Well, I gotta take 2 vacation days..."use 'em or lose 'em." Bored? Yeah, maybe...though it's amazing how an hombre with four thousand books and two thousand CDs of every type of music, and a pen and paper, could =possibly= be bored.:confused: See Colin Wilson on this. But I guess I'm really avoiding the chore of picking books to give away. I have to, I need room for new ones. But...but...I love them all! Might =need= them someday!:eek:

"Vacation"? I've heard the word before. What exactly is this "vacation" you speak of? A God? An MSL soccer team? A treatment for jock itch, hemorrhoids, or that "not so fresh" feeling that I'm told women sometimes get? :confused:

Hey-yo Sig

Yo.

Nice post, am glad someone replied countering my points, I was afraid I was just typing a massive guff that no one would take seriously

Does boredom count as a reason for my response?

I was trying to address this point in my original post, but I shall try to say it another way.

I take it you mean 'porn' as being boobs and willies? I think that this is what Bluesman was thinking too, because he mentioned men hurting women and porno is often accused of exploiting women too. When compared to Erotica (which is tasteful and artistically valid) pornogrpahy is distinguished as being gratuitous, obscene, and without any redeeming artistic qualification whatsoever.

So is there another type of porn that doesn't have "boobs and willies"?

How many times have you sat down to watch a Jenna Jameson movie with tub of popcorn instead of a box of tissues? I can't even begin to imagine how messed up in the head someone would have to be to enjoy a porno for the storyline alone. There is only one thing of use in a Jenna Jameson movie, and I don't need to type it here for us all to understand.

I plead the 5th.

Torture porn is the same thing. Obvioulsy it isnt designed to create a sensation of sexual arousal in the viewer (though no doubt it does happen :eek: ) but that is why it is given the prefix 'torture'. It is gratuitous, sustained, graphic, explicit, obscene. It has no redeeming artistic intentions. If you substitute the sadism in a film like Hostel for sex then you realise how similar they are.

So I'm not disagreeing with you, really. There is no 'pornography' in these films, (not during the torture parts, at least. Hostel has some other pornographic scenes). I am just trying to explain how the term 'porn' has been changed to describe this new genre.

People need to keep horror and porn separate in my opinion!

That's easy to answer: because these films are stoooopid

No argument there.

No, seriously, in fact I do enjoy these films too. In fact I have even gone to lengths to acquire some over the internet that aren't legal here in the UK.

But I enjoy them the same way I enjoy the Transporter movies; with my brain thoroughly switched off. And in my experience the people who prefer these films over older (in my opinion) better horror films are the plebs who rate the quality of a film by the quality of it's special effects.

On another note, Sig; why do you not like these films?

I am only willing to suspend my disbelief so much in a movie. While the willing suspension of disbelief is not necessarily "high" for me in these films I just do not find any artistic value in a movie that makes its money off of how much blood and nasty shit they can throw into 2 hours as opposed to a decent story line. I've seen enough real life "blood and nasty shit"...I don't need to see it faked in a movie.

Out the movies that have been listed that I have seen (Saw 1 and 2, Hostel, and The Hills Have Eyes) I really only liked the Saw movies and even then only the first one...it was creative and unique and had so many hidden clues in the film that you don't see until the 2nd or 3rd viewing. No porn and not an overabundance of "torture". I liked it. Saw 2 was alright, but not as good as the first. Hostel...the first 30-45 minutes of the movie I thought nothing but sex was going to take place for the rest of the movie. Watching people have sex in movies is not as good as getting sex...especially when you aren't getting any!!! Ok, back on topic ...Hostel was gory and once the blood started to fly it seemed as if they just had to throw more and more on to get the "gross out factor" through the roof. The puss, popping eye thing was horrible...but the revenge aspect at the end was cool as hell...that was the only part I really enjoyed.

But when I said I do not watch these films I was referring to what I thought "torture porn" was...pornographic films with a torture theme...not something you can rent at Blockbuster Video.

Sorry for the ramble...I'm tired...its midnight and I have to get up in like 4 hours and run about 4 miles!

I agree that most of those films shouldn't be labeled as torture porn. I think Hostel was the first movie that was labeled as such and, like so many things in popular culture, the label caught on. I think people just apply it to any of these hyper-violent, ultra-graphic horror movies without any thought as to whether the movie should actually qualify. I can obviously see why someone would describe Hostel that way, but I don't think that Saw qualifies at all.

I thought FPW coined a better term for these types of movies a while back: gorn. Gore + Porn.

Speaking of Saw and Hostel, I remember Bill O'Reilly going ballistic on his show when these films first hit theaters. He was practically foaming at the mouth ranting about how movies like these were destroying society.

I myself generally don't care for torture flicks (I don't mind carnage in action flicks, but I prefer my horror to be atmospheric and psychological [like Ring, the original Japanese version anyway]), but seeing O'Reilly in virtual hysterics just made me want to endorse them (even though I've never seen any of the Saw films or Hostel).

I'll always be firmly opposed to censorship, so torture films, even though they aren't my taste, are okay by me.

[SIZE="1"]Just so long as they are fiction and not real.[/SIZE]

a backbone? or is it a life?
(just kidding)

Ummm...so if someone gives you an explanation as to the appeals of "torture porn" then what would you think of them? They must watch it in order to be able to understand it, correct?

I don't know, I don't watch the stuff. People "enjoy" different things...to each his own, I guess.

Well, not necessarily. I described what I think its psychological power is--women being hurt. Anyone who could explain it would not have to have seen it, but been in areas of insight I just can't go. And "to each his own," sure. But there's a reason the cops don't reveal the details of certain gruesome crimes. The fear of imitative crimes. Can't you imagine a crew of low-lives leaving a theater, seeing a woman walking by herself and thinking...

I think we should begin by defining our terms. Doesnt that sound fun!!! :eek:

Torture Porn. It seems from your post as though you think there is a gender issue involved here, and that theis genre is about men torturing women. I imagine that this is a pre-conceived idea derived from the word 'porn' being in the title.

Porn, in the context or torture porn, isn't the same thing as porn in the context of hustler/palyboy etc. I don't think it necessarily indicates any sexual content, or even the sexes of the parties. For example, men torture men in Hostel, I seem to remeber reading somewhere that a woman tortures boys in Hostel II. This is not a genre devoted to sexually explicit images of men torturing women. This is not porn in the usual sense.

Torture Porn is to horror films as Pornography is to Erotica. It is gratuitous, explicit, and -beyond the technical skill involved with prducing the SFX- totally devoid of any artistc intention/ability. It is crude and offensive.

Marathon Man contained a torture scene that was grueling to watch and left a lingering impression. It did this through the power of the performances, the editing/direction of the shots.... lots of very skilled people creating something very intricate that was at the same time very refined and tasteful.

Hostel/Saw/August Underground etc try to do the same thing without the prodyction values/filmmaking abilities/quality of actors/scriptwriters and often without the luxury of a decent story.

They are popular becasue a) they are quicker and cheaper to make than decent horror films and b) idiots meansure how good films are in Splat-factor. The gorey the better. By making a film that is just gore they think they are getting a better horror film.

Good points all, bones. Thanks. But maybe I assumed the term had a hard-and-fast meaning. The NY tabloids use it for a semi-big-time flick with plenty of shots showing a woman in pain. And that's it. That's the attraction for the audience. There's a new one out, LEVEL P2 PARKING. "The Only Thing More Terrifying Is Discovering You're Not." And in the display ad, we see a guy with a flashlight in the background, and a woman with an ax, hiding behind a pillar, in the foreground.

Not my idea of a date flick!

Well, not necessarily. I described what I think its psychological power is--women being hurt. Anyone who could explain it would not have to have seen it, but been in areas of insight I just can't go. And "to each his own," sure. But there's a reason the cops don't reveal the details of certain gruesome crimes. The fear of imitative crimes. Can't you imagine a crew of low-lives leaving a theater, seeing a woman walking by herself and thinking...

I don't think that's the reason why cops do not release details of a crime scene. I think its due to investigation purposes and evidence collection. Hell perhaps even next of kin notification, ya think??

But maybe we should ask supercop about that one...what do you say, lawdawgie??

I don't think that's the reason why cops do not release details of a crime scene. I think its due to investigation purposes and evidence collection. Hell perhaps even next of kin notification, ya think??

But maybe we should ask supercop about that one...what do you say, lawdawgie??

Not all details of a crime scene, sig. Not what I said. Sometimes cops will release a lot, hoping for a lead. What I said was, cops are reluctant to give all the details of some murders for fear of inspiring imitative crime. Difference, right?

Not all details of a crime scene, sig. Not what I said. Sometimes cops will release a lot, hoping for a lead. What I said was, cops are reluctant to give all the details of some murders for fear of inspiring imitative crime. Difference, right?

Difference in words, but the meaning is still the same.

I see no "real" difference.