Roald, you might wanna warn people in your topictitle that this stuff is a bit graphic. And yeah, you got issues.
Okay, I will... So every filmmaker, every writer, every graphic artist who depicts violence has issues..? Depicting violent images or stories and having "issues" are in no way related... By your logic, everyone from Shakespeare to Martin Scorsese to Christopher Nolan would have "issues"....
So..uhm....are things all right up there in the Netherlands?? Decapitated and mutilated Vulcans....I'm thinking...maybe...some cold milk and oreos, then maybe a nap.....
There's a subtle difference. There is violence used in movies or art to convey a message, to tell a story. Then there's stuff like Hostel, Saw, Human Centipede. When violence is there for the love of gore and being violent. This, sir, is NOT Shakespeare or Scorseses. If you feel the need to compare, take a look at Shakespeare's MacBeth. Where the idea of violence is appalling to MacBeth, but he uses it to achieve a goal, ultimatly succumbing to the act he commited and goes nuts. He never glorifies it, unlike the images here, where it feels almost as if you love the gory images you create, even going into quite some detail with the severed ear. This shows a some what darker side to the artist, the need to go into the fullest detail of the act itself, as if it was almost beautifull.
Nonesense. So filmmakers like Sam Raimi are 'dark, twisted souls'..? Yeah, he made 'The Evil Dead'. Peter Jackson made extremely gory films as well, and I can name dozens of others. The idea that artists who create violent images are really 'violent creeps' themselves is kinda like, no disrespect, a 1980's Church view on heavy metal music....
I never used the word creep. And the analogy towards heavy metal music doesn't fly. I can understand that you might feel offended, and that wasn't my intend. But again, the directors you named did used violence as a means to an end, not a end. What is your purpose here? Why did you use such graphic material? What is the emotion you want to evoke from us? Or do you just want to make something that violent? That's where the difference lies. Raimi, Jackson, directors like that, they use the graphic images they use to scare us, to envoke a feeling of dread. Directors of 'movies' like Hostel use violence not to evoke a feeling, but to show gorey and disturbing stuff. To shock people with horrible things. That goes beyond entertainment. Because even in movies like Evil Dead (which are old school horror where it was about being scared, not disgusted) there was a purpose to the violence.
We can debate this for eternity I guess. I still do NOT agree with you that Eli Roth (the director of Hostel) has "issues"... Gaspar Noe made 'Irreversible', a film I can't even watch... Still, he's just a filmmaker, not some 'disturbed psychopath' who has 'issues'... I don't really feel offended, just somewhat frustrated that you have the arrogance to claim to know what I'm like based on a stupid fan-made poster... And about the artwork: man, is it really *THAT* violent..?? I was trying to create an image that would immediately evoke a sense of danger, sense of: 'Wow... this is a different kind of Trek... Khan is *really* dangerous in this one..!'... The Joker is extremely violent in The Dark Knight; I think it was a fantastic new take on the character... But in your world, Christopher Nolan probably has "issues"...........
Wondering if you are being discussed in the troll thread in TNZ. In other words, it's all in the delivery. And yes, the same goes for some other productions
The troll thread..?? I've been a member of the BBS for 13 years... I think I would have been exposed as a troll a long time ago... Can't believe that anyone who thinks a little differently is accused of being a troll these days...
You don't have to be a troll to get mentioned in the Troll Thread these days; just do something a little peculiar and you're potential fodder. Standards have really slipped.