Gothika

[ShowMe]

Reading the review in this weeks commentary I see a qucik outline of the movie:

As the movie goes on, Berry's character is possessed by a ghost that forces her to kill her husband, and she ends up being a patient in the very ward she used to work in!

A little later it states:

Ultimately, she accepts that there are ghosts, and these ghosts go on to help set her free - and somehow vindicate her in the crime of killing her husband.

If this is an actual representation of the movie there's obviously a whole lot more wrong with it than things going bump in the night.

The ghosts possess her, force her to kill her husband, and later vindicate her?

I'm rather certain that killing your husband is a crime, and that "I was possessed by ghosts!" isn't a defense that will work all that well.

[Suezoled]

I want to see this movie. I like a good horror.... since i don't know if it will be a good horror, I'll wait until it comes out for rental.

[Keneke]

Speaking of good horror, I just saw the best suspense thriller I have seen in a while. It's a Chinese import called "The Eye". It reminded me of The Ring in mood and pacing (probably because they both have roots from the Orient).

A woman receives cornea transplants, and as she begins to see again after decades, she sees visions of deceased people. She decides to track down the eye donor, and finds many secrets there.

Yes, it's similar to Sixth Sense in modus operandi, but with quite a few twists and very entertaining. Watch it subtitled: the alien-like Cantonese voices in 5.1 Surround is as disturbing as the visual effects.

[Quixote]

If this is an actual representation of the movie there's obviously a whole lot more wrong with it than things going bump in the night.

The ghosts possess her, force her to kill her husband, and later vindicate her?

I'm rather certain that killing your husband is a crime, and that "I was possessed by ghosts!" isn't a defense that will work all that well.

I got the impression that ghosts other than the one that possessed her did the vindicating.

On the question of possession as a defense against the charge of murder, I think you may have fallen into the same trap as the writer of the movie. Your conclusion is based on the false assumption that the movie is set in this universe. It clearly is not, or the herione could not have been possessed by or been assisted by ghosts. The movie takes place in a universe in which ghosts exist and possession is possible. Under the circumstances described it seems obvious to me that the herione was "not guilty by reason of possession".

That the writer had made the same false assumption can be seen from his having Ms. Barry's character state, after she had been introduced to the ghosts, that logic was overrated. Her belief in ghosts in response to sufficient evidence of their existence was perfectly logical. The writer made the common mistake of assuming that he can make a major change in the way the universe works and still have characters think and react as if nothing had changed.

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, the movie sucked. The moral "logic is overrated" just about sums up the reason why.

I wonder how the believers would react if there was a movie made with the message "faith is overrated"? I mean, there could be a guy that was told to believe in himself and he'd be bulletproof. Then they show that he really did believe in himself, and still died from the gunshots. Now that would rock!

[Markus702]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but a friend just told me it was great. I don't believe in the paranormal, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a movie plot which is based on paranormal activity. Movies, horror movies in particular, shouldn't have to be governed by the laws of possibility. If they were, we wouldn't have had Jason rising from the grave countless times, and Freddy killing through people's dreams. Granted some would be thankful if that were the case, but as a die hard horror fan, I like suspending belief for a couple hours now and then to be frightened.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

I'm also a skeptic who is a fan of TV shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Being skeptical of claims presented as real is fine, but bringing that skepticism into an admittedly fictional story is just plain silly.

We get to have imaginations, too you know. We just know the difference between ficiton and reality.;)

[BillyJoe]

Markus.....

Originally posted by Markus702
I don't believe in the paranormal, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a movie plot which is based on paranormal activity. Movies, horror movies in particular, shouldn't have to be governed by the laws of possibility.....as a die hard horror fan, I like suspending belief for a couple hours now and then to be frightened. And HandBentSpoon.....

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
I'm also a skeptic who is a fan of TV shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Being skeptical of claims presented as real is fine, but bringing that skepticism into an admittedly fictional story is just plain silly. Just to ask you to read the Commentary again to see that the concern with the movie was that there was a moral being unashamedly promoted....

"logic is overrated" and "go with your heart".

Do you not have a problem with that?
You might not have a problem with a movie that depicted violence but would you not have a problem with a movie that actually promoted violence?

BillyJoe

[Blondin]

Thank you very much for spoiling the ending for me, you guys.

I was hoping it would turn out that the ghost was really old man Whithers, the night watchman.

[Chad Noles]

BillyJoe wrote:Just to ask you to read the Commentary again to see that the concern with the movie was that there was a moral being unashamedly promoted.... "logic is overrated" and "go with your heart".

Do you not have a problem with that?

No,not really.It's a movie!Is the question should we decide what young people can or can't watch?Are they not smart enough to make up their own minds?Should skeptics decide who should be able to watch current forms of entertainment?Come on,give people some credit even if they see a movie that tells them to "think with their hearts".It doesn't mean they will suddenly abandon all logic just because Hollywood says so.Ten minutes of commercial TV will snap their critical minds back into gear,with the likes of fast food,fast cars,and MTV telling them they can have it all.

[thaiboxerken]

No,not really.It's a movie!Is the question should we decide what young people can or can't watch?

Yes.

Are they not smart enough to make up their own minds?

No.

Should skeptics decide who should be able to watch current forms of entertainment?

Yes.

Come on,give people some credit even if they see a movie that tells them to "think with their hearts".It doesn't mean they will suddenly abandon all logic just because Hollywood says so.

The majority of the population are influenced by pop culture.

Ten minutes of commercial TV will snap their critical minds back into gear,with the likes of fast food,fast cars,and MTV telling them they can have it all.

Those commercials are still on the air because they work.

[Chad Noles]

Yes.
Wrong

No.
Wrong

Yes.
Wrong

The majority of the population are influenced by pop culture.
????The majority of the population are slashers,mass murders,super heroes,ningas,etc.?

Those commercials are still on the air because they work.
The constant exposure to commercials does indeed have a influence as to what someone may be inclined to purchase.This is far different than abandoning everyday common sense in order to acquire a burger and fries

[thaiboxerken]

Wrong
Wrong
Wrong


I don't agree with you.

The majority of the population are influenced by pop culture.
????The majority of the population are slashers,mass murders,super heroes,ningas,etc.?

I didn't claim that the majority of the population are slachers, mass murderers, heroes or ninjas. I said that the majority of the population is INFLUENCED by pop culture media. Your appeal to extremes doesn't help the discussion at all.

The constant exposure to commercials does indeed have a influence as to what someone may be inclined to purchase.This is far different than abandoning everyday common sense in order to acquire a burger and fries

Common sense is not so common. Many people already believe that thinking with the brain too much is harmful. Many people already believe the message "listen to your heart". That message is constantly being reinforced by pop culture in addition to churches.

I'm not saying that skeptics should actually control the media, but voices of criticism should not be censored on the basis of "it's just fiction". You complain about the complaints, but fail to see the value of them. They are there to get people to think about the "message" of pop culture and maybe take a critical look at it. Without the criticism, the messages are often accepted without thought.

[BillyJoe]

Chad Noles,

No,not really.It's a movie!

Or propaganda dressed up as a movie?

Is the question should we decide what young people can or can't watch?

No, but we can educate them about what they are watching

Are they not smart enough to make up their own minds?

Hopefully they are smart enough to see through the movie to the propaganda. If not, it doesn't hurt to point it out to them and THEN let them make up their own minds about it.

Should skeptics decide who should be able to watch current forms of entertainment?

This is not about censorship but about showing up a propaganda movie for what it is.

Come on,give people some credit even if they see a movie that tells them to "think with their hearts".It doesn't mean they will suddenly abandon all logic just because Hollywood says so.

You are painting with a pretty broard brush here. I am certain that there are significant numbers of people who will definitely be swayed by the moral of a movie they enjoyed

Ten minutes of commercial TV will snap their critical minds back into gear,with the likes of fast food,fast cars,and MTV telling them they can have it all.

Hey, you just stole my argument. :mad:

BillyJoe

[Chad Noles]

Aw come on guys,you think that there are a number of people who watch a movie about "Thinking with their hearts"and never question it?Then,please give me their names,I'll write to them.See,evidence for such statements needs to be provided,less we accept your statements just because my heart tells me to!:D We grow up in a society(in America) where people are constantly bombarded with commercial claims every 6-7 mins(or more).People get it,a lot more than I think you guys think they do.I don't think they need the "skeptic police" to save them from a movie.Do I personally think there is too much "think with your heart,not you brain stuff in movies",yes,but not enough that I need to wave a flag telling others how dumb they are for watching a movie they may or may not believe.Again,I think people are smarter than they seem to be given credit for here.Pop culture fades like MJ's face,people get it.

[thaiboxerken]

Aw come on guys,you think that there are a number of people who watch a movie about "Thinking with their hearts"and never question it?

Yes.

Then,please give me their names,I'll write to them.See,evidence for such statements needs to be provided,less we accept your statements just because my heart tells me to!

The majority of people in the world are religious, that's evidence. Also, if you want to see people that are void of critical thinking, visit PalTalk in the "meet new friends" category, there are always "spiritual" and "psychic" rooms full of them. The evidence is there, you just give people more credit than they deserve. You are optimistic about humans, not realistic.

We grow up in a society(in America) where people are constantly bombarded with commercial claims every 6-7 mins(or more).People get it,a lot more than I think you guys think they do.

How many people buy into the myth "we only use 5% of our brain"? It's the minority of people that understand that it's a myth. People fall for commercial claims all of the time, if the commercials didn't work, the company's wouldn't be spending money on them.

I don't think they need the "skeptic police" to save them from a movie.

I do. You fail to realize that a person can be smart.. but people are stupid.

Do I personally think there is too much "think with your heart,not you brain stuff in movies",yes,but not enough that I need to wave a flag telling others how dumb they are for watching a movie they may or may not believe.

I don't think anyone claimed that people who enjoyed the movie are dumb.

Again,I think people are smarter than they seem to be given credit for here.Pop culture fades like MJ's face,people get it.

I think you fail to understand the power of the media. Maybe if you quit believing the nonsense you see on TV, you might.

;)

[Chad Noles]

Where is your list of the names of the people you claim watched "Gothika" without question?I don't see it in your reply.
The majority of people in the world are religious, that's evidence. Also, if you want to see people that are void of critical thinking, visit PalTalk in the "meet new friends" category, there are always "spiritual" and "psychic" rooms full of them. The evidence is there, you just give people more credit than they deserve. You are optimistic about humans, not realistic.

This thread concerns the movie "Gothika" and your statements about it.We did not discuss religion or Paltalk here.That is a different subject.

How many people buy into the myth "we only use 5% of our brain"? It's the minority of people that understand that it's a myth.

Please show your data for this statement.I don't think it is proper to accept undocumented statements like this merely on your word.

I think you fail to understand the power of the media. Maybe if you quit believing the nonsense you see on TV, you might.

Please do not assume what I believe or don't believe on TV.Do you have any accurate data on my viewing habits?It seems as if your statement is another assumption that you feel we must accept from you.It has no merit.

"Gothika" is a horror movie.A movie about ghosts,possession,murder,etc. that I don't think most people are taking seriously.They buy a ticket for entertainment,not lessions in critical thinking.Making more of this movie than that ,IMHO,is a mistake.

[thaiboxerken]

Where is your list of the names of the people you claim watched "Gothika" without question?I don't see it in your reply.

You didn't ask for that, you asked for people that would watch a movie without question. Now you are moving goal posts. Why? I know people realize that Gothika is fiction. Whether or not they take to "heart" the message of the movie is something else though.

This thread concerns the movie "Gothika" and your statements about it.We did not discuss religion or Paltalk here.That is a different subject.

No, we moved on from Gothika a while ago when we started talking about pop culture. The article isn't really specifically about Gothika anyway, but of pop culture and movies like Gothika. Gothika is just a specific example of the pop culture that perpetuates the message of "listen to your heart" and "have faith" and "don't listen to your brain".

Please show your data for this statement.I don't think it is proper to accept undocumented statements like this merely on your word.

STFU, you know as well as I do that most people believe in the 5% myth. I don't think there are polls to reflect it, but just go around and ask people. The 5% myth is often used by psychics and other creduloids as "evidence" for their claims. It's because "everyone knows" it, even though it's a myth. I'm not going to search for "evidence" for something that you already know to be true.

Please do not assume what I believe or don't believe on TV.

It was a light poking, but hey.. I guess it wasn't that funny to you.

"Gothika" is a horror movie.A movie about ghosts,possession,murder,etc. that I don't think most people are taking seriously.They buy a ticket for entertainment,not lessions in critical thinking.Making more of this movie than that ,IMHO,is a mistake.

That's your opinion. You've stated it several times. I don't agree. I think that the article/comments about the movie are entertainment and opinion as well. Making a big deal about it is silly as well.

[Chad Noles]

Well it's appearant that you've run out of things to say,so you resort to your typical responses(personal attack,changing the subject,etc.)I hope one day you will back up your statements with data.Perhaps this forum could use more critical thinking,instead of the local movie theater.

[thaiboxerken]

You're making a huge deal out of presenting a skeptical viewpoint about the message of that movie. You've accused skeptics of wanting to censor movies and control thought out of all of this. In short, you are trying to censor any skeptical thoughts aren't you?

You have too much faith in people. I don't share your delusion. People are stupid, they believe stupid things and pop culture is a medium of spreading stupid beliefs.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You're making a huge deal out of presenting a skeptical viewpoint about the message of that movie. You've accused skeptics of wanting to censor movies and control thought out of all of this. In short, you are trying to censor any skeptical thoughts aren't you?


Yeah, maybe when someone said:

"Should skeptics decide who should be able to watch current forms of entertainment?"

and you then answered

"Yes."

that gave him some idea that skeptics want to control things?


People are stupid, they believe stupid things ...


Pray tell... do you include yourself in that group?

[BillyJoe]

Chad,

Surely there is no problem pointing out to people that a particular movie is a propaganda vehicle for a particular philosophical point of view. The point of doing this would be to bring it to the attention of those who have not seen it for themselves (and I think there would be many) so that they don't blindly go along with the philosophy but instead would be given the opportunity (otherwise missed) to actually make a decision about whether they accept the particular philosophical wheelbarrow being pushed.

BillyJoe

[Chad Noles]

You've accused skeptics of wanting to censor movies and control thought out of all of this. In short, you are trying to censor any skeptical thoughts aren't you?

First,I certainly haven't accused skeptics of wanting to censor movies.That is a misrepresentation.I asked if they should be the ones to decide what should be censored.You were the one who replied yes to that question.

Now you leap to the conclusion that I want to censor any skeptical thought.Are you always that reactionary to someone who disagrees with your opinion?The answer,just so you won't continue to misunderstand,is no.I don't want to censor any skeptical thoughts.I am in favor of a well-balanced,critically thought out, skeptical point of view.That does not include attemping to victumize my point of view so I can attack others who may differ.

The point of doing this would be to bring it to the attention of those who have not seen it for themselves (and I think there would be many) so that they don't blindly go along with the philosophy but instead would be given the opportunity (otherwise missed) to actually make a decision about whether they accept the particular philosophical wheelbarrow being pushed.

The question here is,why assume that people would blindly go along with this philosophy?You seem to imply that only declared skeptics have the ability to decern with is foolish to believe or not.Frankly,I don't believe that a horror movie is going to change the minds of movie goers.IMHO,the arguement is an over-reaction to a rather benign problem.In two months,this movie will be in the discount bin as the movie going populace moves on to other entertainment.

[mesherri]

I know that I'm just leaping into this fray out of nowhere, but...well, here it goes!

I think that the point that needs to be made about "Gothika" in particular is that -- in the universe of the movie -- she would not have survived had she not learned to 'think with her heart'. This is not to say that this is a slick and cool decision generally, but the fact remains (if you can call fiction fact, yeah, I know) that if she hadn't taken to believing in the ghosts in the film, she would have been permanently committed or sentenced to death, who knows.

But my main point is that within the context of the movie's unique universe, it was imperative that she change her thinking. And it took her a while to do it -- she was forever talking about how she didn't believe in such things, until finally the force of evidence around her forced her to.

This is another important issue -- in the context of the film, she was forced to believe in the ghosts based on the weight of the evidence.

This is what we all (I think) are supposed to be doing as skeptics -- testing and thinking things out and weighing the evidence and making decisions therefrom. If we'd been her -- again, IN THAT UNIVERSE -- we might have done the same thing.

That's all -- thanks for listening!

[thaiboxerken]

Yeah, maybe when someone said:

"Should skeptics decide who should be able to watch current forms of entertainment?"

and you then answered

"Yes."

that gave him some idea that skeptics want to control things?

LOL. I am not the skeptic's spokesperson and I was also using humor. It was a ridiculous answer for a ridiculous question, that's all. I don't support censorship.

[thaiboxerken]

The answer,just so you won't continue to misunderstand,is no.I don't want to censor any skeptical thoughts.I am in favor of a well-balanced,critically thought out, skeptical point of view.That does not include attemping to victumize my point of view so I can attack others who may differ.

So you can accuse skeptics of wanting to censor and it's ok? You are dishonest. You were the one throwing the accusations of censorship around, and the gist of your position is for skeptics to shutup because you don't agree with the position.

The question here is,why assume that people would blindly go along with this philosophy?

Because people do blindly go along with such messages.

You seem to imply that only declared skeptics have the ability to decern with is foolish to believe or not.

I don't imply that at all. I am saying that the general public is made up of gullible people.

Frankly,I don't believe that a horror movie is going to change the minds of movie goers.IMHO,the arguement is an over-reaction to a rather benign problem.In two months,this movie will be in the discount bin as the movie going populace moves on to other entertainment.

You are probably correct about the fate of the movie, however, the message will still be heard my anyone who watches and followed by SOME people. The problem may be "benign", but I doubt it. The public is battered by a barrage of these type of messages all of the time, the skeptics are just trying to point out the flaws in those messages.

[Chad Noles]

So you can accuse skeptics of wanting to censor and it's ok? You are dishonest. You were the one throwing the accusations of censorship around, and the gist of your position is for skeptics to shutup because you don't agree with the position.

It is appearant that you are now fabricating my position to meet your own needs.What I have stated is in print for all to see.We now see where any dishonesty lies.No use in beating a dead horse.Critical thinking exist for all who choose to engage in it's benefits.

[BillyJoe]

I think I'd better quit because my posts are being confused with thaiboxerken's even by thaiboxerken.