I was reading the Sum of All Fears thread and I got to thinking about violence in movies. I am not one to preach about the ills of slasher films or even the over-the-top gore of some movies. Everyone pretty much knows that going in. What I wonder about are things like blowing up entire cities (Sum of All Fears) with nuclear weapons, wiping out tons of the population with tidal waves or death rays (Impact, Independence Day) and the seemingly pervasive poignant loss of life that has to happen in most films. I'm not talking about the "master gets killed so pupil must avenge his death" movies. I'm also not talking about the realistic loss of life in things like Saving Private Ryan. I'm talking about the death of the president's wife in Independence Day, the guy in Volcano who jumped into the lava to save someone, the mother in Dante's Peak whose legs were burned off by acid and who had to be left behind to die. Or Bruce Willis saying his last goodbye's to his daughter knowing he would die on the asteroid in Armaggedon. I grew up and watched a lot of scary, gorey and disturbing movies, but nothing seems as disturbing as the need to REALLY try and freak people out in these types of movies. How healthy can it possibly be to see Baltimore wiped off the map by a nuclear warhead? I don't ever recall a film that showed a nuclear weapon wiping out an entire city. I guess I wouldn't have as many problems with this type of thing if it was relegated to lesser-watched or cateogirzed films like slasher or horror movies. However, the very fact that the more disturbing moments are showing up in blockbuster films marketed to young men, particularly teens feels a little scary to me. It's like Bambi's mom dying on steroids. And, while we're at it, what is it with Disney films that feel the need to scare the living **** out of kids by killing animals and parents? That's just demented. Thoughts?
I never really thought about it that way. I think most of that is done to draw the audience into the movie, make them feel the emotional loss that everyone is experiencing. To make it more realistic. I usually don't think about the violence too much in movies. But it never seems exagerated to me when you compare it to the real world. They actually didn't focus on the loss of lifes or effects of the nuclear explosion in the Sum of All Fears too much. Also, to be specific, remember that the bomb in SOAF was smaller than the bomb used at Hiroshima and was actually very small, so the damage was not as bad as it seemed. Other movies that devistated a city or area with nukes: Independence Day - they nuked the Houston area True Lies - they nuked the Florida Keys The Peacemaker - Nuked a Russian countryside, almost nuked NYC The Day After - nuked Lawrence, Kansas and the US Red Dawn - major parts of US nuked The Miracle Mile - LA is Nuked, so is rest of US By Dawn's Early Light - Washington and other cities are hit by nukes. This is actually one of my favorits movie genres.
I agree that they are playing on emotions. It sells tickets and DVD's. But, it isn't realistic by a long shot. When has anything Jerry Bruckheimer ever done come even remotely close to reality? If it were really about reality, I doubt very many people would watch with a few exceptions like Saving Private Ryan or Apocolypse Now. But, those were great films as well as popular one's. You said you don't think about it. Does that type of desensitization worry you at all? Do you think if you saw some type of violence in real life you would react more emotionally? Plus, I wonder how much further they can go. I mean, what could possibly be next?
You said you don't think about it. Does that type of desensitization worry you at all? Do you think if you saw some type of violence in real life you would react more emotionally? In terms of movies like Sum of All Fears, the violence is done to be realistic, at least given the make-believe situation they are in. It's not really done to be gory or for excessive effects. As for the above, I think it's clear we react differently. If you saw a movie that had the WTCs destroyed (before 9/11), you might have thought it the same as you do Baltimore being nuked in SoAF. However, we all know that our real world reactions were quite different. Movies like that also clearly make the perpetrators into the bad guys. If I was to be concerned with movie violence, I would be more concerned with the movies that portray everyday violence in a positive light. That's the type of thing that would desensitize people in a way that might actually affect everyday lives.
Bruckheimer tries too hard sometimes to get to the audience emotionally. He has based several of his movies on real events though, like Black Hawk Down and Pearl Harbor. I actually enjoy most of his movies. When I watch movies, I expect the violence and that's why it usually doesn't bother me. It is always in the back of my mind that this is a movie, it is not real. The realistic movies like Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List are very emotional. Real Life is not a problem for me, I am not desensitized to it, yet? I thought the movies actually did go to the next level when they did Armageddon and Deep Impact, that was the whole world ending. How much more violent can you get?
"Independence Day - they nuked the Houston area" Ah yes, I remember seeing this film for the first time when I was in Houston for a brief time in '96. The whole audience erupted in a kind of nervous laughter when they mentioned Houston. Pretty amusing... That kind of thing never happens up here...
Yea I remembered that scene also in ID4. Wasnt there a exit sign that said "University of Houston"? Thought that was cool since it was my future school. As for violence, its not too bad these days. Anything is possible and the people in Hollywood are using their WILDEST imaginations. The emotional things in most of the movies these days, are usually unexpected. OK, maybe some but the scenes like Armageddon, ID4, and Bambi were just unexpected. But I would like to complain that these are going wayy overboard in alot of movies these days. I can say the one that REALLY threw me off was Robert DeNiro in 15 Minutes.
Alright, let me ask another question then. Is the violence <i>necessary</i>? For example, does anyone believe that Hitchcock films would have been scarier if they had included more gore than just seeing blood go down a drain? Star Wars may be the greatest action adventure movie ever made but it didn't require the kind of violence we see in ID4, which was, by the way, made by filmmakers insipired by Star Wars as kids. Perhaps the most talked-about and watched action movie of the past 10 years is the Matrix yet there was very little gore or violence that went over the line. It was mostly bad guy v. good guy stuff and it was still exciting as hell. The Mummy was one of the highest grossing films in recent years and it, like the original Indiana Jones, was not really gorey or shocking at all. I guess I just figure most films don't really need the violence that is in them. They use the violence as a way to propel the action in the movie rather than as a reaction to what happens. The difference is violence for violence sake instead of violence as a natural reaction - like a fight scene in a kung fu movie for example. The better the film, the less necessary violence becomes in almost every case. The worse the film, the more necessary it is to rely on violence to sell tickets.
For the most part, that is true. They also rely on gratuitous sex/nudity, gutter humor, and excessive profanity... As long as these flicks sell tix, you can expect them to continue to push the boundaries to new levels...
Houston will be fine as long as Behad doesn't put his feet up on the console and "accidentally" hit the self-destruct button.
Well, I think in movies like Independence Day and Armageddon, you know what you're paying for, a fun action movie that will try to have scenes that either tug at your heartstrings or try to get you worked up in some way. I saw The Sum of All Fears (an outstanding movie) on Friday, and I was impressed about how impacted I was by the "violence". Let me ask any of you who saw ID4 if you were affected by the 9/11 tragedies? I was. I waited and waited for July 2, 1996, because I was so terribly excited about that movie. The trailers were some of the coolest things I've ever seen. I mean, big alien ships destroying our biggest cities??? Sweet!!! I was even excited about Armageddon, but not to the point that I was moved in any way by that horrible last scene before Bruce Willis' death. Still, I saw the movie a couple of times, and all in all, I enjoyed it. I remember laying in bed, hitting snooze a couple of times before having to get up for work. My phone rings and on the other end is my mother telling me about hearing of a plane crash into the World Trace Center. I immediately turned on CNN in time to see the second plane smashing into the South Tower. I watched in horror as two of our national landmarks collapsed to the ground. Tears ran down my face as I tried to get in touch with my other loved ones because I didn't know what was next. To this day, I can't really believed it happened...I still wish it was a dream. I watched all of this happen after watching numerous movies that "glorified" violence and the loss of life and luckily I was not desensitized enough to shed many tears. And watching The Sum of All Fears simply made me realize that the destruction of an entire city is something that could very well happen in my lifetime. Will having seen it on a large screen in a fictionalized movie make me any less sad about the loss of millions of lives? Absolutely not.
The question isn't the violence. It's the movie. Does it work for the film? And that isn't even the same question as whether or not its necessary. When a film banks only on pointless violence or special effects, it's pretty obvious -- because it sucks. The violence that you mentioned isn't supposed to be realistic. That's the point of those types of movies. The idea of people sacrificing themselve, widespread threats and heroic deeds because of it - that's the kind of things the disaster/action flicks are based on. As such, they are as big a part of those types of works as comedy is to a Woody Allen picture. (Usually.) It has to be something fairly drastic before I can point to excessive violence in movies. I believe much more in responsibility for yourselves, and how you were raised. I see cities destroyed in ID4, and the only way it effects me is that it makes you want the heroes to succeed. That's the point. It doesn't make me think that shooting up a supermarket is suddenly a good idea.
I have been concerned about violence in movies for a while, but not the sci-fi mass destruction type. My main concern is when loss of life (in a more life-like scenario) is treated with such disrespect and lack of concern. For example, when the 'bad' guy gets killed, then the protagonist cracks and joke and goes out for a pizza. What is that? Some one just died. Some one's child, and possibly parent. I did not always feel this way, but I tried to step back and test my perspective. It always makes me think of Columbine. I don't think adults understand how 'lost' many teens are and how a constant barrage of seemingly meaningless death can effect them.
I agree films are become too gory. Is it neccessary to see guts and blood all over the screen? Why do you have to see brains being splattered everywhere? I find it pretty sick sometimes and very pointless except to attract the audience.
I was thinking the same thing. It seems to me that taking a life (no matter how "evil" that person might be) in any situation is not something to be taken lightly. And when someone's death is a set-up for a one-liner in a movie (or any entertainment medium), I think it cheapens life to some degree. As far as gore in movies, I am a firm believer in the more the better. If people feel inclined to watch (for their own entertainment) characters die, then they should see what dying actually entails. I think alot fewer people would have enjoyed ID4 if they had to see footage of charred and crushed bodies. Same goes for the other meteor movie (the one where Morgan Freeman was the President) if they had to see the bloated corpses of everyone that drowned from the tidal wave. That's not to say that every action flick should be purged of all death and turned into an episode of Mr. Roger's Neighborhood. Just don't treat death/violence as an afterthought.
I think movie violence is good because it is a fantasy world which can depict certain scenarios to happen if something in real-life really happened. This is a good thing because it tells a lesson... Can we look at movies and say: "wow", if we do this then we can prevent that from happening, or if we don't do that, we can stop this vile act from occuring. Movies are for me at least a big part entertaining, and I find it disturbing when "everyone gets wiped out" or such sadness is at the welm just to make a story...(like Armageddon) and in that regard if it seems overdone, I will avoid the movie. With that being said, there are some movies that wouldn't be complete (Gladiator, Braveheart, Black hawk down) without the necessary violence and the use makes it the good movie that it is... I am not sure if I can describe it in words but there are some movies that cross that "line" and movies that I enjoy which don't (like the latter movies I mentioned)... Other than that I agree with you, Jeff.
WARNING - POTENTIAL SUM OF ALL FEARS SPOILER I thought the violence in SOAF was very restrained with respect to the nuclear explosion. If you have seen the trailers, you know it's going to happen, yet when it does, it still sort of catches you by surprise. The scene lasted around 60 seconds. It was very powerful and intense yet you did not see a lot of destruction or gore. I thought it was very well done. As I have gotten older, I have come to appreciate the violence less and less. For instance, I enjoyed 'Day of the Dead' many years ago, but I doubt I would now. I used to never miss an Arnold movie, but I've yet to see The 6th Day. On the other hand, the violence in Saving Pvt. Ryan was essential in order to understand the horrors that those men endured. In my opinion, the opening scene turned a good movie into a great movie even though it was difficult to watch.
So I am guessing that you aren't a fan of Die Hard 1, 2, or 3? Yippy-Ki-Yeah Motha F**** bobrek - the 6th day was a decent flick, worth the rent.
I don't understand, Jeff. Are you talking about gore/blood here or just simple violence? Matrix had plenty of violence. There was an ungodly amount of fighting in that movie. Mummy had plenty of violence, there were people killed by mummies, and mummies were killed and there was plenty of fighting thrown in. As for Psycho, sure you just saw blood going down the drain, but the woman WAS still brutally murdered in the shower, so I would still call that violence. It seems to me like you are arguing more for how the violence is shown on screen rather than for an overall decrease in the violence shown. I agree that often times less blood/guts makes a movie better in some ways, but I don't think calling for less violence overall is going to necessarily increase the quality of movies.
