Yuku free message boards
Username or E-mail:
Password:
Forgot
Password?
Sign Up
Grab the Yuku app
Search:
Classic Horror Film Board
>
Hammer Horror
>
Flesh and Blood
0 Points
Search this Topic:
Remove this ad
«Prev
1
2
3
4
5
…
10
11
Next»
Jump
Add Reply
Forum Jump
Welcome to the CHFB
Forum Guidelines
CHFB TURNS 20!
Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards
Universal Horrors
The Universal Monsters Blu-Ray Collection
Golden Age Horror
Kong - 8th Wonder of the World
Silent Horror
Poverty Row
The World of Sherlock Holmes
Murder and Mystery
Thrills and Chills
'50s Horror and Sci-Fi
'60s Horror and Sci-Fi
'70s Horror and Sci-Fi
Hammer Horror
The Psycho Ward
Foreign Horror
Japanese Giants
Horror and Sci-Fi of Recent Decades
Current Films
Second Takes on Films of the 2000s
Independent Films and Documentaries
Coming Soon
TV Terrors
Classic Horror on DVD, Blu-Ray and Streaming
Stream and Stream Again
Horror Film Books and Magazines
Horror by Candlelight
Horror Comics and Fantasy Art
Monster Toys and Collectibles
Classic Horror Movie Memorabilia
Horror Music
Old Time Radio and Audio Horror
Classic Horror Online
CHFB Member Reviews
Our Favorite Horror Hosts
Classic Disney Scares
Horror Film Stars
Men Behind the Monsters
Monster Kid Memories
General Horror and Sci-Fi
Horror Tech
Movie of the Day
Off Topic Discussions
Classic Horror News and Events
Birthdays and Holidays
DVR / TiVo Alert
Final Farewells
Classic Horror Polls
Classic Horror Classifieds
Monster Kids Helping Monster Kids
<< Previous Topic
Next Topic >>
Re: Flesh and Blood
Author
Comment
.
#1
[-]
Aug 1 11 4:57 AM
Reply
Quote
More
My Recent Posts
Dick
The point I was trying to make (which has moved on from Ted's Flesh & Blood!) is that I quoted the Black Stocking article as another possible mis-step. You don't feel it was and yet you ran specific apologies to certain individuals. This confused me and stuck me as a contradiction of principle. If it's okay to run photos of undressed women per se, then why apologise to anyone?
The apology suggests that if one of your interviewees or friends say publication of photos is objectionable, you accept that the photos in principle may be objectionable and then apologize. However, if the photos are of people you don't interview or regard as a friend, than you are prepared to ignore that the photos in principle might be objectionable. So, on the one hand, nudity as a class editorial decision is fine, but on the individual basis may warrant an apology if the subject of the photo complains to you. Which begs the simple question are such photos potentially objectionable or not? I feel they are, some of your interviewees and friends think they are and you seem to have apologized on the basis they might be. Now, however, you seem to be saying that the apologies were not for running the photos as such, but because you didn't establish their provenance -- which I now understand.
I totally accept your point that Blair's photos were never intended for UK publication and you may have felt it was okay to print on the understanding that they had been before. Even so, we all know the story of actresses who allow nude shots/movies in early years only to be ashamed of them later in life once their career is established -- a number of actresses in LSoH have expressed this very point. But even if LSoH had gone to the trouble of gaining actress permission before running the shots (which would be preferable) I, for one as a lifetime LSoH reader, am glad you didn't run more installments. Like you say, there are many other online and print sources for such material and I believe LSoH has been the better for not straying into such murky territory. Sure, readers can skip articles but there are certain books or mags whose reputation is such that you feel such content doesn't belong there in the first place; I feel LSoH is one such publication. Rather than skip certain articles for potential tackiness/offense, I'd rather skip those magazines.
At the VERY LEAST I'd prefer to see such material placed in context -- it's one thing to see the notorious Stensgaard photo in an article on Lust which graphically illustrates the decline of Hammer; it's another to effectively run a nudie photo supplement.
Hope this clarifies and thanks for taking the trouble to reply -- though we clearly disagree.
Last Edited By:
Aug 1 11 4:59 AM. Edited 1 times.
<< Previous Topic
Next Topic >>
Add Reply
Forum Jump
Welcome to the CHFB
Forum Guidelines
CHFB TURNS 20!
Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards
Universal Horrors
The Universal Monsters Blu-Ray Collection
Golden Age Horror
Kong - 8th Wonder of the World
Silent Horror
Poverty Row
The World of Sherlock Holmes
Murder and Mystery
Thrills and Chills
'50s Horror and Sci-Fi
'60s Horror and Sci-Fi
'70s Horror and Sci-Fi
Hammer Horror
The Psycho Ward
Foreign Horror
Japanese Giants
Horror and Sci-Fi of Recent Decades
Current Films
Second Takes on Films of the 2000s
Independent Films and Documentaries
Coming Soon
TV Terrors
Classic Horror on DVD, Blu-Ray and Streaming
Stream and Stream Again
Horror Film Books and Magazines
Horror by Candlelight
Horror Comics and Fantasy Art
Monster Toys and Collectibles
Classic Horror Movie Memorabilia
Horror Music
Old Time Radio and Audio Horror
Classic Horror Online
CHFB Member Reviews
Our Favorite Horror Hosts
Classic Disney Scares
Horror Film Stars
Men Behind the Monsters
Monster Kid Memories
General Horror and Sci-Fi
Horror Tech
Movie of the Day
Off Topic Discussions
Classic Horror News and Events
Birthdays and Holidays
DVR / TiVo Alert
Final Farewells
Classic Horror Polls
Classic Horror Classifieds
Monster Kids Helping Monster Kids
Share This
Email to Friend
del.icio.us
Digg it
Facebook
Blogger
Yahoo MyWeb
«Prev
1
2
3
4
5
…
10
11
Next»
Jump
Classic Horror Film Board
>
Hammer Horror
>
Flesh and Blood
Click to subscribe by RSS
Click to receive E-mail notifications of replies