Netflix sexualising children.

nj27 · 21-08-2020 04:19PM

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 · 21-08-2020 04:22PM

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 · 21-08-2020 04:23PM

stinkypinky wrote: »

Whatever floats your boat buddy.

^
And this post is entirely meaningless.

stinkypinky · 21-08-2020 04:23PM

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 · 21-08-2020 04:27PM

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 · 21-08-2020 04:32PM

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 · 21-08-2020 04:36PM

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 · 21-08-2020 04:36PM

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 · 21-08-2020 04:39PM

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 · 21-08-2020 04:41PM

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 · 21-08-2020 04:44PM

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 · 21-08-2020 04:45PM

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 · 21-08-2020 04:47PM

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 · 21-08-2020 04:47PM

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 · 21-08-2020 04:49PM

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 · 21-08-2020 04:51PM

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 · 21-08-2020 04:53PM

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 · 21-08-2020 05:04PM

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 · 21-08-2020 05:05PM

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 · 21-08-2020 05:06PM

^

Two re-reg trolls.

I really should know better.

McFly85 · 21-08-2020 05:07PM

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 · 21-08-2020 05:07PM

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 · 21-08-2020 05:07PM

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 · 21-08-2020 05:10PM

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 · 21-08-2020 05:14PM

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 · 21-08-2020 05:18PM

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 · 21-08-2020 05:30PM

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 · 21-08-2020 05:31PM

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 · 21-08-2020 05:35PM

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 · 21-08-2020 05:37PM

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>

Netflix sexualising children.

Comments