Are audiences so sensitive and offended by movie content nowadays?

Tools    





It goes towards the topic about people being “too sensitive” these days. It’s always been a thing.
Are we really too sensitive these days?

Movies and TV is now more violent and sexually explicit than ever before.
I would say so, but again, going back in time shows we always have been over one thing or another.



I am the Watcher in the Night
I would say so, but again, going back in time shows we always have been over one thing or another.
What do you mean? Sorry I just don't understand.
__________________
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

"I need your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle"



They created censorship boards that decided what was and wasn’t allowed in a movie. It took years before they got around them, and people criticized the film for their violence and their nudity and asked what their impact on society would be. Especially the films of the 70’s.
The slasher films of the 80’s were particularly attacked by critics and the public alike for their portrayal of women being stalked and slashed.



What do you mean? Sorry I just don't understand.
They can confirm themselves, but I'm guessing it's meant to include something like the red part:
going back in time shows we always have been oversensitive about one thing or another.
__________________



Are we really too sensitive these days?

Movies and TV is now more violent and sexually explicit than ever before.
Well whenever my friends or family are watching old TV shows, they keep making remarks like "They would never allow that on TV today". So if that's true, than they view TV as being less sensitive before.



Well whenever my friends or family are watching old TV shows, they keep making remarks like "They would never allow that on TV today". So if that's true, than they view TV as being less sensitive before.
But if you could go back in time and show today's TV shows to those people in the past, they'd say, 'no way would we allow that on TV here in the past.'



I am the Watcher in the Night
Well whenever my friends or family are watching old TV shows, they keep making remarks like "They would never allow that on TV today". So if that's true, than they view TV as being less sensitive before.
Examples?

In the last decade with seen rape, orgies and monstrous violence on a regular basis. I'm not sure if that was going on in the 70s and 80s.



Well for example I was watching 3rd rock from the sun with my friends, and Sally asked the other aliens when they came Earth, why she had to be the woman. And Dick replied by saying "Because you lost".

Or how in Boston Legal, Denny Crane says to a new lawyer at the firm, that one of his good qualities is that he sounds articulate. The lawyer asked Denny what he meant by that. Denny says "well you know what I mean, you don't sound black". When watching this with my friends they said that there is no way this would be allowed on TV nowadays. Is that true?

Is rape, orgies and gore on TV now, more audience suitable compared to some of the gags in 3rd Rock From the Sun back then?



Have you ever thought that maybe it's your friends who are too sensitive? People often seem very certain of what would and wouldn't be allowed in another time. Especially if they're looking for it.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



Not really, they said it like they were disappointed, like they wish you say things on TV like that today, without people being offended.



Account terminated on request
Yes. Why? Because they can. How? Because of the why, the internet. Opinions and information circulating at incredible speeds,
Speak for yourself. I never give any opinions over the internet. It's stupid.

uh.....
__________________
Rules:
When women have a poet, they want a cowboy.
When they have a cowboy, they want a poet.
They'll say "I don't care if he's a poet or cowboy, so long as he's a nice guy. But oh, I'm so attracted to that bad guy over there."
Understand this last part, and you'll get them all.



Well when it comes to TV, I understand when people say that TV allows more sex and violence than ever before now, but it seems they do not want to get into certain themes like before that you would see back in the day. It's like society has a rule that you can show all the sex and violence on TV you want, as long as you keep the themes more clean.



On the topic of forced diversity:
I've now seen the 2 newest Spider-Man films (Homecoming and Far From Home) and the forced diversity just seems so... forced.

Peter Parker's class just has the most perfectly dispersed ethnic diversity as to be unrealistic - it reminded me of a cartoon that was on when I was little called Kid Power. I loved watching that cartoon - it had a diverse cast of characters and taught kids about tolerance, acceptance and appreciation for differences in race, nationality and relgions - but that was its purpose, that's WHY the characters were so diverse in a very equitable distribution so all backgrounds could be represented equally.

Peter's class on his class trip to Europe looks like a racial Noah's Ark: two white kids, two black kids, a couple Latino kids, a couple Asian kids, a few of mixed or indeterminate race (and of course a token girl wearing a head scarf because... ya know - everybody's got to be represented.) It's a nice concept, but it's not necessarily realistic (unless maybe they go to a high school for children of U.N. representatives). Again... it seems so forced as to be noticable.

As usual, the movies felt compelled to change the ethnicities of established white characters that have been around since Spider-Man's inception. But that's not all - several characters from Peter's adult life (his job as a photographer in the comics) over the course of his character's 58-year history are now the same age as him and in his class! (Why? Why do they do this stuff?) Namely: Ned Leeds & Betty Brant - always have been older than Peter and were his co-workers: adults in the news industry - but now they're teenagers!

Of course the counter argument is comics and movies have been white-centric for too long. Agreed.
And the solution is to utilize characters created over the years of various ethinic backgrounds or create new characters for a diversity of actors to play (but changing established characters just feels like a forced kind of tokenism that is not meant to just increase diversity, but is designed to stick-it to the majority, force them to repent for the sins of history and disrespect the original fans).

I gave the movies credit for at least creating a new love interest for Peter, rather than having a mulatto (yes, that's somehow a dirty word now) actress play either Gwen or Mary Jane - I encourage creating new characters if filmmakers have a need to fill some sort of ethnic quotas, rather than changing the biological nature of established characters - so kudos for "Michelle" in Spider-Man Homecoming (2017).

But now "Michelle" from Homecoming is "MJ" (what are the odds Peter would have two girlfriends named "MJ")? They couldn't even leave this alone. So now Spider-Man's "MJ" is no longer a red-headed caucazoid (not considered a dirty word because it refers to white people), but a woman of color. I know it's only supposed to be a wink to the name and she's not supposed to be the original MJ - but there's only ever been one "MJ" in Spider-Man and it looks like an attempt to change her as well.

Is all this "racist" on my part?



Speak for yourself. I never give any opinions over the internet. It's stupid.

uh.....
Unnecessarily snarky.


You just called the vast majority of MoFos stupid, as most all of us give our opinions on the internet. I bet I could read through all of your 47 post and find many examples of you 'giving your opinion on the internet'.

And JoaoRodrigues is correct, giving your opinion about other people's opinions, is still an opinion.



Welcome to the human race...
I think that's the joke. The 'uh..." is meant to signify realisation.

(I know this because I'm in the minority)
__________________
Way too much stupid talk on the forum. Iroquois, I’m thinking about you.



Account terminated on request
That's already an opinion. uh...
Oh Christ.


Unnecessarily snarky.


You just called the vast majority of MoFos stupid, as most all of us give our opinions on the internet. I bet I could read through all of your 47 post and find many examples of you 'giving your opinion on the internet'.

And JoaoRodrigues is correct, giving your opinion about other people's opinions, is still an opinion.
Are you two even awake? The entire point of the post is to sarcastically self referentially bust on itself. Hence the "uh".

Good Lord. I almost didn't even put IN the "uh" because I felt it was too obvious.


I think that's the joke. The 'uh..." is meant to signify realisation.

(I know this because I'm in the minority)
YES. Thank you! Good grief.