MovieChat Forums > Braveheart (1995) Discussion > What's wrong with young people??

What's wrong with young people??

posted 9 years ago by steve-232-885747
127 replies | jump to latest

Just tried showing Braveheart to my two stepkids -- ages 14 and 18. Couldn't even make it through 10 minutes of the movie. When I was close to their age, BH was my favorite movie by far, and held so much meaning -- the love story, the loss of love, the Wallace's motivations, all married to an amazing soundtrack. Very, very powerful to me, even now.

It's seriously depressing to me (and a bit astonishing) that these two boys couldn't appreciate it. Is it just me, or something wrong???

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

Perhaps they found it racist, homophobic and simultaneously sentimental and violence-porny. Or perhaps they just are at the age where there's nothing more offputting than to be sat down in front of a film by a person of the previous generation and told 'This was my favourite film when I was your age! You'll love it!'

Incidentally, did you bother asking why they disliked it, and if so what did they say?

[–] Wuchakk 9 years ago

Perhaps they found it racist, homophobic and simultaneously sentimental and violence-porny.

Aww, poor baby, were you offended by the scene where the king throws his girly son's lover out the window? (lol)

You must be truthphobic, i.e. realityphobic.

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

My comments evidently hit you in a sensitive spot.

[–] Wuchakk 9 years ago

As usual with people of your ilk you try to project your own issues on others. Your own words reveal that the movie hit a sensitive spot with you. Poor baby (wah!)😭

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

QED...

[–] dnovthenov 8 years ago

I wish I read this last year, this is hilarious and priceless. Pretty epic reply Wuchakk. Look at that baby's reaction hahaha

[–] jfout-3 9 years ago

I loved you're reply. SPOT-ON!!!😆

[–] FirstBlood1982 9 years ago

If they only made it less than ten minutes in, then I definitely don't think that could've been the case.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++

[–] sesarp101 9 years ago

Lots of teenagers watch disgustingly sick and violent horror films (there seems to be loads of them getting made nowadays). Do you really think they would be put off a film by a few violent battle scenes and an unsympathetically portrayed homosexual getting chucked out a window? (Anyway, why should only straight people be shown in a bad light in the movies?)

If anything, the length of the film would probably put most kids off - not many would be prepared to sit down and watch a three hour film about a topic they probably aren't interested in. That's not to say they might not eventually sit down and enjoy it when they are older.

[–] movie_fan243 9 years ago

What? All that in the first 10 minutes..........

[–] litcity 9 years ago

Yes, I'm sure two teenaged boys were worried a movie might be "sexist" or "homophobic."

Moron...

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FascistAnarchist999 9 years ago

"Perhaps they found it racist, homophobic." This is why there are hardly any good movies anymore. It's because of liberals like you with your political correctness.

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

No doubt you're right. Xenophobia and queer-bashing, that's what the cinema of today needs!

[–] nicgrosse 9 years ago

Thank God you're not shy about your intense stupidity. It appears to be your only outstanding quality.

[–] tim-tindall-928-88049 9 years ago

Oh dear, The future is doomed. Racist, homophobic? People these days would like a blank screen for 2 hours, but then they'd find a way to be offended by it.

[–] Arkoth 9 years ago

blank screen?
BLANK?
AS IN WHITE?
WHITE!!?
racist!

"Been hittin' the Thighmaster,
Torgo?"

[–] murad23 8 years ago

It is a film that attacks the profound and genocidal racism of the rulers of England. The film has a core anti-racist message.

And there is nothing homophobic about the film. The issue with Prince Edward (later Edward II) and the Gaveston-like character was not homosexuality per se, but rather Prince Edward's continual attachment to likely homosexual partners who were incompetent and profoundly corrupt.

If Gaveston was female would you find a negative portrayal of the character "hetero-phobic?"

So stop whining.

[–] ccharlie183 8 years ago

nationalism and wanting your people to survive being assimilated into a larger population with a different culture, history, and ethnicity is racist, opening your borders, letting people conquer you and colonize your land is morally superior and altruistic and if you don't you're an evil racist, if you're white that is, if it happens to non-whites it's an act of genocide and is recognised as such by the United Nations under UN resolution 260, luckily they literally added a condition that said "only protected groups" are covered under the genocide convention and the only group that isn't protected is anyone of european heritage anywhere in the world. Check your white privilege, stop reproducing or mix with non-whites, let millions of other people slowly replace you until you are extinct you evil racists are the cause of all the world's problems, when white people are gone there will be universal peace and stuff and like tootsi and hutu will get along, so will kurds and turks, arabs and indians, Bantu and bushmen, it was all harmonious before the evil white male invented race and racism and sexism and bigotry and xenophobia, nations are like soooo antiquated as a concept, like that's so 10,000 years ago, we don't need your traditions like wow just wow it's the current year and anything that didn't come before this year is like evil and stupid. I'm going to cut off my legs and become a trans-abled black female dwarf with ptsd and a degree in intersectional feminism that wants to abolish the white race and destroy the invalid concept of whiteness and nationalism for white people, respect my identity it's a normal, moral and good superior to your racist, xenophobic, small minded, binary mode of thinking. You're like a binary computer and like i'm like a quantum computer like i *beep* love science and like you're in the dark ages and stuff like wow just wow. old people are so stupid.

[–] jmfcasey 8 years ago

"Check your white privilege, stop reproducing or mix with non-whites, let millions of other people slowly replace you until you are extinct"

Said nobody ever.

[–] Line-of-Flight 8 years ago

Lol, great comment :D

[–] masseymess 8 years ago

what's wrong with you?

[–] syntinen 8 years ago

Why, nothing, thank you. What's wrong with you?

[–] alidrvsantl 8 years ago

you're a *beep* moron

[–] ladaskon 8 years ago

"Perhaps they found it racist, homophobic and simultaneously sentimental and violence-porny. Or perhaps they just are at the age where there's nothing more offputting than to be sat down in front of a film by a person of the previous generation and told 'This was my favourite film when I was your age! You'll love it!'

Incidentally, did you bother asking why they disliked it, and if so what did they say?"

Says the hipster millenial nihilist you are the reason this World is doomed I bet you vote Killary

[–] syntinen 8 years ago

You lose. I'm not American. Did it ever occur to you that not everybody in the world is?

[–] Karl Aksel 8 years ago

Perhaps they found it racist, homophobic and simultaneously sentimental and violence-porny. Or perhaps they just are at the age where there's nothing more offputting than to be sat down in front of a film by a person of the previous generation and told 'This was my favourite film when I was your age! You'll love it!'

I very much doubt the former is the case. Kids that age tend to love violence-porn. The latter, though, absolutely. I tried to raise my step-son properly with Indiana Jones, 1941, James Bond movies etc. I thought 1941 was just about the most hilarious film I had ever seen when I first saw it in my youth, and it is by no means a slow movie... But five minutes in, and my then 12 year old step-son starts fiddling with his mobile. Five minutes after that, he ups and leaves. The little bastard!

[–] GayBoi1 8 years ago

Perhaps they found it racist, homophobic and simultaneously sentimental and violence-porny. Or perhaps they just are at the age where there's nothing more offputting than to be sat down in front of a film by a person of the previous generation and told 'This was my favourite film when I was your age! You'll love it!

So who do you regard as the "previous generation," as shole? What was racist or homophobic about it? Like there isn't violence in movies today, a s swipe?

[–] syntinen 8 years ago

You know, apart from the fact that you wanted to be splutteringly abusive I have absolutely no idea what that was all about.

[–] steve-232-885747 9 years ago

They grunted/mumbled something I couldn't make out, and then went off to talk about their video games.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vegitto02 9 years ago

That's really a shame. I saw Braveheart when I was ~16 and loved it ever since. Of course, at that age, the appeal was the battle scenes and the music. Now, I appreciate the politics, action, motivations, and the music. And I was also a fan of superhero movies at that age (and now) as well.

It must be today's ADHD generation.

Then again, the older generation(s) could say the same about me. I just saw My Fair Lady for the first time, and while I agree that it's a finely made film, I found myself getting restless during parts of it. I would obviously give the film a high score, but I wouldn't find myself watching it again any time soon. That being said, I do love Sound of Music and can watch that repeatedly -- probably because it has multiple layers (with the shadow of WW2 looming in the background).

--==--==--==--==--==--
Avengers: Age of Skyne-- err, Ultron

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

It must be today's ADHD generation.

Not necessarily.

For one thing, if you can't remember a time when anything your parents liked was by definition uncool, you really don't remember being young at all. :-)

For another, sentimentality is rather out of fashion in action movies nowadays. It's quite possible that the gallons of syrup on offer in scenes like 'gift of a thistle' and 'Celtic-style secret wedding' put them off.

For yet another, many teenagers (not all, but many) are a lot less homophobic than their parents, and they may just have found the limp-wristed stereotyping of Edward II repellent.

Or any number of things.

[–] vegitto02 9 years ago

For one thing, if you can't remember a time when anything your parents liked was by definition uncool, you really don't remember being young at all. :-)

True, that could be a factor. But even as a kid or teenager, I gave stuff my parents liked a shot. I didn't discount it just because they liked it.

For another, sentimentality is rather out of fashion in action movies nowadays. It's quite possible that the gallons of syrup on offer in scenes like 'gift of a thistle' and 'Celtic-style secret wedding' put them off.

I think you're exaggerating. Those scenes (especially gift of a thistle") were relatively short. Plus, there's sentimentality in the Fast and Furious movies, and they're mega-popular. I've seen sentimental bits in other superhero movies and even bits in The Expendables series as well.

For yet another, many teenagers (not all, but many) are a lot less homophobic than their parents, and they may just have found the limp-wristed stereotyping of Edward II repellent.

Gibson was trying to portray Edward II as a weak prince/king, which I believe he was. Edward II also happened to be gay, which Gibson portrayed here. This movie isn't saying that all gay men are weak or limp-wristed.

--==--==--==--==--==--
Avengers: Age of Skyne-- err, Ultron

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

But even as a kid or teenager, I gave stuff my parents liked a shot.

Respeck to you! But thousands wouldn’t.

Those scenes (especially gift of a thistle") were relatively short.

But they’re front-loaded. You have to sit through those and quite a lot of stuff about lerve and happy hobbity Scots folk leading their simple poor-but-honest lives before you get down to any thud and blunder.

Gibson was trying to portray Edward II as a weak prince/king, which I believe he was.

Politically weak, yes. In other respects no – he was a champion jouster, as was his best mate Piers Gaveston (‘Philip’ in the movie) and they annoyed Edward I by bunking off to compete in international tournaments against Europe’s best. He also bemused his contemporaries by enjoying sailing and ditch-digging. A sporting, physically brave (jousting was no joke; deaths weren't rare and a large proportion of the male nobility would have lost their front teeth to it) outdoors type.

Edward II also happened to be gay, which Gibson portrayed here.

There are any number of ways a capable film-maker can convey that a character is both weak-willed and gay without conflating them and reaching for the homophobic stereotype ‘limp-wristed nancy-boy’. If that isn’t homophobia it’s lazy/incompetent film-making.

[–] vegitto02 9 years ago

But they’re front-loaded. You have to sit through those and quite a lot of stuff about lerve and happy hobbity Scots folk leading their simple poor-but-honest lives before you get down to any thud and blunder.

True, the first 30 or 40 minutes have slower scenes, but the movie practically starts off with people being hanged. Maybe it's what you said earlier (teenagers disliking something just because their parents liked it), or maybe times have changed (ADHD).

--==--==--==--==--==--
Avengers: Age of Skyne-- err, Ultron

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vegitto02 9 years ago

Also, thanks for letting me know about Edward II being an expert jouster. I did not know that!

--==--==--==--==--==--
Avengers: Age of Skyne-- err, Ultron

[–] bsu_oak530 9 years ago

Politically weak, yes. In other respects no – he was a champion jouster, as was his best mate Piers Gaveston (‘Philip’ in the movie) and they annoyed Edward I by bunking off to compete in international tournaments against Europe’s best. He also bemused his contemporaries by enjoying sailing and ditch-digging. A sporting, physically brave (jousting was no joke; deaths weren't rare and a large proportion of the male nobility would have lost their front teeth to it) outdoors type.

No, he was actually weak. One of the weakest kings in England's history. His son, Edward III was not however. He was one of England's most capable kings, at least on the battlefield.

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

In what way do you think that contradicts what I said?

[–] Karl Aksel 8 years ago

Politically weak, yes. In other respects no – he was a champion jouster, as was his best mate Piers Gaveston (‘Philip’ in the movie) and they annoyed Edward I by bunking off to compete in international tournaments against Europe’s best. He also bemused his contemporaries by enjoying sailing and ditch-digging. A sporting, physically brave (jousting was no joke; deaths weren't rare and a large proportion of the male nobility would have lost their front teeth to it) outdoors type.

I seem to recall from what I have read that Edward II took little interest in martial activities himself, and am not aware of any prowess in jousting - which he left to Piers Gaveston. Instead, Edward preferred non-martial sports and activities, like rowing and ditch-digging which you mention. He would host tournaments without participating himself - if you have sources to the contrary, I would be very interested to read them.

[–] syntinen 8 years ago

I checked up and you're dead right; thanks for correcting me.

His biographer Kathryn Warner suggests that His father may simply have forbidden his taking part in tournaments because the risk of being killed was so great - E1's first four sons all died in childhood and for a long time the younger Edward was his only male heir. When E2 was 16 years old his father's second wife produced a son, and went on to have another; but by that time E1 was over 60, and must have expected to die before either of those boys was of age. Leaving a child heir was better than leaving no direct heir at all, but was still extremely dangerous for the realm; it would be very understandable if he simply refused to let his eldest son risk his life unnecessarily for sport.

[–] Karl Aksel 8 years ago

I checked up and you're dead right; thanks for correcting me.

His biographer Kathryn Warner suggests that His father may simply have forbidden his taking part in tournaments because the risk of being killed was so great - E1's first four sons all died in childhood and for a long time the younger Edward was his only male heir. When E2 was 16 years old his father's second wife produced a son, and went on to have another; but by that time E1 was over 60, and must have expected to die before either of those boys was of age. Leaving a child heir was better than leaving no direct heir at all, but was still extremely dangerous for the realm; it would be very understandable if he simply refused to let his eldest son risk his life unnecessarily for sport.

This may in turn have shaped Edward II's interests away from martial arts. Even though he was physically big and strong, a shielded upbringing might have given him a distaste for pain.

[–] syntinen 8 years ago

I don't think there's any evidence that he had a distaste for pain, or unwillingness to face danger. It could simply be that being debarred from the unchallenged top occupation and interest of young men of the nobility left a space that got filled up in more eccentric ways.

[–] syntinen 8 years ago

[–] Karl Aksel 8 years ago

Two identical posts at the same time is a double post. Posting the same post 10 hours later, and I'm curious. Do your posts not show up on your end?

[–] syntinen 8 years ago

My IPad must have glitched; the next time I opened it up there was my post still sitting apparently waiting to be submitted, so I clicked Submit.

[–] GayBoi1 8 years ago

There are any number of ways a capable film-maker can convey that a character is both weak-willed and gay without conflating them and reaching for the homophobic stereotype ‘limp-wristed nancy-boy’. If that isn’t homophobia it’s lazy/incompetent film-making.

I'm gay and I can safely say that YOU'RE AN IDIOT. This is a film about history as s hole. Things in history weren't as great as they are today...or so you believe.

[–] Karl Aksel 8 years ago

I'm gay and I can safely say that YOU'RE AN IDIOT. This is a film about history as s hole. Things in history weren't as great as they are today...or so you believe.

You do not address the post you are quoting, and your post has no relevance to the post you're quoting, either. It's like you are replying to a completely different post with completely different content. And what does your being gay have to do with anything? You want a medal?

[–] GayBoi1 8 years ago

I was talking to Syntinen.

[–] tseybert 9 years ago

This film is very homophobic.

For one thing, they made Prince Edward much older than he was in reality just so they could make fun of homosexuals.

And that scene where Edward I threw the gay guy out the window of the tower? When I saw Braveheart when it was first released, many people in the audience laughed and cheered.

Gibson has said that scene was meant to show that Longshanks was a bad person. And the only way to show that was ... naturally ... making up a scene where he throws a lisping, effeminate homosexual man out a tower window.

You should be happy the kids watched for a whole ten minutes.

Next time, try to get them to watch North by Northwest.

Janet! Donkeys!

[–] SlickySlixta 9 years ago

This film is very homophobic.

For one thing, they made Prince Edward much older than he was in reality just so they could make fun of homosexuals.

And that scene where Edward I threw the gay guy out the window of the tower? When I saw Braveheart when it was first released, many people in the audience laughed and cheered.

Gibson has said that scene was meant to show that Longshanks was a bad person. And the only way to show that was ... naturally ... making up a scene where he throws a lisping, effeminate homosexual man out a tower window.

You should be happy the kids watched for a whole ten minutes.

Next time, try to get them to watch North by Northwest.

How is any of that relevant to the OP's question?

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

Quite a few kids these days are a lot less tolerant of homophobia and homophobic stereotypes than their parents and grandparents were.

[–] lordtalbot5 8 years ago

That's amusing considering how easily they will accept cultures that exhibit the homophobic traits displayed in the film in 2016. We all know which group I am referring too.

[–] syntinen 8 years ago

Actually I don't. Care to explain?

[–] vegitto02 9 years ago

This film is very homophobic.

For one thing, they made Prince Edward much older than he was in reality just so they could make fun of homosexuals.

If we assume that Braveheart takes place between 1305 and 1314, then Edward II would have been 21 - 29, so your statement is false, as the Edward depicted in the film more or less reflected his real life age.

And that scene where Edward I threw the gay guy out the window of the tower? When I saw Braveheart when it was first released, many people in the audience laughed and cheered.

Gibson has said that scene was meant to show that Longshanks was a bad person. And the only way to show that was ... naturally ... making up a scene where he throws a lisping, effeminate homosexual man out a tower window.

You should be happy the kids watched for a whole ten minutes.

Next time, try to get them to watch North by Northwest.

In the DVD commentary, Gibson says that he got a lot of flak for that scene. He basically responded, "Everyone in this film gets it [gets killed]."

Gibson actually has a point.

If you think about it, heterosexuals also get killed (due to sex stuff), such as the English noble who took that Scottish wife on her wedding night (and he gets spit on too), as well as the other British soldiers who went after Murron (even the pervy soldier who said, "You remind me of my daughter.")

Also, in the very same scene that Phillip is killed, you see the severed head of the Duke of York, a heterosexual. Not to mention countless other heterosexual men in the film.

Btw, Phillip may have been effeminate, but he did not lisp. And after Phillip's death, Edward II is portrayed pretty fairly.

So I think people are just being too sensitive when they say that the film is very homophobic.

--==--==--==--==--==--
Avengers: Age of Skyne-- err, Ultron

[–] tseybert 9 years ago

The Battle of Falkirk took place in 1298. Prince Edward was 14.

Also, of the homosexual men who were killed, none were thrown out of a window just because the king was mad because they were effeminate.

Also, audiences didn't laugh and cheer except when the homosexual was thrown out the window.

The incident was completely made up so Gibson could make fun of homosexuals.

It's sad that you are going so far out of your way to minimize the homophobia in Braveheart.

Janet! Donkeys!

[–] vegitto02 9 years ago

The Battle of Falkirk took place in 1298. Prince Edward was 14.

True, I was incorrect on the specific age. But Piers Gaveston (real life analog of Phillip) became a member of the household of Edward II in 1300, just two years after Falkirk and ~3 years after Stirling Bridge, which would put Edward at 16. Who knows when they started having relation. Given that, Gibson might have advanced their ages only by a handful of years.

In any case, since this was presented as historical fiction, Gibson made the Prince and Princess Isabella older so that he could have Wallace have a dramatic angle (and affair) with the Princess, even though in real life, she was still a child. His motivation to change the ages was not to particularly depict a homosexual Prince but rather to open the door for a romantic angle with the Princess. And it's not like he just made up Edward II to be homosexual; he was basing it on history.

Also, of the [heterosexual] men who were killed, none were thrown out of a window just because the king was mad because they were effeminate.

I think you meant what I put in []. If Longshanks (who always seems on edge) wanted to kill him just because he was effeminate, he would have done so long ago.

Longshanks threw him out the window because, yes, he was mad because of York, and Phillip drew attention to himself by talking. Of course, this was compounded with the King's already present resentment of the guy, but remember, Longshanks had let him live unharmed up until that point. It was really that Longshanks wanted to take his anger out on someone, and Phillip made a miscalculation in not realizing this and spoke at the wrong time. In addition, he said the wrong thing, along with Edward II.

Edward II made a mistake by saying that he appointed Phillip as his "High Councillor." Longshanks was genuinely surprised and asked, "Is he qualified?" The final nail in the coffin was when Phillip says, "I am skilled in the arts of war and military tactics, sire.", which was total BS. Edward II and Phillip essentially put Phillip into a position in which he could be held responsible for the failure at Stirling Bridge and York. So Longshanks could have even killed him because he failed in his supposed position. Not that it was the right thing to do -- it was horrible -- but in Longshanks' mind, it would make the killing more justifiable.

Also, audiences didn't laugh and cheer except when the homosexual was thrown out the window.

Well, that's the audience's problem, not Gibson's.

The incident was completely made up so Gibson could make fun of homosexuals.

Again, you're cherry picking. So many things were made up in this movie, such as the dramatic arc and affair with the Princess. Heck, even the battle of Stirling Bridge didn't even take place near a bridge because Gibson said that it would not be dramatically interesting. The entire Murron storyline -- and her death serving as motivation for him to rebel -- was likely all made up.

And from the viewpoint of an adult, what's so funny about a man being thrown out of a window? It was a brutal murder, just as the other murders depicted during the movie.

Remember, a heterosexual character died pathetically in the movie. An English lord (the one who slept with the Scottish wife) was pathetically pleading for his life before being killed by ball and chain and then spit on. I don't see you complaining about that. I also don't see you complaining about soldiers who were killed by being shot in the butt by arrows, although there was some arguable comedic effect there.

It's sad that you are going so far out of your way to minimize the homophobia in Braveheart.

No, it's just that you exaggerated it so much with your cherry picking.

--==--==--==--==--==--
Avengers: Age of Skyne-- err, Ultron

[–] wielderofspoons 9 years ago

Gibson might have advanced their ages only by a handful of years.

Gibson made the Prince and Princess Isabella older

Gibson directed and acted. Story/character decisions were down to script writer Randall Wallace.

The entire Murron storyline -- and her death serving as motivation for him to rebel -- was likely all made up.

It features in Blind Harry's poem that is Braveheart's source material, in which she is Marion Bradfute. Her first name was modified to Murron to avoid confusion with the heroine of Robin Hood.

[–] tseybert 9 years ago

Vegitto,

Maybe you should weigh in on this thread:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112573/board/thread/239321063

It seems to be a favorite scene of yours.

Janet! Donkeys!

[–] vegitto02 9 years ago

You exaggerate. I didn't even bring up the scene. You did. But anyway, yes, I laughed when I was a teenager. Now, I laugh only when he says "I am skilled in the arts of war and military tactics, sure" because he's so full of BS, and longshanks knows it. But I wince at the actual brutal act.

--==--==--==--==--==--
Avengers: Age of Skyne-- err, Ultron

[–] capelladewdrop 9 years ago

The film cant be regarded as homophobic because of that scene. That is because it is a recreation of history and in those days like it or not homosexuals were executed.

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

it is a recreation of history

No, it's not. The event in question never happened; and Piers Gaveston, on whom the character of 'Philip' was based, wasn't a limp-wristed gayboy in velvet, but an international tournament champion.

[–] rosslynglen 9 years ago

Ahhhhh its wee Simpleton

No, it's not.

Yes it is clown. In your opinion it may be wrong but it is someones recreation of History dumpling.

Even junglecats sit doon `n huv a wee purr tae themselves now and again, likesay, usually after they've likes devoured somebody

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

Ah, Rosie, still trolling away from your bedsit in Brighton, trying to stir up anti-Scottish feeling across the globe? Carry on, you're doing a fine job....

[–] Hotrodder 9 years ago

Rossy lives in Brigton does he? That explains a lot, we all know the sort of folk who like to live in Brighton...Wonder if anyone has ever thrown Rossy out of a window?

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

Brighton's just my take on it. But it's been obvious for years that he's a Scotophobe on a one-man campaign to convince the world that Scots are a nation of foul-mouthed knuckle-dragging bigots.

[–] silverwhistle 9 years ago

Could be that barking-mad self-styled 'Reverend' who runs Wings Over Scotland (cybernat site) from Bath or Bristol…

"Active but Odd"

[–] Enlil-An 9 years ago

Hi, syntinen! I sent you a PM :)

[–] rosslynglen 9 years ago

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

The gangs all here, the banes of the boards , the scourges ,the "we ken best crowd" Simpleton ,Odbod and Whistlers Gran ..... one follows the other like Flatulence , Excretia and Diarrhoea

just my take on it

Aye flatulence like most of your take on History

Oh and its Barnton/ Cramond
(Edinburgh ) Whistlers Gran would give her false teeth to live there

Deer Odbod (horny )
Cant blame you for sniffing around Simpleton ye are like a dug following a bitch. Hoping for some reflected "glory" are ye wee man?
"Yes simpleton" Quite right simpleton" "I agree simpleton" My point exactly Simpleton" still the big "P" in Prat
Awaaaaay! Ya fanny ! Get ajob.

As for this other auld bat, Whistlers Gran ,what a prat .She likes people to believe she gets ohhh! so upset at a film because of its so called inaccuracies. Has there ever been a film that was 100% accurate?No, her supposed indignation is tomake one impressed by her "high standards". "vomit worthy" Indeed what a load. If her various anecdotes are to be believed she must have been to see the film more than anyone else on these boards, silly auld besom. A' history geek' indeed.You know, no more than the books you read. The people who wrote them.The people who taught you, the people who taught them, etc, etc,, etc, any mistakes or false conclusions by them being compounded and you absorbed them like a sponge . Oh dear me

Even junglecats sit doon `n huv a wee purr tae themselves now and again, likesay, usually after they've likes devoured somebody

[–] Hotrodder 9 years ago

Diarrhoea

Pretty much describes all your postings, Rossy.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

You've got to admit it's magnificent in its way - a classic belch of bile from Rosslynglen, the one-man wrecking ball of Scotland's reputation as a grown-up nation...

[–] rosslynglen 9 years ago

Oh dear Oh dear

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

I dont think so wee man.

Diarrhoea
is perfectly correct.

So ye`r erse is oot the windae . You havent a bloody clue.

Here is a tip, as the Scotsman said to the furniture porter bent over rolling up a carpet, ye can spell it at least twa ways and you ken none o` them

Stinkin is no going to be impressed wae y`er knowledge of spelling wee man .

Poor old Od bod ,you had better get back to porting ye`r` furniture ma son
At least you are still the big P in Prat

Even junglecats sit doon `n huv a wee purr tae themselves now and again, likesay, usually after they've likes devoured somebody

[–] Hotrodder 9 years ago

You stupid bastard, Rossy, I wasn't criticising your spelling of the word, I was saying that your postings are all verbal diarrhoea- which they are. Pay attention at the back ya kilted buffoon!

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

[–] capelladewdrop 9 years ago

I wasn't referring to that particular event. I was referring to the fact that homosexuals were executed in times past.

I once went to a museum with a wax figure of a lady on a dental chair and it would scream to represent that people used to have their teeth pulled out without anaesthetic in Victorian times. Now a lady who looks like that wax figure might not have existed, but that didn't mean that practice didn't happen at all.

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

I was referring to the fact that homosexuals were executed in times past.

True in so far as it goes (all English-speaking countries and most if not all of Europe had the death penalty for sodomy well into the 19th century; the last executions for it in England were in 1835), just wholly irrelevant.

Because 'Philip' in this scene isn't being executed. He hasn't been accused of any crime, let alone tried and found guilty*; he's just being openly murdered. And no medieval English king could just throw a nobleman who annoyed him out of a window and hope to get away with it. His nobles, on whose support he was utterly dependent, wouldn't have stood for it, no matter how much they hated and despised the nobleman concerned, because if the king could kill any nobleman with impunity he could potentially do it to any others. They would promptly have united in rebellion against him.

To use your own analogy, this scene is as historically absurd as if a movie about the 1830s had a scene of the young Queen Victoria pushing a limp-wristed courtier who annoyed her out of a window.

* And in fact if he had, the king couldn't have had any role in that, because till 1533 sodomy was the responsibility of the ecclesiastical courts which answered to the Pope, not the King. Just saying.

[–] silverwhistle 9 years ago

And no medieval English king could just throw a nobleman who annoyed him out of a window and hope to get away with it.

On the other hand, in 15C, James II of Scots could and did…

"Active but Odd"

[–] Karl Aksel 8 years ago

True in so far as it goes (all English-speaking countries and most if not all of Europe had the death penalty for sodomy well into the 19th century; the last executions for it in England were in 1835), just wholly irrelevant.

Not quite all of Europe: France decriminalised homosexuality in 1791 (a consequence of the French Revolution), along with other crimes for which there was only a religious argument.

[–] sesarp101 9 years ago

It's almost hilarious how hundreds of straight white, mostly innocent people get killed off in a film, and many others are portrayed as evil b******s, but all the pc brigade care about is how a couple of gay guys are portrayed.

[–] silverwhistle 9 years ago

For one thing, if you can't remember a time when anything your parents liked was by definition uncool, you really don't remember being young at all. :-)

Not all young people are the same. I preferred things my parents liked to the trashy peer-group culture around me.

I would not have liked this film, though, because, as a history-geek from early childhood, it would have outraged me with its blatant inaccuracies. As it was, I was in my 30s when it came out, and it still struck me as vomit-worthy. And yes, indeed, the inaccuracies are compounded with homophobia.

"Active but Odd"

[–] rindercella 9 years ago

This film inspired another poster on her to become a history professor.

"Guys like you don't die on toilets." Mel Gibson-Riggs, Lethal Weapon

[–] HelveticaFont 9 years ago

Try other historical films like Michael Collins or Gladiator (fiction but still) or try Saving Private Ryan.

[–] Lucy9596 9 years ago

Nothing wrong with young people. They just have different taste. Sometimes they have to discover something themselves, they won't like suggestions. It happens.

Will Graham: I don't find you that interesting.
Hannibal Lecter: You will.

****

[–] rindercella 9 years ago

Nothing wrong with young people. They just have different taste. Sometimes they have to discover something themselves, they won't like suggestions. It happens.

Exactly ^^^

My children 19 and 17 loved it. It's one of their favorite films because it's a great movie, period. Everyone's different. Some people hate The Godfather, so...

"Men like you don't die on toilets." Mel Gibson-Riggs, Lethal Weapon

[–] SlickySlixta 9 years ago

Maybe you just happened to show it to two young people who just weren't interested. That doesn't mean they speak for all people in their respective age group.

[–] BoultersCanary 9 years ago

They know crap when they see it?

The church may shout but Darwin roars

[–] vegitto02 9 years ago

Then why do they listen to Justin Beiber?

--==--==--==--==--==--
Avengers: Age of Skyne-- err, Ultron