MovieBobs take on violence in movies (and games)

[hooby]

Finally someone who makes a valid point:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...ct-Of-Violence

(in this otherwise often very derailed discussion).


There's only two points I'd like to add to that:

The first one is, that this is only history repeating.

I mean, the works of Marquis de Sade made people cry out for a ban on books. People claimed those devilish books were morally spoiling good people, leading to sexual perversion, sin and satanism.

Similar with "The sorrows of young Werther" by Goethe - that book caused quite a lot of imitation suicides - called the "Werther effect". People cried out for a ban on that book because it made people kill themselves.

Same thing happened to music. Rock and Roll, with it's slogan "Sex, Drugs and Rock'n'Roll" frightened parents. The heavy percussion - inspired by african drums - was considered much too loud and wild by people used to the soft Swing and Big Band sounds of the time. Elvis was considered the devil in person. The proposed law to ban that kind of music which was warping the youth even went as far as a hearing of the senate.

It happened to radio too. After the radio play "War of the Worlds" caused a mass panic in England, people were calling out for a ban of such radio plays.

It happened to comic books - which actually really got heavily censored in the U.S. by the Comics Code Authority. A practice which lasted many decades.

It happened to Pen & Paper roleplaying games. Some christian organizations claimed that those games were kind of a gateway drug to satanism and witchcraft. There was some serious consideration of banning those games by law - especially after that one Tom Hanks movie.

And of course it happened to Hollywood and movie industry too. This was a very long discussion which still does get sparked back into life from time to time even today.

It happened to any form of new kind of medium ever.
Whenever a new medium started to get really popular among the youth, while their own parents didn't know that medium during their own youths, someone tries to make political profit of parents natural worry about their children - by creating hysteria.
Use the fears of people to gain votes. Oldest trick in the book.



And the other thing is - there is no statistical reliability in comparing how many massacres where caused by young people who where in contact with violent games (or movies) for the simple reason, that more than 99% of the youth have been in contact with violent games (or movies).

I mean, if there was any statistical relevance to that, then the fact that there has been at least one school shooting where we know the shooter had no connection to video games at all (I don't remember which one it was, but there has been one) - would mean that purely statistically speaking, people playing violent video games are less likely to run amok, than those who don't. Because the percentage of culprits of shootings playing violent games is much lower than those 99% (because of that one instance of non-players).

But the fact is, the penetration of violent games is so extremely high, that there is no statistical relevance in it anymore.

[eNTi]

i like his take on this one. can agree too 100%. i didn't even think it that far... or even could.

[yerkyerk]

This is a board about a hack'n slash videogame with blood and gore, where you face, among others, human opponents and the only solution to your problems that is offered is violence. And you're dismembering monsters not even because you want to stick up for humanity, no, you're mutilating them because of the phat lewt you want to steal off their corpses.
I'm pretty sure you're preaching to the choir here, hooby.

Anyway, good enough reason for me to play the devil's advocate. Which is a figure of speech, ofcourse, because we all know that violent videogames are the work of the devil! Muhaha.

Sorry, I digress. Anyway;
First your straw man argument; where's that number on 99% of children exposed to violent videogames; and do the measurements in the rating correspond to the supposed person who never got in touch with violent videogames? As the "proof" for that is rather intangible and thus utterly useless.

As far as all other media are concerned; a case should stand on its own and not on semi-related cases. We all agree that the interactivity that videogames offer make this medium an entirely different experience from the classic media. Videogames should be judged for what they are, not for the impact other media had.

If there is no reliable scientific proof for either side, wouldn't you rather pick the safe side and ban violence in videogames? After all, what weighs heavier, entertainment or our children's physical safety and mental well-being? A shoot-out is not the only negative impact violent videogames have on children, it's just the most extreme. And while we're at it, we should also ban the metal.
Won't somebody please think of the children?

[Mall Ninja]

Originally Posted by yerkyerk

If there is no reliable scientific proof for either side, wouldn't you rather pick the safe side and ban violence in videogames? After all, what weighs heavier, entertainment or our children's physical safety and mental well-being? A shoot-out is not the only negative impact violent videogames have on children, it's just the most extreme. And while we're at it, we should also ban the metal.
Won't somebody please think of the children?

I was so hoping that link would be to that video. And since you were playing the devil's advocate, I guess I'll respond. "Picking the safe side" isn't what we're dealing with here- it isn't safe to allow the banning of anything that might have a negative impact of some kind based on little to no legitimate evidence. Somebody is thinking of the children, and they shouldn't grow up in a world where free expression can be so easily stifled based on no evidence. It's not just about entertainment. It's about rights. But, as you put it, I'm preaching to the choir

[Roros]

I think there is a distinction between violence types. I feel there's a vast difference between violence that results from a lack of negotiation (conquering a nation in a strategy game because it offers no peaceful options, killing all the cops in a shooter because there is no option to yield), and violence for the sake of violence (mortal kombat fatalities, running over pedestrians in GTA) where the violence itself is meant to make you laugh or give you a sense of power.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are more distinctions, I'm no psychologist, but what keeps getting me is the lack of understanding and the lack of attempt to understand these aspects by the people who oppose it.
Every time this issue is raised, I find myself wondering how the depicted violence affects us or if at all, but I rarely see anyone thoroughly try to deconstruct it as (like he mentions in the video a bit) it obviously "just is" bad for us and entertaining the notion of analyzing it is giving it more credit than it's worth, being just video games and movies and all.

[hooby]

Originally Posted by yerkyerk

This is a board about a hack'n slash videogame with blood and gore, where you face, among others, human opponents and the only solution to your problems that is offered is violence. And you're dismembering monsters not even because you want to stick up for humanity, no, you're mutilating them because of the phat lewt you want to steal off their corpses.
I'm pretty sure you're preaching to the choir here, hooby.

Anyway, good enough reason for me to play the devil's advocate. Which is a figure of speech, ofcourse, because we all know that violent videogames are the work of the devil! Muhaha.

Sorry, I digress. Anyway;
First your straw man argument; where's that number on 99% of children exposed to violent videogames; and do the measurements in the rating correspond to the supposed person who never got in touch with violent videogames? As the "proof" for that is rather intangible and thus utterly useless.

As far as all other media are concerned; a case should stand on its own and not on semi-related cases. We all agree that the interactivity that videogames offer make this medium an entirely different experience from the classic media. Videogames should be judged for what they are, not for the impact other media had.

If there is no reliable scientific proof for either side, wouldn't you rather pick the safe side and ban violence in videogames? After all, what weighs heavier, entertainment or our children's physical safety and mental well-being? A shoot-out is not the only negative impact violent videogames have on children, it's just the most extreme. And while we're at it, we should also ban the metal.
Won't somebody please think of the children?

It seems like you haven't watched the video I linked above - since you repeat exactly those arguments that MovieBob already debunked.

[yerkyerk]

Originally Posted by hooby

It seems like you haven't watched the video I linked above - since you repeat exactly those arguments that MovieBob already debunked.

Yea, I was at work, no sound and Youtube turns into a slideshow. I'll watch it later

[Elbozo]

On the topic of Video Game Violence, i think those videos might be of interest too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSBn77_h_6Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-EnKelycQ4

The second one requires you to download a file unfortunately, due to youtube copyright. Before you decide it's not worth it, i would urge everyone to do it anyway. It's a 40 min analysis of the movie "Elephant" and another view of Video Game Violence. Both are well worth a watch, since both bring interesting perspectives to the table.