Why are movie makers so reluctant......

[JackFrost]

Apologies if this question has been asked before, but I'd like to discuss this frustrating phenomenon.

How many times have you encountered the following scenarios within movies, and even some TV and videogames?

1) Person is caught by creature/beast/thing capable of consuming a person. The creature/thing/etc. picks the person up in it's jaws, but makes no attempt to eat that person - instead it kind of tosses it's head violently and hurls the victim away. It seems to me that this accounts for around 75% (possibly more) of all 'vore' scenes in movies etc.

2) Someone is eaten, however the entire eating sequence takes place entirely offscreen. Instead we're treated to lingering reaction shots of horrified onlookers.

3) Vore occurs but we only get to see the first frame of them being taken into it's mouth, but the action then cuts away before the victim is swallowed and we never get to see it.

4) There is actual vore, but the scene is filmed using extremely fast cuts so it's almost impossible to get a clear sense of what's happening. Typically you'll get a view of the creature (etc.) eating for maybe half a second, before the camera cuts to the usual 'horrified onlookers', followed by maybe another half second of unclear footage, before another fast cut to onlookers. This is often made worse by use of 'shaky cam', or it being filmed in a very dark environment.

All four scenarios are extremely frustrating for vore a vore fetishist. I can think of very few (non fetish) movies in which you get to watch a clear scene of consumption from beginning to end. Jaws 3, Brothers' Grim, Deep Rising and Anaconda are the ones that I recall the most clearly, along with a few animated flicks such as the famous Pinky and the Brain scene where Rita swallows Pinky. In both Jaws 3 and Anaconda the victim is afterward spat out, and the girl swallowed by the horse in Brothers' Grim is eventually rescued. Deep Rising is kind of more in the realm of hard vore.

So do you think that directors are deliberately reluctant to show scenes of actual consumption due to it being a kind of 'final taboo that they dare not cross?'

Or do you think that it''s because such scenes are hard to film, so they simply take shortcuts?

Though if it's the latter, surely the power of modern CGI can handle it? Bedroom producers using their home PCs are now capable of doing a fairly decent job of it, so surely it's not down to lack of ability on the part of SXF departments?

[catkook]

For the first point, I'd say it's probably mostly just plot armor.
Outside of the vore community, most people would likely consider any/nearly any scenario in which a character is swallowed whole as a death sentience.
Which if that character is important to the story, killing them off would make continuing the story difficult.

For points 2-3, on when someone is swallowed but the visual display of it is lacking. There might be a few reasons for it.

The first idea might be content rating or something. Maybe the developers or publishers think someone being swallowed alive is too graphic.
Another possibility, effort. The artists likely arnt into vore (though it's not impossible, just improbable) So to save money on development they just skip the animation of the scene and just imply someone's been swallowed or show the bare minimum of someone being swallowed. Since to them the swallowing animation isn't important it's the impact of the swallowing that's important.

Or for point 4, I would probably assume that's to hide any poorly done special effects or practical effects they did to pull it off.

Of course, this is just speculation.

[UsernameNotTaken]

I guess it's because their intention probably is not to tickle your brain in a sexual way. Monster consuming someone is most often intended to shock and horrify, so by not showing the actual process they allow the viewer to fill in the blanks.

"Nothing is scarier".

[Aleph-Null]

So, the movies and TV shows you are talking about are not fetish porn. The goals of making those movies are different. They have budgets om terms of both money and screen time.

1: Maybe plot armor, maybe budget. Most animals do not swallow creatures whole and alive as a first reaction.

2: Budget and/or rating.

3: Budget.

4: Budget. Shaky cam is a stylistic choice (one that I personally hate.)

[gbboyth]

Even in terms of actual vore fetish content, I find there's very little quality content out there in terms of animation or live-action-with-special-effects stuff (it certainly pales in comparison to the amount of good artwork and writing that's available for this fetish). That stuff is expensive and difficult to do. My guess would be that the methods you describe are simply cheaper and easier to produce. A graphic scene of someone being eaten would be quite horrifying for non-vore audiences, but if the same level of horror can be achieved by having most of it take place offscreen and just showing the other actors' reactions, producers/directors will go for that option instead.

Especially since man-eating creatures are usually the domain of B-movies, or even lower tiers than that. Most of the good examples of vore content from those types of films happen to come from the few times Hollywood has done that theme with a big budget.

[Guzzlord1an]

I don't have anything new to bring to this except give a dishonorable mention to the recent Shazam movie, which has an extended sequence of a very cute female civilian encountering a manticore which seems to be perfectly set up for her to be eaten (on or off screen)... only for it to simply stab her in the back and fling her away.

Violence isn't a factor in this case, since the Shazam movies have some very freaky deaths even otherwise.

[ArcaneSigil]

I want to say it's a factor of the medium most of those movies are from. Live Action. You can only do so much with live action. Animation, like cartoons, anime, and animated movies, have so much more freedom when it comes to scenes like that. Live Action has the restrictions of not actually being able to just feed an actor to a snake or what not, publicity nightmare. It also has the restriction of costumes. An example would be Power Rangers. A certain monster comes to mind. Terror Toad. Live Action, the person operating the suit had a limited range of motion because it was clunky and big. They could only move their arms so far and their legs were covered down to the knees. You try running properly when the only parts of your legs sticking out of your costume are your knees, calves and feet, and those calves and feet have big clunky "frog monster feet" on them. If Power Rangers had been animated and was instead an Anime instead of an adaptation of Super Sentai from Japan, Terror Toad would have had much more range of motion. His arms and legs could move more properly, his mouth would actually open and close to talk, and when he ate rangers his belly would be able to bloat and flex as they fought until they were "digested" and their helmets were added to his belly to show off his trophies.

Animation can simply do things that Live Action can't.

[joshpoint0]

I don't think the concept of "vore" as it's known on the internet really crosses their mind as they're making the movie. Also for things like dragons and snakes, something known for swallowing prey, we actually see it quite a lot, I think. I guess there's also the joke aspect if it's a comedy movie like shrek. I think it's more that the intent only sometimes intersects. I don't think Roald Dahl ever predicted the blueberry scene would get as popular as it did for example. Also as someone pointed out animation does it a lot more

[LucifersChef]

Most of the time, outside R rated horror, its the same reason you don't see people in cars when superheroes throw them around or when superheroes smash through buildings (Invincible is a direct trope inversion for showing the actual graphicness); or in movies, the soldiers all wear full facial coverings and robot-like body armour when they get into fire fights. Or why in a lot of anime, blood is weird colours like pink.

Because ratings boards only allow a specific amount of and sorts of violence. If you can see a face on a soldier who gets shot, its a higher level of violence than one wearing a helmet. If the blood is red in anime, higher violence. If someone gets thrown off screen, even if logically, that injury would be fatal, it doesn't count as graphic death in the rating boards eyes.

[baranxlr]

You gotta keep in mind most people aren't into this. What seems hot to us will just seem kinda nasty to everyone else.

[MasterMage13]

Seems like there is less of it these days than there was 25 years ago too. I'm think of movies like Deep Rising which has a person swallowed by a tentacle thing only to be cut out of it later, still alive and partially digested. Or Anaconda which has an inside throat-cam of a person being swallowed alive. And these were relatively big budget Hollywood movies at the time, I saw both those movies in theaters, they weren't bottom of the shelf B-horror movies. Seemed like for a period of time it was relatively common. Deep Blue Sea has a little vore in it, so does Men in Black. I'm sure I can think of others but, not to belabor the point.

I also have noticed that modern movies seem to shy away from showing on-screen vore. Even in monster movies that you would think would have it somewhere; what else is the point of a "monster movie" if the monster isn't eating people? Its almost always off-screen at best.

A graphic scene of someone being eaten would be quite horrifying for non-vore audiences.

But like, torture porn and body horror movies are fine? Is watching someone being swallowed really more horrifying to an audience than, say, the Saw franchise or Hostel, or something like that? I watch loads of horror movies, I've seen stuff that makes vore look tame, and it's common. Why is being eaten such a big turn off compared to gory torture scenes?

[nicktaken]

But like, torture porn and body horror movies are fine? Is watching someone being swallowed really more horrifying to an audience than, say, the Saw franchise or Hostel, or something like that? I watch loads of horror movies, I've seen stuff that makes vore look tame, and it's common. Why is being eaten such a big turn off compared to gory torture scenes?

Those are niche movies. Vore niche stuff also exists. And I'm pretty sure "torture porn" isn't universal, much like vore.

[Randomdude5]

In the movie Jurassic World, Katie McGrath's character Zara Young is picked up by a pteranodon, and dropped into the mosasaurus tank. While the pteranodon is struggling to grab her again, the mosasaurus rises out of the water, and eats both of them. There was some controversy about the scene, since the move made it feel like it was punishing her for something. In one of the videos about that scene, people stated that they were simply trying to make it dramatic, because the people making the movie wanted to make the first on screen death of a female character be memorable. I have no idea if this had any impact on movie makers since then or not.

[corecat]

I think it's just that the idea of a person being eaten is seen as especially graphic and horrifying to most people. Moreso than something being stabbed or shot, for example- although it's not unusual for movies to avoid showing those directly either, instead cutting to the face of the killer or a bystander and just letting the death be implied. On top of that, I think relatively few movies have cause to show someone being eaten in the first place. You mention the Saw movies- if they were to include a scene of someone being eaten, I'm sure it would be just as gruesome as anything else there.

I don't really think technology is really a hindrance at all. We have plenty of examples of people in movies interacting with CGI creatures- I don't think showing someone being eaten by one would be substantially more complicated than someone climbing onto one and riding it.

[MasterMage13]

But like, torture porn and body horror movies are fine? Is watching someone being swallowed really more horrifying to an audience than, say, the Saw franchise or Hostel, or something like that? I watch loads of horror movies, I've seen stuff that makes vore look tame, and it's common. Why is being eaten such a big turn off compared to gory torture scenes?

Those are niche movies. Vore niche stuff also exists. And I'm pretty sure "torture porn" isn't universal, much like vore.

They can't be that niche. They made 10 of them. Saw X made $111.8 million dollars. And it's got a scene were a man cuts his own brain out. Got an 80% from the critics and a 89% from the audience.

[Snapper314]

Hollywood is aware of VORE. And they Hate it. Except in advertising, which ends up being "bait-n-switch".

You will frequently see posters or trailers featuring people (especially women) in danger of being attacked or consumed by some creature. But these scenes usually never actually happen in the film or show.

And the general public is also to blame for these scenes being far & few between. Just look at the "outrage" about the ONLY scene of a women EVER being eaten in ANY Jurassic film (Zara in Jurassic World)!

[gbboyth]

But like, torture porn and body horror movies are fine? Is watching someone being swallowed really more horrifying to an audience than, say, the Saw franchise or Hostel, or something like that? I watch loads of horror movies, I've seen stuff that makes vore look tame, and it's common. Why is being eaten such a big turn off compared to gory torture scenes?

I think you read the opposite of what I was saying. What I meant was that the horror aspect ISN'T the reason why filmmakers don't show vore, it's simply that the same level of horror can be achieved more cheaply and easily without showing it. A lot of violent horror movies also leave more to the imagination than they actually show, even though the violence is the main draw, just because those kind of scenes cost more money and are harder to get right.

[digestor]

Cost and the fact that they don't share your fetish.


Be careful not to fall into the trap of coming here too often enough to think vore is normal or normalized. If a movie is being made, its all about Cost, Time, Schedule, Release restrictions (ratings and local rules all that). How hot someone with an obscure fetish finds it doesn't even land on the map.

[Daichi777]

1 - Same reason Disney most likely cancelled Gigantic, especially when it comes to macrophilia stuff. Research and Google your topic and look at the amazing crazy shit that comes up and how people get so horny off it. You don't want people seeing that stuff to somehow be related especially for underage innocent girl movie.
2 - Money/time for scene/impact of it.
3 - Plot and suspense. It's not there for kinks.
4 - Audience. Being eaten alive is most terrifying thing for men especially years ago from some research poll. The internal scene from 'Nope' people loved and got terrified by and it was different. But it depends on what kind of horror movie it is.

[dessychan8]

The most important question is why do they have to? They're not trying to make stuff for people to get off to.