"Inspired" seems perhaps too strong a word for the connection.
Can you say that, had Natural Born Killers not been made, there would have been no Columbine? I contend that it would have happened anyway. If that movie didn't exist, they would have found another movie to imitate, or even one of the other things they were interested in, such as DOOM or whatever. Correlation not causation.
Sure, you could remove both Natural Born Killers and DOOM and KMFDM and whatever else, but then they would have moved to something else. You can't ban everything just because some sick people might enjoy it.
How many mass shootings have been inspired by the bible or the quran, or The Catcher in the Rye?
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your list, even though some of those are mediocre at best, but yeah I did mean per year, and limited to Hollywood (Parasite for instance not counting). And no, ok, I will also straight up disagree with the second Knives out Movie which I thought was absolute trash. A perfect example of poor storytelling and the form over substance of modern cinema.
But just taking say 1992 you have Last of the Mohicans, The Unforgiven, My Cousin Vinny, Malcolm X, Bad Lieutenant, Scent of a Woman, Reservoir Dogs, Dracula, Chaplin.
And then a bunch of fun schlomp like Arizona Dream, Basic Instinct, Sister Act, Army of Darkness, Home Alone 2, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Mighty Ducks, Wayne’s World.
These are all undoubtedly great movies.
And then another huge bunch of watchable stuff easily comparable to some of your mentions like Watcher or High Life.
And 1992 is not an outlier.
In 1993 you have Jurrasic Park, Groundhog Day, Whats Eating Gilbert Grape, Scindlers List, Meanace 2 Society, Alive, Dazed and Confused, Falling Down, In The Name of The Father, True Romance, Demolition Man, Carlitos Way, The Secret Garden, Philadelphia, A Perfect Workd, Cool Runnings, Short Cuts.
In 1991 Silence of The Lambs, Ternimator 2, JFK, Point Break, Thelma and Louise, Boyz in the Hood, The Doors, My Own Private Idaho, Barton Fink, The Fisher King, Naked Lunch.
In 1990 Goodfellas, Hunt for Red October, Total Recall, Edward Scissorhands, Home Alone, Godfather 3, Dances with Wolves, Tremors, Back to the Future 3, Awakenings, The Witches, Wild at Heart, Jacobs Ladder, Nikita, Slacker, Millers Crossing.
And the quality difference is massive too, not just somewhat better. Like just Millers Crossing is miles better than anything that has been made in the last 5 years, and I’m picking at random.
In 1994 Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, The Lion King, Speed, Ace Ventura, Dumb and Dumber, Stargate, Natural Born Killers, The Crow, Clercs, Maverick, Ed Wood, In the Mouth of Madness, Interview With The Vampire.
I could go on.
And this is not even talking about how the 80s is a better decade for cinema, or how the 70s is the peak of the power of the author with far more experimental, artistic, and substantial productions.
Has quality declined? Yes. Massively. Humongously. Stupendously.
As an engineer who uses Go and appreciates it as a replacement for most purposes where you might use C or C++, the complaints just seem bizarre.
You've got people who argue against explicit error checking and people who don't understand the important role of nil pointers and people who don't see the massive net win of garbage collection in concurrent programs, and so on.
Endlessly.
It feels like a waste of time defending the language when the people criticizing it seem to hold such a vastly different point of view. It's like trying to convince people that Natural Born Killers is a good movie or that Primus makes good music. There's an unbridgeable chasm between you and the people you're trying to convince.
Now that you mention Ireland, it occurs to me the UK plays second fiddle compared to its former colony. After achieving independence, the Irish Free State and its successor, the Republic of Ireland were dominated by right-wing, conservative, Papist and authoritarian nationalists.
Modern art and music – particularly “evil” jazz – were all banned. Our best writers had to leave the country. The writers that didn’t leave had to apply to the Department of Justice for permission to possess a copy of their own book. The video nasties of the eighties didn’t even have a chance to become a problem in Ireland.
The UK’s censorship of the Irish Republican movement paled in comparison to that of Ireland. Enforcement of Section 31 of the Broadcasting act began in the early seventies and lasted until the mid-nineties. And it was often interpreted to prevent Sinn Féin members from speaking about non-political issues. We didn’t even get to have Stephen Rae’s voice standing in for Gerry Adams.
As a young adult in the mid-nineties, censorship was still an issue: I only ever saw Oliver Stone’s “Natural Born Killers” on a very crap video in a student centre. I remember watching Robert Rodriguez’ “From Dusk Till Dawn” in a cinema in the Netherlands knowing that it was banned back at home and around the same time, I remember it being a big deal when the ban was lifted on Playboy magazine.
It's the same argument with serial killer movies (at the risk of showing my age there was a strong controversy with "Natural Born Killers" at the time): you don't kill people because you chatted on the internet or watched a movie.
You kill people because you had it in you. The things you were exposed before might color your act but that's it.
Wow. While people like to paint Steve Jobs as sort of a one dimensional character ("Pirates of Silicon Valley" is a good example) he's actually fascinating in large part, I think, because he's really an enigma-- clearly brilliant and has accomplished so much, while being such an iconoclast. This is why attempts to portray him one dimensionally (like the book behind this movie, for instance) fail so miserably. People instinctively know he didn't create greatness simply by running around and being an asshole or lying to everyone.
This is the kind of role, that if handled by an actor with serious chops (and lets face it, I think about %50 of that is going to be having a good director) it could be a career making role with an oscar award attached.
While I like Kutcher as a person, respect his support for startups, I also recognize he's more of a social media celebrity, whose got comedic timing, but hasn't yet shown (or maybe had the opportunity to show) significant dramatic chops. Its quite possible he's got them, and he's suffered from being type cast. (Remember how Demi broke the mold by playing GI Jane... but then that also seemed to end her career.)
Sometimes unexpected actors can do great-- Tom Cruise in Born on the Fourth of July was a surprise to me, but I credit Oliver Stone for that one. The other example I can think of is Woody Harrelson in Natural Born Killers.
Harrelson's previous career was on TV as the good guy midwesterner kid, but Oliver Stone said "I saw something evil in his eyes."
I really don't think of Ashton Kutcher as having the necessary chops for this role (and the source material is itself so half assed and shallow that the project is starting from behind already.) This runs a very real risk of being of TV Movie-of-the-week quality.
I hope they get a great director and some serious work on the script, and that Kutcher dedicates himself to the role.
I'd love to see a biopic of Steve Jobs as on the nose as Val Kilmer's portrayal of Jim Morrison in The Doors. (Which is another Oliver Stone movie, but I promise you I'm not obsessed with Oliver Stone, he just handles this kind of material really well.)
Edit-
I missed the part that this isn't based on Isaacson's work. So, whether the source material will be week (like almost everything written about Jobs since he didn't give people a lot of access) or not is open to question.
Also, as dlf notes, Kutcher was in The Guardian where he played a dramatic role, and did a damn fine job. I'd forgotten about that movie... But that convinces me that Kutcher has the potential to do a brilliant Jobs performance. Lets just how the script is good and the director is strong.
Hacker Cinema
11 comments on Hacker News
"Inspired" seems perhaps too strong a word for the connection.
Can you say that, had Natural Born Killers not been made, there would have been no Columbine? I contend that it would have happened anyway. If that movie didn't exist, they would have found another movie to imitate, or even one of the other things they were interested in, such as DOOM or whatever. Correlation not causation.
Sure, you could remove both Natural Born Killers and DOOM and KMFDM and whatever else, but then they would have moved to something else. You can't ban everything just because some sick people might enjoy it.
How many mass shootings have been inspired by the bible or the quran, or The Catcher in the Rye?
The movie Natural Born Killers apparently inspired several mass shootings (most notably, Columbine)
Even if media (social or otherwise) can influence people to commit violence, does that justify censorship?
https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?title_type=feature&release_date=1994-01-01,1994-12-31
Pulp Fiction
Lion King
The Mask
Four Weddings and a Funeral
Dumb and Dumber
The Crow
Speed
True Lies
Interview with the Vampire
Natural Born Killers
Ace Ventura
Stargate
Clerks
The list goes on. Lot's of movies that turned out to be classics or cult classics, or the start of some great careers.
He’s got some great tracks on the movie Natural Born Killers. I’ve always liked “the future”
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your list, even though some of those are mediocre at best, but yeah I did mean per year, and limited to Hollywood (Parasite for instance not counting). And no, ok, I will also straight up disagree with the second Knives out Movie which I thought was absolute trash. A perfect example of poor storytelling and the form over substance of modern cinema.
But just taking say 1992 you have Last of the Mohicans, The Unforgiven, My Cousin Vinny, Malcolm X, Bad Lieutenant, Scent of a Woman, Reservoir Dogs, Dracula, Chaplin.
And then a bunch of fun schlomp like Arizona Dream, Basic Instinct, Sister Act, Army of Darkness, Home Alone 2, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Mighty Ducks, Wayne’s World.
These are all undoubtedly great movies.
And then another huge bunch of watchable stuff easily comparable to some of your mentions like Watcher or High Life.
And 1992 is not an outlier.
In 1993 you have Jurrasic Park, Groundhog Day, Whats Eating Gilbert Grape, Scindlers List, Meanace 2 Society, Alive, Dazed and Confused, Falling Down, In The Name of The Father, True Romance, Demolition Man, Carlitos Way, The Secret Garden, Philadelphia, A Perfect Workd, Cool Runnings, Short Cuts.
In 1991 Silence of The Lambs, Ternimator 2, JFK, Point Break, Thelma and Louise, Boyz in the Hood, The Doors, My Own Private Idaho, Barton Fink, The Fisher King, Naked Lunch.
In 1990 Goodfellas, Hunt for Red October, Total Recall, Edward Scissorhands, Home Alone, Godfather 3, Dances with Wolves, Tremors, Back to the Future 3, Awakenings, The Witches, Wild at Heart, Jacobs Ladder, Nikita, Slacker, Millers Crossing.
And the quality difference is massive too, not just somewhat better. Like just Millers Crossing is miles better than anything that has been made in the last 5 years, and I’m picking at random.
In 1994 Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, The Lion King, Speed, Ace Ventura, Dumb and Dumber, Stargate, Natural Born Killers, The Crow, Clercs, Maverick, Ed Wood, In the Mouth of Madness, Interview With The Vampire.
I could go on.
And this is not even talking about how the 80s is a better decade for cinema, or how the 70s is the peak of the power of the author with far more experimental, artistic, and substantial productions.
Has quality declined? Yes. Massively. Humongously. Stupendously.
As an engineer who uses Go and appreciates it as a replacement for most purposes where you might use C or C++, the complaints just seem bizarre.
You've got people who argue against explicit error checking and people who don't understand the important role of nil pointers and people who don't see the massive net win of garbage collection in concurrent programs, and so on.
Endlessly.
It feels like a waste of time defending the language when the people criticizing it seem to hold such a vastly different point of view. It's like trying to convince people that Natural Born Killers is a good movie or that Primus makes good music. There's an unbridgeable chasm between you and the people you're trying to convince.
Now that you mention Ireland, it occurs to me the UK plays second fiddle compared to its former colony. After achieving independence, the Irish Free State and its successor, the Republic of Ireland were dominated by right-wing, conservative, Papist and authoritarian nationalists.
Modern art and music – particularly “evil” jazz – were all banned. Our best writers had to leave the country. The writers that didn’t leave had to apply to the Department of Justice for permission to possess a copy of their own book. The video nasties of the eighties didn’t even have a chance to become a problem in Ireland.
The UK’s censorship of the Irish Republican movement paled in comparison to that of Ireland. Enforcement of Section 31 of the Broadcasting act began in the early seventies and lasted until the mid-nineties. And it was often interpreted to prevent Sinn Féin members from speaking about non-political issues. We didn’t even get to have Stephen Rae’s voice standing in for Gerry Adams.
As a young adult in the mid-nineties, censorship was still an issue: I only ever saw Oliver Stone’s “Natural Born Killers” on a very crap video in a student centre. I remember watching Robert Rodriguez’ “From Dusk Till Dawn” in a cinema in the Netherlands knowing that it was banned back at home and around the same time, I remember it being a big deal when the ban was lifted on Playboy magazine.
I am dumbfounded by how snuff films went from taboo to infotainment.
~30 years ago, the Rodney King beating and the movie Natural Born Killers were shocking.
Today, it's just another day.
If I'm not mistaken the NZ killer was on 8chan?
It's the same argument with serial killer movies (at the risk of showing my age there was a strong controversy with "Natural Born Killers" at the time): you don't kill people because you chatted on the internet or watched a movie.
You kill people because you had it in you. The things you were exposed before might color your act but that's it.
See the film Natural Born Killers
Wow. While people like to paint Steve Jobs as sort of a one dimensional character ("Pirates of Silicon Valley" is a good example) he's actually fascinating in large part, I think, because he's really an enigma-- clearly brilliant and has accomplished so much, while being such an iconoclast. This is why attempts to portray him one dimensionally (like the book behind this movie, for instance) fail so miserably. People instinctively know he didn't create greatness simply by running around and being an asshole or lying to everyone.
This is the kind of role, that if handled by an actor with serious chops (and lets face it, I think about %50 of that is going to be having a good director) it could be a career making role with an oscar award attached.
While I like Kutcher as a person, respect his support for startups, I also recognize he's more of a social media celebrity, whose got comedic timing, but hasn't yet shown (or maybe had the opportunity to show) significant dramatic chops. Its quite possible he's got them, and he's suffered from being type cast. (Remember how Demi broke the mold by playing GI Jane... but then that also seemed to end her career.)
Sometimes unexpected actors can do great-- Tom Cruise in Born on the Fourth of July was a surprise to me, but I credit Oliver Stone for that one. The other example I can think of is Woody Harrelson in Natural Born Killers.
Harrelson's previous career was on TV as the good guy midwesterner kid, but Oliver Stone said "I saw something evil in his eyes."
I really don't think of Ashton Kutcher as having the necessary chops for this role (and the source material is itself so half assed and shallow that the project is starting from behind already.) This runs a very real risk of being of TV Movie-of-the-week quality.
I hope they get a great director and some serious work on the script, and that Kutcher dedicates himself to the role.
I'd love to see a biopic of Steve Jobs as on the nose as Val Kilmer's portrayal of Jim Morrison in The Doors. (Which is another Oliver Stone movie, but I promise you I'm not obsessed with Oliver Stone, he just handles this kind of material really well.)
Edit- I missed the part that this isn't based on Isaacson's work. So, whether the source material will be week (like almost everything written about Jobs since he didn't give people a lot of access) or not is open to question.
Also, as dlf notes, Kutcher was in The Guardian where he played a dramatic role, and did a damn fine job. I'd forgotten about that movie... But that convinces me that Kutcher has the potential to do a brilliant Jobs performance. Lets just how the script is good and the director is strong.