Am I the only one who found the King's Speech boring?

I'm not afraid that I'll take issue with you on "Colin Firth was excellent." Not that I doubt his acting abilities, and I haven't seen the film, but I object to Hollywood making a quick buck out of our history. I don't mind the telling of our history, I encourage it, but when it's so overly dramatised/americanised, it's truly awful.

What further renders me irate is that said Mr Firth openly objects to the monarchy and says he doesn't support unelected authorities. Oh, okay, but that doesn't stop you paying your bills off the back of Her Majesty's family. Scumbag.

If you actually saw the film or did some research, you would find that the King doesn't want to be King at all, but there wasn't exactly a whole lot he could do about it. The film doesn't exactly take a stance of anti-monarchy, but it hardly gives the impression that being royal is brilliant either.

If you are going to openly criticise a film you really should see it first before you make a tit of yourself.

I hope you weren't trying to give me a History lesson. I needn't say any more.

I hope you weren't trying to give me a History lesson. I needn't say any more.

Not at all - I'll be honest, all I know is what's presented in the film. But you can hardly be so harsh about a film when you haven't even seen it. Whether the film is historically accurate or not, Colin Firth can be excused for taking the role despite his opinion of 'unelected authorities' because it's a character who is forced into a position he's downright terrified of, all because of the concept of unelected authority.

If you see the film and then still feel the way you do then I can't say fairer than that, that's your opinion, but I can't respect your opinion unless you actually see the film you are attacking.

Please explain to me how a film made by an independent production company based out of London with a British director, British writer and British cast is Hollywood making a quick buck.



So what you have an issue with is people acting. Do you sit through Scarface and say "Goddammit, Al Pacino is such a scumbag. He's got rich by playing a drug warlord when he's anti-murder!"?

For the latter comment, refer to my answer to someone else.

Actually it's a UK/Australian company. So you have somewhat of a point, but your assertiveness is unwarranted. Who do you think this was predominately aimed at? Americans. The Weinstein Company produced it in the US and I'm pretty sure they didn't do it for free.

It's a private story that doesn't need telling. How many people went to this film with a notepad and pen, taking notes and trying to learn some historical facts? The only reason they went was for entertainment from a story they most likely have never heard of before/know nothing about.

They made it to make money.

Your comment to someone else doesn't answer my question. Do you have a problem with anyone else acting in a role that they don't support, such as the many films with murderers in, or are you being hypocritical?



What does it's audience have to do with Hollywood making money out of it? Seriously, your first post said this film was "just Hollywood making a quick buck". Nothing you've said here is at all supportive of that claim.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of film terminology. The Weinstein Company were distributers, not producers. Furthermore, they're an independent company. Trying to use them as an example of Hollywood's exploitation of our history is an idiotic move.



What a ridiculously hypocritical paragraph. At first you complain because it's not informative. Then you complain because the audience going don't know anything about the subject. By definition, when they come out of this film they will therefore be more informed.

Also, entertaining and informative are not mutually exclusive concepts, which you appear to be treating as if they are. Also, people do not have to take notes to learn. Not many people watch documentaries with a pen in hand, and yet millions of people around the world are informed by them.



It was made for a multitude of reasons, of which money was not the primary one. You only have to look at what everyone attached to this film has done previously to see that they didn't go into the film business principally to make money.

Look, you don't seem to know what the hell you're talking about. On any level. I suggest that rather than sit in your ivory tower complaining about the bastardisation of history you either shut up about something you have no comprehension of, or you go and watch. Who knows, you might actually learn something.

I think the fact that you are so passionate about films, and the fact that you are a TSR Moderator is more than enough evidence that I should leave this thread in the interest of sanity. I have more than enough to counter your arguments, but as I say, perhaps I'd best leave you to brood.

A sign of a pseudo-intellect; does not counter the argument, point out 'flaws' in another's character totally irrelevant to the argument (borderline Ad hominem) and make promises that their non-existent point is better but fail to express the imaginary counter-argument.

As is excessively listing terminology that adds nothing to a discussion, is wholly nugatory and whose 'point' is hollow and irrelevant.

Q.E.D.

I thought you were leaving? Can anything you say be considered valid?

My intention was more to leave that isolated 'debate'. I was going to abstain from the thread altogether but I can't let you get away with fooling people into believing you possess an intellect superior to others'.

SPOILER ALERT!!!!






My biggest problem with the film was the anticlimactic ending. Since Colin Firth's character can deliver a speech perfectly if he's plugged into loud music, (the Shakespeare bit at the beginning) surely it would be have been much easier on everyone involved if he made the radio broadcast while listening to Mozart? I couldn't get over that plot hole.