Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

ANOTHER Dreaded Schedule CHANGE


JeanneCrain
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wonder if it was a simple rights issue which has caused other such substitutions or if it might have been due to some person realizing that an animal is killed in the movie. They might not wish any potential backlash.

If that is why they changed the schedule then it is a darn silly and immature reason.  Animals die every day.  People die every day.  Everything dies every day somewhere.  Where I come from it's just called life and one just gets on with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is why they changed the schedule then it is a darn silly and immature reason.  Animals die every day.  People die every day.  Everything dies every day somewhere.  Where I come from it's just called life and one just gets on with it. 

Yes animals die everyday but should they be killed for a movie?  NO.  I care not whether they used it for food in the movie ( or later ).  Animal slaughter is not entertainment for me.  I take a pass.  But to each his own.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is why they changed the schedule then it is a darn silly and immature reason.  Animals die every day.  People die every day.  Everything dies every day somewhere.  Where I come from it's just called life and one just gets on with it. 

 

And gay people do what they do everyday,  but you object to that being shown on screen or discussed at this forum.

 

But I do agree with: Where I come from it's just called life and one just gets on with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the animal is actually being slaughtered in the movie, it's one thing.  If it looks as if it's being slaughtered, but actually isn't , then I fail to discern any intelligent reason for objection.

 

Although, it does look as if they're actually gutting that hog in SOUTHERN COMFORT, but it's near the end of the movie, so I simply avert my eyes.  Plus, it's being slaughtered is an integral part of the festivities going on in that point of the story, and it's also possible it WAS consumed by the crowd.

 

Now, if one is a VEGAN, I can understand their aversion.  To a degree.  But let's get real.....

 

We're discussing movies here.  NOT "home movies", or documentaries.  And as such, movies are primarily fantasy,  and activities in them don't mean the producers or the movie itself endorses the behavior and/or activities it portrays in the feature.  So....

 

GROW UP, and LIGHTEN UP!

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the animal is actually being slaughtered in the movie, it's one thing.  If it looks as if it's being slaughtered, but actually isn't , then I fail to discern any intelligent reason for objection.

 

Although, it does look as if they're actually gutting that hog in SOUTHERN COMFORT, but it's near the end of the movie, so I simply avert my eyes.  Plus, it's being slaughtered is an integral part of the festivities going on in that point of the story, and it's also possible it WAS consumed by the crowd.

 

Now, if one is a VEGAN, I can understand their aversion.  To a degree.  But let's get real.....

 

We're discussing movies here.  NOT "home movies", or documentaries.  And as such, movies are primarily fantasy,  and activities in them don't mean the producers or the movie itself endorses the behavior and/or activities it portrays in the feature.  So....

 

GROW UP, and LIGHTEN UP!

 

 

Sepiatone

GROW UP and LIGHTEN UP! ... wow, that's harsh.  

 

My aversion to this film ( the movie listed in the op) is by all accounts the animals were actually killed on screen.  The producers and director made a conscious decision to show that on screen.  At that point this is not simply a movie it is cruelty, pure and simple.  

And before you ask, yes I am a vegetarian.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VEGETARIAN you say!

 

With a name like COUNTESSDRACULA!  :lol:

 

Yeah, it does seem to be a waste to kill an animal just to make a movie.  Especially if it doesn't really serve to move the story forward, or even has any relevance to the main point of the feature.   Portraying animal slaughter, without actually harming any animals in the proccess, is something I don't see a complaint about.  ESPECIALLY if the same complaintants don't forward a complaint about the portrayal of HUMAN slaughter, as in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, or any other movie about war or warfare.

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1978?  That's too new to be considered a "classic".  Try again in another 20 years. :P

 

As has been written about this subject ad nauseam around here especially when talking about more recent fare on TCM, where should the "classic" start and end for films to be shown on TCM?

 

1968?

 

1978??

 

1988???

 

1998????

 

2008?????

 

Any ideas? Because as far as I am concerned if a movie which was released a scant 7 years ago is as well made as 1942's Casablanca, then why can't that movie be shown on TCM? I am NOT suggesting that TCM show many more recent films. All I am suggesting is that people loosen up a bit when thinking that TCM only show films from a certain period of time. TCM has always said that they show films made from every time period. There are many films made today that could qualify for inclusion for viewing on TCM.

 

Not every film mind you. Maybe a few each month. Eventually many of the films that many fans who write about here at the Message Boards will be gone forever until more money is poured into research and restorative efforts to save those films. I know many lament a lot of the same films being shown on TCM, but I can understand that TCM has only so much $$$ to spend each month on the titles they get. It is hard I am sure for the programmers here to do their jobs. But under the current economic climate imposed upon TCM by their parent, I think it could have been far worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VEGETARIAN you say!

 

With a name like COUNTESSDRACULA!  :lol:

 

Yeah, it does seem to be a waste to kill an animal just to make a movie.  Especially if it doesn't really serve to move the story forward, or even has any relevance to the main point of the feature.   Portraying animal slaughter, without actually harming any animals in the proccess, is something I don't see a complaint about.  ESPECIALLY if the same complaintants don't forward a complaint about the portrayal of HUMAN slaughter, as in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, or any other movie about war or warfare.

 

 

Sepiatone

I agree.  

 

The opening to Saving Private Ryan was extremely hard to watch;  very real.   It is such an excellent film and yet due to this realism I have only watched this film once.    I still can not believe that Shakespeare in Love won the Oscar that year.  But so goes the Oscars ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...