1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Whats the matter with the world today?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by GalacticaActual, May 25, 2005.

  1. GalacticaActual

    GalacticaActual
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,684
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Galactica C.I.C.
    Ratings:
    +214
    Right, There seems to be madness and double standards all around us these days so I thought I would have a rant and invite comment on the following issues :D

    The crazy frog add had to have its genital area covered up because it caused offense. Now Its a cartoon for goodness sake, and not a very good one at that! who is actually offended buy that and who are we trying to morally protect? My goodness anyone can go in to the local news agents and buy the sun or star or daily sport and be inundated with naked women but you have to cover up the crazy fogs small cartoon genitals because there were complaints :confused:

    Along the same lines recently channel 4 broadcast the movie "The idiots". Now I have never seen this film but apparently it contains some graphic scenes of a full adult nature and although there were some complaints the watch dog body said there was no problem.This is on free to air television and they said it was not a problem. However this sort of material is not even allowed to be shown on the subscription pay encrypted channels , so whats going on :confused:

    There has been recent controvousy about the new doctor who being two scary and containing situations and language of a sexual nature. Blown complete out of proportion in my opinion , I mean look at the carry on films that are regulary shown on tv in the afternoons. NO complaints about these and yet I bet they are more isplicit in adult content than the latest DR WHO. Are we as a nation so up tight ,so fuddy duddy that the mere mention of anything of an adult nature, even though kids these days probably know more about it than I do, causes absolute out rage. :eek:


    So am I wrong to think this?
    Am I just letting this sort of thing wind me up to much?
    Do you all think I am just talking a load of old rubbish? :D
     
  2. mjn

    mjn
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    18,211
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Herts, England
    Ratings:
    +5,232
    Wash your mouth out with soap and water!! :)
     
  3. Mep

    Mep
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,551
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Ratings:
    +472
    I just think it is easier to address stupid situations like the ones that you have outlined above and give the impression of caring than to do anything more meaningful that might prove to be a bit controversial........i.e. by telling the truth!
    I did not see a single politician in the recent election stand up and tell the truth.......the answer is not to keep building 'affordable housing'.(another 200,000 announced today!!)..what happens when even the green belts have gone?.......the problem needs addressing now, not when it's too late.
     
  4. PoochJD

    PoochJD
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2000
    Messages:
    10,992
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +1,862
    Morning David,

    Nope, you're not talking rubbish... at least not in my opinion. :)

    With regards to "The Idiots", I'll explain what the controversy is about. The film is by Danish director Lars Von Trier (Dancing In The Dark, Breaking The Waves, The Kingdom). It follows a set of adults who pretend to be mentally disabled in one form or another, and shows them "performing" in public situations, either to attack able-bodied peoples opinions about disability; to get a laugh, or just for the sheer hell of being different.

    Anyway, about 80 minutes into the film, there is a short sequence where in the midst of a love-making session, we see for about 3 seconds the shot of an erect penis. In cinemas, it was shown uncut. For the original FilmFour and C4 showings, this was digitally mosaiced. ABout three weeks ago, Channel 4 aired the whole film, uncut without the optical censorship.

    Unless you actually stayed-up till about 1:30am, you wouldn't have seen the offending sequence. Plus, the film is in Danish, with English subtitles, and it's not exactly a "fun" film. If anything, it's pretty depressing viewing. It's intelligently done, and does raise some interesting questions about what being disabled or able-bodied actually means, but it's a very niche film.

    The reason it wasn't censured by Ofcom, was because of the following:
    - the film was part of a "Banned" season, with documentaries about the subjects of film censorship
    - the film wasn't in English
    - It aired at Midnight and 2am on a Monday night, on a school night.
    - It's not exactly mainstream viewing
    - The sequence was short, but integral to the overall storyline, and the way that viewers are forced to view the characters in the film.
    - Clear warnings were given before the film, and before the very offending sequence itself.

    Whilst it might seem like double-standards, the film is not meant to excite or titillate! It's probably about as erotic as the "Teletubbies". This is also why "The Idiots" was allowed to air uncut, yet you can't show an erect penis on pay-TV porn channels. Personally speaking, I wouldn't have a problem if viewers could see erections on pay porn channels. It's hardly the most offending item I can think of, to see on TV.

    But, then, that's the strange world of Ofcom and British Law for you. We have the "Obscene Publications Act", and yet this very act does not define what is or isn't obscene. It actually states that "Obscenity is - that which could morally deprave or corrupt a minor". As you can see, it's all a very grey area.


    Pooch
     
  5. Setenza

    Setenza
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    3,345
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +226
    Frogs do not have external genitals. They have an organ called a "cloaca" which is similar to a suction cup. So our animated chum, be he swinging in the breeze or blacked out is not anatomically correct.
     
  6. Mep

    Mep
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,551
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Ratings:
    +472
    in their natural habitats they also tend not to ride invisible motorbikes either so i think that is the least of what they have got wrong :D
     
  7. GalacticaActual

    GalacticaActual
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,684
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Galactica C.I.C.
    Ratings:
    +214
    What I cant get to grips with is what people find offensive and what is not.

    Now take this boolmin frog for instance.


    Are there really people out there that have seen the add with his little genitals hanging down and said
    "Oh my goodness the world is coming to an end we can see the frogs bits and peices and I cant possible stand to watch the tv and must wash my eyes out this instant!"

    Or are they complaining just because they have nothing better to do with thier time? and just like making problems for people. :mad:
     

Share This Page

Loading...