“If violence is eradicated from real life in the future, do u think people will still want 2 watch violent films?”
Have you considered that perhaps it’s the relative lack of actual violence in many people’s life that fuels the desire for fictional violence at an instinctual level?
Also, ever notice it’s hard to talk about changing the position of violence in human interactions with employing language that references violence (like “eradicate”).
It has the stench of New Age philosophy. It is too utopian.
It there was no violence there would be no drama. We would be more like jellyfish floated around in the abyss.
Would there be no harsh conversations, then?
sorry matt parks this is a bit late me answering
do u really believe the word eradicate references violence? that is ridiculous if u look at how i used the word
anyway i like this topic and can chat more on the subject and new forum users can join in also :O)
“the word eradicate references violence? that is ridiculous if u look at how i used the word”
Um, the word literally means to pull up by the root, so yes, the associated imagery is violent. I didn’t say this was intentional on your part—quite the opposite, actually.
eradicate does connotate violence. that we use the word “eradicate” when “remove” would be sufficient, says much about how violence has permeated our culture and vocabularies. another example: “That was totally killer!”
militarization of our vocabulary is also common, when it seems like everything is referred to as a “war” or a “battle” or a “fight,” and pointless emphasis is always placed on whether someone is “winning” or “losing”
what dictionary are u reading? i have known the word as getting rid of something completely, not ripping up plants
The one that says this:
eradicate (third-person singular simple present eradicates, present participle eradicating, simple past and past participle eradicated)
(transitive) To pull up by the roots; to uproot.
(transitive) To completely destroy; to put an end to; to extirpate.
From Latin eradicatus, past participle of ērādīcō (“uproot”), from e- (“out”) + radix (“root”). Also see: radish.
(to pull up by the roots): root up, uproot
(to completely destroy): exterminate, extirpate
See also: destroy
see it also says “to put an end to”
words have many meanings
anyway i am pleased u acknowledge “changing the position of violence” :O)
Life and films without violence. Imagine how boring it would be.
“changing the position of violence”
It’s a noble goal . . . and I’ll fight anyone who says different.
Reading conversations between Matt Parks and Like2Sleep is a little like watching a Harlem Globetrotters game.
this thread is absurd…
a life without violence would be boring? nobody would be happy?
are you aware that millions of people around the world live under conditions of violence and would probably give anything to change that? there are many types of violence: domestic, sexual, military, structural… do any of these seem unworthy of “eradication”? if other people didn’t experience violence, would the world really be less entertaining for you?
i can understand the fact that cinema could never exist without violence, but an uncritical approach to violence in films is what leads to ideas like:
“If there was no violence there would be no drama. We would be more like jellyfish floated around in the abyss.”
“Life and films without violence. Imagine how boring it would be.”
“Violence” is a vague term; we need to establish a precise meaning (we can consider only physically harmful acts exerted on another person as violence or consider a manifiestation of angry and hateful feelings as violence, etc)…. Either way, I don’t think it at all possible to eradicate violence; it is an inherent part of human nature and we are bound to practise some of it whether exposed to it or not. Films with violence exist as well because violence exists in some shape or form either physically in society or psychologically in the mind. I don’t think we can truly eliminate violence from film; we can eliminate the physical manifestation of violence but not the idea or thought from which it stems. It really depends of what we are referring to….