He wasn’t just trying to get the phone. He wanted to leave. “My family needs me.”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why would a doctor cut off his own leg…instead of thinking to take his shirt off to reel the phone back in since he couldn’t reach it? [/quote]
OK, as far as Hostel as a movie:
Bascially a gore fest, I don’t know why Tarentino attached his name to it.
There was one part that I thought was really cool. It was when the main character escapes and is putting on some clothes when one of the torturers walks in and starts talking with him.
He’s just a “normal” guy who’s excited to start because he’s heard it’s a great “rush”.
Unfortunately for me, I saw this guy in one of the previews so it wasn’t hard for me to put 2 and 2 together, but if I hadn’t known it would have been a pretty cool revelation.
And holy god, those chicks were hot in the beginning. Big . . . beautiful . . . breasts.
so are some of those big beautiful breasts attached to women who get tortured?
excuse me while i go barf.
That didn’t cause it to make more sense…because had he picked up the phone he would have found out they were safe. The first thing most people would do is establish the connection so they would go for the phone…not the saw. Keep in mind that he is “supposed” to be trained to deal with tense situations. It is pointless arguing about it though because it was just a damn movie. It also wasn’t the best in the genre. I just thought that part made little sense for the real world. In “movie land” they needed him to do that if for no other reason than to make use of “the saw”.
Also if all you’re lookin for is gore check out “Dead Alive.” It was one of Peter Jacksons’ first movies and it gets crazy graphic.
There are some good splatter flicks out there, but you can’t confuse them with horror flicks. Sorry to beat a dead horse but High Tension was neither. It just sucked.
Wufwuguy, you need to calm down. Go see the flick before you start condemning it, or any flick with sex, drugs or violence.
It’s just a fuckin movie. If I’m in a theatre full of folks and I laugh to my girl “that was fuckin rowdy” it doesn’t mean I’m thinkin of commiting whatever heinous act I’ve just seen, it means I thought that it was really cool and hopefully added somethin to the story.
I don’t think “wackos” go see shit like Hostel or resevoir dogs or reqiuem[sp?] for a dream to get “ammo” they see 'em to be entertained. Nothing more.
Nope.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
so are some of those big beautiful breasts attached to women who get tortured?
excuse me while i go barf.[/quote]
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
i kinda agree.
although, using your logic can cause problems because it isn’t comparing precisely. im betting that we can all agree that torture, rape, murder, abduction, etc. are on a different level than theft and like things.[/quote]
True, but the breadth of the influences must be considered. People are probably more easily induced to commit theft than torture. Also, theft frequently results in unintended deaths. The age of the audience must also come into play. How many seven-year-olds will see “Ocean’s Eleven”, and how many will see “Hostel”?
My point was that complaints about the negative impact of a movie like “Hostel” are primarily due to emotional response. The thinking is “‘Hostel’ sickens me, so it must be very harmful to society.” Movies that may be more harmful but that don’t produce such a response are ignored in this regard. Neither type of movie may be harmful at all, but if you worry about one and not the other you aren’t being very objective.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Wufwuguy, you need to calm down. Go see the flick before you start condemning it, or any flick with sex, drugs or violence.
It’s just a fuckin movie. If I’m in a theatre full of folks and I laugh to my girl “that was fuckin rowdy” it doesn’t mean I’m thinkin of commiting whatever heinous act I’ve just seen, it means I thought that it was really cool and hopefully added somethin to the story.
I don’t think “wackos” go see shit like Hostel or resevoir dogs or reqiuem[sp?] for a dream to get “ammo” they see 'em to be entertained. Nothing more.
[/quote]
that’s a nice strawman.
while you’re at it you should go find a movie exactly like Hostel except that instead of torture it’s child molestation.
maybe then you’ll understand that despite the fact that it’s a movie and despite the fact that you’re not a wacko nor will become one, that it shouldn’t exist.
btw, how is it that you even remotely put Requiem for a Dream in the same category as Hostel?
[quote]larryb wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
i kinda agree.
although, using your logic can cause problems because it isn’t comparing precisely. im betting that we can all agree that torture, rape, murder, abduction, etc. are on a different level than theft and like things.
True, but the breadth of the influences must be considered. People are probably more easily induced to commit theft than torture. Also, theft frequently results in unintended deaths. The age of the audience must also come into play. How many seven-year-olds will see “Ocean’s Eleven”, and how many will see “Hostel”?
My point was that complaints about the negative impact of a movie like “Hostel” are primarily due to emotional response. The thinking is “‘Hostel’ sickens me, so it must be very harmful to society.” Movies that may be more harmful but that don’t produce such a response are ignored in this regard. Neither type of movie may be harmful at all, but if you worry about one and not the other you aren’t being very objective.
[/quote]
again, i kinda agree.
except that some issues are more important than others. theft isn’t cool, but what’s more important right now: attempting to rid society of torture or theft? i say torture because it’s worse.
baby steps.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
Wufwuguy, you need to calm down. Go see the flick before you start condemning it, or any flick with sex, drugs or violence.
It’s just a fuckin movie. If I’m in a theatre full of folks and I laugh to my girl “that was fuckin rowdy” it doesn’t mean I’m thinkin of commiting whatever heinous act I’ve just seen, it means I thought that it was really cool and hopefully added somethin to the story.
I don’t think “wackos” go see shit like Hostel or resevoir dogs or reqiuem[sp?] for a dream to get “ammo” they see 'em to be entertained. Nothing more.
that’s a nice strawman.
while you’re at it you should go find a movie exactly like Hostel except that instead of torture it’s child molestation.
maybe then you’ll understand that despite the fact that it’s a movie and despite the fact that you’re not a wacko nor will become one, that it shouldn’t exist.
btw, how is it that you even remotely put Requiem for a Dream in the same category as Hostel?[/quote]
How did we go from torture in a movie to child molestation?
[quote]larryb wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
i kinda agree.
although, using your logic can cause problems because it isn’t comparing precisely. im betting that we can all agree that torture, rape, murder, abduction, etc. are on a different level than theft and like things.
True, but the breadth of the influences must be considered. People are probably more easily induced to commit theft than torture. Also, theft frequently results in unintended deaths. The age of the audience must also come into play. How many seven-year-olds will see “Ocean’s Eleven”, and how many will see “Hostel”?
My point was that complaints about the negative impact of a movie like “Hostel” are primarily due to emotional response. The thinking is “‘Hostel’ sickens me, so it must be very harmful to society.” Movies that may be more harmful but that don’t produce such a response are ignored in this regard. Neither type of movie may be harmful at all, but if you worry about one and not the other you aren’t being very objective.
[/quote]
Along with that, I don’t think people understand that once you start throwing out censorship of one, eventually something you do NOT find offensive and actually enjoy will piss someone else off and will also be removed. Everyone doesn’t have the same sensitivites across the board.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
How did we go from torture in a movie to child molestation?[/quote]
analogy.
actually, quite a precise analogy attempting to express that movies glorifying or encouraging or deriving entertainment from torture are trivialized.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
Wufwuguy, you need to calm down. Go see the flick before you start condemning it, or any flick with sex, drugs or violence.
It’s just a fuckin movie. If I’m in a theatre full of folks and I laugh to my girl “that was fuckin rowdy” it doesn’t mean I’m thinkin of commiting whatever heinous act I’ve just seen, it means I thought that it was really cool and hopefully added somethin to the story.
I don’t think “wackos” go see shit like Hostel or resevoir dogs or reqiuem[sp?] for a dream to get “ammo” they see 'em to be entertained. Nothing more.
that’s a nice strawman.
while you’re at it you should go find a movie exactly like Hostel except that instead of torture it’s child molestation.
maybe then you’ll understand that despite the fact that it’s a movie and despite the fact that you’re not a wacko nor will become one, that it shouldn’t exist.
btw, how is it that you even remotely put Requiem for a Dream in the same category as Hostel?[/quote]
If watching someone get tortured by others is wrong, how is watching someone torture themselves any different? Is requiem art and Hostel filth? Is it because you've seen requiem and basked in it's brilliance and shunned hostel because you don't compart with the friday night AMC crowd?
I don’t think anyone saw requiem and decided to get strung out, lose themselves and fuck people and/or random objects to feed their habit. Just like I don’t think anyones gonna see hostel and take up torturing others for kicks.
I don’t get your child molestation arguement. How are that and torture even remotely linked aside from both being wrong?
What’s a strawman?
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
How did we go from torture in a movie to child molestation?
analogy.
actually, quite a precise analogy attempting to express that movies glorifying or encouraging or deriving entertainment from torture are trivialized.[/quote]
But, as was pointed out to you, there are many acts that people go to jail for that are not just trivialized in movies, they are GLORIFIED. How many people are leaving the movie saying, “torturing someone looks really really cool, let’s go try it!”, as opposed to the ones who would say the same about theft after watching The Italian Job or Ocean’s Eleven? You simply choose to be pissed off about one and not so pissed about another.
Meanwhile, if you continue to push issues as if you want censorship, eventually someone will remove what you are not so pissed off with as well. So why does it bother you so much if you can simply choose to not go see it? Someone forced you to watch this movie?
Hey wufwuguy, that broads ass in your avatar is offensive to me and I don’t think it’s appropriate for this forum. It’s makin me wanna take pictures of other broads in that exact pose, and that’ll get me in trouble with my girl.
But I don’t think she will buy that I couldn’t help myself because I was brainwashed by what I saw, so if you’d take it down I’d be much obliged.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I don’t get your child molestation arguement. How are that and torture even remotely linked aside from both being wrong?
[/quote]
exactly.
they’re both wrong. they’re both about as wrong as the other, yet one is acceptable in entertainment mediums as entertainment while the other is not and would not be.
RE: strawman. strawmanning basically when you misunderstand what somebody said (doesn’t matter if it’s intentional), say what they said (which isn’t what they said), then contest it.
ex: you claimed, or at least implied, that i am against sex, drugs, violence in movies. i never claimed that. threre were a few other subtle strawmen as well but dont worry about it.
RE: requiem. this movie made drugs look bad. really bad. it wasn’t a fun ride and it makes heroin addiction look terrible.
i never said that watching others get tortured is wrong. i said that making it cool is wrong. nobody was watching Requiem thinking that heroin is cool, can the same be said about Hostel?
no it can’t. why? because much of the movie is about the coolness of torture. exactly how Natural Born Killers is about the coolness of serial murder.
am i wrong? i do reserve that because i haven’t seen the movie. reading about it and talking with those who’ve seen it can sometimes tell enough, though.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Hey wufwuguy, that broads ass in your avatar is offensive to me and I don’t think it’s appropriate for this forum. It’s makin me wanna take pictures of other broads in that exact pose, and that’ll get me in trouble with my girl.
But I don’t think she will buy that I couldn’t help myself because I was brainwashed by what I saw, so if you’d take it down I’d be much obliged.[/quote]
i understand your facetiousness.
i also understand your ill comparison. do you?
You are wrong. There is NOTHING in this movie that should make one think torture is cool or in any way glorifies torture. It’s a horror flick, and torture is the means to an end in this particular movie.
I thought the way some of the tortures were “executed” [no pun intended] were cool, but it was within the context of this film, nothing more.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
How did we go from torture in a movie to child molestation?
analogy.
actually, quite a precise analogy attempting to express that movies glorifying or encouraging or deriving entertainment from torture are trivialized.
But, as was pointed out to you, there are many acts that people go to jail for that are not just trivialized in movies, they are GLORIFIED. How many people are leaving the movie saying, “torturing someone looks really really cool, let’s go try it!”, as opposed to the ones who would say the same about theft after watching The Italian Job or Ocean’s Eleven? You simply choose to be pissed off about one and not so pissed about another.
Meanwhile, if you continue to push issues as if you want censorship, eventually someone will remove what you are not so pissed off with as well. So why does it bother you so much if you can simply choose to not go see it? Someone forced you to watch this movie?[/quote]
okay, the theft issue is a different topic. i am not denying anything you say concerning it, but i am saying that i personally dont consider it as big of a deal as stuff like torture and i am discussing torture stuff. if i want to discuss theft stuff then i will at a different time.
even though the exact same principles apply to Oceans as they do Hostel i consider the Hostel issue to be more important. why? because i’d rather have everything i own stolen than be tortured.
RE: censorship. i never once mentioned censorship. i’d rather see the acceptance of torture as entertainment become an issue that people understand to be wrong, and then it wouldn’t need censorship.
kinda like Hostel: The Child Molestation Edition. this movie wouldn’t need censorship because it wouldn’t exist because the vast majority of us know that child molestation is no way to be entertained.