View Full Version : Fr. v. Jason: bad taste epitomized?
Freddy vs. Jason: :sick: the ultimate in bad taste?
Do we really need to see yet another gorey slasher-style horror movie that glorifies meaningless carnage and graphic violence? Especially in the light of recent historical events?
Thankfully, Hollywood has so far refrained from directly exploiting 9/11 and the Iraq war for profit and commercial advantage. That would really be in bad taste! :sick:
So what are your thoughts on this?
Beale the Rippe
08-16-03, 07:42 PM
I hadn't heard anything dumb out of you in a while now. You had me worried. ;)
Did you even see the movie yet?
I've seen the trailers, thanks! That's quite enough exposure for me! Talk about dumb . . . :rolleyes:!
On the subject of dumb . . . wouldn't you say that an endless series of sequels rehashing the same old theme that thrives on mindless carnage and gore qualifies?
Sexy Celebrity
08-16-03, 08:19 PM
Do we really need to see yet another gorey slasher-style horror movie that thrives on graphic carnage for no apparent reason? Especially in the light of recent historical events?
Yes - I wanted to see the movie.
Thankfully, at least Hollywood has so far refrained from directly exploiting 9/11 and the Iraq war for profit and commercial advantage. That would really be in bad taste!
Kelly Rowland made a Columbine High School reference in the film.
Sexy Celebrity
08-16-03, 08:21 PM
On the subject of dumb . . . wouldn't you say that an endless series of sequels rehashing the same old theme that thrives on mindless carnage and gore qualifies?
No - It was a creative duel between two monsters from two different horror series. Has been a long time since there's been a movie like that - and I loved it.
Okay, cool! You are entitled to your opinion! I just fail to see the point of it, that's all! But that's just my opinion!
Beale the Rippe
08-16-03, 10:23 PM
I've seen the trailers, thanks! That's quite enough exposure for me! Talk about dumb . . . :rolleyes:!
On the subject of dumb . . . wouldn't you say that an endless series of sequels rehashing the same old theme that thrives on mindless carnage and gore qualifies?
Right....I think this is probably the first (or at least most) original movie in both series' in a LONG time. (Then again, I'm not a huge fan of either as a series....)
And I don't think seeing the previews is enough to make your thoughts completely valid, as you are talking about the completed film, which you haven't seen.
Kong was really hoping no one would reply to this thread and it would quietly slip into the black hole of obscurity where it belongs, but, alas, it is now too late for that so Kong will go ahead and join in.
Do we really need to see yet another gorey slasher-style horror movie that thrives on graphic carnage for no apparent reason? Especially in the light of recent historical events?
No, there really isn't any need for another gorey slasher film, but when you really get down to it there isn't any need for any kind of film at all. It's it's a completely expendable aspect of mopdern civilization, albeit one that Kong enjoys greatly.
Recent historical events seem to have no bearing on the production of slasher horror films in Kong's eyes. If Hollywood quit making horror films, or films featuring violence because of 9/11/01 then Kong would say that the terrorists would have gotten just what they were looking for. Maybe you are content with having your rights feared away (even if it is the only the right to produce or view shamelessy for profit horror movies), but Kong isn't.
Whether you realize it or not, scaring people takes skill. So does inventing unique ways for people to die. I'm of the mindset that has plenty of space for both fine taste and stupid fun. Real sophistication has plenty of room for goofiness. Faux sophistication is constantly turning its nose up at it.
Sexy Celebrity
08-17-03, 04:38 PM
The question now is: What can they do with Freddy or Jason next? Since it took them forever to make FVJ, I sort of thought back then that it would be the end. But now... there are plans to make a Freddy vs. Jason part 2 (something I shake my head at and think... no.) It might not be done. I thought they'd restart up the Freddy films and go for a new series set in the real world after Wes Craven's New Nightmare, but it didn't happen.
There is the possibility of a prequel to A Nightmare On Elm Street, which I wouldn't mind. FVJ sorta paved the way for this, I thought.
Right....I think this is probably the first (or at least most) original movie in both series' in a LONG time.
That's not saying very much...
And I don't think seeing the previews is enough to make your thoughts completely valid, as you are talking about the completed film, which you haven't seen.
The previews tell me enough, thanks! :rolleyes:
No, there really isn't any need for another gorey slasher film, but when you really get down to it there isn't any need for any kind of film at all. It's it's a completely expendable aspect of mopdern civilization, albeit one that Kong enjoys greatly.
Well, entertainment is one thing, but glorifying gruesome carnage is quite another thing. Let's say, for example, someone made a film glorifying the holocaust--representing the Nazis as heros and glorifying their brutality. Would that constitute good taste in your opinion? :sick: Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.
Recent historical events seem to have no bearing on the production of slasher horror films in Kong's eyes. If Hollywood quit making horror films, or films featuring violence because of 9/11/01 then Kong would say that the terrorists would have gotten just what they were looking for. Maybe you are content with having your rights feared away (even if it is the only the right to produce or view shamelessy for profit horror movies), but Kong isn't.
I think it has--or should have--a profound impact on our culture and collective consciousness. Or, rather, it has an impact on us whether we realize it or not. I would think that in the wake of the savagery we have witnessed of late, people would feel compelled to make more films celebrating life and humanity rather than glorifying death, carnage, brutal violence, sadism and cruelty--the main constituents of Hollywood productions these days, it seems. I'm talking about good taste, that's all. If you want to discuss letting our rights being scared away, maybe you should speak to John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge about that! :rolleyes:
Whether you realize it or not, scaring people takes skill. So does inventing unique ways for people to die.
That has to be the stupidest statement I have ever heard in a long, long time--and from someone whose intelligence I have grudgingly come to respect! Yoda, what, then, would you say to Al Quaeda or Adolf Hitler, I wonder? Would you credit their so-called "ingenuity" or condemn them as disturbed, twisted psychopaths who seriously need to be locked up?
I'm of the mindset that has plenty of space for both fine taste and stupid fun. Real sophistication has plenty of room for goofiness. Faux sophistication is constantly turning its nose up at it.
First of all, goofiness and stupid fun are all very well. Personally, though, I find nothing humorous or entertaining in a film that glorifies carnage and gore--nor do I find it in any way interesting. To tell you the truth, I find it boring as hell, besides being in really bad taste. "Sophisticated"--yeah, right! :rolleyes: If you see sophistication in "creative murder"--to quote your own words, "inventing unique ways for people to die"--you desperately need to see a psychiatrist, my friend! Personally, I find sadism to be twisted and repulsive--the badge of the lowest depths of the human soul--rather, the inhuman or sub-human soul. In short, really bad taste. Anyone who laughs at innocent people being decapitated or at the gratuitous glorification of blood and gore represents, in my eyes, really bad taste. Call it "faux sophistication" if you like--I simply call it decency and humanity.
The question now is: What can they do with Freddy or Jason next? Since it took them forever to make FVJ, I sort of thought back then that it would be the end. But now... there are plans to make a Freddy vs. Jason part 2 (something I shake my head at and think... no.) It might not be done. I thought they'd restart up the Freddy films and go for a new series set in the real world after Wes Craven's New Nightmare, but it didn't happen.
There is the possibility of a prequel to A Nightmare On Elm Street, which I wouldn't mind. FVJ sorta paved the way for this, I thought.
Absolute no comment on that!
Sexy Celebrity
08-17-03, 08:04 PM
Absolute no comment on that!
Okay! No problem!
Sexy Celebrity
08-17-03, 08:13 PM
Cool!
Yeah, mondo tubular! Rad!
heheheh - i hear the djangledjangle of sleigh bells. That'll be you on a slippery slope you silly thing.
Yods was talking about films, not "reality" silly. Honestly - stop saying daft things that make me want to jump in back Yods up will you - it makes me feel all dirty ;)
(and if you're gonna talk about al Qaeda, talk about how their brief relationship with Saddam demonstrably fell apart a long time ago, and how he has absolutely no demonstrable connection to 9/11. Not that 9/11/01 has got anything to do with boy-pleasing blood-fests :rolleyes: )
Sexy Celebrity
08-17-03, 08:23 PM
heheheh - i here the djangledjangle of sleigh bells. That's be you on a slippery slope you silly thing.
Hmmm... Django as Santa Claus.....
http://www.johncrossen.com/gallimgs/P13A-fs.jpg
heheheh - i hear the djangledjangle of sleigh bells. That'll be you on a slippery slope you silly thing.
Yods was talking about films, not "reality" silly. Honestly - stop saying daft things that make me want to jump in back Yods up will you - it makes me feel all dirty ;)
(and if you're gonna talk about al Qaeda, talk about how their brief relationship with Saddam demonstrably fell apart a long time ago, and how he has absolutely no demonstrable connection to 9/11. Not that 9/11/01 has got anything to do with boy-pleasing blood-fests :rolleyes: )
Contextually, Yoda might have been discussing the movies, but what he made was a general statement whose implications go beyond the movies. In any case, regardless of the context of the statement, it was a stupid statement to make--the more so, considering that Yoda did not bother to clarify the context, leaving it so deliberately vague as to suggest that it might, just as easily, refer to reality as to fiction. Sure, it takes a degree of skill to construct an interesting and satisfying plot--even for a mindlessly gorey horror movie. But skills like that are better employed, surely, with plot-writing in more interesting genres (at least in my opinion) rather than dreaming up innovative ways for people to be killed and gored in the most graphic and blood-curdling ways imaginable. "Ingenuity" like that, we don't need, I think--not even in the movies. It's a fine line between fiction and reality these days, as you yourself have noted in your comments about the persuasive power of advertizing in the "Trashy Commercialism" thread.
Hmmm... Django as Santa Claus.....
Ha, ha! Hilarious!
And here's one of Sexy Celebrity and a friend (Yoda, perhaps?) dressed as RuPaul:
http://www.sunpk.com/drag/celebrities/alist/images/037%20rupaul.jpg
Sexy Celebrity
08-17-03, 08:50 PM
With a great big Tripod sign over me?
Sexy Celebrity
08-17-03, 08:54 PM
Oh, I see now. Is that you on the right?
if you wanted to ask: "Is there too much violence in movies today?" why didn't you make it a bit clearer? I'm happy to talk about de-sensitization and stuff. As it is this is threatening to get so wooly we could knit a jumper ;)
Beale the Rippe
08-17-03, 09:04 PM
That has to be the stupidest statement I have ever heard in a long, long time--and from someone whose intelligence I have grudgingly come to respect! Yoda, what, then, would you say to Al Quaeda or Adolf Hitler, I wonder? Would you credit their so-called "ingenuity" or condemn them as disturbed, twisted psychopaths who seriously need to be locked up?
First of all, goofiness and stupid fun are all very well. Personally, though, I find nothing humorous or entertaining in a film that glorifies carnage and gore--nor do I find it in any way interesting. To tell you the truth, I find it boring as hell, besides being in really bad taste. "Sophisticated"--yeah, right! :rolleyes: If you see sophistication in "creative murder"--to quote your own words, "inventing unique ways for people to die"--you desperately need to see a psychiatrist, my friend! Personally, I find sadism to be twisted and repulsive--the badge of the lowest depths of the human soul--rather, the inhuman or sub-human soul. In short, really bad taste. Anyone who laughs at innocent people being decapitated or at the gratuitous glorification of blood and gore represents, in my eyes, really bad taste. Call it "faux sophistication" if you like--I simply call it decency and humanity.
http://members.cox.net/scottjantz/Forum/room_care.jpg
That has to be the stupidest statement I have ever heard in a long, long time--and from someone whose intelligence I have grudgingly come to respect! Yoda, what, then, would you say to Al Quaeda or Adolf Hitler, I wonder? Would you credit their so-called "ingenuity" or condemn them as disturbed, twisted psychopaths who seriously need to be locked up?Both. They're evil, but they're not stupid. Hitler was a very intelligent, charismatic man -- he had to be to do what he did. Similarly, though you may not like the gore in slasher flicks, it's rather hard to deny the ingenuity it sometimes display. Hating a man does not necessitate that you deny he has any admirable qualitifes, as your reluctant admission of my intelligence demonstrates.First of all, goofiness and stupid fun are all very well. Personally, though, I find nothing humorous or entertaining in a film that glorifies carnage and gore--nor do I find it in any way interesting. To tell you the truth, I find it boring as hell, besides being in really bad taste. "Sophisticated"--yeah, right! :rolleyes: If you see sophistication in "creative murder"--to quote your own words, "inventing unique ways for people to die"--you desperately need to see a psychiatrist, my friend!Why? It takes intelligence to create elaborate murder mysteries...so why not elaborate murders? Final Destination is a perfect example.Personally, I find sadism to be twisted and repulsive--the badge of the lowest depths of the human soul--rather, the inhuman or sub-human soul. In short, really bad taste. Anyone who laughs at innocent people being decapitated or at the gratuitous glorification of blood and gore represents, in my eyes, really bad taste. Call it "faux sophistication" if you like--I simply call it decency and humanity.The fact that you can't even discuss this matter without declaring horror films "sadist" shows that you're unable to draw any line between fiction and fact...between words and deeds. No one who watches these films is actually cheering on the concept of slaughtering innocent people, and you know it.
Django,
When I first joined this forum, you had an Avatar of Sly Stallone, didn't you? By using that avatar, aren't you giving homage to a man who's made a lot of films that glorified both killing and exploited war?
Both. They're evil, but they're not stupid. Hitler was a very intelligent, charismatic man -- he had to be to do what he did. Similarly, though you may not like the gore in slasher flicks, it's rather hard to deny the ingenuity it sometimes display. Hating a man does not necessitate that you deny he has any admirable qualitifes, as your reluctant admission of my intelligence demonstrates.
First of all, I don't hate you--just totally disagree with most of what you say. You're the one who seems to be intent on hating me! Secondly, sure, certain types of psychopaths display a twisted sort of intelligence--a method to their madness, if you will. The point is that that form of "ingenuity"--for lack of a better word--is, firstly, a kind of madness and not in the least admirable--no sane human being would act as Hitler did--his "ingenuity" was nothing more, ultimately, than a symptom of his madness. Secondly, this form of "ingenuity" comes about from a total disregard of conscience and humanity--a sort of regression into a bestial frame of mind--following a course of action that any rational human being would discard without question. Again, nothing admirable about it--it is a form of insanity, ultimately, nothing more. As for Hitler's charisma, I think it had more to do with mass communication and mass media than any personality on his part. Hitler was great at making speeches and using a megaphone to blast his hate-filled message into your skull until it knocked you senseless. As for whether this constituted any sort of actual charisma on his part, I don't know. Most people who actually knew Hitler tended to remark on what an unremarkable man he was--not much in the way of charisma or personality, just a very, very loud voice, that's all!
Why? It takes intelligence to create elaborate murder mysteries...so why not elaborate murders? Final Destination is a perfect example.
And that's another perfect example of a comment made in extremely bad taste! :sick:
The fact that you can't even discuss this matter without declaring horror films "sadist" shows that you're unable to draw any line between fiction and fact...between words and deeds. No one who watches these films is actually cheering on the concept of slaughtering innocent people, and you know it.
The fact remains that when you go to see one of these gorey, slasher-type horror flicks, what you are doing is finding entertainment in the glorification of gratuitous, gruesome carnage. Personally, I don't find it entertaining at all. I don't even find it especially frightening--just sickening, that's all. In bad taste, in other words. You may think it's remarkably clever to orchestrate a series of gruesome murders on screen--my point is that that's the sort of cleverness that many serial killers and mass murderers demonstrate. Not particularly admirable or remarkable, in my book. Still, if you find it entertaining, go for it, man! Who am I to stop you?
Django,
When I first joined this forum, you had an Avatar of Sly Stallone, didn't you? By using that avatar, aren't you giving homage to a man who's made a lot of films that glorified both killing and exploited war?
There's a difference between making action movies and slasher-style horror movies. Sure, the Rambo movies glorify violence, but they also glorify (and greatly exaggerate) heroic action in the context of war. At least there is a positive dimension to the films. Incidentally, the first Rambo movie, "First Blood," had a completely different message--namely the treatment of Vietnam War veterans in their own homeland. It wasn't, strictly speaking, an action movie, in the same vein as Rambo II and Rambo III--more of a suspense movie with a message. A darn good movie, in my book. Anyway, the difference is that slasher-style horror movies glorify meaningless carnage and the spillage of blood and gore for no conceivable reason whatsoever! They thrive on gratuitous carnage and violence, rather on the story or message or even on the action. They make icons out of demons like Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger. That's a whole different ball game! How about making a new series of horror films about real life historical serial killers--how about "Charles Manson the movie" or "Jack the Ripper Strikes Again"! How would that strike you? Wouldn't you find it in bad taste? Wouldn't it make you sick? :sick:
Piddzilla
08-18-03, 08:52 PM
There's a difference between making action movies and slasher-style horror movies. Sure, the Rambo movies glorify violence, but they also glorify (and greatly exaggerate) heroic action in the context of war. At least there is a positive dimension to the films. Incidentally, the first Rambo movie, "First Blood," had a completely different message--namely the treatment of Vietnam War veterans in their own homeland. It wasn't, strictly speaking, an action movie, in the same vein as Rambo II and Rambo III--more of a suspense movie with a message. A darn good movie, in my book. Anyway, the difference is that slasher-style horror movies glorify meaningless carnage and the spillage of blood and gore for no conceivable reason whatsoever! They thrive on the carnage and violence, rather on the story or message or even on the action. That's a whole different ball game! They make icons out of demons like Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger. How about making a new series of horror films about real life historical serial killers--how about "Charles Manson the movie" or "Jack the Ripper Strikes Again"! How would that strike you? Wouldn't you find it in bad taste? Wouldn't it make you sick? :sick:
First Blood not an action movie?? Btw, it is pretty interesting that you praise a film that is considered by the world of film studies (and other mortals too) to be the flag ship of fictitious conservative propaganda films. Every reflected over the fact that John Rambo is Ronald Reagan's favourite film hero?
What do you have to say about another supspense movie (with a message?), Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, the mother of the slasher genre? Did the old master create a monster, in your opinion?
First Blood not an action movie?? Btw, it is pretty interesting that you praise a film that is considered by the world of film studies (and other mortals too) to be the flag ship of fictitious conservative propaganda films. Every reflected over the fact that John Rambo is Ronald Reagan's favourite film hero?
Wh...wh...what's that? Ronald Reagan and Rambo? That's news to me! :eek: (Not that I have anything against Reagan or Rambo, but the two together is a bizarre conjunction!) The Rambo films--conservative propaganda??? Is that why the bad guy in "First Blood" was the bigoted sheriff of a conservative small town? Or why, at the end of Rambo II, Rambo shoots up the office of the slimey, war-mongering bureacrat? (Now that sure made me cheer!) Or what about Rambo III, in which Rambo actually flies over to Afghanistan to help the local mujahedin? I guess, maybe what the conservatives like about Rambo is that, at the same time, he shoots up the Vietnamese and the Russians. But a conservative hero? Rambo? You've got to be kidding me! Can you imagine John Rambo in a tux? Or going to the opera? :laugh: Anyway, "First Blood" is definitely not an action movie--at least not in the vein of the other two Rambo movies. It's kind of an underplayed suspense movie with some action and a strong message.
What do you have to say about another supspense movie (with a message?), Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, the mother of the slasher genre? Did the old master create a monster, in your opinion?
See, the difference between Hitchcock and "Freddy vs. Jason" is that in Hitchcock, the violence is not gratuitous--nor is it particularly over the top, at least from modern standards. What Hitchcock does is concentrate more on the plot and the cinematography. He does not attempt to glorify the gore--he uses it to further the plot and delineate the character--in this case, that of Norman Bates, the psycho. Hitchcock is called the "master of suspense", not "the master of gore" for a reason--because his movies are intended to spook you out--to mess with your mind while making their point--to convey suspense and a strong plot--not to turn murder into a sport and glorify carnage! Incidentally, have you seen the newer remake of Psycho with Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates? It's a virtual frame-by-frame remake of the original in color and in a modern setting. Interesting, but not quite the same as the original.
Django, sounds to me like your pussy hurts and you can't take a little gore, the movie was ****ing awesome. It is as simple as that. It didn't overstep any boundaries. It was a masterpiece in my opinion.
I don't see how it is in bad taste considering recent current events. When was the last time a child rapist haunted children's dreams...or an unstopable brute took so many stabbings and continued to kill. I mean damn, those two characters struck so close to home that I don't think I was able to enjoy how damn entertaining this movie was.
Get off your high horse, walk among the people, and watch the movie.
I needed this movie like an asthmatic needs his inhaler.
Piddzilla
08-19-03, 09:31 AM
Wh...wh...what's that? Ronald Reagan and Rambo? That's news to me! :eek: (Not that I have anything against Reagan or Rambo, but the two together is a bizarre conjunction!) The Rambo films--conservative propaganda??? Is that why the bad guy in "First Blood" was the bigoted sheriff of a conservative small town?
To avoid misunderstandings. This is not my own theory or my words but a very well known theory in the field of film studies, so instead of telling you about it myself I will start with using a little quote:
Rambo and the Reagan- Revisionism
After the weak years of American policy with the presidents Nixon ('Watergate'), Ford ('economic depression') and Carter ('Iran hostage crises') in the Seventies American self-confidence rose again with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan's hero was Rambo. With Rambo there came a reinterpretation of the Vietnam disaster and the creation of a myth.
John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) is a Vietnam veteran. He is misunderstood, betrayed and persecuted by authorities. He was imprisoned in the first Rambo movie(1980). In the second movie Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) Rambo is released and he is given the mission to go to Vietnam and find evidence of American MIAs (Missing In Action)/POWs (Prisoners Of War) who are still imprisoned in South East Asia. Rambo returns to Vietnam and is betrayed and captured again and tortured. But he breaks his chains, takes bloody revenge and frees the POWs/ MIAs.
The Rambo movies carry questionable messages:
Vietnam still keeps American POWs. Vietnam is evil and a satellite of the Russians.. For that reason it is and it was justified to fight them.
It says that the brave American soldiers would have won the war, if they had not been betrayed by a cowardly government. The retreat was a betrayal of the fighting forces.
A reason for the loss of the war is that Americans always fought the war in a moral, in a fair and human way while the Vietcong fought the war without any rules in a brutal (tortures) and cowardly (terrorist) way. To win the war Americans would have to fight the war in the way the Vietcong did it - unconditional, brutal and inhuman.
The Rambo movies attained the biggest commercial success of all Vietnam movies. It was followed by a series of other Missing In Action movies.They fit in the context of the Cold War tension rising again.
Reagan's foreign policy (the bombing of Tripolis after the terrorist act above Lockerbie) also had the idea of a Rambo-like revenge.
Source: http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/student/martin-david.zimmermann/essays.html
This is obviously just some guy's college essay or something but it was what I could find on the net right now. I read a great essay that explained it very thoroughly in some book about a year ago though but I can't even remember the name of the author. But the quote above pretty much sums up the general idea of what I meant anyway.
Or why, at the end of Rambo II, Rambo shoots up the office of the slimey, war-mongering bureacrat? (Now that sure made me cheer!) Or what about Rambo III, in which Rambo actually flies over to Afghanistan to help the local mujahedin?
Well, I was talking about First Blood primarily, but I think the theory goes for the whole series.
I guess, maybe what the conservatives like about Rambo is that, at the same time, he shoots up the Vietnamese and the Russians. But a conservative hero? Rambo? You've got to be kidding me! Can you imagine John Rambo in a tux? Or going to the opera? :laugh: Anyway, "First Blood" is definitely not an action movie--at least not in the vein of the other two Rambo movies. It's kind of an underplayed suspense movie with some action and a strong message.
Excuse me, but are you saying that tuxedos and opera are for conservatives exclusively? I think the reason to why you don't understand what I mean is because you have a very distorted opinion on what is conservative and what is not. I think you mix up conservative politics and views with the upper class and that some thins are reserved for the upper class only. There is no conservative politician that would ever be elected without any support from grass root level. Just because John Rambo is a man of the people doesn't mean he can't stand for conservative and reactionary values, which is exactly what he and First Blood stand for.
See, the difference between Hitchcock and "Freddy vs. Jason" is that in Hitchcock, the violence is not gratuitous--nor is it particularly over the top, at least from modern standards. What Hitchcock does is concentrate more on the plot and the cinematography. He does not attempt to glorify the gore--he uses it to further the plot and delineate the character--in this case, that of Norman Bates, the psycho. Hitchcock is called the "master of suspense", not "the master of gore" for a reason--because his movies are intended to spook you out--to mess with your mind while making their point--to convey suspense and a strong plot--not to turn murder into a sport and glorify carnage! Incidentally, have you seen the newer remake of Psycho with Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates? It's a virtual frame-by-frame remake of the original in color and in a modern setting. Interesting, but not quite the same as the original.
Yes, I have seen it and I didn't like it very much.
I am sure that Hitchcock took the violence as far as he was allowed and that he would have taken it further if he could have. The film was released 43 years ago but had it been released about a decade later I am sure it would have involved a lot more gore.
What do you make out of the "shower scene"? Why is Hitchcock building the whole film around a leading character only to kill her off in a very brutal way half way through the film? Because he wants to shock the audience! The audience was absolutely certain that Janet Leigh would make it through the entire movie - she's the main character and heroine for god's sake - and the murder of her comes as a complete shock to the audience. [Actually, it is one of the greatest milestones in the history of film, if you ask me. Hitchcock's total brilliance as a filmmaker is manifested in that single scene] Now, there are good and bad slasher films and I am not a big fan of the genre really. But I think you are condradicting yourself when you praise Hitchcock at the same time as you dismiss Freddy vs. Jason as garbage because of the gratuitous gore. Because there is at least one thing that all slasher films, including Psycho, have in common and that is the gratuitous gore and violence. If it wasn't gratuitous you wouldn't get the shock effect which is, as I am sure you would agree, a very necessary ingredient in every slasher film.
Sexy Celebrity
08-19-03, 01:27 PM
When was the last time a child rapist haunted children's dreams...
Very recently....
http://www.histar.com/mornings/starchive/2002/11/images/michael_jackson.jpg
.... and coincidentally, both he/she and Freddy have damaged faces!
Piddzilla
08-19-03, 01:47 PM
:eek: :eek: :bawling: :bawling: :sick: :sick:
God damnit, Sexy! He scares the **** out of me too!!
i'm just kind of worried his eye's going to pop out if he scratches any lower :vomit-smilie:
Django, sounds to me like your pussy hurts and you can't take a little gore, the movie was ****ing awesome. It is as simple as that. It didn't overstep any boundaries. It was a masterpiece in my opinion.
I don't see how it is in bad taste considering recent current events. When was the last time a child rapist haunted children's dreams...or an unstopable brute took so many stabbings and continued to kill. I mean damn, those two characters struck so close to home that I don't think I was able to enjoy how damn entertaining this movie was.
Get off your high horse, walk among the people, and watch the movie.
I needed this movie like an asthmatic needs his inhaler.
Whoa! I'm not sure I really need or want to see any of this on a 75mm. screen with Dolby Digital surround sound, thanks! This is not about elitism of any sort--just about good taste (in my opinion!) Feel free to watch it if you like that sort of stuff.
[QUOTE=Django]Well, entertainment is one thing, but glorifying gruesome carnage is quite another thing. Let's say, for example, someone made a film glorifying the holocaust--representing the Nazis as heros and glorifying their brutality. Would that constitute good taste in your opinion? :sick: Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. [/QUOTE=Django]
The film doesn't glorify gruesome carnage. Offering up highly stylized, and completely unrealistic violence as entertainment is not the same thing as glorification.
You might also want to look into the film theory concerning horror/slasher flicks for further insight.
To avoid misunderstandings. This is not my own theory or my words but a very well known theory in the field of film studies, so instead of telling you about it myself I will start with using a little quote:
Source: http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/student/martin-david.zimmermann/essays.html
This is obviously just some guy's college essay or something but it was what I could find on the net right now. I read a great essay that explained it very thoroughly in some book about a year ago though but I can't even remember the name of the author. But the quote above pretty much sums up the general idea of what I meant anyway.
Quite frankly, that essay is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time! Also one of the saddest and scariest. I think it confirms my statement about why (and if) Rambo is a conservative hero--because he epitomizes a "super-soldier" if you will--a bloody, rampaging killing machine, the sort of guy who single-handedly takes on an entire army and wins (in the 2nd and 3rd movies). However, in the first movie, Rambo is simply a down-and-out Vietnam vet who turns into an anti-social--even, arguably, a sort of terrorist--who goes on a killing spree after being brutalized by the local small-town authorities. A highly trained and very well disciplined soldier who turns into a sort of vigilante or pariah and begins to execute a sort of private war against the authorities. While I, personally, do not condone or sympathize this kind or behavior, nor do I seek to endorse or advocate it, I can see where it comes from. Primarily from mythological overtones (as the writer of the original First Blood novel confessed--Rambo represents the classical hero in a modern context--his anti-social violence echoes the anti-social violence of mythological heroes like Odysseus and Robin Hood (c.f. Rambo's bow in the 2nd and 3rd movies, the evil sheriff, etc.) Rambo is, essentially, the outlaw who turns against the social order because he feels betrayed by it. He is overtly anarchistic and anti-authoritarian. Again, I don't condone this mode of behavior, but I can see where it is coming from. Ultimately, he becomes a criminal who serves jail time for his actions, pardoned only by the timely intervention of his mentor, a respected army officer. Anyway, I hardly see how this strong anti-authoritarian message can be sympathetic to the conservative camp! Correct me if I'm wrong! But if Reagan likes Rambo, good for him. However, to use Rambo as a justification for heightened military action overseas is a distortion of the message of the movies, I think. Basically, Rambo is a good, patriotic soldier who does his duty and serves his country without question--arguably, he represents the very best combat soldier. However, the irony of the movies is that this extremely patriotic and highly trained and capable soldier turns against the very authorities he serves--or, at least, severely questions them. Question is why? I think the answer is, at least partially, revealed in the 2nd movie, in the person of the corrupt bureaucrat who dispatches him on the secret mission to liberate POWs in Vietnam and then betrays him in the heat of action. Rambo's mentor (I forget his name) confronts the bureaucrat and accuses him of mercenary dealings--"it's all about money" he says, or something like that. Anyway, it's speculation on my part, but could it be that Rambo represents the frustration of the average combat soldier with the corrupt and inconscientious commercialism of the authorities--their lack of humanity and their preoccupation with politics and profit--their disregard for the value of human life, even the lives of heroic soldiers on the warfront--e.g. Rambo and the POWs in Vietnam? And these are the very same politicians who use the rhetoric of patriotism and war to further their own political agendas, wantonly labelling any who oppose them as traitors and lacking in patriotism. Well, Rambo represents, in some ways, the super-patriot who repeatedly puts his life on the line for his country and then turns against the corrupt authorities who have been manipulating him to further their own ends--profit and politics. Admittedly, this is a simplification of what the movies are about, but, I think, that it constitutes at least a significant part of the message of the movies. Of course, the movies could be twisted into a justification of further foreign military intervention, but I think that would be a gross distortion of the central message of the films.
Excuse me, but are you saying that tuxedos and opera are for conservatives exclusively? I think the reason to why you don't understand what I mean is because you have a very distorted opinion on what is conservative and what is not. I think you mix up conservative politics and views with the upper class and that some thins are reserved for the upper class only. There is no conservative politician that would ever be elected without any support from grass root level. Just because John Rambo is a man of the people doesn't mean he can't stand for conservative and reactionary values, which is exactly what he and First Blood stand for.
Poor choice of language, perhaps, but I find it hard to see how an anti-authoritarian and even anarchistic figure like Rambo can be twisted into an icon to legitimize the very authorities he opposes in the movies. In some ways, Rambo is like the Frankenstein monster--the super-soldier trained to kill efficiently and without mercy, created by the authorities to wage war brutally and without compunction--who discovers his own humanity and rejects the machinery that denies him that humanity, and, consequently, turns against his creators. Is the state playing God, like Frankenstein--creating the "super-soldier", only to betray him at the most crucial juncture and, consequently, having to suffer the wrath of his vengeance? I guess, another issue that the Rambo movies deal with is to question patriotism. Is the state justified in calling into question the patriotism of its citizens (as it often does in emergency scenarios) when it is, itself, guilty of betraying the cream of the crop--the super-patriots who do all the dirty work for them, only to be treated like crap in the end?
Yes, I have seen it and I didn't like it very much.
I am sure that Hitchcock took the violence as far as he was allowed and that he would have taken it further if he could have. The film was released 43 years ago but had it been released about a decade later I am sure it would have involved a lot more gore.
What do you make out of the "shower scene"? Why is Hitchcock building the whole film around a leading character only to kill her off in a very brutal way half way through the film? Because he wants to shock the audience! The audience was absolutely certain that Janet Leigh would make it through the entire movie - she's the main character and heroine for god's sake - and the murder of her comes as a complete shock to the audience. [Actually, it is one of the greatest milestones in the history of film, if you ask me. Hitchcock's total brilliance as a filmmaker is manifested in that single scene] Now, there are good and bad slasher films and I am not a big fan of the genre really. But I think you are condradicting yourself when you praise Hitchcock at the same time as you dismiss Freddy vs. Jason as garbage because of the gratuitous gore. Because there is at least one thing that all slasher films, including Psycho, have in common and that is the gratuitous gore and violence. If it wasn't gratuitous you wouldn't get the shock effect which is, as I am sure you would agree, a very necessary ingredient in every slasher film.
Again, Hitchcock used violence to further the plot--the plot, not mindless sensationalism, was his central concern. You made an excellent point about the murder of the central female protagonist in the middle of the movie, and yes, there was an element of shock value in this. As, in fact, there is in all of Hitchcock's movies (my personal favorite being Vertigo which is widely believed to be Hitchcock's masterpiece). But, again, I think Hitchcock's chief preoccupation was suspense and plot- and character-development, not mindless, gratuitous sensationalism. These gore-fests are like the bastard spawn of the Hitchcock films, taking a small element from an otherwise far more complex and intelligently constructed work and exploiting it for sheer shock value and commercial advantage. I would liken them to "cheap imitations" of the original--kind of like tabloid journalism. Anyway, that's my take on the issue, and I appreciate the points you have made.
There's a difference between making action movies and slasher-style horror movies. Sure, the Rambo movies glorify violence, but they also glorify (and greatly exaggerate) heroic action in the context of war. At least there is a positive dimension to the films.
Practically every horror film ever made is part morality tale. In fact they're similar in many ways to old sorts of folk lore (Little Red Riding Hood for instance). How can so easily dismiss the morality tale elements of these films?
Honestly, Kong kinda feels like arguing with you is rather pointless. This is particularly true of this subject matter, which you seem to have little knowledge of.
The film doesn't glorify gruesome carnage. Offering up highly stylized, and completely unrealistic violence as entertainment is not the same thing as glorification.
You might also want to look into the film theory concerning horror/slasher flicks for further insight.
That is precisely what constitutes the glorification of carnage--in fact, it is worse--it is the dangerously unrealistic portrayal of violence. Let them portray violence realistically if they really want to scare people. I, personally, find it hard to see entertainment value in such a packaging of violence. The sort of mentality that sees entertainment value in violence is the same as that of the Roman mob who frequented the Circus Maximus to watch gladiators kill each other for sport. Sure, the crowd was entertained, but the gladiators were the ones to suffer and die. Also the prisoners who were fed to the lions and crucified--again for the sake of a spectacle--for entertainment. There is a fine line between entertainment and bad taste. Question is, when do you cross the line? I guess, it's one thing to view violence from a distance and find entertainment in people killing each other at a distance. It's quite another thing to experience it first-hand. I think that's what 9/11 did--it drove home the meaning of violence and its repurcussions deep into the minds of a pretty jaded American public--a public desensitized to violence by the movies and TV--a public that had never really experienced real violence and its consequences first-hand and, consequently, unable to appreciate what it means to people who do experience it first hand, being distanced from it. It was an ugly, horrifying lesson to learn, but, I think, the horror of that event made a very crucial and important point to anyone who has the insight to appreciate it. The lesson being--let us learn to appreciate the VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE! Let us develop compassion and humanity before we turn into monsters ourselves--monsters no different, in essence, than Jason or Freddy!
Practically every horror film ever made is part morality tale. In fact they're similar in many ways to old sorts of folk lore (Little Red Riding Hood for instance). How can so easily dismiss the morality tale elements of these films?
Honestly, Kong kinda feels like arguing with you is rather pointless. This is particularly true of this subject matter, which you seem to have little knowledge of.
There may be morality tale elements in the films, but, let's face it, the primary objective of the films is to make money through sensationalism and the glorification of violence. The morality tale elements are incidental, while the violence is gratuitous. It's all about crowd-pleasing and profit--gratifying the blood-thirsty mob and making a tidy profit out of it in the end. Whatever the morality tale elements in the movies might be, they are overshadowed by the gore in the end.
That is precisely what constitutes the glorification of carnage
You are just plain wrong here. Please go buy a dictionary.
No one is walking out of these films saying, "Gee, that Freddy guy is simply glorious!" You could argue that the characters give themselves glory for their kills, but they are evil so that is to be expected. However, you are trying to tell me that these movies are exalting, honoring, and evtravagantly praising violence. Sure the violence is supposed to spark emotions/reactions, but it's not intended to be worshipped.
--in fact, it is worse--it is the dangerously unrealistic portrayal of violence. Let them portray violence realistically if they really want to scare people.
This is a legitimate opinion. Personally Kong thinks that there is room in the world of film for both formalism and realism, and this might be part of your problem. You seem to be taking an overly realist analysis of what is a very formalist film genre.
I, personally, find it hard to see entertainment value in such a packaging of violence. The sort of mentality that sees entertainment value in violence is the same as that of the Roman mob who frequented the Circus Maximus to watch gladiators kill each other for sport. Sure, the crowd was entertained, but the gladiators were the ones to suffer and die. Also the prisoners who were fed to the lions and crucified--again for the sake of a spectacle--for entertainment. There is a fine line between entertainment and bad taste. Question is, when do you cross the line? I guess, it's one thing to view violence from a distance and find entertainment in people killing each other at a distance. It's quite another thing to experience it first-hand. I think that's what 9/11 did--it drove home the meaning of violence and its repurcussions deep into the minds of a pretty jaded American public--a public desensitized to violence by the movies and TV--a public that had never really experienced real violence and its consequences first-hand and, consequently, unable to appreciate what it means to people who do experience it first hand, being distanced from it. It was an ugly, horrifying lesson to learn, but, I think, the horror of that event made a very crucial and important point to anyone who has the insight to appreciate it. The lesson being--let us learn to appreciate the VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE! Let us develop compassion and humanity before we turn into monsters ourselves--monsters no different, in essence, than Jason or Freddy!
Maybe you should read up on theories concerning catharsis and the horror genre, and then come back.
Anyways, you seem convinced that the films are saying that murdering people is not only not a bad thing, but that it is actually a good thing. We really aren't going to get anywhere with that kind of bullheaded thinking on you're part. You should maybe watch a movie with Freddy in it, and make a note of how he is quite obviously the bad guy in the film.
There may be morality tale elements in the films, but, let's face it, the primary objective of the films is to make money through sensationalism and the glorification of violence.
Kong'll agree with you about making money, but you really are unable to drop this glorification crap aren't you?
The morality tale elements are incidental, while the violence is gratuitous.
The morality elements are not at all incidental, they are ingrained into the very fabric of the genre. If you're looking for a way to conviniently dismiss what could be argued as a positive message in these films you're going to have to try harder. It's really hard to get confused in these types of movies. They are very, very un-ambiguous. It's surprising that you can't seem to figure them out.
Nobody is walking out of these films wanting to be like Freddy of Jason. They are clearly shown as bad guys, and not just bad guys. They are also shown to be tortured by their bloodlust, and never sated. Not only that but they usually don't become evil people until they are somehow wronged by others. This sends the message that we should be compassionate to other people, because our cruelty towards others can result in the creation of evil. Hold on...didn't you say something along those very same lines? Yes, yes. I think you did. It went something like, "let us develop compassion and humanity before we turn into monsters ourselves". Wow! You express the same sentiment as Freddy vs. Jason! Whoda thunk?
The morality elements are not at all incidental, they are ingrained into the very fabric of the genre. If you're looking for a way to conviniently dismiss what could be argued as a positive message in these films you're going to have to try harder. It's really hard to get confused in these types of movies. They are very, very un-ambiguous. It's surprising that you can't seem to figure them out.
This is very true. An entire book was written about it, in fact: Monsters From the Id: The Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film. Horror films are sometimes made mindlessly, sure, but the book makes a very compelling case that the genre has come about for very specific reasons -- sexual guilt chief among them.
Regardless, as I stated before, no one who makes (or watches) these movies is actually taking joy in the idea of slaughtering innocent people, and you damn well know it. Kudos for dropping the extreme "sadism" in favor of "glorifying," but neither is applicable here.
Samhain
08-20-03, 03:05 PM
I've always enjoyed the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street series as mindless fun, so I was looking forward to this movie while not putting any hope on it being any better than any of the others. However, IMO, this film is the best either series has put out since the first movies of each. It wasn't scary but it had some shocking elements to it, and they portrayed both villains perfectly. I'll be purchasing a copy on DVD for sure, and I may even go back to the theatre and see it a second time. Horror movies of this nature are few and far between lately, it was quite refreshing.
theshape82
08-25-03, 04:02 AM
personally i loved the movie...seen it three times this week
and if you don't like movies that are gorey and glorify violence and all that jazz i have just one peace of advice for you
don't watch them
they are made for people who actually do want to watch them
like me
Egads! :D Shape, you make my point exactly! I don't know what's scarier--the fact that such movies are actually made, or the fact that folks who watch them do so because they actually enjoy the glorification of violence and carnage! No offense, but to me, that's a little disturbing!
Monkeypunch
08-28-03, 11:55 PM
Egads! :D Shape, you make my point exactly! I don't know what's scarier--the fact that such movies are actually made, or the fact that folks who watch them do so because they actually enjoy the glorification of violence and carnage! No offense, but to me, that's a little disturbing!
You sound like one of those whiny suburban moms who want to ban or censor everything. Movies are not real. Freddy Vs. Jason will not hurt anyone. It's a silly-ass movie where two b-movie monsters fight. Nobody is really killed. I enjoyed this a lot. It was funny as all hell. Do I think it glorifies violence? No. That's stupid. You really just need to sit back, take a deep breath, maybe have a beer or two, and say to yourself, "It's just a movie." I personally love the horror genre, and I don't think that makes me a disturbed individual.
Incidentally, I just had to reply to one more thing!
You sound like one of those whiny suburban moms who want to ban or censor everything.
I am not a woman! I am a healthy, well-built bi-curious male in his mid-30s about to re-enter the dating scene!
Movies are not real. Freddy Vs. Jason will not hurt anyone. It's a silly-ass movie where two b-movie monsters fight. Nobody is really killed. I enjoyed this a lot. It was funny as all hell.
I do not know about you, but I do not think hell is very funny! You are sick and twisted! No offense! Just my opinion!
Beale the Rippe
08-29-03, 12:16 AM
:laugh: It's always a fun time when Dwango enters the scene.
He even has a current avatar....this is too much.
You sound like one of those whiny suburban moms who want to ban or censor everything. Movies are not real. Freddy Vs. Jason will not hurt anyone. It's a silly-ass movie where two b-movie monsters fight. Nobody is really killed. I enjoyed this a lot. It was funny as all hell. Do I think it glorifies violence? No. That's stupid. You really just need to sit back, take a deep breath, maybe have a beer or two, and say to yourself, "It's just a movie." I personally love the horror genre, and I don't think that makes me a disturbed individual.
For my take on censorship, check this thread: http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=5133
About the movie, I think what makes it all the more disturbing is when you don't take it too seriously. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't pass judgment on it. But I do think it's an issue of at least some concern.
"Dwango", you're about as funny as open heart surgery. No offense! :D
Monkeypunch
08-29-03, 07:54 PM
I haven't seen the movie, so I can't pass judgment on it.
But George of Django.....That's what you've been doing for this whole thread! (oh, and do gay people really hate you because you're straight? I read that on another thread, and I gotta say thank you for the laugh and a half. :rotfl: like somwhere, there's a gay guy who's all "Damn that Django for not liking other men! DAMN HIM, I say!" :rotfl: )
Okay, okay! What I meant to say was, as I haven't seen the movie, I cannot comment specifically on the movie in particular. However, based on the limited exposure I have to the movie (via trailers, posters, etc.) and to the genre in general, etc., etc.
About the rest of it, I think you're misquoting me a little, there, Monkeypunch ol' boy!
Monkeypunch
08-29-03, 08:28 PM
About the rest of it, I think you're misquoting me a little, there, Monkeypunch ol' boy!
So, You didn't say:
What I meant to say was that the gay crowd in the forum seem to dislike me for being straight!
Whatever. Don't sweat it. I'm just bustin' your chops a bit, no harm intended. Just a little friendly humour. :D
Well . . . I still think you're taking it out of context.
Django, just how many Friday or Freddy movies have you seen?
And your avatar regarding Stallone... I haven't seen first blood for many years, but I do remember many of his other films. So maybe he portrays a 'nam vet in one movie, in the bajillion other movies he's made, he's usually just some guy, down on his luck, seeking revenge. Then he kills a bunch of guys.
They're generally stupid, but entertaining action flicks. And they DO glorify violence, by being filled with it. That was the selling point for about 95% of his movies, guaranteeing to see him take out like 50 guys a movie.
Obviously you aren't a horror fan, thats fine. But you're like a vegan coming into a "Man, I like beef" thread and trying to convince all the beef eaters to try Soy-based products.
And thats all I have to say about that.
Dave
Django, just how many Friday or Freddy movies have you seen?
And your avatar regarding Stallone... I haven't seen first blood for many years, but I do remember many of his other films. So maybe he portrays a 'nam vet in one movie, in the bajillion other movies he's made, he's usually just some guy, down on his luck, seeking revenge. Then he kills a bunch of guys.
They're generally stupid, but entertaining action flicks. And they DO glorify violence, by being filled with it. That was the selling point for about 95% of his movies, guaranteeing to see him take out like 50 guys a movie.
Obviously you aren't a horror fan, thats fine. But you're like a vegan coming into a "Man, I like beef" thread and trying to convince all the beef eaters to try Soy-based products.
And thats all I have to say about that.
Dave
I'm not sure that's a valid comparison.
For example, I really enjoy the Indiana Jones movies in which Harrison Ford shoots up the Nazis (pretty violently--e.g. the scene in Raiders when he runs over a Nazi with a truck--pretty damn violent) and openly expresses his hatred for Nazis ("Nazis... I hate those guys!").
But that's a far cry from these movies that seem to glorify serial killers on the rampage. That's a whole different ball game because it glorifies mindless carnage. As I said earlier, it's kind of like going to a movie in which the main protagonist is someone like Charles Manson or Jack the Ripper--movies like this seem to make icons out of serial killers and violent psychopaths. But that's just my opinion.
Monkeypunch
09-07-03, 02:06 AM
"Look! He's over there, beating that dead horse!" :D
You don't like horror flicks, don't see them! There is no reason for this thread to go on for this long!
projectMayhem
09-25-03, 04:48 PM
"Look! He's over there, beating that dead horse!" :D
You don't like horror flicks, don't see them! There is no reason for this thread to go on for this long!
Yes there is, its fun to have Django make horribly long and really repetitive arguments about other people's opinions! So I say let it continue as long as it can because just reading this thread makes me want to go watch the Bed-in-half scene again.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.