PG-13 .. should 13 year olds really be watching some of this stuff?

[ABlipinTime]

Congratulations on completely missing the point.
What I'm getting at is how insane it is to say that a little sensuality in a movie or some swearing is worse than the merciless bloodbaths you get in a lot of action movies.

I see you misunderstood my response. I did understand what you said, but I was talking on something related that came to mind without clarifying myself.

[Nate]

Usually violenc e is in a movie for a reason.

Usually, but not always. If I was so inclined I'm sure I could find plenty of movies that had violence that was in it for no other reason than to just be "awesome."

If the film can do without it, it should

I disagree, people should never feel obligated to censor their own works, and if you don't like the content, then don't watch it. But using some device that "cuts out" objectionable content just because you want to watch something...I'm pretty sure that's not Biblical. It just seems to me trying to justify watching something you shouldn't, it's just an excuse. If you really think that kind of content is bad, don't watch it at all, censored or not.

Because if you buy the DVD, you're supporting the movie and the people who made it and all the content inside it. There is no way to tell a corporation that you liked the movie but didn't care for the sex scene if you've given them your money. They don't monitor how you watch the movie, they don't monitor if you skip scenes, and they don't monitor if you play it with a thing that cuts out content. So hey guess what? If you bought Avatar and watched it, even WITH Clear Play, the company is going to go "Wow, lots of people bought it, so they clearly liked it and we should make more movies like it!" And by purchasing the movie, you've sent a message that you want to see more content like that in your movies. And you're going to get it. But if you don't buy it in the first place, you're not supporting it. I suppose you could illegally download it but I'm pretty sure that would be unethical too.

Sorry, I don't buy it. If you don't want to see that content, don't watch movies like that. As far as I'm concerned if you want to watch a movie, watch the movie. If you think it has objectionable content, don't watch it. But pick a side and stick with it, because this whole "It's okay to watch this movie with sex in it as long as I don't see sex" is total nonsense and just a convenient excuse because you think it's too hard to live up to the standards God tells you to live up to.

I watch movies with sex in them all the time, and I don't think there's a problem with that at all. Maybe I'm wrong...but if I am wrong, at least I'm not trying to excuse my behavior by saying "But I didn't actually SEE the sex so that makes it okay!"

[K. Ayato]

I agree with Nate. Buying a PG-13 or even R-rated film just to censor it out still shows you're supporting the business, whether you realize it or not. Better if you just not buy the products and instead get something clean rather than continue to buy films for the sake of watching with a censor, which is (and I'm gonna say it) blatant hypocrisy.

[SierraLea]

I agree with Nate. Buying a PG-13 or even R-rated film just to censor it out still shows you're supporting the business, whether you realize it or not. Better if you just not buy the products and instead get something clean rather than continue to buy films for the sake of watching with a censor, which is (and I'm gonna say it) blatant hypocrisy.

Guys, we don't buy the really bad films that are made nowadays, we just have some really great classics that we screen for swears and stuff. Plus, my two older sisters get all sorts of things from the library that needs clearplay. We almost never buy movies in the first place, only for gifts usually, and thre always good and clean, like getting Legend of the Guardians for a Christmas gift. The last dirty movie we bought was X-men First Class, because I absolutely fell in love with it. I repeat, we do not buy dirty movies at all!

[Atria35]

^ That's just as bad - you've supported it's purchase by your library. They had to shell out money for it - and they'll buy more of movies just like them, which also supports the industry. If money is spent somewhere along the line, then the industry and those dirty movies are being supported. And that makes it hypocritcal.

[K. Ayato]

Even Disney has dirty moments. Not just the latest Disney films out there. I'm talking way back.

[ABlipinTime]

^ True, just ask this guy:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Hellivision/walt_disney.htm

[K. Ayato]

I wasn't being sarcastic, pal.

[ABlipinTime]

I know. If you actually read the guy, he does take it abit too far, but he also points out some things you might not expect but are still in Disney films. Don't take the appearance of his website as being an indicator that he's a total nut.

[K. Ayato]

Should have said so in the first place, pal.

[ABlipinTime]

Sorry bout that. My bad.
It's been a habit of mine today to not clarify my train of thought. See earlier in this thread for examples.

[Nate]

we just have some really great classics that we screen for swears and stuff.

Then watch the movie as it was made or don't watch it at all, but don't be a hypocrite.

The last dirty movie we bought was X-men First Class, because I absolutely fell in love with it. I repeat, we do not buy dirty movies at all!

"We don't buy dirty movies at all, except for the ones we bought!"

Yeah okay.

Don't take the appearance of his website as being an indicator that he's a total nut.

Of course not. But I will feel free to take the content of his website as him not being a nut, but a sick disgusting and vile hate-filled man who does not deserve to be linked on this site, or anywhere at all.

[airichan623]

^ That's just as bad - you've supported it's purchase by your library. They had to shell out money for it - and they'll buy more of movies just like them, which also supports the industry.

As a former teen librarian, I can tell you that circulation of movies does NOT support it all that much. They buy it ONCE, and to the movie industry, it's ONE DVD, even if 300 people watch the same copy.

[Nate]

Yes, but again, remember what I said about supporting that content? If the library buys that movie and 300 people watch it, the library will say "Wow, movies like this sure are popular!" and will in the future purchase more DVDs with that kind of content on it, thus supporting the industry. So even borrowing it for free from the library is still supporting that content. So either don't watch stuff with that content if you don't like it, or be a hypocrite, there's no other option.

[Dante]

Yes, but again, remember what I said about supporting that content? If the library buys that movie and 300 people watch it, the library will say "Wow, movies like this sure are popular!" and will in the future purchase more DVDs with that kind of content on it, thus supporting the industry. So even borrowing it for free from the library is still supporting that content. So either don't watch stuff with that content if you don't like it, or be a hypocrite, there's no other option.

That's assuming a capitalistic system of libraries. In which case, yes, libraries would probably be filled with porn and violence in the same way the internet is filled with porn and violence. However, libraries aren't competing for money of the public, but instead for the money of the government (I don't know of too many private libraries). When it comes down to the government then, they are competing for the opinion of the voting masses and not even their patrons (if they don't effect the government, it doesn't matter). Not even Universities, which are semi-privatized, choose to add that type of content to their collection - although if the government continues to defund them, you might see more of it coming to a public university near you - ya know... as part of the new 'fine erotic art' major.

But when it comes to government funding, if libraries start to become controversial (and what's uncontroversial to "Library Creates Brand New XXX Section") they lose funding from the government and cease to exist. That's why libraries prefer books on knitting, gardening and... programming languages and operating systems that are no longer used. Of course, some of their romance novels might be a bit err... but I don't think the government has realized that those novels aren't always kosher, so they exist in vast quantities for the female masses, who of course, request them .

[Davidizer13]

You do realize that those books and movies have to come from somewhere, right? The library/government isn't making those things for the library system, they have to buy them from the people who do, and the demand for them comes from the people who come up into the library and ask for a certain book. If they don't have enough copies of that book, they buy more to serve their patrons. That's what Nate's getting at, if lots of people check out a certain book, the library will buy more of it, and more money goes to the people who make it.

[Nate]

I'm not talking about full blown porn you know, just because a movie has a sex scene in it doesn't automatically make it erotic or XXX.

[DaughterOfZion]

I know. If you actually read the guy, he does take it abit too far, but he also points out some things you might not expect but are still in Disney films. Don't take the appearance of his website as being an indicator that he's a total nut.

Because lip gloss is obviously an abomination before God.
Though my gif evidently shows Satan already has me in his grip.

[Atria35]

^ True, just ask this guy:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Hellivision/walt_disney.htm

Actually, I'd say that 98% of what he put on there is ridiculous. The only thing I can agree on is that girls (even young ones) are increasingly sexulized, but I'd say that even worse than Disney is kid's beauty pageants. Nothing has ever surpassed what I've seen on Toddlers and Tiaras.

But to the original question of this thread, there are some PG-13 movies that I would show to a younger audience and some that I wouldn't. It depends on the movie and whether the kids are mature enough to handle it. I mean, I was watching movies like Hotel Rwanda before I was 18 because that sort of thing is stuff that my family supports me knowing about. I also grew up with a fairly strong awareness of Judaism and the horrors of the holocaust, knowing about those terrible things long before I turned 13, and a lot of that is considered R-rated stuff (like Schindler's List is rated). Seeing it visually isn't that great a step from knowing and hearing about and reading about the details.

[Zeldafan2]

Yes, but again, remember what I said about supporting that content? If the library buys that movie and 300 people watch it, the library will say "Wow, movies like this sure are popular!" and will in the future purchase more DVDs with that kind of content on it, thus supporting the industry. So even borrowing it for free from the library is still supporting that content. So either don't watch stuff with that content if you don't like it, or be a hypocrite, there's no other option.

They wouldn't konw 300 people watched it, though, now would they?

But really, I think you guys are being ridculous. Using Clear Play is not hypocritical, and your opinion doesn't have to be forced on other people. I personally have never used Clear Play (never had a DVD player that supported it,) but really, I don't see what the heck is wrong with you people to be so mean to Sierra about it. Calling this hypocritical is one word.... Idiotic. I mean, there are some people who don't enjoy inappropriate content in movies. Editing out swears is not hypocrsy, this is all just opinions your throwing out there and you are treating it like fact. It may be fact to you guys, but not everyone has the same opinion as you so stop trying to force your opinions and beliefs down someone's throat already.


If you think about it, you are all making some huge freaking deal about something so insignificant as this. I mean, if she's using Clear Play specificially not to support the content, thinking it won't help the industry, then that is ridiculous. But really, stop being jerks already.

[Shao Feng-Li]

She can comfortably watch movies that she wouldn't have watched otherwise. Don't put her down for trying not to sin against her conscience.

[Zeldafan2]

She can comfortably watch movies that she wouldn't have watched otherwise. Don't put her down for trying not to sin against her conscience.

Exactly.

[Xeno]

They wouldn't konw 300 people watched it, though, now would they?

But really, I think you guys are being ridculous. Using Clear Play is not hypocritical, and your opinion doesn't have to be forced on other people. I personally have never used Clear Play (never had a DVD player that supported it,) but really, I don't see what the heck is wrong with you people to be so mean to Sierra about it. Calling this hypocritical is one word.... Idiotic. I mean, there are some people who don't enjoy inappropriate content in movies. Editing out swears is not hypocrsy, this is all just opinions your throwing out there and you are treating it like fact. It may be fact to you guys, but not everyone has the same opinion as you so stop trying to force your opinions and beliefs down someone's throat already.


If you think about it, you are all making some huge freaking deal about something so insignificant as this. I mean, if she's using Clear Play specificially not to support the content, thinking it won't help the industry, then that is ridiculous. But really, stop being jerks already.

I think the point is because it's kind of like going to a museum and having the paintings look like this instead because the originals had nudity in them. It damages what the artist, or in this case the director, was trying to convey.

[Zeldafan2]

I think the point is because it's kind of like going to a museum and having the paintings look like this instead because the originals had nudity in them. It damages what the artist, or in this case the director, was trying to convey.

I can see your point. But still, I mean, its different in movies. Sometimes, (actually, a lot of time,) sexual scenes in a movie are unnecessary, and are really just pervet in my opinion. Like that one scene in the Star Trek reboot... I know it illustrates young Kirk's personaility, but really unnecessary.

[Xeno]

I can see your point. But still, I mean, its different in movies. Sometimes, (actually, a lot of time,) sexual scenes in a movie are unnecessary, and are really just pervet in my opinion. Like that one scene in the Star Trek reboot... I know it illustrates young Kirk's personaility, but really unnecessary.

But that's your opinion. The director put it in there for a reason. Kirk was always a ladies man, and that scene showed that the Kirk in the reboot is too. Directors do things for reasons; they might not be good reasons, but they are reasons.

[K. Ayato]

Call it whatever you want. It's art. A form of self-expression. If you can't get the artist's message, fine, but don't try to cover up what the artist wanted to say. It's like saying "I love Michelangelo's statue of David, but I can't stand the fact he sculpted a penis, so I'll tack on this board to cover up the nether regions."

Let people examine the art form as it is and make the decisions themselves. Don't try to cover it up.

I'm not a mom, but my husband and I already agreed that should we have kids, we'll introduce them to stuff we know is safe. If the PG-13 level of media comes into play, I'm certain we'll be able to discern whether or not they're mature enough to handle it.

Discernment, people. If you're not sure you can handle a movie, then don't watch it. At the same time, don't call it "bad" just 'cause you choose not to watch.

[Yamamaya]

They wouldn't konw 300 people watched it, though, now would they?

As someone who works at a library, they would know in a roundabout way. They wouldn't know that 300 people specifically watched it, but they can see how many times the movie was checked out. Libraries use that to determine how popular a movie/book was. The ones that don't get checked out for years and years sometimes get sold for highly discounted prices at a library's book sale.

This is why libraries always encourage you to not to put books back on the shelf but put them on carts, so they can mark that the books were used by someone. (in addition because patrons never put the books back in the right order).

[seaglass27]

^ True, just ask this guy:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Hellivision/walt_disney.htm

I love this site.

[Nate]

She can comfortably watch movies that she wouldn't have watched otherwise. Don't put her down for trying not to sin against her conscience.

But she doesn't want to see the content that makes the movie what it is. If she thinks the movie is objectionable, she shouldn't watch it. Using Clear Play is hypocrisy, plain and simple, if you think the movie has objectionable content, don't watch it, if you want to watch it, you take it as it is. It's a way of watching something you think you shouldn't watch.

Paul said that eating meat sacrificed to idols wasn't a sin. But, if someone believes it to be a sin and eats it anyway, they have sinned, even though eating meat sacrificed to an idol in and of itself isn't a sin. Why is this? Because they believe it's wrong and did it anyway.

So if you think it's bad to watch a movie because of content, but watch it anyway because of Clear Play, I say it is equally as sinful because you believe it's wrong, but think you've found a "loophole" to allow you to watch movies you think you shouldn't. I say no, I say that's nonsense. It makes you a hypocrite, plain and simple, and I'm not going to sugarcoat it. If she has a problem with it, then maybe she should stop watching movies that have content she finds offensive.

[K. Ayato]

Hooah!