Arthur Posted November 21, 2017 Posted November 21, 2017 Feature adaptation of Beatrix Potter's classic tale of a rebellious rabbit trying to sneak into a farmer's vegetable garden. Stars: James Corden, Daisy Ridley, Margot Robbie, Elizabeth Debicki
Norphy Posted November 21, 2017 Posted November 21, 2017 James Cordon has ruined Peter Rabbit. No, the CBeebies series that looks like it was animated in Quake 3 did that. I’m not sure what the hell this has done ☹️
hardtailstar Posted November 21, 2017 Posted November 21, 2017 No, the CBeebies series that looks like it was animated in Quake 3 did that. I’m not sure what the hell this has done ☹️ Either way both are bad.
LeMarchand Posted November 21, 2017 Posted November 21, 2017 I’m not sure what the hell this has done ☹️ I think they misheard the title and thought they were making Peter Chavit.
LeMarchand Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 There are now calls to boycott this film (as it makes light of food allergies, rather than on grounds of taste): Peter Rabbit film producers apologise over allergy scene - BBC News
Arthur Posted February 12, 2018 Author Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) There are now calls to boycott this film (as it makes light of food allergies, rather than on grounds of taste) I boycotted the film when I found out it had James Corden in it. I don't think we need any more reasons. Edit. I have also boycotted change.org. What a pointless website! Edited February 12, 2018 by Arthur 3
pooley Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 There are now calls to boycott this film (as it makes light of food allergies, rather than on grounds of taste): Peter Rabbit film producers apologise over allergy scene - BBC News What is happening with this world, it's entertainment, fun etc. Far too many snowflakes looking to be upsetting by something. 2
sparkeh Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 What is happening with this world, it's entertainment, fun etc. Far too many snowflakes looking to be upsetting by something. Can you explain why attempting to induce a fatal allergic reaction in someone is something “fun” for children to watch? Was it fun for the children involved in an incident last year where a child with a dairy allergy was forced to eat cheese by bullies in the school dinner hall and died? I have no idea why that scene is in the film but then it speaks to the general trashing of Beatrix Potter’s work through the the film. It baffling to see such rancour against people speaking out against this scene. These days there’s a class of people who instantly take offence at any who has taken offence at something and start throwing the term “snowflake” around. Wonder what the term is for someone who can’t handle others’ offence? Double snowflake? 1
DJ-1701 Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 I boycotted the film when I found out it had James Corden in it. I don't think we need any more reasons. Can't stand the guy and very bad pick choosing someone that made extremely poor taste Harvey Weinstein 'jokes' at the amfAR Gala Los Angeles... There are now calls to boycott this film (as it makes light of food allergies, rather than on grounds of taste): Peter Rabbit film producers apologise over allergy scene - BBC News Too right too, kids like to repeat things they see, and as reportedly some of the characters chuck items that another character is allergic to... not exactly prompting good ideals and could do great harm. 1
pooley Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 Can you explain why attempting to induce a fatal allergic reaction in someone is something “fun” for children to watch? Surely the same could be said to Tom and Jerry hitting each other with pots, pans , anvils etc. It's just entertainment.
sparkeh Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 Surely the same could be said to Tom and Jerry hitting each other with pots, pans , anvils etc. It's just entertainment. You could say that but I would have to disagree. Tom & Jerry is entirely animated slapstick which I think is different. No actual people are being targeted in an identifiable way. Neither really get hurt and both give as good as they get. With the Peter Rabbit scene, a real, vulnerable human target is targeted for death by use of a medical condition. Very different I think. 1
synaesthesia Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 At this rate the world will have to stop using humans to model anything, stop using the fact that sex sells in all instances, stop using any sort of violence whether slapstick or not and pretty much water everything down until we're watching nothing but re-runs of Pride and Prejudice (probably not the zombie version). Too many people think hands need holding and sorry, in my humble opinion this is nothing more than that. I have a horrible, human affliction which gives me horrible swelling and can possibly cause death with hit with a suitable blunt instrument. I don't feel the need to stop watching Bottom. I mean, look at the bigger picture. If kids honestly did everything they saw, this world would be far worse than it is. Think about Thomas the Tank Engine. Trapdoor. Dangermouse. Gumball. Adventure Time. Podington Peas for crying out loud. It's easy to pick out many many examples of entirely inappropriate things for humans to do. There's more important things to worry about than precious little eejits being affected by what they've seen on a fictional TV program. Like someone stealing the tyre valve caps from cars. (Wish I was joking, that's an actual alert from our East Northamptonshire Crime Update emails from yesterday.) 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now