|
The Maestro posted:And honestly Gaggins, do you just not speak English? How do you not know what "real people have started holding their guns sideways" means? It was a roundabout way of saying that what he said is stupid. Because I speak English, I read his post as saying that no real people did that before the media portrayed it. And then the real people started missing their shots and it was actually a blessing because less people got shot than were getting shot before. It sounds like an assumption that would be very difficult to prove and the D.A.R.E. program was full of poo poo like that. Especially stuff that supports an "lol stupid gang-bangers aren't real people" point of view.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:The problem with both the Sevigny posts and the Japanese women posts is that he's not actually specifying what is so weird and un-natural, and therefore we have no idea if he's making a real point about art replacing life or if he just can't fathom that people have sex in different ways. Yeah. I may be misremembering but that scene was a fairly realistic fellatio scene. The only difference is that it was actually shown and performed in explicit detail. Fellatio isn't exactly some sort of fringe freak sex act in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 04:29
|
|
|
TELL THAT TO MY WIFE 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
I know the MPAA rating system is really hosed up, but I thought dropping 'gently caress' in any context made it at least PG-13. How is this allowed in a PG movie? But Benny & Joon was allowed to? Nvm, PG-13 was introduced afterwards. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ 1st_Panzer_Div. fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Feb 21, 2011 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 07:27
|
|
|
1st_Panzer_Div. posted:I know the MPAA rating system is really hosed up, but I thought dropping 'gently caress' in any context made it at least PG-13. How is this allowed in a PG movie? No PG -13 at the time see also Airplane and the topless chick. Also you are allowed one gently caress in a non sexual content in a PG -13 film as shown in Aviator
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 07:30
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:No PG -13 at the time see also Airplane and the topless chick. Also you are allowed one gently caress in a non sexual content in a PG -13 film as shown in Aviator Then what about Live Free or Die Hard?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 08:12
|
|
|
"Motherfucker" is treated differently than "gently caress".
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 08:16
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:"Motherfucker" is treated differently than "gently caress". The MPAA hates fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 08:48
|
|
|
I thought that movie only had one "gently caress."
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 09:05
|
|
|
I find it crazy you have guidelines like that. In Australia it's an 'intensity' (what words, how often, whether it's abusive or not, etc. -- no numbers involved).
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 09:37
|
|
|
This came up recently with The King's Speech, which has like a dozen fucks and was given a 15 in the UK, but on appeal was downgraded to a 12a based on context. But it was still rated R in the States. Although, the way they were delivered was supposed to be humorous so I'd imagine you got a lot of 12 year olds repeating it for giggles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 10:08
|
|
|
It also depends on how high your budget is and how likely you are to get awards, too, but I guess that's universal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 10:20
|
|
|
there's talk of BHD in the Prometheus thread, I saw someone say 'anti-war' film. I thought - Is there any Pro-War film (outside of WW2 Propaganda)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 12:44
|
|
|
I've never watched or heard of Brown Bunny until today but I can't help but be slightly disturbed that an indy movie exists where the director/producer/writer/male lead combo gets an actual explicit blow job from a famous actress. It just feels very transparent and I find it strange that it actually happened. Call me a prude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 13:31
|
|
|
dolphins are gay posted:there's talk of BHD in the Prometheus thread, I saw someone say 'anti-war' film. I thought - Is there any Pro-War film (outside of WW2 Propaganda)? Sure sure: something like John Wayne's The Green Berets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 13:33
|
|
|
dolphins are gay posted:there's talk of BHD in the Prometheus thread, I saw someone say 'anti-war' film. I thought - Is there any Pro-War film (outside of WW2 Propaganda)? You didn't watch many movies in the '80s?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 15:41
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Also you are allowed one gently caress in a non sexual content in a PG -13 film as shown in Aviator
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 18:38
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:They said "gently caress" twice in The Social Network. This is what annoys me the most about it. It can't even be used in a PG-13 context now without it taking you right out of the movie. "Oh, 'gently caress'. That's their one use, I guess. Was it worth it? I might have saved it for an action scene... Wait, is it one or two?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 18:52
|
|
|
Kieselguhr Kid posted:I find it crazy you have guidelines like that. In Australia it's an 'intensity' (what words, how often, whether it's abusive or not, etc. -- no numbers involved). In Quebec it's basically the same thing. Just swearing is fine, swearing in a sexual context gets a bit of a higher rating. Semi-Pro was rated G. They swear in almost every line in that movie, but little to none of it is sexual. Clerks 2 was 13+. They're also pretty lenient on nudity, even in sex scenes. Watchmen was a 13+. It's violence that gets them here. Ninja Assassin was 16+, Drive Angry is 16+. I'm trying to think of a recent movie violent enough to get a 16+ that also includes nudity to see how they rate that, but none come to mind. (G is G. 13+ is equivalent to PG13, with the 'accompanied by' part. 16+ is 16 years old minimum. There's an 18+ too but I can't think of any movie that used it recently.) Szmitten posted:I've never watched or heard of Brown Bunny until today but I can't help but be slightly disturbed that an indy movie exists where the director/producer/writer/male lead combo gets an actual explicit blow job from a famous actress. It just feels very transparent and I find it strange that it actually happened. Call me a prude. They were dating at the time or something, so it's not quite as shady.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
There are no real set rules about MPAA guidelines, just a general "well, they usually..." thing that people tend to abide by. It breaks down to context and the luck of the draw in terms of the judging committee's overall day, as well as the use of little tricks filmmakers can and have used to smuggle things past them or the ability of a studio or producers to fight for a particular rating. Something like Social Network gets away with two fucks because A.) Scott Rudin is a terrifying motherfucker to deal with if you have to work against him, B.) the MPAA was more distracted by the cocaine scene right at the end, C.) Sony had positioned this as not just an Oscar hopeful but was shooting for a blockbuster and thus was ready to fight hard for a PG-13, and D.) the fucks are used in complete non-sexual context as it is, as I remember. Although all I can remember is "along with my hoodie and my gently caress-you flip-flops, you pretentious douchebag!" I mean, look at how much Easy A got away with for language. Look at Gone With The Wind giving us a gun's-POV shot of it firing into a man's face. Gone With The Wind is rated G. Jaws features severed limbs and a man being eaten alive by a shark right in front of you, and it's PG. Ignore the "this many fucks" or "that much amount of tit" rules, because they're not really applicable. It all depends on your distributor, your producer, the willingness to fight against a rating you disagree with, and whether or not you're able to slip things past them through diversion or other means.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:In Quebec it's basically the same thing. Just swearing is fine, swearing in a sexual context gets a bit of a higher rating. Watchmen was a 13+? That movie features a man having his arms cut off with a circular saw. It's right there in the shot, it's not even obscured or implied. In the UK that warranted an 18 rating. That really, really surprises me and it makes me wonder what else you need to do to get a higher rating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 20:50
|
|
|
dolphins are gay posted:there's talk of BHD in the Prometheus thread, I saw someone say 'anti-war' film. I thought - Is there any Pro-War film (outside of WW2 Propaganda)? And do you mean films which make the case for specific wars (like Band of Brothers or The Green Berets), or war in general? Because a lot of films implicitly argue for the concept of just war in one guise or another. Whether or not you want to read a contemporary political context into 300 (2006), for example, it's difficult to miss the fact that it implicitly accepts the notion of just war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Aorist posted:This is what annoys me the most about it. It can't even be used in a PG-13 context now without it taking you right out of the movie. "Oh, 'gently caress'. That's their one use, I guess. Was it worth it? I might have saved it for an action scene... Wait, is it one or two?" It's two. They had to censor the third in The Social Network by changing "Let's gut the loving nerd" to "Let's gut the frickin' nerd" so they wouldn't get an R rating. You can see Armie Hammer saying loving, but the audio is frickin'. GonSmithe fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Feb 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
Wasn't Green Berets made purely to try to increase public support for Vietnam? To attempt to created that hero myth that was so apparent in WW2 films?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
Basically, yes. IMDb posted:In 1967 John Wayne wrote to Democratic President Lyndon Johnson requesting military assistance for his pro-war film about Vietnam. Jack Valenti told the President, "Wayne's politics are wrong, but if he makes this film he will be helping us." One of the major subplots of the film is Wayne's character trying to convince a reporter, and in effect the entire media, that the war is one worth fighting. It's pretty blatant propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
In an earlier example, lots of WWII troops had screenings of Olivier's "Henry V" cause it's a pretty pro-war take on the play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
big business sloth posted:In an earlier example, lots of WWII troops had screenings of Olivier's "Henry V" cause it's a pretty pro-war take on the play. It was also partly funded by the British Government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 04:22
|
|
|
Thing is, WW2 and Vietnam are different wars; one was to combat a genocidal fascist regime that really did want to rule the world vs people who didn't want to be colonized by European powers who desired a different economic and political system. Those that doesn't excuse some of the portrayals of Germans or Japanese in a lot of earlier films, especially the Japanese.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Thing is, WW2 and Vietnam are different wars; one was to combat a genocidal fascist regime that really did want to rule the world vs people who didn't want to be colonized by European powers who desired a different economic and political system. But I think what you're talking about is part of the problem with the idea of `pro-war' films as a sort of compliment to `anti-war' films. Let's consider a couple of (what are generally understood to be) anti-war films: All Quiet On The Western Front (1930), Paths of Glory (1957), or Johnny Got His Gun (1971). All three are set during World War I. But I don't think we take away from them that they're simply criticising the First World War. They're more broadly making the case that war itself is intrinsically dehumanising and terrible. But then when we turn around and start talking about `pro-war' films we start hunting up films that support (or were made to support) specific conflicts. But a pro-a-specific-war film isn't the compliment to a anti-war-in-general film. But then if we start looking for pro-war-in-general films, we're simply overwhelmed by the options because the idea that war is (given appropriate context) the right and proper way to handle things is so deeply ingrained that it's almost impossible to think of any film that touches on the subject at all that doesn't support the idea of war, at least implicitly. Are the Star Wars films `pro-war'? The Lord of the Rings films? Both appear to stipulate the virtue---if not necessity---of war against an opponent seen as evil. Not that I'm saying we should read either of these film series as pro-war advocacy pieces. I'm saying that the general pro-war-as-a-general-concept idea is so deeply ingrained in our cultural conventions that it's present even in our essentially apolitical escapist fantasies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 05:07
|
|
|
I have a bit of an issue with your definition of an 'anti-war' film. Does something which acknowledges war is inherently dehumanising and terrible necessarily have to be anti-war? A lot of the propaganda produced by Fascist Italy was brutal and unflinching, but capped off with 'well it's for the state and everything so it's great and heroic.' The major anti-war films it seems to me get away from merely visceral horror and disgust into the political (look at Saving Private Ryan, which is both disgusting and horrific and still constructs a great heroic mythos around its subject; it is in a real sense 'pro-war'). All Quiet on the Western Front openly suggests kings and generals start wars to feed their ego, and madness prevails everywhere. There's also usually a heavy emphasis on the humanity of the other side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 06:51
|
|
|
Kieselguhr Kid posted:I have a bit of an issue with your definition of an 'anti-war' film. Does something which acknowledges war is inherently dehumanising and terrible necessarily have to be anti-war? I wasn't trying to offer a definition of anti-war films; I was just explaining how I felt that a couple of films which are generally understood to be anti-war weren't only commenting on the specific conflicts around which their narratives are based. So Paths of Glory isn't saying that specifically World War I was dehumanising, it's saying that war in general is dehumanising. Further, observing that anti-war films have some characteristic doesn't imply that all films that share that characteristic are anti-war films. Slasher films feature people being killed with knives. But that doesn't imply that any film in which someone is killed with a knife is a slasher film, or even that only films in which someone is killed with a knife can be considered slasher films. Kieselguhr Kid posted:The major anti-war films it seems to me get away from merely visceral horror and disgust into the political (look at Saving Private Ryan, which is both disgusting and horrific and still constructs a great heroic mythos around its subject; it is in a real sense 'pro-war'). Kieselguhr Kid posted:All Quiet on the Western Front openly suggests kings and generals start wars to feed their ego, and madness prevails everywhere. There's also usually a heavy emphasis on the humanity of the other side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 12:32
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:They were dating at the time or something, so it's not quite as shady. Ah okay, that does make it a bit better. Still questionable but I guess that's why it's controversial.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 13:06
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:It's two. They had to censor the third in The Social Network by changing "Let's gut the loving nerd" to "Let's gut the frickin' nerd" so they wouldn't get an R rating. You can see Armie Hammer saying loving, but the audio is frickin'. I finally saw The Social Network, and that "fricken" stood out. Funnily enough, I never even noticed the other two "fucks". From what I heard, you can get away with a gently caress or two as long as it is not being used to describe a sex act. So "yippie-ki-yay motherfucker" may be okay, but "I haven't been hosed like that since grade school" definitely is not (for more than one reason...). (edit: scooped above) DentArthurDent fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Feb 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
DentArthurDent posted:I finally saw The Social Network, and that "fricken" stood out. Funnily enough, I never even noticed the other two "fucks". This is also true. You can't say gently caress in reference to having sex in PG-13 movie. In The Illusionist with Edward Norton, the prince dude goes "Were they kissing? Touching? Fornicating?,"where he clearly mouths "loving," but, they didn't want an R rating, so they had to dub it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 16:14
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:This is also true. You can't say gently caress in reference to having sex in PG-13 movie. In The Illusionist with Edward Norton, the prince dude goes "Were they kissing? Touching? Fornicating?,"where he clearly mouths "loving," but, they didn't want an R rating, so they had to dub it. Oh, Bertie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
DentArthurDent posted:I finally saw The Social Network, and that "fricken" stood out. Funnily enough, I never even noticed the other two "fucks". The two "fucks" in The Social Network were both "gently caress you," though not really directed at a specific person on camera. Once was Timberlake asking Eisenberg to say "gently caress you" to the investment guy. The other was Garfield saying something like "and your 'gently caress you' business cards" to Eisenberg. Crows Turn Off fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Feb 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
What kind of lenses are they using to get this sort of flare? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
penismightier posted:What kind of lenses are they using to get this sort of flare? I know after effects didn't exist back then, but it's what they'd use now
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
dolphins are gay posted:there's talk of BHD in the Prometheus thread, I saw someone say 'anti-war' film. I thought - Is there any Pro-War film (outside of WW2 Propaganda)? (BHD= Blackhawk Down?) Many non-Americans have commented to me that the entire output of Hollywood seems like an endless stream of 'War Propaganda' films. Three Kings, Blackhawk Down, Vietnam films, Saving Private Ryan, etc., regardless of whether they are seen in the US as 'anti-war' films, all come from the viewpoint that US forces are appropriately stationed/fighting in other nations, acting as the white knight for truth and justice, thus turning the destruction of war into something that only happens 'over there', and is something dedicated to some higher good. In these movies, the cost of war for America is only the emotional toll on individual soldiers, and never the real economic and population devastation that to an area where war is being fought, and it is always done for a noble purpose, even if it is messy in the details. Some were from Europe, and most were from that place that simply pretends WWII never happened outside of the dropping of nuclear weapons. (This is not to get into a discussion about those issues, just to report on conversations I have had with non-US people. Interestingly, those same people report Australian cinema tends to the same voyeuristic tendency, which comes across as 'pro-war' as US cinema. I have not watched enough Australian cinema to comment on that.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 00:59
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL 
ABOUT IT.
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
Gone Baby, Gone was amazing. Any recommendations for similar mood films? (Also 'The Town' was good for completely different reasons. Ben Affleck has found his true calling.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 01:51
|
|