# Why modern movies suck - they teach us awful lessons



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

What I don't get is why Directors write scripts instead of actual professional writers.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> What I don't get is why Directors write scripts instead of actual professional writers.



Likely it's the sort of arrogance that results in may indie film directors thinking that they can do a spectacular job as producer, writer, director, camera 1, and crafty.


----------



## ninjayeti (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> What I don't get is why Directors write scripts instead of actual professional writers.



Some of the best writers in Hollywood today ARE directors : Christopher Nolan, James Gunn, Quentin Tarantino, the Cohen Brothers, Guillermo del Toro, etc. etc.

(edited out my edit to add the point later in the discussion)


----------



## Jer (Mar 11, 2022)

If you go back and watch older movies without cherry picking, you'll find that most of them also teach awful lessons.  It's just Sturgeon's Law at work.



darkwillow said:


> What I don't get is why Directors write scripts instead of actual professional writers.



The view of the Director as "auteur" has a lot to do with this - upholding the idea of a film as being the vision of just the Director has had an impact on how films get made now.  Too many directors buying into that narrative instead of realizing that auteur theory is just one kind of film theory and not every movie should fit into it.

(Directors in the old days knew you just stole the public credit for how the film turns out rather than actually trying to do all of the work yourself.  Let the writers and actors make you look good while everyone attributes the success and message of the film just to you.)


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 11, 2022)

The last good movie was the one in which the train was coming straight at the camera.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 11, 2022)

Seriously though, modern movies suck??? That is such a weird take. I'm not going to watch the video (it is my eternal pledge to never watch a YouTube video posted in a discussion forum), so @darkwillow I'm wondering if you would explain your view instead.

What do you define as "modern?" Based on the picture of Mulan, are you only talking about Disney / Marvel blockbusters, or all of film?

What lessons, if any, do you think cinema should teach?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 11, 2022)

Yeah, yeah, more of the "Rey's a Mary Sue" BS.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 11, 2022)

Jer said:


> The view of the Director as "auteur" has a lot to do with this - upholding the idea of a film as being the vision of just the Director has had an impact on how films get made now.  Too many directors buying into that narrative instead of realizing that auteur theory is just one kind of film theory and not every movie should fit into it.



And yet so much film criticism today is about how we should return to the 70s where directors were auteurs, because modern film is too safe and corporate. So turns out that people will always complain about film these days, finding different reasons to do so.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 11, 2022)

The director is the author of the movie. A better question would be why don't all screenwriters direct their own movies?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 11, 2022)

Saying modern movies suck is like saying modern music sucks.  It's all subjective and usually based on cherry-picking   There are great movies today, and great movies from decades ago.  Just like there are crappy movies today just like there were crappy movies before.   Unless one wants to argue Highlander II, Speed II, and Jaws the Revenger were good movies...(don't get me started on the Sci-Fi movies from the 70s and 80s lol)


----------



## Jer (Mar 11, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> And yet so much film criticism today is about how we should return to the 70s where directors were auteurs, because modern film is too safe and corporate. So turns out that people will always complain about film these days, finding different reasons to do so.



Those complaints really want to return to the days when money was flowing freely to fund any weird project that you might have in Hollywood rather than it being a tightly controlled stream of money from corporations looking for a good ROI when they invest in a film. I'd like that too, but it involves an economy that hasn't existed for 50 years.

(Those complaints miss that a lot of the free flow of money back in the day was because producing films was a great way to launder money from criminal operations and as law enforcement figured that out the money hose got cut off and Hollywood had to become more corporate to keep producing films...)


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

ninjayeti said:


> Some of the best writers in Hollywood today ARE directors : Christopher Nolan, James Gunn, Quentin Tarantino, the Cohen Brothers, Guillermo del Toro, etc. etc.



Sure, but the rest who are good at directing, bad at writing scripts probably shouldn't emulate them.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Saying modern movies suck is like saying modern music sucks.  It's all subjective and usually based on cherry-picking   There are great movies today, and great movies from decades ago.  Just like there are crappy movies today just like there were crappy movies before.   Unless one wants to argue Highlander II, Speed II, and Jaws the Revenger were good movies...(don't get me started on the Sci-Fi movies from the 70s and 80s lol)



Yeah he didn't say all modern movies suck, many he reviews he likes.  His point was around specific examples about how the originals told good stories, and how the modern version told poor life lessons.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 11, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Likely it's the sort of arrogance that results in may indie film directors thinking that they can do a spectacular job as producer, writer, director, camera 1, and crafty.




Many indie film directors do not have the budget to have separate writers, producers, directors, camera operators, and so on.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Yeah he didn't say all modern movies suck, many he reviews he likes.  His point was around specific examples about how the originals told good stories, and how the modern version told poor life lessons.



So it's not "modern movies suck," it's "modern remakes suck?"

Can you say more about the life lessons?


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, yeah, more of the "Rey's a Mary Sue" BS.



I mean she was perfect at the start of the trilogy and perfect at the end.  idk what you think a mary sue is, but her character arc was non-existent so thats the main issue.


----------



## J.Quondam (Mar 11, 2022)

Near as I can tell, linked video doesn't have anything to do with the writer/director question. It just yammers about how a few recent-ish movies are destroying morality or something. 
Oh, and all those movies just happen to have female protagonist/heroes. Kinda strange.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> So it's not "modern movies suck," it's "modern remakes suck?"
> 
> Can you say more about the life lessons?



The life lesson of the first mulan movie was that hard work pays off, life is hard but stick with it, being smart pays off, etc.
The second mulan movie lesson is you don't have to work at anything, you automatically succeed at everything because you are special.
I've seen asian reviewers complain about this too.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 11, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Many indie film directors do not have the budget to have separate writers, producers, directors, camera operators, and so on.



I completely understand that, as I have a number of indie film makers as friends. There are, however, a subset who do it all because they think that they _can_ do it all. I remember that Frank Miller famously said that he didn't want someone else to do "The Spirit" because they would "f*** it up." Look what _he_ did with it.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

J.Quondam said:


> Oh, and all those movies just happen to have female protagonist/heroes. Kinda strange.



You have to look a little deeper than that... nothing to do with male or female, its about lack of character arc.  He reviews lots of amazing female heroes on how to do it well.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

If you want to see incredible writing of character arcs, watch 
Gomorrah​


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> The life lesson of the first mulan movie was that hard work pays off, life is hard but stick with it, being smart pays off, etc.
> The second mulan movie lesson is you don't have to work at anything, you automatically succeed at everything because you are special.
> I've seen asian reviewers complain about this too.



I have not seen the remake of Mulan so I can't comment on that. But going from "the remake of Mulan doesn't sell its character's growth" to "modern movies suck" is quite a leap. It's also a little suspicious to only focus on movies with a female lead?


----------



## MGibster (Mar 11, 2022)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, yeah, more of the "Rey's a Mary Sue" BS.



When it comes to talking about Star Wars and Rey in particular, there's such an overwhelming amount of criticism based on sexism that it's hard to separate the bad arguments from the good ones.  I know every time I hear someone start to complain about Rey I think, "Oh, no.  Not again!"  I liked Rey in the first movie and I thought Daisy Ridley did a great job in the role.  Actually, that's true for all the other actors in _The Force Awakens _as well.  Personally, I wouldn't argue that she was a Mary Sue because we're talking about a setting where a simple farm boy can go on to destroy the most powerful battle station in the galaxy.  Even if that technological terror was insignificant next to the power of the force.  And it didn't bother me that she was able to beat Kylo Ren in the first movie as he was severely injured by Chewbacca prior to their fight and maybe a little tuckered out by his fight with Fin. 

But I don't think she had many opportunities for growth throughout the series.  She didn't have an interesting arc like Luke or Anakin did.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I have not seen the remake of Mulan so I can't comment on that. But going from "the remake of Mulan doesn't sell its character's growth" to "modern movies suck" is quite a leap. It's also a little suspicious to only focus on movies with a female lead?



I think you need to broaden your mind a little, he has shown lots of movies with amazing female leads.  These examples of poor character arc are recent big budge remakes that should know better.  And its not "all modern movies", its "modern movies" with poor life lessons.  
He is saying the original Mulan or Wonder Woman was done great, with a great life lesson from a great character arc.  Then the remake comes long and you have Wonder Woman taking over an innocent mans body with her wish to have some 70yo lover popped in there, and she doesnt care.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> Seriously though, modern movies suck??? That is such a weird take. I'm not going to watch the video (it is my eternal pledge to never watch a YouTube video posted in a discussion forum), so @darkwillow



Maybe bow out of the thread then if you have nothing to offer.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> I think you need to broaden your mind a little, he has shown lots of movies with amazing female leads.  These examples of poor character arc are recent big budge remakes that should know better.  And its not "all modern movies", its "modern movies" with poor life lessons.
> He is saying the original Mulan or Wonder Woman was done great, with a great life lesson from a great character arc.  Then the remake comes long and you have Wonder Woman taking over an innocent mans body with her wish to have some 70yo lover popped in there, and she doesnt care.



I haven't watched the video you posted, and I'm not going to watch any others.

But you are the one who chose to post it. I think it would be a lot more useful for you to discuss your ideas than this random YouTuber's.

So far every film you've mentioned is a blockbuster. In my view, these are movies made to appeal to a broad audience, focusing on spectacle and action over lessons or morals. They're fun popcorn flicks.

If you want interesting, chewy morality tales, there's a lot of other modern cinema that gives you that. Take Parasite or Moonlight, two recent Oscar winning modern movies.

Edit: to add a modern chewy morality film with an interesting female protagonist: Promising Young Woman


----------



## J.Quondam (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> You have to look a little deeper than that... nothing to do with male or female, its about lack of character arc.  He reviews lots of amazing female heroes on how to do it well.



No need to look deeper. If he's serious about making that particular point, he should have included a much broader range of examples; ie, ones with non-female protagonists, ones that aren't action/adventure, or whatnot. Making such a broad declaration (and laughably silly one, at that) based on such a thin set of "data" is lazy and best, and maliciously deceptive at worst. Faux drunkenness notwithstanding, of course.

Also, more to the point, the video still has nothing to do with your writer/director question.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 11, 2022)

Truth is that the bad, in any given year, vastly outweighs the good. After a couple of decades everyone (except MST3K) forgets the bad and only looks back fondly on the good.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 11, 2022)

MGibster said:


> When it comes to talking about Star Wars and Rey in particular, there's such an overwhelming amount of criticism based on sexism that it's hard to separate the bad arguments from the good ones.  I know every time I hear someone start to complain about Rey I think, "Oh, no.  Not again!"  I liked Rey in the first movie and I thought Daisy Ridley did a great job in the role.  Actually, that's true for all the other actors in _The Force Awakens _as well.  Personally, I wouldn't argue that she was a Mary Sue because we're talking about a setting where a simple farm boy can go on to destroy the most powerful battle station in the galaxy.  Even if that technological terror was insignificant next to the power of the force.  And it didn't bother me that she was able to beat Kylo Ren in the first movie as he was severely injured by Chewbacca prior to their fight and maybe a little tuckered out by his fight with Fin.
> 
> But I don't think she had many opportunities for growth throughout the series.  She didn't have an interesting arc like Luke or Anakin did.




 Actor did fine Blame the writers. 

 It's like Ahmed Best and Jake their characters weren't great being honest but one was a kid. Ahmed did what he was told and that was Lucas. 

 Idk if you can even blame the directors if the story is bad.

 There's less variety with big hit movies though and it's harder with a modest budget to have a big hit unlike say the 80's.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 11, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> And yet so much film criticism today is about how we should return to the 70s where directors were auteurs, because modern film is too safe and corporate. So turns out that people will always complain about film these days, finding different reasons to do so.




Just for kicks, lets look at some blockbusters from the 70s:

Grease
Animal House
The Amityville Horror
MASH
Smokey and the Bandit
Dirty Harry

Yup, sure is a shame modern movies teach such awful lessons.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

J.Quondam said:


> Also, more to the point, the video still has nothing to do with your writer/director question.



The question is why, why are these poor character arcs, these questionable stories getting written when you have a massive budget, all the resources in the world.

The answer seems to be that the director wrote the script instead of hiring professional writers.  I mean most game of thrones fans could write a better ending to GoT.  Nobody is going to write that Cerseis character arc ending with a stone block landing on her.
No DC fan is going to make the villain a salesman and bring back Chris Pine for the second movie.
etc.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> You have to look a little deeper than that... nothing to do with male or female, its about lack of character arc.




So, if it had _nothing_ do do with male or female, why are all his negative examples centered on female characters?  If movies suck _in general_ for these reasons, then certainly such examples must exist.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 11, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> ....
> Animal House
> ....Yup, sure is a shame modern movies teach such awful lessons.





I mean ....

_My advice to you is to start drinking heavily._


Can't say that I ever disagree with that. That's right there with ...

_As your attorney, I advise you to take a hit out of the little brown bottle in my shaving kit._


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 11, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, if it had _nothing_ do do with male or female, why are all his negative examples centered on female characters?  If movies suck _in general_ for these reasons, then certainly such examples must exist.




The worst 6 or 7 MCU movies are kina meh and that includes Thor and Iron Man ones. None are outright terrible though. 

 Part of it is I suspect people expect to much it's really had to consistently make great movies there's no magic formula. 

 Star Wars is batting 50/50 or slightly better. Even then there's only 3 bad ones and maybe 3 meh ones.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, if it had _nothing_ do do with male or female, why are all his negative examples centered on female characters?  If movies suck _in general_ for these reasons, then certainly such examples must exist.



The title is very click bait, he can't be saying all movies, because he reviews movies he likes.
I think the selection is mostly centered on huge budge movies that fit the criteria of character arc.
I don't think he has any dislike for female heroes, cause he provides stella reviews for lots of female led films.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 11, 2022)

Here is the NSS news:

There have been awful movies as long as there has been movies.
There have been awful remakes as long as there have been remakes.
There are a lot of modern movies that are far worse than the ones cited in the rant. It couldn't be that they where overlooked because they have male protagonists?


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> The question is why, why are these poor character arcs, these questionable stories getting written when you have a massive budget, all the resources in the world.
> 
> The answer seems to be that the director wrote the script instead of hiring professional writers.  I mean most game of thrones fans could write a better ending to GoT.  Nobody is going to write that Cerseis character arc ending with a stone block landing on her.
> No DC fan is going to make the villain a salesman and bring back Chris Pine for the second movie.
> etc.



I actually agree that a lot of modern blockbusters bungle their character arcs. My theory is that it's more due to the pressures of the studio than any artists involved.

This came up recently, and it's a good example of how a large studio like Disney controls what stories their creators are allowed to tell:









						Pixar Blasts Disney for Censoring Its LGBTQ Content
					

As well as for failing to speak out against Florida's harmful "Don't Say Gay" bill.




					gizmodo.com
				




Note: I'm going to keep away from the political / Florida side of it due to ENworld rules.

Employees at Pixar wrote an open letter claiming Disney has squashed storylines and characters that would be representative of LGBTQIA+ culture in Pixar films. The letter also says that Disney will publicly support LGTQIA+ rights, but as a company actively muffles these stories from occurring in their movies and TV shows.

This is an adjacent point to the OP, but I think it does show that the kinds of stories modern blockbusters are allowed to tell are highly controlled by large corporations that own the studios.

EDIT: Also I'm posting this because I don't think the point they are making is political, but Mods if you disagree let me know and I'll edit this post.


----------



## Jer (Mar 11, 2022)

MGibster said:


> But I don't think she had many opportunities for growth throughout the series.  She didn't have an interesting arc like Luke or Anakin did.



With the original movie Lucas had an actual full story - it had a beginning, a middle and an end.  If there were no sequels it would be a satisfying standalone movie, if an example of a sci-fi film where much more could have been done with it.  He also had a sketch of what he would do in that world if he could and an idea of some backstory that had led to the point where episode IV started (it wasn't as extensive as some folks would like to believe, but it wasn't nothing either).

TFA is almost the opposite of that in every way.  It has a beginning and a middle, and there's a climax, but it doesn't really have a satisfying ending.  It was plotted in JJ Abrams "Mystery Box" style where he threw a lot of things into the plot with no idea of how they would pay off - the opposite of having even a sketch of where it would go.  Disney decided to let three different directors plot the trilogy in an almost Exquisite Corpse fashion instead of having a rough sketch of how the trilogy would work. Abrams style and Disney's move also led to there being no real solid idea of backstory beyond "Return of the Jedi something something New Movie", which didn't help with coming up with an arc for any of the new characters that he invented.

The actors all did the best they could with what they were given, but it's really no way to make a movie, let alone manage a franchise of films.  Hopefully Disney has figured out that maybe having at least a rough sketch on a napkin for how your proposed trilogy is going to play out is a good idea.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Actor did fine Blame the writers.



Yeah I don't think anyone blames the actors unless it was bad acting.


Zardnaar said:


> Idk if you can even blame the directors if the story is bad.



Unless the director wrote the story  which is my point.  I think most issues could have been resolved by having a professional writer lay out the blueprint of the story.  but idk maybe directors desperately want their writing credit.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Yeah I don't think anyone blames the actors unless it was bad acting.
> 
> Unless the director wrote the story  which is my point.  I think most issues could have been resolved by having a professional writer lay out the blueprint of the story.  but idk maybe directors desperately want their writing credit.




 Sometimes the director does a great job otherwise it doesn't. 
 Personally if I was one I would collude with a writer. Here's my big idea get the writer to polish it.


----------



## ninjayeti (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Sure, but the rest who are good at directing, bad at writing scripts probably shouldn't emulate them.



Well if your point is "people who are bad at writing screenplays shouldn't write screenplays" I agree.  

But your post specifically calls out directors writing scripts as the reason for bad movies and I don't think that holds up to any scrutiny.  Lots of the best movies in recent years were written by the director, and lots of the worst movies were written by full time writers.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

ninjayeti said:


> Well if your point is "people who are bad at writing screenplays shouldn't write screenplays" I agree.
> 
> But your post specifically calls out directors writing scripts as the reason for bad movies and I don't think that holds up to any scrutiny.  Lots of the best movies in recent years were written by the director, and lots of the worst movies were written by full time writers.



I mean a bad movie can be for any reason.
In the last 2 years, what is a big budget, block buster movie, with an amazing story and character, that was not based on a book or a comic, written by only the director.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 11, 2022)

ninjayeti said:


> Well if your point is "people who are bad at writing screenplays shouldn't write screenplays" I agree.
> 
> But your post specifically calls out directors writing scripts as the reason for bad movies and I don't think that holds up to any scrutiny.  Lots of the best movies in recent years were written by the director, and lots of the worst movies were written by full time writers.



Yeah, I agree with this point. Looking at the Best Picture Nominees for 2022:

Belfast - Director: Kenneth Branagh. Writer: Kenneth Branagh.

Coda - Director: Sian Heder. Writer: Sian Heder.

Don't Look Up - Director: Adam McKay. Writer: Adam McKay.

Drive My Car - Director: Ryusuke Hamaguchi. Writers: Ryusuke Hamaguchi, Takamasa Oe

Dune - Director: Denis Villeneuve. Writers: John Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve, Eric Roth.

King Richard - Director: Reinaldo Marcus Green. Writer: Zach Baylin.

...

That's only the first half, but there's definitely a mix of films written by the director, written by a team with the director, or not written by the director. Now whether individual viewers see these as good films or not, we can agree these are movies being considered as "good" by the Academy.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 11, 2022)

Another reason for the lack of nuance and depth, in modern film, is that the big blockbusters have to play well in the foreign market. It's far easier to go for mass appeal, in both domestic and foreign markets, if you have lots of bang-bang and not so much nuance. Jokes don't translate, due to idiom or the like. Cultural touchstones are different. Certain foreign governments simply don't allow their people to see some sorts of characters/stories. This is heightened when a particular nation is involved in providing monetary backing.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 11, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> Yeah, I agree with this point. Looking at the Best Picture Nominees for 2022:
> 
> Belfast - Director: Kenneth Branagh. Writer: Kenneth Branagh.
> 
> ...




 Most of those aren't big budget though. 

 As much as we love to blame Hollywood they're serving up what the punters want to see en masse.

 80's had a variety of budgets and a variety of genres so you had more variety at least in terms of mass consumption. 

 Movies changed in 70's (summer blockbusters) and 90"s (big budget special effects).

 What's better is subjective.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2022)

Oh, the Critical Drinker. The guy who thinks saying things like "entertainment shouldn't have politics in it" isn't a profoundly ignorant thing for someone who fancies themselves a critic to say.

There isn't enough bourbon on the face of the Earth to make me sit through one of his videos. But thanks for posting!

I mean, like any successful YouTuber/new media content creator, he's got some business chops. I can respect that.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 11, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Most of those aren't big budget though.
> 
> As much as we love to blame Hollywood they're serving up what the punters want to see en masse.
> 
> ...



A film maker friend once commented, "A small budget movie these days is $2M. There's no place anymore for the $500K movie."


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> I mean a bad movie can be for any reason.
> In the last 2 years, what is a big budget, block buster movie, with an amazing story and character, that was not based on a book or a comic, written by only the director.



Are we only talking about Blockbusters?

There have been critically acclaimed recent movies that meet your criteria:

Licorice Pizza
Da 5 Bloods
Tenet
Nomadland (based on a nonfiction book but I think it counts)
The Mitchels vs the Machines
Quiet Place Pt 2
Old
Candyman

Not all of those are blockbusters, but many of them are successful films written and directed by the same person and not based (as far as I know) on existing fiction.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 11, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Most of those aren't big budget though.
> 
> As much as we love to blame Hollywood they're serving up what the punters want to see en masse.
> 
> ...



Is this discussion just about big budget movies? The title just says "modern movies."


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 11, 2022)

I have watched the Critical Drinker in the past and I will not watch any more of his videos because I think he prefers to court controversy than to tell me something useful. He is the cause of my Youtube rule never to watch any thing with the word "Woke" in it from either side of the political spectrum because they are almost always clickbait.


----------



## J.Quondam (Mar 11, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I have watched the Critical Drinker in the past and I will not watch any more of his videos because I think he prefers to court controversy than to tell me something useful. He is the cause of my Youtube rule never to watch any thing with the word "Woke" in it from either side of the political spectrum because they are almost always clickbait.



I'd never heard of him before, but yeah, that's the exact impression I get after watching that one video.


----------



## ninjayeti (Mar 11, 2022)

Looking at the Best Picture nominees for the last two years.  In 2021 seven out of eight best picture nominees were written or co-written by the director.  (Interestingly, the only nominee not written by the director (Mank) was written by the director's father).  In 2022 eight out of the 10 best picture nominees were written or co-written by the director.  

Obviously there is no way to quantify movie quality, but I think this is a more reliable indicator that sweeping generalizations or cherry picking particular examples that support your point.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 11, 2022)

J.Quondam said:


> I'd never heard of him before, but yeah, that's the exact impression I get after watching that one video.



Glad to have my impression confirmed but I think it a pity because I think he knows his stuff and I could do with a reviewer that gives a straight and fairly consistent opinion of movies.


----------



## payn (Mar 11, 2022)

I think there are far worse stories about awful people in modern television. Seems like much more of a theme there.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Glad to have my impression confirmed but I think it a pity because I think he knows his stuff and I could do with a reviewer that gives a straight and fairly consistent opinion of movies.



That’s not where the money is and his channel is a business, tho.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 11, 2022)

Mallus said:


> That’s not where the money is and his channel is a business, tho.



That is all very well but not much use to me.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 11, 2022)

ninjayeti said:


> Looking at the Best Picture nominees for the last two years.  In 2021 seven out of eight best picture nominees were written or co-written by the director.  (Interestingly, the only nominee not written by the director (Mank) was written by the director's father).  In 2022 eight out of the 10 best picture nominees were written or co-written by the director.




I think it's necessary to point out an additional irony.

The one counter-example is _Mank_. _Mank_, famously, is the story about the battle between Orson Welles and Herman Mankiewiekz for credit in writing _Citizen Kane._

The basic gist, regardless of how you view the historical accuracy, is correct- the director did not want to give the writer credit for the screenplay. They ended up both getting credit (and both winning the Oscar).

From this, we get a story as old as Hollywood. Directors will often get co-writing credit. Sometimes very deserved, sometimes somewhat deserved, sometimes ... well, sometimes they get a credit.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> That is all very well but not much use to me.



Me neither. I avoid these guys like COVID, while mourning the loss of channels like Every Frame a Painting!


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 11, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I have watched the Critical Drinker in the past and I will not watch any more of his videos because I think he prefers to court controversy than to tell me something useful. He is the cause of my Youtube rule never to watch any thing with the word "Woke" in it from either side of the political spectrum because they are almost always clickbait.



The most financially successful Youtubers both have a thick skin, and have realized that Google treats both up- and down-votes equally, from an interaction perspective.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 11, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think it's necessary to point out an additional irony.
> 
> The one counter-example is _Mank_. _Mank_, famously, is the story about the battle between Orson Welles and Herman Mankiewiekz for credit in writing _Citizen Kane._
> 
> ...



Means slightly more than a couple of producer credits I have floating out there, waiting for release


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 11, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Means slightly more than a couple of producer credits I have floating out there, waiting for release




Dude.

Every waiter in the valley has a producer credit. They give them out at happy hour.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> Dune - Director: Denis Villeneuve. Writers: John Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve, Eric Roth.



Dune was fantastic, but based on a book


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Another reason for the lack of nuance and depth, in modern film, is that the big blockbusters have to play well in the foreign market. It's far easier to go for mass appeal, in both domestic and foreign markets, if you have lots of bang-bang and not so much nuance. Jokes don't translate, due to idiom or the like. Cultural touchstones are different. Certain foreign governments simply don't allow their people to see some sorts of characters/stories. This is heightened when a particular nation is involved in providing monetary backing.



Yeah I forget about that, though I don't think its an excuse for lack of character arc.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 11, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Dude.
> 
> Every waiter in the valley has a producer credit. They give them out at happy hour.



I'm well aware 

"Producer", these days, most often translates to "guy who gave us money."


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Yeah I forget about that, though I don't think its an excuse for lack of character arc.



It kind of is, though. There are times and governments who can't brook the concept of a cultural hero ever having been weak, in any way.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> Are we only talking about Blockbusters?



Yes, I don't think there is any doubt there are lots of small movies with good characters.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 11, 2022)

Mallus said:


> Me neither. I avoid these guys like COVID, while mourning the loss of channels like Every Frame a Painting!



Yeah, I hear you. The trouble, as some one who has had a go at YouTubing, is that a channel is an enormous time sink. I am in awe of people that can do it while holding down a full time job. How do they ever get any sleep?


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 11, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Yeah, I hear you. The trouble, as some one who has had a go at YouTubing, is that a channel is an enormous time sink. I am in awe of people that can do it while holding down a full time job. How do they ever get any sleep?



For a lot of them, that became their full time job. That's why the constant rejigging of the payment structure has hurt them so badly.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Maybe bow out of the thread then if you have nothing to offer.



We'll do the moderation, thanks.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> That is all very well but not much use to me.



Feel free to crash a different thread.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 11, 2022)

I'm also going to point out that if you're an adult, and you're looking to movies for your lessons ... maybe you're doing it wrong?

Good movies ... really good movies ... don't _teach you lessons. _Good movies force you to think, not provide pat answers. 

If you want a good lesson about morality, read Aesop's fables. Otherwise, maybe don't look to blockbusters for great cinema. IMO.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Dune was fantastic, but based on a book



I think you got my posts mixed up. Dune is from the list of Oscar contenders, which include movies written both by the director and by writers. It just shows that a director also writing the film isn't indicative of the film being good or bad.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 11, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I'm also going to point out that if you're an adult, and you're looking to movies for your lessons ... maybe you're doing it wrong?
> 
> Good movies ... really good movies ... don't _teach you lessons. _Good movies force you to think, not provide pat answers.
> 
> If you want a good lesson about morality, read Aesop's fables. Otherwise, maybe don't look to blockbusters for great cinema. IMO.




 This heavy handed preaching in movies tend to go down like a lead balloon. 

 But a good one will make you think and hopefully you enjoy it but not all movies are for enjoyment.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 11, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> This heavy handed preaching in movies tend to go down like a lead balloon.
> 
> But a good one will make you think and hopefully you enjoy it but not all movies are for enjoyment.



Something else that a film buff friend thinks goes over like a lead balloon, in "modern" movies, is a sound track that tells you how a scene is supposed to make you feel. That can also be rather heavy-handed.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Feel free to crash a different thread.



You're about to achieve the impressive task of getting yourself uninvited from your own thread. Please stop telling people where they can and cannot post.


----------



## ninjayeti (Mar 11, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> From this, we get a story as old as Hollywood. Directors will often get co-writing credit. Sometimes very deserved, sometimes somewhat deserved, sometimes ... well, sometimes they get a credit.



OK lets disregard any film that had the director as co-writer.  In 2021 five nominees had the director as the sole writer and only one the director was not involved in the writing at all.  In 2022 five nominees the director had the sole screenplay credit (one was based on a novel and one had a story credit) and only two did not give the director any writing credit.  

I still think that is a pretty compelling rebuttal to the argument "movies are bad because directors try to write them."


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 11, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> For a lot of them, that became their full time job. That's why the constant rejigging of the payment structure has hurt them so badly.



Oh! I am well aware of that. I started slightly before the adpocalypse and got the threshold for monetisation. The Google changed the rules around the time I had earned 40 cents. Then all my videos demonetised and they still owe me 40 cents.   
That is while Patreon is so important to many. But there are several I know that also do it full time and hold down a regular job. That I think is pretty astounding.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 11, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Oh! I am well aware of that. I started slightly before the adpocalypse and got the threshold for monetisation. The Google changed the rules around the time I had earned 40 cents. Then all my videos demonetised and they still owe me 40 cents.
> That is while Patreon is so important to many. But there are several I know that also do it full time and hold down a regular job. That I think is pretty astounding.



One rather well known Youtuber, who was making some serious money and ended up meeting many geek celebs (like Stan the Man multiple times), ended up getting hit so bad by the adpocalypse that she started selling nude calendars and posting the nude of the day, on Patreon.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 11, 2022)

ninjayeti said:


> OK lets disregard any film that had the director as co-writer.  In 2021 five nominees had the director as the sole writer and only one the director was not involved in the writing at all.  In 2022 five nominees the director had the sole screenplay credit (one was based on a novel and one had a story credit) and only two did not give the director any writing credit.
> 
> I still think that is a pretty compelling rebuttal to the argument "movies are bad because directors try to write them."




Oh, sorry. I completely agree with your last statement. That's a silly argument, and I can't imagine making it.

I was just noting that giving the director a writing credit doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot about the amount that they wrote. A Tarantino (for example) who prides themselves on their writing is the exception, not the rule. Often, the writing is minor editing or consulting.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Feel free to crash a different thread.



Interesting that you choose this off topic response to a side conversation to respond to rather than my on topic post on the matter.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 11, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> One rather well known Youtuber, who was making some serious money and ended up meeting many geek celebs (like Stan the Man multiple times), ended up getting hit so bad by the adpocalypse that she started selling nude calendars and posting the nude of the day, on Patreon.



Look I've been trying to not let my nude selfies business leak over into ENworld but if you're going to give me free advertising like this...


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 11, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Oh, sorry. I completely agree with your last statement. That's a silly argument, and I can't imagine making it.
> 
> I was just noting that giving the director a writing credit doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot about the amount that they wrote. A Tarantino (for example) who prides themselves on their writing is the exception, not the rule. Often, the writing is minor editing or consulting.



Or the director wrote it and then the studio rewrote the original garbage (or made it garbage).
Or they counted a couple of scenes the director created and added, himself, as "writing."
Or it was part of his contract that he be given a writing credit, for doing nothing of the sort.
Or...


----------



## ninjayeti (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> In the last 2 years, what is a big budget, block buster movie, with an amazing story and character, that was not based on a book or a comic, written by only the director.



Ok, I'll bite:

In 2020 the highest grossing movie that was not based on a video game/novel/comic book or existing franchise was - 1917.  Written and directed by Sam Mendes.  88% critic score and 88% audience score on Rotten Tomato.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 11, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Interesting that you choose this off topic response to a side conversation to respond to rather than my on topic post on the matter.



I mean all your posts in this thread are just garbage, can't do anything about that.  I'm sure you have good posts elsewhere.


----------



## Hex08 (Mar 11, 2022)

I haven't watched the video at the beginning of the thread, as soon as I saw it was The Critical Drinker I couldn't bring myself to watch it. I was introduced to his videos a few years ago by a friend and initially thought he was funny but the more I watched his stuff the more turned off I got. Eventually I realized he was someone who had a hobby, watching movies, but that he doesn't really like watching movies, he just likes trying to suck the joy out of them. Yes, he does have some videos that are positive reviews and yes, he does have some videos that aren't complaining about some lead female character, however, in general his videos are just him whining about modern movies sucking because they don't fit his worldview and how movies suck because yada-yada-Mary-Sue.

Also, he has a video explaining why he's not a misogynist which is something every non-misogynist needs.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Feel free to crash a different thread.






darkwillow said:


> I mean all your posts in this thread are just garbage...




*Mod Note:*

If you cannot manage to take disagreement with rather more aplomb than this, you came to the wrong website.  Here, we expect and require folks to show each other rather more respect than you are expressing here.  

Please, treat the people better, or you will find yoruself in the somewhat embarassing position of not being allowed to contribute to the discussion you yourself began.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 11, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I haven't watched the video at the beginning of the thread, as soon as I saw it was The Critical Drinker I couldn't bring myself to watch it. I was introduced to his videos a few years ago by a friend and initially thought he was funny but the more I watched his stuff the more turned off I got. Eventually I realized he was someone who had a hobby, watching movies, but that he doesn't really like watching movies, he just likes trying to suck the joy out of them. Yes, he does have some videos that are positive reviews and yes, he does have some videos that aren't complaining about some lead female character, however, in general his videos are just him whining about modern movies sucking because they don't fit his worldview and how movies suck because yada-yada-Mary-Sue.
> 
> Also, he has a video explaining why he's not a misogynist which is something every non-misogynist needs.




 He's the best of the worst as he can be funny and has a point occasionally. 

 Really depends on the video/movie.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 11, 2022)

Here is a question: does a movie _need_ a character arc? I can think of quite a few hugely successful ones that didn't. Most of the pre-Craig Bond movies for example. Bond comes in, sorts out the problem, and is exactly the same person at the end of the movie that he was at the start.


----------



## payn (Mar 11, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Here is a question: does a movie _need_ a character arc? I can think of quite a few hugely successful ones that didn't. Most of the pre-Craig Bond movies for example. Bond comes in, sorts out the problem, and is exactly the same person at the end of the movie that he was at the start.



They dont always. I think the video picks on Rey Palpatine because its implied that something interesting will happen with her story. What happens isnt really like previous saga stories though. Its jarring in this case because it doesn't fit the SW mold as previous installments did. I dont think it would be as big a deal if this was a SW story and not part of _the_ saga. 

So, I think the case is made in two instances of prequel/sequels that didnt match the initial experiences. I'm not sure this would hold up comparing different franchises nor does it mean modern movies suck.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 11, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I think you got my posts mixed up. Dune is from the list of Oscar contenders, which include movies written both by the director and by writers. It just shows that a director also writing the film isn't indicative of the film being good or bad.



You would almost think it was possible for someone to be good at more than one thing...


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> What I don't get is why Directors write scripts instead of actual professional writers.



Because some directors are also good writers?

Modern example: the Coen Brothers.

Classic Hollywood example: Preston Sturges.

(I wonder if the Drinker even knows who Preston Sturges is?)


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 11, 2022)

@darkwillow perhaps one issue you are having is that you haven't posted much of an opinion or argument yourself other than supporting the YouTube video, which as others have pointed out seems to echo the same misogynistic critiques often used on films with a female protagonist.

So what is your opinion? If you think modern movies lack character arcs, can you name a movie with a male protagonist that fits your critique?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 11, 2022)

Mallus said:


> Because some directors are also good writers?
> 
> Modern example: the Coen Brothers.
> 
> ...




If his name is *The Drinker*, then it would be kind of pathetic not to know who Preston Sturges was.


It would be like adopting the nom de plume of *The Misanthropic Alcoholic who Hates Children*, and when someone said, "Like WC Fields?" the guy would reply, "Who?"


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2022)

Man, this thread is making me miss the the indie film scene of the 1990s. 

Writer-directors like Hal Hartley (Henry Fool), Whit Stillman (Metropolitan), Gregg Araki (the  Teenage Apocalypse trilogy), and Wes Anderson (whose early works kinda count, though Owen Wilson shares a writing credit on them).


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 11, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Here is a question: does a movie _need_ a character arc? I can think of quite a few hugely successful ones that didn't. Most of the pre-Craig Bond movies for example. Bond comes in, sorts out the problem, and is exactly the same person at the end of the movie that he was at the start.



No it does not, decent dialogue, actor chemistry and you can get a moderately entertaining movie, or even a very entertaining movie.


----------



## Hex08 (Mar 11, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> If his name is *The Drinker*, then it would be kind of pathetic not to know who Preston Sturges was.
> 
> 
> It would be like adopting the nom de plume of *The Misanthropic Alcoholic who Hates Children*, and when someone said, "Like WC Fields?" the guy would reply, "Who?"



To be fair, some of us drink to stop knowing things


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 11, 2022)

Mallus said:


> Man, this thread is making me miss the the indie film scene of the 1990s.
> 
> Writer-directors like Hal Hartley (Henry Fool), Whit Stillman (Metropolitan), Gregg Araki (the  Teenage Apocalypse trilogy), and *Wes Anderson* (whose early works kinda count, though Owen Wilson shares a writing credit on them).




I just watched the French Dispatch (streaming). It was really good. 

It's definitely ... well, it's no Grand Hotel Budapest, but it's quite good.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> To be fair, some of us drink to stop knowing things



Bravo!


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 11, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I just watched the French Dispatch (streaming). It was really good.
> 
> It's definitely ... well, it's no Grand Hotel Budapest, but it's quite good.



It's one of his funniest films, I was laughing the entire time.


----------



## beta-ray (Mar 11, 2022)




----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 11, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> It's one of his funniest films, I was laughing the entire time.




Obviously, it's more vignettes that a coherent whole. My only complaint (and it's a small one) is that I thought that the extended McDormand vignette was good, but somewhat lesser than than the absolutely inspired art piece that preceded it.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 11, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Obviously, it's more vignettes that a coherent whole. My only complaint (and it's a small one) is that I thought that the extended McDormand vignette was good, but somewhat lesser than than the absolutely inspired art piece that preceded it.



I find it hard to name my favorite Wes Anderson.

Grand Budapest is just a masterwork and definitely one of my favorites.

Life Aquatic is very personal to me.

Royal Tannenbaums feels like one of his most personal ones... He has a lot of love for the flawed characters.

Rushmore is also much more raw than his other films, and I imagine a little autobiographical too.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 11, 2022)

payn said:


> They dont always. I think the video picks on Rey Palpatine because its implied that something interesting will happen with her story. What happens isnt really like previous saga stories though. Its jarring in this case because it doesn't fit the SW mold as previous installments did. I dont think it would be as big a deal if this was a SW story and not part of _the_ saga.
> 
> So, I think the case is made in two instances of prequel/sequels that didnt match the initial experiences. I'm not sure this would hold up comparing different franchises nor does it mean modern movies suck.




 The big problem was TFA went left, TLJ went right and RoS fell apart.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 11, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> Just for kicks, lets look at some blockbusters from the 70s:
> 
> Grease



ah, yes the movie that taught us that a 30 yr old Stockard Channing can play a high school senior, oh wait that's not the lesson is it?


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 11, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> ah, yes the movie that taught us that a 30 yr old Stockard Channing can play a high school senior, oh wait that's not the lesson is it?



A lesson that Hollywood has taken to heart, ever since.


----------



## Mage of Spellford (Mar 12, 2022)

"The Drinker" also writes some suggested fixes for some of the films that are thought provoking because he restricts his re-writes to minimize changes to the actual films while at the same time providing growth and more importantly understandable motivations for the characters. His rewrites of Rey's arc and Luke Skywalker's arc were quite entertaining and plausible.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

Mage of Spellford said:


> "The Drinker" also writes some suggested fixes for some of the films that are thought provoking because he restricts his re-writes to minimize changes to the actual films while at the same time providing growth and more importantly understandable motivations for the characters. His rewrites of Rey's arc and Luke Skywalker's arc were quite entertaining and plausible.



When an online personality uses the term "Mary Sue" in the year 2022 I cannot take any of their work seriously.


----------



## Erik Alt (Mar 12, 2022)

Ok, I'll bite. Why is the term "Mary Sue" in 2022 bad?


----------



## South by Southwest (Mar 12, 2022)

Erik Alt said:


> Ok, I'll bite. Why is the term "Mary Sue" in 2022 bad?



Because it's passé; it's been replaced by "Karen."


----------



## Mallus (Mar 12, 2022)

Erik Alt said:


> Ok, I'll bite. Why is the term "Mary Sue" in 2022 bad?



Mainly because it’s applied to hyper-competent female characters as a criticism, whereas hyper-competent male characters are accepted as normal and good. Expected, even. Of course James Bond and Kirk and Doc Savage are good at a lot of things... and are the protagonists of their respective stories, ie the center.

The term is also kinda lazy criticism. Incurious. Frankly… dumb. Extremely competent characters are staples in many kinds of genre fiction (Holmes, Poirot, etc.). Attempting to turn that quality into a negative without unpacking the role these sort of competence fantasies play in genre fiction and it’s history  is… well, bad criticism.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

Erik Alt said:


> Ok, I'll bite. Why is the term "Mary Sue" in 2022 bad?



It's a dog whistle for misogyny.

If a critic has an actual critique of a character art, there are ways to do so without using dog whistle terminology.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 12, 2022)

Mallus said:


> Mainly because it’s applied to hyper-competent female characters as a criticism, whereas hyper-competent male characters are accepted as normal and good. Expected, even. Of course James Bond and Kirk and Doc Savage are good at a lot of things... and are the protagonists of their respective stories, ie the center.
> 
> The term is also kinda lazy criticism. Incurious. Frankly… dumb. Extremely competent characters are staples in many kinds of genre fiction (Holmes, Poirot, etc.). Attempting to turn that quality into a negative without unpacking the role these sort of competence fantasies play in genre fiction and it’s history  is… well, bad criticism.



Male version is "Gary Stu."


Erik Alt said:


> Ok, I'll bite. Why is the term "Mary Sue" in 2022 bad?



Bad in 2022 because it is frequently used by misogynists to criticize any competent female character, rather than just characters that are wildly out of sync with their positions and what their perceived level of power/competence should be.

The origin of the term IIRC is from a Star Trek fanfic that the author used as wish fulfillment by placing a character of herself, named Mary Sue, in the crew. This ensign was hyper competent and loved by all the main characters, out of nowhere.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 12, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Male version is "Gary Stu."
> 
> Bad in 2022 because it is frequently used by misogynists to criticize any competent female character, rather than just characters that are wildly out of sync with their positions and what their perceived level of power/competence should be.
> 
> he origin of the term IIRC is from a Star Trek fanfic that the author used as wish fulfillment by placing a character of herself, named Mary Sue, in the crew. This ensign was hyper competent and loved by all the main characters, out of nowhere.




 And iirc it was satire. 

  Very few female characters are Mary sues IMHO.


----------



## Smackpixi (Mar 12, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I just watched the French Dispatch (streaming). It was really good.



 Oooo, where is it streaming, sure I could look that up but why don’t you just tell me the answer.

I really have to say, I agree, Modern Movies suck.  By which I mean all superhero movies that aren’t Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain Marvel, or the first half of a couple Batmans.  They’re unwatchable, an exaggeration of course, since even intolerant I have watched most, I mean they are boring as fork.  Boring movies have been common since the dawn of cinema, but just to antagonize here, i’m saying superhero movies are boring, usually.

But none of my complaints have anything to do with the life lessons.  That working hard part of the original Mulan is boring filler no one cared about either.

My complaint, I think, is more CGI focused, maybe?  When it’s possible for literally anything to be displayed on screen, directors have been focusing on the great spectacle they can display.  And it’s boring.  The spectacle is not important, the lead up, the plotting, the suspense, the maybe, maybe not, is interesting.  The release, the action explosions is just reveal confirmation.

I find, “it’s just popcorn movie good fun” such an infuriating comment on any movie.  What are you simple?  I eat shirtloads of popcorn, and am happy to suspend disbelief about anything, but if it’s just more mindless cgi ”explosions” why don’t we watch actual fireworks.  Like, I dunno, have you ever seen fireworks in real life and also on tv, the tv version really pales doesn’t it?  Even if you are “closer”

I dunno, what is my complaint someone will ask.  I’m with the story people who say why don’t they get decent writers for blockbuster investment movies, but really, they don’t cause spectacle sells, no one GAF about story, some spectacles sell well, some don’t, the people behind the money paying for these movies only care to puzzle out how to better string CGI spectacles so they are winners.

i don’t think that’s a coherent post, but, drunk and exhausted.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 12, 2022)

Smackpixi said:


> Oooo, where is it streaming, sure I could look that up but why don’t you just tell me the answer.



HBO Max.


Smackpixi said:


> i don’t think that’s a coherent post, but, drunk and exhausted.



Been there a few times over the last 2 years!


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 12, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Male version is "Gary Stu."



No, male version is Average Male Protagonist.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> Grand Budapest is just a masterwork and definitely one of my favorites.



Hmmm, I need to rewatch this. I may not have been in the right frame of mind to appreciate it at the time.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 12, 2022)

Mallus said:


> Mainly because it’s applied to hyper-competent female characters as a criticism, whereas hyper-competent male characters are accepted as normal and good. Expected, even. Of course James Bond and Kirk and Doc Savage are good at a lot of things... and are the protagonists of their respective stories, ie the center.



I can only think of two characters in movie/TV history where this has been applied to:

The female character in Star Wars (I didn't watch as I never had much faith in Disney) and Michael Burnham of Discovery, whose character I personally disliked. Have there been anymore?
The reason I ask is because you state it is _lazy criticism _which implies this term has been utilised a lot.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 12, 2022)

I don't think movies these days suffer because of lessons, primarily. I'm of the opinion that many more movies suffer due to the lack of internal consistency and creating likeable/relatable characters.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 12, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> And iirc it was satire.
> 
> Very few female characters are Mary sues IMHO.



I've seen it called satire and I've seen it taken at face value. My heart hopes that it was meant as satire.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 12, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> I can only think of two characters in movie/TV history where this has been applied to:
> 
> The female character in Star Wars (I didn't watch as I never had much faith in Disney) and Michael Burnham of Discovery, whose character I personally disliked. Have there been anymore?
> The reason I ask is because you state it is _lazy criticism _which implies this term has been utilised a lot.



I don't think Michael Burnham was a mary sue, plenty of flaws, even if being a criminal was a little far fetched.  
The most obvious one was Captain Marvel, who is unbeatable, perfect, succeeds at everything, and is identical at the start of the movie and the end of the movie.  Contrast with Thor or Irons Mans character arcs, or Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 12, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> I don't think Michael Burnham was a mary sue, plenty of flaws, even if being a criminal was a little far fetched.
> The most obvious one was Captain Marvel, who is unbeatable, perfect, succeeds at everything, and is identical at the start of the movie and the end of the movie.  Contrast with Thor or Irons Mans character arcs, or Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor.



Err, at the start of Captain Marvel she is hobbled by self-doubt, manipulated and gaslighted by her superiors.

And of course you aren't bothered by the likes of James Bond, Indiana Jones, or Captain Kirk who are allowed to be unbeatable because they are male.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 12, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Err, at the start of Captain Marvel she is hobbled by self-doubt, manipulated and gaslighted by her superiors.
> 
> And of course you aren't bothered by the likes of James Bond, Indiana Jones, or Captain Kirk who are allowed to be unbeatable because they are male.



On top of that, in the comics, she was a raging alcoholic.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> I don't think Michael Burnham was a mary sue, plenty of flaws, even if being a criminal was a little far fetched.
> The most obvious one was Captain Marvel, who is unbeatable, perfect, succeeds at everything, and is identical at the start of the movie and the end of the movie.  Contrast with Thor or Irons Mans character arcs, or Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor.



Can you think of a male blockbuster movie character who also fits that definition?

I can! But they don't get criticized (because of gender politics).


----------



## J.Quondam (Mar 12, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I've seen it called satire and I've seen it taken at face value. My heart hopes that it was meant as satire.



According to a 2011 interview with the writer, she did it as a parody:


> _I really just retold the story of that quintessential Mary Sue. It was a parody. At the time, I was getting very heavily into writing parodies. In fact, for issues of Menagerie, what I did a lot was the so-called Trek primers and parodies of the episodes._







__





						View of A conversation with Paula Smith 							| Transformative Works and Cultures
					






					journal.transformativeworks.org


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> Can you think of a male blockbuster movie character who also fits that definition?
> 
> I can! But they don't get criticized (because of gender politics).



Yeah its apparent people care more politics than good movies or stories or characters.

I think the definition needs to be narrowed.  Wonder Woman is not a Mary Sue, she is a fully developed, realistic character, beloved by all.
So its all in the telling.

In the new Matrix 4 Neo felt mary suish, the way he ran around blocking every bullet with a force field, that was dreadful.
John Wick however, feels right.

Shoot with your male character, I have an open mind.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Yeah its apparent people care more politics than good movies or stories or characters.
> 
> I think the definition needs to be narrowed.  Wonder Woman is not a Mary Sue, she is a fully developed, realistic character, beloved by all.
> So its all in the telling.
> ...



I think the big idea is to not use the term Mary Sue.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 12, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Yeah its apparent people care more politics than good movies or stories or characters.
> 
> I think the definition needs to be narrowed.  Wonder Woman is not a Mary Sue, she is a fully developed, realistic character, beloved by all.
> So its all in the telling.
> ...



Sequels are a bit of a different story. Mr. Anderson earned his stripes by dying and then being resurrected, again and again. it would only be Gary Stuish if Matrix 4 was taken completely separate from the other films. John Wick is another and very different sort of character. He is presented, fully formed, as a character who has worked to attain the levels of skill he possesses. The back story is presented as a, "You never know who the guy you're screwing with is", aka "Pineapple around and find out!" sort of story. That doesn't qualify as a Gary Stu either.

If genetic legacy wasn't a thing in Star Wars, then Rey would be a Mary Sue. The truth of her birth removes her from the category. It just took 3 (incredibly uneven) movies to get there. Shaggy from Scooby Doo might qualify. Complete stoner who can do no wrong, it seems. Always succeeds, despite himself. Bond, without any sort of character development, would certainly qualify.

Ah! I think I've got one: MacGyver.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I think the big idea is to not use the term Mary Sue.



The bigger idea is to not criticize female characters for things you let male characters skate by on.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 12, 2022)

Binds had training though. It's over the top but it's kinda the genre. Bonds always been a bit tongue in check as well and get his butt handed to him a lot.

 I don't think Captain bMarvel is one either. It's a superhero movie they're all kinda silly and having superpowers is  part of the genre.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 12, 2022)

A couple of points occur to me:

One should not make a premise on a forum thread solely by reference to a to a video or other external reference. At least put enough into the post to state a premise, they by all means add external support.

Second; Sturgeon's Law applies but there have been decent, dare I say even good movies made in recent times. Many of the block busters have been entertaining, some even good. There have a fair share of flops but that has always been the way. 
The past seems better than it was because for the most part we do not remember the crap.

This reminds me of watching reruns of the "Old Grey Whistle Test" in the  eighties? A pretty acclaimed music show on the BBC from the sixties/Seventies and you know what most of the bands were crap. We just remember the ones that became famous.

Directors writing script is neither here nor there, they have always written scripts to varying degrees of success. Some famous script writers have written some clangers also. If there was an actual magic formula we would have discovered it by now. Although MCU seems to be getting close.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

billd91 said:


> The bigger idea is to not criticize female characters for things you let male characters skate by on.



Exactly.

When participating in critique of any art, it's important to be aware of the systemic biases at play. Throughout Hollywood history, the system has been biased against female actors, directors, writers, etc. A thoughtful critic, then, will check their own critique for bias. Using a term like "Mary Sue" is not just an obvious red flag for a biased critic, it also perpetuates the existing power structures that have held back non-male actors, directors, writers, and so on. The critic in the video is basically creating a further obstacle a female character must bypass in order to be on the same playing field as a male character.

That's why when someone uses the term Mary Sue in their critique, I stop taking them seriously.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I think the big idea is to not use the term Mary Sue.



Because it was created by a woman?  Seems sexist.


----------



## darkwillow (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> The critic in the video is basically creating a further obstacle a female character must bypass in order to be on the same playing field as a male character.



Or you could just write a good character, which is the point, regardless of the gender.  Thats the problem when people  rail against any criticism of any xyz character due to political reasons, you just perpetuate bad writing, bad story telling and its a shame.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Because it was created by a woman?  Seems sexist.



Very funny!

TV Tropes has a great, extensive article on the term: Mary Sue



> Mary Sue is a derogatory term primarily used in Fan Fic circles to describe a particular type of character. This much everyone can agree on. What that character type is, exactly, differs wildly from circle to circle, and often from person to person.




It's honestly a great article.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Or you could just write a good character, which is the point, regardless of the gender.  Thats the problem when people  rail against any criticism of any xyz character due to political reasons, you just perpetuate bad writing, bad story telling and its a shame.



I would argue that using the term Mary Sue in a critique is, in itself, a political statement.


----------



## South by Southwest (Mar 12, 2022)

I'm afraid ultimately I have to agree with darkwillow (and the Critical Drinker) on this one: I really don't care what the writers' or directors' politics are: I care whether they have a well-written story (one I'd take the time to read in book form) and whether their characters are three-dimensional and compelling and not just these cardboard cut-outs used to promote some moral or political message. It truly is irrelevant to me if the chosen message is one with which I agree or not: what kills it is the emphasis on such a message at the expense of three-dimensional characters and/or a well-written story.

Hollywood has used a lot of cardboard over this past decade or so.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 12, 2022)

Erik Alt said:


> Ok, I'll bite. Why is the term "Mary Sue" in 2022 bad?



These days? Because it's a dogwhistle. It's a clear red flag, and almost exclusively used by people with questionable views on diversity.


----------



## Blue Orange (Mar 12, 2022)

IS there a neutral term? I've seen 'Gary Stu' or "Marty Stu' for the male equivalent, which could apparently describe Conan the Barbarian from what I've read about Robert E. Howard. (Probably James Bond too...)


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 12, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> On top of that, in the comics, she was a raging alcoholic.



I do not count that as a strike for 2 primary reasons.
Plenty of male alcoholic heroes/protagonists.
Marvel, more so than DC, had their heroes battling personal issues which I felt was a cool shtick, trying to make them more relatable.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I think the big idea is to not use the term Mary Sue.



I'm not for censoring. I prefer honest debate and ironing out different perspectives even if unpopular. Many people have died for this type of freedom.

From my count on this board, this terms has been applied to arguably 2 or 3 characters in total. It is also only applied to heavily fan-based characters/genres (Superheroes, Star Wars and Star Trek).


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> I'm not for censoring. I prefer honest debate and ironing out different perspectives even if unpopular. Many people have died for this type of freedom.
> 
> From my count on this board, this terms has been applied to arguably 2 or 3 characters in total. It is also only applied to heavily fan-based characters/genres (Superheroes, Star Wars and Star Trek).



Ha ha, what??? At no point has this become a debate about censorship!

I was asked why I don't take a critic who uses the term "Mary Sue" seriously. I explained why. Folks can use whatever terms they want, and I am free to form my own opinions of them based on how they present their language.

I honor and respect all those people who died so this YouTuber has the freedom to use the misogynist dog whistle "Mary Sue."

I also honor and respect my own freedom to say that if someone these days uses the term "Mary Sue" I will not take them seriously as a critic.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> What I don't get is why Directors write scripts instead of actual professional writers.




I saw this the other day in my feed. He made some interesting points, but for me the reason I think I don't connect with a lot of newer movies is they just don't move me the way earlier films did. I am not sure why that is, but I don't think it has a lot to do with the lessons they teach. Some of my favorite films were ones that didn't teach lessons but were more like character studies.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

Morrus said:


> These days? Because it's a dogwhistle. It's a clear red flag, and almost exclusively used by people with questionable views on diversity.




I think the term is way overused and often a sign of someone trying to use a rhetorical bludgeon to get you to agree with their negative view of a film. But I really don't think this term is a dog whistle. I've seen it used for male and for female characters. Again it is overused. But it has a kernel of validity to it. In some instances it is a valid critique. The real problem is its an automatic go-to criticism, and it isn't one you can apply to every genre equally (it makes a lot less sense applying Mary Sue to star wars for example than star trek).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Yeah its apparent people care more politics than good movies or stories or characters.




There definitely seems to be a lot of that in the culture right now (on both sides of the aisle liking a movie, appears to often boil down to 'does it agree with my worldview'). There is certainly a place for movies that express a political worldview, and sometimes reflecting the politics of the moment can enhance a movie if it gets at something deep. Those aren't the only thing, or the most important thing about movies for me. But I have noticed I am a lot less interested in a lot of modern media because it seems so tied to the conversation of the moment (which is often over in two to three months). So I have taken to watching movies and shows about 6 months to a year after they come out. That helps because a lot of the conversation in the air around the film has died down, a lot of the cultural topics the film may have been trying to connect to have died down, and I feel like i can give the film a more honest and fair viewing.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 12, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> IS there a neutral term? I've seen 'Gary Stu' or "Marty Stu' for the male equivalent, which could apparently describe Conan the Barbarian from what I've read about Robert E. Howard. (Probably James Bond too...)



Every time I hear "Gary Stu", I think of Drizz't


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 12, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Yeah its apparent people care more politics than good movies or stories or characters.



It bothers you that people care more about real people than fictional people?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Every time I hear "Gary Stu", I think of Drizz't




I like Drizz't. But I do think there is something to be said for the critique mary sue is meant to capture, which is the author kind of inserting themselves into the story, only it is an idealized version of the author, living out a fantasy. Sometimes that isn't so bad, if it comes from an interesting place. Conan is basically that kind of a character. But I think in the case of Conan it probably stemmed from a place of emotional pain and longing on Howard's part and that did seem to give the character a little more emotional heft (and he wasn't perfect, as a character he had flaws). In a lot of other genres there are characters who are great out of the gate. I think for me, the criticism is more about how strongly I can sense the presence of the author in the character, and if they aren't able to separate their own personality from the character enough for the story to work. I don't think someone identifying a character as a mary sue though automatically makes a story bad, nor does it automatically make the character bad.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 12, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Every time I hear "Gary Stu", I think of Drizz't



Hyper competent characters have been a thing since at least Sherlock Holmes. In some genres they were practically mandatory


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> It bothers you that people care more about real people than fictional people?




That isn't what he is saying, he is saying, I believe, he is bothered that politics are becoming the priority of storytelling, rather than the characters or the story itself. A person could care a great deal about a particular political cause or the people afflicted by political events, while at the same time not wanting to ruin a story by inserting that particular issue into a novel where it doesn't fit.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 12, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> That isn't what he is saying, he is saying, I believe, he is bothered that politics are becoming the priority of storytelling, rather than the characters or the story itself.



And politics is what can help or harm real people. "Storytelling and Character" is bread and circuses to keep the masses from asking awkward questions.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 12, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Hyper competent characters have been a thing since at least Sherlock Holmes. In some genres they were practically mandatory



It's not that he's hyper-competent, it's that you know he will always make it out in the end, brooding the whole way, and everyone else saying how awesome he is.  For the record I don't blame Salvatore for this; I think that's been pretty much dictated to him since Drizz't became super popular


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

So what are the bad lessons that modern films are supposedly teaching?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> And politics is what can help or harm real people. "Storytelling and Character" is bread and circuses to keep the masses from asking awkward questions.




The point is a person can be engaged politically and care more about people than literary characters, but not think that politics should be the priority of art. Obviously there is a place for political art. But I think a lot of artists and creative people are wary of it when it becomes too ubiquitous because it can also turn art into political propaganda.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 12, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> That isn't what he is saying, he is saying, I believe, he is bothered that politics are becoming the priority of storytelling, rather than the characters or the story itself.



Politics is often the driver of stories, Animal Farm is pretty political so is most of Dickens. That said, I pretty much find Dickens unreadable but that is more the number of words not the actual story or the politics. I can watch the movies or TV adaptations. 

The politics ruins stories is more where there is not enough care in the story telling or characterisation. A classic example in my opinion is the Charlie Chaplin film "The Great Dictator". It ends with this big speech that really takes the wind out of the movie. 

The speech does not really say anything that the movie has not already said and it is a pretty good speech as speeches go but the movie would have been a lot better without it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Politics is often the driver of stories, Animal Farm is pretty political so is most of Dickens. That said, I pretty much find Dickens unreadable but that is more the number of words not the actual story or the politics. I can watch the movies or TV adaptations.




I am not saying it can't be. I like Orwell and I used to love to read a lot of social fiction like Brave New World. But the point is, not all art, music or novels are political. And might be present to different degrees in much art, but it isn't always the priority. I think you need there to be room for art to express a lot of different things, not just political viewpoints.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 12, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> Hollywood has used a lot of cardboard over this past decade or so.



How is this different from all the previous decades?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 12, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> The point is a person can be engaged politically and care more about people than literary characters, but not think that politics should be the priority of art. Obviously there is a place for political art. But I think a lot of artists and creative people are wary of it when it becomes too ubiquitous because it can also turn art into political propaganda.



I dunno all art has politics embedded in it.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 12, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> But the point is, not all art, music or novels are political.



I don't think you can say anything is "not political". Saying nothing is a political act.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> The politics ruins stories is more where there is not enough care in the story telling or characterisation. A classic example in my opinion is the Charlie Chaplin film "The Great Dictator". It ends with this big speech that really takes the wind out of the movie.
> 
> The speech does not really say anything that the movie has not already said and it is a pretty good speech as speeches go but the movie would have been a lot better without it.




I actually like that movie and don't have a problem with the speech at the end. But I think the issue with politics in art gets more thorny when it is so ever-present, or when there is an orthodoxy that must be adhered to in the art community. And while political movies can be great, especially if they are well crafted and strike the right emotional resonance, they can also be preachy, overly simplistic and propagandistic.


----------



## Blue Orange (Mar 12, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> It's not that he's hyper-competent, it's that you know he will always make it out in the end, brooding the whole way, and everyone else saying how awesome he is.  For the record I don't blame Salvatore for this; I think that's been pretty much dictated to him since Drizz't became super popular




Remember how much hate mail Doyle got when he got sick of writing Holmes and killed him off?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 12, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> It's not that he's hyper-competent, it's that you know he will always make it out in the end, brooding the whole way, and everyone else saying how awesome he is.  For the record I don't blame Salvatore for this; I think that's been pretty much dictated to him since Drizz't became super popular



Never really read much of Drizz't beyond the Icewind Dale trilogy


----------



## Blue Orange (Mar 12, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I dunno all art has politics embedded in it.




A lot of things we don't think of as political now were at the time (Michelangelo's David was an anti-Medici statement, Macbeth had a subtext about the Gunpowder Plot), but I'd say there is art that isn't political, or at least not intended to be.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I don't think you can say anything is "not political". Saying nothing is a political act.




I fundamentally disagree and do not buy this claim at all. Plenty of things are not political. And even those things that are, vary to the degree that they are political.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 12, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> ..... But I think the issue with politics in art gets more thorny when it is so ever-present, or when there is an orthodoxy that must be adhered to in the art community. And while political movies can be great, especially if they are well crafted and strike the right emotional resonance, they can also be preachy, overly simplistic and propagandistic.



Which is a failure in storytelling, or artistic expression on the part of the creator(s) not a reason not to have politics in the piece of art.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 12, 2022)

Out of curiosity, how many people here with an opinion about politics in Hollywood movies know what the Hays Office and the Motion Picture Production Code are?

(or have a favorite Pre-Code movie - some of them are wild!)


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 12, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I fundamentally disagree and do not buy this claim at all. Plenty of things are not political. And even those things that are, vary to the degree that they are political.



It's the politics we don't notice that has the biggest influence.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Which is a failure in storytelling, or artistic expression on the part of the creator(s) not a reason not to have politics in the piece of art.




I am not saying you can't have politics in art. There is plenty of art with political messaging I like. Plenty of political movies I enjoy. But the point is it doesn't have to always be the priority of every work of art or of every movie, and sometimes when you try to force it into every film, then you end up with a propaganda machine rather than a healthy artistic community

The point being made wasn't art shouldn't have politics, But that the movie's politics shouldn't' be our primary measure of its quality


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> It's the politics we don't notice that has the biggest influence.




There can be that, but there can also be finding a political pattern where there isn't one because you are using a lens that is always looking for it.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 12, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> A lot of things we don't think of as political now were at the time (Michelangelo's David was an anti-Medici statement, Macbeth had a subtext about the Gunpowder Plot), but I'd say there is art that isn't political, or at least not intended to be.



It can be political with out taking obvious sides or the politics are not relevant to you. As pointed out above by the comments on Michelangelo or Shakespeare's History plays.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 12, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> It can be political with out taking obvious sides or the politics are not relevant to you. As pointed out above by the comments on Michelangelo or Shakespeare's History plays.



Shakespeare's priority was keeping in with the establishment!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

Mallus said:


> Out of curiosity, how many people here with an opinion about politics in Hollywood movies know what the Hays Office and the Motion Picture Production Code are?
> 
> (or have a favorite Pre-Code movie - some of them are wild!)




Artists are very good at operating in oppressive environments and learning how to transgress without openly doing so. And there are plenty of films made during that time that are interesting and good, and many are so because of how they got around the code. But at the same time, there was an explosion of well crafted film after the Hays code ended (and I don't think it is an accident). But I am probably biased, the 70s is one of my favorite periods of film making.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 12, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Shakespeare's priority was keeping in with the establishment!



Yup! he had a theatre and a troop of hungry actors to feed. Wrote some cracking stories and managed to humanise his villains often as not.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> A lot of things we don't think of as political now were at the time (Michelangelo's David was an anti-Medici statement, Macbeth had a subtext about the Gunpowder Plot), but I'd say there is art that isn't political, or at least not intended to be.




That is true. And those things can be interesting. At the same time, MacBeth is not great because it has gunpowder plot subtext. That isn't why we remember lines from it, and why it moves us today. And anti-Medici sentiment isn't why we are still in awe of David.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

I want to say, I think it is totally valid for:

1) films to be political

and 

2) critics to critique the politics of a film

My big issue is when a critic uses dog whistle terminology to bring sexist or racist views into a critique. I believe "Mary Sue" is such a term.

I mean, political critique is a really fun way to analyze movies! One critique I have of a lot of action and superhero films is that a lot of them are about one step from facist propaganda. And guess what? I really enjoy watching them still!

But if I want to be taken seriously as a critic, and not just preach to a choir of folks who already agree with me, I'm going to avoid using dog whistle terminology to get my point across.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> My big issue is when a critic uses dog whistle terminology to bring sexist or racist views into a critique. I believe "Mary Sue" is such a term.
> 
> I mean, political critique is a really fun way to analyze movies! One critique I have of a lot of action and superhero films is that a lot of them are about one step from facist propaganda. And guess what? I really enjoy watching them still!
> 
> But if I want to be taken seriously as a critic, and not just preach to a choir of folks who already agree with me, I'm going to avoid using dog whistle terminology to get my point across.




Wouldn't more good faith on both sides of this be better though? One issue I have in these kinds of conversations is, it feels like two sides have been clashing the past several years cultural, and distrust one another, and those of us who enter into the discussion and use a term one of the sides decided indicates something bad, we get slammed for it. I think a better approach if someone uses a term like that and you are a little suspicious of their usage is to just dig into it a little more and ask what they mean, what the specifics of their critique is (they might not even be using the term correctly and be trying to say something entirely different). 

I think a big part of what makes media discussions for me exhausting, and why I have substantially pulled back how much I engage with people on social media about media, is there is an unhealthy level of distrust because people have learned to read other issues into where folks stand on something like whether Rey is a good character or not). 

For the record, I liked Rey and I thought he actress who portrayed her was very good in that role. But I could understand why another viewer might be annoyed at how powerful she was from the start of the movie (I think a lot of them just wanted to see her train more and work more for her powers, like you often have in many of the martial arts films star wars is emulating). I don't think any of that makes her a mary sue but I can understand someone not sharing my view on the character. I had issues with the trilogy overall, but those issues didn't seem to align with a lot of the discussion around the movies on social media.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Wouldn't more good faith on both sides of this be better though? One issue I have in these kinds of conversations is, it feels like two sides have been clashing the past several years cultural, and distrust one another, and those of us who enter into the discussion and use a term one of the sides decided indicates something bad, we get slammed for it. I think a better approach if someone uses a term like that and you are a little suspicious of their usage is to just dig into it a little more and ask what they mean, what the specifics of their critique is (they might not even be using the term correctly and be trying to say something entirely different).
> 
> I think a big part of what makes media discussions for me exhausting, and why I have substantially pulled back how much I engage with people on social media about media, is there is an unhealthy level of distrust because people have learned to read other issues into where folks stand on something like whether Rey is a good character or not).
> 
> For the record, I liked Rey and I thought he actress who portrayed her was very good in that role. But I could understand why another viewer might be annoyed at how powerful she was from the start of the movie (I think a lot of them just wanted to see her train more and work more for her powers, like you often have in many of the martial arts films star wars is emulating). I don't think any of that makes her a mary sue but I can understand someone not sharing my view on the character. I had issues with the trilogy overall, but those issues didn't seem to align with a lot of the discussion around the movies on social media.



The trust gets lost when a critic uses a term like "Mary Sue."

That is a sign to me, as a reader, that the critic is not acting in good faith.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> And politics is what can help or harm real people.




And if this is the chief concern, one thing to consider is if you make everything political, you make politics impossible and end up with what we have now: neither side is willing to budge or compromise because every single little issue is viewed as existentially important. So I think there is real world danger and a real threat to the protecting real people from harm when we make everything in the culture political.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> The trust gets lost when a critic uses a term like "Mary Sue."
> 
> That is a sign to me, as a reader, that the critic is not acting in good faith.




That strikes me as an unhealthy level of distrust. That seems like a very flimsy foundation for that conclusion to be honest. Perhaps they are. I mean in general the more emotional terms people employ, the greater the likelihood they are acting in bad faith. But they also could simply be passionate about the issue, they could be making a valid criticism of the character, they could be using the term in a different way than you think, etc. They might also simply not have the vocabulary you have to discuss media. The problem I have here is we are taking one word a person uses, one that doesn't necessarily indicate a person is coming from a mysoginistic point of view, and using that to read into whether their intentions are in good or bad faith. I am as cagey as the next guy, but this seems like a super cagey way for us to interact with each other as a community.


----------



## BRayne (Mar 12, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> That strikes me as an unhealthy level of distrust. That seems like a very flimsy foundation for that conclusion to be honest. Perhaps they are. I mean in general the more emotional terms people employ, the greater the likelihood they are acting in bad faith. But they also could simply be passionate about the issue, they could be making a valid criticism of the character, they could be using the term in a different way than you think, etc.




I mean what character that's commonly called a Mary Sue actually is written like this?:

"Gee, golly, gosh, gloriosky," thought Mary Sue as she stepped on the bridge of the Enterprise. "Here I am, the youngest lieutenant in the fleet—only fifteen and a half years old." Captain Kirk came up to her. "Oh, Lieutenant, I love you madly. Will you come to bed with me?"
"Captain! I am not that kind of girl!"
"You're right, and I respect you for it. Here, take over the ship for a minute while I go get some coffee for us."
Mr. Spock came onto the bridge. "What are you doing in the command seat, Lieutenant?"
"The Captain told me to."
"Flawlessly logical. I admire your mind."


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> That strikes me as an unhealthy level of distrust. That seems like a very flimsy foundation for that conclusion to be honest. Perhaps they are. I mean in general the more emotional terms people employ, the greater the likelihood they are acting in bad faith. But they also could simply be passionate about the issue, they could be making a valid criticism of the character, they could be using the term in a different way than you think, etc. They might also simply not have the vocabulary you have to discuss media. The problem I have here is we are taking one word a person uses, one that doesn't necessarily indicate a person is coming from a mysoginistic point of view, and using that to read into whether their intentions are in good or bad faith. I am as cagey as the next guy, but this seems like a super cagey way for us to interact with each other as a community.



You are absolutely right that I do not trust the critical opinion of someone who uses the term "Mary Sue."

Would I trust them to fix my car, treat my illness, or help me get a mortgage loan? Sure! But I'm not going to ask them what movies I should see this weekend.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

BRayne said:


> I mean what character that's commonly called a Mary Sue actually is written like this?:
> 
> "Gee, golly, gosh, gloriosky," thought Mary Sue as she stepped on the bridge of the Enterprise. "Here I am, the youngest lieutenant in the fleet—only fifteen and a half years old." Captain Kirk came up to her. "Oh, Lieutenant, I love you madly. Will you come to bed with me?"
> "Captain! I am not that kind of girl!"
> ...




The term definitely is misapplied and has been used more expansively from its origin. But also that is a quote where a ridiculous usage was being made to make a broader point: it doesnt' have to be that outrageous to be a mary sue character. That said, I generally find Mary Sue to be a weak criticism, because its over applied. To me Mary Sue sounds a lot like when someone says "its lazy writing". It is not really that specific. But I think the solution there is to ask the person what they mean specifically in their criticism. If someone sees a movie I like and says "The writing was lazy" . I don't tell them to "go away because only bad faith critics would stoop to such language". I ask them what they mean by lazy. And 9 times out of 10, they tell me exactly what they mean and we have a productive conversation. One time in ten, they realize they haven't thought their criticism out that much and they rethink it. Rather than get hung up on these terms, just ask people what they are trying to say when they use them. If they aren't saying anything beyond "I hate female characters" or "I hate this movie because" that will be clear in the course of conversation.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I want to say, I think it is totally valid for:
> 
> 1) films to be political
> 
> ...



Totally agreed



BookTenTiger said:


> My big issue is when a critic uses dog whistle terminology to bring sexist or racist views into a critique. I believe "Mary Sue" is such a term.
> 
> I mean, political critique is a really fun way to analyze movies! One critique I have of a lot of action and superhero films is that a lot of them are about one step from facist propaganda. And guess what? I really enjoy watching them still!
> 
> But if I want to be taken seriously as a critic, and not just preach to a choir of folks who already agree with me, I'm going to avoid using dog whistle terminology to get my point across.



I also agree with this but the Dog Whistle thing is part of the current political culture but in my opinion the real culprit is that certain forms of social media rewards interaction and controversy generated clicks and thus often income.



Bedrockgames said:


> Wouldn't more good faith on both sides of this be better though? One issue I have in these kinds of conversations is, it feels like two sides have been clashing the past several years cultural, and distrust one another, and those of us who enter into the discussion and use a term one of the sides decided indicates something bad, we get slammed for it. I think a better approach if someone uses a term like that and you are a little suspicious of their usage is to just dig into it a little more and ask what they mean, what the specifics of their critique is (they might not even be using the term correctly and be trying to say something entirely different).



It would be better but as I said to @BookTenTiger, I think that certain Social Media, looking at Youtube, and Facebook in particular clicks are king and often generate ad revenue. This as lead some to the dark path of courting and audience that will cheer on or hate on a particular take. The position that provoke the response "Oh! I never thought of it that way" usually results in the viewer/reader going away to have a thing about rather than donning their social warrior had to give it to opfor.



Bedrockgames said:


> I think a big part of what makes media discussions for me exhausting, and why I have substantially pulled back how much I engage with people on social media about media, is there is an unhealthy level of distrust because people have learned to read other issues into where folks stand on something like whether Rey is a good character or not).



A lot of these hot takes do not have much real merit in my opinion and are exhausting for the average punter but are there to generate a following and engagement.
It is a form of trolling.



Bedrockgames said:


> ...


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> You are absolutely right that I do not trust the critical opinion of someone who uses the term "Mary Sue."
> 
> Would I trust them to fix my car, treat my illness, or help me get a mortgage loan? Sure! But I'm not going to ask them what movies I should see this weekend.




And I am not saying you should heed the advice of someone just because they have an opinion. I see the movies I am interested in seeing, and don't let critics sway my view one way or the other (and am much happier for it ever since I have taken this approach). I am talking more about conversations like the one we are having now, where people are talking about movies they have already seen, or talking about what they think about the state of film right now. I think there you can have a very productive conversation with someone, even if they rely on criticisms you don't share. For instance, I am not particularly in love with many of the arguments around politics on this thread. But I also recognize those arguments are being made by some very smart posters, and I am not going to write off all of their opinions, or assume their points about poltics are being made in bad faith, simply because of that one disagreement.


----------



## J.Quondam (Mar 12, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> That strikes me as an unhealthy level of distrust. That seems like a very flimsy foundation for that conclusion to be honest. Perhaps they are. I mean in general the more emotional terms people employ, the greater the likelihood they are acting in bad faith. But they also could simply be passionate about the issue, they could be making a valid criticism of the character, they could be using the term in a different way than you think, etc. They might also simply not have the vocabulary you have to discuss media. The problem I have here is we are taking one word a person uses, one that doesn't necessarily indicate a person is coming from a mysoginistic point of view, and using that to read into whether their intentions are in good or bad faith. I am as cagey as the next guy, but this seems like a super cagey way for us to interact with each other as a community.



To be fair, this isn't about a conversation around a dinner table. Recall the source here: a successful youtuber. In that environment, controversy drives engagement drives money. Using weighted language to whip up the tribe and provoke outrage is _exactly_ how one becomes successful in such an environment.
So yes, distrust is certainly warranted. It's the internet, after all.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 12, 2022)

J.Quondam said:


> To be fair, this isn't about a conversation around a dinner table. Recall the source here: a successful youtuber. In that environment, controversy drives engagement drives money. Using weighted language to whip up the tribe and provoke outrage is _exactly_ how one becomes successful in such an environment.
> So yes, distrust is certainly warranted. It's the internet, after all.



To be fair it is not the only way but it is a way. Call it the Darkside way. Hate leads to Clicks and Clicks lead to money but at the cost of your soul.


----------



## J.Quondam (Mar 12, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> To be fair it is not the only way but it is a way. Call it the Darkside way. Hate leads to Clicks and Clicks lead to money but at the cost of your soul.



True. Taking off one's clothes also works well.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 12, 2022)

J.Quondam said:


> True. Taking off one's clothes also works well.



I would try that but I suspect the only way it would work for me is to force people to watch it and pay me to stop. I have not figured out the first part yet.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> And I am not saying you should heed the advice of someone just because they have an opinion. I see the movies I am interested in seeing, and don't let critics sway my view one way or the other (and am much happier for it ever since I have taken this approach). I am talking more about conversations like the one we are having now, where people are talking about movies they have already seen, or talking about what they think about the state of film right now. I think there you can have a very productive conversation with someone, even if they rely on criticisms you don't share. For instance, I am not particularly in love with many of the arguments around politics on this thread. But I also recognize those arguments are being made by some very smart posters, and I am not going to write off all of their opinions, or assume their points about poltics are being made in bad faith, simply because of that one disagreement.



I think I have been having a lot of interesting discourse with folks in this thread. At no point have I shut someone down because they don't agree with me. (If I have, please point it out!)

I'm not really sure what your argument here is. As someone who enjoys watching and analyzing movies, I cannot take seriously someone who uses terms like "Mary Sue." I think that is an okay opinion to have. And when talking about movies with someone, if they use the term, I will bring up that point and hopefully it'll lead to even better discussions.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> It would be better but as I said to @BookTenTiger, I think that certain Social Media, looking at Youtube, and Facebook in particular clicks are king and often generate ad revenue. This as lead some to the dark path of courting and audience that will cheer on or hate on a particular take. The position that provoke the response "Oh! I never thought of it that way" usually results in the viewer/reader going away to have a thing about rather than donning their social warrior had to give it to opfor.




Sure, there is a lot of that on facebook, twitter and youtube for sure. That is one reason I don't really use twitter or facebook that often. I find twitter especially bad because it has the problem you are describing with facebook and youtube plus its character limit essentially favors quips over points (it is very highshool in terms of whose voice gets elevated). With youtube there are also a lot of issues, but I also find there are a lot of very good analysis and reviews. I think the key is to engage what you encounter. I don't mean comment. I mean don't use youtube or facebook as ways of getting your ideas. Bring your own ideas to the videos you watch and view with a degree of skepticism. 

But just as an example, I recently watched the Many Saints of Newark (which I greatly enjoyed). And there were lots of videos about 6 months ago negatively reviewing it on youtube and bringing in a lot of online cultural debate to attack the movie). But I have to say, watching it six months after the fact, a lot of the things people seemed to criticized, seemed much more organic to me within the film and not the problem people said it was. But I still found value in going back to many of those reviews and videos because there was still analysis in there that I could glean something from (and I found it interesting to see different peoples reactions, even if they didn't like it like I did: I at least was able to get a sense of what critics of the movie felt). 

When it comes to people saying "I never thought of it that way". To me that isn't super important. I do regular movie podcast discussions with friends and we often disagree. Sometimes I have been able to persuade people about my take on a movie, or gotten them to say "gee that makes sense actually". But I find people come in with their opinions, fully formed, and it is often unlikely you are going to get some to change their mind on whether they like a movie or not. What matters to me is people being able to respect differences of opinions about movies. I don't mind some robust and friendly debate. And I don't mind being playful about it either. But I do at least want to feel that my reasons for liking or not liking something are being understood and not cast in the worst possible light by the person I am talking with. 

I think one reason social media doesn't lend itself well to that is because it is often about point scoring. But if you stop worrying about points, and stop keeping score, I find that problem largely evaporates (at least for me it has).


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 12, 2022)

Politics in movies is fine but it depends on execution and genre. 

 And not all movies are good, look at the two Wonder Women movies. Ones pretty good as far as superhero movies go ones a bit pants. 

 I'll watch a superhero movie on streaming probably won't pay to go see one at the theatre.


----------



## Hex08 (Mar 12, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Or you could just write a good character, which is the point, regardless of the gender.  Thats the problem when people  rail against any criticism of any xyz character due to political reasons, you just perpetuate bad writing, bad story telling and its a shame.



True, writing a good character should be the point. What is being missed here is that the same standard isn't being applied to critiques of characters across the board because of the politics of the critic. In my admitted limited experience watching him, this is something that The Critical Drinker does frequently - he makes attacks on characters based on politics. As an example, in his reviews for Star Trek Discovery he refers to Michael Burnham as "diverse female space Jesus". I am the last person to defend Star Trek Discovery (I hate the show) and I think Michael Burnham has tons of problems as a character but none of them are because of her race or gender. In the few videos of his I have watched I never saw him apply a nickname to a male character that referenced his race and/or gender and said it was a part of the character's problem.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I'm not really sure what your argument here is. As someone who enjoys watching and analyzing movies, I cannot take seriously someone who uses terms like "Mary Sue." I think that is an okay opinion to have. And when talking about movies with someone, if they use the term, I will bring up that point and hopefully it'll lead to even better discussions.




My only point is that dismissing someone because they use that term, I think is not fair. I am not trying to single you out or say you are a bad person for it. I hope it isn't coming across that way. For example if someone in this thread uses that term, and finds it serviceable, and you give them your reasons for why it isn't a useful term, but they continue using it because they disagree with you, isn't taking a live and let live approach to the conversation after that point better than writing them off as not someone to be taken seriously? Couldn't they easily be very serious and smart on other issues and wrong on one?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 12, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> True, writing a good character should be the point. What is being missed here is that the same standard isn't being applied to critiques of characters across the board because of the politics of the critic. In my admitted limited experience watching him, this is something that The Critical Drinker does frequently - he makes attacks on characters based on politics. As an example, in his reviews for Star Trek Discovery he refers to Michael Burnham as "diverse female space Jesus". I am the last person to defend Star Trek Discovery (I hate the show) and I think Michael Burnham has tons of problems as a character but none of them are because of her race or gender. In the few videos of his I have watched I never saw him apply a nickname to a male character that referenced his race and/or gender and said it was a part of the character's problem.




 This. Burnham got better season 3 first two seasons were a bit meh.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> A lot of these hot takes do not have much real merit in my opinion and are exhausting for the average punter but are there to generate a following and engagement.
> It is a form of trolling.




Well, i think some of it is. But a lot of it isn't even coming from people who are trying to generate a following. I think some of it is just patterns of behavior people have developed in their interactions online. I don't think that makes people bad or trolls. But it does make me pull back from online conversation more and more.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

J.Quondam said:


> To be fair, this isn't about a conversation around a dinner table. Recall the source here: a successful youtuber. In that environment, controversy drives engagement drives money. Using weighted language to whip up the tribe and provoke outrage is _exactly_ how one becomes successful in such an environment.
> So yes, distrust is certainly warranted. It's the internet, after all.




And this isn't a channel I am two familiar with. Like I said I saw the video, I thought he made some interesting points, but overall I don't think his core argument gets at why I don't like modern movies (I do share his dislike of many newer films, but I don't think he gets at the reason precisely enough). 

That said, my reading wasn't that it was a bad faith take. I thought it was a little clumsy sounding. Maybe he is trying to generate engagements with using a term like mary sue. But I also just think mary sue gets used people people know what you are talking about when they say it. 

I watch a range of youtube channels on media but tend to prefer the more even-tempered stuff (I have been watching a lot of Sopranos analysis for example that is just about things like the way episodes are shot and what that means) or stuff that is more arms length and humor drive (like Red Letter Media).


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 12, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> I do not count that as a strike for 2 primary reasons.
> Plenty of male alcoholic heroes/protagonists.
> Marvel, more so than DC, had their heroes battling personal issues which I felt was a cool shtick, trying to make them more relatable.



Not a strike against, but rather an argument against Captain Marvel being a Mary Sue. The perfection just ain't there.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> My only point is that dismissing someone because they use that term, I think is not fair. I am not trying to single you out or say you are a bad person for it. I hope it isn't coming across that way. For example if someone in this thread uses that term, and finds it serviceable, and you give them your reasons for why it isn't a useful term, but they continue using it because they disagree with you, isn't taking a live and let live approach to the conversation after that point better than writing them off as not someone to be taken seriously? Couldn't they easily be very serious and smart on other issues and wrong on one?



You are using the term "dismissing," which I haven't used.

In any conversation we decide how much trust we give another person's views based on the language they use. If I'm talking with someone about movies and they drop terms like "cinema verite" and "martini shot" (I have no idea what those are but I google "obscure film vocabulary"), I'm going to think, 'Wow, this person really knows their stuff!'

If I'm talking with someone about movies and they say they didn't like X because of Y, I'm going to listen to their opinion, compare it with my own, and likely have an interesting conversation.

If I'm talking with someone about movies and they use the term "Mary Sue," I'm not going to trust that the rest of the conversation is going to be free from gender-based bias. In fact, if they continue to use the term, even after I bring it up, then I'll likely end the conversation. Later I'll talk with them about, say, classic D&D adventures or what video games they're playing, but I'm not going to continue to talk film with them.

That seems normal to me.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 12, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> IS there a neutral term? I've seen 'Gary Stu' or "Marty Stu' for the male equivalent, which could apparently describe Conan the Barbarian from what I've read about Robert E. Howard. (Probably James Bond too...)



It's been a long time, but didn't Conan's origin involved being enslaved and doing heavy manual labour, which is why he developed the muscles?


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> You are using the term "dismissing," which I haven't used.
> 
> In any conversation we decide how much trust we give another person's views based on the language they use. If I'm talking with someone about movies and they drop terms like "cinema verite" and "martini shot" (I have no idea what those are but I google "obscure film vocabulary"), I'm going to think, 'Wow, this person really knows their stuff!'
> 
> ...



@Bedrockgames I'm quoting myself to note that _this is how I expect to be treated as well._

If I use a term in a conversation that the other person thinks is ignorant or offensive, I want to know! I honestly think it's a respectful way to treat someone. It doesn't always feel good in the moment, but over time it helps me be a better member of my community.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

J.Quondam said:


> To be fair, this isn't about a conversation around a dinner table. Recall the source here: a successful youtuber. In that environment, controversy drives engagement drives money. Using weighted language to whip up the tribe and provoke outrage is _exactly_ how one becomes successful in such an environment.
> So yes, distrust is certainly warranted. It's the internet, after all.




Also just rewatching the YouTube video, I think while I disagree with his points, I don't see the value of distrust here. He is making arguments and they are arguments that one can respond to. But with the movies I have seen, I think there is value in contending with the argument he is making. I think though my two main criticisms of his video would be I think he is overplaying how much of an impact messaging has in the first place (a lot of times I think messaging is more about the audience than the film, and putting something out you know the audience will nod its head), and I think a lot of the things he identifies as problems in the star wars movies aren't (I also don't think contrasting them with the prequels is particularly effective because the prequels themselves had so many problems). I do think he made interesting points about Mulan. But again, I don't think the reason those points are valid is as much about the message, as it is the new Disney Mulan makes for a less satisfying experience because the character starts out great, and the reason she starts out great handles the concept of Qi a little weirdly (there are characters in wuxia stories and xianxia stories who are born with natural internal marital arts potential, and there are movies where characters become great fairly quickly, but if you are just comparing those two movies, I think the first one gives the viewer a more rewarding story of the character's development. But he is also a self-admitted alcoholic youtube reviewers, so there is an edge of humor here that I think needs to be accounted for too. 

The way I look at these things is youtube videos are people speaking their thoughts about a film after they have seen them, or speaking their thoughts about movies out loud. It is not the same as a paper about a movie, a book, or a new york times review (though I have to say, I think there are a lot of very bad film reviewers out there with a news paper behind them). I tend to watch this sort of video with a dose of salt, and take it more casually. 

I occasionally do podcast movie discussions I label "Late night reviews" and the point is to speak about a movie when I am tired. In that slightly altered state, there is more meandering, more free association, sometimes even contradictions, but you occasionally hit on interesting ideas that way. This video strikes me as something like that.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> You are using the term "dismissing," which I haven't used.
> 
> In any conversation we decide how much trust we give another person's views based on the language they use. If I'm talking with someone about movies and they drop terms like "cinema verite" and "martini shot" (I have no idea what those are but I google "obscure film vocabulary"), I'm going to think, 'Wow, this person really knows their stuff!'
> 
> ...




I am using the term to describe what you are talking about. So I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. But I would say not taking a person's opinions seriously because they use the term mary sue, is a case of dismissing their opinion because they use the term mary sue. I am not saying you are writing them off. But you are allowing their selection of that word to color your view of their opinions about movies. And I am not saying you are going to be wrong 100% of the time. There are probably people who you heard use that word, assumed many things about their opinions about film, and you were right. But there were also probably a lot of people who used that word, led to you assuming a lot of things about them, and those things were wrong. 

I would say the same thing about someone using cinema verite or martini shot. People throw in ten dollar vocabulary all the time to make it seem they know more about a subject than they do. And even someone who doesn't know what those mean, might have more insight about the use of a martini shot than someone who learned about that in film school (because they know what a martini shot is from having seen movies, but just don't know the word for it).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> @Bedrockgames I'm quoting myself to note that _this is how I expect to be treated as well._
> 
> If I use a term in a conversation that the other person thinks is ignorant or offensive, I want to know! I honestly think it's a respectful way to treat someone. It doesn't always feel good in the moment, but over time it helps me be a better member of my community.



For the record I don't think you've done anything ignorant or offensive. I just am pushing back on the idea you have expressed of not taking a persons views about film seriously because they used a particular word. But I don't think you doing that is offensive.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> In any conversation we decide how much trust we give another person's views based on the language they use.




This is something I try not to do. Maybe it comes from being around a lot of different kinds of people who use different kinds of language, and realizing that impressions based on language can often be very misleading. But generally try to remain curious about peoples opinions regardless of the way they express those opinions.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 12, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> For the record I don't think you've done anything ignorant or offensive. I just am pushing back on the idea you have expressed of not taking a persons views about film seriously because they used a particular word. But I don't think you doing that is offensive.



You mentioned that if a person dropped in obscure terms like "martini shot" it would give you pause. I would probably want to find out if they actually know what they're talking about or if they're just trying to sound erudite.

It's the same thing with "Mary Sue." If someone uses it in a conversation, it's a signal to me that they might be a misogynist, and I'll steer the conversation to find out if they're just using a bad borrowed term or if it's true to their beliefs.

On the other hand, if someone is using the term on a YouTube video, I'm just not going to watch it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I want to say, I think it is totally valid for:
> 
> 1) films to be political
> 
> ...




I agree with this 100%. I just did a rewatch and discussion of all the Dirty Harry movies and those can't really be separated from political discussion around them. My point is not every movie needs that to be its priority and there are better and worse ways of doing politics in a film.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 12, 2022)

Mallus said:


> Out of curiosity, how many people here with an opinion about politics in Hollywood movies know what the Hays Office and the Motion Picture Production Code are?
> 
> (or have a favorite Pre-Code movie - some of them are wild!)



By content, but not by name. Figured I knew what you were talking about and had a quick search confirm. Watching for things like the couples always sleeping in separate beds, or there always being a foot on the floor when in the same bed, makes for fascinating viewing when you know about it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> You mentioned that if a person dropped in obscure terms like "martini shot" it would give you pause. I would probably want to find out if they actually know what they're talking about or if they're just trying to sound erudite.




I don't think I said that, and if I did, it wasnt' what I intended to mean. If someone dropped martini shot into a conversation, and it sounded like they know what a martini shot is, it would just be part of the conversation. If they used some other language to describe a martini shot, it would just be part of the conversation. If they used it incorrectly, or used it to sound erudite, I wouldn't try to read too much into it personally (because there are so many different reasons a person might do that). And if they used a term like that, and I didnt' understand it, I would ask what the term means. But that is about it. My point was I don't think it is very helpful to make assumptions about someone based on them using language (whether it is martini shot, or mary sue) because you don't know why they are using that language. Obviously if it raises a question in your mind, you should ask. But I think using a personals language style as a measure of things beyond what they are trying to say, is unfair. You might just be bumping into a class difference, a geographic difference, a difference in educational background. It doesn't have to indicate a political difference or a difference around values. And if there is a difference of values and that is an issue, I would say people are better off directly talking about those values with one another instead of the movie as a proxy.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> It's the same thing with "Mary Sue." If someone uses it in a conversation, it's a signal to me that they might be a misogynist, and I'll steer the conversation to find out if they're just using a bad borrowed term or if it's true to their beliefs.




And if you are worried about that, feel free to ask people. I think issue here is I am saying, you shouldn't assume that is what is driving their use of the term. I think it is very easy in these discussions to see people we disagree with, as the villains we want them to be (and I am not saying you are doing that, but I think this approach to language in conversation makes that much easier to do).


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 12, 2022)

@Bedrockgames  I have not watched the Critical Drinker videos linked to in this thread but I have watched several of his video and my conclusion is that he was not giving me an honest take but pandering to a following. That is why I will not watch him.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> On the other hand, if someone is using the term on a YouTube video, I'm just not going to watch it.



Which is fair, you can watch or not watch what you want for whatever reason you choose. I stopped watching a youtube  video yesterday because the person's voice drove me crazy. They were making perfectly valid points, but I just couldn't stand the way they sounded in the mix (I don't even think the person had an annoying voice in real life, it is just the way the video was recorded or something). Personally when I watch youtube reviews today I try to get past some of these buzz terms and figure out what the person's underlying argument is. In this particular case. I don't think there was mysogyny. I think he was just being a bit grumpy about Star Wars (which isn't exactly that unusual online lol).

While I don't agree with his argument, I did watch the video because I feel like modern movies and shows have often lost my interest much more than older ones....so I am interested in seeing if anjyton has hit on solid reasons why that might be.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 12, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> @Bedrockgames  I have not watched the Critical Drinker videos linked to in this thread but I have watched several of his video and my conclusion is that he was not giving me an honest take but pandering to a following. That is why I will not watch him.




That is your choice. I am not telling you that you should watch him. I watched this one video because it popped up due to the algorithm, but after watching it, I don't much desire to watch other videos by him (I just didn't find him very compelling and I didn't find the humor that effective). Just based on this video, I didn't come away with the pandering impression (I mean there is always a degree of playing to an audience I suppose, but I didn't find him to be doing it to a distracting degree or anything, he seemed to be expressing real opinions that he had about movies)


----------



## Mallus (Mar 13, 2022)

darkwillow said:


> Yeah its apparent people care more politics than good movies or stories or characters.



I’d say what’s apparent is people have different ideas about what qualifies as a good movie or story or character.


darkwillow said:


> In the new Matrix 4 Neo felt mary suish, the way he ran around blocking every bullet with a force field, that was dreadful.



By the end of the original Matrix, Neo is doing his “Superman thing”. By Revolutions, he has powers _in the real world_. How is creating a bulletproof force field inside the Matrix different from these abilities?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

Mallus said:


> By the end of the original Matrix, Neo is doing his “Superman thing”. By Revolutions, he has powers _in the real world_. How is creating a bulletproof force field inside the Matrix different from these abilities?



He is a messianic character, so I don’t think you can fault them for making him super powerful in later movies (I do think it is fair to fault the franchise for making more than one Matrix movie though )


----------



## South by Southwest (Mar 13, 2022)

Mallus said:


> How is this different from all the previous decades?



I'd say it's a difference of degree, and not because of any of the political junk the conservatives are on about, either. As more of the better writers and actors moved over to TV, movies suffered.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 13, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> He is a messianic character, so I don’t think you can fault them for making him super powerful in later movies (I do think it is fair to fault the franchise for making more than one Matrix movie though )



Yeah, exactly. He’s literally The One. A messianic superhero. What did you expect? My Dinner With Andre? (great film, BTW).

I do think it’s interesting how some genre fans have constructed “too powerful” as a criticism of power fantasies. Be fun to dig into that.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

Mallus said:


> Yeah, exactly. He’s literally The One. A messianic superhero. What did you expect? My Dinner With Andre? (great film, BTW).
> 
> I do think it’s interesting how some genre fans have constructed “too powerful” as a criticism of power fantasies. Be fun to dig into that.




some genres characters are simply supposed to be awesome. A lot of 80s action operated on that premise: just look at a typical Arnold movie. And in most of those the film starts with him fully trained. Plenty of martial arts movies start with the hero being super powerful. Even many comedies operate on the premise of the protagonist being overpowered in things like a social context (movies where a zany character comes into a stuffy institution and undermines it by effortlessly charming everyone). And in the case of Neo, he had to train to get there. It all depends on the movie.


----------



## Older Beholder (Mar 13, 2022)

Just some examples of the lessons being taught in modern movies, (I didn’t watch the video, just basing these off films being mentioned in the thread):

Believe in yourself and don‘t let other people keep you down. (Captain Marvel)
Focus on the things you love rather than things you don’t. (The Last Jedi)
Greed and selfishness are bad for society (WW84)

Not sure how any of these things would be considered awful, but I tend to find the people that make these videos are more interested in monetising misogyny than actual film criticism.


----------



## MGibster (Mar 13, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Here is a question: does a movie _need_ a character arc? I can think of quite a few hugely successful ones that didn't. Most of the pre-Craig Bond movies for example. Bond comes in, sorts out the problem, and is exactly the same person at the end of the movie that he was at the start.



Strictly speaking, no, it isn't absolutely necessary for a character to have any growth during a story.  Steve Rogers doesn't have much of a character arc throughout the series of movies he appears in.  Contrast that with Tony Stark who actually grows and changes just in the first Avengers movie alone by becoming the guy willing to make that sacrifice.


Mallus said:


> Mainly because it’s applied to hyper-competent female characters as a criticism, whereas hyper-competent male characters are accepted as normal and good. Expected, even. Of course James Bond and Kirk and Doc Savage are good at a lot of things... and are the protagonists of their respective stories, ie the center.



Kirk had flaws and sometimes he screwed up.  In _Wrath of Khan, _when _Defiant _failed to answer hailing calls, Saavik pointed out that Star Fleet regulations required him to raise shields as a precautionary measure.  But Kirk failed to follow regulations resulting in the death of many crew members and the near destruction of his ship.  That wouldn't happen to a Marty Stu.  (But, yeah, you're right that Mary Sue is often used as a complaint against competent women characters.)


Ryujin said:


> Not a strike against, but rather an argument against Captain Marvel being a Mary Sue. The perfection just ain't there.



Agreed.  We see Captain Marvel get beat by her boss in a sparring match at the beginning and she's been tricked into fighting a war on false pretenses.  She's not perfect.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Here is a question: does a movie _need_ a character arc? I can think of quite a few hugely successful ones that didn't. Most of the pre-Craig Bond movies for example. Bond comes in, sorts out the problem, and is exactly the same person at the end of the movie that he was at the start.




no. In fact I think too many movies have character arcs when they aren’t needed. A lot of times I find myself very bored by character arcs I have no interest in. Some movies should have them though. I also don’t need every character to learn a lesson by the movie’s end. Mostly I want emotional pay off, something that satisfies my intellectual curiosity and catharsis in a film. but if it is an action movie, a lot if times arcs get in the way or feel perfunctory. I’d rather they focus on finding ways to bring emotional weight to the action, make the action beautiful on screen, etc. but if it is appropriate, a character arc can work.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 13, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> True, writing a good character should be the point. What is being missed here is that the same standard isn't being applied to critiques of characters across the board because of the politics of the critic. In my admitted limited experience watching him, this is something that The Critical Drinker does frequently - he makes attacks on characters based on politics. As an example, in his reviews for Star Trek Discovery he refers to Michael Burnham as "diverse female space Jesus". I am the last person to defend Star Trek Discovery (I hate the show) and I think Michael Burnham has tons of problems as a character but none of them are because of her race or gender. In the few videos of his I have watched I never saw him apply a nickname to a male character that referenced his race and/or gender and said it was a part of the character's problem.



I'm not one to defend Critical Drinker as I have only watched a handful of his shows, but I think his nicknaming comes about due to the political ideology that is espoused with Discovery. Most notably for me was in the second season, where some nameless (white) guy acted like a tool to her, never listened to her advice and then got killed for it, all within 5 minutes. I mean really, this isn't the Star Trek I signed up for. To be fair I was already not liking her character from season 1.

He also had a lot to say about the man-hating that came from the Batwoman series. I mean we have experienced Christian Bale and Ben Affleck, then they go and produce this disastrous Batwoman character that makes the most unnecessary comments.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 13, 2022)

Mallus said:


> he has powers _in the real world_.



There is no real world, just a bigger Matrix.

It's matrixes all the way down.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 13, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> There can be that, but there can also be finding a political pattern where there isn't one because you are using a lens that is always looking for it.



People are going to find politics in art whether the author intends it or not. The more the author tries to "remain neutral" the easier it is for people to read in whatever they want.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> People are going to find politics in art whether the author intends it or not. The more the author tries to "remain neutral" the easier it is for people to read in whatever they want.




You can find whatever you want in a piece of art if you are looking for it. That doesn't mean it is there. There are better and worse interpretations of art. I am sure plenty fo times, there is politics there. But it is also entirely possible to find patterns that aren't present because you are locked in a mindset of seeking them. It starts to become like a conspiracy theorist always seeing aliens in everything if you have one thing you always find lurking inside a work of art.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 13, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> I'm not one to defend Critical Drinker as I have only watched a handful of his shows, but I think his nicknaming comes about due to the political ideology that is espoused with Discovery. Most notably for me was in the second season, where some nameless (white) guy acted like a tool to her, never listened to her advice and then got killed for it, all within 5 minutes. I mean really, this isn't the Star Trek I signed up for. To be fair I was already not liking her character from season 1.
> 
> He also had a lot to say about the man-hating that came from the Batwoman series. I mean we have experienced Christian Bale and Ben Affleck, then they go and produce this disastrous Batwoman character that makes the most unnecessary comments.



I'm honestly curious, AnotherGuy, when you critique shows based on the race and gender of the characters, do you see this as political criticism?


----------



## Blue Orange (Mar 13, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> I'm not one to defend Critical Drinker as I have only watched a handful of his shows, but I think his nicknaming comes about due to the political ideology that is espoused with Discovery. Most notably for me was in the second season, where some nameless (white) guy acted like a tool to her, never listened to her advice and then got killed for it, all within 5 minutes. I mean really, this isn't the Star Trek I signed up for. To be fair I was already not liking her character from season 1.
> 
> He also had a lot to say about the man-hating that came from the Batwoman series. I mean we have experienced Christian Bale and Ben Affleck, then they go and produce this disastrous Batwoman character that makes the most unnecessary comments.




Star Trek was always left-leaning, though. TOS had the first interracial kiss, a diverse crew back in the 60s (and having Chekhov on board was showing we'd get through the Cold War with Russia and eventually become friends), and off the top of my head TNG had episodes about LGBT people, Palestinians, and even, arguably, asexuals, and people who watched the later series can comment on DS9, VOY, and whatever the others are. So woke has _always_ been on-brand for Star Trek. Lately that seems to include actual nastiness to traditionally privileged groups (I have some membership on each side of that line), and I'm not on board for that, though I admit I'm no longer really on the left. But Star Trek has always tried to be progressive. That's who they are.

(Though: random (white) guys getting killed for not listening to the captain? That's an old trope--the term _redshirt_ comes from the red-shirted security personnel TOS used to kill to create a sense of tension.)

I think doing it with Star Wars (traditionally the right-leaning foil to Star Trek, at least back in the end of the 20th century when I followed this stuff more avidly) was inevitably going to get a lot more pushback. But right-leaning fans (including far right fans) seem to have migrated to anime in response. (That is not to say _all_ or even a majority of anime fans lean right, by any means!)


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> Star Trek was always left-leaning, though. TOS had the first interracial kiss, a diverse crew back in the 60s (and having Chekhov on board was showing we'd get through the Cold War with Russia and eventually become friends), and off the top of my head TNG had episodes about LGBT people, Palestinians, and even, arguably, asexuals, and people who watched the later series can comment on DS9, VOY, and whatever the others are. So woke has _always_ been on-brand for Star Trek. Lately that seems to include actual nastiness to traditionally privileged groups (I have some membership in each), and I'm not on board for that, and I admit I'm no longer really on the left. But Star Trek has always tried to be progressive.
> 
> (Though: random (white) guys getting killed for not listening to the captain? That's an old trope--the term _redshirt_ comes from the red-shirted security personnel TOS used to kill to create a sense of tension.)
> 
> I think doing it with Star Wars (traditionally the right-leaning foil to Star Trek, at least back in the end of the 20th century when I followed this stuff more avidly) was inevitably going to get a lot more pushback. But right-leaning fans (including far right fans) seem to have migrated to anime in response. (That is not to say _all_ or even a majority of anime fans lean right, by any means!)




I think fandom has become more tribal politically though as well. I remember in the 80s and 90s, I never thought of star wars as particularly right leaning (I thought of it as vaguely left, from the part of the 60s hippy crowd who got into eastern mysticism). I think what set it apart from a lot of the stuff from that era though was its optimistic tone and it wasn't overtly political. And the prequels did seem to have a stronger political message (that was certainly not right leaning). Whereas Star Trek has always been very political. But even then, I knew tons of conservatives who loved star trek. One of the things I liked about science fiction was it often felt like a meeting ground for a wide variety of viewpoints because it is built around thought experiments. I knew conservatives who didn't agree with Gene Roddenbury's world view, but would stick around to hear what he had to say.

Something I think has become extremely unhealthy is art being used divisively and used for us to identify which political tribe people are in. You saw this with star wars and ghost busters especially where a lot of criticisms, was just deflected by big media companies, by making them into political issues. Yes, some people did bring their politics into the theater and into their reaction. But there are perfectly non-political reasons to love the Last Jedi, and perfectly non-political reasons to dislike it. You can also agree with the political message of a movie, while thinking the message detracted from the film or was handled poorly. But the whole conversation seemed to get boiled down to if you like it you are a progressive, if you don't like it you voted for Trump. A lot of nuance was completely lost in the cultural conversation around star wars at that time. For me the last jedi was the first film I intentionally waited 6 months to a year to watch so I wouldn't be influenced by that, and I think it made a big difference. My view was some of the political messaging felt heavy handed (and I didn't necessarily disagree with many of the messages), and some of them undermined parts of the film (making Hux the butt of a slap stick humor, for instance, may have sent a message, but it weakened the character as a threat and villain in the story). But I enjoyed it. It was a fun movie to watch. I also really liked the Rose Tico character and I was a little confused that that love story didn't turn into anything by the final film (honestly if I have a political gripe with the new star wars trilogy it is that they seemed to reject the idea of interracial love: to go back to your star trek example---and I think the reason they did avoid that storyline was purely about profit). I also felt some of the dialogue was too meta (the whole kills the past speech felt a little on the nose to me and it wasn't the character speaking but the script writer). My main criticism of Last Jedi as a movie, isn't the film itself. It is that as the second film in a trilogy it threw a wrench into things. I think that franchise either needed to be written and directed entirely around the vision of Last Jedi or entirely around the vision of The Force Awakens. It just didn't work as a three part movie, and a big reason for that is the second film. But I don't blame Rian Johnson for that. I think that is on Disney for not having a good plan from the start.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 13, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I'm honestly curious, AnotherGuy, when you critique shows based on the race and gender of the characters, do you see this as political criticism?



I don't critique shows based on gender or race characters. My biggest pet peeve as I've mentioned upthread is logic fails. I absolutely hated the first Superman with Henry Cavill (and it had nothing to do with the actor) - I would have walked out of the cinema if I wasn't there watching it with friends.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 13, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> Star Trek was always left-leaning, though. TOS had the first interracial kiss, a diverse crew back in the 60s (and having Chekhov on board was showing we'd get through the Cold War with Russia and eventually become friends), and off the top of my head TNG had episodes about LGBT people, Palestinians, and even, arguably, asexuals, and people who watched the later series can comment on DS9, VOY, and whatever the others are. So woke has _always_ been on-brand for Star Trek. Lately that seems to include actual nastiness to traditionally privileged groups (I have some membership on each side of that line), and I'm not on board for that, though I admit I'm no longer really on the left. But Star Trek has always tried to be progressive. That's who they are.



I was younger and obviously less aware of things along those lines when watching TNG or TOS and I will admit you are probably right about Star Trek.



Blue Orange said:


> (Though: random (white) guys getting killed for not listening to the captain? That's an old trope--the term _redshirt_ comes from the red-shirted security personnel TOS used to kill to create a sense of tension.)



The incident was a little too in your face. I cannot recall if she were captain and that point, she may indeed have been. Also it was already in season 2 so I already had issues with that character from season 1. But yah, it was front and centre AND unnecessary. What lesson did we learn in those 5 minutes?



Blue Orange said:


> I think doing it with Star Wars (traditionally the right-leaning foil to Star Trek, at least back in the end of the 20th century when I followed this stuff more avidly) was inevitably going to get a lot more pushback. But right-leaning fans (including far right fans) seem to have migrated to anime in response. (That is not to say _all_ or even a majority of anime fans lean right, by any means!)



Interesting, I never new anime was "right-leaning". I know next to nothing about anime.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 13, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> I don't critique shows based on *gender* or *race* characters. My biggest pet peeve as I've mentioned upthread is logic fails. I absolutely hated the first Superman with Henry Cavill (and it had nothing to do with the actor) - I would have walked out of the cinema if I wasn't there watching it with friends.



But you just did! Your critiques of Star Trek and Batwoman were based on race and gender. Am I missing something? Why else would you write about race and gender in your critiques?


----------



## Hex08 (Mar 13, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> I'm not one to defend Critical Drinker as I have only watched a handful of his shows, but I think his nicknaming comes about due to the political ideology that is espoused with Discovery. Most notably for me was in the second season, where some nameless (white) guy acted like a tool to her, never listened to her advice and then got killed for it, all within 5 minutes. I mean really, this isn't the Star Trek I signed up for. To be fair I was already not liking her character from season 1.
> 
> He also had a lot to say about the man-hating that came from the Batwoman series. I mean we have experienced Christian Bale and Ben Affleck, then they go and produce this disastrous Batwoman character that makes the most unnecessary comments.



I won't deny that Discovery and some other modern TV shows have left leaning (or right) outlooks because it's not uncommon for TV shows of any era to have political leanings or messages. I am even willing to grant you that his nicknames are in response to the show's political leanings, but that doesn't exclude that he is also coming from a place informed by his political worldview. Also, drawing a conclusion based on one nameless character dying (or having some negative consequence) because he didn't react properly to the main protagonist seems like a stretch. This sort of technique isn't an uncommon way of demonstrating that the protagonist is, well, the protagonist and going to be right frequently and the driving force of the story. It's not much different than all of the dead red shirts in Star Trek, a bunch of nameless characters scarified to the story to develop a sense of danger.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 13, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> But you just did! Your critiques of Star Trek and Batwoman were based on race and gender. Am I missing something? Why else would you write about race and gender in your critiques?




My original post



> I'm not one to defend *Critical Drinker* as I have only watched a handful of his shows, but I think *his nicknaming* comes about due to the political ideology that is espoused with Discovery. Most notably for me was in the second season, where some nameless (white) guy acted like a tool to her, never listened to her advice and then got killed for it, all within 5 minutes. I mean really, this isn't the Star Trek I signed up for. To be fair I was already not liking her character from season 1.
> 
> *He* also had a lot to say about the man-hating that came from the Batwoman series. I mean we have experienced Christian Bale and Ben Affleck, then they go and produce this disastrous Batwoman character that makes the most unnecessary comments.




So I think I was referring to the nicknaming by Critical Drinker as someone had mentioned that he uses race & gender for females and I suppose PoC, but never or hardly for white males. The two instances I can recall which were right in your face and served no purposes for which he passed a comment where for Discovery + Batwoman (the latter which I have not seen). I agree with those assessments of his.
Do I bash Burnham for being a PoC, no. Do I bash Burnham for being female, no. Do I bash the Batwoman for her sexual preference, no. They are just badly written characters because generally I find the writers of Discovery are mixed bag learning towards bad, at least for the 1st two seasons.

EDIT: I mean can you imagine an example where we have a Wonder Man and he says the suit will be perfect when its made to the specifications of a man? I mean seriously.


----------



## Blue Orange (Mar 13, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> Interesting, I never new anime was "right-leaning". I know next to nothing about anime.



_Anime_ isn't right-leaning as a whole. Anime is a whole medium of innumerable genres produced by people in Japan, with many admirers and imitators worldwide. Most 21st-century cartoons have some anime influence if you look (just as anime was influenced by Western cartoons.)

Many _fans_ of 'geek' media who lean right are into anime now because, being Japanese, it lacks the left-leaning social messages in most Anglophone media these days. It probably has _Japanese_ social messages, but those are going to go over (almost) everyone's head.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 13, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> My original post
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think what confuses me then is that the same folks who say they don't want politics in their pop culture (such as this YouTube guy) also critique the same pop culture through race and gender politics.

It would be far more honest if their critique was something like "this show's use of gender or race is too obvious, or clumsy, or offensive."

Instead they try to hide behind this screen of "no politics" while being very political in their criticism.

As @Bedrockgames has mentioned, there's a lot of tribalism in media culture these days. I would argue that critics like the Critical Drinker directly lead to tribalism. If they were more honest about the political critical lense they are viewing shows and movies through, they would be helping their fans form their own critical lenses. Instead, they present their work as "apolitical" and then criticize shows and movies for being "political."

This creates the idea that to be "political" is bad. And yet the Critical Drinker's critiques, when based on race and gender, are political!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> As @Bedrockgames has mentioned, there's a lot of tribalism in media culture these days. I would argue that critics like the Critical Drinker directly lead to tribalism. If they were more honest about the political critical lense they are viewing shows and movies through, they would be helping their fans form their own critical lenses. Instead, they present their work as "apolitical" and then criticize shows and movies for being "political."




The tribalism is definitely swinging both ways. I can't speak to the Critical Drinker as I have only seen that one video, but I have seen a number of videos from youtube channels on media that seem reactionary to the other side. I also don't think works need to be apolitical. I just don't think art has to always be a proxy for our political disagreements, and that the quality shouldn't be judged on its politics (and I am concerned that art is overly political now, that it is used to divide people politically and that it is contributing a culture where politics is becoming impossible because people have so demonized one another). When it is relevant, absolutely a movie should be political. Malcolm X is a political film and it would make very little sense to take the politics out of that movie. And the film is enhanced by the politics (even someone doesn't agree with the politics I think they have to at least acknowledge it contributes to the overall effect and  meaning of the movie). Dirty Harry is a political film. And the political issues it grapples with, enhances it. But I don't think star wars needs to be political.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 13, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I think what confuses me then is that the same folks who say they don't want politics in their pop culture (such as this YouTube guy) also critique the same pop culture through race and gender politics.
> 
> It would be far more honest if their critique was something like "this show's use of gender or race is too obvious, or clumsy, or offensive."
> 
> ...



I think people like tCD are reactionary and have grown popular because of the forced political message now seen in series and movies and the cancel culture which follows it. You are 100% in that it creates tribalism, but that goes into a much deeper discussion that I would quickly be threadbanned if I got into it here. Needless to say people on tCD's side and people on the opposite side are but pawns, and it seems to me that the strife amongst us as well as the acceptance of censorship is actually the goal. That is as much as I can say on the topic.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 13, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I won't deny that Discovery and some other modern TV shows have left leaning (or right) outlooks because it's not uncommon for TV shows of any era to have political leanings or messages. I am even willing to grant you that his nicknames are in response to the show's political leanings, but that doesn't exclude that he is also coming from a place informed by his political worldview.



A 100% in agreement here.



Hex08 said:


> Also, drawing a conclusion based on one nameless character dying (or having some negative consequence) because he didn't react properly to the main protagonist seems like a stretch. This sort of technique *isn't an uncommon way* of demonstrating that the protagonist is, well, the protagonist and going to be right frequently and the driving force of the story. It's not much different than all of the dead red shirts in Star Trek, a bunch of nameless characters scarified to the story to develop a sense of danger.



Bold emphasis mines. Can you highlight another time in Star Trek where this occurred?


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 13, 2022)

@Bedrockgames @AnotherGuy 

I can tell both of you are uncomfortable to go further into this.

But I do want to point out that both of you are using terms like "sides" and "both sides." I think this is part of the problem, thinking that a show's or movie's choices in casting, writing, and directing are an extension of political parties. When we talk about the politics of art, it's not necessarily an extension of a two-party system. It's a discussion of how art and artists choose to (or subconsciously) reflect the relationships, laws, and zeitgeist of our culture.

I would challenge you in the future to try and discuss this without the use of "sides."


----------



## Hex08 (Mar 13, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> I think people like tCD are reactionary and have grown popular because of the forced political message now seen in series and movies and the cancel culture which follows it. You are 100% in that it creates tribalism, but that goes into a much deeper discussion that I would quickly be threadbanned if I got into it here. Needless to say people on tCD's side and people on the opposite side are but pawns, and the strife as well as the acceptance of censorship is actually the goal. That is as much as I can say on the topic.



Why a "forced political message"? Is the implication that someone outside the writers room is forcing a certain political message on the writers or that the writers are forcing a message on the viewers? I suppose the first could be true but without evidence I am relucent to make such an assumption. If it's the second, nothing is being forced since viewership is a choice.

Regarding cancel culture, both sides engage in it equally, and often to the detriment of both.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 13, 2022)

If one is learning from movies, that is sort of the problem in the first place. Movies, TV, etc. are only about making money, and pander to their audiences; Hollywood is a master at creating an image, and lying. I remember someone being amazed that reality TV was in fact scripted.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> @Bedrockgames @AnotherGuy
> 
> I can tell both of you are uncomfortable to go further into this.
> 
> ...



The point I was making was just that the tribalism you were talking about is coming from both extremes


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 13, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> The point I was making was just that the tribalism you were talking about is coming from both extremes



Again, I don't think it's useful to build "us vs them" into these conversations. What do you mean by both extremes? If you can't name the sides, then what's the point of bringing it into a discussion on ENworld? I think we can have this conversation without making it about two opposing sides.


----------



## MGibster (Mar 13, 2022)

dragoner said:


> If one is learning from movies, that is sort of the problem in the first place. Movies, TV, etc. are only about making money, and pander to their audiences; Hollywood is a master at creating an image, and lying. I remember someone being amazed that reality TV was in fact scripted.





			
				Stephen King said:
			
		

> Harry Potter is all about confronting fears, finding inner strength, and doing what is right in the face of adversity.  Twilight is all about how important it is to have a boyfriend.




Movies may be only about making money, but at the very least they typically reinforce cultural values if nothing else which is a lesson in and of itself.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 13, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I knew conservatives who didn't agree with Gene Roddenbury's world view, but would stick around to hear what he had to say.



And that, right there, is when Science Fiction is at its best. It slips ideas past people's defences, making them consider their viewpoints, by engaging their imaginations. The TOS "The Omega Glory" made a Canadian kid get interested in the US Constitution, with "E Plebnista" ringing in my ears.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> And that, right there, is when Science Fiction is at its best. It slips ideas past people's defences, making them consider their viewpoints, by engaging their imaginations. The TOS "The Omega Glory" made a Canadian kid get interested in the US Constitution, with "E Plebnista" ringing in my ears.




But it isn't slipping past their defenses is the point: they are willingly engaging with it. They understand the message, even if it is subtle (and Star Trek at least wasn't very subtle). But the quality of writing was there, and it was done in a  way that the politics enhanced the material. From the other side of the aisle, Starship Troopers would be the book that did this for me. I don't agree with the politics of the book, but I found it incredibly engaging. It wasn't that he was slipping in ideas and they were going past my defenses: the ideas were clearly there and he was clearly using his story to make a case for his ideas. But I was willing to engage with the Heinlein because it was a well crafted story and he presented his position in a way I found compelling even if I disagreed with it.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 13, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Movies may be only about making money, but at the very least they typically reinforce cultural values if nothing else which is a lesson in and of itself.



Is it? Why is that? Sounds more like selling confirmation bias.


Ryujin said:


> And that, right there, is when Science Fiction is at its best. It slips ideas past people's defences, making them consider their viewpoints, by engaging their imaginations. The TOS "The Omega Glory" made a Canadian kid get interested in the US Constitution, with "E Plebnista" ringing in my ears.



Yes, "the divine fool" that can say to the King something in a way that otherwise can't be said. 

When I was in school, in American History, we had to pick an amendment, and with my group, debate the pros and con of it. I found out that was only because I was in AP, if you were not an A or B student, you read _Johnny Tremain,_ a fiction book.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> Again, I don't think it's useful to build "us vs them" into these conversations. What do you mean by both extremes? If you can't name the sides, then what's the point of bringing it into a discussion on ENworld? I think we can have this conversation without making it about two opposing sides.




Again, I was making a point about the tribalism you brought up. You seem to be reading something into my post that wasn't there.

And I don't know that we disagree that much here. I could be wrong or misunderstanding your point But again, if you look at what I am saying in my posts, I am trying to make the overall point that people are unhealthily invested in the idea of sides, and that they ought to probably be pulling back more from that kind of thinking about media (this is why I said movies shouldn't become proxies for our political disagreements and why I said making everything politicall makes politics impossible). It is also why I have taken to watching movies months after their release (so I am not plugged into that partisan conversation some people want to have when I evaluate the merit of a movie or piece of media). And in terms of political messaging in movies, my position has just been that sometimes it is a good thing but it shouldn't' be the only thing (and we shouldn't use whether we agree with the politics of filmmakers as our primary measure of whether something is well made and worthy of being seen).


----------



## Hex08 (Mar 13, 2022)

Edited to remove my reply because I am not sure if I can delete a post and think I would like to bow out of the conversation because it is just going in circles


----------



## Hex08 (Mar 13, 2022)

Edited to remove my reply because I am not sure if I can delete a post and think I would like to bow out of the conversation because it is just going in circles


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 13, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I mentioned the red shirt trope from TOS in the post you quoted as an example. If you want some specifics, we can look at the TOS episode _The Changeling _where some unnamed security guards attack a really powerful probe on board the Enterprise with phasers and die because of it only to have Captain Kirk later use reason to defeat Nomad. This could be taken as a way of showing how superior Kirk is than the average crewman, he didn't have to resort to violence because he is the protagonist and therefore better and smarter.



And in _The Changeling_ did these red shirts act full of cockiness and authority, publically dismissing Kirk's advice which led to them getting killed in quick succession?


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 13, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> Again, I don't think it's useful to build "us vs them" into these conversations. What do you mean by both extremes? If you can't name the sides, then what's the point of bringing it into a discussion on ENworld? I think we can have this conversation without making it about two opposing sides.



Well other posters @Hex08 and @Blue Orange mentioned upthread left and right leaning outlooks of media. Whether it is useful or not to have these included in the conversation, I don't know. It depends on the topic. tCD is someone that certainly uses politically commentary to attack ideologies that he disagrees with. You mentioned that these are not extensions of any political party but the values of the screenwriters and producers etc.

Nevertheless whether extensions of a movement or the message of an activist through his financing or writings, these ideologies have been adopted by one or more parties and so enforcing the sense of tribalism amongst viewers of such material, particularly if the message takes centre stage.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 13, 2022)

To put it differently. I really enjoyed DS9.
I'm sure there was political commentary in that series, but I'd have to think about it.
My main take-away is that the storyline was extremely enjoyable and satisfying. The cast were amazing, and the writing was smart, funny and serious when need be. It was great Star Trek.

Should the political commentary becomes the focus instead of the story, that is when I tune out. It is why I don't watch military dramas. IMO I think the message in them is far too strong and possibly has strong bias or even propaganda.

Having said all that, I must confess I loved Boston Legal. There were certainly a lot of political commentary in those last few seasons, but it was partisan. More along the lines of The People vs Big Government, Big Religion and Big Corporation.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

But to bring this back to the original topic. For me, and this is just me trying to find reasons why, not me saying I've arrived at the correct conclusion, the reasons I find a lot of recent films off-putting:

-Too much CGI: This isn't just about overuse of CGI but how CGI is outsourced and it never really feels like it connects to the movie for me (for a lot of big CGI scenes I feel like I am popping into a music video or other film suddenly).

-Not into superhero movies: If you like these, now is probably a great period in movie making but I have zero interest in super hero films and even non-super hero movies seem to take a lot of inspiration from the super hero films out there

-Not enough breathing space. This isn't a new problem. I think movies in the 80s sometimes had this. But I just feel like I am not getting enough time to sit with the characters in a lot of movies

-Pacing: I like slower paced movies. Pacing feels like it has increased a lot over time, and often watch thirty or forty year old movies soley because they feel like they have more time to breath

-The Scorsese criticism: I agree with Scorsese that a lot these movies coming out feel more like rides than films. That is fine. There have always been movies that were great rides (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars). But the one time I went to the movies to see a non-ride film in recent years, I couldn't enjoy it because the entire cinema was rumbling from all the explosions and sky battles happening in the rest of the theaters. I'd like to see more variety of movies being made that appear in the cinema.

-Not enough practical effects. This goes hand in hand with the CGI complaint but I think it warrants a separate entry as they aren't mutually exclusive. I miss practical effects because they feel like they have weight and presence int he movie even when they aren't super realistic (at least there is something physically there the actor is interacting with). And practical effects got very good over time so we should be in golden age of practical effects but you just don't see them that much

-Dialogue. This may just be generation but a lot of current movies have a dialogue issue for me, where it feels artificially snappy. I don't mind well done snappy dialogue but a lot of times it feels like the rule of cool is taking over. Some directors can do that (Tarantino's dialogue I have no problem with) but some I find infuriating to sit through because of the way characters banter

-Casts seem too young to me (maybe I am just getting older, but I do think crews of ships and protagonists seems to be aimed a younger and younger audience, and I feel like I am not seeing enough weathered protagonists). I could be wrong here though

This isn't universal. There have been new movies I adored. I just find it harder and harder to enjoy more recent films on the whole.

Note I am not saying modern movies are bad. They just don't appeal to me. Sometimes I try to get people into the movies I like and they give me plenty of reasons why they can't get into older movies (pacing, too many sound stages, etc).


----------



## payn (Mar 13, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> To put it differently. I really enjoyed DS9.
> I'm sure there was political commentary in that series, but I'd have to think about it.



There were numerous political episodes in DS9. One in particular examined racial discrimination in America in the 1950's. This was before social media and internet prominence and I think today those episodes would garner a lot of criticism.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

payn said:


> There were numerous political episodes in DS9. One in particular examined racial discrimination in America in the 1950's. This was before social media and internet prominence and I think today those episodes would garner a lot of criticism.




while I think shows have grown more political or political in different ways, this is one reason why I think the partisanship around media is bad: people, and again not just one group, are developing a distorted sense of past media and that can lead to throwing the baby out with the bath water: I.e. ‘there is too much politics in media, so there should be no politics in media’; ‘there is too much political criticism of film, so there should be be no political criticism of film’.
A lot if 90s media was very political. I am rewatching alien nation and that has a ton of political subtext. I watched Babylon 5 a couple years back and that too has quite a bit (though I do think it was often handled in a more sophisticated way than many other shows from that era). Star Trek has always been pretty political.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 13, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> But it isn't slipping past their defenses is the point: they are willingly engaging with it. They understand the message, even if it is subtle (and Star Trek at least wasn't very subtle). But the quality of writing was there, and it was done in a  way that the politics enhanced the material. From the other side of the aisle, Starship Troopers would be the book that did this for me. I don't agree with the politics of the book, but I found it incredibly engaging. It wasn't that he was slipping in ideas and they were going past my defenses: the ideas were clearly there and he was clearly using his story to make a case for his ideas. But I was willing to engage with the Heinlein because it was a well crafted story and he presented his position in a way I found compelling even if I disagreed with it.



I would argue that if it's managing to engage you in subject matter that you don't agree with, then it has slipped past one of the strongest defence mechanisms that people have for their thoughts; confirmation bias.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 13, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> To put it differently. I really enjoyed DS9.
> I'm sure there was political commentary in that series, but I'd have to think about it.
> My main take-away is that the storyline was extremely enjoyable and satisfying. The cast were amazing, and the writing was smart, funny and serious when need be. It was great Star Trek.
> 
> ...



DS9 was full of political, social, and religious commentary. For example the main cast included a former terrorist, with heavy beliefs, and an "other" who was in a position of authority, but whose very existence elicited distrust. That's just the two easiest ones of the top of my head.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I would argue that if it's managing to engage you in subject matter that you don't agree with, then it has slipped past one of the strongest defence mechanisms that people have for their thoughts; confirmation bias.




But I think that was more about viewing culture at the time than anything the show did. The one thing that is different here maybe, and I could be wrong is shows did fewer things to drive away viewers with different opinions (some of the more recent shows I have seen sound s but more strident to my ear but I don’t watch enough new stuff to say that for sure). I think my point though was in the 90s we would watch content that was outside our own viewpoints more


----------



## MGibster (Mar 13, 2022)

dragoner said:


> Is it? Why is that? Sounds more like selling confirmation bias.



I understand what confirmation bias is but I don't understand how you're using it in this context.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 13, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> But I think that was more about viewing culture at the time than anything the show did. The one thing that is different here maybe, and I could be wrong is *shows did fewer things to drive away viewers with different opinions* (some of the more recent shows I have seen sound s but more strident to my ear but I don’t watch enough new stuff to say that for sure). I think my point though was in the 90s we would watch content that was outside our own viewpoints more



Can you elaborate more about this? I'm not sure what that actually looks like


----------



## dragoner (Mar 13, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I understand what confirmation bias is but I don't understand how you're using it in this context.



Reinforcing cultural values = confirmation bias; or just straight up propaganda.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 13, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> DS9 was full of political, social, and religious commentary. For example the main cast included a former terrorist, with heavy beliefs, and an "other" who was in a position of authority, but whose very existence elicited distrust. That's just the two easiest ones of the top of my head.



Yeah, I was going to say the whole unionizing of Quarks bar, the deal with the exploitation of the on young woman, and the Ferengi cadet were all about as political as one could get.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> Can you elaborate more about this? I'm not sure what that actually looks like



Again it was just a thought, I haven’t watched a lot of newer shows in recent years so it may be wrong but some shows have felt more like the characters are lecturing the audience and sometimes the political stuff feels like it’s handled a little aggressively, not as conversationally. i am not prepared to give a speech on it or anything. I know as an example, the new doctor who series felt too much to me like it was lecturing the audience for example. And it often felt like they were going down a political check list and checking off boxes. The show was always political. I hate the term but I don’t kkuu I s what word is better: a lot if shows feel very woke to me now. I often agree with 80 percent of what they seem to be espousing but I think as an older viewer I have felt very pushed away by that crowd and the way it is handled in modern media it feels to me like a political idea is dropped in a somewhat obnoxious way and the character says ‘deal with it’. I don’t mind shows handling ideas but you start to feel like the makers don’t like you after a while and I think it pushes you away


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Mar 13, 2022)

What, so now the videos youtube keeps recommending that I know I don't want to watch and ignore multiple times are going to get their own threads on ENWorld? The algorithm is chasing me around the internet!



dragoner said:


> Yeah, I was going to say the whole unionizing of Quarks bar, the deal with the exploitation of the on young woman, and the Ferengi cadet were all about as political as one could get.



Leading to my favorite line from the series:


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 13, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Again it was just a thought, I haven’t watched a lot of newer shows in recent years so it may be wrong but some shows have felt more like the characters are lecturing the audience and sometimes the political stuff feels like it’s handled a little aggressively, not as conversationally. i am not prepared to give a speech on it or anything. I know as an example, the new doctor who series felt too much to me like it was lecturing the audience for example. And it often felt like they were going down a political check list and checking off boxes. The show was always political. I hate the term but I don’t kkuu I s what word is better: a lot if shows feel very woke to me now. I often agree with 80 percent of what they seem to be espousing but I think as an older viewer I have felt very pushed away by that crowd and the way it is handled in modern media it feels to me like a political idea is dropped in a somewhat obnoxious way and the character says ‘deal with it’. I don’t mind shows handling ideas but you start to feel like the makers don’t like you after a while and I think it pushes you away



I would argue that shows have always had such blatant political messages, they've usually just been targeted at maintaining the status quo. Any time a show had a person of color relegated to a sidekick or villain, had a female character relegated to a support or helper, showed only straight white men as leads, represented only one kind of family structure... These were all explicit political messages!

I am noticing a pattern in this conversation in which the "modern" shows that get brought up all have female or non-white protagonists. This too is a political message, but it's not any different than the messaging of shows in the past.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 13, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> What, so now the videos youtube keeps recommending that I know I don't want to watch and ignore multiple times are going to get their own threads on ENWorld? The algorithm is chasing me around the internet!
> 
> 
> Leading to my favorite line from the series:
> View attachment 153311



I think Star Trek was always political, I know that some say the original series was cancelled for having things such as the first white-black kiss on prime time or something, basically super radical for its day, I mean people were getting killed in the streets over systemic racism at the time.


----------



## payn (Mar 13, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> while I think shows have grown more political or political in different ways, this is one reason why I think the partisanship around media is bad: people, and again not just one group, are developing a distorted sense of past media and that can lead to throwing the baby out with the bath water: I.e. ‘there is too much politics in media, so there should be no politics in media’; ‘there is too much political criticism of film, so there should be be no political criticism of film’.
> A lot if 90s media was very political. I am rewatching alien nation and that has a ton of political subtext. I watched Babylon 5 a couple years back and that too has quite a bit (though I do think it was often handled in a more sophisticated way than many other shows from that era). Star Trek has always been pretty political.



I agree somewhat with this. Things have not gotten more political, folks have been tuned into a positions over interests mindset. Where commentary in literature and/or cinema and television used to be discussed from multiple perspectives, has now been turned into a zero-sum game. For example, I read numerous complaints about Star Trek Discovery having "an agenda." I watched it myself and some scenes are definitely constructed in a political manner, but that doesn't mean the purpose of the show is to lean into a particular set of politics. Though, many folks have been convinced it is and wont even watch for themselves. Unlike, the ST of the 60's, 70's, 80's 90's where folks would watch if they liked it, and talk about the context of the actual writing from a critical theory aspect.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I would argue that shows have always had such blatant political messages, they've usually just been targeted at maintaining the status quo. Any time a show had a person of color relegated to a sidekick or villain, had a female character relegated to a support or helper, showed only straight white men as leads, represented only one kind of family structure... These were all explicit political messages!
> 
> I am noticing a pattern in this conversation in which the "modern" shows that get brought up all have female or non-white protagonists. This too is a political message, but it's not any different than the messaging of shows in the past.



I think you are projecting things into me. I have said in many posts, there have always been politics in media: that it can be good depending on how it is done. But I don’t think old media always reinforces status quo and I think
your post  is a strong oversimplification of the issue and frankly not at all what I am talking about. I believe I mentioned one show I was critical of with a female character in the lead (and the problem wasn’t the female doctor in that show: I was looking forward to her in that role and liked her performance: the writing after her first season just felt too heavy handed to me). In other media I mentioned, Star Wars: I was defending both Rey and Rose Tico because I like those characters; and my chief political criticism of Star Wars was it cast aside the obvious romance with Finn and Rose (which I read as them avoiding interracial romance because they worried it wouldn’t be accepted in some key markets).

on status quo one older show I mentioned was alien nation. I love that show and it is a far cry from promoting the status quo. Old Star Trek went against the status quo too. And diversity has been in old shows and movies too, I don’t have a problem with a strong female lead, a gay lead or a non white lead (I haven’t seen the show because it looks too action and drama focused for me—-I like hotel in space style Star Trek—- but I love the actress playing the lead in the new Star Trek series and think her as captain is a good idea). One of my favorite movies is Swordsman II which reworks a classic wuxia story to make one of the characters trans (turning that character into one of the two main characters in the story film) and adding a romance between the protagonist and that character. For me the issue I run into with some newer media is it often feels overly tied to the political topic of the moment (so it tends to get dated fast) and feels more strident in its messaging. I have no issue with making a person of color the lead or something. I think when it feels like shows are just checking off a list of identity boxes, then yes that comes off as artificial. But that isn’t my main complaint here (those characters can still be well crafted characters)


----------



## payn (Mar 13, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I would argue that shows have always had such blatant political messages, they've usually just been targeted at maintaining the status quo. Any time a show had a person of color relegated to a sidekick or villain, had a female character relegated to a support or helper, showed only straight white men as leads, represented only one kind of family structure... These were all explicit political messages!
> 
> I am noticing a pattern in this conversation in which the "modern" shows that get brought up all have female or non-white protagonists. This too is a political message, but it's not any different than the messaging of shows in the past.



One of the things I wish folks would discuss more is the series _The Expanse_. This sci-fi series has women and people of color in all kinds of leadership positions. It has same sex couples, and even polyamorous relationships. Discrimination and oppression ring throughout the series, but none of the above mentioned items are targets or cause of it. It's just people in a story and their conflict is around resources and power, which is all politics typical revolve around.

Since its so understated, but demonstrated so subtlety, nobody really talks about how great that actually was to see in a modern story.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 13, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> But I think that was more about viewing culture at the time than anything the show did. The one thing that is different here maybe, and I could be wrong is shows did fewer things to drive away viewers with different opinions (some of the more recent shows I have seen sound s but more strident to my ear but I don’t watch enough new stuff to say that for sure). I think my point though was in the 90s we would watch content that was outside our own viewpoints more



Is that it, or is it that society has moved to be more accepting, overall, and that's reflected in media? There are a lot of things that hit my "old white guy" complacency but I still watch them, in the same way, to keep the three pounds of uncooked bacon between my ears functioning.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

payn said:


> I agree somewhat with this. Things have not gotten more political, folks have been tuned into a positions over interests mindset. Where commentary in literature and/or cinema and television used to be discussed from multiple perspectives, has now been turned into a zero-sum game. For example, I read numerous complaints about Star Trek Discovery having "an agenda." I watched it myself and some scenes are definitely constructed in a political manner, but that doesn't mean the purpose of the show is to lean into a particular set of politics. Though, many folks have been convinced it is and wont even watch for themselves. Unlike, the ST of the 60's, 70's, 80's 90's where folks would watch if they liked it, and talk about the context of the actual writing from a critical theory aspect.





payn said:


> I agree somewhat with this. Things have not gotten more political, folks have been tuned into a positions over interests mindset. Where commentary in literature and/or cinema and television used to be discussed from multiple perspectives, has now been turned into a zero-sum game. For example, I read numerous complaints about Star Trek Discovery having "an agenda." I watched it myself and some scenes are definitely constructed in a political manner, but that doesn't mean the purpose of the show is to lean into a particular set of politics. Though, many folks have been convinced it is and wont even watch for themselves. Unlike, the ST of the 60's, 70's, 80's 90's where folks would watch if they liked it, and talk about the context of the actual writing from a critical theory aspect.




Yes, I think it is the zero sum game thing. If we could talk about media from multiple angles, and not just two narrow political views, I think that would be better. Where I might disagree is I think that is starting to shake media: so that you go see a lot of media that seems tailored to one of these two perspectives. But honestly: we had that in the 80s too. Some movies were clearly meant for a Reagan audience, done for a liberal audience. So it is always there to a degree. It just seems to be the only conversation these days 

on the new star trek my main reason for not watching is it looks to polished and epic gif my taste (and the pay wall). But I expect any star trek is going to have done politics. And I have frequently had your experience where people say a movie or show has an agenda, then I watch it but don’t see an agenda, or just see it as a small aspect of the show


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 13, 2022)

Okay, the politics in DS9 were there, I'm not saying they weren't...but it is not my personal take-away for the show. I fell in love with the story, the dialogue and the characters. The question would be is why does something like DS9 with tons of political nuance not seemingly create tribalism like perhaps more modern shows. Is it our current climate? Are the stories, dialogue and characters overshadowed by the message? Is it something else? Is it all the above? I dunno.

Do you think tCD would attack DS9 along the lines of gender or race as he does shows of today? If not, why does it get a pass?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Is that it, or is it that society has moved to be more accepting, overall, and that's reflected in media? There are a lot of things that hit my "old white guy" complacency but I still watch them, in the same way, to keep the three pounds of uncooked bacon between my ears functioning.




I don’t think this is it no


----------



## payn (Mar 13, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Yes, I think it is the zero sum game thing. If we could talk about media from multiple angles, and not just two narrow political views, I think that would be better. Where I might disagree is I think that is starting to shake media: so that you go see a lot of media that seems tailored to one of these two perspectives. But honestly: we had that in the 80s too. Some movies were clearly meant for a Reagan audience, done for a liberal audience. So it is always there to a degree. It just seems to be the only conversation these days
> 
> on the new star trek my main reason for not watching is it looks to polished and epic gif my taste (and the pay wall). But I expect any star trek is going to have done politics. And I have frequently had your experience where people say a movie or show has an agenda, then I watch it but don’t see an agenda, or just see it as a small aspect of the show



I did not mean to imply that you dont watch ST Discovery because of its politics. Just that many folks have not even seen it because of criticism that have been made about it. If folks would just watch they would realize just how overstated these political criticisms actually are. Folks used to just start with whether they like a show in general or not, and could get over a statement or scene they might personally disagree with.  



AnotherGuy said:


> Okay, the politics in DS9 were there, I'm not saying they weren't...but it is not my personal take-away for the show. I fell in love with the story, the dialogue and the characters. The question would be is why does something like DS9 with tons of political nuance not seemingly create tribalism like perhaps more modern shows. Is it our current climate? Are the stories, dialogue and characters overshadowed by the message? Is it something else? Is it all the above? I dunno.



The shows are not creating the tribalism, our culture is. We (general we) have moved into a positions over interests mindset. 


AnotherGuy said:


> Do you think tCD would attack DS9 along the lines of gender or race as he does shows of today? If not, why does it get a pass?



I don't think so. There are some major character arcs and storylines that I think TCD would appreciate in DS9. What TCD would likely do is say DS9 is the good example and Discovery is the bad example. Though, that's purely assumption because I don't know TCD's thoughts on ST in general.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 13, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> What, so now the videos youtube keeps recommending that I know I don't want to watch and ignore multiple times are going to get their own threads on ENWorld? The algorithm is chasing me around the internet!



ITS ALIVE


----------



## dragoner (Mar 13, 2022)

DS9 was better written than Disco; if that means the politics in disco seem more ham-fisted that is why. Not watching some edgelord on youtube because of the algorithm will constantly suggest a thousand more vids, except that is just it, more pandering to an audience to get views, and thus money. Same as with the rest of media. Same as all of it really.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 13, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> Okay, the politics in DS9 were there, I'm not saying they weren't...but it is not my personal take-away for the show. I fell in love with the story, the dialogue and the characters. The question would be is why does something like DS9 with tons of political nuance not seemingly create tribalism like perhaps more modern shows. Is it our current climate? Are the stories, dialogue and characters overshadowed by the message? Is it something else? Is it all the above? I dunno.
> 
> Do you think tCD would attack DS9 along the lines of gender or race as he does shows of today? If not, why does it get a pass?



I think that in the past the older, more reactionary elements of society tended not to watch sci fi and therefore where somewhat unaware of the progressive messaging. With the possible exception of Mary Whitehouse, who really hated Doctor Who.

They are a bit more media savvy these days.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

payn said:


> I did not mean to imply that you dont watch ST Discovery because of its politics. Just that many folks have not even seen it because of criticism that have been made about it. If folks would just watch they would realize just how overstated these political criticisms actually are. Folks used to just start with whether they like a show in general or not, and could get over a statement or scene they might personally disagree with.




Don't worry, I didn't take your post that way. I just stated that for clarity because I know Discovery has been the subject of that conversation online. What I've heard from people I know who watch the show match what you say (and again, I just rewatched the first four or so seasons of the Next Generation last year and those get pretty political). I do think you are right that people used to begin with whether they liked the show or not, and if they didn't agree with the message it wasn't the end of things (I remember hearing a lot of people comment how much they liked a writer 'despite their crazy politics'). I don't know what has changed. I think part of is on the viewer side. I think part of it is the culture (these conversations are more omnipresent so the politics are on peoples minds constantly and a simple disagreement over a show can result in people unfriending one another, or stop talking to one another), and I think some shows simply reflect the changing culture (which you should expect), while other shows play more towards one audience or the other. When you go back and watch older media that is political (and a lot is), some of the things I have noticed is: it can date the material (but not always), if it is done poorly that is more apparent and glaring with time (and by poorly I mean too heavy handed or done in a way where the message might be a good one but it isn't coming from a well informed writer----they are relying on very simplistic arguments, etc. But it can also add a lot to the movie because: it really captures something that was in the air at the time and that gives it more power, it has some deep insight into the matter, etc. There should  be some politics in our media. And I want some media to be primary about politics. I just think things are better when it doesn't feel like that is the only thing going on. And, at least in terms of the conversation, it seems that that is the case when you read reviews (and I don't mean fringe reviews but mainstream reviews in papers and major online news outlets). And it seems like more and more movies rely on heavy political subtext too. 

And there isn't anything wrong with political subtext. Night of the Living Dead had political subtext. The movie Candyman had subtext. The Godfather had political subtext about America (and so did the Sopranos). None of that is bad on its own. It can be done well. The writing can be good. So I definitely say don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here. People shouldn't reject  film or show because it has political subtext.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I think that in the past the older, more reactionary elements of society tended not to watch sci fi and therefore where somewhat unaware of the progressive messaging. With the possible exception of Mary Whitehouse, who really hated Doctor Who.
> 
> They are a bit more media savvy these days.




I don't know about that. I knew a lot of science fiction fans in the 80s and 90s and that fandom seemed to be almost 50-50 at times. Even among star trek fans, which was a pretty progressive show, I remember many of my friends who watched it were conservatives.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 13, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> I'd say it's a difference of degree, and not because of any of the political junk the conservatives are on about, either. As more of the better writers and actors moved over to TV, movies suffered.



Are you sure it's not simply a bias of perception? We're aware of most films coming out today, but we're not familiar with the majority of the naughty word films from say the 1950s for example.

Also there are groups of people who today are able to make films who would have been prevented from doing so in the past, which would help offset any losses to tv.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

payn said:


> The shows are not creating the tribalism, our culture is. We (general we) have moved into a positions over interests mindset.





I do tend to agree with this. I think media is usually either more a reflection of what is going on, or is moving towards an audience to appeal to them. At the same time I am sure it has some effect. Our news is very tribal now. To some extent, I think that is because they know audiences are tribal and news is cut up to appeal to those difference audiences. But it also helps drive some of the tribalism. Still I think entertainment media doesn't have the same power as news so there I think mostly what we are seeing is a cultural shift, and I think it isn't any particular movie, show, etc driving that. Probably it is being driven by the fact that internet took off as a medium and that has enabled us silo into tribes.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> Are you sure it's not simply a bias of perception? We're aware of most films coming out today, but we're not familiar with the majority of the naughty word films from say the 1950s for example.
> 
> Also there are groups of people who today are able to make films who would have been prevented from doing so in the past, which would help offset any losses to tv.




I do think there is that problem: people remember a simple narrative of what movies were. At the same time, so much has changed in terms of how movies are made, even what medium they are made on (they are mostly digital now is my impression), and the way movies are consumed (theatrical releases definitely don't appear to be the big deal they were when I was growing up), I have to imagine some of the changing quality of movie entertainment could have something to do with these things. I do think, in general new movies don't seem as good. But every once in a while I see an incredible film, well crafted and extremely well performed. So don't think good movies aren't being made any more. But I think to some of us older people in the audience, many new movies feel like constant explosions, fights in the sky and CGI of ships careening into a planet. That might be an unfair characterization. But I think it is a lot of older peoples honest impression.


----------



## MGibster (Mar 13, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> And there isn't anything wrong with political subtext. Night of the Living Dead had political subtext. The movie Candyman had subtext.



And sometimes we see subtext that was never intended.  George Romero always maintained that he wasn't trying to make a political statement when he cast Duane Jones as the leading man in _Night of the Living Dead_.  Jones was cast because he was the best actor available to Romero at the time.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 13, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I do think there is that problem: people remember a simple narrative of what movies were. At the same time, so much has changed in terms of how movies are made, even what medium they are made on (they are mostly digital now is my impression), and the way movies are consumed (theatrical releases definitely don't appear to be the big deal they were when I was growing up), I have to imagine some of the changing quality of movie entertainment could have something to do with these things. I do think, in general new movies don't seem as good. But every once in a while I see an incredible film, well crafted and extremely well performed. So don't think good movies aren't being made any more. But I think to some of us older people in the audience, many new movies feel like constant explosions, fights in the sky and CGI of ships careening into a planet. That might be an unfair characterization. But I think it is a lot of older peoples honest impression.



No one suggesting it's not an honest impression. But it's a fact that most people do not recognize their own cognitive biases. People have been bemoaning the decline of cinema since nearly the beginning of cinema. The movies you hold up as examples of great film from the past were derided in their day as not holding a candle to classics of even earlier. It's a nearly universal human foible to view thing of the past as being better than the present.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

MGibster said:


> And sometimes we see subtext that was never intended.  George Romero always maintained that he wasn't trying to make a political statement when he cast Duane Jones as the leading man in _Night of the Living Dead_.  Jones was cast because he was the best actor available to Romero at the time.




And that is a fair point of discussion. It is entirely possible none was intended here. I've always read it as political (my sense is most people have seen it through the lens of the civil rights movement). I can't say I remember any interviews where he has said anything about it. But I do think by the time you get to Dawn of the Dead, there is clear commentary going on (and I believe with that, Day of the Dead and some of the more recent ones, he has said there was subtext).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> No one suggesting it's not an honest impression. But it's a fact that most people do not recognize their own cognitive biases. People have been bemoaning the decline of cinema since nearly the beginning of cinema. The movies you hold up as examples of great film from the past were derided in their day as not holding a candle to classics of even earlier. It's a nearly universal human foible to view thing of the past as being better than the present.




Sure, and people always are decrying the decline of civilization too. But that doesn't mean people are always wrong when they say movies are worse, or books are worse. There can be a cultural decline, or loss of craft. Civilization can go in bad directions (if someone said the world was going to hell on the day the European Witch Craze started, they would have a had a point). I don't know that is what is going on. I think this is more subjective. Movies are changing. Personally I think the changes are in many ways for the worse (mostly in terms of things like I described, change in the medium, change in stuff like CGI and pacing). But that is all subjective. Ultimately we won't settle how good current movies are in a  conversation today, that is probably going to be decided down the road (the way we can now look back and see that some decades look a little better than others in terms of movie quality: it is still subjective, but I think it is easier to do when you have distance from the period and you can lay it all out to examine).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> The movies you hold up as examples of great film from the past were derided in their day as not holding a candle to classics of even earlier.




This is absolutely true. And older generations don't always get newer ones. When crooners became a thing, the generation before derided that singing style as being only possible because of the new microphone technology (we think of Sinatra as classic now, but at that time he was viewed dimly by the older generation). When 60s rock happened, older people thought it was noise. And when heavy metal emerged, my parents generation (the 60s generation) didn't get it at all, or thought it was evil. So that is definitely a thing. I am aware of that as I am making my critique. But the only thing I can do is give an honest expression of my feelings on the movies I see. And one feeling I have had for a long time, is sometime around when Digital was becoming the new movie medium and CGI and superhero movies were becoming ubiquitous, I found myself only enjoying a small fraction of the movies that were released. Some of that is lack of interest in the topics (I don't particularly like superhero movies) but some of that is the medium changing: I can appreciate the early 80s superman movie visually, but I saw one of the more recent Superman's (I don't rsememrb the name of the film) and the visuals bothered my eyes: I just couldn't stand the way it looked. It didn't feel like a movie to me. It is possible my complaint is just an older person saying "This is noise". But it is also possible people will look back at the impact of things like digital, CGI, etc and see that as a key turning point in filming (and maybe they will even think it is a negative turning point, or maybe they will have a more balanced take but still conclude something from the prior era was lost).


----------



## MGibster (Mar 13, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I do think there is that problem: people remember a simple narrative of what movies were. At the same time, so much has changed in terms of how movies are made, even what medium they are made on (they are mostly digital now is my impression), and the way movies are consumed (theatrical releases definitely don't appear to be the big deal they were when I was growing up), I have to imagine some of the changing quality of movie entertainment could have something to do with these things.



I also think it's easy for people to forget how groundbreaking something is.  _Star Trek _starting airing in 1966 and featured an African on the bridge of the one of the Federation's best exploration vessels.  Just a year earlier, many television stations in the southern United States refused to air _I, Spy_ because it featured a black secret agent played by Bill Cosby and a white secret agent played by Robert Culp who were equal partners.  Cosby's character was neither subservient to or in command of Culp's character but they worked together as partners.  _Sesame Street _started airing in 1969 and was banned in Mississippi the following year because of its integrated cast of characters.  

When I was watching Star Trek, even as a teenager, I didn't think twice that the Federation's most venerated expert on computers, Dr. Daystrom was black.  It didn't occur to me that it was a big deal for Nichelle Nichols to play an officer on the bridge of a space ship.  But in the 1960s it was kind of a big deal.


----------



## MGibster (Mar 13, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> And that is a fair point of discussion. It is entirely possible none was intended here. I've always read it as political (my sense is most people have seen it through the lens of the civil rights movement). I can't say I remember any interviews where he has said anything about it. But I do think by the time you get to Dawn of the Dead, there is clear commentary going on (and I believe with that, Day of the Dead and some of the more recent ones, he has said there was subtext).



I'm not going to say there's no subtext to the original movie.  But a work isn't created in a vacuum and oftentimes the audience will bring their own baggage with them when they interpret things.  Ask most modern students who the hero is in _The Iliad _and they'll point to Hector.  Spoiler alert for 3,000+ year old story:  But the story isn't about Hector it's about Achilles and his rage.  But modern audiences sympathize with Hector because he's defending his home worried sick that his wife will work the loom in another man's home and his son will be cared.  (Never mind that Hector wishes for his son to become a great warrior who goes out to kill other men, their children, and to have their women work the loom in _his _home rather than wishing for peace.)  

Romero did say that _Dawn of the Dead_ was about consumerism but others also compared it to the looming threat of communism.  Note that in the 2003 remake, the zombies are fast and strike suddenly.  Some have said this was in reaction to the September 11 attacks which were sudden and came out of nowhere.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I'm not going to say there's no subtext to the original movie.  But a work isn't created in a vacuum and oftentimes the audience will bring their own baggage with them when they interpret things.  Ask most modern students who the hero is in _The Iliad _and they'll point to Hector.  Spoiler alert for 3,000+ year old story:  But the story isn't about Hector it's about Achilles and his rage.  But modern audiences sympathize with Hector because he's defending his home worried sick that his wife will work the loom in another man's home and his son will be cared.  (Never mind that Hector wishes for his son to become a great warrior who goes out to kill other men, their children, and to have their women work the loom in _his _home rather than wishing for peace.)
> 
> Romero did say that _Dawn of the Dead_ was about consumerism but others also compared it to the looming threat of communism.  Note that in the 2003 remake, the zombies are fast and strike suddenly.  Some have said this was in reaction to the September 11 attacks which were sudden and came out of nowhere.




And here I think people tend to move too far in one extreme or another: i.e. only what the author intended matters versus the author doesn't matter at all and only my interoperation matters. I think movies can be made for one reason but hit one something that resonates for other reasons, or resonates with a later generation because of something unique to their time. And it is fine to find that kind of meaning or personal meaning in art. But I think we also have responsibility as viewers to try to understand the intentions of the artist and try to understand the context of art (to your point about the Illiad). That is why I think the point you raised is fair: if Romero did in fact say there was no subtext (and again, I don't know what he said, so I am not laying out conclusions here on that) then that definitely sheds different light on the predominant interoperation of the movie. At the same time, I think given the time it was made, the civil rights interoperation is an understandable and fair one (there is a lot in the film, not just the casting to weight that interpretation). 

I remember Romero also saying when Land of the Dead came out that people should know his movies always have more layers of meaning and subtext to them. But I am not Romero scholar, so I don't know what to make of the different remarks. 

I always assumed Dawn of the Dead remake having fast zombies was either an homage to films like Return of the Living Dead or a response to 28 Days Later. I remember liking it. I haven't seen it in a while though (I saw it when it came out and a few times in the intervening years). I don't get the 9/11 interoperation. That seems like a very wonky way to interpret subtext of zombie locomotion to me. I can see 9/11s influence on things like 24 and the Sopranos, and Harold and Kumar, but not as much on a movie like Dawn of the Dead (maybe the idea of a big disaster having more resonance with audiences but that is about it).


----------



## South by Southwest (Mar 13, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I would argue that if it's managing to engage you in subject matter that you don't agree with, then it has slipped past one of the strongest defence mechanisms that people have for their thoughts; confirmation bias.



As a rule of thumb, that carries weight, but I note it is no law. From the fact that some person _S_ is capable of becoming aware of his or her confirmation bias, it follows that at least some part of _S_ is capable of overcoming such bias: to see it as _bias_ already is (at an instinctive level) to understand it as ultimately dishonest. Even more, there are some of us who make it our special business in life to spend extraordinary time and effort considering ideas and arguments with which we do not already agree. Some of us even get tenure while doing this (which is nice).

I think Bedrockgames and AnotherGuy have it right: the tribalism of the political and moral positions today (on nearly all sides) is what really poisons them, not which positions they are, and the substitution of a well-told story with some totemically waved moral and political pieties is one of several things killing current movie-making. I also think payn is right that the tribalism isn't coming from movies and TV; it's being picked up by them and exploited because it's already so much in the cultural air. That's one of the main points on which I disagree with the Critical Drinker's analysis: the movies aren't teaching us moral narcissism: they're picking up on it and pandering to it because (1) it's easy, and (2) at least for the moment, it sells.

As a professional philosopher, I've changed my mind more than I've held to it over the past thirty-odd years, and I learned long ago never to trust the judgments and advice of people who refuse seriously to consider ideas with which they do not already agree. Because they will not step outside of themselves and take contrary positions seriously, I cannot take them seriously. It isn't what they hold that makes me stop listening to them, mind you: it's the manner in which they hold it.


Fifth Element said:


> Are you sure it's not simply a bias of perception?



Yes. Habitually, I make myself watch carefully for that.

One thing that probably is involved, though, is a shift in the sample pool. As you note below, indie stuff is having a much easier time getting into mainstream culture than it did in the 80s and 90s. That's certainly true.


Fifth Element said:


> We're aware of most films coming out today, but we're not familiar with the majority of the naughty word films from say the 1950s for example.



I am. (Maybe not "most," but certainly "lotsa.")


Fifth Element said:


> Also there are groups of people who today are able to make films who would have been prevented from doing so in the past, which would help offset any losses to tv.



That's true. The problem I continue to see, though, is that writing and storytelling skills have gone downhill _hard_. My cynical take on this has been and is that it's hard to find good writers in a culture that no longer reads books (and of those that do, they'll only occasionally manage to read _good_ books).


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 13, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I also think it's easy for people to forget how groundbreaking something is.  _Star Trek _starting airing in 1966 and featured an African on the bridge of the one of the Federation's best exploration vessels.  Just a year earlier, many television stations in the southern United States refused to air _I, Spy_ because it featured a black secret agent played by Bill Cosby and a white secret agent played by Robert Culp who were equal partners.  Cosby's character was neither subservient to or in command of Culp's character but they worked together as partners.  _Sesame Street _started airing in 1969 and was banned in Mississippi the following year because of its integrated cast of characters.
> 
> When I was watching Star Trek, even as a teenager, I didn't think twice that the Federation's most venerated expert on computers, Dr. Daystrom was black.  It didn't occur to me that it was a big deal for Nichelle Nichols to play an officer on the bridge of a space ship.  But in the 1960s it was kind of a big deal.



As a kid who was growing up in a poor and very multi-racial/multicultural area of Toronto, when TOS first aired, I was amazed to see people on TV who looked and sounded like my neighbours.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I also think it's easy for people to forget how groundbreaking something is.




That is very easy to not understand. I was born in the mid-70s. I think I have a pretty good handle on a lot of the stuff coming out of the late 60s, simply because my parents and other adult relatives who lived through that always made a point of explaining how significant those kinds of movies or shows were. And a lot of my understanding of the context of the 70s films I enjoy (that is by far my favorite movie-making era) comes from what I was told about the 70s as a kid or what I read about the 70s as a history student. That is a lot different than living through a decade.


----------



## payn (Mar 13, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> That's true. The problem I continue to see, though, is that writing and storytelling skills have gone downhill _hard_. My cynical take on this has been and is that it's hard to find good writers in a culture that no longer reads books (and of those that do, they'll only occasionally manage to read _good_ books).



I think this is something in the film sphere. There is excellent stuff happening on the small screen in the golden age of the dramatic series. I think this is where writers have gone. It kind of makes sense too because a series is work for longer as opposed to the shorter work a film creates for writers.


----------



## South by Southwest (Mar 13, 2022)

payn said:


> I think this is something in the film sphere. There is excellent stuff happening on the small screen in the golden age of the dramatic series. I think this is where writers have gone. It kind of makes sense too because a series is work for longer as opposed to the shorter work a film creates for writers.



Yep, that's exactly the point I made earlier, and professionals in the business noted it years ago: especially since the advent of shows like _The Sopranos,_ a lot of the strongest writing talent (and even acting talent) has gone over to the small screen. Consequently, movies have suffered.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

payn said:


> I think this is something in the film sphere. There is excellent stuff happening on the small screen in the golden age of the dramatic series. I think this is where writers have gone. It kind of makes sense too because a series is work for longer as opposed to the shorter work a film creates for writers.




I've been watching a lot of Talking Sopranos episodes in the wake of viewing the many saints of newark and this is something I do hear the actors say. Especially actors who went on the sopranos after a film career. That since then there has been this big shift in where a lot of the writers are going


----------



## dragoner (Mar 13, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> Yep, that's exactly the point I made earlier, and professionals in the business noted it years ago: especially since the advent of shows like _The Sopranos,_ a lot of the strongest writing talent (and even acting talent) has gone over to the small screen. Consequently, movies have suffered.



JMS, the creator of Babylon 5 and other shows, tweeted a reply to someone who was talking about independent writers making it in Hollywood: "Name three". It is a know issue, that it is an insular system, much like the studios have always done it. Part of it is that one has to be good at the social scene of hob nobbing at parties vs being the best at one's craft. Though there is not an industry where operating the social clutch and having a minimum of talent, will always beat having talent alone.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

payn said:


> For example, I read numerous complaints about Star Trek Discovery having "an agenda." I watched it myself and some scenes are definitely constructed in a political manner, but that doesn't mean the purpose of the show is to lean into a particular set of politics.




My last post jogged this thought, but I had that reaction to the Many Saints of Newark. I had heard there was a lot of political subtext (and it isn't like the Sopranos never had political subtext anyways), or that it was pandering to current political issues. I waited to watch it, and while politics was in it for sure: the Newark Riots are an important backdrop, the character Harold, who is black, is pretty important to the story, I can't say it really struck me as being all that much different from anything the Sopranos had done before (Honestly the episode Christopher was way more didactic than the Many Saints of Newark). I liked the movie quite a bit. The riots worked well as a backdrop because they did five it this atmosphere and a growing sense of tension. And Harold was a really good character. The actor was someone you wanted to watch on screen and he added a real sense of stakes for the main character, Dickie Moltisanti. I think my only quibble is they could have made Harold a little less tied to the political landscape he inhabited and given him more personal motivations like the other characters but that is fairly mild and I may change my mind about that on repeat viewings if I notice more details about his character.


----------



## payn (Mar 13, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> Yep, that's exactly the point I made earlier, and professionals in the business noted it years ago: especially since the advent of shows like _The Sopranos,_ a lot of the strongest writing talent (and even acting talent) has gone over to the small screen. Consequently, movies have suffered.



Maybe for the best? Bedrockgames brought up _Many Saints of Newark _the soprano prequel movie. I thought it was pretty weak as a story overall. A lot of that had to do with the movie trying to accomplish way too much. It was at least 8 episodes of material crammed into a 2 hour movie. Movies just dont have the time to encompass a large scope like a series can. It has really expanded what is possible for a writer(s).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

payn said:


> Maybe for the best? Bedrockgames brought up _Many Saints of Newark _the soprano prequel movie. I thought it was pretty weak as a story overall. A lot of that had to do with the movie trying to accomplish way too much. It was at least 8 episodes of material crammed into a 2 hour movie. Movies just dont have the time to encompass a large scope like a series can. It has really expanded what is possible for a writer(s).




While I have a slightly different take on Many Saints of Newark, I do think you are on to something here. I feel like we've gotten very into long form story telling since the sopranos (there were long form shows before but that really seemed to change the culture). And in recent years I started getting very bored with a lot of television series because they were soooooo slow and taking so long to tell a story that could be told in shorter space. And I think a lot of newer movies have taken to this kind of approach where they tell larger stories over a series of movies (or as you point to, cram a larger story into a small movie). Netflix Shows work similarly. When they are done well, I love it. But sometimes I feel like I am just moving to the next episode soley to find out what happens (not because I am enjoying watching the actual episode). There is something to be said for a tight movie or a film that is enjoyable to watch on its own, without giving thought to a larger story.


----------



## South by Southwest (Mar 13, 2022)

payn said:


> Maybe for the best? Bedrockgames brought up _Many Saints of Newark _the soprano prequel movie. *I thought it was pretty weak as a story overall. A lot of that had to do with the movie trying to accomplish way too much. It was at least 8 episodes of material crammed into a 2 hour movie. *Movies just dont have the time to encompass a large scope like a series can. It has really expanded what is possible for a writer(s).



I heard a lot of people say that. I still haven't seen the thing yet myself, but your complaint is one I heard often (and the clips I watched at length left me cold).

Is it for the best, though? I don't know--tough call. I unplugged a long time ago, so I no longer even get any kind of TV anymore, whereas I do still watch lots of movies, so it's mostly the downside of that migration that comes across my screen. Still, shows like _The Wire, The Sopranos, Battlestar Galactica, The Expanse, _and numerous others have impressed me enough from online clips that I've bought them on BD and will re-buy a few of them on 4K (something I almost never do). I'll still say in a better culture--a culture less dominated by Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok--there'd be enough decent writers to go around so that both movies and TV could flourish. But now I'm just loping off into one of my counterfactual scenarios again...


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 13, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> I heard a lot of people say that. I still haven't seen the thing yet myself, but your complaint is one I heard often (and the clips I watched at length left me cold).




One problem is you have to buy the movie to watch it on Amazon. Which makes taking the dive a little iffy. A lot of people have voiced the criticism Payn did (I think the average rating on RT is something like 60-70% positive but I could be wrong: if that gives you any indication). I found it to be a fairly straight forward storyline that didn't need more than a single movie. But I did feel it could have used an additional 10-20 minutes because the ending felt like it hit a little too quick and  I will wanted there to be more movie. I think people are going to have very different opinions though. I can easily see valid reasons for hating it, finding it Meh or loving it. 

My criticisms are the ones I voiced already and I think a character like Silvio was way too close to how the character was depicted in the show (and this is decades earlier so it just felt like he had too many old man quirks and came off as a bit of a caricature----which the original character was anyways, but it stands out when he is supposed to be so young). I liked the other performances though.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 14, 2022)

Seven brides for seven brothers is the musical version of Stockholm syndrome


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2022)

payn said:


> One of the things I wish folks would discuss more is the series _The Expanse_. This sci-fi series has women and people of color in all kinds of leadership positions. It has same sex couples, and even polyamorous relationships. Discrimination and oppression ring throughout the series, but none of the above mentioned items are targets or cause of it. It's just people in a story and their conflict is around resources and power, which is all politics typical revolve around.
> 
> Since its so understated, but demonstrated so subtlety, nobody really talks about how great that actually was to see in a modern story.




 Expanse is executed well and it enhances the show. 

 Same with DS9 it's the best Trek imho. 

 I agree with 80% of certain things but I don't like being lectured it preached to and if a show is to heavy handed or cringe it's a big turn off. 

 I'll watch DS9, Married With Children, Expanse, Sense 8 but some things are bad and executed badly. Batwoman trailer was very cringe for example. 

 I don't think GoT season 8 was pushing any particular message that hard but it was meh.


----------



## Mannahnin (Mar 14, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> I don't think GoT season 8 was pushing any particular message that hard but it was meh.



"Charismatic leaders and saviors are not to be trusted"?



BookTenTiger said:


> I find it hard to name my favorite Wes Anderson.
> 
> Grand Budapest is just a masterwork and definitely one of my favorites.
> 
> ...



Grand Budapest and Moonrise Kingdom are pretty much tied for me, though RT was the first one I fell for.  Moonrise so evokes the woods here in New England in Summer. Gets me right in the childhood.




Bedrockgames said:


> But it isn't slipping past their defenses is the point: they are willingly engaging with it. They understand the message, even if it is subtle (and Star Trek at least wasn't very subtle). But the quality of writing was there, and it was done in a  way that the politics enhanced the material. From the other side of the aisle, Starship Troopers would be the book that did this for me. I don't agree with the politics of the book, but I found it incredibly engaging. It wasn't that he was slipping in ideas and they were going past my defenses: the ideas were clearly there and he was clearly using his story to make a case for his ideas. But I was willing to engage with the Heinlein because it was a well crafted story and he presented his position in a way I found compelling even if I disagreed with it.



Heinlein also was floating it as a thought experiment.  While some of the stuff in ST he did indeed believe, the idea sprang from a conversation he had with Poul Anderson about Switzerland, as I recall.  This is the same guy who wrote Stranger in a Strange Land, remember. His books had some of his beliefs in them, but were often about exploring them and taking them into interesting places.



AnotherGuy said:


> Okay, the politics in DS9 were there, I'm not saying they weren't...but it is not my personal take-away for the show. I fell in love with the story, the dialogue and the characters. The question would be is why does something like DS9 with tons of political nuance not seemingly create tribalism like perhaps more modern shows. Is it our current climate? Are the stories, dialogue and characters overshadowed by the message? Is it something else? Is it all the above? I dunno.
> 
> Do you think tCD would attack DS9 along the lines of gender or race as he does shows of today? If not, why does it get a pass?



Yes, I think it would come in for the same kind of jeers and culture warring if today's kind of tribal social media had been around when it came out.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 14, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Heinlein also was floating it as a thought experiment.  While some of the stuff in ST he did indeed believe, the idea sprang from a conversation he had with Poul Anderson about Switzerland, as I recall.  This is the same guy who wrote Stranger in a Strange Land, remember. His books often had some of his beliefs in them, but were often about exploring them and taking them into interesting places.




I get that. Strange in a Strange Land was the first of his books I read. I am not pinning him to one ideology. But what I liked about Heinlein, and what I like about science fiction in general is that these are thought experiments. And the way he got you to engage with what he was saying wasn't by making you feel like he was shouting at you for not agreeing, it is like he understood where he needed to meet you so you would listen (which makes sense if it came from a conversation with Poul Anderson----wasn't aware of that till you mentioned it). This stuff doesn't even have to be about politics. Arthur C Clark wrote a book about a thought experiment about a space elevator and a sapient species that evolved under water without fire. I don't mind if the message gets a little strong (some of the old star trek was a bit on the preachy side, but I didn't mind that for the show). But if a show feels like it is always lecturing, even if I agree with what they are saying, I find myself tuning out more and more.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 14, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Heinlein also was floating it as a thought experiment.  While some of the stuff in ST he did indeed believe, the idea sprang from a conversation he had with Poul Anderson about Switzerland, as I recall.  This is the same guy who wrote Stranger in a Strange Land, remember. His books had some of his beliefs in them, but were often about exploring them and taking them into interesting places.



Wrote "Starship Troopers" and got called a fascist. Wrote "Stranger in a Strange Land" and got called a communist. He said, "I just write stories."


----------



## Blue Orange (Mar 14, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Wrote "Starship Troopers" and got called a fascist. Wrote "Stranger in a Strange Land" and got called a communist. He said, "I just write stories."




Heinlein was all over the place politically, and changed over time, moving from left-wing free love radical to right-wing militarist libertarian free love radical. It appears to have been connected to his remarriage, from what I can tell--his first wife was a radical socialist and his second a conservative Republican. (But apparently they both had open marriages.) The more I read about him, the more I'm convinced he just made up his own mind about stuff rather than picking a philosophy, which really annoys people when it comes to politics.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 14, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> Heinlein was all over the place politically, and changed over time, moving from left-wing free love radical to right-wing militarist libertarian free love radical. It appears to have been connected to his remarriage, from what I can tell--his first wife was a radical socialist and his second a conservative Republican. (But apparently they both had open marriages.) The more I read about him, the more I'm convinced he just made up his own mind about stuff rather than picking a philosophy, which really annoys people when it comes to politics.




Huh. The more I read about him, the more I think he just wanted to get it on, and his political philosophy was just, "Yes, dear, now we can go have sex with other people?"


ETA- not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## payn (Mar 14, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Wrote "Starship Troopers" and got called a fascist. Wrote "Stranger in a Strange Land" and got called a communist. He said, "I just write stories."



Also, been called the father of libertarian sci-fi, lol.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 14, 2022)

payn said:


> Also, been called the father of libertarian sci-fi, lol.



He's a complicated man. 
But no one understands him but his woman.

(Robert A. Heinlein)


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 14, 2022)

Mallus said:


> He's a complicated man.
> But no one understands him but his woman.
> 
> (Robert A. Heinlein)



"Sha..." I mean "Hein!"


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 14, 2022)

payn said:


> Also, been called the father of libertarian sci-fi, lol.



It's almost like he came to his own conclusions about stuff, without adhering to any specific ideology


----------



## payn (Mar 14, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> It's almost like he came to his own conclusions about stuff, without adhering to any specific ideology



I like sci-fi because you can usually examine some heavy hitting topics, but avoid some of the angst. Heinlein examined a lot of things and was a better writer for it. 

DS9 did this masterfully.


----------



## Mannahnin (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Huh. The more I read about him, the more I think he just wanted to get it on, and his political philosophy was just, "Yes, dear, now we can go have sex with other people?"
> 
> 
> ETA- not that there's anything wrong with that.



He definitely did have some stuff he actually believed in, but your thesis is perhaps supported by the fact that in his later work he declined a bit more into sexual fantasies and solipsism.  

Still one of my favorite writers, overall, but some of that later stuff is a bit yikes.


----------



## MGibster (Mar 15, 2022)

payn said:


> I like sci-fi because you can usually examine some heavy hitting topics, but avoid some of the angst. Heinlein examined a lot of things and was a better writer for it.



Yeah, you have plausible deniability and can get things by the censors.  Oh, my, no!  This episode isn't about gay people.  It's about an alien species with no gender and one of them is oppressed when they come out as being a woman.  So it's totally okay if Riker bones her.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 15, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> He definitely did have some stuff he actually believed in, but your thesis is perhaps supported by the fact that in his later work he declined a bit more into sexual fantasies and solipsism.
> 
> Still one of my favorite writers, overall, but some of that later stuff is a bit yikes.




Not to be flippant or trite, but a lot of stuff people really truly believe in is motivated by the desire to get it on.

See also, every college campus ever.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 15, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Yeah, you have plausible deniability and can get things by the censors.  Oh, my, no!  This episode isn't about gay people.  It's about an alien species with no gender and one of them is oppressed when they come out as being a woman.  So it's totally okay if Riker bones her.




In fairness we all knew what that episode was about when it came out. 

I saw that one again not too long ago. One interesting by product of wrapping it up in the alien world thought experiment thing is it ends up tackling a lot of other topics as a result. 

I don't know how much of that was getting past censors versus worrying about what the audience would think. I remember the show airing kind of early back when it came out because it was in syndication. I think if it had a prime time slot that was later that might have impacted what kind of content was in the show. I think I used to watch it at like 7 PM or something. But my feeling on this sort of thing is while I enjoy when shows and movies are clever to get around censorship, sometimes people do this weird thing where they will hold episodes like this one up as a reason for why censorship can be good (because it adds a constraint that forces people to be more creative). Personally I think we are much better off when shows are free to explore what they want to explore. But this episode does stand out as one of those interesting ones that takes a creative approach for dealing with something that might not have been able to be handled as directly at the time (I do remember shows and made for tv movies having gay characters at that time so I suspect this may have been more of a time slot and audience issue than actual censorship---but I don't know what the rules governing content were at that time even though I was watching a lot of TV then)


----------



## payn (Mar 15, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Yeah, you have plausible deniability and can get things by the censors.  Oh, my, no!  This episode isn't about gay people.  It's about an alien species with no gender and one of them is oppressed when they come out as being a woman.  So it's totally okay if Riker bones her.



Or Dax and the first female/female kiss?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 15, 2022)

payn said:


> Or Dax and the first female/female kiss?




I think it's interesting that people gloss over the fairly numerous examples of Star Trek being progressive in terms of gender identity (after all, the Trill explicitly had hosts of varying genders) or through allegory (Data's trial) ... and yet complain about more recent representations (for example, Adira on Discovery) as somehow being "Not Trek."

Perhaps it's that the times have moved on, and people haven't? I honestly don't know.


----------



## payn (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think it's interesting that people gloss over the fairly numerous examples of Star Trek being progressive in terms of gender identity (after all, the Trill explicitly had hosts of varying genders) or through allegory (Data's trial) ... and yet complain about more recent representations (for example, Adira on Discovery) as somehow being "Not Trek."
> 
> Perhaps it's that the times have moved on, and people haven't? I honestly don't know.



I do believe it has become less subtle. Americans are a very low-context culture. They like things to be slap you in the face obvious. Also, folks for the last few decades have been pushing positions over interests. So, if you even wander into political territory, it means you have an agenda and whatever show is partisan now. /shrug


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Perhaps it's that the times have moved on, and people haven't? I honestly don't know.



People have moved on in opposite directions.

I expect where those old episodes of Trek broadcast today they would be met with a bigger negative reaction.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think it's interesting that people gloss over the fairly numerous examples of Star Trek being progressive in terms of gender identity (after all, the Trill explicitly had hosts of varying genders) or through allegory (Data's trial) ... and yet complain about more recent representations (for example, Adira on Discovery) as somehow being "Not Trek."
> 
> Perhaps it's that the times have moved on, and people haven't? I honestly don't know.



The overton window is moving down to the "less free" zone.


----------



## MGibster (Mar 15, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> In fairness we all knew what that episode was about when it came out.



Oh, yeah.  We all knew what the episode was about just like we did when we say the TOS episode with the aliens who were black on one side, black on the other side, and couldn't get along with one another because they were black on opposite sides.  Plausible deniability isn't necessarily credulous deniability.  



Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know how much of that was getting past censors versus worrying about what the audience would think. I remember the show airing kind of early back when it came out because it was in syndication.



I don't know either.  Especially since a lot of times censors are censoring because they're worried about angering the audience.  



payn said:


> Or Dax and the first female/female kiss?



At least in the United States, Star Trek did not feature the first female/female romantic kiss on television.  _LA Law _did it two years before Deep Space 9 was on the air and _Picket Fences _did it in 1993 during DS9s first season.  These were both primetime network shows.  When it came to LGBTQ+ representation, Star Trek wasn't exactly on the leading edge back in the 1990s.


----------



## payn (Mar 15, 2022)

MGibster said:


> At least in the United States, Star Trek did not feature the first female/female romantic kiss on television.  _LA Law _did it two years before Deep Space 9 was on the air and _Picket Fences _did it in 1993 during DS9s first season.  These were both primetime network shows.  When it came to LGBTQ+ representation, Star Trek wasn't exactly on the leading edge back in the 1990s.



I didnt realize it was a race for bragging rights. I was just pointing out a good use of sci-fi writing to examine the subject.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 15, 2022)

MGibster said:


> At least in the United States, Star Trek did not feature the first female/female romantic kiss on television.  _LA Law _did it two years before Deep Space 9 was on the air and _Picket Fences _did it in 1993 during DS9s first season.  These were both primetime network shows.  When it came to LGBTQ+ representation, Star Trek wasn't exactly on the leading edge back in the 1990s.




I don't know when the first was on American TV, but my sense is it was likely not a science fiction show and probably something on later in the evening than star trek. I do know there were a number of made for TV movies with gay characters in them around the time of early Star Trek the Next Generation (I remember one with Jim Carey for example). And there were gay characters on television shows (Billy Crystal on Soap for example, and there was an episode of Give me A  Break where the cop dad's partner on a stake out was gay). 

These things also aren't always a straight trajectory in one direction though


----------



## dragoner (Mar 15, 2022)

Its weird that these are cultural milestones, I wonder if any other country does this?


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think it's interesting that people gloss over the fairly numerous examples of Star Trek being progressive in terms of gender identity (after all, the Trill explicitly had hosts of varying genders) or through allegory (Data's trial) ... and yet complain about more recent representations (for example, Adira on Discovery) as somehow being "Not Trek."
> 
> Perhaps it's that the times have moved on, and people haven't? I honestly don't know.



I think it's the easy access to echo chambers these days. I'm sure there were folks were were upset at Star Trek's progressive politics, but there wasn't as much of an economic incentive for them to jump onto YouTube, spout a bunch of reactionary stuff, and get money from ads.


----------



## MGibster (Mar 15, 2022)

payn said:


> I didnt realize it was a race for bragging rights. I was just pointing out a good use of sci-fi writing to examine the subject.



You did write the following:


payn said:


> Or Dax and the first female/female kiss?



I didn't think you were looking for bragging rights, but it appeared as though you were under the impression that DS9 featured the first female/female kiss.  I was just pointing out that this wasn't the case.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 15, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I didn't think you were looking for bragging rights, but it appeared as though you were under the impression that DS9 featured the first female/female kiss.  I was just pointing out that this wasn't the case.




This stuff is hard to track. On a quick search the first on air lesbian kiss was 1991 on LA Law (but even that is hard to track depending on how you define it because I think Howard Stern might have beat them by a year if you are including stuff that isn't fictional; and 21 Jump Street had an episode where they cut away from the kiss but it happened). The movies is a different story, there was a same sex kiss as early as 1922 (and in film it seems like it waxed and waned over the decades depending on sensibilities).


----------



## billd91 (Mar 15, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> This stuff is hard to track. On a quick search the first on air lesbian kiss was 1991 on LA Law (but even that is hard to track depending on how you define it because I think Howard Stern might have beat them by a year if you are including stuff that isn't fictional; and 21 Jump Street had an episode where they cut away from the kiss but it happened). The movies is a different story, there was a same sex kiss as early as 1922 (and in film it seems like it waxed and waned over the decades depending on sensibilities).



One of the important aspects of these events as milestones in representation is that television has (or at least had) a very different reach than most other forms of media. Gay/lesbian kisses in movies aren't necessarily expected to be mainstream, even a big blockbuster isn't going to attract everyone to come see it in the theaters, while network television is broadcast and assumed to be available for most people's homes barring remoteness or urban reception issues where most people probably had some basic cable. Historically, that made anything that happened on a major network (or even widely syndicated) a much bigger deal.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 15, 2022)

billd91 said:


> One of the important aspects of these events as milestones in representation is that television has (or at least had) a very different reach than most other forms of media. Gay/lesbian kisses in movies aren't necessarily expected to be mainstream, even a big blockbuster isn't going to attract everyone to come see it in the theaters, while network television is broadcast and assumed to be available for most people's homes barring remoteness or urban reception issues where most people probably had some basic cable. Historically, that made anything that happened on a major network (or even widely syndicated) a much bigger deal.



Airwaves are also regulated by the FCC, so fines were always a potential issue any time shows pushed boundaries


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 15, 2022)

billd91 said:


> One of the important aspects of these events as milestones in representation is that television has (or at least had) a very different reach than most other forms of media.




One thing that occurred to me, is I think in these discussions, some of the cynicism around this stuff that comes from people in my age group (Gen X) is often misinterpreted to mean we are against advances or against representation. But a lot of times what we are critiquing is making this a priority in art, and making the priority in advancement be done through media. And we are also critiquing how powerful corporations frequently invoke these kinds of social issues, or how media companies will pat themselves on the back for taking progressive stands, when they are engaged in all kinds of nefarious activity globally. John Stewart had a pretty good segment that I think captured a lot of our thinking on it some time ago where he would show a clip from a socially conscious movie, and after his commentary would be "And it was never an issue again after that." (Something to that effect). Movies and shows can raise awareness, but they can also distract us from more substantive change, and distract us from economic disparities. Personally I like seeing diverse stories, seeing stories that deal with important issues, but I also am a little suspicious when Disney starts going down a check list for the US audience on what to include, but edits out the same things from that check list for audiences in other countries.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think it's interesting that people gloss over the fairly numerous examples of Star Trek being progressive in terms of gender identity (after all, the Trill explicitly had hosts of varying genders) or through allegory (Data's trial) ... and yet complain about more recent representations (for example, Adira on Discovery) as somehow being "Not Trek."
> 
> Perhaps it's that the times have moved on, and people haven't? I honestly don't know.



Star Trek has always been leading the curve with representation. As for "Discovery" I wasn't put off by the representation, but rather thought it was subjectively bad and didn't feel like Star Trek _to me._ Anyone else? Fill yer boots. IDIC is fine with me and if "Sense8" didn't put me off (I enjoyed the hell out of it), then nothing that Star Trek does in the same vein is going to.


Bedrockgames said:


> In fairness we all knew what that episode was about when it came out.



I think that "The Orville" did a better job with the idea, without defaulting to the crew bonking aliens.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 15, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I think that "The Orville" did a better job with the idea, without defaulting to the crew bonking aliens.




Bonking aliens is part of what made Star Trek great

I still haven't seen the Orville though


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 15, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Star Trek has always been leading the curve with representation. As for "Discovery" I wasn't put off by the representation, but rather thought it was subjectively bad and didn't feel like Star Trek _to me._



My reaction to previews was similar. Michelle Yeoh is one of my favorite actresses, and I loved Sonequa Martin-Green in the Walking Dead. So I was interested when I heard they were involved. But when I saw the way it was shot: it just looked more like it was aimed at a younger audience (I am like slow moving space hotel star trek). That and I don't like that every single outlet started doing a streaming service. I just can't do a monthly fee to see one show.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 15, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Bonking aliens is part of what made Star Trek great
> 
> I still haven't seen the Orville though



One of the main characters in "The Orville", Lt. Commander Bortus, is from an all male society. His husband and son are also on board. Like The Enterprise "D", there are entire families on board. His race are also capable of digesting almost literally any kind of matter but that only comes up rarely, as a joke.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 15, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> My reaction to previews was similar. Michelle Yeoh is one of my favorite actresses, and I loved Sonequa Martin-Green in the Walking Dead. So I was interested when I heard they were involved. But when I saw the way it was shot: it just looked more like it was aimed at a younger audience (I am like slow moving space hotel star trek). That and I don't like that every single outlet started doing a streaming service. I just can't do a monthly fee to see one show.



I gave it the usual 3 episodes that I give any new series, before deciding if I'm writing it off. It took considerable time to go back fro that third episode though.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 15, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I gave it the usual 3 episodes that I give any new series, before deciding if I'm writing it off. It took considerable time to go back fro that third episode though.




If it hadn't been behind a paywall, I would have watched some episodes to see. But I just find justifying that expense harder in recent years


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 15, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> One of the main characters in "The Orville", Lt. Commander Bortus, is from an all male society. His husband and son are also on board. Like The Enterprise "D", there are entire families on board. His race are also capable of digesting almost literally any kind of matter but that only comes up rarely, as a joke.




That is pretty in keeping with star trek logic which sounds good (Klingons were introduced as an alien race in the original series, but in the Next Generation, you have a Klingon serving aboard the ship). Do you think they were intentionally referencing the Next Generation episode with this character?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 15, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Bonking aliens is part of what made Star Trek great




How YOO doin'?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> How YOO doin'?




Kirk was a trailblazer in that respect


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 15, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Kirk was a trailblazer in that respect




Yes.

Kirk is required teaching in "First Contact STDs 101" at Star Fleet academy.

Also? The primary reason that they no longer use the "tear-away" uniforms for Star Fleet captains.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 15, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> As for "Discovery" I wasn't put off by the representation, but rather thought it was subjectively bad and didn't feel like Star Trek _to me._ Anyone else?



I watched until they put the guy in the pain booth, and was like eh. Same as I watched Walking Dead until Glen was killed with a baseball bat, too gruesome (plus he was my favorite character on the show). I have seen too much weird, and bad stuff in real life, to watch it on television.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 15, 2022)

dragoner said:


> I watched until they put the guy in the pain booth, and was like eh. Same as I watched Walking Dead until Glen was killed with a baseball bat, too gruesome (plus he was my favorite character on the show). I have seen too much weird, and bad stuff in real life, to watch it on television.




I will mention the same thing that I have said in other threads- Discovery S1 and S2 were ... uneven. I liked some of the things that they were trying, but the execution was lacking. In addition, it suffered too much from prequel-itis - everything either was fan-servicey (Oh, I recognize that!) or felt jarring (wait, Spock had a sister???). 

S3 and S4 _feels _better. It's much more enjoyable if you like classic Trek.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> S3 and S4 _feels _better. It's much more enjoyable if you like classic Trek.



The latest Discovery episode is pure, classic Trek - albeit with a very large budget.


----------



## payn (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I will mention the same thing that I have said in other threads- Discovery S1 and S2 were ... uneven. I liked some of the things that they were trying, but the execution was lacking. In addition, it suffered too much from prequel-itis - everything either was fan-servicey (Oh, I recognize that!) or felt jarring (wait, Spock had a sister???).
> 
> S3 and S4 _feels _better. It's much more enjoyable if you like classic Trek.



Its true, the old three episode test isnt the best for ST Disco. The second half of the first season is much much better.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 15, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Do you think they were intentionally referencing the Next Generation episode with this character?



Bortus is %100 gay-married Worf. The only way I can figure it is Seth MacFarlane has an informal "no sue I" agreement with Paramount.


----------



## payn (Mar 15, 2022)

Mallus said:


> Bortus is %100 gay-married Worf. The only way I can figure it is Seth MacFarlane has an informal "no sue I" agreement with Paramount.



Pretty much. I was in agreement with the critics on _The Orville. _Not good enough ST derivative, not funny enough McFarland brand.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I will mention the same thing that I have said in other threads- Discovery S1 and S2 were ... uneven. I liked some of the things that they were trying, but the execution was lacking. In addition, it suffered too much from prequel-itis - everything either was fan-servicey (Oh, I recognize that!) or felt jarring (wait, Spock had a sister???).
> 
> S3 and S4 _feels _better. It's much more enjoyable if you like classic Trek.



Yes, I am sure I will run across it, and watch an episode here and there. I liked the characters pretty much, I think the Klingons could have been better, except over all, it doesn't look that bad, it just didn't grab me; then again my favorite Trek is TNG: "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose ..." Not a message that resonates with modern sensibilities, however.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 15, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> That is pretty in keeping with star trek logic which sounds good (Klingons were introduced as an alien race in the original series, but in the Next Generation, you have a Klingon serving aboard the ship). Do you think they were intentionally referencing the Next Generation episode with this character?



They might have been referencing the concept of the episode, but not the episode itself. If that makes any sense. They have taken several episodes to examine the culture of Bortis's people and the concept of the single sex species. It's not treated as a one-off.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 15, 2022)

dragoner said:


> I watched until they put the guy in the pain booth, and was like eh. Same as I watched Walking Dead until Glen was killed with a baseball bat, too gruesome (plus he was my favorite character on the show). I have seen too much weird, and bad stuff in real life, to watch it on television.



"The Walking Dead" and "Game of Thrones" both became too much murder porn for me to stomach, so I walked away.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 15, 2022)

dragoner said:


> Yes, I am sure I will run across it, and watch an episode here and there. I liked the characters pretty much, I think the Klingons could have been better, except over all, it doesn't look that bad, it just didn't grab me; then again my favorite Trek is TNG: "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose ..."




My favorite TNG episode is _Tapestry _(the Picard / Q / heart episode). 

When I first saw it when it aired, I was like .... meh. Whatever. But it's one of those episodes that keeps with you, and has continuing resonance as you get older, and then again as you see another generation come up.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 15, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> "The Walking Dead" and "Game of Thrones" both became too much murder porn for me to stomach, so I walked away.



Yes, give me a haunting, cerebral horror film like Annihilation, over the graphic stuff.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 15, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> "The Walking Dead" and "Game of Thrones" both became too much murder porn for me to stomach, so I walked away.



Yep.  I watched only to season 5.  It felt too much like gore pron, and that's just not for me.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 15, 2022)

Mallus said:


> Bortus is %100 gay-married Worf. The only way I can figure it is Seth MacFarlane has an informal "no sue I" agreement with Paramount.



He’s different and parody-enough that I’m sure he’s fine for fair use.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> My favorite TNG episode is _Tapestry _(the Picard / Q / heart episode).
> 
> When I first saw it when it aired, I was like .... meh. Whatever. But it's one of those episodes that keeps with you, and has continuing resonance as you get older, and then again as you see another generation come up.



It is a good episode. TNG was well written, it resonates because of that, and it raised the bar for what comes after. Not every fan likes it though, and I am fine with that as well.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 15, 2022)

dragoner said:


> It is a good episode. TNG was well written, it resonates because of that, and it raised the bar for what comes after. Not every fan likes it though, and I am fine with that as well.




I will always stan hard for TOS, but the best of TNG was really, really, really good. 

(And I've heard that Patrick Stewart guy is a decent actor as well, even if they did have him playing the most English Frenchman ever)


----------



## payn (Mar 15, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> "The Walking Dead" and "Game of Thrones" both became too much murder porn for me to stomach, so I walked away.



Oh I wish I had. The last few seasons of GoT were bad. WD been bad for like 6 seasons now.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I will always stan hard for TOS, but the best of TNG was really, really, really good.
> 
> (And I've heard that Patrick Stewart guy is a decent actor as well, even if they did have him playing the most English Frenchman ever)



That is hilarious.  

I like TOS also, the interplay of the characters was great. What I find interesting as well, is that it probably had some more of the realistic combat scenes, as most of the guys were at least drafted, like Nimoy. Such as when they get attacked, first thing they do is take cover, instead of standing tall and shooting back, which is today the standard for Hollywood programs.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 15, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Star Trek has always been leading the curve with representation. As for "Discovery" I wasn't put off by the representation, but *rather thought it was subjectively bad* and didn't feel like Star Trek _to me._ Anyone else? Fill yer boots. IDIC is fine with me and if "Sense8" didn't put me off (I enjoyed the hell out of it), then nothing that Star Trek does in the same vein is going to.
> 
> I think that "The Orville" did a better job with the idea, without defaulting to the crew bonking aliens.



What do you mean by this, that the representation was subjectively bad?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 15, 2022)

dragoner said:


> That is hilarious.
> 
> I like TOS also, the interplay of the characters was great. What I find interesting as well, is that it probably had some more of the realistic combat scenes, as most of the guys were at least drafted, like Nimoy. Such as when they get attacked, first thing they do is take cover, instead of standing tall and shooting back, which is today the standard for Hollywood programs.




Great point about the combat! 

One of the things I love about TOS is the way that it has aged. Because it was filmed on, well, film (THANK YOU DESILU!), and because of the strange sparseness of most of the sets, it's gone past the point of looking "dated" and now looks strangely timeless, like every episode is a play in some dream-like fantasy-scape. 

It really puts the story front & center.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I will always stan hard for TOS, but the best of TNG was really, really, really good.
> 
> (And I've heard that Patrick Stewart guy is a decent actor as well, even if they did have him playing the most English Frenchman ever)




He was an amazing villain in I, Claudius


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Great point about the combat!
> 
> One of the things I love about TOS is the way that it has aged. Because it was filmed on, well, film (THANK YOU DESILU!), and because of the strange sparseness of most of the sets, it's gone past the point of looking "dated" and now looks strangely timeless, like every episode is a play in some dream-like fantasy-scape.
> 
> It really puts the story front & center.



This is one of the reasons I like old Shaw brothers movies shot on sets. Something like the one armed swordsman feels timeless and a little like a stage production as a result


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 15, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> He was an amazing villain in I, Claudius




SIR Patrick Stewart is good in everything, and only he could make adjusting your unitard Star Fleet uniform look debonair and authoritative.


----------



## payn (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> SIR Patrick Stewart is good in everything, and only he could make adjusting your unitard Star Fleet uniform look debonair and authoritative.



The real Picard maneuver.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 15, 2022)

payn said:


> The real Picard maneuver.




That's what Bev said!


....catch me at the Poconos next week.....


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 15, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> What do you mean by this, that the representation was subjectively bad?



No, that the whole series was subjectively bad.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Mar 15, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> No, that the whole series was subjectively bad.



I see, thanks for clarifying


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 15, 2022)

dragoner said:


> That is hilarious.
> 
> I like TOS also, the interplay of the characters was great. What I find interesting as well, is that it probably had some more of the realistic combat scenes, as most of the guys were at least drafted, like Nimoy. Such as when they get attacked, first thing they do is take cover, instead of standing tall and shooting back, which is today the standard for Hollywood programs.



It was a bit of a shock to the system seeing Spock in reruns of "Combat!", in the late '60s


----------



## dragoner (Mar 15, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> It was a bit of a shock to the system seeing Spock in reruns of "Combat!", in the late '60s



I remember one episode, where they were fired upon, and first thing he does is hunch over and run behind a rock, not very heroic by today's standards, though back then, people would have probably thought that to be the normal way to do it.


Snarf Zagyg said:


> Great point about the combat!
> 
> One of the things I love about TOS is the way that it has aged. Because it was filmed on, well, film (THANK YOU DESILU!), and because of the strange sparseness of most of the sets, it's gone past the point of looking "dated" and now looks strangely timeless, like every episode is a play in some dream-like fantasy-scape.
> 
> It really puts the story front & center.



The mat paintings for the sets are really great, and set design in general, it definitely had it's own vibe. Music too, overall, the production values were high; I mean I have seen some where it was "cleaned up" with CGI, (TNG as well) and I think it detracted from the original. Maybe that is me, and my taste ...


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 15, 2022)

dragoner said:


> I remember one episode, where they were fired upon, and first thing he does is hunch over and run behind a rock, not very heroic by today's standards, though back then, people would have probably thought that to be the normal way to do it.



"Heroic" can also mean "dead." I'll take cover, please and thank you 


dragoner said:


> The mat paintings for the sets are really great, and set design in general, it definitely had it's own vibe. Music too, overall, the production values were high; I mean I have seen some where it was "cleaned up" with CGI, (TNG as well) and I think it detracted from the original. Maybe that is me, and my taste ...



The 'remastered' versions of TOS episodes put me off. There's a certain charm to models being used in special effects. Seeing the newer digital effects makes me thing that the things were directed by J. Michael Straczynski. Knowing that the whole Romulan/Klingon treaty thing was the result of the original Bird of Prey model being lost or destroyed only adds to the charm.


----------



## MGibster (Mar 15, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> This stuff is hard to track. On a quick search the first on air lesbian kiss was 1991 on LA Law (but even that is hard to track depending on how you define it because I think Howard Stern might have beat them by a year if you are including stuff that isn't fictional; and 21 Jump Street had an episode where they cut away from the kiss but it happened). The movies is a different story, there was a same sex kiss as early as 1922 (and in film it seems like it waxed and waned over the decades depending on sensibilities).



The usual standard is that it occurred on a prime time network television show rather than cable or a movie of the week.  It's not a hill I'm going to die on though.  You're right that movies are a different story.  Pre-Hays code movies showed a lot of things that would be surprising to those of us who are only used to movies made between 1934 and sometime in the 1960s.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 15, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Pre-Hays code movies showed a lot of things that would be surprising to those of us who are only used to movies made between 1934 and sometime in the 1960s.



Cecil B. DeMille’s erotic Bible movie Sign of the Cross (1932) is really… something.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 15, 2022)

I’d like to take this opportunity to proclaim my love of a good matte painting and practical in-camera effects in general. If you‘re into that sort of thing, I heartily recommend the movie Black Narcissus (streaming on HBO in the US). Now there’s an old movie that taught a great lesson that made viewers better people!


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 16, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Oh, yeah.  We all knew what the episode was about just like we did when we say the TOS episode with the aliens who were black on one side, black on the other side, and couldn't get along with one another because they were black on opposite sides.  Plausible deniability isn't necessarily credulous deniability.
> 
> 
> I don't know either.  Especially since a lot of times censors are censoring because they're worried about angering the audience.
> ...




 Married With Children had one of the first positive gay characters. In 1990 iirc. 

 Strange but true.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 16, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> That is pretty in keeping with star trek logic which sounds good (Klingons were introduced as an alien race in the original series, but in the Next Generation, you have a Klingon serving aboard the ship). Do you think they were intentionally referencing the Next Generation episode with this character?



Yes. The Orville picks up themes and ideas from TNG and runs with them. It's more of a thematic follow-up than any of the later official Trek series.

I think all the later Trek shows felt they needed to establish their own distinct identity, rather than just be more of the same with new characters. The Orville uses "It's a parody, honest" as a shield to just make more TNG.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Mar 16, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Yes. The Orville picks up themes and ideas from TNG and runs with them. It's more of a thematic follow-up than any of the later official Trek series.
> 
> I think all the later Trek shows felt they needed to establish their own distinct identity, rather than just be more of the same with new characters. The Orville uses "It's a parody, honest" as a shield to just make more TNG.




Well, given its incredibly obvious how much of a giant fanboy McFarland is, that should surprise no one.


----------



## Rabulias (Mar 17, 2022)

Someone (here on ENworld, maybe?) described _The Orville _as "a love letter to TNG" and I think it's spot-on.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Mar 17, 2022)

Rabulias said:


> Someone (here on ENworld, maybe?) described _The Orville _as "a love letter to TNG" and I think it's spot-on.




I've used the term before, but I probably picked it up from someone else.


----------



## Cadence (Mar 17, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> It was a bit of a shock to the system seeing Spock in reruns of "Combat!", in the late '60s



It's odd seeing some of the cast as villains in old westerns too...


----------



## Rabulias (Mar 17, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> It was a bit of a shock to the system seeing Spock in reruns of "Combat!", in the late '60s





Cadence said:


> It's odd seeing some of the cast as villains in old westerns too...



There was an episode of _Bonanza _where Ricardo Montalban played a Native American and Madlyn Rhue played his wife. This was 1960, seven years before she would play Lt. Marla McGivers and he would play Khan Noonian Singh on _Star Trek_. I wonder if one of them recommended the casting of the other?  Or maybe it was just a small circle of actors for TV in the 1960s?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 17, 2022)

Rabulias said:


> There was an episode of _Bonanza _where Ricardo Montalban played a Native American and Madlyn Rhue played his wife. This was 1960, seven years before she would play Lt. Marla McGivers and he would play Khan Noonian Singh on _Star Trek_. I wonder if one of them recommended the casting of the other?  Or maybe it was just a small circle of actors for TV in the 1960s?



I don’t think I’d say it was a small circle, but even a fairly large pool of character actors is likely to have repeated pairings given enough shows. That said, it’s possible someone in casting knew they had worked well together, which might have increased the likelihood of a repeated pairing.

The episode of The Man from UNCLE that had both Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner blew me away.


----------

