peril, n.
Imminent danger.
Exposure to the risk of harm or loss. Something that endangers or involves risk.
So what do we take from this? That by watching this film, we are in a situation of imminent danger? Like maybe, I dunno, the Dolby Digital Surround Speakers are going to mutate into terrible monsters and eat us all? The projectionist is packing heat and starts pumpin' off rounds from his 9mm?
Or do we suppose that the warning means that the film's characters are in such situations of risk, in which case the phrase "Depicts mild peril", would be more suitable. But, as the content has been recorded and appproved there is obviously no danger of said situations resulting in anything more than enjoyable escapism, otherwise the tagline would read "Contains mild death". More to the point, who cares what it contains? If we all have enough faith to trust the national film ratings board, then we know it's perfectly safe to take a child to see any given film with a suitable age rating. If you're such a pussy that you don't take your kids to films you suspect will depict unpleasant scenes, then A) Just don't go and B) Allow yourself the odd pint of cleaning solvents once in a while.
So, who is it that's responsible for trailers containing such stupid warnings? Obviously it's the studio heads behind the film, but who's been putting them under pressure? I'll bet it's these whiney parents. Satan's spawn, every last one of them.
Honestly, all you moaning motherfuckers that rant about violence in children's films, sex in teen magazines, gays in soaps, Eminem's lyrical content, please do us all a favour and go hide in a tight cupboard somewhere until you breathe up all the air. What is your problem? All these parents that have the ignorance to complain about such things don't realise the hypocrisy of censoring their children's entertainment and themselves watching unsuitable programming. Don't you think exposing your child to horrific footage from Iraq on the news, vengeful tackles in sports matches and grotesque tasks on reality TV shows, is far worse than the chances of them seeing some "mild peril" in The Polar Express? Those are real, actual scenes of violence, not some animated pretend.
Another censorship thing that really gets me is the CD sticker. We've all seen it: "Parental Advisory. Explicit Lyrics". Stop for a minute here. If a parent cares enough about whatever crap music their offspring listens to, then obviously they will subject themself to trying it first, to decide whether it is suitable. Presumably, this is the desired procedure that they hope to evoke with the phrase "Parental Advisory". So, if they're really that concerned...don't you think they'd be doing this anyway?
If any parent is so stupid that they feel they need to check out the lyrical content of a CD, then they'll do it regardless of whether or not there is a black and white sticker on the front of the case telling them to do so. The rest of the parents, they can join me in paradise when we all die, because they simply don't give a fuck what their offspring listens to, or just don't care enough to go to the bother of ensuring that the content is okay. You go, girlfriends.
But is lyrical censorship really necessary anyway? If Eminem tells us all to go blow up a school or something, and some idiot American kid does it...good for him. Good for him, I say. He'll probably die in the explosion, and we'll have one less brain dead bozo in the world to worry about. Or if Marilyn Manson sings about suicide, and so a loser goth follows his word and kills themself...does anyone really care? I mean, really. How stupid can you be. Following the suggestion to kill yourself by a man named Brian who parades around in black corsets and stockings? And for the record, he doesn't play "goth music", it's just rock. Goths are lame.
Here's what I'm really concerned about though: How far is censorship going to go? We already have food with warnings such as "May contain traces of nuts."
trace, n.
A visible mark, such as a footprint, made or left by the passage of a person, animal, or thing.
Evidence or an indication of the former presence or existence of something; a vestige
Footprints left by nuts? Or the indication of "the former presence" of nuts? That's like saying "There were some nuts in this, but we picked them out for you."
Eh? Look, food either contains nuts or it doesn't. It's not like a bar of milk chocolate can hang around on seedy street corners with some KP Dry Roasted for a while, and have some of the nuts' bad influence rub off on him. What the hell are they babbling about with these warnings? May contain traces of nuts? Good. Who cares? Except people allergic to nuts of course. But if they're stupid enough to eat food that may or may not contain nuts (and let's face it, that covers every food known to man), then they deserve to die if they happen to consume "traces of nuts." People are so retarded for this censorship shit.