Language In Movies And On Tv

Lounge By Sugarflowers Updated 5 Nov 2008 , 2:13am by Amia

Sugarflowers Posted 30 Oct 2008 , 5:12pm
post #1 of 28

It seems to me that in the last few years the use of the F word has become extremely popular in movies. I recently saw part of a movie in which the main character used the F word at least a dozen times in the first 2 minutes! The language was so bad, as well as the overall content, that I left. I tried another movie and it was almost as bad.

The S word is used even more often. The one I hate the most is when they use the Lord's name in vain. Why is this acceptable now? I'm getting to the point of not wanting to go to a movie because of the language and sexual content. Even with the ratings system, the amount of bad language is only varied, but it's still there.

It also amazes me that on TV, during prime time, that these same things are said and only the F and S words are bleeped. The censors don't seem to have a problem with GD.

I guess, what I'm wondering is if anyone else dislikes this. I know that I'm square, but I think things have gone too far.

Thanks for letting me vent a little.

Michele

27 replies
Amia Posted 30 Oct 2008 , 5:41pm
post #2 of 28

I totally agree with you. Since when did it become impossible to make a movie without nudity and offensive language? Will people really not see a movie without those two things? icon_confused.gif I would never ever want to be an actress in this day and age. I don't believe Fred Astaire ever cursed, and Ginger Rogers naked? HAH! This is why the majority of the movies I watch are Disney or old musicals.

A friend and I rented a movie the other night and were completely shocked and appalled. We decided to watch the extended version of "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" thinking it would have some extra funny scenes or whatever. WRONG! The only "extended" thing about the movie were the superfluous full frontals -- male full frontals. It didn't further the plot in any way, but they felt the need to throw those shots in there at least 7 times (5 in the first 10 minutes alone). I wonder how many full frontal shots were in the theatrical version? icon_eek.gif

Sugarflowers Posted 31 Oct 2008 , 2:36am
post #3 of 28

One of the movies I also left was called "Blindness". I was with my 15 year old son. The movie started out fairly clean and interesting. It quickly degraded into literal filth, foul language, nudity, and eventually prostitution for food. It seemed like it was just an excuse to show filthy, naked people, rape, killing, and walking through human waste.

We left and were both upset by what we saw. I was extremely stressed because of not only what I saw, but I had my son with me. It's not that he doesn't hear all kinds of things at school and I'm sure he watches things at his friends' houses that I wouldn't allow. He even said he had to try to think of other things to get his mind off of the movie.

I wish there were more movies like there were before the ratings became so liberal.

Thanks to everyone who voted/votes.

Michele

Mike1394 Posted 31 Oct 2008 , 9:37am
post #4 of 28

You know what I think it is. There are very few good actors/actresses out there. They need a shock value to sell a movie because the acting is so bad.

Mike

dragonflydreams Posted 31 Oct 2008 , 9:50am
post #5 of 28

. . . and if you take comedy into consideration . . . it seems comedians these days don't think they can make a joke that will make you laugh without going into the "gutter" . . . WHAT'S UP WITH THAT . . . guess I'm getting old . . . but the Lucille Ball's, Carol Burnette's, Bill Cosby's (except for one or two bits) and Red Skelton's of the world were genuinely FUNNY . . . and there wasn't a four letter word to be had . . . I think today we're WAY too desensitized and accept all kinds of stuff that really is over the line and unnecessary . . . and to what end . . . icon_confused.gif

indydebi Posted 31 Oct 2008 , 12:41pm
post #6 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonflydreams

. . . and if you take comedy into consideration . . . it seems comedians these days don't think they can make a joke that will make you laugh without going into the "gutter" . . . WHAT'S UP WITH THAT . . . guess I'm getting old . . . but the Lucille Ball's, Carol Burnette's, Bill Cosby's (except for one or two bits) and Red Skelton's of the world were genuinely FUNNY . . . and there wasn't a four letter word to be had . . . I think today we're WAY too desensitized and accept all kinds of stuff that really is over the line and unnecessary . . . and to what end . . . icon_confused.gif




Agree. And I agree because my husband does stand-up comedy and he does CLEAN comedy..... you can take your kids and your grandmother to see him. As he talks to the "young kids" coming up in the comedy world, he coaches them to try to go the clean route .... because writing clean comedy is harder, ergo it takes more talent to be clean AND funny.

And it can be done ... Jeff Foxworthy is the highest paid comedian and he's crystal clean. thumbs_up.gif

mbelgard Posted 31 Oct 2008 , 1:28pm
post #7 of 28

None of this bothers me. Sure I censor what my children watch but my husband and I are the people the unrated movies are marketed to.

I am picky about my comedy movies but it isn't related to how many dirty words they use.

The swearing I don't worry about at all, my kids are both old enough to know not to repeat everything they hear. I mostly censor for gore that might bother them and sex, my oldest is slowly being allowed to watch more things, we recently let him watch "Dogma" and he laughed all the way through it.

If something bothers you don't watch it, the ratings on a movie will say why it has that rating so it's pretty easy to watch. If enough people aren't buying a certain type of movie they won't make so many anymore because they aren't making money.

Sugarflowers Posted 31 Oct 2008 , 7:43pm
post #8 of 28

Some really good movies have had harsh ratings because of their content. "Charlie Wilson's War" was rated R, and it did have some nudity and a small amount of bad language. However, it was based on a true story and the nudity was very limited. It still wasn't my cup of tea, but it wasn't porn.

The level of language I was describing was over the top. I had not heard the F word so many times in such a short amount of time, ever. Even Ice Road Truckers seems mild compared to the first movie I left after a short time.

The second movie was just disgusting. As I said, it seemed to be an excuse to show filthy, naked people. As if being blind with a bunch of other blind people was a good reason to walk around naked and covered in filth. They were using hallways as toilets, and because they couldn't see, they were shown stepping in feces and urine. This was bad enough, then it got to more nudity, then prostitution for food. They didn't show the sexual acts, but there was plenty of sex sounds and other imagery.

All three of these movies were rated R. Only "Charlie Wilson's War" was worth seeing and only mildly embarrassing, to me.

As for comedies, I like them clean. As indydebi said, it's a lot harder to be funny and clean. Those that are clean and funny are the best. I absolutely loved Carol Burnett, most of Bill Cosby's work, Tim Conway, and many others that never saw the need to have poor language or content in their work.

Michele

indydebi Posted 31 Oct 2008 , 7:53pm
post #9 of 28

As far as the language ...... when I was 14, my mom managed the R and X rated drive in theater concession stand and I worked there for 2 years, so I "got used to" a lot of that stuff at a very early age. I can be prim and proper when the situation calls for it, but in my normal everyday vocabulary, I can make my Marine son blush!

So it takes a lot for me to be irritated by a movie.

What irritates me most are things in movies that are in there "just because". The movie "Top Gun" would have been a GREAT movie, if they hadn't thrown that stupid girl character in there! Take all of that out and it's still a great movie! I also have a low tolerance for special effects movies that are there strictly to showcase the special effects ... and oh by the way, let's throw some dialogue in here to try to tie it all together! "Gone With the Wind", made in the 30's, was FULL of special effects that you can't tell are special effects. Now THAT is talent .... as compared to this phony computer stuff that looks like a bad cartoon!

Well I digressed a little there ..... sorry gang! icon_redface.gif

mbelgard Posted 31 Oct 2008 , 9:12pm
post #10 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugarflowers

Some really good movies have had harsh ratings because of their content. "Charlie Wilson's War" was rated R, and it did have some nudity and a small amount of bad language. However, it was based on a true story and the nudity was very limited. It still wasn't my cup of tea, but it wasn't porn.

The level of language I was describing was over the top. I had not heard the F word so many times in such a short amount of time, ever. Even Ice Road Truckers seems mild compared to the first movie I left after a short time.

The second movie was just disgusting. As I said, it seemed to be an excuse to show filthy, naked people. As if being blind with a bunch of other blind people was a good reason to walk around naked and covered in filth. They were using hallways as toilets, and because they couldn't see, they were shown stepping in feces and urine. This was bad enough, then it got to more nudity, then prostitution for food. They didn't show the sexual acts, but there was plenty of sex sounds and other imagery.

All three of these movies were rated R. Only "Charlie Wilson's War" was worth seeing and only mildly embarrassing, to me.


Michele




Generally I pay no attention to ratings, the info box to the side of the rating is far more helpful than a rating when I'm dealing with my kids. I don't know if you've noticed them but it tells you WHY a movie has the rating it does. For example they might say that one movie is rated R for nudity while another has the same rating for gore.

I know that there is at least one christian website that rates movies and/or take comments on movies from members. That might help someone like you more than the rating system. It might line up with your beliefs and could help you select movies that you feel are right for you.

jammjenks Posted 1 Nov 2008 , 3:28am
post #11 of 28

I'm just sitting here trying to remember the last time I even WENT to the movies. Heck, I don't even remember the last time I watched a movie at home. I'd rather be on CC anyway.

marknelliesmum Posted 1 Nov 2008 , 8:22am
post #12 of 28

Hi Folks
What gets me mad is the inclusion of unnecessary and inappropriate bad language in kids films. My ds is 4yrs and loves all the biggies like Shrek, Cars, Bugs Life etc and even these have language I'd rather he didn't hear. The thing is it's usually only once in the film and more often than not you can see it has been added for the adults watching - give us a break! Kids are so overexposed to violence, smut and goodness knows what, i'd just like to be able to put on a kids dvd knowing that the language is appropriate and it's about entertaining kids not adults- maybe i'm just an old stick in the mud icon_mad.gif

KeltoKel Posted 4 Nov 2008 , 12:07am
post #13 of 28

I don't understand how people can go to a rated R movie and then get upset and leave when they realize there is language, nudity, and violence in it. Hello - it is rated R!

Amia Posted 4 Nov 2008 , 12:18am
post #14 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeltoKel

I don't understand how people can go to a rated R movie and then get upset and leave when they realize there is language, nudity, and violence in it. Hello - it is rated R!




That's not what we're talking about. It's the amount of language, nudity and violence and how unnecessary it is to the overall plot of a movie. A movie can be just as funny, dramatic, or action packed without anyone baring all or cursing. I've seen R rated movies that have very little foul language and some where every other word is the f-word. Where do they draw the line when rating movies? icon_confused.gif And why is all that included anyway? Have people really lost the ability to be entertained without language, nudity or violence?

mbelgard Posted 4 Nov 2008 , 1:19am
post #15 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by amia1024

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeltoKel

I don't understand how people can go to a rated R movie and then get upset and leave when they realize there is language, nudity, and violence in it. Hello - it is rated R!



That's not what we're talking about. It's the amount of language, nudity and violence and how unnecessary it is to the overall plot of a movie. A movie can be just as funny, dramatic, or action packed without anyone baring all or cursing. I've seen R rated movies that have very little foul language and some where every other word is the f-word. Where do they draw the line when rating movies? icon_confused.gif And why is all that included anyway? Have people really lost the ability to be entertained without language, nudity or violence?




I think the point that KeltoKel was trying to make was this: When you know that certain things bother you it becomes YOUR responsiblity to research what content a movie has before you go watch it.

It's like someone complaining about Bill Maher's movie "Religulous" after they go see it. It isn't exactly hard to find out what the movie is about and to determine that it might offend people. Some of the content in it is stuff that my 10 year old would like but with the rating I plan on watching it before I decide if he can.

Amia Posted 4 Nov 2008 , 1:26am
post #16 of 28

And my point is that the rating system is a joke. An R rating means nothing to me except that there might be one bad word or a thousand. There might be one scene of partial nudity, or a full frontal in every other scene. It is not my job to rate the movies. And reviews are always subjective. What may be considered tame to one person may be absolutely disgusting to another. My other point is that it is not necessary, no matter if you're offended or not. Seeing someone's boobs does not further a movie's plotline in any way, shape, or form. Neither does using foul language.

mbelgard Posted 4 Nov 2008 , 2:28am
post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by amia1024

My other point is that it is not necessary, no matter if you're offended or not. Seeing someone's boobs does not further a movie's plotline in any way, shape, or form. Neither does using foul language.




That is an opinion and varies based on who you talk to, I know a great many guys who would say that it does further a plotline and is needed. icon_lol.gif My husband will tell you that it isn't needed but it sure is nice. icon_rolleyes.gif I have personally seen at least one movie I can name where nudity did help the plotline of the movie and that was Schindler's List.

For the swearing the movie Patton would not capture the character of the general without the use of strong language.

WHile I agree that the rating system might not always be helpful the answer isn't to decide to censor all films because some people don't like them.

Amia Posted 4 Nov 2008 , 3:10am
post #18 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbelgard


WHile I agree that the rating system might not always be helpful the answer isn't to decide to censor all films because some people don't like them.




I agree with you on that point. We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest. thumbs_up.gif

Sugarflowers Posted 4 Nov 2008 , 3:10am
post #19 of 28

For the record, I DID read the synopsis for both movies that I walked out of. Neither one of them indicated the amount of nudity or level of foul language. There is no way I would have paid to see them if I had known what was actually in them.

Michele

indydebi Posted 4 Nov 2008 , 4:44am
post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbelgard

It's like someone complaining about Bill Maher's movie "Religulous" after they go see it. It isn't exactly hard to find out what the movie is about and to determine that it might offend people.



Yep ... but then you have to deal with those people who claim "you can't say you don't like it if you haven't seen it."

Bull.

There's a certain actor who absolutely makes my rear-end tired! I can't stand him .... he has no talent ... and his movies just s*ck! I've seen a few of his movies. I don't have to actually go and see his movies anymore to know that I will NOT like the movie. But I have idiot acquaintances who will try to convert me, and try to convince me that I can't say I don't like his movies unless I go to his movie.

Sorry ... I've done my research and his style of movies are a constant .... I'm constantly amazed that he can get funding to make the movie in the first place! icon_lol.gif

mbelgard Posted 4 Nov 2008 , 12:31pm
post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by indydebi

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbelgard

It's like someone complaining about Bill Maher's movie "Religulous" after they go see it. It isn't exactly hard to find out what the movie is about and to determine that it might offend people.


Yep ... but then you have to deal with those people who claim "you can't say you don't like it if you haven't seen it."

Bull.

There's a certain actor who absolutely makes my rear-end tired! I can't stand him .... he has no talent ... and his movies just s*ck! I've seen a few of his movies. I don't have to actually go and see his movies anymore to know that I will NOT like the movie. But I have idiot acquaintances who will try to convert me, and try to convince me that I can't say I don't like his movies unless I go to his movie.

Sorry ... I've done my research and his style of movies are a constant .... I'm constantly amazed that he can get funding to make the movie in the first place! icon_lol.gif




My husband gets annoyed with me because I can often tell from a trailer if the movie is crap. What bugs him most is when he insists on renting it over my objections and finds out that I was right. icon_lol.gif

In general I'm not a fan of comedy or action movies. I like some but I'm very picky.

I do think we should sometimes try out things that we might not like but to complain about it after you knew you might not care for it is pretty silly.

KeltoKel Posted 4 Nov 2008 , 9:14pm
post #22 of 28

I was posting after reading that someone took their teenager to a rated R movie and then left after finding out that it wasn't suitable for children. I have been in rated R movies when parents walk out with their children once the movie starts and they start to hear the language or see nudity. I am glad they walk out b/c these things are not suitable for children, but didn't they know the movie was rated R when they bought the ticket?

That is what I am referring to!

If you can name a rated R movie that is suitable for those under 17, please give me an example. I cannot think of one.

mbelgard Posted 4 Nov 2008 , 9:43pm
post #23 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeltoKel

If you can name a rated R movie that is suitable for those under 17, please give me an example. I cannot think of one.




That's a parental call. There are a couple that I've allowed my 10 year old to watch. I wouldn't make a blanket statement that they're fine for all children, that needs to be based on the child.

My parents weren't too hung up on what we watched as teenagers though, the last time I wasn't allowed to watch something I couldn't have been older than 13 or 14, so that might be why it doesn't bother me.

I do agree that taking a kid to an R movie without having viewed it first isn't a wise move.

taniabanana Posted 5 Nov 2008 , 1:23am
post #24 of 28

Most "four letter words" are Anglo Saxon and were not originally expletives but proper everyday words. If they returned to common usage there would no longer be any concept of swearing or offensive language

Probably the worst swear word in the UK (I obviously won't type it!) was originally a street name in London where the brothels were.

indydebi Posted 5 Nov 2008 , 1:28am
post #25 of 28

Oh! Oh! Oh! Pick me! Pick me! I got a good one!!

When in high school, the English teacher told us the same thing that taniabanana said .... in the original usage, the words were not curse words. For example, "the big one" .... as Little Ralphie said in the movie A Christmas Story ....... "The Queen Mother of all Dirty Words" ...... the original meaning meant to sow the fields, to plant the seed. So instead of "sowing" the field, you @!*$'d the field.

(My sister, when she heard it used to mean "Plant a seed", said, "Huh! Kinda still means the same thing, doesn't it?" icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif )

Amia Posted 5 Nov 2008 , 2:08am
post #26 of 28

Indydebi, if you're referring to the "F" word, that's actually incorrect (I always heard that was an acronym, which is also untrue).
http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/fuck.asp

I guess we shouldn't be so offended by nudity either. The majority of the films from the 20's had tons of nudity.

indydebi Posted 5 Nov 2008 , 2:10am
post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by amia1024

Indydebi, if you're referring to the "F" word, that's actually incorrect (I always heard that was an acronym, which is also untrue).
http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/.asp




icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif never trust the English teacher who is also the basketball coach! icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif

Amia Posted 5 Nov 2008 , 2:13am
post #28 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by indydebi

Quote:
Originally Posted by amia1024

Indydebi, if you're referring to the "F" word, that's actually incorrect (I always heard that was an acronym, which is also untrue).
http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/.asp



icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif never trust the English teacher who is also the basketball coach! icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif




Same can be said for trusting my dad who told me it was some acronym for unlawful carnal knowledge...oh dads. icon_rolleyes.gificon_lol.gif I looked that up on snopes a loong time ago, when I was trying to prove I was right about it being an acronym! icon_eek.gificon_redface.gif

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%