Movies - The Case for Violence, Sex, Gore, and other things In Your Movies

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Roger Ebert liked the sex scene, it is a bit abrupt but understandable since they are under extreme emotional duress.

I rarely agreed with Ebert, on much of anything in his reviews. Siskel seemed much more balanced overall, by comparison.

[Trekkie313]

We can't be friends!

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

We can't be friends!

Your loss...

[Trekkie313]

Half joking.

I tend to think Siskel was way off base in most of his criticisms though.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Half joking.

I tend to think Siskel was way off base in most of his criticisms though.

To be fair, I don't trust most reviewers anyway. They seem to bash everything I'm interested in, and praise things I don't care about in the least. Its just like the Oscars, where most of the awards go to melodramas while blockbusters are virtually ignored.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Sex scenes are 99% of the time either used to convince the audience that two characters are in love even though the actors can't sell it, or just as an exploitative device to get people to see the movie at all. Very rarely does a sex scene actually add anything of substance. Can't even remember the last time I saw one that I thought wasn't superfluous.

Terminator 1? .... Kyle and Sarah have sex............then comes Terminator 2 with John Connor.........no sex...no sequel. dur lol :P

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Terminator 1? .... Kyle and Sarah have sex............then comes Terminator 2 with John Connor.........no sex...no sequel. dur lol :P

My point was they didn't have to prolong it; a passionate kiss on the bed and a quick camera cut would've sent the same message.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I much prefer it being alluded to, rather than shown. For example, there's a moment in Field of Dreams where Ray is telling Annie how much he wories becoming like his father. After assuring her husband, they kiss, followed by a quick cut to the outside of the house, where the light goes out. Compare that to something like the first Terminator, where Kyle confesses his love for Sarah...followed by a prolonged makeout/sex scene which adds nothing to the story. It could've been much shorter and far less explicit, with Sarah's pregnancy at the film's end still completing the narrative.

Yeah I agree. Still love the movie but it would lose nothing if the sex scene were cut out. I've also always thought the nude scene in Godfather 1 was totally unnecessary; it obviously doesn't damage the film or anything, but it wasn't needed. It adds nothing.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Yeah I agree. Still love the movie but it would lose nothing if the sex scene were cut out. I've also always thought the nude scene in Godfather 1 was totally unnecessary; it obviously doesn't damage the film or anything, but it wasn't needed. It adds nothing.

I've still never seen any of the Godfather films, but what I've posted so far sums up my stance on explicit sexuality in film. The vast majority of it is completely unnecessary, and the few exceptions are often made more explicit to boost ratings. That's why if I were a filmmaker, I'd never include any kind of explicit sexuality, excessive language, or gory violence.

There used to be a saying in the industry: "If you want a lower rating, make a film worthy of it." But now, so many people cram a ton of useless junk into their movies, hoping something turns out well. How else do you explain half of all films released every year underperforming? Audiences are simply getting sick of the crap.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

My point was they didn't have to prolong it; a passionate kiss on the bed and a quick camera cut would've sent the same message.

Well.....................maybe...........

Depending on how it's done.

[Show spoiler]https://youtu.be/PU-ulzbY4us?t=3m26s

I think this was a beautifully shot scene and the music works perfectly.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

My point was they didn't have to prolong it; a passionate kiss on the bed and a quick camera cut would've sent the same message.

They don't make babies that way though.

[ITDEFX101]

Anyone see this?
http://io9.gizmodo.com/let-this-vide...p-a-1796555430

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Anyone see this?
http://io9.gizmodo.com/let-this-vide...p-a-1796555430

Some of those things should be PG. Return to Oz, The Neverending Story, The Dark Crystal, Willy Wonka, and even Roger Rabbit don't have any real violence in them. The only thing out of those I would call "traumatizing" is when Doom gets run over, and even then any kid who's paying attention can see it's fake because he's acting like a cartoon character. The first 4 films I listed are all criticized for their "thematic and scary" elements. Are we saying we have to protect all children from scary scenes until they are 13 years old? I think I was 4 when I saw The Dark Crystal and I absolutely loved it. It didn't scare me one bit. Little kids aren't usually scared of these kinds of things unless they first see adults telling them they should be scared. It's just like how prejudices develop, kids don't know what to fear or hate until they grow up.

[warrian]

I'm not a big fan of sex scenes at all, but I think the one in Terminator is one of the absolute best. Much needed to show the love and passion in contrast to the violence and despair in the rest of the movie.

These two characters earned that love scene. Kyle through a life of hardship fighting the machines of the future and Sarah having suffered through one empty relationship after another and never having the feeling she would amount to anything meaningful.

It is in perfect balance that a film whose violence is so explicit should have its love scene be equally so. "We loved a lifetime's worth" is what she says. That scene, with those two performances and that immortal music cue make sure we know exactly what she means by that in a way seeing the light turn out from the motel parking lot never could.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by rodneyfaile

Zero censorship and zero regulations on content. If you don't like it then don't watch it. If you think it is excessive then don't watch it. Censor and regulate yourself, not everyone else. I don't want someone using their opinion as the standard for the rest of us. Everything isn't meant to be catered to you. Some things are for others.

The question is not about censorship. The question is about what makes good art and good cinema and whether sex, vulgarity and violence in movies is exploitive or serves the story. As others have said, there are cases where violence, vulgarity and explicit sex are warranted (like some Scorsese movies) and there are cases where it simply reflects immature impulses by bad directors and writers who grew up without reading literature and instead spent their lives playing violent video games and who have ADD.

I have no problem with nudity or sex in movies, but in so many cases it simply seems like the director just wanted to get someone's clothes off or they did it because they wanted the R rating. I think French directors always did this better than American directors where the nudity and sex scenes in French films seemed natural and not exploitive.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by shinobipopcorn

Some of those things should be PG. Return to Oz, The Neverending Story, The Dark Crystal, Willy Wonka, and even Roger Rabbit don't have any real violence in them. The only thing out of those I would call "traumatizing" is when Doom gets run over, and even then any kid who's paying attention can see it's fake because he's acting like a cartoon character. The first 4 films I listed are all criticized for their "thematic and scary" elements. Are we saying we have to protect all children from scary scenes until they are 13 years old? I think I was 4 when I saw The Dark Crystal and I absolutely loved it. It didn't scare me one bit. Little kids aren't usually scared of these kinds of things unless they first see adults telling them they should be scared. It's just like how prejudices develop, kids don't know what to fear or hate until they grow up.

I think exposure to something like this (minus sex scenes) at a young age helps to ease things so it won't be so traumatic that has long lasting effects. You let a kid of today's generation watch Mola Ram pull some poor SOB heart, out they are going to puke or just break down and cry.

It's funny how parent groups ***** and ***** about violence in movies yet we all know they (including myself) has seen this shit when we were kids.

I was talking to my wife about this a while back as to how old we were when we first saw that scene in TOD. We will never have the type of blood and gore from the 80's/90's on screen again. If we did see blood in a scene, it is usually padded/watered down so it's not as *traumatic* ... for example, last year's Deadpool. That scene were he was being tortured , it could have been more brutal than it was shown....but they needed to water it down in order for the pussies at the mpaa to give it a green light rated "R".

The only movie that has been lately making me feel a little disturbed after I watched it was the Conjuring movies. It may be because now I can relate because I have a small child (and no I did not take her to see it). Even the Poltergeist remake was so watered down compared to the original.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by shinobipopcorn

Are we saying we have to protect all children from scary scenes until they are 13 years old? I think I was 4 when I saw The Dark Crystal and I absolutely loved it. It didn't scare me one bit. Little kids aren't usually scared of these kinds of things unless they first see adults telling them they should be scared. It's just like how prejudices develop, kids don't know what to fear or hate until they grow up.

A PG-13 movie doesn't stop younger kids from seeing a movie. It's a rating that is a recommendation to parents. That's all it is.

When I was a kid, I wasn't scared of anything. I loved monster and horror films, although most were pretty lame in the 1950's and 60's. I started going to the movies by myself when I was 7 years old. (Seems unbelievable today). I was almost always disappointed that the movies weren't scarier. ("Black Sunday" and "The Tingler" did scare me a little. But all the Universal horror films of the 30's and 40's on TV and the Hammer horror films of the 60's didn't scare me at all.) I read "Famous Monsters of Filmland" magazine from the time I was 8 and loved it. And you could still buy paperback reprints anthologies of Mad Magazine from when it was a pulp comic, before it became a satire magazine. Loved those too.

But not all kids are desensitized the same way. I have a grandson who is a pretty tough kid physically and he can be aggressive. He can read stories and be okay with almost anything. He knows the complete details of every Star Wars story - he knows every minor character and plot detail. But watching movies is something else - he's very sensitive to what's going on on the screen and he scares easily. When he was younger, I put on "Yellow Submarine" and he was even scared by the Blue Meanies. So every kid is a bit different and the rating system is somewhat useful.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by warrian

I'm not a big fan of sex scenes at all, but I think the one in Terminator is one of the absolute best. Much needed to show the love and passion in contrast to the violence and despair in the rest of the movie.

These two characters earned that love scene. Kyle through a life of hardship fighting the machines of the future and Sarah having suffered through one empty relationship after another and never having the feeling she would amount to anything meaningful.

It is in perfect balance that a film whose violence is so explicit should have its love scene be equally so. "We loved a lifetime's worth" is what she says. That scene, with those two performances and that immortal music cue make sure we know exactly what she means by that in a way seeing the light turn out from the motel parking lot never could.

Well said. I can't remember any other love scene in any other movie where it felt so real...the music was so well done for that scene. Brad Fiedel did an amazing job for T1 and T2. It's really too bad he will never release the complete score to both movies.

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

A PG-13 movie doesn't stop younger kids from seeing a movie. It's a rating that is a recommendation to parents. That's all it is.

How many parents will say to the kid "no, pick some other movie" when they see "PG-13, parents strongly cautioned", though? It's bad enough Finding Dory got a PG for the same content Finding Nemo got a G for. Meanwhile, parents were all up in arms when the Cars 3 trailer debuted and Lightning crashed. "That's too scary!" But it got a G.

The ratings board in the US is just plain broken.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Sex, language, violence, ect. do not bother me whatsoever and if the artists behind the films that have it feel it's necessary then that is good enough for me. Just my 2 cents. I'm frankly a fan of extremely graphic violent films loaded with profanity and sex (gratuitous or not) and I'm also a fan of films without those things as well.

I'm someone who never understood why the PG-13 rating even had to come into effect. PG clearly states Parental Guidance Suggested. States it plain and simple. Parents didn't get upset with Jaws but they got upset with Gremlins? That makes a lot of sense