Angelo

If it's done within the same context as the book, it will be doing the novel justice.

It would be good for society if non-exploitative nudity was left untouched in a mainstream film like HP, but alas, as commenters before me have already said, the studio wouldn't dare show a buttocks to Potter's audience in this day and age. The most we'll see is a few frames of an opaque wide shot.

This is probably the silliest poll ever.

Of course, everyone's going to see Mamma Mia!.

Luckily I'm in South America and there's little demand for an English only IMAX midnight screening. I bought 3 tickets this afternoon, $4.20 each.

Eugene, I completely agree. "The Happening" isn't as terrible as everyone's making it out to be. It's mediocre at best, but certainly not "Lady in the Water" bad.

The critics are getting hung up on Wahlberg's acting and the abysmal dialogue. There are some brilliant moments that save the film from a "0 star" rating. Mrs.Jones' scene was great (the camera work actually reminded me of "Signs", one of his better films). My favorite, though , was watching the construction workers jump and land. That scene was beautifully shot.

We have to commend Night for taking bold risks with his films. His stories may not always turn out quite like "The Sixth Sense", but at least he's always trying something new. Few writer/directors working with the studios can do that.

I miss the film reel logo...
Overall, though, this is a good change.

Why is everyone sexualizing the photo?
Oh right, her hair is disheveled and she's covering her nude body with a white sheet. That type of imagery does tend to suggest sex to a lot of people. In movies that kind of image usually means the character just had sex.

All I'm seeing is a beautiful shot of a young girl. And beautiful doesn't mean sexually gratifying. It's not alluring or erotic. We've all seen plenty of museum hung paintings of nude women barely covered, if at all, by sheets/robes/togas. Were those ever classified as "inappropriate"?

True, Miley is 15, and suggesting nudity (or sex) is a taboo act for minors.

It's art and age is irrelevant. And it's not like she's in a Playboy-esque pose. If you thought sexually suggestive when you saw the photo, well that's your interpretation of the artwork (probably influenced by what you see in movies and other media).

I thought it was more like a painting than child erotica, but that's just my interpretation.

And I'm thinking the photographer's (Annie Leibovitz) intent was art, not exploitation. What reason would she have to exploit a 15-year-old girl? She's a respected artist and has three children of her own.

I doubt Leibovitz would release the photos just to gain publicity for herself.

Even if she knew the photos would cause an uproar, she wouldn't have thought twice about her art or about releasing it. Since when did an artist care about the thoughts of mainstream society?

The main focal point of the photo is Miley's face, not her body. While your eye may migrate to her back next, it doesn't make it erotic. The bare back is only one aspect of the piece, which represents beauty not sex appeal. She's sitting on a stool not a bed. The brain only associates white sheets with a bed. Let's pretend she is on bed. All that says is that she sleeps naked. I've slept naked since I was in high school and more have slept naked all their lives. Is sleeping naked wrong? But she's not on a bed meaning the focus is not on her actions or the setting; it's on the neutral subject, Miley.

How is the photo not appropriate?


As for this photo being damaging to the fans (the children):
The "adults" are the ones who are causing harm by labeling such a photo as inappropriate and sexually suggestive and bringing the matter into the spotlight for everyone to notice. If the media hadn't created this controversy little attention would've been brought to the picture, and the "young" fans probably would have never known the photo existed. And if they did come across the photo they'd just see it as nice photo (that hardly even resembles Hannah Montana), maybe wonder why she was naked for a second, and move on and forget it. But now when they see it they'll say, "oh check it out thats that one photo that everyone's talking about, where Miley is all naked and sexy." They'll be left with a negative impressions of nudity and photography.

Great.

The straight males who cringe at the sight of a penis only do so to affirm their heterosexuality.

While in the privacy of their own homes those same guys masturbate to "straight porn" full of BJ scenes and cumshots.

American society as a whole has to understand that nudity doesn't always have to be about sexual arousal. The nude scenes presented in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and "Easter Promises" are perfect examples.

I also want to note that because of human anatomy, a full frontal nude man does not hold the same weight as a full frontal nude woman.

The female genitalia is easily hidden or vague in the casual state, and therefore showing female full frontal nudity is less 'explicit' than showing full male. Male anatomy, on the other hand, is more 'out there' and harder to hide.

This is one reason why nude females are more common on screen and accepted more by moviegoers.

Great way to start my day. Thanks Joystiq.

Gamespot- DNF review
"We expected more from a title my parents first told me about."

ahahahaa!!