All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:40 am

shanebrown wrote:Cryogenic, are we the ones that are mad here? I just want to check here!


Don't ask me. I could be mad.

sid wrote:Hopefully people will come to there senses and boycott it before it even reaches our shores, or EPE or the songwriters give it the wide berth it deserves.


sid wrote:And please dont insult me or my intelligence again...........my posts on this board may not be rivetting or as full of Elvis information as you like, but I am a newcomer to Forums......less than a year in fact..........but am here to learn.


Here to learn -- or here to preach?

You're doing a very good job of the latter, unambiguously proving your ignorance in the process.

Nighty night!

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:02 am

shanebrown wrote:Sid, so you dont think that these kids with a similar storyline to the film could have benefitted from the public being better educated as to what they went through and what they are probably still going through?



Shane


Some people can't be educated against these sort of thing, it's just in them, born with it shall we say.

We can give as many lessons as we like about the danger's of Rape, Molesting, Sexual Abuse whatever else you want call it, but it's been proven hasn't it that it doesnt work, take some of our cases in England for instance, I wont name names in Memory of those beautiful children, but we only have to pick up some of our newspapers to find out that someone who had been locked up for being a pervert, has got out of jail and did it again, that is what I mean by it's born in them........they can't be helped.....they just go along with the system........and shall I tell you something else that will make your blood run cold.......half of these people are allowed back near or with the child/children involved or in the worst cases amongst the parents who have ''lost'' their child because of something the scum had done........and their child was so badly damaged they couldn't go on living in a family unit anymore.

I dont know about you Shane, but I have two sons one is 24 the other is 18 this month and I have been blessed that they have turned out to be fine decent young men, who through me and their Dad know they have to respect women, on the other hand , what is this film going to educate people about?. If there was going to be any sort of message in it surely it should have been about ''prevention'' of abuse rather than going along with glorifying it, which in effect is what it is doing. How can the portrayal of a 12 year old rape victim have any lessons in it whatsoever, wether its shown or not.

Take a step back a minute and view this film from a different set of eyes so to speak, then come back and we will discuss it more, and I dont mean that in an offensive way whatsoever.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:04 am

Cryogenic wrote:
shanebrown wrote:Cryogenic, are we the ones that are mad here? I just want to check here!


Don't ask me. I could be mad.

sid wrote:Hopefully people will come to there senses and boycott it before it even reaches our shores, or EPE or the songwriters give it the wide berth it deserves.


sid wrote:And please dont insult me or my intelligence again...........my posts on this board may not be rivetting or as full of Elvis information as you like, but I am a newcomer to Forums......less than a year in fact..........but am here to learn.


Here to learn -- or here to preach?

You're doing a very good job of the latter, unambiguously proving your ignorance in the process.

Nighty night!



Cyrogenic

Grow up

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:34 am

Most controversial topic of FECC EVER??? A pretty big contender at the least

Oh, and just as a side note, Elvis was involved indirectly with a to be rape scene in Change of habit. But that could've been victim, played by Mary Tyler Moore, was a adult actress, so i guess that could be aside from the discussion, or maybe not...

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:41 am

But Jak does it matter if it was filmed or not ,

This is what I base my anger towards the film on .........

Maybe the most controversial film heading to this month's Sundance Film
Festival concerns the rape of a 12-year-old girl


You see....we already know by this piece that it happens, and wether it is seen or not.

Why use a 12 year old........why use rape?

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:48 am

Cryogenic wrote:The pathetic moralising from people in here is, in a word ......... SHOCKING.

But not at all surprising.

If you don't like it, don't watch it. Simple.

To denigrate and accuse people who don't blindly hate this endeavour is Salem-esque hysteria at its finest.

Live and let live? More Christian BS. Ah....... what a lovely belief system.

And this is particularly interesting:

Scatter wrote:Errrrrrrr.........no,the case doesn't change a bit. The prelude to the rape will certainly be portrayed. If the rape itself is not shown to the point of penetration, does that make it OK with you people??

"Ah well, her knickers were hardly off at all.Just a bit of tearing at clothes ON THE 12 YEAR OLD.

Nothing at all really.

All the moaning and screaming was done while actual penetration was off-camera. Then the shot as the poor, socially unfortunate bloke pulled back and upped his trousers. Nothing at all..........."


For someone who supposedly hates this entire idea to the very core of his being ............ you do have a way with words.


Listen to yourself (it's not fair we have to be subjected to your drivel alone). King of hyperbole. OHHHHHHHH the witch trials. Typical garbage.

Let us know when you're leaving. I wouldn't want to blink and miss the mourning period

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:48 am

Scott Haigh 781990EP wrote:Most controversial topic of FECC EVER??? A pretty big contender at the least

Oh, and just as a side note, Elvis was involved indirectly with a to be rape scene in Change of habit. But that could've been victim, played by Mary Tyler Moore, was a adult actress, so i guess that could be aside from the discussion, or maybe not...


And according to Priscilla, well...

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:54 am

shanebrown wrote:Ok. So, the article tells us within a few lines that the Fanning is "raped onscreen" and that the director "doesn't show the rape". Interesting. And you are making judgements on an article that doesn't actually know what its talking about. I still stand my ground.


Again........you need to learn to read. What is the bodysuit for?? Off screen?? YOU JUST ASSURED US we wouldn't see ANYTHING, didn't you?? Didn't you??

Now, we see she has need of a bodysuit. Why?? You just told us she wouldn't be seen. Her face is shown during the rape.Nice. But you just told us she wouldn't be seen.

Yet, you stand behind statements assuring us she wouldn't be seen. I've got some advice for you...........drop film school. You have a brilliant future in politics. Or as a weatherman.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:58 am

shanebrown wrote:Since the issue of Elvis would think does seem to concern you, it seems to me that Elvis for most of his career was yearning to do serious, even arty, movies. In the ones that he did feature in there were murders, blackmailing, heroin addiction and the attempted rape of a nun. I never met Elvis, I never asked him what he thought of using his music in a film such as this. Obviously you can read his mind though. Perhaps you have some contact with him via Jonathan Edwards or some other medium?

I ask you questions now.

1.) Why is child murder not as daring as child rape? Why do we accept one more than the other?

2.) Madonna of the Seven Moons was made 61 years ago. Which film will be more honest in its portrayal of what the victim had to go through following the rape? Which film would have covered up the nastiness so that the poor public didn't have to be bothered by the aftermath that followed for years after? And, therefore, which fill will be ultimately more responsible?

3.) Not a question here. But you are reading with your discussion of "art" something that I didn't refer to. If you wish to read that into the situation that is your perogative.

4.) You say at one point that the scene was shot above the shoulders. You then say that we are going to see her body...her face? Is her body between her neck and face then? Strange looking girl, I reckon! Or do you not read your own posts?

5.) Perhaps you would like to respond to my last two posts?


Errrrrrrr..........Einstein. The quote was from the PRODUCTION MANAGER. Not me. I suppose the bodysuit is to cover her face then according to you, right?? A bodysuit covers the BODY. The PM said that the face was shown DURING THE RAPE. Or possibly some OTHER revealing scene with a CHILD

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:01 am

shanebrown wrote:I wrote five minutes ago why the body suit would be needed. Please go back and read it as I am very tired or repeating myself so that you understand.


Yeah, to cover her face, or for some other scene where one would require revaling the body of a child. Sweeeeet.

Besides, you assured us she wouldn't be seen at all during the rape. Now it's head and shoulders. Maybe more.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:04 am

shanebrown wrote:Sid, I still see no evidence that this film is glorifying it. I have said elsewhere in this thread that part of the film might be concerned with trying to stop offendors being let back into the community, or from preventing it by showing the dangers of the internet etc to parents. Or simply to encourage other girls/women who have been abused or rape to come forward and for them to see that they are not alone.. I see none of these things as glorifying the events and all of them as being legitimate messages in a movie such as this. I may be completely wrong in the angle of the film, but from the various articles on it on www, i understand from what i have read that there is some form of message behind it. I still think we should just wait and see what it is.

I, like you, in no way think that people can be educated not to rape. They either do or they don't. In the same way, I also don't believe that watching tom and jerry encourages children to be violent.

I don't have kids - and am not likely to have them, being gay - but I do know that homophobic incidents went down by 33% between 1998 and 2005 when a series of gay TV presenters and dramas hit UK TV screens, making "gay people" more acceptable in our society, perhaps? Either way, and whether the stats are coincidences or not, the power of TV and film is high. Would Jamie Oliver have got a petition of a quarter of a million people to change school meals without TV for example?

Film and TV are both powerful and, if any of the messages mentioned earlier in this post, are dealt with in the film then some good may be done.



Shane, I hope in all hopes that some good will come out of this film, and if it does then I shall eat my hat so to speak, but I know it wont. You are right about films and tv being powerful, look how many crimes have been commited because of it, and dare I say this but how long will it be before something of this nature is posted on Youtube? Yes many good things have been brought about by tv but I tend to think the bad far outweighs the good.

I would like to think that it was tv that made being gay acceptable, but I would also like to think it was Parents educating their children properly, I cant say Schools because in my experience it's neither talked about or taught.

I am not saying anyone is wrong or bad or anything for sticking up for this film, but I do hope this is not the way forward in the Art world.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:20 am

Folks -
Everybody needs to calm down. It's obvious to me that emotions are running wild here on both the pro and con side of the debate. Some are resorting to personal attacks.

I've been aware of this film for a month or so. My understanding is that it's going to be a topical piece, tackling what is the most grave matter that plagues our society. From what I undersand the music of Elvis helps Dakota's character cope with her abuse, so in that sense Elvis' music is being used in a positive manner. I can certainly understand those who object to the depiction of a 13 year old being raped, but it appears that this won't be the case.

I won't see this film. I just can't watch things of this nature. Several years ago there was a controversial film entitled "Bastard Out of Carolina" that dealt with the abuse/molestation of a pre-teen girl. I never watched that when it originally aired, but one day I was channel surfing and it was on, so I started to watch it. Unfortunately, in a few minutes the abuse scene came on and, while not graphic, it was apparent what was taking place. I couldn't finish the movie, I was too angry and sickened. Even though it was just a movie the sad fact that this evil does occur in reality got my blood boiling. And whenever I see the actor who played the abuser (Ron Eldard) I think of that movie. I know he was an actor playing a role, but the identification is there nonetheless.

So on the one hand I understand that the Dakota Fanning film is intended to be a "message" film, I get that. But on the other hand I can certainly understand and identify with Scatter's and Carolyn's and Sid's aversion to the film's subject matter. They shouldn't be put down because of their viewpoints.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:35 am

Thanks Pete, I am stepping away from this debate, it is too emotional and draining for me to think straight anymore.

If you look my signature is Taking Care of Elvis.............in August we will be marking his 30th year of passing, I dont want him associated with this film, we are shouting for EPE to give us something decent to mark it with and what will we get???? this awful film that's my final word :?

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:38 am

I'm out as well.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:44 am

Pete Dube wrote: Several years ago there was a controversial film entitled "Bastard Out of Carolina"...


...and I think we all know who that is! :lol:

JEFF d
EAP fan

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:51 am

JEFF d wrote:
Pete Dube wrote: Several years ago there was a controversial film entitled "Bastard Out of Carolina"...


...and I think we all know who that is! :lol:

JEFF d
EAP fan


:lol:

Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:40 am

chill out gang.
just a movie good grief like i said before. may not be as bad as yall think now.