Oceania A rant about sex and violence in movies and tv

Discussion in 'Oceania Discussion Boards' started by TheOzhaggis, Jul 14, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Loopster Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2000
    star 4
    Why would you remember the screen when recalling a scene from a film? When you recall a scene from a book, do you recall the page you were on or the type? When you recall a news report, do you recall the TV as well? When someone tells you a joke, do you recall where you were or what you were doing when you were told it? No you don't, you recall the specifics of the scene. That doesn't mean you subconciously think it's real.

    All that proves is those two guys would have got into a fight about anything. Had one cut in front of another on the road, then would you blame the film for the case of road rage they almost certainly would have performed? How many people watched that film and didn't bite the nose off someone in a fight?

    Someone actually watched Bad Boy Bubby?

  2. Sith Magician Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 1999
    star 5
    I'm giving a simplistic response to a stupid point. Why would you remember the screen when recalling a scene from a film? When you recall a scene from a book, do you recall the page you were on or the type? When you recall a news report, do you recall the TV as well? When someone tells you a joke, do you recall where you were or what you were doing when you were told it? No you don't, you recall the specifics of the scene. That doesn't mean you subconciously think it's real.

    Again, you missed or misunderstood the point. The point being, following on from Oz's, is that the unconcious mind makes no distinction between a real event, and one seen on screen. So, unconciously, your mind is witnessing the event as it happens. Conciously you know it's fiction, but unconciously, the event is witnessed all the same.

    All that proves is those two guys would have got into a fight about anything. Had one cut in front of another on the road, then would you blame the film for the case of road rage they almost certainly would have performed? How many people watched that film and didn't bite the nose off someone in a fight?

    You asked for evidence that a film was the cause of violence, there it is. They argued about the film, and an act of violence ensued, I gave you what you asked for.

    Would an argument break out between two people about whether the "Sound of Music" was any good? Undoubtedly. Would that argument end in bloodshed? I sincerely doubt it.

    Now I enjoy a good action "beat the crap outta people" film as much as the next guy, I'm not saying they're soley responsible, but they do play their part, just as violent video games do. A recent occurence in the United States involved a young teen stealing a car, getting arrested, grabbing a cop's gun and shooting two officers dead before stealing another car and leading police on a massive chase.

    The child, by the way, admitted to being inspired by the Grand Theft Auto series of games.

    Now, surely this kid had other issues that drove him to it, and the game was merely the trigger, but I really doubt that had he been an avid Mario player he would have gone on a leaping and headbutting boxes rampage.

    Thing is, I also play GTA, one of my favourite movies is Fight Club, I admit I enjoy graphically violent material. The difference between you and me is that I can admit it does have it's part to play in some, please note I said some, people taking it to seriously and going over the edge.

    Also, if you could possibly respond to this without calling any of my points stupid, or replying in a harsh and angry manner, you may be able to get something of a point across instead of proving mine. ;)
  3. SithLord-Mixo Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 5
    Bad Boy Bubby is a classic Aussie film! Way ahead of its time. It did not make me think to have sex with my mother though or cello wrap a cat :)
  4. Loopster Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2000
    star 4
    I understood your point, I just don't believe it's correct.


    It's far too simplistic to point to one isolated event and say that proves films cause violence. If that were the way we decided anything, then we could say that all muslims are terrorists because the last terrorist was a muslim.

    Convenient excuse. Did he plead temporary insanity also?

    Did I sound harsh and angry? That wasn't the intent.
  5. SithLord-Mixo Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 5
    you cannot blame a violent film for causing an arguement and assault between 2 viewers concerning its violence! It's all about rational responses. I do not punch a person simply because they have a different point of view. I wish I could at times. There are deep seated personal issues there they have to deal with lol !!!!!
  6. Sith Magician Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 1999
    star 5
    Ok, I can't discuss this with you further. You have retreated to that area people go to when they don't want to think what they believe may be incorrect, or that something they enjoy may be the cause of suffering elsewhere.

    You, my friend, are a citizen of that place called denial.

    As I said before, the difference between you and me is that I recognise the danger of overt violence in media entertainment, and you can't deny that some people use this as a trigger, in conjunction with other forces at work in their lives, to snap and carry out violent acts.

    To quote a member of the public shown in "Bowling for Columbine" (Please save your Michael Moore bashing for another thread however, that's not my point here):

    "Does everyone who sees a Lexus commercial run out and buy a Lexus? No. But some do!"
  7. SithLord-Mixo Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 5
    i guess it could be seen as a trigger for some people but there would be many triggers I guess. Look at road rage. A normal law abiding citizen with a totally clean record just suddenly snaps. Perhaps it was 1 car horn too many.

    lol !!!!!!!!!!
  8. Sith Magician Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 1999
    star 5
    Perhaps it was 1 car horn too many.

    Just as in the case of the two movie goers, perhaps it was one casual showing of a brutal murder too many?
  9. Loopster Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2000
    star 4
    Does the average person watch a violent film and go out and perform acts of violence simply because of the act of watching a film? I don't believe so. Are certain people who have violent tendancies and have the will to perform violent acts influenced by violent films? Perhaps, though scientific evidence would be nice.

    The people who would perform violent acts will do so anyway.

    In the case of the nose biter, if he hadn't gotten into a fight with the guy from the cinema, then he'd have gotten into a fight with the guy who cut him off on the street, or who looked at him sideways in a pub. It's in certain people's nature to be violent, just like it's in other's not to be.

    I'm not in denial about it. I've yet to see concrete evidence to prove me wrong.

    There are too many influences on behaviour. Alcohol being the main one.
  10. SithLord-Mixo Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 5
    yes some people are naturally violent. What i really hate is a violent drunk.
  11. Loopster Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2000
    star 4
    "Does everyone who sees a Lexus commercial run out and buy a Lexus? No. But some do!"


    Are you trying to tell me that you think some people will buy a Lexus simply on an impulse generated by a TV commercial?

    Or is it more realistic to say that a person can be influenced by a Lexus commercial if they are in the market for a car in the first place and they like the design, the features, the prestige, the price that the commercial advertises? The ad doesn't subliminally make people buy the car, it makes them aware of the product and benefits to purchasing this car over the competition. The person then makes up their mind to buy the car based on a large range of influences, competing ads notwithstanding.

    Commercials make people aware of products. That is all.
  12. Sith Magician Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 1999
    star 5
    Commercials make people aware of products. That is all.

    In the same way violent acts on screen make chiuldren aware of violence. It starts early.

    Also, as with the "Bad Boy Buby" case mentioned earlier, it made that one person aware of a murder method that didn't involve blood, who's to say he wouldn't have committed an act involving bloodshed, but saw a cleaner, more clinical way, and acted on it?
  13. SithLord-Mixo Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 5
    So would you or anyone else here support the banning of Warner Bros. cartoons because they portray violence to children? I am just interested
  14. Loopster Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2000
    star 4

    But does awareness of violence equate to acts of violence?

    An 18 month old kid will whack another for a toy even before they are old enough to watch or understand violent TV. Violence is human nature.

    I don't know about the Bad Boy Bubby case and I've not seen the film, but maybe the guy got the method for the murder and not the idea to do it in the first place from the film. I don't really know.

  15. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    I wonder what we will blame the sheer brutality of medieval warfare on. I mean, meet at a prearranged place to kill as many of the other team as possible so your liege lord can benefit. Damn Rockstar Studios and their Grand Theft Destrier series!

    E_S
  16. Loopster Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2000
    star 4
    Warfare aside, were the middle ages any more or less violent than now and did they have the equivalent to violent films then?

    They did have public executions and public corporal punishment. They had violent kids programs - Punch and Judy is about a wife beater, police brutality and animal attacks. They had violent games - jousting, sword fighting and wrestling.

    Perhaps TV is just the modern alternative to what we've always had.

  17. Sith Magician Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 1999
    star 5
    So would you or anyone else here support the banning of Warner Bros. cartoons because they portray violence to children?

    Hell no, but I would support parents being parental and taking an interest in what their children watch.

    I don't know about the Bad Boy Bubby case and I've not seen the film, but maybe the guy got the method for the murder and not the idea to do it in the first place from the film. I don't really know.

    That's exactly what I'm saying, he got an idea for a relatively clean way of killing someone, and used it.

    I wonder what we will blame the sheer brutality of medieval warfare on.

    Religion and politics come to mind, but you're talking about kingdoms at war when we're talking about individuals, and yes, I am aware individuals also caused acts of violence in those times, the argument here is that gratuitous sex and violence in the media is a bad influence on those already pre-disposed to violent acts, and also desensitises to the realites and consequences of those acts.
  18. SithLord-Mixo Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 5
    I agree Loopster. The problem (if any) is not a modern one.
  19. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Yes, but having said that you still had men order the battles and the executions, and you still had wenching as a popular pasttime.

    Humans are innately violent, and whilst the concept of civilisation was to dilute the primeval instinct of man, that it occurs wantonly is neither a product of the modern age nor of outside influences but rather those less able to restrain themselves to accept the social contract. Besides, I thought studies had shown the link between violence and videogames only existed in those with insufferably high moral agendas that they feel compelled to push onto others, or those running for election in some contest and who need a scapegoat?

    E_S

    EIT: Markups
  20. TheOzhaggis Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2000
    star 5
    I think I've lost track of who is arguing with who over what in this thread ... :)

    First, I think that's a fairly romanticised view of 'Asia.' Statistics (from Unicef, UN, etc) show that violence and sexual violence are just as high (if not higher) in Asian countries as western countries. I don't think it speaks to their ability to watch these films and retain respect, honour and dignity, as much as it speaks to the ability of some people to maintain a hypocritical facade of respect, honour and dignity, while violating them in real life (and cinema). Why would someone who so highly values respect, honour and dignity enjoy watching movies that do not? I cannot see how you can reconcile contrary modes of thought and behaviour without hypocrisy...

    Second, I utterly agree with you (and others) on the issue of personal responsibility. But I argue that our personal responsibility is in the choice of movies we produce/view, not in our reactions to them, because 1) by then it is too late, and 2) our choice to watch them speaks about our character and/or morality.


  21. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Oz, I'm living in Asia now and relaying exactly what I get from conversations with people. Now, there might be a language barrier issue in effect, there might not.

    However, the issue raised about the causes of violence being media simply to me seem like a convenient excuse. This article is worth a look. :)

    E_S
  22. TheOzhaggis Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2000
    star 5

    And that is why you fail.



    Do not confuse the context with the behaviour.


    You look out your window and see one person kill another. Your brain does not perceive their behaviour as "someone just killed someone outside a window." It perceives their behaviour as "someone just killed someone."


    You'll probably not believe this either:

    There is a famous experiment involving a video tape of people throwing basketballs to each other. The aim of the experiment is to count how many times the baskestballs are passed from player to player. What people completely fail to see is a person dressed in a gorilla suit walking across the screen between the players, beating its chest, and walking off again. People don't see it, and refuse to believe that it was there (some claiming its a different video when its replayed for them).

    I've seen this experiment performed, and know people who have performed it many times with the same results.


    What is on the screen, what you see, and what your mind perceives are not the same thing.

  23. Loopster Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2000
    star 4
    I fail? Only according to you. If I saw someone kill someone while I was looking out a window, why would I think "Oh my god, I just saw someone murdered through a window"? Put it in context. The act of murder outside the window takes precedence over how you saw it.

    However, if the police then ask me about this murder I witnessed, I'd say to them, "Well officer, I was looking through this window when I saw...." You know you saw it through a window. Just like you know today is Tuesday, but you don't need to be reminded of it constantly do you?

    What you are trying to say is the subconcious cannot differentiate reality with fiction on screen, giving the fact you don't recall the screen around a scene when you think of specific sections of the film. I say you are concentrating on the action on screen, not on the screen itself, so your gorilla suit story matches my argument prefectly. Why remember the tv or the plaster ducks you've got on top of the telly when recalling a scene from Star Wars? It's not in context. It's peripheral and ignored. It doesn't mean my subconcious thinks it's true and my concious has to tell it that it's not.

  24. TheOzhaggis Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2000
    star 5
    Actually, according to behavioural science.

    I believe that's what I said.

    There is no however. We are not talking about your memory of the event. Or how you would describe the event. Or how you would write the event or even how you would draw it with a crayon.

    I am talking about the very precise moment when the image on the screen passes through your retina, is split between your ceberal hemispheres, crisscrosses through your corpus callosum, enters your visual cortex, is perceived as people, and is perceived as people doing things.

    THIS is the information that your unconscious mind works with.

    NOT the unreliable collage of images and impressions that your conscious mind puts together after the fact.

    By the time your conscious mind convinces itself that its not real, your unconscious mind has already processed it and moved on to whats happening now.



    I don't recall ever mentioning the screen around a scene, or recalling specific sections of the film...
    If that's the basis of your complaint, then it's misdirected.


    I am not concentrating on the action, your brain is. It doesn't care where it happens - on a big screen, a little screen, out the window. Like you say, it's peripheral and ignored. Just like the gorilla.



  25. Loopster Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2000
    star 4
    Then who am I arguing about the screen with?

    Sorry, it was Sith Magician, not you.


    I am talking about the very precise moment when the image on the screen passes through your retina, is split between your ceberal hemispheres, crisscrosses through your corpus callosum, enters your visual cortex, is perceived as people, and is perceived as people doing things.

    THIS is the information that your unconscious mind works with.



    I don't buy it.

    The brain processes these images exactly the same way as it would when looking at something outside a window, I agree. But are you telling me that I need to conciously tell myself that it isn't real and that if I don't then I would believe the film to be fact?

    What about cartoons then? How are they processed and perceived?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.