The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
In another thread, Tiltawhirl wrote:
"13 year olds should not be watching Battle Royal"
I'd disagree with him there.
I think it should be required viewing in schools, just befor a field trip.
To show these kids what could happen if they continue to bunk off and shout at teachers and don't realise that knowledge makes you powerful.
And I also think they should show Requiem for a Dream at secondary school.
If anything is going to turn people off drugs, that movie will do it.
Having said that, unfortunately I think a lot of people will miss the point of these movies and just sit there laughing and thinking "this is cool!".
It's the reason why Police Stop! videos sell, not so people can see how stupid some are, but to laugh at moo at the crashes.
It's also the reason that a lot of people are saying that The Simpsons has lost it's humour in the later series.
I'd disagree, if anything the writing has become sharper and more viscious.
But a lot of people don't want that, they want to see Homer say "doh" and fall down.
They miss the fact that The Simpsons is one of the most subversive, counter-culture shows playing right now, and it's syndicated to most countries in the world.
The humour hasn't disappeared, you just can't see it anymore.
I think that's fantastic, a show that regularly takes potshots at religion, government, tv as entertainment-for-the-masses just doesn't get noticed as such, it's a cartoon with Homer saying "Doh"
That's the danger with trying to do something a little different, or to try and be sly and subversive about your message - a lot of people are going to miss the point and just hyuck-hyuck with laughter whilst shovelling down nachos and pointing at the screen.
But as long as there are some people throwing little barely-noticeable jokes/references in so that some people can go "oh yeah! Fantastic!" then I'm happy.
Because the day all shows/movies are on one level only, then that's the day I fire up my ship and head home.
It's why Brasseye caused so much fuss, because a majority of the people that watched it had no clue who Chris Morris was or what he does.
For fans, it was top-class comedy, but we all remember the outcry from people that just didn't get it.
Why?
Because for them, tv is there for soap operas and gameshows, they don't want to be challanged or forced to think.
It's there because "when I come in, I like to switch my mind off".
And that's cool, but you run the risk of stumbling into a programme that is just way over your head and getting nervous because it's not like your other shows.
People that like to watch gameshows and programmes about gardening shouldn't be watching things like Brass Eye, or watching movies like Battle Royale/Requiem for a Dream because they have no experience of it and they end up like rabbits in headlights, leading to outcry and "ban this filth".
My mum is the perfect example of this.
She watches soap operas and likes Hollywood movies.
She asks me if I have any DVDs worth watching, and when I show her Battle Royale, Requiem, Ring, Sexy Beast, she doesn't like them because "they're weird".
But she knows it's not her thing and doesn't watch.
The people that don't get it, yet continue to watch and then start screaming about it being "unsuitable" is stupid.
It all comes back to lyrics by Suicidal Tendencies in a song called "Can't Bring Me Down"
"And just because you don't know what's going on
Doesn't mean it don't make no sense
And just because you don't like it
Don't mean it ain't no good"
You watch Battle Royale and get off on the blood and the head with the hand-grenade in it's mouth.
I watch it as a critique on the state of society and a warning about where we're headed if we continue on this current path.
I'm not saying my way is more valid than yours, but you won't hear me demand a film be banned, just because I didn't "get it".
Personally, I'd ban Pretty Woman.
I think that's one of the most dangerous movies I've seen in a long time.
What's the message of that film?
"Hey girls, come to Hollywood, be a hooker! You'll meet a Richard Gere who will want to marry you!", when what it should say is "Hey girls, come to Hollywood, be a hooker! You'll end up on drugs making pornos or possibly found dead in a dumpster with multiple head injuries from a pyscho trick you met!"
It's all about making sure you don't get out of your depth, or if you do, then at least trying to understand what you're watching before you start to cry.
---
Jesus, what a long topic.
I always do this in the twilight hours don't I?
"13 year olds should not be watching Battle Royal"
I'd disagree with him there.
I think it should be required viewing in schools, just befor a field trip.
To show these kids what could happen if they continue to bunk off and shout at teachers and don't realise that knowledge makes you powerful.
And I also think they should show Requiem for a Dream at secondary school.
If anything is going to turn people off drugs, that movie will do it.
Having said that, unfortunately I think a lot of people will miss the point of these movies and just sit there laughing and thinking "this is cool!".
It's the reason why Police Stop! videos sell, not so people can see how stupid some are, but to laugh at moo at the crashes.
It's also the reason that a lot of people are saying that The Simpsons has lost it's humour in the later series.
I'd disagree, if anything the writing has become sharper and more viscious.
But a lot of people don't want that, they want to see Homer say "doh" and fall down.
They miss the fact that The Simpsons is one of the most subversive, counter-culture shows playing right now, and it's syndicated to most countries in the world.
The humour hasn't disappeared, you just can't see it anymore.
I think that's fantastic, a show that regularly takes potshots at religion, government, tv as entertainment-for-the-masses just doesn't get noticed as such, it's a cartoon with Homer saying "Doh"
That's the danger with trying to do something a little different, or to try and be sly and subversive about your message - a lot of people are going to miss the point and just hyuck-hyuck with laughter whilst shovelling down nachos and pointing at the screen.
But as long as there are some people throwing little barely-noticeable jokes/references in so that some people can go "oh yeah! Fantastic!" then I'm happy.
Because the day all shows/movies are on one level only, then that's the day I fire up my ship and head home.
It's why Brasseye caused so much fuss, because a majority of the people that watched it had no clue who Chris Morris was or what he does.
For fans, it was top-class comedy, but we all remember the outcry from people that just didn't get it.
Why?
Because for them, tv is there for soap operas and gameshows, they don't want to be challanged or forced to think.
It's there because "when I come in, I like to switch my mind off".
And that's cool, but you run the risk of stumbling into a programme that is just way over your head and getting nervous because it's not like your other shows.
People that like to watch gameshows and programmes about gardening shouldn't be watching things like Brass Eye, or watching movies like Battle Royale/Requiem for a Dream because they have no experience of it and they end up like rabbits in headlights, leading to outcry and "ban this filth".
My mum is the perfect example of this.
She watches soap operas and likes Hollywood movies.
She asks me if I have any DVDs worth watching, and when I show her Battle Royale, Requiem, Ring, Sexy Beast, she doesn't like them because "they're weird".
But she knows it's not her thing and doesn't watch.
The people that don't get it, yet continue to watch and then start screaming about it being "unsuitable" is stupid.
It all comes back to lyrics by Suicidal Tendencies in a song called "Can't Bring Me Down"
"And just because you don't know what's going on
Doesn't mean it don't make no sense
And just because you don't like it
Don't mean it ain't no good"
You watch Battle Royale and get off on the blood and the head with the hand-grenade in it's mouth.
I watch it as a critique on the state of society and a warning about where we're headed if we continue on this current path.
I'm not saying my way is more valid than yours, but you won't hear me demand a film be banned, just because I didn't "get it".
Personally, I'd ban Pretty Woman.
I think that's one of the most dangerous movies I've seen in a long time.
What's the message of that film?
"Hey girls, come to Hollywood, be a hooker! You'll meet a Richard Gere who will want to marry you!", when what it should say is "Hey girls, come to Hollywood, be a hooker! You'll end up on drugs making pornos or possibly found dead in a dumpster with multiple head injuries from a pyscho trick you met!"
It's all about making sure you don't get out of your depth, or if you do, then at least trying to understand what you're watching before you start to cry.
---
Jesus, what a long topic.
I always do this in the twilight hours don't I?
Seems as good a place as any to say this again. Sure, Battle Royale is a great film in a moral and representative style. It does indeed show how the effect of child truancy can ruin a country.
But I doubt any of you, me included, thought that all the way through. Head with grenade - great horror/slash type moment. I wasn't thinking "Wow, that shows social degeneration." I was in fact thinking "Cool! Now shoot him."
Because thats what half the film is. Blood and gore and stuff. It gets it's message across harshly and shockingly, and I applaud it for that, but I don't see it as just that. I also see it as an enjoyable hackfest. Maybe I'm just shallow.
Another example of this would be Dogma. I always rant on about Dogma. It shows how antiquated Catholic dogma is having an effect on the religious community. But thats not I saw all the way through. I saw Jay making dick jokes, Matt Damon being comically dopey.
These sort of films rule, because you can see two meanings in them and enjoy both in different senses of the word.
But I doubt any of you, me included, thought that all the way through. Head with grenade - great horror/slash type moment. I wasn't thinking "Wow, that shows social degeneration." I was in fact thinking "Cool! Now shoot him."
Because thats what half the film is. Blood and gore and stuff. It gets it's message across harshly and shockingly, and I applaud it for that, but I don't see it as just that. I also see it as an enjoyable hackfest. Maybe I'm just shallow.
Another example of this would be Dogma. I always rant on about Dogma. It shows how antiquated Catholic dogma is having an effect on the religious community. But thats not I saw all the way through. I saw Jay making dick jokes, Matt Damon being comically dopey.
These sort of films rule, because you can see two meanings in them and enjoy both in different senses of the word.
I thought about the Requiem certificate - or at least showing it to schoolchildren - since the post I did. And I'm coming round to a different opinion mainly from seeing the people who come on a Friday lunch time to borrow DVD's. It scares me that some of them, a minority, are deemed old enough, at 18, to watch any film because i wouldn't trust some of them with many 15 certificate films, let alone Requiem or Battle Royale. I mean the idiot who took out BR went off boasting to his friend about how much more violent it was than Western films. Not saying. Boasting. Without a doubt any notion of a deeper meaning in the film will fly straight over his head, and if you made him watch Requiem at the same time there would probably be a minor aviation disaster in the region of his head.
But these people are a minority. And I got a kick out of recommending alternative films to people whose first choice had already gone. One guy went off with Magnolia, another with Being John Malkovich, someone else with Sexy Beast and another with Amores Perros. It's brilliant when you know that the film you're giving someone won't just be something to watch after coming home from the pub on a Friday night, it might actually change their perception, or spark an interest in challenging films.
The problem with a challenging film is not just that not everyone will 'get it' but also the newspapers, particularly the Mail and Express, will do everything in their power to apportion blame to the film for subverting. Newspapers have created a climate in which criminals can almost justify their crime so long as it was provoked by a nasty subversive film. Imagine the furore there will be if someone goes out and inadvertently, or deliberately, emulates a killing from Battle Royale. Everyone will be swept along in a ban-this-film movement. The danger of the challenging film it influences people. I mean influence in its literal sense, for instance over half the people I know who've watched Requiem said that it made them want to cry, or actually just cry, at the end. When a film can achieve that impact it's inevitably going to be condemned as the chances are it could provoke an entirely different reaction in someone else. Particularly if they do not understand the film.
I know I'm meandering but my basic point is that challenging films are great, but I really wouldn't show them to some people more than old enough to watch them. Because sometimes it's not about age. It's about understanding and interpretting. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be allowed to watch some films no matter how old you are.
And I would ban the Daily Mail for being the largest inhibitor of personal freedoms in this country. If you look through the paper's illustrious history I wonder how many publications it has managed to get banned. I know that the paper was certainly one of the figures in getting "Last Exit to Brooklyn" by Hubert Selby banned in this country. And that case sums up the argument. Even though they had academics reading the book out loud and providing a detailed literary commentary, explaining its worth as a piece of literature, the jury still decided to vote in favour of banning the book. You will always get people who don't understand something that challenges they way they think, and these people are the main reason why challenging films need to stay out of the mainstream.
hmmm, it made vague sense when I read it through a moment ago... I'm going to bed now.
But these people are a minority. And I got a kick out of recommending alternative films to people whose first choice had already gone. One guy went off with Magnolia, another with Being John Malkovich, someone else with Sexy Beast and another with Amores Perros. It's brilliant when you know that the film you're giving someone won't just be something to watch after coming home from the pub on a Friday night, it might actually change their perception, or spark an interest in challenging films.
The problem with a challenging film is not just that not everyone will 'get it' but also the newspapers, particularly the Mail and Express, will do everything in their power to apportion blame to the film for subverting. Newspapers have created a climate in which criminals can almost justify their crime so long as it was provoked by a nasty subversive film. Imagine the furore there will be if someone goes out and inadvertently, or deliberately, emulates a killing from Battle Royale. Everyone will be swept along in a ban-this-film movement. The danger of the challenging film it influences people. I mean influence in its literal sense, for instance over half the people I know who've watched Requiem said that it made them want to cry, or actually just cry, at the end. When a film can achieve that impact it's inevitably going to be condemned as the chances are it could provoke an entirely different reaction in someone else. Particularly if they do not understand the film.
I know I'm meandering but my basic point is that challenging films are great, but I really wouldn't show them to some people more than old enough to watch them. Because sometimes it's not about age. It's about understanding and interpretting. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be allowed to watch some films no matter how old you are.
And I would ban the Daily Mail for being the largest inhibitor of personal freedoms in this country. If you look through the paper's illustrious history I wonder how many publications it has managed to get banned. I know that the paper was certainly one of the figures in getting "Last Exit to Brooklyn" by Hubert Selby banned in this country. And that case sums up the argument. Even though they had academics reading the book out loud and providing a detailed literary commentary, explaining its worth as a piece of literature, the jury still decided to vote in favour of banning the book. You will always get people who don't understand something that challenges they way they think, and these people are the main reason why challenging films need to stay out of the mainstream.
hmmm, it made vague sense when I read it through a moment ago... I'm going to bed now.
In another thread, Tiltawhirl wrote:
"13 year olds should not be watching Battle Royal"
I'd disagree with him there.
I think it should be required viewing in schools, just befor a field trip.
To show these kids what could happen if they continue to bunk off and shout at teachers and don't realise that knowledge makes you powerful.
And I also think they should show Requiem for a Dream at secondary school.
If anything is going to turn people off drugs, that movie will do it.
Having said that, unfortunately I think a lot of people will miss the point of these movies and just sit there laughing and thinking "this is cool!".
It's the reason why Police Stop! videos sell, not so people can see how stupid some are, but to laugh at moo at the crashes.
It's also the reason that a lot of people are saying that The Simpsons has lost it's humour in the later series.
I'd disagree, if anything the writing has become sharper and more viscious.
But a lot of people don't want that, they want to see Homer say "doh" and fall down.
They miss the fact that The Simpsons is one of the most subversive, counter-culture shows playing right now, and it's syndicated to most countries in the world.
The humour hasn't disappeared, you just can't see it anymore.
I think that's fantastic, a show that regularly takes potshots at religion, government, tv as entertainment-for-the-masses just doesn't get noticed as such, it's a cartoon with Homer saying "Doh"
That's the danger with trying to do something a little different, or to try and be sly and subversive about your message - a lot of people are going to miss the point and just hyuck-hyuck with laughter whilst shovelling down nachos and pointing at the screen.
But as long as there are some people throwing little barely-noticeable jokes/references in so that some people can go "oh yeah! Fantastic!" then I'm happy.
Because the day all shows/movies are on one level only, then that's the day I fire up my ship and head home.
It's why Brasseye caused so much fuss, because a majority of the people that watched it had no clue who Chris Morris was or what he does.
For fans, it was top-class comedy, but we all remember the outcry from people that just didn't get it.
Why?
Because for them, tv is there for soap operas and gameshows, they don't want to be challanged or forced to think.
It's there because "when I come in, I like to switch my mind off".
And that's cool, but you run the risk of stumbling into a programme that is just way over your head and getting nervous because it's not like your other shows.
People that like to watch gameshows and programmes about gardening shouldn't be watching things like Brass Eye, or watching movies like Battle Royale/Requiem for a Dream because they have no experience of it and they end up like rabbits in headlights, leading to outcry and "ban this filth".
My mum is the perfect example of this.
She watches soap operas and likes Hollywood movies.
She asks me if I have any DVDs worth watching, and when I show her Battle Royale, Requiem, Ring, Sexy Beast, she doesn't like them because "they're weird".
But she knows it's not her thing and doesn't watch.
The people that don't get it, yet continue to watch and then start screaming about it being "unsuitable" is stupid.
It all comes back to lyrics by Suicidal Tendencies in a song called "Can't Bring Me Down"
"And just because you don't know what's going on
Doesn't mean it don't make no sense
And just because you don't like it
Don't mean it ain't no good"
You watch Battle Royale and get off on the blood and the head with the hand-grenade in it's mouth.
I watch it as a critique on the state of society and a warning about where we're headed if we continue on this current path.
I'm not saying my way is more valid than yours, but you won't hear me demand a film be banned, just because I didn't "get it".
Personally, I'd ban Pretty Woman.
I think that's one of the most dangerous movies I've seen in a long time.
What's the message of that film?
"Hey girls, come to Hollywood, be a hooker! You'll meet a Richard Gere who will want to marry you!", when what it should say is "Hey girls, come to Hollywood, be a hooker! You'll end up on drugs making pornos or possibly found dead in a dumpster with multiple head injuries from a pyscho trick you met!"
It's all about making sure you don't get out of your depth, or if you do, then at least trying to understand what you're watching before you start to cry.
---
Jesus, what a long topic.
I always do this in the twilight hours don't I?
"13 year olds should not be watching Battle Royal"
I'd disagree with him there.
I think it should be required viewing in schools, just befor a field trip.
To show these kids what could happen if they continue to bunk off and shout at teachers and don't realise that knowledge makes you powerful.
And I also think they should show Requiem for a Dream at secondary school.
If anything is going to turn people off drugs, that movie will do it.
Having said that, unfortunately I think a lot of people will miss the point of these movies and just sit there laughing and thinking "this is cool!".
It's the reason why Police Stop! videos sell, not so people can see how stupid some are, but to laugh at moo at the crashes.
It's also the reason that a lot of people are saying that The Simpsons has lost it's humour in the later series.
I'd disagree, if anything the writing has become sharper and more viscious.
But a lot of people don't want that, they want to see Homer say "doh" and fall down.
They miss the fact that The Simpsons is one of the most subversive, counter-culture shows playing right now, and it's syndicated to most countries in the world.
The humour hasn't disappeared, you just can't see it anymore.
I think that's fantastic, a show that regularly takes potshots at religion, government, tv as entertainment-for-the-masses just doesn't get noticed as such, it's a cartoon with Homer saying "Doh"
That's the danger with trying to do something a little different, or to try and be sly and subversive about your message - a lot of people are going to miss the point and just hyuck-hyuck with laughter whilst shovelling down nachos and pointing at the screen.
But as long as there are some people throwing little barely-noticeable jokes/references in so that some people can go "oh yeah! Fantastic!" then I'm happy.
Because the day all shows/movies are on one level only, then that's the day I fire up my ship and head home.
It's why Brasseye caused so much fuss, because a majority of the people that watched it had no clue who Chris Morris was or what he does.
For fans, it was top-class comedy, but we all remember the outcry from people that just didn't get it.
Why?
Because for them, tv is there for soap operas and gameshows, they don't want to be challanged or forced to think.
It's there because "when I come in, I like to switch my mind off".
And that's cool, but you run the risk of stumbling into a programme that is just way over your head and getting nervous because it's not like your other shows.
People that like to watch gameshows and programmes about gardening shouldn't be watching things like Brass Eye, or watching movies like Battle Royale/Requiem for a Dream because they have no experience of it and they end up like rabbits in headlights, leading to outcry and "ban this filth".
My mum is the perfect example of this.
She watches soap operas and likes Hollywood movies.
She asks me if I have any DVDs worth watching, and when I show her Battle Royale, Requiem, Ring, Sexy Beast, she doesn't like them because "they're weird".
But she knows it's not her thing and doesn't watch.
The people that don't get it, yet continue to watch and then start screaming about it being "unsuitable" is stupid.
It all comes back to lyrics by Suicidal Tendencies in a song called "Can't Bring Me Down"
"And just because you don't know what's going on
Doesn't mean it don't make no sense
And just because you don't like it
Don't mean it ain't no good"
You watch Battle Royale and get off on the blood and the head with the hand-grenade in it's mouth.
I watch it as a critique on the state of society and a warning about where we're headed if we continue on this current path.
I'm not saying my way is more valid than yours, but you won't hear me demand a film be banned, just because I didn't "get it".
Personally, I'd ban Pretty Woman.
I think that's one of the most dangerous movies I've seen in a long time.
What's the message of that film?
"Hey girls, come to Hollywood, be a hooker! You'll meet a Richard Gere who will want to marry you!", when what it should say is "Hey girls, come to Hollywood, be a hooker! You'll end up on drugs making pornos or possibly found dead in a dumpster with multiple head injuries from a pyscho trick you met!"
It's all about making sure you don't get out of your depth, or if you do, then at least trying to understand what you're watching before you start to cry.
---
Jesus, what a long topic.
I always do this in the twilight hours don't I?