|
Post by saskabronco on Feb 19, 2015 0:43:47 GMT -5
On to violence vs sexuality (I will distance this from nudity, because as you said, there are times that nudity can occur with zero link to anything sexual). So, rank these from worst to best: - A husband and wife have sex and only the breasts are shown. - A husband and wife have sex and everything is shown. - A female stripper is shown, with all parts visible. - A female stripper is shown, with only breasts visible. - A male stripper is shown, everything is visible. - A man beats up another man. - A man beats up a woman. - A woman beats up a man. - A man beats up a child. - A human shoots a fellow citizen. - A human shoots an enemy in war, on the battlefield. - A human shoots a hostage of war. You can rank some as tied if you want, but I am curious how you would rank these. And this isn't based on what you like or not, it is what is considered moral. So ranking the male stripper higher than last doesn't make you gay... Well, this is kind of silly and I think you're expecting me to answer a certain way and then make a point about it..but I'm a bit confused. Are we talking the actual acts of violence or seeing these things on screen? Seeing them on screen right? I'm not trying to push you to answer any way. We are just talking about violence on screen. I don't expect you to actually rank all of those. I am just trying to find out if you honestly believe sex is worse than violence on TV even when you consider specific examples, and if there are certain types of sex or violence that are better or worse than others. For instance, if it was a married couple having sex vs a man cheating on his wife... Or if female nudity is more acceptable than male nudity. Or if two men fighting is more acceptable than a man fighting a woman.
|
|
xdeadlyxmirage
NFL Starter
This Guy
Disrespecting narrative film since the 15th century.
Posts: 1,557
|
Post by xdeadlyxmirage on Feb 19, 2015 0:57:46 GMT -5
I'm fully against almost any type of censorship, but I think this is a moot question for another reason. I can't imagine how this could not be a case by case sort of subjective deal. I think in American culture this fear of being "arbitrary" or subjective is absolutely absurdly out of control. We'd rather make a determination that a man beating up a different man is more acceptable than a man beating up a woman on tv, than trust ourselves to make the determination on a case by case basis as to what is acceptable and what is not. It's cartoonishly absurd and childish. Sorry for the short rant Saska, I don't mean to offend you or disparage what you are doing. I don't really know the context at all, just had to get the rant off my chest. No worries, I am not easily offended and I asked this question to generate more of a discussion. I firmly believe that it's not possible to actually rank those instances, but it gets you thinking what is considered more acceptable than what else. A female stripper in a show is far more socially acceptable than a male, especially if their privates are shown. A man beating up a woman is far less acceptable than a woman beating up a man. But our initial discussion was regarding what is worse between violence and sexuality on TV and Jancey believes that sexuality is much worse than violence. I just pointed out a bunch of examples. I doubt that all of the sexuality examples I listed would be considered worse than the violence ones. Ultimately, while I get the sexuality taboo (thanks to religion, more often than not), I think it is completely silly. I'm going to have to disagree on one point. A penis shown on tv/film is 100% more accepted than a vagina (especially flaccid). If nothing else, it is because you can show a penis from a really far distance or even moderate distance without the explicit sexuality where it is impossible to do that with a vagina. It's actually not that rare to see a penis on an HBO show or in a shower (in like prison/gym) in a movie.
|
|
|
Post by Jancey on Feb 19, 2015 0:59:02 GMT -5
Well, this is kind of silly and I think you're expecting me to answer a certain way and then make a point about it..but I'm a bit confused. Are we talking the actual acts of violence or seeing these things on screen? Seeing them on screen right? I'm not trying to push you to answer any way. We are just talking about violence on screen. I don't expect you to actually rank all of those. I am just trying to find out if you honestly believe sex is worse than violence on TV even when you consider specific examples, and if there are certain types of sex or violence that are better or worse than others. For instance, if it was a married couple having sex vs a man cheating on his wife... Or if female nudity is more acceptable than male nudity. Or if two men fighting is more acceptable than a man fighting a woman. Yes I do think sex is worse than violence on screen. I would rank all of those you posted equally though (sex related ones). I mean, if it's me or other males seeing male nudity on screen, I couldn't really care less though I'd rather not see it lol. If it was a married couple vs a man cheating, no it doesn't really make a difference. I mean, if it's condoning the cheating, then I would say it's worse. Man fighting a man is life. And it's a movie. But it's tough to answer this question I don't even really know how to answer it. Hitting a woman is never acceptable unless you absolutely have no choice to defend yourself or your family or something. But as far as on screen I guess it kind of depends on the context. I don't know what you want me to say saska. Yes, I think sex on screen is worse than violence.
|
|
xdeadlyxmirage
NFL Starter
This Guy
Disrespecting narrative film since the 15th century.
Posts: 1,557
|
Post by xdeadlyxmirage on Feb 19, 2015 1:15:00 GMT -5
I'm not trying to push you to answer any way. We are just talking about violence on screen. I don't expect you to actually rank all of those. I am just trying to find out if you honestly believe sex is worse than violence on TV even when you consider specific examples, and if there are certain types of sex or violence that are better or worse than others. For instance, if it was a married couple having sex vs a man cheating on his wife... Or if female nudity is more acceptable than male nudity. Or if two men fighting is more acceptable than a man fighting a woman. Yes I do think sex is worse than violence on screen. I would rank all of those you posted equally though (sex related ones). I mean, if it's me or other males seeing male nudity on screen, I couldn't really care less though I'd rather not see it lol. If it was a married couple vs a man cheating, no it doesn't really make a difference. I mean, if it's condoning the cheating, then I would say it's worse. Man fighting a man is life. And it's a movie. But it's tough to answer this question I don't even really know how to answer it. Hitting a woman is never acceptable unless you absolutely have no choice to defend yourself or your family or something. But as far as on screen I guess it kind of depends on the context. I don't know what you want me to say saska. Yes, I think sex on screen is worse than violence. saskabronco, As a film guy, I can bring on thing to the table here. When we are talking about film from a narrative structure viewpoint, it can be used to justify the violence being lesser than sex thing very easily. 1. Why are you putting sex/violence on the screen in the first place? Violence is an important action that usually takes place in a wider event, think any action sequence or even the end of reservoir dogs or something. It has a place in the narrative. In comparison, sex is like showing some guy taking a 5 min smoke break where nothing happens. There is no narrative reason it needs to be there. For background nudity or sex, you need to be going out of your way to show it with no narrative reason in mind. If you need sex or nudity in your narrative, narratively speaking it is just as good to imply it... which leads me to the second reason. 2. The problem with sex is a problem with showing the nudity. The problem with violence is the making the choice to use violence. If you imply sex but you do not show it, you pretty much avoid most people's negatives with it (and at least the censors). However, there is no way to use violence in a story without having it be a choice. Since people are not going to let the censors take violence out of film all together they censor the tastefulness of the violence (the context and the gore). Summary - It might be narratively important for someone to choose violence but it is never narritively important to have a sex scene rather than implying it. P.S. - Never underestimate the power that a narrative view of film and tv holds over any other view.
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Feb 19, 2015 10:11:52 GMT -5
No worries, I am not easily offended and I asked this question to generate more of a discussion. I firmly believe that it's not possible to actually rank those instances, but it gets you thinking what is considered more acceptable than what else. A female stripper in a show is far more socially acceptable than a male, especially if their privates are shown. A man beating up a woman is far less acceptable than a woman beating up a man. But our initial discussion was regarding what is worse between violence and sexuality on TV and Jancey believes that sexuality is much worse than violence. I just pointed out a bunch of examples. I doubt that all of the sexuality examples I listed would be considered worse than the violence ones. Ultimately, while I get the sexuality taboo (thanks to religion, more often than not), I think it is completely silly. I'm going to have to disagree on one point. A penis shown on tv/film is 100% more accepted than a vagina (especially flaccid). If nothing else, it is because you can show a penis from a really far distance or even moderate distance without the explicit sexuality where it is impossible to do that with a vagina. It's actually not that rare to see a penis on an HBO show or in a shower (in like prison/gym) in a movie. I guess you are right to an extent. I think that there is less of a problem with a fully nude female rather than a fully nude male, but the fully nude female won't ever actually spread her legs or anything. So a flaccid penis is more likely to be shown than an actual vagina, but a fully nude female with a full visible pubic region is more acceptable than a flaccid penis. I think that the line between porn and simple on screen nudity is drawn somewhere around vagina/erection.
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Feb 19, 2015 10:33:52 GMT -5
Yes I do think sex is worse than violence on screen. I would rank all of those you posted equally though (sex related ones). I mean, if it's me or other males seeing male nudity on screen, I couldn't really care less though I'd rather not see it lol. If it was a married couple vs a man cheating, no it doesn't really make a difference. I mean, if it's condoning the cheating, then I would say it's worse. Man fighting a man is life. And it's a movie. But it's tough to answer this question I don't even really know how to answer it. Hitting a woman is never acceptable unless you absolutely have no choice to defend yourself or your family or something. But as far as on screen I guess it kind of depends on the context. I don't know what you want me to say saska. Yes, I think sex on screen is worse than violence. saskabronco, As a film guy, I can bring on thing to the table here. When we are talking about film from a narrative structure viewpoint, it can be used to justify the violence being lesser than sex thing very easily. 1. Why are you putting sex/violence on the screen in the first place? Violence is an important action that usually takes place in a wider event, think any action sequence or even the end of reservoir dogs or something. It has a place in the narrative. In comparison, sex is like showing some guy taking a 5 min smoke break where nothing happens. There is no narrative reason it needs to be there. For background nudity or sex, you need to be going out of your way to show it with no narrative reason in mind. If you need sex or nudity in your narrative, narratively speaking it is just as good to imply it... which leads me to the second reason. 2. The problem with sex is a problem with showing the nudity. The problem with violence is the making the choice to use violence. If you imply sex but you do not show it, you pretty much avoid most people's negatives with it (and at least the censors). However, there is no way to use violence in a story without having it be a choice. Since people are not going to let the censors take violence out of film all together they censor the tastefulness of the violence (the context and the gore). Summary - It might be narratively important for someone to choose violence but it is never narritively important to have a sex scene rather than implying it. P.S. - Never underestimate the power that a narrative view of film and tv holds over any other view. Interesting points. I think that both can be implied though. When you see a guy run into a building with a gun, you can show him firing the gun and then a bunch of people laying on the ground. That is what I would call implied violence. But shows now show bullets hitting bodies and blood spraying everywhere. To me that aligns with the sexual scenes. So in violence, say with a gun shooting scene, you could do this: PG - Show the shooter with gun enter the room, cut to a view of the entire building and overlay the sound of gun fire, cut to funeral or some other acknowledgement of dead victims. PG13 - Show the shooter enter the room, show him/her firing the gun, cut to people laying on the floor dead. R - Show the shooter enter the room, show him/her firing the gun, show people getting hit with bullets and blood splattering everywhere. In film, you could do this: PG - Show a couple start to kiss, then fall onto a bed. Cut away. PG13 - Show a couple start to kiss, show the man start to slip off the woman's clothes with a camera looking on from behind the woman, so only her naked back is seen. Cut away. R - Show the couple strip down, show the couple moving together with the woman's breasts visible in the scene. In both of the PG cases, the actions are perfectly implied without showing any of the details. In both of the PG13 cases, the actions are more detailed, but there is still no showing of the actual acts. In both of the R cases, the details are shown. The deal is, in the violence category, none of those examples are actually rated R though. Many movies PG13 or less show excessive violence. But any time a boob is shown, the movie must be rated R. It seems absurd to me, given that sex is natural and necessary, while violence is just destructive. Stories can be told many ways, and I fully understand the desire to show more detail to try and give the audience a better understanding of the emotions that the characters are going through. Showing extreme violence can make movies feel a lot more real because you see the looks on people's faces and the gore they need to deal with. But by the same token, showing a love-making scene can help better establish the passion in a relationship. If a couple just has basic, emotionless sex, then that says something about their relationship as compare to a couple who is rolling around, getting pushed up against a wall, etc. Maybe it just shows what stage of their relationship they are at, or maybe there is some other underlying meaning behind it, but showing sexual scenes can be just as informative as violence. And the same goes for background nudity. If the characters are in a place where people would typically be nude, like a brothel, strip club or nude beach, and you are trying to make a real film (and don't care about the rating) then why should you go out of your way to imply nudity but not show it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 15:01:33 GMT -5
Saska and XDM both make good points.
My view is this...
Violent movies such as Reservoir Dogs or Goodfellas or even war movies such as Full Metal Jacket or Fury probably wouldnt be as good if they didnt show the element of violence that it did. After all The mob or war both are violent entities. Jaws for example...has to be violent to a degree because getting eat by a shark is just that.
Horror movies such as The Exorcist,Evil Dead,Saw series or Alien series also has to show that element of violence. Its what the narrative of the movie is.
On the other hand....Sex....well..Only really has to be shown in full context in a porn film.
This is the difference between the 2.
Take the movie Flight for example. Full frontal nudity and nothing to do with the narrative of the story.
Wolf Of Wall Street was ridiculous. The sex and nudity could have easily been implied.
Theres numerous movies made where the amount of sex and nudity has absolutely nothing to do with the story.
Some of the best movies ever made has zero nudity in them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 15:10:31 GMT -5
I am also curious if your reaction would change if it was atheists, Muslims or Satanists being beheaded, rather than Christians. I personally don't give a shit that "Christians" are being beheaded... I am appalled that innocent humans, in general, are being beheaded, regardless of their faith.My bad Saska...I just said "Christians" because thats what our media's headlines always are. I should not have said that and should have said innocent people. That WAS my intent. It does not matter who you are or what you believe in......the killing of people like that is WRONG...the 21 is basically genocide and there are international laws against it. I have a different feeling on this now Saska. The fact that these people are being beheaded are BECAUSE of their faith. ISIS said so themselves so that changes everything. Now if you still feel like Christians are not being persecuted then I feel like you need to take a second thought at the whole thing. BTW...You should give a shit that people are dying because they are Christians. I will pose the same question to you.. How would you feel if say Russians were targeting canadians and killing them because they are canadians?
|
|
|
Post by Jindred on Feb 20, 2015 16:11:00 GMT -5
I am also curious if your reaction would change if it was atheists, Muslims or Satanists being beheaded, rather than Christians. I personally don't give a shit that "Christians" are being beheaded... I am appalled that innocent humans, in general, are being beheaded, regardless of their faith.My bad Saska...I just said "Christians" because thats what our media's headlines always are. I should not have said that and should have said innocent people. That WAS my intent. It does not matter who you are or what you believe in......the killing of people like that is WRONG...the 21 is basically genocide and there are international laws against it. I have a different feeling on this now Saska. The fact that these people are being beheaded are BECAUSE of their faith. ISIS said so themselves so that changes everything. Now if you still feel like Christians are not being persecuted then I feel like you need to take a second thought at the whole thing. BTW...You should give a shit that people are dying because they are Christians. I will pose the same question to you.. How would you feel if say Russians were targeting canadians and killing them because they are canadians?Surprised and slightly baffled lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 16:21:50 GMT -5
I have a different feeling on this now Saska. The fact that these people are being beheaded are BECAUSE of their faith. ISIS said so themselves so that changes everything. Now if you still feel like Christians are not being persecuted then I feel like you need to take a second thought at the whole thing. BTW...You should give a shit that people are dying because they are Christians. I will pose the same question to you.. How would you feel if say Russians were targeting canadians and killing them because they are canadians?Surprised and slightly baffled lol.
|
|