Inglorious Basterds

[Troy]

Oh man, Inglorious Bastards is a riot. Ignore the ads, Pitt's role is actually pretty small (but funny and well played). It's a WWII espionage thriller with homages to other WWII spy classics like Notorious, as well as 5-star WWII classics like Dirty Dozen and Kelly's Heroes. QT even uses some of the awesome KH music at one point in the climax. The spag-western vibe QT sometimes plays up is lifted right from KH.

It's way more graphically violent than any of his other films (which is saying a lot, but it really does make Reservoir Dogs look like a Disney flick), but as always, it's so absurd that it wanders into cartoon territory. The pace is a bit leisurely at times (2:30+ hours), but it's a very complex story with many tangents and colorful characters who need their own set up scenes. Most of the actors are German and French, well known in Europe, but not the US. The 2 female leads are glamorous and sexy and I hope they get more work in American films. Amazing acting by Christoph Waltz as the SS "Jew Hunter" Hans Lander too. It's an orscar® worthy breakout performance. What a juicy, menacing, role of a lifetime.

It uses all the techniques and stylistic gags you expect from QT; incongruous music (Bowie in a WWII movie, WTF? But it felt so right!), freeze framed violence, quirky camera angles, goofy captions, and eliptical, minutia-filled conversations. Like the rest of his movies, it's a dazzling, kaleidoscopic experience.

There are some absolute knock out scenes like the particularly tense, shocking and memorable basement bar sequence or the "Italian" scene in the theater lobby that had the audience howling. And the enormously satisfying and surreal climax! I won't give it away, but it's something that I've never seen in a WWII movie before, and in thinking about it, I'm not sure why that is . . . it's extremely clever, making me really remember why QT is such an important director.

[thekid]

Just got back from it and my son and I both concur it is a 8 out 10. Pitt is very very good and almost every line is delivered perfectly. Not your typical WWII for reasons that become obvious pretty early. A highly entertaining film and I am not a Tarantino fan.

[Worf101]

Thanks guys.... Might go see it tomorrow.

Da Worfster

[emaidel]

Far and away the best thing Tarentino has ever done. Just plain terrific from start to finish. And would that such stuff actually happened...

[nightflier]

What about the gore, violence, and torture scenes? Over the top Hostel-style, or just regular good-for-a-hesitating-laugh QT style?

[Troy]

What about the gore, violence, and torture scenes? Over the top Hostel-style, or just regular good-for-a-hesitating-laugh QT style?

Very much in the over the top QT style.

[emaidel]

Far and away the best thing Tarentino has ever done. Just plain terrific from start to finish. And would that such stuff actually happened...


Make that ""TarAntino." My bad.

[nightflier]

Thanks. I think I'm going to skip this one, then.

[Worf101]

Took Junior with me last night. I enjoyed it on a filmic level. Being a Vet and a military historian I had to view it as Science Fiction or "the Ulitmate Jewish Nazi Revenge Fantasy". The entire thing was so historically farcical that I'm amazed that the whole thing wasn't done in a Bobby Ewing like dream sequence or the daydream of some condemned prisoner in a Concentration Camp.

Still, I had a good time. It was a hoot and I loved the Spaghetti Western feel of the opening. Pitt's opening solleloquy was hilarious. Visually stunning and gory. Stunned by the "Jew Bear" tunnel sequence and plenty of others. Worth seeing. A-Minus.

Da Worfster

[ForeverAutumn]

Thanks for the reviews. Although I don't like violent movies there's something about the way that QT directs the violence that allows me to overlook most of it.

I was stuck in a hotel room yesterday morning while my husband was off golfing (I was too sick with a cold to join him) and ended up watching a half hour entertainment show that was dedicated to this film and interviewing the cast. Although I was only half paying attention, the show made me want to see this. Not sure when we'll have time, but its definately high on my list.

[Feanor]

Took Junior with me last night. I enjoyed it on a filmic level. Being a Vet and a military historian I had to view it as Science Fiction or "the Ulitmate Jewish Nazi Revenge Fantasy". The entire thing was so historically farcical that I'm amazed that the whole thing wasn't done in a Bobby Ewing like dream sequence or the daydream of some condemned prisoner in a Concentration Camp.
...

Da Worfster

I know we're all supposed to love to hate Nazis and going just by the trailers Ingourious Basterds does come across as a "Jewish Nazi Revenge Fantasy". On that basis I'm going to pass on it.

It's not that I don't hate Nazis but I really think the theme has be beaten to death over the years. I'm weary of it and it doesn't matter that Ingourious Basterds might happen to do it better than most.

No excuse for the Nazis, but the oppressive policies of Israeli state towards Palestinians through the years have revealed the hypocrisy of exploitive anit-Nazism in the post-war era. I'm calling the uncritical pro-Zionists in Holywood and elsewhere on this point.

[Worf101]

I know we're all supposed to love to hate Nazis and going just by the trailers Ingourious Basterds does come across as a "Jewish Nazi Revenge Fantasy". On that basis I'm going to pass on it.

It's not that I don't hate Nazis but I really think the theme has be beaten to death over the years. I'm weary of it and it doesn't matter that Ingourious Basterds might happen to do it better than most.

No excuse for the Nazis, but the oppressive policies of Israeli state towards Palestinians through the years have revealed the hypocrisy of exploitive anit-Nazism in the post-war era. I'm calling the uncritical pro-Zionists in Holywood and elsewhere on this point.
I thoroughly understand your point, I don't particularly share it but I understand the pedegogy of the oppressed. They often take on the worst characteristics of their oppressors. However to expect Hollywood to be even handed or fair is foolish. I.B. maybe anti Nazi, but I don't view it as anti German. Three of the main heros are Germans and in the end the mission is accomplished with the complicity of a German. I don't think you can slam this one as anti German, it's just a fantasy. I honestly think you should see it first before you dismiss it out of hat. Seriously.

Da Worfster

[Feanor]

I thoroughly understand your point, I don't particularly share it but I understand the pedegogy of the oppressed. They often take on the worst characteristics of their oppressors. However to expect Hollywood to be even handed or fair is foolish. ...


Realistically I dare say you're right ... but people can call them on.

I think there is something missing when we use Nazis as we would space monsters or aliens -- child's nightmare objects of fear and loathing. Nazis were real enough, and real Nazis had the usual range of human character as well as nuanced explanations for their views.


...
I.B. maybe anti Nazi, but I don't view it as anti German. Three of the main heros are Germans and in the end the mission is accomplished with the complicity of a German. I don't think you can slam this one as anti German, it's just a fantasy. I honestly think you should see it first before you dismiss it out of hat. Seriously.

Da Worfster

We shall see. In general I've enjoyed, (well, at least appreciated), the Tarantino films I've seen. And too it wasn't the film in-and-of itself that I was objecting to so much as the relentless and stale Nazi bogeyman theme.

If you want to see a probing and sinister film on the subject of Nazi evil, check out the HBO, made for TV flick, Conspiracy by Frank Pierson (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266425/), staring Kenneth Branagh.

[Worf101]

Realistically I dare say you're right ... but people can call them on.

I think there is something missing when we use Nazis as we would space monsters or aliens -- child's nightmare objects of fear and loathing. Nazis were real enough, and real Nazis had the usual range of human character as well as nuanced explanations for their views.



We shall see. In general I've enjoyed, (well, at least appreciated), the Tarentino films I've seen. And too it wasn't the film in-and-of itself that I was objecting to so much as the relentless and stale Nazi bogeyman theme.

If you want to see a probing and sinister film on the subject of Nazi evil, check out the HBO, made for TV flick, Conspiracy by Frank Pierson (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266425/), staring Kenneth Branagh.
I'm glad we're discussing this passionately yet rationally. I always fear these discussions because they so quickly "devolve" into name calling flame wars. I've see "Conspiracy" several times. More on point, the History Channel aired a documentary based on the letters, home moives and photo's of SS Concentration Camp Guards. These relics showed them to, be, as few would expect, funny, caring whole human beings, not monsters. Normal human beings that did MONSTEROUS things.

That's the lesson so many refuse to learn. As I think the Berkley studied showed, almost ANYONE has the monster inside them. Students given authority quickly devolve into monsters despite the "peace and love" rhetoric of the times. What I will concede is that the rigid, social and patriarchal makeup of German Society made it easier in some respects for Naziism to take hold but the German people were/are no more evil than anyone else. However, there are many friends of mine, both Jew and Gentile who want none of this debate. Sigh...

Da Worfster

[Troy]

Feanor, stop talking about something you don't know anything about.

The last thing I'm gonna try to convince you to see it, because I really don't care if you do or not, but pontificating on how bored or insulted you are by this movie without ever actually seeing it just makes you look like a closed-minded old coot with way too much personal baggage. I find your politicization of Tarantino's motivations, or rather, your ill-conceived preconceptions of them, to be laughably off the mark.

If you ever do see IB, you're gonna realize how silly your comments are.

[Feanor]

Feanor, stop talking about something you don't know anything about.

The last thing I'm gonna try to convince you to see it, because I really don't care if you do or not, but pontificating on how bored or insulted you are by this movie without ever actually seeing it just makes you look like a closed-minded old coot with way too much personal baggage. I find your politicization of Tarantino's motivations, or rather, your ill-conceived preconceptions of them, to be laughably off the mark.

If you ever do see IB, you're gonna realize how silly your comments are.

Thanks for your comments.

If the whole, a large part, or a small part of a film offends me, I reserve the right not to see it. I dare say I've missed a few good films on this account. However there are plenty of good films to choose from and it's my choice.

[Feanor]

....
That's the lesson so many refuse to learn. As I think the Berkley studied showed, almost ANYONE has the monster inside them. Students given authority quickly devolve into monsters despite the "peace and love" rhetoric of the times. What I will concede is that the rigid, social and patriarchal makeup of German Society made it easier in some respects for Naziism to take hold but the German people were/are no more evil than anyone else. However, there are many friends of mine, both Jew and Gentile who want none of this debate. Sigh...

Da Worfster

The Germans have long been flagallant about their role in the WWII and the Holocaust, (more so than say the Japanese who largely remain unrepentent). And yet I grew up with an older generation -- Jews and non-Jews as you suggest -- who would never hear a good thing said about any German -- people who will not buy a German car or listen to Wagner even today. It's hypocritical because the monster is in all of us as you say. And as I said, it is particularly egregious coming from uncritical supporters of the Israel state.

[RGA]

I don't think you can really bring in today's middle east argument into a film about A jewish fantasy revenge tale. I have not seen IB yet either.

I've been reading for years the arguments back and forth on Palestine and Israel and you know after siding with both - it's very difficult to me to see how people can WHOLLY side with Palestine or with Israel - and that may be the biggest problem ecause no one can see the "other guy's" concerns. I definitely see why Israel is paranoid that if they give an inch - to the countries surrounding them that have their leaders OPENLY call for Israeli genocide. Documented historical fact - when the leader of Egypt says he wants every last jew murdered then it's tough to not take that personal and tough to really believe what they claim later. But it's also tough to not sympathise with an occupying group with complete control over your freedoms. And that fact that an outside country gave your land away.

I suppose even the people like myself who feel for both sides - will still end up choosing one side a little more.

[Feanor]

I don't think you can really bring in today's middle east argument into a film about A jewish fantasy revenge tale. I have not seen IB yet either.
... .

Well I don't think it's such a stretch.


...
I've been reading for years the arguments back and forth on Palestine and Israel and you know after siding with both - it's very difficult to me to see how people can WHOLLY side with Palestine or with Israel - and that may be the biggest problem ecause no one can see the "other guy's" concerns. I definitely see why Israel is paranoid that if they give an inch - to the countries surrounding them that have their leaders OPENLY call for Israeli genocide. Documented historical fact - when the leader of Egypt says he wants every last jew murdered then it's tough to not take that personal and tough to really believe what they claim later. But it's also tough to not sympathise with an occupying group with complete control over your freedoms. And that fact that an outside country gave your land away.

I suppose even the people like myself who feel for both sides - will still end up choosing one side a little more.

Yes, that's what's true and so sad: both sides here are to blame and I would go so far as to say that when it comes to rhetoric, the worst has come from the Palestinians.

It's not hard to understand the attitude of an actual Israeli citizen; what is a difficult to justify from an ethical or practical point of view is the Israel right-or-wrong attitude of the U.S. pro-Israel lobby. Do you want long-term security for Israel? Or do you want a modicum of historical justice and self-determination for the Palestinian people? You don't have to choose: peace based in a two-state solution will serve both, and presently the Israeli government in the hands by right-wingers in the country are the main obstacle. It is almost entirely on account of unconditional support from the U.S. that they arrogantly refuse to make the necessary accomodations.

[Troy]

If the whole, a large part, or a small part of a film offends me, I reserve the right not to see it. I dare say I've missed a few good films on this account. However there are plenty of good films to choose from and it's my choice.

But how do you know it's offensive if you haven't seen it? You are smart enough to know that trailers and reviews can be, and in this case are, misleading. Like I said, if you ever do see this movie, you'll be embarrassed by how you've seriously misjudged the content of this film. You are miles off the mark. Miles.

What I have seen and do find offensive is your hijacking of this thread for your own political soap-boxing. And I even agree with your views on Israel for the most part, but take them someplace else, because they have nothing whatsoever to do with this movie!

[nightflier]

While the case for the state of Israel is perhaps a bit off-topic, we are talking about a revenge fantasy film, aren't we? What if this revenge had actually occurred? Would the state of Israel have been created? The two are not that far off, ultimately.

We can all cheer for justice, and considering the odium of Nazi violence (against more than just Jews, BTW - try being of African decent in 1944 Germany). The point is that if such cruelty and violence is in all of us, then perhaps this film might as well be a vicarious outlet for all our unspeakably violent tendencies. There isn't a nation or ethnic/religious group out there who hasn't committed violence of the same caliber as the Nazis in the 30-40's. Even if it wasn't on the same scale, the viciousness was still there.

I do commend Feanor for asking what Tarentino's motives were in making this film. That's a question we should ask of any director or writer, especially when it involves such loaded themes as Nazism, Jewishness, war, revenge, cruelty, etc. Tarentino, perhaps more than any other director, has certainly had a track record of pushing the envelope of what should and should not be talked about, seen or heard. So let's talk about it.

There are no correct answers, but let me just finish with this little gem I heard a while back: "The state of Israel should have been created inside Germany, from a good chunk of it."

[ForeverAutumn]

I think that the key word being bandied about here that everyone is missing is FANTASY. This is not a true story. It's not based on a true story. Tarantino wrote a piece of FICTION.

I haven't seen the movie so I'm not about to critique or criticize or pass judgement on it. But I don't see where the Isreal/Palestinian conflict has anything to do with this movie.

Some of you jumped all over Mr. Peabody when he went political on GMichael's thread about his wife becoming a citizen. At least his question to GM was relevant.

[3LB]

I might see it, but I'll prolly wait until I can rent it. I've never been a huge fan of Tarantino. He borrows way too much to be a visionary IMO. He borrows plot devices, scenes, and his movies are edited for TV anyway, which easily explains most of his camera angles and approach to shooting scenes. I do find his way of intergrating minutia-detailed dialog (as Troy put it) in the weirdest spots to be entertaining but his movies as a whole have become a tad predictable in their forced unpredictability - when you expect the unexpected all the time, you don't buy into what yer watching at the moment...I feel QT has become a tad hackish in this regard. I guess one could say the same for Paul Verhoven (a director I like for better or worse).

Brad Pitt has that ability to convincingly play oddballs and flakes much the way Paul Newman could, so I'm not surprised he's a hoot. But if his role isn't that significant, well, that's a shame, but I think QT movies are for QT fans, no matter who is in them.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Feanor, stop talking about something you don't know anything about.

The last thing I'm gonna try to convince you to see it, because I really don't care if you do or not, but pontificating on how bored or insulted you are by this movie without ever actually seeing it just makes you look like a closed-minded old coot with way too much personal baggage. I find your politicization of Tarantino's motivations, or rather, your ill-conceived preconceptions of them, to be laughably off the mark.

If you ever do see IB, you're gonna realize how silly your comments are.
:lol:

He could turn talk about an Underdog cartoon into a political debate.

Same 'ol same 'ol huh Bill? :frown2:

[Feanor]

I think that the key word being bandied about here that everyone is missing is FANTASY. This is not a true story. It's not based on a true story. Tarantino wrote a piece of FICTION.


It certainly IS a fantasy. But I guess you missed my point. The Nazis were real, not space aliens or horror movie monsters. At the outset I was simply objecting to the theme of bashing of dehumanized Nazis, which by now is a cheap and stale Holywood cliché.

Let me ask those who have seen this film. Does Tarantino mock the dehumanized Nazi bashing cliché? Or does he merely exploit it? If the former, I'll reconsider this particular movie.

[bobsticks]

Pathetically myopic worldviews held by some of y'all...and sadly not really surprising....I sincerely hope that ITRW none of y'all are doctors...it'd be a shame to watch the patient die while several of you fixate on the symptoms...

These are my least favorite threads that appear on this forum.

Troy, I'm sorry your thread got hijacked...it started as a well-thought, compelling review...thank you for the effort; I'm gonna go see this flick...

[Rich-n-Texas]

ITRW = In The Real World. :yesnod:

I'm going to go see this also. The impression I got from the trailer I saw on TV is that Brad's role in the movie is a perfect fit for a QT directed film and Troy's description of it just reinforces what I already thought. :thumbsup:

[3LB]

At the outset I was simply objecting to the theme of bashing of dehumanized Nazis, which by now is a cheap and stale Holywood cliché. QT isn't beyond being cliche, or cheap, as is evident by his pawnshop/Deliverence scene in Pulp Fiction.


Does Tarantino mock the dehumanized Nazi bashing cliché? Or does he merely exploit it? If the former, I'll reconsider this particular movie.

I haven't seen it, but how can you mock the the dehumanized Nazi bashing cliché w/o being exploitive? How would you mock the the dehumanized Nazi bashing cliché?

Its my expectation that any attempt by QT to delve into an established genre is to "turn it on its ear" so to speak. Yeah, I can see how you might want to take issue with what you've already pointed out to be cliché but do you think moviemakers are going to leave the subject alone if it makes money? Yes, I agree that Nazis as comicbook style baddies in movies has become cliché, but how else are you going to portray Nazis in a film like this? I don't think this film was ever presented as an indepth exploration of Nazism, WWII or US middle-east policy since. Being a QT film I ssupect its supposed to be funny in a twisted, uncomfortable QT kinda way.

In comedy or action movies, I think its an unspoken rule that Nazis have to be portrayed as uptight fuktards - its a parody of their own vision of themselves. Or you could put 'em in a kickline...

[bobsticks]

Yeah...y'know, I wouldn't wanna fight me either...

[nightflier]

Sticks, you lost me. What's eating you about the thread?

[RGA]

3LB - You've hit the nail on the head.

I watched the film last night and it boils down to a QT western dirty dozen revenge romp through WWII if the fantasy of winning not losing happened to come about. There is no great political message but human nature commentary you bet. Quentin Tarantino loves dialogue, loves actors, is in love with his female leads and their feet, and to be quite blunt the Nazis deserve whatever they got and whatever QT could imagine them getting - which wasn't enough.

It's not perfect - in the way I felt Pulp Fiction was perfect. More characters were better drawn in Pulp Fiction with less screen time. But Christoph Waltz deserves an academy award as a typical psychopath who relishes a war like this. Brad Pitt who I usually don't like - I liked him here. Some of the scenes toward end were hilarious.

There is nothing of current politics about it unless you deliberately read something that isn't there into it. It's a terrific film (not living up to Pulp Fiction which was my number 2 film of the 1990's behind Schindler's List) is no crime. IB is the best film I've seen this year.

I like Ebert's review http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090819/REVIEWS/908199995

[3LB]

These are my least favorite threads that appear on this forum.


Wha? you mean the kind that go over one page?

:lol:

[bobsticks]

Wha? you mean the kind that go over one page?

:lol:


Lol...not so much...but I lol'd...

[bobsticks]

Sticks, you lost me. What's eating you about the thread?


The fact that peeps are pre-judging without ever seeing and placing judgements based modern-day contextual nuances that have nothing to do with the story in question.

Suddenly the thread has become some historically-revisionist tale of the emotional delpth of the Nazi's...a justification of sorts and semi-hollow bashing of Israel without any analysis as to the origins of the many problematic issues that face that particular region of the globe.

[Feanor]

The fact that peeps are pre-judging without ever seeing and placing judgements based modern-day contextual nuances that have nothing to do with the story in question.

Suddenly the thread has become some historically-revisionist tale of the emotional delpth of the Nazi's...a justification of sorts and semi-hollow bashing of Israel without any analysis as to the origins of the many problematic issues that face that particular region of the globe.

:confused: If you accusing somebody of being a crypto-Nazi, perhaps you'd like to quit the innuendo and name him (or her).

Also with respect to the supposed "bashing ... Israel without any analysis ...", perhaps you'd like to discuss the origins of issued that aren't being analysed.

Or if not, maybe you'd like to STFU.

[bobsticks]

:confused: If you accusing somebody of being a crypto-Nazi, perhaps you'd like to quit the innuendo and name him (or her).

Also with respect to the supposed "bashing ... Israel without any analysis ...", perhaps you'd like to discuss the origins of issued that aren't being analysed.

Or if not, maybe you'd like to STFU.

Lol...I appreciate the multiple edit points....

...I'm not accusing anyone of being a "crypto nazi"...

<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nYymnxoQnf8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nYymnxoQnf8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>

I also appreciate your ability to recognize that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have some blood in this one...ja...the issue is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place...should we really ignore the fact that a coalition of white elitists made a deliberate decision to place a few million Jews in their "Holy Land"....amidst the economic breakdown of an entire region...

Ultimately, we can talk about the breakdown of civility within modern discourse or we can discuss your influenced rancor about me "STFU"...(which I'm giggling a bit about given that you didn't have the cajones to type it in the first place)....

The fact that your ultra-liberal background would blind you from certain truths scares me. I regard you, Feanor, as an accomplished individual not just within the arena of music but of experience, as well. When I wrote, "semi-hollow bashin" you must've recognized...

nevermind...this is obviously going to devolve into a ridiculous argument...one that I have both no stake in, and one that you're probably too prejudgemental to pay attention too..

Let's leave it at this...there are many current issues that must be contended with , as well as a significant amount of historical precedent...

For the world to be a better place, all of us must reconize that the sins of the past do not apply to us as individuals...nor are they inapplicable....move the **** on an live yer life...

[Feanor]

...
Ultimately, we can talk about the breakdown of civility within modern discourse or we can discuss your influenced rancor about me "STFU"...(which I'm giggling a bit about given that you didn't have the cajones to type it in the first place)....

The fact that your ultra-liberal background would blind you from certain truths scares me. I regard you, Feanor, as an accomplished individual not just within the arena of music but of experience, as well. When I wrote, "semi-hollow bashin" you must've recognized...

nevermind...this is obviously going to devolve into a ridiculous argument...one that I have both no stake in, and one that you're probably too prejudgemental to pay attention too..

Let's leave it at this...
...

Yes, let's the both of us STFU ... for now.

[bobsticks]

..Best for both of us..and let me reiterate I respect you as a person...just not always your political opinions...

[nightflier]

Sticks, not to muddy the waters, but we are talking about a movie that:

1. Was made 50-ish years after WW2
2. Was made by one of the most controversial mainstream directors of our time
3. Has as it's main theme the issue of vengeance
4. Is extremely violent
5. Is a fantasy (it never happened)

That this discussion should forgo the questions raised above is a bit puzzling. After all, the Israel-Palestinian conflict also:

1. Was made 50-ish years ago
2. Was created by some rather controversial mainstream leaders of the time
3. Has as it's main theme the issue of vengeance
4. Is extremely violent
5. is not a fantasy (it really happened)

So aside from #5, there are some similarities that should be considered, I think. Now as far as me not having seen the movie (yet), you are correct in pointing that out. But you have to admit that the previews alone leave little to the imagination (typical of movie previews these days).

[3LB]

there are some similarities that should be considered

possibly, but I think in this case one might defer to the originator of the thread, lest a new thread be posted on the O/T forum. Myself, I don't care if a thread goes way off topic, but it ain't my thread either.

I dunno if Tarantino is all that controversial anymore, or avant gard either. He's the John Waters of action film. I'm not saying he's untalented or a hack or whatever, I'm just saying he's what I'd call a cult director - ya kinda know what yer gonna get.

[ForeverAutumn]

Sticks, not to muddy the waters, but we are talking about a movie that:

1. Was made 50-ish years after WW2
2. Was made by one of the most controversial mainstream directors of our time
3. Has as it's main theme the issue of vengeance
4. Is extremely violent
5. Is a fantasy (it never happened)

That this discussion should forgo the questions raised above is a bit puzzling. After all, the Israel-Palestinian conflict also:

1. Was made 50-ish years ago
2. Was created by some rather controversial mainstream leaders of the time
3. Has as it's main theme the issue of vengeance
4. Is extremely violent
5. is not a fantasy (it really happened)

So aside from #5, there are some similarities that should be considered, I think. Now as far as me not having seen the movie (yet), you are correct in pointing that out. But you have to admit that the previews alone leave little to the imagination (typical of movie previews these days).


Where's the logic in this post?

First off, #1 is not similar, you're talking about two completely different points in time.

Second, you're comparing a hollywood director to some of the most influential (for good or bad) leaders of the 20th century. I'm sure that QT would be flattered.

Third, should we contemplate and compare everything that fits your criteria? Let's throw Hiroshima and Nagasaki into the mix then. 50ish years ago; created by controverial mainstream leader; Is an issue of vengeance; Was extremely violent; Was not a fantasy. Yep, it fits.

nightflier, sometimes I think that you argue just for the sake of arguing.

[nightflier]

I suppose my points were perhaps worded awkwardly. With #1, my point was that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is very much an issue still today, as witnessed by the controversy over this film.

Point #2 could use more detail, so I'll provide that. Who's to say that QT doesn't have as much influence as Jabotinsky, Koetsler, or to speak for the other side, al-Husayni? Films were not as widespread in the Israeli state's infancy, so I'm referring to propagandists and writers of course. But the fact remains that we are talking about influencing the minds of people and QT, flattered or not, is on a mission of sorts, and we should indeed ask ourselves what that mission is.

#3 & #4 are obvious similarities, and it would probably not be a stretch to include the atomic bombs in the discussion, but I didn't want to go there. Had QT made a movie set during the extermination of Native Americans by US troops (he is 1/4 Cherokee) or Armenians by Turkish troops, the point would still be the same: this is a movie about vengeance for an act of excessive violence during a major war. He could very well be asking the question: how much more cruelty in return is justified? Certainly a small band of Jewish soldiers cannot possibly perpetrate an act of the same magnitude as the Nazi exterminations, so QT suggests that maybe extreme cruelty, violence, and spine-tingling odium could offer some levity. Does it? I don't know, but the question should still be asked.

It is my opinion that QT very much sought to push those buttons, the very ones that call the Palestinian-Israeli conflict into question, or more universally, any excessive violent act during a time of war. Whether he's doing it for ratings, psycho-egoism, or even an artistic reason, is perhaps the most disturbing question in all this. I didn't really want to go too deep into the analysis of it, but you forced my hand. No I don't post for nothing, I post because these questions should be asked.

And not to belabor the point, but there are far more similarities that I could point out too, the least of which is that the cruelty in this movie smacks of the cruelty that we read is being perpetrated by any army that is overwhelmingly more powerful than the force it is fighting. I'm talking about the way our soldiers carried themselves in Abu Graib and the despicable conduct in the documentary Taxi to the Dark Side. And the Israeli army isn't much different. Their treatment of Palestinian civilians (Gaza comes to mind) and the abysmal conditions of prisoners is well documented but it's not new either. Noam Chomsky has described in detail how Israelis condoned, encouraged, and even trained the death squads and torturers of the Latin American dictatorships. There are now several sources that cite that Jewish doctors have been harvesting prisoner organs (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/19/swedish-article-suggestin_n_262787.html). Is this starting to sound eerily familiar, yet?

These are happening today in our lifetime and have far too much in common with crimes of the past to leave the questions unasked. So is QT asking these same questions with his film or is it just more senseless, unadulterated, violence-ridden entertainment? I seriously doubt QT, however we may hate or like him, is that shallow.

[bobsticks]

Wow...seriously?..you wanna quote Noam Chomsky as cedible source??

I can appreciate your suburban, judgemental, greenie, uneducated point of view...but, umm, no I can't...

I can appreciate your level of egalitarianism...

...None the less, **** them muthfukkk**s, ..

Erebody wants to ignore to historical precent that was set...you wanna move a bunch of peeeps to an unfamiar area without the benifit of any input...

Both sides have been wronged, Both have members that live in poverty...ultimately that has to do with opportunity....those countries need to foster development...

[RGA]

I'm kind of tired of people getting on Inglorious Basterds comparing it to the Israeli Palestinian conflict without ever actually watching the movie. Please! This is the Dirty Dozen meets Pulp Fiction and it's not more than it is. A revenge Jewish fantasy tale of "how I wish I could blow away the big Nazi brass for what they did to my parents story. Geez.

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant logical writer but let's not let him do all of the thinking for everyone. Noam has a perspective/bias that he puts forth. The past needs to be set aside and people have to deal with the situation and "complaints" of both parties in the now. Arguing about some document that was signed more than 40 years ago and who owned what piece of land is a complete waste of time. The Israeli's are not going to give up land because in their guts they know that if they give an inch the 300 million folks on their borders who all want them stuffed in gas chambers will be in a very weak position. It's never ever ever ever ever going to happen that they give up massive territory. And so Palestine and neighboring states can either figure it out and make an accommodation or be stuck in an endless war. The two sides frankly deserve one another and I'm tired of reading endless self proclaimed experts arguing over minutia as to why Israel is wrong or why Palestine is wrong and who is terrorizing who. Israelies torturing Palestinians and Palestinians strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up Israeli women and children. And both sides fighting to preserve the land of a fictitious God.

[bobsticks]

Thank you


I'm kind of tired of people getting on Inglorious Basterds comparing it to the Israeli Palestinian conflict without ever actually watching the movie. Please! This is the Dirty Dozen meets Pulp Fiction and it's not more than it is. A revenge Jewish fantasy tale of "how I wish I could blow away the big Nazi brass for what they did to my parents story. Geez.

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant logical writer but let's not let him do all of the thinking for everyone. Noam has a perspective/bias that he puts forth. The past needs to be set aside and people have to deal with the situation and "complaints" of both parties in the now. Arguing about some document that was signed more than 40 years ago and who owned what piece of land is a complete waste of time. The Israeli's are not going to give up land because in their guts they know that if they give an inch the 300 million folks on their borders who all want them stuffed in gas chambers will be in a very weak position. It's never ever ever ever ever going to happen that they give up massive territory. And so Palestine and neighboring states can either figure it out and make an accommodation or be stuck in an endless war. The two sides frankly deserve one another and I'm tired of reading endless self proclaimed experts arguing over minutia as to why Israel is wrong or why Palestine is wrong and who is terrorizing who. Israelies torturing Palestinians and Palestinians strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up Israeli women and children. And both sides fighting to preserve the land of a fictitious God.

[ForeverAutumn]

I'm kind of tired of people getting on Inglorious Basterds comparing it to the Israeli Palestinian conflict without ever actually watching the movie. Please! This is the Dirty Dozen meets Pulp Fiction and it's not more than it is. A revenge Jewish fantasy tale of "how I wish I could blow away the big Nazi brass for what they did to my parents story. Geez.

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant logical writer but let's not let him do all of the thinking for everyone. Noam has a perspective/bias that he puts forth. The past needs to be set aside and people have to deal with the situation and "complaints" of both parties in the now. Arguing about some document that was signed more than 40 years ago and who owned what piece of land is a complete waste of time. The Israeli's are not going to give up land because in their guts they know that if they give an inch the 300 million folks on their borders who all want them stuffed in gas chambers will be in a very weak position. It's never ever ever ever ever going to happen that they give up massive territory. And so Palestine and neighboring states can either figure it out and make an accommodation or be stuck in an endless war. The two sides frankly deserve one another and I'm tired of reading endless self proclaimed experts arguing over minutia as to why Israel is wrong or why Palestine is wrong and who is terrorizing who. Israelies torturing Palestinians and Palestinians strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up Israeli women and children. And both sides fighting to preserve the land of a fictitious God.

Well said.

[Feanor]

I'm kind of tired of people getting on Inglorious Basterds comparing it to the Israeli Palestinian conflict without ever actually watching the movie. Please! This is the Dirty Dozen meets Pulp Fiction and it's not more than it is. A revenge Jewish fantasy tale of "how I wish I could blow away the big Nazi brass for what they did to my parents story. Geez.

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant logical writer but let's not let him do all of the thinking for everyone. Noam has a perspective/bias that he puts forth. The past needs to be set aside and people have to deal with the situation and "complaints" of both parties in the now. Arguing about some document that was signed more than 40 years ago and who owned what piece of land is a complete waste of time. The Israeli's are not going to give up land because in their guts they know that if they give an inch the 300 million folks on their borders who all want them stuffed in gas chambers will be in a very weak position. It's never ever ever ever ever going to happen that they give up massive territory. And so Palestine and neighboring states can either figure it out and make an accommodation or be stuck in an endless war. The two sides frankly deserve one another and I'm tired of reading endless self proclaimed experts arguing over minutia as to why Israel is wrong or why Palestine is wrong and who is terrorizing who. Israelies torturing Palestinians and Palestinians strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up Israeli women and children. And both sides fighting to preserve the land of a fictitious God.

I saw Dirty Dozen and disliked it for reasons indicated.
Too bad the United Nations' two-state solution, the 1947 Palestine Partition agreement, didn't work; it would have saved us all lot of aggrevation in the intervening 60 years.
I agree with your last sentance.

[3LB]

This is the Dirty Dozen meets Pulp Fiction and it's not more than it is.

ding ding ding ding...

we have a winnah, give the man a ceegar!

[Auricauricle]

I have not seen the latest QT movie yet, and there is a pretty distinct possibility that I may wait awhile before I do. While his shows are certainly worthy of note, QT’s grotesqueries don’t have much appeal for me, who have seen and continue to experience the horrors of obscene violence first hand. No depiction of these graphic acts, even in QT’s cartoonish garb, can fail but to affect me, and finding catharsis, even in the face of wrongs righted, is just as brutal.

I expect that such a pompous statement risks being labeled a prude, but in depicting blood shed in such a façade, I reckon that Tarantino diminishes violence. For those of us old enough and mature enough to appreciate his buffoonery, this may be fine, but I worry that such depictions have an insidious, desensitizing effect. I noticed this the other day, as I watched a show describing unspeakable savagery in another part of the world. As I watched, images of mutilated bodies lay strewn across the screen. While I was capable of feeling the repugnance that accompanies such a viewing, I realized, sadly, that my revulsion was not as toxic as it once was. Have I grown up? Have I become inured?

The depiction of violence in movies and on the television has been an issue almost as long as these media have been extant. True, I have seen my share of many shows that depict the destruction of the human body, and for the most part I have been able—most of the time—to walk away from the shows able to remind myself that it was, after all, only a show I watched and that the gore was Karo syrup and latex. Some shows, on the other hand, have stuck with me a bit longer than others, and there are yet some that I have avoided altogether, knowing that in some way, watching them will take something away from me.

In Buddhism, the concept of the Eightfold Path offers adherents to the importance of doing things the right way, in order to lessen their suffering. Right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, and right knowledge and liberation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Noble_Eightfold_Path) are all part of this journey. Without going into a discourse on Buddhism, the notion that going astray can cloud the mind and our lives, I think, is a valid one. As I said, many is the time that I have seen and heard horror, and in these occasions an important part of me has faded away. In appreciating the moment, certain images, thoughts and feelings must be allowed to come and pass. Just as the leaves on a stream emerge into view and disappear, so should these moments. Violence is toxic, and sometimes its presence makes letting things go well nigh impossible.

This is the horror of post-traumatic stress. It can be real or vicarious, but the brain is capable of processing these interlopers the same way. While much work has been done to diminish the effects of violence, through special training or super-medications, I worry that in doing so will come with the sacrifice of our ability to feel anything. Our capacity to have compassion, empathy and sorrow are just as important as our faculties to experience joy. Perhaps in becoming desensitized or “used to” horror, we risk losing this capacity and so, relinquish our very humanity.

So, I will wait awhile before I catch this movie. It may be a farce, it may, in fact be quite and alarmingly funny. Call me oversensitive or a “wussy”; I just don’t want the pollution in my head just now.

[Feanor]

I have not seen the latest QT movie yet, and there is a pretty distinct possibility that I may wait awhile before I do. While his shows are certainly worthy of note, QT’s grotesqueries don’t have much appeal for me, who have seen and continue to experience the horrors of obscene violence first hand. No depiction of these graphic acts, even in QT’s cartoonish garb, can fail but to affect me, and finding catharsis, even in the face of wrongs righted, is just as brutal.

I expect that such a pompous statement risks being labeled a prude, but in depicting blood shed in such a façade, I reckon that Tarantino diminishes violence. For those of us old enough to appreciate his buffoonery, this may be fine, but I worry that such depictions have an insidious, desensitizing effect. I noticed this the other day, as I watched a show describing unspeakable savagery in another part of the world. As I watched, images of mutilated bodies lay strewn across the screen. While I was capable of feeling the repugnance that accompanies such a viewing, I realized, sadly, that my revulsion was not as toxic as it once was. Have I grown up? Have I become inured?

The depiction of violence in movies and on the television has been an issue almost as long as these media have been extant. True, I have seen my share of many shows that depict the destruction of the human body, and for the most part I have been able—most of the time—to walk away from the shows able to remind myself that it was, after all, only a show I watched and that the gore was Karo syrup and latex. Some shows, on the other hand, have stuck with me a bit longer than others, and there are yet some that I have avoided altogether, knowing that in some way, watching them will take something away from me.

....

I can confidently say based on the other Tarantino films I've seen, that he exploits violence. Why does this appeal to us? Is it vicarious experience? Is it catharsis? Or is it just desensitizing?

And my question about this latest movie: is it really better that most of the violence is visited on comic-book demon Nazi mannequins rather than real human beings, or is not?

[nightflier]

Auric, thanks for reminding us of that.

[Troy]

I'm kind of tired of people getting on Inglorious Basterds comparing it to the Israeli Palestinian conflict without ever actually watching the movie. Please! This is the Dirty Dozen meets Pulp Fiction and it's not more than it is. A revenge Jewish fantasy tale of "how I wish I could blow away the big Nazi brass for what they did to my parents story. Geez.

This is pretty much the only correct comment that's appeared in this thread in the last week.

So much of the rest is just pompous posturing and ego stroking. You all seem hellbent on bragging "I haven't seen the movie, but let me tell you my stance on . . . whatever."

Auri-Dude, are there really any TV or movie entertainments palatable for a strict Buddhist in the 21st century? Are you a strict Buddhist (why on earth would a Buddhist use a skull in a leather pilots helmet as an avatar?) or are you just trying to make us feel guilty as some sorta parochial buzzkill? Don't see it, I don't care, but don't you dare act like I'm supposed to feel guilty about it because of your personal baggage. PTSD, my hairy balls, it's a freekin movie.

Really 3LB, I don't mind if a thread goes off topic, but I do when it's derailed by misinformed (about the actual subject of the thread) egomaniacs who blather on, leaking treacle and pontificating their political and religious claptrap.

Really fellas, it's embarrassing. If there was a way for me to close this thread I would.

[nightflier]

Sticks, how is Chomsky not credible?

[Rich-n-Texas]

This is pretty much the only correct comment that's appeared in this thread in the last week.

So much of the rest is just pompous posturing and ego stroking. You all seem hellbent on bragging "I haven't seen the movie, but let me tell you my stance on . . . whatever."

Auri-Dude, are there really any TV or movie entertainments palatable for a strict Buddhist in the 21st century? Are you a strict Buddhist (why on earth would a Buddhist use a skull in a leather pilots helmet as an avatar?) or are you just trying to make us feel guilty as some sorta parochial buzzkill? Don't see it, I don't care, but don't you dare act like I'm supposed to feel guilty about it because of your personal baggage. PTSD, my hairy balls, it's a freekin movie.

Really 3LB, I don't mind if a thread goes off topic, but I do when it's derailed by misinformed (about the actual subject of the thread) egomaniacs who blather on, leaking treacle and pontificating their political and religious claptrap.

Really fellas, it's embarrassing. If there was a way for me to close this thread I would.
The GOOD thing about this thread Troy is...

No Spoilers!

I still plan on seeing this movie because like I said... I think.. (it was so long ago)... it looks like Brad plays his role with great ability and deft. And I loved both Kill Bill movies. :thumbsup:

[Auricauricle]

Troy: The last thing in the world I wanted to do was spout off a bunch of more pious than thou drivel, and if I came accross that way, then I am duly reminded....My point is, simply, that movies of extreme violence are not my cup of tea. I avoid certain things, because I know I don't need that input. This is not piety: this is mere editorializing. GIGO.

[RGA]

While there is evidence to support the fact that violence on TV affects the behavior of children - the argument for adults is a no go.

Violence in film can be disassociated from reality in adults because adults know (or should know) that what is presented on screen is a fiction. The point of movies created by film makers (artists) and not producers is to move, create a catharsis, make the movie goer think, or all of the above.

Violence and gore can be used to make subtle points about humanity and I would argue that QT goes over the top to illustrate to the audience how desensitized they have become. I remember watching Pulp Fiction in the theater and there is a scene in the car where Travolta accidentally shoots a guy sitting in the back seat when the car hits a bump. The audience roared with laughter. Defense mechanism? The audience laughed at something grizzly, sickening, gory, bloody that in real life no non sociopath would laugh at. For the next 10-15 minutes the two leads were talking about getting brain matter out of their hair and car seats. The absurdity of these characters, and complete lack of remorse over the poor fellow in the back seat.

Some films like the original Dawn of the Dead - use zombies, tanker truckloads of blood, gore which at the time had it pegged as the goriest film of all time served a purpose. The zombies eating the living was stomach turning for most but the villain (the Zombies) by mid movie are almost forgotten - and it is a second band of humans that become villains and the zombies pitiable and even rooted for in some instances. Romero played with violence - desensitized us to the zombies and made a point about humanity's need to accumulate useless junk. After all the zombies come back from the dead and head for the shopping mall - it was an important place in their life - they want the place not the human survivors. It is one of the great anti-consumerism films ever constructed disguised as a horror movie.

Some people are far more sensitive to violence and can't separate the fiction from reality as easily - or simply get queezy watching the violence. Inglorious Basterds does have some gore that is quite high. Scalping scenes where you see one guy cut the layer of skin and hair off a guy's head. Another brutal baseball bat scene to the head with blood spurting everywhere. So you need to be prepared for a QT film if this kind of thing makes you squirm.

That said, many people can separate fiction from reality and know and are affected by real violence/evil in the world. Watching Pulp Fiction does not mean that people will all start not caring if they're friend or neighbor or stranger is shot to death.

Violence in film can also make people feel more passionately about subject topics. Nameless, faceless images of the holocaust taught in high schools for example never had the impact of a film like Schindler's List - which actually had less violence and horror and images but more storytelling putting names and faces to the dead and a kind of matter of fact documentary style mostly objective camera. Violence can be a real strength depending how it is used.

It can be something terrible when all it is used for is the sadism of the director. SAW might be an example where the audience gets off on watching people suffer and die and offers nothing more to the palette than that. And sixth SAW movie is coming out. I've seen part of the first one and none since. QT makes movies that serve a point, have great dialogue and usually fascinating stories and characters. Movies like SAW are exercises in suffering and brutality and banality.

[GMichael]

I haven't seen this movie yet. Is it OK if I say something stupid?

Oops. Too late.

[Auricauricle]

Gee-zus!!! I fergot just how difficult it is to get dog poo outta the shoe....Not to mention the taste...

[nightflier]

Well, since you RGA opened that door...

I think people are being a little light on QT. Wasn't he involved with Hostel as well? What irks me about QT is that he has a fascination with torture and sadist themes and he relishes in pushing the envelope in that direction. At least Mel Gibson (another one who pushes that envelope) is willing to acknowledge that such cruelty should not be seen as an example, but I can't really say QT has that same restraint. QT is more about getting people riled up and he could care less what they do with it.

Scalping, BTW, is one of the most horrid and gruesome punishments known and is being practiced in some of the prisons we don't want to acknowledge we send people to. One of the British citizens who is a plaintiff against the US government for rendition, bared his head in court, showing multiple scars where slivers of skin had been ripped off. I realize that arguments can be made for the use of torture (not that I agree with them), but no human being should be scalped for any reason - IMO, that is beyond cruel.

Moreover, you have to ask yourself what kind of sick person would do that kind of thing. What brought them to such depravity? How twisted must they be? And should such a person be allowed to walk among us, freely? Would you trust them walking around your neighborhood? While RGA may disagree, I do think QT's depictions desensitize us to these horrors. It's no secret that the most cruel and inhumane terrorists that our military and security forces have encountered in Iraq and elsewhere, had a long history of abuse, imprisonment, and yes, torture. Violence does beget violence. Let's remember that we trained the Mujaheddin who are now fighting us.

Likewise, it's a well known fact that the most popular TV show that our troops watch while deployed is 24. What's not as well known, is that they actually go out and practice those very crimes on prisoners. This is how a torturer is created. Now I'm going to guess that QT also ranks pretty high on their list of favorite directors. It doesn't take a genius to connect those dots.

[Troy]

I think people are being a little light on QT. Wasn't he involved with Hostel as well? What irks me about QT is that he has a fascination with torture and sadist themes and he relishes in pushing the envelope in that direction. At least Mel Gibson (another one who pushes that envelope) is willing to acknowledge that such cruelty should not be seen as an example, but I can't really say QT has that same restraint. QT is more about getting people riled up and he could care less what they do with it.

Scalping, BTW, is one of the most horrid and gruesome punishments known and is being practiced in some of the prisons we don't want to acknowledge we send people to. One of the British citizens who is a plaintiff against the US government for rendition, bared his head in court, showing multiple scars where slivers of skin had been ripped off. I realize that arguments can be made for the use of torture (not that I agree with them), but no human being should be scalped for any reason - IMO, that is beyond cruel.

Moreover, you have to ask yourself what kind of sick person would do that kind of thing. What brought them to such depravity? How twisted must they be? And should such a person be allowed to walk among us, freely? Would you trust them walking around your neighborhood? While RGA may disagree, I do think QT's depictions desensitize us to these horrors. It's no secret that the most cruel and inhumane terrorists that our military and security forces have encountered in Iraq and elsewhere, had a long history of abuse, imprisonment, and yes, torture. Violence does beget violence. Let's remember that we trained the Mujaheddin who are now fighting us.

Likewise, it's a well known fact that the most popular TV show that our troops watch while deployed is 24. What's not as well known, is that they actually go out and practice those very crimes on prisoners. This is how a torturer is created. Now I'm going to guess that QT also ranks pretty high on their list of favorite directors. It doesn't take a genius to connect those dots.

{sarcasm}Oh, scalping is bad, gee, I didn't know that. Thanks for that clarification.{/sarcasm}

Are you freekin kidding me? Are you really making the implication that Mel Gibson's portrayal of violence is somehow more noble or intelligent than QT's? Mel Gibson is a world-class douchebag. He used to do a good Curley impression (Lethal Weapon), but then he became an anti-semetic hack that made, what is essentially, a Jesus snuff film. Talk about the pornification of violence . . .

Is the violence in Saving Private Ryan any less pornographic than the violence in Inglourious Basterds? Does putting a serious spin on the story surrounding the violence somehow make the violence more . . . anti-violent? What a ridiculous postulation. It's well documented how disappointed Ollie Stone was at the reception of his supposedly anti-violent gorefest "Natural Born Killers." He hated that the audiences were getting off on the violence that was supposedly designed to be so excessive that any audience would be repelled. How ironic that his anti-violence movie ended up being embraced by violence fetishists, spawning copycat crimes all over the world. See also Kubrick and his "A Clockwork Orange". That movie almost ended his career because of it's use of ultra-violence, and the copycat crimes it spawned . . . even though it has a very clear anti-violence message. The reception to that movie devastated Kubrick emotionally.

No, the kind of entertainment violence that is actually the LEAST desensitizing is ridiculous, cartoon violence, like QT's. QT's use of violence is the modern analogue to the 3 Stooges or even Warner Brothers Cartoons. It's so far out of the realm of reality that it provokes queasy laughter instead of horror. Yeah, I know, it goes WAY further than those 60+ year-old entertainments, but it's a different world now. Even "A Clockwork Orange", which was considered the most violent film ever made in its day, is quite tame by modern standards. So QT's brand of violence only reflects that gradual desensitivication (not a word) brought forth by the gradual increase of supposedly "noble" violence in films over the last 50 years.

QT is taking violence to it's logical conclusion, based on modern culture's threshold for it. No question, QT stretches the envelope and some people are not as desensitized as others, so they react to the violence in a strongly negative way. And that's ok, you don't have to like it. Entertainments can't be made for everyone, how boring would that be? You'd end up with everything being lowest common denominator crap like broadcast TV.

But the idea that you think you can vilify this movie by comparing it's scalping scenes (without actually seeing them and their context in the movie, no less!) to real life scalping situations is staggeringly asinine. What about all the old westerns that contained scalping scenes, is it ok because it isn't depicted as graphically? I posit to you that, in their day, these scenes were considered just as graphically violent as QT's scenes are today.

So feel free to drag QT movies through the mud because they are so violent if you like. I've been largely silent on it to this point, but your idea that SOME movie violence is ok, if it's serious and somehow well intentioned, is a well documented load of crap.

[RGA]

The most sadistic piece of literature known to man is the King James Bible. Unlike movie violence where you can choose to spend your money or flip another channel. Many children are indoctrinated in the Bible without choice but because their parents shove it down their throat at an early age and then pounded into them every Sunday.

Here is the Bible http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cMlEvqPgVQ

[audio amateur]

I have not seen the latest QT movie yet, and there is a pretty distinct possibility that I may wait awhile before I do.
...


Brilliantly written yet again, I much enjoy reading what you have to say.

[audio amateur]

Here is the Bible http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cMlEvqPgVQ
It is truly sad that Richard Dawkins is (or seems ot be) your only point of reference.
How can you make such a blatant claim, when you obviously know very little about the bible? Or perhaps I should say, aside the crap you've heard from Dawkins?

[bobsticks]

Hey, has anyone else that wants to comment actually seen the movie yet?

[Rich-n-Texas]

What movie? :sosp:

[nightflier]

Troy, you're putting words in my mouth. My reference to Gibson was only to point out that unlike QT, he actually came out and said that the violence was not meant to be an example (this was back when he did Braveheart - but I doubt he's changed his opinion). BTW, I certainly don't condone his anti-Semitic tendencies, but it's not like anyone cared about it much then either (even though it was already well known by many). Point is: QT never apologizes for anything and seems to relish in it no matter where it leads - that is irresponsible. Kind of like yelling fire in a crowded theater just to see what happens.

You can also stop ragging on the fact that I haven't seen the movie. At this point I really don't want to see it. From everything I've read, and the clips that I have seen, I think I've seen enough. I certainly won't spend money on it and increase sales figures, and I certainly hope others do the same. Or do you think maybe by not seeing it, I'm missing the humor that surrounds it? Humor about torturing people? Are you kidding me? No, you can count me out. I worked for Amnesty International for almost 10 years and in the end I was so disgusted and demoralized that I couldn't do it anymore. If you think you're that tough, then maybe you should give it a try - start with the simple letter writing, they certainly need the help - but I bet you won't last a year. I'm done with that and I'm certainly done with condoning extreme violence with my money - I'll spend mine elsewhere, thank you.

And as far as the violence being cartoonish, then are you saying that makes it OK? Are you trying to tell me that couched with that label, anything goes? I'm sure Disney & Pixar are lining up with funding for the next QT gore-fest, too, right? Yeah right. And you can bet on it that if QT gets that message from his "fans," he'll push the envelope even further next time around. What do you need to see before it starts to disgust you too, somebody being skinned alive? Oh, I suppose some sick SOB will find a way to make that a joke too, ...and the depravity continues.

[RGA]

It is truly sad that Richard Dawkins is (or seems ot be) your only point of reference.
How can you make such a blatant claim, when you obviously know very little about the bible? Or perhaps I should say, aside the crap you've heard from Dawkins?

I may as well post the guy who is most eloquent on the subject. I can read 10,000 pages on the virtues of the Tooth Fairy or Harry Potter but it doesn't make the Tooth Fairy or Harry Potter any more real than the fiction they are. Basic Logic blows up the monotheistic Gods. Dawkins is my favorite because he cuts through the BS and is probably the most accessible to the layperson. There are many others but Dawkins has the science background as well - but here is an interview with 3 others (including Dawkins). This is just a quick internet search - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E

[audio amateur]

I may as well post the guy who is most eloquent on the subject. I can read 10,000 pages on the virtues of the Tooth Fairy or Harry Potter but it doesn't make the Tooth Fairy or Harry Potter any more real than the fiction they are. Basic Logic blows up the monotheistic Gods. Dawkins is my favorite because he cuts through the BS and is probably the most accessible to the layperson. There are many others but Dawkins has the science background as well - but here is an interview with 3 others (including Dawkins). This is just a quick internet search - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E
I urge you to read literature from christian authors, if only to balance your diet of anti-christian (or anti-god) and christian material. Something to the likes of books by Dinesh D'souza, can't recall the name of his best-selling title.

[nightflier]

What's so great about Christianity is, by far.

[Troy]

Troy, you're putting words in my mouth.

I'm putting words in your mouth? Look in the mirror, brother. You've done nothing but jump to conclusions about this movie without seeing it, over and over again!


My reference to Gibson was only to point out that unlike QT, he actually came out and said that the violence was not meant to be an example (this was back when he did Braveheart - but I doubt he's changed his opinion). BTW, I certainly don't condone his anti-Semitic tendencies, but it's not like anyone cared about it much then either (even though it was already well known by many). Point is: QT never apologizes for anything and seems to relish in it no matter where it leads - that is irresponsible. Kind of like yelling fire in a crowded theater just to see what happens.

Would being an apologist somehow make a director's use of onscreen violence acceptable to you? Does a director have to say "I use violence in my movies, but that doesn't mean that I think "real" violence is ok." in order for you to accept the violence as a fantasy? Ridiculous. I mean really, how stupid does Gibson think his audience is that he'd think he needs to come out and actually say that? What an insulting prick.

Comparing a director's unapologetic use of violence in his movies to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a mind-warpingly off the mark analogy. Seriously, I don't even see where you're coming from with that.


You can also stop ragging on the fact that I haven't seen the movie. At this point I really don't want to see it. From everything I've read, and the clips that I have seen, I think I've seen enough.

What an arrogant statement! Do you really think you can judge a movie by it's previews and reviews?

Sorry son, you're not qualified to discuss the movie, in the level of detail you're using, without seeing it.

Period.


I certainly won't spend money on it and increase sales figures, and I certainly hope others do the same. Or do you think maybe by not seeing it, I'm missing the humor that surrounds it? Humor about torturing people? Are you kidding me?

Everyone that's reading your statements that has seen this movie is laughing their collective butts off at you. You don't know what you're talking about becasue you haven't seen it, yet to insist on continuing to spout opinions about it!


No, you can count me out. I worked for Amnesty International for almost 10 years and in the end I was so disgusted and demoralized that I couldn't do it anymore. If you think you're that tough, then maybe you should give it a try - start with the simple letter writing, they certainly need the help - but I bet you won't last a year. I'm done with that and I'm certainly done with condoning extreme violence with my money - I'll spend mine elsewhere, thank you.

Who gives a crap that you're such a model citizen that you're doing volunteer work for amnesty international, and so sensitive that you can't handle it? What does that have to do with Inglourious Basterds? Is this thread about YOU? What's next? "I didn't see IB, but I did go to the grocery store today and Fig Newtons were on sale!"?

I've said it repeatedly, I Don't Care If You See It Or Not. I can't stress that enough. You don't like QT movies and movie violence in any form. I get it already and in fact, got it 2 weeks ago. Now go away and let the people that want to talk about the movie do that. But no, you've got to continue to harp on this point. Even though you're not qualified to because you haven't seen it.


And as far as the violence being cartoonish, then are you saying that makes it OK? Are you trying to tell me that couched with that label, anything goes?

Yes. It's all about tone. I'm mature enough to understand the difference between reality and fantasy. I guess you're not?

What you're saying is the violence in ANYTHING is bad? Including Daffy Duck and Pixar's "Up"? Where do you draw the line? I mean, you use a Clint Eastwood image from a Spaghetti Western as your avatar, how anti-violence can you be? Those movies are quite violent. Are you just being a world-class hypocrite here, or what?


I'm sure Disney & Pixar are lining up with funding for the next QT gore-fest, too, right? Yeah right.

What does Disney and Pixar have to do with it? Why would they sign a contract with QT to do a movie? They make childrens movies. QT does not make children's movies. I swear, your arguments are so strange, and frankly, nonsensical.


And you can bet on it that if QT gets that message from his "fans," he'll push the envelope even further next time around. What do you need to see before it starts to disgust you too, somebody being skinned alive? Oh, I suppose some sick SOB will find a way to make that a joke too, ...and the depravity continues.

It depends on the context. Crap like Hostel sucks because it's missing a context for the violence that makes it redeeming or palatable. Violence for the sake of violence isn't my bag, but used in a story as a way to propel the plot, or as a way to put the audience off balance, or inject more power in a good vs. evil struggle, then I'm all for it.

[Troy]

The GOOD thing about this thread Troy is...

No Spoilers!

I still plan on seeing this movie because like I said... I think.. (it was so long ago)... it looks like Brad plays his role with great ability and deft. And I loved both Kill Bill movies. :thumbsup:

See it dude, before you get spoilt. You'll love it.

[nightflier]

Yeah, good one. If I see the movie, I'll give $12 to QT & Co., and thus compromise my argument. If I don't see it, I can't talk about it. That's a no win situation. But let's consider this nonsense that I'm somehow not supposed to talk about it. What kind of stupid logic is that? By the same logic, anyone who hasn't tortured another person, can't really speak about it? Or maybe I need to have killed a man in order to know it's wrong? Sorry, Troy, but I don't need to see the movie to know that it is not something I don't want to see. Plain and simple.

Obviously you have some issues about Gibson, so I'm just going to leave it at that, but as for QT, that's the point of this thread, isn't it. Yes, a director, just like any artist, is responsible for the content of his/her art. That's not saying art should be censored, but motives should be questioned - that is one of the big reasons people study art. Would you say otherwise if we were talking about racist art? Or misogynistic art? Or art that cruelly belittles the disabled, gays, the elderly, etc.? While no art should be censored, the artist bears responsibility for its effect. It's unfortunate that some artists like Theo Van Gogh or Salman Rushdie must bear such heavy consequences for their art, but to presume that they could create art in a vacuum is simply ridiculous. So yes, QT should be called to task about his movies - and I'm guessing he wouldn't be too shy to respond, either.

As for my avatar, I've been a fan of Westerns all my life and Clint Eastwood, despite his politics that I disagree with, is still an icon of the genre in my book. And yes, Westerns are violent, but that's not where I draw the line. For me, Torture is beyond my interests. I've seen enough images, videos, and read enough accounts to know that this crosses over into distasteful. That is my opinion and my choice.

What is your hang-up about this position anyhow? Are you so enthralled by extreme violence that you just have to jump down anyone's throat who might advocate otherwise? I mean you certainly jumped all over Auricauricle for his pacifist beliefs. So what's your problem, really? Why the vehement attacks? Are you sure these violent scenes aren't going to your head after all. I mean you claim to know the difference between fantasy and real violence, but you certainly get pretty belligerent in your posts.

Disney and Pixar don't do QT movies, that's my point - no amount of humor can whitewash that much violence for Disney or Pixar, even if you think that with enough humor, any violence can pass. Are you really not able to understand the analogy? Geez. You were trying to suggest that because QT dabs scenes of extreme violence with a little humor, that this makes it OK. It doesn't. It's still sick & twisted in the same way that it was sick & twisted for people to laugh when a guy got his head blown off in Pulp Fiction. Yes, I laughed too, but at least I have the wherewithal to admit that this is sick & twisted. Lots of people didn't laugh, by the way, and many walked out of the theater.

But let’s take this a step further, what if you knew someone who had his head blown off carelessly? Would that maybe change your mind? No? What if it was your own kid? So I repeat my question: at what point does this begin to ring home and make you realize that it's sick & twisted? For me, I draw the line at torture. I don't know where you draw the line, but I sure hope you draw it somewhere. By the way, Hostel sucked because it was gratuously violent, not because it had a weak plot.

I know you're all for extreme violence to "propel the plot" in certain movies but I'm starting to have serious doubts about your sanity.

[RGA]

I'm not sure who you are replying to Nightflier - seems to be half to me and half to another poster.

Everyone has a line I suppose. A couple sitting behind me walked out of Good Will Hunting because of the swearing. Presumably they find the F word offensive and it's simply too much for them to bare. People got their knickers in a twist when Eliot said "penis breath" in E.T. the Extra Terrestrial.

What is somewhat bothersome to me is that a lot of the same people who are so offended with swearing and violence in movies are happy to have a trunk load of guns and ammo in their house - ready to blow some guy away for taking their TV (which is probably insured anyway).

QT violence has more than once made me turn my head and say "ahh Quentin that's just wrong" and this movie is certainly no different. I can - and I think most free thinking rational people can disassociate fiction from reality.

MILD SPOILER ALERT on violence
In the film the Basterds know that many Nazis will escape, take their uniforms off and will live out their lives in hiding. They cut a swastika onto their foreheads to cause a permanent scar so that everyone will know who these Nazis are - you may take the uniform off but we'll know who you really are. It's graphic, it's a form of branding, there is blood. It makes a point. You may not agree with the point but I think it makes itself clear in the movie more than I can do it justice here.

QT makes films about a seedy part of society (blended in a surreal concoction) and pelts the audience with a hyper fictionalized reality.

Pulp Fiction was the best film of 1994 but it had no chance to win an academy award for best picture because the film was simply too violent to garner mass appeal. Even the next best Film "The Shawshank Redemption" was arguably too violent and disturbing for members of the voting panel. That left Forrest Gump a highly amiable movie with approved "war time" violence to be the runaway favorite.

The point is many people walk out of many films for different reasons - and people have thresholds of what they will take. In the movie "From Dusk Till Dawn" it splits in the 4th act into a vampire movie. Before that it was a violent road movie. I would say 1/3 of the audience left the theater when it got to the vampires - which was so far out of left field. I found that in some ways odd since the violence before that was "realistic" and vampires is well fantasy fake.

I am not angry at you or anyone else who does not want to watch Inglorious Basterds because they know the violence in the film will have a negative affect on them. Certainly, why go and pay your money to torture yourself by watching a movie you won't enjoy. I think that is everyone's right. People have avoided Schindler's List because they know it will be "too much" for them. I think it's one of the ten best films ever made and I find it unfortunate that they're missing out but I can't fault them - it's a tough movie even with a hopeful ending.

QT movies have even more of a defense to be avoided because, unlike a Schindler's List, they're not subject matter important. They are artistically relevant and, to many, brilliant. On the other hand it's not completely fair to blast it when you've not seen it.

Some argue that films provide an outlet for the baser human emotions in a controlled safe outlet. I don't totally buy it but there is psychological evidence to support the notion, like roller coaster rides, we like to be scared but in a safe way. We don't want a Michael Myers of Halloween chasing us down the street with a butcher knife but we can sense that fear in the movie theater "taking on the role" or "putting ourself" in Laurie Strode's shoes as she flees from the psychopath. This is why the horror movie genre has been so successful.

Film makers have various intents and various purposes. A good horror movie has characters who we care about, plays on the emotion of suspense and fear and gives the audience a good time. Jaws was the epitome of the genre but replace the shark with a man and you have the original Halloween - replace man with an alien and you have Alien (or Aliens), you replace the Alien with zombies and you've got Dawn of the Dead. A reviewer separates the good ones (that are effective) with the bad ones (the ones that leave you feeling somewhat unclean afterwords because they're just in bad taste). But unfortunately one person's bad taste for others is not much different than the one I call terrific. I think Halloween was one of the great horror films - the second movie was terrible. Why do I make the distinction - despite the same central cast? The first movie was story and suspense driven with only one scene of blood (and very little) in the entire film. The second movie was more about, how many ways can we kill someone with gore. And then a decade would follow with splatter over frights. I personally think the gore is a cop out - giving us stuff to look at but the roller coaster itself is weak.

QT takes the audience on his "twisted" roller coaster and like roller coasters his will be too much for some people. But going on the coaster does not mean that when you leave the park you'll be driving like a complete idiot at 250mph. We can separate the coaster from real life. And if a person can't then they have serious problems that need to be dealt with in psychotherapy.

[ForeverAutumn]

If I see the movie, I'll give $12 to QT & Co., and thus compromise my argument. If I don't see it, I can't talk about it. That's a no win situation.

See, that's where you're wrong...again.

We would all win.

[Auricauricle]

When I penned the notorious post the other day, my intention was to speak personally and to describe various reservations I have about watching such films. The topic of concern was one of desensitization, a phenomenon that is well researched* and remains moot. This is an important point: just because the evidence has not demonstrated a co-occurrence between exposure to violence and desensitization, does not mean that there is no relationship amongst those two variables. I do not subscribe to the notion that the two are so concurrently linked. On the other hand I do consider that among impressionable persons and those who have been compromised in one way or another, viewership of certain material is not such a good idea.

My comments about PTSD were poorly worded and deserve some clarification. It is well known that persons who have experienced severe trauma can re-experience symptoms in the presence of certain stimuli. For the person who has been shot at or seen others shot at, the sound of an automobile’s backfire may be responded to by ducking under a table or become hyper-vigilant. Certain movies are avoided by some people, because the memories that are evoked are too similar to actual recollectable events and may cause them to go into a panic state.

These symptoms are not at all common amongst those of us who have been fortunate not to experience these things, but we trauma-free individuals are quite lucky. In fact, violence in quite commonly experienced, and is responded to in a number of ways. PTSD is one such constellation of symptoms that is quite common amongst persons who habitually use and abuse substances (a sadly common occurrence). Many persons who have psychiatric problems have experienced trauma, and need to be encouraged to avoid certain material that may conjure up certain memories and emotions that can be difficult to reel back in.

I suppose my note was one of caution, but also of confession. As I said, the concerns that I posited in my post, pertained mostly to myself. I know that there are certain films and materials that I want nothing to do with, knowing that such will disturb me and disrupt whatever equilibrium that I have to get through my day. In describing my Buddhist appreciation, I was not attempting to proselytize or strike a pose. I merely wanted to describe a sensible and cogent way of living that has worked for many, and others: walking the Right Path.

This Right Path is neither a religious or zealous one, and I would be presumptuous to foist my beliefs or principles of living upon you, Troy, or anyone else for that matter. I will posit, however, that we each have various filtering mechanisms that enable us to nourish ourselves with what will fulfill us and avoid those that do not. I do not consider myself a Buddhist. I do not consider myself a member of any one religious affiliation, but I do take pieces and parts of various faiths as they appeal to me. If my avatar offends you or seem incongruous to my posts and points of view, then perhaps your perspective needs examination.

Now, then, if I can have my chair and rejoin the table, I will ask again:

Who wants a beer???


*Funk, J.B, Baldacci, H.B., Pasold, T. & Baumgardner, J. (2004). Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies and the internet: is there desensitization? Journal of Adolescene. (27) 23-29.

[Rich-n-Texas]

All these big words are making my head hurt.

Aa, who's that in your avatar?

[bobsticks]

Aa, who's that in your avatar?

It's Wilfred Brimley circa 1967...

[nightflier]

Doesn't look much like him... but I liked him in The Firm - talk about a departure from his Quaker Oats commercials.

[Auricauricle]

Or the Gashleycrumb Tinies?

[nightflier]

You mean Edward Gorey and his Gashlycrumb Tinies?

[Auricauricle]

Check out the big brain.....!

[nightflier]

Ahem, a little un-Buddhist, though.

[Auricauricle]

Touche, my good friend!

(Ahem).

"I take a bottle of wine and I go drink it among the flowers.
We are allways three ... counting my shadow and my friend the shimmering moon
Happily the moon knows nothing of drinking, and my shadow is never thirsty
When I sing, the moon listens to me in silence. when I dance, my shadow dances too.
After all festivities the guests must depart. this sadness I do not know.
When I go home, the moon goes with me and my shadow follows me..."

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_0tk5O78KAA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_0tk5O78KAA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Troy]

Yeah, good one. If I see the movie, I'll give $12 to QT & Co., and thus compromise my argument. If I don't see it, I can't talk about it. That's a no win situation.

Well, what most people would do is to simply not reply to the thread in the first place.

Imagine if this was a thread about . . . Spaghetti Westerns. Posters are talking about the various facets of Leone's directing, Eastwood's acting and Morricone's soundtracks. And then here comes some troll jumping in saying "I've never seen a Spaghetti Western and here's my negative opinion about them." even though his points are meaningless in the context of Spag Westerns. So the OP sarcastically says "Swell, thanks for your useless negative input" and the troll comes back to argue about his negative points repeatedly, staunchly refusing to educate himself on the subject at hand by seeing a SW, because he's seen clips and read reviews of SW's. How tiresome.

Yes, that's what you're doing here.


By the same logic, anyone who hasn't tortured another person, can't really speak about it? Or maybe I need to have killed a man in order to know it's wrong? Sorry, Troy, but I don't need to see the movie to know that it is not something I don't want to see. Plain and simple.

This analogy is, again, idiotic.

How many times do I have to say this? Don't see it!! But not seeing it mean's you're not qualified to talk about it like you understand the subtelty and nuance in the film.


Yes, a director, just like any artist, is responsible for the content of his/her art. That's not saying art should be censored, but motives should be questioned - that is one of the big reasons people study art. Would you say otherwise if we were talking about racist art? Or misogynistic art? Or art that cruelly belittles the disabled, gays, the elderly, etc.? While no art should be censored, the artist bears responsibility for its effect. It's unfortunate that some artists like Theo Van Gogh or Salman Rushdie must bear such heavy consequences for their art, but to presume that they could create art in a vacuum is simply ridiculous. So yes, QT should be called to task about his movies - and I'm guessing he wouldn't be too shy to respond, either.

Yeah, and think about all those christian protesters picketing Scorsesse's "Last Temptation of Christ" . . . while adamantly refusing to see the movie to completely understand what they are protesting, righteously exclaiming "We don't have to see it to know it's wrong!" This is exactly what you are doing with IB. Can't you see that?


What is your hang-up about this position anyhow? Are you so enthralled by extreme violence that you just have to jump down anyone's throat who might advocate otherwise?

Because you're being a massive hypocrite. You can't be so vocal about your anti-violence stance while still loving the Spag Westerns, which were filled with graphic scenes of shootings hangings and yes, torture. You can't have it both ways.


Disney and Pixar don't do QT movies, that's my point - no amount of humor can whitewash that much violence for Disney or Pixar, even if you think that with enough humor, any violence can pass. Are you really not able to understand the analogy? Geez.

So every movie has to be able to be produced to Disney or Pixar's PG standards? D&P are the only studios doing good work? I don't understand your point.


You were trying to suggest that because QT dabs scenes of extreme violence with a little humor, that this makes it OK. It doesn't. It's still sick & twisted in the same way that it was sick & twisted for people to laugh when a guy got his head blown off in Pulp Fiction. Yes, I laughed too, but at least I have the wherewithal to admit that this is sick & twisted. Lots of people didn't laugh, by the way, and many walked out of the theater.

Ok, wait a sec. You laughed at that scene in "Pulp Fiction", yet you're going off on these much milder scenes in IB . . . without even knowing what you're arguing against? Where's your diatribe against the horrors of accidental shootings?

You are a world-class hypocrite!


But let’s take this a step further, what if you knew someone who had his head blown off carelessly? Would that maybe change your mind? No? What if it was your own kid?

I can't answer that because it hasn't happened to me. Then again, you haven't been tortured either. AND you really don't even know for sure that there really is a level of torture in IB that you'd be uncomfortable with, now do you? You're simply jumping to conclusions.


So I repeat my question: at what point does this begin to ring home and make you realize that it's sick & twisted? For me, I draw the line at torture. I don't know where you draw the line, but I sure hope you draw it somewhere. By the way, Hostel sucked because it was gratuously violent, not because it had a weak plot.

Hostel sucked because it had a crappy plot. But if it had a great plot that justified the depiction of violence and torture, then it wouldn't have sucked.


I know you're all for extreme violence to "propel the plot" in certain movies but I'm starting to have serious doubts about your sanity.

Whatever. I'm not the one arguing about the content of a movie I haven't seen. Who's being crazy here?


When I penned the notorious post the other day, my intention was to speak personally and to describe various reservations I have about watching such films. The topic of concern was one of desensitization, a phenomenon that is well researched* and remains moot. This is an important point: just because the evidence has not demonstrated a co-occurrence between exposure to violence and desensitization, does not mean that there is no relationship amongst those two variables. I do not subscribe to the notion that the two are so concurrently linked. On the other hand I do consider that among impressionable persons and those who have been compromised in one way or another, viewership of certain material is not such a good idea.

Your * reference refers to adolescents and kids, not adults. And even then, I don't buy it as a black and white, it does or it doesn't, kinda thing. I know guys that did terrible, terrible things in Vietnam that are well adjusted citizens today, who have the ability to separate reality from fiction. They love QT movies, they react to the violence that same way the rest of us do.


This Right Path is neither a religious or zealous one, and I would be presumptuous to foist my beliefs or principles of living upon you, Troy, or anyone else for that matter. I will posit, however, that we each have various filtering mechanisms that enable us to nourish ourselves with what will fulfill us and avoid those that do not. I do not consider myself a Buddhist. I do not consider myself a member of any one religious affiliation, but I do take pieces and parts of various faiths as they appeal to me. If my avatar offends you or seem incongruous to my posts and points of view, then perhaps your perspective needs examination.

Nah, you're being a hypocrite too. Or you're playing devils advocate, or whatever.

You can say you weren't moralizing of "foisting your beliefs" on me a page or 2 ago, but yeah, you were. And I don't care if you were, and I'm certainly not offended by your avatar, that really wasn't what pissed me off. You are just trying to have it both ways: You can't get all pacifistic on me on the one hand while having a ghoulish avatar on the other, it just doesn't work! Your argument loses all credibility.

There's always room at the table for a smart guy like you, but I'll take 3 fingers of chilled Belvedere, thanks. Beer makes me bloaty.

[Auricauricle]

Troy: Your remark: "Your * reference refers to adolescents and kids, not adults. And even then, I don't buy it as a black and white, it does or it doesn't, kinda thing. I know guys that did terrible, terrible things in Vietnam that are well adjusted citizens today, who have the ability to separate reality from fiction. They love QT movies, they react to the violence that same way the rest of us do."

First of all, don't try to say that certain individuals respond to certain films "the same way the rest of us do". That is presumptuous and assuming and weakens your argument.

Even though adolescents and kids were among the subjects of this study, emphasis was placed upon the negative effects of "difficult children" who might be in the process of developing so-called "moral scaffolding" (p. 34). This term, applied to the development of moral structure, may help describe the develop of morality. In this case, certain children may be more vulnerable than others, who may be more immune to the effects of violence by virtue of their exposure to well established value systems.

Well, this may or may not be true, but I dare say that a child's development and experiences are important and informative to the development of the adult. While there are plenty of examples and cases wherein a child raised in less than favorable circumstances was raised above his stituation, these scenarios are rare and were accompanied by agency.

I do not propose that the relationship between the development of a well-adjusted adult and childhood experience is a 1:1 relationship, but do posit that there is a certain linarity that can be reasonably inferred. This is especially relevant to children who were more vulnerable than others (as described above) or old enough to know their own moral compass. Check the histories of your Vietnam Vets, ask them what helped them make it through, Then ask the poor guys who had or have a much more difficult road....

You also point out: "You can say you weren't moralizing of "foisting your beliefs" on me a page or 2 ago, but yeah, you were. And I don't care if you were, and I'm certainly not offended by your avatar, that really wasn't what pissed me off. You are just trying to have it both ways: You can't get all pacifistic on me on the one hand while having a ghoulish avatar on the other, it just doesn't work! Your argument loses all credibility."

First of all, as to the relevance of the passage, it was a personal description entirely. If you subscribe to it or not is of no consequence to me...

As to the avatar: Come on, man! Ever hear of Irony? Or absurdity?

Third: You presume to think that NF's reluctance to see a particular film makes his statements irrelevant?

No. If seeing certain things fills him with revulsion, he does not to see them. I suspect NF, like myself, was speaking personally and did not presume to hazard that his experiences and sensibilities are the same as yours. He thinks the way he thinks and that is that,

Now, I don't have any Belvedere around here, but I have some Luksusowa...Will that work?

Nasdrowa!

[nightflier]

Imagine if this was a thread about . . . Spaghetti Westerns. Posters are talking about the various facets of Leone's directing, Eastwood's acting and Morricone's soundtracks. And then here comes some troll jumping in saying "I've never seen a Spaghetti Western and here's my negative opinion about them." even though his points are meaningless in the context of Spag Westerns....Yes, that's what you're doing here.

No that's not what I'm doing. I've actually seen a fair share of QT movies, but I'm starting to get really fed up with his glorification of torture. Stop trying to say I'm a hypocrite, it's not sticking.


This analogy is, again, idiotic.

I'm sorry, too complicated?


... not seeing it mean's you're not qualified to talk about it like you understand the subtelty and nuance in the film.

If you go back and read my posts, you'll see that I'm not talking about subtleties and nuances as much as the general subject matter. I've seen enough QT to be able to discuss that. You're really not making a good case, Troy.


You can't be so vocal about your anti-violence stance while still loving the Spag Westerns, which were filled with graphic scenes of shootings hangings and yes, torture. You can't have it both ways.

Uh, let's see Clint's SWs were made in the 60's & 70's, with a few that came later. Most of the ones depicting torture are also from a while back. I saw them quite a while ago. I still own the Eastwood ones, even Unforgiven, but I certainly don't enjoy the violence in them as much. You see, Troy, people change. I've decided to change. I saw Pulp Fiction for the last time quite a while ago. I certainly won't spend good money on this type of stuff today. So stop trying to nail jello to a tree, it's really not sticking.


So every movie has to be able to be produced to Disney or Pixar's PG standards?

I never said that.


I don't understand your point.

I know, that's what's making this so painfully tedious. Maybe you should take a film studies class at your local community college so you can learn to discuss the topic better.


Ok, wait a sec. You laughed at that scene in "Pulp Fiction", yet you're going off on these much milder scenes in IB . . . without even knowing what you're arguing against? Where's your diatribe against the horrors of accidental shootings?

Pulp Fiction came out in what, 1993? Geez, you're dense. And yes, it bothered me even then.


I can't answer that because it hasn't happened to me. Then again, you haven't been tortured either. AND you really don't even know for sure that there really is a level of torture in IB that you'd be uncomfortable with, now do you? You're simply jumping to conclusions.

Tortured, no, but what the f* do you know about what I've seen and been through. I grew up in Oakland and didn't have the best supervision so I've seen a thing or two. As a matter of fact, I've seen a what it looks like when I guy gets shanked in the gut, I've also seen a guy getting shot in the leg, and I've seen someone get tasered. And no, I don't need to experience any of it to know it hurts like hell. Let me tell you, it's nothing like what's in the movies. But all those numbskulls who pick up a gun, bat, knife, or whatever and think they're going to make off like the next Jack Bower are sorely mistaken.


Who's being crazy here?

You are. You are arguing a point in a vacuum with no concept of time or context. To you everything is 2-dimensional and black & white. Well, I hate to break it to you, but that's only true in the movies. Reality is a lot more dynamic and full of gray area. I'm sure that's a discomforting thought, but that's reality.


And even then, I don't buy it as a black and white, it does or it doesn't, kinda thing. I know guys that did terrible, terrible things in Vietnam that are well adjusted citizens today, who have the ability to separate reality from fiction. They love QT movies, they react to the violence that same way the rest of us do.

Here's that obsession with making everything black & white again. Look, I know a few people who've been to Vietnam and also Serbia, Gulf 1 & 2. My brother in law is an ex-marine and my cousin is serving in Afghanistan right now. While they are still reasonably well adjusted, not all the other ones are. One guy I still talk to every once in a while, I certainly wouldn't trust with my kids. Another one is in & out of the VA every couple of months. Point is, not all of them do as well as your friend from Vietnam. PTSD is a very real and it sounds to me like you're dismissing it, or at the very least giving it very little thrift.

It really seems to me that you're a bit confused about what is real and what is fantasy. Maybe you should put the Grand Theft Auto game back on the shelf, stop watching QT movies for a while, and read a book or something, preferably from the self-help section of at Borders. And despite what Auric, suggested, maybe liquor isn't the best beverage for you right now. Glass of milk, maybe?

[nightflier]

Nasdrowa!

...nastrovje?

[ForeverAutumn]

Do you guys even know what you're arguing about anymore? Because I've lost track.

This was a movie review for pete's sake. :frown2:

[bobsticks]

In Polish: ""Na zdorovye"

In original Tsarist Russian: "Za vashe zdorovye"

[bobsticks]

Do you guys even know what you're arguing about anymore? Because I've lost track.

This was a movie review for pete's sake. :frown2:

Why would it matter? Even if there were an aknowledgment of the OP's original intent Nightflier would take it offtrack to imbue the tread with his anti-American, anti-establishment, anti-anti-PC views.

After awhile it gets humorous, Frankly, I can't wait for his next installment of unsubstantaited theories on what....y'know...is wrong with us.

[Auricauricle]

I stand, humbly and duly, corrected!

Chocolate milk and cookies anyone?

Geez...I just post here...

[nightflier]

My points are neither anti-American (after all, I am American), anti-establishment (I still have a lot more faith in this government than you, Sticks), anti-anti-PC views (nice double negative, but it takes work to be truly politically correct, my friend).

*****************

FA, the original posts started out with Troy raving about IB, and explaining how it was "like the rest of [QT's] movies, a dazzling, kaleidoscopic experience." While some people cautiously agreed, with the same difficulty that people admit to enjoying QT's movies, a few courageous posters suggested that maybe the violence was a bit over the top. Auric even went so far as to say that he wasn't going to see it, on principal. Then somebody mentioned the Arab-Israeli conflict, and well that's when things got pretty heated with a few people tapping out.

I joined in primarily because of three issues that I disagreed with: (1) someone said that the Arab-Israeli conflict was off-topic and had no place in the discussion, (2) it was implied that as long as it's couched in humor, violence at any level is OK, (3) and it was suggested that directors such as QT doe not need to answer for the effect of their work. I'm sure there are those who didn't see it that way, either, but that's how I saw it and I thought I had seen enough QT movies to give my input. Apparently Troy doesn't think I should have an opinion, but he's one of those people who only see the world in black & white; anything gray is confusing.

Is that good enough of a paraphrasing of what happened in the last four pages?

*****************

OK, Sticks, touche, I did grab a morsel, but I'm leaving the rest on the hook. Good luck fishing.

[Troy]

First of all, don't try to say that certain individuals respond to certain films "the same way the rest of us do". That is presumptuous and assuming and weakens your argument.

Even though adolescents and kids were among the subjects of this study, emphasis was placed upon the negative effects of "difficult children" who might be in the process of developing so-called "moral scaffolding" (p. 34). This term, applied to the development of moral structure, may help describe the develop of morality. In this case, certain children may be more vulnerable than others, who may be more immune to the effects of violence by virtue of their exposure to well established value systems.

Etc.


Regardless, it's still in reference to kids and teens. This movie, and all QT movies are hard R rated movies for adults. Their potential to affect children is large, but what are we talking about here? Are any of us children? Did anyone say this movie was ok for kids?

You are arguing a point that no one here is disagreeing with you on or has any interest in arguing about!


I do not propose that the relationship between the development of a well-adjusted adult and childhood experience is a 1:1 relationship, but do posit that there is a certain linarity that can be reasonably inferred. This is especially relevant to children who were more vulnerable than others (as described above) or old enough to know their own moral compass. Check the histories of your Vietnam Vets, ask them what helped them make it through, Then ask the poor guys who had or have a much more difficult road....

Not everyone can handle it, even adults. That's already been agreed upon.

Look, what you and NF seem to be missing even though I keep repeating it is to see the damn movie! No one's holding a gun to your, or anyone else's head to see it. This is not the Ludoviko Treatment.

BUT, don't try to tell me what the level of violence or context of it in this movie is, because neither of you have seen it. Neither of you are qualified to talk about it without seeing how excessive it actually is in relation to the ironic and amusing tone of the movie. You guys are not in a position to judge it, yet you seem hellbent on doing just that.


As to the avatar: Come on, man! Ever hear of Irony? Or absurdity?

Yes, I know what those words mean, but I think it's more hypocrisy than irony. It's like you're just arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me.


Third: You presume to think that NF's reluctance to see a particular film makes his statements irrelevant?

No. If seeing certain things fills him with revulsion, he does not to see them. I suspect NF, like myself, was speaking personally and did not presume to hazard that his experiences and sensibilities are the same as yours. He thinks the way he thinks and that is that,

Yeah, but see you're both taking this argument into places and comparisons that require you to see the movie to make these judgements. How stupid are you guys gonna feel if you see this movie on cable someday and realize "Oh, that wasn't that big a deal" or "Wow, that was way more absurd than I though it was gonna be." because I suspect that is what will end up happening.


Now, I don't have any Belvedere around here, but I have some Luksusowa...Will that work?

Nasdrowa!

LoOoOove that Lucky stuff for sure! Keep it in the freezer for me!


I'm sorry, too complicated?

No just apples and oranges. You HAVE TO see a movie to understand it's context and subtleties. You DON'T HAVE TO kill someone to know it's wrong. I can't believe you needed that to be explained to you.


If you go back and read my posts, you'll see that I'm not talking about subtleties and nuances as much as the general subject matter. I've seen enough QT to be able to discuss that.

Regardless, you don't even know the general subject matter either. Good movies are all about subtleties and nuance anyway.


Uh, let's see Clint's SWs were made in the 60's & 70's, with a few that came later. Most of the ones depicting torture are also from a while back. I saw them quite a while ago. I still own the Eastwood ones, even Unforgiven, but I certainly don't enjoy the violence in them as much. You see, Troy, people change. I've decided to change. I saw Pulp Fiction for the last time quite a while ago. I certainly won't spend good money on this type of stuff today. So stop trying to nail jello to a tree, it's really not sticking.

Who said anything about enjoying the violence? It's just part of the story.


Tortured, no, but what the f* do you know about what I've seen and been through. I grew up in Oakland and didn't have the best supervision so I've seen a thing or two. As a matter of fact, I've seen a what it looks like when I guy gets shanked in the gut, I've also seen a guy getting shot in the leg, and I've seen someone get tasered. And no, I don't need to experience any of it to know it hurts like hell. Let me tell you, it's nothing like what's in the movies. But all those numbskulls who pick up a gun, bat, knife, or whatever and think they're going to make off like the next Jack Bower are sorely mistaken.

There you go, making it subjective again. As if your experience in Jingletown as a kid has any bearing on how anyone except you relates to Inglourious Bastards. Ha, and you don't even know how you relate to the movie because you refuse to see it.

You seem to think that this movie is downright evil and culturally useless, simply because you say it is. Go take your baggage someplace else.


Here's that obsession with making everything black & white again.

Wow, how ironic considering you said that as a response to me saying "IT's not a black and white issue." What a buffoon, are you even reading my posts?


PTSD is a very real and it sounds to me like you're dismissing it, or at the very least giving it very little thrift.

Who gives a crap? As if what you, or ANY of us thinks about PTSD has any bearing on this movie. You got PTSD, don't see it, but dont pontificate to me that anyone that likes the movie is morally bankrupt, especially while being a fan of Clint Eastwood movies. What a joke.

Dude, I am SO done with you.


Do you guys even know what you're arguing about anymore? Because I've lost track. This was a movie review for pete's sake.

Yeah, see how many more reviews I post here in the future.

[bobsticks]

... a few courageous posters suggested that maybe the violence was a bit over the top. Auric even went so far as to say that he wasn't going to see it, on principal. Then somebody mentioned the Arab-Israeli conflict, and well that's when things got pretty heated with a few people tapping out. ..

"Tapping out"?...lol, do you really think that anyone was afraid of your illogic and non-factual argumentation so much so that they'd relent a point in fear of response...did you really think that any of us were impressed by your suburbanite, inexperienced call for attention...mayhap it was in deference to the OP who requested that this be kept on topic.

If not for Troy I'd have already ethered you hard enough to make you question your own heavily-skewed view of reality.

One more OT post and I'll move this to the cage...

[Troy]

Cage! Cage! Cage! Cage! Cage! Cage! Cage! Cage! CAGE!!

[ForeverAutumn]

FA, the original posts started out with Troy raving about IB, and explaining how it was "like the rest of [QT's] movies, a dazzling, kaleidoscopic experience." While some people cautiously agreed, with the same difficulty that people admit to enjoying QT's movies, a few courageous posters suggested that maybe the violence was a bit over the top. Auric even went so far as to say that he wasn't going to see it, on principal. Then somebody mentioned the Arab-Israeli conflict, and well that's when things got pretty heated with a few people tapping out.

I joined in primarily because of three issues that I disagreed with: (1) someone said that the Arab-Israeli conflict was off-topic and had no place in the discussion, (2) it was implied that as long as it's couched in humor, violence at any level is OK, (3) and it was suggested that directors such as QT doe not need to answer for the effect of their work. I'm sure there are those who didn't see it that way, either, but that's how I saw it and I thought I had seen enough QT movies to give my input. Apparently Troy doesn't think I should have an opinion, but he's one of those people who only see the world in black & white; anything gray is confusing.

Is that good enough of a paraphrasing of what happened in the last four pages?

I was being facetiuos. And I don't care why you joined in. This was a movie review of a movie that you haven't seen. Why are you even posting in this thread? Why am I for that matter?

I'm done here. I'm going back to my pre-season hockey game and my cute new kitty.

[ForeverAutumn]

One more OT post and I'll move this to the cage...

C'mon 'sticks, flex that new muscle!

(okay, now I'm done here)

[bobsticks]

...my cute new kitty.

You'll notice how good I'm being...and I know that you know that's out of character....God bless ya, Fall Girl....

[Auricauricle]

I'm just gettin' WARMED UP!!!!

Dern it....Who wants a damn beer????

"Yes, I know what those words mean, but I think it's more hypocrisy than irony. It's like you're just arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me."

Well...mebbee.....

[bobsticks]

I'm just gettin' WARMED UP!!!!

Dern it....Who wants a damn beer????

"Yes, I know what those words mean, but I think it's more hypocrisy than irony. It's like you're just arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me."

Well...mebbee.....

Auri, you are a man of respect and I'll treat you as such....you and i could disagree on erething, but .....u mah boy...stay out the way...

....no grave concern for repercussion, bay-bay...

[ForeverAutumn]

....God bless ya, Fall Girl....

LMAO! Yeah, right back at ya. :smilewinkgrin:

[nightflier]

Yes, I see you're a site moderator. So lemme get this straight, dissenting opinions are relegated to the cage? So much for being impartial.

Frankly, it's a bit disingenuous to, on the one hand seek to exclude people who may not have had the exact experience (in this case not seeing the movie) and on the other be searching for all sorts of ways to get people to contribute to the site. As a site moderator, you have to weigh one against the other. What if instead of this being about a movie, it was about gear. Does everyone who comments about Krell amps need to be silenced if they don't own one? I owned one before, but I guess that's not good enough? By the same token, I've seen quite a few QT movies so I thought could share my opinion about the level of violence, but I guess that's not allowed either.

Look at it another way, the more people you shut out, the more everything converges to a bland and single-minded message, kind of stepford-lemming-like, if you will. Maybe this is why this site is in trouble - too many people who think the same.


"Tapping out"?...lol, do you really think that anyone was afraid of your illogic and non-factual argumentation...

That it was non-factual, is just an opinion, but I wasn't talking about my comments causing anyone to tap out, I was talking about yours and Troy's. Feanor's no longer with us, right? I also think RGA's done with this one.


If not for Troy I'd have already ethered you hard enough to make you question your own heavily-skewed view of reality.

Tough words from the one wielding all the power - maybe there's a problem with that.


One more OT post and I'll move this to the cage...

While it may not have been the original topic, it has certainly become about the right to post and give opinion about said topic. I suggest you take a real hard look at what you really mean by OT. While I've certainly posted a lot of opinion peices on this site, I've also given my share of useful information, technical info, and helped people out with problems. But by narrowing down the boundaries of what is OT too much, you're also driving people away, plain and simple.

Let's hope that you're not just stiffing dissenting points of view.

[bobsticks]

So lemme get this straight, dissenting opinions are relegated to the cage?

Relegated? Did you have to jump through hoops to get here? Click on a different link...



While it may not have been the original topic...

Ding, ding, ding...and there it is. After several requests from the OP that his thread be kept on-topic it's clear that this has spiraled out of control.

You wanna have the conversation? That's fine but your topic has absolutely nothing to do with the original review...a review, I might add, that a longstanding member spent some amount of time to share with us.

I suspect you'll find that I will be one of the more lenient mods out there. I welcome conversation, argumentation and even dissent...but everything has a time and a place. I didn't lock this thread (as was requested), i moved it to a more appropriate place. There are several other contentious threads going on 'round this place at the moment but they've stayed on-topic.

As far as promoting this place, the other threads, even the ones with a degree of nastiness, at least present informed viewpoints. The reader can mull through the information and decide for themselves. On the other hand, if someone Googled "Inglorious Basterds" and came to this thread I doubt they would be impressed at all of our conduct.

If you wanna debate Sharia Law, healthcare, education, or any of the many other topics that you may disagree with the masses on that's fine...hell, I'll undoubtedly participate...but let's do it in the right time and place.

[nightflier]

Nice way to avoid the issue, sticks. I guess the Krell example struck a chord.

I was originally posting about the director of the movie. Just because I haven't seen the movie, does not mean I cannot comment on the director. Why is it that this is such a hard & fast line when it comes to movies, and not about any other topic on this site? Personally, as a reader of these posts, I don't mind reading another point of view from someone who may have seen other movies that establish a precedent. The rigidity about movies does nothing but to drive people away.

And just for the record, you have no way of knowing that my point of view disagrees with the masses. It obviously disagrees with your point of view, but that should in no way give you license to censor.

[Auricauricle]

And, of course, you are right 'Sticky....I'm reelin' mahself back in as we speak....

But I digress...

[bobsticks]

And, of course, you are right 'Sticky....I'm reelin' mahself back in as we speak....

But I digress...

Hell, now's the time to unreel it and let it fly...lol

[ForeverAutumn]

Nice way to avoid the issue, sticks. I guess the Krell example struck a chord.

I was originally posting about the director of the movie. Just because I haven't seen the movie, does not mean I cannot comment on the director. Why is it that this is such a hard & fast line when it comes to movies, and not about any other topic on this site? Personally, as a reader of these posts, I don't mind reading another point of view from someone who may have seen other movies that establish a precedent. The rigidity about movies does nothing but to drive people away.

And just for the record, you have no way of knowing that my point of view disagrees with the masses. It obviously disagrees with your point of view, but that should in no way give you license to censor.

Oh my god! Get over yourself. Where did Sticks avoid the issue? You berated him for moving the thread and he responded. And he did it with class and restraint, I might add.

And CENSORED? In all of your argument, opinions, and comments. Where were you censored? Show me.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Can I have wonna dem beers? :frown5:

[bobsticks]

Nice way to avoid the issue, sticks. I guess the Krell example struck a chord.

Um...no, it didn't...but I'll play your game.

The correct analogy would read as follows:

Person A comes on and gives a lengthy and thoughtful review of the Krell KAV2250 which he owns and has experience with.

Person B comes and explains how he dislikes the unit because of his time spent at a dealers with the S-300i

Person A politely defers but continues on with a discussion about the properties of a specific unit.

Person B continues through multiple posts to berate his decision based on the experiences with the S-300i.

The thread soon becomes about the properties of the 300i and, frankly, starts to take a nasty turn. The original, valid intent of the OP is overtaken by petty bickering in an off-topic conversation.


I was originally posting about the director of the movie. Just because I haven't seen the movie, does not mean I cannot comment on the director. Why is it that this is such a hard & fast line when it comes to movies, and not about any other topic on this site? Personally, as a reader of these posts, I don't mind reading another point of view from someone who may have seen other movies that establish a precedent. The rigidity about movies does nothing but to drive people away.

Whatever. If you want to discuss/argue about torture or Amnesty International start a thread in Off-Topic. If you want to discuss violence in movies that's possibly an acceptable divergence within a thread but when you try and apply it to a movie you haven't seen and then become contentious about it...well that don't play 'round here, lawdawg.


And just for the record, you have no way of knowing that my point of view disagrees with the masses. It obviously disagrees with your point of view, but that should in no way give you license to censor.

Censor? When did I censor you?

Did I ban you? No. Did I delete the thread? No. Did I edit your posts for content? No.

I moved a thread that had become wearisome and neither resembled it's original intentions nor made the particular area of the forum very inviting.

If you wish to continue debating violence in movies in general or your abhorrence of torture by all means go ahead. I'll join in lively and spirited conversation...but I'm done explaining my decisions as a moderator.

...And stop whining like your a victim.

[Auricauricle]

Well, I guess we might as well face it...Only one solution....

Rich, here...(clink)...It's been swell!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCim7mmLWRA

[nightflier]

Nice try, but I was talking using a single amp as an example:

Person A comes on and gives a review of the Krell KAV2250 which he owns and has experience with.

Person B comes and explains how he dislikes the sound of Krell amps based on having heard and owned several.

Person A continues on with a discussion about the properties of the Krell KAV2250, refuses to discuss the properties of Krell amps in general, and proceeds through multiple posts to berate person B.

That's a lot closer to what happened here.

As far as censoring, I am referring to any act that alters the thread. No I was not silenced, and I thank you for that.

***************************

But there is a larger problem here. I've seen it happen over and over again, especially in the movies posts. As soon as someone says they haven't seen a movie, everything else they post is dismissed. I for one would like to know what people who can provide a larger context have to offer, even if they haven't seen that one particular movie. Maybe they've seen a whole lot more related movies and their input will shed new light on the movie under discussion.

By the same token, why don't we dismiss the opinions of people who can't afford a certain piece of gear? Maybe all newbies who don't have gear that meets a certain "standard" should be dismissed as well? What kind of snobbery are we then encouraging? Not everyone can afford the gear, and likewise not everyone can sit through a QT movie. The more posters that are dismissed here, the less input you will have. It all serves to drive people away.

That my posts were off topic was an opinion, shared by you, Troy and your girlfriend. It certainly wasn't any more off topic than Feanor's post. He didn't consider his post off topic when he made it. Likewise Auric contributed and so did another person who didn't see the movie (forgot who). All their input was worth the read.

In the end, this rigid hardline that is taken on this site about what is or isn't off topic, drives people away. I suggest you discuss this with the other site moderators, because without posters, who's left to provide input, technical knowledge, and click on the ads?

[ForeverAutumn]

That my posts were off topic was an opinion, shared by you, Troy and your girlfriend.

Hey Sticks, its official! I'm your girlfriend. nightflier said it so it must be true.

Don't tell my husband. He wouldn't like it. :nonod:

Um...unless he was referring to Auri. I wouldn't want to make any assumptions.

[bobsticks]

Hey Sticks, its official! I'm your girlfriend. nightflier said it so it must be true.

Don't tell my husband. He wouldn't like it. :nonod:

Um...unless he was referring to Auri. I wouldn't want to make any assumptions.

I'm feeling a lil' giddy..and definetely complimented by ol' boy's assumption...but I liked yer hubby when I met him. Sticks don't roll that way...gotta keep it all above board.

Now that Auri on the other hand...them intellectual types always attract me like a moth to flames...:biggrin5:

[Auricauricle]

Awwww, geeeee, you guys!!

I think the take home in all of this is pretty straightforward. This was a movie review that went overboard before it left the ground (to mix up a couple of cliches, there). Certainly, my expounding and expanding upon the soap box was inappropriate. If I am to discourse upon PTSD or "desensitization", I should either submit to the APA journal or start my own thread....Simply put, I got rolled up in the heat of things and started hyperbolizing and conjecturizing like a Baptist minister* sermonizing to the poor heathens at AA....NF, ol' buddy, I appreciate your standing up beside me, and I owe you a beer, anytime, anywhere...'Sticky and the rest of you, it's been a hoot. The same applies to each of you as well. And Troy...you still be the man, man!

Fa: You heartless...heartbreaker!

Now, then, I say....who wants....?

*No offense (well, mebbe a li'l) to any Baptists 'round here...

[bobsticks]

I guess the argument against violence in the media takes a backseat to pride when one feels the need to take one's ball and bat and go home...

[Auricauricle]

If you're refering to the previous post, I am saying this argument (debate or whatever it is) should be taken to a different thread....This was, as someone correctly pointed out, a clever review of a controversial movie. It has turned into a discussion about violence in movies, trauma, PTSD, desensitization, etc. I'm still willing to play ball, any time any where...

[bobsticks]

If you're refering to the previous post, I am saying this argument (debate or whatever it is) should be taken to a different thread....This was, as someone correctly pointed out, a clever review of a controversial movie. It has turned into a discussion about violence in movies, trauma, PTSD, desensitization, etc. I'm still willing to play ball, any time any where...

...I wasn't referring to ya at all...but, now that ya mention it, there's no point in not doin' it here since it's been moved...

...Bring watchu got...I'm here huckleberry...