Teeth

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Mutenroshi wrote:

---

The Human Centipede ...

Oops, wrong invertebrate. I'm not really clued up on this particular genre.

ETA: Vagina dentata also feature in the Saga of Pliocene Exile series by Julian May.

In real life, the condition is associated with dermoid cysts.

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/13198.html

[Mr Light]

HOW is it a real problem?!

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Mr Light wrote:

---

HOW is it a real problem?!

Hair, teeth, scales, and feathers all derive from skin -- just requires activation by the right enzymes or hormones, I guess.

[WillsBabe]

Poster doesn't look very feminist.

[Too Much Fun]

You know what they say. "Don't judge a book by its cover"...and "Don't judge a movie by its poster".

[WillsBabe]

Too Much Fun wrote:

---

You know what they say. "Don't judge a book by its cover"...and "Don't judge a movie by its poster".

Absolutely. On the other hand, isn't a movie poster designed to tell you what the film's about?

[Canadave]

WillsBabe wrote:

---

Absolutely. On the other hand, isn't a movie poster designed to tell you what the film's about?

Nope. It's designed to make you pay money to see the movie. Those are very different things.

[Brikar99]

WillsBabe wrote:

---

Absolutely. On the other hand, isn't a movie poster designed to tell you what the film's about?

These days, I think a movie poster is essentially designed to tell you who is in the movie, considering how many of them are just the disembodied heads of major movie stars.

[WillsBabe]

Canadave wrote:

---

Nope. It's designed to make you pay money to see the movie. Those are very different things.

I think you're right. I do recall reading a very long article about the art for movie posters not too long ago. But I agree with your take on it.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Kramer: Yeah, and you're an anti-dentite.

Jerry: I am not an anti-dentite!

Kramer: You're a rabid anti-dentite! Oh, it starts with a few jokes and some slurs. "Hey, denty!" Next thing you know you're saying they should have their own schools.

Jerry: They do have their own schools!

Kramer: Yeah!

[Trekker4747]

Brikar99 wrote:

---

These days, I think a movie poster is essentially designed to tell you who is in the movie, considering how many of them are just the disembodied heads of major movie stars.

Which speaks a lot about how far movie advertising has slipped.

Look at the movie poster for old movies like Indiana Jones or the original release of Star Wars, now look at a movie poster for today. Vast differences.

And the movie poster/DVD cover is made by people entirely removed from those involved with the creation and production of the movie and depending on how much control that person has he may not get much final say in how his movie is presented and advertised.

So whomever did the promotional material for this movie obviously decided that showing their comely young star half-naked, wearing Uggs with a stamp covering her naughty bits would get more viewers than something more representative of what the movie is about.

The stamp/star over her naughty bits does, however, mirror the similar-looking sticker that covers the graphic of the female anatomy in her high-school Sex-Ed book (placed there in everyone's sex-ed book by the school board as a "symbol" of schools not teaching children about the female anatomy.)

Which brings me to a bit of a tangent:

Now when I was in high-school, over 10 years ago, and had sex education is was part of Phys Ed. for a month or two for Phys Ed. instead of going to the gym and dicking around for 45 minutes we went into a classroom and were taught these things. It's worth noting, if it isn't clear, this means that sex-ed wasn't co-ed which makes sense because it'd be "awkward" at best to teach kids about the various anatomies of the opposite sex in the same room as the opposite sex.

But a similar class I had in 7th grade was co-ed and did discuss matters of sex, anatomy and even included everyone holding and looking at a plastic model/whatever pf the female reproductive system. We even had an anonymous Q&A session where someone in the class had asked if you had squeezed the tip of your penis during ejaculation would it cause the ejaculate to shoot out with more pressure. (Sort of like pinching the line of a hose.)

Anyway, it seemed like the movie was trying to say something with how Sex Ed. protects or shelters teenagers about the female anatomy, while also being fairly open when it comes to male anatomy. That doesn't strike me as right unless sex education has somehow gotten more rigid in the last 15-20 years.

[Sindatur]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Which speaks a lot about how far movie advertising has slipped.

Look at the movie poster for old movies like Indiana Jones or the original release of Star Wars, now look at a movie poster for today. Vast differences.

And the movie poster/DVD cover is made by people entirely removed from those involved with the creation and production of the movie and depending on how much control that person has he may not get much final say in how his movie is presented and advertised.

So whomever did the promotional material for this movie obviously decided that showing their comely young star half-naked, wearing Uggs with a stamp covering her naughty bits would get more viewers than something more representative of what the movie is about.

The stamp/star over her naughty bits does, however, mirror the similar-looking sticker that covers the graphic of the female anatomy in her high-school Sex-Ed book (placed there in everyone's sex-ed book by the school board as a "symbol" of schools not teaching children about the female anatomy.)

Which brings me to a bit of a tangent:

Now when I was in high-school, over 10 years ago, and had sex education is was part of Phys Ed. for a month or two for Phys Ed. instead of going to the gym and dicking around for 45 minutes we went into a classroom and were taught these things. It's worth noting, if it isn't clear, this means that sex-ed wasn't co-ed which makes sense because it'd be "awkward" at best to teach kids about the various anatomies of the opposite sex in the same room as the opposite sex.

But a similar class I had in 7th grade was co-ed and did discuss matters of sex, anatomy and even included everyone holding and looking at a plastic model/whatever pf the female reproductive system. We even had an anonymous Q&A session where someone in the class had asked if you had squeezed the tip of your penis during ejaculation would it cause the ejaculate to shoot out with more pressure. (Sort of like pinching the line of a hose.)

Anyway, it seemed like the movie was trying to say something with how Sex Ed. protects or shelters teenagers about the female anatomy, while also being fairly open when it comes to male anatomy. That doesn't strike me as right unless sex education has somehow gotten more rigid in the last 15-20 years.

So, you no longer have Health Class (A Science Class back in the Day, apparently) teaching you Sex Ed, but, instead, it's taught in Gym Class?...Things Change

Yes, it really would be cool, if Movie Posters went back to enticing us with the story, rather than with whatever side thing they assume will sell it.

[Trekker4747]

Health Class! That's what it was!

I had Health Class in 7th grade where we taught general health things including "sexual health"/education. But mostly only the basics. In 10th grade I had a more hard-core sexual education class as a unit in Boys' PhyEd.

I was in 10th grade 16 years ago. I've no idea how sexual education is treated these days but I can't assume it's gotten more restrictive. I do, however, live in Kansas where Creationism has seriously been considered being taught in schools and in much of the state you can't buy alcohol on Sunday, so.

[Canadave]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

In 10th grade I had a more hard-core sexual education class

IfyaknowwhatImean.

[OsmiumJohnnycake]

Something like the segment from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life?