the 'fertilization' scene
-
jbaker1-2 — 1 year ago(January 25, 2025 08:47 PM)
Anyone who's offended by the sight of an unclothed human body regardless of age has a few screws loose. I'll allow I wouldn't really care to see a 90-year-old granny naked, but that has far more to do with esthetics than with any faux "moral outrage."
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it. -
Injinn — 16 years ago(October 08, 2009 02:53 AM)
If the girl on the alter was, in fact, Zita Vass (ponytail girl), then yes, she is 18. Furthermore, she is no stranger to nudity. All you have to do is look at her turn on Californication.
My beef with the scene was mostly that it had no relevance to the plot. There was absolutely no reason why that needed to be shown. We already knew that babies were being born, so the teenagers were obviously engaging in sexual intercourse. Having said that, a simple reference to said sexual act could have sufficed.
The only reason to show that scene was fan service, plain and simple. -
JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies — 14 years ago(November 09, 2011 06:29 AM)
The significance of it is that it's adding emphasis to just how twisted the kids have made their interpretation of Christianity. It's a good way to do this that isn't related to violence, but that can still be disturbing.
http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies -
Injinn — 11 years ago(June 03, 2014 06:02 AM)
I could buy that if not for the fact that the rest of the film up to that point illustrated that fact quite clearly.
By the time that scene was shown, the audience already knew their interpretation of Christianity was twisted. It was a superfluous scene. There are only two reasons to show it:
1.) They wanted to shock the audience (this is the only one that halfway relates to that scene).
2.) Fanservice.
My only issue with #1 is that, again, the rest of the film leading up to that point does a decent enough job of illustrating the children's warped idea of religion.
Don't get me wrong I enjoyed seeing Zita Vass' body as much as the next man. I'm just saying, don't make it out to be more than it is.
The director wanted to see her tits. The audience wanted to see her tits. There was nothing particularly integral to her character or the plot gained from that scene.
It was fanservice. Pure and simple. -
JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies — 11 years ago(June 03, 2014 06:39 AM)
It's not as if you can only do something once. A common approach to creating artworks is that your primarily themes/ideas should be ideally echoed throughout the work in many different guises. (And hence my use of the word "
adding
").
http://rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies -
Injinn — 11 years ago(June 04, 2014 12:09 AM)
I'm not of the belief that sex, in general, is too taboo just that the nudity in this scene was superfluous.
The scene could have been done without the nudity and would have lost nothing. This was supposed to be a young girl being impregnated she would have been a young girl, therefore the scene would have still been disturbing just in suggestion, with or without her exposed breasts.
The choice to show that was what elevated the scene into fanservice territory. It was precisely what was superfluous about the scene.
Again, I'm the last person who is going to complain about seeing breasts I'm just an opponent of trying to attribute artistic merit where it is not warranted.
This was not an instance of sexual expression in high art it was a sex scene in a low budget horror flick. Like I said, the director wanted to show tits, and the audience wanted to SEE tits. Making it out to be more than it was is just reaching. -
JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies — 11 years ago(June 04, 2014 03:57 AM)
All I think that response deserves is this unfortunately:
http://rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies -
Illyngophobia — 16 years ago(October 25, 2009 05:25 PM)
I thought that kid was Amos and some other chick.
"Life is pleasant.Death is peaceful.It's the transition that's troublesome."- Isaac Asimov
-
fclermont777 — 15 years ago(February 12, 2011 11:23 PM)
That being said, I think it would be rated over it's actual rating (4.1) if this scene was replace be something more significant.
It was so out of context with the context of the couple disturbing their peace.
This movie was so bad
even a sex scene couldn't save it -
ElectricWarlock — 12 years ago(February 07, 2014 09:47 AM)
Well, somebody has the keep the cult alive. What happens when they all turn into adults and there are no more children left? Children are supposed to be the only ones with innocence and adulthood is supposed to be synonymous with wickedness and corruption in these people's minds, right? Making more children obviously prevents this from happening. I don't see how it was pointless or irrelevant to the plot. People just like to complain about anything they can.
Death lives in the Vault of Horror!