Entertainment

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 4:55 am

The thread about worst TV series, inspired me to a more general discussion about entertainment, and what people percieve as entertaining - something obviously highly subjective, but still - some features seem fairly consistent across time and culture.

In the "worst TV show" thread, several people mentioned the reality TV shows and talk shows like Jerry Springer. Obviously, this type of "emotional entertainment" as it is called, is the modern version of gladiator games - the entertainment lies in watching other people suffer, and this trigger a set of emotions in the audience, and arousing this range of emotions is probably one of the major functions of this type of shows. People want to get shocked, upset, angy, sad, sentimental...these shows elicit a lot of strong emotions to people. Besides, lots of secondary benefits can be gained as well, such as emotional confirmation "at least we're not as bad as their family" or "it's disgusting - at least my friend is a decent bloke" or whatever comparisons people can make to view themselves in a favourable light.

But then there is this genre I absolutely don't understand - the so called "entertainment violence". As opposed to gladiator games and public executions, this does not amuse because people suffer - they don't, and the audience knows this. So what is fun and entertaining with entertainment violence? Obviously it must be immensly popular seeing how packed a lot of contemporary movies are with entertainment violence, and seeing how big the action movie genre is.

Personally, I don't find violence entertaining at all, on the contrary I abhorr it. Since I don't find it entertaining in reality, the idea of faking it in a movie, is not entertaining either. I am not implying people who are entertained by move violence enjoy real violence, I just explain why it can't be entertaining to me. I only like fictive violence when it is used to tell a story that includes violence, like in Once were warriors, a very good movie touching on the issue of domestic violence and abuse. But that is not what I mean with entertainment violence.

So, why do you think people (or you yourself) find entertainment violence entertaining?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 4:52 pm

Is everybody as clueless as I?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 4:57 pm

I've never understood it. My wife watches Chuck Norris films occasionally on television, and I just flinch and avoid spending more than 5 seconds in the room as I pass by.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 5:05 pm

Well, im definatly entertained by violence in some forms, Hongkong blood operas are always fun to watch for example. I can even enjoy myself when watching badly done hollywood action in some cases (like the matrix

) Im not sure its the violence in itself that apeals though. In more serious movies were you have a possibility to take the violence seriously I dont enjoy it at all (I can enjoy the movie of course, but not the violent scenes by itself)

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 5:09 pm

Finally!

Someone who enjoys "entertainment violence" and may offer a deep analysis!

I'm not familiar with the Hong Kong blood opera genre, what is entertaining with that kind of violence?

And don't mention the Matrix...The Matrix...The Matrix...gahhhh!

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 5:14 pm

If I understand the question right..

I would rather see "fake violence" instead of having to witness some poor persons real emotions.

The only reason I see for a show like springer is for people to look at it and say.."At least my life isn't that bad" and have a laugh at these poor misguided FOOLS.

With "fake entertainment" at least I know no one is really getting hurt. And if the movie is done by a great director and has the right cast, I believe it can trigger a set of emotions in the audience.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 5:29 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
Finally! Someone who enjoys "entertainment violence" and may offer a deep analysis! I'm not familiar with the Hong Kong blood opera genre, what is entertaining with that kind of violence?

And don't mention the Matrix...The Matrix...The Matrix...gahhhh!

I dont have a clear answer to this, like I dont know whats entertaining with humor... But I guess the way people move and interact with the enviroment have a certain beauty to it. Like a ballet or something.

I dont know why such movies usally feature violence and not some other activity. (Although I've actually seen one similar movie about football

) But it could be out of habit, or you can be rather imaginative when it comes to violence (unlike football the rules arent especially strict) But your guess is as good as mine here.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 5:38 pm

We obviously agree on "real" violence and emotions, like in Jerry Springer shows and similar. But these mechanisms I can understand, even though I neither like it personally nor think it is good for people in general.

Originally posted by Weasel
With "fake entertainment" at least I know no one is really getting hurt. And if the movie is done by a great director and has the right cast, I believe it can trigger a set of emotions in the audience.

The question is if we are referring to the same type of "entertainment violence" here. I'm not sure. There are many good movies with lots of violence, that trigger emotions that may have a value to us, ie a good movie about war should IMO trigger strong feelings and give people like me who have never been close to war some understanding about what war can be like. But that is not what I meant with entertainment violence, I meant movies that are made to be funny, like action comedies or action/adventure movies with no direct message in them, like 99% of the mass production action movies on TV the cinemas. Karate movies are one example, Rambo 4837, Die hard 574 or Arnold for the 4348th time are other examples. My 62 year old mother for instance, loves the Rambo movies - I absolutely can't figure how and why, but I suspect it's because she thinks he's a hunk

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 5:46 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
My 62 year old mother for instance, loves the Rambo movies - I absolutely can't figure how and why, but I suspect it's because she thinks he's a hunk

lol, my little sister likes them too. Its got to be something bout him I cant understand - Its imo one of the worst movies featuring one of the worst actors ever. She's asleep now, but ill interrogate her when she wakes up.

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 5:53 pm

I liked the first Rambo.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 5:56 pm

Originally posted by Bloodstalker
I liked the first Rambo.

Yes, and we already have other evidence you are a sick man!

(Seriously, I haven't seen the first Rambo, only First Blood - which my mother also likes

)

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 5:59 pm

Originally posted by Bloodstalker
I liked the first Rambo.

As I recall there was actualy some kind of political statement in the first rambo (Other than: some people are evil and must be killed that is.

) So I have some understanding of that even though I didnt like the movie.

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 6:18 pm

That's why I like it and not the sequels. The first one dealt with the concept of a vietnam Veteran fighting in a war, and returning home to find that he can't even hold a job. His trining that made him the best at what hi did in the war meant nothing. After he is arrested, beaten, degraded, he reverts to that training, not because he is bloodthirsty, (he even tells some that come after him after he escapes to just leave him alone) but simply because in his view he feels he has to to survive. He reverts to what has been drilled into him for years, and reacts in the only way he knows how. Actually, in his case, the only way he is capable of. I think the movie raised some interesting questions concerning how the miltary trained it's special forces, the way Vets were treated when they returned home( which was disgraceful by any countries standards IMO) and what may happen when you bring someone home who has been traind to kill, the just expect him to assimulate himself back into peaceful society with little or no help. In my opinion, John Rambo in the movie is a deeply troubled person who doesn't understand the change that is expected of him, and continued to react to situations at home the same way he would if he were still at war.

The rest of the movies, well, they were just one man army stories with a high body count.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 6:22 pm

Im not sure why I like violence. I mean, I never like seeing anyone hurt. I watch NASCAR every week, I like certain drivers and I also record the more interesting wrecks. But whenever someone gets hurt, I never like it.

I watch robotic combat, I watch football every week, I watch Baseball. And certain Anime's I like feature select violence. (though I dont watch that much Anime-I liked things like Akira, Ninja Scroll, Princess Mononoke, Aria). All of these things have violence and they are all my favorite things to watch.

The only conclusion that I have-These things all give a bit of excitement to my life. Ive heard people say things like: Its getting your fury out of you. Adreneline rushes are addicting.

The fact is I havent felt either of those things, primarily, when I watch the violence. Maybe it is linked to Adreneline, though. My excitement level is higher when I watch those things and I find that addicting. Maybe theres a better answer out there. Maybe its because Im a naturally passive person, and therefor really dont resort to violence. My feeling of violent urges are relieved when I watch the violence on TV. Im sure there are plenty more theories out there.

BTW-Im glad my "worst TV ever thread" has had an impact upon thought and opinion. I just thought it was going to be a cool topic to talk about.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 7:13 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
The question is if we are referring to the same type of "entertainment violence" here. I'm not sure. There are many good movies with lots of violence, that trigger emotions that may have a value to us, ie a good movie about war should IMO trigger strong feelings and give people like me who have never been close to war some understanding about what war can be like. But that is not what I meant with entertainment violence, I meant movies that are made to be funny, like action comedies or action/adventure movies with no direct message in them, like 99% of the mass production action movies on TV the cinemas. Karate movies are one example, Rambo 4837, Die hard 574 or Arnold for the 4348th time are other examples. My 62 year old mother for instance, loves the Rambo movies - I absolutely can't figure how and why, but I suspect it's because she thinks he's a hunk

Now I see what you mean.

I was referring more to films like...
The Night of the Living Dead. (The first one...not the hacks that came after.)

Rambo (the first), to me had a meaning...the rest..junk.

Karate..the old style..(B/W with subtitles) I always enjoyed. Most had a moral to the story...(yes some where "dumb") and some of Jackie Chan's old stuff...before he teamed up with a american cop

Raiders of the Lost Ark.. (It goes down hill after this one)

*****************************

Not referring this these...

Diehard..the first was crazy and the others followed suit.

Arnold...the only film to come close to having a meaning..Conan.

Fight Club???? A completely unknown plot.

Lethal Weapon??? A lot of explosions.

As to why...some of it comes from people following the actors they like in one film to another film, even if it is a different type of movie/show. Now to them liking it once they have seen it....I have my idea, but it would be rude for me to say.

It could be tied into something I watched on the Discovery Channel.

A man did an experiment with a 'Shock" box, he wanted to see if he could get people to shock another person. He told them the person would not be hurt. (I will see if I can find it on the internet and post a link, it will explain the test better than I can.)

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sun Jul 21, 2002 12:42 am

I have no problems with violence if it adds to the film or is a necesary part of the plot, but violence for violence's sake doesn't entertain me. I just laugh, though admittedly I couldn't sit through the whole intro of Saving Private Ryan. The movie had made it's point, after a while the violence just got stupid. I tend to prefer thought-provoking films over mindlessly violent ones.

That said, I love anime, and find titles such as Ninja Scroll entertaining, though not as entertaining as Ghost in the Shell or Neon Genesis Evangelion.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Sun Jul 21, 2002 1:45 am

Well I hate excess violence in movies. I've already proved my point about Fight Club in Morlocks thread. The explosion type is enjoyable and helps to pass the time, but the focus in showing detailed acts (which I blame on Braveheart

) of violence. Thats just plain wrong.

As for Ninja Scroll, the wood scene with the rock demon type guy drinking blood wasn't really necessary.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Jul 21, 2002 1:58 pm

Originally posted by Weasel

A man did an experiment with a 'Shock" box, he wanted to see if he could get people to shock another person. He told them the person would not be hurt. (I will see if I can find it on the internet and post a link, it will explain the test better than I can.)

This sounds similar to Milgram's study of obedience to authority, a social psychology experiment as famous as the Stanford prison experiment. It's the kind of studies you rather wish you didn't know..

What was the result of the study you are referring to? In Milgram's classic study, subjects (ordinary people, like students and such) were told to give electric shocks to other subjects. The subjects didn't know that the people who received the shocks were in fact actors, and no real shocks were given. The result of the study was that a frightening majority of these ordinary people, were prepared to give lethal electric shocks to other people, when encouraged by the "scientists", ie the people who led the study.

Regarding watching fake violence, I think Tybaltus proves an interesting point here: The triggering of emotions - perhaps excitement and adrenaline? Watching violence on a movie might provide a safe and harmless way to get these emotions, and if the violence was real the person wouldn't get these feelings at all, only disgust and sadness as most people would?

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 10:53 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans

This sounds similar to Milgram's study of obedience to authority, a social psychology experiment as famous as the Stanford prison experiment. It's the kind of studies you rather wish you didn't know..

That is what I was talking about.

The result of the study was that a frightening majority of these ordinary people, were prepared to give lethal electric shocks to other people, when encouraged by the "scientists", ie the people who led the study.

I also thought it was because the people were led to believe it wouldn't hurt the students involved. This is where I would compare it to watching fake violence. Maybe I'm seeing something that isn't there.

I will try later to explain better....work, baby about here..too much going on here right now for me to think straight.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:48 am

Originally posted by C Elegans
So, why do you think people (or you yourself) find entertainment violence entertaining?

It's like the giant rolling head; you see it, but can't look away. I think people are fascinated by violence and violent activity, but in a "controlled" way. Maybe it's because our lives are largely devoid of physical conflict.

The Romans enjoyed gladitorial combat to the point that entire species of exotic animals were driven to extinction in the arenas. I think we live vicariously through sports, which are as close to gladitorial games as we have in modern society, particularly the more violent ones: hockey, (American) football, (Australian rules) football, boxing, etc.

With regards to movies or other entertainment that is obviously fake violence, I think that many people just like to see stuff blow up. I know I do. It's escapist. Just like I enjoy booting up IWD and hacking my way through hordes of goblins and cold wights, or playing an X-Wing: Alliance furball with me flying the Millennium Falcon against hordes of TIE Defenders and A-Wings, watching a movie with lots of car chases, gun battles and slow motion special effects somehow entertains me.

To contrast that with a movie with realistic violence such as Saving Private Ryan or Blackhawk Down, fake violence is a mindless form of entertainment, even if the movie physics, the "acting" and the "plot" are bad.