Customer Discussions > Movie forum

Murder is good... sex not so much


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 232 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 23, 2012 3:12:55 PM PDT
So why is it that movies promote murder and not sex?

Is the public more comfortable watching murder on screen than it is watching sex?

Do the film companies think 12 people are going to get raped if movie goers cannot tell the difference between reality and what happens in the movies?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2012 3:27:46 PM PDT
We've been discussing this very idea on a thread about a Punisher movie. Here are a couple of comments I made on that thread to make a point.

"I don't mind violent movies, but not violence just for violence sake. That's just another form of porn. And though it has been said many times, you've got to question a society that puts more restrictions on sex in films than violence. Do you realize how much violence you have to actually have in a film before you get an X or even an NC17? I mean consider, Hostle was rated R, and Henry and June was rated NC17. Which of those films do think the most likely to warp an impressionable mind to the detriment of society? "

Robocop was originally given an X in 1987, though I doubt the violence in it would raise an eyebrow now (and it is still a very violent film). They didn't really have to cut that much out to get the R. You really don't have to have much sex in a film to get an NC-17.

For example:
Basic Instinct is rated R for "strong violence and sensuality, and for drug use and language". It was initially given an NC-17 rating by the MPAA, but under pressure from TriStar, Verhoeven cut 35 to 40 seconds to gain an R rating. Verhoeven described the changes in a March 1992 article in The New York Times:

"Actually, I didn't have to cut many things, but I replaced things from different angles, made it a little more elliptical, a bit less direct."

BTW the scene that was cut was not one of the ice pick murders.

Posted on Jul 23, 2012 4:52:14 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 23, 2012 4:53:07 PM PDT
RichieV says:
Stories are conflict, the most basic type of conflict is violence. It is hard to imagine high noon where the sheriff talks his way out of the showdown.
Sex can be needed but usually it is extraneous. You can have the characters close the bedroom door on the camera and not lose any of the story. (However, it would be very difficult to imagine Last Tango in Paris without the sex)

A better question is, why is it studios can't let a movie be NC-17 or in many cases Rated R, because the studios feel the audiences won't go to the movie if there is too much sex.
But they always need to release the Unrated Directors cut DVD, because audiences buy up the DVD's when they have all the extra sex added to the movie.

In other words, Hollywood does promote sex, they just do it in the unrated DVD. (and people buy it up)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 12:51:36 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2012 12:54:54 AM PDT
<Do the film companies think 12 people are going to get raped if movie goers cannot tell the difference between reality and what happens in the movies?>

Well, the proliferation of violence in society sort of blows the theory that Hollywood might feel a bit responsible for influence and thus stop making violent films then, doesn't it?

I do remember, however, back in the 70s there were a lot more sex scenes in films (and I'm not talking porn films), many of them prolonged. I'm not sure why this fell out of favour, but I do remember Tipper Gore's PMRC campaign to stamp out vulgarity in music in the mid-80s, not sure if this had a crossover effect on film or not though. The squeaky-clean Reagan era might have had something to do with the onset of the trend of less sex in film perhaps.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 2:16:59 AM PDT
RichieV says:
The squeaky-clean Reagan era might have had something to do with the onset of the trend of less sex in film perhaps.
---------------------------------------------------------
RichieV

I don't think so. In the eighties sex and violence was all over the screen. I remember a romantic comedy, TV show, called "anything but love." The two characters would be talking. "What did you do last night.?" "Oh I got lucky"

It was the nineties that the sex started disappearing from films. The eighties was full of people looking to hook up in films and TV. Aids may have started becoming a problem in the eighties but is was the nineties when everyone in films started having to wear a condom before they engaged in sex.

Posted on Jul 24, 2012 8:51:13 AM PDT
D. Larson says:
It's not a new question, but it's one that bears repeating. Why do people have no problem taking their kids to movies featuring shooting, stabbing, beheading, torture and general mayhem, with body counts in the dozens if not hundreds?

Consider the age of some of the Aurora victims; they were at a movie depicting a great deal of gruesome violence. Would their parents have taken them to a different movie showing people enjoying a healthy physical relationship, if those people went beyond holding hands and gazing mistily into each others' eyes?

Pretty much everybody will agree that torturing and murdering are bad things, to be avoided and that the people who do them should be locked away or otherwise dealt with. Murder is not good for you to do or to witness, and produces nothing but misery and sorrow.

And pretty much everybody will agree that sex is a very pleasant thing to do, good for your physical and emotional health and whether done recreationally or procreatively, a positive influence in your life.

Yet, there is almost no limit to the imaginative ways movie makers find to slaughter people on screen, and almost no limit to the total amount of baroque torture and sadism that can be contained within a PG-17 rating.

At the same time, directors have to carefully calibrate just how much nipple can appear in a movie without moving from the desired PG-17 to the less profitable R. And again, everybody's got nipples, while very few of us own a rocket propelled grenade launcher, and using the first is much more likely to be a pleasurable, socially positive activity than using the latter.

Needless to say, shifting the focus to the even naughtier bits will cause the rating board to clutch their collective hearts and have an attack of the vapors. But upping the explicitness of a chainsaw dismemberment from one limb to three? Not a problem.

Virtually all impressionable young people will, at some point, enjoy making out in a movie theater. We can only hope that only a very small minority of young people will, at any point, take an assault rifle into a movie theater. But which would they be permitted to see on screen?

The movie-going audiences love seeing violence taken to hallucinatory levels, yet somehow are squeamish about depictions of what's natural and enjoyable.. Thousands killed on the streets of Gotham? Cool! Sex? Shameful and dirty! The conclusion? People are really screwed up about sex and violence.

Go figure.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 9:44:12 AM PDT
Yeah, I forgot about the AIDS scare, that surely had a lot to do with less sex promotion in film as well. But the Reagan era was also the onset of vigilante commando films like "Rambo" and "Terminator". Gratuitous sex in film seemed to start falling out of favour in late 80s/early 90s, though, you're correct.

Posted on Jul 24, 2012 10:05:06 AM PDT
If people think that showing irresponsible sex in film might influence how young people might act irresponsibly in life (the same logic is used in relation to drug use, drinking and smoking as well to the point that these activities are rarely seen in films now) then why are people so reluctant to make the same deduction when it comes to violence. It's like this culture is addicted to violence, we don't want to give it up at any cost. It's right up there with football and baseball.

The fact is (and you see this in fan culture quite frequently) we like what we like, and how dare someone tell us there is something potentially wrong with what we like. And it is our Amercian right to engage in what we like.

Posted on Jul 24, 2012 12:22:43 PM PDT
It is really simple, really simple.

Movies and videogames are the only outlet for NORMAL individuals to experience the violence depicted and Hollwood and programmers cater to this market.

In other words.

Studio exec. "It SELLS, needs more violence."

To a degree violent movies fill the seats and sell the dvd's because my theory is NORMAL individuals want an outlet for their fantasy of what violence is and how they perceive a lunatic behaves.

Violence is really unavailable , for a fee, elsewhere..Hollywood owns the market.

Everyone knows sex sells however it is easily available, to see EVERYWHERE.(Jk)

I really do not think parents think or say "Head blow off by shotgun" = "Ok for my child to watch"
"Oh my god full frontal female nudity" = "Bad, my child cant watch this".

In America violence on film is much more "accepted" and "sex" still makes most parents uncomfortable to watch with their kids. Do you not remember uncomfortable moments with not only watching sex on film with your parents or others. Really it is a logic thing. If watching a sex scene in a Hollwood film makes you even remotely uncomfortable, while watching with others, its not going to sell major tickets unless the film is hyped "91/2 Weeks" even then.

actually I know parents who do not want their children watching gratuitous violence.

When I was a child we went to drive in and my best friends mother made us put paper bags on our heads in a scene from "Death Wish" however that scene was sex+violence.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 1:23:33 PM PDT
Sex in the cinema in the sixties was becoming a big deal. It seemed to wane by the eighties. No idea why. But murder is always big business.

Posted on Jul 24, 2012 1:45:37 PM PDT
gambitrmp says:
One note I'll make is that you can make a violent scene without actually hurting anyone. It's all CGI, blood packets & such. I suppose you can also put on a prothetic over an actor & actress so you don't have to "violate" thier privacy to make a sex scene but for some reason I think that's done less.

Basically I'm saying the violence is faked. It's not showing someone ACTUALLY having that done to them. With sex it's more likely to "have to be" real so it may be harder to get actresses & actors to do that and I mean the serious ones because we have porn which may also "devalue" putting sex scenes in a movie as you can go elsewhere for that.

Here's another way to look at it. When people were bleeding in Tomb Raider, I heard a mother tell her child, it's just syrup or something which is true. Could she say that during a graphic sex scene?

Would a scene with two Real Dolls DEPICTING sex get an NC17? Maybe if not the difference might be reality of a sex scene vs. synthasized violence. I don't know for sure, just putting a thought out there.

That said we still have people pummeling each other for real in the UFC on normal TV which I often find more disturbing than any violent scene I've ever seen in a movie. I much prefer the WWE where mistakes & such happen but it's not designed to hurt the actors/athletes.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 1:47:21 PM PDT
Hikari says:
So let's see a show of hands--who here has enjoyed sex in the cinema at least once? Or attempted it at any rate? Not sure how enjoyable it would be.

So there, I've outed myself in the 'Nopes' column. Or let's call it the 'Not Yet' column. I'd be willing to entertain the idea but in the wake of what's happened, it's probably advisable to keep the pants on and be prepared to dive for cover.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 2:12:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2012 2:14:14 PM PDT
I don't enjoy gratutious sex OR violence in films or other media. Some I don't mind, but not to the extent of some of the films that have exploited either or both.

Posted on Jul 24, 2012 3:47:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2012 5:03:31 PM PDT
How to irritate people.
a)

I love internet threads. You really get to see the uninformed make statements of authority on subjects that they absolutely and most often obviously have no clue.

"One note I'll make is that you can make a violent scene without actually hurting anyone. It's all CGI, blood packets & such. I suppose you can also put on a prothetic over an actor & actress so you don't have to "violate" thier privacy to make a sex scene but for some reason I think that's done less."

Uh NO. To the contrary it is almost the opposite. The "stars" in film often have body doubles. There exist garments made specifically for nudity scenes. Prosthetics not so much but "Boogie Nights" prosthetic for uh "Marky Mark" . Actors act. No need for real sex in a theatrical release film and if they actually are having sex on film that film is dare I say how we define pornography . I have seen a great many films and even in films where there exists sex scenes that look real I would say most probably that is just good cinematography not the actors actually engaging in such acts. Really do you actually believe that you can fake violence but you cant fake sex. Do you think the sex in "Boogie Nights" is real? "Zack and Miri make a Porno"? "The Doom Generation"? and secondly do you think that an actor who gets 15-20 million a picture is going to allow a casting agent or director to put them in a scene where they actually have sex with a random actor. In pornography there are very specific laws regarding this, aids tests etc. This is a crap storm question and answer. Actors actually having to have sex on film to make it look real c'mon, really?

Actors are frequently hurt and sometimes killed filming action sequences. Jackie Chan, "Twilight Zone the Movie", Brandon Lee, Russel Crowe, the list is large...google it.

How bout "JAWS" where in the world did they find a great white shark that big for those scenes? I am messing with you, obviously.

"So let's see a show of hands--who here has enjoyed sex in the cinema at least once? Or attempted it at any rate? Not sure how enjoyable it would be."

again google it... Unless you are from homeland security and making some kind of list of Amazon "sex offenders" no not that kind of offender jeeesh.

"(the same logic is used in relation to drug use, drinking and smoking as well to the point that these activities are rarely seen in films now)"

horsecrap. all these activities effect rating, marketing and advertising, studios could give a crap less what influence their films activities have on consumers. They are a business and want to make money.period. advertising and rating are most probably reason for decline.

"Which of those films do think the most likely to warp an impressionable mind to the detriment of society? "

OFFTOPIC:
Exactly. Seriously teenagers today would surprise the hell out of you with their candor. they have internet too..surprise surprise..I would say movies have a declining influence on their behavior videogames and internet not so much...University studies do show that interactive media actually change brain chemistry..."open new neural corridors in the brain" Stanford...That is what you might want to pay attention to...ya think? "Grand Theft Auto", "Manhunt", "Lolipop Chainsaw", "Call of Duty"

The United States Military actually admits to using the aforementioned media to desensitize soldiers to actual killing. FACT.

My humor is way way inappropriate often however, I think it is way way to soon if ever to make any type of joke regarding killing sprees.L.A. Times Colorado shooting: Suspect's ties to sex website, Match.com examined

I love it. It says match.com is a sex website..what a marketing nightmare for MATCH.COM The only thing that could make this better is if it said EHARMONY.

Well it is L.A. times...to quote Bobcat Goldthwait "I wonder where "Totally F'nng Bullcrap magazine rated .."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 5:10:40 PM PDT
Nice post. Very revealing.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 5:14:43 PM PDT
We're gunna fluck you slow sheriff, real slow.

"Studios feel the audiences won't go to the movie if there is too much sex."

Since porn rules the internet, it might be best to say "women and children" won't go to the movie. Which the suits must few as two thirds of the money.

But why is it okay for women to sit thru murder scenes?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 5:17:53 PM PDT
You are right, [again : )] Hollywood does not feel responsible. Maybe we need a new beer poll...

Is Hollywood responsible for the rise of murder in America?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 5:19:37 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2012 5:43:28 PM PDT
I went to see "The Road Warrior" with my mom when I was ten, she walked out. I was allowed to stay.

I was dating a woman who refused to watch "Pulp Fiction" I knew right away this was not going to work out.

Bored with google...not gonna do it...

I think murder is on the decline in most places.

"In the long term, homicide in America has been in decline since colonial times" wikipedia

If it is not I think Hollywood would be far less responsible then media where respected university asserts that it changes brain architecture .IE. videogames

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 5:22:44 PM PDT
everybody's got nipples (*^&*(#*(&*#$_))!!!!!!!!!

GREAT POST D!

My rocket propelled grenade launcher bit the dust.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 5:36:39 PM PDT
Did she refuse because it involved killing? Or bad language?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 5:45:23 PM PDT
No freaking clue.

Surprisingly though she was a all inputs available woman if you get my drift.

Posted on Jul 24, 2012 5:46:39 PM PDT
Justin says:
Re: >"I was dating a woman who refused to watch "Pulp Fiction" I knew right away this was not going to work out."

My mother refused to watch Pulp Fiction for years and years and years because of the violence. One day my senior year of high school, I finally convinced her to watch it, and her reaction was "Wow, that was a really good movie!"

And I think that's part of the issue here: When used in a well-written film that exists for more than just the violence's sake, like in most of Tarantino or Scorsese's films, for example, violence can be a legitimate means to tell a fulfilling and captivating story. Explicit sex scenes...I'm not so sure.

Interestingly, my mother to this day STILL refuses to watch Reservoir Dogs, because "Doesn't everybody die at the end of that movie?" Well...yeah. But it's everything that happens up to that point that makes it a fantastic film.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 5:48:54 PM PDT
Your a back door man.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 5:49:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2012 5:56:42 PM PDT
Uh no she was into that. I am not like adamantly opposed to it. Definitely not a requirement like say watching "pulp fiction" (laughter).

I think its like having a three way once you have done it you realize there really isn't much to it. An over rated experience Imho.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 5:54:12 PM PDT
Next time you and your Mom are in the supermarket and you hear "Stuck in the Middle", be sure not to tell her about it.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  232
Initial post:  Jul 23, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 10, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions