RE: Give Me Excess of Violence

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why?

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 12:11:39 AM

porntrooper

Posts: 2516
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

Violence in movies is an art form.

To create new and exciting ways to kill a character in a current horror/action movie is challenging and tests the creativity and imagination of the people involved in the film. To simply off a lead by poisoning their tea isn't enough, it's been done already and offers nothing new. It's the same as recycling a popular joke from an old comedy into a new one.
Instead, to rip out someone's erect dick and use it to stab them in the eye repeatedly to death is at least a breath of fresh air. And should be applauded, as you would to the cinematography/music/writing of an acclaimed drama.

Really? Or are you taking the piss? Your taking the piss right?

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to vad3r)

Post #: 31

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 12:11:46 AM

rich

Posts: 4180
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe

Adding lots of violence and trying to emulate the 80s in a modern film < an actual 80s film

Which is why I don't like Rambo IV. It's trying ..... but it's too late to have any real soul. It isn't just the body count that made the original ones good entertainment, there are other elements that are impossible to replicate in a film made now. This goes for any other late to the party sequels. Interestingly, I got a nice Robocop vibe from District 9... but its hard to pinpoint the reason. Perhaps acting style or the script and dialogue? In the end, excessive violence is not the only ingredient, and people seem to forget that.

< Message edited by rich -- 2/2/2012 12:14:46 AM >

_____________________________

THINGS
WRITINGS

(in reply to Deviation)

Post #: 32

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 12:13:29 AM

vad3r

Posts: 4286
Joined: 3/9/2010
From: Close to Mod HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

Violence in movies is an art form.

To create new and exciting ways to kill a character in a current horror/action movie is challenging and tests the creativity and imagination of the people involved in the film. To simply off a lead by poisoning their tea isn't enough, it's been done already and offers nothing new. It's the same as recycling a popular joke from an old comedy into a new one.
Instead, to rip out someone's erect dick and use it to stab them in the eye repeatedly to death is at least a breath of fresh air. And should be applauded, as you would to the cinematography/music/writing of an acclaimed drama.

Why? Why is inventing a bizarre and blood-drenched way of killing someone something that should be applauded, even in fiction? No-one does that.

EDIT: Also, lay off the "I hoped you died" shit.

Because it's original, and originality in any department of film deserves praise.
Since the birth of cinema to the current day how many deaths, jokes, love scenes, songs etc. has there been on film? It's not easy to think of new ways for people to die. Instead of recycling and being safe (PG-13), R rated horrors push the boundaries and show the audience something they've never seen before (by imaginative use of blood/guts/gore) and this excites and satisfies them. That the film makers have said FUUU to the $ and are only interested in making the movie they as an audience would want to see, whether or not it's a success critically or commercially.

quote:

EDIT: Also, lay off the "I hoped you died" shit.

He started it.

_____________________________

Single Virgin

Mod Candidate 2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.

(in reply to Pigeon Army)

Post #: 33

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 12:18:16 AM

Deviation

Posts: 26923
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

Because it's original, and originality in any department of film deserves praise.
Since the birth of cinema to the current day how many deaths, jokes, love scenes, songs etc. has there been on film? It's not easy to think of new ways for people to die. Instead of recycling and being safe (PG-13), R rated horrors push the boundaries and show the audience something they've never seen before (by imaginative use of blood/guts/gore) and this excites and satisfies them. That the film makers have said FUUU to the $ and are only interested in making the movie they as an audience would want to see, whether or not it's a success critically or commercially.

But you've again failed to explain WHY something like horrific deaths and violence should be acclaimed or considered why excessive violence, by itself and not as part of the film, should be a great thing to accliam. Also, let's be a bit real here, explicit violence has hardly been the biggest opponent to box office success. The Saw series and the money the films mentioned here made prove that.

quote:

He started it.

While I went with it, I didn't start it. I said that quip because I thought you were banned or left the forum forever (which on internet terms, would be the same as dying) hence making that rough joke. I didn't hope you died in that comment. You did hope I died.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 2/2/2012 12:21:43 AM >

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to vad3r)

Post #: 34

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 12:24:51 AM

Pigeon Army

Posts: 14611
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

Violence in movies is an art form.

To create new and exciting ways to kill a character in a current horror/action movie is challenging and tests the creativity and imagination of the people involved in the film. To simply off a lead by poisoning their tea isn't enough, it's been done already and offers nothing new. It's the same as recycling a popular joke from an old comedy into a new one.
Instead, to rip out someone's erect dick and use it to stab them in the eye repeatedly to death is at least a breath of fresh air. And should be applauded, as you would to the cinematography/music/writing of an acclaimed drama.

Why? Why is inventing a bizarre and blood-drenched way of killing someone something that should be applauded, even in fiction? No-one does that.

EDIT: Also, lay off the "I hoped you died" shit.

Because it's original, and originality in any department of film deserves praise.
Since the birth of cinema to the current day how many deaths, jokes, love scenes, songs etc. has there been on film? It's not easy to think of new ways for people to die. Instead of recycling and being safe (PG-13), R rated horrors push the boundaries and show the audience something they've never seen before (by imaginative use of blood/guts/gore) and this excites and satisfies them. That the film makers have said FUUU to the $ and are only interested in making the movie they as an audience would want to see, whether or not it's a success critically or commercially.

A) There is nothing spectacularly wrong with familiarity, nor is there some special thing that makes originality inherently better. I would much rather watch a well-told classical horror than one with wholly original murders but an absence of anything approaching intelligence or taste.

B) Pushing boundaries isn't necessarily an indicator of quality, nor is it an indicator of filmmakers making the film they want to make - take the Saw series, for example. The boundaries pushed there are wholly superficial, going one step further on the sadism of the kills than they did last time because it's proven to sell. Low-budget R-rated horror is probably one of the most saturated genres right now because of the Saw films. It's long stopped being envelope-pushing and started being mimicry.

quote:

quote:

EDIT: Also, lay off the "I hoped you died" shit.

He started it.

He said he thought you'd died, not that he'd hoped you died. Reading comprehension, man.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation

No.

(in reply to vad3r)

Post #: 35

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 12:29:18 AM

vad3r

Posts: 4286
Joined: 3/9/2010
From: Close to Mod HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

You did hope I died.

Briefly, but have since learnt you can never die.

_____________________________

Single Virgin

Mod Candidate 2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.

(in reply to Deviation)

Post #: 36

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 12:35:31 AM

porntrooper

Posts: 2516
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

It seems PA's attempt at actual movie musing didnt last long then......

You know, one reason I sometimes prefer a bit of blood letting in my action movies, is that it sometimes can help give a real fist on the air 'yea, take that you evil nazi twat' feel. I'm thinking mostly of Indy Jones here. In the original trilogy there is some pretty hardcore bloodletting and violence, bullets hit and there is blood, peoples heads melt and blood sprays when people are tricked into huge propellors and there is an impact with it that you just feel the 'yea, go INdy!' vibe, and in part 4, that is somewhat missing. The visceral aspect of the violence is gone and some of the impact to the viewer goes too. In a recent comic book film... Capt America.. there is a scene that is very Indy Jones, where a bad guy gets blitzed and there is a neat blood trail and on screen viscera. I dont mind admitting I did a minds eye fist pump!

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to vad3r)

Post #: 37

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 12:43:53 AM

DazDaMan

Posts: 10109
Joined: 8/9/2006
From: Penicuik - a right shithole

I like Rambo 4 because, rather than going for the cartoonish violence of the second and third entries, it goes for the jugular. A Browning .5in machine-gun really will chop you in half if you're unfortunate enough to stand in its way. I actually prefer Stallone's film to Spielberg's when it comes to realistic war sequences. Saving Private Ryan is realistic because that's what people want - Rambo is realistic because that's how it IS....

I don't NEED a film to be gory to be entertaining but, if it's a film where violence is expected, you kinda want it to happen because that's what you've grown to expect. Die Hard 4.0 for instance.

In fact, in recent years I've grown out of watching a lot of the recent horror flicks because all they want to show you is an inventive death scene. If I want decent gore and a good story, I'll go and look for something in my DVD collection...

_____________________________

You fucking fuckers are gonna do what I say or I'm going to stick my foot so far up your assholes you'll rue the day you crawled out of your mother's twat!

(in reply to Pigeon Army)

Post #: 38

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 12:47:44 AM

Spaldron

Posts: 10487
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

I'm still getting over that fact Vad3r is here.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to DazDaMan)

Post #: 39

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 12:50:24 AM

Rgirvan44

Posts: 18934
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: DazDaMan

I like Rambo 4 because, rather than going for the cartoonish violence of the second and third entries, it goes for the jugular. A Browning .5in machine-gun really will chop you in half if you're unfortunate enough to stand in its way. I actually prefer Stallone's film to Spielberg's when it comes to realistic war sequences. Saving Private Ryan is realistic because that's what people want - Rambo is realistic because that's how it IS....

I don't NEED a film to be gory to be entertaining but, if it's a film where violence is expected, you kinda want it to happen because that's what you've grown to expect. Die Hard 4.0 for instance.

In fact, in recent years I've grown out of watching a lot of the recent horror flicks because all they want to show you is an inventive death scene. If I want decent gore and a good story, I'll go and look for something in my DVD collection...

I agree about the violence of Rambo, but would say that he was still a bit of a super-human, whereas the guys of Ryan were presented a little more realisitically.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

(in reply to DazDaMan)

Post #: 40

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 12:59:08 AM

Hood_Man

Posts: 11369
Joined: 30/9/2005

I'm a sucker for some blood and guts

I wouldn't expect to see Hugh Grant feeding on entrails or slicing brides to pieces in something like 4 Weddings, but in The Expendables for instance I loved the moment when Dolph Lundgrens gun blew a guy apart in the first few minutes.

Also, while the latest Rambo bored me to tears for the most part, when the violence kicked in at the end I was like a kid again killing ants with a magnifying glass in my garden.

It's like most things really, if the filmmakers make an effort to get the blood looking realistic and use plenty of mincemeat or whatever it is they use to make guts look realistic, and then are really imaginative in how they make it ridiculous, it's terrific!

I don't really have any deep or meaningful understanding of the realism or artistic merits of such violence, to me it's just an enormous amount of fun.

Then you get Saving Private Ryan which uses violence in a completely different context, and even now after nearly 14 years the beach landing opening is still one of the roughest moments in film. Knowing that these things actually happened and people really suffered like that, and Spielbergs documentary style of filmmaking makes it a completely different experience, but much more rewarding.

I guess if you want to make an impact with violence you've either gotta show it properly or hint at it, like the "Ear Scene" in Reservoir Dogs. DOnt pussy foot around it by showing someone with a bit of ketchup on them

(in reply to porntrooper)

Post #: 41

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 1:13:25 AM

Spaldron

Posts: 10487
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: DazDaMan

I like Rambo 4 because, rather than going for the cartoonish violence of the second and third entries, it goes for the jugular. A Browning .5in machine-gun really will chop you in half if you're unfortunate enough to stand in its way. I actually prefer Stallone's film to Spielberg's when it comes to realistic war sequences. Saving Private Ryan is realistic because that's what people want - Rambo is realistic because that's how it IS....

I don't NEED a film to be gory to be entertaining but, if it's a film where violence is expected, you kinda want it to happen because that's what you've grown to expect. Die Hard 4.0 for instance.

In fact, in recent years I've grown out of watching a lot of the recent horror flicks because all they want to show you is an inventive death scene. If I want decent gore and a good story, I'll go and look for something in my DVD collection...

Agree with most of this. The violence in Rambo 4 was extreme but genuine to the real life conflict it was based around.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to DazDaMan)

Post #: 42

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 7:04:41 AM

horribleives

Posts: 4251
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

It seems PA's attempt at actual movie musing didnt last long then......

You know, one reason I sometimes prefer a bit of blood letting in my action movies, is that it sometimes can help give a real fist on the air 'yea, take that you evil nazi twat' feel. I'm thinking mostly of Indy Jones here. In the original trilogy there is some pretty hardcore bloodletting and violence, bullets hit and there is blood, peoples heads melt and blood sprays when people are tricked into huge propellors and there is an impact with it that you just feel the 'yea, go INdy!' vibe, and in part 4, that is somewhat missing. The visceral aspect of the violence is gone and some of the impact to the viewer goes too. In a recent comic book film... Capt America.. there is a scene that is very Indy Jones, where a bad guy gets blitzed and there is a neat blood trail and on screen viscera. I dont mind admitting I did a minds eye fist pump!

Dunno about 'go Indy!', whenever I watch that bit I can only think 'poor Bomber'.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to porntrooper)

Post #: 43

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 7:19:30 AM

homersimpson_esq

Posts: 19969
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield

Seriously vad3r, it goes like this:

1. compose post.
2. check post is exactly as you want.
3. submit post.
4. if you do find a mistake, just edit the post. There's no need to post and delete multiple times.

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

TREK WARS

(in reply to horribleives)

Post #: 44

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 8:15:41 AM

DancingClown

Posts: 3693
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

I agree about the violence of Rambo, but would say that he was still a bit of a super-human, whereas the guys of Ryan were presented a little more realisitically.

Exactly. There's nothing even remotely realistic about Rambo IV. It may have a context and setting that is based on current affairs - and it may graphically display what it could be like to really be shredded by bullets - but the story itself is still utter fantasy, and satiates a need or desire to see heroes destroying brutality and fascism virtually single-handedly, and wishing it was that easy, especially now that thanks to a proliferation of news media we know where these kind of villains are and read about their atrocities daily. Rambo may also originally have his roots in a very realistic political situation, that of the persecution and neglect of Vietnam vets, but he became a super-hero. And he still is in Rambo IV, despite the violence being apparently more 'realistic' looking. It's still a comic-book.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DazDaMan

Saving Private Ryan is realistic because that's what people want - Rambo is realistic because that's how it IS....

I would argue it's the other way round. Most people don't want to see young men, many of them volunteers, being slaughtered so realistically on Omaha Beach, although arguably it is needed in order to understand the nature of the hell they went through, especially in contrast to the somewhat bloodless WW2 movies that had preceded it. In Rambo IV that level of realistic violence isn't really needed because it's still really just a cartoon, but the violence is wanted because like many of the other Rambo movies the violence is vengeful, and we want to see it dished out to the kind of brutal bastards around whom the story revolves. Which is exactly why in Rambo IV there is that shocking prologue detailing the various atrocities of the Burmese regime. Once we see that we want to see Rambo annihilate them in the most graphic way possible. Which is where the realism abruptly ends and we're back into fantasy.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to Rgirvan44)

Post #: 45

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 8:53:33 AM

DazDaMan

Posts: 10109
Joined: 8/9/2006
From: Penicuik - a right shithole

Good point.

If I wanted realistic violence in a war film, I would want to see an aerial combat film set in either the First of Second World Wars. Apart from, say, Howard Hughes' Hell's Angels, or Jack Gold's Aces High, or Guy Hamilton's Battle of Britain, very few air-combat films show what happened to pilots under fire. An incendiary round/cannon shell in the fuel tank, for instance....

The ONLY production, thus far, to really show that was the TV series Piece of Cake, back in 1988.

_____________________________

You fucking fuckers are gonna do what I say or I'm going to stick my foot so far up your assholes you'll rue the day you crawled out of your mother's twat!

(in reply to DancingClown)

Post #: 46

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 9:00:20 AM

DazDaMan

Posts: 10109
Joined: 8/9/2006
From: Penicuik - a right shithole

On another note - 14 YEARS since Saving Private Ryan....?!

Fuck!

_____________________________

You fucking fuckers are gonna do what I say or I'm going to stick my foot so far up your assholes you'll rue the day you crawled out of your mother's twat!

(in reply to DazDaMan)

Post #: 47

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 9:06:30 AM

jobloffski

Posts: 1847
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere

Wrote a grown up post, and the bastard got timed out.

so, in a nutshell, it depends on the viewer.

Using the Rambo example, it becomes amusing, because it totally goes way beyond what people expect to see in a film and the mind has to be amused by such things almost as a defensive reaction to the mind destroying horror that would be felt if it was real.And fear and amusement are very similar physiologically, and the reaction of fear becomes amusement if you don't turn something off or run away like the adrenalin would make you if you responded that way, because basically you are perfectly safe when watching a film, so fear goes away and chuckles arrive, once the initial shock of what you see passes. However, at the start of the film, when defenceless men women and children are being graphically maimed, you;d have to be pretty sick not to be appalled (and that's how Stallone sets up the in film 'need' for someone like Rambo, of course, as has already been noted in the thread).

AND you can also look at the gun based body choppage in Rambo in the context of his big speech in First Blood, mentioning friend's bodies coming apart, and see the sequence through Rambo's eyes to understand how damaged he is, and why he cant go near the woman who seems to soften towards him a lot at the end: his nightmares come from seeing bodies torn apart, and in that sequence in Rambo the very thing of his nightmares is happening, over and over, and he's the one causing it to happen.

Under the 'cartoon' there's still the condemnation of what war does to the people sent to do the fighting, depending on how you choose to view the film. Just as someone killing Zombies with a Lawnmower is hilarious or unwatchable, depending on how the viewer is inclined to be amused or appalled by certain things (and sometimes whether the film intends that people should be amused or appalled is irrelevant to how people, from their individual pov, react to it, and we can get annoyed if someone laughs at such times in a cinema, or people not getting the humour can be freaked out if someone laughs when Patrick Bateman is chasing a woman down a hallway with a chainsaw, as me and two mates did, in an otherwise silent full house

).

Or some shit like dat

_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

(in reply to DazDaMan)

Post #: 48

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 9:31:26 AM

clownfoot

Posts: 7751
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: The ickle town of Fuck, Austria

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

B) Pushing boundaries isn't necessarily an indicator of quality, nor is it an indicator of filmmakers making the film they want to make - take the Saw series, for example. The boundaries pushed there are wholly superficial, going one step further on the sadism of the kills than they did last time because it's proven to sell. Low-budget R-rated horror is probably one of the most saturated genres right now because of the Saw films. It's long stopped being envelope-pushing and started being mimicry.

This can only be a good thing, for if the excessive violence of recent movies is replicating the 80's then that means Raimi should finally get round to making Evil Dead 4 to spoof and satirise the genre. Just like he did with Evil Dead 2. In the eighties. It can only be a good thing...

_____________________________

Evil Mod 2 - Hail he who has fallen from the sky to deliver us from the terror of the Deadites!

http://www.thepixelempire.net/index.html
http://clownfootsinversemidas.blogspot.com/

(in reply to Pigeon Army)

Post #: 49

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 9:34:09 AM

Timon

Posts: 14551
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

Head cut off - shown off camera/implied = PG-13 (for kids)
Head cut off - show on camera, blood squirting out, brain dangling = R (for adults)

One movie is trying not to offend anyone and have as wide an audience as possible, the other doesn't give a shit and is therefore cool.

Psycho shows none of this. Sometimes less is more...(despite what Cameron famously said)

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Twitter: @timonsingh

(in reply to vad3r)

Post #: 50

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 1:21:20 PM

DONOVAN KURTWOOD

Posts: 7728
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

The last few years have seen a resurgence in the popularity of the hyper-violent, hyper-masculine action film - if the runaway success of The Expendables (commercially, anyway) wasn't any indication, a slew of films like Predators, Rambo, Killer Elite and Machete. It's also seen a backlash against the PG-13 action film, under the assumption that these films are being 'held back' because of their rating - the uproar around Live Free or Die Hard's and The Expendables 2's ratings were and are notable for their internet ferocity. But the question remains - why is this the case? What is it in our society that has triggered this throwback to 1980s excess, films that represent a time when greed was rife, Wall Street was admired by millions, Reagan and Thatcher (and their neo-conservative policies) were increasingly popular and the Cold War was at one of its most antagonistic points?

There are political and social parallels between now and the 1980s, this much is true - the increasingly loud right-wing presence in modern politics, the frustration of a public caught in an economic downturn, the crazy technological developments happening around us - but is that all that's causing this throwback to 1980s excess and exploitation? Or is it something more basic? Is it, as matty_b suggested, a result of a kneejerk rejection of the more introspective analyses of violence offered by gung-ho symbols like Eastwood, Willis and Gibson in the mid-to-late 1990s? Given that this New Breed of 1980s-style hyperviolent action films also try to recall the likes of Unforgiven and Lethal Weapon in their introspection (take, for example, the scenes with Mickey Rourke in The Expendables), is this a correct conclusion to draw? Or is it just our insatiable thirst for well-choreographed blood and guts? And if so, what does that say about us as a society?

See i don't think the uber violent, 80's style action movie has 'come back' as much as your above post suggests. I'm craving more movies that remind me of the violent 80's but don't think there has been that much of a resurgence. I mean sure every now and then we get a violent movie, but IMO they're still fairly few and far between. I watched The Exterminator last night and it reminded me of how different things are now.

A lot of movies in the 80's were still feeding off Vietnam, Hollywood doesn't really have that to draw upon now.

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to Pigeon Army)

Post #: 51

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 2:05:07 PM

Super Hans

Posts: 2307
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Watford

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

Blood and guts > no blood and guts.

Cheers for the insight, but would you care to say why?

In horror and action movies people are killed. In real life if you are killed there will be blood and guts. Removing the blood and guts will remove the realism.

But are these films necessarily realistic? The Expendables has Terry Crews practically blowing up buildings with a shotgun. Rambo has the above gif - basically decapitating someone with a knife in one smooth movement. This is heightened where violence without blood and guts is neutered - how can you possibly argue that this is more realistic when it's simply the other end of the scale?

Further, if this violence is more realistic, why is it therefore more enjoyable? Surely violence that is more realistic should be more disturbing and unenjoyable because it's closer to the common experiences we share as humans? Surely the violence that is less realistic would be more enjoyable because it's not as closely linked with real images of human pain and suffering?

Thanks for clarifying that Rambo bit - I've been sat watching it thinking to myself "I can't remember the bit where he punches someone's head off!!!"

I don't know if the desire for more violent action movies is just us wanting to see more of what we had in the 80's/90's, where a lot of the classic actioners had a bit more of a kick - Predator, Terminator, Die Hard, Arnie/Sly/Willis type stuff in general. I'm not sure I can offer much in terms of that say's about us pschologically, but I think a lot of people just yearn to see more action films like we had in their heyday - simple as.

_____________________________

"Its staring at you in the face Mark, there's only one more sex to try..."

(in reply to Pigeon Army)

Post #: 52

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 2:17:19 PM

matty_b

Posts: 13134
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

See i don't think the uber violent, 80's style action movie has 'come back' as much as your above post suggests. I'm craving more movies that remind me of the violent 80's but don't think there has been that much of a resurgence. I mean sure every now and then we get a violent movie, but IMO they're still fairly few and far between. I watched The Exterminator last night and it reminded me of how different things are now.

A lot of movies in the 80's were still feeding off Vietnam, Hollywood doesn't really have that to draw upon now.

But there's Iraq and Afghanistan - is there that much difference in terms of what you're talking about?

And the bolded bit is what I think everyone would be interested to hear reasons for - why?

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)

Post #: 53

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 2:31:53 PM

DazDaMan

Posts: 10109
Joined: 8/9/2006
From: Penicuik - a right shithole

quote:

ORIGINAL: Super Hans

I don't know if the desire for more violent action movies is just us wanting to see more of what we had in the 80's/90's, where a lot of the classic actioners had a bit more of a kick - Predator, Terminator, Die Hard, Arnie/Sly/Willis type stuff in general.� I'm not sure I can offer much in terms of that say's about us pschologically, but I think a lot of people just yearn to see more action films like we had in their heyday - simple as.

This.

_____________________________

You fucking fuckers are gonna do what I say or I'm going to stick my foot so far up your assholes you'll rue the day you crawled out of your mother's twat!

(in reply to Super Hans)

Post #: 54

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 4:22:49 PM

horribleives

Posts: 4251
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

See i don't think the uber violent, 80's style action movie has 'come back' as much as your above post suggests. I'm craving more movies that remind me of the violent 80's but don't think there has been that much of a resurgence. I mean sure every now and then we get a violent movie, but IMO they're still fairly few and far between. I watched The Exterminator last night and it reminded me of how different things are now.

A lot of movies in the 80's were still feeding off Vietnam, Hollywood doesn't really have that to draw upon now.

But there's Iraq and Afghanistan - is there that much difference in terms of what you're talking about?

And the bolded bit is what I think everyone would be interested to hear reasons for - why?

Because he liked violent '80s movies?

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to matty_b)

Post #: 55

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 4:43:34 PM

Scott_

Posts: 3569
Joined: 26/6/2008
From: Leeds

The 80s and 90s gave us some of the best action films ever made, the 80's in particular was the golden age of action cinema. Aliens, Die Hard, The Terminator, Predator, Indy and more. The 90s gave us Hard Boiled, The Rock, Con Air etc, why wouldn't we want more films made like that? Rambo was a throwback to OTT action as was The Expendables, it's why alot of us enjoyed them so much but newer films similar to those are few and far between, its why the PG-13 EX2 news didn't go down too well and why The Raid is gonna be so fucking awesome.

_____________________________

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

Check out my top 21 films - http://www.empireonline.com/forum/tm.asp?m=3188740

360 Gamertag - SmokinFuzz

(in reply to horribleives)

Post #: 56

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 5:22:20 PM

Shifty Bench

Posts: 14754
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

Violence in movies is an art form.

To create new and exciting ways to kill a character in a current horror/action movie is challenging and tests the creativity and imagination of the people involved in the film. To simply off a lead by poisoning their tea isn't enough, it's been done already and offers nothing new. It's the same as recycling a popular joke from an old comedy into a new one.
Instead, to rip out someone's erect dick and use it to stab them in the eye repeatedly to death is at least a breath of fresh air. And should be applauded, as you would to the cinematography/music/writing of an acclaimed drama.

Really? Or are you taking the piss? Your taking the piss right?

*whispers* I think he is....*whispers*

_____________________________

Extended Edition- click (Ep 6:DSLR Film-making )

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b
You have a nice face, Shifty. A face I would have a cup of tea with.

(in reply to porntrooper)

Post #: 57

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 5:34:55 PM

jonson

Posts: 8111
Joined: 30/9/2005

See, I'm always wondering what films people refer to when they talk about excessive 80's violent film? I grew up on them, but nothing from the 80's has ever put me off violent films, nothing made me look away. I agree Murphy's death in Robocop is pretty brutal, but a particular scene in Snowtown which I saw recently went far, far beyond that.
I'm thinking I get mixed up with violence and gore. Gore, mainly due to CGI (always crap) and more creative ways of killing people, has certainly increased with the "gornography" shit which was popular in recent years (Saw, Hostel etc)
We could all easily name a dozen violent films from the 80's and 90's, but they were still few and far between, I think there's a lot of rose-tinted spectacles going on with actually how much gore and violence there was in those decades. For me a lot of this was down to being a video shop geek in the 80's, I could spend ages in the horror/action section, being drawn into the graphic and OTT covers (sometimes far more entertaining than the actual films) but still going fuck it, and grabbing the few films we knew were actually good.

To answer the question, I have no idea. If I read the blurb about a decent sounding action/horror film and see 12A on the back, I'll generally to say "no, it'll be shit" and move to the next one.

_____________________________

I've got all the Barbie ones!!!

Yeah but you're old. Really old. Old. Old. Old. Old.

(in reply to Shifty Bench)

Post #: 58

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 6:13:43 PM

Olaf

Posts: 23390
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41�N 93�W

Amateur sociology time: ultraviolent kill-everything-style actioners have historically been popular in times just after periods of cynicism/uncertainty towards the notion of conflict resolution through violence. Vietnam can be considered as the first modern war America 'lost' and so you can see a lot of films from that period portraying a healthy suspicion towards violence as problem solver (Bonnie & Clyde being the original New Hollywood film is one example, as are the more explicit responses to the war like Apocalypse Now and Platoon etc), followed by the inevitable backlash to this approach (compare First Blood to First Blood Part II). The same can be said for the manner in which 9/11 and Iraq/Afghanistan (also importantly, the way in which we consumed images of these events) brought a more fragmentary understanding of 'sides' and the rules of engagement, thus leading to action films from the period moving away from the clearly defined good guys/bad guys of the 80s (the Bourne trilogy, Nolan's Batman films come to mind as films where there seem to be enemies assailing our hero from a number of directions). The 1990s wrecks this cyclical pattern a bit, but this can possibly be put down to the fall of communism and subsequent western cheerleading of that late-capitalist end of history bollocks before said event strike (to borrow a term) is ended by 9/11.

On a related note, both the 1980s and the late 00s/early 10s are periods of significant social turmoil where a military campaign would be ineffectual: shooting people to ribbons is unlikely to solve the financial crisis, and the 80s was obviously a period where neither side wanted to lose but armed conflict was out of the question. Someone more intelligent than me can probably explain here how the easily resolved problems and unambiguous morality of Rambo/The Expendables are much more emotionally stablising than more provocative and ambivalent films. There are massive gaping holes in such an argument though so I don't wish to attach myself to closely to it.

< Message edited by Olaf -- 2/2/2012 6:14:02 PM >

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to Shifty Bench)

Post #: 59

RE: Give Me Excess of Violence - But Why? - 2/2/2012 6:28:38 PM

Keyser Sozzled

Posts: 5951
Joined: 1/10/2006
From: Dublin

Its a cycle. M own view is that the current trend, if it even it exists mind you, is a kickback against a more sanatised decade overall that was the 90's. Whilst it might seem odd that I am talking about the 90's rather than the 00's its because of the age of those in the industry.

Or something.

_____________________________

I have no idea who any of them are, apart from Terry Pratchett who I know has got a beard and keeps going on about killing himself but never does.

(in reply to Olaf)

Post #: 60