Netflix sexualising children.

nj27

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Unfortunately for you, just like Guliani's broken windows theory, it's another myth.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2006/09/the-boiled-frog-myth-stop-the-lying-now/7446/

I did enjoy some frogs legs in Paris before the current situation but they were delicately pan fried, does that count? But yes, I assumed people don’t often boil frogs and that it was probably an illustrative a figure of speech.

Tony EH

Gruffalox wrote: »

Photoshop as you well know in the way you used it implies that the image was cut and pasted to create a false ensemble. Photoshopping an image to enhance it in various ways is a given. But not what you meant.

No it doesn't.

Photoshop is a professional photo editing tool that's used in the industry EVERY DAY. I work with people that use it to create material all the time.

Just because it triggers a fake impression FOR YOU, it doesn't mean what YOU think it means.

Tony EH

stinkypinky wrote: »

Whatever floats your boat buddy.

^
And this post is entirely meaningless.

stinkypinky

Tony EH wrote: »

No it doesn't.

Photoshop is a professional photo editing tool that's used in the industry EVERY DAY. I work with people that use it to create material all the time.

Just because it triggers a fake impression FOR YOU, it doesn't mean what YOU think it means.

What are you even talking about?

What fake impression?

Gruffalux

Tony EH wrote: »

No it doesn't.

Photoshop is a professional photo editing tool that's used in the industry EVERY DAY. I work with people that use it to create material all the time.

Just because it triggers a fake impression FOR YOU, it doesn't mean what YOU think it means.

I work with Photoshop. What you implied when you said a photoshopped image was a fabricated image. Photoshopped is a colloquial expression for faked. The image is enhanced not fabricated.

Tony EH

Gruffalox wrote: »

I work with Photoshop. What you implied when you said a photoshopped image was a fabricated image. Photoshopped is a colloquial expression for faked. The image is enhanced not fabricated.

This is in your head. I "implied" nothing. Nor did I say anything about the image being "faked".

This image, more than likely, was created in Photoshop - the industry standard for photo editing and used by professional designers all the time.

Jesus wept, talk about a storm in teacup. :pac:

Psychiatric Patrick

Tony EH wrote: »

There's one problem here and that's all the Mary Whitehouse's hastily clutching their pearls and whinging and whining about a program THEY HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN and conjuring up a whole host of depraved ideas that they have floating around in THEIR OWN HEADS and then trying to make a load of bogus points about "tHe lEft" as usual. Despite the fact that this have bugger all to do with the left, the right or anyone in between.

At best, that lazy and awful photoshop pic in the OP was an ill thought out, quickly rattled off, 5 minute job, that nobody stopped to think further on other getting it out the door.

But this entire thread is a lot of hullabaloo over nothing.

Until someone has actually seen the program and can comment on it's content, there really isn't much to talk about here.

People have seen it and their comments are easy to find.

And you are twisted if you can look at that poster and claim there is nothing with it but what some people are imaging in their heads.

It is sexualising those girls - that is the entire pint of the dane sequence in the movie - according to people who have seen it.

Gruffalux

Tony EH wrote: »

This is in your head. I "implied" nothing. Nor did I say anything about the image being "faked".

This image, more than likely, was created in Photoshop - the industry standard for photo editing and used by professional designers all the time.

Jesus wept, talk about a storm in teacup. :pac:

So your big point that you wished to make was looks like this image was produced using XYZ software, has had some increased saturation or a touch of multiply?
Odd.

Tony EH

Gruffalox wrote: »

So your big point that you wished to make was looks like this image was produced using XYZ software, has had some increased saturation or a touch of multiply?
Odd.

What I said was "At best, that lazy and awful photoshop pic in the OP was an ill thought out, quickly rattled off, 5 minute job, that nobody stopped to think further on other getting it out the door."

To which YOU misconstrued as me trying to say that the image was a "fake".

You read it wrong.

Psychiatric Patrick

statesaver wrote: »

Is there a tv classification / rating for the show ?

Age restriction ?

Somebody earlier said overs 15s but I don't know where they got that as Netflix uploads data with the movie.

Maybe the IFCO ?

McFly85

Unbelievable that that poster managed to get approved, but this is a complete storm in a teacup.
If I had to guess, there was some time pressure to get a poster ready specific for Netflix branding(so they couldn’t use the original) and this was thrown together in a hurry. I completely doubt as some people are suggesting that they got the original actors in to pose this way for the Netflix poster.

Anyway, poster was used, people complained, Netflix apologised and removed. Nobody has seen the film but are happy to just assume this is some pro paedophile sex fest based on a poster that is nothing to do with the original creator. BAN THIS SICK FILTH etc

Psychiatric Patrick

stinkypinky wrote: »

What are you even talking about?

What fake impression?

I believe TonyEH is going back to the older "nothing to see in that image except what you want to" bull.

Gruffalux

Tony EH wrote: »

What I said was "At best, that lazy and awful photoshop pic in the OP was an ill thought out, quickly rattled off, 5 minute job, that nobody stopped to think further on other getting it out the door."

To which YOU misconstrued as me trying to say that the image was a "fake".

You read it wrong.

Okay. I will presume you are telling the truth.

So now address the further incorrect assertions you made that it was rattled off in 5 minutes and nobody stopped to think further on it (despite it being an advertisement designed to go global or at least US wide for an upcoming film on the biggest commercial media distributor in the world) because they were just a bunch of guys and gals who were bursting to be out the door.

Tony EH

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

I believe TonyEH is going back to the older "nothing to see in that image except what you want to" bull.

^
Another genius that can't read. :pac:

Psychiatric Patrick

McFly85 wrote: »

Unbelievable that that poster managed to get approved, but this is a complete storm in a teacup.
If I had to guess, there was some time pressure to get a poster ready specific for Netflix branding(so they couldn’t use the original) and this was thrown together in a hurry. I completely doubt as some people are suggesting that they got the original actors in to pose this way for the Netflix poster.

Anyway, poster was used, people complained, Netflix apologised and removed. Nobody has seen the film but are happy to just assume this is some pro paedophile sex fest based on a poster that is nothing to do with the original creator. BAN THIS SICK FILTH etc

Plenty of people have seen the film and their reviews are easy to find.

One of the themes of the movie is the sexualisation of young girls.

Why not actually read about this story rather than jumping to conclusions?

Psychiatric Patrick

Tony EH wrote: »

^
Another genius that can't read. :pac:

I can read and that is what I read I read in your posts.

If that wasn't your intent then I suggest you cannot write/type.

Also it is irrelevant what software was used.

Those are the girls from the movie, those are the costumes they wear in the movie,

Tony EH

Gruffalox wrote: »

Okay. I will presume you are telling the truth.

Get up the yard with that shite.

You made a balls up, and thought I wrote something that I didn't, instead of actually reading what I wrote.

Gruffalux

Tony EH wrote: »

Get up the yard with that shite.

You made a balls up, and thought I wrote something that I didn't, instead of actually reading what I wrote.

Hahahah you are funny.

stinkypinky

Tony EH wrote: »

What I said was "At best, that lazy and awful photoshop pic in the OP was an ill thought out, quickly rattled off, 5 minute job, that nobody stopped to think further on other getting it out the door."

To which YOU misconstrued as me trying to say that the image was a "fake".

You read it wrong.

Tony EH

^

Two re-reg trolls.

I really should know better.

McFly85

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

Plenty of people have seen the film and their reviews are easy to find.

One of the themes of the movie is the sexualisation of young girls.

Why not actually read about this story rather than jumping to conclusions?

I did, and I’ve read the reviews, and not one of them suggest that the film is trying to portray the sexualisation of young girls in a positive way, Also none of these reviewers were outraged, and all of these reviews have been available since January. If the film was depicting this, where was the outrage then?

The outrage began with the poster and people have decided that the film is disgraceful filth since then. Are you sure I’m the one jumping to conclusions?

stinkypinky

Tony EH wrote: »

^

Two re-reg trolls.

I really should know better.

Smarter than all of us Tony, good man yourself.

Admit you fecked up, and move on. Easier that way

Gruffalux

Tony EH wrote: »

^

Two re-reg trolls.

I really should know better.

Than calling people who legitimately debate you trolls? Yes, you really should know better.

Tony EH

Gruffalox wrote: »

Than calling people who legitimately debate you trolls? Yes, you really should know better.

It's not a legitimate debate if you're misunderstanding what the other poster is saying and instead making up things in your head.

You fucked up and thought I was saying something that I wasn't and then proceeded to drag the thread in silly town.

storker

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

One of the themes of the movie is the sexualisation of young girls.

It was a theme in Little Miss Sunshine too and Abigail Breslin's dance was definitely sexualised (although granted in a satirical way), but portrayal does not imply approval, otherwise movies like, for example Schindler's List, All Quiet on the Western Front and Mississippi Burning would be seen in a very different light.

Gruffalux

Tony EH wrote: »

It's not a legitimate debate if you're misunderstanding what the other poster is saying and instead making up things in your head.

You fucked up and thought I was saying something that I wasn't and then proceeded to drag the thread in silly town.

Hang on now Tony.

'' All the Mary Whitehouse's conjuring up a whole host of depraved ideas that they have floating around in THEIR OWN HEADS''

I did not conjure up what was on the poster. I expressed no depraved ideas from my own head. I commented directly on the actual content of an actual Netflix promo advertisement.

''At best, that lazy and awful photoshop pic in the OP ''

You say you merely intended photoshop in this phrase to mean visually enhanced via photo manipulation software, but that is entirely irrelevant to the actual content of the picture or the import of the debate. Everyone knows photoshop is a colloquial word for fabricated. It was what you wanted to imply.


''was an ill thought out, quickly rattled off, 5 minute job, that nobody stopped to think further on other getting it out the door.''

This part of your offering is asinine. It is so far from the truth of what happens in PR situations that it has to be a deliberate attempt on your behalf to negate the reality of the situation. But you refuse to respond to questions about it.

And then you call people re reg trolls.

Tony EH

Gruffalox wrote: »

Hang on now Tony.

'' All the Mary Whitehouse's conjuring up a whole host of depraved ideas that they have floating around in THEIR OWN HEADS''

I did not conjure up what was on the poster. I expressed no depraved ideas from my own head. I commented directly on the actual content of an actual Netflix promo advertisement.

At this point you are deliberately making things up.

The full paragraph I wrote is this:

"There's one problem here and that's all the Mary Whitehouse's hastily clutching their pearls and whinging and whining about a program THEY HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN and conjuring up a whole host of depraved ideas that they have floating around in THEIR OWN HEADS and then trying to make a load of bogus points about "tHe lEft" as usual. Despite the fact that this have bugger all to do with the left, the right or anyone in between."

I am CLEARLY talking about people making up things in their heads about a film that they haven't seen and not what YOU are trying to say I'm saying.

Gruffalox wrote: »

''At best, that lazy and awful photoshop pic in the OP ''

You say you merely intended photoshop in this phrase to mean visually enhanced via photo manipulation software, but that is entirely irrelevant to the actual content of the picture or the import of the debate. Everyone knows photoshop is a colloquial word for fabricated. It was what you wanted to imply.

This is the full paragraph I wrote:

"At best, that lazy and awful photoshop pic in the OP was an ill thought out, quickly rattled off, 5 minute job, that nobody stopped to think further on other getting it out the door."

Meaning that the promo image in the OP looks to be a rushed job that somehow passed vetting and wasn't flagged as something that would be found inappropriate. Which, if is the case, I consider remarkable, as US companies that I deal with get antsy even over too much cleavage.



With this above post, you are trolling and trying to push something that isn't there.

Psychiatric Patrick

McFly85 wrote: »

I did, and I’ve read the reviews, and not one of them suggest that the film is trying to portray the sexualisation of young girls in a positive way, Also none of these reviewers were outraged, and all of these reviews have been available since January. If the film was depicting this, where was the outrage then?

The outrage began with the poster and people have decided that the film is disgraceful filth since then. Are you sure I’m the one jumping to conclusions?

Where did I say the reviewers "suggest that the film is trying to portray the sexualisation of young girls in a positive way"? Where did I say the reviews were "outraged"?

Where did I say the filmmakers are "trying to portray the sexualisation of young girls in a positive way"?

Where did I say that Netflix is "trying to portray the sexualisation of young girls in a positive way"?

I said one of the themes of the film is about the sexualisation of children. I never said the movie claims this is a good thing.

I have stated several times that the movie is against it.

I have questioned the filmmakers decisions to tell this story as a drama which requires children to use dialogue children should not be speaking and to have children behave in a way that children should not. I pointed out how several reviewers comment that this make the film an uncomfortable experience.

I never said any of them were trying to portray this as a good thing.

So yes I am very sure that it is you jumping to conclusions.

Psychiatric Patrick

storker wrote: »

It was a theme in Little Miss Sunshine too and Abigail Breslin's dance was definitely sexualised (although granted in a satirical way), but portrayal does not imply approval, otherwise movies like, for example Schindler's List, All Quiet on the Western Front and Mississippi Burning would be seen in a very different light.

Where did I post that portrayal equals approval ?

You are the second person to claim this so either the both of you have reading difficulties or someone is coming into my house and using my computer when I'm not looking.

Maybe it is the little folk

storker

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

Where did I post that portrayal equals approval ?

You are the second person to claim this so either the both of you have reading difficulties or someone is coming into my house and using my computer when I'm not looking.

Fair enough. <shrug>

Psychiatric Patrick

storker wrote: »

Fair enough. <shrug>

Wow...,

Gruffalux

Tony EH wrote: »

Meaning that the promo image in the OP looks to be a rushed job that somehow passed vetting and wasn't flagged as something that would be found inappropriate. Which, if is the case, I consider remarkable, as US companies that I deal with get antsy even over too much cleavage.

''Which if is the case''....no one said that was the case, EXCEPT you. A strange way to build an argument. Make a suggestion. And then tear it down.

(Can I call you a troll too? And repeatedly. It seems like such good fun. And sharing is caring.)

Tony EH

Gruffalox wrote: »

''Which if is the case''....no one said that was the case, EXCEPT you. A strange way to build an argument. Make a suggestion. And then tear it down.

(Can I call you a troll too? And repeatedly. It seems like such good fun. And sharing is caring.)

We're done here.

You fucked up and read "photoshop" as "fake", which was clarified for you as not being the case. Then you cherry picked sentences out of full paragraphs to try and misrepresent what was actually said into something that is simply in your own head.

You've derailed the thread long enough.

Quantum Erasure

Tony EH wrote: »

It's not a legitimate debate if you're misunderstanding what the other poster is saying and instead making up things in your head.

You fucked up and thought I was saying something that I wasn't and then proceeded to drag the thread in silly town.

Didn't you thank this post:

"The image in the OP is a fake created to make it appear like this is a pageant-style movie about dancing 11 year olds being sexy. It's not an image that Netflix has produced..."

Tony EH

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Didn't you thank this post:

"The image in the OP is a fake created to make it appear like this is a pageant-style movie about dancing 11 year olds being sexy. It's not an image that Netflix has produced..."

Actually, I thanked this post:

seamus wrote: »

The image in the OP is a fake created to make it appear like this is a pageant-style movie about dancing 11 year olds being sexy. It's not an image that Netflix has produced.

The "specialising in twerking routines" is also made up nonsense that has little to do with the film.

Look at the trailer and you'll see very little connection with the fake posters the OP has posted.

This an award-winning French film about a preteens immigrants difficulty aligning her home culture and home life with that around her. Examinig the early sexualisation of children is a theme in this movie.

Of course, American Nazi and religious types are losing their mind about it, while ignoring the fact that they are the biggest creators and consumers of actual child porn in the world.

So what

stinkypinky

Tony EH wrote: »

So what

The point is obvious one would have thought.

Tony EH

stinkypinky wrote: »

The point is obvious one would have thought.

If you have an issue with that post take it up with the poster.

storker

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

Wow...,

:rolleyes:

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Not remotely upset. Just wondering what the daily outrage threads are supposed to accomplish.

If you're not morally outraged by the sexualisation of children I honestly don't know what to tell you...

circadian

I find it funny that the posters that regularly complain about virtue signalling and the perpetually outraged, are actually the ones virtue signalling and being perpetually outraged.

conorhal

seamus wrote: »

This an award-winning French film about a preteens immigrants difficulty aligning her home culture and home life with that around her. Examinig the early sexualisation of children is a theme in this movie.

Of course, American Nazi and religious types are losing their mind about it, while ignoring the fact that they are the biggest creators and consumers of actual child porn in the world.

It's AWARD WINNING film your guys!! It's got like awards and stuff from the Sundance Film Festival!



https://twitter.com/SuitablyBored1/status/1296518963812237312

Geez, who would have thought that Hollywierd, which gave Roman Polanski a standing ovation would celebrate such a thing?

Gatling

Hunky Monster wrote: »

If you're not morally outraged by the sexualisation of children I honestly don't know what to tell you...

One publicity shot that was since removed , nobody here has seen the actual movie and those who are commenting on this movie saying that someone else in the interweb said this and that about the content of the movie but most of the actual outrage is based off a 1:30 second clip on YouTube by biased individuals claiming to have seen and heard this and that followed by bordsies repeating that again and some kind proof of what's in this movie

Quantum Erasure

Posted this before, other reviews are available, had a quick look and they may contain spoilers

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

review from when it premiered at Sundance...

https://decider.com/2020/01/23/cuties-sundance-review-netflix/

Gruffalux

Gatling wrote: »

One publicity shot that was since removed , nobody here has seen the actual movie and those who are commenting on this movie saying that someone else in the interweb said this and that about the content of the movie but most of the actual outrage is based off a 1:30 second clip on YouTube by biased individuals claiming to have seen and heard this and that followed by bordsies repeating that again and some kind proof of what's in this movie

Yep. You're right. 11 year olds. No worries.

Junkyard Tom

Creepy images. Does the film have the sexualization of children as its central theme?

Bobblehats

I can’t unsee David Walliams now

walshb

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Netflix has an upcoming film "Cuties" which features an 11 year old from a conservative family who joins a dance group specialising in sexually provocative Twerking routines. The sexualisation of children is quite out in the open at this stage.

11 year olds...

I hear ya, but you can’t stop the tide!!

Whole world obsessed with flaunting their every fibre to anyone that will take notice..

And young girls, sadly are no different..

Innocence and security is a non player these days..

Kids simply copying their peers and their parents and their slightly older groupings..

statesaver

One wonders what target audience they are going for using those images but I have an idea ............

Gatling

Bobblehats wrote: »

I can’t unsee David Walliams now

Ahh jayus

Gatling

Gruffalox wrote: »

Yep. You're right. 11 year olds. No worries.

Do you know anything about preteen girls at all ?

I've two preteens who are into all the latest crazes twerking got replaced by tik tok , before that it was JoJo from dance moms a TV show with preteen dancers and the competitions they enter , which has the same outfits and dances for girls ,one actually involved a young girl wearing a tiny strip of material across her chest why so she would stand out from the others .
Only recently Instagram had the pillow challenge where women wore nothing but a pillow ,this was rapidly followed by kids doing it and sharing the photos across social media ,
Preteen pole dancers it's endless they mimic what the grown ups do especially on social media , we've seen numerous movies and programme's over the last number of decades that got called out for the sexualisation of children ,but it keeps going there is always another craze that's followed ,
As I said in a previous post there is a teens dance show that screened a teen lesbian kiss that people wanted banned and oh two teen girls sharing a kiss should only be shown after 9pm ,

Banning a movie based off a simple poster yes it's shouldn't have happened but if we bow to mobs wanting everything banned because they don't like the topic or themes won't solve anything ,just like cancel culture won't solve anything other than give a few people with keyboards power that they crave