Films I wish they would ban

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, LadyPariah said:

I don't think any horror movies should be banned. But I get what you're saying, I had this same problem with the remake of "IT." Since I have problems with seeing any kid or innocent thing get hurt, this movie made me literally sick to my stomach. I just wished they would have offered different viewings of it where some gory or disturbing parts were left out. It does make me concerned though that a lot of people are okay with watching a ton of gore and torture.

 

It just brings to mind Men in Black 2 where they edited out the "balls" on the Ballchinian alien for TV audiences. Maybe they could just have two versions on the movie, one unedited, and the other edited for theaters.

IT is dumb regardless (I enjoy gore but find the story of IT to be very silly) but they actually cut out the orgy the kids have in the book. Yes, in the book the little kids all have a literal orgy, all the boys on the one girl, in the sewers. What's worse is people revere that scene as 'beautiful' and 'a depiction of the true love the kids have for each other' and that's how it was portrayed in the book, and people get angry if you try to point out how wrong that is for multiple reasons!! Makes my blood boil every time I think about it Y_Y at least they didn't put that in the movie!!

[Mermaidy]

I noticed a lot of posters mentioning that censorship is bad etc. tbh I think the thread is just meant to be taken as "which movies do you really hate." Anyway I would ban all gruesome horror movies. I'm also anti Saw omfg although when I found out that the characters in the film are people who've done awful things, it made be feel kind of less upset by the torture aspect but I still hate those films.

Not watching those types of films doesn't completely help me too. I would have to not know that they exist.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Mermaidy said:

I noticed a lot of posters mentioning that censorship is bad etc. tbh I think the thread is just meant to be taken as "which movies do you really hate." Anyway I would ban all gruesome horror movies. I'm also anti Saw omfg although when I found out that the characters in the film are people who've done awful things, it made be feel kind of less upset by the torture aspect but I still hate those films.

Not watching those types of films doesn't completely help me too. I would have to not know that they exist.

There's a difference between really hating something and wanting it banned so other people can't enjoy it though. One is fine, but the other seems like you're judging people for what they enjoy and wanting to stop them from being able to access it

[LadyPariah]

13 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

IT is dumb regardless (I enjoy gore but find the story of IT to be very silly) but they actually cut out the orgy the kids have in the book. Yes, in the book the little kids all have a literal orgy, all the boys on the one girl, in the sewers. What's worse is people revere that scene as 'beautiful' and 'a depiction of the true love the kids have for each other' and that's how it was portrayed in the book, and people get angry if you try to point out how wrong that is for multiple reasons!! Makes my blood boil every time I think about it Y_Y at least they didn't put that in the movie!!

Yeah, I would have had to leave the theater if they put that part in. I think the whole point of "IT"'s story is that there are things more scary in this world than a murderous shapeshifting clown. With the remake though, they made the clown definitely the scariest part. I think it would have worked out better with more sinister things, rather than in-your-face teeth, body parts and blood.

[Guest]

Stephen King was surprised that more people were upset with the orgy than the frequent child murders. He said that says something, but he isn't sure what. 

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Serran said:

Stephen King was surprised that more people were upset with the orgy than the frequent child murders. He said that says something, but he isn't sure what. 

 

This will be TMI for some

 

 

It wasn't the orgy itself, it was how it was *portrayed*, and the fact that he can't see that says a fair bit about him as a person. 

 

The murders were depicted as 'bad', it's awful that kids are getting murdered and not once in the book is it implied that the murders are okay. Yet in the sewers, something like 6 boys have sex with a virgin 13 year old girl. Not only does she enjoy it (even though she's never even masturbated) she orgasms when the last boy screws her. On top of that, some of the boys are so young that they think women get pregnant by a man weeing on her stomach, yet somehow they're meant to know exactly what they need to do to her vagina to have some vague representation of sex?  This is described as 'the ultimate act of love' which helps them find their way out of the tunnels >:c

 

1) children as young and naive as some of those boys have no concept of the idea of sex being 'the ultimate act of love'

 

2) Bev (the girl) would have been in utter, agonising pain by the end of the sex after having been penetrated that many times, and would most probably have been bleeding a lot as they had no lube other than each other's sloppy seconds, gross.

 

3) THEY WERE WILLING TO DIE FOR EACH OTHER, yet that love is passed off as inferior, apparently less important and less valid, than shoving your cock in a girl??? When kids that age can love each other so much that they will willingly give their lives to save their friends, that shows a very mature, deep, binding love stronger than any sexual love could ever be. Let alone the 'love' depicted in that sex scene which is just some authors fantasy of the hot girl who already has boobs letting all the dweebs screw her (that's literally what that scene is. She's hot and they're all the losers who get bullied at school. The author obviously had some unresolved fantasies from childhood he wanted to squeeze in there). 

 

4) no one cares about any of that and just judge you, as Stephen King does, for having more of an issue with all that than with the children getting murdered Y_Y it's soooo frustrating!!! People even go so far as to say the scene is beautiful and mature and you're clearly just a naive prude if you can't take it. ARFH!!

 

In conclusion:

 

If the murders were protrayed as 'good for the kids' and they even sort of enjoy dying, and their families are relieved  that the kids get to visit heaven so early, that'd be another story. Everyone would be just as angry about that. But the murders are portrayed realistically in that they cause awful pain and damage to the loved ones left behind, as well as what's suffered by the victim themself. The sex on the other hand is one of the worst, most naive, ignorant pieces of writing I have ever read. I wouldn't have minded if it was at least accurate and Bev had to limp out of the tunnels crying with blood running down her thighs and the boys all feeling sickened and guilty for doing that to her, after maybe for example Penniwise (the clown/monster) tricked them into believing that was love to permenantly destroy their innocence and the friendship bond they all had - that would be VERY different and actually enjoyable in a sick and twisted way. But no. The author wants to pass it off as the ultimate act of love so lies to the audience about the reality of what would happen in that situation to make it seem better. THAT'S what makes me and many other people so furious about that scene, and the fact that King can't acknowledge or understand that shows a fair bit about his maturity levels and who he is as a person, along with everyone who can't understand it and claims that scene is 'beautiful'.

 

And to clarify, I'm actually a Stephen King fan lol, he's one of my favourite authors. He's one of those writers who can write the best thing you ever read or the shittest thing you ever read depending on where his head is at on the day. *Sigh* I got so angry writing all that that now my throat hurts haha.. seriously that's one of my most hated scenes in all fiction... Actually no, it's THE scene I hate most in all fiction.

 

Edit; I've ranted about this a few times online, and a few months ago on Disqus someone said I'm clearly an idiot who can't think for myself because I practically copy/pasted someone else's comment about it from a different forum to look 'edgy'. 1) As anyone here knows, I always write my own posts and have a rather narcissistic view of my own commentary, I'd never copy/paste someone else's writing as I am always convinced mine is superior, haha! 2) I think that person had stumbled across a different rant of mine on a different forum and that's why they seemed so similar, lol!

[Guest]

I've never read the book, I can't get through King's extreme over detailed writing (authors that need to give me a paragraph on how a tree or desk looks are a pet peeve). And the writing you describe does seem terribly unrealistic. However, I've seen more complain about the fact they were young, rather than the content. More "I can't believe you've written about children doing that ". I can't see anyone with life experience disagreeing it's a totally unrealistic way of writing it, if that's how he portrayed the whole thing. 

[iff]

4 hours ago, Serran said:

I can think of a few movies that were too awful and should be banned for that reason.

 

Fun fact: I own a movie that is on the banned movie list in the UK. 

We have a film that was banned in Ireland (though not anymore)

 

Monty python's life of Brian

[Snao Cone]

5 minutes ago, iff said:

We have a film that was banned in Ireland (though not anymore)

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Monty python's life of Brian

 

I think that was also banned in a town in Wales, which the actor who played Judith became mayor of.

[CallaWolf]

I actually agree with Fictos sentiment on the scene in It. It was unnecessary and immature, all under the guise of trying to be edgy and "showing their love." It makes me so glad it wasn't in the new film, otherwise I actually WOULD have walked out (as I was borderline going to anyways as I actually hated it and preferred the original film). 

 

And Serran, I feel the same way about Kings writing, I consider myself a very big King fan. I've read It, Needful Things, and the second Dark Tower book twice, but man, his overly detailed writing on the most minuscule things drives me up the wall.

 

 

As for the topic at hand, I do think this is a "what movie do you hate very much" thread and not an actual "ban everything" type thread. Saying that, the only banned film I think is one that causes actual harm to the cast, crew, and animals for the sake of being shocking or for the "lulz." That's just wrong and sick.

 

Beyond that, there's so many movies out there that I absolutely abhor, and I question why they were made. As stated before, A Serbian Film is one of these films. I heard first about it three years ago. I'll NEVER watch that film as it absolutely disgusts the hell out of me just reading about it. I'm sure there's other films that I hate with a passion, but can't think of them. I wouldn't outright ban them though. In part because I think people will see it regardless and responsible people know when to stay away and when to have their children stay away.

 

That's just me though.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CallaWolf said:

And Serran, I feel the same way about Kings writing, I consider myself a very big King fan. I've read It, Needful Things, and the second Dark Tower book twice, but man, his overly detailed writing on the most minuscule things drives me up the wall.

 

Dreamcatcher and From a Buick 8 are probably my favourite King books, oh and The Talisman, have you read that? It's amazing. You might not like LOTR so much if you don't like detailed writing D: For me, that kind of writing is a sign of a really, really good writer. When they can describe something by showing it to you in vivid and extensive detail instead of just saying 'the red car' or 'the fat man' or whatever, haha, give me DETAILS!!! .. that's the type of writing I love <3 I have an audio version of Needful Things read by Stephen King himself and it's actually up there with some of the best narrations I've ever heard. Didn't like the end of that story but the rest was pretty good!! I also have the audio version of It (which is 45 hours long!) which is definitely up there with the best narrations I've heard, it's just a massive shame about the orgy.

 

@Serran I think many people aren't able to properly word WHY they hate the scene. If it was more like how I described in my other comment, where the clown/monster manipulated them into it and they all suffered deeply as a result, I think people would have less of a visceral reaction because that's more understandable. Many probably don't understand WHY they're so upset by the idea of kids having sex like that, or can't word it properly, but the issue is how much the kids all loved it and how Bev orgasms and how it's described as the ultimate act of love.. that just instinctively makes people deeply uncomfortable because it's so unrealistic and disgusting.. especially the way the little girl is pretty much just being used as a sex object by all the boys and it's not only totally fine, it's called 'beautiful' (barf). I can see why people are more shocked by that than the murders because at least the murders are shown to be bad and wrong and evil, so you can deal with that.. but knowing we're meant to feel HAPPY about the orgy scene, we're actually meant to be rooting for it and wanting it so they can get out, and knowing the way Bev is getting used and it's meant to be GOOD, it's just deeply unsettling :/ many people probably can't word all that so accurately, but I'm certain that for the vast majority of people, it's all of that which makes the scene so appalling for them. Whereas if the kids were FORCED into it and didn't want it and it showed that Bev was in pain but doing it anyway because she thought they had to, people would feel disgust and pity and know that's what they're meant to feel. It's not so hard to deal with when you know you're meant to feel that!! When you're meant to be HAPPY about the kids fucking though, even cry for joy because it's so 'beautiful', your automatic reaction is 'nope, that never should have been written!!' Most people just can't describe all that even though it's what they're feeling inside. That's my opinion anyway lol sorry for off topic OP!

[Rhaenys]

Serbian film should be banned imho.

 

My problem with SAW is that they are dragging the franchise out too much not that they should be banned. Besides if they banned certain movies from books I absolutely abhor *coughtwilightand50* there's nothing and nobody for me to judge, laugh at and find friends with a mutal dislike. Esentially all the fun parts of disliking stuff will be gone.

[CallaWolf]

2 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Dreamcatcher and From a Buick 8 are probably my favourite King books, oh and The Talisman, have you read that? It's amazing. You might not like LOTR so much if you don't like detailed writing D: For me, that kind of writing is a sign of a really, really good writer. When they can describe something by showing it to you in vivid and extensive detail instead of just saying 'the red car' or 'the fat man' or whatever, haha, give me DETAILS!!! .. that's the type of writing I love <3 I have an audio version of Needful Things read by Stephen King himself and it's actually up there with some of the best narrations I've ever heard. Didn't like the end of that story but the rest was pretty good!! I also have the audio version of It (which is 45 hours long!) which is definitely up there with the best narrations I've heard, it's just a massive shame about the orgy.

@Serran

 

As long as Tolkien seems like he's going somewhere with it, then it might be ok. King just seems like he gets lost in a necessary tangent sometimes.

[Guest]

I liked LOTR, Tolkien gets detailed at times, but not in a way that annoys me... well, except the knowing everyones lineage but I skim "son of blah" bits  

 

Edit: @FictoVore. - Yeah, I guess it's hard for people to describe why they have issues with a scene. But, if King has never read anyone describing the why, he might not realize it and if they just complain of the age thing, it would make sense why he doesn't understand why that upsets people but the killings don't. 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Serran said:

I liked LOTR, Tolkien gets detailed at times, but not in a way that annoys me... well, except the knowing everyones lineage but I skim "son of blah" bits  

 

Edit: @FictoVore. - Yeah, I guess it's hard for people to describe why they have issues with a scene. But, if King has never read anyone describing the why, he might not realize it and if they just complain of the age thing, it would make sense why he doesn't understand why that upsets people but the killings don't. 

I think that's a major issue I have (well, I have a lot of issues, let's be honest haha). But the fact that his comment about people having more of an issue with the sex than the murder seems to imply he has literally no idea what's actually wrong, when any person with any sense will feel deeply uncomfortable with that scene the moment they read it for all the reasons I outlined (even if they can't articulate the feelings clearly themselves). The fact that King not only doesn't feel deeply uncomfortable about the scene, but also seems baffled as to why people do feel uncomfortable about it (other than the obvious kids having sex, but it's clearly a lot more than that that's the issue) seems to say a fair bit about him as a person, and while I respect a lot of his work, I'm not sure I can respect someone who truly thinks that scene is any level of 'okay'. :/

 

@CallaWolf, Tolkien describes the scenery in a lot of detail, which I absolutely love! I've heard people complaining about it in the past, like they'd rather just read 'then they went to the inn' instead of a long paragraph about the countryside etc. To me, all that beautiful vivid description really helps build the world and show us something lost to many people these days, and in some cases shows us in great detail things we'll never be able to see ourselves. Another thing he will often go into detail about is the history of certain places and people (for example in Tom Bombadil's woods and the Barrowdowns, one of the many awesome things completely left out of the films!!). When I was little I used to think that the historical stuff was quite boring, but I was like 11 when mum first read me LOTR, haha. Now when I read it, those long descriptions help me feel like I'm really there and give me an almost visceral idea of what the land itself actually feels like as a result of the ancient battles, the deaths, the loves etc that have happened in that place. It's really very spectactularly written, and considering how old it is now (and possibly has the first strong female character in 'modern' fantasy fiction ever? who plays an integral role in a sort of World War) it's definitely up there with one of the best books ever written in my not-so-humble opinion

 

Edit; I feel like I need to read LOTR again right now, haha.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Princess Merida said:

The situations they place characters in those films are just evil.

I hope you do realize, this is the entire point of a horror flick. You don't go to a seedy looking house out in the woods, to have dinner and beer. You go to get plucked one at a time, while nobody decides to call the police or bring a phone. You find three bodies, and decide to investigate, without any weapons of your own. I think the absurdity of it all, to me takes the realism away from most flicks. They even make comedy spoofs of how absurd many of these films are.

 

Saw is no different. Very gory, sure but a lot of the traps are insanely absurd. I mean some even rely heavily on levels of stupidity from the victims, that you more than likely wouldn't get in the real world. Also, to pull this kind of stuff off realistically would be slim to nil.

 

I think you just don't have a stomach for horror or gore, which is fine. To shut down the producers of such movies freedom of expression due to it however, would be silly. Nobody gets hurt while making these movies. Its no different than Planet of the Apes or any other movie that is just imagination, actors or the like. Its like loving death metal, hip hop, classical or jazz. Many things aren't for all tastes.

 

A solid argument, would be where there are actual victims during the filming process, or illegal activity when it comes down to recording laws being broken. 

 

12 hours ago, Princess Merida said:

At the same time, the rest of us are becoming used to watching terrible things and I don't think that's a good thing.

If you watch the news, I hope you do realize the irony of this statement. The news basically gets its highest ratings, based on negative stories.

 

Murders, shootings, terrorist acts. These take the front row. Tragedies. There is a reason why storm chasers get paid a lot of money for solid recordings. Same with recording studios, that are subcontracted by major news networks to videotape tragic events. Pileups, crashes, violent clashes, and the like. This is big money. 

 

Donald Trump donates to orphanage, and hugs children as he reads them story vs Donald Trump calls Haiti shithole. Which one do you think will get a newspaper picked up?

 

I think its far sicker to give a school shooter weeks of glory in the media, by delving into their childhood and story. Same thing with terrorists. This gives them a level of notoriety for their actions. To me, this provides far more incentive for copy cat crimes, as the likelihood of it is far more realistic.

 

You can't even compare this to a movie, considering the lives that were taken. The unintended consequences of the constant coverage, is you inadvertently glorify their actions.

 

 

[Guest]

I think we've truly failed a society, if we get to the point of stopping production of a fully legal horror or gore movie, because some people are offended by it.

 

 

[Tarfeather]

13 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

The evil people are the ones who are actually out doing these types of things to other people but their motivations, actions, and the reactions of their victims are still a deeply fascinating topic to explore!

 

 

 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Tarfeather said:

 

 

 

Are you saying you're one of those people who will never watch a horror movie, or a murder mystery, or literally anything  involving  a murder or  someone who escaped  from  a murderer or whatever, and won't read books about those things either? Because literally every single author/scriptwriter who has ever created a story about those topics is exploring the way victims (and the criminals themselves) will react in those situations. Some do it well and actually study real cases, like the author of Silence of the Lambs, and some like the writer of Saw or Scream just pull a story out their anus lol, but they all still had to explore what the killer's motivations would be and how the victims would react.

 

Also, in a real-life context, discovering the motivations of real serial killers and the reactions of victims has literally saved the lives of people who have ended up being taken by a serial killer themselves. I have had to do a lot of research in the past into victims who have managed to escape serial killers, and in recorded interviews with many of them they say things like 'I watched a lot of documentaries/read a lot of books about serial killers when I was young so I knew what I needed to say/do to try to get him on my side so I could escape'. (and variations of that). Yes there are times that doesn't work, for example David Parker Ray didn't let Cynthia Voigt go despite her trying to apply emotional manipulation at one point (fortunately that incredible woman still managed to escape and brought a monster to justice), but what I'm saying is, having full Knowledge of both serial killer motivations and the things their surviving victims did to escape, and how they reacted in the face of the horrors they had to endure, can actually potentially be lifesaving for someone in the future. 

 

So it's really not a giant NOPE unless you're saying that you yourself can literally only watch kids cartoons and romantic comedies.

[Tarfeather]

11 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

Are you saying you're one of those people who will never watch a horror movie, or a murder mystery, or literally anything  involving  a murder or  someone who escaped  from  a murderer or whatever, and won't read books about those things either? Because literally every single author/scriptwriter who has ever created a story about those topics is exploring the way victims (and the criminals themselves) will react in those situations.

 

Also, in a real-life context, discovering the motivations of real serial killers and the reactions of victims has literally saved the lives of people who have ended up being taken by a serial killer themselves. I have had to do a lot of research in the past into victims who have managed to escape serial killers, and in recorded interviews with many of them they say things like 'I watched a lot of documentaries/read a lot of books about serial killers when I was young so I knew what I needed to say/do to try to get him on my side so I could escape'. (and variations of that). Yes there are times that doesn't work, for example David Parker Ray didn't let Cynthia Voigt go despite her trying to apply emotional manipulation at one point (fortunately that incredible woman still managed to escape and brought a monster to justice), but what I'm saying is, having full Knowledge of both serial killer motivations and the things their surviving victims did to escape, and how they reacted in the face of the horrors they had to endure, can actually potentially be lifesaving for someone in the future. 

 

So it's really not a giant NOPE unless you're saying that you yourself can literally only watch kids cartoons and romantic comedies.

Nah, what I was expressing with that was that I find the topic to be the very opposite of fascinating, and in fact just the thought of me considering it fascinating disgusts me. If other people consider it fascinating, that's fine, just leave me out of it.

[seneca]

On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 12:45 PM, Snao Cone said:

Hmm, I think films that should be banned are the ones that in themselves are crimes - violence, rape, degradation, exploitation, etc. (Non-consensual, of course.)

 

Movies that depict violence but don't violate human rights or health and safety codes in the process of filming those... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's their business venture.

I forget the name of the film, but there's one from Europe that has baby rape in it. Yes, definitely  get rid of this and the producer,

[umbasa]

Nope. 

 

The bloodier the better.

 

Nothing beats Evil Dead's flinging of body parts and explosion of crimson fluid, for example.

 

As for the good old "but they inspire!"... Here's the thing. If someone sick enough to carry out such an action wasn't inspired by movie Y, they'd get it from book X, or Television Z, or news report A. Or just out of their imagination after fantasising about it for long enough.

 

Humans intent on evil deeds need no help in coming up with the actions. Sooner or later they will get around to doing it by themselves.

[umbasa]

On 14/01/2018 at 12:29 AM, iff said:

We have a film that was banned in Ireland (though not anymore)

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Monty python's life of Brian

 

Careful now.

 

Down with this sort of thing.

[umbasa]

On 13/01/2018 at 10:29 PM, FictoVore. said:

 

This will be TMI for some

 

 

It wasn't the orgy itself, it was how it was *portrayed*, and the fact that he can't see that says a fair bit about him as a person. 

 

The murders were depicted as 'bad', it's awful that kids are getting murdered and not once in the book is it implied that the murders are okay. Yet in the sewers, something like 6 boys have sex with a virgin 13 year old girl. Not only does she enjoy it (even though she's never even masturbated) she orgasms when the last boy screws her. On top of that, some of the boys are so young that they think women get pregnant by a man weeing on her stomach, yet somehow they're meant to know exactly what they need to do to her vagina to have some vague representation of sex?  This is described as 'the ultimate act of love' which helps them find their way out of the tunnels >:c

 

1) children as young and naive as some of those boys have no concept of the idea of sex being 'the ultimate act of love'

 

2) Bev (the girl) would have been in utter, agonising pain by the end of the sex after having been penetrated that many times, and would most probably have been bleeding a lot as they had no lube other than each other's sloppy seconds, gross.

 

3) THEY WERE WILLING TO DIE FOR EACH OTHER, yet that love is passed off as inferior, apparently less important and less valid, than shoving your cock in a girl??? When kids that age can love each other so much that they will willingly give their lives to save their friends, that shows a very mature, deep, binding love stronger than any sexual love could ever be. Let alone the 'love' depicted in that sex scene which is just some authors fantasy of the hot girl who already has boobs letting all the dweebs screw her (that's literally what that scene is. She's hot and they're all the losers who get bullied at school. The author obviously had some unresolved fantasies from childhood he wanted to squeeze in there). 

 

4) no one cares about any of that and just judge you, as Stephen King does, for having more of an issue with all that than with the children getting murdered Y_Y it's soooo frustrating!!! People even go so far as to say the scene is beautiful and mature and you're clearly just a naive prude if you can't take it. ARFH!!

 

In conclusion:

 

If the murders were protrayed as 'good for the kids' and they even sort of enjoy dying, and their families are relieved  that the kids get to visit heaven so early, that'd be another story. Everyone would be just as angry about that. But the murders are portrayed realistically in that they cause awful pain and damage to the loved ones left behind, as well as what's suffered by the victim themself. The sex on the other hand is one of the worst, most naive, ignorant pieces of writing I have ever read. I wouldn't have minded if it was at least accurate and Bev had to limp out of the tunnels crying with blood running down her thighs and the boys all feeling sickened and guilty for doing that to her, after maybe for example Penniwise (the clown/monster) tricked them into believing that was love to permenantly destroy their innocence and the friendship bond they all had - that would be VERY different and actually enjoyable in a sick and twisted way. But no. The author wants to pass it off as the ultimate act of love so lies to the audience about the reality of what would happen in that situation to make it seem better. THAT'S what makes me and many other people so furious about that scene, and the fact that King can't acknowledge or understand that shows a fair bit about his maturity levels and who he is as a person, along with everyone who can't understand it and claims that scene is 'beautiful'.

 

And to clarify, I'm actually a Stephen King fan lol, he's one of my favourite authors. He's one of those writers who can write the best thing you ever read or the shittest thing you ever read depending on where his head is at on the day. *Sigh* I got so angry writing all that that now my throat hurts haha.. seriously that's one of my most hated scenes in all fiction... Actually no, it's THE scene I hate most in all fiction.

 

Edit; I've ranted about this a few times online, and a few months ago on Disqus someone said I'm clearly an idiot who can't think for myself because I practically copy/pasted someone else's comment about it from a different forum to look 'edgy'. 1) As anyone here knows, I always write my own posts and have a rather narcissistic view of my own commentary, I'd never copy/paste someone else's writing as I am always convinced mine is superior, haha! 2) I think that person had stumbled across a different rant of mine on a different forum and that's why they seemed so similar, lol!

It is nonsensical, which sounds like an odd criticism when talking about a world where an ancient entity in the guise of a clown kills kids but even in fantastical stories you can run against the internal logic that was created for the world and thus undermine the story.

 

They have an orgy to be unified and regain their abilities? If anything such an inexplicable action would split them further apart. You know what would be unifying? Surviving together through a life or death ordeal and being there for each other. Nothing is more unifying than survival. Especially so for survival amongst an already established deep friendship. And the kids at that point in the story did just that.

 

Basically, King created a solution to a problem that wasn't needed in the first place. Except as an excuse to include an underage orgy. Like, there was no reason for the group to suddenly fall apart and get stuck in the sewer and even less of a reason for why having sex would make the way out clear. As you said, that definitely says more about King than it does of people who rightly found that scene questionable over the subject of child murders.

 

But even if we accepted the needless creation of a problem and the stretch of the books internal logic to fix it, how King wrote it was clearly of a man who thinks they know what it is like for a girl to lose their virginity. And got it grossly wrong. I am not a woman but even I have a good idea that it would not be like that. 

 

[Guest]

23 hours ago, seneca said:

On 15/01/2018 at 10:58 AM, seneca said:

Snao Cone said: Movies that depict violence but don't violate human rights or health and safety codes in the process of filming those... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's their business venture.

 

I forget the name of the film, but there's one from Europe that has baby rape in it. Yes, definitely  get rid of this and the producer,

That's A Serbian Film and no babies were actually raped or the director would be imprisoned and you'd have to go to the deep web to find it. He was investigated but the charges were dropped. Yes it's banned in a lot of countries for obvious reasons but you can still buy the uncensored DVD of it online and stream it etc without facing any charges the same way you would if you hunted out actual child porn from the deep web. Out of interest, if no crimes were actually committed do you still think it should be banned?

[Epitaph]

Even if you banned it people would find a way. Either out of sheer curiousity or spite for not having it. Look at other countries for instance. They instigate bans on films and video games, internet content and media, you name it, and black markets spring up for illegal copies of it overnight. Just remember that telling the human race that "No you cannot watch Human Centipede 3" will only further drive a portion of them to watch it anyway.

[umbasa]

Ah yes, A Serbian film. My thoughts on the film are the same as Mark Kermode. Utterly dispicable without an ounce of meaning or thought, where the director hid behind political subtexts to try and excuse it when he knew he could not properly justify why he made the film. Even then, I would not call for its ban. Criticise it? Hell yeah. But not ban it.

[CallaWolf]

EDIT: I had a long winded post about what could, or could not cross the line, but really, it's too long winded and I think I more or less answered my own question in it

[Guest]

4 hours ago, E is for E said:

Even if you banned it people would find a way. Either out of sheer curiousity or spite for not having it. Look at other countries for instance. They instigate bans on films and video games, internet content and media, you name it, and black markets spring up for illegal copies of it overnight. Just remember that telling the human race that "No you cannot watch Human Centipede 3" will only further drive a portion of them to watch it anyway.

was that response to me, or just a general comment? I was asking @seneca specifically because they seemed to be agreeing with snao that if no human rights are violated (ie no acts that are non-consensual), then a film shouldn't be banned. But they then said 'Ban Siberian film'. As no one was actually raped in that film, I was interested to see whether they still thought it (and the producer of the film) should be 'gotten rid of', or if they only said that because they thought what happened in it was real.

[Epitaph]

3 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

was that response to me, or just a general comment? I was asking @seneca specifically because they seemed to be agreeing with snao that if no human rights are violated (ie no acts that are non-consensual), then a film shouldn't be banned. But they then said 'Ban Siberian film'. As no one was actually raped in that film, I was interested to see whether they still thought it (and the producer of the film) should be 'gotten rid of', or if they only said that because they thought what happened in it was real.

Just a general comment.

 

While I'm at it the true way to bury a film is not through banning but by through ignoring it. If a content creator sets out to make some horrific film, then its likely they'll expect backlash and controversy, and may even aim to achieve it. Mass outcries of "ban this!" only validates said creators and inspires others, turning the very wheel banning aims to prevent from spinning. What absolutely crushes a film is silence. Nobody goes to see it, nobody talks about it, and it fades right into obscurity as if it were never there to begin with. If the public shows interest and activity with a film, either negative or positive, the wheel turns.