Movie scenes you find personally offensive or irritating.

[putowtin]

Not one particular movie, but any film or tv show where the lead male has to "pretend" to be gay, so out come the bright clothes and OTT Liberace impressions: here's the first example that springs to mind

 

[Rastrelly]

90% of Russians in American movies. They're either unshaved druncards, or bandits, or evil remnants of evil empire. Also: gibberish instead of foreign texts.

 

[Megalodon]

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.

But they were slaughtered, the natives took down neither the mechs or the shuttle in the battle. The best they did was taking down some of the gunships because the pilots replaced their cockpit canopies with window glass. Without the bullshit nature zerg rush, the humans would have bombed the tree and won. So really the way Jake was special was not having the same reverence for the world spirit as the natives and directly poking it for help.

 

[GundamSentinel]

Star Wars prequels? Nah, I kid, I didn't really mind them that much. I personally thought Indiana Jones IV was worse, not to mention what George Lucas did with the original movies, ugh.

But really, I'm not easily offended. Some movies can be incredibad on a fundamental level (Michael Bay, much?), portray people, cultures or serious issues in questionable ways, but that doesn't really offend me. Irritate me, yes. Often on a 'how can people be this stupid'-level.

 

[Aramis Night]

The ending of The Matrix. Don't get me wrong, i loved the movie on the whole. But this scene just ruined it.

At no point before, during, or after this scene does it make any sense for Trinity to establish herself as a being capable of resurrecting others in the real world. Yet here we have a "you can't die, because i love you" scene and its just offensively trite. I didn't have to wait for the 2nd or 3rd movie to ruin the series for me. All it took was this. What a waste of such a great science fiction concept. And they had to kill it in the crib.

 

[SanguiniusMagnificum]

90% of Russians in American movies. They're either unshaved druncards, or bandits, or evil remnants of evil empire. Also: gibberish instead of foreign texts.

But.. but 90% of us ARE unshaved druncards that occasionally resort to banditry because we're remnants of an evil empire.


The other 50% sit on the DUMA.

 

[Acton Hank]

The only movie that I remember seriously offending me was Juno.

I despised the main character, I wanted to strangle her using the wire from her retarded hamburger phone.

Fuck her,
Fuck her casual attitude towards pregnancy,
Fuck her parents stupid reaction when they hear that she's pregnant
Fuck Diablo Cody for writing the movie,
Fuck Jason Reitman for directing it,
Fuck the Academy Awards for giving it Oscars,
AND FUCK EVERY SINGLE SONG USED IN THE SOUNDTRACK OF THIS PIECE OF SHIT MOVIE,
FUCK THIS MOVIE!!!!

Sorry, I don't know what came over me...

Seriously, it baffles me that people find this movie charming, it is beyond me.

 

[Rastrelly]

90% of Russians in American movies. They're either unshaved druncards, or bandits, or evil remnants of evil empire. Also: gibberish instead of foreign texts.

But.. but 90% of us ARE unshaved druncards that occasionally resort to banditry because we're remnants of an evil empire.


The other 50% sit on the DUMA.

Well, yes. Me personally - today I drank three bottles of vodka with my pet bear Borya, who was playing on balalayka for me and my family.

 

[JimB]

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.

When I was a kid, there was a term that I don't know gets used much these days. LUG: Lesbian Until Graduation. There is, or at least was, a prejudice in the lesbian community that some women lacked the commitment to be lesbians and would give in to social pressure to find a man to settle down with rather than endure the hardships of being gay. The lesbian community also had some problems with bisexual women for reasons I've never understood; my best guess is that they think bisexual people are just lesbians who refuse to be honest about their sexuality, or else are straight women who are slutty enough to want the thrill of sex with women. I haven't heard of a lesbian problem with bisexual women in a while, though, so I don't know if that's still true or if they've overcome that.

I'll try to think of my own contribution to the thread later.

 

[Ratty]

You'd be surprised by how much hate and infighting exists within the LGBT community. There's actually a significant portion of gays and lesbians that actively hate bisexuals and transgenders.

When I was a kid, there was a term that I don't know gets used much these days. LUG: Lesbian Until Graduation. There is, or at least was, a prejudice in the lesbian community that some women lacked the commitment to be lesbians and would give in to social pressure to find a man to settle down with rather than endure the hardships of being gay. The lesbian community also had some problems with bisexual women for reasons I've never understood; my best guess is that they think bisexual people are just lesbians who refuse to be honest about their sexuality, or else are straight women who are slutty enough to want the thrill of sex with women. I haven't heard of a lesbian problem with bisexual women in a while, though, so I don't know if that's still true or if they've overcome that.

As a bisexual who loves a trans person I unfortunately have to confirm this shit. There are a lot of gays and lesbians who think anyone closer to the middle of the Kinsey scale is just lying or a slut. What's worse there are a whole load of feminists (many of whom are misandrist lesbians) who deny that trans people even exist, because it conflicts with their personal conception of what gender is.
To the point that they get extremely mad at and abusive towards trans people. Here's just a few examples from a quick google search- http://www.shakesville.com/2013/07/transphobia-in-academy-feminist-edition.html http://www.autostraddle.com/anti-trans-radical-feminists-team-up-with-conservatives-to-harass-colorado-trans-teen-201433/

You'll notice that the "B" and "T" come at the end, that's because the L and G populations are larger, but also because they're more established in academia. So as that first article points out don't be surprised if you find transphobia hidden in the jargon of the ivory tower.

 

[Vegosiux]

The "Trinity dies" scene in Matrix: Revolutions. Honestly, the general mood in the theater during that scene was "Oh, just die already and let's get on with it, for fucks sake!"

 

[Stu35]

The inclusion of the female captain of the Guard, and Legolas in The Hobbitesolation of Smaug. Furthermore, the "kinda-sorta flirty-romance" between said Elf-slag (as she shall now be known) and Kili.

She's there because there aren't any female characters in the Hobbit. I get that. Unforuntately, she is literally shoe-horned the fuck in to try and fill a demographic. This irritates me.


In the Fellowship of the Ring (film), I understood them putting Arwen in there and making her fairly useful (sadly cutting Glorfindel from the whole thing) for the same reason, and I could tolerate it, because it didn't really detract from anything, and I accept that we live in a world now where you can't NOT have some kind of "badass" female in a film.


In this Hobbit though? It made me want to punch Peter Jackson in the throat. It's bad enough he's milking the shit out of a book that could've been done well in a single film, but if I'm going to have to put up with him pulling characters out of his arse to check a certain box, then I'm going to have to write an angry post on a forum...

Like this one.

 

[Sensko]

Movie adaption messing up their source material.
Though it has to be pretty blatant or outrageously to rustle myy jimmies:
Heimdall being black: Meh, who cares, it's scifi Norse and Alba did a great job.
The Last Airbender moive: RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!

 

[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.

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.

..? Not quite following you.

What I mean is that I find the thought processes that drive the decisions to, say, split the Hobbit into 3 movies to ensure 3 paydays is more offensive to me than any debased depictions of people that can (and will) be judged in the court of public opinion. Indefinitely, it seems, on the internet.

 

[Sarge034]

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

Well you see that is the interesting part and why I left this bit of info out. It was not crucial to the plot. There were plenty of other scenes that showed the character development of the SEALs and the realization that their "luggage" or "packages" were in fact living, feeling, people. This scene was meant to be the "Look here. See? They really did change!" point in that arc. However, a scene later in the movie demonstrated this particularly well and a scene earlier in the movie proved it just as well.

So the question I have for you becomes, "If the graphic content is not absolutely crucial to the story, or story development, but still adds something to the story would you allow it?"

I do, in every post. I however choose not to just make up stuff that doesn't exist in the movie, because I judge movies by what is presented on screen, not what I want to have been presented in my head. Now perhaps we can drop the meta-discussion and get back to talking about movies?

I decided to answer this backwards because I want you to read you reply in this order.

That's what's offensive about it. That in a story ostensibly about looking past race and seeing the "humanity" in your enemy, the ultimate message is, "All that aside, we're still better."

So if you, "... choose not to just make up stuff that doesn't exist in the movie, because I judge movies by what is presented on screen, not what I want to have been presented in my head." please show me where in the movie that message is explicitly stated. Or are you using your intuition to come to that conclusion?

Frankly, I see the movie as "Pocahontas" in space. It is about the evils of imperialistic expansion, corporate greed winning out over environmental protection, and subjection of a less technologically advanced but "better" (nicer, peaceful, ect) culture.

One last thing. How can you possibly find offense in a technologically advanced race being better at war than the natives? They don't have to worry about collateral damage or "hearts and minds" so the humans have every advantage. Imagine if the US decided we were done trying to be the "nice guys" improving the living standards of the locals while running a counter insurgency. We would win in as little as 10 minutes after the order was given depending how open we were to the prospect of killing our own troops as well. A nuke or two would wipe out all resistance and Al Qaeda in Iraq/Afghanistan would be confirmed destroyed. The US would start THE world war by taking those actions, but the space marines would face no such consequences for their "slash and burn" mentality. I will admit that the word "better" is far too vauge, and I will concede that from what we are shown each race does things "better" than the other. I was implying that the space marines were "better" at war and that the only chance the navies had was to utilize what's his face's understanding of enemy tech and tactics. Space marines still should have won though.

But they were slaughtered, the natives took down neither the mechs or the shuttle in the battle. The best they did was taking down some of the gunships because the pilots replaced their cockpit canopies with window glass. Without the bullshit nature zerg rush, the humans would have bombed the tree and won. So really the way Jake was special was not having the same reverence for the world spirit as the natives and directly poking it for help.

If you remember, wait... His name is Jake? YAY, I can stop referring to him as "what's his face" because I was too lazy to care.

Anyway back to what I was saying, Jake staged the air battle at the floating islands place because the magnetic field (?) messed up the sensors on the aircraft. This is something the natives didn't and otherwise couldn't know. That allowed the force to lie in wait without being spotted miles away and being intercepted by the gunships. This, in turn, allowed him to board the shuttle and destroy it using a grenade or a grenade belt (I can't remember which), but regardless he used human tech because the arrows and spears were doing fuck all to the aircraft. Again, tech the natives would not have known how to use without a human's help.

Your last sentence it the really interesting part. Is he "better" or "worse" than the Na'vi for disrespecting their customs and doing what needed to be done to survive? Implementing a very human mindset so solve the problem. Now this gem is ripe for philosophical discussion.

 

[Avaholic03]

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.

Fair enough. By why stop there? Isn't most violence in movies is fairly gratuitous? So why draw the line at infants? Isn't it just as abhorrent to see some "hero" brutally slice open generic henchman #1346 in graphic detail? Are those random people standing in front of the "hero" really any better able to defend themselves than an infant?

 

[Random Argument Man]

Pretty much the entire movie of Wedding Crashers is sexist towards men and women. Rape is played for lulz since it's a guy getting raped. That, and the guys pretty much treat every woman like crap.

Then again, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandardRapeFemaleOnMale

 

[Someone Depressing]

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.

You'd be surprised by how much hate and infighting exists within the LGBT community. There's actually a significant portion of gays and lesbians that actively hate bisexuals and transgenders.

Sadly true. It usually stems from the "you are or you aren't" attitude, which causes many people - straight or gay - to come to the very false and prejudice conclusion that bisexuality doesn't exist.

 

[Terminal Blue]

You'll notice that the "B" and "T" come at the end, that's because the L and G populations are larger, but also because they're more established in academia.

From a male-centric perspective, yeah. Gay men tend to be the most numerous, visible and socially dominant group under the LGBT (or Q) banner.

But with women, there's actually an enormous body of women who identify as bisexual, and relatively few who identify as lesbian. Lesbians tend to be an enormous minority in any LGBT event, and are often explicitly represented by gay men (which raises all kinds of issues, because gay and lesbian identities are often very different). The reason this often isn't obvious is that women who identify as bisexual tend to have less commitment to an explicit identity than any other sexual minority.

Honestly, from my experience there's just as much homophobia and anti-intellectualism among trans people as there is transphobia in academia. That said, my sub-discipline of gender studies was pretty much founded (at least in its modern form) by a transwoman. There are far more openly trans folks in academia getting published nowadays than there are TERFs.

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.

Yeah, he still chose to represent it like that though. I mean, I think the OP raises a good point. Why did that scene actually need to be there at all? What did it do? What did it show?

I mean, we already have this stereotype that lesbians are brittle, insular and hostile (a stereotype which I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest is primarily derived from how they appear to men who want to fuck them), so why go there?