Episode #71 "Death And The Lady"

[ViceFanMan]

1 hour ago, pahonu said:

That’s quite a broad definition.   It would seem to even include someone simply recording an ordinary event that ends in the accidental death or even intentional killing of someone.  There have been news recordings that captured the killing of individuals such as the infamous execution of the Viet Cong guerrilla during the Tet Offensive in 1968.  A South Vietnamese General executed him in the street as a photographer shot the image and and an NBC TV camera rolled.

There’s also the tragedy of the Florida TV reporter Christine Chubbuck who became the first person to commit suicide on the air in the 70’s.  Is the news station guilty of making a snuff film in either of the cases?  They were certainly filming for profit as a news outlet when the event occurred.  I don’t think they are, but your definition would indicate such.

Collections of existing footage such as the Faces of Death series weren’t considered snuff films when released and the producers who compiled the footage weren’t prosecuted.  These simply aren’t snuff films as the term was understood at the time.

My understanding of the definition for several decades is that it is a film made deliberately to depict the actual killing of a performer with the intent of making a profit based on the viewers knowledge of the death.  Such claims were made in the past repeatedly in the porn industry and the genre of Mondo films.

I don’t think your broader definition really fits with the meaning as it was used in the past and particularly when this MV episode was filmed.  Today, new technology certainly allows the recording of almost anything at anytime by just a single individual.  That wasn’t easily done in the past and though it is routine today, such recordings don’t fit the definition of a snuff film for me.

Broad or not, that’s pretty much what a “snuff” film is. News recordings or videos of deaths, or people who on their own sadly chose to commit suicide on TV, don’t actually fall into the category of snuff...as they were showing what is going on in other countries/governments, or disturbed individuals who chose to die.

A snuff film is recording or videoing the torture & murder of someone who is not suspecting that they’ll actually die...or is unwillingly being used as the victim for the film. Usually it’s sold for profit of some kind, but not always. 

In the MV episode, they used the scenario of rich & high-society people getting-off by paying for a ‘supposed’ fake snuff film...knowing in reality it actually was a real snuff film. Although “Death and the Lady” is not based on a real life incident, I have no doubt situations somewhat like what it portrayed have happened. 

But, by no means are snuff films only part of the rich or powerful crowd...they sadly can be (and probably are more likely to be) part of a drug-infested/poorer society crowd, as well. The main point is, regardless of what the government tries to claim, snuff films (as rare as they might be) have been made. The article I posted about is only one case.

Edited April 6, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[pahonu]

22 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

Broad or not, that’s pretty much what a “snuff” film is. News recordings or videos of deaths, or people who on their own sadly chose to commit suicide on TV, don’t actually fall into the category of snuff...as they were showing what is going on in other countries/governments, or disturbed individuals who chose to die.

A snuff film is recording or videoing the torture & murder of someone who is not suspecting that they’ll actually die...or is unwillingly being used as the victim for the film. Usually it’s sold for profit of some kind, but not always. 

In the MV episode, they used the scenario of rich & high-society people getting-off by paying for a ‘supposed’ fake snuff film...knowing in reality it actually was a real snuff film. Although “Death and the Lady” is not based on a real life incident, I have no doubt situations somewhat like what it portrayed have happened. 

But, by no means are snuff films only part of the rich or powerful crowd...they sadly can be (and probably are more likely to be) part of a drug-infested/poorer society crowd, as well. The main point is, regardless of what the government tries to claim, snuff films (as rare as they might be) have been made. The article I posted about is only one case.

From the Oxford English Dictionary Online:

snuff film

noun

INFORMAL

plural noun: snuff films

1. a pornographic movie of an actual murder.

    

 

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by pahonu

[ViceFanMan]

2 minutes ago, pahonu said:

From the Oxford English Dictionary Online:

snuff film

noun

INFORMAL

plural noun: snuff films

1. a pornographic movie of an actual murder.

    

 

 

 

 

That’s pretty much what I’ve been saying ...although I don’t know if it literally has to always include pornographic or sexual situations. But, that’s also what sadly was included in the videos in the article I posted about. 

[pahonu]

1 hour ago, ViceFanMan said:

That’s pretty much what I’ve been saying ...although I don’t know if it literally has to always include pornographic or sexual situations. But, that’s also what sadly was included in the videos in the article I posted about. 

“A snuff film is basically a film made by someone that shows the actual death or murder of someone on film, then usually secretly sold to someone or select group of people for profit. Or, it could be a sicko making one for himself. But a snuff film (“snuffing” a life out) is a real life murder on film.”

When I commented that your definition was broad, I was referring to the post you made that I quoted above.  A death and a murder are not the same and a film production and someone’s personal recording are not the same either.

My understanding from the past and from this MV episode is that snuff films are generally associated with porn productions and perhaps a few other examples.  This doesn’t include an individual  recording there personal sexual encounters and any subsequent violence, or a disturbed person recording some kind of torture and killing.  It is referencing an actual film production with actors, writers, crew, and a director.  That is the key, I think, to our disagreement.

The secretive sale of such footage is also not what I understood it to be.  As I wrote in an earlier post, very often it was an actual producer of a film that intentionally insinuated a production was a snuff film to increase awareness and profit, not to keep it a secret.

I don’t mean to be argumentative, but I think the term has a much narrower definition than you have stated.  When I argued that accusations of the existence of such films have not been successfully prosecuted, it’s because they haven’t.  There are plenty of accusations and a handful of actual court cases, but no definitive proof.  

I have no idea what kind of deeply troubling recordings people might have in their phones or other digital files.  In fact I agree that there is almost certainly some very depraved stuff out there, but such footage isn’t a snuff film as it’s been defined for many decades.  

 
 

[ViceFanMan]

49 minutes ago, pahonu said:

“A snuff film is basically a film made by someone that shows the actual death or murder of someone on film, then usually secretly sold to someone or select group of people for profit. Or, it could be a sicko making one for himself. But a snuff film (“snuffing” a life out) is a real life murder on film.”

When I commented that your definition was broad, I was referring to the post you made that I quoted above.  A death and a murder are not the same and a film production and someone’s personal recording are not the same either.

My understanding from the past and from this MV episode is that snuff films are generally associated with porn productions and perhaps a few other examples.  This doesn’t include an individual  recording there personal sexual encounters and any subsequent violence, or a disturbed person recording some kind of torture and killing.  It is referencing an actual film production with actors, writers, crew, and a director.  That is the key, I think, to our disagreement.

The secretive sale of such footage is also not what I understood it to be.  As I wrote in an earlier post, very often it was an actual producer of a film that intentionally insinuated a production was a snuff film to increase awareness and profit, not to keep it a secret.

I don’t mean to be argumentative, but I think the term has a much narrower definition than you have stated.  When I argued that accusations of the existence of such films have not been successfully prosecuted, it’s because they haven’t.  There are plenty of accusations and a handful of actual court cases, but no definitive proof.  

I have no idea what kind of deeply troubling recordings people might have in their phones or other digital files.  In fact I agree that there is almost certainly some very depraved stuff out there, but such footage isn’t a snuff film as it’s been defined for many decades.  

 
 

When I said “death or murder”...I meant they caused the death. Although perhaps  including both the words death & murder in the same sentence wasn’t exactly proper English, I think the meaning was more than clear.  

Real or fake/simulated snuff films are not necessarily made by some rich/big porn production crew or movie producer (although that’s one stereotype associated with them—and such as was portrayed on the MV episode). Snuff films can be made by anyone sick enough to get-off on that kind of thing...lots of times for profit of some kind. But, just because it’s not made by some ‘Milton Glantz’ type of producer does not mean it’s automatically disqualified from being snuff.

The films can many times be associated with porn and/or sexually perverted situations, but that’s not necessarily definite or set in stone, so-to-speak. The snuff is more in reference to the murder of the victim (“snuffing” out their life), than a sexual act.

Again, just because the FBI or whatever agency tries to claim they don’t exist is also not reliable. There can be & are many reasons successful prosecutions haven’t been carried out much before...until now. But just because a successful prosecution hasn’t been followed through until more recently, does not mean that snuff films haven’t existed until now. Robbie C had some very valid points regarding that earlier.

But, videoing sexually abusive & perverted, torturous acts on someone, while slowly actually killing them...then selling those recordings/videos for profit is definitely snuff—regardless if ‘Glantz’, or the bum Glantz used from his alley, made them! Again, the article I posted about, regarding that, proves that snuff films/movies exist. I think real ones probably are very rare...but they do exist. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[pahonu]

8 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

When I said “death or murder”...I meant they caused the death. Although perhaps  including both the words death & murder in the same sentence wasn’t exactly proper English, I think the meaning was more than clear.  

Real or fake/simulated snuff films are not necessarily made by some rich/big porn production crew or movie producer (although that’s one stereotype associated with them—and such as was portrayed on the MV episode). Snuff films can be made by anyone sick enough to get-off on that kind of thing...lots of times for profit of some kind. But, just because it’s not made by some ‘Milton Glantz’ type of producer does not mean it’s automatically disqualified from being snuff.

The films can many times be associated with porn and/or sexually perverted situations, but that’s not necessarily definite or set in stone, so-to-speak. The snuff is more in reference to the murder of the victim (“snuffing” out their life), than a sexual act.

Again, just because the FBI or whatever agency tries to claim they don’t exist is also not reliable. There can be & are many reasons successful prosecutions haven’t been carried out much before...until now. But just because a successful prosecution hasn’t been followed through until more recently, does not mean that snuff films haven’t existed until now. Robbie C had some very valid points regarding that earlier.

But, videoing sexually abusive & perverted, torturous acts on someone, while slowly actually killing them...then selling those recordings/videos for profit is definitely snuff—regardless if ‘Glantz’, or the bum Glantz used from his alley, made them! Again, the article I posted about, regarding that, proves that snuff films/movies exist. I think real ones probably are very rare...but they do exist. 

Perhaps the definition of snuff film has changed today, but it originated in the wake of the Manson murders and took hold in the 70’s.  There was even a terrible imported film named “Snuff” that tried to capitalize on the growing fears of the public continuing into the 80’s.  The way MV depicted it was the prevailing meaning of its era and the way I remember it.  MV also wasn’t the only TV show to include the topic.  There’s a Magnum pi episode from around the same time that comments on it, and the term is used in the same way.

 

Edit:

Here’s a good Snopes analysis of the topic and it was updated less than a year ago.  It’s a little long but very thorough, and as the website always does, it includes plenty of documented references.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/a-pinch-of-snuff/

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by pahonu

[Augusta]

Cool and intriguing debate.  

Oxford and a few other really renowned dictionaries have it "wrong" (hard word to use on a term that is built from cultural slang, not really from latin origins).  I thought "Snuff Film" was a term created only in the perversion culture, and is supposed to be specifically a recorded video of an actual live human being being expressively murdered.  Expressively murdered meaning it can't be simply a gunshot victim captured on footage, or a girl who's pushed off a ledge by accident and the recording stops right afterward, or a political victim gets beheaded as part of a killer's angry campaign.  Expressively means the cameraman and the perpetrator are taking the time and the resources to embelish the event for the pleasure of the viewer.  That means maybe spend as much as 20 minutes of "foreplay" leading up to the death, or maybe stretching out the victim's nievety about what's going to happen to him/her, or maybe accentuating the victim's feedback to what's about to happen or AS it's happening.... the options can go on and on as extensively as film-storytelling methods themselves.  Let's face it, THAT's one of the primary drivers of the perps who make such a film---they want to accentuate and tailor the visual impact of the event to attract maximize pleasure for the person who's going to view it.  

I think it's only the "pleasure of the viewer" that causes MOST of the snuff films to be done with sexual motifs (kill em while having sex, get them in sexy nighties, do it at the end of an orgie).  Let's face it, SO much of people's private perversions are linked to sexual reaction (I've heard even arsons watch a building burn and get, uuuh yucky climax from it). So the business of selling snuff films naturally cues in on that, and tailors most snuff films in that direction.  But like your debate painted out, soldiers in history have made and collected quickie snuff films too---the sex side of it doesn't need to appear IN the film, for it to be a snuff film.  It's just the "made for private viewer pleasure" aspect of it that I think is constant in every snuff picture.  I suspect that culture of humans rate and covet a Snuff as having the highest quality, when it delivers the highest ramp-up of arousal or excitement, whether it be done in a slow 20 minute increase, or a sudden 20 second shock.  Hence, a Snuff that takes your excitement pleasure from 3 degrees up to 80 degrees, is considered way better than the other film that take the viewer's pleasure from 30 degrees to 68.  Which takes us back to the pornographic an sexual tilt that TENDs to be in alot of these films, but doesn't HAVE to be to qualify it as snuff.  Nothing builds the excitement of a product like sexual theater or cleverly stretched-out foreplay.    

Do such films exist?  You bet they do.  They MUST.  The ones for private civilian perversion too, not just the Snuff films made in several warfronts.  They MUST exist, because like I said, we humans connect SO MANY oddball things to internal perverted or sexual pleasure.  And the hunger for that always invites sharing it, and making business from it. 

Business is business, so even if you "fake" the incident (so that it's not really a murder), you SELL it as a Snuff film, even though by definition it's NOT a Snuff film---it's a fraud.  Soldiers in a campaign can still be prosecuted/punished for their conduct regardless of if they "were just fooling around making a phony execution flick for kicks" (and thank Heaven they CAN be punished).  
But prosecuting a civilian perp for this act is understandably rough.  We want to prosecute them of a murder, right?   Even if they establish that it wasn't a murder they committed (maybe the victim was murdered somewhere else later by unknown), aren't they still guilty of abduction, or imprisonment of a victim, or menacing a victim or similar violation of personal rights?
And don't Snuff films sell to Jabba-the-Hutt wealthy circles worldwide, on the premise that "it's a true, visceral, erotic slaying of a human--and only YOU and we have witnessed it--this is the wealthy girl that Interpol is searching for and still haven't found yet---Yuuummmy, you know you must buy this special one".  
So if the perp who made the film is forced to claim that it was a fake/staged act, won't that get him hunted down by billionaires who'll pay John Wick to locate and "punish" him the way the perp should be punished?

Simply concluded on the issue of prosecuting someone who did it, I think the reason it's so difficult to jail someone for "doing it" is that the film all alone by itself isn't evidence that the person is dead and was murdered in that incident.  The filmstrip isn't a doctor, can't verify a person was alive and is now dead all at that same event, so lawyers can always say "you can't prove this person was killed at the time this movie is supposedly recording---ergo it's not a revelation of a murder--ergo please buy my client a steak dinner and a limousine ride home".

....Lord, what horrifying layers of existence we human beings cam make for ourselves, beneath what only has to be open, malice-free life.  
This is too twisted up for me.  That's why this episode was too much like Dick Wolf's SVU episodes to me.  I just what to relax and pet Elvis.  

[ViceFanMan]

On 4/7/2022 at 8:15 AM, pahonu said:

Perhaps the definition of snuff film has changed today, but it originated in the wake of the Manson murders and took hold in the 70’s.  There was even a terrible imported film named “Snuff” that tried to capitalize on the growing fears of the public continuing into the 80’s.  The way MV depicted it was the prevailing meaning of its era and the way I remember it.  MV also wasn’t the only TV show to include the topic.  There’s a Magnum pi episode from around the same time that comments on it, and the term is used in the same way.

 

Edit:

Here’s a good Snopes analysis of the topic and it was updated less than a year ago.  It’s a little long but very thorough, and as the website always does, it includes plenty of documented references.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/a-pinch-of-snuff/

 

 

On 4/7/2022 at 8:18 AM, Augusta said:

Cool and intriguing debate.  

Oxford and a few other really renowned dictionaries have it "wrong" (hard word to use on a term that is built from cultural slang, not really from latin origins).  I thought "Snuff Film" was a term created only in the perversion culture, and is supposed to be specifically a recorded video of an actual live human being being expressively murdered.  Expressively murdered meaning it can't be simply a gunshot victim captured on footage, or a girl who's pushed off a ledge by accident and the recording stops right afterward, or a political victim gets beheaded as part of a killer's angry campaign.  Expressively means the cameraman and the perpetrator are taking the time and the resources to embelish the event for the pleasure of the viewer.  That means maybe spend as much as 20 minutes of "foreplay" leading up to the death, or maybe stretching out the victim's nievety about what's going to happen to him/her, or maybe accentuating the victim's feedback to what's about to happen or AS it's happening.... the options can go on and on as extensively as film-storytelling methods themselves.  Let's face it, THAT's one of the primary drivers of the perps who make such a film---they want to accentuate and tailor the visual impact of the event to attract maximize pleasure for the person who's going to view it.  

I think it's only the "pleasure of the viewer" that causes MOST of the snuff films to be done with sexual motifs (kill em while having sex, get them in sexy nighties, do it at the end of an orgie).  Let's face it, SO much of people's private perversions are linked to sexual reaction (I've heard even arsons watch a building burn and get, uuuh yucky climax from it). So the business of selling snuff films naturally cues in on that, and tailors most snuff films in that direction.  But like your debate painted out, soldiers in history have made and collected quickie snuff films too---the sex side of it doesn't need to appear IN the film, for it to be a snuff film.  It's just the "made for private viewer pleasure" aspect of it that I think is constant in every snuff picture.  I suspect that culture of humans rate and covet a Snuff as having the highest quality, when it delivers the highest ramp-up of arousal or excitement, whether it be done in a slow 20 minute increase, or a sudden 20 second shock.  Hence, a Snuff that takes your excitement pleasure from 3 degrees up to 80 degrees, is considered way better than the other film that take the viewer's pleasure from 30 degrees to 68.  Which takes us back to the pornographic an sexual tilt that TENDs to be in alot of these films, but doesn't HAVE to be to qualify it as snuff.  Nothing builds the excitement of a product like sexual theater or cleverly stretched-out foreplay.    

Do such films exist?  You bet they do.  They MUST.  The ones for private civilian perversion too, not just the Snuff films made in several warfronts.  They MUST exist, because like I said, we humans connect SO MANY oddball things to internal perverted or sexual pleasure.  And the hunger for that always invites sharing it, and making business from it. 

Business is business, so even if you "fake" the incident (so that it's not really a murder), you SELL it as a Snuff film, even though by definition it's NOT a Snuff film---it's a fraud.  Soldiers in a campaign can still be prosecuted/punished for their conduct regardless of if they "were just fooling around making a phony execution flick for kicks" (and thank Heaven they CAN be punished).  
But prosecuting a civilian perp for this act is understandably rough.  We want to prosecute them of a murder, right?   Even if they establish that it wasn't a murder they committed (maybe the victim was murdered somewhere else later by unknown), aren't they still guilty of abduction, or imprisonment of a victim, or menacing a victim or similar violation of personal rights?
And don't Snuff films sell to Jabba-the-Hutt wealthy circles worldwide, on the premise that "it's a true, visceral, erotic slaying of a human--and only YOU and we have witnessed it--this is the wealthy girl that Interpol is searching for and still haven't found yet---Yuuummmy, you know you must buy this special one".  
So if the perp who made the film is forced to claim that it was a fake/staged act, won't that get him hunted down by billionaires who'll pay John Wick to locate and "punish" him the way the perp should be punished?

Simply concluded on the issue of prosecuting someone who did it, I think the reason it's so difficult to jail someone for "doing it" is that the film all alone by itself isn't evidence that the person is dead and was murdered in that incident.  The filmstrip isn't a doctor, can't verify a person was alive and is now dead all at that same event, so lawyers can always say "you can't prove this person was killed at the time this movie is supposedly recording---ergo it's not a revelation of a murder--ergo please buy my client a steak dinner and a limousine ride home".

....Lord, what horrifying layers of existence we human beings cam make for ourselves, beneath what only has to be open, malice-free life.  
This is too twisted up for me.  That's why this episode was too much like Dick Wolf's SVU episodes to me.  I just what to relax and pet Elvis.  

I’m not sure it’s exactly known when the whole snuff film name or phrase was created...perhaps it was the 70s? Although I don’t think the Manson murders were recorded or filmed by the cult members, as it was 69.

I probably didn’t fully state what I meant earlier, as Augusta had some good points. The sex doesn’t have to occur in the film (although it is one version or stereotype of one kind)...but usually the buyer or person acquiring the film/s do derive some sexual satisfaction from watching it...whether it’s including sexual torture & acts, or it’s just the drawn out torture & ultimate murder of the victim. 

The point is, I think we know that snuff films do exist, as rare as they might be.  Again, the article I posted about pretty much shows and proves that.

Edited April 11, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[Augusta]

Yes,... sadly true, that this type of film (in the consumer, civilian corner of life), does exist.  

But I guess it goes to the other argument (and LOL, sadly the defense of nearly ANYONE who got approached by the cops for the crime he committed), "you gotta prove that evidence, FBI-dude, prove the film is real,... or else there's no such thing as a Snuff flick, and you can't say I did ZIP to any real tied-up nobody!  Those funny little websites are no proof---they only amuse a smart businessman like myself.  Some international clients on a yacht are waiting for me, so bye-bye."

[ViceFanMan]

9 minutes ago, Augusta said:

Yes,... sadly true, that this type of film (in the consumer, civilian corner of life), does exist.  

But I guess it goes to the other argument (and LOL, sadly the defense of nearly ANYONE who got approached by the cops for the crime he committed), "you gotta prove that evidence, FBI-dude, prove the film is real,... or else there's no such thing as a Snuff flick, and you can't say I did ZIP to any real tied-up nobody!  Those funny little websites are no proof---they only amuse a smart businessman like myself.  Some international clients on a yacht are waiting for me, so bye-bye."

Yup, the government & courts want that proverbial “smoking gun” before they’ll bother to think about doing anything...and anymore they’ll still argue it isn’t the right smoke.  

[Augusta]

I think what Oxford and Webster need to create is a more modern word to counteract "Moral" or "Decency".  Those are optimistic words, but frankly it's hard to fit them into law enforcement, not just with American culture, but also a dozen other nations' cultures too.

We need a term for the Law that expresses things like  publicly inhumane, or symbolically demeaning to humans, or humanly depricating, or I don't know... But something more contemporary than "pornography".  To certify publicly circulated documents, or privately offered stuff too, as illegal on humane levels, because it claims to be imprisoning, torturing or killing a real person.  That way, even if "the poor 75 year-old guy you filmed being stripped naked, covered with peanut butter, and gang-molested by 4 cute puppies, before being strangled to death" WASN'T really murdered and was an actor, he and the film crew are still up for arrest and conviction.  Just for suggesting a real-life and unfair torturous, murderous act, and circulation it for others to see.  That by itself should be illegal, AND still allow room for the motion picture and art worlds to find some latitude to exhibit their work.
And I guess that's what Dick Wolf's writers were starting to clue into with this episode.

Ok, I understand that some countries already have such rules, but from what I hear, it sounds like those countries go too far and too cruelly toward morality as their yardstick.  How can deciding what's "moral" have a stable and fair footing with human beings?  Moral???  I myself turn up my nose at "accentuated violence in a movie", yet if a film is made that is mesmerizing DUE to its choreographed violence, like The Raid, I have to admit the beauty in that movie.  So I have to allow art to push the envelope.

There needs to be a firm line drawn in the Law that gets defined by the right kind of words, based on human fairness, not morality.  And if any country can do that, America has probably the best Law framework to be the one to come up with it.

[ViceFanMan]

On 4/7/2022 at 11:00 AM, Augusta said:

I think what Oxford and Webster need to create is a more modern word to counteract "Moral" or "Decency".  Those are optimistic words, but frankly it's hard to fit them into law enforcement, not just with American culture, but also a dozen other nations' cultures too.

We need a term for the Law that expresses things like  publicly inhumane, or symbolically demeaning to humans, or humanly depricating, or I don't know... But something more contemporary than "pornography".  To certify publicly circulated documents, or privately offered stuff too, as illegal on humane levels, because it claims to be imprisoning, torturing or killing a real person.  That way, even if "the poor 75 year-old guy you filmed being stripped naked, covered with peanut butter, and gang-molested by 4 cute puppies, before being strangled to death" WASN'T really murdered and was an actor, he and the film crew are still up for arrest and conviction.  Just for suggesting a real-life and unfair torturous, murderous act, and circulation it for others to see.  That by itself should be illegal, AND still allow room for the motion picture and art worlds to find some latitude to exhibit their work.
And I guess that's what Dick Wolf's writers were starting to clue into with this episode.

Ok, I understand that some countries already have such rules, but from what I hear, it sounds like those countries go too far and too cruelly toward morality as their yardstick.  How can deciding what's "moral" have a stable and fair footing with human beings?  Moral???  I myself turn up my nose at "accentuated violence in a movie", yet if a film is made that is mesmerizing DUE to its choreographed violence, like The Raid, I have to admit the beauty in that movie.  So I have to allow art to push the envelope.

There needs to be a firm line drawn in the Law that gets defined by the right kind of words, based on human fairness, not morality.  And if any country can do that, America has probably the best Law framework to be the one to come up with it.

Sadly I think we’ve allowed way too much for too long, under the so-called guise of “art”. So, although we should & desperately need to...I don’t know if we can come back and now try to prevent these kinds of sick things from happening. But, I agree...whether it’s a real one, or a simulated one, both should be illegal & worthy of prosecution. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[ViceFanMan]

Some of these I’ve seen online or posted before...but I still find them creepy, “haunting”, but also captivating all at the same time!! Superb episode, and one of Season 4’s best: 

Edited May 5, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[RedDragon86]

I was wrong about this one, should have had a more open minded to begin with.

It's very good.

Edited August 16, 2022 by RedDragon86

[ViceFanMan]

21 minutes ago, RedDragon86 said:

I was wrong about this one, should have had a more open mind to begin with.

It's very good.

I love this one! It’s very “dark” and tragic, but the plot & acting are amazing! Other than the somewhat strange ending, this is one of Season 4’s best!  

[RedDragon86]

13 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

I love this one! It’s very “dark” and tragic, but the plot & acting are amazing! Other than the somewhat strange ending, this is one of Season 4’s best!  

I watced this one last night and for some reason it grabbed a hold of me like never before.

Yes I was wrong

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by RedDragon86

[ViceFanMan]

2 minutes ago, RedDragon86 said:

I watced this one last night and for some reason it grabbed a hold of me like never before.

Yes I was wrong.

 

I actually don’t remember you not liking it, lol...but, it’s always “grabbed” my attention. There’s just something mesmerizing about it that captivates you, despite the tragic & dark aspects.  

However, I still have never figured out what Gina & Trudy were doing at the porn convention to begin with.  I guess they could have been looking to bust someone for under age porn...but, the episode opens with them already there, and I’ve just always found it humorous.  

The announcer guy with the giant gold hand/glove on him was over-the-top ridiculous, & creepy!  It’s so gross & perverted, but it’s so stupid I laugh my rear off every time I watch, lol!  

[pahonu]

42 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

I actually don’t remember you not liking it, lol...but, it’s always “grabbed” my attention. There’s just something mesmerizing about it that captivates you, despite the tragic & dark aspects.  

However, I still have never figured out what Gina & Trudy were doing at the porn convention to begin with.  I guess they could have been looking to bust someone for under age porn...but, the episode opens with them already there, and I’ve just always found it humorous.  

The announcer guy with the giant gold hand/glove on him was over-the-top ridiculous, & creepy!  It’s so gross & perverted, but it’s so stupid I laugh my rear off every time I watch, lol!  

Pornography was considered part of vice activities in the past, along with gambling, prostitution, and as we all know from the show, narcotics.  Even further back, illegal sales of alcohol were part of it.  They were considered moral crimes, though the definition of such has changed considerably over the years.

[Robbie C.]

26 minutes ago, pahonu said:

Pornography was considered part of vice activities in the past, along with gambling, prostitution, and as we all know from the show, narcotics.  Even further back, illegal sales of alcohol were part of it.  They were considered moral crimes, though the definition of such has changed considerably over the years.

There were also always suspected links to organized crime (Heart of Darkness, anyone?). By this point Vice had morphed into OCB, and their scope expanded. That and narco types liked dating porn actresses. What better place to spot possible targets?

[ViceFanMan]

43 minutes ago, pahonu said:

Pornography was considered part of vice activities in the past, along with gambling, prostitution, and as we all know from the show, narcotics.  Even further back, illegal sales of alcohol were part of it.  They were considered moral crimes, though the definition of such has changed considerably over the years.

True...and I figured that’s probably why they were there: looking for under age and/or illegal porn of some kind, although the “moral” aspect had probably been done away with in Miami even in the 80s.  Personally I’d of arrested & prosecuted all of them, but legally Vice probably couldn’t do that unless they found under age or “kiddie” porn. However, people involved with drugs/narcotics & porn many times intertwine.   So they could have been there looking for both.

But, the episode just starts with Gina & Trudy there, and there isn’t a huge explanation, so I just kind of found it humorous (although I don’t think it was supposed or intended to be) that in the middle of this porn movie awards convention, suddenly here’s Gina & Trudy watching. 

Edited August 16, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[Kalci]

I just always loved Kelly Lynch ! One of my favorit female actresses of the late 80s early 90s. I love her in this too.

[RedDragon86]

43 minutes ago, Kalci said:

I just always loved Kelly Lynch ! One of my favorit female actresses of the late 80s early 90s. I love her in this too.

Yeah, she plays a good part in "Roadhouse"

Her acting was especially good in that fight scene at they end by the water.

[Kalci]

23 minutes ago, RedDragon86 said:

Yeah, she plays a good part in "Roadhouse"

Her acting was especially good in that fight scene at they end by the water.

Yes, and I loved her in Curly Sue(1991) as well and I think she played her character quite well also alongside Tom Cruise in Cocktail where she was quite slutty

But back to Curly Sue I edited this almost 6years ago of her so it isnt the best quality but informative of her beauty :P

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Kalci

[apocalypse]

I can't stress enough how good episode this is. Just watched it again. I would say this is easily my personal favorite of  the Season 4. Very good acting from everyone and when Tubbs comes to Crockett's boat and says "Moon Over Miami" everything has very dark,  spooky "Twin Peaksque" atmosphere. It was almost like David Lynch directed this one.

The ending is very good. People who glamorize violence have rarely faced real violence in their life. It was kind of symbolic. A cop who sees injustice and violence all the time doesn't find anything attractive about it... and decides to give a woke yuppie artist a small life lesson. Don Johnson's acting is top notch here.

One of the most underrated episodes of Miami Vice.

 

[ViceFanMan]

10 hours ago, apocalypse said:

I can't stress enough how good episode this is. Just watched it again. I would say this is easily my personal favorite of  the Season 4. Very good acting from everyone and when Tubbs comes to Crockett's boat and says "Moon Over Miami" everything has very dark,  spooky "Twin Peaksque" atmosphere. It was almost like David Lynch directed this one.

The ending is very good. People who glamorize violence have rarely faced real violence in their life. It was kind of symbolic. A cop who sees injustice and violence all the time doesn't find anything attractive about it... and decides to give a woke yuppie artist a small life lesson. Don Johnson's acting is top notch here.

One of the most underrated episodes of Miami Vice.

 

Perfectly stated!