4 ms·

I respectfully disagree. I haven't seen cuties, but I just watched the trailer. The movie may be a good thoughtful coming of age movie, but the trailer (at leas

by _gabe_ 4y ago

I respectfully disagree. I haven't seen cuties, but I just watched the trailer. The movie may be a good thoughtful coming of age movie, but the trailer (at least in my opinion) did not characterize that at all. If I watch a trailer and it seems to indicate a movie that's about the sexualization of very young girls, I think it's perfectly fine for me to cancel my subscription without watching the movie. You may disagree with that sentiment, and that's fine, but I think that many people who did not watch the movie had seen the trailer and had a similar reaction that I just had.

aftbit 4y ago
I'm not sure you're disagreeing. It seems more like you are proving the parent post's point. You didn't watch the movie, yet you had an emotional reaction to it anyway, and used that to make a decision about the service. The parent isn't saying that's unethical or anything, just that the movie is being mischaracterized by people who did not watch it.
- _gabe_ 4y ago
  Because I choose not to watch something that implies it may be sexualizing young girls? So by this logic if you see a trailer for a movie that's highlighting the dangers of child pornography, but from the trailer it seems to be showing and possibly promoting child pornography, and I choose not to watch that because I don't want to unwittingly view a film that promotes child pornography, I have now unreasonably cast judgment on this film? I don't think that it's unfair for me to criticize a film if the way they promote it seems to insinuate it's a film about ethically horrendous and illegal material. The producers created the trailer to promote the film. If the trailer looks like it's promoting ethically perverse material, I have every right to cast my judgment at that point and say this film is not for me. I'm not going to sit through a film that seemingly promotes itself as the sexualization of young girls because someone told me that it has a good message at the end. And that's fine. And it's fine for people to cancel a subscription because of that presumption. I'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to stuff like this.
  - dboreham 4y ago
    Argument would have been more compelling if it had begun "Oh I see your point, so I just sat down and watched the whole movie and after that I still think..."
  - margaretdouglas 4y ago
    The marketing material for the movie was absolute dog water. I agree with your position there, but wish you'd take other sources and allow them to add color to your reaction to something you have only a single perspective on. Perhaps they could in form you that your reaction, based on bad information, is inaccurate. Perhaps you could use that realization as an opportunity to view the film yourself and come to your own conclusion based on the new information that your initial reaction was heavily biased based on an inaccurate portrayal of the material.
    - _gabe_ 4y ago
      I'm genuinely curious then. Is the IMDB parents guide enough of an outside perspective for me to determine whether or not I want to watch a film? I'll frequently look it up to see if the film contains any material that I don't want to see, and I'll avoid the film if I get a bad perception from the parents guide. After reading the parents guide about this film it has only reinforced what I originally thought from the trailer. I'm fine with watching a documentary that highlights the evils of the sexualization of young girls, but I'm not going to watch: > Frequent scenes of 11-year-old girls dancing lewdly where the camera pans in and zooms in on the children's buttocks and midsections (both still in skin-tight clothes) Close up shots of the girls dancing with their leg spread above their head while camera focus on crotch area. These views are fairly frequent. And much more content like that just to get to the conclusion that the sexualization of young girls is evil. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/parentalguide/nudity https://m.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/parentalguide/nudity
  - karaterobot 4y ago
    Yes, it is unreasonable to cast judgment on something you have no knowledge of. You may cast judgment on the trailer if you like, since you've seen that, but not the film, which you haven't seen. I don't find this complicated, having seen many trailers that don't accurately portray the films they're advertising, just as I've seen many books that shouldn't be judged by their covers.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  Another way to interpret the GP is that even if the movie itself was a great coming-of-age story, the trailer Netflix made to promote it was disgusting and unacceptable. That seems reasonable enough to me. (Note that I’ve watched neither the movie nor the trailer.)
  - nicolas_t 4y ago
    Ok, that I'll concede, the trailer which I saw after watching the movie was really really bad. Very poor and tone deaf marketing.
danlugo92 4y ago
Read yourself.
mbostleman 4y ago
This post is getting downvoted, but it does bring up an interesting point. The idea of judging a book by it's cover seems to be universally criticized. But especially with movie trailers, it can be unambiguously clear how the movie is being sold and what the intent is. I haven't seen Cuties or its trailer, so I'm not speaking specifically about it. But I would say trailers say quite a bit more about a movie than covers say about books. OP said that the movie was actually a criticism of child sexualization. If that's the case (which it may or may not be) and the trailer would generally be considered as instead selling child sexualization (which it may or may not), then there's something missing unless the trailer is being ironic, which seems unlikely given that the topic doesn't seem like a very appropriate subject for irony.

by _gabe_ 4y ago

aftbit 4y ago

I'm not sure you're disagreeing. It seems more like you are proving the parent post's point. You didn't watch the movie, yet you had an emotional reaction to it anyway, and used that to make a decision about the service. The parent isn't saying that's unethical or anything, just that the movie is being mischaracterized by people who did not watch it.

_gabe_ 4y ago
Because I choose not to watch something that implies it may be sexualizing young girls? So by this logic if you see a trailer for a movie that's highlighting the dangers of child pornography, but from the trailer it seems to be showing and possibly promoting child pornography, and I choose not to watch that because I don't want to unwittingly view a film that promotes child pornography, I have now unreasonably cast judgment on this film? I don't think that it's unfair for me to criticize a film if the way they promote it seems to insinuate it's a film about ethically horrendous and illegal material. The producers created the trailer to promote the film. If the trailer looks like it's promoting ethically perverse material, I have every right to cast my judgment at that point and say this film is not for me. I'm not going to sit through a film that seemingly promotes itself as the sexualization of young girls because someone told me that it has a good message at the end. And that's fine. And it's fine for people to cancel a subscription because of that presumption. I'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to stuff like this.
- dboreham 4y ago
  Argument would have been more compelling if it had begun "Oh I see your point, so I just sat down and watched the whole movie and after that I still think..."
- margaretdouglas 4y ago
  The marketing material for the movie was absolute dog water. I agree with your position there, but wish you'd take other sources and allow them to add color to your reaction to something you have only a single perspective on. Perhaps they could in form you that your reaction, based on bad information, is inaccurate. Perhaps you could use that realization as an opportunity to view the film yourself and come to your own conclusion based on the new information that your initial reaction was heavily biased based on an inaccurate portrayal of the material.
  - _gabe_ 4y ago
    I'm genuinely curious then. Is the IMDB parents guide enough of an outside perspective for me to determine whether or not I want to watch a film? I'll frequently look it up to see if the film contains any material that I don't want to see, and I'll avoid the film if I get a bad perception from the parents guide. After reading the parents guide about this film it has only reinforced what I originally thought from the trailer. I'm fine with watching a documentary that highlights the evils of the sexualization of young girls, but I'm not going to watch: > Frequent scenes of 11-year-old girls dancing lewdly where the camera pans in and zooms in on the children's buttocks and midsections (both still in skin-tight clothes) Close up shots of the girls dancing with their leg spread above their head while camera focus on crotch area. These views are fairly frequent. And much more content like that just to get to the conclusion that the sexualization of young girls is evil. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/parentalguide/nudity https://m.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/parentalguide/nudity
- karaterobot 4y ago
  Yes, it is unreasonable to cast judgment on something you have no knowledge of. You may cast judgment on the trailer if you like, since you've seen that, but not the film, which you haven't seen. I don't find this complicated, having seen many trailers that don't accurately portray the films they're advertising, just as I've seen many books that shouldn't be judged by their covers.
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
Another way to interpret the GP is that even if the movie itself was a great coming-of-age story, the trailer Netflix made to promote it was disgusting and unacceptable. That seems reasonable enough to me. (Note that I’ve watched neither the movie nor the trailer.)
- nicolas_t 4y ago
  Ok, that I'll concede, the trailer which I saw after watching the movie was really really bad. Very poor and tone deaf marketing.

danlugo92 4y ago

Read yourself.

mbostleman 4y ago

This post is getting downvoted, but it does bring up an interesting point. The idea of judging a book by it's cover seems to be universally criticized. But especially with movie trailers, it can be unambiguously clear how the movie is being sold and what the intent is. I haven't seen Cuties or its trailer, so I'm not speaking specifically about it. But I would say trailers say quite a bit more about a movie than covers say about books. OP said that the movie was actually a criticism of child sexualization. If that's the case (which it may or may not be) and the trailer would generally be considered as instead selling child sexualization (which it may or may not), then there's something missing unless the trailer is being ironic, which seems unlikely given that the topic doesn't seem like a very appropriate subject for irony.