Yes, of course it does.

The first example of violence being used (and sensationalized) in media I'd like to look at is the 2006 release "300", which was unrelentingly violent for violence's sake. This clip shows what I'm saying pretty well: (embedding disabled, watch here) I'd actually like to tie into three points instead of two because I feel that the movie connects with all three quite strongly. First, and most primal, is that we love movement, and one of our favorite types of movement is combat. It's exhilarating, and we're biologically built to think so. The frenetic and vicious pace of combat appeals to us on a very basic level right down to our Sympathetic Nervous System, which creates our fight-or-flight responses (note: both of these options contain copious amounts of movement). So, when we see 300 Spartans absolutely shredding this giant Persian army, flowing around in their crimson cloaks, slowing down then speeding up and cutting into a foe with pinpoint precision all while preparing to slay another, it excites us because movement is exciting.

The second point that this ties into is that movies can portray violence to an amazing degree with special effects. We see this in incredible detail in various parts of 300, especially in scenes of combat, where a favorite technique of the director's is to slow down the action about a 3rd of a second before the kill and then just as the blade strikes, it actually speeds up past normal speed for a brief second as we see the enemy being viciously torn apart by the strike, then returns to normal until the next kill. Also, the movie contains decapitations, an unusual amount of maiming, and many especially brutal kills where you can see a spear plunging into one side of an enemy and then coming out the other, which are all done with that same movie magic we all know and love.

Third and final is the point that says in so many words, heroes and villains don't just talk, they fight. This is absolutely true in 300, with the Spartan side being painted as the heroes that defend their homeland against impossible odds against a foreign invader come to destroy everything they've ever known (and I'm not saying that the portrayal is unfair, look at history) whereas the Persians are portrayed as heartless animals that go into another country and plunder and murder and destroy. In one scene, we see an in-depth view of what goes on in the Persian king's tent, and it is portrayed as rife with hedonism and corruption. At a different point in the film, the Spartans come across a village that the Persian "Immortals" have completely destroyed, and have even gone so far as to spike the villagers to a tree. With this, we have a pretty clear setup of hero and villain, and then they fight. By God, do they ever fight.

There's another point that I feel is pretty important in our culture that 300 really couldn't address, and that's the concept that certain types of violence are engineered purely for comedy, and in the cases of animated movies, mostly for children. To show this, we'll look at the most classic of all classics, Looney Tunes. Ever since it's debut in the early 1930's, Looney Tunes has been the icon of animated violence. Most of the episodes seem solely based around the violence that occurs between two characters, (in this case Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny):

As we can see, Elmer takes most of the beating here and in the eyes of children, that's great because they want to see the bad guy lose (this is also a type of hero versus villain). This particular episode is violent, but we don't get into the trademark Viet Cong-like killing devices that many episodes feature (like grabbing a dummy filled with straw that looks like Bugs Bunny, which then pulls a rope that drops a giant anvil), and for some reason, that's insanely funny, usually with the greater attempted murder getting the bigger laugh. In Looney Tunes, hero always trumps villain and villain always takes a darn good thrashing before the end. Children love it, and always have. I know I still do.