|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 188 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 75 of 188:
| 
Mar 30 15:55 UTC 2002 |
The tradition, though, is that fictional characters must get their
commuppance, their righteous punishment, you know, not get away
with IT. That makes us feel better, as when we see ficitonal
characters being fictionally punished for their fictional deeds,
it makes us feel better.
|
brighn
|
|
response 76 of 188:
|
Mar 31 05:42 UTC 2002 |
#73> I see the "Lolita" as a work of art, as do many critics. I'm not making
a value judgment about the appropriateness of the content. It's a story about
mid-life sexual obsession. If that's not your cup of tea, move on.
#75> Certainly one purpose of fiction that has been inherited from long long
ago is the concept that a major purpose of story-telling is to reinforce
social mores. It's interesting that, while American sexual mores as depicted
on film tend to be oriented towards monogamy and adultery, using the same
yardstick for our attitudes towards violence is quite disturbing indeed.
Everything from "9 to 5" to "Gladiator" approves of violence as a solution
(ironically, films like "Falling Down" and "First Blood" which active
*condemn* violence are often misinterpreted as condoning violence). If we
created a profile of the morality of Americans based on the top 10 grossing
films of 2001, we'd get a disturbing picture. (Not *all* of the top 10 movies
are "disturbing" on that level, but there are some that do glorify violence
[Rush Hour 2] and at least one that glorifies theft [Ocean's 11].) Just for
the sake of argument, the top 10 are:
-- Harry Potter
-- Lord of the Rings
-- Shrek
-- Monsters, Inc
-- Rush Hour 2 (presents violence as a solution)
-- The Mummy Returns (glorifies looting)
-- Pearl Harbor
-- Ocean's 11 (glorifies theft)
-- Jurassic Park III
-- Planet of the Apes
Mix those together, and that's what entertains us the most. For better or for
worse. (Myself, I've only seen five of those.)
|
oval
|
|
response 77 of 188:
|
Mar 31 05:54 UTC 2002 |
i'm more disturbed by the fact that 90% of those movies SUCK.
|
jazz
|
|
response 78 of 188:
|
Mar 31 08:10 UTC 2002 |
Yeah, that does paint a rather bleak picture of the moviegoing tastes
of America, doesn't it?
In the case of "Falling Down", at least, I have to say that it's a
muddled message; only the end scene, where Douglas wonders aloud - "I'm the
bad guy? How did that happen?" is there really condemnation of violence.
Before that, Douglas is a anti-hero at worst, a hero at best, embodying all
of the things we'd love to do, but haven't the guts to risk, in response to
the trivial nuisances of the day.
Overall, though, I'm not surprised we like to see violence. We're a
violent species, and no amount of education or culture can completely erase
that. One of the major roles of storytelling is also wish fulfilment, or
entertainment, and as these stories pander to the baser instincts, they're
often considered less artistic and more temporary, but they're also as
significant.
|
brighn
|
|
response 79 of 188:
|
Mar 31 22:14 UTC 2002 |
#77> Which one did you like, oval?
Of the five that I saw, I'd go out of my way to see two again (Monsters, Inc
and Ocean's 11). The other three I thought were ok, didn't really "suck"
(well... "Rush Hour 2" gets close), but eh... (the other two being "Mummy
Returns" and "Harry Potter").
Somebody had "Shrek" on at a ConVocation room party. It utterly and completely
failed to interest me. I doubt I'll see JP3, having not seen the other two,
Val keeps trying to get me to LOTR, but we're waiting for the dollar show at
this point (hate to pay $16 this week when I can pay $4 in two or three
weeks), "Pearl Harbor" and "Planet of the Apes" fail to get any real attention
from me.
|
oval
|
|
response 80 of 188:
|
Mar 31 23:16 UTC 2002 |
LOTR
|
polygon
|
|
response 81 of 188:
|
Apr 1 14:25 UTC 2002 |
I saw, and liked, "Shrek" and "Monsters, Inc." I hear that Lord of the
Rings is good, and I hope to see it some day.
|
gull
|
|
response 82 of 188:
|
Apr 1 16:45 UTC 2002 |
It's an interesting dichotomy, isn't it?
Graphic violence, killing = OK in almost any media
Consensual sex = not OK in mainstream media
|
brighn
|
|
response 83 of 188:
|
Apr 1 17:32 UTC 2002 |
It's not interesting, it's sad.
I won't deny that I'm also a major consumer of violent entertainment. My
current favorite distractions are the video games Simpson's Road Rage and
Serious Sam II, both extremely violent (Road Rage, I believe, is rated E, and
involves things like driving over people [Lisa says, "Oops, sorry!"] and
ramming as many objects as possible; Serious Sam II is a Doom-style shooter
with headless baddies and pumpkinheads with chainsaws).
But I do wish that sexually-explicit, even "softcore," entertainment weren't
so frowned upon by society. What's "Virtual Valerie 2" going to hurt that
"Serious Sam 2" won't?
|
jazz
|
|
response 84 of 188:
|
Apr 2 03:54 UTC 2002 |
The real Valeries of this world, Paul. You had to ask!
|
brighn
|
|
response 85 of 188:
|
Apr 2 05:28 UTC 2002 |
I'm married to one. She found Virtual Valerie 2 boring, but not harmful.
|
jazz
|
|
response 86 of 188:
|
Apr 2 16:07 UTC 2002 |
Well, you've got to admit, the real ones are considerably better.
|
brighn
|
|
response 87 of 188:
|
Apr 2 18:13 UTC 2002 |
Of the three Valeries I know, I've only had sexual experience with one. The
other just had a baby (congrats!), and the third has a long history of patting
me on the head when I hit on her. ;}
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 88 of 188:
|
Apr 2 19:08 UTC 2002 |
You know, brighn, that's an interesting triumvirate of Valeries.
|
brighn
|
|
response 89 of 188:
|
Apr 2 19:23 UTC 2002 |
Considering that, when I knew them aall F2F I was Wiccan, and they have blond,
red, and black hair, it was interesting indeed. ;}
|
jazz
|
|
response 90 of 188:
|
Apr 3 01:03 UTC 2002 |
The symmetry's broken these days. I've been involved with two, and
I'd like to say that, in my experience, both of them beat software hands down.
Neither has patted my head. Only one, lest anyone get any suspicions, was
ever online.
|
brighn
|
|
response 91 of 188:
|
Apr 20 04:44 UTC 2002 |
Incidentally, a week or so ago, the US Supreme Court had a pretty broad ruling
on child pornography that said, if I'm understanding it correctly, that
"kiddie porn" must involve actual children in actually sexual positions.
digital manipulations didn't count, adults dressed as children didn't count,
and written accounts didn't count.
http://crime.about.com/library/weekly/aavirtualchildpornography.htm
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 92 of 188:
|
Apr 20 05:10 UTC 2002 |
That's accurate.
|
mary
|
|
response 93 of 188:
|
Apr 20 11:49 UTC 2002 |
Excellent.
|
gull
|
|
response 94 of 188:
|
Apr 21 02:14 UTC 2002 |
Right...basically, actual children have to be involved in producing
it. The whole idea behind banning kiddie porn to begin with is because
children were being abused to create it.
|
morwen
|
|
response 95 of 188:
|
Apr 21 20:24 UTC 2002 |
I don't see that virtual child porn is a good thing. It provides
those with that particular hangup with a legal outlet. He can say,
well, the pictures are not of real children and get off scot free if
he can prove it.
|
mary
|
|
response 96 of 188:
|
Apr 21 20:43 UTC 2002 |
Scot free of what?
|
slynne
|
|
response 97 of 188:
|
Apr 21 20:54 UTC 2002 |
I dont think virtual child porn is a good thing either but that doesnt
mean it should be illegal.
|
i
|
|
response 98 of 188:
|
Apr 21 21:45 UTC 2002 |
Re: #95
Rendering child actors fairly unemployable by the kiddie porn industry
seems pretty worthwile to me. My (dim) impression is that "fans" of
kiddie porn tend to have substantial collections...does proving that
collection to be 99.5% virtual substantially reduce Sicko's jail time?
|
brighn
|
|
response 99 of 188:
|
Apr 21 23:00 UTC 2002 |
#96> Scot free of fantasizing about doinking 10-year-olds, apparently.
|