I get what you're saying Dyland, but I don't really think an artist who is making mature content can be held responsible on the oft chance that the wrong person sees their film, or if the film causes bad things to happen. The only way I could see it being valid is if it was the creators INTENT to cause harm, controversy, and just general unrest. You could use a film such as The Innocence of Muslims and the 50+ deaths it caused as in example of this type of film.

On the other hand, nobody holds Martin Scorsese, Jodie Foster, or the film Taxi Driver responsible for making John Hinckley Jr. want to shoot the president. The artist cannot control how someone, especially one who is not fully mentally developed/ is ill, will react and respond to what is in the film. They can only share their art with the world and hope someone will like it.

Youtube @TheRealSonjira I consider it a personal defeat if my pee is not perfectly clear every time.]

No, you're missing my point. In my drive-in example, I constructed it that the filmmaker was also the one who made the decision to show the film at the drive-in. In the Disney Channel example, the point was to show that simply having a content advisory does not absolve someone from responsibility. Just as the Disney Channel should consider the demographics of their audience, so too should an artist consider the demographics of whatever method they employ to distribute their content.

New example: A filmmaker also owns several cable channels; including a sports channel with a primary audience of males 18-45, an R-rated feature film channel with a primary audience of adults aged 25 - 55, and a channel of children's programming with a primary audience of children aged 7 - 13. Filmmaker makes a violent, profanity-laden film called "Bad Film". He has complete control over which channels he runs his films. Is it appropriate for him to show "Bad Film" on his children's channel as long as he puts a content advisory before the film?

I remember when the ESRB was just formed.  My brother bought a rated G or E game and it contained swearing, obscenities and use of the Lord's name in vain.  It even allowed access to the sound bank so you could cause a swear word to come from the TV speaker every time you pressed a button.

And there are some ratings that are off.  "Earth Girls Are Easy" and "UHF", two movies from 1989, got a PG and PG-13 rating, respectively.  I think they should have been reversed.  And of course, the new, stupid MPAA standard is to give any movie where a character smokes a cigarette with no ill consequences an R rating, which if applied retroactively would turn many classic G-rated movies into R ones.

That was just my personal opinion on how much mature content is created, and how much of an audience (and potential money) is lost when making such content. However, I, as stated later in this discussion, stated that even though I have these personal opinions, I do not believe that we should, in any way, try to stop the creation or distribution of this material... Even if I don't approve of it, I can still understand why the content is made, and that It will continue to be made in the future, regardless of my existence as a brickfilmer, critic, and artist.

I 100% agree with this statement, and, now that the dangers of cigarettes is known in a more widespread manner, It's the responsibility of the artists to NOT show smoking in a positive light, especially in films directed at children. However, a movie like The Artist, which is set in a specific time period, and carries a PG-13 rating is a perfect example of a "responsible" decision on the part of the film's creator.

That's what I'm saying, Sonjira. The artist isn't responsible for things that happen because of his art, or from what happens after people view the art, however, they did make the content in the first place, and thus are responsible, or, at least, the problems can be traced to the original artist. For instance, The Aurora theater shooting is mainly the fault of Holmes, the shooter. However, Christopher Nolan is responsible (less than 1%, but, still a percentage) for it in a small way, as are the people who created the designs for movie theaters (for them, probably a higher percentage... still less than enough to be legally reprimanded, or considered 'responsible,' however, from a historian's point of view in the future, the reason for bad security, planning, and ultimate inspiration DOES fall on people who may not have done such acts themselves - even though they unintentionally caused it.

But, that's what my original point was. (That I feel a lot of people missed) If artists indirectly cause something, they are responsible, yet, should not be reprimanded, nor did they likely cause such a thing intentionally!!! They were just trying to entertain, and, weather you agree with their content or not, It's still been made. The only thing us brickfilmers, critics, other artists, and, perhaps, parents do, is to make sure that mature people watch mature content - in other words; the original intended audience is able to see what is intended for them!

In the case of brickfilms, these arguments, as are those of others on this thread, should be listened to, but, in a more "watered-down" form. Brickfilmers haven't, and most likely never will, be responsible for a shooting, or cause any controversy on a major scale. So, the issue of what rights an artist has really is boiling down to what do people who make films with LEGO have to keep in mind when making their films. - And that is absolutely nothing. As I stated previously:

I almost always have dark, uncensored original concepts for my stories, and, I CHOOSE to take the best parts of the story, and present THAT to others because I want to entertain the largest group of people that I possibly can. And, that's the underlying logic behind my original point: I think that people who put mature content in their brickfilms is a little selfish, as are the directors that put mature content in their Hollywood films. They are loosing out on some extra money that could be gained, are restricting (most of the time) great stories to adults, and shock those who don't want to be shocked. They shouldn't be stopped, necessarily, however, I personally believe that they should try to entertain the most amount of people, as that's what art truly is; not only a way to express yourself, but, a way to entertain others. And, I feel that that notion is often lost...

*reads last two pages of discussion thread*
Sorry for posting links to unrelated videos on YouTube and going further off-topic.]

I know I'm going to be pretty much restating half the stuff here, but I felt like putting in my input.

In my opinion, if someone wants to go ahead and load a brickfilm full of gore and offensive language then go ahead. Like Squid said, I just won't watch it UNLESS it is really necessary to support the plot. Violence and language can either be used well and tastefully or excessively and unnecessary way. Even though LEGOs are meant as a child's toy doesn't mean that they have to be used in a G-rated, family-friendly way. 

That's just my opinion.

The creator shouldn't feel a need to hold back violence, language, or dark themes just because it might offend some people. Same with any piece of entertainment. Regardless, the creator should assess any 'touchy' pieces and look at the reasons for their existence. Troma Entertainment produces funny, gory, and obscene low-budget films. There's no Oscar-level narrative to be found in these movies--it's just meant to be fun. They cater to a niche audience. So why get mad if you're not in that audience? Why get mad at the rape scene in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo if that's crucial to the characterization? Why get mad if the world's not perfect?

   When it comes to brickfilms, the only thing stopping them from telling a mature story is a mature storyteller. Pretty obvious. I think the children's toy connotation can be broken (temporarily) so long as we try to understand what makes a mature story work in other mediums. Sure seems hard, but it's possible. Several brickfilmers have already pulled it off. They found a story/tone/style that managed to fit LEGO.

   Vague content warnings are nice to include, out of common courtesy. We're still watching LEGO movies. I remember when I first discovered brickfilms.com way back in the day and came across a horror flick that terrified me. Thought I was mature, though.

I see your point, but I think this is subjective. Not everyone here actually believes in God.

I'd like to back HOO on the point about smoking, though. Smoking causes damage to the body without fail. A knife can be seen to cut carrots without even the slightest implication that it could possibly be used to maim or kill someone.

"Nothing goes down 'less I'm involved. No nuggets. No onion rings. No nothin'. A cheeseburger gets sold in the park, I want in! You got fat while we starved on the streets...now it's my turn!" -Harley Morenstein

Hey, Nathan Wells, I scrolled back to reread some stuff and after posting again realized that you wanted the topic to be on Brickfilms and not sidetracked onto the MPAA.  Sorry about that; so I'll bring it back.  When I mentioned about how things can be misrated, the significance of that is that if a viewer is a parent concerned about the content their children watch, they should not just trust the rating itself, but review the content before the approve their children to see it.  Brickfilms are self-rated which can produce misrated films (I've seen such) or non-rated brickfilms.  Since people are free to produce the art of brickfilming however they wish, it's the parents' responsibility to guide their children.  And a good parent is involved in the guidance of their children, however lenient or strict they consider adequete (so long as strict doesn't mean abusive!)

When I submit new films to BIM, on the self-imposed content ratings, I try to err on the side of caution, rating things slightly higher than I think.  I rated Holding Our Own Episode 2 mild violence for a cartoony hit by a car scene and mild sexual content for a discussion of naked Baribe dolls and a character mentioning a naked person on a record cover ("In the yellow", she says).

(Also unhealthy eating kills but you can do that in kid-friendly movies)

Last edited by HoldingOurOwn (June 5, 2014 (01:38pm))