I get what you're saying. And I certainly wouldn't make crazy assertions that people who see The Twilight Zone support actors getting decapitated by helicopters. I'm trying to be very plain about the choices people make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oro13
... But the argument that you’re financially supporting them which, by extension, means you advocate that type of behavior, is moot. They made their money already, and regardless of whether it’s a low budget cannibalsploitation movie or an award winning film that’s considered a classic, the damage is done and they got away with it. ...
|
If I understand you correctly, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one point. Producers and financiers are watching profits. They can see how often Cannibal Holocaust (CH) is purchased and rented... it's available at Amazon.com. No, you can't fund the film via time machine to 1980, rather, of course I'm talking about future films. More specifically, if they see there's audience dollars for scripted animal killing (for food or whatever, like in CH), it will increase the likelihood that more films like that get produced.
As far as a know, there isn't anything illegal (today) in Cannibal Holocaust, except possibly the shot pig (not sure). So yes, your current dollars will influence future films. I don't really think that's debatable. I agree it's difficult to isolate animal killing when CH is about more than that, but it's easy to make the case it was significant. Not purchasing it for that reason has a real-life effect on future films. I think you can argue the level of influence, but not that there isn't any.