 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: This is NOT about intelligence posted by Victor Khomenko on July 08, 2000 at 06:40:02:
Actually its about naive adults who take 9 year olds to R rated movies. I always wondered who those folks were. Now I know. My parents sure didnt do it.And Victor, while I can relate to what you say to some degree mass media entertainment has never been about quality. It been about entertaining the masses. Using is as a barometer of societal health is a bit of a reach. The US has NEVER been a country in with the majority of filmgoers would have sat through (never mind enjoyed) a screening of the films you typically enjoy. I know its popular for some to look over hollywoods history and name good films of the past and decry the drop in quality its worth remembering that that library of exceptions is culled from a population of thousands of ordinary or worse movies accumulated over the better part of a century. And never mind the pre code days in which sex / drugs and moral ambiguity were a staple, or the post code exploitation flicks. This movie has always been out there and there has always been an audience for it. Sweeping it under the rug doesnt make that magically disappear nor does using it as an object lesson in social decay makes any sense.
I suspect what really drives the frustration with this movie is the violation of a traditional US film taboo - showing the penis or a representation of it. There is something about male frontal nudity that seems to define a rather ridiculous US moral standard which permits female nudity in movies yet reactions of moral outrage if a male is involved. Both this movie and the new Jim Carrie movie (in this case in the form of a dildo) have crossed this rather parochial US barrier and have gotten slammed for it.
joe
...unfortunately both you and Victor have strayed from one of the most important, and frightening, aspects I mentioned in my original post. The responsibility, or irresponsibility in this case, of the press to disclose the true nature of the film. The front page of our local paper (a New York Times owned rag, I might add) states, "Spoof of horror movies is mindless, but fun." Roger Ebert's column failed to disclose ANY instances of sexual display, explicit or implied. As did the syndicated capsule review. Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere, did any reviewer allude to the filth and toilet humor (not to mention the pro drug use and racism) rampant in this film. No, they all concentrated on the "humor", which IMO was non-existent.Anyone with money (or backing) can produce and distribute a film, but it will only attract viewers if it is sufficiently publicized. In many cases, this precludes an honest, objective review which would drive prospective customers away. Had not the local rag, Roger Ebert, and the syndicated capsules suppressed the fact that this was NOT a harmless spoof of horror movies, but instead a degenerate sexploitation film, it would not have been as popular as it is today.
While it may be true that some people are thrilled by this type of crap, the negative reaction of the audience proved that they are in the minority. I am willing to bet that half the people at the showing that day would have stayed home if they had but known the true nature of the film.
Incidently Joe, my family owned movie theaters most of my life and your statement that "...the pre code days in which sex / drugs and moral ambiguity were a staple" is simply not true. This impression is a figment of the imagination of folks like yourself who attempt to decry films of the past to justify those of today. For your information, "the [Scary Movie type] movie has NOT always been out there", even though there may have been an audience (albeit small) for it.
> > I suspect what really drives the frustration with this movie is the violation of a traditional US film taboo - showing the penis or a representation of it. < <
Traditional US film taboo?? Parochial US barrier?? Please, your condescending nature is unappealing. As is your ignorance of the feelings of the majority of our population. This is not a question of "film taboo", but rather moral integrity. Decency. Heard of it?? We are speaking of the gratuitous display of male frontal nudity and the penis, not something that is an integral part of the plot. We are talking about injecting disgusting sexual displays into the spoof of a movie which had no sex in the first place.
And what in the hell do the ordinary movies of the past have to do with the filth we are discussing here? Your analogy is skewed.
Daryl R
There was precious little in this movie that hasnt appeared numerous times in other movies before. That you arent familiar with that is more evidence of your insularity that any condecension on my part."the [Scary Movie type] movie has NOT always been out there"
Well what do you define as a scary movie? Would Frankenstein, Dracula, Dr Jeckle & Mr. Hyde qualify? All films from the '30s in which innocents were stalked and murdered by evil? And in which audiences shrieked with fear (& delight). Sound vaguly like the basic plot of and number of teen slasher movies of the past two decades you've ever heard of?And moral integrity and decency? Have I ever heard of it? Yep. I'm not the one who takes 9 year olds to R rated movies. Perhaps rather than registering your indignation publicly and decrying not being protected from your own errors you should instead take responsibity for your own actions. Thats what living in this country is about last time I checked. We have the opportunity to do as we please within the limits of the law, but no one can protect us from ourselves without curtailing our rights. That puts a bit of a burden on us as individuals. Deal with it.
And I would suggest that if you are such an authority on what the majority want perhaps you could expalin why this movie had the #1 grossing box office in the US this weekend @ $42.5 million?
joe
Comparing this movie to Frankenstein??? Wow, what have you been smoking??? Get serious, you cannot compare the Monster" movie genre of the '40s and '50s to today's slasher/sex movies. And just where did you get the screwy idea that we are talking about "scary movies". That happens to be the name of the movie, Joe. Get it? "Scary Movie".Name one scene in any of the movies you mentioned that showed explicit, degenerative sex acts. Can't do it can you? Name one scene in any of the movies you mentioned that shows any sex scenes. Can't do it, can you? Name one scene in any of the movies you mentioned that shows excessive violence and bloodshed. Can't do it can you?
So, my taking a 9 year old to this movie somehow justifies the movie's content in your opinion? What a wacko idea of right and wrong!!!
Who's talking about being protected from my own errors? I'm trying to protect others based on my own experience.
I have never in my life heard anyyone mix their metaphors as much as you. Sorry Joe, but your analogies simply do not ring true.
Oh yeh, the Frankenstein monster never stalked and murdered innocents. In fact, he was NOT evil (which anyone would know if they saw the original movie). And Frankenstein himself (that's the doctor, Joe) was equally innocent of your accusations.
You just don't get it, do you?
I misinterpreted yor comment Daryl - not hard to do given the incomprehensibility of your arguments. Cleary I dont equate this movie with Frankenstein. But it isnt clear exactly what you do object to here (though my comment on male frontal nudity does appear to have been rather close to the mark). Lets go back to one of your prior comments ---We are speaking of the gratuitous display of male frontal nudity and the penis, not something that is an integral part of the plot. We are talking about injecting disgusting sexual displays into the spoof of a movie which had no sex in the first place.--
Earth to Daryl - the entire genre of scary teenage slasher flicks has included gratuitous nudity since the 1980s. Go back to the Haloween films, Friday the 13th series of teen targeted dreck and its there for you to see. It was precisely this that the film spoofed. Dont like it? Thats a matter of taste, not the decline of western civilization.
Oh yes (and I cant believe a person whose family has been in the theatre busniess for years could screw this up) - Frankenstein murdered a young girl (albeit unintentionally) in what at the time was regarded as the single most controversial scene in the movie - something you should know if you had actually payed attention while you watched the movie.
But paying attention doesnt appear to be one of your strong points - IT WAS AN R RATED MOVIE. You failed to notice that and didnt like the consequences. Deal with it instead of decrying the movies existence.
---Who's talking about being protected from my own errors?.---
You are only you dont appear to be suffieciently sentient to reailize that. What your original post basically communicated was "Boycott this movie because I failed to note the rating and exposed my 9 year old to it". Face it Daryl - you screwed up and now you're channeling your outrage at Hollywood. I cant say any plainer than that so if you still dont realize it I give up.
joe
> > > Earth to Daryl - the entire genre of scary teenage slasher flicks has included gratuitous nudity since the 1980s. < < <The main spoof in the movie, according to ALL the critics, was towards The Matrix, a film devoid of explicit sexual contact.
> > > Frankenstein murdered a young girl (albeit unintentionally)... < < <
Self contradictory. There is no such thing as unintentional murder - it's called manslaughter.
> > > What your original post basically communicated was "Boycott this movie because I failed to note the rating and exposed my 9 year old to it". < < <
Wrong again Joe. Those are your words. The basic premise has nothing whatsoever to do with my (or anyone) taking a 9 year old to the movie. I made the mistake, that's a given. It has never been denied, yet you keep clinging to it as your only hope of pleading your case.
The point, if you have the ability to realize it, is simply that "Scary Movie" is filled with degenerative sex, pro drug use, blatant racism, and as such is not a fit vehicle for our young. The young being the overwhelming majority of those in attendance. Allowing them to be exposed to such filth is not a very pleasant thought and can do a hell of a lot more damage than one might think. This has nothing to do with me personally - get it?
---The main spoof in the movie, according to ALL the critics, was towards The Matrix, a film devoid of explicit sexual contact.---This is simply not true. This film had in jokes referencing Haloween 1, 2, 3, 4, etc, Friday the 13th 1-etc., I Know What You Did Last Summer, Scream & Scream 2, The Sixth Sense and a few I dont even remember at the momenet. Ever even see Scream or Scream 2? The mask wearing character came straight out of it. Both were R rated movies by the way. Saying its primarily based on the Matrix is like saying war is primarily about loud noises.
---The point, if you have the ability to realize it, is simply that "Scary Movie" is filled with degenerative sex, pro drug use, blatant racism, and as such is not a fit vehicle for our young. The young being the overwhelming majority of those in attendance. Allowing them to be exposed to such filth is not a very pleasant thought and can do a hell of a lot more damage than one might think. This has nothing to do with me personally - get it?---
This from the guy who brought a nine year old to the movie. I do get it. I dont take minors to R rated movies & when I attended I didint see a single minor in the audience. Get over it.
joe
I viewed "Starship Troopers" with a rather sparse audience. In front of me was a young mother with two chilren under the age of 5. They freaked out. The mother insisted on watching the film with them and stayed. I've viewed preadolescent children at many of the R films I've see albeit I do not see that many. My wife teaches 3rd grade and has heard many of her students over the years revel at going to films that would make a prostitute blush or Dracula vomit. They seem to be in the company of an adult as our area is tough on enforcing the ratings code. Then there is the side issue of videos. I am not aware that video stores enforce the ratings code. The responsibility here lies clearly with the parents and many of them want to play laissez faire when it comes to raising their children.No one here is suggesting that your right to see this "entertainment" should be denied nor should Hollywood be denied the right to produce such stuff. The Constitution gives you and them that right. I think what is bothersome to many is that this sort of stuff is becoming mainstream (you sound old enough to remember Stag films and "art" theaters), and that producers seem to be hiding or camouflaging the actual content. Since a very large group of moviegoers is adolescent and male, movie producers know this group is a veritable gold mine. So I believe it is becomes the viewer to ascertain the content of the film and if it is suitable for his/her eyes and those of their children. Then the parent must no cave in to the screams of his/her child(ren). However, there are few places where this information can be found. I gave a link to one of the few I know of and received a barrage of anti-Christian rhetoric. Is this the voice of sensibility and reason?
Daryl is not a loonie nor are you. Yes, Daryl made a mistake but who is perfect. Unlike the mother I mention above he did remove his child. That was wise. I've done that with one of my children at "Anastasia", a cartoon that was scaring the pants off of him. But afterall it is a Disney film, eh? So much for that logic. Daryl seeks to move on from what he did. Now can I ask you and others to help him and me to find avenues of discovering the actual content of a film rather than relying on a faulty ratings system and reviewers who are concerned with the adult content rather than suitabiltiy for adolescent and preadolescent children. So can we help each other out here?
BTW, I learned that if you discover within a reasonable time that the film is unsuitable for you or your party and you wish to leave, the theater will refund your money or give you passes to another show. I think this is a fair way of treating customers.
I think a few comments have alredy been offered by others. I dont have kids but several close friends and business associates do. The rules I see them go by include:1. Skew towards studios that focus more on family entertainment - that usually means Disney. As you say, not always a guarantee, but its a start.
2. Skew towards G & PG films. Hey, but you do that already.
3. If in doubt prescreen the movie yourself. I know LOTS of folks who do this. The first time I heard of it I was a bit surprised but since, I've stumbled across a lot of folks who do.
4. Network with friends with kids to get the scoop on new releases they or other like minded people may have seen. Resist the temptation to go to the movie the opening week.
5. I'm sure there has to be a review site on the web that focuses on family value type pics (lord knows there is a site somewhere on any topic you care to mention) run some searches and see what you come up with.
Hey, I dont know all the answers but I can understand the dilemma. This is just a bit of what I've seen work for my friends.
--BTW, I learned that if you discover within a reasonable time that the film is unsuitable for you or your party and you wish to leave, the theater will refund your money or give you passes to another show. I think this is a fair way of treating customers.---
Absolutely. I find they will refund if you just walk out complaining you think its not a good movie and ask for a refund.
joe
Thanx for the laffs... the asylum needs more loonies like you.
***Actually its about naive adults who take 9 year olds to R rated movies. I always wondered who those folks were. Now I know. My parents sure didnt do it.Criticism well placed, agreed. At first I missed that it was an R-rated flick.
***And Victor, while I can relate to what you say to some degree mass media entertainment has never been about quality. It been about entertaining the masses.
So I don't get any credit for knowing this? No proble so far.
***Using is as a barometer of societal health is a bit of a reach.And here IS a problem, Joe.
The point is that we are not talking abot quality of that entertainment, but its offensive value. The way I see it, the degree of that offensive shock is only getting higher and higher, and you will not convince me that we had all this in the fifties. True, I was not here, and you got the head start on me, but my impression is that it was perhaps at times corny, poor quality, naive and in poor taste, but we can't compare it to the current river of decayed matter. I think we all know that the movie producers have been pushing the envelop since the beginning, and they really now have only few things uncovered.
***The US has NEVER been a country in with the majority of filmgoers would have sat through (never mind enjoyed) a screening of the films you typically enjoy.That is unfortunate enough in itself, but on top of that we are the major source and trend setter in the offensiveness department. Not only have we failed to build a robust and healthy movie culture here, at home, we have also done our best to destroy the cultures of many other countries. They all to large degree have succumbed to the relentless pressure and cheap temptation - ala the McDonald penetration. And this is not just the American fault - the French, the Italians, the Germans, etc hold as much respolsibility for allowing the bad things happen to THEIR movie cultures as well. They complain too much and do too little.
***I know its popular for some to look over hollywoods history and name good films of the past and decry the drop in quality its worth remembering that that library of exceptions is culled from a population of thousands of ordinary or worse movies accumulated over the better part of a century.
Again, Joe, it is NOT the quality that I am talking about, but the shifted focus towards the shock. And while in the art area you can keep expanding forever, the shock thingy is limited. At some point you simply start recycling the old junk.
***And never mind the pre code days in which sex / drugs and moral ambiguity were a staple, or the post code exploitation flicks. This movie has always been out there and there has always been an audience for it. Sweeping it under the rug doesnt make that magically disappear nor does using it as an object lesson in social decay makes any sense.I don't doubt it was always there to some degree, but there is large difference between existing on the fringes of the society and being actively pushed, promoted in the most "mass of the mass" media. You can't deny that the trash like the teen movies was not there with all the morons and idiots being presented as "nice lovable slightly inti-social rebels". I don't think there was a phenomenon like that king of morons, John Belushi (sp under time pressure) and those who keep copying him.
***I suspect what really drives the frustration with this movie is the violation of a traditional US film taboo - showing the penis or a representation of it. There is something about male frontal nudity that seems to define a rather ridiculous US moral standard which permits female nudity in movies yet reactions of moral outrage if a male is involved.
We are mixing things here. The naive and ridiculus reactions come from ALL angles, and the fact they exist doesn't take from the fact that they are largely justified. You are simply talking about the arbitraty line, and no matter how you draw it it will not look right, that's given. And I don't share your concern about the male nudity - it has been used without bad effects for a long time and by the British, of all people.
***Both this movie and the new Jim Carrie movieOh, please, don't even mention THAT name in relation to the movies...
***(in this case in the form of a dildo)
You are right, he IS one large dildo.
***have crossed this rather parochial US barrier and have gotten slammed for it.It is not the mere existence, it is what you do with it. The Clockwork Orange used the dildo before.
...Jim Carrie fan eh? I never would have guessed ;-) Actually, I'm not either.I dont think its fair to single out this type of entertainment and read to much into its achieving mass distribution compared to the past because thats a technology issue, not an art or societal issue. With the internet, cable, satellite communications and the myraid of other communication channels spewing information forth EVERY form of expression has increased exponentially. We've got 24/7 religous cable TV channels, Consevative (as well as liberal) talk radio hosts with national syndication, 24/7 coverage of congress on TV (2 channels), and a half doxen 24/7 domesitc and international news channels - we didnt have that in the '50s. And lots more people watch TV than go to movies. A movie in in 1950 was true mass comunication when it came to visual imagery - people didnt have TV. What portion of available viewing time and audience reach does a movie like this have in the TV era of today in comparison? I think one could argue that this is still the fringe and that the number of people it reaches in proportion to other media is no greater than it ever was...
joe
...what do they all watch on that dreaded tube?You point about the TV vs. movies is right, but the TV did not replace the bad movies with good news or art movies on the tube - far from it.
Look at the fast growth of movie channel after movie channel - they all show trash (with a possible exception of Bravo, but its presence is near zero).
I get funny feeling when I drive past the $40K homes with small dishes on top - that means the river of shit is reaching the masses with 500 channels of it to watch.
So unfortunately the same trashy movies are on every tube in every home - mine included.
...but the average American doesnt subscribe to many (if any) of those premium movie services. DSS penetration isnt that great in the bigger shceme of things. Most still soldier on with cable and maybe one or two movie channels at most due to the high monthly cost. And from what I've seen those folks with kids are more concerned about getting the Disney channel than those services anyway. I've also noticed among those folks with dishes I know, they are pretty scrupulous in controlling what their children watch on it....joe
Is there a technical (or economic) reason as to why cable is bundled? I would be much more likely to actually subscribe to cable if I could pick the channels (and only the channels) that I want to watch. That way, I wouldn't have to pay for crap like skinimax 1,2,3,etc just to be able to get one or two of the more obscure channels (like MTV-2, the MTV channel that actually shows videos).
The Cinemax Movie Channel, HBO and other "premium" (jeez, what award for a sewer pipe!) channels are not bundled into the basic service that you need to get in order to see the MTV whatever. I think you can selectively subscribe to paid channels - check your local provider. There is no technical reason why you should not be able - they can turn your access to any paid channel on and off from their office.
So I guess this means I'm a sexist pig with a double standard. But this film does have "simulated" fellatio and cunnilingus and the world's largest cumshot.Okay, I probably am a sexist. I laughed hardest when the killer stabs Carmen Elektra in the chest, and instead of a mortal wound, he pulls out a breast implant impaled on his knife.
I've never been understand how a movie is rated PG when a guy gets cut in half by a lightsaber yet a movie gets an R rating for a woman doing a quarter turn into the camera w/o her shirt on. How the "parental" MPAA rates violence is beyond me.Tom §.
Tom §.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
