Question about nudity scene?
-
bmf4069 — 14 years ago(October 20, 2011 09:32 PM)
i dont see what your issue is.
1: this isnt europe so who cares what they do over there. If they all walked around naked should we do that here? THATS how warped your depiction of america has become. "if they do it in europe then thats how we should be". No. We are AMERICA. you know, land of the free, home of the brave? Not europe. if you want europianism, gtfo.
2: Sex and violence are two COMPLETLEY different things. You can(and im sure her son has) play violent video games killing every thing in sight! do they have nudity in video games? only one I've seen and it was on PS2.
3: once again stay the beep out of her buisness. If she says her son knows the difference between REALITY AND FANTASY(i.e. life vs movies/video games) then let it be! she asked a simple question; not if her son should watch this. ITS HER beep DECISION!!!!
BTW: your son already has seen nudity before. I saw nudity before age 11 w/o the internet available. -
musicblind — 13 years ago(October 09, 2012 12:53 AM)
This is very well stated.
As an American who has spent time in Europe, this is why teen pregnancy, gun violence, etc is less among kids in the UK than in American. Even general health among kids in the UK, France, etc is better than in America.
To the guy who states 1.) This is not Europe, if they walk naked there should we.
I would answer that if science shows that Europe is doing it better. (ie. France is number in Health source World Health Organization), and Texas has more pregnant teens than all of England maybe we SHOULD consider doing the things in Europe that work. Maybe we should ask, "Why aren't their kids as violent as our own?"
"Some day you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again." - C.S.Lewis -
stayprettystockholm — 14 years ago(January 05, 2012 12:24 PM)
Not wanting to see naked people doesn't make you a prude. Only real prudes would think that.
http://i44.tinypic.com/x4ozk.jpg -
obsessedmovies — 15 years ago(October 11, 2010 07:52 PM)
It's nothing special. It's around the 40-45 min. mark. There is NOTHING sexual at all about this scene. Seriously, it's just torture. As Jigsaw Expert has said already, if you're son can handle graphic violence, he can handle this. It's about 5 mins. long, but it is NOT 5 mins. of nudity. You see her full frontal I think about 3 times throughout the entire scene, but mostly you see from her upper chest to her head. I think he can handle it, but if you feel uncomfortable about it, then I apologize.
Team Jill
This isn't what John wanted.
You chose this.- Saw IV
-
StrontiumAE — 15 years ago(November 06, 2010 01:23 AM)
Although I have to question why make the woman nude but none of the men I will say the nudity was totally un-sexual anyway. I am not sure if she was even fully nude. Apart from being topless I think she was wearing some kind of body suit to make it look like she was nude.
Anyway.. the violence is extreme in this one, so I would not be showing an 11 year old something like this. Yes its obviously fake, but even I had to look away from the screen at times and I am a 30 something year old man.
Review AE
http://www.reviewae.blogspot.com
&
http://ireview.blogbroad.com/ -
oprlvr33 — 15 years ago(November 17, 2010 08:28 PM)
And
Obviously (just in case the rest of you didn't catch on) her 'nudity' was a form of humiliation; strung up by brutal chains (like a captured animal), locked inside a freezerbare naked??? Personally, I wouldn't have survived but a few moments!
The female body does not have the same insulation as a males. Amazingly, she survived long enough to have words with Jeff AND get sprayed with freezing water(!) -
MegKotlanger — 15 years ago(January 26, 2011 10:03 AM)
Well, i think the fact that she was being frozen to death made the nudity at least practical in this case. As to why it wasn't a guy in the freezer, they probably thought it is more pleasant to see a woman naked instead of frozen sausage. Also, when it comes to full frontal, I think they can get away with a woman and not a man with an R rating because their actual genitals are covered.
-
stayprettystockholm — 14 years ago(January 05, 2012 12:26 PM)
Because more guys watch horror than girls, and men are easier to appeal to in movies anyway. Promise them even a bra strap and they come running to the theater in hordes.
http://i44.tinypic.com/x4ozk.jpg -
MacheteDontText — 15 years ago(December 04, 2010 09:47 AM)
also, the full frontal is kind of hard to see the details because of the fact the room she is in is really misty so you can kind of make some stuff out. It is a really disturbing scene however.
Machete don't text -
Seth_Raven — 15 years ago(December 14, 2010 10:34 AM)
You're saying your son is old enough to watch horror movies but yet this movie is 18+ and from what you've said your son is 11. What is wrong with you?
You know, there's an age rating for a reason. Jesus man, he's a little boy, how could you seriously even just think about letting him watch this? -
A-Pseudo-Intellectual — 15 years ago(March 28, 2011 01:10 PM)
Right. Let's show the kid all the NC-17 rated graphic torture, mutilation and extreme violence we can, but god forbid he see a naked woman!
You're a classic example of why some people simply make horrible parents and shouldn't be allowed with 10 feet of a child.
"I was cured, all right." -
dolores_medina — 14 years ago(July 17, 2011 05:52 PM)
If he is fapping to torture porn, don't worry, he won't grow up to be a reasonably well adjusted adult with Mild curiosity about the opposite sex, likie most of us did. He'll grow up to be a serial killer. Ya, I can see this as a better option, i mean, God forbid he should see boobs, but torture?? ya, that's awesome for an 11 year old.
-
Totemkauf — 11 years ago(May 30, 2014 03:58 PM)
I feel sorry for this kid if his first time seeing a nude woman is a tortured victim in a horror movie.
This is def not a series for 11 year olds
But in defense of violence/vs nudity 'protection' , I think it's about the likelyhood of real life immitation. Show a kid two people doing it , and two people stabbing eachother. The kid is more likely to go out and do itwith somebody some day than to stab someone. It's all about trying to control teen pregnancy etc.
I agree its irrational to be so anti-nude etc instead of having more of an educational process, but I feel there's greater risk of sexual content affecting a young persons actions than extreme violence.
Well kids 15 now so hopefully he hadn't been scarred lol. -
Ceephax — 14 years ago(October 31, 2011 08:40 PM)
God, I really cannot believe how people have such an issue over a naked body which is part of human nature, but seeing extreme graphic torture and mutilation is totally ok. It's like it's ok to show war and people killing each other on day time news, but god forbid they should ever show nudity of any sort! They even have nudity in films such as Walkabout, which is rated PG13, a great film about 2 school kids surviving in the desert.
Here's an interesting fact- they teach sex education in schools in which kids see the pictures of the naked male and female body in books (even in videos, although nothing pornographic) but I highly doubt they would show films such as the Saw series, because it's a bit twisted, corruptive and un-natural, and for grown ups only, you know?
Besides, don't young boys masturbate around the age of 11? He probably does it behind your back and may own a few copies of porn mags in his room anyway!
I seriously hope this is a joke.
SILENCIO.
