My first pit thread -- probably lame.

The BBQ Pit
21

And again, that’s because they’re stupid people. It is not because of the movie. If I wave around a flourescent light rod in an attempt to deflect bullets, it’s my own stupid fault, not Mark Hamill’s. If I reach into a killer whale’s blowhole, whatever happens to me is my fault, not Seinfeld’s. I do not want my entertainment censored because some people are fucking stupid. There are plenty of us who can tell reality from fiction, and we should not suffer because of them.

Much too big a brush. I watch 24 religiously. That does not mean I think hijacking planes, shooting people in the hand, torturing people, kidnapping, and terrorism are things to be done for leisure.

A great majority of what we find funny involves some kind of embarrassment or pain inflicted on someone, see the Three Stooges. While beating someone with a frying pan is abhorrent, it’s perfectly reasonable to laugh at it, knowing that it’s staged specifically for us to laugh at.

I’m sure many of what you, yourself, find funny involves some amount of pain or embarrassment to someone, even if they are fictional. Animal abuse seems to be a hot button for you (and we all have our own). Try to picture someone being offended by something you might find funny. We all have our little things that tick us off. This is one of yours, and while it’s perfectly respectable, its insulting to imply that if I find that scene funny, I’m somehow a danger to animals and/or people.

22

For Christ’s sake, I did not say it was irresponsible movie making. Tasteless and offensive movie making, yes, but YMMV. I wouldn’t dream of blaming the filmmakers for any real-life cat-freezings. I think I’m a pretty reasonable person.

23

What doesn’t “jive” about what I’ve said? (Incidentally, the word is “jibe.”)
a: I find the scene offensive.
b: Some people imitate what they see on screen, and it’s entirely possible that this scene will be re-enacted somewhere, by someone, at some time.
c: That does not mean that the filmmakers are responsible for any real life occurrences.

I see nothing illogical or inconsistent.

24

I think the problem is that you keep mentioning all this together, in the same breath. If it were I posting this, there’d be one Pit thread against the tastelessness of the joke, and one Pit thread about stupid kids who watch Beavis and Butt-Head and then set each other on fire, and the two threads wouldn’t reference each other. You keep linking them, however subtley (and possiblt unconsciously) but they are really connected very, very loosely at best, and more likely not at all.

25

I’m not trying to join in a pile-on here (and I’m sure you’re feeling like you are being piled-on here), but do something: go back and reread your OP, pretending for the moment that you didn’t write it, so you’re not in the poster’s head. Can you see why people are assuming you’re saying the filmmakers are irresponsible? It sure seems like it from your post.

But okay, I’ll take your word for it that that’s not what you’re trying to say. Then what exactly are you trying to say, if that’s not it? Simply that the gag is meant to be funny, but you don’t find it funny? If that’s the case, then this isn’t just a lame thread – it’s an incredibly lame thread. If everyone posted every time something was meant to be funny that they didn’t find funny, there wouldn’t be room in the pit for anything else.

26

Nordic, I think I understand where you’re coming from. After the live action 101 Dalmations came out, there were warnings all over the place… the TV news, online, from your local shelters, the paper, everywhere, that people shouldn’t rush out and buy them because they were so cute in the movie. That they could be problem dogs, too aggressive, hyper, etc. and a short time later, they’d end up dumped, in the pound or going to someone who might not really care for them in a way that they should be. So, I get that and I have a Dalmatian. (Not acquired until way after the movie and sequel had long come and gone.

However, I think to appeal to the sort of vermin who’d do a stunt like this, I remember some things. 1.) They usually hate, hate, hate the kind of animal it is. Which, unfortunately, there seems to be a wide amount of animosity specifically towards cats. 2.) They have to be looking for some sort of mischief, especially of the extra cruel and harmful variety, to consider something of this magnitude. 3.) This, typically, just gives them a possible way, a plan if you will, to carry out what they’ve set out to do in the first place. They would’ve come up with something else from another source, this just speeds up the process.

Last of all, stuff like this does happen, but it’s very rare. IIRC (and it’s not an urban legend), they stripped a scene from The Program where high school football players lie down on the lines, between fast moving vehicles, on a major highway. The reason for taking this out? Supposedly some idiot(s), and that’s what needs to be stressed, ended up trying it out and died. Darwin award nominee there. And although I hate to see all this too, what has to happen mostly is for it to be appealing to this mentality. Out and out funny (!), but not of the “Jackass” vein, doesn’t quite do it. Witness any of the Lampoon films. Typically, I’d think it would need to be attractive to that demographic. But I’d be most concerned about ‘serious’ sequences and the ideas those can spawn. Perhaps that’s where hoards of psychos have come up with their executions in murders and the like; way too much horror. :cool: All MHO, I hope that helps your stance, at least a little.

27

Forgot to add: my significant other plays Dungeons & Dragons, and I know perfectly well they don’t worship Satan, or torture cats.

Also, to Troy McClure SF: I do not advocate censorship of any kind, for any reason, and don’t see how anything I’ve said could be taken as such. Honestly, where are you guys getting this stuff? As an aside, I don’t think the 24 analogy is applicable. That show is not a comedy; I don’t watch it but presumably the people committing the hijacking, kidnapping, torture and terrorism are the bad guys. In the movie I’m pitting, the animal torture is committed by the protagonist and is supposed to be funny. Big difference, IMO.

Loopus: the point of my rant was just what you said – that the scene disturbs me. Again, I’m not calling for censorship, though I admit that in my version of a perfect world, such things would not be played for yuks.

28

I found it! According to the IMDb here, similar incidents did happen, with idiots attempting the same thing. Now I know that the IMDb isn’t always that reliable with its facts, but I can’t ever get the blasted search engine at snopes to work for me. Ever.

So it is out there some. But it, I would think, is rare.

29

Anamorphic, your post made me laugh – and I mean that in a good, non-snarky way. :smiley: Point taken, and I’ll be more prudent with my pits in the future.

30

Well, the second paragraph of your OP makes it pretty clear that you don’t want to see gags like this in movies.

Not always. Hell, a lot of the appeal of 24 and The Sheild and Rescue Me is that the protagonists aren’t sqeaky clean, and can be downright brutal or hateful at times.

Anyhoo, consider Harrison Ford’s somewhat famous improv in Raiders (I think). Big guy shows up, swirls a sword around menacingly, and poses, waiting for Indy to engage him. Indy takes a look at him, shrugs his shoulders, and blasts him with his pistol twenty paces away.

Brutal? Yep.

Funny? Yep.

Is Indy the protagonist? You betcha.

31

Good, I like to make people laugh! I’m glad you’re not taking this whole thing too seriously. :slight_smile:

BTW, I can’t believe I’m defending a film that looks as crappy as Christmas With the Kranks, but hey, I’ll always defend a right to try and be funny, even if it misses!

32

Hey, Tim Allen movies can be pretty damn funny sometimes! Try Big Trouble.

33

Oh, I agree; Big Trouble may not have been great, but it was pretty funny, and Tim Allen was a big part of that. I’ve got nothing against him. I wasn’t basing my prospects of the crappiness of Kranks on him, but rather the (IMO, of course) awfulness of the trailer. And not that I always trust reviews, but it’s gotten some of the worst reviews I’ve ever seen.

34

I hope Jack Bauer stops by and gives you an ass-whooping, you pansy. :stuck_out_tongue:

35

I’d be honored.

(Thirty-eight days to Season 4.)

And to Nordic- I do commend you for starting a Pit thread. God knows I don’t have the balls to do so any more. Those’re what my LJ is for. :wink: No hard feelings.

36

This movie is a vile piece of shit that deserves to be pitted but the frozen cat is the least of the reasons. The more deserving reasons are that it’s a witless exercise in the celebration of religious fascism and forced social conformity. It’s an idea that might have worked as suburban satire but the movie fails to see the stupidity of its own warped values and sympathizes with the fascists instead of the victims. Then in the end the Kranks come around and conform and decided to love Big Brother. There are massive logical problems with the story as well and it’s not remotely funny but the poor execution is overshadowed by the offensiveness of its message. This is probably the worst Christmas movie since…I don’t know…I was going to say Santa Claus Conquers the Martians but that movie is The Godfather compared to this festering pile.

Roger Ebert has a line that he uses about movies this worthless, he says they should make guitar picks out them. This movie is a waste of potential guitar picks.

By the way, does anyone live in a neighborhood or know of a neighborhood where anyone would actually give the slightest fuck if a family didn’t want to celebrate Christmas? Who even pays attention? I think the whole premise for the movie depends on assumptions about suburbia that have no basis in reality.

37

Not much to do iwth the OP, but I am disappointed in the movie just from the previews. The book (short story I think John Grisham) was hilarious. Just from the previews alone, I’m having doubts as to whether the movie can pull it off.

I am still going to see the movie.

PS, I don’t remember the cat part in the book. The “free frosty” part was too funny, it’s a shame they ruined the surprise by showing that in the previews.

38

That’s still not the same as wanting censorship.

No hard feelings toward you either, Troy.

39

Yes, it is. You’ve managed to talk yourself in circles and don’t know what to do.

Oh, and mommy, the “b” and the “v” are right next to each other. But I’ll make sure to correct you on any typos I find.

-Joe

40

And, for those wondering what the internet equivalent of a “Panties in a bunch psychotic rant” would be, simply look at the quoted section above…

-Joe