Things That Shouldn't Appear In Films

[IrishCanadian25]

I was just reading some of Roger Ebert's reviews, and I happened across a remake of an older film, both coming and going, that are pretty depraved. We had a mini-tournament here recently trying to crown the most sickeningly controversial films in history. To me, it's quite simple:

The film industry is starved for material, and has gone too far.

As such, after reading some of the examples in the tournament as well as some wiki write ups and Ebert reviews, here to you I present things I don't feel have any place in film:

1. Rape. It's among the most sickening acts in the book. It steals innocence and permanently scars the victim. It's depraved and sickening. Why film makers feel it is 'artistic' to graphically depict a rape (such as in films like 'Irreversable' or in the original and remakes of 'I Spit on Your Grave) is beyond me. I am not talking about implied rape, or story lines with a boy or a girl that come from a history of sexual abuse. But you can treat the audience as quasi-intelligent to be able to come to that conclusion without exploitatively showing every excrutiating moment and without adding in every scream in breath-taking Dolby Digital.

2. Child / Infant Deaths. Why kill a kid? Bearing in mind, if it's a situation like a child in a story line dying of cancer or something that's plausible, fine fine. If it's a historical peice like Schindlers List, fine fine. But there's a reason horror flicks really haven't gone down the road of having the slasher kill a toddler. I'm concerned we're on a slippery slope where that's bound to happen, just because shock value moments are harder to come by. I understand that in a film called 'Anti-Christ,' a toddler falls from a roof to its death as the adult figures have sex in the next room. No good damn reason for it.

3. Actual Animal Death / Torture / Mutilation. Ask Michael Vick how sensitive this issue is. Am I to understand correctly that the film 'Cannibal Holocaust' showed the main characters actually snuff killing a pig on screen, and that several actors and actresses quit due to the distress caused by the sounds the pig was making? If I had 5 moments in a room without windows with the film maker, I'd have him sqealing like a pig easy. What does this accomplish other than to immortalize the sick society we live in? And can that be a purpose in itself?

So there you go. 3 things. My questions to you all:

A. Should film have to abide by some content being 'off limits?'

B. Should there be a cap to the level freedom of speech allows films to go?

C. Are there items not on my list that you would add?

D. What is the purpose of these acts being on film in the first place?

 

[LSN80]

I was just reading some of Roger Ebert's reviews, and I happened across a remake of an older film, both coming and going, that are pretty depraved. We had a mini-tournament here recently trying to crown the most sickeningly controversial films in history. To me, it's quite simple:

The film industry is starved for material, and has gone too far.

As such, after reading some of the examples in the tournament as well as some wiki write ups and Ebert reviews, here to you I present things I don't feel have any place in film:

1. Rape. It's among the most sickening acts in the book. It steals innocence and permanently scars the victim. It's depraved and sickening. Why film makers feel it is 'artistic' to graphically depict a rape (such as in films like 'Irreversable' or in the original and remakes of 'I Spit on Your Grave) is beyond me. I am not talking about implied rape, or story lines with a boy or a girl that come from a history of sexual abuse. But you can treat the audience as quasi-intelligent to be able to come to that conclusion without exploitatively showing every excrutiating moment and without adding in every scream in breath-taking Dolby Digital.

2. Child / Infant Deaths. Why kill a kid? Bearing in mind, if it's a situation like a child in a story line dying of cancer or something that's plausible, fine fine. If it's a historical peice like Schindlers List, fine fine. But there's a reason horror flicks really haven't gone down the road of having the slasher kill a toddler. I'm concerned we're on a slippery slope where that's bound to happen, just because shock value moments are harder to come by. I understand that in a film called 'Anti-Christ,' a toddler falls from a roof to its death as the adult figures have sex in the next room. No good damn reason for it.

3. Actual Animal Death / Torture / Mutilation. Ask Michael Vick how sensitive this issue is. Am I to understand correctly that the film 'Cannibal Holocaust' showed the main characters actually snuff killing a pig on screen, and that several actors and actresses quit due to the distress caused by the sounds the pig was making? If I had 5 moments in a room without windows with the film maker, I'd have him sqealing like a pig easy. What does this accomplish other than to immortalize the sick society we live in? And can that be a purpose in itself?

First off, great thread topic. Ive thought for far too long the film industry has pushed the boundaries of what's socially acceptable to make a quick buck, and for shock and awe value. But to your questions.

A. Should film have to abide by some content being 'off limits?'

The three examples you listed are excellent starting points. Just because something occurs in real life doesn't mean I want to spend my time watching something that may sicken me. You can tag something with whatever rating you like, but that doesn't justify it any sense of the word.

"The Killer Inside Me" was a great example of this. To look at it from solely a plot standpoint, it was an excellent movie. Casey Affleck plays a small town deputy who suffered sexual abuse as a child, and enacts his revenge on hapless women as a result. Jessica Alba plays a prostitute he graphically beats to death, and Kate Hudson his girlfriend who becomes pregnant whom he also kills in a very graphic way.

Point being, they could have gotten the idea across that Affleck was depraved without him punching Alba in the face over and over while whispering "I love you" as she says it in return. They didn't have to vividly depict the way he killed his pregnant girlfriend, all the while showing how she died. To me, it was for shock and owe value. "Irreversible", that you listed, is another great example of this, as it's a film that I could have lived without viewing.

B. Should there be a cap to the level freedom of speech allows films to go?

It depends on the level of obscenity and the context of which it is said in. Sure, a diector has the right to film something he wants in his studio, and invite the world in to watch, but he doesn't have an inalienable right to send it into the film audiences of everyone in town. It's very subjective of what can and cannot be said.

It seems self-evident that the right of free speech does not imply guaranteed access to every mode of communication for every form of expression. If so, pornographic films could be shown in the same theatres as "Avatar" and "Shrek".

C. Are there items not on my list that you would add?

Incest- Again, it's one of those things that if it's depicted for the sake of historical context, then I get it. And context means alot in this world. But what's the point of depicting a mother and a son, or father and a daughter, having "consensual" sex? Your targeted demographic can understand the significance of the act without vividly depicting it.

Obscene violence on women- Again, a completely subjective thing based entirely on context, but where does one draw the line? The movie I described earlier watched a woman being cruelly beaten to death and depicted each of the 19 blows. You know why I remember it was 19? Because that's how badly it stuck with me. The movie also showed a pregnant woman with her fluids flowing as she died. Why subject someone to this? Can't you imply this without showing the viewer every detail? This one is quite tougher, as it's hard to subjectively say where we draw the line. But there sure as heck should be one.

D. What is the purpose of these acts being on film in the first place?

Id argue several reasons as to why the film industry finds these acts to be "purposeful."

1. It Drives the Storyline- Without the violence, there would be no story. A crime, a murder, a fist-fight are used to launch TV and movie plots. Violence is often the very pretext for the action that follows. In order to enhance said plot, acts such as rape, animal cruelty, and child deaths are enhanced in order to further the plot. If they "do it big", then well, it's going to make for a better story, right? The more they show, the better action will follow, right?

TV and film plots begin with violence, and impending conflict continues to drive the story. The hero is never safe. Danger is always just around the corner. As the story unfolds, outbreaks of violence against people and property make sure that viewers stay in their seats.

2. It has no consequences- Film violence doesn't bleed. There are lots of shootouts and fist fights, but amazingly no one gets seriously hurt. Films rarely shows the consequences of violence. When they do, it's generally wrapped into a nice tiny bow to give everyone a "feel good" moment at the end, preceding matter be damned. So when it does have more consequences, it's bound to get one talking.
In general, films depict bleeding, the immediate consequence of violence, more often than TV. In fact, horror movies celebrate gooey, graphic, gorey scenes. But even in these films, the real world consequences of violence — the physical handicaps, financial expense, and emotional cost — are never a part of the plot. Just the "act" of said violence, whatever it may be, is.

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of the media's portrayal of violence is that when people are killed, they simply disappear. No one mourns their death. Their lives are unimportant.

3. A World of Good and Bad-

Media violence takes place in a world of good and bad. In most movies, viewers' emotions have to be enlisted very quickly. Starkly contrasting good and bad characters help accomplish this. Deeper, more realistic, more ambiguous characterizations make it hard for viewers to know who to root for. It also requires more screen time that takes away from on screen action.

As a result, TV and film criminals are reduced to caricatures. They are l00% bad. No one could care about them. They have no families. Many of them don't even have full names, only nick names. They deserve no sympathy and they get what they deserve.

Bad guys have to be really bad otherwise good guys wouldn't be justified in clobbering them. Good guys are peaceable. They are driven to violence only as a last resort in their struggle against these bad, bad people. Good guy violence is justified. To see how this self justifying formula works, ask a kid why a particular character is getting beat up. Their answer is simple: "He's a bad guy."

4. Shock and Awe- We, as audiences, demand more nowadays. Having seen it all, we are calloused to the majority of things that are depicted in the day to day film, and as a result, we need that extra level of violence(in any form) to entertain us. When you push the envelope to places people have never been, then obviously, they're going to enjoy it, or at least be talking about it, right? It's what they have us doing right now.


Obviously, I don't condone any of these tactics, but I believe that it's a part of the world that we live in. I think the most important message we can send back is to refuse to view such trash, honestly, and force the film industry to come up with better ideas that don't involve subjecting the viewer to cruel and inhumane things.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

A. Should film have to abide by some content being 'off limits?'

First of all, I've got to say this is perhaps the best discussion-worthy subject I've ever seen in the Movies and Television Section. Very thought provoking.

And I think for the most part they do abide; we do have a rating system that starts at G and ends with UR. When I see that a movie is rated UR, then I tend to believe there is either:

A. Some really sick shit in there or
B. A lot of exploitation (nudity, blood, etc)

If I don't want to watch an Unrated movie, I don't. We as the consumers aren't forced to watch films.

B. Should there be a cap to the level freedom of speech allows films to go?

I don't believe there should be a cap; it's not like they are breaking the law. Like I have already mentioned we aren't forced to watch a movie. Even in theaters we can walk out. That's our given right just like making exploitative movies is the director's right.

C. Are there items not on my list that you would add?

There are some things in movies that do turn me away, like:

Gratuitous Nudity: Really, most of the time it's not even called for. If I wanted to watch people get naked I'd go rent a porno. I pay good money to watch, say, a horror movie and the most memorable thing about it was...some chick's breasts? That's sad to me. I wanted to be horrified; not aroused. Nudity kind of kills most movies for me.

In-Depth Serial Killers: Quick; what's the difference between Michael Myers and Henry: Portrait of A Killer? Answer- One is too realistic. I enjoy watching some zany immortal monsteresque bad guy going to work on a bunch of immoral coeds I admit. There's a lesson to that. But as for a killer that kills for no motivated reason but to kill, and said killer being human, it's a bit touchy with me. You're witnessing all-too-realistic death scenes by the hands of someone that looks like the guy you pass by on the street. It's unnerving.

D. What is the purpose of these acts being on film in the first place?

Because directors that do something different make much more money than directors that don't. People pay to see things "they haven't seen before"; it was all the rage in the 70s-80s; exploitation movies I mean. As long as you have an original concept it's sure to make quite a few bucks.

That's the real motivation in putting sick shit in movies. They want us to talk about what happened in them, so our friends will get curious and watch for themselves, and so on and so forth.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

I'd say torture in general is something that shouldn't be included in films. Now i've sat through a LOT of stupidly gory, horrific crap in my time but there's only been a couple of films that actually disgusted me and those were the films where there's very little other than mindless torture going on.

The two biggest examples i can think of are Wolf Creek and Hostel.

Now in Wolf Creek there's very little torture actually going on on screen, but there's one shot where the guy shows his intended victim some of his handywork before and that just disgusted me. It was basically a female torso with the arms and legs ripped off and stuff shoved inside just about every opening, which simply disgusted me.

And at the end, one of the girls gets away briefly, only for the guy to catch up to her and stab her in the spine, making her completely immobile. She can still hear and see etc, but can't physically do anything else except suffer, which he then takes her back to do.

Now this film is supposed to be based on a true story. The third traveller was apparently crucified in a cave and managed to just hop off it and walk off until he found help, so everything between that moment and the moment they are actually captured, has just been made up.

But why would you make something like that up for the purposes of entertainment? As far as i could see, there was nothing entertaining about the whole film. All they've done is give other sick fucks ideas for how they're going to hurt other people.

Same goes for Hostel. Did i need to see mushty char grilling that asian birds face off, with her eye sticking out? Did that help the story or did it just make me think 'that effect looked so much better in Evil Dead 2 some 20 years ago.'? Turns out it was the latter.

I don't really think it's fair to try and impose restrictions on film makers, or any kind of artistic creativity really. No matter what you come up with, there's bound to be some small portion of the public that get shitty about something, no matter how insignificant, but i do honestly think that maybe film makers who think rape and torture make good entertainment, should be made to undergo psychological evaluation? Because they either think we're all fucked up psychos, or they are purposely writing for the fucked up psycho market, and either way, that can only do more harm than good.

No matter how much profit said film may gross, there's a very good chance you've influenced some sicko to do something. But then that opens up the whole 'are we influenced by the media' argument all over again, and i personally think 'better to be safe than sorry.' No it can't be proven that violent music/film breeds violent people, but if we all agree not to have that stuff in programmes, there won't be any question will there?

Oh, and if you're the sort that doesn't like that sort of stuff, don't watch the Walking Dead, because that's pretty much what every season after season 2 will involve.

 

[Ferbian]

A. Should film have to abide by some content being 'off limits?'

I guess you could say yes to that. Obviously I full-heartedly agree with the whole actual animal death. There's no need to do that for the sake of promoting a movie, or filming one for that sake. There's plenty of material available that could solve that problem I'm sure. Especially considering it's been done in the past.

B. Should there be a cap to the level freedom of speech allows films to go?

Not necessarily. I mean what exactly is there of things we could possibly be against? I mean sure there's probably something like severe cursing, Nazism being promoted and all that which could have some sort of limits. Yet on the other hand, the few times that Nazism for example is promoted it is in a way that fits the movie, a way where it is actually needed.

So, in that way I wouldn't put limits to the level of freedom of speech. Because I think it's gonna be very hard to do, especially considering the fact that when it nears or does cross a line, it's for the sake of furthering the story of the movie in general.

C. Are there items not on my list that you would add?

Yes, there's one thing I would believe should be pretty much "banned" from movies as well, or at least put a severe limitation on. I remember back in German class in 8th grade I believe it was, we were watching a movie about a girl that got involved with drugs, and we watched how she slowly and more severely became utterly addicted to it, and how she alongside her eventual boyfriend practically rehabbed on absolutely nothing for 3-4 days inside her bed room. It wasn't exactly the most pretty of sights, and I would like to believe at least there should be a limit as to how deeply you dwell into a story like that.

Also, I would have to say there's actually one of the few things that I would like to argue against. And that is torture. Now certainly I agree that it would be a very limited amount of material that should be allowed to be featured. Yet there are certainly major parts of movies where torture in itself is either a key element, or an element that serves the purpose of the movie.

Die Another Day had James bond "tortured" with being held under water for the purpose of making him talk - It benefits the purpose of the movie, especially the genre. The Recruit had Colin Ferrell locked inside a container for a very long time for the purpose of testing whether he'd rat his company out. And ultimately, the Saw series is completely based on torture in itself. And Saw is actually highly praised movies if I recall right.

D. What is the purpose of these acts being on film in the first place?

Animal murdering, mutilation etc. is something I cannot truly say. Rape is something for the purpose of the movie I would reckon, which could really be said for it all. It furthers the stories of the movies, at times however it furthers to an extend which it shouldn't be furthered to.

 

[Chardee Macdennis]

1. Rape. It's among the most sickening acts in the book. It steals innocence and permanently scars the victim. It's depraved and sickening. Why film makers feel it is 'artistic' to graphically depict a rape (such as in films like 'Irreversable' or in the original and remakes of 'I Spit on Your Grave) is beyond me. I am not talking about implied rape, or story lines with a boy or a girl that come from a history of sexual abuse. But you can treat the audience as quasi-intelligent to be able to come to that conclusion without exploitatively showing every excrutiating moment and without adding in every scream in breath-taking Dolby Digital.

When I read this part, my mind INSTANTLY went to "A Time to Kill". There were some scenes in the begining of the movie that were borderline - At best. However, they weren't even needed. Matthew McConaughey's description of the child rape and torture in the closing argument, was done BRILLIANTLY. I defy anyone to watch his delivery of that speech and not become overwhelmed with emotion. He's not the best actor around, sure, but he nailed the delivery in that scene. I think it pulled at my heart strings even more than any violent scene could have.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

My taglines for the new I Spit On Your Grave: "They just raped the wrong bitch" and "They raped her, now she'll rape them".

The only thing there should be in in films is legitimate animal cruelty. Rape, mutilation, child killing etc, all acceptable.

The problem is the type of films they appear in. The I Spit On Your Grave remake looks like a popcorn film, so it's not needed. Irreversible isn't and it's fascinating.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I'm racking my brains and trying to think if there's actually something that I think shouldn't be allowed to appear in films. Nope, can't really think of anything.

I mean, like the guys above me pointed out, actual animal cruelty. It's cool to show it, just not to, I dunno, actually stab a turtle. Actually doing any weird/disturbing shit should be off-limits, that's obvious, but you shouldn't limit films by restraining what they can and cannot depict.

Rape, yeah, it's a horrible thing, but is it worse than any of the stuff you'll see in your bi-annual Saw film? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

When it comes to rape, it's hard to watch something like that if you're close to someone that's been a rape victim. In many ways, I think that rape might be the worst crime out there because the aftermath of a rape can often involve years of devestation. It's been almost 11 years now since a friend of mine was raped and she still suffers from the aftermath in both a physical and psychological way. She still has the occassional flashback, she can't stand the idea of a man touching her and she has to undergo kidney dyalisis several times a year. That being said, I do think that rape can be "acceptable" in a film if it's used as a vital part of the story. For example, if one makes a film set in the days of WWII in a Nazi concentration camp, it wouldn't have the full effect without officers raping women. It was known to happen a lot to Jewish women by members of the SS and showing such content in a film gives the watcher a real grasp of just how depraved and evil the Holocaust was and still is. I don't necessarily have to see the act being done in a film to know how vile and disgusting it was, but it's one thing to simply know and another to actually see a depiction of it with your own eyes. It wouldn't be something pleasant or nice to watch and it's not intended to be. If it's included in a non-exploitative way and actually serves to horrify the audience, then I think it's acceptable. Who is more despicable than a rapist? Plus depict that rapist as being a member of the SS during WWII, it just makes you hate him all the more.

As for child deaths and depictions of animal torture, it's just something that doesn't resonate with me. In a horror film, I could at least understand the underlying effect for why someone would want to do it. It's still extremely taboo to depict killings of children, and infants, in movies as a result of murder and the character in the film would be viewed as being sickeningly evil. After all, the "monsters" or madmen in these films weren't intended to become characters that movie goers cheer for, but that's what's ultimately come to pass. However, I think it's one taboo that just simply shouldn't be explored. It might sound like a good idea on paper, but I think it would have the opposite of the desired effect in actual practice. Animal torture is just a big no with me. Whenever I see animals on film being killed or tortured, I usually just turn the movie off and that's it. It just turns me off of the film entirely.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

IC, you seem to get your knickers in a twist about many things that dont actually matter.

They can put whatever they want in films, becuase y'know, its not actually real. If you dont like what is depicted in a film, then dont watch it. Easy.

 

[Wicked Valentine]

1. Rape. It's among the most sickening acts in the book. It steals innocence and permanently scars the victim. It's depraved and sickening. Why film makers feel it is 'artistic' to graphically depict a rape (such as in films like 'Irreversable' or in the original and remakes of 'I Spit on Your Grave) is beyond me. I am not talking about implied rape, or story lines with a boy or a girl that come from a history of sexual abuse. But you can treat the audience as quasi-intelligent to be able to come to that conclusion without exploitatively showing every excrutiating moment and without adding in every scream in breath-taking Dolby Digital.

When it comes to rape, it's hard to watch something like that if you're close to someone that's been a rape victim. In many ways, I think that rape might be the worst crime out there because the aftermath of a rape can often involve years of devestation. It's been almost 11 years now since a friend of mine was raped and she still suffers from the aftermath in both a physical and psychological way. She still has the occassional flashback, she can't stand the idea of a man touching her and she has to undergo kidney dyalisis several times a year.

i completely agree with both these statements. Any type of sexual assault is abo****ely horrible and really shouldn't be shown in front of millions of people. the first time i saw rape in a movie i started crying because it seemed too realistic. a lot of the women in my family have been raped and it was horrible for me to realize that that had actually happened to them. showing any scene with any form of rape/molestation/etc. for the sake of historical accuracy is fine as long as they don't go all out and magnify every detail. Even implying it should be taken with caution.
i saw a show where i feel they did an excellent job in implying that the girl was raped without it having to be graphic. The plot was that the girl was at a party and her drink was spiked when she set it down to go to the bathroom. after a while she passed out and the guy who spiked her drink brought her into a room and locked the door.
simple but enough to get the thought of rape across without having to be graphic.

 

[gd]

Definitely should be no restriction as to what can be showed in a film, with the obvious precursor of it not actually happening. I mean, aren't some of the best films supposed to depict real situations and give us the idea of what they're actually about. Rape, child deaths, animal cruelty, incest, etc all happens in real life, why shouldn't it be shown in a film.

Of course, there is a difference as to whether these things are done with a purpose or just for the sake of doing them for the hell of it, I suppose all of the "torture porn" films would fall under this category. And the one where the guy gets killed by a boner to the eye socket. I still don't have a huge problem with these though as it's not really offensive since, you know, it's not real. If you don't like certain things in a film, don't watch it, but there are some freaks out there like tdigle and xfear that can take basically anything in their movies. They shouldn't be deprived of it because some people, like myself, are wussies.

 

[Trill Co$by]

Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with what is put in movies. Everything that's put in movies, though sometimes over exaggerated, is something that happens in real life... especially rape and child death. More and more these days this stuff is happening and if it takes a movie to open peoples eyes to the harsh reality of it then maybe people would get off their asses and do something about it.

I get that for some of the victims it's happened to and others who've suffered loss of a child it can be hard, but more than likely, they're also out there trying to stop these things from happening in real life. If you want this stuff to stop in movies, then it should be stopped in reality first.

Besides, there's a reason why there's a rating system on movies. If you can't handle it then don't watch the movies.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

Basically, I do not think brutal and disturbing acts of unneccesary extreme violence and rape are needed in films.

See entire series of Saw films for enough examples of this. Diving into a pit of needles to get a key? No thanks

I think whoever comes up with this shit is severly fucked up in the head

Oh and infant rape...that shit is just not needed

 

[ThUnDeRpHoEnIx]

Nudity in horror and really violent films.

I'm serious. The first thing I remembered after watching 300 with my friend was the tits.In other movies its okay but i hate going to see a Horror movie and the only thing i remember after maybe 1 month of watching it is the nudity.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I personally feel that any sexual act (whether it's a couple who love each other or even rape) has no reason to be in films. There's a whole genre for sexual films, that's where it belongs. It should never be onscreen in any other type of film. Movies get watched by families, children, young people on dates, etc. While deaths onscreen can be controversial, it can help contribute to the story, depending on how it is played out. So I have mixed feelings on that one, especially if it involves animals. That opens up a whole other controversy argument. I absolutely think that films need to have rules on a few things that are off limits. Even R-Rated films need to have stricter rules on what is off limits. They could even go as far as to make a new rating, for the films that cross the line far too much. Freedom of speech is not the issue here. People need to be warned ahead of time if there is controversial content in a movie. Children could be scarred for life and adults could have a perfectly good evening ruined by a movie that upset them. The reason these controversial things are in movies is so that the film maker can either gain attention for pushing the envelope, or acceptance from his peers as this happens too often. I think a good idea would be for a film maker with a good heart (there has to be one somewhere....) to make a film with the intention of having NONE of these controversial films in it in order to gain attention from his peers by standing in a POSITIVE direction. It would be a good thing for the movie industry.

 

[Mattchew]

Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with what is put in movies. Everything that's put in movies, though sometimes over exaggerated, is something that happens in real life... especially rape and child death. More and more these days this stuff is happening and if it takes a movie to open peoples eyes to the harsh reality of it then maybe people would get off their asses and do something about it.

I get that for some of the victims it's happened to and others who've suffered loss of a child it can be hard, but more than likely, they're also out there trying to stop these things from happening in real life. If you want this stuff to stop in movies, then it should be stopped in reality first.

Besides, there's a reason why there's a rating system on movies. If you can't handle it then don't watch the movies.

I agree completely we dont live in wonderland, Yes im mad that it happens in real life but it does happen should it be shown in movies probably not but if it gets the point across about a certain topic then it should be presented.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

IC, you seem to get your knickers in a twist about many things that dont actually matter.

They can put whatever they want in films, becuase y'know, its not actually real. If you dont like what is depicted in a film, then dont watch it. Easy.

I'm bumping this thread, not for the thread itself, but because I'd missed a few responses. I have so many threads out there that I lose track.

NorCal, I think it does matter. I really do. The idea that sickening acts are being given graphic cinematic representation and labeled 'art' really bugs me.

I am, for the most part, a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I am half the democratic party and half the republican party. Usually, with an industry as lucrative and consumer driven as the film and entertainment industry, I would take the stance of "let the market dictate what gets made." If nobody wants to see the depravity, then the film will fail and the studios will not bankroll production anymore. But the issue here is that so-called 'film experts,' these artsy types who dress in trench coats and sip espresso who think graphic rape in film is just an extension of art.

If the films were only limited to those people and generally unknown outside of those circles, then no harm done. These films make their way around the internet like wildfire and 13 year old kids who are dominated by a combination of curiosity and hormones are driven to explore a little bit. Need proof? Ask yourself how you learned to have sex with a girl, and tell me that the answer isn't a combination of "common sense and porn."

I'm not saying a bunch of stuff needs to be off limits, but somethings do. The rating systems are stupid because the internet bypasses all of that.

I'd love to keep this convo going, and I'd love for TDigs and X to come in here and teach me a thing or three.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

When I was younger, rape, gore, and a lot of blood would really bother me, but as I've grown older, it doesn't bother anymore. I actually tend to enjoy extreme style movies now a days. I really don't have a problem with gore and blood, because I like to watch a lot of horror movies, and you will always see someone killed in a gruesome way in horror movies, especially if they're Rated-R. Grotesque kills, rape, and obscene violence usually serve a purpose in horror and some drama films. These acts show us how demented and evil the bad guys in the movie can be.

As far as sex goes, there's Hollywood style sex scenes and there can be porn like sex scenes. For example, there can be those sex scenes which have the classy and soft music, and things can look sensual. Then you have the porn style stuff. It's a lot more intense, and everything just seems so damn over the top. I've seen stuff like this in Showgirls and Wild Things. But if the sex stuff is really graphic and intense, then the NC-17 rating usually comes into play.

Could the rating system use a change? Sure. It could. Younger children could see something in these films, and who knows, it could really bother them physiologically. They might not know how to handle a rape scene or watching a guy be mutilated by a contraption(I'm talking about the Saw films) could rattle a kid in a really bad way. But you have to look at this in a realistic way....the younger generation will ALWAYS find a way to see this type of stuff. I go to the movie theater on a very regular basis, and when I go to watch a horror or action film that will be filled with violence, blood, and sex, there are always a group of young kids who will sneak into the theater to watch something that they have no business looking at in the first place. And if they can't see it in the theater, then they will find a way to watch the film online or they just might buy or rent the film when it hits blu-ray and DVD. Yeah, I know some places can check ID, but in my experiences, it's rarely happened. At Wal-Mart, If you're buying a Rated- R or unrated movie, a message which asks if the customer is 18 years of age or older pops up on the screen. The cashier might check for ID or they might make a judgment call by just looking at you to see if you're old enough. Over the years, I've dealt with the judgment call thing a lot more, and I'm sure a lot of cashiers do this, and some of them might not check your ID, because they just don't give a shit.

A tweak in the ratings system MIGHT help solve the problem, but in the end, younger kids will ALWAYS find a way around it. In fact, if a film promises to deliver on sex, blood, and gore, then younger kids will just want to see the film even more. They can't resist the thrill of doing something that's supposed to be off limits to them. I should know, because when I was a kid, I used to tip toe around these restrictions a lot, and I would become more active with these tricks in my teen years.