RE:

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Thursday, February 26, 2004 05:36
VIEWED: 26806
PAGE 1 of 1

SUCCATASH

Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:54 AM

WB shows boobs too? This is from Angel's "Smile Time" puppet episode. But I don't think she's a puppet.

ATHERTONWING

Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:20 AM

WHAT!?! how can they cancel this show? amoung other things its soft core porn! usually a massive hit....but how much of a pervert are you for spotting that? heh heh

WERZBOWSKI

Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:50 PM

Yes, yes you did see what you thought you saw.

"Wherever you go, there you are."
- Dr. B. Banzai

STEVE580

Thursday, February 19, 2004 3:30 PM

Yes, it must have taken skill to notice this. I watched this scene several times (uh, for the dialogue) but never noticed any actual nudity.
-Steve

KNIBBLET

Thursday, February 19, 2004 3:55 PM

Nice work on the photo manipulation. I watched it quite closely thinking that the producers and network would be *Very* careful after Janet and Boobgate.

I'm certain the actress involved won't appreciate the sub-perfect set you pasted over her.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

CHANNAIN

Thursday, February 19, 2004 4:26 PM

I saw this headline and thought to myself, "Self, I'm betting orange chicken from LeAnn Chin that's Succatash again, starting another male hubba-hubba thread."

I win! I win!

We have art so as not to die of truth ~ Neitzsche
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

SUCCATASH

Thursday, February 19, 2004 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Nice work on the photo manipulation. I watched it quite closely thinking that the producers and network would be *Very* careful after Janet and Boobgate.

I'm certain the actress involved won't appreciate the sub-perfect set you pasted over her.

You are mistaken. I did not manipulate the photo at all. I captured this episode at 30 fps and snapped a frame. It's real.

THALOS

Thursday, February 19, 2004 5:45 PM

The top picture is clearly showing that the actress has her hand over anything considered in poor taste. However, the fraction of a second that the second picture occurs does reveal a glimpse of some no-no stuff.

Anyhow, NYPD Blue and other TV shows use similar scenes to draw ratings, I don't see aproblem here.

"Whoa, good Bible."

SUCCATASH

Thursday, February 19, 2004 5:50 PM

Thalos, I think you're right. In the top photo, we're looking at her finger.

SLAYER730

Thursday, February 19, 2004 6:25 PM

Of for goodness sake....

***Never judge a book by its movie***

KNIBBLET

Thursday, February 19, 2004 10:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Nice work on the photo manipulation.
I did not manipulate the photo at all. I captured this episode at 30 fps and snapped a frame.

Dear God, it's worse than I thought. You seriously need to meet an actual female person, perhaps get a girlfriend and see a real breast. This way, you won't have to slow it down to 30fps to get your jollies.

Good luck with the 'getting a girlfriend thing'.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

SUCCATASH

Thursday, February 19, 2004 10:29 PM

You are so quick to judge. Why be such a bitch?

ARAWAEN

Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:19 PM

Quote:
You seriously need to meet an actual female person, perhaps get a girlfriend and see a real breast.

Unfortunately, Wantin', don't make it happen.

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

TRAGICSTORY

Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Nice work on the photo manipulation.
I did not manipulate the photo at all. I captured this episode at 30 fps and snapped a frame.

Dear God, it's worse than I thought. You seriously need to meet an actual female person, perhaps get a girlfriend and see a real breast. This way, you won't have to slow it down to 30fps to get your jollies.

Good luck with the 'getting a girlfriend thing'.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

30fps is actually faster than most tv. So technically its sped up. Furthermore, it is obvious that you've never edited digital media. It would take about 5 seconds to verify what you think you saw was indeed what was on screen. So yes, its boob, big deal. But more importantly it is someone's screw up. THAT IS WHAT IS FUN TO FIND. Download some 'Tash's videos. "OB welcome" leaps to mind as a prime example that Tash has no problems getting boobs; much to my envy.

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

JUSTDAVID

Friday, February 20, 2004 1:10 AM

Wow, Knibblet, I've never seen you post anything this mean before. Is this thing hitting on a raw nerve or something, or were you just having a bad day?

Anyway, after seeing this thread I checked my own capture did a frame by frame of that section. Tash's pics are not edited and what looks like a "tingly part" in the lower photo is really just a scrap of something off the floor. They didn't goof, sorry.

KALATHENA

Friday, February 20, 2004 1:17 AM

Sheesh, Knibblet, *I* even noticed the not one but TWO instances of nipple shots in that scene. They weren't that hard to spot, though my husband missed them. No photo manipulation was needed.

I was quite startled, but I thought it was just as funny as the rest of the episode.

--Kala

SUCCATASH

Friday, February 20, 2004 1:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JustDavid:
Wow, Knibblet, I've never seen you post anything this mean before.

I think Knibblet has Negative Body Issues. NBI is common.

Just the other day in an Angel thread ( http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=3814), Knibblet wrote, "Am I the only person who never found Fred all that attractive? ....Criminy, she needs a sandwich -an ice cream sandwich. Skinny, scrawny without even shadow of a hint of a curve on her. Stick figure in the sand."

Above, when she accuses me of faking the photos, she once again demonstrates NBI: "I'm certain the actress involved won't appreciate the sub-perfect set you pasted over her."

It's a shame, really. Oh well.

KNIBBLET

Friday, February 20, 2004 3:04 AM

Tash, I don't care if you have funny, hysterical, laugh out loud breasts falling out of your ears.

My issue is you posted it knowing that minors (little kids even) visit daily.

As for it being mean, I asked my husband who walked in as I was hitting the 'update my post' button if it was too harsh. His response, "Not really. Coming from you, it's actually a little soft and fluffy."

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

SUCCATASH

Friday, February 20, 2004 3:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Tash, I don't care if you have funny, hysterical, laugh out loud breasts falling out of your ears. My issue is you posted it knowing that minors (little kids even) visit daily.

Why didn't you say so? Instead, you chose to accuse me of forgery and ridicule my social life, slam on the actress's breasts, then advise me to find real breasts of my own.

Quote:
As for it being mean, I asked my husband who walked in as I was hitting the 'update my post' button if it was too harsh. His response, "Not really. Coming from you, it's actually a little soft and fluffy."

You're lucky your husband knows you and still loves you.

SUCCATASH

Friday, February 20, 2004 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
My issue is you posted it knowing that minors (little kids even) visit daily.

Knibblet, you are such a hypocrite. You posted on the Janet Boob Flash thread ( http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=8&t=3635):

Knibblet:
"My summation: "Whatever"... So we saw Janet's boobie. A body part. Whoopie. It's a breast - get over it."
---------

But suddenly I'm corrupting the children of the world? Get real.

CIARA

Friday, February 20, 2004 5:01 AM

*sighs* it doesn't matter folks--just walk away. Boobies are on every woman--so what if they show 'em--hooray for boobies. It was proven that the scene was there--though I kept rewindin' and couldn't see nothin..durn tivo

and as a woman who often has Negative Body Issues, 'Tash--that was harsh. Just sayin', man

Just a humble supplicant in service to all things Joss

KNIBBLET

Friday, February 20, 2004 5:27 AM

Tash,
I didn't expect any class from Janet and Justin. I have no idea why I expected it from you.

I stand by my opinion that by posting the big ole photo on a site you know is visited daily by children - and the children of people who objected to Janet's exposition - you disregarded their concerns.

Go ahead, question my self-image. Question my integrity. Question anything you like.

I read the big video kerfuffle, the rant about the military, and several other things you've posted on this site.

You wanted someone to complain. You wanted someone to argue. Any posts added onto your thread puts that thread back on top and you thrive on hissy-fits.

Thanks for narrowing my reading material to a more managable group. Your posts will be ones I skip in future.

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
My issue is you posted it knowing that minors (little kids even) visit daily.
Knibblet, you are such a hypocrite. You posted on the Janet Boob Flash thread ( http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=8&t=3635):
Knibblet:
"My summation: "Whatever"... So we saw Janet's boobie. A body part. Whoopie. It's a breast - get over it."
---------
But suddenly I'm corrupting the children of the world? Get real.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

SUCCATASH

Friday, February 20, 2004 5:33 AM

Lady, you're crazy.

I've had my share of clashes with fans on this site, but this time, I didn't do anything. You are being so rude, I really can't believe it.

As long as we can all agree that Firefly comes first, I'd really like to get to the bottom of this. Let's try to work things out.

SUCCATASH

Friday, February 20, 2004 6:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Tash,
I stand by my opinion that by posting the big ole photo on a site you know is visited daily by children - and the children of people who objected to Janet's exposition - you disregarded their concerns.

By the way, I never posted a big picture of Janet Jackson.

That was someone else, you should be mad at someone else. Get it? Go back and look.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=8&t=3635

Maybe, you're angry with me because you are attracted to me. Maybe deep down, you love me?

MANIACNUMBERONE

Friday, February 20, 2004 6:33 AM

I'm trying to decide which one of you is crazier, so I know who to put the crown on.

-------------------------------------------
Inara: Who's winning?
Simon: I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

SUCCATASH

Friday, February 20, 2004 6:58 AM

There's a Crazy Crown? Can I wear it for a little while?

JASONZZZ

Friday, February 20, 2004 7:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Tash,

I stand by my opinion that by posting the big ole photo on a site you know is visited daily by children - and the children of people who objected to Janet's exposition - you disregarded their concerns.

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
My issue is you posted it knowing that minors (little kids even) visit daily.
Knibblet, you are such a hypocrite. You posted on the Janet Boob Flash thread ( http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=8&t=3635):
Knibblet:
"My summation: "Whatever"... So we saw Janet's boobie. A body part. Whoopie. It's a breast - get over it."
---------
But suddenly I'm corrupting the children of the world? Get real.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

1. Why aren't the little kids in school and What are little kids doing on this site? The show has nothing that any little kids should want.

2. Why are those little kids being left alone with a computer (or anything for that matter)? Their parents should be pre-screening everything that they touch - TV programs, websites, etc.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

JASONZZZ

Friday, February 20, 2004 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
By the way, I never posted a big picture of Janet Jackson.

That was someone else, you should be mad at someone else. Get it? Go back and look. Do you feel stupid yet?

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=8&t=3635

Maybe, you're angry with me because you are attracted to me. Maybe deep down, you love me?

Hang on, since I posted the picture. She must be mad at me... does that mean that I am some how generating attraction.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

JASONZZZ

Friday, February 20, 2004 7:31 AM

I agree, that bit with the NBI was too pointed and personal.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ciara:
*sighs* it doesn't matter folks--just walk away. Boobies are on every woman--so what if they show 'em--hooray for boobies. It was proven that the scene was there--though I kept rewindin' and couldn't see nothin..durn tivo

and as a woman who often has Negative Body Issues, 'Tash--that was harsh. Just sayin', man

Just a humble supplicant in service to all things Joss

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

SUCCATASH

Friday, February 20, 2004 8:04 AM

Right now, I'm fighting tears and trying hard not to cry.

JASONZZZ

Friday, February 20, 2004 8:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Right now, I'm fighting tears and trying hard not to cry.

B/C you are:
a. Drunk
b. Confused
c. Psychotic
? Is there a poll we can vote on?

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

MOMAW

Friday, February 20, 2004 8:47 AM

Steering this thread back to a more constructive heading, here's a question for parents and adults in general. While Succatash's frame captures do not appear to show nipples, the question is, how much of a breast do we actually need to see before it becomes indecent?

VDFW

Friday, February 20, 2004 8:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
WB shows boobs too? This is from Angel's "Smile Time" puppet episode. But I don't think she's a puppet.

Some better pictures:

http://www.geocities.com/vardfaw/jm1.JPG

http://www.geocities.com/vardfaw/jm2.JPG

JUSTDAVID

Friday, February 20, 2004 5:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Momaw:
Steering this thread back to a more constructive heading, here's a question for parents and adults in general. While Succatash's frame captures do not appear to show nipples, the question is, how much of a breast do we actually need to see before it becomes indecent?

Okay, I'll answer as a parent. My ten year old daughter has seen Mal's naked butt, and Kaylee getting it on with a guy just to get close to an engine, and now a semi-exposed Nina the werewolf, and I don't think she has been harmed in the slightest. If Nina's breasts were fully exposed, I don't see how that would have harmed her either. I think alot of people are WAY too hung up on body parts being something dirty.

As for kids somehow being harmed by the pics on this thread, it says bare breasts in the title. That's plenty enough warning.

JASONZZZ

Friday, February 20, 2004 6:54 PM

Maybe Haken needs a "inappropriate for kids" warning. I personally don't think this kids is "kid friendly" by any means. It's not about Harry Potter, it's not Sasame Street or Electric Company, it's not Nova or any KPBS type. It's not "against kids" or *porno* - it's just not geared towards kids like BigBird and Grover are.

Quote:
Originally posted by JustDavid:
Quote:
Originally posted by Momaw:
Steering this thread back to a more constructive heading, here's a question for parents and adults in general. While Succatash's frame captures do not appear to show nipples, the question is, how much of a breast do we actually need to see before it becomes indecent?

Okay, I'll answer as a parent. My ten year old daughter has seen Mal's naked butt, and Kaylee getting it on with a guy just to get close to an engine, and now a semi-exposed Nina the werewolf, and I don't think she has been harmed in the slightest. If Nina's breasts were fully exposed, I don't see how that would have harmed her either. I think alot of people are WAY too hung up on body parts being something dirty.

As for kids somehow being harmed by the pics on this thread, it says bare breasts in the title. That's plenty enough warning.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

LTNOWIS

Saturday, February 21, 2004 5:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Knibblet:
My issue is you posted it knowing that minors (little kids even) visit daily.

Quote:

Jasonzzz wrote:
1. Why aren't the little kids in school and What are little kids doing on this site? The show has nothing that any little kids should want.

2. Why are those little kids being left alone with a computer (or anything for that matter)? Their parents should be pre-screening everything that they touch - TV programs, websites, etc.

Just so you guys know, I'm a minor. I'll be 15 in March. And frankly, a naked breast doesn't faze me in the least. Heck, I've played Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. And I don't visit daily, but I come here pretty regularly. The way I see it, when you're 14, you can see anything an adult can.

STEVE580

Saturday, February 21, 2004 5:26 AM

Quote:
The way I see it, when you're 14, you can see anything an adult can.

I think though, that as a 14-year-old, you may be somewhat biased in your opinion of what 14-year-olds should do.

DRAKON

Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:52 AM

Tash. All i gotta say is "Good eye!" Its like a single frame! 1/30th of a second, (and obvious unintentional)

Wife and I were examining the tape frame by frame yesterday morning. She mentioned that the white stuffing Wolfgirl had in her mouth, and around her groin, (there is a pile of it in front of her as she sits up, apparently to hide other naughty bits) made her think of other white things.

But then, she says, maybe it is just her dirty mind.

I like that in a woman I'm married to

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

KALATHENA

Saturday, February 21, 2004 6:06 PM

Quote:
Okay, I'll answer as a parent. My ten year old daughter has seen Mal's naked butt, and Kaylee getting it on with a guy just to get close to an engine, and now a semi-exposed Nina the werewolf, and I don't think she has been harmed in the slightest. If Nina's breasts were fully exposed, I don't see how that would have harmed her either. I think alot of people are WAY too hung up on body parts being something dirty.

Thank you, David! I get sooooo tired of how body-phobic most people are in the US. As a parent myself, I could care less what body parts my 6-year-old sees. What those body parts are *doing* is another matter entirely. No, I'm not going to let him watch sex acts, but I refuse to make a big deal about him seeing the occassional body part. If you don't make a big deal about it, then it becomes a non-issue.

--Kala

PUDOR

Saturday, February 21, 2004 6:09 PM

Quote:
I think though, that as a 14-year-old, you may be somewhat biased in your opinion of what 14-year-olds should do.

I know my view will be somewhat in the minority, but I disagree - I think it's far more likely that the views of a parent are skewed than the view of the actual 14 year old in question. Parents trick themselves into imposing an ultra-flawed or an ultra-innocent version of themselves onto their children. At the age of 14, however, we are often at our most critical and self-aware.

If you want to find out how someone feels about something, or how it affects them, you talk to them first, and those around them later. How comes the debate surrounding minors and what they can and can not see never involves any dialogue with anyone under the age of 25?

As a society, we need to get a grip on this delusion that it's even remotely possible to hide the real world from children - or that it's preferential to do so. Having parents or a parent who can be looked up to and respected, and who goes about their life with a decent amount of conviction and decency, will do a far greater good to a child's moral sense than blindfolding them whenever breasts seem imminent ;)

My two (euro) cents :)

PUDOR

Saturday, February 21, 2004 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kalathena:
Thank you, David! I get sooooo tired of how body-phobic most people are in the US. As a parent myself, I could care less what body parts my 6-year-old sees. What those body parts are *doing* is another matter entirely. No, I'm not going to let him watch sex acts, but I refuse to make a big deal about him seeing the occassional body part. If you don't make a big deal about it, then it becomes a non-issue.

Absolutely - straight out of the womb we're confronted with breasts. It seems somewhat farcical that they're fine till 2 years old, then covered up for 16 years because they're morally wrong... :)

(I'm sure I have better points to make, but phneh

)

GHOULMAN

Saturday, February 21, 2004 6:23 PM

HAHAHA Funniest thread ever!

Let's see... man-> unexpected beast-> eyes a poppin'!

Breasts are such a big deal with American TV viewers. You know, the rest of us have loads of sex on TV while in the U.S you go on and on and on about sex in American TV. Well, there ain't any! Except perhaps Janet Jackson and now this.

Scandal is gossip made tedious by morality - Oscar Wilde.

JASONZZZ

Saturday, February 21, 2004 7:19 PM

Pudor:

I absolutely do not think that your views are in the minority. As a 14 year old once (might have been twice, I am not quite sure, this karmanic thing is driving me crazy), I am pretty darn sure that I thought I could rule the world when I first came out of my "I am the center of the universe" phase back even a few years back. I felt sure that I had much more gusto, feeling, passion, and just plain common sense then those folks who were quite apparently (at least to me) born 35+ years old and a bunch of old asses.

But I think you might be in the right, I should in fact expose my 4-8 years old to as much crap, violence, random shooting, brains and guts plopping all over the place, and raw sex act as much as possible. And then just hold a two hour marathon discussion on what the carnage that they have just witnessed. I am sure that will toughen them up for the real world.

Oh wait! Maybe I can raise real human beings to think critically by providing them with a stable platform of family bond and trust to build ideas and morals off from. And it would be a better world if we build it up one piece at a time instead of stabbing it right into their little brain. An absolutely crazy perception that I, and I assure you, would never have taken had I not fell unluckily the victim of twice pregnancy. What a curse of a responsibility!

Look, nowadays, we spend most of our adult life worrying, philosophising, planning crap that absolutely makes no sense and gets us no where. At the end of it all, if we are lucky, we get to rot slowly in a wooden box. Let the kids be kids until they are ready for rational thought and discussion. Until then, keep the carnage out of the heads.

I am not worried about sex, violence, or ideas. I watch Matrix, Tarantino, & porno and enjoy them in the proper settings. Just not with my kids, they get their own programming until they are ready to talk about those things and absorb them.

Maybe you are ready, but let the other kids be kids. There's always time for adulthood. Plenty of lengthy and drudgery time.

Quote:
Originally posted by pudor:
Quote:
I think though, that as a 14-year-old, you may be somewhat biased in your opinion of what 14-year-olds should do.

I know my view will be somewhat in the minority, but I disagree - I think it's far more likely that the views of a parent are skewed than the view of the actual 14 year old in question. Parents trick themselves into imposing an ultra-flawed or an ultra-innocent version of themselves onto their children. At the age of 14, however, we are often at our most critical and self-aware.

If you want to find out how someone feels about something, or how it affects them, you talk to them first, and those around them later. How comes the debate surrounding minors and what they can and can not see never involves any dialogue with anyone under the age of 25?

As a society, we need to get a grip on this delusion that it's even remotely possible to hide the real world from children - or that it's preferential to do so. Having parents or a parent who can be looked up to and respected, and who goes about their life with a decent amount of conviction and decency, will do a far greater good to a child's moral sense than blindfolding them whenever breasts seem imminent ;)

My two (euro) cents :)

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

PUDOR

Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:13 PM

Before I answer this stuff I should probably point out that I'm not a 'kid' - at least not by my definition - I'm 20 years old on the 9th of March. Having said this, I'm not a parent either, and so I would expect a fair response to my points to be along the lines of "wait until you have children, then you'll see".

On the other hand - and this is a point I was trying to make earlier - it's not necessarily important that you go through a certain experience in order to understand it. It seems to be a commonplace argument, but it doesn't really hold water with me. It gives you a different *perspective*, yes. But the experience of raising a child is only one part of the argument - we are talking also about the experience of growing up itself.

So, I would suggest that the 'blinkered view' a 14 year old apparently has is equally as blinkered as that a parent has. I know from talking to my parents that their image of me is probably quite different from my own image of who I am, and different again from the image my friends, or my girlfriend, has of me. The same applied when I was 14, without a doubt.

So I'm basically just making a disclaimer, so that you know I've taken the fact that I'm not a parent on board. I know I might feel differently about these things when I am one, but I hope I consider all these other viewpoints at that point too.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Pudor:

But I think you might be in the right, I should in fact expose my 4-8 years old to as much crap, violence, random shooting, brains and guts plopping all over the place, and raw sex act as much as possible. And then just hold a two hour marathon discussion on what the carnage that they have just witnessed. I am sure that will toughen them up for the real world.

Surely an over-reaction? I am in no way suggesting that we need to toughen the next generation up for the real world. In fact, the point I'm far more interested in making is that we need to make sure our children recognise the boundaries between reality and fiction. It is easier to do this with books, etc, than with TV (we know TV can have a profound impact on anyone, otherwise we'd all be watching FOX-produced reality TV all day), but this gives us all the more reason to emphasise that line. Removing, or limiting, censorship, gives us that possibility. Putting off the day when children see breasts / violence / swearing (bearing in mind they will probably get access to these things independently before they are particularly old) will only increase their importance, and bring them to the forefront of the child's mind.

What I would consider to be more important is backing up the message that these things are acceptable in fiction / reprehensible in real life (in the case of violence at least) by positive examples by parents. At the risk of recieving flame after flame, surely you can appreciate that daddy picking up a gun and going off shooting, or taking his 13-year-old son to a boxing match, etc, is far more likely to encourage a child to behave violently than seeing the first 15 mins of Saving Private Ryan.

Quote:
Oh wait! Maybe I can raise real human beings to think critically by providing them with a stable platform of family bond and trust to build ideas and morals off from. And it would be a better world if we build it up one piece at a time instead of stabbing it right into their little brain. An absolutely crazy perception that I, and I assure you, would never have taken had I not fell unluckily the victim of twice pregnancy. What a curse of a responsibility!

Obviously I agree with you completely - Rome was not built in a day, etc. But I am not suggesting, as noted above, that a marathon session of violence and vice is at all sensible. All I am suggesting, however, is that allowing children to find out about these things when they start wanting to know, rather than covering up until you're ready to talk to them about it, doesn't make sense. Neither do arbitary government- or MPAA-imposed restrictions on who can see whi

UCLAMATHGUY

Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:09 AM

JASONZZZ

Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:57 AM

Well... I couldn't have said it better about the entire thing myself. What you've said is exactly what I feel and do. The world is out there and there's no stopping it. I do however limit my kids exposure to what it is - they do get a censored view. There are plenty to talk about and exposing them to from books and what movies we do let them watch. There are plenty enough violence on Disney and other Kid type movies - check out the first 5 minutes of Brother Bear, Ice Age, and the entire Harry Potter 2 movie. There are plenty to talk with them just from those things, death, violence, trust, betrayal, struggles, wants, needs, family, protection, on and on. We watch the same movies over and over again - kids seem to never get worn out either - and bring up a new thing each time.

Quote:
Originally posted by pudor:
Before I answer this stuff I should probably point out that I'm not a 'kid' - at least not by my definition - I'm 20 years old on the 9th of March. Having said this, I'm not a parent either, and so I would expect a fair response to my points to be along the lines of "wait until you have children, then you'll see".

... ... ...

[edit: whoa! massive post. sorry!]

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

KALATHENA

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 6:31 PM

Quote:
The world is out there and there's no stopping it. I do however limit my kids exposure to what it is - they do get a censored view.

I agree with this. I definitely censor what my son watches. For one thing, I don't see the need for him to watch advertizing. As an autistic, it's difficult enough for him to grasp that TV is not real so adding ads to the mix would just confuse him more. So it's either on PBS or on a video or dvd.

What bothers me are parents who don't care how much violence children are exposed to, but they shriek at the top of their lungs if they see ANYTHING that resembles a body part. I just think that making a big deal about one completely non-sexual breast exposure is encouraging poor body image in our children.

--Kala

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 7:02 PM

Here's something I use a lot if I can't pre-screen myself. I go to:

http://www.screenit.com

for most part, they don't just rate a movie as acceptable to "kids 12-18". But have about 16-20 different categories of things and provide details & justifications on why it was rated in those categories... I find it to be a useful too to quickly find out whether a movie that might be targeted at a younger audience but have content that I might disagree with. For example:

Look at the recently released "Peter Pan" movie, under the "Bad attitude" section:
http://www.screenit.com/movies/2003/peter_pan.html#ba

I might base on decision to not take my kids to see this movie, or I might consider that the movie taken as a whole is okay and use these small parts to demonstrate to them what "bad attitude" is and talk with them about why those people did those behaviours. Depends on whether my kids are ready to think about these things and whether the rest of the movie holds up.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

RKLENSETH

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 7:37 PM

I wonder where they would put "The Passion of Christ" under their categories. I don't see where all the controversy except that it is extremely violent (and I don't care to argue about it either) but many critics said it should have been rated NC-17 rather than R.

"The Passion of Christ" was even bloodier than the firt "Evil Dead"!

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

KALATHENA

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 7:50 PM

Jasonzzz, thanks for the reference to that site! I doubt I'll use it much now because my son has very narrow tastes, but it will come in handy after we finish our adoption.

--Kala

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 7:58 PM

Here's what screenit.com has for "The Passion of the Christ":

Alcohol/Drugs: Moderate
Blood/Gore: Extreme
Disrespectful/BA: Extreme
Frightening/
Tense Scenes: Extreme
Guns/Weapons: Extreme
Imitative
Behaviour: Mild
Jump Scenes: Minor
Music
(Scary/Tense): Moderate
Music (Inappropo): None
Profanity: Minor
Sex / Nudity: Minor
Smoking: None
Tense Family Scenes: Heavy
Topics to Talk About: Heavy
Violence: Extreme

But obviously, the great part about the site is that under each of these sections, they cite examples (most of the time pointing to fairly specific scenes) on why qualified for those categories. So that parents can look and use the citings to gauge for themselves whether they believe those are the things that they want their kids to look at and experience.

For example: under "Violence" one of the (20 some odd total) examples cite:

Quote:
Guards shackle Jesus to a large rock and then proceed to flog Him quite severely on the back and legs, leaving many bloody marks on His back. After quite a bit of that, Jesus slowly stands, prompting the guards to use something resembling cat-o'-nine-tails to flog Him repeatedly. That results in additional bloody cuts and gashes on His body. The end of one such weapon impales Jesus and the guard yanks it out, ripping out a chunk of Jesus' flesh (with bloody and gory results). As a result, Jesus is very bloody and a guard flogging Him has blood splatter on his face. During this, the camera also focuses on Mary watching it, but we still hear the sound of the repeated and brutal flogging.

Now there might be parents who don't object to this, there might be kids who know about this and understands the background enough to know what is going on.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:03 PM

Of course, one of my friends suggested that the theatres should do a double showing of "Passion" and "The life of Brian"...

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

CAPNRAHN

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Of course, one of my friends suggested that the theatres should do a double showing of "Passion" and "The life of Brian"...

ROFL!!! An EXELLENT idea!

BTW : You have to notice that ole Mel has structured his non-media media campaign most excellently for tPotC!

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

JASONZZZ

Thursday, February 26, 2004 5:36 AM

Check this out:

IMDB credits "GOD" for the Passion

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0323689/#5

(Edit: crap, they just took it out...)
Well, at least he still gets credited as
a writer for that movie...
http://us.imdb.com/WorkedWith?name=God&as=f&with=a
and he gets other billings too...
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0323689/publicity

http://www.theonion.com/onion3731/god_gives_shout-out.html

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283