All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I saw this trailer last night when I went to see Evil Dead. (Sadly the trailer for this movie was better than Evil Dead).
I LOVE the idea behind the movie! Very interesting!
HOWEVER, I don't like that the story is being told through the eyes of one family during this "purge" night. I think the story would be so much more interesting if we had an ensemble of stories through the eyes of various groups of people during the "purge" night so that we can see all the sinister things that are being done across the country during the "purge".
Unfortunately, it appears as if we are stuck with a story about a guy fleeing a group of people because he either has money or knowledge that they want, or perhaps the group of people want revenge on him for something he has done. If this turns out to be the case, I think the writer missed out on potentially a very interesting story that could look into all the evil things that people would do when they have no fear of punishment for their crimes.
That being said, I WILL go see this movie!
Kenneth Abbott Jr.
One of a very small group of people that actually saw Kevin Costner's "The Postman" in theaters, and I LOVED it!
Sorry guys. I think the idea is breathtakingly stupid. I can't, for the life of me, suspend disbelief even for a moment.
Even so, I agree with kabbottjr that the writer seems to have totally neglected the possibilities inherent in the idea (note that I've neglected to use the word "potential"). It basically seems like a run-of-the-mill home invasion plot with a really, really dumb backstory tacked onto it.
I'm also not a fan of Ethan Hawke at all. He's not a bad actor but his persona just comes off as wimpy and annoying. I'm not sure if that's his schtick or just the roles he picks but this has been an ongoing problem.
Is no dumber than the idea behind the Hunger Games IMO, yet they still made a fairly decent film out of that. This reminds me of a short story called Those Who Walk Away From Omelus. In which all the towns inhabitants are perfectly happy, cultured and well to do. All because there is this child locked in a basement that gets whipped and beaten daily. This kid sort of relieves the community of its evilness but you have to give up your humanity to live there knowing so. I don't buy you can purge evilness, it only spirals out of control. Interesting concept, tho. I might get in line for this.
When you were talking about "Those Who Walk Away From Omelus" it reminded me of scape-goating, which then reminded me of the ESPN 30 for 30 done a few years ago about Steve Bartman (the Chicago Cub fan that interfered with a catchable ball when the Cubs were 5 outs away from going to the World Series in 2003).
If you haven't seen it, I higly recommend it...even if you aren't a baseball fan or a fan of sports in general. It makes you feel truly sorry for Steve Bartman (which was how I felt when I saw the incident go down on live TV since I am an Astros fan and not a Cubs fan).
Kenneth Abbott Jr.
One of a very small group of people that actually saw Kevin Costner's "The Postman" in theaters, and I LOVED it!
When you were talking about "Those Who Walk Away From Omelus" it reminded me of scape-goating, which then reminded me of the ESPN 30 for 30 done a few years ago about Steve Bartman (the Chicago Cub fan that interfered with a catchable ball when the Cubs were 5 outs away from going to the World Series in 2003).
Am not a huge baseball fan, but am aware of Steve Bartman. I wouldn't compare Omelus or The Purge to scapegoating, although I find it a much more believable human condition. You saw what happened to Steve on that special. He single handedly turned evey Cubs fan angainst him, they were united.
This is the only part I truly got from The Watchman. As Dr. Manhattan is blamed for destruction of cities, the world unites against him and nuclear war between the US and Russia is avoided. I believe this could be true.
The Purge, Omelus, or even Hunger Games? I don't buy for a second. I was a fan of The Running Man, another ridiculous concept. I like to believe as we mature as species we would become even more peaceful.
As far as The Purge? Criminals are who they are because they refuse to fall into line and do what they want. I don't think they would wait for one day a year to get rid of all their nastiness and then just resume daily life as a normal citizen.
I bring up Running Man again, just to say I can buy into these concepts for the length of a film if it's compelling. And I can enjoy them...
I agree. I think they're telling the story from the wrong perspective. Like someone said, this seems like a home invasion movie, with a interesting back story. This would seem much more better had the writer had different stories regarding the criminals all interconnecting or something - that would have had me sold.
That being said, I like Ethan Hawke a lot, and I did like the trailer. I'll defo be seeing this, however, whether or not I will enjoy it is another question.
-- Curt
"No matter what you do, your job is to tell your story..."
I'm watching The Hunger Games as I write. James, you can STFU right now, biyotch!
The premise of The Purge is interesting, but more as an intellectual conversation among friends. A 'what would you do if...' scenario. As a movie, I'm not sure.
The premise of The Purge is interesting, but more as an intellectual conversation among friends. A 'what would you do if...' scenario. As a movie, I'm not sure.
My thoughts exactly.
Really not sure about this one. Looks damn near identical to The Strangers.
Think I would have been anticipating it more if the story was the family having to get from A to B, versus being stuck in their house. Whilst the A to B plots have been done to death (but then again, so have home invasions), at least that would have allowed them to have actually milked the situation more, and shown the full extent of the lawlessness.
I don't know what the heck you're all talking about. This film looks like it'll be a hundred mile an hour ride. I've liked Ethan Hawke as an actor ever since Training Day. Hopefully this'll be a good one.
There's little depth, and the comments above about there being a larger story to be told based on the premise bear out...but then it's designed to be a small budget affair...so it does what it does pretty well.
I thought it took a while at the start to get going. They made a wrong decision in limiting the location. But overall, it was okay. Some bad acting. But an enjoyable thriller. Didn't scare me, much. They could have done so much more with a plot like that.
-- Curt
"No matter what you do, your job is to tell your story..."
Haven't seen it, but what's interesting about this movie is that they made the thing for 3 million. The producers "kept the cost low by eschewing high-end effects, getting the actors to forgo salaries for a cut of the film's back-end profits and paying the director guild scale." Supposedly The Purge is on track to make over 30 million this weekend. Guess this shows the appeal of a contained horror script with a hook.
Not my type of thing but i was impressed with the clip and i don't see a problem with the concept as long as everyone in the story accepts and buys into it.
No different to a monster appearing out of the woods, or an alien arriving on earth, for example.
If the figures are right, it just goes to show a low budget, contained script with high concept is a ripe target.
The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards. Third - Honolulu Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
I didn't like it much. I mean, this is the 1 day a year crime is completely legal, and it turns into a slasher flick like The Strangers.
The idea was good, but the execution, not so much. If you're gonna make a movie based on a script, which states "this is the day murder is legal" then do something fresh.
It feels like The Stranger ala Hostage ala Home Invasion movies in general. It offers nothing new and serves up a dish of spoiled meat.
Enjoyed. To have produced it for $3million and to have delivered a very commercially attractive film that deep down has an interesting premise is something to be applauded.
Ethan Hawke is a guy I increasingly like and would one day very much like to work with. He doesn't get the credit he deserves and his presence helped bring a solidity to a film that may have become rudderless.
When you consider this is essentially a one location script, it never really felt like it was running out of ideas, or that it was boring. The ending was a bit naff, but this isn't Lawrence of Arabia. Recalibrate your expectation.
Whilst I agree such a premise is laden with inherent potential greater than what this film realised, I think the pragmatist in any writer/producer must take over; for $3million, they did an excellent job. With a bigger budget, they could've achieved more, but unfortunately they didn't have that.
My opinion is that they made 4 shit low budget movies in Paranormal activities series and now they need to earn money with another cheap low budget slasher shit movie
First movie I've seen in years. My son took me for Fathers day.
I loved the experience of hanging with my son. The movie however was a little bit of a mixed bag.
It was the suspension of belief that kept tripping me up. I got it right out of the bag what the set up was but as the kept explaining it, I kept questioning it which took me out of the story once again.
Full marks for pulling this off on the budegt they had and Ethan Hawk held it together almost single handedly imo.
All on all, it was pretty cool if you could get around the major pitfalls.
To be honest though, I could've been watching the worst movie on earth, but haveing my son treating me, and the time we spent together, I liked hanging through this one.
I liked it. I definitely didn't love it. But, when you've got a $3 Million production that will most likely gross somewhere near $100 Million WW, does it really matter?
The marketing campaign is what pre-sold this. They did a great job with trailers and ads. IMO, the finished product did not live up to what I hoped for and expected, but it was light years ahead of most of the garbage we're force fed.
As is typical of most horror/thriller theatrical releases, there are numerous issues with believability, but that doesn't surprise me.
What did surprise me was that I was able to completely predict the ending "twist". Just too obvious, as far as I'm concerned.
The general premise is also flawed, but still very interesting and obviously very marketable. It seems that the idea is that the haves are safe, while the have nots are on their own, but in reality, wouldn't the have nots be the ones to fear?
Murder seems to be the "crime of choice" during the purge, when in reality, I think the poor would have a field day in obtaining things they could never legally be able to acquire.
Some other issues I had...
The movie is too short. IMO, it would have helped to develop our main Protags better and also build up tension as the purge approaches.
Our Antags were creepy cool based on the masks they wore and even their odd behavior made them chilling...BUT...why were they acting like they did? Why would they suddenly be so happy about killing an innocent family that is basically, "one of them"? I think it worked in the way it was supposed to, but when analyzing it, it comes up looking rather silly.
Way too easy to get into the fortified house. It seemed like the Antags had access to any and all entrances, including windows, which I thought were all heavily barred. That didn't make much sense.
Our Protags did a very poor job of trying to hold out the Antags. Walking around the entire house separately is downright foolish.
Sure it's a big beautiful house, but the various gunfights going on in different locations would alert everyone in the entire house where the action was, and it sure didn't come off that way.
Both our main Antag and main Protag both were taken out too quickly and easily, IMO, which made for a rather lackluster finale. Obviously, the "twist" at the end played out as the actual finale, but it lacked the power and tension that could have been conjured up with some stronger writing.
So, I wasn't thrilled with what I saw, but I wasn't pissed either. I had heard about how graphic the violence was, but IMO, it was pretty tame, actually. I expected much more and there sure were loads of opportunities that, IMO, were missed.
2 final notes - the hand to hand fight in the basement was good - there needed to be more of this. Many have applauded Ethan Hawke's performance, but IMO, it wasn't great. For me, Lena Headey both stole the show and also carried it.
Glad this made a bunch of cash, as the genre is deserving of so much better than we continually get.
I'll give it a solid C+, but that's as high as I can go.
Saw this today. I didn't hate it, but I had a difficult time getting really invested in it, and that is primarily because the characters were not only unlikable, but displayed some downright annoying character traits.
Obviously the story is a redemption story of people overcoming an evil societal norm, and I have no problem being engaged by a character with some character flaws who eventually redeems himself. No, what annoyed me were the two ridiculously stupid children. Both of them needlessly and thoughtlessly imperil their families in ways that seem far too dumb to be forgivable or chalked up to "thinking like kids". What compounds this problem is that the boy is kind of chalked up to be the moral hero of the story. The message fails to resonate with me when the "hero" is a character I think is an idiot.
In addition, the "1% vs the 'poor'" message was absurdly heavy-handed. The ultimate irony: they demonize the main character for profitting off the violence of the culture by selling security systems to his community, and yet that's exactly what the producers of this film are doing.
Anyway, it wasn't horrible, but featured performances and "thrills" equal to a really good episode of NCIS. Wait for it on RedBox.
HATED It! I knew I would. Who would honestly buy into this concept except movie goers with nothing else to do?
SPOILERS!
The first half hour is a snooze fest. Then there's the hunted dude who the son lets in for no reason. Zero motivation from our Antags except wanting to kill a homeless guy, and yet smiley face shoots his own friend outside the house for dancing like a fool. Just shoot all your friends and go home! Purge away!
Then the twist. Oi Vey! The neighbors come to kill them as well because Ethan Hawke made too much dough off of them for selling them their security systems!!
The movie did its job though. Twenty fold on its budget already. I guess I'm a moron when I see nothing but hatred for Man of Steel and some mild praise for this pile. Not even sure why I'm posting this. Seems pointless.
Did you honestly "hate it", or were you less than thrilled with it?
Did you go into it, expecting to hate it? Did you really give it a chance to deliver what it set out to do?
And, James, don't get me wrong at all, I definitely didn't love it or even close to that, but IMO, it's far better than most of the horror garbage that plays at the theaters or DVD.
To me, horror or thrillers work in two different ways. My fave is when I care about the main characters so much I feel tension for them. This didn't have that IMO.
The second is when it's so brutal it makes me squeamish to watch. I didn't get that either. I'm sticking by my guns. I found nothing believable about it.
And yes, I will admit I went into it expecting to hate it. Maybe it's my fault for not giving it a fair chance. It was an original concept. That's what sold it. The story just didn't work on any level for me. Was honestly surprised to see this get 38% on rotten tomatoes. Makes me feel as if I missed something. I thought this should have rated in the teens.
Last half hour was terrible, really brought a decent movie down to a bad one. I thought the action was nice though, way way better than some 100 million dollar films.
If the movie can convince me how this night of "Purging" is not only acceptable but, more so, inevatble, then I think I would enjoy it as I like "all hell break loose" type of films and appocalyptic films. Sadly, I don't see how they could convince me of this and the posts in this thread seem to confirm that.
What a shitty movie. I didn't have high expectations going in and I was fully prepared to suspend belief for the ridiculous premise. (I'll admit I was a little bit interested in where the story-line could go.)
But I won't pretend I'm full-scale retarded. The ending was absolutely ridiculous and it confirms my personal belief that Ethan Hawke is not a capable actor.
I want my $1.50 to go to James DeMonaco, as the writer, not as a director. Even though I hated the story, I still think he could be capable of pulling off something interesting. I loved 'The Negotiator'.
What did surprise me was that I was able to completely predict the ending "twist". Just too obvious, as far as I'm concerned.
The general premise is also flawed, but still very interesting and obviously very marketable. It seems that the idea is that the haves are safe, while the have nots are on their own, but in reality, wouldn't the have nots be the ones to fear?
Murder seems to be the "crime of choice" during the purge, when in reality, I think the poor would have a field day in obtaining things they could never legally be able to acquire.
I wasn't gonna chirp in, but a recent string of comments have compelled me to do so. I'm quoting Jeff here, because I agree with it. If the poor can kill and steal for 12 hours without fear of getting arrested, it does make sense that the rich would form 'killer parties' and go after them. Much is made of the 'homeless guy' in the film when nothing actually suggests that he is.
There was s moment in the film where I was hoping for a twist. The one given was too obvious as Jeff said, but rather, I thought it would have been more interesting if Hawke and Heady actually encouraged home invasions, thus "killing" any Purgiers who enter thier domain. This would explain why the top-notch barricade could come down so easily and why the power gets knocked out but the monitors are still on.
The motivation for the neighbors would have been more believable had they found out the security for the Purge wasn't top grade as opposed to them just thinking a "wealthy" neighbor got rich off them.
I don't think the film was bad nor a waste of time. Hopefully the sequels can expand on the premise of nilism and perhaps genocide. ("you cannot attack government officials" or "public servants such as police") Makes yuou wonder how rules get enforced.
Recently watched this. The entire movie just irritated me. The concept seemed intriguing but they never really explore it. Apart from the opening shots of random violence, the rest of the film sinks into what it really is - a bland home invasion movie I've seen a million times before. What a waste of potential. Having said that, the concept is probably not that great after giving it some thought. One night of "Purging" would probably cost the government billions, devastate the economy and far from being the nice and apparently peaceful loving civilians these characters propose to be, would turn the country into a hellhole of unseen proportions. Unemployment would probably rise, not drop. Why work all year when you can plan for 364 days and legally rob a bank and then live off the money until next year? Or rob enough money to just live free and happy for the rest of your life? I see murder in most cases as a crime of passion or something spontaneous. Doubt you'd wait for Government permission to do such a deed unless you are indeed psychotic - and if you are, you probably would kill regardless of having "permission". What this "Purge Warning" does is actually entice people to kill. It's almost teasingly saying "Go out and kill someone". Why? I don't know.
Brings me to the characters. Oh my days. The villains act nuts for no real reason apart from to try and be scary. Act crazy, dress in masks, swing around in wooded areas, talk silly. Why? I suppose its meant to be creepy. Assuming they are "normal" every other day of the year why go through all this hassle and turn into escaped mental patients just because of one night? It's fricking ridiculous. I'd buy their actions a little more if this thing bothered to explain it but it just relies on us caring about a family - which could not be more cardboard than the home the homeless guy they let inside slept in. The family. Wow. Awful, awful dialogue and their interactions just made me want to slap myself. Why, WHY do they constantly creep around their own house as if they dont know where they are going? WHY do they constantly leave each other at several points in the film and never show any concern for each other? Christ, the Dad only springs into action to save his daughter when he spills a monologue to the audience about how he should save his daughter because a strange man is now in the house. No shit, genius! Later on, the mother finds the daughter. What does she do? Nothing! The daughter runs off and Mother heads back inside the safe room only to tell Dad she's run off somewhere!! WTF was that about?? AHHHG. This film annoyed me, I'll stop here.
I will say I believe the concept was taken from old ancient Halloween/ Druid traditions. I'm not exactly sure but the idea of the day was that everyone would dress in the opposite sex, do different to what they do normally etc and this would aid in some kind of release from every day pressure. I would have liked to have seen something more akin to those legends than what this gave; a daft almost unintentionally comedic thriller that should have been much better.
It's an interesting flick, I'll give it that. The overall concept did serve to slightly complicate certain plot points that otherwise would've been very straightforward. Other elements were fairly disturbing and did get you thinking, at least a little bit. It also had its share of suspense and I thought it was cool that the bad guys didn't get in until one hour in. Not a structure that occurs often nowadays.
I also thought Ethan Hawke did a decent job. Probably the only truly solid performance in the film. I'm just coming off Richard Linklater's "Before..." trilogy though so perhaps I'm biased. Still, never been a big fan of Ethan Hawke so the fact that his performance stuck out, even a little, is worth noting.
Nevertheless, I had a myriad of problems with this film that frankly I could go on about all day. What it essentially boils down to is that the central concept is really, really, REALLY loaded and would absolutely never ever happen in real life. Incorporating that into a film, you can either put in the hard work and try your damndest to produce a fully realized moral/political parable or you can set it up as simple as you can and ask the audience to just go with it. The Purge tries to do both and unfortunately, it's just not smart enough to pull off the intellectual stuff, resulting in something of a self-sabotage with every new detail about the world it's created. Its exploration of humanity, morality, politics, and American culture is completely hackneyed and flippant. I'm not sure if that's because they were trying to market to teenagers or something or because the writer/director just bit off more than he could chew as far as his own insight was concerned.
I also thought basically all the characters were pretty terrible. First off, I really hate the whole white suburbia family angle in general. It almost always makes for bland, corny, and cliched characters and indeed, The Purge is no exception. But it's compounded by just how stupid, impulsive, and reckless (not to mention ever pervasive) some of the characters' decisions are. Just about sunk the film for me. Also, with the exception of a few notes of dialogue, the villains were really gimmicky and hokey, both in how they looked and how they acted. Really wish they'd done away with those stupid masks all together.
The ending (that is, the last five minutes or so) was weak as well. I think the filmmakers flat out selected the absolute wrong way to go with it. Just incredible safe, predictable, and empty.
Yeah I agree. This film actually pissed me off. Some shitty little home invasion... what does one home invasion have to do with the concept of The Purge?
What was the point in selling me on the stupid idea in the first place? I suspended belief for this film. I had to accept the sheer ridiculousness of the concept, the least they could do is explore the concept in depth.
The girl dancing through the house with the machetes was laughable. Those gay college students (gay as in pathetic, not as in homosexual or happy)... I mean, really? Just because they put on a few masks and move their faces around in front of the camera, it was cringe-worthy. They could at least have tried to make it look scary.
As said by others here the poor would rip shit to bits. The rich would be rich no more and it would only take one night. It would be chaos. Now THERE'S a film I'd like to write. There'd be no gay-assed students taking shit over, I can tell you now.
It would have worked better if they just stuck with the old residents as being the full-on antagonists. They were actually scarier than the students. The street could be locked down but obviously the residents can still have at it. maybe there are affairs going on. Who's going to want to kill who? Or just leave it at the Residents ganging up on the one family and have them battle them. That would be creepy if done right. The students were superfluous to this script, ruined it, IMHO.
Not to interrupt the flow of conversation, but we stopped equating the word "gay" with "pathetic" about 5 years ago. Apparently you didn't get the memo.
As for the film, I can't wrap my head around the concept. I simply don't buy it. So I'm avoiding this one like the plague.
I didn't like it because I thought the main bad guy was horrible. Could have picked a better actor and his dialogue is obviously intended to creep out 14 year old kids. Also I found he was trying to act too much like the Joker or something.
I still didn't find it to be horrible. And I think there's a second one coming out, which I will probably see in theaters as I did this one.
The Strangers and You're Next were better (although You're Next kind of fell apart for me near the end, I still thought it was a very fun movie)
A bad writer, trying to become decent...
Thank you for all who put up with my work and try and help me improve.
Not to interrupt the flow of conversation, but we stopped equating the word "gay" with "pathetic" about 5 years ago. Apparently you didn't get the memo.
I imagine they would have taken offence right from the start... but now they should be fine. The ones that aren't are idiots.
The word is clearly defined in the dictionary. So whatever you and your friend(s) think is neither here nor there. What should be and what is are often two different things, suck it up.
It doesn't matter what gay people choose to call themselves, it will always end up becoming a word of ridicule. I mean, they stole the word, gay. Who could make fun of gay, right? How could gay ever become derogatory?
I'll tell you how... as soon as gay people took on the word, it became derogatory amongst heterosexual males. Instantly. How many times are we going to change words just because other people don't like the connotations? Why are people just so full of fucking shit?
I couldn't give a flying fuck about your politically correct bullshit. I'll use words as they are defined in the dictionary. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the dictionary.
Anyways, sorry to the mods for derailing the thread. Figured someone should call good ol' Dustin out on the matter.
This is why you should always quote people... as they can go back in and edit their posts.
The dictionary defines words as used by the majority of people. If words are used that way then the dictionary has a DUTY to the English language to include the definition. If they don't include on some sort of protest, then it isn't an honest dictionary.
Good god man. I'm not one for PC either but you clearly just shot yourself in the foot.
You can quote both of my edits, I meant them both.
Since your retort speaks for itself (and you made yourself look like an ignoramus), I'm going to ignore most of your discussion points. But I will say this. You said the dictionary defines words as used by the majority of the people. Well the majority does NOT define gay like you do. Hence why the source you quoted will be changing in the near future. Furthermore, gay is not defined as "pathetic" in the mirriam webster dictionary. Just fyi.
Anyways, sorry to the mods for derailing the thread. Figured someone should call good ol' Dustin out on the matter.
Apology accepted, provided you now cut it out.
Poor Dustin. Seems he can make trouble without even trying.
One thing that is funny about the boards is how nobody -- ever -- succeeds at changing anyone's mind. When challenged, one only formulates a response to further cement their position.
As such, rather than a barrage of sarcasm, why not try something like: "Hey Dustin, many members of our community here on Simply are, in fact, gay, and if you could find a different adjective to use in the future, it would be appreciated."
In the past, I have found that Dustin does, in fact -- on occasion -- respond to a polite request.
A little tolerance is good for the soul -- going either direction on the street, eh?
I always respond politely when somebody speaks to me that way. I'm shocked that a simple word should offend people, particularly when the tone behind the word doesn't have anything to do with gays.
Words don't hurt people, people hurt people. Fat is not a bad word, it's just an adjective. However when used with the correct tone the simple word, fat, can take on a whole new meaning. A nasty, meaning.
It's all about tone. Messing with words all the time isn't going to help. People, particularly PC people like albinopenguin should be better educated on that. It's not the words.
Of course Bert. And my sarcasm can be pretty thick at times. I'll try to scale it back. This is a message board afterall and we all communicate through written words. Not tone. Actual written words.
This is a message board afterall and we all communicate through written words. Not tone. Actual written words.
Tone is placed on the words afterwards by the reader. Every time. No getting away from it. If you read something in my post that you found offensive to gays then that is because you put it there. So tone plays a HUGE part in every internet conversation.
Also the fact that I used the word and then explained my definition should have halted all argument... but not for you, eh albinopenguin... I mean, you truly are sorry for derailing the thread, but you just had to do it anyway. That's like a guy beating his wife, being sorry afterwards and everything is all OK. Doesn't work like that, mate.
I think the fact that when people associate a term that normally means homosexuality with things that they don't like or are bad, it gives the word negative connotations and that's why it can be offensive to gay people.
It would be like if everyone in the world started calling everything and everyone they didn't like "Bowcott" or anyone else's name for that matter, you or that person wouldn't be too thrilled.
I use the word myself a lot in real life though, so giving someone hell for using it is something I can't do.
Macklemore-Same Love says it all anyways.
A bad writer, trying to become decent...
Thank you for all who put up with my work and try and help me improve.
These definitions wouldn't be coming from Urban Dictionary would they? lol
I haven't given any definitions. You mean the surnames? I'm not sure why surnames would be gotten from the urban dictionary. The point is, there are already funny surnames. Like Burke, Pratt, etc.
I haven't given any definitions. You mean the surnames? I'm not sure why surnames would be gotten from the urban dictionary. The point is, there are already funny surnames. Like Burke, Pratt, etc.
So, should we also change the definition of those words so as not to offend people with the actual surname?
Well to be honest I've never heard either of those names used in such a manner. I don't think it's to the same extent. It's not on a universally used level. But I don't care man, I'm not really trying to argue anything. Like I said, I use the term all of the time.
A bad writer, trying to become decent...
Thank you for all who put up with my work and try and help me improve.
In the past, I have found that Dustin does, in fact -- on occasion -- respond to a polite request.
A little tolerance is good for the soul -- going either direction on the street, eh?
I feel like this is treating the original comment as a little bit more innocuous than it was. Shaming of homosexuality is a big problem in most cultures and using "gay" as a pejorative in an online forum contributes to that shaming in every culture from which that forum can be accessed -- from the United States, where LGBT youth are one of the most at-risk groups for suicide, to Botswana, where they just plain ol' throw gay people in jail (I mention Botswana because I was just reading a script on here by a writer from Botswana...).
I think we're lucky to have Will speaking out here, because the silence of the majority is a big piece of social problems like this one. And I don't think Will should be treated like part of the problem for doing so (even if it means potential trouble for the mods...). A little tolerance goes a long way, yes, but tolerance of homosexuality and tolerance of homophobia are not equivalent ideas.
And Bowcott, the Dictionary definition argument don't fly. The fact that homophobia is so widespread that the pejorative use made it into the dictionary is evidence of the problem, not a defence of the thinking that created it. Dictionary definitions aren't infallible, anyway; they arise from culture (usually centuries-old culture), and as your careful wording suggests, you are very aware that the current culture of most nations is not very nice to gay people. I understand that you were very careful about your use of the word and intending not to cause offence, but regardless of the intent it was irresponsible usage and I think Will was right to speak up about it.
I don't feel too bad being "off topic" in this thread because it's just a movie review thread, but I won't comment in here again anyway.
…except to comment on the film! I uhm…hate this movie.
SPOILERS
Ethan Hawke definitely takes credit for having the dumbest family of the damn decade. I don't know which one I hate the most but I definitely know that I hate them all. I haven't wanted this badly to see the main characters die since ATM.
Props on the premise, a reasonably attractive look and feel, and a likeable performance from the always likeable Hawke.
Otherwise, this was half an hour of aggressively irritating rich white ennui, followed by half an hour of an irritatingly shallow attempt to expand thematically on the central premise combined with the ramblings of an utterly embarrassing bad guy, followed by half an hour of just basic old crap and the gutless choice to not even have the damn family slaughtered by the neighbours. Oh good, they saved the "homeless" black guy and he saved them, now all is right in the world.
And just so we're clear, the main bad guy in this movie says the line, "Send out he, or that will be thee."
I haven't seen a movie so aggressively squander its potential in a good long while. Yes, it didn't make perfect use of the premise, but it also didn't make good use of its misuse of the premise. The idea of the kid killing the dad so he could date the daughter was great -- then it got used as a twist instead of being interesting. The main "him or us" moral question driving the middle third was great, but the flick was either gutless with it -- Hawke "becoming a monster" fell utterly flat -- or just downright stupid, like when we were watching a bunch of assholes wandering around their own damn house with the lights off for ten minutes. The final twist of the neighbours killing them was great, except it didn't happen.
I'm all for stupid horror movies and I'm all for clever social commentary in horror movies, but for the love of Zuul don't split the difference and pretend you have a film. This was worse than Society and it was worse than Trespass, for gosh sakes.
Three enjoyable moments: Hawke shooting his daughter's idiot boyfriend (though I wish it had been more, and in the head), someone shooting that idiot who danced down the hallway with machetes, and -- and this one's legitimate -- I really appreciated that after killing those two people with melee weapons, Hawke took care to shoot their apparently dead bodies with the shotgun to make sure.
And Bowcott, the Dictionary definition argument don't fly. The fact that homophobia is so widespread that the pejorative use made it into the dictionary is evidence of the problem, not a defence of the thinking that created it. Dictionary definitions aren't infallible, anyway; they arise from culture (usually centuries-old culture), and as your careful wording suggests, you are very aware that the current culture of most nations is not very nice to gay people. I understand that you were very careful about your use of the word and intending not to cause offence, but regardless of the intent it was irresponsible usage and I think Will was right to speak up about it.
I was about to agree with you, and then I remembered why I started saying the word in the first place. I got it off my kids.
It's no good telling them what gay means to me, because to them and all their friends at school, gay means pathetic or weak. The reason the word made it into the dictionary is because words change over time and there isn't a thing we can do about it.
Here is a list of words that have changed meaning: Literally, once meant 'in a literal way or sense', it now also means to stress a point, and the definition in the dictionary has been changed to represent this fact. Yes, there are certain sections of the society (language purists, but who cares about them, right?) that resent the change in definition, but words are not owned by people, they are subject to change depending on societal trends.
Some more words: Abandon now means to leave completely, at one time, in the 14th C, it meant to subjugate, like give yourself to a king or country.
Addicts were originally slaves.
Awful used to mean full of awe or wonder.
Bully was similar to darling or sweetheart.
Cute meant perceptive and shrewd.
Decimate used to mean to only kill one in ten, it now means to completely destroy.
Husband literally meant, home owner
Nice used to mean foolish or silly.
I could go on and on, obviously. I feel that it is society's fixation with labels that segregates us and forces people with lesser mental capabilities to concentrate on differences.
I don't see gay people, I see people.
Society needs to wake up and throw aside all of this bullshit that holds us back from truly being honest with each other. The conspiracy theorist in me (haven't we all got a little one?) thinks that labels are given deliberately to keep us realising the differences. Constantly pointing them out. Pushing us into certain moulds. Then, once people realise what mould they are in they act accordingly... which is pretty much where stereotypes comes from.
Just watched this tonight. Actually, I'm still watching, but this was a BAD BAD movie IMO. First of all they should be ashamed calling this a horror. It's NOT. It's a lame thriller at best. A lame thriller with an unbelievable premise that is nothing different than a Panic Room type idea. AND they're making a sequel???????????????
IMHO, Scream For Me is a better more unique concept, but who the F knows what they will do with it.
This seems to have got an awful kicking. I watched it and thought it not too bad. Wasn't too good either but I've been far more bored and far more annoyed for letting certain other films in the house.
I'm not quite sure having an unbelievable premise in a horror film is so bad. Ain't that kind of the point - 'what if?'
I'm not quite sure having an unbelievable premise in a horror film is so bad. Ain't that kind of the point - 'what if?'
It isn't, but for some reason, I just couldn't get past it in this film.
IMO, it seems with The Purge, The Conjuring and the Paranormal Activity films, the general audience like films like these. The hardcore horrors go strait to cable or DVD. Play it safe writers! Don't take risks!!!
Pages: 
Author
The Purge (2013)
Logged
Locked Board