We haven't had a poll in an age, so here is one from this article in the Tribune on how we are accepting vulgarities more and more these days ("Little Fockers" is a very popular movie in the U.S. right now).
Well, a few of you have voted, so I'll weigh in. Normally I like this Eric Zorn, but I thought he went a little too conservative on this one, though I see the majority here agree with him and the American public (so far). Seventy two percent found the name to be "irritatingly juvenile," while only 3% said "perfectly fine," 9% "amusingly risque" and 16% "contemptibly vulgar." I find that awfully strange since the movie has been highly popular for two weeks now. Contemptibly vulgar?
Zorn goes on to complain about other movies (in that link), and really seems to hate the word "wussy." He considers it sexist (because it is a combination of "wimp: and an offensively sexist slang) and "mildly" vulgar. He opened this to a poll as well, and on a scale from 1 (not off-color at all) to 6 (extremely off-color and offensive). Of 500 votes, the average was 3.2. I don't see that word as so bad either. Of course I'd never use it in formal writing, but in a fun conversation with friends? I'll use it.
Despite my often being irritatingly juvenile myself, such stuff has been overdone - to the point of annoyance. The title seems more crude than clever. Clever crudity is delightful. This isn't.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -J. Krishnamurti
It's amazing that a movie which has been panned usiversally is, thanks to hyperpublicizing, number one at the box office.
You see a movie advertised; it's considered bad by most; yet you refuse to believe and pay an absurd sum to sit and find they were right and you were wrong. Can you ask for a refund?
Originally posted by Proofreader: You see a movie advertised; it's considered bad by most; yet you refuse to believe and pay an absurd sum to sit and find they were right and you were wrong.
Seen a few of those.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
When I see a movie trailer, and can find nothing interesting or laughable in it, I assume (since they believe this is the best way to atract an audience) that the actual movie can't be any better.
I know what you mean. Over here there is a trailer running on TV for a new improv comedy show. Given that you put the best bits in the trailer the program is going to set an all time record for total lack of humour.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
It's amazing that a movie which has been panned usiversally
Not sure I agree. Likely I would with this movie, but I have seen plenty of "panned" movies that I think are good, and a few well rated ones that I considered mediocre, at best. "Social Network" was an example of the latter.
