Suggestion: Radar.Film

The pic that's currently on Radar.Film works, but it seems to rely on the caption a little too much, plus we have nothing to source it to (GIS didn't turn up anything). I thought I'd suggest this◊ as a possible replacement. It's a bit from the credits of the film of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban...see it in action here◊.

Thoughts?

It would at least need a pointer like in the GIF. I had no idea what I was supposed to be looking at.

I had thought about something in the caption but that would be pretty much the same issue as the current has. The GIF is over the top, but a simple circle or an arrow would work nicely.

edited 26th Jan '13 8:23:51 PM by Willbyr

I thought the current was clear enough without the caption. That said, neither triggers what I'd consider the radar.

What does the suggestion have to do with the radar?

Is that supposed to be phallic imagery in the GIF? Too subtle.

Lu: No; it's two students engaging in, erm, certain activities in the corner tower. Working from a better quality image◊, here are a few different versions.

283, cropped only.

	300, cropped larger.
	The larger crop with a blue arrow. A different arrow can probably be done; I didn't want to use red as the map is already brown, and an arrow is preferable to a circle since the couple are in a circle already.

edited 27th Jan '13 10:06:45 AM by Telcontar

I'm not sure "phallic" is the right word, but it does appear to be sexual in nature, yes.

A shot of that part of the image might work, then.

Is it intentional that the names and the arrow are the same color? Because if so, it adds an entirely new (and rather hilarious) added subtext. Not sure if the RL people would be equally amused, but still.

edited 27th Jan '13 11:50:35 AM by Earnest

Delicata and Moody.

Okay, if there's anything subtle in post #7, I'm not seeing it no matter how hard I squint.

As in "this is really obvious to me", or "I cannot see anything under-the-radar in this image"? In the case of the latter, it's the two people standing in the same corner of the map, facing each other, occupying the same space, as if one's mounting the other.

Honestly seems more like people are reading too much. Besides, they are wearing shoes, which implies they are clothed...

Everyone on the map is shown with shoes, even an animagus in rat form or a ghost floating above the ground.

I guess the image is less obvious than I thought.

I would not consider shoes as being mutually exclusive with sex. You can just drop your pants after all.

And the image tells me this how? Then the image requires you to have seen the work to even understand it, so it makes even more terrible an option.

Or it could just be perfectly PG cuddling. Hence my earlier point of people trying to read too much into things. Or simple kissing (Which isn't an example either).

edited 27th Jan '13 1:56:26 PM by Ghilz

I honestly think the current is okay.

I'm meh on the current. Better than the proposed replacement, but there's got to be something better out there.

Thing I don't like is the caption says it's pre-code, so there's not much of a radar to get past to begin with. And not knowing what movie this is from, noting stops me from assuming the nature of her dress isn't more obvious in other shots... And and, well, it's not very much a good example since barring all that... she's got everything covered. It's not particularly more daring than a woman in a bikini.

I am not sure what is being brought past the radar in the current. It looks like generic fanservice to be honest.

I think it looks uncomfortable to have sex in that position, so I see it more as just kissing.

I believe the colloquial term is "snogging".

As for the current image...

According to the caption, the image is from "Pre-Code Hollywood" so I really don't see that there was a radar to get past. It is just a generic sexy outfit being shown rather blatantly.

edited 27th Jan '13 3:42:35 PM by Catbert

I had to squint with all my might to see the two pairs of shoeprints facing each other in the corner as even possibly an allusion to sex. It still insists on flying under my radar after I've been told that's what it's supposed to be.

The current isn't really that much more of a radar picture, I don't think; it's just some lady in a dress and I need the caption to tell me that it's anything less than it looks to be. I still think it's a better image than a blue arrow pointing at a corner of a map where two pairs of shoeprints are facing each other and overlapping; people fully clothed, upright, and hugging/kissing is the best interpretation I can get out of that after it has been pointed out by a huge blue arrow and multiple forum posts.

Even if they are having sex, it doesn't really do more than say "two individuals have sex". It's not worse than showing two people heading into a Love Hotel, or showing someone dragging someone else into a house/room, and then hearts flutter out, perhaps with the house jumping around a bit. Is that something that needs censoring?

The point is that it's a very suggestive image in a movie where nothing of the sort occurs or would have occurred since the story doesn't involve it. For those questioning why it's so suggestive, think about this - what would two people have to be doing for one's feet to be between the others? Also, in the GIF, the outer pair of feet move at the same time, which technically could be done standing up, but is a lot easier to do when you're on your back.

I knew the pic was potentially shaky when I suggested it; I'm glad we've had this discussion, regardless of how it turns out.