Did this film "predict" 4chan & meme culture &

I watched it, but I understood about 30% of it, still find the literal tv spanking very cringe.
Don't care much about James Woods.
The infused gun was a nice concept, the channel owner scenario also very interesting.

>>85548029
No because 4chan and meme culture mostly satirize popular stuff

Capeshit fangoys and the like are the real victims here, lapping up hollywood's excretions like dogs.
Cronenberg predicted that shit

>>85548029

I didn't understand a fucking thing about this movie. Literally what did Cronenberg mean by this? I thought maybe it was about desensitization, but it doesn't seem like it.

nah its an expansion of the postmodern literary trend of figures such as DeLillo, Coover, Pynchon and Barthelme into the film sphere. In response to the over saturation of everyday life with pop culture they deliberately overimbue fictive/cartoon elements with a life that blatantly exceeds the actual vitality of the image. It was one of the tactics they tried to use to attack the homogenization of everyday life, by anthropomorphizing these dead things we're exposed to so regularly to such a ridiculous degree that all it does is accentuate their lifelessness even further.
Cronenberg didn't use any specific cartoon characters or political figures like most writers had but more or less the medium of television as a whole
I think DFW mentions videodrome by name in his long essay on television and irony

>>85548308
that's a part of it, it's mostly about unreality though. watch eXistenZ, it does a better job at being cohesive while Videodrome is probably a better movie technically.

or just read philip k dick

>>85548029
I was wondering what would break first, your mind...

wtf it's not that challenging of a movie, you fags are overthinking it.

The idea is that we experience videos like we experience reality, so if i see someone murdered on a screen, it's the same (or more, cuz i pay closer attention to television) as if i saw it for real.

If you can control videos, then you can thus control the reality that people experience. Cronenberg takes it a step further and says that if videos=reality/memory, then we have no need of our physical bodies because all we consist of is what we perceive and what we remember. So in his world, videotapes can replace our actual bodies.

Thus, long live the new flesh

>>85548494

Yeah, it seemed like that was part of it. Seems like everyone in the 80's couldn't stop arguing about violence in movies and the effects it had on people.

>>85548029
Did it? I can't remember shit from that movie because it creeped me out so bad I practically blacked out.

I watched this movie like 10 years ago and I thought it was ok, nothing special. Then a few months ago I had a fucked up dream where I said the 'long live the new flesh' line and I woked up confused like how the fuck did I remember this. I rewatched it and it was pretty cool.

Manm I miss VHS and those fucking old ass techs.

watch the documentary called 'Forging the New Flesh' - it has insight into some of this, but mostly how they did the effects which are amazing

File: hyqqE0Z.gif (972KB, 500x264px) Image search: [Google]

972KB, 500x264px

This is such a good fucking movie. Everything about it is fucking awesome. James Woods is a legendary actor (and now trolls liberals on Twitter). Debbie Harry is hot as fuck in this movie. The gritty, dirty Toronto setting is perfect. The whole plot is surreal as hell and the practical effects are so gruesome. No one did body horror like Cronenberg.

Videodrome is one of my favorite movies. I'm shocked there hasn't been a bigger push to remake it, considering how creatively bankrupt Hollywood is, and with their push to remake anything from the 80s (and now 90s). A remake would be utter trash focused on VR anyway. Nothing beats the concept of sticking video tapes into the cunt-hole on a guy's stomach to program him to kill while he hallucinates.

>>85548029
Fetusbro

>>85548572
There is also the fact that the brain and it's functions are physical phenomenon. When we are aroused or scared we are undergoing real, physical chemical changes. It seems obvious to say that our experiences are physical parts of our bodies but when you combine that with the idea that television, or any media really, is a tool to give us experiences it really clicks the concept of new-flesh into place.

Our minds and bodies are extensions of our environment
Our technology is an extension of ourselves
Now our technology is our environment

The horror of VideoDrome is that we are not safe from what we see and hear. Seeing something can infect us, watching TV lets all kinds of ideas, neurological changes wiggle into us like botfly-maggots into a wound. The idea that media can be a toxin and we are already swimming in it.

>>85551293
>The horror of VideoDrome is that we are not safe from what we see and hear.
yes, there's an interview with Cronnie where he talks about a lot of it being about how you could possibly get in trouble just by looking at something, i suppose speaking to the seedy underground vhs trade. i don't remember which interview tho.