The Most Controversial Films Of All Time: Part III

[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. )

[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

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.