X-Rated DVD Covers.....?
 

http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000V6LT7Q.jpg

Uhm....?

I thought this stuff shifted with the split?

-p

I just saw that myself. Guess the orange circles make it a family friendly torture chamber movie!

Holy crap, that cover just splashed on my screen as I was browsing Otterville (and with the missus walking by too - what a discussion that would have generated had she seen it :().

Looks like Amazon shows it that way. And that's been the rule about what's acceptable.

Yup, that one is making me quick on the scroll down wheel at work

I thought so too, I find it hypocritical that 'adult talk' moves yet the adult dvd covers (ahem) still remain in the DVD review section.

That cover is AWESOME.

He's really giving it to her huh?

I can't believe how much shit get's reviewed on this site. Does anyone really buy that crap?

Maybe it's just 'me', but I can't see it clearly enough to say if it's really that naughty or not!

(I actually tried to click on the image, hoping 'it' would enlarge, but sadly, 'it' didn't! http://www.fastlanehw.com/forums/ima...es/redface.gif )

However, if someone can make it 'click to enlarge', I might be able to see (with greater detail) what all the 'hub-hub' is all about! :lol:

-THEEK! :eek:

What I don't understand is the Geoff obviously prefers to have this stuff on the site and then Don Houston will run out to defend the placement of every possible pornographic image or depiction as if we're the ones that are wrong for even mentioning that material like this doesn't belong unexpectedly in the forum. I strongly disagree with that, but it's not my decision. I don't know why he won't just put his foot down on this (like he did on the guns discussion issue, which I do agree with him on) and just allow whatever content that he pleases on here and make the decision known.

Instead, sometimes virtually X-rated stuff like this pops up in the normal forums and isn't expected. If I knew what to expect with some consistency, I have no issue if shit like this pops up every now and again.

Looks like that chick is getting plowed by tanto.

I've got something you can click to enlarge...



















-wink-

Okay, BIG MAN...

Put yer monkey where yer mouse is!

*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*
*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*

[Insert cigarette smoking smilie here]

:lol:

-THEEKSAKE! :eek:

I thought it was an ad for Preparation H.

Noooo! Too many...Can't...Stop...Don't...AAAAAAaaauuuuuugh....

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1...ingheadse4.gif

Gee, thanks for dragging me into the thread unannounced.

The review in question is here: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31600

As far as my previous dedication to defending the faith on covers being shown on an adult site read by adults, your mileage may certainly vary. What got extremely old was the handful of same people pointing out every cover they didn't like and trying to generate ill will by providing the same argument on a regular basis, even after G! and the Admin/Mods would give the "If Amazon sells it..." speech. The strawman argument of my defending "the placement of every possible pornographic image or depiction" is false but I suspect you knew that, this being a variation of the theme that has been addressed scores of times too. For the record, he has "put his foot down" many times in the past but those who want things done their own way never cease to complain, the evolution of the website being such that moving all the TRULY pornographic titles catered to the needs of the few (but, as predicted, it will never be enough for the prudes).

G! is free to change what goes where and as one of his "inner circle" of friends, I will support his decision, but at this writing, the "Amazon sells it, it's fair game" rule still seems to apply. Maybe next we'll have certain people protesting specific adult text too... Good luck with your quest!

How did Amazon become the bar? You can buy dildo's on Amazon. So that means it would be ok to have dildo ads in the regular forums?

that cover is censored so what's wrong?

It's not like they are showing guns or anything. :lol:

Naaa, those would go to www.Xcritic.com. Besides, those are "novelties" and are designed for "stress relief". ;)

The other first question is probably best answered like this: They are one of the biggest retail websites on Earth, they are an affiliate, and they do "set a standard" of sorts by virtue of what they sell. Running a website like DVD Talk is a balancing act and various covers have been taken out of rotation in the past but many others still feel that a website like this should not try to be all things to all people; perhaps a coding solution by the nice folks at IB can assist the more sensitive...

Lunatikk, good point.

I"m not sensitive about it. I just like to bitch. ;)

OH-MAN!!! :lol:

*POP* goes the ronin! :lol:

Here ya go (from Amazon)

http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000V6LT7Q.jpg

[Edited - I don't think the intent of the "Amazon" rule was that the largest image you could find at Amazon would be appropriate for work. These review covers are thumbnails and even Amazon makes you click the thumbnail to get the larger image. -X]

I think this is a pretty valid complaint. As for your insistence on calling me prude (as you've done previously), I find that pretty offensive, as you are just trying to discredit a very valid complaint. You are free to believe what you'd like, but I'd appreciate you don't publicly label me, thanks.

You'll probably respond with a, "Well...I didn't mean *YOU*", since you are famous for generalizing.

-p

ps. The 'sniff' test for me is if it'd be something I'd publicly display in a typical store, in the plain view of all customers. Frankly, I'd consider the above as pornographic.

As long as I can remember, the policy has been, "If it's OK for Amazon, it's OK for DVD Talk." Many people disagree with that policy, but its enforcement has been very consistent over the years, IMO.

das

For the record, this cover is more disturbing. I will spoilerize it so as to not get anyone fired who clicks on it.

(Not safe for eyes!)

You've been involved in this particular type of argument in the past and your concerns were addressed at the time more than once. The first time you raise a "valid complaint" it is fine but repeatedly raising the issue puts it into "never happy" category. I abide by the rules here so no, I'm not going to single you out for your behavior (letting people read between the lines works just fine for me) but you seem mighty quick to label yourself; something "I" did not do. If you have a problem with my use of Senatorial rules or comments, you are free to ignore my posts or set me on "ignore" (I assure you, it won't hurt my feelings).

Again, it seems like there are a select group of people that will never be happy with whatever line is drawn by G! This was predicted long ago and brought up again a few months ago when the actual porn titles, not Asian cinema titles, were split off onto Xcritic. Everyone acknowledged that while the split would satisfy most people uncomfortable with the growing amount of adult entertainment material, the hardcore complainers would never be happy until DVD Talk was dumbed down to the lowest common denominator level. How many times has G! had to bring up the horror covers as examples of what some of you think is perfectly acceptable versus those mean old bikinis, cleavage, or other covers that apparently scare the crap out of a few of you?

In this particular case, the cover has stars censoring certain body parts. You can argue the defacto "Amazon" rule until you're blue in the face but as Das, X, myself, and others have pointed out; this has been the standard for years. And for the record, I never argued for this particular cover being in heavy rotation in all forums; I only pointed out what the rule has been and appears to still be in effect.

Bus: scary! ;)

Please show me where Geoff has "put his foot down" on the subject of quasi-pornographic depictions on this site. The standard line that I've read in the past feedback sections just like this thread is (paraphrased) DVDTalk just isn't really a safe site for work. And I'm fine with that, again, it is his site. But I "dragged" you into this argument because you appear in every argument like this and make the same points, never failing to call those who disagree with you "prudes."

What I would like to see is one instance where you have been on the side of something crossing the line on the main DVDTalk site. If I'm wrong and I've missed it, then I will apologize. But from the past feedback threads like this, I have never seen anything other than your steadfast defense of anything anyone else may find offensive and then (predictably) resorting to calling them prudes at some point or another.

Along with many others, I thought the X-Critic site was going to be a new driving focus for this kind of material. I also think that after reading Geoff's heartfelt and reasonable response on the Guns matter, that perhaps he could do the same on this matter. The Amazon rule is tough to push as the main rule because nobody knows what Amazon will or will not post until it just shows up here one day. All I would request is some consistency.

For those who are complaining, I think the "answer" is obvious.

If Amazon sells dildos which pictures, post dildo pictures in the random picture thread.

If Amazon has an offensive DVD cover, photoshop a DVDTalk member's head on it and post it in a photoshop thread.

It's all accepted now.

I think I found my new Christmas card this year..........

http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000V6LT7Q.jpg

I guess this is where I would find your argument irrational, and I would bet you think the same of mine. The idea that the "Torture Chamber" cover represents Asian Cinema and not Pornography is astounding to me. If that's not pornographic to you, and represents another niche such as Asian cinema, then there's nothing I could say or argue to make my case any clearer.

Especially after reading the review, I have to admit that I'd lump it under Asian cinema and not porn. I wouldn't put any of the more graphic Emmanuelle movies, releases by Severin Films (the self-described "Criterion of smut"), or those softcore genre spoofs with Misty Mundae and that whole crowd on XCritic either.

Fair enough. I still believe that the "Torture Chamber" cover certainly represents itself as pornography, and I can't imagine what would make that cover more explicit than those of actual hardcore pornography titles, but good point on the content itself.

The Amazon thing doesn't hold water. You have to actually be looking for "Torture Camber" or quasi porn movies on their site to see them. They don't just randomly pop up on any page.

I wonder how much ad revenue Geoff makes off of people who surf this site at work. It would make sense from a business standpoint to keep the site as work friendly as possible. I think everyone here can agree that this image would be considered nsfw; unless you work in the porn industry our something.

My msg disappeared...........?

-p

My previous post was lost in the blackhole, so here it is again.

Thank you mini-mod.

I have posted 2 MAYBE 3 times on this, that hardly equals "never happy". That is an assumption on your part, which doesn't make my concern any less valid.

Your veiled comments and generalizations are akin to the child who taunts others, and then run behind his mother ('rules' / 'authority'), while still taunting the others. Very classy indeed.....:rolleyes:

-p

I checked the log, and it doesn't look like anything's been deleted from this thread. Is it possible your message didn't make it through...?

I don't disagree there.

I support the "if it's on Amazon, it's fair game" school of thinking in general, and I'm not super-keen on the idea of someone having to manually check every cover to give it a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, but I don't think it's unreasonable for a user to point out that he thinks a particular cover is too much. If one of the review admins agrees, they can keep the review up but take the cover out of circulation in the forums. If they disagree, then they don't. :)

I personally don't have a problem with the image in question, but I can see why other people would object to it, and it is a more extreme case than chicks in bathing suits and the like that have inspired previous cover threads.

The basis of the Amazon argument is that they don't sell porn, so if they list a DVD, it's appropriate for this website.

No worries. Thanks for checking!

-p

Bathing suits and all that don't bother me, but this seemed pretty extreme, censored dots or not.

-p