Why I hate hollywood. Part 1 *DELETED*

Yes, but you made Rex look like a moron. For that I applaud you.

Quote:

TK-069 said:
They made a similar film like this in the late 60's, early 70's, right? It involved another famous actress during that time. Can't remember who though...

Harold and Maude?

All things considered, i'd prefer Nicole Kidman....

Bud Court was so adorable back then.

The worst part of this is knowing that Michael Jackson and Pete Townsend will be first in line to see this film (and be imagining themselves as Kidman)

(I just find this image hysterically funny)

Quote:

casselmm47 said:
Quote:

Jim Jackson said:

Doubt it, since the "MB" in NAMBLA stands for "man-boy."

But what of the RK"MB"'s....

Rob Kamphausen: Man-Boy

But what of the "s" at the end, pluralising the whole affair? It sounds like a peewee soccer team. "The Rob Kamphausen Man-Boys".

The Rob Kamphausen Man-Boys, when one isn't enough.

Quote:

Nowhereman said:
Now of course if it was a ten year old girl with an older man there would be a lot more of an outcry!
It would also probably be a Roman Polanski film!

He did a movie version of Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Wasn't that about the same thing?

Meanwhile, in the "Real World," a woman who basically acts out Kidman's role in this film is arrested and called mentally ill:

Imre's mom, Evelyn, admitted that her daughter has "a little mental problem" but declined further comment.

And Hollywood wonders why so many are calling it "out of touch."

Quote:

rex said:
LINK

Quote:

Film has Kidman
in love with 10-year-old
Actress defends bathtub scene that drew boos from audience

Raising the ire of a festival audience, a new Hollywood film pushes the limits of mainstream entertainment, featuring superstar Nicole Kidman in a romantic relationship with a 10-year-old boy.

The scene that has drawn the most attention has Kidman's character in a bathtub with the boy, although the filmmakers emphasize it involves no sexual activity.

But in a screening of the R-rated film at the Venice Film Festival, the scene drew boos from the audience.

In "Birth," the Kidman character, a widow named Anna, is confronted by the boy's claim that his body has been inhabited by her dead husband.

The woman initially dismisses the boy, but she eventually becomes convinced he is telling the truth and falls in love.

"I see this as a beautiful film about love, I do not see it as something that is exploitive or distasteful," Kidman told Associated Press Television News. "I would never want to make something like that; it's just not my thing."

The actress, 37, said she was drawn to the film, which opens tomorrow, because "it is about the strength of love, and the memory of love, and the desire to have that exist forever."

The New York Post said "Birth" has been described as "Mary Kay Letourneau meets 'Ghost,'" referring to the teacher convicted of rape for a relationship with a 13-year-old and the 1990 romantic comedy.

Kidman admitted to the Post that the bathtub scene – which is shot over her bare back and shows the boy from the waist up – is unusual, "but the whole film is unusual."

"It's not about sex, you know, it's certainly not about sex," she said, according to the Post. "It's about love, it's about being ... under the spell of somebody."

Another scene has Anna kissing, on the lips, the boy, played by 11-year-old Canadian Cameron Bright.

She asks, as they share ice-cream, if he has ever made love to a girl.

Kidman said the film is meant to make people feel uncomfortable, "but not in a way where you're trying to exploit a young boy."

With a son nearly the same age as Bright, Kidman admitted, however, it felt strange to kiss her co-star.

"It sort of was, but . . . the first time I read [the script] I really saw it, because when you read it you're not picturing a child," she said, according to the Post.

"You're actually reading a story and it sort of washes over you and you absorb the themes of the film ... loss and grief and the desire for somebody to come back."

"Birth" director Jonathan Glazer said he did not intend to be salacious, but understands he's touched on the "ultimate taboo in many respects."

"But for me [the bathtub scene] was an important part of the story – it was essential for [Kidman's character] to be confronted by that absolute no-go area.

"The context of that scene is sacred in a way."

Kidman insisted everyone involved with the film was careful to guard the boy's innocence and didn't allow him to read the script.

Many of the reaction shots in the bath scene were filmed separately, she pointed out.

"I believe in ... keeping it so that Cameron just thinks it's kind of fun and a job and, you know, he gets to get a bit of money and have a great lunch and then he goes home," she said, according to the Post.

"He doesn't quite know what he's doing, which is good."

Is nambla producing this film?

Probably not...if they were,it would be even sicker.

GRRRRRRRRRR! Yeah I so agree!!! That's so cheap to at the least infer inappopriate conduct with a child whose no older than fifth grade. How could Nicole not think how she would feel if she saw an older woman with her son??

It has literary precedence. You all lose. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

Yes, Disco, we understand. Someone else used this plot before. You don't have to keep reminding us.

It doesn't make this movie any more tasteful.

Or watchable.

Quote:

the G-man said:

And Hollywood wonders why so many are calling it "out of touch."

Just to touch on this and the title of the thread a bit.....

When the Matrix was released, did "Hollywood" and all it's ominous anti-everything that is decent and American, connotations, release it?

what about ...

Superman: the Movie?
Star Wars?
The Incredibles?
Raiders of the Lost Ark?
Schindlers List?
Sky Captain?
Jurassic Park?
Aliens?
Spider-Man?
Hook?
Unbreakable?
O'Brother Where art thou?
Tombstone?
Armageddon?
Deep Impact?
The Rock?
The Breakfast Club?
The Terminator?
The Rocketeer?
The Sixth Sense?
Back to the Future?
The Saint?
Harry Potter?
Clash of the Titans?
The Perfect Storm?
Cast Away?
Air Force One?
Braveheart?
Airplane?
Close Encounters of the Third Kind?
National Lampoon's Vacation?
BlackHawk Down?
Stargate?
Twister?
Goodfellas?
Pirates of the Carribean?
E.T.?
Ghostbusters?
Blazing Saddles?
The Mask?
Patriot Games?
Say Anything?
Finding Nemo?
The Perfect Storm?
Once Upon a Time In Mexico?
Shark Tales?
Die Hard?
12 Monkeys?
Jaws?
Starship Troopers?
Clear and Present Danger?
Blade Runner?
Minority Report?
The Iron Giant?
Austin Powers?
The Hulk?
The X-Men?
Saving Private Ryan?
Apollo 13?
Road To Perdiation?
Gladiator?
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
The Mask of Zorro?
Toy Story?
Oceans 11?
Shreck?
Unforgiven?
Mission Impossible?
The Hunt for Red October?
The Godfather?
The Lion King?
The Bourne Identity?
The Three Kings?
Apocalypse Now?
The Polar Express?
Jerry Maguire?
The Count of Monte Cristo?
The Predator?
The Untouchables?
The Star Trek franchise?
Batman
Rocky?
Independence Day?
etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum................................

Was "HOLLYWOOD" (learned and practiced right winger code for "liberal elite"), "out of touch" then for releasing all that?

Or does the phrase "Hollywood" (as if the entire city plus it's evil Chamber of Commerce there is geared and fired up and plotting the downfall of your morals) only come out when you find something objectionable? When not, does a film simply gets categorized by those out there using the negative "Hollywood" moniker, as a "good movie"? Oblivious to the fact that "HOLLYWOOD" happened to make it too?

Do good movies somehow get made by the tooth fairie and only the objectionable ones get made by "HOLLYWOOD" and their warped morality?

Isn't blaming "HOLLYWOOD" for ONLY that which you find objectionable, rather silly? Especially in light of the fact that there are many many movies made by, if not in, HOLLYWOOD. Films of which most of you comment approvingly and enthusiastically here in this forum. Both family fare and R rated fare as well.

If some of you here don't want to be seen as right wing fundamentalist extremists, then I'd suggestfor you guys to stop SOUNDING like the crazed preachers on the street corners, railing on about an entire city out to corrupt your immortal souls with their ...their... FILTH!!.

If you talk the talk, then walk the walk.

Because then it's just silly. Especially considering that most if not all of us here will be in line for just about everything "HOLLYWOOD" will be releasing from here to next summer with eager anticipation. From Ep. III to Batman to Fantastic Four. From G rated fare to NC17 indie flicks and everything in between. and you'll eat it up too! It's then that it just starts sounding as if you're parroting shit you heard but don't follow.

When and if the next edgy risky controversial film comes out, i'm sure "HOLLYWOOD" will suddenly be your boogeyman once more for all that is sick and wrong in America, and all that popcorn you guys fattened yourselves with and all the fun you enjoyed thru the years will undoubtedly all be forgotten as an entire industry (and city) gets the usual crap beaten out of it by the very people who actually wearn't forced to see any of it and even saw most of it without having resorted to accusing any cities of wickedness during the entire time .

I'm deviating from the subject which is the Nicole Kidman film but not from the thread title which is incredibly and ignorantly sweeping and generalizing.

Shit, my mom talks like this but hey, at least she sticks to her talk. Not even Disney's Pinnochio can pass the fundie test for her.

Whitchcraft you see.....

p.s. Off the top of my head, I can think of only Paramount Studios as actually being IN Hollywood.

Warners is in Burbank. Universal is in Universal City. 20th Century FOX is in Studio City. Disney is in Burbank. Sony is in Culver City. Dreamworks is in Glendale.

So "HOLLYWOOD". Ffht.

Pavlovian code words. If "HOLLYWOOD" is so bad, stay home then reading your bible and pray for all of us lost sheep and our wayward moviegoing souls as we all enjoy Batman next summer and maybe even an R rated movie too!..

I thought it would the phallic nose.

Quote:

Steve T said:
I thought it would the phallic nose.

"Tell the truth, tell a lie tell the truth. Tell a lie" - the Blue Fairy atop Pinocchio's face.

Quote:

Steve T said:
I thought it would the phallic nose.

Phallic nose?

But most of those movies didn't have a bath scene with a young boy and a naked, older woman either. It's wrong, you can call it "brave" or "courageous filmaking" doesn't mean that makes it right. It's wrong to ruin the innocence of a child!

I haven't actually seen the Nicole Kidman film so I can't comment on it. I however was commenting on this need to vilify "HOLLYWOOD" whenever anything risque comes out. That's a big leap from simply objecting to the Kidman film.

None of those movies on my long list ever come up when discussing evil evil "HOLLYWOOD". It's as if all those films got made by magic or some weird fluke and 'Hollywood' is only responsible for the Kidman film, The Last Temptation of Christ, the Excorcist, and Eyes Wide Shut.

And it's really funny when "Hollywood" is blamed even when it's clear that a film is independently made.

Not in this case, of course -- I've just seen it happen before.

"Hollywood" has become a synonym and/or shorthand for "the American film industry," and shouldn't be taken so literally within the context of this thread.

Why did rex delete his post?

People die all over the world every day.

A movie is made, showing a woman and a boy sitting in water.

Which one of these do people get most riled over?

The word is "Fiction", people.

Get a grip, and a get some perspective.....

Quote:

The Time Trust said:
Why did rex delete his post?

Whomod hijacked this thread with his psycho bullshit.

Three posts is a hijack?

I never knew it was that easy....

Quote:

Chris Oakley said:
Quote:

rex said:
LINK

Quote:

Film has Kidman
in love with 10-year-old
Actress defends bathtub scene that drew boos from audience

Raising the ire of a festival audience, a new Hollywood film pushes the limits of mainstream entertainment, featuring superstar Nicole Kidman in a romantic relationship with a 10-year-old boy.

The scene that has drawn the most attention has Kidman's character in a bathtub with the boy, although the filmmakers emphasize it involves no sexual activity.

But in a screening of the R-rated film at the Venice Film Festival, the scene drew boos from the audience.

In "Birth," the Kidman character, a widow named Anna, is confronted by the boy's claim that his body has been inhabited by her dead husband.

The woman initially dismisses the boy, but she eventually becomes convinced he is telling the truth and falls in love.

"I see this as a beautiful film about love, I do not see it as something that is exploitive or distasteful," Kidman told Associated Press Television News. "I would never want to make something like that; it's just not my thing."

The actress, 37, said she was drawn to the film, which opens tomorrow, because "it is about the strength of love, and the memory of love, and the desire to have that exist forever."

The New York Post said "Birth" has been described as "Mary Kay Letourneau meets 'Ghost,'" referring to the teacher convicted of rape for a relationship with a 13-year-old and the 1990 romantic comedy.

Kidman admitted to the Post that the bathtub scene – which is shot over her bare back and shows the boy from the waist up – is unusual, "but the whole film is unusual."

"It's not about sex, you know, it's certainly not about sex," she said, according to the Post. "It's about love, it's about being ... under the spell of somebody."

Another scene has Anna kissing, on the lips, the boy, played by 11-year-old Canadian Cameron Bright.

She asks, as they share ice-cream, if he has ever made love to a girl.

Kidman said the film is meant to make people feel uncomfortable, "but not in a way where you're trying to exploit a young boy."

With a son nearly the same age as Bright, Kidman admitted, however, it felt strange to kiss her co-star.

"It sort of was, but . . . the first time I read [the script] I really saw it, because when you read it you're not picturing a child," she said, according to the Post.

"You're actually reading a story and it sort of washes over you and you absorb the themes of the film ... loss and grief and the desire for somebody to come back."

"Birth" director Jonathan Glazer said he did not intend to be salacious, but understands he's touched on the "ultimate taboo in many respects."

"But for me [the bathtub scene] was an important part of the story – it was essential for [Kidman's character] to be confronted by that absolute no-go area.

"The context of that scene is sacred in a way."

Kidman insisted everyone involved with the film was careful to guard the boy's innocence and didn't allow him to read the script.

Many of the reaction shots in the bath scene were filmed separately, she pointed out.

"I believe in ... keeping it so that Cameron just thinks it's kind of fun and a job and, you know, he gets to get a bit of money and have a great lunch and then he goes home," she said, according to the Post.

"He doesn't quite know what he's doing, which is good."

Is nambla producing this film?

Probably not...if they were,it would be even sicker.

But thanks to Chris Oakley the original post still exists...

Quote:

People die all over the world every day.

A movie is made, showing a woman and a boy sitting in water.

Which one of these do people get most riled over?

The word is "Fiction", people.

Get a grip, and a get some perspective.....

Hey I'm not a big fan of people dying either but what can I do to stop it besides pray? But with the film industry we can speak out by not supporting the movie. What about the child actor that was in the movie? What about his "shattering of innocence?" Even if the article said they were trying to guard it..whatever, he was naked in a bathtub with someone old enough to be his mother. It's still wrong no matter how you word it or view it.

There's enough child predators out there hurting children, we definately do not have to put some of that in the movie industry!

Quote:

The Time Trust said:
Quote:

Chris Oakley said:
Quote:

rex said:
LINK

Quote:

Film has Kidman
in love with 10-year-old
Actress defends bathtub scene that drew boos from audience

Raising the ire of a festival audience, a new Hollywood film pushes the limits of mainstream entertainment, featuring superstar Nicole Kidman in a romantic relationship with a 10-year-old boy.

The scene that has drawn the most attention has Kidman's character in a bathtub with the boy, although the filmmakers emphasize it involves no sexual activity.

But in a screening of the R-rated film at the Venice Film Festival, the scene drew boos from the audience.

In "Birth," the Kidman character, a widow named Anna, is confronted by the boy's claim that his body has been inhabited by her dead husband.

The woman initially dismisses the boy, but she eventually becomes convinced he is telling the truth and falls in love.

"I see this as a beautiful film about love, I do not see it as something that is exploitive or distasteful," Kidman told Associated Press Television News. "I would never want to make something like that; it's just not my thing."

The actress, 37, said she was drawn to the film, which opens tomorrow, because "it is about the strength of love, and the memory of love, and the desire to have that exist forever."

The New York Post said "Birth" has been described as "Mary Kay Letourneau meets 'Ghost,'" referring to the teacher convicted of rape for a relationship with a 13-year-old and the 1990 romantic comedy.

Kidman admitted to the Post that the bathtub scene – which is shot over her bare back and shows the boy from the waist up – is unusual, "but the whole film is unusual."

"It's not about sex, you know, it's certainly not about sex," she said, according to the Post. "It's about love, it's about being ... under the spell of somebody."

Another scene has Anna kissing, on the lips, the boy, played by 11-year-old Canadian Cameron Bright.

She asks, as they share ice-cream, if he has ever made love to a girl.

Kidman said the film is meant to make people feel uncomfortable, "but not in a way where you're trying to exploit a young boy."

With a son nearly the same age as Bright, Kidman admitted, however, it felt strange to kiss her co-star.

"It sort of was, but . . . the first time I read [the script] I really saw it, because when you read it you're not picturing a child," she said, according to the Post.

"You're actually reading a story and it sort of washes over you and you absorb the themes of the film ... loss and grief and the desire for somebody to come back."

"Birth" director Jonathan Glazer said he did not intend to be salacious, but understands he's touched on the "ultimate taboo in many respects."

"But for me [the bathtub scene] was an important part of the story – it was essential for [Kidman's character] to be confronted by that absolute no-go area.

"The context of that scene is sacred in a way."

Kidman insisted everyone involved with the film was careful to guard the boy's innocence and didn't allow him to read the script.

Many of the reaction shots in the bath scene were filmed separately, she pointed out.

"I believe in ... keeping it so that Cameron just thinks it's kind of fun and a job and, you know, he gets to get a bit of money and have a great lunch and then he goes home," she said, according to the Post.

"He doesn't quite know what he's doing, which is good."

Is nambla producing this film?

Probably not...if they were,it would be even sicker.

But thanks to Chris Oakley the original post still exists...

Which is all the funnier that he was only replying to the last line of rex's post...