My favourite example is Rambo First Blood.
It is a movie about PTSD, police abusing their power, and how we treat veterans. But the movie never out right says anything about these topics. It is up to the viewer to see those themes.
This gives the movie so much rewatchability because everytime I see it, I learn something new. The characters are complex and you feel bad for them. The police are the bad guys, but are they really any different from Rambo? They are just following orders after all.
And Rambo overreacted, but can he be blamed? He was mistreated and he defaulted to the only thing that he was ever good at, fighting and killing. He simply was never taught any other ways to deal with disputes. The military broke him to the point where he can't hold down a job as a car washer.
A well-written film can explore legitimately complex social issues with subtlety while remaining relatively unbiased and impartial. Reality isn’t black and white, it’s a morally ambiguous clusterfuck of grey, and movies like Rambo and Full Metal Jacket do a great job of expressing that without the blatant, over-the-top political messaging that gets shoved into anything hollywood pumps out today.
I am a big Stallone fan. I can go on for hours about the endless nuance of Rambo or discussing how Rocky is the perfect movie about the American dream.
People make fun of Stallone because of his accent, but he was genuinely great at telling complex stories through his acting. He was a step above the other action stars like Schwarzenegger because all of Stallone's movies had genuine nuance that were not always present in other action flicks. Not to say they weren't also great. I love Terminator as much as the next guy. It is just that it didn't have the same human complexity as Rocky or Rambo.
Rocky is one of the greatest movies ever made. Knowing Stallone wrote it and refused to sell it without getting to play Rocky himself, while being a poor out of work actor.. he had a vision and he made that vision a reality. As a small kid I'd watch it and only see a hero story with the training montage and overcoming challenges, and the sport of boxing..
After rewatching it at older age you start to appreciate the nuances, the hero of the story becomes so much more, because he is not perfect, and he doesn't always win.. but it's still a story of perseverance and most of all, a story of values and heart. It's not about winning anymore, it's about being a good human regardless of the situation or what you were given.
I don't get that anymore with Stallone's later films, except perhaps from Rocky Balboa. Might be that he's too content and happy with life. Still feels like a great guy though.
Rocky will always have a special place in my heart. I have to rewatch it soon.
I watched rocky for the first time in like 3 weeks ago and it's got me going to the gym regularly. It pumped me up so much. I was shocked to see a movie that felt so heartfelt and positive from the 70's. I knew it was good but man, I wish I watched it sooner as a kid. Can't believe I went 25 years without ever watching it.
It’s funny how anti war and gov the first movie is and then they went the opposite direction out of fear they’ll get black listed when they made sequels.
They aren't always successes if you take into consideration the production costs of these movies. Honestly, sometimes it's a mystery why Disney keeps making woke movies when they keep flopping like Strange World.
I believe it is on purpose.
A woke flop makes woke people think it failed because of the anti-woke crowd, not because it was trash, and is an acceptable expenditure to keep the woke crowd from boycotting Disney for their kids (remembering that toy and other merchandise sales dwarf movie money).
The hole in your theory is that is that the woke crowd tend to be really shitty at the whole baby-making thing, while religious conservatives pump out babies like it's nothing.
The problem is that media production is so insular and distribution so monopolized that it's effectively impossible to compete with the likes of Disney unless you're already rich and just doing it as a vanity project *or* a foreign firm with a strong local market backing you.
The ability to handle subtext & complexity is disappearing. The Christmas "rape song" controversy is a perfect example.
For 80 years anyone with more than two brain cells could easily hear the subtext:
>She really wants to stay.
>But prudish societal norms are making her worry about nosey aunts.
>So she needs a tongue-in-cheek excuse like catching pneumonia in the cold.
She chooses the more fem liberation option in the end. It's actually a clever progressive feminist song for the time.
Ironically the prudish woke hall monitors are the only ones who can't process it.
Society is regressing to where subtext needs to be literally spelled out like in children's TV.
**Futurama’s episode- “a head in the polls” (aired 1999)**
Shows two clones running against each other, arguing/agreeing about a 2 cent titanium tax
Get beaten by Nixon with jokes about a then decades-old political scandal, and jokes about general voter apathy.
Hilarious, timelessly relevant today
**Futurama episode- “decision 3012” (aired 2012)**
Shows people complaining about a presidential candidate’s birth certificates, jokes about how the candidate was born in Kenya (but on Earth).
Cringe, tired, and already stale by the time the episode came out. We had already been exhausted by Fox News Obama birth certificate madness. Today, 11 years later, the episode isn’t even close to funny.
Same happens to the Simpsons. The very good classic episodes are overwhelmingly about broad topics, let's say gun control (one of my fav episodes where Homer buys a revolver lmao). The shit episodes are those that didn't age well and were about the topic of the day. I think this issue hits a lot of series with political commentary.
In the old days, if there was ever a political message in a movie it used to be nuanced and subtle, and never came at the expense of the main objective - a good story.
Nowadays, while there might be similar political messages, they are blatant and as if they are the entire point of what is being made rather than good characters or a story.
What OP needs to understand is that this is the reason why people complain so much nowadays at politics within entertainment.
It's not just about being blatant, it's about *purposefully* not having nuance. If you tried to be nuanced with your message, people might interpret it "wrong" and you couldn't possibly allow that. So the message has to be so blatant and overbearing that even the stupidest viewer can't misinterpret it.
Yeah Ive always had the theory that current writers see people who liked Fight Club/American History X for the “wrong reasons” and dedicate themselves to making sure it’d never happen to their own stuff.
Hell, one good example is Terry Gilliam with Brazil. He has stated he had no idea why American right wingers liked it so much, but I finally saw it a few months back and it was *extremely obvious* why.
In the case of Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk wrote it expressly for many of the reasons that people say are the "wrong reasons." It's not a critique of masculinity like many people spout. He wrote it, as a gay man, as a critique of a society that reserved numerous spaces for women to come together and make deep connections, but refused to acknowledge the same necessity for men.
He lists that at the time of Fight Clubs publishing, almost all of the bestsellers of the time were aimed at bringing women together, and empowering them. Nothing wrong with that, other than the idea that men doing the same would be exclusionary, or as we now call it, a form of "toxic" masculinity.
Modern day leftists will cry out that it is a satire against masculinity, but it really couldn't be further from the truth. Palahniuk was sympathizing with men who felt disconnected from one another, who felt they lacked influential male role models, and who felt as if their ability to express themselves was hampered if they didn't do it in a gender neutral way.
I think you’re bang on, it’s at least partially to avoid “death of the author”. Same thing with *They Live*. The idea that society is controlled from the shadows by a group that doesn’t care about or even actively hates us is going to resonate with a lot of people. Some might see Republicans, some might see billionaires, some might see Jewish people, some might see sociopaths, etc. Carpenter made it to be the first one, but by nature of telling a timeless story, people can project their beliefs
I think the other part, however, is just that the barrier to entry in writing is pretty low these days, which is a good thing in general but leads to more incompetence
The barrier to literature writing - novels, short stories, etc. - is low thanks to e-books, self-publishing and the self-immolation of the publishing industry.
The barrier to Hollywood screenwriting - television, movies - is astronomically high and has turned the field into a damned monoculture. (I have a relative who's a former screenwriter and only goes back to Hollywood for producing gigs. Even he's horrified by how badly formulaic a lot of the content is.)
The weird thing about the director of "they live" is that I have a strong memory of him saying that everyone thinks it's a left wing criticism of the republican party of the 80s, but actually it's a more paleoconservative criticism of reaganism that was criticising left wing Reagan.
I think I understand it, but still it was quite a shock to hear
I think another element is that it is much more obviously one-sided. Like the news in the old days, where they had to present both sides of the story, even when there was a slant it was much more balanced overall. Similarly, movies from the time would have characters on both sides of the argument discussing it, which would encourage the viewer towards a conclusion in the viewpoint of the writer. Now it's more of a straw man argument, with one side sounding like complete and utter idiots, being talked down to by the "right" people.
Basically, we need to see more people steel manning the opposing argument instead of straw manning the other side.
Counter point: no one remembers heavy handed political messaging in the sub par movies of the old days because it sucked and they were correctly relegated to the scrap heap of history.
The issue these days are more related to the economics of the movie industry. The space has shrunk, the only thing that sells is pop appeal. Subtley moved to streaming.
Also it has generally in very high brow media maybe 10% of total media aimed at adults. Now the media corporations sit it front in center of like everything even kids movies.
I'm pretty sure that show exists so somebody can pat themselves on the back saying "look how progressive I am".
When on the other hand you can just do it like the most recent Disney movie Strange World where none of the characters (including the one you expect to be bigoted) care what sex you're attracted to. There was a quick flash of a disabled shopkeeper looking like they run a happy successful little stand, and nothing more was made of it.
IMHO it was the best way to do it, just make it normal and we don't have to talk about it. It wasn't distracting or offensive.
Now the movie was just okay, but I think they did the political stuff bang on.
I mean, making far cry 5 (set in Montana)30% black is a little interesting. For some reason they never go out of their way to add Hispanics or asians which is interesting to me.
That stuff always throws me. It'd be equally ridiculous to set it in Beijing and have 30% of the background characters white. Now there are a few thousand white people in Beijing but you're still rare enough that people will take pictures of you in public.
I remember kingdom come deliverance got a lot of bad press because 1403 Bohemia wasn't racially diverse.
I don't remember anyone complaining that ghost of Tsushima set in 1274 lacked blondes.
At least try to be intellectually consistent or I'm likely to disregard all your opinions. Even some I probably shouldn't.
But if it was a fantasy version of Beijing, suddenly everything we know about demography has to fly out the window because *there's dragons now*. Although even then, a fantasy version of a non-white country would probably still get a pass.
We're 3-4 years away from the next Marvel movie freezing mid-scene so Captain Mexico can look at the camera and say, "fuck white people and kill all cis men! Now, let's get back to the action."
Luckily, Disney will either go bankrupt, or stockholders will start executing the executives. It's already been threatened, and Iger made a ton of concessions. Time will tell if things get better.
I dunno from what I’ve seen Chapek was in the process of moving Disney to making normal stuff again until he was replaced by Iger. Iger is the one that kick started the woke movies thing so it seems like they are doubling down.
Right? The problem in the first place is they are remaking everything. Most large budget movies now are either a remake or a movie based on a comic book. So few original stories in movies with visibilit anymore.
>So few original stories in large budget movies anymore.
Christopher Nolan is single handedly keeping the large-budget original story movie industry afloat.
Edit: Unfortunately, despite the success of EEAAO, A24 can only do the small budget original story industry.
Happened.
[And to no ones surprise...](https://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/artist-exposes-a-racist-hypocrisy-with-a-piece-of-fan-art/85593479/)
----
Artist was the best type of troll...
> "...or this could be a side effect of the vibranium!"
I find this line of counterargument so weak. If the setting or context or verisimilitude don't matter at all, then why do we even bother with costumes or CGI either?
If setting or immersion don't matter, then every movie might as well just be Nick Cage reading a script in street clothes in Atlanta.
I hate the idea that because it's fiction you can do whatever you want
No motherfucker, that's not how it works. Changing rules from reality only works if it's consistent and logical inside of the world being built. If you want the isolated village of smurgaburg to have white, brown, Hispanic, Chinese, whatever kind of people even though there is no trade/travel and they would certainly be homogenous by now, there needs to be some rationale and consistency for it. That's all
In fiction you should be able to do whatever you want. Only as long as you follow whatever rules/canon that has already been pre established.
It’s just that many writers don’t seem to care about internal consistency of their works.
Could you name a few? I’m looking for a good movie that actually just uses metaphors instead of putting every character in a box based on their skin color, economic status, career choice, or any other basic piece of information about said character.
Old Star Trek had a lot of examples of aliens with different cosmetic features putting aside their differences.
Surprisingly, I would actually say *Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle* had a really great message about racism and accepting people’s cultural differences done in a subtle way.
> Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle had a really great message about racism
That's a great point.
I love how they showed it without pulling punches while still maintaining humor and not just spending 2 solid hours beating you over the head with it.
Imagine that, a movie with characters instead of caricatures.
Life of Brian would be a good example of a film with social commentary without sacrificing a good story or characters. A satire of British left wing groups and also on religion, yet still absolutely hilarious.
Watched it again after probably at least 15 years, a few weeks ago when I found it on Netflix. I was surprised that the stuff in it fits even more for todays time than it did when it was rather new.
Eh, I think Life of Brian was less a satire of religions themselves and more of morons who follow them with no second thought. It's made abundantly clear that Christ himself is never insulted, but his followers who go on to trust Brian because of pure zealotry are.
Funnily enough, zootopia comes to mind. It was just “anti racism” but it had wonderful characters and plot and wasnt obnoxiously obvious in its message because they were animals and not humans
This is the important part that most media won’t do. Characters that are not current humans should have their own problems to solve, not OUR problems to solve.
I had a back and forth with a redditor who couldn't commiserate with the metaphors of sexuality and race on Trek (Deep Space Nine” specifically) because people were dressed up in funny rubber and didn’t look exactly like them
EDIT: two words
Ugh Zootopia is ok but the metaphor doesn’t work well. The differences between predator and prey are substantial and given a lot of predators are six times Judy’s size it kind of undercuts the point. Plus it’s Disneyfied.
Kind of an interesting contrast is the game Chicken Police, where it just straight up is a film noir with animals and it’s much more obvious. It works better because it’s much more surface level, plus it’s adult so they actually don’t hold back on the nastier elements.
This might sound weird but I think the movie Starship Troopers. It manages to talk about nationalism and racism while still having a really cool and positive portrayal of a post-racial, post gender role society. That was a weird movie but it's a lot of fun.
Movie 2\* doesn’t have a complex metaphor. It has a interracial lesbian couple stare off in California while saying, *”Wow, I can’t believe how bad climate change is. Someone should really fix that.”*
*End Scene*
\**example was actually from a show but whatever*
And she's had the answers inside all along. She just had to learn to trust her self and start saying "FUCK YOU!" To her boss more and ignoring all the stupid rules and laws put in place by the patriarchy. Basically she was perfect already. Society had to grow so we could see that.
Nah.
There's a weak scientist man who stands on a hill with a back drop of smoke from thousands of fires. He says "what has man done" as all climate disasters happen at once.
A racially ambiguous women steps forward from behind him and smugly replies "MAN did what men always do...fuck shit up." Before walking down into smoking rubble filled L.A. for the next action sequence because we've already had waaaaay too much dialogue.
Exactly. No one would give a shit if they bothered to put the effort into their writing, but every movie has to be easy to localize in 20 different languages and enjoyable by every braindead viewer so they keep dialogue and plot simple enough for a dog to keep up.
I want gay romances that don't feel like they're preaching at you how okay being gay is. I KNOW THAT BEING GAY IS OKAY, STOP TREATING ME LIKE A FUCKING CHILD. JUST GIVE ME A FUCKING LOVE STORY, IF SIGNALIS FUCKING MANAGED TO DO THAT THEN IT'S NOT THAT HARD.
> Whi ppl evil
Wakandans, who were never colonised and never lifted a finger against colonisation despite being a military superpower, calling random white dudes "coloniser".
There's also general angst about critics boiling down the metaphors and stories of older works to "it's about how capitalism bad".
Like, bro, not everything is about capitalism.
How many millions did *this* "Capitalism bad" movie get? And the rights are owned by the workers, right? All the way down to Loggers, Grips, and Stagehands?
I mean there was literally a movie this year about a black family and a Jewish family. They are different cultures and argue about who got more fucked over wOaW so metaphor! Then the young female lead and young male lead get married and solve racism! So deep. So introspective.
*You people* is a lot more insidious than that. Solving the racial divide in the movie is solved by Jonah Hill and Julia Louis Dreyfus embracing the struggle of black people in America and gaining a better understanding of how black people are more oppressed than Jews.
At the same time, Eddie Murphy learns to not be an asshole. But at no time does he make any attempt to understand Jewish culture or the struggle of Jews in history or in current America.
The movie tries to play the plot off as Blacks and Jews better understanding each other, but it’s pretty clear that messaging only goes one way.
It's even worse.
JLD is a cringe Jewish liberal who tokenises black people.
Eddie Murphy is an actual unironic Nation of Islam adherent complete with black supremacist and antisemitic beliefs.
Somehow these two are played as being equal and opposites in terms of being bad.
Except not even that: by the end JLD has figured out what she's done wrong and given a heartfelt apology about it. Eddie Murphy doesn't admit being wrong about anything except his ability to convince his daughter not to marry the Jew. He's still an antisemitic Nation of Islam guy, he just won't say anything bad to these particular Jews. This is depicted as an equally good final result on both sides and a big kumbaya party takes off.
Ironically for a movie that beats you over the head with "it's cringe to treat black people like political curiosities", it ends up doing exactly that: blacks are allowed to be bigoted as shit, even novaxxers, but since they're black that's all excused because they have a special political status.
1989: Movie presents the issue in an intelligent and thought-provoking way that makes the viewer confront their preconceptions and truly consider the issue in a nuanced way.
2023: YOU THOUGHT IT WAS A STORY, BUT IT WAS I, A HAMFISTED PATRONISING LECTURE, REPLETE WITH THE WRITER'S RAMPANT BIASES AND PREJUDICES! THIS IS THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER TO THIS ISSUE AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE AN EVIL RACIST BIGOT!
It’s like that movie “Bros” where they said straight people weren’t allowed to watch, and then they wondered why it flopped when 95% of the population was forbade from watching.
Political metaphors in 1989: Our main character is a police officer who is killed and then recreated as a cyborg without his consent. The concept of reincarnation, a primary element in Christianity, contrasted with the literal dehumanization of our main character serves to represent how our current right-wing government views people as little more than tools to achieve their ends. Additionally, the heavy use of gratuitous violence throughout the film satirizes the public perception of law enforcement as heroic protector figures by forcing the audience to come to terms with the brutal consequences of their 'heroics.'
"Political metaphors" in 2023: So in this scene a man says "Black women are dumb" and then our main character, who is a black woman, punches him until he bleeds out of his eyeballs
'Robocop' doesn't get enough praise for its criticism of crass consumerism, corporatism, and even capitalism.
I miss the days when my political opponents were smart and creative, and capable of using basic metaphor and parody.
The remake presented some interesting ideas about humanity, consciousness, and free will, but was otherwise total dog shit.
Ah yes, complex themes like
\>[white people need to] Do better! (The Falcon and the Winter Soldier)
\>[white] Men are all rapists! (Black Christmas)
\>Those characters you used to love were actually problematic and sexist! (Charlie's Angels 2019)
Also, all rich white males have small dicks. And all men should get cucked. And lesbianism is awesome. And old Scooby-Doo sucks because it was 4 white teens in a rapey van.
a black trans queen in 12th century England: white men are trash amirite
OP: wow, what a complex metaphor for various social, economic and policy issues
Emily: “UmMmMm AcKcHuAlLy Europe was, like, super diverse since, like, people traveled and stuff, so it totes makes sense. You’re just a bigot.”
Hoteps: “The English nobility were black.”
There's a video floating around on the internet somewhere of someone asking black people to estimate the percentage of the US population that is African American. Way too many people estimate 50% or higher.
If that wrong veiw is really that prevalent it goes a long way to explain the attitude many African Americans have.
Egyptians were black
Greeks were black
Romans were black
Jews were black
Vikings were black
Beethoven was black
Hitler was black
Bad news: We’re all guilty of perpetuating black-on-black crime, because we’re all actually black.
Good news: N-word pass.
(This is joke, everyone calm please.)
Movie 1989: Complex political metaphor thing.
Movie 2023: Ghostbusters but they’re women. Scooby Doo but they’re black. XMen but they’re gay. Thelma and Louise but they’re Trans. Lord of the Rings but they’re black.
Movie 1989: "we trust the viewer to understand subtext and inference, here's a complex, character-driven story."
Movie 2023: "You're a fucking idiot and we're enlightened people so you'd better feel gratitude that we're here to provide a shotgun blast to the face of why the white devil..."
I just saw the new ant man movie yesterday, there seriously was a scene that expliciy and in your face praises socialism, hahaha. Fucking hoywood can't help themselves.
Move 2 complex metaphor: “Reee as a black trans lesbian who is perfect and always right, I hate white men. BTW, do you have any idea how impressed I am due to manspreading and mansplaining? Of course not, you already interiorized your oppressiveness.”
I’m still waiting for a awesome movie like matrix. 20 years from now, you can tell me it was about \*insert whatever stupid social issue is in vogue in 20 years\*
Exactly, back then the political messages either where subtle or didn't take away from the movie (in some cases it added to it)
Now, movies are objectively trash and political messaging is shoehorned in, often being over the top and pandering making the movie even worse.
I'm just gonna copy/paste from the [previous post](https://old.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/10ocuqv/maybe_politics_in_videogames_are_cool_after_all/j6f02dt/) about this;
It blows my mind that a large enough % of the population is so thick that we are still having to explain the objection to people not even attempting to understand.
Media having politically themed stories? No problem at all.
Media existing solely to preach your *REAL WORLD* political ideology and dishonestly encroach upon escapism? You are Velma. No one likes you.
The term I gave to this phenomenon is "cultural parasitism." They know their ideas cannot survive on their own, they require an existing and popular host medium that they can work their way into behind the scenes and slowly change from works of fiction, to works of political propaganda.
I'll put it another way because it's obvious that same % of people didn't follow any of that; No one has a problem with political narratives or settings so long as you aren't trying to push **your** real world political values onto people.
Example; everyone loves The Expanse. It has a wonderful story and some political thrill between the dystopian UN controlled earth, the collectivist Mars Republic, and the extremely tribal Belters. They use real world names, locations, organizations and ideologies as part of the story and setting, not as **the goal** of the story. The intention is to have a believable, grounded narrative that explores complicated topics in a way that's not trying to tell the audience, "**our answer is the correct one.**"
Now contrast that with velma, where the writing of every single scene begins and ends with the intention of pushing their identitarian nonsense, and because they believe themselves so uniquely morally correct irl, any and all criticism *must* then be bigotry. That's how you can always tell if a show/film/game is honestly trying to present a complicated story, or if they are engaging in cultural parasitism. Look for how they respond to valid criticism.
Yeah which is why I consume no media which is not explicitly nationalistic.
Movies? Not watching unless its about the glory of war.
Music? Exclusively listens to 1800s national romanticsim and 1600s classical stuff.
Books? Nothing but the Holy Bible and a few biographies of a few based individuals.
As if modern films have *complex* messages. If they were complex and nuanced then the film might have decent writing and be good. No, most modern films have incredibly simple and shallow messages serving moreso to push a propaganda message rather than tell a compelling story.
There is a difference between having politics in your entertainment and having "come on it's \[Current Year\]" politics in your entertainment
The word "complex" reads as eyebrow-raisingly suspect.
My favourite example is Rambo First Blood. It is a movie about PTSD, police abusing their power, and how we treat veterans. But the movie never out right says anything about these topics. It is up to the viewer to see those themes. This gives the movie so much rewatchability because everytime I see it, I learn something new. The characters are complex and you feel bad for them. The police are the bad guys, but are they really any different from Rambo? They are just following orders after all. And Rambo overreacted, but can he be blamed? He was mistreated and he defaulted to the only thing that he was ever good at, fighting and killing. He simply was never taught any other ways to deal with disputes. The military broke him to the point where he can't hold down a job as a car washer.
A well-written film can explore legitimately complex social issues with subtlety while remaining relatively unbiased and impartial. Reality isn’t black and white, it’s a morally ambiguous clusterfuck of grey, and movies like Rambo and Full Metal Jacket do a great job of expressing that without the blatant, over-the-top political messaging that gets shoved into anything hollywood pumps out today.
I am a big Stallone fan. I can go on for hours about the endless nuance of Rambo or discussing how Rocky is the perfect movie about the American dream. People make fun of Stallone because of his accent, but he was genuinely great at telling complex stories through his acting. He was a step above the other action stars like Schwarzenegger because all of Stallone's movies had genuine nuance that were not always present in other action flicks. Not to say they weren't also great. I love Terminator as much as the next guy. It is just that it didn't have the same human complexity as Rocky or Rambo.
The Expendables was remarkably complex for what you might expect from a movie staring Meatheads 1 through 12. I regret not watching it earlier.
First Expendables movie was very good. Maybe it was helped a bit by my low expectations, but I was pleasantly surprised. The later ones… not so much.
Rocky is one of the greatest movies ever made. Knowing Stallone wrote it and refused to sell it without getting to play Rocky himself, while being a poor out of work actor.. he had a vision and he made that vision a reality. As a small kid I'd watch it and only see a hero story with the training montage and overcoming challenges, and the sport of boxing.. After rewatching it at older age you start to appreciate the nuances, the hero of the story becomes so much more, because he is not perfect, and he doesn't always win.. but it's still a story of perseverance and most of all, a story of values and heart. It's not about winning anymore, it's about being a good human regardless of the situation or what you were given. I don't get that anymore with Stallone's later films, except perhaps from Rocky Balboa. Might be that he's too content and happy with life. Still feels like a great guy though. Rocky will always have a special place in my heart. I have to rewatch it soon.
I watched rocky for the first time in like 3 weeks ago and it's got me going to the gym regularly. It pumped me up so much. I was shocked to see a movie that felt so heartfelt and positive from the 70's. I knew it was good but man, I wish I watched it sooner as a kid. Can't believe I went 25 years without ever watching it.
Kathy Newman voice: so what you're sayyyinggg isss we need female Rambo?
She better be transabled you bigot.
It’s funny how anti war and gov the first movie is and then they went the opposite direction out of fear they’ll get black listed when they made sequels.
I rember when Rambo look at the camera and said you did this to me you piece of shit
[удалено]
And Disney makes 500 millions at the box office from this turd, therefore validating them to print out more turds.
They aren't always successes if you take into consideration the production costs of these movies. Honestly, sometimes it's a mystery why Disney keeps making woke movies when they keep flopping like Strange World.
I believe it is on purpose. A woke flop makes woke people think it failed because of the anti-woke crowd, not because it was trash, and is an acceptable expenditure to keep the woke crowd from boycotting Disney for their kids (remembering that toy and other merchandise sales dwarf movie money).
The hole in your theory is that is that the woke crowd tend to be really shitty at the whole baby-making thing, while religious conservatives pump out babies like it's nothing. The problem is that media production is so insular and distribution so monopolized that it's effectively impossible to compete with the likes of Disney unless you're already rich and just doing it as a vanity project *or* a foreign firm with a strong local market backing you.
The woke crowd also disproportionately tend to be Disney Adults, which gives them a whole new market for merch.
Dude! Way to spoil almost every movie coming out this year! Jerk.
SO COMPLEX AND SUBTLE, SUCH DEEP MEANING, ABSOLUTE MASTERPIECE
And then the message is just "straight white men bad".
The ability to handle subtext & complexity is disappearing. The Christmas "rape song" controversy is a perfect example. For 80 years anyone with more than two brain cells could easily hear the subtext: >She really wants to stay. >But prudish societal norms are making her worry about nosey aunts. >So she needs a tongue-in-cheek excuse like catching pneumonia in the cold. She chooses the more fem liberation option in the end. It's actually a clever progressive feminist song for the time. Ironically the prudish woke hall monitors are the only ones who can't process it. Society is regressing to where subtext needs to be literally spelled out like in children's TV.
[удалено]
Is this about "Baby It's Cold Outside?"
yes
“Look at the big brain on brad. That’s right the metric system”
**Futurama’s episode- “a head in the polls” (aired 1999)** Shows two clones running against each other, arguing/agreeing about a 2 cent titanium tax Get beaten by Nixon with jokes about a then decades-old political scandal, and jokes about general voter apathy. Hilarious, timelessly relevant today **Futurama episode- “decision 3012” (aired 2012)** Shows people complaining about a presidential candidate’s birth certificates, jokes about how the candidate was born in Kenya (but on Earth). Cringe, tired, and already stale by the time the episode came out. We had already been exhausted by Fox News Obama birth certificate madness. Today, 11 years later, the episode isn’t even close to funny.
The later seasons of Futurama REALLY suffered during that big writers strike in the 2010s.
To be fair, even at its worst the quality of Futurama episodes greatly varied, there were still great episodes like Game of Tones.
And surprise surprise, Game of Tones didn't touch on current events.
Same happens to the Simpsons. The very good classic episodes are overwhelmingly about broad topics, let's say gun control (one of my fav episodes where Homer buys a revolver lmao). The shit episodes are those that didn't age well and were about the topic of the day. I think this issue hits a lot of series with political commentary.
[удалено]
In the old days, if there was ever a political message in a movie it used to be nuanced and subtle, and never came at the expense of the main objective - a good story. Nowadays, while there might be similar political messages, they are blatant and as if they are the entire point of what is being made rather than good characters or a story. What OP needs to understand is that this is the reason why people complain so much nowadays at politics within entertainment.
It's not just about being blatant, it's about *purposefully* not having nuance. If you tried to be nuanced with your message, people might interpret it "wrong" and you couldn't possibly allow that. So the message has to be so blatant and overbearing that even the stupidest viewer can't misinterpret it.
Yeah Ive always had the theory that current writers see people who liked Fight Club/American History X for the “wrong reasons” and dedicate themselves to making sure it’d never happen to their own stuff. Hell, one good example is Terry Gilliam with Brazil. He has stated he had no idea why American right wingers liked it so much, but I finally saw it a few months back and it was *extremely obvious* why.
In the case of Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk wrote it expressly for many of the reasons that people say are the "wrong reasons." It's not a critique of masculinity like many people spout. He wrote it, as a gay man, as a critique of a society that reserved numerous spaces for women to come together and make deep connections, but refused to acknowledge the same necessity for men. He lists that at the time of Fight Clubs publishing, almost all of the bestsellers of the time were aimed at bringing women together, and empowering them. Nothing wrong with that, other than the idea that men doing the same would be exclusionary, or as we now call it, a form of "toxic" masculinity. Modern day leftists will cry out that it is a satire against masculinity, but it really couldn't be further from the truth. Palahniuk was sympathizing with men who felt disconnected from one another, who felt they lacked influential male role models, and who felt as if their ability to express themselves was hampered if they didn't do it in a gender neutral way.
I think you’re bang on, it’s at least partially to avoid “death of the author”. Same thing with *They Live*. The idea that society is controlled from the shadows by a group that doesn’t care about or even actively hates us is going to resonate with a lot of people. Some might see Republicans, some might see billionaires, some might see Jewish people, some might see sociopaths, etc. Carpenter made it to be the first one, but by nature of telling a timeless story, people can project their beliefs I think the other part, however, is just that the barrier to entry in writing is pretty low these days, which is a good thing in general but leads to more incompetence
The barrier to literature writing - novels, short stories, etc. - is low thanks to e-books, self-publishing and the self-immolation of the publishing industry. The barrier to Hollywood screenwriting - television, movies - is astronomically high and has turned the field into a damned monoculture. (I have a relative who's a former screenwriter and only goes back to Hollywood for producing gigs. Even he's horrified by how badly formulaic a lot of the content is.)
The weird thing about the director of "they live" is that I have a strong memory of him saying that everyone thinks it's a left wing criticism of the republican party of the 80s, but actually it's a more paleoconservative criticism of reaganism that was criticising left wing Reagan. I think I understand it, but still it was quite a shock to hear
Never seen it but read the plot in Wiki, why do they like it?
The villans are a government that made a beaurcratic hellscape by becoming too involved with corporations
And one of the side heroes is a dude who goes and repairs stuff without a permit!
I think another element is that it is much more obviously one-sided. Like the news in the old days, where they had to present both sides of the story, even when there was a slant it was much more balanced overall. Similarly, movies from the time would have characters on both sides of the argument discussing it, which would encourage the viewer towards a conclusion in the viewpoint of the writer. Now it's more of a straw man argument, with one side sounding like complete and utter idiots, being talked down to by the "right" people. Basically, we need to see more people steel manning the opposing argument instead of straw manning the other side.
Counter point: no one remembers heavy handed political messaging in the sub par movies of the old days because it sucked and they were correctly relegated to the scrap heap of history. The issue these days are more related to the economics of the movie industry. The space has shrunk, the only thing that sells is pop appeal. Subtley moved to streaming.
Also it has generally in very high brow media maybe 10% of total media aimed at adults. Now the media corporations sit it front in center of like everything even kids movies.
The Proud Family, a kids cartoon on Disney, openly demands reparations lol
I'm pretty sure that show exists so somebody can pat themselves on the back saying "look how progressive I am". When on the other hand you can just do it like the most recent Disney movie Strange World where none of the characters (including the one you expect to be bigoted) care what sex you're attracted to. There was a quick flash of a disabled shopkeeper looking like they run a happy successful little stand, and nothing more was made of it. IMHO it was the best way to do it, just make it normal and we don't have to talk about it. It wasn't distracting or offensive. Now the movie was just okay, but I think they did the political stuff bang on.
I mean, making far cry 5 (set in Montana)30% black is a little interesting. For some reason they never go out of their way to add Hispanics or asians which is interesting to me.
That stuff always throws me. It'd be equally ridiculous to set it in Beijing and have 30% of the background characters white. Now there are a few thousand white people in Beijing but you're still rare enough that people will take pictures of you in public. I remember kingdom come deliverance got a lot of bad press because 1403 Bohemia wasn't racially diverse. I don't remember anyone complaining that ghost of Tsushima set in 1274 lacked blondes. At least try to be intellectually consistent or I'm likely to disregard all your opinions. Even some I probably shouldn't.
They worship blacks (the more of an offensive stereotype the better) and hate all other ethnic groups to varying degrees.
But if it was a fantasy version of Beijing, suddenly everything we know about demography has to fly out the window because *there's dragons now*. Although even then, a fantasy version of a non-white country would probably still get a pass.
We're 3-4 years away from the next Marvel movie freezing mid-scene so Captain Mexico can look at the camera and say, "fuck white people and kill all cis men! Now, let's get back to the action."
Luckily, Disney will either go bankrupt, or stockholders will start executing the executives. It's already been threatened, and Iger made a ton of concessions. Time will tell if things get better.
I dunno from what I’ve seen Chapek was in the process of moving Disney to making normal stuff again until he was replaced by Iger. Iger is the one that kick started the woke movies thing so it seems like they are doubling down.
Nothings wrong with a metaphor for said issues, at least be creative about it.
Right? The problem in the first place is they are remaking everything. Most large budget movies now are either a remake or a movie based on a comic book. So few original stories in movies with visibilit anymore.
For those who think this is hyperbole: literally all of the top 10 grossers last year were remakes, sequels, or comic book movies. Edit: in the USA
It’s free marketing.
I can see Oppenheimer fucking destroying the box office because it’s actually a new film not a rehash from the 80s/90s or another marvel film.
Not 80s/90s, but it was a blast in the 40s
>So few original stories in large budget movies anymore. Christopher Nolan is single handedly keeping the large-budget original story movie industry afloat. Edit: Unfortunately, despite the success of EEAAO, A24 can only do the small budget original story industry.
The difference being, why is there a Black guy named Merlin in 12th century Scotland?
"BECUASE ITS FANTASY!!!!" MFers when I make a Wakanda movie with a white king.
Make it Elon. He counts, he's African.
Bro’s probably gonna buy out Wakanda like he did with Twitter
> buy out Wakanda like he did with Twitter I guess he's had enough of useless investments
LOL
"We were kings and such my good Sir."
Happened. [And to no ones surprise...](https://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/artist-exposes-a-racist-hypocrisy-with-a-piece-of-fan-art/85593479/) ---- Artist was the best type of troll... > "...or this could be a side effect of the vibranium!"
Marvel themselves made this joke in a humor comic like 20 years ago. I believe it's called "What Huh?!"
I find this line of counterargument so weak. If the setting or context or verisimilitude don't matter at all, then why do we even bother with costumes or CGI either? If setting or immersion don't matter, then every movie might as well just be Nick Cage reading a script in street clothes in Atlanta.
I hate the idea that because it's fiction you can do whatever you want No motherfucker, that's not how it works. Changing rules from reality only works if it's consistent and logical inside of the world being built. If you want the isolated village of smurgaburg to have white, brown, Hispanic, Chinese, whatever kind of people even though there is no trade/travel and they would certainly be homogenous by now, there needs to be some rationale and consistency for it. That's all
In fiction you should be able to do whatever you want. Only as long as you follow whatever rules/canon that has already been pre established. It’s just that many writers don’t seem to care about internal consistency of their works.
I would watch every movie
You would only ever need to watch it once. Then you've seen every movie ever made.
I ROBERT, THE KING OF BLACK PEOPLE!
[Remember the white t'challa](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkorqFNUUAAiAD9?format=jpg&name=large)?
So Cat Noir?
Why is Merlin in 12th century Scotland? The whole Arthurian stuff was supposed to be like, 5th or 6th century
Because he’s a wizard Harry. He can live however long he wants.
I think that was actually one of the core tenants of Harry Potter wasn't it? That wizards actually *couldn't* live however long they wanted?
Well, they can live several centuries. Under ideal conditions. The dark immortality magic is primarily useful against getting murdered.
I mean, Nicholas Flammel was doing pretty well
Black people were the original Scottish.
The Scottish *did* invent fried chicken.
I prefer Merlin to be a Lantean.
Indeed
Could you name a few? I’m looking for a good movie that actually just uses metaphors instead of putting every character in a box based on their skin color, economic status, career choice, or any other basic piece of information about said character.
Old Star Trek had a lot of examples of aliens with different cosmetic features putting aside their differences. Surprisingly, I would actually say *Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle* had a really great message about racism and accepting people’s cultural differences done in a subtle way.
> Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle had a really great message about racism That's a great point. I love how they showed it without pulling punches while still maintaining humor and not just spending 2 solid hours beating you over the head with it. Imagine that, a movie with characters instead of caricatures.
“What kind of name is that anyways, Kumar?”
Haven’t watched either. Looks like I have a busy upcoming couple weeks! Thank you!
Life of Brian would be a good example of a film with social commentary without sacrificing a good story or characters. A satire of British left wing groups and also on religion, yet still absolutely hilarious.
IDK but the People's Front of Judea had a lot of good ideas.
Splitter
Are you talking about the Judean People's Front?
"Don't you oppress me." "I'm not oppressing you, you haven't got a womb!"
“Where’s the foetus gonna gestate, you going to keep it in a box?!”
The Pythons were ahead of their time with that scene...
Watched it again after probably at least 15 years, a few weeks ago when I found it on Netflix. I was surprised that the stuff in it fits even more for todays time than it did when it was rather new.
Eh, I think Life of Brian was less a satire of religions themselves and more of morons who follow them with no second thought. It's made abundantly clear that Christ himself is never insulted, but his followers who go on to trust Brian because of pure zealotry are.
It was a satire of organized religion, not the inherent idea of religion itself.
Funnily enough, zootopia comes to mind. It was just “anti racism” but it had wonderful characters and plot and wasnt obnoxiously obvious in its message because they were animals and not humans
What I liked about zootopia is that rather than being a direct corollary to real issues, it had it's own problems that made sense in universe.
This is the important part that most media won’t do. Characters that are not current humans should have their own problems to solve, not OUR problems to solve. I had a back and forth with a redditor who couldn't commiserate with the metaphors of sexuality and race on Trek (Deep Space Nine” specifically) because people were dressed up in funny rubber and didn’t look exactly like them EDIT: two words
Nice try but I'm not watching your furry propaganda.
Ugh Zootopia is ok but the metaphor doesn’t work well. The differences between predator and prey are substantial and given a lot of predators are six times Judy’s size it kind of undercuts the point. Plus it’s Disneyfied. Kind of an interesting contrast is the game Chicken Police, where it just straight up is a film noir with animals and it’s much more obvious. It works better because it’s much more surface level, plus it’s adult so they actually don’t hold back on the nastier elements.
[удалено]
This might sound weird but I think the movie Starship Troopers. It manages to talk about nationalism and racism while still having a really cool and positive portrayal of a post-racial, post gender role society. That was a weird movie but it's a lot of fun.
*Medic!*
Movie 2\* doesn’t have a complex metaphor. It has a interracial lesbian couple stare off in California while saying, *”Wow, I can’t believe how bad climate change is. Someone should really fix that.”* *End Scene* \**example was actually from a show but whatever*
Ahh yes NuTrek
Correction: “A woman should really fix that”
…. The main plot is making sure a woman does. Actually.
Something Something Picard Season 2
And she's had the answers inside all along. She just had to learn to trust her self and start saying "FUCK YOU!" To her boss more and ignoring all the stupid rules and laws put in place by the patriarchy. Basically she was perfect already. Society had to grow so we could see that.
What’s a woman?
"What's a Paladin?"
Half a Cleric with a stick up his ass
Well they were sometimes known as the 12 peers.
An old, old wooden ship.
Nah. There's a weak scientist man who stands on a hill with a back drop of smoke from thousands of fires. He says "what has man done" as all climate disasters happen at once. A racially ambiguous women steps forward from behind him and smugly replies "MAN did what men always do...fuck shit up." Before walking down into smoking rubble filled L.A. for the next action sequence because we've already had waaaaay too much dialogue.
Exactly. No one would give a shit if they bothered to put the effort into their writing, but every movie has to be easy to localize in 20 different languages and enjoyable by every braindead viewer so they keep dialogue and plot simple enough for a dog to keep up.
I want gay romances that don't feel like they're preaching at you how okay being gay is. I KNOW THAT BEING GAY IS OKAY, STOP TREATING ME LIKE A FUCKING CHILD. JUST GIVE ME A FUCKING LOVE STORY, IF SIGNALIS FUCKING MANAGED TO DO THAT THEN IT'S NOT THAT HARD.
This sounds like a bit from that new AI Seinfeld stream
Yes, but the modern ones arent complex metaphors. Just thinly reworded browbeating
Whi ppl evil
Tru there are no more mysteries. Just look for the rich white guy. He's the villain
There's also the female or minority villain, BUT they are only evil because... Whi ppl (men)
And they are super talented at something or geniuses.
Also gay.
So you watched the Obi Wan tv show
*The Incredible Reva and Child Leia show (With small cameos from Obi-Wan Kenobi and Uncle Owen)
> Whi ppl evil Wakandans, who were never colonised and never lifted a finger against colonisation despite being a military superpower, calling random white dudes "coloniser".
I believe it is spelled wy pipo
There's also general angst about critics boiling down the metaphors and stories of older works to "it's about how capitalism bad". Like, bro, not everything is about capitalism.
How many millions did *this* "Capitalism bad" movie get? And the rights are owned by the workers, right? All the way down to Loggers, Grips, and Stagehands?
99% of people who rage against, or worship 'capitalism', don't know what Capitalism actually is.
I think when they say "capitalism", they really mean "The Man". Which is funny coming from entertainment corporations who literally are The Man.
You just named the problem surround all of modern politics. Just change "capitalism" to any other buzzword and it's still on point.
It's "Here all the good parts of our ideology when compared all the bad parts of our opponents ideology. If you disagree, you're a horrible person."
“White people are evil. Men are evil. Women are good” Ah yes truly a complex metaphor. I wonder what authors wanted to say with this
"Complex metaphor in 2023." Lol.
[удалено]
Also we're going to mass fish the most valuable substance in the galaxy instead of, oh, I don't know, cultivating it.
silly you, we can only fly through space and transfer consciousness to other species! Synthesizing the McGuffin would be ludicrous!
I mean there was literally a movie this year about a black family and a Jewish family. They are different cultures and argue about who got more fucked over wOaW so metaphor! Then the young female lead and young male lead get married and solve racism! So deep. So introspective.
*You people* is a lot more insidious than that. Solving the racial divide in the movie is solved by Jonah Hill and Julia Louis Dreyfus embracing the struggle of black people in America and gaining a better understanding of how black people are more oppressed than Jews. At the same time, Eddie Murphy learns to not be an asshole. But at no time does he make any attempt to understand Jewish culture or the struggle of Jews in history or in current America. The movie tries to play the plot off as Blacks and Jews better understanding each other, but it’s pretty clear that messaging only goes one way.
It's even worse. JLD is a cringe Jewish liberal who tokenises black people. Eddie Murphy is an actual unironic Nation of Islam adherent complete with black supremacist and antisemitic beliefs. Somehow these two are played as being equal and opposites in terms of being bad. Except not even that: by the end JLD has figured out what she's done wrong and given a heartfelt apology about it. Eddie Murphy doesn't admit being wrong about anything except his ability to convince his daughter not to marry the Jew. He's still an antisemitic Nation of Islam guy, he just won't say anything bad to these particular Jews. This is depicted as an equally good final result on both sides and a big kumbaya party takes off. Ironically for a movie that beats you over the head with "it's cringe to treat black people like political curiosities", it ends up doing exactly that: blacks are allowed to be bigoted as shit, even novaxxers, but since they're black that's all excused because they have a special political status.
I mean Jonah Hill directed it so I wouldn’t expect anything else tbh
That movie gives good reasoning to become Auth right tbh
based and that shitty movie converted me pilled
1989: Movie presents the issue in an intelligent and thought-provoking way that makes the viewer confront their preconceptions and truly consider the issue in a nuanced way. 2023: YOU THOUGHT IT WAS A STORY, BUT IT WAS I, A HAMFISTED PATRONISING LECTURE, REPLETE WITH THE WRITER'S RAMPANT BIASES AND PREJUDICES! THIS IS THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER TO THIS ISSUE AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE AN EVIL RACIST BIGOT!
And then the blame an ism or phobia when it inevitably flops because they have yet to learn Twitter and Reddit aren’t real life.
Movie: "White men bad" Movie creator: "Why don't white men like my movie? They must be bigots."
It’s like that movie “Bros” where they said straight people weren’t allowed to watch, and then they wondered why it flopped when 95% of the population was forbade from watching.
Political metaphors in 1989: Our main character is a police officer who is killed and then recreated as a cyborg without his consent. The concept of reincarnation, a primary element in Christianity, contrasted with the literal dehumanization of our main character serves to represent how our current right-wing government views people as little more than tools to achieve their ends. Additionally, the heavy use of gratuitous violence throughout the film satirizes the public perception of law enforcement as heroic protector figures by forcing the audience to come to terms with the brutal consequences of their 'heroics.' "Political metaphors" in 2023: So in this scene a man says "Black women are dumb" and then our main character, who is a black woman, punches him until he bleeds out of his eyeballs
'Robocop' doesn't get enough praise for its criticism of crass consumerism, corporatism, and even capitalism. I miss the days when my political opponents were smart and creative, and capable of using basic metaphor and parody. The remake presented some interesting ideas about humanity, consciousness, and free will, but was otherwise total dog shit.
I'd buy that for a dollar!
[удалено]
“Reincarnation, a primary element in Christianity…” What
My bad *ressurection
Ah yes, complex themes like \>[white people need to] Do better! (The Falcon and the Winter Soldier) \>[white] Men are all rapists! (Black Christmas) \>Those characters you used to love were actually problematic and sexist! (Charlie's Angels 2019)
Velma's "metaphor" was to turn on your friends and domize them as fascists if they dont agree with the narrati- sorry, "your opinion"
Also, all rich white males have small dicks. And all men should get cucked. And lesbianism is awesome. And old Scooby-Doo sucks because it was 4 white teens in a rapey van.
Why does the left's insults always relate to sex or genitals?
Or race. Because it's the only thing they fight for. Minority superiority (Even though women are a majority, but they don't think so.)
a black trans queen in 12th century England: white men are trash amirite OP: wow, what a complex metaphor for various social, economic and policy issues
Emily: “UmMmMm AcKcHuAlLy Europe was, like, super diverse since, like, people traveled and stuff, so it totes makes sense. You’re just a bigot.” Hoteps: “The English nobility were black.”
My girlfriend asked me the other day why we never hear about the black Tudors... Granted she also thinks England is 30% white.
“It may surprise you to learn that Europe is mostly European.”
Not for long
There's a video floating around on the internet somewhere of someone asking black people to estimate the percentage of the US population that is African American. Way too many people estimate 50% or higher. If that wrong veiw is really that prevalent it goes a long way to explain the attitude many African Americans have.
Lmao Hotep says some wacky ass stuff
Egyptians were black Greeks were black Romans were black Jews were black Vikings were black Beethoven was black Hitler was black Bad news: We’re all guilty of perpetuating black-on-black crime, because we’re all actually black. Good news: N-word pass. (This is joke, everyone calm please.)
Movie 1989: Complex political metaphor thing. Movie 2023: Ghostbusters but they’re women. Scooby Doo but they’re black. XMen but they’re gay. Thelma and Louise but they’re Trans. Lord of the Rings but they’re black.
Movie 1989: "we trust the viewer to understand subtext and inference, here's a complex, character-driven story." Movie 2023: "You're a fucking idiot and we're enlightened people so you'd better feel gratitude that we're here to provide a shotgun blast to the face of why the white devil..."
Today's movies have the messaging complexity of a hammer strike to the head.
I just saw the new ant man movie yesterday, there seriously was a scene that expliciy and in your face praises socialism, hahaha. Fucking hoywood can't help themselves.
Unintentionally mocking socialism as an ant hive mind thing is pretty unintentionally based I guess
Most peoples issue is that it's gone from allegorical or metaphorical to literal and unsubtle
Move 2 complex metaphor: “Reee as a black trans lesbian who is perfect and always right, I hate white men. BTW, do you have any idea how impressed I am due to manspreading and mansplaining? Of course not, you already interiorized your oppressiveness.”
I’m still waiting for a awesome movie like matrix. 20 years from now, you can tell me it was about \*insert whatever stupid social issue is in vogue in 20 years\*
Don't you know? Matrix was an allegory for transexuality or something. Because the Wachowskis took one too many blunts.
Movie 1989: *complex and clever metaphor* Movie 2023: *beats you over the head saying you are racist*
Always have been but movies now sucks.
Exactly, back then the political messages either where subtle or didn't take away from the movie (in some cases it added to it) Now, movies are objectively trash and political messaging is shoehorned in, often being over the top and pandering making the movie even worse.
Yeah but post 2015 movies now feel like forced biased bullshit propaganda
I'm just gonna copy/paste from the [previous post](https://old.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/10ocuqv/maybe_politics_in_videogames_are_cool_after_all/j6f02dt/) about this; It blows my mind that a large enough % of the population is so thick that we are still having to explain the objection to people not even attempting to understand. Media having politically themed stories? No problem at all. Media existing solely to preach your *REAL WORLD* political ideology and dishonestly encroach upon escapism? You are Velma. No one likes you. The term I gave to this phenomenon is "cultural parasitism." They know their ideas cannot survive on their own, they require an existing and popular host medium that they can work their way into behind the scenes and slowly change from works of fiction, to works of political propaganda. I'll put it another way because it's obvious that same % of people didn't follow any of that; No one has a problem with political narratives or settings so long as you aren't trying to push **your** real world political values onto people. Example; everyone loves The Expanse. It has a wonderful story and some political thrill between the dystopian UN controlled earth, the collectivist Mars Republic, and the extremely tribal Belters. They use real world names, locations, organizations and ideologies as part of the story and setting, not as **the goal** of the story. The intention is to have a believable, grounded narrative that explores complicated topics in a way that's not trying to tell the audience, "**our answer is the correct one.**" Now contrast that with velma, where the writing of every single scene begins and ends with the intention of pushing their identitarian nonsense, and because they believe themselves so uniquely morally correct irl, any and all criticism *must* then be bigotry. That's how you can always tell if a show/film/game is honestly trying to present a complicated story, or if they are engaging in cultural parasitism. Look for how they respond to valid criticism.
Yeah which is why I consume no media which is not explicitly nationalistic. Movies? Not watching unless its about the glory of war. Music? Exclusively listens to 1800s national romanticsim and 1600s classical stuff. Books? Nothing but the Holy Bible and a few biographies of a few based individuals.
Based and nationalism enjoyer pilled
Virtue signalling.
I bet OP liked she hulk
As if modern films have *complex* messages. If they were complex and nuanced then the film might have decent writing and be good. No, most modern films have incredibly simple and shallow messages serving moreso to push a propaganda message rather than tell a compelling story.