No more @#*$%!!

"no need to discuss what people like or prefer, just hoping to figure out this "technical" profanity detail."

There is no "technical" formula. It's decided by the whims of the MPAA.

The past record has shown that big studios and likable movie stars can get away with more cursing than indie nobodies can. The game is rigged, and not in your favor.

Why do you have to have a PG-13?

Most indies are rated R and don't give a crap.

Taking the other tact, you could have them say just about anything else and act out their frustrations with their expressions. If you're doing a hard edged film, just make it R. If not, then get creative.
 
thisisapocalypse said:
This happens all the time. It may not be a conscious thought on behalf of the writer, but it absolutely happens.

The problem with "offensive" language for me has nothing to do with being bothered by the language itself or being "offended." The problem is that such language is all too often overused and very often does not fit the tone/context of the film in a way that conveys something about character, moves the story forward, etc. I see this, or rather, hear this in films *a lot.* I think very often it is used for the sake of using it, and that's it.

Further, because of this overuse, I would argue that the "offensive" words have become less and less meaningful over time and thus aren't the best literary devices. They just don't convey that much, they aren't shocking anymore, and are too often very imprecise modifiers, and can be grating.

For example: "I'm F***ing mad!"

What does that mean, exactly? "I'm really mad!" or "I'm superlatively mad!" or, "I'm as mad as I am when I'm having intercourse!"

I don't mean to say that there is never a place for such language, there certainly are times and places where it is appropriate. But I very much think that reliance on these words is symptomatic of overall weak writing *in general* - not in every case by a long shot. I just think you need to have a good reason to use it.

I absolutely see it misused about 10x more often than I see it used well.

I personally don't believe "because that's the way people talk" is a good enough reason to write it. So what if that's true? Why does your character say it? People say "like" and "ummm" a lot too in real life.

I think ultimately, it comes down to this: I've never seen a movie that I thought would have been better if it had more dirty language in it - but I've seen plenty of movies that would have definitely been better with less.
Click to expand...

We're on the same page. I wholeheartedly agree with you. My whole point in the first place was, we shouldn't really focus on the fact that the words are "dirty" or "offensive," and just focus on what makes good writing. If the word works, then great. If it doesn't, then cut it. Most of the time, many writers over-write, and most adverbs are by far unnecessary. So they should be cut. To me, to use your example, "I'm very mad," "I'm really mad," and "I'm f**king mad," have no real difference in meaning, just perhaps a different tone. And perhaps the tone can be different.

Though, on the other hand, I do get sick of writers thinking that movie dialogue has to be perfect, to such a stilted and poetic degree that it is far removed from the way people talk. Yes, people do say "ummm," and "like," and "shi*" and "f**k" and whatever. So why can't characters if it fits the bill? I'm not saying it always does, but sometimes it can, and I see nothing wrong with a film that has a character that curses a lot. In fact, I think it's kind of amusing in the right context and with the right character. (e.g., The younger son in "The Squid in the Whale" complains to his parents by saying, "F*ck that c*ck sh*t," and I thought it was classic.)

Oh no, cover the children's ears! Bah. Down with censorship.
 
Call_Me_Kurt said:
Jwing, if that's the way you think of it, then fine, you go with that....while it's still fashionable...

But one part of your argument is specious. When you say, "if a character curses, that's how that person is", you're overlooking the fact that that character is a creation of you, the writer. He's not something beyond your control.

So, it's disingenuous to claim that you must write foul language because that's what your character would use. Why not do this instead? Write stories with characters who don't use foul language!

You can't tell me there aren't fascinating, complex, story-worthy people out there in the world who don't say F*** every second word! Sure, they're harder to write about. But screenwriters become famous by doing the difficult.

In any case, are gangstas, crims, lowlifes, grubs, etc etc, really worth your while to write about?

.
Click to expand...

Go outside and actually listen to the way people talk for once. I am not interested in movies stuck in some non-existent PG-13 safety world. Honestly, I believe there is really no such thing as a dirty word--it's all just a social perception of language. Any writer that uses any word every other word is a terrible writer, whether it's "dirty" or not. That's irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
You really have to wonder what it is that makes people so obsessive over the presence or absence of certain words. We're not talking about words that incite hatred, or promote prejudice, or cause tangible harm to any particular group of victims - we're talking about words that for whatever reason just make people uncomfortable. Just little pressure oscillations in the air which, when they hit your eardrum, get interpreted into a word or words with four or more letters. And to see the passion that some people dump into the topic, you'd think we were talking about the slaughter of babies.

How about a rational and internally consistent explanation of why it is that certain oscillations in the air are so deeply distressing and immediately problematic, that you insist that people ought to choose their story material based upon the likelihood that certain words may be called for, in the telling? Or that the first concern of the screenwriter ought to be the expurgation of those mere words, from stories that naturally contain them?

There's obviously more to it than the tired old swears don't add anything because there is quite a bit to be found in most film and literature that didn't add anything and yet you aren't complaining and offering lists of alternatives to every element that didn't add anything. Clearly the problem is simply the utterance of certain words, in and of themselves, because even when admitting that there can be certain rare and fleeting instances wherein a spoken obscenity is artistically meritorious I think I see a noticeable degree of grudge, in doing so.

So, why the trauma over a fairly small selection of mere words? Little sounds in the air? In a world filled with offenses that can actually break your skin, what directs one to focus with such intensity upon whether or not dialog contains a few little sounds in the air, which don't happen to be the ones that you would personally have chosen?

I agree that uninspired foul-mouthedness (like a great many other uninsipired things) is tiresome and juvenile, but it kind of appears to me that maintaining a focus upon it is much the same. Is casual swearing really the greatest of social ills that one can aspire to address, in one's work and commentary?
 
Sad Max said:
You really have to wonder what it is that makes people so obsessive over the presence or absence of certain words. We're not talking about words that incite hatred, or promote prejudice, or cause tangible harm to any particular group of victims - we're talking about words that for whatever reason just make people uncomfortable. Just little pressure oscillations in the air which, when they hit your eardrum, get interpreted into a word or words with four or more letters. And to see the passion that some people dump into the topic, you'd think we were talking about the slaughter of babies.

How about a rational and internally consistent explanation of why it is that certain oscillations in the air are so deeply distressing and immediately problematic, that you insist that people ought to choose their story material based upon the likelihood that certain words may be called for, in the telling? Or that the first concern of the screenwriter ought to be the expurgation of those mere words, from stories that naturally contain them?

There's obviously more to it than the tired old swears don't add anything because there is quite a bit to be found in most film and literature that didn't add anything and yet you aren't complaining and offering lists of alternatives to every element that didn't add anything. Clearly the problem is simply the utterance of certain words, in and of themselves, because even when admitting that there can be certain rare and fleeting instances wherein a spoken obscenity is artistically meritorious I think I see a noticeable degree of grudge, in doing so.

So, why the trauma over a fairly small selection of mere words? Little sounds in the air? In a world filled with offenses that can actually break your skin, what directs one to focus with such intensity upon whether or not dialog contains a few little sounds in the air, which don't happen to be the ones that you would personally have chosen?

I agree that uninspired foul-mouthedness (like a great many other uninsipired things) is tiresome and juvenile, but it kind of appears to me that maintaining a focus upon it is much the same. Is casual swearing really the greatest of social ills that one can aspire to address, in one's work and commentary?
Click to expand...

Haha, well said. I couldn't agree any more. My problem with this obsession people have over using them is the fact they are focusing on the wrong thing. Language is built around social constructs, and because people say a word is "dirty," so it becomes "dirty," but when the doors of perception are cleansed, none of that bullsh*t matters anyway.

Lighten up everyone, and let's get back to slaughtering babies instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top