Originally Posted by Holliday

Can we talk about how this happened at a Batman premier, which has become a franchise committed to glorifying exactly this type of random violence as some kind of meaningful endeavor? You know, like how they guy called himself "the Joker" and how this scene and his apartment boobie-trap could have actually appeared in the movie?

I'm not that much older than most of you, but didn't like the Joker movie and wasn't going to see this one mainly because I found the knife-to-mouth monologues and crowd-slaughtering storylines excessive, indulgent, and basically in poor taste for a movie which is obviously going to be seen by every child in the country. I was further offended that people enjoyed that "chilling" violence so much they missed how otherwise horrible and nonsensical that movie was.

Or are we still going with the "this could have happened at any movie" line?

And remember, no trolling--it's in the rules.

Originally Posted by SGT RJ

I oversimplified for the purposes of this thread, but you're obviously deliberately reading far too much into what I said.

Of course ordinary people can become violent (even kill) with the right set of circumstances. And, as others have rightly pointed out, there is a correlation between the viewing of violent images and an increase in aggressive/violent behavior.

However, we're talking about a pretty wide difference in terms of degree here. Studies measuring increased violence/aggression find links between viewing violent images and increases what might be considered normal or socially acceptable types of violence - verbal aggression, verbal fights, physical fighting in kids (hitting, kicking, threatening).

However, that's completely different from the type of abnormal violence in this case. A normal individual who watches violent video games might be more inclined to call someone an ******* in a bar and pick a fight, but they aren't going to pick up assault rifles and fire them into a movie theatre.

All humans have the potential to be violent in some way. Not very many humans have the potential to be indiscriminate murderers. Not without a significant amount of psychological warping, far more serious and long term than watching a Batman movie.

Also, whoever said there's no records of serial or mass killings prior to the modern society gave me a big LOL. Do a little bit of research before posting something so preposterous. I can think of at least a half dozen examples without picking up a book or using Google (Vlad the Impaler, Jack the Ripper, Albert Fish, Lizzie Borden, Glatman, Gein), and at least one of those dwarfed any modern killer in terms of volume. Violent and/or disturbed individuals have been killing others throughout history. It's one of the possible explanations for stories about monsters such as vampires and werewolves. Just because we don't have records going back 1000 years ago doesn't at all mean it didn't happen.

Originally Posted by Hardball47

That's a lot of firepower and gear for giving up without a fight... Something doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by Clovis8

Not to mention 2 seconds of googling indicates there were spree killers before tv existed and when films were silent and black a white.

Originally Posted by Holliday

Feel free to take a break from being too cool for school to explain how the Dark Knight did not actually glorify violence. I'd love to hear anything beyond "No it didn't".

Originally Posted by Holliday

I'm not sure if Google would be this glib, but throughout history people have been barbaric savages. Those previous spree killers, they were almost certainly exposed to horrific violence before their spree (whether it was perpetrated against them or they just witnessed it)--they just didn't see it in a movie is all.

Originally Posted by LOL POT-ODDS

[ ] being too cool for school

[x] every post you have made itt has been laughable

By your logic (and i use the term loosely) any film with violence in could be "glorifying" its use... Are you suggesting that an audience needs constant reminders during action films that this is not the way to act in real life or that their actions always have consequences? It is a work of fiction for gods sake. It is not trying to set a standard of morality for the real world and any intelligent viewer can see that. Furthermore, if every film ended with the bad guy getting his comeuppance, what kind of reality would that be portraying?

Originally Posted by Holliday

I am talking about this one particular film and the particular ways it glorifies specifically crowd-slaughtering mayhem inducing violence as noble and romantic in some way. And (at this point) I'm asking for anyone to dispute that assertion alone on its merits.

Originally Posted by 2/325Falcon

It has been a very long time since I read On Killing, but this blog post is lolretarded. Before we had all this teevee and vidyah games people used to go watch public hangings with their kids and bring a ****ing picnic lunch.

Originally Posted by Holliday

And yet I am not talking about "any film with violence". I am talking about this one particular film and the particular ways it glorifies specifically crowd-slaughtering mayhem inducing violence as noble and romantic in some way. And (at this point) I'm asking for anyone to dispute that assertion alone on its merits.

Originally Posted by Holliday

And yet I am not talking about "any film with violence". I am talking about this one particular film and the particular ways it glorifies specifically crowd-slaughtering mayhem inducing violence as noble and romantic in some way. And (at this point) I'm asking for anyone to dispute that assertion alone on its merits.

I'm much more interested in hearing a coherent answer to that than the dystopian future my logic would lead to, thanks.



We all have our inflection points. Surely you don't actually think that film was for children?

Originally Posted by dcm91

so have you seen it?

Originally Posted by dkgojackets

because there are thousands and thousands of other very similar things that exist even though you apparently don't watch anything worse than my little pony, yet none of them have resulted in something similar. you are looking for a connection where there has never been any before.

you also fail to realize that perhaps the reason he chose this movie is that it is the biggest, most anticipated premiere of all time and would lead to maximum attention grabbing

Originally Posted by dkgojackets

because there are thousands and thousands of other very similar things that exist even though you apparently don't watch anything worse than my little pony, yet none of them have resulted in something similar. you are looking for a connection where there has never been any before.

Originally Posted by Triumph36

I heard a would-be killer went into a showing of Battleship but there was no one in the theater