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?
shareParanoia much?
sharePedobear spirit lives in the jew-box, beware !
.
I wish it WAS Pedobear in that Dibbuk box. At least Pedobear you could beat the crap out of. oO
You gotta understand, Pedobear would be vastly less a menace than the genuinely horrific entity actually in that box. It is like comparing a shotgun to an anti-aircraft gun. :P
--
Like sometimes wacky sci-fi continue-the-story projects?
www.joshua-wopr.com/phpBB/
"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?"
No, they were doing their best to not show the girl's panties, so that people would not complain about, "her being a little girl and she's showing something!" Yet even though they DIDN'T, people like YOU still complain 'cuz you like to complain about every little thing in movies ... even if it makes perfect sense it would be shown realisticly AND it's a horror movie!
I agree, I'm a man, young 20's, & found the bathroom scene to be eerily reminiscent of another horror movie scene staring Odette Yustman, or whatever he name is. The main character chick from Cloverfield. I forget the name of that film, but the very movie poster for that film was Odettes character, in just a tee & underwear, looking into the bathroom mirror, the shot of course, coming from behind. and clearly they were trying to take advantage of her figure to attract movie viewers. And look, that's not exactly uncommon, but I remember that movie poster basically saying "Check out that ass! Oh and come see our sh*tty movie!"......
With this scene, I had too much of that same feeling. Then of course the girl was so young, so I certainly found that to be out of taste.
Michael Bay either directed or produced that film I'm referencing
[deleted]
Is there some other cut of this movie or are people just making stuff up to create a fake controversy?
In the bathroom she wears an extra slip, clearly for the express purpose of concealing her bottom.
In the kitchen, she has ankle length nightgown.
The hospital gown goes below the knees. Granted it flails around when the fight takes place, but any of that action you are looking at a stunt woman.
I'm a normal guy - which means sex is always point eight of a nanosecond away from my mind, and even some female video-game characters have aroused me - but I'm absolutely stumped about all the controversy about (especially) the bathroom scene. Not only didn't I notice anything the first time I saw it, even after reading this thread the scene doesn't hit me like that. Odd ...
share[deleted]
Wait - don't normal guys get a woody from Lara???
'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.
It's a clear example of "protest too much." The people who are in a huff about this are trying to divert attention away from their own thoughts and desires, but of course it has the opposite effect.
"Passion is just insanity in a cashmere sweater!"
I think women might notice this more easily than men, because we are the ones who grew up with the rule You Cannot Show Your Panties In Public. We're the ones who have to watch our hemline when the wind blows our skirts around to make sure we are not inadvertently flashing.
The slip she was wearing in the bathroom with the rounded bottom hem was a very odd thing for her to be wearing. It looked like a super short go-go skirt. I half expected her to start shaking her hips and belting out Proud Mary! But it was the grey t-shirt on the swing that took the cake. When the wind started up, I couldn't help but think: How many shots were ruined, how many times did they have to stop and readjust the fans because everything seemed to be going good and then... flip...
PANTIES!
The shot would have worked just as well with the little girl in shorts, with the shirt artfully tucked and draped so that the shirt would blow in the wind, but was well-anchored enough so that women wouldn't be distracted with thoughts of you can't wear that in the wind! HOLD IT DOWN! lol It's almost as if they were trying way too hard to make her look like the little girl from The Ring.
Yes, if you really live with little girls you're going see their panties. That's life, it's nothing. But it's weird to shoot a movie where you are almost under threat at all times to get a non-consensual panty shot from a minor.
Horror movies are supposed to exploit the discomfort of the audience. I think they may have found something that discomforts those of us who had modesty ingrained in us by the time we were that little girl's age. It's not that we're afraid of seeing the panties, (because really, who cares?)... it's the danger of them showing.