The Most Controversial Films Of All Time: Part III

[Misawa]

CLICK HERE FOR THE LAST TIME! (http://www.habbox.com/site//content/view/3731/101/)

The final part. I hope you've enjoyed this special. There will be more to come. Thanks for your support of the publications.

[John!]

I was quite suprised you didn't include Borat. I thought that was quite controversial due to the racism.

[Misawa]

Again, Borat is in the minor leagues of controversy.

[Asher]

I guess all the snuff films at the time, there's plenty more to go along with Cannibal Holocaust, which I didn't find too bad myself, except the baby being ripped out then discarded scene ;S;/

Faces of Death series are pretty grim.

[iTech]

The 4 films, I was expecting.

Exorcist,
The Evil Dead
Zombie Flesh Eaters
Cannibal Holocaust

I was quite surprised, The Stink Of Flesh wasn't on there.
As that's very controversial, for the man-zombie rape scene :P

[Asher]

ahaha, I remember the zombie sex scene in peter jackson's brain dead/dead or alive.

[Virgin Mary]

I like the cannibal holocaust when they all get killed at the end

[MrBig]

The birth of a nation? Thats quite an old one, but it probably wasn't that contreversial back then.

[Misawa]

I deliberately only included films that I own, and have collected over the years. As for the Faces Of Death series, I have seen them all, but do not own them. Besides, they are more shockumentary than film, and 95% of their content is fake, as well as repeated over and over in the latter titles.

Snuff films are an urban legend. People have yet to see one.

[Asher]

ekk, my bad. I should have put accused of being snuff films, due to their realist depictions of death.

[iTech]

ahaha, I remember the zombie sex scene in peter jackson's brain dead/dead or alive.

There's one of them in Stink of Flesh.
That's what made it controversial.

[Sulai]

I was quite suprised you didn't include Borat. I thought that was quite controversial due to the racism.

Again, Borat is in the minor leagues of controversy.

It came like 3rd on C4's 100 most Controversial films.


I deliberately only included films that I own

maybe you should of titled it, "The Most Controversial Films That I Own".

[Misawa]

It came like 3rd on C4's 100 most Controversial films.



maybe you should of titled it, "The Most Controversial Films That I Own".

Channel 4 likes to be mainstream, those programmes that they produce are so closed in and rushed. Also, the films that I have listed are the most controversial films of all time by MASS opinion, the vast majority of them were banned. The reason that I own them all is because of their reputation.

Borat sparked a little racial controversy upon its release, but now? It's dead in the water. White Chicks is more racist than that. If Borat was banned and was a lot more controversial than a weeks worth of media attention, perhaps I would have included it alongside my analyses of films that have been shocking the world for, for the most part, over 30 years.

[iTech]

It came like 3rd on C4's 100 most Controversial films.



maybe you should of titled it, "The Most Controversial Films That I Own".

It came third, because it's a comedy, and comedies are overrated.

And why should he? :rolleyes:

[Sulai]

It came third, because it's a comedy, and comedies are overrated.

And why should he? :rolleyes:

it came third because it was direspectful to countrys and a lot of other reasons.

he should change it because he made the article based on films he had seen.

[Misawa]

it came third because it was direspectful to countrys and a lot of other reasons.

he should change it because he made the article based on films he had seen.

Read my response to you above iTech's last post.

[Frodo13.]

I think Trainspotting should of been included too.

[Mario]

as soon as i saw the thread title i though 'a clockwork orange'

[Misawa]

Trainspotting is controversial, but not controversial enough to make my list.

[RandomManJay]

These films were controversial because they we deviant from the norms of the times. For example, The Exorcist was once banned for its use of religious practices, the inclusion of young children as a main part of the story line (and and 'evil' one I might ad) and the horror was considered psychological (which at the time, movies were considered physiological). The Exorcist is no longer banned because we have grown desensitized to its style, this is the main reason why many films today are not considered controversial. I feel that such films as The Number 23, Underworld and various marvel films could be considered controversial for their unique take on the beliefs and childhood 'idols' of the audience, although I wouldn't include then in this category primarily because these styles of films are different from the ones in the list (horror) and it would be more effective to divide them into genres because there are controversial films in every genre and not just one universal category.

[Misawa]

These films were controversial because they we deviant from the norms of the times. For example, The Exorcist was once banned for its use of religious practices, the inclusion of young children as a main part of the story line (and and 'evil' one I might ad) and the horror was considered psychological (which at the time, movies were considered physiological). The Exorcist is no longer banned because we have grown desensitized to its style, this is the main reason why many films today are not considered controversial. I feel that such films as The Number 23, Underworld and various marvel films could be considered controversial for their unique take on the beliefs and childhood 'idols' of the audience, although I wouldn't include then in this category primarily because these styles of films are different from the ones in the list (horror) and it would be more effective to divide them into genres because there are controversial films in every genre and not just one universal category.

It just so happens that the Horror genre contains the most controversial films. Also, the inclusions are not just from that particular genre.

[RandomManJay]

It just so happens that the Horror genre contains the most controversial films. Also, the inclusions are not just from that particular genre.

True, the horror genre contains the most controversial films, but doesn't that say something about the genre. First is was physiological, but we became desensitized to it, so we created psychological horrors (hence the beginning of the first controversial films), but we have now began to become desensitized to that, so we are now introducing at new combination physio/psycho style (e.g. Silent Hill), but none of these are considered controversial because we have already become desensitized to both (as shown in the list, none are from the last 20 years depending on your idea or a decade starting at 1990-2000-2010 or as the year we are presently at 1988-1998-2008. This shows that we are get bored of the genre because we see it so much it has become a part of our lifestyle, so we have to keep finding something new, which we are now running out of ideas.

Also, I used the horror genre as an example, although now looking back I have included it as the genre pertaining which was my fault. I would also like to say that the films included are of a gore 'nature', typical or a horror style.

[Misawa]

Yes, the existence of the most controversial films and the media in general desensitised the spectator to the point where everything had been seen. This is exactly why there is such a craving for shock media, such as "shock sites" - real life blood and guts.

[RandomManJay]

Yes, the existence of the most controversial films and the media in general desensitised the spectator to the point where everything had been seen. This is exactly why there is such a craving for shock media, such as "shock sites" - real life blood and guts.

There isn't a phenomenon known as Shock Media (as yet) other than business names. But if there was, would you consider these films 'shock' media. I personally wouldn't due to the lack of physiological horror in some, also the lack of effects to improve the probability and reliability of belief in reality in the films.

I also asked my media studies teacher about what she thought was the most controversial film and she said The Passion of Christ would most likely be the latest controversial film of this time. Although I haven't seen it, she did describe a lot of examples of why it would be controversial and I agree with her on most. I would consider it for a Part 4 (if you're making a part 4) if you already haven't :P

[Misawa]

There isn't a phenomenon known as Shock Media (as yet) other than business names. But if there was, would you consider these films 'shock' media. I personally wouldn't due to the lack of physiological horror in some, also the lack of effects to improve the probability and reliability of belief in reality in the films.

I also asked my media studies teacher about what she thought was the most controversial film and she said The Passion of Christ would most likely be the latest controversial film of this time. Although I haven't seen it, ushe did describe a lot of examples of why it would be controversial and I agree with her on most. I would consider it for a Part 4 (if you're making a part 4) if you already haven't :P

The reason that I didn't include The Passion Of The Christ is because Mel Gibson ripped off Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation Of Christ, like he did with Apocalypto.

You cannot get more extreme than watching footage and seeing pictures of people being murdered for real.

[RandomManJay]

The reason that I didn't include The Passion Of The Christ is because Mel Gibson ripped off Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation Of Christ, like he did with Apocalypto.

You cannot get more extreme than watching footage and seeing pictures of people being murdered for real.

This is physiological which we have grown desinsitised to over the years, it doesn't matter if it is 'real' or not, thats why we created psychological horrors using such codes and conventions as; not being able to see the 'villain' (defined by Propp's spheres of action), having perception of the 'victim' and using lighting and shadows to create a presence we cannot see. This leaves only our imagination to fill in the blanks. Imagination is the most powerful tool used by the media, especially within the horror genre as the creations within our own mind are infinitely more powerful than anything you can create in the media, hence its powerful effect. An example I can give of this is my friend who can watch anything to do with 'real life' murder, surgery, or anything related to blood, but when I describe my myringotomy or what happens when I give blood, or when we receive a visit from the fire service about road safety and they describe the crashes and conditions of the drivers, he turns white and almost faints (showing his imagination causes a greater effect on him than watching even the most goriest shows). A media example I can give is when The Exorcist was released, while breaking half taboos of the media age, and despite is initial popularity, people were truly horrified and were often suicidal after watching the film, many people fainted and threw up in the cinemas (this was caused by the lack or depiction of the 'villain' in the film and through the representation through a young child.

Also, was The Last Temptation of Christ considered controversial (I haven't seen it so I cannot make a judgement)? Because if it wasn't, then it isn't fair to dismiss a rip off film which can be considered controversial purely on the fact that it is a rip off.

[Virgin Mary]

I think original horror movies are more scary and controversial than ones now. The ones made now are just gory like Saw, it's all superficial with no depth. There's nothing scary or controversial about someone bleeding.

[Misawa]

This is physiological which we have grown desinsitised to over the years, it doesn't matter if it is 'real' or not, thats why we created psychological horrors using such codes and conventions as; not being able to see the 'villain' (defined by Propp's spheres of action), having perception of the 'victim' and using lighting and shadows to create a presence we cannot see. This leaves only our imagination to fill in the blanks. Imagination is the most powerful tool used by the media, especially within the horror genre as the creations within our own mind are infinitely more powerful than anything you can create in the media, hence its powerful effect. An example I can give of this is my friend who can watch anything to do with 'real life' murder, surgery, or anything related to blood, but when I describe my myringotomy or what happens when I give blood, or when we receive a visit from the fire service about road safety and they describe the crashes and conditions of the drivers, he turns white and almost faints (showing his imagination causes a greater effect on him than watching even the most goriest shows). A media example I can give is when The Exorcist was released, while breaking half taboos of the media age, and despite is initial popularity, people were truly horrified and were often suicidal after watching the film, many people fainted and threw up in the cinemas (this was caused by the lack or depiction of the 'villain' in the film and through the representation through a young child.

Also, was The Last Temptation of Christ considered controversial (I haven't seen it so I cannot make a judgement)? Because if it wasn't, then it isn't fair to dismiss a rip off film which can be considered controversial purely on the fact that it is a rip off.

Have you not read my three-part series?

[Movieen]

True, the horror genre contains the most controversial films, but doesn't that say something about the genre. First is was physiological, but we became desensitized to it, so we created psychological horrors (hence the beginning of the first controversial films), but we have now began to become desensitized to that, so we are now introducing at new combination physio/psycho style (e.g. Silent Hill), but none of these are considered controversial because we have already become desensitized to both (as shown in the list, none are from the last 20 years depending on your idea or a decade starting at 1990-2000-2010 or as the year we are presently at 1988-1998-2008. This shows that we are get bored of the genre because we see it so much it has become a part of our lifestyle, so we have to keep finding something new, which we are now running out of ideas.

Also, I used the horror genre as an example, although now looking back I have included it as the genre pertaining which was my fault. I would also like to say that the films included are of a gore 'nature', typical or a horror style.

Actually, you're wrong in many MANY different ways. The first horror film, was originally a brutal hack and slasher. It had no sound, and very cheesey bloody effects but, it was based on the concept of Jack the Ripper, nothing psychological, just a man, raping and killing broads.

And, we're expanding more than ever, developing more and more ideas,
just portrayed similary because of how CGI comes into play. Ideas can't be killed you silly boy! 1980s were the uprising for action films, 1990s, were mainly actions, with quite a bit of horor, now is all fantasy, action, psychological horror.


There isn't a phenomenon known as Shock Media (as yet) other than business names. But if there was, would you consider these films 'shock' media. I personally wouldn't due to the lack of physiological horror in some, also the lack of effects to improve the probability and reliability of belief in reality in the films.

I also asked my media studies teacher about what she thought was the most controversial film and she said The Passion of Christ would most likely be the latest controversial film of this time. Although I haven't seen it, she did describe a lot of examples of why it would be controversial and I agree with her on most. I would consider it for a Part 4 (if you're making a part 4) if you already haven't :P

I'm sorry, shock media CAN'T be owned. It is a concept, as is media itself.
It's just grasped into ideas. Shock media does exist. Iraqi, decapitations, Urban legend Snuff, stabbing videos, fight videos. (A lower case but it's still shock.) The Passion Of Christ was an attempted come back for Mel Gibson, nothing else. He ripped off Martin Scorsese. Nothing controversial about it.


This is physiological which we have grown desinsitised to over the years, it doesn't matter if it is 'real' or not, thats why we created psychological horrors using such codes and conventions as; not being able to see the 'villain' (defined by Propp's spheres of action), having perception of the 'victim' and using lighting and shadows to create a presence we cannot see. This leaves only our imagination to fill in the blanks. Imagination is the most powerful tool used by the media, especially within the horror genre as the creations within our own mind are infinitely more powerful than anything you can create in the media, hence its powerful effect. An example I can give of this is my friend who can watch anything to do with 'real life' murder, surgery, or anything related to blood, but when I describe my myringotomy or what happens when I give blood, or when we receive a visit from the fire service about road safety and they describe the crashes and conditions of the drivers, he turns white and almost faints (showing his imagination causes a greater effect on him than watching even the most goriest shows). A media example I can give is when The Exorcist was released, while breaking half taboos of the media age, and despite is initial popularity, people were truly horrified and were often suicidal after watching the film, many people fainted and threw up in the cinemas (this was caused by the lack or depiction of the 'villain' in the film and through the representation through a young child.

Also, was The Last Temptation of Christ considered controversial (I haven't seen it so I cannot make a judgement)? Because if it wasn't, then it isn't fair to dismiss a rip off film which can be considered controversial purely on the fact that it is a rip off.

Psychological has nothing to do with seeing the villain. It's to do with the way of the killings, how they are performed. Motivations, needs etc.
And, I honestely doubt your friend faints, or goes white! No girls to impress here boy. Yes, imagination is a great effect, but it also leaves the movie hanging. (Please read up about Media!)

And yes, of course it was, and yes it was fair, Mel Gibson stole the concept, idea and pretty much the movie, of it, so yes it is. Read up the concept of rip off.


These films were controversial because they we deviant from the norms of the times. For example, The Exorcist was once banned for its use of religious practices, the inclusion of young children as a main part of the story line (and and 'evil' one I might ad) and the horror was considered psychological (which at the time, movies were considered physiological). The Exorcist is no longer banned because we have grown desensitized to its style, this is the main reason why many films today are not considered controversial. I feel that such films as The Number 23, Underworld and various marvel films could be considered controversial for their unique take on the beliefs and childhood 'idols' of the audience, although I wouldn't include then in this category primarily because these styles of films are different from the ones in the list (horror) and it would be more effective to divide them into genres because there are controversial films in every genre and not just one universal category.

The Exorcist was banned due to it's insult to the Christian church, and the actual exorcism, the film wasn't considered psychological, are you trying to spoonfeed, the up and coming media-studiers here, with horse poo? Honestely, they are controversial, Kids, love Superheroes for their powers.
Therefor it's controversial, Underworld, the Number 23, all categorise into horror at the end of the day. Please close the media book on your lap, and learn better. :)

[Jõnathan]

I also asked my media studies teacher about what she thought was the most controversial film...
Ooooh, look at you - you do media studies so you must know EVERYTHING about movies then!
:rolleyes:

I liked this series of articles a lot - any more ideas for articles like these?

Oh, and to anyone going "OMG WHY WASN'T BORAT INCLUDED?!?!?!?!?!", it did about two mass offences and the media pounced on these and glorified them.

Also to you people, Sacha Baron Cohen (you didn't know that was his name didn't you? You thought it was Ali G or Borat Sagdiyev) is Jewish himself, so all the Jewish abuse in the movie is really self-abuse.

Channel 4's Top 100 lists are more like "100 Things in a Random Order" anyway, so don't believe them.

[Movieen]

Ooooh, look at you - you do media studies so you must know EVERYTHING about movies then!
:rolleyes:

I liked this series of articles a lot - any more ideas for articles like these?

Oh, and to anyone going "OMG WHY WASN'T BORAT INCLUDED?!?!?!?!?!", it did about two mass offences and the media pounced on these and glorified them.

Also to you people, Sacha Baron Cohen (you didn't know that was his name didn't you? You thought it was Ali G or Borat Sagdiyev) is Jewish himself, so all the Jewish abuse in the movie is really self-abuse.

Channel 4's Top 100 lists are more like "100 Things in a Random Order" anyway, so don't believe them.

I agree with the full post there.
(Didn't know Sacha was Jewish though. xD)

[Misawa]

Ooooh, look at you - you do media studies so you must know EVERYTHING about movies then!
:rolleyes:

I liked this series of articles a lot - any more ideas for articles like these?

Oh, and to anyone going "OMG WHY WASN'T BORAT INCLUDED?!?!?!?!?!", it did about two mass offences and the media pounced on these and glorified them.

Also to you people, Sacha Baron Cohen (you didn't know that was his name didn't you? You thought it was Ali G or Borat Sagdiyev) is Jewish himself, so all the Jewish abuse in the movie is really self-abuse.

Channel 4's Top 100 lists are more like "100 Things in a Random Order" anyway, so don't believe them.

Exactly.

...He could at least study Film instead of Media...

[RandomManJay]

Actually, you're wrong in many MANY different ways. The first horror film, was originally a brutal hack and slasher. It had no sound, and very cheesey bloody effects but, it was based on the concept of Jack the Ripper, nothing psychological, just a man, raping and killing broads.

And, we're expanding more than ever, developing more and more ideas,
just portrayed similary because of how CGI comes into play. Ideas can't be killed you silly boy! 1980s were the uprising for action films, 1990s, were mainly actions, with quite a bit of horor, now is all fantasy, action, psychological horror.

You've proven my point of the first horror film, psychology wasn't even considered back then. Also, yes we are expanding more than ever, but in other genres, we can expand all we want, but the simple fact is how many different ways are we able to affect the audience in terms of horror, the combination of physio/psycho is just a recent technique, which is already beginning to fail due our previous desensitisation in the past and we can't resort to 'shock media' because it would basically be physiological again. Also, I never said ideas can be killed.


I'm sorry, shock media CAN'T be owned. It is a concept, as is media itself.
It's just grasped into ideas. Shock media does exist. Iraqi, decapitations, Urban legend Snuff, stabbing videos, fight videos. (A lower case but it's still shock.) The Passion Of Christ was an attempted come back for Mel Gibson, nothing else. He ripped off Martin Scorsese. Nothing controversial about it.

I didn't say shock media can be owned, I said it isn't an existent phenomenon as of yet. Also with what you've described, its applying 'real life' incidences portrayed by these institutions which are virtually injecting you with these examples and you taking it as shocking because it is portrayed by these institutions which make us more likely to believe them (present and only example of the Hypodermic Needle Theory/Model).


Psychological has nothing to do with seeing the villain. It's to do with the way of the killings, how they are performed. Motivations, needs etc.
And, I honestely doubt your friend faints, or goes white! No girls to impress here boy. Yes, imagination is a great effect, but it also leaves the movie hanging. (Please read up about Media!)

And yes, of course it was, and yes it was fair, Mel Gibson stole the concept, idea and pretty much the movie, of it, so yes it is. Read up the concept of rip off.

You are not suppose to see the way of the killings because it is psychological, your mind is supposed to create a possible murder based on the cues (e.g. shadows, lighting, sound effects). The idea of not seeing the villain is the allow you to create your own villain based on your experience with stereotypes and with what is presented, its basically to add to the effect a psychological horror has.

There is no such thing as 'the concept of rip off', also I haven't seen the films, so I wouldn't know if the same concept was used on not, perhaps the film itself, but not concept in which it was portrayed. I only stated it as a suggestion from my media teacher and when he described it being a rip off, I said don't dismiss it just because its a rip off.


The Exorcist was banned due to it's insult to the Christian church, and the actual exorcism, the film wasn't considered psychological, are you trying to spoonfeed, the up and coming media-studiers here, with horse poo? Honestely, they are controversial, Kids, love Superheroes for their powers.
Therefor it's controversial, Underworld, the Number 23, all categorise into horror at the end of the day. Please close the media book on your lap, and learn better. :)

Excuse me, I'm studying the media, in both Psychological Aspects and Media Aspects. Each of these movies were my case studies for my Med 2 exam last year. Also, half of the theories and concepts I've used in this thread, I have discussed with many media professors at open days, which they said they would be very happy to accept me with my diverse knowledge and eccentric application of them on the media.

I didn't say why the Exorcist was banned, I said it was unbanned because of the desensitisation with the audience (which in it applies to religion because the audience grew less sensitised as time progresses, hence being less offended), and its impact when it was released.

[Movieen]

You've proven my point of the first horror film, psychology wasn't even considered back then. Also, yes we are expanding more than ever, but in other genres, we can expand all we want, but the simple fact is how many different ways are we able to affect the audience in terms of horror, the combination of physio/psycho is just a recent technique, which is already beginning to fail due our previous desensitisation in the past and we can't resort to 'shock media' because it would basically be physiological again. Also, I never said ideas can be killed.



I didn't say shock media can be owned, I said it isn't an existent phenomenon as of yet. Also with what you've described, its applying 'real life' incidences portrayed by these institutions which are virtually injecting you with these examples and you taking it as shocking because it is portrayed by these institutions which make us more likely to believe them (present and only example of the Hypodermic Needle Theory/Model).

You are not suppose to see the way of the killings because it is psychological, your mind is supposed to create a possible murder based on the cues (e.g. shadows, lighting, sound effects). The idea of not seeing the villain is the allow you to create your own villain based on your experience with stereotypes and with what is presented, its basically to add to the effect a psychological horror has.

There is no such thing as 'the concept of rip off', also I haven't seen the films, so I wouldn't know if the same concept was used on not, perhaps the film itself, but not concept in which it was portrayed. I only stated it as a suggestion from my media teacher and when he described it being a rip off, I said don't dismiss it just because its a rip off.



Excuse me, I'm studying the media, in both Psychological Aspects and Media Aspects. Each of these movies were my case studies for my Med 2 exam last year. Also, half of the theories and concepts I've used in this thread, I have discussed with many media professors at open days, which they said they would be very happy to accept me with my diverse knowledge and eccentric application of them on the media.

I didn't say why the Exorcist was banned, I said it was unbanned because of the desensitisation with the audience (which in it applies to religion because the audience grew less sensitised as time progresses, hence being less offended), and its impact when it was released.

Sorry sir, *REMOVED*
Media covers all basis, Real life, (News, is an example), Movies/Television, Music, Magazine.

So Shock media is a real life phenomenom. You've contradicted yourself over an over. You have failed. Go back to learning your Psychological Media :rolleyes:

Edited by opensourcehost (Forum Administrator): Please do not be rude.
Edited by Hitman (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't insult other forum members, thanks.

[RandomManJay]

Sorry sir, but you are an idiot.
Media covers all basis, Real life, (News, is an example), Movies/Television, Music, Magazine.

So Shock media is a real life phenomenom. You've contradicted yourself over an over. You have failed. Go back to learning your Psychological Media :rolleyes:

Psychological Aspects, not psychological media. You stated that shock media is a concept, I stated it as phenomenon which doesn't exist as of yet. And where has this media covers all basis comes from, I am applying my knowledge to the concerning films. And yes, the media does cover all basis, but how much of that can be trusted, not much to be honest, if you believe everything the media gives you, we will revert into an audience which, basically, is like a child being told what to do.

[Misawa]

This is going off-topic because this thread is about the most controversial films of all time, not media studies. Ultimately, I do not see validity in the points raised until they are said by those who are film students and have produced films themselves. Touche.

[Virgin Mary]

My dear sweet child, media studies is beauty therapy for boys.

[RandomManJay]

This is going off-topic because this thread is about the most controversial films of all time, not media studies. Ultimately, I do not see validity in the points raised until they are said by those who are film students and have produced films themselves. Touche.

Fair enough.
I'll just reiterate my suggestion of The Passion of Christ, which you've dismissed for valid reasons. Also I haven't looked at your other parts sorry, I've only taken an interest in this forum recently from your thread actually :P

And sorry for going off topic.

[samsaBEAR]

My dear sweet child, media studies is beauty therapy for boys.
lol i always think that. its the one that everyone seems to go for.
in our school its shown that its all about making films, but its clearly not. people get the false impression then moan like half a year later when its boring coursework and stuff like that

[Misawa]

Media studies is more for journalists, it contains little of actual film. Film Studies is the film-making course.

[Movieen]

Psychological Aspects, not psychological media. You stated that shock media is a concept, I stated it as phenomenon which doesn't exist as of yet. And where has this media covers all basis comes from, I am applying my knowledge to the concerning films. And yes, the media does cover all basis, but how much of that can be trusted, not much to be honest, if you believe everything the media gives you, we will revert into an audience which, basically, is like a child being told what to do.

Psychological media, doesn't exist. It a concept within the media concept, odd as it is.

A concept can be a phenomenom, which it is at the moment.
But you're saying the videos of decaptitations, aren't existent?
Wow. You seriously need to read up on Shock media.

[RandomManJay]

Psychological media, doesn't exist. It a concept within the media concept, odd as it is.

You called it psychological media, not me.


A concept can be a phenomenom, which it is at the moment.
But you're saying the videos of decaptitations, aren't existent?
Wow. You seriously need to read up on Shock media.

I haven't said that videos of decapitations aren't existent, I haven't said anything like that. Also Shock Media doesn't concern me at the moment, but from looking over what I have been able to find on it, it appears to just be representation in an extreme physiological form of designed to elicit the same response as 'normal' media representation, and, although it does seem sound at points, it seems to be a cobble together of other concepts concerning extreme stereotype behaviour developed by the media and is not considered a valid media concept for these points and could be considered a proposal rather than a concept.

On a final note, the thread owner has said to stop this debate because it is off-topic which I feel we should respect and apologise for.

[Movieen]

You called it psychological media, not me.



I haven't said that videos of decapitations aren't existent, I haven't said anything like that. Also Shock Media doesn't concern me at the moment, but from looking over what I have been able to find on it, it appears to just be representation in an extreme physiological form of designed to elicit the same response as 'normal' media representation, and, although it does seem sound at points, it seems to be a cobble together of other concepts concerning extreme stereotype behaviour developed by the media and is not considered a valid media concept for these points and could be considered a proposal rather than a concept.

On a final note, the thread owner has said to stop this debate because it is off-topic which I feel we should respect and apologise for.

Dude, shut up! Honestely, SHOCK MEDIA EXISTS, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PSYCHOLOGY. Gosh! Shock media are the videos of deaths, sick disturbing videos, get your facts right!

[RandomManJay]

Dude, shut up! Honestely, SHOCK MEDIA EXISTS, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PSYCHOLOGY. Gosh! Shock media are the videos of deaths, sick disturbing videos, get your facts right!

I haven't said it is, it is physiological, physical, which, he we have grown desensitised to over the decades of physical gore, horror and disturbed videos being probed into our minds until we no longer are affected by because we have become used to it. I feel I'm repeating myself over and over with no end, it doesn't appear that your reading what I'm typing, it seems you can't differ from the words physiological and psychological.

[Movieen]

I haven't said it is, it is physiological, physical, which, he we have grown desensitised to over the decades of physical gore, horror and disturbed videos being probed into our minds until we no longer are affected by because we have become used to it. I feel I'm repeating myself over and over with no end, it doesn't appear that your reading what I'm typing, it seems you can't differ from the words physiological and psychological.


No no no, you said it didn't exist.
And it is real life disturbing footage.
Get your facts right.

[RandomManJay]

No no no, you said it didn't exist.
And it is real life disturbing footage.
Get your facts right.

I will but it in a concept you would understand:

Shock Media is a 'concept' in your terms, I said it is a phenomenon which doesn't exist as yet which I have searched for hours today and have found virtually nothing in relation other than it being a name for various companies. I had to have a discussion with my teacher about this which took a total of 2 periods to discuss which she related back the same argument I have presented. Now, if it does exist, which you say it is, and you say it is 'real life', real, physical, 'footage'. Then it is physiological text (i.e. a form of media (e.g. Newspapers, movies, TV shows etc.) which, the audience, has grown desensitised to over the decades of physiological texts in the media, we grown accustomed to it, hence we are no longer affected by it in such a dramatic way, if anything, empathy. This means it wouldn't have an affect you have described because of this desensitisation.

[Misawa]

Spectators who can view shock media without being horrified is a minority. The public have not been desensitised to the level of reality.

[Movieen]

I will but it in a concept you would understand:

Shock Media is a 'concept' in your terms, I said it is a phenomenon which doesn't exist as yet which I have searched for hours today and have found virtually nothing in relation other than it being a name for various companies. I had to have a discussion with my teacher about this which took a total of 2 periods to discuss which she related back the same argument I have presented. Now, if it does exist, which you say it is, and you say it is 'real life', real, physical, 'footage'. Then it is physiological text (i.e. a form of media (e.g. Newspapers, movies, TV shows etc.) which, the audience, has grown desensitised to over the decades of physiological texts in the media, we grown accustomed to it, hence we are no longer affected by it in such a dramatic way, if anything, empathy. This means it wouldn't have an affect you have described because of this desensitisation.

Shock media is real, ask anyone. It is the depiction of life.. Sick videos, etc.
Your teacher knows nothing, and it's nothing to do with psychological. You and oour teacher need to learn. So please leave this section, until you have decent knowledge.

[RandomManJay]

Shock media is real, ask anyone. It is the depiction of life.. Sick videos, etc.
Your teacher knows nothing, and it's nothing to do with psychological. You and oour teacher need to learn. So please leave this section, until you have decent knowledge.

Again, I haven't said Shock Media is psychological, I have said it is physiological, which will have a low affect on its physiological desensitised audience.

[RandomManJay]

Spectators who can view shock media without being horrified is a minority. The public have not been desensitised to the level of reality.

What level of reality is this, with access to the internet and various video sharing sites, we are able to watch virtually anything we wish, even reality itself. Without actually being there, the audience would perceive is at being normal physiological texts (taken from psychological issues surrounding the validity of studies concerning demand characteristics, where the audience would not experience the same 'trauma' due to not actually being physically there witnessing it). Also because the audience can be considered active at this time, the audience would have the choice whether to believe it or not, which some lower class SES members and higher class SES members would not trust based on the institution which has released it. This is my opinion of what has been said by you based on my experience with the media and its ties to psychology (psychology being the field itself, not the psychological aspect of the media).