Schwarzenegger: Video Games Are More Violent Than My New Movie

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Schwarzenegger: Video Games Are More Violent Than My New Movie

Arnold's new movie about a DEA squad being viciously hunted following a drug cartel bust apparently has nothing on today's video games.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is making the interview rounds ahead of the launch of his new movie, Sabotage, and has said that the violence in the film is nothing compared to modern video games.

"I think violence is political now: 'maybe if there is no violence in movies, there will be no violence in the world.' I don't believe that. The video games our children play are much, much more violent than anything in this movie," Schwarzenegger said in an interview with The Telegraph.

The movie features Schwarzenegger as the head of a DEA unit, whose family and colleagues become the target of vicious murders following a drug cartel bust. The movie is meant to be an homage to the films of directors like Sam Peckinpah, Brian De Palma and Walter Hill, "who made very brutal kind of masculine movies," Schwarzenegger said. We've posted a trailer for you to draw your own conclusions as to where Arnold's latest falls within the spectrum of media violence.

As pointed out by GamePolitics, the former Governator's statements are especially ironic considering recent events in California, where Schwarzenegger served as governor from 2003 to 2011. In 2005, Schwarzenegger signed and endorsed anti-game legislation sponsored by none other than Senator Leland Yee, who earlier this week was arrested on corruption charges. Since then, Yee has been accused of gun-running, ties to Chinese gangs and business with Russian arms dealers.

Source: The Telegraph, via GamePolitics

Permalink

That's right, shift the blame, shift the blame. *sigh*
Also, the trailer smells of Breaking Bad.

The Governator signed that?

I'm convinced. Time to go burn all my game discs.

Let's see... Sabotage... 37 on Metacritic... 21% on Rotten Tomatoes...

Yeah, someone's jelly.

Addendum: Schwarzenegger's character's name in this flick is "John 'Breacher' Wharton".

Maybe all the professional critics didn't realize the film was supposed to be a parody?

Well the trailer for his new movie makes it look boring so he's probably right. But I guess it's just indicative of the mindset of a lot of older individuals. "The video games our children play" is an incredibly broad spectrum. Your kid could be playing Pac-Man or Splatterhouse, Bejeweled or Manhunt. Unless you, you know, do some actual parenting when it comes to the media you let them consume.

If children are playing violent video games, the fault is not in the games themselves, but rather the parents who allow them. So nice try, Mr. Governor-that-could.

The video games our children play are much, much more violent than anything in this movie

Ok and what about your old movies Arnie? I guess those don't count though, because reasons.

I think people might be picking this up wrong. He wasn't criticising video games but instead criticising the concept that banning violent video games, films or books will somehow "fix" violence in society.

EDIT: Or just getting ahead of any "This film will influence children and convince them that violence is ok!" argument by pointing out the obvious, there are plenty of other avenues that this can happen and for the most part it doesn't.

The video games our children play are much, much more violent than anything in this movie,"

Methinks someone does not understand the purpose of PEGI/ERSB rating systems.

If your young children are playing games more violent than a movie about drug busting, murdering, torture and strippers... YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

This debate was old years ago. Children playing violent video games is not the fault of the game, or the people that made the game. If parents would actually do some parenting, rather than blindly purchase something and then wait until someone cries "GAMEZ R EVUL" to make a fuss about it, we wouldn't be having this problem.

I'm not going to sit here and say violent games and movies don't desensitize people to said violence, because that's not the issue. The issue is parents not giving a crap until they are made out to be a bad parent, at which point they side along with politicians using video games as an incredibly convenient scapegoat.

Also, if I want to let my 8 year old play GTAV, that's my choice, as long as I was aware what I was giving them. Is it appropriate for an 8 year old? Most people would agree no, but I would have made the decision as an informed parent. If for some reason the child would decide to reenact something specifically from the game, I'M to blame, not the game itself.

We know. That's why we'll be playing our awesomely violent video games instead of watching his lame movie.

'Movies are more violent than my new video game' would be an equally valid claim by quite a lot of game developers. The whole thing is quite silly.

CriticalMiss:

The video games our children play are much, much more violent than anything in this movie

Ok and what about your old movies Arnie? I guess those don't count though, because reasons.

I was gonna say, when I was a child, Arnold Schwarzenegger was the most Violent thing on the planet.
How dare Conan the Barbarian, The Terminator, Slayer of the Predator, say jack shit about Violence in Media?
YOU are the FACE of a DECADE of violent media.

Jesus, Fuck! Motherfucker! (Penn Jillette voice)

Then why are "our children" (which are actually "your children" because I don't have any) playing these games? Why aren't their parents stopping them?

Besides, there may be more violence in games than in movies, but the violence in movies is typically much more realistically displayed. Arnold, don't you remember throwing aside a pair of dismemebered arms while quipping "see you at the party, Ricther"? Or the body of a bystander getting chewed apart by submachine guns and pistols while you used it as a shield? Or blowing the brains out of a bald guy's head? All this was in Total Recall, that movie you starred in back in 1990. And show me a game that has the carnage of the first Starship Troopers movie, where Marines are literally torn in half by giant insects, and a drill sergeant pins a recruit's hand to a wall with a thrown knife. (And before anyone tells me that the movies are rated R and "wouldn't be seen by kids", I saw a woman bring her two prepubescent kids into a theater showing of Starship Troopers.)

The pot should always look in the mirror before telling the kettle that it's black.

Okay so can anyone point out to me where Arnold said anything about the violence in games was bad? All he said was that games are more violent then movies. I'd agree with him, games are pretty violent but that doesn't make them bad or good. So why is everyone jumping to defend video games or bash Arnold? Are we this quick to jump to the side of defend video games at any perceived slight even when there aren't any?

Eh, everything in this homogeneous, broken culture of ours has to be violent and stupid and ironic to the point where there are no themes, no meaning, no substance. It's disheartening, but I'm not sure what Arnie is getting at here.

Ha ha ha ha, the audacity.

You gotta admire his balls to claim this.

image

Oh, here we go again.

AnthrSolidSnake:
This debate was old years ago. Children playing violent video games is not the fault of the game, or the people that made the game. If parents would actually do some parenting, rather than blindly purchase something and then wait until someone cries "GAMEZ R EVUL" to make a fuss about it, we wouldn't be having this problem.

I'm not going to sit here and say violent games and movies don't desensitize people to said violence, because that's not the issue. The issue is parents not giving a crap until they are made out to be a bad parent, at which point they side along with politicians using video games as an incredibly convenient scapegoat.

Also, if I want to let my 8 year old play GTAV, that's my choice, as long as I was aware what I was giving them. Is it appropriate for an 8 year old? Most people would agree no, but I would have made the decision as an informed parent. If for some reason the child would decide to reenact something specifically from the game, I'M to blame, not the game itself.

I'm just quoting this because there's not much more that needs to be said. Don't outlaw beef because a baby can't chew it. If your kids are consuming age-inappropriate media, you only have yourself to blame.

fluxy100:
Are we this quick to jump to the side of defend video games at any perceived slight even when there aren't any?

Apparently yes. Maybe it was the tone of the article or just a set of assumptions made by the first poster and followed on from there.

image

fluxy100:
Okay so can anyone point out to me where Arnold said anything about the violence in games was bad? All he said was that games are more violent then movies. I'd agree with him, games are pretty violent but that doesn't make them bad or good. So why is everyone jumping to defend video games or bash Arnold? Are we this quick to jump to the side of defend video games at any perceived slight even when there aren't any?

I think we might have jumped the gun a little bit, but really I find that it's this quote here: "The video games our children play are much, much more violent than anything in this movie". To me, it seems like he's trying to divert attention from how violent his movie might be, by making video games seem more violent in comparison in an attempt to justify the violence in movies. It's sort of like how people who defend guns also divert people to video games, saying it's not owning a gun that's the problem, it's video games telling kids to use the gun.

But yes, I'll take blame personally for myself jumping to the conclusion that he was saying the violence was bad. But really, can you blame me when almost every other day there is some person or organization somewhere trying to hold video games in a negative light, something I hold very dear to me and had since childhood?

To be fair, his new movie looks pretty weak on that front. They're torturing someone by hitting them with a baseball bat. That's got to be the least imaginative, least messy torture scene I've seen in quite a while.

However, a lot of videogames are less violent than that. A lot of FPSs seem about as violent - you shoot people, it isn't that messy or intimate, they die and the bodies sit there, it's all very dusty and not that bloody, and these are the favourite scape goats of the anti-game lobby. At least in GTA you commit actual crimes. Now if Schwarzenegger was the head of a drug cartel getting revenge on a SWAT team that busted one of his important rings, that would be cool.

And he thinks violent movies are only not the cause of violence in the world because video games are worse? Fuck that.

AnthrSolidSnake:
But really, can you blame me when almost every other day there is some person or organization somewhere trying to hold video games in a negative light, something I hold very dear to me and had since childhood?

Short answer, yes.

Not to get into any sort of "your actions build the world around you" new age nonsense but if the first place a person goes, upon any perceived slight, is retaliation without investigation then what makes them any different from the people they're retaliating against. In this specific instance, and in many others but certainly true here, one of the primary counter-arguments for a lot of this "negative light" bullshit is "You didn't do the research." which is almost always the case. So you choose to react/bash or whatever without doing the research yourself? Without considering the context, the source etc.?

The Daily Telegraph, and many other news rags like it, sell themselves on the basis of meaningless reactionary headlines like this designed to get people to view and respond because they know that if they aggravate you or tell you that you're wrong, when you damn well know you're not, that'll get them publicity in the form of comments etc. etc.

To a point the Escapist is _quickly_ falling into this kind of lowest common denominator journalism, the recent article about that lad who killed his grandmother or the whole Nick Searcy debacle stand out.

EDIT: Hell gamepolitics seems like barely more than a blog as it is and immediately takes a biased stance on the matter. Game journalism? "lol"

AnthrSolidSnake:

fluxy100:
Okay so can anyone point out to me where Arnold said anything about the violence in games was bad? All he said was that games are more violent then movies. I'd agree with him, games are pretty violent but that doesn't make them bad or good. So why is everyone jumping to defend video games or bash Arnold? Are we this quick to jump to the side of defend video games at any perceived slight even when there aren't any?

I think we might have jumped the gun a little bit, but really I find that it's this quote here: "The video games our children play are much, much more violent than anything in this movie". To me, it seems like he's trying to divert attention from how violent his movie might be, by making video games seem more violent in comparison in an attempt to justify the violence in movies. It's sort of like how people who defend guns also divert people to video games, saying it's not owning a gun that's the problem, it's video games telling kids to use the gun.

But yes, I'll take blame personally for myself jumping to the conclusion that he was saying the violence was bad. But really, can you blame me when almost every other day there is some person or organization somewhere trying to hold video games in a negative light, something I hold very dear to me and had since childhood?

My intereptation of the statement was that it's stupid to criticize movies for violence when depictions of violence is common place nowadays. Reading the interview it seems he's defending that it's alright for movies to have brutal violence. He very well could be attempting to divert blame but with nothing other than a single statement it's a bit of a jump.

As for the whole blame thing. It's none of the posters' fault, the title of the article and the tone of it is intentionally made to get people riled up even when nothing bad was said.

Given that neither of the sourced articles sourced the goddamn interview in question, which is actually a travesty and speaks volumes about the calibre of writing involved here, I'm currently trawling through the massive array of interviews he did for this film, if I find the interview quoted I'll post the video/link and people can make up their own minds with some context instead of being spoonfed an opinion.

PuckFuppet:

fluxy100:
Are we this quick to jump to the side of defend video games at any perceived slight even when there aren't any?

Apparently yes. Maybe it was the tone of the article or just a set of assumptions made by the first poster and followed on from there.

image

Thank you. He didnt said anything about games being worse or anything, just that there are games more violent then this movie, something I bet he is right. That is all

For the people not seeing the problem here, he started off the statement with a seemingly profound understanding that violent media isn't an ACTUAL problem, but then immediately sated all those who were unconvinced, covering his ass, implying that "well, its irrelevant anyways, cause our kids are playing worse."

he didn't need to mention games at all. This is the worst kind of attack, one that subconsciously assaults under the guise of agreement. Its political bullshit, the equivalent of having your cake and eating it too.

Attack? I don't see it as such and I doubt it was intended as such. The tone of this article and the sourced blog lean into it but neither give a source for the interview itself, what actual question lead to the statement or any preceding or following statements.

Even if it was intended as an attack it hardly rates as "news" beyond being a plug for Arnie's new flick, surely the better article would have been "Bias Against Video Games in US Politics" with this as a possible, but extremely intangible, example.

Went through about 20+ video interviews, including one in Spanish which was actually really funny, and searched for "video games" in a bunch of articles with no luck. I would actually like to see the real source for this.

The video games our children play are much, much more violent than anything in this movie

He has a point, you know. Ever keep track of the body count in a typical Kirby game? That little pink puffball's a killing machine.

In all seriousness, it astounds me how the general public STILL doesn't know (or worse, doesn't care) about video game age ratings. If a game is rated "M" or "PEGI 16/18," parents might want to think twice about letting little Johnny play it. People still seem to be stuck in the mindset that video games are "toys for kids" and don't bother educating themselves about the medium, which makes it all the easier for fear-mongering politicians, media moguls and celebrities to make absurd statements like these.

SilverStuddedSquirre:
I was gonna say, when I was a child, Arnold Schwarzenegger was the most Violent thing on the planet.
How dare Conan the Barbarian, The Terminator, Slayer of the Predator, say jack shit about Violence in Media?
YOU are the FACE of a DECADE of violent media.

Apparently, Predator was an anti-gun movie.

That bit where they fire the minigun into the trees was to show the futility of guns.

(According to the director, but I'd like to think they were very drunk at the time)

He's not wrong.

I mean, even the cute and cuddly Town of Salem regularly has 90% of its cast stabbed/shot to death in the space of twenty minutes.

Even most (non-disaster) action movies don't have a death rate quite that high.

a typical "i want revenge" movies that is either amusing or just bad.

but seriously, games being violent is true but movies even back then are even more violent then now. robocop anyone?

Oh, Arnold... When you hit the "Fuck it, we blew up the world and the survivors live in radioactive hell, competing for the last scraps of life left here" that is Fallout, it was already beyond your movies. (Bloody Mess perk, dude.)

I don't really see the implication here. He's not wrong, we have a fuckton of violent video games, and he's not specifically saying "violent video games are destroying our society and harming our children, but not movies!".
Give me a source where he condemns video games in the same way that US politicians usually do, and I'll happily admit my mistake.

I really think people are trying way too hard to feel offended, which seems to be par for the course on the Escapist.

He's probably right in regards to the fact that over-the-top gore seems to be more common in video games than films. However, realistic violence is much rarer in video games. Depict a rape scene in a video game and it won't just be the conservative media that's on your tail, but the social justice warriors of the gaming media too.

To be honest, I can't tell whether he's actually saying that video games are too violent or if we're all just jumping to conclusions.

Well, video games ARE more violent than movies, and that's been something I've noticed a lot more recently now that games look more realistic. By the time you've reached the end of an average action game you'll have killed somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand enemies, easily outnumbering the body count of even the most notoriously violent movies.

Of course, that's mostly due to limitations of the technology. It gets difficult to program interactions with enemies other than just gunning down wave after wave of dumb bad guys.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here