angrystego @ angrystego @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

1,417

Joined

2 yr. ago

I hated the first one as well, I found it boring. All the movies are different beasts though. I loved the new one, it was completely different and had amazingly playful over-the-top action and humour. (Haven't seen Furiosa yet, but heard it's different again.)

I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I said I think child actors should not be exploited for artistic purposes. Ever. I think we both agree with that, right?

I don't find anything wrong about depicting a sex scene with a minor as a character if it makes sense artistically though (which is the case of R&J). There are ways to film it without including unconsenting or minor actors (or both).

I think of art as a form of complex communication and I think it's important to communicate even about hard, painful and taboo topics.

I also think porn is not a bad thing, so sex positivity is not connected to not being pornographic in my mind.

The sentense that acknowledges it is the one about Zeffirelli.

I agree artist should not be allowed to force actors into things they don't consent to. I also think scenes like the one in R&J should be allowed in movies.

That was me. I think this discourse is important. Is every sex depiction necessarily porn? I don't think so. I think sex can be depicted in art and media for other than pornographic purposes and it's ok to do so. But it shouldn't be done by assholes like Zeffirelli, let's agree at least on that.

I never found the scene in R&J pornographic, it spoke to me in the way the narrative should go - young people fall in love and consume their relationship. I felt happy for them, but not turned on. If anyone IS turned on by some scenes, that's ok too, everyone has different triggers I guess, and it can't be helped. The fact that, let's say, a view of an actress's feet or an actor's arms turns some people on doesn't mean these things shouldn't be depicted.

Every living artist uses other people's art as training data without their consent. That's the way art works and it's ok. Please let's not consider every artist has to pay for every piece of art they ever layed their eyes on to be allowed to create art themselves.

Yes, art has always been derivative. One artist inspires the other, borrows from the other, reacts on the ither. That's the way it works. The copyright laws we have now are pushing all life out of art in the name of making money.

AI is a tool. The product can be a random slop if you give it sloppy instructions, or someone can realize this way their great artistic idea that they would not be able to make real otherwise. The pictures don't just generate themselves, you know? It's living people who tell the machine what's on their minds. If your mind is creative, the results can be good.

Where do I get the jingling keys?

It is, it's playful and meaningful and awsome. It's my favourite kind of art. It's what the biggest artists do. Art works like memes. When you don't let people derive from each other, you suffocate art.

I know, right? I don't think sex scenes are inherently bad. I also don't think consensual sexuality in young (or old) people is inherently bad and I don't think it's depiction in movies is inherently bad. Let's say my view of mutually consenting sex is very positive.

It's the way the actors may be treated by their on-set superiors and by the general public in today's society that's making me worried, not the content itself. I think making this kind of movies should be possible without danger for the actors and the way to make it possible is striving for a more tolerant, more sex positive society that is more relaxed in the naked body department.

It's just boobs.

Ok, I do agree with your view of Zeffifelli.

Just because of the dare at the end and despite me not being a downvoter, let me try and play the devil's advocate for the "showing a minor's breasts in a movie" thing.

Let's strive for a society that doesn't view a human naked body as something needlessly and automatically sexual (Shakespear or not). Women and girls should not be ashamed and afraid to show their breasts because of people sexualizing (and potentially attacking) them. A naked body, no matter the gender or age, is just a body. People should not feel they have to cover any part of it to be safe. (Let's also note the extent of covering needed is rather culture-specific.)

I wish I could look at the scene and feel moved by Julia's youth and her first experience of love (I feel Julia's young inexperienced sexuality is portrayed well in the movie and it doesn't feel gratuitous) without fearing for the safety and well-being of the actress.

It's not like you can just get rid of popes right away, so you can as well get used to commenting their evilness level. It's not the same as defending them, just evaluation of the current situation in historical context. There WERE worse times.

If I'm not wrong, he extracted the beans from the cherries, dried them and started to roast them immediately afterwards without stripping the inner hull. I suppose the inner hull could be rather prone to getting burned.

You can roast in the oven as well and smaller doses in a frying pan - works well.

I know a family that celebrates halfbirthday of their kid for this reason (on June 25).

Happy birthday!

In my case ignoring insults lead to violent escallation. They wanted the reactions badly.

The comment was about meditation, not medication ;)

Don't threaten scientists with a good time.

One basket is practically the same solution as one drawer.