I don't know. If I want skin I'll watch a Playboy T&A movie. Sure seeing Charlize Theron's (or her body double's) backside was a nice bonus in _Cider_House_Rules_, but that wasn't the reason for buying/renting the movie.
And I wouldn't just blame WalMart, BlockBuster also has a rep for requesting modified versions of movies. It also says something when a movie which has been edited for content is still just as enjoyable. Makes you wonder what the point of the gratiutous sex and violence was. (On the other hand, I've seen movies editted for TV which cut out major plot items.)
i require some gratuitous sex (though rather less violence) in my media and am less than happy when it's removed from broadcasts (I won't even touch a DVD that's been edited). and walmart et al removing such content from films upsets me a great deal. it smacks of paternalistic censorship with a side helping of you-don't-know-how-to-raise-your-kids-so-we'll-do-it-for-you.
i don't need walmart's help, thanks very much.
T+A movies don't interest me nearly as much, because the characters are drawn too thinly to give a damn about. I like to see a connection drawn between a sexual life and a "real" emotional and intellectual life. (There's a parallel here I think to the way fancy lingerie and things that put a frame that screams "this is sex" are, to me, much less sexy than simple comfortable undies that emphasize a continuum with the other parts of life.
From what I've read on the literary edge, the connection between sex and character is erotica while sexual life without so much connection is either porn or a romance novel.
As for the comments stuff, nothing really controversial. . .and I, myself, didn't find myself curious enough to click on the links. Sorry!
kirk, its been seven years, you are still repeating yourself :)
Yes, it's not a new formulation, but I still think it's a point of view that some people might not have thought of.
Which POV?
My idea about movies-w/-skin vs. skinflicks and then lingerie vs. ordinary underthings.
@ericball "just as enjoyable" is pretty relative
There is a company that edits all the sex and language out of movie for Christians. I've wanted to start a company that does the opposite: I want to insert extra sex and cursing into movies for people. Just think how much more interesting "Ghandi" would have been. Or "On Golden Pond"
I've been keeping up with the "Hot Coffee" controversy with GTA:SA precisely because there's finally a mainstream video game out there that's made for adults (okay, not really-- I think the re-rating is BS), and it's a good test, since the usual reason given that you don't find games rated AO is WalMart as well-- they won't sell them, and apparently Walmart is such a large portion of and/or influence on where people buy games.
We're not the only country that does it-- in Germany, if you make a video game that depicts violence to humans, or shows blood, you get the behind-the-counter treatment, which kills sales. And of course you can't depict Nazis over there, even if you spend the whole game carving them up with machine guns.
Normally I wouldn't complain about this sorts of changes, if game and movie studios were responding to genuine market pressures, but I've got zero faith in the ratings systems of movies and games, and that's what studios and stores are using the draw the lines, the market isn't getting the choices it deserves.
mr. ibis, may i subscribe, immediately, to your wonderful service?
I've got a theory about why, at least in America, the country has more of a problem with sex than violence. Control. Not necessarily some kind of evil, fascist, totalitarian control like some would like to attribute to Bush and the corporations, but control in the essence of bringing the country together and getting them to do the "necessary" productive things to keep the country going, whether for protection or for economy or for the service/non-economic fortification of the family and such, even though people will argue that that's why Bush and his cabinet do a lot of things and depend on fear. Essentially, my theory is that the Powers that Be can't control Love (Dune/Frank Herbert reference there), but they can control aggression, even if they don't necessarily explicitly advocate for it on our streets. Just an example of how much more "comfortable" America is with violence than sex: Janet Jackson on the Super Bowl becomes one of the biggest controversies in years while on Public Access, they don't have any guidelines on violence even though they have rules about depicting sex. I could go on and on about this one. . ..
Oh yeah, that's also why conservatives can't accept same-sex marriage. Thing is, the whole anti-Love thing isn't explicit and an ideology that they think about. It's an ingrained tradition, and if conservatives hate anything, it's the destruction of tradition.
@Mr. Ibis My point was if the removal of the content is unnoticable to someone who hasn't see the un-cut version, what was the point for it in the first place?
Oh, I do believe that retail videos which have been editted should be clearly indicated as such. Thus, I can chose whether I want to buy it.
eric, that's just a dumb, dumb argument. If I saw Star Wars for the first time but with the John Williams soundtrack replaced by some half-decent technopop I might not "notice", but it would be difficult to argue that Williams' work doesn't significantly add to the overall work.
Not only that, even if the skin is "gratuitous" to the movie, but people enjoy it, it's still a plus. I dislike my entire media consumption being dominated by "but won't somebody think of the children?" style thinking.
Wow. . .I feel like I could try clarifying some misunderstanding, but that could make it all the more confusing. =0