I think NXT may have chosen next weeks topic...

Well, I wouldn't say that, Squash. Though the original artist HAS been responsible for adding a label on his art, he isn't 100% innocent if a minor does see the content. He DID release the work publicly, after all, and, therefor, if the artist isn't given blame, it should be the website (be it Youtube or BiM) that's responsible... But, then again, that's like saying that Youtube is responsible for a video of an execution - Sure, they could be put to blame for not having better restrictions on such content put on their website, however, the men and women at work behind Youtube aren't responsible for the actual execution. - The executioners are, and thus, should be put to blame.

Even though that is a very extreme example, a more "watered down" policy should be used for other media creators as well. If mature content is shown to minors, even IF warning was given, the artist should at least get some sort of warning or something... because they are remotely responsible, even if such a situation wasn't their original intention. (Though, if making a brickfilm; a child audience should be somewhat expected.)

We're (hopefully?) not discussing the recording of actual criminal activity, though. I'm sure we agree that someone who records themselves doing something illegal is responsible for the crime- but creating a film with profanity, fake violence, or sexuality is a completely different topic. I guess if we want to go into ethics we could say next to anything about the creator's responsibility, and I respect that you feel differently than I do on the issue, but I'm going to stick to my guns and say that if an audience member decides to ignore a reasonable warning provided by the creator, whatever shock and outrage they feel is their fault. There's merit to all kinds of stories; it would be a shame if we stopped exploring them because we were afraid someone might get their feelings hurt.

The apocryphal Twain quote springs to mind:  "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it". I see self-censorship in the same light. If fair warning is given, art should be free to depict anything.

Yeah, I'm with Squash in that regard.

If fair warning is given, the artist cannot be held responsible if somebody goes on.
For example, the "brief nudity" in the Hobbit EE. I read the warning, weighed the issue, and then jumped in only to be scarred for life by the terrible quality CGI dwarves bathing. It's my fault.

Now, that clip didn't have to be in there, or in there filmed that way, but it was. I had the warning, and I accepted the responsibility of what it would hold.

That being said, I also hold to the belief that "mature content" doesn't have a place in any film, Lego or otherwise.
I try to follow the Bible and regulate any content I produce based on the principals and commands found therein.
BUT, recognize that many do not share that belief and would therefore agree that people are free to make and share what they want, but should very much consider warning viewers if there is any potentially offending material.

Also, as has been pointed out, mature content is often used because it's "cool" or because it makes the brickfilm/brickfilmer seem more "grown-up," but that more often than not those are the only reasons and such content is not necessary or beneficial to the film in any way. I don't enjoy mature content anyway, but such a flippant use of it without an underlying "need" just drives me nuts and ruins a number of otherwise great films.

So, to answer the question, I'd give a hesitant:
"It should be determined by each individual, but they should keep in mind the general audience and consider warning of any content for those who wish to avoid it. They should also examine their project and see if such content is really necessary, or if they could reach a larger audience/be less offensive by leaving said content out. "

As much as I hate to say it, I agree with the masses: Brickfilmers should be able to include any kind of content in their films. The films should definitely be properly stamped with all of the appropriate warning labels, coensideing with the nature of any given violent/graphic/sexual/language-ish, etc... content.

Gorgeous. I couldn't agree more, nor could I ave expressed the sentiment better. It's nice to know that someone else in this community holds to Biblical principles, but doesn't just "complain" when other people don't.

Unfortunantly, I struggle with my own standards. I believe that language/gore/sexuality don't belong in our entertainment, but I, same as anyone, like movies which contain said content. My favorite movie of all time, "The Patriot," contains plenty of gore, and earned an R-rating for it. I also (sheepishly) admit to enjoying the TV series "Firefly." It contains WAY more sexual stuff than I'm comfortable with.

Of course, when considering the use of objectionable content in media, one must consider the nature of the story. I don't mean Comedy vs. Horror, and Genre vs. Genre. I'm talking about True stories vs. Fiction. As previously stated, I dissaprove of loads of gore in films; a good example would be "Pulp Fiction," which is rough for it's blood and language. I'd call "Pulp Fiction" bad because it isn't REAL. However, I do accept the use of very graphic violence, language, and even full nudity in "Schindler's List." Steven Spielberg was attempting to accurately display the horror of the Holocaust in his film. This neccesitated use of extreme visuals. The film is meant to disturb you, to stay in your mind, and to serve as reminder of a REAL EVENT! The same goes for the recent film "Lone Survivor." Blood and F-words fly like, well... flies. But the story is true, and viewers could not understand the bravery and sacrifice of the real soldiers without the violence and language which the situation entailed. "Black Hawk Down" and "The Passion of the Christ" are two more examples of films where harsh language and graphic violence are neccessary for the accurate portrayal of an actual event.

So, there ya have it folks.

Sloth Paladin and Mindgame really hit the nail on the head.

One of the most inherent mores of human interaction is that you will never please everyone. You can censor your art so it adheres to the conventional, benign values that form the what society generally accepts as safe. Or you can follow your own path (whatever it is), make what you intended and finish with something that is what you want it to be. If someone takes offence, the fault lies purely with them for they instigated their experience of it.

Whether they appreciate it or not, leaving one's comfort zone can be a positive and eye-opening experience sometimes. You can attempt seclude yourself to a bubble when it comes to profanity or mature content in art or media, but is that reality? No, it's a bubble. And bubbles can be broken quite easily. Once that happens, I just think people need to be a little more open and a little more appreciative of things other than what they are comfortable with. Well utilised profanity can lend itself greatly to a narrative and to realism (as said Mindgame). I personally find the obsessive tabooing of profanity to be a trivial matter, especially when far more questionable issues are freely prevalent. In such I echo SlothPaladin's point.

In conclusion, the real question you need to ask yourself is whether you can meaningfully translate these themes of violence, sexuality and profanity through your chosen medium. To say that Lego as medium should be limited to a predetermined concept is wrong, yet sometimes it may need to be realised that using Lego is simply not suitable.

You see, my brother and I are Christians too, but I do think "mature content" has it's place in film. As others have already stated, I can choose whether or not I want to view what they produce, I subject myself to all incoming offense. Regardless if there's a warning, I still put myself in that situation; because of free speech, the creator is not required to put a warning on videos (It would get kind of annoying if you make a 15sec. short only to have a 5sec. warning at the beginning). This does NOT mean I have to agree or adhere to their principals, but it does mean they have the same right to expression as everyone else (For example, I despise the KKK, but they are allowed to voice their beliefs in America so as long as they aren't violent). On the question of ethics, I do not believe viewing adult content in and of itself is immoral; it's more of a question of how it's portrayed. I think the constant language in Pulp Fiction is justified as it's portraying a culture that uses profanity ad nausea. In the same fashion, the sex scene in American Pie is also justified because, again, that's a part of the culture they're portraying.

Allow me to clarify as I don't think I made my point clearly - I think I muddled two concepts together.

If there is a working system for conveying a content advisory and someone circumvents it to see something that was not intended for them - the artist is not responsible. Case in point, the MPAA ratings system in the US. Films are rated, content advisories are included detailing a summary of the content, and movie houses are supposed to ask for ID for R and NC-17 movies. If a 13 buys a ticket for a Disney movie and sneaks into an R rated movie, that's entirely on the 13 year old and the filmmaker is not responsible.

However, to my point of controlling the primary distribution; if a filmmaker makes a pornographic film that receives an X rating, and they then decide to show that film at a drive-in movie that is located across the street from an elementary school while class is in session, they should be taken to task for exhibiting that film where they did. It would be disingenuous for them to try to make the case that they bear no responsibility simply because the film was clearly rated X. It's an extreme, and somewhat flawed, example, but it illustrates my point. Would it be a responsible move for the Disney Channel to show the movie Pulp Fiction, uncut, at 2 in the afternoon as long as they included content advisories after every commercial break?

To further clarify what I said earlier; I don't think that artists should be punished when a child watches mature material, however, in creating the art itself, the artist must know the responsibilities and possible consequences that will come of what they make due to the extent of the subject matter, and how others will react to it.

Just as

, the 13 year old IS responsible, but, in a way, so is the filmmaker of the R rated picture. Yes, it wasn't their original intention to show the material to a minor, however, because they created the content, and distributed it, they ARE partially responsible. (i.e., if they hadn't have made the thing in the first place, it wouldn't have been seen by a minor at all, as, it wouldn't have existed!)

I think that some are taking my (and other's) words about this artist's responsibility as if there should be punishment. And, that's not the issue. You can't, or at least, shouldn't, reprimand the artist for someone else's mistake. However, they STILL are responsible, even if in a very, very, very small sort of way.

I think we can all agree on the fact that, no matter how family friendly or mature your brickfilms are, if you recieved an angry letter from a parent, you'd feel, at the least, bad. - It's just human to feel somewhat responsible, even if technically, and legally, you're not...

Last edited by Dyland (June 4, 2014 (10:20am))