|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 12, 2023 23:11:18 GMT
If your argument is that movies like a Taxi Driver, The Godfather, and Goodfellas are dangerous and a bad influence, and your only example is someone who was already mentally disturbed and was losing their sanity before even coming across them when everyone else has come out of viewing them fine without being motivation to commit crimes, then you have failed your premise and look incompetent in the process. People can take a liking to any fictional creation as they wish, even if it's a story's villain. At pop culture conventions you will find lots of people dressed up as The Joker, Harley Quinn, Wilson Fisk, The Green Goblin, Lex Luthor, and other villains, does that mean they are mentally ill as those characters are written as? You can think Victor Frankenstein was the true villain of the story, but that doesn't dismiss my point that people can still pity The Monster despite his horrible acts. The play has been retold for centuries and most adaptations tend to follow the original text to a T, if it is something of poor quality it wouldn't have as long an impact on history, but tell me how the story of Romeo and Juliet being of good or bad quality in anyway dismisses my argument? How many comic books of The Punisher have you read? I have a pretty decent sized collection and read stories from all different eras with the character including seen film and television iterations and video games, and even when he's presented as his most heroic neither does the writer or the artist present him as some sort of aspirational figure that everyone should look up to and admire like a Spider-Man or a Captain America. I have a valid example of someone, even with all the stuff said afterwards about him to try and deflect the blame away from the movie. And then there's the actual gangsters who decided to model themselves on the Corleones because of how glamorous the Godfather made them.
Depends on what they do based on their fascination with them. I don't recall the Joker ever inspiring a real life assassination.
It means we can easily argue back and forth on who the real villain is.
It's a great example of how a lot of people have tampered with its reputation and willfully allowed to be seen as a romance and not the tragedy it is.
And they still make him be seen as necessary or more pragmatic than other Marvel heroes and they make sure he never does anything like kill undercover cops and FBI Agents or interfere with Sting operations. Even James Bond got to plots like that before Punisher did.
That they were mentally unstable and were losing their sanity to the point of not being able to distinguish reality from fiction and could have become as fascinated with any other work invalidates your argument that the movie is solely to blame for his criminal activities, and on the whole that such films are dangerous for society. Please name the gangers who decided to model themselves after the characters in The Godfather then. So, you are willing to make exceptions to your argument? The Joker has done much worse than Travis Bickle and the characters in The Godfather movies and people like the character, and as you say you cannot recall anyone being inspired by them to attempt such a crime. And that doesn't dismiss it as an example of my argument that people can still take interest in characters who are not written as good people. The story was seen as a romance when it was originally conceived hundreds of years ago, it being a tragedy doesn't take away from it being a love story. However, once again, what you make of the story does not dismiss my argument. No examples, then. I also asked you just how many stories you have read with the character of Frank Castle, and if you can in any way cite any specific issue where he is made out to be an idealized heroic figure please do because I question just how familiar you are with the character - if memory serves, you don't like The Punisher and haven't bothered with the Netflix series.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 13, 2023 4:10:25 GMT
I have a valid example of someone, even with all the stuff said afterwards about him to try and deflect the blame away from the movie. And then there's the actual gangsters who decided to model themselves on the Corleones because of how glamorous the Godfather made them.
Depends on what they do based on their fascination with them. I don't recall the Joker ever inspiring a real life assassination.
It means we can easily argue back and forth on who the real villain is.
It's a great example of how a lot of people have tampered with its reputation and willfully allowed to be seen as a romance and not the tragedy it is.
And they still make him be seen as necessary or more pragmatic than other Marvel heroes and they make sure he never does anything like kill undercover cops and FBI Agents or interfere with Sting operations. Even James Bond got to plots like that before Punisher did.
That they were mentally unstable and were losing their sanity to the point of not being able to distinguish reality from fiction and could have become as fascinated with any other work invalidates your argument that the movie is solely to blame for his criminal activities, and on the whole that such films are dangerous for society. Please name the gangers who decided to model themselves after the characters in The Godfather then. So, you are willing to make exceptions to your argument? The Joker has done much worse than Travis Bickle and the characters in The Godfather movies and people like the character, and as you say you cannot recall anyone being inspired by them to attempt such a crime. And that doesn't dismiss it as an example of my argument that people can still take interest in characters who are not written as good people. The story was seen as a romance when it was originally conceived hundreds of years ago, it being a tragedy doesn't take away from it being a love story. However, once again, what you make of the story does not dismiss my argument. No examples, then. I also asked you just how many stories you have read with the character of Frank Castle, and if you can in any way cite any specific issue where he is made out to be an idealized heroic figure please do because I question just how familiar you are with the character - if memory serves, you don't like The Punisher and haven't bothered with the Netflix series. www.ibtimes.com/craig-stephen-hicks-chapel-hill-death-penalty-hearing-man-court-over-triple-murder-1870412Here's another example, with the film "Falling Down". And that film WAS smart enough to point out that the lead character was in the wrong.
Bottom line is, that guy drew inspiration from Taxi Driver and no one other movie.
It is when we can't even make up our minds as to who the real villain is. That way people can self-justify and say "Well the one I like wasn't the real bad guy"
It was always seen as a tragedy, that's why it ends with them both dead. The romance isn't even that good when looked at objectively. It being some epic romance is what it was corrupted into over the years by over-commercialization.
Fine, "Punisher kills the Marvel Universe" by that hack Garth Ennis. I think that's the prime example.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 13, 2023 7:03:28 GMT
That they were mentally unstable and were losing their sanity to the point of not being able to distinguish reality from fiction and could have become as fascinated with any other work invalidates your argument that the movie is solely to blame for his criminal activities, and on the whole that such films are dangerous for society. Please name the gangers who decided to model themselves after the characters in The Godfather then. So, you are willing to make exceptions to your argument? The Joker has done much worse than Travis Bickle and the characters in The Godfather movies and people like the character, and as you say you cannot recall anyone being inspired by them to attempt such a crime. And that doesn't dismiss it as an example of my argument that people can still take interest in characters who are not written as good people. The story was seen as a romance when it was originally conceived hundreds of years ago, it being a tragedy doesn't take away from it being a love story. However, once again, what you make of the story does not dismiss my argument. No examples, then. I also asked you just how many stories you have read with the character of Frank Castle, and if you can in any way cite any specific issue where he is made out to be an idealized heroic figure please do because I question just how familiar you are with the character - if memory serves, you don't like The Punisher and haven't bothered with the Netflix series. www.ibtimes.com/craig-stephen-hicks-chapel-hill-death-penalty-hearing-man-court-over-triple-murder-1870412Here's another example, with the film "Falling Down". And that film WAS smart enough to point out that the lead character was in the wrong.
Bottom line is, that guy drew inspiration from Taxi Driver and no one other movie.
It is when we can't even make up our minds as to who the real villain is. That way people can self-justify and say "Well the one I like wasn't the real bad guy"
It was always seen as a tragedy, that's why it ends with them both dead. The romance isn't even that good when looked at objectively. It being some epic romance is what it was corrupted into over the years by over-commercialization.
Fine, "Punisher kills the Marvel Universe" by that hack Garth Ennis. I think that's the prime example.
The wife of the criminal that the article is written about doesn't say that he was inspired by the film Falling Down, they said he would watch it and find it amusing, but she didn't say it was the cause for his insanity. Bottom line, both men were insane, but the movies did not start their downward spiral into madness. Just the same, the people in the article you share in relation to The Joker were also insane and dangerous, but The Joker character (And Harley Quinn as well who is mentioned in one example) did not originate their path towards insanity. I appreciate the link to the story in relation to The Godfather, however. Doesn't dismiss my point, you can think of The Monster as the villain or not but the character is not pure or good but can still be sympathized with. You don't have to think the romance in the story was any good and you can think people have been duped into thinking it is of good quality for so much time, that is irrelevant to my point. That story is a "What-If?" and not canon to the proper Marvel Universe, it retells the origin of The Punisher but still presents him as a dark vigilante that is mentally unstable and not heroic or admirably.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 13, 2023 23:09:49 GMT
www.ibtimes.com/craig-stephen-hicks-chapel-hill-death-penalty-hearing-man-court-over-triple-murder-1870412Here's another example, with the film "Falling Down". And that film WAS smart enough to point out that the lead character was in the wrong.
Bottom line is, that guy drew inspiration from Taxi Driver and no one other movie.
It is when we can't even make up our minds as to who the real villain is. That way people can self-justify and say "Well the one I like wasn't the real bad guy"
It was always seen as a tragedy, that's why it ends with them both dead. The romance isn't even that good when looked at objectively. It being some epic romance is what it was corrupted into over the years by over-commercialization.
Fine, "Punisher kills the Marvel Universe" by that hack Garth Ennis. I think that's the prime example.
The wife of the criminal that the article is written about doesn't say that he was inspired by the film Falling Down, they said he would watch it and find it amusing, but she didn't say it was the cause for his insanity. Bottom line, both men were insane, but the movies did not start their downward spiral into madness. Just the same, the people in the article you share in relation to The Joker were also insane and dangerous, but The Joker character (And Harley Quinn as well who is mentioned in one example) did not originate their path towards insanity. I appreciate the link to the story in relation to The Godfather, however. Doesn't dismiss my point, you can think of The Monster as the villain or not but the character is not pure or good but can still be sympathized with. You don't have to think the romance in the story was any good and you can think people have been duped into thinking it is of good quality for so much time, that is irrelevant to my point. That story is a "What-If?" and not canon to the proper Marvel Universe, it retells the origin of The Punisher but still presents him as a dark vigilante that is mentally unstable and not heroic or admirably. That they mention it in the article says a lot. She used it for a reason.
But it's still those movies they said drove them to it, despite the excuses made of "Oh well I'm sure they'd have done crazy stuff for some other reason".
If he's not the actual villain of the piece, it makes sense.
The point is, that it's not what it's been over-commericialized into being.
It's still a case where he's shown as a noble protagonist and everyone he kills as "deserving it" until that plot contrivance right at the end.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 14, 2023 0:21:15 GMT
The wife of the criminal that the article is written about doesn't say that he was inspired by the film Falling Down, they said he would watch it and find it amusing, but she didn't say it was the cause for his insanity. Bottom line, both men were insane, but the movies did not start their downward spiral into madness. Just the same, the people in the article you share in relation to The Joker were also insane and dangerous, but The Joker character (And Harley Quinn as well who is mentioned in one example) did not originate their path towards insanity. I appreciate the link to the story in relation to The Godfather, however. Doesn't dismiss my point, you can think of The Monster as the villain or not but the character is not pure or good but can still be sympathized with. You don't have to think the romance in the story was any good and you can think people have been duped into thinking it is of good quality for so much time, that is irrelevant to my point. That story is a "What-If?" and not canon to the proper Marvel Universe, it retells the origin of The Punisher but still presents him as a dark vigilante that is mentally unstable and not heroic or admirably. That they mention it in the article says a lot. She used it for a reason.
But it's still those movies they said drove them to it, despite the excuses made of "Oh well I'm sure they'd have done crazy stuff for some other reason".
If he's not the actual villain of the piece, it makes sense.
The point is, that it's not what it's been over-commericialized into being.
It's still a case where he's shown as a noble protagonist and everyone he kills as "deserving it" until that plot contrivance right at the end.
"But it's still" - give it a rest. The people you have been referencing were, as mentioned in the articles shared in relation to Taxi Driver, Falling Down, and the characters of The Joker and Harley Quinn, mentally disturbed beta males and beta females who were already declining in sanity before they were exposed to such media. Not one of these individuals were said to have been mentally healthy before their exposure to such media. Also give this a rest, please. I used The Monster as an example of a character who is not pure of heart and not a good person that any person can have sympathy for. Give this a rest as well, you can write a 100-page document about why Romeo and Juliet is not a good story and why the masses have been duped into thinking it's an epic romance and it wouldn't mean a thing in regard to my use of its titular characters as an example of people being engaged by them despite their flaws. He isn't shown as a noble protagonist in that story, he's the same unstable loner with no hope for a bright future, it's telling the scenario if the cause of his family's deaths were the result of superhero activity, not mob activity.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 14, 2023 0:49:11 GMT
That they mention it in the article says a lot. She used it for a reason.
But it's still those movies they said drove them to it, despite the excuses made of "Oh well I'm sure they'd have done crazy stuff for some other reason".
If he's not the actual villain of the piece, it makes sense.
The point is, that it's not what it's been over-commericialized into being.
It's still a case where he's shown as a noble protagonist and everyone he kills as "deserving it" until that plot contrivance right at the end.
"But it's still" - give it a rest. The people you have been referencing were, as mentioned in the articles shared in relation to Taxi Driver, Falling Down, and the characters of The Joker and Harley Quinn, mentally disturbed beta males and beta females who were already declining in sanity before they were exposed to such media. Not one of these individuals were said to have been mentally healthy before their exposure to such media. Also give this a rest, please. I used The Monster as an example of a character who is not pure of heart and not a good person that any person can have sympathy for. Give this a rest as well, you can write a 100-page document about why Romeo and Juliet is not a good story and why the masses have been duped into thinking it's an epic romance and it wouldn't mean a thing in regard to my use of its titular characters as an example of people being engaged by them despite their flaws. He isn't shown as a noble protagonist in that story, he's the same unstable loner with no hope for a bright future, it's telling the scenario if the cause of his family's deaths were the result of superhero activity, not mob activity. You use boogeryman words like "Beta male", you lose credibility. That those people were (supposedly) mentally unhealthy or not doesn't change the effect those movies had on them.
It's still an example where you can be left wondering if he only became that way because of the neglect and rejection he got. If he is, then the sympathy makes sense.
Are you at least in acknowledgment over how many idiotic people keep thinking it's supposed to not be a tragedy?
And he's shown as being noble in killing off the "irresponsible" heroes who killed his family. Garth Ennis meant him to be a wholly heroic figure in that story.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 14, 2023 3:28:01 GMT
"But it's still" - give it a rest. The people you have been referencing were, as mentioned in the articles shared in relation to Taxi Driver, Falling Down, and the characters of The Joker and Harley Quinn, mentally disturbed beta males and beta females who were already declining in sanity before they were exposed to such media. Not one of these individuals were said to have been mentally healthy before their exposure to such media. Also give this a rest, please. I used The Monster as an example of a character who is not pure of heart and not a good person that any person can have sympathy for. Give this a rest as well, you can write a 100-page document about why Romeo and Juliet is not a good story and why the masses have been duped into thinking it's an epic romance and it wouldn't mean a thing in regard to my use of its titular characters as an example of people being engaged by them despite their flaws. He isn't shown as a noble protagonist in that story, he's the same unstable loner with no hope for a bright future, it's telling the scenario if the cause of his family's deaths were the result of superhero activity, not mob activity. You use boogeryman words like "Beta male", you lose credibility. That those people were (supposedly) mentally unhealthy or not doesn't change the effect those movies had on them.
It's still an example where you can be left wondering if he only became that way because of the neglect and rejection he got. If he is, then the sympathy makes sense.
Are you at least in acknowledgment over how many idiotic people keep thinking it's supposed to not be a tragedy?
And he's shown as being noble in killing off the "irresponsible" heroes who killed his family. Garth Ennis meant him to be a wholly heroic figure in that story.
How come? "Beta" is a pseudoscientific term for human beings that is derived from the designation of wildlife in ethology which goes back some decades, with thorough study by many professionals in the field of psychological and sociological study, it isn't brand new. And "supposedly"? Every reading you have linked to gives a profile of the criminals and says they were dangerously mentally ill before being exposed to such media, their problems didn't start with watching Taxi Driver or Falling Down or consuming any media with The Joker and Harley Quinn characters. Most of the world has seen Taxi Driver and Falling Down and has been exposed to characters like The Joker and Harley Quinn, and they are perfectly fine mentally, if such fiction is dangerous and bad for society, why are these people doing okay? Give it a rest, my point was made - The Monster can still be sympathized despite doing bad in the story. That's it, that was the example, literally nothing further needs to be explored here. What I feel about Romeo and Juliet is irrelevant to my point that people can still be engaged in the story of the titular characters despite their youthful ignorance and choosing to think emotionally and not logically. Again, give this a rest. If that is your interpretation, fine, but my point originally was of perception of the character on the whole. If you feel this example is wrong, what other character should I use?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 14, 2023 12:20:09 GMT
You use boogeryman words like "Beta male", you lose credibility. That those people were (supposedly) mentally unhealthy or not doesn't change the effect those movies had on them.
It's still an example where you can be left wondering if he only became that way because of the neglect and rejection he got. If he is, then the sympathy makes sense.
Are you at least in acknowledgment over how many idiotic people keep thinking it's supposed to not be a tragedy?
And he's shown as being noble in killing off the "irresponsible" heroes who killed his family. Garth Ennis meant him to be a wholly heroic figure in that story.
How come? "Beta" is a pseudoscientific term for human beings that is derived from the designation of wildlife in ethology which goes back some decades, with thorough study by many professionals in the field of psychological and sociological study, it isn't brand new. And "supposedly"? Every reading you have linked to gives a profile of the criminals and says they were dangerously mentally ill before being exposed to such media, their problems didn't start with watching Taxi Driver or Falling Down or consuming any media with The Joker and Harley Quinn characters. Most of the world has seen Taxi Driver and Falling Down and has been exposed to characters like The Joker and Harley Quinn, and they are perfectly fine mentally, if such fiction is dangerous and bad for society, why are these people doing okay? Give it a rest, my point was made - The Monster can still be sympathized despite doing bad in the story. That's it, that was the example, literally nothing further needs to be explored here. What I feel about Romeo and Juliet is irrelevant to my point that people can still be engaged in the story of the titular characters despite their youthful ignorance and choosing to think emotionally and not logically. Again, give this a rest. If that is your interpretation, fine, but my point originally was of perception of the character on the whole. If you feel this example is wrong, what other character should I use? Pseudoscientific, therefore not credible.
They didn't start with those movies, but the movies were ultimately what did the trick. Why aren't more doing crazy things? They probably are but they don't make the news.
That still doesn't change that you can easily rationalize the Monster as more a victim driven to madness than an inherently evil creature.
They can be engaged to it, but if they truly think it's not supposed to be an impulsive tragedy...they're been fooled by the overcommercialization of the story.
I dunno, take a character you think is supposed to be shown in a bad light but gets improperly portrayed as heroic and good.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 14, 2023 20:38:02 GMT
How come? "Beta" is a pseudoscientific term for human beings that is derived from the designation of wildlife in ethology which goes back some decades, with thorough study by many professionals in the field of psychological and sociological study, it isn't brand new. And "supposedly"? Every reading you have linked to gives a profile of the criminals and says they were dangerously mentally ill before being exposed to such media, their problems didn't start with watching Taxi Driver or Falling Down or consuming any media with The Joker and Harley Quinn characters. Most of the world has seen Taxi Driver and Falling Down and has been exposed to characters like The Joker and Harley Quinn, and they are perfectly fine mentally, if such fiction is dangerous and bad for society, why are these people doing okay? Give it a rest, my point was made - The Monster can still be sympathized despite doing bad in the story. That's it, that was the example, literally nothing further needs to be explored here. What I feel about Romeo and Juliet is irrelevant to my point that people can still be engaged in the story of the titular characters despite their youthful ignorance and choosing to think emotionally and not logically. Again, give this a rest. If that is your interpretation, fine, but my point originally was of perception of the character on the whole. If you feel this example is wrong, what other character should I use? Pseudoscientific, therefore not credible.
They didn't start with those movies, but the movies were ultimately what did the trick. Why aren't more doing crazy things? They probably are but they don't make the news.
That still doesn't change that you can easily rationalize the Monster as more a victim driven to madness than an inherently evil creature.
They can be engaged to it, but if they truly think it's not supposed to be an impulsive tragedy...they're been fooled by the overcommercialization of the story.
I dunno, take a character you think is supposed to be shown in a bad light but gets improperly portrayed as heroic and good.
Pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs, statements, and practices that are rooted in scientific study but is purely theoretical and not universally accepted in the medical field as factual but in the case of alphas and betas are still applied in behavioral studies in wildlife and human society, what keeps it as theoretical is the complexity of individual character. There are instances where categorization comes easier than others, and other times when it doesn't. The individuals mentioned in conversation and in the readings were undoubtedly betas in their social circles who struggled to function properly in society, didn't have very good upbringing, and had problems that went unaddressed by themselves or others around them and resulted in further mental instability and dramatic loss of sanity. None of the readings you have shared in regard to Taxi Drvier, Faling Down, or in the case of characters like The Joker or Harley Quinn are said to have "done the trick", the fault lies entirely on the individuals than that of the art. "They probably are but they don't make the news" - going back to the well of fallacy it appears. If someone lists The Joker or Travis Bickle as their favorite villains, that doesn't make them dangerous nutcases. The Monster does evil things in the narrative, and people can still sympathize with him. That was my point, really this does not need to go any further than that. Move on. Again, your opinion on the play is irrelevant to my point, and does not dismiss it, either. Move on. So, no examples.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 14, 2023 22:23:44 GMT
Pseudoscientific, therefore not credible.
They didn't start with those movies, but the movies were ultimately what did the trick. Why aren't more doing crazy things? They probably are but they don't make the news.
That still doesn't change that you can easily rationalize the Monster as more a victim driven to madness than an inherently evil creature.
They can be engaged to it, but if they truly think it's not supposed to be an impulsive tragedy...they're been fooled by the overcommercialization of the story.
I dunno, take a character you think is supposed to be shown in a bad light but gets improperly portrayed as heroic and good.
Pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs, statements, and practices that are rooted in scientific study but is purely theoretical and not universally accepted in the medical field as factual but in the case of alphas and betas are still applied in behavioral studies in wildlife and human society, what keeps it as theoretical is the complexity of individual character. There are instances where categorization comes easier than others, and other times when it doesn't. The individuals mentioned in conversation and in the readings were undoubtedly betas in their social circles who struggled to function properly in society, didn't have very good upbringing, and had problems that went unaddressed by themselves or others around them and resulted in further mental instability and dramatic loss of sanity. None of the readings you have shared in regard to Taxi Drvier, Faling Down, or in the case of characters like The Joker or Harley Quinn are said to have "done the trick", the fault lies entirely on the individuals than that of the art. "They probably are but they don't make the news" - going back to the well of fallacy it appears. If someone lists The Joker or Travis Bickle as their favorite villains, that doesn't make them dangerous nutcases. The Monster does evil things in the narrative, and people can still sympathize with him. That was my point, really this does not need to go any further than that. Move on. Again, your opinion on the play is irrelevant to my point, and does not dismiss it, either. Move on. So, no examples. Therefore, not proven or scientific at all. "Beta" is a boogeyman word.
It was their reaction to the Art, the Art is what pushed them over the edge no matter what else. That's a failing on the part of the filmmaker.
Their favorite villains, or their idols? If it's idols, then that's the problem.
Does it do evil because it is just evil, or in response to the ill-treatment it received?
It's right to your point, it seems you fell for the over-commercialization as well.
I'm asking you for examples, because you rejected me talking about the Punisher.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 15, 2023 0:08:11 GMT
Pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs, statements, and practices that are rooted in scientific study but is purely theoretical and not universally accepted in the medical field as factual but in the case of alphas and betas are still applied in behavioral studies in wildlife and human society, what keeps it as theoretical is the complexity of individual character. There are instances where categorization comes easier than others, and other times when it doesn't. The individuals mentioned in conversation and in the readings were undoubtedly betas in their social circles who struggled to function properly in society, didn't have very good upbringing, and had problems that went unaddressed by themselves or others around them and resulted in further mental instability and dramatic loss of sanity. None of the readings you have shared in regard to Taxi Drvier, Faling Down, or in the case of characters like The Joker or Harley Quinn are said to have "done the trick", the fault lies entirely on the individuals than that of the art. "They probably are but they don't make the news" - going back to the well of fallacy it appears. If someone lists The Joker or Travis Bickle as their favorite villains, that doesn't make them dangerous nutcases. The Monster does evil things in the narrative, and people can still sympathize with him. That was my point, really this does not need to go any further than that. Move on. Again, your opinion on the play is irrelevant to my point, and does not dismiss it, either. Move on. So, no examples. Therefore, not proven or scientific at all. "Beta" is a boogeyman word.
It was their reaction to the Art, the Art is what pushed them over the edge no matter what else. That's a failing on the part of the filmmaker.
Their favorite villains, or their idols? If it's idols, then that's the problem.
Does it do evil because it is just evil, or in response to the ill-treatment it received?
It's right to your point, it seems you fell for the over-commercialization as well.
I'm asking you for examples, because you rejected me talking about the Punisher.
It is "scientific" because it relates to scientific study, if it hasn't been proven then it is theoretical, "beta" has been used for decades, it isn't new. But the art didn't push them over the edge, none of the readings you have shared say it was the films Taxi Driver and Falling Down, and the characters of The Joker and Harley Quinn that pushed them over the edge. The one thing that you have shared that supports an argument of yours in this thread is that some up-and-coming gangsters wanted to model themselves after the fiction of The Godfather because it was popular media relating to their lifestyle. Everything in regard to Taxi Driver, Falling Down, and characters such as The Joker and Harley Quinn do not add up with your argument - you say it was the art that drove these people over the edge, but the readings state that they were already mentally unstable people who were losing their sanity long before being exposed to such media and if they hadn't the psychological profile indicates that they still were set to snap one day soon. Your attempts to say that the art is blame for these tragic events appear to be in the hope to make out that the filmmakers who are critical of Marvel Studios look incompetent and that they're opinions cannot be trusted because they made controversial work, which is pure fallacy. Ignoring Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and The Godfather, are there any motion pictures by Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola that you enjoy and would recommend to people? What about any other filmmaker who has criticized Marvel Studios? As you can clearly see, I only said "their favorite villains". It doesn't matter, my point is that people can have sympathy for The Monster despite his evil actions. I don't care what you make of the play - it is, once again, irrelevant to my point, and my own opinion on the play is irrelevant to my point as well. No, I asked you for examples because clearly my use of The Punisher wasn't to your liking.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 15, 2023 2:58:47 GMT
Therefore, not proven or scientific at all. "Beta" is a boogeyman word.
It was their reaction to the Art, the Art is what pushed them over the edge no matter what else. That's a failing on the part of the filmmaker.
Their favorite villains, or their idols? If it's idols, then that's the problem.
Does it do evil because it is just evil, or in response to the ill-treatment it received?
It's right to your point, it seems you fell for the over-commercialization as well.
I'm asking you for examples, because you rejected me talking about the Punisher.
It is "scientific" because it relates to scientific study, if it hasn't been proven than it is theoretical, "beta" has been used for decades, it isn't new. But the art didn't push them over the edge, none of the readings you have shared say it was the films Taxi Driver and Falling Down, and the characters of The Joker and Harley Quinn that pushed them over the edge. The one thing that you have shared that supports an argument of yours in this thread is that some up-and-coming gangsters wanted to model themselves after the fiction of The Godfather because it was popular media relating to their lifestyle. Everything in regard to Taxi Driver, Falling Down, and characters such as The Joker and Harley Quinn do not add up with your argument - you say it was the art that drove these people over the edge, but the readings state that they were already mentally unstable people who were losing their sanity long before being exposed to such media and if they hadn't the psychological profile indicates that they still were set to snap one day soon. Your attempts to say that the art is blame for these tragic events appear to be in the hope to make out that the filmmakers who are critical of Marvel Studios look incompetent and that they're opinions cannot be trusted because they made controversial work, which is pure fallacy. Ignoring Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and The Godfather, are there any motion pictures by Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola that you enjoy and would recommend to people? What about any other filmmaker who has criticized Marvel Studios? As you can clearly see, I only said "their favorite villains". It doesn't matter, my point is that people can have sympathy for The Monster despite his evil actions. I don't care what you make of the play - it is, once again, irrelevant to my point, and my own opinion on the play is irrelevant to my point as well. No, I asked you for examples because clearly my use of The Punisher wasn't to your liking. And it's a term that's practically archaic by this point.
That they were later deemed to be mentally unstable reads more as after-the-fact justification as to how it's impossible for those movies to have done anything to those people. To completely absolve films of Taxi Driver of any flaws at all, which is lazy and irresponsible rather than just own up to the incompetence of the Director. In this case, Scorsese.
Ones I'd recommend? Hugo for Scorsese, and Coppola was entertaining enough with Apocalypse Now but I've never been terribly fond of him. I hated that silly Dracula movie he made.
Favorites isn't the same as idolization. Idolization, that's the dangerous stuff.
And in the case it's because it's arguable that he wasn't the real villain after all.
If both our points are irrelevant, then what's the argument here?
Wolverine then, the sheer amount of bending over backwards the comics will go to in order to make him look heroic is ludicrous. Like when he accused Scott Summers of being a bigger murderer than him.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 15, 2023 3:53:21 GMT
It is "scientific" because it relates to scientific study, if it hasn't been proven than it is theoretical, "beta" has been used for decades, it isn't new. But the art didn't push them over the edge, none of the readings you have shared say it was the films Taxi Driver and Falling Down, and the characters of The Joker and Harley Quinn that pushed them over the edge. The one thing that you have shared that supports an argument of yours in this thread is that some up-and-coming gangsters wanted to model themselves after the fiction of The Godfather because it was popular media relating to their lifestyle. Everything in regard to Taxi Driver, Falling Down, and characters such as The Joker and Harley Quinn do not add up with your argument - you say it was the art that drove these people over the edge, but the readings state that they were already mentally unstable people who were losing their sanity long before being exposed to such media and if they hadn't the psychological profile indicates that they still were set to snap one day soon. Your attempts to say that the art is blame for these tragic events appear to be in the hope to make out that the filmmakers who are critical of Marvel Studios look incompetent and that they're opinions cannot be trusted because they made controversial work, which is pure fallacy. Ignoring Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and The Godfather, are there any motion pictures by Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola that you enjoy and would recommend to people? What about any other filmmaker who has criticized Marvel Studios? As you can clearly see, I only said "their favorite villains". It doesn't matter, my point is that people can have sympathy for The Monster despite his evil actions. I don't care what you make of the play - it is, once again, irrelevant to my point, and my own opinion on the play is irrelevant to my point as well. No, I asked you for examples because clearly my use of The Punisher wasn't to your liking. And it's a term that's practically archaic by this point.
That they were later deemed to be mentally unstable reads more as after-the-fact justification as to how it's impossible for those movies to have done anything to those people. To completely absolve films of Taxi Driver of any flaws at all, which is lazy and irresponsible rather than just own up to the incompetence of the Director. In this case, Scorsese.
Ones I'd recommend? Hugo for Scorsese, and Coppola was entertaining enough with Apocalypse Now but I've never been terribly fond of him. I hated that silly Dracula movie he made.
Favorites isn't the same as idolization. Idolization, that's the dangerous stuff.
And in the case it's because it's arguable that he wasn't the real villain after all.
If both our points are irrelevant, then what's the argument here?
Wolverine then, the sheer amount of bending over backwards the comics will go to in order to make him look heroic is ludicrous. Like when he accused Scott Summers of being a bigger murderer than him.
It's been used for decades so it isn't new, but your argument was that it is something new. They weren't "later deemed", the people who were close to them noted a serious decline in mental stability over the years prior to when their crimes were committed and some of them were even made to see doctors because of their worrying mental health issues. What makes your opinion more valid than the law and medical officials that came to the conclusion that such media either did not have a role in their decline in sanity or played a factor in their crimes after careful and thorough study, and that the creative people involved in such media should not have to face punishment or edit their work? What about other filmmakers who have criticized Marvel Studios? Like, Paul Verhoeven, John McTiernan, Quentin Tarantino, Jodie Foster, Jane Campion, Sir Ridley Scott, Terry Gilliam, Ken Loach, John Woo, Denis Villeneuve, or Alejandro González Iñárritu? And should or shouldn't their opinions on the studio be valid or not? Since, according to you, because of Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and The Godfather, Scorsese and Coppola's views are invalid. I wasn't talking about idolization, genius. Please stop. The argument was that people can find interest in the titular characters of the play despite the fact that they are very flawed youths, this isn't rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 15, 2023 14:44:24 GMT
And it's a term that's practically archaic by this point.
That they were later deemed to be mentally unstable reads more as after-the-fact justification as to how it's impossible for those movies to have done anything to those people. To completely absolve films of Taxi Driver of any flaws at all, which is lazy and irresponsible rather than just own up to the incompetence of the Director. In this case, Scorsese.
Ones I'd recommend? Hugo for Scorsese, and Coppola was entertaining enough with Apocalypse Now but I've never been terribly fond of him. I hated that silly Dracula movie he made.
Favorites isn't the same as idolization. Idolization, that's the dangerous stuff.
And in the case it's because it's arguable that he wasn't the real villain after all.
If both our points are irrelevant, then what's the argument here?
Wolverine then, the sheer amount of bending over backwards the comics will go to in order to make him look heroic is ludicrous. Like when he accused Scott Summers of being a bigger murderer than him.
It's been used for decades so it isn't new, but your argument was that it is something new. They weren't "later deemed", the people who were close to them noted a serious decline in mental stability over the years prior to when their crimes were committed and some of them were even made to see doctors because of their worrying mental health issues. What makes your opinion more valid than the law and medical officials that came to the conclusion that such media either did not have a role in their decline in sanity or played a factor in their crimes after careful and thorough study, and that the creative people involved in such media should not have to face punishment or edit their work? What about other filmmakers who have criticized Marvel Studios? Like, Paul Verhoeven, John McTiernan, Quentin Tarantino, Jodie Foster, Jane Campion, Sir Ridley Scott, Terry Gilliam, Ken Loach, John Woo, Denis Villeneuve, or Alejandro González Iñárritu? And should or shouldn't their opinions on the studio be valid or not? Since, according to you, because of Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and The Godfather, Scorsese and Coppola's views are invalid. I wasn't talking about idolization, genius. Please stop. The argument was that people can find interest in the titular characters of the play despite the fact that they are very flawed youths, this isn't rocket science. My argument is that it's because a modern Boogeyman word, a Buzzword for the lazy masses.
They said that stuff after they committed their acts, an after-the-fact justification to put all the blame on them. As opposed to admitting it was a combination of their pre-existing issues and the incompetent actions of the Filmmakers like Scorsese.
I'll have to go through everything they said, but if they're being petty spoiled brats then that's all there is to it.
If you're inspired to commit crimes, it's idolization, not just "having a favorite".
Sorry, no. The monster can easily be argued to not be the true villain of the piece.
Find interest is fine, thinking it's some epic romance with no flaws...that's just idiocy.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 15, 2023 22:36:00 GMT
It's been used for decades so it isn't new, but your argument was that it is something new. They weren't "later deemed", the people who were close to them noted a serious decline in mental stability over the years prior to when their crimes were committed and some of them were even made to see doctors because of their worrying mental health issues. What makes your opinion more valid than the law and medical officials that came to the conclusion that such media either did not have a role in their decline in sanity or played a factor in their crimes after careful and thorough study, and that the creative people involved in such media should not have to face punishment or edit their work? What about other filmmakers who have criticized Marvel Studios? Like, Paul Verhoeven, John McTiernan, Quentin Tarantino, Jodie Foster, Jane Campion, Sir Ridley Scott, Terry Gilliam, Ken Loach, John Woo, Denis Villeneuve, or Alejandro González Iñárritu? And should or shouldn't their opinions on the studio be valid or not? Since, according to you, because of Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and The Godfather, Scorsese and Coppola's views are invalid. I wasn't talking about idolization, genius. Please stop. The argument was that people can find interest in the titular characters of the play despite the fact that they are very flawed youths, this isn't rocket science. My argument is that it's because a modern Boogeyman word, a Buzzword for the lazy masses.
They said that stuff after they committed their acts, an after-the-fact justification to put all the blame on them. As opposed to admitting it was a combination of their pre-existing issues and the incompetent actions of the Filmmakers like Scorsese.
I'll have to go through everything they said, but if they're being petty spoiled brats then that's all there is to it.
If you're inspired to commit crimes, it's idolization, not just "having a favorite".
Sorry, no. The monster can easily be argued to not be the true villain of the piece.
Find interest is fine, thinking it's some epic romance with no flaws...that's just idiocy.
Once again, what makes your opinion just as or more valid than the justice and medical officials who thoroughly researched the situations and came to such conclusions? Do you work in either field to compose a substantial counterargument to their research? Filmmakers like a Martin Scorsese cannot be held responsible for the actions of someone like a John Hinckley, Jr. because a John Hinckley, Jr. independently acted on their own, was not personally encouraged by Scorsese, Schrader, or De Niro to commit his crimes, and the work does not encourage the viewer to commit crimes as it is following a fictional character, it isn't a public service announcement. It is also to note that the main reason why Hinckley, Jr. set out to commit his crime was to win the affection of actress Jodie Foster, who appeared in the Taxi Driver film and wasn't fond of Ronald Reagan. That was over 40 years ago, and Hinckley, Jr. is a free man after years of therapy to improve his mental health, he has apologized for his actions, and does not blame the film for his descent into madness. I wasn't talking about idolization, genius. Yes, please stop, because you are arguing against thin air at this point. My point was that people can have sympathy for The Monster even though he commits evil acts in the story. Once again, and this is going to be my last time saying this, your personal opinion on the play is irrelevant to what I was using it for to support my argument.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 16, 2023 2:06:24 GMT
My argument is that it's because a modern Boogeyman word, a Buzzword for the lazy masses.
They said that stuff after they committed their acts, an after-the-fact justification to put all the blame on them. As opposed to admitting it was a combination of their pre-existing issues and the incompetent actions of the Filmmakers like Scorsese.
I'll have to go through everything they said, but if they're being petty spoiled brats then that's all there is to it.
If you're inspired to commit crimes, it's idolization, not just "having a favorite".
Sorry, no. The monster can easily be argued to not be the true villain of the piece.
Find interest is fine, thinking it's some epic romance with no flaws...that's just idiocy.
Once again, what makes your opinion just as or more valid than the justice and medical officials who thoroughly researched the situations and came to such conclusions? Do you work in either field to compose a substantial counterargument to their research? Filmmakers like a Martin Scorsese cannot be held responsible for the actions of someone like a John Hinckley, Jr. because a John Hinckley, Jr. independently acted on their own, was not personally encouraged by Scorsese, Schrader, or De Niro to commit his crimes, and the work does not encourage the viewer to commit crimes as it is following a fictional character, it isn't a public service announcement. It is also to note that the main reason why Hinckley, Jr. set out to commit his crime was to win the affection of actress Jodie Foster, who appeared in the Taxi Driver film and wasn't fond of Ronald Reagan. That was over 40 years ago, and Hinckley, Jr. is a free man after years of therapy to improve his mental health, he has apologized for his actions, and does not blame the film for his descent into madness. I wasn't talking about idolization, genius. Yes, please stop, because you are arguing against thin air at this point. My point was that people can have sympathy for The Monster even though he commits evil acts in the story. Once again, and this is going to be my last time saying this, your personal opinion on the play is irrelevant to what I was using it for to support my argument. The conclusions they came to after it came to light that Taxi Driver influenced him and they didn't feel like getting Scorsese in trouble rather than blame him and his incompetence? Easier to just say "Eh, guy was already nuts."
It does give people the message of someone like Travis Bickle being a "modern hero" for anyone watching, being justified in everything he did and heroic in his actions. Because Scorsese failed to make him unlikable enough. Hinckley saw how Foster's character saw Bickle as a hero, thanks to Scorsese's incompetence in making Bickle unheroic, which led to him wanting to emulate Bickle to get Foster to notice him.
Idolization of those villains is what leads to the violent acts, not merely being "a fan" of them.
Yes, that's what "Tragic Monsters" are. Especially when the story can easily read as "He was pushed into these acts by the neglect of his creator" rather than "He's just made of evil". It's this ambiguity that makes you wonder if he's really a villain at all.
Your argument is based on people misunderstanding the play due to how it's been misaimed at people for centuries. Can you admit that it's been deliberately mis-marketed?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 16, 2023 2:59:44 GMT
Once again, what makes your opinion just as or more valid than the justice and medical officials who thoroughly researched the situations and came to such conclusions? Do you work in either field to compose a substantial counterargument to their research? Filmmakers like a Martin Scorsese cannot be held responsible for the actions of someone like a John Hinckley, Jr. because a John Hinckley, Jr. independently acted on their own, was not personally encouraged by Scorsese, Schrader, or De Niro to commit his crimes, and the work does not encourage the viewer to commit crimes as it is following a fictional character, it isn't a public service announcement. It is also to note that the main reason why Hinckley, Jr. set out to commit his crime was to win the affection of actress Jodie Foster, who appeared in the Taxi Driver film and wasn't fond of Ronald Reagan. That was over 40 years ago, and Hinckley, Jr. is a free man after years of therapy to improve his mental health, he has apologized for his actions, and does not blame the film for his descent into madness. I wasn't talking about idolization, genius. Yes, please stop, because you are arguing against thin air at this point. My point was that people can have sympathy for The Monster even though he commits evil acts in the story. Once again, and this is going to be my last time saying this, your personal opinion on the play is irrelevant to what I was using it for to support my argument. The conclusions they came to after it came to light that Taxi Driver influenced him and they didn't feel like getting Scorsese in trouble rather than blame him and his incompetence? Easier to just say "Eh, guy was already nuts."
It does give people the message of someone like Travis Bickle being a "modern hero" for anyone watching, being justified in everything he did and heroic in his actions. Because Scorsese failed to make him unlikable enough. Hinckley saw how Foster's character saw Bickle as a hero, thanks to Scorsese's incompetence in making Bickle unheroic, which led to him wanting to emulate Bickle to get Foster to notice him.
Idolization of those villains is what leads to the violent acts, not merely being "a fan" of them.
Yes, that's what "Tragic Monsters" are. Especially when the story can easily read as "He was pushed into these acts by the neglect of his creator" rather than "He's just made of evil". It's this ambiguity that makes you wonder if he's really a villain at all.
Your argument is based on people misunderstanding the play due to how it's been misaimed at people for centuries. Can you admit that it's been deliberately mis-marketed?
Once again, I ask the question why is and why should your opinion have more validity to it than people who work in law and in the medical field who carefully analyzed the evidence and came to their government approved conclusions? Do you, as I have asked previously, work in either field professionally? And do you realize how nonsensical you sound? What exactly would any of those in law and health gain from not getting Martin Scorsese to stand trial? Scorsese is a filmmaker, his work is non-essential compared to that of those in the justice system and medical field, and he doesn't have that kind of power to shield himself from any such charges. Seeing as this person, who is the only legitimate person named in this conversation, was mentally unstable long before he even saw Taxi Driver and has gone on to say he blames himself rather than the film for his actions, and that the majority of the human population who have seen the film have walked away just fine, your whole argument is neither sound nor valid. What do you suggest? That the film be banned and erased from history? That isn't fair for the people who are mentally healthy and like the work. What part of "I wasn't talking about idolization" do you not understand? I made my point, and it doesn't need to go any further than that, that you are so obsessed with taking it as far as it has, as with my other example, says a lot about you (and it isn't good). My opinion on the play and those that enjoy it doesn't matter, it is completely irrelevant to my point.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 16, 2023 14:57:31 GMT
The conclusions they came to after it came to light that Taxi Driver influenced him and they didn't feel like getting Scorsese in trouble rather than blame him and his incompetence? Easier to just say "Eh, guy was already nuts."
It does give people the message of someone like Travis Bickle being a "modern hero" for anyone watching, being justified in everything he did and heroic in his actions. Because Scorsese failed to make him unlikable enough. Hinckley saw how Foster's character saw Bickle as a hero, thanks to Scorsese's incompetence in making Bickle unheroic, which led to him wanting to emulate Bickle to get Foster to notice him.
Idolization of those villains is what leads to the violent acts, not merely being "a fan" of them.
Yes, that's what "Tragic Monsters" are. Especially when the story can easily read as "He was pushed into these acts by the neglect of his creator" rather than "He's just made of evil". It's this ambiguity that makes you wonder if he's really a villain at all.
Your argument is based on people misunderstanding the play due to how it's been misaimed at people for centuries. Can you admit that it's been deliberately mis-marketed?
Once again, I ask the question why is and why should your opinion have more validity to it than people who work in law and in the medical field who carefully analyzed the evidence and came to their government approved conclusions? Do you, as I have asked previously, work in either field professionally? And do you realize how nonsensical you sound? What exactly would any of those in law and health gain from not getting Martin Scorsese to stand trial? Scorsese is a filmmaker, his work is non-essential compared to that of those in the justice system and medical field, and he doesn't have that kind of power to shield himself from any such charges. Seeing as this person, who is the only legitimate person named in this conversation, was mentally unstable long before he even saw Taxi Driver and has gone on to say he blames himself rather than the film for his actions, and that the majority of the human population who have seen the film have walked away just fine, your whole argument is neither sound nor valid. What do you suggest? That the film be banned and erased from history? That isn't fair for the people who are mentally healthy and like the work. What part of "I wasn't talking about idolization" do you not understand? I made my point, and it doesn't need to go any further than that, that you are so obsessed with taking it as far as it has, as with my other example, says a lot about you (and it isn't good). My opinion on the play and those that enjoy it doesn't matter, it is completely irrelevant to my point. Taxi Driver was a very popular film and had a lot of fans, rather than risk some kind of big counter lawsuit backlash it was easier to just say he was nuts and sweep the whole thing under the rug.
I suggest we stop seeing Scorsese as some flawless filmmaker who can do no wrong and thinking everything he says is gospel.
We were talking about people inspired to commit violent acts by "real cinema".
And I made my point, so I guess we're at stalemate.
What's relevant is how so many still get the utterly wrong idea about it and don't even realize it's a tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 17, 2023 2:50:16 GMT
Once again, I ask the question why is and why should your opinion have more validity to it than people who work in law and in the medical field who carefully analyzed the evidence and came to their government approved conclusions? Do you, as I have asked previously, work in either field professionally? And do you realize how nonsensical you sound? What exactly would any of those in law and health gain from not getting Martin Scorsese to stand trial? Scorsese is a filmmaker, his work is non-essential compared to that of those in the justice system and medical field, and he doesn't have that kind of power to shield himself from any such charges. Seeing as this person, who is the only legitimate person named in this conversation, was mentally unstable long before he even saw Taxi Driver and has gone on to say he blames himself rather than the film for his actions, and that the majority of the human population who have seen the film have walked away just fine, your whole argument is neither sound nor valid. What do you suggest? That the film be banned and erased from history? That isn't fair for the people who are mentally healthy and like the work. What part of "I wasn't talking about idolization" do you not understand? I made my point, and it doesn't need to go any further than that, that you are so obsessed with taking it as far as it has, as with my other example, says a lot about you (and it isn't good). My opinion on the play and those that enjoy it doesn't matter, it is completely irrelevant to my point. Taxi Driver was a very popular film and had a lot of fans, rather than risk some kind of big counter lawsuit backlash it was easier to just say he was nuts and sweep the whole thing under the rug.
I suggest we stop seeing Scorsese as some flawless filmmaker who can do no wrong and thinking everything he says is gospel.
We were talking about people inspired to commit violent acts by "real cinema".
And I made my point, so I guess we're at stalemate.
What's relevant is how so many still get the utterly wrong idea about it and don't even realize it's a tragedy.
Please answer my questions. First, what makes your opinion more valid than the justice and medical professionals who thoroughly investigated the cases and came to the conclusions that were reached? And do you work in either field professionally to make your statement have validity to it? Because if you do not work in either field professionally, I cannot take your argument that the state government would avoid going after popular media and its creators seriously, because popular media and popular entertainers go to court all the time, regardless of their wealth and popularity with the masses. Michael Jackson was one of the world's biggest entertainers and he was taken to court to stand trial on numerous occasions before his passing in 2009. Please make up your mind, one minute you want to make the case that Martin Scorsese should have been charged with the criminal actions of John Hinckley, Jr. over his film Taxi Driver, and then the next you express that you just don't want people to hold him in a high regard as a filmmaker. One argument is very extreme (and has not been laid out very effectively thus far), the other is, as far I am concerned, rather petty because film and the talent of the people involved in their creation is (mostly) subjective; you have your opinions, other people have theirs. But I was referring to favoritism, not idolization in my talking point. I am not going to further discussion on this any further *foot down* There really is no stalemate, I said people can sympathize with The Monster in Frankenstein despite the bad things that he does in the narrative, you however want to expand upon the example and make the case that the character shouldn't be seen in a negative light, which wasn't my point. I am not going to further discussion on this any further *foot down* No, that isn't relevant. Once again, you are free to dislike that particular play, all I am saying is that people like the flawed titular characters and most don't walk away from the experience wanting to imitate them because they recognize they were very emotionally driven youths. I am not going to further discussion on this any further *foot down*
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 17, 2023 12:51:13 GMT
Taxi Driver was a very popular film and had a lot of fans, rather than risk some kind of big counter lawsuit backlash it was easier to just say he was nuts and sweep the whole thing under the rug.
I suggest we stop seeing Scorsese as some flawless filmmaker who can do no wrong and thinking everything he says is gospel.
We were talking about people inspired to commit violent acts by "real cinema".
And I made my point, so I guess we're at stalemate.
What's relevant is how so many still get the utterly wrong idea about it and don't even realize it's a tragedy.
Please answer my questions. First, what makes your opinion more valid than the justice and medical professionals who thoroughly investigated the cases and came to the conclusions that were reached? And do you work in either field professionally to make your statement have validity to it? Because if you do not work in either field professionally, I cannot take your argument that the state government would avoid going after popular media and its creators seriously, because popular media and popular entertainers go to court all the time, regardless of their wealth and popularity with the masses. Michael Jackson was one of the world's biggest entertainers and he was taken to court to stand trial on numerous occasions before his passing in 2009. Please make up your mind, one minute you want to make the case that Martin Scorsese should have been charged with the criminal actions of John Hinckley, Jr. over his film Taxi Driver, and then the next you express that you just don't want people to hold him in a high regard as a filmmaker. One argument is very extreme (and has not been laid out very effectively thus far), the other is, as far I am concerned, rather petty because film and the talent of the people involved in their creation is (mostly) subjective; you have your opinions, other people have theirs. But I was referring to favoritism, not idolization in my talking point. I am not going to further discussion on this any further *foot down* There really is no stalemate, I said people can sympathize with The Monster in Frankenstein despite the bad things that he does in the narrative, you however want to expand upon the example and make the case that the character shouldn't be seen in a negative light, which wasn't my point. I am not going to further discussion on this any further *foot down* No, that isn't relevant. Once again, you are free to dislike that particular play, all I am saying is that people like the flawed titular characters and most don't walk away from the experience wanting to imitate them because they recognize they were very emotionally driven youths. I am not going to further discussion on this any further *foot down* If you're putting your foot down on 3 of the points, there isn't much worth further discussion except that Scorsese should be seen as some God of Filmmaking whose opinion is beyond reproach.
|
|