Yeah that makes perfect sense. Having not seen the movie, I don't know the weight of that but can imagine.

I was trying to understand and linking the Wikipedia page wasn't really explaining it.

Ahh got it. Yeah, that makes sense in that we wouldn't allow a child to do something sexually in a movie.

Again I have not seen the movie and glancing at the wiki didn't make me immediately think there is no way to make this movie in the current times.

8-0!? What the fuck.

I still don't understand. I saw the wiki linked earlier as well. Is the claim that a film about a child being sexually abused cannot be made today? Because I don't think that is the case.

Or is it because there would probably be an actor that is 18 cast? I don't see that being a different film. If you want to argue that casting a 16 year old or an 18 year old changes the film, then you could say that not casting Brooke Shields changes the film. It seems like a ship of theseus argument at that point.

If your argument is something else, I'm interested to hear. I had never heard of this film before and have not seen it, so I could very well be missing something.

I haven't seen this movie, but are the required changes casting an adult for nudity in the film? Was that not a thing in the 70s?

A lot of the blues legends are gone and a large number of Americans would be upset that they hate Illinois Nazis.

US athletes should have to compete as unaffiliated or independent or whatever they call it.

Maybe I'm too Usian to understand this but the article doesn't call out tourists from any particular country. So it's odd to me that China is being called out so much in the comments.

The children yearn for the mines.

Never go full Taliban.

The Economist is truly awful. Just deep throating capitalism in every article.

I know. How can the entire country be wrong. Only one state got it right. Also, it's called pop.