Bad Hollywood, Bad, Bad!!

Another absurd study that looks to point blame whereas the blame starts within the families and communities
 
Well, if you think financing an academic study is a poor use of grant money, have you considered the possibilities of getting a grant to fund a film? Grants provide jobs. Really, really, exceptionally well-paying jobs! I know several grant writers... Believe me, they get their cut.
 
"The Australian researchers studied a September 2003 list of the 200 biggest box-offices successes of all time as ranked by the Internet Movie Database. They excluded animated features, films with G and PG ratings, and movies released or set before the start of the AIDS pandemic in 1983.

Of the 87 remaining movies in the study published Monday in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 28 contained sex scenes - a total of 53 scenes in all."

Sad
 
Theres also a couple of nutjob flight attendants boyotting the movie Flightplan because they didn't think the flight attendants in the movie were helpful enough to jodi foster's character. People are always bitching about hollywood. You're right these people have too much time on their hands.
 
thisiswells said:
Well, if you think financing an academic study is a poor use of grant money, have you considered the possibilities of getting a grant to fund a film? Grants provide jobs. Really, really, exceptionally well-paying jobs! I know several grant writers... Believe me, they get their cut.
Click to expand...

Grants can be great, I went through a grant process once. It can be tough way to raise a buck though. I won't rule it out in the future, for the right project. However, it is obvious that in the above post, a specific political agenda was at work. More smoke and mirrors. I don't know much about politics in the UK or Australia, so I can't comment further.

I just thought it was funny.
 
monte said:
"The Australian researchers studied a September 2003 list of the 200 biggest box-offices successes of all time as ranked by the Internet Movie Database. They excluded animated features, films with G and PG ratings, and movies released or set before the start of the AIDS pandemic in 1983.

Of the 87 remaining movies in the study published Monday in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 28 contained sex scenes - a total of 53 scenes in all."

Sad
Click to expand...
What's sad about it? The fact that filmmaker include sex in non-PG films, or that someone actually thinks it's useful to collect such information?

I'd be much more concerned about violence in movies than sex. Sex is part of every normal healthy adult life - violence not necessarily so. I strongly resent the fact that my kids can go to a PG film filled with explosions and guns, but rarely is a film that shows more than a woman's bare back rated less than NC-17 (or whatever the ratings are).

If films are somehow to reflect the human condition, sex would (shoud) be in majority of movies - as long as it pertains to the story, of course.
 
Well, their point is that the majority of these film show sex without consequences, i.e., unwanted pregnancy or STD, especially AIDS. I know, it's a serious problem, but could you really see the self destructive characters of "Basic Instinct" really caring about swapping body fluids? Having Mikey Douglas stopping to snap on a jimmy before he bangs Sharon Stone, while smart I'm sure, would not have been consistant with the character, who had a mutitude of other problems as well. In the context of this story, their hypothosis is wrong. The sex in the film is part of the self-destructive natures of the characters and that nature has a **** pot full of consequences.

That is the problem when left brainers try to analyze a creative work, they can not make the connections past their hypothosis, or their agenda. I bet that they counted the sex in "Fatal Attraction" as sex without consequences because they did not whip out a rubber before they did the nasty in the sink. Of course, if they did not have their narrow parameters and agenda, they could see that the whole film is about the consequences of ilicit sex. I would be willing to bet that even with the hot sex scenes, "Fatal Attraction" stopped more hombres from fooling around on the missus than any movie in history. Let the creators create and let the audience decide.
 
Why don't they conduct a study on the amount of sex/violence in PG-13 movies of the last 6 years with R rated movies pre-1999. Ever since Hollywood lost their spine and caved to the US Senate--both Dems and Reps--they made less R rated movie....and shifted or down-graded R to PG-13.

As to "studies"....how about someone give me a grant to research how pertinent the information gleaned from "studies" turned out to be....
As a former debator in HS/College, I know how easy it is to twist raw information to make whatever outcome you want....and win arguments with it!
Aw hell, that's not as sexy as studying the mating habits of gay seagulls!
 
He he - well put!

Sex with consequences - what's that? That's like saying 'eating with consequences'. If cats are screwing at night on my roof, is that sex with or without consequences? What makes human sex different from other species? Do other animals have STDs? Unwanted pregnancies?

I WANT SOME ANSWERS! (otherwise I won't be able to sleep tonight).

BTW: I don't mean to discount safe sex practices - on the contrary. I just happen to think that sex ALWAYS has consequences, just not always visible and/or measurable by the medically obsessed.
 
XCheck said:
BTW: I don't mean to discount safe sex practices - on the contrary. I just happen to think that sex ALWAYS has consequences, just not always visible and/or measurable by the medically obsessed.
Click to expand...

You are absolutly right, sex always has consequences. Stains on the back seat, rug burn on the knees, the mental anquish of trying to remeber her name when you sober up. The agony, the agony!!!
:beer:
 
These people are nuts...No we don't see the consequences of unprotected sex, we also don't see the driver of the car that got schmucked by the get-away car in the hospital, or the tears of the mother when the soldier is shot in the war or the hole in the ozone for every car on screen!.These are stories, and in most cases...Fictional. I don't think it is Hollwood's job to educate the public to the dangers of unprotected sex. The root of their argument ( in Sydney) seems to be that we're so stupid as to presume that if it's portrayed on the screen it must be safe? I think Hollywood should expand it's horizons perhaps and make a few more positive statements about our social condition perhaps helping us to make better choices, but sex education shouldn,t be on their agenda....
 
I think people are influenced by movies to some extent and also the younger the viewer the more influence. Only because they aren't informed by their parents as to what is right and wrong. Parents think its the job of socitey to teach their children and not them. Not all parents but most.

As to the whole safe sex and drug use that these people are trying to pin on Hollywood I think is bull. Hollywood isn't making the decisions for people believe it or not. People have a mind of their own and can make all their own crappy decisions. Its just easier to say its this groups fault than to take responsiblity for your own actions. Or just to say people are stupid and they're getting dumber by the second.

Plus there's no way in hell that when I'm writing something I'm going to be thinking...this would be a good spot to show the dangers of drug use and unprotected sex...at the same time. I think I would show the guy dropping his red hot crack pipe onto his girlfriends back. Now that's a real danger. What did we learn today kids...that's right, don't smoke crack while your having sex. Remember one at a time.

What a bunch of BS.
 
I do not think that Hollywood is blind to this. Look at some of the response to AIDS that has come from the majors, Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, Eyes Wide Shut and The Fisher King. They used the IMDB for there research (I'm laughing too!!), so let's just do a little search ouselves, "Search all: AIDS":
http://www.imdb.com/find?q=AIDS;s=all

I know, this search does not quantify these films as to public exposure, but what do they want.
I guess that we should have a PSA in front of every movie that tells the dangers of unprotected sex, saturated fat, smoking in bed, drinking and driving, running with scissors, blow drying your hair in the bathtub, voting Republican, not looking both ways when crossing the street, sticking your tongue onto cold metal, nuclear weapons in the hands of people we do not like, electromagnetic radiation from cell phones that cause brain cancer, leaving mayonaise based foodstuffs out of the refrigerator longer than two hours, making eye contact with employees of the United States Postal Service, peeing into the wind and overloading household circuits.

But wouldn't that cut into the commercials theatres force us to sit through now?
 
David G. Smith said:
Well, their point is that the majority of these film show sex without consequences,
Click to expand...

Well, not to burst anyone's bubble, but most of the time you don't get sick or pregnant, otherwise people would have stopped doing it a long time ago.
 
I agree XCheck, that the violence is more disturbing than sex. Particularly in a movie such as basic instinct. But I wouldn't advocate taking violence out of films either. Or books. I've read a lot of Elmore Leonard's books, and almost all of the movies that have been made from his novels contain less explicit sex and violence. I suppose these folks will be on the book burning crusade soon enough.
 
"I would be willing to bet that even with the hot sex scenes, "Fatal Attraction" stopped more hombres from fooling around on the missus than any movie in history."

Dude, this movie did that to me. I never messed around because of this damn movie. I was a youngen and easily influenced to the point that I was down right scared to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top