Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Good Movies => Topic started by: The Burgomaster on August 26, 2013, 03:32:16 PM



Title: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: The Burgomaster on August 26, 2013, 03:32:16 PM


In my lifetime, I have seen a lower tolerance for nudity and a greater tolerance for graphic violence and gore and by the MPAA ratings board. 

In the 1970s and maybe even into the 1980s, it was more common to see female (and to a lesser degree, male) frontal nudity in R-rated movies.  In recent years, however, it seems like if there is more than, at most, a very brief shot of any frontal nudity, the movie gets an NC-17 rating.

On the other hand, DAWN OF THE DEAD, THE EVIL DEAD, and other graphically violent/gory movies were released unrated ("absolutely no one under 17 will be admitted") in the 70s and 80s to avoid getting X ratings.  Now, many, many R-rated horror movies are as gory, and in many cases, more gory than their unrated predecessors.

The movie THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED covers some of this ground. 

Why do you think the focus has shifted away from graphic violence and toward graphic nudity?  Is it because the gore is all just visual effects, and the nudity is "real"?  Have our morals changed?  Does anyone care?

   


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: Andrew on August 26, 2013, 05:32:49 PM
I am much more comfortable with nudity than violence. Comical stuff, like "Dead Alive" and "Story of Ricky" do not phase me, but realistic bloody violence is not something I enjoy.  I've seen enough of the real thing, and I am not excited or motivated by it.

Now, I must admit that I prefer female nudity to male.  There's something inherently fun about a woman running while naked. However, a naked running man causes me to suffer from a bad case of the flopping horrors.


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: Trevor on August 27, 2013, 04:20:46 AM
I am much more comfortable with nudity than violence. Comical stuff, like "Dead Alive" and "Story of Ricky" do not phase me, but realistic bloody violence is not something I enjoy.  I've seen enough of the real thing, and I am not excited or motivated by it.

Same here. I was never in service but I did live through a civil war with my Dad being in the army and later the police, so the real thing was part of my everyday life growing up: I'm sure that messed me up a little mentally. I don't enjoy violence in films unless it is the good guy / girl beating the #2 out of a bad guy.

Quote
There's something inherently fun about a woman running while naked. However, a naked running man causes me to suffer from a bad case of the flopping horrors.

 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: LOL!


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: tracy on August 27, 2013, 01:45:35 PM
I guess I'm an old fuddy-duddy.....but I'm so sick of everything having to be so graphic and loud and in-your-face. Crude and vulgar humor and so freakin' much awful language is also ruining movies.


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: alandhopewell on August 27, 2013, 02:06:18 PM
     My personal take is that (generally) neither one is necessary to the tellling of a good story, and (again, generally) oftimes distracts from the endeavour.

(http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Hayworth,%20Rita/Hayworth,%20Rita%20(Cover%20Girl)_01.jpg)

     She didn't need frontal nudity

(http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Karloff,%20Boris/Annex/Annex%20-%20Karloff,%20Boris%20(Frankenstein)_03.jpg)

     and he didn't need blood and gore to get their points across.


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: Bushma on August 27, 2013, 06:03:58 PM
     My personal take is that (generally) neither one is necessary to the tellling of a good story, and (again, generally) oftimes distracts from the endeavour.

I couldn't agree more!  I enjoy watching movies with my kids and its really hard to find some good bad movies which don't have nudity, thankfully there isn't too much realistic gore in them. If I knew how I'd love to get a movie and copy it to my PC so I could edit parts out. Like two headed shark attack, the two half naked girls making out is too much for me to allow the kids to watch.


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: BoyScoutKevin on August 28, 2013, 11:12:16 AM
That's fine, but what about me?

Somewhat simplistic, but a bit of truth to it.

American: bothered by too much nudity and/or sexuality, but not bothered by too much violence.
European: bothered by too much violence, but not bothered by too much nudity and/or sexuality.

I use to think like the American, but a violence has been ramped up, and I mean not the total violence, which seems to have declined, but the graphic nature of the violence, I am begining to think more like the European.

And I am glad that Andrew mentioned this. When we talk about the subject of nudity, I presume we are talking about female nudity, and not male nudity and/or underage nudity, whether of boy and/or girl. The former, of which, seems to be increasing, but the latter, of which, seems to be decreaing.


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: Umaril Has Returned on August 29, 2013, 10:38:05 AM
I am much more comfortable with nudity than violence. Comical stuff, like "Dead Alive" and "Story of Ricky" do not phase me, but realistic bloody violence is not something I enjoy.  I've seen enough of the real thing, and I am not excited or motivated by it.

Now, I must admit that I prefer female nudity to male.  There's something inherently fun about a woman running while naked. However, a naked running man causes me to suffer from a bad case of the flopping horrors.

My friend, I couldn't have said that better, because if you weren't interested in female nudity like every red-blooded male, we, your male brothers-in-arms be worried about you!  :bouncegiggle:

Violence?
My personal take is that if graphic violence is integral to the story, like "Dawn Of The Dead" or some other movie where it involves monsters or creatures, or a war story, OK then.

But, if it's just to highlight the slashing of someone's throat, or mutilating them beyond repair, or just about killing people for no reason other than to hghlight their suffering as they die NO.  I look back on some of the slasher films I'd seen as a kid and ask myself "what the hell was I thinking"?


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: Doggett on September 03, 2013, 09:58:56 AM
...a naked running man causes me to suffer from a bad case of the flopping horrors.

Perfect.
I knew there was a term for that, now I know.

flopping horrors.  :wink:

 :cheers:


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: pizdatrica on September 03, 2013, 11:23:08 AM
boys under 17 watch porn, so I don't see what the big deal is. And you can say I'm wrong and stuff but they do, yes, they are horny teenagers, we can't expect them to tell the truth about their age when entering a pornographic website  :bouncegiggle:

Actually I don't see the big deal with someone watching nudity or violence in a movie, people cannot be magically transformed into maniacs just by seeing a tit or some brains on the screen. But whatever, the fundamental evangelical conservative christian families seem to be experts in the subject, so who am I to say otherwise  :bouncegiggle:


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: Pacman000 on September 05, 2013, 08:35:15 AM
TV and movies are ways of communicating.  They can carry ideas like any other medium.  If ancient man could learn that tiger's are dangerous from Uncle Grog's hunting stories, then modern man can pick up something from movies/TV.  Thus, I would prefer for these mediums to carry positive messages.  Usually, graphic violence/nudity are not used to enhance a good message.  There are, however exceptions.  Schindler's List probably wouldn't have the same impact if the prisoners were allowed to keep their clothes, and the Green Mile would loose something if they didn't show what happened to people sent to the electric chair.

Having said that, I enjoyed The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, even though I'm not sure if it carried a good message.  And I like The Thing, simply because the FX were cool.  How did they do all that with puppets?


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: Hammock Rider on September 16, 2013, 02:08:59 AM
I was just thinking about this. A while ago I was watching Airplane with some friends and their kids and when the topless blonde bounces across the screen and jiggles alongside the Jello, some of the moms were scandalized. Some of the dads even acted scandalized. I guess they'd forgotten about that part. Amazing how much more common frontal female nudity was back then. Well, maybe not common, but it wasn't such a big deal. I'd like to see a return to that aesthetic. :lookingup:   I'd rather look at a nice set of boobs than a nice evisceration. Kids, and even adults can have nightmares long after they've seen violent acts on the screen. When was the last time anyone had a nightmare about Phoebe Cates popping topless out of a swimming pool?

Ah, it's too bad this country was founded by Puritans instead of hedonists. Imagine what America would look like if Hugh Hefner landed on Plymouth Rock instead of Miles Standish.



Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: alandhopewell on September 16, 2013, 03:23:48 PM
I was just thinking about this. A while ago I was watching Airplane with some friends and their kids and when the topless blonde bounces across the screen and jiggles alongside the Jello, some of the moms were scandalized. Some of the dads even acted scandalized. I guess they'd forgotten about that part. Amazing how much more common frontal female nudity was back then. Well, maybe not common, but it wasn't such a big deal. I'd like to see a return to that aesthetic. :lookingup:   I'd rather look at a nice set of boobs than a nice evisceration. Kids, and even adults can have nightmares long after they've seen violent acts on the screen. When was the last time anyone had a nightmare about Phoebe Cates popping topless out of a swimming pool?

Ah, it's too bad this country was founded by Puritans instead of hedonists. Imagine what America would look like if Hugh Hefner landed on Plymouth Rock instead of Miles Standish.



     Pretty much like what it'll look like during the reign of the AntiChrist.


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: alandhopewell on September 16, 2013, 03:29:40 PM
     Morality aside, what ever happened to decorum? There was a time when a gentleman wouldn't look at such things, because gentlemen simply didn't.

     Also, while I can understand that a male will do a Tex Avery merely because a female exposes a body part, I don't think a MAN does. If is one thing to appreciate God's creation, and totally another to act like a glandular twit.


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: indianasmith on September 16, 2013, 06:01:35 PM
In my experience, lust makes glandular twits of us all.


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: Jack on September 17, 2013, 07:51:10 AM
As far as the MPAA is concerned, I imagine that stuff is all determined by behind-the-scenes political shenanigans which I don't even care to contemplate.  I'm sure though that if you were to take a look at the children of these MPAA members who are supposedly experts on what children should and should not see, you'd probably find they have no right to feign any knowledge of the subject.


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: The Burgomaster on September 17, 2013, 02:41:52 PM
As far as the MPAA is concerned, I imagine that stuff is all determined by behind-the-scenes political shenanigans which I don't even care to contemplate.  I'm sure though that if you were to take a look at the children of these MPAA members who are supposedly experts on what children should and should not see, you'd probably find they have no right to feign any knowledge of the subject.


This movie goes down that road:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/?ref_=sr_1



Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: Zapranoth on September 23, 2013, 03:08:08 PM
    Morality aside, what ever happened to decorum? There was a time when a gentleman wouldn't look at such things, because gentlemen simply didn't.

     Also, while I can understand that a male will do a Tex Avery merely because a female exposes a body part, I don't think a MAN does. If is one thing to appreciate God's creation, and totally another to act like a glandular twit.

It was probably never so to begin with.   I mean, realistically, that sounds like a good ol' days argument (back when there was less child abuse, ya know, because it wasn't reported as often...)

I don't wanna derail, in this exceptionally amicable forum, into a big throwdown about legality and porn.  You can't legislate all kinds of good behavior.   But one sermon my lead pastor did a couple of years ago, in a series about marriage, featured a young woman who worked "in the industry" for many years.   It's a talk that is very worth listening to, because it's mostly what she has to say about what the industry is all about.   At one point, my pastor asked her how many of the girls she worked with had been abused in their past, or were being still abused.   The young woman said, with more credibility than I've ever heard anyone use, "all of them, I would say."

I'll find a link if anyone is curious to see that interview.

But there is absolutely no credible argument that porn is harmless.  It is not.  "The industry" is not harmless, and the people who put money into it, who patronize it, are not innocent of perpetuating the harm that this industry does.   Nor is porn harmless to the viewer.   Many are mislead into believing otherwise. 


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: zelmo73 on September 26, 2013, 05:09:19 PM
    Morality aside, what ever happened to decorum? There was a time when a gentleman wouldn't look at such things, because gentlemen simply didn't.

     Also, while I can understand that a male will do a Tex Avery merely because a female exposes a body part, I don't think a MAN does. If is one thing to appreciate God's creation, and totally another to act like a glandular twit.

It was probably never so to begin with.   I mean, realistically, that sounds like a good ol' days argument (back when there was less child abuse, ya know, because it wasn't reported as often...)

I don't wanna derail, in this exceptionally amicable forum, into a big throwdown about legality and porn.  You can't legislate all kinds of good behavior.   But one sermon my lead pastor did a couple of years ago, in a series about marriage, featured a young woman who worked "in the industry" for many years.   It's a talk that is very worth listening to, because it's mostly what she has to say about what the industry is all about.   At one point, my pastor asked her how many of the girls she worked with had been abused in their past, or were being still abused.   The young woman said, with more credibility than I've ever heard anyone use, "all of them, I would say."

I'll find a link if anyone is curious to see that interview.

But there is absolutely no credible argument that porn is harmless.  It is not.  "The industry" is not harmless, and the people who put money into it, who patronize it, are not innocent of perpetuating the harm that this industry does.   Nor is porn harmless to the viewer.   Many are mislead into believing otherwise. 

All industries are harmful to a certain degree. Can you name one industry that doesn't have its cons, disadvantages, fallbacks, etc.? The movie industry, in general, has never been kind to children, with few exceptions. Same with the music industry, that treats its child prodigies like cattle; yesterday's Hannah Montana will inevitably turns into today's twerking, tongue-lashing mess of a Miley Cyrus, or a fat Britney Spears who shaves her head for attention.

I could go into the airline industry and its related cutthroat real estate tactics of "expanding" airports via eminent domain, homeowners be damned. Or the Child Protection Services industry, where the state is in the business of breaking up families "for the sake of the child", never mind the tens of thousands of dollars that the state and cooperating foster families make off of each child that is "saved"; double the money if it involves a "special needs child". Or the Big Pharmaceutical industry, or Big Oil, or Big Tobacco...nah, you guys and gals get the point.

The point being, of course, that if there is money to be made and people to be exploited, then you have yourself a market; all you need is a few business-minded and like-minded folk to make an industry out of it, and there ya go! That being said, I do not sympathize with those men and women who take part in the porn industry, because they bring that upon themselves, and they know what they are getting themselves into. And personally, I don't care how messed up that Jenna Jameson's life might have been; I'm a paying customer, now show me them ta-tas!


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: El Misfit on September 26, 2013, 06:24:46 PM
Depends on the subtlety of the movie, if it is subtlety, then yes, as it brings atmosphere to it. If not, then Hell no.


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: Doc Daneeka on September 26, 2013, 06:55:46 PM
At the risk of sounding square, I can kind of understand why the US rating boards makes a bigger deal of sex than violence. Sex, while maybe not as readily imitable, is less clearly defined as "good" or "bad." It's got subtleties that many kids can't properly grasp as well as they can "the struggle between good and evil."

A kid who isn't too messed up is probably going to be able to be taught that violence for petty reasons is bad. With a raw-dog sex scene or something, if they're told not to do it, the "why not?" is gonna be a lot harder to explain. At least in most violent/sexy plots.


Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: Zapranoth on September 26, 2013, 10:22:53 PM
Zelmo,

Welcome to the site!

 I considered PMing you, but this is something that I have heard before and I want my response to be public.

So to start I'm a foster parent, have been for more than six years.   Two, I'm a family physician as the regulars here know.  I bring that up because -- not to brag -- but it's pretty obvious that I don't need $423 per month.  Yeah.  That's what we get for taking care of an infant, 24/7.  Taking him to his specialist appointments, visitations, etc.  Going to court dates sometimes.  Visiting with social workers.  Picking up and giving him his meds.   Getting up at 4:30 to feed him!  And if you have never taken care of a kid who is withdrawing from drugs, well, let me tell you, it's bonus special fun compared to just regular healthy baby work.

So let's get this straight:   $423 per month is beneath my consideration, to be completely blunt, for the work and time that is involved for it.  You could break it down to an hourly wage of, what, sixty two cents an hour?  (Do I split that to 31 cents per hour just for myself, since my wife and I each do some of the work?)     For that sum, I and my wife go through the very real work of taking care of a kiddo who has negligent parents at the very best (it takes a hell of a lot for the state, with the VERY LOW bar it sets for parenting, to take someone's kids away.  This I know firsthand.  The bar is set VERY LOW for parents to get their kids back, and that's after considerable due process to have them taken away in the first place.)  I'll leave the medical complications and such aside.  You can fill in the blanks.  But if you get curious, do some googling of "neonatal abstinence syndrome" and "opioid withdrawal in neonates," and have a look at what babies going through that are like.

I will not dismantle your statement here about the state making money off of the foster system but suffice it to say that you are equally off base there, unless you're closer to it all than I am and know something that I've missed.   

I bridle at the lumping of the porn industry in with everything else.  That's convenient, but the airline industry serves a constructive purpose.  Yeah, it has its problems, like anything humans touch.  But it wasn't created to exploit, to degrade, to enslave.   The porn industry was, and is, for those purposes.   The apologetics of this age cry that all is good and free, but if you actually should acquaint yourself with the stories of the players involved, you'd see the truth.  If one is honest with oneself as a man one also sees that pornography is enslaving to all of us who participate.  It's hard on the pride to admit that.  That's a big stumbling block, these days, pride.  Without God's own direct help, I'd still be a slave, too. 

It is easy not to sympathize with people involved in "the industry" if you do not know their stories firsthand.   If you learn their stories firsthand, it changes your view of what is unsympathetic.   It's easy, comfortable even, to criticize from afar.   Any dads out there, reading what I'm writing now?  Any dads who have little girls?  I have two.  Each of those actresses was someone's little girl, too, equally as deserving of dignity and love as my own two girls.  The playing field is not level, the field that those girls and mine are on.   






Title: Re: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?
Post by: zelmo73 on September 27, 2013, 01:57:44 PM
Zapronoth, thanks for welcoming me to the forums! We apparently will have to disagree on our viewpoints regarding industries, their base ulterior motives in capitalism, and the pros and cons of each. As a god-fearing person, I understand that it is likely in your inherent nature to only see the good in all things and people, which is why I am a bit puzzled at your condemnation of the porn industry as a whole.

The porn industry has its good aspects, aside from us as the consumer getting to watch beautiful or otherwise women get treated in whatever way that our fantasies require of them. It provides work for people starting out in the movie industry, whether that be a cameraman, audio/video specialist, Internet technician, etc. It provides work for the struggling actress who needs to make money in the business somehow. It provides the actor with a happy ending, because I'm certain that some of them do it for free. So setting your own moral prejudices aside for a moment, you can certainly then see that the porn industry in a lot of ways is just as "constructive" as the airline industry, in that both provide a service to the public. Both industries step on a lot of toes in order to get that service to the public, but that's a part of doing business in any industry, isn't it? Welcome to capitalism!

And while I'm sure that you went into the foster care industry with good intentions, you know what that road to hell is paved with, don't you? I'm sure that any religious man would know about that. In the case of foster care, for every negligent parent out there who doesn't give a rat's ass about their kid, there is another bad parent that does. Should all bad parents lose their kids just because they are bad parents? Who are we to judge, really? Listen to Jesus, Zapronoth, for He said "Judge not, lest thyself be judged as well", or something to that effect. I've seen many bad parents who should have lost their kids, but didn't. And others who didn't seem so bad lose theirs for whatever reason. That bar is not set low; in fact, anyone who had a beef with you could call CPS and report you for being a bad parent, even if you are not, just because you p**sed them off for whatever reason.

Maybe your case is different, but I've seen what I like to call "serial foster parents" who are into taking in all kinds of kids on a regular basis because while $423 a month (figurative monetary figure here) might not seem like much, multiply that times six kids and you end up with a pretty sizable figure by the end of the year.

Nice to meet you, sir! Until next time. :)