Hatrack River Writers Workshop   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Grist for the Mill » Just hit me: Avatar first true sci-fi movie up for best picture!?

   
Author Topic: Just hit me: Avatar first true sci-fi movie up for best picture!?
billawaboy
Member
Member # 8182

 - posted      Profile for billawaboy   Email billawaboy         Edit/Delete Post 
I can't think of another movie that was both sci-fi to the core and up for best picture oscar...is this a first?
Posts: 342 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd have to go over the lists more thoroughly, but "Star Wars" was nominated (it lost to "Annie Hall") as was "E. T.: The Extraterrestrial" (it lost to "Gandhi.")

It would depend, too, on how you stretch the definitions. You might include "The Right Stuff" and "Apollo 13" (about space, even if about real events), the three "Lord of the Rings" movies (allied field of fantasy), or even "Dr. Strangelove" (nuclear war, a familiar SF theme).

(My list only goes up to 2007---was "WALL-E" nominated for Best Picture?)


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyre Dynasty
Member
Member # 1947

 - posted      Profile for Pyre Dynasty   Email Pyre Dynasty         Edit/Delete Post 
Wall-E wasn't, but UP is. I only know Wall-E wasn't because they are making a big deal about UP being the first animation up for it since Beauty and the Beast. And it's the first since animation got it's own category. (Which I think was shortly after Beauty and the Beast, kind of like when Harry Potter filled the top half of the best sellers list they decided to exclude 'children's' literature from the list.)

Of course they expanded best picture this year to 10 nominees so they could add more diversity.


Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
billawaboy
Member
Member # 8182

 - posted      Profile for billawaboy   Email billawaboy         Edit/Delete Post 
wait ET was up for best picture? and star wars too? damn i should do my research first before i post...

Has any scifi movie won? I know fantasy won with RoTK...

2001? dang not even a nom....


Posts: 342 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyre Dynasty
Member
Member # 1947

 - posted      Profile for Pyre Dynasty   Email Pyre Dynasty         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh and, I categorize Around the World in Eighty Days to be sci-fi. It's the first I can see and it won in 1956. (Even beat the Ten Commandments, which is bewildering now.) Then there's Doctor Doolittle which is kinda fuzzily sci-fi. A Clockwork Orange. Also District 9 was nominated I wonder if they said Avatar first.
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philocinemas
Member
Member # 8108

 - posted      Profile for philocinemas   Email philocinemas         Edit/Delete Post 
This is one of the best articles I've read that addresses "Oscar's snub" of sci-fi. It was obviously written before Avatar. I doubt Avatar will win - I predict The Hurt Locker as the winner.
Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
billawaboy
Member
Member # 8182

 - posted      Profile for billawaboy   Email billawaboy         Edit/Delete Post 
Do you think the put in 10 this time just for ratings? I think they did it so more people will have "their fav" movie as a contender and tune in for the show.

Also I know buddies who tend to places bets online over stuff like this. (Heck they place bets on government elections! crazy...) This'll make their choices harder, hehe, and maybe they'll see a movie or two.


Posts: 342 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philocinemas
Member
Member # 8108

 - posted      Profile for philocinemas   Email philocinemas         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Do you think the put in 10 this time just for ratings?

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
By my count, through 2007, thirty-one pictures that have something to do with science fiction and / or fantasy have been nominated for Best Picture. But it's highly variable.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
billawaboy
Member
Member # 8182

 - posted      Profile for billawaboy   Email billawaboy         Edit/Delete Post 
robert, post the list - i wanna see...
Posts: 342 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay...let's see if I come up with the same number as yesterday. The list is from "Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever (2009 edition)." I'll put year of nomination as well.

"A Midsummer Night's Dream" (1935)

"Lost Horizon" (1937)

"The Wizard of Oz" (1939)

"Here Comes Mr. Jordan" (1941)

"Heaven Can Wait" (1943)

"It's a Wonderful Life" (1946)

"The Bishop's Wife" (1947)

"Miracle on 34th Street" (1947)

"Hamlet" (1948) (won)

"King Solomon's Mines" (1950)

"Around the World in 80 Days" (1956) (won)

"Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" (1964)

"The Sand Pebbles" (1966)

"Doctor Dolittle" (1967)

"A Clockwork Orange" (1971)

"The Exorcist" (1973)

"Jaws" (1975)

"Star Wars" (1977)

"Heaven Can Wait" (1978)

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981)

"E. T.: The Extra-Terrestrial" (1982)

"The Right Stuff" (1983)

"Field of Dreams" (1989)

"Ghost" (1990)

"Beauty and the Beast" (1991)

"Forrest Gump" (1994) (won)

"Apollo 13" (1995)

"The Green Mile" (1999)

"The Sixth Sense" (1999)

"The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" (2001)

"The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" (2002)

"The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" (2003) (won)

"Finding Neverland" (2003)

Lost count...did I have the right number? Or did I exclude one? (Started to include "The Postman," but the one nominated for an Oscar was a different one with the same title.)

Mmm...now I've got thirty-three.



Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
billawaboy
Member
Member # 8182

 - posted      Profile for billawaboy   Email billawaboy         Edit/Delete Post 
Yikes! That's quite a list. I should have said just scifi, lol...but even then...seems like nearly anything could be considered fantasy if it merely employs anything even slightly fantastical.

I guess we need to distinguish between "realistic" fantasy like Ghost and movies like LOTR. I think Meredith had the right term - a 2nd world fantasy.

What about oscar noms/wins for 2nd world fantasies only? That oughta shorten the list.

and for sci-fi...i dunno i guess Avatar can be considered a 2nd world scifi story. Starwars is one sort of. any other?

But what about regular home-world scifi...E.T is one for sure - but's wheres the cutoff? Do we start including all the James Bond films?

Also I'm not sure if movies likes Forrest Gump or Dr. Strangelove should be included - seems more like alternate reality or something and there are no magic-like fantastical elements nor any major sci-fi element (ok maybe the doodmsday device but still...c'mon!)

Odd ones are like It's A Wonderful Life and Miracle on 34th Street...calling them a fantasy is bound to offend someone...

Apollo 13 seems more historical/biographical than science fiction...


Posts: 342 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
Let me link a few to their SF connections:

"It's a Wonderful Life" : Alternate history.

"The Right Stuff" and "Apollo 13" : Space travel.

"Dr. Strangelove" : Nuclear war.

I'm amused that "Heaven Can Wait" (1978) is a remake of an earlier move on the list---but of "Here Comes Mr. Jordan" (1941), not "Heaven Can Wait" (1943).


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyre Dynasty
Member
Member # 1947

 - posted      Profile for Pyre Dynasty   Email Pyre Dynasty         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't see the Forrest Gump connection, unless you are counting Lt. Dan's cyborg legs.
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
billawaboy
Member
Member # 8182

 - posted      Profile for billawaboy   Email billawaboy         Edit/Delete Post 
"It's a Wonderful Life" : Alternate history - but more fantasy that scifi.

"The Right Stuff" and "Apollo 13" : Space travel; but then every movie that uses a computer is scifi...there's no science that doesn't exist yet - wouldn't be more historical?

"Dr. Strangelove" : Nuclear war. To me nucleur war doesnt make it scifi - any more than 13 Days or True Lies is scifi...The only thing that may be scifi is the Doomsday Device...I'm not sure is such a thing existed...that would technically make it scifi...right?


Posts: 342 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, since alternate history has become an accepted form of SF, with works by Phillip K. Dick and Harry Turtledove, I have to classify "It's a Wonderful Life" as SF---and if it's not SF just because it has angels in it, then you'd have to remove "Stranger in a Strange Land," too.

"Forrest Gump" falls into fantasy because it puts its protagonist anywhere and everywhere.

As for "The Right Stuff," "Apollo 13," and "Dr. Strangelove," excluding them would be excluding themes of SF long included. Just because the events were real, or could be real, would not make them not SF. (Also, "Apollo 13" resembles the "Engineers Solving Problems" school of SF found in Analog and elsewhere.)


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyre Dynasty
Member
Member # 1947

 - posted      Profile for Pyre Dynasty   Email Pyre Dynasty         Edit/Delete Post 
I still don't buy it, but it's not my list, no skin off my teeth. Genre is to a certain extent subjective anyway, which only really matters in store shelves and conversations like this. Coincidence, even taken to Forrest Gump extremes, isn't enough for me to make it a fantasy. Now if he were an alien/time traveller/wizard who manipulated the world to put himself in all those situations, then most definitely it belongs. But still it doesn't bother me that you classify it that way.

Not every movie that uses a computer is sci-fi, but every movie that is about a computer is, whether true, possible, or otherwise. Historical science fiction is a valid sub-genre.

True Lies is Sci-fi, the gadgetry alone gives it its credentials. Not that spy movies have to be sci-fi, they just usually turn out that way. (I can't comment on 13 days, never heard of it.) From what I've seen of Strangelove, I could see someone making it into an Outer Limits episode without blinking.


Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
I expressed myself badly in my last post: I've had some time to think of a better way. I think it can best be summed up in a statement and a couple of questions. When science fiction got going as a genre, it included any number of things that have come to pass, like space travel or robots or computers. Does the fact that something came to pass make these works of the past cease to be science fiction? Should a work that deals with these real-life events be excluded from science fiction because they're real-life events?
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
Of some relevance to this discussion:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2010-02-23-scifirules23_CV_N.htm

They only list three SF movies...


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
billawaboy
Member
Member # 8182

 - posted      Profile for billawaboy   Email billawaboy         Edit/Delete Post 
I guess we should ask whether the "scifi" tech in mind actually exists and was known to the author at the time.

If it exists - then we should ask is tech in the story used as it was/is at the time.

Exampls:
1) radio telecommunication existed a hundred years ago, but a story of that time that has telecommunication tech for the masses vs one which had telecomm as part of cutting edge naval technology would make the former sci-fi and the latter straight up normal fiction.

2) if a story written in the 1940s had a computer the size of large book in every household that's scifi; but if that story has it the size of a large room at a government think-tank with vaccum tubes etc., then that's straight up fiction.

3) The best example is that story of Clarke's that posed the use of geocentric satellite tech; it was written before a satellite was put in orbit - so it's scifi; A story of putting satellites in space after a satellite was already in orbit i say has to be called fiction. Like Clakre said scifi has to go a little beyond the edge of known science toward the realm of the impossible. Just a little taste of things that dont exist but could be possible. That's scifi.


That's why to me, Apollo 13 is straight up historical fiction, but something like The Astronaut Farmer is scifi - becuase we don't documented people who have built a rocket in their barn - not yet!


Posts: 342 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
For some reason this stimulates my thought today, rather than when I read it two days ago...and it takes the thread slightly off topic, but what the hell.

Dean Koontz writes, in a commentary attached to a new(er) version of Demon Seed, that when the movie came out, some critics gave it a bad review because the computer expert had a computer in his own home. Think about the implications of that.

Arthur C. Clarke mathetmatically worked out, and realized the importance of, the geosynchronous orbit...however, he thought it would be of importance only for communcation purposes. He didn't realize practically every other thing he predicted would be done in Earth orbit would be done up there. (And, as has been coming out lately, the geosynch orbit produces too much of a light-speed delay for some aspects of modern communication, and, it would seem, some lower-orbit satellites are needed.)


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philocinemas
Member
Member # 8108

 - posted      Profile for philocinemas   Email philocinemas         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I predict The Hurt Locker as the winner.

Told ya.

Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
billawaboy
Member
Member # 8182

 - posted      Profile for billawaboy   Email billawaboy         Edit/Delete Post 
Ya, I thought Hurt Locker was beyond amazing. I watched it 3 times in theatres. I'm glad it won. I had been recommending Hurt to all my friends for months - and they were like no no Up in the Air was better - and I was like "What!? Blasphemer!"

Honestly, I didn't think Up in the air was that great. I'm surprised it got even a nom. And didn't like push either - I mean I get it - but didn't think it was worth a nom.

I didn't get to see Avatar until late January - and it's the only movie I thought was good enough to hold up to Hurt Locker. To me it was only between Hurt and Avatar. If hurt didn't win, it had better be avatar that won - no freaking Up in the air or Push taking best pic.

In fact I look at Hurt and Avatar as a sort of complement to each other. You see the military from both sides. The addiction and trauma and derangement that drive soldiers to do crazy things.

All in all 2009 was a good year for movies. Now if Cameron would just make Ender's Game...


Posts: 342 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyre Dynasty
Member
Member # 1947

 - posted      Profile for Pyre Dynasty   Email Pyre Dynasty         Edit/Delete Post 
So it was either the Hurt Locker or the Smurf Shocker. I was pulling for UP.
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
billawaboy
Member
Member # 8182

 - posted      Profile for billawaboy   Email billawaboy         Edit/Delete Post 
Up? really? have you seen Hurt? I admit I haven't seen UP - but does it really beat Hurt? I doubt it. For months nothing came close to Hurt - I saw it in August and since watched almost all the best pic contenders and more. Only when Avatar came along did I think that hurt had a decent contender - but I didn't expect it win even if Hurt wasn't on the list (I mean c'mon it was scifi - hollywood doesn't respect scifi with best pics)

I was more worried of the dreadful Up In The Air being picked over Hurt. I thought hollywood would ignore Hurt for it's violence and go for a smarmy fake movie. I understand the appeal of Up in the Air, but c'mon - best pic!?


Posts: 342 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
I went to see one movie in all of 2009---Up---and that because I enjoyed WALL-E so much that I thought I should check this one out. I found it worth it, almost as good as WALL-E...but I haven't yet decided whether to go see the next Pixar movie, Toy Story 3, I gather.

I'm a child of television, who adapted quickly to videotapes and laserdiscs and now DVDs. (Haven't yet done much video downloading, but will eventually, I guess.) Movies happen for me when I turn on the TV and find one running on a channel, or pop in the disc I've just bought. They don't happen for me in theaters.

Actually, except for Up, none of the contenders for Best Picture appealed to me that much. I might watch some when they flicker across the television screen...but that's about it.


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyre Dynasty
Member
Member # 1947

 - posted      Profile for Pyre Dynasty   Email Pyre Dynasty         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry I haven't seen Hurt Locker, it looks fantastic, but it's not my kind of movie. (If it does show up on TV, I'll watch it.) I haven't seen Avatar either. It is my kind of movie but I prefer my money to go to something that I will still have later. I only see a movie in the theaters if it's one I can't wait for. Which tends to happen only a few times a year.

UP though is beautiful, and I stand by thinking it's best picture of 2009. I agree that WALL-E was better it was also more niche.


Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
There's a lot of movies I've seen on TV that I would go to see in a theater if it got revived---but, in this area, with rare exception, that doesn't happen. Not their financial model. The only movie I've seen in theaters that I saw on TV first was "Casablanca," which played down here for a week in the eighties.

(Not that there haven't been other revivals I've gone to...a series of Hitchcock movies appeared in the mid-eighties and I saw all of them ("Rear Window" is way better, and way scarier, than anything put out these days.) "Gone With the Wind" came back. Disney's stuff was revived up till the videotape era (and it was the only way you could see any of it 'cause in those days they weren't on TV.) Also I caught the original "Star Wars" trilogy when it last blew through town ("Star Wars" is the only move I've ever seen three times in theaters---twice on the original run, once in the revival.))


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
billawaboy
Member
Member # 8182

 - posted      Profile for billawaboy   Email billawaboy         Edit/Delete Post 
Pyre, if you're worried that Hurt is something that glorifies violence - don't worry, it's not. It does have a few violent moments, but it's not gory (atleast not like some other war movies). I would categorize it as something more suspenseful and following a soldier on one tour of duty. It's very character driven.

I dislike violent movies too, I avoid horror and gore. But I'm very glad i went to see Hurt Locker - and it's one of the few movie that actually deserve the ticket money becuase it was a small film done on a tight budget. and the film makers and backers for the film need to rewarded for taking the initiative to put their money behind this.

So I hope that you do, this once, make an exception for hurtlocker and go see it in theatres.


Posts: 342 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, this day and age is more tolerant of violence on film, gratuitous or otherwise. Back in the World War II era, the audiences would have been scandalized to see something as violent as, say, Inglorious Basterds. Even authentic film would leave out the violent bits. (Remember, in the World War II era, they were living it. They were there, or they had friends and relatives who were there. Here and now, it's something on the edge of things for most people.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Crystal Stevens
Member
Member # 8006

 - posted      Profile for Crystal Stevens   Email Crystal Stevens         Edit/Delete Post 
This is telling my age, but I remember the first PG movie I saw shortly after the movie rating system went in place. The movie was J.D. Cahill, U.S. Marshall starring John Wayne. The worst part was when an Indian friend of J.D.'s rams a broken-off tree branch into the bad guy's chest. But that's not the bad part. The bad part was where the bad guy pulled it out of his chest. This branch was at least an inch and a half in diameter. It about grossed me out at the theatre.

I found this movie on tape and watch it every once in awhile. It's always been a favorite of mine. But now the part I mentioned above seems very, very tame, and I don't give it a second thought.

How times change how we look at things.


Posts: 1320 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philocinemas
Member
Member # 8108

 - posted      Profile for philocinemas   Email philocinemas         Edit/Delete Post 
The Wild Bunch, 1969.
Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
billawaboy
Member
Member # 8182

 - posted      Profile for billawaboy   Email billawaboy         Edit/Delete Post 
yeah, Besterds didn't really wow me. I kept wanting to look for tarentino on the side saying, "Eh- eh? Ain't I clever, and crazy and totally in your face? Totally blowin your mind, right?"

Tarentino's been stuck in one style - sarcastic, violent, reference-crazy dialogues - since 1989. It was okay till kill bill - now it's just getting old. Can he make a different kind of movie for once? I admit, though, his movie's are cinematographically (uh, real word???) beautiful to watch...


Posts: 342 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyre Dynasty
Member
Member # 1947

 - posted      Profile for Pyre Dynasty   Email Pyre Dynasty         Edit/Delete Post 
Cinematographically is totally a real word, it follows suffix conventions and we know what it means. Just because some dead dude named Webster feels it beneath him to put in his dictionary doesn't make it not a real word. (My mantra in this respect: "More fun may be more correct but is it funner?")

I watch a lot of Kung-Fu movies, so glorification of violence is not really the problem. (But I have vowed never to watch a Tarentino film, he, as a person, scares me.) By "not my kind of movie" I meant it's a drama. To me dramas aren't theater kind of movies, they are sit at home playing a videogame kind of movies.

Regarding ratings, Spaceballs and Airplane! were both among those early PG's. This was, I think, before the invention of the 13.


Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philocinemas
Member
Member # 8108

 - posted      Profile for philocinemas   Email philocinemas         Edit/Delete Post 
I believe the first PG-13 movies were:

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Gremlins
Splash

In that order.


Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philocinemas
Member
Member # 8108

 - posted      Profile for philocinemas   Email philocinemas         Edit/Delete Post 
Oops, I was wrong.

Splash was released just before the new rating took place.

Red Dawn, 1984 was actually the first movie to receive the rating, but it wasn't released until after the other two.


Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philocinemas
Member
Member # 8108

 - posted      Profile for philocinemas   Email philocinemas         Edit/Delete Post 
FYI, PG was started in 1972, eight years before Airplane and fifteen years before Spaceballs - had to look up dates, although I remembered Airplane.
Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
billawaboy
Member
Member # 8182

 - posted      Profile for billawaboy   Email billawaboy         Edit/Delete Post 
Does ratings even matter anymore? I know they're useless outside the US. but even inside the US...

With cable you have access to nearly every movie made and kids I think find a way to see them all. And with the internet - forget it. They are seeing stuff that makes my blood cold. I willing to bet every US child born in 1995 has seen real sex and murder on the internet by 2010 - unless they are Amish.

Can't fault them really. I guess as a kid everyone's ultimately interested in life and death, the beginning they can't remember, and the end they won't get to know - till the end. The only way is to watch others...

I wonder what we will get when the internet generation grows up?


Posts: 342 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
It was "GP" before it was "PG"...and, in the early days, things like "A Clockwork Orange" and "Midnight Cowboy" were Rated X. ("Midnight Cowboy" won the Best Picture Oscar---the only X-rated movie to do so.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2