Gratuitous Violence Quotes

The scene that has raised the most objections in 'The Interview' is at the very end, when Kim's head dissolves into flames. To me, it feels gratuitous.

And if I'm guilty of having gratuitous sex, then I'm also guilty of having gratuitous violence, and gratuitous feasting, and gratuitous description of clothes, and gratuitous heraldry, because very little of this is necessary to advance the plot. But my philosophy is that plot advancement is not what the experience of reading fiction is about. If all we care about is advancing the plot, why read novels? We can just read Cliffs Notes.

There was a series called 'Game of Thrones' which was very popular here in the United States, a post-Tolkien kind of thing. It was garbage, yet very addictive garbage - because there's lots of violence, all the women take their clothes off all the time, and it's kind of fun.

Too many writers get into that gross-'em-out factor.

I don't know - personally, I don't watch many films where the violence itself is the main entertainment, because I find them boring.

I don't want to just traffic in sensationalism or in mere blood.

A little bit of gratuitous violence in a well-thought-out story is fine.

If you look at 1983, the film of the year was 'Terms of Endearment.' 'Scarface' was lumped in under the gratuitously violent banner. I mean, we knew it was violent, that it depicted a violent time and place. But it wasn't the end-all of the thing.

Fast cutting, loud music, blood spewing everywhere, and gunshots permeating the scenes does not necessarily make for a shocking movie.

Nowadays, everything is so gratuitous. The violence is suggested, and it's much more impactful than showing everything.

I don't flinch from darkness, but I've always been bothered by what I call gore-nography.

Just because I'm showing somebody being disemboweled doesn't mean that I have to get heavy and put a message behind it.

I'm very critical of crime novels that use gratuitous violence to shock readers when it isn't necessary. If that's all you have to offer as a writer, perhaps you're in the wrong job.

We are providing a platform to creators who are expressing their emotions; they are expressing what they are feeling - fears, joys, terror. That's what art is about, and we don't want to censor it, but neither would we permit violence which feels gratuitous or glorified to be on our platform.

The real resistance now is to an art which forces its audience to recognize and accept imaginatively, in their nerve ends, not the facts of life but the facts of death and violence: absurd, random, gratuitous, unjustified, and inescapably part of the society we have created.

Extraneous violence is totally wrong. 'Robocop' was violence for violence's sake - you don't shoot somebody's arm off.

I don't like gratuitous violence. I don't like the 'Saw' movies. I don't like the 'Hostel' movies. I don't like anything that is violence for violence's sake.

Most screen violence is tedious.

If a brutal scene is shown for no reason except to shock, then it is bad.

Gratuitous cruelty borders on the pathological, psychotic and that becomes uninteresting because there is no choice.

My moral compass swings far to the left, but when it comes to gratuitous violence, I have trouble.