sigokat Wrote:Very good points, Bones.
I only want to counter 2 things you said. I do not believe any of the mainstream films you listed, i.e. Hostel, Saw, etc. can be classified as "torture porn" simply because they are not "porn". None of these films are pornographic films.
Second, even though I was not offended since I do not fall into the catergory, I think your choice to use the word "idiot" to describe people who watch these movies was a bit excessive and presumptious on your part. Who are you to judge others as "idiots" just because they may enjoy a genre that you do not? Its not illegal like child pornography, so really is it for you to make such assertions as to these peoples lifestyles? Is that really necessary?
Hey-yo Sig
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
1)
I do not believe any of the mainstream films you listed, i.e. Hostel, Saw, etc. can be classified as "torture porn" simply because they are not "porn". None of these films are pornographic films.
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.
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.
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.
2)
I think your choice to use the word "idiot" to describe people who watch these movies was a bit excessive and presumptious on your part. Who are you to judge others as "idiots" just because they may enjoy a genre that you do not?
That's easy to answer: because these films are stoooopid
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?