Movie scenes you find personally offensive or irritating.

[Burnswell]

This whole thread is insulting to humans. As if human beings from the planet earth would get together on an internet thread and act like all entertainment everywhere have to be egalitarian propaganda pieces that don't show anyone behaving badly and must never allow people to express individuality or character flaw lest they implicitly insult other people who you've lumped them in with in their minds.
The problem is the viewer is the one doing the grouping their mind; they've stopped being an individual with their own tastes and opinions and they're now a representative of everyone in that group you've mentally put them in. they then try to defend "them" as a whole, stripping away any possibility of individuality in their members.

Johnny Novgorod:
Broadly speaking I usually find it shockingly (yet surreptitiously) offensive whenever an outsider - typically the straight, white, male lead - becomes the savior of an "underpowered" culture.
Exactly my point, this thread is doing exactly that right now. You have no idea what members of other cultures actually think, don't go grabbing the microphone out of their hands and speaking for their behalf. If they're not your gender, you don't know what it's like to be that gender, and that goes every way. If you're not that race you have no idea what it's like to be that race. We're all individuals with our own lives/opinions/affiliations and this kind of thoughtless moralizing only ever seems to focus on its' positives and never takes stock the damage it's also responsible for inflicting; sometimes it isn't even aware of it exactly because they really don't understand what it's like to be that other person. It's like extroverts trying to help introverts by making them the center of attention, not everyone has the same idea of an ideal outcome and they don't always want what you think they do.

 

[Saltyk]

None.

Hey, I'm a huge DBZ fan. I saw Dragon Ball Evolution. It didn't piss me off. Probably because I knew what I was getting before I watched it (and I watched it before I heard any hatred for it).

Frankly, I don't really watch films that might offend me. And it's not that easy for a film to offend me. Much less to do so in a way that bothers me much later. Generally speaking objectionable material is generally rather censored. Sure, there are movies that had plot holes that bugged me, but they certainly didn't offend me.

I guess I just don't care about anything enough to have it being misrepresented bother me.

Broadly speaking I usually find it shockingly (yet surreptitiously) offensive whenever an outsider - typically the straight, white, male lead - becomes the savior of an "underpowered" culture. Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai, Avatar... I think Avatar is probably the biggest offender, since the character ends up literally donning said culture's race in order to save it. Apparently white guys make the best blue guys. Adding insult to injury, it sees Native American garb is producers' go-to solution for wardrobe when creating a technologically primitive yet spiritually sensitive race of aliens. Riiiiiiiiiight.

For two out of those three movies I'd say the white guy isn't the "savior" of that culture. Avatar, yeah, but the other two it didn't matter that the white guy sort of dissed his own people. He didn't affect any change, just found that his own culture was more in the wrong than anything and learned something new. In Last Samurai he witnessed the fall of the Samurai, in Dances With Wolves he ran off and became "one of them" in a sense but nothing either of them did altered the course of events significantly, nor did either of them save the culture.
And is it wrong to have a movie showing person representing the minority voice that says what his own culture is doing to others is wrong? I won't touch Avatar though, that movie was crap with pretty colors sprinkled on it from the get go.

But, in The Last Samurai, he was supporting the bad guys. The movie went out of it's way to represent them as good, but they were far from it. The samurai wanted to maintain their status and privilege. To literally keep the lower caste down and serving them.

If you are familiar with the anime Ruroni Kenshin, they would have been fighting against Kenshin. Both the anime and movie take place in the same general time period. Almost the same year, actually.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Ask yourself this: if it had been a circle of straight men, and one of them tells them that he's dating another guy and gets this very reaction, would it have offended you as well? If not, I'm afraid you're biased.

Yes I would. Mainly because I expect friends to respect choices other friends make. If your friendship is entirely dependent on your sexuality, then you have shitty friends. And that seemed to be what the scene implied; that gay people only hang out with other gay people for the fact that they're gay. I don't hang out with heterosexual people because I know they won't hit on me. I hang out with people because I like things about them. I think I'm fairly open about other people's sexual preferences, so seeing that scene play out pissed me off, since it just showed all her friends to be shallow jerks.

 

[Sarge034]

I agree with you, Avatar is shockingly bad. James Cameron should be ashamed. It's entire plot rests on That Dumb Paralyzed Berk being a better Naavi than the Naavi because Reasons.

I don't think he is a better Naavi than the Naavi because reasons. He was a... space marine? Do they actually call themselves anything? I can't remember. Anyway, back on topic. He was a soldier before he was paralyzed so he had the discipline, training, and personality traits that go along with it. He learned from the Naavi, yes. However the only reason he is their savior is because he understands the training and tactics of the space marines AND the Naavi. Much like how the CIA advisors knew the tactics of the Soviet Russians AND Al Qaeda back during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

As for what I think is offensive... I would have to say anything that exists only to be pretentious, appalling, or fucking stupid. The only things that come to mind are; The Human Centipede, Jackass (all of them and their fucking spawn such as), Bad Grandpa, and The Waiting.

Edit- I think offensive might be the wrong word here... I find the idea of The Human Centipede and The Waiting to be disgusting. I find Jackass to be fucking stupid, I mean who goes out and lets a snake bite their dick? I find Bad Grandpa to be in very poor taste because it was filmed without the participants' knowledge beforehand and the child was not only exposed to that behavior, but also encouraged to act improperly at a very young age. Oh well, text is such a poor medium to convey thoughts...

 

[xaszatm]

And how does he get to lead the Naavi? By flying the biggest, baddest red-dragon-bird thing of them all. The one that no Naavi except the Hero of Legend could fly. But he can. When in Space Marine training did taming red-dragon-bird things come up, I wonder.

It's part of their Mary Sue degree. Other important lessons include: "Being always right 101"; "When to properly activate the Duex ex Machina"; "How to always sound intelligent when you're not saying anything at all"; and, most importantly, "How to always be the hero, no matter what you do." For more successes, please see the entire Ultramarines chapter

OT: I haven't really found any movie scenes that offensive, honestly. I guess Django Unchained, but I think that was the point.

 

[Sarge034]

And how does he get to lead the Naavi? By flying the biggest, baddest red-dragon-bird thing of them all. The one that no Naavi except the Hero of Legend could fly. But he can. When in Space Marine training did taming red-dragon-bird things come up, I wonder.

Oh I see what you are saying. I figure that like horses it could sense the level of confidence and, dare I say, the personality of the rider. I figure the type "A" personality, confidence, and strength of resolve was a huge factor in that. To draw parallels, a very stubborn wild horse will oftentimes only be broken by a single rider of similar personality type. The "only the hero of legend can tame/kill/capture ___" is very common in primitive cultures when that particular creature represents the pinnacle of that species. So while I will admit the legend was a plot device, at least the legend kept in line with the "source material", if you will.

 

[Cette]

Ask yourself this: if it had been a circle of straight men, and one of them tells them that he's dating another guy and gets this very reaction, would it have offended you as well? If not, I'm afraid you're biased.

Yes I would. Mainly because I expect friends to respect choices other friends make. If your friendship is entirely dependent on your sexuality, then you have shitty friends. And that seemed to be what the scene implied; that gay people only hang out with other gay people for the fact that they're gay. I don't hang out with heterosexual people because I know they won't hit on me. I hang out with people because I like things about them. I think I'm fairly open about other people's sexual preferences, so seeing that scene play out pissed me off, since it just showed all her friends to be shallow jerks.

I would argue that most of the conflict in that film is caused by various people acting like shallow jerks regardless of orientation. So it doesn't exactly single out one group there.

 

[Squilookle]

For some reason it really gets to me in a film where something horrible is done to a child or infant- especially if done without retribution. When I saw the Witches and one of them pushed that baby in a pram towards the cliff? Instantly boycotted Roald Dahl and refused to read the book version when we had to study it in school. I only later found out that that part of the movie wasn't in the book...

I hated S.O.S. Titanic for this reason too- a baby is seen crying on the deck, ignored in a sea of running feet. HATED that so much. By contrast, both A Night to Remember and James Cameron's Titanic also had crying lost children, but both of them were picked up by someone. Sure in one case the child still died, and the other was only retrieved so the adult could be saved, but the distinction was that the child wasn't left to die alone. That was of monumental importance to me when I saw these films, and it's something I hold to this day.

I came so close to switching the new Battlestar Galactica off in the first episode because of this, as it's implied that a robot snaps the neck of a newborn in it.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Ask yourself this: if it had been a circle of straight men, and one of them tells them that he's dating another guy and gets this very reaction, would it have offended you as well? If not, I'm afraid you're biased.

Yes I would. Mainly because I expect friends to respect choices other friends make. If your friendship is entirely dependent on your sexuality, then you have shitty friends. And that seemed to be what the scene implied; that gay people only hang out with other gay people for the fact that they're gay. I don't hang out with heterosexual people because I know they won't hit on me. I hang out with people because I like things about them. I think I'm fairly open about other people's sexual preferences, so seeing that scene play out pissed me off, since it just showed all her friends to be shallow jerks.

I would argue that most of the conflict in that film is caused by various people acting like shallow jerks regardless of orientation. So it doesn't exactly single out one group there.

True, but the thing is, most of the other scenes at least give the opposition a chance to show their opinion. You see how his relationship affects his work with Banky, you see how his friend at the music store offers him advice, seeing how he's had to put up with discrimination for being both gay and black. But her friends only really have that one scene before bamfing out of the movie. You don't get a chance to see where they're coming from, so they just come off as assholes without any real justification other than "fuck you for not being gay with us anymore".

 

[Squilookle]

a robot snaps the neck of a newborn

A sexy robot.

Makes no difference whatsoever.

Spoiler

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OK maybe just a bit...

 

[Avaholic03]

For some reason it really gets to me in a film where something horrible is done to a child or infant- especially if done without retribution. When I saw the Witches and one of them pushed that baby in a pram towards the cliff? Instantly boycotted Roald Dahl and refused to read the book version when we had to study it in school. I only later found out that that part of the movie wasn't in the book...

I hated S.O.S. Titanic for this reason too- a baby is seen crying on the deck, ignored in a sea of running feet. HATED that so much. By contrast, both A Night to Remember and James Cameron's Titanic also had crying lost children, but both of them were picked up by someone. Sure in one case the child still died, and the other was only retrieved so the adult could be saved, but the distinction was that the child wasn't left to die alone. That was of monumental importance to me when I saw these films, and it's something I hold to this day.

I came so close to switching the new Battlestar Galactica off in the first episode because of this, as it's implied that a robot snaps the neck of a newborn in it.

That's funny, I'm at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. I despise when babies are given this "godlike" status of being far more important than other humans. They aren't. They're just smaller and more helpless. That doesn't make them special.

 

[Sarge034]

And why would Paralyzed Berk be more confident than any other Naavi? Part of the idea behind why he liked them so much was supposed to be how different they are. I presume he had never once in his life up to that point had to tame a giant flying bird-dragon-thing, so why would he be more confident at it than the people who had been watching their ancestors taming smaller creatures for centuries?

Perhaps because up to the point that he was paralyzed he was running headlong into gunfire and death? He, for all intents and purposes, is a predator unlike any of the Naavi. They are hunters who respect all life and only kill to survive. He, being able to kill for other reasons, would give off a different "aura". Have you never known a US Marine or someone of a similar branch in your country? I didn't look to see what country you put in your profile is all.

It's just yet another example in the long tradition of Hollywood deciding grizzled white men should be able to do things no one else can do because they have gumption, and their target audience would like to enjoy the fantasy of themselves as grizzled white men accomplishing things through gumption.

If that's your view than fine. However, if you're not going to actually discuss anything I think it would be best if we terminated this exchange.

 

[gargantual]

The Creep factor of This means War, in which two spies (One being a Chris Pinewood Board and the other being Tom Hardy) vie for the affections of Reese Witherspoon. Of course, the whole movie could have been fun, but it ends up being rather... voyeuristic and uncomfortable, when you start to think about it. The two spies, with spying being their profession, decide to bug and wire cameras around her house.

I must add that Pine and Hardy are supposed to be the heroes of this story... one of which Witherspoon is supposed to end up with. The movie left me uncomfortable for the most part, because I couldn't get over that stalking equals love. I think that is something that bothers me more than anything else.

I watched it with my perception colored by the Fockers franchise. Now There was a foil for DeNiro's ridiculous paranoia as a CIA dad but it still gave me the impression, this is how big hollywood usually portrays super-spies in comedies. Mega-gadgeted, mega-stalkerish, black belt, neutral faced and disturbingly paranoid. SMH.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Kevin Smith has never been a politically correct filmmaker. That's not to say he hasn't made some good films, just that you don't go into them expecting the guy to be clean cut and not raunchy.

That being said...

I watched Chasing Amy recently. It's definitely one of his better films, and it doesn't pull punches when it shows how relationships can go ugly incredibly fast. Overall, I really enjoyed the film, except for one scene, which I found absolutely disgusting.

For those of you who haven't seen the film, it's about a guy who develops a romantic relationship with a lesbian. There's one scene in the film where the girl is hanging out with all her lesbian friends, and she quietly brings up that she's dating the male lead. Suddenly, her friends basically turn ice cold to her, and pretty much cut her out of their circle. The scene is never brought up again save for one passing comment.

That scene pissed me off to no end. Without further context in the film, it just comes off as incredibly rude and inconsiderate to gay people, as if they are only allowed to be friends with other gay folk. The group of friends never really show up again, and the implication was that they all abandoned her after she decided to go back to dating men (she was revealed to actually be bisexual later in the film).

For a film that tried to show both the pros and cons of relationships and sexuality, that one scene stuck out as really rude, reinforcing all the negative stereotypes applied with gay people, and I hate watching it.

Any films that leave you similarly disgusted?

Just because something is ugly does not mean it does not happen. While there are plenty of people who wouldn't turn on their gay friends for exploring a relationship with someone of the opposite sex there are people who would and have. I am friends with a lesbian/bi-sexual woman who had this exact thing happen to her.

Honestly it pisses me off when people have the reaction you are expressing, because it is more prejudiced, in my view, than you seem to think the scene is. You are saying that no gay people are shitty friends. That is nonsense. Some gay people are good friends and some gay people are shitty friends, just like everyone else.

 

[EHKOS]

Two examples come to mind. The first would be the American Dad episode where they turn Stan's new puppy into a disgusting abomination.

Second, and sadly I can't say is even more disturbing, would be the second half of Pawn Shop Chronicles. I could have sworn Tarantino was behind it until the credits rolled. Two scenes really bothered me.
The first being one of the only physical violent images that has ever made me cringe, which is when one of the three main characters takes a hammer to this guy's teeth. Made an almost perfect hole too. Then the second scene makes me feel considerably less bad for him as it turns out he has a pyramid of caged naked women in his barn. The movie gets progressively fucked up from there.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I originally just remembered the scene in the Butterfly Effect where that kid puts a dog in a bag and covers it with lighter fluid, but then I remembered the CP and that the whole movie was terrible in every sense of the word.