MovieChat Forums > Little Darlings (1980) Discussion > Little Darlings = Child Porn?

Little Darlings = Child Porn?

posted 17 years ago by A1Matty
36 replies | jump to latest

This is a message from jhutchi63 in response to my claim on the TEACHERS board from a few months ago that music rights may have played a part in why the (TEACHERS) DVD hadn't been released (note that it was released last month). It has to do with his (or her) feelings why LITTLE DARLINGS has and will never be released on DVD:

I keep seeing Little Darlings brought up as an example of how music rights may be to blame for it not being released... Little Darlings is a very poor example to use... Do ya think maybe the reason Little Darlings isn't on DVD might have something to do with... ummm.. because the whole plot revolves around two 15 year old girls competing to see who can get laid first? I mean c'mon... get real... Little Darlings will NEVER see an official USA release... now maybe in a country where movies about screwing underage girls is acceptable you might see one....

Jeez....

Never mind that films already on DVD liken ANGEL and SIXTEEN CANDLES debunk his theory.

I responded to this poster not only by explaining that he/she was a right-wing idiot and debunking his senseless theory, but also by challenging them as to their assertion on the TEACHERS board (the poster claims its because I brought the movie up on the LITTLE DARLINGS board, which is true, but carries no validity to the central argument he/she brought up which has nothing to do with TEACHERS. I challenged the poster to bring his/her thoughts onto the LD board for a true discussion on the matter. However, Since jhutchi63 feels that is not necesary, I will take the incentive and present the argumenat here. If you wouls like to see the rest of the tete-a-tete, please click here:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0088242/board/thread/15102684?d=84297572&p=3#84297572

And please, if you have any input, by all means share them.

Thank you.

reply

[–] PiercedDiva 17 years ago

Okay then why is Lolita on DVD? or poison ivy? Those both involve underage sex by a girl with an older man...if you think teen/teen sex is controversial what about Fast Times at Ridgemont High? that even has Nudity and that is on DVD

I carved your name on a bullet so you would be the last thing going through my head

reply

[–] super-joey 12 years ago

First of all, it's not "porn" unless there's something pornographic. And this film has nothing graphic at all... much less PORNOgraphic. It was merely a fresh take on a very old/traditional teen movie story... The idea of teens competing to lose their virginity has gotten done and redone but usually with GUYS. This movie changed it up a bit, making them girls. And it changed it up even further by taking the subject matter more seriously. What starts off as fun and games becomes dramatic. One can't even successfully argue that it glorifies promiscuity, much less that it's pornographic.

Oh and I say this as a right winger. Not sure why you felt the need to blame the right for this guy's odd opinions.

reply

[–] rascal67 12 years ago

The target audience for this film was teenagers, with the largest appeal going to teenage girls. The US R' rating would have made it difficult though for the potential target audience for anyone under 17. In the UK it was rated AA' which was restricted to 14 and over, Australia had an M' rating which was just a recommendation for mature audiences over 15 and in NZ it was R13, restricted to audiences 13yrs and over. The UK, OZ and NZ ratings were all appropriately rated in regards to their respective classification systems at the time and aiming for the target audience.

I was a 13 year old male when I saw this at a cinema with my older sister and a female friend and we all loved it. I didn't initially understand about the condom scene though and only laughed at the scene because the little fat girl blew one up like a balloon and everyone else did. Had to ask my sister about it. Went to see it again with a mate, but he didn't like it; too soft and girly for him.

I find this film a wonderful time capsule and still enjoy it on repeated viewings. I find nothing controversial or wrong with it and anyone that does must be in denial or have issues. As if teenage girls don't think about boys\men and sex at a stage in their lives when puberty and hormones are raging. If anything, I find the film quite an accurate portrayal of teenagers, focusing mainly on the girls and is spot on in capturing their naivety and outlook of the opposite sex. The film doesn't condescend to them and they learn an important lesson by the films end about friendship and intimacy, and with Randy's character, shows how confusing it can be for boys in attempting to understand how girls feel.

The film is very well made with some lovely wide screen wilderness photography. Saw this on a huge cinemascope screen and the film is crying out for a dvd release. The scenic atmosphere and songs add to to mood of the film. Have only seen the theatrical version with the original soundtrack, and the film boasts one of the best moving coming of age performances that I can recall by the radiant Kristy McNichol.

reply

[–] mamamiasweetpeaches 16 years ago

what bull ****! They can have a million and one movies about teen boys trying to "get some" and they make a movie about teen girls trying to "get some" and everyone goes ballistic.

Heres A News Flash_ Most teen girls are out tryin' to Get Some! Hahaha.

Visit My Website:
LIVING IN THE PAST
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6spdi/index.html

reply

[–] thehumanfly 15 years ago

what bull ****! They can have a million and one movies about teen boys trying to "get some" and they make a movie about teen girls trying to "get some" and everyone goes ballistic.

Well... nobody's really going ballistic, are they? Just because some idiot thinks that's why the movie isn't out on DVD. I personally think he's dead wrong. 'Pretty Baby' alone stamps all over his reasoning.

Also, if a teenage girl wants to get some, she pretty much can (most of them at least). That's why the plot of this movie isn't the same as the boy-oriented camp movies. In this we have two girls *decide* to lose their virginity, select the males of their choice, and then race to the finish. If that same setup was used for two boys, the movie would have them chasing girls all summer - because that's closer to the truth.

Heres A News Flash_ Most teen girls are out tryin' to Get Some! Hahaha.

They don't need to try that hard, if they want some they can get some. It wouldn't make for an entertaining movie watching girls try to get some. That's why there are so many sex-comedy movies about boys trying to get laid. Boys have to employ a machine-gun approach (fire at every girl you see and hope for the best), girls employ a tractor-beam approach (fixate on the guy you want - to the exclusion of most others - and then hope you can draw him in). If teenage guys used the tractor-beam 95% of them wouldn't ever get laid (most of the younger ones don't as it is). There's humour to be mined from both approaches, but if you're going 'frat' with juvenile humour, then the boys method is the best.

Back on topic, however; part of the reason that the plot of 'Little Darlings' isn't a reason for it not to be released is the way it's executed: Two girls have a loss of virginity race; one of them chooses an older man who turns her down in an appropriately sensitive way, thus leaving her a virgin; the other chooses a cool younger guy and then does it, but regrets it afterward. This is exactly the kind of message an adult would want to see given to teenage girls. One is the image of responsible adulthood supporting a young girls feelings, but letting them know that they should stay just that - feelings. The other is the image of a girl who 'wins' the race only to regret her actions, drop her cool facade, and admit she wished she'd not done it. And on top of all that; it's a good movie and it feels true to life (or at least, close enough).

reply

[–] goblingal 16 years ago

love that idiot's way of thinking:

i have angel on dvd 15 year old prostitute
i have student teachers on dvd teens getting raped and having sex
i have born innocent on dvd 15 year old linda blair getting raped with a plunger or a mop handle whatever it is
i have pretty baby on dvd brooke shields child call girl.

so the child porn thing is kinda thrown out the window there.

reply

[–] raquelprov 16 years ago

Not to mention "Kids".

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Forlorn_Rage 16 years ago

Or Taxi Driver

reply

[–] ccr1633 16 years ago

Or R. Kelly's private video collection.

reply

[–] G_man2 12 years ago

bingo...i can't believe no one had brought that up earlier. that was pretty nasty in a number of ways.

this name-calling is ridiculous. someone is an 'idiot' because he states an opinion?

reply

[–] hodie 15 years ago

It was released TWICE on VHS in the US. And we haven't gotten stricter. If anything, we're less strict than ever. And a lot of movies have been released on DVD that are quite open about teen sexuality - Spun, Bully, etc. The floodgates have been open for quite a while without any public outcry.

Nope, it's the music rights. There are lots of VHS films I own and love that are still not on DVD yet, and the reasons have to do with economics, and not someone's idea of "morality". And in the U.S., you can download an extremely graphic film like "Irreversible" on iTunes.

Anyway, the movie wasn't about screwing 15 year old girls, and the people who would be making the DVD-release decision ought to know that. If anything, this film has a sweet, old-fashioned attitude about sex as something that is, for better or worse, something special and important.

Nah. They can't or won't pay what the owners of the music rights want, and are not so sure of enough sales to break even. This film isn't a household name. Its lovers are a relatively small but discriminating group :)

Maybe it will be released if the remake sparks interest in the original.

Don will fix it. He knows what that nut means to Utz and what Utz means to us.

reply

[–] At_The_Opera 15 years ago

PLEASE! it is not child porn

reply

[–] Lisa_Rogers 15 years ago

Agreed - it's a teen theme movie with appropriate topics. Someone commented on the underlying lesson. It's perfect. It shows that sex IS a big deal when you are not ready. That's what more teenaged girls need to hear!

reply

[–] WarpedRecord 15 years ago

Hot-button topics get hot-button responses, don't they?

I've never seen child porn and never hope to, but I can say this film doesn't look like it in the least as I understand the genre.

But I will ask this: Who is the audience for this film? This feels very much like an ABC After-School Special, yet it's rated R. It's a very mild R, but it seems like the type of film that would better appeal to teenagers, rather than adults. Of course, teens got into R-rated movies in 1980, and I think they do even more so today, but the tone of this film is rather puzzling at times because it seems unnecessarily titillating. And yes, I said titillating.

reply

[–] David_Brown 15 years ago

I am extremely far right-wing politically speaking, and I can tell you there is NOTHING wrong with "Little Darlings". I saw this movie as a teenager, and kiddie porn is not what this movie about (In fact, the sex scene with Kristy and Matt Dillon, is only a small part of the movie). The main theme is about friendship, which was expressed when Angel, introduced Ferris to her mom, and said "This is Ferris Whitney my best friend". These two girls were likely heading down a path of trouble except for the fact they met each other. In Angel's case, it is because she and her mom, came from the wrong side of the tracks, with little hope of escape, and in Ferris's case, it is because of her mom leaving her and her dad. I could have imagined that the next step would have been Ferris's dad, having Angel and her mom move in to help watch Ferris (Because of how busy he is). Thus, they would be there for each other.
As for the rights issue, the reason certain films are not shown is because of the following: 1: They are way too controversial to be shown (Including oddly enough a Kristy McNichol film: "Black Dog"). 2: There is simply no market for them (Certain low budget films come to mind). 3: There is a dispute over ownership of films (This includes two Gary Cooper films: "I Take This Woman" and "The Spoilers". 4: Mutual ownership over certain character rights (The "Jeannie" meets "Scooby Doo" episode of "Scooby Doo" comes to mind. "Jeannie" is owned by Columbia Pictures, while "Scooby Doo" is owned now owned by Warner Bros. So they have NEVER released that particular cartoon on any Scooby DVD collection.

reply

[–] mikeflw1 15 years ago

... is NOTHING wrong with "Little Darlings".
---------------------------------------------

I think the comment about child porn is far from the mark as pointed out in many of the comments already posted, but "NOTHING"?

You may have missed the "legally questionable" activities like grand theft (camp bus), breaking and entering, burglary, underage drinking, drugs, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, assault, trespassing, vandalism, lying, and more...

I like the movie BTW, but these things are portrayed in a "fun" way and could easily encourage imitation. Movies are rated "R" for language, violence, drugs, and/or sexual content/nudity; just check the back of the more recent movies that have a short list of the reasons. My vote on the "R" rating goes for the sheer volume of "lawlessness".

And on the "rights" issue, I agree:

I read the movie VALLEY GIRL was held up on a DVD release for about ten years over the music rights.
There are two DVD versions of THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE due to a particular sculpture "Ex Nihilo" in Washington D.C. whose copyright is jointly owned by the sculptor Fredrick Hart and the Washington National Cathedral. (There is a prominent note about that on the one with the UPC of 085391509028, and the common one is UPC 085391617228 that has the actual sculpture replaced with a CGI version.)
There may be elements of the actor's contracts that would not be published that may be obstacles. One example that comes to mind is the Mary Martin PETER PAN film; she stipulated that the movie would only be allowed three TV showings, and to my knowledge (admittedly limited) that has held true. The film was also put out on "home media" like VHS, 12-inch laserdisc and DVD, but I have to believe that was with the permission of her heirs because those media never existed when her contract was written. And that is a problem with "interpreting" contracts whenever a new media is made available.

reply

[–] David_Brown 15 years ago

Maybe my choice of the word "Nothing" was a bit too much, but compared to what is produced today, "Little Darlings" is "Dora The Explorer". Miley Cyrus, pretending to kiss a girl, Lady Gaga's antics, films like "Saw", Gangsta Rap, and countless others show how bad things have gotten since "Little Darlings" was released.
The message of friendship is what makes that movie work even 30 years later. The girls will need each other as they get older, and deep down, they know they can almost always depend on each other. That is what friendship is all about. For example: That was Blair and Jo did on "Facts Of Life" (Watch that show and you will see a LOT of "Little Darlings" in it).

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MovieGuy1998 13 years ago

You sick PEDO-BEAR..it is *WITHOUT QUESTION* the reason the movie has not been released on DVD...this is nothing but a PEDO-BEARS DREAM...how could this *POSSIBLY* be appropriate in today's puritanical eye views?

Please, the fact it made it to VHS is *PROOF POSITIVE* it has *NOTHING* to do with "Royalties"...please, you don't think movies have been remastered upon DVD release...happens more than you think.

It's because it won't/nor could sell in today's environment.

Why not "remake" it if it could sell..YEAH RIGHT....Imagine that "pitch meeting"
Hey Bob, I got a movie about 2-FIFTEEN YEAR OLD GIRLS vying over who loses their virginity first"...Yeah right you sick PEDO-BEAR---you'd not make it past 10 minutes in a Pitch meeting discussing this script.

Needs to die along the vine along with "Lolita" and the rest of the same garbage...and to compare this to Sixteen candles..what are you, ON DOPE!?

Try remaking "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"..yeah, it will fly today....*NOT*.

.

reply

[–] zephyr-123 13 years ago

^^^You know nothing about pedos. Pedos think that Barney is kiddie porn. Anything with children gets a pedo hot. Pedos are most attracted to children far younger than 15. This movie handles the issues of first sexual experience in a very insightful and sensitive way. You'd better hide in your house and get rid of your tv if you don't want to see teenage girls having sex. Haven't you noticed how it's all over the tv? This movie is a drop in the bucket of movies and tv shows dealing with that issue. If you think teenage girls aren't having sex in real life, you are deluding yourself. I've talked to pedos (on this board) a couple of times. They are very open to talking about it online because it's safe for them. One guy actually posted a photo of a girl about 7 or 8 years of age in a teddy. I got the admin to delete that post. If you want to talk to pedos, go to The Woodsman board.

I think the main reason it isn't going to dvd is because it's primary audience is teenage girls who nowadays are not going to watch something like this made at that time. They are going to watch Twilight or somesuch. Even teenage girls that might get to see it on a movie channel is still going to be a very small audience. It's a movie that has faded into history that teenage girls aren't going to be aware of. It wasn't a blockbuster at the time it was made and companies are most apt to release movies that they know are going make lots and lots of money. It's always about money. The movie has a limited audience and would probably have low demand.

I don't think the music issue is that big of a problem. If they really wanted to release it and save money, they'd dub their crap music versions over it and release it that way like they always do.

GG's-Sophia: ". . .my dear husband Sal, may he rest in peace until I get there. . ."

reply

[–] zephyr-123 13 years ago

I just checked on Amazon to see if it's on dvd yet and it isn't but they have a link to the "potential" release and give people an option to "sign up to be notified at it's release". Perhaps if enough people click that option and the companies see how many people are interested, they will release it.

GG's-Sophia: ". . .my dear husband Sal, may he rest in peace until I get there. . ."

reply

1
2