What things in PIXAR movies didn't "work" for you?

[reapersaurus]

I think it's safe to say that many people think a TON of PIXAR, and the efforts they put forth to put out great movies.
Further, their track record is fairly unsurpassed.
i've really appreciated their efforts for a LONG time, and think nothing but great things about the company.

That said, there might be some small things ion their movies that you've seeen that you didn't quite like, or that you think might have been able to be improved upon.

This is an attempt to get a sampling of some of those things.
If you canm, please post why the thing didn't work for you, to get a better idea as to why you didn't like it.

My small list:

• Monster's Inc, the Abominable Snowman sequence:
  I think the repeated yellow snow gag just didn't work. It was awkward, smashed in there, and didn;t really belong - when you're a company as good as PIXAR, I think potty humor like that demeans your work.
  
• Door Factory chase sequence:
  When they show Mike slamming the door on Randall, they follow Mike jumping to the door Sully and Boo are on in a continuous shot.
  However, somehow Randall teleports to the door they're on and swipes Boo, after they'd basically beaten him.
  It was a let-down, from the entire inventive chase sequence. I think they could have had the concluding scene have happened without destroying suspension of disbelief there.
  
• Finding Nemo trailer (the one where Dori scares away the school of fish giving directions):
  This is an absolutely horrendous trailer. I've looked at it shot-by-shot, and it doesn't present the movie or the characters in a very good light.
  a) Marlin's description of Dori's memory loss is absurdly overblown, and actually destroyed any sympathy I might have for the characters (i.e. if Dori is THAT hopeless, that she'd forget what Marlin said 5 seconds after he said it, than what the heck is she doing in the movie?) It's an untenable character flaw, and in the movie, her memory loss wasn't nearly that bad.
  b) Her stupid, overly-jovial wave when Marlin leaves, followed by Marlin's rolling eyes, and mantra "Must think happy thoughts.." paints Marlin as a cantankerous, mean-spirited guy who probably wouldn't be hanging around this dysfunctional Dori.
  c) Again, having a character that destroys the efforts of the characaters (Dori dispersing the skittish fish) is not a good way to encourage interest in the film.
  d) The WORST mistake they made was having Marlin exclaim "I volunteer to go on a hook!"
  NEVER have a character joke about commiting suicide if you want people to attend the movie.

What PIXAR things haven't floated your boat, and why?

[reapersaurus]

oh, yeah - I'm fully aware of how anal and detail-oriented these quibbles are, but hey - my son's made me see Monster's Inc about a million times, and after the 15th time, certain things jump out at you more and more (just like I'm sure the filmmakers see their movie tons of times to hone them).

You should see my list of small problems with Spider-Man...

[Heckalaska]

Reaper, I've got tons of problems with Spiderman, but not many at all with Pixar. I like that they throw all sorts of subtle adult humor in their movies that flies right over the majority of children's heads - but they do it in a way that entertains the adults without taking away from the children's entertainment. I like that alot and think that besides the touching stories and flashy graphics, is one of the main reasons they've continued to flourish. Like you, most other parents that actually spend quality time with their children are subject to watch these movies ad nauseum, and the more entertaining they can make it for me, the more likely I'll be to want to sit through it again and again.

I do agree with the door-chase sequence issues you have. It struck me as one of those quickie answers the filmmakers came up with to keep the plot moving (the typical comeback from the villain or hero after they are seemingly beaten).

I have to watch Nemo more when it arrives in the mail to comment accurately on those quibbles, but I think the "hook" remark doesn't necessarily mean suicide! Not all fish die from being caught on a hook! You might be stretching it a bit with that one.

[MurDiddlyUrdler]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

i've really appreciated their efforts for a LONG time, and think nothing but great things about the company.

If you really think "nothing but great things" about Pixar, you're really contradicting yourself with the rest of your post.

What things in Pixar movies didn't work for me? I don't really know. I've liked all of their films, but I find it difficult to want to watch any of them more than once every few years. I'm thinking that's because the films are really geared toward children and I am unfortunately no longer a child.

[JakeLipson]

As you guys would probably expect, I don't have any problems with anything Pixar has done to date. I could say different things for Disney and DreamWorks - while their overall track record is exellent, here and there they sprinkle things that just don't float with me. Sometimes it's whole movies (New Groove, Atlantis) which wasted their potential; sometimes its overly obvious effects shots (DreamWorks' Sinbad had a lot of CGI effects which were nicely done but didn't blend with the 2-D animation very well, for example.) But PIXAR has been nothing but perfect thus far and I seriously doubt they'll stop now.

[George McFly]

blasphemy

I honsetly can't think of anything. Sorry I tried.

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by JakeLipson

Sometimes it's whole movies (New Groove, Atlantis) which wasted their potential;

Emperor's New Groove is probably my favourite Disney movie of the past 10 years... including the Pixar stuff.

Anyway, to respond, the first Toy Story is a lot slower paced than the others, if you go back and watch it. Also, I have only seen Monster's Inc. once, but I found it a lot more kiddy than the others, for whatever reason...

[SeanL]

I haven't seen the Toy Story films or A Bugs Life in a long time, but I can't think of anything that Pixar could've done better. They're on a hot streak.

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by MurDiddlyUrdler

If you really think "nothing but great things" about Pixar, you're really contradicting yourself with the rest of your post.

I see what the problem is, Mur:
you must be either incapable of seeing the differentiation between a company and their efforts, or else you are purposely not seperating the 2 just to be contrary.

I would hope that I wouldn't have to point out that you CAN think nothing but great things about a COMPANY, yet still find some small faults with their WORK. But apparently, I do have to point it out here.

[MurDiddlyUrdler]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

I see what the problem is, Mur:
you must be either incapable of seeing the differentiation between a company and their efforts, or else you are purposely not seperating the 2 just to be contrary.

I would hope that I wouldn't have to point out that you CAN think nothing but great things about a COMPANY, yet still find some small faults with their WORK. But apparently, I do have to point it out here.

OK, I guess you're viewing Pixar as a company and the work of Pixar as two separate entities. That's fine, but I personally view the work of a company as a factor in how I view the company itself. Whatever works for you.

[R1NLP]

Some of you guys nitpick WAY to much.

[Heckalaska]

Originally Posted by R1NLP

Some of you guys nitpick WAY to much.

Hey, way to add something to the thread...verrrrry beneficial, thanks.

[R1NLP]

Originally Posted by Heckalaska

Hey, way to add something to the thread...verrrrry beneficial, thanks.

You're welcome buddy.

[BubbleGumUK]

I'm with Jake, again as you guys would probably expect.

My ONE little nit-pick, and I think they sorted this out now, was the buddy-buddy double-acts that were showing up in all their movies. Nemo somewhat deflected this, and Incredibles looks like they're steering away from it as well, though I hope we don't get a FAMILY of double-acts in that one.

(Is it me, or does the 2D concept art we've seen for The Incredibles so far have so much more energy and life than the final CG renders?)

[PALMERLIME]

Randy Newman. His movie scores are all right, but his songs...EEYYYUCH!!!

For the most part, they all sound too similar. You might have the odd "moving" song thrown in, but for some reason he always has SOMEONE ELSE sing them like Sarah Mclachlan for instance. Between "You've Got a Friend in Me" and "If I Didn't Have You" the man does not show too much diversity. To their credit, Pixar uses him sparingly, but the man just gets on my nerves!

[Jason Bovberg]

Dave Foley's shrill voicework for Flick in "A Bug's Life" has always irritated me. Especially when Flick laughs. Aaargh!

[feldon23]

I love Pixar's work, but Finding Nemo was a huge letdown for me because they did not use Albert Brooks' comedy at all.

Toy Story 1 + 2, Bug's Life, and Monsters, Inc. all had adult biting sarcasm and comedic elements floating above the kiddies' heads and they were willing to have dark moments.

Tim Allen and Tom Hanks or John Goodman and Billy Crystal razzing on each other were big parts of those movies.

But the story in Finding Nemo was more skittish than the fish portrayed on the trailer. Every time a dark sequence came up, the Jellyfish, the sunken ship, Dory being hurt, they got nervous and the editing became very tight and quick. If Dory had been a tad less ditzy, then they could have had more interplay.

The "signing" fish with John Ratzenberger was a total waste and obviously just a way to get Ratzenberger involved.

I wish they'd not been afraid to go darker or sarcastic with the story. Kids can handle it. Think about Sid's room and then the attacking bird and grasshoppers in Bug's Life. Hell, I saw kids at Kill Bill.

I wonder what Finding Nemo would have been like if they'd left William H. Macy as the lead.

Fortunately, all of my qualms will be resolved by the Incredibles. It may be a sarcasm overdose.

[cardaway]

The fish in Nemo being able to roll themselves across the street. Could it be possible, maybe. Could they do it fast enough, no way. I liked the fact that the toys crossing the road in TS2 caused an accident and they showed the aftermath. Great scene.

[tic-tac]

Originally Posted by feldon23

I love Pixar's work, but Finding Nemo was a huge letdown for me because they did not use Albert Brooks' comedy at all.

I wonder what Finding Nemo would have been like if they'd left William H. Macy as the lead.

Wow - I never knew that he was once the lead. I think that would have been ingenious. I personally do not enjoy Brooks' comedy at all, hence his casting has always been hard for me to get over regarding Nemo. But Willem in there really makes up for it!

I guess if I have to come up with something, I'll say that I think they sometimes paint their "bad kids" rather lazily and with absolutely no depth. Sid from TS2 and the niece from Nemo (with the braces) were both a little too cardboard-cutout, black-and-white "bad" for me...

Oh, and my fiancée and I hate it when any kid, good or bad, says something like "Shut up, stupid!" in a film for kids. The fact of the matter is, kids hear that stuff, and then imitate it, even if it is the "bad" kid saying it and even if the "bad" kid gets in trouble in the film. I know it's folly to try to shield kids from that sort of thing, but there are a lot of things they can watch that don't have said easily-copied bad behavior.

[ceeece]

What feldon said. "Finding Nemo" could have been soooo much better. Pixar movies are known for their tongue in cheek humor. And that was far and few between in Nemo. It was almost too family friendly and really catered to the young kids. There's nothing wrong with that but us big kids would like a little something too. The story was great and teaches both old and young their own respective lessons. So, it was a success in that regard. The characters seemed very 1 dimensional except Nemo and Marlin. The humor around Dory's forgetfulness got old after awhile. But it was funny in spots.

In "Monster's Inc." there was a long time devoted to chasing down Boo. This drained the plot development big time for me. Not very original scripting, made the plot aimless at times.

"A Bug's Life" Ants with two legs and two arms.

[Alan Smithee]

Yeah, why DID the ants only get 4 legs?
I never liked the "revelation" in Toy Story 2 that Woody was really a vintage collectible- it squashes a few things from the first movie, like how did Andy end up with him, and why did they still make bedsheets of Woody if his show hadn't been seen in 40 years??
They never explained what happened to Andy's dad either!

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by feldon23

I wish they'd not been afraid to go darker or sarcastic with the story. Kids can handle it. Think about Sid's room and then the attacking bird and grasshoppers in Bug's Life. Hell, I saw kids at Kill Bill.

I don't understand these points.
Darker?
Like a son being forcefully taken away from his father, when he's the only thing the father has left in the whole world?
Or having Marlin's (almost) entire family wiped out by an irresistable force?

Ya, that's really light fare there.

How bout the multiple times when the characters seemed dead in Finding Nemo (and only one was "faking").

Or the shark?! Heck, I was afraid my son was going to have nightmares from it - do you realize how intense that was for kids?

And I for one am glad that PIXAR didn't cater to the kinds of kids that are OK with Kill Bill.

Heck, they had to jump into the Pelican's mouth (usually certain death) to avoid certain death.
The whole movie was about not giving into despair, not giving up (Just keep swimming... just keep swimming") and letting go of what you hold dear so that they can grow, even though it may end up killing them.

You don't think that's dark? Wow, please explain that perception.

I thought it was the darkest PIXAR movie yet. (BGUK - their logo capitalizes the letters, so I do )

[airjosh]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

c) Again, having a character that destroys the efforts of the characaters (Dori dispersing the skittish fish) is not a good way to encourage interest in the film.
d) The WORST mistake they made was having Marlin exclaim "I volunteer to go on a hook!"
NEVER have a character joke about commiting suicide if you want people to attend the movie.

I don't think that this caused a problem...$340,000,000 box office...8 million unit sales of the video and dvd...

as far as things that bug me about PIXAR films, I don't understand the point of technically picking apart animation films like those that PIXAR makes. They are worlds that they create and even when they are based on things that actually exist (ants and fish) they are made with a more fun cartoony style, not psuedo-real like Antz. I for one prefer this style and while I am sure I could come up with some quibbles I would just push it off as artistic license.

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by airjosh

I don't think that this caused a problem...$340,000,000 box office...8 million unit sales of the video and dvd...

as far as things that bug me about PIXAR films, I don't understand the point of technically picking apart animation films like those that PIXAR makes.

huh?

I mentioned STORY problems, not "technical" or artistic license problems.

And I think my points are pretty solid - I also never suggested that Finding Nemo would do, or did do, less business because of these gaffes.

[airjosh]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

huh?

I mentioned STORY problems, not "technical" or artistic license problems.

And I think my points are pretty solid - I also never suggested that Finding Nemo would do, or did do, less business because of these gaffes.

Many of the points you and others made were technical aspects of the story. Shot by Shot analysis and story flaws are technical by nature. Not liking the jokes are artistic or subjective differences. That is what I was referring to.

Technical (from American Heritage) 4b. Abstract or theoretical: a technical analysis.


"not a good way to encourage interest in the film"
"never...if you want people to attend the movie"

These are statements that imply that the issues you had with the trailer would keep people from wanting to see the film, they obviously didn't have the effect you talked about.

[woolhat99]

Wow, you guys complain too much. i think everybody forgot that THESE ARE CARTOONS!!! nothing about them is REAL. in the cartoon world you can do what ever you want! plus these stories are aimed at kids, more so then the PDI stuff any way. They are just movies...NOT real. Being an animator myself, i know how dificult it is to make things come into play adn to make them believable. it aint easy.

[airjosh]

Originally Posted by woolhat99

Wow, you guys complain too much. i think everybody forgot that THESE ARE CARTOONS!!! nothing about them is REAL. in the cartoon world you can do what ever you want! plus these stories are aimed at kids, more so then the PDI stuff any way. They are just movies...NOT real. Being an animator myself, i know how dificult it is to make things come into play adn to make them believable. it aint easy.

That was exactly my point

[Master Gandhi]

For being an animator, woolhat99, I'm surprised that you would call this a "cartoon". To me, the cartoon label implies something more episodic in nature, rather than a narrative story that has character arcs and teaches children (and adults) life lessons.

I think most of the complaints I've read so far have been pretty appropriate. However, I'm not one of those people who hates Randy Newman's songs, even if they all do have the same general ring to them. I don't think that the people here are attacking PIXAR in any way, but it's just that the company has raised the bar so high that we can't help but point out their own faults. An okay example of this could be with Star Wars. The original trilogy was so beloved by fans around the world, that Lucas and company would have had to make absolutely perfect prequels to avoid mass scrutiny. But of course, PIXAR hasn't made any substandard films, so they haven't felt any sort of severe backlash from people over their more recent efforts.

I hope that made sense.

I don't think anyone has mentioned this before, but one of the references that I've found in a PIXAR movie was in Monsters, Inc. when Sulley is watching the big garbage compactor machine in horror, thinking that Boo was being brutalized (when in actuality, she had already crawled out of the trash bin earlier). This was an obvious reference to Chuck Jones' "Feed the Kitty", where a dog of Sulley's size is watching in horror as a woman is whipping up a batch of cookies, thinking that a tiny kitten had been one of the accidental ingredients. That was a fun reference to catch (which I discovered last year when I bought Chuck Jones: Extremes and In-betweens - A Life in Animation).

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by airjosh

These are statements that imply that the issues you had with the trailer would keep people from wanting to see the film, they obviously didn't have the effect you talked about.

Geez, are you actually ignoring what elements I brought up, simply to concentrate on the way I said the last point?


What would be refreshing is if you responded to my whole post, if you want to talk about it, and not almost ignore my whole point. Instead, you snipped it to snipe at the wording I chose.

This isn't a grammar class, or debating forum.
You're right, I shouldn't have said "if you want someone to see the movie", but I thought I was quite clear in showing how the story elements I had a problem with don't benefit a film or it's marketability.

Just because Nemo was wildly successful, that in no way invalidates my _detailed_ points. Do you know how few people %-wise saw that teaser trailer? Do you think the teaser trailer was the thing that drew the kids and parents in like lemmings this May? I don't.

Now, if you think my points about the trailer are wrong, and those elements are not problems, and you've seen the teaser trailer and you'd like to discuss that, I'd be more than interested in discussing that.

Master Gandhi - good post.
And you're right - as has been already made clear before, noone is attacking PIXAR here. Simply sharing opinions about their works.

woolhat - the more I think about it, the more baffling those statements are:
"Because it's a cartoon, than all critique and connection to reality is inapplicable?"
I don't get that - as a lifelong enthusiast of animation, there is an element of that statement which is kind of insulting to the art form, IMO.

Animation should NOT be expected to be immune to critique ...

[airjosh]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

Geez, are you actually ignoring what elements I brought up, simply to concentrate on the way I said the last point?


What would be refreshing is if you responded to my whole post, if you want to talk about it, and not almost ignore my whole point. Instead, you snipped it to snipe at the wording I chose.

This isn't a grammar class, or debating forum.
You're right, I shouldn't have said "if you want someone to see the movie", but I thought I was quite clear in showing how the story elements I had a problem with don't benefit a film or it's marketability.

Just because Nemo was wildly successful, that in no way invalidates my _detailed_ points. Do you know how few people %-wise saw that teaser trailer? Do you think the teaser trailer was the thing that drew the kids and parents in like lemmings this May? I don't.

Now, if you think my points about the trailer are wrong, and those elements are not problems, and you've seen the teaser trailer and you'd like to discuss that, I'd be more than interested in discussing that.

Did you read my posts? I did respond to your entire post, I talked about how I didn't really think about technically picking apart the story of a created world with no basis in fact, you said it wasn't technical, I said it was.

This has nothing to do with grammar and a forum is exactly the place for open discussion. It seemed to me that you were talking directly about the marketability of the movie because you refered to it twice with phrases like "if you want people to attend the movie" and "not a good way to encourage interest". My responses were towards those comments and I don't see why you are getting so worked up about it.

[reapersaurus]

it's because I'm sick to death of internet discussion concentrating on the minutia and ignoring the actual points being discussed.

And I just reread your posts in this thread, and they consist of
a) linking my critique of the Finding Nemo trailer to the success of the movie.
b) your stating that PIXAR works in a "cartoony style", so quibbles are inappropriate (you'd write it off as "artistic license")
c) haggling over the definiton of "technical", then once again linking my teaser trailer critique with the movie's box office success
d) then saying you responded to all the points of my critique (which you haven't, you only digressed the discussion about a forced insinuation).

So please drop it about the box office successof Finding Nemo - I'll make it clear, since this must be a sticking point with you:
My critique of the Finding Nemo trailer in no way is meant to suggest that the movie would flop, and in no way suggests that I wanted it to flop, and in no way suggests that I want any PIXAR film to flop.

It is simply an analysis of a trailer that I think sucks ass, and doesn't do a good job of exciting people to see the film (for the as-yet-uncountered reasons I mentioned). This conclusion is a purely personal one (yet again based on detailed reasons), and is not countered by the success of the film, since that is due to the actual FILM, word of mouth, and advertising. I can personally attest that the teaser trailer for Finding Nemo kept me away from the movie for over a month, so that is proof that it did affect the box office from my standpoint, from the only person who's discussed seeing the trailer, or remembering the trailer, or wanting to discuss the actual _trailer_.

P.S. Would you be happier if I just left my critique of the trailer to saying it "sucks ass", and not elucidated my reasons?
Because I _could_ have done that, heck, that's more common on the internet anyway, but I thought I'd be refreshing and actually state my sound reasons for concluding that it "didn't work for me."

[MurDiddlyUrdler]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

it's because I'm sick to death of internet discussion concentrating on the minutia and ignoring the actual points being discussed.

Are you perhaps taking this a little too seriously?

[airjosh]

You are leading the discussion arguing over minutae, I said what I said and you are quibbling with my responses to the thread. I was making comments like anyone else. I responded to the thread subject and gave my opinion about it. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean that I am wrong.

[feldon23]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

it's because I'm sick to death of internet discussion concentrating on the minutia and ignoring the actual points being discussed.

Internet discussions are ABOUT MINUTAE.

Nothing will change that.

You made good points, but I still feel that Finding Nemo brushed over the traumas too quickly and did not have any of the biting sarcasm and humor of Pixar's previous works. If Dory had been a bit less ditzy, the characters could have worked off of each other a lot better.

I don't get why people were so excited about the Crush sequences. Yay, it's turtles in a tropical water current with lots of kids' stuff going on. I understand they were trying to teach Marlin to laugh, but they could have done it a better way.

Finding Nemo IS a technical and animation masterpiece, but just a little bit LESS use of the scalpel in the editing and storytelling could have made it better.

The shark chasing Marlin was over too quickly. The "light" predator fish was the only part that really scared me and it was over very quickly as well.

[reapersaurus]

airjosh - we're done.

Mur - no.
(and BTW: please change your offensive sig. I will Report it next time I see it. That's not a threat - I'm giving advance warning as a courtesy to a "gentleman", though why you'd ever put that disgusting of phrase in a sig is beyond me)

feldon23 -
the internet discussions that are about the minutia and ignoring the actual discussion points are the discussions that I have learned to avoid, since there is nothing to be gained by throwing out the whole purpose of the thread and digressing it to the point of absurdity.

You have brought up points about PIXAR's movies.
I asked for more clarification about your points re: Finding Nemo's 'lightness', and you've answered.

You say that they brushed over the traumas too quickly. Well, to compare this properly, you'd have to bring up multiple examples from PIXAR movies that had them dwell on trauma longer than Nemo. I'd argue that Nemo spends more screentime dwelling on trauma than any other PIXAR film. The guntlet is thrown.

You say it didn't have the sacrasm of their other works. Again, a comparison should be done, but it's a bit difficult and ultimately likely not worth it.

Humor is a subjective claim, so no comparison can be made.

I agree about the ditzy Dori comment.

Crush = meh

How long do you think spending on the shark chase would have been appropriate? I could time the scene, if you'd like.

You think the film should have been dark and scary enough to scare YOU? Wow.. that's quite the revelation - I think the films should be analyzed with respect to their target audience, not your scary-threshold.

[MurDiddlyUrdler]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

Mur - no.
(and BTW: please change your offensive sig. I will Report it next time I see it. That's not a threat - I'm giving advance warning as a courtesy to a "gentleman", though why you'd ever put that disgusting of phrase in a sig is beyond me)

Lighten up. It's not meant to offend anyone. It's a joke. Besides, it's a completely true statement.

[ebuzz79]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

Mur - no.
(and BTW: please change your offensive sig. I will Report it next time I see it. That's not a threat - I'm giving advance warning as a courtesy to a "gentleman", though why you'd ever put that disgusting of phrase in a sig is beyond me)

I think somebody has seen one too many Disney movies.

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by MurDiddlyUrdler

Lighten up. It's not meant to offend anyone. It's a joke. Besides, it's a completely true statement.

How dare you tell me to lighten up about it?!
I don't care if it's meant "as a joke" or that you don't mean to offend - the reality is, you DID offend.
A racist can't hide behind saying "it's a joke", and an abuser of kids can't behind saying "it's a joke."
There is nothing remotely funny about pedophilia, OR necrophilia, so take it off. Now.

[MurDiddlyUrdler]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

How dare you tell me to lighten up about it?!
I don't care if it's meant "as a joke" or that you don't mean to offend - the reality is, you DID offend.
A racist can't hide behind saying "it's a joke", and an abuser of kids can't behind saying "it's a joke."
There is nothing remotely funny about pedophilia, OR necrophilia, so take it off. Now.

Are you honestly saying that you're offended by a true statement? That's ridiculous. You'd have a point if I made a statement condoning pedophilia or necrophilia, but I didn't. I really cannot understand how you are offended by the truth. Give it up. You have no point.

[reapersaurus]

You truly disgust me, Mur.
I cannot fathom how you do not see the problem with what you've written.
Who gives a fuck about whether your sick statement is true or not?! What does that possibly matter, when you're talking about the forced abuse of kids, not to mention raping their dead bodies?!

I'm leaving this to the moderators at this point, but as the parent of a child, which you obviously are not, it is NOT OK with me, and that should be all that's required to make you change something offensive.

If I was black, and you were caucasian, and you made an outrageously offensive statement that happened to be true, do you think you'd be able to leave it up there?