I hate seeing shit like this, but I guess WallyMart thinks there must be a market for it. If that store (which has already set a precedent in deciding what is "decent" for America) will sell this, then why not stop selling the "objectionable" R-rated movies?* In fact, just to be safe, they should just stop selling certain rap & pop CD's.
*Of course, the reason they don't is MONEY
I'm a grown-up. I'm a parent. I'LL decide what is "decent" for me & my family. On a side note, my kids won't be watching any R-rated movies anytime soon, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't own them.
Also, the government can shove that lousy V-Chip up its collective ass, too!!
I was going to mention this earlier, but didn't think it deserved it's own thread:
A DVD PLAYER THAT "CLEANS UP" MOVIES
Clearplay, the Salt Lake City, UT company that aroused Hollywood's anger when it began removing scenes of sex, violence and swearing from its customers' home videos, now has a new weapon in its arsenal -- a $79 DVD player, manufactured by RCA and sold in Wal-Mart stores that has been programmed to skip over or mute possibly objectionable scenes in over 500 movies. Although producers of the movies had previously maintained that Clearplay had violated their copyrights by bowdlerizing their movies, the new player does not alter the product at all. Clearplay argues that the new technology simply provides viewers with a different way to play movies they already own and is no different from a fast-forward button.
Wal-Mart doesn't "decide" anything for America. It's there own perogative to sell what they want, it doesn't mean that an item can't be found or bought in America. Whether doing that is a good business decision or not depends on their bottom line and their target consumer base.
Does Walmart still sell guns and ammo? Just curious, as I remember this being a sticking point when they talked about violence in America, yet were one of the leading sellers of ammunition in the country.
<You're aware that Wal-Mart refuses to stock NC-17 movies and some objectionable music CDs, right?>
**************
Nope-- cuz I don't shop the store. My point, however, is that the DVD player will censor R-Rated (& probably some PG-13 movies-- not just NC-17 *a bullshit rating, BTW*)
<Wal-Mart doesn't "decide" anything for America. It's there own perogative to sell what they want, it doesn't mean that an item can't be found or bought in America. Whether doing that is a good business decision or not depends on their bottom line and their target consumer base.>
********************
Actually, in many small towns, WallyMart has driven out the smaller, local competition. They are, in those towns, the only game in town. So therefore, they are deciding what is best in those locales. If I want to purchase the un-rated version of "Bad Lieutenant" or "American Pie," I shouldn't have to leave my town to do this.* I don't need a business telling me what I should & shouldn't read. Remember, this was an issu with this chain a few months back when they decided to stop selling Maxim, FHM, and other magazines. I, personally, don't read these, but I support every American's right to read what they wish, be it Mein Kampf, or a pseudo-skin mag like Maxim.
*And don't say that people can always use the net. Plenty of people (rural citizens or otherwise are not PC/Mac saavy, and/or don't have net access.
If there is only one comic book store in my town and they refuse to sell Doom Patrol, they are not "deciding" that I can't have it or violating my right to own it. It may be bad business but they can't and shouldn't be forced to sell something if they don't want to.
I find it more than a little hypocritical that Walmart decides it doesn't want to carry movies with an "R" rating (supposedly only someone over the age of 18 can purchase), yet still continues to sell guns and ammunition (again, only an adult can purchase). Why the moral high ground on movies and music, but none when it comes to weapons?
"Why the moral high ground on movies and music, but none when it comes to weapons?"
$$$$
Higher markup on guns and ammo and like you posted previously, they are a (the?) leading seller of gunwares nationwide, but only one out of a dozen retail chains that sell CDs.
I understand the economics of the situation, David. What I don't appreciate is, as I said, the "morality" and hypocritical nature behind not carrying movies and CDs that have adult material yet they'll sell guns and ammo to anyone with the cash who has gone through the necessary waiting period. I'd have much less of a problem with their decision not to carry "R" rated material if they just came out and said that it was due to money and not the supposed "morality" behind the decision.
The only real reason is the almighty dollar. Any other justification is bunk.
This message has been edited by MattReed on Apr 14, 2004 4:04 PM
I find it more than a little hypocritical that Walmart decides it doesn't want to carry movies with an "R" rating (supposedly only someone over the age of 18 can purchase), yet still continues to sell guns and ammunition (again, only an adult can purchase).
*****
Matt,
There are a couple of differences in your findings. A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To purchase a handgun, you must be at least 21 years of age, pursuant to federal law. The ratings system is a voluntary submission to the MPAA by theater owners and video retailers. Though the majority follow this submission, there is no law in place to enforce this.
So, if a clerk mistakenly sells a .44 to a minor, there are hefty fines and jail time. If a copy of Showgirls is sold to a 14-year-old boy, the store management has to deal with the parents and community. Though I ask, which truely is the greater crime?
So, if a clerk mistakenly sells a .44 to a minor, there are hefty fines and jail time. If a copy of Showgirls is sold to a 14-year-old boy, the store management has to deal with the parents and community. Though I ask, which truely is the greater crime?
I'm not talking about the specifics , Brian, rather the principle. What bothers me is the hypocrisy that Wal-Mart stands for "family values" all the while selling rifles, handguns and ammo yet draws the line at Maxim and the like. I'm not a fan of that magazine, but it seems to me if you're going to stand for "family values" then it should be across the board and not isolated to what makes you money (weapons) and what you take at a loss (movies, CDs and magazines). Hypocrisy is saying it's anything but about the money.
Of course, this gets into a whole 'nother kettle of fish as far as where people stand on gun issues that I won't get into here.
Yeah, I just realized we were heading into the whole guns are good/bad issue too. I will gladly not go there either as I can see this thread expanding to something painful and ugly.
I do see your point, though I still understand theirs as well.
As far as my own, I don't show Walmart. Too crowded for my tastes. Give me a Super Target anyday!
(edited after learning to spell.)
This message has been edited by BrianJoMayer on Apr 14, 2004 6:30 PM
<I will gladly not go there either as I can see this thread expanding to something painful and ugly.>
*******************
Much like Wallymart itself. In my county, there are 2 groups fighting the chain, because it wants to put its stores in 2 different parts of the county. Can you believe that there is 1 in Fredericksberg, VA, practically in the backyard of George Washington's HISTORIC residence? Is NOTHING sacred?
<sigh>
Somehow this reminds me of the first broadcast showing of "Deliverance". This was seen on Canadian TV on a Friday night, and the next night on (I think) NBC. In those days Canadian TV did not edit movies the way American TV did, so having heard what a brutal film this was, I decided to watch both versions, to see what difference there was.
Basically, by the time the American network Standards and Practices guys were done with it, Burt Reynolds killed those hillbillies because they made Ned Beatty squeal like a pig -- and nothing else!!
I thought of this years later when "Schindler's List" was shown on NBC, replete with nudity and "fuck" left in, since this was an "important" movie.
"What bothers me is the hypocrisy that Wal-Mart stands for "family values" all the while selling rifles, handguns and ammo yet draws the line at Maxim and the like."
My "family values" includes the responsible use of guns. It does not include promoting smut and women exhibiting themselves on the cover of magazines as mere objects. There's plenty of other places for that corner of the market to be purchased.
Not to lengthen any discussion about gun ownership, which you sought to avoid, but don't accept as fact that everyone's definition of "family values" aligns with your own.
I have had numerous discussions about today's "pop artists" (Christina and Britney) and their self-image, with my rapidly developing daughter of 8-years old.
See, the "family" of "family values" IS the interaction, discussion, growth and challenges of real life, not accepting that Wal-Mart, or any other monolithic agency, should or CAN have the final word on what you think, feel, experience, believe. No one can decide that for me.
Not to lengthen any discussion about gun ownership, which you sought to avoid, but don't accept as fact that everyone's definition of "family values" aligns with your own.
Not saying it did there "Daddio." What I am saying is don't stride the fence. You may find Maxim objectionable. I find guns objectionable. Who's right or wrong? Neither. So either sell them both or sell neither, but don't play a "family values" card when it comes to magazines you don't like and use the same "family values" when you're the largest retailer of guns and ammunition in the United States.
Matt Reed
This message has been edited by MattReed on Apr 16, 2004 4:53 AM
but don't play a "family values" card when it comes to magazines you don't like and use the same "family values" when you're the largest retailer of guns and ammunition in the United States.
There's a connection here I'm just not making, Matt. Guns are used in the commission of crimes, but when used correctly, they are used for hunting, personal defense, and sport. Knives are used for food preparation and hunting, and when used improperly, to commit crimes. If you want Wal-Mart to be consistent with their "No Maxim" policy of family values, should they not also stop selling knives of all kinds?
I guess my point is that Maxim, Stuff, and FHM have only one purpose -- titillation, which some consider immoral. Guns, knives, and for heaven's sake baseball bats have a number of different purposes, and are only "bad" when used incorrectly.
And let's not forget the most important factor. Wal-Mart bases it's decision to sell or not sell a product based on their ability to make money, and the ability of the product to affect sales of other products. There is no moral high ground here. Just the fact that more soccer moms complained about Maxim and Stuff being displayed on the shelves, than did gun activists.
No, but a few years back a group of women got together and complained that women in bikinis were being displayed on the shelf where their kids might be exposed to it. Several retailers capitulated, and either removed the mags, or covered them up with plastic barriers.
In my lifetime, images of violence have always been more socially acceptable than images of sexuality. A movie can consist of nonstop brutal violence and still get a PG-13 rating, but one naked boobie and you're looking at an R. It's acceptable for young boys to get bloody noses playing tackle football, while young girls in midriff-baring shirts are scandalous.
I wonder how much impact HIV and teenage pregnancy has had on our collective view of sex. Nearly forty years ago, we had a sizeable counter-culture practicing free love. In the ensuing decades, sex=death has been drilled into our heads since elementary school. I'm not sure what the teen pregnancy rates are in European countries, but it's a horrible problem in the US, and government programs have been advising against underage sex for decades as well.
So, for the past 30 or 35 years, we've had an entire generation developed under the subtle thinking that sex = bad life-ruining death. Parents start thinking that anything related to sex will cause little Bobby or Susie to ruin their lives, and rather than expend energy in actually, you know, controlling their children, they've completely abdicated their personal responsibility as parents.
I know that it's popular to consider the US to be puritanical in it's outlook on sex. However, maybe this attitude on carnal relations is due to lazy parents, rather than bible beaters?
There are no penalty's in place in the US if a minor is sold a ticket to or a dvd of an R rated film?
Buhzarre. In Ontario at least, stores and theaters must comply or lose their exhibition and/or retail license. Of course, many don't but nobody complains other than me apparently.
The "penalty" is based on community standards. During the gangsta-rap CD-stickering craze of the early '90s, so-called decency groups exposed record stores in my hometown who had sold CDs with parental-advisory stickers to minors, even though no law prevents the sale of such works unless they were deemed obscene by the community -- and none of them had.
The music and movie industry are keen on self-regulatory schemes like CD-stickering and RIAA film ratings because they prevent the government from stepping in and imposing fines for system failures. I'm a big believer in industry self-regulation and consumer responsibility. If both are in place, harsh penalties are not necessary.
And let's not forget the most important factor. Wal-Mart bases it's decision to sell or not sell a product based on their ability to make money, and the ability of the product to affect sales of other products. There is no moral high ground here. Just the fact that more soccer moms complained about Maxim and Stuff being displayed on the shelves, than did gun activists.
Read up thread and you'll find this is exactly what I said. It's all about the $$.
Listen, I'm not saying Maxim is morally "right" while guns are immoral. What I'm decrying is Wal-Mart acting like the arbiter of "family values" when their decisions aren't based on anything other than the dollar. Is this true of every corporation? Yes. But this thread is specifically about Wal-Mart and, as I'm not a big proponent of guns, my feelings about them are strong whenever they play the "family values" card. Their motives, to me, are much more transparent than most, maybe because they push themselves so much by way of advertising as the company that cares without regard to money. If anyone believes that, I've got some stable land on the San Andreas Fault I'm willing to part with.
Nearly forty years ago, we had a sizeable counter-culture practicing free love. In the ensuing decades, sex=death has been drilled into our heads since elementary school.
What's funny is that the group that was practicing free love grew up to be the same group that complains about Maxim covers. This attitude is always blamed on southern bible thumpers when it really is shared by what you would think would be liberal people.
Wal-Mart's attitude on DVDs and guns is stupid and hypocritical and is based on money, but it is still their store and their decision so they can do what they want. If you don't like it just don't give them their business, I know I don't.
Current Topic - OT: But what would it leave of Harlem Nights?
