Someone adding fake and useless information to parents guides

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 2 years ago
  • Solved
BlackXPanda is always adding in multiple parents guide that all female full frontal nude scenes use merkins even though there's no proof of that, it's supposed to be about facts and what he is saying is not facts


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0993846/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1898069/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475784/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944947/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2699128/parentalguide
Photo of TruLegend_666

TruLegend_666

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
  • angry

Posted 2 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Will

Will, Official Rep

  • 4017 Posts
  • 5205 Reply Likes
Hi TruLegend_666,

Thanks for your message, why do you think that the use of a merkin is incorrectly applied in these cases? Merkins are widely used in television when enacting sex scenes for the comfort of the actors involved. Do you have any evidence that merkins were not used in these cases? Once we have some more information we'll be happy to take a look.

Regards,
Will
Photo of TruLegend_666

TruLegend_666

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Because sometimes actresses use merkins in full frontal nude scenes for modesty or because it fits the time period, he thinks that all actresses use merkins and for censorship and is adding the "fact" to lots of parents guides. 
So when a movie has a full frontal female scene that shows breasts and crotch, he always says there's actually a merkin covering the crotch when actually most of the time it's real pubic hair.
Photo of Will

Will, Official Rep

  • 4017 Posts
  • 5205 Reply Likes
Sorry TruLegend666, but how do you know that in these cases it is real pubic hair? I'm struggling to understand how you are certain that he is incorrect in these cases.
Photo of TruLegend_666

TruLegend_666

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
The point is how does he know it's a merkin? He's just saying it even though he has no way of knowing. I could edit all the full frontal male nude scenes and say they aren't really showing penis and it's actually a prosthetic even if that wouldn't be a fact.
Also a lot of the time when he says they're using a merkin, in the actual scene you can in fact see genitalia or a hint of it and yet he's saying it only counts as topless nudity.
I always edit out the bits of him saying it's a merkin because it's not a fact but he keeps reverting it back.
(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7312 Posts
  • 9581 Reply Likes
I don't know how accurate IMDb user BlackXPanda's information is, but the mention of the use of wigs, makeup, dentures, glass eyes, simulated sex, merkins or prosthetic privates does seem largely irrelevant to any content advisory's purpose.

In extreme cases, it may possibly be important to point out the extent to which a cinematic depiction of nudity or sexual activity is farcical, like when adults portray minors; or for very graphic violence or very graphic gore, explanations that no people or animals really died or were injured, that lifelike props, trick photography or CGI were successfully utilized. For the opposite extreme, it does not necessarily hurt for a remark to be made about how a given element might be noticeably fake/farcical enough that not even youth would be fooled by it.

We should bear in mind what information would actually be found substantive to parents (or viewers in general). As far as the overall topic of content advisory is concerned, most viewers are only interested in knowing what images/sounds as concepts are presented in a movie.
Photo of Will

Will, Official Rep

  • 4017 Posts
  • 5205 Reply Likes
A valid point Jerorj, thanks for the input. I have spoken to the user and advised them to no longer mention merkins in their parents guide updates.

Regards,
Will
Photo of BlackXPanda

BlackXPanda

  • 21 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Basically the point I was trying to make was that merkins are used and are basically like a bikini bottom covering all genitalia.
If for example you see Rosario Dawson in Trance then she has her genitals visible.
Leah McKendrick in Bad Moms wears a large merkin and all you see is a ridiculous wig.

How does the IMDB want to differentiate between the two if the word merkin cannot be used?

All the alterations I did were based on fact and can be substantiated with evidence online

The original poster didn't have a problem with the term prostectic penis, I wonder why, has the user any concrete evidence to suggest that protestics are used ever?

Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7312 Posts
  • 9581 Reply Likes
I'm not entirely sure that everybody understands the relevance. We should probably keep "behind the scenes" information to a minimum in parental guides, and focus on what an effect represents. Of course, if you feel that a given prop or effect is simply so weak of a counterfeit that even a child would not take it seriously, then perhaps it is alright to provide a slight indication as to the level of lack of realism of the presentation.
Photo of abdurahman49 .

abdurahman49 .

  • 39 Posts
  • 26 Reply Likes
Might I suggest that if you are quite certain BlackXPanda that an actress is using a  merkin, that you submit that as a trivia item instead of the parents guide.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.