Відео

Lol came to see if someone would talk about this

Duh!

Even "Christians" can laugh at this. What was presented at the Olympics, not so much.

Lol you would think people would be more concerned with whatever the heck that was on the olympics instead of worrying about other peoples emotions

@@Gerrytheg310 There are a lot of "Christians" in the world. It is still the major religion in many of the countries which sent athletes to compete in the Olympics. Some of what was presented in that opening would be considered offensive in other religions, too, which make up the religious majority in the countries which sent their own athletes. That part of the opening was therefore concerning to many millions of people across the world, and it was known beforehand that it would be. Unfortunately, it was a very unnecessary distraction, which _did_ divert many people's attention from the events themselves, and the athletes who deserved more recognition than they have ended up getting. Given some of the recent notable advertising debacles involving similar "attitudes" maybe The Olympics Committee should have known better than to allow it, and lose a sizable portion of their potential viewership, to the detriment of the athletes they're supposed to showcase. (Not to mention any future losses, which those other refenced debacles clearly illustrate are likely.)

Here I stand!

Me!

I am, it's odd but it reminded me of this clip

Mel Brooks has always had a way of using his humor tastefully, and without malice. The display at the Olympics was neither.

@@kurtkensson2059 the display at the Olympics wasn't The Last Supper. Also, no, Brooks' humour (although the best in the world) has never been thought of as tasteful, and the malice is that he absolutely is showing how ridiculous the things he's making fun of are. Did you think The Producers was a little love letter to Hitler?

@@JamesMMcCann It was immediately obvious what that display at the Olympics was based on, to anyone with a knowledge of the subject. Denying it is an exercise in futility. I don't share your opinion of Mel Brooks' humor, either. One of his talents has been to use controversial subjects in his comedies, without falling into a trap of offending those who are being made sport of. He could take "nazis" (and symbols of theirs) and use them humorously (I still know many of the words to "Springtime for Hitler" thanks to the Dr. Demento show) without people raging about seeing swastikas. (See also; Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" or Jack Benny's "To Be, or Not to Be.") He could take the white robes of the kkk, and use them to make people laugh, as he did in "Blazing Saddles." (The 😊 on the back of them was inspired.) He could even poke fun at Indians (or "Indigenous Persons" if you prefer) and Blacks ("Persons of Color") without creating an uproar, and make people laugh unashamedly at the use of the "N word." In short, Brooks was able to use humor to broach subjects that nearly anyone else would find offensive, or at least controversial. It wasn't "malice" that made his successes possible. If audiences had perceived it that way, he never would have been able to continue creating some of the funniest films in cinema history. The surest sign that "progressivism" is a misnomer is that many of his masterpieces could no longer be made and released in today's hyper-sensitive world, and that is a shame, not a sign of our "progress."

My reply to you has been hidden by YT. I'll repost parts of it. _It was immediately obvious what that display at the Olympics was based on, to anyone with a knowledge of the subject. Denying it is an exercise in futility._ _I don't share your opinion of Mel Brooks' humor, either. One of his talents has been to use controversial subjects in his comedies, without falling into a trap of offending those who are being made sport of._

_It wasn't "malice" that made his successes possible. If audiences had perceived it that way, he never would have been able to continue creating some of the funniest films in cinema history._ _The surest sign that "progressivism" is a misnomer is that many of his masterpieces could no longer be made and released in today's hyper-sensitive world, and that is a shame, not a sign of our "progress."_

What is really pathetic was it had nothing at all to do with the Last Supper. It was called The Feast of Dionysus.

Me too

I’ve been showing this video to all of the “offended” people.

@@JazzSoulMetal Have any of them been offended by the Mel Brooks version? I don't remember any controversy from this or any of the other biblical scenes from the movie.

First things that came in mind after the opening of Paris 2024...Jesus, if I needed a good laugh after that

Gauging the scale and perspective. How big the subject of the painting is compared to their thumb at arm's length.

@@dars5229 That makes sense - thank you!