is approved by an organization that is centered on disabilities, so the chances of this being a tasteful movie increases".

[SzuperChicky]

I still don't agree but I'll leave it at that because neither of us will change our minds.