This book is offensive?

You have to keep in mind that this is the country where hair dryers have warnings that tell people not to use them in the shower. This is the country in which people must be alerted to the fact that there may be wheat product in their Shredded Wheat. For people like you and me, there isn't anything wrong with Survivor being made into a movie. For the people the warnings are directed at, everything is wrong with making Survivor into a movie.

Rents, to add further weight to your point, my friend told me that when he was in the states he saw an advert on TV with a car being driven underwater. They actually had to put a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen saying "Do not drive your car under water..." to avoid possible lawsuits.
Fucking insane.

Four words for you: "CAUTION: Contents Are Hot." printed on the coffee cups of America.

The parents of morbidly obese children suing McDonalds because they somehow believed that deep-fried faeces was healthy dining... Luckily, this one was thrown out of court - which in a way is kind of a shame. I'd have loved to seen "Caution: Do Not Ingest" on a Big Mac wrapper...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by decalogue [/i]
[B]The parents of morbidly obese children suing McDonalds because they somehow believed that deep-fried faeces was healthy dining... Luckily, this one was thrown out of court - which in a way is kind of a shame. I'd have loved to seen "Caution: Do Not Ingest" on a Big Mac wrapper... [/B][/QUOTE]

Question: How is this different than the tobacco companies being sued? Fast food, while not as addictive, still is pretty addictive. And in both cases the defendents new (in reality, not court) that this is going to hurt them.

The reason surivor will not be made into a movie is because of women.

now i dont mean to sound sexist im not saying all women im saying the women in power if they dont want something to happen they say stop and it stops like that AIDS commercial. People were telling her how dangerous AIDS is and that everyone can be infected but it wasnt until she got a letter that said your family may be at risk. its that their scared like michael moore said that we live in a country of fear. if they dont want to hear hijacking, murder, suicide, or terrorism. If they can they will ignore it

simple as that eventhough its bullshit because the hijacking was really the backstory to the book.

maybe i just dont know what commercial youre talking about, but...
what does it have to do with women? i dont see how women would be offended by this book. but thats probably because i don't find this book to be offensive.
and it has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. yes, it involves hijacking an airplane. but thats about it.
i'm guessing that the people who are opposed to this movie being made, and are trying to stop it by relating it to 9/11, probably did not read the book. maybe just the back cover, so they know theres a plane crash. but not the book itself. because then they would be enlightened.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by a man[/i]
[B]maybe i just dont know what commercial youre talking about, but...
what does it have to do with women? i dont see how women would be offended by this book. but thats probably because i don't find this book to be offensive.
and it has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. yes, it involves hijacking an airplane. but thats about it.
i'm guessing that the people who are opposed to this movie being made, and are trying to stop it by relating it to 9/11, probably did not read the book. maybe just the back cover, so they know theres a plane crash. but not the book itself. because then they would be enlightened. [/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChiChi [/i]
[B]Question: How is this different than the tobacco companies being sued? Fast food, while not as addictive, still is pretty addictive. And in both cases the defendents new (in reality, not court) that this is going to hurt them. [/B][/QUOTE]

Tobbaco is physically addictive, to the point where you have no control over wanting it. Your brain wants it, your cut out of the loop. Food, well, that's a habitual addiction, one that you yourself work into. Would it be McDonalds fault for making fatty foods and selling them cheap to anyone who wants them? Maybe. But it should also be Coca-Cola's fault if I drink 50 Coca-Cola's, then sue when I overdose on Caffeine and go into shock.

Anyone who binges on McDonalds damn well knows they're going to gain weight if they never exercise, etcetera. Tobacco, well it's just outright addictive.

But I never was one to agree with any lawsuit. Moneygrabbers, the all of them.

People aren't suing the tobacco and fast food companies because
the products are addictive. They SAY they're doing it for that
reason. But actually those people realize that they are being
played as fools buy those companies. That's why they're suing,
they FINALLY found out that they're being fucked in the ass .....conglomerately speaking.
Further proof that people are stupid.

As for the Survivor film, it can still be made. It's just that a film of
that magnitude would have to have a budget of a studio-made
film. And it's the studios that are scared. I'm sure an independent
Survivor would make it, but it would be cheaply made.

whatever

i'm a woman and i loved survivor. that whole thing about women being at fault is pure, unadulterated bullshit. as a matter of fact the majority of the conservative fucks who are currently running this country into the ground are men. middle-aged, white, wealthy men, just like always. and i'm sure michael moore would be enraged to see you linking his words with your sexist rhetoric, especially given that the title of his book is "stupid white MEN".

moving on, i think that the whole warning labels/lawsuits thing is ricockulous. i guess people think that money will solve things, which is also pure, unadulterated bullshit.

those car commercials are funny. almost every one says "professional driver on a closed course. do not attempt." lol. and yet the whole reason the professional driver is doing the tricks is to show what the car can do. so what are you supposed to do, buy the car and then say, "you know, marge, theoretically, this car could take curves at 60 mph."

ANYWAY to get back to the original point. survivor will not be made into a movie because it involves hijacking, and even though he doesn't kill the people on the plane, that's enough for the american public right now, i guess. i think that's pretty stupid given the differences between the stories, but then again, i didn't lose someone on 9/11. still, mario has a good point--if you don't want to see a movie, don't see it. this is why they're not making the movie: because most people probably simply wouldn't see it, and therefore it wouldn't be enough of a ROI for the production houses.

this, btw, is pure, MALE bottom-line oriented thinking.

It will eventually be made into a movie. American society is just very sensitive on the whole 9/11 issue or any other terror issue. They delayed the release of several movies because of 9/11 (Collateral Damage, Sum of All Fears) or other terror attacks like the DC Snipers (Phone Booth), so as time passes people will desensitize once again. 9/11 was the darkest day in American history, but soon movies with High-Jackings and terrorists will be main stream again.

maybe, maybe not. they did change almost the entire plot of "the sum of all fears" so that it was neo-nazi terrorists instead of arab terrorists. i guess everyone can agree that nazis are the bad guys...or something...

One thing that's an aside to the fact, but I thought was interesting/amusing, was how many movies were made with the exact premise of 9/11.

[URL=http://us.imdb.com/Title?0133952]The Siege[/URL] was muslim extremists wreaking havoc in the name of religion...

and of course there were I think, 2 other big ones that I can't remember the names of (Oh yeah, they were just that great.)

Tom Clancy as well, has obviously more than dabbled then the idea of those exact types extremists carrying out a serious attack for the exact same reasons they did.

My point is, that after 9/11 we scattered, and shuffled, to cover up the truth. The truth, that devout muslims are prone to hating americans for a number of reasons, and some to an extent that they want to kill/carry out revenge. We predicted it, and predicted it, over and over, and when it happened, we made sure never to mention it again.

Of course, I know that because movies are made about it, doesn't make it a credible prediction, but it was a scenario, not a shot in the dark.

But, eh.

well there was the basketball diaries which everyone said after the fact was a predictor of the columbine massacres, as well as "rage" a novella by stephen king that was written about a decade before columbine...hindsight is 20/20 after all

Well, muslim extremists carrying out high-profile attacks on major targets as revenge for poor foreign policy isn't as simple as a teenager just being pissed off alone and violent, but I know what you mean. I'm not necessarily saying that we should have looked at "The Siege" and thought "You know, we should look at all those Muslim people, and ask them how they're feeling", but I just find it amusing how fast we backpedal when something horrible comes true.

God bless Political Correctness.

well if it keeps ignorant rednecks from killing any more sikhs thinking they're muslims (or from killing random muslims who aren't terrorists) then i'm all for it.

"Rage" was a good story.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by insomnomaniac [/i]
[B][i]moving on, i think that the whole warning labels/lawsuits thing is ricockulous. i guess people think that money will solve things, which is also pure, unadulterated bullshit.[/i][/B][/QUOTE]

ricockulous?

It's a word created by Loveline/The Man Show's Adam Corolla, as a more extreme variation of Rediculous.

Re-dick-you-luss.

Re-cock-you-luss.

Gotsit?

thanks for explaining eponymous.

Yeah, got it.

I've never watched those shows.

really, im surprised i havent heard anyone blame Fight Club for 9/11. i think there is a bigger connection between Fight Club and 9/11 than there is between Survivor and 9/11. i mean someone tried to take out the WTC because of all the business done there, they could have taken out the statue of liberty. all this being said, i think chuck had nothing to do with 9/11, i think survivor should be made and i think if people want violence out of television and movies they should get rid of the news.

1) Survivor was dead in the water before 9/11. There was no
director, nor script, nor stars. 9/11 had nothing to do with it.

2) Fast food doesn't have nicotine levels which are pumped up to
an insane degree in order to keep people addicted to it.

3) Rage was a jaw-droppingly bad book.

Yeah, that's just what a completely unstable nation like America needs right now: MORE DRUGS

Americans can be so fuckin stupid! Just because of 9/11 everyone is paranoid about everything now! Not to mention the shameless displays of false patriotism that suddenly appeared after the attacks. Ya, it was bad, but why should everything be censored just because of this one event? Is it to dumb down the public or what? Israel has coutless more terrorist acts than the U.S., but they aren't totally afraid of flying or going to a restaurant. Survivor should definitely be made into a movie, because, for one it is a GREAT book, but it also says a lot of great and necessary things.

Comfort barriers are so fucking over-valued

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rents [/i]
[B]You have to keep in mind that this is the country where hair dryers have warnings that tell people not to use them in the shower. This is the country in which people must be alerted to the fact that there may be wheat product in their Shredded Wheat...[/B][/QUOTE]

This is so deliciously Palahniuk!

lmao ya totally!!

I loved Rage by Stephen King. Especially the conversation between principal and the kid where the kid tricks him into asking a question. Damn that was great.

There is someone who I am mildly acquainted with that has a fat kid. Time and time again, the doctor has told them to control his diet or he will have severe health complications soon & many more later in life. This kid is 4 and he weighs almost 90 lbs! The kid developed a form of diabetes and it's supposed to get worse. Who is to blame here? To me, I say it's the parents, not the fast food that the parents are shoving down this kids throat. That's the real issue here...people are not willing to accept the consequences of their actions. If fast food is addictive, don't eat it. If cigarette smoking is addictive, don't freakin' smoke! If you don't want to get fat, don't eat before you go to bed and eat healthier. People need to wake up and realize that it's their life and it's ending one moment at a time. Everything in moderation, right?!? The fast food restaurants should not be the one's getting sued....its the parents who let their kids eat it all the time because it is what it is....FAST (and convienient). If you're older and fat because of fast food, too bad, tubby. Nobody held a gun to your head and told you to eat 4 Big Macks!

How about the fact that we live in a world where a pizza can get to your house faster than a cop? And about labels, what about the help numbers on shampoo bottle? i swear i saw a chainsaw that actually said, "Warning: Do not attempt to stop blade with hand or genitals." They put stuff like that on appliance because people are mystifyingly stupid. Lewis Black recently did a show on Broadway and said something about milk that not only makes good sense, but made me laugh. He said, "We now have Soy Milk for people who are lactose intolerent. There's no Soy titty on a cow is there? That's right, it's not Soy Milk, it's Soy Juice. But we don't say Soy Juice because when you try you actually start to gag." So, i'll leave you with a dead baby joke. "What's more fun than swinging a baby on a clothesline? Stopping it with a shovel."