Reasonable or ridiculous?

Status
Not open for further replies.


Ridiculous.

The arts should depict every walk and way of life so to say no scarring ever is disproportionate.

If the villain gets slashed somewhere throughout the film then surely they should be able to.
 
The relentless march toward a homogeneous society.

The pendulum has swung from being protective and guarded to anything goes and now swings toward favouring the forever offended.

Not every bad person has scars and some good people do. But it’s far from being unrealistic that naughty fuckers have a higher proportion of battle scars. Any other portrayal is unbalanced and an unrealistic approach to actual life.
 
the boot said:
Full length of eye brow across me right eye.
Plus 2” in chest, sternum saved me.
Five in the stomach
Both hands scarred from two fights with lads with knives.
Click to expand...
Forehead, 1cm - Head butt.
Top lip, 2cm - Punch from someone on steroids.
Hand, 1 inch - Dog bite, Labrador.
Hand, 2 inch - Surgery.
 
Actual information contained in story significantly different to clickbait headline, as usual.

"...we are committing to not having negative representations depicted through scars or facial difference in the films we fund,” says Ben Roberts, the BFI’s deputy CEO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top