We here at Moviepilot are a community of hundreds of contributors and writers who work around the clock everyday to bring you a variety of brilliant articles, on all your favourite movies and TV shows, and even some you didn't know about.
We come from all walks of life, some tall, some short, some fat, some thin, some older, some younger and yet everyday, without fail, we bring you everything you could ever ask for from a movie/entertainment site. Wanna know what's happening on the next season of Game of Thrones? We got it. Wanna know what popular video game/book is being made into a movie? We got it. Wanna know which of your favourite actors has signed on for a role in a huge new film franchise? We got it.
Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that Moviepilot has everything.
We all have our own lives, believe it or not. Some of us work, or are studying. Some of us have kids and are married. Many of us have day-jobs, some of us are filmmakers, aspiring filmmakers, writers - we all have our own stuff to handle separately from Moviepilot.
So, when us folk dedicated to putting out good quality articles spend a day or so longer planning our next article only to post it and have a reader who clearly hasn't done their job as reader comment with abuse or stupidity, we can't help looking somewhat like this.
The first question in our minds, is normally something along the lines of, "Did you not read the article?" because rather than look at and take in the full thing, many readers, "skim read" and in doing so come across something they don't like or agree with and feel it is their place to personally attack the writer for their opinions when they themselves fail to have the full picture, as they've not read the article in it's entirety.
When you "skim read", you take in bits and pieces of information, and not the full thing, so in your haste to comment and give that contributor a hard time, you're missing out on vital pieces of information within the article that probably explain what it is that's got you so riled up.
The lack of red grapes in a film set primarily in a location where red grapes grow, is confusing to me. Every grape seen within the film is green, and yet we as viewers clearly know this to be a red grape location. Of course, one explanation for this could be that the film, in being a work a fiction, has chosen not to be historically accurate and has therefore allowed itself creative freedom to use only green grapes. But my question still remains, why do this in a primarily red grape location? Why not just find a green grape location? It's a bigger liberty to change the colour of all the grapes used in the location from red to green, than say adding in a few green grapes with the existing red grapes.
But rather than read that paragraph in its entirety, some readers skip parts, and in their ill-informed minds, will comment something like this,
This is a stupid article, written by a stupid person who clearly doesn't understand how films work. Just because it's set in a red grape location doesn't mean it has to use red grapes, you moron. It's a MOVIE, it's allowed to change things, why do people always have to make things a colour issue!? You're blowing this out of proportion! Their are plenty of red grapes in other films set in red grape locations, why accuse this one of being prejudice to red grapes somehow because it's chosen to use green grapes instead of red!? Such a stupid article.
Do you see the problem here, folks? In not reading the paragraph in its entirety this person has assumed that the Contributor is making it a "colour issue", and "blowing it out of proportion", when in actual fact, the Contributor made a simple point about changing red grapes to green grapes in a red grape location. The simple point remains: why not find another location? Or take your creative license and ability to be historically inaccurate, and add green grapes as supportive fruit (lol) rather than remove all of the red ones?
To some degree even when being historically inaccurate, there's a certain amount of accuracy still required, otherwise what you're making is essentially not historical at all and has no right to claim to be. If you make a film about black slavery, and take it upon yourself to make it historically inaccurate, and change all the black slaves to white, does that then not mean that your film is still a historical film about black slavery?
Of course not. It's now something entirely different, and has no right to claim to be about black slavery.
In any case, the simple fact remains that before commenting on an article you must first READ the article. You must, like most of us Contributors do, gather ALL the information before you present your argument(s) otherwise it's invalid and there's no point in you commenting.
So, ladies and gentlemen as you browse around the site today and read hundreds of articles written by various different Contributors, remember that the people behind those articles are real people with real feelings and that your words, although your opinion - something you are 100% entitled to - can still offend someone. Remember to actually READ the articles you see today and think before you write out a stupid comment that could've been avoided.
I know that I will undoubtedly get a few troll comments on here from people who didn't read the full article, or who couldn't be bothered to read my full grape analogy (which FYI is brilliant), but that's ok. Stupid is as stupid does and if you comment on this without reading the full thing, then, well,
and you've missed the point entirely.
Adios for now Moviepiloters!