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

All I'm gonna say is, I agree that participating in the acting out of things like rape and molestation, no matter how far they take it, can have a negative psychological effect on these children. And not only that, but everything else that goes with being deeply involved in Hollywood at a young age is not healthy for them at all. That's all I've got to say.
That, and there are some unfeeling, uncaring, cold and calculating, incompassionate people in here. What in the H-E-double-hockeysticks happened to you people to make you that way? You know what, I think you've lost it... Yep. You've lost that lovin feelin. Where along the way did that happen? "You never close your eyes anymore..."

Note to the Op - do yourself a favour, don't ever watch Kick Ass

I'm glad to hear someone else was upset of the movie. I went to see it in theaters when it came out years ago with some friends, and ended up getting up and leaving. I was very upset over the kids in the movie. I was about 19 at the time and was just sick over it. I do wish it was possibly to stop these types of movies being aloud production, and especially kids being aloud to act in these types of rolls. What were their parents thinking?!

I am not religious at all, but I still have values and undersand the basic "rules" of what is right and wrong, and I think so many MANY people today do not. So sad. You're not alone in thinking that movie was disturbing.

Originally posted by lilowl53
I am not religious at all, but I still have values and undersand the basic "rules" of what is right and wrong, and I think so many MANY people today do not. So sad. You're not alone in thinking that movie was disturbing.

Please tell me, which one of the basic "rules" allows YOU to decide what others can or can not do??

Nahh, your right, lets just make a law against children in movies, and pretend that none of this stuff happens in the REAL world....

Edit:
One more Question
According to those rules, and what your are saying.
It is right to make laws against things we dont like and/or understand, dont agree on or think is to violent/or have to much nudity for others to watch (we cant decide for ourself, if we want to see the movie??) so it must be maked illegal.
It is wrong, to explain your children what it is all about, teach them about what it is they are seing in tv, so they might learn something about our world?? (Iam guessing this is because children will DIE instantly if you do any of these things? am i right?)
Please Explain to me if i have gotten anything wrong, i dont know those rules you are reffering to...

I felt the same way about the TV show "21/2 Men" in which many sexual jokes were made in front of the boy who was playing Alan's son. And as for R rated movies, it is ironic that a kid can star in a movie that he/she is too young to go into without their parent.

You do realise, a film is a delicate, mulit-faceted and highly editted medium right?

Those kids are no doubt intelligent enough to understand what is occuring, the 'dingy basement' is actually a studio and many aspects of the law are involved from Stage A to stage Z.

Those kids will be protected, well fed, informed and legally covered.

And just because a film is about abuse, does not mean any child involved suffered from any abuse.

It's a film. With actors, studios, lights, special fx etc.

reply to post by lilowl53


Yes, it was a disturbing movie, but that was part of the point of it... plus it had an excellent, very cathartic ending.

To stop the production of movies like this would be an enormous level of censorship, and who decides what can and can’t be made? It is a very slippery slope when you start to try control the creative arts too much. It reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons where they wanted to censor Michelangelo’s "David", because it had his package showing... where does it stop?

Some of the most disturbing movies I've seen are based on true stories, "Blue Murder" and "Bad Boy Bubby", to name a couple... should we also not allow these types of movies to be made? If we did that we would be fooling ourselves that bad things don’t happen in the real world, and essentially wrapping our children in cotton.

It all comes down to good education, and an understanding of the valuable messages that a lot of disturbing movies are trying to convey.

Originally posted by Thurisaz
What is wrong with media? These movies might tell a fictional story but then they are getting children to act out the scenes!!!

The keywords here being "fictional" and "act" - none of it is real. I've seen the film - at no point does anyone advocate you go out and duplicate the events or actions of the film.

Now if a person at home set up a camera and said, "right kids, we are making a movie so take off your clothes or play a game" THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW!!! and yet here we see MOVIE Producers do the same thing and we don't see a problem with it???

Ok, what is wrong with you? How can you compare what the film portrays to what the film making is doing? Once again, its make-believe, a fantasy, not reality.

It is just a movie??? The child actors are too young to be introduced to adult themes.

That's your opinion, not society's as a whole and if you don't like it, don't watch it and don't let your kids watch it.

The real problem here isn't the film - it's you. You seem to have a problem distinguishing reality from fantasy.

Parents and the movie producers are involved with their billion dollar industry lobbying efforts in Washington, DC, to help pass the laws and legislation that legally allows the parents and the movie industries the legal means to use children in the manner we have seen them do so without a concern for the social wrong it produces among the children.

This current business practice will most likely continue, unless something is done to change what is now common movie making matter of fact, abuse of the highest order.

I take such a hard position on this issue because, well, ask yourself this question, "why if they can produce monsters, armies, giants, ghosts, bugs, ants and a multitude of repeated CGI characters and such do they not use that same technology to create children for the background shots needed in these movies?"

Often the children are just background anyway or of limited involvement in the script.

While background is simple in my mind to fix, just use special effects, CGI or whatever will work, Incorporate green screen or blue screen segments into the editing and the parents can still hock their kids into slavery for a few dollars and the movie industry can still artificially use children in those movies that just has to have some children in it while gang member home invasion types rape their mother and then watches her get murdered brutally stabbed to death while the cameras are rolling for shock effect and gore.

We have the movie industry technology to fix this social issue problem and to fix it, we should use the same system that allowed it to come into existence.

Use Washington, use the legislators and then hope that the nanny state doesn't use the same laws to regulate your tone of voice used when speaking to children or else they will eagerly take your children away with a swat team standing by and begin billing you under penalty of law for the foster parent money that is being paid to take care of the children that the State authorized be taken away in the first place.

You see, the nanny State makes money by taking your kids away under such a system. It is revenue generating and well, I guess that's just one more system taken over by some industry with only profits in mind, because that's what its all about. The cash comes first and Hollywood is no different. They are in it for the money.

Force movie makers to use alternative cinema methods in some responsible and regulated manner and I think we all would benefit from such an effort. So would the children.

Originally posted by MaxBlack
Parents and the movie producers are involved with their billion dollar industry lobbying efforts in Washington, DC, to help pass the laws and legislation that legally allows the parents and the movie industries the legal means to use children in the manner we have seen them do so without a concern for the social wrong it produces among the children.

What social wrongs are you referring to? What statistics do you have that show child/young actors in violent/sexually themed films go on to have issues or social problems? I'm very keen to see where this is documented.

This current business practice will most likely continue, unless something is done to change what is now common movie making matter of fact, abuse of the highest order.

What is the abuse that these children are suffering? Apart from perhaps the fame and overwhelming attention which I will readily admit can have a serious affect on the child(ren). But this "abuse" you speak of - what and where is it?

I take such a hard position on this issue because, well, ask yourself this question, "why if they can produce monsters, armies, giants, ghosts, bugs, ants and a multitude of repeated CGI characters and such do they not use that same technology to create children for the background shots needed in these movies?"

The same reason they do not have CG Harrison Fords and Sean Connerys - it's too expensive and you get better emotion and acting from a real person.

Force movie makers to use alternative cinema methods in some responsible and regulated manner and I think we all would benefit from such an effort. So would the children.

Speak for yourself. Your opinion, while valid and your right, doesnt' reflect my views, not the views of many others i would guess.

I'm not saying no child has never been abused by a film studio or industry - such a claim would be ridiculous. But the notions that children are overtly abused by acting in films of a rather questionable nature, be it violence or sexually themed is unsubstantiated. If we're talking low budget, UNREGULATED films - ok, that's different and there SHOULD be regulations and checks in place.

Originally posted by MaxBlack

..."why if they can produce monsters, armies, giants, ghosts, bugs, ants and a multitude of repeated CGI characters and such do they not use that same technology to create children for the background shots needed in these movies?" ...

The reason we don't completely use CGI for everything, and use a combination of editing and different mediums is called "the uncanny valley" (look it up), and we are still doing our best to climb the steep side of it... humans pick up on subtle nuances of behaviour, and actors still look more real than even the best of 3D animation, especially when close up.

Originally posted by MaxBlack
... just use special effects, CGI or whatever will work, Incorporate green screen or blue screen segments into the editing and the parents can still hock their kids into slavery for a few dollars...

That's exactly what we do currently... read previous posts in this thread that have discussed these exact points in detail.

The movie industry has many systems in place for the protection of children, what you seem to be suggesting as to how the movie industry should be ruin is exactly what happens. Compared to how child actors were treated in the past, child actors of today are veritably coddled. If you do a bit of reading on the abuse that Shirley Temple suffered, there is no way that would happen today.

Cheers

anybody seen Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971) ? The first 5 minutes will make this entire thread look like a disney movie plot discussion. For realz.

Well, this thread has been an interesting read.

To be honest, I can't comment on 'The Butterfly Effect' because it's been so long since I've seen it and can't remember that much about it. With that being said, I do believe that there are several movies with children doing things that aren't necessary except to provide shock for the audience. Isn't that what we want to do now is be shocked? The real thing is that media is there to desensitize you. But, you never hear someone say, "I want to be desensitized." No, they say, "I want to be shocked."

I agree with the person on (I think) the second page of this thread who stated that the scenes where the children are naked is part of the satanic agenda. Right on!
The more the public is exposed to this idea and scenes related to it, the less it bothers us.

I do believe that many of the children acting in these films are protected, but on the other hand, look how many child actors become seriously screwed up adults. Just because they're protected during the filming doesn't mean that they're protected once the cameras are turned off. Really shady people have easy access to these kids and the parents of child actors need to be extra vigilant in knowing where they are and who they're with at all times. Many parents are in it just for the money though. So sad.

Then, there are the movies with children doing adult things that I believe should be watched by children. Anyone seen the movie 'Kids'? That's a truly disturbing movie, but I believe that all kids should watch it because it touches upon topics such as sex and drugs in an 'in your face' way.
www.imdb.com...

I will admit that the movie with child actors that disturbed me most was 'My Own Private Idaho' with River Phoenix. Many scenes depicted totally disgusting things that the kids were doing to get the drugs they were addicted to.
www.imdb.com...

Love River Phoenix though. He was one of the child actors who was certainly a victim of the bowels of the movie industry. May he rest in peace.
www.angelfire.com...
From the article:

River Phoenix on Hollywood, October 1991 "Honestly, I can't stand parties and I hate clubs and I hate bars. You won't catch me there...."

Phoenix was pronounced dead less than an hour later, at 1:51 a.m. On November 12, the Los Angeles County Coroner's office said that Phoenix's death was a result of "acute multiple drug intoxication" involving lethal levels of coc aine and heroin. Also present in his system were traces of Valium, marijuana, and an over-the-counter cold medicine. No needle marks were found on his body. Phoenix spent his years in Hollywood cultivating an image of ascetic wholesomeness. "I met him at a Fugazi show," recalls Kerin. "He was the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet." When People magazine did an April 1990 story about "Hollywood's New Squares," he was prominently mentioned, along with Johnny Depp and Winona Ryder, as one of the new breed of actors who go to the movies, shun the clubs, and are happiest at home, fixing dinner for a few friends.

One can only guess he true views and what made him take the drugs that caused his death. He had great potential and would've gone so far.

I think a point is being left out by the naysayers to the OP of the negative effects this type of filming has on the child actors.

Drew Barrymore was mentioned - what an example of a messed up kid. We know the child actors have it rough as it is coping with their fame. When they are portrayed in scenes that are negative, for lack of a better word, there is bound to be negative abounding from it.

What a twisted society it is that feels the need to be "shocked" or "entertained" by such acts of vulgarity - acting or not.

I understand about censorship and nanny state, but who ever said a great storyline would include raping a kid?

Originally posted by Thurisaz
reply to post by boncho

 

so how do you explain a rape scene then?

and what about the smoking? so the kids weren't smoking?
Yes they were, in the movie they were inhaling and exhaling cigerettes...

is that a camera trick? pffft!!!!!

Im sorry but this statement seems ridiculous... as it is illeagal for children to smoke, there is no way leagally the movie studios had children actually smoking real cigarettes at all.. none... just didnt happen, if you can prove it fair enough but because you think it looks like they were smoking does not mean they were smoking!!

Also, where i grew up there were and are lots of kids at 7/8/9/10 who smoke... so in movies do we pretend this doesnt happen because you dont think it happens,

if your child seen the movie before he/she was 15/18 then yes it may be somthing they consider doing, but if they do see the movie then surley its your fault... as you didnt prevent them from seeing the movie?

I think the point being left out is we're not looking at kids who AREN'T ACTORS for an accurate comparison.

There are just as many kids (if not more, but lets assume a close percentage) who are messed up that had nothing to do with the makings of any movies whatsoever.


Want to blame the movie industry for those too? Fine. But I think thats an easy answer to bad parenting.

There's nothing in this world that people love more than the "shock", except placing blame on outside influences.


And although I adore River Pheonix, it was a tragic loss, while we're on the subject, THERE ARE Child Actors Who Avoided "The Curse"

Not all child actors are messed up, and there are many examples of disturbed children that grow up to be disturbed adults, that never acted a moment in their lives. It's just that with child stars they are in the limelight, and get huge amounts of media attention, so we get to see it, plus they are actors, and by their nature (whether developed because they went into acting, or maybe it's the reason they become actors to begin with) they are essentially attention seekers. Whether wrong or right, they enjoy being the centre of attention, and plus get paid astronomically for it.

Drew Barrymore may have been slightly messed up in her younger years, but she has had an amazing life, and I'm sure she wouldn't trade a moment of it these day. She seems like a very well-adjusted woman these days, who has everything she could ever want, especially compared with the likes of Lindsay Lohan. Or even worse some unknown child, physically, sexually or mentally abused by their parents (or other adults in their lives, teachers, religious figures, some random on the street, etc.), that you will never hear about, who may grow up to be a drug dealer, user, prostitute, etc...

Concerning the "shock" value of movies, it's nothing new to society... there are more examples of violence for entertainment in history than I could ever name, such as the Colosseum in Rome, stoning’s in multiple countries and cultures (some even still happening today... now that's interactive entertainment... ), lashings and hangings in Europe... these were all considered entertainment by someone at some stage, and even marketed that way! By comparison, movies of today are tame!

In the end, successful child actors are much better off and more "aware" of the world than some poor child from the slums, or even a third world country.

I don't know about Butterfly Effect, didn't watch it, but I have recently watched Games of Throne, and I kind of liked it. Until one scene where one of the queen playing there was shown sitting on her throne, with one breast exposed and a kid about 5-6 years old intermittently suckling on it. That scene disgusted me beyond words; since that moment I stopped watching that movie. And I wish someone would prove to me that the kid was really that actress' child, and she was nursing him up to that age. Because otherwise a 5 y/o kid suckling a stranger' breast is sick to the core.

There are many, many scenes with kids in today's movies that are beyond disturbing; they are down right perverse. But we don't even notice anymore; and if we do we take it as part of the show. Twisted society, we sacrifice everything for the sake of entertainment.
As for the "make-believe" stupid excuse, I would love to see which normal parent play with his kids, instead of Monopoly, some rape and gore game. But our kids are screwed anyway, so why worry about some movie scenes? As long as fun it's the only thing that matters, there will always be excuses...

"All that is necessary for bad things to happen is that good men do nothing."

reply to post by Thurisaz


While I can understand your emotion toward the film, and the fact that sometimes kids can be exposed to something that "scars" them or influences them, I think you missed something crucial - it's MPAA issued R RATING.

"Rated R for violence, sexual content, language and brief drug use."

The R (Restricted) rating is for people under 17 and requires an accompanying parent or adult guardian. This means you shouldn't let you under 17 year old see kids doing this stuff. It also means movie theatres can't legally let you see it if you are under 17. Now inevitably you will have under 17s watching the film, so when they do, it's not because of some evil marketing scheme or conspiracy to turn your kids into violent, drug addled sluts, it's because your kids found a loophole in the laws and regulations regarding the viewing of movies.

If you don't want your kid to see the movie, I suggest you don't let them see it. Afterall, there are laws and regulations, and beyond that when it comes on TV, you can set up Parental Restrictions.

I started to watch this scary paranormal themed movie ---on TV--- I think it was SYFY. Very quickly in, it was constantly this grown woman with a girl (about 8 maybe) in all kinds of situations which 'necessitaded' them being interlocked, either sitting up or laying down, with the woman's legs open and the girl ya know, in there snug. It was so ickee ickee ickee sexual uncomfortable, I couldn't take it, and was outa there. Feeling really pissed off about that, too. They try to draw you in. Bait and switch. F****rs.