Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Joey wrote:It is an aboration of the English language and should not be read by anyone.
I hate it.
you do realize that this aberration of English, as you call it, was done on purpose, right? He basically created his own dialect of slang speak for the book (and by proxy, the movie).
As to you hating it, I can't comment, because to each his own.
Joey wrote:It is an aboration of the English language and should not be read by anyone.
I hate it.
you do realize that this aberration of English, as you call it, was done on purpose, right? He basically created his own dialect of slang speak for the book (and by proxy, the movie).
As to you hating it, I can't comment, because to each his own.
I know.
But if people are going to go around making up language as they go along we may as well go back to flinging gak at each other in trees.
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
He didn't make up a language as much as the slang used by youth. If someone from even 50 years ago heard you talking with your friends they would think you sounded just as terrible. Probably wouldn't even have to go that far.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Ahtman wrote:He didn't make up a language as much as the slang used by youth. If someone from even 50 years ago heard you talking with your friends they would think you sounded just as terrible. Probably wouldn't even have to go that far.
Right but his language doesn't sound like that. There is an internal structure to slang, the sounds resonate with each other in a subtle but perceptable way. The language that he uses seems like he's just pulled a random sound out of his head. I seem to recall the vowels, in particular, were very strange.
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
Ahtman wrote:He didn't make up a language as much as the slang used by youth. If someone from even 50 years ago heard you talking with your friends they would think you sounded just as terrible. Probably wouldn't even have to go that far.
Right but his language doesn't sound like that. There is an internal structure to slang, the sounds resonate with each other in a subtle but perceptable way. The language that he uses seems like he's just pulled a random sound out of his head. I seem to recall the vowels, in particular, were very strange.
They didn't think they sounded strange, much as you probably don't think you do either, but dollars to donuts to someone outside your time and in-group, you sound like you learned English by being hit in the head with a cricket stick repeatedly. In thirty years someone your age now will think we all sounded like idiots and that our language didn't resonate in a subtle and perceptible way.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Ahtman wrote:
They didn't think they sounded strange, much as you probably don't think you do either, but dollars to donuts to someone outside your time and in-group, you sound like you learned English by being hit in the head with a cricket stick repeatedly. In thirty years someone your age now will think we all sounded like idiots and that our language didn't resonate in a subtle and perceptible way.
I think that what makes C.O. work so well is that the "slang" that he uses in the book is so far removed from any known slang used in the English language that it "resonates" with us regardless of time period it is being read.
Ahtman wrote:
They didn't think they sounded strange, much as you probably don't think you do either, but dollars to donuts to someone outside your time and in-group, you sound like you learned English by being hit in the head with a cricket stick repeatedly. In thirty years someone your age now will think we all sounded like idiots and that our language didn't resonate in a subtle and perceptible way.
I think that what makes C.O. work so well is that the "slang" that he uses in the book is so far removed from any known slang used in the English language that it "resonates" with us regardless of time period it is being read.
While I didn't say that (mis-attributed quote) I agree. If it sounded to close to a specific time period it would be dated, as it is, it doesn't fit into any specific place and time. Whether read 30 years ago or yesterday it always seems just slightly alien and out of our time.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Ahtman wrote:
They didn't think they sounded strange, much as you probably don't think you do either, but dollars to donuts to someone outside your time and in-group, you sound like you learned English by being hit in the head with a cricket stick repeatedly. In thirty years someone your age now will think we all sounded like idiots and that our language didn't resonate in a subtle and perceptible way.
I think that what makes C.O. work so well is that the "slang" that he uses in the book is so far removed from any known slang used in the English language that it "resonates" with us regardless of time period it is being read.
No, it's post-modernism at its most brutal and uncompromising. There is no relation between that language and our own. It doesn't skirt around the edges of Christendom as The Lord of the Rings does, it's him just MAKING UP WORDS.
I can do that, look. My blords and I hucked down the fonnotane. See; abstract, easy, pointless, cruel.
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
Ahtman wrote:
They didn't think they sounded strange, much as you probably don't think you do either, but dollars to donuts to someone outside your time and in-group, you sound like you learned English by being hit in the head with a cricket stick repeatedly. In thirty years someone your age now will think we all sounded like idiots and that our language didn't resonate in a subtle and perceptible way.
I think that what makes C.O. work so well is that the "slang" that he uses in the book is so far removed from any known slang used in the English language that it "resonates" with us regardless of time period it is being read.
No, it's post-modernism at its most brutal and uncompromising. There is no relation between that language and our own. It doesn't skirt around the edges of Christendom as The Lord of the Rings does, it's him just MAKING UP WORDS.
I can do that, look. My blords and I hucked down the fonnotane. See; abstract, easy, pointless, cruel.
You can just keep all of that blord-hucking to yourself. This is a family forum.
The novel was written in 1962 when the possibility of a red Europe was a very real threat. It wasn't beyond the realms of imagination to suggest that a 'future' England could be populated by people speaking a Ruso-English pidgin.
Amaya wrote:I watched about 30 minutes of it a few years ago.
One of the few movies I didn't finish. Tasteless.
I'm sure the book is actually good though.
Someone who doesn't "get it."
I love how disliking something automatically means you don't understand it, but please go ahead and believe that move is incredibly complex and only the intellectual elite can begin to fathom its meaning.
I love how disliking something automatically means you don't understand it, but please go ahead and believe that move is incredibly complex and only the intellectual elite can begin to fathom its meaning.
I, too, experience the first 30% of things and are immediately able to understand their full depth. I talk to you more about your experiences, but it would be unnecessary at this point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/25 05:30:32
Amaya wrote:I watched about 30 minutes of it a few years ago.
One of the few movies I didn't finish. Tasteless.
I'm sure the book is actually good though.
Someone who doesn't "get it."
I love how disliking something automatically means you don't understand it, but please go ahead and believe that move is incredibly complex and only the intellectual elite can begin to fathom its meaning.
Considering that you don't even know what the movie's about, I'd say that my assumption is more than fair.
The amount of arrogance in this thread is simply astounding.
You probably don't even understand what the book is about.
Suffice to say even the author regrets writing it because it is widely misinterpreted.
Of course, one can not have a different opinion than you without being an idiot.
Simply having a message does not justify tasteless violence and sexual depravity, but I doubt you have the moral compass to understand that.
I despise misogyny in all forms and stopped the film with the infamous "Singing in the Rain" scene and implied rape.
Whether or not you appreciate the film is completely irrelevant to me. The fact that you are arrogant to the point of dismissing and insulting anyone who objects to the film simply because that have no desire to watch the abuse of human beings is simply astounding.
Did I state that it was a bad film? No, I simply said I found it tasteless and had no desire to finish watching it. I know it may be difficult to comprehend, but not everyone likes and appreciates the same things you may enjoy. Insulting people over a difference of opinion does little more than show your own prejudice and ignorance.
Amaya wrote:The amount of arrogance in this thread is simply astounding.
You probably don't even understand what the book is about.
Suffice to say even the author regrets writing it because it is widely misinterpreted.
Of course, one can not have a different opinion than you without being an idiot.
Simply having a message does not justify tasteless violence and sexual depravity, but I doubt you have the moral compass to understand that.
I despise misogyny in all forms and stopped the film with the infamous "Singing in the Rain" scene and implied rape.
Whether or not you appreciate the film is completely irrelevant to me. The fact that you are arrogant to the point of dismissing and insulting anyone who objects to the film simply because that have no desire to watch the abuse of human beings is simply astounding.
Did I state that it was a bad film? No, I simply said I found it tasteless and had no desire to finish watching it. I know it may be difficult to comprehend, but not everyone likes and appreciates the same things you may enjoy. Insulting people over a difference of opinion does little more than show your own prejudice and ignorance.
Have a good day.
Is it not a bit arrogant to suggest someone lacks morals? Or is that just 'rude'?
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio
Amaya wrote:The amount of arrogance in this thread is simply astounding.
You probably don't even understand what the book is about.
Suffice to say even the author regrets writing it because it is widely misinterpreted.
Of course, one can not have a different opinion than you without being an idiot.
Simply having a message does not justify tasteless violence and sexual depravity, but I doubt you have the moral compass to understand that.
I despise misogyny in all forms and stopped the film with the infamous "Singing in the Rain" scene and implied rape.
Whether or not you appreciate the film is completely irrelevant to me. The fact that you are arrogant to the point of dismissing and insulting anyone who objects to the film simply because that have no desire to watch the abuse of human beings is simply astounding.
Did I state that it was a bad film? No, I simply said I found it tasteless and had no desire to finish watching it. I know it may be difficult to comprehend, but not everyone likes and appreciates the same things you may enjoy. Insulting people over a difference of opinion does little more than show your own prejudice and ignorance.
Have a good day.
You would do well to avoid the following, as well:
The Watchmen
The Fountainhead
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
The Sleeping Dragon
Straw Dogs
The General's Daughter
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
8mm
Boogy Nights
The Cell
The Crow
Dead man Walking
Devils Advocate
Hollow Man
Cryptonomicon
...Those are about all I can think of off the top of my head. Alternatively, perhaps you could not be so close-minded as to think that anyone who views or (God-forbid!) ENJOYS media that happens to contain rape actually endorses the act of rape. It's there to prove a point. It's a pretty vile thing to do; possibly one of the most vile things one could do. It exists in media BECAUSE people have moral compasses, not in spite of it. It is supposed to horrify. It's like the 'wet nurse' sclupt that people hate so much. I would imagine every fiber of your morally self-righteous self simply quakes with rage at the sight of that thing. It is disturbing and you despise it. That's the point.
You weren't accused of not getting it because you didn't like it. You were accused of not getting it because you turned away the moment you got slightly uncomfortable.
In fairness, in many of the movies you named, the rape is done by a bad guy, or at least the perp suffers consequences.
In Clockwork Orange, the (anti)hero is the rapist and it is made to seem cool, and at least in the movie the (anti)hero "wins" because he overcomes conditioning meant to stop future rapes and acts of senseless violence.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Please continue to spew such idiocy. I find it very amusing that you twist my words and continue under the presumption that I fail to understand the book's message.
@Fafnir, I'm sure you though that was cute. Pitiful response.
@ArbeitsSchu. Neither, If people fail to comprehend that I don't like it simply because I don't enjoy watching a film about people abusing people senselessly by a wildly overrated director then they surely lack morality. Not because they like the film, I really don't care, but because they insult anyone who disagrees with them and suggests that violence in the film is tasteless. Once again, I must be an idiot simply because I disagree with you.
@Daedalus, allow me to quote myself for you.
"I watched about 30 minutes of it a few years ago.
One of the few movies I didn't finish. Tasteless.
I'm sure the book is actually good though."
Is this opinion judgmental of people who like the film? No. If you are insulted by the fact I dislike something that you enjoy you have serious problems.
Fafnir proceeded to insult me by saying I did not get it.
I replied:
"I love how disliking something automatically means you don't understand it, but please go ahead and believe that move is incredibly complex and only the intellectual elite can begin to fathom its meaning."
Again, where have I made a judgment of those who enjoy the movie? Where I have a made a judgment of the movie other than me considering it to be tasteless?
Where I have said it endorses violence?
But, no, you and Fafnir continue to insult me.
"I, too, experience the first 30% of things and are immediately able to understand their full depth. I talk to you more about your experiences, but it would be unnecessary at this point."
"Considering that you don't even know what the movie's about, I'd say that my assumption is more than fair."
Arrogant. Extremely arrogant. Do you really think that is difficult to understand that the film is about free will?
So I replied again.
"The amount of arrogance in this thread is simply astounding.
You probably don't even understand what the book is about.
Suffice to say even the author regrets writing it because it is widely misinterpreted.
Of course, one can not have a different opinion than you without being an idiot.
Simply having a message does not justify tasteless violence and sexual depravity, but I doubt you have the moral compass to understand that.
I despise misogyny in all forms and stopped the film with the infamous "Singing in the Rain" scene and implied rape.
Whether or not you appreciate the film is completely irrelevant to me. The fact that you are arrogant to the point of dismissing and insulting anyone who objects to the film simply because they have no desire to watch the abuse of human beings is simply astounding.
Did I state that it was a bad film? No, I simply said I found it tasteless and had no desire to finish watching it. I know it may be difficult to comprehend, but not everyone likes and appreciates the same things you may enjoy. Insulting people over a difference of opinion does little more than show your own prejudice and ignorance.
Have a good day. "
I did not insult anyone until they did so to me. At that point if you are going to be hostile towards me I will return the favor.
Daedalus
"...Those are about all I can think of off the top of my head. Alternatively, perhaps you could not be so close-minded as to think that anyone who views or (God-forbid!) ENJOYS media that happens to contain rape actually endorses the act of rape. It's there to prove a point. It's a pretty vile thing to do; possibly one of the most vile things one could do. It exists in media BECAUSE people have moral compasses, not in spite of it. It is supposed to horrify. It's like the 'wet nurse' sclupt that people hate so much. I would imagine every fiber of your morally self-righteous self simply quakes with rage at the sight of that thing. It is disturbing and you despise it. That's the point.
You weren't accused of not getting it because you didn't like it. You were accused of not getting it because you turned away the moment you got slightly uncomfortable. "
1) In my initial comments did I say anything negative about those who enjoyed the film? In fact, did I not state that I have nothing against people who enjoyed and stated I really don't care if you like it or not? So now you're putting words in my mouth attempting to twist my dislike of the film into a seething hatred for those who enjoy it.
Here I'll bold it so you can understand.
I DO NOT LIKE A CLOCKWORK ORANGE AND I DO NOT CARE IF YOU LIKE IT
2) You continue to be arrogant and presume I didn't research the film and read about the message before watching it. I decided hey, I don't want to watch this crap because I don't care for it and already know what it is about. So at that point, why would I continue watching it?
I don't think it's a good film. The Watchmen is as graphic, but is considerably better.
Surely if you didn't watch the whole film you can't properly contextualize the violence in it?
Also, do you not find the gratuitous execution of a pregnant woman AND the brutal rape scene of Watchmen to be more graphic and a bit excessive? The violence in Orange is substantially weaker and less graphic.
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio
Might help. Especially as "tasteless" is a bit of a subjective term. Also, I'm not sure that one can really do 'tasteful' rape. And its not as if Watchmen managed to handle it "tastefully" either. If anything it was more brutal, and to a certain degree rather more gratuitous.
I'm just trying to understand what I perceive as a bit of a contradiction as it stands. On the one hand we have "have no desire to watch the abuse of human beings", and on the other hand we have "Watchmen is as graphic, but is considerably better." Are we to infer that Watchmen violence is in better taste?
Automatically Appended Next Post: "people abusing people senselessly by a wildly overrated director " sticks out a bit too
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/25 20:53:53
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio
Outside of Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket, Kubrick is overrated in my opinion and I could accept arguments that those two films are overrated as well especially in the case of Full Metal Jacket because I have a fascination with war films and am biased in favor of it.
A Clockwork Orange is about morality, free will, totalitarianism, and in my opinion, how a society should deal with criminals. It does not endorse violence, torture, or brainwashing. It simply poses those questions.
I don't see any redeeming qualities in Alex, whereas every character in Watchmen has redeeming qualities or at least reason for being deranged.
Spoiler:
Yes, the Comedian is violent murdering sonofabitch. He also loves his daughter, is disturbed by Dr. Manhattan's loss of humanity, and is human enough to be disturbed by Veidt's ultimate plan. He's not a complete sociopath, he simply doesn't care because in his view, everything is a joke. Also, he is the cause of the majority of disturbing violence against innocents in the story, but the story opens with him getting beaten to a pulp and tossed out a window. So, yes what he did was vile, but he was punished for it. Alex suffers brainwashing, but it doesn't stick, and he ends up his old self again in a position of power. So, despite him being a sociopath he is rewarded by the end of the film, whereas the Comedian is dead at the start of his.
Let's look at Comedian's violent acts.
1) Attempted rape of the Silk Spectre. It is unsuccessful and he gets the crap beat out of him. Later on he as an affair with the Silk Spectre, giving her a child that she loves dearly. To say it's a complex situation is an understatement.
2) Murder of the pregnant woman. Yeah, it's terrible and unjustified. It is horrible and deeply disturbing? For one it was done after being provoked and slashed across the face and it happens in seconds instead of being drawn out. Both this and the "Singing in the Rain" scene are evil, but the latter scene is much more uncomfortable to watch.
Rorscach does violent things, but he does not commit acts of violence against innocents.
1) He brutally assaults violent older bullies. Does not disturb me. In this case he was victim defending himself.
2) He killed a murder/rapist that fed a young girl do his dogs. Completely justified.
3) He kills a multiple rapist and dumps the body at a police station. I don't have a problem with people killing rapists.
4) He beats the crap out of some criminals in prison. Self defense.
5) Kills Big Figure and his two goons. Self defense.
Manhattan turns people into goop. Big deal.
By far the most disturbing act in the Watchmen is Veidt wiping out millions in order to preserve peace and considering the alternative at least Veidt's act can be comprehended logically if not morally.
You can't really compare the violence between the two movies.
