Hostel II - going too far?

I'm not slagging Tarantino so much because of the violence, more the terrible scripts he comes out with. I never said Tarantino's films were typically graphic. I watched Reservoir Dogs at the cinema when it came out, I know the camera pans away, which is why I refered to the more suggestive element of his and Roth's films.

They are comparable by the fact they both seem overly fascinated with torture and both used it as the centrepiece of their debut films.

I liked Reservoir Dogs, but after that it was all down hill. Pulp Fiction was just bobbins, I hate that film especially the crappy burger dialogue at the start. Saw bits of Kill Bill 2 and that seemed not too bad.

i think the whole horror genre has gone to far. i mean come on how many damn films are they gonna make about people gettting hacked up to death, i dont watch horror films because they all seem pretty much the same to me they all pretty much have the same plot and it gets old. they way i see if you have seen one you've pretty much seen them all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D.Boone

i think the whole horror genre has gone to far. i mean come on how many damn films are they gonna make about people gettting hacked up to death, i dont watch horror films because they all seem pretty much the same to me they all pretty much have the same plot and it gets old. they way i see if you have seen one you've pretty much seen them all

---

You obviously have not seen many horror movies if you are that quick to judge that they are all the same.. What scares you? spiders, big flowers? Killing machines? people who kill people? The horror collection consist of a variety of movies including anyones fears. Look and you will find your fear. and as for the same plot, MAN i am so glad i never watched movies with you because all my horror movies excluding the ones with sequels are different from each other, different plots different story's, different horror. YES i will agree the popular movies involve killing of other humans, but please go watch yourself a real horror film, a film that has your fears in it.

Hostel I &II were not just about how the people were tortured. It was about the whole event think about it, you traveled far to party and have fun, YOUR in Amsterdam where every teenager wants to be , you meet these beautiful woman, they take you to this bunk ass places where everyone knows whats going on and why your their but yet they say nothing. You are then captured and then they have you strapped to a chair, with your head covered so you dont even know wtf is going on. Then your tortured to death. Now this is some peoples fears. I mean could you imagin having this happen to you? thats what makes it a horror film not just because their blood in it.

if you stay in this mind frame, you may never be able to appreciate horror movies.

but i guess that is why their are many different movies out their.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Staurm

I'm not slagging Tarantino so much because of the violence, more the terrible scripts he comes out with. I never said Tarantino's films were typically graphic. I watched Reservoir Dogs at the cinema when it came out, I know the camera pans away, which is why I refered to the more suggestive element of his and Roth's films.

They are comparable by the fact they both seem overly fascinated with torture and both used it as the centrepiece of their debut films.

I liked Reservoir Dogs, but after that it was all down hill. Pulp Fiction was just bobbins, I hate that film especially the crappy burger dialogue at the start. Saw bits of Kill Bill 2 and that seemed not too bad.

---

hahaahahahha kill bill 1 and 2 are almost as bloody as a movie can get. ONE is out of control and is one of my many fav films. this is not horror, this is a martial arts film, yes their is tons of blood, and severed limbs in almost all action scenes, but when you watch you watch how she performs with her sword, how they all perform their moves.. i do not include this movie to be a horror film but it is still very very good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LIP

I was talking in terms of violence.

And it's the same with games, movies and games. They're both getting more violent, but i dont think, in terms of violence you can go too far. You can only get so horrific, and if people want to go watch that kind of stuff than they should be allowed. I dont think movies OR games should be banned because of excessive violence. The vast majority of people who play those kinds of games and watch those types of movies KNOW it's all fake, and know it's not real life.

I dont think anything can be too violent for people to watch, IF they want to watch it.

---

I completely agree with this, if its to violent for you and you are unable to handle it then turn the shit off no one is forcing you to watch it. if your at the movies and its to much, just go and trade your ticket in for another movie or get your money back, all you have to do is say it was to much they will be just apologizes and give you your money, or offer another movie. THIS is why we have different genres of movies, because not everyone is into the same material. its only natural for someone to not like horror films. I dont know many people who do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Staurm

You can hold a genre such as the Roth/Tarantino "sicko-pact" spree responsible for grinding violence into the minds of impressionable young people. They may not go and start killing people, but most certainly it will play a part in moulding some of them into becoming more aggressive and less compassionate human beings as a result.

TV influences people. IF it influences people to buy things they don't need, to beleive lies, to live their lives according to materialist values, to conduct their social interactions in many different ways, then why not also to kill people?

People start acting like characters they aspire to be from their favourite shows, I've witnessed myself do it unconciously. IF it is capable of homogenising and mediating society to an unhealthy playing field, is it also not capable of isolating people and turning them into sociopaths?

You have to look back further than the start of the film.

Individual circumstances are by far the most influencial factors in the creation of the psychopath of course, but the evidence is still there there that sometimes people do go nuts and copy violence from films so you cannot say films are beyond reproach.

Sometimes people just do it out of sheer badness. When A Clockwork Orange was re-released in 1999/2000(?) following the death of Stanley Kubrick, in the town where I lived at the time, in the outskirts of London, where as it happens Kubrick also filmed 2001, a man my age was attacked and beaten by a gang of 14-18 year olds outside the cinema, on the night or around the weekend it was re-released. This is a regular occurence in that town, in fact when I lived there I was scared to go out the front door.

You can't hold a film wholly repsonsible for a copy cat killing though, but you can hold it responsbile for influencing the method of killing. That does not incriminate the creator of the film though, he is not directly attributed to the crime, he just thought it up, the copycat was free to choose a different method.

It's art reflecting society, but I am not ready to completely discount the possiblity of there being some sort of a cycle if destruction going on between the two, art depicting society and every other time just a little bit more influencing the behaviour of society back.

"...people were sadistic before they invented the sadistic film."

Not always. Whilst documented history contains countless examples of war and fighting, never at any time has violence been so globally pandemic to the extreme levels we are witnessing today. What concerns me is what effect this kind of media violence will have in years/decades to come. Besides societies current trend towards ever more destructive values, and violent behaviour, there is also this new medium influencing society in many other accountable ways.

A couple of examples.

A Clockwork Orange (film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
(section British Withdrawal)

Sorry your only getting one link, I can't find a source for the Child's Play 3 copycat killing where two young boys stole a baby and placed it under the wheels of a train in around 1993 I think that was.

---

A Clockwork orange was a work of art. I jsut had to put that in.

YOU have control over yourself and what you do. If the flame is hot are you going to touch it or leave it alone. But if the television told you to touch the flame would you?? I believe if people can be manipulated this easy then yes theirs a problem. But most notice when they are manipulated easily so why put yourself at risk of becoming a mass murder because the tv did it. i mean come on how stupid does that sound? I killed a bunch of people when i was 12 because i saw it on tv. so your going to tell me kids that watch gangsters on television with guns, its going to make them want to buy one to be cool? The kids with guns now a days don't even have television and live on the streets. Next you will be saying rap music is the lead cause to gangs...


plz no hard feelings just felt like doing some healthy debating.. :-)

village voice > news > From Birth of a Nation to Natural Born Killers, movies have been blamed for real-world violence. Michael Atkinson tests the link. by Michael Atkinson

here is a link with many movies in it, that were followed by copycat killers. or rapes.

You will notice that most of these killers are children who followed the films.
Who were watching these kids? who are these kids parents? and why are they watching these films when they are not even of age. Is this the movies fault? or the PARENTAL guardians. They did not mention anything about their past family history. You can not just throw a child into the world and expect them to know everything if their parents where not around how would of they known? by basic instinct? Right that is why their are 11 and 12 year olds still sticking forks into the electoral outlet..