"Bloody Movies or Less Bloody Movies?" Topic

Which do you prefer? The contemporary style of film making which features lots of blood and guts (‘Saving Private Ryan, ‘We Were Soldiers'') or older style film making featuring less blood and gore (‘The Longest Day,' ‘Khartoum')? I'm not asking about the relative historical accuracy or merit between the modes of film making. As I've gotten older, retired and reflected on 34 years service in the DoD, I find that I don't enjoy historical or action films that contain a lot of blood and viscera as much as I do the old fashioned movies devoid (or nearly so) of such things. I understand modern filmmaking seeks to show audiences (as much as possible) the reality of war but it's not for me. I know the reality, the cost.

So, how about you?

A.) Like or don't mind the blood and guts.
B.) Don't like the blood and guts.
C.) Could care less.
D.). Other

This one is easy. I prefer good movies over bad movies. Showing blood and guts in a movie doesn't make it good or bad. If the movie is made right than showing blood and guts may be appropriate. "Saving Private Ryan" is a good movie. It tells an interesting story with what seems to be very graphically accurate battle scenes. "The Longest Day" is also a good movie, once again because it tells an interesting story in an interesting way. If the movie is nothing more than special effects with lots of blood and gore and action without an interesting story or interesting characters, than I'd rather not see it.

Bottom line is I want to see a good movie. That is a movie with an interesting plot and characters. I really don't care about action sequences and special effects showing lots of blood. So I guess put down as answer 'B".

Hamburger Hill.

B

B

I don't need to see blood and gore to get the point that warfare is a horrible experience.

A if not extreme. I thought "A Bridge Too Far" struck a good balance. A veteran friend said it had everything but the smell.

The older I get, the more B for me. But as USAFpilot says, I really wanna see a GOOD movie, above all. I agree with Der Alte Fritz 100% also.

B.

Much of the blood and guts approach today is clearly intended either for shock value or to show just how "realistic" the filmmakers can be. Or to be "cool."
However, the shock value is now lost because it is done so much, and realism does not consist of blood spraying all over the camera lens (in fact, if it hits the lens, that's entirely unrealistic because it reminds the audience that there's a camera on this battlefield…in medieval France…

I also like to share films and series with my wife, but she greatly dislikes blood and gore, which rules out otherwise fine stories.

Please put the fake blood back in the makeup tube. If the guy falls over, I know he's dead; I don't need to see his head explode, thankyouverymuch.

B.

B. Or at least in much moderation.

Reviews on the gore and torture-porn in the recent BBC Gunpowder series put me off watching it. I don't care if the period was that gruesome and bloody, I don't want to watch that.

If it serves a valid purpose in the film I have no problem. If it is there for the sake of it, then no. As said above I want to see a good film with a good story and good acting.

As others have said, all I want is a good movie. I don't particularly care about the gore level.

B

Definitely B. The final scene in Braveheart about cured me of wanting to see any more Mel Gibson movies!

I prefer realistic movies, when it comes to the mount of blood, gore, etc. I think many movies today are pretty good about it. If were are talking about military history, etc.

Nothing too gratuitous like we see in the slice & dice movies like in many horror movies. I thought movies like Hostel and Hostel 2 should have been rated X. I never saw either. But I know I wouldn't like such drivel.

C.

Definitely B. The world is gruesome enough. I even avoid horror movies that gleefully advertise an abundance of blood and gore.

B – agree rather a good movie versus good blood and guts

Alamo (2004) Did a great job here, very little blood, but you still squirm when the Mexicans get canister point blank range, you don't need to see them literally disintegrate into meat paddy.

C. As with USAFpilot, I want to see a good movie. If gore is necessary to what the movie is trying to evoke, then it is fine.

Most recently, I have been annoyed with lengthened sequences that are obviously intended for 3D (I don't go to the 3D version – my wife can't watch it because of her eyes). It's the new special effect.

A/B

When the gore isn't there, I say to myself that there has to be some bleeding from all these wounds. It didn't bother me in "Saving Private Ryan". Compare it to "The Longest Day" which didn't seem nearly as realistic. It wasn't called "Bloody Omaha" for nothing. It is suppose to be horrific.

A. War isn't antiseptic.

A. Showing war as anything other than bloody and gory is dishonest. That said, it should be done sparingly, no need to beat the viewer over the head with it

A as long as it isn't just for the sake of gore.

A.

I'm with USAF pilot on this issue--just give me a good movie. Any film that dwells on the gore and mutilation is not likely to fall in that category.

B.

the old fall down wasn't enough, but they go too far these days.

i get that its war, i just don't need all the trauma, and guts to know that it is.

Blood is what an unimaginative director uses to make his
movie edgy and up to date.

I can go either way, but do appreciate if its more historical. Just as a example a Movie of the musket era a solid cannonball takes out a file of men without a explosion.
That could be done without the blood and tearing apart bodies but would show accuracy in the movie.

Modern film makers, who have never seen real war, try to show those of us who have what it is like.

A. It has to show at least some blood and guts

I don't like gore for the sake of gore, or for the shock value. In Saving Private Ryan is well integrated in the story, so it works. In other movies, not so much.

What I dislike is the sanitized version of war shown in older movies. It made it look too easy, too romantic, too clean. It gave young people the wrong idea about what war is. As Lee said it is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it. Movies should strife to accomplish that goal.

A. While some of us understand the horror of war, having lived it or be in service long enough to understand, most of the viewing public is so detached I think they need a reminder. Its not a video game. You cant re-spawn. War is the most terrible human experience and we need the occasional reminder to not get to comfortable with it.

Yes I agree, when it comes to history, war, combat, etc. It's a good idea, IMO to remind the public how horrible war can be. And a reminder we should not take going to war too lightly. However, some time it is unavoidable …

You can, of course, overdo it like Hacksaw ridge, that goes from gritty realistic war movie to Braindead grinding up zombies with a lawnmower territory and becomes silly and comical. Add the general lack of realism in the battle itself and you just make war into a gore fetish.

D) Good movies, I'll let the director determine what is needed for the impact he wants to make.