Manufacturers allowing ratings to regulate system content

A forum to talk about stuff that doesn't fit in other categories, such as general Kojima games discussion, other games, etc.
Post Reply
Missing
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:09 am

Manufacturers allowing ratings to regulate system content

Post by Missing »

The question is, how long will they allow this practice to continue (and by manufacturers, I mean Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft). Obviously there's no simple answer to this question, as the recent controversy over Manhunt 2 (whether intended or not by Rockstar) has shown little resolve of the debate and will most likely end with Rockstar bending to the pressure and softening the game's content, but I'd like to hear your opinions all the same.

In my own I feel that perhaps there is no other choice for Rockstar in this case, but there's no question that when a higher-profile title comes along (take GTA IV for example) and stirs up the very same controversy over ratings, it won't be the developers who have to re-evaluate their in-game content. System manufacturers can't refuse to take liberties with a Metal Gear Solid 4 or a GTA IV when they know that title is bankrolling their company. If either of those were to be going through the same ordeal as Manhunt 2, I imagine the outcome would be different.

I don't honestly believe either Sony or Microsoft would let a little gratuitous violence come between them and a bundle of money, especially since they're both so desperate to come out ahead in the console race. The first one who is willing to proudly display that AO-banner is looking to make a substantial greater profit, as the vast number of consumers who were already old enough (and already being photo-ID'd) when buying their M-rated titles will now be standing in line to do the same with AO games. There won't be any need for developers like Rockstar to back down once GTA IV is being held up by the ratings board for closer inspection (and mind you, just as long as it's all out in the open, unlike the hot coffee fiasco).

Manhunt 2 is really their first offensive (as I said, whether deliberate or not) in making this issue a greater concern to all involved. After all, it's not only important on a consumer basis, but also that developers are allowed free reign to create the kinds of games they choose, without any impending doom of ratings or pressure from outside parties (i.e., Jack Thompson). The audience will always be the ones to decide in the end whether a game is worth their time, regardless of what rating it may receive (even if those M/AO-rated titles act as curiosity to many of us).

At the moment, however, I'm most disturbed by this recent censoring of gaming advertisements, including those that were formerly labeled with discretionary advisements. Why should any such footage have to suffer the wrath of over-protective mothers and school counselors and be excised from public viewing (especially when you consider everything else that appears on the Internet)? That's truly maddening.
Marc
General
Posts: 3379
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:46 am

Post by Marc »

I don't understand why people want to play games like Manhunt 2, just like I don't understand why people want to watch movies like Hostel.
User avatar
Snatcher2047
Runner
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 8:35 am
Favorite Game: SNATCHER
Kojima games owned: Snatcher
Snatcher : Pilot Disk
Metal Gear Solid
Metal Gear Solid 2
Metal Gear Solid 3
Wii Friend Code: 0087516012043877
Xbox Live: Snatcher2047
Location: The Kremlin
Contact:

Post by Snatcher2047 »

Osiris wrote:just like I don't understand why people want to watch movies like Hostel.
Seriously, the worst movie I've ever seen.
Image
The Kremlin : A Snatcher Fan Site, est. 2000
JustinAaron.com
User avatar
Henry Spencer
General
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:07 am
Favorite Game: Shenmue I, MGS, Snatcher, Zelda: Ocarina Of Time.
Kojima games owned: Metal Gear (NES)
Metal Gear: Ghost Babel (GB)
Metal Gear Solid (PSX)
Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance (PS2)
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence (PS2)
Policenauts (Saturn/PSX/3DO)
Snatcher (PC Engine/Mega CD)
Zone Of The Enders (PS2)
Zone Of The Enders 2: Special Edition (PS2)
Super Smash Bros. Brawl; it counts, right? ;P
PSN: henryspencer666
Xbox Live: Magiking
Location: Right Behind You
Contact:

Post by Henry Spencer »

Couldn't agree with Marc any more. It is despicable that so many people like those films, they're so sadistic and putrid, with no purpose at all whatsoever; just an exercise in mindless violence. I would never go near that stuff. I have absolutely no idea why so many people do. Even when I've asked people about it, they always do not give me proper reasons, just some lame excuse like "I liked the first one" or "the film is being supported by Tarantino" (who's a hack with no talent anymore). It's all just bullcrap to me, but oh well, different strokes for different folks.

*shrugs*
Missing
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:09 am

Post by Missing »

Osiris wrote:I don't understand why people want to play games like Manhunt 2, just like I don't understand why people want to watch movies like Hostel.
Well, I'm not a Hostel fan myself, but I dig the extreme exploitation flicks of years past. Stuff like Cannibal Holocaust or Herschell-Gordon Lewis, if you know what I mean. Why? Because it can be enjoyable to occassionally watch the sickest, most twisted and deranged acts performed in a fictional situation. Especially with something that knows no bounds, you never can be really sure of what to expect from it. But let's not deny that violence has its appeal, and don't you tell me otherwise. No matter how its glossed up for mainstream consumption, it still attracts people. I'm fairly certain many of the hardcore Killer7 devotees on these boards have a certain appeal for its twisted aspects (even if they argue that in the long-run, the game is so much more than that). Let's not deny either that when you shoot someone in a game, you want to see blood spill in all directions. Maybe you'll argue because it's realistic, but the truth is you just want to satisfy your sadistic desires, just like anyone else who'll pick up a copy of GTA with the intent to run over some police officers or Manhunt so they can perform strangulations with their Wii-mote. In the end, it's just a game no matter what you're doing.

And just in case you think I'm fucked up for enjoying William Lustig's Maniac or I Spit on Your Grave, I'd just like to say that I have never once abused or mistreated a woman and I always have proper respect and civility towards people. Maybe that's why I enjoy seeing it depicted onscreen from time to time, but I certainly would not condone such things in reality. So let's all be careful who you start calling a sadistic motherfucker just because my tastes vary from your own.
Henry Spencer wrote:....or "the film is being supported by Tarantino" (who's a hack with no talent anymore).
Explain that. Tarantino's about the only one working within Hollywood to make unique and entertaining films. He's only gotten better over the years. He hardly lacks talent -- of course, I don't know what your definition of 'talent' is -- and even if he does get ripped for supposedly stealing others' ideas, I could hardly care less as long as he continues making films that I enjoy.
Marc
General
Posts: 3379
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:46 am

Post by Marc »

Missing wrote:So let's all be careful who you start calling a sadistic motherfucker just because my tastes vary from your own.
Why do you always fly off the handle whenever someone simply has a viewpoint different from your own? First of all, Cannibal Holocaust deliberately murdered real animals on screen. That wasn't "fictional", meanwhile you say you don't condone such things in reality.

I maintain there is a difference between realistic violence, such as someone bleeding when they're shot versus nothing happening because of imposed censorship, and deliberately torturing people. You enjoy the latter, hey, be my guest. I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing that as long as it isn't real. But when you say people like violence, I think it's closer to most people don't want a censored reality. If someone gets shot, he should bleed. The audience groans and rolls their eyes when they don't see what they expect to see. Especially in a war film, if your intention is to show what war is really like. For instance, I think the D-Day sequence in Saving Private Ryan is an important sequence in film. People should know what those events were and are like. That's different from certain people who revel in watching snuff films and such. I actually don't like games and films were blood unrealistically gushes endlessly from someone when they're hurt. I sit there asking myself why. Why is this better than showing me what really happens when someone is hurt like this in real life? It's a cheap tactic that appeals to the lowest common denominator.

I also say there's a difference between game and film in terms of violence. In a game, you are the one responsible for the acts, where in film you watch someone else commit them. It might not be photo-realistic graphics, and you're not actually there in the environment, but you still go through the mental process of choosing what to do to subjects via pressing the buttons. That's why I think games have the potential to warp sensitive minds more than film. They can develop those mind-body connections. And now with the Wii, you could potentially be mimicing a stabbing motion with the controller in a murder game and so forth. Again, parents should watch out for their kids, but what about someone who plays them thinking he's fine, then develops problems later on in life? How do you know whether you'll be affected or not? I guess the only way to be absolutely certain is to abstain from them.

And if Manhunt 2 got an AO rating, it has to contain more than "a little gratuitous violence". Especially if the first, rated M, was already pretty sick from what I hear.
User avatar
James_The_Stampede
Runner
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:09 am
Kojima games owned: MGS1-4, Boktai, Policenauts, Snatcher (Well, technically anyway).
PSN: Sir_EFG
Xbox Live: Aes Rock
Location: Seattle, WA.
Contact:

Post by James_The_Stampede »

Osiris wrote:I don't understand why people want to play games like Manhunt 2, just like I don't understand why people want to watch movies like Hostel.
I think it's escapism, just like it is with any form of media. Let's face the fact that man-kind is pretty much the most violence driven species on the planet, now couple that with the laws and rules of the land (which are, of course, a very very good thing) regarding violence. Now, take those 2 factors and add the stress of every day life.. I can see why some people would enjoy to play/watch/read extremely violent media. Not saying I necessarily agree with it, but it is my theory.
User avatar
Henry Spencer
General
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:07 am
Favorite Game: Shenmue I, MGS, Snatcher, Zelda: Ocarina Of Time.
Kojima games owned: Metal Gear (NES)
Metal Gear: Ghost Babel (GB)
Metal Gear Solid (PSX)
Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance (PS2)
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence (PS2)
Policenauts (Saturn/PSX/3DO)
Snatcher (PC Engine/Mega CD)
Zone Of The Enders (PS2)
Zone Of The Enders 2: Special Edition (PS2)
Super Smash Bros. Brawl; it counts, right? ;P
PSN: henryspencer666
Xbox Live: Magiking
Location: Right Behind You
Contact:

Post by Henry Spencer »

Missing wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote:....or "the film is being supported by Tarantino" (who's a hack with no talent anymore).
Explain that. Tarantino's about the only one working within Hollywood to make unique and entertaining films. He's only gotten better over the years. He hardly lacks talent -- of course, I don't know what your definition of 'talent' is -- and even if he does get ripped for supposedly stealing others' ideas, I could hardly care less as long as he continues making films that I enjoy.
Am I supposed to think any different after you said that? Nah. Not really. I don't have a problem with other people liking him, I just do not like him anymore. Honestly, the only movie I liked from him was Pulp Fiction, which is a classic. Aside from that Jackie Brown was pretty good, Kill Bill 1 and 2 was pure trash, Reservoir Dogs was a disappointment and whatever else there was I have forgotten about.

True Romance was pretty neat, considering he wrote that and all. He's a good writer, but a bad director. Again, that's just my thoughts on him, I know you'll disagree with me, but meh, whatever. Can't be bothered getting into details about it, I don't wish to debate on a subject matter that is really just about personal preference and nothing more, hope you understand.
dlfrsilver
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:46 am
Location: FRANCE

Post by dlfrsilver »

Well well, Hostel was a truly disgusting film (pukeee !!)

My god, i can't believe how a guy like Tarantino has cautionned such an horrible movie.

We're far here from Freddy Krueger horror films...... I own Manhunt as a collection piece,
as i have never been able to progress more than half the game. This game has no good
balancing part like funny things, jokes, whatever. It's tough tough tough, murderous in every sense of it. A living nightmare :mad:
Marc
General
Posts: 3379
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:46 am

Post by Marc »

James_The_Stampede wrote:
Osiris wrote:I don't understand why people want to play games like Manhunt 2, just like I don't understand why people want to watch movies like Hostel.
I think it's escapism, just like it is with any form of media. Let's face the fact that man-kind is pretty much the most violence driven species on the planet, now couple that with the laws and rules of the land (which are, of course, a very very good thing) regarding violence. Now, take those 2 factors and add the stress of every day life.. I can see why some people would enjoy to play/watch/read extremely violent media. Not saying I necessarily agree with it, but it is my theory.
I think you're right. It's similar to how some people seem to like speeding up and honking their horn when they see a pedestrian crossing the street. Deep down they feel miserable and frustrated in their lives (ever rising bills, nagging family/boss, impotence... whatever's on their plate), so they take pleasure in watching others suffer.
User avatar
seraphssavior
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 378
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:01 pm

Post by seraphssavior »

You know what we need? A game that is so violent and profane, that everyone will forget about the lesser stuff. You should be able to commit homicide whenever you feel like it, slap any woman/little girl in the game, beat up and torture animals, and anything else disgusting you can think of...now no one would ever play this game, I sure as hell wouldn't, and the game would never be published. This entire concept would exist only to shock politicians and gaming companies so much, that th other games coming out would look like Reader Rabbit. Is this idea crazy enough to work?
Life and Death hang in perfect balance...I'm only here to tip the scales.
Marc
General
Posts: 3379
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:46 am

Post by Marc »

It could just result in a widespread push for censorship.
Missing
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:09 am

Post by Missing »

Osiris wrote:Why do you always fly off the handle whenever someone simply has a viewpoint different from your own?
Because I'm not a fair-minded person. I may preach being open-minded, but the truth is, I look down on you and your beliefs. I don't believe in individuality, I believe most people are mindless saps, and I reject whatever crap opinions they may have. And I would imagine the majority of people in this world are just as hypocritical as I am in one way or another. Now if you have a problem with my attitude, I would suggest not goading me into arguments by questioning why I act the way I do. If you think I get on your nerves, then you should be pleased to know you do just the same by me.
First of all, Cannibal Holocaust deliberately murdered real animals on screen. That wasn't "fictional", meanwhile you say you don't condone such things in reality.
What's done is done. I don't condone it, but I can hardly do anything to change it either. It'll exist just as long as the film does, and I see no reason now why they should impact my opinion of the film itself. Many a past film have subjected animals to all kinds of mistreatment, including death, so it would seem silly to single out Cannibal Holocaust alone simply because they exploit the subject matter. If anything, their presentation of it only shows how truly sickening such things are and should only deter those who watch it, not encourage such behavior (if it does, that should be an indicator of psychopathic maniac you're describing.
But when you say people like violence, I think it's closer to most people don't want a censored reality. If someone gets shot, he should bleed. The audience groans and rolls their eyes when they don't see what they expect to see. Especially in a war film, if your intention is to show what war is really like. For instance, I think the D-Day sequence in Saving Private Ryan is an important sequence in film. People should know what those events were and are like. That's different from certain people who revel in watching snuff films and such. I actually don't like games and films were blood unrealistically gushes endlessly from someone when they're hurt. I sit there asking myself why. Why is this better than showing me what really happens when someone is hurt like this in real life? It's a cheap tactic that appeals to the lowest common denominator.
I agree those are cheap tactics, but I think there's a greater separation from reality when gore is comically enhanced. You never feel the pain of another person when blood gushes in all directions from wounds that are completely clean-cut. Eyes may be gouged, limbs may fly, but you never equate any of these images with reality (only in the broadest sense). It may revolt all the same, but I don't think most people would compare the experience of watching Saving Private Ryan to watching Zombi II. Sure, there's need for blood to gush endlessly, but in films like that, you wouldn't want to see such realism. (Technically speaking, a snuff film would be the real thing, which is exactly the type of onscreen violence you're arguing in favor of, albeit a completely separate context.) And outside of films like Saving Private Ryan, I can think of few films that need to revel in the gory aftermath of a gunfight or knife wound or anything else that involves loss of large quantities of blood or bodily organs. For a long time, films didn't need to show it the way it was, they merely suggested at the violence going on behind-the-scenes. Frankly, I wouldn't mind returning to those days, unlike the way it is now. It doesn't mean I can't enjoy a good (or bad) slasher flick, but I too have my limits.

I also say there's a difference between game and film in terms of violence. In a game, you are the one responsible for the acts, where in film you watch someone else commit them. It might not be photo-realistic graphics, and you're not actually there in the environment, but you still go through the mental process of choosing what to do to subjects via pressing the buttons. That's why I think games have the potential to warp sensitive minds more than film. They can develop those mind-body connections. And now with the Wii, you could potentially be mimicing a stabbing motion with the controller in a murder game and so forth. Again, parents should watch out for their kids, but what about someone who plays them thinking he's fine, then develops problems later on in life? How do you know whether you'll be affected or not? I guess the only way to be absolutely certain is to abstain from them.
Hey, I agree with what you're saying (fathom that!!). But like I said, I put myself before others, and I personally don't want to see this game censored -- or in more justifiable terms, made more readily available to any kid whose parents will buy him that M-rated title.
Henry Spencer wrote:Am I supposed to think any different after you said that? Nah. Not really. I don't have a problem with other people liking him, I just do not like him anymore. Honestly, the only movie I liked from him was Pulp Fiction, which is a classic. Aside from that Jackie Brown was pretty good, Kill Bill 1 and 2 was pure trash, Reservoir Dogs was a disappointment and whatever else there was I have forgotten about.

True Romance was pretty neat, considering he wrote that and all. He's a good writer, but a bad director. Again, that's just my thoughts on him, I know you'll disagree with me, but meh, whatever. Can't be bothered getting into details about it, I don't wish to debate on a subject matter that is really just about personal preference and nothing more, hope you understand.
Well, I kind of wanted to debate it with you, if only to get the other point-of-view. I can understand your feelings, but just because you disliked Kill Bill to me seems like no reason to write him off altogether. To take a general example -- I don't know who you like or dislike -- I wouldn't write off Scorsese just because I didn't like Gangs of New York, or Spielberg because I loathed War of the Worlds. They're still quality directors, even if they have their off moments. Don't think I'm arguing with you just so I can hype Tarantino's credibility.

(Ironically though, I've never liked a single film by Tony Scott, including True Romance which I thought was a terrible film. But yeah, like you say, it's different strokes for different folks.)
User avatar
seraphssavior
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 378
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:01 pm

Post by seraphssavior »

Osiris wrote:It could just result in a widespread push for censorship.
But we've got the first amendment. Congress won't want to get involved with all of the legal hassles of what can be allowed and what cannot be. All we need is a distraction.
Life and Death hang in perfect balance...I'm only here to tip the scales.
Marc
General
Posts: 3379
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:46 am

Post by Marc »

Missing wrote:Because I'm not a fair-minded person. I may preach being open-minded, but the truth is, I look down on you and your beliefs. I don't believe in individuality, I believe most people are mindless saps, and I reject whatever crap opinions they may have. And I would imagine the majority of people in this world are just as hypocritical as I am in one way or another. Now if you have a problem with my attitude, I would suggest not goading me into arguments by questioning why I act the way I do. If you think I get on your nerves, then you should be pleased to know you do just the same by me.
I'd long guessed from your attitude in other posts more or less what you revealed here. I wasn't trying to goad you into an argument, I just wanted to get a straight answer to see if my guess was right.
What's done is done. I don't condone it, but I can hardly do anything to change it either. It'll exist just as long as the film does, and I see no reason now why they should impact my opinion of the film itself. Many a past film have subjected animals to all kinds of mistreatment, including death, so it would seem silly to single out Cannibal Holocaust alone simply because they exploit the subject matter. If anything, their presentation of it only shows how truly sickening such things are and should only deter those who watch it, not encourage such behavior (if it does, that should be an indicator of psychopathic maniac you're describing.


I singled out Cannibal Holocaust because you listed it as an exploitation film you enjoy, while in the next sentence said you'd never condone such acts in real life (even though they actually murdered all the animals that are killed in the film). So I wanted to hear your thoughts on that too, though again I had an idea.
seraphssavior wrote:But we've got the first amendment. Congress won't want to get involved with all of the legal hassles of what can be allowed and what cannot be. All we need is a distraction.
With the introduction of "free speech zones" lately, as well as the imprisonment of peaceful protesters without charge, the first amendment, too, is severely under threat, though I think it'll be a while before anything actually happens (if it ever does). The trigger might be some high-profile case where someone murders their whole family and the police find the "guilty game" still running when they arrive. Basically, nothing the US Government does these days surprises me, so any game legislation wouldn't surprise me either.
User avatar
seraphssavior
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 378
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:01 pm

Post by seraphssavior »

Fucking <B>Patriots</B>...Kojima's been right all along...
Life and Death hang in perfect balance...I'm only here to tip the scales.
User avatar
ratperson665
Captain
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:12 pm
Favorite Game: Suikoden 2
Kojima games owned: Metal Gear Solid
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons Of liberty
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
Metal Gear Acid
Snatcher(Sega CD)
Policenauts(PSX)
Metal Gear(Subsistence Version)
Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake(Subsistence Version)
Location: Mercer Island, WA, USA

Post by ratperson665 »

Osiris wrote:I don't understand why people want to play games like Manhunt 2, just like I don't understand why people want to watch movies like Hostel.
As far as I'm concerned the reason some people enjoy watching movies like Hostel or playing games like Manhunt, is they enjoy being shocked. The people who make these things are completely lacking in imagination so they take an alternative route and fill there
films/games with gratuities violence and perverted sex to get the the attention of the masses. These movies and games prey upon the masochistic side of there fans. That's the reason people watch/play them. Those who enjoy the movies and games subconsciously want to feel bad. In tern those of us who don't have that subconscious yearning don't enjoy them.
"Don't worry I got an idea. An Idea so smart my head would explode if I even began to know what I was taking about."-Peter Griffin
Missing
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:09 am

Post by Missing »

Osiris wrote:I'd long guessed from your attitude in other posts more or less what you revealed here.
I likely believe I could've made any self-deprecating remark -- whether true or not -- and gotten an agreement from you.
I wasn't trying to goad you into an argument, I just wanted to get a straight answer to see if my guess was right.
Trying and doing are two separate actions. I don't think I was "flying off the handle" in my original response, and it irritates me to feel like I'm being jumped on by the likes of you. (Actually, my "sadistic motherfucker" remark was geared towards Henry's response, if that makes any difference to you.)
I singled out Cannibal Holocaust because you listed it as an exploitation film you enjoy, while in the next sentence said you'd never condone such acts in real life (even though they actually murdered all the animals that are killed in the film). So I wanted to hear your thoughts on that too, though again I had an idea.
Had an idea about what? My ideas are that what occurs in the film is long since done with, and there's no correcting it now (not unless you excise and destroy that particular footage from the film). I never said that I enjoy these sequences, nor did I mean to justify it by saying that many, many other films have long since been cruel towards their treatment of animals. But just because it's an ugly truth does not mean it should be overlooked or forgotten because it does not condone with today's practices.
User avatar
ratperson665
Captain
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:12 pm
Favorite Game: Suikoden 2
Kojima games owned: Metal Gear Solid
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons Of liberty
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
Metal Gear Acid
Snatcher(Sega CD)
Policenauts(PSX)
Metal Gear(Subsistence Version)
Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake(Subsistence Version)
Location: Mercer Island, WA, USA

Post by ratperson665 »

Missing wrote:
I singled out Cannibal Holocaust because you listed it as an exploitation film you enjoy, while in the next sentence said you'd never condone such acts in real life (even though they actually murdered all the animals that are killed in the film). So I wanted to hear your thoughts on that too, though again I had an idea.
Had an idea about what? My ideas are that what occurs in the film is long since done with, and there's no correcting it now (not unless you excise and destroy that particular footage from the film). I never said that I enjoy these sequences, nor did I mean to justify it by saying that many, many other films have long since been cruel towards their treatment of animals. But just because it's an ugly truth does not mean it should be overlooked or forgotten because it does not condone with today's practices.
\

1. 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of the movies that show animal cruelty simulate it.

2. There's a difference between violence used when it's necessary to the plot and the sadistic inhuman atrocities committed in Cannibal Holocaust.

3. If you look at my last post you'll see a theory of mine on why people watch that kind of trash. On one hand, if you watch them to be shocked, lighten your mind. On the other, if you actually find them entertaining: get help!
"Don't worry I got an idea. An Idea so smart my head would explode if I even began to know what I was taking about."-Peter Griffin
Missing
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:09 am

Post by Missing »

ratperson665 wrote:1. 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of the movies that show animal cruelty simulate it.
Uhhhhh....... I don't care if you got those statistics from God himself, because that's complete and utter bullshit. Yes, all current American films have to be approved by PETA or some other animal-friendly organization these days just to be distributed in theatres, but back only some thirty years ago it was perfectly acceptable to knock down horses using tripwires in order to achieve many of the tremendous effects you'd see in your typical western of the day. I personally don't know how you could be so delusional as to believe when you see horses being blown off a bridge in The Wild Bunch that they really aren't being blown off a fucking bridge (and unlike the actors, they most likely weren't expecting it). Of course, these dangerous stunts often led to many casualties, and many dead horses in their aftermath. This was all regular practice for Hollywood filmmaking, and while it's hardly condonable, what are you going to do about it nowadays? It shouldn't mean that guys like John Ford, Sergio Leone, or Howard Hawks are bad filmmakers for allowing such inhumane practices.
2. There's a difference between violence used when it's necessary to the plot and the sadistic inhuman atrocities committed in Cannibal Holocaust.
No, I don't think so. There's little difference between the way Hollywood exploits violence in mainstream cinema to the way it's exploited in films like Cannibal Holocaust. The main difference is that films like Cannibal Holocaust only exist to display violent and sickening acts of depravity, where you might generally expect more substance from a Hollywood film (even slasher flicks tend to have more of a plot by contrast). But all in all, is the blood & gore ever really necessary in the majority of films? I don't think so, and therefore, I don't see how you can justify it in one film while lambasting it in another.
3. If you look at my last post you'll see a theory of mine on why people watch that kind of trash. On one hand, if you watch them to be shocked, lighten your mind. On the other, if you actually find them entertaining: get help!
Nothing personal, but you're the last person who should be telling me to get help. This topic wasn't created to critique my psyche, for you all to assess my interests using a fine-toothed comb (though I realize I put myself in that position). I'm fairly certain that if I were to judge all the kinds of films, music, or books you derive pleasure from -- not to mention your actual character -- a case could be made of your own stability in general society. Considering that you're all the kind of people to spring to the defense of any videogame that's put in the spotlight after another senseless school-shooting occurs, it would hardly seem fair to say that my enjoyment of a few particular films is indicative of my own inner-nature.

(By the way, one man's trash is another man's treasure. Try and remember that.)
Marc
General
Posts: 3379
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:46 am

Post by Marc »

Missing wrote:Well, I'm not a Hostel fan myself, but I dig the extreme exploitation flicks of years past. Stuff like Cannibal Holocaust or Herschell-Gordon Lewis, if you know what I mean. Why? Because it can be enjoyable to occassionally watch the sickest, most twisted and deranged acts performed in a fictional situation.
Missing wrote:I never said that I enjoy these sequences, nor did I mean to justify it by saying that many, many other films have long since been cruel towards their treatment of animals. But just because it's an ugly truth does not mean it should be overlooked or forgotten because it does not condone with today's practices.
So what you're saying is, you enjoyed it when you thought it was fiction, but now that you know it was real, you don't?
Missing
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:09 am

Post by Missing »

Wrong again. I'm saying that despite those few awful sequences -- they don't make up the entire film -- I'm still able to overlook them and enjoy the rest of the film. If that remains the basis for all the controversy surrounding the film, I feel it's better left alone at this point. As I've said, there have been equally horrible acts performed on animals long since prior to this particular film. I'm hardly the kind of person to go out into the woods with a rifle and slaughter some innocent fawn, nor do I make my living by cutting off the heads of baby calves as done in slaughterhouses. So why am I all of a sudden the bad guy?
Marc
General
Posts: 3379
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:46 am

Post by Marc »

Should Cannibal Holocaust be criticized for killing animals on screen? Of course. The vulgarity of the act doesn't change just because it's been done before and is still done. It should be criticized every time. Though at least the director now admits the killings were a mistake. But I understand what you mean by choosing to judge the film artistically on the rest of its content, if it's your cup of tea. That doesn't make you "the bad guy".
Missing
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:09 am

Post by Missing »

Isn't it always like these discussions to become completely side-tracked by irrelevant tangents such as the one we're having Though no denying this is a serious issue of discussion, all I needed were to have mentioned a completely different title, and we wouldn't be having a debate over animal cruelty in the movies right now.
Post Reply