@
Okay you continue to twist words and sentences to your liking and even read past what I say either to avoid a discussion on the subject or because you want to stand in better light...
Give examples, because I'm genuinely oblivious to this. Also there is no discussion to be had because I agree with what you're saying, from what I've seen, the only difference between our opinions is that you're completely intolerant to animal cruelty in films, and I'm not.
I misunderstood you about the "necessary" thing and now you keep bringing that up even where it don't belong
You said "that means you've got examples of animal cruelty that can feel like a "necessity" to the movie?" which I have already answered by giving you the films.
And then you said "Like I said before, actually killing animals purely for our entertainment, can be a necessary thing?" Which I felt as though I already answered, so I repeated my original thoughts. I was confused too when you later down on your post acknowledged it, because I still feel as though that is an answer to the question you've asked in the same post.
... you last reply to the last quote is hardly even an answer to said quote?
You: "I don't think that's a valid excuse for cruelty to animals."
Me: "Nor do I."
Seems like an answer to me. Everything after that wasn't a direct response to that quote, but rather just an addition.
What the hell is that even supposed to mean?
It means that everyone interprets certain happenings in films differently, so the interpretation of the purpose of a scene can differ from one person to another, and people usually disagree with the interpretations of others (which is normal), this is more so me talking about the usage of animal cruelty in some of the films I've mentioned, mainly El Topo and The Holy Mountain, which are absurdest films that allow countless interpretations.
You want to feel like you're above me or what?
Not at all...and I fail to see how I even insinuated such thing.
Just like when you said that I could only see movies for being entertainment?
Ohhhhh, so you took that as me belittling you ? Well I wasn't, it was more so me thinking that you implied the word entertainment just as I would, and I clearly admitted my mistake by saying you are right and I am wrong.
For a subject to have purpose in a film and for that subject's purpose to be a valid exuse for something like animal cruelty is two completely different things.
Agreed.
I just don't condone it and I don't think there exists a valid reason to torture an actual animal for the purpose of your film.
Nor do I.
Anyways, we'll clearly get no further with this. I'm done here.
If you think so, then that's fine with me.
Reply to Topic
