Grindhouse

[BathTub]

sigh how annoying, he deleted his account, on account of us disagreeing.  If i had done that i wouldnt have lasted a day here, or anywhere else for that matter. 

which deletes the posts or do you have to do that manually?

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

i screwed up, i think he changed his name.  It DID say guest a little while ago though i KNOW it did. 

[MrTorso]

i screwed up, i think he changed his name.  It DID say guest a little while ago though i KNOW it did. 

Yeah I think Johnny_Short_Torso was a different user because I saw that around as a non active member recently. Either that or he had two accounts.

[MarkAndrew]

I am glad someone sees where I am coming from, but I would be so much more happier if Mister Tarantino would grow up and substitute something else for people's eyes being ripped out and squished between toes. Anything else but seeing a person cut into bite sizes by high tension wires or life-size cheese graters. If someone gave me the probable $50 million budget Tarantino and Rodriguez had for this movie, I could turn out one hell of an entertaining albeit mindless action adventure with a minimum of sex and violence that would at most get a PG-13 rating. If I could do it, so should Tarantino.

So Tarantino as an artist shouldn't make a film he wants to make?? He should make movies like you would? I really don't get this mentality. If you don't like Tarantino movies then you don't go see Tarantino movies.

Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think he's just frustrated with QT.  He has talent but he doesn't exert it to his fullest potential.  I feel the same way, I wish QT would smoke less dope and make more movies.   :-)  Though maybe Robert Rodriguez will keep dragging him behind the director's chair. 

I kind of feel the same way about Rob Zombie, I can SEE his talent and it pains me to see him spend it on horrific characters and stories.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

I feel the same way, I wish QT would smoke less dope and make more movies.

Id just like to see if he could make something different.  Like maybe a romantic comedy or something.  See if he has some real diverse talent. 

[MarkAndrew]

So what? If you don't like those types of movies you don't go see those types of movies.There are plenty of directors making PG and PG-13 films for you to go see.  In your last posts you were saying Tarantino shouldn't be allowed to make the movies he wants to make. Which is ridiculous. You also can't tell me what is art and what isn't.

That's the beauty of an open movie  marketplace...it's self correcting (to an extent).  If most people don't like it, it won't make money and that director won't get to...apply...his 'vision' for the public.

However, there is a desensitization factor and I think Leopold and JST have a valid point in there.  Now, I fully support appropriate violence and gore.  I think if you have people shooting guns in movies, crashing cars, being thrown through windows, sent to concentration camps, etc...a director should be violent and gory...it shows the consequences of those actions.  But violence for the sake of trying to shock the audience, I'm going say that's bad and shouldn't be shown.  Because with movies, there's a real, observable need to 'top' or 'one up' the competition...even if what you're competing against is a previous installment in a franchise.   (one of the reasons sequels suck, I think)  So when QT or whoever the Knob from Saw shows torture, degradation, masturbatory violence, it raises the bar for other filmmakers (so the audience doesn't yawn having 'seen that before') and establishes a new level of what is acceptable. 

And what is acceptable keeps slipping.  It's not progress.  Indulging in the freedom we enjoy without acknowledging the need to do so with responsibility is bad.  Very bad.  For society, for individuals, for art.

So let's talk about art for just a sec (I promise).  If art is 'anything that provokes the viewer and creates an emotional response in the observer'*, then using violence and gore to provoke that response is bad as well.  Because people will be come accustomed to the new, higher level of gore and violence and need more and more extreme images and concepts to get the same emotional provocation, as mentioned above, the bar is higher.

just food for thought

*Which I don't think is accurate but I won't go into in this thread

[RandyMistie]

Well, as I said before, much can be forgiven with good writing.

As MarkAndrew points out, violence for violence sake is not only morally "empty" I also find it boring.  But, if the writer has created interesting and engaging characters that I care about, then it ramps up the tension a thousand fold and even the smallest moment of violence, or the threat thereof (therein?), can be pants-wetting excitement.

It's all about the writing.  Can your story or characters hold it up?  Or is it just a stunt-show?

(BTW, I just saw "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" for the first time and I absolutely LOVED it!  I may start a thread for it later...)

[ScottotD]

As far as being a 'diverse talent' goes, Hitchcock stuck to basically the same genre his whole career.

Getting sexual pleasure from decapitation of women who are bound and gagged, would probably indicate mental problems.  Its all about where the damned invisible line is drawn.  Clearly we have to be able to say some people are legitamately sick and need help, and not merely shrug off their pedophilia or whatever as "personal taste". 

So there should be no movies that may perhaps effect someone mentally in any way?  I know tabloid news likes to point the finger at horror movies as making people into psychopaths but who's to say someone wouldn't be set off by a PG movie?  I know the 5 minutes of 'High School Musical' I saw made me want to kill.

violence for the sake of trying to shock the audience, I'm going say that's bad and shouldn't be shown.

And what is acceptable keeps slipping.  It's not progress.  Indulging in the freedom we enjoy without acknowledging the need to do so with responsibility is bad.  Very bad.  For society, for individuals, for art.

And you can keep on saying things like that all you want but it doesn't make it more than your personal opinion.

[Sharktopus]

As far as being a 'diverse talent' goes, Hitchcock stuck to basically the same genre his whole career.

As did Frank Capra and John Ford, off the top of my head. Martin Scorsese for the most part, too.

[MarkAndrew]

So there should be no movies that may perhaps effect someone mentally in any way?  I know tabloid news likes to point the finger at horror movies as making people into psychopaths but who's to say someone wouldn't be set off by a PG movie?  I know the 5 minutes of 'High School Musical' I saw made me want to kill.

And you can keep on saying things like that all you want but it doesn't make it more than your personal opinion.

You're deliberately missing the point, unless you think all images and ideas should be available to everyone all the time.  (which is damn near what we have with the internet)

And Scott, I never claimed my post was anything other than my opinion.  So, no points there.

[Sharktopus]

You're deliberately missing the point, unless you think all images and ideas should be available to everyone all the time.  (which is damn near what we have with the internet)

I can see how certain images can be private, or inappropriate, but what sort of ideas need to be censored?

[ScottotD]

Why am I missing the point? you and sarcasm seem to be trying to back up your opinion with the suggestion that violent films are 'bad' because they could perhaps effect people's mental state adversely.  I'm suggesting that if someone's that weak mentally then there's no telling what could set them off

Sweeping statements like "this is bad for society" and this "shouldn't be shown" makes it seem like you're submitting you personal taste as fact, I'm not trying to win points.

And yes, although it's off topic, in broad terms I do think that adults should have access to to basically any form of entertainment they choose (entertainment not reality, willing participants, safety, etc) although what makes someone an adult, etc makes the idea more complicated.  I can't, off the top of my head think of any ideas that shouldn't be availiable.

[MarkAndrew]

You're deliberately missing the point, unless you think all images and ideas should be available to everyone all the time.  (which is damn near what we have with the internet)

I can see how certain images can be private, or inappropriate, but what sort of ideas need to be censored?

I would suggest:
the idea that it is ok to kill and eat people who are rude.
the idea that molesting children is acceptable
the idea that new Coke tasted better than classic coke
....ok well, maybe not that last one :-)

[ScottotD]

But an idea is an abstract concept, discussing the things you've mentioned would make no difference to the reality.

[Sharktopus]

How can you convey to an impressionable mind that an idea is bad, if you can't convey the idea itself? It would be like saying, "Son, don't sin." "What's a sin, daddy?" "Something you should not do."