Male deaths in customs

[JIMBO]

the new Scream - five female survivors to one male survivor - but at the same time, the female villain gets a more gruesome death than the male villain.

That sounds promising. Any more details? Video?

Jimbo

[CinemorgueFan]

That sounds promising. Any more details? Video?

Jimbo

2:32 for the most grisly part, 5:43 for the finishing blow.

Taken out by Tuesday Addams!

[Totallibertarianism]

You are saying the men characters outnumber the females characters in those movies, I don't agree with you... If you watch all the casting for example in Oblivion, independence day, Star Trek Beyond, the numbers of both seems equal, at least 40 % - 60 %, 55 - 45 %.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1483013/fullcredits

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1628841/fullcredits

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2660888/fullcredits

If you want to calculate the proportion of male and female deaths in a movie, you have to take all the casting, all the actresses and actors playing in it not just the main casting, even someone who is playing a civilian bystander or a passerby in the street who will be killed in the movie has to be counted in this case, these scenes happen often in many movies by the way.

And calculating the proportion of deaths between women and men instead of the numbers is a completely wrong approach to define who between men characters and women characters are favored.

=> If tomorrow CNN would report the death of 50 US soldiers killed in a firefight with a dozen of russians troops near the syrian-iraqi border where thousands of US troops are present (50/7000 killed = 0.7 % of losses), then 7 russians soldiers were killed in the process among the few dozens of russians soldiers present in Syria (7/100 killed = 7 % of losses), would you say that US are more favoured than Russia in this event because of the proportion in the total losses ? LOL

You see ? You can not use the proportion for the death and losses of humans, to define morally which ones are more favored than others. Morally our ethic would say us a death is a death, death = death, the number of deaths are the most important than proportion !

How many of those cast members are actually treated as characters and how many are just standing around in the background?

How many have their deaths emphasized and how many would you not realize died if it wasn't pointed out?

How many would you even realize were male or female in their death scenes? In Star Trek Into Darkness, it looked like both male and female crew members were getting sucked into space when the Vengeance was firing on the Enterprise, but the scene is going so quickly, it's hard to focus on the genders of the dead crew members and how many of each are meeting their doom.

On the flip side, there's only about three female characters with speaking lines in Black Death, but there is a focus on them. Two of them die and their deaths actually matter. You actually know they died and remember they died.

When entries are usually added to the Men Are the Expendable Gender page on TV Tropes, the focus is on major character deaths - the deaths you're supposed to care about. Yeah, a lot of male extras survive Train to Busan, but doesn't change the fact that every actual male character gets killed and that's why it's included on the page. The proportions can be broken down simply by focusing on who actually matters and which deaths actually matter (which is what generates accusations of inequality in the first place). It's even easier to do so in the films with minimal to no background characters, which is also present in many films.

But even if you want to account for the background characters, you'll find indiscriminate male and female bystander / passerby / whoever deaths in those scenarios, whether it be the aforementioned Enterprise being fired on by the Vengeance in Star Trek Into Darkness, the dining room flooding in The Poseidon Adventure, the Terminator firing on the club crowd in the first film, or the exploding heads in the first Kingsman. These typically aren't factored into gender death equality vs. inequality because most people don't care about these deaths because the focus is on the situation, not the deaths. Unless they're trying to do a kill count, it's not relevant. It's seeing the actual male characters die that, again, prompted this very discussion.

And calculating the proportion of deaths between women and men instead of the numbers is the completely right approach because if there are less female characters than male characters, it is literally impossible for there to be more female deaths. Like I mentioned before, if all the female characters die and the only survivors are male, it doesn't matter if there were more male deaths. That's favoritism towards the men because men actually survived.

Comparing real life deaths to fictional deaths is false equivalence because in real life, those are actual people who died. In the movies, these are not real people dying and in the fictional narrative, certain deaths are going to matter more than background characters. It's also not a competition between male and female characters, unless that's what the story is about. It's absurd to claim favoritism towards women in a movie that has a higher male body count when all the women died. It's not favoritism if they're not making it to the end, while male counterparts are.

We're not talking about the death and losses of humans, we're talking about the death and losses of fictional characters. You can use proportion for the death and losses of fictional characters because they are not real and there is no moral or ethical issues in recognizing major character death =/= minor character death because that's specifically the point. In real life, the numbers are more important, but in a fictional world where no one actually died, the proportion is more important.

Fictional or Real death, we are talking about death and killing, with a scenario of death scenes. It is also about the stories and scenarios created by the writer and the director of the cinematic production, some of the movies in Hollywood come from true story or "inspired" by a true story according to them.

The audience and the public when watching a movie will follow the story as it was written before by the creator, when death occurs, they will see it very negatively, if it occurs on women characters, they will see it negatively on these characters and also for the men characters. In their minds the audience will follow the stories as a true events even if they are knowing its all fake and fictional, which means the morals and the ethics of the audience are following completely the story of the movie, not 100% completely like a true event but at least half of it.

=> That's why some of the movies in the world and in Hollywood are criticized violently or sometimes banned to watch because of the high violences and also for the political propaganda put in them, many movies were already criticized of being anti-women, racists, call of hatred, very violent, promoting violence, political propaganda... etc... That's why also we, our community are targeted by some of the extreme anti-porn movements and feminists, they don't like how the women are depicted in our fetish movies even if it is all fake and fictional.

=> So you are completely wrong when you are saying there is no moral or ethical issues for movies and clips released in the world and in Hollywood, therefore Yes in this case the number is more important than proportion.

If we follow what you are saying, for you the life of a black man doesn't equal the life of a white man in the US, because of the proportions in the total population. Asian man life doesn't equal the life of a US citizen because of the proportions in the total population in the world. LOL

In any way the story and the death scenes in a movie were created and imagined by a writer from his mind which means his ideologies, morals and ethics are impregnated in them. A radical muslim will never create a movie with sexual, erotic scenarios in them or showing the gays in a positively way, as well as a pro-far right person from europe will never show the immigration and islamic terror in a positively way. We have all our bias in the reality we are living.

[Totallibertarianism]

Talking about women favoritism against men in the audiovisual industries, I want to launch the debate also in the MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) sports, especially in the women MMA in general.

I saw that some of the fights videos involving very hot and pretty fighter losing her fight very harshly are sometimes very difficult to find, some are completely censored and not reuploaded, some are put in pay site like Amazon Prime and deleted from MMA official websites and MMA store sites and not available in others countries if not using a VPN.

The reddit page dedicated to women MMA often omits to post fights involving hot&sexy fighters defeated harshly by another fighters while the videos of these fights are available on the official MMA site. And instead of that they are always posting videos of beauties winning the fight not the reverse... https://www.reddit.com/r/WMMA

What is this ? I can not be completely sure but when I do search on these wanted fights for me, often I'm disappointed by the huge difficulty to find them.

If it is a some kind of sexism, tolerated sexism it would be completely unlawful and against the sport in general and against the impartial rules ruling sports and competition in the world ! As putting sexism in the sport rules is completely unlawful.

[CinemorgueFan]

Fictional or Real death, we are talking about death and killing, with a scenario of death scenes. It is also about the stories and scenarios created by the writer and the director of the cinematic production, some of the movies in Hollywood come from true story or "inspired" by a true story according to them.

The audience and the public when watching a movie will follow the story as it was written before by the creator, when death occurs, they will see it very negatively, if it occurs on women characters, they will see it negatively on these characters and also for the men characters. In their minds the audience will follow the stories as a true events even if they are knowing its all fake and fictional, which means the morals and the ethics of the audience are following completely the story of the movie, not 100% completely like a true event but at least half of it.

=> That's why some of the movies in the world and in Hollywood are criticized violently or sometimes banned to watch because of the high violences and also for the political propaganda put in them, many movies were already criticized of being anti-women, racists, call of hatred, very violent, promoting violence, political propaganda... etc... That's why also we, our community are targeted by some of the extreme anti-porn movements and feminists, they don't like how the women are depicted in our fetish movies even if it is all fake and fictional.

=> So you are completely wrong when you are saying there is no moral or ethical issues for movies and clips released in the world and in Hollywood, therefore Yes in this case the number is more important than proportion.

If we follow what you are saying, for you the life of a black man doesn't equal the life of a white man in the US, because of the proportions in the total population. Asian man life doesn't equal the life of a US citizen because of the proportions in the total population in the world. LOL

In any way the story and the death scenes in a movie were created and imagined by a writer from his mind which means his ideologies, morals and ethics are impregnated in them. A radical muslim will never create a movie with sexual, erotic scenarios in them or showing the gays in a positively way, as well as a pro-far right person from europe will never show the immigration and islamic terror in a positively way. We have all our bias in the reality we are living.

After all the discussions about separating fantasy deaths from real deaths, we're now equating them? No, because there is no comparison between them. Equating fictional death scenes to real death and killing is like saying someone who plays Madden's Face of the Franchise Mode is an NFL quarterback. There is no actual death and killing, negating the comparison. Even when based on a true story or purported to be based on one, it's still fake.

By this logic of "the audience will follow the stories as a true events even if they are knowing its all fake and fictional", does that mean the audience and public sees it very negatively when the knights get their heads bitten off by the killer rabbit in Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Hell no, because that's hilarious! The beauty of fictional deaths is the creator is able to manipulate audience reactions from what would be the norm in real life and what the creator intended for the narrative. In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the deaths are hilarious because they're absurd. In real life, the morals and ethics of the audience would cause them to be offended and view it negatively when a wrongly accused witch is being led away to her execution. In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, it's hilarious because of the absurdity of how the situation is depicted and that allows for the contrast between how a real death is perceived and how a fictional death may be perceived.

It is very rare for a film to want the audience to view all the deaths negatively and even rarer for the film to do it effectively. Not every film is Schindler's List - and even there, the execution of the Nazi camp commander isn't a death the audience probably views negatively, especially after he maintains his allegiance to Hitler before dying.

Audiences also aren't going to follow fictional stories as true events when the story is fantastical. It's impossible to see Monty Python & Holy Grail as a true story because the story is nonsensical, right down to the lack of consistency over whether it's taking place in the past or present. Even with serious fantasy and sci-fi stories - they're still not going to followed as true events because they conflict with reality. And then there's movies, chiefly in the action genre, that may present themselves as being in the real world, but utilize unrealistic elements that prevent audiences from perceiving them as true events.

In a movie like Commando, this lack of realism allows audiences to celebrate the mowing down of the bad guys - not negatively, the deaths are perceived positively. Conversely, Game of Thrones won't be viewed as true events because of its fantasy narrative, but Ned Stark's death is viewed negatively. Not because the audience perceives the story as true - because again, that's impossible - but because the audience came to care about him, courtesy of how he was depicted. Conversely, the deaths of Joffrey and Ramsay are certainly not viewed negatively - and again, that's because of how they were depicted. Once again, the story makes the audience feel a certain way about the deaths, and not necessarily the way real deaths would be perceived.

Political propaganda and whatnot - that's a separate issue. Those issues can and often do derive from situations without death scenes (e.g., The Birth of a Nation). The big controversy in the Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken episode was caused by a sexual assault, not a death scene. Fictional narratives are typically meant as an escape from the real world. When the fiction gets too close to reality, that's when the outrage occurs. And even then, the emotions still aren't on the same wavelength. Real deaths are met with sadness because the individual is gone forever. When movies get too violent, the emotions are disgust and repulsion. The audience isn't sad about the character's death because they know the death wasn't real. They're angry because how the death was depicted - in other words, they're not viewing it negatively because someone died, they're viewing it negatively because of how they died.

The outrage towards death fetish is another issue altogether. People get offended by death fetish because the intended emotional reaction of the creator and customer doesn't align with the mainstream reaction. If it was a short horror film or drama, there would be less (if any backlash), but death fetish depicts what the mainstream views as horrific (negative emotion) in a sexual (positive emotion). And death fetish also depicts content (chiefly necrophilia) the mainstream doesn't like to begin with. It's not about how women are depicted - it's about why they're being depicted this way.

So, you are completely wrong when you are saying there are moral or ethical issues for movies and clips released in the world and in Hollywood when it comes to simply death scenes - which is the topic of discussion. Any actual moral or ethical issues are separate issues. In this case of just death scenes and whether there's inequality towards men, no, proportion is more important than number.

Proportion applies to fictional media, in which there is a set amount of characters and, again, it is literally impossible for there to be just as much or more female deaths when there are more male characters. It is foolish to claim a movie like Inglourious Basterds is inequal towards men simply because there are more male deaths when none of the major female characters survive. To apply this to the real world is, again, false equivalence and a strawman. Besides, proportion gives more weight to the minority - in most films, the female characters - so if was applied to the real world, it would be saying the life of a black man is actually worth more than the life of a white man in the US. But that still has zero relevance to the main topic because race demographics have nothing to do with how many male and female characters a filmmaker decided to utilize in their story.

Intent is one thing - and still a separate issue. Sure, a filmmaker could have a bias against men. A filmmaker could also have a bias against women. But simply having more male deaths, especially when there are more male characters, doesn't equal inequality.

[CinemorgueFan]

Talking about women favoritism against men in the audiovisual industries, I want to launch the debate also in the MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) sports, especially in the women MMA in general.

I saw that some of the fights videos involving very hot and pretty fighter losing her fight very harshly are sometimes very difficult to find, some are completely censored and not reuploaded, some are put in pay site like Amazon Prime and deleted from MMA official websites and MMA store sites and not available in others countries if not using a VPN.

The reddit page dedicated to women MMA often omits to post fights involving hot&sexy fighters defeated harshly by another fighters while the videos of these fights are available on the official MMA site. And instead of that they are always posting videos of beauties winning the fight not the reverse... https://www.reddit.com/r/WMMA

What is this ? I can not be completely sure but when I do search on these wanted fights for me, often I'm disappointed by the huge difficulty to find them.

If it is a some kind of sexism, tolerated sexism it would be completely unlawful and against the sport in general and against the impartial rules ruling sports and competition in the world ! As putting sexism in the sport rules is completely unlawful.

That's a matter of favoritism towards physical attractiveness, not gender / sexism.

If any of that is true, that's certain women being treated unfairly compared to other women because of how they look - nothing to do with competition between men and women. Men aren't involved in this situation, at least not from the MMA angle.

It's what the mainstream society typically wants, even if it doesn't reflect reality, as demonstrated by the results of the fights.

But that's also one of the reasons fetish videos - to have things depicted your way.

It may not be the real thing, but at least you don't have to deal with mainstream censorship.

[Totallibertarianism]

Fictional or Real death, we are talking about death and killing, with a scenario of death scenes. It is also about the stories and scenarios created by the writer and the director of the cinematic production, some of the movies in Hollywood come from true story or "inspired" by a true story according to them.

The audience and the public when watching a movie will follow the story as it was written before by the creator, when death occurs, they will see it very negatively, if it occurs on women characters, they will see it negatively on these characters and also for the men characters. In their minds the audience will follow the stories as a true events even if they are knowing its all fake and fictional, which means the morals and the ethics of the audience are following completely the story of the movie, not 100% completely like a true event but at least half of it.

=> That's why some of the movies in the world and in Hollywood are criticized violently or sometimes banned to watch because of the high violences and also for the political propaganda put in them, many movies were already criticized of being anti-women, racists, call of hatred, very violent, promoting violence, political propaganda... etc... That's why also we, our community are targeted by some of the extreme anti-porn movements and feminists, they don't like how the women are depicted in our fetish movies even if it is all fake and fictional.

=> So you are completely wrong when you are saying there is no moral or ethical issues for movies and clips released in the world and in Hollywood, therefore Yes in this case the number is more important than proportion.

If we follow what you are saying, for you the life of a black man doesn't equal the life of a white man in the US, because of the proportions in the total population. Asian man life doesn't equal the life of a US citizen because of the proportions in the total population in the world. LOL

In any way the story and the death scenes in a movie were created and imagined by a writer from his mind which means his ideologies, morals and ethics are impregnated in them. A radical muslim will never create a movie with sexual, erotic scenarios in them or showing the gays in a positively way, as well as a pro-far right person from europe will never show the immigration and islamic terror in a positively way. We have all our bias in the reality we are living.

After all the discussions about separating fantasy deaths from real deaths, we're now equating them? No, because there is no comparison between them. Equating fictional death scenes to real death and killing is like saying someone who plays Madden's Face of the Franchise Mode is an NFL quarterback. There is no actual death and killing, negating the comparison. Even when based on a true story or purported to be based on one, it's still fake.

By this logic of "the audience will follow the stories as a true events even if they are knowing its all fake and fictional", does that mean the audience and public sees it very negatively when the knights get their heads bitten off by the killer rabbit in Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Hell no, because that's hilarious! The beauty of fictional deaths is the creator is able to manipulate audience reactions from what would be the norm in real life and what the creator intended for the narrative. In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the deaths are hilarious because they're absurd. In real life, the morals and ethics of the audience would cause them to be offended and view it negatively when a wrongly accused witch is being led away to her execution. In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, it's hilarious because of the absurdity of how the situation is depicted and that allows for the contrast between how a real death is perceived and how a fictional death may be perceived.

It is very rare for a film to want the audience to view all the deaths negatively and even rarer for the film to do it effectively. Not every film is Schindler's List - and even there, the execution of the Nazi camp commander isn't a death the audience probably views negatively, especially after he maintains his allegiance to Hitler before dying.

Audiences also aren't going to follow fictional stories as true events when the story is fantastical. It's impossible to see Monty Python & Holy Grail as a true story because the story is nonsensical, right down to the lack of consistency over whether it's taking place in the past or present. Even with serious fantasy and sci-fi stories - they're still not going to followed as true events because they conflict with reality. And then there's movies, chiefly in the action genre, that may present themselves as being in the real world, but utilize unrealistic elements that prevent audiences from perceiving them as true events.

In a movie like Commando, this lack of realism allows audiences to celebrate the mowing down of the bad guys - not negatively, the deaths are perceived positively. Conversely, Game of Thrones won't be viewed as true events because of its fantasy narrative, but Ned Stark's death is viewed negatively. Not because the audience perceives the story as true - because again, that's impossible - but because the audience came to care about him, courtesy of how he was depicted. Conversely, the deaths of Joffrey and Ramsay are certainly not viewed negatively - and again, that's because of how they were depicted. Once again, the story makes the audience feel a certain way about the deaths, and not necessarily the way real deaths would be perceived.

Political propaganda and whatnot - that's a separate issue. Those issues can and often do derive from situations without death scenes (e.g., The Birth of a Nation). The big controversy in the Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken episode was caused by a sexual assault, not a death scene. Fictional narratives are typically meant as an escape from the real world. When the fiction gets too close to reality, that's when the outrage occurs. And even then, the emotions still aren't on the same wavelength. Real deaths are met with sadness because the individual is gone forever. When movies get too violent, the emotions are disgust and repulsion. The audience isn't sad about the character's death because they know the death wasn't real. They're angry because how the death was depicted - in other words, they're not viewing it negatively because someone died, they're viewing it negatively because of how they died.

The outrage towards death fetish is another issue altogether. People get offended by death fetish because the intended emotional reaction of the creator and customer doesn't align with the mainstream reaction. If it was a short horror film or drama, there would be less (if any backlash), but death fetish depicts what the mainstream views as horrific (negative emotion) in a sexual (positive emotion). And death fetish also depicts content (chiefly necrophilia) the mainstream doesn't like to begin with. It's not about how women are depicted - it's about why they're being depicted this way.

So, you are completely wrong when you are saying there are moral or ethical issues for movies and clips released in the world and in Hollywood when it comes to simply death scenes - which is the topic of discussion. Any actual moral or ethical issues are separate issues. In this case of just death scenes and whether there's inequality towards men, no, proportion is more important than number.

Proportion applies to fictional media, in which there is a set amount of characters and, again, it is literally impossible for there to be just as much or more female deaths when there are more male characters. It is foolish to claim a movie like Inglourious Basterds is inequal towards men simply because there are more male deaths when none of the major female characters survive. To apply this to the real world is, again, false equivalence and a strawman. Besides, proportion gives more weight to the minority - in most films, the female characters - so if was applied to the real world, it would be saying the life of a black man is actually worth more than the life of a white man in the US. But that still has zero relevance to the main topic because race demographics have nothing to do with how many male and female characters a filmmaker decided to utilize in their story.

Intent is one thing - and still a separate issue. Sure, a filmmaker could have a bias against men. A filmmaker could also have a bias against women. But simply having more male deaths, especially when there are more male characters, doesn't equal inequality.

I can't agree with what you are saying, "there are no moral or ethical issues for death scenes in movies", LOL it is completely bullshit that it makes me laugh... You already know that even videos games are targeted by the so called "moralists", some of the videos games in the market are black listed because of the high violence put on it, some are banned and some are unavailable in others countries for the violence and for the death scenes put on it.

Same with the movies in general, some are banned, partially censored when the death scenes occurs. Movies can have moral and ethical issues in many ways, violence, graphics scenes (which means death scenes in general), racism, political motivations, promoting violence and hatred etc... etc... Sometimes it can be targeted in multiples way, for example : Old movies of John Wayne slaughtering the indians, promoting the genocide and also the racism with graphics scenes of murders etc... Snuff movies in Horror genre, there are huge lists of them, many are banned in some countries or partially censored in others countries when the death scenes occurs, they are accused of promoting violence against women and showing a very graphic scenes of murders.

You are saying me "The beauty of fictional deaths is the creator is able to manipulate audience reactions from what would be the norm in real life and what the creator intended for the narrative. In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the deaths are hilarious because they're absurd.". => I have question in this, are you sure for that ? For example : If you make a movie with jews in nazi concentration camp, slaughtered and killed in "an absurd-hilarious way" by nazi and also in gaz chamber, the women jews enslaved, raped and killed by nazi criminals in a "hilarious way" or simply a complete fictional story with jews targeted and killed in "an absurd-hilarious way" by anti-semite making fun with them somewhere in another planet or simply desacralizing the jewish religions, burning the coran and the bible etc...etc ... Would you see it as "hilarious way" ? Would public see it as "hilarious way" ?... Same example for the 911 terror attack in the US, if a producer would make it in a "hilarious-absurd way" the terror attack against the twin towers... Would the public see it and would no have moral or ethical issue ?

How the public morally and ethically would see a movie is completely relative and aleatory, you can not say that there will be never a moral and ethical issue, there is not a complete consensus when watching a movie, some will like it very much and laugh about it but some also will find it very disturbing morally and ethically for multiples reasons including the death scenes and murders put on it.

[Totallibertarianism]

Talking about women favoritism against men in the audiovisual industries, I want to launch the debate also in the MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) sports, especially in the women MMA in general.

I saw that some of the fights videos involving very hot and pretty fighter losing her fight very harshly are sometimes very difficult to find, some are completely censored and not reuploaded, some are put in pay site like Amazon Prime and deleted from MMA official websites and MMA store sites and not available in others countries if not using a VPN.

The reddit page dedicated to women MMA often omits to post fights involving hot&sexy fighters defeated harshly by another fighters while the videos of these fights are available on the official MMA site. And instead of that they are always posting videos of beauties winning the fight not the reverse... https://www.reddit.com/r/WMMA

What is this ? I can not be completely sure but when I do search on these wanted fights for me, often I'm disappointed by the huge difficulty to find them.

If it is a some kind of sexism, tolerated sexism it would be completely unlawful and against the sport in general and against the impartial rules ruling sports and competition in the world ! As putting sexism in the sport rules is completely unlawful.

That's a matter of favoritism towards physical attractiveness, not gender / sexism.

If any of that is true, that's certain women being treated unfairly compared to other women because of how they look - nothing to do with competition between men and women. Men aren't involved in this situation, at least not from the MMA angle.

It's what the mainstream society typically wants, even if it doesn't reflect reality, as demonstrated by the results of the fights.

But that's also one of the reasons fetish videos - to have things depicted your way.

It may not be the real thing, but at least you don't have to deal with mainstream censorship.

Sexism maybe not but some sort of sexual bias and sexual moralism. Putting them in sport would be completely unlawful and would create a unfair partiality in the competitions that should be impartial and fair.

And by the way, I didn't find similar problem in the males MMA...

[JIMBO]

2:32 for the most grisly part, 5:43 for the finishing blow.

Taken out by Tuesday Addams!

Thanks! A HOT end for sure!

Jimbo

[CinemorgueFan]

Thanks! A HOT end for sure!

Jimbo

I think it was also a tribute to the actress' death in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I haven't seen it, so I can't comment on any similarities.

[CinemorgueFan]

I can't agree with what you are saying, "there are no moral or ethical issues for death scenes in movies", LOL it is completely bullshit that it makes me laugh... You already know that even videos games are targeted by the so called "moralists", some of the videos games in the market are black listed because of the high violence put on it, some are banned and some are unavailable in others countries for the violence and for the death scenes put on it.

Same with the movies in general, some are banned, partially censored when the death scenes occurs. Movies can have moral and ethical issues in many ways, violence, graphics scenes (which means death scenes in general), racism, political motivations, promoting violence and hatred etc... etc... Sometimes it can be targeted in multiples way, for example : Old movies of John Wayne slaughtering the indians, promoting the genocide and also the racism with graphics scenes of murders etc... Snuff movies in Horror genre, there are huge lists of them, many are banned in some countries or partially censored in others countries when the death scenes occurs, they are accused of promoting violence against women and showing a very graphic scenes of murders.

You are saying me "The beauty of fictional deaths is the creator is able to manipulate audience reactions from what would be the norm in real life and what the creator intended for the narrative. In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the deaths are hilarious because they're absurd.". => I have question in this, are you sure for that ? For example : If you make a movie with jews in nazi concentration camp, slaughtered and killed in "an absurd-hilarious way" by nazi and also in gaz chamber, the women jews enslaved, raped and killed by nazi criminals in a "hilarious way" or simply a complete fictional story with jews targeted and killed in "an absurd-hilarious way" by anti-semite making fun with them somewhere in another planet or simply desacralizing the jewish religions, burning the coran and the bible etc...etc ... Would you see it as "hilarious way" ? Would public see it as "hilarious way" ?... Same example for the 911 terror attack in the US, if a producer would make it in a "hilarious-absurd way" the terror attack against the twin towers... Would the public see it and would no have moral or ethical issue ?

How the public morally and ethically would see a movie is completely relative and aleatory, you can not say that there will be never a moral and ethical issue, there is not a complete consensus when watching a movie, some will like it very much and laugh about it but some also will find it very disturbing morally and ethically for multiples reasons including the death scenes and murders put on it.

What's bullshit is to act like games are targeted simply for having death scenes, which was the point of contention - you know, perceived gender inequality with death scenes. If games were targeted for just death scenes, you'd have outrage over the likes of Space Invaders, Super Mario Bros., and really, virtually every game on the market. By your own acknowledgment, the real issue here is "the high violence" and, once again, that's a separate issue from how many men and women die in movies. Note that certain games have been able to get past prohibitions by means such as replacing human bystanders with zombies (Carmageddon), removing the blood (the SNES port of Mortal Kombat), or censoring the most graphic deaths (Manhunt 2), but still retain death scenes - because death scenes aren't the moral or ethical issue here.

It is the same with movies in general because the issue is still over how the death scene is depicted, not the death in general. The movies aren't just being banned or censored over having death scenes - especially if the death scenes are still being retained in a censored format. In real life, you don't need to jump through all these hoops to be upset by a real-life death. In fiction, as demonstrated by these circumstances, it takes more than someone simply dying to generate outrage. Cannibal Holocaust wasn't controversial for having death scenes; it was controversial because people thought the human deaths were real (the animal deaths were real, but that's yet another issue). Death fetish isn't controversial for having death; it's controversial because it presents what's horrific to the general public in a sexual manner.

I am sure for that because Monty Python and the Holy Grail wasn't about a concentration camp or 9/11 (which hadn't happened yet). Neither was Life of Brian (also before 9/11), which made a mass crucifixion - one of the worst forms of execution in human history - absolutely hilarious. To the non-existent hypotheticals, just because the filmmaker intended for the deaths and trauma to be hilarious doesn't automatically mean they succeeded. But when it comes to actual examples of bad taste humor in cinema, Life of Brian ends with characters nailed to crosses and left to expire in the sun as they sing about looking on the bright side of life. That's real "absurd-hilarious" death content and Life of Brian's status as a comedy classic solidifies that when done right, the creator will succeed at manipulating the audience into feeling a way they wouldn't feel in real life.

How the public morally and ethically sees a movie is not completely relative and aleatory when it comes to just deaths because there are always other factors at play. You cannot say there is a moral and ethical issue when by your own acknowledgment, it's not just the deaths generating controversy. As I often point out, there wouldn't be controversy over death fetish customs if they were presented as short horror films. The controversy is over their sexualized intent. People don't get upset over the death scenes; they get upset because of what the intended audience is using the death scenes for. Even if the consensus isn't 100%, there is still a consensus. The consensus says the deaths at the end of Life of Brian are hilarious, with no feelings of being disturbed on a moral or ethical level. And even when there is a divide between the mainstream consensus and the community consensus on death fetish, it's still not about the mere inclusion of murders and death, the objection in real life. It's still about the purpose of the content.

[CinemorgueFan]

Sexism maybe not but some sort of sexual bias and sexual moralism. Putting them in sport would be completely unlawful and would create a unfair partiality in the competitions that should be impartial and fair.

And by the way, I didn't find similar problem in the males MMA...

Calling them just shallow might be the simplest way of putting it. They want to see the one they're attracted to win.

In that respect, given the composition of the general MMA audience, the audience probably doesn't have the same attraction to male MMA fighters as they do with female MMA fighters. But I don't really watch MMA, so I wouldn't know.

[Totallibertarianism]

Sexism maybe not but some sort of sexual bias and sexual moralism. Putting them in sport would be completely unlawful and would create a unfair partiality in the competitions that should be impartial and fair.

And by the way, I didn't find similar problem in the males MMA...

Calling them just shallow might be the simplest way of putting it. They want to see the one they're attracted to win.

In that respect, given the composition of the general MMA audience, the audience probably doesn't have the same attraction to male MMA fighters as they do with female MMA fighters. But I don't really watch MMA, so I wouldn't know.

Women MMA is not the WWE nor intended for fetishers audience.

It is a sport like football or judo, sexual moralism has no right to be there, it would be against the rules and laws that govern sports in the world.

Official MMA websites has no right to put in those bias, while in fact they are doing it...

[Totallibertarianism]

"if games were targeted for just death scenes, you'd have outrage over the likes of Space Invaders, Super Mario Bros., and really, virtually every game on the market."

As I said it, it is completely aleatory and relative to the persons who are playing the videos games. There are some videos games targeted not because of the violence or the graphic death scenes, but only for simple death scenes put in it, for example : Kingdom Come Deliverance has been targeted by some users and criticasters of being too much free in the game to kill anybody in the game, women, men, civilians can be killed very easily, you can do anything in the game, you are completely free. Same thing happened with Skyrim and CyberPunk 2077 with the same arguments.

Again in the KCD there is also a death scene of a character in the game Johanka that many gamers have find it very sad, it was another argument than the first one, it was another death scene but still many gamers find it very disturbing and very sad. This is the scene (watch the commentors below to see the impression).



Another video game very well known to the public : Red Dead Redemption 1 and 2.

Many already know it, the death of the main character Arthur Morgan dying with the tuberculosis disease near the ending of the game. Many of gamers find it very disturbing and were shocked by his death. Some audience are see crying and shocked on Youtube. While there are many graphic death/killing scenes in the game that apparently don't do anything morally and ethically for the gamers and fans of the RDR2.

Same thing in the RDR1, the death scene of John Marston killed near the ending of the game, betrayed by one of the Pinkerton bounty hunter. Same thing with "Arthur Morgan" many gamers found the death scene of John Marston very sad and disturbing while both Arthur Morgan and John Marston were in fact huge criminals bandits and killers. This is the scenes (both) (watch the commentors below to see the impression).











You see it ? The reactions of the public to the death scenes in videos games are completely aleatory and relative to the persons playing or watching the video games.


So you are saying : "there are no moral or ethical issues for death scenes in movies, but yes when it is highly graphic or depicted by others elements".

And I can tell you that you are again wrong, you are maybe not aware but there is still people who cry when watching someone simply dying in a movie... Simply dying, I mean not graphically or depicted by others elements, the happening of the sadness when watching a character dying in a fictional movie, should be a man or a woman or an animal is completely aleatory and relative to the person who is watching the movie. I already had the experience with a girl of 20 years old who I knew from my childhood who cryied when watching an episode of Dr Who, (I don't like the serie and never watch it), because of the death of one of the character, the death was not graphic at all, only a simple death with a "good bye", the interesting thing is that the others girls (her friends) who were watching the episode didn't react at all, no emotions. But this girl had some "shock" and "emotion" and started to cry, and I remember it very well, she was crying like a baby and said like "No, it can't be in that way... It's too terrible... Shit !.... No ! Its hard... !". So I and her friends were completely stunned for her reaction, I thought she was crazy and laughed to her and she became very upset against me, calling me an immoral person !

I know another person who cried when watching the movie "The Green Mile" when the character John Coffey had to die in the end of the movie...

These things happen every day in our societies and others cultures, old woman crying when watching a western movie when one of the main character is gunned down by a bad guy for example, or an emotional man tearing when watching a movie with one of the character sacrificing himself to save the hero, all these unexpected and surprise reactions are completely aleatory and relative to the person who is watching the movie. Me and you who are watching death fetish movies of women being killed, could find it unbelievable and unthinkable but these persons exists very well and there are many of them in our societies, and morever it could happen to you or to me or even to a man with a strong mind when watching a movie, it is completely aleatory and relative to the person watching the movie.

Another example from a very popular japanese manga : Dragon Ball Z. The manga itself has many deaths scenes of characters in a very graphically way and many not very much. The audience of the manga is from teenagers to adults. There is a death scene of a character named Kirilin killed by the villain Freezer that many of the audience has felt it very sad and remember it until today very well (just watch the commentors below the video to see the impression) =>



Another death scene of a character in the DBZ. The death of Songoku sacrificing his life to save earth and kill the monster Cell. The death was not graphic at all but his death was seen very disturbing and many from the public felt sadness watching goku dying. While everyone who watched his death and DBZ in general knew from the beginning that death in DBZ is never the last, they will all the time resurrected by the Dragon Ball ! This the scene (Watch the commentors to see the impression) =>



So yes again, simple death scenes in movie can create moral and ethical issue, it is completely aleatory and relative to the persons who are watching the movie !

[CinemorgueFan]

As I said it, it is completely aleatory and relative to the persons who are playing the videos games. There are some videos games targeted not because of the violence or the graphic death scenes, but only for simple death scenes put in it, for example : Kingdom Come Deliverance has been targeted by some users and criticasters of being too much free in the game to kill anybody in the game, women, men, civilians can be killed very easily, you can do anything in the game, you are completely free. Same thing happened with Skyrim and CyberPunk 2077 with the same arguments.

If it truly was completely aleatory and relative to the persons who are playing the videos games, you would have outrage over every video game with death, which is virtually every video game. And yet, there's no outrage over shooting the space invaders, stomping on Goombas and Koopas, or blowing up Sinistar. There wasn't even controversy over being able to eat civilians in Rampage.

Whenever there is controversy, it's because of an added factor. There wouldn't be an issue with those games if you could only kill those who deserve it, enemies trying to kill you. Ethic Cleansing isn't controversial because you're shooting people; it's controversial because of its bigoted message and racist / anti-Semitic depictions. It would have been controversial without death scenes.

In real life, death alone is enough to generate an emotional response. In fiction, people aren't responding simply to the death and additional factors such as these are needed to draw a response - something that again, doesn't apply to the real world. The outrage towards death fetish is all about the people making and watching the videos in real life, not the fictional death scenes depicted in them.

Again in the KCD there is also a death scene of a character in the game Johanka that many gamers have find it very sad, it was another argument than the first one, it was another death scene but still many gamers find it very disturbing and very sad. This is the scene (watch the commentors below to see the impression).

Commentary isn't showing up, but note the cinematic elements at play - like the dramatic music, camera angles, and nature of what happens to her - needed to generate an emotional response. It's not the death itself that draws an emotional response, unlike real life, but these elements added by the creators.

Another video game very well known to the public : Red Dead Redemption 1 and 2.

Many already know it, the death of the main character Arthur Morgan dying with the tuberculosis disease near the ending of the game. Many of gamers find it very disturbing and were shocked by his death. Some audience are see crying and shocked on Youtube. While there are many graphic death/killing scenes in the game that apparently don't do anything morally and ethically for the gamers and fans of the RDR2.

Same thing in the RDR1, the death scene of John Marston killed near the ending of the game, betrayed by one of the Pinkerton bounty hunter. Same thing with "Arthur Morgan" many gamers found the death scene of John Marston very sad and disturbing while both Arthur Morgan and John Marston were in fact huge criminals bandits and killers. This is the scenes (both) (watch the commentors below to see the impression).

This goes back to my point about Ned Stark. The reaction is due to the creators wanting the audience to become connected with the character and thus be devastated by how their story ends. Unlike in real life, the creators are able to choose whose deaths draw an emotional response of loss. As you acknowledge, "there are many graphic death/killing scenes in the game that apparently don't do anything morally and ethically for the gamers and fans of the RDR2". That's because the creators didn't add anything to draw an emotional response - again, unlike real life. And sometimes, the emotional response isn't negative, as seen with Joffrey and Ramsay. Those are deaths that are celebrated because of how the creators depicted them in their fictional narrative. The deaths in death fetish videos, which would typically be tragic in real life, become erotic.

You see it ? The reactions of the public to the death scenes in videos games are completely aleatory and relative to the persons playing or watching the video games.

No, the reactions of the public to the death scenes in videos games are based on what the creators intended for the persons playing or watching the video games to feel. If it was completely aleatory and relative to the persons playing or watching the video games, they could feel for all the deaths, but they don't because fictional deaths still require more than being just deaths to resonate. People care about the deaths of Arthur Morgan and John Marston because the creators made people care about the characters.

So you are saying : "there are no moral or ethical issues for death scenes in movies, but yes when it is highly graphic or depicted by others elements".

No, I'm saying if there's outrage or another emotional response to a death scene in a movie it's because the death wasn't just a death scene. It could have been the death scene of a character the audience cared about, the death could have been too graphic for fiction, or there's an erotic intent behind the death.

And I can tell you that you are again wrong, you are maybe not aware but there is still people who cry when watching someone simply dying in a movie... Simply dying, I mean not graphically or depicted by others elements, the happening of the sadness when watching a character dying in a fictional movie, should be a man or a woman or an animal is completely aleatory and relative to the person who is watching the movie. I already had the experience with a girl of 20 years old who I knew from my childhood who cryied when watching an episode of Dr Who, (I don't like the serie and never watch it), because of the death of one of the character, the death was not graphic at all, only a simple death with a "good bye", the interesting thing is that the others girls (her friends) who were watching the episode didn't react at all, no emotions. But this girl had some "shock" and "emotion" and started to cry, and I remember it very well, she was crying like a baby and said like "No, it can't be in that way... It's too terrible... Shit !.... No ! Its hard... !". So I and her friends were completely stunned for her reaction, I thought she was crazy and laughed to her and she became very upset against me, calling me an immoral person !

And I can tell you that you are again wrong, between missing my prior point about Ned Stark or missing what qualifies as "others elements". Ned Stark's death isn't graphic - it's primarily off-screen - but because the audience connected with him, because the creators intended for the audience to connect with him. Your friend being upset by a death in Doctor Who is also because of the "others elements" of her caring about the character. Others watching and yourself had the "others elements" of not caring.

The audience reaction may not always align with what the creators intended, but that still falls under "others elements" - whether it be the audience being angered by Carl's death in The Walking Dead for wasting the character's potential or being angered by Donna Troy's death in Titans for being mind-numbingly stupid.

I know another person who cried when watching the movie "The Green Mile" when the character John Coffey had to die in the end of the movie...

This is the same as Arthur Morgan, John Marston, and Ned Stark. This falls under the "others elements" of the creators intending for the audience to feel for the character - just as the audience feels disgust for Eduard Delacroix's death because of its brutality and doesn't care (at least not in a sad or angry way) when Wild Bill snuffs it.

These things happen every day in our societies and others cultures, old woman crying when watching a western movie when one of the main character is gunned down by a bad guy for example, or an emotional man tearing when watching a movie with one of the character sacrificing himself to save the hero, all these unexpected and surprise reactions are completely aleatory and relative to the person who is watching the movie. Me and you who are watching death fetish movies of women being killed, could find it unbelievable and unthinkable but these persons exists very well and there are many of them in our societies, and morever it could happen to you or to me or even to a man with a strong mind when watching a movie, it is completely aleatory and relative to the person watching the movie.

But these typically aren't unexpected and surprise reactions. Maybe the death itself is unexpected (e.g., Ned Stark), but the reaction isn't completely aleatory and relative to the person who is watching the movie when it derives from what the creators intended. The very intent of Ned Stark's death is to both surprise the audience and make them upset over losing the character they came to connect with; the character they thought was going to be the lead. With Game of Thrones, the reactions to deaths didn't derive from the people watching, but from how the creators handled them. When effective (Ned), the audience was devastated, as intended. When handled poorly (Daenerys), the audience got pissed. That may not have been the creators' intent, but still originates with them - not how aleatory and relative it was to the person watching - for botching her story.

The mainstream considers erotic perception of death fetish to be an unexpected and surprise reaction, leading to controversy - and even then, the producer making the death fetish custom filmed it with the intent of fulfilling the customer's erotic desires.

Another example from a very popular japanese manga : Dragon Ball Z. The manga itself has many deaths scenes of characters in a very graphically way and many not very much. The audience of the manga is from teenagers to adults. There is a death scene of a character named Kirilin killed by the villain Freezer that many of the audience has felt it very sad and remember it until today very well (just watch the commentors below the video to see the impression) =>



Another death scene of a character in the DBZ. The death of Songoku sacrificing his life to save earth and kill the monster Cell. The death was not graphic at all but his death was seen very disturbing and many from the public felt sadness watching goku dying. While everyone who watched his death and DBZ in general knew from the beginning that death in DBZ is never the last, they will all the time resurrected by the Dragon Ball ! This the scene (Watch the commentors to see the impression) =>



So yes again, simple death scenes in movie can create moral and ethical issue, it is completely aleatory and relative to the persons who are watching the movie !

But is anyone upset by Frieza dying? Is anyone upset by Cell dying? Of course not. They're the bad guys. The creators want you to want to see them defeated. The creators make you care about the hero and the hero's best friend, which generates a sad reaction to seeing them dead (even if no one really dies in Dragon Ball Z, especially not Goku and Krillin).

The death of the hero and the hero's best friend (especially the death of the hero) is not a simple death scene. The death of the hero is the most major death scene a narrative could have and, courtesy of the creators, is bound to generate the strongest emotional response. There is no moral and ethical issue when the response to the hero's death isn't going to be the same as other deaths, especially the villain's death. Rather than being completely aleatory and relative to the persons who are watching, it's based in what the creators intended for the reaction and how effective they were. I know customers are going to opt for the productions with the most effective content, courtesy of the producer.