RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic

RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

RCdc -> RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic (7/22/2009 5:52:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou I don't think Paul Verhoeven markets his movies towards young children intentionally, but he definitely has marketed many towards adolescents (most noticeably adolescent males). A lot of his movies are of the type that young boys find appealing. When Robocop came out in 1987 it originally had an X rating because of the violence. Some of the violent material was removed to bring it down to an R rating, but it was still pretty violent. Honestly within the first 10 minutes, Murphy gets his arms and legs blown off graphically with shotguns by the bad guys. I was 12 years old when it came out, and I wanted to see it, and I did (goes to show you how effective rating restrictions are; I see young kids in R rated movies all the time.) Of course; my parents didn't give a damn what we watched. It was definitely a movie a young kid would find appealing; in fact they came out with a Robocop toy line soon after. Verhoeven had to have agreed to that toy line, and he definitely received royalties from it. This is Darcy I have great issue with the US rating system, in particular the R-rating. Whereas here in the UK if a movie is judged to be an 18 then nobody under the age of 18 can been admitted. Period. (Yes, there are always those teens who will sneak in or bluff their way in - I was one of them [:D] ) With the R-rating, howver, any irresponsible adult can take a child to see something that is most likely not at all suitable for them. However, to address SBFY's point, the fact that Vehoeven's (and others) movies contain stuff that is appealing to 12 year old boys does not mean that they are deliberately marketing the movies to them. Rather I think it's just that 12 years old boys tend to be fascinated with anything loud, brash, violent, forbidden and so of course the content of an 18, or R-rated movie will appeal to them (again, I was 12 once - some time ago, I might add - and this applied to me) As for Verhoeven agreeing to a toy line, that would very much depend on who owned the rights to the movie, which given it was one of his ealier movies, I suspect wouldn't have been him. He may well have written and directed it, but to secure the financing he probably had to sign his rights away, much the same way that musicians do (on the whole) when they sign to major labels

Loric -> RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic (7/22/2009 8:29:07 AM)
being someone who lives here in the states, I happen to recall that Starship Troopers wasn't marketed towards children at all, in fact it was one of those movies that was relegated to the "B" movie-type section. I saw very few ads for it on television or in print and the only reason I knew it was in theaters is because of a friend of Mine telling Me about it because she knew that I liked alot of the Heinlein that I'd read...as for there being a toy line for movies, most of the time a production company, or the studio that produces the movie owns rights to the film and will license others the rights to likenesses for toy purposes just to cash in on the newness of "insert whatever from a movie here" cause kids like to keep up with new toys esp. if it's from a comic book/movie/cartoon/tv show that's aimed at them (ie GI Joe/Transformers/GoBots/He-Man for those of us who remember the original runs of those things) so it's fair to say that if you want to make more money off something in the film industry, and you have an idea for a toy line based on the movie, then you target the audience that's going to make you that money, ie kids and generally kids are going to want to have a few of those toys, especially if the movie is all over tv because it looks popular...and hey, kids where I live love action figures...I haven't met a kid that doesn't have a few somewhere...

ienigma777 -> RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic (7/22/2009 9:21:34 AM)
Ratings vary country to country; they are interchangable; so they serve only as some guideline for the prospective viewer. Because a film carries a certain rating...DOES NOT in anyway whatsoever prohibit anyone, even a GOOD mom and Dad from letting it 'babysit' their kids. Now, collateral marketing is always by permission of the rights holder and not independent manufactures. Where ever it is not...it opens cause for civil action...'copyrights infringement.' StarShip Troopers, if you've seen the movie, has a direct appeal to the younger age group. The entire content is filled with all type of 'nationalistic' themes and messages...in one scene the space ship is being destroyed and the commander (not sure of rank, maybe someone should start a thread discussing HER rank) is a ripe teenager, or very early 20's....idealistic..."Do you want to live forever'....is the recurring theme...focusing upon giving or sacrificing one's self for a greater cause.....that cause, fighting giant cockroaches???? If you study the film, itself, the dialogue, the costuming, the leather coats, jack boots, the demeanour, the symbolic "Bug' enemy, ...even to the old recruiter sitting at his desk, no legs, the dialogue. The abundance of 'Young Heros'. The film certainly warrants a certain perspective evaluation. Don't ya' think? Tie in marketing, associated items, toys, games, etc;.....the target audience is... who? The 50 year old? Hardly a child I know, doesn't collect Super Heros, or some other Fad item, 'Stars Wars' figures, space crafts, and the same with StarShip Troopers. As do some adults. But, this thread has degenerated from it's original topic, The unseen movie critique. I only mentioned 'StarShip T" along with other movies which were hyped to gain a greater market share...and now the thread has become a discussion of ST; comments on religon, etc. ludicrous beyound measure...even the OP has eaten her own thread. Loric, understand me, in a greater sense, I am in agreement with you, however, at my end of the country, the hype was geared more toward the young kids, and not even appealing to the 25 and upwards generations.

RCdc -> RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic (7/22/2009 11:20:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ienigma777 But, this thread has degenerated from it's original topic, The unseen movie critique. I only mentioned 'StarShip T" along with other movies which were hyped to gain a greater market share...and now the thread has become a discussion of ST; comments on religon, etc. ludicrous beyound measure...even the OP has eaten her own thread. The thread can come and go on anyway it wants. That is the beauty of discussions, not being limited to one single path and not stuck on one single thing. And do remember baby I'm telling ya, to read what is written. Then you might get that this isn't her thread at all. If you don't get that, then no wonder you don't understand a movie like ST.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic (7/22/2009 11:24:47 AM)
I read the op, then I saw it was from the daily mail, then I thought duh

ienigma777 -> RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic (7/22/2009 11:48:02 AM)
Yes, DUH, from the critic's unseen review of the movie 'AntiChrist' to a discourse on the american rating system, to a discussion of the ancient movie Starship Troopers; I'll say ...DUH.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic (7/22/2009 12:01:21 PM)
aww enigma, thats kinda what happens

UncleNasty -> RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic (7/22/2009 4:37:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark This is Darcy Ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to introduce you to the most amazing film critic in the world, Mr Christopher Hart! In his linked article on the potentially catastrophic consequences that Lars Von Trier's new movie Antichrist will have on the entire planet, he manages to speak about the content of the movie, about the subtle nuances and plot details, about the shocking visuals and the way the overall tone and pacing of the flick presents its story, all from having seen the movie exactly, errrrr, zero times. Had the mighty seer Mr Hart actually bothered to view the flick then I might have given his thoughts and opinions some serious consideration, but I have no time whatsoever for those who pass judgement on movies without having seen them. Yes, it's explicit, violent and what you'd term 'arthouse' but what gives these people the right to dictate to me what I can and cannot (or should not) watch providing the material contains consenting adults. You don't like the sound of the movie? Fine. Don't see it. Just don't presume that your moral judgement is superior to mine. [/rant] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200742/CHRISTOPHER-HART-What-DOES-film-banned-days.html I would lump him into a class, or type, I call "the willfully ignorant." Choosing and wanting to remain ignorant when information about almost anything is rarely more the few mouse clicks away is bad enough. But many of this ilk of folks also have passionate opinions about things they know nothing about, and refuse to investigate. Gets my panties in a bunch. Uncle Nasty PS I haven't seen the film, never heard of the film, and have absolutely no opinion about it whatsoever.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.015625