Movies can be said to entertain us, thrill us, scare us, and even make us cry. However, there are certain movies that reach a new level of violence that can cause nightmares, tears, and the desire to copy it and send it back out into the real world causing real harm to others just because it looked cool in a movie. When is too violent?
An interesting topic, and definitely one worth pursuing. It might also be interesting to see how the standards have changed. When some films from the 70s and 80s were transferred to DVD, their censorship ratings were often downgraded, particularly in regards to violence. You might also consider how Western society seems to be far more squeamish and conservative about sex (even to this day). A perfect example was seen here in Australia. Game of Thrones has been given an R rating every season except for season 3, despite this being the season containing The Red Wedding. A pregnant woman was stabbed in the stomach, and yet this was the only season (so far) to be given an MA15+ rating. So, apparently fifteen year olds can watch the murder of a unborn child, but they're not mature enough to watch characters having sex. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
Are we making a distinction between the demographic who watch them and the demographic who they are intended for? If a film is a incredibly violent and it's classification accurately conveys that then the demographic watching the film likely won't find it too violent. I don't quite understand your topic, unless you were to focus on something like issues with film classification, as AGMacDonald mentioned in the above comment. – LeonPatane7 years ago
I think people are only hit with "too violent" when the movie was improperly advertised. People dumb enough to reenact violent things from movies are going to happen, so debating the censorship of all movies ever made isn't quite helpful. I think the focus should be on movies that went too far from what viewers were made to expect, and how that impacts people. I remember liking to watch horror movies with my friends as a preteen and we popped in something we thought was strictly a suspense slasher. Blood, gore, and a little bit of soft core porn were considered acceptable. But then five to ten minutes of the movie was spent depicting rape. My friends were deeply disturbed and wanted to shut it off, for them that was "too far" whereas I agree with AGMacdonald in that our idea of certain kinds of violence over others at a certain age is terribly askew. What levels and types of violence are acceptable at not just which age rating but in which genres? – Slaidey7 years ago
As someone in the filmmaking world, I don't ever want to tell someone to "tone down" their movies. I think movies are great ways of communicating something important in an entertaining way. But I agree with Slaidey, they need to be properly advertised. Also, I think if you are someone who knows they will be offended by strong violence, it's your job to find out before watching a movie if it's going to offend you and then make a decision as to whether you will watch it or not. Good topic, I think it's one worth pursuing. – maxxratto7 years ago
Most of the comments I would have made regarding this topic have already been more than adequately addressed by other commentators. Perhaps an historical context would work best, as suggested by AGMacdonald, combined with a look at the psychology (or should that be psychopathy? [sic]) of violent films that would, unfortunately by necessity, have to include an acknowledgment of snuff movies. As long as there is an audience for this stuff then extremely violent films and/or TV series will continue to be made...sadly. – Amyus7 years ago
This is certainly an interesting question, but one that might be impossible to answer. Perhaps if you changed the question, such as, "How violent is too violent for X demographic?" There's plenty of research and controversy on what kids, teens, and even adults should expose themselves to. I think choosing one demographic will help your article tremendously. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
Netflix recently released its live action adaptation of Death Note, and people were less than impressed by it. A few people who have not seen the original have said that they enjoyed the film for what is was. Without associating it with the source material, is there joy and entertainment to be found here? Also, is it possible that the whole 'white washing' element cast a dark cloud over the whole production (which seemed a bit odd considering that it is the most diverse iteration of Death Note with a wide array of characters from many different races). It would be very interesting to find reasons while the Netflix adaptation, though flawed, was not as bad as people made out.
I feel like what made people so upset about this was not necessarily the "white washing", but the uprooting the entire premise of the show and moving it to America. – ees7 years ago
It's embedded in the nature of adaptation. Rampant fandoms prove to be a consumer lock but also a social media nightmare. Manga/anime fandoms are serious and tough. If we were talking about any number of other adaptations, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. That people are mad for the Obha & Obata manga (and subsequent, concurrent anime series) automatically sets an absurd bar for any adaptation. Check *Oldboy,* maybe. It's done a series of adaptation loops. Regardless, good topic. – Paul A. Crutcher7 years ago
What role will the new Star Wars stories play in the unfolding expanded universe? The impact of Rogue One on the meaning and value of the data at the beginning of a New Hope may give us some idea, but there could be so much more. How will opinions of characters such as Han Solo continue to change and evolve? What about other characters such as Obi-Wan Kenobi?
Interesting topic, with recent news I think you can add in the discussion of Obi-Wan Kenobi as a standalone. Also typo on Rogue One, as you've put 'Rouge'. – Marcus Dean7 years ago
Sequels are almost always what follow a successful film but what actually makes a sequel as good or better than the original? Everyone's seen a sequel that they thought was either an obvious step down from the original or didn't have a real reason to exist but a sequel that surpasses or keeps up with its previous iteration are much rarer. So what are the factors that actually make the story in a sequel story worth telling? Obviously if the production is good then you could make a case for it but what narrative factors influence the worth of a sequel being told? And what are the unique characteristics of those sequels that did actually surpass their originals? What made them great?
I think this is a good discussion topic, especially seeing all the new sequels coming out. Could you give some examples to help narrow down the discussion? – birdienumnum178 years ago
I would say some really good ones to talk about would be the Harry Potter series, Hunger games, Divergent series and Fast and Furious. These are the ones I could think of from the top of my head :) – claraaa8 years ago
You're right I should have included some examples. The specific upcoming films that gave me the idea were actually Blade Runner 2049 and the new Pirates of the Caribbean. I think these would be good to talk about as the latter will probably fall into the "doesn't need to exist" category while the former could really go either way (I have unrealistically high hopes.) – JakeV8 years ago
I think this question is also applicable to book and television series.The largest draw for me to continue on with the sequel is if I find the main characters' stories unfinished. If readers or the audience are only there for compelling characters they genuinely care about, and those characters have "completed their arc" so to speak, there isn't really much motivation to pick up the sequel (in my opinion) where in most cases, are sustained through the introduction of new characters and less-than-spectacular plots that sometimes mar the main characters' consistency and lack purpose. What is the point in writing this sequel? (Perhaps for commercial purposes/ entertainment value if the first book/movie/season is well-received?) (I guess this wasn't so much a "helpful note" as it was an opinion. Apologies!) – autumnlights8 years ago
You could also look at Blade Runner 2049 and the new seasons of The X Files and Twin Peaks and Prison Break that have come out decades after the original. Isn't there a reason there wasn't a Blade Runner sequel in the 80s - and a reason all those shows were cancelled? – sophievannan8 years ago
My primary reason to watch a sequel is, did the characters make me say, "I want to see what happens to them next?" Did they make me say, "I miss/want to spend more time with these people?" If not, then it's likely I won't watch that sequel. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
If you run out of examples, you could even expand on this and talk about the modern remakes they're doing of movies. What makes these new elements worth telling? Doesn't the original stand on it's own? – Dani7 years ago
I think this is a more interesting discussion in the context of stories that didn't specifically set out to be a series. My favourite example is Toy Story. Toy Story 2 is a great movie and many would say better than the first. What makes it a sequel worth watching? It doesn't directly continue the story of the first film, instead it presents the characters with new challenges that build on the growth seen in the first film. – MarcoMorgan7 years ago
Recent News has been read stating the James Cameron has just finished the final script for Avatar five which means production can now start for Avatar Two followed by Avatar Three, Four and five. Do you think that this move was a good or a bad idea, Has he set the franchise up for failure with an eight year absence.
You could also explore why exactly this model was chosen for production and discuss any other directors that did this and how it worked out for them. – JakeV7 years ago
I like the pun in your title. I wonder if anyone has seen 'A Man Called Horse' (1970) directed by Elliot Silverstein and starring Richard Harris (yes, the same Richard Harris who played the original Dumbledore in HP)? A definite influence on the first Avatar storyline, in my opinion. – Amyus7 years ago
I enjoyed Avatar, but the gap between films has been way too long. People have moved on. Though I would still see the film, I wouldn't rush out on release day, and I'm not sure how well the movies would do at the box office (compared to the original). In addition to this, the original was the first to implement the 3D technology which has now become commonplace.
Also, it might be important to mention that the film was a self-contained story, so many people might feel there was no need for the story to continue, which could hurt the sequels chances. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
It's been such a long time since the original...what is the point? It is likely at best to engage a different audience. I remember enjoying the original, and would have watched sequels if they had been trotted out on a regular basis, but now I doubt if I could be bothered.
– JudyPeters7 years ago
The early silent films of Charlie Chaplin were masterpieces of entertainment. Yet, there was little to no soundtrack nor color. Even before that, audiences had to rely primarily on imagination in order to bring to life the voice-based scripts of radio. Since those initial attempts at conveying plot, a riveting account of history can be equally transformed by song and choreography, such as in Evita (1996) starring Madonna. For this matter, explore the requirement of prop and effect in adding to the effectiveness or detracting from the quality of film or television.
Now this could make for a fascinating article indeed! Might I also suggest including other silent greats such as Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd and similar? It would be also be worth mentioning the role that the accompanying pianist had in helping to create mood for these early cinematic audiences/viewers. With regard to voice based scripts on radio, I once worked with a chap who gave me a fascinating insight into some of the everyday 'found' objects that were used to add audio effects. I'll never look at a sink plunger in the same way again! The Foley artist is a valued and essential part of film making these days, especially when, in some instances, up to 90% of dialogue and sounds effects are recreated after the shoot has actually finished. Having done ADR (Additional Dialogue Recording) myself I can certainly attest to how tough it can be for the actor to recreate the mood and emotion, sometimes months later, of the original performance. Props can be a boon to any performer, if used well, but they can also be a right pain in the backside if poorly maintained and will detract from a performance. Every actor has his or her horror stories about props that seem to take on a life of their own. Thumbs up from me and good luck to he or she who takes on this subject. – Amyus7 years ago
Enter into a discussion about the identity of the villain in media and how this identity has changed and/or evolved over time. I think it would be interesting to take a sampling of different media over time (film, TV series, video games, literature) and analyze which group/people represent the "Bad Guy" in each and how that may correspond to the specific historical time period. Older Bond films often pit British intelligence against the Soviets – along with films such as Hunt for Red October – while many modern films concentrate themselves on Middle Eastern conflicts (i.e. London Has Fallen.) Does the bad guy always fall under a certain nation? Are directors forced to deal with the 'politically correct'?
Looking at the shift in villain identity in media over time could be an interesting read! Over my lifetime I've seen an apparent shift from villains as just wanting to destroy the world into a character we can relate with, however looking back to when film first came out, it's easy to see that the villain was sometimes racialized as a form of propaganda. Bringing a variety of media into the discussion could be a difficult task and I wouldn't blame someone for narrowing that down. But who knows, maybe there's a direct correlation between when film came out in regards to literature or when video games came out in regards to film, that the new media type inspired a change in villain identity across the others? – Slaidey8 years ago
One could easily address this topic only using superhero films. Or even just one studio's superhero films. Or just one superhero's films. In particular I think of the richness of the Joker in his depiction of an enemy that thrives on conflict, without a past or real identity. – jackanapes8 years ago
From the unfortunate Stormtrooper who banged his head on a door in 'Star Wars – A New Hope' (1977), to the brave souls who survived the 'Helm's Deep', three months of night shoots in 'Lord of The Rings. The Two Towers' (2002), the Support Actor or Extra is a vital element of film making, but often overlooked by the cinema going public. These days 'extras' are big business, with a myriad of agencies offering almost any size, shape and range of looks that any production may require. Yet it's not often that these loyal and hard working bodies even receive an end titles credit. The British sitcom 'Extras' (2005-2007), attempted the redress the balance, but still focused on the improbable rise to fame of the lead character. Perhaps it's time that our unsung heroes of film and television were recognised and rewarded for their professional skills and dedication to the art. An Oscar or similar for 'Best Featured Extra' perhaps?
I can't wait to see what you do with this topic. :) – Stephanie M.7 years ago
I'm tempted, Stephanie, but I fear that as an insider my views would be biased. I've had a few minor roles where lines were cut so I didn't get the eagerly anticipated credit, but I continue to slog on regardless. So, I put this topic forward to see if an interested yet unconnected party might like to delve into the fascinating world of the Extra. Ahh, we are such stuff as dreams are made on....and 10 points to anyone who can complete the quote! :) – Amyus7 years ago
