Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
I wouldn't know about all that...I prefer to watch Doris Day sing or Fred and Ginger dance.
|
Did anyone know that there was a film from 1938 that got under the Hays Code of Conduct for cinema? I told Cricket about this. The film is Child Bride and how the director got away with it, is saying its a documentary. Its about underage marriage in the Appalachian and Ozark Mountain ranges. For the 1930's, this had a lot of violence to it but the other content was a bit out there.
|
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 1283850)
I wouldn't know about all that...I prefer to watch Doris Day sing or Fred and Ginger dance.
|
Thanks MG, I support your freedom to watch or like what you ever want.
Child Bride...never heard of it but it sounds interesting.
The only film the cast and crew ofMystery Science Theater 3000 (1988) refused to satirize after watching. During an interview, hostMichael J. Nelson revealed that the crew considered the film "disturbing."
|
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 1283854)
Thanks MG, I support your freedom to watch or like what you ever want.
Child Bride...never heard of it but it sounds interesting. What's interesting is that as we've become more lax with censorship of explicit sex, we've become more proactive at preventing actual sexual abuse - while the reverse was true in more prudish times - similar to what goes on in Islamic countries today. |
Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
Originally Posted by 90sAce (Post 1283856)
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 1283854)
Thanks MG, I support your freedom to watch or like what you ever want.
Child Bride...never heard of it but it sounds interesting. This conversation really has no focus, which is fine. However if people think we need to be more lenient about what we alliw in film I'm confused. As far as I can tell the only thing off limits anymore is child pornography. |
Originally Posted by 90sAce (Post 1283856)
I looked it up, what's interesting is that it was a 1938 film meant to draw attention to the lack of laws banning child marriages in many states at the time.
What's interesting is that as we've become more lax with censorship of explicit sex, we've become more proactive at preventing actual sexual abuse - while the reverse was true in more prudish times - similar to what goes on in Islamic countries today. I seen it on youtube and it was pixelated bad. |
Originally Posted by seanc (Post 1283861)
What? I really don't know what your driving at with this. Could you explain further?
This conversation really has no focus, which is fine. However if people think we need to be more lenient about what we alliw in film I'm confused. As far as I can tell the only thing off limits anymore is child pornography. As it stands any film with explicit sex will most likely be too graphic for a R-rating, yet all manner of torture and violence can get by. Why should two people making passionate love on their honeymoon be considered too inappropriate for mainstream theaters than people being dismembered alive in a film like Saw or Hostel? |
Originally Posted by MovieGal (Post 1283863)
Actually what is disturbing.. is that it has a 11 yr old girl nude in a swimming scene...
I seen it on youtube and it was pixelated bad. |
Originally Posted by 90sAce (Post 1283867)
The FBI is coming for you as we speak ;)
|
Originally Posted by 90sAce (Post 1283866)
Originally Posted by seanc (Post 1283861)
What? I really don't know what your driving at with this. Could you explain further?
This conversation really has no focus, which is fine. However if people think we need to be more lenient about what we alliw in film I'm confused. As far as I can tell the only thing off limits anymore is child pornography. As it stands any film with explicit sex will most likely be too graphic for a R-rating, yet all manner of torture and violence can get by. What do you mean when you say we have become more proactive about preventing sexual abuse similar to Islamic countries? |
Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
An unrated film is simply a film that was never submitted to the MPAA. If it's direct to video, there's really no reason to submit it (it costs money) except that it won't be sold by some chain stores and rented by certain outlets in the U.S. There is nothing "stronger" than an NC-17 since if you'll accept that rating, your film doesn't need to edit anything. It's just that if it's made and meant to be primarily shown outside of the U.S., it's going to be unrated as far as the U.S. is concerned. :)
|
Originally Posted by TONGO (Post 1283837)
Heres something I brought up earlier, is there one movie with an explicit sex scene thats worth a fiddlers damn? Even one?! I dont know of any.
|
Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
Team America: World Police. :p
|
Originally Posted by 90sAce (Post 1283866)
Why should two people making passionate love on their honeymoon be considered too inappropriate for mainstream theaters than people being dismembered alive in a film like Saw or Hostel?
But beyond that, there are lots of reasons: 1) Violence is faked. Nudity can't be. You can pretend to be killed, but you can't pretend to be naked.There are other reasons, too. The main point is that the trite old "oh we can watch a guy's head get blown off but we freak out over a nipple?" pseudo-argument is pretty facile when you actually consider it. It's a false equivalence between two dramatically different things. |
Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
The only thing more beautiful than a woman, is two of them. But really, I love seeing a pair of boobs, and a chick's butt, but, when it's redundant, doing it for "mental junk food" - stimulating us to make us think we're enjoying the "film" when we're enjoying ourselves.
I am for complete freedom, but some discretion and good taste would be best. |
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 1284122)
Well, first off, it usually isn't: lots of films with passionate love making scenes have R ratings. The ones that are rated NC-17 are usually far more explicit and/or not the kind of wholesome hypothetical you're asking about.
But beyond that, there are lots of reasons: 1) Violence is faked. Nudity can't be. You can pretend to be killed, but you can't pretend to be naked.There are other reasons, too. The main point is that the trite old "oh we can watch a guy's head get blown off but we freak out over a nipple?" pseudo-argument is pretty facile when you actually consider it. It's a false equivalence between two dramatically different things. For example, most films, video games, etc with graphic sex acts would receive an NC-17 rating or equivalent and wouldn't even be allowed to be sold in most mainstream theaters or store chains - even when they're clearly intended for adults, not children (horror films on the other hand are clearly not intended for kids either but manage to slip by with an R rating; they typically don't generate nearly as much controversy in the media). I think you have too much faith that culture's standards on things are completely rational; cultures have been known to be decidedly irrational about many things (just 50 years ago, interrational relationships were considered 'damaging to society' for example). |
Originally Posted by 90sAce (Post 1284395)
While I agree that young people exposed to sexual content might try to experiment sexually at too young an age, and that this is a more realistic possibility than a kid 'becoming a serial killer' from seeing a horror film - I don't fully agree that there's not a double standard.
Remember, the rating is not about what can literally be shown--it's about what can be shown without parental consent. Since parents have an understandable interest in the kinds of preconceptions their children grow up with, the ratings reflect the general parental belief that depictions of sex are more likely to meaningfully influence their children than depictions of violence.
Originally Posted by 90sAce (Post 1284395)
I think you have too much faith that culture's standards on things are completely rational
|
Originally Posted by 90sAce (Post 1284395)
I think you have too much faith that culture's standards on things are completely rational; cultures have been known to be decidedly irrational about many things (just 50 years ago, interrational relationships were considered 'damaging to society' for example).
|
Originally Posted by agent_007 (Post 911292)
A while ago I watched "The Brown Bunny" with Vincent Gallo. This film he drives around alot and feels sorry for himself looking for his lost love. At the end of the film is this very explicit sceen where he receives oral from his lost love. Since Vincent Gallo both wrote and directed this film, I felt the only reason he showed this sceen was to show the world his genitalia. Very distasteful
|
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 07:50 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums