jamesneysmith

jamesneysmith t1_j6cuxsp wrote

Sp are you saying the movie should have been the same just without the jump scares? Or are you saying they should have made a different movie? If the former, the movie would have been very thin without the jump scares. This wasn't a Hereditary level script that could carry without any jump scares. Thenjump scares were part pf the sauce. But if you mean the latter, well I don't know what to tell you. 'They should have made a different movie' isn't really criticism. But I can see why you would want another Hereditary style horror movie.

2

jamesneysmith t1_iugicha wrote

I feel like it's not uncommon for people from a particular generation to not watch movies made prior to their generation. This can often but something that is changed through their teens or univerity/early 20's as our minds naturally begin to expand with more experiences. But the opinion of your friends is not unusual. When I was growing up it was black and white movies. Anything black and white was a no go for many people myself included. I feel like it was the movie Clerks that changed this for me. It being a contemporary movie got me to watch it and it totally changed my idea on black and white and then I began exploring older movies.

2

jamesneysmith t1_iuggc83 wrote

The biggest problem with watching the movie now versus watching the movie then is the 'Character was dead the whole time' trope is basically a meme at this point. Find a movie up for any sort of interpretation and you'll find people suggesting character X was dead the whole time and that's why the story played out the way it did. I don't know you but I imagine this is an idea that has seepewd it's way into your head just by being alive and on reddit today. When the movie came out back in 1999 this trope was notused frequently at all and was not a general theory for most people. It truly was innovative for many movie goers. So most people never suspected a thing even though we see the main character get shot at the very beginning of the movie. Today's audience is a little too savvy for stuff like that today. So unfortunately you missed out on our general ignorance of the 90's.

1

jamesneysmith t1_iub5mcb wrote

Reply to comment by AshennJuan in Smile...trigger warnings by [deleted]

And that is the most armchair psychologist way of looking at trauma. Everyone is going to react differently and also require a different treatment plan in order to best heal. Simply saying suck it up is so mind-numbingly lunkheaded it's literally thinking from a different century. How about we let the therapists and clients figure out how to best treat trauma and if that means adhering to trigger warnings for a time then what's the harm to anyone else.

1

jamesneysmith t1_iub4q7d wrote

Reply to comment by AshennJuan in Smile...trigger warnings by [deleted]

First if all therapy is not always so simply sought given how expensive it it. But secondly a lot of people are actively in therapy which can sometimes take a long time before a person can live comfortably without side effects or sometimes never live without any side effects. Things can still trigger these people. And during this time of therapy and treatment they are generally speaking still living their lives and doing things like watching movies. So I think you should be more open minded to the idea of trigger warnings. It's not all overly sensitive people crying for attention. Many many people have actual traumatic or otherwise experiences that they are actively trying to heal from.

1