Aurora Shootings and Bomb Threats and why nobody should give in

[CorporalCaptain]

There's an argument to made for not letting crazies dictate my life, and when I venture out into the community, but I won't go see a movie I wasn't planning to see just because some nut has put a claim on it.

For one thing, I don't expect increased ticket sales to make the nutjob realize that their strategy isn't working. There's just no direct connection for that kind of feedback to have an effect.

Secondly, I don't like being jerked around. I'd rather just ignore them and go about my business, as if all they were saying were, "blah blah blah." Significance is what I think the fruitcake wants, and I'll certainly be denying him that.

Thirdly, going to see a movie I don't want to would eat into my Starbucks budget. That's bad.

 

[JarodRussell]

It's not only about the nutjob, it's also about sending a signal to, in this case, film studios that they shouldn't think about being influenced.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jul/27/weinstein-aurora-shootings

for example. It's the typical kneejerk overreaction.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Sitting down to reexamine a situation isn't the same as seriously proposing any sort of action. I can't call it a reaction of any kind if there is no action to consider, and there isn't.

 

[Squiggy]

It's not only about the nutjob, it's also about sending a signal to, in this case, film studios that they shouldn't think about being influenced.

Well, maybe they should. We glorify violent too much. Occasionally you'll get crazies that think they're in a movie.

 

[MacLeod]

Most people can differentiate between real life and make believe. Don't get me wrong I enjoy a good action movie, but at the end of the day I know it's fantasy. Most of what we see on TV at the film is fantasy.

As sqiggy says they'll always be a miniscule minority that are just crazy.

 

[JarodRussell]

It's not only about the nutjob, it's also about sending a signal to, in this case, film studios that they shouldn't think about being influenced.

Well, maybe they should. We glorify violent too much. Occasionally you'll get crazies that think they're in a movie.

So a minority of crazies should be the reason to change entertainment for the majority of non-crazies? That's the beginning of censorship (you know, telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it, and all that stuff). That should never be the right answer to it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Like I said, cart before the horse. We don't have any proposed changes to consider yet. Maybe when we hear them we'll say, "Oh yeah, that sounds reasonable." Or maybe not. Who knows?

 

[sidious618]

There'd have to be a bomb threat in every other place in the world for me to step into a theater showing "The Expendables 2."

 

[Paulcpick]

^ Chuck Norris will not be pleased.

 

[sidious618]

If Chuck Norris is pleased by something I'm doing then I'm likely doing the wrong thing.

 

[Squiggy]

So a minority of crazies should be the reason to change entertainment for the majority of non-crazies?

If lots of people die...yup.

That's the beginning of censorship (you know, telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it, and all that stuff). That should never be the right answer to it.

No, it's not censorship. Censorship is the state telling you not to do something. If the creators of a message change their own message it's not censorship...its simply you not getting the same thing.

 

[Dream]

It looks like it will be pretty bad in theaters over the next few months. People probably won't start going again until November.

 

[sidious618]

It looks like it will be pretty bad in theaters over the next few months. People probably won't start going again until November.

What are you talking about? TDKR did phenomenal and that was the movie where the shooting occurred.

 

[JarodRussell]

So a minority of crazies should be the reason to change entertainment for the majority of non-crazies?

If lots of people die...yup.

That's the beginning of censorship (you know, telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it, and all that stuff). That should never be the right answer to it.

No, it's not censorship. Censorship is the state telling you not to do something. If the creators of a message change their own message it's not censorship...its simply you not getting the same thing.

Self-censorship is still censorship.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

So a minority of crazies should be the reason to change entertainment for the majority of non-crazies?

If lots of people die...yup.

That's the beginning of censorship (you know, telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it, and all that stuff). That should never be the right answer to it.

No, it's not censorship. Censorship is the state telling you not to do something. If the creators of a message change their own message it's not censorship...its simply you not getting the same thing.

Self-censorship is still censorship.

Not in any relevant legal sense.

 

[Pingfah]

Every studio self censors already. They routinely cut violent scenes to achieve the rating that they want.

 

[JarodRussell]

Every studio self censors already. They routinely cut violent scenes to achieve the rating that they want.

While the rating system is an issue worth another thread... when studios cut films to get a certain rating, it's at least a different motivation why they do it. One could say their motivation is greed, or that an as broad as possible audience is able to see it.

But in this case it's really the "you can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it" attitude that I'm pretty much sick of. Because the whole notion is silly. A man isn't depressed and doesn't go on a killing spree because of films, or games, or music. The responsibility lies with his social environment, teachers, parents, friends, colleagues.

There's another thread where someone wants to force kids into watching scary films. And when the kid than goes nuts in the future, I dunno, dresses up as an Alien to kill people (I'm exaggerating here, clearly), should the reaction be: "oh my god, this kid could not handle scary films, our films are too scary, we need to make films less scary" or should the reaction be "parents, treat your children right/society, treat people right"? I prefer the latter.