Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It got mentioned in a thread a little bit back, but Pokemon is fully of fridge horror when you sit down and think about it.

Sgt. Surge is a war veteran, which means at some point the Pokemon World that place that's all about friendship, understanding, and making bonds with others fought a damn war. Which probably was fought with Pokemon given that no one seems to have guns.

Pokemon are shown to be sentient, with their own thoughts, feelings, and opinions. People use them as entertainment and food.

Nevermind that parenting is something unheard of, cause we send 10 year olds off into the world unsupervised when the woods, caves, and rivers of the world are filled with super powered critters. The child mortality rate must be up there, and that's before you consider that Sgt. Surge fought in a war that was within living memory, probably fought with Pokemon, and the world is pushing even ten year olds out to become Pokemon masters, so how many people died and when do they expect the next war if they're training people at ten.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

The song "Black Sabbath" by black sabbath, is a warning against much of the occultic mysticism that was "popular" among certain people in the 1960s and 70s, not something praising it (as many, particularly religious groups, would have)

Your character in Doom appears to be strongly opposed to demons from what I can tell.

 LordofHats wrote:
It got mentioned in a thread a little bit back, but Pokemon is fully of fridge horror when you sit down and think about it.

Sgt. Surge is a war veteran, which means at some point the Pokemon World that place that's all about friendship, understanding, and making bonds with others fought a damn war. Which probably was fought with Pokemon given that no one seems to have guns.

Pokemon are shown to be sentient, with their own thoughts, feelings, and opinions. People use them as entertainment and food.

Nevermind that parenting is something unheard of, cause we send 10 year olds off into the world unsupervised when the woods, caves, and rivers of the world are filled with super powered critters. The child mortality rate must be up there, and that's before you consider that Sgt. Surge fought in a war that was within living memory, probably fought with Pokemon, and the world is pushing even ten year olds out to become Pokemon masters, so how many people died and when do they expect the next war if they're training people at ten.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Pokemon are tools to be used and then discarded.

I agree the dystopia of the whole world is lost in how it's presented.

The Dark Knight has some pretty sickening themes about the surveillance state and its need to thwart terrorism. Not the hero we need, but the one we deserve indeed.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
One controversial film that people don’t seem to get is Cannibal Holocaust.

Now it’s indisputably a video nasty. It’s notorious for a scene of genuine animal slaughter, and for its effects being so good, the actors actually had to turn up in court to prove it wasn’t a snuff film!

But the moral gets lost in the gore. What we actually see are some ‘arrogant westerners’ essentially getting their comeuppance. In no way are they presented as sympathetic characters. I mean, to get good footage, they herd villagers into a hut, bar the door, then set it on fire. They use and abuse Natives throughout. And that’s why they’re all killed.

From what I heard, the natives aren't presented as nice either. Thought the movie was just about bad people and animals suffering gruesome violence, everyone included, no holds barred.

I suppose the ending of "the shining" implied something with the pic of Nicholson at the end, but I sure didn't get it. I don't think anyone else did either.

 Matt Swain wrote:
I suppose the ending of "the shining" implied something with the pic of Nicholson at the end, but I sure didn't get it. I don't think anyone else did either.

I swear there are books about that whole thing lol
Biggest theory is that he is now a ghost in the hotel.
Another one was that its a previous guest and reincarnated into Jack.
My theory is that Kubrick is flying rodent gak insane and puts random stuff into movies

I find that horror is only really horrifying if there are no rules (or we never learn them). Once there are rules, the story becomes a dark fantasy, engaging but not really scary. The ending of Kubrik’s Shining seems to be aimed at horror because it seems to break any rules we thought we knew and may even recontextualize the entire story of Jack Torrance. While I’m not a fan of Kubrick’s Shining (or his treatment of his actors), I do like the creepiness of that iconic final shot.

Related:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
One controversial film that people don’t seem to get is Cannibal Holocaust.

Now it’s indisputably a video nasty. It’s notorious for a scene of genuine animal slaughter, and for its effects being so good, the actors actually had to turn up in court to prove it wasn’t a snuff film!

But the moral gets lost in the gore. What we actually see are some ‘arrogant westerners’ essentially getting their comeuppance. In no way are they presented as sympathetic characters. I mean, to get good footage, they herd villagers into a hut, bar the door, then set it on fire. They use and abuse Natives throughout. And that’s why they’re all killed.

From what I heard, the natives aren't presented as nice either. Thought the movie was just about bad people and animals suffering gruesome violence, everyone included, no holds barred.

I watched this movie during a booze fueled hookah session many years ago with some friends, we were going through a grip of notorious movies. It's pretty awful, but at the same time, makes no bones about it. Nobody comes out looking good, and the movie addresses that.

To give an overview (Spoilers...for anyone that cares), the movie is basically an anthropologist reviewing recovered footage from a missing documentary crew trying to decide if its worth airing or not, with television executives wanting to air it, he goes through the film and sees the camera crew do terrible things, the natives are every terrible "savage" stereotype to the hilt, and at the end when the anthropologist shows the execs the raw footage, everyone decides it to just destroy it because it's all too horrible and it ends with the question of who the real savages actually are.

Not a great film, probably not something that should have been made, and definitely not something that I'd recommend, but in all fairness, the movie basically asks "why are you watching this?" It is very aware of what it is

American Psycho - the main character doesn't actually kill all of those people. He just imagined he did.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
American Psycho - the main character doesn't actually kill all of those people. He just imagined he did.

... I think everyone gets that. That's the whole point of the book. The movie even super spells it out at the end just in case anyone missed it.

Interesting. The filmmaker said that he does kill people throughout the entire movie and in order to get the understanding that he did you'd have to read the book.

From: https://www.cinemablend.com/new/American-Psycho-Ending-What-Really-Happened-70126.html

'In what can arguably be seen as the biggest twist related to American Psycho's ending, writer/director Mary Harron and co-writer Guinevere Turner have actually gone on record saying that -- in retrospect -- they don't love how the film's ending came together. This is because they feel that the finale is actually too ambiguous, and they don't love the fact that people walk away from the story wondering if it's all just a dream. They want to make it very clear: Patrick Bateman is most definitely a serial killer.

It was while being interviewed by Charlie Rose a few years back that Harron addressed divisive opinions about the end of American Psycho, and she explained that it was never her intention to try and get audiences to rethink the death and murder that had occurred throughout the film. Instead, the problem was that she feels she was unable to match the uncertainty in the ending of the original novel, and didn't make the movie's point clear enough. She explained,

"One thing I think is a failure on my part is people keep coming out of the film thinking that it's all a dream, and I never intended that. All I wanted was to be ambiguous in the way that the book was. I think it's a failure of mine in the final scene because I just got the emphasis wrong. I should have left it more open ended. It makes it look like it was all in his head, and as far as I'm concerned, it's not."'

Maybe I don't get it because I read the book first, vs only seeing the movie.

 Ouze wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
American Psycho - the main character doesn't actually kill all of those people. He just imagined he did.

... I think everyone gets that. That's the whole point of the book. The movie even super spells it out at the end just in case anyone missed it.

That's not entirely correct. It's worth noting that we don't actually see anyone he's killed again in the movie. They very well could and likely are dead, even if he probably didn't blow up a helicopter. Much of the point is that we lose the ability to differentiate between reality and fantasy by the end, but that doesn't mean he didn't kill anyone; just that it might not have been by dropping a chainsaw down a stairwell.

There's a couple big ideas that have to do with the time period that kind of get lost in the timelessness of the film. The big obvious one is Bateman vigorously scrubbing his hands after his colleague kisses him (he's terrified he's contracted AIDS) but the bigger idea has more to do with the Futurama 80's guy Wall Street culture of period. One of the big themes is that the person people identify isn't "real" and in this time that was particularly true. There was so much importance on status, on where you'd been and who you'd been with, that it was all kind of one giant cultural lie. If anyone was paying attention they might notice that you somehow had dinner at 12 different high end restaurants n 9 different countries with countless "influencers" of the time in the last 7 days. So many people were telling so many little lies that fact and fiction lost any meaning.

Allen is almost certainly dead, but that one guy had dinner with him in Paris last week didn't he? And the other guy saw him in London this morning before catching brunch with the guys in NYC, right? Alive or dead he continues to exist because the truth is irrelevant. This massive collection of pathological liars peacocking for credibility make it so everyone is everywhere. That's the real point of the ending. Bateman confesses to being a murderer and suffers no consequences because he exists as more of a concept than a person. He might have murdered Allen... or he might have been in one of 4 restaurants or clubs. Maybe he was in Italy? Who knows? At this point, even Bateman can't tell.

EDIT: I see some of this was posted above, but what can you do while typing a TLDR?

Your response is much deeper than mine. I definitely didn't notice the AIDS reference.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Your response is much deeper than mine. I definitely didn't notice the AIDS reference.

I'll second that, I just thought the Allen thing was due to the running idea of nobody knowing for sure who is who, hence the obsession with business cards

But Huey killed Al, that much I do know

Getting back to AIDS. Jenny from Forrest Gump died from an unknown virus which everyone assumes is AIDS. According to Gump and Co the author actually reveals she died from Hepatits C.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
American Psycho - the main character doesn't actually kill all of those people. He just imagined he did.

... I think everyone gets that. That's the whole point of the book. The movie even super spells it out at the end just in case anyone missed it.

That's not entirely correct. It's worth noting that we don't actually see anyone he's killed again in the movie. They very well could and likely are dead, even if he probably didn't blow up a helicopter. Much of the point is that we lose the ability to differentiate between reality and fantasy by the end, but that doesn't mean he didn't kill anyone; just that it might not have been by dropping a chainsaw down a stairwell.

There's a couple big ideas that have to do with the time period that kind of get lost in the timelessness of the film. The big obvious one is Bateman vigorously scrubbing his hands after his colleague kisses him (he's terrified he's contracted AIDS) but the bigger idea has more to do with the Futurama 80's guy Wall Street culture of period. One of the big themes is that the person people identify isn't "real" and in this time that was particularly true. There was so much importance on status, on where you'd been and who you'd been with, that it was all kind of one giant cultural lie. If anyone was paying attention they might notice that you somehow had dinner at 12 different high end restaurants n 9 different countries with countless "influencers" of the time in the last 7 days. So many people were telling so many little lies that fact and fiction lost any meaning.

Allen is almost certainly dead, but that one guy had dinner with him in Paris last week didn't he? And the other guy saw him in London this morning before catching brunch with the guys in NYC, right? Alive or dead he continues to exist because the truth is irrelevant. This massive collection of pathological liars peacocking for credibility make it so everyone is everywhere. That's the real point of the ending. Bateman confesses to being a murderer and suffers no consequences because he exists as more of a concept than a person. He might have murdered Allen... or he might have been in one of 4 restaurants or clubs. Maybe he was in Italy? Who knows? At this point, even Bateman can't tell.

EDIT: I see some of this was posted above, but what can you do while typing a TLDR?

One could potentially infer also that, if we assume that he did kill all those people and the lawyer at the end is like "patrick, no you didn't" it would be a nod toward how once a person becomes wealthy enough/powerful enough, laws that apply to "mere mortals" no longer apple, and the lawyer saying "you didnt do that" is more of a "stfu patrick, you're gonna blow the carefully constructed cover we've developed to get you off the hook!!!!" Although, that could also just be adding something that wasn't originally intended at the time of creation, given the way certain things have developed since then.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Getting back to AIDS. Jenny from Forrest Gump died from an unknown virus which everyone assumes is AIDS. According to Gump and Co the author actually reveals she died from Hepatits C.

Now that I didn't know. I assumed AIDS as well.

Also, man, was the book ever worse than the movie. The book wasn't bad per se but it has absolutely none of the sweetness or charm that made the movie great.

Hepatitis C made zero sense and still makes zero sense. I can understand her getting it from the drug use, but I didn’t think it killed people in the timeline she died.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Hepatitis C made zero sense and still makes zero sense. I can understand her getting it from the drug use, but I didn’t think it killed people in the timeline she died.

It really depends on when she died, its been too long since I saw the movie. Hep C was only 'discovered' at the end of the 80's.. So if she goes untreated for it she might get complications like cancer or liver problems and die from it.

HIV has a narrow window as well, depending on when she got it and died, they might have figured out she had it, as HIV was 'discovered' in the early 80's