Double standards, anyone? (76)

That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. But one person's light entertainment is anothers nightmare. Personal preference and all that.

I can't see what is wrong with people appreciating horror films as light entertainment; I do myself. But as long as they are not "real snuff" movies and you are sane enough not want to go on a mass-murdering spree or act out any of these horror films, the problem comes where?

"Social order at the expense of liberty is hardly a bargain."

Edited 29 Jun 09, 2:49 PM by LousyReputation

the point I was trying to make is that it is the focus that makes these things damaging. because its the death and murder alone that makes them interesting. If something is well written, strong plot, absorbs the reader, has sub plots and all that that you would want in a good book then I see no issue it them having death in them, as long as there is more than that to it.

equally I don't recall any of Shakespeare's characters having burning petrol poured down their throat. I don't mind death within stories, often it is necessary to keep the plot flowing, its the unashamed flaunting of murder that I disagree with, when you go to a movie just to see what new ways they have come up with to kill somone, not because you liked the look of the plot.

surely you find more than just horror entertaining?

“Curiouser and curiouser!” said Alice

Oh. My. God.

Is there anything else that you think "we" might able to do?

My flabber has just gasted.

well in which case can we please have porn laws that reflect this. I was hoping someone might focus on the last part of my post where I asked how we can equate the two. you may not mind horror films, but I presume you also aprove of extreme porn in general. wouldnt you agree that horror as more potential for damadge? at least the two should be judged alike and legilated so. either you ban horror or you legalise both. I hoped that point came accross better than it clearly has. I did not mean to critisise people individually for their tastes simply that I see more potential for harm in horror and would have thought it should be regulated in regards to this.

“Curiouser and curiouser!” said Alice

Many, many, many studies have shown that there is no connection from watching anything to then committing an act. These people who are saying they watched the film then copied it were going to kill the person anyway. The movie just gave them an idea of how to do it, but if they didn't watch it, they would've killed him in a different way.

Also horror films were banned for a long time during the 80s and 90s. The result of this is a retardation in the UK film industry; as well as the general public's film knowledge. Films such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre were hugely influential for many directors in the US, and not just the horror directors. Because it was banned in the UK until this decade, it's meant that most UK directors couldn't learn from it. And let's not forget the amount of money that such movies made for many studios, money that UK studios could have really done with.

The other upshot of such censorship is the related fallout. Thanks to the video nasty scare, it meant that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles had to be renamed to Hero Turtles, and many scenes cut out of the film due to nun-chucks being present (they were, and I think still are, illegal to show in UK cinema since kids might copy them somehow).

The biggest case in the UK of horror movies affecting behavior was the Jamie Bulger case, where Child's Play 3 was meant to have been responsible for making the kids kill that baby. However, nowhere in the film was a scene of someone putting batteries up someone's ass. Nowhere was a scene of the killer putting someone on railway lines. Nowhere was anyone throwing rocks at and pummeling someone else. Let alone a small child. If horror movies were really responsible for making people go out and kill, then there would be a thousand cases that the media would love to inflate and make an example of. The same applies to pornography. There isn't, and instead it's just a convenient scapegoat.

This argument has been going on for hundreds of years; before movies apparently books and music made people kill. Hell, supposedly hearing the interval at the start of Black Sabbath will drive you mad and cause the devil to appear - it was banned from music for centuries. The Beatles will cause the downfall of society. Etc etc. The reality is that people are the only ones responsible for themselves.

They that love not Tobacco & Boies were fooles.

As for the notion that it's fine if it's worthy (well written, absorbing, sub-plots blah, blah), who are you to decide what is worthy? Not all art is high art but all art probably does have it's place.

--- Ha!

This gets even more complicated. It is my understanding that the battery thing was actually invented by our glorious tabloid press, and did not happen. Apparently, two small children abducting an even smaller child and then beating him to death just isn't shocking enough.

This thread is taking some very odd directions, but all of them lead to the same path: what a very, very, very, very, very, very, very fucked up world this is...

So should death metal also be banned? Especially bands like Cannibal Corpse where most of the songs are just about death or killing?

Songs by Cannibal Corpse should be banned because, and lets be honest, they are a bit rubbish

--- Ha!