Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 A LaVey Satanist would not have a problem with this sort of movie. It accords the self Godlike status as judge, juror, and executioner, and works against the concept of there being a higher authority (judge, jury, and executioner, i.e God in the form of the Christian Trinity) to resign one's self to. It also cheerfully tosses out the Godly ideas of mercy, forgiveness, and redemption. I am not saying the movie is Satanic.Nor am I attempting to say it is deliberately made that way. I am saying that one could see the movie that way. Tom Administrator But is someone who makes himself judge, jury and executioner REALLY a hero? What's the agenda in making him out as one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 I find it more likely that the agenda is political, and that it has the goal of NOT making us question: a) death penalty, since we have been thus conditioned to feel this immense relief when the villain dies; that police, body guards and other private protection personnel shoot to kill, but rather to see it as saving tax-payers money on long trials. ( & Strict, no need to repeat what you have already said about this being necessary in order to incapacitate a dangerous offender. I KNOW that it often is, but I still think more effort should go into finding safer alternatives.) Because, the problem with killing the villain is that the issue may NOT be resolved with their death. Especially if it is a sudden death at a shoot-out, he or she MAY still be attached to this world even without his/her body, and can from that place inspire others to commit even worse crimes - if s/he wishes to. That can hardly be considered a sustainable solution, can it? Inger, ex-Arnold fan P.S. I don't wish to initiate any more quarrelling over this issue, I just had a spontaneous reaction to this constantly re-occurring pattern in film (this last one was the straw that broke this camel's patience with this type of film). I'll shut up now. Re: Film endings :-( A LaVey Satanist would not have a problem with this sort of movie. It accords the self Godlike status as judge, juror, and executioner, and works against the concept of there being a higher authority (judge, jury, and executioner, i.e God in the form of the Christian Trinity) to resign one's self to. It also cheerfully tosses out the Godly ideas of mercy, forgiveness, and redemption. I am not saying the movie is Satanic.Nor am I attempting to say it is deliberately made that way. I am saying that one could see the movie that way. Tom Administrator But is someone who makes himself judge, jury and executioner REALLY a hero? What's the agenda in making him out as one? FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Check the Links section for more FAM forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 I find it more likely that the agenda is political, and that it has the goal of NOT making us question: a) death penalty, since we have been thus conditioned to feel this immense relief when the villain dies; that police, body guards and other private protection personnel shoot to kill, but rather to see it as saving tax-payers money on long trials. ( & Strict, no need to repeat what you have already said about this being necessary in order to incapacitate a dangerous offender. I KNOW that it often is, but I still think more effort should go into finding safer alternatives.) Because, the problem with killing the villain is that the issue may NOT be resolved with their death. Especially if it is a sudden death at a shoot-out, he or she MAY still be attached to this world even without his/her body, and can from that place inspire others to commit even worse crimes - if s/he wishes to. That can hardly be considered a sustainable solution, can it? Inger, ex-Arnold fan P.S. I don't wish to initiate any more quarrelling over this issue, I just had a spontaneous reaction to this constantly re-occurring pattern in film (this last one was the straw that broke this camel's patience with this type of film). I'll shut up now. Re: Film endings :-( A LaVey Satanist would not have a problem with this sort of movie. It accords the self Godlike status as judge, juror, and executioner, and works against the concept of there being a higher authority (judge, jury, and executioner, i.e God in the form of the Christian Trinity) to resign one's self to. It also cheerfully tosses out the Godly ideas of mercy, forgiveness, and redemption. I am not saying the movie is Satanic.Nor am I attempting to say it is deliberately made that way. I am saying that one could see the movie that way. Tom Administrator But is someone who makes himself judge, jury and executioner REALLY a hero? What's the agenda in making him out as one? FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Check the Links section for more FAM forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 In old movies, the villian HAD to die, it was actually a requirement that if you had a killer in a movie he had to die in the end, it's how they justified showing something like that in a movie back then. Think of any black-and-white movie that had a killer in it and you'll see. I hadn't noticed that coming back, though. > > Been chilling out some more by watching TV; zapping back and forth between > the silly Phantom film and an Arnold action movie, trying to avoid the > fighting/shooting bits. > > Besides the excess violence, I found it particularly annoying that at the > end he had the villains executed (by trapping their car so it got hit by a > train, uncaring about the train driver or the safety of the train > passengers) instead of letting them come back to court the next day, despite > having both a star witness and solid evidence against them. Is this how he > wishes criminals taken care of IRL too? > > And why is it that this is becoming THE preferred ending in more and more > films (not just Arnold's)? Why are films designed so that it is not when the > cops (or superhero of choice) arrive and put the villains behind bars that > we get that sigh of relief, but when they are killed? Doesn't matter what > film or series you watch, it always has to end in death; be it by accident, > suicide, self-defence or outright execution (as in this case) and we're > always supposed to feel thankful, relieved and good riddance to the scum. > But is someone who makes himself judge, jury and executioner REALLY a hero? > What's the agenda in making him out as one? > > (Sorry about the rant.) > > Inger > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Movies use to have character that were clearly good or bad that is what the masses understood... White hats and Black hats... the few old movies movies that did feature complex characters tended to confuse people most of whom have little desire to think about the gray areas... That's why many movies were box office flops when released but a now honored... " Citizen Kane " is one example of this Kane is a larger than life character but is a " real person " both good and bad that needs to be understood at that level... Sadly recent movies have tended to go back to the old white and black hats formula but what I find most disturbing is that " Intelligence " has become a " Black Hat " trait... Villains are clever and the Heros win despite being complete idiots by pure dumb luck... I guess there they figure if they condition people to be sheep that aren't able to think for themselves they will be easier to control... Ender At 09:55 AM 3/24/2006, you wrote: In old movies, the villian HAD to die, it was actually a requirement that if you had a killer in a movie he had to die in the end, it's how they justified showing something like that in a movie back then. Think of any black-and-white movie that had a killer in it and you'll see. I hadn't noticed that coming back, though. > > Been chilling out some more by watching TV; zapping back and forth between > the silly Phantom film and an Arnold action movie, trying to avoid the > fighting/shooting bits. > > Besides the excess violence, I found it particularly annoying that at the > end he had the villains executed (by trapping their car so it got hit by a > train, uncaring about the train driver or the safety of the train > passengers) instead of letting them come back to court the next day, despite > having both a star witness and solid evidence against them. Is this how he > wishes criminals taken care of IRL too? > > And why is it that this is becoming THE preferred ending in more and more > films (not just Arnold's)? Why are films designed so that it is not when the > cops (or superhero of choice) arrive and put the villains behind bars that > we get that sigh of relief, but when they are killed? Doesn't matter what > film or series you watch, it always has to end in death; be it by accident, > suicide, self-defence or outright execution (as in this case) and we're > always supposed to feel thankful, relieved and good riddance to the scum. > But is someone who makes himself judge, jury and executioner REALLY a hero? > What's the agenda in making him out as one? > > (Sorry about the rant.) > > Inger > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Check the Links section for more FAM forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Movies use to have character that were clearly good or bad that is what the masses understood... White hats and Black hats... the few old movies movies that did feature complex characters tended to confuse people most of whom have little desire to think about the gray areas... That's why many movies were box office flops when released but a now honored... " Citizen Kane " is one example of this Kane is a larger than life character but is a " real person " both good and bad that needs to be understood at that level... Sadly recent movies have tended to go back to the old white and black hats formula but what I find most disturbing is that " Intelligence " has become a " Black Hat " trait... Villains are clever and the Heros win despite being complete idiots by pure dumb luck... I guess there they figure if they condition people to be sheep that aren't able to think for themselves they will be easier to control... Ender At 09:55 AM 3/24/2006, you wrote: In old movies, the villian HAD to die, it was actually a requirement that if you had a killer in a movie he had to die in the end, it's how they justified showing something like that in a movie back then. Think of any black-and-white movie that had a killer in it and you'll see. I hadn't noticed that coming back, though. > > Been chilling out some more by watching TV; zapping back and forth between > the silly Phantom film and an Arnold action movie, trying to avoid the > fighting/shooting bits. > > Besides the excess violence, I found it particularly annoying that at the > end he had the villains executed (by trapping their car so it got hit by a > train, uncaring about the train driver or the safety of the train > passengers) instead of letting them come back to court the next day, despite > having both a star witness and solid evidence against them. Is this how he > wishes criminals taken care of IRL too? > > And why is it that this is becoming THE preferred ending in more and more > films (not just Arnold's)? Why are films designed so that it is not when the > cops (or superhero of choice) arrive and put the villains behind bars that > we get that sigh of relief, but when they are killed? Doesn't matter what > film or series you watch, it always has to end in death; be it by accident, > suicide, self-defence or outright execution (as in this case) and we're > always supposed to feel thankful, relieved and good riddance to the scum. > But is someone who makes himself judge, jury and executioner REALLY a hero? > What's the agenda in making him out as one? > > (Sorry about the rant.) > > Inger > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Check the Links section for more FAM forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 In a message dated 3/23/2006 7:04:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes: Been chilling out some more by watching TV; zapping back and forth between the silly Phantom film and an Arnold action movie, trying to avoid the fighting/shooting bits. The Phantom was a dreadful movie. I watched it a few years a go and once was enough. Zane is one of those actors you keep wondering how they keep getting movies even though they are terrible actors. I think the reason we are seeing so many of the villians end up dead rather than in prison is a reflection of how the courts in real life are failing in their duty to protect society. Instead, we are seeing the bad guys getting off with very soft penalties and even when they do go to prison, they get let out on probation after doing a very small portion of their term. There was a judge in Conneticut I think it was that sentenced a man convicted or raping two boys of a period of several years to only 3 months in jail. It took a public outcry to make the judge give him the legal minimum of 3 years, not counting early release by probation. That was also only one of a series of soft sentences over the last many years. Other judges around the country have been doing the same. It is also not uncommon for criminals with very long rap sheets to be sentenced to several years for violent crimes, only to be released on parole after a quarter or less of the sentence, only to re-offend. Because of all of this, I think the movies and shows are reflecting the anger citizens feel over being victimized not only but the criminals, but also by the courts. For now this anger is mostly in the media, but there are accounts coming out of citizens starting to take a harder line with criminals directly. I do not think that is influenced by the media, but rather by the frustrations these people feel over seeing a bad guy hauled off one day only to see them bac on the streets before the police have finished the paperwork on the arrest, or seeing them sent to jail for a few years only to be back out after a few months. Public pressure is beginning to build to crack down on these soft judges and the revolving door prisons. It remains to be seen, however, if the government will crack down on the sentencing and parole systems and the gangs and such before the people start to handle the matter on a large scale themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 I'm with you on the graphic violence. The older I get, the harder it is for me to watch (how sad is this: I had to turn away from the tv during the scene in Reservoir Dogs when the camera is turned away from what you know is happening with the ear! I thought that was fantastic, going back to what I think of as REALLY 'old school' a la the Greeks and off-stage violence? I'm thinking of Agammemnon and Clytemnestra? sorry, it's been awhile since World Lit. I'm sure someone else here knows much more about that. I've always thought imagined violence was much more powerful, in terms of making us think about what we ourselves do, how we live, how our actions affect others. Oos, sorry, just realized this has all been parenthetical...). This might sound silly to some here, but I feel that there is a part of me that does not know how to separate fictional visuals and reality, a childlike part that needs to be protected from what it cannot understand. Jill > > Been chilling out some more by watching TV; zapping back and forth between > the silly Phantom film and an Arnold action movie, trying to avoid the > fighting/shooting bits. > > Besides the excess violence, I found it particularly annoying that at the > end he had the villains executed (by trapping their car so it got hit by a > train, uncaring about the train driver or the safety of the train > passengers) instead of letting them come back to court the next day, despite > having both a star witness and solid evidence against them. Is this how he > wishes criminals taken care of IRL too? > > And why is it that this is becoming THE preferred ending in more and more > films (not just Arnold's)? Why are films designed so that it is not when the > cops (or superhero of choice) arrive and put the villains behind bars that > we get that sigh of relief, but when they are killed? Doesn't matter what > film or series you watch, it always has to end in death; be it by accident, > suicide, self-defence or outright execution (as in this case) and we're > always supposed to feel thankful, relieved and good riddance to the scum. > But is someone who makes himself judge, jury and executioner REALLY a hero? > What's the agenda in making him out as one? > > (Sorry about the rant.) > > Inger > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 I'm with you on the graphic violence. The older I get, the harder it is for me to watch (how sad is this: I had to turn away from the tv during the scene in Reservoir Dogs when the camera is turned away from what you know is happening with the ear! I thought that was fantastic, going back to what I think of as REALLY 'old school' a la the Greeks and off-stage violence? I'm thinking of Agammemnon and Clytemnestra? sorry, it's been awhile since World Lit. I'm sure someone else here knows much more about that. I've always thought imagined violence was much more powerful, in terms of making us think about what we ourselves do, how we live, how our actions affect others. Oos, sorry, just realized this has all been parenthetical...). This might sound silly to some here, but I feel that there is a part of me that does not know how to separate fictional visuals and reality, a childlike part that needs to be protected from what it cannot understand. Jill > > Been chilling out some more by watching TV; zapping back and forth between > the silly Phantom film and an Arnold action movie, trying to avoid the > fighting/shooting bits. > > Besides the excess violence, I found it particularly annoying that at the > end he had the villains executed (by trapping their car so it got hit by a > train, uncaring about the train driver or the safety of the train > passengers) instead of letting them come back to court the next day, despite > having both a star witness and solid evidence against them. Is this how he > wishes criminals taken care of IRL too? > > And why is it that this is becoming THE preferred ending in more and more > films (not just Arnold's)? Why are films designed so that it is not when the > cops (or superhero of choice) arrive and put the villains behind bars that > we get that sigh of relief, but when they are killed? Doesn't matter what > film or series you watch, it always has to end in death; be it by accident, > suicide, self-defence or outright execution (as in this case) and we're > always supposed to feel thankful, relieved and good riddance to the scum. > But is someone who makes himself judge, jury and executioner REALLY a hero? > What's the agenda in making him out as one? > > (Sorry about the rant.) > > Inger > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 : > In old movies, the villian HAD to die, it was actually a requirement that if you had a killer in a movie he had to die in the end, it's how they justified showing something like that in a movie back then. Think of any black-and-white movie that had a killer in it and you'll see. I HAVE seen it. Didn't say it was a new invention. But before, it used to usually happen during a shoot-out, by accident or by the villain commiting suicide (or disappearing e.g. " drowning " only to reappear in a sequel). > I hadn't noticed that coming back, though. Back? It was never gone. Only getting worse. Never have I seen such an outright execution (disguised as train accident) that was not called for at all. And Arnold didn't even do it himself, but let his side-kick do it for him. :-((((((((((((( In the light of the politics he stands for on this particular issue, I find it extra sickening since I'm sure he can have quite a say in what's in the script. Also didn't like the way he shot an alligator and called it " luggage material. " I'm sure that was supposed to be funny and become another Arnold classic, but I didn't think it was funny at all. The only scene that I thought was funny was when he landed with a parachute beside a couple of kids in a junk yard and asked " Where am I? " and the girl said " On earth. Welcome! " :-) Inger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.