Quantcast
Should we ban older films for being too offensive? (The satire "The Last Temptation of Christ" - 1988)

Forums - Movies Discussion - Should we ban older films for being too offensive? (The satire "The Last Temptation of Christ" - 1988)

Ban "The Last Temptation of Christ?"

Yes! 2 7.69%
 
No (if so, explain why... you bastard!) 24 92.31%
 
Total:26
sethnintendo said:

Shouldn't you start with films such as Birth of Nation which was like a KKK promotional movie? I never understood why it got so much praise. Looks as bad as Citizen Kane but some people love that film for some reason. It nearly put me to sleep in film class I took in college awhile back.

I don't think we should be banning anything.  Just don't watch it if you don't like it.  I don't like super hero movies anymore except maybe Deadpool but I don't think they should be banned.  I just avoid them.

It’s easy to look at something made in the past with our present eyes and understand the importance of something. Birth of a Nation isn’t praised for the it’s content, but because it’s one of the movies who pioneered the use of the montage for narrative. 

Citizen Kane is a great movie, and if it’s not considered as so by today’s standards it’s mainly because from the mid 60’s to present days, films in general have been made in the same narrative pattern that this movie introduced in the early 40s, which was a revolution in comparison to the by the book standard of Hollywood productions.

On topic: past arts, texts or views should not be altered to fit today’s standards because we’re not living in the same context and realities. If some people wants to move “progressive ideas”, they should look in front of them and not rewrite what was done to fit their views.



Around the Network

No but there a ton of countries that ban certain films for being too violent.



Depends on what "ban" means. Some propaganda material shouldn't be allowed to be displayed publicly, but I'm against banning distribution or viewing. I am very much for the freedom or art, even moreso than freedom of speech. Art for art's sake is not dangerous in any way unless it's politically motivated and weaponized as such. Art can be offensive and art should definitely be allowed to be offensive. Art does not and should not have to adhere to mainstream sensibilities.

In the end as with everything it's about intention. Even art used in propaganda is not to be banned if not used for propaganda.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Jumpin said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:
Heheh, I suppose you could get upset. Or you could always look on the bright side of life.

(I feel like I am the only one that sees that Jumpin is just kidding.)

I am kind of embarrassed on behalf of the forum =P

I think this is the last time I attempt to make a joke post.

People take shit too seriously these days!

That being said, I do feel you need a little more practise on your joke posts, don't give up yet though!



No film should ever be banned for any reason. People can make decisions about what is appropriate for them or their family members to see. But, government should not have any role in that.

Similarly, movie theaters can choose what they want to show, streaming services can choose what they want to offer, and TV networks can choose what's appropriate for their viewers. But those decisions should all be left in private hands, so that options exist for everyone. No bans, period.



Around the Network
vivster said:
Depends on what "ban" means. Some propaganda material shouldn't be allowed to be displayed publicly, but I'm against banning distribution or viewing. I am very much for the freedom or art, even moreso than freedom of speech. Art for art's sake is not dangerous in any way unless it's politically motivated and weaponized as such. Art can be offensive and art should definitely be allowed to be offensive. Art does not and should not have to adhere to mainstream sensibilities.

In the end as with everything it's about intention. Even art used in propaganda is not to be banned if not used for propaganda.

Freedom of art is Freedom of speech.  Art is speech, in this sense.  



VAMatt said:
No film should ever be banned for any reason. People can make decisions about what is appropriate for them or their family members to see. But, government should not have any role in that.

Similarly, movie theaters can choose what they want to show, streaming services can choose what they want to offer, and TV networks can choose what's appropriate for their viewers. But those decisions should all be left in private hands, so that options exist for everyone. No bans, period.

Define Film.  I have to imagine that there are some out there that feel some child pornography is artistic. The world has its fair share of sick fucks.  Who gets to define what art is? Note I'm just being extreme and Yoder corporation does not endorse any views / questions expressed within this post.