Help support TMP

"Bloody Movies or Less Bloody Movies?" Topic

35 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Historical Wargaming Message Board

Back to the TMP Poll Suggestions Message Board

752 hits since 16 Jan 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Ragbones Supporting Member of TMP16 Jan 2018 6:44 p.m. PST

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

USAFpilot16 Jan 2018 7:00 p.m. PST

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".

Blutarski16 Jan 2018 7:18 p.m. PST

Hamburger Hill.


Personal logo Der Alte Fritz Sponsoring Member of TMP16 Jan 2018 7:48 p.m. PST


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

Shagnasty Supporting Member of TMP16 Jan 2018 8:11 p.m. PST

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

Ceterman Supporting Member of TMP16 Jan 2018 8:22 p.m. PST

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.

Parzival16 Jan 2018 8:50 p.m. PST


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.

Calico Bill16 Jan 2018 9:46 p.m. PST


Personal logo miniMo Supporting Member of TMP16 Jan 2018 9:55 p.m. PST

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.

Vigilant17 Jan 2018 4:37 a.m. PST

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.

Dynaman878917 Jan 2018 5:32 a.m. PST

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

Personal logo Florida Tory Supporting Member of TMP17 Jan 2018 5:40 a.m. PST


Okiegamer17 Jan 2018 6:02 a.m. PST

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

Legion 417 Jan 2018 6:54 a.m. PST

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.

mad monkey 117 Jan 2018 7:23 a.m. PST


Extrabio1947 Supporting Member of TMP17 Jan 2018 7:34 a.m. PST

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

DisasterWargamer Supporting Member of TMP17 Jan 2018 7:56 a.m. PST

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

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP17 Jan 2018 7:58 a.m. PST

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.

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP17 Jan 2018 8:00 a.m. PST

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.

Rallynow Supporting Member of TMP17 Jan 2018 8:52 a.m. PST


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.

Cyrus the Great17 Jan 2018 9:42 a.m. PST

A. War isn't antiseptic.

BrockLanders Supporting Member of TMP17 Jan 2018 10:04 a.m. PST

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

ZULUPAUL Supporting Member of TMP17 Jan 2018 10:20 a.m. PST

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

Patrick Sexton Supporting Member of TMP17 Jan 2018 11:17 a.m. PST


attilathepun4717 Jan 2018 11:45 a.m. PST

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.

General Kirchner17 Jan 2018 1:47 p.m. PST


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.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP17 Jan 2018 2:24 p.m. PST

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

14Bore17 Jan 2018 6:24 p.m. PST

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.

oldjarhead1 Inactive Member17 Jan 2018 6:57 p.m. PST

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

Corporal Fagen17 Jan 2018 9:33 p.m. PST

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

basileus66 Inactive Member18 Jan 2018 5:19 a.m. PST

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.

Borderguy19028 Jan 2018 10:52 p.m. PST

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.

Legion 429 Jan 2018 7:42 a.m. PST

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 …

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP29 Jan 2018 8:02 a.m. PST

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.

Personal logo Bowman Supporting Member of TMP30 Jan 2018 9:14 a.m. PST

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

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.