Callaghans Reviews PORN and Trailer Addict

There is a link to the review itself from Trailer Addict, but here it is just in case...

http://www.cineobscure.com/zack-and-miri-make-a-porno-review/


1224865528.gif
 
I'm still trying to figure out the meaning of "in a coon's age." Please don't tell me it means what I think it means.
 
Get out of here...

I'm far from Politically Correct, but even further from racist.

-emot1.gif

I can understand if your were just tossing off an antiquated racial slur for the fun of it, I just wanted to make sure you didn't actually mean something else. And if you do throw around terms like that, realize people who don't know you well might get the wrong idea. I realize you may not give a crap and can respect that.
 
Is Hudson selling a book full of blank pages?

Nice work on the review, Cal. I am of the same opinion regarding the state of comedy and the Apatow-supposedly-funny Empire.
 
From the above link--

Whatever the case, the usage is highly offensive today - heck, it was highly offensive back then. For that reason, "in a coon's age" makes many people uncomfortable, notwithstanding its innocent origin. You might try "in a dog's age" or "in donkey's years" (British), which have the same meaning. Or "in a month of Sundays," which avoids animals altogether. Better yet, do us all a favor and come up with an original expression. We haven't had a novel way of saying "for a long time" in a coon's age.
 
We haven't had a novel way of saying "for a long time" in a coon's age.

This made me laugh.

But, in my opinion, Callaghan need not change the phrase. If you take the time to look up the origin, there is nothing racist about it. I guess the reason this is a strong subject for me is I am currently writing a novel with racial context and, if I can't use certain language without people getting angry, I might as well shi* on freedom of speech and call it a day.

This will be my last comment on the matter, I am not interested in another debate right now. Everyone is entitled to his opinion and we all have different reasons for holding said thoughts. Who am I to judge? :)
 
I guess the reason this is a strong subject for me is I am currently writing a novel with racial context and, if I can't use certain language without people getting angry, I might as well shi* on freedom of speech and call it a day.

Yeah, but if it's in a dramatic context it's fine. I don't care if Tarantino or Scorsese use racist language in their films, as it's just being honest to the people they are portraying. If it's just a random phrase thrown out for no damn reason in a film review, I don't see the purpose, and I don't see how it benefits Callaghan's review to use it. It's just a needless distraction.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but if it's in a dramatic context it's fine. I don't care if Tarantino or Scorsese use racist language in their films, as it's just being honest to the people they are portraying. If it's just a random phrase thrown out for no damn reason in a film review, I don't see the purpose, and I don't see how it benefits Callaghan's review to use it. It's just a needless distraction.

Difference noted and accepted. I can see your point, but I also see (as a writer) that unique language in an article or column or review DOES give it an element of quality. It's debatable, I'm sure, but I'm not the right person to partake. :beer:
 
Nice work on the review, Cal. I am of the same opinion regarding the state of comedy and the Apatow-supposedly-funny Empire.
Comedy and Horror both have been in a formulaic tailspin for awhile now.
We are seeing the aftershocks of the MTV-ADD generation.
Piss poor state of affairs we're in.
That is why something like Zack and Miri, that is genuinely funny (and genuinely good)
is such a breath of fresh air.



Edit:
By the way, Mark, I appreciate your attempt to
04.jpg

STAY ON TARGET
(as far as this thread is concerned)

:beer:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top