@athousandyoung saidwhat is "vague" about his scenario? What he described is a crime...it has already been legislated.
I have some idea what you are trying to say but you can't legislate based on such vague ideas.
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidI’m not arguing about whether or not it is “satire” or “social commentary” or whether it is just a cashgrab. I don’t care. As I said, intent does not play a role here.
That would be a relevant question if anyone was contradicting your description of what physically happens in the film. They are not, they are contradicting your interpretation of what physically happens in the film and whether it works as a piece of heads up satire on what is actually happening in reality.
You don’t let real child actors do what they did in this movie, no matter the intent. Apparently I have to reiterate this time after time, because you people just ignore what you don’t like.
Assuming the director’s intention is what you think it is, do you think it would be appropriate to let the child actors dance around buttnaked?
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidYa ya ya.
Cuties is not made to titillate it is made to criticize the sexualization of children and the culture that encourages it.
So shoot someone in the head in a movie **for real** and claim that you are only
doing this to show why it is wrong to shoot someone in the head.
Jeeeeezus.
@athousandyoung saidThen how can people ever get arrested for child porn?
Then we are back to the same problem - porn cannot be identified because ""Porn is made to be shown, with intent" yet you cannot determine intent.
your explanation is a great big FAIL
@earl-of-trumps saidBy using a better definition than the one jimmac provided.
Then how can people ever get arrested for child porn?
your explanation is a great big FAIL
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps said"For real"? What are you implying with that?
Ya ya ya.
So shoot someone in the head in a movie **for real** and claim that you are only
doing this to show why it is wrong to shoot someone in the head.
Jeeeeezus.
@athousandyoung saidI guess that showing children dancing provocatively is the same as showing them engaged in sexual acts.
"For real"? What are you implying with that?
Pretty much the same thing Rat is "implying".
@no1marauder saidboth are wrong, one worse than the other. what is your benefit in justifying this?
I guess that showing children dancing provocatively is the same as showing them engaged in sexual acts.
Pretty much the same thing Rat is "implying".
@great-king-rat saidYour not being ignored your being disagreed with. Child actors play parts that can be uncomfortable for adults and that’s usually the point.
I’m not arguing about whether or not it is “satire” or “social commentary” or whether it is just a cashgrab. I don’t care. As I said, intent does not play a role here.
You don’t let real child actors do what they did in this movie, no matter the intent. Apparently I have to reiterate this time after time, because you people just ignore what you don’t like.
Assumi ...[text shortened]... ou think it is, do you think it would be appropriate to let the child actors dance around buttnaked?
A lot of Charles Dickens child characters made the Victorian’s feel uncomfortable because they were based on reality.
It’s ok if you feel uncomfortable, it’s ok if you cancel Netflix. Just know that some of us will not be cancelling Netflix because of this film and that’s ok too.
@kevcvs57 saidIt doesn’t matter what the *characters* do, it matters what the Real Life young actors are asked to do. If this had been a cartoon I would not have blinked an eye.
Your not being ignored your being disagreed with. Child actors play parts that can be uncomfortable for adults and that’s usually the point.
A lot of Charles Dickens child characters made the Victorian’s feel uncomfortable because they were based on reality.
It’s ok if you feel uncomfortable, it’s ok if you cancel Netflix. Just know that some of us will not be cancelling Netflix because of this film and that’s ok too.
Again, if the actors had been asked to perform their parts buttnaked would you have been okay with that?
Have YOU seen this movie?
@athousandyoung saidMy opinion, yes.
A clip from Lolita:
[youtube Lolita 8/14]LNr_eePR3kA[/youtube]
Is Cuties worse than what happens from 2:50 to 4:50 in this clip?
Lolita balances on the line of inappropriate, Cuties crosses it.
Have YOU seen Cuties?
1 edit
@great-king-rat saidNo.
My opinion, yes.
Lolita balances on the line of inappropriate, Cuties crosses it.
Have YOU seen Cuties?
So you're comfortable with a child actress pretending to rub an adult man's groin with her hands and feet while saying "you like that? you want more?" but not comfortable with the Cuties dancing. It must be pretty raunchy.
@great-king-rat saidYou need to calm down if you cannot make your point without chucking hi caps at people then why bother.
It doesn’t matter what the *characters* do, it matters what the Real Life young actors are asked to do. If this had been a cartoon I would not have blinked an eye.
Again, if the actors had been asked to perform their parts buttnaked would you have been okay with that?
Have YOU seen this movie?
You do not have to watch the film to get the gist of what the controversy is.
I googled it and I’ve read this thread.
Did the actors look uncomfortable to you, do you think that they haven’t made those moves with their friends in real life during a sleep over umpteen times. Young children are being sexualised by the marketing and entertainment industry wether your comfortable with it or not.
I’m saying that I will and do boycott products advertised using the sexualisation of men women and children. If you want to draw your line at this whilst tolerating the above then that’s your prerogative but please stop the evangelical chest thumping. I’m not going to watch the film, because I don’t need to watch the film.