I can't wait until she is 16 and sues her parents because they whore her out in whatever makes them money. Dakota that is.
Yes, except she wouldn't be acting if she didn't want to do it.
...She's 12...
Macaulay Culkin acted too. Didn;t he divorce his parents?
Yeah, something like that. I suspect it had more to do with the drugs and hanging out with Micheal Jackson than his actual acting career, though.
I mean, you're basically arguing against all child actors. While it can be very stressful for kids, if anyone has the temperament for it, I think she does. Have you ever seen her on interviews?
I hear she's a great actor, and from what I could stomach of War of the Worlds on TV, she was, for the part she was given. I just can't stand roles that are basically "Scream here". The fact that she did it well impresses me.
I can't wait until she is 16 and sues her parents because they whore her out in whatever makes them money. Dakota that is.
Yes, except she wouldn't be acting if she didn't want to do it.
...She's 12...
Macaulay Culkin acted too. Didn;t he divorce his parents?
Yeah, something like that. I suspect it had more to do with the drugs and hanging out with Micheal Jackson than his actual acting career, though.
I mean, you're basically arguing against all child actors. While it can be very stressful for kids, if anyone has the temperament for it, I think she does. Have you ever seen her on interviews?
I hear she's a great actor, and from what I could stomach of War of the Worlds on TV, she was, for the part she was given. I just can't stand roles that are basically "Scream here". The fact that she did it well impresses me.
I can't fucking stand her. I had to watch that movie in small chunks because too much of her made me want to reach into my TV and throttle the little bitch. Every roll I have seen her in she is some snobby know it all precociousjerk that I just ccan't stand. I am raising one of those I don't wnat it in my movies!
I can't fucking stand her. I had to watch that movie in small chunks because too much of her made me want to reach into my TV and throttle the little bitch. Every roll I have seen her in she is some snobby know it all precociousjerk that I just ccan't stand. I am raising one of those I don't wnat it in my movies!
It's probably just the roles she's given to play, which isn't really her fault. I think she could well go on to be a phenomenal, Oscar-caliber actress once she's old enough to not keep landing the Generic Precocious Kid roles.
Then again, I thought the same of Kirsten Dunst after seeing her in Interview With a Vampire, and she isn't exactly setting the celluloid on fire.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
But if I'm reading correctly, your "potential sticking point" about the movie was the possible psychological effects on the actress playing the rape scene (Dakota Fanning).
All I'm saying is that it's too late to prevent any psychological effects it may have had. So it's kind of a moot point in the context of watching the movie.
First of all, so what if it's already been done? It's not possible to discuss the ethics of something that's already happened?
Second, I fail to see why it's irrelevant to discuss the general case of having young children portray extremely adult-oriented events in films. Because you know, someday, in the billions of years between now and when the universe ends, someone might try to make another movie in which a child engages in sensitive and contraversial sexual material. And if that ever does happen, my comments will apply.
Why is it that we appear to be talking about entirely different things?
Why is it that we appear to be talking about entirely different things?
I really have no idea. All I was trying to say is that when you stick kids in certain adult-oriented roles dealing with certain potentially objectionable material, you should make sure you're not fucking up anyone in the process, and that in the case of Dakota Fanning, it looks like they did exactly that (made sure they weren't harming anyone, that is).
If you're objecting to some imagined alternate interpretation of my posts, it would make a lot more sense.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Anyone who actually bothers to look into what the films about (it's certainly not GLORIFYING child molestation) and how it was shot should have no objections about it.
Of course, people never actually research anything before calling for a banning of it.
I can't fucking stand her. I had to watch that movie in small chunks because too much of her made me want to reach into my TV and throttle the little bitch. Every roll I have seen her in she is some snobby know it all precociousjerk that I just ccan't stand. I am raising one of those I don't wnat it in my movies!
It's probably just the roles she's given to play, which isn't really her fault. I think she could well go on to be a phenomenal, Oscar-caliber actress once she's old enough to not keep landing the Generic Precocious Kid roles.
Then again, I thought the same of Kirsten Dunst after seeing her in Interview With a Vampire, and she isn't exactly setting the celluloid on fire.
Kirsten Dunst was fantastic in Interview with a Vampire! She (in that movie) was possibly one of the few decent child actors ever to play a role.
Dakota Fanning is the most annoying person ever to have existed. Well, her and Hayley Joel Osmond, the fact that either of them even exist fills me with a rage and disgust so palpable that I would honestly consider destroying the entire planet just to be sure of erasing all copies of movies they have been in.
Well, perhaps I exagerate, but those two are a disgrace to children everywhere. If ever there was an argument for not having children, its them.
God, imagine if they grow up and get married? If they had a child, and it was a child actor the sheer level of irritating smarmy whiney blandness might well kill us all.
I read the script. The scene is pretty hardcore. She dances and strips and they show her underwear hitting the floor and she laughs and moans and dances naked for a while (though no nudity is shown). Then he has his way with her while he yells at her for being a ______-lover while another boy watches and laughs and there is blood and close-ups and the naughty bits are hidden by darkness with occasional lightning flashes and stuff.
That doesn't really change anything, but I can see how some people seeing it might go, "Naw."
I read the script. The scene is pretty hardcore. She dances and strips and they show her underwear hitting the floor and she laughs and moans and dances naked for a while (though no nudity is shown). Then he has his way with her while he yells at her for being a ______-lover while another boy watches and laughs and there is blood and close-ups and the naughty bits are hidden by darkness with occasional lightning flashes and stuff.
That doesn't really change anything, but I can see how some people seeing it might go, "Naw."
That sounds a lot like what happened to a good friend of mine at 12.
That sounds a lot like what happened to a good friend of mine at 12.
I hope that your friend has coping mechanisms in place.
She never told her parents or authorities, and blocked most of it out until she was 15 or 16. She has serious trust issues with men, but lucky for her, is bisexual, and has been able to avoid having relationships with men (although I often suspect the two are linked somewhat, since her "discovery" was several years after the rape)
I do think she's gone to therapy once or twice, but she never stuck with it.
even though I don't remember if they actually depict any of it. The shit that happened to the titular daughter (adult) probably makes anything done to Dakota Fanning's character look tame.
where was the public outrage then?
rape is rape, its horrible in any case.....saying that child rape is a more serious crime implies that regular adult rape is less serious and thus more tolerable, which is a completely fucked up statement.
When will these groups just simply shut up and not go see the movie instead of bitching about it, which ultimately encourages more people to see it. Their outrage ends up having the opposite intended effect.
even though I don't remember if they actually depict any of it. The shit that happened to the titular daughter (adult) probably makes anything done to Dakota Fanning's character look tame.
where was the public outrage then?
rape is rape, its horrible in any case.....saying that child rape is a more serious crime implies that regular adult rape is less serious and thus more tolerable, which is a completely fucked up statement.
When will these groups just simply shut up and not go see the movie instead of bitching about it, which ultimately encourages more people to see it. Their outrage ends up having the opposite intended effect.
You've missed the point. The problem (whether or not you agree) is whether a young (pre-teen) actress would be mentally/emotionally harmed by filming the movie...not the idea of rape itself (at any age). Nobody cared about The General's Daughter, and it is not relevant to this discussion, because it involved an adult actress.
Man...this is why I´ll never leave here... here its sex = great, Bloody murder = so so
The brazilian beaches are mostly topless, and tits appear on tv.
And back to the OP, amen, Fanning, jesus, she´s 12, its not like she hasnt seen worse on tv and films. I´d be more worried about that kid from the 6th sense.
rape is rape, its horrible in any case.....saying that child rape is a more serious crime implies that regular adult rape is less serious and thus more tolerable, which is a completely fucked up statement.
O_o
Child rape is a more heinous crime than regular rape. Child abuse is a more heinous crime than punching some random adult. Child murder is worse than regular murder. And so on.
This is because children are less able to defend themselves, and taking advantage of this comparative helplessness adds an extra layer of horror to the crime. Doing fucked up shit to people who can't defend themselves > doing fucked up shit to people who can. Deal.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
rape is rape, its horrible in any case.....saying that child rape is a more serious crime implies that regular adult rape is less serious and thus more tolerable, which is a completely fucked up statement.
O_o
Child rape is a more heinous crime than regular rape. Child abuse is a more heinous crime than punching some random adult. Child murder is worse than regular murder. And so on.
This is because children are less able to defend themselves, and taking advantage of this comparative helplessness adds an extra layer of horror to the crime. Doing fucked up shit to people who can't defend themselves > doing fucked up shit to people who can. Deal.
True. Its like comparing beating up some dude to death, and beating up an old lady. Not that beating up the dude is any less f---ed, but the old lady pretty much is defenseless and unable to do anything, adds to the horror of the crime.
rape is rape, its horrible in any case.....saying that child rape is a more serious crime implies that regular adult rape is less serious and thus more tolerable, which is a completely fucked up statement.
O_o
Child rape is a more heinous crime than regular rape. Child abuse is a more heinous crime than punching some random adult. Child murder is worse than regular murder. And so on.
This is because children are less able to defend themselves, and taking advantage of this comparative helplessness adds an extra layer of horror to the crime. Doing fucked up shit to people who can't defend themselves > doing fucked up shit to people who can. Deal.
So wouldn't the lines of how heinous a crime is be drawn in terms of the victim's ability to defend herself?
Is a woman who has her house broken into, tied up at gunpoint, and then raped while she's unable to even move somehow less despicable than a child being raped?
So wouldn't the lines of how heinous a crime is be drawn in terms of the victim's ability to defend herself?
Perhaps, if you weren't talking in the abstract or using generalities which is exactly what they're doing.
Exactly what who is doing?
Personally, I don't think there's a point in saying rape Y is worse than rape X or whatever. It's every bit as esoteric as deciding which comic book hero would win in a brawl, but with none of the fun.
Personally, I don't think there's a point in saying rape Y is worse than rape X or whatever. It's every bit as esoteric as deciding which comic book hero would win in a brawl, but with none of the fun.
Perhaps. I mean yeah, to an extent, rape is rape. Anyone who rapes another person is a contemptible human being and deserves to punished. End of story.
But in the abstract, it makes sense to talk about the relative awfulness of crimes. We don't just say that lying is wrong and stealing are wrong and murder are wrong and therefore they're all equally wrong and fuck anyone who tries to place them on the Evil Spectrum. Examining why certain things are wrong, and what might make them more wrong than others, is healthy for better understanding the nature of our moral code. Rape is wrong, sure. But why is it wrong? It's a valid avenue of discussion.
Pragmatically speaking, it's also useful as a means of deriving our criminal code. We don't just say that murder, rape, and assault are all really mean things to do, and so everyone accused of one of these crimes gets 20 years. We ascribe to them different punishments based on how awful they are. Further, we examine extenuating circumstances. If someone kills in the heat of passion, they get a lighter sentence than if the plot it out. Why? The person is just as dead either way, right? True, but we find the horror of the rational planning of such a deed to be more awful than something that happens without thought, and so the premeditative guy gets a longer sentence, or death.
In the case of children, we, as a society, have generally decided that they're worthy of extra protection. Partly because we want an extra disincentive for people to hurt those who stand no chance of fighting back, partly because a crime against a minor can be more traumatizing than one against an adult, and largely just because we sit there and try to imagine the state of mind of someone who would harm a 6 year old girl and we reel in shock and disgust.
So no, I don't think that trying to determine which crimes are the most horrific is as esoteric as determining whether Spiderman could fuck the Hulk's shit up*, until we get to a point where such a debate is the basis of either written laws or moral dicta.
*Dude, he totally could.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
And back to the OP, amen, Fanning, jesus, she´s 12, its not like she hasnt seen worse on tv and films. I´d be more worried about that kid from the 6th sense.
You know, I've been hearing people bitch about this, and no one ever seems to bring up the fact that Jodie Foster was fourteen in Taxi Driver. Now, I don't remember her doing anything sexually explicit (or even suggestive, really) in that movie, and it's been about six years so I saw it so I could be wrong, but seriously: who fucking cares? It's not like this is anything new. Moreover, it's a movie. She's doing her job. Shut up.
I read the script. The scene is pretty hardcore. She dances and strips and they show her underwear hitting the floor and she laughs and moans and dances naked for a while (though no nudity is shown). Then he has his way with her while he yells at her for being a ______-lover while another boy watches and laughs and there is blood and close-ups and the naughty bits are hidden by darkness with occasional lightning flashes and stuff.
That doesn't really change anything, but I can see how some people seeing it might go, "Naw."
Interesting. Having already disagreed with the fundies, I came back to this thread to play devil's advocate a bit just to argue that it's not completely out of line just to be offended by a rape scene in a movie no matter the context, or take measures to complain about it (short of banning the movie). I could imagine some bad memories being brought back for some, and some titilation for others, all of which most people could do without.
And just because a movie presents something like that in a negative light doesn't necessarily earn it a free pass from justifiable criticism. I mean, people will still interpret the scene how they will, regardless of the film's intent, as they are often wont to do.
TroubledTom on
Wii friend code: 8704 3489 1049 8917
Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
I could imagine some bad memories being brought back for some, and some titilation for others, all of which most people could do without.
Which people can still avoid by choosing not to see the movie. It's not as if it is being forced on those to watch it, and the publicity that its currently garnering about the scene itself puts enough information out there for those unsure whether its safe (in respect to not wanting to view such situations on screen) or not to view.
I could imagine some bad memories being brought back for some, and some titilation for others, all of which most people could do without.
Which people can still avoid by choosing not to see the movie. It's not as if it is being forced on those to watch it, and the publicity that its currently garnering about the scene itself puts enough information out there for those unsure whether its safe (in respect to not wanting to view such situations on screen) or not to view.
Exactly. In knowing this scene is present and being proactive about not watching things which will horrify me (re: fuck with my head in disgusting ways for days after) I will elect not to see this film.
Amazing! I chose to not view something I didn't like! Who'da thunk it!?
And back to the OP, amen, Fanning, jesus, she´s 12, its not like she hasnt seen worse on tv and films. I´d be more worried about that kid from the 6th sense.
Exactly. In knowing this scene is present and being proactive about not watching things which will horrify me (re: fuck with my head in disgusting ways for days after) I will elect not to see this film.
Amazing! I chose to not view something I didn't like! Who'da thunk it!?
Which again misses the point that it is the possible mental/emotional harm to the child actor, not the offensiveness of the content, that some people take issue with. Like, that she shouldn't have been involved in the filming at all.
Not that I agree...I think in this case such concern is misplaced. But I can understand where they're coming from.
In the case of children, we, as a society, have generally decided that they're worthy of extra protection. Partly because we want an extra disincentive for people to hurt those who stand no chance of fighting back, partly because a crime against a minor can be more traumatizing than one against an adult, and largely just because we sit there and try to imagine the state of mind of someone who would harm a 6 year old girl and we reel in shock and disgust.
Child rape specifically can also be viewed as being worse in terms of the theoretical (which is to say hard to quantify...it's very real) "damage" caused. Happens younger = more years of suffering (because generally the suffering never ends). Additionally, it means that that person now has very little chance of experiencing/enjoying a normal, healthy sexual relationship...something that an adult rape victim may at least have had.
Just felt the "more traumatizing" part needed a little more explaining, as I don't think some people really get it. Not that arguing why one crime is merely heinous and the other more heinous is really useful.
And back to the OP, amen, Fanning, jesus, she´s 12, its not like she hasnt seen worse on tv and films. I´d be more worried about that kid from the 6th sense.
He's 18.
When he made the film?
Ah, I interpreted your comments to be saying that it would be worse to see Osment get raped in an upcoming film. Essentially, I misunderstood your meaning perfectly. :P
Posts
I hear she's a great actor, and from what I could stomach of War of the Worlds on TV, she was, for the part she was given. I just can't stand roles that are basically "Scream here". The fact that she did it well impresses me.
I can't fucking stand her. I had to watch that movie in small chunks because too much of her made me want to reach into my TV and throttle the little bitch. Every roll I have seen her in she is some snobby know it all precociousjerk that I just ccan't stand. I am raising one of those I don't wnat it in my movies!
It's probably just the roles she's given to play, which isn't really her fault. I think she could well go on to be a phenomenal, Oscar-caliber actress once she's old enough to not keep landing the Generic Precocious Kid roles.
Then again, I thought the same of Kirsten Dunst after seeing her in Interview With a Vampire, and she isn't exactly setting the celluloid on fire.
Then come back and comment on her acting ability.
Girl can act.
I really have no idea. All I was trying to say is that when you stick kids in certain adult-oriented roles dealing with certain potentially objectionable material, you should make sure you're not fucking up anyone in the process, and that in the case of Dakota Fanning, it looks like they did exactly that (made sure they weren't harming anyone, that is).
If you're objecting to some imagined alternate interpretation of my posts, it would make a lot more sense.
Of course, people never actually research anything before calling for a banning of it.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Kirsten Dunst was fantastic in Interview with a Vampire! She (in that movie) was possibly one of the few decent child actors ever to play a role.
Dakota Fanning is the most annoying person ever to have existed. Well, her and Hayley Joel Osmond, the fact that either of them even exist fills me with a rage and disgust so palpable that I would honestly consider destroying the entire planet just to be sure of erasing all copies of movies they have been in.
Well, perhaps I exagerate, but those two are a disgrace to children everywhere. If ever there was an argument for not having children, its them.
God, imagine if they grow up and get married? If they had a child, and it was a child actor the sheer level of irritating smarmy whiney blandness might well kill us all.
How much more would you pay to do the actual raping?
And does it count as peadophilia if you do it because you hate her rather than because you fancy litte girls?
That doesn't really change anything, but I can see how some people seeing it might go, "Naw."
That sounds a lot like what happened to a good friend of mine at 12.
I hope that your friend has coping mechanisms in place.
She never told her parents or authorities, and blocked most of it out until she was 15 or 16. She has serious trust issues with men, but lucky for her, is bisexual, and has been able to avoid having relationships with men (although I often suspect the two are linked somewhat, since her "discovery" was several years after the rape)
I do think she's gone to therapy once or twice, but she never stuck with it.
even though I don't remember if they actually depict any of it. The shit that happened to the titular daughter (adult) probably makes anything done to Dakota Fanning's character look tame.
where was the public outrage then?
rape is rape, its horrible in any case.....saying that child rape is a more serious crime implies that regular adult rape is less serious and thus more tolerable, which is a completely fucked up statement.
When will these groups just simply shut up and not go see the movie instead of bitching about it, which ultimately encourages more people to see it. Their outrage ends up having the opposite intended effect.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
You've missed the point. The problem (whether or not you agree) is whether a young (pre-teen) actress would be mentally/emotionally harmed by filming the movie...not the idea of rape itself (at any age). Nobody cared about The General's Daughter, and it is not relevant to this discussion, because it involved an adult actress.
Man...this is why I´ll never leave here... here its sex = great, Bloody murder = so so
The brazilian beaches are mostly topless, and tits appear on tv.
And back to the OP, amen, Fanning, jesus, she´s 12, its not like she hasnt seen worse on tv and films. I´d be more worried about that kid from the 6th sense.
My digital art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=8168
My pen and paper art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=7462
O_o
Child rape is a more heinous crime than regular rape. Child abuse is a more heinous crime than punching some random adult. Child murder is worse than regular murder. And so on.
This is because children are less able to defend themselves, and taking advantage of this comparative helplessness adds an extra layer of horror to the crime. Doing fucked up shit to people who can't defend themselves > doing fucked up shit to people who can. Deal.
True. Its like comparing beating up some dude to death, and beating up an old lady. Not that beating up the dude is any less f---ed, but the old lady pretty much is defenseless and unable to do anything, adds to the horror of the crime.
My digital art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=8168
My pen and paper art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=7462
Is a woman who has her house broken into, tied up at gunpoint, and then raped while she's unable to even move somehow less despicable than a child being raped?
Perhaps, if you weren't talking in the abstract or using generalities which is exactly what they're doing.
Personally, I don't think there's a point in saying rape Y is worse than rape X or whatever. It's every bit as esoteric as deciding which comic book hero would win in a brawl, but with none of the fun.
ElJeffe. You literally quoted him.
That's pedophobia.
Fear the children!
JCM was supporting it as well, although I suppose he was being a touch more concrete in his examples.
Perhaps. I mean yeah, to an extent, rape is rape. Anyone who rapes another person is a contemptible human being and deserves to punished. End of story.
But in the abstract, it makes sense to talk about the relative awfulness of crimes. We don't just say that lying is wrong and stealing are wrong and murder are wrong and therefore they're all equally wrong and fuck anyone who tries to place them on the Evil Spectrum. Examining why certain things are wrong, and what might make them more wrong than others, is healthy for better understanding the nature of our moral code. Rape is wrong, sure. But why is it wrong? It's a valid avenue of discussion.
Pragmatically speaking, it's also useful as a means of deriving our criminal code. We don't just say that murder, rape, and assault are all really mean things to do, and so everyone accused of one of these crimes gets 20 years. We ascribe to them different punishments based on how awful they are. Further, we examine extenuating circumstances. If someone kills in the heat of passion, they get a lighter sentence than if the plot it out. Why? The person is just as dead either way, right? True, but we find the horror of the rational planning of such a deed to be more awful than something that happens without thought, and so the premeditative guy gets a longer sentence, or death.
In the case of children, we, as a society, have generally decided that they're worthy of extra protection. Partly because we want an extra disincentive for people to hurt those who stand no chance of fighting back, partly because a crime against a minor can be more traumatizing than one against an adult, and largely just because we sit there and try to imagine the state of mind of someone who would harm a 6 year old girl and we reel in shock and disgust.
So no, I don't think that trying to determine which crimes are the most horrific is as esoteric as determining whether Spiderman could fuck the Hulk's shit up*, until we get to a point where such a debate is the basis of either written laws or moral dicta.
*Dude, he totally could.
Interesting. Having already disagreed with the fundies, I came back to this thread to play devil's advocate a bit just to argue that it's not completely out of line just to be offended by a rape scene in a movie no matter the context, or take measures to complain about it (short of banning the movie). I could imagine some bad memories being brought back for some, and some titilation for others, all of which most people could do without.
And just because a movie presents something like that in a negative light doesn't necessarily earn it a free pass from justifiable criticism. I mean, people will still interpret the scene how they will, regardless of the film's intent, as they are often wont to do.
Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
Which people can still avoid by choosing not to see the movie. It's not as if it is being forced on those to watch it, and the publicity that its currently garnering about the scene itself puts enough information out there for those unsure whether its safe (in respect to not wanting to view such situations on screen) or not to view.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Amazing! I chose to not view something I didn't like! Who'da thunk it!?
When he made the film?
My digital art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=8168
My pen and paper art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=7462
Which again misses the point that it is the possible mental/emotional harm to the child actor, not the offensiveness of the content, that some people take issue with. Like, that she shouldn't have been involved in the filming at all.
Not that I agree...I think in this case such concern is misplaced. But I can understand where they're coming from.
Child rape specifically can also be viewed as being worse in terms of the theoretical (which is to say hard to quantify...it's very real) "damage" caused. Happens younger = more years of suffering (because generally the suffering never ends). Additionally, it means that that person now has very little chance of experiencing/enjoying a normal, healthy sexual relationship...something that an adult rape victim may at least have had.
Just felt the "more traumatizing" part needed a little more explaining, as I don't think some people really get it. Not that arguing why one crime is merely heinous and the other more heinous is really useful.