Watching through his monitor, Mudd saw his last shot penetrate the shields of the fighter, piercing the cockpit window and also the pilot. It was a toss up on whether he bled to death before he died of exposure.
Watching through his monitor, Mudd saw his last shot penetrate the shields of the fighter. The bolt ripped through the cockpit window, sending shards of glass flying. The beam energy remaining in the bolt was enough to not just penetrate the suit of the pilot, but to tear it off at the middle of his forearm. Mudd imagined the scream of agony that the pilot must have made, as his life blood poured out of his severed arteries. The pressure in the cabin quickly reached zero, and the remaining blood boiled, then froze.
...
I have an opinion here.
For me, "too far" is as soon as violence is described for its own sake. See, in the above example, 1st description would generally be ok by me if the death of that pilot does matter something for the story: say, he was one of characters doing something(s) before and/or he was important or even key figure in the battle. Second description (more datailed one) would be ok by me if that pilot was one of important characters of the story (and thus, describing his death and suffering would be a part of the story's drama). But it wouldn't be ok, by me, if that pilot was only important (or ever key) figure in the battle, and nothing else: if we describe the pilot as a tactical unit, then we should treat him as such (and NOT as living human), therefore description of his lifeblood boiling and freezing is "too far". If that pilot wasn't mentioned in the story before his death, or was barely mentioned, then i say both descriptions are "too far" in parts where suffering of the pilot is described.
Amount of "not too far violence per scene" may vary greatly, actually. It all depends on how deeply characters of the story were described, how many events with them were described before the violence scenes, purpose of violence, etc. Good examples are many. I'll give just one: well-known, famous Terminator-2 movie. All violence there is nesessary, being (in given circumstances) one of most effective options for involved characters (or at least they think it would be). Especially notable is that the more we get into that movie, the more suffering of main characters is shown: wounds of Sara and significant damage to T801 take place in 2nd half of the movie, and then extremely violent scenes are all at the end of the movie: T801 temporary shutdown (forced), T1000 torturing Sara, and detailed close views of massive T801 damage. Surely director could show quite similar things in earlier parts of the movie (opportunities were really many), but it would be "too far", since characters were not so much "alive" yet in the mind of watching person. So director didn't, showing "functionally required" violence in earlier parts of the movie being quite "not so much painful", often quick, and with less/none close views.
Do you see the groundhog there? No? Me neither. But, it's there nonetheless.
