DominicCobb

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

DominicCobb said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Whether this is “abuse” is debatable – there are those who think that any sex between an adult and a minor is abuse, whether consensual or not, and regardless of who was the pursuer. There are those who think it is a grey area (probably most think that, including me). And, there are those who think the law should be a lot more permissive.

However, I found the movie’s dealing with this issue to be manipulative (to the viewer). By making the characters seem SO different in age, and by making the parents SO approving and hands off - while being portrayed as highly educated and enlightened, it made me wonder exactly what the movie’s message was supposed to be. The guy was a guest in the parents’ home, and was pretty rude and aggressive. And he was doing their son. It is very, very strange that they didn’t even question whether it was “ok”, or whether their son was even ok with it. Is the message that this is how parents should be? Is that really good?

Other similarly-themed stories include the parents being livid - or at the very least worrying, regardless of whether or not the story sympathizes with the protagonists.

If he was 18 would we even be having this conversation? Genuinely curious.

That is so easy to say. So, we move the age back to 17… then a case comes up with a 16-year-old and we say “if it were a 17-year-old would we be having this conversation” etc. So, are you saying there shouldn’t be a line drawn anywhere?

I’m not saying that I think we should change the age of consent (though I should point out again that in most places it is younger than 18, which isn’t to say I agree with that). I’m not really talking about our current society at all. I’m just talking about the movie and how that isn’t really the point at all.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Whether this is “abuse” is debatable – there are those who think that any sex between an adult and a minor is abuse, whether consensual or not, and regardless of who was the pursuer. There are those who think it is a grey area (probably most think that, including me). And, there are those who think the law should be a lot more permissive.

However, I found the movie’s dealing with this issue to be manipulative (to the viewer). By making the characters seem SO different in age, and by making the parents SO approving and hands off - while being portrayed as highly educated and enlightened, it made me wonder exactly what the movie’s message was supposed to be. The guy was a guest in the parents’ home, and was pretty rude and aggressive. And he was doing their son. It is very, very strange that they didn’t even question whether it was “ok”, or whether their son was even ok with it. Is the message that this is how parents should be? Is that really good?

Other similarly-themed stories include the parents being livid - or at the very least worrying, regardless of whether or not the story sympathizes with the protagonists.

If he was 18 would we even be having this conversation? Genuinely curious.

As for the parents, we only see Elio’s perspective. Who knows what conversations they had about the relationship and whether they were 100% on board throughout.

one69chev said:

Sexual relations between adults and children are illegal; it is not ‘just a number’. Spend enough time around abused children and the devestating ramifications of such ‘relationships’ and the reasons for such laws become painfully clear. 17 is still under age, it is still against the law regardless of how you feel about this particular issue. It is not ok simply because they are ‘in love’, it is an adult taking sexual advantage of an underaged minor.

If you like the movie for its art or its coming of age themes etc, go for it but that doesn’t change the legality of the relationship, which even if it was consensual, it still statutory rape.

It literally isn’t illegal though.

one69chev said:

It is pedophilia plain and simple.

Technically, no, not at all.

If it had been a real life situation, of which lately there are plenty examples to choose from, between a teacher and a high school student, it would be treated like a crime, because it is a crime unless the minor in question is emancipated.

Except it’s not a teacher and a student, and it’s not a crime as I’ve stated numerous times.

I found it extremely ironic that in a year filled with sexual abuse revelations of all kinds coming to light, this movie in particular was so highly touted.

It’s almost like the movie has nothing to do with sexual abuse. Funny.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

DominicCobb said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Depends on one’s definition of “predator”. Perhaps a better term is “sexual offender”.
BTW, I never said pedophile… statutory rape is not the same thing as pedophilia.

You basically implied that the people who saw the movie with you were pedophiles.

It did appear to me that quite a percentage of the people in the audience fit that stereotype, whether true or not. But I don’t think I ever said that the movie was about pedophilia.

Still a weird thing to say though.

And I looked it up, age of consent in Italy is 14, so sex offender isn’t exactly accurate.

The same behavior here would be considered an offense. Although one could certainly argue that our laws, parenting, and mores therein should be changed. The father role in the film obviously believed that it was a valuable experience.

I’m not saying I think we should be like Italy in this regard (in fact I think that’s definitely kinda gross). But a quick look tells me that age of consent in the US is the the large majority of the states either 16 or 17 (which is far more reasonable than in Italy).

Ultimately the numbers isn’t what’s important. It’s a coming of age film where a man who’s coming of age falls in love with a man who is a few years old than him. The dad didn’t say anything about being glad his son fell in love with a statutory rapist or whatever. It was about the transformative experience he had and the connection they shared.

Sir Ridley said:

I think it’s a big misunderstanding to say that Kathleen Kennedy put that scene in the film but I’ve seen a few people suggest that. What Rian said was that Kathleen was interested in seeing Leia show force powers, it’s a stretch to believe that Kathy decided how they should be shown. She would leave the writing to the writer.

Source:
https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/star-wars-last-jedi-empire-podcast-spoiler-special-rian-johnson/

That section of the interview starts at about 19:20.

But that doesn’t fit into the “Star Wars sucks because of Kathleen Kennedy” narrative.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Depends on one’s definition of “predator”. Perhaps a better term is “sexual offender”.
BTW, I never said pedophile… statutory rape is not the same thing as pedophilia.

You basically implied that the people who saw the movie with you were pedophiles.

And I looked it up, age of consent in Italy is 14, so sex offender isn’t exactly accurate.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

EDIT: I agree though that the parental response that you described is extremely unrealistic if that’s how it was portrayed. I haven’t seen the movie and never will.

It makes sense in context. The two are good friends well before it gets sexual. The dad knows and likes the older guy well enough to invite him to their house for the summer so it’s not like he’s some rando old dude. And there’s no “preying,” it’s entirely consensual.

Aren’t sexual predators often trusted family members or friends? And aren’t we taught that minors cannot give consent?

Of course that’s true, but there’s nothing in the film to suggest he’s a “predator.” And as I said before, in many places he is within the age of consent.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Throughout the movie I thought that Oliver was a visiting scholar. He was extremely worldly and often corrected the father.

No, Oliver is a student of his. There’s one scene where he corrects the father, but the father made the mistake on purpose to test him. His wife mentions that he does that for every student of his that visits.

moviefreakedmind said:

EDIT: I agree though that the parental response that you described is extremely unrealistic if that’s how it was portrayed. I haven’t seen the movie and never will.

It makes sense in context. The two are good friends well before it gets sexual. The dad knows and likes the older guy well enough to invite him to their house for the summer so it’s not like he’s some rando old dude. And there’s no “preying,” it’s entirely consensual.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

moviefreakedmind said:

17 and 24 isn’t a big deal. I don’t see how that would appeal to pedophiles since pedophiles are known to prey on children, not young men that are legally adults in most states and countries.

In the novel they are 17 and 24. I don’t remember that being mentioned in the film, where they look 14 and 40.

It’s not mentioned but there’s no reason to doubt it. Elio is almost out of high school. Oliver is in college. It’s not supposed to be weird. Like I said Hammer is 31 and Chalamet is 22. You can criticize the casting but the movie isn’t about pedophilia.

SilverWook said:

Yikes. Is Uncle Roy the common term for a creepy friend/relative? I’ve been watching season four of Saturday Night Live and got to the infamous Uncle Roy sketch, where Buck Henry’s character is the middle aged babysitter playing increasingly creepy games with his young charges while the parents are out for the evening. (And taking lots of Polaroids.) Not sure SNL could get away with that today.

He’s not creepy though, that’s the thing. He’s just a student of the lead’s dad.

suspiciouscoffee said:

If Armie Hammer looked 24, it’d be fine, but he’s, what, 10 years older than that?

31. Timothee Chalamet is 22. You sorta have to roll with it.

I’ve heard it discussed before. For the record, it’s 17 and 24, which is definitely on the sketchy line but not egregious by any means. But I will say I knew a few people in high school who were dating people in their twenties and their parents didn’t seem to care. In many places the age of consent is 16.

Ultimately the movie isn’t really about that. The exact ages aren’t important so much as it is about a young man having a relationship with a slightly older young man. I think the audience is primarily people who like quality films. Weird that you think it’s targeting pedophiles or whatever.

Yeah, movies that get nominated get a huge boost in attention. Filmmakers that are nominated get more work. Etc.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Or we could just not have a creative ‘boss’ and the different movies can be allowed to do different things.

Slow down coffee, only hot takes are allowed in here.

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Never cut my own hair before, but randomly decided to have a go at it today. Actually came out pretty good.

You went for the Admiral Holdo look didn’t you?

I said I cut it, not colored it.

But yes.

I just assumed it was already purple. Whatever color it is, that is a good look for anyone. Just got to be careful or a few slips of the scissors could leave you looking like Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka. Not that that wouldn’t look good too.

Yeah but his suit was purple, not his hair, so I think I’d be good.

I should also state, for the record, that my hair isn’t curly.

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Never cut my own hair before, but randomly decided to have a go at it today. Actually came out pretty good.

You went for the Admiral Holdo look didn’t you?

I said I cut it, not colored it.

But yes.

Never cut my own hair before, but randomly decided to have a go at it today. Actually came out pretty good.

Happy to see Shape of Water win, even if it wasn’t my favorite. Rare that you see a genre film get Oscar love (also happiest for Jordan Peele’s win).

Star Wars doesn’t have or need a creative head in the same way Marvel does, because it’s not one big story. Kennedy works just fine.

Romero was there.

Dek Rollins said:

Wouldn’t “sound editing” be, well, the editing of the audio? In conjunction with the editing of the image? Like, you put one bang here, and then another bang three seconds later. There, you’ve done some sound editing.

Not exactly.

JEDIT: this seems to explain it pretty well https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/movies/sound-mixing-sound-editing-explainer.amp.html

Dek Rollins said:

Isn’t the difference between sound mixing and sound editing pretty self explanatory?

Considering “sound editing” is a misnomer, not really no.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing
I really don’t understand the difference between the two, so I pass.

My Vote: I abstain.

Why does this person even get to vote for anything if they don’t know anything?

Final voting is for everyone in the academy. I’ve long thought that they should combine these categories for this exact reason.

There’ve been a lot of “secrect Oscar ballots” this year that have proven many members to be complete dipshits. This really isn’t anything new, however (if anything the Oscars are only getting better, as they are aggressively adding more relevant members and phasing out the craggy old farts).

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Yeah, after writing this, I actually went and looked this up. Source Code is the only one I’m remotely interested in seeing.

Definitely check it out.

Sir Ridley said:

m_s0 said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Moon (2009)

A really enjoyable, interesting, and realistic science fiction film. A masterpiece? No. But a really great directorial debut. I’m definitely going to try and seek out what Duncan Jones has done since.

It pains to me to say this, but… um… maybe don’t? Or at least don’t get your expectations too high.

Moon is great, Source Code is pretty good, Warcraft is meh and I haven’t seen Mute but I see a pattern here.

Somehow I liked Warcraft better than Mute. And I didn’t really like Warcraft.

joefavs said:

I think Get Out is definitely the most important film of the year and the one people are going to still be talking about the most twenty years from now.

No doubt about that.