|
Post by Britney on Sept 4, 2006 10:23:00 GMT -5
What movie features Americans killing a currently living leader? Just about every corny military film. Hell, google osama or saddam of what ever and get the thousands apon millions of "shoot osama" flash games ect. These are all the same things, the all depict the assassination of a leader. Just because bush is presedent doesnt mean people arent going to make movies about him. A movie will not cause someone to just say "hey, that sounds like a good idea, lets shoot bush tomorrow" so why is it such an outrage? Your fear is completely unfounded. If people were going to assassinate bush, no british movie would help or hinder their cause... wtf do we want to cencor this type of thing? Its a movie, a story role played by actors and captured on film... A story. Yea somewhere online there's a JFK flash game too where you assassinate JFK. Do you think that's right? What if someone made a game like that about you? If we allow something like this, just think of what the future will be like. If there is someone you don't like, a past friend or X or whatever, you could make a CG video of them being raped and killed and then circulate it on the net, so that anyone may find it (future employers, spouses, the whole world, etc). How would you choose your friends in a world like that? Would you google their names to see how many of those videos are out there, to see how many people hate them? You shouldn't be able to know something like that. People have a right to privacy and if we allow something like this you, I and everyone else can kiss our healthy "reputations" goodbye.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Sept 4, 2006 10:47:49 GMT -5
Well to be fair, JFK didnt start wars, my american history is a little crappy, but didnt he try to stop them?
But to be perfectly honest, I dont think it matters, if someone wants to make a game like this, so be it, thats their perogative.
Again, if someone made a game where the point was to assassinate me? So what? Why would I give a flying crap? Its a flash game ffs.
Erm, so your afraid that because 1 guy makes a movie about a theoretical bush assassination you think society as we know it is going to collapse into a horrid abyss of slanderous flash games and videos of rape and murder? News flash, these things are already released about so called "Terriorist leaders" like osama, do you see the things you have described happening?
I cant even fathom how you think anything you are saying is logical or even possible. This movie will NOT cause a sudden rise in slanderous internet videos where people are making constant background checks on each other through google searches? Are you even thinking about what your posting?
ITS A MOVIE ABOUT THE THEORETICAL ASSASSINATION OF A WORLD FIGURE AND THE EVENTS IT WOULD ENTAIL. It is NOT a video manual on how to assassinate the presedent. It is NOT a video purposely missleading people from the truth. It is NOT a slanderous film which its only intent is to tarnish reputations.
Would you get fearfull and uptight about a documentary/movie about the assassination of JFK and the events following it? ofcourse not, because its a record of something that has happened. This movie is a depiction of what could happen. I really do not understand how you could find it so bad.
/rant
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 4, 2006 11:02:43 GMT -5
Well to be fair, JFK didnt start wars, my american history is a little crappy, but didnt he try to stop them? But to be perfectly honest, I dont think it matters, if someone wants to make a game like this, so be it, thats their perogative. Again, if someone made a game where the point was to assassinate me? So what? Why would I give a flying crap? Its a flash game ffs. Erm, so your afraid that because 1 guy makes a movie about a theoretical bush assassination you think society as we know it is going to collapse into a horrid abyss of slanderous flash games and videos of rape and murder? News flash, these things are already released about so called "Terriorist leaders" like osama, do you see the things you have described happening? I cant even fathom how you think anything you are saying is logical or even possible. This movie will NOT cause a sudden rise in slanderous internet videos where people are making constant background checks on each other through google searches? Are you even thinking about what your posting? ITS A MOVIE ABOUT THE THEORETICAL ASSASSINATION OF A WORLD FIGURE AND THE EVENTS IT WOULD ENTAIL. It is NOT a video manual on how to assassinate the presedent. It is NOT a video purposely missleading people from the truth. It is NOT a slanderous film which its only intent is to tarnish reputations. Would you get fearfull and uptight about a documentary/movie about the assassination of JFK and the events following it? ofcourse not, because its a record of something that has happened. This movie is a depiction of what could happen. I really do not understand how you could find it so bad. /rant If people are legally allowed to post online CG videos depicting their enemies being raped and tortured, why do you believe that they won't?
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Sept 4, 2006 19:57:41 GMT -5
First of all, I believe the movie you origionaly posted was a theoretical documentary on the happenings after the assassination of george bush. Not a movie about george bush being raped and tortured. Please explain to me how you have come to this conclusion because so far you are confusing the hell out of me.
From the sounds of it you think this movie will ruin society as we know it... ITS A FREEKING MOVIE.
If it was a movie about how to assassinate george bush I would expect the guy to go to jail pretty fast, but no, its a movie about WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF THE CURRENT PRESEDENT WAS ASSASSINATED.
What the hell has this got to do with people creating CG videos depicting their enemies being raped and tortured?
Oh and as I am aware of it there are videos of osama bin ladan that depict these things, so it is legal and people do it, no arguements there, has it ruined society to the extent that you say it will? No.
I cant wait to see this movie, it sounds like a good story and interesting food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Sept 4, 2006 20:24:45 GMT -5
From the information ive gathered, it looks alot like the assination of bobby kennedy.
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Sept 5, 2006 1:36:36 GMT -5
But there are games featuring you playing as the assassin that killed JFK, or one of the Columbine murderers... but not movies. Cheez, I can't think of any American made film depicting the death of a current and real foreign leader.
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 5, 2006 17:39:14 GMT -5
First of all, I believe the movie you origionaly posted was a theoretical documentary on the happenings after the assassination of george bush. Not a movie about george bush being raped and tortured. Please explain to me how you have come to this conclusion because so far you are confusing the hell out of me. From the sounds of it you think this movie will ruin society as we know it... ITS A FREEKING MOVIE. If it was a movie about how to assassinate george bush I would expect the guy to go to jail pretty fast, but no, its a movie about WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF THE CURRENT PRESEDENT WAS ASSASSINATED. What the hell has this got to do with people creating CG videos depicting their enemies being raped and tortured? Oh and as I am aware of it there are videos of osama bin ladan that depict these things, so it is legal and people do it, no arguements there, has it ruined society to the extent that you say it will? No. I cant wait to see this movie, it sounds like a good story and interesting food for thought. Do you really find that much of a stretch between making a CG video featuring a living target get shot and killed, and making a CG video featuring a living target get raped and tortured? If the former is allowed, the latter obviously would be, as courts do not decide what is considered "art" - these types of films will either all be allowed, or all be disallowed. I don't want to live in a world where everyone has such trashy videos being made about them and pushed on the internet, but without protections offered to us by the law, that is exactly what will happen. Does this movie mean that everyone will go out tomorrow and start making rape/torture videos of their enemies? Obviously not. However, this movie is a step in that direction, and I'm pretty sure you can see that.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Sept 5, 2006 19:45:32 GMT -5
I was lurking, but I decided to log in because I saw this thread.
Cheez, I entirely agree with you. Its a movie, and I don't see why it matters so damn much.
Britney, I saw you were quick to ignore the mention of the Team America thing there in this thread, or perhaps i'm jumping the gun and you just didn't see it.
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 5, 2006 20:02:39 GMT -5
Britney, I saw you were quick to ignore the mention of the Team America thing there in this thread, or perhaps i'm jumping the gun and you just didn't see it. Team America is a puppet show. Its in the same ballpark as the movie we are discussing, but obviously because of its cartoon-like quality by definition it can't carry as many references to reality as a CG-altered visualization can. Its like comparing a student's scribble of his/her teacher being dismembered, to a CG video of the same. The latter is the more realistic, and thus the more potentially damaging. So are there ANY American movies that show Bin Laden (or any other currently living leader) being killed with CG in order to look real?
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Sept 5, 2006 20:05:18 GMT -5
Damaging? Who is it damaging, and in what capacity?
I don't see a film like this being damaging to anybody. What, you think something like this would incite somebody to act out what is seen in the movie?
If so, you'd be good friends with Jack Thompson.
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 5, 2006 20:09:37 GMT -5
Damaging? Who is it damaging, and in what capacity? I don't see a film like this being damaging to anybody. What, you think something like this would incite somebody to act out what is seen in the movie? If so, you'd be good friends with Jack Thompson. If I made a film showing you being shot in the face, and put it out on the internet, wouldn't you find that damaging? What would you tell your future wife, your employer, if they asked why when they googled your name they see this video? Sure you could say "some idiot put this video out of me getting shot because they hate me", but do you think that excuse, or any excuse, is going to prevent damage to your reputation?
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Sept 5, 2006 20:14:02 GMT -5
I guess my ego isn't so easily shattered.
I wouldn't care, really. If I knew who did it, and figured they weren't a threat to me, i'd not care. If someone did it, and I didn't know who, yeah, i'd probably be worried about it in the sense of "hell, I hope they weren't seriously planning that."
If I were as protected as the President of America, i'd not worry about this video any more about the risk of assasination any more than I had before I heard that it had been made. Its not like hes going to think "holy crap! I could be assasinated! This documentary is making me think in ways I never thought before!"
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 5, 2006 20:22:44 GMT -5
I guess my ego isn't so easily shattered. I wouldn't care, really. If I knew who did it, and figured they weren't a threat to me, i'd not care. If someone did it, and I didn't know who, yeah, i'd probably be worried about it in the sense of "hell, I hope they weren't seriously planning that." If I were as protected as the President of America, i'd not worry about this video any more about the risk of assasination any more than I had before I heard that it had been made. Its not like hes going to think "holy crap! I could be assasinated! This documentary is making me think in ways I never thought before!" Its not about your ego being shattered at all. Its about what other people think of you. If you are a cog in the professional world, in order to survive you NEED people to have favorable opinions of you. If we are free to make videos like this of eachother, then we have to power to severely damage eachother's professional futures. If I made a CG video of you taking it up the ... with a horse, what would you tell your children when they stumbled across it? I'll say it again - this movie is a precedent. It is a step in the direction of the possible reality I describe above, because there are currently no rules against these type of videos. Where do you draw the line? Do you draw it between public figures and private individuals? Do you draw it between depicting a quick head-shot and long-drawn out torture? Because currently, there ARE no lines drawn. Any and all of this stuff would be legal.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Sept 5, 2006 20:36:19 GMT -5
It would be my duty not to let my children stumble across it. If the internet was to become a place like that, i'd have parental measures on the internet like Net Nanny or one of those programs. And, at the stage they would be able to go online on their own, i'd let them know about the type of people on the internet. It would be good, because they would see if people would make filth like that about me, they'd be as reluctant to trust people online or offline which I feel would be good for them in the long run. Yeah, somebody with too much time on their hands does something to try to irk me, and i'd probably be pretty disgusted at the thought of something like that, but I wouldn't suggest banning something... I wouldn't exactly want something like that in the theatres either, though If it was private individuals, it would matter less. Because, how many people know them? A very limited number. As for public figures? You'll find people who care, and some who wouldn't. It wouldn't make that much a difference. As for where I draw the line? Well, I certainly wouldn't watch films based on anyone and a horse like you suggest, though I wouldn't want them banned. I wouldn't think banning would be warranted because its something I found questionable. What gives me, or in this case you, the right to say basically, "I reject your reality and substitute my own"?
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 5, 2006 20:44:06 GMT -5
It would be my duty not to let my children stumble across it. If the internet was to become a place like that, i'd have parental measures on the internet like Net Nanny or one of those programs. And, at the stage they would be able to go online on their own, i'd let them know about the type of people on the internet. It would be good, because they would see if people would make filth like that about me, they'd be as reluctant to trust people online or offline which I feel would be good for them in the long run. Yeah, somebody with too much time on their hands does something to try to irk me, and i'd probably be pretty disgusted at the thought of something like that, but I wouldn't suggest banning something... I wouldn't exactly want something like that in the theatres either, though If it was private individuals, it would matter less. Because, how many people know them? A very limited number. As for public figures? You'll find people who care, and some who wouldn't. It wouldn't make that much a difference. As for where I draw the line? Well, I certainly wouldn't watch films based on anyone and a horse like you suggest, though I wouldn't want them banned. I wouldn't think banning would be warranted because its something I found questionable. What gives me, or in this case you, the right to say basically, "I reject your reality and substitute my own"? What's the benefit of having such "horsey" movies? You defend it so strongly, but what almighty purpose do these videos serve? So that, in between constantly monitoring your children, reassuring your friends and coworkers that you aren't into beastiality, and convincing your wife that she's more attractive than Mr. Ed, you can take a deep breath of relief and say "See! Isn't it wonderful that we have the freedom to make this trash!"?
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Sept 5, 2006 20:49:24 GMT -5
Is it so better to live in a world where "I don't like that, its banned now"? Who gets to call what they like and don't? The President? You want the president to decide what they find offensive or not, and change our lives accordingly? Ah, yes....
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 5, 2006 20:57:39 GMT -5
Is it so better to live in a world where "I don't like that, its banned now"? Who gets to call what they like and don't? The President? You want the president to decide what they find offensive or not, and change our lives accordingly? Ah, yes.... No, but it is better to live in a world where "its absolutely useless and potentially detrimental, its banned now". You still have yet to divulge a single reason for why such videos are benefitial. I'm not saying such reasons don't exist, but defending something in absence of providing a reason is kinda ... like... blind ..., isn't it?
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Sept 5, 2006 21:02:36 GMT -5
I thought I already gave my reasoning. I don't think I should have the right to ban something because I don't approve of it, even if I did have the power to do so. And I don't, so having the power to remove something is outside my control. So i'm even more against it.
I have already said that I don't have to have an interest in something to think it shouldn't be banned. If things I hate on a whim were allowed to be banned just like that, ha ha, I pity the world.
I don't think its beneficial, really, but what benefit is watching some action flick like snakes on a plane? I'm not going to watch it because I know that'll be stupid drivel, anyway, should it be banned? No? Why? Because its not sick? Thats an argument I can understand, though i'd take the approach of avoiding such material than taking my whims to ban something, but hey, thats just me.
|
|
|
Post by Slipper Eater on Sept 7, 2006 2:23:56 GMT -5
...Ugh. This film may include his assassination, but the focus in the movie seems to be: 1) What the war on terrorism is doing to us and our governments. 2) How our government will instantly assume terrorism is at fault. 3) It looks at the effects AFTER he dies. Nowhere does it give the, 'kill the president' vibe. It isn't a propaganda movie at all, maybe a left-styled movie yes, but you should WATCH it before you protest it. If it turns out to be propaganda, then you can .
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Sept 8, 2006 2:59:09 GMT -5
Ok brittany please please please clear up HOW a movie about the possible assassination will lead to CG videos of you or me getting tortured or raped? I FULLY understand that if the law passes a slanderous and hatefull movie featuring CG images of someone being raped and murdered would lead to more things. What I DONT understand is how a movie about what would happen to the world after george bushes assassination has to do AT ALL with slander or CG images of george bush being tortured or raped, thus leading to what you mention. Explain to me how 1 = the other please. The movie is not slander and it is not a 140 minute video of CG images of george bush being raped... it seems like more of a theoretical politcal story. ...Ugh. This film may include his assassination, but the focus in the movie seems to be: 1) What the war on terrorism is doing to us and our governments. 2) How our government will instantly assume terrorism is at fault. 3) It looks at the effects AFTER he dies. Nowhere does it give the, 'kill the president' vibe. It isn't a propaganda movie at all, maybe a left-styled movie yes, but you should WATCH it before you protest it. If it turns out to be propaganda, then you can [Noble Seamstress]. exact-fing-ly This is not a movie about how to kill george bush, it is a movie about the theoreitical happenings if he were to be assassinated. Who says the movie will even feature images of his death? Even if it does I ask the question, why does this matter? Its a story... Who says it will be CG it might be another actor. The main happenings is its a story about what happens after his assassination, not about how to or planning or showing graphic and hatefull pitcures of his death. This movie will not lead to anything to do with what you mention britney, its simple a candid look about poletics in a post-bush government.
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 10, 2006 9:10:37 GMT -5
Ok brittany please please please clear up HOW a movie about the possible assassination will lead to CG videos of you or me getting tortured or raped? I FULLY understand that if the law passes a slanderous and hatefull movie featuring CG images of someone being raped and murdered would lead to more things. What I DONT understand is how a movie about what would happen to the world after george bushes assassination has to do AT ALL with slander or CG images of george bush being tortured or raped, thus leading to what you mention. Explain to me how 1 = the other please. The movie is not slander and it is not a 140 minute video of CG images of george bush being raped... it seems like more of a theoretical politcal story. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first movie ever to feature someone being killed who was still alive in real life, right? If so, then this film sets a precedent. If not, then this film continues that precedent. This film either sets or continues the precedent that films depicting currently living people being killed by CG is socially acceptable. That means that right now I could make a film of you getting shot in the head and killed. But what if I didn't want you to be shot in the head? What if I wanted to make it more painful, so I shot your pinky off instead? Then I had you dipped in glue, and thrown off the Grand Canyon... You see, if killing you on film is acceptable, the method used to kill you doesn't matter, because courts do not concern themselves with defining "what is and what is not art". Either killing you on film (along with torturing you, etc) is allowed, or it is not allowed... Obviously this film is a step in the direction towards public acceptance of creating films about currently living people depicting their tortuous demise.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Sept 10, 2006 15:00:44 GMT -5
I'm still not that bothered by that idea. I'm not going to call it "art" but I wouldn't let it bother me, either.
Why would it worry you? Are you so worried about your reputation? Do you think reputation can be damaged because someone makes a film like this about someone? Do you think it could be publicly broadcast as truth? I don't see the huge cause for concern.
|
|
|
Post by Slipper Eater on Sept 10, 2006 16:44:32 GMT -5
If your reputation is damaged by something like this, then it was obviously very flimsy.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Sept 10, 2006 17:37:01 GMT -5
If your reputation is damaged by something like this, then it was obviously very flimsy. Or else people are stupider than I thought.
|
|
|
Post by eek on Sept 10, 2006 18:16:12 GMT -5
If your reputation is damaged by something like this, then it was obviously very flimsy. Or else people are stupider than I thought. That's always a possibility.
|
|