Okay, call me a pervert, but?
Were they just tryingggg to have as many shots of the daughter showing almost her panties the whole time? she is what, 10 years old or 11?
shareWere they just tryingggg to have as many shots of the daughter showing almost her panties the whole time? she is what, 10 years old or 11?
shareThe Exorcist -
-While bouncing on the bed, her crotch is thrown right in the camera a couple of times.
-She grabs a man's crotch.
-She masturbates in front of her mother and two doctors.
-While in the hospital, there is almost a nipple shot.
-The language that comes out of her, especially the exorcism scene.
-F word, C word, other C word, MotherF word, CS word,
-She holds her mother's face right into her bloodied crotch, while saying "Lick me".
-The crucifix crotch scene was body doubled, but still.
-she's nude in a bath tub.
EXACTLY, d a rogers! this movie was REALLY tame compared to other Exorcist movies.
And Rita, well yeah I agree that they watered it down, but people were complaining about stuff that were so tame. It's not like they had her wear NO panties. It's not like there were POV scenes where someone looks up her dress/gown. Everything in the movie seemed to go naturally. It would be way too obvious if it was a "back view" scene of her being thrown or flew around in the hospital scene that it was a body double. It would have been way too obvious or looked like it was a body double. And just the SHAPE of her body? That's it? You have to be WAAAAAAY too strict on stuff if you even CARE about that! She was fully clothed for that scene. They even made sure her gown was going inward in-between her legs so that her panties won't show. I guess that wasn't good enough for the people that wanted a G rated horror movie. They took soooo many precautions, yet STILL so many people complain.
As for the unrealistic elements, for a movie to be entertaining, it has to have a balance of real and unreal stuff. I'd say movies should be 90% realistic and 10% unrealistic. 100% realistic in a movie would be boring. Why see a movie that's 100% realistic when you can see 100% realistic in real life for free.
[deleted]
I noticed it as well and it bothered me a bit but as Tav said maybe that was the demon.
shareI noticed this as wel.! They should have made her were pajamas!
share"I did notice that she was being slightly sexualized but figured that that was the point since her soul was already being twisted by the demon."
Um, IT WAS! The movie was showing us that "she changed" after the bonding with the box. Notice the "sexulaization stuff" didn't happen until AFTER she was possessed. It was trying to show us, the viewers, that she was possessed by a demon.
They could have shown her naked that I wouldn't have cared.
Want to know why? Wanting to cover a thing like a "little girl's panty" is taking into account that THERE IS sexuality in a thing like a "little girl's panty", but there isn't. Show me a brick wall, a child's fanny or a mailbox and I won't see any sexuality in any of those, so there's no need in censoring them.
i agree. ban sexy kids
share"Were they just tryingggg to have as many shots of the daughter showing almost her panties the whole time? she is what, 10 years old or 11?"
Almost doesn't count.
No one gets off at ALMOST showing her panties.
And it's more like they made sure to have her show her panties at least as possible, and not the MOST as possible.
they didnt almost show them, they did show them during the exorcism
share[deleted]
Yeah its not as if somebody jerked off to those scenes.
share[deleted]
ok well this is the NTH movie ive seen where a girl is possessed, its actually the norm for the girls undies to be seen. i dont know why its just is..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKAb-VOit0Q
Sounds like you are an overly-sexualised teenager. Pathetic.
shareShowing her panties didn't bother me, for that's what a patient suppose be dress in a hospital, sometimes one could be wearing nothing at all underneath. And with all that violent movements, jumping, struggling and all, it's really hard NOT capturing panties, with or without intension, but for all I know, the actress could be wearing 3 layers of gym shorts underneath for protection.
What DID bother me was, as some has already point out, that she wears an old fashion long night gown to sleep. I mean, who wear these things to sleep anyway?? Not even adults wear it, not in these century anyway. She wears one in the bathroom scene and another one in the gas station. But in the end of the film she wears T-shirt and shorts to sleep, like any other normal kids does.
Classics are names that everyone heard, yet most have never seen!!
a few of the posts on these thread are wrong, including the OP. And here is why: It just reflects the normal view today, but IMO is a twisted view on the issue. In the past little girls would usually wear very short skirts and would play like that in the park and you could see the panties. Probably most people assumed and were not perverts. One comment here says he/she found disgusting the view of the little girl's panties in the film. I don't find how is that disgusting, as compared to older panties, unless you are focusing on something else. Maybe automatically your mind links sexual thoughts with the view of legs and panties, even if it's a little girl, but I would hope most people don't get turned on to that. The paranoia about little girls nudity is right in that it helps protect them from perverts that would try to have sex with them, and even though hopefully most of us aren't perverts, you never know who you can trust. However, assuming that this equals little girls panties elicit sexual thoughts in everybody, or even worse, makes you disgusted at seeing it, I don't get the correlation at all. Leave sex out of the equation if you aren't a pervert, don't worry, unless you believe that she is going to be raped. Or, definitely, if you are one of those few who get turned on by it and have a conscience that makes you find little girls' skin filthy, then by all means please stay away from those scenes.
share