STORM2K

Pickings Thin for 2005 Literary Fiction
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... ll_books_4

Talk of movie slump dominates Hollywood's summer
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... ffice_dc_6

The new TV season
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... ll_shows_3

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank God for living in a semi-tropical, tourist paradise with nice weather, sandy beaches, historic sites, and interesting events year-round.

Is it just me, or does it seem like writers are disappearing from the face of the planet? There are far too many reality shows on TV now (some have "scripts" but not the traditional kind with well-developed plotlines and characters). Movies are rarely anything more than remakes, parodies, and computer-graphics action fluff. Perhaps I need to read more. I don't read enough because I can't sit still long enough to get through 10 pages.

And now, I read that there's a new flick coming out that, IMO, pushes the envelope on child pornography. Call me old-fashioned...call me a prude. But in my opinion, actors under the age of 18 should not be depicted in scenes of a sexual nature, even when nudity isn't shown and the act is only eluded to. Furthermore, I think Hollywood should use a bit of discretion when actors over the age of 18 depict characters under the age of 18 in scenes like that.

The actress, who is 17, has a "love" scene with another actress, who is my age (37) [for the sake of the young'uns...I'm not going to give details about what I saw in the trailer]. This same young actress was also involved in an envelope-pushing scene at age 13 when she and her co-star (15) engaged in a kiss on their TV drama. I suppose it was "just a kiss." But even back then, I couldn't help but ask, "How far is this going to go?" I felt that it opened the door for Hollywood to step farther and farther past that line. And now I see that's the case.

So, what's next? Will they say, "Well, we did this and it wasn't so bad. She was 17. This one is 16. It's okay." Or "They let them do this and that in this movie. So, why can't we do this? Let's just make it a little racier...this time, no shirt."

I see it coming. Just think, there was once a time when a married couple wasn't even shown in bed together and they couldn't use the word "pregnant." Now look how far things have gone.

*shakes head in dismay*

For the record, parents -- if a movie is NR (not rated), don't risk it. It's definitely not for kids.

GOING downhill? It's been going downhill since as long as I can remember.

coriolis wrote:GOING downhill? It's been going downhill since as long as I can remember.

well, there is always pay-per view channels (XXX), if you now what I mean, that is exciting...

Hollywood hasn't put out very many decent or original movies in years.
Mostly remakes of good movies and turning them in to crap,or a movie version of a good tv series and making it so unlike the series you wouldn't recognize it.If these movie directors would stick to the original script instead of making their so-called interpretation then these movies may succeed.
Another is changing the original characters.

wxcrazytwo wrote:

coriolis wrote:GOING downhill? It's been going downhill since as long as I can remember.

well, there is always pay-per view channels (XXX), if you now what I mean, that is exciting...

Uhh...not recommended.

I've noticed it a lot with sitcoms lately... the writers have run out of something original that is also funny. The networks might as well give up on new reality... only the established shows(Survivor, Idol, The Amazing Race) are gonna continue to do good.

wxcrazytwo wrote:

coriolis wrote:GOING downhill? It's been going downhill since as long as I can remember.

well, there is always pay-per view channels (XXX), if you now what I mean, that is exciting...

It's fake, there's no love, and...um...do you really need to watch someone else? Not to mention, once again, child exploitation (they weren't always 18, ya know).

GalvestonDuck wrote:

wxcrazytwo wrote:

coriolis wrote:GOING downhill? It's been going downhill since as long as I can remember.

well, there is always pay-per view channels (XXX), if you now what I mean, that is exciting...

It's fake, there's no love, and...um...do you really need to watch someone else? Not to mention, once again, child exploitation (they weren't always 18, ya know).

RFLMAO..I never said being in it. I said watching it..

wxcrazytwo wrote:

GalvestonDuck wrote:

wxcrazytwo wrote:

coriolis wrote:GOING downhill? It's been going downhill since as long as I can remember.

well, there is always pay-per view channels (XXX), if you now what I mean, that is exciting...

It's fake, there's no love, and...um...do you really need to watch someone else? Not to mention, once again, child exploitation (they weren't always 18, ya know).

RFLMAO..I never said being in it. I said watching it..

Where'd you get that I said anything about being in it? Read again.

do you really need to watch someone else?

GalvestonDuck wrote:

wxcrazytwo wrote:

GalvestonDuck wrote:

wxcrazytwo wrote:

coriolis wrote:GOING downhill? It's been going downhill since as long as I can remember.

well, there is always pay-per view channels (XXX), if you now what I mean, that is exciting...

It's fake, there's no love, and...um...do you really need to watch someone else? Not to mention, once again, child exploitation (they weren't always 18, ya know).

RFLMAO..I never said being in it. I said watching it..

Where'd you get that I said anything about being in it? Read again.

do you really need to watch someone else?

It's fake, there's no love, and...um

Whomever your with, it sure is..LOL...

wxcrazytwo wrote:

GalvestonDuck wrote:

wxcrazytwo wrote:

GalvestonDuck wrote:

wxcrazytwo wrote:

coriolis wrote:GOING downhill? It's been going downhill since as long as I can remember.

well, there is always pay-per view channels (XXX), if you now what I mean, that is exciting...

It's fake, there's no love, and...um...do you really need to watch someone else? Not to mention, once again, child exploitation (they weren't always 18, ya know).

RFLMAO..I never said being in it. I said watching it..

Where'd you get that I said anything about being in it? Read again.

do you really need to watch someone else?

It's fake, there's no love, and...um

Whomever your with, it sure is..LOL...

You're making no sense...which hasn't happened in a while, surprisingly. You jumbled my quote and doing that also made no sense.

Let's start over. You mentioned renting stuff on PPV. I said it's fake, there's no love, and do you really need to watch someone else do it? Not to mention the fact that it helps perpetuate child exploitation.

Now, what are you saying? And furthermore, where'd you get anything about "being in it?" The fact that you are WATCHING it and paying for it only adds to the demand for it. You don't have to be in it to help fund kiddie pornographers.

Whomever your with, it sure is..LOL...

I would like to know what you mean by that statement, wxcrazy. Sure hope it is not what I think you mean.

Lindaloo wrote:

Whomever your with, it sure is..LOL...

I would like to know what you mean by that statement, wxcrazy. Sure hope it is not what I think you mean.

what? People watch stuff with their loved ones all the time. Duckie mentioned it was not love, and I said whomever your with it sure is meaning with your wife or girlfriend.

Okay, we both misunderstood. I told ya you weren't clear.

Deleted my previous post because it's a moot point now.

My point was that the people in the movies were not engaged in a loving act and it's fake.

wxcrazytwo wrote:

Lindaloo wrote:

Whomever your with, it sure is..LOL...

I would like to know what you mean by that statement, wxcrazy. Sure hope it is not what I think you mean.

what? People watch stuff with their loved ones all the time. Duckie mentioned it was not love, and I said whomever your with it sure is meaning with your wife or girlfriend.

Okay, maybe I'm being naive here, but I don't see how that would be loving or romantic.

WHat's wrong with stuff? I love to watch stuff from time to time with Mrs. Alum. Gives us new ideas.

gtalum wrote:WHat's wrong with stuff? I love to watch stuff from time to time with Mrs. Alum. Gives us new ideas.

I love repeating myself.

A) It's fake. Do you really think they're doing that all in one long scene? It's edited...a lot!
B) They are not making love. It's lust. They're not married nor committed to each other. They're just there to make the bucks.
C) It helps to perpetuate child exploitation. Do you really think those "Barely Legal" girls just woke up on their 18th birthday and decided they wanted to do stuff? No, many of them have been in it since they were underage, in some form or another. And many continue to try to look "underage" for those videos.

GalvestonDuck wrote:[
A) It's fake. Do you really think they're doing that all in one long scene? It's edited...a lot!

So what? it's still fun to watch.

Every movie is "fake" in the same way. They don't shoot the whol emovie in one take, ya know.

B) They are not making love. It's lust. They're not married nor committed to each other. They're just there to make the bucks.

So what? A lot of peopel have sex just to have sex. i did when I was younger. It's still fun to watch.

C) It helps to perpetuate child exploitation. Do you really think those "Barely Legal" girls just woke up on their 18th birthday and decided they wanted to do stuff? No, many of them have been in it since they were underage, in some form or another. And many continue to try to look "underage" for those videos.

That's a separate problem altogether. Crack down on underage stuff, by all means. But there's still nothing wrong with watching adults gettin it on, and actually it can be quite fun.

See, I disagree. I don't believe it is a separate problem simply because they are adults now. Many of them were children when they got started in the business.

Why argue it though? Heck, if I did it, no one would fuss at me about my personal life. If it's on video, it's okay. If it's in a committed relationship with a ring, not okay.

Not at you, GT...at the situation.

I think I misunderstood the thread!