0 likes
Just a quick note:Phuzzy4242 wrote:I agree with you, and this movie's still here. We're not trying to give absolutes, we're trying to set standards. Best of all, nobody is trying to be a dictator - we discuss it without one person making a can't-be-changed decision. Lots of over-16 actresses play younger roles but that doesn't automatically disqualify a film. Flip that around - even if the actress or the character they play is younger than 16 but they BEHAVE older, what does that have to do with childhood, first-love, etc.? A Tracy Lords film will likely never be [REL]eased at FLM. On the other hand, we don't want a bad reputation when people start slavering over 10 seconds of preteen skin. Films with youngsters less than fully clothed can still be posted - and often are - but nobody's posting blatant comments or screenshots about them like before.mimzy wrote:I personally prefer movies with pre-teen children and I haven't watched this movie anyway, but if the girl looks 16 or younger, her character is 16 or younger, and especially if the movie is about first love, then it is IMO obviously on-topic here. I'd say it's more on-topic than some other movies without any OT scenes at all. It's nice to have a variety, though. If only good movies were posted, there would be very few posts nowadays, because almost all good movies are already here.
20 likes shows that FLM members are interested in this movie.
FLM is unique, one-of-a-kind and we'd like to keep it that way.
When FLM was created, “first-love” meant movies that we first loved, and had nothing to do with movies about first love.
That’s not to say that FLM was exclusively for movies we first loved. I’m just pointing out what FLM stands for.
)
(Which, of course would fit more logically with the point you were trying to make..)
. 
Like this post to see ed2k links [2.85 Gb]