Given the variety in shapes, sizes and sexualities depicted, this could roughly be a description of the fandom, really. (Minus an appalling lack of Lucius, though.)
I'd like to think it's the nice kind of elitist, where you get to fluff your hair flirtatiously and get lots of shiny, rather than the kind that invites more wank than one can shake a stick at.
Oh, but of course. Not that I want to be fair more than really necessary, but fluffing for the nefarious purposes of luring innocents is half the fun. That's how you lot sucked me in, after all.
The superiority cannot be denied! ^^ Americans are such squares. I laugh every time they CENSOR another movie. Yes, censor. But it's a free country, right?
I've always found it strange how they tolerate all kinds of explicit violence but not sex or even nudity. When Janet Jackson had her little garment problem on live TV there was this huge uproar, but erm. Every single normal baby gets to see not one but two breasts close-up and even to suck them, how can seeing the picture of another one afterwards be 'offensive' to anyone. It's only embarrassing for the singer, but that's her problem and hers only.
I agree. The rating and censors here are ridiculous. An actor I like was commenting on it too recently, he said the latest movie he was in was rated R because it showed the woman getting out of bed, so there was partial nudity, yet if a movie had her breast being shot off, it would be PG. Yeah, the Janet Jackson thing was a joke, and she was still partially covered by a pastie, so you didn't even see her nipple, and really it was so quick, you didn't really see her boob either. I still think it was staged, but still all that hoopla over nothing. And the even most ridiculous thing was when the statue of David was being restored and covered on the news here, they could only show him from the waist up, or with the reporter strategically standing to cover his bits.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 11:42 am (UTC)There were scenes of Amelie de Montmatre and Harry Potter in it, weren't there?
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 11:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 12:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 06:59 pm (UTC)I don't even remember them shagging!
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 12:28 pm (UTC)Given the variety in shapes, sizes and sexualities depicted, this could roughly be a description of the fandom, really. (Minus an appalling lack of Lucius, though.)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 12:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 01:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 07:16 pm (UTC)I'd like to think it's the nice kind of elitist, where you get to fluff your hair flirtatiously and get lots of shiny, rather than the kind that invites more wank than one can shake a stick at.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 07:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 07:26 pm (UTC)nefariouspurposes of luring innocents is half the fun. That's how you lot sucked me in, after all.no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 09:47 pm (UTC)*fluffs hair some more*
no subject
Date: 2007-07-07 01:27 am (UTC)Americans are such squares. I laugh every time they CENSOR another movie. Yes, censor. But it's a free country, right?
no subject
Date: 2007-07-07 12:04 pm (UTC)I've always found it strange how they tolerate all kinds of explicit violence but not sex or even nudity. When Janet Jackson had her little garment problem on live TV there was this huge uproar, but erm. Every single normal baby gets to see not one but two breasts close-up and even to suck them, how can seeing the picture of another one afterwards be 'offensive' to anyone. It's only embarrassing for the singer, but that's her problem and hers only.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-09 03:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-08 07:04 am (UTC)Great spot, though!
no subject
Date: 2007-07-08 08:10 pm (UTC)