Amazon.com Widgets

Were the protests over "Slumdog Millionaire" warranted?

  • I suppose they were

    The thing is that people have freedom of speech and movies also fall under this. If people want to protest movies, that is also freedom of speech. It works both ways. But, I do think that the protests over the film were a bit ridiculous. It is just an art form.

  • Yes the protests were warranted

    I believe in the freedom of speech. The word slumdog is offensive. It refers to people living in poverty in India as living in a slum and being a dog. The people who live in poverty everyday probably do not like to be called dogs. Especially by the British, for where the movie was produced

  • No They Weren't

    I do not believe the protests over Slumdog Millionaire were warranted. Having watched that film once, and believe me that was enough, I don't understand why the film got as much publicity as it did. I didn't find the film to be particularly special in any given way. I think it was mediocre at best.

  • The protests over "Slumdog Millionaire" were not warranted.

    The protests in India in 2009 over the title of "Slumdog Millionaire" were not at all warranted. People were offended by Danny Boyle's use of the word "dog" in the title to depict the people in the slums of India. This was called a human rights violation. The fact that there were protests over this was completely ridiculous and blown totally out of proportion.

  • It was just a movie.

    No, the protests over Slumdog Millionaire were not warranted, because it was just a movie for entertainment. It is impossible to go through the world and do anything without someone taking offense to it. The criticism was legitimate, and people have a right to express their opinion, but to protest over a movie is going too far.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.