maybe they are all guilty (media) for dirty messages , wrongdoer and criminal are guilty too for practice that messages .
Most of movie messages made the good man is who win in the end .
IF this message is inversed, that would hurt the society . it's inversed in some movies .as movies which make up the cheating/killing/raping/rob as good thin
I agree that if one think that some movie's message is bad, he can voice his opinion to oppose that movie.
Can you give some example of movie which the bad man win in the end?
Can you give some example of movie which promote cheating/killing/raping/rob as good?
What do you suggest in order to make all movie accord to the universal standards of morality?
the universal standards of morality : no lie, no cheat, no kill innocent, no harm innocent , no abuse innocent ..;etc
edited to clarify :
we already had standards of morality : abuse,rape,kill,lie,cheat,steal,.....etc are bad morality
good morality helping others (doing good deeds),care about your family , give money for poor ;, people ,respect , (not lieing , not cheating , not all above ) .
Stanley Jobson (Hugh Jackman) is an elite hacker who infected the FBI's Carnivore program with a potent computer virus, delaying its deployment by several years. For this, he was arrested by Agent Roberts (Don Cheadle), convicted of computer crimes and spent two years in Leavenworth. A condition of his parole is that he is forbidden from touching, much less using, a computer. His ex-wife, Melissa, has sole custody over their daughter Holly and some form of restraining order against Stanley from seeing Holly.
While Stanley is at home in rural Texas practicing his golf swing, a woman named Ginger Knowles (Halle Berry) shows up to solicit his hacking skills for her boss Gabriel Shear (John Travolta). For an initial $100,000 he agrees to meet with Gabriel. He and Ginger fly to Los Angeles, California and meet Gabriel in a night club. Gabriel pressures Stanley right-then-and-there to hack a government system in 60 seconds while at gun point... Although it was just a test (the gun was not loaded) Stanley succeeded in hacking the system, a feat that Gabriel had not anticipated.
At Gabriel's house he convinces Stanley to write a worm for $10 million that steals money from a secret government slush fund on the order of $9.5 billion. Gabriel reveals to Stanley that he works for an organization called the Black Cell that was started by J. Edgar Hoover in the 1950s, which is responsible for retaliatory attacks against terrorists who have attacked Americans. It is currently headed by Senator Reisman. Reisman discovers that the FBI has caught onto Gabriel and attempts to pull the plug. After Gabriel refuses to terminate plans Reisman attempts to have Gabriel killed, which fails. Gabriel tracks the Senator down while he is fly fishing in Bend, Oregon and kills Reisman.
Gabriel proceeds with his plan and raids the local branch of the WORLDBANC. He takes hostages and deploys Stanley's worm. After stealing the $9.5B he boards the hostages and his crew on a bus out of the bank. Gabriel demands a plane at the local airport (a hostage negotiation cliché) but it was a diversion. An S-64 Aircrane swoops down, lifts the bus, and releases it on the rooftop of a skyscraper. From the rooftop, Gabriel departs with his team in a helicopter which is shot down by Stanley with a rocket-propelled grenade. At the morgue, Stanley realizes it was more misdirection and Gabriel was not on the helicopter and "Gabriel Shear" is an alias.
The end of the film shows Ginger and "Gabriel" in Monte Carlo transferring that $9.5B into other accounts. The final scene shows a yacht being destroyed and a news anchor voice narrating that a suspected terrorist died on that yacht.
===Alternate ending===
The DVD version contains an alternate ending wherein Ginger is told in the bank that the account is already empty, alluding to the possibility that Stanley has played one final trick on them and taken the money himself. In a companion scene to the alternate ending, Stanley is shown on a trip with his daughter in a brand new RV. While eating at a diner, Stanley is shown transferring many billion dollars to various charities before continuing his trip.
The movie end with the counter-terrorist unit leader taking care of the terrorists by blowing one up on the boat as the news commentator says that it's just one of many strange recent hapenings where crime organization leaders have been killed. So, he's alive, got away with the money.
Alternate ending shows that the hacker take away all the $9.5 billion and reunion with his daugther and also transferring many billion dollars to various charities before continuing his trip.
I agree that their actions to steal money and the revenge againts terrorists may not be so appropriate or morally correct, their action to seek justice by revenge and the attempt to transferring many billion dollars to various charities may not be make up for their mistake.
How do i know if they haven't receive any punishment/lesson/consequences after the movie end? Maybe karma awaits them after that. It can be interpret as they win in the end of the movie and also win all their life after the movie end, but it can also be interpret as they'll receive punishment/lesson/consequences after the movie ends.
But do anyone just straightly go on to imitate what they've done simply because some of the villain win in the end of movie? You see in ending version 1 the counter-terrorist leader win but the hacker didn't, and in alternate ending the position is reverse. They don't always win. This is just a fictional story and is flexible to interpret into many possible outcomes. When view a movie/media/book, one ought to think for himself whether the bad things in them is morally correct and worth it for him to imitate them. If he think it's morally correct and worth it and go on to imitate it, it's his responsible to bear the consequences that may result from his actions.
If every movie/media/book is free from bad things and the good people always win in the end of them, do you guaranteed that then everyone will behave morally perfect as they've no bad model to imitate from?
What do you suggest in order to make all movie/media/book to free from bad things and the good people always win in the end of them?
that's very knowning .
cheating i post link before , and if you fan for movies just back in memories , you find out .
I think how a movie to be interpret is highly debatable.
I don't promote the immoral actions which can be found in many movie is honored to be imitate. It's not honored and shouldn't be imitate.
I also don't agree that viewing those movie will guranteed to brainwash the viewer and make them lose their control/mind to go on to do exactly and imitate what've been shown by those movies.
They're human beings, they're not a mindless robot or puppet which will absorb/imitate everything they view or told to do. As a human beings they've to learn to take responsible for what they do, learn what is the right things to do, if they don't, then they may face the consequence for their actions until they have learn the lesson.
Pudding said:
What do you suggest in order to make all movie accord to the universal standards of morality?
What do you suggest in order to make all movie accord to the principle that "good man or good deeds is always win" ?
(a similar question to a question in the above, your answer for that question may compatible to this question)
edited to clarify :
we already had standards of morality : abuse,rape,kill,lie,cheat,steal,.....etc are bad morality
good morality helping others (doing good deeds),care about your family , give money for poor ;, people ,respect , (not lieing , not cheating , not all above ) .
Do you mean the common standards of morality?
Where do you learn this common standards of morality?
Do you have the complete list of this common standards of morality?
Is this common standards of morality the same as universal standards of morality?
I was discuss with friend in other thread about influence of Movies on people , so i disagree with him , i said Movies could influence on people , he said no the "Adult" people whom reponsible for their acts , there is no influence of media on them . (as i understand that his opinion)
.so some movies may contian some ideas , as cheating is good , some may encourage the voilence , and some encourage the adultery , and Horror movies make some people fear the darkness area .....etc
do you agree that could movies (and media) impact on people thought or not
Stanley Jobson (Hugh Jackman) is an elite hacker who infected the FBI's Carnivore program with a potent computer virus, delaying its deployment by several years. For this, he was arrested by Agent Roberts (Don Cheadle), convicted of computer crimes and spent two years in Leavenworth. A condition of his parole is that he is forbidden from touching, much less using, a computer. His ex-wife, Melissa, has sole custody over their daughter Holly and some form of restraining order against Stanley from seeing Holly.
While Stanley is at home in rural Texas practicing his golf swing, a woman named Ginger Knowles (Halle Berry) shows up to solicit his hacking skills for her boss Gabriel Shear (John Travolta). For an initial $100,000 he agrees to meet with Gabriel. He and Ginger fly to Los Angeles, California and meet Gabriel in a night club. Gabriel pressures Stanley right-then-and-there to hack a government system in 60 seconds while at gun point... Although it was just a test (the gun was not loaded) Stanley succeeded in hacking the system, a feat that Gabriel had not anticipated.
At Gabriel's house he convinces Stanley to write a worm for $10 million that steals money from a secret government slush fund on the order of $9.5 billion. Gabriel reveals to Stanley that he works for an organization called the Black Cell that was started by J. Edgar Hoover in the 1950s, which is responsible for retaliatory attacks against terrorists who have attacked Americans. It is currently headed by Senator Reisman. Reisman discovers that the FBI has caught onto Gabriel and attempts to pull the plug. After Gabriel refuses to terminate plans Reisman attempts to have Gabriel killed, which fails. Gabriel tracks the Senator down while he is fly fishing in Bend, Oregon and kills Reisman.
Gabriel proceeds with his plan and raids the local branch of the WORLDBANC. He takes hostages and deploys Stanley's worm. After stealing the $9.5B he boards the hostages and his crew on a bus out of the bank. Gabriel demands a plane at the local airport (a hostage negotiation cliché) but it was a diversion. An S-64 Aircrane swoops down, lifts the bus, and releases it on the rooftop of a skyscraper. From the rooftop, Gabriel departs with his team in a helicopter which is shot down by Stanley with a rocket-propelled grenade. At the morgue, Stanley realizes it was more misdirection and Gabriel was not on the helicopter and "Gabriel Shear" is an alias.
The end of the film shows Ginger and "Gabriel" in Monte Carlo transferring that $9.5B into other accounts. The final scene shows a yacht being destroyed and a news anchor voice narrating that a suspected terrorist died on that yacht.
===Alternate ending===
The DVD version contains an alternate ending wherein Ginger is told in the bank that the account is already empty, alluding to the possibility that Stanley has played one final trick on them and taken the money himself. In a companion scene to the alternate ending, Stanley is shown on a trip with his daughter in a brand new RV. While eating at a diner, Stanley is shown transferring many billion dollars to various charities before continuing his trip.
The movie end with the counter-terrorist unit leader taking care of the terrorists by blowing one up on the boat as the news commentator says that it's just one of many strange recent hapenings where crime organization leaders have been killed. So, he's alive, got away with the money.
Alternate ending shows that the hacker take away all the $9.5 billion and reunion with his daugther and also transferring many billion dollars to various charities before continuing his trip.
I agree that their actions to steal money and the revenge againts terrorists may not be so appropriate or morally correct, their action to seek justice by revenge and the attempt to transferring many billion dollars to various charities may not be make up for their mistake.
How do i know if they haven't receive any punishment/lesson/consequences after the movie end? Maybe karma awaits them after that. It can be interpret as they win in the end of the movie and also win all their life after the movie end, but it can also be interpret as they'll receive punishment/lesson/consequences after the movie ends.
But do anyone just straightly go on to imitate what they've done simply because some of the villain win in the end of movie? You see in ending version 1 the counter-terrorist leader win but the hacker didn't, and in alternate ending the position is reverse. They don't always win. This is just a fictional story and is flexible to interpret into many possible outcomes. When view a movie/media/book, one ought to think for himself whether the bad things in them is morally correct and worth it for him to imitate them. If he think it's morally correct and worth it and go on to imitate it, it's his responsible to bear the consequences that may result from his actions.
If every movie/media/book is free from bad things and the good people always win in the end of them, do you guaranteed that then everyone will behave morally perfect as they've no bad model to imitate from?
What do you suggest in order to make all movie/media/book to free from bad things and the good people always win in the end of them?
I'm not a fan for movies so i no find out.
No problems.
I think how a movie to be interpret is highly debatable.
I don't promote the immoral actions which can be found in many movie is honored to be imitate. It's not honored and shouldn't be imitate.
I also don't agree that viewing those movie will guranteed to brainwash the viewer and make them lose their control/mind to go on to do exactly and imitate what've been shown by those movies.
They're human beings, they're not a mindless robot or puppet which will absorb/imitate everything they view or told to do. As a human beings they've to learn to take responsible for what they do, learn what is the right things to do, if they don't, then they may face the consequence for their actions until they have learn the lesson.
What do you suggest in order to make all movie accord to the principle that "good man or good deeds is always win" ?
(a similar question to a question in the above, your answer for that question may compatible to this question)
Do you mean the common standards of morality?
Where do you learn this common standards of morality?
Do you have the complete list of this common standards of morality?
Is this common standards of morality the same as universal standards of morality?
Art/media should not be limited in this respect, IMHO. The responsibility is on the viewer. Media makers cannot be held responsible for the stupidity/gullibility of viewers.
Art/media should not be limited in this respect, IMHO. The responsibility is on the viewer. Media makers cannot be held responsible for the stupidity/gullibility of viewers.
No impact on me, I see it as all make believe. They are just actors who are paid to lie and make you believe in a fictional character.
It's entertainment with no particular moral value.
However yes, a lot of folks allow themselves to be influenced by fiction. I initially found it hard to believe that folks would allow fiction to so greatly influence their lives but I've seen the reality of it. Of course I find much of politics is fictional as well. Politicians and actors, their success depends on how well they can lie.
Don't get me wrong. I do agree and feel for you. But, as a general rule, any claim I hear, whether in a media of some kind or personal, I try to withhold belief until verification, at least of some kind, is possible.
