Crystal Skull hatred knows no bounds

teampunk said:

maybe i just think of it as a kids movie because i saw it as a kid and it blew my mind. what 13 year old boy doesn't dream of adventure, buried treasure, and fighting nazis? but clearly, even if it wasn't intended as a kids movie, the bulk of it fans were kids, so it makes sense for them to make the sequels more kid friendly. alteast that's my take on the whole thing.

Click to expand...

Well-said........I think there was a clear concern in 'Temple of Doom' to counter its very dark elements with a lighter tone to make it more accessible for younger audiences.

And hence why Spielberg fought against the R-rating - famously leading to the creation of the PG-13 rating.

Cole said:

It's nothing that they don't show on cable television.

Click to expand...

That's your argument? Sounds like you're moving the goalposts. They show nearly everything on cable television as far on violence goes, regardless of how "campy" or "obviously fake" it is.

Attila the Professor said:

That's your argument? Sounds like you're moving the goalposts. They show nearly everything on cable television as far on violence goes, regardless of how "campy" or "obviously fake" it is.

Click to expand...

I see you're from the United States, so you should be familiar with the same popular cable channels I get - TNT, USA, AMC, etc........they definitely edit out violence if it is deemed too graphic (by law), so I don't agree with what you're saying.

I don't think I've ever seen it on a network channel like NBC or ABC, but heck, I'm almost postive they wouldn't edit it out.

So I think that's a pretty good rule of thumb as to what is particularly graphic and disturbing and what is not.

Cole said:

I see you're from the United States, so you should be familiar with the same popular cable channels I get - TNT, USA, AMC, etc........they definitely edit out violence if it is deemed too graphic (by law), so I don't agree with what you're saying.

I don't think I've ever seen it on a network channel like NBC or ABC, but heck, I'm almost postive they wouldn't edit it out.

Click to expand...

I suppose that's fair. I tend to think automatically in terms of TCM, which doesn't cut anything.

So I think that's a pretty good rule of thumb as to what is particularly graphic and disturbing and what is not.

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not sure I trust either of us being in this portion of this conversation without the input of somebody who actually does know what is clipped in broadcast television versions of the films. (And that's, of course, for no really justifiable reason, leaving aside the question of non-American versions. Take a look at this and this for some starter information, though.)

How we perceive violence, horror or 'sick' episodes in films is based on how we approach life, the things we've experienced firsthand, and even subconscious elements, the origin of which we may not even be aware of.

A panel of judges adjucating the certificate of a film may not agree with our perceptions of the same film. Certification can be influenced by current events at the time of judging.

If you see a film as particularly horrific, whilst another person finds it hilarious, then that's just the difference between our personal experiences.

For example, I find the movie Silent Hill both fascinating and disturbing, and am surprised that it was released as a 15 certificate rather than an 18, due to the truly horrific and sadistic nature of some of the scenes.

I can't remember ever feeling horrified by Raiders, but I am sickened by the human skins and by the insect chamber in TOD.

The DVDs I have of the first three movies are all PG certificate, and refer to violence as "frequent, moderate", "some moderate, frequent mild", and "frequent, mild, action" respectively.

KOTCS is rated 12 and warns of "moderate action violence and scary scenes" (though I would have rated that PG as well).

When it comes to genuine horror movies (that is, those marketed as horror movies), the warnings are changed to wording such as "bloody horror" or "strong bloody violence". A lot of that is probably down to the context of the violence, which can move from "action violence" to sadism and disturbing cruelty.

Raiders, by comparison falls into the "action" category, where the themes permit it for a family audience (where parental guidance is expected).

For me TOD was the most 'horrific' of the four, as it's themes were more disturbing.

Right.....and every kid is different, which is why I said it should be fine for most kids around 7, 8 years old. For others, it might be, 10, 11.

I mean, I guess all I can say.......if 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is an "adult" film, then you must live one helluva sheltered life.

Cole said:

I mean, I guess all I can say.......if 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is an "adult" film, then you must live one helluva sheltered life.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone said it was an adult film, and no matter what rating it was given imo it has a more grown up theme and tone than certainly KOTCS has. A film doesnt have to have an 18 certificate with loads of sex and violence to be classified as purely an adult themed movie does it? I think KOTCS is a more kiddy friendly movie than Raiders was.

Equally The Empire Strikes Back had more adult themes in it and yet I'm sure that was rated U.

Rocket Surgeon said:

"Kinda campy?" Please define what aspect of camp you mean because there are so many. I'm interested in how you frame those scenes as kid friendly...

Skull?

Do you HAVE kids?

AGAIN, where does Raiders not take itself seriously?

Click to expand...

All Questions you ignore to avoid rational discourse, instead you swim in a sea of other's thoughts and ideas poking and prodding as you tack another meaningless post to another thread. Ah, well.

I asked:

Rocket Surgeon said:

Please, instead of regurgitating the same tired clichés we've all heard, read and repeated ad nauseum, give us COLE'S thoughts and comments.

Click to expand...

And so I'll answer in kind, Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole, a sheltered life? I think of how terribly you must have been mistreated as a child to become so calloused and desensitized. Since you won't answer the question about kids I'll guess you have none. So as you astutely put it: "It's pretty clear we aren't going to see eye-to-eye."

Cole said:

Right.....and every kid is different, which is why I said it should be fine for most kids around 7, 8 years old. For others, it might be, 10, 11.

Click to expand...

So tell me how you explain to an 8yr old what Marion and The Australian Climber are doing, or why Marion punched Indy...and the list goes on. I feel sorry for you, to have had to grow up so quickly, I guess that's why you don't have time to consider grown up concerns and themes like those in Raiders. Where such things are sluffed off like a Moe triple slap. I know, it's so safe to watch cartoons and Temple of Doom. What a shame an 8 year old in your world can understand the idea that Indy and his father banged the same slut, ( I know, I know Crusade is much different, I know) that should be fine...sure.

If you have children, God help them, and you, but since I'm betting you don't, I have to say your assessment of what children can or should be able to handle is crap. You and or (someday) your children are welcome to an existence where alcohol abuse and excessive/graphic violence is considered common. For me and mine, I think there are plenty of other themes for them to consider and pursue.

I guess it comes down to the age old argument/division of class, and not that I have some and you don't, but of values.

I mean, I guess all I can say.......if 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is a "kid" film, then you must have survived one helluva shattered life.

Love that you even TYPED the "word" helluva!

AndyLGR said:

I'm not sure anyone said it was an adult film, and no matter what rating it was given imo it has a more grown up theme and tone than certainly KOTCS has. A film doesnt have to have an 18 certificate with loads of sex and violence to be classified as purely an adult themed movie does it? I think KOTCS is a more kiddy friendly movie than Raiders was.

Equally The Empire Strikes Back had more adult themes in it and yet I'm sure that was rated U.

Click to expand...

So theoretically, you would be ok with showing a kid 'Crystal Skull,' but not 'Raiders of the Lost Ark?' I don't see the logic.

Rocket, I don't feel like taking the tedious time to break up the quotes and address each and every point. It's cool if you want to put 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' on some pedastal like it's some cool film meant for adults........but the fact of the matter is that Indiana Jones has been popular among children for nearly 30 years now.

Cole said:

Rocket, I don't feel like taking the tedious time to break up the quotes and address each and every point. It's cool if you want to put 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' on some pedastal like it's some cool film meant for adults........but the fact of the matter is that Indiana Jones has been popular among children for nearly 30 years now.

Click to expand...

My heart goes out to you, who has time to answer a couple of simple questions while tirlessly tracking the fickle preferences of preteens over the past 30 years? Would LOVE to peruse your research Doc.

I guess most people could overlook the shortcomings of Crystal Skull and let it fade into obscurity, if not for the platitudes of the Impressionable

Rocket Surgeon said:

My heart goes out to you, who has time to answer a couple of simple questions while tirlessly tracking the fickle preferences of preteens over the past 30 years? Would LOVE to peruse your research Doc.

I guess most people could overlook the shortcomings of Crystal Skull and let it fade into obscurity, if not for the platitudes of the Impressionable

Click to expand...

Rocket, how would you rate Raiders as it stands now in it's present edit? And based on that, the other three films?

At what age would you let your children watch them?

(You know me well enough to know that I'm not baiting you. )

I respect your personal opinion of Raiders (and KOTCS ), but this is how I see it:

As I wrote before, how we perceive violence, horror or 'sick' episodes in films is based on personal perception, and we therefore don't have to agree with the ratings of the adjudicating panel.

Even the drinking scene with Marion and the climber, which may appear shocking now, was part of a long history of film comedy involving the effects of alcohol. Nowadays, the problem of alcohol and its influence on children is a much more sensitive issue. I doubt that KOTCS would have done the same gag (girl outdrinks burley guy and remains pretty sober), considering that governments now recognize the problem of binge drinking and the inherent health dangers.

There are war films shown on daytime TV that depict the horrors of war with bodies and blood.

Indiana Jones movies use the style that made Bond famous, to literally get away with murder. The adult content is softened by the humour, and by the implication that the films are presented as action adventures, romps full of daring-do. They take reality and stretch it so that we know that this isn't a documentary about the life of Roy Chapman Andrews.

The question is, at what age does a parent think their children can understand the difference. The most dangerous effect of Indy on young children is that they might actually try to emulate his antics.

I feel that a film truly goes beyond the bounds of "parental guidance" into the purely "adult", when the themes are no longer heroes and villains in action adventure, but when the violence takes on an air of sadism, or when the violence, blood and gore itself becomes the main point of the film.

Where Indy movies come close to the line is in the character of Indy himself. He's a rogue with a moral code that often sits in the grey areas - he kills, but it's all in the name of a cause that the audience is lead to believe is for good. A really grey area would be shooting the Cairo swordsman.

When the villains meet their gruesome ends the audience is meant to be uplifted that justice has been served.

IMHO, one of the reasons why Raiders worked so well was that is managed to straddle the line between what is ostensibly a "family action/adventure" movie and more adult orientated/graphic images. I think it’s a mistake to believe Raiders was made specifically for a more adult or child audience. Rather, they made a movie that was specifically designed to have mass/universal appeal.

Over recent years, certainly post 1980’s/90’s, I think it’s even more of a challenge to create a movie that has the potential for such genuine mass appeal. Movies seem to be more and more ballkanized in an attempt to either pitch it straight to the ‘trendy/hip’ market or go straight for the child audience... and one thing in KOTCS favour is that it never attempts to be trendy (one could argue that was a mistiake).

Montana Smith said:

Indiana Jones movies use the style that made Bond famous, to literally get away with murder. The adult content is softened by the humour, and by the implication that the films are presented as action adventures, romps full of daring-do. They take reality and stretch it so that we know that this isn't a documentary about the life of Roy Chapman Andrews..

Click to expand...

You stole my thunder a bit here, I was going to add that the Indy films (over a shorter period of time) have gone a similar route of the Bond movies. The early films have that more gritty feel, yet they have a slight balance of humour, with the odd one liner thrown in by Bond. But then jump forward to the films from Diamonds are Forever through to the Roger Moore movies and the humour has become more silly and seems to have dumbed them down, much more so than the early movies. In a way I feel this is what has happened with Indy when comparing them back to the original movie. KOTCS has much more of the dumber humour than ROTLA, this doesn?t appeal as much to me, but I accept people view them differently to me. That?s fine. I?m just stating my view point on them.

The questions raised about kids watching the movies are good and quite thought provoking. It all depends on the child and a parent knows best if a child can handle certain things. It may be a general statement, but certainly here in the UK it seems that the content of TV and movies is becoming steadily more graphic and it seems as though children are becoming more used to being exposed to things that I think weren?t shown back when I was a kid in the 80?s. Having said that, I was 10 when I first watched Raiders and, as I mentioned before, I was excited to watch it and it was an event to sit down in front of the tv to watch what I considered an adult film. I still think it has grown themes and a grown up style to it. As discussed above - to me it is in a similar vein to the early Bond movies. But as Darth said it kind of crosses borders to be accessible by everyone.

I took my son to see KOTCS with me. He was ten at that time. He loved the movie. I didn?t think there was too much in there that would worry him. In fact he has seen the other movies from the age of 8 and TOD was and still is his favourite. I thought that was a decent age for him to see them completely. I dint think he was ready before.

One thing I used to do when watching something at home when the kids were younger, if I thought there was a dodgy scene in it, I would skip the scene so he didn?t see it. For instance the immolation scene when Anakin sets alight in Revenge of the Sith or the heart scene in TOD. But kids nowadays seem to see through the old school special effects and see that its fake and dismiss the effects as rubbish

AndyLGR said:

You stole my thunder a bit here, I was going to add that the Indy films (over a shorter period of time) have gone a similar route of the Bond movies.

Click to expand...

Sorry about that...

Since I've been watching the Bonds in release order (I just finished Live and Let Die), they're very clear in my mind, and constantly reminding me of Indy.

AndyLGR said:

The early films have that more gritty feel, yet they have a slight balance of humour, with the odd one liner thrown in by Bond. But then jump forward to the films from Diamonds are Forever through to the Roger Moore movies and the humour has become more silly and seems to have dumbed them down, much more so than the early movies. In a way I feel this is what has happened with Indy when comparing them back to the original movie. KOTCS has much more of the dumber humour than ROTLA, this doesn’t appeal as much to me, but I accept people view them differently to me. That’s fine. I’m just stating my view point on them.

Click to expand...

The Bond movies are progressing pretty seamlessly from Dr. No through to Live and Let Die, despite the change of actors. The first two might be equated to ROTLA, as being fairly down to earth, with Bond undertaking detective work, until the finale at the lair - which would be mirrored by the opening of Ark in ROTLA.

From Goldfinger on the Bond style is becoming cemented, with a bigger scale and budget, and more elaborate stunts and set-ups. That would also equate to TOD, where Indy returns to the screen and people know what to expect, so the film-makers have to give them more. By KOTCS "more" is too much for some.

As Bond went down a gear with Daniel Craig, it is possible that Indy V will also go down a gear, in an attempt to please the older fans, without alienating the newer ones.

AndyLGR said:

The questions raised about kids watching the movies are good and quite thought provoking. It all depends on the child and a parent knows best if a child can handle certain things. It may be a general statement, but certainly here in the UK it seems that the content of TV and movies is becoming steadily more graphic and it seems as though children are becoming more used to being exposed to things that I think weren’t shown back when I was a kid in the 80’s. Having said that, I was 10 when I first watched Raiders and, as I mentioned before, I was excited to watch it and it was an event to sit down in front of the tv to watch what I considered an adult film. I still think it has grown themes and a grown up style to it. As discussed above - to me it is in a similar vein to the early Bond movies. But as Darth said it kind of crosses borders to be accessible by everyone.

I took my son to see KOTCS with me. He was ten at that time. He loved the movie. I didn’t think there was too much in there that would worry him. In fact he has seen the other movies from the age of 8 and TOD was and still is his favourite. I thought that was a decent age for him to see them completely. I dint think he was ready before.

One thing I used to do when watching something at home when the kids were younger, if I thought there was a dodgy scene in it, I would skip the scene so he didn’t see it. For instance the immolation scene when Anakin sets alight in Revenge of the Sith or the heart scene in TOD. But kids nowadays seem to see through the old school special effects and see that its fake and dismiss the effects as rubbish

Click to expand...

My dad used to manage a TV rental shop, where video players were also rented, and a small range of videos were sold. One Christmas he brought a selection of videos home, including The Godfather. He knew what was coming, so knew when to stand in front of the TV - such as the during the reveal of the severed horse's head...

Montana Smith said:

The Bond movies are progressing pretty seamlessly from Dr. No through to Live and Let Die, despite the change of actors. The first two might be equated to ROTLA, as being fairly down to earth, with Bond undertaking detective work, until the finale at the lair - which would be mirrored by the opening of Ark in ROTLA.

Click to expand...

I think as you get through the rest of the Roger Moore ones you will see some of the more camp humour and silly scenes start to appear. Although the changes are seamless when you watch them in order, if you suddenly compare one of the Moore films to say From Russia with Love then you will see how the franchise has evolved and changed to include elements that were not necessarily in its original dna. In a way its almost becoming a parody of itself way before Austin Powers parodied it. I think it gets back on track with Timothy Dalton to add a bit of grittiness to the role with the Living Daylights.

But in a way that?s how I feel some of the aspects of the Indy series have evolved, to the point where KOTCS had some rather camp and daft scenes that are a change from the original concept. Clearly some people like that aspect of the movies. I do to a certain degree too.

AndyLGR said:

I think as you get through the rest of the Roger Moore ones you will see some of the more camp humour and silly scenes start to appear. Although the changes are seamless when you watch them in order, if you suddenly compare one of the Moore films to say From Russia with Love then you will see how the franchise has evolved and changed to include elements that were not necessarily in its original dna. In a way its almost becoming a parody of itself way before Austin Powers parodied it. I think it gets back on track with Timothy Dalton to add a bit of grittiness to the role with the Living Daylights.

But in a way that’s how I feel some of the aspects of the Indy series have evolved, to the point where KOTCS had some rather camp and daft scenes that are a change from the original concept. Clearly some people like that aspect of the movies. I do to a certain degree too.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can see that. In order the changes are gradual, which is how I view the road from ROTLA to KOTCS. Yet, comparing ROTLA to KOTCS, without passing through TOD and TLC would probably appear like a sudden shift.

With Indy, there is Harrison and the real-life passage of time, (a trackable chronology), which helps to bind the movies together, and make KOTCS still likeable.

So far in the Bond movies I'm watching this is also helping - from Dr. No in 1962 to The Man with the Golden Gun in 1974, there is a set passage of time where the events portrayed appear to take place in the year that each film was released, which, of course, diverges from Fleming's novels. (In OHMSS 'M' refers to the bullion job of '64, Goldfinger. Bernard Lee and Lois Maxwell age, showing the passage of time).

At some poijnt, I know that this chronology is going to break down, otherwise Bond is going to be about 72 by Die Another Day. The same problem is the one we're facing with Harrison and the continuation of the Indy series, which is covered in other threads.

I think it?s important that these things are viewed in context. A movie has little ability to shape/change society (although something special like Star Wars can change how movies are perceived/made). Movies, IMHO, are a snapshot of society at a given moment in time i.e. they reflect the audience?s sensibilities rather than shape them (as a rule).

Raiders led the way for action/adventure movies, but was superseded (post TOD) by more realistic, and more violent, action/adventure thrillers e.g. Lethal Weapon, Die Hard etc. Times have a changed. And whilst nothing can take away from how great Raiders was, and still is to many (including all of us here I assume), it very much represents the past and not the future of the genre (although things do come back around).

More platitudes...

Darth Vile said:

I think it?s important that these things are viewed in context. A movie has little ability to shape/change society (although something special like Star Wars can change how movies are perceived/made). Movies, IMHO, are a snapshot of society at a given moment in time i.e. they reflect the audience?s sensibilities rather than shape them (as a rule).

Raiders led the way for action/adventure movies, but was superseded (post TOD) by more realistic, and more violent, action/adventure thrillers e.g. Lethal Weapon, Die Hard etc. Times have a changed. And whilst nothing can take away from how great Raiders was, and still is to many (including all of us here I assume), it very much represents the past and not the future of the genre (although things do come back around).

Click to expand...

The Guns of Navarone (1961)
Dr. No (1962, UK)
From Russia With Love (1963, UK)
Goldfinger (1964, UK)
Zulu (1964)
Thunderball (1965, UK)
The Train (1965)
The Dirty Dozen (1967)
Point Blank (1967)
You Only Live Twice (1967, UK)
Bullitt (1968)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969, UK)
The Wild Bunch (1969)
Airport (1970)
Dirty Harry (1971)
Duel (1971)
The French Connection (1971)
Shaft (1971)
Deliverance (1972)
The Getaway (1972)
The Poseidon Adventure (1972)
Enter the Dragon (1973)
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974)
Jaws (1975)
Rollerball (1975)
Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)
Black Sunday (1977)
Superman: The Movie (1978)
Mad Max (1979)
The Warriors (1979)
Escape from New York (1981)
Mad Max 2 (1981)
Nighthawks (1981)
48 Hrs. (1982)
First Blood (1982)

I include films from 81 and 82 because they were more than likely in production before Raiders premiered.

Please, all we need is to get back to what excited us to begin with. The Effects shots of the Ark amount to two and a half minutes of the film, and it was the capper.

Think up stunts, send Indy to discover something from our shared history, not some contemporary explanation and reimagination of history, film it on film with character actors and no established stars.

Rocket Surgeon said:

The Guns of Navarone (1961)
Dr. No (1962, UK)
From Russia With Love (1963, UK)
Goldfinger (1964, UK)
Zulu (1964)
Thunderball (1965, UK)
The Train (1965)
The Dirty Dozen (1967)
Point Blank (1967)
You Only Live Twice (1967, UK)
Bullitt (1968)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969, UK)
The Wild Bunch (1969)
Airport (1970)
Dirty Harry (1971)
Duel (1971)
The French Connection (1971)
Shaft (1971)
Deliverance (1972)
The Getaway (1972)
The Poseidon Adventure (1972)
Enter the Dragon (1973)
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974)
Jaws (1975)
Rollerball (1975)
Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)
Black Sunday (1977)
Superman: The Movie (1978)
Mad Max (1979)
The Warriors (1979)
Escape from New York (1981)
Mad Max 2 (1981)
Nighthawks (1981)
48 Hrs. (1982)
First Blood (1982)

I include films from 81 and 82 because they were more than likely in production before Raiders premiered.

Please, all we need is to get back to what excited us to begin with. The Effects shots of the Ark amount to two and a half minutes of the film, and it was the capper.

Think up stunts, send Indy to discover something from our shared history, not some contemporary explanation and reimagination of history, film it on film with character actors and no established stars.

Click to expand...

I can't argue with those requests. I'm sure that's the film most of us want to see.

Montana Smith said:

Rocket, how would you rate Raiders as it stands now in it's present edit? And based on that, the other three films?

At what age would you let your children watch them?

As I wrote before, how we perceive violence, horror or 'sick' episodes in films is based on personal perception, and we therefore don't have to agree with the ratings of the adjudicating panel.

There are war films shown on daytime TV that depict the horrors of war with bodies and blood.

Indiana Jones movies use the style that made Bond famous, to literally get away with murder. The adult content is softened by the humour, and by the implication that the films are presented as action adventures, romps full of daring-do. They take reality and stretch it so that we know that this isn't a documentary about the life of Roy Chapman Andrews.

The question is, at what age does a parent think their children can understand the difference. The most dangerous effect of Indy on young children is that they might actually try to emulate his antics.

Click to expand...

I seem to recall RotLA was anticipated to be rated R (American rating system) when it first released and was eventually demoted to its current PG standing.

I think the emulation factor is what makes most parents (rightly) wary of fantasy/action films. That would be my issue with Harry Potter, though I've watched and enjoy the films myself. I wouldn't have a problem with my kid dressing up and pretending to be a wizard...but if he ever moved from fantasy magic to delving into the real stuff (not the digital/camera trick stuff)...the real stuff...

Age. That varies with the child in question. Part of my role as a parent is to pay attention to my son's sensitivities, guide him through the intense scenes, skip the scene (thank God that DVDs/Blu-Rays can skip ahead) and tell him what happened instead of letting him watch it, turn the movie off if necessary. If he doesn't seem ready for it, that's a judgment call I have to make, as, while he's young, I am responsible for him.

Montana Smith said:

I feel that a film truly goes beyond the bounds of "parental guidance" into the purely "adult", when the themes are no longer heroes and villains in action adventure, but when the violence takes on an air of sadism, or when the violence, blood and gore itself becomes the main point of the film.

Click to expand...

I agree. When you see heads and limbs flying, but it all happens fast and they immediately move on, that's acceptable. If a film is going to do violence, it should do it that way. When it becomes gratuitous -- as if the filmmakers are saying, "Look what our sculptors and effects teams did," by way of lingering on a gruesome image -- that's crossing a line.

Montana Smith said:

Where Indy movies come close to the line is in the character of Indy himself. He's a rogue with a moral code that often sits in the grey areas - he kills, but it's all in the name of a cause that the audience is lead to believe is for good. A really grey area would be shooting the Cairo swordsman.

Click to expand...

True. But he demonstrates a toughness that I believe is essential, that I believe men of character and integrity have. Any man worth his salt should know how, but more importantly when to through a punch. "You don't have to get sore all the time just to prove how tough you are."

The problem is these days it's difficult to pick out a worthy cause. Woman being raped? Definitely, come to her rescue. Someone's in your seat...maybe you just want to ask him to move...nicely.

Montana Smith said:

When the villains meet their gruesome ends the audience is meant to be uplifted that justice has been served.

Click to expand...

True again, that is what the audience takes away from the story. Much the way the crowd reacts when their team scores a goal/touchdown. There's a rejoicing that happens. Do you think it's some kind of vicarious thing, like perhaps we've felt denied justice before, so it's a release to see summary justice dispensed?

(I think the gun emoticon needs a counterpart Cairo swordsman whose eyes "x" out.)