Personal movie history

degeneration · Post by **degeneration** » 23 Jun 2009, 16:06

Shingster - I didn't suggest you were ok with it, I was questioning whether you would be based on the statement of yours that I quoted. Yes my analogy may have been extreme but that's generally how testing things works - you test it out in all extremes. My experience of this has been with some machines and science theories, but it can be done with statements too.

If I said to someone that they were being an idiot, maybe it is just my interpretation, but that would effectively be the same as calling them an idiot. Yes it may imply that there is the opportunity to stop being an idiot, which a direct "you are an idiot" doesn't imply, but the immediate point is the same. And no I wasn't that flummoxed to its general appeal, but unlike yourself I did not think it was that unwelcome a thing to ask people on here about their personal opinions on it. It is a forum for discussion after all. If you did not want to contribute to an answer then you could have ignored the question, rather than criticising/questioning me for asking. A large majority of (sensible) topics covered in these forums have already been discussed elsewhere. This does not mean we should read everywhere else first prior to discussing here.

The second point about the statements, yeah i can see your point there. If I said that something was an idiotic statement, that isn't necessarily calling them an idiot. So I'll apologise for that one and retract my complaint.

Anyway, you've said your piece now, I've said mine, best the matter was dropped.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 23 Jun 2009, 18:39

2002? Saw my first Shaw Bros. film, The Heroic Ones.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 23 Jun 2009, 18:45

degeneration wrote:If I said to someone that they were being an idiot, maybe it is just my interpretation, but that would effectively be the same as calling them an idiot. Yes it may imply that there is the opportunity to stop being an idiot, which a direct "you are an idiot" doesn't imply, but the immediate point is the same.

I personally think saying someone is deliberately being obtuse means they are going to of their way to make it seem they are ignorant to evoke a reaction. I didn't mean to call you thick, I personally do not hold that opinion of you and I apologise if it came across that way.

grim_tales wrote:I think a PG rating is fair enough. These days I think you can get away with more at PG/12 though. I couldn't believe Casino Royale was a 12 and Spiderman 2 is probably about as violent as 1 yet its a PG and the 1st is a 12. Why?

You seen Transformers 2 yet? If that can recieve a 12a today then a film like Mrs Doubtfire would pass as PG pretty easily. I watched Transformers over the weekend and it was full of families with young children, and the amount of sexualised comments and imagery in that film is staggering for the rating. None of the parents or children around me seemed to bat an eyelid though.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Jun 2009, 19:01

The thing is, that's a 12 rated film. That "isn't" suitable for under 12s but parents are so pig shit they don't read the MASSIVE warning at the start and prefer to use the 12A as a nanny service.

There's no way Dark Knight and Casino Royale are suitable for under 10s but I bet there were loads who watched it at the cinema. Personally I think the BBFC should've made 12A minimum age 8, as was the original plan. Most parents aren't be relied upon to read up on a film properly before hand.

Hell most parents seem to think 12A means it "is" suitable for under 12s.

Mrs Doubtfire would certainly pass 12A but PG I don't reckon so. The sad thing is 12A has become PG + a little bit, not specifically but in reality. If that makes sense.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 23 Jun 2009, 19:03

I haven't seen either Transformers film yet but I think you're right in that the 12A rating has pushed the boundaries of the rating. T3 and Casino Royale 12A - WTF!

The Dark Knight was a very strong 12A too.
Can't remember if I saw Ace Ventura 1 when it came out (maybe not). That was a 12 as well.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Jun 2009, 19:06

I wouldn't say that. The BBFC policies have become more relaxed. It's still technically a 12 rated film remember. The BBFC clearly think Casino Royale is safe for a 12 year old but NOT younger.

What has made the certificate weaker is the A. Back when Ace Venture came out it was a hard and fast 12, not any more. What's wrong with T3 being suitable for 12 year olds and above?

p.s - I wouldn't rush to see Transformers. It's good fun but wait for it to be on TV. I'll be seeing Transformers 2 but in honesty I could take it or leave it.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 23 Jun 2009, 19:08

Shingster wrote:You seen Transformers 2 yet?

I thought Transformers 2 was rated "not for over 12 year olds"

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 23 Jun 2009, 19:09

Well 12A is for ignorant parents, they are morons.

Voice you opinion in the cinema I say, as some parents need to be told as they sure as hell have no idea how to parent their kids thats for sure.

Little 3 year old Timmy watching Terminator Salvation in our cinema, bet he loved it

its like a cheap child minder the cinema and scum take advantage of it way to much.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 23 Jun 2009, 19:10

bradavon wrote: p.s - I wouldn't rush to see Transformers. It's good fun but wait for it to be on TV. I'll be seeing Transformers 2 but in honesty I could take it or leave it.

Wrong

fucking stunning films.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 23 Jun 2009, 19:10

Well T3 is still pretty violent, there's the frontal/back female nudity of the T-X. I guess the killings happen off screen though.
Now the "uncut" (well PG-13) Goldeneye is now a 15, I can't remember but CR is probably more violent than Goldeneye yet is a lower cert.
As you say its more relaxed. You can get away with lots at 15 these days, not many action films are 18 rated - horror maybe.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 23 Jun 2009, 19:29

grim_tales wrote:Well T3 is still pretty violent, there's the frontal/back female nudity of the T-X.

Why should nudity be a reason a high rating, or rating at all?

Or did you just mean that BBFC is more lenient than before?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 23 Jun 2009, 19:31

So a massive cock, pair of baps or a fanny on screen does not make a film a higher rating? it does in every normal persons eyes.

Lets get the cast of Lord of the Rings to come back and do the film in the nude, and let it still be a 12A.

Nudity = not for kids, unless your parents are freaks.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 23 Jun 2009, 19:39

romerojpg wrote:So a massive cock, pair of baps or a fanny on screen does not make a film a higher rating? it does in every normal persons eyes.

Lets get the cast of Lord of the Rings to come back and do the film in the nude, and let it still be a 12A.

Nudity = not for kids, unless your parents are freaks.

How scary, I'm not even sure if you're joking or not.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 23 Jun 2009, 19:58

Shingster wrote:You seen Transformers 2 yet? If that can recieve a 12a today then a film like Mrs Doubtfire would pass as PG pretty easily. I watched Transformers over the weekend and it was full of families with young children, and the amount of sexualised comments and imagery in that film is staggering for the rating. None of the parents or children around me seemed to bat an eyelid though.

Mark Kermode made comments along those lines. He thought the film was really sleazy for a 12A. His review is a good laugh because he hated it (naturally).

romerojpg wrote:So a massive cock, pair of baps or a fanny on screen does not make a film a higher rating? it does in every normal persons eyes.

Depends on the context. If the nudity is non-sexual then it's OK at a PG or 12 level.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 23 Jun 2009, 21:06

HungFist wrote:
romerojpg wrote:So a massive cock, pair of baps or a fanny on screen does not make a film a higher rating? it does in every normal persons eyes.

Lets get the cast of Lord of the Rings to come back and do the film in the nude, and let it still be a 12A.

Nudity = not for kids, unless your parents are freaks.
How scary, I'm not even sure if you're joking or not.

Ahh dont read what I say as scary, read it as in a funny way

not meant to scare anyone, if that is even an option.

Conext for nudity is always a hard one (haha).

For instance I remember some idiot pedophile on TV going on about what films he owned in his collection, non were hardcore porn with kids, they were all family films with kids in naked situation having fun etc.. so it is always an odd one that.

Still adult nakedness is very different in films etc.. what is natural to one person I guess is sexual to another.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 24 Jun 2009, 08:49

Yeah, I meant in non-sexual content. I think one of the big problems in many societies/cultures is that nudity is considered something bad and embarrasing. What do kids think when they get the image that human body is filthy, you should be embarrased of yourself, and that if you have questions you better keep your mouth shut because it will be too embarrasing to ask...

Sexuality is partly the same, but of course a bit more difficult subject. It's really all about context and how it's presented in a film, not so much about how graphic it is. In my opinion you could have "hard core content" in a 15 rated film if it's presented in the right way, not giving any weird or twisted ideas. And at the same time something that doesn't feature any graphic content can still be ideology-wise so twisted that you can't consider it suitable for kids who might get the wrong idea.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 24 Jun 2009, 12:40

If someone is stupid enough to always add a sexual slant to nudity, that's their problem..

grim_tales wrote:Well T3 is still pretty violent, there's the frontal/back female nudity of the T-X.

A boob and bum shut. Quick kids, get under cover

.

grim_tales wrote:I guess the killings happen off screen though.
Now the "uncut" (well PG-13) Goldeneye is now a 15, I can't remember but CR is probably more violent than Goldeneye yet is a lower cert.

That is indeed illogical.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 24 Jun 2009, 12:47

The language seemed pretty strong for a 12A too in T3 but thats just me.
@ Hung, I just meant the BBFC is more relaxed than before IMO.
I read today that more people complained about some of the language used by Judi Dench in Quantum of Solace than any of the violence.

Have you heard the BBFC are going to introduce a new category for advice "Discrimination" (or something like that)? A Friends boxset was rated 12 (aren't most of the sets that rating anyway?) because of the word "spastic".
It depends on the context I think.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 24 Jun 2009, 21:14

In today's news: In Malmö in Sweden women are no longer required to cover their breasts in swimming halls.

There's another city in Sweden that did similar decision earlier this year.

For once feminists did something good

Twisted pervert UK moralist grannies please have a heart attack!

Damn I'm proud to be a Scandinavian

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/fritt- ... l-1.897683

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 24 Jun 2009, 22:29

And it should be pointed out that Scandinavians, who are much more frank and open about their sexuality and sexuality in general between both adults and children, have some of the smallest teen pregnancy rates in the world!

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 24 Jun 2009, 23:36

Yup and I am sure chavvy scum dont parade around in adult cloths when they are not even in in double figure ages yet. UK is one messed up place, esspecially Newcastle

Children wearing a T Shirt saying Porn Star, Hussy, Playboy, that says it all really, the UK is dead.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 25 Jun 2009, 11:56

Shingster wrote:And it should be pointed out that Scandinavians, who are much more frank and open about their sexuality and sexuality in general between both adults and children, have some of the smallest teen pregnancy rates in the world!

If only governments realised, usually restricting things actually just has the opposite effect.

HungFist wrote:In today's news: In Malmö in Sweden women are no longer required to cover their breasts in swimming halls.

Is there a big want for women to go topless?

Women here would never want to, for it to even be in question. I imagine if they did, they'd be asked to cover up though.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 25 Jun 2009, 12:18

bradavon wrote:
HungFist wrote:In today's news: In Malmö in Sweden women are no longer required to cover their breasts in swimming halls.
Is there a big want for women to go topless?

I don't know, I don't live in Sweden, I'm not a woman, and I don't like swimming halls

I don't know how well this would work out in Finland. I doubt the girls in my class would burn their bikini top just like that. But certainly it would be worth a try

To be honest the Swedes have always been quite tolerant... more so than us Finns.

But it was a feminist move that made this reality in Sweden. They were saying that since men are allowed to swim bare chested, women should be allowed to do the same.

I bet the popularity of swimming just went through the roof in Malmö among teenage boys

degeneration · Post by **degeneration** » 25 Jun 2009, 15:26

HungFist wrote: I bet the popularity of swimming just went through the roof in Malmö among teenage boys

Until they discover that it is only the women that look like this that are going topless....

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 25 Jun 2009, 16:38