|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Jul 12, 2007 14:48:15 GMT -5
When I was a wee tot, the first live action film I ever saw in this life, was First Blood: Part II. Needless to say, I've been immune to film violence ever since.
|
|
|
Post by That Loser Guy on Jul 12, 2007 14:52:58 GMT -5
I like violence in movies, but it has to have legit build up. Movies like Hostel, Captivity, and the likes are all too expected and make the overall experience in a movie quite shitty because you know it is coming. Torture seems to be the most popular theme in "scary" movies these days, but for me it doesn't cut it.
|
|
J is Justice
Wade Wilson
Will now be grateful.
Hi.
Posts: 28,607
|
Post by J is Justice on Jul 12, 2007 14:53:12 GMT -5
Robocop - Where that gang (forget the lead villians name) kill Officer Murphy...most disturbing death scene ever IMO. I was too young to watch that movie the first time I saw it. That scene absolutely haunted me. Also the part where the guy gets covered in acid and then hit by the car and splatters. I think I almost puked. I agree with you two
|
|
|
Post by Harmonica on Jul 12, 2007 14:53:13 GMT -5
i hate any graphic voilence to young-ish women and girls in movies, especially if rape is involved, it just makes me uncomfortable I prefer real violence as opposed to the gore of most horror movies Don't watch any Dario Argento movies.
|
|
|
Post by T.J. "the Crippler" Stevens on Jul 12, 2007 15:10:37 GMT -5
I like violence in movies, but it has to have legit build up. Movies like Hostel, Captivity, and the likes are all too expected and make the overall experience in a movie quite crapty because you know it is coming. Torture seems to be the most popular theme in "scary" movies these days, but for me it doesn't cut it. Agreed. Without proper tension or suspense it's pointless. If it's just, "ooooh look at our cool make-up and special effects," I don't care. The effect is lost.
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Jul 12, 2007 15:14:08 GMT -5
Defenitely agree with everyone who's said Robocop. I watched that film when i was way too young and i'm assuming it's totally desensitized me to anything after it, barring any films that involve things with achilles tendons like in Hostel, Evil Dead and Pet Semetary. There's something about that that just doesn't sit right.
I really like violence in movies - nothing after Robocop has ever affected me really at all in a negative way. As appreciative as i am of a masterpiece like Citizen Kane or Rear Window, i can just as easily zone out and watch Hard Boiled by John Woo or Bloodsport.
|
|
|
Post by T.J. "the Crippler" Stevens on Jul 12, 2007 15:28:54 GMT -5
I don't like violence in movies. It can be a useful and effective tool, but I never go to a movie to see violence. If it's just violence for the sake of violence, I'm bored. If there are characters I care about that are involved in the violence, then I feel it's being utilized properly. I enjoy seeing the effect that violence has on characters, not the actual violence itself. It's not something I go to the movies to cheer for. Violence and death are bad things and should be portrayed as such. If they're not, and they're only there for the sake of watching blood splatter and people die, then that's just a waste of time. I know alot of people like it, but I'll never see the appeal myself. I even thought Robocop was a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Jul 12, 2007 15:51:29 GMT -5
I don't like violence in movies. It can be a useful and effective tool, but I never go to a movie to see violence. If it's just violence for the sake of violence, I'm bored. If there are characters I care about that are involved in the violence, then I feel it's being utilized properly. I enjoy seeing the effect that violence has on characters, not the actual violence itself. It's not something I go to the movies to cheer for. Violence and death are bad things and should be portrayed as such. If they're not, and they're only there for the sake of watching blood splatter and people die, then that's just a waste of time. I know alot of people like it, but I'll never see the appeal myself. I even thought Robocop was a waste of time. Well it's never the reason i go to see a film or pick it up unless it's something like a reissued video nasty on DVD. With a film like Zombie Holocuast or New York Ripper though it's all there really is to the film, and there's only so much of those i can really take in one night. I'm more interested in seeing the methods of how such horrible tacky low budget films like this work around budget restraints and make their films as horrible as they can. I mean in Zombie Holocaust there's a godlessly graphic scene of someone having their eyes torn out, how a film which was made for next to nothing in the middle of New York oblivious to the rest of the world managed to get something so good looking into the film is nuts. It's no longer just a case of buckets of corn syrup with camera cut aways during vital scenes - these are close up in medical detail. I don't think liking violence in films is the same as liking actual violence so the way it's all portrayed has never been too important to me, depending on what kind of film i'm watching. If you watch a John Woo film you know what you're going to get, and it's usually necessary to the story. It;s compeltely over the top but it's at least necessary. I don't think there's anything excessive or disgusting in Robocop barring the ED209 office scene, but that just goes so over the top in the directors cut it's comic book. It's looks like it's completely unnecessary to go over the top with a scene like that but the big pay off is the lines following with "CAN SOMEBODY CALL A PARAMEDIC" and "it's just a minor glitch" from Dick Jones, which just totally releives anyone watching the scene. Clarence Boddicker getting in the neck aswell - the guy's so horrible that any regular person by that point in the film has just been calling for the guy to get it in the worst way possible after everything he's done - same goes for Dick Jones - that the pay off is incredible, and so minor when you consider what's happened to Murphy's character over the film. On top of all that the entire film is a saire on Reganomics and America at the time - on TV everything looks prosperous and everyone is promised things will be ok but the truth is the entire country is just one horrible seedy violent unstable place and no amount of money is going to stop that - the money is only going to make it worse, especially with the guys at the top wanting more. I feel like i've said too much almost, if none of that makes any sense then feel free to point it out.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jul 12, 2007 15:58:36 GMT -5
You know what damages people more than ultra-violent pictures?
The cartoon violence that TV or film were notorius for years with. You know, old war movies where people get shot and simply fall, instead of getting their limbs blown off or whatever.
If anything, I think severe violence like say gunfire do show there is consequences that must be considered or appreciated when wielding such a powerful tool over life and death. You wouldn't believe the people I know who treat guns like toys.
Its like NAKED LUNCH when Peter Weller, as William Burroughs, is trying to play William Tell, but with a pistol, and his wife with the apple on the head, and Burroughs aims too low...BOOM.
In a way, CASINO convinced me early on that I wouldn't want to be a mobster. Why? Because if you screw up, people like Joe Pesci cram your head into vise and pop your eyeballs out.
|
|
Ace Diamond
Patti Mayonnaise
Believes in Adrian Veidt, as Should We All.
mmm...flavor text
Posts: 36,043
|
Post by Ace Diamond on Jul 12, 2007 15:59:42 GMT -5
You know what damages people more than ultra-violent pictures? The cartoon violence that TV or film were notorius for years with. You know, old war movies where people get shot and simply fall, instead of getting their limbs blown off or whatever. If anything, I think severe violence like say gunfire do show there is consequences that must be considered or appreciated when wielding such a powerful tool over life and death. You wouldn't believe the people I know who treat guns like toys. Its like NAKED LUNCH when Peter Weller, as William Burroughs, is trying to play William Tell, but with a pistol, and his wife with the apple on the head, and Burroughs aims too low...BOOM. In a way, CASINO convinced me early on that I wouldn't want to be a mobster. Why? Because if you screw up, people like Joe Pesci cram your head into vise and pop your eyeballs out. Or smack you around with baseball bats and bury you on top of your brother while you're both still alive.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jul 12, 2007 16:00:33 GMT -5
You know what damages people more than ultra-violent pictures? The cartoon violence that TV or film were notorius for years with. You know, old war movies where people get shot and simply fall, instead of getting their limbs blown off or whatever. If anything, I think severe violence like say gunfire do show there is consequences that must be considered or appreciated when wielding such a powerful tool over life and death. You wouldn't believe the people I know who treat guns like toys. Its like NAKED LUNCH when Peter Weller, as William Burroughs, is trying to play William Tell, but with a pistol, and his wife with the apple on the head, and Burroughs aims too low...BOOM. In a way, CASINO convinced me early on that I wouldn't want to be a mobster. Why? Because if you screw up, people like Joe Pesci cram your head into vise and pop your eyeballs out. Or smack you around with baseball bats and bury you on top of your brother while you're both still alive. Exactly! BTW, I always thought it was funny that after what Pesci did to Frank Vincent in GOODFELLAS, Vincent finally gets revenge in CASINO...
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jul 12, 2007 16:01:45 GMT -5
You know what I miss in terms of action cinema?
The squips.
Now with CGI, the blood mist is just goofy. But with say ROBOCOP or DIE HARD, when those squips go off, you beleived that BULLETS slammed into and tore them to hell. You believed bullets can really kill people (not the silly flawless headshots we get now.)
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Jul 12, 2007 16:35:29 GMT -5
You know what I miss in terms of action cinema? The squips. Now with CGI, the blood mist is just goofy. But with say ROBOCOP or DIE HARD, when those squips go off, you beleived that BULLETS slammed into and tore them to hell. You believed bullets can really kill people (not the silly flawless headshots we get now.) Yea CGI blood is annoying. I had a lot of faith in Rob Zombie utulizing blood squibs and 70's methods an Devil's Rejects but he fell into the CGI trap, and you can tell straight away. It just looks so god damn bad. If Eli Roth is good for anything it's using KNB to their full extent instead of wasting time on MAC's and PC editing suites.
|
|
|
Post by Zombie Mod on Jul 12, 2007 16:44:09 GMT -5
been immune to violence & gore since i was forced to watch predator and aliens every day for a whole year on video by my brother.
sure there are some subjects that disturb me on some level, due to hearing horror storys from friends which i wont go into.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Jul 12, 2007 16:56:33 GMT -5
The Shining scared me like hell when I watched it at 8.
10x more graphics movies couldn't touch the level of discomfort produced by the blood-flood, the corpses and the rotten lady in the bath.
The only kind of movies that I can't sit through are the likes of Schramm and Nekromantik. That's just too much. It stops being "over the top, vaguely enjoyable gore" and it becomes "sickening morbid and unnecessary gore"
|
|
|
Post by T.J. "the Crippler" Stevens on Jul 12, 2007 17:03:32 GMT -5
I never said violence in films or on TV was damaging to anyone, I just said it made me yawn if there was no point to it. If the movie sucks, who cares about how cool the violence looks? What the blood looks like, or how real someone's entrail's look doesn't interest me if the movie can't properly present it. I pointed out that I know alot of people like it. It's just me. I personally don't see the allure of "cool" looking violence.
I also understood the satire of Robocop and that makes me stand by my original feeling that it was pointless. Did Reganomics turn this country into anything even closely resembling that? It was stupid then, and it looks especially stupid now, but that's besides the point. The point is, the statement the film was trying so hard to make about America becoming so desensitized to violence was completelely lost. Look at how many people in here have given Robocop credit for being the one thing that desensetized them to violence. It wasn't Ronald Reagan. It was Robocop.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jul 12, 2007 17:08:35 GMT -5
I never said violence in films or on TV was damaging to anyone, I just said it made me yawn if there was no point to it. If the movie sucks, who cares about how cool the violence looks? What the blood looks like, or how real someone's entrail's look doesn't interest me if the movie can't properly present it. I pointed out that I know alot of people like it. It's just me. I personally don't see the allure of "cool" looking violence. I also understood the satire of Robocop and that makes me stand by my original feeling that it was pointless. Did Reganomics turn this country into anything even closely resembling that? It was stupid then, and it looks especially stupid now, but that's besides the point. The point is, the statement the film was trying so hard to make about America becoming so desensitized to violence was completelely lost. Look at how many people in here have given Robocop credit for being the one thing that desensetized them to violence. It wasn't Ronald Reagan. It was Robocop. Hindsight is nice, aint it? Besides, you know who wrote ROBOCOP? Ed Neumier....who WAS a Hollywood studio exec back in the day in the 1980s before he quit and started writing ROBOCOP. So he used his own first-hand experience of inner-corporate politics to have the ruthlessness of everyone at OCP. And really, what do you mean EXACTLY about "pointless" violence? Vernhoeven himself said that whole gruesome Murphy execution sequence was the guy becoming Jesus ("Jesus?" "Forget it, he's rolling.") But really, go read up Roger Ebert's A CLOCKWORK ORANGE review sometime. He hated that film. Not because he didn't like what Kubrick shot or edited, but because the protagonist wasn't punished enough for his deeds and how the ultra-violence was pointless. Go read it up man.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jul 12, 2007 17:13:13 GMT -5
The Animal killings in "Cannibal Holocaust"
The fact that it was real pissed me off, even Deodato crys when thinking about it now
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Jul 12, 2007 17:14:22 GMT -5
It's paranoia about what the country could become - a violent police state with politicians and councils only concerned about regenerating the city centres to increase property prices and the price of land ownership whilst completely ignoring the real problems of poverty on the outskirts which the rich would rather ignore, which only makes the problem worse. Along with an 80's yuppie attitude of money and power, with greed being the downfall.
I don't know what it's like round yours but the stuff about regeneration benefitting no one at all who's in dire need of help is especially true in my city. It's a bad attitude of 'nice looking houses will get rid of bad social attitudes among the population. We can't fail!!'.
EDIT -
And i should point out i'm never a fan of horror films that make the killer a hero. The SAW films have taken 3 films before the killer actually gets what he deserves and even then he eventually winds up winning - they're entertaining trash but it's a bit of a weird attitude to have in a horror film.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jul 12, 2007 17:16:45 GMT -5
The Animal killings in "Cannibal Holocaust" The fact that it was real pissed me off, even Deodato crys when thinking about it now Didn't the director of CH himself agree that in retrospect he shouldn't have shot all those killings? Anyway, CH was a exploitation picture...and nothing more than that. It was intended to shock, and draw, people to see it. Except the "shock" was ABSOLUTELY ALOT MORE than the CH makers expected.
|
|