| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Hollywood is a Culture of Violence |
| 2013-01-01 |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #9 No offense taken, swksvolFF. When you got the name of the movie wrong, I figured you'd never heard of the books. (I can recommend them, by the way, if you're looking for a good read. It's not really necessary, but try to start with the first book to get the full flavor of the main character and understand him and his evolution through the books/years. And even thought I'm female, you can bet they not romances - yuck!) I agree with you - Hollyweird can F up a wet dream. >:-( |
| Posted by: Barbara 2013-01-01 21:22 |
| #8 Meant no offense to the book series Barbara; admittedly knew nothing of it, that was a slight on cruise. All I saw during the ad was cruise trying to be Charles Bronson with a bulletproof kia. It is either a hoot or a nightmare doing the make him look tall set tricks. How they made that wash basin look like a bathtub is amazing ;) To share, I read Sum of All Fears when it came out. Like the book, liked Clancy. The movie....wth?! |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2013-01-01 21:10 |
| #7 Glenmore, if you think Roadrunner is as violent as that YouTube clip, you didn't watch it. Training flicks for murderers. |
| Posted by: KBK 2013-01-01 21:08 |
| #6 "This new movie, johnson reacher, really what is the point?" That would be Jack Reacher, swksvolFF. Reacher is the lead character in Lee Child's "Reacher" series, which is excellent (I'm working my way through them now, having come upon them only a year or so ago). It's a stupid name for the movie; I can only presume it's to broadcast to fans of the books what/who the movie is about. I'd rather they used the name of the book it's based on (assuming they based it on one of the books, which I would think they did.) And as many others have observed, Tom Cruise is way too SHORT to be Reacher (who in the books is 6'5" or so and proportionately muscled). But one thing the book series has to make Hollyweird embrace it: it's violent, of the "I'm trying to mind my own business and live my life, but you f*cked with me or with some innocent party and I'm going to put a permanent stop to it" type. I won't go see the movie, though, much as I like the books. Screw Cruise and his Hollyweird ilk; I don't need to see a movie to have a picture in my mind of whichever book I'm reading, or listening too. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2013-01-01 20:11 |
| #5 Hollywood is a garbage product. If your building maintenence or auto shop performed as well as a good movie comes about (entertaining is different rating) they would be out of business; how many movies do you not go see for whatever reason compared to the ones you actually make plans for, and then for the planned ones how many of those do you leave satisfied? Even when I lived basically next to a top-line theatre, liked going to movies, and had to money and time to do so, my participation was very low compared to volume of product. Every cycle to movies seem to become more violent at a faster pace. This new movie, johnson reacher, really what is the point? Jenga Unchained, I generally like Tarentino movies, but this one seems so plain compared to his other ideas. I point at them because they have been pointed at recently. That being said, yes Hollywood is producing a product based mostly on sex and violence, with plot being a distant third and those based on plot still have their amount of sex and violence. No, I do not think Hollywood causes these problems. I do not think anything causes these problems, I believe there are a myriad of contributors, so more so than others. Being such visual creatures it is wrong to say that movies/media do not have some sort of effect. Propagandists count on that, as do advertisers. It is the director's sole job, as well as the editor's. Its why the USA domestic market has become so squishy because there is more money internationally with generic films; why would the Chinese watch or buy a movie which makes them look like jerks when they can pin a North Korean flag its not like they have any power for a movie theatre anyways. The evidence is so obvious, this should not even be a question. If movies had little appeal the industry would have quit generations ago. So it comes down to the participant, and how that person reacts. Do they leave the theatre thinking "That was fun/not fun", "Wow what effects" etc. or do they believe they are navii or go lay in the middle of the road like in that football movie. Same opinion with video games, which are now more like interactive movies so there is more stickyness there IMO. I managed to grow up and not jump on every turtle I come across (unless its innards are caramel and pecans). Yet last I played a shooter game on-line I was appalled by the pre-teens and their language. But I put that square on the parents. Old enough to earn half a g and blow it on video games, old enough to play cuss soldier. These kids I don't think were even in puberty. Worst is the Television. It is everywhere, completely over the top, just horrible production. Can't even watch a game without getting some crap about how home runs are up because of global warming or how I murdered Jovan Belcher because I let me kid watch McClintok! Those are sports, turn the camera on and try not to say anything dumb, yet still it happens. One channel which starts with an M has showed targeting young high school students, one was based purely on a kid with a big c#ck and the other is about a gal who is trying to figure out which of her friends is the best lay. It is shown so casually and glorified. Used to be to see stuff like that you had to peek through the scrambling. This is standard tv package stuff now. Music, I stopped listening to modern music back when people though Oasis was good stuff. Before I left here is a gem I heard by Three 6 Mafia: (Wiki page with some background and something very interesting connected with our young and old news hoodie from FloRida. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizzurp It still comes down to the individual and choice. But the media sure makes being a loser look fun, the parents allow it to happen, and now the government is making it affordable. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2013-01-01 18:40 |
| #4 I think the problem has been well discussed and we basically know the problem. * We as a culture are unwilling to label the unstable as unstable and lock them in a facility to get help until after the fact. * We as a culture are unwilling to look at what medication the unstable had and hold Psychologists accountable (possibly just questioning, possibly malpractice) for not adjusting dosages. * We have elites (and some are simply voters that think they are better) that do not trust the electorate with weapons despite the fact that an insanely large majority have proven to be safe. * We have an easily distracted electorate that wants easy solutions and politicians willing to exploit that fact to ram pet projects through during a crisis. Repeat every tragedy. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2013-01-01 10:29 |
| #3 I say look to the three stooges. So far there have been few hacksaw to the nose copy-cat attacks despite the stooges films being around for decades. |
| Posted by: Thromosing McCoy6287 2013-01-01 10:04 |
| #2 Guess that explains why I own a firearm, but haven't gone a murderous rampage, Glenmore. I helped Nannie kill the chicken for Sunday dinner when I was a little kid. (Sat on the galvanized bucket she flung the headless chicken under until it quit flapping. Didn't want it running around damaging her flowers after she cut its head off.) |
| Posted by: Barbara 2013-01-01 10:04 |
| #1 Road Runner and Bugs Bunny were at least as violent as today's Hollywood movies. That probably explains what's wrong with me. Seriously though, I've seen it discussed that the lack of killing in real life - in the form of killing a chicken for Sunday dinner, etc. - could be as big a contributor to our modern 'de-real-ization' of death. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2013-01-01 08:58 |