James Bond: The Ultimate Collection (1962-2012) + Volume Collections

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by koberulz

I actually did go in and switch off MUBI's content warnings after one of them spoiled a film, so it does happen.

Yeah, I've seen a few such warnings and my reaction was "We're going to see all that? Dis gonna be good!"

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

I think everyone and everything should be mocked nowadays so we all start out evenly and stop getting our feelings hurt so much. I would rather we all have thick skins than too thin cuz when it comes to the latter, there ain't never any solutions that are acceptable. Discriminate against everyone equally and we will finally have peace on Earth.

That's some you're intolerant of my intolerance thinking right there.

[Gacivory]

I just don’t read the warnings. I don’t need them, so I don’t pay attention and their existence doesn’t offend me.

[scififan73]

Censorship has no place in art.

I'd argue that the movies that have real staying power, such as the early Bonds, should be thought of as art.
There is no guarantee that art should not offend, but it should provoke thought and debate.

[Mikezilla3k]

Originally Posted by bergman864

I don't know. I hear more people complaining about the trigger warnings than people complaining about the actual content that's being warned.

I think those people should be mocked.

Honestly, yeah. I don't care about trigger warnings much and just brush them aside when come on. They're just like the FBI warnings at the beginning of discs.

I don't immediately go online whining and doomsaying about "thought police coming to get me" because six seconds of empty space is added before the film.

And even if one goes "I know about this already get on with it" then why are you even complaining about it? Sounds like it should just be stating the obvious to you then.

[mclellandj]

Content warnings are neither censorship nor a violation of Freedom of Speech.

[jess1581]

Content warnings.... Ugh, so awful.

Anyway...



Give her another smack bottom to grow on, yeah!

[scififan73]

Originally Posted by mclellandj

Content warnings are neither censorship nor a violation of Freedom of Speech.

No, they are not.

But, like government warnings on a pack of cigarettes, they are meant to raise concern about the (supposed in film's case) dangerous potential consequences of consuming the contents within.

A little too close to a nanny state for my liking. Preferable for sure to outright censorship, but the preferred option over all is not to have them at all.

In my day, viewers could decide for themselves if the content was objectionable, without a pre- screen by "sensitivity" viewers.

[Doomhunter]

Content warnings are intended to tell citizens what they should think instead of letting them decide for themselves.

[Member-839946]

The dirty little secret of content warnings is that they aren't there to warn about content.

They're there to let you know what you should think, Citizen, and that this particular film doesn't align with The World We Live In Today. Should you -really- be watching it? Go ahead, for now, but just know that it's problematic and that we're (probably, eventually almost certainly) watching you watch it.

[Trekkie313]

You all have amnesia, content warnings have existed since the 80s especially regarding television and Parental Advisory Stickers. In the case of the latter it actually helped artists. This isn't some Comics Code Authority or BBFC demanding edits.

[Member-839946]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

You all have amnesia, content warnings have existed since the 80s especially regarding television and Parental Advisory Stickers. In the case of the latter it actually helped artists. This isn't some Comics Code Authority or BBFC demanding edits.

I grew up in the 70's and 80's. All I remember is the "Contains violence and sexual content. Viewer discretion is advised." stuff.

Fast forward to the modern era, where a company (no standard for this like you cited, mind you, a company just took it on themselves to do this) decides that what I'm about to watch is "wrong". The movie has "harmful impact" (to others, presumably, since I just paid the company that's currently lecturing me to watch it). The not-so-subtle implication here is that if don't also think this is "wrong" and "harmful", I'm a bad person.

This isn't a question of degree, this isn't the same-ole-same-ole. This is attempting to shape public opinion about content to align with a certain ideology.

So, yeah, warnings about blood spraying head cutting arm losing zombies? Thanks. I'll get the kids to bed. Telling me that what I'm about to see is "wrong" and "harmful" according to an arbitrary set of principles a company made up? Heh. No. Inapprop. Get your ideology out of my saturday night fun time.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Doomhunter

Content warnings are intended to tell citizens what they should think instead of letting them decide for themselves.

Originally Posted by ReedSolomon

The dirty little secret of content warnings is that they aren't there to warn about content.

I think at this point it's reasonable to assume that certain people require trigger warnings advising them that a film they are about to watch is going to contain a trigger warning

[RegressiveScan]

Originally Posted by scififan73

In my day, viewers could decide for themselves if the content was objectionable, without a pre- screen by "sensitivity" viewers.

You still can decide for yourself. Obviously.

Originally Posted by Doomhunter

Content warnings are intended to tell citizens what they should think instead of letting them decide for themselves.

No. Exactly wrong. The whole point is to HELP people decide for themselves. By providing more information and context than they otherwise would have.

Originally Posted by ReedSolomon

The dirty little secret of content warnings is that they aren't there to warn about content.

They're there to let you know what you should think…

Nope. Absurd. You have to invent imaginary scenarios to make these innocuous on-screen blurbs into something nefarious.

Originally Posted by ReedSolomon

This isn't a question of degree, this isn't the same-ole-same-ole. This is attempting to shape public opinion about content to align with a certain ideology.

Gibberish.

Fact is, we currently live in a golden age of freedom of speech (for better or worse). The idea that there’s less freedom to express yourself, or to consume whatever the heck you want, now as compared to any time in previous decades, is prima facie nonsense.

[Thomas Veil]

Rather they do warnings than banning or burning. It's only a thing if your easily triggered.

[Member-839946]

Originally Posted by RegressiveScan

Gibberish.

Protip: Stuff like this sounds -much- better in your "internal voice" than when put to print or (*shudder*) said out loud.

As to the rest of your argument, well.. I quoted the best of part of it. Rage on, brave warrior. Rage on.

[Mikezilla3k]

Originally Posted by ReedSolomon

The dirty little secret of content warnings is that they aren't there to warn about content.

They're there to let you know what you should think, Citizen, and that this particular film doesn't align with The World We Live In Today. Should you -really- be watching it? Go ahead, for now, but just know that it's problematic and that we're (probably, eventually almost certainly) watching you watch it.

And are these "what one should think" in the room with us right now?



(though it's always a good heads up that if someone has an avatar from "adult cartoons" like South Park and Rick/Morty, then their takes are going to be complete banal)

[stvn1974]

So am I the only alcoholic with lung cancer and syphilis because of the Bond films that posts here?

[Mose Harper]

Originally Posted by Thomas Veil

Rather they do warnings than banning or burning. It's only a thing if your easily triggered.

Ironically, in my experience, it's the people who complain loudest about trigger warnings who are the people most enthusiastic to vote into office lawmakers who will outright censor, ban, burn or put into law prohibitions on anything that makes them squeamish or uncomfortable.
For the sanctity of the children, of course.
...yet those same children are also adult enough to be exploited as cheap labor.

This year is going to give me an aneurysm.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by scififan73

But, like government warnings on a pack of cigarettes, they are meant to raise concern about the (supposed in film's case) dangerous potential consequences of consuming the contents within.

Nope.

A little too close to a nanny state for my liking.

It's not the state. That's kind of a key thing here. It's private actors, acting privately, in their private capacity as private actors.

Originally Posted by Doomhunter

Content warnings are intended to tell citizens what they should think instead of letting them decide for themselves.

Nope.

Originally Posted by ReedSolomon

The dirty little secret of content warnings is that they aren't there to warn about content.

They're there to let you know what you should think

Nope.



The original point of content warnings was to help people with PTSD and other serious psychological issues. If you've been the victim of a sexual assault, seeing a sexual assault can trigger flashbacks and panic attacks. Such people may like to avoid such content.

These days, they've expanded to the point of uselessness, but they're not supposed to influence thought about the content, they're supposed to influence thought about the people presenting the content. It's partly a PR bulwark against over-the-top protesters, part virtue-signalling.

It's meaningless and can be ignored, if you're not one of the people who requires the aid of the actual genuine trigger warnings.