Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 11:53:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1119 times
|
| |
|
|
John wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> >
> > > to me...Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid and
> > > tasteless.
> >
> > So?
>
> My opinion.
Rather narrow-minded opinion at that.
> > > > To me, LEGO bricks are a hobby. They are a really fun thing to collect and
> > > > to to build with for many of us. I know that some of us have started
> > > > reselling LEGO bricks via Brickbay, some of us have done commissioned works
> > > > for LEGO sculptures, and some of us have made movies. I'm one of the ones
> > > > that makes movies.
> > >
> > > Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks on
> > > Brickbay, you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
> >
> > John, good point! At least Jason is promoting creativity.
> >
> > > So why sully a good thing by allowing such filth?
> >
> > Filth is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> And I don't want filth in the eye of my
Ah, now that's your right...
> or anyone else's child.
Now here, you need to BUTT OUT! Quit forcing your narrow-minded morality on
everyone else.
> > > If the "sole" purpose of your site is to promote "quality
> > > film-making", then why the hell are you displaying this type of
> > > material???!!! Sorry to break the news to you since you seem not
> > > to have already heard: porn *isn't* quality.
> >
> > Sorry to break it to you, but 'porn' and 'quality' are not mutually exclusive.
>
> Please cite examples, or are you speaking hypothetically?
Quality film-MAKING has nothing to do with the content. Is that so hard to figure
out? It's certainly possible to have a quality porn film (and the opposite is
obviously true, there is TONS of crappy non-porn out there).
> > It is an economic happenstance that porn is boring.
>
> Come again? Porn has *everything* to do with money and nothing to do with
> creativity.
Whatever. If you want to stay that bigoted and narrow-minded, fine. Even raise
YOUR children that way if you want to. But BUTT OUT of everyone else's family.
> There is no reason that I
> > can think of that cineatic depictions can't include sexuality and still be
> > riviting.
>
> Must be *some* reason, otherwise I would imagine that the free market would have
> already exploited it.
Film isn't a free market, with porn-bigots like you screaming at them, picketing
them, etc, and getting the gubmint to shackle the industry (in the US, anyways - not
sure about other countries).
> > > > But we are all more or less mature here
> > >
> > > You moron! What an ignorant thing to say! *Anybody* can read
> > > LUGNET! *Anybody* can download your trash!
> >
> > You really have outdone yourself John. Simply amazing!
>
> So I was a little harsh. But really! We are all *not* more or less mature
> here! It's that kind of naivity and disregard that concerns me.
John, you've showed the least maturity in this thread so far, so I question your
judgement on this. I also think your naivete towards the maturity level of children
should be a cause for concern.
> > > > There is room for serious, gritty movies and children's fantasy. There is
> > > > room for serious brick animations and whimsical comedies. There is room for
> > > > all kinds of movies here.
> > >
> > > Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and • require
> > > some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> > > responsible thing to do.
> >
> > That would be the cowardly thing to do.
>
> Cowardly? How so?
Bowing down to bigots, rather than sticking to his guns.
> Why isn't an abstract of the work
> > sufficient to steer those who want to view it toward it and those who don't
> > away?
>
> For adults that's fine; I'm concerned about kids.
...and in the process, you want to force your morality on everyone else. I'm
concerned about everyone if too many people like you end up in gubmint (there are
already too many now).
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
