Hey, I like dopey romcoms and mindless action movies and cerebral thrillers too! :mad:
Anyway… I am used to consuming horror alone. My fiance isn’t into it… at least, not like I am. He’s a nice, relatively sheltered guy. The Evil Dead remake is about his limit. He reacts to jump-scares, whereas I am very hard to startle. It’s cute, though 
Yipes. I wrote the wrong title for the movie. It was Osama, not Obama.
Sometime in my early forties I just kind of hit ’ Full Up’ !
I just lost any appetite and or tolerance for yet another murder scene, getting inside the head of some twisted criminal, seeing people shot, raped, murdered, tortured, etc, etc. and I have to say life got a little sweeter without exposure to such things
Graphic hyper violence, no matter how integral to the story line puts me off. Elude to violence or mayhem, okay. Showing me though, I’m not up for that.
I was raised amid dysfunction, conflict, drama and chaos so watching it as entertainment, in the form of ‘reality’ tv shows that have pretty much preselected for those very things, holds zero appeal for me.
Not unfamiliar with actual physical violence, I find boxing and MMA type things impossible to abide, I just leave the room, pronto.
I prefer my entertainment to amuse, not disturb. I am aware it’s probably just me, but I’m okay with that!
Doesn’t bother me at all.
When I was growing up my dad was fond of renting action/horror movies, some of which could be quite gory and scary for a 5-10 year old (Terminator, Predator, Aliens, Leviathan, etc.), but he’d let me watch them with him. When something gory happened, he’d pause the tape and explain the special effects to me; the blood is just dyed corn syrup, the monster was just a guy in a suit, that’s not really a severed head it’s just a rubber sculpture of the actor’s head, etc. After that, it was all just special effects to me; I learned to appreciate the craft of it, rather than just gawk at the spectacle of it.
This. I don’t do torture porn, but don’t mind bloodiness otherwise.
My tolerance is high, but I don’t want to watch House of 1000 Corpses even once a year. A Tarantino movie is at most a once in a year event. I only desire levels like that very rarely. For everyday consumption I prefer slightly less gore (as a maximum) than featured in HBO’s Game of Thrones, for instance.
I will say Requiem for a Dream fucked me up but good. That one gave me nightmares in ways standard horror flicks can’t.
On the other side of the coin, 28 Days Later is my favorite movie.
Yeah, I agree. My post above may have implied that I’m down with the Hostel, Saw, etc… type movies, and that’s not the case. Nor do I particularly enjoy the super-gory parts of war movies.
That said, in a movie like say… Saving Private Ryan, it makes sense to be realistic. That violence and realism is part of the story. Filming the same movie, but with 1960’s style war movie violence, it just wouldn’t have nearly the same impact. Similarly, putting modern style war movie realism into a movie like The Longest Day wouldn’t quite work either, unless the point was to transform it from being a somewhat jingoistic movie about D-Day into a firmly anti-war movie. Note that Band of Brothers was made more or less by the same people at about the same time as SPR, and toned down a lot of the gore- having that level of realism would have distracted from the storytelling about the guys in the company.
Gore used to creep me out. For some reason, it stopped having that effect on me in my mid-twenties (I am now 53). I can watch pretty much anything, and even eat while doing so. I don’t know what exactly shifted inside my brain to make this happen, though…
Right. Torture porn is crap.
The violence in SPR was horrible but realistic and thus acceptable.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
I don’t mind gore if it’s part of a story. I dislike gore for it’s own sake. I really hate torture flicks because I sympathize too much with the victim.
[/QUOTE]
This, more or less. I don’t like torture porn, not because I sympathize with the victim, but because depictions of torture for its own sake take up screen time that could be used for something that I find entertaining - ironic humor, plot or character development, bare breasts - almost anything.
I watched the first Saw movie, and realized after it was over and I had discounted the torture parts, there wasn’t a whole lot more to the movie. So I have not bothered with the rest. The movie I would compare it to, favorably, is Shaun of the Dead, which was gory but clever and entertaining as well. Or the original Night of the Living Dead, which I recently rewatched and which holds up pretty well. There, after you discount the horrifying parts, the philosophical point remains, which is that it is a true tragedy - everyone dies, and that is the point. Plus it is black and white, which not only distances from the gore but makes the movie bleaker and thus reinforces the point.
Regards,
Shodan
So you work for Fox News, then. 
eta: I’m curious who was the one person who selected the Miss Marple option.
Movie blood and violence largely bore me. There has to be an interesting story to keep my attention.
This, definitely, for me. It’s actually a lot more tolerable if someone else seems to care. If you have a character with horrific injuries and someone is helping them, it’s not so bad. If someone is intentionally causing them pain, or just leaving a victim to suffer, it’s a lot worse. I generally find zombie kills in The Walking Dead disturbing because someone is getting eaten alive and no one even thinks to put them out of their misery.
But gore is part of it - I can deal with purely painful torture a lot more than torture that also significantly injures the victim.
Some other differences are harder to explain. I largely find the gore in Kill Bill amusing and fun. Perhaps because the people who lose limbs, etc., are actively baddies who are attacking the protagonist. At the very least, the “victims” bought into that way of life. But Inglourious Basterds was different - I found it quite disturbing to feel like I was supposed to be cheering the violent murders of ordinary soldiers and civilians who did not need to be killed.
It also depends a lot on my mood. In the wrong mood, gory things that would otherwise be hilarious just make me feel bad.
::timidly raises hand::
I had to laugh when I saw the choices; the Miss Marple option was very nearly perfect for me. Typically I tell people that Law & Order classic is the top of my gore meter (I can’t even watch SVU – but mostly because of the emotional, rather than physical trauma).
I’m fairly certain that I have never seen a movie that would qualify as a horror movie. I really, really don’t like being afraid, even in a fictional “nothing bad is going to happen to you” context.
I have seen all of the TOS/Next Generation Star Trek movies, the original Star Wars trilogy, the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies, and all of Harry Potter. Those are probably the most violent/scary movies that I have seen.
Pretty much anything except torture porn. If sadistic violence is the plot, then you’ve lost the plot.
That was funny. I thought you were making a political statement and thought it was a weird place to be doing that. 
I’ll be the second person to choose the Miss Marple option. I’m curious why you’re curious. Violence and horror don’t appeal to me. My tastes in movies and TV are pretty similar to SpoilerVirgin.
It’s hard for me to answer the poll because it depends. For books, I love gore. The more the better. I’m a big fan of gore-heavy horror authors like Graham Masterton, and even the real-life stuff doesn’t bother me that much in written form.
For TV or movie gore, it depends on the context. I can eat dinner while watching CSI or House with no ill effects, but I hate slasher movies, torture porn, etc. I won’t watch movies like Saw and Hostel.
I can look at still images of real-world violence (the kind of stuff they used to show on Rotten dot com) without much problem, but I can’t and won’t watch things like beheading videos or Faces of Death. I also won’t watch anything where an animal is injured and I don’t like watching weaker people being brutalized or bullied.
So…not sure where that puts me on the poll…I guess I’ll go with the second option as an average.
That doesn’t sound weird. In fact, you did a better job than I could of articulating it.
No option for me. I find gore itself to be perfectly fine. It’s the psychological stuff that bothers me. It’s close to zoid’s explanation, but not quite.
For example, I was actually severely disappointed with the Passion of the Christ. I thought I’d finally get to see real gore in a Crucifixion portrayal, but it still looked like a guy with blood spattered on him to me. It was only the psychological part that had any impact on me.
Yet everyone else I know was going on about how it was too gory. One person coined the word “gorn.” I didn’t see that at all.
You might want to hope they never adapt Sandman, then. 