I think we pamper people too much, and it makes them easier and easier to upset. Our cultural overcaution about what may upset someone is lowering our average threshold of offense. It's sad when a fictional person or a fictional dog dies, yes — that's the whole point! — but life has a lot more to throw at us than fictional death.
I find patterns of closely distributed holes in a surface, and things which appear similarly, disturbing for reasons I don’t fully understand. It’s a phobia with a name and many people experience it without realizing it. I don’t expect anyone to cater to it, in the same way I don’t expect people to cater to my even more common phobia of vomiting and subjects around emesis. But what I do expect of my fellow humans is to let me mitigate my discomfort in peace. Insofar as I can privately reference a database of things which upset me, and privately abstain, what difference is it to you besides bombastically expecting me to feel terrible for no one’s benefit? Who cares if I don’t watch Finding Nemo because I determined I might find it upsetting in a way I won’t enjoy?
I think we pamper “toughen up” bullshit like this way too much, and if you’re so sensitive that you can’t let people not do something you enjoy without calling their personal preferences which don’t affect you into question, maybe just go watch the dog die and stop worrying so much about whether everyone else enjoys it the way you do.
Reading your comment I tried to search for this. Is it trypophobia? Never heard of it before.
When you do an image search for trypophobia trigger images, you can understand it. While I won't be bothered by holes in some object that is expected to have them, the images of such holes being mapped onto faces and hands and such makes it obvious how these surface disturbances can be framed as grotesque.
Yes you found it, and that’s some impressive curiosity. I’m glad it wasn’t as upsetting a discovery for you as it can be for some. For me it’s mostly only upsetting when it’s real on animal/human flesh, or real on fleshy surfaces in a way my brain can conjure images on animal/human flesh.
I question the premise that we are overcautious. Media has only increased in intensity and violence and the breadth of suffering it depicts. That's not a bad thing in itself, but people are perfectly right to want to know when media exceeds their personal limits, be they merely preferences or something more serious like trauma. People are not pampered, they are wary, and for good reason.
My dad died of cancer, too young. Grief is a long process, and cancer or parental death is still hard to watch. Sometimes, that's good outlet for me to process my grief, and I seek those shows and movies out deliberately. But usually, when I watch TV, I want to unwind, and not get surprised with some heavy emotional shit.
Frankly, you kinda sound offended that people have preferences for when and how they engage with their trauma. Grow up. If you don't want to know, don't look.
I think people should be able to make art including movies to express what they want to express in the way they want to express it. But I should have the ability to learn about and avoid things that I don’t want to see. We don’t know what’s in peoples heads, and it’s important to give people control.
This happened in a professional context - a well produced video about domestic violence that included a well produced example of controlling behavior and a form of abuse. It was very unpleasant for many people, including victims of violence, and in response the company gave folks an opportunity to review a transcript and opt out of watching.
If they were pressuring/coercing creators into creating only works that avoids a specific depiction, I think it'd be a problem. But this seems only to be a service for the receiving end of media, so I don't see the problem there.
It's no different from using a user CSS or a Greasemonkey script on the client-side to filter what we want to see on the web; it works only for that specific user and doesn't directly affect the server/creator side.
Eh - you know, a lot of people live very different lives.
If you're affected enough by these things to create a website to make sure it doesn't happen to you - and people are happy to use it voluntarily, I think it's a valid problem being solved right there. I don't see pampering really.
I share that intuition sometimes, but I’m also old enough to remember less pampering times and even the elders around me back then sure seemed to be very easily upset by things too.
So it’s hard to know what to make of the intuition.
Combat movies were blood free and married couples slept in separate twin beds. A racy movie may feature a long kiss with the girl in a one piece bathing suit or dance costume.
Hayes Code was way more restrictive than most kind of "censorships" that people complain nowdays. Not to mention that standards for what obscenity is, were way lower than today and public reactions were as or even more histerical then today.
I have used Does the Dog Die in the past, great site. I've seen enough horrific things for a lifetime, real and simulated. Why should I see more, if I've had enough? There's more than enough content for me without spending time watching gratuitous simulated murder or torture of animals. Tends to be a red flag for overall quality of the piece anyways.
Who is "we" who is doing the pampering? This is a site for people to make their own decisions about the movies they watch. Are you complaining that people pamper themselves too much?
How soft is your pillow? What's your threadcount? Do you pamper yourself too much? Probably.
These movies are not banned. All this content is permitted in movies.
But someone (voluntarily) created a resource people can consult (voluntarily) to find out information about the films from other people who have submitted the information (voluntarily.)
No one has to be involved with this who does not want to be. No decision is being made on behalf of anyone else.
That's pretty much peak "live and let live" in my book.
Pampering? My wife and I rescue dogs which means we end up with many who have health problems, and don't tend to live as long. A 2 year old dog we had literally died in my arms of a massive heart attack. I've seen and dealt with animal death probably more than most. I don't need to see the same thing on screen, particularly if it's just a cheap plot device. Movies/books that revolve around the animal like an Old Yeller or Racing in the Rain are fine, but I do like knowing going in.
I'll also mention that I train BJJ and fight with people for hours every week, so I'm not some super sensitive person.
It’s not pampering—-those movies continue to exist and continue to do well. Directors aren’t cutting content to make their movie look better on a niche website.
For me, I lost my dog recently. Life did throw a lot more at me than fictional death, and for a little while I’d like to not relive that in movies or games.
Tools like this just equip folks to make these decisions for themselves. They aren’t bellwethers for society.
> Our cultural overcaution about what may upset someone is lowering our average threshold of offense.
how do you know? what if there's just been a cultural shift where people just feel like being more vocal about the offense they've always had to certain things?
It would make sense, if before movies/books/music where bought in grey envelopes without any kind of information of what you are going to watch. But there are genres, descriptions and a lot of information about what you are going to watch. Is information about dead dog more "lowering the treshold of offence" than information that the movie is stoner comedy, not holocaust documentary?
Also, yes, live throws at us more, that's why we create art, partially to escape.
Most movies these days are self-indulgent, following a simple pattern that has made money for the industry before. Imo, these tend to be uninspired and not worth watching.
The fact that a pet does or does not perish within a film should not be a prerequisite for enjoyment
This is probably the worst take I’ve seen. Some people don’t want to watch pets die in a film they watch for their personal recreation. That should be a prerequisite for them if they choose and have facilities to make it so. It should not be the case that people could know that they’ll be upset by watching pets die, and want to know, and that knowledge is denied to them on principle.
I’d even go so far as to say that’s so absurd anyone defending it is doing so to provoke.
I wasn't arguing with the utility of the site. I was agreeing with the commenter's sentiment that films these days often coddle their viewers in a way I find uninspiring.
I think we have an opportunity to agree then. Maybe if people are able to opt out of media they’d find seriously upsetting, we can enjoy whatever people feel more free to make without so much caution.
This sounds like there are rational and obligatory prerequisites that should make movie enyoable for every viewer, and if viewer still doesn't like the movie, then he is wrong. And not like enyoment from art is depending on personal taste, situation and state of mind.
Also, there is cinema outside blockbusters, but popcorn doesn't go well with whatever independent cinema is going to haunt the viewer.
