Red Mosquito

How do we feel about this? I watched Road House last night and it got me thinking about how violence in movies and TV shows has become so shockingly graphic in just a couple decades.

I understand it in the context of horror films, but what does graphic violence add to a movie in your opinion that’s say, a drama? You can easily convey that someone has killed themself, for example, without a graphic recreation of someone’s head exploding from a shotgun blast. Yet in movies and TV now, even if it’s an isolated incident of violence in a movie that’s otherwise not full of violent scenes, any violence tends to be shown in this over-the-top way.

Just curious how everyone feels about this now that we’re all so desensitized.

Here's what I thought about the topic back in 2017:

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtop ... 41#p938441

I absolutely hate the graphic violence in the entertainment industry these days. There are several shows I can't watch because of it. I honestly think ratings should be based on violence level rather than sexual content or profane language.

Is it worse today? Seems like it peaked in the 70s/80s.

I don't have a high tolerance for it unless it is cool, but I've never been a horror guy either.

BurtReynolds wrote:Is it worse today? Seems like it peaked in the 70s/80s.

I don't have a high tolerance for it unless it is cool, but I've never been a horror guy either.

It’s much worse today when it comes to mainstream entertainment. Pervasive, really.

is it gratuitous or not?

if its part of the story i have no problem with it (meaning it adds to it and not just there for the sake of it)

kill bill vol II i thought the violent nature was almost like a character in and of itself and added to the story as well as being a major part of it

now a days i dont watch enough tv for it to be something to consider (i dont watch GoT, TWD or other shows of that ilk)

no one said it was gratuitous just graphic, very disgustingly, flinchingly, cover my eyes graphic

doone wrote:no one said it was gratuitous just graphic, very disgustingly, flinchingly, cover my eyes graphic

I would also add that it's not just violence that I'm talking about. It could just be graphic representations of injuries, like in Vice when the guy falls from the telephone pole and they make sure you see his busted-up legs with the bones protruding. For a movie like Vice, it felt unnecessary.

meatwad wrote:

doone wrote:no one said it was gratuitous just graphic, very disgustingly, flinchingly, cover my eyes graphic

I would also add that it's not just violence that I'm talking about. It could just be graphic representations of injuries, like in Vice when the guy falls from the telephone pole and they make sure you see his busted-up legs with the bones protruding. For a movie like Vice, it felt unnecessary.

i dont think i claimed anyone said it was. i was saying i am ok with it as long as it isnt gratuitous. does it lend itself to the story or not? sorry you didnt understand what i asked

What I also cannot understand in the american culture is, that it is perfectly fine to show a character being shot on TV, but if a kid sees a woman's nipple on TV he's traumatized for life.

Peeps wrote:

meatwad wrote:

doone wrote:no one said it was gratuitous just graphic, very disgustingly, flinchingly, cover my eyes graphic

I would also add that it's not just violence that I'm talking about. It could just be graphic representations of injuries, like in Vice when the guy falls from the telephone pole and they make sure you see his busted-up legs with the bones protruding. For a movie like Vice, it felt unnecessary.

i dont think i claimed anyone said it was. i was saying i am ok with it as long as it isnt gratuitous. does it lend itself to the story or not? sorry you didnt understand what i asked

now I get it. Sorry.

contamination wrote:What I also cannot understand in the american culture is, that it is perfectly fine to show a character being shot on TV, but if a kid sees a woman's nipple on TV he's traumatized for life.

I've never understood it either.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

contamination wrote:What I also cannot understand in the american culture is, that it is perfectly fine to show a character being shot on TV, but if a kid sees a woman's nipple on TV he's traumatized for life.

I've never understood it either.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

contamination wrote:What I also cannot understand in the american culture is, that it is perfectly fine to show a character being shot on TV, but if a kid sees a woman's nipple on TV he's traumatized for life.

I've never understood it either.

Exactly

doone wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

contamination wrote:What I also cannot understand in the american culture is, that it is perfectly fine to show a character being shot on TV, but if a kid sees a woman's nipple on TV he's traumatized for life.

I've never understood it either.

Exactly

Ditto

Ash vs. The Evil Dead nailed it in this aspect.

Can't say anything too naughty on regular TV either.