charliesmum: (Default)
[personal profile] charliesmum
Why is it, a movie that has an slightly unconventional sex scene is being tagged with an 'NC 17' rating (which would make the movie off limits for viewers younger than 18)but a movie like Four Brothers is only 'R' and is chock full of violence?

Now, I've nothing against violent movies* for them that like them, but why is a shot of naked people more troubling for the youth of the world than multiple people being blown up in cinematic ways?

Why was it not okay for Janet Bloody Jackson to flash her nipple, but it's okay for Pat Robertson, a purported Christian, to call for the murder of another human, even if it is just theoretically?

Sometimes the world really makes me sad.

*Well, actually I do. I don't like them, ergo I don't go see them, and, despite the fact there's the chance to see Colin Firth naked, I'm not 100% sure 'Truth' is a movie I'd rush out to see, since I like my films mostly funny and considerably lacking in murder.

on 2005-08-24 01:03 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/butter_cup_/
I agree with every word, and so does Mr. Buttercup, who is reading over my shoulder. Please excuse me while I go duct tape him to a wall.

Back.

I think the movie ratings reflect age old religious attitudes where sex is teh eebil and righteous violence good. I don't like violent movies either, but I love football, boxing and ice hockey. Odd that.

on 2005-08-24 01:54 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] charliesmum.livejournal.com
I think the movie ratings reflect age old religious attitudes where sex is teh eebil and righteous violence good. Yeah, good point.

on 2005-08-24 02:07 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] wolfma.livejournal.com
Icon love! ROTFLMAO!

on 2005-08-24 01:32 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com
Who did Pat Robertson want murdered? Not that I'm surprised. Some of those fundie groups still advocate the stoning of gays.

on 2005-08-24 01:52 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] charliesmum.livejournal.com
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, apparently.

Hang on - let me go find the quote...

He (Chavez)has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

Venezuala is something like 90% Catholic, so how this guy can be a launching pad for Muslim extremism, I don't know. Not to mention the fact that religion has no place in Communism. Dur.

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.

He obviously didn't pay attention in history class. Assissinating a president is pretty much a textbook way of starting a war.



on 2005-08-24 03:06 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com
That would be hilarious except for the part where it's, like, real.

on 2005-08-24 02:09 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] wolfma.livejournal.com
That's 'cause Amer'cans are moral and we'll durn shore kill ennywun who says dif'r'ntly.

on 2005-08-24 06:11 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] crossbow1.livejournal.com
I agree.

Only I like violent movies, if the violence is realistic. I don't like it when the violence is all "fun" and "glamorous." I think that's sick. I'll take "Pulp Ficiton" over "Die Hard" any day.

I also hate gratuitous sex. I like sex if it's part of the story, but when they just throw it in to get your attention, I feel insulted.

on 2005-08-24 07:02 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] finmagik.livejournal.com
It sounds really hot. Hmmmmmm Darcy Colin... However our nation is full of prudes, so we get up in arms about sex but a movie where heads are flying around like Footballs fine! Sin city and Kill Bill, both rated R have insane amounts of Violence but Sex is a no, no... I mean the children might get ideas!

on 2005-08-24 07:45 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] jessii-6.livejournal.com
what all of the above said.

Of course I don't really see any difference between R and NC-17. Unless it's porn no one even cares if you bring your five year old kid to watch that. And I said 'except porn' because I never saw a porn movie in theaters, so I haven't a clue how it works there. Maybe they don't care either.

on 2005-08-25 06:11 am (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] erynnef.livejournal.com
Just like men's peters are never shown, unless you live in Europe.



As for violence, I like Quentin Tarantino, and the majority of his shit is violent. Should some of them be NC-17? I dunno. I should be, the way I run my mouth.


But, yeah, it's stupid. Gimme Kevin Bacon's peter. I wanna see it again. -rawr-

on 2005-08-26 12:01 am (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] october31st.livejournal.com
I just heard the deciding factor could be thrusting. Apparently, anything over three thrusts and you're in trouble.

Something about this just cracked me up. I can just see the Hollywood policymakers sitting around arguing over how many thrusts are okay. *snerk*

Profile

charliesmum: (Default)
charliesmum

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 123 456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 26th, 2025 07:01 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios