AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Dude you're super messed up in the head if you think like this please seek help

Dude, Natural Born Killers is THE WORST example possible. Tarantino's original script was altered so heavily that he officially disowned it.

Really? Huh, didnt know that. What was the original pitch?

Basically the movie as it is, but the whole "media glorification of killers is a BAD thing" was going to be a lot more pronounced.

So now it's more subtle and satirical. Does that make it better or worse? That's pretty much up to the viewer.

I think itd have been better, I REALLY didnt like how wishy washy the movie was with that message


I didnt like them though. They came off as narcisisstic douchebags who just killed because they felt like it, what the hell is the point of that? Violence for violence sake is the domain of nutcases who take out their problems on people who have nothing to do with them, its not even constructive violence. The thrill of violent media are revenge fantasies and the feeling of being the hero, not to be some psycho who kills because he played GTA too much as a kid.

except violent people like that aren't really heroes, they're just painted as such. someone who goes around killing a whole ton of people because they're being "heroic" isn't really that heroic at all.

once again, we're back to the point, being that violence is bad

Besides which, the media is quick to point to killers as having some "deep motivation" because otherwise "wouldn't anyone be a killer if they just decided to kill for no real reason?"

It's kind of the same bullshit English profs do. Sometimes people are violent because they're violent. Not because they're overthrowing the government, or making a stand against a shitty world, or doing it for the fame or cheddar they can get out of it.

Besides which, I'm not sure I could find a type of violence to classify as constructive.

Whipping your kids into shape when they act up? Defending your kid sister from pack of wolves with bare hands?

Say, does anyone know if the Hangover Part 3 was any good?

Im not arguing that thats not how violence works in real life, Im saying thats not the kind Im interested in watching in fiction. I do not appreciate giving a creator cheddar and attention only for him to yell at me for what a horrible person I am for watching his movie. Thanks asshole, I'll be sure to take my cheddar elsewhere then.

Tarantino movies may have an underlying message behind the excessive violence, but they do too little with it and seem a little too content to get cheddar from both sides (the ones that just want excessive violence and those that assume it's satire). If the purpose really was deconstruction, force the viewer to get disgusted by the violence rather than just showing them the same thing they see in other movies and hoping they get the vague hint. Explore the victim characters more, make us feel empathy with them (preferably in a subtle way so we don't realise until the violence happens). Tarantino has played around with this, but his characters, while usually powerful and interesting, are more like caricatures and thus hard to feel real sympathy for. The same problem exists for the violence in his movies (if showing the horribleness of violence in movies is the intent), it's cartoonishly over the top instead of disgustingly realistic.

Yes, it is weird how much we enjoy violence in movies, but that's not the message the Tarantino movies sent. If his intention was otherwise, in my opinion he failed to communicate that through his art. That said, Tarantino movies are still very entertaining movies with more depth than your usual action flick (for reasons I've alluded to before).

They're still better than saw and serbian film and whatever else. Those are just torture porn.

Violence is like aggression, people always look at it at face value and judge it as such without delving any deeper. NBK is silly not because "they killed a bunch of pplz oh no!" it's silly because they were killing innocent people for some internalized cause. I can't rightfully respect that.

But what if someone is put in the position where he needs to defend his family? What if the only viable way to do this successfully is through violence? Is THAT bad simply because it's "violent"? In "Taken" Liam Neeson tropes around Paris killing everyone and their grandmother...only he doesn't really. He actually only kills dozens of slave traders, and a Sheik who pays for people as property who he can have sex with, and have dumped over when he's done with them.

Violent? Yes, but with a controlled direction.

Hmm actually I saw a movie that is actually only mildly violent but it addresses the whole 'solve your problems with violence' thing.
It's called Falling Down staring Michael Douglas and Robert Duvall.

So Michael is fed up and decided he's gonna do what he wants. In some cases that means beating the crap out of people who mess with him or at very least scaring them with a very aggressive tantrum.

At first you feel the satisfaction of his actions, you think 'Yeah, man! Show those arse holes!' But after a while you're like, 'Dude, no. That's too much. Stop it."

It's kinda like you realise something. That as much as people deserve a smack in the face, actually going through with it would make you a bad person.

Gran Torino had a similar thing happen too. Though it took it in the other direction to show a different alternative.

I thought Falling Down would have been better if the guy really had just been a regular guy driven mad by the mindnumbing, miserable drudgery of life, instead of it being revealed that he was an abusive dick the whole time.

I don't think 'life sucks' was the real point of that movie though. I think he did those things because he was already broken. Because he couldn't handle things not going his way he turned to violence.