If This Thread Had Been Written By Someone Else!?

[bbs2k]

**Rambo: most violent mainstream movie ever made? **

Fake bbs2k: I can’t think of another movie marketed to a mainstream audience that’s anywhere near as graphically violent.

Or am I wrong?

smiling bandit: What are you talking about? Rambo doesn’t even feature any deaths! And its gore factor pales in comparison to most modern films.

Revtim: Which Rambo are you talking about? There was like 4 of them.

HubZilla:Saving Private Ryan?

Starship Troopers?

Little Nemo: According to Movie Body Counts the most violent movie is The Return of the King in which 836 people were killed on screen. Assuming you accept various non-human races like orcs as people - if you only count humans, its bodycount drops to 147. But that still beats Rambo III - the most violent of the Rambo movies with 127 dead.

Fake bbs2k: Good suggestions yes, but I still think Rambo was more so. Troopers was very violent, surprisingly so, but not more than Rambo. And while RotK technically had a higher body count I don’t really regard it as a graphically violent movie (IMHO). I mean, when you’ve got a nine foot demon-thing flying around on a dragon that’s EATING PEOPLE and then suddenly gets killed because some blondie with a glorified dirk pokes him in the eye, that just ain’t violent enough for me.

Now Saving Private Ryan is the tough one. Both Rambo and that movie were both tremendously graphically violent (and mainstream ). So for me the distinction is intent, Speilberg made SPR violent to present us with a strong and striking depiction of how horrible war can be. Rambo was really over the top so the audience would think holy shit Rambo is fucking killing everyone!

Mahaloth: He must mean the most recent one, release internationally as John Rambo. It was called “Rambo” in America, the first one in the series to bear that name.

Diogenes the Cynic: The newest one really is pretty graphic. Surprisingly so for a mainstream action flick. I don’t know about the most graphic, though. I guess it depends on whether you consider something like Kill Bill or the Hostel films to be “mainstream.”

Fake bbs2k: Yes Kill Bill was violent, but not more so than Rambo. Also I would say no to Hostel as well, it seemed more about an in your face gore-fest and that’s sort of what the audience was paying for. The gore was like the special effects in a big budget movie, except it was just used to try to intentionally shock the audience. I watched it and I thought meh.

Two and a Half Inches of Fun: How about the Saw films? You might not think they are mainstream, but they opened wide and all of them have made over $50 million dollars in the US alone.

Saw - $55 million, 2,467 theaters
Saw II - $87 million, 2,949 theaters
Saw III - $80 million, 3,167 theaters
Saw IV - $63 million, 3,183 theaters

Fake bbs2k: Well and good, I’ve seen three of the four and own one of them. But for me, like I said the sort of violence in those films is different than the sort of violence I was blown away by in Rambo. Maybe it’s that more people here didn’t see Rambo because wow, just wow. That’s what I walked away thinking.

But more suggestions please. I don’t think there’ll be a new Rambo movie to top this one and I got room on my Netflix for more!

Fake Nzinga Seated: You know what? bbs, you’re the best. How’d you get to be so cool?

Oh, and check your PM’s

Fake bbs2k: Baby, I’m so big time, you can just call me Mainstream.

(It’s my fake thread so I can do what I want dammit)

[Derleth]

Wow, this is pointless. It’s like Helen Keller with a VR headset, or Ray Charles seeing Jaws 3D.

[Alessan]

**bbs2k ** - while you criticism of lissener’s posting style is certainly valid, you’re not doing yourself any favors with your OP.

[Dunderman]

Am I the only one who honestly understands what lissener is getting at in that thread? Granted, I’ve seen neither Rambo nor Saw (or Hostel, or Captive) but while I may not be able to put it into exact words I can see a divide between the former and the latter. Much like porn I can’t tell you what it is but I know it when I see it.

[Alessan]

It’s not what he’s saying, it’s how he’s saying it.

[Dunderman]

Then why is almost all the criticism of what he’s saying, and very little of how he’s saying it?

[bbs2k]

@Alessan

**bbs2k ** - while you criticism of lissener’s posting style is certainly valid, you’re not doing yourself any favors with your OP.

I told you already dammit.

Call me Mainstream!

Okay okay, c’mon. I’m just trying to have a little fun at the expense of a very bizarre thread. And when have I ever actually done myself any favors here?

[Omegaman]

@bbs2k

I told you already dammit.

Call me Mainstream!

Okay okay, c’mon. I’m just trying to have a little fun at the expense of a very bizarre thread. And when have I ever actually done myself any favors here?

Well have yourself some fun, Mainstream!

[Linty_Fresh]

@Priceguy

Am I the only one who honestly understands what lissener is getting at in that thread? Granted, I’ve seen neither Rambo nor Saw (or Hostel, or Captive) but while I may not be able to put it into exact words I can see a divide between the former and the latter. Much like porn I can’t tell you what it is but I know it when I see it.

You’re not the only one. I feel exactly the same way. I can’t describe it either, but it’s sort of like in Rambo, the violence itself is secondary to the plot. Rambo is burned out and refuses to help, and then Rambo changes his mind and rescues a bunch of people, and then Rambo isn’t burned out anymore. The violence is secondary to the plot. I mean, there’s a whole lot of it, but if a studio exec unwisely decided to omit it, you’d still have a movie with a plot.

In torture porn films like Hostel, the violence is the plot. Omitting the blood, gore, and sadism from those films would be like omitting the sex from real porn. You’d wind up with a five minute movie, and none of it would make any sense. The gore’s the entire point of the movie, even more so than the 80’s slasher flicks which could be–and were–shown on broadcast TV without the worst of the blood. That’s about as good as I can describe the difference, and I admit that it’s not that good.

And as far as lissener’s posting style? Hey, I’m no fan of him either, but I have to say that he was behaving himself in that thread. He showed courtesy and good form, and he actually considered the opinion of people who disagreed with him. Definitions for concepts like “mainstream” are like definitions for concepts like racism; ask 20 people for the meaning, and you’ll get 21 different answers. lissener was just trying to use his own definition, and since he started the thread, I’d say he had the right to set it for that discussion. I don’t see how anyone could pit him for anything in that thread.

[Justin_Bailey]

@Linty Fresh

And as far as lissener’s posting style? Hey, I’m no fan of him either, but I have to say that he was behaving himself in that thread. He showed courtesy and good form, and he actually considered the opinion of people who disagreed with him. Definitions for concepts like “mainstream” are like definitions for concepts like racism; ask 20 people for the meaning, and you’ll get 21 different answers. lissener was just trying to use his own definition, and since he started the thread, I’d say he had the right to set it for that discussion. I don’t see how anyone could pit him for anything in that thread.

Except lissener never defined mainstream and it felt like the definition kept changing when people would bring evidence that maybe Saw was a mainstream movie too or maybe Rambo wasn’t a mainstream movie.

[Loach]

@Priceguy

Am I the only one who honestly understands what lissener is getting at in that thread? Granted, I’ve seen neither Rambo nor Saw (or Hostel, or Captive) but while I may not be able to put it into exact words I can see a divide between the former and the latter. Much like porn I can’t tell you what it is but I know it when I see it.

I was going to post the same thing in that thread then decided to just leave. It was pretty easy to understand.

It’s not what he’s saying, it’s how he’s saying it.

Its more like how he has said things in the past. I have had my problems with how lissener has said things in the past. This is not one of them. He is getting annoyed with good reason. Seems to me that people argue, hijack and goad him just because he has annoyed them in the past. There is nothing wrong with setting up limits in a CS thread. He made those limits clear. People keep poking him with sticks.

[Tamerlane]

@Linty Fresh

And as far as lissener’s posting style? Hey, I’m no fan of him either, but I have to say that he was behaving himself in that thread. He showed courtesy and good form, and he actually considered the opinion of people who disagreed with him. Definitions for concepts like “mainstream” are like definitions for concepts like racism; ask 20 people for the meaning, and you’ll get 21 different answers. lissener was just trying to use his own definition, and since he started the thread, I’d say he had the right to set it for that discussion. I don’t see how anyone could pit him for anything in that thread.

@Loach

Its more like how he has said things in the past. I have had my problems with how lissener has said things in the past. This is not one of them. He is getting annoyed with good reason. Seems to me that people argue, hijack and goad him just because he has annoyed them in the past. There is nothing wrong with setting up limits in a CS thread. He made those limits clear. People keep poking him with sticks.

Pretty much as above. I find this vaguely similar to Czarcasm’s recent pitting of tendentious posting in his poll thread. While I was little confused by lissener’s thread at first ( I didn’t even realize there was a new Rambo movie out ), it soon became obvious what he meant.

[Cisco]

I am seriously confused by this thread, even after reading (ok, skimming) the companion thread.

[Autolycus]

My cat’s breath smells like cat food.

[Boyo_Jim]

I found it annoying that lissner said anyone who offered some differing opinion was hijacking the thread – about a dozen times all told.

[Loach]

@Boyo Jim

I found it annoying that lissner said anyone who offered some differing opinion was hijacking the thread – about a dozen times all told.

Looked like a hijack to me.

[lissener]

@Boyo Jim

I found it annoying that lissner said anyone who offered some differing opinion was hijacking the thread – about a dozen times all told.

That’s a flat lie.

Anyone who offered a differing opinion regarding movies—the actual content of the thread—received a thoughtful, civil answer, addressing the movies they suggested and why I agreed/disagreed with them. Only the posts chewing over the various connotations of the word “mainstream” were labeled as hijacks.

I asked you, in the thread, where you first stated this lie, to please cite me a post to the contrary, upon which I will, at the very least, apologize. Instead of which, rather than actually finding a post wherein I do anything but civilly engage with anyone who had a differing opinion on *Rambo *or any other movie, you simply come in here to restate the lie.’

Cite me or you’re exposed as a liar.

[Equipoise]

I’m so confused! Are you Pitting lissener’s reasonable OP and his polite, intelligent and quite correct attempts to keep the thread from being hijacked, or are you Pitting the asshole dicks who hijacked it?

[Boyo_Jim]

@lissener

That’s a flat lie.

Anyone who offered a differing opinion regarding movies—the actual content of the thread—received a thoughtful, civil answer, addressing the movies they suggested and why I agreed/disagreed with them. Only the posts chewing over the various connotations of the word “mainstream” were labeled as hijacks.

I asked you, in the thread, where you first stated this lie, to please cite me a post to the contrary, upon which I will, at the very least, apologize. Instead of which, rather than actually finding a post wherein I do anything but civilly engage with anyone who had a differing opinion on *Rambo *or any other movie, you simply come in here to restate the lie.’

Cite me or you’re exposed as a liar.

These are some of your posts from the OP linked thread.
Post 19:

Can you start another thread for the hijack?

Post 26:

sorry if you insist on giving the word mainstream the wobbliest possible non-definition (if it includes ANY movie ever made) of a definition, and I’m sorrier still that you insist on prolonging this hijack. But I think I’ve made it clear enough that extreme genre movies that appeal to a specific audience are NOT included in my use of the word “mainstream” in this context. Clarifying that for people who refuse to read for comprehension and who insist on diverting the thread back, over and over again, to this hijack, is NOT redefining the word, by any stretch.

Post 49:

Well, since the hijack continues to live–several people have come into this thread not to participate in the actual discussion, but simply to keep the hijack going–I’ll address it again.

Post 57:

I guess this is progress, though; the “mainstream” hijack has ended, and the “blockbuster” hijack can now begin.

Post 67:

The only hijack I’ve asked people to drop was continued harping on the meaning of the word “mainstream” after I’d clarified my intended meaning over and over again.

Post 74:

I’m done repeating myself, so feel free to backtrack and read upthread. Otherwise, I’m gonna pretty much ignore hijacks from here on out.

Post 79:

you’ve read the thread, you’ll see that the only contention has been in the hijack devoted to wordchoice in the OP.

[lissener]

Thanks for admitting you’re a liar. Every single one of those quotes was about the hijack, not about movies. Everyone who disagreed with me about a movie got a civil, constructive response.