Burgold Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 This thread is about movies and to a lesser extent about tv journalism. It seems that today's writers wield a sledge hammer. They want to pound away at your senses with blood, gore, body parts, sexuality. They want to shock you with how "edgy" they can be. Well, I'm numb to it. I've seen too many necks slit and too many burning bodies, experienced too many hyperbolic diatribes. I know we have the technology to be impressive and make everything real, but that technology has made us weaker and lazier. In Shakespeare's day, violence happened offstage. The original purpose of the double line break... the characters in the story were having sex and you were not invited to be a peeping Tom. Now, I don't want to go that far back, but I do miss reparte (even if I can't spell it) I miss cleverness. I miss wit. That is gone from the movies these days replaced by vulgarity. In keeping it real, but forever upping the ante, all these spectacles are becoming predictable and predictable is boring. Look at horror genre, how much scarier is surprise and suspense? Today's horror are just gross, gore feasts, designed to make you lose your lunch, not your hair. The same goes with news analysis. If everything is an attrocity and end of the world then nothing is. Dial it back. Some screw ups are just funny and not catastrophes. I fear this literal and yet heightened reality we conjure. It immunizes us from shock, but it doesn't protect us from its effects. Look at the "reality" of Keaton or Chaplin or the wordplay of the 1940's. Sure, no one would confuse that with reality, but it engaged the mind as much as the ears. Shock is a lazy tool. Profanity is too easy. The writers should work to engage their audience. What's forgotten all too often in today's movies is character. It's just plot device after plot device to impress us with visual wizardry, but more often than not, we sacrifice compassion, story, and character... and for what? A thrill ride? A thirty second adrenaline burst that we forget almost as soon as we step off. Frankly, I'm sick of shock and awe. I want more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Everyone may not be shocked or in awe by some of the things they see in movies. I was shocked that Driving Miss Daisy won any awards...different strokes for different folks. It's pretty obvious that the movie industry is just grasping for new and creative ideas to keep the dollars pouring in. Same goes for the music industry. Ehh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Everyone may not be shocked or in awe by some of the things they see in movies. I was shocked that Driving Miss Daisy won any awards...different strokes for different folks. It's pretty obvious that the movie industry is just grasping for new and creative ideas to keep the dollars pouring in. Same goes for the music industry. Ehh... I loved Driving Miss Daisy.I understand what Burg is saying. Nothing is left to the imagination anymore. Some movies though do need gritty reality, while others do not. For instance, some war movies such as Saving Private Ryan, Born on the Fourth of July, or Casualties of War need that graphic depiction in order to get their point across. Other movies do not need the graphic violence and sex such as Legends of the Fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 I loved Driving Miss Daisy.I understand what Burg is saying. Nothing is left to the imagination anymore. Some movies though do need gritty reality, while others do not. For instance, some war movies such as Saving Private Ryan, Born on the Fourth of July, or Casualties of War need that graphic depiction in order to get their point across. Other movies do not need the graphic violence and sex such as Legends of the Fall. A movie like Jackass is just as violent/sexual as anything else. It just isn't depicted as such. And it is gratuitous and useless violence as well. Drug use in Scarface, etc, etc, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 4, 2009 Author Share Posted May 4, 2009 Nothing is sexier than suggestion. Nothing is scarier than the imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Did something in particular bring this on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 I agree, why do they even make movies like Saw or Hostile? How can people find pleasure in this type of violence? Do the producers of these types of movies actually make money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Vincent Price was the man. They are regurgitating the same movies in recent history.. I was one of the few that liked the blair witch because of the suggestions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 I agree, why do they even make movies like Saw or Hostile? How can people find pleasure in this type of violence? Do the producers of these types of movies actually make money? There are not gangster movies made because they don't make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Nothing is sexier than suggestion. Nothing is scarier than the imagination. Visual is stronger than suggestion. You retain that memory further. Visual adds to the imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 4, 2009 Author Share Posted May 4, 2009 I disagree. Visuals subtracts from the imagination, because you don't have to work for it. Being a couch potato is the least stimulating form. It demands very little intellectual energy to watch tv or a movie especially when it's all laid out for you. It's why the book is almost always better than the movie. With a book, you invest in it, you help to create the whole world, and you become a part of it. In a movie, you are along for the ride and the more on the nose it is the more ephemeral it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 I disagree. Visuals subtracts from the imagination, because you don't have to work for it. Being a couch potato is the least stimulating form. It demands very little intellectual energy to watch tv or a movie especially when it's all laid out for you. It's why the book is almost always better than the movie. With a book, you invest in it, you help to create the whole world, and you become a part of it. In a movie, you are along for the ride and the more on the nose it is the more ephemeral it is. The visual aspect of it adds. You already have an idea of what is being expressed because of the visual. I am not discounting the written word as stifling the thought process, but when you have a visual it adds to it. Books are better than movies because of time, acting, and editing. I think we all know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 I think that (for the most part, there are exceptions) the movie industry has become a business. It is no longer an art form as much as it is a way to try and drag as many people as possible into the theaters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 I disagree. Visuals subtracts from the imagination, because you don't have to work for it. Being a couch potato is the least stimulating form. It demands very little intellectual energy to watch tv or a movie especially when it's all laid out for you. It's why the book is almost always better than the movie. With a book, you invest in it, you help to create the whole world, and you become a part of it. In a movie, you are along for the ride and the more on the nose it is the more ephemeral it is. I always thought a book was better than the movie because it was more detailed. A movie always tries to scrunch down a 1000+ page book into 2 hours worth of footage. Well it takes about 30 or so hours of pure reading to get through a book, there is no way that the entire thing could take place in a 2 hour movie. I've always been of the thought that to put a book on screen it should be done in the form of a miniseries or something of the like that can put the ENTIRE book on screen instead of taking shortcut after shortcut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 4, 2009 Author Share Posted May 4, 2009 Welll... that too (But what I said is true as well. A book actually engages more of the brain than tv or movies in most cases) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Welll... that too (But what I said is true as well. A book actually engages more of the brain than tv or movies in most cases) Oh yeah? Well video games engage the brain even more. :nana: on that subject, you want to talk quality horror? Look into Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem. Completely breaks down the fourth wall and takes it to you mentally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.