Shaun of the Dead

[Beth]

I was just wondering if anyone in here saw it. My kids want to see it because it is a zombie flick. I wanna see it because I saw a few clips and it looks funny.

Now, what I want to know, is what kind of gore is in it? Is it comparable to Night of the Living Dead, old version, or is it like Freddie and Jason and so on? My kids have watch the Jeepers Creepers films at my husband's permission, they think it is funny, rather than scary, but I do not want to take them to that kind of violence.

Anyway, any info on it would be appreciated. Thanky.

[livius drusus]

I haven't seen it yet, but I've been meaning to. Thanks for the reminder. :popcorn2:

[Adora]

but I do not want to take them to that kind of violence.

Ò.o You have got to be kidding me...

First of all, it's not scary. The "horror" aspect of it is totally humourous, and very fake, and even any child watching this from a recently produced generation who is exposed to this kind of fantasy everyday will realise this, even if their parents don't. The whole movie is a total comedy, playing on both the cliches of the Zombie-flick and the "Hopeless English Bum" movie.

Second of all, it's not the media or undesiredable experiences that you expose your children to that do the most damage in this world. It's your own damn reactions to them. If teach your kids that violence on TV or in the cinema is fake and "not reality" (which you kids probably already know) and you don't react to it like it is, they'll grow up to understand this, and not turn into psycho-killers who try to reproduce what they see on the screen. Maybe a lot of parents should too, since it seems there's a hell of a lot of adults who have a total inability to deal with fake violence because they can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

[viscousmemories]

Second of all, it's not the media or undesiredable experiences that you expose your children to that do the most damage in this world. It's your own damn reactions to them.
I know this is sort of your field and not remotely mine, but since that statement contradicts everything I've ever read about the effects on children of violence in the media, I wonder if you have any links to studies to support it. On just one quick search I found this:

It has been estimated that more than 1,000 studies on the effects of television and film violence have been done during the past 40 years. In the last decade the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the National Institute of Mental Health have separately reviewed many of these studies. Each of these reviews has reached the same conclusion: television violence leads to real-world violence. The National Institute of Mental Health reported that "television violence is as strongly correlated with aggressive behavior as any variable that has been measured."

-source (http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/mediavio.htm)

[Adora]

Er, considering I read them in books and journals (y'know, real hardcopies?) about 3 years ago (research assignment) no, I can't provide URLs. These articles were specifically about parenting & emotional response training in young children, not "TV- Violence Links". Your report covers it itself...

While government can play an important role in ending youth violence, we agree with the wisdom expressed by Representative Henry Hyde, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee: "Parents ultimately bear the responsibility for the environment in which their children are raised..."

You are responsible for the way your child turns out. If you let them watch excessive amounts of violent TV and thus significantly increase their chances of not developing healthy fantasy/reality distinction and emotional responses to stimuli because of lack of proper guidance, you are responsible for their behaviour. You can stop them from watching certain programmes when they are young with ratings systems, but if you do not condition them then how will they be able to handle more material when they are older and have the freedom of choice to see violent material, if they so wish? That entire report, it seems, is a 3/4 step in the right direction, with the suggestions for parents down the bottom, but isn't far enough for me. The questions asking to ask the children are obviously designed to try and teach the kids "what would happen if you tried this in reality" but it doesn't address the wider issue of fantasy/reality distinction on a wider emotional scale, nor the errors that commonly come up in many reports that mistake actions for reactions (eg- how much of the data is mistaking the symptom of watching violent TV to sate a violent personality for the violent TV creating a violent personality?).

Anyway, over all it is ... interesting. I have to say I am extremely suspicious of it because of my own experience with government reports and knowledge of what goes on at "committees". I've read little about US reports, since I don't live there (hallelujah!), but, well, the US has a lovely history of scapegoating the media instead of really facing social change or family change or parental responsibility. *shrugs* So yes, grains of salt.

[Beth]

but I do not want to take them to that kind of violence.

Ò.o You have got to be kidding me...
First of all, I do not think you have any place giving me that flippant little remark. The film has an "R" rating and I am trying to determine if I can take my 11 and 9 year old to see it without being a neglectful parent.


First of all, it's not scary. The "horror" aspect of it is totally humourous, and very fake, and even any child watching this from a recently produced generation who is exposed to this kind of fantasy everyday will realise this, even if their parents don't. The whole movie is a total comedy, playing on both the cliches of the Zombie-flick and the "Hopeless English Bum" movie. I understand it is a comedy. That is why I asked what kind of gore is in the film and what level of death and murder is in it. It is my responsibility to determine such things until my kids are of an age to sort this thing out for themselves. I could be a piece of shit parent and not care and not be inconvenienced by actually having to set boundries and limitations in my own enjoyment of certain things. But no, I am trying to raise my kids instead of allowing them to raise themselves.

Second of all, it's not the media or undesiredable experiences that you expose your children to that do the most damage in this world. It's your own damn reactions to them. If teach your kids that violence on TV or in the cinema is fake and "not reality" (which you kids probably already know) and you don't react to it like it is, they'll grow up to understand this, and not turn into psycho-killers who try to reproduce what they see on the screen. Maybe a lot of parents should too, since it seems there's a hell of a lot of adults who have a total inability to deal with fake violence because they can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
You know, I truly think that you are off in this. I have studied this, have spoken with psychologists in the education system, with educators, and have read intensive studies, what you are saying seems like blatent opinion and there truly seems to be nothing to back up your claims.

Seeing the cold, callous, and ruthless deaths as children offers nothing beneficial. Seeing people tortured and maimed and mutilated offers nothing to their emotional well being. What I wanted to know was what the magnitude of the death and gore was in this film. If this is a film with callous death caused by other human beings with conscience, or if the death and murder is something done by zombies.

Even Night of the Living Dead was rather disturbing for them because of the ending. My daughter cried and my son became angry and said that was a messed up movie. Now, they want to see the film again and I will allow it. We've talked about the movie...I understand that Night is not a comedy, that the horror was more realistic and less fantastical.

[LadyXoc]

I don't have any children, so, for what it's worth...I wouldn't feel uncomfortable taking an 11 yr old to it, but am not sure about the 9 yr old. It's more absurd and satire than anything else, but there are a couple of scenes that may freak out a younger child.

[Beth]

I don't have any children, so, for what it's worth...I wouldn't feel uncomfortable taking an 11 yr old to it, but am not sure about the 9 yr old. It's more absurd and satire than anything else, but there are a couple of scenes that may freak out a younger child.Ok, thank you. I was hoping it was mainly farce.

My daughter self censors herself in cases like this. She did this in the LOTR movies, where the violence was too real and scary for her. Since I must take them both together with me, I must determine if it is suitable for my daughter. I assumed my son could handle the film.

[livius drusus]

I wasn't able to watch any kind of horror movies without seriously freaking out until I was well into my twenties. They just scared me, is all, not because I was unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, but because the images would plague me for hours afterwards.

It wasn't until I fell in love with the Hellraiser series that I was finally able to watch scary movies all the way through. (Although I admit that I still puss out on occasion.)

[Beth]

I was the same way, the imagery is what got to me, but I did watch the Sunday Creature Feature films. God, I remember so many of those B horror flicks.

[viscousmemories]

You are responsible for the way your child turns out. If you let them watch excessive amounts of violent TV and thus significantly increase their chances of not developing healthy fantasy/reality distinction and emotional responses to stimuli because of lack of proper guidance, you are responsible for their behaviour.
I agree, and I think that was Beth's point in asking for input about this flick here. But that seems to contradict when you said:

...it's not the media or undesiredable experiences that you expose your children to that do the most damage in this world. It's your own damn reactions to them.

My point is that all the research I've seen suggests the opposite. That it's the exposure to violence itself that has the most damaging impact on developing children. I'm sure you're right that the reaction of others (and in particular parents and/or other authority figures) contributes, but I suspect that contribution is only a relatively minor one.

Anyway, over all it is ... interesting. I have to say I am extremely suspicious of it because of my own experience with government reports and knowledge of what goes on at "committees". I've read little about US reports, since I don't live there (hallelujah!), but, well, the US has a lovely history of scapegoating the media instead of really facing social change or family change or parental responsibility. *shrugs* So yes, grains of salt.
I'm very wary of US govt. sponsored studies too, especially this particular one because IIRC it was put together in part to promote the misinformation that Marilyn Manson was somehow responsible for Columbine. But given the fact that they explicitly state that no evidence has been found correlating music and aggressive behavior but mountains of evidence that television and video do, I tend to trust that there's at least some truth to it. Besides it just seems highly unlikely that they could claim the support of so many other agencies without a huge protest, and I haven't read any reports that contradict that one.

[Beth]

Well, I took the kids. Lady Xoc helped prepare me, there were two scenes that were less funny or simply not funny and a little difficult, one was someone's entrails being pulled out, the other I will not give away, but truly, it was not on the same level of horror as Jeepers Creepers or Jason or Freddie.

I took a seven year old girl with me, my daughter's friend. Fromreading the sign on the ticket booth, it should have been her parent who bought her ticket. I was concerned about taking her. I kept telling her father that it was a horror film, but he said that was fine, she watched that stuff all the time. That was a little foreign to me. My son's* twelve year old friend's parents would not even let him watch the Mean Girls DVD we loaned him. So I guess we are in the middle of the extreme.

Anyway, that said, unless your child is just used to gore, under 8 or 9, I would not recommend the movie. The word "fuck" is used quite a bloody bit in the most wonderfully expressive ways that those wonderful Brits use. So, if you do not want your kids to hear that word, do not take them. To me, the word does not bother me too much unless it is used in the context of shagging someone. Then I am a little more cautious.

My kids got the British humor of the film which amazed me. They are so turned off by my BBCAmerica viewing that they loath most things British, but the humor in this film traveled well and seemed to easily be enjoyed by the American youth. Anyway, I really enjoyed it, I do not think my daughter will have a sleepless night like she did when she was allowed to see Jeepers Creepers or my mother-in-law let them watch Red Dragon and Hannibal(This still boggles my mind). And I can easily recommend this movie to all those who were wondering if it was a good watch.

* mY son explicitly expressed I remove his name after reading my post

[wade-w]

You are responsible for the way your child turns out. If you let them watch excessive amounts of violent TV and thus significantly increase their chances of not developing healthy fantasy/reality distinction and emotional responses to stimuli because of lack of proper guidance, you are responsible for their behaviour. You can stop them from watching certain programmes when they are young with ratings systems, but if you do not condition them then how will they be able to handle more material when they are older and have the freedom of choice to see violent material, if they so wish? That entire report, it seems, is a 3/4 step in the right direction, with the suggestions for parents down the bottom, but isn't far enough for me. The questions asking to ask the children are obviously designed to try and teach the kids "what would happen if you tried this in reality" but it doesn't address the wider issue of fantasy/reality distinction on a wider emotional scale, nor the errors that commonly come up in many reports that mistake actions for reactions (eg- how much of the data is mistaking the symptom of watching violent TV to sate a violent personality for the violent TV creating a violent personality?).


And this is exactly what Beth is doing with this thread. So why the rant? Looks to me like you're just being hostile for the sake of being hostile.

[Adora]

So why the rant?

Because of obvious reasons pointed out in this thread.

Besides it just seems highly unlikely that they could claim the support of so many other agencies without a huge protest, and I haven't read any reports that contradict that one.

You'd be surprised. From my own knowledge of the "investigations" in Australia, the only way I can explain it is that they're as cunning as creationists. An example I can give is the most recent "investigation into boys in school". The Coalition in power commissioned one here a while ago, which basically just interviewed all the fellas who had written books about "The Masculinity Crisis", and then proceeded to censor anyone who presented an opposing view (one of my current lecturers being one of them). Said lecturer and group of other such people then went and put out their own report independent of the government.

Of course, you'd never know the story behind the report, even though they had news items about it during the time, unless you spoke to these people. You wouldn't know the bias it present by only interviewing individuals like Steve Biddulph *shudders* unless you a) read it or b) again, knew the story behind it.

The huge spectrum of investigative agencies in the US all pushing their own agenda could make it easier to choose biased information. Also, if it is in the right climate (ie- after Columbine) people are unlikely to question it because they're looking for excuses and reasons that are simple and don't make them think too hard.

[Beth]

Oh, I also wanted to add that I abhor gore flicks. I am one that does not enjoy seeing that kind of stuff. Some of it really bothers me or makes me feel ill. Also, I hate seeing callous or senseless deaths. Honestly, I think the humor in this film counters out the horror and the gore. And the way the music and effects were done, it made it look like real life was either equally or more frightening than the Z-Day. Real life, in a way, was a horror in itself. The zombies almost seemed a medaphor for the way Shaun lived his life. Just trudging through it half-alive. I also love the ending of the film. It just wraps up everything into some really funny farce and makes the movie much more tolerable. Not at all disturbing like it was in "Night of the Living Dead" or like in "28 Days Later".

Anyway, I gave my opinion based as a mom, in my previous post. This is my personal view of the film. ...I thought it was an absolute stonker! I highly recommend it, and I think it will become a cult classic.

(oh, in reference to my previous post, I think 11 is a more ideal age for this film, I say that because I am not sure if my daughter is in the norm in being ok with the movie.)

[Beth]

So why the rant?

Because of obvious reasons pointed out in this thread.
information. What reasons exactly? Because you certainly contradicted yourself in your tangeant.

[Adora]

Second of all, it's not the media or undesiredable experiences that you expose your children to that do the most damage in this world. It's your own damn reactions to them.

"Parents ultimately bear the responsibility for the environment in which their children are raised..."

You are responsible for the way your child turns out. If you let them watch excessive amounts of violent TV and thus significantly increase their chances of not developing healthy fantasy/reality distinction and emotional responses to stimuli because of lack of proper guidance, you are responsible for their behaviour.

Call me nuts, but I don't see the contradiction.

[livius drusus]

I guess I don't see why a parent asking about exactly how graphic a movie is a potentially damaging reaction to violence which could lead to kids without a clear fantasy/reality distinction.

[Beth]

Yes, it is contradiction and I think you were out of place to make your initial posts, Adora. First of all, your initial post was lecturing me as if you were an expert opinion, despite your seemingly puny experience in parenting young adults. Then, you come back and admit that you have no qualifying experience for your lecturing of me.

In fact, you first imply that I am being over protective, or overbearing and that I am stunting their growth and imagination because I am concerned about the content they view when I was simply inquiring about the nature of the film, then you contradict yourself and imply that allowing them to see these films is stunting their imagination, then contradict yourself once again and imply not letting view it is hindering them. Get it straight and know what the fuck about that which you speak before you begin to lecture a parent on a real concern. Just some friendly advice.

Oh, I am not responsible for my children's behavior. I am responsible for raising them a certain way and disciplining them for their choices, but I cannot control their actions or behavior.

[Adora]

Ahhh, the self-righteous parent rant. Bless.

[dave_a]

My point is that all the research I've seen suggests the opposite. That it's the exposure to violence itself that has the most damaging impact on developing children. I'm sure you're right that the reaction of others (and in particular parents and/or other authority figures) contributes, but I suspect that contribution is only a relatively minor one.



Well, what I am going to offer means nothing, but here goes anyway. I have a single child age 5. Around 2 and a halfish I was playing Halo on the Xbox. For those who don't know, Halo is a first person shooter where the object is to shoot, run over and blow up bad guys. My son asks if he can try it. Since he had very little manual dexterity or hand eye coordination I figure he will just play with the controller for a minute, get frustrated and give up.

I give him the controller and go to the bathroom (because I didn't want him asking me how to play the game). I didn't think it age appropriate, but figured he could just frustrate himself and give up on it rather than my tell him no and have to answer endless why questions.

So I return from the bathroom and here he is playing it surprisingly well.

I have had to fight with him for control of the xbox ever sense.

In the video game world my 2-5 year old has blown up people, chopped their heads off, shot them, cut them, hit them, kicked them and done all manner of horribly violent things to "people". Not once has he demonstrated violence to real human beings or even the inclination to be violent.

There was a time around age 3-4 where he was confused about life and death because in the video game world you die and respawn so he wanted to know if when he died if he could respawn. Other than that there have been zero issues.

When it comes to movies I more or less let him self regulate for violence/horror content. He saw the hulk and couldn't sleep for a couple nights so I am not going to rent the Exorcist for him anytime soon. When I rent a movie and tell him it's scary he will go do something else rather than watch it.

Anyway, my point is that to my surprise this exposure to "non real" violence at such a young age appears to have no effect on him. Then again I am extremely casual about such things so it's not like I freak out about it which I think would effect him.

When it comes to research and studies on such things I tend to take them with a grain of salt. It isn't true of my experience. Granted my experience with kids and violence is very limitted.

[wade-w]

Ahhh, the self-righteous parent rant. Bless.

Ahhh, avoiding the issue. Nice.

[dave_a]

In fact, you first imply that I am being over protective, or overbearing and that I am stunting their growth and imagination because I am concerned about the content they view when I was simply inquiring about the nature of the film, then you contradict yourself and imply that allowing them to see these films is stunting their imagination, then contradict yourself once again and imply not letting view it is hindering them. Get it straight and know what the fuck about that which you speak before you begin to lecture a parent on a real concern. Just some friendly advice.


While Adora is not a parent and therefore cannot really relate to parental concern for properly upbringing children, I do think she makes a valid point in that many parents are concerned about what their kids are exposed to in the realm of fiction whether it be movies, music or video games or some other media.

I used to share the idea that kids can be warped by exposure to "unhealthy" forms of media. I don't believe that as much anymore.

When I was a teen I was at this church sleep over and a bunch of kids turned on the TV and were watching some sappy comedy. One part of it was this pseudo scary skit that was not at all scary and really not very funny. The fundy parent walked into the room just as some girl was jokingly saying "Oooh I am so scared". Fundy parent turned off the TV and said "Sorry kids, but it isn't right for me to allow you to have fear of anything except our lord Jesus."

Talk about over reacting. This event occured around 25 years ago, but I still remember it because of the impact it had on me. I couldn't tell you what the show was or what it was about except vaguely. I can tell you what fundy parent said though because that is all I really recall.

I do think parental reactions have an influence and not necessarily a direct one. If a parent considers a violent movie taboo, the child might regard such violence as a forbidden fruit and thus seek it in secrecy.

I really do think kids are far more resilient and adaptable than most parents/adults imagine, but at the same time I don't fault you for wanting to pre screen stuff for your kids. It's normal and if not overdone, perfectly healthy.

BTW, the first Jeepers Creepers scared me and disturbed me. The second one I watched with my then 3 or 4 year old and it didn't seem to faze him. Go figure.

[Beth]

Ahhh, the self-righteous parent rant. Bless.
Dear, I think you've proven my point very well as well as revealed your character.

[Beth]

In fact, you first imply that I am being over protective, or overbearing and that I am stunting their growth and imagination because I am concerned about the content they view when I was simply inquiring about the nature of the film, then you contradict yourself and imply that allowing them to see these films is stunting their imagination, then contradict yourself once again and imply not letting view it is hindering them. Get it straight and know what the fuck about that which you speak before you begin to lecture a parent on a real concern. Just some friendly advice.


While Adora is not a parent and therefore cannot really relate to parental concern for properly upbringing children, I do think she makes a valid point in that many parents are concerned about what their kids are exposed to in the realm of fiction whether it be movies, music or video games or some other media. She should have started another thread in another forum instead of trying to lecture me over a legitimate question. Her "valid" points were contradictory. I also believe that parents who are concerned over certain media content have very real and valid concerns. I asked about the content of a movie, I got some flippant, smart ass lecture from someone who really had no grounds in which to base or validate such a lecture.

I used to share the idea that kids can be warped by exposure to "unhealthy" forms of media. I don't believe that as much anymore. That is good. I do not think the media has the same affect on all children, but I do not discount that certain viewing can definitely effect at least some children. I have dealt with educators and spoken with them for them for the past seven years, most opinions that I've received would definitely leave your opinion to be debated.

When I was a teen I was at this church sleep over and a bunch of kids turned on the TV and were watching some sappy comedy. One part of it was this pseudo scary skit that was not at all scary and really not very funny. The fundy parent walked into the room just as some girl was jokingly saying "Oooh I am so scared". Fundy parent turned off the TV and said "Sorry kids, but it isn't right for me to allow you to have fear of anything except our lord Jesus." What exactly does this have to do with my asking about the content of the movie?

Talk about over reacting. This event occured around 25 years ago, but I still remember it because of the impact it had on me. I couldn't tell you what the show was or what it was about except vaguely. I can tell you what fundy parent said though because that is all I really recall.
Yes, but this has nothing to do with me, nor does it have anything to do with my OP.
I do think parental reactions have an influence and not necessarily a direct one. If a parent considers a violent movie taboo, the child might regard such violence as a forbidden fruit and thus seek it in secrecy. Right. I suppose you have never seen your child act out what they have seen on the screen. Well, my kids were playing Zombies the rest of the day. My nephew plays Hulk, my son played the Power Rangers when he was very little. The point is, it goes beyond a parent's reaction. These images have enough of an impact on a child's mind to make them imitate. Does this mean my kids were murdering? No. Most healthy kids know the line between what is real and what is fake and know not to kill or hurt just because it is on the screen. But then, there are the few kids that may have an inability to distinguish between the two realms
There are some images that may simply be too traumatic for a child to see. A discerning parent can usually tell their child's limitations.


I really do think kids are far more resilient and adaptable than most parents/adults imagine, but at the same time I don't fault you for wanting to pre screen stuff for your kids. It's normal and if not overdone, perfectly healthy.[quote] True. But I was not talking overkill here. I was trying to decide on how I was going to spend my sixty bucks and my family time with my kids.
[quote]
BTW, the first Jeepers Creepers scared me and disturbed me. The second one I watched with my then 3 or 4 year old and it didn't seem to faze him. Go figure.I know. The kids made fun of me because I got scared in one scene. They all thought it was funny. But both of my kids had nightmares for several weeks after...They saw it during this past summer.

[Adora]

Ahhh, avoiding the issue. Nice.

The same thing I would have done if she had broken Godwin's Law. But call me nuts for thinking someone who never gets involved in issues in the first place doesn't really have much point commenting on such things, and all.

Dear, I think you've proven my point very well as well as revealed your character.

If you needed this thread to work out "my character", you're not paying enough attention in others. Sheesh, and Farren accuses me of "not knowing people". ¬_¬

[Dingfod]

Someone called someone a Nazi and I missed it? Damn Godwin.

/irresponsible parent

[wildernesse]

Beth,

I'm really glad that you actually took the time to ask about the movie, rather than just showing up with your kids. It's strange to me that you would allow your kids to watch R movies when they're so young--but then my parents were pretty strict with us and movies growing up, and I think their approach is more restrictive than most. I don't think that I know any of my friends whose parents' rules were as strict as mine were about the R rating.

Thanks for checking it out, so that you could decide before the movie whether your kids could handle it--as opposed to the parents who seem to crop up in every 3rd movie around here. The ones who are seen ushering their little kids out of the theater during the explicit sex scenes or after the 3rd brutal murder on screen. At 11pm.

[Beth]

Beth,

I'm really glad that you actually took the time to ask about the movie, rather than just showing up with your kids. It's strange to me that you would allow your kids to watch R movies when they're so young--but then my parents were pretty strict with us and movies growing up, and I think their approach is more restrictive than most. I don't think that I know any of my friends whose parents' rules were as strict as mine were about the R rating.

Thanks for checking it out, so that you could decide before the movie whether your kids could handle it--as opposed to the parents who seem to crop up in every 3rd movie around here. The ones who are seen ushering their little kids out of the theater during the explicit sex scenes or after the 3rd brutal murder on screen. At 11pm.Hi Tiffany. I understand. I was not allowed to see a movie if it said two cuss words in it. The first one was the warning cuss word for my mom, the second was either a cue to walk out or turn the channel.


I don't often let the kids see R movies. If I do, I try to read as many reviews I can and ask people what the violence was like or how involved a sex scene is. But since no one I know saw the film, I asked in here. Which I doubt I will do again.

You know, I understand parents and adults that may be rather shocked I would take my kids to a bloody flick, and their shock and concerns would be quite valid. I can accept that and if I wanted, I could tell the reason why I decided the way I did. I was prepared for that, expected it.

[beyelzu]

I wasn't able to watch any kind of horror movies without seriously freaking out until I was well into my twenties. They just scared me, is all, not because I was unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, but because the images would plague me for hours afterwards.

It wasn't until I fell in love with the Hellraiser series that I was finally able to watch scary movies all the way through. (Although I admit that I still puss out on occasion.)
you have problems with horror movies and you start with the hellraiser series?


wtf??

that sure is jumping in the deepend to learn how to swim



I love the hellraiser movies, but they still give me th willies.

[livius drusus]

you have problems with horror movies and you start with the hellraiser series?

wtf??

that sure is jumping in the deepend to learn how to swim

I love the hellraiser movies, but they still give me th willies.

He he... Well, I didn't actually start with the Hellraisers. I had been trying ever since I was 11 or so and freaked out at The Exorcist; it's just that I ended up either covering my eyes the whole time or turning it off. Hellraiser was the first one that kept me watching.

[JoeP]

He he... Well, I didn't actually start with the Hellraisers. I had been trying ever since I was 11 or so and freaked out at The Exorcist; it's just that I ended up either covering my eyes the whole time or turning it off. Hellraiser was the first one that kept me watching.
You're such a girl. :nail:

[livius drusus]

I prefer to think of it as chickenshit coward, thank you very much. No need to bring the gender bias into it. :chicken2:

[JoeP]

My apologies. You're such a hen. :nethen:

[wei yau]

I prefer to think of it as chickenshit coward, thank you very much. No need to bring the gender bias into it. :chicken2:

Uh, didn't you yourself bring gender bias into it with this:

(Although I admit that I still puss out on occasion.)

Unless you meant... :cat:

In which case, I'll have to remind you that we all know what that cat is play with...

[livius drusus]

Uh, didn't you yourself bring gender bias into it with this:

(Although I admit that I still puss out on occasion.)

Um... No! :shifty:

Unless you meant... :cat:

Um... Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket! :shifty:

In which case, I'll have to remind you that we all know what that cat is play with...

It wasn't me. It was the one-armed man.

[wildernesse]

Hi Tiffany. I understand. I was not allowed to see a movie if it said two cuss words in it. The first one was the warning cuss word for my mom, the second was either a cue to walk out or turn the channel.

We were allowed at home to watch whatever was on tv, but that's because our mom could say, "You know, we don't use language like that here." and cluck at it, so we "knew" it was wrong. :giggle:

You know, I understand parents and adults that may be rather shocked I would take my kids to a bloody flick, and their shock and concerns would be quite valid. I can accept that and if I wanted, I could tell the reason why I decided the way I did. I was prepared for that, expected it.

Oh, I'm just surprised because R movies were so off limits for me in a way--my parents would have never officially sanctioned me going to one when I was your kids ages! I think my perception also comes from being the oldest child, when the parents have all their rules laid out so perfectly--then they chuck them for the younger sibs when they realize it doesn't really matter! My brother certainly didn't have such a strict rule laid out for him (and neither did he care as much as I did about obeying the rules!). (GRR, little brother/sisters have it so much easier.)

[Goliath]

He he... Well, I didn't actually start with the Hellraisers. I had been trying ever since I was 11 or so and freaked out at The Exorcist; it's just that I ended up either covering my eyes the whole time or turning it off. Hellraiser was the first one that kept me watching.

Hehe...I actually saw The Exorcist for the first time when I was six. The family was travelling somewhere, and we were staying in a hotel room when my parents started watching it...they thought I was asleep, but I wasn't.

I couldn't watch horror movies for 7-8 years after that.

[Beth]

Hi Tiffany. I understand. I was not allowed to see a movie if it said two cuss words in it. The first one was the warning cuss word for my mom, the second was either a cue to walk out or turn the channel.

We were allowed at home to watch whatever was on tv, but that's because our mom could say, "You know, we don't use language like that here." and cluck at it, so we "knew" it was wrong. :giggle: Oh. MY. God! My mom clucked too! Way too funny!Perhaps that is common in parents. Although I have deliberately tried to erase that sound from what I allow to come out of my mouth. I still cringe now, at 31, when I hear it.

I eventually fixed up a broken TV I got from a yard sale and had tv, uncensored, that way. I also made sure I babysat for only for people who had cable and worked after the kid's bed time. ;) ( I found some ways to escape oppression!)


Oh, I'm just surprised because R movies were so off limits for me in a way--my parents would have never officially sanctioned me going to one when I was your kids ages! I think my perception also comes from being the oldest child, when the parents have all their rules laid out so perfectly--then they chuck them for the younger sibs when they realize it doesn't really matter! Yup! This was and is the case for my younger siblings. But as bad as it was, my mom was more involved with us than with them. They often have either been raised by me and my oldest younger brother or themselves. But still, I was mixed, partly glad they got away with more and slightly upset with my mom for being soooo strict.


My brother certainly didn't have such a strict rule laid out for him (and neither did he care as much as I did about obeying the rules!). (GRR, little brother/sisters have it so much easier.)Yuppers! I can certainly relate. I wish I had had my siblings' attitudes! All this big sister responsibe nature bit bad. Hehe. After all the trouble, my mother still calls me her sweetest...to my siblings' face. :p

Anyway, I was not trying to imply that that you were critiquing me, I just expected more suprised or objecting people than who posted.