Why modern movies suck - they teach us awful lessons

[Zardnaar]

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]

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.

 

[Guest 85555]

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]

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.

 

[Guest 85555]

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.

 

[Guest 85555]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

@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.