musilhead wrote:

We arent talking about forced sensorship here people. The letter wasnt demanding that movies be sensored so the public was not able to view it. It was talking about movies sensored for people who would like to see the movie but not expose THEMSELVES to certain content. If you choose for yourself not to view nudity it doesnt mean you are trying to keep people from having free thought. It means you have set a moral standard for yourself.


But what about the right of the filmmaker? It is the right of the filmmaker to create movies, with content within the boundaries of what the law allows, however he/she chooses. We, as ordinary folk, do not have a right to see movies. A movie is created and then we choose to see the movie. I would say that those people who don't want to see breasts in Titanic should stand by their morals and not see the rest of the movie either. No one needs to participate in, or is entitled to participate in, pop culture. If people are going to complain about unrighteous content, then maybe they should be more courageous in their self-righteous cause.

BrandonWei wrote:

musilhead wrote:

We arent talking about forced sensorship here people. The letter wasnt demanding that movies be sensored so the public was not able to view it. It was talking about movies sensored for people who would like to see the movie but not expose THEMSELVES to certain content. If you choose for yourself not to view nudity it doesnt mean you are trying to keep people from having free thought. It means you have set a moral standard for yourself.


But what about the right of the filmmaker? It is the right of the filmmaker to create movies, with content within the boundaries of what the law allows, however he/she chooses. We, as ordinary folk, do not have a right to see movies. A movie is created and then we choose to see the movie. I would say that those people who don't want to see breasts in Titanic should stand by their morals and not see the rest of the movie either. No one needs to participate in, or is entitled to participate in, pop culture. If people are going to complain about unrighteous content, then maybe they should be more courageous in their self-righteous cause.


Amen bro, the problem is that those who like to force personal responsibility on others are not very good at practicing it themselves. They are not like the Amish, content to shun outside culture, our local fundamentalists crave popular culture and seek a way to feel good about embracing it.

Jason_from_PG wrote:

musilhead wrote:

It was talking about movies sensored for people who would like to see the movie but not expose THEMSELVES to certain content.

I would like to see the movie(s); but just the nude scenes please. You can cut out all the rest.


There could be two side-by-side video stores run by the same company: Clean Flicks, which cuts out all the bad; and Dirty Flicks, which includes only the rest. I don't think "Gigli" would be available at a Clean Flicks-type store. It's just too awful, but could be rented from the other store.

But what about the right of the filmmaker? It is the right of the filmmaker to create movies, with content within the boundaries of what the law allows, however he/she chooses. We, as ordinary folk, do not have a right to see movies. A movie is created and then we choose to see the movie. I would say that those people who don't want to see breasts in Titanic should stand by their morals and not see the rest of the movie either. No one needs to participate in, or is entitled to participate in, pop culture. If people are going to complain about unrighteous content, then maybe they should be more courageous in their self-righteous cause.

You cant edit a film for sale without consent from the filmaker. The filmaker still gets his piece of the pie from edited films. The poor filmakers are not being oppressed by the sensorship monster. I have no problem with your views about people standing by thier morals and not seeing them at all but thats not for everybody.