Why modern movies suck - they teach us awful lessons

[Hex08]

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]

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]

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]

My original post



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.

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!

 

[Guest 85555]

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]

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!

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]

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.

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]

@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]

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]

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.