Hostel

Off Topic
101

The ultimate goal of any artist or filmmkaer is to elicit a reaction from the audience with their work. Obviously Hostel has done its job well. It scared, repulsed, sicken or angered you. Guess what, that’s what it’s supposed to do.

Banning works like this because it shows scenes of torture is just stupid. If you don’t want to see things like this, don’t buy a ticket, but don’t prevent everyone else from seeing it because you think it’s wrong.

You know, I wonder if you would make the same arguement about Passion of the Christ. That was basically a 2 plus hour torture fest! Or is it all ok because it is in the context of religion?

102

[quote]tommyboy wrote:
The ultimate goal of any artist or filmmkaer is to elicit a reaction from the audience with their work. Obviously Hostel has done its job well. It scared, repulsed, sicken or angered you. Guess what, that’s what it’s supposed to do.

Banning works like this because it shows scenes of torture is just stupid. If you don’t want to see things like this, don’t buy a ticket, but don’t prevent everyone else from seeing it because you think it’s wrong.

You know, I wonder if you would make the same arguement about Passion of the Christ. That was basically a 2 plus hour torture fest! Or is it all ok because it is in the context of religion?[/quote]

Very good point. Some scenes in that movie just made me feel bad physically. That is one reason I haven’t bothered to buy the DVD. Was that “glorification” of torture simply because that was what most of the movie centered around?

103

[quote]Professor X wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
wufwugy wrote:

all right, im done.

as much as i appreciate strawmen, apples and oranges, and other logical fallacies im not going to entertain them.

I didn’t present a logical fallacy. I showed you that ALL horror movies have some aspect of torcher in them. You seem to ONLY be pissed at this one because it focuses on torcher as its medium. Who gives a shit? Unless you also take offense to all examples of glorified torcher in all horror movies, you have no point. You just thought you did.

  1. you assume that i care about other horror movies.

  2. you assume that other horror movies are relevant for this discussion.

  3. you assume that Hostel is horror (it kinda is, but it is in the beginning of a new genre).

  4. you assume that the torture in these newer gore films is the same as the murders of those older horror films.

  5. you assume that im only pissed about this one.

  6. you assume that my feelings affect the merits making my point.

logical fallacies anybody? and all just brainstorming about one small post.

P.S. all right, now im really done.

heh

Wow. It truly isn’t that hard to admit you are wrong. Just take a deep breath and say the words. Trust me, you’ll feel better.[/quote]

wow, how enlightening.

i am now convinced that the professor doesn’t read what others post.

104

[quote]Xvim wrote:

Natural Born Killers was not about glorifying serial killers, again, you and most people who claim to like that movie totally missed the mark. That’s partly Oliver Stone’s fault, he has a penchant for missing the point himself and so it’s no suprise his movies do the same. NBK was a satire, critical of how the media makes murderers into celebs and how our consumer culture eats that shit up, feeding the machine as it were.
[/quote]

i agree with what you and whiteflash have to say about NBK, except that you’re saying that it doesn’t glorify serial murder as well. let’s see about that one…

  1. the protagonists are serial murderers.

  2. audience is meant to sympathize with Mickey and Mallory’s situtation.

  3. in the end, Robert Downey Jr. accepts the awesomeness that happens to be killing spree.

  4. there is no overriding thematic element that suggests that Mickey and Mallory shouldn’t have done what they did. doesn’t the ending suggest that they continue to do it?

  5. it’s entitled Natural Born Killers. not evidence enough, but considering the aformentioned.

  6. the general milieu of the movie. ambiguous, i know.

the fact that it’s about love and media craze doesn’t negate the fact that it is also about the coolness that is serial murder, whether intended or not.

i dont find it amazing that people like NBK, but i do find it amazing that people somehow figure it doesn’t make serial murder look cool. of course, it doesn’t to me or you because we’re not serial murders or aren’t gonna be, but our personal situations are hardly relevant to the actuality of the movie.

105

[quote]wufwugy wrote:

wow, how enlightening.

i am now convinced that the professor doesn’t read what others post.[/quote]

I had to go through each point just to show you were wrong? I thought that comment was enough. Fine.

[quote]

  1. you assume that i care about other horror movies.[/quote]

Uh, if you don’t care about other movies, why do you care about this one?

[quote]
2. you assume that other horror movies are relevant for this discussion.[/quote]

They are because many horror movies, and even The Temptation of Christ, focus on torture acts.

[quote]
3. you assume that Hostel is horror (it kinda is, but it is in the beginning of a new genre).[/quote]

It is horror. If you walked into Blockbuster Video, what section would this movie be in? Children’s?

[quote]
4. you assume that the torture in these newer gore films is the same as the murders of those older horror films.[/quote]

It is a progression in terms of horror films. Most producers should understand by now that the old scare tactics do NOT work any longer. Scream was one of the final movies to make an issue of pointing this out even to the audience.

That was why many considered Scream a good scary movie, because it made fun of the whole genre that so many had become accustomed to. Nightmare on Elm Street wouldn’t actually scare too many of us today. they know this, thus the next step is to hit you in the zone that has been affected least, the human response to gore itself.

[quote]
5. you assume that im only pissed about this one.[/quote]

Didn’t you just write above that I “assume” you care about other movies. But now you do?

[quote]
6. you assume that my feelings affect the merits making my point.[/quote]

What? I don’t give a shit about your “feelings”. I am talking about why you seem to protest this movie.

Again, what logical fallacies are here? You just hate that by talking about other horror films, you lose much of any point you thought you had. That is no logical fallacy. It is simply you being wrong.

106

Anyone who thinks Hostel glorifies torture has either not seen the movie or is stupid.
The major twist in the movie was finding out the people doing the torturing were regular shmoes looking for a new high. Hell, one of the idiots slips on the blood of his victim and chainsaws himself. What an idiot.
If you’re argument against this film is that it gives border-line killers motivation and creatvie ideas than I guess we should outlaw just about all human expression . . . 'cause who knows how someone could react to it.

107

If I remember right NBK was a Tarantino story that Oliver Stone butchered, so Tarantino wanted no association with it.
Wuf, let it go. You’re gonna have to accept that you are wrong.

108

I wouldn’t go so far as to say wuf is totally wrong about NBK. Simply because Oliver Stone doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground and royally fucked the original intent of the script. Yes, Tarantino did write the original script but what Stone did to it mangled it beyond all recognition. I think Stone himself might have thought the point of the story was to glorify violence. I understand why people could come away from that film with that impression.

109

I think what may bother some about Hostel and movies of a similar vein is that it is human beings destroying other human beings. Normal (or not) folks commiting unspeakable acts upon their fellow man.

The impact I think is much different when the person murdering someone is a Jason or Freddy Krueger or someon in a silly (Scream ) costume. Once you make the killer a “character” you immediately realize that this is just a movie and the impact of the gore scenes is diminished.

But show aan everyday person cutting up another person and right away it’s more disturbing because the murderer could be someon like a next door neighbor, or the guy next to you on the bus. Those people actually exist and that knowledge alone is scary. If you want proof of that, go and watch the worst scene in any horror movie, then go and watch one of those beheading videos from Iraq that is floating around the internet.

I gaurantee the majority of the horror going audience would not be able to stomach the Iraq video, but the horror movie scene wouldn’t make them flinch.

110

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
If I remember right NBK was a Tarantino story that Oliver Stone butchered, so Tarantino wanted no association with it.
Wuf, let it go. You’re gonna have to accept that you are wrong.[/quote]

nice illogical leap.

i dont convince you so i must be wrong. yeah, it cant be anything other than that. you never strawmanned me, didn’t ever make apple and orange comparisons, didn’t misunderstand terminology. never. you are right because you never did any of these things.

the funny thing about logical fallacies is that they are logical, but on fallacious premises. enjoy yourself.

111

professor,

this discussion has pretty much changed. if i wanna discuss logical fallacies then i’ll start another thread.

aight

112

There are and should be limits to what can and cannot be shown to the public.
These parameters are for the most part decided for the public by a body of people we call censors.
They rate a film and decide what can and cannot be seen by an audience.

Films glorifying child molestation and other sick pornographic portrayals will not pass a censors scissors as should be the case.
Horror films on the other hand have been around since the begining of cinema and are enjoyed by just about everyone.

The new genre of films by shock artists like some of the aforementioned Tarantino and company are their way of going a step beyond…they have no choice but to seek new ways to scare and horrify their audiences.

An example of another new director trying the same shit is Rob Zombie…his films are full of this same crapola. Torture and brutality in the “Devils Rejects” is of a road movie quality and using a good soundtrack he gets his audience to sympathise with the victims as well as the villains who of course all die in a shoot out “defying the law” … a blazing gun fight slo-mo-ed to the music of Leanard Skynards Freebird.

If that isn’t portraying the torturers as freethinking and independent individuals then I don’t know shit.
Unfortunately we will have some people influenced by these films. We live with monsters all around us…

The censors are there to protect us from the evil directors who would try to show us morally reprehensible material. It kind of makes me wonder if they all might be on drugs or something because some of the shit is really pretty borderline.

I do not like censorship but there should be limits to anything.
Deciding where these limits are is the hard part.

113

finall saw the movie last night and well… i read this thread before i went to the movie and you guys hyped it up to be a gory ass movie. it wasnt gory at all there was only one scene that was gory.

114

[quote]BrwnbellyYankee wrote:
finall saw the movie last night and well… i read this thread before i went to the movie and you guys hyped it up to be a gory ass movie. it wasnt gory at all there was only one scene that was gory. [/quote]

It kind of makes you wonder who is spreading the opinion that it should be repulsive to all humans and anyone seeing it should be called out for it. I guarantee the loudest protesters of this movie have NOT seen it.

115

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I guarantee the loudest protesters of this movie have NOT seen it.
[/quote]

Agreed.

116

Gore and Boobies…

Now THERE is a sure-win Democratic Party presidential ticket. ;p

V

117

[quote]chrismcl wrote:
I don’t understand fuckin movies like these.

I seriously think that people who go to see movies like these, people that make movies like these, and people that have anything to fuckin do with movies like these should be fuckin killed like they do in these movies. Wouldn’t be so motherfuckin funny or entertaining would it?
[/quote]

You’re telling me you’ve never enjoyed violence in a film? Never watched football? Never got in a fight and liked it?

It’s all a question of degree, to say watching torture is sick and perverted but enjoying some guy being shot or some dude being clocked by a tackler is silly.

I think it’s funny that wufwugy actually acknowledges this, and then dismisses it. Either glorifying violence is bad, or it isn’t. To say that at a certain degree it becomes bad is simply sappy sentimentalism; that is to say you say enjoying watching someone being tortured is bad because you personally find it disgusting, not because you have a valid reason why it shouldn’t be allowed but other types of violence should.

Wouldn’t you find it absurd if someone said “Oh, football and action movies are ok, because I don’t find those disturbing, whether they glorify violence or not. But I horror movies disgust me, so anyone who watches them is a sick fuck.”

Unless of course you believe that all glorification of violence is evil, and as such enjoy no professional sports where violence is a key to winning and never watch action films. In which case of course I think you should find a different forum to post at, given your…erm…views. (the site IS called Testosterone Nation)

And this is not besides the point, it’s the key point: we all enjoy violence, and there’s no getting around it.

Finally, why did you even start watching a movie called “Natural Born Killers”, given your views? I would think you wouldn’t watch TV or movies at all, cept for maybe a romantic comedy or two, given that a huge percent of TV and movies glorify violence, theft, drugs, etc.

PS: did you know that if you buy gas you support terrorists? Get rid of your car, don’t use anything plastic, and keep your house warm with a woodburning stove.

118

sadism existed long before mass media, along with human creativity and stuffs going to happen.

Ever see the books of “tests” they used to put witches through? You know impaling them through their vagina with a triangle shaped peice of splintering wood? Or getting accurate confesions by putting a ball in someone mouth then utilising a mechanism that puts spike into the mouth around the ball so there are only three ways to get it out. Rip it out, with all your teeth. Undo the mechanism. Or surgery. All before media. All in common practice.

I think you people worry too much. At the very least you should look at the movies too and be aware that these characters often could of avoided the whole trouble by questioning, “why is this pretty girl taking me too…”. I swear these characters are just asking to be mutilated. i havnt seen the movie yet… but after other movies i say my point stands.

Of course, there is a little emulation. But they are going to emulate something.