List of Crap #115: Top 50 Movies of the 70s Countdown!

[Edward J Grug III]

I've made my feelings about Mel Brooks well and truly clear in these lists before. Needless to say, Blazing Saddles wan't on my list.

[CJones]

I know this is going to sound crazy but I prefer Robin Hood: Men in tights.

So do I to be honest.

"Unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent."

[George-2.0]

I have a friend, one with great taste, generally, for whom that is one of his favourite movies.  His number one is Maverick, which frustrates him because, for obvious reasons, he doesn't want to watch it again.

And yet he can't quit The Usual Suspects 

[Cyrusso]

Dude, I have some BAD NEWS for you about Mel Gibson...

Oh, okay, THAT, I almost forgot for some reason. 

[Edward J Grug III]

Dude, I have some BAD NEWS for you about Mel Gibson...

Oh, okay, THAT, I almost forgot for some reason. 

Maybe because Hollywood is happily forgetting?

[Cyrusso]

Dude, I have some BAD NEWS for you about Mel Gibson...

Oh, okay, THAT, I almost forgot for some reason. 

Maybe because Hollywood is happily forgetting?

I guess that could be part of the reason, but honestly for some reason it just didn't occur to me.

[George-2.0]

Dude, I have some BAD NEWS for you about Mel Gibson...

Oh, okay, THAT, I almost forgot for some reason. 

Maybe because Hollywood is happily forgetting?

I guess that could be part of the reason, but honestly for some reason it just didn't occur to me.

But honestly a person would have to stop watching, reading, listening to a lot (and I mean a LOT) of things if based on how decent the creative/talent is.

When I was in college our art history teacher told us some horror stories about these great, classic painters, whose art now hangs in museums and Churches. And they hang there because they are great painters... not great human beings. At that point I was like, damn. people are shit and they've been shit for ages.

No judgment either way on viewers. it's a choice we make. To watch or not to watch.

[Edward J Grug III]

Dude, I have some BAD NEWS for you about Mel Gibson...

Oh, okay, THAT, I almost forgot for some reason. 

Maybe because Hollywood is happily forgetting?

I guess that could be part of the reason, but honestly for some reason it just didn't occur to me.

But honestly a person would have to stop watching, reading, listening to a lot (and I mean a LOT) of things if based on how decent the creative/talent is.

When I was in college our art history teacher told us some horror stories about these great, classic painters, whose art now hangs in museums and Churches. And they hang there because they are great painters... not great human beings. At that point I was like, damn. people are shit and they've been shit for ages.

No judgment either way on viewers. it's a choice we make. To watch or not to watch.

Well, my thoughts are if the person is dead and you aren't supporting them in their harmful life style, it's a non issue - So classic paintings etc = NBD.

A lot of the time abusers are successful at the cost of other people's careers - mostly women - so if you are supporting an abuser, you're also likely doing active harm to others that might just as well have made equally great art.

Finally, obviously, there are levels of what you will and won't support, lines you may or may not cross. I am pretty confident there is way more than a lifetime's worth of art to consume even if you cut out the toxic people's.

[George-2.0]

So it's not really an overall moral outrage issue, than one of concern over supporting someone who might be actively causing harm?

Interesting, I assumed people boycotted certain works/people due to a moral outrage - that there was no time stamp on it. Wrong was wrong. For example, Maureen O'Hara said that John Ford once punched her in the face, knocking her to the ground. But since John Ford is dead and can't punch women in the face anymore. It's now okay to watch his movies?

I apologize for derailing the thread again and I'm not trying to start a quarrel. But that comment put a different perspective on things. I'd not considered that, and I'm trying to wrap my mind around it. I get not wanting to support an abuser or a predatory personality, but that death makes it NBD is curious. I have to think on that one.

[Edward J Grug III]

So it's not really an overall moral outrage issue, than one of concern over supporting someone who might be actively causing harm?

Interesting, I assumed people boycotted certain works/people due to a moral outrage - that there was no time stamp on it. Wrong was wrong. For example, Maureen O'Hara said that John Ford once punched her in the face, knocking her to the ground. But since John Ford is dead and can't punch women in the face anymore. It's now okay to watch his movies?

I apologize for derailing the thread again and I'm not trying to start a quarrel. But that comment put a different perspective on things. I'd not considered that, and I'm trying to wrap my mind around it. I get not wanting to support an abuser or a predatory personality, but that death makes it NBD is curious. I have to think on that one.

I mean, I wouldn't watch a movie of him punching her in the face. It's awful that that happened, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he did worse and maybe cost some people their careers.

It's too late to do something about it now though. And when I say it makes it NBD, I'm obviously being flippant - but like, what good does not hanging a 200+ year old painting do now. for example?

And like, as I mentioned, there are degrees of awful, and there are also considerations of the norms of the time too.

I'm sure don't speak for everyone, but I'm much more concerned with cutting off abusers while it means something - I don't see the point of 'cancelling' John Ford now. Conversely, I don't think Polanski should have had the opportunity to make more movies, and even if he dies tomorrow, I don't think I'll ever feel comfortable watching them.

[Edward J Grug III]

PS, this is another topic I'm happy to splinter off into another thread and discuss at length, I'm sure others have different views on the subject.

[George-2.0]

I'm pretty much done - but the conversation has merit and I liked reading your thoughts on it. If anyone else feels like chiming in then I guess you could splinter it into it own thing. 

I know we shouldn't stray too far off the subject here, but I was curious and had to dig a little deeper.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled thread...

[F-Zero]

Dude, I have some BAD NEWS for you about Mel Gibson...

Oh, okay, THAT, I almost forgot for some reason. 

Maybe because Hollywood is happily forgetting?

I guess that could be part of the reason, but honestly for some reason it just didn't occur to me.

But honestly a person would have to stop watching, reading, listening to a lot (and I mean a LOT) of things if based on how decent the creative/talent is.

When I was in college our art history teacher told us some horror stories about these great, classic painters, whose art now hangs in museums and Churches. And they hang there because they are great painters... not great human beings. At that point I was like, damn. people are shit and they've been shit for ages.

No judgment either way on viewers. it's a choice we make. To watch or not to watch.

I still listen to Gary Glitter FWIW.

[F-Zero]

I have a friend with whom we could probably live out the rest of our lives solely communicating in Mel Brooks quotes.

[F-Zero]

I'm hoping we get more "weird" 70s movies and not the obvious ones or at least everyone please share your lists at the end.