That is something I am not willing to assume/accept.

I don't know if those were thier opinions, or if those were the opinons the Borat Movie producers wanted them to have.

Just out of curiosity since I obviously don't know... is there anyone in the film shown to be jackasses and the like that don't fall into a stereotype? I know everyone is happy when white people are stereotyped, but I'm just curious.

This is why I find these things so evil. You have no idea who those frat boys are, you know nothing about them, but you are fully willing to accept that they truly hold those opinions, and that "they had it comming"

QFT.

I laughed my ass off at the people in the movie. No one held them down and beat them till they made those comments. I don't care what they were on, they believed those comments. Just because they thought they were going to get away with making them doesn't mean that they should be absolved for making them. If I told you that I was going to punch you in the face but it wasn't going to hurt, you said Duh, okay, I then broke your nose, who's the ass? (Not the best but it amused me)

Too many people go around spouting their mouths or doing dumb things and society rewards them. Jackass driving an RV puts it on Cruise Control, Gets up from the wheel goes into the back to make coffee, no one driving the RV it crashes. He sues because no where in the manual does it say that the RV will not drive itself while on cruise control. Guess what he Won. Got millions and a new RV. Stupid crap happens all the time and society has taken to rewarding those people who are too stupid to be let out on their own.

Hot coffee burns, Cruise Control isn't autopilot, Babies shown in clothes catalogs aren't for sale. For Christ's sake whatever happened to Common Sense cause it sure as hell isn't common any more.


Edit:Sorry for the rant but everyone at work today seems to have a huge case of the stupids. Them: Duh, the copier say's there is a misfeed right here and when I looked a paper was stuck in there can you call the service people to come fix it. Me: OMG DIE

Did you know that, that particular store had about 10 complaints against it for making thier coffee too hot, and had three burn victims before that lawsuit was brought? Did you know that the burn cuased pernament skin damage?.... Does that change your opinion at all? Did you know that after the lawsuit, they did not get any more complaints, and nobody else was burned?




Again... how do you know that? The lawsuit claims otherwise.

Are you contesting that the words were spoon fed to them by the producers? Or are you saying that possibly they were saying such things in drunken jest, and did not truly mean them? (thus the clip would have been grossly taken out of context)

I highly doubt the former. The interview being staged would seriously undermine the humor inherrent in the scene.

The latter, while possible, it would have to rely on context, which I cannot comment upon as I have not yet seen the movie. If this is the case, then yes, the suit could have some validity to it.

Plenty of people don't look like jackasses at all. The old couple are portrayed as absolutely lovely.. the driving instructor is clearly a good bloke, and the humour consultant is a really nice guy. He doesn't victimise people - Cohen is perfectly capable of being funny without having to humiliate.

If they are saying that Sasha Cohen or whoever held them down, kicked their asses and said read it or die bitches, I want to see that part added to the next one.

They made the decision to say what they said. They were not forced to be there. If they were told hey, say this stuff in front of the camera and act drunk but don't worry it's not going to be shown in America. They still decided to do it.

One thing I would like to know. Borat advertisements were up all over the place prior to the movie, why in the hell did they wait till after the movie was being shown to sue? They knew what they said, from the moment they saw the first add they should have been talking to whoever they could about not having them put in the movie. Not waiting till after it showed and they got tons of grief

That would require them to know that what they were interviewed for was the Borat Movie.



Sure, but thats called ACTING. They were portrayed as not acting. Improv is still acting. There is a difference.


The whole premise of the film is that these are real people, not acting.



That may be, but the previews arn't based on those clips, and the hype isn't focused on them either. I wish it were though.


It makes you wonder why anybody cares about the concept of "innocent till proven guilty" when they toss it out the window in thier own lives.

Did those frat boys sign any paperwork? Or were they drunk when they did that?

Anyway, the only reason I'm not seeing it is cause I heard his IC interview with a local station, and I found him uncharming and boring as hell. Maybe the movie is better, but I'll wait to borrow it for free from the library. Because I'm cheap.

The lawsuit claims they were drunk when signing the papers and paid the $200, and the words comming out the person's mouth was different than what was written on the contract.

Well, having watched many an episode of 'Taxi Cab Confessions' on HBO, I know that you usually have to sign a waiver in order to appear in such things as anything other than a person with a blurry spot for a head. Heck, even COPS has to have people sign waivers... that's why half the folks on the show are just the afore-mentioned blurry heads. If they signed a waiver and didn't realize that anything they said while a camera was rolling could be used, then they haven't got much sense and it only confirms their general jackassedry cause not only do they believe ignorant raciest things, but they don't understand what the word waiver means.

Edit: And anyone can claim they were drunk when signing something. And anyone can claim they were lied to. It's the signature that matters. You don't sign something without reading it - and if you do... well... sorry. You should know better.

But meh. Why'm I fighting over this? I don't care. I loved the movie and can't wait for the sequal!

No, previous occasions of stupidity do not validate the legal case. Unless the cup mysteriously deteriorates in your hands, or someone from the coffee shop comes out and pours hot coffee all over you, there should have been no case.

You still spilled the coffee. It was still your fingers that slipped, or your dumb ass trying to drive a car down a bumpy road with your coffee in hand. Own up and take responsibility for your own idiocy instead of blaming others.

And of course there were no further complaints that the coffee was too hot. It's likely that the coffee sold at that shop is now luke warm, as an over-precaution to getting sued again.

Noola why are your signature always scary /offtopic

Although I do lack sympathy for them cause I hate frats a bit... But they were drunk the whole time right? When they were fully sober again, were they told, "Hey, we're going to use your dumba** comments made while you were drunk off your a** in a movie. You okay with that?"

Edit: Then again I wonder if they'd still complain if this movie was not so successful

The other one wasn't scary! Only curious about the main ingredient of baby oil.

I got this one off a button.

http://cdn.digitalcity.com/tmz_documents/110906_borat_wm.pdf

Here, you can read the lawsuit your self, its pretty self explanatory. They were lied and thought they were doing something that they were not. I suggest you read the whole thing because the more damaging evidence is at the end of the document instead of at the begining.




Most places that serve boiling hot coffee bother to give you those warm cup holder things so you don't burn yourself picking up the cup. Other places like mc Donalds thought that was too costly and it would be cheaper to settle with the people who got hurt than it would to buy cup holders to protect people. To make thier calculations wrong, the lawsuit filed for lots and lots of money, more so than the cost of provding hot cup holders.

In this particular case the coffee was so hot that when it was picked up it burned thier fingers, and then when dropped burned thier legs cuasing severe damage. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the coffee being over 100 degrees.

This wasn't some minor burn where the person got some blistering and the skin turned red, we are talking Severe burns requiring plastic surgeory to repair.

Atleast thats what I remember from the time.

I understand the desire to call everyone else idiots and assume any story you hear about the stupidity of other people is true, but often you are missing many facts.

Or rather, they CLAIM they were lied to. Another argument could be made that when the success of the movie became known some pre-law frat brother said you know, if you claim you were coerced (however that's spelled) into signing that... oh! say you were drunk, that'll really do it!... you could get lots of money! Get a lawyer dude! You'll get rich!

Maybe I want to "call everyone else idiots and assume any story you hear about the stupidity of other people is true" but maybe you're being just as quick to jump to the conclusion that the big, bad movie makers were out to get the poor innocent frat kids.

I'm glad you've made this point. I was about to, and then my girlfriend 'accidentially' turned the modem off. And then she reminded me that I hadn't done the washing up. 15 minutes later, I return.

As a quasi-lawyer-in-training, I find it pretty irritating that anyone could take an opening claim and present it before others as fact. No, Daganev, that's what the court case is for. First the plaintiffs have a go, then the defendants respond, and then! Everyone goes to court, and they argue and argue and argue, and the judge makes a decision!!! And normally that is taken to be a fair and disinterested appraisal, and -that- you can find on the internet in a few months or years time, and show us.

This, however is by its very nature highly prejudiced. If you're going to sue someone, you don't point out the problems in your own argument, or praise the viability of the argument of your opponents. You deliberately lay out a very one sided case, and hope for the best.

The Smoking Gun To me it is easier to understand when put in the context TSG put it in than just seeing the documents on the lawsuit. If I know anything about southern frat boys from Chi Psi, they do like to lie and drink and act in a generally racist and chauvanistic fashion. I find it hard to believe they were coerced in any way. Note that in one of the pictures, the defendant proudly displays the rebel flag on his wall. While that is not directly linked to racism in my opinion, many others in the south beg to differ.

This is semi-interesting. Chi Psi Official Statement regarding the movie

Edited to say ~ This opinion is based on personal knowledge of a Chi Psi chapter. While I know not all members of the fraternity are chauvanist pigs, they do seem to attract them in droves.

Sorry, I forgot that all white southern people who have ties to the historical south are racist pigs and should be humilated for no reason other than to mock them and make 26 Billion dollars in the process.

I don't have to jump to conclusions about what the movie makers were out to do, they said it explicitly in many interviews. They wanted to mock Americans. They have made it very plain and clear that that was thier intention.

And lets ignore the fact that the boys were interviewed in a motor home set up by the movie producers.

I'd say they mocked Eastern Europeans as much, if not more than Americans. And so what? That's the point of it, yes. So what? Guess I'm not all that patriotic but I can laugh at my own country's foibles. (I love that word, I just can't spell it) And we DO have foibles. Surely you don't doubt that?

And guess what... I'm Southern White Person! I grew up in the south! My parents? From Tennessee and Mississippi. My grandparents? From Tennessee and Mississippi. And so on. I'm pretty sure if you go back far enough in my family tree you'll probably find some slave owners. I'm not proud of that, but there it is. The furthest north I've EVER been in my life is Nebraska when I was two years old and my mom made my dad find a new job south of the Mason-Dixon line after living there for six months cause she wouldn't stay for another winter.

Am I racist? No. Do I know a lot of racist people? Hell yes. Several members of my family in fact, I'm very sorry to say.

Do I find jokes about racist southerners offensive? Not really. You know why? Because I know a lot of racist southerners and so I can relate to the jokes and laugh. I don't take being a southerner so seriously that I can't laugh about a stereotype that I personally feel has nothing to do with me.