Are Films Too Violent?

Jim Carrey has announced today that he will do no promotion of the film 'Kick-Ass 2' even though he is the star, saying it's too violent and has the potential to encourage people to commit violent acts, especially with guns.

Is he right? I think he is. I think too many films these days forget about the plot and just go for the bloodiest violence they can afford. Films that used to carry an '18' certificate are now '12' or '15' even though they show the same graphic violence.

Have we become desensitised to the whole issue of violence because we see it every day in real life and on the news?

anyone who copies violence or anything else in films is obviously unstable already. Bet Jim didn't turn down his fee for being in the film the hypocrite.

I like Carrey but he's obviously a hypocrite to take the role, and huge paycheque no doubt, then bemoan the film.

and your last sentence is spot on.

and no films aren't too violent IMO.

Norpig wrote:anyone who copies violence or anything else in films is obviously unstable already. Bet Jim didn't turn down his fee for being in the film the hypocrite.

He filmed it 18 months ago - people have a right to change their mind about stuff.

If he is serious about that then he should demand his scenes be cut from the film.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Norpig wrote:anyone who copies violence or anything else in films is obviously unstable already. Bet Jim didn't turn down his fee for being in the film the hypocrite.

He filmed it 18 months ago - people have a right to change their mind about stuff.

he must of known during filming or even after reading the script, he could have pulled out then, but as he would probably have to pay for his release, he took the money and kept quiet.

Norpig wrote:

he must of known during filming or even after reading the script, he could have pulled out then, but as he would probably have to pay for his release, he took the money and kept quiet.

He claims to have been badly affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Connecticut last December, which happened after filming of the film.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Norpig wrote:

he must of known during filming or even after reading the script, he could have pulled out then, but as he would probably have to pay for his release, he took the money and kept quiet.

He claims to have been badly affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School  shootings in Connecticut last December, which happened after filming of the film.

the problem is that these kind of incidents happen in America all too often and will continue to happen as they will not change their gun laws. Groups like the NRA have too much power and will resist all changes, they couldn't even get the banning of assault rifles through!

i saw an interview with Samuel L Jackson on channel 4 news about violence in films. He said that it boils down to kids geting a proper upbringing and the parents being more responsible and ensuring their kids know right from wrong. Might be a bit simplistic but on the whole i agree.

The Yanks are bloody obsessed with guns. Thousands of innocent lives are lost every year because of pathetic firearms legislation and all they can do is bleat about their right to bear arms.

A terrible indictment of a so-called superpower.

Norpig wrote:

i saw an interview with Samuel L Jackson on channel 4 news about violence in films. He said that it boils down to kids geting a proper upbringing and the parents being more responsible and ensuring their kids know right from wrong. Might be a bit simplistic but on the whole i agree.

But all the youth of today see is the glamorising of gun crime and violence, especially in films and music.

Time for more censorship, and to start cutting over the top violent scenes from films. As soon as the Film Classification Board started cutting scenes the film-makers would stop doing it.

Hollywood actors are just loathsome.

doffcocker wrote:Hollywood actors are just loathsome.

You bellend, what the fook has that got to do with this thread? This is abou violence, not your petty jealousy over actors.

I feel that some films dont have the right kind of violence or are just not violent enough when the situation calls for it, revenge storylines would be better if the killers were killed by being torn apart or battered with bare hands instead of a quick death by weapons.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

doffcocker wrote:Hollywood actors are just loathsome.

You bellend, what the fook has that got to do with this thread? This is abou violence, not your petty jealousy over actors.

Because this is a typical Hollywood actor thing to do. They simply thrive on being hard work and building a moral stance on things they don't give a shit about.

doffcocker wrote:

Because this is a typical Hollywood actor thing to do. They simply thrive on being hard work and building a moral stance on things they don't give a shit about.

If he didn't give a shit about it why would he refuse to do any promotion and breach his contract?

Show some respect.

Censorship is not the answer it just cause more problems and will drive it all underground. You can search the net now and find videos of people being beheaded for example

Shouldn't the question be "are people that can't tell the difference between a film and reality idiots?"

Where I have an issue is where the violence is devalued as in video games where shooting someone is clicking a switch and bears no resemblance to the real thing. Notice it a lot in kids who glorify fighting games but would be horrified if they actually got decked. Spent a long time explaining the difference to my kids as they were growing up.

That said, my mum didn't like wildlife programmes because all the animals were "having sex or eating each other - or both" - she couldn't deal with the reality of the harshness of nature.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

If he didn't give a shit about it why would he refuse to do any promotion and breach his contract?

Because he values being seen to be ethical higher than his contract.

You're very naive on some matters. Who the hell did you beat to Preston Businesswoman of the year?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Norpig wrote:

i saw an interview with Samuel L Jackson on channel 4 news about violence in films. He said that it boils down to kids geting a proper upbringing and the parents being more responsible and ensuring their kids know right from wrong. Might be a bit simplistic but on the whole i agree.

But all the youth of today see is the glamorising of gun crime and violence, especially in films and music.

Time for more censorship, and to start cutting over the top violent scenes from films. As soon as the Film Classification Board started cutting scenes the film-makers would stop doing it.

like they did in the video nasties era?

I don't find violent scenes disturbing but I, like most people, am able to separate make believe from reality. However, I am in my 40's and wasn't exposed to film or video game violence when an impressionable teenager, my opinion is that being desensitised to violence or porn for that matter does alter the behaviour of those exposed to it at a young age.

Also there is no actual reason to show graphic violent acts, it is more effective if the act is suggested rather than shown. In many ways this demonstrates a lack of imagination and talent on behalf of the film-maker.