Originally Posted by vfxproducer
I'm going to be honest with you guys. I think it's kind of retarded to be perfectly OK watching things like bullet hits shattering heads into tiny fragments, hands shoved into garbage disposals, victims being autopsied on crime labs, TV shows about serial killers, and TV shows about sexual predators/killers, all the while being squemish about the color of blood.
If you you have desensitized yourself into thinking these other things are acceptable entertainment on television (I personally don't find them entertaining), why not go all-in? Why let a little red turn your stomach? Maybe the color red is natures way of telling you that those things aren't good, and you shouldn't be finding them entertaining. Just sayin...
The phrase 'don't want the violence of TV to hit too close to home' is just sad. It should hit close to home. It's supposed to remind you that violence isn't good or acceptable.
I can't speak for everyone... only me... though I think your comparison of mentally challenged people is not appropriate...
but to the point of your post...
We watch TV to be entertained. If that entertainment makes us sick, then we wouldn't watch.
I think it is a fair question to ask why do we want violence without blood, when a lot of violence results in blood... but I think it is also ok for consumers to ask for less detail in their F/X.
The original Halloween featured very little blood... and is largely recognized as a good thriller/horror movie... Later movies that showed more gore actually had less story/plot and arguably are not as good.
I like the Romero Zombie movies... but less for the gore and more for the message/plot.
I would never mandate a color change for blood... but sometimes I find myself glad as it allows me to watch more of the movie.
I also happen to not like needles and knives... and wish they wouldn't show people getting shots in shows... the story would be just as well served by knowing the person was going to get a shot, without actually simulating the needle going in.