Why modern movies suck - they teach us awful lessons

[BookTenTiger]

Ok, I'll bite. Why is the term "Mary Sue" in 2022 bad?

It's a dog whistle for misogyny.

If a critic has an actual critique of a character art, there are ways to do so without using dog whistle terminology.

 

[Ryujin]

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.

The term is also kinda lazy criticism. Incurious. Frankly… dumb. Extremely competent characters are staples in many kinds of genre fiction (Holmes, Poirot, etc.). Attempting to turn that quality into a negative without unpacking the role these sort of competence fantasies play in genre fiction and it’s history is… well, bad criticism.

Male version is "Gary Stu."

Ok, I'll bite. Why is the term "Mary Sue" in 2022 bad?

Bad in 2022 because it is frequently used by misogynists to criticize any competent female character, rather than just characters that are wildly out of sync with their positions and what their perceived level of power/competence should be.

The origin of the term IIRC is from a Star Trek fanfic that the author used as wish fulfillment by placing a character of herself, named Mary Sue, in the crew. This ensign was hyper competent and loved by all the main characters, out of nowhere.

 

[Zardnaar]

Male version is "Gary Stu."

Bad in 2022 because it is frequently used by misogynists to criticize any competent female character, rather than just characters that are wildly out of sync with their positions and what their perceived level of power/competence should be.

he origin of the term IIRC is from a Star Trek fanfic that the author used as wish fulfillment by placing a character of herself, named Mary Sue, in the crew. This ensign was hyper competent and loved by all the main characters, out of nowhere.

And iirc it was satire.

Very few female characters are Mary sues IMHO.

 

[Smackpixi]

I just watched the French Dispatch (streaming). It was really good.

Oooo, where is it streaming, sure I could look that up but why don’t you just tell me the answer.

I really have to say, I agree, Modern Movies suck. By which I mean all superhero movies that aren’t Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain Marvel, or the first half of a couple Batmans. They’re unwatchable, an exaggeration of course, since even intolerant I have watched most, I mean they are boring as fork. Boring movies have been common since the dawn of cinema, but just to antagonize here, i’m saying superhero movies are boring, usually.

But none of my complaints have anything to do with the life lessons. That working hard part of the original Mulan is boring filler no one cared about either.

My complaint, I think, is more CGI focused, maybe? When it’s possible for literally anything to be displayed on screen, directors have been focusing on the great spectacle they can display. And it’s boring. The spectacle is not important, the lead up, the plotting, the suspense, the maybe, maybe not, is interesting. The release, the action explosions is just reveal confirmation.

I find, “it’s just popcorn movie good fun” such an infuriating comment on any movie. What are you simple? I eat shirtloads of popcorn, and am happy to suspend disbelief about anything, but if it’s just more mindless cgi ”explosions” why don’t we watch actual fireworks. Like, I dunno, have you ever seen fireworks in real life and also on tv, the tv version really pales doesn’t it? Even if you are “closer”

I dunno, what is my complaint someone will ask. I’m with the story people who say why don’t they get decent writers for blockbuster investment movies, but really, they don’t cause spectacle sells, no one GAF about story, some spectacles sell well, some don’t, the people behind the money paying for these movies only care to puzzle out how to better string CGI spectacles so they are winners.

i don’t think that’s a coherent post, but, drunk and exhausted.

 

[Mallus]

Oooo, where is it streaming, sure I could look that up but why don’t you just tell me the answer.

HBO Max.

i don’t think that’s a coherent post, but, drunk and exhausted.

Been there a few times over the last 2 years!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Male version is "Gary Stu."

No, male version is Average Male Protagonist.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Grand Budapest is just a masterwork and definitely one of my favorites.

Hmmm, I need to rewatch this. I may not have been in the right frame of mind to appreciate it at the time.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

I can only think of two characters in movie/TV history where this has been applied to:

The female character in Star Wars (I didn't watch as I never had much faith in Disney) and Michael Burnham of Discovery, whose character I personally disliked. Have there been anymore?
The reason I ask is because you state it is lazy criticism which implies this term has been utilised a lot.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I don't think movies these days suffer because of lessons, primarily. I'm of the opinion that many more movies suffer due to the lack of internal consistency and creating likeable/relatable characters.

 

[Ryujin]

And iirc it was satire.

Very few female characters are Mary sues IMHO.

I've seen it called satire and I've seen it taken at face value. My heart hopes that it was meant as satire.