And I misremembered. It is a code relating to vulnerable adults and caregivers.
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
Well, OK. Whenever you find your link, feel free to post it. "I'll wait" means, among other things, that I'm interested in seeing the the content, and apparently I'm not alone.
There are laws in most countries where exposing children to sexualized content is illegal. What defines sexualized content differs by region.
Mere nudity shouldn't qualify, I think. Nudity isn't automatically sexual. And even nudity in a bedroom scene isn't really "sexual content" if the sex isn't graphic. My 11th-grade English class was shown Zeffirelli's Romeo & Juliet complete with Olivia Hussey's brief nude scene, and I think it would be ridiculous to call that exposing us to porn.
I agree with you, Christopher, but I am French Canadian by birth and that culture has a much more accepting attitude toward nudity than in many parts of North America. There are many places in Canada and the U.S. that have a much more restrictive view of what is appropriate.
While I agree I also know how reactionary companies are.
This is relevant to what?
maybe read the content?
In the context of this thread, the debate about nudity is still irrelevant as none of the Marvel movies, before or since the MCU, have had nudity. Neither have the Netflix series. The Netflix series could still exist within the continuity of the MCU and the characters could continue intact going forward. As someone mentioned upthread, other than the shock value humor, Deadpool could still be the same character without the F-Bombs. Similarly, all of the the Netflix characters could continue with their personalities and motivations intact in the MCU. Merely "toning down" the content to be seen by a younger audience would have no significant effect on the characters going forward---if the MCU creators so chose.
I would argue that the only reasons that is not being considered are political and not based on the shows that have been previously produced.
I would argue that the only reasons that is not being considered are political and not based on the shows that have been previously produced.
I guess that depends on how narrowly you define "nudity." Luke and Misty's sex scene in the first episode of Luke Cage showed most of their nude bodies, but stopped just short of exposing the "R-rated" bits.
Not that I’m excited or counting down but 3 days and 5 hours til I see No Way Home
If I remember correctly we saw breasts in that scene, right? I remember watching it with my then girlfriend, and we both did a touble take going 'did we just see boobs in a Marvel show?'. Oddly enough, the violence and gore in all the shows at that moment were actually a lot more intense that a pair of naked breasts. It says something that people get more shocked over nudity and are hardly talking about the intense horrific violence in the Marvel Netflix shows. I mean, Kingpin and that cardoor.....
Yes, everything but the nipples.
Yes, but that doesn't answer the question of whether the specific laws exist as claimed. We're talking about the conjunction of: PG-13, nudity, children watching, breaking the law. Think of the bombshell it would be if a parent or movie theater manager got charged and arrested for that in the United States in the 21st century. It would be ridiculous. But, yeah, I asked for a link, I'd like a link whenever it can become available, to back that up. Until then, I'm just going to go on with life as if it isn't so, because it's absurd.
Well, that was their opinion, and apparently yours too. I don't agree.
Saying that the language exists for shock value is prudish. The Deadpool films made bank just as they were, thank you very much. They have an audience. Not everything has to be homogenized to the degree that no one is offended by it. Being unobjectionable isn't the point anyway; the point is that enough people will find it interesting to make producing it worthwhile.
And you would be wrong. The correct answer is, it's commercial. It's always commercial.
Last edited:
The point of Deadpool isn’t bad language. It’s that he’s insane enough to realise he’s a work of fiction and self aware enough to know he’s a mess but wants to be better.
The first 4-5 years of his solo title (including the definitive Joe Kelly run) was stamped with the Comic Code Authority approval on all but about 4 or 5 issues.
I’m not offended by “bad” language in the slightest but the language is not a key cornerstone to Deadpool at all.
The first 4-5 years of his solo title (including the definitive Joe Kelly run) was stamped with the Comic Code Authority approval on all but about 4 or 5 issues.
I’m not offended by “bad” language in the slightest but the language is not a key cornerstone to Deadpool at all.
We're talking about the films. The films were rated R. Feige has already confirmed DP3 will be rated R [https://collider.com/deadpool-3-mcu-confirmed-r-rating-filming-details-kevin-feige-interview/]. It seems Disney understands their audience. Anything speculative about DP4 is just that, speculative and cart before the horse.
Yes, and whether toning down the language would work for Deadpool. Which history proves can work, because it’s not an essential element. He’s the merc with a mouth; as in he won’t stop talking and whittering , not won’t stop swearing.
Nope. There is no history of toning down Deadpool movies. None whatsoever. The comic book is a different animal. The audience is not the same.
Deadpool as a character can work fine PG13. Deadpool as a movie series literally made its name on the R rating (Most successful R rated movie ever at the time, in no small part due to the insane marketing campaign which also revelled in the idea of an r rated superhero comedy).
If you were talking about a reboot it would be one thing, though given Reynolds' popularity I'd say wait a while longer first. But changing Reynolds' version of the character to be PG 13 would be like making a John Wick movie without any blood or making a Ghostbusters movie without any jokes.
If you were talking about a reboot it would be one thing, though given Reynolds' popularity I'd say wait a while longer first. But changing Reynolds' version of the character to be PG 13 would be like making a John Wick movie without any blood or making a Ghostbusters movie without any jokes.
I already said I was wrong and that the law I was thinking of related to vulnerable adults and caregivers.