Why modern movies suck - they teach us awful lessons

[Guest 85555]

@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."

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

 

[BookTenTiger]

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

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

 

[MGibster]

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.

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

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

 

[Ryujin]

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

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

 

[Guest 85555]

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

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

 

[dragoner]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest 85555]

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

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

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

 

[Hex08]

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

 

[Hex08]

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

 

[AnotherGuy]

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

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