What are our film censors thinking?
retro
although a bit repetitive with the flying through the air scenes and
it's rather interesting how our eyes lead our brains and physiology to
believe that we are actually soaring.
Anyway..........back to the point
some of the scenes are pretty scarifying and I noticed families had
brought quite young children.
I also noticed that 'scrooge' has some pretty serious mental health
issues raging in his head.
During the movie I commented that it is not a movie for children, it
is more for adults and could be the stuff of nighmares for the
littlies.
As we we left the theatre and journeyed down the elevator, a young
man, whom we know happened to get in with his wife and young children,
he echoed my words, saying that it is not a movie for children, I told
him that I had said the same thing while we were watching it and that
there should be around R13 rating on it. He said that it is really an
adult movie.
Our film censors need to be more sensitive to families and young
children
and warn your families about taking their children to this movie
it's full on
Geopelia
"retro" <galle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8ec36d7e-7c74-4d53...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
What film is that, and what is it about?
Me
> Our film censors need to be more sensitive to families and young
> children
> and warn your families about taking their children to this movie
> it's full on
I presume you mean "A Christmas Carol" currently showing in Cinemas.
It has a PG rating. Any parent should know that "G" rating will be less
full on than "PG", and what "PG" stands for.
Very scary stories about children being imprisoned, cannibalism, eaten
by wild animals, poisoned, abused by family, etc etc have entertained
and delighted young children for centuries, and probably caused a few
nightmares too. Should those books carry a warning/censorship rating?
Perhaps it's better that kids are sheltered from all this. They'll grow
up without a sense of humour, and with poor skills in separating fact
from fiction, 100% qualified to work as grill chefs at McDonalds now
that scary perverted Ronald has been given the flick.
retro
> retro wrote:
> > Our film censors need to be more sensitive to families and young
> > children
> > and warn your families about taking their children to this movie
> > it's full on
>
> I presume you mean "A Christmas Carol" currently showing in Cinemas.
> It has a PG rating. Any parent should know that "G" rating will be less
> full on than "PG", and what "PG" stands for.
>
> Very scary stories about children being imprisoned, cannibalism, eaten
> by wild animals, poisoned, abused by family, etc etc have entertained
> and delighted young children for centuries, and probably caused a few
> nightmares too. Should those books carry a warning/censorship rating?
ie hansel & gretel, red riding hood etc
scary they may be.......to some
however they aren't explicit and in your face
whereas the christmas carol is
> Perhaps it's better that kids are sheltered from all this. They'll grow
> up without a sense of humour, and with poor skills in separating fact
> from fiction, 100% qualified to work as grill chefs at McDonalds now
> that scary perverted Ronald has been given the flick.
I suggest you see it before you comment further
otherwise you'll come off looking like an ignorant idiot....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cC2OcTOGzo
a bit of Greg Johnson
Me
> On Nov 22, 11:04 am, Me <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>> retro wrote:
>>> Our film censors need to be more sensitive to families and young
>>> children
>>> and warn your families about taking their children to this movie
>>> it's full on
>> I presume you mean "A Christmas Carol" currently showing in Cinemas.
>> It has a PG rating. Any parent should know that "G" rating will be less
>> full on than "PG", and what "PG" stands for.
>>
>> Very scary stories about children being imprisoned, cannibalism, eaten
>> by wild animals, poisoned, abused by family, etc etc have entertained
>> and delighted young children for centuries, and probably caused a few
>> nightmares too. Should those books carry a warning/censorship rating?
>
> ie hansel & gretel, red riding hood etc
> scary they may be.......to some
> however they aren't explicit and in your face
> whereas the christmas carol is
>
imagination to create very firm images in your mind of those stories, or
they were poorly told to you?
>
>> Perhaps it's better that kids are sheltered from all this. They'll grow
>> up without a sense of humour, and with poor skills in separating fact
>> from fiction, 100% qualified to work as grill chefs at McDonalds now
>> that scary perverted Ronald has been given the flick.
>
> I suggest you see it before you comment further
> otherwise you'll come off looking like an ignorant idiot....
>
To you?
So what?
Geopelia
"Me" <us...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:hea5cr$9s6$1...@news.albasani.net...
Is it a new version of the Dickens story? There is nothing very scary about
the book, or the previous TV and film versions.
Have they made the ghosts scarier for this one?
It's a very moral story in the Dickens book, which everyone should know. My
generation were brought up on it, as it was much read around Christmas.
It's on Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19337/19337-8.txt if you want to read it on
line, with a piece about Dickens etc at the start.
That's plain text, but there are other websites there, with illustrations.
retro
> "Me" <u...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
> line, with a piece about Dickens etc at the start.
> That's plain text, but there are other websites there, with illustrations.
you can get a gander at the trailer here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ3lr3urgDU
The youtube trailer is on a little screen and doesn't give a full
account of some of the imagery in the movie and how it comes across in
3D jumping out at ya from a big screen.
I could take some time to explain how and why the movie is not
suitable for little children but people can form their own opinions
when they see it themselves.
Richard
> Our film censors need to be more sensitive to families and young
> children
> and warn your families about taking their children to this movie
> it's full on
I disagree entirely.
The whole idea of film censor disgusts me. That some people are happy to
let a government organization restrict what is available to them, and
decide what they believe is best for parents to expose their family to.
IMO the recommendation of what you can and cant take your kids to should
be something operated by non-profit groups who are more upfront about
their agendas than a hidden govt group that have no need to justify
their decisions to anyone, and have the ability to restrict peoples
freedoms to access works as happens a lot in .au with their BS games
censorship laws.
Me
>
So, you saw the trailer before taking small kids to it - no?
You read and understand what G, PG ratings mean - no?
You're aware that you can make a complaint/submission - no?
I'd just suggest that you don't bother. It looks fine, and about what
I'd expect from a "PG" kids movie. If they watch TV after about 6pm,
and comprehend what they're seeing on the news etc, there's far more
"parental guidance" needed for explaining that.
You could of course be 100% honest with them about everything, and tell
them that there's a far higher chance the whole family will be killed or
mutilated in a car wreck on the way to and from the cinema than hurt by
anything they see on screen.
As Geo points out, Dickens stories are usually very moral. Perhaps a
little too black and white in character development, but that's how kids
do seem to like to see things.
Christians start telling very wee kids - and showing them images - of
how Jesus was nailed to a cross and hung to die, and stress to the wee
tots that this is all true. Now that's very scary indeed.
Apteryx
You mean like:
"PG - Parental Guidance Recommended
Some scenes may scare very young children" ?
Allistar
Couldn't agree more. What people view should be up to them and not the
state. The idea of a non-profit group providing ratings is a good one, and
this idea can be extended to other areas of society the the state have
their hands in. E.g. restaurant health safety reports, building regulations
etc.
--
A.
Allistar
I wouldn't take either of my children to a PG unless I was certain it was
appropriate for them (either because I've seen it myself, or I have had
comment from someone I trust that it's ok). "G" is for young children, "PG"
is not.
--
A.
Me
that despite it being illegal/banned and punishable by severe penalties,
there's apparently a ready market for pornography where people are
forced, including children who cannot legally consent.
There was a british documentary shown on TV here a few months ago, where
a reporter investigated the "legal" Californian porn industry. Some of
the porn actors commented that movies depicting forced sex, mainly rape
of women, had grown greatly in popularity over recent years (IIRC the
actors commented that they didn't particularly like doing the movies,
but the money was good). I believe such movies would be illegal here in
NZ, despite the fact that the actors consented.
Sick though that is (IM prude O), there's a surprising correlation in
reported rape, with some US stats showing a reduction of about 85% in
rape since 1980.
Perhaps things aren't as simple as common sense may deem them to be.
WD
The PG rating seems to be pretty reasonable and ratings of this movie
around the world are pretty similar (Canada rated it as G
apparently). Admittedly I haven't seen it though so I could be wrong
I suppose. I do want to see it now though, looks good so thanks.
In any case I would tend to agree with those who think children
shouldn't be sheltered from everything a little scary. After all do
you let a young child go to sleep with bright lights because they're
scared of the dark? You don't want your child to be a Ralph
Wiggum! :-)
Anyway, if you're concerned about movie content I suggest you visit
the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com). For instance:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1067106/
Scroll down to 'Additional details" and then to "Parents Guide" and
there is a link which gives a detailed description of content and it
splits it up into categories such as "sex and nudity", "alcohol and
drugs", "violence" etc. This is especially useful since different
parents have different concerns for their children. Some might be
more concerned with sexual themes while others may be concerned about
violence. Where the G, PG, R13 etc. ratings can be ambiguous this
gives very detailed information for you to make a decision.
Weihana.
WD
I'm pretty sure that Allistar didn't mean to include such content.
> There was a british documentary shown on TV here a few months ago, where
> a reporter investigated the "legal" Californian porn industry. Some of
> the porn actors commented that movies depicting forced sex, mainly rape
> of women, had grown greatly in popularity over recent years (IIRC the
> actors commented that they didn't particularly like doing the movies,
> but the money was good). I believe such movies would be illegal here in
> NZ, despite the fact that the actors consented.
> Sick though that is (IM prude O),
Prude? That rape fantasy movies are not to your taste hardly makes
you a prude. The important difference is that although distasteful
there is nothing objectionable about rape fantasy in terms of
involving harm done to someone in order to produce the material. Of
course it's easy for many to disregard the fact that no one is harmed
in the production of such material because only a small minority of
people are interested in such stuff so no biggie if we ban it.
But consider extremely popular games titles like Grand Theft Auto for
instance. In such games you can pick up a hooker and then beat her to
death with a baseball bat (or perhaps use your rocket launcher,
whichever you prefer). While you do not have to do that the potential
of the game is every bit as distasteful as a rape fantasy porn movie.
But you have a lot more people complaining about censorship when such
a popular game comes under attack from conservative lobbyists and the
censor.
> there's a surprising correlation in
> reported rape, with some US stats showing a reduction of about 85% in
> rape since 1980.
> Perhaps things aren't as simple as common sense may deem them to be.
Perhaps just a coincidence. If you try to use that as a justification
all you need is an upswing in rape for censorship to be brought back.
Of course, as much as they can try to censor things the internet seems
to be very much immune to their efforts... so far.
Weihana.
Me
perpetrators, once it's in circulation then accessing it is okay? I
hope not.
If course with computer graphics, it has to be possible sooner or later
for digitally created characters to be the only "participants", for the
production to be completely "victimless", so what happens then?
>
>> There was a british documentary shown on TV here a few months ago, where
>> a reporter investigated the "legal" Californian porn industry. Some of
>> the porn actors commented that movies depicting forced sex, mainly rape
>> of women, had grown greatly in popularity over recent years (IIRC the
>> actors commented that they didn't particularly like doing the movies,
>> but the money was good). I believe such movies would be illegal here in
>> NZ, despite the fact that the actors consented.
>> Sick though that is (IM prude O),
>
> Prude? That rape fantasy movies are not to your taste hardly makes
> you a prude. The important difference is that although distasteful
> there is nothing objectionable about rape fantasy in terms of
> involving harm done to someone in order to produce the material. Of
> course it's easy for many to disregard the fact that no one is harmed
> in the production of such material because only a small minority of
> people are interested in such stuff so no biggie if we ban it.
growing, to the extent that if they wanted to continue in their line of
work, that's what they had to do.
But it's illegal to distribute in NZ. I guess that SM / bondage is okay
- so long as it's clear that the participants are willing. But
depiction of rape in pornographic material, simulated or not, seems to
be illegal. If the "mainstream porn industry" is churning it out in
California, I presume it's legal in the USA.
>
> But consider extremely popular games titles like Grand Theft Auto for
> instance. In such games you can pick up a hooker and then beat her to
> death with a baseball bat (or perhaps use your rocket launcher,
> whichever you prefer). While you do not have to do that the potential
> of the game is every bit as distasteful as a rape fantasy porn movie.
> But you have a lot more people complaining about censorship when such
> a popular game comes under attack from conservative lobbyists and the
> censor.
>
were playing it (illegal d/l).
>
>> there's a surprising correlation in
>> reported rape, with some US stats showing a reduction of about 85% in
>> rape since 1980.
>> Perhaps things aren't as simple as common sense may deem them to be.
>
> Perhaps just a coincidence. If you try to use that as a justification
> all you need is an upswing in rape for censorship to be brought back.
>
behaviour manifesting, or if the "stats" are wrong, then the price for
stuffing it up is very high.
WD
I don't think Allistar meant that either. To access it is to
victimize the victim all over again. Taking pornographic pictures of
someone without their consent is a huge invasion of their privacy and
they are harmed each time that picture is distributed.
As an aside, this goes for adults as well as children and perhaps
people should consider this when they start downloading stolen sex
tapes of celebrities.
> If course with computer graphics, it has to be possible sooner or later
> for digitally created characters to be the only "participants", for the
> production to be completely "victimless", so what happens then?
It's possible now and such material is objectionable in NZ as far as I
know. Personally I think it should count as protected "speech" every
bit as much as violent video games. I don't agree with censorship in
the sense of suppressing ideas considered objectionable. If the
material itself is *intrinsically* criminal or harmful to a person's
rights then I think censorship has a place.
> >> There was a british documentary shown on TV here a few months ago, where
> >> a reporter investigated the "legal" Californian porn industry. Some of
> >> the porn actors commented that movies depicting forced sex, mainly rape
> >> of women, had grown greatly in popularity over recent years (IIRC the
> >> actors commented that they didn't particularly like doing the movies,
> >> but the money was good). I believe such movies would be illegal here in
> >> NZ, despite the fact that the actors consented.
> >> Sick though that is (IM prude O),
>
> > Prude? That rape fantasy movies are not to your taste hardly makes
> > you a prude. The important difference is that although distasteful
> > there is nothing objectionable about rape fantasy in terms of
> > involving harm done to someone in order to produce the material. Of
> > course it's easy for many to disregard the fact that no one is harmed
> > in the production of such material because only a small minority of
> > people are interested in such stuff so no biggie if we ban it.
>
> Well the porno "stars" seemed to think that demand was very high and
> growing, to the extent that if they wanted to continue in their line of
> work, that's what they had to do.
I believe that work for women porn stars is increasingly degrading the
longer they work in the industry.
> But it's illegal to distribute in NZ. I guess that SM / bondage is okay
> - so long as it's clear that the participants are willing. But
> depiction of rape in pornographic material, simulated or not, seems to
> be illegal. If the "mainstream porn industry" is churning it out in
> California, I presume it's legal in the USA.
I believe the line between legal and illegal is quite blurred in the
US. I recall watching a doco on the porn industry some time ago which
discussed some of the legal boundaries. "Fisting" for instance was
considered by the local authorities in California to be objectionable
and if I recall charges of indecency or some such thing were filed
against a porn company (run by a mother and her son would you
believe).
The doco also had Larry Flynt expressing his opposition to many of
these new fringe porn companies which are pushing the legal boundaries
(e.g. rape fantasy etc.). Obviously he feels legal moves by
conservative politicians in response to such extreme content will have
an impact on his own more mainstream porn business. I found that
rather hypocritical of Flynt though considering that he only got to
where he is through pushing legal boundaries of what was considered
acceptable.
> > But consider extremely popular games titles like Grand Theft Auto for
> > instance. In such games you can pick up a hooker and then beat her to
> > death with a baseball bat (or perhaps use your rocket launcher,
> > whichever you prefer). While you do not have to do that the potential
> > of the game is every bit as distasteful as a rape fantasy porn movie.
> > But you have a lot more people complaining about censorship when such
> > a popular game comes under attack from conservative lobbyists and the
> > censor.
>
> >
> "Postal" was one that got banned from this household. Plenty of 12yo's
> were playing it (illegal d/l).
Not familiar with that one myself. But I certainly believe the
household is where material should be banned rather than at state
level. Certainly it is understandable that many of today's violent
video games are banned in the home since they are only appropriate for
adult audiences. Particularly games which are not only violent but
lack an appropriate moral context for impressionable minds.
> >> there's a surprising correlation in
> >> reported rape, with some US stats showing a reduction of about 85% in
> >> rape since 1980.
> >> Perhaps things aren't as simple as common sense may deem them to be.
>
> > Perhaps just a coincidence. If you try to use that as a justification
> > all you need is an upswing in rape for censorship to be brought back.
>
> I mainly agree. If there's a lag between exposure and negative
> behaviour manifesting, or if the "stats" are wrong, then the price for
> stuffing it up is very high.
I don't believe the government has the ability to mold behavior
through censorship and even if it did I do not agree it is right to
restrict individual freedom to try to engineer moral virtue in
people. A person who gets off on rape fantasy videos is not
responsible for people who actually commit rape.
Weihana.
retro
Good on you
retro
It is, amusing and very well done.
3-D movies have come a long way,
although it does get a just little repetitious with all the flying
scenes but they are a lot of fun.
> In any case I would tend to agree with those who think children
> shouldn't be sheltered from everything a little scary. After all do
> you let a young child go to sleep with bright lights because they're
> scared of the dark? You don't want your child to be a Ralph
> Wiggum! :-)
never heard of'm.....
i just googled and saw it is some sort of cartoon character on the
simpsons
>
> Anyway, if you're concerned about movie content I suggest you visit
> the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com). For instance:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1067106/
>
> Scroll down to 'Additional details" and then to "Parents Guide" and
> there is a link which gives a detailed description of content and it
> splits it up into categories such as "sex and nudity", "alcohol and
> drugs", "violence" etc. This is especially useful since different
> parents have different concerns for their children. Some might be
> more concerned with sexual themes while others may be concerned about
> violence. Where the G, PG, R13 etc. ratings can be ambiguous this
> gives very detailed information for you to make a decision.
right.........thanks........... I don't think I'll bother
> Weihana.
retro
Um ................
do you get frustrated when people don't bother to argue with you?
here; a bit of stan the man
hallelujah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U2MQcBhHoM
Me
I find it a bit odd that a Canadian Jew writes songs long ago, gets
shafted by financial advisors, needs to get some $ from royalties, and
we end up with a Maori singing that song in a talent quest New Zealand.
OTOH, when Springsteen's Born in the USA became an anthem for rednecks
and patriots, I realised that the world had changed.
Geopelia
"Me" <us...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>>> Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19337/19337-8.txt if you want
Should children see a film of "A Tale of Two Cities", another Dickens story?
Would it make them anti French?
In his day some people would still remember the Revolution happening seventy
years before,
or could have heard about it first hand from their parents.
Dickens stories were written for adults, (some as magazine instalments),
though "A Christmas Carol" is suitable to be read to children.
> Christians start telling very wee kids - and showing them images - of how
> Jesus was nailed to a cross and hung to die, and stress to the wee tots
> that this is all true. Now that's very scary indeed.
How the Crucifixion story is handled depends on the age of the children. The
Resurrection story is more suitable for the littlies.
The gruesome details are best left until the teens.
And the Roman side of crucifixion is often left out. It's treated as a "one
off", ignoring its widespread use, especially after the Spartacus rebellion.
Stories of martyrs are probably worse for children, especially those
involving rival sects of Christians.
But I take the view that "Paris is worth a Mass" as Henry of Navarre said.
Believe what you like, and follow the outward observance of the majority.
The Vicar of Bray had a sensible idea.
After all, my generation went on attending church long after we were
thinking for ourselves, and I don't think it did me any harm, pleasing my
parents.
At least I can debate here and with doorstep callers!
retro
So leonard Cohen is a Canadian Jew ?
> OTOH, when Springsteen's Born in the USA became an anthem for rednecks
> and patriots, I realised that the world had changed.
Yep world is changing constantly
nothing stays the same
Geopelia
"Msg. Scooter" <monsigno...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nhupg5d4liif5dgns...@4ax.com...
> On , , Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:46:46 -0800 (PST), Re: What are our film
> censors
> He claims descent from Kohanim. At the end of his concert on 24th
> September at
> Ramat Gan Stadium in Israel he gave the audience the Priestly Blessing:
> May YHWH bless you and guard you,
> May YHWH make His face shine on you and show favor to you,
> May YHWH lift up His face on you and give you peace.
>
Numbers 6: 24-26 KJV
The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:
The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
often used by Christians, too.