Oceania A rant about sex and violence in movies and tv

well imagine the uproar IF sincity had watered down the content of the original graphic novels. it is a movie adaptation of a very gruesome graphic novel. so I am wondering what people expected the movie to be like?

-Mel

 

well bad choice of words- it's not watered down cos- all of the violence is there- its just that in most scenes it is not glorified like when you watch Dawn of the dead and see a guy's whole top of head blown away.

Its like when you see something bad happen in a PG movie- most of the time thay show whats happening in by shadows on the wall, like in the Mummy when the chick gets stabbed at the start by the priests- its shown as a shadow in the wall.

The same is done except its not a shadow- its a black and white silouhette.

I really don't see what all of the fuss is about, thats all. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

(most people's opinion at the moment is that i'm an infantile moron who doesn't know what he's on about though!)

 

I didnt mean that sin city WAS watered down. I meant that IF they had done that they would have destroyed what they were trying to achieve - creating a movie adaptation of a very popular graphic novel

but especially since Sin city is so gory and gruesome the way it is drawn (as it also looks in the movie) helps not being too graphic when it comes to blood and all since most of it is in b/w.

-Mel

 

you're 100% right. I said the same when LOTR came out.

If they had cut any more to give it a shorter running time, us geeks would be setting cinemas on fire and turning cars over!

 

true, very true. and I am so grateful to RR and FM that they created the movie to be a perfect adaptation of the graphic novels

-Mel

 

Indeedy it's a rare thing!

although sometimes changes need to be made for different mediums. To bryan singer or perhaps more to the costume designer, I'm very grateful that wolverine wasn't in yellow spandex!

 

Is violence in film pointless? I agree that some violence in real life is. But is it ever "pointless" in entertainment? Surely if has been written into the performance to express a point.

 

If you know you're distressed or upset by violence normally, I suppose you'd just go and see bewitched next door or something.

I am a very calm, non- violent person, but I don't really get affected by fake violence. Although I get jittery if someone raises their voice in anger, or starts swinging!!!!

 

That's not a homage, that's a caricature.

And it does not explain why the world needs a movie with an insane amount of unnecessary violence.

And saying there is a market for it (i.e. people want to see it) is a poor reason. Popularity doesn't make something right. A lot of people thought The Final Solution was a good idea, too.

First, just because it's not the worst graphic violence does not make it right.

Second, Sin City is just an example. We're discussing gratuitous graphic violence and sex in general - which includes all of those other movies which are worse than Sin City.

Third, the fact that you don't find it distressing highlights my point. Graphic violence SHOULD be distressing. And when it's not, we have a problem.

 

If you know you're distressed or upset by violence normally, I suppose you'd just go and see bewitched next door or something.

Entirely missing the point.

The issue is why need them made at all; why we need this form of "entertainment"; what it says about our society that we enjoy watching graphic violence; and what it is doing to the people who DO go and see it.

I am a very calm, non- violent person, but I don't really get affected by fake violence.

And the people in the studies posted earlier probably said the same thing.


Is violence in film pointless? ... is it ever "pointless" in entertainment?

And once again - when violence is intended as "entertainment" it is pointless.

 

But surely there are "types" of graphic violence. The graphic violence in Kill Bill Vol.1 say in the restaurant scene I would class as "comical". The graphic violence in the rape scene in "A clockwork orange" I would class as disturbing, especially with the use of the song . We cannot make use of "graphic violence" as a blanket term for entertainment. It alters according to the way the film was made, the intended audience and the feeling that the director was aiming for.

I think as adults we simply have the ability of choice. All films are rated and you can easily read reviews before watching. If it does not sound to your taste or has contraversial pieces in it that you think may offend you then do not watch. When i have a film night at my house i ask my guests first what type of film they would like to watch or what type of mood they are in. We then tailor the night together. Sometimes they may want to be challenged ("Texas Chainsaw Massacre" orig) or simply entertained by a "no brainer" (any movie in the last 15 years starring Eddie Murphy lol). Usually after the film(s) we talk about what we have watched. Discussing what entertained, did the film succeed?, reflections on society, or we simply state if the film was in our eyes "good" or "bad" lol. No body is forced at any stage to watch.

and i still cannot think of an example in film where violence was pointless. Sometimes people may argue that the violence apart from being part of the plot also serves the point to spark discussions such as these

 

it wasn't graphic though....

I am a healthy person. I have however been through a lot of abuse and violence as a child, to the point where I sometimes wonder why I didn't turn into Ed Gein or something!

I have an obsession with skill testers and I like poppy paper. That's all that's wrong with me.

I never understand why there are some people who would experience such things and crack or become mentally unstable. Although someone in your field, Oz, could probably have a better, well rounded idea of why.

I don't enjoy violence, nor am I entertained by it. (unless its a Coyote and Roadrunner cartoon, in that case its hilarious)

I suppose I have no right to look down on those people who have suffered similar, but come out worse than I, and I know why you feel that violence in film cannot be differentiated by the human mind from actual violence. You may have thought I wasn't serious when talking about Coyote and roadrunner cartoons but consider this- this animal gets blown up, electrocuted, flattened, run over, and thrown off cliffs. We don't find it disturbing because it is handled unrealistically and at the end of the day, it's a cartoon. Sin City (although it's a given that I wouldn't let a 5 year old watch it on a saturday afternoon) is visually so stylized that I wouldn't even think that even subconciously that anyone would not be able to differentiate between a comic page on screen and actual violence.

I'm probably wrong, and I'm sure you'll tell me all about it, but can you see what I'm trying to say?

I don't think Sin City is potentially mentally harmful to the average movie goer. If Ed Gein didn't read 50's horror comics as a young man, I'm sure he would have walked the same path.

diclaimer: John is an idiot

 

ay yes Johnny read any study into Ed Gein and i bet none of them (or the ones i have read) would mention a comic obsession being in anyway related to his disturbing little personality trait

 

well- it HAS been discussed, but I think that element of his life was a product of his sickness and not a cause!

 

Ok, here's a nice little scientific anecdote (via Joseph Campbell, no less) ...


A newborn chick, straight out of its egg, will run for cover if a hawk flies over its pen, even if its alone and has never seen a hawk before. But it won't run if a non-predatory bird flies over its pen. It innately knows the difference, that the chickenhawk is a threat, and that the other birds are not.

If you make a fake chickenhawk from wire and papier mache, and send it over the pen on a wire, the chick will react the same as it was a real chickenhawk. And if you make fake non-predatory birds, it will react (or more to the point, not react) as if they were real, too. So a fake hawk will cause it to run, but a real real duck won't. "A real duck leaves it cold, but the work of art strikes a very deep chord!" - Campbell

This is known as an "innate releasing mechanism," and the thing which causes it (e.g. a hawk) is the "trigger." The behaviour is not guided by conscious thought or previous experience. It is some innate, non-conscious reaction to the environment.

I'm sure some are about to say that's all very good and fine for a chick, but a chick is not a person...

No, but we have our own innate releasing mechanisms.

Our very first is breastfeeding, which an infant will do with no help or previous experience.

And there are others.

For example, when confronted with a potential threat, like a chick, our innate response is fight or flight. Which is why the studies report that the short-term effect of violence in movies is physiological arousal: it is the innate fight or flight response kicking in.

These responses are innate and cannot be stopped. They can be overcome, but they still happen.

So when you say that graphic violence doesn't affect you, that might be true on a conscious level. You may have learned to suppress the conscious effects of your instincts. But unconsciously, at a more primitive level, it's affecting you, in many ways; and not just fight or flight.

 

So how does it affect us?

what can happen if we were to say, subject ourselves to real or fake violence over and over again?

I have been told that my wackiness factor (if that's a scientific term) arose from me dealing with all the crap that occurred as a kid.

Is it possible that others have a different or unpredictable reaction to such things?

 

Hardly appropriate.


To lighten the mood a bit.
It's from Texas Chainsaw Massacre by the way.

 

I can't believe you did that man!

 

phtttttt pale imitation of the original

 

bah! tobe hooper said he enjoyed it!

 

I guess i just hate remakes lol

 

I'm crying man!

I can't believe he did that- they're gonna drag him off kicking and screaming now!

 

That's...uh...pretty gross.

 

depends if he is one of the favourites

 

So how does it affect us? what can happen if we were to say, subject ourselves to real or fake violence over and over again?

That is the central issue of this thread. And to get my thoughts (and others' thoughts) you'll have to read through the whole thread.


Although I did post a summary of (a few) studies on this a few pages back ...