I'm an adult, and my life went on just fine without seeing a spray of arterial blood that one time.
What an asinine comment. It was jarring and removed some of us from the film. It killed the tension and immersion of the scene. What's difficult to understand about that?
Also: Everyone commenting on this who has actually witnessed what a human having their throat slit looks like raise your hand.
raises hand
There's blood. A lot of blood. If blood isn't instantly spraying, then there's at least instantly a huge visible opening in the neck and blood is gushing out.
They could have avoided the whole thing by just killing her in a different way. A way that isn't literally one of the most graphic and bloody possible executions in reality.
What an asinine comment. It was jarring and removed some of us from the film. It killed the tension and immersion of the scene. What's difficult to understand about that?
It didn't kill it for me. What's difficult to understand about that?
Do you ever go to the theater? Live theater is full of moments like this, where what's happening on stage isn't "real" but you still live in the moment even though you're sitting in a chair in a building and not actually standing in a battlefield covered in dusts and blood.
But it isn't a play, it's a movie. Two entirely different mediums. The criticism is valid, and there's no need for whataboutism or melodrama like "my life was able to continue on after that scene".
That's quite the hyperbole. They both use actors and sets to tell a story that is not real. Both involve suspension of disbelief. Even if a film has 100% perfect visual realism it still requires immersing onself in the story in the theater.
The real melodrama is people claiming that not seeing graphically violent arterial spray in a family film ruins the film and makes that film--and I quote--"not going to be appealing to adults".
I'm an adult, it appealed to me.
299 film reviews liked it, it appealed to them.
44,360 user reviews liked it, it appealed to them.
Audiences scientifically polled by Cinemascore gave it an A+, it appealed to them.
So maybe let's not say things like "I didn't see the graphic violence I need in superhero movies, therefore this film cannot appeal to adults."
It's amazing how far you're taking this, when all we're saying is that they could have simply not chosen one of the most graphic executions in reality, and made it as unrealistically non-graphic as possible. He could have easily just snapped her neck. Knowing you can't show any blood should mean you choose anything other than the bloodiest of executions. It was a poor directorial choice that removed some of us from the scene. Period. It didn't ruin the film for me, but it's a valid criticism. You can still enjoy a film, despite what others think of it. Or at least you should be able to. And you should especially be able to understand a single criticism some people have with a film, even if you didn't notice it as much or care as much. The level at which you're taking this as some personal attack, like you made the film yourself, is remarkable.
Lol, how far I'm taking it, while you have reply after reply. I simply responded to this exact statement:
yes, but when you cut a throat and there's no blood, it's not going to be appealling to adults
Because yes, I took issue with that statement. And I still take issue with that statement, because it's not just subjectively untrue, it's objectively untrue. It tries to imply that only children don't have a problem with it, a not-so-subtle attempt to insult people who didn't have a problem with it.
But by all means, you feel free to have the last word on this issue that only I am taking too far.
206
u/mathswarrior Feb 17 '18 edited Feb 17 '18
yes, but when you cut a throat and there's no blood, it's not going to be appealling to adults - it will probably take them out of the experience