Films you consider dangerous

Cokehead Mother

Are there any films you genuinely think should never have been made because they posed a threat to society? Or maybe they shouldn't neccessarily have been banned, but you still consider them dangerous?

Say like Fight Club. Some people will look at that and make plans to destroy Microsoft, and some people will look at Heathers and do a Columbine. But are there any films that you think would incite dangerous thoughts in a regular, non-pyscopathic/stupid person?

Asok

Shakespeare in love made me want to burn down .....stuff.

Karl Hungus

I reckon people who consider films "Dangerous" are a very special kind of stupid, like creationists. Blaming films (Or video games, or music for that matter) for the ill of society is usually nonsense you hear from tabloids and religious groups, and I think most regular people have more sense.

Seriously, do you really believe that "Some people" will watch Fight Club and want to destroy Microsoft? :rolleyes:

OfflerCrocGod

If people consider committing crimes after watching Fight Club (or any movie) then they have serious issues which have little to do with the film in question.

johnny_ultimate

Popular culture doesn't kill people, psychopaths do.

Oh, and good swipe at the Creationists Karl

The Bollox

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I reckon people who consider films "Dangerous" are a very special kind of stupid, like creationists. Blaming films (Or video games, or music for that matter) for the ill of society is usually nonsense you hear from tabloids and religious groups, and I think most regular people have more sense.

Seriously, do you really believe that "Some people" will watch Fight Club and want to destroy Microsoft? :rolleyes:

I watched Fight Club, I want to destroy Microsoft... but I wanted to do that even before I watched Fight Club

L31mr0d

I believe most kinds of movies have a negative affect on society. Not that they incite people to violence or crimes but that they make people apathethic to the crimes when they are committed. If you watch someone get their head blown off over and over again in movies, when you hear about the stranger down the street getting his head blown off its less shocking to you. You accept it because you are aware that it happens.

I remember vividly the first violent scene I watched in a movie as a kid and it was shocking and repulsive to me. Now I could sit through the SAW movies or Hostel and not bat an eyelid. This desensitization finally struck home when I was watching the 12pm news a while back and they where showing charred american bodies in Iraq being dragged through the streets, unedited or censored, at lunch time no less. I've noticed more and more that reality programs like cop chases or home vidoes are showing people actually dieing in them. Why? because people have no problems watching other humans die on TV, whether it be faked in the movies or shown for real on home videos or the news, society has become desensitized to death.

Apathy will kill society faster and more efficiently than any gun or manmade weapon ever could.

robby^5

American History X.

Curb Stomp tbh. A lot of the speeches etc. about black people could be taken to heart by idiots.

Galvasean

L31mr0d wrote: »

society has become desensitized to death.

Apathy will kill society faster and more efficiently than any gun or manmade weapon ever could.

Nice to see you fighting against this, what with Dexter in your signature..

monkeyfudge

Mad people will be influanced by anything... if they don't have a film or a book to latch onto and the tell them what to do, they just find something else... like that bastard monkey on the Coco-pops boxes... yes...?

I really can't think of any films I'd consider dangerous... and I've seen that really crappy one that pretends to be a snuff movie... the title escapes me... but it was pretty terrible.

Cokehead Mother

robby^5 wrote: »

American History X.

Curb Stomp tbh. A lot of the speeches etc. about black people could be taken to heart by idiots.

I'm really looking for things that could be taken to heart by non-idiots.

Nevyn

Yes films are dangerous, so are book, but really they just convey ideas, so really it ideas that should be burned and banned.

mike65

Karate Kid films were dangerous, mainly to 12 years olds.

Mike.

monkeyfudge

mike65 wrote: »

Karate Kid films were dangerous, mainly to 12 years olds.

Mike.

Yeah... When I think of the amount of times my brother was able to trick me into washing his car under the pretense that it was karate training...

Cokehead Mother

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Mad people will be influanced by anything... if they don't have a film or a book to latch onto and the tell them what to do, they just find something else... like that bastard monkey on the Coco-pops boxes... yes...?

I really can't think of any films I'd consider dangerous... and I've seen that really crappy one that pretends to be a snuff movie... the title escapes me... but it was pretty terrible.

I think it was just called Snuff.

robby^5

Cokehead Mother wrote: »

I'm really looking for things that could be taken to heart by non-idiots.

I dont think the intelligence of the person matters tbh, if a dangerous idea is implanted in their mind its bad no matter who it is.

monkeyfudge

Cokehead Mother wrote: »

I think it was just called Snuff.

It was this one:

August Underground

They did a good job of making the whole thing look really nasty and authentic.

But it's a terrible film though... not sure what type of people go for it... it has sequels apparently.

Cokehead Mother

monkeyfudge wrote: »

But it's a terrible film though... not sure what type of people go for it...

You know the way porn gets boring when you come?

Tusky

L31mr0d wrote: »

I believe most kinds of movies have a negative affect on society. Not that they incite people to violence or crimes but that they make people apathethic to the crimes when they are committed. If you watch someone get their head blown off over and over again in movies, when you hear about the stranger down the street getting his head blown off its less shocking to you. You accept it because you are aware that it happens.

I remember vividly the first violent scene I watched in a movie as a kid and it was shocking and repulsive to me. Now I could sit through the SAW movies or Hostel and not bat an eyelid. This desensitization finally struck home when I was watching the 12pm news a while back and they where showing charred american bodies in Iraq being dragged through the streets, unedited or censored, at lunch time no less. I've noticed more and more that reality programs like cop chases or home vidoes are showing people actually dieing in them. Why? because people have no problems watching other humans die on TV, whether it be faked in the movies or shown for real on home videos or the news, society has become desensitized to death.

Apathy will kill society faster and more efficiently than any gun or manmade weapon ever could.

I disagree. I love violent movies and every time I hear about a horrific crime, specially if it was committed in my area, it upsets me. I hate violence (in real life) and even when I see a fist fight I feel repulsed.

Call Me Jimmy

robby^5 wrote: »

American History X.

Curb Stomp tbh. A lot of the speeches etc. about black people could be taken to heart by idiots.

exactly

zAbbo

In the name of the Father.

Some people burnt down an orange hall near me after watching it

monkeyfudge

I remember there were a lot of problems in some African country when Roots was finally shown on TV there.

aurel

It could be said that most things that are worthwhile are dangerous to some extent.

L31mr0d

Tusky wrote: »

I disagree. I love violent movies and every time I hear about a horrific crime, specially if it was committed in my area, it upsets me. I hate violence (in real life) and even when I see a fist fight I feel repulsed.

enough to act? or do you just go "what a shame" then go back to living your life unchanged, isn't that the definition of apathy?

I'm not saying I hate violent movies either, i've watched my fair share of gore fests. My point is that i've realised the more I watch the less they bother me, and this is also reflected in the media, in that what is acceptable before the watershed now wouldn't of been a generation ago. You'd never see actual dead bodies on TV before, but now war news isn't news unless it has a charred body smoldering on the side of the road. Or home video clips aren't entertaining unless it shows a man falling off a cliff dieing or being shot by the police. I watched a clip in the middle of the day on zone reality I think it was where they showed in full uncensored detail a man with a shotgun absorb at least 6 or 7 bullets before being shot in the knee and falling to the ground with the narrator saying he died shortly later. Its only been in the last year or 2, to my knowledge, that reality clip shows have gotten this graphic.

TerrorFirmer

Tusky wrote: »

I disagree. I love violent movies and every time I hear about a horrific crime, specially if it was committed in my area, it upsets me. I hate violence (in real life) and even when I see a fist fight I feel repulsed.

Seeing a scene of horrific carnage in a movie is actually satisfying purely because you know it's a cleverly constructed fake.

Whereas seeing something in reality invokes a totally different reaction. At least, it should. I agree totally with Tusky here.

Sometimes movies manage to blur that distinction though, if you've ever seen the 'film' Mordum, you'll know what I'm talking about.

johnny_ultimate

L31mr0d wrote: »

enough to act? or do you just go "what a shame" then go back to living your life unchanged, isn't that the definition of apathy?

I'm not saying I hate violent movies either, i've watched my fair share of gore fests. My point is that i've realised the more I watch the less they bother me, and this is also reflected in the media, in that what is acceptable before the watershed now wouldn't of been a generation ago. You'd never see actual dead bodies on TV before, but now war news isn't news unless it has a charred body smoldering on the side of the road. Or home video clips aren't entertaining unless it shows a man falling off a cliff dieing or being shot by the police. I watched a clip in the middle of the day on zone reality I think it was where they showed in full uncensored detail a man with a shotgun absorb at least 6 or 7 bullets before being shot in the knee and falling to the ground with the narrator saying he died shortly later. Its only been in the last year or 2, to my knowledge, that reality clip shows have gotten this graphic.

But most people are able to differentiate between reality and fiction. While I can be entertained by a violent film because I know it isn't real, I will still be extremely shocked if I see a dead body on the news. There is a huge difference between film violence and violence in reality. Yes, there are people who are unable to differentiate, but these people are crazy, and they are as likely to misinterpret a book as they are a film.

Most of the violence in todays world is in fact down to politics, religious extremism and other such areas. In contrast, the amount of violence as a direct result of popular culture is minimal. For every school shooting, theres a helluva lot more suicide bombers.

Yes, some films are excessively violence IMO, and I won't watch them because I don't enjoy them personally. But if a reasonable and sane adult wants to, go on ahead, I have no problem with it. Just keep them out of the hands of already socially and mentally disillusioned people, as it may prove the catalyst to kick off a rampage of destruction. But again, it is the person not the film that commits the act of violence, and I don't think there is any film that could provoke a stable person to commit violent acts.

L31mr0d

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But most people are able to differentiate between reality and fiction. While I can be entertained by a violent film because I know it isn't real, I will still be extremely shocked if I see a dead body on the news. There is a huge difference between film violence and violence in reality. Yes, there are people who are unable to differentiate, but these people are crazy, and they are as likely to misinterpret a book as they are a film.

ok well i'll respond to the first half as the latter I agree with you on. It is the person that acts, not the media they entertain themselves with.

My point is that, yes, its shocking to see a dead body on the news, but you aren't going to throw up your lunch at the sight of it. A bunch of Iraqis beating a charred american body is shocking, but you still don't turn the channel, or contact the news network to complain about their graphic content shown at times of day your children could be watching. You endure it because you've watched must worse simulated torture and violence in movies. Regardless of whether its real or not, your body and mind reacts the same way.

I'd like to see one guy who watchs a movie where a guy gets hit in the groin hard and doesn't feel it slightly. I've seen people who don't watch violent movies have to leave the room for feeling sick at a gory scene. Sure we all know its fake and a bunch of actors, but the whole point of acting and films is to convince you its real, the worst actors are the ones where you are aware of their acting, whereas the good ones will convince you you are a fly on the wall watching reality happen.

Running Bing

Cokehead Mother wrote: »

Are there any films you genuinely think should never have been made because they posed a threat to society? Or maybe they shouldn't neccessarily have been banned, but you still consider them dangerous?

Say like Fight Club. Some people will look at that and make plans to destroy Microsoft, and some people will look at Heathers and do a Columbine. But are there any films that you think would incite dangerous thoughts in a regular, non-pyscopathic/stupid person?

If anyone believes that they are very very stupid themselves:rolleyes:

faceman

L31mr0d wrote: »

I believe most kinds of movies have a negative affect on society. Not that they incite people to violence or crimes but that they make people apathethic to the crimes when they are committed. If you watch someone get their head blown off over and over again in movies, when you hear about the stranger down the street getting his head blown off its less shocking to you. You accept it because you are aware that it happens.

I remember vividly the first violent scene I watched in a movie as a kid and it was shocking and repulsive to me. Now I could sit through the SAW movies or Hostel and not bat an eyelid. This desensitization finally struck home when I was watching the 12pm news a while back and they where showing charred american bodies in Iraq being dragged through the streets, unedited or censored, at lunch time no less. I've noticed more and more that reality programs like cop chases or home vidoes are showing people actually dieing in them. Why? because people have no problems watching other humans die on TV, whether it be faked in the movies or shown for real on home videos or the news, society has become desensitized to death.

Apathy will kill society faster and more efficiently than any gun or manmade weapon ever could.

I disagree. If anything it will just desensitise you to violence on telly, be it on the news or in a movie. However when depicted with similiar situations in real life (and i hope no one of us will ever have to) Im sure you will find that your attitude is different. In most films, when someone gets shot in the head, the outcome is very different than what happens in real life. Someone else might have seen that news clip from many moons ago when the american politician shot himself in the head. A neat hole in the head with a stream of blood was not the outcome.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes films are dangerous, so are book, but really they just convey ideas, so really it ideas that should be burned and banned.

In fact, books have had a more dramatic influence on some whackos in real life. Id cross the road if I saw someone with Catcher in the Rye in their pocket!! But as has been said already, its not the book or movie that influences but the individual themselves.

Tusky

L31mr0d wrote: »

enough to act? or do you just go "what a shame" then go back to living your life unchanged, isn't that the definition of apathy?

Enough to act ? What exactly does this mean ? If I hear of guy who was shot nearby, should I hunt down to guy responsible ? Should I send a card to the family telling them how sorry I am for their loss ? What exactly does 'enough to act' mean ?

I started watching violent movies in my teens. I am just as revolted at violence in real life now as I was before I had been exposed to 'movie' violence. You know at school when there was a fight and everyone would crowd around ? I could never do that because I hate seeing someone being beaten. I don't watch any of those 'execution' videos or war videos because I don't like real violence. I watched one of the beheading videos years ago when I was much younger (the Russian soldier beheading one) and that image has stayed with me for years. It was the most horrific thing I have seen and bothered me more than all the violent movies I have seen put together.

Its all about distinguishing between reality and make believe. When I see someones head get blown off in a movie I wonder how it was done. Did they use CGI, how did they make the blood splatter so realistically ? If I saw something similar in real life, I would be shocked and the image would probably never leave me. So, in my experience, no matter how much movie or tv violence I have been exposed to, it doesn't change what I think is acceptable or damaging in real life.

A good example is this : Movies in the 40's and 50's were very innocent. There was no bad language or explicit sex scenes. If somebody in the 50s saw someone getting shot in front of them on the street it would obviously bother them greatly. Now, in 2007, our movies have lots of bad language, violence and nudity....same scenario, a guy gets shot in front of you in the street.

Does it bother you or not ? I think it would bother you just as much as it would the guy from the 1950s.

L31mr0d wrote: »

I'd like to see one guy who watchs a movie where a guy gets hit in the groin hard and doesn't feel it slightly. I've seen people who don't watch violent movies have to leave the room for feeling sick at a gory scene. Sure we all know its fake and a bunch of actors, but the whole point of acting and films is to convince you its real, the worst actors are the ones where you are aware of their acting, whereas the good ones will convince you you are a fly on the wall watching reality happen.

No matter how good the acting is. No matter how real the violence looks, we always know its not real. Even if at the time it evokes a reaction, at the back of our mind we know its not real and the actors involved are alive and well.

Bottle_of_Smoke

zabbo wrote: »

In the name of the Father.

Some people burnt down an orange hall near me after watching it

Was just about to mention republican films. When I was younger I remember genuinely hating the English after seeing some mother's son/ in name of the father etc

What if I was less stable, less educated, less middle class, could have turned me into a provo.

Often thought that if I was black & saw missisippi burning I'd really hate whites.

Though as the OP was saying, I don't think banning these films is the answer, people just need to accept decendents of c*nts aren't necessarily c*nts

BlitzKrieg

the only film I can think of that I ever raised an eyebrow in suspicion at was HERO

a film which concludes with the message "Its ok for a leader to go to war and kill thousands if it is for the *greater good*"

While in its chinese origins its understandable to an extent, thats a nation where such ideals are enforced by the current regime.

But for it to be picked up and pushed so strongly in the US and europe, it had me grinding teeth at how much it goes against ideals we say we believe in. Throw in a background of the 2004 presidential election in the US and yes I would say it was dangerous film.

I wouldnt ban it though, but I wish more people would have called it out for what it was.

SxE Punk

Sometimes a film can really hit home with some people though.

If you're a closet racist, or someone with undeveloped racist feelings, a film like American History X can bring those out in you, or focus them into something far more sinister.

Or, if like me, you enjoy getting yourself hurt, either by moshing or organised fighting or similar pursuits, a film like Fight Club could be right up your alley. It might cause people to start fighting with their mates for some kinda release from boredom and monotony, which can lead to injury.


However I doubt that after a film like the ones mentioned above that all of society is gonna start attacking other races or fighting with strangers in mass brawls and blowing up offices. It just doesn't happen on that scale.

mewso

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What if I was less stable, less educated, less middle class, could have turned me into a provo.

Yes and lets face it these people loved the english until they saw In The Name of The Father.

Galvasean

Excellent point musician. People will always latch on to things that further their own agendas.

Hey, lets not forget the infamous 'Matrix defense'... If anyone thinks those guys were psychologically stable functional members of society...

L31mr0d

Tusky wrote: »

I watched one of the beheading videos years ago when I was much younger (the Russian soldier beheading one) and that image has stayed with me for years. It was the most horrific thing I have seen and bothered me more than all the violent movies I have seen put together.

ok well i'll concede to agree with you there. I watched one of those beheading clips myself (there a site full of them? who the hell watchs those things???) and when I think of horrific, the image of that journalist having his head sawn off has been seared into my memory. I guess when I was sent the link I assumed a life watching gorey movies makes you desensitized to it, but there is a different internal sensation watching the life drain from another humans body. It stays with you and I wouldn't advise anyone, out of curiousity, to look up these clips.

I guess you see the widespread apathy in society and need to justify it with something, maybe its just in human nature to not really put foot to ground unless the problem is on their doorstep.

Getting back to the topic, I know of a few Anime movies which I view as VERY dangerous, as they feed dangerous perversions in people. Sure these people have these tendancies innately, but making films about them and glorifying the acts only makes the problem worse. The things the Japanese will allow to be animated should never be allowed to be filmed with real people.

Sleepy

Farenheit 911 - a film that gives people new to politics arguments with such limited substence an experienced debater / Republican party member will flip each point on it's head.

Pigman II

David Lynch movies. They turn once interesting movie-goers into frightful bores.

Aedh Baclamh

I'm happy to know that Pigman II was not in my company while watching the best movie of the year.

Karl Hungus

L31mr0d wrote: »

Getting back to the topic, I know of a few Anime movies which I view as VERY dangerous, as they feed dangerous perversions in people. Sure these people have these tendancies innately, but making films about them and glorifying the acts only makes the problem worse. The things the Japanese will allow to be animated should never be allowed to be filmed with real people.

And what movies are these?

L31mr0d

Karl Hungus wrote: »

And what movies are these?

well they'd fall under hentai. A quick search for Hentai on wiki and you'll know the forms of it i'm talking about.

Makaveli

Hentai is anime porn. So is real porn dangerous too?

monkeyfudge

And censorship laws stop them from showing penises... that's why you end up with tentacles.

And while it has risen in recent years due to economic recession, the crime rate in Japan is very low.

mewso

Won't somebody please think of the children. Maybe build a political career out of it while you are at it.

Treora

HavoK wrote: »

Seeing a scene of horrific carnage in a movie is actually satisfying purely because you know it's a cleverly constructed fake.

Whereas seeing something in reality invokes a totally different reaction. At least, it should. I agree totally with Tusky here.

Sometimes movies manage to blur that distinction though, if you've ever seen the 'film' Mordum, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Movies must have some credible subliminal behavioural control or else big brands wouldn't spend so much on shock and action ads.

Most people have some grasp of Psych and Marketing 101 and so know when they are being programmed. However I never remember a class in school where the teacher showed the electroshock scene from a clockwork orange and explains the neurological affects that longterm exposure to any stimuli can have to different mentalities.

Galvasean

Makaveli wrote: »

Hentai is anime porn. So is real porn dangerous too?

Maybe he's referring to the tentacle stuff...

musician wrote: »

Won't somebody please think of the children. Maybe build a political career out of it while you are at it.

Pat Robertson, is that you?

IamBeowulf

The most dangerous films, to my mind, are the ones which glorify violent acts WITHOUT showing the bloody consequences.

eg. Watch most mainstream action films and you'll notice a pattern. Good guy shoots a zillion, disguised baddies. Disguised, so we barely see their humanity. Now to preserve a low rating (thereby increasing the amount of bums on seats) the studios insist we only see the bad guys fall dead instantaneously. No blood (or very little_ and no horribly drawn out bloody death. No bowels, or crying because they're in so much pain. Boom boom and the hero wins. Kid thinks the guy is a legend.

Now take A History of Violence by David Cronenberg. The movie shows the deep dark nature hidden within the nicest of people (and, oooh spoiler, he doesn't just point the finger at the characters in the film!). But he also takes the time to show the horrifying aftereffects---scarring, dismemberment, disgusting death. He doesn't revel in it so much as shove our faces in the real-world effect of our increasing need to inflict carnage for kicks.

By hiding behind censorship we are numbing our younger generation to the effects of violence, and in their minds that makes it right to kick and punch and stab and shoot. You may think I'm overreacting but this is just IMHO

Otis Driftwood

Strange topic this.
I have seen the vilest of the vile and sickest of the sick movies that you can think of and Im the most normal,non violent person you could meet.
If someone is going to commit violent acts then you are going to do it anyway,you dont need a movie to prompt you.
Obviously as a child if you are exposed to extreme images then you are more likely to be disturbed in some way-you will become a product of your environment-but when you reach adulthood 99% of people know right from wrong so seeing a violent movie isnt suddenly going to turn you into a sociopath.
The only dangerous movies out there IMHO are the extreme side of porn - simulated rape movies-$hit like that.

Cokehead Mother

nedtheshed wrote: »

Strange topic this.
I have seen the vilest of the vile and sickest of the sick movies that you can think of and Im the most normal,non violent person you could meet.
If someone is going to commit violent acts then you are going to do it anyway,you dont need a movie to prompt you.
Obviously as a child if you are exposed to extreme images then you are more likely to be disturbed in some way-you will become a product of your environment-but when you reach adulthood 99% of people know right from wrong so seeing a violent movie isnt suddenly going to turn you into a sociopath.
The only dangerous movies out there IMHO are the extreme side of porn - simulated rape movies-$hit like that.

So an adult can't be convinced to do something they know is wrong, except rape somebody?

mewso

IamBeowulf wrote: »

The most dangerous films, to my mind, are the ones which glorify violent acts WITHOUT showing the bloody consequences.

I think Tom and Jerry should be banned.

r3nu4l

Makaveli wrote: »

Hentai is anime porn. So is real porn dangerous too?

In fairness a lot of Hentai porn focuses on "young" girls that are of questionable age and some of the "artwork" I've seen clearly shows pre-pubescent girls being attacked, mutilated or raped. That is sick stuff.

I'm all for porn and even anime porn where the animated women are clearly adults but that stuff is dangerous and illegal in many countries.