I say F U to the director of the movie "2012"

[JSt0rm]

While I'm over in the M.E., right now, fighting to end fanatic violence, too many others around the world are submitting, rolling over, sticking their legs up in the air, and letting the extremists fist them to death with fear.

The impact that such fanaticism has had on artistic expression is just plain fucking sad. Period.

2012 is PRODUCT first... then art. "artistic expression" lulz...does it look like it was made by some angst driven 20 year old? the movie was made to make $.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

2012 is PRODUCT first... then art. "artistic expression" lulz...does it look like it was made by some angst driven 20 year old? the movie was made to make $.

I'm sure the directors and writers would disagree, and rightfully so.

While making money is certainly a goal of theirs -- which is perfectly reasonable -- their "product" is first and foremost a piece of art that they've used their imaginations to create. To alter said creation, based on a perceived threat of violence by a probably "offended" third party, is fucking sad.

 

[Nebor]

Are people really mad at the director because he doesn't want to fucking die?! Don't you think this anger might be a little... misdirected?

Well we already hate muslims just about as much as we can. So now we're calling him out for being a coward.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Well we already hate muslims just about as much as we can.

Speak for yourself.

So now we're calling him out for being a coward.

What doe he have to gain from using the scene? He can still get his artistic point across without it, and the risk of being killed outweighs the benefit of that one extra scene. Get a grip, dude.

 

[JSt0rm]

I'm sure the directors and writers would disagree, and rightfully so.

While making money is certainly a goal of theirs -- which is perfectly reasonable -- their "product" is first and foremost a piece of art that they've used their imaginations to create. To alter said creation, based on a perceived threat of violence by a probably "offended" third party, is fucking sad.

you're wrong. I don't know any other way to say it. sorry.

 

[JEDIYoda]

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-roland-emmerich-fatwa.html

For "2012," Emmerich set his sites on destroying the some biggest landmarks around the world, from Rome to Rio. But there's one place that Emmerich wanted to demolish but didn't: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped structure located in the center of Mecca. It's the focus of prayers and the site of the Hajj, the biggest, most important pilgrimage in Islam.

"Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit," the filmmaker told scifiwire.com. "But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said, 'I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie.' And he was right."


What a bunch of garbage. We cannot destroy the Kaaba in a movie or the terrorists will get us. I say they should piss on it first then blow it up with a car bomb.

That`s easy for you to say.....
I bet had that been you making the movie you would also have been thinking about retaliation by your muslim bretheren!!

 

[TheSkinsFan]

you're wrong. I don't know any other way to say it. sorry.

Are you saying that it's not sad that they would base their scene decisions on a perceived threat of violent reprisal, or are you claiming that what they are doing is not art to begin with? Which is it? Both?

 

[exdeath]

Because the followers of it are apeshit nuts.All religions are complete bullshit but that one is the worse.

+ infinity

 

[Vic]

2012 = y2k

 

[Vic]

No fool I'm not.True the Fundie Christians are batshit crazy too but they at least don't fly planes into buildings or use children as homicidal bombers.

Given the same circumstances, they would.

 

[BeauJangles]

I'm sure the directors and writers would disagree, and rightfully so.

While making money is certainly a goal of theirs -- which is perfectly reasonable -- their "product" is first and foremost a piece of art that they've used their imaginations to create. To alter said creation, based on a perceived threat of violence by a probably "offended" third party, is fucking sad.

We are talking about 2012, right? In no way, shape, nor form is that movie a piece of art, unless you consider a product, like Windows 7 or a Toyota Prius, art

 

[SandEagle]

I believe Roland Emmerich is a Jewish director. I wonder why he didn't use the Wailing Wall or some sacred Jewish site? Oh that's right.. its always the Muslims..... Imagine the public outcry and non-stop 24 hour news coverage you'd see if Kirk Cameron or Mel Gibson portrayed a movie seen with the wailing wall getting blown up.

 

[dahunan]

Speak for yourself.


What doe he have to gain from using the scene? He can still get his artistic point across without it, and the risk of being killed outweighs the benefit of that one extra scene. Get a grip, dude.

BAM... wait..lol.. were you being sarcastic?

and the risk of being killed outweighs the benefit

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THAT is the problem... I wish Allah would strike dead any dumb piece of shit who calls for the death of others in the name of Islam ... talk about delusional.. How can any God/Prophet ask for his followers to murder a person for opinions or cartoons etc.. Every time I see those fuckers whining I see a target on their forehead

Just like when Nike made a shoe with a flame on the back of it that resembled some silly symbol from Islam they were threatened with violence and boycotts and all kinds of shit.. It surely cost them more than a million dollars to be butthole surfers to Muslims around the globe

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

But the anger should be directed at those threatening violence, that's what I meant when I said anger at the director is misdirected.

 

[dahunan]

But the anger should be directed at those threatening violence, that's what I meant when I said anger at the director is misdirected.

TY

It is just so strange to see them want to kill others who their God also created just for (non violent) behavior they deem offensive

 

[dwell]

The director should be shot for making the same movie over and over -- Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012. Same crap. Plus he's a pussy for cowering to Islam.

 

[Modelworks]

I'm sure the directors and writers would disagree, and rightfully so.

While making money is certainly a goal of theirs -- which is perfectly reasonable -- their "product" is first and foremost a piece of art that they've used their imaginations to create. To alter said creation, based on a perceived threat of violence by a probably "offended" third party, is fucking sad.

As one of the artist I can tell you that many did pour their heart and soul into the film. There are two kinds of artist in CG and VFX. One is in it for the money, it is just a job. The other is in it for passion, we would do it for free if need be. The first crowd will take any job , regardless of budget and just 'make something' to get paid. The second crowd are very careful about which jobs they take and will not take a job that isn't going to allow them to do their best. I am part of that second crowd, I turned down plenty of work when I was jobless that I could have gotten with the scifi channel, but knowing what they wanted, I wouldn't touch it.

I got into an argument with an artist that did the Scropion King 2. I said the effects were terrible, and they were. He replied they were that way because they didn't pay him enough to do all the work required. I argued you shouldn't take a job if you are not going to do your best, he argued that it was just money and a film. But to me that work will always be available for people to see and represent who you were as an artist and they will not care what you got paid.

On something like 2012 I think the effects will speak for themselves. Those involved are very proud of it. If the story sucks, or people don't like the acting, or want to say it was religiously motivated that is fine, because our work will stand up for itself.

 

[JSt0rm]

Are you saying that it's not sad that they would base their scene decisions on a perceived threat of violent reprisal, or are you claiming that what they are doing is not art to begin with? Which is it? Both?

They are creating art but they don't create it in a bubble like some french director who is getting funded by his government. They have test screenings and mold the product into what they think will sell. It's not wrong, that's what you do when you invest that amount of money.

 

[TruePaige]

I believe Roland Emmerich is a Jewish director. I wonder why he didn't use the Wailing Wall or some sacred Jewish site? Oh that's right.. its always the Muslims..... Imagine the public outcry and non-stop 24 hour news coverage you'd see if Kirk Cameron or Mel Gibson portrayed a movie seen with the wailing wall getting blown up.

If they used the wailing wall a bunch of nutjobs wouldn't declare a holy war/hit on their head though...

I only know of one major religion that declares holy wars and holy "hits".

 

[TheSkinsFan]

They are creating art but they don't create it in a bubble like some french director who is getting funded by his government. They have test screenings and mold the product into what they think will sell. It's not wrong, that's what you do when you invest that amount of money.

But their decision to omit the scene was not only driven by potential profits, it was also partially made based on their perceived fear of violent reprisal.

So, I actually don't know wtf your point was with the "test screenings" and money issues when my entire point was that the violent response aspect of their decision is just plain fucking sad.

 

[gingermeggs]

The movie makers have the right to destroy Mecca if they want to. He could even make a movie which only destroys Mecca.

It's wrong for any Muslims to commit violence in response if they do, and for there to be a threat of that which causes a chilling effect on the director's decision.

However, there's also a real history of violence based on US policies, and an ongoing political tension (bomb bomb bomb Iran, McCain said), where it can be a good choice to avoid fueling the passions for war against Muslims, providing a fantasy movie for the people who would want such a war, just as we frown on a movie that admiringly portrays the assassination of a sitting president that could encourage the real thing to happen.

Those who condemn the director for backing off for the wrong reason can also praise the decision being good for other reasons, not just promote 'war porn'.

A movie *could* be made for pedophiles which shows the fantasy of men having relations where the children greatly enjoy it, and include in the stories ways the men can get away with it, and it would be widely condemned as 'offensive' if not 'dangerous'. That movie is probably best not made, even though it can be.

A movie *could* be made using cartoon or special effects of a puppy being viciously tortured for hours (or the real thing filmed in some countries).

'Can be' doesn't mean 'should be'.

We have slightly different standards for some racial statements because of the real history of prejudice againdt blacks, where we might say a comment or joke about a white person is 'just humor' where about a black it's offensive. Thwre's a good reason for that.

We might do well to have a double standard for Christian and Muslims in this fantasy movie violence as well, not because of the threat of violence, which is wrong, but because Christian movie goers can watch the fantasy destruction of their own places as pure movie fantasy, while the fantasy destruction of Mecca might be more of stirring the support for violence and way in some people, and best avoided.

Would you make a movie in Israel that shows some crazy dictator coming to power who does a holocaust against pretty much everyone, including scenes clearly of Jewish communities being gassed as well as scenes for other groups, and say there should be no distinction just because of Jewish sensitivity to the real holocaust? Would it be ok to release that same movie in German, if it gets a following among neo-nazis just for the Jewish parts?

West Germany has free speech - mostly. The Nazi symbol can't be used in things there generally - because of the real history, if not the simmering neo-nazi support.

I'm not suggesting such a limitation on free speech under the law here, but I see no problem with some editorial discretion because of the real war tensions.

a movie about a pederast, who cures a pandemic of constipation in a choir group?




the nazi thing*however* was already done here in Australia, it was a big seller- rompastompa, it launched Russel Crowes career, just learn to dodge the mobile phone around him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFruWxzcYpo
skinheads
skinheads
running for their life!

 

[Inspire]

No, I don't think it's worthy of discussion. It's a fucking movie. Fuck, you people are so stupid.

Curbing free speech in art mediums for fear of violence is a historical shackle that societies have only recently been able to escape. It's important when you're concerned about art and expression.

 

[WHAMPOM]

If they used the wailing wall a bunch of nutjobs wouldn't declare a holy war/hit on their head though...

I only know of one major religion that declares holy wars and holy "hits".

That makes you completely ignorant of world history with special reference to "Christian" religion. Hundred years war, crusades, Hitler's summer camps, etc.??? How about the first religious war? Lucifer's rebellion against God??

 

[Jaskalas]

The point is simple. The decision to omit a scene from a movie is inconsequential, but the reason this decision was reached has great consequence.

While the Democrats and quite a few Republicans (GWB to name one) continue to proclaim equality and peaceful intentions among the religions, there remains only one religion that people cower in fear of amidst a spree of violence.

 

[peonyu]

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-roland-emmerich-fatwa.html

For "2012," Emmerich set his sites on destroying the some biggest landmarks around the world, from Rome to Rio. But there's one place that Emmerich wanted to demolish but didn't: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped structure located in the center of Mecca. It's the focus of prayers and the site of the Hajj, the biggest, most important pilgrimage in Islam.

"Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit," the filmmaker told scifiwire.com. "But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said, 'I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie.' And he was right."


What a bunch of garbage. We cannot destroy the Kaaba in a movie or the terrorists will get us. I say they should piss on it first then blow it up with a car bomb.

The Religion of Peace™ shall not be offended else you die. The Religion of Peace™ has spoken.

Now shutup and be good little lemmings. Also just forget that Nidal Hasan was a Muslim, he most definately did not kill people in the name of Islam! Not possible from the Religion of Peace™!