Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 27th, 2014 #21
Sam Emerson
Diversity = White Genocide
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Doom Fort II
Posts: 2,800
Sam Emerson
Default

Domestic boxoffice for comic book movies

http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/char...adaptation.htm

TV Adaptations

http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=basedontv.htm

Where's Transformers on that list? It isn't, there's a special category for Toy Adaptations.

http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/char...adaptation.htm

There's a Lego movie... who knew?

Comic book movies are the clear winners, The Avengers is the third biggest movie of all time domestically and worldwide. Avatar and Titanic are one and two.
 
Old April 5th, 2014 #22
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Sex, movies and the desperate attempt to shock audiences. (Hint: it’s not working.)

View Photo Gallery — Sex, movies and the decades-long attempt to shock audiences: Audiences have been treated to what amounts to an onslaught of sexual images — on both big and small screens — that have taken realism to new heights (or, depending on your taste, new lows).

By Ann Hornaday, Published: April 4 | Updated: Saturday, April 5, 7:12 AM
Is it just global warming, or has it gotten a tad steamy in the multiplex lately?

No sooner had viewers taken in the long, graphic lesbian sex scenes in the French coming-of-age drama “Blue Is the Warmest Color” last year than they were treated to “Stranger by the Lake,” a homoerotic thriller (also French) set in a gay cruising site, at which men could be seen pleasuring each other and themselves with unsettling, frankness.

Upon emerging from that well-crafted — if borderline pornographic — tableau, they could go home and watch the on-demand movie “Nymphomaniac,” Lars von Trier’s two-part fictional biopic of a neurotically promiscuous young woman, played as an adult by the epitome of boho chic, Charlotte Gainsbourg. (Volumes II of “Nymphomaniac” is currently on view at Landmark’s E Street Cinema.)

For the past year or two, it seems, movies have become obsessed with sex, continually upping the ante on tone, subject matter and explicitness — and “50 Shades of Grey” hasn’t even come out yet.

Or perhaps “exponentially more obsessed” is the better term. Sex has been a dependably attention-grabbing element of cinematic style virtually since the medium’s inception — or at least since the 1920s, when silent films like “Sunrise” seethed with erotic innuendo underneath the moralistic melodrama. The decades that ensued found Hollywood both exploitatively embracing and phobically avoiding sexuality on screen, alternately pandering to and resisting the dictates of religious leaders, civic censors, hypocritical ratings boards and audiences occupying that singularly American psychic space between Puritan disapproval and prurient voyeurism.

The 1960s had “I Am Curious (Yellow)” (whose hype was helped by being seized by customs agents at the U.S. border); the 1970s had “Last Tango in Paris,” starring Marlon Brando, Maria Schneider and an uncredited stick of butter; the 1980s had “91 / 2 Weeks,” about a sadomasochistic affair between a Wall Street executive and SoHo gallery girl; and the 1990s had Stanley Kubrick’s lugubriously fetishistic domestic drama “Eyes Wide Shut.”

By the 2000s — memorable for Halle Berry and Billy Bob Thornton’s volatile sex scenes in “Monster’s Ball,” director Michael Winterbottom’s experimentation with non-simulated sex acts in the erotic omnibus “9 Songs,” and actress Chloë Sevigny pleasuring director and co-star Vincent Gallo in “The Brown Bunny,” it seemed as though filmmakers were engaged in an escalating arms race of shocking audiences, offering them sexual material as explicit as pornography, but burnished by art-house credibility.

Of course, since the days of Swedish imports featuring casual nudity and naughty bits, art films have existed in a mutually supportive pas de deux with porn, benefiting from the publicity that attends controversial X and NC-17 ratings while appealing to discerning audiences who wouldn’t be caught dead in an adult theater. (Put simply, in a porn film, sex can be dirty, kinky or super-hot; in an art house film it’s “transgressive.”)

The challenge today is that, rather than being relegated to disreputable theaters or scruffy back sections of video stores, porn is on the home entertainment centers and portable devices of discerning connoisseurs everywhere. How do you shock mainstream audiences who can now have their most florid sexual fantasies acted out 24/7, at the click of a mouse? And how can audiences be anything but bored or faintly amused by efforts that increasingly look like the bids for attention of a petulant arrested adolescent?

Those anxious questions seems to have produced a rash of films predicated not on liberation and expression, but on creeping pessimism and dread, epitomized by a recent boomlet in movies about Internet porn addiction: Starting with Steve McQueen’s 2011 film “Shame,” starring Michael Fassbender, and continuing last year with “Thanks for Sharing” and “Don Jon,” sex has been portrayed not as tantalizingly elusive, naughty or — heaven forfend! — fun, but the stuff of pathology, isolation and fatally distorted values.

Meanwhile, audiences have been treated to what amounts to an onslaught of images — on both big and small screens — that have taken realism to new heights (or, depending on your taste, new lows). While HBO puts out its usual steady stream of envelope-pushing images in shows like “Girls” and “Game of Thrones,” basic cable has tried mightily to get into the act: The image of young teenager Paige walking in on her parents engaging in an acrobatic display of mutual gratification in “The Americans” is one that neither she or millions of fans will ever un-see.

Even Wes Anderson has seen fit to include an image of a man receiving oral sex in his new movie, “The Grand Budapest Hotel” — a moment all the more jarring for being so out of place within the director’s fussy, steadfastly asexual house style.

Granted, it’s the briefest of glimpses. The trick, Anderson knows, is striking the right balance between refreshing honesty and off-putting vulgarity.

“We found out that . . . people will leave the theater if you have full frontal nudity for an extended period of time, [but] if you make it five seconds they’ll laugh and say it was great,” producer Judd Apatow — who helped invent the raunch-com — recently told the Hollywood Reporter. “So basically that’s the ratio of how much penis people can handle in a movie. Five seconds yes, 20 seconds no.”

There’s a whole lot more than 20 seconds of the full Monty in “Stranger by the Lake” and “Nymphomaniac,” each of which portrays sexuality less as a function of desire than pathological impulses. Both films portray fleeting moments of ecstasy, but for the most part sex is depicted as a furtive, joyless endeavor. (By contrast, the opening scene of the new HBO show “Looking,” set in a cruising area in a San Francisco park, is played for fumbling, even innocent laughs.)

For its part, “Blue Is the Warmest Color” wasn’t as groundbreaking for the images it contained as for the length of time the camera spent on them: When the film made its debut at the Cannes Film Festival last year, the buzz immediately centered on an astonishing seven-minute love scene between characters played by Léa Seydoux and Adèle Exarchopoulos. It’s true that the sequence went on much longer than a conventional sex scene, but within the context of a three-hour movie, it was an organic part of the whole, one that only accentuated what felt like a raw, intimately observed chronicle of a pivotal chapter in a young woman’s life.

Regardless of how they deployed sexuality, all three films traded on the curiosity of viewers who, with sex now available on their devices of choice, have fewer and fewer reasons to leave their homes to be provoked, titillated or carnally enlightened. It goes without saying that, despite their most strenuous efforts to go there, few of the most explicit movies could be called sexy: It’s what is withheld, rather than what’s shown, that creates those familiar delicious frissons, whether it’s the sight of Mark Ruffalo feeding Julianne Moore a piece of his tender-hot homemade pie in “The Kids Are All Right” or Diane Lane recalling an afternoon of illicit lust while commuting back home in “Unfaithful.”

In fact, in a newly pornified pop culture, the most shocking depictions of sex may not be the most painfully outlandish S&M scenarios of “Nymphomaniac” or the explicitness of “Stranger by the Lake,” but the portrayal of sex as a part of daily life — and as such, a source of projection, frustration, vulnerability, disappointment and awkward, un-cosmeticized lust.

One of the most genuinely gobsmacking moments I’ve had in the cinema in recent years, sex-wise, was when Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones played a couple seeing a therapist in the 2012 comedy “Hope Springs” — not a masterpiece of a movie, but one that tackled AARP-generation sex with admirable honesty and surprising straightforwardness. In a similar vein, the recent romantic dramedy “Le Week-End” takes sometimes funny, often searing look at the ebb and flow of physical desire as it plays out in a 30-year marriage. (“May I touch you?” Jim Broadbent’s Nick solicitously asks Meg, played by Lindsay Duncan. “What for?” she bites back testily.)

Whether it’s Lena Dunham’s zaftig Hannah uncomfortably adjusting her corset in “Girls,” or Broadbent admitting to Duncan that he’s “become a phobic object for you,” these shows and movies restore sex to something of its rightful place — not as an impossibly aspirational ideal or coarse, nihilistic compulsion, but a vector for expression, playfulness, intimacy, and recognizably human foibles. It turns out that filmmakers can still elicit shocks — whether through outrage, recognition or vicarious desire: They need only explore all those shades of gray, that number far greater than a measly 50.

READ MORE:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifest...b08_story.html
 
Old April 8th, 2014 #23
Hunter Morrow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,802
Hunter Morrow
Default

The biggest drawing box office movies are almost universally childish, based upon children's toys, children's television and no matter how you gussy up the comic book medium, the ultimately childish and juvenile comic books.

There have been 11 comic book movies that have made more than 250 million dollars in just 12 years. The Batman movies from 2005 to 2012 alone did 1.3 billion dollars in business.

The Avengers, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, Iron Man 3, Transformers 3, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Frozen and the Dark Knight Rises are between 3 and 10 of the highest grossing movies ever. Comic book, book for middle schoolers, comic book, toy line/t.v. show, low brow fantasy
book for middle schoolers, a Disney movie and a comic book movie about a man who dresses up like a bat.

All of it is recent, tied directly to childish/young adult interests and within the previous 10 years or so.
 
Old May 28th, 2014 #24
Tiwaz
Senior Member
 
Tiwaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Europa, Serbia
Posts: 578
Tiwaz
Default Greatest Story Never Told - Adolf Hitler


This documentary is far more realistic than other documentary movies about Adolf Hitler!!!
It is not yet real truth, but this film is just fact that Adolf Hitler will be Greatest person and Pure Good for Europe, not evil!!!! Problem is people find resistence when we talk good thinks about Hitler!
However, Fuhrer was wanted to create better Europe and every big change on better for our European Race find on resistance and ZOG produced wars!!!
 
Old July 31st, 2014 #25
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 (Hays Code)

If motion pictures present stories that will affect lives for the better, they can become the most powerful force for the improvement of mankind

A Code to Govern the Making of Talking, Synchronized and Silent Motion Pictures. Formulated and formally adopted by The Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc. and The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc. in March 1930.
Motion picture producers recognize the high trust and confidence which have been placed in them by the people of the world and which have made motion pictures a universal form of entertainment.

They recognize their responsibility to the public because of this trust and because entertainment and art are important influences in the life of a nation.

Hence, though regarding motion pictures primarily as entertainment without any explicit purpose of teaching or propaganda, they know that the motion picture within its own field of entertainment may be directly responsible for spiritual or moral progress, for higher types of social life, and for much correct thinking.

During the rapid transition from silent to talking pictures they have realized the necessity and the opportunity of subscribing to a Code to govern the production of talking pictures and of re-acknowledging this responsibility.

On their part, they ask from the public and from public leaders a sympathetic understanding of their purposes and problems and a spirit of cooperation that will allow them the freedom and opportunity necessary to bring the motion picture to a still higher level of wholesome entertainment for all the people.

General Principles

1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.

2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.

3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.

Particular Applications

I. Crimes Against the Law
These shall never be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy with the crime as against law and justice or to inspire others with a desire for imitation.

1. Murder

a. The technique of murder must be presented in a way that will not inspire imitation.

b. Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail.

c. Revenge in modern times shall not be justified.

2. Methods of Crime should not be explicitly presented.

a. Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc., should not be detailed in method.

b. Arson must subject to the same safeguards.

c. The use of firearms should be restricted to the essentials.

d. Methods of smuggling should not be presented.

3. Illegal drug traffic must never be presented.

4. The use of liquor in American life, when not required by the plot or for proper characterization, will not be shown.

II. Sex
The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing.

1. Adultery, sometimes necessary plot material, must not be explicitly treated, or justified, or presented attractively.

2. Scenes of Passion

a. They should not be introduced when not essential to the plot.

b. Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures, are not to be shown.

c. In general passion should so be treated that these scenes do not stimulate the lower and baser element.

3. Seduction or Rape

a. They should never be more than suggested, and only when essential for the plot, and even then never shown by explicit method.

b. They are never the proper subject for comedy.

4. Sex perversion or any inference to it is forbidden.

5. White slavery shall not be treated.

6. Miscegenation (sex relationships between the white and black races) is forbidden.

7. Sex hygiene and venereal diseases are not subjects for motion pictures.

8. Scenes of actual child birth, in fact or in silhouette, are never to be presented.

9. Children's sex organs are never to be exposed.

III. Vulgarity
The treatment of low, disgusting, unpleasant, though not necessarily evil, subjects should always be subject to the dictates of good taste and a regard for the sensibilities of the audience.

IV. Obscenity
Obscenity in word, gesture, reference, song, joke, or by suggestion (even when likely to be understood only by part of the audience) is forbidden.

V. Profanity
Pointed profanity (this includes the words, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ - unless used reverently - Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd), or every other profane or vulgar expression however used, is forbidden.

VI. Costume
1. Complete nudity is never permitted. This includes nudity in fact or in silhouette, or any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture.

2. Undressing scenes should be avoided, and never used save where essential to the plot.

3. Indecent or undue exposure is forbidden.

4. Dancing or costumes intended to permit undue exposure or indecent movements in the dance are forbidden.

VII. Dances
1. Dances suggesting or representing sexual actions or indecent passions are forbidden.

2. Dances which emphasize indecent movements are to be regarded as obscene.

VIII. Religion
1. No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.

2. Ministers of religion in their character as ministers of religion should not be used as comic characters or as villains.

3. Ceremonies of any definite religion should be carefully and respectfully handled.

IX. Locations
The treatment of bedrooms must be governed by good taste and delicacy.

X. National Feelings
1. The use of the Flag shall be consistently respectful.

2. The history, institutions, prominent people and citizenry of other nations shall be represented fairly.

XI. Titles
Salacious, indecent, or obscene titles shall not be used.

XII. Repellent Subjects
The following subjects must be treated within the careful limits of good taste:
1. Actual hangings or electrocutions as legal punishments for crime.
2. Third degree methods.
3. Brutality and possible gruesomeness.
4. Branding of people or animals.
5. Apparent cruelty to children or animals.
6. The sale of women, or a woman selling her virtue.
7. Surgical operations.
Reasons Supporting the Preamble of the Code

I. Theatrical motion pictures, that is, pictures intended for the theatre as distinct from pictures intended for churches, schools, lecture halls, educational movements, social reform movements, etc., are primarily to be regarded as ENTERTAINMENT.

Mankind has always recognized the importance of entertainment and its value in rebuilding the bodies and souls of human beings.

But it has always recognized that entertainment can be a character either HELPFUL or HARMFUL to the human race, and in consequence has clearly distinguished between:

a. Entertainment which tends to improve the race, or at least to re-create and rebuild human beings exhausted with the realities of life; and

b. Entertainment which tends to degrade human beings, or to lower their standards of life and living.

Hence the MORAL IMPORTANCE of entertainment is something which has been universally recognized. It enters intimately into the lives of men and women and affects them closely; it occupies their minds and affections during leisure hours; and ultimately touches the whole of their lives. A man may be judged by his standard of entertainment as easily as by the standard of his work.

So correct entertainment raises the whole standard of a nation.

Wrong entertainment lowers the whole living conditions and moral ideals of a race.

Note, for example, the healthy reactions to healthful sports, like baseball, golf; the unhealthy reactions to sports like cockfighting, bullfighting, bear baiting, etc.

Note, too, the effect on ancient nations of gladiatorial combats, the obscene plays of Roman times, etc.

II. Motion pictures are very important as ART.

Though a new art, possibly a combination art, it has the same object as the other arts, the presentation of human thought, emotion, and experience, in terms of an appeal to the soul through the senses.

Here, as in entertainment,

Art enters intimately into the lives of human beings.

Art can be morally good, lifting men to higher levels. This has been done through good music, great painting, authentic fiction, poetry, drama.

Art can be morally evil it its effects. This is the case clearly enough with unclean art, indecent books, suggestive drama. The effect on the lives of men and women are obvious.

Note: It has often been argued that art itself is unmoral, neither good nor bad. This is true of the THING which is music, painting, poetry, etc. But the THING is the PRODUCT of some person's mind, and the intention of that mind was either good or bad morally when it produced the thing. Besides, the thing has its EFFECT upon those who come into contact with it. In both these ways, that is, as a product of a mind and as the cause of definite effects, it has a deep moral significance and unmistakable moral quality.

Hence: The motion pictures, which are the most popular of modern arts for the masses, have their moral quality from the intention of the minds which produce them and from their effects on the moral lives and reactions of their audiences. This gives them a most important morality.

1. They reproduce the morality of the men who use the pictures as a medium for the expression of their ideas and ideals.

2. They affect the moral standards of those who, through the screen, take in these ideas and ideals.

In the case of motion pictures, the effect may be particularly emphasized because no art has so quick and so widespread an appeal to the masses. It has become in an incredibly short period the art of the multitudes.

III. The motion picture, because of its importance as entertainment and because of the trust placed in it by the peoples of the world, has special MORAL OBLIGATIONS:

A. Most arts appeal to the mature. This art appeals at once to every class, mature, immature, developed, undeveloped, law abiding, criminal. Music has its grades for different classes; so has literature and drama. This art of the motion picture, combining as it does the two fundamental appeals of looking at a picture and listening to a story, at once reaches every class of society.

B. By reason of the mobility of film and the ease of picture distribution, and because the possibility of duplicating positives in large quantities, this art reaches places unpenetrated by other forms of art.

C. Because of these two facts, it is difficult to produce films intended for only certain classes of people. The exhibitors' theatres are built for the masses, for the cultivated and the rude, the mature and the immature, the self-respecting and the criminal. Films, unlike books and music, can with difficulty be confined to certain selected groups.

D. The latitude given to film material cannot, in consequence, be as wide as the latitude given to book material. In addition:

a. A book describes; a film vividly presents. One presents on a cold page; the other by apparently living people.

b. A book reaches the mind through words merely; a film reaches the eyes and ears through the reproduction of actual events.

c. The reaction of a reader to a book depends largely on the keenness of the reader's imagination; the reaction to a film depends on the vividness of presentation.

Hence many things which might be described or suggested in a book could not possibly be presented in a film.

E. This is also true when comparing the film with the newspaper.

a. Newspapers present by description, films by actual presentation.

b. Newspapers are after the fact and present things as having taken place; the film gives the events in the process of enactment and with apparent reality of life.

F. Everything possible in a play is not possible in a film:

a. Because of the larger audience of the film, and its consequential mixed character. Psychologically, the larger the audience, the lower the moral mass resistance to suggestion.

b. Because through light, enlargement of character, presentation, scenic emphasis, etc., the screen story is brought closer to the audience than the play.

c. The enthusiasm for and interest in the film actors and actresses, developed beyond anything of the sort in history, makes the audience largely sympathetic toward the characters they portray and the stories in which they figure. Hence the audience is more ready to confuse actor and actress and the characters they portray, and it is most receptive of the emotions and ideals presented by the favorite stars.

G. Small communities, remote from sophistication and from the hardening process which often takes place in the ethical and moral standards of larger cities, are easily and readily reached by any sort of film.

H. The grandeur of mass settings, large action, spectacular features, etc., affects and arouses more intensely the emotional side of the audience.

In general, the mobility, popularity, accessibility, emotional appeal, vividness, straightforward presentation of fact in the film make for more intimate contact with a larger audience and for greater emotional appeal.

Hence the larger moral responsibilities of the motion pictures.

Reasons Underlying the General Principles

I. No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil or sin.

This is done:

1. When evil is made to appear attractive and alluring, and good is made to appear unattractive.

2. When the sympathy of the audience is thrown on the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil, sin. The same is true of a film that would thrown sympathy against goodness, honor, innocence, purity or honesty.

Note: Sympathy with a person who sins is not the same as sympathy with the sin or crime of which he is guilty. We may feel sorry for the plight of the murderer or even understand the circumstances which led him to his crime: we may not feel sympathy with the wrong which he has done. The presentation of evil is often essential for art or fiction or drama. This in itself is not wrong provided:

a. That evil is not presented alluringly. Even if later in the film the evil is condemned or punished, it must not be allowed to appear so attractive that the audience's emotions are drawn to desire or approve so strongly that later the condemnation is forgotten and only the apparent joy of sin is remembered.

b. That throughout, the audience feels sure that evil is wrong and good is right.

II. Correct standards of life shall, as far as possible, be presented.

A wide knowledge of life and of living is made possible through the film. When right standards are consistently presented, the motion picture exercises the most powerful influences. It builds character, develops right ideals, inculcates correct principles, and all this in attractive story form.

If motion pictures consistently hold up for admiration high types of characters and present stories that will affect lives for the better, they can become the most powerful force for the improvement of mankind.

III. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.

By natural law is understood the law which is written in the hearts of all mankind, the greater underlying principles of right and justice dictated by conscience.

By human law is understood the law written by civilized nations.

1. The presentation of crimes against the law is often necessary for the carrying out of the plot. But the presentation must not throw sympathy with the crime as against the law nor with the criminal as against those who punish him.

2. The courts of the land should not be presented as unjust. This does not mean that a single court may not be presented as unjust, much less that a single court official must not be presented this way. But the court system of the country must not suffer as a result of this presentation.

Reasons Underlying the Particular Applications

I. Sin and evil enter into the story of human beings and hence in themselves are valid dramatic material.

II. In the use of this material, it must be distinguished between sin which repels by it very nature, and sins which often attract.

a. In the first class come murder, most theft, many legal crimes, lying, hypocrisy, cruelty, etc.

b. In the second class come sex sins, sins and crimes of apparent heroism, such as banditry, daring thefts, leadership in evil, organized crime, revenge, etc.

The first class needs less care in treatment, as sins and crimes of this class are naturally unattractive. The audience instinctively condemns all such and is repelled.

Hence the important objective must be to avoid the hardening of the audience, especially of those who are young and impressionable, to the thought and fact of crime. People can become accustomed even to murder, cruelty, brutality, and repellent crimes, if these are too frequently repeated.

The second class needs great care in handling, as the response of human nature to their appeal is obvious. This is treated more fully below.

III. A careful distinction can be made between films intended for general distribution, and films intended for use in theatres restricted to a limited audience. Themes and plots quite appropriate for the latter would be altogether out of place and dangerous in the former.

Note: The practice of using a general theatre and limiting its patronage to "Adults Only" is not completely satisfactory and is only partially effective.

However, maturer minds may easily understand and accept without harm subject matter in plots which do younger people positive harm.

Hence: If there should be created a special type of theatre, catering exclusively to an adult audience, for plays of this character (plays with problem themes, difficult discussions and maturer treatment) it would seem to afford an outlet, which does not now exist, for pictures unsuitable for general distribution but permissible for exhibitions to a restricted audience.

I. Crimes Against the Law
The treatment of crimes against the law must not:

1. Teach methods of crime.
2. Inspire potential criminals with a desire for imitation.
3. Make criminals seem heroic and justified.

Revenge in modern times shall not be justified. In lands and ages of less developed civilization and moral principles, revenge may sometimes be presented. This would be the case especially in places where no law exists to cover the crime because of which revenge is committed.

Because of its evil consequences, the drug traffic should not be presented in any form. The existence of the trade should not be brought to the attention of audiences.

The use of liquor should never be excessively presented. In scenes from American life, the necessities of plot and proper characterization alone justify its use. And in this case, it should be shown with moderation.

II. Sex
Out of a regard for the sanctity of marriage and the home, the triangle, that is, the love of a third party for one already married, needs careful handling. The treatment should not throw sympathy against marriage as an institution.

Scenes of passion must be treated with an honest acknowledgement of human nature and its normal reactions. Many scenes cannot be presented without arousing dangerous emotions on the part of the immature, the young or the criminal classes.

Even within the limits of pure love, certain facts have been universally regarded by lawmakers as outside the limits of safe presentation.

In the case of impure love, the love which society has always regarded as wrong and which has been banned by divine law, the following are important:

1. Impure love must not be presented as attractive and beautiful.

2. It must not be the subject of comedy or farce, or treated as material for laughter.

3. It must not be presented in such a way to arouse passion or morbid curiosity on the part of the audience.

4. It must not be made to seem right and permissible.

5. It general, it must not be detailed in method and manner.

III. Vulgarity; IV. Obscenity; V. Profanity; hardly need further explanation than is contained in the Code.

VI. Costume
General Principles:

1. The effect of nudity or semi-nudity upon the normal man or woman, and much more upon the young and upon immature persons, has been honestly recognized by all lawmakers and moralists.

2. Hence the fact that the nude or semi-nude body may be beautiful does not make its use in the films moral. For, in addition to its beauty, the effect of the nude or semi-nude body on the normal individual must be taken into consideration.

3. Nudity or semi-nudity used simply to put a "punch" into a picture comes under the head of immoral actions. It is immoral in its effect on the average audience.

4. Nudity can never be permitted as being necessary for the plot. Semi-nudity must not result in undue or indecent exposures.

5. Transparent or translucent materials and silhouette are frequently more suggestive than actual exposure.

VII. Dances
Dancing in general is recognized as an art and as a beautiful form of expressing human emotions.

But dances which suggest or represent sexual actions, whether performed solo or with two or more; dances intended to excite the emotional reaction of an audience; dances with movement of the breasts, excessive body movements while the feet are stationary, violate decency and are wrong.

VIII. Religion
The reason why ministers of religion may not be comic characters or villains is simply because the attitude taken toward them may easily become the attitude taken toward religion in general. Religion is lowered in the minds of the audience because of the lowering of the audience's respect for a minister.

IX. Locations
Certain places are so closely and thoroughly associated with sexual life or with sexual sin that their use must be carefully limited.

X. National Feelings
The just rights, history, and feelings of any nation are entitled to most careful consideration and respectful treatment.

XI. Titles
As the title of a picture is the brand on that particular type of goods, it must conform to the ethical practices of all such honest business.

XII. Repellent Subjects
Such subjects are occasionally necessary for the plot. Their treatment must never offend good taste nor injure the sensibilities of an audience.
 
Old August 2nd, 2014 #26
Joe_Smith
Senior Member
 
Joe_Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,778
Joe_Smith
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter Morrow View Post
The biggest drawing box office movies are almost universally childish, based upon children's toys, children's television and no matter how you gussy up the comic book medium, the ultimately childish and juvenile comic books.

There have been 11 comic book movies that have made more than 250 million dollars in just 12 years. The Batman movies from 2005 to 2012 alone did 1.3 billion dollars in business.

The Avengers, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, Iron Man 3, Transformers 3, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Frozen and the Dark Knight Rises are between 3 and 10 of the highest grossing movies ever. Comic book, book for middle schoolers, comic book, toy line/t.v. show, low brow fantasy
book for middle schoolers, a Disney movie and a comic book movie about a man who dresses up like a bat.

All of it is recent, tied directly to childish/young adult interests and within the previous 10 years or so.

What's hard to fathom is the adult following these idiotic franchises have.

Most of the Harry Potter fans I've met in my life were not 13 years old, they are women in their late teens and 20's. Batman fans are not all kids, the new Batman series is tailored to be a "dark" adult drama.

The light hearted and more kid-oriented Batman of the 90's Burton films was great for its audience. Now when you talk about Batman, you're supposed to actually talk about it like its some kind of piece of high art and our generations Citizen Kane.

I'm so fucking sick of Superhero movies and sequels. There hasn't been a good , original movie out in years.
__________________
"The favorite slogan of the reds is: 'No Pasarán!: Yes we have passed! And we tell them...and we tell them, we will pass again!'"
― Benito Mussolini after the Communist capitulation in Barcelona
 
Old August 3rd, 2014 #27
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 8,494
Ray Allan
Default

Movies today are absolute crap, just like the televitz. The most recent film I watched was Jack Ryan--Shadow Recruit, which was nothing but a load of anti-Russian propaganda. The only thing I liked about it was Keira Knightley for the eye candy.

I've never seen any of the Harry Potter films, nor do I care to. Ditto for the superhero movies. The only version of Batman I liked was the campy 1960s TV series (POW! BAM! SOCK!). The 1989 film where Jack Nicholson played the Joker wasn't too bad.

I usually stick to watching the movies in my own video collection and most of them were made before 1990. It's true the jew has controlled Hollywood since the beginning, but the odious, offensive garbage they make today I simply cannot stomach.
 
Old August 3rd, 2014 #28
ELF
Senior Member
 
ELF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: In the land of Hockey Hosers(Canada)
Posts: 2,592
ELF
Default

99.99% of movies are nothing but shit and the jewish scum separating dumb asses from their money to watch the jews's anti white propaganda and perversion.
 
Old August 3rd, 2014 #29
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Sean Gruber
Default

Notes on the Hays Code (which was posted above).

1. It was successfully imposed on the largely jew film industry by threat of Catholic boycott. In other words, by muscle (in this case, economic). It wasn't merely "a good idea in the free forum of ideas." It was, again, imposed by a real, credible threat to the rats' pocketbooks.

2. The jews hated the Code like poison and did everything they could to subvert it, get around it, and "push the envelope" as these pushy kikes like to say. By the early/mid 1960s, the Code was dead. Today, among film buffs there is a fan base for "pre-Code" movies, which are prized solely because they are pre-Code.

3. If you read about Weimar Germany and the sick anti-culture with which jews flooded the German nation, then you will know about the nasty stuff that played on the stage and screen then. Some of the Code's provisions read as if they are aimed at specific things that jew filmmakers and exhibitors were foisting on the German public in the Weimar period. (For example, "Sex hygiene and venereal diseases are not subjects for motion pictures.")

4. While no one wants to be called a prig, jew-aware people need to know the history of Weimar Germany (at least) and the evil nature of the jews, and be knowledgeable about what fosters a positive world and what degrades the public's standard moral assumptions to the low level we see them at now. In other words, we need to value things like the Code.
__________________
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action

Last edited by Sean Gruber; August 3rd, 2014 at 10:49 PM.
 
Old August 6th, 2014 #30
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Gruber View Post
Notes on the Hays Code (which was posted above).

1. It was successfully imposed on the largely jew film industry by threat of Catholic boycott. In other words, by muscle (in this case, economic). It wasn't merely "a good idea in the free forum of ideas." It was, again, imposed by a real, credible threat to the rats' pocketbooks.

2. The jews hated the Code like poison and did everything they could to subvert it, get around it, and "push the envelope" as these pushy kikes like to say. By the early/mid 1960s, the Code was dead. Today, among film buffs there is a fan base for "pre-Code" movies, which are prized solely because they are pre-Code.

3. If you read about Weimar Germany and the sick anti-culture with which jews flooded the German nation, then you will know about the nasty stuff that played on the stage and screen then. Some of the Code's provisions read as if they are aimed at specific things that jew filmmakers and exhibitors were foisting on the German public in the Weimar period. (For example, "Sex hygiene and venereal diseases are not subjects for motion pictures.")

4. While no one wants to be called a prig, jew-aware people need to know the history of Weimar Germany (at least) and the evil nature of the jews, and be knowledgeable about what fosters a positive world and what degrades the public's standard moral assumptions to the low level we see them at now. In other words, we need to value things like the Code.
Back then Catholics had power. Jews were forced to work within the confines of Aryan outrage. Which they did - profitably. On the other front, WASPs kept them (around the same time, 1924) from rewriting our immigration policy.

But jews are persistent. They kept chipping away. Demoralizing by degree. Growing ever more powerful. F. Scott Fitzgerald depicts this growing richness and power and sleekness of the jew-in-America in one of his less famous works (Tender is the Night, I think). Whiles WASP/Catholic America was falling apart, jews were growing richer and more assured.

And bit by bit, step by step, degree by degree, we arrived where we are today. Ain't it great?
 
Old December 17th, 2014 #31
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Gruber View Post
Notes on the Hays Code (which was posted above).

1. It was successfully imposed on the largely jew film industry by threat of Catholic boycott. In other words, by muscle (in this case, economic). It wasn't merely "a good idea in the free forum of ideas." It was, again, imposed by a real, credible threat to the rats' pocketbooks.

2. The jews hated the Code like poison and did everything they could to subvert it, get around it, and "push the envelope" as these pushy kikes like to say. By the early/mid 1960s, the Code was dead. Today, among film buffs there is a fan base for "pre-Code" movies, which are prized solely because they are pre-Code.

3. If you read about Weimar Germany and the sick anti-culture with which jews flooded the German nation, then you will know about the nasty stuff that played on the stage and screen then. Some of the Code's provisions read as if they are aimed at specific things that jew filmmakers and exhibitors were foisting on the German public in the Weimar period. (For example, "Sex hygiene and venereal diseases are not subjects for motion pictures.")

4. While no one wants to be called a prig, jew-aware people need to know the history of Weimar Germany (at least) and the evil nature of the jews, and be knowledgeable about what fosters a positive world and what degrades the public's standard moral assumptions to the low level we see them at now. In other words, we need to value things like the Code.
Discussed some of this in audio book on Culture Wars April 2013 "Culture Jihad in Tehran"

Philadelphia catholic boycott was costing jews 100k a week, and kike "was crying tears as big as horseturds" - this led to the agreement to abide by a code...

Iranian director Majidi is doing a 50m movie about the prophet (Mohammed), funded by the Iranian government, first entry into the global distribution market - trying to compete culturally with the jews. All in the audio.
 
Old December 17th, 2014 #32
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[Grantland story on future of movies]

[...]

Quote:
So it’s appropriate that the two most important movie events of 2014 weren’t movies at all, but rather what amounted to a pair of live-action trailers. The first came at a Time Warner investors’ summit, when chairman/CEO Kevin Tsujihara announced a slate of 10 Warner Bros. movies based on DC Comics characters to be released between 2016 and 2020. The second came two weeks later, when Marvel Studios chief Kevin Feige took the stage of Hollywood’s El Capitan Theatre, at a fan-service event that had every bit of the importance and money-consciousness of a shareholders’ meeting, to announce Marvel’s “Phase 3”: the nine movies, to be released over the same stretch as DC’s lineup, that will follow the 12 movies in “Phase 1” and “Phase 2.” (The final two of those will be unleashed next year while Warner Bros. is still nudging and prodding its tardy superheroes toward the starting gate.) Add in the Marvel properties — Spider-Man, X-Men, the Fantastic Four — that are owned by other studios, and if you’re a comic-book-movie fan, the next six years of your multiplex menu will look like this:


Depending on how that makes you feel: Yay! Or: Hmm. Might there be anything else to eat?

The term “comic-book movie” is convenient shorthand for the films on that list, but perhaps its time has passed. It suggests there is a bright line separating DC and Marvel films from most of the rest of what you will see between now and 2020. In fact, these 34 films are on a continuum with five Star Wars movies (a trilogy and two stand-alones), three Avatar sequels, three (more) Terminator films, three (more) Lego movies, and a trilogy of movies based on Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, a book by J.K. Rowling that is 42 pages long. Here is a list of sequels and franchise installments — 70 of them at current count, although the actual number will, of course, be much higher, probably more than 150 if the 2015 lineup is any indication — that are set to open over the next six years.



The movie business has never seen the likes of these lists before. They are the beginning of something. They are also the end.

This would be an apt place for me to deviate into a gravelly Gran Torino old-man rant about the permanently arrested, riskless nature of our culture — how everything in modern major moviedom is now derived from material meant for children or adolescents and aimed at adults desperate to remain in that state well into chronological maturity.

[much more]
http://grantland.com/features/2014-h...es-box-office/

Last edited by Alex Linder; December 17th, 2014 at 12:41 AM.
 
Old December 17th, 2014 #33
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

In 2014, franchises are not a big part of the movie business. They are not the biggest part of the movie business. They are the movie business. Period. Twelve of the year’s 14 highest grossers are, or will spawn, sequels.2

Quote:
That’s not where we are anymore. In 2014, franchises are not a big part of the movie business. They are not the biggest part of the movie business. They are the movie business. Period. Twelve of the year’s 14 highest grossers are, or will spawn, sequels.2 (The sole exceptions — assuming they remain exceptions, which is iffy — are Big Hero 6 and Maleficent.) Almost everything else that comes out of Hollywood is either an accident, a penance (people who run the studios do like to have a reason to go to the Oscars), a modestly budgeted bone thrown to an audience perceived as niche (black people, women, adults), an appeasement (movie stars are still important and they must occasionally be placated with something interesting to do so they’ll be cooperative about doing the big stuff), or a necessity (sometimes, unfortunately, it is required that a studio take a chance on something new in order to initiate a franchise). A successful franchise is no longer used to finance the rest of a studio’s lineup; a studio’s lineup is brands and franchises, and that’s it. Disney,3 of all the big companies, is the closest to approaching the absolute zero of this ideal — its movies are virtually all branded, whether Lucasfilm, Pixar, Marvel, or Walt Disney Studios — and anyone who doesn’t imagine that other studio CFOs are gazing at that model in envy and wonder is delusional. Disney is a kingdom of subkingdoms. Nothing minor or modest need apply.
 
Old December 17th, 2014 #34
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

Movies and TV have always been primarily about political indoctrination. Shock, shock. Read R. L. Dabney on the subject.

What I marvel at is how the indoctrination themes change but the degree doesn't. War prop of the 30s was no more silly to average viewers (pardon me; consumers) than the heavy race mixing films of 2014.

This goes for TV too (still can't bring myself to type "as well"). TV didn't get off the ground until post WWII. Looking at old TV you'll see the same non-white = saint vs. evil white landowner stuff. The argument that the intensity should have increased over time isn't in fact true. Go back and look at 50s & 60 TV.

And this is the culture we've inherited.

The whole "Greatest Generation" should've been taken out and shot, along with their parents.
__________________
With Jews, We Lose.
 
Old December 18th, 2014 #35
Sam Emerson
Diversity = White Genocide
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Doom Fort II
Posts: 2,800
Sam Emerson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
In 2014, franchises are not a big part of the movie business. They are not the biggest part of the movie business. They are the movie business. Period. Twelve of the year’s 14 highest grossers are, or will spawn, sequels.2
The driving force behind this is the transition of movie studios from closely held private companies to divisions of huge publicly traded companies. In house productions will be dominated by sequels and franchises, which have predictable profit margins, until they start losing money. But independent films will still be picked up and distributed, that's where the creative work will be done.
 
Old December 27th, 2014 #36
Alyss
vnn member
 
Alyss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,182
Alyss
jewsign

News reports in 1900's newspapers about 6,000000 jews being mistreated and murdered (30/40years before Hitler) ...now that exact messages is being projected through movies.

Just seen night at museum: secret of tomb stone:what message one scene had? 40,000 poor old jew victims were slaves in Egypt.... Blah blah blah!

Jews are really pushing the victim card because of anti semitism rising in Europe.
 
Old April 30th, 2017 #37
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

i honestly think i have seen 98% of movies worth watching. i have seen so many i'm done watching them unless i have a strong, specific reason to see a particular one.

it seems like five times out of ten these days, when you watch a modern movie, you're left not angry or happy but just bemused - you know the thing cost tens of millions to produce, but there's not really any story in it, nothing new or interesting. this is my commonest reaction to movies, and so i've decided i'm not watching them anymore save per stipulation

movies have become so dry that critical standards toward them have dropped. look at the praise for "Get Out." leaving politics aside, it is not a good, funny, entertaining movie in the slightest, and yet the critical reaction is that it's some kind of genuinely great work. and this is par for the course these days (2017)
 
Old May 1st, 2017 #38
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 8,494
Ray Allan
Default

I agree, there really are no newer movies worth watching now. I'm not giving the jew another shekel to see their sludge.
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old May 1st, 2017 #39
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
N.B. Forrest
Default

Comic books, explosions, the Corkscrew Car Flip, White Patriarch ass-kickin' womyn, Strong Black Bruthas, and everyone's favorites, shitloads o' Rogens, Sandlers, Stillers, Hills, Eisenbergs, LaBoefs....

Hymiewitz be DAID, muhfuckuh.
__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Old May 3rd, 2017 #40
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 8,494
Ray Allan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.B. Forrest View Post
Comic books, explosions, the Corkscrew Car Flip, White Patriarch ass-kickin' womyn, Strong Black Bruthas, and everyone's favorites, shitloads o' Rogens, Sandlers, Stillers, Hills, Eisenbergs, LaBoefs....

Hymiewitz be DAID, muhfuckuh.
I see ads for movies and they are literally all the same, every bit of this same garbage in them. Just nuke Hymiewood.
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:47 PM.
Page generated in 0.17915 seconds.