Dakota Fanning Rape

[Zistrix]

And her mom is her agent?

"Oh sure Dakotas available for a fall movie where she gets raped that sounds wonderful and will really move her career forward"

[Soriak]

If it were Emma Watson you guys would be all over that movie...

[Authenticating]

these fucking people absolutely waste their money on these fucking commercials.

Like those Head-On commercials?

"Head-On... apply directly to the forehead!"
"Head-On... apply directly to the forehead!"
"Head-On... apply directly to the forehead!"

Then the commercial ends and they never once mentioned what it does.

[Brash]

I think the monkey ended up raping her in the movie. BAD Monkey! BADDD!

Clearly, Dakota needs new parents. How do you go from making Charlotte's Web to a rape film?

She is going to be in the next Peter Jackson film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0380510/

Should be a good one.

[Djaypally]

Originally Posted by Soriak

If it were Emma Watson you guys would be all over that movie...

The difference being...if Emma Watson has a bald twat, it's because she shaves it and not because she hasn't gone through puberty yet.

[gn0me]

Blaezen you're a faggot. Go do some meth irl and anal fist your mother.

[Belefuu]

Originally Posted by Blaezenfury

this is pretty fucking retarded, what the hell is she thinking?

but.. I dont think anything can get anymore fucking RETARDEDER than the fucking COMMERCIALS that are on FUCKING T.V. now adays, what the FUCK is with that shit? these fucking people absolutely waste their money on these fucking commercials.

Either let me be in them to make some money, or just give me the fucking money to advertise your asses. fucking idiots.

translation: why can't I rape Dakota, this is really getting me steamed-- oh shit better change the subject...

[Quineloe]

Originally Posted by Angrier

In which way?

in thinking that the theme of 8mm is somehow especially sick and rare.

[James]

Snuff films? They are...

[Etadanik]

Who the fuck cares. Oh wait, apparently I do cause I read this thread =/ Damn the provocative title and the voice in my head that goes "if you don't read this thread, you'll surely be haunted by its mystery the rest of your life..."

Anyhow, there's no reason why pedophilia shouldn't be explored as a theme - it's certainly more real than alot of the crap Hollywood wants you to believe. The taboo here isn't the film, it's the casting of a underage child actress in an explicitly compromising position, which I don't think has ever been done before in American cinema - or has it (did Brooke Shields go full on nudity? I seem to recall a certain g-string being offered)? Regardless - terrible career choice, but then again this is Dakota Fanning we're talking about - the girl who did that screechy kid in War of the Worlds and Samara in The Ring. She's no stranger to "adult" movies, though I suppose that sentence will now grow in meaning.

[fucker]

when you think nothing sicker can be done, hollywood strikes

this will be the pedo version of Irreversible

assraping a 12 years old girl....pedophiles all around the world are probably smiling

but hollywood is a money hungry industry, you cant ask nothing more

what piss me is this

"In this movie, both things happen." Fanning's mother, Joy, and her Hollywood agent, Cindy Osbrink, see the movie, written and directed by Deborah Kampmeier, as a possible Oscar vehicle for the pint-size star.

what the fuck? WHAT - THE - FUCK?

her parents should be fucking beaten to death

there is no ammount of "artistic acting" bullshit you can use to cover this. You are letting you 12 years be seen naked in a raping scene by millions of people, and she will be marked from that for her life

where the fuck are child protection agencies???

also....

I don't see why you think this is retarded. I read books all the time that touch on or explore child rape as a plot device, and some of them are some of the best books I've ever read. Nothing is more chilling or disturbing, or touches your heart more, than traumatic events like that. Used properly I definitely do not see this as a bad thing. Maybe, though, you think that seeing the images is somehow harder to stomach than just reading about it?

let me tell you the difference

in a movie like Mystic River or The Sleepers, the abuses are dramatic events linked to the story and the characters.

in this movie the rape *IS* the story and the character

if you want to describe the story of an abuse, you dont need to show a pre-teen naked girl under an adult man simulating a fucking gangbang

its just visual masturbation for those who enjoy it.

[Etadanik]

if you want to describe the story of an abuse, you dont need to show a pre-teen naked girl under an adult man simulating a fucking gangbang

its just visual masturbation for those who enjoy it.

You're forgetting the "shock" factor.

The media is all about "shock," Hollywood included. Shocking the audience has a way of making a film memorable, even if the material itself sucks. You might not agree with it, but by your argument, why do war films show scenes of violence, blood, and carnage? They don't need to show some guy with his guts hanging out to describe a horrendous battle -- or do they?

In cinema, showing is more powerful than describing. Always.

[Soriak]

Just because of child pornography laws around the world, I doubt you'll see any "naked" scenes. Topless maybe, but not like there's anything that'd need to be covered at that age... I couldn't care less about the movie, but this just seems like a cheap way to create publicity.

Actually, I might have to watch it eventually because her whining in war of the worlds was the most annoying thing of one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Definatly not in a cinema with the pedo crowd though


btw: maybe she's just not getting any offers for other movies and the parents want to cash in as long as they still can?

edit: now that I think about it, as far as I know even 'simulated' sex acts with minors are illegal in some european countries... going to be interesting.

[fucker]

Originally Posted by Etadanik

You're forgetting the "shock" factor.

The media is all about "shock," Hollywood included. Shocking the audience has a way of making a film memorable, even if the material itself sucks. You might not agree with it, but by your argument, why do war films show scenes of violence, blood, and carnage? They don't need to show some guy with his guts hanging out to describe a horrendous battle -- or do they?

In cinema, showing is more powerful than describing. Always.

i perfectly understand the shock factor you talk about. but this happends because the average watcher has the sensibility and attention spam of a rock

something is wrong if only the direct sight of a forced vaginal intrusion of a 12 years old girl gives you a "shock"

i get angry everytime i read news of a violence on the newspaper. i dont need a snuff movie to "feel it"

Also....

A war is very different. you cant compare a "war movie" and a "rape movie"

a war is much more "physically" dungerous that a rape. A war cause scars, a war can make you a permanent invalid, or can kill you after hours of suffering. A war is a fight between 2 enemies.

obviously a war cause also psycological traumas, but the physical suffering in war cant be ignored

If you lose an arm in a war, how that arm got blowup is important. So its not useless show it

A rape instead is a psycological violence, the physical traumas are marginal (eccept in rare cases)

thousands of women continue to suffer for it after years. do you think its because their vagina still hurts?

if you have to talk about a rape, talk about what it means for the victim. Showing the actual rape its pointless. as i said, visual masturbation for those who enjoy a rape

[Drednots]

Originally Posted by Angrier

8mm was good. This is fucking bullshit. Bullshit in the way that makes me wonder how the fuck do cretins get funding for such shit.

Because theres alot of perverts in Holywood with the cash needed for it. Bottom line is the more people are desensitized to this shit the more the perverts like to see how far they can push the envelope.