One Final Question -- The Movie Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

Subject: One Final Question

Author:
Jimmy

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 22:48:47 10/06/07 Sat
Author Host/IP: c-71-197-21-170.hsd1.mi.comcast.net/71.197.21.170

Should those against child abuse and pederasts have the right to stop Studios from producing films like "Lolita?"

I've never read "Lolita" but I did see Kubricks version. That film could certainly titillate the wrong guy and send him over the edge. Case in point, the entire movie (Irons version which in the partial scene I watched seems better. More sly but perhaps I'm wrong) is on YouTube and has been viewed 150,000 times.

I presume your answer to my query will be 'no.' And that you may argue that the artist has the right to make it and people have the right to see it (or read it). But using your logic I ask: can't pedophiles get that shit on the internet?

And what about sites that dress legal girls like children? What about Cameron Diaz dancing in Spiderman under-roos? There's a sick subversive quality to this that Catholics and Evangelicals agree on. They argue those pornographers seek to exploit the man by appealing to the teen image but with an older girl but that eventually the guy may seek out the real thing. That they have planted the seed.

THEN, you've got Hollywood promoting "Lolita" under the premise that it's more sophisticated. NO! It's about old men wanting to fuck little girls. No matter how well-made or written it is perverted. Now, do I have the right to stop them from distributing this film? What would Tim FUCKFACE Robbins say (I'll tell you what he say to me: "Stop beating the fuck out of me, dude. OW!").

I just found out Charlie Chaplain was into young girls. Never knew that. I went there to find out more about his communist ties and the whole deportation but whoever wrote the piece I read at wikipedia....NEVER MENTIONS IT!!!

Orwell turned his ass in. I've never seen any Chaplain films nor the Downey version. I saw him try and fuck Kirsten Dunst though and I hate him.

His work actually looks pretty good though and I'll make it a point to see some of it though I'll more than likely start with the Downey bio-pic. DOWNEY IS THE SHIT!!!

"Less Than Zero" onDemand all month!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]