Banning of "Adult" films
-
MmzHrrdb
- Your TCI: na
Banning of "Adult" films
This new thing of automatically rejecting the submission of a film listed on IMDB as "adult" is completely ridiculous. There are so many relatively obscure masterpieces that should be on this site but merely because of their sexual content they'll now be marginalized. IMDB's definition of "adult" (and therefore pornographic and not worth putting up of this site - a stupid and puritan way of thinking that the webmasters here seem to have adopted) is also too hazy to use as way to filter out all pornographic material anyway. I've just tried putting up Radley Metzger's "The Image" (which while does have hardcore elements is much more than simply a porno meant to only arouse - if it is porn then so is In The Realm Of The Senses, Ken Park, Shortbus, 9 Songs, Caligula etc) and Jess Franco's "Female Vampire" (which is a cult/erotic/horror film available in many different versions - most of which do not contain hardcore material) and were not accepted. I really hope this changes soon.
Re: Banning of "Adult" films
This was the topic of a similar discussion, recently:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=693
Hopefully, the content of that post answers your question -- the brief gist of it is, we're just not ready to have pornographic material at Criticker. Since we don't have the resources to fully and fairly review every film submission for whether it's "acceptable", we need a line in the sand as to what is "adult" and what's not. IMDB provides that.
We totally understand your point, and agree with it. But until we have more resources to make case-by-case judgments, the sometimes-silly classification supplied by IMDB is what we'll use.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=693
Hopefully, the content of that post answers your question -- the brief gist of it is, we're just not ready to have pornographic material at Criticker. Since we don't have the resources to fully and fairly review every film submission for whether it's "acceptable", we need a line in the sand as to what is "adult" and what's not. IMDB provides that.
We totally understand your point, and agree with it. But until we have more resources to make case-by-case judgments, the sometimes-silly classification supplied by IMDB is what we'll use.