I don't get why people are so closed off from debating.

[Vivace]

Some great points all over the place in this thread (really? Intelligent conversation on DTF?)

Barto makes a good point about 'message through narrative,' my mom annoys the heck out of me because she doesn't like swearing in movies. She's watched plenty of movies with 70 f-words in it, enjoyed the overall story, but complains the whole way through about "why do they gotta ruin it like that?" She can never seem to figure out that in two days she'll have forgotten the swearing, but remember how good the story was.

The other debate I don't understand why people get so upset about are ones where I believe something that has no effect on anyone's daily life, but they think I'm nuts. Like I've watched enough of those History Channel shows about Ancient Aliens that they've scientifically convinced me there's something to it (maybe not that Jesus was an human-alien hybrid, but you know, there's something in their overall picture). So many people will dismiss that instantly because it doesn't match conventional thinking, but if you watch three of their best episodes with an open mind I don't see how you couldn't think there's a shade of something true in there. The people that instantly dismiss it though (which is most people) say "Well, it's not like that in the history books." and refuse to listen to the argument that both sides have scientific evidence to back up their arguments; the people that wrote those books weren't there either.

I tend to find a lot of shows like this need a LOT of, and I mean a LOT of critical scrutiny before they should be readily accepted, unfortunately a lot of people become convinced pretty quickly. You have to ask yourself a LOT of questions first. Who did they interview? Is there a commonality with who they interviewed? Where they objective or biased? What variables did they account for and how did they deal with them? Was their historical approach academic or amateur? and so on and so on. One "prime" example is the movie "What the bleep do we know?" It's a good movie but the material they represent is not material that should be accepted so easily and readily. In fact a lot of it is pseudo-science and new age philosophy that has not been through the rigorous test of time and study. Not to shoot down shows like this though. Odds are what they have to say might have a hint of truth to it, however I almost never fully accept any theory that is radically new until it has been put through the litmus test. A LOT of philosophy has come and gone and for good reason too.

[Vivace]

Also in the defense of language in a movie. There are two kinds of swearing in a movie: 1) cultural representation or 2) for the sake of it. Many movies do swear just for the sake of swearing. Quentin Tarantino comes to mind immediately. However there is a bit of a poetic side to his swearing, almost like vulgar pop-art. It's over the top, but you're the one that still staring at the picture. However there is the language that is there for a reason. A Few Good Men, Do the Right Thing, Good Will Hunting and The Departed are all prime examples of this. Each is trying to convey a particular genre and culture in the movie. A Few Good Men is military swearing, The Departed is Italian/gangster talk. Do The Right Thing is harlem-esque gang talk and so on. This goes all the way back to the Huck Finn debate. Granted, in Huck Finn it's more about language of the times. In Twain's world the word nigger was a PC word. Today it's not. But does that give us the right to change the book? If so, then do we don David with a loincloth in The Academy? I really don't know what has caused people to become so easily offended at art under any context? People can't see the forest because this one particular tree offends them. 100 years ago this particular tree offended nobody, but today this tree offends quite a few people. If we are not careful a LOT of works of art are going to get "destroyed". I'm a bit nerous over this overdone Political correctness trend we are falling into

[blackngold29]

I tend to find a lot of shows like this need a LOT of, and I mean a LOT of critical scrutiny before they should be readily accepted, unfortunately a lot of people become convinced pretty quickly. You have to ask yourself a LOT of questions first. Who did they interview? Is there a commonality with who they interviewed? Where they objective or biased? What variables did they account for and how did they deal with them? Was their historical approach academic or amateur? and so on and so on. One "prime" example is the movie "What the bleep do we know?" It's a good movie but the material they represent is not material that should be accepted so easily and readily. In fact a lot of it is pseudo-science and new age philosophy that has not been through the rigorous test of time and study. Not to shoot down shows like this though. Odds are what they have to say might have a hint of truth to it, however I almost never fully accept any theory that is radically new until it has been put through the litmus test. A LOT of philosophy has come and gone and for good reason too.

I agree, the difficulty there is that there is as much speculated info in the course of what is accepted in 'mainstream' history as what these guys come up with, but because it's "accepted" it's automatically assumed to be the superior version (by a wide majority of people) if there's a disagreement. In that particular show the narrator spends half his time saying, "What if ...?"

I feel that I can be convinced of things quicker than many people; so yeah that can be bad, but it does have its upsides too. Personally, I buy into what they're saying. Some of them have studied this stuff as long as any traditional history teacher. But again, if I'm wrong and they're all full of shit... like, so what? It changes nothing.