Will 'Tropic Thunder' be Handicapped By Disability Advocates?
'Simple Jack' a bit too complicated for advocates
As I was putting together my article featuring a clip from Tropic Thunder yesterday I wanted to get an image to support the article and I knew Paramount had created faux websites for its faux actors in the upcoming film. Ben Stiller plays a character named Tugg Speedman and he is primarily known as an action star chasing an Oscar. One such role is as Jack in Simple Jack, a movie about a disabled character and it's marketing takes it to a whole new level saying "Once upon a time … there was a retard."
The point of the film-within-the-film is not to offend anyone, but instead poke fun at actors for chasing Oscars by playing disabled characters. The clip I featured can be seen below, but to give you the short of it, Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) explains to Speedman (Stiller) that an actor "never goes full retard" in his Oscar chasing roles, as Tugg did in Simple Jack. He uses examples such as Forrest Gump and Rain Man to make his case and the scene in the film actually goes on a bit longer than that.
Well, as I was doing my searching, looking for the website simplejackmovie.com it was coming up empty even though it was still linked from Stiller's movie character's website tuggspeedman.com. Nothing was there. What's the deal? I just assumed something had happened on the server level and gave up taking a snapshot of tuggspeedman.com and going about my business.
Next, an article in Variety now says Paramount pulled the plug on the site in response to criticism from disability rights advocates. What? Seriously?
A consortium of groups including the Special Olympics and the Down Syndrome Assn. of Los Angeles first contacted the studio Friday and set up a meeting with DreamWorks CEO Stacey Snider and other senior executives to discuss their concerns about the film. That meeting is scheduled to take place this afternoon .
DreamWorks decided to pull the plug on the site Monday night as a preemptive move.
"We heard their concerns, and we understand that taken out of context, the site appeared to be insensitive to people with disabilities," DreamWorks spokesman Chip Sullivan said.
Man, censorship is a bitch!
Photo: Paramount Pictures
I am seeing Tropic Thunder again on Thursday and I am starting to wonder what version I will see. I am beginning to think Paramount may go as far as to remove the clip featured below. However, that would be a seriously tough task seeing how it is referenced again later on in the film when Stiller as Speedman is actually performing the role a second time and less, shall we say, "retarded"? Sorry if that is not P.C.
Check out the clip for yourself and see if you get it or if you take it as a blatant offense to the disabled.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 10 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Hold on, did you have that Ricky Gervais show 'Extras' over there?
One of the episodes has Ben Stiller playing a Hollywood director so bent on an Oscar that he's doing a flick on the Yugoslavian war and goes completely beserk on set clearly showing he doesn't give a shit about the war and it's casualties but just about the Oscar it might get him. Leaving all the crew petrified in shame.
You can find inspiration anywhere I guess.
I really hope they don't cave and take out things that might be considered "offensive".
There's allways someone that feels offended. Otherwise you're not making a comedy, you're making a disney. Before you know Stiller might start singing……..
Just release it as is. It was awesome. I loved every second of that movie.
The point isn't that they didn't intend to hurt anyone's feelings – the point is that they DID hurt the feelings of defenseless children and their devoted parents. Even worse, you have made it ok for everyone else to do the same. I will think of you every time someone says "don't go full retard" in front of my sweet, loving, defenseless daughter, because she is what you and your fans call a retard. But everyone who knows her, our neighbors in our apartment building, our neighbors on the street, our dry cleaner, the mailman, the bus driver, our police officers and our firefighters, all love her and delight in her, and would do anything to protect her from thoughtless, self-righteous, money-grubbing bastards like DreamWorks and Ben Stiller.
Argh, no one is making fun of your daughter. I don't know your daughter and have no reason to judge her and I am not at all advocating hatred against handicapped people. So much in this world could be seen as offensive, but it has to end somewhere. Perhaps DreamWorks could be offended by you calling them bastards, but for some reason the thinking never goes beyond oneself in this kind of situation does it?
The mere fact that you found this article goes to show that you are seeking out any kind of confrontation you can find. That is what is hurting you. People that are insensitive enough to call your daughter "retarded" are going to do it regardless of whether this movie is released or not. This movie also makes fun of fat people, why aren't you adding that to your cause?
I want to know how far this sanitization of our language is going to go. How far until every single group is happy? What annoys me even more is the double standards. More and more, it seems like the only group who is bashed for what they say. Everybody else is immune from criticism.
Uh-oh, did I break the thread? I'm getting a message that says I don't have permission to edit my post. I can't even get into the thread from the forum side.
Most forums escape special characters so I did a joke pseudo-HTML rant tags around my comment.
Testing to see if I can post new…
Edit: Indeed? Hey, it works.
Nah, you didn't break anything. There was a slight error I had to fix, but it is fixed and you can edit your posts now.
Sometimes things can be a matter of perspective. Depending on your situation in life it is possible to see things much differently than other people. What is not offensive to some people may be offensive to other people. I think that is something movie makers have to keep in mind. This is not about censorship, it's about good business. When movie makers are trying to sell their movie to as many people as possible, it is not in their best interest to to offend millions people. Advocacy groups are not the government. It isn't the government saying they can't use certain words.
On a more personal note, if someone wants to garner some cheap laughs by making fun of mentally handicapped people- go ahead. That's your right. But do go off the hook and right a blog about how surprised you are that someone was offended by it. There are millions of people who are the brother, sister, father, mother, cousin, aunt, etc…. to someone who is mentally handicapped. It's not just the handicapped people you are offending. Btw, I did not have to search to find this article, it was posted in the google news. Also, I don't think that being mentally handicapped is quite the same as being "fat." Not a good comparison.
A filmmaker doesn't have to think about anyone when making a film. If one person is offended should that matter? What if two people are offended or maybe 100? What is the acceptable amount of people that can be offended before a filmmaker should care?
The official site for Simple Jack that Paramount ended up taking down had been visited a grand total of 35,000 times. That's it. People who get offended tend to be the people seeking out the offense.
[QUOTE]Also, I don't think that being mentally handicapped is quite the same as being "fat." Not a good comparison.
Why is that? They are both problems and a lot of the time obesity can be out of people's control. The point being, making fun of either one can be offensive, are you saying that fat people can't be offended as much as disabled people?
I hope you see the problems with your argument.
Great information :)