'torture porn is over
Anyone else agree?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Hostel: Part III (2011) Discussion > 'torture porn is over
The "torture porn" label is definitely over. It's lazy and misinformed, not to mention tired. It was invented by a single critic, David Edelstein, and everyone else pretty much latched onto it.
"Head Case" (4-Disc Limited Edition) - www.buyheadcase.comshare
''The "torture porn" label is definitely over. It's lazy and misinformed, not to mention tired. It was invented by a single critic, David Edelstein, and everyone else pretty much latched onto it.''
People latched on to it because it is very, very apt, however, I used ''torture porn'' before David Edelstein did (January 2006), and I presume other people thought it up independently too. I will always use it to describe crap like 'Saw', because as far as I am aware I am the coiner of that phrase.
If you are sick of the ''I love Jesus 100% signature'', copy and paste this into your profile!
"I will always use it to describe crap like 'Saw', because as far as I am aware I am the coiner of that phrase."
I could agree with Saw 2,3,4,5... but the first one? The first one is a very small thriller with almost no gore. Did you really saw SAW, or are you just talking about something you don't know?
I don't care about the term. I don't care about the labels giving more or less credit to the movies. The only label I can't trust is Oscar and the rest are dispensable. Torture porn? Disney, Paramount, Sony, Universal, Spielberg, Lucas, ILM, THX, porn, award winning... it's all the same named to give to the society certain information about a product and manipulate them to invest YOUR money in a particular one.
The probem is that I can't get any information from those words. I think that the concept Disney has about women in some movies is more dangerous to the society than that called torture porn, for example.
A damn stupid idea, that's what I call crap. In this called torture porn, I'll have to admit that I like to think about the way the fx are executed... Modelmaking, mechanics, sculpture... I think it is art, as I think that a Disney cartoon is art too... that doesn't mean that it can't be stupid, as a called "torture porn" movie can be. Come on, open your mind. I have been alway more atracted to sculpture than painting, more atracted to lighting than framing...
But after all... Sorry, the art will always be pushing the boundaries, that's its duty.
I know, I know, how can I call this thing art? Because there was 1 who bought 1 Van Gogh while he lived.
I know this is old but the only label you can trust is oscar?
I know a lot of people who think that only the good films get awards and only the films with the most money work - for example someone said all hollywood movies are better than British movies because they throw more money at it - that means nothing and some popular movies, Halloween, Evil Dead, Paranormal Activity where filmed by nobodies at the time with hardly any money and yet have become massive cult movies.
It says can't not can :)
sharePeople calling 'Saw' torture porn always make me laugh. It's like they have never even seen it.
www.last.fm/user/Muinaiset
[deleted]
The "torture porn" label is justifiable.
These movies are not about the actual art of making people scared with things unseen, or wowing them with the artistry of special make-up effects.
They are about giving a certain type of people a certain type of titillation, that titillation being: seeing innocent victims in pain, suffering and anguish. Seeing them as victims of utter barbaric cruelty that goes beyond gory dispatch by a maniac. It is about seeing people in such a condition they would actually beg for death, screaming and crying endlessly.
The kind of people who like this stuff are almost never those who watch it because they like to feel "uncomfortable", but the type that hoops and hollers.
It doesn't have any message, or a point, because it has obviously been a fad. Something more people started doing to make money.
I'm a horror fan, and the torture porn genre is one where i would feel utterly embarrassed if i would watch a movie from that genre in the presence of others.
It's almost the same kind of embarrassment as putting on a porn movie in the presence of others.
"These movies are not about the actual art of making people scared with things unseen, or wowing them with the artistry of special make-up effects."
I have no idea why you would say that. Unless they are really torturing people, anything shown is done with (drumrolls) make-up effects (or cgi). And there is a lot of fear of things unseen, for instance suspecting the couple in the beginning were the perpetrators (but then they turned out to be fellow victims).
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
porn implies you will enjoy it. even if your into bondage does not mean you like seeing someone tortured and have toes cut off.
[deleted]
this isn't torture porn. Torture porn is people having sex whilst performing hardcore S&M on each other, that is actual torture porn. This is a horror movie, where people get killed and we watch it knowing it's fake and often comically over the top. Whoever decided to apply the term torture porn to horror films should actually watch some real torture porn sometime and they'll see the difference
-----
http://unomanesopinion.blogspot.com/
[deleted]
Well then clearly he has missapplied 2 terms beccause this isn't Gorno either, infact applying the porno term tro a horror movie in general is more often than not wrong because every single horror film that I have seen in my life has had a plot in some way or another, including Hostel and Saw (In fact Saw's plot line is one of the best ones that i've seen in a horror series because it arcs over all the movies).
Yes there's gore, yes there's nudity, those two factors do not make a movie a gory porno. Now if the movie was about people having hardcore sex for 2 hours straights, stopping every 20 minutes to get slaughtered by a dildo weilding maniac then it would be Gorno, but it's not
-----
http://unomanesopinion.blogspot.com/
[deleted]
Hmm I saw it differently. I saw it as a film about a bunch of guys going to Amsterdam, thinking that they were going to have a grand old time with all the pot and sex they could dream of, getting kidnapped and tortured for profit by an underground group who sell murder holidays.
There is a lot more to the original Hostel movie than just sex and gore, there's a plot about an undergound murder club, there's the fact that the people the 3 main guys spend a lot of time with (Including the girls they have sex with) are the same people that work for that underground group. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but I saw a film that had a genuine plot in it.
-----
http://unomanesopinion.blogspot.com/
[deleted]
It's still a plot and really using the term Porno to describe a horror film is kinda offensive to the fans of the horror genre because Porn has nothing to do with Horror. I actually just started a threqad about the terms Gorno and Torture Porn on the Horror board and someone named spesism had the perfect quote that I would like to share
A lack of plot doesn't make something "porn" either. Shooting a porno film makes a film a porn film.
-----
http://unomanesopinion.blogspot.com/ share
[deleted]
The vivid sex scenes and graphic nudity in Hostel part 1 ARE for male titilation. THUS it IS pornographic. Just because it isn't hardcore doesn't make it less pornographic. Hostel is more hardcore then Playboy.
By that logic Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Halloween etc are all pornographic. Most horror films that I know of from about the mid-70's onward that have really stuck around in our memories have at least one or two scenes that include tits intended simply to titilate, or a sex scene to titilate. Would you class Friday the 13th as pornographic? I'm betting you would.
Anyone that would dare argue that Hostel is not exploitative is retarded by default.
Please, every film that plays to what the audience wants could be classed as exploitatative. Hell a restaurant can be called explotative because it exploits hungry people but no one says that ebcause it's *beep* stupid, as is calling hostel exploiative.
The last half of this film is NOTHING but gratuitous violence and ghastly death.
...and? So horror films don't have people dying in various ways anymore? When did that memo go out? Listen up idiot, every single horror film that you have ever seen has involve gratuitous violence and ghastly death THAT'S WHAT MAKES THEM HORROR FILMS!!!! That's the fun of them, being able to enjoy these images knowing that they're fake, everyones safe and nothing is wrong. Would Nightmare on Elm Street be as scary without the violence and death? No, it'd be a piss weak piece of crap.
Comparing Hostel to REAL horror films is OFFENSIVE to TRUE fans of the genre.
I'm a real fan of the genre, Hostel is a real horror film just like any before it. Just because you didn't like it doesn't make it less of a horror film, if anything now i like it a little more.
Hostel is nothing but a pornographic bloodbath.
So is Friday The 13th, Saw, Scream, Nighmate on Elm street, Dawn of the dead... need I go on? All horror films have death, most of them have some kind of gore and almost all of them have some scene that might be considered pornographic, depending on how far you want to stretch the term
I think Hostel was an excellent idea but executed very poorly. The sequel was far better if you ask me.
Finally we agree on something, I much preferred the sequel to the original because they went further into the secret society in that one, the first one kept the society thing secret to try and make it creepier but there was no point in doing that in part 2 since everyone knew about it.
NOW do you understand the meaning of "torture porn?"
Yeah, it's a term that should be used to apply to S&M pornography but a few jackass reviewers applied to a genre I love where it doesn't belong and sadly you've proven that there are people who will gladly leap on board with them
-----
http://unomanesopinion.blogspot.com/ share
[deleted]
The films you listed: the nudity is a minor touch at most. In hostel it's EXTREME.
News flash, most horror films nowadays have to be more extreme to get any sort of reaction. Bart Simpson has the perfect quote "It's like when you look back at Friday the 13th part 1, it's pretty tame by todays standards" and that was back in 1990 a mere 10 years after Friday hit cinemas... in the 20 years since I would probably be able to show Friday the 13th to a freaking 8 year old and get no reaction, we've seen that and we don't get affected by it anymore so filmmakers need to ramp it up to get the same reaction.
Gratuity is ALWAYS exploitative and sensationalistic.
I agree. When it's gore for gore sake or nudity for nudity sake then yes it's gratuitous... but exploitation is pushing it. Ask the woman who went to a casting call, asked for the job, was made well aware that she was going to be showing her breasts on screen, went to set, took her top off and then cashed the cheque if she felt exploited. If she's not an idiot she'll answer no. The only people who might be able to cry exploitation would be the cast of the movie itself, and they all cashed the cheques and they all asked for the job. Customers are by their definition exploited because someone gives them what they want for a price, but we would never call that explitation would we.
Your entire attitude is completely unecessary, I'm not trying to be arbitrary; calling me an idiot will get you nowhere.
You called anyone that dared argue Hostel wasn't explitative 'retarded' (of which it was clear I am one) long before I called you an idiot so don't try and act like you did not beging the name calling.
Why do you think I don't like Hostel? I like it for WHAT IT IS. A movie that consist of nothing but gratuitous sex and violence.
Well there was the point when you said in a previous post:-
I went and seen this with my best friend and she looked at me half way through and said "I can't believe we just spent 20.00 to watch porn." I felt the same"
which to me implied that you didn't like it, that's what gave that impression to me. Yes there's lots of sex and violence in there, but I saw a plot in there too and while it isn't as great a plot as some other films it just feels wrong to lump it in with movies like Let's Torture Tina 8... yes that's a mde up title, I just had to use one to make my point.
WTF ever. Pretentious, much? If you can compare classic horror films to the regurgitated for-profit-only trash made today, I feel sorry for you...
Of course I can compare them, I can compare apples to tables if I choose but that doesn't mean i think that they're the same. I would gladly watch classics like Halloween any day of the week than a lot of the crap made today and at no pint do I suggest that Hostel is a classic, but it's not just a porno with a few cool gore effects
I'll take films like "Let's Scare Jessica to Death" and "Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte" over the newbies any day.
I honestly wish I could see either of those films but I have never seen them on DVD in my life
-----
http://unomanesopinion.blogspot.com/ share
[deleted]
I never directly called anyone an idiot.
You may not have directly called anyone an idiot, but you called anyone who dared argue Hostel wasn't exploitative retarded, while I was doing just that. I can go back and get your direct quote if you wish, it's why my attitude changed.
By any standards Hostel is exploitative, whether or not those girls were willing-they're still being exploited. Was Camille Keaton not willing to perform a 30 minute long rape scene in I Spit on Your Grave? Of course she was willing, but it's still labeled exploitation.
The label of exploitation film is used to make a film appear even more dark and dangerous than it already is, it's a marketing trick. Unless the people were actually exploited in the movie then it is not an exploitation film, the term (Much like torture porn) is once again missapplied.
[quote]They're both available. I hope you are aware that the horror film genre goes back to the early teens, right? It didn't start with films like Halloween and Friday the 13th. Besides, at any rate, Friday the 13th is a bad film. [quote]
Yes I am very aware of the easrly horror films, I'm also aware that horror is one of the genres that goes through peak times and the latest peak time in horror was in the 70-80's when the modern day horror craze really got going. Most of the horror films today are only made because the creators were in the cinema when those huge films were released. As for Friday being a bad film, I'll grant that the sequels mostly sucked but the original is a classic and can still shock me when I watch it
[quote]You don't need gratuitous violence, sex, and gore to make a horror film-even at todays standards! Watch the original 1974 version of Black Christmas. It's loaded with profanity, but there's absolutely NO nudity or gore and the film still remains one of the scariest I've ever seen. [quote]
It and halloween are probably the 2 films that are true classics that feature no gore at all, and yes I agree that if done right gore isn't needed to make a film scary. Look at Silence Of the Lambs, only one scene that was slightly gory and it's brief at best and the film itself is scary as hell. HOWEVER these are sadly in the minority, the majority of horror films that stick around in our memory have some moment of showing the blood on screen, since they're showing violence they also try to get the message in there (A puritan one but it's stuck around) that sex=death, so naturally they need to have sex in there somewhere to distinguish who's going to die (Usually seconds after sex).
Now again I will agree that there are times when it is just nudity for the sake of nudity, Silent Night deadly Night leaps to mind when there's a scene where a woman walked outside into the snow wearing nothing but a pair of super short jeans... in the snow, it was pointless and too far but other times it's needed, it just happens.
[quote]The majority of new horror films are FOR-PROFIT-ONLY. The tactics used aren't to keep up with the standards of today. It's called being original, and filling any film with loads of sex and mindless gore is so unoriginal. For god's sake this was done over 50 years ago in Herschell Gordon Lewis's "Blood Feast." [quote]
There are very few truely original films anymore though, most of them are remakes, parodys, sequels or simply heavily influenced by other stories. Hell Avatar stole a lot of it's story from Pocahantas amongst a ton of other books. When a really original fim does come out, a lot of the time it's sent right to the straight to DVD bin. Of coarse the films are for profit, the filmmakers know that Horror is the easiest genre to make money from, you can make a feature length movie for almost nothing and be sure that thousands of horror fans will come see it no matter what. They play on that, they know their buisiness.
[quote]Anyone who's scene films like Salo, Men behind the Sun, and Irreversible, will NEVER AGAIN be shocked by anything that graces the silver screen. So if their motives are to shock, they might as well give it up because the majority of audiences are fairly jaded when it comes to sex and gore.
[quote]
I know no one who's seen those movies, heck I've never seen those movies (Salo was banned here for ages, it's only recently been announced to be coming out on DVD, and yes I'm getting it) but there is always a way to shock people, it is never ever not possible to shock someone if you know what you're doing. Someone will one up them, someone will shock them again. They're jaded because the movies have kept ramping it up to try and get a reaction, which only makes people more jaded so they need to ramp it up again. It keeps going on and one.
[quote]The 3 greatest modern horror films I have scene are:
REC
The Descent
Wolf Creek
Check those out. Hostel pales in comparison to all 3.
[quote]
I will get those out... well I'll get REC and The Descent, I saw wolf creek and I hated it, I do not get what is so scary about it. I watched it from start to finish and I think there was maybe one moment where I was actually scared (Head on a stick) but other than that I had no reaction other than boredom. If i had to choose between wolf creek and hostel then hostel wins, and I'm an Aussie so I'm supposed to love Wolf Creek, it's like a patriotism thing.
-----
http://unomanesopinion.blogspot.com/ share
[deleted]
How could you possibly say these films could be topped when you haven't seen them? I could NOT even finish Men Behind the Sun! You see a real life cat thrown by its neck into a room and then eaten alive by rats. (It's flesh being ripped apart as it shrieks and screams) You see mice being burned, (all real deal) Plus numerous innocent people being subjected to unimaginable forms of Japanese WW2 torture tactics. That's the entire plot of the film. It has title cards that say the name of the type of torture... it then proceeds to show live demonstrations. Such as women's hands being frozen solid and then shattered like glass.
Salo: You see children being brutally raped, forced to eat human feces, beaten, and constantly abused.
Irreversible: You see a mans head completely flattened by a fire extinguisher as he screams and begs for mercy. You see a woman being VIOLENTLY raped for 9 minutes long, and then having her face stomped in afterwords. You see men being raped, LOADS of homo-erotic S&M, HARDCORE.
By todays standards, tomorrow's standards,. or any standards... you can't top these.
What country are you from, may I ask? Because it appears your country censors a LOT, so it's very possible our argument is really based on the fact you're watching CUT versions of films, when I'm seeing the the full enchilada.
This could be where the problem is coming in, I'm from Australia and yeah they do censor a lot of films here and in some cases ban them, Last House on The Left was banned here for 25 years just to give an example.
As for why I can say it's still possible to be shocked even though I haven't seen those films (Although Salo is on my list, I've heard a lot about it) it's a basic belief that it's always possible to shock people. Personally I remember watching Pink Flamingos for the first time (Import copy, another one they don't actually sell here) and after watching it I doubted I would be able to be shocked again, what with the chicken being killed on screen and Divine eating dog crap amongst other things. Then I watched the Aristocrats and was shocked at the descriptions of rape and sex and mutilation that a hundred comics were delivering. Then I finally got to see Last House on the Left and that shocked the almighty hell out of me (The 'Piss your pants' scene still chills me) Now I know my ones are probably tame by comparison, Aristocrats is certainly tamer than those you mentioned because it's only words but after watching those movies in that order and still being able to be shocked time and time again I started to believe that it's always possible to shock someone with a movie, it's just rare that a really good shocking movie comes along.
-----
http://unomanesopinion.blogspot.com/ share
What a stupid debate. I'm not concerned with the dictionary definition of porn. It has come to mean adult films meant to enhance sex or a fantasy and the purpose of arousal and masturbation. I mean plain and simple do many people watch porn without masturbating or having sex while watching it? I dont think so. But heres the thing. Horror films are intended to scare and entertain you. NOT make you want to masturbate! Its not the same thing! If it was kids couldnt get in with or without a parent. THEY ARE VERY OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT!!!
share[deleted]
Feel the random need to update this since I recently saw Irreversable and you're right, it's *beep* intense... it's also no where near the most intense film I've seen (And I saw it in a theatre and sat in the front row, I was immersed in it) but yes it was powerful and wonderfully made, I was more in awe of everything and how powerful it was as a movie than I was terrified about it
-----
http://someoneneedstotellyouthatyourestupid.blogspot.com/
to label a film like "Hostel" as simply a "Gorno" is just a lazy analysis of the actual movie. the plot is much stronger than a typical "Gorno" type movie. although technically, you are both right i guess. Hostel is filled with over the top sex and violence. but the "plot" isn't "sex and violence". that's where the similarities end
shareThe majority of new horror films are FOR-PROFIT-ONLY.
Yeah, it's always been like that... And modern horror is obviously going to look bad if Wolf Creek is the best you've seen... A Tale of Two Sisters, Audition, Let the right one in, Martyrs, those are some really good horror movies.
If you've heard of it, it's already too mainstream for me. share
You call him pretentious then say the most prententious thing EVER
"ohhh I only like the classic not modern trash"
Well personally I'll take black swan over any black and white horror
modern horror is *beep* AMAZING black swan, let the right one in, orphan, piranha 3d, scream, inside, martyrs, the box, trick r treat, hills have eyes remake, the road, eden lake, shuttle.
I really love modern horror because it is just having fun and with so many idea having been done you still get a stand out gem now and again
Shut the *beep* up using the terms gorno and torture porn
the only film that would apply to is a serbian film
they are horror or exploitation films not PORN
Hostels nudity is nowhere near extreme
do you an erect penis and a open vagina? NO!
[deleted]
I'm not the ignorant one here, there is no porn in hostel
did anyone in the cinema start wanking? nope I think not
nudity does not equal porn
the term itself is just for idiots like you to use
a serbian film is torture porn, you know why? because it has s&m in it!
hostel is slasher movie with a new concept with a group of teen having sex which has happened in MANY slasher films.
[deleted]
Porn is to masturbate to with close ups of sucking *beep* cum shots and anal.
Was there any of that in hostel? nope
I never said porn defined public masturbation, don't play *beep* dumb.
It is for the purpose of masturbation
nobody started masturbating in the cinema
hostel could not even be called softcore porn
and by the definition every movie with a sex scene in could be considered porn.
"pornography: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire"
Hostel has a plot, it is exploitation/horror film not porn.
And please don't try to be condescending you actually have to have intellect for that to work.
[deleted]
Just because the movie is about sex does not make it porn.
This is a film a horror/exploitation film.
Porn is what you find on youporn etc with erect cocks and close ups of vaginas.
Do you see any of that in hostel? Nope
Does hostel have a plot were the seedy underworld of sex fits in? Yes
Do porn movies have a plot? Nope
Does anyone get tortured while having sex? Nope
NOT torture porn, a serbian film, s&m golden shower 6 is torture porn
And the fact the movie has sex in has nothing to do with the label of torture porn as it also applies to saw which has zero sex in it, I think the stupid term means that the story has no plot other than torture like porn has no plot.
And I disagree that it has no plot and think the term is silly.
piranha 3d is a great exploitation film with sex
should that be called death porn?
This entire thread is rather futile.
The term "torture porn" is a hot-button phrase used by very ignorant people.
Applying the term and giving it validation says quite a bit about the person using it, as well as their ignorance.
Porn is meant to be titillating and cause arousal in the viewer. If a person wants to apply the term "Porn" to the sexual content in "Hostel" then they are unrealistic or completely missing the point. Almost all of the sexual content in "Hostel" was a plot device. If you're going to tell a story that begins with college students in Amsterdam they're realistically going to be doing either one of two things: either visiting the Van Gogh museum, Anne Frank house, or otherwise doing a more cultural vacation or they're going to be more interested in the drug and sex trade. Their temptations and appetites are what lead them to the hostel to begin with. To expect a depiction of a brothel in Amsterdam without sex or nudity is unrealistic. When the characters eventually arrive at the hostel, there are numerous scantily clad or otherwise fully nude women there to further entice the men toward their doom. These women can very aptly be compared to mythological "Sirens". For very obvious and realistic reasons the more enticing the Sirens are, the more effective they are. Any director could attempt to do the same with less or even no sex or nudity but it would be less realistic and quite frankly have less impact.
If the "Hostel" films are using sex or nudity to excess and not to further the impact of the plot device, then where was all the sex and nudity in "Hostel Part II"? There was a much different device used in the plot as a "Siren" to lure the female students to the hostel, Roth didn't feel a need to insert sex or nudity in any way that feels gratuitous or excessive because it wouldn't in any way further the plot.
If using the term "Torture Porn" to describe the graphic violence of a movie (as often used to describe the "Saw" series, which is virtually devoid of sex or nudity) the person using the term might as well be implying that the film is designed to sexually arouse and titillate the viewer through violence, which is absurd, insulting, and makes the user of the term to look like a total moron. There are many people out there who are sexually aroused by violence whether they be a rapist or maybe an S&M fetishist but there are much easier and cheaper ways to market towards outer fringe groups than multi-million dollar films.
The bottom line is that "Exploitative" is a better term to describe these films than "Torture Porn" if a term has to be used at all. I personally find nothing wrong with the term exploitative as it applies to a genre film, and neither do these film-makers, otherwise they would be uber-sensitive to the content in their films and how some may misinterpret it. I just think it's high-time to stop using the term "Torture Porn". It's a hot-button term used by trolls to invoke heated discussion, the proof is in the fact that the OP hasn't even bothered to revisit or post back in the thread since.
[deleted]
Yes, I did. I made the mistake of thinking you might have a modicum of intelligence but judging from your reply you fit the ignorant criteria of those that love using the term.
Funny thing, though, you seem to have failed to refute a single thing I posted...
nudity) the person using the term might as well be implying that the film is designed to sexually arouse and titillate the viewer through violence, which is absurd, insulting
You write so much text but still doesn't get the point.
The term "porn" isn't restricted to "sexual arousal".
Definition of PORNOGRAPHY (the 100th time
1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>
See part 3? It can be "sexual" or "erotic". But is not limited to.
You can get other emotional reactions, like laughing or a good tingling.
People claim, the Transformers Movies are nothing more then
"FX PORN". The whole story is written to have a maximum amount
of FX Robots waste each other to bits - and take much
damage as possible. Is anybody "sexually aroused" by this? Not.
When people call SAW or Hostel "Torture Porn", then not for the
sexual part of the story. (You call this just any sort of porn!)
The "torture" aspect is, that the whole story is so stupidly
designed to horribly mutilate people slowly for nothing more
then fun of doing it. Thats the "porn" aspect: yes, slowwwwww
cut his arm sloooowwww, yes I want to hear him scream in Dolby
Surround. Not so fast. Put a little salt in. Yesssss.
Nobody suggest that anybody gets _sexually_ off by this (I would
call those people psychopaths). But there is seemingly a crowd
out there, that just don't want to see people get cut and killed
in a "horror-horrible" way.
They want it slow. And they prefer women to be the main target,
which is also a Hostel-relevant topic well gnarled everywhere.
The SAW plots, at least, build much tension by the scene,
but OFF the people more quickly (like the carussell with
the pumpguns). Thats the "classical horror" way. Where is
no story need for extended suffering of the victims, they
at least don't pretend there is a reason. Shoot. Finish.
With Martyrs, the french mocked this trend by simply inventing
a "cult" that sees some sort of Remedy or Blessing in torture
to the maximum. Some call it the second coming of horror, other
call it "Maximum Torture Porn Trash".
At least the Asian/Japanese underground doesn't try to slash
any sort of useless story line to their "torture porn". They
simply get three or five girls in school uniform in a room
and let Samurais or masked Ninjas give the girls a butchery
welcome. A storyline would unnecessary cloud the "porn"
aspect of watching three girls suffer on many levels without
any reason. share
@michinine
Perhaps it's you that's missing the point or maybe I didn't make myself clear.
What's the first thing you think of when you hear or read the word n i gg er? Do you think of it as a racial slur or as a term referring to an ignorant person of any race? I'm betting on the former.
What's the first thing you think of when you hear or read the word nimrod? Do you think of an adept hunter or a foolish person? I'm betting on the latter.
I don't give a flying *beep* at a rolling donut what revised definition people are using to try to explain the term in hindsight, when you use a term such as porn, or n*****, the terms have a stigma attached that usually immediately connects with the primary use of the term, not a revised definition. It's plain naivety to think that when using such terms that most people are going to do anything but immediately associate the term with it's primary use, which in this specific case, carries quite a negative stigma with it. The reviewer that coined the phrase I'm sure knew this just as well, it's a journalist's job to sensationalize, and guess what? The inclusion of that term did exactly what it was intended to do, it invoked debate and controversy. The exact same thing that internet trolls do. So I'll say it again: it's a hot-button phrase used by ignorant people. A person could use any number of terms to describe these types of movies. Using hot-button phrases is done to ruffle feathers and to provoke reactions, not to inspire people to research a term to the end "Ohhhh, so THAT'S what he meant when he said that."
Using hot-button phrases is done to ruffle feathers and to provoke reactions, not to inspire people to research a term to the end "Ohhhh, so THAT'S what he meant when he said that."
Strangely, the people who use the word "Torture Porn" never saw
any "alternative meaning" or "hot button" - because the byword "porn"
was never limited to them to sexual acts/arousal 'only'.
The discussion and frenzy started with those who use words with
complex meaning in _simple_ fashion, and then the misdirected,
self created anger goes its way up the internet volcano shaft.
Whats the better wording? How do you describe a movie, thats
completly CGI just for the fun of making CGI with -no plot-?
Trash? "trash" doesn't explain the excitement - even if its true ;)
Fetish? I like that. But many people wrongly put "fetish" also into
a sexual connotation, so nothing gained here.
Perversion? Also sexual.
Fest? Yeah. "CGI Fest" is probably good to describe the fun of the
people *creating* it, but "CGI Porn" explains the excitement in the
viewer, not just the creators.
You can spend an evening with www.merriam-webster.com and will not
find any better matching word. That's the reason it was used.
I have no problem and will continue to use the word "porn" in this
context, and rather educate people who vent because they don't
understand it. Until someone invents a new word for the utter and
sheer depravity of the viewers, this is the best we have to describe
the reality around us. It's happening. We have to "call it".
Its understanding, that some people who are just "torture porn"
aficionados don't want to be "called out" as people who really *enjoy*
the "creating pain" part much more then the "horror" part. Much more
they probably want to admit. Especially when its done to young women.
But this is a completely different discussion.
share
Are you serious? This is about description in the English language, and "Torture Porn" is a very valid moniker in this case. It is perfectly defined by that description.
I'm not saying that this movie is tortute porn (I haven't seen it), however many "horror" films fit this mould. If your primary purpose is to show the gratuitous suffering of others, with minimal plot, then you are most likely watching Torture Porn.
Stop trying to redefine the English language in your defensive struggle to redefine torture porn.
Well said michnine... I was starting to lose the will live reading this thread. I have never seen so many people arguing over something when clearly nobody involved has even grasped the concept of what they're arguing about. The term torture porn has absolutely nothing to do with the film's sexual content. In porn, the aim is to show explicit sex to titliiate and arouse the viewer in a sexual way. In torture porn the aim is to show explicit violence and gore to shock and disturb the viewer in a sensationalist way.
The majority of modern horror films' main purpose is to show explicit violence and gore without concern for story, suspense or character development. Hence "torture porn". Such a film could have absolutely no sex or nudity in it but still be classed as torture porn.
Here endeth the lesson ;o)
Never rub another man's rhubarb.
[deleted]
A lack of plot doesn't make something "porn" either. Shooting a porno film makes a film a porn film!!!!!!!!!!!!! *beep* fool.
sharemwr09... The first half of hostel is about them chasing women and having non stop sex and nothing but genitals? Not 1 person's genitals are shown in entire film. Not once. There is not one single solitary sex scene in the entire film. As for the killings, you went and paid to see a HORROR movie. What the hell did you expect? Bambi?
shareThere were what? 2 sex scenes? Not what I would call a porn by any means. This had a plot. It was about the EHC and each client had its own "story" and the like. Hostel's plot is pretty damn terrifying, at that.
shareI'm so glad you mentioned the complexity of the Saw series. It's an unbelievably impressive story, and nobody I've ever talked to gives it any serious credit.
Not to mention, the mini stories can get pretty mindbending at times when they urge you to choose a side (in Saw 6, the way I ended up feeling about the insurance co. executive and the mother/son duo at the end blew my mind).
[deleted]
You are so right! I hate the term toture porn, it is like stop insulting exploitation and horror! they are entertaining and sometimes pieces of art
shareUh, NO.
Having CONSENSUAL sex, even with S&M involved is never torture.
Torture is the infliction of pain as punishment or coercion WITHOUT CONSENT.
If the person receiving pain consenst and is getting sexual gratification from it, it cannot possibly BE punishment or coercion.
My description is certainly closer to what Torture Porn would be than what the stupid horror flick description is.
OK then, if someone was tied to a board and pee'd on golden shower style, would that count as torture porn? It's like waterboarding only erotic (I'm sick I know this)
-----
http://someoneneedstotellyouthatyourestupid.blogspot.com/
I hope someone makes a comedy and people start calling it "tickle porn."
sharePosted by noway234-1
this isn't torture porn. Torture porn is people having sex whilst performing hardcore S&M on each other, that is actual torture porn. This is a horror movie, where people get killed and we watch it knowing it's fake and often comically over the top. Whoever decided to apply the term torture porn to horror films should actually watch some real torture porn sometime and they'll see the difference
I believe you misunderstand the term "torture porn". Torture porn serves to entice those turned on by torture the same way regular porn does to other people. Therefore, it mainly features long, explicit and vivid torture scenes, building the plot around these, using every "excuse" to show more horrid torture. Such movies need not in any way involved sex or S&M, even if they often do. Hostel certainly gives you the feeling of being "torture porn", regardless of the aim of the makers of the movie. Hostel II took it a step further with the bathtub scene, but had less torture scenes overall, from what I recall.
Regardless of whether or not you enjoy the torture scenes, it does make for an interesting, and in some ways fascinating (or some would say gut wrenching), movie. share
exactly
shareTotally agree with you, have seen some really nasty bdsm vids and have wondered about the sanity of the people concerned, often wondered about the so called consent of the 'victim'. I have often wondered about the term torture porn and still cannot see how it applies to any mainstream movie. I would like to mention that I do not condone violence against any living creature and do not enjoy seeing pain and harm inflicted on people or animals, I do enjoy horror movies (the more gore the better) because they are not real, they are imaginary and imagination is fine, the real thing is most definitely not!
shareGod, I hope so.
sharecome on guys. porn is penis inserting into a mouth, vagina, or an anus on film... and always ends with a cumshot. i saw no actual insertion in hostel, and i certainly didn't see any cumshots. i know the definition of porn may say other wise, but that is what the word has come to mean.
thank you.
Porn=Excessive in this context
shareThe definition of porn is what it is. It has not come to mean something because you say it has.
shareI love "torture porn" movies.
shareThe Passion of the Christ is torture porn. It is NOTHING but a dude getting tortured to death for 2 hours.
The Exorcist is possession porn.
The Haunting is mansion porn.
Dawn of the Dead is mall porn.
A Nightmare on Elm street is dream porn.
Jurassic Park is dinosaur porn.
The Godfather is mafia porn.
The Social Network is dialogue porn.
You guys are retarded.
I just love film.
I think the term you guys are looking for is "pseudo-snuff".
Torture porn is one of the stupidest label I've ever heard, and of course it was made up by some mainstream critics who don't know anything about these kind of genres.
Torture porn or not the film was stupid and felt like a porno to me for the first half.
Yeah I understand they are in Amsterdam but that doesn't mean you can just throw sex, nudity or what not at me for half an hour.
As someone who producers short films that is simply lazy writing/time filling
"The Social Network is dialogue porn."
Best line in this entire ridiculous topic. I really did LOL.
Martyrs is in my top 5 favorite movies of all time.
''The Passion of the Christ is torture porn. It is NOTHING but a dude getting tortured to death for 2 hours.''
Well, it is...
---------------------
Haply I may remember,
And haply may forget.
What, tc's just using a movie critics term or did he mean something like "insex"?
That documentary about insex does make you feel so sad for them, but much like horror movies, that's the point for the S&M freaks isn't it?
The Hostel movies and Saw movies are mild but enjoyable hollywood fluff.
I've seen real shockers like Men Behind The Sun, Salo, In a Glass Cage, Martyrs, Inside, Ichi The Killer The Untold Story (aka Bunman), Cannibal Ferox, Jungle Holocaust (aka last Cannibal World), Cannibal Holocaust, etc. all shocked me big time.
"Killer Klowns from Outer Space? Holy S***"