I agree pretty much in all of you said.
The use of gratuitous violence and gore certainly didn't make the crappy writing any better, nor was it refreshing. There are tons of scifi stories out there, mainly in anime, that have been told better without having to explicitly portray things like people getting their head smashed after they died for no reason. Or putting a kinky porno scene in a thriller short that added nothing to it. Personally I thought Zima Blue was the best one and guess what? It is the cleanest one.
Look, nothing personal, but I hate it when people try to excuse a work's excessive use of gore and sex simply because it CAN exist in real life. A lot of things exist in real life. That doesn't mean you should incorporate it in your story, it doesn't mean it makes your story better, and it doesn't mean the camera has to show it in graphic detail rather than pan away. I'm OK with you saying it's not everyone's cup of tea but don't try to justify your own taste for it with "it's realistic".
"but I hate it when people try to excuse a work's excessive use of gore and sex"
I fail to see how your 'hatred' of something is supposed to mean anything to anyone other than yourself. Ok, you hate it; I don't. I guess there's an impasse there.
Basically I could simply say "that's just, like, your opinion man" to most of your comment and that would be it.
Except for the last sentence
("I'm OK with you saying it's not everyone's cup of tea but don't try to justify your own taste for it with "it's realistic".")
Which goes beyond telling me your opinion and into trying to tell me why you think I liked something, which is weirdly presumptuous.
I certainly don't even feel the need to justify why I like something—and there's no such thing as an acceptable reason to like something—much less would bother with trying to find reasons.
Everyone is different, so your attempt at projecting your taste on others is... Odd, to say the least.
I don't want to make this something personal and attack you and your taste, so I apologize for anything I said before that did that. Let's just discuss the role of violence/gore/sex in this series. I want to attack the work, not you. What I should have said was, "I'm OK with you liking violence, but don't try to justify its inclusion with 'it's realistic'".
Maybe I'm overreacting, but from what you wrote I got the impression that you were saying that violence/gore/sex made the stories better, which is different than just saying you liked these elements in the stories; you said that violence/gore/sex in this series was refreshing and that it allowed the writers to tell the story they wanted to, which implies that not having it would somehow limit the stories being told and "refreshing" implies that previous stories WERE limited by not having it. You also said that its inclusion means that things are presented realistically ("how things would logically go in most scenarios", "violence is sadly a part of life, and there's nothing wrong with the human body"). Whether or not you like it for this reason, I don't know. But insofar as this reasoning is used to justify violence/gore/sex in media, it doesn't hold up. In this regard, my point still stands:
"A lot of things exist in real life. That doesn't mean you should incorporate it in your story, it doesn't mean it makes your story better, and it doesn't mean the camera has to show it in graphic detail rather than pan away."
"I'm OK with you liking violence, but don't try to justify its inclusion with 'it's realistic'".
That's just another comment on me as a person (I wasn't aware I "liked" violence and I'm wondering where the hell you got that from), but I see now that you're just going to keep saying things like that so I'm just going to move past it and address what I suppose is your point beyond the weird attacks. I certainly don't appreciate them, tho.
Talking about "justification" is pointless because I could just say "that's just like your opinion man". You (general you), don't need to justify what you choose to include in your story; a creator doesn't owe anyone anything.
One can say that violence and sex are unnecessary in media, but that's just an opinion, and one that is actually just a meaningless tautology (considering that any given story itself is unnecessary and only exists because its creator wanted to tell it). Anyone can disagree and that's that.
"Maybe I'm overreacting, but from what you wrote I got the impression that you were saying that violence/gore/sex made the stories better"
From my review:
— "It comes across as gratuitous"
— "but its plot is almost non existent and the little that's there is completely ruined by an unnecessary burst of violence at the end"
... Yes, I think you might be overreacting and misinterpreted what I meant just a little bit.
"you said that violence/gore/sex in this series was refreshing and that it allowed the writers to tell the story they wanted to, which implies that not having it would somehow limit the stories being told and "refreshing" implies that previous stories WERE limited by not having it."
Yes? Of course they are limited. I like your choice of words because it's accidentally correct: stories with lower ratings are indeed more limited in what they can do (mind you, that doesn't necessarily mean the story is automatically better or worse, that depends on how it's told).
Take The Hunger Games movie: it's a story (in part) about the horrors of war... Being told in a PG-13 movie that can't actually show any horrors. Mind you, I actually like those movies (except the third one) but they would have been more impactful had they been able to show more of both the horrors in the games and the districts, and the decadence in the capital. It's ultimately a show, don't tell issue.
In some of these shorts:
- For helping hand, showing how her hand gets ruined adds to the urgency.
- In beyond the aquila rift, the sex scene makes the reveal of the woman's true nature all the more unsettling.
"But insofar as this reasoning is used to justify violence/gore/sex in media, it doesn't hold up"
It's funny you say that, since you haven't actually provided a reason to declare this other than... Your opinion. That's all your last paragraph is, you merely said that because something happens IRL it doesn't need to be shown and to that I reply: so what? It doesn't mean it should not be shown either.
So maybe it doesn't hold up for you. For me it does. That's all there's to it.
My bad, I should have said that you liked seeing violence on screen, because I doubt you're likely to be a violent person.
Stories without violence/sex are not inherently limited. It depends on what kind of story it is. There's been a lot of great scifi stories that would not have been more comprehensive or accomplished more had they included violence/sex.
I'm still not clear as to whether or not you're saying that violence/sex makes stories better by being more realistic, in general, because although you point out specific stories where it was gratuitous, you also just say, "why not have sex and violence?"
"I should have said that you liked seeing violence on screen"
Incorrect again. Word of advice? Just stop assuming things about the person you're talking to, or at least stop writing those assumptions instead of talking about the matter at hand. Comments on the other person are very rarely apropos.
For instance, I could just ignore this sentence entirely as it's really disconnected to the rest of your comment anyway, so it looks even more like a cheap shot. At least all of them have missed so far so I don't feel particularly offended. Still don't appreciate them, tho.
"It depends on what kind of story it is."
Exactly? A wider range of choices doesn't mean that the extra choices will be the correct ones nor it means that the extra choices, even if they would help the story, won't be used badly. I gave two examples of that bad usage in these shorts.
Like I said, it depends in how the story is told. And that also answers your last question: Violence and nudity/sex do help make the stories more realistic, but sometimes that can hinder instead of helping.
While showing is generally preferred to telling; implying and subtlety have their place too. I never said otherwise.
I'm not trying to take any cheap shots or make unwarranted assumptions. You said, "Plenty of violence and nudity in an unapologetic way, which is thankfully refreshing" and "It comes across as gratuitous (not that there's anything wrong with that)" and "though again the fact that it has plenty of violence and nudity is not everyone's cup of tea." (implying that it is yours) "I like it, as violence is (sadly) a part of life, and there's nothing wrong with the human body". While I may have misinterpreted to say you like seeing violence on screen in general, it's not a big reach and I assure you, an honest mistake, not a cheap shot. Especially since for the majority of the shorts the violence/sex did not actually perform the function of furthering the story or themes and you only mentioned two instances of that lapse. Prior to your comment didn't mention how the violence/sex DID perform that function for several shorts.
As for the primary point, I can continue to argue about the semantics of what you've been saying, but I don't care about prolonging this argument since we both agree that the inclusion of violence/sex is context dependent. It's just that in the case of this series, the majority of the shorts that had it could have been told without it, and/or the ideas/themes themselves weren't good enough to warrant bringing it out.
Recynon, while I somewhat agree with you, it would be better to write your own review. The softcore porn in some shorts was gratuitous, but so is your rather confrontational comment.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
@Recynon
"it's not a big reach and I assure you, an honest mistake, not a cheap shot"
A) Yes, it is a big reach and b) it's a little hard to believe it's an honest mistake when... You seemingly insist on making it. I've already told you twice that it doesn't accomplish anything other than looking like an attack against the other person. Indeed, you could have opted not to write that first paragraph in your last comment and nothing would change, bygones would be bygones, etc. Now it looks as if you were trying to rationalize that your assumptions about me weren't wrong, when they still wouldn't matter even if they were right. It's an odd thing to keep focusing on, to say the least.
Basically, you said you don't want to make "unwarranted assumptions"... But assumptions about the other person in any given discussion are always unwarranted. The only exception is when the topic at hand is the other person, which should probably only be done by family/friends.
"the majority of the shorts that had it could have been told without it"
That's... Not here nor there: Yes, every single story that was ever created could have been told in a different way.
"and/or the ideas/themes themselves weren't good enough to warrant bringing it out."
... According to you. Anyone can disagree and I certainly do. In fact, I don't think there's such a thing as threshold for how "good" a story has to be before it's allowed to do or not do, well, pretty much anything.
Anyhow, I agree with Reymma, you'd probably have been better off writing your own review instead of taking someone else's so oddly personally.
I'm not going to prolong that discussion any further either. I am confident in what I did and didn't do based on the information available. Have a good day, phylos.
Well, in so much as it means that you stopped trying to make odd assumptions about me out of nowhere and for no reason, I appreciate it.
I had forgotten about this, but for what it's worth I enjoyed the conversation a little (whenever it focused on the series anyway) and hope you have a good day if and when you read this.
Leave a Comment:
It's worse the less subtle it is. Better the more it focuses on story.
This is a hit and miss, often because it becomes stupidly on the nose instead of telling a story, though it pulls it off at times.
Plenty of violence and nudity in an unapologetic way, which is thankfully refreshing as it allowed the animators and writers to tell the stories as they wanted without having to restrain themselves, which translated into the anthology being fairly indiscriminate and presenting how things would logically go in most scenarios. Exactly how things should be and nothing less than what I expected from Fincher and Miller.
Not that the shorts were always even handed, as mentioned:
All in all, I recommend the watch and making your own opinions (the anthology has something in it for everyone, I think), though again the fact that it has plenty of violence and nudity is not everyone's cup of tea. I like it, as violence is (sadly) a part of life, and there's nothing wrong with the human body.