Things You Do NOT Wanna See In A Movie?

Tools    





Could you please refrain from posting things that are offensive please.
Which part? The video of the president? I agree.
__________________
212 555 6342
Pierce & Pierce: Mergers and Acquisitions
Patrick Bateman
Vice President
358 Exchange Place New York, N.Y. 10099 FAX 212 555 6390 TELEX : () 4534



Which part? The video of the president? I agree.
Even if you are joking when posting that I think it is in bad taste and also has no place on a forum for discussion about movies.
__________________
Oh my god. They're trying to claim another young victim with the foreign films.



I thought there was way too much.. I was actually bored seeing boobs.

Honestly though I tend to think a lot of the worst examples of nudity for its own sake tend to be quicker flashes that don't really do much to recreate the feeling of actual intimacy.



Even if you are joking when posting that I think it is in bad taste and also has no place on a forum for discussion about movies.
We discuss many subjects here. Not exclusively movies.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



-Using green or blue filters, or even sepia, for the entire movie

-Sex scenes in mainstream films (simulated or not).
I'm not a prude (i don't care about nudity), but sex scenes belong to porn and almost never add to the story.

-Uncontextualized violence, like in Inglourious Basterds.
That's just violence porn. I don't mind contextualized violence, when there's a purpose.

-Historical inaccuracies in historical films or plain propaganda.

-Movies set in a different country but where everybody speaks english anyways.

-Adam Sandler



You can't win an argument just by being right!
That's just violence porn.
And that's not even a term. You had me up until that. Sorry.



And that's not even a term. You had me up until that. Sorry.
I meant gratuitous violence, but it's beyond that.

People like Tarantino (in his last movies mostly) turn violence into some kind of pornography, violence just for violence's sake like others already said.



Trouble with a capital "T"

-Uncontextualized violence, like in Inglourious Basterds.
That's just violence porn.
I call it Vornography....it's graphic gratuitous violence for the sake of arousal. Humans can be aroused by graphic violence, murder and rape, just like sex acts arouse in pornography.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
I meant gratuitous violence, but it's beyond that.

People like Tarantino (in his last movies mostly) turn violence into some kind of pornography, violence just for violence's sake like others already said.
Yeah I knew what you meant. I just dont like porn added on (have to duck out for a bit but I really like this topic so we can discuss when I get back if you like. Had a huge bun fight over the term when imdb was still going. Dont want a bun fight, though. Just want to talk about how it became a popular term then got shut down by critics...Back soooon)



Keep your station clean - OR I WILL KILL YOU
Exposition-Heavy Dialogue makes me cringe! They might as well just turn to the camera and wink.
I agree on the unnecessary violence bit. I can stomach watching it, but when it's on the screen for visual noise I just kinda roll my eyes
Rape is also very hard to watch (as it should lol)



-Uncontextualized violence, like in Inglourious Basterds.
That's just violence porn. I don't mind contextualized violence, when there's a purpose.
I thought all the violence in Inglourious Basterds was contextual - it was a revenge fantasy against Nazis.



-Using green or blue filters, or even sepia, for the entire movie

-Sex scenes in mainstream films (simulated or not).
I'm not a prude (i don't care about nudity), but sex scenes belong to porn and almost never add to r
sex scenes are the essential part of the appeal of the soft core era, btw late 80s and early 90s, with movies like: lake consequence, wild orchid, two moon junction, mirror images, and many other soft core movies., u cant say it doesnt add to the story...



For me, violence in any context is difficult to watch, but I abhor, especially, physical violence (assault & battery type stuff), especially domestic violence (spousal/child/animal abuse). In the "Shawshank Redemption..." Frank Darabont said in his commentary that when Boggs was raping Andy, he did not go in for the close up shots etc. of the action but he stayed at a distance and at angles that did not show the action, "sort of like a Victorian Lady covering here eyes..." as he stated. He felt it wasn't needed to color the story. After all, the classic male rape had been done in "Deliverance..." wasn't needed there. And I applaud his thinking.

Otherwise, it really depends on the story being told but, in general, "gratuitous sex/nudity/drug use" without a legit contextual purpose to the story are things I don't need to see. Recall the movie "Silkwood" (Meryl Streep, Cher, etc.) I believe there was either an accidental nuclear exposure at the plant (or a drill for it) but it resulted in them showing an elderly female worker being sent to emergency washing shower (torso exposed). Not sure that was necessary to enhance the story to watch an old bare breasted lady being showered. I think I would have gotten it without that specific visual. And no, even if it were someone younger and more "endowed," I still wouldn't need to see that, in the context of that visual.

But a lot of this is "eye of the beholder" sort of stuff.... so I'll have to take each film as it comes and judge them individually.