jk. no offense.

Colin’s last blog post..Relocating to Bogotá, Colombia

Putting a PSA at the end of a movie that was “not meant to derive humor from mental disability itself, but to satirize emotionally exploitative depictions of mental disability in movies such as Forrest Gump (1994), I Am Sam (2001), Radio (2003), and Rain Man (1988), and the actors who take these roles” seems a bit redundant.

If the filmmakers are concerned we might have missed the intended tone, then why not include something reminding us that racism is wrong as well? Surely if we as an audience think Ben Stiller's character is one to be emulated, we need to be reminded that blackface is not exactly a nice thing to do either.

Totally. Even if the PSA *would* have an impact on children's behavior, it seems like the DVD would be a useless place to include it – since the version I saw was the un-rated director's cut. Clearly the studio didn't intend for it to be viewed by kids, right? :-)

I appreciate that people with special needs may not be able to stand up for themselves the same way as other groups. That said, I don't think that means other groups are any less deserving of equal sensitivity.

I personally don't think the onus lies with the studios to place a PSA to mitigate the potential behavior of insensitive audience members who aren't able to understand a movies tone or intentions.

Yes, children certainly can be cruel. And they probably wouldn't pick up on the fact that (as described by one of the writers) “the scenes were not meant to derive humor from mental disability itself, but to satirize emotionally exploitative depictions of mental disability in movies such as Forrest Gump (1994), I Am Sam (2001), Radio (2003), and Rain Man (1988), and the actors who take these roles.”

But since Tropic Thunder was released as rated R and with an unrated Director's cut version on DVD, I wouldn't expect that children would be seeing the movie. If they are, then I think the focus should shift to those parents who are letting their children see the movie. I wouldn't expect the studios to be held responsible for the reaction/behaviors of a population that shouldn't be seeing the movie to begin with.

Again – I certainly welcome your comments and am interested in hearing other people's perspectives. And I do appreciate you sharing your comments. I *am* curious if you've seen the movie yourself?

Also, I don't mean to discredit what you've posted, but this is the first I've heard about the popularity of the Simple Jack costume this past year. I'd hoped to be able to read up on it to better familiarize myself with your perspective, but couldn't find anything online. If you'd be so kind to share those links, I'd love the opportunity to read them! :-)

Thanks again!

I support people's rights to voice their opinion. If people are so offended by a movie they feel compelled to boycott it to make their statement, I respect that too.

On the other hand, it's hard for me to respect the people who boycott a movie before it's premiered, based solely on information they've been fed by someone else. To me, that's nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction and deserves as much consideration as I'd give a pack of sheep.

The point is that the fictional Simple Jack in the movie-within-a-movie turned out to be a beloved character, and the actor was able to save the day by portraying him for the benefit of the captors, saving his friends. Modeling Simple Jack isn't modeling a person with a disability: it's modeling a self-absorbed, shallow, empty-headed actor who has developed an outrageous character.

It's like if Tom Hanks got stuck on the Castaway island, and the only movie they had was Forrest Gump, so he survived by portraying Forrest Gump for the the island natives so they wouldn't cook him in the pot that night.

I get your point that this particular group is defenseless, so when knuckledraggers on the street choose to be abusive to people with real intellectual disabilities, they can't fight back. But where do we draw the line? Do we outlaw all parody and satire because some group is going to take it personally and be offended?

There will always be ignorant, mean-spirited people who might take it wrong and act out their baser natures.

Do you really think anyone actually DESERVES mockery… like there is an acceptable blame factor? No, I just know that some people will continue to attack and abuse fat people like Buddy Love in Eddie Murphy's Nutty Professor, and others will be more sensitive like Shallow Hal. People think that's perfectly fine because they blame fat people for their condition, and therefore believe any amount of mockery and abuse is deserved.

I got a clue for you. NO mockery or abuse is deserved.

But modeling characters from movies in Halloween costumes is not mockery. It's a celebration. So, smack around the mean kids who are being vicious, and let the kids who are just adoring the character have their fun. We need thicker skin. And we don't need to be getting offended on behalf of others.

I am so sick of people missing the joke and filing lawsuits, causing inane PSA's to be placed in films by cowering lawyers. Aaaaaaugh!

It's a parody, people!!! Come ON!

Well, said.

Jon Ray’s last blog post..He don’t give a F#@%