On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:17:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> My point though is, that may be the "percieved" message to some people,
> not what is at all intended. 

That's the problem in a lot of cases - it's not intended, it's not 
thought about at all, though it should be.

> As with Warps example of the deaf kid, you
> can get people who just flat out can't see past their own position on a
> matter, and presume that there is a message that isn't there. 

Most people can't see past their own position.  Or are unwilling to, 
because removing yourself from your own frame of reference requires 
effort and a willingness to say "I might be wrong about this".  People 
are generally stubborn about things like this and reject a view that 
isn't their own because it isn't their own - and we all know that our own 
views are the only thing that matters, right?

> Mind, I
> still haven't seen it yet, so can't say for sure, but neither have the
> people **making** the claim. As such I am highly skeptical that this is
> an accurate portrayal of what the film intends, never mind does,
> suggest, except in the minds of someone over sensitive of the issue. It
> sounds too much like the ridiculous gibberish you got from the barely
> recognizable adaption of "The Golden Compass", by just about everyone
> with some sort of imaginary chip on their shoulder, none of whom had
> read the book, and all of whom thought they could pronounce about the
> content of a movie that wasn't even showing in theaters yet, based on
> what they *imagined* the book said, sight unseen.

Well, yeah, that's also why I'm reserving judgment, because you can't 
base an opinion about a film on what's in a 3-minute trailer.

Jim

Post a reply to this message