Does this movie poster make you morally outraged?

ardeegee · 07-11-2010, 03:07 PM

Alexander (moderator): The fellow members who have been involved in this discussion have been contacted and reminded of our guidelines. This thread serves no more purpose and will remain closed. Thank you!

I have no desire to name any names, but over the past couple of days I've had a baffling and frustrating PM exchange with someone I thought I would be helping. I sent a link to Japanese area a site that aggregates links to direct downloads of Asian movies (never mind the legality and morality of that for a moment.) I got the never even dreamed of reply that the site had nudity (it didn't) and he would never look at it again.

Okay, so I thought maybe he had mistaken it for a site with direct-to-video porn-- it wasn't-- I pointed out that these are mainstream major theatrical releases. The reply back-- that the site included underage nudity, and he would never look at it again. He kept that stance of never looking at the site again even after I pointed out that the actress in the poster/movie was 20 or 21 at the time of filming-- factually correct or not, he's sticking with his initial moral outrage based on his incorrect jumped-conclusion that the actress was underage.

It would not for an instant have crossed my mind that someone would be utterly morally outraged by one mild movie poster out of a dozen or more displayed on the front page of the site, and I would never have for a moment hesitated to send the link to anyone and everyone (other than the copyright issue-- but for movies mostly not even released in Zone 1, and many or most with fansubs-- so even that is a "geographical restrictions" gray ares) without even having a passing thought that someone would be offended by it.

So, I ask-- who finds this movie poster offensive? So offensive that you would refuse to ever again visit a site that displays it?

Trailer.

Review.

Review.

Review.

The actress at the 2009 Tokyo International Film Festival, showing almost as much skin as in the poster.

Moejoe · 07-11-2010, 03:16 PM

Nope, not offensive in the slightest. Whatever you do, don't send this person a link to any Louis Malle films, or you might find yourself being reported as a paedophile.

Now THIS I find immensely offensive, but that's just because it sucks (and not in the proper way vampires are supposed to).

BexBits · 07-11-2010, 03:22 PM

Not even a quiver of offended, much less outraged. I wouldn't blink an eye if my 14yo son wanted to put it on his wall.

Moejoe · 07-11-2010, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BexBits

Not even a quiver of offended, much less outraged. I wouldn't blink an eye if my 14yo son wanted to put it on his wall.

What if he wanted to put up the Twilight poster?

BexBits · 07-11-2010, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moejoe

What if he wanted to put up the Twilight poster?

Straight to counseling. I have my limits.

LCF · 07-11-2010, 05:30 PM

Nothing offensive in the poster. And the simple math tell us that a film released in 2009 with an actress born on 8.2.1988 must have had a very long shooting in order to violate law against protection of minors.

Joebill · 07-11-2010, 06:31 PM

I answered the poll, not offended. I don't want to look at it though. I have no problem with adult nudity.

When having a conversation with someone, I try not to jump to conclusions about what someone else meant. I ask them what they meant. I don't read things into what they said.

Some of my relatives have claimed we are related to the Pilgrims. So I do things that will hopefully get them spinning in their graves. It is what makes the world go around after all.

As for vampires. Not interested as there is just too much drek stories about vampires, and even if good, I am tired of the 'vampire bandwagon'. Movies and books need to have a multitude of subjects, not just 'the vampire thing'.

I remember seeing Bela as 'Count Dracula' when I was a kid. Scared me. Some vampire movies seem more like blood splatter war movies. I find those boring.

Joebill · 07-11-2010, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LCF

Nothing offensive in the poster. And the simple math tell us that a film released in 2009 with an actress born on 8.2.1988 must have had a very long shooting in order to violate law against protection of minors.

If all you knew was the poster, what then ? Same conclusion ?

LCF · 07-11-2010, 06:40 PM

Conclusions about? The age of the actress?

Joebill · 07-11-2010, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LCF

Conclusions about? The age of the actress?

If all you had to go on was the photo, and no knowledge about that person, what conclusion would you come to ?

carld · 07-11-2010, 06:54 PM

I get where the guy is coming from, her actual legal age is really irrelevant. The perception from looking at the poster is that she is young, possibly very young, and posed to look innocent and vulnerable. The fact that someone may need to look up her birth-date to verify that she is of legal age says a lot.

I'm not saying that his reaction is justified, but I definitely get what he's saying.

ardeegee · 07-11-2010, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joebill

If all you knew was the poster, what then ? Same conclusion ?

Ah, but that assumes that one has only the poster to judge by, and no other trace of evidence. Except, in this case, a click on the poster leads to a trailer for the movie, a synopsis of the movie, a listing of the director, actors, and release date-- even a clickable link to the profile and filmography of the actress in question. All needed information is right there in plain view, one to two clicks away if only one-- being concerned about there being something inappropriate-- made even the tiniest effort at confirming or denying one's suspicions before jumping to conclusions. That is known is "being informed."

For anyone wanting to see the site itself, take the color of a banana and the fancy-schmancy word for "movies" that rhymes with "enema" and stick them together and you have the domain name.

Joebill · 07-11-2010, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Ah, but that assumes that one has only the poster to judge by, and no other trace of evidence. Except, in this case, a click on the poster leads to a trailer for the movie, a synopsis of the movie, a listing of the director, actors, and release date-- even a clickable link to the profile and filmography of the actress in question. All needed information is right there in plain view, one to two clicks away if only one-- being concerned about there being inappropriate-- made even the tiniest effort at confirming or denying one's suspicions before jumping to conclusions.

For anyone wanting to see the site itself, take the color of a banana and the fancy-schmancy word for "movies" that rhymes with "enema" and stick them together and you have the domain name.

Why should anyone click on the poster ? There is no reason to do so.

I won't reply further.

LCF · 07-11-2010, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joebill

If all you had to go on was the photo, and no knowledge about that person, what conclusion would you come to ?

My conclusion would be, that so late at night I don't get the question you ask me.

To sum me up again: I find the poster OK, but I am Ok with a lot of things. Everyone has the right to fit the poster in a category between "Download link, gimme, gimme, gimme!" and "To hell with the website sending me young Asian girls!" for himself.

Joebill · 07-11-2010, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LCF

My conclusion would be, that so late at night I don't get the question you ask me.

To sum me up again: I find the poster OK, but I am Ok with a lot of things. Everyone has the right to fit the poster in a category between "Download link, gimme, gimme, gimme!" and "To hell with the website sending me young Asian girls!" for himself.

Understood.

View Poll Results: Are you morally offended by this movie poster?
Yes, I'm offended	2	3.08%
No, I'm not offended	60	92.31%
Be right back, I'm googling for a download link	3	4.62%
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll

07-11-2010, 03:07 PM	#1
ardeegee Maratus speciosus butt Posts: 3,292 Karma: 1162698 Join Date: Sep 2009 Device: PRS-350	Does this movie poster make you morally outraged? Alexander (moderator): The fellow members who have been involved in this discussion have been contacted and reminded of our guidelines. This thread serves no more purpose and will remain closed. Thank you! I have no desire to name any names, but over the past couple of days I've had a baffling and frustrating PM exchange with someone I thought I would be helping. I sent a link to Japanese area a site that aggregates links to direct downloads of Asian movies (never mind the legality and morality of that for a moment.) I got the never even dreamed of reply that the site had nudity (it didn't) and he would never look at it again. Okay, so I thought maybe he had mistaken it for a site with direct-to-video porn-- it wasn't-- I pointed out that these are mainstream major theatrical releases. The reply back-- that the site included underage nudity, and he would never look at it again. He kept that stance of never looking at the site again even after I pointed out that the actress in the poster/movie was 20 or 21 at the time of filming-- factually correct or not, he's sticking with his initial moral outrage based on his incorrect jumped-conclusion that the actress was underage. It would not for an instant have crossed my mind that someone would be utterly morally outraged by one mild movie poster out of a dozen or more displayed on the front page of the site, and I would never have for a moment hesitated to send the link to anyone and everyone (other than the copyright issue-- but for movies mostly not even released in Zone 1, and many or most with fansubs-- so even that is a "geographical restrictions" gray ares) without even having a passing thought that someone would be offended by it. So, I ask-- who finds this movie poster offensive? So offensive that you would refuse to ever again visit a site that displays it? Trailer. Review. Review. Review. The actress at the 2009 Tokyo International Film Festival, showing almost as much skin as in the poster. Last edited by Alexander Turcic; 07-15-2010 at 04:42 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Poster	Yoshi9143	Introduce Yourself	5	06-14-2010 07:33 AM
Poster Printing???	Dmc	Lounge	0	03-04-2004 06:19 PM

07-11-2010, 03:16 PM	#2
Moejoe Banned Posts: 5,100 Karma: 72193 Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: South of the Border Device: Coffin	Nope, not offensive in the slightest. Whatever you do, don't send this person a link to any Louis Malle films, or you might find yourself being reported as a paedophile. Now THIS I find immensely offensive, but that's just because it sucks (and not in the proper way vampires are supposed to).

07-11-2010, 03:22 PM	#3
BexBits Zealot Posts: 134 Karma: 184000 Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Colorado Device: Nook classic, Nook Simple Touch, Nook HD	Not even a quiver of offended, much less outraged. I wouldn't blink an eye if my 14yo son wanted to put it on his wall.

07-11-2010, 05:30 PM	#6
LCF Wizard Posts: 1,472 Karma: 9795311 Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Germany Device: Hanlin V3 (LBook), GS3	Nothing offensive in the poster. And the simple math tell us that a film released in 2009 with an actress born on 8.2.1988 must have had a very long shooting in order to violate law against protection of minors.

07-11-2010, 06:31 PM	#7
Joebill Fanatic Posts: 517 Karma: 459442 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Alpha Centauri's Library of Alexandria Device: Pandigital Novel	I answered the poll, not offended. I don't want to look at it though. I have no problem with adult nudity. When having a conversation with someone, I try not to jump to conclusions about what someone else meant. I ask them what they meant. I don't read things into what they said. Some of my relatives have claimed we are related to the Pilgrims. So I do things that will hopefully get them spinning in their graves. It is what makes the world go around after all. As for vampires. Not interested as there is just too much drek stories about vampires, and even if good, I am tired of the 'vampire bandwagon'. Movies and books need to have a multitude of subjects, not just 'the vampire thing'. I remember seeing Bela as 'Count Dracula' when I was a kid. Scared me. Some vampire movies seem more like blood splatter war movies. I find those boring.

07-11-2010, 06:40 PM	#9
LCF Wizard Posts: 1,472 Karma: 9795311 Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Germany Device: Hanlin V3 (LBook), GS3	Conclusions about? The age of the actress?

07-11-2010, 06:54 PM	#11
carld Wizard Posts: 2,698 Karma: 4748723 Join Date: Dec 2007 Device: Kindle Paperwhite	I get where the guy is coming from, her actual legal age is really irrelevant. The perception from looking at the poster is that she is young, possibly very young, and posed to look innocent and vulnerable. The fact that someone may need to look up her birth-date to verify that she is of legal age says a lot. I'm not saying that his reaction is justified, but I definitely get what he's saying.

Advert

Advert