Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

CAPAlert follies 1 Comment More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I admit to a certain sympathy with the CAP's objectives; however, the CAP methodology -- despite being "as objective as any human evaluation system can be" (ha!) -- is badly flawed, as can clearly be seen in their analysis of The Fifth Element [capalert.com]. Here, they give a score of 0% in the "Sex" category for some nudity, partial nudity, and a sex scene. If you've seen the movie, you know that the partial nudity is essentially a bikini, the nudity shows no private parts (equivalent, in terms of what's visible, to a bikini), and the sex scene consisted of arms and feet sticking out from a blanket. If this movie gets a zero, what score do they give to movies with actual full frontal nudity and sweaty humping and writhing?

    And at the same time, they give a score of 60% in the "Offense to God" category, despite a blatant contradiction of Christian theological doctrine and trivialization of the "supreme being" -- including have the "supreme being" engaged in a romantic/sexual relationship with the hunky hero. (I hope it wasn't a matter of succumbing to the "Hey, at least they've got God in there in one form or another!" cop-out.)

    jdporter gives the CAP Methodology 1.5 stars.

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.