Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.mediawatch
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:33:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4440 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, William R. Ward writes:
> "John" <johnneal@qwest.net> writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, Jason Rowoldt writes:
> > > First, it looks like the discussion here has dengenerated into a
> > > gay/anti-gay or rather freedom of gender/sexual orientation portrayal of
> > > minifigs. I'll try to stay away from that whole topic and focus more on the
> > > relavant issue at hand, which is really at the core of this group and what
> > > we are.
> >
> > No, to me the issue at hand is the lack of responsibility and common sense on
> > your part. Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid and
> > tasteless.
>
> The phrase "adult movies" has become a euphemism for pornography, but
> I believe Jason meant it in the sense of "movies targeted at adults",
> which is what most of the films you see in theatres are. Adult
> characters, themes, situations - not pornography. It was an
> unfortunate choice of words.
Well, I hear about MFs being depicted as gay. How else can one know the sexual
orientation of a MF unless one sees that MF engaging in sexual activity.
Depictions of sex is the definition of pornography.
>
> > > 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.
>
> If you go to the theatre and see a movie that includes a love scene
> where two characters are having sex, do you call that a porn film?
If it were just one or two scenes, I would call it a film (probably lousy,
because any film maker who felt the need to include such scenes is a money-
grubbing hack with no artistic integrity IMO) with gratuitous sex. If the film
were about sex and portrays sex in every scene or so, then yes, I'd call it
pornographic.
I
> wouldn't. It might be "R" rated, but it isn't porn. That's the type
> of film that Jason is defending, not a XXX explicit pornographic film.
I am concerned about the whole *idea* of portraying MFs in adult situations when
it is easily accessed by children. Frankly, I don't care what he does with his
MFs in the privacy of his own house, but I have a big problem with him or anyone
else for that matter making this "art" freely accessable on the net. As I
mentioned before, let him utilize an adult ID check if he feels he cannot
compromise his "artistic integrity" -- in that event, I wouldn't have a problem
with it. Otherwise, he is a merely yet another slimeball who uses the First
Amendment to cover for is own irresponsible behavior.
-John
>
> --Bill.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
