|
|
Welcome to the Discussion page. This forum is for discussing scenes from mainstream sources, primarily TV shows and movies, but we venture off into newspaper and magazine articles, stage plays, and other areas. Please do not post regarding commercial videos.
|
|
| Sunday June 17 08:47:25 2007 Re: gruesome horror film |
| Pat Powers wrote:
...but nobody would make that film, because no one would ever buy the notion of a 'PG-13' kidnapper, but people know, as you say, that alot of people (not just americans) are sick... |
| Steve a |
| Sunday June 17 08:51:21 2007 Re: gruesome horror film |
| > Suppose that instead a movie came along where a serial abductor captured women, who were then stripped, bound, fondled and kissed, then released. No actual sex, mind you.
> > Would it be more censored or less censored than the other movies? ~~~~ Interestingly enough, almost the same *exact* thought occurred to me. Except in my daydream, the serial abductor captures three women, places them in leather wrist & ankles cuffs, gags them, strips them and fondles them, gives them their first erotic spanking, lovingly massages their reddened bottoms with oil, then releases them. The movie closes with an ambiguious ending -- one of them women is seen entering keywords into her online personals ad: "Seeking bondage spanking massage". Is she seeking to ensnare her captor, or did she discover a hidden facet of her sexuality she'd like to explore further? |
| Kinky-napper |
| Sunday June 17 10:43:41 2007 Re: Hostel 2? Not interested. |
| Clarifier's Cousin Once Removed wrote:
Thanks, here's a reply > If I'm allowed to have a response to this - I couldn't > disagree more to the above. To make a too-long story > short, there has always been an audience (Frankenstein in > the 1930s, Hammer horror movies of the 1950s, Texas > Chainsaw Massacre of the 1970s, Friday the 13th movies of > the 1980s and on and on) for horror movies that border on > the sick. But they were not like the films of today, which specifically target sadism as fun and go far beyond the pale; my point was this is not going to continue in intensiity and not going to continue to grow at the box office, I just don't think it's what people really want to see, it's what Hollywood "thinks" they want to see. > Now that they 'cross the line' of taste (ask some of > those 1930s audiences - and those who refused to see - > "Frankenstein" - and also "Dracula," > etc. etc., whether they thought the movies were too sick, > they did) even more, the Hostels, Saws and all those > other sick movies are the natural evolution of such > movies, and based on the cheap cost to produce them, and > the huge box office paid by people who seek such movies, > they will continue. I agree that's how it happens, but i disagree it will continue and Hostel 2's weak numbers prove that; 8 million on 2350 screens opening week is pretty bad, and I bet Captivity will do worse. > I don't like the storylines, and I certainly don't like > the gratuitous killing and torture, but believe it or > not, there are many of our fellow men and women who enjoy > such things in the cinema, whether they realize what > their motives are or not (and I'm sure few of them would > admit they like 'torture porn'). Well, that's my point, you don't like it, and if you think some (many) others do, I think it's more accurate to say that there are a lot of people who will watch what Hollywood throws out there no matter what, and those numbers are dwindling. > I remember seeing something gruesome in a Friday the 13th > or Nightmare on Elm Street movie in the theatre, and many > members of the audience laughing hard! There is a debate > there as to whether it's because they are releasing > tension by laughing, think that the gore was > poorly/laughably portrayed, or whether they actually > though it was funny to see someone decapitated (drawn and > quartered, body split in two, etc. etc. etc.). Yet, that > response is frequently the finish to the experience those > people are looking for, and that's why they go back to > such movies again and again. I have a theory that they go back looking for something that isn't there; a quality film experience. I know that's what it was like for me; as a teenager I would think: "why are these films so shallow and why don't they speak to me, there is so much potential here." > I know no one can assume that the audience en masse is > exactly like you, and that they go to see some 'innocent' > peril with the hero victorious, etc. etc. If you poll > the dating teens, the horror fanboys and others who exit > any of these gorefest movies (well represented by all of > Eli Roth's efforts), they will NOT tell you they want to > see a damsel-in-distress who is "having fun" > and rescued instead, and none of the gore. I'm afraid > it's the other way around. (remember, the magazine > 'Premiere' has been cancelled in the U.S., while mags > like 'Fangoria' are successful and flourish!). Two things here, one, I never said I liked "innocent", I like intense and intelligent. Two, the fanboys will watch and love quality and intensity if they see it, they are just not seeing it yet. > Okay, that's my say, and I do think there are many people > (it is certainly easy to believe, as I do, that many of > them are 'sickos' and sometimes sociopaths to a degree in > their own right) who love the sickest aspects of these > horror movies. And unfortunately, we won't see that > change for some time. That's just not the point, I don't think people watching or liking these films are "sick", I just think they have bad taste, Hollywood is cashing in on that bad taste because it's easy money, but, I also think it's drying up and that's a good sign. > Nicer, more survival-friendly thrilling action movies > belong to a different genre, and therefore often a > different audience (i.e. like the Indiana Jones movies, > etc.). Those movies are for kids, I'm talking about intelligent, intense, sexual, adult (yes, even horror) films; they are not out there (yet), and they should be because there is a big audience. > I doubt you have the same person hoping that "Nancy > Drew" has a 'scene' as those looking forward to > "The House of 1,000 Corpses" - for a scene or not! That's not the point, and I do think a lot of people look at both anyway. > One more thing - you use "for real" quite > absurdly - "Hostel 2" is a movie, and not even > based on any real life events. All these movies we're > talking about are fiction - whether pleasant or ugly - > and that's always a self-judgment call. That's so wrong. I know the difference but when i go to a film there is a contract for suspension of disbelief, that's the foundation. So, it's real during the experience, i'm not that jaded yet to judge, or misjudge a film because "it's only actors", come on, you know that. > Okay, just ONE more thing - I bet "Funny Games" will do better at the box office than you might think - and it's precisely because of the sick nature of the antagonists in the movie and what they do without conscience, not Naomi Watts' presence, nor her 'comical bondage hopping.' Well, lets watch it, I bet it does really poorly. Remember The Vanishing, a great Euro film, but when they brought the director to Hollywood to remake it and gave him Jeff Bridges and Sandra Bullock it was a bomb, they ruined it. |
| Sunday June 17 10:48:10 2007 VAN's FiCTiON is Updated! |
| Good Morning Brian'skteers! Chapter 13 of "Escape From PelluciGor" is posted. Enjoy! :-) |
 |
| Van |
| vvvan@earthlink.net |
| http://www.restrainedtastes.com/van/ |
| Sunday June 17 13:58:09 2007 Re: Hostel 2? Not interested. |
| (unsigned poster) wrote:
> Well, lets watch it, I bet it does really poorly. Ok, let's steer this back to topical territory or I'll shut it off completely. |
| The Moderator |
| Sunday June 17 19:16:18 2007 Re: gruesome horror film |
| Anubis wrote:
> I actually DO enjoy those kind of horror movies, the > original Texas Chainsaw Massacre is my all time favorite > film, it has a blend of the sheer intense horror that I > love, and a prolonged bound and gagged scene to boot. > For a horror film to have a DiD scene is just an added > bonus for me. Ditto for films like Wrong Turn, and Eaten > Alive. > What bothers me more are the "exploitation/rape > films" of the 60's and 70's that had DiD scenes, > like Candy Snatchers or Last House On the Left. They > weren't horror films per se, but they bothered me a lot > more than a splatterfest film like Saw or Turistas would. > Same for a couple of books like "Lets Go Play At the Adams" I pretty much agree here. While I don't personally watch or enjoy movies like the Saw series, Hostel, etc., I certainly am not offended or repulsed enough to bypass their tie-and-gag scenes. The thing is (and while this doesn't ALWAYS hold true), the bondage scenes in thesew movies aren't usually involved in the masty stuff per se. Example: one gory-ass movie...Saw. However, it's bondage scene with Monica Potter was absolutely great...there was no gore involved in it & the damsel wasn't even roughed up during her scene. I certainly would not have passed up this scene because of the content of the rest of the movie (which I admit I've never sat thru, just heard about). Now, some others, like I guess Hostel 2 (which I have not seen), I take it the damsels don't fare too well during their bondage scenes. Scenes like that can usually be salvaged when transferring the scene to your tape/disc/comp file, editing the really nasty parts out of they bother you. I recently rented a movie called Midnight last week & the damsels were tied to chair's & cleave gagged, and after a few minutes their throats were cut (onscreen, while still gagged in the case of one of them). Rather nasty stuff there...but I didn't pass on the scenes, just didn't dub over the final demise of the ladies. Lots of good footage before the actual murdering though. So I guess I'm not really bothered by the movie's violence, tone, savagery, etc. as long as there is a nice bound-and-gagged scene. I just may not keep every bit of footage if the gal comes to a really bad end while tied. As for the rest of the movie, I could care less, as I generally don't watch the movies themselves, but FF to the bondage scenes, start dubbing, then eject after the scene. |
| JP |
| japfeif@aol.com |
| Sunday June 17 20:18:14 2007 Sandra Bullock |
| Hey guys, just watched Sandra Bullocks new movie preminition! It sucked but there was a nice sceen of her strapped to a table... |
| Sunday June 17 22:50:21 2007 Passions |
| A soap spoiler says on Wednesday's episode of Passions: "After trapping the blackmailer, Sam and Fancy are shocked to find Valerie bound and gagged in their place"
Valerie is a played by Daphne Duplaix. |
| Dextor |
| Sunday June 17 23:26:09 2007 Re: Passions |
| Dextor wrote:
> A soap spoiler says on Wednesday's episode of Passions: > "After trapping the blackmailer, Sam and Fancy are > shocked to find Valerie bound and gagged in their > place" > > Valerie is a played by Daphne Duplaix. Is this Wednesday's episode in Canada (which seems to be a day ahead of the US) or the US? |
| Sunday June 17 23:31:57 2007 Re: Passions |
| (unsigned poster) wrote:
> > Is this Wednesday's episode in Canada (which seems to be > a day ahead of the US) or the US? US. |
| Dextor |
|
|