Dude, don't take kids to this movie; it's rated 'R' for fuck's sake. There's nudity, sex, cursing and extreme violence with blood and gore. I'm assuming, since your bio shows you to be 27, that you don't have children old enough to be seeing that. My oldest is nearly 8, and I don't let either of my kids watch anything over TV-Y7. Hell, Coraline freaked her out a bit with the button eyes. No way would I let any kid of mine watch an 'R'-rated movie until I was sure the imagery or themes could be understood objectively.

 

You realize that your post is ten times more dramatic than whatever anyone else here has said on the subject.

No one cared nearly as much as your making out, but if a movie has a big blue glowing penis in it, people are going to mention it.

 

Or maybe he's seen the Watchmen discussion elsewhere, that from what I've seen is about three quarters blue cock, odd music, and the stupidest of comments from people that just plain don't get it.

Or he saw it at a theatre of dumbasses. There was like ten seconds of giggles when Manhattan first forsook pants where I saw it. And apparently Americans are a hell of a lot more expressive at the movies. What the hell is up with that, anyway?


Anyway, this reminds me of an anecdote I heard somewhere. Guy was sitting next to a random stranger in a crowded theatre, and she tutted and said "well I never" at the start at the ad on Comedian's TV with the couple in their underwear. Didn't take long for her to walk out. Don't people understand the concept of ratings any more?

 

Strangely enough, there was complete silence in theater I was in through out the movie. Even during the sex scenes and Dr. Manhattan's flopping penis, but that probably happened because I was the youngest in the theater.

 

Some of us have kids who like superhero movies. I asked because I can have them close their eyes or leave the room for the brief sex shit, but not if random dicks are popping up in every other shot genius.

And as a married hetro... I'm not comfortable seeing anyone's cock but my own, unless it's in a porn vid with a few REALLY hot chicks slobbing it, maybe YOU should turn in your straight dude card?

Thats what all the closet gays say, lol.

I don't coddle my children man. I have a 11, and a 8 year old. They understand movie violence just fine, that it's fake and in no way acceptable, and I have no problem letting them watch R rated shit, so long as it's not got sex or extreme shit in it, like the Saw garbage. Or if it does, I'll take the file, edit out the sex scene, and reburn the disc.

Shit they loved Taken. At the end, when Liam just shoots the bad guy holding a knife to his daughters throat, my youngest turned to me and hit pause. "Daddy... why the heck don't all the good guys do that to the bad guys when the bad one is holding a knife, and the good guy's got a gun? They always put the gun down and let themselves get hurt"

I asked him again, "You remember that it's fake right? It's just cheap, badly thought out entertainment when they always drop the guns"

He replied, "It's fake, but he's fake awesome."

Children are way smarter then most folks give them credit for, all coddling and restricting stuff that can't really cause damage does is keep them sheltered. Now that said, my kids proved to me they can handle violent movies. I still don't want them enjoying a movie and suddenly a blue cock is swinging around on the tv.

 

Very American double-standard. But I suppose you gotta stick with the culture around you or the shit hits the fan, I suppose. Whisper of you letting your kid see a tit in a movie and you'll be a suspected pedo in no time, flat. Remember the wardrobe malfunction at the Superbowl bullshit?

Suddenly, glowing blue penis:





The sex scene has T&A, clocks in at two minutes, features multiple positions and fairly blatant motions, and is set to the dulcet tones of Leonard Cohen singing 'Hallelujah'. So, yeah, if you're trying to prolong having to have The Talk, this ain't the movie to take the sprogs to.

 

How's that a double standard? They don't get to watch anything with nudity or sex in it. Not, "no movie 4 u, it's got cawks"

 

The violence being fine, but nudity isn't, is what I'm referring to.

 

That's not the American double standard, it's the American love of violence.

 

That's not a double standard. Pretend violence is a world different then wagging tits or dick, or pretend, graphic fucking.

 

Watchmen, as has been well established, is not a superhero movie, despite the unfortunate commercials that can be interpreted as placing it in that genre. It's a what-if look at human nature pushed to the limits, and I'm sorry to say that most 8 and 11 year olds won't get that. Apparently, many adults don't get that either.

The thing about movies that everyone needs to realize is... (and this is not directed solely at you, I've seen it a lot of places) If you've never heard of it and it looks like it's something you want to take your kids to, for the love of God, research it. Calling the cinemas to inquire about the movie is your friend. Looking it up on Wikipedia is your friend. The MPAA rating system is your friend.

Iron Man is rated PG-13. All 3 X-Men movies were rated either PG or PG-13. Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, The Incredible Hulk... all movies kids would go see: PG or PG-13.

Watchmen is rated R. Do you see the difference?

 

Having seen it twice now, it sure looks like a superhero movie. What with the, you know, superpowers.

God, what a load of bullshit. You sound like a philosophy or lit student.

 

It does have that. If that's the definition of a superhero story, then you're right, Taure. But it's a pretty wide definition, including many traditional horror stories (Freddie can do superhuman things and he never dies), Sixth Sense (I see dead people), fantasy (Gandalf and Aragorn were both super heroes) and most science fiction (technology gives people superior abilities).

I think Rhapsody Belle is trying to make a different point. There is a classic leitmotif in superhero stories: superhero fights a supervillain and saves the world/city/day. It's a tried-and-true, if fairly predictable story arc. Uplifting and visually stimulating, yet fairly shallow, it's much like the comics themselves. Watchmen (I'm guessing, having only read the comics and a few reviews--I haven't had time to see the movie) has multiple story arcs that are somewhat different and at times morally ambiguous. It's more of a story set in a world with superheroes than a superhero story, whatever that is.

 

... Was that supposed to be an insult?

 

I think that the idea that Tehan is getting at is that none of that is a problem in the rest of the world; that the extent to which nudity and such things are persecuted in the United States is greatly disparate to the extend which violence is, while the problems between the two are really much the same. One notable example would be The Tin Drum, which was given a rating of 15+ or 16+ around most of Europe, and what appears to be a rating of 12+ in France. On the other hand, the United States goes ballistic over a single, potentially questionable, sexual scene. The film was given an R rating from that, and was even censored in a county in Oklahoma. The scene involved was labeled as "child pornography", but given the atmosphere of the film and the circumstances of the setting, there should have been enough evidence for anyone, even children, to, as you said, suspend disbelief and tell the difference between artistic representation and reality. While this is slightly older, and the rating may be outdated, keep in mind that this is the same rating given to the offshoots of the Saw franchise, which have a much greater potential to traumatize but are not nearly as stigmatized because of the root of violence. The effects of the two are really much the same, but it's always seemed as if there was a certain prejudice against sexuality in the United States.

As a side note, when the UK reevaluated the film in 2003, it's position did not change, so it seems as if the example as a whole is sound. Quick sources, if you want to check my claims;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tin_Drum_(film)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078875/

I had no idea that literary pretension was suddenly desirable.

 

I agree that the way people go rabid over a single tit being on film, versus a graphic decapitation or torture scene is way out of whack. It's not a majority of Americans that feel that way though, it's the bible thumping vocal as shit, minority imho. I think most of us don't give a damned one way or another.

 

All an R rating means is that under-17s need a parent with them. It's a bit dramatic to call letting 15-16 year olds watch it reasonable, but restricting it to 17 and above "going ballistic".

One county in Oklahoma does not a persecution make.

 

The claim of ballistics may have been a bit of an exaggeration on my part, but when my German teacher was talking to the class about the film, she said that in Germany the film is generally considered about as dangerous to children as a Disney movie would be here. That was before I actually did the research for the facts, but it wouldn't be terribly surprising if that claim were true. And if it is, the respective considerations are fairly disparate regardless of whether the shift itself was so dramatic.

Also, there's the spirit behind them. I doubt that you would see excessive restrictions on PG-13 movies in the United States, and it seems like as far as Europe goes, that rating would be the equivalent. That it could be a family film, but with the slight warning of content. Rating a film R, which is the highest rating commonly used, suggests that there is a sufficient amount of extreme content which makes it unsuitable for anyone other than adults. For something like a short, completely unerotic sex scene. Not only that, but films with significant amounts of violence are generally considered acceptable. As a recent example, Taken is rated PG-13. So, in essence, according to the MPAA, it's safer to watch a movie with mass murder, torture, rape, and forced drug use than a movie with a slightly controversial sex scene. And about as safe to watch Saw, which I don't think needs any comment. I don't care either way, and I doubt that anyone really pays attention to those ratings, but the point is that there is a double standard here in regards to violence as opposed to sex.

And I would think that any realized form of censorship in a country where free speech is considered so paramount seems like it would be significant to me. And, as a side note, Canada banned it as well.

 

It sounds to me like your teacher was making generalizations about "provincial" Americans and their silly hangups about sex, compared to the much more "worldly" Europeans. That's why I'm not a big fan of anecdotal arguments, because they only take into account one narrow view of the issue, in this case, your teacher's personal opinion. I haven't seen the movie, but I did read the wiki article that you posted, and frankly it didn't sound much like a family movie to me, if only for the fact that I doubt children would be very interested in watching it. Comparing it to a Disney movie, which is designed and intended for children, doesn't make much sense.

We also have to keep in mind that we're talking about a movie that was rated 30 years ago. Even the Oklahoma thing was back in 1997. Frankly, the entire example is pretty poor. There's every chance in the world that a movie like Taken might've gotten a higher rating back in 1979.

Here's the thing about the ratings system. The board that does it has a general rule that says "When in doubt, just slap an "R" on it and let the parents decide", which frankly isn't all that crazy when you think about it. You do sometimes hear horror stories about all the things that a particular studio had to cut out of a movie to get the rating it wanted, and some of that may be true, but saying things like that is also a good way to help sell Director's Cut DVD's when the time comes.

Just a reminder, in case you hadn't noticed, that everyone in Hollywood is full of shit.

Now are you going to have the occasional nutbag, or group of nutbags, that throw a fit over whatever crosses their radar that they don't agree with? Sure, but in a nation of 300 million people, you can always find someone who disagrees with something and is willing to go to war over it. It doesn't really mean much.