Why modern movies suck - they teach us awful lessons

[Guest 85555]

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.

 

[Guest 85555]

@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]

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.

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?

 

[Guest 85555]

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 )

 

[Guest 7034872]

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]

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.

 

[Guest 85555]

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]

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]

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.

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.)

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.

 

[Guest 85555]

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.