Slashdot Mirror
Star Wars Most Violent Movie Ever?
alphaparadigm writes: "Is Star Wars: A New Hope the most violent movie ever? What I mean is, does it have the highest body count of any movie ever? They blow up a planet full of people and then a death star full of people! I figured if anyone would know, it would be you guys."
That's a very good point. If violence is measured by number of sentient beings killed, then Star Wars Episode IV is going to be first on the chopping block when the Republicans come to censor our movies. And censor they will. Also there's the one episode of Star Trek: Voyager in which not just planets but entire species are wiped out, but then they crash Voyager into the time ship and the timeline reverts to the way it was so nobody ever really died ... or did they? Anyway these are the films, ladies and gentlemen, the mass-murdering films and TV shows, that John Ashcroft will ban, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition. Anyone standing up for them will be tarred as defending mass murder. Mark my words.
While many right wing politicians favor censorship of the media, plenty of democrats do to. Joe Leiberman was one of the strongest proponents of government intervention to keep socially unacceptable (sex, violence, etc) things out of the media. Remember Tipper Gore? She was in charge of a very vocal group that fought AGAINST freedom of expression for record labels, television producers, and the movie industry. For some reason you decided to interject your own political bias into this post yet it adds nothing to the discussion. Well I guess it does do a good job of demonstrating your ignorance about how both the democrats and republicans are against true freedom of expression in many cases.
A Body Count only counts when you can Count the Bodies.
:)
Otherwise, something like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would win, because they go forward through time, when everyone is already dead...
Incidentally, some friends of mine tried to count bodies (literally) in Bubblegum Crisis. I think they came up with a number that was over one hundred, which is pretty impressive.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Didn't anybody see Clerks?
:)
Good grief. The deathstar in Star Wars was manned by evil storm troopers of the imperial army. In Jedi it was still under construction and thus manned by Union contractors.
Obviously Jedi was a far more violent film. In Star Wars they deserved it, but in Jedi they were just innocent bystanders.
Not to mention the horrific depictions of ewoks dying by the dozens.
Hmm, but then again it does get more complicated when you look at things from the Republican perspective. Considering most of the deaths were these union contractors, they don't really count.
And of course all those cute ewoks... Well they were just getting in the way of fully utilizing the resources of the moon anyway. It's just those damn bleeding heart liberals like Vader who were moved by their deaths.
So I don't know... I guess maybe you were right. If the Republicans are going to ban one movie it will be Star Wars. While Jedi had far more violence, it was mostly justifiable. At least from the Republican perspective.
Interesting, considering the Republicans controlled both House and Senate in '95 when the CDA was passed.
At least in the Senate, they voted 84-16 for the measure.
Granted President Clinton did sign it, but still...
It always amazes me how ignorant Republican supporters are. Instead of going around accusing liberals of anything and everything, maybe it would just be better if you concentrated on educating yourself.
You ask if liberals have brains, and then you prove that you yourself don't.
/. in years. I only wish I had moderator points to mod it up as informative.
One of the most amazing posts I've seen on
"First of all, that's a Government subsidy, which is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY for any given library to accept. "
This always seems to be the excuse of Republicans when they violate Constitutional rights.
Why is that?
Orin Hatch is one of the biggest attackers of hollywood in the government.
He comes out in favor of certain rights, but only because he is trying to harm the political power that Hollywood holds.
He has a clear ulterior motive, sheesh.
Sigh, it's really disturbing when people just eat the crap shoved down their throats instead of using their head. I'm in my 30's so maybe that's why I no longer do this.
The Republicans don't believe in freedom, any more or less than the Democrats. They might say that in the campaigns, but they've been actively seeking to control your private live through acts of censorship, discrimination, etc. The fact that they've been actively working to repeal civil rights gains from 30 years ago should cause anyone concern.
This is not to say that the Democrats are saints, but they tend to try to protect the little guy from the big guys. It's the little guys who need the protection most often.
Another lie is that Republicans are for smaller government... This is factually untrue as the government has grown in size under every Republican administration.
Regulations are typically formulated by corporate lobbying groups and as such result in barriers to entry to the market, rather than restraint on existing entities.
Oh what else...
Oh yeah, your right. Not all Christians are in favor of censorship. But all right-wing Christians in favor of censorship are Republicans.
And yes, it's primarily the Southern Republicans who promote this evil. But that doesn't make the Northern Republicans less responsibile, since they are the ones kissing the south's butt for the petty votes.
I also disagree that Republicans believe in the free market, as they are the ones who frequently involve Government sticking their hands in to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Look at how Bush is handling the economy today, the minute he get's into office he starts giving corporate welfare to all his patron companies. The Democratic approach, especially under Clinton, was far more Laissez-Faire.
As far as the Libertarians. Interesting philosophies, but they are definately anti-environment, as well as anti-safety. These are the people who believe that if you just leave everything alone, it'll all work out.
The Liberatarian idea of protecting the environment is to allow people to sue companies after hundreds of people have died from toxic waste dumped in the water system.
It's a reactive way of solving problems. Unfortunately it also has proven to be incredibly unsuccessful over our nations history. The fact that Libertarians cannot learn from past mistakes concerns me tremendously.
There was no Democratic congress from 1981-1986.
And Reagan submitted budgets which were far larger than anything Congress ever adopted from 1981-1988.
If Christianity wasn't the key issue to most republicans, they wouldn't be kissing Jerry Falwells fat ass.
(E) You need a lesson in US History...
Article I, Section 1. states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Pay particular attention to that last part. If you doubt the Senate was controlled by Republicans, go to www.senate.gov and look it up yourself.
All your morons are belong to us
Well, it's true that virtually everybody in both parties caved into this thing.
I was chiefly referring to who sponsored and presented the amendment which made this all possible. None other than Senator McCain.
It was passed 95-3, with 2 abstaining.
But of the 3 people voting against the amendment, they were all Democrats i.e. Senators Feingold, Kerrey, and Lautenberg.
Kerrey and Lautenberg are no longer in the Senate.
Then again, which party is pushing for censorship of the internet in libraries.
Oh yeah... The Republicans.
BTW, the V-Chip and TV ratings gave responsibility to the parents to control content within their own homes. I can't see why you would attack this.
"Reagan didn't spend a cent without a Democrat congress voting for it, "
Reagan only had a Democratic congress the last two years. By then the budget was already bloated out of control.
What's also interesting is that every proposed budget by Reagan was actually larger in size than the actual budgets passed by Congress.
As far as Waco. Again, this is more of an example of the Republican form of government as the even happened only a month after Clinton was in office.
Waco was directly the fault of FBI and BATF leaders who had been appointed by the Reagan and Bush administrations.
If it's any consoluation, both Reno and Clinton apologized for the incident, and fixed the problem by firing the Bush appointees and bringing in people such as Freeh to clean up the corruption within the agency.
If it's one thing I hate, it's people who try to distort history for their only mistaken agenda.
I live in a contry where you can get 15 years in prison for having an onused and onlicensed gun in your poosesion.
We still manage 800 to 1100 morders per year for the last 1/2 decade. The total population is 2.7 million which makes this a huge anual slaughter.
Would we be worse off with less stringent gun laws ? 30 years ago we had 40 murders in the year before this law was enacted. We are curently in the top 3 cuntrys to get killed worldwide so it seams preposturus to claim no gun ban would have made us worse off.
All this proves is that there is more to the social order than simple things like "ban guns" or "remove violent movies and games".
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Just a thought.
RFC2119
Quick! Someone organize a march on Washington to protest the banning and let Darth Bush know that the open source community will not take this lying down. If there is one crucial issue facing us today, it is the potential banning of our Holy Scripture.
Though they probably won't ban it; after all, it's just violence; not like there's any sex there, is it?
Just look at all the billions of sperm dying such horrible, needless deaths in any porno flick! Each one of those is a HUMAN BEING! (or would have been, if they hadn't been left to die in the open air like so many microscopic beached whales)
"every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great..."
(yes I know what day it is)
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
No, YOU are a troll!
TROLL!
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
In the Dr Who story "Logopolis", a major part
of the plot is the collapse into entropy
of significant chunks of the universe, so this
is probably the upper limit for body count.
... is the Republican party interested in censorship? I thought they were all about less government interference in peoples' lives.
I especially like the part where King Solomon (I think, or maybe David) sends one of his officers off to the front of the war to die so he can sleep with his wife.
Classic.
Actually, there were no school shootings here 100 years ago when almost every boy over the age of 6 had a gun.
Of course, back then cavalry soldiers (in Canada too) who went to church every Sunday had no qualms about slaughtering Native American women and children, so the problem of violence is probably not related to movies, TV or music either.
The current problem (IMHO) is alienation and lack of moral education, not guns. People tend to ignore their children or assume that they know right from wrong; modern Americans are extremely self-centered. The culture is sick, but not in the way you think.
Well, no that wasn't my point, but I see yours.
How are guns more easily accessible? Guns are less accessible now than in any other time in American history. 100 years ago almost every boy over the age of 6 had a gun.
Cavalry soldiers who went to church every Sunday had no problem slaughtering Native American women and children, so how can you say it's media violence? They didn't have movies and TV. They did have a very bloodthirsty Old Testament, but I don't think that was the problem either.
You are oversimplifying. I agree with your point that someone (not necessarily the woman) should spend a lot more time with the kids than is currently the norm in this country. Children are growing up ignored and alienated. The divorce rate and lack of a strong family probably contributes more than anything else.
Absolutely.
Anybody who actually pays attention knows that, in general, it's liberals who want to censor violence plus anything that contradicts their ideologies, while it's conservatives who want to censor sex and anything that contradicts their ideologies.
Thus, Bob Dole attacked Hollywood for sex in 1996, but endorsed Independence Day, which blew up entire cities. And the Children's Defense Fund counts acts of violence committed in Bugs Bunny cartoons, but doesn't object to explicit sex education for first graders.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Violence sell goods (guns & bullets) and services (medical and auto repair.) These are good for business.
Sexi s satisfaction and contentment. You can't sell contended people anything.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
---
i am a *conservative*, but i don't think that there's any direct correlation between conservative and republican any longer. those days seem to be behind us, but clearly, the stigma lives on.
this entire thread is a great example of journalistic embellishment. there are far too many people who know better than to let what you're discussing happen actually take place, imho of course.
please, try not to inflame the masses to further *your* cause. you're just like them if that's your goal. they inflame the masses with influence, you're inflaming the masses with knowledge. in the end, it's really the same tactic.
Peter
The book goes on in some detail about this "god" instructing a man to kill his own son, which he does.
I presume that you're referring to Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was a righteous man who loved his son, perhaps a bit too much.
God told Abraham to sacrifice his son - this was to shape Abraham's character - so that Abraham would be clear on where the allegiance lies.
Where you get it wrong is that Abraham did NOT kill his son. He was obedient, even to the point of tying Isaac on the altar, and holding the knife over him - but just as he was ready to strike the fatal blow, God stopped Abraham, and showed him the ram (trapped in the bushes) to use as a sacrifice.
If you're going to bust on the Bible, for God's sake, get it right! (and I do mean for His sake)
The most violent act in the Bible is the one where God Himself steps down from heaven and lives as a man, and then is put to death by evil men - for the sins of each of us!!!!!
"God demonstrates his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you.
If you want to know more, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
If all he did was claim to be God, then you are correct. He demonstrated his deity by being raised from the dead.
The ressurection is one of many ways that Christ differentiated himself from those others.
God loves you, too. If you want to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
If all he did was claim to be God, then you are correct. He demonstrated his deity by being raised from the dead.
The ressurection is one of many ways that Christ differentiated himself from those others.
God loves you, too. If you want to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Ok, I can appreciate that you don't believe this asertion, but have you ever looked at the evidence for the resurrection?
I'd be willing to be at least even money that you haven't.
Rejecting something that sounds implausible when you have never investigated it is really not a great idea.
If you are open minded enough to investigate this rather than simply rejecting it based on your religoius beliefs, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Of the Republican and Democratic parties, which group believes in greater government intervention in your life?
Why the Democrats, of course....unless you are pregnant, homosexual, or of a minority religion. We don't need Christian churches taking over the governments social services, and we all know that "prayer in schools" means "Christian prayer in schools".
There is the Democratic Party, which bears no resemblence to its ancestors of two hundred years ago.
I for one am glad that the Democratic party is no longer the party of southern white slave owners, aren't you?
Which of the two parties has the philosophy of "Small Government"? If you think small government consists of just fewer government employees, then you're fooling yourself. Small Government is not just a policy, it is a philosophy.
Which in the end just means cutting programs they don't like. Thank god massive increases in military spending and forcing our country in to debt doesn't count (Reagen).
Perhaps you would like to tell me just how Right Wing Tipper Gore and Joseph Liberman are?
Whoop dee doo, there are a couple of Democrates who do favor censorship. Doesn't mean that the rest are gung ho for it as well.
Just to jog your memory, Democrats are the the people who believe in a "living" (IE changeable) Constitution.
Your point being what.
If you're hunting for "extremists" who plan to take away your freedoms, you would have done a better job at looking at our former Attourney General, a woman whose values are equally (if not more) extreme than Mr Ashcroft's.
Name some.
Unlike the author of this story, I broker my argument on logic, rather than ignorance and flailing emotionalism.
Sure, and you did a great job....until you got past the subject line and started ranting like everybody else.
does this mean it's ok for me to beat the hell out of you if i close my eyes?
sincerely,
me
I was thinking about the US constitution recently, when I was mulling over government design issues.
If they hadn't allowed the constitution to be changed, I'm sure it would be gone by now. Someone would have come up with a knee-jerk issue (flag burning) and they'd have convinced everyone a document which DIDN'T forbid that, and didn't allow for changes, was a bad one. They'd have stricken it, and replaced it with a much different document.
But because it can be changed, even though it's hard, it's actually much more stable. It makes people realize that they have to have a good reason to change it, but that those good reasons might exist.
IMHO, that makes it more stable than if they weren't allowed to change it. Like the difference between telling a kid that they can never do something and to just forget about it... they'll do it right away. But, take the time to explain why the shouldn't do it, except in extraordinary circumstances and they'll be less likely to want to do it...
Apparently, we'll have to run down the list - AGAIN - of who's trying to censor us...
Lets try Lieberman ("Friends is EVIL and should not be on prime time TV", McCain (he's trying to stop groups like EFF from having a voice in the political world by not allowing them to contribute to politicians who are pro-rights, like Orin Hatch - Republicans can't stand McCain) Al Gore, Mrs Al Gore (CD warning labels), Barbara Boxer, John D. Rockefeller (leaders of the anti-Hollywood movement in Congress along with Lieberman)
hell, Hollywood was warned not to back the Democrats because they are clearly out to censor movies
And if i'm to listen to jamie, it appears that it was then Republican President Bill Clinton that started the most recent act of, essentially, putting a gun (if you'll pardon the expression) to the head of Hollywood?
far be it from me to also bring up who are the ones that want to stop people from exercising their rights to talk about religious matters at every turn - oh yeah.. those darn Republicans...
Instead of just toting the line of HOW the media would like you to think, Jamie, why don't you open your mind and get a clue to who the true anti-1st Amendment legislators are...
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Phooey. So long as it's bad people killing good people and good people killing bad people, and both sides are clearly labeled, conservatives are whooping along with the rest of the audience (okay, I suppose bad people killing bad people is acceptable too).
It's only the combination of violence and moral ambiguity that gets the Right all worked up
Tentacle, my hat's off to you. I didn't find this thread when it was fresh, or I would have been posting alongside you. Your postings have been accurate, thoughtful and polite - that's not easy in the face of such raw hatred as seems to be flowing here.
You missed one very important point, though: when you said,
"I read an earlier post, whose main arguments against a conservative is that they are anti-women, anti-homosexual, and anti "minority-religion" (whatever that means). Honestly, I don't recall the last time a conservative suggested beating women, imprisoning homosexuals, or burning Wiccans at the stake.",
you should have mentioned that the *only* societies in the history of the world that have tolerated other religions as a policy are Christian.
Don't forget - it was the intensely Protestant & Puritan founding fathers that created the most tolerant culture in the history of the entire planet. I sometimes wonder if the Slashdot Socialists would even be capable of *reading* Jonathan Edwards without suffering from sever cognitive dissonance... (For those of you suffering as I was, from a public education, Jonathan Edwards is widely regarded even by many non-Christian historians as the most intelligent person ever to live in the Americas. And apparently, the insight and intelligence stayed in the family: A survey done in 1900 showed his descendants included 13 college presidents, 65 professors, 30 judges, 100 lawyers, a dean of a prestigious law school, 80 public office holders, nearly 100 missionairies, 3 mayors of large cities, 3 governors, 3 US senators, one US treasurer, and a US vice-president!)
If they're not afraid of the truth, the Slashdot Socialists should read Edwards at my friend Mark Trigsted's excellent site: www.jonathanedwards.com. It's funny, isn't it, that Edwards was one of the most influential driving forces behind the mindset that created the uniquely tolerant American government?
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Yes, but Red Dawn would never get banned by Ashcroft & Company 'cause it's all about good ol' American boys kicking the shit out of those evil commie bastards. ;-)
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
Censorship and facism isn't the sole parlance of the Republicans, the Democrats will meet or beat them in this department any day of the week. The plain fact is, young people are at the mercy of older people. Some of these older people see the young as a way to gain political power. They will quite readily exploit the young, abuse their civil rights, etc. if it will allow them to further their own agenda.
Once upon a time someone said not to trust anyone over 30. They were right.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Hey no fair injecting facts into his fantasy.
War is necrophilia.
Wow do you really believe that crap?
Ronald Reagan regularly confused reality with movies, he fell asleep during an audience with the pope!. The man alhzeimers disease!
War is necrophilia.
Granted, this is April Fool's Day, but c'mon, this is utter crap. Cutting on Christian organizations in such a brutely stupid manner, saying they'd try and get things like Star Trek and Star Wars sensored? Never mind that the gripe is carnal violence, not 'theoretical, unseen violence' such as that in Star Wars and ST... Heck, Looney Toons is more graphically violent than either.
This is stooping pretty low, even for April 1st.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Where the heck have you been? Yes, of course they have a history of censorship. The Republican leadership have been the lap dogs of the Religious Right for years. Does the name "Ed Meese" mean anything to you? How about Henry Hyde?
According to this study of attitudes towards censorship in New York, while pro-censorship attitudes were disturbingly high among all groups, they were significantly more common amoung Republicans than Democrats.
I suggest you start paying attention to the antics of John Ashcroft, who supported the CDA, supported mandatory internet filtering, and supported a law that would have made it illegal to talk about how drugs are made.
"It's said that we shouldn't legislate morality," Ashcroft told Charisma magazine in December 1999. "Well, I disagree. I think all we should legislate is morality. We shouldn't legislate immorality."
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Um.. hello? That movie is amazingly violent! =)
------------
CitizenC
this is without a doubt the biggest troll I've ever seen on /. jamie, you are a troll.
mod me to obvlivion if you want, but this is pathetic.
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've noticed that most of the teens and twenty-somethings associate christianity = conservatism = stealing rights. The funny thing is that it is the exact opposite. First of all, I am sure you all know who James Exon is (D-Neb) :) As far as party ideals go, the Republican party stands for shrinking government regulation while the Democratic party believes in increasing it. Think of issues like gun control, censorship, health care, and taxes. Republicans favor free market decisions, while the Democratic party favors socialist regulation. (Now all the know-it-alls yell "You are calling Democrats Marxists! Burn him!")
Non all Christians believe strongly censhorship. Just like all groups, there are extremists whose views do not represent the whole. Parents of today remember WWI and WWII and haven't forgotten what we fought for. Christians believe that they are responsible as parents for controlling the moral ideas, and empowering their children with making those decisions for themselves. Maybe down south they have another idea of Christianity, but most people I know don't want to push religion-based censhorship onto the government.
Why was this article placed into "Your Rights Online?" Does Star Wars face censorship? There is no link in this article stating that. The quoted portion from alphaparadigm is just interested in body count in a Star Wars movie. How did this get to be a bash on Republicans? I don't recall John Ashcraft commenting about Star Wars or Star Trek (except in reference to the missle defense plan, ofcourse)
Most current congresspeople know nothing of internet, so naturally they fear it and want to regulate it. But nobody has proposed censoring books or movies recently at all. If you all are looking for a party that favors the environment, wants freedom from censorship and regulation, and is totally non-religious, I recommend learning more about the Libertarian party.
Score -1, Flamebait?
...it's the gz/bz2 compression you have to look out for.
(da da dum...sorry)
"These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
Think about it.
1. It's a morality play (good vs. evil)
2. Has an nearly all white cast (barring Lando and any aliens)
3. No homosexuals (though bobba fett did hold that blaster kinda funny)
4. Religion (the force)
I think there some German lawyers tried to ban Bible in some schools (or kindergarten) last year or something, because it contained so much violence and sex that it clearly should be considered illegal. I don't know if they succeeded.
But that gives a neat idea, if some book or movie is censored, just create a religion around it, and it'll be uncensored in no-time. (Make it preferably a Christian sect, and success is guaranteed.)
But then, if you look at SciFi, I think Lexx is quite violent. Hey, Mantrid even destroyed the Universe! One of the main characters, Kai, has "killed countless people; men, women, old people, children, mothers with their babies in their wombs, heroes, scientists, and poets..." The other main character is the captain of Lexx, the most powerful weapon of two universes, and uses it to occasionally blow up planets, moons, and such. Lots of sex and all kinds of really sick combinations of sex and violence in the series too. Oh, I forgot to mention, Lexx is definitely the best TV-series around right now!
Also there's the one episode of Star Trek: Voyager in which not just planets but entire species are wiped out, but then they crash Voyager into the time ship and the timeline reverts to the way it was so nobody ever really died ... or did they?
Yeah, with the Krenim (sp?)... that was a fun episode. But look at it this way: Were they really killed in the first place? Reality was just altered so that they had never existed. (though to Janeway, it was the same thing)
Just playing devil's advocate. Temporal mechanics is headache-inducing at best.
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Interesting dramatic device anyways...
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
This is nuts! By this reasoning they should ban the bible too.. How about the flood???
Cows (which are just horses in black and white anyway) eat meat in the UK (hence BSE) and monkeys (whose DNA is not doubt 100% compatible with yours) taste good with a spicy sauce so therefore eating meat is compulsory.
Rich
What would Xenu do?
Rich
Rich
I think the highest body count should be tallyed by the number of on screen deaths - wiping out civilisations shouldn't count because more often than not you don't see 'em bite it.
The first terminator film had quite a high body count - likewise Rambo always used to polish off quite a few. But for maximum onscreen fatalities, I quite like Apocalypse Now mind you, a lot of people in this film are already dead when you get to see them (or parts of them)
Then of-course there is HotShots part deux which proclaims: Body Count:150,000 - Bloodiest Movie Ever (or something to that effect)
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
That was exactly my impression when I saw it the day it opened in 1978. I happened to have that day off, and saw it in midafternoon, with absolutely no idea what to expect other than that it was supposed to be a science fiction movie. With no preconceptions, it didn't seem that great. The production looked very good, comparable to a Bond film, but the plot seemed lame.
That is just a ruse to get the violent kids theory off guns and onto something else.
Maybe if there's a stalemate about the violent movies Vs gun availablility we can get to actually deciding what in the heck is allowing the violence to propogate in kids.
In all honesty, school violence is lower than it has been in decades, violence in general, in the US has been on the decline since about 1993 and both sides, liberal and conservative, know it.
John Ashcroft is about the LEAST of your worries about civil rights. You might want to take on the book banners, the 'the freedom of speech is for anyone who agrees with MY point of view' types within the liberal community and the 'I don't care what it says about the people, ban inanimate objects' types.
Maybe we can get to allowing parents to -er- parent and not require schools and other government bodies to do so.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
What is being rather facetiously brought up here is actually a serious philosophical/political issue.
/. has ever seen fit to put up for our public observation and debate.
Just who determines what is, and is NOT violence. What standards will be used, and will they actually be applied fairly and without bias?
If Tom and Jerry, and The Three Stooges are violent why ISN'T Star Wars?
What, you didn't know that Tom and Jerry, and The Three Stooges are violent? They are at the TOP of the anti media violence hit parade.
Or conversely, if The Alamo starring John Wayne is not violent why IS Taxi Driver?
In Road Runner cartoons * noone dies*, but in Star Wars hundreds of millions do, some of them up close and personal. Road Runner is considered extremely violent by the people pushing this issue, and in Road Runner clearly * noone real even exists to be harmed.*
This is one of the deepest most provocative posts of a general interest that
KFG
They also make sure that that god-fearing person is fearing the correct god, and at the correct times.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
The next time a kid blows up a planet, killing billions of sentient beings, we'll know just who to blame.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Any movie in which meat is shown being eaten easily beats any of these movies mentioned. Here we're showing the continued enslavement and decimation of entire species for our pleasure. So the next time they show Lenny stopping at a Hot Dog stand, just think of the thousands of years of slaughter that represents!!
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It might be the same movie you saw.
As a form of protest, I will be boycotting Slashdot, PT Cruisers, News, Nerds, Free Registration at the New York Times, Futurama (for shamelessly naming one of their characters after a SlashCode release), and Disney (What's a boycott if you don't include Disney?).
Furthermore, my boycott shall continue until one of the following conditions is met:
I think if we analyze The Bible it would be found to be one of the most violent novels of all time.
/. forum, we should bind together to support the banning of this 'bible' because it encourages emulation of the protagonist who openly describes and romanticizes immoral and perverse acts of violence.
The 'old testament' details a malicious omni-presence ' god ' who wipes out the entire population of the planet in a great flood. The book goes on in some detail about this "god" instructing a man to kill his own son, which he does.
There are stories about death, grotesque descriptions of torture at the hands of the antagonist ('the devil') abound throughout.
There are even sections that describe purposeful plagues, violent destruction all caused by 'god' to punish thousands of innocent people.
This 'bible' is a foul and dangerous book, i am afraid it may lead to another uprising of violence like it has in the past (the crusades, salem witch trials, etc etc etc).
I am here to appeal to the morals of this
The Bible should henceforth be banned, all works and organizations which serve to support and foster the horrible descriptions within should be abolished.
modern Americans are extremely self-centered
.sig - the solution is to replace the Plutocracy with a responsive Democratic Government.
Lets not forget greedy, unabashedly selfish, myopic, ignorant and introverted.
It always amuses me when some teen runs rampaging with a gun and Americans think the problem is the media/video games or music videos - the problem is not pop culture, its a corrupt and vacant system, organized as such from top to bottom. Lets not even mention the over-consumption and the soulless, gluttonous search for satisfaction at the Local MegaMall. The problem is isolation, desolation, needless competition and antagonism. If America wants a healthy culture they should look to increase understanding, broaden perspectives, promote healthy dialogue, and end the fear/adversarial/unhealthy relationship with their government* and build a better community.... and no you cant 'vote with your dollars' to solve this problem - the 'vote with your dollars' meme - and the people who are selling the erronous concept - is the problem.. You cant replace community with capitalist market economics, and you cant expect to be anything outside oppressed if you organize yourselfves around 'capitalist wealth'.
*Read
Get over it, this whole thread is a joke!
I can't be karma whoring - I've already hit 50!
SIG: HUP
Looks pretty much like a toss-up to me.
If you have been conditioned by the less informed, you would believe that these are both the same parties.
If you have been conditioned by the less informed, you judge political parties by their words rather than their actions. Yes, Republicans pay greater lip service to smaller government and personal freedom than Democrats. Any evidence of this from their actions is lacking, however.
Which of the two parties has the philosophy of "Small Government"? If you think small government consists of just fewer government employees, then you're fooling yourself. Small Government is not just a policy, it is a philosophy.
Name ONE SINGLE government program that W. proposed to cut during his campaign. You can't, because he didn't.
Why do you think Libertarians, who believe that government's only role is to maintain our roads build a military, typically vote Republican?
A blatant lie. Harry Browne reported that of the people he talked to who were supporting him in this election, about 1/3 traditionally voted Republican, 1/3 traditionally voted Democrat, and 1/3 considered themselves independents or didn't usually vote.
Unlike the author of this story, I broker my argument on logic, rather than ignorance and flailing emotionalism.
Perhaps so, but the flaw in your argument lies in judging Republicans by their words rather than their actions.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
It's ok, the Republicans won't censor it- George Lucas will just release a new version in which a big gun on the planet of Alderaan fires first at the death star and misses, then the death star fires back in self defense. Then it'll all be ok.
Obi-Wan will say "I felt a disturbance in the force as if a million souls cried out in pain and then vanished- but they had it coming to them just like Greedo did".
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Well there was that show about the Galactic Devourer or whatever, the giant worm-like thing that swallowed whole planets, indestructible, yadda-yadda-yadda.
Besides, every good ST:TOS episode had at least a couple of people dying in any possible way (exploding consoles being the number one cause, of course). Bu then they were mostly red shirts, so they don't really count.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
CmdrTaco has just won first class tickets to Alderan. There he will learn the ways of the Grammar Jedi. Much time will be spent under the tutelage of Spelling Won Kenobi, where he will face his darkest fears. Many hours will he spend learning how to discern the essence of good articles from evil ones. He will become the most feared of Grammar Jedi. His very prose will inspire generations to come.
It will come to naught however, when, at his Jedi graduation, the planet gets blown up beneath him.
I think the biggest difference has to be in what's seen on the screen. In ST:ANH, yes, you see a whole planet get blown to bits. You don't see each individual person die a bloody death like in Robocop or Lethal Weapon. Similar to the Greek Chorus of old, violence is more acceptable when you don't actually see it happen.
Well, here's something that gets brought up a lot as an argument for censorship. The thing is, though - it's not essential that you know what your child is doing all the time. Seeing one dirty picture or one violent movie is not going to traumatize your precious poppet for life. Seeing a whole bunch of them might (although I'd argue about the dirty movie bit, unless it was *really* nasty porn - rape fantasy stuff or something (not that there's anything wrong with that, for consenting adults, etc, etc)) Even most people who believe things such as "violent media cause violent children" usually say it's due to a pattern of desensitization to violence. Desensitization (or the destruction of moral fiber, maybe, in the case of porn) takes place over time.
For that matter, if you're a decent parent, and your kids have seen something that upset them or that they think is inappropriate, they're gonna tell you. Young children aren't like teenagers - they still think mommy is the source of all good and the solution to all their problems. As for teenagers, well, at that point you've pretty much done your job, and if you've done it well, they can handle it. If they can't handle it, they're never going to be ready for the real world anyway, and they'll need just as much censorious "protection" as adults.
One more point - when I was little (at least, so little that I might not to be able to handle hardcore porn or movie violence - say until I was ten or twelve, I believe) I wasn't allowed to go over to someone's house until my mother had met their parents. That's how you keep tabs on what sort of environment your children are in, away from home.
Cyclopatra
"We can't all, and some of us don't." -- Eeyore
"We can't all, and some of us don't." -- Eeyore
Except that none of them are libertarians...
It's been a while since I've watched or read HHGTTG, but come on, the movie starts with a body count of around 5 billion in the first 15 minutes or don't you remember the Earth being destroyed just to build a new space freeway?
I'm not sure if the Universe being destroyed counts since that was natural causes (or what it?) but that bumps up the body count beyoned any other movie. And not to forget the bloody wars and what not.
Overall, using whatever violence rating system that /. used for Star War, Hitch hikers guild to the galaxy is 1000 times more violent.
--
M0571y H@rml355.
That's enough. If you have not noticed, the Democrats are just as guilty of censorship.
Examples:
1) Tipper Gore and the whole music labeling thing,
2) The recent Brown University fiasco,
3) the Anti-Defamation league (granted they have points, but they still get things censored).
The list could go on forever.
I am not a republican (in fact I hate ALL political parties). It just bothers me to see a blanket statement against any group.
So, stick to technology/science/geekdom and leave politics out!!!!!!!!!!!!
In Superman, not only do they accept Homosexuality (Jimmy Olsen), but they also allow for intelligent black people (That computer guy) and also start the whole thing out by blowing up an entire planet filled with good guys. Man of Steel may as well be Man of School Violence. John is going to go nutz.
I'm the best IRC client ever.
why not blame the 6 o'clock news as the most violent source...or WWII documentaries? fingers are being pointed every which way, but seldom is reality blamed. if i remember correctly (i may be wrong) but the v-chip wouldn't block news casts, so essentially after blocking all the smut on tv you'd still have the ole dependable news cast at 6 to warp your mind. i'll stop now before i go any further. don't blame the entertainment industry. no one's forcing you to watch movies, play video games. get a clue