[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

In your opinion. Stop stating opinion as fact.

So, me being told my opinion isn't valid is an acceptable opinion.

Me saying it's bollocks is an opinion presented as fact?

Oh please.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I'll tell that to foster carers and adopted kids.

I haven't mentioned biological relation being necessary?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Braden

It's the principle, not the attraction the category or the film gets. If I was in the mother's position, I imagine I would also be upset that a film has been created and nominated for an Oscar without being consulted first. It wouldn't matter how many people have or want to see it. She had the right to protest and campaign to have it removed, whether it attracted more people to the film or not. It was the only way of making it clear that she did not approve of it being made and gives the director bad publicity in the process.

So you can't name one which proves my point.

The principle doesn't hold up, the argument is that, by nominating the short film for an oscar, it's going to get a lot of attention and benefit the director but that's not the case. The short film award rarely gets attention and the people who make them don't go on to achieve success purely for it.

There's no such thing as bad publicity in situations, the only thing she's achieved in doing now is getting a lot more people to watch the film then they would have if she didn't say anything. If anything, her actions are probably gonna benefit the film's chances because now there's a narrative going on in an award that nobody pays attention to and the academy loves a good award narrative.

She could have done more damage to the film by staying silent. All she's achieved by speaking out is increase it's chances of winning.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So, me being told my opinion isn't valid is an acceptable opinion.

Me saying it's bollocks is an opinion presented as fact?

Oh please.

Yeah I agree with this and I gotta say TS, I don't think you would ever resort to the whole 'purposely confusing someone's opinion as a fact to make them look bad' tactic. I'm disappointed.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Well you've completely misunderstood the Oscars then haven't you?

Clearly! I thought they were there to judge entertainment, how is a movie about James Bulger's death considered entertainment.

I personally think it's in poor taste for people to make money out of these cases, like I don't like all of the Documentaries/Movies on 9/11 either as again I find it in poor taste, especially when a lot of these Movies try to make themselves styled in a way where they want you to be entertained by the product, ironically the 2nd biggest Film of all-time in the Titanic tried to be “entertaining” which again I found disgusting because of the fact that it was based on a very famous true story.

I apologize for waffling btw, it's just I strongly oppose anyone trying to profit off a tragedy, and the Oscars should definitely be judging on entertainment considering they are an award ceremony for Movies.

[Braden]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

So you can't name one which proves my point.

The principle doesn't hold up, the argument is that, by nominating the short film for an oscar, it's going to get a lot of attention and benefit the director but that's not the case. The short film award rarely gets attention and the people who make them don't go on to achieve success purely for it.

There's no such thing as bad publicity in situations, the only thing she's achieved in doing now is getting a lot more people to watch the film then they would have if she didn't say anything. If anything, her actions are probably gonna benefit the film's chances because now there's a narrative going on in an award that nobody pays attention to and the academy loves a good award narrative.

She could have done more damage to the film by staying silent. All she's achieved by speaking out is increase it's chances of winning.

Nobody should be held ransom and name winners of a specific category to validate their point. These award ceremonies all blur into one for me, personally. I couldn't even tell you who won Best Picture last year because there are so many shows and it's all pretentious drivel. tbh, you already counter-acted your point by mentioning the winner of the Short Film award from last year, which now you've mentioned, I remember generated a lot of publicity and recognition on social media.

Almost 100,000 people signed a petition to stop this film from being shown and to revoke the Oscar nomination, so to ignore that and say that all it's done is make more people watch the film...well, you'd need the proof first of all. Also, if it has, it doesn't mean the producer/director will come out of this looking pretty with his cheap and tacky tactic. The Oscar's will be complicit if they do give the film the award for that reason.

Not speaking out would not have damaged the film, per say. The fact that it achieved an Oscar nomination is a feat, regardless of whether you think people don't care about it. However, it would've gnawed at the person at the forefront of this tragedy and she had every right to speak out about this, regardless of the film's position in entertainment and arts or how many people will/have watched it. Especially since the film was so unnecessary and added no value to the case itself.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Clearly! I thought they were there to judge entertainment, how is a movie about James Bulger's death considered entertainment.

I personally think it's in poor taste for people to make money out of these cases, like I don't like all of the Documentaries/Movies on 9/11 either as again I find it in poor taste, especially when a lot of these Movies try to make themselves styled in a way where they want you to be entertained by the product, ironically the 2nd biggest Film of all-time in the Titanic tried to be “entertaining” which again I found disgusting because of the fact that it was based on a very famous true story.

I apologize for waffling btw, it's just I strongly oppose anyone trying to profit off a tragedy, and the Oscars should definitely be judging on entertainment considering they are an award ceremony for Movies.

It's funny you don't get offended by every movie on the planet then Mock.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Braden

Especially since the film was so unnecessary and added no value to the case itself.

Have you watched it?

[Braden]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Have you watched it?

No, but I want to believe the family and journalists who commented on this film and said as such. They have no reason to lie. Backed up even further by the fact that the producer didn't consult the family and explain why they were making the film.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

It's funny you don't get offended by every movie on the planet then Mock.

Not every Movie is based on a true story about a tragedy.

I don't get why you're taking a funny with my post when I think that most people (including you if someone else had posted it) would agree with my point?

If the Oscars were to nominate these types of Films then they should be in a separate category to fictional Films imo.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Braden

No, but I want to believe the family and journalists who commented on this film and said as such. They have no reason to lie. Backed up even further by the fact that the producer didn't consult the family and explain why they were making the film.

I never suggested anyone lied.

But the "value" of something is subjective, however.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Not every Movie is based on a true story about a tragedy.

I don't get why you're taking a funny with my post when I think that most people (including you if someone else had posted it) would agree with my point?

If the Oscars were to nominate these types of Films then they should be in a separate category to fictional Films imo.

Not taken a funny Mock. But every film in someway will depict things happening in the world (Hell, that's what fiction does mostly, mirror the world around us).

Suggesting no true stories should ever be depicted in movies is a rather extreme viewpoint.

And, no, I don't care who posts what. If I agree with something, I agree with it. If I don't, I don't.

[Braden]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I never suggested anyone lied.

But the "value" of something is subjective, however.

No, I don't think you suggested that. Was only justifying my opinion on why I believe them.

I do agree, but it would shock me if people would see value in a piece in which the producer intended for the audience to see the two murderers as "human beings", but then that's also subjective.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Braden

No, I don't think you suggested that. Was only justifying my opinion on why I believe them.

I do agree, but it would shock me if people would see value in a piece in which the producer intended for the audience to see the two murderers as "human beings", but then that's also subjective.

Well, there you go, I agree that is subjective, as I find that a worthwhile discussion to raise about it. Not to excuse them or absolve them of their actions and responsibility but to go someway to exploring not just how a human being could be that evil, but such young children. Murders happen all over the world all the time, this will always be a fascinating case to explore because of the rarity of it happening in this type of circumstance.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Braden

Nobody should be held ransom and name winners of a specific category to validate their point. These award ceremonies all blur into one for me, personally. I couldn't even tell you who won Best Picture last year because there are so many shows and it's all pretentious drivel. tbh, you already counter-acted your point by mentioning the winner of the Short Film award from last year, which now you've mentioned, I remember generated a lot of publicity and recognition on social media.

Almost 100,000 people signed a petition to stop this film from being shown and to revoke the Oscar nomination, so to ignore that and say that all it's done is make more people watch the film...well, you'd need the proof first of all. Also, if it has, it doesn't mean the producer/director will come out of this looking pretty with his cheap and tacky tactic. The Oscar's will be complicit if they do give the film the award for that reason.

Not speaking out would not have damaged the film, per say. The fact that it achieved an Oscar nomination is a feat, regardless of whether you think people don't care about it. However, it would've gnawed at the person at the forefront of this tragedy and she had every right to speak out about this, regardless of the film's position in entertainment and arts or how many people will/have watched it. Especially since the film was so unnecessary and added no value to the case itself.

The point was to prove that no one cares about the Short Film Oscar typically and that this wouldn't have been a story if it wasn't for the outrage since most people wouldn't have watched it or knew what it was about otherwise. It's Denise Fergus' reaction that made it a story and will continue to make it a story for the next month or so until the Oscars air. I bought up last year's winner because it was an outlier and I said why so ignoring the context of why I brought it up just to try and cut me down won't do much for your own argument. Mitzee from Hollyoaks got attention, not because of the film but because she had a good speech and people liked how she signed it. That's the long and short of her US coverage and she only made news like she did over here because she's Mitzee from Hollyoaks. Had that film been made by someone who was unknown here, it would have got zero attention in our press.

100,000 people have reacted to a story of someone telling them to be upset and oppose a film they haven't watched, an outrage that will fizzle out when the next thing people are told to be angry about emerges.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So, me being told my opinion isn't valid is an acceptable opinion.

I've never said that it's an acceptable opinion; it's less informed, that doesn't mean it's invalid. The argument that a non-parent has an equally informed opinion on how a parent might feel in any given situation than another parent is bizarre and I'm just not even sure what it's based in? In what other situation would you argue that you can empathise with a group of people "just as well as" other members of that group?

Me saying it's bollocks is an opinion presented as fact?

Oh please.

You're stating all sorts of things as facts with little reasoning behind them other than the fact that you personally feel like it should be the truth, even though basically every single person who actually is a parent in this thread has confirmed that there are certain things you just can't fully imagine as a non-parent. Again; this isn't people who were "born parents"... everyone who holds that opinion remembers their thoughts and feelings from when they didn't have children and knows for a fact that it's different.

Is it true for all parents? No but trying to factor abusive or uncaring parents into the equation is a complete strawman in this situation. "Some parents don't care about their kids, so obviously everyone can imagine what having kids is like". Just odd, and completely random, logic.

Also again there's just so much hostility against the idea. I don't know what that's about, really. No discussion, just butthurt dogmatic ranting. "I super DO understand what it's like to have children because of my imagination, so THERE"

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Not taken a funny Mock. But every film in someway will depict things happening in the world (Hell, that's what fiction does mostly, mirror the world around us).

Suggesting no true stories should ever be depicted in movies is a rather extreme viewpoint.

And, no, I don't care who posts what. If I agree with something, I agree with it. If I don't, I don't.

I agree with you to an extent that every fictional story will base itself on a case in real life, but I think it's different if a Movie came out saying that Charlie was brutally murdered by two boys or one boy and one girl compared to actually using the real victim's name and location of where he died, or the methods used on James as he was murdered.

[Glenn.]

Has anyone commenting even watched the film?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You're stating all sorts of things as facts with little reasoning behind them other than the fact that you personally feel like it should be the truth, even though basically every single person who actually is a parent in this thread has confirmed that there are certain things you just can't fully imagine as a non-parent. Again; this isn't people who were "born parents"... everyone who holds that opinion remembers their thoughts and feelings from when they didn't have children and knows for a fact that it's different.

What have I stated as a fact with no reasoning?

The opinion of 3 or 4 parents on TiBB is regarded as fact because they have "confirmed" I don't understand something? Yet, it's ME presenting my opinions as fact?

Would you like to attempt that paragraph again?

As an example, Niamh can certainly illustrate how her viewpoint, perspective, life, opinions have changed with and without children. Is this a factual basis with which to base an entire argument of "parents vs non-parents"? No. No it isn't. (Edit: Not saying this is what Niamh is doing, I'm just using an example).

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Is it true for all parents? No but trying to factor abusive or uncaring parents into the equation is a complete strawman in this situation. "Some parents don't care about their kids, so obviously everyone can imagine what having kids is like". Just odd, and completely random, logic.

Actually, I think you'll find it's the exact opposite.

The point is anyone can empathise with Denise's plight, her grief, her situation regardless of their parental status. That is anyone, not everyone.

The point of what you're quoting was to illustrate parents can be just as incapable of understanding her grief as non-parents. I.e. some will and some won't but conceiving a child is not a determining factor.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Also again there's just so much hostility against the idea. I don't know what that's about, really. No discussion, just butthurt dogmatic ranting. "I super DO understand what it's like to have children because of my imagination, so THERE"

It's not about imagining children.

It's about empathising with a woman who's child was abducted by two other children and murdered. Do you have direct experience of that too? Or is you simply having children the only qualifying factor?

When discussing a hypothetical situation and empathising with other human beings, imagination tends to come into play, and we draw on our similar experiences of grief, pain, suffering. It's how compassion works.

[user104658]

You're deliberately making the situation as specific as possible to avoid even considering the possibility that actually having (or raising) a child might offer an experience (the direct experience of the parent-child bond) that would greatly bolster the ability to empathise with a parent who has lost a child. You should have a look at empathy vs sympathy and the subtle differences, IMO.

Consider; let's say a homosexual couple is attacked in the street and one person is badly beaten and hospitalised. Can any human with a sense of right and justice appreciate their situation and feel awful for them? Yes, of course! And most would. However is it not fair to say that another homosexual couple - with individuals who have NOT ever been physically attacked but have, nonetheless, experienced some general homophobia - probably has more ability to understand and empathise with their anger and frustration than a straight couple who has never been persecuted?

It doesn't mean that the straight couple think it's OK, that it doesn't make them feel sick to the core and furious, but it's still different. Would you dispute that? It also doesn't mean that ALL gay people are more sympathetic to the situation than ALL straight people - anyone can be an unsympathetic arsehole - but we're talking about general trends not specific individuals.

Parents (in general) can better understand the plight of another parent who has experienced the loss of a child, because of direct experience of the parental bond. Shared experience is a major component of empathy. There's literally nothing offensive or controversial about this statement. I still don't understand why it makes you angry.

[thesheriff443]

Marsh knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

You don’t need a child to have an opinion on this subject but having a child gives you a better understanding of what it would be like to lose that child.

It’s far easier to judge than to be judged.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

So you can't name one which proves my point.

The principle doesn't hold up, the argument is that, by nominating the short film for an oscar, it's going to get a lot of attention and benefit the director but that's not the case. The short film award rarely gets attention and the people who make them don't go on to achieve success purely for it.

There's no such thing as bad publicity in situations, the only thing she's achieved in doing now is getting a lot more people to watch the film then they would have if she didn't say anything. If anything, her actions are probably gonna benefit the film's chances because now there's a narrative going on in an award that nobody pays attention to and the academy loves a good award narrative.

She could have done more damage to the film by staying silent. All she's achieved by speaking out is increase it's chances of winning.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.mic.c...mous-directors

[user104658]

Originally Posted by parmnion

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.mic.c...mous-directors

Indeed Parm; short films themselves rarely receive much mainstream attention outside of the film industry... but a critically acclaimed short film can certainly lead a film maker on to bigger and better things if they're recognised as skilled by others with the ability to bring them on board for other projects. That's how any career works, surely.

[MTVN]

So the sensible middle ground seems to be that yes, the film maker was insensitive to not even consult the family but the subject matter should not be completely off limits or censored

No, you don't need to be a parent to have an opinion but it's fairly obvious that experiencing parenthood can give you a fresh perspective which is particularly relevant in some things

No, short films are not widely known or viewed by the public but within the industry themselves they can be huge as a springboard for a directors future career and get him recognised by the right people

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Indeed Parm; short films themselves rarely receive much mainstream attention outside of the film industry... but a critically acclaimed short film can certainly lead a film maker on to bigger and better things if they're recognised as skilled by others with the ability to bring them on board for other projects. That's how any career works, surely.

Very very true, an old school friend of mine took out a government grant back in the 90s and made a short film about a bookmakers.....he has since had a film on TV and directed shameless and doctor who.