Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alexhans]

I'm just going to leave this here and hope it wasn't posted here before.

Quite interesting and quite impossible.  I've heard it before and it makes sense but media will argue that people are interested and want to know (viewers will sort of prove them right) and financially it makes so much sense.

Then there's the whole issue of being able to use it as a wildcard to talk seriously about anything and making whoever doesn't want to comment on the issue look insensitive.

Crisis and opportunity.  Massacres are one hell of an opportunity.

[Megaman]

Meanwhile, according to reports, Warner Bros. has also pulled a trailer for its upcoming film Gangster Squad, a 1940s-set thriller starring Sean Penn and Ryan Gosling.

Movie website Deadline said the trailer, which was being shown during the previews of The Dark Knight Rises, featured a scene of gunmen going into a cinema and shooting patrons as they watch a film.

"Hmm, I suppose our trailer could be seen as a little bad taste..."

Y'know...I actually applaud that decision. Normally, I scoff at things like digitally deleting the Trade Towers out of MS Flight Simulator (or even retroactively editing them out of movies)....but that's specific enough that it's probably a good decision.

I don't see why editing such things out of respect of the dead is scoff worthy. Though yeah, you don't want movie patrons to worry that they'll get shot to death while watching your film.

[kaijyuu]

Unless the movie was showing a theatre getting shot up in a positive light, I don't see any problem with still showing it. Wouldn't it further demonize the real guy's actions?


I don't find avoiding all mention of something to be "respect for the dead."

[MetalSlimeHunt]

They're focused mostly on external threats inside the country.

So internal threats, then.

God, you'd think the scriptwriters could at least break out a thesaurus once in a while, just to shake things up.

Just once I'd like to see the President express anger and disgust at these things like actual people do instead of the usual faux-sorrow.

I don't see why editing such things out of respect of the dead is scoff worthy.

It isn't respect for the dead. It's an implicit denial of the World Trade Center ever existing. It dominated NYC's skyline for a long time, but all the movies that get shown on TV now don't have it even if they did when they were made. It's disrespectful if anything.

It's the same problem with never showing or editing old Loony Tunes that have racial stereotypes. It's a systematic denial of bad things that have happened. With that attitude it is no wonder that so many people get caught up in Good Old Days.

[Vherid]

Side-note: I stand corrected....it's PG-13, not R. The last one was PG-13 as well. I honestly question what the living fuck it takes to get an R rating, now. Apparently you'd have to vivisect someone on-screen in order to get an R...or show some boobs. 

Ratings have gotten more strict over time, not less strict. Look at the goonies, no way in hell that would ever receive a PG rating again.

Pointing out things like gun control, you just look silly, Norway killing spree, proves that if you're gonna do something, you're gonna do it, regardless of gun laws.

This probably will bring about more post-9/11 super hulkamania security and more invasion of our rights, and etc.

I'm not downplaying what happened though either, this was a terrible thing to go down, but really what it shows is that, the world isn't a safe place, and it's never going to be no matter how many laws and control we try to stick on people. If anything I believe the less regulated areas are usually more chill because people are more afraid to fuck with random strangers there. But I haven't seen statistics for that type of thing in a while.

We could say sure, there's better security checks that could be imposed that aren't very invasive, but, like I said, and like a lot of these events have proven, people are crazy, and they do crazy things regardless of laws or restrictions. People are going to find a way. Just like pirates cracking DRM, people can try to keep them out as much as possible, but they always find a way.

[Megaman]

Unless the movie was showing a theatre getting shot up in a positive light, I don't see any problem with still showing it. Wouldn't it further demonize the real guy's actions?

It'd make the experience for movie-goers less enjoyable. As I said, no one wants to get shot to death.

[Cthulhu]

The rating thing is backwards.  It's not as much the MPAA keeping people down, it's producers wanting as big an audience as possible for opening night.  That's why there's been this dumb trend of releasing movies that should not ever be PG13 (I'm referring to the latest Die Hard movie here) with all the f-words cut out, then releasing "Unrated" DVD versions later.  The movie version of At the Mountains of Madness was killed by that, Guillermo refused to make it PG13 and that was a dealbreaker, compounded by the fact that it was thematically identical to Prometheus, which was going ahead regardless.

Pointing out things like gun control, you just look silly, Norway killing spree, proves that if you're gonna do something, you're gonna do it, regardless of gun laws.

Stop.  Stop stop stop.  This isn't the gun control thread. 

[Neonivek]

Unless the movie was showing a theatre getting shot up in a positive light, I don't see any problem with still showing it. Wouldn't it further demonize the real guy's actions?


I don't find avoiding all mention of something to be "respect for the dead."

It is a weird psychological thing.

For example did you know that suicides go up whenever there is a report of a suicide?

[Vherid]

The rating thing is backwards.  It's not as much the MPAA keeping people down, it's producers wanting as big an audience as possible for opening night.  That's why there's been this dumb trend of releasing movies that should not ever be PG13 (I'm referring to the latest Die Hard movie here) with all the f-words cut out, then releasing "Unrated" DVD versions later.  The movie version of At the Mountains of Madness was killed by that, Guillermo refused to make it PG13 and that was a dealbreaker, compounded by the fact that it was thematically identical to Prometheus, which was going ahead regardless.

Well more and more people also seem to be running into issues today of having to cut back just to get the R rating more and more now.

[RedKing]

They're focused mostly on external threats inside the country.

So internal threats, then.

Well, no...there's a technical difference. al-Qaeda operatives blowing up an Amtrak train? That's an external threat inside the country.
Army of God members blowing up an abortion clinic? That's an internal threat.
FBI is responsible for the internal threats in the broadest sense, with other agencies taking lead on their specific portfolios.

God, you'd think the scriptwriters could at least break out a thesaurus once in a while, just to shake things up.

Just once I'd like to see the President express anger and disgust at these things like actual people do instead of the usual faux-sorrow.
[/quote]
Iknorite? I just want to hear Obama come up to the microphone and be like, "GODDAMN, WHAT THE HELL???"
Of course, then there'd be all this faux outrage about the President having a potty mouth. 

Side-note: I stand corrected....it's PG-13, not R. The last one was PG-13 as well. I honestly question what the living fuck it takes to get an R rating, now. Apparently you'd have to vivisect someone on-screen in order to get an R...or show some boobs. 

Ratings have gotten more strict over time, not less strict. Look at the goonies, no way in hell that would ever receive a PG rating again.

Although there has always been concern about the content of films, the MPAA has, in recent years, been accused of a "ratings creep", whereby the films that fall into today's ratings categories now contain more objectionable material than those that appeared in the same categories two decades earlier. A study put forward by the Harvard School of Public Health in 2004 concluded that there had been a significant increase in the level of profanity, sex and violence in films released between 1992 and 2003. Kimberly Thompson, director of the study, stated: "The findings demonstrate that ratings creep has occurred over the last decade and that today’s movies contain significantly more violence, sex, and profanity on average than movies of the same rating a decade ago."

Several independent consumer information services have stated that they have perceived a trend in movies containing more objectionable material. In September 2000, the ChildCare Action Project published a report with conclusions similar to that of the Harvard School of Public Health's, where they claimed that their findings indicated a "ratings creep" towards more explicit material.

And that's kind of a cheap example. Goonies was made in an era before PG-13 existed. Even then, that wasn't a particularly objectionable film. More to the point is that movies like Commando and Predator were rated R, but would probably wind up PG-13 by today's standards, if we compare them to the violence in other recent PG-13 offerings, at least based on violence alone.

Pointing out things like gun control, you just look silly, Norway killing spree, proves that if you're gonna do something, you're gonna do it, regardless of gun laws.

As someone else said, if you're in a bad enough car wreck you're going to die regardless of seatbelts. So we should just do away with seatbelts. 

[Neonivek]

The ratings are a bit more bogus then they seem. Remember that they are practically decided upon by a secret commity with vague opperating instructions HIGHLY open to interpretation. Yes they can weild their power arbitrarily and have been proven to many times before... hense why some people actually want them replaced.

Though I dislike the audiance who looks at the rating of a movie almost just as much. A lot of movies now throw in swears JUST to make sure they get their coveted rating.

Also even Canada who has strict gun laws that are getting stricter everyday (We have a gun blackmarket composed of collectors who have their guns "stollen") have had a few gun related mass murders. One such signifies the start of Canada's day of violence against women.

[Vherid]

(flaming removed)

[kaijyuu]

As someone else said, if you're in a bad enough car wreck you're going to die regardless of seatbelts. So we should just do away with seatbelts. 

Bad analogy. Better would be pointing out (correctly) that seatbelts are worthless for sufficiently bad accidents, so you shouldn't promote seatbelts to prevent such accidents.

Gun control wouldn't prevent or really hinder a case like this one. That dude was obviously dedicated enough to avoid any laws we put in place. So don't use this case to support gun control.


Gun control might help for inhibiting lesser cases though, which your seatbelt analogy would actually work for.



Re: Ratings.
Ratings are always bogus. What they should be replaced with is content warnings. There would be no R, no X, no G, no MA, just "contains this and that."

Ratings promote a lot of stupid things, like age discrimination. Not to mention people adding or taking away arbitrary stuff to get their creation a certain rating.

[RedKing]

Several independent consumer information services have stated that they have perceived a trend in movies containing more objectionable material. In September 2000, the ChildCare Action Project published a report with conclusions similar to that of the Harvard School of Public Health's, where they claimed that their findings indicated a "ratings creep" towards more explicit material.

And that's kind of a cheap example. Goonies was made in an era before PG-13 existed. Even then, that wasn't a particularly objectionable film. More to the point is that movies like Commando and Predator were rated R, but would probably wind up PG-13 by today's standards, if we compare them to the violence in other recent PG-13 offerings, at least based on violence alone.

Hmmm, that's interesting. Either way though the overall rating system is full of shit.

So when presented with data that directly contradicts your assertion, your reaction is "oh well, it's all full of shit anyways"? Nice.

Pointing out things like gun control, you just look silly, Norway killing spree, proves that if you're gonna do something, you're gonna do it, regardless of gun laws.

As someone else said, if you're in a bad enough car wreck you're going to die regardless of seatbelts. So we should just do away with seatbelts. 

Die.

Excuse me?

As someone else said, if you're in a bad enough car wreck you're going to die regardless of seatbelts. So we should just do away with seatbelts. 

Bad analogy. Better would be pointing out (correctly) that seatbelts are worthless for sufficiently bad accidents, so you shouldn't promote seatbelts to prevent such accidents.

Gun control wouldn't prevent or really hinder a case like this one. That dude was obviously dedicated enough to avoid any laws we put in place. So don't use this case to support gun control.


Gun control might help for inhibiting lesser cases though, which your seatbelt analogy would actually work for.

I actually fully agree in this case. As I stated above, since this guy had a clean record and it wasn't a particularly large nor overmilitarized arsenal (we could quibble about the AR-15), he probably wouldn't have tripped any red flags. Be interesting to see if he had any prior mental health flags though.

[Darvi]

Excuse me?

I think he spotted a random D6.