Because it needs to be said

[Super Hans]

No, I'm arguing personally that it's not art, because it's not. As I already noted, art is creation, not destruction. Murder/killing is destruction, hence, murder/killing is not art.



Absolutely not, and had you read this thread like I've repeatedly asked you to do, you'd have seen already that I already acknowledged the fact that I'm giving up ground by not. I don't have the stomach to watch things like this, which is the purpose of this thread to begin with. That doesn't change the fact that killing/murder is not art (to me, happy?). It's vile, disgusting, and against the law. But hey, maybe if it were human children being slaughtered for 20 seconds of the 90-minute film, you'd change your tune, or is it OK to still call it art when it's human lives on the line?



Good god, son — here we go again with you not being capable of accepting generalized statements, and only being capable of answering the most direct representations given to characterize them.

How many times have I said I am talking about OVERT and ULTRA violence? How many times? READ MY FUCKING POSTS please? READ being the keyword there? I know how you have a bad habit of SELECTIVELY reading, but for the sake of this argument, read the entirety of them before you respond to the next one lest you end up like Roche in this argument.

Secondly, if you're going to go the same route as he did with this childish nonsense in trying to "win" this, don't even bother responding again, because I won't bother responding to your posts here either. I have no desire to get into some juvenile dick-swinging contest with you or any other immature user on this forum.



Why don't you actually read it and find out instead of continuing to argue against only what you've read on the last page or two?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Okay first things first, I went back and read every single post in this thread IDR, so you can stop telling me to "read the entire thread" as if that's suddenly going to make me agree with you. Nothing in any of your posts in this thread changes any point I've made.

I don't care if you agree with me. Most don't, but I wanted you to actually know what this topic was supposed to be about so we didn't continue side-tracking it into all these little ancillary topics.

If you really want to get technical actually IDR, destruction is a form of creation. You're creating nothingness out of something. You're changing it's physiological existence. Technically, destruction is a form of creation.

Seeing as you can't "create" nothingness, because nothingness is the lack of substance, I wholeheartedly disagree. Either way, I've acknowledged since day one here that this is my opinion I'm pining, no one else's. Changing the existence of something to the point it does not exist does not create anything. It uncreates, hence, destruction is not creation.

BOOM, there we go, that's the only fucking thing I was arguing with you. You can personally choose to define art however you'd like, I don't care. You weren't saying that it was solely your opinion though, you were making it sound like you were arguing definitively and objectively that it isn't art. Glad you're now admitting that it's simply your personal opinion, and not objective fact like you've been making it out to sound.

Part of my argument is that it should be objective fact. I don't understand the retaining human value in watching brutal destruction like that.

There's nothing generalized about what you said, you specifically mentioned both real and staged violence on film as being "disgusting" to watch, and that it somehow makes you a bad person for doing so. You said one thing about staged violence on film, and then you immediately contradicted yourself a few posts later.

Yes, both of those were examples of the larger issue, which was ultra-violent films as a whole. Each of those particular examples was simply citing some specific set of circumstances/occurances to add to the point. The problem is, they became the point, which was never my intention — I simply didn't want to make baseless statements without having something to point to. The issue occurred somewhere between that.

I've read every one of your posts. Nothing about them changes any point I've made or addressed to you. Slasher films ARE OVERT AND ULTRA violence. How is disembowling, stabbing, mutilating, and torturing other human beings not "overt and ultra violence"? What's funny here is that Cannibal Holocaust, the film you're using as your primary example, is LESS VIOLENT than a Friday the 13th film, or your average R rated slasher film. Fuck, Scream 4 that just came out a month ago was FAR more violent and graphic than Cannibal Holocaust was.

Disagree. Slasher films are violent, but ultra violence is gratuitous to me. Films who's majority content or majority direction are excessive gore equate ultra violence to me. Things you will never see in a Friday the 13th or Scream movie, for example, would be a nine-minute rape scene, the killing of real animals, etc.

There is a line here, albeit blurred, that I'm trying to sharpen the focus of.

Again, I lose ground because I've never seen Cannibal Holocaust or a large majority of the films on that list and never will, but I'm willing to concede whatever "power" I'd have had behind my point there to avoid having to see those scenes in order to "validate" my position any.

I'm not trying to "win" anything (though it's clear that's exactly what you're trying to do), I'm trying to show you how fucking silly and ridiculous of a thread this is because you've spent the entire thread basically trying to force your personal opinion on violence on film onto other people by insulting them and insinuating that there's something wrong with them if they dare to disagree with you. Don't even fucking pretend that's not what you're doing either, because you've done it in every single post in this thread, constantly bringing up how there's "something wrong" with you if you watch a film with "OVERT AND ULTRA" violence in it. Fuck, Saving Private Ryan is more graphic, gorey, and disgusting than Cannibal Holocaust and the Faces of Death films combined, want to go tell some WWII veterans there's something wrong with them for watching and enjoying that film too?

Again, there's a line. Not all violence is equal. Not all violence is ultra (IMO).

I've already apologized enough times to anyone who takes offense to having their sanity questioned for enjoying depictions of brutality, so I won't do it again — all I know is that I'm not the one taking pot shots at people in this thread to gain reputation points or make myself feel better like Roche, yourself and others have. I'm not the one calling people *****es and telling them to grow balls, etc., so I'd argue that it's not me who needs to reevaluate my position on offending others here.

We get it. It personally offends you. That's fine and fucking dandy, but absolutely NO ONE cares. You can have whatever opinion you want, but when you start insulting other people and trying to FORCE your opinion on others, that's when you cross the line from just expressing your personal opinion into being a raging dick trying to force your personal beliefs on others.

If no one cares, they wouldn't agree with me like a number have, nor would they even disagree with me so vehemently like so many have, so please stop using blanket statements like that. It makes your argument look childish.

And again, I'm not the one calling others *****es here — my "offending" remarks are much milder and are by no means intentional to be solely insulting.

Seriously, is there an actual point to this fucking thread? You've shared your opinion on the matter, cool, we get the point. Why do you continue to argue with others who don't share your opinion on the matter? I want an answer to that question from you, because maybe then you'll realize exactly what you're doing, and that's trying to force your opinion on other people.

Yes, the same points I've been harping on repeatedly throughout the thread you claim to have read every post (in their entirety) in: mainly determining the value, if any, these films actually have as well as whether or not the morality of their viewers should be called into question for enjoying them, among others.

I may not have began the thread as objectively as I should have, but I haven't strayed from my intended path.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

If you're done responding to me IDR, at least answer me this:

You have absolutely zero intention of letting your opinion be changed on the matter. It's gotten to the point where you have stopped responding to rational arguments all together, and rather began responding to the insults instead of the arguments. So then why even continue? You opinion isn't going to be changed by actual, testable logic, let alone someone else's subjective opinion, so why even keep discussing it? What are you gaining out of this?

You seem to be just as concerned with "winning" the argument as you claim everyone else to be.

I've never gone into a debate with the intention of "winning" an argument, and there are people around here that can attest to that. I honestly don't care about you (as a person) enough to where my sole intention is to prove you wrong and make you look silly. I'm just pointing out logical and factual inconsistencies with your argument.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

If you're done responding to me IDR, at least answer me this:

You have absolutely zero intention of letting your opinion be changed on the matter. It's gotten to the point where you have stopped responding to rational arguments all together, and rather began responding to the insults instead of the arguments. So then why even continue? You opinion isn't going to be changed by actual, testable logic, let alone someone else's subjective opinion, so why even keep discussing it? What are you gaining out of this?

You seem to be just as concerned with "winning" the argument as you claim everyone else to be.

I've never gone into a debate with the intention of "winning" an argument, and there are people around here that can attest to that. I honestly don't care about you (as a person) enough to where my sole intention is to prove you wrong and make you look silly. I'm just pointing out logical and factual inconsistencies with your argument.

I'm not done responding to you. I'm done responding to instigating replies masquerading as "objective" response to a topic I take very seriously.

Like I said, if you want to have an objective discussion about this like an adult and leave all that childish pot shot nonsense at the door, I'd happily reply to you again.

If you agree to it, I'll answer your questions here.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

I'm not done responding to you. I'm done responding to instigating replies masquerading as "objective" response to a topic I take very seriously.

I never once said my responses were objective. My views definitely are, but not my posts.

Like I said, if you want to have an objective discussion about this like an adult and leave all that childish pot shot nonsense at the door, I'd happily reply to you again.

If you agree to it, I'll answer your questions here.

Fine. Then disregard everything in my posts that you deem childish, and please respond to my last serious post.

 

[Mr. Steve]

So... Roach asks something, and IDR brushes it aside?

So gruesome death scenes in movies, meant as something to evoke emotion (in its case, a sense of discomfort) in the viewer is...not art? Though, rather crass it may seem to people, it's something that can be categorized as art meant to evoke some sense of emotion in the beholder through creative and artistic means (I'm keeping in mind that in that particular case, creative will be VERY, VERY, VERY subjective to people).

All I can see is, IDR isn't comfortable with it. That's cool and all, because I can't be one to just GO up to IDR and say "wake the fuck up; this is art." But to me, as I've been reading the thread, it seems like IDR is sort of acting on the defensive as people start to state their opinions, which make it seem as if he's imposing his opinion on the posters.

Personally, Hostel owns. Just me stating opinion. Again, it's just what I see from the thread, so don't take it as gospel.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

You have absolutely zero intention of letting your opinion be changed on the matter. It's gotten to the point where you have stopped responding to rational arguments all together, and rather began responding to the insults instead of the arguments. So then why even continue? You opinion isn't going to be changed by actual, testable logic, let alone someone else's subjective opinion, so why even keep discussing it? What are you gaining out of this?

To be honest? I'm not sure.

I was really torn between objective discussion and complete and utter disgust composed as internet rant when I started this thread.

It turned into objective discussion, which I'm glad for, but I have no exit strategy here. That kinda goes with the whole idea of "winning" these arguments that I was referencing earlier.

My opinion is hardened, certainly, but I don't think I'd say it's impossible to change it — but it'd be incredibly difficult. This isn't a fringe topic for me at all, so swaying my opinion would take a lot.

This is just a topic I'm discussing at this point. I have no desire to "win" or "lose" the argument any, so there's really no "logical" answer as to why I am continuing this.

Glutton for punishment, I guess, considering I'm the strong minority here...

You seem to be just as concerned with "winning" the argument as you claim everyone else to be.

Wasn't my intention. The initial rant may have come across that way — I can see that now, in retrospect.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

So gruesome death scenes in movies, meant as something to evoke emotion (in its case, a sense of discomfort) in the viewer is...not art? Though, rather crass it may seem to people, it's something that can be categorized as art meant to evoke some sense of emotion in the beholder through creative and artistic means (I'm keeping in mind that in that particular case, creative will be VERY, VERY, VERY subjective to people).

And you'd have a strong point except that IMO there's a very determined line that's crossed there when we're no longer dealing with imitation, but rather reality — like the real deaths of animals in a movie.

I'd also contend that severity factors in here with regard to how effectively an emotion can be conveyed. I said earlier, implied brutality is just as effective (if not more so because the imagination of the viewer can intensify/multiply the effect on their own) as brutality itself. If emotional response is what you are looking for, is nine minutes of rape truly necessary? Would not 30 seconds be more than enough to convey the same emotion? What added emotion accompanies the extra 8:30?

All I can see is, IDR isn't comfortable with it. That's cool and all, because I can't be one to just GO up to IDR and say "wake the fuck up; this is art." But to me, as I've been reading the thread, it seems like IDR is sort of acting on the defensive as people start to state their opinions, which make it seem as if he's imposing his opinion on the posters.

Not really sure what to make of this, but yes, I am not comfortable in any sense with gore of any kind. I don't know if you watch House, but I gagged watching him operate on his own leg in the last episode, so suffice it to say, it's near impossible for me to stomach films like these.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

to be fair, is there a point to ANY thread?