No more @#*$%!!

Just a friendly reminder: Nobody here knows our story. If anyone thinks that a curse word count tells you about a story, you are obviously not a writer.

That said, I appreciate those who already made an effort to differentiate the discussion that is developing here from our script in particular. Please go ahead, take this thread wherever it may go. I got my website link.
 
Kurt, my apologies - I did not mean you specifically derailed this thread. I withheld my opinion (and still do) because it has nothing to do with the OPs post and his original question seems to have been addressed. But when you imply that because of someones background, how they were raised, their class, their race, or what other people might label them means that their stories, their voices shouldnt be heard, that has nothing to do with me having a 'weak stomach.' That is a line that simply put shouldn't be crossed, and something that I couldn't let go by without commenting. I would like to think that as artists, we would do all we can to encourage the others around us to tell their stories, not attempt to shut certain topics, people or voices out.
 
USLatin, I would be the last to suggest that the amount of bad language in a story could tell me anything tangible about it. That merely tells me something about its author.:smile:

But I'd just say that, personally, I'd be pleased if a thread that I had started gave rise to a genuine examination of any aspect of story-telling!

But it seems you have some self-appointed guardians here who think you can't take care of yourself. So, just so they can stand down, I'll drop the subject.

Cheers.
 
Apology accepted, Lt Col.

I'd just respond to the rest of what you said by saying that I never meant to insinuate anything about anyone's upbringing, class, or race. When I use the terms gangstas, lowlifes, and grubs, I of course have no particular race in mind. I'm merely referring to those element in the world which are less deserving of our respect and admiration, because of their own poor choices. I could as well have used the terms, "losers", "psychopaths", and "scum", of which examples clearly exist in all classes and races.

Certainly you can make the case that these sorts of people make intersting subjects for stories. But I disagree that they should be portrayed in a positive light, which is what I take you to mean when you say, "their voices should be heard".

Anyway, I'll drop the subject, so as not to test USLatin's considerable patience any further.

Cheers.
 
USLatin said:
Care to finish your thought?
Click to expand...

The smilie at the end of that should have tipped you off, USLatin.

But if you insist...

It tells me that the author may be using bad language simply to add a piquancy to a story that would be bland without it.

It could also tell me that the author has a personal predilection for bad language.

Or, it could tell me that the author is not confident that he has the skill to write an engaging story without bad language .

So, pick one of those, and I'll believe you. :smile: ......:-Mark-05(DBG) See?
 
Last edited:
Pretending you don't see why people are opposing you may make you seem close minded. Being close minded prevents discussions from becoming truly useful. An examination of a limited area of any subject can not render useful conclusions.

Certain people curse, some of these people are characters are in our film. I guess you like to write about other people, only.

Did I question your preferences? (No)

Do I enjoy some random person (without a full name posted) questioning me and making a series of assumptions due to temporary blindness fueled by the need to push a point despite gross lack of information about the art in question, art which may be tainted by such assumptions? (No)

Forgive me if I don't feel a smiley face is clear enough for this subject.
 
Wow! You're so far off the mark here, it's not funny..... You know what? I think you may have just broken the Internet record for Missing The Point!

But whatever, carry on, USLatin ..... er, that is, Mister U.S. Latin, Esq. ........

Waste of time.
 
Maybe. I didn't read all your posts so I might have, even if just a little. I didn't want to talk about this, remember? But hey, least I'll be on Guinness. :)

lol... Mister USlatin, Esq.? One after an other... so many assumptions. Must be the avatar.
 
Call_Me_Kurt said:
No, I'll let you figure it out yourself. Let me know when you do.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.

Here's a tidbit from Writing 101, skippy: if you have nothing to say...don't bother to say anything. Do you really think anyone here is interested in wasting time figuring out what you mean to say when you can't bother (or manage) to simply say it? It's just cute worthless crap...that I have now wasted further time responding to, myself. Joke's on me!
 
Okay, everybody, please knock it off.

Kurt, if your point is that you think profanity is a cheap crutch that people resort to, then say that. No need to try getting too clever for your own good. That just annoys people.

And everyone who wants to pile on Kurt, it's all been said, so let's get back to whatever valid discussion there is here, and if there's nothing else valid to say, let's drop it.
 
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn".

One of the most recognizable movie quotes has a swear in it. :)

Roberto, since I'm not sure of what your capacity is on the film (I think you're the Director, but did you write it as well? Sorry for not knowing...), IMO there are probably two routes to take here: First is the 'business' route, where you replace/retract all swears, or have alternate scene versions, w/o swears, to fall back on, in order to get the lower rating (which means a potentially bigger market for your film); Second is the 'show' route, where you leave everything as is, with or without alternate scenes, and possibly have to fight your way through the MPAA rating process (this means not giving in to the subjectivity of the ratings "board"). Alternatively, this is called the 'Kevin Smith' route (BTW, I think he successfully fought the MPAA three times).

FWIW, I think it all depends on the content of your film. Is it something you think that kids/teens would want to go see? Can it be marketed as something for everybody, including kids/teens? Do you have/can you get the necessary funds to send it to those theaters where they won't accept anything over a 'soft' R? You should definitely ponder if spending the time and resources to shoot alternates, in order to negotiate a lower rating, will ultimately benefit your film (i.e. make you more money). If it's a horror/slasher flick, it probably will. If it's an offbeat indie road movie, it probably won't (unless it stars Miley Cyrus/Jonas Bros). Also, I think it would be good to think about all of the work you would have to do if you decided to appeal the rating decision (Do you really want to jump through what seems like a helluva lot of administrative/political hoops, when you could spend that time on the film?).

Talk it out with the producers and maybe the writer (that is, if you aren't the writer; IMHO, writers should be kept in the loop too). And let us know what happens man! This is mighty exciting from an outsider's POV.

Good luck!

P.S. Sorry if this is not the type of response you wanted/needed.
 
I was going to figure that out on my own, but I appreciate your post Dingos. I am the writer. We are right on the border, it will be all about the people rating it. And since we are not hopeless, it is worth going through this trouble and looking into removing the automatic R stuff.

Just watched Thelma and Louise again last night... WOW... What a movie, one of those all time classics.

Just... wow! :bows before greatness:

Oh, yea, there was "a little" cursing in it, and not a single word was out of place. Easily three times our list, and far higher percentages of the harsher words.
 
Barry_Green said:
Okay, everybody, please knock it off.

Kurt, if your point is that you think profanity is a cheap crutch that people resort to, then say that. No need to try getting too clever for your own good. That just annoys people.
Click to expand...

Actually, Barry, my only input to this thread was to ask an honest question, which annoyingly never got an answer.

But yes, you're quite right, I did go on to make that point you mention. It wasn't well-received, to put it mildly. And since I usually take that kind of reaction as an indicator that I had hit a nerve, I tried to patch up and drop the subject.

I'm totally fine with dropping this, and just to clear the air, and to show I wasn't being "clever" or deceitful, may I answer Sad Max's query and just post here what I meant by my comment to his remark, viz, "What I find peculiar is the suggestion that one's selection of story material ought to be guided by the degree to which harsh language permeates the prospective dialog."

Max was saying that if a filmmaker wanted to choose a subject for his film which contained characters who would normally use foul language, then that language element should not be a disqualifying consideration in his choice. He said he would think it "peculiar" if a filmmaker declined that choice merely because he would have to write foul language into his script.

From a certain point of view, I agree with him. But only up to a very significant point.

Because his obvious insinuation was that the filmmaker should have no compunctions against using the foul language. And by that insinuation, he was obviously assuming that a filmmaker who chose such a subject (such as the OP had done), would have no choice but to write foul language into his script, because, (as Max seemed to take for granted), he, the OP, wouldn't have the skill, wit, imagination, creativity, inventiveness, originality, ingenuity, or just plain talent, to make his film effective without the foul language.

I myself don't hold filmmakers in such low esteem. I believe all filmmakers have the potential to be great filmmakers, if they are prepared to employ all of their abilities and not be limited by anything.

Funny... ironically many filmmakers who insist on the freedom to use objectionable and offensive elements in their films, frequently and emphatically demand that exact same right not to be "limited by anything" ...... :huh:


And everyone who wants to pile on Kurt, it's all been said, so let's get back to whatever valid discussion there is here, and if there's nothing else valid to say, let's drop it.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, and thanks for allowing me to add that final post to answer the queries I received.

.
 
Yes. What I was trying to touch on was that cursing can be very appropriate, and greatness in writing isn't directly related to amounts of profanity but to other greater and more complex factors. Generalizing is what is inappropriate, IMHO.
 
Call_Me_Kurt said:
I could as well have used the terms, "losers", "psychopaths", and "scum", of which examples clearly exist in all classes and races.

Certainly you can make the case that these sorts of people make intersting subjects for stories. But I disagree that they should be portrayed in a positive light, which is what I take you to mean when you say, "their voices should be heard".
Click to expand...

Not to belabor the point, Kurt, but that is not at all what I meant by saying that their voices should be heard. Changing the labels you are slapping on these people doesn't change what you are doing. You might not explicitly be singling out race, but you are definitely saying that people of a lower class (whom you label as 'gangstas,' 'losers' and 'scum') regardless of race, are not 'worth your while to write about.' You explicitly stated that. Not only writing about 'positively', but writing about at all.

If they're not worth your while to write about, you are saying that their stories, stories about them, about an entire group of people, are not worth telling. That their voices don't matter. That they as people, as humans, don't matter because of a label you slapped on them as a group. These people actually exist, remember. They aren't just 'interesting subjects.' They aren't figments in the imagination of well-off writers living in luxury condos. And many of those types of stories (not all of them mind you) come from someone's personal experience. You might want to keep that in mind before you make a blanket statement like that. As writers, we are often told to write what we know. What would you say then to a writer who comes from a background that you describe as 'scum?'

I've had the pleasure to work and co-write with a number of people with vastly different upbringings than mine, some of whom would have been included in your definition of 'losers' and 'criminals' and 'lowlifes' at some point in their life, and you might be surprised about the quality of these people, despite what you personally might think of their experiences and their stories.

And sorry Barry if this is the direction you didn't want to see this go, but I took personal offense to what was said. In fact, in all my years of visiting and contributing to this site, that was the most bigoted statement I've ever had the displeasure of reading here (whether or not it was an attempt at cleverness). Remember, without these stories, we wouldn't have Slumdog Millionaire. We wouldn't have Precious. Heck, (as mentioned before) we wouldn't even have The Godfather. Regardless of your opinion on the use of language, censoring entire stories, entire voices is not the answer.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your civility, Lt Col Wade. I apologise if I personally offended you, but I do believe you missed my point, also. Obviously, I don't explain myself very well.

Hope that shortcoming doesn't show up in my scripts!! :)

Cheers.
 
Of course, cursing can be overused, so can ellipses, DoF, or absolutely ANYTHING. Write your own movies, endorse the ones you like. Please don't make generalized assumptions or write carelessly when discussing someone's work and expect people not to react. I am not angry, just compelled to clarify and unhappy about it since I am sick, tired, and overworked. :)

Saying that you shouldn't write about ANYONE is wrong. And I would agree that it feels overbearing and borderline offensive to be told that. You can't call yourself a supporter of "the arts" if you think like that.

Say you want to make a movie about someone overcoming great adversity, an uplifting and inspiring tale of great courage and perseverance. Perhaps said adversity deals in part with being exposed to "bad people". Are you going to make these "bad people" talk like they just walked into a 2nd grade birthday party, watching their language so as not to teach little kids foul language? Are you going to make 100% of their sentences include more than one top shelf curse word? Chances are it will be somewhere in between.

Are the only bad guys worthy of being portrayed on moving pictures expected to be the sophisticated 007 type villain?

What about when someone is faced with an 80ft. radioactive monster with fangs the size of an Volkswagen? Should they offer the beast some chamomile tea in hopes it will calm it down? Offer it to settle the whole thing via a good game of cricket?

What about when someone drops a bowling ball on their bare toes in the coldest day of the winter?

Or when someone is gravely offended before their peers, betrayed in the worst imaginable way by the closest person in their lives, their only friend, the love of their life?

Do they have to curse? No...

...many, at least several, would. Unless you live in an other dimension. A Stepford Housewives scenario does make for a very fun movie though. I am not advocating one end of the spectrum.

At lease consider that in many writer's minds, as well as in many of the audience member's minds, they should curse. Why not satisfy those people?

Now has the audience become "bad" because they believe someone should curse? Does it imply that they think that cursing is "good"? Cause that would also be an assumption.

It would be very likely to run into someone who would say that they should curse under those circumstances, not because it is the "good" thing to do, but because they are momentarily weakened by the factors they are facing, they are vulnerable, exposed, desperate... and flawed.

Are we not worthy to be in a movie if we are not "perfect"? Should we still be expected to "appreciate the weather [if we just saw our] mother gang-raped in broad daylight"? (What Just Happened - Imdb). Should all of us be that heavily sedated with antidepressants?

I am not angry in the least bit, just trying to make a point. At the end of the day it doesn't matter though, because I will continue to write for me, myself and I. The PG-13 is also for myself... I really want my nephews to be able to see it and I agree with their parents. :)

The MPAA may not be perfect, but there isn't perfect in this world, only people. I am glad to submit our movie to them for review, just hope our project will be considered how I see it myself. We'll see what happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top