My kid wanted to see a movie and I did not have any lined up, so I rented "The Great Mouse Detective" from On Demand.
It's a Disney film, a nice little Sherlock Holmes thing with mice, G rated. We were watching it when this one scene came on that caused me to do a rather large double-take.
The characters go into a seedy bar, disguised as low-life sailors. The bar has live entertainment. The patrons jeer and throw tomatoes (and knives!) at the acts, until this demure female mouse singer comes on and calms them down ... then WTF? Does a ... rather suggestive ... burlesque act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2IctxaCPqw
"It's that awkward moment when you are watching a Disney movie with your kid, and the mouse starts stripping ..." :lol:
How they got this past whoever hands out the ratings I have no idea ... Of course the kid didn't notice, but my wife and I were definitely chuckling about it.
Anyone else got some examples of this?
In the US that movie is Rated R+
Ontario censor(rating) board doesn't censor much! As Liberal as the Quebec one.
I liked it in Rodger Rabbit when Donald supposedly calls Daffy a nigger.
Snow White has some dark stuff in it that would never make it into kids movies these days. Like the evil queen telling her henchman to murder Snow White and bring her heart back in a box. He couldn't do it, so he brought back a pig's heart (OMG animal cruelty).
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2014, 09:15:48 AM
Snow White has some dark stuff in it that would never make it into kids movies these days. Like the evil queen telling her henchman to murder Snow White and bring her heart back in a box. He couldn't do it, so he brought back a pig's heart (OMG animal cruelty).
The version with Groundskeeper Willy was a lot milder.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 11, 2014, 09:13:30 AM
In the US that movie is Rated R+
:huh:
No, it's rated G.
In Dumbo they get high on "soap".
Quote from: celedhring on August 11, 2014, 09:20:03 AM
In Dumbo they get high on "soap".
General Stillwell loved that movie.
I loved the Great Mouse Detective when I was a kid.
At any rate, it was a different time back then. People were less obsessed with protecting children from reality back then, and the 24-hour news cycle and the internet hadn't yet created the perpetual outrage machine. It's also important to note that the Disney animated musicals weren't the juggernauts that they became after The Little Mermaid, and that Disney wasn't the slick megacorporation we're used to today. The movie was considered a modest success making 20-odd million dollars, so expectations were lower. And the movie was authorized and under production in a time when Disney was essentially still run by Disney's son-in-law. The clean, polished corporate suits would spend the next decade eliminating that sort of thing from the company.
I think that a lot of children's movies have little jokes for the adults, but you'll probably never see another sequence like that in a new film.
Animaniacs were good at it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIzi8YjYpak
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2014, 09:31:31 AM
I loved the Great Mouse Detective when I was a kid.
At any rate, it was a different time back then. People were less obsessed with protecting children from reality back then, and the 24-hour news cycle and the internet hadn't yet created the perpetual outrage machine. It's also important to note that the Disney animated musicals weren't the juggernauts that they became after The Little Mermaid, and that Disney wasn't the slick megacorporation we're used to today. The movie was considered a modest success making 20-odd million dollars, so expectations were lower. And the movie was authorized and under production in a time when Disney was essentially still run by Disney's son-in-law. The clean, polished corporate suits would spend the next decade eliminating that sort of thing from the company.
I think that a lot of children's movies have little jokes for the adults, but you'll probably never see another sequence like that in a new film.
Yeah, I was going to say Malthus' "large double take" didnt register at all back in the day. One more indication this generation of kids are being raised in sterile enviornment. They cant go out on their own, they cant play unless it has been prearranged by adults and they cant see anything that would trouble them (until they get to the privacy of their rooms and log onto the internet themselves....).
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 11, 2014, 09:52:03 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2014, 09:31:31 AM
I loved the Great Mouse Detective when I was a kid.
At any rate, it was a different time back then. People were less obsessed with protecting children from reality back then, and the 24-hour news cycle and the internet hadn't yet created the perpetual outrage machine. It's also important to note that the Disney animated musicals weren't the juggernauts that they became after The Little Mermaid, and that Disney wasn't the slick megacorporation we're used to today. The movie was considered a modest success making 20-odd million dollars, so expectations were lower. And the movie was authorized and under production in a time when Disney was essentially still run by Disney's son-in-law. The clean, polished corporate suits would spend the next decade eliminating that sort of thing from the company.
I think that a lot of children's movies have little jokes for the adults, but you'll probably never see another sequence like that in a new film.
Yeah, I was going to say Malthus' "large double take" didnt register at all back in the day. One more indication this generation of kids are being raised in sterile enviornment. They cant go out on their own, they cant play unless it has been prearranged by adults and they cant see anything that would trouble them (until they get to the privacy of their rooms and log onto the internet themselves....).
Don't agree - when the movie came out in 1986, I was already an adut; and though I didn't see it until now, I'd have found it just as hilarious then as now.
Also, kid's animation on TV can get downright bizzare these days (Adventure Time, anyone?). It is mostly the juxtaposition of Disney movie - with a stripping mouse - that creates the doubletake. Bugs Bunny did stuff like that all the time, but in Disney?
I loved that movie. The villain was just so very very evil.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2014, 09:59:16 AM
I loved that movie. The villain was just so very very evil.
Voice by ... Vincent Price! :)
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 11, 2014, 09:52:03 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2014, 09:31:31 AM
I loved the Great Mouse Detective when I was a kid.
At any rate, it was a different time back then. People were less obsessed with protecting children from reality back then, and the 24-hour news cycle and the internet hadn't yet created the perpetual outrage machine. It's also important to note that the Disney animated musicals weren't the juggernauts that they became after The Little Mermaid, and that Disney wasn't the slick megacorporation we're used to today. The movie was considered a modest success making 20-odd million dollars, so expectations were lower. And the movie was authorized and under production in a time when Disney was essentially still run by Disney's son-in-law. The clean, polished corporate suits would spend the next decade eliminating that sort of thing from the company.
I think that a lot of children's movies have little jokes for the adults, but you'll probably never see another sequence like that in a new film.
Yeah, I was going to say Malthus' "large double take" didnt register at all back in the day. One more indication this generation of kids are being raised in sterile enviornment. They cant go out on their own, they cant play unless it has been prearranged by adults and they cant see anything that would trouble them (until they get to the privacy of their rooms and log onto the internet themselves....).
Don't agree - when the movie came out in 1986, I was already an adut; and though I didn't see it until now, I'd have found it just as hilarious then as now.
Also, kid's animation on TV can get downright bizzare these days (Adventure Time, anyone?). It is mostly the juxtaposition of Disney movie - with a stripping mouse - that creates the doubletake. Bugs Bunny did stuff like that all the time, but in Disney?
But that's the whole point. Disney wasn't 'Disney' yet. The sterile megacorp hadn't yet been constructed, and the culture war hadn't reached the point where people would fight and die over that scene.
I remember seeing that movie in the theatre as a boy, and not finding it troublesome or unusual. It was a bad-guy bar, so why wouldn't there be slightly-clad women dancing around? After all, Jabba's palace was three years earlier, so it's not like it was a surprise to a child of the 80s that evil places were full of dancing girls.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2014, 10:08:50 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 11, 2014, 09:52:03 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2014, 09:31:31 AM
I loved the Great Mouse Detective when I was a kid.
At any rate, it was a different time back then. People were less obsessed with protecting children from reality back then, and the 24-hour news cycle and the internet hadn't yet created the perpetual outrage machine. It's also important to note that the Disney animated musicals weren't the juggernauts that they became after The Little Mermaid, and that Disney wasn't the slick megacorporation we're used to today. The movie was considered a modest success making 20-odd million dollars, so expectations were lower. And the movie was authorized and under production in a time when Disney was essentially still run by Disney's son-in-law. The clean, polished corporate suits would spend the next decade eliminating that sort of thing from the company.
I think that a lot of children's movies have little jokes for the adults, but you'll probably never see another sequence like that in a new film.
Yeah, I was going to say Malthus' "large double take" didnt register at all back in the day. One more indication this generation of kids are being raised in sterile enviornment. They cant go out on their own, they cant play unless it has been prearranged by adults and they cant see anything that would trouble them (until they get to the privacy of their rooms and log onto the internet themselves....).
Don't agree - when the movie came out in 1986, I was already an adut; and though I didn't see it until now, I'd have found it just as hilarious then as now.
Also, kid's animation on TV can get downright bizzare these days (Adventure Time, anyone?). It is mostly the juxtaposition of Disney movie - with a stripping mouse - that creates the doubletake. Bugs Bunny did stuff like that all the time, but in Disney?
But that's the whole point. Disney wasn't 'Disney' yet. The sterile megacorp hadn't yet been constructed, and the culture war hadn't reached the point where people would fight and die over that scene.
I remember seeing that movie in the theatre as a boy, and not finding it troublesome or unusual. It was a bad-guy bar, so why wouldn't there be slightly-clad women dancing around? After all, Jabba's palace was three years earlier, so it's not like it was a surprise to a child of the 80s that evil places were full of dancing girls.
I don't think anyone is fighting and dying over this scene - I thought it was
funny.
Basically, because it was all innuendo. The kids will not notice (or care). It's there, I thought, to give the
parents a laugh.
Also, Star Wars wasn't G rated. It was catering to a different group.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 11, 2014, 09:20:44 AM
Quote from: celedhring on August 11, 2014, 09:20:03 AM
In Dumbo they get high on "soap".
General Stillwell loved that movie.
Black crows and "I seen a house fly, an' I seen a horse fly..."
Most blatant animated racism until Phantom Menace.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2014, 10:08:50 AM
I remember seeing that movie in the theatre as a boy, and not finding it troublesome or unusual. It was a bad-guy bar, so why wouldn't there be slightly-clad women dancing around? After all, Jabba's palace was three years earlier, so it's not like it was a surprise to a child of the 80s that evil places were full of dancing girls.
Yeah, that was a staple/cliche from the old movies that had been re-run on TV for decades.
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 10:17:21 AM
Also, Star Wars wasn't G rated. It was catering to a different group.
By Return of the Jedi they were clearly targeting the younger group.
Ewok merchandising: PROFIT
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2014, 10:22:04 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 10:17:21 AM
Also, Star Wars wasn't G rated. It was catering to a different group.
By Return of the Jedi they were clearly targeting the younger group.
Not as young as the audience for The Great Mouse Detective. That is really for kids to watch with their parents. Star Wars appealed to an older audience, and was intended to. It does not include innuendos intended to go over the head of the primary audience (kids) and appeal to the secondary audience (parents watching with their kids).
This is reflected in their ratings - The Mouse Detective is rated "G", while Star Wars is rated "PG".
Edit: hence a certain amount of fan annoyance with the inclusion of stuff like Ewoks. 'This isn't a kiddie movie goddamit, stop doing that shit'.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2014, 10:19:26 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 11, 2014, 09:20:44 AM
Quote from: celedhring on August 11, 2014, 09:20:03 AM
In Dumbo they get high on "soap".
General Stillwell loved that movie.
Black crows and "I seen a house fly, an' I seen a horse fly..."
Most blatant animated racism until Phantom Menace.
Dunno...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_at9dOElQk
(also, a scene depicting children smoking)
I grow up watching anime. Somehow the Japanese/HK censorship standards for kids are much more relaxed than western nations. There is no gore or anything sexually explicit, of course. But character deaths, lots of onscreen blood, genocide, torture, smoking, losing a limb or two, teens or pre-teens in...fancy outfits and showing their underboobs, characters giving long speechs about their racial superiority (in uniforms that are deliberately made to look like Nazi ones, no less) and everybody hailing them as geniuses, prostitution etc are all fair game.
So I was quite surprised about the western standards. I was speechless when I found that the shows that I used to watch as a kid were all heavily edited in the west to pretend that all the character deaths didn't happen.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 11, 2014, 10:34:35 AM
There is no gore <snip> But character deaths, lots of onscreen blood, genocide, torture, losing a limb or two, are all fair game.
So in other words there is gore. :P
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 10:17:21 AM
I don't think anyone is fighting and dying over this scene - I thought it was funny.
Basically, because it was all innuendo. The kids will not notice (or care). It's there, I thought, to give the parents a laugh.
Also, Star Wars wasn't G rated. It was catering to a different group.
Today people would go to war over that. That's what the Outrage Machine has created.
And by Return of the Jedi, Star Wars had definitely become something that your kids would see. I saw it in the theatre when I was four, and I wasn't outside the norm in that respect.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2014, 10:19:26 AM
Black crows and "I seen a house fly, an' I seen a horse fly..."
Most blatant animated racism until Phantom Menace.
So are your mammies in storage or have they taken up residence in your mom's kitchen?
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2014, 11:12:48 AM
So are your mammies in storage or have they taken up residence in your mom's kitchen?
You mean my collection of unique, handmade vintage period Americana? Didn't make any movies with them, Mr. Irrelevant Point.
Disney movie "The Rescuers", has a photo of a topless chick in it for a split second. Obviously I'm not going to post it, but you can look it up.
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 10:00:04 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2014, 09:59:16 AM
I loved that movie. The villain was just so very very evil.
Voice by ... Vincent Price! :)
I think it has a sound clip from one of the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies in it as well. I suppose that's where the main character gets his name as well.
Meh, it's all symptomatic of the peculiar US puritanism when it comes to movies, always has been, always will be. Even these days. Murder, violence and gore is OK, but titties and bad language? ZOMG TEH CHILDREN
Shit, I was watching GoodFellas yesterday on AMC during the day. They showed Tommy's execution in all its bullet-through-the-back-of-the-head glory, but consistently censored the word "shit". So typical.
I see a lot of references to outrage in this thread, but no actual outrage by anyone.
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 12:39:26 PM
I see a lot of references to outrage in this thread, but no actual outrage by anyone.
True. Not hard to imagine some outrage from the outrage industry, though. Certain Christian and feminist groups would have a field day if the scene mentioned in the OP were part of a new film.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2014, 12:35:05 PM
Meh, it's all symptomatic of the peculiar US puritanism when it comes to movies, always has been, always will be. Even these days. Murder, violence and gore is OK, but titties and bad language? ZOMG TEH CHILDREN
Shit, I was watching GoodFellas yesterday on AMC during the day. They showed Tommy's execution in all its bullet-through-the-back-of-the-head glory, but consistently censored the word "shit". So typical.
Come on, at the time of release I'm positive it had the record of most profanity utterances in an American movie.
EDIT: Unless I'm reading you wrong and you mean that AMC censored it, not that the film itself avoided the word.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2014, 12:35:05 PM
Meh, it's all symptomatic of the peculiar US puritanism when it comes to movies, always has been, always will be. Even these days. Murder, violence and gore is OK, but titties and bad language? ZOMG TEH CHILDREN
Shit, I was watching GoodFellas yesterday on AMC during the day. They showed Tommy's execution in all its bullet-through-the-back-of-the-head glory, but consistently censored the word "shit". So typical.
Oh, no.
Actually, this reminds me that for the script I'm writing I have already surpassed the "fuck" quota I'm allowed in order to get a PG-13 rating, and thus I need an alternative to "For Fuck's Sake" that doesn't sound ridiculous. Any advice?
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 12:39:26 PM
I see a lot of references to outrage in this thread, but no actual outrage by anyone.
That's because we're Americans. We're used to squirrelly definitions of what is and is not appropriate for general audiences. Not a big deal.
Quote from: celedhring on August 11, 2014, 01:16:17 PM
Actually, this reminds me that for the script I'm writing I have already surpassed the "fuck" quota I'm allowed in order to get a PG-13 rating, and thus I need an alternative to "For Fuck's Sake" that doesn't sound ridiculous. Any advice?
You can always substitute a religious swear word - "for god's sake" was the original, still doesn't sound absurd, and should satisfy the rater.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 11, 2014, 10:34:35 AM
I grow up watching anime. Somehow the Japanese/HK censorship standards for kids are much more relaxed than western nations. There is no gore or anything sexually explicit, of course. But character deaths, lots of onscreen blood, genocide, torture, smoking, losing a limb or two, teens or pre-teens in...fancy outfits and showing their underboobs, characters giving long speechs about their racial superiority (in uniforms that are deliberately made to look like Nazi ones, no less) and everybody hailing them as geniuses, prostitution etc are all fair game.
So I was quite surprised about the western standards. I was speechless when I found that the shows that I used to watch as a kid were all heavily edited in the west to pretend that all the character deaths didn't happen.
Hey at least the burlesque stripping mouse in the OP was an
adult burlesque stripping mouse. :P
Quote from: celedhring on August 11, 2014, 01:16:17 PM
Actually, this reminds me that for the script I'm writing I have already surpassed the "fuck" quota I'm allowed in order to get a PG-13 rating, and thus I need an alternative to "For Fuck's Sake" that doesn't sound ridiculous. Any advice?
"Goshdarnit!"
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 01:25:35 PM
Quote from: celedhring on August 11, 2014, 01:16:17 PM
Actually, this reminds me that for the script I'm writing I have already surpassed the "fuck" quota I'm allowed in order to get a PG-13 rating, and thus I need an alternative to "For Fuck's Sake" that doesn't sound ridiculous. Any advice?
You can always substitute a religious swear word - "for god's sake" was the original, still doesn't sound absurd, and should satisfy the rater.
Thought about that, but wasn't sure whether "for god's sake" was still in regular use. Thanks for the tip.
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2014, 01:33:37 PM
"Goshdarnit!"
Think I'll use this one. Sounds more colloquial. Thanks!
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 01:25:35 PM
You can always substitute a religious swear word - "for god's sake" was the original, still doesn't sound absurd, and should satisfy the rater.
Or the Christian-approved "for Pete's sake."
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 10:17:21 AM
Also, Star Wars wasn't G rated. It was catering to a different group.
IMDB indicates PG. Close enough! :D
"For corn's sake" used to* drive my ex insane, so obviously I like to hear it as much as possible.
*It may still but I don't get close enough to her to know.
Quote from: celedhring on August 11, 2014, 01:02:01 PM
Come on, at the time of release I'm positive it had the record of most profanity utterances in an American movie.
EDIT: Unless I'm reading you wrong and you mean that AMC censored it, not that the film itself avoided the word.
Yes, you were reading me wrong. I sincerely doubt Martin Scorsese would pull a Spielberg and pussify his work.
Quote from: celedhring on August 11, 2014, 01:02:01 PM
EDIT: Unless I'm reading you wrong and you mean that AMC censored it, not that the film itself avoided the word.
that.
AMC and other american channels often censor such words as shit and fuck. On some movies, you end up with lots of beeps.
Quote from: celedhring on August 11, 2014, 01:16:17 PM
Actually, this reminds me that for the script I'm writing I have already surpassed the "fuck" quota I'm allowed in order to get a PG-13 rating, and thus I need an alternative to "For Fuck's Sake" that doesn't sound ridiculous. Any advice?
"For Frack's sake" ? ;)
Some suitable alternatives to Our Lord's Name In Vain:
Cheese and crackers! Jiminy Cricket! Peas and carrots!
Or fahdiz's fave-rave profanity, "H E double hockey sticks!"
go with "Crap"
Quote from: viper37 on August 11, 2014, 01:42:32 PM
Quote from: celedhring on August 11, 2014, 01:02:01 PM
EDIT: Unless I'm reading you wrong and you mean that AMC censored it, not that the film itself avoided the word.
that.
AMC and other american channels often censor such words as shit and fuck. On some movies, you end up with lots of beeps.
Yeah, I was aware that yank channels do that, but AMC is cable; I thought cable TV was excluded from FCC profanity regulations... :unsure:
Quote from: celedhring on August 11, 2014, 01:59:48 PM
Yeah, I was aware that yank channels do that, but AMC is cable; I thought cable TV was excluded from FCC profanity regulations... :unsure:
General cable networks, no. "Premium" channels (HBO, Starz, etc.) that carry their own subscriptions, yes. Also, a few channels (mostly Comedy Central does this) basically pay a tithe to the FCC in exchange for a limited window of coarse language being transmitted without the per-utterance fine that it usually carries.
I thought all cable networks were technically free from FCC profanity regulation, but self-censored due to fears of regulation.
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2014, 02:32:14 PM
I thought all cable networks were technically free from FCC profanity regulation, but self-censored due to fears of regulation.
I thought so too. Very rarely there have been basic cable shows with boobies shown, and apparently without any fines. Foreign channels probably count as basic cable too, and I know that at least Russian channels are pretty liberal with nudity.
Quote from: celedhring on August 11, 2014, 01:59:48 PM
Yeah, I was aware that yank channels do that, but AMC is cable; I thought cable TV was excluded from FCC profanity regulations... :unsure:
Depends on the time of day as well. GoodFellas at 4pm on a Sunday is a bit different than Breaking Bad at 10pm.
Quote from: celedhring on August 11, 2014, 01:16:17 PM
Actually, this reminds me that for the script I'm writing I have already surpassed the "fuck" quota I'm allowed in order to get a PG-13 rating, and thus I need an alternative to "For Fuck's Sake" that doesn't sound ridiculous. Any advice?
I quite like "Good Grief", some of us Englishmen still use it.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 11, 2014, 02:04:01 PM
Quote from: celedhring on August 11, 2014, 01:59:48 PM
Yeah, I was aware that yank channels do that, but AMC is cable; I thought cable TV was excluded from FCC profanity regulations... :unsure:
General cable networks, no. "Premium" channels (HBO, Starz, etc.) that carry their own subscriptions, yes. Also, a few channels (mostly Comedy Central does this) basically pay a tithe to the FCC in exchange for a limited window of coarse language being transmitted without the per-utterance fine that it usually carries.
Yeah, premium channels don't rely on advertising dollars like other broadcast channels. HBO doesn't have to worry about Papa John's or Hobby Lobby calling them up and bitching about content they're paying a lot of money to advertise during a particular hour.
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2014, 02:39:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2014, 02:32:14 PM
I thought all cable networks were technically free from FCC profanity regulation, but self-censored due to fears of regulation.
I thought so too. Very rarely there have been basic cable shows with boobies shown, and apparently without any fines. Foreign channels probably count as basic cable too, and I know that at least Russian channels are pretty liberal with nudity.
The whole thing is self-regulated in Spain - no boobs or very graphic violence (unless it's the news!) before 10 pm. We certainly don't censor or bleep films for TV, though.
I don't know any details about the rules (self-imposed or otherwise) that govern TV in Sweden.
Thanks for the non-info.
I'm not a huge fan of the FCC's profanity thing and would like to see it more self-regulated across the board, but I will say that the Seven Words (is it still seven?) restriction has spawned some creative language to subvert the system, e.g. Beavis & Butthead, South Park, Seinfeld.
Yeah and Auschwitz spawned some creative survival techniques. So it's all for the best, right?
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 12:39:26 PM
I see a lot of references to outrage in this thread, but no actual outrage by anyone.
Chill out. Nobody is trying to say you're outraged. No need for your brand of passive-aggressiveness here.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2014, 12:35:05 PM
Meh, it's all symptomatic of the peculiar US puritanism when it comes to movies, always has been, always will be. Even these days. Murder, violence and gore is OK, but titties and bad language? ZOMG TEH CHILDREN
Shit, I was watching GoodFellas yesterday on AMC during the day. They showed Tommy's execution in all its bullet-through-the-back-of-the-head glory, but consistently censored the word "shit". So typical.
I am sure I was watching Conan the Barbarian by age 10. And an assortment of other innappropriate sword & sorcery films.
Hell, most of the fantasy/sci-fi books I would read had even more graphic content (violence and sexual) and far less parental controls/advisories.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 11, 2014, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2014, 12:35:05 PM
Meh, it's all symptomatic of the peculiar US puritanism when it comes to movies, always has been, always will be. Even these days. Murder, violence and gore is OK, but titties and bad language? ZOMG TEH CHILDREN
Shit, I was watching GoodFellas yesterday on AMC during the day. They showed Tommy's execution in all its bullet-through-the-back-of-the-head glory, but consistently censored the word "shit". So typical.
I am sure I was watching Conan the Barbarian by age 10. And an assortment of other innappropriate sword & sorcery films.
Hell, most of the fantasy/sci-fi books I would read had even more graphic content (violence and sexual) and far less parental controls/advisories.
Yeah, to my lasting shame I read the Gor books when I was 14-15. :blush:
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2014, 03:35:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 12:39:26 PM
I see a lot of references to outrage in this thread, but no actual outrage by anyone.
Chill out. Nobody is trying to say you're outraged. No need for your brand of passive-aggressiveness here.
I'm not claiming anyone is trying to say I'm outraged. I'm just pointing out the fact that all of the references are to "outrage" no-one has actually shown is expressed by
anyone.
You are acting as if this "outrage" is an established fact.
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 03:53:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2014, 03:35:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 12:39:26 PM
I see a lot of references to outrage in this thread, but no actual outrage by anyone.
Chill out. Nobody is trying to say you're outraged. No need for your brand of passive-aggressiveness here.
I'm not claiming anyone is trying to say I'm outraged. I'm just pointing out the fact that all of the references are to "outrage" no-one has actually shown is expressed by anyone.
You are acting as if this "outrage" is an established fact.
I for one am Outraged by the lack of outrage over the outraged shown towards the lack of outrage.
Outrageous
Quote from: mongers on August 11, 2014, 03:57:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 03:53:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2014, 03:35:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 12:39:26 PM
I see a lot of references to outrage in this thread, but no actual outrage by anyone.
Chill out. Nobody is trying to say you're outraged. No need for your brand of passive-aggressiveness here.
I'm not claiming anyone is trying to say I'm outraged. I'm just pointing out the fact that all of the references are to "outrage" no-one has actually shown is expressed by anyone.
You are acting as if this "outrage" is an established fact.
I for one am Outraged by the lack of outrage over the outraged shown towards the lack of outrage.
I am outraged that you lost track of your grammar in composing that sentence. :mad:
You know, granted they were direct follow-ons, but The Little Mermaid is basically a movie about a 16 year old's quest to fuck, Beauty and the Beast is baby's first dominance-submission story, and Aladdin has barely-veiled rape threats. The Lion King and, lo these decades later, Frozen only have attempted dynastic murder, which isn't as outre, I suppose. But that first wave of Renaissance films had some pretty severe adult content with the serial numbers just barely filed off. Especially B+B, the child sex abuse victim's favorite Disney film according to my sample size of two.
Oh, and Rescuers Down Under features Bob Newhart killing Patton accidentally-on-purpose and a lot of sexual tension between that Crocodile Dundee rat and Ms. Bianca one one hand and Bernard's sexual frustration and perceived inadequacies on the other.
You left out Fantasia as basically just one big acid trip.
Golden Age Disney movies are just all fucked up. They actually were more-or-less intended for adults.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 11, 2014, 04:03:23 PM
You know, granted they were direct follow-ons, but The Little Mermaid is basically a movie about a 16 year old's quest to fuck, Beauty and the Beast is baby's first dominance-submission story, and Aladdin has barely-veiled rape threats. The Lion King and, lo these decades later, Frozen only have attempted dynastic murder, which isn't as outre, I suppose. But that first wave of Renaissance films had some pretty severe adult content with the serial numbers just barely filed off. Especially B+B, the child sex abuse victim's favorite Disney film according to my sample size of two.
Oh, and Rescuers Down Under features Bob Newhart killing Patton accidentally-on-purpose and a lot of sexual tension between that Crocodile Dundee rat and Ms. Bianca one one hand and Bernard's sexual frustration and perceived inadequacies on the other.
When correctly viewed
Everything is lewd
I could tell you things about Peter Pan
Or the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man. :P
Lion King featured a successful dynastic murder and 10 years of fascism.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 11, 2014, 04:03:23 PM
You know, granted they were direct follow-ons, but The Little Mermaid is basically a movie about a 16 year old's quest to fuck, Beauty and the Beast is baby's first dominance-submission story, and Aladdin has barely-veiled rape threats. The Lion King and, lo these decades later, Frozen only have attempted dynastic murder, which isn't as outre, I suppose. But that first wave of Renaissance films had some pretty severe adult content with the serial numbers just barely filed off. Especially B+B, the child sex abuse victim's favorite Disney film according to my sample size of two.
Oh, and Rescuers Down Under features Bob Newhart killing Patton accidentally-on-purpose and a lot of sexual tension between that Crocodile Dundee rat and Ms. Bianca one one hand and Bernard's sexual frustration and perceived inadequacies on the other.
I think that most Disney movies featuring romance are suseptible to such comments ... but there is I would contend a significant difference between that and the scene I linked in the OP. ;) It's a trifle more ... direct.
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 03:53:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2014, 03:35:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 12:39:26 PM
I see a lot of references to outrage in this thread, but no actual outrage by anyone.
Chill out. Nobody is trying to say you're outraged. No need for your brand of passive-aggressiveness here.
I'm not claiming anyone is trying to say I'm outraged. I'm just pointing out the fact that all of the references are to "outrage" no-one has actually shown is expressed by anyone.
You are acting as if this "outrage" is an established fact.
But isn't that my point?
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2014, 04:26:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 03:53:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2014, 03:35:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 12:39:26 PM
I see a lot of references to outrage in this thread, but no actual outrage by anyone.
Chill out. Nobody is trying to say you're outraged. No need for your brand of passive-aggressiveness here.
I'm not claiming anyone is trying to say I'm outraged. I'm just pointing out the fact that all of the references are to "outrage" no-one has actually shown is expressed by anyone.
You are acting as if this "outrage" is an established fact.
But isn't that my point?
I'm not sure what your point is.
What I'm saying is that several people here are assuming that such scenes would be met with mass outrage nowadays. I have no idea if this is true or not, as no-one has shown any actual examples of such outrage in action.
Though given asking for evidence is now "passive aggressive", I'm not sure I should question this. :P
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 04:26:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 11, 2014, 04:03:23 PM
You know, granted they were direct follow-ons, but The Little Mermaid is basically a movie about a 16 year old's quest to fuck, Beauty and the Beast is baby's first dominance-submission story, and Aladdin has barely-veiled rape threats. The Lion King and, lo these decades later, Frozen only have attempted dynastic murder, which isn't as outre, I suppose. But that first wave of Renaissance films had some pretty severe adult content with the serial numbers just barely filed off. Especially B+B, the child sex abuse victim's favorite Disney film according to my sample size of two.
Oh, and Rescuers Down Under features Bob Newhart killing Patton accidentally-on-purpose and a lot of sexual tension between that Crocodile Dundee rat and Ms. Bianca one one hand and Bernard's sexual frustration and perceived inadequacies on the other.
I think that most Disney movies featuring romance are suseptible to such comments ... but there is I would contend a significant difference between that and the scene I linked in the OP. ;) It's a trifle more ... direct.
Not really, for some reason you characterize a mouse taking off an outer layer of clothing to reveal what dancers/entertainers would have worn in that period as "stripping". You claim not to be outraged but you sure go on like you are at least to some degree.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 11, 2014, 04:34:33 PM
Not really, for some reason you characterize a mouse taking off an outer layer of clothing to reveal what dancers/entertainers would have worn in that period as "stripping". You claim not to be outraged but you sure go on like you are at least to some degree.
I characterize it as "burlesque". Which is what it is. And rather suggestive, which caused me to chuckle - because it was a good example of stuff intended for parents to get that would go right over the heads of the kiddies.
Any "outrage" is purely in your mind. Why the hostility? :huh: Between you claiming I'm outraged and Neil's screed to the opposite, what nerve have I unwittingly struck?
Actually a lot of burlesque-type "stripping" in the old days involved a heavily-clothed woman stripping the outer layers of her clothing but still remaining clothed (albeit somewhat scantily by the standards of the day).
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 04:38:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 11, 2014, 04:34:33 PM
Not really, for some reason you characterize a mouse taking off an outer layer of clothing to reveal what dancers/entertainers would have worn in that period as "stripping". You claim not to be outraged but you sure go on like you are at least to some degree.
I characterize it as "burlesque".
Yes and then you said
QuoteIt is mostly the juxtaposition of Disney movie - with a stripping mouse - that creates the doubletake.
I think it is odd that you had such a reaction to the movie. I also find it a bit odd that you find that odd.
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2014, 04:43:50 PM
Actually a lot of burlesque-type "stripping" in the old days involved a heavily-clothed woman stripping the outer layers of her clothing but still remaining clothed (albeit somewhat scantily by the standards of the day).
Yup. Dunno when the notion that "stripping" = naked started.
Here, the mouse strips her skirt revealing her burlesque outfit; it's the lyrics that make it suggestive. "I'll take off all my blues" as she takes off her skirt to reveal - an all-blue outfit.
Yeah that sounds truly outrageous, Malthus. Chillax. :rolleyes:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 11, 2014, 04:48:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2014, 04:38:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 11, 2014, 04:34:33 PM
Not really, for some reason you characterize a mouse taking off an outer layer of clothing to reveal what dancers/entertainers would have worn in that period as "stripping". You claim not to be outraged but you sure go on like you are at least to some degree.
I characterize it as "burlesque".
Yes and then you said
QuoteIt is mostly the juxtaposition of Disney movie - with a stripping mouse - that creates the doubletake.
I think it is odd that you had such a reaction to the movie. I also find it a bit odd that you find that odd.
The mouse does "strip". She strips off her skirt, to reveal her burlesque outfit.
As for the "doubletake", that is because the scene is, in reality, pretty suggestive. Are you claiming it isn't? :hmm: Or that it is "odd" to find it chuckle-worthy that a Disney movie has such a suggestive scene? :hmm:
I'm starting to think you are humour-impared. Is there some reason you have to take this seriously?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 11, 2014, 04:23:16 PM
Lion King featured a successful dynastic murder and 10 years of fascism.
And how evil minorities will steal all our resources.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2014, 05:10:00 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 11, 2014, 04:23:16 PM
Lion King featured a successful dynastic murder and 10 years of fascism.
And how evil minorities will steal all our resources.
That's just common sense.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2014, 05:10:00 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 11, 2014, 04:23:16 PM
Lion King featured a successful dynastic murder and 10 years of fascism.
And how evil minorities will steal all our resources.
A fair number of fools - and some Swedes - believe this to be true. ;)
i don't think there's any more mass outrage over children's movies today than there were in the past. i also don't think modern children movies are any tamer. wall-e showed children a dead earth with humanity barely hanging onto existence. in up, the main character's wife has a miscarriage, is diagnosed with infertility, then dies - shattering their dream of exploring the world. all within four minutes.
Quote from: LaCroix on August 11, 2014, 05:35:48 PM
i don't think there's any more mass outrage over children's movies today than there were in the past. i also don't think modern children movies are any tamer. wall-e showed children a dead earth with humanity barely hanging onto existence. in up, the main character's wife has a miscarriage, is diagnosed with infertility, then dies - shattering their dream of exploring the world. all within four minutes.
In the 1920s and early 30s parents groups complained about Mickey Mouse's bad behavior and its effects on children. So Walt cleaned up Mickey's act, and created a new character with all of Mickey's negative traits; Donald Duck. Naturally Donald became Disney's most popular character.
There's always going to be some amount of outrage; in my day it was Motley Crue and "The Simpsons" that were destroying America according to Tipper Gore and Barbara Bush, respectively. I think you have to push the envelope much further today then in the past. Here, for example, is one that outraged them in 1905:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii35WnEPaO4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii35WnEPaO4)
It's a take off of "The Great Train Robbery" but with children. (PROTECT YOUR WOMEN!) It was made in a time when movies were new, and people were just starting to consider the effects that it would have on children.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 11, 2014, 06:07:09 PM
There's always going to be some amount of outrage; in my day it was Motley Crue and "The Simpsons" that were destroying America
Lets not forget Murphy Brown. :D
Quote from: celedhring on August 11, 2014, 01:16:17 PM
Actually, this reminds me that for the script I'm writing I have already surpassed the "fuck" quota I'm allowed in order to get a PG-13 rating, and thus I need an alternative to "For Fuck's Sake" that doesn't sound ridiculous. Any advice?
[/quote
I haven't read much farther than this, but don't use "goshdarnit." I suggest "For the love of God!" or "Christ Almighty!"
I think Japan quite nicely demonstrates that we really don't need to be overly concerned with this kind of thing. I mean, anime is filled with all kinds of "undesirable content" by western standards - sexualised teenagers, gruesome murders, etc. We can also safely assume that, for decades, millions of Japanese grow up watching anime. Is Japan a crime-infested nation full of pedophiles, rapists, murderers etc? We all know the answer and in fact, Japan is one of the safest places on earth.
I don't know, a Taiwanese friend of mine that lived long time in Japan told me horrible stories on how women are treated in there. She painted it to me as a very chauvinistic culture, and I can see how anime's crazy depiction of women and little girls could derive from that.
Quote from: celedhring on August 12, 2014, 04:03:19 AM
I don't know, a Taiwanese friend of mine that lived long time in Japan told me horrible stories on how women are treated in there. She painted it to me as a very chauvinistic culture, and I can see how anime's crazy depiction of women and little girls could derive from that.
Anime is actually a relatively recent invention that only became popular from the 70s. The chauvinistic culture has a much longer history than that.
Anime is also full of female characters that are as good as or even better than their male counterparts when it comes to fighting. The popular magical girl genre is all about empowering females to do the real work while the males are usually no where to be seen. In One Piece, arguably the most popular anime show in Japan, the female lead Nami bosses the largely male crew around on a pirate ship. The tsundere is probably one of the most common female archtypes in anime, and it depicts females as both aggressive and lovely toward her love interest.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2014, 09:31:31 AM
I loved the Great Mouse Detective when I was a kid.
At any rate, it was a different time back then. People were less obsessed with protecting children from reality back then, and the 24-hour news cycle and the internet hadn't yet created the perpetual outrage machine. It's also important to note that the Disney animated musicals weren't the juggernauts that they became after The Little Mermaid, and that Disney wasn't the slick megacorporation we're used to today. The movie was considered a modest success making 20-odd million dollars, so expectations were lower. And the movie was authorized and under production in a time when Disney was essentially still run by Disney's son-in-law. The clean, polished corporate suits would spend the next decade eliminating that sort of thing from the company.
I think that a lot of children's movies have little jokes for the adults, but you'll probably never see another sequence like that in a new film.
Frozen had a beastiality and dick size joke in it and that was abox office juggernaut.
Quote from: celedhring on August 12, 2014, 04:03:19 AM
I don't know, a Taiwanese friend of mine that lived long time in Japan told me horrible stories on how women are treated in there. She painted it to me as a very chauvinistic culture, and I can see how anime's crazy depiction of women and little girls could derive from that.
You know, I'm not 100% sure, either, but I think Mono is being sarcastic. :lol: