What is your opinion of movies like Bad Moms?

[NonTimendum]

I know, I know. The devil lurks behind every fart joke.

Bridesmaids opens with a pretty graphic scene of a woman engaging in sexual relations with a man she obviously hates, who proceeds to kick her out of the bed when she’s done. Most of those comedies are like that; sex with strangers is perfectly fine and the only problem is when the man doesn’t pretend like he cares. And the idea that it doesn’t affect people’s opinions is laughable, considering the extreme and amazingly sudden swing in the attitudes of the general populace concerning sexual sin that has occurred within the last half-century, or even within the last decade.

Imagine Christ hanging there on his cross, do you think sitting down and watching Bridesmaids right there in front of him would be appropriate? Do you think he would appreciate that, ignore it, or consider it yet nail to be driven into his hands?

But just as He who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do
1 Peter 1:15
(Poor, childish Peter didn’t understand how funny mortal sin is)

“He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.”
Luke 16:10
(Poor, childish Jesus didn’t understand that we don’t want to be uptight)

I mean, if that’s what your conscience demands of you, then I wish you well. But frankly, I think you’re being a bit of an overly dramatic scold about it.

That’s fine. We’ll all have to answer for our actions at some point. If you think God will pop a squat, grab some popcorn, and have a nice laugh about the flagrant disregard for His commandments with you, by all means continue.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

I don’t think I could write with that much self-righteousness if I tried. Good luck, buddy.

 

[NonTimendum]

I don’t think I could write with that much self-righteousness if I tried. Good luck, buddy.

I think I could probably be as stereo-typically “broad-gate” if I wanted, but I probably have more experience with that type of thing, being that I was one at some points in my life.

 

[E_7]

Aha, watching real persons putting themselves in immoral situations doing immoral actions for your entertainment is fun, and that people who avoid that are childish? Really? Talk about moral relativism for one’s convenience.

 

[randomuser]

Aha, watching real persons putting themselves in immoral situations doing immoral actions for your entertainment is fun, and that people who avoid that are childish? Really? Talk about moral relativism for one’s convenience.

What if it promotes a pro-life message? Judd Apatow’s comedies, including the new one (The Big Sick) are nearly all pro-life with conservative messages: e.g., in The Big Sick, ex-b.f. stays w/ friend in hospital after they split up? I’d hardly call that “immoral.” Trainwreck and Knocked Up were also pro-life.

 

[Patavium]

What if it promotes a pro-life message? Judd Apatow’s comedies, including the new one (The Big Sick) are nearly all pro-life with conservative messages: e.g., in The Big Sick, ex-b.f. stays w/ friend in hospital after they split up? I’d hardly call that “immoral.” Trainwreck and Knocked Up were also pro-life.

What about it? Does it excuse the immorality in the film somehow because it is pro-life?

You can have a film with a pro-life message and not immorality in it. Did you forget about that?

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

It’s a little baffling how many people seem to think that depicting something sinful is the same as the sin itself. You guys are aware that Anthony Hopkins isn’t really a murderous cannibal, right?

 

[randomuser]

What about it? Does it excuse the immorality in the film somehow because it is pro-life?

Well, considering a lot of Catholics chose to ignore the real (not scripted) immorality committed by an elected official for “pro-life” reasons, I would say yes - yes, being pro-life excuses a lot of immorality in our world today. When people say, “I don’t condone [fill in the blank],” that’s the diplomatic way of some immorality is in fact excused if it’s for pro-life objectives. Because what could be more immoral than killing babies?

 

[Patavium]

It’s a little baffling how many people seem to think that depicting something sinful is the same as the sin itself. You guys are aware that Anthony Hopkins isn’t really a murderous cannibal, right?

Can you spot the differences?

A topless woman in bed with a man in a film is the same as a topless woman in bed with a man in real life.

A topless woman in a jacuzzi with a man in a film is still a topless woman in a jacuzzi with a man in real life.

A murder of a man/woman in a film is NOT the same as the murder of a man/woman in real life.

Shooting a man with a gun in a film is NOT shooting a man with a gun in real life.

 

[pensmama87]

Can you spot the differences?

A topless woman in bed with a man in a film is the same as a topless woman in bed with a man in real life.

A topless woman in a jacuzzi with a man in a film is still a topless woman in a jacuzzi with a man in real life.

A murder of a man/woman in a film is NOT the same as the murder of a man/woman in real life.

Shooting a man with a gun in a film is NOT shooting a man with a gun in real life.

The one caveat I would add to this is that sometimes (not always, but sometimes) nudity and sex are implied rather than explicit, and there are methods that can be used to convey them without requiring impropriety on the part of the actors involved. Techniques like that are probably more common today for television than film.

I do agree that in general sexuality is way too pervasive in visual media, and immoral situations are celebrated or normalized rather than tastefully depicted (and I do think that can be done and there can be artistic and storytelling merit in doing so.) As it is now, it’s more like fan service in anime. But I think you could make the same argument for violence, even though that’s always special effects.

Seems like the questions that don’t get asked often enough are: Is it necessary to the plot or character development? Am I depending on shock value? Am I upping the ante? Is this actually good filmmaking?

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Can you spot the differences?

A topless woman in bed with a man in a film is the same as a topless woman in bed with a man in real life.

A topless woman in a jacuzzi with a man in a film is still a topless woman in a jacuzzi with a man in real life.

A murder of a man/woman in a film is NOT the same as the murder of a man/woman in real life.

Shooting a man with a gun in a film is NOT shooting a man with a gun in real life.

Not really, no. I get what you’re saying as nudity goes: that, at least, is unsimulated. But like pensmama said, at least outside of actual porn, sex scenes themselves are almost always simulated, so I don’t see how it’s different from “shooting” someone with a prop gun.

I mean, obviously, yes, it’s possible for something to go too far. I’m not arguing that literally anything goes. And of course, you have to ask whether a suggestive scene is actually necessary for plot/character development or if it’s simply gratuitous.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Also, can we all agree that sometimes sex is funny?

 

[jazzy0710]

I saw it in theatres with a friend of mine the weekend that it came out. We both found it very amusing.

As for the Hangover, I guess it really depends on which one as there are 3 of them in total. I personally liked the first one the most. Couldn’t believe that they got so lit that they stole a Tiger lol.

The only thing I don’t like about the Hangover is the character Chow. I found him much too obnoxious.

 

[Patavium]

Not really, no. I get what you’re saying as nudity goes: that, at least, is unsimulated. But like pensmama said, at least outside of actual porn, sex scenes themselves are almost always simulated, so I don’t see how it’s different from “shooting” someone with a prop gun.

I mean, obviously, yes, it’s possible for something to go too far. I’m not arguing that literally anything goes. And of course, you have to ask whether a suggestive scene is actually necessary for plot/character development or if it’s simply gratuitous.

Are you saying that a topless woman or semi nude woman and semi nude man (I guess it could also be same sex) simulating thrusting and riding is OK? It is still a nude/seminude man and woman acting improperly. Simulating the trusting and riding is still pornography.

Is a Playboy magazine pornography? No simulated sex there, and it’s still pornography.

Add a story along with the photos of the nude woman in Playboy and you get a story. Film it and your get your film.

 

[Patavium]

The one caveat I would add to this is that sometimes (not always, but sometimes) nudity and sex are implied rather than explicit, and there are methods that can be used to convey them without requiring impropriety on the part of the actors involved. Techniques like that are probably more common today for television than film.

I do agree that in general sexuality is way too pervasive in visual media, and immoral situations are celebrated or normalized rather than tastefully depicted (and I do think that can be done and there can be artistic and storytelling merit in doing so.) As it is now, it’s more like fan service in anime. But I think you could make the same argument for violence, even though that’s always special effects.

Seems like the questions that don’t get asked often enough are: Is it necessary to the plot or character development? Am I depending on shock value? Am I upping the ante? Is this actually good filmmaking?

It depends on the methods on how they implied it. In the past, it was simply a man and a woman going to a bed and then cut the scene and move on. These days apparently the public needs to see the actual simulation of the sexual acts, which is pornography.

About violence, you just said what leads to the rhetorical question: Which special effects are used in simulating sexual scenes?

I agree with your concluding remarks.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

What if it promotes a pro-life message? Judd Apatow’s comedies, including the new one (The Big Sick) are nearly all pro-life with conservative messages: e.g., in The Big Sick, ex-b.f. stays w/ friend in hospital after they split up? I’d hardly call that “immoral.” Trainwreck and Knocked Up were also pro-life.

I think “pro-life” is a bit of a stretch. Pro-life is a political statement. His movies take a personal look at fictional individuals and are never intended to be prescriptive. His movies are no more “pro-life” because a character didn’t have an abortion than I am because I’m carrying a baby to term.

He didn’t make Knocked Up to make a statement, he just wanted to make a funny movie about a slacker loser having to suck it up and be a dad.

Just a note: The best Apatow movie of all time is ‘This is 40’.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Are you saying that a topless woman or semi nude woman and semi nude man (I guess it could also be same sex) simulating thrusting and riding is OK? It is still a nude/seminude man and woman acting improperly. Simulating the trusting and riding is still pornography.

Is a Playboy magazine pornography? No simulated sex there, and it’s still pornography.

Add a story along with the photos of the nude woman in Playboy and you get a story. Film it and your get your film.

I think a flat rule that nudity = pornography is incredibly oversimplified. I mean, there’s nudity in the Sistine Chapel, for Pete’s sake. Is there a porn painted on the ceiling in the Vatican? Pornography is nudity/sex for the sole purpose of arousing the audience. A movie that has a sex scene that advances the plot or tells you something important about the characters is not pornography.

And yes, before you object, I know it’s possible to have a fig leaf of a story in a pornographic movie…i.e, “the pizza delivery comes but she wants something other than pizza…” But it’s pretty obvious when a story is just a bare pretext for tight close ups of intercourse.

 

[randomuser]

Just a note: The best Apatow movie of all time is ‘This is 40’.

Absolutely agree – except for how long it is. It felt like 2 1/2 hours, which it probably was.

 

[Patavium]

I think a flat rule that nudity = pornography is incredibly oversimplified. I mean, there’s nudity in the Sistine Chapel, for Pete’s sake. Is there a porn painted on the ceiling in the Vatican? Pornography is nudity/sex for the sole purpose of arousing the audience. A movie that has a sex scene that advances the plot or tells you something important about the characters is not pornography.

And yes, before you object, I know it’s possible to have a fig leaf of a story in a pornographic movie…i.e, “the pizza delivery comes but she wants something other than pizza…” But it’s pretty obvious when a story is just a bare pretext for tight close ups of intercourse.

Ok, let us know how a sex scene advances the plot in a film

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Uh, what?

Sex is one of the most complex, emotionally fraught, psychologically consequential things humans do. You don’t think that you could convey something about a character in that context?