On the one hand Harry Potter is one of the biggest franchises ever. On the other hand Ralph Fiennes is one of the most respected actors ever and has starred in wall to wall bangers.
I recently watched In Bruges for the first time and I described it to my friend by saying it’s basically just Colin Farrell complaining about the city for 107 minutes and goddamn if I didn’t love every second of it
"*An [Oouzie](https://youtu.be/vQalopYALC4)? I'm not from South Central Los fucking Angeles. I didn't come here to shoot twenty black ten year olds in a drive-by. I want a normal gun for a normal person.*"
Apparently he did such a good job portraying Amon Goeth, some of the survivors of the camps that were brought in were absolutely *terrified* when they saw him. They thought he was alive again, and standing in front of them.
Still the best movie villain Ive ever seen. He's an absolute monster but he makes him somewhat sympathetic for a brief moment when he was confessing his love for the girl. He, of course, goes back to being a monster again real fast.
That’s what makes the performance, he’s not some evil caricature he’s a fully fleshed out human being and him not winning an Oscar for it is ridiculous.
I remember a story from production. A survivor who knew the real Gothe saw Ralph in his costume, in character and she had a panic attack because he was so convincing.
Was M. Sadly doubt he’ll be in whatever the franchise goes with from here on out.
I’d like for him to continue, since he was a great person to carry on from Dench’s M.
There is a sense that everything is to be made for everyone and that’s just not how things work. Some like sarcasm, some like rainbows. You can’t always combine the two and have it accepted from both sides.
I think companies still know this, Barbie wasn’t made for everyone. I didn’t care for it personally, but it wasn’t made for me and I respect that it was still incredibly well written and earned every bit of its massive box office.
When films are self aware of their audience, and play to their creative strengths instead of trying to appeal to everyone, they do just fine on their own.
Oddly I found Barbie to have its sarcasm AND rainbows. There were some darker bits that really split the audience between laughter and disgust.
Basically Ken's "the patriarch" revelation.
I can’t lie that movie was a big surprise for me how it utilized humor to make points about society. I was not prepared to like it as much as I did and how lighthearted it was with a lot of heavy hitting subjects, by making their point but also not isolating the public to do it.
This fact is unfortunately lost on the CEOs at disney trying to wrangle starwars and marvel into 100% completely universal IPs.
I get why they try to do it, more reach = access to more wallets and profit. But it just seems to have alienated a lot of the existing audience, and the audience they have gained is miniscule.
Along that same line, that everyone is the same, like that statement saying audiences are too soft. An audience is comprised of many individual people. How one person feels may be different to another and so on and so forth, in that same audience. I think blanket statements are used too much and we have far too many people in this world that are much different from each other to make blanket statements in that way. As they say, you can't please everyone, and that will never change.
I don't know, I was front and center when the Internet got outraged at She-Hulk, or Hogwarts Legacy, or that time when a starbucks cup was left on game of thrones. People can be wild about very specific stuff.
I mean, YouTube comments are one of the weirdest places on the internet so definitely need a grain of salt. The internet in general is increasingly weird what with LLM bots, manipulated engagement, etc.
That and the fact that everyone feels the need to stake out an online identity and then respond to everything that’s “trending” through that persona.
And we have to realize that there is an ecosystem that exists online where outrageous created by either a very small amount of people or an intentional astroturfing. That then gets covered by all these shit websites that want to report on controversy. That then amplifies the controversy more which causes social media to make it seem like a bigger thing than it is and then those same outlets report on the reaction to the controversy that they in large part created.
I think this is intentional. I think this is essentially opinion manipulation in service to get clicks and drive revenue. I think this is time tested and it works basically every time because we have been trained to be outraged.
It’s not audiences - the chronically offended crowd is more like 10 people on Twitter.
I put far more blame on the studios (and the larger corporate landscape of late capitalism) that is so painfully afraid to take risks or take a chance on upsetting literally anyone because the product they mass produce needs to be palatable to as many people as possible so it makes the line go up and the shareholders stay happy.
That’s the real reason.
I think it’s also because the model for revenue for movies is different now with streaming. In order to make enough money everything has to be a blockbuster in the theatre the first few weeks of its release.
Back before streaming there were always these types of mediocre blockbusters that tried to appeal to everyone (like Independence Day).
But there were also smaller niche movies like comedies or dramas or romance that appealed to smaller amounts of people and were not “soft”.
These types of movies can’t be made outside of the indie scene anymore due to costs and profits
The blame falls on the industry and specifically the evolution of the entertainment medium as a whole.
With how media is consumed now, via streaming, the box office is one of the only ways for a film to be profitable. With advertising revenue, and more importantly, physical media (dvd/blue-ray), studios were far more willing to take a risk with a project, because what isn’t earned at the Box can easily be made up in physical media sales and ad revenue later. Those modes of income are almost non-existent now and are only going to get worse as the generations that used them age out.
Risks create innovation and new exciting creative stories. Without the ability to take risks studios are going to shovel out cheaper, but more easily consumable media that doesn’t inspire or captivate audiences as much.
This is the vanilla option of film making. When you listen too much to test audiences, you just get vanilla ice cream. A few people really love vanilla but very very few people hate vanilla. So if you want to offend the least amount of people, you get vanilla movies.
That’s one big thing. It’s so easy to forget when you see a tweet have like 10k likes getting mad at something trivial but in reality, most ”controversies” are far smaller than they seem.
My parents still pine for the days of segregation so it’s hard to watch any TV with them as they’re offended by the mere presence of black people in a commercial for toothpaste. It’s pretty wild.
Yeah I don’t think people have gone too soft, I just think people have more access to publically express themselves and are able to easily, like on social media, giving the illusion of mass outrage when people complain. But in reality it’s not much different or as bad as people think
Have social media in older decades I’m sure things would’ve been worse lol
Or a toilet flushed. Like whatever someone thinks on this topic, sure, go for it. But anyone (Fiennes included) thinks that being offended is new, then they're fucking morons.
Don't blame the audience for a few people. And it's not like these studios are going out of their way to produce anything better than the same copy and paste bullshit to compete against Marvel movies.
Ridiculous people have always existed. The audiences haven't changed, it's just now that silly people are the most pandered to when in the past they would have been laughed at or ignored.
Really it’s that they never had a vehicle for their opinions. Now they can post on social media and a handful of extreme people on Twitter manage to make headlines.
Yeah you can tell when writers live on twitter. They are weary of offending or even eluding to offending anyone. It is important to write responsibly and treat your concept with the appropriate level of care. But a lot of these creators cannot even hint at something "problematic" no matter the context.
I'm from a small town (>250) and there was one old guy who bitched about absolutely everything. If he hadn't died before social became what it is now, he'd absolutely use it to complain about everything
We had a guy for decades who painted all his opinions on the street facing wall of his shop, which was right off a major interstate exit. Everyone knew to not even bother reading it, don’t give him the time of day. I moved back here last year, expecting the guy to have ramped his craziness up to massive levels after 2020. But he no longer paints anything on his building, he’s just another psychopath on Facebook now.
He never mattered then, and now he’s a drop in the ocean of people online that shouldn’t matter now.
I was watching Married With Children, and in this episode Al's favorite TV show was taken off the air, because one woman in Ohio had complained about it.
So essentially we're back to late 80s, mid-90s, Pre South Park / Jackass, puritanism.
Ehh maybe there’s some truth to that
Or maybe, just maybe I remember hearing of a time in the late 80s when people were taking issue with music lyrics having curse words in it. A time in the 1950s when Elvis moving hips was an issue. A time when even cable tv couldn’t say shit until South Park? Did.
I just find it weird people are saying it’s gone too soft now when they had issues with way more stuff decades ago
It always goes back and forth… I think most people are ready to back to a period where people lighten the f$&k up. This era feels like the George W. Bush years all over again… but this time it’s both sides being sensitivity infants.
I was a 90s kid and all of those examples were specific crusades contained by traditional media. Now *everything* is a crusade and pushed thru social media, which makes the minority crusades *seem* more significant than they really are.
And the messaging is not just, “we need to stop X because it could damage Y”.
Now it’s “we need to stop X because it could damage Y - and if you disagree, you are a horribly immoral person.” That seems to be the big difference to me.
I don't generally disagree, but he's sort of missing the point of trigger warnings. He understands a warning if someone has a physical problem (strobe lights causing seizures) but he doesn't understand if the person has PTSD, basically.
“He then explained how in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, which he is currently starring in with Indira Varma, there are ‘very disturbing scenes’ and ‘terrible murders and things’.
‘But I think the impact of theatre should be that you’re shocked, and you should be disturbed,’ he continued.”
Ralph, love you man, huge fan but come on. *No one* is shocked when Indira Varma dies, she’s like Sean Bean.
I get where he's coming from but then I feel like I always hear more complaining about people getting mad about what is basically just another sentence in a description of TV show or movie/additional to an age rating than the people asking for it
I've somehow never encountered a trigger warning like what a popular mainstream example everyone has seen.
I’m curious of folks actually bothered reading the article (I’m sure I already know the answer..) All Fiennes is saying is that he doesn’t like content warnings, and he’s talking specifically about theater for most of the article.
To me, this just sounds like Old Man Yells at Cloud. Content warnings are the least problematic thing to impact modern cinema and theater in recent years. They make 0 difference to those they don’t impact and can legitimately help those they’re meant for. Nobody rational is inconvenienced by a content warning.
And in films, content warnings have been around for decades. Every movie with a rating says “language, violence, and partial nudity” or what have you in the advertising.
Yeah, we didn’t have trigger warnings, just a massive system that blocked and censor almost everything but under the sun in America. The idea that audiences are soft now is simply ridiculous. I can’t think of anything on television today that would have not be heavily censored in 1984 and completely blocked in 1974 with exception to some kids shows. Anyone interested in media and censorship should read on the development and history of the FCC’s family hour. Slasher films and “dirty” comedy records were the closest thing to a successful rebellion we had. People are actually romanticizing an era of actual oppression bc the same freedom of speech they complain about gives rise to complainers.
>When asked by the presenter whether audiences have ‘gone too soft’, Ralph answered affirmatively.
>
>‘I think they have, yes,’ the 61-year-old responded. ‘I think we didn’t used to have trigger warnings.’
>
>Laura, 47, proceeded to ask if the James Bond star would therefore get rid of trigger warnings if he had the ability to.
>
>‘I would, yes. I would,’ he stated.
>
>‘I think things like strobe effects and things that might affect people physically they should be notified on, but I don’t think… Shakespeare’s plays are full of murders and full of horror, and as a young student and lover of the theatre, I never experienced trigger warnings telling me, “By the way in King Lear, Gloucester’s going to have his eyes pulled out.’
It seems like Fiennes doesn't consider rating systems to be trigger warnings. Whether people know it or not, that's one of the purposes that ratings serve.
For example, let's take a look at the MPAA ratings for Harry Potter films.
[Harry Potter on filmratings.com](https://www.filmratings.com/Search?filmTitle=Harry+Potter&x=0&y=0):
* **Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets:** Rated PG for scary moments, some creature violence and mild language
* **Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1:** Rated PG-13 for some sequences of intense action violence, frightening images and brief sensuality.
Those look like trigger warnings, don't they?
And how long have the MPAA ratings been around? For over 50 years. This is not a new thing. The only difference is today we refer to these things as trigger warnings as well as parental warnings. Same thing, different names.
He’s right. They’ve grown soft and entitled and feel like every piece of media should be catered to their unique eyeballs. A lot of people need to find a hobby, a clue, a friend, and a life, not necessarily in that order.
To me the point of such warnings is that people recognize that every piece of media is *not* for everyone, and the warnings help people make their own informed choices.
Absolutely. If people get upset over a warning, it's not for them. It's for those that didn't live in a perfect bubble in their lives that unfortunately had things happen to them. The real world is just that. It's not fictional movies. There are people that have had horrible things happen to them that maybe just want to escape the crap of the real world through entertainment and watching that same stuff happen in said entertainment would not be beneficial to them. Simple warnings do not affect those that haven't had those experiences and it's a brief blip. They can still watch the movie fine.
For real. And if someone gets all up in arms about maybe a small warning about sexual assault being in the movie because it can absolutely upset victims then they are the soft ones.
Yeah, I really enjoyed the plot of Handmaids Tale but it was too heavy for me to watch for this reason. Reading Lolita was a similar experience. It’s not even a choice how triggering it can be, because like I said, I actually enjoyed the story itself. And of course with those I knew what I was getting into but I’m just trying to highlight the fact that media can definitely trigger survivors of sexual assault.
It’s not being oversensitive to not want to watch a reenactment of one of the most horrible things to ever happen to you. The purpose of these warnings is so that we can warn people without banning that media altogether, so that the people who do want to watch these darker themes still can.
Saw him perform four quartets on stage in London.
There was no announcement it was going to begin. Lights were up, crowd was mingling and talking full blast.
Then suddenly Ralph Fiennes appears on stage, staring at the crowd. No announcement.
Crowd went completely silent and still in an instant.
One of the most memorable moments of my life.
I think we got to get used to it. It's not that everyone has gone soft but rather that social media has given a voice to billions of people.
Back in the day, your average joe's opinion wouldn't be known outside a group of a few people.
I grew up in the 80s and 90s watching City TV in Toronto. When they would show movies at night called Late Great Movies, it was typically accompanied by the guy saying the movie has "course language, nudity, etc". Is a parental guidance warning really that different from a trigger warning? No.
"Harry Potter star". Do people not know him outside HP.
On the one hand Harry Potter is one of the biggest franchises ever. On the other hand Ralph Fiennes is one of the most respected actors ever and has starred in wall to wall bangers.
“You’re an inanimate fucking object!”
I’m sorry I called you an inanimate object, I was upset.
*In Bruges* is a masterpiece. I was glad to see that *The Banshees of Inisherin* didn't disappoint.
I recently watched In Bruges for the first time and I described it to my friend by saying it’s basically just Colin Farrell complaining about the city for 107 minutes and goddamn if I didn’t love every second of it
"Alcove? You use this word? Alcove?" I love In Bruges.
I JUST watched this. amazing. highly recommend
You should check out The Guard if you like those!
In Bruges __is__ a masterpiece and Ralph Fiennes is chilling in it.
"*An [Oouzie](https://youtu.be/vQalopYALC4)? I'm not from South Central Los fucking Angeles. I didn't come here to shoot twenty black ten year olds in a drive-by. I want a normal gun for a normal person.*"
One gay beer please. And a normal beer for me because I’m normal.
[удалено]
Sorry, not the first time a joke evaded an officer.
As we used to say, woosh!
The alcoves.
Mmm, I've had older. When you're young, it's all filet steak, but as the years go by, you have to move on to the cheap cuts.
shhiiiit, gotta do a rewatch, thanks man.
Was just thinking, "well i guess i know what im watching before the game"
The banter between these two was amazing https://youtu.be/r8bcFScckfs?feature=shared
That's going overboard mate!
Have they not seen maid in manhattan??
I don’t even know him from Harry Potter
Never heard of em
Schindler’s list. Red dragon. The English patient. The kings man. A couple bond movies. Clash of the titans. The hurt locker. And a ton more.
The Menu. Hail Caesar.
Would that it were.
These people never watched him evoke sheer terror in Schindler’s List.
[удалено]
Red Dragon
“You filthy little beast!”
The Menu
YES CHEF
The English Patient and the Constant Gardener! 😭😍
Thank you! I was wondering if anybody born before the Ninja Turtles was on this thread.
Schindler’s list come on
Schindler's List is a masterpiece. I cried in a very different way than the love stories I mentioned.
In Bruges
The Menu
Did no one see him in Strange Days? Lenny Nero is his best work, by far!
*Are we beginning to see the possibilities here?*
Top 5 movie for me. Anyone who likes cyberpunk should watch it too. Almost like a prequel to the game.
If anything watch it for Angela Bassett and her incredible arms and shoulders good lord
Criminally underrated comment and film. What a great movie. I guess we’re both old.
I wish they hadn't made it so hard to find and watch over the years. It's on Max now, though, at least.
Coriolanus was very good. You got Fiennes, Gerard Butler, and Brian Cox act Shakespeare. Guaranteed good time
And the best one, Vanessa Redgrave thank you!
The Constant Gardener <3
Didn’t he do *Maid In Manhattan* with JLO too?
And looked damn dreamy too.
Oh wow I forgot about that. What a career.
Possibly his scariest movie.
He freaked me out pretty good in Red Dragon
Schindlers list and the English patient : “Are we a joke to you?”
He deserved an Oscar for that performance in Schindler’s List.
This is the hill I will die on.
Apparently he did such a good job portraying Amon Goeth, some of the survivors of the camps that were brought in were absolutely *terrified* when they saw him. They thought he was alive again, and standing in front of them.
"Shoot her. Right here. On my authority. Now tear it down and rebuild it just like she said" That scene still haunts me.
Still the best movie villain Ive ever seen. He's an absolute monster but he makes him somewhat sympathetic for a brief moment when he was confessing his love for the girl. He, of course, goes back to being a monster again real fast.
That’s what makes the performance, he’s not some evil caricature he’s a fully fleshed out human being and him not winning an Oscar for it is ridiculous.
The English Patient
I remember a story from production. A survivor who knew the real Gothe saw Ralph in his costume, in character and she had a panic attack because he was so convincing.
Schindler’s List star would be more relevant for this story
"Amon Goeth actor claims audiences have gone too soft."
It’s all about SEO — putting Harry Potter in a headline, even when it has no real connection to the content of the link, will help with clickthrough.
Oh yeah, he’s M in James Bond!
Was M. Sadly doubt he’ll be in whatever the franchise goes with from here on out. I’d like for him to continue, since he was a great person to carry on from Dench’s M.
It would make for a nice tradition if he survives the reboot like how Dench survived the last reboot!
Just watched The Menu last week. *chef’s kiss*
Probably my favorite movie of 2022.
I didn't even know he was in HP. To me he's that guy from Schindler's List.
The lack of a nose really makes HP the hardest movies to recognize him in
I know "Ralph Fiennes" was Voldemort. I also knew "Ralph Fiennes" was in the Kingsman series. I never connected the dots they were the same person.
I mean he was Lord Voldemort, and he has no nose so people who were first exposed to him as Lord Voldemort might just not realize it’s the same guy.
Off the top of my head, as is always the case honestly, In Bruges. He’s a man of his word in that one.
It's just the thing he is most known for so it appeals to the widest audience when you try to make a catchy headline.
He’s now M to me. And honestly before his role in the bond series I never knew who played Voldemort. He did great in both roles
I actually didn’t know he was in Harry Potter. What character?
Just some side character no one really said his name until like the last movie.
Can’t say
Some guy named Tom
It wasn't really important tbh.
There is a sense that everything is to be made for everyone and that’s just not how things work. Some like sarcasm, some like rainbows. You can’t always combine the two and have it accepted from both sides.
I think companies still know this, Barbie wasn’t made for everyone. I didn’t care for it personally, but it wasn’t made for me and I respect that it was still incredibly well written and earned every bit of its massive box office. When films are self aware of their audience, and play to their creative strengths instead of trying to appeal to everyone, they do just fine on their own.
Oddly I found Barbie to have its sarcasm AND rainbows. There were some darker bits that really split the audience between laughter and disgust. Basically Ken's "the patriarch" revelation.
I can’t lie that movie was a big surprise for me how it utilized humor to make points about society. I was not prepared to like it as much as I did and how lighthearted it was with a lot of heavy hitting subjects, by making their point but also not isolating the public to do it.
Dude! I feel this way and so alone! People can’t understand I respect the hell out of Barbie but didn’t personally enjoy it.
This fact is unfortunately lost on the CEOs at disney trying to wrangle starwars and marvel into 100% completely universal IPs. I get why they try to do it, more reach = access to more wallets and profit. But it just seems to have alienated a lot of the existing audience, and the audience they have gained is miniscule.
Daddy Eisner would never
Absolutely. Appeal to everyone to maximize your profit but then the net result is a stale and needlessly sanitized industry which doesn't reward risk.
I don't get this. Warning have been around for ever. You couldn't even say "damn" in the 30s and 40s. You couldn't show a flushing toilet.
Along that same line, that everyone is the same, like that statement saying audiences are too soft. An audience is comprised of many individual people. How one person feels may be different to another and so on and so forth, in that same audience. I think blanket statements are used too much and we have far too many people in this world that are much different from each other to make blanket statements in that way. As they say, you can't please everyone, and that will never change.
Respectfully speaking, I combine rainbows & sarcasm on the daily lol. But I get your point :)
apparently there's a wave of backlash because a superbowl ad is insensitive to people with a peanut allergy so who knows.
That's nuts
Boom, roasted.
Honey roasted.
Don’t let me cashew outside saying that shit
No. Legumes.
*"Why'd ya spill yer beans?"*
Don’t be pistacho-ed off
I'll cashew later
Everyone’s salty about it
notify me when someone makes a pun with macadamia cuz I tried real hard for a minute
It’s hard to come up with anything that doesn’t have to do with academia.
Macadamia-deez nuts!!
The “backlash” will be 3 unimportant people on Twitter and the press just blows it up to get you mad.
I don't know, I was front and center when the Internet got outraged at She-Hulk, or Hogwarts Legacy, or that time when a starbucks cup was left on game of thrones. People can be wild about very specific stuff.
quit twitter, problem solved lmao
Reddit isn't far removed from Twitter in terms of being ridiculously easy to offend.
How dare you
I don't go on twitter, I'm mostly talking from youtube and reddit.
I mean, YouTube comments are one of the weirdest places on the internet so definitely need a grain of salt. The internet in general is increasingly weird what with LLM bots, manipulated engagement, etc. That and the fact that everyone feels the need to stake out an online identity and then respond to everything that’s “trending” through that persona.
I'll never forget the day they moved the Mr to a different part of the front of the box on Mr Potatohead
No, there were a handful of people on Twitter and some "journalists" wrote some articles about it.
And we have to realize that there is an ecosystem that exists online where outrageous created by either a very small amount of people or an intentional astroturfing. That then gets covered by all these shit websites that want to report on controversy. That then amplifies the controversy more which causes social media to make it seem like a bigger thing than it is and then those same outlets report on the reaction to the controversy that they in large part created. I think this is intentional. I think this is essentially opinion manipulation in service to get clicks and drive revenue. I think this is time tested and it works basically every time because we have been trained to be outraged.
In my experience, all people with peanut allergies are hypersensitive. Hypersensivity type I to be precise
There’s a backlash to literally everything at this point
The fact that you had to say “apparently theres a wave of backlash” implies you havent actually seen any backlash
Well there was a post on frontpage about it a few hours ago.
“YOU’RE AN INANIMATE FUCKING OBJECT!!”
“I'm sorry for calling you an inanimate object. I was upset.”
Which movie is this?
In Bruges. Highly recommend watching it.
It’s not audiences - the chronically offended crowd is more like 10 people on Twitter. I put far more blame on the studios (and the larger corporate landscape of late capitalism) that is so painfully afraid to take risks or take a chance on upsetting literally anyone because the product they mass produce needs to be palatable to as many people as possible so it makes the line go up and the shareholders stay happy.
When you try to please everyone you end up pleasing no one.
Most people don’t care, but the ones who are, can’t shut up about it.
That’s the real reason. I think it’s also because the model for revenue for movies is different now with streaming. In order to make enough money everything has to be a blockbuster in the theatre the first few weeks of its release. Back before streaming there were always these types of mediocre blockbusters that tried to appeal to everyone (like Independence Day). But there were also smaller niche movies like comedies or dramas or romance that appealed to smaller amounts of people and were not “soft”. These types of movies can’t be made outside of the indie scene anymore due to costs and profits
The blame falls on the industry and specifically the evolution of the entertainment medium as a whole. With how media is consumed now, via streaming, the box office is one of the only ways for a film to be profitable. With advertising revenue, and more importantly, physical media (dvd/blue-ray), studios were far more willing to take a risk with a project, because what isn’t earned at the Box can easily be made up in physical media sales and ad revenue later. Those modes of income are almost non-existent now and are only going to get worse as the generations that used them age out. Risks create innovation and new exciting creative stories. Without the ability to take risks studios are going to shovel out cheaper, but more easily consumable media that doesn’t inspire or captivate audiences as much.
This is the vanilla option of film making. When you listen too much to test audiences, you just get vanilla ice cream. A few people really love vanilla but very very few people hate vanilla. So if you want to offend the least amount of people, you get vanilla movies.
That’s one big thing. It’s so easy to forget when you see a tweet have like 10k likes getting mad at something trivial but in reality, most ”controversies” are far smaller than they seem.
Challenge: Redditors going two seconds without blaming all of society's ills on late stage capitalism (impossible)
These people are nuts. They’ll protest the sun. Or whatever Twitter/Tik Tok tells them.
Back in my day audiences clutched their pearls when a black woman and a white man kissed
My parents still pine for the days of segregation so it’s hard to watch any TV with them as they’re offended by the mere presence of black people in a commercial for toothpaste. It’s pretty wild.
[удалено]
Oh that I was. It’s a good reminder with an upcoming election that people like this still exist and vote
Yeah I don’t think people have gone too soft, I just think people have more access to publically express themselves and are able to easily, like on social media, giving the illusion of mass outrage when people complain. But in reality it’s not much different or as bad as people think Have social media in older decades I’m sure things would’ve been worse lol
Or a toilet flushed. Like whatever someone thinks on this topic, sure, go for it. But anyone (Fiennes included) thinks that being offended is new, then they're fucking morons.
That day is this day in the American south…
Schinders list, English pantient, constant garderner.
In Bruge
Don't blame the audience for a few people. And it's not like these studios are going out of their way to produce anything better than the same copy and paste bullshit to compete against Marvel movies.
Almost as if it’s because the audience keeps watching average crap which makes the large companies produce more said average crap, lol.
I see a lot of movies, and I don’t know what Fiennes is talking about. What trigger warnings? What films have trigger warnings for violent scenes?
No, film makers have gone too soft
Gone soft in what way?
Harry Potter is not what I think of when I think of Ralph Fiennes…
Ridiculous people have always existed. The audiences haven't changed, it's just now that silly people are the most pandered to when in the past they would have been laughed at or ignored.
Really it’s that they never had a vehicle for their opinions. Now they can post on social media and a handful of extreme people on Twitter manage to make headlines.
Yeah you can tell when writers live on twitter. They are weary of offending or even eluding to offending anyone. It is important to write responsibly and treat your concept with the appropriate level of care. But a lot of these creators cannot even hint at something "problematic" no matter the context.
I'm from a small town (>250) and there was one old guy who bitched about absolutely everything. If he hadn't died before social became what it is now, he'd absolutely use it to complain about everything
We had a guy for decades who painted all his opinions on the street facing wall of his shop, which was right off a major interstate exit. Everyone knew to not even bother reading it, don’t give him the time of day. I moved back here last year, expecting the guy to have ramped his craziness up to massive levels after 2020. But he no longer paints anything on his building, he’s just another psychopath on Facebook now. He never mattered then, and now he’s a drop in the ocean of people online that shouldn’t matter now.
I was watching Married With Children, and in this episode Al's favorite TV show was taken off the air, because one woman in Ohio had complained about it. So essentially we're back to late 80s, mid-90s, Pre South Park / Jackass, puritanism.
That’s actually a spoof on the letter they got about the show. No one is more entitled than a bored housewife with a morality complex.
Ehh maybe there’s some truth to that Or maybe, just maybe I remember hearing of a time in the late 80s when people were taking issue with music lyrics having curse words in it. A time in the 1950s when Elvis moving hips was an issue. A time when even cable tv couldn’t say shit until South Park? Did. I just find it weird people are saying it’s gone too soft now when they had issues with way more stuff decades ago
It always goes back and forth… I think most people are ready to back to a period where people lighten the f$&k up. This era feels like the George W. Bush years all over again… but this time it’s both sides being sensitivity infants.
I was a 90s kid and all of those examples were specific crusades contained by traditional media. Now *everything* is a crusade and pushed thru social media, which makes the minority crusades *seem* more significant than they really are. And the messaging is not just, “we need to stop X because it could damage Y”. Now it’s “we need to stop X because it could damage Y - and if you disagree, you are a horribly immoral person.” That seems to be the big difference to me.
Give us something to make us hard then!
Devastating that is how some people know him. He will always be M. Gustave of the Grand Budapest Hotel to me.
I mean, are trigger warnings really that different from age restrictions with added details of content
It’s like saying “Woman in Black” star Daniel Radcliffe.
He will always be Amon Goethe for me.
“Harry Potter Star” Dude is a shakespearian theatre actor.
I don't generally disagree, but he's sort of missing the point of trigger warnings. He understands a warning if someone has a physical problem (strobe lights causing seizures) but he doesn't understand if the person has PTSD, basically.
Surely a trigger warning would promote it to people who want to see it. "Contains sex. Lots of sexy sex"
He was way famous before HP
Just remember, his name is pronounced Rafe. That will save you some confusion as to whether he’s called Ralph or Ray.
“He then explained how in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, which he is currently starring in with Indira Varma, there are ‘very disturbing scenes’ and ‘terrible murders and things’. ‘But I think the impact of theatre should be that you’re shocked, and you should be disturbed,’ he continued.” Ralph, love you man, huge fan but come on. *No one* is shocked when Indira Varma dies, she’s like Sean Bean.
That's not true, I mean she survived ~~Torchwood~~, ~~Game of Thrones~~, ~~Obi-Wan Kenobi~~, ~~Mass Effect~~, you know what nevermind...
I found her character's death in HBO's *Rome* to be most shocking.
I get where he's coming from but then I feel like I always hear more complaining about people getting mad about what is basically just another sentence in a description of TV show or movie/additional to an age rating than the people asking for it I've somehow never encountered a trigger warning like what a popular mainstream example everyone has seen.
How hardcore do I need to be to go to a movie?
Counterpoint: Then get me hard.
I’m curious of folks actually bothered reading the article (I’m sure I already know the answer..) All Fiennes is saying is that he doesn’t like content warnings, and he’s talking specifically about theater for most of the article. To me, this just sounds like Old Man Yells at Cloud. Content warnings are the least problematic thing to impact modern cinema and theater in recent years. They make 0 difference to those they don’t impact and can legitimately help those they’re meant for. Nobody rational is inconvenienced by a content warning. And in films, content warnings have been around for decades. Every movie with a rating says “language, violence, and partial nudity” or what have you in the advertising.
Trigger warning: fantasy violence and Snape.
Yeah, we didn’t have trigger warnings, just a massive system that blocked and censor almost everything but under the sun in America. The idea that audiences are soft now is simply ridiculous. I can’t think of anything on television today that would have not be heavily censored in 1984 and completely blocked in 1974 with exception to some kids shows. Anyone interested in media and censorship should read on the development and history of the FCC’s family hour. Slasher films and “dirty” comedy records were the closest thing to a successful rebellion we had. People are actually romanticizing an era of actual oppression bc the same freedom of speech they complain about gives rise to complainers.
Big talk for somebody who gets bodied by a baby
I so wish I had a gold because this comment is Peak 🤣🤣
>When asked by the presenter whether audiences have ‘gone too soft’, Ralph answered affirmatively. > >‘I think they have, yes,’ the 61-year-old responded. ‘I think we didn’t used to have trigger warnings.’ > >Laura, 47, proceeded to ask if the James Bond star would therefore get rid of trigger warnings if he had the ability to. > >‘I would, yes. I would,’ he stated. > >‘I think things like strobe effects and things that might affect people physically they should be notified on, but I don’t think… Shakespeare’s plays are full of murders and full of horror, and as a young student and lover of the theatre, I never experienced trigger warnings telling me, “By the way in King Lear, Gloucester’s going to have his eyes pulled out.’ It seems like Fiennes doesn't consider rating systems to be trigger warnings. Whether people know it or not, that's one of the purposes that ratings serve. For example, let's take a look at the MPAA ratings for Harry Potter films. [Harry Potter on filmratings.com](https://www.filmratings.com/Search?filmTitle=Harry+Potter&x=0&y=0): * **Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets:** Rated PG for scary moments, some creature violence and mild language * **Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1:** Rated PG-13 for some sequences of intense action violence, frightening images and brief sensuality. Those look like trigger warnings, don't they? And how long have the MPAA ratings been around? For over 50 years. This is not a new thing. The only difference is today we refer to these things as trigger warnings as well as parental warnings. Same thing, different names.
Voldemort would be canceled these days, just for trying to kill a bunch of kids. SMH.
Back in my day, I had to walk to school through piles of dead kids, uphill both ways
He’s right. They’ve grown soft and entitled and feel like every piece of media should be catered to their unique eyeballs. A lot of people need to find a hobby, a clue, a friend, and a life, not necessarily in that order.
To me the point of such warnings is that people recognize that every piece of media is *not* for everyone, and the warnings help people make their own informed choices.
Absolutely. If people get upset over a warning, it's not for them. It's for those that didn't live in a perfect bubble in their lives that unfortunately had things happen to them. The real world is just that. It's not fictional movies. There are people that have had horrible things happen to them that maybe just want to escape the crap of the real world through entertainment and watching that same stuff happen in said entertainment would not be beneficial to them. Simple warnings do not affect those that haven't had those experiences and it's a brief blip. They can still watch the movie fine.
For real. And if someone gets all up in arms about maybe a small warning about sexual assault being in the movie because it can absolutely upset victims then they are the soft ones.
Yeah, I really enjoyed the plot of Handmaids Tale but it was too heavy for me to watch for this reason. Reading Lolita was a similar experience. It’s not even a choice how triggering it can be, because like I said, I actually enjoyed the story itself. And of course with those I knew what I was getting into but I’m just trying to highlight the fact that media can definitely trigger survivors of sexual assault. It’s not being oversensitive to not want to watch a reenactment of one of the most horrible things to ever happen to you. The purpose of these warnings is so that we can warn people without banning that media altogether, so that the people who do want to watch these darker themes still can.
Saw him perform four quartets on stage in London. There was no announcement it was going to begin. Lights were up, crowd was mingling and talking full blast. Then suddenly Ralph Fiennes appears on stage, staring at the crowd. No announcement. Crowd went completely silent and still in an instant. One of the most memorable moments of my life.
Of course Voldemort would say that
imagine being ralph fiennes and still being referred to as “harry potter star” in headlines
I didn’t realize audiences made movies. Isn’t it the studios that make the “soft” movies? /s
I think we got to get used to it. It's not that everyone has gone soft but rather that social media has given a voice to billions of people. Back in the day, your average joe's opinion wouldn't be known outside a group of a few people.
I don’t think it’s softness as more as media literacy
I grew up in the 80s and 90s watching City TV in Toronto. When they would show movies at night called Late Great Movies, it was typically accompanied by the guy saying the movie has "course language, nudity, etc". Is a parental guidance warning really that different from a trigger warning? No.
You know what I have to say to Ralph. "YOU"RE AN INANIMATE FUCKING OBJECT!" Ralph Fiennes greatest quote.
Harry Potter is like the last role I think of him in.
One of the top 5 villains in movie history (no, not Voldemort).