Quoted from Guest Ok.  Hypothetically, would it be alright if Hannah was a barely legal 18?  Would that make for a much better script? I mean, after all, when a girl turns 18, she's allowed to get fucked 12 ways from Sunday in a porno flick -- and it's all legal. And there's no moral conclusion about that one -- regarding age, anyway.

From this it's almost as though you are saying there isn't much difference between a 14 and 18-year-old.

It wouldn't have made the script any better, but from a moral point of view there couldn't be any question, no debate. Yes, she's a little young, but it's legal and he's resisting. All good.

The best thing to do though really is for Michael to have another romantic interest. That would solve the problem. As a viewer we look for that, and the one between Michael and Hannah, leaves a bad taste.

Or it could stay the way it is and we could all realize that some people are the target demographic (people who can get their head around that fact) and some people who aren't the target demographic (people who can't). That solves the problem pretty easily as well, by admitting there isn't one.

I remember a film called The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane.  Great movie. It had Martin Sheen in it as a pedophile. It also had a 13 year old Jodi Foster shown completely nude and having sex. Just thought I would throw that in there.  

Quoted from Mr. Blonde Or it could stay the way it is and we could all realize that some people are the target demographic (people who can get their head around that fact) and some people who aren't the target demographic (people who can't). That solves the problem pretty easily as well, by admitting there isn't one.

Agreed

Quoted from Grandma Bear I remember a film called The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane.  Great movie. It had Martin Sheen in it as a pedophile. It also had a 13 year old Jodi Foster shown completely nude and having sex. Just thought I would throw that in there.

Can't go wrong with Martin Sheen.  

And let's not forget Jodie Foster playing a child prostitute in Taxi Driver, or 13yr old Linda Blair simulating masturbation with a crucifix in The Exorcist.

All of those films are from the 1970's.

In the 1960's Dr Who killed people. That was shown to kids. Also, British Carry On films often depicted much older men chasing after school girls. Similar thing with St Trinians. Even Hollywood movies would depict much older male stars with younger female stars as a normal thing. Today it would be the basis for the whole film, ie the problems a much older guy has dating a younger woman, etc. It's not treated as normal today. Precisely because it sends out the wrong message. If somebody can think of another reason we don't show middle-aged men chasing after school girls like it's a normal thing any more, I'd be happy to hear it.

Let's not forget Jodi Foster almost got Reagan assassinated.

Quoted from DustinBowcot All of those films are from the 1970's.

American Beauty  (1999)
The Crush (1993)
Lolita (1997)
An Education (2009)

You seem to be very fixated on this subject, Dustin.  More than anything my script should have made you.  I strongly suggest you step away from the topic.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe American Beauty  (1999) The Crush (1993) Lolita (1997) An Education (2009) You seem to be very fixated on this subject, Dustin.  More than anything my script should have made you.  I strongly suggest you step away from the topic. Phil

So it is me that is fixated on this subject? Interesting conclusion. My original post was pertinent to the thread, and I wasn't the only one to refer to a script at this site as an example of something 'off-putting' or a 'turn off' to reading. I didn't refer to your script by name, nor did I mention you. That was done by other members that want to argue against my reasons for not liking it and for some reason felt the need to mention both you and your script.

The argument could have easily stayed within context of the rights and wrongs of showing school girls fawning over much older men and the changing attitude of the film industry in regards to this. It's no longer acceptable for schoolgirls to be dating older men in films. Although child exploitation has played a huge role in Film throughout the years, it has certainly toned down in the 21st Century, and whenever done is handled responsibly.

I understand that I should just sit back and listen to what I'm told... unfortunately, I cannot do that.

Com'on everybody.  
How could you possibly find anything wrong with this?



The word "creepy" doesn't even come to mind.

Jordan

Quoted from Nomad Com'on everybody.   How could you possibly find anything wrong with this? The word "creepy" doesn't even come to mind. Jordan

Posing with grandpa. How cute.  

Ben Affleck definitely had sexuals with a 15-year-old in Mallrats.

Quoted from wonkavite This (Mark's Thistles scene)- and Dustin's comment before - goes to show that "turn-offs" can be a very personalized issue.

Gee - all I did that apparently triggered this flame-war was quote Blywings and Dustin to make the point that turnoffs can be very subjective.  Emotional hot-button issues for some can be non-issues for others.

And boy - did the ensuing thread prove that right!!  

And so, peeps - can't we all just... get along? *Sob*.

Let's move on to something less divisive.  Y'know, like everyone's thoughts on Kim Kardasian?

Quoted from DustinBowcot My original post was pertinent to the thread, and I wasn't the only one to refer to a script at this site as an example of something 'off-putting' or a 'turn off' to reading. I didn't refer to your script by name, nor did I mention you. That was done by other members that want to argue against my reasons for not liking it and for some reason felt the need to mention both you and your script.

Let's go back to the original topic of the thread, then:  What turns you off?

You know what turns me off?  When people review a script and criticize things that aren't in the script.  You did it here and back in The Devil's Jokebook script thread.

In the script's thread, you claimed that Michael and Hannah had sex.  You're the only one who says this.  In this thread, you state that Michael is hanging out with Hannah.  She is following him around like a lovesick puppy; he's pushing her away for most of the story.

You're seeing things that aren't there... maybe because you want to.


Phil

I think the more interesting question would be, is there any way to “fix it” without changing her age, or adding a completely superfluous character that would likely be thin and two dimensional as a result. Because that seems to be the main issue of the thread, is there a way to justify the use of a controversial element, or is it just flat out, no questions asked, always unacceptable?

Regarding the 14/1000yr old in question; what if her entire demonic purpose was to seduce, ensnare and obliterate sex predators? Would the concept of her being an avenger justify the sexualized image of a 14yr old? What if we could infer that the older protagonist definitely didn’t harbor sexual feelings towards her because if he did, he would’ve been eviscerated by now? Would that do the trick in sanitizing the relationship?

Bare in mind I haven’t read the script in question, and these aren’t notes, more of a thought experiment.

As for things that turn me off, I believe almost anything can be justified as a story element, and I’m very forgiving of scripts that fall short of the justification. Very rarely is the decision to include a controversial issue immediately justified upon inception. The writing and rewriting process is a gradual attempt to justify all story elements, both controversial and mundane (Do you really need that scene of your main character brushing their teeth? What happens when you take it out?)

Produced works I’m less forgiving about, but only because they’ve been labored over extensively. For instance, The Virgin Spring I regard as a classic. Last House on the Left (1972) I believe handled itself well enough to justify the hard to stomach material. Last House on the Left (2009), however felt like it was mainly green-lit on monetary grounds, overproduced sequences that should’ve remained grounded, and made changes to the story that substantially undermined its supposed themes.

I regard the first two films with respect. The third I was turned off by.