Movie scenes you find personally offensive or irritating.

[Abomination]

Ask yourself this: if it had been a circle of straight men, and one of them tells them that he's dating another guy and gets this very reaction, would it have offended you as well? If not, I'm afraid you're biased.

Yes I would. Mainly because I expect friends to respect choices other friends make. If your friendship is entirely dependent on your sexuality, then you have shitty friends. And that seemed to be what the scene implied; that gay people only hang out with other gay people for the fact that they're gay. I don't hang out with heterosexual people because I know they won't hit on me. I hang out with people because I like things about them. I think I'm fairly open about other people's sexual preferences, so seeing that scene play out pissed me off, since it just showed all her friends to be shallow jerks.

I would argue that most of the conflict in that film is caused by various people acting like shallow jerks regardless of orientation. So it doesn't exactly single out one group there.

True, but the thing is, most of the other scenes at least give the opposition a chance to show their opinion. You see how his relationship affects his work with Banky, you see how his friend at the music store offers him advice, seeing how he's had to put up with discrimination for being both gay and black. But her friends only really have that one scene before bamfing out of the movie. You don't get a chance to see where they're coming from, so they just come off as assholes without any real justification other than "fuck you for not being gay with us anymore".

I would argue that you're reading too deeply into it. A film can't possibly show a villainous character and then be expected to ensure they show a virtuous character of the exact same creed. Sometimes lesbians can be a bunch of dicks, just like any other group.

Just because a film has only one example of representatives of a particular creed doesn't mean that the film is expressing an opinion that all members of that creed embody those same traits.

 

[II2]

Considering I'm someone who sat the full run time of Vase de Noces (1974), I'm probably a poor person to ask, in the sense the question is being put forward.

I would say, though, that without being able to recall any specific or recent example off the top of my head, the stupidity the Hollywood / MPAA apparatus inflicts on creative works is appalling.

 

[BSebor3]

Considering I'm someone who sat the full run time of Vase de Noces (1974), I'm probably a poor person to ask, in the sense the question is being put forward.

I would say, though, that without being able to recall any specific or recent example off the top of my head, the stupidity the Hollywood / MPAA apparatus inflicts on creative works is appalling.

But when such a demographic's rights and their status in society differs depending on the company (there are still backwards savages who would want to murder all homosexuals) are a controversial topic, it comes off as offensive to just show them as being assholes.

 

[Squilookle]

For some reason it really gets to me in a film where something horrible is done to a child or infant- especially if done without retribution. When I saw the Witches and one of them pushed that baby in a pram towards the cliff? Instantly boycotted Roald Dahl and refused to read the book version when we had to study it in school. I only later found out that that part of the movie wasn't in the book...

I hated S.O.S. Titanic for this reason too- a baby is seen crying on the deck, ignored in a sea of running feet. HATED that so much. By contrast, both A Night to Remember and James Cameron's Titanic also had crying lost children, but both of them were picked up by someone. Sure in one case the child still died, and the other was only retrieved so the adult could be saved, but the distinction was that the child wasn't left to die alone. That was of monumental importance to me when I saw these films, and it's something I hold to this day.

I came so close to switching the new Battlestar Galactica off in the first episode because of this, as it's implied that a robot snaps the neck of a newborn in it.

That's funny, I'm at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. I despise when babies are given this "godlike" status of being far more important than other humans. They aren't. They're just smaller and more helpless. That doesn't make them special.

I never said it made them special, nor more important, or anything like that. The only distinction is that they are weak, clueless, and unable to defend themselves. To show harm being dished out to an infant is too easy, too lazy, and too far, at least for me. To try and save such a helpless creature that still has its whole life ahead of it is a noble thing to do- to destroy or harm one is cowardly. It's not like they can fight back after all.

In Troy, for example, they warn that if the Greeks take the city, babies will be thrown from the walls. They know it, we know it. In the director's cut they actually show it- they line up and dump them off the wall like some ridiculous volley. It's not hard to see why they cut that- all it does is ram down your throuat the idea of 'SEE? I TOLD YOU THEY'D DO THAT AND NOW HERE WE ARE'

I see stuff like that on the same level as showing a gratituous rape scene during an invasion. We all know that atrocities like that would happen in such an event, but storytelling wise it's far more powerful to imply it, but not show it- leaving it up to the audience to ruminate on what must have happened. If it's crucial to the plot, like a story of a peasant woman's thirst for vengeance or something like that, then it makes sense. Throwing in graphic rape and baby killing for no real reason though?

THAT has no place in my movies.

 

[Ratty]

Anything with animal cruelty or where an actor/stuntman died making the scene, which is something that's in horrible taste to leave in the final film. Aside from that I can't think of any specific scenes right now that particularly offended. (Though I'm sure there have been a few.) Probably because I've seen way, way too many movies.

I don't watch a lot of modern films which probably helps. Because of my backward looking viewing habits usually if I see something that's really racist/sexist/homophobic it's from decades ago like "Birth of a Nation" or the horribly racist 1943 Batman serial. And those mostly just make me feel curious about and sad for the people who lived when they were made.

 

[wulf3n]

And why would Paralyzed Berk be more confident than any other Naavi?

Isn't it obvious? It's because he's essentially playing a video game. There are no consequences other than whats already been set in motion. He loses nothing by trying but has the potential to gain everything.

 

[Sarge034]

This sounds like pure speculation on your part. I don't remember the movie demonstrating any of these things even once.

Much like all of your speculation. I will quote all of your speculations in the next reply should you wish to see them.

And your reason for believing this is...?

Personal experience. Marines do give off an aura of strong, self-aware, confidence. It is astonishing just how different it is between Marines, Army, and Air Force. I don't have much experience with the Navy so I'll not comment on them.

I've been around US Marines. They don't give off any different "aura" than people in any other line of work[footnote]Except for in one Osaka bar, where a bunch of them gave off an aura of blind drunken desperation... but that's a story for another time[/footnote]. But this is all irrelevant. The characters in the story are not what you want to imagine US Marines to be. The characters in the story are who they are portrayed as in the story. And no reason is given in the story for why some random white dude should be able to out-Naavi the Naavi.

First, I don't have to imagine. Second, would you want the answer spoon fed to you by the movie? The Naavi don't have "warriors" because the planet is in harmony. They have hunters. What's his face is a warrior and therefor an advanced version of a hunter. He is the ultimate predator from the Naavi so it would stand to reason that the ultimate predator of the flying things would choose him.

Feel free to walk away if you like, but I'm quite baffled as to how on Earth anyone could possibly take from that post that I'm not willing to discuss anything.

For the simple fact that you are willing to try and pick my thoughts to pieces without actually discussing any possibilities. You seem to have this notion stuck in your head that it is all about the white male power fantasy and are unwilling to discus the possibility of it not being so.

 

[Sarge034]

I see stuff like that on the same level as showing a gratituous rape scene during an invasion. We all know that atrocities like that would happen in such an event, but storytelling wise it's far more powerful to imply it, but not show it- leaving it up to the audience to ruminate on what must have happened. If it's crucial to the plot, like a story of a peasant woman's thirst for vengeance or something like that, then it makes sense. Throwing in graphic rape and baby killing for no real reason though?

THAT has no place in my movies.

I would disagree that it never has a place in movies. There is one scene in Tears of the Sun that shows a part of a rape, the result of bodily mutilation of the rape victim, and a dead baby as a result of the mutilation. And you know what? It makes the scene.

Spoiler: Graphic description. No pictures or videos.

A squad of SEALs is trekking through Africa with order not to engage unless they are engaged first. They come upon a village where soldiers are murdering, raping, torturing, just doing everything. The SEALs disregard their orders go in and save a bunch of people from various situations. The scene culminates with the squad entering a shack and interrupting a rape. Once they deal with the soldiers they turn to see that the woman's breasts were cut off so she would not be able to feed her own baby. The baby is found dead, having starved to death, and placed next to its' mother as the civilian doctor euthanizes the woman. At this point the SEALs come to care for the people instead of seeing everyone in their care as "packages".

This film was also meant to show some of the atrocities committed in Africa. And, unfortunately, shit like that does happen.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Every single scene from Sex and the City... actually both of those movies (I've never watched the tv show). Those atrocities might as well be titled: "First World Problems: The Movie". Save for the opening shots from the second, which were a pretty well-shot tourist advert for New York, those movie offend every possible group everywhere in the world.

Aside from that I can't think of that many scenes that were offensive to me. Shocking, distasteful, gross I've seen, sure. But quite rarely do I find myself really offended by a film.

I guess I could say that I found scenes in Evangelion 3.0 offensive, because it pretended to be something deep but in fact was just a badly told, paper thin story that made no sense and established nothing properly.

 

[Sandernista]

Every scene and every line of dialog in Big Bang Theory.

Every scene and every line of dialog in Freaks and Geeks.

All the scenes in American Dad that include Steve and his friends.


These things are all serious offenses against my people.

What exactly about Freaks and Geeks is offensive? I haven't watched much of the other two shows you mentioned, but I think Freaks and Geeks gives a pretty balanced portrayal of freaks and geeks.

 

[Yopaz]

For those of you who haven't seen the film, it's about a guy who develops a romantic relationship with a lesbian. There's one scene in the film where the girl is hanging out with all her lesbian friends, and she quietly brings up that she's dating the male lead. Suddenly, her friends basically turn ice cold to her, and pretty much cut her out of their circle. The scene is never brought up again save for one passing comment.

Well, in his defense it must be must be mentioned that this is a thing that does happen. There are cases where a circle of lesbian friends get upset because one of them went bi. Not saying it's common, not saying it's okay, just saying that it does happen. Not Kevin Smith's fault.

Sure, it's not representative of the lesbian community as a whole. No movie can be. But that is a thing that happens. That it's unflattering doesn't mean it's not a truthful picture of something that really happens.

I recently read that bisexuals are the ones in the LGBT community that gets the most abuse and has the highest suicide rates because they are the wrong side of both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Sadly it is a problem.

OT: Honestly I can't think of any examples, I don't really take offence that easily. I may think that some things are nasty and they make me want to stop watching, but to say it offends me would be wrong.

 

[Dragonlayer]

I guess the closest thing would be the "interogation" scene in Inglorious Basterds. It wasn't even the fact that POW's got clubbed to death by the "good guys" while everyone cheers, but peoples reaction that it was okay because they were nazis anyway. Replace the nazis with...let's say muslim terrorists and everyone goes apeshit instantly...

I consider Inglorious Basterds offensive revenge pornography as a whole and only forced myself to watch the thing, but scene in particular came the closest to making me leave the room. I shall be extremely generous and concede that perhaps Tarantino was trying to point out the disparity in outlooks on atrocities when committed by the designated "good" guys, but the depiction of the torture and execution of common German soldiers in media absolutely sickens me.

CAPTCHA: Bangers and mash.

Now that's disgusting!

 

[Dragonlayer]

The maternity ward scene in Alien Vs Predator Requiem.

It's not a huge scene or anything, but there is a part where a Pred-Alien hybrid impregnates a bunch of women on a maternity ward (via making out with them, because of reasons) and then later on we see a bunch of chest busters sticking out of these women's bellies.

Now I don't find that scene offensive of disturbing that much, but I can imagine that the only reason it was put it was to try and offend us. Script writers sat around thinking how can they make the chestbusting experience even more horrifying. Instead it's almost funny how stupid it is but also rather distasteful and sick just for the sake of it.

Urgh.

I had managed to forget that scene up till now. That whole film was a mess but that particular scene was just downright unpleasant.

 

[geK0]

I watched a neo-nazi propaganda film once and was quite thoroughly disgusted

I can't recall ever being genuinely offended by mainstream movies though.


edit:
The Hostel series. I'm usually okay with horror movies that contain some gore but there was something about the premise of those movies that really rubbed me the wrong way.

Devils rejects as well

And later instalments of SAW

What bothers me I guess is the fact that the gore in these films is the sadistic nature of them. Most horror movies play on some irrational fears and uses some sort of villain to embody those fears; these films seem to want you to enjoy seeing people being mutilated rather than offering any sort of psychological thrill.

I believe these films are referred to by many as gore porn.

edit edit:

I'm supposed to discuss specific scenes aren't I?

One scene that stood out to me in these movies I mentioned is Devil's Rejets' prolonged torture scene in the hotel where the victims are being taunted, brutalized and murdered for what seemed like over an hour.

That being said, I do have mixed feelings about Devil's Rejects. I recognize the movie's merits and Ill admit that it was well written, I just found it very difficult to enjoy.

 

[Sarge034]

If that's the case (though it must be filtered through your speculation and particular relationship with members of a certain branch of the US military), then that is offensive. "Here is a magical world different from anything humans have ever known, but this one human is by virtue of his job (which actually is the same job as thousands of other humans there with them, so we should properly say 'most of the humans') better than all of the residents of the planet." Yeah, rankly offensive.

What is so offensive about it? Perhaps the fact he is different is enough to make him appear special to the bird. But disregarding that, the humans ARE better than the residents of the planet. Without what's his face's help the natives would have been slaughtered in that final battle. They wouldn't have known how to, or had the tactics to, take down the bomber or the mechs. The movie was trying really hard to show the evils of imperialism and the sanctity of nature/native civilizations. Had the movie shown what would have really happened that mining consortium would be rolling in money after the credits rolled. Kinnda like how the North American native tribes totally fought off the US Calv... oh wait, no they didn't.

You probably shouldn't confuse the fact that I don't agree with you and I don't find your reasoning very believable with my being unwilling to discuss an issue.

Then offer counter points instead of just trying to put me on the defensive by picking apart what I say with what ammounts to, "Conjecture, Speculation, and Nu uh".

 

[Squilookle]

I see stuff like that on the same level as showing a gratituous rape scene during an invasion. We all know that atrocities like that would happen in such an event, but storytelling wise it's far more powerful to imply it, but not show it- leaving it up to the audience to ruminate on what must have happened. If it's crucial to the plot, like a story of a peasant woman's thirst for vengeance or something like that, then it makes sense. Throwing in graphic rape and baby killing for no real reason though?

THAT has no place in my movies.

I would disagree that it never has a place in movies. There is one scene in Tears of the Sun that shows a part of a rape, the result of bodily mutilation of the rape victim, and a dead baby as a result of the mutilation. And you know what? It makes the scene.

Spoiler: Graphic description. No pictures or videos.

A squad of SEALs is trekking through Africa with order not to engage unless they are engaged first. They come upon a village where soldiers are murdering, raping, torturing, just doing everything. The SEALs disregard their orders go in and save a bunch of people from various situations. The scene culminates with the squad entering a shack and interrupting a rape. Once they deal with the soldiers they turn to see that the woman's breasts were cut off so she would not be able to feed her own baby. The baby is found dead, having starved to death, and placed next to its' mother as the civilian doctor euthanizes the woman. At this point the SEALs come to care for the people instead of seeing everyone in their care as "packages".

This film was also meant to show some of the atrocities committed in Africa. And, unfortunately, shit like that does happen.

Did I not just say that when it's crucial to the plot, as your example clearly is, then it makes sense?

 

[Lieju]

Ask yourself this: if it had been a circle of straight men, and one of them tells them that he's dating another guy and gets this very reaction, would it have offended you as well? If not, I'm afraid you're biased.

Lesbians don't have a history of institutionalising their personal prejudices towards straight people. Stop acting like it's a reasonable equivalence.

Also straight people are pretty well represented in media and most people know straight people personally and would understand that if that happened in the movie it didn't mean that all straight men were like that, and they might understand why the men did it.

While lesbians are far less represented in media and while that kind of stuff happens, many people might not understand why, and how bisexuals can be treated by some homosexuals etc.

Also the attitude that gays are some weird cult who will abandon you or turn against you if you go back to straightness or try to convert you to being gay is something a lot of people have.

I'm not saying minorities shouldn't be portrayed in negative light, or anything like that, but I'm saying that portraying the majority doing the same kind of stuff isn't equivalent.