Summary
-
tealwood — 19 years ago(June 06, 2006 07:26 AM)
All of the points you made are irrelevant. You can sit in your liberal arm chair and pretend that you truly think what you won't be affected. Things change when bad things in your life really happen. Good luck to you!
An atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side. -
brodeawesome — 19 years ago(June 06, 2006 08:25 PM)
What armchair? Bad things haven't happened to me? Do you even know me? The points I've made are irrelevant? What points have YOU made? Nothing. And call me liberal. It appears you don't have anything to actually respond with so now the best you can do is name calling, straw manning, and bs political labelling. Thanks alot, but you've just evicted yourself from my scope.
-
tealwood — 19 years ago(June 07, 2006 07:36 AM)
I apologizeI didn't mean to imply that nothing bad has ever happened to you. My point was: a person doesn't really know how they'll react in a situation until they are IN that situation. It's easy to speculate how you'd LIKE to react, when you're not in the heat of battle.
An atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side. -
brodeawesome — 19 years ago(June 07, 2006 11:16 AM)
So your point is that since my daughter hasn't shown her goods, I don't know my own personal morality and can't gauge how I would react based on that? If someone cuts me off in traffic, I know how I would react to that based on knowing my personality. I don't have to wait until it happens (and it happens) to know. Sun Tzu once said, "Know thyself." Or maybe that was Ben Kenobi.
Also, since we can't judge our own reactions to 'bad' things happening, how can you judge other people's? You asked how Amanda Peet's parents feel, and assumed that they would be outraged. I wonder how you know this. I wonder how you know how you yourself would feel if it happened to you. -
thecalhouns — 16 years ago(February 24, 2010 10:57 AM)
Hollywood used to be a lot more lenient when it came to nudity in PG-13 movies
in the 80's and early 90's there were a lot of movies like See No Evil, Hear No Evil that had nudity that would probably net them an R rating today, these days if you show more than a brief ass shot you're pretty much guaranteed to get an R-rating
I think the ratings in America is an out-dated system that could use a re-tooling, I would personally get rid of NC-17, put a new rating in between PG-13 and R, maybe PG-16 or something and make R the highest rating you can get
back in 98 I did a titty comedy for Skinemax. Sex Camp, ya remember it? -
Magic_313 — 15 years ago(March 15, 2011 04:07 AM)
You people are so stupid! Would you let a 13-year old watch topless women for 5 minutes? I should hope not.
I sure would. Full nudity gets a movie a 12 (PG-13) rating over here.
I was watching some stupid show (at around 7pm) about celebs on the weekend, which had a woman milk herself on camera (the segment was called the most shameful acts or something like that).
It's an adult movie! If your kids want to see it, tell them to wait. Have morals people!
Well, the movie is rated 16 (R), because of all the killers in it murdering people, and getting away with it. I'd still let a 13yo watch it, supervised if need be. -
matt_monster — 15 years ago(March 15, 2011 07:36 PM)
Wow, I completely forgot about this thread. Looking back, I still feel like a PG-13 would be fine. Look at Titanic and how long that nude bit went. The sexuality level is tame next to many modern comedies, even with a couple of hard innuendos. Plus, the whole three seconds of nudity is meant as a distraction and nothing is happening to her. The Fifth Element had far, far more topless moments. I think the bits of nudity were fine in both, because they were quick non-intimate glimpses. The nude bit in American Pie, yeah, I'd give the movie an R on that alone, because it is drawn out and she is playing around with them. In terms of violence, there is nothing that would be cut to get a TV-14 rating and movies such as Kuffs and plenty of others have bloody gunshot wounds. Whole Nine Yards has nothing. Even some PG movies have brief glimpses of topless women (Romeo and Juliet, Weekend at Bernie's 2, Pink Panther Strikes Back, and Pretty in Pink - to be fair, some of these are older, when there was no PG-13, or got a PG on appeal. My point is that they avoided getting an R).
Personally, I can see why some would want an instant R for anything with a bit of nudity, that is how some parents are. Then there is some implied sexuality, which, when combined probably makes the decision easy for some. However, on a strictly content-oriented basis, it has nothing on any of the Austin Powers flicks.
If our system was more like that in the UK, where the ratings are 12, 15, and 18, I'd maybe give Whole Nine Yards a light 15. It's pretty far from being needing a restriction as hard as R (under 17 requires parental permission). If a thirteen year old isn't mentally stable enough to handle seeing bare breasts for a moment, we are all doomed as a society.
Matt S.