I ask this because tonight while watching Ghost unters international on SCIFI with my family (wife, 6 year old daughter, 2 year old son and 4 onth old son) there was a commercial that showed a kid watering something, then a giant beanstalk erupted. then it showed the kid look up and gasp in fear as a giant foot squashed him. then the foot began to move back and forth, such as when you squish a bug.
So I was shocked, my wife was spechless, and my daughter started crying.
But you know, that got me thinking, and more and more recently it has been ok to show kids dying, and for some reason that really irks me.
~Spoilers ahead~
Look at the AVP 2 movie. 1st ten minutes you see a 12 year old boy's chest ripped open by chest bursters. then the hybrid thing goes into a maternity ward which you see full of screaming babies, and you see it pumping eggs down a mother's throat. later you see multiple alien babies bursting from the mother's pregnant belly. disgusting!
I understand the need to one up the next guy, but i feel there should be a limit to the gore factor, and some things are just tasteless.
And of course in the pilot movie for the current Battlestar Galactica series Caprica reaches in and breaks an infants neck. That almost killed the whole show for me right then and there, and it took two seasons just to get my wife to watch again!
So, My question is, when did it become ok to show kids getting killed in graphic ways on tv?
Really what you're seeing is the bottom of the barrel of the 'shock factor', trying to make things really terrible (TM) as a cheap alternative to a good narrative.
So, My question is, when did it become ok to show kids getting killed in graphic ways on tv?
Pay-per-view.
Children aren't special; they're just like anyone else. There's absolutely nothing wrong with depicting their deaths.
Ratings exist for a reason. If it is higher rated, it is more likely to contain objectionable material.
If you aren't responsible enough to control what you watch, that's your own problem.
...while watching Ghost Hunters International...
I think I found the first problem...
And not all of it is shock factor. In BSG for example, that is what would have happened so that's what happened. Though, admittedly, in AVP2 that was all shock factor. That's all the movie was. =/
Perhaps I've just seen so many violent movies and played so many violent games I'm immune to the effect, but I just don't have that much of a problem with death. It's all around us whether we like it or not. It's on the news all the time, even children's deaths. I'm not saying it isn't bad, just that it happens. Besides, what makes an young adults death any less horrid than a young child's? That young child has no real face where as the young adult we can see more clearly; we can see he is and what he wants. We can identify with him more readily than any young child, and yet.... I think it may just be the parental thing. Perhaps if I had a kid I'd react in a similar fashion, I'm not sure. And yet people don't complain as much when the teens in horror movies die. We just laugh at all the horrible dialog and horrendous writing.
You should see what happens to them in real life - war, starvation, AIDS, etc.
*****
Children aren't special; they're just like anyone else. There's absolutely nothing wrong with depicting their deaths.
I'm sorry but I in no way see that to be true. Do you see things exactly the way you did as a child? Do you see some things in a better light? Or perhaps some things seem worse now then they used to?
Well, that's what makes kids special. They haven't been living in the world long enough to have a full imprint of what they are 'supposed to think'. You can find some of the most interesting and unique opinions and point-of-views from children because they have that wondrous quality that actually falls under the rare category of being totally and wholely unable to recover once lost: innocence.
Corny-sounding, perhaps, but to me, intrinsically true. It's why the hero of the story never shoots the lab assistant who was forced to aid the mad scientist at gun-point. Sure, he aided a criminal, but what he did was not his choice. He hasn't done anything wrong, he's innocent.
I dunno, maybe I'm just a slave to the norms of society, but to me, there is a damn fine reason you don't kill kids.
I dunno, maybe I'm just a slave to the norms of society, but to me, there is a damn fine reason you don't kill kids.
Sadly, I must agree. I like gritty realism, but you can leave the kids out of it. There are times when it is absolutely essential to the story, but in films of that nature it's generally not done directly on camera. If you've become so desensitized that it doesn't bother you to watch, please, seek counselling immediately.
Not all of us live in some fantasy world where the women and children don't die, and that's honestly one of the reoccurring themes I hate in most horror movies and such. It's completely unrealistic. Women and children die all the time in real life.
I dunno, maybe I'm just a slave to the norms of society
Sounds like it to me. :P
If you've become so desensitized that it doesn't bother you to watch, please, seek counselling immediately.
Oh, but being desensitized to watching grownups die is perfectly okay? Please, you're overreacting...
If you've become so desensitized that it doesn't bother you to watch, please, seek counselling immediately.
Nah.
Not all of us live in some fantasy world where the women and children don't die, and that's honestly one of the reoccurring themes I hate in most horror movies and such. It's completely unrealistic. Women and children die all the time in real life.
Oh, I'm quite aware, and I never said anything about Women dying, you put that bit in yourself, I'm simply saying I don't like to watch children being killed.
And don't use the "don't watch, then." because I'm not saying "NO ONE CAN WATCH! ROAR!", so put away the strawman. ;) Once again, I'm simply saying I don't like to watch children being killed.
I never said anything about Women dying, you put that bit in yourself
I know. I just put it in there because it's a comparable complaint.
I'm simply saying I don't like to watch children being killed.
And I'm simply saying "then don't watch children being killed."
And don't use the "don't watch, then." because I'm not saying "NO ONE CAN WATCH! ROAR!", so put away the strawman. ;)
I'm not saying you said any such thing. However, that doesn't mean that "don't watch, then" isn't a completely valid response.
Once again, I'm simply saying I don't like to watch children being killed.
Then don't watch children being killed.
I don't like reading romance novels. What should I not do then? ;)
I'm sorry but I in no way see that to be true. Do you see things exactly the way you did as a child? Do you see some things in a better light? Or perhaps some things seem worse now then they used to?
They're all made of meat. In fact, they're more expendible than, say, young adults, as we've invested less in them.
Well, that's what makes kids special. They haven't been living in the world long enough to have a full imprint of what they are 'supposed to think'. You can find some of the most interesting and unique opinions and point-of-views from children because they have that wondrous quality that actually falls under the rare category of being totally and wholely unable to recover once lost: innocence.
Not really. Children are very gullible and impressionable. That's why religious indoctrination starts young, among other things.
People vastly exaggerate its worth. Why?
Because they are prey to their instincts. Many humans have a deep-rooted instinct to protect things which fulfil certain traits. Its purely instinctual. Children and some other animals evoke that instinct.
I'm not a dog. I'm a person. I'm above my instincts. I watch what I enjoy watching. If that involves children dying, so be it.
I'm a fan of entertainment and creativity, and am a foe of censorship.
Besides, if killing children on screen evokes your emotions, then clearly it is engaging you, so they're doing something right, n'est-ce pas?
Sadly, I must agree. I like gritty realism, but you can leave the kids out of it. There are times when it is absolutely essential to the story, but in films of that nature it's generally not done directly on camera. If you've become so desensitized that it doesn't bother you to watch, please, seek counselling immediately.
No, we who are not prey to our emotions are the best people to run the world. Those who are prey to them are the people who seek out revenge. They're the people who car bomb after their home gets bull-dozed. They're the people who hate the blacks/hispanics/jews because they want someone to blame for their problems. Emotions are easy to manipulate, and the emotional can be used for very evil ends.
Emotion is a pretty terrible thing. Cold, hard logic is far superior. We don't get locked in endless, senseless loops of violence. We don't shift the blame to avoid dealing with the issues.
I enjoy being happy as much as the next person, and I like entertainment that tugs at my emotions. But being able to kill emotion is a valuable thing, and being able to segregate entertainment from reality is also an important skill to have.
If you cannot segregate between people being killed in a movie and people being killed in reality, the person with the problem is you, not the person who enjoys watching people die on the silver screen.
Not all of us live in some fantasy world where the women and children don't die, and that's honestly one of the reoccurring themes I hate in most horror movies and such. It's completely unrealistic. Women and children die all the time in real life.
Its also ageist and sexist.
Its also ageist and sexist.
Thank you!
For example, there's no reason Amanda should have been the only one of of Jigsaw's subjects to survive. What a coincidence that she was also his only female victim at that point.
They made it up for it in the second one, though... And in the subsequent third and fourth, though they weren't as good...
.Since when was it ok to show kids getting killed on tv and in movies?
I ask this because tonight while watching Ghost unters international on SCIFI with my family (wife, 6 year old daughter, 2 year old son and 4 onth old son) there was a commercial that showed a kid watering something, then a giant beanstalk erupted. then it showed the kid look up and gasp in fear as a giant foot squashed him. then the foot began to move back and forth, such as when you squish a bug.
So I was shocked, my wife was spechless, and my daughter started crying.
But you know, that got me thinking, and more and more recently it has been ok to show kids dying, and for some reason that really irks me.
~Spoilers ahead~
Look at the AVP 2 movie. 1st ten minutes you see a 12 year old boy's chest ripped open by chest bursters. then the hybrid thing goes into a maternity ward which you see full of screaming babies, and you see it pumping eggs down a mother's throat. later you see multiple alien babies bursting from the mother's pregnant belly. disgusting!
I understand the need to one up the next guy, but i feel there should be a limit to the gore factor, and some things are just tasteless.
And of course in the pilot movie for the current Battlestar Galactica series Caprica reaches in and breaks an infants neck. That almost killed the whole show for me right then and there, and it took two seasons just to get my wife to watch again!
So, My question is, when did it become ok to show kids getting killed in graphic ways on tv?
I've seen that commnercial and honesty, I really didn't think it was an issue. Now, I say that knowing that to each their own, and perhaps you and your family are more sensitive. But, in my opinion, its harmless.
I will however agree with AVPR. I was a bit surprised myself when the child died at the beginning, and later they show the alien implant the pregnant woman.
Can you imagine a D&D that shows/depicts the destruction of Children?
Management has decided that Aristolte and his band of child molesting Philosphers are more important for what they created than what they destroyed and are prepared to look the other way on the destruction of children if it is to their benifit to do so.
Here is a test as to whether it is too late for you: Aristotle and the other Philosophers are a cult of Child Molestors and anything they create is Tainted. Lets burn the Works of Aristotle and everything based on their works (modern civilization), go back to farming our own food by hand - no more cities, cellphones, ect. YES/NO.
Today a few ads for desensitising the populace of their inherent outrage...tomorrow slaughter houses because the secret of Immortality can be found by killing children.
I'm guessing you're more sensitive then me, because...
And of course in the pilot movie for the current Battlestar Galactica series Caprica reaches in and breaks an infants neck.
I don't even remember that or being shocked.
For me fictional violence has absolutely nothing to do with real life violence. So I have no problem reading about a fictional child's death or seeing children pretend to die.
And, despite Neo-BSG having a very strong cult following, it was definately only a cult following.
Yes. That's why it has a new spin-off series.
If you've become so desensitized that it doesn't bother you to watch, please, seek counselling immediately.
Do you also believe that content containing sex should have a higher rating then content containing violence? If so then I'd say it is YOU who needs the counselling.
Yes. That's why it has a new spin-off series.
So did the original. What's sad is that more people watched Galactica 80 than ever watched NuBSG.
Do you also believe that content containing sex should have a higher rating then content containing violence? If so then I'd say it is YOU who needs the counselling.
Actually, no. Sex between adults is by far more acceptable than violence. Graphic and gratuitous violence against children specifically is offensive, my condolences if it doesn't make you a bit squeemish. But then again, I'm not terribly happy watching violence involving adults either.
I'm not terribly happy watching violence involving adults either.
My condolences about not being able to watch most television. You're missing out on quite a few good shows that would be much more pleasant, I imagine, were it not for your sensitivity.
What's sad is that more people watched Galactica 80 than ever watched NuBSG.
You got any proof of this?
You got any proof of this?
Been awhile since I had the links, but Galactica 80 had between a 5 and 15 share (the Starbuck final mission episode was the 15). NuBSG barely managed a 5 on a couple of occaisions.
This isn't neccessarily an indication of quality, mind you, Galactica 80 was a god-awful show. But to say that either could be considered mainstream is really stretching it.
As I said, it still comes down to 'shock' rather than narrative. Killing children, gruesomely, and violently, is one of our biggest social taboos - that's one reason why Islamic Terrorists do it - it shakes us to our core.
But it's just as cheap of a 'shock' trick as showing Halle Barry naked for now reason in Soapdish, or gratiutious **** scenes (Swords and Sorcerors), and so on. We're getting down to the bottom of the barrel in shock, leaving pretty much only graphic on screen child ****. (Nicole Kidman already did the graphic pedophila thing.) But I sadly don't think we're all that far from it.
Why should it be bad to show kids dying but okay to show adults dying?
Adults aren't as innocent.
Besides, are you seeing me advocate for blood, guts, and gore for movies and television at all? I honestly find the amount of graphic violence portrayed in film to be proof of society's overall depravity.
Adults aren't as innocent.
And? "Innocence" is not some innate quality that makes a life more valuable or meaningful.
And? "Innocence" is not some innate quality that makes a life more valuable or meaningful.
Really, according to my catalogue it's an optional extra worth $1.50
;)
And? "Innocence" is not some innate quality that makes a life more valuable or meaningful.
Yes. Yes it is.
I have no problem saying that.
Yes. Yes it is.
I have no problem saying that.
This is ridiculous. Your life is not worth more just because you're "innocent" just like your life isn't worth more just because you're rich or intelligent or popular.
Furthermore, I don't get what the deal is with the ever so popular "children are more innocent" bull crap. I've met adults who are the pinnacle of innocence and children who are vile, spoiled, unsympathetic brats who'll grow up to be the scum of society.
Seriously, look what you're arguing for.. what the hell is wrong with you to WANT this?
Seriously, look what you're arguing for.. what the hell is wrong with you to WANT this?
I never said I want anything, just that when it happens, I don't get unnecessarily worked up about it.
I'm sorry, but demanding to see children being brutally slain for and as entertainment pretty much defines 'monster' to me.
Has anybody in this thread demanded to see children being brutally slain for entertainment?
Because if so, I certainly missed that...
I never said I want anything, just that when it happens, I don't get unnecessarily worked up about it.
Has anybody in this thread demanded to see children being brutally slain for entertainment?
Because if so, I certainly missed that...
That's what you're arguing for... so why is that? In fact, you're now making a point that having it happen isn't something that you would get 'unnecessarily worked up about'.
Has anybody in this thread demanded to see children being brutally slain for entertainment?
Because if so, I certainly missed that...
I'm tempted to out of sheer contrariness.
However honestly I want what's realistic (or within genre conventions) to occur during the story. If it's more realistic (or in genre) for a child to be killed then that's what I'd rather see.
That's what you're arguing for...
No, I most certainly have not.
In fact, you're now making a point that having it happen isn't something that you would get 'unnecessarily worked up about'.
Not getting worked up about something isn't the same thing as demanding it.
I also don't get worked up about the pickles on my burger when I clearly asked for no pickles. I just pick them out and continue eating my burger. I also certainly didn't demand that the pickles be there.
I'm sorry, but demanding to see children being brutally slain for and as entertainment pretty much defines 'monster' to me.
Evidence? If you can show me someone that did, I may agree that they are a monster. Tolerating something is quite different than demanding it. Enjoying something - if we go that far - is also not even close to being a demand for it. Approval of an action in a fictional representation of reality is not approval of that action in reality. Just like how when we kill an NPC in D&D we aren't saying we'd do the same in real life. Do you take issue when you, as PC or DM, land the killing blow to a sentient enemy? TV and movies are no more real - even when depicting an historical event - than that piece of paper you slaughtered last weekend.
Looking more closely at your statement, I have to agree. But no one demanded that children should be slain for their entertainment. All anyone is saying is that they have no issue seeing the fictional representation of such an act. Separation of fiction and reality. Your statement seems to bleed the two together.
secondly "fictional" violence is very different from the real thing
I don't know how it is in the states, but in the UK, a programme has at the start of it, a voice-over informing the public if there is strong language, sex, violence or whatever. That way, you can choose what you watch in an informed way. On TV channels that have commertial breaks, it's re-stated before the segment that features the potentially offensive piece
so, for example, recently one episode of The Gordon Ramsey show "The F word"
started with the statement
"This show features very strong language and images of animal butchary"
then, just before the segment
"The rest of this programme features images of animal slaughter and butchery"
That way, you don't need to watch what you don't want to see
They're all made of meat. In fact, they're more expendible than, say, young adults, as we've invested less in them.
Emotion is a pretty terrible thing. Cold, hard logic is far superior. We don't get locked in endless, senseless loops of violence. We don't shift the blame to avoid dealing with the issues.
are you a big fan of "a modest proposal"?
Yes. Yes it is.
I have no problem saying that.
Say it all you want, it's not true. Human lives are either of equal value or no value at all. There is nothing special about children. If anything they're deaths should mean less as they have barely had a life, so losing it is less of a loss.
I'm sorry, but demanding to see children being brutally slain for and as entertainment pretty much defines 'monster' to me.
Who said anything of the sort?
Who said anything of the sort?
Again, it's the end result of what you're defending. You may not realize that, which I'll cede to you, but you're actually arguing the merits of 'having children murdered graphically as entertainment' and coming up with arguments to defend that point.
Again, it's the end result of what you're defending. You may not realize that, which I'll cede to you, but you're actually arguing the merits of 'having children murdered graphically as entertainment' and coming up with arguments to defend that point.
And what precisely is wrong with that?
Again, it's the end result of what you're defending.
Not it most certainly is not.
you're actually arguing the merits of 'having children murdered graphically as entertainment'
We're not arguing any such merits. We're arguing that it's not any worse than having people in general murdered graphically as entertainment and therefore isn't something that needs to be made a fuss about.
Again, it's the end result of what you're defending.
No, it is you employing a reductio ad absurdum argument to descredit an opinion with which you disagree.
You may not realize that, which I'll cede to you,
And now you an ad hominem, suggesting anyone who disagrees with you is to ignorant to even understand what they are arguing.
but you're actually arguing the merits of 'having children murdered graphically as entertainment' and coming up with arguments to defend that point.
No, I am arguing against graphic murder as entertainment period. I am arguing that adults should not be shown gruesomely murdered any more than should children.
If you are going to have the temerity to tell someone what they think you might want to make sure you understand it first.
I'm sure you, like many, enjoy watching *ahem* adult films, yes? Well, I'm sure you are aware that their are this with more... "interesting" tastes in such films, yes? Well, if you find that you are not interested in these more esoteric productions, what you do is to simply not watch them, no? I mean, you certainly don't publicly discuss how much you don't like to see them do you? You certainly don't start a topic on a forum writing about how disgusted you happen to be. It's just not worth fussing about, because if it's not your thing, you just don't watch. That doesn't at all make people who enjoy watching these movies bad people. They just have different interests in what they're looking to get out of that genre.
. . . Did that help at all?
EDIT: To clarify, I choose this example because it's an area where everybody has widely varying tastes and generally don't complain about the tastes of others... Also, it's funny...
the way people are talking, it's as if it was a documentary
just checking i'm not confused
just checking that Nu-BSG is fiction?
the way people are talking, it's as if it was a documentary
just checking i'm not confused
It's the subject matter that's repellent, not so much if it's 'real or not'.
And before someone says 'that's the whole point', remember that the Roman games were initially theatre and non-lethal to the participants. The more you lower your ethical standards, the more depravity you'll accept and exploit.
It's not like we haven't ALREADY had our child-exploitation reality show...
I felt sad for them, but for some reason it didn't bother me as much because it wasn't glorified or gorified. it showed the reality of it.
I was in Kosovo and Bosnia about 10 years back, and i saw dead kids and such. In fact, there were roving **** squads, and we found a mother holding her dead child in her arms. She had killed her own daughter with a concrete block just so the baby (she was probably about 2 or 3 years old) didn't have to face the **** squads.
I know people who get more worked up by seeing anuimals dying in movies than people. From a young age we see adult violence against each other and we accept that, but only in more recent years has thier actually been an increase in depictions of young children being brutally killed on screen.
And you know, yeah, I never let my daughter watch BSG. But come on, Gost Hunters is on at 8 pm. And while the commercial wasn't overly graphic in the sense there was no blood or anything, the kid did look up and gasp in fear a split second before the foot squashed him. Tasteless.
And different things appeal to different people. I personally have three children and i have seen the innocent child mentality, and to eveb think about seeing kids harmed or hurt in any way bothers me to the core. Call me mr. paladin-pants, but i really get upset seeing it. And you know, sometimes you don't know what's coming before you see it, so "don't watch" isn't always an option.
And also, if you don't feel anyn kind of negative emotion when you hear of a sleazebag who kidnaps, rapes, and murders little kids than I feel you seriously need to re-examine your humanity (or buy stock in White Wolf ;))
Whether or not the children depicted are fictional, it still bothers people. SVU happens to be one of my favorite shows, but you know, 1. my kids aren't allowed to watch it, and 2) rarely to you ever actually see the violence. you always hear about it, and when you see it happening, it is done in a tasteful (as tasteful as you can get anyway) way to propogate drama, where usually the bad guy is punished.
Well, I had some more to say, but my wife is dragging me out the door, so i gotta scram.
Can you imagine a D&D that shows/depicts the destruction of Children?
Nope. Not under the D&D label.
But I can see that under the d20 label (before Quality Standards clause was put in place).
I'm sorry, but demanding to see children being brutally slain for and as entertainment pretty much defines 'monster' to me.
Guilty, if it's part of the fictional story.
Of course, I have no objection to putting a warning label on it before someone who is squeamish about such thing would view it and be traumatized.
Anyone 1st level want this guy?
and it's a real recent phenomina too - just look at some of the classic childrens stories, for example, which have previously had all kinds of horrible violence, death, kidnap, torture and the like. however, they have, one after another, become disneyfied and the darkness taken away
If you are telling stories about bad people, something they have to do bad things
But there's a difference in portrayal. Norman Bates still resonates as one of the classic 'villains' in movies, yet none of his murders and crimes in the masterpiece Psycho are graphically shown.
The story 'Hansel and Gretel' has the witch eat the children. But that's all it says. There's no six page lengthy description of HOW she eats them, and lots of detail on the carnage. (And this is true of most children's stories.) The 'darkness and evil' is simply put as wrote.
Ultimately it's about the narrative, and I maintain that the 'need' to be graphic shows a weakness in the narrative itself, particiuarly whent he narrative seems to exist for no reason OTHER than the 'need' to be graphic.
Yet, in the final moments, Johnny raised his mangled hand and asked if someone could take the coins and get his mom some milk.
His mom had had that kind of hold over them.
See? Not that bad.
*****
Since when is it inappropriate to show children getting killed on TV and in movies?
Children aren't special; they're just like anyone else. There's absolutely nothing wrong with depicting their deaths.
Ratings exist for a reason. If it is higher rated, it is more likely to contain objectionable material.
If you aren't responsible enough to control what you watch, that's your own problem.
Could not possibly agree more...about children not being special.
The other other white meat.
But seriously...if seeing a little angel being rubbed out offends your sensibilities then I must be more callous than I thought.
Forget about showing boobs if kid snuffing is too much.
Young Johnny and Sue had gone to the store for their mom to pick up some milk. On their way, a car hopped the curb and ran them over. It was horrific. Small children turned to into sidewalk meat, jagged broken bones and slippery pools of blood.
Yet, in the final moments, Johnny raised his mangled hand and asked if someone could take the coins and get his mom some milk.
His mom had had that kind of hold over them.
See? Not that bad.
*****
Better make it non-fat or I am in for a beating!!
Adults aren't as innocent.
Nor as tasty. :9
This is ridiculous. Your life is not worth more just because you're "innocent" just like your life isn't worth more just because you're rich or intelligent or popular.
Your life actually IS worth more if you are intelligent or rich, from a montetary standpoint.
Furthermore, I don't get what the deal is with the ever so popular "children are more innocent" bull crap. I've met adults who are the pinnacle of innocence and children who are vile, spoiled, unsympathetic brats who'll grow up to be the scum of society.
Indeed. Many children are intolerable.
Just because you're such a jaded and terrible person doesn't mean that I have to accept the idea that children should be brutally killed just as much as adults for entertainment, which is the backwards premise you guys seem to be putting forward.
Seriously, look what you're arguing for.. what the hell is wrong with you to WANT this?
What is wrong with it? You're making the assumption that it is wrong, but not backing it up with any evidence.
I'm sorry, but demanding to see children being brutally slain for and as entertainment pretty much defines 'monster' to me.
Demanding that people don't do things which harm no one and are fun for them is monsterous. Enjoying things which harm no one is not monsterous.
Its the same as being against gays getting married.
Has anybody in this thread demanded to see children being brutally slain for entertainment?
Ooh, ooh, pick me! I enjoy watching them die as much, if not more, than anyone else. It is cool because it subverts expectations - everyone expects the little kid to survive against all odds, so an hour into the movie when the alien eats their head, its all the more shocking.
Not to mention kids are often very annoying in movies, so watching them die is cathartic.
are you a big fan of "a modest proposal"?
Who isn't?
Ultimately it's about the narrative, and I maintain that the 'need' to be graphic shows a weakness in the narrative itself, particiuarly whent he narrative seems to exist for no reason OTHER than the 'need' to be graphic.
It depends on the needs of the narrative. Not all narratives need or want only offscreen violence. Things like Saving Private Ryan are awesome precisely BECAUSE of the graphic violence shown on-screen.
Unseen horror and visual horrors are both very interesting, but they're good for different reasons and evoke someone different responses, emotional and otherwise. Both are valuable tools.
1. The son in the Tom Cruise War of the Worlds
2. The daughter in the Tom Cruise War of the Worlds
3. Little Miss Sunshine's brother
4. The Omen kid - son of Satan? more like brat of poop
5. Lava Girl and Shark Boy
6. Spy Kids
The list could go on, but I want to leave room for fictional kids that you think should be slain in the most horrific manner. So, lets hear it...
*****
It depends on the needs of the narrative. Not all narratives need or want only offscreen violence. Things like Saving Private Ryan are awesome precisely BECAUSE of the graphic violence shown on-screen.
As someone who has seen that kind of violence up close, I agree. Saving Private Ryan wouldn't be as insightful if you couldn't see the sort of horrors the characters were seeing up close and personal.
But do you remember the dogtag scene? The callousness of the characters picking through the dogtags of the dead while their buddies were forming up around them paints a picture of what Americans are starting to become. Pay particular attention to the rage on the face of the medic as he reads the others the riot act for their behavior.
When you stop treating death as the solemn occasion it is, you lose that little bit of your self. When a person dies it should affect you. Using the death of children to titilate is isn't enterainment, it's barbaric. I'll point out that the gladiatorial arenas of Rome were just entertainment as well. So where do we draw the line?
When you stop treating death as the solemn occasion it is, you lose that little bit of your self.
Not everybody thinks that death should be a solemn occasion to begin with. It's sad to know you'll never see anybody again, but there's no use crying over spilled milk, and the absolute best thing you can do when somebody close to you dies is to move on with your life. Lamenting death for an extended period of time has absolutely zero benefit and can in fact be detrimental to ones physical, psychological, and social well being. Furthermore, do you really think your deceased live one would want you being so sad for so long on their account?
When a person dies it should affect you.
To an extent, but you have to be reasonable.
Using the death of children to titilate is isn't enterainment, it's barbaric. I'll point out that the gladiatorial arenas of Rome were just entertainment as well. So where do we draw the line?
The gladiatorial arenas of Rome were real. Movies are fake. There is your line right there. People can watch whatever barbaric acts they please so long as it's not real.
When you stop treating death as the solemn occasion it is, you lose that little bit of your self. When a person dies it should affect you. Using the death of children to titilate is isn't enterainment, it's barbaric. I'll point out that the gladiatorial arenas of Rome were just entertainment as well. So where do we draw the line?
Nobody is dying in a Hollywood production (typically).
In fact, I would say the death of The Mole in South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut is funny. It was a cartoon child that had been mauled by attack dogs. Funny stuff.
Fictional children are not real and it would be fine if they all died.
*****
South Park
OH MY GOD!
THEY KILLED KENNY!
EDIT: That's weird. Why doesn't that link work... I just c/p'ed it from the page... hrm...
If you are telling stories about bad people, something they have to do bad things
and it's a real recent phenomina too - just look at some of the classic childrens stories, for example, which have previously had all kinds of horrible violence, death, kidnap, torture and the like. however, they have, one after another, become disneyfied and the darkness taken away
good point!
My wife's gramma had an old version of grimms fairy tales, and I tell you what! Itwasa far cry different from some of the ones i heard growing up. I don't think i would have been able to sleep at night (bad enough I was worried about the Greys taking me away! lol)Star Wars 3: Tasteful.
AVP2: Tasteless
South Park: Tasteful satire, albeit stupid funny, but funny. (See Imaginationland)
My Girl: Tasteful
Caligula: Tasteless (And possibly historically inacurate, though you can tell the kid is a fake)
My questio is, as to how many people it doesn't bother, which of you are actual parents?
There is a certain bond that forms between you when that child looks up at you and needs you for food, and diaper changes, and just to hold close when he or shee needs sleep.
and there is a certain amountof pride the first time they roll that d20, or get thier 1st crit, or whoop you at magic, or clean you out at Three Dragon Ante.
And me being the DM of my two groups, my daughter emulates me, and is always throwing this dungeon map at me or that character idea at me.
But then you know, I guess that's why we have such a good alignment system put into place in this wonderful world of ours.
Unless a death is off camera it's not "tasteful." Also why would a alien build on expanding numbers stop and choose adult targets. And why wouldn't evil androids who want human genocide kill off the future of the race. And why wouldn't a writer write these things into his work, adding realism to it. Sure the children were innocent. Children are special because they haven't grown into the horrible people they'll be one day and they should life because they haven't seen as much as us. But the situations listed are bad guys killing kids. And worst, people/things that think our exsistance is morally wrong.
As per don't kill the innoccent, the man being forced to work for the evil scientist could have taken a stand and gotten killed instead of helping some bad guy murder more. Saving your own ass is not innocence, it's just greed and selfishness. Maybe the hero should have shot him too. If he's already played judge, jury and executioner on the mad man.
I'm sorry, but demanding to see children being brutally slain for and as entertainment pretty much defines 'monster' to me.
Fortunately the rest of us seem capable of distinguishing between fiction and reality.
Do you take issue when you, as PC or DM, land the killing blow to a sentient enemy? TV and movies are no more real - even when depicting an historical event - than that piece of paper you slaughtered last weekend.
I was actually quite surprised when my players killed a helpless NPC (they'd threatened to kill her if the other baddies didn't stop attacking. The baddies didn't care and I as the DM didn't expect them to follow through. I was wrong).
you're actually arguing the merits of 'having children murdered graphically as entertainment' and coming up with arguments to defend that point.
No they're/we're not. We might be saying its okay to show a child pretend to be graphically murdered on television, but that isn't anywhere near the same as saying its okay for children to be graphically murdered on television.
And before someone says 'that's the whole point', remember that the Roman games were initially theatre and non-lethal to the participants. The more you lower your ethical standards, the more depravity you'll accept and exploit.
Oh dear. We'd better lock up all the video games and destroy all movies with a higher rating then G and burn all non-child books (including the bible. There's some nasty stuff in there). Its the only way to protect our society.
Or we could just ignore such slippery-slope arguments and instead spend time educating people about what's REAL and what's PRETEND.
SVU happens to be one of my favorite shows, but you know, 1. my kids aren't allowed to watch it, and 2) rarely to you ever actually see the violence. you always hear about it, and when you see it happening, it is done in a tasteful (as tasteful as you can get anyway) way to propogate drama, where usually the bad guy is punished.
See, I find it disturbing to imagine there is some kid out there who is pretending to be have been molested by an adult simply for the entertainment of others. Talk about loss of innocence. Now I still enjoy the show, but its much more disturbing then seeing some CGI foot coming down on top of a kid and then having a CGI foot animated to appear to be squishing the ground.
and there is a certain amountof pride the first time they roll that d20, or get thier 1st crit, or whoop you at magic, or clean you out at Three Dragon Ante.
You let your children act like mass murdering looters? You monster!
Where will their behaviour end? Will they start with raping the orcs and then move onto actually killing lizards in real life? I'm going to call Child Services on you!Since when was it ok to show kids getting killed on tv and in movies?
[Snipped for brevity]
And of course in the pilot movie for the current Battlestar Galactica series Caprica reaches in and breaks an infants neck. That almost killed the whole show for me right then and there, and it took two seasons just to get my wife to watch again!
So, My question is, when did it become ok to show kids getting killed in graphic ways on tv?
I loved the scene where the cylon breaks the infant's neck. The machines really hate humans and that's one very effective way to bring that out. It did more to show me that hate than even the 12 nukes that the cylons set off on the Colonies.
Murdering an innocent child or baby is . . . unthinkable; it's one of the most disturbing and shocking acts imaginable (for anyone). Such scenes are written, produced and filmed specifically to shock, to disturb viewers; that's their whole purpose. Children are just the latest victims, useful because they work against our expectations.
It's becoming harder and harder to shock people now days, really get their attention and keep it. Some call portraying the death of children a cheap trick but (at the moment) it works. Someday soon, they'll move on to something else in order to shock and disturb us.
Make of that what you will.
-Joni
It's becoming harder and harder to shock people now days, really get their attention and keep it. Some call portraying the death of children a cheap trick but (at the moment) it works. Someday soon, they'll move on to something else in order to shock and disturb us.
And that's the real issue... what's honestly LEFT?
The amount of wars and natural disasters on tv these days probably show dead kids as well.
And that's the real issue... what's honestly LEFT?
Do not open that Pandora's box, you won't like the answer.
Do not open that Pandora's box, you won't like the answer.
That's just it, we're going to find out.
And, for those people who think that what I'm worried about is the 'decline of our society', they've got the cause and effect wrong. I'm worried that this kind of psychotic and frankly sick titilation we're seeing in movies and on TV these days is a strong indicator that our society has already declined.
The Roman arena didn't turn into a bloodbath before the decline started, folks.. it was well after.
If you are telling stories about bad people, something they have to do bad things
I'm pretty sure bad things exist beyond children being killed.
and it's a real recent phenomina too - just look at some of the classic childrens stories, for example, which have previously had all kinds of horrible violence, death, kidnap, torture and the like. however, they have, one after another, become disneyfied and the darkness taken away
Wait. A child's channel got rid of children being killed in their stories? That's what you use as an argument? Really?
And that's the real issue... what's honestly LEFT?
There's always something they haven't though of (yet) ;).
For myself, I don't mind seeing the death of children in TV and movies. I understand its strictly fiction, done for effect. Such violence isn't for everyone but if handled responsibly and maturely, I don't mind. I find South Park to be a bit offensive (Really, really hate the F-bomb). I know, I'm strange ;).
In the case of the BSG scene, it was shocking enough to force me past my preconcieved notions of what BSG should be (I grew up in the '70s watching the original series). I had to totally divorce the original show from the current one before I could enjoy it on its own merits. I actually like it better than the original, although this show is a bit more mature (darker) and certainly not for everyone.
The Roman arena didn't turn into a bloodbath before the decline started, folks.. it was well after.
Give them their bread and circuses, eh?
Give them their bread and circuses, eh?
That's basically it. Feed the lowest common denominator, and even the uncommon one if it keeps people's attention away from the failings of society as a whole... that was Rome's view.
Not sure it's really all that different for us now. Which story took the headlines? Georgia or Edwards... seems to me that people in our society are SO complacent, and SO well off overall, that they revel in depravity just to justify their sense ennui.
That's basically it. Feed the lowest common denominator, and even the uncommon one if it keeps people's attention away from the failings of society as a whole... that was Rome's view.
Not sure it's really all that different for us now. Which story took the headlines? Georgia or Edwards... seems to me that people in our society are SO complacent, and SO well off overall, that they revel in depravity just to justify their sense ennui.
There's all kinds of "artsy-fartsy" stuff out there for the more highbrow among us ;), but yeah, a lot of movies and TV seem aimed squarely at the lowest common denominator (unfortunately). They really don't want people to have to think too hard, just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Morale decline began long before Hollywood though. I'm sure mankind will survive Pan's Labyrinth (check out the *twist* ending).
Morale decline began long before Hollywood though. I'm sure mankind will survive Pan's Labyrinth (check out the *twist* ending).
Pan's Labyrinth? Pfeh! If you want a real twist, check out some of M. Night Shyamalan's movies!
Hint: The thing they said wouldn't happen...happened!
There's all kinds of "artsy-fartsy" stuff out there for the more highbrow among us ;), but yeah, a lot of movies and TV seem aimed squarely at the lowest common denominator (unfortunately). They really don't want people to have to think too hard, just sit back and enjoy the ride.
And that's okay, really. What bothers me more is the 'tililation' and 'shock factor' that usually is pushed in the name of being 'edgy'. Thing is, while proving a certain decline in apsects of our society, it actually doesn't seem to sell.
What might be more disturbing is that the more nanny-minded Democrats may start taking control of our media again, and establish a second 'censor code' for movies and cable, just as it was done in the 1920s (and lasted through the 1960s) - and the public sympathy will be with the censors.
I loved the scene where the cylon breaks the infant's neck. The machines really hate humans and that's one very effective way to bring that out. It did more to show me that hate than even the 12 nukes that the cylons set off on the Colonies.
She didn't do it out of hatred, though, it was an act of mercy to save it from the coming apocalypse. It was one of the first major defining moments of her "humanization".
She didn't do it out of hatred, though, it was an act of mercy to save it from the coming apocalypse. It was one of the first major defining moments of her "humanization".
I interpreted it more as a curiosity about mortality, an attempt to understand human life and death from a being who was basically immortal.
Caprica 6's humanization didn't seem to occur until after the nuclear blast and Gaius Baltar went into her head.
oh man, do i feel like Belkar killing a kobold in a city!
and p.s.
um, sarcasm not included, child services for letting my kid play three dragon ante?
I interpreted it more as a curiosity about mortality, an attempt to understand human life and death from a being who was basically immortal.
Caprica 6's humanization didn't seem to occur until after the nuclear blast and Gaius Baltar went into her head.
and ended when a bullet went through her head, and no res ship!
(any news on when the new season starts?)She didn't do it out of hatred, though, it was an act of mercy to save it from the coming apocalypse. It was one of the first major defining moments of her "humanization".
Exactly.
and ended when a bullet went through her head, and no res ship!
It's not a new season, it's the second half of the last season. From Wiki:
After Razor, the remainder of the fourth season was split into two parts, with the first 10 episodes airing beginning April 4, 2008,[12] and with the second 10 installments likely airing in early 2009.
But then, I personally place a large intrinsic value on the lives of children. Not only because of innocence, but because in them, I see the future. I see hope. Call it instinct for survival of the species if you will, I call it inborn human nature. Of course, I try to keep myself having a degree of care for all human life. I think we're more than just "hunks of meat", but that's neither here nor there.
It is a scientific fact that what an individual finds to be humorous is directly proportional to that person's intelligence.
You could also infer that what a society pays to see and finds entertaining (i mean, they don't show shows that get low ratings right? hence so many shows canceled after just a few weeks of airtime) as a reflection of that society.
And people are obviously taking in a vast amount of media portraying these things, meaning they find it entertaining.
And just to cement my opinion, I can understand the need for the child-killing in the context of a story if it serves a purpose to further propogate the drama. It still sucks to to see them harmed, but it is livable.
But stupid meaningless deaths of children I believe is stupid and meaningless. Though, harming the protagonists pet/animal companion can have the same effect. Who didn't get ****** when they shot Lone Wolf Mcquades dog? (Chuck Norris even almost cried, which could have ended cancer, but...) Or that wolf in Dances with Wolves.
Or when they didn't kill Frodo, and he got all the attention and Sam the real hero was basically given a nod off?
Stupid Hobbits, every time you see one the music gets all Enya and crap. ;)
What fictional violence was Rome and France using that led directly into acceptance of the real life violence, and how did that violence lead to the direct downfall of those regimes?
The simulated violence in the competition of Tennis caused the downfall of the French Monarchy, as evidenced by the Tennis Court Oath.
Look at Pop Culture. 50 years ago we had Andy Griffith and Aunt Bea. Today we have Flavor Flav making out with every hoochie there is.
And this statement is directly meaningless. Thats not evidence. Thats anecdotal, which is meaninless as evidence.
It is a scientific fact that what an individual finds to be humorous is directly proportional to that person's intelligence.
And the links to the numerous studies that has taken this hypothesis to theory, and than Scientific Fact?
You could also infer that what a society pays to see and finds entertaining (i mean, they don't show shows that get low ratings right? hence so many shows canceled after just a few weeks of airtime) as a reflection of that society.
Causation/Correlation. I could try to make a connection between pown viewing habits and priest molestion childen. We have more free access to porn, and child molestion in religious institution has gone done. Guess what. Both are meaningless, since you and I haven't provided a link between the two.
Yes low rated shows don't last as long. But that doesn't mean a society is depraved, cynical, or jaded.
But stupid meaningless deaths of children I believe is stupid and meaningless. Though, harming the protagonists pet/animal companion can have the same effect. Who didn't get ****** when they shot Lone Wolf Mcquades dog? (Chuck Norris even almost cried, which could have ended cancer, but...) Or that wolf in Dances with Wolves.
But your opimion is just that. Your opinion. Your opinion is as meaningless as my opinion.
Or when they didn't kill Frodo, and he got all the attention and Sam the real hero was basically given a nod off?
Stupid Hobbits, every time you see one the music gets all Enya and crap. ;)
I do like Sam a whole lot better than Frodo. Stupid Hobbit getting all the credit for failing...
Hypocrasy isn't that bad. The problem is your setting standards in which your judging others.
Hypocrasy is a Cardinal Sin. It destroys trust.
What fictional violence was Rome and France using that led directly into acceptance of the real life violence, and how did that violence lead to the direct downfall of those regimes?
And, again, you're reversing cause and effect. Certain subject matters in entertainment (particularly those msot would considered sexually or violently depraved) have coincided with the decline of civilizations throughout history. This isn't even a debatable point, as ANY history scholar could point to tons of examples.
And the links to the numerous studies that has taken this hypothesis to theory, and than Scientific Fact?
Stop it. This is a casual conversation, not a court of law.
The simulated violence in the competition of Tennis caused the downfall of the French Monarchy, as evidenced by the Tennis Court Oath.
But how does this apply to the French's development of perfume as a camouflage?
Stop it. This is a casual conversation, not a court of law.
A claim was made, and he wants to see it backed up. What's wrong with that?
Otherwise, I'll just end this here and now:
Scientists have conclusively proven - THROUGH SCIENCE - that showing kids dying in our entertainment is beneficial to society. [/thread]
A claim was made, and he wants to see it backed up. What's wrong with that?
Otherwise, I'll just end this here and now:
Scientists have conclusively proven - THROUGH SCIENCE - that showing kids dying in our entertainment is beneficial to society. [/thread]
Wait. Did they really use science? ;)
_________________
Still waiting on whatever rationalization will be given for finding killing in D&D to be OK but killing on TV to be bad ... *taps foot* ...
Stop it. This is a casual conversation, not a court of law.
If the poster is going to claim something is a "Scientific Fact", then he has to prove it.
Thats the entire point. Our opinions are meaningless. Only facts matter.
Someone claiming that society is depraved/jaded/worse, and our entertainment viewing habits is a symptom/cause/development of that, then they have to prove it. Otherwise they are just blowing smoke up our butts.
Hypocrasy is a Cardinal Sin. It destroys trust.
No such thing as sin. Sin is a made up word use by religion to control us. I don't trust people who try to judge me in the first place.
And, again, you're reversing cause and effect. Certain subject matters in entertainment (particularly those msot would considered sexually or violently depraved) have coincided with the decline of civilizations throughout history. This isn't even a debatable point, as ANY history scholar could point to tons of examples.
Then point out tons of examples.
No such thing as sin. Sin is a made up word use by religion to control us.
I think we're done here.
I think we're done here.
Sin is a term used in a religious context to describe an act that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such.
How does such a word apply when Religion doesn't?
Woo! You're a raving psychotic loony that should be locked up! How cool are you?!
Now, Seriously, why would you do this? Why would you go out of your way to do this? To prove something to me about how you can revel in depravity and get away with it? How pathetic is that, really...
To show demons have no qualm.
I mean, for DMs, if you have to portray evil, portray them to the hilt. Don't hold back.
That's as evil as I get in my campains.
To prove how bad my BBEGs are, I depicted one crushing a flower beneath his boot.
That's as evil as I get in my campains.
You bastard.
major entertainment outlets mirror the mindset of a society.
if people don't watch the stuff, ratings drop, shows make no money from sponsors, the show dies.
logic dictates you must deduce the opposite is also true.
Main Entry: sin
Pronunciation: \ˈsin\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is — more at is
Date: before 12th century
1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible c: an often serious shortcoming : fault
2 a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
--------------------------------
sin is not by default a religious term, but that is off-topic, and i don't want to sin against the thread
and i ask others not to sin against the coc, and be polite
To prove how bad my BBEGs are, I depicted one crushing a flower beneath his boot.
That's as evil as I get in my campains.
no wonder they call you bloodsoul. i don't think i will be able to sleep again! ;)
heh heh heh; this from websters online dictionary
Main Entry: sin
Pronunciation: \ˈsin\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is — more at is
Date: before 12th century
1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible c: an often serious shortcoming : fault
2 a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
--------------------------------
sin is not by default a religious term, but that is off-topic, and i don't want to sin against the thread
and i ask others not to sin against the coc, and be polite
Cardinal Sin, which what TFVanguard said.
You bastard.
no wonder they call you bloodsoul. i don't think i will be able to sleep again! ;)
It was either that or have him kick a puppy.
Stop it. This is a casual conversation, not a court of law.
I think you rather scuttled the S.S. Casual Conversation when you called people who disagreed with you "immoral psychotics".
It is a scientific fact that what an individual finds to be humorous is directly proportional to that person's intelligence.
You must be joking.
*****
This is the exact same B.S. that politicians and "concerned mothers" spew during election time. Correlation does not equal causation. There's is no studies that prove a link between seeing violent images and committing violence.
In fact, there isn't even a study which indicates correlation between playing violent video games and other violent media and committing violence.
There is one between poor parenting and violence, though.
Hm, I wonder why they try to pass it off as the fault of the media...
Oh, that's right, to avoid taking responsibility.
She didn't do it out of hatred, though, it was an act of mercy to save it from the coming apocalypse. It was one of the first major defining moments of her "humanization".
Hmm . . . hadn't thought of it that way; you're prolly right. Still, it's an evil thiing, not what I would call a "kindness" at all, more a sickness of the heart.
There is one between poor parenting and violence, though.
And if you scroll back a couple pages, you'll note the OP was watching television with his children when he saw something he thought was reprehensible. Granted, I've seen what he referred to and it's relatively innocent, but it is one small step onto the downward spiral of what's acceptable.
About the same time Tammy Faye Baker was allowed to appear in public.
A more certain sign of the pending apocalypse does not exist.
Think about it; no matter who the victim is, violence helps sells fiction, always has, always will. It's become more and more graphic over the years, but it's always been disturbing for it's time (again, that's the point). It takes more to shock us than ever before; given enough time however, our movies will look pretty tame compared to what awaits us in the future. Some people may never be ready for the level of violence depicted in fiction but I think that's rare; in most cases, I think most eventually adapt.
Do acts of violence really add up to entertainment? I'd personally say yes, simply because any amount of violence is easily reconizable as fiction, as make-believe. In real life, I wouldn't hurt a fly; my imagination is a real monster though. Is violent entertainment appropriate (or enjoyable) for everyone? No, certainly not. That's one reason why we have so many rating systems on TV, Movies, Video Games, and Comics; to help us know what to expect. I don't see rating systems so much as a preventative measure (to keep kids away from R-rated movies) as a tool for the parents. Not the best tool of course, but still useful.
It's up to us (as adults and parents) to determine what's appropriate for ourselves and our family (children). Also, knowing what to expect helps; don't go into Nightmare on Elm Street expecting Fried Green Tomatoes (chick flick) ;), expect to see teen sex, boobs, and buckets of blood.
I'm nearing 40 years of age now, and finding that I enjoy adult subject matter more. I'm still a kid and heart and allow myself to enjoy light-hearted stuff (early Harry Potter for instance), but for a real thrill I'll pick up a copy of MAX Punisher.
Had I attempted to read MAX Punisher as a younger man, I can honestly say I would have been completely unprepared for such violence and mature subjects. In fact, I would have been extremely offended. Now, it hits a *rough* chord within me that simply wasn't there a few years ago. I'm glad it's available because now I'm ready to enjoy it; still, it's not for everyone (but maybe in time).
Just some rambling thoughts on the subject in general ;).
And parents are 90% to blame. the other 10% is the state. I will tell you why.
Recently my brother the welder was laid off from work, so he and his wife went up to the local department of social services and applied for all the beneifts. they god food stamps ok, but when it came to the cash assistance everything went wrong. they have two children, ages 2 and 6 months.
the state is made my brother and my sister in law get ****-poor jobs, and they provide money for child care. um, child care in our area costs between 35-50 dollars per kid per day. so, she gets her 200 dollars a month welfare benefit, makes minimum wage, and then the state pays her childcare bill (which is about 250 to 300 per week). and to top it off, thier kids are being raised by daycare people instead of thier parents.
really, the state could save money by just letting my sis-in-law stay home with her own kids!
p.s.
just pay attention to people you deem as intellectually inferior to you, and what they deem funny or laugh at. you'll see.
yeah, the one where Frank had the guys intestines strung up in the tree as Intimidation, that was priceless!
And parents are 90% to blame. the other 10% is the state. I will tell you why.
Recently my brother the welder was laid off from work, so he and his wife went up to the local department of social services and applied for all the beneifts. they god food stamps ok, but when it came to the cash assistance everything went wrong. they have two children, ages 2 and 6 months.
the state is made my brother and my sister in law get ****-poor jobs, and they provide money for child care. um, child care in our area costs between 35-50 dollars per kid per day. so, she gets her 200 dollars a month welfare benefit, makes minimum wage, and then the state pays her childcare bill (which is about 250 to 300 per week). and to top it off, thier kids are being raised by daycare people instead of thier parents.
really, the state could save money by just letting my sis-in-law stay home with her own kids!
p.s.
just pay attention to people you deem as intellectually inferior to you, and what they deem funny or laugh at. you'll see.
Sad story. Has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Of course, its strong motivation to find another job, right?
-Joni
I don't ever remember seeing anyone in the theater cheering anakin on during the siege of the jedi temple.
You clearly didn't attend the same showing as I did. I cheered pretty much all the way through, watching those smug, insufferably stupid jedi collectively get out-manouvered and spifflicated by thier eminent superior (i.e Palpatine). Long live the Empire!
I personally have no problem with sentient beings being killed in fiction. ANY fiction. Heck, I hate humans nearly as much as I hate Vampires, so I really have no problems with 'em getting killed.
I do tend to shy away from completely gratutious violence (of any stripe) 'cos generally it's boring. And by completely gratutious, I mean for no other reason (e.g. not for reasons or plot or humour) than for the violence itself. (South Park, for example, is quite funny at times, despite being sometimes rather viseral. But it's a cartoon, and I defy you to tell me it's not obviously fictional. (Hell, they even have a disclaimer at the start of the show.) Or that they go over the top in an attempt to be funny - even if sometimes it misses.)
But generally Stuff for the sake of Stuff is lame. Cool for the sake of cool is lame. Killing children for the sake of killing children and going "woot, look we're being gritty" is lame. Sex for the sake of sex is seriously lame. (Actually, that paragraph would apply equally to real life, too, come to think of it...)
Except starship battles. Starship battles for the sake of starship battles are not only acceptable, but actively encouraged...
Heck, I'm a damned Lich. I have no problem with sentient beings killed outside fiction, especially if they're Elves, Vampires or Shi'Ar.
Besides, any smart, properly educated evil-doer will tell you that it's actually much more fun torturing the smarter, older ones - since they're intelligent enough to actually fully comprehend the horror of what you're doing to them. (Or maybe I just have a very intellectual level of torture...)
And obviously any accusations of me being a bad person are moot because I'm a freakin' LICH! Of COURSE I'm a bad person, it goes with the territory!
Honestly - and for a brief moment seriously - I'm far more concerned with reality television and soaps than I am with fictional deaths as they try so hard to make them as real as possible. That and the 'screw the protagonists' vibe running through other media. That's what worries me most - the current unilateral unlying thing that seems so suggest no-one can be entertained except by other people - apparently, prefereably REAL people considering that's what all reality TV is about - breaking down and crying for their entertainment. That I find truly unsettling: people getting entertained by real suffering.
That's MY damn job, fleshlings, and don't you forget it!
AVP2 was a movie who's marketing said it was going to be more violent and gory than the original. I'm sure everyone here has seen the Alien movies, and know what they can and will do (the human host thing). The Predator kills people for sport and takes their skulls as trophies. When you go to see a movie based on two of the most ruthless movie-monsters ever attacking a town filled with innocent people what do you expect to see? The Aliens and Predators asking them if they wanna have tea? The directors know that killing children is horrible...hence, they put said horrible thing into a horror movie.
It's not like they have just started having children die in movies recently, I can name a few movies where children were the targets in horror movies from the 70's and 80's. To name a few: Jaws, several of the Halloween films, several of the Nightmare on Elmstreet movies (the main guy's a child murderer!), and Arachnophobia. Also, I think that Hollywood has proven that children are not put in the perfectly innocent little angel category anymore (lest we forget Children of the Corn).
That's just my opinion. Times change. Horror movies are becoming more and more intense, if you can't take a kid getting squashed by a beanstalk (LOL) I reccomend you stop watching horror movies.
I've hated the old cliche of the kid surviving when all the adults are dying because to me, it makes no sense. Deaths are shown to make the veiwer know how dangerous and/or evil the monster is. If the kid in AVP2 had escaped, it would have left me thinking that either 1 the aliens had gone soft, or 2 they were just not really much of a threat. I didn't think "I want to see a kid die", I just thought that the atmosphere of the film benefitted from it (and lets face it, AVP2 needs all the help it can get!). I am no fan of the torture-porn style off violence, but I do like to know that the bad guys are actually nasty, otherwise what's the point of putting them in the film? The only time I actually enjoy the suffering for the suffering alone is when the villan is very brutally defeated by one of the darker, more hardcore hero types.
I do believe that people need to pay more attension to age ratings etc if they're the sort of people who could be upset by this sort of stuff.
child services for letting my kid play three dragon ante?
Clearly Three Dragon Ante has a lot more killing then I thought. Or I was referring to letting them play D&D ;)
I find it repellent that anyone would find any dipcition of a child murder, in and of itself, entertainment. I don't care if it's a fictional depiction or not.. it's sick and it's, by definition, psychotic behavior.
Someone could easily say the same about any fictional murder. Thankfully most of us here would simply point and laugh at them. Consider yourself lucky we don't give you the same treatment.
I had to delete some posts from this thread because they violated the Code of Conduct
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=magic/magiconline/coc
It's ok to disagree with each other, but please don't call names, or diagnose mental illnesses. It's rude and causes disruption.
Thanks.
So, listen up humanity, you best un**** yourself right sharp.
Don't waste that natural 20, idiots.
*****
I have diagnosed all humans as psychotic and paranoid beyond belief.
So, listen up humanity, you best un**** yourself right sharp.
Don't waste that natural 20, idiots.
Isn't that what makes us ... humans?
Sorry, bub. You're gonna have to wait for the next evolution, unless we, like our primate cousins, have hit a dead end. FWIW, consider that a relief.
:evillaugh
*****
I have diagnosed all humans as psychotic and paranoid beyond belief.
So, listen up humanity, you best un**** yourself right sharp.
Don't waste that natural 20, idiots.
*****
Why the heck do you think I got out of humanity at the first opportunity and became a Lich? Not that I was ever human in the first place, not where's its important, at any rate.
Heed those words. I remind you, humans, the only thing standing between you and sackful of Rocket-Launcher-y, Maximised Disintigrate-y death is Aotrs regulations which prevent me from giving you the collective soul-kicking you deserve...
Why the heck do you think I got out of humanity at the first opportunity and became a Lich? Not that I was ever human in the first place, not where's its important, at any rate.
Actually, we never thought you were human to begin with. My group are debating whether you're the frozen bigfoot without the "skin" or the Montauk Monster.
:evillaugh
Which is one reason why I don't watch much television. I'd much rather read a good book.
That said, nothing can get my blood boiling faster than seeing senseless violence in the real world directed at civilians and in particular the kids. I have kids of my own now and having spent several years working in law enforcement I can tell you that just because there are kids getting killed in the real world all the time doesn't mean that I A. Have to like it. B. Have to get used to it or comfortable with it. C. Have to support those who could care less about such things with my dollars.
Maybe us old guys from my generation are behind the times but I would still, to this day, put myself in harms way or even give my life to try and save a little kid..any little kid..that I saw in the line of fire or in harms way if I thought I had a chance of making a difference.
Reading the responses of some of the younger guys is a little discouraging. I hope you change your minds as you get older about some of your positions.
I guess it will be a sad day when the last of us dinosaurs who care about other people dies off and when some kid is in trouble there are just a bunch of people standing around laughing and recording the whole thing on their cell phones so they can post it up on youtube.
As to the commercial you saw, I tend to vote with my wallet. If a television show, film, television channel, publisher or whatever has a position I don't agree with strongly then I don't subscribe to, watch or buy their products.
Just my two cents.
Arthnek
Let's go over the list of things that die in movies or television series (children excluded):
- Adults
- Dogs
- Horses
- Godzilla
- King Kong
- Littlefoot's Mother
- Rats and mice
- Cockroaches
- Flies
- Autobots
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Sure, some of them may not be as shocking as others, but some deaths do, and some make you cry (I know I did at number 6 on the list), but the one thing they have in common is that all are shown. Why should a child be any different? Is it the age, is it their size, is it what we associate with them, is it their "innocence" as some say?
Age and size don't matter at all for sure, the average dying dog is younger than the average dying child shown, and a lot of beings being shown dying are smaller too. Is it their "innocence" then? ********. There are enough innocent adults dying in movies and we don't shed a single tear for those masses. Then, is it what we associate with them? That may be the point. I think most of us would find the best friend of the main character dying more touching than the bad guy dying (depending on how the death is played out at least). The same goes for the main character's dog (man's best friend after all).
Its the association that is the problem. Some people associate "innocence" with children, but never with adults. Its just too ingrained into their minds. I myself don't find children "innocent" or anything, it depends on the child itself, not that it is a child at all. If the child being shown is just there for that moment, I find the death saddening, yes, but hardly shocking (unless its especially gory, but I don't like gore anyways). Only if the child has been shown for an extended period of time, if its a main, or perhaps secondary character, and it then dies, then it shocks me, and brings a tear to my eye.
Of course, this all would be much harder for a child to grasp, which is why it is better for a child not to watch movies or shows directed at an audience several years older. Then again, why the hell would you make an 8-year-old watch movies aimed at people over 16?
Actually, we never thought you were human to begin with. My group are debating whether you're the frozen bigfoot without the "skin" or the Montauk Monster.
:evillaugh
I'm flattered.
Mostly.
Well, I have to say in all honesty: why not?
Let's go over the list of things that die in movies or television series (children excluded):
- Adults
- Dogs
- Horses
- Godzilla
- King Kong
- Littlefoot's Mother
- Rats and mice
- Cockroaches
- Flies
- Autobots
Funny what does affects people (and loose analogues of same). My Mum always tells the tale when I was very young (not more than two or three), we were watching telly and there was an advert for road-safety or something, with those traditional protagonists of such things, the hedgehogs. Apparently I sat watching with great solomnity without batting an eyelid when the hedgehogs got run-over and splatted. But when one of the hedgehogs grew to giant size and crushed one of the cars I burst into tears.
Even then...
Reading the responses of some of the younger guys is a little discouraging. I hope you change your minds as you get older about some of your positions.
My worry, Arthnek, is that they won't. There are two kinds of people in this world. The first kind will see a burning building, hear the screams and stand around watching. The second kind will see a burning building, hear the screams and run in without thinking to help. As long as violence for violence sake is packaged as entertainment, more people will fall into the former category than the latter. Who is going to stop a violent act on the street when they get their thrills watching violent acts on the television?
I'm not saying that violence has no place in the entertainment industry. I'm just saying that some things are more gratuitous than they need to be. You can use the implication of violence against anyone without showing clear-cut, full-on, blood and guts images. Life is horrific enough.
I do need to ask, again, do those of you who dislike violent tv and movies play very sanitary versions of D&D? Are the in-game killings at your tables simply brushed aside as "he dies" with no elaboration? How do you reconcile killing anything in D&D if the mere presentation of a fictional slaying in television and movies is a problem? I'm seriously interested in the response. To prove it, I'll even give my age since that seems to be a new relation in this topic. I'm 30.
I do need to ask, again, do those of you who dislike violent tv and movies play very sanitary versions of D&D? Are the in-game killings at your tables simply brushed aside as "he dies" with no elaboration? How do you reconcile killing anything in D&D if the mere presentation of a fictional slaying in television and movies is a problem? I'm seriously interested in the response. To prove it, I'll even give my age since that seems to be a new relation in this topic. I'm 30.
I don't dislike violence as a storytelling vehicle. I'm just against gratuitous displays of it. Violence has it's place, just not where children have access to it and certainly not in the levels that it's shown in recent years. Have you been paying attention to the levels of violence in the country lately? I'm beginning to wonder if there's not a corelation between violence on television and movies to the degree of violence we're seeing in the real world.
Also, I'm only 5 years older than you.
I don't dislike violence as a storytelling vehicle. I'm just against gratuitous displays of it. Violence has it's place, just not where children have access to it and certainly not in the levels that it's shown in recent years. Have you been paying attention to the levels of violence in the country lately? I'm beginning to wonder if there's not a corelation between violence on television and movies to the degree of violence we're seeing in the real world.
Also, I'm only 5 years older than you.
There have been studies done very recently that have disproven this theory - at least in the realm of video games. It's not too far an extrapolation, IMO, to say that tvs and movies are the same. (I do not have a link for you. Sorry!) IMO, this is parenting stuff. If you don't want the kid to see or hear something, don't allow them to. That's what my folks did. They'd make me leave the room when something objectionable - in their eyes - came on the tube. There were programs I wasn't allowed to watch as well.
I don't feel that there is any reason to believe that seen, fictional violence causes people to be more violent in reality. You've seen violence on tv, in the movies, etc. Have you killed anyone lately? Have your morals been compromised? I doubt it. The reason? Your parents (or some parent like person) brought you up correctly so that you can distinguish between right and wrong. Hell, I love the stuff. I own every book written by Brett Ellis. I have all but one of Palaihniuk's. Battle Royale is one of my favs. I love war movies and documentaries. Most Evil is one of my favorite shows. I have never even been in a fight. Am I some sort of super-dude? Nah. I'm your normal, average Joe. Ok, maybe not completely normal. ;) What gets missed when people complain about the violence on tv is that the consequences are still shown. Not jail time or retribution, though those certainly do come up, but the fact that someone was gravely injured or killed. We don't kill because we don't want to hurt. Even a fictional portrayal of the silliest kind still shows this. And people recognize it.
As far as an increase in televised (or what have you) violence goes, I'm not so sure. During Vietnam, for example, people were exposed to live firefights on tv. People saw men actually being slaughtered. Going way back, we all know about the Romans and their entertainment. And, to be honest, religion has been more responsible for death and violent acts of intolerance than anything else. People still hate and kill in whatever god's name. Religion has far greater influence than tv. And it's just about always been there. And so has violence. Violence will always be a part of humanity. Television isn't going to make one bit of difference in either direction.
I don't feel that there is any reason to believe that seen, fictional violence causes people to be more violent in reality.
Ahh, but here's the rub. You're not exactly in the norm, are you? One thing I've learned about gamers that play the older pen and paper RPGs is that they tend to be above average when it comes to the usefulness of that gray lumpy thing behind their eyes. What about the rest of society? It's not unreasonable to question what the effect will be on the lower functioning members of our society.
Those closer to violence may well be influenced by it. Does a person raised in an abusive home generally follow the same pattern? Would it be safe to assume that seeing excessive amounts of violence, even fictional violence, would cause a person to be more tolerant of violence in their real life? I don't mean that they would commit the acts of violence. But would they be more accepting of it occurring in their presence? That's my biggest issue with it.
Ahh, but here's the rub. You're not exactly in the norm, are you? One thing I've learned about gamers that play the older pen and paper RPGs is that they tend to be above average when it comes to the usefulness of that gray lumpy thing behind their eyes. What about the rest of society? It's not unreasonable to question what the effect will be on the lower functioning members of our society.
Those closer to violence may well be influenced by it. Does a person raised in an abusive home generally follow the same pattern? Would it be safe to assume that seeing excessive amounts of violence, even fictional violence, would cause a person to be more tolerant of violence in their real life? I don't mean that they would commit the acts of violence. But would they be more accepting of it occurring in their presence? That's my biggest issue with it.
People raised in abusive households are not only exposed to fictional violence, though. They get the real deal. And reality carries a bit more weight.
Ok, so you're more concerned with a sort of "numbing" of our emotive responses and general opposition to violence due to repeated exposure to fictional portrayals of violence. I don't think that's really going to happen, myself. Tv is far and away different from reality. The vast majority of people - even children - readily grasp this. It can't really desensitize you to violence because it can't show you everything about a violent act. Tv is visual and auditory. It doesn't pass on the tactile sense of actually plunging a blade into flesh nor does it give you the odor and possible taste of blood. This stuff is awful. People get it. A fake death on tv is just that - fake. So, IMO, it can't make people care less about real death. They're nowhere near the same. A small and slightly related example: I watch hunting shows. I also hunt. Though these are "real" portrayals of a hunt, they still fail to show 95% of the work involved. They also fail to capture what it is like to actually kill an animal. They are just too different from what's real even though they are real themselves. Fictional portrayals have even less reality to them. People get that. Those that don't would have problems regardless.
It comes down to parenting and the way the kid is brought up. If that's all they know because mommy an' daddy are never there and don't care to restrict their viewing or at the very least explain it, they're gonna have issues no matter what. People need to parent their kids. That's really all there is to it - barring some mental condition.
(Aside from perhaps the influence from the prevalence of soaps which do seem to try a lot of 'realistic' and often domestic violence from what I can gather. Not only that but they do - by definition, it seems - show the very worst side of humanity and they're on and watched by millions every damn day. Let alone the whole reality TV slash celebrity hounding because it really does seem like people are only entertained by other people being in a worse state than them. Which seems to indicate a global desensitisation of people to being complete asshats.)
Gang culture, for one example, binge-drinking for another. This arises I think largely from the fact that modern global communication allows more people of like stupidity to collate and spread the Stupid through all forms of media than was possible even, say twenty years ago. That's the price we pay, I fear, for me being able to talk on this very forum, people encouraging each other just by conversing in any of the ka-trillion ways of modern communication.
Making stupidity a terminal offensive would go a long way to cleanign Reality up if you ask me. And you should. 'Cos, y'know, Epic level Lich an' all..
Gang culture, for one example, binge-drinking for another. This arises I think largely from the fact that modern global communication allows more people of like stupidity to collate and spread the Stupid through all forms of media than was possible even, say twenty years ago. That's the price we pay, I fear, for me being able to talk on this very forum, people encouraging each other just by conversing in any of the ka-trillion ways of modern communication.
Completely agree.
If anyone remembers the movie Pet Semetary then you might remember that sometimes an appalling death is necessary in order to evoke a certain emotion.
Show
Gage's death in Pet Semetary was probably one of the most memorable scenes from the movie and yet all of the violence was implied:the truck traveling at high speed with a negligent driver, Gage running out into the road chasing after a kite, shot of the truck trying to brake in time, sound of the truck crashing, and finally a shot of Gage's shoe rolling into view of the camera.
This event in the movie was a turning point for the main character that started his downward spiral into insanity and eventually lead to the death of his neighbor, his wife, and himself. The death of Gage was necessary to advance the story as the death of Paskow(student) and Church(cat) don't have the same effect as does the death of the main character's son.
This event in the movie was a turning point for the main character that started his downward spiral into insanity and eventually lead to the death of his neighbor, his wife, and himself. The death of Gage was necessary to advance the story as the death of Paskow(student) and Church(cat) don't have the same effect as does the death of the main character's son.