Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.yestofreedom.org/arguments/
http://www.yestofreedom.org/2009/08/01/a-timeline-of-events/

It's fairly long but the timeline at the bottom is more concise.

In short CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women) considers Japan's protection of fictional women from fictional rape to be one of the most serious problems in the world today and is trying to institute UN sanctions against Japan as a result.

Of course with the Internet being an international rape highway I don't see what they think they're even capable of accomplishing if Japan caves.

Why in the **** would the UN get involved with sanctioning porn in the first place?

Also, don't most Japanese rape fantasies invole anime women and oral, vaginal and anal intruding monster-tentacles? Don't think that can translate into the real world for a would-be rapist.

In short: CEDAW needs to pull their collective heads from their asses and focus on something real; that matters, like the rampant rape happening in the Congo, or that Afghan nonsense about starving women.

Creepy.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Creepy.

I'd question the validity of an online survey, but the Japanese are a creepy people and culture.

Originally posted by Robtard
Why in the **** would the UN get involved with sanctioning porn in the first place?

Also, don't most Japanese rape fantasies invole anime women and oral, vaginal and anal intruding monster-tentacles? Don't think that can translate into the real world for a would-be rapist.

Better than that, tentacle porn became popular in Japan because they outlawed penises and lolicon became popular because they outlawed public hair.

Judging by history this will probably make the plight of fictional Japanese women far worse.


On a more "serious" note feminists have pointed out that a good number of the artists and writers for this stuff are women and as a result CEDAW is restricting women's rights.

depends as what they classify as "child porn", as the depiction of underage girls in Japanese porn is common, though, afaik, the actors are of legal age. Hentai also has underage themes, so that might be included.

...

So, I don't get it, wouldn't this be the same as petitioning the UN to sanction America for Hollywood's depiction of fictional murder?

Originally posted by inimalist
Hentai also has underage themes, so that might be included.

The only theme to hentai is explicit sex, pretty much by definition.

Originally posted by inimalist
So, I don't get it, wouldn't this be the same as petitioning the UN to sanction America for Hollywood's depiction of fictional murder?

Yes, but this looks like it might work.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Better than that, tentacle porn became popular in Japan because they outlawed penises and lolicon became popular because they outlawed public hair.

Judging by history this will probably make the plight of fictional Japanese women far worse.


On a more "serious" note feminists have pointed out that a good number of the artists and writers for this stuff are women and as a result CEDAW is restricting women's rights.

One thing about Japanese porn that cracks me up, I've seen many a time where the penis and vagina is pixel-ed to obscurity, but during anal scenes, the anus isn't. Never understood that.

Those silly US originated laws on Japan and pornography need to go away.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'd question the validity of an online survey, but the Japanese are a creepy people and culture.

Weird. Their porn is even weirder.
I mean what the hell is up with mimi fetchi? A porn fetish where women clean their ears for an hour and a half. WHY are there people out there who get off on ear cleaning?

They surely are the main exporter of the most bizarre and questionable things.

I'm "meh" about this.


I don't really care what Joe and Bob do in their own home with FICTIONAL characters and cartoons.







Is there evidence that those things lead to pedopheliac (is this a word?) activity?



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
because they outlawed public hair.
OH GNOES! Not the public hair!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The only theme to hentai is explicit sex, pretty much by definition.

ok

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, but this looks like it might work.

really?

...

wait, really?

didn't 'last house on the left' or whatever depict rape?

EDIT: no, I'm sure there is rape porn with white chicks... The issue is that it is more popular in Japan, or that they do it better and more people consume theirs?

Lots of non-Japanese movies depict rape.

Edit: Not all of it female rape either.

That movie was originally Swedish anyway, so I think they should go for the Swedes. Hollywood is le safe.

Originally posted by Robtard
Lots of non-Japanese movies depict rape.

Edit: Not all of it female rape either.

You sure got a purdy mouth.

Originally posted by inimalist
really?

...

wait, really?

According to Sankaku Complex (which isn't PG enough to link to) the UN is seriously considering it.

Their source (http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0819/TKY200908190430.html) is in untranslated Japanese.

Originally posted by inimalist
didn't 'last house on the left' or whatever depict rape?

Didn't see it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That movie was originally Swedish anyway, so I think they should go for the Swedes. Hollywood is le safe.

Have to aim their guns towards the French first, 'Irreversible' had the worst rape scene I've ever seen, I almost had to turn my head.

Originally posted by Robtard
Have to aim their guns towards the French first, 'Irreversible' had the worst rape scene I've ever seen, I almost had to turn my head.

True, that. It is also the longest rape scene in (mainstream) cinematic history.

Although, to be fair, there is more than Irreversible why the word should go after the French.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Didn't see it.

The General's Daught depicted it fairly graphically.





The USA channel miniseries, Helen of Troy also depicted it towards the end of the series. It was graphic enough, and it was TV 14.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You sure got a purdy mouth.

damn...

Originally posted by Robtard

Edit: Not all of it female rape either.

Mountain Man: Now, let's you just drop them pants.

Bobby: Drop?

Mountain Man: Just take 'em right off.

Bobby: I-I mean, what's this all about?

Toothless Man: Don't say anything, just do it.

Mountain Man: Just drop 'em, boy.
(To Ed - at knifepoint) You ever had your b---s cut off, you f--kin' ape? Looky there, that's sharp. Bet it would shave a hair.

Toothless Man: Why don't you try it and see?
(To Bobby) Take off that little ol' bitty shirt there, too.
(To Mountain Man) Did he bleed?

Mountain Man: He bled.
(To Bobby) Them panties. Take 'em off.
(After attacking him) Hey boy, you look just like a hog....
(Holding Bobby's nose as he straddles him from behind) Come on piggy, give me a ride...Looks like we got us a sow here, instead of a boar....I bet you can squeal like a pig.

Bobby: Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Originally posted by Robtard
Have to aim their guns towards the French first, 'Irreversible' had the worst rape scene I've ever seen, I almost had to turn my head.

Really?



It was just, long. That's it.

OMG I DIDNT KNOW THE CARTOON WAS ONLY 17!!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Didn't see it.

neither did I

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
OMG I DIDNT KNOW THE CARTOON WAS ONLY 17!!





Yeah? You can tell that to the judge.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really?



It was just, long. That's it.

What were you watching? It is the most gruesome rape scene in a movie, and the longest.

Unless you saw a whole lot of illegal rape porn and snuff movies, this may not be the worst you see, I guess.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What were you watching? It is the most gruesome rape scene in a movie?

I was like, "meh." It was retardedly long. One take. 10 minutes. Too long.

And, real rape can be less violent or more violent. Some women end up with swollen faces from being beaten so bad.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Unless you saw a whole lot of illegal rape porn and snuff movies, this may not be the worse you see, I guess.

Nah.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
According to Sankaku Complex (which isn't PG enough to link to) the UN is seriously considering it.

Their source (http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0819/TKY200908190430.html) is in untranslated Japanese.

When did the UN get that type of power or mandate?

did world hunger just solve itself?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was like, "meh." It was retardedly long. One take. 10 minutes. Too long.

And, real rape can be less violent or more violent. Some women end up with swollen faces from being beaten so bad.


Then you watched the PG version.

Because after 10 mins of rape-****ing her up the ass while he's holding her mouth shut, insultting her and threatening to kill her if she 'shits on his dick', he gets up and proceeds to kick/stomp her face into a mass of bloody pulp.

BTW, he ****s her ass because 'that's how snobby bitches deserve it!' I also think he stomped her face in because she had the nerve to 'bleed on him.'

Hands down, worst rape-scene in a movie ever.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then you watched the PG version.

Because after 10 mins of rape-****ing her up the ass while he's holding her mouth shut, insultting her and threatening to kill her if she 'shits on his dick', he gets up and proceeds to kick/stomp her face into a mass of bloody pulp.

BTW, he ****s her ass because 'that's how snobby bitches deserve it!'

Hands down, worst rape-scene in a movie ever. well he didnt need to stomp her face... teh rest sounds acceptable

Originally posted by Robtard
Then you watched the PG version.

Because after 10 mins of rape-****ing her up the ass while he's holding her mouth shut, insultting her and threatening to kill her if she 'shits on his dick', he gets up and proceeds to kick/stomp her face into a mass of bloody pulp.

BTW, he ****s her ass because 'that's how snobby bitches deserve it!' I also think he stomped her face in because she had the nerve to 'bleed on him.'

Hands down, worst rape-scene in a movie ever.

I saw the same thing you did.

Originally posted by inimalist
When did the UN get that type of power or mandate?

CEDAW's existence probably gives them the "mandate". The economic downturn recession makes their ability to level sanctions that much more useful.

However I have no idea how reliable Sankaku Complex is and I can't actually read their link. Yes To Freedom makes it seem more like someone is trying to pressure the UN into doing this (in which case it could very well fail).

Originally posted by inimalist
did world hunger just solve itself?

World hunger might be harming people (though most studies suggest the opposite). Japanese pornography can empirically be shown to kill people.

No wait . . .

Originally posted by dadudemon
I saw the same thing you did.




I really don't think you did.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I really don't think you did.

But I did.

I've seen Japanese porn and I do admit....those guys have some bizzare, odd, and weird tastes and fetishes.

Truth be told...in all my years of watching all types of porn junk...I've never come accross child porn...I have my limits and won't venture into something I know is going to disturb me for the other half of my life.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was like, "meh." It was retardedly long. One take. 10 minutes. Too long.

And, real rape can be less violent or more violent. Some women end up with swollen faces from being beaten so bad.



Nah.

It seems you spectacularly missed the point of the scene.

It was supposed to be 'too long'. Because to victims of rape it seems like a horrific eternity.

It's the worst. I have never seen a rape scene even remotely come close to Irreversible's in regards to sheer plausibility and showing it as pure tragedy. In thanks to no small part to the amazing acting involved in the scene, and a very brilliant and daring director.

Originally posted by BackFire
It seems you spectacularly missed the point of the scene.

I didn't. I just didn't like that "artistic" style.

It's like delivering the same punch line 20 times.

Originally posted by BackFire
It was supposed to be 'too long'. Because to victims of rape it seems like a horrific eternity.

That may have been the point, but unlikely. More like, "look, we're artistic so we will make a rape scene from start to finish to show how cool our artistic expression is."



Originally posted by BackFire
It's the worst. I have never seen a rape scene even remotely come close to Irreversible's in regards to sheer plausibility and showing it as pure tragedy. In thanks to no small part to the amazing acting involved in the scene, and a very brilliant and daring director.

Cool. I was turned off by the film because of how long that rape scene was. It was...just, too long. Not because it was boring or stupid...it's beacuse I have the attention span of a gnat. There could have been other ways of doing it...that would be even more "artistic." They could have strapped a came to someone's head, added her voice to the back ground, and made it seem like you were the one being raped, based on the perspective. That's if they were trying to make it seem real. (I have other ideas, as well. You watch, I'll make a better rape scene in less than 2 minutes. )

That was the point. Director said so, it's common knowledge to anyone who has followed the film. The point was to make the scene as realistic and horrific as possible without any stupid or over the top gimmicks (which your suggestions would have been, and would have been comical and accidentally satirical, rather than powerful).

Exactly. On top of that, what was even more shocking is the people that walked by and did nothing about Alex being raped.
It is a whole thing which made this scene so horrific and repulsive. The details were there, it was not 'boring' if you were actually following the scene and the movie.

Originally posted by BackFire

It's the worst. I have never seen a rape scene even remotely come close to Irreversible's in regards to sheer plausibility and showing it as pure tragedy. In thanks to no small part to the amazing acting involved in the scene, and a very brilliant and daring director.

Exactly, scenes like the Deliverance male rape (which I hate to admit makes me laugh sometimes) and The Accused gang rape don't compare in how they draw you into the realness and horror of it.

Originally posted by BackFire
That was the point. Director said so, it's common knowledge to anyone who has followed the film. The point was to make the scene as realistic and horrific as possible without any stupid or over the top gimmicks (which your suggestions would have been, and would have been comical and accidentally satirical, rather than powerful).


Nah.

I didn't like it. Was too long. It was like telling the same punch line too many times.


The gimmick was playing the movie in "reverse."


My way would be better.





And, I can still think the scene was just another gimmick from where the director tried too hard to be "visceral" and ended up beating the scene into the ground (along with her head. )

It's like having a shootout scene for 10 minutes straight where someone shoots out from the same spot without moving.




And, the people walking by was also retarded.


I am allowed my own opinion. It was a gimmick, director tried too hard, the scene was too long, and the rapists motives were unbelievable. Of course, chime in with angry homo ganster seeking revenge on the personification of high-class, high caliber woman that embodies the thing that would reject him if he were straight. Blah. Seems too cliche and hetersexually interpreted. You guys liked it because it was shocking and seemed realistic...to you. To me, it got old busted and tired after about 2 minutes.

I might do a re-edit of that scene. Chop it down to 2-3 minutes. Then it will be better.

mostly women? really?

the legal age in japan is 14...so maybe this survey was made without this fact in mind.

Originally posted by dadudemon


I am allowed my own opinion.

were allowed to tell you your opinion sucks.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah.

I didn't like it. Was too long. It was like telling the same punch line too many times.


The gimmick was playing the movie in "reverse."


My way would be better.





And, I can still think the scene was just another gimmick from where the director tried too hard to be "visceral" and ended up beating the scene into the ground (along with her head. )

It's like having a shootout scene for 10 minutes straight where someone shoots out from the same spot without moving.




And, the people walking by was also retarded.


I am allowed my own opinion. It was a gimmick, director tried too hard, the scene was too long, and the rapists motives were unbelievable. Of course, chime in with angry homo ganster seeking revenge on the personification of high-class, high caliber woman that embodies the thing that would reject him if he were straight. Blah. Seems too cliche and hetersexually interpreted. You guys liked it because it was shocking and seemed realistic...to you. To me, it got old busted and tired after about 2 minutes.

I might do a re-edit of that scene. Chop it down to 2-3 minutes. Then it will be better.

I'm not trying to disallow your opinion, just pointing out why I think it's monumentally moronic.

Of course you think your way would be better, no one else would, though. It would be too cinematic and stylized. Rape is such an inherently awful thing, simply showing it without any particular style and cinematic grammer (which were not in the rape scene, the rest of the movie had a gimmick and a style but they subtracted that for that scene, which made it even more shocking and powerful contextually with the rest of the film) is the best way to go about making it powerful and realistic. Overly stylizing and cinematizing it would simply trivlialize the act. So don't ever make a rape scene, imo. Unless you're doing it for comedy. In which case your way would work.

And you already said the punchline comparison earlier, no need to be redundant. Was a false analogy then, is a false analogy now. The shootout analogy is alright, though. If the goal of the scene was to make that act out to be realistic then that would be a good way to go about it, wouldn't it? Show it how it actually happens.

The motivation for the rapist was perfectly fine. It fit in with the dire and cruel theme of the first half of the film - to show the bottomless depths of human cruelty. So he didn't have a good reason to rape her? No, he didn't. There is no good reason to rape someone. He was an extremely evil person, and evil people do evil things. He did an evil thing.

Besides, you already said that your problem with the scene didn't stem from the scene being bad, but from your own concentration problems. Not the movies fault you can't concentrate on things.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
were allowed to tell you your opinion sucks.

Yeah, but who has the time?

Originally posted by BackinBlack
mostly women? really?

Not mostly, but a lot more than people think. The point is that there's no evidence the sanctions CEDAW wants would help any real people, but they would harm the freedom of real women.

Originally posted by BackinBlack
the legal age in japan is 14...so maybe this survey was made without this fact in mind.

The legal age in Japan isn't actually 14 anywhere, that just happens to be the minimum it can be set to.

Backfire...I think that DDM's problem with that scene is that he cant concentrate immediately after he shoots his load, and thats why the other 9 mins of that scene are useless to him.

Just 9 more minutes for self digust and self hatred.

















































I reckon that Lucas and Speilberg are trying to ban simulated rape after that Southpark episode revealed the truth about them raping Indy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos



The legal age in Japan isn't actually 14 anywhere, that just happens to be the minimum it can be set to.
then what is it?

Originally posted by jalek moye
then what is it?

Much like the US it varies, typically the age of consent is 18.

hentai is just fantasy porn, a bt more "exotic" than your average porn. not only that but there are many people who don't even consider it porn anyway.
personally, i don't see why someone would just suddenly become a rapist after watching a hentai. its about as stupid as assuming that just cuz some kid plays mortal combat he's going to punch his friend towards a speeding train and then hold his head as a victory pose. why ban fictional rape and why pretend that women are the only ones getting raped anyway?

Originally posted by BackinBlack
its about as stupid as assuming that just cuz some kid plays mortal combat he's going to punch his friend

yes, but if you ended the sentence there, it wouldn't be stupid at all

there is almost certainly some validity to the argument that people inclined to rape or pedophilia would be more likely to commit the act after viewing such material. There may be some sense of catharsis, but even that is largely mythological when studied empirically.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really?



It was just, long. That's it.

It sure was...I managed to cum TWICE.

Seriously though. They can ban fictional rape if they want. So long as they don't ban the real stuff.

touche


true. but isn't it equally possible that now people have been prevented from "venting" these negatives thoughts and desires, there is a chance that rape cases might increase. its like the whole thing with violent crimes and sports increasing in times of peace.

Originally posted by BackinBlack
true. but isn't it equally possible that now people have been prevented from "venting" these negatives thoughts and desires, there is a chance that rape cases might increase. its like the whole thing with violent crimes and sports increasing in times of peace.

possibly

there is also the forbidden fruit allure

though I would question the ability of pornography to elicit such behaviours. Like, no amount of kiddie porn is going to satisfy a person with that type of sexual compulsion, and rape is rarely about sex in the first place.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but if you ended the sentence there, it wouldn't be stupid at all

there is almost certainly some validity to the argument that people inclined to rape or pedophilia would be more likely to commit the act after viewing such material. There may be some sense of catharsis, but even that is largely mythological when studied empirically.

Though, as I recall the experiments done with violent games suggest the desire wouldn't last particularly long, about enough time to snap at somebody or toss a controller through your TV. Finding and capturing a victim takes time, getting into my giant rubber rape machine takes even longer.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Though, as I recall the experiments done with violent games suggest the desire wouldn't last particularly long, about enough time to snap at somebody or toss a controller through your TV. Finding and capturing a victim takes time, getting into my giant rubber rape machine takes even longer.

depends on what research team you look at when talking about media violence.

there are teams that have been getting results for decades that suggest media violence can lead to violent criminal behaviour later in life, not only immediately after viewing.

I have my suspicions, and the most anti-violent media stuff is consistently replicated by this one team, and from their writings, it is clear that they have a moral stance against media violence, but the data exists, and there is no really good empirical argument against it.

That being said, the is also good evidence that there is a file drawer effect in media violence research. File drawer effect is basically that studies that produce negative results are harder to get published, and are often abandoned by their researchers. So, studies that don't find a connection between media violence and real violence probably don't get published.

BackinBlack is right....Hentai is fun.

Hentai isn't fun.

It's awesome AND fun.

I'm gonna go listen to Judas Priest then go on a killing spree. Bye.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
were allowed to tell you your opinion sucks.

And I am allowed to tell you that your opinion sucks.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm not trying to disallow your opinion, just pointing out why I think it's monumentally moronic.

And I am trying to tell you how monumentally pathetic yours is. You've fallen for gimmickry and novelty instead of seeing it for what it is. Of course, this is my opinion.


Originally posted by BackFire
Of course you think your way would be better, no one else would, though.

No, it would be better and most ever other person would think it better. I haven't even covered the tip of the iceberg on how I would handle it and you're already damning it. You're doing it because of your opinion of Irreversible.

Originally posted by BackFire
It would be too cinematic and stylized.

It would be cinematic, but not stylized. It would be ever bit as gimmicky as Irreversible, but it would be far more unique.

Originally posted by BackFire
Rape is such an inherently awful thing,
odd, coming from a person who jokes about rape every other post.


Originally posted by BackFire
(which were not in the rape scene, the rest of the movie had a gimmick and a style but they subtracted that for that scene, which made it even more shocking and powerful contextually with the rest of the film)


Incorrect. The entire film is shot in 5-10 minute excerpts, while being played in reverse. The difference is the number of angles during the rape scene.

The whole movie is filled with extended single take scenes. There is nothing different about the film throughout it, compared to the rape scene...except for the fact that it's an lol rape scene.

You've deified the scene beyond what it should be. You've taken it out of context with the rest of the film, unnecessarily.


Originally posted by BackFire
simply showing it without any particular style and cinematic grammer is the best way to go about making it powerful and realistic.

I disagree. There are better ways to convey to the audience the horrific event. Sure, it was powerful, but not as powerful as it could have been.

Originally posted by BackFire
Overly stylizing and cinematizing it would simply trivlialize the act. So don't ever make a rape scene, imo. Unless you're doing it for comedy. In which case your way would work.

No it wouldn't. It would make it more realistic. Put the audience in that person's position, literally. It would allow the viewed to experience it on a much more personal level.

If someone has a nightmare about it, the images are first person, instead of third person.


And, leave the "rape scenes" to me, as you obviously don't have an objective opinion about them.

Originally posted by BackFire
And you already said the punchline comparison earlier, no need to be redundant. Was a false analogy then, is a false analogy now. The shootout analogy is alright, though. If the goal of the scene was to make that act out to be realistic then that would be a good way to go about it, wouldn't it? Show it how it actually happens.

When we are rehashing the same exact points, it is absolutely necessary to rehash the same exact comparison.

What was a missed analogy, is a missed analogy, still.


And, no, there are much better levels of realism.


Originally posted by BackFire
The motivation for the rapist was perfectly fine.

Sure, if you're into stereotypes that are more fantasy than reality.

Originally posted by BackFire
It fit in with the dire and cruel theme of the first half of the film - to show the bottomless depths of human cruelty.

I fail to see how this approaches the depths of human cruelty. It's cruel, sure, but it doesn't explore the darkest depths of cruelty.

Originally posted by BackFire
So he didn't have a good reason to rape her? No, he didn't.

In the film he did. He was getting at the metaphor of high class female. He was also getting his jollies.

Originally posted by BackFire
There is no good reason to rape someone.

No "good" reason, yes. There are reasons, though.

Originally posted by BackFire
He was an extremely evil person, and evil people do evil things. He did an evil thing.

So, you're now saying that he was a cliche?

Originally posted by BackFire
Besides, you already said that your problem with the scene didn't stem from the scene being bad, but from your own concentration problems.

It's covered in basic directing school that you don't drag things out, too long, as you must keep the audience's attention. You can blame it on my attention span, or his style of direction.

Originally posted by BackFire
Not the movies fault you can't concentrate on things.

Sure I can concentrate on better done films, no problem.




And, let's drop this condescending style of replies.



I thought the film was good. 7 out of 10. Just because I disagreed with how the rape scene was handled, doesn't mean I' a moron. Just because you think it was good, doesn't mean you're a moron.






Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Backfire...I think that DDM's problem with that scene is that he cant concentrate immediately after he shoots his load, and thats why the other 9 mins of that scene are useless to him.

Just 9 more minutes for self digust and self hatred.

I'm dead serious when I say it took two readings of your post to finally get what you were talking about.



And, I was slightly amused.

Originally posted by dadudemon


No, it would be better and most ever other person would think it better. I haven't even covered the tip of the iceberg on how I would handle it and you're already damning it. You're doing it because of your opinion of Irreversible.



It would be cinematic, but not stylized. It would be ever bit as gimmicky as Irreversible, but it would be far more unique.





I disagree. There are better ways to convey to the audience the horrific event. Sure, it was powerful, but not as powerful as it could have been.



No it wouldn't. It would make it more realistic. Put the audience in that person's position, literally. It would allow the viewed to experience it on a much more personal level.

If someone has a nightmare about it, the images are first person, instead of third person.


And, leave the "rape scenes" to me, as you obviously don't have an objective opinion about them.


Maybe you do have good, unique ideas, but what you said of it so far has been done before and would likely not have the same deep impact that the Irreversible rape scene has (which, regardless of your opinion. is definitely generally considered rather powerful). If you don't like the scene, fair enough, but your arguments against it are weak, and your ideas, as you stated them, are old and usually don't have the strong impact the Irreversible scene has.

Again, I am not saying that you couldn't do it better, or that you couldn't bring something unique, but as you described it, it is neither of those.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I'm dead serious when I say it took two readings of your post to finally get what you were talking about.



And, I was slightly amused.


Yeah...thats subtlety for ya, I guess.



Good 'twas the intention.

How many people did they ask? It's like those anti wrinkle cream adverts, 98% of women agreed that this wonderful cream REALLY WORKS, then in small font, 210 women took part in this survey...

Originally posted by MildPossession
How many people did they ask? It's like those anti wrinkle cream adverts, 98% of women agreed that this wonderful cream REALLY WORKS, then in small font, 210 women took part in this survey...

Actually the important aspect of a statistic like that is how representative it is not the size of the sample. Nielsen rating use just 500 families and occasional phone surveys to gather numbers. That said, online surveys are not usually controlled which makes it almost impossible to judge their accuracy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe you do have good, unique ideas, but what you said of it so far has been done before and would likely not have the same deep impact that the Irreversible rape scene has (which, regardless of your opinion. is definitely generally considered rather powerful).

1. I haven't even touched on how I would do it, in it's entirety. I don't care to divulge too much on it, either.

2. I already said that he scene was powerful.


Originally posted by Bardock42
If you don't like the scene, fair enough, but your arguments against it are weak, and your ideas, as you stated them, are old and usually don't have the strong impact the Irreversible scene has.

I disagree. My arguments are against the style and gimmikry of it. Hardly weak arguments.

And, very good wording on my idea.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, I am not saying that you couldn't do it better, or that you couldn't bring something unique, but as you described it, it is neither of those.

Thank you for being cool about it. I feel your opinion of it is very objective...as backwards as that seems. Like I said, what I've stated is just the tip of the iceberg. I'll tell you about it in IM on Monday. Then you can make a better judgement. I look forward to the feedback.

Fictional rape should not be banned, people don't go out raping because they read it in a book, or see it in a film. They go out and rape because they're a ****ed up person. If you banned it in one medium you'd have to ban it in all... And a lot of films and dramas would suffer for it's loss. There is also the snowball effect, people will say that if youve baned fictional rape, then you should ban all violence.... It will go on until we've made fiction boring.

I wonder if this means Pulp Fiction, American Me and American History X will all be banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rapeman

We'll have to ban certain planets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed

Though, really the comic potential of buying "rape oil" might be too much.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We'll have to ban certain planets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed

Though, really the comic potential of buying "rape oil" might be too much.

It took me a bit to get it.


Then I realized you made a typo and you meant "plants."


I love how typos can make this confusing or hilarious.



I hope someone gets this, "I'm going to grape you! I'm going to grape you in the mouth!"

Stupid alphabet!

Originally posted by dadudemon
And I am trying to tell you how monumentally pathetic yours is. You've fallen for gimmickry and novelty instead of seeing it for what it is. Of course, this is my opinion.

"What it is" is a scene that is monumentally disturbing beyond any other comparible scene in existence. Name one rape scene that you've seen that you think compares to it in regards to its power and the harrowing feel it carries. I'm curious.



Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it would be better and most ever other person would think it better. I haven't even covered the tip of the iceberg on how I would handle it and you're already damning it. You're doing it because of your opinion of Irreversible.

You said you'd do it POV. That's all I need to know about it to make the very safe assumption that it would fail. It would have the opposite effect. Go on. Do it. Put your money where your mouth is. Make the scene, and then wonder what's going on when everyone laughs at your juvenile attempt to be dark and unique by doing something that, as Bardock has said, has already been done, and failed at, before.


Originally posted by dadudemon
It would be cinematic, but not stylized. It would be ever bit as gimmicky as Irreversible, but it would be far more unique.

Irreversible wasn't gimmicky. Its backwards narrative was essential to properly exploring the theme of fate and how things can't be put right again. It made the whole thing much more foreboding as we the viewers ended up knowing the fate of the characters before they did, and thus altering what would otherwise be joyful happy ending and morphing it into an unimaginably somber and sad realization.

Your idea would be far more gimmicky and stylized than irreversible. And worse yet, without any true purpose. Only a lazy man trying to be unique and creative by doing something that I thought might have been an interesting idea when I was 14.


Originally posted by dadudemon
odd, coming from a person who jokes about rape every other post.

Relevant? No. Jokes are jokes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Incorrect. The entire film is shot in 5-10 minute excerpts, while being played in reverse. The difference is the number of angles during the rape scene.

The whole movie is filled with extended single take scenes. There is nothing different about the film throughout it, compared to the rape scene...except for the fact that it's an lol rape scene.

You've deified the scene beyond what it should be. You've taken it out of context with the rest of the film, unnecessarily.

You are showing a startling amount of ignorance in regards to this film. The simple stillness of the camera during the rape scene is what was jarring, along with the length of the scene. In the rest of the film the camera was moving almost constantly and in a near spastic manner, to have it suddenly go completely still during this particular scene only enhanced its power, and it worked precisely BECAUSE it was in context with the rest of the film.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. There are better ways to convey to the audience the horrific event. Sure, it was powerful, but not as powerful as it could have been.

It is. That's why there's never been another rape scene that even comes remotely close to this one in regards to its realism or power.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No it wouldn't. It would make it more realistic. Put the audience in that person's position, literally. It would allow the viewed to experience it on a much more personal level.

If someone has a nightmare about it, the images are first person, instead of third person.

Films aren't interactive. They are stories that we watch happening to others. Once more, your idea would have the opposite effect. It would only further distance the viewer by making it overly stylized and thus not believable or realistic at all. You may disagree. Fine. Go make it and see what the response would be.


Originally posted by dadudemon
And, leave the "rape scenes" to me, as you obviously don't have an objective opinion about them.

I'll make you a deal. I'll leave the gimmicky POV ones to you. As I'm sure every other person would as well. All yours.



Originally posted by dadudemon
When we are rehashing the same exact points, it is absolutely necessary to rehash the same exact comparison.

What was a missed analogy, is a missed analogy, still.


And, no, there are much better levels of realism.

You can repeat the false analogy all you want. Doesn't matter. There is factually no better level of realism than showing something as it actually happens.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure, if you're into stereotypes that are more fantasy than reality.

And now you present the false premise that he was a stereotype. He wasn't. What's another character that has done actions similar to him? Go on.



Originally posted by dadudemon
I fail to see how this approaches the depths of human cruelty. It's cruel, sure, but it doesn't explore the darkest depths of cruelty.

Semantics. What he did was undeniably and extraordinarily cruel on a level most filmmakers wouldn't even be able to comprehend. Gasper Noe created a character as loathsome and vicious as I've ever seen. The fact that he didn't have a good reason, that he did it out of pure spite and the sheer need to dominate another person is as realistic a portrayal of a rapist as can exist. That is often their reason for doing it. They want to dominate and have complete control over another. As he did.


Originally posted by dadudemon
In the film he did. He was getting at the metaphor of high class female. He was also getting his jollies.

The high class bit was his excuse. He was hateful and would have found any reason to do it. He was previously harassing a low class prostitute and probably would have raped her had Bellucci's character not entered the tunnel.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No "good" reason, yes. There are reasons, though.

And he had one.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, you're now saying that he was a cliche?

No. Simply that he was evil, and so doing evil things is what evil people often do. Very simple concept.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's covered in basic directing school that you don't drag things out, too long, as you must keep the audience's attention. You can blame it on my attention span, or his style of direction.

If brave directors never deviated from what they learned in film 101 we'd never have new or daring or unique films. They also teach you the three act structure when you begin to learn about script writing, it's a rule. But as you get better at writing you can deviate and even break the rules.

Also I should say that you're the first person I ever heard of who had trouble concentrating and following the scene.

I'll blame it on your attention span, since you did first. Or did you forget what you posted?


Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure I can concentrate on better done films, no problem.

Once more you said in an earlier post that the fault lied with you having a poor attention span. You said this. This is a premise you brought into the conversation. Not me. I'm simply taking your word for it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, let's drop this condescending style of replies.

Why? You've admitted in private messages to others that this is your troll account. The only reason you aren't banned is because it doesn't come up on the sock checker and because at times it's difficult to tell if you're sincerely as stupid and unlikeable as you come across or merely trolling.

In this post I assume the latter, since I can't actually imagine anyone so dense and having such a cinematically inept view that they'd think a POV rape scene would sincerely be at all effective in any way outside of self parody.

Originally posted by BackFire
"What it is" is a scene that is monumentally disturbing beyond any other comparible scene in existence. Name one rape scene that you've seen that you think compares to it in regards to its power and the harrowing feel it carries. I'm curious.





You said you'd do it POV. That's all I need to know about it to make the very safe assumption that it would fail. It would have the opposite effect. Go on. Do it. Put your money where your mouth is. Make the scene, and then wonder what's going on when everyone laughs at your juvenile attempt to be dark and unique by doing something that, as Bardock has said, has already been done, and failed at, before.




Irreversible wasn't gimmicky. Its backwards narrative was essential to properly exploring the theme of fate and how things can't be put right again. It made the whole thing much more foreboding as we the viewers ended up knowing the fate of the characters before they did, and thus altering what would otherwise be joyful happy ending and morphing it into an unimaginably somber and sad realization.

Your idea would be far more gimmicky and stylized than irreversible. And worse yet, without any true purpose. Only a lazy man trying to be unique and creative by doing something that I thought might have been an interesting idea when I was 14.




Relevant? No. Jokes are jokes.



You are showing a startling amount of ignorance in regards to this film. The simple stillness of the camera during the rape scene is what was jarring, along with the length of the scene. In the rest of the film the camera was moving almost constantly and in a near spastic manner, to have it suddenly go completely still during this particular scene only enhanced its power, and it worked precisely BECAUSE it was in context with the rest of the film.



It is. That's why there's never been another rape scene that even comes remotely close to this one in regards to its realism or power.



Films aren't interactive. They are stories that we watch happening to others. Once more, your idea would have the opposite effect. It would only further distance the viewer by making it overly stylized and thus not believable or realistic at all. You may disagree. Fine. Go make it and see what the response would be.




I'll make you a deal. I'll leave the gimmicky POV ones to you. As I'm sure every other person would as well. All yours.





You can repeat the false analogy all you want. Doesn't matter. There is factually no better level of realism than showing something as it actually happens.



And now you present the false premise that he was a stereotype. He wasn't. What's another character that has done actions similar to him? Go on.





Semantics. What he did was undeniably and extraordinarily cruel on a level most filmmakers wouldn't even be able to comprehend. Gasper Noe created a character as loathsome and vicious as I've ever seen. The fact that he didn't have a good reason, that he did it out of pure spite and the sheer need to dominate another person is as realistic a portrayal of a rapist as can exist. That is often their reason for doing it. They want to dominate and have complete control over another. As he did.




The high class bit was his excuse. He was hateful and would have found any reason to do it. He was previously harassing a low class prostitute and probably would have raped her had Bellucci's character not entered the tunnel.



And he had one.



No. Simply that he was evil, and so doing evil things is what evil people often do. Very simple concept.



If brave directors never deviated from what they learned in film 101 we'd never have new or daring or unique films. They also teach you the three act structure when you begin to learn about script writing, it's a rule. But as you get better at writing you can deviate and even break the rules.

Also I should say that you're the first person I ever heard of who had trouble concentrating and following the scene.

I'll blame it on your attention span, since you did first. Or did you forget what you posted?




Once more you said in an earlier post that the fault lied with you having a poor attention span. You said this. This is a premise you brought into the conversation. Not me. I'm simply taking your word for it.



Why? You've admitted in private messages to others that this is your troll account. The only reason you aren't banned is because it doesn't come up on the sock checker and because at times it's difficult to tell if you're sincerely as stupid and unlikeable as you come across or merely trolling.

In this post I assume the latter, since I can't actually imagine anyone so dense and having such a cinematically inept view that they'd think a POV rape scene would sincerely be at all effective in any way outside of self parody.


k

Well said BF.

Irreversable shows, clearly, like no other movie what rape actually is - a vile, ugly, animal like degradation of another human being.

That scene has disturbed me for a really long time and I still get this uncomfortable feeling thinking about it. I think listening to dialogue alone would have disturbed anyone, let alone the whole scene.

It is a very good scene, it's very disturbing but it makes for an exceptional and memorable veiwing experiance. Drama that tests boundaries is always good.

I can't beleive that people in here are getting pissed because fictional raping is getting threatened. I can't tell whether that's funny or just plain sad. Just how is watching a rape scene entertaining? You guys need some serious help.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
I can't beleive that people in here are getting pissed because fictional raping is getting threatened. I can't tell whether that's funny or just plain sad. Just how is watching a rape scene entertaining? You guys need some serious help. It's not the scene that is necessarily entertaining, but the scene is there for a reason more often than not, progression in a storyline... Having said that a rape scene can also be entertaining (see A Clockwork Orange).

People are getting annoyed that it's being threatened because it's basically a form of censorship removing it.

Originally posted by dadudemon


I disagree. My arguments are against the style and gimmikry of it. Hardly weak arguments.




Unfortunately, I think as time as went on, the reputation of Irreversible has centred around the rape scene and the fire extinguisher scene. These are the two scenes which have hit the mainstream and the rest of the film gets virtually no mention. This is the reason these scenes seem gimmicky. If you take the film as a whole, they fit in perfectly and are an extremely potent part of an exceptionally powerful film.

As people have previously mentioned, the whole point of the scene is to make you look away in discomfort. Not just at the act itself but because of the time it takes. Several times you find yourself saying "****in' hell I wish this would end" and when it does you are both relieved and disgusted that you actually watched it. The man who appears in the background is there to be the opposite of your conscience. Where you would like to think you would act, he did not. He is the mirror held up to the viewer that asks "Would you really act differently?"

The entire film is about the inescapability of fate.

Couldn't agree more jaden.

Thank you. I am exceptionally drunk and just happy I can form a coherant sentence.

Originally posted by jaden101
Unfortunately, I think as time as went on, the reputation of Irreversible has centred around the rape scene and the fire extinguisher scene. These are the two scenes which have hit the mainstream and the rest of the film gets virtually no mention. This is the reason these scenes seem gimmicky. If you take the film as a whole, they fit in perfectly and are an extremely potent part of an exceptionally powerful film.

As people have previously mentioned, the whole point of the scene is to make you look away in discomfort. Not just at the act itself but because of the time it takes. Several times you find yourself saying "****in' hell I wish this would end" and when it does you are both relieved and disgusted that you actually watched it. The man who appears in the background is there to be the opposite of your conscience. Where you would like to think you would act, he did not. He is the mirror held up to the viewer that asks "Would you really act differently?"

The entire film is about the inescapability of fate.


I saw the movie many years after it was released, at the suggestion of Backfire.

I may be a tad desensitized or detached when viewing most films because I usually don't see them as anything but actors, props, and scripts.

I wasn't uncomfortable, but I was disgusted and unimpressed. I thought the seen was too long. I was impressed, however, with how well Noe's scenes turned out, despite being long cuts. However, they tend to drag out and beat the point of the scenes to death. Another example of an absurdly long scene in one take is on the subway. Okay, we got that Pierre was still in love with Alex. Blah blah. The scene reinforced that a hundred billion times and it was reinforced many times throughout the film.

That's the same "feeling" that was made in many portions of the film. Again, it was the style and gimmickry of the film.

edit.

Depends on what context the scenario is shown, I mean if it's glorifying it and has no actual relevance to the plot then in such cases (without being a prude) I'd say they've got a case for banning however then you're drawn into that whole debate of media influence.

Originally posted by BackFire
"What it is" is a scene that is monumentally disturbing beyond any other comparible scene in existence. Name one rape scene that you've seen that you think compares to it in regards to its power and the harrowing feel it carries. I'm curious.

The General's Daughter scene was MUCH better.





Originally posted by BackFire
"You said you'd do it POV. That's all I need to know about it to make the very safe assumption that it would fail. It would have the opposite effect. Go on. Do it. Put your money where your mouth is. Make the scene, and then wonder what's going on when everyone laughs at your juvenile attempt to be dark and unique by doing something that, as Bardock has said, has already been done, and failed at, before.

POV is not even a fifth of how it would be, though. That's just one tool I would implement.

But thanks for being a dick about it. I guess I struck a tender spot with my dislike of your favorite scene? (Yes, I'm serious.)




Originally posted by BackFire
Irreversible wasn't gimmicky.

Yes. Yes it was.

Originally posted by BackFire
Your idea would be far more gimmicky and stylized than irreversible. And worse yet, without any true purpose. Only a lazy man trying to be unique and creative by doing something that I thought might have been an interesting idea when I was 14.

"POV is not even a fifth of how it would be, though. That's just one tool I would implement."

And now you're insulting me by calling me 14, indirectly. Good job.



Originally posted by BackFire
Relevant? No. Jokes are jokes.

I can't help it if you missed a simple point. That's your fault.


Originally posted by BackFire
You are showing a startling amount of ignorance in regards to this film.

I was thinking the same about you. You are showing a disturbing amount of ignorance, despite how much love you have for the film.

My point wasn't debatable, yet, you tried to debate it. That's just weird.



Originally posted by BackFire
It is. That's why there's never been another rape scene that even comes remotely close to this one in regards to its realism or power.

I disagree, obviously. How many times have you replied back to that, now?




Originally posted by BackFire
Films aren't interactive.

Your knowledge of films is very underwhelming. I sure hope I am taking this comment WAAAAAAAY out of context.

Originally posted by BackFire
They are stories that we watch happening to others. Once more, your idea would have the opposite effect. It would only further distance the viewer by making it overly stylized and thus not believable or realistic at all. You may disagree. Fine. Go make it and see what the response would be.

The exact opposite is true. Whilst Irreversible appealed to a certain audience, mine would be more broad. Like I said, I presented it as something better than your favorite scene in a movie, so, obviously you're not going to think about it objectively. I am prepared for that. I've had to put up with rabid Original Trilogy fanboys for a decade now, so I think I can handle a small niche irreversible fanboy market.



Originally posted by BackFire
You can repeat the false analogy all you want. Doesn't matter. There is factually no better level of realism than showing something as it actually happens.

This comment approaches willful ignorance...if you take it in context with our discussion.


Alone, it is very intelligent and I agree with it fully. In fact, alone, it actually supports my point.



Originally posted by BackFire
And now you present the false premise that he was a stereotype. He wasn't. What's another character that has done actions similar to him? Go on.

Way to miss the point, ace.

Read my posts on that, again, and then get back to me when you understand them.

Until then, he was an imaginary stereotype a gay male. I'll one-up your patronizing question with my own: tell me, dear sir, how many gay men do you know are like that? Do you know even one? Then tell me how many homophobic men and women you know that would probably tell you men like that exist? (They probably do.)


Cue the "you missed the point of his character. It was fate and bad things happen to good people, bla bla bla."

There, I saved you the time of not actually getting my point and not answering my question.


FYI, that point of mine wasn't debatable, either.

Originally posted by BackFire
Semantics. What he did was undeniably and extraordinarily cruel on a level most filmmakers wouldn't even be able to comprehend. Gasper Noe created a character as loathsome and vicious as I've ever seen. The fact that he didn't have a good reason, that he did it out of pure spite and the sheer need to dominate another person is as realistic a portrayal of a rapist as can exist.


No he didn't.

Don't you see how much of a fanboy you are?

Do you see how thick-headed you would appear to someone like me?


Originally posted by BackFire
That is often their reason for doing it..


They want to dominate and have complete control over another. As he did.

How do you know this? Where is your evidence on these psychological statistics?





Originally posted by BackFire
The high class bit was his excuse. He was hateful and would have found any reason to do it. He was previously harassing a low class prostitute and probably would have raped her had Bellucci's character not entered the tunnel.

No, he wouldn't have. Now you think that he would have raped everyone. This is wrong. You missed the portion of the film where he degrades her for her high class high maintenance appearance.



Originally posted by BackFire
And he had one.

He had multiple. Thanks for missing those points.



Originally posted by BackFire
No. Simply that he was evil, and so doing evil things is what evil people often do. Very simple concept.

Thanks for missing my point. Again.



Originally posted by BackFire
Also I should say that you're the first person I ever heard of who had trouble concentrating and following the scene.

I didn't say I had trouble with either.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'll blame it on your attention span, since you did first. Or did you forget what you posted?

Yes. I already forgot. dur




Originally posted by BackFire
Once more you said in an earlier post that the fault lied with you having a poor attention span. You said this. This is a premise you brought into the conversation. Not me. I'm simply taking your word for it.

You're missing the point. Of course, you get the point so instead of arguing against he point, you harp with an ad hominem fallacy.



Originally posted by BackFire
Why? You've admitted in private messages to others that this is your troll account.

I'll take care of that right now. In all forums I frequent. I've had enough of this stupidity and ignorance from everyone, which now includes some mods, apparently.

You guys have been trolled by a troll to the point that you are accusing a non-troll of being a troll.


Originally posted by BackFire
The only reason you aren't banned is because it doesn't come up on the sock checker and because at times it's difficult to tell if you're sincerely as stupid and unlikeable as you come across or merely trolling.

You do know that what you have been doing in almost every point you made back to me was trolling, right? You make ad hominem attack after another instead of addressing the actual points, and then you pretend as if my points never existed at some parts. That is trolling 101.

What you said, above, is very inappropriate.

Originally posted by BackFire
In this post I assume the latter, since I can't actually imagine anyone so dense and having such a cinematically inept view that they'd think a POV rape scene would sincerely be at all effective in any way outside of self parody.

This is full of fanobyism and ignorance. It almost epitomises fanboy close mindedness. Great job.

Originally posted by wicker_man
Depends on what context the scenario is shown, I mean if it's glorifying it and has no actual relevance to the plot then in such cases (without being a prude) I'd say they've got a case for banning however then you're drawn into that whole debate of media influence.

How do we define "glorifying it"?
How do you justify telling an author what he (or she) is allowed to write about?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How do we define "glorifying it"?
How do you justify telling an author what he (or she) is allowed to write about?

You don't you let them write it and ergo let them face the consequences.

Glorification in my eyes is someone who makes light of the subject with no showing of repercussions or the adverse effects it has, however everyone will have a different idea of what glorification is.

Originally posted by wicker_man
You don't you let them write it and ergo let them face the consequences.

Glorification in my eyes is someone who makes light of the subject with no showing of repercussions or the adverse effects it has, however everyone will have a different idea of what glorification is.

so you suggest diverting funds, officer time and other resources from actual police operations, like stopping real rapists, to the enforcement of censorship, which cannot be linked to any real world violence or consequences?

Originally posted by wicker_man
You don't you let them write it and ergo let them face the consequences.

That's not a justification, that's just a waste of money.

Originally posted by wicker_man
Glorification in my eyes is someone who makes light of the subject with no showing of repercussions or the adverse effects it has, however everyone will have a different idea of what glorification is.

Which is the problem. People won't agree what it is, virtually anything could be construed as "glorifying" rape. Truffaut jumps immediately to mind.

Originally posted by inimalist
so you suggest diverting funds, officer time and other resources from actual police operations, like stopping real rapists, to the enforcement of censorship, which cannot be linked to any real world violence or consequences?

Nope not at all, what I'm saying is I hope authors have more sense as to what is and what isn't acceptable and if not them then chances are publishers or potential publishers will step in and say something.

Robert Mapplethorpe
Shirin Neshat
Pepe Smit
Andres Serrano
Joel-Peter Witkin

I guess those are photographers, but the point stands

Originally posted by wicker_man
Nope not at all, what I'm saying is I hope authors have more sense as to what is and what isn't acceptable and if not them then chances are publishers or potential publishers will step in and say something.

I think I see what you're saying.








It can be portrayed as a very negative and horrible thing such as Irreversible and The General's Daughter.


It can be made light and even humerous: A Clockwork Orange.






However, I don't feel it should be censored at all. Ever. I am all about the freedom of expression and speech, as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone besides the person who wants to indulge.

To put it shorter: "To each his own."

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think I see what you're saying.








It can be portrayed as a very negative and horrible thing such as Irreversible and The General's Daughter.


It can be made light and even humerous: A Clockwork Orange.






However, I don't feel it should be censored at all. Ever. I am all about the freedom of expression and speech, as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone besides the person who wants to indulge.

To put it shorter: "To each his own."

Indeed I am, thanks for the usage of examples.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The General's Daughter scene was MUCH better.







POV is not even a fifth of how it would be, though. That's just one tool I would implement.

But thanks for being a dick about it. I guess I struck a tender spot with my dislike of your favorite scene? (Yes, I'm serious.)






Yes. Yes it was.



"POV is not even a fifth of how it would be, though. That's just one tool I would implement."

And now you're insulting me by calling me 14, indirectly. Good job.





I can't help it if you missed a simple point. That's your fault.




I was thinking the same about you. You are showing a disturbing amount of ignorance, despite how much love you have for the film.

My point wasn't debatable, yet, you tried to debate it. That's just weird.





I disagree, obviously. How many times have you replied back to that, now?






Your knowledge of films is very underwhelming. I sure hope I am taking this comment WAAAAAAAY out of context.



The exact opposite is true. Whilst Irreversible appealed to a certain audience, mine would be more broad. Like I said, I presented it as something better than your favorite scene in a movie, so, obviously you're not going to think about it objectively. I am prepared for that. I've had to put up with rabid Original Trilogy fanboys for a decade now, so I think I can handle a small niche irreversible fanboy market.





This comment approaches willful ignorance...if you take it in context with our discussion.


Alone, it is very intelligent and I agree with it fully. In fact, alone, it actually supports my point.





Way to miss the point, ace.

Read my posts on that, again, and then get back to me when you understand them.

Until then, he was an imaginary stereotype a gay male. I'll one-up your patronizing question with my own: tell me, dear sir, how many gay men do you know are like that? Do you know even one? Then tell me how many homophobic men and women you know that would probably tell you men like that exist? (They probably do.)


Cue the "you missed the point of his character. It was fate and bad things happen to good people, bla bla bla."

There, I saved you the time of not actually getting my point and not answering my question.


FYI, that point of mine wasn't debatable, either.




No he didn't.

Don't you see how much of a fanboy you are?

Do you see how thick-headed you would appear to someone like me?





They want to dominate and have complete control over another. As he did.

How do you know this? Where is your evidence on these psychological statistics?







No, he wouldn't have. Now you think that he would have raped everyone. This is wrong. You missed the portion of the film where he degrades her for her high class high maintenance appearance.





He had multiple. Thanks for missing those points.





Thanks for missing my point. Again.





I didn't say I had trouble with either.



Yes. I already forgot. dur






You're missing the point. Of course, you get the point so instead of arguing against he point, you harp with an ad hominem fallacy.





I'll take care of that right now. In all forums I frequent. I've had enough of this stupidity and ignorance from everyone, which now includes some mods, apparently.

You guys have been trolled by a troll to the point that you are accusing a non-troll of being a troll.




You do know that what you have been doing in almost every point you made back to me was trolling, right? You make ad hominem attack after another instead of addressing the actual points, and then you pretend as if my points never existed at some parts. That is trolling 101.

What you said, above, is very inappropriate.



This is full of fanobyism and ignorance. It almost epitomises fanboy close mindedness. Great job.


POV may not be the entirety of your idea, the other things you mentioned also sound crappy. Sorry, but they do.

You seem to think that I object to you not liking the scene - I don't. Many people don't like the scene. But it comes off as exceedingly obnoxious for you to dance around about how your way would be so much better, when we all know you will never ever actually do the scene. It's very easy to say. "Oh I could do it so much better" when you're never going to actually try. Until you do, it's a worthless statement. It's all speculative. Frankly you are coming off as a person who is all talk. Someone who says they have these wonderful ideas, but then you never actually make the effort to do it. A sayer, not a doer. Where as someone who actually thinks they could do a better job wouldn't bother saying it in a hamfisted and childish manner, they'd go and actually do it quietly and let the work speak for itself.

Also there's not even a point to responding to much of what you say since many of your retorts aren't even done soundly. You simply take a single sentence and retort that one sentence while ignoring the rest of the paragraph, thus taking the sentence out of context and also invalidating whatever it is you are retorting with. It's also another tactic used by slimy trolls who are simply attempting to annoy. Oh, but you're no troll, are you? This is just how you are.

Also, nothing I have done constitutes trolling. Everything I said is based on sound logic and is completely appropriate. You say stupid things, I call them out. In my previous post I literally retorted every single point you made in your argument, I can say that with certainty. You cannot. You mention an idea that is literally similar to one I had when I was 14, that's not me trying to be mean, that's fact. I had a similar idea for a rape scene when I was that age. At the time, thought it was so clever and creative. Then I realized how damn stupid and cheesy it was and how it reeked of simply trying to hard when I got older.

It's not a bad thing, really. When you first start to get interested in writing or thinking creatively you are always going to go overboard, it's just part of the learning experience. I will bet in a few years from now you will think back on your idea and you will wonder what the heck you were thinking. As I did. Or at least you should hope you do. It's a sign of yourself getting better, actually being able to recognize bad ideas you have in hindsight, or at least see the flaws in them.

Originally posted by BackFire
POV may not be the entirety of your idea, the other things you mentioned also sound crappy. Sorry, but they do.

What other things did I mention?

Originally posted by BackFire
You seem to think that I object to you not liking the scene - I don't.

Cool. Then we really don't have a reason to argue.

Originally posted by BackFire
Many people don't like the scene. But it comes off as exceedingly obnoxious for you to dance around about how your way would be so much better, when we all know you will never ever actually do the scene. It's very easy to say. "Oh I could do it so much better" when you're never going to actually try. Until you do, it's a worthless statement. It's all speculative. Frankly you are coming off as a person who is all talk. Someone who says they have these wonderful ideas, but then you never actually make the effort to do it. A sayer, not a doer. Where as someone who actually thinks they could do a better job wouldn't bother saying it in a hamfisted and childish manner, they'd go and actually do it quietly and let the work speak for itself.

1. You don't know me. (Remember when I offered to tell you about my script idea and you rejected my offer because you said that you didn't know me well enough? That's where I'm coming from with point #1.)

2. I just so happen to be "writing" a script that includes rape.

3. About 1 out of 2 things I say I do, do I actually do. OOOO SELF PWN!

4. I plan to script write, like mad, after college. We'll see where it goes from there. Right now, I have about 3 films and 1 documentary in mind.

Originally posted by BackFire
Also there's not even a point to responding to much of what you say since many of your retorts aren't even done soundly. You simply take a single sentence and retort that one sentence while ignoring the rest of the paragraph, thus taking the sentence out of context and also invalidating whatever it is you are retorting with.

Point out how many times I did that.

Specific examples.


While you do that, I've already pointed out you incessant ad hominem fallacies...which you're doing again.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's also another tactic used by slimy trolls who are simply attempting to annoy. Oh, but you're no troll, are you? This is just how you are.

Indeed. I'm an idiot who's ignorant of Noe's true intentions and I don't know a good rape scene if it bit me in the butt, no pun intended.

You do know that what you're doing, right there, is trolling, don't you? You do know that I didn't start insulting back until you did, right?

Originally posted by BackFire
Also, nothing I have done constitutes trolling.

You can't insult a member and use ad hominem attacks to debate their points. That's EXCTLY what a troll does.

Originally posted by BackFire
Everything I said is based on sound logic and is completely appropriate. You say stupid things, I call them out. In my previous post I literally retorted every single point you made in your argument, I can say that with certainty.

No you cannot. You didn't. And still haven't. You "retorts" comprise of ad hominem insults and opinions.

I even gave you a couple of opportunities to "pwn" me with science, but you didn't.

Originally posted by BackFire
You mention an idea that is literally similar to one I had when I was 14, that's not me trying to be mean, that's fact. I had a similar idea for a rape scene when I was that age. At the time, thought it was so clever and creative. Then I realized how damn stupid and cheesy it was and how it reeked of simply trying to hard when I got older.

I'm sorry, your idea at 14 doesn't even come close to my complete idea. I mentioned it very slightly.




Off topic:
And, what kind of sick 14 year old boy thinks about how to do a good rape scene?

I know this sounds weird, but that's just awesome.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's not a bad thing, really. When you first start to get interested in writing or thinking creatively you are always going to go overboard, it's just part of the learning experience. I will bet in a few years from now you will think back on your idea and you will wonder what the heck you were thinking. As I did. Or at least you should hope you do. It's a sign of yourself getting better, actually being able to recognize bad ideas you have in hindsight, or at least see the flaws in them.

Cool. Now we're chums.

And, no, I haven't told you the first bit about my idea. After I pass it by Bards, I'll pass it by you.

Since it's NSFW, I don't want to PM it.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Off topic:
And, what kind of sick 14 year old boy thinks about how to do a good rape scene?

Originally posted by dadudemon
What other things did I mention?



Cool. Then we really don't have a reason to argue.



1. You don't know me. (Remember when I offered to tell you about my script idea and you rejected my offer because you said that you didn't know me well enough? That's where I'm coming from with point #1.)

2. I just so happen to be "writing" a script that includes rape.

3. About 1 out of 2 things I say I do, do I actually do. OOOO SELF PWN!

4. I plan to script write, like mad, after college. We'll see where it goes from there. Right now, I have about 3 films and 1 documentary in mind.



Point out how many times I did that.

Specific examples.


While you do that, I've already pointed out you incessant ad hominem fallacies...which you're doing again.



Indeed. I'm an idiot who's ignorant of Noe's true intentions and I don't know a good rape scene if it bit me in the butt, no pun intended.

You do know that what you're doing, right there, is trolling, don't you? You do know that I didn't start insulting back until you did, right?



You can't insult a member and use ad hominem attacks to debate their points. That's EXCTLY what a troll does.



No you cannot. You didn't. And still haven't. You "retorts" comprise of ad hominem insults and opinions.

I even gave you a couple of opportunities to "pwn" me with science, but you didn't.



I'm sorry, your idea at 14 doesn't even come close to my complete idea. I mentioned it very slightly.




Off topic:
And, what kind of sick 14 year old boy thinks about how to do a good rape scene?

I know this sounds weird, but that's just awesome.



Cool. Now we're chums.

And, no, I haven't told you the first bit about my idea. After I pass it by Bards, I'll pass it by you.

Since it's NSFW, I don't want to PM it.

You also mentioned something about hearing her voice during the scene, presumably from voice over. Again, it reeks of trying too hard.

I didn't reject you because I didn't know you well enough, I didn't want to talk to you on the phone. I said I'd gladly help you through PM or an IM service.

Cool that you're going to script write. Having ideas means nothing, though, until you actually WRITE them. Everyone has ideas for films. Writing a fully formed and nuanced script based on them is another thing entirely. If you haven't even done that yet then that's even more of a hit to your credibility when you say that you could do a rape scene better than Irreversible. Well, not really I guess. It's all infinitely meaningless 'till you actually do it. Or at least attempt to.

And I didn't use Ad Hominem to debate your points. To only time I attacked you was after all of your points were already retorted.

And here are examples of where you failed to quote a point in its entirety, and simply retorted out of context sentences:

I said this -

You only quoted this -

I said this -

You only quoted this -

Note how you only quote and retort the claim, while ignoring the important part where I actually EXPLAIN WHY these claims are true. You say I haven't retorted you properly, this would be true if what you quoted me as saying was actually ALL I said, but instead you misrepresent what I say, quote one segment of an entire point, and respond with 'no it doesn't' as if the explanation was never posted. You fail to retort the actual explanation, and thus you fail to retort the point properly.

Also, back to Irreversible now, you seem to think that Noe's goal was to make the audience feel like they were being raped. It wasn't. That was never his goal at all. It's actually impossible to do that because of the inherent and unimaginable emotional trauma and physical horrors that go with the act, and those portions can't be conveyed via film in any subjective manner that the audience can themselves feel.

All Noe wanted to do was SHOW the act as it is, not as if YOU were being raped but as if you were sitting there watching someone else being raped, because that's the most efficient way of showing something in film. You see something happen to someone else on screen, and if done well later on you are able to put yourself in their shoes and that is where the fear comes from. When watching Jaws people weren't in the theater fearing right then that they'd be eaten by a shark. That feeling came later on after seeing the movie, they were able to place themselves in the shoes of the characters and then feel as the characters felt that they witnessed being attacked.

The same is true for this scene. You don't feel like YOU'RE being raped during the scene, but later on, particularly for women, I imagine, you will see a long empty walkway, and you will be reminded of that scene, and you will feel fear.

And I'd certainly hope that my idea at 14 doesn't compare to your idea now. As I was freaking 14 years old. But it shares characteristics, and those characteristics are what are problematic with your idea, as they were with mine, or at least how you presented your idea.

Yes, what kind of sick 14 year old thinks of good rape scenes. The same kind of sick 26 year old that thinks of good rape scenes, I imagine.

And I'm not at all interested in hearing your idea. Instead of going around trying to advertise your idea to people, go put it to work. Again, all talk. It's all pointless until you actually attempt to do it. Just words.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Well said BF.

Irreversable shows, clearly, like no other movie....

Uhh...I'm going to beg to differ...Clockwork Orange have TWO gang rape scenes that are pretty much in the top.

Alex singing and the masks and the beating...I don't know about Irreversible (and please I'm not interested on how unique the rape scene may be) but Clockwork Orange was extremely graphic for it's day and age.

(correction)

I have to double check if in fact there were TWO gang rapes. Billy Boys abusing the girl prior to the ultraviolence may not technically a rape...will double check.

Originally posted by WhoopeeDee
Uhh...I'm going to beg to differ...Clockwork Orange have TWO gang rape scenes that are pretty much in the top.

Alex singing and the masks and the beating...I don't know about Irreversible (and please I'm not interested on how unique the rape scene may be) but Clockwork Orange was extremely graphic for it's day and age.

(correction)

I have to double check if in fact there were TWO gang rapes. Billy Boys abusing the girl prior to the ultraviolence may not technically a rape...will double check.

So have you seen the Irreversible, or not? If you're not interested in the scene and if you've never seen it, you cannot claim how good it is or it is not or what is better than the scene.
Especially the one that you haven't seen.

Don't think anyone has mentioned "I spit on your grave" yet.


Again, not pleasant.

Originally posted by WhoopeeDee
Uhh...I'm going to beg to differ...Clockwork Orange have TWO gang rape scenes that are pretty much in the top.

Alex singing and the masks and the beating...I don't know about Irreversible (and please I'm not interested on how unique the rape scene may be) but Clockwork Orange was extremely graphic for it's day and age.

(correction)

I have to double check if in fact there were TWO gang rapes. Billy Boys abusing the girl prior to the ultraviolence may not technically a rape...will double check.

Clockwork Orange was definitely graphic for its day, even now, there is something about those scenes that still hold a great deal of power and are very disturbing. Thought I don't think it's quite at Irreversible's level.

Yeah I think there was only one actual rape scene. The one with the wife of the guy who was in the wheel chair later on. The other one wasn't really a rape, just a nasty beating.

Jaden - I Spit on Your Grave is probably second to Irreversible in my book. That one is really nasty. Pretty much the entire first half of the film is nothing but very ugly gang rape scenes.

Originally posted by BackFire


Jaden - I Spit on Your Grave is probably second to Irreversible in my book. That one is really nasty. Pretty much the entire first half of the film is nothing but very ugly gang rape scenes.

Off topic, but there's supposedly a remake of 'I Spit...' happening.

While we're at that topic, The Accused was pretty disturbing.

Originally posted by Robtard
Off topic, but there's supposedly a remake of 'I Spit...' happening.

Yeah, there is. Should be interesting.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
While we're at that topic, The Accused was pretty disturbing.

Indeed.

There are plenty of disturbing rape scenes, even some involving anal-rape as Irreversible, but none come close in portraying the act as Irreversible did.

Leaving Las Vegas and Boys Don't Cry spring to mind, both were sodomy and involved a vicious beating too.

Originally posted by Robtard
Indeed.

There are plenty of disturbing rape scenes, even some involving anal-rape as Irreversible, but none come close in portraying the act as Irreversible did.

Leaving Las Vegas and Boys Don't Cry spring to mind, both were sodomy and involved a vicious beating too.

I think Boys Don't Cry was a vaginal rape, but it was disturbing non the less.
She says that I think to the nasty sweating piece of lard, sheif.

Irreversible is deff number one for me. I hope I don't see anything that disturbing again.

And what was even more messed up is that it is shown in a matter that it makes sure you know that it could happen to anyone and at any time. Ugh, nasty.

In the real account, Brandon was anally raped (vaginally too) and the director went for that, though she had to change it for the theatrical release due to the MPAA rulings.

Uncut version includes both, iirc.

on the MPAA, and a total aside: Has anyone seen "this film is not yet rated"?

Originally posted by inimalist
on the MPAA, and a total aside: Has anyone seen "this film is not yet rated"?

Yes. Well done film.

wasn't it though?

the PI they hired reminded me of Kathy Bates, lol

Originally posted by Robtard
In the real account, Brandon was anally raped (vaginally too) and the director went for that, though she had to change it for the theatrical release due to the MPAA rulings.

Uncut version includes both, iirc.

I didn't know that. Must have seen the uncut version then.

Originally posted by inimalist
wasn't it though?

the PI they hired reminded me of Kathy Bates, lol

Shows you how political B.S. exist in the movie industry.

She did a bit.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I didn't know that. Must have seen the uncut version then.

The director really wanted to include the anal-rape along with the vaginal because together, they depicted how Brandon was stripped of everything she viewed herself as.

Being raped vaginally obviously can only be done to a woman, then being raped anally is a form of degradation for a man; that's how she identified herself.

Aside from that fact that it happened that was in real life, though over a course of 10 hours, but that wouldn't be wise for a movie script.

Originally posted by Robtard
Shows you how political and BS even the movie industry is.

She did a bit.

The secrecy too, how hard it is to even know who is responsible for what, basically, we are allowed to see.

Really revealing, though, I can't imagine it changing until direct download becomes popular enough... or do places like netflicks host unrated movies?

EDIT: Not to diverge from the topic of rape or anything

Originally posted by inimalist
The secrecy too, how hard it is to even know who is responsible for what, basically, we are allowed to see.

Really revealing, though, I can't imagine it changing until direct download becomes popular enough... or do places like netflicks host unrated movies?

EDIT: Not to diverge from the topic of rape or anything

Netflix does offer unrated or director's cut version sometime, iirc.

Well, in a sense the viewer is being raped by the MPAA mod-like mentality. So I say you're on topic.

Originally posted by Robtard
The director really wanted to include the anal-rape along with the vaginal because together, they depicted how Brandon was stripped of everything she viewed herself as.

Being raped vaginally obviously can only be done to a woman, then being raped anally is a form of degradation for a man; that's how she identified herself.

Aside from that fact that it happened that was in real life, though over a course of 10 hours, but that wouldn't be wise for a movie script.

They raped him for 10 hours?!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
They raped him for 10 hours?!

I still say "her", despite the boyish haircut and male attire, but yes, it was a 10 hour ordeal of rape and beating she endured, before they finally shot her.

So it didn't happen like it has in the movie? I thought she actually told the sheriff about the rape but was asked extreamely embarrassing and inappropriate questions?

Originally posted by BackFire
Clockwork Orange was definitely graphic for its day, even now, there is something about those scenes that still hold a great deal of power and are very disturbing. Thought I don't think it's quite at Irreversible's level.

Yeah I think there was only one actual rape scene. The one with the wife of the guy who was in the wheel chair later on. The other one wasn't really a rape, just a nasty beating.



Yup! only one scene which was enough to get the story in order. I don't know about levels of rape for movies but for my book Cannibal Holocaust had very most disgusting rape scene I can remember.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So it didn't happen like it has in the movie? I thought she actually told the sheriff about the rape but was asked extreamely embarrassing and inappropriate questions?

I've only watched the movie once when it came out, so I don't recall clearly; I do believe they shot her after they took her back to the house and then learned that she was going to report it.

But this is a movie, so I'm sure certain facts where either left out or changed.

fictional rape is the best kind of rape.

And damn good too.

Originally posted by chithappens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rapeman

sh*t, that's just disgusting.

as for a clockwork orange - there's the fight in the theatre over the nude woman and which group gets to rape her. that's why they go to the house with the wheelchair dude - because they didn't get the first girl.

and yeah, the murder of the feminist is supposed to be an intended rape - but then alex sees the giant dick sculpture and slams it down on her pelvis.

Originally posted by Robtard
I've only watched the movie once when it came out, so I don't recall clearly; I do believe they shot her after they took her back to the house and then learned that she was going to report it.

But this is a movie, so I'm sure certain facts where either left out or changed.

Did you happen to see Calvaire by any chance? The brutal anal gang rape of a guy

Messed up weird movie as well. Also revolting rape scene.

Rape is cool. a woman once told me that all men should be raped once so that they can understand how its like. maybe that's why pegging is becoming popular

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Did you happen to see Calvaire by any chance? The brutal anal gang rape of a guy

Messed up weird movie as well. Also revolting rape scene.

Never have. Maybe I'll give it a whirl.

Edit: What's up with the French and anal-rape?