The All-Time 100 BERRY Worst??

Originally posted by saturnwatcher There is simply no such thing as representing murder in a "glorious fashion."

Ok, watch 300 or any of the Final Destination movies and come back here and tell me that you can't represent murder in glorious fashion. I dare you.

There is truly no such thing as dying in glorious fashion, as depicted by the ancient lie, "Dolce et decorum est Pro Patria mori."

Yes, there is. Even critics use phrases like that in their reviews.

Sorry, MWG, but to derive the kind of enjoyment you seem to receive from that kind of imagery is just plain sick.

If you even have an ounce of knowledge on what you're talking about, you wouldn't be posting this. You're ignorant because you have no idea what you're talking about. It's as if saying "People who watch the Saw movies are serial killers who have a twisted head." Never in my life have I ever been so offended by your obvious little knowledge of the subject at hand. You're the one that needs help.

Originally posted by Michaels I'm not speaking for saturnwatcher, but yeah "300" and "Final Destination" do represent murder in glorifed ways. Does that make them great movies? Not really. Take those "glorious murders" away and what do you have to hold the movie together? Not much besides the overall look of the movies, and teenage movie goers just LOVE looking at pretty colors.

I don't appreciate you responding to a post which I intended for saturnwatcher. I see how you conveniently ignored my post to you. But anyway, I said, on my first post, that the great death scenes in See No Evil made up for the movie. Now you're agreeing with me yet in your other post, you say enjoying seeing people die makes you sick and twisted, which is far from the truth. It's because the deaths are unrealistic that makes them not scary.

And what phrase would that be, considering most critics HATE horror movies (outside of the fangoria, fearnet communities, of course)?

Some used in the first 3 Final Destination flicks. I'm sure you have read them before too.

Again with the immature statements like "ounce of knowledge". This is why you're the board's punching bag.

And this is why I don't want to bother arguing with you guys anymore. what I say is the truth. So you're saying we're supposed to be scared of the death scenes in the Final Destination series? Because that's what you guys are saying.

I'm pretty sure saturnwatcher can back his statements with any passage from a psychology book that claims people who enjoy watching violent movies MIGHT have a bit of a violent streak of their own, or are prone to copying what they see.

I've also taken the college psychology course during high school. I don't see how that makes a difference.

I'm saying you, MWG, are violent by nature, but look at the likes of other teenagers who play Grand Theif Auto and then go out commiting crimes based on what happened in the game or teenagers who see "Fast & Furious" movies and then get in car wrecks when copying the stunts.

See, this is why I hate you guys. You're ASSUMING, like the whole Breakfast Club movie. You assume teenagers, like YOURSELF, are violent in nature. It would make you look dumb with such a statement because I don't even play games or do things that was shown in movies like curving a bullet.

To me, saturnwatcher is the most intelligent and well-spoken person in this entire forum, but that's just my opinion.

Because you're the dumb one. I don't care if you say the whole "See, this is why we don't like you MWG. You say 'dumb' and words like that all of the time." It's getting old. I'm saying those words because you guys aren't doing a great job making you look the opposite of what I'm calling you guys. You're calling me "violent." Why can't I call you "dumb"? You have no supported evidence nor do you know me yet you call me these things? what makes you so special? Really, what makes you so special? If you call me a violent, twisted person, I can call you the dumb, ignorant one because I don't play "Grand Theft Auto" nor do I speed.

• First of all, there is a significant difference between a movie like 300, which is a depiction of an historical event, and a slasher film which is presenting violence in a purely gratutious fashion. However, I would point out that there are no shortage of films that have been produced over the years that have managed to portray historical events similar to those presented in 300 without the graphic qualities that seem to be necessary now. It should also be noted that it isn't unusual for the underlying themes of those films to use the "glory" of those deaths as an ironic message as to their ultimate futility. 
• Second. I don't think at this point that I've actually called anyone "sick," however I have expressed concerns that the apparent necessity to utilize this sort of graphic realism in films represents a dangerous trend in our society. Whether or not seeing violence on film or in video games can lead to violent behavior remains a debated point, but there is increasing evidence to support it, particularly in children. There is also a significant question in play as to whether art imitates life or visa versa. Maybe there are elements of both. In any event, for a species with a long history of atrocities to it's "credit," it hardly seems rational to me to fuel the fire.

Finally, in one of your recent posts you suggested that I somehow view you as a "freak" because you enjoy this sort of entertainment. To the contrary, my fear is not that you are a freak, but rather that you are becoming the norm.

FYI, I did see the first Final Destination movie. There was nothing sufficently entertaining about it that suggested that I needed to see any of the sequels or, imho, that sequels were even necessary.

However, picking two examples out of a very large sample scarcely defines a genre that has been widely criticized, frequently, by film critics who earn their living as experts in the field. The suggestion that the enjoyment of death scenes is justified by lack of realism is special pleading. Significant criticism has been leveled at the slasher movies for their graphic nature and the gratutious depicitons of violence. Significant concerns over the desensitizing effects of this kind of imagery have been voiced by people much wiser than I.

It is entirely possible that you may watch and enjoy these sorts of movies for the remainder of your life (I highly doubt that you ultimately will, in fact, the time will probably come when you find them distasteful), without doing harm to anyone else. However, it does not follow that the entire fan base for these films will be similarly unaffected, and I'm not sure it is worth the risk; particularly when equally entertaining movies can be made without the sort of graphic presentations characteristic of most contemporary slasher flicks.

Originally posted by Michaels So, it's perfectly normal for people to be laughing at other people getting slowly murdered like in "Hostel"? Must be, because if you like a movie for having unrealistic and unscary deaths, it must be for something else.

I don't know. Why don't you ask them? I haven't met a person who laughed during the death scenes in Hostel.

And what was this phrase exactly? And please tell me it wasn't in a horror movie bias magazine.

Why won't you search it up yourself?

Well, being scared was what the whole idea behind the horror movie, but if you're entertained by such trash, well, to each his own I guess. I'm not scared of them either, because I just find them to be just plain stupid and one step down from porn in terms of filmmaking quality.

The idea of a horror movie has obviously changed since then. Now, they can be dark comedies, like the Final Destination series, or romantic dramas, like Twilight, comedies, like Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland, etc.

Because you made the comment that he wouldn't know what he's talking about.

Because he doesn't. He's just assuming things.

Well see, #1, you're assuming I'm a teenager, in which you couldn't be any more wrong.

I remember that you said you were in college. I still consider that being a teen.

you're assuming I'm talking directly about you being one of those copy cat teenagers, which I didn't say. So who is doing the assuming here?

So why was your comment directed towards me about the whole Grand Theft Auto and Fast and Furious movies?

See, at no point did we directly say YOU are a violet person.

Yes, you did. Read the above posts.

Well buddy, IMDb and the Razzies have too totally opposite goals, which is why you get different replies depending on the forum.

No, they aren't. There was a user who posted something of this subject some months ago which enraged a lot of people.

Originally posted by moviewizguy    You're the one who's saying enjoying those death scenes makes one sick, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm probably the nicest person you would ever meet in real life. I have seen "Finding Nemo" about 100 times and have cried during "UP" and my favorite film is "Titanic." Need I say more?

Actually, what I have been saying for quite some time is that the growing levels of graphic violence in our artforms is a possible symptom of something possibly very sick within our society that could have very disturbing consequences in the ability to lead individuals to commit violent acts. It is a point that is being signficantly studied and has the support of a lot of PhD's out there who spend a lot of time studying the matter. (Mine is in a quite different field, but I still read a lot of the published findings in various science journals. My opinions are not, as you have charged, based entirely upon ignorance.)

Incidentally, I also believe that I have fully acknowledged that not everyone who views violent films or video games will be influenced in a fashion that could lead to unfortunate events. However, it must be acknowledged that we live in a society where one individual can do a lot of damage in a very short time. With that at stake, it behooves us to understand this issue much better than we presently do.

 

Like I said, go watch 300 and I'll bet you $100 that you will smile during one of the decapitation scenes.

PAY UP!!!! I saw 300. Nothing about the movie made me smile and I left it feeling pretty crappy. My public email address is: saturnwatcher@excite.com. I'll send you a personal address where you can pay off that bet. Actually, since I really don't want your money, I'd be perfectly happy if you make a contribution to the Jane Goodall Institute, an organization who's various activities support wildlife conservation and study, environmental preservation, community involvement and improvement and fostering peaceful solutions to conflicts on our planet . I'll happily forward you that address if you contact me at the address above. Incidentally, in the future you may wish to temper your tendency to make unfounded assumptions which might spare you having to pay off a lot of c-note bets, not that I have the slightest inclination to believe you'll actually put your money where your mouth is this time.

 

Either you get it or you don't. Some people are afraid of riding rollar coasters yet some people ride them every day. Same goes for the horror genre.

The original intent of the horror genre in both literature and movies was to provoke fear reactions, which many people (including me) find fun. The slasher genre simply evokes shock and gross out elements.

 

"A Clockwork Orange" is considered a masterpiece yet it shows violence off graphically.

A Clockwork Orange used violence (which was far less graphic than some of the milder things presented on the screen today) to make several specific points. First, there was an expression of concerns about rising levels of violence (particularly in younger people) and the degenerative effects it was having on society. Second, there were moral implications raised by the question of whether or not it might, in some cases, be just as bad to unmake a monster as to make one. I'm sorry you missed that point, since it is very central to really understanding the film.

I've noted this point before, but apparently it needs to be restated. The problem isn't necessarily violence in film or art. The potential problem is how graphically that violence is presented, and the context in which it is being presented. Schindler's List was a violent movie, but it wasn't intended to entertain. It was intended to inform and warn. The context of A Clockwork Orange was similar.

Incidentally, just as an addendum, box-office for the original Final Destination was just over $53 million domestic and practically nothing overseas. Its critical reaction was, at best, lukewarm (charitably...29% at RT). That doesn't speak to your suggestion that it was a wild success or that my views are in the minority.

1. I didn't like The Village because it was a piece of crap movie. Lord of the Flies is a wonderful book. I read it back in about, oh, 7th grade. To assume that human nature has an overriding "inherently  evil" aspect is to erroneously assume that there is only one human nature (A point strongly refuted even in Lord of the Flies). Were that the case, we would likely be gone by now. That suggestion also fails to explain the myriad of human beings who have dedicated their lives to service and altruism. However, our continued survival probably relies strongly on the ability to recognize and check as many R-complex triggers as possible.

2. No...I'm not lying. Like many people, including quite a few of the regulars here, I saw 300 and I didn't really care for it. However, it doesn't surprise me that you are back peddling from your wager. I predicted as much.

3. Here is the link to RT's Final Destination page, which presents the summation of 82 critical reviews: 24 positive, 54 rotten for 29%

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/final_destination/

Here is a link to Box Office Mojo's summation of box office performance for the original Final Destination. As you can see, the domestic totals are as I stated above. The international totals were in the $59 million range, hardly establishing this film as an international hit. Since the U.S. represents about 5% of the world's population, and out of the other 95% of the world's population only about as many people paid to see it as did in the U.S. I don't think this can really be classified as an international phenomenon:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=finaldestination.htm

I'll leave it to the other readers here to weigh the facts as documented here against the claims of mwg which he has not documented in any way shape or form.

 

Originally posted by moviewizguy What a coincidence. I wrote an essay in my class about violence in society, but using the book "Lord of the Flies" to do so. I'm also surprised you don't like "The Village" because it addresses the issue on violence but I guess you don't because in that film, it suggests humans are inherently evil and not influenced by society.

Why must everything go back to an M. Night movie when you know for a fact we think very little of his post-"Signs" films? and that issue of violence it addressed, was on-screen for like one second, and was one little stab, unlike a horror movie, which goes as for as bodily dismemberment.

Well, you know, you could be lying. But I'd rather not, although I'm happy to say we both have similar issues we like to deal with (conservation, helping the planet). This reminds me, I need to get myself a recycling box!

Again, seeing as how saturnwatcher is the most well-spoken person here and is very much against graphic violence in movies, I really doubt he would crack a smile over a person getting their head cut off, seeing as how put off he was about the violence in "Rambo 4" and "District 9".

I disagree. I watch slashers because of the fun and the thrills. I like laughing at the cliches like when a person trips or do something stupid. I mean, the first 10 minutes of Scream kept me to the edge of my seats and I think it scarred me for life when I saw it when I was 7 years old. However, I rarely do think the slasher genre has anything "gross" in it.

Yes, but see, we like films of quality, not movies that are so full of cliches that they are self-parodying themseleves. Perhaps that is why these movies are causing laugther rather than screams, or maybe it is my first theory that our younger society members are just no longer put off by violence and gore. And saying the slasher genre doesn't have anything gross about it, well, that's just some serious denial, considering they are all about sex, drugs, and murder. Yeah, that's some happy go lucky content for you.

FD is as much famous in the US as it is worldwide. I suggest you look at the information again. The critical reaction is lukewarm but the public's reaction is more favorable because the idea used in the film was novel and ingenious and smart. It's an intelligent slasher film, as Roger Ebert says, only without the slasher.

Yes, but again, what did the studio do? It made three sequels that were each dumber than the last. Slasher movies can hit a runhome once, but afterwards, they strike out. Why, because you can only carry a movie about people dying left and right for only so long ... one movie. After that, then it's just about what creative ways you can kill people off, ie. the "Saw" sequels.