Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Dec 2001 23:22:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1267 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, Jason Rowoldt writes:
>
> > An adult movie is a movie that contains adult content.
>
> "Adult content" is a ludicrous phantom. It is a code word for anything that
> biggotted right-wing Bible thumpers want to excise from society in order to
> "protect" the ignorance of children.
I did not know that.
>
> > Sex is an adult topic.
>
> No. Sex is a topic. It is an appropriate topic for anyone who has sexual
> urges.
But since we are talking about children who *don't* have sexual urges, then it
*isnt't* appropriate.
The very nature of having such feelings is indicative of the
> appropriateness of the topic. Exploration, discussion, education and thought
> about sexuality are critically important for anyone with sexual feelings. Six
> year olds _should_ be having appropriate exposure to sexual topics.
I disagee.
>
> > Gay sex is definately an adult topic.
>
> No it isn't. It is just another topic. And even if a person is heterosexual,
> they may explore homosexuality to some degree and they should be encouraged in
> that pursuit. Learning is good.
Learning comes in stages. We must first learn multiplication before
fornication.
>
> > Here's the deal, Jason. You are on a very slippery slope. Perhaps today you
> > may offer movies that are only slighty racy with a touch of sexual innuendo.
> > But as times progresses, the level will only increase. Before you know it,
> > you will be in over your head with junk.
>
> This may well be true. But there is some point when the law will dictate what
> can and can not be included in such a site. Also, Jason may well chose to
> censor some works if and when such a time comes. Why not let that happen ad
> hoc rather than get in a twist over it now? The stuff that you're frothing
> about is so incredibly mild.
Actually, this whole thing began over *TLC* frothing over it. If Jason wants
recognition from TLC (which he says he does), then he's got some decisions to
make. Should he post/link to everything that comes his way, or should he create
some boundaries.
>
> > I'll explain. I'm just wondering *why* the NYT would want "more adult movies"
> > created from a child's toy such as LEGO.
>
> Because it is an interesting juxtapositional use of media. It makes people
> think and it's entertaining. And as much of the past avant garde had proven,
> in time it will seem trite. So just let it run that course and we'll all be
> done with it.
Avant garde. Ptooey. The stuff that passes for art these days is literary
unbelievable. I'd rather not have the avant garde take a perverse fancy to LEGO
and completely pollute it, thanks very much.
> > To me, if a LEGO film cannot be safely
> > seen by a child, it really shouldn't be made.
>
> Do you really believe that a scene in a depicting masturbation is worse for a
> kid to see than beheadings? If so, why? If not, why aren't you bitching about
> the 90% of brickfilms that are violent instead of the 2% that are vaguely
> sexual?
lol Didn't know that *they* existed. But you're correct-- gratuitous violence
is just as destructive. I really think Jason should exercise some sort of
editorial control.
>
> > But our society thinks it's a
> > hoot-- would you gladly accommodate them? Maybe you can explain to me the
> > rationale behind such films. Having MFs swear, or copulate, or murder, or do
> > drugs, tell dirty jokes (you get the idea) just doesn't seem right.
>
> The rationale is that there obviously exists a market. Why isn't that good
> enough?
Because it isn't. There's a huge market for child pornography, should I exploit
that as well, simply because there exists a market for it?
>
> > We are adults playing with a child's toy. I think it is wrong to turn it into
> > some kind of "adult thing".
>
> Why?
Because it is a perversion. Perhaps you enjoy perversions. I happen not to.
>
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Well, since you have not watched any of the films, again I must
> > > say .. for what?
> >
> > And again I respond: To keep them away from children's eyes.
>
> Which children? What ages? Why does age matter? What is magic about the xth
> (18th?) birthday that one day a world of media was "too much" for you and the
> next it's just fine? That's absurd. People should decide for themselves what
> is appropriate for them.
We are not talking about people-- we are talking about kids. Kids are not
simply mini-adults. The whole point is that they *can't* decide for themselves-
- they are not mature enought to do so. And you are correct-- every one is
different and matures at different rate. 18 is a number. Our society has
decided that by 18, you *should* be mature enough to choose to experience
whatever you want.
>
> > Even if 95% of your site is okay with kids, what good is that if 5%
> > of it isn't? Regulate it, or better yet, simply refuse to post
> > movies of questionable content. What is so hard with that?
>
> Maybe he doesn't see the 'question' that you imply with the phrase
> "questionable content." I know I don't. None of what I saw is _really_
> top-notch healthy stuff for kids.
So why not make it thus? Seems to me that the average AFOL on LUGNET got a big
kick out of the Monty Python LEGO movie, and was indifferent about the gay one
(of the ones who have even bothered to view it). Also seems to me that the
world would get a bigger kick out of seeing LEGO toys copulating ("hmmm, what an
interesting juxtaposition!") than the average AFOL. So, I ask Jason, to whom
will you cater? LUGNET is designed for AFOLs; Brickbay is designed for AFOLs,
Brickshelf is designed for AFOLs; LDraw is designed for AFOLs; Brickfilms is
designed for....?
> > The world will say, "Don't compromise!", but in fact life is full compromises.
> > Compromise doesn't make you any less an artist, just evidence of a mature one.
>
> Jason, don't compromise! Unless you think it's the best thing to do.
Uh, what kind of advice is that?
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
