The Rambam";p="811546 wrote:GoatOvaries";p="811541 wrote:Horror movies = not horrific.
At last we agree on something. Personally I think the problem is that people apply that label pell-mell to movies that don't really deserve it, to the point where it
becomes just a genre/tag instead of actually meaning what it says; all the shit coming out of Hollywood has co-opted the word and stripped it of any value whatsoever.
It's not just hollywood. Lucio Fulci movies are something I adore to an insane agree. They are, in theory, very graphic, violent and supposedly scary. I watch them for pure entertainment purposes. No movie has scared me since I was about 8 years old and that was probably a Hellraiser movie that I now think is poor. Hellraiser Bloodines.
Mobiesque";p="811551 wrote:
Dear Clayton
Uh, wow, so wrong.
Not in a moral way, but in a universal concensus way.
It's ok though, you're very young.
EDIT: I'm glad i spent my 3000th post telling you you're a bad person :
:
How am I wrong? Don't talk to me directly again if you have nothing to say.
judasmuppet";p="811697 wrote:
You're a large portion of a dill, Clayton. Your argument pre-supposes that the world's population of film-watchers is required to be desensitised to the horrors of both everyday life and horrors achieved through the suspension of belief, with the classic reasoning of: Just Because...
You are an idiot. This is stating the obvious but real life, and movies are two different things. Knowing that i'm far from desensetized from real life atrocities. Video games, movies, fake snuff, or even someone killing an animal on camera isn't a case of being desensitised, but it's being able to draw a clear distinction between fiction and reality. If I saw nuclear hillbilly zombies in real life i'd probably shit myself and scream like a bitch.
That said, I'm talking shit.
:
