Doug Christie?

Neither are any pictures at all, hyperlinks, formatted text, paragraph breaks...but those are present to make the reviews more appealing. If you want to ensure that no big potentially offensive pictures appear while you're at work or in front of small, impressionable children, either:

1) don't view reviews of Wild Things or titles with the word "topless" in the title
2) hold off on viewing those sorts of titles when you're not at work or no longer in front of the tykes

I think it would be a shame to sacrifice something that would make a review more appealing to a large percentage of the readership to satisfy a small percentage.

1a. The point is, there was no way of knowing that there would be images like that in the review when you first click on it. Maybe I just haven't noticed it, but I don't recall seeing a ton of screenshots in previous reviews here. (And a quick scan of some recent reviews found none.) And I cannot find a single other DVD site that reviewed Wild Things (either the original release or the new one) that opted to include such inappropriate images.

To imply that I should have "expected" those pictures (as several posters have) doesn't wash...

1b. As mentioned, you are faced with that topless photo on the main page of Cineshlock, which you can get to many different ways without clicking a "topless" link. Someone looking for R. Lee Ermey's Mail Call surely isn't expecting topless pics. (At least I hope not!)

2. The point that I think some people are making is that these images are showing up in unexpected places. Should I really have to wait until I'm home and the kids are in bed before looking at DVDTalk (like some dirty old man)? Isn't a more reasonable solution is to ask reviewers to stop peppering their pages with boobie shots? Or at least place them on a separate link that you have to actively click, and know what is on the other side (as I've seen G. Noel Gross do on several occasions)?


To reiterate what Josh and I have said -- it is very easy to review/discuss R-rated violent/sexy films without filling the screen up with this stuff. Other sites and media outlets have been doing it for years... including this one, until recently.

I don't expect DVDTalk to become some G-rated, Disneyfied environment. But I don't think that topless photos and 'just barely hiding the nipple' sex images belong anywhere outside of the mature forum. And the fact that they seem to be showing up more often just means that I'll may be visiting less (as I mentioned above... at night... when no one's around.)

Two of the five most recent reviews have screenshots, including The Gene Krupa Story, the most recently added. I almost always incorporate them into my reviews, and Aaron Beierle uses some for dressing as well. Dunno much of anyone else who does here, though.

DVD Town opens with a photo of Denise Richards in a bathing suit similar to the first one you cited in your complaint. DVD Debate has a couple of similar shots, with the nipples Photoshopped out. If you move outside of strictly R1, DVD Fever has a caps more explicit than anything you cited from DVD Talk.

The vast majority of the reviews listed on DVD Basen didn't use any screenshots at all, offensive or no. I have to admit that I don't see "well, no one else is doing it" as a compelling reason to follow suit. What's the fun of being like everyone else?

Not that you should necessarily have expected those pictures, but...well, you'll have the word "TOPLESS" in big, bold letters on your screen. Maybe you don't want pictures of two girls kissing, even if there's nothing approximating nudity on the screen. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that there'll be some lurid content -- even if it's just plain, normal-sized text -- in a review about a lurid DVD.

The picture on the main Cineschlock page has two fully-clothed girls exposing some mid-riff and a little cleavage, but nothing excessive. From the main page, you have to click into that graphic (or text in a couple of places below the image) to see the covered-topless picture. The news link and the note on the front page expressly mention the "...Topless..." title, so I wouldn't count that in the same way. The only really 'tricky' way is if you were reading just the main reviews section, clicked on a title like Mail Call, and then clicked on the Cineschlock link.

I guess my line of thinking is -- when I write a review of a zombie movie, I usually incorporate a screenshot of someone gutting munched on. When I write a review about a concert DVD, I put up a screenshot of the band performing. If I were writing a review for a DVD on how to bake a cake, I'd probably have a shot of a nicely-decorated cake somewhere on there. I don't think anyone here is going out of their way to incorporate nudity into their reviews, but people interested in reading about Wild Things or Topless Academy's Guide to Bartending are more than likely watching those movies for their more lurid aspects. Writing a review that appeals to those sensibilities is in keeping with the material.

Ditto what Adam wrote. The "topless bartending" photos are not in the main review, they are off on a link on their own with heavy suggestions (in the Cine-0-Schlok manner)

The Wild Thing photos are in the main review. But if you saw the first one, you can get out of the review quick and not be subjected to the rest.

Inappropiate to what? And to whom? To work? To a family gathring of sitting around the computer and reading DVDTalk reviews of Wild Things? Give me a break.

How about not opening Yahoo at work or at home during family hours because all kinds of photos pass through the wires unexpectantly. You see plenty of boobage on a normal day on Yahoo News Photos or Most Popular

I agree to an extent. But the problem I have is with the review cover pictures that just randomly pop up in all forums. There's no way to avoid the "topless" review cover when it just randomly pops up in sports talk, video game talk, etc.

I still don't think those pictures add anything to the reviews. But then again I'm not the typical net geek that can't get laid either (not implying that anyone here is, but I don't see why anyone else would like a review better with those pics than without).

But it's 100 pixels wide -- any boobies would be be at most, what, 20 pixels? They also don't appear in an area with any forum text, so they'd almost certainly be scrolled past and wouldn't linger on the screen for any length of time. It's not even really topless. To use an example from a response of mine from a previous tirade of yours, the title in question is really no worse than a shot of a cover from a Sports Illustrated swimsuit DVD.

Screenshots add a little flair to a review that would otherwise be just text.

I don't think most people who are interested in reading about Wild Things, a movie whose appeal revolves entirely around sex, nudity, and cleavage, would be offended by the presence of sex, nudity, or cleavage in a review of it.

Right.........

This thread needs more Peep!

* * *

For the record, I don't have internet access at work but if I did I doubt I'd log on to surf DVD Talk even during my lunchbreak: I prefer to take time away from the computer screen.

Obviously the pressure is off, but when I am at home I scarcely notice the cover shots. I do register slightly when it is "adult" time in the USA and some of the racier shots are in rotation.

Which would also be totally inappropriate at work.

Sure, but like the other poster suggested, it doesn't have to be sexual picutures.

And many, myself included, have said we aren't personally offended by that stuff, but worry about others at work or in our family being offended by it.

To play Devil's Advocate, maybe someones at work and wants to read the Wild Things review to see how good the DVD is (A/V quality extra's etc.). I'd argue that's what most read the reviews for, other than the people that just blind buy films they haven't seen. Thus, these people were just wanting to read some reviews of the technical aspects of the DVD, and all of a sudden have near nudity and lesbian-themed content on their screen.

What can I say, you have to be cautious when expressing the truth here.

Which is why I don't have internet access at home, and a lot of times not even a computer as I use my laptop at work and usually just leave it in my office when I leave.

Where is the line drawn? If it's acceptable to have on display on a newsstand or in a grocery store, I wouldn't think it's inappropriate for this site. If it can be shown on network television, I wouldn't think it's inappropriate for the site. You don't even want material that would be rated PG in these reviews.

...but your "other than..." encompasses an overwhelming percentage of the readership. Even the smaller, independent, under-the-radar titles reviewed at DVD Talk amass a decent number of page views. There are other, stronger motivations that compel people to click on DVD Talk's reviews than strictly a search for technical information. Peeking at the stats, I think a lot of people use DVD Talk a resource to learn about titles they wouldn't have heard about otherwise.

OK, as before I think this topic has been well discussed. Thanks for raising the issue we'll do our best to be sensative to it.