Page 1 of 1

Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified/trivialised...?

PostPosted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:24 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
DISCUSS!!!

(... As I think sometimes it is.

Of course I expect you lot to say it isn't, but that's because you're all juvenile knobs.)

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified...?

PostPosted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:32 pm
by TheBaxter
it isn't.

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified...?

PostPosted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:58 pm
by Spandau Belly
On one hand, I resent that absolutely everything has to be packaged as an action movie these days. I don't get why recent tellings of Sherlock Holmes, Snow White, The Wizard of Oz etc all felt the need to be action movies and shoehorn in action and fighting.

On the other hand, it seems that a lot of the time action movies can't just be action movies. Movies today probably endorse the use of force more than ever, but the push for PG13 ratings results in this brand of bloodless violence that I frequently find uncompelling and surreal to watch.

Some stories need to be explicitly violent in order to be told properly, and I've seen this push for non-violent violence rob a lot of recent films of their impact. I saw DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, which was an anti-war movie that couldn't show the awful consequences of war because of its PG13 rating.

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified...?

PostPosted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:08 pm
by Ribbons
I was actually going to use Dawn of the Planet of the Apes as a recent movie that successfully manages to treat violence and death with the respect that it deserves. At least for me, that scene where Koba shoots the two humans is completely bloodless and yet conveys the idea that something horrible has just happened more than the movies that ladle it on. It's not as black-and-white as being as violent or realistic as possible; a lot of it depends on context. A lot of the grisliest movies glorify violence the most.

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified...?

PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:46 am
by Al Shut
One could also ask if the violence is trivilized.

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified/trivialised...?

PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:00 am
by Spandau Belly
Ribbons wrote:that scene where Koba shoots the two humans is completely bloodless and yet conveys the idea that something horrible has just happened more than the movies that ladle it on


I find the bloodless violence can work in small doses. In movies with low body counts the act of killing can carry weight even without being done explicitly.

In APES 2, it was more the actual war scenes that just felt surreal when apes and humans are getting mowed down by the dozen and you barely see a drop of blood. They do everything they can to cover it (clever camera angles, cutting away, the war takes place in the dark of night) but after a few minutes it just starts to feel surreal; I just felt like something's missing here.

It's like if you made a ROCKY movie, but the rule was that you couldn't show a boxing glove actually making contact with another man. You could still convey that a boxing match is happening and who's winning, but it would just feel bizarre. Or if you took AMADEUS and removed the music portions, the audience would still get that these guys are composers and that one is more talented than the other, it just seems like an odd way to go about it.

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified/trivialised...?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:54 am
by Ribbons
It's hard to tell what works and what doesn't. I don't necessarily think that it's a matter of showing more. I think we're all so desensitized to violence and even death that the story itself has to serve as a sort of palate cleanser to remind us that, oh yeah, this is a bad thing (or at least a very serious thing), assuming that's even what they're going for. But then I think of The Hunger Games (hiding the violence while talking about how horrible it was) movies and Battle Royale (coming up with creatively violent ways to kill children over and over) and Battle Royale freaked me out way more. So I don't know.

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified/trivialised...?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2015 1:14 pm
by Spandau Belly
That's what I'm getting at. The context of the story and the attitudes of the characters are more important than the presence of violence itself.

And I also feel HUNGER GAMES was another classic case where dodging explicit violence was done to secure a PG13 rating and not because it served the narrative.

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified/trivialised...?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2015 6:15 pm
by Peven
there are a number of people these days who need more graphic violence to get them off because they enjoy it, period, has nothing to do with story or plot or context, they just dig seeing body parts being realistically chopped or blown off, throats being sliced, heads being shot, etc. we all know at least one person like this, if not more, people who relate a movie by going through all the best "kills". if someone is too numb to violence in movies or tv they lack the self-awareness to know they are numb, so they will never think there is too much unnecessary graphic violence, they are more like a junkie who needs more and more to get a high. If a movie has some graphic violence it doesn't mean I don't watch it, but in the same respect if a movie doesn't have graphic violence that doesn't mean I won't watch it either. it simply isn't a determining factor. I can enjoy a story without having to see every drop of blood and still understand and feel the impact of what is going on. if a filmmaker has to rely on graphic violence to make an emotional impact then they aren't much of a filmmaker, imho of course.

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified/trivialised...?

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 3:54 pm
by Fievel
Contemporary violence needs to at least match the realism of news outlets* (explosions, death, beheadings, shootings, blood, etc.) or the viewer can't take it seriously. It's not the 1940's when a dark liquid would substitute for blood, or the late 60's when a bright red liquid would do the same. Movie blood needs to equal real blood or the viewer won't believe it. Explosions must be real, as must be the residual effects of said explosions. A simple punch to the face must leave the viewer wincing in empathy. The viewer demands realism, or the viewer doesn't buy tickets and copies for home viewing.

*I'm not blaming the media for anything, just saying that the catalog of real violence available to view is pretty wide on any given day.

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified/trivialised...?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:56 pm
by Peven
we aren't talking about using obviously fake blood or poor quality fx, we are talking about the level of graphic violence chown. the idea that people in the past didn't have a realistic idea of what real violence and blood looked like and so they didn't need it in movies is just plain out of touch with what the reality was. if anything, people back then had more firsthand experience with what death, violence, blood and guts looked like. there were bloody, gory shots of crime scenes, mob hits, etc., published for all to see, too. I am no prude, I love Tarantino movies, but his best work is not when he is spraying the walls in blood but when people are talking, the way he has become a master at building tension in a scene, the anticipation of what is to come. a great Hitchcock movie is still great today, and wouldn't be better with more graphic violence. I think the number of movies that actually require graphic violence to tell their story is far less than the number of movies that use it.

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified/trivialised...?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:54 am
by Fievel
Peven wrote:we aren't talking about using obviously fake blood or poor quality fx, we are talking about the level of graphic violence chown.


.....and a key component of that is..........?

Merriam-Webster wrote:Graphic
1
a : of or relating to the pictorial arts
3. usually graphic
a : marked by clear lifelike or vividly realistic description
b : vividly or plainly shown or described <a graphic sex scene>


Take any WWII film made from wartime through the 60's. Hell, most through up to this film would work..... then compare the opening of Saving Private Ryan. Pure.... graphic.... violence. The fact that it was real made it even better for the film. Now imagine that being shown in 1955. The audience (vets and civilians) would not have been able to handle it. It shook audiences in 1999 and sent vets into shellshock then. No, audiences were satisfied and sold on the simple notion of people being shot and falling down.

Peven wrote: the idea that people in the past didn't have a realistic idea of what real violence and blood looked like and so they didn't need it in movies is just plain out of touch with what the reality was




Peven wrote:if anything, people back then had more firsthand experience with what death, violence, blood and guts looked like. there were bloody, gory shots of crime scenes, mob hits, etc., published for all to see, too.


Are you a Luddite?!? Are you not aware of the very thing you are using to communicate right now?!? The internet itself is DeathTV for those who want to use it as such! One can simple go to sites like LiveLeak and spend a day watching people die in various ways - beheadings, shootings, hangings, car/motorcycle accidents, explosions, fire, suicide, etc. Pre-internet you had to find a newspaper that might have something in it. You had to wait for the news to come on in hopes that there would be something shown. No, more people are exposed to violence and death now than they were then.

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified/trivialised...?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:17 am
by Peven
I think you are showing a great example of how people today experience so much of life, through watching other people do stuff, whether via tv or phone or computer. you assume when I say that people in the past had more exposure to real violence and blood that I am talking about what they saw in the movies, instead of considering what people experienced in their real day to day lives then. learn a little history and you'll understand that people saw and experienced more real violence, blood and gore, than the average person today. it isn't even close. ever heard of polio? do you realize OSHA didn't exist during the industrial revolution, leading to common gory workplace injuries where people lost various body parts or their lives. do you have even the vaguest concept of how dangerous and bloody life was for most working people every day of their life then? do you understand what "mortality rate" is and have any idea how much higher it was then for people under 20 then compared to now? they were much more familiar with death up close and personal, and not from watching videos on youtube, than we are. the reason violence wasn't depicted graphically in movies was NOT because people didn't know what real blood and violence looked like. do you really think that we live a tougher life today with less death and blood? you slept through history class, didn't you, because you have no clue about what life was like for people in our history.


also, you don't seem to understand the difference between amount of content of graphic violence and level of quality of graphic violence. your definition does nothing to back up your assertion and simply shows you are missing the point when it comes to a filmmaker relying on using graphic violence, regardless of quality, to tell a story.

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified/trivialised...?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:38 pm
by Fievel
Peven wrote:learn a little history


Peven wrote:do you realize OSHA didn't exist during the industrial revolution, leading to common gory workplace injuries where people lost various body parts or their lives. do you have even the vaguest concept of how dangerous and bloody life was for most working people every day of their life then?


Peven wrote:learn a little history

Peven wrote:learn a little history

Peven wrote:learn a little history

Peven wrote:learn a little history


Shall we?

The first Industrial Revolution took place between the years of 1760 and 1840. Not a lot of movies being screened during that time.

The second (a less used term) lasted from the end of the first up until World War I. It would be another ten years before Hollywood's golden age began.


Peven wrote:you slept through history class, didn't you, because you have no clue about what life was like for people in our history.


No, I studied history, and continue to do so. It's so much more satisfying compared to grasping at random events in history and forcing them where they don't fit.

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified/trivialised...?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:00 pm
by so sorry
Peven wrote:ever heard of polio?


Yes, he's the starting winger for Real Madrid. Next stupid question please.

:D

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified/trivialised...?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:14 am
by TheBaxter
i thought polio was that stupid game that rich english people play while riding horses?

Re: Is onscreen Violence overdone/glorified/trivialised...?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:08 am
by TheButcher
Arsenal (2017 Movie) – Official Trailer
Peven wrote:wow. just had a "moment" watching that trailer.....and this will sound bullshit but it is as real as it gets.....I think I just hit my tipping point for movies made for the sole reason of depicting horrific violence in order to motivate me to root for the protagonist to commit equal or worse acts of horrible violence in return, a story told for no other reason than to justify and excuse killing and torture for a simplistic visceral rush. i guess I am old now, and maybe all the fucking hate and vitriol spewed by the Trump horde and the prospect of living for at least the next four years in a reality created by those animals has killed my ability to enjoy watching movies relying on devaluing human life to such a degree. cheers. :(


BMD:
Ares Being The WONDER WOMAN Villain May Be More Important Than You Realize
SIDDHANT ADLAKHA wrote:Man of Steel and Batman v Superman are saturated with issues, but the chief among them is their muddled approach to power, trickling down and colouring every scene and every interaction. In Man of Steel, Superman circumvents the idea of diplomacy entirely, pummeling his opponent in a fit of rage from their very first encounter before going on to execute him extra-judicially. Putting aside the debate on whether or not he “should” kill, it’s a poorly contextualized decision where neither the options nor the character stakes are weighed, and the film’s Batman-heavy sequel presents a murderous Dark Knight who crushes goons with his car, and whose response to the fear of a Godlike murderer is, well, more murder.

We can certainly debate the merits and demerits of this kind of tone in superhero cinema (a post-9/11 redefinition of “Truth, Justice and the American way” vis-à-vis foreign policy, perhaps?), but the contextual glorification of Batman and Superman’s actions amidst stories that position each of them as responses to power poses an interesting question for Wonder Woman and the film’s big villain. Not only is Diana up against The Great War and the darkness of (hu)mankind, she’s up against the embodiment of war itself.

Wonder Woman, while certainly a warrior, now bears the weight of a rather potent thematic question. She isn’t just embroiled in war, but will have to on some level contend with the idea of violent conflict. That isn’t to say there’s necessarily one correct answer – superheroes are violent power fantasy whether we admit it or not – but however the narrative approaches what could be its central theme (intentionally or otherwise) will likely impact how we see this DC universe.

Will it adhere to the DCEU’s current status quo, wherein violence begetting violence is treated as mantra as opposed to inadvertent side-effect, let alone a reason for self-reflection? Or will it stand apart and contextualize said violence in the vein of the questions about power Batman v Superman merely paid lip service to?

Is violence the most effective solution in this universe? Probably! It’s part of what we pay to watch, and the fictional mechanics are created in service of that. Save for Doctor Strange, the Marvel movies are no different, and that’s okay. But perhaps a better question would be whether these characters represent an outlook wherein violence is seen as the only solution to conflict. That has its narrative pros and cons too, especially for a group comprising Superman and his friends, but it isn’t something that can be contextualized or dramatically expressed if it’s presented as the first resort from the start without the protagonists themselves reflecting on this modus operandi, and that's before we even get to the topic of lethal force. This leaves no room for any actual narrative debate on the subject, which is something these films desperately want to give the appearance of having, with their numerous news broadcasts of politicians discussing it and ghost-fathers giving conflicting advice that rarely presents a dilemma.