It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I am very disturbed because of something I saw on a Movie....

page: 12
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Yer...

This is what they call entertainment,pfft.

We are in a entertainment era,where they entertain you until your ears fall off and your eyeballs pop out.

To the point where you dont worry about whats going on outside of your idiot-box,so TPTB have more freedom to do what they like.

This is what they are doing,this is what they have done.



Joke? or telling us the truth? you decide..
edit on 2-8-2011 by BillyBoBBizWorth because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
charmed, no children were raped in the making of that movie and you know it. you are arguing JUST to argue and it is becoming very obvious because you keep saying "average joe." and you KNOW that what you are comparing are not the same things. if you are looking for us to justify the dirty way YOU think about kids for you, give it up. Because to be honest, it is starting to feel to me like that's exactly what you are doing. You seem to want us to not so much say the film industry is WRONG, but rather to say that average joe would be A-OK. And quite frankly, i'd be more worried about leaving my kid alone in a room with YOU than with some casting director. And that's sayin something... You are way too fixated on the sexuality of these children and not with their acting talent. And THAT is creepier than anything you claim these movies are doing. you keep spewing words like "sadists, pedophiles, rapists, lions, tigers, bears. oh my." - to be honest, you are starting to sound like Norman Bates' mother. :-/



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
by the way, none of these kids seem too traumatized when they are giving their acceptance speeches for their academy awards.


also, by the way, the little girl in the butterfly effect... the one who played the 7 year old Kayleigh - her mother was the casting director for the movie. alot of these child actors are children OF actors and are used to drama/theatre arts and acting.

I question whether some of you women who are posting are actually JEALOUS of these girls.... maybe you ladies need to start looking inside. Usually when a woman begins to feel unattractive, she will be jaded towards younger girls, fixating on the way they think men look at them or see them and becoming enraged by it, masquerading it as "caring" - when it's really just a deep seeded inferiority complex about age or weight or looks.

Man, that Psych 101 class FINALLY paid off.

edit on 2-8-2011 by highpriestess because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by Forevever
 


Body doubles are NOT always used. In the movie Bastard Out of Carolina, for example, the actor in the movie heavily kisses a little girl and then rapes her. Pillows were used during the rape scene. The actor himself got so disgusted when seeing this scene at the theater that he got up and left, wondering how he could have went through with that. The only excuse actors and film-makers have is "It's my job to pretend to rape a little girl" or "It's my job to film a pretend child-rape scene". Sorry, that just doesn't cut it. They should NOT be above the law and any parents who are so greedy to put their child in this situation should be closely examined.



.... guess his morals weren't as strong as he thinks they are ....

I call that hipocrisy.

In his defense, I couldn't find any articles that claims he walked out of the theater - you have a source?

By your own post admission - Jena Malone (who would've been 10 or 11 at the time of filming) was not involved in the rape scene - they used pillows. And we are talking about the effects on children, not Eldard's morals.

Seems like she's doing ok for herself. She was in the movie Sucker Punch - released March of this year.

I searched and searched but couldn't find any controversy surrounding her first movie "Bastard out of Carolina" - if you can provide sources (that are not forums speculating) I'd appreciate it.

Otherwise I have to assume a double was used. Like they used Jodie Foster's older sister to stand in when she was still very young.


Ever since her heralded film debut in 1996's "Bastard Out of Carolina," Malone has drawn comparisons to Jodie Foster in mostly indie-type roles in films like "The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys" (co-starring Foster),


Best I could find.

I do thank you though, for reminding me who played that role - I did see that movie - incredibly heart wrenching - awesome acting. And I had no idea she was in so many movies!



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

edit on 2-8-2011 by simone50m because: Okay, that was vicious. I can be devastatingly rabidly vicious. It's hard to contain, what more can I say?



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by highpriestess
 

edit on 2-8-2011 by simone50m because: I was way out of line. (hehee)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707

Everyone is to bow to your idea of a moral standard?


You know damn well that if your average Joe did some of the things actors and film-makers do, especially involving children, they would really be in for it.

If you think adults raping a child in a game of make-believe is subjective, then I fear for any children that may come into contact with you.


You genuinely believe kids are being abused in hollywood by the producers don't you.....


Well no one in this thread can fix that for you. I can only suggest you go out there and see for yourself, and/or contact some authoritative type person out there to confirm or deny these accusations.

Based solely on this comment, I'm convinced nothing we say will make you see otherwise, and I'm sorry I wasted half an hour trying to verify your previous claims.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by simone50m
reply to post by highpriestess
 


Your av is some occultic chick, but you sound like a trashy ignorant dude. So are you then? Some trashy ignorant dude?


occultic (is that even a word?) chick.

trashy is a matter of opinion. ignorant, by no means, though. However, if I were, i have read your posts and you would *definitely* be the pot calling the kettle black.

i take it you fall in the category of "age or weight or looks" *snicker*



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by highpriestess
 


I hear your mommy calling to you that it's way past your bedtime.
edit on 2-8-2011 by simone50m because: edit



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by simone50m
reply to post by highpriestess
 


Your av is some occultic chick, but you sound like a trashy ignorant dude. So are you then? Some trashy ignorant dude?


Wow..that was way out line.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
well. i guess you TOLD me. pshhh.



anyway, back to the topic... one thing that was not discussed - in all the "producers and directors taking advantage" conversations, i think it fair to mention that these directors and producers are not going out to elementary schools and pulling kids out of class and forcing them into these movies. these kids are reading casting calls and PICKING roles they want to audition for and going to auditions TRYING to get these roles, sometimes multiple auditions for the same role. again - parenting issue which is a personal choice and should not be subject to the "collective" dictating and policing. I am sure that given the opportunity, i could find something... SOMETHING that each of you do as a parent that I could blow up and make a huge issue out of. i guarantee it.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by angrymomma
 


no worries, angry... but thanks for stickin up for me in that regard
i have been on the internet for a long time and being called names on the internet has never kept me from making friends or getting laid, so who cares. simone is not even close to being intelligent enough to actually win a war of the words with me, as evidenced by "it's" "your mommy's calling you" or whatever comment.



thank you, again, though. it was uncalled for, but i can take it.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by highpriestess
 


I'm just of the opinion that anonymity is no reason to be a jerk.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by simone50m
 


Oh you sound so mature and responsible with comments like the one you posted
Im pretty sure it contribute to the conversation.

Im divided between laughing or just close the page im actualy reading here.

ATS is officialy now full of self sufficient egotist too absorbed by their views of morality "do or dont"
edit on 2-8-2011 by AnonymousVan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Lol... back again after another 5 hours, and this thread has deteriorated to petty stabs and name calling... how amusing.

I won’t revoice too many of my opinions, I have already stated my standpoint on this topic in multiple posts throughout this thread (feel free to look them up), other than to say (again) that movies today, including the whole movie industry, are very tame by historical standards of what has been considered entertainment in the past, even compared to the movie industry of only 50 years ago.

There are more people “worried” about what other people do than ever it seems, and more monitoring, committees, checks, etc… of people’s behaviour done by “people with strong opinions on matters” than I have experienced in my life.

***CHEER***
Bureaucracy!!! Bureaucracy!!! … RAH! RAH! RAH!
***CHEER***

Can we make it so we all have to report every waking minute of our lives to every other person so we can all be sure that we are all living how everyone else wants us to live? Yay!

Lol



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by angrymomma
reply to post by highpriestess
 


I'm just of the opinion that anonymity is no reason to be a jerk.


i agree.
thank you very much.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteHat
 





Now don't let anyone stop you or your fantasies, big hero! And if you re-read your post and get a feeling that it may sound, even in the slightest way, infatuated and idiotic, never let that bother you. You are the man of the hour!


Im amazed by your ability to understand sarcams and my cathartic humor
I could even say im baffled

Bravo bravo...



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by highpriestess
charmed, no children were raped in the making of that movie and you know it.


No where did I say she was raped. You either have terrible reading comprehension skills or are telling blatant lies as a smear tactic. I said the actor heavily kissed the little girl. If an average Joe man did this, there would be hell to pay.


you are arguing JUST to argue and it is becoming very obvious because you keep saying "average joe."


Then what is it YOU'RE doing? I must be arguing just for the heck of it because I've used the term "average Joe"? That's what this thread is ABOUT. The entertainment industry gets away with things that you and I could NOT get away with. You keep defending on-camera acts that are pedophiliac in nature simply because they are paid to do it.


and you KNOW that what you are comparing are not the same things.


As I've said, the only difference is one involves a chunk of cash and the other doesn't. That does NOT make what film-makers and actors do involving children any less wrong than if non-famous people do it. It's obvious you submit to the cult of Hollywood, where all the "beautiful people" are.


if you are looking for us to justify the dirty way YOU think about kids for you, give it up.


Coming from someone who defends pedophiliac acts simply because money is involved. How asinine.


You seem to want us to not so much say the film industry is WRONG, but rather to say that average joe would be A-OK.


More of the smear tactic. Either that or you are merely projecting your own sick nature on someone else. YOU are the one blatantly stating these acts are okay when rich, famous people do it, but not when average people do it. That's sickening.

This thread is about the entertainment industry being held to the same standards of justice as everyone else.


And quite frankly, i'd be more worried about leaving my kid alone in a room with YOU than with some casting director.


I wouldn't even leave my dog in a room with you.


You are way too fixated on the sexuality of these children and not with their acting talent.


You are turning a blind eye to abusive, destructive practices all in the name of "entertainment". I not once focused on the sexuality of any children. I referenced the perverse sexuality of some of the adults in the entertainment industry.


you keep spewing words like "sadists, pedophiles, rapists


I used the word 'sadist' and the word 'pedophile' once each. You were the first person to use the term 'pedophile' in reference to an average person who would be doing EXACTLY what these Hollywood weirdos do. It's blatantly obvious that you have MAJOR psychological issues, all the while using a laughable projection tactic.
edit on 2-8-2011 by Charmed707 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
aaaaah ATS, a place to make friends and vent your mediocre frustration when peoples dont act exactly like you want thems to do wonderful


If there is NO conspiracy , dont worry ATS users can create a perfect one presto !!!
If you dont believe it, you're called disinfo agent


On the forums, you can find so many narrow minded peoples, it look almost like a socio-anthropological experiment
They shout for tolerance and are themselves borderline ,if not, total intolerants

Keep your tears running kids, you're my source of laugher


PS: you know, actors in movies are not killed or raped for real, because.... they're ACTORS !
edit on 2-8-2011 by AnonymousVan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
wow. i am actually FLATTERED that you needed to pick my post apart line by line just to attempt to validate your point (which you did not, by the way)

well, i won't go that far. honestly, because i don't need to. the only thing in your post that i feel would remotely need clarification is this: "You keep defending on-camera acts that are pedophiliac in nature simply because they are paid to do it."

no, i am defending them because they are not pedophiliac at all. in the butterfly effect, the topic of this thread, the focal point of the film was NOT pervy acts towards children. the focal point was a person who committed suicide because of what she endured as a child. this wasn't a "smut" film, and to the contrary, made the viewer identify with and sympathize with the character - the scene wasn't put in the movie for people to "get their jollies off on" - which is what being pedophiliac would be all about.

like i said, comparing this film to kiddie porn is like comparing Picasso's La Vie to a Jenna Jameson flick.

everything else you said is moot, as far as im concerned.

ETA: i have never once mentioned money or anyone getting paid. i have only spoken about the environment of the filming - in a studio on a set as opposed to averages joe's windowless van as you keep implying. You are the only one that i have seen even mention money.

edit on 2-8-2011 by highpriestess because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join