I'm the opposite. I hate how some movies (PG-13) show people getting shot without a drop of blood, or people getting unconscious from a swift hit to the head and then waking up a few minutes later as if they just went to sleep. Violence without consequence is worse than gory violence, because it teaches the viewers that it's ok.
The alternative to gory violence is not cartoon violence. There's no problem with some shows being gory violent. The parent comment lamented that it seems to be a norm now. Films can tackle the consequence of violence, without explicitly showing it happen, and especially without zooming in it happening.
> Violence without consequence is worse than gory violence, because it teaches the viewers that it's ok.
On the other hand, I would assume that it desensitizes viewers to violence. I'm not sure how or if that translates in any way to real life violence. I wonder if there are any studies out there on the subject?
How is that the norm for so much tv and cinema? Maybe 30 years ago, but I don’t think you can say that violence and gore are underrepresented everywhere but network TV.
