|
Post by ninjacat11 on Mar 6, 2009 6:03:09 GMT -5
www.movieguide.org/articles/1/243From the site: " This movie contains extreme violence, nudity, and sex, including rape" said Dr. Ted Baehr, chairman and spokesmen of the Commission. "Throughout most of the whole picture, one male character walks around completely naked, with his private parts waving in the breeze. "This kind of content used to be rated X or NC-17," Dr. Baehr added. "The motion picture industry keeps changing its standards. No wonder the MPAA's rating system confuses parents."
Dr. Baehr said, "The MPAA office told us that it would bring our concerns about this movie and its rating to their board. Whatever they decide, we appreciate the board taking another look at this issue. Even so, the movie industry needs to clean up its act and stop inserting graphic violence, sex, nudity, and drug use into its movies.
"After all, would ‘Casablanca' become an even better work of art if the script contained a bunch of "f" words, or if Ingrid Bergman appeared completely nude? Definitely not!"
OH MY GOD! A CHARACTER APPEARS ALMOST ENTIRELY NAKED! CALL THE SNAKES! Then again, this site does have an article about the "Artistic Merits of Fireproof", so they might not be the most reliable source.
|
|
|
Post by The Lazy One on Mar 6, 2009 6:10:48 GMT -5
I was going to go see Watchmen tomorrow, but now that I know a character walks around in the nuddy-pants I don't think I will. </sarcasm>
And I've never met anyone who was confused by the MPAA ratings system that didn't get it after being explained to about it.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 6, 2009 6:13:09 GMT -5
www.movieguide.org/articles/1/243From the site: " This movie contains extreme violence, nudity, and sex, including rape" said Dr. Ted Baehr, chairman and spokesmen of the Commission. "Throughout most of the whole picture, one male character walks around completely naked, with his private parts waving in the breeze. "This kind of content used to be rated X or NC-17," Dr. Baehr added. "The motion picture industry keeps changing its standards. No wonder the MPAA's rating system confuses parents."
Dr. Baehr said, "The MPAA office told us that it would bring our concerns about this movie and its rating to their board. Whatever they decide, we appreciate the board taking another look at this issue. Even so, the movie industry needs to clean up its act and stop inserting graphic violence, sex, nudity, and drug use into its movies.
"After all, would ‘Casablanca' become an even better work of art if the script contained a bunch of "f" words, or if Ingrid Bergman appeared completely nude? Definitely not!"
OH MY GOD! A CHARACTER APPEARS ALMOST ENTIRELY NAKED! CALL THE SNAKES! Then again, this site does have an article about the "Artistic Merits of Fireproof", so they might not be the most reliable source. Whatta fucking douchebag. Imagine this alternate reality: Casablanca is released, major stars, brilliant performances, sweeps the oscars. It's a great story, it's a masterpiece and then someone comes along and fills it with incredibly graphic violence. Now imagine I change the name of that movie from Casablanca to Saving Private Ryan. Did the presence of "F words" and violence make it a shit movie? What a piece of shit comparison. Go live in a world of disney cartoons then you nutless fuck, and leave the adult situations to fucking adults. If someone doesn't want to look at "naughty" tees, they dont' have to fucking look at them. Why is that so hard for some folks to understand?
|
|
|
Post by The Lazy One on Mar 6, 2009 6:18:23 GMT -5
It depends on the storyline. If you're going to make a war movie, then yes, you have to put violence and language if you want it to be realistic. No one is going to put fluffy bunnies and kittens in a movie about WWII, and if they did, then they are a moron. By the same token, if you're making a historical romance, then dropping F-bombs all over the place and having characters engage in all-out brawls (unless the story calls for it) wouldn't make any sense.
But I guess that's over the fundies' heads.
|
|
|
Post by chad sexington on Mar 6, 2009 6:31:08 GMT -5
I know it's almost a cliche, but... look at the care Dr Baehr lavished on that one line... Throughout most of the whole picture, one male character walks around completely naked, with his private parts waving in the breeze... His private parts waving in the breeze... waving in the breeze... I bet he had to have a quiet lie down after that...
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 6, 2009 6:43:36 GMT -5
It depends on the storyline. If you're going to make a war movie, then yes, you have to put violence and language if you want it to be realistic. No one is going to put fluffy bunnies and kittens in a movie about WWII, and if they did, then they are a moron. By the same token, if you're making a historical romance, then dropping F-bombs all over the place and having characters engage in all-out brawls (unless the story calls for it) wouldn't make any sense. But I guess that's over the fundies' heads. yeah. But especially when taking something established and shocking us with the idea of radically changing the whole message. the message of that movie didn't revolve around a lot of sex or bad language, so it wasn't needed. No, I wouldn't want to see it added to something that didn't need it nor would I want it taken out of something that did need it. And odd he would mention that particular movie as the "I don't give a damn" line while the lead character is TELLING the leading lady that he is taking her upstairs to fuck and her opinion on it doesn't really matter WAS a big deal for its time. But sure, I mean, I like The Wizard Of Oz but I don't' want them to go back and change it, at ALL! Who would do that anyway? What a ridiculous thing to say on nearly every level. That guy bagged himself a carico sized strawman.
|
|
|
Post by mistermuncher on Mar 6, 2009 6:46:04 GMT -5
There's something deeply, deeply perverse in people who see all nudity as pornography, like this jackass. there's a perfectly valid, non-sexual, thematically consistent reason why Doc Manhattan walks around in the buff.
The Casablanca thing is such a fucking ridiculous strawman it barely warrants contempt.
|
|
|
Post by DarkfireTaimatsu on Mar 6, 2009 7:00:31 GMT -5
If I recall the comic--and having just read it this week, I recall it well--Doc Manhattan's genitals were understated, tastefully done, and framed carefully so that not every shot would be full frontal. It was done tastefully, like some sort of classical statue. (But fundies don't like those either, do they?) I'd expect the movie to be done muchly the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 6, 2009 7:19:48 GMT -5
And the problem with nudity goes back to psychotic old testament bullshit.
ANCIENT FUNDIE: Smash the roman god statues, I see a penis!
ANCIENT FUNDIE'S LACKEY: But this statue here is labeled, "Michelangelo's David".
ANCIENT FUNDIE: Oh, well, we'll keep that one because it's a beautiful representation of the human body as perfected by god himself...
These are probably the same sicko's I used to see being extra careful about covering a little baby's genitals in photos. I used to work at a photo lab and sometimes there would be roll after roll, hundreds of pictures of someone's little child. They are eating and bathing and so on. So the bathing pics--I get it, baby's first bath, relatives there to see him, probably some for the first time and yada yada so I get WHY they are doing it--all feature the baby with a carefully placed washcloth over it's "shame". I've heard the defense; "I don't want some pervert getting sick thoughts looking at MY baby..."
Gah...
First off, you're not gonna stop some sicko from thinking ANYTHING. Secondly, why does your mind go there automatically? And thirdly, your kid really isn't that hot... (kidding)
Granted, I like strange things, freak show shit and some pretty bizarre-to-most-people things, but how does, "OMIGOD, if someone sees a picture of our naked baby when they develop our film they are so gonna get aroused" thought dominate your actions when sitting around taking pictures in your own home with your family?
It's a bit of an obsession when there are 200 pictures and that kid doesn't get his picture taken unless he has a big blue square of terrycloth over his junk. Or girls junk, it's hard to tell if a really little baby is a boy or girl when they are sans clothing but without seeing the genitals. My fucking nongod, do you think that those folks put fucking diapers on their dog too? Or yell at the cat for being "perverted" for licking it's own asshole?
I mean I see sex in just about everything and I think they are obsessed to an insane degree if they think that all nudity or the mentioning of sex organs in any way, is always sexual.
|
|
Pookie
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by Pookie on Mar 6, 2009 8:54:28 GMT -5
Artistic nudity stopped embarrassing me when I was like...12 years old.
I guess when you're taught every Sunday that you are a horrible, dirty, despicable creature and your exposed flesh is the ultimate sin-magnet, you might have a problem with even the most harmless depictions of nudity.
Prudes. *facepalm*
|
|
|
Post by mistermuncher on Mar 6, 2009 9:34:42 GMT -5
Of course, one of the central themes of watchmen is whether or not Doc Manhattan is actually "human" in any real sense any more. On that angle, they might as well be bitching that the predator didn't wear khakis, but that kinky little fishnet thing.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 6, 2009 11:31:44 GMT -5
It's a bit of an obsession when there are 200 pictures and that kid doesn't get his picture taken unless he has a big blue square of terrycloth over his junk. Or girls junk, it's hard to tell if a really little baby is a boy or girl when they are sans clothing but without seeing the genitals. My fucking nongod, do you think that those folks put fucking diapers on their dog too? Or yell at the cat for being "perverted" for licking it's own asshole? The last time I moved to Calgary, I had to leave my cats at my sisters because the people we were staying with were allergic. I walked into my sisters house and she was quite upset that my cat had seduced her cat infront of the TV while the kids were watching cartoons. So yeah, they do get their knickers (or magic undies in this case) in a twist over the pets. She also had a fit over a puppy conga line going across my livingroom and why didn't I stop it. Hey, they're just having some fun. Not my boys, but an example.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 6, 2009 12:57:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MozMode on Mar 6, 2009 14:47:06 GMT -5
Right, because this is bad: But this is totally appropriate: I know, right!? Fucking A! I saw the Watchmen last night. And yes, there were a few full frontal scenes, a few sex scenes but we're all fucking adults. Dr. Manhattan does in fact show his wang a few times, but it's not "waving in the breeze". This isn't a fucking kiddie movie, yes, but it doesn't AT ALL deserve an X Rating, unless you have the maturity of a 5 year old. Their beloved "Passion of the Christ" shows waaay more violence than Watchmen, by like ten fold.
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Mar 6, 2009 14:53:25 GMT -5
Judging by those images, they'd LOVE The Proposition.
(A 14-year old gets whipped to death)
|
|