It does trouble me that this is happening whilst this is going on. The enormous controversy over the Bill Henson pictures in question has been adequately documented, in Australia at least, and should be quite easy to find. Basically, non-sexualised images of minors caused a mammoth uproar, a gallery closing, other galleries with his pictures in their collections under investigation, and the tarnishing of one of the most successful photographers to come out of Australia, who had been doing similar work without a problem for a couple of decades. Yet it's ok to plaster Lautner around, sexualised, buff, half-naked, when he is also a minor. Sure, he's not showing his doodle, but the principle remains.
Look, I don't really have a problem with Lautner being used like this. I don't. Whatever. My problem is with the hypocrisy. Do you think anyone put up a fight about those Twilight images being used in Australia? No. But god-forbid an acclaimed photographer should take a photo of a naked teenager in a gloomy setting, almost post-apocalyptic, that no normal person would find titillating. I'm sure there are pedophiles out there who got a kick out of it. And I'm sure the same people are reaching into their pants every time that Twilight trailer comes on.
Come on, people. Use your heads. The destruction of art isn't the answer. Appropriateness for audience and mass-consumption is more relevant than a gallery artist. Tens of thousands of people saw Henson's exhibition at the Art Gallery of NSW, and then a couple of years later one person takes issue with an invitation sent out to the opening of his new collection at a small, independent art gallery and criminal charges are laid (though I don't believe they ever came to fruition.)
Excuse the crudity, but if there had been a second person in the image, and they were suggestively posed, or there was a boy with a hard-on or something, then sure, charge away. You'd have my full support, and I dare say that of most of the artistic community worldwide. But these images are so far from sexual it's absurd.
End rant.
Showing posts with label Twilight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twilight. Show all posts
Monday, 11 January 2010
Monday, 7 December 2009
Kiddie Porn.
How's that for an attention grabbing headline?
But seriously. Taylor Lautner. Being used as a major marketing hook for the most recent Twilight. Pushed out there in all his buff glory. He's a child. He's seventeen! I understand that the target market for this film may be teenage girls, but the rest of the world is watching as well. They're watching, they're perving, they're lusting, and he's seventeen. It's close to eighteen, he's almost legal, surely he's close enough, right?
It baffles me that this is all ok when people create such a do about fifteen year old models wearing clothes on catwalks. That a film like Ken Park can be banned in Australia for depicting underage sex (between actors who are, actually, of age) when, arguably, they are sexualised to a far lesser degree than Lautner is in this film. Why must he be built (he put on 30 pounds of muscle or something for the role), buff (his body is spectacular, when you move away from the fact that he is, in the eyes of the law, pretty much a child) and waxed to within an inch of his life. Why does he need to be so highly manicured and manipulated to be this idea of perfection? What does that add to the character? What does it add to the film, other than fangirl (and fanboy) hysteria pushing the film up by another $100mil? It's a bottom-line requirement, and doesn't that effectively make it akin to kiddie porn? Really? Sure, he's not 10, but there's not a great deal of room for distinction - it's a black and white world we live in.
I guess the argument could be made that the film is an allegory pertaining to abstinence, and that by making him such an attractive being in such a sexual way it is promoting quite the opposite of carnal knowledge. Yes, he's attractive, but we shouldn't fuck him because he's a werewolf and therefore we should abstain. At least until we're married (though isn't he too young to marry?) So his sexual power is just another temptation against which we must rail in order that we may create glory to... that big man in the sky.
I don't buy it. He's seventeen. End of story. Sure, craft Robert Pattinson into a sex symbol. He's at least 23, even if I don't get the attraction. But don't deliberately manufacture a symbol who is this young. It's exactly the same as walking a girl down a runway with a see-through blouse. Worse, I'd argue, because this film is going to be seen by a hell of a lot more people than snaps of the latest Prada collection, or whatever. Most people will only see that girl's photos when the news makes a big deal about it. Everyone, everyone will see Taylor Lautner with his shirt off at some stage. And everyone will feel a rustling in their loins. And everyone over the age of eighteen should be ashamed of that.
I'd post a picture to illustrate, but I think that would be the ultimate hypocrisy. If you google him you'll find the pictures in nanoseconds.
But seriously. Taylor Lautner. Being used as a major marketing hook for the most recent Twilight. Pushed out there in all his buff glory. He's a child. He's seventeen! I understand that the target market for this film may be teenage girls, but the rest of the world is watching as well. They're watching, they're perving, they're lusting, and he's seventeen. It's close to eighteen, he's almost legal, surely he's close enough, right?
It baffles me that this is all ok when people create such a do about fifteen year old models wearing clothes on catwalks. That a film like Ken Park can be banned in Australia for depicting underage sex (between actors who are, actually, of age) when, arguably, they are sexualised to a far lesser degree than Lautner is in this film. Why must he be built (he put on 30 pounds of muscle or something for the role), buff (his body is spectacular, when you move away from the fact that he is, in the eyes of the law, pretty much a child) and waxed to within an inch of his life. Why does he need to be so highly manicured and manipulated to be this idea of perfection? What does that add to the character? What does it add to the film, other than fangirl (and fanboy) hysteria pushing the film up by another $100mil? It's a bottom-line requirement, and doesn't that effectively make it akin to kiddie porn? Really? Sure, he's not 10, but there's not a great deal of room for distinction - it's a black and white world we live in.
I guess the argument could be made that the film is an allegory pertaining to abstinence, and that by making him such an attractive being in such a sexual way it is promoting quite the opposite of carnal knowledge. Yes, he's attractive, but we shouldn't fuck him because he's a werewolf and therefore we should abstain. At least until we're married (though isn't he too young to marry?) So his sexual power is just another temptation against which we must rail in order that we may create glory to... that big man in the sky.
I don't buy it. He's seventeen. End of story. Sure, craft Robert Pattinson into a sex symbol. He's at least 23, even if I don't get the attraction. But don't deliberately manufacture a symbol who is this young. It's exactly the same as walking a girl down a runway with a see-through blouse. Worse, I'd argue, because this film is going to be seen by a hell of a lot more people than snaps of the latest Prada collection, or whatever. Most people will only see that girl's photos when the news makes a big deal about it. Everyone, everyone will see Taylor Lautner with his shirt off at some stage. And everyone will feel a rustling in their loins. And everyone over the age of eighteen should be ashamed of that.
I'd post a picture to illustrate, but I think that would be the ultimate hypocrisy. If you google him you'll find the pictures in nanoseconds.
Sunday, 29 November 2009
Good Lordy.
Weekend box office figures for the States have just been published over at Box Office Mojo and they were a bit surprising.
Firstly, Twilight II plummeted. Plum. Met. Ed. If estimates hold up it dropped 70% from last weekend. With such a big opening it was always going to drop big - The Dark Knight dropped over 50% and Spider-Man 3 dropped over 60%. But that's still a steep drop for something with this exposure. Still, a mammoth hit.
The Blind Side, the new Sandra Bullock film, grew over the Thanksgiving holiday. Quite significantly. It was her biggest opening ever last weekend, and added 17% this weekend to cross $100mil in ten days. That's pretty damn good for her. As in, it will probably become her highest grosser by a long margin.
Precious continued to do well. I don't know what expansion plans there are, but I imagine they'll be rolling out a little wider to bump it back up in the rankings - its screen average is good enough to warrant.
The Fantastic Mr Fox opened fairly poorly, I reckon, in a decently wide release.
The Road finally went out on only 111 screens, and pulled in an ok crowd, logging almost $14k per screen. I actually thought the divisive reviews would kill this, but it might just end up pulling through all right. I really want to see it.
By far the most astonishing feat, however, was the newest Disney 2D animation effort. The Princess and the Frog opened in two theatres and pulled in (wait for it...) over $700k. That's over $350,000 a site! Seriously, in terms of per site averages, that's the third biggest on record after The Lion King (which did close to $800k per. site.) and Pocahontas. And we all gasped for air when Precious did its $104k/site on 18 (which is still impressive, because no film has ever done that kind of money per site at that many theatres.) Holy Gemini.
Firstly, Twilight II plummeted. Plum. Met. Ed. If estimates hold up it dropped 70% from last weekend. With such a big opening it was always going to drop big - The Dark Knight dropped over 50% and Spider-Man 3 dropped over 60%. But that's still a steep drop for something with this exposure. Still, a mammoth hit.
The Blind Side, the new Sandra Bullock film, grew over the Thanksgiving holiday. Quite significantly. It was her biggest opening ever last weekend, and added 17% this weekend to cross $100mil in ten days. That's pretty damn good for her. As in, it will probably become her highest grosser by a long margin.
Precious continued to do well. I don't know what expansion plans there are, but I imagine they'll be rolling out a little wider to bump it back up in the rankings - its screen average is good enough to warrant.
The Fantastic Mr Fox opened fairly poorly, I reckon, in a decently wide release.
The Road finally went out on only 111 screens, and pulled in an ok crowd, logging almost $14k per screen. I actually thought the divisive reviews would kill this, but it might just end up pulling through all right. I really want to see it.
By far the most astonishing feat, however, was the newest Disney 2D animation effort. The Princess and the Frog opened in two theatres and pulled in (wait for it...) over $700k. That's over $350,000 a site! Seriously, in terms of per site averages, that's the third biggest on record after The Lion King (which did close to $800k per. site.) and Pocahontas. And we all gasped for air when Precious did its $104k/site on 18 (which is still impressive, because no film has ever done that kind of money per site at that many theatres.) Holy Gemini.
Sunday, 22 November 2009
It's Official.
The Twilight Saga: New Moon just had the third biggest opening weekend on record in the States, after The Dark Knight and Spiderman 3 - provided estimates hold up, but I strongly doubt they'll be out by US$5mil. It held better over Sat and Sun than its predecessor, but still took more than half of its gross on opening Friday.
It definitely won't hold on to the US$500mil+ take of TDK, but if it holds as well as the first one (and I'm not totally sure that it will - I think expectation will result in it being significantly more frontloaded) it would have have a shot of eclipsing Spidey 3's US$336mil final.
Regardless, global estimates are up over US$250mil for the weekend, which is pretty exceptional.
It definitely won't hold on to the US$500mil+ take of TDK, but if it holds as well as the first one (and I'm not totally sure that it will - I think expectation will result in it being significantly more frontloaded) it would have have a shot of eclipsing Spidey 3's US$336mil final.
Regardless, global estimates are up over US$250mil for the weekend, which is pretty exceptional.
Saturday, 21 November 2009
Meanwhile...
...early estimates for the opening day of the new Twilight film (officially - The Twilight Saga: New Moon) put the take for the day at a little under US$73mil from the States alone. Keeping in mind that the previous biggest was for The Dark Knight at slightly over US$67mil.
Now, this Twilight picture won't, I don't think, have the same sort of staying power over its opening weekend as The Dark Knight had. But this kickoff could see it as a challenger to the biggest opening weekend of all time, a record currently held by TDK with US$158mil over three days. Seeing as that is only a little more than double Twilight's one day gross, I think it might have a chance.
I don't think it has a change of reaching the US$533mil that TDK did in the States alone. Twilight will be horribly more frontloaded. But still, Summit will be loving it. I don't know how much this one cost to make, but the first was something like US$37mil and grossed freaking heaps globally. This one is going bigger, and can't be a US$100mil film.
Laughing. All. The. Way. To. The. Bank.
Sad for TDK, though. I liked that film. Haven't seen either Twilight, but don't think they'll be capable of holding much of a candle.
Now, this Twilight picture won't, I don't think, have the same sort of staying power over its opening weekend as The Dark Knight had. But this kickoff could see it as a challenger to the biggest opening weekend of all time, a record currently held by TDK with US$158mil over three days. Seeing as that is only a little more than double Twilight's one day gross, I think it might have a chance.
I don't think it has a change of reaching the US$533mil that TDK did in the States alone. Twilight will be horribly more frontloaded. But still, Summit will be loving it. I don't know how much this one cost to make, but the first was something like US$37mil and grossed freaking heaps globally. This one is going bigger, and can't be a US$100mil film.
Laughing. All. The. Way. To. The. Bank.
Sad for TDK, though. I liked that film. Haven't seen either Twilight, but don't think they'll be capable of holding much of a candle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
