Do I get the Turtle Wax or the Rice a Roni?
SDMB:The Board Game.
The trouble with the home version of the game is that one of the players has to be the mod, and things tend to fall apart starting there.
It reminds me that nobody can seem to review any film about WW2 in the Pacific without having some bizarre rant on either racism or how the Japanese were actually the victims in all of this. Apparently a character calling them “The Japs” means you need to take a 5 minute sidebar where you talk about how offensive that word is, and then probably making some illusion about how the Japanese were actually sucked into the war by American Imperialist Aggression.
ummm thanks?
I don’t think the issue is that she found the language offensive, but rather, that she completely misses the point. Blazing Saddles is meant to be an anti-racist movie. This would be like as if she watched the movie 42, about Jackie Robinson, and exclaimed, “The N-word was used 100 times!”
that, and a 20-year-old’s ignorant opinion is sacrosanct and Must Never Be Questioned.
Allow me to be the first to formally welcome Inner Stickler to “The Internet”.
Yes, I believe that was the major criticism of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor.
Certainly. But why does she miss the point? I suspect it’s largely because the social context she’s viewing the movie from is very different from the era that produced the film. It’s the same reason why I have some problems with Revenge of the Nerds and Monster Squad.
I suspect it’s largely because it never occurred to her that there are other social contexts in other eras much less trying to understand one.
I’ve never seen Monster Squad but I have seen Revenge of the Nerds and the reason it doesn’t hold up well over time because it’s not a very good movie, not because it’s a comedy. Blazing Saddles is comparable to Duck Soup, a comedy from 1933 that not only has held up over time but has been held in higher esteem as time has gone by.
You get both. Or you can trade them for the box that Carol Merrill is bringing down the aisle.
I put RevengeOTNerds in a different category than Blazing Saddles.
ROTN should somewhat rightfully be condemned for the reasons you mentioned since they glorify the illegal/unethical actions. The heroes of the story commit these acts and the movie rewards the characters for doing so. We are supposed to cheer them on.
Blazing Saddles on the other hand makes a point to have the unethical/racist/misogynist actions be committed by those we are to root against. They are portrayed as being ignorant, untaught, unlawful folks.
You’re supposed to view the movie through the eyes of the protagonist, Sheriff Bart, see all the racism,crime,idiocy,misogyny committed by the people around him and either laugh at them, ridicule them, roll your eyes at them, or exploit their stupidity.
“Oh Baby, You Are So Talented, And They Are So Dumb”. "You’ve got to remember that these are… You know… morons.
Reminds me of a podcast I once heard that featured a group of women revisiting '70s and '80s movies. One episode was devoted to “9 to 5” (the Dolly Parton movie).
The group’s final verdict was that “9 to 5” was a potentially great movie but it was ruined by the ending. Specifically, the silly pre-credit end titles about each character’s fate, which said that Dabney Coleman’s character got transferred to the Amazon office and ended up eaten by cannibals.
That one “cannibal” joke was racist enough that it soured the entire movie for them (one of the podcast group also happened to be from South America and went on to explain how stupid the joke was). I didn’t know what to think - I guess they had a point but I would have never noticed that joke if they hadn’t pointed it out.
They were fine with women kidnapping a man, but saying a man got eaten by cannibals was the problem? 
Yeah, I don’t recall that the kidnapping plot fazed them. But they did get uncomfortable with the scenes when Dolly Parton talks down to the guy in sexual terms to let him know what it feels like.
Right: There’s a big difference between what a movie’s (or book’s or TV show’s) characters say or do, and what attitude the movie takes toward them saying or doing those things.
Revenge of the Nerds came out in an era of college/teen sex comedies (Animal House, Porky’s, etc.), many of which haven’t aged well, and used some of the same tropes. (I’m not real familiar with that genre, but I’m pretty sure RotN is far from the worst of them.) I have a soft spot for Revenge of the Nerds, in spite of the problematic sex elements. It’s the first bit of popular culture I can remember that centered on nerds as protagonists, underdogs who ultimately triumphed through their nerddom.
Cool, a thread circle jerk about how kids these days are all stupid snowflakes. Whose turn is it to scour the web for a new example next week?
The movie actually states Hart was abducted in the Brazilian jungle and never heard from again. No cannibals were mentioned.
Interesting - I guess the movie may imply cannibals to some viewers (I see this website got that impression as well). Anyway, it was that end title about the jungle abduction that the podcast took issue with.
Probably should be much easier to find than a thread laughing at overly-dramatic WOKE kids where people don’t show up all huffy and defensive of them.