Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Surprise, surprise! | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: 13 Jun 2014, 21:38 (7408 Views) | |
| Eret | 13 Jun 2014, 21:38 Post #41 |
....Son of Eret
|
The first film also was careful to not have any shots awhere a viewer would logically expect to see blood and then be glaringly obvious when there wasn't any. Soo |
| HideousZippleback | 13 Jun 2014, 21:40 Post #42 |
[color=blue]I'm just here for Snotlout. [/color] 
|
This is what I mean. Logically there should have been some blood since they showed it in an angle where people would have seen blood normally on it. Sigh... |
| |
| ToothlessNightFury | 13 Jun 2014, 21:45 Post #43 |
Toothless
|
Like i said my big brother died when i was 4 years old. I was close eith him even at a young age. And i have been through much more than just that.i totally see how blood and death in any movie would upset a kid who has been through stuff in their life like i have. And little kids don't always watch war movies for this reason. Hense why most war movies are pg13 When you, have had death in your life it,s not "nothing big" or "rediclous" any movie. also just because it looked like the black alpha's tusk when through the white one doesnt't mean it did. It could,ve easily hit it in a certain spot like heart hard enough to not cause blood to be left on the tusk, but to kill the white one |
|
Believe a Dragon Can Thaw A Frozen Heart Role Play Based of HTTYD and Frozen Around here we don't look back. We keep moving forward, opening up new doors and doing new things, because we're curious...and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.-Walt Disney 
| |
| Fawnduu | 14 Jun 2014, 00:08 Post #44 |
Gronckle
|
I think on the whole blood issue, it didnt really jar me too much because the tusks were really blunt and so it would be more likely to cause internal bleeding and bruising rather than penetration and surface bleeding. When bull elephants fight its a lot of the same thing. I think they could have included a little blood, as a kid I was less disturbed by blood than I am now, When you see loved ones really hurt and bleeding (esp on snow when it spreads like crazy) it really gets to you and now i get light headed when I see too much blood in person. Somtimes in movies as well. But anyways things that surprised me 1. how quick the battle between alphas was 2. Valka's personality, i was really surprised when i got into the movie and she turned out to be a quirky dork! she was so excited about showing her son all her dragons and cool things and hiccup was like "MOM I CAN FLY" ahahah it was really cute and I was expecting something else but im happy with what we got 3. the dancing and the dreaming. I didnt listen to it before going into the movie and I was honestly expecting it to be terrible and uncomfortable. But it turned into one of my favorite scenes in the movie. It was so touching and filled with love and so joyous it really captured the intensity of emotions felt during forbidden friendship in the first one. (p.s. me and my bf have been singing it to each other and dancing because we are dorks!!) 4. The overall pacing and line up of the movie 5. How funny ruffnut was. I was like this can go one of two ways, and it went the right way and had me cackling I think thats it, but im seeing it again sunday so I might remember more things then |
Im Courtney, a Concept Artist/ Computer Animator!   My Art Page My Animations | |
| Cartoon Freak | 14 Jun 2014, 08:00 Post #45 |
Deadly Nadder
|
No, but I did nearly drown at approximately the same age, an experience that has turned me off swimming in general (a right waste of my country of residence) and actually kept me from going back to the country where I nearly drowned, in spite of it most likely being a very suitable place for me. In spite of that, I do not object to scenes depicting drowning or near-drowning in roughly accurate fashion in films, television, etc. Yes, such scenes probably affect me more than most people, but the way I see it, that's largely a good thing. One of the main purposes of film (and fiction in general) is to evoke an emotional response in the audience, and if mine happens to be enhanced, then so much the better. And frankly, my experiences would make me very annoyed at any film that downplayed the significance of drowning. But hey, even if I didn't think that way, I still wouldn't want a film to make less sense just to account for my psychological issues. And that's what you're basically asking: for a film to make less sense by cutting out something that should so clearly be there, that is, the blood on the Bewilderbeast's tusks. |
|
Number of times I've watched the trailer: 18. My pet peeve: people who refer to complete strangers by their first name. The correct ways to refer to a "John Smith" whom you have never met are Smith, Mr Smith, or John Smith. Not "John". He's not your buddy. | |
| TheCube42 | 14 Jun 2014, 13:12 Post #46 |
(As Not Seen on TV)
|
The British Board of Film Classification provides a nice definition of a PG:You argue your opinion on the fact that as a grown-up, you have consoled (somewhat) with your childhood trauma. That can be stretched to too many disturbing experiences, in various areas. The issue in film to children, in this case, is not about inducing memories of childhood traumas -- this is about "causing" the trauma. Cut the adult's view of children out of this, and let's focus on the criteria(because MPAA is about as reliable as the Joker). The blood on the tusk, while it can fit "some blood" as mentioned, fails to pass the emphasis criteria: The set piece should clearly emphasize the adventure or the journey. There is already a death happening, and a hint that the method was evisceration (through cinematographic implications) -- blood only makes the balance tip further towards focusing on the detail of the act itself, instead of the narrative significance of the death. |
| Σ (a sigma-ture) | |
| WasBornCrazy | 14 Jun 2014, 19:13 Post #47 |
i dont think my avatar is working but ehh
|
I almost drowned at the age of 5. I still go swimming training, even though I hate swimming. |
| i'm not very active anymore!! it's sad, but i'll come back sometimes to feel nostalgic ahaha | |
| Cartoon Freak | 14 Jun 2014, 20:53 Post #48 |
|
Deadly Nadder
|
Two points: 1. The narrative requires the Bewilderbeast to die. The blood would make it that much clearer that it did. 2. By even having a small amount of blood on the tusks, it would satisfy those members of the audience not wanting to be talked down to, while protecting the kiddies from being traumatised by a thing they've probably seen dozens, if not hundreds, of times before anyway. Which explanation you want to go with depends on how stupid you think children are, but either be works. At any rate, I would have thought that children would have been way more likely to be traumatised (still not likely, so perhaps it would be better to say, "less unlikely") by Toothless killing Stoick. That actually works very well with my point. My reaction to nearly drowning is an extreme one, but even I don't ask that films get censored to accommodate my psychological problems. |
|
Number of times I've watched the trailer: 18. My pet peeve: people who refer to complete strangers by their first name. The correct ways to refer to a "John Smith" whom you have never met are Smith, Mr Smith, or John Smith. Not "John". He's not your buddy. | |
| TheCube42 | 15 Jun 2014, 00:58 Post #49 |
|
(As Not Seen on TV)
|
You still do not give any fully substantiated and reactive argument against my focus on the criteria, but instead repeat your two most-often-stated arguments, which base themselves on relatively individual perception. Should HTTYD2 have been a more mature-rated movie? Maybe. Is it? No, it is not; if then, ratings guidelines will often override the entitlement to realism. (There also happen to be a boatload of E10+ games with visceral major character deaths without blood, which demonstrate my point.) (To label the lack of blood as down-talking/patronizing would be also rather stretching it a bit, given the presence of truly patronizing PG films like The Cat in the Hat from 2003, MAC and Me, The Smurfs, etc. etc. etc. etc.) Also, to assume the blood is fine since children have seen this situation "dozens, if not hundreds, of times before anyway," would be oversimplification: Exposure does not truly normalize. Should we be allowing nudity in T-rated games because many gamers around age 12 have already been exposed to games like GTA, etc.? If exposure normalizes, how do you draw a line? At this point, one resorts to some sort of moral relativism, at which point "I'm right, you're wrong" becomes something indefensible, and we shouldn't even be talking about this topic at all. We hide things from children because we hold innocence in childhood to be under the goal of our Sanctity moral receptor (see Moral Foundations Theory for explanation). It just happens that the more visceral aftermaths of violence (blood and gore) are perceived by the conventional Western culture as a significant disruption of the innocence. (Again, getting off-topic. I really don't want to talk about moral psychology in a HTTYD forum. And I would appreciate a slightly less repulsive tone.) OT: Still no more Night Furies in the movie? Better wait for the third film... |
| Σ (a sigma-ture) | |
| Users browsing this forum:
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests
|
|
| Print view | |
| « Previous Topic · How to Train Your Dragon 2 · Next Topic » |
| Members · Contact us · Delete cookies | It is currently 20 Apr 2024, 07:08 |