Moon Rider documentary

pottssteve
pottssteve Posts: 4,069
edited February 2018 in The cake stop
Hi,

Has anyone seen this? It's about Rasmus Quaade - a junior Danish rider.

I would like to show the film to a group of 12- 16 year olds and would appreciate any feedback people have regarding suitability (sex, drugs, swearing etc.) It's unrated on iTunes.

Cheers,
Steve
Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs
«1

Comments

  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    Not seen it but check IMDb and the DVD is on Amazon for 7.99
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    Would it be silly of me to suggest that maybe you watch it first then make up your own mind as to suitability.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,977
    Would it be silly of me to suggest that maybe you watch it first then make up your own mind as to suitability.
    Of course! Executive decisions mean executive responsibility.
    Why have responsibilities when you can blame a stranger on t’internet.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Would it be silly of me to suggest that maybe you watch it first then make up your own mind as to suitability.
    Of course! Executive decisions mean executive responsibility.
    Why have responsibilities when you can blame a stranger on t’internet.

    Totes obvs. Many apols for my silliness.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • pottssteve
    pottssteve Posts: 4,069
    Thanks, Cougie. I can download it from iTunes for 4.99.

    However, let me type this slowly so the other responders understand -

    I want to know if, in the opinion of people who have watched it, the film is generally suitable for people under the age of 16 BEFORE I part with my money. For example, does it contain nudity or swearing? In response to any advice I would then decide whether to download it or not. If you haven't seen it, there's no need for you to comment.

    Got that, Forrest?
    Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,977
    'Scuse me while I open this box of chocolates.
    :lol::lol::lol:
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • pottssteve
    pottssteve Posts: 4,069
    PBlakeney wrote:
    'Scuse me while I open this box of chocolates.
    :lol::lol::lol:

    Save me a coffee creme, will you? :)
    Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    pottssteve wrote:
    Thanks, Cougie. I can download it from iTunes for 4.99.

    However, let me type this slowly so the other responders understand -

    I want to know if, in the opinion of people who have watched it, the film is generally suitable for people under the age of 16 BEFORE I part with my money. For example, does it contain nudity or swearing? In response to any advice I would then decide whether to download it or not. If you haven't seen it, there's no need for you to comment.

    Got that, Forrest?

    Seriously?

    For the sake of a fiver you would take someone else's opinion on the language on content of a film to show to a bunch of minors.

    Oh no mate, yeah it's great. Show away. Follow it up with two girls one cup - excellent film about two childhood friends from the same suburb both chasing a career in track cycling culminating in them both entering same regional championship with the winner receiving a trophy.

    I think you can download it for free. Save yourself a fiver.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • pottssteve
    pottssteve Posts: 4,069
    Once again, matthew, you fail to grasp the situation. I would be buying the movie with my employer's money and therefore am accountable for spending it correctly. I can understand how this would be alien to you as, judging by the amount of time you spend lurking on this forum I would guess that you are currently unemployed and live with your mother, where you spend most of your waking day involved in vigorous and repeated bouts of self abuse whilst watching re-runs of Friends and drooling on your keyboard. Not only that, as you haven't seen Moon Rider your opinion is irrelevant.
    Please note that, should you find the time in between periods of onanism to reply to this message, it is unlikely that I will respond again, as I have more important things to do. Please feel free to take this as a win for what, no doubt, will be a caustic and stinging response, from which I will never fully emotionally recover. Love and hugs, Steve
    Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 12,773
    It costs 4.99. Don't understand the will I, won't I dilemma.
  • orraloon wrote:
    It costs 4.99. Don't understand the will I, won't I dilemma.

    Its not his money he's spending.

    Whut?
    I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles
  • pottssteve wrote:
    Once again, matthew, you fail to grasp the situation. I would be buying the movie with my employer's money and therefore am accountable for spending it correctly. I can understand how this would be alien to you as, judging by the amount of time you spend lurking on this forum I would guess that you are currently unemployed and live with your mother, where you spend most of your waking day involved in vigorous and repeated bouts of self abuse whilst watching re-runs of Friends and drooling on your keyboard. Not only that, as you haven't seen Moon Rider your opinion is irrelevant.
    Please note that, should you find the time in between periods of onanism to reply to this message, it is unlikely that I will respond again, as I have more important things to do. Please feel free to take this as a win for what, no doubt, will be a caustic and stinging response, from which I will never fully emotionally recover. Love and hugs, Steve

    You've missed a couple of clichés in there, bone idle w@nker, moms basement etc etc
    I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,977
    In summary. Ask for free advice. Get free advice. Fling insults. Ask for free chocolates. Fling further insults.
    I think there is room for improvement on the charm front.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 12,773
    Free advice time. Yes it's fine to show to 12-16 year olds.
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    Hmmmm

    Teaching assistant work placement gopher shows strain when faced with first task of keeping a class of children amused for 90 minutes.

    Mate. It's £4.99. Four pounds and ninety nine pence. Less than a fiver.

    If the people you're doing your placement with can't trust you with £4.99 then I don't think you're impressing them too much. I'd speak to your school careers officer and see what he can suggest as an alternative.

    Crazy idea here - why don't you down load it at home and watch it there before reporting to the full time teaching assistant who is looking after you? Initiative. It's crazy, eh.........

    Good luck though and remember not to eat the crayons when you're tidying them away.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 12,773
    Major assumption there MF that is the formerly great British pound he quotes. Is he not in Hong Kong? 4.99 in HKD is about 50p.
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    orraloon wrote:
    Major assumption there MF that is the formerly great British pound he quotes. Is he not in Hong Kong? 4.99 in HKD is about 50p.

    AH - good point very, very well presented. Many thanks.

    I suppose he could always ask his mum or one of his "uncles" she brings home if they could lend him the money until his birthday then he can pay them back from whatever he gets in his cards.

    Either way it's a winner winner dinner is chicken - he gets film, the "uncle" looks good in his mum's eyes and will get extra favours, the school still really don't care what he's doing but as there's only 6 days of placement left it's not too bad and but at least the work experience kid with his bicycle is quiet for a bit.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,977
    Oh!
    Major legal issue. Ensure that you have a license for public showings, and have not bought a version for private viewing only.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    school will also need either a permanent or temporary public entertainment licence to show the film.

    Licence fees to local authority payable in advance.

    Local education authority to show film to pupils as it's not part of the curriculum.

    Also have to check if all the pupils want to watch the film as it won't have been approved by the local education authority as it's not part of the approved curriculum.

    Parental approval to do something that isn't part of ten curriculum.

    Looks like it's another black mark in the work experience folder.

    BAD
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • Tough crowd, nothing wrong with asking the question imo, all it needed was someone who has seen it to say 'yea it's cool, go ahead' and save him the chance of wasting a fiver. Even if you would have done differently yourself.
  • Prhymeate wrote:
    Tough crowd, nothing wrong with asking the question imo, all it needed was someone who has seen it to say 'yea it's cool, go ahead' and save him the chance of wasting a fiver. Even if you would have done differently yourself.

    If he’s trying to safeguard kids he would have to watch it first. Why would you believe a post on an Internet forum from a stranger when it could have serious consequences. The post might be fine but he’d still have to watch it to make sure.
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    Prhymeate wrote:
    Tough crowd, nothing wrong with asking the question imo, all it needed was someone who has seen it to say 'yea it's cool, go ahead' and save him the chance of wasting a fiver. Even if you would have done differently yourself.

    Everything wrong with it.

    Its a bone question from someone too lazy or ignorant to spend £4.99 to watch a film he intends to show to a class of minors.

    Would you be happy for your child's teaching assistant to do this? If he can't be bothered to spend less than a fiver and 90 minutes of his life watching a film on a subject he professes to love then feck knows what he is going to do if they entrust with something like a risk assessment or making hot drinks.

    Your view of acceptability of a film differs from differs from PB differs from mine, differs from that of his "uncle". I watch some pretty gruesome stuff for work that would make some people deem it completely unacceptable. My colleagues and I find it fine because its part of our work.

    Further, he does not have the permissions required to show the film so its all a moot point

    If this is how he approaches all facets of his work then help the children.......

    LAZY.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • haha, jeez. I'm not implying he doesn't watch it beforehand if he were to buy it. However, if someone had seen it and suggested a scene where he shoots heroin into his eyeballs whilst hanging out with strippers might not be suitable, job done, £5 and and 90mins of his life saved. I don't quite see how it equates to being lazy and ignorant, or justifies jumping to conclusions about his entire working ethos.
    This place would benefit from being a little less hostile sometimes but we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    Prhymeate wrote:
    haha, jeez. I'm not implying he doesn't watch it beforehand if he were to buy it. However, if someone had seen it and suggested a scene where he shoots heroin into his eyeballs whilst hanging out with strippers might not be suitable, job done, £5 and and 90mins of his life saved. I don't quite see how it equates to being lazy and ignorant, or justifies jumping to conclusions about his entire working ethos.
    This place would benefit from being a little less hostile sometimes but we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

    But if its a subject you're into and you've gone to hassle of finding out about the film and posting questions about the film then its just laziness not to watch the film.

    I can see it now.

    Headmaster: Did you watch the film?
    Work Experience Dude: Yes
    Headmaster: Really?
    WED: No
    Headmaster: Then why did you show it to a class of minors?
    WED: Because some bloke on the internet told me it was fine
    Headmaster: Ok (deep breath), did you apply for all the necessary permissions to show the film before posting on a forum that you intended to show a film publicly?
    WED: Yes
    Headmaster: Really?
    WED: No.

    Its laziness, pure and simple. Short cut route again. And yes, it does allow us to comment on his working ethos: laziness when it comes to researching the film, rude posts, incredibly poor grammar, punctuation and use of parentheses.

    Overall pretty webbo (not to be confused with Webboo who is cool and not at all webbo).

    VERY, VERY POOR
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • fenix
    fenix Posts: 5,437
    Seemed a reasonable question to me.

    If we came back and said it wasnt suitable then he can go look for something else.
    If we said it was fine - I'm sure Steve is sensible enough to watch it first before showing it to kids

    Dont be like the guy at my place who asked his mates for a good place to take his boss out for a meal when he was visiting the regional office. Clearly his mates didnt like him as they advised a really dodgy place to go with a plywood front door. #classy
  • dinyull
    dinyull Posts: 2,979
    So, gist of this thread:

    The documentary is fine for kids, the OP's attitude isn't.

    Am I right?
  • joe2008
    joe2008 Posts: 1,531
    Dinyull wrote:
    So, gist of this thread:

    The documentary is fine for kids, the OP's attitude isn't.

    Am I right?

    No.

    We're still no sure about the documentary as nobody who has commentated here has seen it.

    The OP's attitude is fine, as was the original question.

    Matthewfalle is being his usual obnoxious self.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,977
    The original question was okay. The original responses were okay.
    The insults that followed were not. You reap what you sow. Now, who is doing the insulting?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,412
    Dinyull wrote:
    The documentary is fine for kids...
    Dunno, haven't seen it. Is it any good?
  • dinyull
    dinyull Posts: 2,979
    Veronese68 wrote:
    Dinyull wrote:
    The documentary is fine for kids...
    Dunno, haven't seen it. Is it any good?

    Are you kidding?! It's a fiver don't you know!!!