"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:29:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



Can they not be 'historically accurate' without foul language?

The language is irrelevant, John.

It is VERY much relevant. It's the whole point of this issue.

For the simple-minded, the issue is "Does the movie contain bad language?"
Yes, it does. For high-functioning individuals, the question is "Is the bad
language in the movie probably an accurate representation of how guys talked
during that war, especially when in life threatening situations?" Again, the
answer is yes. We can now conclude that unlike other movies, where the bad
langage was written into the script just to sell tickets, this movie had a
powerful story line and the language was purely incidental. If you think the
bad language stood out in "Saving Private Ryan" in the same way it did in a
trash movie like "Bad Boys II", you're wrong. You're just looking for a
reason to whine.

Finally, the question is, are you, as a parent, able to watch such a movie
with your kids and explain the reason why the language exists under certain
circumstances. If you are not, then the movie is not the problem. YOU are
the problem.



It doesn't matter to the people who claim
to object to it, even though they want you to think otherwise.

And you know this how? Did the animals tell you?

It's a show -nothing else.

A show which kids then use as a gauge to "normal" human behavior.
I would rather my kids think it's cool to be responsible, and have
some decent manners and consideration.

I guarantee that if your kids are ever being shot at, they will be using
language that would curl your hair, Dave.