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

[ITDEFX101]

What do you guys think about those parents who took their kids to see Logan (under 10 years old)? That movie was just brutal on a both an emotional and visual level.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

...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.

These directors today...

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

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

They must not have been paying attention during Watership Down, The Secret of NIMH, or The Last Unicorn either. The last one has a saggy naked harpy, a terrorizing red bull, and, well, this tree:

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

What do you guys think about those parents who took their kids to see Logan (under 10 years old)? That movie was just brutal on a both an emotional and visual level.

A ten year old is probably too young, but I was watching Logan level violence when I was around junior high age (13-14?). I think that's how old I was when I saw Interview with the Vampire. I saw Freddy vs Jason in theaters when I was 15.

Really it depends on the family and how mature the kid is. It may sound silly, but I would rather take my kid to see Logan than Deadpool. I didn't think Logan's violence was as bad as DP's, and the movie had enough of a message that would be worth discussing later. Besides, some teens these days play zombie shooters on their Xbox with glorified gore on the same level as R rated movies, and swear at each other over the headset, so what's the difference?

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Restraint is needed and some filmmakers just don't have enough themselves.
Without it you get garbage like Hardcore Henry, Cabin Fever, A Serbian Film, Human Centipede 2 and Fight For Your Life.

Deadpool irked me with its constant sexual jokes and I did not feel that his character loved his girlfriend, rather her private parts.

Deadpool, the superhero kids need these days

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by shinobipopcorn

A ten year old is probably too young, but I was watching Logan level violence when I was around junior high age (13-14?). I think that's how old I was when I saw Interview with the Vampire. I saw Freddy vs Jason in theaters when I was 15.

Really it depends on the family and how mature the kid is. It may sound silly, but I would rather take my kid to see Logan than Deadpool. I didn't think Logan's violence was as bad as DP's, and the movie had enough of a message that would be worth discussing later. Besides, some teens these days play zombie shooters on their Xbox with glorified gore on the same level as R rated movies, and swear at each other over the headset, so what's the difference?

See the thing is when it comes to Logan vs Deadpool, Logan had more of an emotional impact in it's overall tone and didn't have a happy ending like most super hero movies do. The story was well written and acting top notch. It was real grim from beginning to end except for the breather moments. You really felt sorry for the character and the professor. I could go in each scene I felt very emotional but I won't. And then the movie ended and the characters you have followed for nearly 20 years were now dead.

Deadpool on the other hand had more of a shock value to it and dirty jokes you don't find in any other super hero movie...because that is who the character is. Deadpool could never have been done in a PG-13 setting as the character constantly crosses the line. I remembered jaw dropping and laughing and some of his great lines and scenes....with Logan, only thing that dropped were tears.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

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

Im completely opposite on that. Ebert had much more of an open mind. Siskel was impossible to please.

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Deadpool on the other hand had more of a shock value to it and dirty jokes you don't find in any other super hero movie...because that is who the character is. Deadpool could never have been done in a PG-13 setting as the character constantly crosses the line. I remembered jaw dropping and laughing and some of his great lines and scenes....with Logan, only thing that dropped were tears.

Deadpool reminded me more of a South Park episode, which isn't necessarily bad because like you said, it matches the character. And I found it odd that someone in another topic mentioned an airline version was made. How do you make a censored version of that movie without just holding a Looney Tunes "censored" sign over the whole movie?

[SethRex]

A question that comes to mind is this: With people enjoying violence, sex, and gore in movies, are studios, and ultimately film makers, using that as the basis of their movies, and sacrificing the way the story is told? What I mean is, does the story serve the violence, sex, and gore? or does the violence, sex, and gore serve the story, more often than not? Your thoughts?

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by SethRex

A question that comes to mind is this: With people enjoying violence, sex, and gore in movies, are studios, and ultimately film makers, using that as the basis of their movies, and sacrificing the way the story is told? What I mean is, does the story serve the violence, sex, and gore? or does the violence, sex, and gore serve the story, more often than not? Your thoughts?

If I understand correctly it's very much the latter for me. Story and characters are first and foremost and violence, sex and gore are more like a bonus that amplifies everything. For me anyways. A film that is bad as far as story and characters go will be bad no matter how much sex, violence and gore is in it for me.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by shinobipopcorn

Deadpool reminded me more of a South Park episode, which isn't necessarily bad because like you said, it matches the character. And I found it odd that someone in another topic mentioned an airline version was made. How do you make a censored version of that movie without just holding a Looney Tunes "censored" sign over the whole movie?

I've seen an airline version of Iron Man 3 coming back from a flight from Mexico City full of kids running around the cabin (wtf Air Mexico??!!?!?) and things like IM tossing the Piano and hitting the helicopter were removed from the movie! I hated the movie so I ended up falling asleep as best I could while the flight became a playground for those little ****ers I wanted to throw out the window.

[BagheeraMcGee]

Originally Posted by 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

Even though they came out around the same time, I think it was less about Gremlins than it was about Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom when the guy gets his heart ripped out.

Attitudes towards PG movies changed in the '80s. In the '70s, they were a lot more permissive. All The President's Men (over a half-dozen f-bombs), Barry Lyndon (violence and nudity) and Sorcerer (violence and its relentlessly dark tone) would probably all get rated R if they were released today.

I have no problem with the PG-13 in and of itself, but I do have a problem when PG-13 films are virtually the only game in town.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by BagheeraMcGee

Even though they came out around the same time, I think it was less about Gremlins than it was about Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom when the guy gets his heart ripped out.

Attitudes towards PG movies changed in the '80s. In the '70s, they were a lot more permissive. All The President's Men (over a half-dozen f-bombs), Barry Lyndon (violence and nudity) and Sorcerer (violence and its relentlessly dark tone) would probably all get rated R if they were released today.

I have no problem with the PG-13 in and of itself, but I do have a problem when PG-13 films are virtually the only game in town.

Yeah you bring up some good points. Hell even Airplane! had bare boobs and it's PG. My how times have changed. Especially with that whole debacle with moms across America being furious with Adrienne Barbeau's bare beauties being shown in Swamp Thing which actually forced the studio to completely remove the footage. Baffling

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by SethRex

A question that comes to mind is this: With people enjoying violence, sex, and gore in movies, are studios, and ultimately film makers, using that as the basis of their movies, and sacrificing the way the story is told? What I mean is, does the story serve the violence, sex, and gore? or does the violence, sex, and gore serve the story, more often than not? Your thoughts?

I guess it depends. Certain genres like fantasy or war movies do necessitate violence, since you can't have a war without bloodshed. But when you get to 300 and its sequel, or the extended Alexander if I remember right (been a while since I watched that one) well that's just gratuitous sex for sex sake. It doesn't further the plot at all, and really just puts butts in seats. Friday the 13th is a good example of this. You'd get the same message if you just saw the silhouette of the people in the tent before Jason ripped into them, but nope, gotta see what they're doing.

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

I've seen an airline version of Iron Man 3 coming back from a flight from Mexico City full of kids running around the cabin (wtf Air Mexico??!!?!?) and things like IM tossing the Piano and hitting the helicopter were removed from the movie! I hated the movie so I ended up falling asleep as best I could while the flight became a playground for those little ****ers I wanted to throw out the window.

I've only ever been on flights to Japan through ANA, JAL, and United. I don't remember what I watched or how badly censored it was, but I can tell you Japanese television does NOT censor US programming the same way that we do. Remember Die Hard 3 where McClane is wandering around with that sign in Harlem? Uncut. The English on the SAP button was also uncut. All they really care about censoring is nudity or overly graphic gore.

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

Yeah you bring up some good points. Hell even Airplane! had bare boobs and it's PG. My how times have changed. Especially with that whole debacle with moms across America being furious with Adrienne Barbeau's bare beauties being shown in Swamp Thing which actually forced the studio to completely remove the footage. Baffling

Spaceballs came out after PG-13 I think, and it has a F---, lots of a-holes, several s--- (the best being "Oh s-, there goes the planet..." from one of the PotA apes ), and several genitalia references. Still got a PG.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by shinobipopcorn

Spaceballs came out after PG-13 I think, and it has a F---, lots of a-holes, several s--- (the best being "Oh s-, there goes the planet..." from one of the PotA apes ), and several genitalia references. Still got a PG.

Yeah so strange. The MPAA has a lot to do with it too. They are very biased and let things slide with a lot of filmmakers and are strict as hell with others. I can't stand the MPAA

[BagheeraMcGee]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

Yeah you bring up some good points. Hell even Airplane! had bare boobs and it's PG. My how times have changed. Especially with that whole debacle with moms across America being furious with Adrienne Barbeau's bare beauties being shown in Swamp Thing which actually forced the studio to completely remove the footage. Baffling

Yeah, Airplane! came out in 1980, and Swamp Thing in 1982, right around the time parents started really taking umbrage in what was in PG-rated films. Poltergeist had some strong stuff in it for a PG film in 1982, and then the double whammy of Gremlins and Temple of Doom happened in 1984. But even then, some films that were labeled PG-13 in the early days of the rating would still be R if it were released today. The Woman In Red comes to mind (full frontal Kelly LeBrock!)

Times most certainly have changed, that's for damn sure.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by shinobipopcorn

They must not have been paying attention during Watership Down, The Secret of NIMH, or The Last Unicorn either. The last one has a saggy naked harpy, a terrorizing red bull, and, well, this tree:

[Show spoiler]

"There is no immortality...to a tree's love..."

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

What do you guys think about those parents who took their kids to see Logan (under 10 years old)? That movie was just brutal on a both an emotional and visual level.

I think any parent who would let a child see things like that, needs their priorities refocused. Kids are like sponges, absorbing everything with no context and then emulating it. Its a very sad reality that a lot of parents don't bother to check their kids' entertainment choices.

[ITDEFX101]

Die Hard 3.......yeah I remembered the sign was digital altered from I hate N***** to I hate everybody.

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Die Hard 3.......yeah I remembered the sign was digital altered from I hate N***** to I hate everybody.

I had to explain to several of my Japanese students that "that word" is not one they should use, and just because they hear it in music doesn't make it okay to say. It was awkward because how do you explain racism to a bunch of 9th graders who just listen to American music because it's cool?