Disturbing trend in movies...

[achilleus]

As an offshoot to the movie thread...

I'm a big fan of Sin City, and am excited to see a movie version, at the same time, I'm very disturbed by it.

The directors, Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller (creator), were very focused on making a faithful adaption of the comic book. In fact, they shot the much of the movie panel for panel from the comic book. If you've seen the online previews, you'll actually see them segue from a comic page to a movie scene almost seamlessly.

Now, what disturbs me are the concessions they've made to do the film. The original comic was very artistic, very sext, very dark, and very violent with a lot of gore and full frontal nudity (both male and female).

Interestingly, the book has no foul language....

Now, when making the movie, they cut out scenes or images that distracted from the film. What's this translate to? Well, one of the main characters, a stripper (who's naked througout 90% of the books) is fully clothed. Gone are most, if not all the full frontal male shots. I'm not sure how much of the cast will be sans clothing, but what gets me is that the gore and violence are all there untouched supposedly. Somehow, the directors feel that if Clive Owen were to walk around naked after waking up next to a girl that would be distracting, but that it's OK and essential to the story to see decapitated heads, limbs, and people gnawing at their own body parts...

Anyone else disturbed by this?

[Mr Epee]

I recently watched "Young Adam" with Ewan MacGregor, on DVD.

Lots of full frontal male nudity there... if you're trying to get your fix.

The film was English though.
-----------------------

Actually, after watching that film, I had a long discussion with a friend about how that film featured lots of nudity with less than perfect bodies. This would never happen in an American film.

------------------------

And speaking of achileus, when I got the DVD of TROY, there were several of the nude Brad Pitt scenes cut(not the full monty), where he was walking around.

[achilleus]

Not to disappoint you Mr. Epee, but I'm not so concerned with the lack of male nudity (although you seem very intrigued by the topic... ), as I am that graphic violence and gore is considered integral, necessary, and OK whereas a naked person is superfluous, gratuitous and distracting...

Considering the source, the graphic violence, gore, and nudity kinda added to the whole atmosphere...

[Elemental]

Such is the trend in America. It's okay to show near limitless violence and excessive gore but once you touch the subject of sex and nudity here comes the mpaa to censor the movie. I don't see a change in this trend happening anytime soon either. Whenever they loosen up on sex they loosen up on violence 10 fold.

Maybe your just upset b/c Sin City won't have Jessica Alba naked 90% of the film.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Elemental

Maybe your just upset b/c Sin City won't have Jessica Alba naked 90% of the film.

Now that's a big topic on the chat boards...

Personally, in the clips I've seen, she just ruins the movie for me. I've never been a big fan of hers, and it's not like she can act, so here's hoping that Rodriguez and Miller knew something that I have yet to see when they picked her...

[LUDICROUS]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Now that's a big topic on the chat boards...

Personally, in the clips I've seen, she just ruins the movie for me. I've never been a big fan of hers, and it's not like she can act, so here's hoping that Rodriguez and Miller knew something that I have yet to see when they picked her...

Coming from someone who doesn't know what you're talking about, I must take the high ground: Any movie with Jessica Alba naked 24/7 is a good movie in my books.

But now I hear she ISNT NAKED ? Hello? goodbye movie profits.

"HEY GUYS! SIN CITY! JESSICA ALBA NO DOUBT NAKED 24/7! LETS GO!" "What a let down.... *tells everyone NOT to go* "

[Maeve_Mari]

It's the movie ratings standards and guidelines that will allow a movie to contain dark violence but that would put a Restricted (R) or No Persons under 17 (NC-17)

The rating process
While the MPAA does not publish an official list of all the exact words, actions, and exposed body parts used to determine a movie's rating, some details have nonetheless been made available:

if a film uses "one of the harsher sexually-derived words" (such as f***) once, it remains eligible for a PG-13 rating, provided that the word is used as an expletive and not in a sexual context;
if such language is used more than once, or once if in a sexual context, it usually receives an R rating;
a reference to drugs usually gets a movie a PG-13 at a minimum, though a few movies were rated PG for mild drug references;
a "graphic" or "explicit" drug scene earning a film an R at a minimum;
while total female nudity is permitted in an R-rated movie, any display of naked male genitalia will (usually) result in an NC-17 rating. Non-sexual male nudity is the one exception.

http://www.answers.com/topic/mpaa-film-rating-system

Apparantly the director of a comic inspired movie couldn't accept the NC17 rating as it would knock off a large number of its intended viewers - so it's less disturbing that he did this and just more practical financially.

I guess also it could be assumed, that full frontal male nudity is just too powerful a sight for the weak and modest!!! Beware! The power of cheese! (or beefcake, as the case may be! ha ha ha)

[Svidrigailov]

I do hate censors, I really do...and the guidelines posted above by MM are so ridiculous they would be funny if they were not so sad. But...as bad as censors are...it is pretty cool that they restrict movies with naked guys more strictly than movies with naked women. Although I fear that this may come from the fact that most censors are men and probably chauvinistic, as well as probably cowardly, self righteous and stupid...maybe the slightly less stringent restriction is an acknowledgement of the inherent beauty of more femenine forms?

[noodle]

no, i'm not concerned with it at all. you simply can't translate something exactly. not possible.

this movie was borderline nc-17 for the longest time. until about 2 days ago, it got the R. nc-17 rating is a kiss of death for movies. if they would've made it any more graphic or whatever, it would've died.

the books are awesome, but i'm not a congruancy stickler. movies based on comics/books aren't going to fit, there's just plain no way to do it. sin city will probably be the best fit you'll ever see, but even it won't be perfect.

[SäbelFechter]

I've seen the preview for Sin City and it's got an interesting look to it - very graphic-novel like. I'm eager to see it when it comes out to see how it compares to the books. As for those of you looking for skin, I read a review today where it describes Rosario Dawson's costume as "stiletto boots up to here, a few strips of black leather, some mesh, a dog collar, an Uzi - and [she] still looks pretty much naked."

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by noodle

no, i'm not concerned with it at all. you simply can't translate something exactly. not possible.

this movie was borderline nc-17 for the longest time. until about 2 days ago, it got the R. nc-17 rating is a kiss of death for movies. if they would've made it any more graphic or whatever, it would've died.

the books are awesome, but i'm not a congruancy stickler. movies based on comics/books aren't going to fit, there's just plain no way to do it. sin city will probably be the best fit you'll ever see, but even it won't be perfect.

I don't believe it's possible to translate something exactly 100% from one medium to the next. This isn't a bad thing. There are things in movies that one can't do that can be used to great effect in comics.

That said, I'm happy to see a faithful adaptation, although I'm not so sure I need to see the movie. What I find disturbing is society's take on what's essential to the story, what gives an NC-17, and what's considered distracting.

A naked body, male or female, is distracting and unessential. Even when the character is a stripper at work. Seeing someone gnaw at their severed limb is essential.

It's a disturbing thought that we can show movies that depict ridiculous amounts of graphic violence and gore, yet a naked body is taboo.

I mean, think about what message is being sent out here.

Personally, I really don't care what rating this movie is, it isn't for kids regardless of the rating. It's dark, scary, and my adult friends who have read the books said very disturbing. The comic books weren't for kids either, and I think that's a fine thing.

[Svidrigailov]

its like the old saying...europeans usually censor out violence...americans usually censor out sex...

When will someone start censoring out emotionalism and sappyness? I think that's much more detrimental to society than any kind of nudity or gore.