The online racing simulator
Fatal Crash Compilation
(133 posts, started )
Quote from gezmoor :Spoken like a true intellectual. Well nevermind, if it makes you feel better about yourself to insult people keep it up. No skin off my nose.

And calling someone a fool is really an insult? No, people just brush it off, if I used profanities, THEN you'd care. How can you argue against someone without insulting them? You can't. If you disagree with someones opinion then you are insulting them as you differentiate from their opinions and beliefs.
I think you're mixing up someone being insulted with someone being offended, you can insult someone without offending them, and vice versa.
Quote from ATC Quicksilver :I think you're mixing up someone being insulted with someone being offended, you can insult someone without offending them, and vice versa.

You can insult someone without them being offended, I was saying in a way disagreeing with someones opinion, is offending them.
Quote from BlueFlame :You can insult someone without them being offended, I was saying in a way disagreeing with someones opinion, is offending them.

Yes but that doesn't mean you insulted them, you can't help it if they are offended by your opinion. So you can have an arguement without insulting someone, but perhaps not without offending them. Although for me personally I don't get offended just because people disagree with me, I am more offended if they agree with me when I'm wrong.
:twocents:

I think Lizard's videos are done in the most professional way possible given the subject. It does show the dangers of motorsports and the brave souls lost chasing that rush. The arguments on the morality of watching someone die on video is useless. If you don't wanna see someone die, don't watch the video. Simple as that.
#106 - col
Quote from lizardfolk :
Are those tributes the only kind to be allowed to exist in the world? The filmmakers tribute at the Oscars paid tribute to all the filmmakers who died. Are you saying that is morbid and only people who are still alive needs to be remembered and memorialized?

The tributes at the Oscars to actors who have died do not contain video footage of their deaths. If they did, they would be considered morbid, offensive, distasteful etc.

If you want to truly honour and pay tribute to the life of someone who has died tragically, make a film about their life.
To show their deaths explicitly is completely unnecessary.

If you want to highlight the tragedy of death in sport, make a film about the families and friends and how their lives have been changed. Make a film with interviews and or footage about people who have changed their sports to make them safer. What about focusing on how public opinion of a sport can be changed by tragedy.
These would be valid subjects as they would educate and inform rather than titilate.
None of these things would need any explicit footage of fatal accidents. In fact there is no need whatsoever to show that stuff.
Just because a film has 'tasteful' music doesn't stop it being purely for entertainment.
Just because it makes someone cry doesn't justify it in any way.

To justify showing footage of death, you have to be saying something that can't be said without showing the footage.

To show someones death for entertainment is crass. So someone commissioned you to do it. You need the cash. Fine. It's still crass. So the music is 'tasteful' and it made someone cry. It's still crass.

Quote from lizardfolk :But that's F1 incidents only. I have stock car (including NASCAR), Le Mans, touring car, Formula Nippon, Modified, etc.

Good for you - you got more fatalities than they did, you rule.
(btw, That big grin smiley is so damn respectful I almost cried.)
Quote from col :The tributes at the Oscars to actors who have died do not contain video footage of their deaths. If they did, they would be considered morbid, offensive, distasteful etc.

You're using the wrong context, an actor can't die from acting, they can die from natural causes sure, but it's not the same as a racing wreck.

Usually in tributes to things other than motorsports they show the crash and then show the ambulance driving away, the worst part of a racing crash, is pulling the driver out, if he's in a bad way, there could be blood, broken bones etc... and these tributes never show that and that is the most gore part of it, the Tom Pryce one is borderline ott.
Quote from Falcon140 ::twocents:

I think Lizard's videos are done in the most professional way possible given the subject. It does show the dangers of motorsports and the brave souls lost chasing that rush. The arguments on the morality of watching someone die on video is useless. If you don't wanna see someone die, don't watch the video. Simple as that.

+1

The video opened my eyes alittle bit more about motorsports and seriously how bad it can get. I apprecaite even the most tiny and basic thing in motorsports, but that video made me appreciate the sport even more. It showed me what these men did for their passion and life.

That was their income, their "job" you know. They raced cars to put food on the table, to sleep under a roof. They deserve all the rememberance and credit in anyway, and to show nearly any form of professional tribute.

To give the world a show, pursue their dreams, and put food on the table, isnt simple. Its not like we are making jokes about their deaths.

To wsinda, you need to learn a thing or two about life yourself. One thing nothing about motorsports, is, someone has a vision to make a tribute video, dont go in their way and trolling them just because you dont like it. Thats straight up rude, no matter how much you hate the idea.

I hate alot on the net, but i dont go posting, saying things that may discourage another. What if i hated LFS? How silly of me would it be to rant on this forum saying the realism is fake, your doing it wrong, it shouldnt be like this. I would look like a fool.

Heck, me trolling you now is making me look like a fool, but stress less buddy!

Good video mate, really good!
#109 - col
Quote from BlueFlame :You're using the wrong context, an actor can't die from acting, they can die from natural causes sure, but it's not the same as a racing wreck.

The 'oscars' context/analogy was presented by the OP not by me, and is appropriate.
Quote :

Usually in tributes to things other than motorsports they show the crash and then show the ambulance driving away, the worst part of a racing crash, is pulling the driver out, if he's in a bad way, there could be blood, broken bones etc... and these tributes never show that and that is the most gore part of it, the Tom Pryce one is borderline ott.

So what you're saying is that these 'tributes' clean up and sanitize the reality to make it more palatable for the intended audience so that the true horror doesn't get in the way of their entertainment ?
Maybe you don't realize that that makes them worse. It removes any sliver of justification that there might have been for showing them.
col, my post applies to you too, leave the video alone, alot appreciate, some dont.


Dont wreck it for others!
Quote from aoun :col, my post applies to you too, leave the video alone, alot appreciate, some dont.


Dont wreck it for others!

He posted the video on a forum visible for everyone; why shouldn't there be a discussion about it and why shouldn't negative opinions about it be voiced?

And if you liked the video, why would it be "wrecked" for you when others didn't like it?
Quote from col :The tributes at the Oscars to actors who have died do not contain video footage of their deaths. If they did, they would be considered morbid, offensive, distasteful etc.

BlueFlame's counter is actually a good one.

Quote from BlueFlame :You're using the wrong context, an actor can't die from acting, they can die from natural causes sure, but it's not the same as a racing wreck.

Actors and filmmakers didn't die from making films and making films is not dangerous. Racing is. I wanted to bring across how dangerous racing was and still is

Quote from col :Usually in tributes to things other than motorsports they show the crash and then show the ambulance driving away, the worst part of a racing crash, is pulling the driver out, if he's in a bad way, there could be blood, broken bones etc... and these tributes never show that and that is the most gore part of it, the Tom Pryce one is borderline ott.

Arguably I didn't exactly show that as well. The only footage I would see you having a problem is would be Tom Pryce. I personally think (since the footage is heavily pixelated) that it isn't a problem. If heavy gore can been see and the video is in HD, then I would have never put that in the video.

Quote from col :If you want to truly honour and pay tribute to the life of someone who has died tragically, make a film about their life.
To show their deaths explicitly is completely unnecessary.

Chad Coleman, Terry Schoonover, JD McDuffie, Hitoshi Ogawa. How am I suppose to show their lives when these drivers were basically ordinary people who just wanted to face the intense conditions of motorsports? I couldn't even find pictures of Coleman and Ogawa. So what...just let them be completely forgotten? I find that more morbid than showing pixelated very low qualify fatal crashes that shows absolutely no gore.

Quote from col :If you want to highlight the tragedy of death in sport, make a film about the families and friends and how their lives have been changed. Make a film with interviews and or footage about people who have changed their sports to make them safer. What about focusing on how public opinion of a sport can be changed by tragedy.

Col...please read what you wrote again. I know I am a film student and I have a lot at my disposal in film school...BUT HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSE TO ACHIEVE THAT? Family and friends? So I have to track down the family and fans of 54 (and many of them obscure) drivers who died in motorsports? I have to travel, literally, around the globe to interview and shoot "tasteful" footages?

Does that sound reasonable to you? Yeah, sure, maybe in the far future when I make a lot more money making films (which that in itself is a long shot) I can do this. It's a good idea. But not for a college student who's strapped for cash and can barely have enough money for the plane ticket back home.

Also, I would like you to note, that alot of the "fatal" crash documentaries actually includes the fatal crash in their video. The Pearl Harbor/Arizona Memorial shows and repeats footages of the Arizona being destroyed by the Japanese planes. Why is my video so different?

One more thing, think about this. If I were to take your suggestion (which is a good one but not reasonable for me). Would that kind of video.

1. Reach a large audience
2. Achieve the horror factor of motorsports
3. Make someone cry

I think not. It would be good as an informational piece. But I'm not really going for that. I wanted to bring home the horrors and tragedy of motorsports without people actually saying it. It dilutes the impact of it if it just becomes an informational piece because everyone has seen it and people get the nasty habit of not really listening when videos like that are presented.


Quote from col :These would be valid subjects as they would educate and inform rather than titilate.

Who goes on youtube to be educated in the traditional way? There's a reason why I posted this on youtube and not the history channel archive that my friend runs (and hardly anyone goes on). Yes, this video was intended to educate. But not in the traditional sense in which there are voiceovers, explanations and loads of interviews. The average youtube user wouldn't even make it through the first minute.

Quote from col :None of these things would need any explicit footage of fatal accidents. In fact there is no need whatsoever to show that stuff.

So you think having a video fulled with talking would be better? I've known people who had no regard for motorsports wander in this video thinking it's another "punk rock" fatality compilation. Watch my video, and walk away stunned. Granted, the footages aren't necessarily any new. Youtube is filled with fatal crashes and fatality "tributes". But my video brought out a specific response that is rare among videos highlighting the tragedy of motorsports.

I highly doubt that if I were to take your approach, that I would be able to deliver that same impact.

Quote from col :
To justify showing footage of death, you have to be saying something that can't be said without showing the footage.

I've stated my intentions before. I dont think you've read any of the previous arguments (stick to the recent posts please).

As ATC have said. It's hard to connect with words and pictures. I also believe it's also hard for someone to connect emotionally to talking as if it was just another History Channel ripoff.

So...while your alternative is good for the intellectual and motorsports familiar. It will definitely not connect to the general audiences let alone youtube. I want the people on youtube who watches these other "tributes" for kicks finally feel some connection to the crashes that they probably watch everyday. So far, it seems that I have achieved that impact and I feel I couldn't achieve it any other way

Quote from col :To show someones death for entertainment is crass. So someone commissioned you to do it. You need the cash. Fine. It's still crass. So the music is 'tasteful' and it made someone cry. It's still crass.

STICK TO THE RECENT ARGUMENTS. No one paid me to remake/repost the videos and why do you feel that this video was made for entertainment? Just because it showed fatal crashes? The history channel shows fatal crashes.

I never intended for this video to be laughed at. I never intended this video to be "oh that was really cool" (unlike most tributes). I never intended this video to be taken lightly. (read above posts)

Quote from col :Good for you - you got more fatalities than they did, you rule.
(btw, That big grin smiley is so damn respectful I almost cried.)

Please do not bring up ancient posts. Those posts hardly apply to the current argument. (And it is amazing how immature I was a year ago in my responses but that's another thread and another argument, so please stick only to my recent posts)
#113 - col
Quote from lizardfolk :
Col...please read what you wrote again. I know I am a film student and I have a lot at my disposal in film school...BUT HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSE TO ACHIEVE THAT? Family and friends? So I have to track down the family and fans of 54 (and many of them obscure) drivers who died in motorsports? I have to travel, literally, around the globe to interview and shoot "tasteful" footages?

write some letters. explain what you are trying to do.
If you can get an interview with someone, make a short film with one interview about one driver. If you are talented and clever, you could make that way more powerful and 'real' than any compilation of fatal crashes. At the end you could dedicate it to all drivers that have been killed.
Quote :

Does that sound reasonable to you? Yeah, sure, maybe in the far future when I make a lot more money making films (which that in itself is a long shot) I can do this. It's a good idea. But not for a college student who's strapped for cash and can barely have enough money for the plane ticket back home.

Sounds like you either have not much imagination, or not much talent ?
Film making is not just about patching clips together and editing. That's the easy bit. (but then, If you are a student of film, you know that already)
Quote :

Also, I would like you to note, that alot of the "fatal" crash documentaries actually includes the fatal crash in their video. The Pearl Harbor/Arizona Memorial shows and repeats footages of the Arizona being destroyed by the Japanese planes. Why is my video so different?

If you do films in the style of existing sensationalist films that use horrific footage to entertain people, then so what, it doesn't make your stuff any more or less ethically sound.
Quote :

One more thing, think about this. If I were to take your suggestion (which is a good one but not reasonable for me). Would that kind of video.

1. Reach a large audience
2. Achieve the horror factor of motorsports
3. Make someone cry


which is more artistically satisfying to you? : make one person really think and change their views, or entertain and titilate thousands without really changing anything?
Its easy to make someone cry, but not to make someone think.
Quote :

Who goes on youtube to be educated in the traditional way? There's a reason why I posted this on youtube and not the history channel archive that my friend runs (and hardly anyone goes on). Yes, this video was intended to educate. But not in the traditional sense in which there are voiceovers, explanations and loads of interviews. The average youtube user wouldn't even make it through the first minute.

which is exactly my point -- people go to youtube for cheap thrills and shallow entertainment.
If you are giving them 'what they want' with fatal crash footage, that is disrespectful to the dead drivers and offensive particularly to their relatives.
Quote :
So you think having a video fulled with talking would be better?

yes
Quote :

I highly doubt that if I were to take your approach, that I would be able to deliver that same impact.

I doubt it as well. On the other hand, a talented film maker with a passion for motor racing and a real understanding of ideas like respect and sensitivity could produce something more moving and with much more lasting impact.
Horses for courses
Quote :

As ATC have said. It's hard to connect with words and pictures. I also believe it's also hard for someone to connect emotionally to talking as if it was just another History Channel ripoff.

If you have the attention span of a goldfish.
Personally, I think subjects with the gravity of this one demand more respect. And you should have more respect for your audience.
If you produce a film with words, and its good, people will watch.
The reason most stuff on youtube isnt like that is because it is DIFFICULT to do well, not because it isn't powerful or worthwhile.
If you think 'History Channel ripoffs' are no good, do it better!, back yourself rather than chickening out with a bunch of excuses.
Quote :

STICK TO THE RECENT ARGUMENTS.

sorry boss, didn't know there were special rules.
Quote :


Please do not bring up ancient posts. Those posts hardly apply to the current argument. (And it is amazing how immature I was a year ago in my responses but that's another thread and another argument, so please stick only to my recent posts)

and when you look back at this in a years time, you will likely think the same thing - amazing indeed.

oh, and please fix your above post where you have attributed a quote from Blueflame to me.
Personly, you can get alot of information on how unsafe racing was in the past by watching such videos and see the improvements in safety since then.

Do you think Everyone these days who sees the video of Sennas death are being offensive to Senna?

Because im pretty sure everyone who has said something in this thread has watched it more then once, thus under your argument are being offensive and disrespectful.
#115 - col
Quote from Mustafur :Personly, you can get alot of information on how unsafe racing was in the past by watching such videos and see the improvements in safety since then.

Do you think Everyone these days who sees the video of Sennas death are being offensive to Senna?

Because im pretty sure everyone who has said something in this thread has watched it more then once, thus under your argument are being offensive and disrespectful.

LOL of course not, what a pathetic attempt to twist my words.

But anyone who broadcasts it or posts it without a valid reason in a respectful context is guilty of being offensive to family, friends and probably some fans of Sennas.

As to your other point, what a load of crap that is.

Without detailed statistics and technical information, there is no way of really learning anything about the relative levels of safety in motorsports. You're not going to learn anything from these films that you don't already know. So they are redundant in every way other than as a form of shallow distasteful entertainment.
Quote from col :write some letters. explain what you are trying to do.
If you can get an interview with someone, make a short film with one interview about one driver. If you are talented and clever, you could make that way more powerful and 'real' than any compilation of fatal crashes. At the end you could dedicate it to all drivers that have been killed.

Right, and I would go through that much trouble when I already have little spare time? And what happens when the letter returns to a "sure, come on over and talk"? I live in Hawaii, I do not have the means nor the money for such a project. I'm only a college student with barely a working laptop and rented school equipment.

Quote from col :Sounds like you either have not much imagination, or not much talent ?
Film making is not just about patching clips together and editing. That's the easy bit. (but then, If you are a student of film, you know that already)

Whoa...ok, now this was uncalled for. Look col, I'm here to have a intelligent debate with you (which is why I bother responding). I will not insult anyone who thinks this vid is a piece of crap and I have not insulted you before. So keep this civil please.

Anyways, yes, i know that. I've made films before. In one of my films it literally took me 8 hours to shoot 2 minutes of film. Considering this is a topic that is really lengthy, why do you consider it reasonable for me to go through that much (and ignore my school work in the process)?

Quote from col :If you do films in the style of existing sensationalist films that use horrific footage to entertain people, then so what, it doesn't make your stuff any more or less ethically sound.

If you define "entertaining" to be crying or touched, then fine. But I dont consider that to be entertainment. If i want people to be entertained I would want them to laugh or say "OMG THAT WAS COOL". Can you honestly say that was the intent of this video?

Quote from col :which is more artistically satisfying to you? : make one person really think and change their views, or entertain and titilate thousands without really changing anything?

But I have changed people's opinions and views about racing. Please read...I'm tired of repeating myself. I've made people who were very cynical about racing realize it's such a dangerous and thus they have more respect for it.

Quote from col :Its easy to make someone cry, but not to make someone think.

I disagree. Evoking a certain and specific emotion is difficult, while making someone think is easy. Any college textbook or lecture can make someone think. But can you evoke a specific emotion with specific and limited images? That is film. Emotion and perhaps, thinking from the emotion. I do not want to preach (cause that'll annoy most of the people who encounter my videos), I do not want to lecture, I only want to show in a way that'll make you feel.

In film we have a rule (and maybe this is the yank way of doing it but it's what's hammered in) dont tell us. Show us

Quote from col :which is exactly my point -- people go to youtube for cheap thrills and shallow entertainment.

Yes, and getting them to change their mind about how they view fatal crashes is very difficult. But I have succeeded in doing that for the most part (based on the comments in my previous uploads)

Quote from col :If you are giving them 'what they want' with fatal crash footage, that is disrespectful to the dead drivers and offensive particularly to their relatives.

I'm not giving them what they want. They want to see a fatal crash video and laugh at it. I envoked the exact opposite in the same youtube community.

Quote from col :yes

Sure...and Eisentein's Battleship Potempkin was more about having a intellectual discussion than envoking emotion through montage :rolleyes:

Quote from col :I doubt it as well. On the other hand, a talented film maker with a passion for motor racing and a real understanding of ideas like respect and sensitivity could produce something more moving and with much more lasting impact.

Fine, oh great one who knows all about filmmaking. Tell me how. Tell me, with my budget of $0 and time of only 1 hour per day with no shooting equipment and a computer that renders a 10 minute video in 2 hours. How would I be able to make a "better" tribute?

Should I have made it a slideshow instead? Do you seriously think text, talking and a slideshow would have an impact on anybody that have already watched the history channel?

Quote from col :If you have the attention span of a goldfish.
Personally, I think subjects with the gravity of this one demand more respect. And you should have more respect for your audience.

Perhaps, but I'm going for a general audience, and i estimate only 30% of that audience will understand or know something about motorsports. The rest simply dont know, care or post ignorant comments. Well, this video has changed the other 70%. No one went "aww that was sweet". No one went "that was awesome". That's very important

Quote from col :If you produce a film with words, and its good, people will watch.

Syriana was a film that was amazing. Yet it only made 50 million cumlative. No one wants to watch a film that's didactic or preachy.



Quote from col :If you think 'History Channel ripoffs' are no good, do it better!, back yourself rather than chickening out with a bunch of excuses.

I'm a fricking broke college student. I have limited resources and I have about only 1 hour to spare for my free time. How in the world do you expect me to "do better" than the history channel? The point of me bringing up a History Channel ripoff is purely because a poorly done overtalkative video will get no views and engage no one. In fact, arguably, a good History Channel video will not engage the wide audiences anyway.

Quote from col :sorry boss, didn't know there were special rules.

You can do what you want. But I dont respond to counters and snide remarks to past posts mainly because the situation has changed since then. I figured you were smart enough to realize that

Quote from col :

Without detailed statistics and technical information, there is no way of really learning anything about the relative levels of safety in motorsports. You're not going to learn anything from these films that you don't already know. So they are redundant in every way other than as a form of shallow distasteful entertainment.

Oh my god...so you think detailed statistics and technical information is the ONLY way for people to learn or gain something from films? Savior, Saving Private Ryan, District 9. Do you think those are "shallow" entertainments just because they depict a true event, engage the audiences in montage editing but show no detailed statistics and technical information? (Notice that I'm quoting yank films...)

Maybe you europeans work differently, but if I were to say this to an american film goer (or scholar) they would just laugh their teeth off.

Keep in mind this video was intended to engaged those who know absolutely nothing about motorsports. Literally everybody around me can't tell the difference between NASCAR and F1 (and i am NOT JOKING). Maybe it's redundant for you. But it isn't for the majority of the people who wander into my videos. For them, this video is an eye opener and I've meet a few motorsports fans who've given me PMs that this video was an eye opener for them
Quote from zeugnimod :He posted the video on a forum visible for everyone; why shouldn't there be a discussion about it and why shouldn't negative opinions about it be voiced?

And if you liked the video, why would it be "wrecked" for you when others didn't like it?

Because mate, its good to keep peace to a tribute video. The only commotion and disrespect thats part of this video is the negative opinions being said.
Quote from aoun :Because mate, its good to keep peace to a tribute video. The only commotion and disrespect thats part of this video is the negative opinions being said.

No actually it's the principle of the videos themselves that is disrespectful.

I agree 100% with Cols point of view on this issue. If other people don't understand why we feel the way we do about it after everything that has been said then there is no further use in continuing the discussion.
Quote from gezmoor :No actually it's the principle of the videos themselves that is disrespectful.

How so? Have you watched any of the Pearl Harbor/Arizona Memorial Tribute videos that you see every time you visit Hawaii? There's multiple footages of the Japanese planes bombing the crap out of the Arizona and the rest of Pearl Harbor. People died much more horribly there than in racing and yet multiple footages were placed there.

Maybe it's just the way the yanks portray things, and if that's the case then there really isn't a point in arguing anymore.

But fact is, no one went "aww that was sweet" after watching this video and this video wasn't made for people to go "awesome that was cool". TBH that's really all that matters. Yeah, it shows a lot of people dying. But the focus of the video was never the crashes. It was instead the drivers and the tragedy behind it.

What the hell did you think the photos of the driver's family was there for (John Nemechek, perfect example)? I mean, I can see how my previous fatality tribute could have been disrespectful because it was just a black screen with a name then a crash. But I remade this for a reason....I'm starting to think you guys never even watched my remake and just jumped to conclusions....
Quote from col :Without detailed statistics and technical information, there is no way of really learning anything about the relative levels of safety in motorsports. You're not going to learn anything from these films that you don't already know. So they are redundant in every way other than as a form of shallow distasteful entertainment.

for Eg: Seena death could of been prevented if the barrier was further back and it was a much slower corner which would prohibit such force at hitting the barrier, also a hans device could of saved him.

There isn't much to it on how hes death could of been prevented, we dont need technical information on a crash at all to learn how to prevent it if there are clear reasons on how it killed him.

also Tributes are not entertainament, its called a tribute.

Personally what you just said in the quote was the biggest load of crap i have ever seen.
Quote from Mustafur :also a hans device could of saved him.

What would that have done, kept his neck in one place? It still wouldn't have prevented the piece of debris that went through his visor and killed him.

You can always say this or that could have been done to prevent something, but you need to find out that something before you can prevent it. That's the problem.
Quote from wild :What would that have done, kept his neck in one place? It still wouldn't have prevented the piece of debris that went through his visor and killed him.

You can always say this or that could have been done to prevent something, but you need to find out that something before you can prevent it. That's the problem.

If his neck wouldn't of moved it actually may of prevented the peice of debris that went into his helment actually allthough it would be on the flukey side of things.

But also helments have also improved alot in safety, if no one Saw the reasons for these deaths it would just continue, would it not?
The main thing that is a positive from death is experience. A man can learn some much on a persons death bed. Just because someone is dead, doesn't automatically make the subject offensive. Like Michael Jackson, I didn't like him then, and I still don't like him now but if people say a negetive thing or show a negetive thing which features a person which is now dead, people start getting ruffled feathers over nothing. Everybody knows somebody who is dead, so getting your back up over SOMEBODY ELSES LOSS means you really are so far up your own backside that the lump in your throat is your own nose.

I don't believe some people, they see SOMEBODY ELSE get killed which in a certain degree, they chose to die themself through the danger they put themselves through everytime they got in the car and drove at a fast pace. If someone was killed or tortured, I could fully understand and back such an argument, but this video isn't gore, and it's not glorifying anything other than highlighting how the saftey has improved. I've seen video's of people being shot or shooting themselve, it doesn't bother me because they didn't suffer, watching an american prisoner getting his head sawn off by Muslims and hearing him squeal on the other hand is something I will refuse to watch, as it's clearly somebody suffering and it's not fit for anyone to watch because it doesn't do anyone any good.

You can tribute somebodys death aslong as their death wasn't a brutal and painful one, most of these wrecks are instant deaths, and even if their not instant deaths you don't see any damage done to any humans other than the Tom Pryce incident, and from a viewers perspective all you can complain about is how it affects YOU, you don't have to talk bullshit about respecting peoples families of the now deceased.

It seems like a right of call for alot of people to just say something is morally wrong when it just isn't. If a video like you affects you then maybe you shouldn't watch Schindlers list or any war movies, sure it's not real-life directly, but you see more death-gore-action on these films than you do in Lizards video and this is what you people are complaining about that there is too much of?

If you are going to have an arguement at least let it not contridict itself.
#124 - col
Quote from BlueFlame :Everybody knows somebody who is dead, so getting your back up over SOMEBODY ELSES LOSS means you really are so far up your own backside that the lump in your throat is your own nose.

What you seem to be saying is that if a person expresses any sympathy or empathy for another person (e.g. family/friend of deceased), then they are 'so far up their own backside...'.
I guess that makes you a sociopath, and that you look down on and ridicule anyone who is not a sociopath like you?
Quote :
but this video isn't gore, and it's not glorifying anything other than...

It is still distasteful and unnecessary (therefor disrespectful).
Quote :
...and from a viewers perspective all you can complain about is how it affects YOU, you don't have to talk bullshit about respecting peoples families of the now deceased.

There you go again. You think that asking people to respect the families of the deceased is bullshit ?
You truly are inhumane.
Quote :

It seems like a right of call for alot of people to just say something is morally wrong when it just isn't.

Except it is morally questionable.
And your argument against that seems to be made up mostly of statements suggesting that respecting the feelings of others is wrong.
So you're argument (simplified) is : Morality sucks, so these videos are a good thing.
Do you see the problem there?
Your argument is a logical fallacy.
you're trying to use the refusal to accept the need for morality to defend the morality of something.

No-one is going to stop you watching the videos, just don't pretend that they are educational or that they are not offensive and disrespectful.
Quote :

If a video like you affects you then maybe you shouldn't watch Schindlers list or any war movies, sure it's not real-life directly, but you see more death-gore-action on these films than you do in Lizards video and this is what you people are complaining about that there is too much of?

There is no death or gore in Schindlers list or any war movies, only simulated death and gore. And in the context of this discussion, that is a crucial distinction.
Of course, there is also the fact that many war films have questionable morals. Many glorify war and glorify death. Others were made for propaganda and to help persuade young impressionable men to enlist.

==========================================


Quote from Mustafur :for Eg: Seena death could of been prevented if the barrier was further back and it was a much slower corner which would prohibit such force at hitting the barrier, also a hans device could of saved him.

Those things may be true, but its impossible to know if they are from watching a video clip.
You need scientific analysis of crash debris. measurements , materials analysis from the walls, road, debris...
You would also need detailed information from the autopsy and doctors reports.
All these things would be necessary to know if what you just said is true or not - You get NONE of that information from a video clip.
Quote :

There isn't much to it on how hes death could of been prevented, we dont need technical information on a crash at all to learn how to prevent it if there are clear reasons on how it killed him.

This is an absurd statement.
You need detailed technical data (both medical and mechanical) to know how the crash caused his death.
What you are basically saying is that we don't need technical information because we have other knowledge that has been obtained by using (the same) technical information that you say we don't need...

I detect a sparkling intellect at work!
(that's sarcasm BTW in case you don't realise)

(If it was possible to get enough info from a video replay of a crash, then the commentators and viewers etc at the time would have known immediately after the crash, not only that Senna had died, but exactly what had caused his death. I was watching it live on TV. Until news came in from the medical centre, all we knew was that there had been a serious crash.)

Quote :

also Tributes are not entertainament, its called a tribute.

that's like saying.
Films are not entertainament, its called a film.
or
Documentaries are not entertainament, its called a documentary.
...

If people are entertained, its entertainment.
The OP is clearly trying to present a tribute (misguided IMO) that also entertains people. This is clear from his posts explaining that he didn't want to use a narrative dialog.
Anyway, why the hell can't a tribute be entertaining ?
I've seen plenty of respectful tasteful tributes that are highly entertaining.
Quote :

Personally what you just said in the quote was the biggest load of crap i have ever seen.

In your opinion maybe. lol. fortunately I don't rate your opinion.
Quote from col :

No-one is going to stop you watching the videos, just don't pretend that they are educational or that they are not offensive and disrespectful.
There is no death or gore in Schindlers list or any war movies, only simulated death and gore. And in the context of this discussion, that is a crucial distinction.

What about documentaries that show real people getting killed or mangled? I see countless of images of the battleships in Pearl Harbor getting the crap blown out of them (and no doubt killing millions of people with each explosion). What about WW2 and Vietnam documentaries that literally puts in footages of people getting shot.

How about the Holocaust footages that show people being tortured to death and the countless footages of the Jew's starving corpses...

If you consider all those documentaries to be distasteful purely because they used real footage of people's death and suffering than you and I have no more to say to each other.

Quote from col :Of course, there is also the fact that many war films have questionable morals. Many glorify war and glorify death. Others were made for propaganda and to help persuade young impressionable men to enlist.

I've always agreed with the notion that films such as Saw and Hostel serves absolutely no purpose but to show and glorify torture.

However...if you believe that films such as Waltz with Bashir, Savior, and Saving Private Ryan were films that did nothing and never intended anything more than to glorify deaths and killing then you are seriously misguided about this entire notion.

If you cannot see the difference between Hostel and Saving Private Ryan, then I truly feel sorry for you...


Quote from col :Films are not entertainament, its called a film.
or
Documentaries are not entertainament, its called a documentary.

Why must films be entertainment? Transformers 2 is entertainment. Breach, Syriana, Primer, and millions of other art films are not entertainment. Doesnt mean they are not great films, but I have yet to meet anyone who was "entertained" by them.

Quote from col :If people are entertained, its entertainment.

I use to know someone who thought that making sandwiches in a deli was entertaining...so does that make making sandwiches an entertainment?

That's like saying, oh everyone around me supports a dictatorship, so I must support him too.

Quote from col :The OP is clearly trying to present a tribute (misguided IMO) that also entertains people. This is clear from his posts explaining that he didn't want to use a narrative dialog.

You keep repeating that my tributes are for entertainment. Ok, let me ask you this. Why in the world do you get the notion that this was entire to make people entertained (laugh, cheer, feel happy)?

Quote from col :Anyway, why the hell can't a tribute be entertaining ?
I've seen plenty of respectful tasteful tributes that are highly entertaining

Maybe you can enlighten me (i.e. point out one that was entertaining). I have never NEVER seen a true tribute of a tragic event that was entertaining. Watching the Arizona get blow the crap out of it in Pearl Harbor was not entertaining. It evoked a tragic emotion in me, but I do not consider that being "entertained"

Likewise, films like "Savior" and "Saving Private Ryan" was touching and heart felt. I dont consider that to be "entertained". In fact, Savior as a film was painful to watch. I ask you to carefully look at the distinction between being entertained and emotionally touched cause in my opinion, there's a very thick line between them.

Fatal Crash Compilation
(133 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG