quote:

---

... and one must
wonder at the state of mind of the makers of such stuff.

---

That's easy, Hugh.

Their state of mind = this stuff makes money, let's put some more out.
 

---

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on March 28, 2012, 01:49 PM:
 
Hi, Have seen the poster on the sides of buses etc, and read about it in the local paper reviews. To my mind, it should have been given an 18 certificate. As stated it is unsuitable for any young person to watch. It is bad enough exposing them to the maiming and killing seen on the TV news, but to produce a fictional film of such horror is completely obscene. What kind of message does this send to developing minds? No sensible adult would allow there children to see it. Unfortunately some people do not take sufficient interest in what their youngsters watch.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on March 28, 2012, 02:07 PM:
 
I couldn't agree more Mike,It makes "Lord of The Flies" pale by
comparison,but as long as we have the weak, wishy washy,
Governments that seem to accumulate in Parliament like the
infestation they are,I'm afraid we're stuck, like our friends over
the pond say,between a rock and a hard place.
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 28, 2012, 02:16 PM:
 
You said it, Hugh.

However, as wishy-washy as our governments are, I think there is a huge responsibility on us as parents to monitor our childrens' upbringing.
Unfortunately, this is grossly neglected in many cases.

As an artist myself, I abhor censorship - except where it is to protect the young.
 

---

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on March 28, 2012, 02:38 PM:
 
I can't agree with Michael more, well all of you, about protecting our young from things that nothing good can come from. I've not seen the Hunger Games, though I've read some detail on its PG-13 rating here in the states, so I'm wondering: have any of you actually seen the film? Is the gore gratuitous, in your opinion?
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 28, 2012, 02:43 PM:
 
I haven't seen the film. I should perhaps have stated that from the outset.
My comments relate to this issue in general and still stand, though.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on March 28, 2012, 03:34 PM:
 
To be honest I haven't seen the film either and hate to come
across as being fuddy duddy,I have seen something similar that was shown on television lately that was just as distasteful and it was an offering from Japan that involved youngsters killing each
other in a game show scenario similar to "Big Arnie's" comicstrip
"The Running Man" but with the humour removed.A film that I
would not care to see again.I never thought I would actually be
on the side of censorship,but if there are no safeguards at all
then the cinema screens will be showing paedophilia before long
and all that matters is the return at the box office and to hell
with any harm it will do.In the words of Anthony Newley"Stop the World I want to get off!"
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 28, 2012, 04:37 PM:
 
I would say being a parent is the hardest job out, when my two were going through the teenage years I used to worry a lot. There is no garantee, no matter how good a parent you are that things will go fine. Its who they mix with, where they go and the like that can influence them more than most parents realize.

There is no doubt in my mind movies can influence as well, during that roller coaster teenage years. The worst thing is that they think they are bullet proof, truth is they are not.

I remember my son, he was about 14 years old and late home one night. I got a call from him from some house asking me if I could pick him up, he had cycled across town to see a girl, well I said I am not a taxi service get on your byke and start peddling. It was almost midnight by the time he got home. I was trying to teach him a lesson, but I was worried about him till he came through the door, same goes for my daughter.

Thank goodness they survived and have both left home.

In my last job working with teens I found myself looking out for them a little bit. One youngester who was just 15 and just started to do projection work had people come to the downstairs counter and wanted to know details of his hours of work etc this information is not given out and the downstairs staff got suspicious and they left. The manager was called checked the video asked junior if he new them, he did not know those people at all, so she got mall security and caught them down the mall, she read them the "riot act" and she was good at that, full credit to her and those people were banned from the mall. She insisted to the young projectionist that he should not walk home late at night after work on his own and insisted he gets dropped off by one of the staff or get a taxi and the cinema would pay for it. Because of the age, staff safety was paramount at all times with both the manager and myself.
This world is full of dangers and they just dont see it till they get older.

When we closed one of those teens sugested I should work with young people he reckon I would be good at it, however I replied that I would not have the patience and would most likely give someone if they got cheeky, a thick ear ...it was a nice thought though.

Such is life and thats why we get grey hair.

Graham.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on March 28, 2012, 06:16 PM:
 
That was very moving Graham, and those feelings I'm sure many
parents will have felt and can identify with.We've all been that
age and think we know the score,parents and adults,what the hell
do they know.I remember once playing truant from school with
two of my mates,and let me say,what a long day that was,but we
eventually ended up on the top of the old Wellington pit shaft in my then home town of Whitehaven,the buildings design did look like an old castle,and we climbed up daring each other to walk across the steel girder that spanned the shaft.God knows how deep it was and how we avoided being killed,looking back
I go cold at the risk we took for a bit of fun,that among many others,but at that age 14 or so,you have no fear,and are totally
selfish,and that is why youngsters need protection,a lot of the
time from themselves.
 

---

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 29, 2012, 01:25 PM:
 
Concerning those people who actually make these awful films (and how do they sleep at night?) ...

How many of you remember Speilbergs "Amazing Stories" series?

In season 1, there was a story about a producer/director of "SAW" style films. He's asked how he can make such revolting films and such in an interview. He later goes home, and starts to have nightmares where an insane killer is seen in anything that can act as a mirror, whether a mirror or even a persons eyes. The "killer' eventually catches up with the director and he (the director) actually transforms into the killer, only to kill himself, jumping out of a window. Neat story.

Hollywood (and the entertainment industry in general) is such an interesting place ...

Now, Hollywood has never been pure ... there have been revolting movies and "snuff" films since the beginning of cinema ...

However, in ther past, during the "code" era, there was a balance of the revolting (or always just "skirting" the ratings boards here and there), while there were uplifting films as well ... in other words, there was at least a "nuetrality" to film-making ...

However, after 1962 (I believe) Hollywood descended, slowly but surely from "morally ambiguous", to an "anything goes" mentality.

I don't know how many of our fellow forum members are observers of the "international society of humanity", but I have always been fascinated with how humanity never, ever, learns from thier mistakes ...

Humanity thinks that there is no harm in releasing something that, while it condones this or that "abberant behavior", they do not think that with every downward step, another step will be taken, and another, until our arrive at an "anything goes" bottom level ...

... the irony of all this is many pundits and such who OK'd this or that mild abberant behavior of the past, now come out strongly against what is considered "societally acceptable" that has lowered the collective morality of humanity so low that nothing shocks us, (as a general rule).

... So, this new "low" in this new series of films, as it will no doubt be a series, (which hopes to cash in on the "Twilight" saga), is no surprise.

Will we see films that will show us hunting infants for sport?
How about dis-embowling anything and everything that breathes? Well, we've already done that. We have films that show any and all degrading forms of torture, with absolutely no moral core of any kind.

Ironically, what would be shocking to todays audiences, is to make a film where, (of all terrible things), life is honored, purity is valued death is abhorred ...

Now, THAT would be a shocking series of films! Imagine a film today (not from the past) that sported a young woman, of any nationality, that isn't even a religious person (to keep the pagans at bay, hee hee), who will not give up her chasity to this man who is a "Twilight" style hunk, no matter how much he entices. She can't be bought, she can't be dishonored.

I dare somebody to make a film like that!!!!! Hah!!!!!

(sorry about the long rant, folks, It got up my "dander")
 

---

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on March 29, 2012, 01:37 PM:
 
I suppose we can't really blame those pathetic specimens of humanity who make these pictures. Their driving force is "profit", surely the purest of motives?
Rather, we should blame those charged with protecting all of us from exposure to these vile outpourings... the "censors".
After all, they have the ultimate power of refusing to allow the exhibition of these obscenities AT ALL... and if the exhibiting of films like this is prevented there is no profit in the exercise.. and such filth will cease to be made.
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 29, 2012, 01:40 PM:
 
Well, y'know, Martin...profit in itself isn't bad. Profit at the expense of others most definitely is, though.
 

---

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 29, 2012, 01:47 PM:
 
I really hate to say it, but if there was no demand, there would not be the film (or any other vile "entertainment") in the first place.

However, it is true that the entertainment medium also tends to "create" a demand for such things.

The entertainment business will never lose money in appealing to the "lowest common denominator".
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 29, 2012, 02:07 PM:
 

quote:

---

The entertainment business will never lose money in appealing to the "lowest common denominator".

---

quote:

---

The young people I know about are just as caring , loving , concerned , generous as any generation before it.

---

Of course. All of the young people I know personally are all those things you mention.
I thought we were discussing violence in films??
 

---

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on March 30, 2012, 02:54 PM:
 
Sorry , this thread has got my goat. Huge sweeping generalisations about young people, (mainly spoon fed to them through the tabloid press). The young people I know about are just as caring , loving , concerned , generous as any generation before it. You just always get to hear about a tiny negative minority. And as far as exploitation/ violence, the only access that I had growing up in the seventies were
The forbidden fruits offered up in 8mm! This is pre video. Anyone seen mountains
''Blood Devils' ..?
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on March 30, 2012, 03:17 PM:
 
Yes we were Mike,and the point is violence in films has always been there usually the more graphic stuff for ADULT audiences
Stuart makes the point that he didn't come across any of this
sort of thing as he was a youngster,which underlines the point
that then you wouldn't have been allowed to view such stuff
you were considered a child, and for your protection,there were
rules in place to protect you,starting with the certification of films."Mask of the Demon"was banned for seven years on account of the violence on show for ADULT audiences in '67
Now anything goes and vulnerable young people are exposed to
filth and depravity on computer sites,drugs available and
encouraged to drink alcohol,why else did they introduce the
sweetie drink known as "alcopops".I don't know of any adults
that drink these,but they're very popular among the young
and these so called "caring governments" wring their hands but
won't ban them.Don't be suprised some day soon on the news that some kid will have been murdered in a re enactment of
one of the scenes in"The Hunger Games",and then comes the drivel from Parliament about protecting young minds from such
stuff,no doubt there'll be a "crackdown".Another overworked
little synonym like "classic" and "stunning print"
 

---

Posted by Tommy Woods (Member # 2437) on March 30, 2012, 03:49 PM:
 
Just one question Hugh,
Who is going to police it?
How would you judge their morals?

I'm not trying to be obtuse,just asking
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on March 30, 2012, 04:11 PM:
 
Well Tom,I don't think policing anything is a good idea,but we
did have a perfectly good set of censorship certificates in place,
but our powers that be,always looking for a way to cock things up
do away with that idea and implement something that doesn't
work,The politicians in Gt, Britain all have one thing in common
and that is.if it isn't broken,break it!Things that have served and
proved themselves over the years like censorship regarding the
young,suddenly are not fit for purpose and must be changed,
and we see the stuff that children are exposed to.Childhood
is a very special time because you only get the one and that to
my mind at least makes it very precious.Children should be
enjoying stuff like "Star Wars","Harry Potter" etc not the crud
that seeps out of Hollywood now like "The Hunger Games"So
there was no need to police anything Tom,the rule of common
sense and decency applied,sadly very rare these days.
 

---

Posted by Tommy Woods (Member # 2437) on March 30, 2012, 04:49 PM:
 
This is getting political and far away off topic,soon we will be discussing socio/economic policy,I will end my little forage on here with this thought.
Helter Skelter was on an album of music by the Beatles,it does not contain any messages telling people to kill.
Catcher in the Rye,by Salinger,did not instruct people to kill.
These are just two examples of how deranged people view things differently,I really could go on and on with examples,starting in the garden of eden,but alas I won't.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on March 30, 2012, 06:38 PM:
 
I don't see how a discussion on lack of censorship and morals is
getting off topic Tom,that is what kicked it off on the first place.on
how a nasty film like this can be served up as entertainment
especially in light of the violence we have in society at present,
maybe you're right,best to ignore it.
 

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on March 30, 2012, 09:33 PM:
 
I'm really baffled by this thread as everything I've heard about 'The Hunger Games' - including the glowing review on 'Film 2012' - seems to be at odds with the references here to it being "filth" and made by "pathetic specimens of humanity".

Thankfully, Tommy has helped to put things in perspective and contributors such as Joe are hitting the nail on the head with remarks such as: "O.K. Lots of comments, but has ANYONE on this thread actually SEEN this film???? Then how can you really criticize it?"

Like everyone here, I haven't seen it either but in view of the acclaim it has received, I hope to do so on Tuesday, so I'll say something afterwards. I'll be surprised, though, if I find it to be an ultra-gratuitous film pitched at the lowest possible level. Whether it's suitable for 12 years olds is another matter and it's quite possible that I'll disagree with the BBFC, who sometimes make decisions that I consider misguided. E.g. 'The Woman In Black' is a very good film with practically no gore but it's debatable whether that should have been a 12A (following brief cuts in the UK) as some younger audience members found it too intense and frightening to cope with.

But a kew factor with 'The Hunger Games' is that the three novels were for the young adult market and in view of their success, there was bound to be massive interest from young people. This, plus the fact that the literary source is 'respectable' and acclaimed, may have encouraged the BBFC to have been more lenient than they would have been with a more expoitative film.
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 31, 2012, 02:34 AM:
 
I was thinking of watching this film, however after reading reviews and finding its aimed at the teenage market not me, plus it has shaky camera work like "The Blair Witch Project", which I did screen a few years ago and felt motion sickness coming on with the camera work, well that alone would put me of this movie. Regarding the subject matter of young people 12-18 years old being selected to kill others of the same age and the society they live in to accept killing each other on TV for everyone to watch as normal. I find a movie with a story content like this disturbing.

I certainly wont be going to see it, but for the teens that do go to the movies, it does makes me wonder what the effect on some might be.

Graham.
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 31, 2012, 04:27 AM:
 
Once again, my impression was :

quote:

---

... we've not been specifically discussing this particular film, but, the increasingly violent content of movies in general.
Martin's original mention of this film simply served to introduce the topic.

---

quote:

---

I find a movie with a story content like this disturbing.

---

As I've said above, I haven't seen THE HUNGER GAMES , but I do find the idea contained in it disturbing. Maybe, on viewing the film I'd find that the subject has been treated in an artistic and...ahem... tasteful manner.

I'm somewhat reminded of the furore over Oliver Stone's NATURAL BORN KILLERS a few years ago. I loved that film, still do. I think it's a powerful, accurate, well observed piece of work. However, I wouldn't have wanted my kids of 12 or 13 or even 15 seeing it. Teenagers, in particular those in the lower teens, are very emotionally vulnerable, whether they like to show it or not.

Likewise, whether or not THE HUNGER GAMES turns out to be a good film is neither here nor there. Whether or not it receives rave previews and/or reviews or great acclaim is equally neither here nor there. Whether or not I personally think it's a wonderful piece of filmmaking is, once again, neither here nor there. None of these things imply that it's OK for it to be viewable by young teenagers of 12, 13, 14 years of age, which was the original point introduced in the first post by Martin.

That's my opinion, anyway
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on March 31, 2012, 11:44 AM:
 
I agree with the above posts,but I come back to the simple fact
that we had a certification system in the UK that actually worked
and that means this film would have gained an X Certificate,
that meant no one under 16 years of age could view this film, and
that would have killed this discussion stone dead.If you looked
underage you were not admitted to the auditorium,no argument.
That went out the window,when they reclassified horror and sex
films,why they did this is beyond me, and we are still on track
with the discussion.What we had worked,what we have now
doesn't.The problem now is the availability to download this
film,so any moppets with the where withall can view.As for the
rest of us,I myself will give this the wide berth I gave to the
likes of "Brokeback Mountain"which I considered an insult to
the American cowboy,"Avatar" pure self indulgence from
Cameron,and the remake"Clash of the Titans" which was totally
unnecessary,so I won't be contributing to the box office here
as the subject comes across as distasteful,and a step away from
paedophilia.
,
 

---

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 31, 2012, 12:51 PM:
 
Hugh did make a good point earlier ...

Those horror fests ect. of the past were marketed to ADULTS, who we would hope (fingers crossed, eh?) are capable of realizing that it's just a film, an entertainment and not end up "emulating" what they see on the screen.

I was actually surprised to see politics get intermixed with this series of posts, as either or any "party" is just as capable of bad tastes or immorality, (though both are quick to make themselves the "champions of decency" when it is politically savvy to do so, hee hee) ...

... It's more just that, with the freedom to allow for permmissive-ness in society or for the individual, this must also go hand in hand with responsibility, and that is the element that is sorely missing today. Yes, we all want our little "freedoms" to do or watch what we want, however, we rarely realize that at times, in exercising our freedom to do so, we are dropping the bar a little further for the next generation ...

and, ironically, when society completely goes to hell, the very generation or individual that allows for this or that "permissive-ness", has the gall to look around themselves, (not taking responsibility) and saying ...

"Wha happened?!"
 

---

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on March 31, 2012, 01:44 PM:
 
Thank you, gentlemen. And thank you Hugh for pointing out that this is all about whether we should have PROPER control on what our children can see or not see of what is served up in the name of entertainment or ART(?).
As I said before, I have NOT seen the film., but I don't think I would be incorrect in saying that it graphically presents CHILDREN killing CHILDREN. The questions we have to ask are...
1.Would you consider it OK for your 16 year old CHILD to KILL another 16 year old CHILD?
2. Would you consider it OK for your 10, 11,12,13, 14 and 15 year old CHILDREN to watch those 16 year old CHILDREN doing it?

I suspect that NONE of you would answer YES to either of those questions... which is why I made the point in the first place. And I repeat the question "Has our world really sunk so low"...
that we can no longer prevent our VERY YOUNG CHILDREN from seeing this kind of content, or even prevent it appearing in the first place?

And you will NEVER persuade me that it is ART!
Martin
 

---

Posted by Tommy Woods (Member # 2437) on March 31, 2012, 02:51 PM:
 
Has anyone viewed this film yet?
If they have I would love to know their thoughts!!
 

---

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on March 31, 2012, 03:18 PM:
 
Children killing children, mmm let's see the 'Omen' anyone? This whole thread is complete knee jerk reactionary rubbish about a film know one has actually seen yet, (apart from what they have read in the tabloid press.) If you don't want to see it then don't watch it, nobody is forcing you , it will be on channel 5 tv in 18 months time anyway and by then nobody will remember what the fuss was about.

Stuart.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on March 31, 2012, 05:15 PM:
 
Hello Tom,I thought you'd thrown your hand in.Well politics do
have a bearing on this discussion,because politicians are the ones who make the rules we all have to live by,and at the sake of repeating
myself,they are the ones that changed the rules on Certification
if they had keft it as it was,we wouldn't be having this carry on.
So you see that politics does have a bearing on the film industry
especially in the UK,Where the majority of our screens are American owned through default,mainly through the actions of
two arseholes named Golan/Globus & the Cannon group.As for
actually paying to watch this garbage"The Hunger Years",I have
already said my piece on that.Like I said,you keep nibbling at
standards and you end up watching pornography and probably
some folk won't even know the difference.
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 31, 2012, 05:15 PM:
 
Stuart,
It seems that you're ignoring the fact that we were not specifically discussing this film - or, at least, I wasn't.
Are you actually reading all the posts, or just the ones you want to read?
 

---

Posted by Tommy Woods (Member # 2437) on March 31, 2012, 05:56 PM:
 
Hugh,I have decided to go and see this film,just to see what all the brouhaha is about,this is how Mary Whitehouse got me to see The Excorcist.
 

---

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on March 31, 2012, 06:35 PM:
 
Michael, yes I've read every post on this. Your first response to this ( I.e. post number 2)
Illustrates the fact that you have an opinion on a film you have not seen. By all means slag something off but at least see it first.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on March 31, 2012, 06:56 PM:
 
Stuart I agree with Michael here,the issue isn't our being forced
to watch the film,we are all adults and can make up our own minds on a variety of things,the issue isn't even the film and it's
dubious subject matter the issue is young impressionable people
served up this as an entertainment,and as Osi has already stated
kids have been re enacting this in America.I am not saying to anybody
you haven't the right to see this movie,what I'm saying is that the
young folks can view it at an appropriate age,and children at the ages of 12 years and upwards isn't fair on them and I do
think our society is failing these kids God knows they've failed
them on everything else.That I believe was Martin's point at the
start of this very interesting debate,but no, I am not an advocate of censoring stuff,but for young impressionable minds
we must be very careful the moving image is a very powerful
form of communication.I remember as a youngster viewing
Andrzej Wajda's "Ashes and Diamonds" and wished I hadn't
because some of those very powerful images remained with me
and it isn't pleasant.For all the bravado the young put across
they are still children,I know of some people that let their kids
watch "Saw" and the like, which shows that some parents can't
protect their own.Like I've said adults can watch what they want,so can children............when they're old enough.
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 31, 2012, 07:16 PM:
 
The rating for the movie out here is

"M"-Unrestricted.
"Suitable for Mature Audiences 16 years and over"

Graham.
 

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on March 31, 2012, 07:44 PM:
 
I take the point that this thread is primarily about whether the film is suitable for 12 year olds, rather than about how good it is, but that hasn't prevented some from expressing extreme opinions regarding how vile they believe it is. And even on the matter of the certificate, anyone who has actually seen it would be at a great advantage when forming an opinion.

This isn't exactly a new issue in the USA where (e.g.) in the 1960s, some Hammer films that were X cert in the UK where G rated (open to all) due to the view that horror was generally for kids. On a Hammer forum I'm on, a USA member referred to when he and his schoolfriends, in 1968, were re-enacting Dracula's death scene in 'Dracula Has Risen From the Grave', in which he dies impaled with the top of a large cross through his body!

[ April 01, 2012, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Adrian Winchester ]
 

---

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on April 01, 2012, 02:46 AM:
 
The film was passed in the uk as a 12A rating but with
7 seconds of cuts.

Stuart.
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on April 01, 2012, 03:26 AM:
 

quote:

---

Michael, yes I've read every post on this. Your first response to this ( I.e. post number 2)
Illustrates the fact that you have an opinion on a film you have not seen. By all means slag something off but at least see it first.

---

Ah, I see what you mean. I didn't word that very well. I was referring generally rather than specifically, though that didn't appear to be the case.
OK, fair enough.
I can say no more then.

 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on April 01, 2012, 03:59 AM:
 
Michael.like the rest of us is entitled to hve an opinion on a film
he hasn't seen regarding subject matter that is deemed tasteless or harmful to the impressionable.This film isn't the first and it
wont be the last,but put it and them in the correct catagorie'
Would you want a child of twelve to watch a film like "Men Behind
The Sun" a very graphic and brutal account of the occupation
of China by the Japanese and some of the most horrific tortures
inflicted on human beings? Way back in the '80s during the
"video nasties" witch hunts, this film had been in video outlets
and escaped because no one on the film boards had seen or heard of it.I have a copy on video and wonder how many kids
had seen this.Back to my point,changing from "X" certification
was a step back,so if politicians can't protect the young, then
it must fall on parents to do it,you can't erase an image once
it's been seen,but prevention has always been better than cure.
 

---

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on April 01, 2012, 05:13 AM:
 
Parental control is a huge issue. A lot of problems regarding film pales into insignificance as to what is on the Internet. We are VERY careful as to
What our kids have access to on the computer at home. I make sure that they have limited access and keep the login and security levels up to date. We also
Limit the films we watch. We are pretty strict about the certs. (Although I let my
8 year old watch ''Avatar' . ) It really is down to parents. Sadly there are parents who don't have a clue or care and that is where the problems start.

I will get a chuckle however if we see a trailer for 'Hunger Games'
Released on super 8......

Stuart
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on April 01, 2012, 06:06 AM:
 
Whatever floats your boat Stuart
 

---

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on April 01, 2012, 07:42 AM:
 
I'll take that comment as a compliment.

Stuart
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on April 01, 2012, 08:55 AM:
 
All I can add is if this is your kind of entertainment,fine,it is a
democracy after all and I presume that your are all old enough.
If people want to eat up these dubious offerings that hollywood
serves up,I wish you bon appetite,myself I haven't slipped that
far down the food chain that witnessing children killing each other
for entertainment is going to provide me any,but please spare us
the proclaimations that it's to see what all the fuss is about,those
excuses have been used from ancient Rome to freak shows.Enjoy the film.
 

---

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on April 01, 2012, 09:08 AM:
 
The whole ratings situation is quite interesting in and of itself ...

apparantly, nearly any subject matter can be displayed on screen to any audience, as long as it is not "graphically" displayed.

So, you could have grissly murders in a "G" rated film, as long as you don't have blood spurting and pieces of human flesh flying across the room. Just hint at it.

... but then it has always been mny opinion (expressed at earlier times in different posts) that Hollywood was at it's best when there was that production code in place and film-makers had to use a lot of creativity in order to represent anything on screen, instead of takiung the easy road and graphically showing it n the screen.
 

---

Posted by Terry Lagler (Member # 1110) on April 01, 2012, 09:10 AM:
 
It seems that this discussions on violence in films or (media) comes to personal viewpoints or ones moral stand. Which is fine.
What I find much more troubling than the alleged film content itself is the use of misleading “ expert opionions” to argue a point
The “Mail Online” tabloid article used to promote this Hysteria is a prime example.

Here is a section of the article that literally made me fall off my chair!

quote:

---

But writing about the film on her website, best-selling author and paediatrician Dr Meg Meeker said: ‘Kids process images they construct in their minds from written words differently than they process large, hyper-real images on a screen.

‘During the preteen and teen years, children’s minds are mentally pliable. They are being hard-wired... So, when an image comes into a teen’s brain it melds into that wiring and sticks.’

---

quote:

---

NOTICE: INFORMATION ON THE WWW.MEGMEEKERMD.COM WEB SITE IS NOT MEDICAL ADVICE and any information or materials posted on the web site are intended for general informational purposes only, and should not be substituted for personal medical advice, medical opinion, diagnosis or treatment. Any information posted on the web site is NOT a substitute for medical attention…………………continues

---

quote:

---

There have been instances in the UK recently of WOMEN staging fights for
children in their homes and recording it,and these were babies,
do you condone that,because it's the same principle,children
in combat as entertainment.I'm sorry but if this is your idea of
good cinema,what next,a grown man having sex with children
and the same old excuses will be rolled out

---

quote:

---

The Hunger Games” is a prime example of commercial hypocrisy. The filmmakers bait kids with a cruel idea, but they can’t risk being too intense or too graphic (the books are more explicit). After a while, we get the point: because children are the principal audience, the picture needs a PG-13 rating. The result is an evasive, baffling, unexciting production—anything but a classic.

---

quote:

---

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but by the time I was 10, I knew the difference between what was real and what was fictional. I honestly think everyone here is underestimating children

---

quote:

---

Geez, I have never read a thread consisting of so many self important and opinionated posts from people who have not actually seen the film.

---

Yep, that's what we do around here. Got a problem with it?

 

---

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on April 01, 2012, 02:47 PM:
 
My rule of thumb...always, always see a piece of work before criticising it.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on April 01, 2012, 02:55 PM:
 
My rule of thumb is a sense of good taste,and as Jiminy Cricket
said "always let your conscience be your guide."
As for sitting through this film,I'd rather watch "The Rose"
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on April 01, 2012, 02:58 PM:
 
Have you actually seen "The Rose", Hugh? Don't discuss it or, indeed, music in general unless you have, sir.

 

---

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on April 01, 2012, 03:00 PM:
 
Well Hugh as to being 'Off Topic' ...some of your replies have mentioned amongst others: Mary Whitehouse, Bill Grundy and the Sex Pistols, Alco-pops, Golan-Globus & The Cannon Group, Pedophilia, freak shows, Women staging fights and filming them,wrestling in America, child sex (again), Jamie Bulger, sex education to illiterate children.... gosh no wonder its hard to keep up. (I do however grant you that you seem to have excellent taste in your film choices. ) I still stand by the opinion that you cannot judge a film until you have actually seen it. I can't stand 'Mama Mia' but at least I endured all 1hour and 44 minutes of it to come to that conclusion.

Stuart
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 1183) on April 01, 2012, 03:08 PM:
 
The Japanese film is called Battle Royale from 2000. I have the rented DVD here, but have not had a chance to watch it yet. I am curious how much, or little, Hunger Games borrowed from it.

I grew up watching the 3 Stooges from way before my teenage years, and again speaking only for myself, never once though poking somebody in the eyes for real would be funny and not harmful. However, it was funny when the Stooges did it on film. I grew up watching the Road Runner drop anvils on the Coyote from the time I was a toddler, but never once believed that was real, and never had the urge to drop something heavy on someones head as a result.

The Jamie Bulger case made the news all the way over here in the USA. Yes, children occasionally do kill other children, sometimes purposely and without remorse. The Jamie Bulger case kind of proves my point of bad being the exception, as it happened well before the Hunger Games book/movie.
 

---

Posted by Tommy Woods (Member # 2437) on April 01, 2012, 03:15 PM:
 
Hi All
I have just got back from seeing this and would urge you all to read Mitchell's earlier post as its bang on as far as I'm concerned.Overhyped,will I never learn,I felt the same after The Excorcist
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on April 01, 2012, 03:24 PM:
 
Its interesting how the human mind can be manipulated. I remember making a Super8 home movie at work where the boss and one other were playing darts at morning tea break. I filmed this event and afterwards I went to the clock and by winding the hands took more film of the different times of the day. When I sat down to the editor I cut everything in a way that it came across that we spent all day doing nothing else clock ..darts...clock..darts..and so on.

When I showed the film to by boss and the staff they thought it was good, however I was told if I let the manager see it I would be killed ...The hole thing was a lie but others watching it would more than likely believe what was being shown as taken in real time which of course it wasen't

Its called "manipulatation" and it can be a dangerous thing "The Hunger Game" may have had things trimmed back "more tickets more money" for the people that made it, but the main story/ the idea being planted in minds is still there and with very young children I dont think its right. As far as "The Hunger Game", fine screen it but for so called mature audience's only . Remember "Jaws" when it came out, it wasen't real and we all new that, but did you go surfing or swimming at the beach the next day without the boom..boom... music going through your mind eh!? and the flow on effect for the poor sharks is still happening today all because of a movie. Although we hardly ever saw the shark John Williams music controlled our minds big time, the seed was planted in our wee brains.

There is no doubt "explotation and manipulation" is everywhere in society and some of it is nasty stuff and for the most part we just dont see it and movies are part of that as well. There is nothing wrong with being manipulated to a point, we all cheer the good and boo the bad, but be carefull with the subject matter. The young bullit proof know it all teenager are for the most part, who according to my wife and she is an expert in everything, says the male mind only matures at around 25 years old, five years older than a female...so there you have it

Graham.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on April 01, 2012, 03:25 PM:
 
Michael,I second that motion.I'm still laughing.
 

---

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on April 01, 2012, 03:27 PM:
 
Oh no, see, I love The Exorcist!

And I actually don't mind Mama Mia...for real

Although, to be honest, I've never actually seen The Rose.

Right, I'm ordering the DVD right now...

What a great post this has been.

And Graham...Jaws not real??? I saw it when I was 10 and was afraid of even the bath tub for months after!
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on April 01, 2012, 03:32 PM:
 
Michael.I have seen the film and it's an experience I wouldn't want to repeat.As for music.I think I know what I like and someone screaming down a microphone doesn't cut it.
 

---

Posted by Terry Lagler (Member # 1110) on April 01, 2012, 04:11 PM:
 

quote:

---

We were discussing the killing of children by other
children,I just gave an example,as for what that has to do with Mitchell's post,try the bit about us underestimating children

---

So if they didn’t “underestimate” what these children were capable of these murders wouldn’t have happened?

You’re are taking a solitary incident and using it as a yardstick to measure all children with.
There is a much larger picture that would need addressing there.

I think psychologists who studied this case might have looked much deeper for an answer other than a statement like “ we underestimated those children”

I took Stuarts Shakespeare reference as, violence from today can easily be interchanged with violence from the past.
Correct me if I’m wrong Stuart.

I think we are actually more civilized today than ever before.
Or maybe I’m just kidding myself, I'm just happy I don’t have to deal with that pesky Inquisition.

Terry

Hey, I loved some of that punk rock screaming,
also love Dean Martin...........darn gone off topic again!
 

---

Posted by Tommy Woods (Member # 2437) on April 01, 2012, 04:15 PM:
 
Graham,I feel your wife is right,only today as I looked at my naked body in the mirror, I thought to myself:"I'm going to get thrown out of Ikea in a minute."............ )
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on April 01, 2012, 04:26 PM:
 
Mrs Ritchie sounds a very astute woman Graham,wouldn't it be
nice to be 25 again.
 

---

Posted by Terry Lagler (Member # 1110) on April 01, 2012, 04:39 PM:
 
Post 200!
Yes exciting for me.

Took long enough!

I wonder, if we had been all been able to have this discussion over a pint at the local pub.
Would we have been asked to "KEEP IT DOWN"!
Cheers
Terry
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on April 03, 2012, 03:58 AM:
 
Sadly a day after the last posting,a young boy in the UK has just
beaten his Mother to death with a claw hammer.The police have
found he was influenced by a serial killer on a TV soap opera
On checking his computer there were downloads of various
horror films including the "SAW" films.If that doesn't prove my
point that children shouldn't be exposed to this rubbish,then
nothing will,and that's my final word on the subject.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on April 03, 2012, 03:12 PM:
 
No one here is saying children should be exposed to this "rubbish" as you call it. I think we can all agree on that.

My mother told me I could watch "R" rated movies unsupervised when I was 13. That's because they knew I was mature enough.

From then on, I watched the goriest, most violent movies I could get my hands on. Between cable and rentals, my teen movie watching years were pretty blood soaked! LOL.

I never had "evil" thoughts. I was often cited by teachers as the single nicest student they ever had. Today, I am still a kind, polite person.

There's a good reason for all this. My parents were NOT my friends. They actually parented me. Kept tabs on what I watched, watched adult themed shows/movies with me, discussed such material with me, etc.

Therefore, even at a young age, I was emotionally and mentally mature enough to handle such entertainment on my own.

It's not a simple case of black or white. It never is. Children who kill children/adults never do it "'cause I wanted to" no matter what they say. That's been proven time and again.

It's too easy to blame movies, books and other material for the horrors of the world. Such horrors existed long before the filmed and written word. You can easily find "children killing children/adults" examples dating as far back as human history will allow.

Giving an "R" rating to every movie with "adult themes" would only make the material more appealing. If a kid wants to see something that's forbidden, they WILL find a way.

Not to mention that once the material hits home video, all restrictions are off.

Best to watch with them and make sure they understand what the movie is about.

It's called PARENTING. Something we need more of these days.
 

---

Posted by Claus Harding (Member # 702) on April 03, 2012, 03:39 PM:
 
Thomas,

Very well put. The idea of giving kids the right emotional "backbone" to understand things has long since become the exception rather than the rule.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 1183) on April 03, 2012, 04:20 PM:
 
> On checking his computer there were downloads of various horror films including the "SAW" films.If that doesn't prove my point that children shouldn't be exposed to this rubbish,then nothing will,and that's my final word on the subject.

The only point that proves is one child who had mentally and/or maturity issues was allowed to watch violent entertainment by his parents before he was ready. Your post, and possibly the police, are making an assumption that the horror films caused violent behavior rather than the deficiencies with the child, an assumption not widely backed by facts.

I suspect that rather than the horror films, it was the computer's operating system the influenced the child to kill. I know Windows sometimes drives me crazy! Seriously, these kind of crimes occasionally happened long before violent movies became mainstream, and people are always looking to blame outside influences.
 

---

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on April 04, 2012, 01:08 PM:
 
I'm actually starting to get bored here ...

or is that "gored"?

Hah! awww, Ok, I just couldn't help myself.
 

---

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on April 04, 2012, 01:32 PM:
 
Mitchell,
"The only point that proves is one child who had mentally and/or maturity issues was allowed to watch violent entertainment by his parents before he was ready."

Spot on, but are you also saying that there are NOT many others out there with similar problems... or have we found the ONE such
child in the world?
And then you add...."Your post, and possibly the police, are making an assumption that the horror films caused violent behavior rather than the deficiencies with the child, an assumption not widely backed by facts".

You assessment therefore of this situation is that the boy in question killed his mother with multiple blows to the head with a hammer NOT because he was copying the graphic footage from one of our Soaps (which was found on his computer), but that his putting the items on his computer was a direct RESULT of his killing his mother?
Or that there was absolutely no link at all... just a horrible coincidence?

Chicken, egg... egg chicken?Come on, this is the REAL WORLD out here!
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 1183) on April 10, 2012, 04:23 PM:
 
> Or that there was absolutely no link at all... just a horrible coincidence?

No link at all. There would possibly be a link, or at least a warning sign, if only violent people liked violent entertainment, but that is clearly not the case as the vast majority of us watch violent entertainment without ever committing acts of violent.

> are you also saying that there are NOT many others out there with similar problems...

Of course not. What I am saying is there is no clear evidence that violent entertainment causes or triggers them to commit a violent act that they would not have eventually committed anyway. Children committing act of violence has existed long before violent movies.

I don't think there is significantly more violence by children, adjusted for population, then there was decades ago. The difference is that we live in a world of global media. In the 1950, a child killing his/her parents in some obscure location would have made headlines in the local region, and maybe a small back page article in the big city newspapers, but that it. Now, we hear about these kind of things from around the globe in almost real time. Lurid news has no boundaries.

Also, I don't think coincidence is the right word. It's more of a situation where violent people, regardless of age, tend to like violent entertainment. It is not a matter of one causing the other.
 

---

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC


UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2