In Reply to: Re: In the Name of the Rose posted by Andy Goenner on December 15, 1998 at 21:32:36:
HIDDEN=true VOLUME=80 LOOP=TRUE>Was the scene in question vital to the plot? Absolutely yes!!!! He needed to be in love with her for his concern at the end to make sense and the title of the movie requires that he be in love in her. What about HIS butt no ones complaing there. Perhaps her portrayal as an animal is important to demonstrate that he really loved her.The question isn't censorship (which goes against the basic values of a free society) but instead it is - Just because we can do something does that mean we should?Books are edited all the time for movies, scenes get added and substracted and plots can change entirely. Flowers for Algernon the movie only kept the basic premise and character names of the novel. Stephen King (Richard Bachman if you prefer) books get edited for those made for tv movies. Ian Fleming's James Bond books had sex scenes, the movies had sex scenes but no nudity not even in the new movies.However about the leg hair situation. Based on several Cavewomen movies I am forced to conclude that leg hair is a fairly new trait in women. So it should come as no suprise that a 14th century woman will lack hair when women from 30000bc have none.Rylan "and you will all die here like rotten cabbages" Bachman: But as we already have discussed in class, this scene was also in the book. It seems to me that if it was in the book, then it was very appropriate to include it in the movie. If we start editing books when they're made into movies, maybe we should just censor the book.. while we're at it, we may as well censor anything that could be portrayed crudely, because it doesn't seem "clean". Oh wait, freedom of speech. my bad.: --Andy "We Live in a Giant Metal-Domed Capsule called Earth" Goenner Follow Ups: Re: 2 cents Andy Goenner 01:33:40 12/16/98 (0) POST FOLLOWUP NAME:E-MAIL:SUBJECT:RESPONSE: : : <EMBED SRC=http://members.xoom.com/MedPaige/3Ravens.mid AUTOSTART=TRUE : HIDDEN=true VOLUME=80 LOOP=TRUE> : Was the scene in question vital to the plot? Absolutely yes!!!! He needed to be in love with her for his concern at the end to make sense and the title of the movie requires that he be in love in her. What about HIS butt no ones complaing there. Perhaps her portrayal as an animal is important to demonstrate that he really loved her. : The question isn't censorship (which goes against the basic values of a free society) but instead it is - Just because we can do something does that mean we should? : Books are edited all the time for movies, scenes get added and substracted and plots can change entirely. Flowers for Algernon the movie only kept the basic premise and character names of the novel. Stephen King (Richard Bachman if you prefer) books get edited for those made for tv movies. Ian Fleming's James Bond books had sex scenes, the movies had sex scenes but no nudity not even in the new movies. : However about the leg hair situation. Based on several Cavewomen movies I am forced to conclude that leg hair is a fairly new trait in women. So it should come as no suprise that a 14th century woman will lack hair when women from 30000bc have none. : Rylan "and you will all die here like rotten cabbages" Bachman : : : But as we already have discussed in class, this scene was also in the book. It seems to me that if it was in the book, then it was very appropriate to include it in the movie. If we start editing books when they're made into movies, maybe we should just censor the book.. while we're at it, we may as well censor anything that could be portrayed crudely, because it doesn't seem "clean". Oh wait, freedom of speech. my bad. : : --Andy "We Live in a Giant Metal-Domed Capsule called Earth" Goenner LINK URL:LINK TITLE:IMAGE URL: [ HOME] [ POST ] [ SEARCH ] [ HELP ] [ FOLLOW UPS ] [ POST FOLLOWUP ] v 1.1is made possbileby: Original WWWBoard design and code by Matt Wright. See the original at Matt's Script Acrhive. WWWBoard v2.0a © 1998 Matt Wright. WWWBoard/LT Upgrade by Lion Templin of Leonine Computational Resources. © 1998 Lion Templin. Tom Bacig, University of Minnesota, Duluth. © 1998 Tom Bacig.
The question isn't censorship (which goes against the basic values of a free society) but instead it is - Just because we can do something does that mean we should?
Books are edited all the time for movies, scenes get added and substracted and plots can change entirely. Flowers for Algernon the movie only kept the basic premise and character names of the novel. Stephen King (Richard Bachman if you prefer) books get edited for those made for tv movies. Ian Fleming's James Bond books had sex scenes, the movies had sex scenes but no nudity not even in the new movies.
However about the leg hair situation. Based on several Cavewomen movies I am forced to conclude that leg hair is a fairly new trait in women. So it should come as no suprise that a 14th century woman will lack hair when women from 30000bc have none.
Rylan "and you will all die here like rotten cabbages" Bachman
: But as we already have discussed in class, this scene was also in the book. It seems to me that if it was in the book, then it was very appropriate to include it in the movie. If we start editing books when they're made into movies, maybe we should just censor the book.. while we're at it, we may as well censor anything that could be portrayed crudely, because it doesn't seem "clean". Oh wait, freedom of speech. my bad.: --Andy "We Live in a Giant Metal-Domed Capsule called Earth" Goenner
Follow Ups:
POST FOLLOWUP
