Blood, gore, and action

[Jabrosky]

I see myself as a big fan of action most of the time. I love action-packed movies, computer games, and books, and most of the characters I write and draw are either warriors, hunters, or dangerous wild animals. However, after an introspective analysis of my love for action, I have discovered that I actually don't like one element stereotypically associated with the action genre: excessive blood and gore. Especially gore, and especially if humans are the recipients. I love seeing physically dynamic characters maneuvering their bodies about, parrying enemy attacks, and evading danger, but I wince whenever I see them inflict actual bleeding injuries above the level of a few scratches or pokes. If they must hit each other, it shouldn't leave more than a few bruises. That doesn't mean I won't write blood and gore into my stories, because it's often inevitable whenever you have physical combat, but I don't like to actually see the blood and gore in visual media. That's why I avoid horror movies like the plague; they simply offer the gore without letting characters fight back most of the time.

I swear that ever since 300 came out fantasy action movies have grown excessively gory. The worst offender I can recall was the recent Immortals movie; it would have been mediocre had the filmmakers not gone overboard in cutting up the characters and spilling CGI blood everywhere.

Anyone else weird like me in liking action but not gore?

 

[Philip Overby]

I like both, I'm not going to lie. I like simple PG-13 levels, but I also like more excessive stuff (being a fan of the horror genre). I do draw the line eventually, as I don't like seeing too much (I used to watch Fulci movies when I was younger, but I don't think I could stomach them nowadays). In novels, I can handle it a lot better. I'd say Joe Abercrombie is one who handles lots of blood, but it doesn't ever get to a point where it's nauseating. Jesse Bullington is probably as extreme as I'll go in the fantasy genre, and he can be quite extreme. If the story and characters are good enough, then I don't mind the level of blood so much. This coming from someone who sort of uses blood for comedic effect or in order to make my stories over-the-top on purpose. I probably haven't figured out the right amount yet though.

I'm fine with action that is without blood, but it has to be a certain kind of story/movie. If it's like Three Musketeers, I can handle that as I don't expect that level of violence as it's more stylish sword play. However, in a movie like Excalibur, which I think does its battle scenes pretty realistically, I expect a certain amount of grit and blood.

So if I want stylistic fighting, no blood is fine. But if it's supposed to be more realistic (or even slap-stick like Peter Jackon's early stuff or Evil Dead) then I think blood helps. (This coming from someone that has the word "blood" 187 times in the span of 70K words so far in his WIP )

 

[CupofJoe]

I'm not a fan of gore. I have no problem with realism and actuality [I think News should be more bloody - if the story warrants it] but for me, especially in Horror, gore is too often a replacement for tension and spookiness.
In film terms the Jump Cut is "scary" but I prefer to feel the tension grow. on the other hand I don't want A-Team style violence where you can shoot off a thousand rounds and no-one get killed but also I don't need to see every head exploding as someone is shot...
I think, that in many cases the gore and guts too often slow down the story telling. There are exceptions but sometimes the fight is not the point of the story, it's a plot point. The battle and victory maybe important, but how X slew Y [and watch as its entrails caught around the hilt of the sword...] isn't...
Anyway I'm off to watch "The Cruel Sea" and see men die in cold freezing water but with a stiff BRITISH upper lip!

 

[Chilari]

I'm not a fan of gore. It's what put me off that superhero movie with Nick Cage (can't remember what it was called). But I must disagree about Immortals - even without the stupid OTT CGI blood spatters, it was a godawful film. I only stayed in the cinema out of a sense of morbid curiosity and so I could write an article about it (which I did, although I kept my dislike of the film out of the article - it was more about comparing the original Greek myth to the film, and ancient Greek ideals to those encapsulated in the film.)

I don't mind blood and gore so much if there's a point to it. If it's just there for the special effects I'm not a fan, but if it's realistic and has a point like highlighting the horrors of war, or if there's a character who has some sort of medical training, like Stephen Maturin in Master and Commander (although I felt the film had more blood and gore than the books, possibly because reading about it doesn't have as much impact as seeing it on screen, but the books tend to focus more on the relationship between the two main characters anyway, just mentioning in passing how some poor sailor or midshipman had his leg blown off by a cannonball). Basically, if there's a place and a reason for it, I can handle it. If it's senseless, there for the sake of seeming realistic or gritty, I'm not a fan.

As for comparing violence against one thing to another, Jabrosky you said it's worse when a human is the victim; I find I can handle it equally whether human or animal, far easier if it's a CGI creature like a dragon, but not at all if it's real, like in documentaries. The documentary Grand Prix: The Killer Years made me cry a lot, for example, seeing footage of people burning to death in their cars while the race continued around them and marshals and other drivers tried in vain to pull them out. When it's real I can't handle it; when I know it's fiction I can, I just don't like it if it goes beyond what is necessary.

 

[SlimShady]

I think the blood and gore in recent movies are usually laughable. Sometimes it doesn't even look like real blood. I much prefer the realistic portrayals of real wounds. It makes the movie more haunting when a particularly liked character is killed in a bloody way. The battles also become much more awesome when you get an idea of just how brutal things were.

 

[squishybug87]

I don't really like gore too much. I tend to get turned off of movies and shows that are needlessly gory. The only exception I have to that rule is Spartacus on Starz because the character development and plot is just so gripping to me. I usually look away when those scenes come up (that and the excessive sex scenes).

I do love action though. I love a good martial arts movie. I love anything that pumps the adrenaline. Interestingly enough, several of my favorite movies are military dramas, but I think I'm just intrigued by, again, the potential character development as many of these are more character driven than plot driven. I really like Asian martial arts movies because they are usually very pretty visually (House of Flying Daggers, Hero, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, etc).

In real life situations, such as on the news, I literally can't stomach gore. I've watched quite a few war documentaries and I've reacted very physically to some of them. And yes, when an animal gets hurt, my heart heaves. Same for children. I kind of see them as one and the same.

 

[Steerpike]

Blood and gore don't bother me, per se.

If a movie relies on it for shock value or to be 'scary,' then I generally find that the movie fails. If it is part of an otherwise good movie, I'm not bothered. Some movies use it very stylistically (Evil Dead 2, Kill Bill), and that's OK with me as well. You might even argue, to a lesser extent, for a more stylistic use in Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs, both of which are movies I liked but which have a fair amount of blood and violence.

 

[Ireth]

I'm not a huge fan of guts and gore, but I have happily watched some movies with copious amounts of spurting blood (300, V for Vendetta and Sweeney Todd, for instance). I'm rather squeamish about real-life stuff though.

 

[squishybug87]

Blood and gore don't bother me, per se.

If a movie relies on it for shock value or to be 'scary,' then I generally find that the movie fails. If it is part of an otherwise good movie, I'm not bothered. Some movies use it very stylistically (Evil Dead 2, Kill Bill), and that's OK with me as well. You might even argue, to a lesser extent, for a more stylistic use in Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs, both of which are movies I liked but which have a fair amount of blood and violence.

Pulp Fiction is a good example. I could tell that it was a good movie, but after a while, I got to be too much. I notice Tarantino has a habit of using stylized violence. It either works really well (Like you said, Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds) or it fails (Grindhouse, imo).

 

[FatCat]

If it fits the book/movie, I say bring it on. Scenes like the Normandy landing in Saving Private Ryan needed to be brutal or else it wouldn't pay tribute to those who went through that hell. However, if in a book the MC cuts off a dudes head, that should be the end of it, my imagination can take over from there. Not, "The pressure of spurting blood from the soldier's opened neck shot two hundred feet into the sky!" If it isn't overdone for the sake of being gory, I'm fine with whatever the author throws at me.

 

[Steerpike]

Yes, FatCat. I agree generally. But if you look at the scene I posted in the favorite film moments thread, the gore in that one is over the top, but that's the sort of thing that makes the movie, which is a campy, tongue-in-cheek horrorfest

 

[FatCat]

Sadly I must disagree, since we are now enemies locked in mortal combat known as The Reaver Challenge.

 

[Steerpike]

Sadly I must disagree, since we are now enemies locked in mortal combat known as The Reaver Challenge.

*sharpens claws*