Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Dec 2001 23:42:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1250 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> John, first of all, I owe you a thanks. I was kind of excited by your tone in
> some notes and I wrote more hotly than was wise. You either didn't take it
> that way or only calmly replied. Thanks.
lol Well I came in a little strong, and so now I'm trying to tone down:-)
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > > > 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 or anyone else's child.
>
> But I'm saying that it might not _be_ filth in my eye...or our kids'.
But you agree that at some point it *could* be.
>
> > > Sorry to break it to you, but 'porn' and 'quality' are not mutually • exclusive.
> >
> > Please cite examples, or are you speaking hypothetically?
>
> Only sort of. Many genres of cinema have different goals. To judge an action
> film...say Aliens by the standards that you would use to judge a documentary on
> the religious practices of Australian natives would be silly. To judge
> pornographic cinema by the standards used to judge serious drama is equally
> silly. Within the bounds of "pornography" there are varrying levels of
> quality. Some of it, judged by appropriate standards, is good.
>
> I am not put off by 99% of pornographic content, but at the same time I am
> insufficiently familiar with the industry to give you citations of quality
> porn. And even if I did, you would -- I think, just say that you thought it
> was bad.
hehe I know nothing about the porn industry, except that I hear it's huge, and
that it's largely due to the net. Perhaps I'm speaking from ignorance, but it
seems to me that porn exists for one reason, and it isn't "artistic" expression.
>
> Actually, I just thought of _Crash_. It borders on pornography and I consider
> it a good (if a bit twisted) movie. _Eyes Wide Shut_ bordered on being porn
> and bordered on being good.
Missed them both.
>
> > > It is an economic happenstance that porn is boring.
> >
> > Come again? Porn has *everything* to do with money and nothing to do with
> > creativity.
>
> Unlike feature films?
Touche:-)
>
> > 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.
>
> I expect that there are multiple reasons for this. The two that seem most
> obvious at this moment are: a) different goals and b) fear of social
> retribution. People are mostly not buying pornography in order to be rivitted
> by dramatic plot or thrilling effects. I guess they're buying porn in order to
> masturbate, view with a sex partner, or view with friends and chuckle (Beavis
> and Butthead, as you earlier remarked). So plot and effects and
> characterization and drama would not only be wasted (and thus overly costly)
> but even counter-productive (at least if done wrong).
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree that the audience here is diverse and that keeping the audience in mind
> is important. But we disagree on what is safe for kids. And I just can't see
> any harm coming from the sexual content in these movies. What about the
> violence? That troubles me more.
I agree. As I mentioned in another post to you, I hadn't any idea of the
violent LEGO movie links on Brickfilms-- more fuel for my fire, I guess.
>
> > > > > 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?
>
> It is caving in to political correctness. Since there isn't anything
> inapropriate (that I saw) for kids on the site, there is no need for an adult
> check system. To install one because a few users were raving would be silly
> and weak. People who are allowed to self regulate, can.
Unless the webmaster saw merit in the raving? Then it would become sage advice?
:-)
>
> > 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.
>
> I guess we both know that you believe in a greater difference between the two
> than I do. The only harm that I know of that early exposure to sexuality can
> cause is actually caused by something else. Like coercion, assault, ignorance,
> betrayal, etc. Sex is a natural part of life and many cultures grew up in
> which kids saw sex take place because the family occupied a single room. They
> were not all insane or robbed of their innocence. To even suggest that
> knowledge of sex is anti-innocence is to suggest that sex is somehow neferious.
> It isn't. I misspoke earlier when I said that sex is neither good nor bad...it
> is good!
Yeah, sex is good, until someone comes along and perverts it. And it seems that
someone is always coming along...
-John
>
> Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
