Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2009 15:38:32 GMT -4
Yep, Snivellusfriend, you are so right. I wonder what the writers/producers/directors are thinking when they do violent scenes. If they have any thoughts about what they're perpetrating. I sometimes think they're just indulging in their own private fantasies.
If you watch "Mythbusters," you will know that cars RARELY explode on impact, and yet every car in a TV show or movie that collides into something explodes. I've been in enough car accidents to know now that the car designers go to great lengths to make sure a car DOESN'T explode on impact.
And the one time i sat on a jury was enough to convince my long-held suspicion that one hard punch to the face can and does leave lasting damage that can leave a person impaired for life. The words "explosive fracture of the left orbital socket" will never leave my memory, nor will the description of what it does to the head and image of the person who suffered it.
I wonder if producers think that violence is some sort of "dramatic slapstick" or something and that viewers will "get" that. But I think it might perpetrate the idea that people can do these things to each other and they won't get hurt. But I know, and you do, that that's not the case. However, violence is tolerated much more than sex. So I am baffled by the standards on TV as you.
|
|
|
|
Post by snivellusfriend on Jun 26, 2009 16:44:23 GMT -4
Yes, I think it does perpetuate false ideas. Other young girls who've been assaulted and the author of "Speak," think so, too. In an interview in her book, Laurie Halse Anderson said that young guys kept writing to her, asking her why the protagonist in her story was upset about being raped; She said she was horrified at first, but then said that she realized that, with what they're seeing on T.V and the media, that they're not being taught how men's actions can hurt women, so naturally, they wouldn't understand and feel confused.
I've been moving away from T.V and films-I can't believe that I used to really enjoy them when I was a kid.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigerlily on Jun 26, 2009 18:35:20 GMT -4
In an interview in her book, Laurie Halse Anderson said that young guys kept writing to her, asking her why the protagonist in her story was upset about being raped; She said she was horrified at first, but then said that she realized that, with what they're seeing on T.V and the media, that they're not being taught how men's actions can hurt women, so naturally, they wouldn't understand and feel confused. . That is absolutely the most horrifying thing I have ever heard. What is wrong with people?!?!?!1/  ?  |
|
|
|
Post by greenleaf on Jun 27, 2009 11:46:49 GMT -4
snivellusfriend
I agree with you. The real violence in real life is completely awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by dkiddo on Jun 28, 2009 11:18:27 GMT -4
I've never seen True Blood but I heard it takes at least 3 episodes to kinda "like it", but after reading what Edith said I'm not sure I want to watch it at all  Also I'm ok with sex and cursing and stuff on TV and movies, as long as it adds something to the plot (ie: anybody saw watchmen?? silk specter and the owl banging for like 4 minutes in the owl thingy was stupid, didn't add a damn thing to the movie and it was just too much) |
|
|
|
Post by snivellusfriend on Jun 29, 2009 17:51:14 GMT -4
...In an interview in her book, Laurie Halse Anderson said that young guys kept writing to her, asking her why the protagonist in her story was upset about being raped; She said she was horrified at first, but then said that she realized that, with what they're seeing on T.V and the media, that they're not being taught how men's actions can hurt women, so naturally, they wouldn't understand and feel confused. That is absolutely the most horrifying thing I have ever heard. What is wrong with people?!?!?!1/ ?  She said that they weren't asking in a mean way, but were genuinely asking because they didn't understand. I was shocked, too. I knew guys who were jerks, but I didn't expect young boys to not understand, either. I felt like, "Great. Guys really are stupid and don't understand." I agree with you. The real violence in real life is completely awful. It is. I'm bothered by the imitations that are overdone; I don't mind if they're written or acted well, but I don't see too many that are and it drives me crazy because I feel like no one understands what it feels like. I think, 'If they saw my memories, they would go, "Oh!" and would realize how ridiculous or wrong their scenes are and would change them, do them differently...' I hate that scenes are like a big, obvious sign to me-I wish I could enjoy them, but I can't pretend- I have my memories and I can't erase them. I hate that I can tell, just by how and what writers write, actors act or speak as themselves in interviews, or how much directors get out of an actor's performance, (ie: what the result in their work is) whether they've been hurt in their life, who really understands and isn't just making something up... Graphic sex scenes bother me, too-It's obvious to me that the writers weren't assaulted or abused in their life-that's why they were okay with watching/writing those scenes. Just like the CNI video, with the group singing, "Why did you rape my child..." and people laughing-I guess they didn't mean it in a mean way, but it bothered me because it was an obvious sign to me that all of them have never been abused-to react so flippantly...and once again, re-enforcing that I'm different from most people. I guess they all need to see, "Speak"...and replay the assault scenes over and over, to perhaps, understand a little what it's like, that it's not fun or funny. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2009 14:03:08 GMT -4
… I hate that I can tell, just by how and what writers write, actors act or speak as themselves in interviews, or how much directors get out of an actor's performance, (ie: what the result in their work is) whether they've been hurt in their life, who really understands and isn't just making something up … Sometimes I can pick up on this, but other times I don't know if I could know that. I was surprised by the movie "The Accused," in which Kelly McGillis played a lawyer to sex assault victim played by Jodie Foster. Jodie's performance didn't mesh, because it didn't look like she understood a working class woman and — just a guess here because I sure wouldn't know — but she didn't strike me as someone who understands being victim. So i picked up on that, but I had no idea that Kelly struggled a lot with the movie because she herself had been raped. I saw no indication of that when watching the movie because she gave off no clues she had any personal knowledge about that, and if it were me I couldn't even DO the movie even if I were on the crew. Such must be the culture of the entertainment business. But I have often wondered how actors do crying scenes. I could get myself to appear to be happy, but if I'm in no mood to cry, there is nothing on God's green earth that can make me cry. I would have to think of something profoundly sad, and then I would be in such a mental state that I would be no good acting, because I couldn't do anything else. So how an actor turns on the tears, then shuts it off when the director yells "cut!" is beyond me. Because it's such a physical response as well as emotional. To have that much command of your physical and emotional faculties is either a gift or a curse because you can fake it — on or off set — if you needed to. |
|
|
|
Post by snivellusfriend on Jul 1, 2009 18:43:51 GMT -4
Thanks for the film recommendation. I'll try to watch it.
I can pick it up with people in real life, too. I don't like it or try to, it's just automatically a feeling that I get-that they've never been helpless.
ETA: I watched the film. It felt rushed and forced to me. I understood what the writer was trying to do, but I thought, especially after seeing "Speak," they didn't take time to let the audience relate to her character.
|
|
|
|
Post by melissaq9 on Jul 2, 2009 0:54:08 GMT -4
ooooooh fabulous little photo of Michael!! I just love his outfit, the guy is first-class!!  Is Rebecca Mader actually in the show? Odd, yes?? I don't think she's attractive one bit. EDIT: Never mind. Just read a little more closely, article says she's a guest. I really want to see this show!!! You should give the show a shot Jo, it is fantastic. Yes, it can be very graphic but it is an HBO show so that is to be expected. If it was mild then people would be complaining that HBO had lost its edge. I don't understand people saying it is horrible but yet they keep watching it. If the nudity and violence bother you then it is not a show you should watch. lol If you have read the books keep in mind that the show is a loose adaptation. The core storyline has stayed in place but there are many smaller ones that have been changed and added. I'd watch it for Carrie alone. She hasn't been in too much of season 2 so far but I think that is about to change in a big way. She is amazing as Arlene and I hope we get to see a cameo from Michael soon!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Edith S. Baker on Jul 2, 2009 9:30:30 GMT -4
ooooooh fabulous little photo of Michael!! I just love his outfit, the guy is first-class!! Is Rebecca Mader actually in the show? Odd, yes?? I don't think she's attractive one bit. EDIT: Never mind. Just read a little more closely, article says she's a guest. I really want to see this show!!! You should give the show a shot Jo, it is fantastic. Yes, it can be very graphic but it is an HBO show so that is to be expected. If it was mild then people would be complaining that HBO had lost its edge. I don't understand people saying it is horrible but yet they keep watching it. If the nudity and violence bother you then it is not a show you should watch. lol If you have read the books keep in mind that the show is a loose adaptation. The core storyline has stayed in place but there are many smaller ones that have been changed and added. I'd watch it for Carrie alone. She hasn't been in too much of season 2 so far but I think that is about to change in a big way. She is amazing as Arlene and I hope we get to see a cameo from Michael soon!! Well, I am one who complains about it a lot, but I loosely watch it. I watch it for Carrie. Once again, I don't mind violence (I watch LOST), and I don't mind nudity. Some scripts actually call for nudity, and the storyline is enhanced by it. In this show, the storyline is shallow, the nudity is uncalled for, and the violence is extreme. In fact, I would even call the show pornographic. When you have sex and violence for titillation, then it is pornography. Moreover, the director did not do his homework right. Vampires have canine fangs, not incisor fangs. Fangs, by definition are canine teeth. But if you look at the picture of one of the vampires in the show, you see that the fangs are misplaced:  Here are examples of real vampire fangs:   How can one respect a show that misplaces such vital information? Let's face it, the show is there for people to get their sexual and violence kicks. Frankly, a porno DVD would get you there faster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edith S. Baker on Jul 2, 2009 9:48:30 GMT -4
I think that Carrie belongs in better shows where her craftsmanship can be better displayed. But I also think that she is happy to be in a successful show. She becomes better known and can demand more money later on. Moreover, the money she and Michael are making, I am sure can now be used to fund Daisy3 Productions (her independent movie company). If Ready?OK! is any indication, the production company has great movies in store for us.
The fact that Michael wants to do a guest spot in True Blood just eludes me. Then again, I really don't know him. I just have an illusion of knowing him. And, as we all know, he loves his Carrie and supports her in any which way he can. Maybe doing a guest spot is his way of showing his love for her.
|
|
|
|
Post by melissaq9 on Jul 2, 2009 12:30:23 GMT -4
I think Alan chose to purposely change where the vamps fangs are to change things up a bit. Make these vampires different from all the other ones in movies and stories popping up right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edith S. Baker on Jul 2, 2009 12:36:11 GMT -4
I think Alan chose to purposely change where the vamps fangs are to change things up a bit. Make these vampires different from all the other ones in movies and stories popping up right now. Did you read that? Or are you assuming so? Because by definition, fangs are canines. Just like by definition males have penises. Also, did he say he was going to change the look of vampires before the show started or after? That's also important, because by saying it after is an indication of covering up a major booboo. |
|
|
|
Post by melissaq9 on Jul 2, 2009 17:40:12 GMT -4
I heard it somewhere before the show started to air. I doubt he would mistakenly place the fangs in the front, that would be silly. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by snivellusfriend on Jul 6, 2009 17:24:02 GMT -4
movies.about.com/od/interviewswithactors/a/carrie-preston_3.htmI guess Carrie chose to be in 'True Blood' because she wanted to finally have a stable job on a series that would help her get better roles in the future. I don't understand why there doesn't seem to be a lot of good roles, with characters who are written well, complex. I assume most, if not all writers, went to college and learned about Shakespeare and all the other great writers in our world's history. No one wanted to be like them, follow in their footsteps? So, they choose to write a lot of sex scenes, an easy way out?
|
|
? 
