Quote:
Originally Posted by S&Wshooter
There is a difference between Charles Bronson, Clint Eastwood, or John Wayne shooting mooks and a guy getting cut open in high detail with a baseball bat covered in razor blades or someone burning a schoolbus full of children with a flamethrower
|
Clint Eastwood RESPONDED to a man kidnapping a bus full of children, who he intended to kill, by shooting the man in cold blood.
Charles Bronson RESPONDED to every single act of violence and rape on an innocent person by killing those responsible.
Eastwood and Freeman RESPONDED to a prostitute getting her face cut to shreds by a rustler by killing them and any who defended them outright.
Wayne RESPONDED to a young girl's father being killed by hunting down the man responsible and ending him and his cohorts. Mind you, no one said Wayne made exploitation films, he occasionally made B movies, but for his time, he was and A-list actor. He doesn't belong in this discussion.
An act of unmitigated violence has to happen before a vigilante is able to respond to the crime on the streets with force. It's the definition of the genre. If a vigilante acts before the criminal does, he's a part of the problem and not the unlawful solution.
Please remember, this is a MOVIE. Millions of innocent people have been murdered, torture, unrightfully punished throughout the history of mankind, hell, even since the advent of cinema, and that's where your outrage belongs. Getting miffed about an actor pretending to harm another actor, with food coloring and corn syrup on their clothes, rubber weapons in their hands, and a very shiny check in their pockets, is just pointless. There are so much better places to put your outrage and consideration.