Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
chaossphere
Metal Lunatic

Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 11:49 pm
Posts: 2578
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 4:56 pm 
 

darkeningday wrote:
Three Kings was a crap movie thanks to David O. Blunderussell, but Ice Cube was totally completely fine in it.

The best/worst actor "debate" is even dumber than other pointless polemics; quality of acting rarely rests even slightly on the abilities of the actor. Rather, whether or not they're "good" is based on how well they fit into their character archetype/target audience (the decision of the casting director, producers and sometimes the director), how closely their diction and personality align with how they're written and the way in which the DP and director choose to portray them visually on screen. The reason you probably think Ice Cube is a terrible actor is because you don't see eye-to-eye with the target audience he was created and written for.


Considering i'm a fan of his rapping and I like dumb action movies, you're pretty damn far off the mark there. Yeah he was okay in Three Kings but i'd consider that a fluke, he was terrible in Ghosts of Mars, XXX2 and Anaconda. Say what you like about David O'Russel but at least he squeezed a good performance out of cube where the others just seemed to let him slip into his expected persona.
This entire debate is a complete trainwreck, by the way. I don't judge actors on how I like their attitude or appearance or any of that bullshit, I like them based on their ability to convince me they're someone that they're not. 90% of Cube's performances are just Cube being Cube. To me there's a vast difference between character actors and movie stars: the former have acting ability in spades but lack the charisma to front an entire film, which is what movie stars are there for - actors of lesser ability but oozing charisma and screen presence. Obviously a select few have both those qualities, but it's increasingly rare and the divide keeps growing. But just because someone's a shit actor doesn't stop me watching their films though. Example, Mark Wahlberg can't act particularly well but he makes enjoyable films so i'll watch them. Simple as that. When I decide whether to watch a film or not, the cast is quite far down the list of factors that go into that decision.
_________________
Blood, guts, guns, cuts, knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts.

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 21181
The Great Fearmonger

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:44 am
Posts: 3987
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 2:34 am 
 

DD is a writer, I think it's just natural for him to play down the importance of those self-obsessed drama queen actors.




I find it impossible to imagine turning an English knight or a gay cowboy into a sadistic mafia anarchist. It happened. I don't think it could have happened if the actor in question was Shaquille O'Neal.

Top
 Profile  
aaronmb666
Veteran

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 3:37 am
Posts: 2837
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 3:46 am 
 

I should probably clarify that I have no problem with good PG-13 films. Probably 50% of my top rated ones have that rating, or even PG in some instances. Thing is, Neveldine/Taylor's style just doesn't work without stupid amounts of gore.

I have noticed that pretty much every other PG-13 these days seems to have been made with as much brutality as possible.. The Avengers and Captain America: TWS being two where they included scenes that really push the rating, to the extent where The Avengers was even optically censored in some non-US territories. I think if you're going for a PG-13 it's more responsible to make a film that doesn't require so much violence, because showing consequence-free violence is highly irresponsible. Like, if someone gets punched in the face in an R-rated film they generally bleed and get hurt, but PG-13s often have ridiculous amounts of violence meted out to characters who then get up and walk away like nothing's happened. Portraying it as something of little significance is much more irresponsible than showing it for what it really is.[/quote]

The censored scene in Avengers is this one:
[youtube]www.youtube.com/-vK0FPtYTvY[/youtube]
Which wouldve only been a few seconds of blood.

My big issue with PG-13 was Expendables 3, since it was my most anticipated movie of last year, until they announced the rating, then my expectations really went downhill. I mean, with a cast like that, youd think a hard R would be a no brainer. Ironically, the rating was the least of it's problems.

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 282118
Argentinian Asado Supremacy

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:16 pm
Posts: 8300
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:01 am 
 

Don't see the problem with violence in PG-13 films, or any films, for that matter, as long as the kids are taught that it's just fiction and that you could get hurt trying the same stunts in real life. It's a non-issue for any sensible child (not as much of an oxymoron as it might seem) and all responsible parents who actually take the time to explain things to them.

It goes without saying, I think.

Top
 Profile  
andersbang
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:28 am
Posts: 1069
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:33 am 
 

Three Kings is bad and A Walk Among the Tombstones is good? You guys are weird.

I just watched Interstellar for the first time. Even on my crappy laptop it was a very impressive looking movie, with pretty good acting, but the script was kinda really stupid. I guess it was over hyped to me from both the Internet and my friends who saw it at the movies, but I felt it was a letdown. 3/6, maybe 4/6 on a good day.

Top
 Profile  
chaossphere
Metal Lunatic

Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 11:49 pm
Posts: 2578
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:10 pm 
 

Xlxlx wrote:
Don't see the problem with violence in PG-13 films, or any films, for that matter, as long as the kids are taught that it's just fiction and that you could get hurt trying the same stunts in real life. It's a non-issue for any sensible child (not as much of an oxymoron as it might seem) and all responsible parents who actually take the time to explain things to them.

It goes without saying, I think.


The violence isn't the problem, it's the lack of realism. It's ridiculous to think kids can't handle seeing a bit of blood.
_________________
Blood, guts, guns, cuts, knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts.

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 11852
Location: In the Arena
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:44 pm 
 

And really, if you think about it, wouldn't you think that sanitizing violence like that would do more to desensitize children to it than actually showing them the nasty results? Like if kids think that all that happens when someone gets shot is they clutch their chest and fall down in a nice clean way, they'd be way more positive about the idea of shooting someone or being shot than if they see a gross bloody spray and some dude's brain go all over the wall.
_________________
MorbidBlood wrote:
So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

Top
 Profile  
volutetheswarth
Our Lady of Perpetual Butthurt

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:37 pm
Posts: 3489
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 1:40 am 
 

failsafeman wrote:
And really, if you think about it, wouldn't you think that sanitizing violence like that would do more to desensitize children to it than actually showing them the nasty results? Like if kids think that all that happens when someone gets shot is they clutch their chest and fall down in a nice clean way, they'd be way more positive about the idea of shooting someone or being shot than if they see a gross bloody spray and some dude's brain go all over the wall.
I can answer that as I grew up watching violent movies. Nope. I did of course find Pulp Fiction more shocking as a youngster, but I thought of violence like bad language, it was there because the story required it and it came with the territory of the characters that were depicted. Believe or not, kids enjoy the entertainment factor of a gripping car chase or climatic fist fight just as much as it's older audience. And I'd imagine only a select few who suffer from a form of mental illness or psychotic tendencies would even think to associate violent behavior in an impressionable manner.

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 6032
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:05 am 
 

failsafeman wrote:
And really, if you think about it, wouldn't you think that sanitizing violence like that would do more to desensitize children to it than actually showing them the nasty results? Like if kids think that all that happens when someone gets shot is they clutch their chest and fall down in a nice clean way, they'd be way more positive about the idea of shooting someone or being shot than if they see a gross bloody spray and some dude's brain go all over the wall.

I don't have much of an opinion about it personally because I despise kids, but social science is overwhelming supportive of the notion that exposing young children to violence (regardless of whether it's real or not) at a young age increases aggressive tendencies in males and makes women more amenable to domestic abuse normalization. I can provide perhaps a dozen peer-reviewed studies advocating this if you'd like, although it may take some time.
_________________
Support Women's Health
Please donate to a local abortion fund of your choice here instead of high-profile national organizations like NARAL or Planned Parenthood. If you're unsure where to distribute funds, select an abortion trigger law state; any organization will do.

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 282118
Argentinian Asado Supremacy

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:16 pm
Posts: 8300
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:18 am 
 

chaossphere wrote:
Xlxlx wrote:
Don't see the problem with violence in PG-13 films, or any films, for that matter, as long as the kids are taught that it's just fiction and that you could get hurt trying the same stunts in real life. It's a non-issue for any sensible child (not as much of an oxymoron as it might seem) and all responsible parents who actually take the time to explain things to them.

It goes without saying, I think.

The violence isn't the problem, it's the lack of realism. It's ridiculous to think kids can't handle seeing a bit of blood.

That's not what I meant at all. I thought the other guy was just talking about violence in PG-13 films in general, but yeah, kids can deal with a little more than most adults give them credit for.
darkeningday wrote:
I don't have much of an opinion about it personally because I despise kids, but social science is overwhelming supportive of the notion that exposing young children to violence (regardless of whether it's real or not) at a young age increases aggressive tendencies in males and makes women more amenable to domestic abuse normalization. I can provide perhaps a dozen peer-reviewed studies advocating this if you'd like, although it may take some time.

So, the psychological impact of watching Stallone punch terrorists and seeing your dad beat your mother half to death is more or less equatable? How?


Last edited by ~Guest 282118 on Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 11852
Location: In the Arena
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:21 am 
 

darkeningday wrote:
I don't have much of an opinion about it personally because I despise kids, but social science is overwhelming supportive of the notion that exposing young children to violence (regardless of whether it's real or not) at a young age increases aggressive tendencies in males and makes women more amenable to domestic abuse normalization. I can provide perhaps a dozen peer-reviewed studies advocating this if you'd like, although it may take some time.

That's not what I said though. It's not violence vs. no violence for young children, it's exaggerated violence without realistic results in a PG-13 movie (i.e. not intended for young children) vs. rated R violence that shows the kind of thing that actually happens. I don't have links to a dozen peer-reviewed studies, but one of those new PG-13 Die Hard movies sure make shooting people seem a lot more appealing than, say, the new Rambo.
_________________
MorbidBlood wrote:
So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 6032
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:42 am 
 

Xlxlx wrote:
So, the psychological impact of watching Stallone punch terrorists and seeing your dad beat your mother half to death is more or less equatable? How?

You got me! I was unclear. I'm only talking about media violence, whether it's real (i.e., COPS/news reel footage) or staged, not if it's on TV or happening in your personal life.

failsafeman wrote:
That's not what I said though. It's not violence vs. no violence for young children, it's exaggerated violence without realistic results in a PG-13 movie (i.e. not intended for young children) vs. rated R violence that shows the kind of thing that actually happens. I don't have links to a dozen peer-reviewed studies, but one of those new PG-13 Die Hard movies sure make shooting people seem a lot more appealing than, say, the new Rambo.

Wasn't only one Die Hard issued a PG-13? Funny story: I'm kinda sorta friends-ish with one of the (17!!!) uncredited additional writers of Live Free or Die Hard. Awful movie though.

That's an interesting point, although I think you're assuming kids are a helluva lot more discerning of context than most really are. When Lucy Liu's head slid comically off at the end of Kill Bill I was just as unsettled as when a piece of shrapnel caused a union soldier's head to explode in Glory. Kids are dumb.
_________________
Support Women's Health
Please donate to a local abortion fund of your choice here instead of high-profile national organizations like NARAL or Planned Parenthood. If you're unsure where to distribute funds, select an abortion trigger law state; any organization will do.

Top
 Profile  
volutetheswarth
Our Lady of Perpetual Butthurt

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:37 pm
Posts: 3489
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:13 am 
 

Oh, won't some one think of the children?! Haha, the horseshit people eat without actually talking to a kid one on one, instead basing their decisions upon a study, because personal examples that dispute this account for nothing apparently. Nope, their little impressionable minds with gobble it up and they'll all be angry and all women will kowtow to abuse. :roll:

Top
 Profile  
chaossphere
Metal Lunatic

Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 11:49 pm
Posts: 2578
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:43 am 
 

Everyone should watch this movie. 'Tis very funny and very oddball.




This is also the only way to view it unless you have it on VHS or somehow catch it on TV...
_________________
Blood, guts, guns, cuts, knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts.

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 6032
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:12 am 
 

volutetheswarth wrote:
Oh, won't some one think of the children?! Haha, the horseshit people eat without actually talking to a kid one on one, instead basing their decisions upon a study, because personal examples that dispute this account for nothing apparently. Nope, their little impressionable minds with gobble it up and they'll all be angry and all women will kowtow to abuse. :roll:

Personally, I think it's more disturbing when people posit a handful of biased case studies from "personal experience" as somehow more representative of a general trend felt across literally MILLIONS of people than the findings of a blind study built specifically for that large population, eliminating as many confounds and errors as possible along the way.
_________________
Support Women's Health
Please donate to a local abortion fund of your choice here instead of high-profile national organizations like NARAL or Planned Parenthood. If you're unsure where to distribute funds, select an abortion trigger law state; any organization will do.

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 21181
The Great Fearmonger

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:44 am
Posts: 3987
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:15 am 
 

Just saw American Sniper. It's like 5am here and I won't post a long anything, but suffice it say I think I have identified the chief culprit for the controversy, and it's not what you're reading in the papers. It's the same affliction that lowered the ratings for Zero Dark Thirty. People are used to every form of televised media artificially imposing a fake sense of balance and/or false equivalence into their favorite TV show or news program that they cannot process a show or movie that doesn't have a character who exists purely to argue against the other character's controversial viewpoint, or which pointlessly and awkwardly shoehorns dialogue for the same effect. People need their Benson/Stabler dynamic.

In other words, fuck Dick Wolf's screenwriters.

Top
 Profile  
volutetheswarth
Our Lady of Perpetual Butthurt

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:37 pm
Posts: 3489
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:43 am 
 

darkeningday wrote:
Personally, I think it's more disturbing when people posit a handful of biased case studies from "personal experience" as somehow more representative of a general trend felt across literally MILLIONS of people than the findings of a blind study built specifically for that large population, eliminating as many confounds and errors as possible along the way.
Nice to see you respond to me directly with a direct comment this time, darkeningday, you know instead of indirectly shooting down my example like you did before. I'm sure you're fun at parties, random new someone states their opinion and you're quick to shoot down their life experience without discussion, I don't see how anyone wouldn't think really highly of you.

Top
 Profile  
volutetheswarth
Our Lady of Perpetual Butthurt

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:37 pm
Posts: 3489
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:52 am 
 

Earthcubed wrote:
Just saw American Sniper. It's like 5am here and I won't post a long anything, but suffice it say I think I have identified the chief culprit for the controversy, and it's not what you're reading in the papers. It's the same affliction that lowered the ratings for Zero Dark Thirty. People are used to every form of televised media artificially imposing a fake sense of balance and/or false equivalence into their favorite TV show or news program that they cannot process a show or movie that doesn't have a character who exists purely to argue against the other character's controversial viewpoint, or which pointlessly and awkwardly shoehorns dialogue for the same effect. People need their Benson/Stabler dynamic.
I watched it and this seems to be the case. People are failing to see that there is a commentary from both sides in the film, it's plain as day, if it failed to meet that basic realistic requirement I could understand the controversy it has received. Shame how people automatically jump to the glorying-war card and fail to judge a film fairly.

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 282118
Argentinian Asado Supremacy

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:16 pm
Posts: 8300
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 1:06 pm 
 

darkeningday wrote:
Xlxlx wrote:
So, the psychological impact of watching Stallone punch terrorists and seeing your dad beat your mother half to death is more or less equatable? How?

You got me! I was unclear. I'm only talking about media violence, whether it's real (i.e., COPS/news reel footage) or staged, not if it's on TV or happening in your personal life.

Now we're talking. However, it still sounds fishy to me, and doubly so for the thing about girls watching violent films and subsequently becoming more prone to accepting domestic abuse. I don't see a lot of correlation between those two things.

@Volutetheswarth: while I also find the credibility of the studies mentioned by Darkeningday quite suspect until proven otherwise, it is true that, when it comes to providing solid evidence for something, personal experience usually means jack. No offense.

Top
 Profile  
BastardHead
Worse than Stalin

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:53 pm
Posts: 10857
Location: Oswego, Illinois
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 1:25 pm 
 

Just saying, when I was a kid, I thought movies and games with extreme graphic violence were way cooler than similarly themed things that weren't as explicit. I mean sure, I wasn't wanting bloodshed when watching Power Rangers, but if I was watching an action movie with my dad or playing Doom as a kid or something, it was always much more fun and satisfying to see the bad guys erupt in a bloody mist. Can you really not see how kids might find the extreme gore to be more satisfying and entertaining instead of scary because it's gross and messy? I mean, obviously not everybody's the same and I never grew up to beat my wife or strangle puppies so I don't know if I'm the best example for either side of this debate, but I don't really buy FSM's side on this one.
_________________
Lair of the Bastard: LATEST REVIEW: In Flames - Foregone
The Outer RIM - Uatism: The dogs bark in street slang
niix wrote:
the reason your grandmother has all those plastic sheets on her furniture is because she is probably a squirter

Top
 Profile  
OzzyApu
Metal freak

Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:11 am
Posts: 10821
Location: Seattle
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 1:31 pm 
 

I remember back in the late 90s I of course was into Power Rangers and that pg/pg13 type of fighting for kids. Even Star Wars wasn't very graphic. I can't remember who I saw it with but Saving Private Ryan was being watched by adults and I was :o at the amount of violence. To this day I think it's one of the best shot films. Totally captures that grisly, unclean look of war.
_________________
gomorro wrote:
Yesterday was the birthday of school pal and I met the chick of my sigh (I've talked about here before, the she-wolf I use to be inlove with)... Maaan she was using a mini-skirt too damn insane... Dude you could saw her entire soul every time she sit...

Top
 Profile  
Subrick
Metal Strongman

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:27 pm
Posts: 10167
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 1:40 pm 
 

Saving Private Ryan was the first really gory piece of media I watched and was made somewhat uncomfortable by how gory it is, reason being how realistic it was in its violence. It's the total opposite of that goofy, over the top, Mortal Kombat style violence where you revel in how violent it is.
_________________
Earthcubed wrote:
I'm just perpetually annoyed by Sean William Scott and he's never been in a movie where I wasn't rooting for his head to sever by strange means.

Blacksoul Seraphim Gothic Doom Metal
Autumn's Ashes Melodic Death/Doom Metal

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 21181
The Great Fearmonger

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:44 am
Posts: 3987
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:12 pm 
 

You guys would probably like the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which delves into all the goofy nonsense about what types of violence make a film R vs PG13, as well as the crazy double-standards regarding onscreen depictions of violence vs sexual activity and whatnot. The film basically argues (and I can't really disagree) that society might be better off if the tamer, bloodless depictions of violence seen in PG13 movies were reserved for R movies, while the more brutal violence was in PG13 movies. The thinking is that younger audiences would be less likely to think violence is "cool" (for lack of a better word) if they saw more realistic consequences shown onscreen than most PG13 body count movies depict.

Top
 Profile  
chaossphere
Metal Lunatic

Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 11:49 pm
Posts: 2578
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:46 pm 
 

^I have yet to see that doco but it's on my watchlist. I can't remember where but someone made a good point on how PG-13's often have much larger body counts than R rated films. For example lately, Man Of Steel, Guardians of the Galaxy and the theatrical cut of World War Z all have huge amounts of death happening on a mass scale but it seems inconsequential because nothing's shown.
_________________
Blood, guts, guns, cuts, knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts.

Top
 Profile  
Metallic Kilt
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:20 pm
Posts: 56
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:52 pm 
 

Ideally, cartoonish and unrealistic depictions of violence wouldn't exist at all.

Top
 Profile  
Subrick
Metal Strongman

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:27 pm
Posts: 10167
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:10 pm 
 

I watched that doc years ago. The big thing for me from that movie was the interview with Matt Stone about his personal struggles with the MPAA. The key thing there was when Orgazmo was made, the MPAA gave it an NC-17 and wouldn't specify what needed to be cut out in order to get it down to an R, but when they made the South Park movie, the MPAA came back to Paramount with specific, detailed lists of what exactly needed to be cut out to get it to an R.

I second Earthcubed's recommendation. It's a fascinating documentary.

P.S. While we're on the subject of PG-13 violence vs. R rated violence, FUCK PG-13 slasher movies. Not because of the whole "what kind of violence should kids be exposed to?" argument, but because PG-13 is inherently against what makes slasher films fun to begin with. It's an immediate sign that the movie will be a neutered, lame mess.
_________________
Earthcubed wrote:
I'm just perpetually annoyed by Sean William Scott and he's never been in a movie where I wasn't rooting for his head to sever by strange means.

Blacksoul Seraphim Gothic Doom Metal
Autumn's Ashes Melodic Death/Doom Metal

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 282118
Argentinian Asado Supremacy

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:16 pm
Posts: 8300
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 7:59 pm 
 

Wait, there is such a thing as PG-13 slasher movies?

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 6032
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:50 pm 
 

Yep.

Definitely not too common at all though, and they're usually box-office bombs. I fail to see them as anything less than a minor annoyance.

Most R-rated slasher films though... :puke:
_________________
Support Women's Health
Please donate to a local abortion fund of your choice here instead of high-profile national organizations like NARAL or Planned Parenthood. If you're unsure where to distribute funds, select an abortion trigger law state; any organization will do.

Top
 Profile  
chaossphere
Metal Lunatic

Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 11:49 pm
Posts: 2578
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 10:46 pm 
 

Pretty much every horror subgenre other than torture-porn has had some sort of PG-13 attempt. The only ones I found decent were The Last Exorcism and its sequel, which were fairly interesting in terms of structure and not taking the cop-out approach to the endings.

Perhaps I should include Drag Me to Hell in that list, but i've only seen the unrated version so it doesn't really count...
_________________
Blood, guts, guns, cuts, knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts.

Top
 Profile  
Subrick
Metal Strongman

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:27 pm
Posts: 10167
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:22 am 
 

I'm actually shocked nobody tried making a PG-13 torture porn movie when that kind of movie was all the rage. You'd think some clueless major studio executive would jump at that idea and try it, then be baffled as to why it bombed because studio execs are typically not that smart.

Also, The Last Exorcism was really good up until the ending. It totally felt like a cop out.
_________________
Earthcubed wrote:
I'm just perpetually annoyed by Sean William Scott and he's never been in a movie where I wasn't rooting for his head to sever by strange means.

Blacksoul Seraphim Gothic Doom Metal
Autumn's Ashes Melodic Death/Doom Metal

Top
 Profile  
aaronmb666
Veteran

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 3:37 am
Posts: 2837
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:02 am 
 

Subrick wrote:
I'm actually shocked nobody tried making a PG-13 torture porn movie when that kind of movie was all the rage. You'd think some clueless major studio executive would jump at that idea and try it, then be baffled as to why it bombed because studio execs are typically not that smart.

Also, The Last Exorcism was really good up until the ending. It totally felt like a cop out.


If they did a Saw movie and made it PG-13, I guarantee it would flop due to backlash and disinterest. Just look at Expendables 3.
On a similar note, I remember when Saw 5 or 6 came out and it was reported that it was submitted multiple times before finally being an R, going as far to say that there would be 15 minutes added to the D.C., which there was hardly anything added.

Top
 Profile  
Expedience
Metal freak

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:22 am
Posts: 4509
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:36 pm 
 

iamntbatman wrote:
Just watched the movie. Complete and utter trash. There is no "war is bad" message. Sure, bad things happen to soldiers and it sucks over there, but the war was totally justified because 9/11 and the Iraqis are all terrorists, obviously (the enemy forces are repeatedly - and only - referred to as Al Qaeda in Iraq). Also, we get tons of American soldiers constantly referring to Iraqis as "savages," which would be totally fine if the movie were just trying to depict things realistically (I'm sure plenty of ignorant redneck assholes did exactly this) except the Iraqis in the movie are only depicted as bloodthirsty, psychopathic jihadists:
Spoiler: show
We see a guy named "The Butcher" murdering a kid with a hand drill because the kid's dad snitched (only for the promise of $100,000, of course), we see people tortured and hung up while a bunch of heads hang out on a shelf, we see an Iraqi mother convince her young son to charge at an American armored column wielding a grenade, and so on. The one scene I thought was going to depict Iraqis as actual human beings also inevitably ended in the host guy having been a secret terrorist the whole time. There is literally not one Iraqi in the whole movie shown as anything other than purely evil. Fuck, the good guys even refer to them as being purely evil in a completely serious way and they're just totally right in saying so!


Fuck you, Clint Eastwood, and fuck you too, Seth Rogen and Michael Moore, for backpedaling on your comments like a bunch of wusses.

Absolutely worth seeing just so you understand just how alive and well propaganda is in the 21st century.


Well it seems to be working - some interesting reports going around about anti-arab/muslim threats being now at their highest since 2010, since the film's release. I haven't seen it myself but after the above description I think it shows that people tend to get more outraged with generalised depictions of muslims than real events. There have been plenty of actual recent terrorist incidents to legitimately condemn, but those don't offer the chance to demonise all muslims. Eastwood will be thrilled.

Top
 Profile  
volutetheswarth
Our Lady of Perpetual Butthurt

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:37 pm
Posts: 3489
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:34 pm 
 

Expedience wrote:
iamntbatman wrote:
Just watched the movie. Complete and utter trash. There is no "war is bad" message. Sure, bad things happen to soldiers and it sucks over there, but the war was totally justified because 9/11 and the Iraqis are all terrorists, obviously (the enemy forces are repeatedly - and only - referred to as Al Qaeda in Iraq). Also, we get tons of American soldiers constantly referring to Iraqis as "savages," which would be totally fine if the movie were just trying to depict things realistically (I'm sure plenty of ignorant redneck assholes did exactly this) except the Iraqis in the movie are only depicted as bloodthirsty, psychopathic jihadists:
Spoiler: show
We see a guy named "The Butcher" murdering a kid with a hand drill because the kid's dad snitched (only for the promise of $100,000, of course), we see people tortured and hung up while a bunch of heads hang out on a shelf, we see an Iraqi mother convince her young son to charge at an American armored column wielding a grenade, and so on. The one scene I thought was going to depict Iraqis as actual human beings also inevitably ended in the host guy having been a secret terrorist the whole time. There is literally not one Iraqi in the whole movie shown as anything other than purely evil. Fuck, the good guys even refer to them as being purely evil in a completely serious way and they're just totally right in saying so!


Fuck you, Clint Eastwood, and fuck you too, Seth Rogen and Michael Moore, for backpedaling on your comments like a bunch of wusses.

Absolutely worth seeing just so you understand just how alive and well propaganda is in the 21st century.


Well it seems to be working - some interesting reports going around about anti-arab/muslim threats being now at their highest since 2010, since the film's release. I haven't seen it myself but after the above description I think it shows that people tend to get more outraged with generalised depictions of muslims than real events. There have been plenty of actual recent terrorist incidents to legitimately condemn, but those don't offer the chance to demonise all muslims. Eastwood will be thrilled.

Well maybe if you saw the movie you would realize it doesn't demonize all muslims. Most of the anti-American Sniper comments are from people who just saw the trailer, or simply base their assessment off overly judgmental reviews such as the above. As the previous poster said, it really comes down to not having an entirely 100% clear "anti-iraq-war" commentary from (a) character/s that always puts peoples panties in a bunch.

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 21181
The Great Fearmonger

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:44 am
Posts: 3987
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:40 pm 
 

There is a very sympathetic portrayal of an Iraqi family who knows something about the location of Zarqawi's second in command but is afraid to speak out because of the potential consequences. That particular account appears to be made-up but it was something Iraqi families did deal with.

And the reason the film constantly refers to "the Iraqis" (as you put it) by the name Al-Qaeda in Iraq is because Al-Qaeda in Iraq had many members who were not Iraqi. Most of the suicide bombings carried out by AQI during the insurgency were carried out by outsiders. Most of the large-scale attacks against Iraqi civilians were also carried out by foreigners. The group's leader was a Jordanian and they pledged their allegiance to a Saudi-borne ethnic Yemeni hiding out in Pakistan.

Top
 Profile  
iamntbatman
Chaos Breed

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:55 am
Posts: 11421
Location: Tyrn Gorthad
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:40 am 
 

What? You mean the family who would only give up the guy if they were paid $100,000 by the Americans? Yeah, real sympathetic.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the second paragraph. Obviously AQI had non-Iraqi members, but in the movie the *only* people they fight are AQI. You don't think there was possibly some reason why the movie shows Kyle watch the Twin Towers fall, then he immediately joins the military and heads to Iraq where the only enemies he ever fights are called "Al Qaeda"? WMD's, oil, Saddam and his regime - none of that is ever even mentioned. The movie basically re-writes history to make it seem like Iraq was 100% about the War on Terror(TM).
_________________
Nolan_B wrote:
I've been punched in the face maybe 3 times in the past 6 months


GLOAMING - death/doom | COMA VOID - black/doom/post-rock

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 21181
The Great Fearmonger

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:44 am
Posts: 3987
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:00 pm 
 

And if they had shown him fighting Shi'a militias paid, armed, trained and directed by the Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran I assume you would criticize the movie for being a propaganda film in favor of nuking Fordow? Because by the time period depicted in the film that's basically the only two forces we were fighting, AQI and Iranian-backed Shi'a militias. Most of the Iraqis who died in Iraq either died in the initial US assault (not depicted) or were killed by one of the above factions in the ensuing civil war. Saddam and his regime were essentially non-combatants at that point.

The movie is based on the life of a real soldier who really did sign up to fight AQ and who really did mostly kill AQ when he was in Iraq. It should have been clear from before the movie came out that it was going to be a (at least semi-)biographical account of one person. Cooper and Eastwood both made clear before release it was a character study. And the film's first 25 minutes---which focus on his childhood and young life and have nothing to do with Iraq, the Iraq War, or politics in general---should have made it very obvious that the focus was purely on one person. As it happens, the real Chris Kyle was perfectly fine with being there, perfectly fine with what he did there, and thought we were perfectly justified in being there, all on the basis of the war on terror. Eastwood already added more soul-searching and self-doubt in the film than Kyle ever admitted having about what he did there; adding overtures about the pre-invasion justification and WMD's would have removed all pretense of nonfiction from the film.


Your problem is with Eastwood's choice of subject, not Eastwood's choice of direction. His depiction of the Iraqi population is actually far, far more sympathetic than Kyle's own accounts of the Iraqi people.

Top
 Profile  
henkkjelle
Metal freak

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:54 pm
Posts: 4537
Location: Netherlands
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:16 pm 
 

Yeah the man didn't seem to be the most sympathetic figure. Didn't he also brag about going to New Orleans during hurricane Katrina to shoot looters? I don't think there is any evidence for that apart from his own words, but the dude seemed to really really like one thing: shooting people. Lots and lots of people. I haven't seen the movie and I'm probably not going to, but I don't see how the movies portrayal of the situation could be any worse than the real thing. If anything Eastwood did a bad thing by trying to humanize Kyle even a little bit. That's probably the reason I'm not going to see it.
_________________
... just the bare bones of a name, all rock and ice and storm and abyss. It makes no attempt to sound human. It is atoms and stars.

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 21181
The Great Fearmonger

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:44 am
Posts: 3987
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:27 pm 
 

Yeah Kyle is definitely not the most sympathetic person to ever write about his time in the military, yet his account was a chart-topper for weeks on end. If anything about this whole affair should make people uncomfortable, it's that.

It's not in his memoir, but Kyle also reportedly once remarked something like "I didn't just kill anybody who was holding a Qur'an; I would have liked to, but I didn't." As I said, Eastwood's retelling is somewhat sanitized with regards to both Kyle and the people he encountered in Iraq.

Top
 Profile  
iamntbatman
Chaos Breed

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:55 am
Posts: 11421
Location: Tyrn Gorthad
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:41 pm 
 

See the thing is that you can't really do a "character study" and an adaptation of someone's self-aggrandizing autobiography at the same time, not in any sort of genuine way. A "character study" is essentially utterly worthless as a piece of art if there's no criticism or acknowledgement of flaws. Kyle is just a shitty Mary Sue (according to his own memoirs, anyway) because he's always right and if there's anything he's guilty of, it's Loving America Too Damn Much. Compare it to something like Raging Bull.

I'm also not quite sure I understand how you can think it's off-putting that Kyle's memoir was a best-seller, yet a watered-down but still offensive and shitty movie version of it is somehow ok? Also:

Quote:
Your problem is with Eastwood's choice of subject, not Eastwood's choice of direction. His depiction of the Iraqi population is actually far, far more sympathetic than Kyle's own accounts of the Iraqi people.


No, sorry, his direction fucking sucks, too. Just because it's somewhat less overtly racist and shitty than the source material doesn't make it good or worthwhile. It's all shit.
_________________
Nolan_B wrote:
I've been punched in the face maybe 3 times in the past 6 months


GLOAMING - death/doom | COMA VOID - black/doom/post-rock

Top
 Profile  
Metantoine
Slave to Santa

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:00 pm
Posts: 12030
Location: Montréal
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:58 pm 
 

No interest in seeing American Sniper at fucking all, Eastwood is a patriotic moron with too much influence.

Watched John Wick tonight and it was beyond badass. Yeah, the script could be resumed in like 2 sentences but the fight choreographies were great and the overall art direction sweet as fuck. Keanu was cool as this retired level 200 assassin! Best action movie of the decade so far.
_________________
caspian about CHAIRTHROWER wrote:
?????????

Metantoine's Magickal Realm

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1 ... 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510 ... 818  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

 
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group