Violence and Sex...........please stop it!

[Kevin Lockard]

One thing I hate to see in an argument is that "Hey, we can show someone walk into a house and blow someone's head off but we can'y show two naked people in bed having sex."

Weak argument? Yeah, I believe so. Because it's pathetic. I was skimming the IMDB topics on the History Of Violence and someone said us Americans are a hypocritical cowboy culture who can "show someone filling a hole with blood and gets an R but if we fill a hole with love, we get a NC-17." People talking about us Americans being such a perverse "cowboy" culture that we can have loads and loads of violence but look at how SHOCKED we get to see two completely naked people having sex. It pisses me off so much.

I hate it when people start acting like they are throwing a bunch of sex on-screen for artistic purposes. Yes, in real life, it's obviously better to screw someone than it is to act violent towards them. But this isn't real life, it's art, something that is supposed to show real life as it really is. Movies are an art form (the best art form if you ask me) and are supposed to show life as it really is. There is violence in the world. This country was built on violence. Humans are violent by nature. Violence of any kind is inevitable. The level of violence that occurs depends on the situation but I think you get my point.

Quit looking down on violence on films like it's just so perverse, especially when a certain said sexual scene gets hammered by the Ratings Board. Guess what? That said sex scene that you wanna show....are you saying you don't have interest in it for anything other than because you wanna exploit sex? Sure, you can, or at least say you can, find the "art" of it but don't say it isn't for some perverse reason. I could very well say you have perverse motives for your interest in sexual content as well. What's the difference in violence? If you are showing violence as it really is, what are you crying about? Just because we can show someone blowing someone away with a shotgun but the MPAA attacks a film because it shows a guy getting a hard-on 110% on camera? **CoughTheDreamersCough**

If I watched The Faces Of Death (even though 90% is fake) and then looked down on you for watching pornos, then you could very well attack me. But I watch neither, and when it's in the form or Art, you don't make something seem prudish or more justifiable by attacking anothe rsection of the art. I wish people were allowed to have artistic freedom but we have to deal with what we have. It just pisses me off that I can watch something like Last House On The Left but I get called "perverse", yet it's okay to show two people fucking for several minutes because that's NOT "perverse"...it's "love." Yeah......right. Hell, I'd rather watch John McClane save the day 10000 times over than watch two people "make love" 10000 times over. Whether for ARTISTIC or ENTERTAINMENT purposes, I'd rather watch it. And I've never harmed anyone or anything in my life and I don't have any psychologicial problems.

I can't word this nearly as good as I would like to but I think everyone knows what I mean. Can I get an "Amen, brother"?

[Lady Stardust]

Amen brother i agree you can't stop violence no matter what you do
the thing is though is that violence often scare people the parents of kids worry so much that children will grow up to be serial killers even but that really depends on what happens in someone's childhood or the way they were born :(

[Scorpio24]

I didn't read it al admitidley because I got to run so.....


So far I don't agree. I don't really understand the rant. Probably down to my not reading it all.

My confusion comes from the fact you orignal point seems to be that you are angry because people on IMDB have said that sex shouldn't get a higher rating than vioence. And that America are a little more sensitive to the sex thing than other nations.

I'd agree with both points. Why should sex get a higher rating than violence. You say that violence is a natural part of life? Well isn't sex and making love? If it's natural to show the violent side of ones nature isn't also ok to show the loving side? The best way to show this is through a love scene.

A History of Violence had the best use of sex scenes I have seen in a long time.

But then you seem to go off on a tangent about the justification o using sex scenes for art.

Like I said I haven't read all the rant which isn't fair but from what I have I would agree more with the dude you are angry about. Apart from the hypocritical cowboy culture bollocks

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
I didn't read it al admitidley because I got to run so.....


So far I don't agree. I don't really understand the rant. Probably down to my not reading it all.

My confusion comes from the fact you orignal point seems to be that you are angry because people on IMDB have said that sex shouldn't get a higher rating than vioence. And that America are a little more sensitive to the sex thing than other nations.

I'd agree with both points. Why should sex get a higher rating than violence. You say that violence is a natural part of life? Well isn't sex and making love? If it's natural to show the violent side of ones nature isn't also ok to show the loving side? The best way to show this is through a love scene.

A History of Violence had the best use of sex scenes I have ever seen in a long time.

But then you seem to go off on a tangent about the justification o using sex scenes for art.

Like I said I haven't read all the rant which isn't fair but from what I have I would agree more with the dude you are angry about. Apart from the hypocritical cowboy culture bollocks

I read the rant in it's entirety and I'm just as confused as you are. What was that rant about? I have no idea.

[Kevin Lockard]

I kinda rushed this rant so let me sum it up:

Sex and Violence are both natural parts of life. And so, they should get equal treatment in art. However, when Sex gets more banned than alot of Violence does, DON'T say it's because of our "culture", and how it's so perverse that we wanna see violence and violence and violence but little to no sex. Really? So, Mr. I-Enjoy-Sex-In-Movies-For-Artistic-Purposes-Only, you telling me you don't watch sex in films because you wanna see T&A? I-Don't-Believe-You! You watch sex because you love seeing naked people doing it, not because you wanna see the art in "love." Just like I love watching violence like in action films that are not supposed to require hardly any seriousness. I don't NEED to watch or fantasize about violent acts to get by, I just love seeing such things in films. So hypocritical because those same people will sit there and enjoy/see the point in violence in movies, but when their little sex scenes----which they try to say are done in the sake of "love" and not "hate" like violence (when they turn to blame violence and such to justfiy their bitching)----get flack, don't sit there and blame us for being so "perverse".

Hypocritical? Yes. It just eats me alive that I can sit there and enjoy a gunfight in a movie but if I do, someone will call me "perverse" for thinking violence is such entertainment. However, a guy can sit there and watch a whole bunch of sexual content in a film and he's not a "pervert" or "perverse" in any way, he just sees the beauty of making love. yeah, right. Not that I think he's a pervert, but how can he justify calling me "sick in the head" for liking violence but I can't say right back to him that I could very well just say he's perverted for watching a bunch of sex? Fuck him. And fuck anyone who has a mindset like that.

Wanna blame something? I say blame Pornos. Pornos are meant to be and are nothing but gratious (sp?) sex. Nothing about "love", is it meant to appeal to the horny people who want to see people actually screw each other. Well, imagine pornos didn't exist. Because everytime the ratings boards sees a very explict sex scene, they auotmatically think "Wow, this almost looks like porn!!! It's gotta go or at least be toned down!" Well, if porn didn't exist, which would probably never happen, I think Sex would be ALOT more accepted in movies than it is now.

PS...I have no problem with Violence or Sex as long as it has a point and it isn't just explotive. But if I'm "perverse" for loving violence in movies, then you are "perverted" for loving sex in movies....oh, and hypocritical as well, since you loved that same violence in films you criticized. Good day.

[Scorpio24]

Yeah I still don't agree. I think it is because of your culture. Call me perverted if you want.

[Kevin Lockard]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
Yeah I still don't agree. I think it is because of your culture. Call me perverted if you want.

Please explain why.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
Please explain why.

Didn't I just do that.


I believe it is part of the culture. I believe in American culture that is is more acceptable to see violence than it is sex. Do I need to say any more on it?

[Kevin Lockard]

So, let's say I go to Europe or whatever the hell and complain that there is too much sex and not enough violence in movies. Should I just stand up and criticize the movies there because you care more about exploiting sexual things than talking about something that operates how the world works, something that can be unleashed in all of us, which is violence? No, that's ignorant. It's a two way street, so why do people criticize us for doing the opposite?

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
So, let's say I go to Europe or whatever the hell and complain that there is too much sex and not enough violence in movies. Should I just stand up and criticize the movies there because you care more about exploiting sexual things than talking about something that operates how the world works, something that can be unleashed in all of us, which is violence? No, that's ignorant. It's a two way street, so why do people criticize us for doing the opposite?

What the hell are you talking about?

1.Who was critisizing you? One guy on IMDB said something. I happen to agree with it. Doesn't mean it's 100% correct. Just I happen to agree with his assesment.

2. What is this a playground argument? You want to come to Europe to criticize us for exploiting sex? Is that what we do over here? Man you're all over the place. Sex in movies is treated more or less on an equal footing as violence. By your argument should I be accusing you of exploiting violence?

The way the world operates to you is through violence? You're argument for violence is fine in a film but sex is exploitation is - Violence is how the world works.

Um ok bud.

[inglourious basterd]

I'm not exactly sure what argument the original poster was going for. The OP wasn't exactly clear on a side. I *think* that the OP was arguing that we should stop being sensitive about violence and sex in general. Most specifically sex.(Things about his argument got completely confusing when he was talking about American society being perceived as a violent cowboy culture).

I think that there are elements in his rant that is similar to an argument that Roger Ebert has made for years.

Ebert has long argued that the MPAA has a bias toward sex. It is okay to put as much graphic violence as you want. But if you put in a little bit of sex or drugs, it ultimately guarantees you an NC-17 rating. What Ebert often claims is that the MPAA blocks teens from seeing films that they needs to see and it allows them, instead, to watch films with extremely gratituious violence. I agree with Ebert's line of thinking.


I dont agree with his rants about the necessity of gratuitous violence (nor do I understand his justifications), but its all good.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by psudoazn
I'm not exactly sure what argument the original poster was going for. The OP wasn't exactly clear on a side. I *think* that the OP was arguing that we should stop being sensitive about violence and sex in general. Most specifically sex.(Things about his argument got completely confusing when he was talking about American society being perceived as a violent cowboy culture).


You're not alone

Originally posted by psudoazn
I think that there are elements in his rant that is similar to an argument that Roger Ebert has made for years.

Ebert has long argued that the MPAA has a bias toward sex. It is okay to put as much graphic violence as you want. But if you put in a little bit of sex or drugs, it ultimately guarantees you an NC-17 rating. What Ebert often claims is that the MPAA blocks teens from seeing films that they needs to see and it allows them, instead, to watch films with extremely gratituious violence. I agree with Ebert's line of thinking.


I dont agree with his rants about the necessity of gratuitous violence (nor do I understand his justifications), but its all good.


I got the opposite impression. I *think* he means that people should stop complaining about having violence in movies as it's fine. And that sex in movies is only in there for perverts and exploitation.

At least thats what I got????

[Kevin Lockard]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
What the hell are you talking about?

1.Who was critisizing you? One guy on IMDB said something. I happen to agree with it. Doesn't mean it's 100% correct. Just I happen to agree with his assesment.

2. What is this a playground argument? You want to come to Europe to criticize us for exploiting sex? Is that what we do over here? Man you're all over the place. Sex in movies is treated more or less on an equal footing as violence. By your argument should I be accusing you of exploiting violence?

The way the world operates to you is through violence? You're argument for violence is fine in a film but sex is exploitation is - Violence is how the world works.

Um ok bud.

Obviously you didn't get the tone I was supposed to be speaking in. I was bashed for you-know-what, so obviously in my last post, I was speaking the exact opposite from the mindset of the guy who bashed met o show how unfair his argument was.


European IMDB guy bashing American:

"You can blow a guy's head but you can't show the human body. That shows how messed up your culture is."

American guy bashing European IMDB guy in the same mindset as his to show how ignorant he is:

"You can show people screwing each other but you can't show how violent people can be in the real world. Must say something about your culture.


For the last time, I don't find sex expolitive, I was making a point about how naive and B&W that guy thinks, and how hypocritical as well. Obviously you thought I was talking to you or about Europe in general, I was making a point about how ignorant that guy was actually by speaking in a bit of sarcastic manner from his POV on how I see things.

[Kevin Lockard]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
I got the opposite impression. I *think* he means that people should stop complaining about having violence in movies as it's fine. And that sex in movies is only in there for perverts and exploitation.

At least thats what I got????

"Not that I think he's a pervert, but how can he justify calling me "sick in the head" for liking violence but I can't say right back to him that I could very well just say he's perverted for watching a bunch of sex?"

I said this earlier. Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough but either way...

[bigred760]

Well, we hear more about violence in everyday life - news, movies, even some sports can be considered somewhat violent. We don't hear about people having sex all that much in the media, unless it involves a scandal or Paris Hilton. I think that's why violence can be considered more accepted than sex - hell even nudity.

You still see movie violence on cable and network TV, but they have to edit out the nudity and sex. "Art" or not - it's censored.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
Obviously you didn't get the tone I was supposed to be speaking in. I was bashed for you-know-what, so obviously in my last post, I was speaking the exact opposite from the mindset of the guy who bashed met o show how unfair his argument was.


European IMDB guy bashing American:

"You can blow a guy's head but you can't show the human body. That shows how messed up your culture is."

American guy bashing European IMDB guy in the same mindset as his to show how ignorant he is:

"You can show people screwing each other but you can't show how violent people can be in the real world. Must say something about your culture.


For the last time, I don't find sex expolitive, I was making a point about how naive and B&W that guy thinks, and how hypocritical as well. Obviously you thought I was talking to you or about Europe in general, I was making a point about how ignorant that guy was actually by speaking in a bit of sarcastic manner from his POV on how I see things.


Ahhhh well ok then.

Man that's one long ass rant to show us how much you disagree with this guy.

If you disagree you disagree. Like I said personaly I have a similar view point. Not to the extent where I think the culture is fucked up. But I do feel violence is more easily accepted in America over sex.

In the Uk at least the ratings are prety similar for both cases. To much violence or to much sex gets you high ratings.

Either way. Glad it's resolved.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
"Not that I think he's a pervert, but how can he justify calling me "sick in the head" for liking violence but I can't say right back to him that I could very well just say he's perverted for watching a bunch of sex?"

I said this earlier. Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough but either way...


Yeah but you failed to mention that context in any of your previous replies.

Anyway it's done now. We have understanding.:D

[Kevin Lockard]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
Ahhhh well ok then.

Man that's one long ass rant to show us how much you disagree with this guy.

If you disagree you disagree. Like I said personaly I have a similar view point. Not to the extent where I think the culture is fucked up. But I do feel violence is more easily accepted in America over sex.

In the Uk at least the ratings are prety similar for both cases. To much violence or to much sex gets you high ratings.

Either way. Glad it's resolved.

Yes, me as well lol, but it just eats me up when someone says this. It's just a huge pet peeve of mine.

Say you have a story with some violence but loads of nudity in it. The violence is necessary because it moves the story along but the nudity is obviously there just to be there and doesn't really move along the story and wouldn't make it better or worse without it. The Boards cut down on the nudity so someone says "We can have violence but we can't show the human body!! Unfair!" Well, you have this guy in a nutshell. It's really just unfair.

I believe it was a Friday The 13th commentary track where they said the MPAA will allow alot of blood to exist if it's warranted in the kill but if it's something that requires little to no blood and yet you show a whole load of blood and they see you are obviosuly just being gory for the purpose of being so, they'll cut down on it. Don't remember the F13th the track was on, though.

[The Postmaster General]

I'm not understanding why you don't think it's a cultural thing.

Europe has commercials featuring breasts, and they gave us Guy Ritchie. I don't know, man. There's a reason Polanski has to hide out over there.

My thoughts on why they keep sex as a no-no in America?

One of my first rants -

Fucking Puritanical Views In America! (http://joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52808)

It's all basically so they can sell us sex piece by piece, without ever giving us the full fledged open bar.

[ElderPredator]

Bring on the sex and violence. Doesn't bother me at all.

[fooknasty]

Originally posted by ElderPredator
Bring on the sex and violence. Doesn't bother me at all.









Agreed. :D

[MansooLee]

Except headbutts, those are bad. A kid can imitate those, but is confused by guns and penises.

[jaw2929]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
Well, if porn didn't exist, which would probably never happen, I think Sex would be ALOT more accepted in movies than it is now.

I understand your frustration from the hypocritical standpoint.... But I don't think pornography is the problem here... I'll tell you what the issue here is:

You can thank all the close-minded, ultra-conservative, black-and-white mentality, bible-thumping, bush-supporting, judgemental, asshole republicans who make up half of the society here in this toilet of a country... If it wasn't for THEM, then things would be much more accepted... That mindset is so fucking pathetic, it's the soccer mom's who say "Bart Simpson said 'sucks' on TV, now we've gotta sue Matt Groenig and the TV network!"... This fuckin horse-shit is unfathomable, and completely un-necessary... Yet it EXISTS! And as long as that despicable mentality is alive, and what this country deems itself to be founded on (the whole "In GOD we trust" garbage).... Well then it's never going to go away.

Good rant though from the hypocritical standpoint... But honestly, I don't believe Europe (or any other region of the planet) has any LESS violence in their media/movies/tv, etc. than the yanks do...

[adamjohnson]

Sex isnt dangerous at all. It's natural.

Blowing someone's head off isn't.

Frankly, if it were up to me, sex wouldn't even raise a film's rating.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
[B]I'm not understanding why you don't think it's a cultural thing.

I agree. He's making precisely the same argument as the European dude he's angry at, but about violence instead of sex. And the similarity in the arguments but favoring violence over sex is a pretty clear-cut cultural difference.

I mean, look at this: "I hate it when people start acting like they are throwing a bunch of sex on-screen for artistic purposes. Yes, in real life, it's obviously better to screw someone than it is to act violent towards them. But this isn't real life, it's art, something that is supposed to show real life as it really is. Movies are an art form (the best art form if you ask me) and are supposed to show life as it really is. There is violence in the world. This country was built on violence. Humans are violent by nature. Violence of any kind is inevitable."

Sooooooo, movies aren't real life. They are supposed to show real life as it really is. And because there is violence in the world, it's okay to show it in movies. But apparently there is no sex in the world and the only reason anyone would want to watch it is for "perverse reasons." Unlike those who watch violence.

There is exactly zero legitimate argument there based on the stated principles involved.

[Kevin Lockard]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
I agree. He's making precisely the same argument as the European dude he's angry at, but about violence instead of sex. And the similarity in the arguments but favoring violence over sex is a pretty clear-cut cultural difference.

I mean, look at this: "I hate it when people start acting like they are throwing a bunch of sex on-screen for artistic purposes. Yes, in real life, it's obviously better to screw someone than it is to act violent towards them. But this isn't real life, it's art, something that is supposed to show real life as it really is. Movies are an art form (the best art form if you ask me) and are supposed to show life as it really is. There is violence in the world. This country was built on violence. Humans are violent by nature. Violence of any kind is inevitable."

Sooooooo, movies aren't real life. They are supposed to show real life as it really is. And because there is violence in the world, it's okay to show it in movies. But apparently there is no sex in the world and the only reason anyone would want to watch it is for "perverse reasons." Unlike those who watch violence.

There is exactly zero legitimate argument there based on the stated principles involved.

Once more, speaking from his POV, just not directly. If he's saying that Sex is natural and shouldn't be banned and Violence is just there to satisfy our "perverseness" backed up with nothing but an excuse of so-called "artistic reasons", then I guess it wouldn't be fair if I were to say the same thing back to him in reverse, would it? My point exactly. Sorry I didn't make that clear earlier but read through the whole thing and you'd know it.


Originally posted by adamjohnson

Sex isnt dangerous at all. It's natural.

Blowing someone's head off isn't.

Frankly, if it were up to me, sex wouldn't even raise a film's rating.

That's exactly the kind of thing I hate.

Of course, once more, this isn't real life. Movies are Art, and Art is one's way of expressing one's self creatively and artistically so once Violence and Sex get filtered into movies, they become one in the same. They ARE both huge parts of reality, as sad as it is. So, when you have them to express in movies, it is really unfair to say one shouldn't have a rating and the other Not. Sex is more acceptable obviously, but people don't go out in public screwing each other in front of people and such because it's a personal thing. You still have to have rules and regulations. You don't want kids or anything seeing such content in films because it would just be inapporiate.

Oh, and a different story altogether, but when people aren't sexually educated (happens alot these days, especially in this country), then yeah, Sex can be VERY dangerous. But yeah, that's another topic for another thread altogether.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
Sorry I didn't make that clear earlier but read through the whole thing and you'd know it.

I read the whole thread, and I STILL didn't get that you were simply playing devil's advocate. Wasn't very clear, but now that you've clarified, I agree.

That said, I can understand the opposition to gratuitous violence more so than gratuituos sex, even though I personally don't have a problem with either one.

[Kevin Lockard]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
I read the whole thread, and I STILL didn't get that you were simply playing devil's advocate. Wasn't very clear, but now that you've clarified, I agree.

That said, I can understand the opposition to gratuitous violence more so than gratuituos sex, even though I personally don't have a problem with either one.

Good, I don't have a problem with either one either, it just angers me when someone says we should be able to throw all the sexual content we want in movies because it's natural in reality but we need to tone down the violence in movies because it's nothing but gratuitous as violence doesn't really occur all that much in the real world, does it? :rolleyes:

That's basically what me set me off to do a rant in the first place. Both should have fair and similar ratings.

[ComeNightfall]

Count me in as one who didn't get this rant.

However, If you're trying to say that movies that just throw sex up on the screen for no reason when it's not crucial to the plot or theme just to get some titilation from the audience is lame, on that I agree.

[adamjohnson]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
[BSex is more acceptable obviously, but people don't go out in public screwing each other in front of people and such because it's a personal thing. You still have to have rules and regulations. You don't want kids or anything seeing such content in films because it would just be inapporiate.

. [/B]

You've obviously never been aroun europe. :D

[Kevin Lockard]

Originally posted by ComeNightfall
Count me in as one who didn't get this rant.

However, If you're trying to say that movies that just throw sex up on the screen for no reason when it's not crucial to the plot or theme just to get some titilation from the audience is lame, on that I agree.

That's part of it. Violence as well. But one of my main points was that I hate people who think we should be able to throw all the sex you want, crucial to the plot as well, but that you must tone down the violence simply because it's more acceptable that way in real life. This isn't real life, it's art! So one shoudn't be judged in favor over another.......but yeah, I don't see much point in having violence OR sex on-screen when it does nothing to help move the story along in any way.

[BigSugar]

I think you're all wrong. You're not talking baout the content of films so much as you're talking about the RATINGS of films. And yes, violence is much more prevalent in lesser rated films (by way of example, at one time the most violent movie ever made according to Guiness was "Red Dawn" with 1.87 acts of violence every minute and it was rated PG-13 by the MPAA). Sex is a much more provacative element in film, therefore in America we consider a subject for MATURE audiences. Besides which, if we're such prudes, how come we have a porno empire that rakes in billions annually?

[The Postmaster General]

Sex is vio-lent! Sex is vio-lent!

[Kevin Lockard]

:D

[DaveyJoeG]

I love watching sex on film.

[jord2006]

isnt this what the south park movies about

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
Of course, once more, this isn't real life. Movies are Art, and Art is one's way of expressing one's self creatively and artistically so once Violence and Sex get filtered into movies, they become one in the same. They ARE both huge parts of reality, as sad as it is.

Why is it a sad thing that SEX is a huge part of reality? I'm flabbergasted my good man.

I find it incredibly sad that a beatiful, tender lovemaking scene from a brilliant film like Don't Look Now can be butchered in order to make an R rating...and yet guns and bombs are typical PG fare.

Comparing an erotic sex scene to porn is as ridiculous as comparing a violent horror to snuff.

The sex scenes in The Dreamers were integral to the plot. I didn't particularly like the film, but I didn't find it remotely gratuitious.

[powersauce]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Sex is vio-lent! Sex is vio-lent!

That is my favorite song on that album. Jane's Addiction fucking rules.:cool:

[Andrew Ratto]

the

[Andrew Ratto]

the

[Kevin Lockard]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
Why is it a sad thing that SEX is a huge part of reality? I'm flabbergasted my good man.

Didn't say it was, I was referring to VIOLENCE because I put them back to back.

"Comparing an erotic sex scene to porn is as ridiculous as comparing a violent horror to snuff."

Did I say that? Nope. I was only quickly commenting that it's my personal view that if porn didn't exist, sex would be more accepted in films than it is, especially in America. Why? Because porn is, by defintion, real explotive sex on screen for purpose of arousing. That is my personal view on why alot of people react so shockingly to sex, especially explict sex, on screen....because it almost reminds them of stuff seen in porn at times.

You haven't seen many movies if you think that sex, love and nudity are invariably thrown into the mix for some cheap arousal. It happens, obviously, but those movies are almost never good to begin with. I think your argument is retarded and you sound like you're very young.

And how old might you be? I'm more than old enough to know what I'm talking about. I didn't say all sex, love, and nudity was used for gratitious purposes, I was referring to the films that were. Read the whole thing and my argument isn't "retarded", it's just people like you needing to bitch and moan about another "young" person out there who doesn't "seem to understand." Am I right? I think so.

"And you're a fucking moron if you think that the sole purpose of art is to regurgitate the experience of "real life". Seriously. How do you define real life anyway?"

Guess I'm not a fucking moron than am I? I never said that. Again, I was talking about movies, not all art in general. And second, I was talking about when we are talking about violence and sex (and backing up why they are used truthfully in movies), it goes back to what's reality and what's not. If you stand up to someone who questions your morals for choosing to watch something, like say...Last House On The Left, well, its all about reality, isn't it? Why shouldn't I watch it? It's someone's artisitc expression of how cruel human beings can be at a period in time. That argument can be used for just about any film that is criticized for violecne or sex, whatever you want. THAT was my point.

Oh, and how do I define "real life" I define as life that is within the boundaries of reality. The act of living, you know, in reality? Catching on? No? Movies are either a portrayal of reality or an escape from it.

"Yes, violence occurs in "real life". Somewhere out there, someone is being shot or stabbed, etc. However, I severely doubt violence, to the degree seen in movies, has any place in your "real life"."

Doesn't have to have anything to do with my "real life" but it doesn't have to. We're not talking abouy my "life", we are talking about life in general, IE ....How the world is, whether we like it or not. Man, how old are you? Or how young are ya, however you want me to ask.

"By the way, I think you should revise your definition of art (or even movies) if you're favorite movie is going to be A Clockwork Orange and if you plan on listening to any music, y'know, ever."

Is that a Clockwork Orange insult or something? I don't get it. Then again, I don't get you. Before you accuse someone of being "young", you might need to do some growing up first before you go popping your mouth off with insults.

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
Is that a Clockwork Orange insult or something? I don't get it. Then again, I don't get you. Before you accuse someone of being "young", you might need to do some growing up first before you go popping your mouth off with insults. [/B]

I didn't even notice your favourite movie was ACO.

MOST IRONIC RANT EVER.

Anthony Burgess hails from my hometown of Salford aka teenage pregnancy central, and we have lots of shootings to boot...oddly enough nobody has seen The Dreamers but they fucking love that Arnie fella!

[Kevin Lockard]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
I didn't even notice your favourite movie was ACO.

MOST IRONIC RANT EVER.

Anthony Burgess hails from my hometown of Salford aka teenage pregnancy central, and we have lots of shootings to boot...oddly enough nobody has seen The Dreamers but they fucking love that Arnie fella!

Ironic in what way? Because it contains Sex and Violence? The title of the rant was wrong, the actual rant isn't all that ironic afterall. I suppose Arnie stands for Arnold Scwarnegger (how you spell his name lol) so enlighten me. Arnie doesn't really stand for anything else if I can recall.......

If you're saying nobody has seen The Dreamers but all of Arnie's films, it's because The Dreamers is kind of a required taste, not everybody;s cupo of tea. Some might even say it's boring...including myself. Of course, most of Arnie's films are an escape from reality, cartoonish violence not to be taken seriously, almost like a sort of fairy tale of the hero prevailing over the bad guys that everyone can watch and enjoy, unless of course you are prudish to ANY violecne in films. So that's why they might love that Arnie fella and not The Dreamers, though I'm confused how you know that EVERYONE in your town has skipped out on The Dreamers.


Not that any of this matters, it wasn't even the point of the rant.

[Andrew Ratto]

the

[Kevin Lockard]

Originally posted by Andrew Ratto
That's what you said.

I guess you took it back but you have to admit everything you write is extremely unclear. Reading that over, what are you even talking about? I'm incredibly confused by 80% of what you write. Your argument keeps fluctuating. Can you just give me like some bullet points or something?

I'm 17 by the way.

It's already a given this rant was rushed but what I was saying was that art shows how real life is. That's not all it does, but that's what it supposed to do when a portrait of real life is put on screen so why censor violence? Yes, it's better to have sex than commit an act of violence but does that make it right to bash violent movies and such in Or does that mean we should get rid of violence to get it down to the level of accepted sex or something? No. It doesn't make us a "hypocritical cowboy culture" like the IMDB guy implied, as there are countries who accept sex over violence moreso. People act like our ratings boards are the only ones who are fucked up in the world.

Ultimately in that quoted quote of mine, my point was that just because Sex>Violence in real life doesn't warrant the same kind of approach in movies, nor is it justified to assault violence in movies to back up the whole "Why is Sex so harshly judged on American films?" argument. What's really silly about it is that we are called "prudes" very quickly as well. What? If we really do LOVE LOVE LOVE our violence so much, how can we be prudes? Stupid thing to say. People act as if violence isn't harshly judged. It really is, not probably as much as sex, but those roles are reversed in some other countries. Does it make their culture fucked up? No, it's a really unfair thing to say. It just so happens we have a different view on violence/sex than other people, just like they have different approaches on it as well.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. I turn 20 the 12th of November. I just have the whole "You must be young" argument.

[Andrew Ratto]

the

[Kevin Lockard]

I don't think it's a problem really. I mean, if I have kids, I wouldn't really want them experiencing either one with their own eyes but I wouldn't mind them catching a glimpse of something that wasn't taken seriously. I grew up watching slasher films and pop-corn action flicks like Friday The 13th and Die Hard and such and I actually loved them a bit more then than now. Well, slasher flicks maybe. But I remember being shocked at seeing a naked person in a serious movie or something (aside from the tit shots and such in slasher flicks.). Even if I wasn't, I doubt I'd turn out differently than I did to this very moment but I really didn't get what was going on then. I wouldn't mind my own kids seeing something like James Bond, because it doesn't really mean anything and those films are all kinda like fairy tales anyhow, and since several cartoons show their characters kinda out to get each other and beat the hell out of each other anyhow, a kid---the younger they are especially-----wouldn't really see the difference. Films like The Wild Bunch, I Spit On Your Grave, etc. etc....they are a different story altogether. I never watched those growing up, and I wouldn't dare mention them to any of my kids until they either found out about them themselves or until they were old enough anyhow.


I would never say violence could mean a good thing but I think it can be a beautiful thing photographed in films at times. Not only that, but it kinda frightens humans at times that they can maybe see themselves on-screen if they were put into a certain position, doing that same violent thing. Also, really, people are attracted to violence and sex in real life. Sex is obviously more accessible but violence is something most people wonder about. Not everybody experiences violence, it makes humans curious. I remember walking by Faces of Death tapes when I was younger, wondering what it really looked like, those incidents and such. I never watched one but I was always curious. It's now known that they were mostly faked but still. And what about all those videos of nature teraing things apart and car wrecks and such caught on film? I think it's just humans curious about things they haven't personally experienced. Don't put me on record, but I think it's been genetically proven in a research done on criminals and killers (I read some on crimelibrary.com) that human beings are born with some kind of violent genetic tenedencies and things such as movies like actions flicks and such release a kind of fantasy/curiousity (sp?) and pent up suppressed rage out that might have been built up enough over time and over the years to a point where killers actually take the life of another person to release it. Not to sound pseudo-intellictual, just throwing some stuff out there.

But I think for the most part, it's a matter of perspective and everyone's can be different. I personally think they should be equal but if they are not, I don't think it's a big deal like it's been made out to be. There are more oppruntunities to showcase violence in films than sex. But I've rambled long enough.......

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
So that's why they might love that Arnie fella and not The Dreamers, though I'm confused how you know that EVERYONE in your town has skipped out on The Dreamers.

I was generalising...99/'100 people here haven't seen The Dreamers...trust me on this one.

I actually can't be bothered debating with you. I simply think you're opinion is skewed and I have little grasp on what you're actually trying to say.

[Lost in Space]

when sex is done wellon film it is great
when done poorly it tends to be silly and slow

[Kevin Lockard]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
I actually can't be bothered debating with you. I simply think you're opinion is skewed and I have little grasp on what you're actually trying to say.

I doubt you can't be "bothered." You can start debating by taking on that "Arnie" argument I posted in response on how "no one has seen The Dreamers but everyone loves that Arnie fella!" I'm still "skewed" about that, and you know where I was getting at with that one in response, at least with me assuming I knew you were talking about it being sad no one has seen The Dreamers but they love Arnold S., if that's who "Arnie" was you were referring to.

[Scorpio24]

Bet you wish you'd never started this thread don't you?

[Kevin Lockard]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
Bet you wish you'd never started this thread don't you?

Partly, but I thought it was finished anyhow. But BCV quoted probably the most obvious part of my post, questioning it as if it didn't make sense when it's obvious it did. And I'm still awaiting her explanation to her own post. I will go on record and say that though I do believe once again that sex and violence should be rated equally, if you think sex over violence is more justified than violence over sex and not equally as bad as far as ratings go........you're an idiot.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
There's a reason Polanski has to hide out over there.



Yeah he raped a 13 year old.

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
Partly, but I thought it was finished anyhow. But BCV quoted probably the most obvious part of my post, questioning it as if it didn't make sense when it's obvious it did. And I'm still awaiting her explanation to her own post. I will go on record and say that though I do believe once again that sex and violence should be rated equally, if you think sex over violence is more justified than violence over sex and not equally as bad as far as ratings go........you're an idiot.

Look I'm not going to 'de-code' my post for you because I think what I'm saying is pretty obvious...you're the one who is being hazy here!?

I personally find simulated sex on screen much more acceptable than somebody imbedding an axe into another persons skull or suchlike.

I don't actually have a problem with either, but I think an overly violent flick is potentially more 'dangerous' than a steamy lovefest.

Because sex IS an entirely natural act...violence ISN'T despite your claims.

I'm a healthy 26 year old female and I have a natural inclination to fuck...I can't recall a single time in my short life where I've been tempted to kick ten shades of shit out of someone.

As for you confusing the pish outta people, take this from your initial post...

Originally posted by God of Cinema
But this isn't real life, it's art, something that is supposed to show real life as it really is. Movies are an art form and are supposed to show life as it really is. There is violence in the world. This country was built on violence. Humans are violent by nature. Violence of any kind is inevitable.

So it isn't real life, it's art...but then it's meant to reflect life as it really is. I'm confused already. What is it? A reflection of real life, or simply an embellished version...I for one believe it's the latter.

Of course there is violence in the world...but violence in movies is generally a gross exagerration, because it ISN'T real life.

You want to show real life...then show two people screwing. Because I guarantee that for every person walking around flashing a 9mm and arranging a hit tonight, there will be another 100 FUCKING!

[ElderPredator]

MORE SEX......MORE VIOLENCE! :D

[Country1969]

Violence is a part of real life just as sex is. You can't hide from it with putting a R,NC-17 etc on it. You will see it or come across it sometime in your life. Movies are entertainment, but also shows real life too at some point. Having sex is on screen is not art. It's part of life and it gets the people interested in the movie,its entertainment. People will say there is too much violence in the world and we don't need to show it on the big screen or on tv. Believing our children will be exposed to this stuff and some of them will turn to the life of drugs,violence,etc. I was exposed to that stuff when I was growing up. I never been arrested, never been in a fight, never shot anyone. You can't blame movies and tv for a persons action. It's their own judgement.

These days while watching a Comedy show on TV, you hear "I can see your balls".....from HAPPY HOUR. Or you see a ass shot now and then. Or maybe "You're a dick."

That's what on these primetime local channels that we sit down with our families to watch every night. Then they tag movies.

How can you have an action movie without some kind of violence? How about violence in comedies like 3 Stooges? Slapping each other around. People loved that. What are we telling our kids, that it's alright to slap people?

Violence is action, action is entertainment, entertainment is money, money is happiness. Being happy is everyone's dream in life.
What's wrong with being happy?

If people don't want to see violence to watch it. Don't complain and riun it for us people that do. Same as for sex.

The ratings were invented for peoples judgement and your judgement for your kids. Through your eyes , you might find a movie to be a PG13 while another person finds it to be a R. The Ratings board decides it while placing a tag on it for us , doesn't mean we agree with them.
If people want to see more sex in the movies thenthey should give us more. As long they dont actually see everything,(I mean XRATED) then they should not limited how much can be shown in one movie.

[TheJupiterCrash]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
But this isn't real life, it's art, something that is supposed to show real life as it really is. Movies are an art form (the best art form if you ask me) and are supposed to show life as it really is.

Although I agree with what you're saying about violence and sex, I wholly disagree with that part.

Even a movie teeming with realism is still closer to a fantasy and a dream, than hard-line reality... of course; this is very moot, because one can just say: "What is reality?" But, let us check the pseudo-philosophy at the door.

Art should reflect our lives, but it can't show life as it really is. No matter how hard an artist strives to show something real and truthful, it's still just constructed and can never be real... The emotions a movie should evoke should be real and true, whether they are joy, sorrow, giddiness, laughter, etc.

The only very real thing a movie should strive for: is the evoking of emotions in the viewer.

I know a lot of people will just disregard what I said, and I sort of sound like fucking Godard or something, but whatever.

Oh, lastly, I love movies with tons of hyper-sex and ultra-violence… And I also love pseudo words that sound cool, like ultra-violence.

[ElderPredator]

Originally posted by TheJupiterCrash
Although I agree with what you're saying about violence and sex, I wholly disagree with that part.

Even a movie teeming with realism is still closer to a fantasy and a dream, than hard-line reality... of course; this is very moot, because one can just say: "What is reality?" But, let us check the pseudo-philosophy at the door.

Art should reflect our lives, but it can't show life as it really is. No matter how hard an artist strives to show something real and truthful, it's still just constructed and can never be real... The emotions a movie should evoke should be real and true, whether they are joy, sorrow, giddiness, laughter, etc.

The only very real thing a movie should strive for: is the evoking of emotions in the viewer.

I know a lot of people will just disregard what I said, and I sort of sound like fucking Godard or something, but whatever.

Oh, lastly, I love movies with tons of hyper-sex and ultra-violence… And I also love pseudo words that sound cool, like ultra-violence.

I agree very much with what you said. They're all very vaild points.

[Kevin Lockard]

Originally posted by TheJupiterCrash
Although I agree with what you're saying about violence and sex, I wholly disagree with that part.

Even a movie teeming with realism is still closer to a fantasy and a dream, than hard-line reality... of course; this is very moot, because one can just say: "What is reality?" But, let us check the pseudo-philosophy at the door.

Art should reflect our lives, but it can't show life as it really is. No matter how hard an artist strives to show something real and truthful, it's still just constructed and can never be real... The emotions a movie should evoke should be real and true, whether they are joy, sorrow, giddiness, laughter, etc.

The only very real thing a movie should strive for: is the evoking of emotions in the viewer.

I know a lot of people will just disregard what I said, and I sort of sound like fucking Godard or something, but whatever.

Oh, lastly, I love movies with tons of hyper-sex and ultra-violence… And I also love pseudo words that sound cool, like ultra-violence.

Okay, I agree with everything you said as well which is why I'm a bit more dazzled as to why people keep quoting that "Real-Life" quote above. Obviously, I meant it as a way of backing up violence in movies in my argument against the IMDB guy. Now, I do have something against people labeling sex over violence simply cause sex is a "beautiful act" which is BS because quite franly, sex has never come off as a "beautiful act" no matter how many times people say it. You may think it in your own head but that's all in the imagination which is why when it comes to an intimate moment between two lovers or whatever, I think the sex should be left to the imagination moreso cause when displayed on-screen, it never comes off as "beautiful." Stanley Kubrick shares this same view. I think the closest you can get to making sex between lovers "beautiful" is by a novel, mainly an exotic romance novel.

Violence and Sex are both forms of expression in movies, which is why I always get a laugh from people being called "perverse" by others for loving violence more than sex. Soooo, if the majority of people loved sex as much as we "should" on the same level of violence, we would be less "perverse"? Nope, and that's why the IMDB guy's argument is nothing but a crybaby mess. To call someone "perverse" because of what they like in MOVIES is ignorant. "Perverse" is a word that should be used to describe killers and rapists and such, not moviegoers and their taste for what they love the most of in films, LOL!

[AaronisMe]

First of all, if you've seen a lot of movies, you'll know a lot of it isn't art. Most of it is product.

Sex and Violence goes together like Milli and Vanilli. Or Superman and Clark Kent.

Why can't we all get along? Why can't we have a movie where two people do it doggy and one of them bashes the other with a big Thor hammer? Fornicate and eviscerate ..these are a few of our favorite things.