[Streaming Services] You love them, you hate them, you have them all.

18586889091

Posts

  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    The defense is that those scenes are "supposed" to make you uncomfortable, which still means kids are being exploited to make a film. One way or another, it's sleazy shit and kids shouldn't be used that way.

    KoopahTroopahshorttiminTryCatchergrumblethorn
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    I think that's definitely a discussion worth having, fwiw. It just seems like the initial outrage machine spun up without any context.

    KetarSmrtnik
  • AphostileAphostile Registered User regular
    Coinage wrote: »
    I dislike the 'Cuties' thing more than Goop. Like Goop is bad yeah, 'Cuties' is gross and that it is sitting on a large platform is concerning.
    The movie is fine, the Netflix marketers ruined it (and, with Q, at the worst possible time).

    100%. I am still surprised that someone in marketing has not been fired publicly for it yet. Maybe they have silently, I don’t know the Hollywood folks.

    Tinychat is dead. Long live Tinychat. D3 BTag: Aphostile#1366 : Steam - ADD ME JERKS : | Xbox Live : LastAphostile | PS4 : Aphostile
  • furlionfurlion Riskbreaker Lea MondeRegistered User regular
    I don't understand how the movie is defendable personally. As a bit of softcore porn it succeeds but as a statement against the sexualization of children I think it falls flat. Everything about the way it is done is hamfisted. Plus I disagree with the basic idea that we need a movie showing how sexualizing children is bad. I thought pretty much all of humanity was on the same page about that. While the movie does make me feel extremely uncomfortable, it does so by going to such extreme lengths to sexualize children. It is a mixed signal when you say, hey don't make kids sexy by spending an making an entire movie trying to make them sexy.

    sig.gif Gamertag: KL Retribution
    PSN:Furlion
    grumblethorn
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    furlion wrote: »
    I don't understand how the movie is defendable personally. As a bit of softcore porn it succeeds but as a statement against the sexualization of children I think it falls flat. Everything about the way it is done is hamfisted. Plus I disagree with the basic idea that we need a movie showing how sexualizing children is bad. I thought pretty much all of humanity was on the same page about that. While the movie does make me feel extremely uncomfortable, it does so by going to such extreme lengths to sexualize children. It is a mixed signal when you say, hey don't make kids sexy by spending an making an entire movie trying to make them sexy.

    Yeah, you'd think that. And yet you can look around and see exactly what the filmmaker is talking about.

    AphostileIncenjucarevilmrhenrymcdermottObiFettHappylilElfkimeCarpyGnizmoShadowfireMoridin889KetarInquisitor77QuidGiantGeek2020N1tSt4lkerHefflingHerrCronMunkus Beaver
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Not a Fictional Character Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Aphostile wrote: »
    Coinage wrote: »
    I dislike the 'Cuties' thing more than Goop. Like Goop is bad yeah, 'Cuties' is gross and that it is sitting on a large platform is concerning.
    The movie is fine, the Netflix marketers ruined it (and, with Q, at the worst possible time).

    100%. I am still surprised that someone in marketing has not been fired publicly for it yet. Maybe they have silently, I don’t know the Hollywood folks.

    Buzz=subscriptions.

  • furlionfurlion Riskbreaker Lea MondeRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    I don't understand how the movie is defendable personally. As a bit of softcore porn it succeeds but as a statement against the sexualization of children I think it falls flat. Everything about the way it is done is hamfisted. Plus I disagree with the basic idea that we need a movie showing how sexualizing children is bad. I thought pretty much all of humanity was on the same page about that. While the movie does make me feel extremely uncomfortable, it does so by going to such extreme lengths to sexualize children. It is a mixed signal when you say, hey don't make kids sexy by spending an making an entire movie trying to make them sexy.

    Yeah, you'd think that. And yet you can look around and see exactly what the filmmaker is talking about.

    Not really can't say I can. Is there some massive worldwide push for lowering the age of consent or something I am unaware of? Other then the idiot map people I don't see tons of people pushing for kid fucking. I thought that the majority of us openly condemned those countries, religions, etc that advocate for child marriage and the like. Also how is showing the world just how sexy little kids can be going to discourage it? Seems like if anything some people are going to realize, hey children really can be sexy. Kind of like wolf of wall street, fight club, etc where people miss the message and become pro whatever the film is trying to condemn.

    sig.gif Gamertag: KL Retribution
    PSN:Furlion
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    furlion wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    I don't understand how the movie is defendable personally. As a bit of softcore porn it succeeds but as a statement against the sexualization of children I think it falls flat. Everything about the way it is done is hamfisted. Plus I disagree with the basic idea that we need a movie showing how sexualizing children is bad. I thought pretty much all of humanity was on the same page about that. While the movie does make me feel extremely uncomfortable, it does so by going to such extreme lengths to sexualize children. It is a mixed signal when you say, hey don't make kids sexy by spending an making an entire movie trying to make them sexy.

    Yeah, you'd think that. And yet you can look around and see exactly what the filmmaker is talking about.

    Not really can't say I can. Is there some massive worldwide push for lowering the age of consent or something I am unaware of? Other then the idiot map people I don't see tons of people pushing for kid fucking. I thought that the majority of us openly condemned those countries, religions, etc that advocate for child marriage and the like. Also how is showing the world just how sexy little kids can be going to discourage it? Seems like if anything some people are going to realize, hey children really can be sexy. Kind of like wolf of wall street, fight club, etc where people miss the message and become pro whatever the film is trying to condemn.

    But we still have child beauty pageants, and kids are still being marketed to as sexual objects via clothing, food, literally everything.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    IncenjucarBlackDragon480kimeshrykeMoridin889Inquisitor77Rhesus PositiveQuidKoopahTroopahN1tSt4lkerHefflingTofystedethMunkus Beaver
  • furlionfurlion Riskbreaker Lea MondeRegistered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    I don't understand how the movie is defendable personally. As a bit of softcore porn it succeeds but as a statement against the sexualization of children I think it falls flat. Everything about the way it is done is hamfisted. Plus I disagree with the basic idea that we need a movie showing how sexualizing children is bad. I thought pretty much all of humanity was on the same page about that. While the movie does make me feel extremely uncomfortable, it does so by going to such extreme lengths to sexualize children. It is a mixed signal when you say, hey don't make kids sexy by spending an making an entire movie trying to make them sexy.

    Yeah, you'd think that. And yet you can look around and see exactly what the filmmaker is talking about.

    Not really can't say I can. Is there some massive worldwide push for lowering the age of consent or something I am unaware of? Other then the idiot map people I don't see tons of people pushing for kid fucking. I thought that the majority of us openly condemned those countries, religions, etc that advocate for child marriage and the like. Also how is showing the world just how sexy little kids can be going to discourage it? Seems like if anything some people are going to realize, hey children really can be sexy. Kind of like wolf of wall street, fight club, etc where people miss the message and become pro whatever the film is trying to condemn.

    But we still have child beauty pageants, and kids are still being marketed to as sexual objects via clothing, food, literally everything.

    I guess I just miss it somehow. I have a ten year old son so maybe that is the difference. I have never seen a beauty pageant of any kind. The girls I see at my son's school and events are not dressed provocatively. I don't watch tv, don't see ads of any kind except for the occasional hulu ad when my family is watching something, don't have any social media, etc. Maybe when he gets older, middle school age for instance, I will start to see it. I am curious for an example of how we sexualize children with food though if you have an example handy.

    sig.gif Gamertag: KL Retribution
    PSN:Furlion
  • CoinageCoinage Heaviside LayerRegistered User regular
    People have been writing about how pubescent girls are seen as basically adults for a really long time. They're 10 in the movie to be shocking, as a way of making a point about all underage girls

    t1iylq0d7o1p.png
    HappylilElfGnizmoBlackDragon480shryketynichonovere
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    So....they wanted to make a movie "against" sexualizing children by....sexualizing children.

    Yeah, not buying it.

    Gross.

    grumblethorn
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    So....they wanted to make a movie "against" sexualizing children by....sexualizing children.

    Yeah, not buying it.

    Gross.

    I mean, reviewers have said that the film actually does a good job at not filming the actors in an exploitative fashion but sure why actually listen to people who have seen the film.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    IncenjucarStabbity StyleKetartynicSmrtnikLanlaornMojo_JojoRhesus PositiveHappylilElfTofystedethMoridin889Aphostile
  • KetarKetar Come on upstairs we're having a partyRegistered User regular
    edited September 14
    Drew McWeeny was frustrated enough about this sham of a controversy that he put out a free newsletter about it instead of his usual subscription only pieces. https://drewmcweeny.substack.com/p/the-cuties-controversy-is-a-dangerous

    "As with The Last Temptation of Christ controversy, much of the conversation that you’ll find on social media right now is from people who haven’t seen the film and who are discussing individual scenes or ideas that either don’t exist or that have been described in a way that removes context and that exaggerates for outrageous effect. There’s a significant difference here, though, and it’s the reason the conversation gets so heated so quickly right now. It’s one thing to rile people up using their religious beliefs as a weapon, but it is particularly loathsome to see a fake controversy that pivots on people’s natural fury about pedophilia. No one in the Cuties debate is pro-pedophilia, just as no one in the conversation about James Gunn’s firing from Disney was pro-pedophilia, and merely having to clarify that shows you what a dishonest moral argument they’re using here.

    Cuties, or Mignonnes as it was released in France, is a beautifully directed film that is smart and human and deeply moral. It is a film that tells a story from the perspective of an 11-year-old girl who is torn between cultures and between what is considered acceptable in the secular world and what are considered the values of her community. It is no more pornography than the books of Judy Blume were, and framing any conversation about the film as a conversation about pornography is pathetic and dishonest. You are welcome to any reaction you want to have about the content of the film, but I would wager that any parent who watches the film who is raising a child of any faith in America will recognize immediately how honest and real this movie is.

    Did Netflix fuck up with their marketing materials for the film? Absolutely. I think there were horrible decisions made and I do think they did the filmmaker a huge disservice in the process. Their poster for the film was a tone-deaf example of the exact thing the film is pushing back against, and if your only problems are with the way the film was sold, have at it. But marketing is not the movie, something we seem to have an increasing problem with understanding, and in this case, it’s important to draw that distinction."

    He gets into a more in-depth look at the film and the discourse from there.

    Ketar on
    SmrtnikAphostile
  • furlionfurlion Riskbreaker Lea MondeRegistered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    So....they wanted to make a movie "against" sexualizing children by....sexualizing children.

    Yeah, not buying it.

    Gross.

    I mean, reviewers have said that the film actually does a good job at not filming the actors in an exploitative fashion but sure why actually listen to people who have seen the film.

    Those reviews are wrong, flat out. Even if you don't want to watch the movie just look up clips on YouTube. They zoom in and focus on the girls asses while they dance, their chest, their hips, at one point they have a real nice close up of a girl in short shorts doing a standing split. Those scenes are shot exactly like an adult music video or even porn.

    sig.gif Gamertag: KL Retribution
    PSN:Furlion
    TryCatcherKoopahTroopahTexiKeneMoandergrumblethornshorttimin
  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    edited September 14
    Co-worker's kid is into dance, saw some clips of the competitions, my comment was "Wow, that's ... really sort of disturbing."

    Boys episode 4 was solid; still annoyed by the weekly nonsense.

    Nosf on
    Stabbity Style
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    Started watching Good Girls Revolt.

    Found out it only got one season.

    Now considering revolt.

    KoopahTroopahGiantGeek2020
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    Why was Netflix called Netflix when they started out as a disc-by-mail service? Shouldn't the company have been called Mailflix?

    kime
  • MegaMan001MegaMan001 CRNA Rochester, MNRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Why was Netflix called Netflix when they started out as a disc-by-mail service? Shouldn't the company have been called Mailflix?

    What's the deal with the black box? If it's the only part of the plane that survives the crash shouldn't the entire plane be built out of the black box?

    I am in the business of saving lives.
    kimeRhesus PositiveSmurphMoridin889Trajan45Atlas in ChainsDarkPrimusMunkus Beaver
  • CoinageCoinage Heaviside LayerRegistered User regular
    Because you requested the discs on the website with the incredible power of the internet

    t1iylq0d7o1p.png
    shrykeQuidRhesus PositiveN1tSt4lkerBlackDragon480TofystedethKanaRiusTrajan45HappylilElftynicMunkus Beaver
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Because every tech company created in the late 90s and early 00s was required by law to include "net" or "i-" or "e-" or something similar in its name.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    shrykeN1tSt4lkerTofystedethIncenjucarGiantGeek2020DoctorArchArdolMoridin889thatassemblyguySnicketysnickfurlionMunkus Beaver
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Why was Netflix called Netflix when they started out as a disc-by-mail service? Shouldn't the company have been called Mailflix?

    What's the deal with the black box? If it's the only part of the plane that survives the crash shouldn't the entire plane be built out of the black box?

    Why do you park on a driveway, but you drive on the parkway?

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    BlackDragon480GiantGeek2020Moridin889Aphostile
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Why was Netflix called Netflix when they started out as a disc-by-mail service? Shouldn't the company have been called Mailflix?

    What's the deal with the black box? If it's the only part of the plane that survives the crash shouldn't the entire plane be built out of the black box?

    Why do you park on a driveway, but you drive on the parkway?

    If firemen fire fight fires, what do freedom fighters fight?

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    Shadowfire
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Why was Netflix called Netflix when they started out as a disc-by-mail service? Shouldn't the company have been called Mailflix?

    it was originally a fishing company, kind of like how star craft was originally about boats.

  • eMoandereMoander Registered User regular
    On the subject of Cuties, my wife was watching it this weekend on our big screen. I walked past without knowing what the movie was, and it immediately made me so uncomfortable that I noped right out. My daughter was in the other room, and I immediately commented to her that I think her mother is watching child porn in the other room.

    Talking to my wife later, I learned what the movie was and it clicked in place. My wife also wanted to know why the movie kept referring to the parents as conservative, when she thought it was very liberal for the father to have multiple wives... my wife is weird sometimes.

    Xbox: Travesty 0214 3DS: 5000-2906-6782 Switch: 3304-2356-9421
  • SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    furlion wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    So....they wanted to make a movie "against" sexualizing children by....sexualizing children.

    Yeah, not buying it.

    Gross.

    I mean, reviewers have said that the film actually does a good job at not filming the actors in an exploitative fashion but sure why actually listen to people who have seen the film.

    Those reviews are wrong, flat out. Even if you don't want to watch the movie just look up clips on YouTube. They zoom in and focus on the girls asses while they dance, their chest, their hips, at one point they have a real nice close up of a girl in short shorts doing a standing split. Those scenes are shot exactly like an adult music video or even porn.

    Even if the message is intended to be that exploitation of children is bad, the people that are specifically seeking out content that exploits children are going to watch it and enjoy it and not give a shit about the message. And it's hard to believe that the creator and Netflix didn't also realize that.

    Putting that shit on film and putting it on a mainstream service allows creeps to come out of the shadows to defend it using the "It's art!" or "You're supposed to be uncomfortable!" or "It's meant to start a conversation!" arguments, and that's harmful.

    The marketing, the response, and the fact that it's still up there all seem designed to produce controversy.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Smurph wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    So....they wanted to make a movie "against" sexualizing children by....sexualizing children.

    Yeah, not buying it.

    Gross.

    I mean, reviewers have said that the film actually does a good job at not filming the actors in an exploitative fashion but sure why actually listen to people who have seen the film.

    Those reviews are wrong, flat out. Even if you don't want to watch the movie just look up clips on YouTube. They zoom in and focus on the girls asses while they dance, their chest, their hips, at one point they have a real nice close up of a girl in short shorts doing a standing split. Those scenes are shot exactly like an adult music video or even porn.

    Even if the message is intended to be that exploitation of children is bad, the people that are specifically seeking out content that exploits children are going to watch it and enjoy it and not give a shit about the message. And it's hard to believe that the creator and Netflix didn't also realize that.

    Putting that shit on film and putting it on a mainstream service allows creeps to come out of the shadows to defend it using the "It's art!" or "You're supposed to be uncomfortable!" or "It's meant to start a conversation!" arguments, and that's harmful.

    The marketing, the response, and the fact that it's still up there all seem designed to produce controversy.

    That's true of all sorts of things and in the end you can't let shitty people dictate the kind of things people want to talk about through art.

    KetarQuidAphostileTrajan45ShadowfireN1tSt4lkertynicInquisitor77Rhesus PositiveRingo
  • CoinageCoinage Heaviside LayerRegistered User regular
    eMoander wrote: »

    Talking to my wife later, I learned what the movie was and it clicked in place. My wife also wanted to know why the movie kept referring to the parents as conservative, when she thought it was very liberal for the father to have multiple wives... my wife is weird sometimes.
    A real life clickhole

    t1iylq0d7o1p.png
    Rhesus Positive
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Cuties does look disturbing to me, but that was because I saw the Netflix poster first, but you know what is weird? If I had seen the Netflix poster in connection with Reality TV, I would not have thought it strange. Like Dance Moms(that is a reality show right?) or America's Next Dance Crew name attached, it would have seemed completely normal US Reality Shit(the poster at least).

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
    shrykeHappylilElfRingo
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Smurph wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    So....they wanted to make a movie "against" sexualizing children by....sexualizing children.

    Yeah, not buying it.

    Gross.

    I mean, reviewers have said that the film actually does a good job at not filming the actors in an exploitative fashion but sure why actually listen to people who have seen the film.

    Those reviews are wrong, flat out. Even if you don't want to watch the movie just look up clips on YouTube. They zoom in and focus on the girls asses while they dance, their chest, their hips, at one point they have a real nice close up of a girl in short shorts doing a standing split. Those scenes are shot exactly like an adult music video or even porn.

    Even if the message is intended to be that exploitation of children is bad, the people that are specifically seeking out content that exploits children are going to watch it and enjoy it and not give a shit about the message. And it's hard to believe that the creator and Netflix didn't also realize that.

    Putting that shit on film and putting it on a mainstream service allows creeps to come out of the shadows to defend it using the "It's art!" or "You're supposed to be uncomfortable!" or "It's meant to start a conversation!" arguments, and that's harmful.

    The marketing, the response, and the fact that it's still up there all seem designed to produce controversy.

    That's true of all sorts of things and in the end you can't let shitty people dictate the kind of things people want to talk about through art.

    I can only hope I'm not a shitty person, but Cuties commits the crime it claims to excoriate. Exploiting children is always exploitation, it doesn't matter what wrapper or "artistic" claim the maker slaps on it. The intent is meaningless when the content is inexcusable. They knowingly took a bunch of minors, put them in revealing outfits, had them perform exploitive dance routines, then filmed those routines in an expressly leering manner. That's it. There's no "artistic" bent to this shit because, down the road, these kids are going to have to deal with the aftermath of being blatantly sexualized as children without having had an informed, mature understanding of the hazards. This is not morally defensible.

    It's repugnant that Netflix put it on their service, but not as repugnant as the fact that a studio released the film or that the director thinks what he made is okay simply because he claims it's to fight against the disgusting thing he put on film. If the director was incapable of making their point without actively exploiting minors, they should never have made the movie.

    There is no conflict in saying the supposed messages of the film are valid while also observing the film is a massive fuckup by perpetrating major ethical failings. A film about animal abuse would be rightly crucified if it committed flagrant animal abuse for filming and then tried to dress that up as "artistic" or having a deeper message. There are definite ethical limits to the "it's art!" defense and exploiting children is way over that line.

    KoopahTroopaheMoanderTryCatcherTexiKenSmurphshorttiminfurlion
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Smurph wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    So....they wanted to make a movie "against" sexualizing children by....sexualizing children.

    Yeah, not buying it.

    Gross.

    I mean, reviewers have said that the film actually does a good job at not filming the actors in an exploitative fashion but sure why actually listen to people who have seen the film.

    Those reviews are wrong, flat out. Even if you don't want to watch the movie just look up clips on YouTube. They zoom in and focus on the girls asses while they dance, their chest, their hips, at one point they have a real nice close up of a girl in short shorts doing a standing split. Those scenes are shot exactly like an adult music video or even porn.

    Even if the message is intended to be that exploitation of children is bad, the people that are specifically seeking out content that exploits children are going to watch it and enjoy it and not give a shit about the message. And it's hard to believe that the creator and Netflix didn't also realize that.

    Putting that shit on film and putting it on a mainstream service allows creeps to come out of the shadows to defend it using the "It's art!" or "You're supposed to be uncomfortable!" or "It's meant to start a conversation!" arguments, and that's harmful.

    The marketing, the response, and the fact that it's still up there all seem designed to produce controversy.

    That's true of all sorts of things and in the end you can't let shitty people dictate the kind of things people want to talk about through art.

    I can only hope I'm not a shitty person, but Cuties commits the crime it claims to excoriate. Exploiting children is always exploitation, it doesn't matter what wrapper or "artistic" claim the maker slaps on it. The intent is meaningless when the content is inexcusable. They knowingly took a bunch of minors, put them in revealing outfits, had them perform exploitive dance routines, then filmed those routines in an expressly leering manner. That's it. There's no "artistic" bent to this shit because, down the road, these kids are going to have to deal with the aftermath of being blatantly sexualized as children without having had an informed, mature understanding of the hazards. This is not morally defensible.

    It's repugnant that Netflix put it on their service, but not as repugnant as the fact that a studio released the film or that the director thinks what he made is okay simply because he claims it's to fight against the disgusting thing he put on film. If the director was incapable of making their point without actively exploiting minors, they should never have made the movie.

    There is no conflict in saying the supposed messages of the film are valid while also observing the film is a massive fuckup by perpetrating major ethical failings. A film about animal abuse would be rightly crucified if it committed flagrant animal abuse for filming and then tried to dress that up as "artistic" or having a deeper message. There are definite ethical limits to the "it's art!" defense and exploiting children is way over that line.

    "Actors are being forced to do act out the over-sexualization of pre-teens" is not even close to the main issue with the oversexualization of pre-teens. I'm not even sure it's even an issue considering they are actors and this is their job.

    SmrtnikMojo_Jojo
  • AphostileAphostile Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Smurph wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    So....they wanted to make a movie "against" sexualizing children by....sexualizing children.

    Yeah, not buying it.

    Gross.

    I mean, reviewers have said that the film actually does a good job at not filming the actors in an exploitative fashion but sure why actually listen to people who have seen the film.

    Those reviews are wrong, flat out. Even if you don't want to watch the movie just look up clips on YouTube. They zoom in and focus on the girls asses while they dance, their chest, their hips, at one point they have a real nice close up of a girl in short shorts doing a standing split. Those scenes are shot exactly like an adult music video or even porn.

    Even if the message is intended to be that exploitation of children is bad, the people that are specifically seeking out content that exploits children are going to watch it and enjoy it and not give a shit about the message. And it's hard to believe that the creator and Netflix didn't also realize that.

    Putting that shit on film and putting it on a mainstream service allows creeps to come out of the shadows to defend it using the "It's art!" or "You're supposed to be uncomfortable!" or "It's meant to start a conversation!" arguments, and that's harmful.

    The marketing, the response, and the fact that it's still up there all seem designed to produce controversy.

    That's true of all sorts of things and in the end you can't let shitty people dictate the kind of things people want to talk about through art.

    I can only hope I'm not a shitty person, but Cuties commits the crime it claims to excoriate. Exploiting children is always exploitation, it doesn't matter what wrapper or "artistic" claim the maker slaps on it. The intent is meaningless when the content is inexcusable. They knowingly took a bunch of minors, put them in revealing outfits, had them perform exploitive dance routines, then filmed those routines in an expressly leering manner. That's it. There's no "artistic" bent to this shit because, down the road, these kids are going to have to deal with the aftermath of being blatantly sexualized as children without having had an informed, mature understanding of the hazards. This is not morally defensible.

    It's repugnant that Netflix put it on their service, but not as repugnant as the fact that a studio released the film or that the director thinks what he made is okay simply because he claims it's to fight against the disgusting thing he put on film. If the director was incapable of making their point without actively exploiting minors, they should never have made the movie.

    There is no conflict in saying the supposed messages of the film are valid while also observing the film is a massive fuckup by perpetrating major ethical failings. A film about animal abuse would be rightly crucified if it committed flagrant animal abuse for filming and then tried to dress that up as "artistic" or having a deeper message. There are definite ethical limits to the "it's art!" defense and exploiting children is way over that line.

    I won't argue against your ethical claims, but just to correct one part.

    *She. Maïmouna Doucouré. A Senagalese-French woman who was also using her own experiences growing up in France to inform how she directed the film. She also interviewed hundreds of young girls to get their actual real accounts of what is going on amongst their generation and their experiences with modern society/hypersexualization.

    Tinychat is dead. Long live Tinychat. D3 BTag: Aphostile#1366 : Steam - ADD ME JERKS : | Xbox Live : LastAphostile | PS4 : Aphostile
    SmrtnikShadowfireTofystedethN1tSt4lkertynicRingo
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Not a Fictional Character Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    I do feel it would be more ideal to use older actors and then use techniques to de-age them.

  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Did any of you fuckers sit down and watch the fucking thing?

    The government's not going to fucking black bag you if you do, but if we're going to tear down a bunch of shit let's pretend that we actually know what we're talking about.

    "I saw some clips of this movie called (Cuties/Kids/Eraserhead) that director should be dragged to a government black site right away"

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    Stabbity StyleKetarkimeAphostileSmrtnikHerrCronSatanIsMyMotorInquisitor77mcdermottTrajan45Ringo
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited September 14
    While I'm aware that this will only encourage people to defend that film to "own the pubs", Senator Ted Cruz wrote a letter to the Justice Department about it:

    TryCatcher on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular


    It's performative nonsense.

    Tweeter is a survivor, victim advocate, and evangelical conservative who has worked for Republican legislators in the past.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    BlackDragon480IncenjucarAphostileasofyeunKetarshrykeSmrtnikArdolShadowfireGiantGeek2020Rhesus PositiveKoopahTroopahTrajan45Ringo
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    Frankly I'm pretty sure that's Ted Cruz pandering to Q morons.

    SmrtnikShadowfireN1tSt4lkerTomantaHerrCronKoopahTroopah
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    of course. also, it's about obama again, of course

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Fighting The Rising Odds Registered User, Moderator mod
    Watching The Duchess, Katherine Ryan's new show on Netflix. There are some solid laughs but she's not quite as good as, say, Sharon Horgan at drawing you in sympathetically. It's entirely possible Ryan doesn't want to do that, though.

  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    I could not have possibly known what episode 5 of Lovecraft Country would feature when I made Lasagne for dinner last night to be eaten as we watched the new episode.

    But I don't think my husband will ever forgive me for it.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    GiantGeek2020DoodmannFeloniousmozObiFettBlackDragon480kimeKoopahTroopahDracomicronHappylilElf
  • lwt1973lwt1973 King of Thieves SyndicationRegistered User regular
    CBS All Access will now be rebranded as:

    Paramount+

    Part of it was that they used that name overseas and part of it was all new streaming services must have + in them.

    "He's sulking in his tent like Achilles! It's the Iliad?...from Homer?! READ A BOOK!!" -Handy
Sign In or Register to comment.