Netflix's "Cuties" - The Preteen Sexual Objectification Equivalent of "Funny Games"

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
ArthuriusMartyrius said:
An interview with France24 that was published earlier this year. Weirdly enough, I can't find it anymore when it used to be page 1 or 2 on Google search. They still haven't scrubbed that the producer of Cuties is a dual-citizen though.

EDIT: Nope, they did. LMAO.

View attachment 1614920
Click to expand...
Sylvain de Zangroniz is the producer of Cuties (and Maman(s) as well). The director is Maïmouna Doucouré, and I thought you meant her. Anyway, I tried a quick search on Duckduckgo and on Yandex, and I see lots of comments and discussion referencing him as French-Israeli, but indeed, official sources seem to be scrubbed. Good catch!
 
Super-Chevy454 said:
Clownfish TV vlogged about the weird decision of Netflix to cancel The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance while they keep Cuties!? WTF??
https://youtube.com/watch?v=X6yYm4DJ7yc
Click to expand...

Even if they got rid of Cuties; it's too late, at this point - they would still need to drop Dark Crystal. (how many millions of subs/billions of dollars did they lose because they insisted on white knighting/virtue signaling for an indie film director and her pedo bait film?)

Hopefully, a new network picks up the series. It would be a shame to see an Emmy Award winning series simply die like that.
 
Super-Chevy454 said:
Clownfish TV vlogged about the weird decision of Netflix to cancel The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance while they keep Cuties!? WTF??
https://youtube.com/watch?v=X6yYm4DJ7yc
Click to expand...
I heard it was because it kinda expensive to produce (think of all those puppet)

Also speaking of cuties, you can show the problem of hypersexualisation of children cleverly and subtily, what this movie didn't do. If the slutification of preteen wasn't that obvious the movie will fall into obscurity. If you remove all the shocking part cutie isn't a interessing movie. It only trive via it shock factor.
I don't know if Maimouna Doucouré don't have the skill and subtility or actually is smarter than we think will playing the shock value game
 
SecretChihiroResistance said:
Babylon Bee is a better version of the Onion btw if anyone wants to follow a similar account.
Click to expand...

Quite.

I'll just leave this here:

[ link | archive ]

Netflix Adds Warning Before 'Cuties' That It Is A Product Of Its Time When People Didn't Know Any Better
September 16th, 2020

LOS GATOS, CA—Netflix has encountered intense objections to its movie Cuties for its sexualized depiction of children. The streaming service has now decided to show the movie in its entirety but has added a warning before the movie to give it context. The warning reads:

“WARNING: This movie is shown as it originally aired, including depictions of sexuality that make most non-pedophiles uncomfortable. It is a product of its time, and should be viewed in that context.”

“We think this is the right move,” said Bob Netflix, Netflix founder and CEO. “If we removed every movie that reflects terrible morals, we’d have no movies from the era of Cuties. It just needs context.”

This move hasn’t satisfied everyone, as many still think the sexualized depiction of children is wrong, even with the added context. Cuties has been defended by movie critics, though, who think it’s important to show the movie as it was originally intended and who note that it was an attempt to criticize sexualizing children, making it almost forward-thinking for its era. Also defending the movie: weirdo pervs.
 
31D54214-FABA-4F5B-8FB2-5E4DA942D2E5.png
 
Robert Sanvagene said:
Quite.

I'll just leave this here:

[ link | archive ]

Netflix Adds Warning Before 'Cuties' That It Is A Product Of Its Time When People Didn't Know Any Better
September 16th, 2020

LOS GATOS, CA—Netflix has encountered intense objections to its movie Cuties for its sexualized depiction of children. The streaming service has now decided to show the movie in its entirety but has added a warning before the movie to give it context. The warning reads:

“WARNING: This movie is shown as it originally aired, including depictions of sexuality that make most non-pedophiles uncomfortable. It is a product of its time, and should be viewed in that context.”

“We think this is the right move,” said Bob Netflix, Netflix founder and CEO. “If we removed every movie that reflects terrible morals, we’d have no movies from the era of Cuties. It just needs context.”

This move hasn’t satisfied everyone, as many still think the sexualized depiction of children is wrong, even with the added context. Cuties has been defended by movie critics, though, who think it’s important to show the movie as it was originally intended and who note that it was an attempt to criticize sexualizing children, making it almost forward-thinking for its era. Also defending the movie: weirdo pervs.
Click to expand...

While it is hilarious that they have to add this warning, some of the wording is troubling. "This movie is shown as it originally aired, including depictions of sexuality that make most non-pedophiles uncomfortable."

So they openly admit that pedophiles are totally cool with this? I thought the whole point was to fight against child sexualization, but now that you're openly saying that it makes non-pedos (ie, normal people) uncomfortable, aren't you admitting that it makes pedophiles comfortable?

Also, why are they labeling us as "non-pedophiles"? I feel like we're the normal ones here and don't need to be designated as anything in this discussion. It makes it feel like the number of pedophiles are there is a large enough group to be a demographic or something.

albertbrown26 said:
View attachment 1617158
Click to expand...

Resetera gonna Resetera.
 
RumblyTumbly said:
While it is hilarious that they have to add this warning, some of the wording is troubling. "This movie is shown as it originally aired, including depictions of sexuality that make most non-pedophiles uncomfortable."

So they openly admit that pedophiles are totally cool with this? I thought the whole point was to fight against child sexualization, but now that you're openly saying that it makes non-pedos (ie, normal people) uncomfortable, aren't you admitting that it makes pedophiles comfortable?

Also, why are they labeling us as "non-pedophiles"? I feel like we're the normal ones here and don't need to be designated as anything in this discussion. It makes it feel like the number of pedophiles are there is a large enough group to be a demographic or something.
Click to expand...

Dude, that’s a Babylon Bee article.
 
RumblyTumbly said:
Oops...

I welcome all dumb and autistic ratings then, lol.
Click to expand...

To be fair, it's a brilliantly crafted piece of satire that works on several levels. The type of satire that can easily catch people unawares.

BScCollateral said:
In present year, I cannot find it in my heart to mock someone for thinking satire is reality.
Click to expand...

Given how much of a shitshow present year is, I concur.
 
Lemmingwise said:
I wonder why

View attachment 1631907
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, joking about Skeksis being Jew stand-ins is something that any sane person should place firmly in the category of 4chan shitposting.

Also, do these people not realize that basically everyone (including the aforementioned 4chan shitposters) considers them the best characters anyways?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom