Troma ( B Movies )

[Ferox13]

I am a big fan of the ballet - so of course Blood Sucking Freaks is right up my street. On a side note, Sardu's midget sidekick did a lot of porn films under the name, Mr. Short Stud - and no I am not making it up..

[Sculpt]

Based on the descriptions, it's definitely not for me. Don't want to see gore/torture for entertainment. News has enough negativity to last a life time. Better things to think about. I prefer good horror stories, to say the least.

Brings to my mind the recent documentary "The Act of Killing" where the murdering thugs admit they got their torture ideas from American films. Very old debate, I ain't gonna splash blame, just saying sometimes life does imitate art.

[neverending]

Sometimes people say God told them to kill. Maybe we should get rid of all that God stuff....

[Giganticface]

Originally Posted by Sculpt

Based on the descriptions, it's definitely not for me. Don't want to see gore/torture for entertainment. News has enough negativity to last a life time. Better things to think about. I prefer good horror stories, to say the least.

That's actually why I like disturbing and "feel bad" fictional films -- because no matter how uncomfortable it makes me feel (a feeling I enjoy for some reason), I know it's not real.

Brings to my mind the recent documentary "The Act of Killing" where the murdering thugs admit they got their torture ideas from American films. Very old debate, I ain't gonna splash blame, just saying sometimes life does imitate art.

It's an old debate, but a pretty weak one. People have been doing horrible things to each other before art really existed, certainly long before film existed, and especially long before it was culturally acceptable to put disturbing things on film.

For the same reasons I love disturbing fiction, I actually don't enjoy disturbing non-fiction like the documentary you mentioned. I have it in my Netflix queue, but I pass it up every night because I know I won't find it much fun to watch. I also have trouble watching the news any more because it makes me sad. I know some would probably criticize me for being out of touch with real life, but I don't really care. I'd rather just play with my kids, then watch something fake that's disturbing.

[Mormo Zine]

Originally Posted by Giganticface

Yeah that one's pretty twisted. I doubt I would watch it again, but it was something.

Same here. Father's Day the holiday is a difficult day for me so I was hoping I would really like Troma's Father's Day and it could become a yearly tradition. I liked it but I don't think I will watch again. If they make another movie I will watch it for sure though!!

[Sculpt]

Originally Posted by neverending

Sometimes people say God told them to kill. Maybe we should get rid of all that God stuff....

Yes, that is the 'very old debate' I was referencing...

Based on your reply, I'm not certain you ultimately understood what I was stating. I clearly stated it wasn't a film for me. I've never advocated banning films. I believe in the free market place of ideas. I never stated a film was the cause for violence. It should go without saying humans have that covered without art.

I stated it reminded me of one particular case were a film's torture was mimicked, which isn't the only recorded case of film torture mimicry. But the point is: voluminous and extensive studies have been completed on the relationship between violent imagery and violent behavior, since it was requested by the US Surgeon General in 2000. The findings were there's a significant correlation between violent image exposure and the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior -- immediacy, frequency, intensity and character of violence -- also surveyed participation in bullying and violence related attitudes.

If one thinks stating these findings is the same as advocating banning material, they would be incorrect and erroneously projecting. On the contrary, the findings are useful in deciding one's own consumption of material (and/or their own children). Personally, I didn't need to see the conclusions of the voluminous studies to know what one occupies their mind with has an effect on one’s thoughts, values and ultimately, to some degree, their behavior. Stories inspire; it’s not a new conclusion. Its obvious the effects are variable and individual. What I stated is it has an effect, that BSF (film) is not for me, and one’s time is limited. I don't see how that's debateable, but anyone can knock themselves out. I'm not demanding anyone do or not do anything. People hear others, but make their own choices.

[neverending]

Yep, I understood without the lecture.

[Giganticface]

Originally Posted by Sculpt

Yes, that is the 'very old debate' I was referencing...

Based on your reply, I'm not certain you ultimately understood what I was stating. I clearly stated it wasn't a film for me. I've never advocated banning films. I believe in the free market place of ideas. I never stated a film was the cause for violence. It should go without saying humans have that covered without art.

I stated it reminded me of one particular case were a film's torture was mimicked, which isn't the only recorded case of film torture mimicry. But the point is: voluminous and extensive studies have been completed on the relationship between violent imagery and violent behavior, since it was requested by the US Surgeon General in 2000. The findings were there's a significant correlation between violent image exposure and the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior -- immediacy, frequency, intensity and character of violence -- also surveyed participation in bullying and violence related attitudes.

If one thinks stating these findings is the same as advocating banning material, they would be incorrect and erroneously projecting. On the contrary, the findings are useful in deciding one's own consumption of material (and/or their own children). Personally, I didn't need to see the conclusions of the voluminous studies to know what one occupies their mind with has an effect on one’s thoughts, values and ultimately, to some degree, their behavior. Stories inspire; it’s not a new conclusion. Its obvious the effects are variable and individual. What I stated is it has an effect, that BSF (film) is not for me, and one’s time is limited. I don't see how that's debateable, but anyone can knock themselves out. I'm not demanding anyone do or not do anything. People hear others, but make their own choices.

I read Charles Dickens once, then wanted to go behead people.

It's too bad people still have the Tipper Gore mentality. I'm actually a little offended, but not really because I know it's asinine.

These "voluminous" studies are likely nonexistant or flawed. I have two engineering degrees from acclaimed universities, and in grad school we spent a great deal of time, with some of the top engineering professors in the country, debunking "studies" for failing to be technically sound. The ones that are truly attempting to be legitimate can be flawed due to an improperly-applied equation, or a flaw in a mathematical derivation. Other, less legitimate studies, are not really scientific at all, they just mask "data" in an attempt to prove a finding for a particular interest group.

Unless the research was published by an accredited journal of engineering or science, it hasn't undergone the scrutiny required to be considered actual science. And just because the news reports something scientific doesn't mean it's science. They just need it to be science-y so it supports their story. It really is one of the great ironies -- how many decisions are made every day based on "scientific studies" that don't actually conclude anything. I used to work as an engineer for a large company, representing the company at government hearings that influenced legislation. You wouldn't believe (well, I couldn't) how much non-science is quoted as science, from corporations, activist groups, and the government themselves. It's actually kinda sad.

However, if you're going to cite the voluminous studies, it might be worthwhile to actually care about the conclusions. I wouldn't be surprised if many of these studies that correlate violent actions to violent media actually "conclude" that the violent kids were already screwed up during their upbringing due to abuse, neglect or some traumatic experience, before being exposed to the violent media. It's the whole Judas Priest song suicide case from the late 80s. Really? We really think those kids killed themselves because they listened to a Judas Priest song? Kinda idiotic isn't it?

I watch some of the most screwed up stuff imaginable and I've never even been in a fist fight my whole live, and I doubt I ever will. I have no pent up need to harm anybody. I watch the stuff because it's emotionally stimulating, and nothing more.

Granted, I certainly won't be exposing my children to most of the nasty stuff I watch, but that's not because I'm concerned they'll want to mimic the actions in the film. I just don't want them to be traumatized for no reason at an early age. That's just common sense, not due to any so-called "findings."

[Sculpt]

I care about the conclusions. Ya say you spent time debunking research and/or it's conclusions in college. But you don't mention debunking any of the research on this subject.

Sure, any research or conclusion could be wrong. Who's doing the study, do they have an ax to grind? I take that for granted. But it's just sloppy thinking to assume all research we initially disagree with is wrong, without analyzing it.

There's research demonstrating a table top is mostly empty space (physics). I've pounded on the table. Without analyzing the research, it sure seems like bunk. But it doesn't mean it is bunk.

Here's some of the research. If you want to grab one and analyse it, I'd be happy to hear your findings.
http://www.lionlamb.org/mediaviolencefactsheet.pdf
http://lionlamb.org/research.html

[Giganticface]

Originally Posted by Sculpt

I care about the conclusions. Ya say you spent time debunking research and/or it's conclusions in college. But you don't mention debunking any of the research on this subject.

Sure, any research or conclusion could be wrong. Who's doing the study, do they have an ax to grind? I take that for granted. But it's just sloppy thinking to assume all research we initially disagree with is wrong, without analyzing it.

There's research demonstrating a table top is mostly empty space (physics). I've pounded on the table. Without analyzing the research, it sure seems like bunk. But it doesn't mean it is bunk.

Here's some of the research. If you want to grab one and analyse it, I'd be happy to hear your findings.
http://www.lionlamb.org/mediaviolencefactsheet.pdf
http://lionlamb.org/research.html

I won't be doing any debunking. My days of academia are long past and it's not something that can be done in a matter of minutes or even hours. However, looking at the lionlamb.org research page, I notice that it's a combination of interest-driven opinion statements, fact sheets, articles not published in accredited scientific journals, and some articles that are (I suspect) accredited.

Looking into the first article that I believe is accredited ( "The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance", published in the Journal of Adolescence -- I'll ask my wife if it's accredited, she is an occupational therapist with a Masters in Child Psychology ), skimming the research and jumping to the findings, the conclusions state:

That youth who are more hostile also play more violent video games raises questions of causality. Are young adolescents more hostile and aggressive because they expose themselves to media violence, or do previously hostile adolescents prefer violent media? Due to the correlational nature of this study, we cannot answer this question directly.

And...

It is important to note, however, that this study is limited by its correlational nature. Inferences about causal direction should be viewed with caution.

So, without evaluating the quality of the data and the actual statistical analysis, I'll assume the article does a good job of establishing a correlation between violent video game play and acts of aggression, but does not establish the conclusion that one causes the other. I suspect many of the other actually scientific papers will have similar language clarifying their conclusions.

Listen, I'm not proposing that exposing children to violent entertainment is a good thing. I'm not really sure how you managed to migrate this conversation from Lee's "God told them to kill" quip, to a debate over whether we should let children watch an extreme exploitation film about torture. We're all adults here, or close enough. It's the wrong forum to pass judgement on grown ass people who enjoy watching violence for entertainment. This is a horror forum, remember? Not Lion and the Lamb dot org.