any other movies
are there any other movies that feature the moors murders but show the actual murders
shareWhy would you want to see that?
sharebecause i would like to see the whole story
sharei definatly hope there wont be and if it does show im definatly not watching
shareIn answer to your question, I very much doubt it. That would be sick. And anybody who would watch it is equally as sick.
sharei would watch it, simply because unless you know the entire story, it seems slightly tame.
the whole idea of including it doesnt mean there needs to be anything graphic, implying it happening would be fine too.
just a basic idea behind it all rather than seeing them as some weird family and then from the very censored perspective of the police investigation.
it all came across kinda weak to me as i didnt know the story behind it.
i would watch it, simply because unless you know the entire story, it seems slightly tame.
the whole idea of including it doesnt mean there needs to be anything graphic, implying it happening would be fine too.
just a basic idea behind it all rather than seeing them as some weird family and then from the very censored perspective of the police investigation.
it all came across kinda weak to me as i didnt know the story behind it.
It doesn't take alot of thinking to know what happens when children are raped and murdered, I don't see why we'd need a drama to depict it, because the terrible crimes are terrible without having to depict them graphically, it would be gratuitous. share
sure, thats one way to think about it. if youre stupid.
different murderers act in different ways, their motives, the way they went about doing it all make up the character.
the whole movie is about these murders but shows none of it.
im not saying i wanna see some guy *beep* children and killing them, i want to see how they got them in the first place, what they did to them while they had them.
even the crappy ted bundy movies give an idea into how his mind worked, while showed very little of the actual crime itself, but you atleast got an understanding of it. in this it drags on about their lives when they werent killing people, then straight into the trial.
if you werent caught up in your moralistic stupidity you would understand the point.
oh and just to point out how you could have avoided posting anything at all...
"it doesnt mean there needs to be anything graphic"
from my previous post.
"because the terrible crimes are terrible without having to depict them graphically, it would be gratuitous"
your final line bringing home your point.
notice the use of any key words in both quotes there einstein?
sure, thats one way to think about it. if youre stupid.
different murderers act in different ways, their motives, the way they went about doing it all make up the character.
We all know how rape works, rapist forces victim onto the ground, rapist then rapes them, perhaps whilst holding a hand over the mouth, it depends. We know how what happens when ones throat is slit or when someone is strangled. right? We know what happens when someone is forced to pose for pornographic photographs, right? The transcript of the tape is found on the internet if you're ghoulish. And we can also find out how they lured them by a simple search on wikipedia. This doesn't need to be shown in the film IMO, and many of the victims families are still alive to this day, do you think they really want to see this?
And If you're going to ATTEMPT to patronise me at least learn how to use simple capital letters, all right? Let's also not forget that this thread isn't about grammar or if I repeat my point or whatever on earth you're on about. share
yeah, cos i really wanna have to go researching a topic after just watching a movie on it. i think id much rather just watch the movie than have to go find out what happened myself.
the rest of what you have to say is something about how you dont understand what im saying...
i dont have to patronise you from the looks of things, the fact that you just said this thread isnt about grammar and yet in the previous sentence insulted my grammar...priceless.
repeat your point? no no, more like your point is null and void because you said they shouldnt have to show something graphic after i just said it doesnt have to be graphic.
i dont think someone as wise as you will ever be able to stoop down to my level. im sorry i wasted your time with my stupid comments, clearly you are the smartest of the two of us.
oh right, DONT patronise you, i forgot, my bad.
The thread isn't about grammar, I said before that it was stupid of you to criticise my grammar when yours is so awful.
So let's get this straight, you want to show the kids being abducted, even when they're close relatives are still alive to this day, because doing otherwise would be "tame" (let's not forget that this ACTUALLY HAPPENNED), yet you don't want to do a bit of research and leave the film as it is? And also, isn't the film about how Maureen Hindley/Dave Smith saw things? She didn't see the children being abducted did she? So wouldn't that effectively destroy the whole purpose? Maybe if it was a film about Hindley and Brady themselves then it would be more appropriate.
Another point, can you just have a decent debate with someone without resorting to petty insults?
...oh my god you just dont get it do you. nobody insulted your grammar.
i dont know how much simpler i could have made it. i made a point about it not needing to be graphic, your point was it shouldnt have to be graphic. making it completely pointless because i already said it doesnt, note the word DOESNT, need to be graphic.
it has NOTHING to do with grammar or spelling.
i seriously cant believe you dont get it yet.
if you still dont understand, i suggest you go down the local psych hospital and get yourself tested. i think you may qualify for disability. not so bad, you get some good parking.
since im currently more on the topic of you being stupid, ill skip to your third point,
yes i can. but i have a major problem with people not comprehending basic things, i dont like stupidity. mistakes are understandable, everyone makes them. only youve been unable to get the point for quite a while now.
yes, kids abducted. and yeh, their relatives are alive. good for them. im sure you realise there are alot of movies made on serial killers and the like, im pretty sure most of their relatives are still alive too. it doesnt make any difference. their relatives wont go "oh, the moores murders, now THIS is something i gotta see". and no i dont want to have to research it. id rather actually find out what was wrong with these people and what they did without having to go out of my way to get the information for myself.
As for the perspective thing...no arguement there. it WAS about her perspective. which is part of the problem. they shouldnt have made it from her perspective, and yes they should have made it from hindley and bradys point of view.
As for the perspective thing...no arguement there. it WAS about her perspective. which is part of the problem. they shouldnt have made it from her perspective, and yes they should have made it from hindley and bradys point of view.
Sounds like you want a whole different movie altogether...
yes, kids abducted. and yeh, their relatives are alive. good for them. im sure you realise there are alot of movies made on serial killers and the like, im pretty sure most of their relatives are still alive too. it doesnt make any difference. their relatives wont go "oh, the moores murders, now THIS is something i gotta see". and no i dont want to have to research it. id rather actually find out what was wrong with these people and what they did without having to go out of my way to get the information for myself.
I still don't know what it will add to the film whatsoever, and unless you've been living under a rock for 40 years, or live somewhere other than Britain, you'd know what happenned to the kids. And that's how the programme worked, it didn't need to show a long drawn out processs of murders, it assumed that everybody knew anyway, and it worked as it is IMO. share
yep, different movie.
"unless you've been living under a rock for 40 years, or live somewhere other than Britain"
bingo.
im in australia.
and it wasnt released on TV here, its on dvd.
i dont know what has happened to the kids.
all i know is they tortured one girl and killed a bunch of kids, no idea of how or when or why.
that and some guy they cut up with an axe for money.
Well then you probably would need to do some research to find out what happenned to the kids.
share