Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 117
  1. #51
    nightflier
    Guest
    Auric, thanks for reminding us of that.

  2. #52
    Close 'n Play® user Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Highway 6, between Tonopah and Ely
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

  3. #53
    nightflier
    Guest
    Sticks, how is Chomsky not credible?

  4. #54
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    6,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy
    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.

  5. #55
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    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.

  6. #56
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    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.

  7. #57
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    I haven't seen this movie yet. Is it OK if I say something stupid?

    Oops. Too late.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  8. #58
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    Gee-zus!!! I fergot just how difficult it is to get dog poo outta the shoe....Not to mention the taste...

  9. #59
    nightflier
    Guest
    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.

  10. #60
    Close 'n Play® user Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Highway 6, between Tonopah and Ely
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    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.

  11. #61
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    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
    Last edited by RGA; 09-14-2009 at 06:20 PM.

  12. #62
    Forum Regular audio amateur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    ...
    Brilliantly written yet again, I much enjoy reading what you have to say.

  13. #63
    Forum Regular audio amateur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by 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?

  14. #64
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Hey, has anyone else that wants to comment actually seen the movie yet?

  15. #65
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    6,777
    What movie?

  16. #66
    nightflier
    Guest
    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.

  17. #67
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by audio amateur
    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

  18. #68
    Forum Regular audio amateur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

  19. #69
    nightflier
    Guest
    What's so great about Christianity is, by far.

  20. #70
    Close 'n Play® user Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Highway 6, between Tonopah and Ely
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    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.

  21. #71
    Close 'n Play® user Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Highway 6, between Tonopah and Ely
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
    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.
    See it dude, before you get spoilt. You'll love it.

  22. #72
    nightflier
    Guest
    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.
    Last edited by nightflier; 09-15-2009 at 10:17 PM.

  23. #73
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    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.

  24. #74
    Musicaholic Forums Moderator ForeverAutumn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,769
    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    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.

  25. #75
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    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.
    "The great tragedy of science--the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."--T. Huxley

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •