Originally posted by BackFire
"What it is" is a scene that is monumentally disturbing beyond any other comparible scene in existence. Name one rape scene that you've seen that you think compares to it in regards to its power and the harrowing feel it carries. I'm curious.
The General's Daughter scene was MUCH better. 😐
Originally posted by BackFire
"You said you'd do it POV. That's all I need to know about it to make the very safe assumption that it would fail. It would have the opposite effect. Go on. Do it. Put your money where your mouth is. Make the scene, and then wonder what's going on when everyone laughs at your juvenile attempt to be dark and unique by doing something that, as Bardock has said, has already been done, and failed at, before.
POV is not even a fifth of how it would be, though. That's just one tool I would implement. 😐
But thanks for being a dick about it. I guess I struck a tender spot with my dislike of your favorite scene? (Yes, I'm serious.)
Originally posted by BackFire
Irreversible wasn't gimmicky.
Yes. Yes it was.
Originally posted by BackFire
Your idea would be far more gimmicky and stylized than irreversible. And worse yet, without any true purpose. Only a lazy man trying to be unique and creative by doing something that I thought might have been an interesting idea when I was 14.
"POV is not even a fifth of how it would be, though. That's just one tool I would implement."
And now you're insulting me by calling me 14, indirectly. Good job.
Originally posted by BackFire
Relevant? No. Jokes are jokes.
I can't help it if you missed a simple point. That's your fault.
Originally posted by BackFire
You are showing a startling amount of ignorance in regards to this film.
I was thinking the same about you. You are showing a disturbing amount of ignorance, despite how much love you have for the film.
My point wasn't debatable, yet, you tried to debate it. That's just weird.
Originally posted by BackFire
It is. That's why there's never been another rape scene that even comes remotely close to this one in regards to its realism or power.
I disagree, obviously. How many times have you replied back to that, now?
Originally posted by BackFire
Films aren't interactive.
Your knowledge of films is very underwhelming. I sure hope I am taking this comment WAAAAAAAY out of context. 😐
Originally posted by BackFire
They are stories that we watch happening to others. Once more, your idea would have the opposite effect. It would only further distance the viewer by making it overly stylized and thus not believable or realistic at all. You may disagree. Fine. Go make it and see what the response would be.
The exact opposite is true. Whilst Irreversible appealed to a certain audience, mine would be more broad. Like I said, I presented it as something better than your favorite scene in a movie, so, obviously you're not going to think about it objectively. I am prepared for that. I've had to put up with rabid Original Trilogy fanboys for a decade now, so I think I can handle a small niche irreversible fanboy market.
Originally posted by BackFire
You can repeat the false analogy all you want. Doesn't matter. There is factually no better level of realism than showing something as it actually happens.
This comment approaches willful ignorance...if you take it in context with our discussion.
Alone, it is very intelligent and I agree with it fully. In fact, alone, it actually supports my point.
Originally posted by BackFire
And now you present the false premise that he was a stereotype. He wasn't. What's another character that has done actions similar to him? Go on.
Way to miss the point, ace.
Read my posts on that, again, and then get back to me when you understand them.
Until then, he was an imaginary stereotype a gay male. I'll one-up your patronizing question with my own: tell me, dear sir, how many gay men do you know are like that? Do you know even one? Then tell me how many homophobic men and women you know that would probably tell you men like that exist? (They probably do.)
Cue the "you missed the point of his character. It was fate and bad things happen to good people, bla bla bla."
There, I saved you the time of not actually getting my point and not answering my question.
FYI, that point of mine wasn't debatable, either.
Originally posted by BackFire
Semantics. What he did was undeniably and extraordinarily cruel on a level most filmmakers wouldn't even be able to comprehend. Gasper Noe created a character as loathsome and vicious as I've ever seen. The fact that he didn't have a good reason, that he did it out of pure spite and the sheer need to dominate another person is as realistic a portrayal of a rapist as can exist.
No he didn't. 😐
Don't you see how much of a fanboy you are?
Do you see how thick-headed you would appear to someone like me?
Originally posted by BackFire
That is often their reason for doing it..
They want to dominate and have complete control over another. As he did.[/B][/QUOTE]
How do you know this? Where is your evidence on these psychological statistics?
Originally posted by BackFire
The high class bit was his excuse. He was hateful and would have found any reason to do it. He was previously harassing a low class prostitute and probably would have raped her had Bellucci's character not entered the tunnel.
No, he wouldn't have. Now you think that he would have raped everyone. This is wrong. You missed the portion of the film where he degrades her for her high class high maintenance appearance.
Originally posted by BackFire
And he had one.
He had multiple. Thanks for missing those points.
Originally posted by BackFire
No. Simply that he was evil, and so doing evil things is what evil people often do. Very simple concept.
Thanks for missing my point. Again.
Originally posted by BackFire
Also I should say that you're the first person I ever heard of who had trouble concentrating and following the scene.
I didn't say I had trouble with either. 😐
Originally posted by BackFire
I'll blame it on your attention span, since you did first. Or did you forget what you posted?
Yes. I already forgot. dur
Originally posted by BackFire
Once more you said in an earlier post that the fault lied with you having a poor attention span. You said this. This is a premise you brought into the conversation. Not me. I'm simply taking your word for it.
You're missing the point. Of course, you get the point so instead of arguing against he point, you harp with an ad hominem fallacy.
Originally posted by BackFire
Why? You've admitted in private messages to others that this is your troll account.
I'll take care of that right now. In all forums I frequent. I've had enough of this stupidity and ignorance from everyone, which now includes some mods, apparently.
You guys have been trolled by a troll to the point that you are accusing a non-troll of being a troll.
Originally posted by BackFire
The only reason you aren't banned is because it doesn't come up on the sock checker and because at times it's difficult to tell if you're sincerely as stupid and unlikeable as you come across or merely trolling.
You do know that what you have been doing in almost every point you made back to me was trolling, right? You make ad hominem attack after another instead of addressing the actual points, and then you pretend as if my points never existed at some parts. That is trolling 101. 😐
What you said, above, is very inappropriate.
Originally posted by BackFire
In this post I assume the latter, since I can't actually imagine anyone so dense and having such a cinematically inept view that they'd think a POV rape scene would sincerely be at all effective in any way outside of self parody.
This is full of fanobyism and ignorance. It almost epitomises fanboy close mindedness. Great job.
Originally posted by wicker_man
Depends on what context the scenario is shown, I mean if it's glorifying it and has no actual relevance to the plot then in such cases (without being a prude) I'd say they've got a case for banning however then you're drawn into that whole debate of media influence.
How do we define "glorifying it"?
How do you justify telling an author what he (or she) is allowed to write about?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How do we define "glorifying it"?
How do you justify telling an author what he (or she) is allowed to write about?
You don't you let them write it and ergo let them face the consequences.
Glorification in my eyes is someone who makes light of the subject with no showing of repercussions or the adverse effects it has, however everyone will have a different idea of what glorification is.
Originally posted by wicker_man
You don't you let them write it and ergo let them face the consequences.Glorification in my eyes is someone who makes light of the subject with no showing of repercussions or the adverse effects it has, however everyone will have a different idea of what glorification is.
so you suggest diverting funds, officer time and other resources from actual police operations, like stopping real rapists, to the enforcement of censorship, which cannot be linked to any real world violence or consequences?
Originally posted by wicker_man
You don't you let them write it and ergo let them face the consequences.
That's not a justification, that's just a waste of money.
Originally posted by wicker_man
Glorification in my eyes is someone who makes light of the subject with no showing of repercussions or the adverse effects it has, however everyone will have a different idea of what glorification is.
Which is the problem. People won't agree what it is, virtually anything could be construed as "glorifying" rape. Truffaut jumps immediately to mind.
Originally posted by inimalist
so you suggest diverting funds, officer time and other resources from actual police operations, like stopping real rapists, to the enforcement of censorship, which cannot be linked to any real world violence or consequences?
Nope not at all, what I'm saying is I hope authors have more sense as to what is and what isn't acceptable and if not them then chances are publishers or potential publishers will step in and say something.
Originally posted by wicker_man
Nope not at all, what I'm saying is I hope authors have more sense as to what is and what isn't acceptable and if not them then chances are publishers or potential publishers will step in and say something.
I think I see what you're saying.
It can be portrayed as a very negative and horrible thing such as Irreversible and The General's Daughter.
It can be made light and even humerous: A Clockwork Orange.
However, I don't feel it should be censored at all. Ever. I am all about the freedom of expression and speech, as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone besides the person who wants to indulge.
To put it shorter: "To each his own."
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think I see what you're saying.It can be portrayed as a very negative and horrible thing such as Irreversible and The General's Daughter.
It can be made light and even humerous: A Clockwork Orange.
However, I don't feel it should be censored at all. Ever. I am all about the freedom of expression and speech, as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone besides the person who wants to indulge.
To put it shorter: "To each his own."
Indeed I am, thanks for the usage of examples.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The General's Daughter scene was MUCH better. 😐POV is not even a fifth of how it would be, though. That's just one tool I would implement. 😐
But thanks for being a dick about it. I guess I struck a tender spot with my dislike of your favorite scene? (Yes, I'm serious.)
Yes. Yes it was.
"POV is not even a fifth of how it would be, though. That's just one tool I would implement."
And now you're insulting me by calling me 14, indirectly. Good job.
I can't help it if you missed a simple point. That's your fault.
I was thinking the same about you. You are showing a disturbing amount of ignorance, despite how much love you have for the film.
My point wasn't debatable, yet, you tried to debate it. That's just weird.
I disagree, obviously. How many times have you replied back to that, now?
Your knowledge of films is very underwhelming. I sure hope I am taking this comment WAAAAAAAY out of context. 😐
The exact opposite is true. Whilst Irreversible appealed to a certain audience, mine would be more broad. Like I said, I presented it as something better than your favorite scene in a movie, so, obviously you're not going to think about it objectively. I am prepared for that. I've had to put up with rabid Original Trilogy fanboys for a decade now, so I think I can handle a small niche irreversible fanboy market.
This comment approaches willful ignorance...if you take it in context with our discussion.
Alone, it is very intelligent and I agree with it fully. In fact, alone, it actually supports my point.
Way to miss the point, ace.
Read my posts on that, again, and then get back to me when you understand them.
Until then, he was an imaginary stereotype a gay male. I'll one-up your patronizing question with my own: tell me, dear sir, how many gay men do you know are like that? Do you know even one? Then tell me how many homophobic men and women you know that would probably tell you men like that exist? (They probably do.)
Cue the "you missed the point of his character. It was fate and bad things happen to good people, bla bla bla."
There, I saved you the time of not actually getting my point and not answering my question.
FYI, that point of mine wasn't debatable, either.
No he didn't. 😐
Don't you see how much of a fanboy you are?
Do you see how thick-headed you would appear to someone like me?
They want to dominate and have complete control over another. As he did.
How do you know this? Where is your evidence on these psychological statistics?
No, he wouldn't have. Now you think that he would have raped everyone. This is wrong. You missed the portion of the film where he degrades her for her high class high maintenance appearance.
He had multiple. Thanks for missing those points.
Thanks for missing my point. Again.
I didn't say I had trouble with either. 😐
Yes. I already forgot. dur
You're missing the point. Of course, you get the point so instead of arguing against he point, you harp with an ad hominem fallacy.
I'll take care of that right now. In all forums I frequent. I've had enough of this stupidity and ignorance from everyone, which now includes some mods, apparently.
You guys have been trolled by a troll to the point that you are accusing a non-troll of being a troll.
You do know that what you have been doing in almost every point you made back to me was trolling, right? You make ad hominem attack after another instead of addressing the actual points, and then you pretend as if my points never existed at some parts. That is trolling 101. 😐
What you said, above, is very inappropriate.
This is full of fanobyism and ignorance. It almost epitomises fanboy close mindedness. Great job.
POV may not be the entirety of your idea, the other things you mentioned also sound crappy. Sorry, but they do.
You seem to think that I object to you not liking the scene - I don't. Many people don't like the scene. But it comes off as exceedingly obnoxious for you to dance around about how your way would be so much better, when we all know you will never ever actually do the scene. It's very easy to say. "Oh I could do it so much better" when you're never going to actually try. Until you do, it's a worthless statement. It's all speculative. Frankly you are coming off as a person who is all talk. Someone who says they have these wonderful ideas, but then you never actually make the effort to do it. A sayer, not a doer. Where as someone who actually thinks they could do a better job wouldn't bother saying it in a hamfisted and childish manner, they'd go and actually do it quietly and let the work speak for itself.
Also there's not even a point to responding to much of what you say since many of your retorts aren't even done soundly. You simply take a single sentence and retort that one sentence while ignoring the rest of the paragraph, thus taking the sentence out of context and also invalidating whatever it is you are retorting with. It's also another tactic used by slimy trolls who are simply attempting to annoy. Oh, but you're no troll, are you? This is just how you are.
Also, nothing I have done constitutes trolling. Everything I said is based on sound logic and is completely appropriate. You say stupid things, I call them out. In my previous post I literally retorted every single point you made in your argument, I can say that with certainty. You cannot. You mention an idea that is literally similar to one I had when I was 14, that's not me trying to be mean, that's fact. I had a similar idea for a rape scene when I was that age. At the time, thought it was so clever and creative. Then I realized how damn stupid and cheesy it was and how it reeked of simply trying to hard when I got older.
It's not a bad thing, really. When you first start to get interested in writing or thinking creatively you are always going to go overboard, it's just part of the learning experience. I will bet in a few years from now you will think back on your idea and you will wonder what the heck you were thinking. As I did. Or at least you should hope you do. It's a sign of yourself getting better, actually being able to recognize bad ideas you have in hindsight, or at least see the flaws in them.
Originally posted by BackFire
POV may not be the entirety of your idea, the other things you mentioned also sound crappy. Sorry, but they do.
What other things did I mention?
Originally posted by BackFire
You seem to think that I object to you not liking the scene - I don't.
Cool. Then we really don't have a reason to argue.
Originally posted by BackFire
Many people don't like the scene. But it comes off as exceedingly obnoxious for you to dance around about how your way would be so much better, when we all know you will never ever actually do the scene. It's very easy to say. "Oh I could do it so much better" when you're never going to actually try. Until you do, it's a worthless statement. It's all speculative. Frankly you are coming off as a person who is all talk. Someone who says they have these wonderful ideas, but then you never actually make the effort to do it. A sayer, not a doer. Where as someone who actually thinks they could do a better job wouldn't bother saying it in a hamfisted and childish manner, they'd go and actually do it quietly and let the work speak for itself.
1. You don't know me. (Remember when I offered to tell you about my script idea and you rejected my offer because you said that you didn't know me well enough? That's where I'm coming from with point #1.)
2. I just so happen to be "writing" a script that includes rape. 😐
3. About 1 out of 2 things I say I do, do I actually do. OOOO SELF PWN! 😆
4. I plan to script write, like mad, after college. We'll see where it goes from there. Right now, I have about 3 films and 1 documentary in mind.
Originally posted by BackFire
Also there's not even a point to responding to much of what you say since many of your retorts aren't even done soundly. You simply take a single sentence and retort that one sentence while ignoring the rest of the paragraph, thus taking the sentence out of context and also invalidating whatever it is you are retorting with.
Point out how many times I did that. 😐
Specific examples.
While you do that, I've already pointed out you incessant ad hominem fallacies...which you're doing again.
Originally posted by BackFire
It's also another tactic used by slimy trolls who are simply attempting to annoy. Oh, but you're no troll, are you? This is just how you are.
Indeed. I'm an idiot who's ignorant of Noe's true intentions and I don't know a good rape scene if it bit me in the butt, no pun intended.
You do know that what you're doing, right there, is trolling, don't you? You do know that I didn't start insulting back until you did, right?
Originally posted by BackFire
Also, nothing I have done constitutes trolling.
You can't insult a member and use ad hominem attacks to debate their points. That's EXCTLY what a troll does.
Originally posted by BackFire
Everything I said is based on sound logic and is completely appropriate. You say stupid things, I call them out. In my previous post I literally retorted every single point you made in your argument, I can say that with certainty.
No you cannot. You didn't. And still haven't. You "retorts" comprise of ad hominem insults and opinions.
I even gave you a couple of opportunities to "pwn" me with science, but you didn't.
Originally posted by BackFire
You mention an idea that is literally similar to one I had when I was 14, that's not me trying to be mean, that's fact. I had a similar idea for a rape scene when I was that age. At the time, thought it was so clever and creative. Then I realized how damn stupid and cheesy it was and how it reeked of simply trying to hard when I got older.
I'm sorry, your idea at 14 doesn't even come close to my complete idea. I mentioned it very slightly.
Off topic:
And, what kind of sick 14 year old boy thinks about how to do a good rape scene? 😆
I know this sounds weird, but that's just awesome.
Originally posted by BackFire
It's not a bad thing, really. When you first start to get interested in writing or thinking creatively you are always going to go overboard, it's just part of the learning experience. I will bet in a few years from now you will think back on your idea and you will wonder what the heck you were thinking. As I did. Or at least you should hope you do. It's a sign of yourself getting better, actually being able to recognize bad ideas you have in hindsight, or at least see the flaws in them.
Cool. Now we're chums. 👆
And, no, I haven't told you the first bit about my idea. After I pass it by Bards, I'll pass it by you.
Since it's NSFW, I don't want to PM it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What other things did I mention?Cool. Then we really don't have a reason to argue.
1. You don't know me. (Remember when I offered to tell you about my script idea and you rejected my offer because you said that you didn't know me well enough? That's where I'm coming from with point #1.)
2. I just so happen to be "writing" a script that includes rape. 😐
3. About 1 out of 2 things I say I do, do I actually do. OOOO SELF PWN! 😆
4. I plan to script write, like mad, after college. We'll see where it goes from there. Right now, I have about 3 films and 1 documentary in mind.
Point out how many times I did that. 😐
Specific examples.
While you do that, I've already pointed out you incessant ad hominem fallacies...which you're doing again.
Indeed. I'm an idiot who's ignorant of Noe's true intentions and I don't know a good rape scene if it bit me in the butt, no pun intended.
You do know that what you're doing, right there, is trolling, don't you? You do know that I didn't start insulting back until you did, right?
You can't insult a member and use ad hominem attacks to debate their points. That's EXCTLY what a troll does.
No you cannot. You didn't. And still haven't. You "retorts" comprise of ad hominem insults and opinions.
I even gave you a couple of opportunities to "pwn" me with science, but you didn't.
I'm sorry, your idea at 14 doesn't even come close to my complete idea. I mentioned it very slightly.
Off topic:
And, what kind of sick 14 year old boy thinks about how to do a good rape scene? 😆I know this sounds weird, but that's just awesome.
Cool. Now we're chums. 👆
And, no, I haven't told you the first bit about my idea. After I pass it by Bards, I'll pass it by you.
Since it's NSFW, I don't want to PM it.
You also mentioned something about hearing her voice during the scene, presumably from voice over. Again, it reeks of trying too hard.
I didn't reject you because I didn't know you well enough, I didn't want to talk to you on the phone. I said I'd gladly help you through PM or an IM service.
Cool that you're going to script write. Having ideas means nothing, though, until you actually WRITE them. Everyone has ideas for films. Writing a fully formed and nuanced script based on them is another thing entirely. If you haven't even done that yet then that's even more of a hit to your credibility when you say that you could do a rape scene better than Irreversible. Well, not really I guess. It's all infinitely meaningless 'till you actually do it. Or at least attempt to.
And I didn't use Ad Hominem to debate your points. To only time I attacked you was after all of your points were already retorted.
And here are examples of where you failed to quote a point in its entirety, and simply retorted out of context sentences:
I said this -
Irreversible wasn't gimmicky. Its backwards narrative was essential to properly exploring the theme of fate and how things can't be put right again. It made the whole thing much more foreboding as we the viewers ended up knowing the fate of the characters before they did, and thus altering what would otherwise be joyful happy ending and morphing it into an unimaginably somber and sad realization.
You only quoted this -
Irreversible wasn't gimmicky.
I said this -
You are showing a startling amount of ignorance in regards to this film. The simple stillness of the camera during the rape scene is what was jarring, along with the length of the scene. In the rest of the film the camera was moving almost constantly and in a near spastic manner, to have it suddenly go completely still during this particular scene only enhanced its power, and it worked precisely BECAUSE it was in context with the rest of the film.
You only quoted this -
You are showing a startling amount of ignorance in regards to this film.
Note how you only quote and retort the claim, while ignoring the important part where I actually EXPLAIN WHY these claims are true. You say I haven't retorted you properly, this would be true if what you quoted me as saying was actually ALL I said, but instead you misrepresent what I say, quote one segment of an entire point, and respond with 'no it doesn't' as if the explanation was never posted. You fail to retort the actual explanation, and thus you fail to retort the point properly.
Also, back to Irreversible now, you seem to think that Noe's goal was to make the audience feel like they were being raped. It wasn't. That was never his goal at all. It's actually impossible to do that because of the inherent and unimaginable emotional trauma and physical horrors that go with the act, and those portions can't be conveyed via film in any subjective manner that the audience can themselves feel.
All Noe wanted to do was SHOW the act as it is, not as if YOU were being raped but as if you were sitting there watching someone else being raped, because that's the most efficient way of showing something in film. You see something happen to someone else on screen, and if done well later on you are able to put yourself in their shoes and that is where the fear comes from. When watching Jaws people weren't in the theater fearing right then that they'd be eaten by a shark. That feeling came later on after seeing the movie, they were able to place themselves in the shoes of the characters and then feel as the characters felt that they witnessed being attacked.
The same is true for this scene. You don't feel like YOU'RE being raped during the scene, but later on, particularly for women, I imagine, you will see a long empty walkway, and you will be reminded of that scene, and you will feel fear.
And I'd certainly hope that my idea at 14 doesn't compare to your idea now. As I was freaking 14 years old. But it shares characteristics, and those characteristics are what are problematic with your idea, as they were with mine, or at least how you presented your idea.
Yes, what kind of sick 14 year old thinks of good rape scenes. The same kind of sick 26 year old that thinks of good rape scenes, I imagine.
And I'm not at all interested in hearing your idea. Instead of going around trying to advertise your idea to people, go put it to work. Again, all talk. It's all pointless until you actually attempt to do it. Just words.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Well said BF.Irreversable shows, clearly, like no other movie....
Uhh...I'm going to beg to differ...Clockwork Orange have TWO gang rape scenes that are pretty much in the top.
Alex singing and the masks and the beating...I don't know about Irreversible (and please I'm not interested on how unique the rape scene may be) but Clockwork Orange was extremely graphic for it's day and age.
(correction)
I have to double check if in fact there were TWO gang rapes. Billy Boys abusing the girl prior to the ultraviolence may not technically a rape...will double check.
Originally posted by WhoopeeDee
Uhh...I'm going to beg to differ...Clockwork Orange have TWO gang rape scenes that are pretty much in the top.Alex singing and the masks and the beating...I don't know about Irreversible (and please I'm not interested on how unique the rape scene may be) but Clockwork Orange was extremely graphic for it's day and age.
(correction)
I have to double check if in fact there were TWO gang rapes. Billy Boys abusing the girl prior to the ultraviolence may not technically a rape...will double check.
So have you seen the Irreversible, or not? If you're not interested in the scene and if you've never seen it, you cannot claim how good it is or it is not or what is better than the scene.
Especially the one that you haven't seen.
Originally posted by WhoopeeDee
Uhh...I'm going to beg to differ...Clockwork Orange have TWO gang rape scenes that are pretty much in the top.Alex singing and the masks and the beating...I don't know about Irreversible (and please I'm not interested on how unique the rape scene may be) but Clockwork Orange was extremely graphic for it's day and age.
(correction)
I have to double check if in fact there were TWO gang rapes. Billy Boys abusing the girl prior to the ultraviolence may not technically a rape...will double check.
Clockwork Orange was definitely graphic for its day, even now, there is something about those scenes that still hold a great deal of power and are very disturbing. Thought I don't think it's quite at Irreversible's level.
Yeah I think there was only one actual rape scene. The one with the wife of the guy who was in the wheel chair later on. The other one wasn't really a rape, just a nasty beating.
Jaden - I Spit on Your Grave is probably second to Irreversible in my book. That one is really nasty. Pretty much the entire first half of the film is nothing but very ugly gang rape scenes.