Well, there is no 'X' rating, and hasn't been one for quite a long time. Just wanted to point that out. NC-17 is the rating that replaced it, and it has some different definitions. You also have films which are not submitted for classification, and those will generally have a very small distribution, since practically every theater these days is part of a chain, and chains won't distributed unrated films. However, I'm fairly sure that "Nymphomaniac" was unrated, or at least an unrated version was shown in places. But I've only seen it on disc, so I can't really comment about the different theatrical versions, assuming there were different ones.
Thanks for the correction.
Anyway, I was remembering the original review by Roger Ebert of "Brown Bunny" (it wasn't rated), and then a follow on review after re-editing, removing uneeded scenes, where Roger gave it 4 stars and a much improved review. He stated that even in the original, the explicit sex scene with Chloe Sevigny was never gratuitous, and he was never off put by the sex, just the boringly long and unneeded scenes.
I haven't watched Nymphomania, probably as I have an aversion to one of the stars recent work, so I would appreciate a comment on your part of whether I should give it a try. Both parts are on Netflix as Extended Director Cuts.
Anyway, I was remembering the original review by Roger Ebert of "Brown Bunny" (it wasn't rated), and then a follow on review after re-editing, removing uneeded scenes, where Roger gave it 4 stars and a much improved review. He stated that even in the original, the explicit sex scene with Chloe Sevigny was never gratuitous, and he was never off put by the sex, just the boringly long and unneeded scenes.
I haven't watched Nymphomania, probably as I have an aversion to one of the stars recent work, so I would appreciate a comment on your part of whether I should give it a try. Both parts are on Netflix as Extended Director Cuts.
thanks
It's difficult to give an opinion on it, as I don't know how you feel about Von Trier's work in general. I wouldn't worry too much about LeBouf (I am guessing that is to whom you were referring) as he's pretty good here, as is Gainsborough (as always). Von Trier plays a little fast and loose, self-referencing and things like that. But then, that's sort of how he's always been. I can only really say this:
If you find that you generally like Lars Von Trier's work, you'll probably like this. If you haven't liked his films for the most part, then you won't really like this. Beyond that, I wish I could help.
It's difficult to give an opinion on it, as I don't know how you feel about Von Trier's work in general. I wouldn't worry too much about LeBouf (I am guessing that is to whom you were referring) as he's pretty good here, as is Gainsborough (as always). Von Trier plays a little fast and loose, self-referencing and things like that. But then, that's sort of how he's always been. I can only really say this:
If you find that you generally like Lars Von Trier's work, you'll probably like this. If you haven't liked his films for the most part, then you won't really like this. Beyond that, I wish I could help.
Well, I appreciated his direction on Melancholia, so I guess I should give Nymphomania a try.
We don't have HBO in our house because of the sensationalism, sex, violence and 'progressive' bias shown on a regular basis. Trash can be entertaining, but Cook is moving away from the squeaky clean Apple that I've tracked since 1977.
How unfortunate that the almighty dollar, and Apple will bring this crap into American households.
This sounds like a beat-up. While I haven't seen the shows mentioned I highly doubt that they're really pornographic. Adult oriented maybe but not genuine porn. Genuine porn would be refused R rating and not available for broadcasting in this way.
That is very dependent on the broadcaster and local standards.
Hasn't the author ever been to a sex shop or watched real porn on the Internet? I mean I know this is a website for nerds but come on!
This is the first thing that came to mind for me. The author apparently has no idea what porn is.
Really? Maybe I should start watching that show. I always thought it was a second rate Lord of the Rings.
When I first watched Game of Thrones I thought it might be of a similar vein as Lord of the Rings, but it is nothing like that in my mind. It isn't porn either. From what I know of medieval times, some of the portrayals are pretty accurate. Of course the movie slides off into fantasy to a significant degree but that doesn't mean it doesn't draw on historical fact.
As for complaints about it being porn, there again it draws from reality. First off people did have sex back in the dark ages, everyone on this forum is proof of that. Beyond that strange practice related to keeping the blood line pure have been documented. If nothing else Game of Thrones takes a bit of history and mixes it with lots of fantasy, it is actually an incredibly strong production.
Hasn't the author ever been to a sex shop or watched real porn on the Internet? I mean I know this is a website for nerds but come on!
This is the first thing that came to mind for me. The author apparently has no idea what porn is.
Google for "Stacked Racks from Mars nudity" without quotes, click one of the main links and tell me that fully naked people licking each others crotches isn't porn. It's softcore porn in the sense that you don't get to see the details but besides those angles, it's pretty close. In fact, some movies are shot/cut two ways and simply distributed in different outlets.
People seem to be more interested in the pro-porn / anti-porn discussion but the article seems to be focusing more on the inconsistency in allowing porn or not. It's anti-competitive if they don't treat every instance the same. HBO could air a Playboy video feature but Playboy can't put the same feature in their own app.
If Apple is going to be against hardcore porn then that's the line, hardcore is out and that's an easy line to police because hardcore content gets a hardcore rating. Softcore content, which includes Game of Thrones, Playboy, Stacked Racks from Mars would all be adult content and allowed but hidden by default and would have to be manually enabled by adults. It was mentioned that the HBO content is subject to parental controls but these are not enabled by default. Adult content should be off by default.
Anything hardcore would be rejected by Apple. Anything with nudity, sexual content or language or strong violence would be accepted but hidden by default and required to use an authentication API. Everything else would be visible.
There’s plenty wrong with porn. First and foremost is that the vast majority of porn denigrates women, turning them into sex objects whose sole purpose is to service men, depicting women being humiliated and subjected to all manner of degradation. The there’s the matter of young males watching porn and being taught that ejaculating in a female’s face while yanking her by her hair is the norm for a loving sexual relationship.
Oh yes, there’s a lot wrong with porn and I don’t find Apple’s policies to be a double standard at all.
I disagree.
One of the main purposes for women on this planet is to pleasure men, because it's in our DNA to fornicate and to reproduce, that goes for both most males and most females.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/185724/hbo-now-on-apple-tv-highlights-hypocrisy-in-apples-no-porn-rules/40#post_2708335" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>lkrupp</strong> <a href="/t/185724/hbo-now-on-apple-tv-highlights-hypocrisy-in-apples-no-porn-rules/40#post_2708335"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <p> </p><p>There’s plenty wrong with porn. First and foremost is that the vast majority of porn denigrates women, turning them into sex objects whose sole purpose is to service men, depicting women being humiliated and subjected to all manner of degradation. The there’s the matter of young males watching porn and being taught that ejaculating in a female’s face while yanking her by her hair is the norm for a loving sexual relationship.</p><p> </p><p>Oh yes, there’s a lot wrong with porn and I don’t find Apple’s policies to be a double standard at all.</p></div></div><p><br />I disagree.
One of the main purposes for women on this planet is to pleasure men, because it's in our DNA to fornicate and to reproduce, that goes for both most males and most females.
Ive always thought Apple should allow porn and let the parents manage the devices of their kids accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
I agree.
As do I, because as an adult, I don't want any corporation to continue to be my mother. I went and got my own place even!
For many millions (not all kids, not all parents, not all anything), iOS is their internet, and yeah you have Safari, but this is app world, and info in apps totally arguably should be as free as anywhere else on the net - with ample ability for parents and other guardians to lock down whatever content they choose.
PS: It's not just "porn" that belongs in this discussion - altho' America and other countries in other ways have particularly and very fundamentalist attitudes about the human body and things it's used for - but there's another kind of hypocrisy about this kind of blue-nosery about sex when every kind of violence, gore, splatter and all kinds of hate speech is mainstream fare easily accessible by most young, impressionable minds.
Which is not to argue for censorship of that material, just more about how arbitrary singling out sex for censorship is.
Down other roads lie countries like China where searching for words like "freedom" is disallowed and draws, uhhh, negative attention.
Enlightened females actually like porn, I'm happy to say that I've met a few of those in my time.
There are few things worse than a prudish female who loathes porn and who was indoctrinated from an early age to learn that porn or nudity is evil. These people have psychological issues, not to mention various sexual malfunctions.
One of the main purposes for women on this planet is to pleasure men, because it's in our DNA to fornicate and to reproduce, that goes for both most males and most females.
Comments
I completely agree, HBO is the same as my "CdaBOOBY" app. I am so angry.
Sounds like another quality Android app, from MadC0d1ngSki11z.
Well, there is no 'X' rating, and hasn't been one for quite a long time. Just wanted to point that out. NC-17 is the rating that replaced it, and it has some different definitions. You also have films which are not submitted for classification, and those will generally have a very small distribution, since practically every theater these days is part of a chain, and chains won't distributed unrated films. However, I'm fairly sure that "Nymphomaniac" was unrated, or at least an unrated version was shown in places. But I've only seen it on disc, so I can't really comment about the different theatrical versions, assuming there were different ones.
Thanks for the correction.
Anyway, I was remembering the original review by Roger Ebert of "Brown Bunny" (it wasn't rated), and then a follow on review after re-editing, removing uneeded scenes, where Roger gave it 4 stars and a much improved review. He stated that even in the original, the explicit sex scene with Chloe Sevigny was never gratuitous, and he was never off put by the sex, just the boringly long and unneeded scenes.
I haven't watched Nymphomania, probably as I have an aversion to one of the stars recent work, so I would appreciate a comment on your part of whether I should give it a try. Both parts are on Netflix as Extended Director Cuts.
thanks
Thanks for the correction.
Anyway, I was remembering the original review by Roger Ebert of "Brown Bunny" (it wasn't rated), and then a follow on review after re-editing, removing uneeded scenes, where Roger gave it 4 stars and a much improved review. He stated that even in the original, the explicit sex scene with Chloe Sevigny was never gratuitous, and he was never off put by the sex, just the boringly long and unneeded scenes.
I haven't watched Nymphomania, probably as I have an aversion to one of the stars recent work, so I would appreciate a comment on your part of whether I should give it a try. Both parts are on Netflix as Extended Director Cuts.
thanks
It's difficult to give an opinion on it, as I don't know how you feel about Von Trier's work in general. I wouldn't worry too much about LeBouf (I am guessing that is to whom you were referring) as he's pretty good here, as is Gainsborough (as always). Von Trier plays a little fast and loose, self-referencing and things like that. But then, that's sort of how he's always been. I can only really say this:
If you find that you generally like Lars Von Trier's work, you'll probably like this. If you haven't liked his films for the most part, then you won't really like this. Beyond that, I wish I could help.
It's difficult to give an opinion on it, as I don't know how you feel about Von Trier's work in general. I wouldn't worry too much about LeBouf (I am guessing that is to whom you were referring) as he's pretty good here, as is Gainsborough (as always). Von Trier plays a little fast and loose, self-referencing and things like that. But then, that's sort of how he's always been. I can only really say this:
If you find that you generally like Lars Von Trier's work, you'll probably like this. If you haven't liked his films for the most part, then you won't really like this. Beyond that, I wish I could help.
Well, I appreciated his direction on Melancholia, so I guess I should give Nymphomania a try.
Thanks
Well, I appreciated his direction on Melancholia, so I guess I should give Nymphomania a try.
Thanks
Good luck. I hope you enjoy it -- if that's the right word to use with a Lars film.
How unfortunate that the almighty dollar, and Apple will bring this crap into American households.
When I first watched Game of Thrones I thought it might be of a similar vein as Lord of the Rings, but it is nothing like that in my mind. It isn't porn either. From what I know of medieval times, some of the portrayals are pretty accurate. Of course the movie slides off into fantasy to a significant degree but that doesn't mean it doesn't draw on historical fact.
As for complaints about it being porn, there again it draws from reality. First off people did have sex back in the dark ages, everyone on this forum is proof of that. Beyond that strange practice related to keeping the blood line pure have been documented. If nothing else Game of Thrones takes a bit of history and mixes it with lots of fantasy, it is actually an incredibly strong production.
This certainly isn't the first time porn has infiltrated an Apple device in this way.
Depends on what Apple / HBO / the media / commenters mean by "no" and "porn."
Google for "Stacked Racks from Mars nudity" without quotes, click one of the main links and tell me that fully naked people licking each others crotches isn't porn. It's softcore porn in the sense that you don't get to see the details but besides those angles, it's pretty close. In fact, some movies are shot/cut two ways and simply distributed in different outlets.
People seem to be more interested in the pro-porn / anti-porn discussion but the article seems to be focusing more on the inconsistency in allowing porn or not. It's anti-competitive if they don't treat every instance the same. HBO could air a Playboy video feature but Playboy can't put the same feature in their own app.
If Apple is going to be against hardcore porn then that's the line, hardcore is out and that's an easy line to police because hardcore content gets a hardcore rating. Softcore content, which includes Game of Thrones, Playboy, Stacked Racks from Mars would all be adult content and allowed but hidden by default and would have to be manually enabled by adults. It was mentioned that the HBO content is subject to parental controls but these are not enabled by default. Adult content should be off by default.
Anything hardcore would be rejected by Apple. Anything with nudity, sexual content or language or strong violence would be accepted but hidden by default and required to use an authentication API. Everything else would be visible.
What a completely flawed argument.
adult content =/= porn
When porn is only sex and not violence, you've got a different problem.
Game of Thrones is only pornographic (to some) because of the sex, but not because of the violence.
yet the violence is much more extreme and explicit than any sex in the show.
Infinity Blade has always been pornographic, . . . depending on what metrics you're using.
There’s plenty wrong with porn. First and foremost is that the vast majority of porn denigrates women, turning them into sex objects whose sole purpose is to service men, depicting women being humiliated and subjected to all manner of degradation. The there’s the matter of young males watching porn and being taught that ejaculating in a female’s face while yanking her by her hair is the norm for a loving sexual relationship.
Oh yes, there’s a lot wrong with porn and I don’t find Apple’s policies to be a double standard at all.
I disagree.
One of the main purposes for women on this planet is to pleasure men, because it's in our DNA to fornicate and to reproduce, that goes for both most males and most females.
welcome to the stone age.
Ive always thought Apple should allow porn and let the parents manage the devices of their kids accordingly.
Quote:
I agree.
As do I, because as an adult, I don't want any corporation to continue to be my mother. I went and got my own place even!
For many millions (not all kids, not all parents, not all anything), iOS is their internet, and yeah you have Safari, but this is app world, and info in apps totally arguably should be as free as anywhere else on the net - with ample ability for parents and other guardians to lock down whatever content they choose.
PS: It's not just "porn" that belongs in this discussion - altho' America and other countries in other ways have particularly and very fundamentalist attitudes about the human body and things it's used for - but there's another kind of hypocrisy about this kind of blue-nosery about sex when every kind of violence, gore, splatter and all kinds of hate speech is mainstream fare easily accessible by most young, impressionable minds.
Which is not to argue for censorship of that material, just more about how arbitrary singling out sex for censorship is.
Down other roads lie countries like China where searching for words like "freedom" is disallowed and draws, uhhh, negative attention.
welcome to the stone age.
I disagree.
Enlightened females actually like porn, I'm happy to say that I've met a few of those in my time.
There are few things worse than a prudish female who loathes porn and who was indoctrinated from an early age to learn that porn or nudity is evil. These people have psychological issues, not to mention various sexual malfunctions.
I disagree.
One of the main purposes for women on this planet is to pleasure men, because it's in our DNA to fornicate and to reproduce, that goes for both most males and most females.
I’m literally speechless at your response.
I’m literally speechless at your response.
I could be wrong, but I detected sarcasm.