Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog

Giovanni Schwartz · Post by **Giovanni Schwartz** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:49 pm

Hee hee... Coggers said hussy.

Post by **Laser Jock** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:33 pm

Imogen wrote:and, honestly, i think ours is a culture that is too pent up about sex and sexuality. violence barely makes a blip on most people's radars. i'd rather watch two people in a film having loving, caring, awesome sex than watch someone get shot or beaten. but i sometimes feel like i'm the only one who feels that way.

I agree about society being too blasÃ© about violence, but I go the other direction with it. Why not avoid both violence and sexuality in media?

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:44 pm

I think of it in a similar, but different manner.

I can see a reason to have some of both in films/books/et al. It seems to me that the real discussion should be about how graphic the representation is. For instance, you can have someone shot without showing a lot of graphic detail. The audience still understands what is happening, and if used to move forward a worthy plot, it is probably okay with me. In the case of sexuality, I think the same ideas should apply. Show enough so that the audience understands what is happening/happened, without it being graphic.

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:52 pm

Giovanni Schwartz wrote:Hee hee... Coggers said hussy.

You crack me up Giovanni.

Now the rest of you quit being so insightful and taking all the good stuff to say, I mean others would like to contribute too you know.

Werf_Must · Post by **Werf_Must** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:29 pm

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:
Giovanni Schwartz wrote:Hee hee... Coggers said hussy.
You crack me up Giovanni.

Now the rest of you quit being so insightful and taking all the good stuff to say, I mean others would like to contribute too you know.

He is right! I want to say something meaningful someday!

yellow m&m · Post by **yellow m&m** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 2:53 pm

Werf_Must wrote:
Nanti-SARRMM wrote:
Giovanni Schwartz wrote:Hee hee... Coggers said hussy.
You crack me up Giovanni.

Now the rest of you quit being so insightful and taking all the good stuff to say, I mean others would like to contribute too you know.

He is right! I want to say something meaningful someday!

Hear Hear!

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:14 pm

Now I am not sure if that worked and that they are waiting for us to respond intelligently, or that they are merely waiting until the opportune moment to post an insightful comment and furthermore deprive us the opportunity to respond.

And yes, I do recognize the irony in asking that instead of actually contributing to the conversation at hand.

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:26 pm

Fredjikrang wrote:I think of it in a similar, but different manner.

I can see a reason to have some of both in films/books/et al. It seems to me that the real discussion should be about how graphic the representation is. For instance, you can have someone shot without showing a lot of graphic detail. The audience still understands what is happening, and if used to move forward a worthy plot, it is probably okay with me. In the case of sexuality, I think the same ideas should apply. Show enough so that the audience understands what is happening/happened, without it being graphic.

But what if all the details are important in the artistic design of the overall project? For example, we have so many examples of war and bloodshed in the Book of Mormon that we read when we pass through those chapters. And although it isn't meant to entertain, it is meant to send a message, one part being for the Book of Mormon, to horrify us to effect of war (I think) and serve as a warning to keep in the path of righteousness.

I think that the idea that is trying to be portrayed is important as well, and obviously things have to be done in good taste, for violence, nudity, whatever, and we can't go overboard on either side, else we end up like in that Simpson's episode where they start to ban nudity and in turn ban or cover up the statue of David.

And it all depends on each person, obviously what makes someone feel uncomfortable may not do so for someone else.

Yay for insightful-ish comment!

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 5:12 pm

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:
But what if all the details are important in the artistic design of the overall project? For example, we have so many examples of war and bloodshed in the Book of Mormon that we read when we pass through those chapters. And although it isn't meant to entertain, it is meant to send a message, one part being for the Book of Mormon, to horrify us to effect of war (I think) and serve as a warning to keep in the path of righteousness.

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

I actually think that the Book of Mormon is a good example of what I am advocating. The descriptions of violence are plain enough so that the reader gets the image, but don't go down into the gory details.

Post by **Laser Jock** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:15 pm

I think it's important to note that in general, movies or other visual media have the possibility of being much, much more graphic and detailed than written words can be. Reading the descriptions in the Book of Mormon, as Fredjikrang pointed out, you don't have tons of gory detail. It would be hard to make a movie that depicted similar scenes without being overpoweringly graphic.

I point this out because one (very flawed) argument I've heard before states that "there are parts in the Book of Mormon that are graphic, so what's the problem with violence, etc. in movies?" There's a huge, huge difference in the amount of detail, for one thing. The written word and a photo or film are not the same in their potential for graphic detail. There are other reasons too, but that's the one that stands out to me the strongest.

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:But what if all the details are important in the artistic design of the overall project?

I don't think this is quite what you're talking about, but I think that "art" is a reason that is often misused to excuse objectionable material. Yes, statues or paintings of nudes (for example) can be art. I took an art history class here that really helped me understand that point. But that doesn't mean that every such statue or painting is art, or that such works should be exempt from normal considerations of morality and decency.

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:21 pm

Laser Jock wrote:
Nanti-SARRMM wrote:But what if all the details are important in the artistic design of the overall project?
I don't think this is quite what you're talking about, but I think that "art" is a reason that is often misused to excuse objectionable material. Yes, statues or paintings of nudes (for example) can be art. I took an art history class here that really helped me understand that point. But that doesn't mean that every such statue or painting is art, or that such works should be exempt from normal considerations of morality and decency.

True, I wasn't saying that for the sake of art that there should be exceptions, but that the more important thing is the message. If the message can be gotten across without all the gore, nudity and everything, so much the better. I just believe that it shouldn't be toned down so much that the blood looks like Ketchup or something, but still there are and should be limits of decency of what should be shown.

... I think for the most part we are agreeing, not sure though.

Post by **Laser Jock** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:35 pm

Yeah, I think we're mostly agreeing too. I wouldn't be surprised if we were drawing that line in a different place, but I'm fine with that if we are.

Imogen · Post by **Imogen** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:17 pm

while i'm ENTHRALLED by the appropriateness convo...

MY FRIEND MET NATHAN FILLION AND I'M SO JEALOUS BECAUSE I WANT TO TOUCH HIM!!! apparently he has very soft hands and is very hunky....i'm so jealous.

Portia · Post by **Portia** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:34 pm

(Spoiler alert, for those 3 people in the US who haven't finished it.) Just watched Act III, and in good company at that.

Noooooo! So sad.

One question I have: why do you think Penny says her closing words, in light of what Captain Hammer had said during her speech?

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:37 pm

Imogen wrote: MY FRIEND MET NATHAN FILLION AND I'M SO JEALOUS BECAUSE I WANT TO TOUCH HIM!!! apparently he has very soft hands and is very hunky....i'm so jealous.

Lol.

Where was he seen?

Giovanni Schwartz · Post by **Giovanni Schwartz** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:43 pm

Portia wrote:(Spoiler alert, for those 3 people in the US who haven't finished it.)

One of five, you mean?

None of the people in my house have seen it.

Imogen · Post by **Imogen** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:02 pm

Fredjikrang wrote:
Imogen wrote: MY FRIEND MET NATHAN FILLION AND I'M SO JEALOUS BECAUSE I WANT TO TOUCH HIM!!! apparently he has very soft hands and is very hunky....i'm so jealous.
Lol.

Where was he seen?

he was at the apple store in LA, thus proving yet again that he's TOTALLY AMAZING.

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:08 am

It is now on DVD!

Werf_Must · Post by **Werf_Must** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:00 pm

Imogen wrote:
Fredjikrang wrote:
Imogen wrote: MY FRIEND MET NATHAN FILLION AND I'M SO JEALOUS BECAUSE I WANT TO TOUCH HIM!!! apparently he has very soft hands and is very hunky....i'm so jealous.
Lol.

Where was he seen?
he was at the apple store in LA, thus proving yet again that he's TOTALLY AMAZING.

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:It is now on DVD!

For a second there I thought you were saying that the moment Imogen's friend met Nathan Fillon was now on DVD!