Mohs Scale of Hardness Cleanup

I've reduced Cow and Chicken to level 5.

Now that I've gotten this out of the way, I've got two questions:

• Would anyone object to me moving the original Star Wars to level 5? If the original All Quiet on the Western Front from 1930 can't get away with severed hands at level 4 despite it being non-graphic, then how can Star Wars get away with it while showing blood at the same time? Granted, there's the fantasy context and the target being an alien, and the scene is brief, but a bloody severed arm feels too strong for level 4
• After seeing it, what level should So I Married an Axe Murderer get? The thing that confuses me is that there's some gruesome imagery set in a butcher shop, but it's not really presented as horrific, more of just food being made. And Chef! is level 5 and its entry describes the cutting up of a dead pig for food, but I haven't seen that movie and thus I don't know how much that scene shows. Regardless, it feels weird putting this film at level 8 or so for something that isn't really "violent" per say, but even then, there is a fairly gruesome visual of a cleaver being put into a somewhat fleshy skull of an animal during this butcher shop moment. If you're wondering, the human violence is quite tame, all that's to it is some offscreen Serial Killer murders, a comical Groin Attack kick that isn't worse than any other comedy and a man's fingers being non-fatally stepped on with crunchy sounds.

I haven't seen the second film listed, so I can't really comment intelligently (the scene discussed does sound pretty gruesome, though), but I'm inclined to say to leave the original Star Wars film on level 4 (maybe with the note saying it's a very, very hard 4?), because of its strong sci-fi/fantasy context and the fact that countless kids watch that scene every year and it doesn't really seem to have much of a negative impact on them that I can tell. Yeah, that reasoning is pretty flimsy, so I'm open to changing it, but, in my opinion alone, it should probably stay at 4. I reckon the Star Wars movies generally get rated a tiny bit lower than a movie normally would due to their relatively family-friendly presentation, iconic/familiar status in pop culture, and sci-fi/fantasy context. I dunno, maybe I'm "cutting some slack" on the motion picture in question, and I need to be called out for it. When I originally added All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) to the project, I had it on level 4, but it was bumped up to 5 by another troper, something I'm not necessarily opposed to, but this just provides a little behind-the-scenes reasoning on how the original Star Wars got a level 4 at first.

All of this being said, my mind is open on the matter, so, if anybody else wants to chime in, feel free to do so.

I wanted to bring up that on Video Games (0 to 7), Transformers: War for Cybertron is at level 3. Which isn't unreasonable based on the entry and the fact that the characters are robots, but there is some brutal content not mentioned in the entry. In the game's opening, you see an Autobot soldier's head being crushed to bits by Megatron, and soon after, a Decepticon solider is chopped in half by Optimus Prime, as you can see here (the former scene is at 1:05, and the latter is at 1:17). Additionally, it has been years since I last played it, but in the first Decepticon mission, it is possible to execute defenseless prisoners being escorted, though this isn't overly violent. Since the characters are robots, it wouldn't raise the level very high, but I want some feedback to tell if this is enough to get increased to level 4 or if the sci-fi nature makes it still acceptable at level 3

That's a tough call. I haven't played the game, but, based on the video and your description of other acts, I could see a somewhat soft level 4 being an appropriate designation. Like I said, I haven't played the game, so I'm not the best to decide, but I trust your judgment.

Hi. I realized that Titãs is in the Level 11 of the Mohs scales of lyrical hardness.

I don't know if it qualifies as an 11, but the album before the one mentioned. "Tudo ao mesmo tempo agora" (translation: Everything, At the same time, Now), also has some pretty obscene lyrics. Which are one of the reasons this album failed in brazil. Some examples here:

Isso Para Mim e Perfume

Flat/Cemiterio/Apartamento

Clitoris

Do you think the Rumbling in Attack on Titan is bad enough to get it a 10 or should I lower it to a 9?

I've never seen the show (or is it a movie? I don't even know), so I'm going to need some context before I give my two cents on the matter.

So, on the Film subpages, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is proving divisive. Originally, it was placed at level 10 by Sorietei, but then I moved it down to level 8. But then, not too long afterwards, The Lewandererz 602555 moved it back up to level 10. I feel like bringing this here for discussion.

Basically, without spoiling much, the argument revolves around a shot of a graphically mauled face, which appears all fleshy red. You can see it just by searching "High Evolutionary death" on YouTube, the face will be on the thumnbails. My argument is that it isn't truly gruesome enough for a 10, as it is no worse than the face melting scene from Cube, which is only level 9, or the also level 9 bomb destroyed face from Breaking Bad. What do you all think?

EDIT: It seems it was moved to level 9 by QU 4 DR 4 X 15

Edited by KingofNightmares on May 9th 2023 at 9:54:25 AM

I haven't seen the movie, but I watched the clip on You Tube, and it seems like something that should be in the level 8-9 range, in my opinion.

I would agree, but the issue seems to have been resolved already.

So, again, on the Literature page, several books with non-human characters had their levels reduced. Again, the thing is, with Warrior Cats and its entry mentioning disembowelment, that sounds way too gruesome for level 5, even if the characters aren't human. Especially as on other subpages, gibbing and dismemberment of aliens with non-red blood gets higher than that. I get that it isn't as bad since it isn't towards humans, but still. And the less said about the "holding your guts in" part of Animorphs being at level 4, the better.

Also, I find it funny how the user who does this (dcasey98) doesn't touch Wings of Fire's entry at level 8, when a lot of the violence there is aimed at dragons and is no worse than what the entries that got reduced are mentioned to contain. Sure, there is a decapitation of a human in the first book, but that wasn't even mentioned in the entry until I added that detail, and the rest of the entry focuses on dragon carnage.

Overall, I feel like if this were to be applied to the other subpages, then we'd have to drop Watership Down and Felidae by a couple of levels.

Edited by KingofNightmares on May 11th 2023 at 7:45:31 AM

Violence directed against non-humans has always been tricky. For some people, it's more disturbing than violence against humans, while others couldn't care less. I could be wrong, but I believe it was agreed to count violence against animals as roughly the same as violence against humans (within reason [see note]). This probably goes more for mammals for the most part than, say, insects portrayed without sentience. I've never read the books in question, so I can't say with confidence as to what level they belong on, but I wouldn't be opposed to restoring them to their original levels. That's just my two cents.

note: I'm sure certain cooking- or food-preparation-related imagery gets rated differently at times. I mean, the sight of a standard bacon cheeseburger shouldn't be on par with the sight of ground-up human meat.

Also, does anybody think level 8 is a tiny bit too high for Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)? I think level 7, where it was originally at, works better (just my opinion). Yes, the head wounds suffered by the three villains at the end (one's head implodes, another's face gruesomely melts off, and the third's head explodes behind a veil of flames) are quite graphic, but I think that their brevity and fantastical/supernatural context keep it a (hard) level 7. I think the current note for the film should read:

"It gets a hard level 7 for briefly showing a man killed by a booby trap (with spikes bloodily protruding out of his bare forehead and throat), a henchman receiving a blood-spurting headshot while on fire, a man being ground up in an airplane propeller offscreen (with blood shown splattering on the side of said plane), and the grand finale, which shows a man's head imploding, another villain's face graphically melting off, and the third bad guy's head exploding behind a curtain of fire. The carnage in the finale might rate a level 8 if it wasn't for its brevity and fantastical/supernatural context."

The Raiders finale is an interesting case. The argument for it being an 8 in the edit reason was that "the curtain of fire doesn't obscure much." This only applies to the last bit, and every time I watch that part, while I still can see chunks flying outward, the fire filters it and makes it seem less shocking. The melting face is much more convincing of a level 8 argument, since it isn't as bad as similar moments of Facial Horror in level 9 films, but it does seem to be worse than a lot of level 7 moments. However, the Weird Al movie was a soft 7 and it had a similar scene that could even be an outright parody of this one, though in that case it was comical and a vision. The entry for The Desolation of Smaug uses similar wording for one scene, but that one is gruesome in a different way. Otherwise, I don't know what a level 8 melting face would be like. (Maybe one like Raiders but shown for longer?)

I suppose that I thought Toht's melting face death belonged on level 7 (albeit as a hard one) because of its brevity, its fantastical/supernatural context, and the fact that it happens to a thoroughly evil character (not that violence directed at baddies should inherently be rated lower than carnage directed at goody guys or innocents, but you know what I trying to say). You raise a good point about what a level 8/9 melting face would look like, and I'm not quite sure, maybe one that's longer, realistic/semi-realistic (if that's even possible), and/or directed against an innocent person? Maybe?

Anybody else want to weigh in?

Currently, Johnny Got His Gun (1971) is on both level 5 (where I originally put it) and level 10 (where it was put yesterday, I believe). It's a very disturbing movie, about a World War I soldier who loses all four limbs and his face in an explosion, but the audience never sees anything more than a breathing clump of blankets. Like I said, it's not pleasant at all to watch, but, personally, I wouldn't put implied/semi-offscreen violence that's pretty much in the viewers' heads higher than, say, level 5. However, I thought I might bring this up here, as it is a highly disturbing film, even if there is no onscreen gore or graphic violence.

Where do you think Johnny Got His Gun belongs on the scale? If it was up to me (which it isn't), I'd leave it at level 5, expanding the context note next to it to say that it is just as disturbing as any level 10 movie, despite its lack of onscreen gore/graphic imagery.

I noticed that myself. Personally, I wouldn't put it above level 5 either from what I've seen. This is the scale of violence hardness, not disturbingness (which is not a word) hardness. I feel like level 10 attracts too much of people wanting works to be there regardless of whether or not they're actually truly nasty enough to fit. I agree that gore that we don't actually see shouldn't get super high ratings (unless it is a non-visual medium). I mean, Se7en didn't get a level 10 for its grisly but implied murders, and those actually are partially shown in aftermaths.

Now that that's out of the way, I feel the need to bring up something I've noticed lately, and that is that some entries are starting to reach wall of text levels here. Namely, Berserk on Anime & Manga (442 words long) and Dwarf Fortress on Video Games (8 to 10) (353 words). I feel like there should be some control on how long entries get to avoid becoming mammoth, all-consuming walls of text, even if the work really is that violent.

While I don't necessary support a word-limit for context notes (at the moment, at least), those two wall-of-text notes are difficult to read and should be reduced in length. I've never seen/played the works in question, so I don't know what needs to go, but I'm sure that they can be refined. Some of the language used also seems a bit "gushy" (for the lack of a better word), which sort of goes against the rules set forth on the sliding scale's main page.

I already trimmed the Berserk entry.

Going back to the Raiders of the Lost Ark discussion for a bit, another thing that muddles it is that on MohsScaleOfViolenceHardness.Live Action TV, classic era Doctor Who is listed at level 7, and one of the factors towards that is a scene that is very similar to the Raiders scene, only without blood (admittedly still with flesh detail), and it mentions it would be an 8 if not for how brief it is. You can see it here, at the 3:32 timestamp. Granted, there is an extended version of that scene that was unused, but I don't think the entry accounts for that.

In my opinion, that Dr. Who melting face death could fit on a hard level 7, as well. I mean, it is pretty gruesome with that tearing flesh and all, but it does look pretty fantastical and whatnot (not that fantasy deaths should always be lower than non-fantasy imagery, but you get what I'm trying to say).

That's just my opinion, though.

Also, do I have permission to bump Un Chien Andalou (1929) up to level 8 from level 7, as the iconic eyeball-slicing special effect (which affects a human woman in-universe) was achieved by cutting open an actual dead calf's eyeball. Maybe it should be higher than level 8, but that's where I'm thinking it should go at the moment.

I do think the Doctor Who death is appropriate for a 7, and it currently is there, in fact. I just brought it up because in regards to the Raiders death, the latter has blood and the former does not, so it feels like one is worse than the other

Yes, I would say Un Chien Andalou would be at least level 8 with that in mind. Maybe even higher, all things considered (I don't exactly know when the line between real violence at the levels is drawn, aside from "non-gory" stuff being at level 8 and "gory" stuff being level 10)

While the Raiders of the Lost Ark face-melt is certainly more graphic/gruesome than the one from Doctor Who, I still think that it could be considered a level 7 act of violence.

However, I'm fine with leaving Raiders on level 8 if that's the consensus.

I just rewatched Batman Begins (2005), and I was just wondering if I had permission to move it down a notch, from level 4 (where I believe I added it in the page's Trope Launch Pad/You Know That Thing Where phase) to level 3.

The most violent part of the movie is probably when Scarecrow gets tased in the face (through his mask), with it being revealed in the next film (The Dark Knight) that he survived. The clip is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWEmVqqA61c

Other than that, there's a few brief glimpses of mild blood, deaths from being inside burning/exploding buildings, a couple of split-second bullet impacts (that don't appear to feature any blood...one on Joe Chill and the other on a goon's shoe during a different scene), and the Batsuit being lit on fire while being worn (although this may not need to be mentioned, since Batman doesn't appear to be harmed by the flames).

So, should Batman Begins be moved from 4 to 3?

I suppose it could be moved down. The face taser doesn't seem overly graphic, since there's no blood/injury and he's wearing a mask. Though, it does make me wonder how we should treat moments where the mitigating factors are only revealed in the sequel. For example, a scene in one film where a villain is covered in blood with his face injured, only for the sequel to reveal that he had only faked his death by dousing himself in red paint while wearing make-up that caused his face to look injured. How would that be treated?

(note: this isn't a real movie, it's just something I made up as a hypothetical)

That's an interesting hypothetical. I would vote that the violence be judged by how it's presented in the first film, basically ignoring the "retcon" (for the lack of a better word).