Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Matrix is about social control, plus being a transgender allegory... ok that one is still political.

Only if you think the existence of a whole group of people is a political question.
But yes, the fact they felt elaborating would be a mistake explains what exactly they think is being censored these days. I'm not going to pursue further, but I doubt this is the reason we don't see innovative blockbusters.

 gorgon wrote:
As Frazz pointed out, superhero films are just Westerns with bigger budgets. Churned out factory-style just the same. And what, formula films are something new? LOL. They go back decades and decades. What do you think all those Elvis movies were? Just a marketable star with a bunch of formula written around him. Easy, quick bucks. Cha-ching.

Very much this. The only difference now is that it's YOUR childhood being mind for nostalgia because you're old enough to have the income to pander to. The western boom was all about cashing in on kids that grew up playing cowboys and indians or reading pulp novels of the pioneer days. Same things with fairy tales. Every generation grows up and tries to make everyone take the things they loved as kids seriously. Give it another 10-20 years and we'll be looking at the gritty live action reboot of Steven Universe while our generation is mostly pandered to with recontextualizations of the war in the middle east.

 LunarSol wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
As Frazz pointed out, superhero films are just Westerns with bigger budgets. Churned out factory-style just the same. And what, formula films are something new? LOL. They go back decades and decades. What do you think all those Elvis movies were? Just a marketable star with a bunch of formula written around him. Easy, quick bucks. Cha-ching.

Very much this. The only difference now is that it's YOUR childhood being mind for nostalgia because you're old enough to have the income to pander to. The western boom was all about cashing in on kids that grew up playing cowboys and indians or reading pulp novels of the pioneer days. Same things with fairy tales. Every generation grows up and tries to make everyone take the things they loved as kids seriously. Give it another 10-20 years and we'll be looking at the gritty live action reboot of Steven Universe while our generation is mostly pandered to with recontextualizations of the war in the middle east.

That might be true in broad strokes, but it's also a bit of a strawman. Who is going around saying that every generic western made was good? Who is holding up Elvis films as high cinema?

The difference is that people are now praising the MCU as amazing cinema and those films are doing gangbusters.

 LunarSol wrote:
Give it another 10-20 years and we'll be looking at the gritty live action reboot of Steven Universe while our generation is mostly pandered to with recontextualizations of the war in the middle east.

The darkest timeline.

@gorgon: Let's be real here though. Mega corporations are far too big again in most types of business. Maybe the big corporations arent as big with movies but a massive corporation break-up by the govt for various things would solve that temporarily at least. Ofc that's getting off topic.

I think I'll try making some books or tabletop ideas. I haven't really fleshed things out too much but I discussed the ideas before. Hopefully some of those ideas interest some of you people here.

Btw I don't think politics can't be done in shows. It's just sadly entertainment is only shown in one political direction mostly. If you want politics done right look at south park. They attack the BS of all groups so nobody feels esp. singled out. That's actually how comedy should be done too but I suppose some forget that.

Loads of people criticise MCU films. I've never seen an article or discussion of MCU films that didn't include some criticism or lamenting of the fact that they are so dominant. People like them, but people liked westerns too. Nobody is pretending the MCU is high art or anything.

flamingkillamajig wrote:So these days most entertainment seems to be re-makes or unimaginative cash grabs that wear a mask of a once beloved franchise and have none of the creativity. We get the same series over and over again. A lot of it re-hashes the same political talking points (and probably does it poorly) without something new or fresh up to the point smashing old tropes have made newer tropes. [snip]

What do all of you guys think? Do you agree or disagree with things i've said? Let me know.

I don't think it's a matter of disagreeing, or agreeing, but rather ennui from a number of stressors: obvious and non-obvious.

My opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it (disclaimer that I used to be a therapist, but if you want therapy you need to go consult with one, and nothing I say here is therapy) is that you're not coping with your stresses, which may me a physical illness, or isolation from normal routine (see disclaimer).

So yes, to be clear, I think you've become jaded. Why you've become jaded is a matter that can only be uncovered by looking to see what stressors you have been living with.

trexmeyer wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

I'm sorry, but I really had to laugh out loud at this. Using Dunkirk as an example of something not in an "established IP"? I'm pretty sure that, at this point, World War II is very well established.

Intellectual Property: [snip] What an incredibly rude response.

I'm always glad when I meet someone who understands IP. However, just because you've met someone who doesn't, but who who is trying to make a metaphor (yes, badly, but that's not the point), I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

For what it's worth, I think that labeling their reply as rude is ruder than the original reply. Of course, I could be wrong, and YMMV.

trexmeyer wrote:List of blockbuster films that were revolutionary (not all-inclusive):

Ben-Hur
Star Wars etc. etc. [snip]

This issue didn't exist 20 years ago.

Oh boy. Yes, but no, and maybe. Definitions of what is or was revolutionary are all over the place, and I'm not here to nit-pick the listed films or add those that you missed. I'm only going to point out that this is a matter of perspective. A Douglas Adams quote to illustrate:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”

Change this to how you look at films, stories and ideas, and hopefully you'll see what I'm getting at.

This question is both complex, because one needs to whittle down what can become pointless arguments down to the essentials, to arrive at a more interesting question. Is it enough for any story to be purely the product of the creator's imagination, or does a story need be extrapolated from scientific provable measurements?

We live in a world that is divided between those who prefer stories based on fantasy rather than reason, not that this is the problem, but rather that the conflict between the preferred tasted has become important to people's identity.

To this I can only quote, De gustibus non est disputandum – there can be no argument about taste.

 LunarSol wrote:

One of the big challenges I find these days is just the relentless negativity that surrounds just about all forms of entertainment these days. It's so hard to find something to be passionate about when there is so much online effort put towards hating on everything. You can't even really hide from it, as much often than not it filters down to people you know who get caught up in the same traps.

I'm glad someone else bought this up, because for me, this is something that had unqestionably changed for the worse. The toxicity was always there, but it's so much more ubiquitous these days--it's not enough to dislike something, you must relentlessly make sure EVERYONE knows how much you dislike it, and you must keep on bringing that hate every time someone talks about enjoying something you dislike. And then add in cancelling or review-bombing campaigns where we're supposed to hate art because of factors entirely outside of the art itself. The cumulative effect is a sense that you're not allowed to have your own private opinion on a piece of entertainment--I know there have been a couple of times when I've found to my surprise that I have very strong opinions on things I've never actually seen in a series I don't care about.

(Heck, this forum is a great example, loaded down with people who have been trumpeting their hate of Warhammer and Games Workshop for years on end, but who still hang around a dedicated forum in mortal terror that somebody might not know their opinions.)

I do sometimes wonder if the Star Wars prequels are responsible (alongside 9/11) for some of the shape the modern Internet has taken. Super-hyped movies playing on nostalgia, that turned out to be disappointing for most and where the hate quickly shot to super-histrionic levels, right in the days of the early Internet. How much did they do to set the template for modern fandom?

 Da Boss wrote:
Loads of people criticise MCU films. I've never seen an article or discussion of MCU films that didn't include some criticism or lamenting of the fact that they are so dominant. People like them, but people liked westerns too. Nobody is pretending the MCU is high art or anything.

Or.... Disney have the monopoly and all we can watch is their products? It's like people complaining about 40k: in any articles or discussions there are some criticism and lamenting included and also the fact that is the most dominant wargame. But people like it, that's why it's still the most popular wargame despite all its issues. But is it the real reason why 40k is so popular? I mean is it because people like it, specifically more than any alternative? To me it's because it has the monopoly, just like Disney dominates the action/fantasy movies market.

So yeah nobody is pretending the MCU is high art but don't fool yourself that is grossing that much because people actually loves it. It's grossing those numbers because there's no competition. Same as 40k.

 John Prins wrote:
There's too much self censorship in the entertainment industry.

Everybody's afraid of getting cancelled.

The studios want to get their movie shown in China.

Both these things create a lot of self-censorship.

I love statements like this, because I'm torn between wondering if it's just a dashed off regurgitation of talking points picked up elsewhere, or a sincere belief about the universe.

You think that self censorship is the number one reason entertainment is not as good as it was? That is such an absurdly bizarre take! Especially since, at least for movies, the reason for the collapse of the mid budget, adult oriented dramas and comedies has been streaming killing the box office for those films. There's a reason they can't make the R rated comedies that were big hits in the 80s and 2000s, it's because movies like that are incapable of being big hits when everbody knows they'll be able to watch them on their couch in six months.

The China thing is real, although I'm not sure how much entertainment broadly would improve if we had more blockbusters that addressed the issue of Taiwan.

And then, finally, the boogie man: cancel culture. So, I'm going to tip you off to something: movies have always been self censored. For decades under the Hayes code, this was literal censorship. (HUAC also cancelled more than a few writers, but whatever). Movies are made by a lot of people, and scripts are approved, daily shoots are approved, final cut is approved. A comedian can go on a local morning radio show with Fungus and Chuckles and say something that crosses a line, but movies are a lot more restrained. I guess, unless you think that the key to entertainment is a combination of gay panic and rape jokes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
Or.... Disney have the monopoly and all we can watch is their products?

So yeah nobody is pretending the MCU is high art but don't fool yourself that is grossing that much because people actually loves it. It's grossing those numbers because there's no competition. Same as 40k.

Disney is not a monopoly. For starters, there is literally another company making superhero movies with a shared universe. Those movies are successful despite the collective assessment being a world weary shrug.

What you mean to say is that Disney is the only company making good superhero movies in a rich shared universe that combines movies with television. That's not a monopoly, that's simply a competitive advantage.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
@gorgon: Let's be real here though. Mega corporations are far too big again in most types of business. Maybe the big corporations arent as big with movies but a massive corporation break-up by the govt for various things would solve that temporarily at least. Ofc that's getting off topic.

That's a separate discussion from the one regarding creative ideas though. There has never been a better time than now for creators to realize their ideas for movies and television. There are more independent studios and more distribution platforms in addition to more content demand and funding. And there really is less censorship overall.

Now, does this environment lead to better creative works overall? Probably not if you look at it as an average. There's a lot of essentially shovelware being made for streaming in particular. But there's also really good stuff being made out there...it just requires some digging to find it. Horror films -- which came up a little earlier in the discussion -- are great examples. Films like The Witch and Hereditary would probably have never been made 30 years ago...at least probably not in the US.

The difference is that people are now praising the MCU as amazing cinema and those films are doing gangbusters.

Wait, who's "that people?" 17 year old males? anyone praising comic movies as amazing cinema are either doing it for the money or ignorant.



40s were Westerns and musicals
50s/60s were Westerns, Sandals epics, the occasional historical blockbuster and movies with Clark Gable.
The early 70s were a dark period bereft of hope, then the holy Spielberg appeared.
This reminds me, in the 80s formula films were the generic muscle guy killing generic badguys with guns or karate kicks...

Now everyone, quit your griping and watch some Bollywood!

 Blackie wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Loads of people criticise MCU films. I've never seen an article or discussion of MCU films that didn't include some criticism or lamenting of the fact that they are so dominant. People like them, but people liked westerns too. Nobody is pretending the MCU is high art or anything.

Or.... Disney have the monopoly and all we can watch is their products? It's like people complaining about 40k: in any articles or discussions there are some criticism and lamenting included and also the fact that is the most dominant wargame. But people like it, that's why it's still the most popular wargame despite all its issues. But is it the real reason why 40k is so popular? I mean is it because people like it, specifically more than any alternative? To me it's because it has the monopoly, just like Disney dominates the action/fantasy movies market.

So yeah nobody is pretending the MCU is high art but don't fool yourself that is grossing that much because people actually loves it. It's grossing those numbers because there's no competition. Same as 40k.

"No, you don't REALLY like the stuff I don't like, you just don't know any better, you barbarian."

Thanks for perfectly illustrating my point.

 Elemental wrote:

I do sometimes wonder if the Star Wars prequels are responsible (alongside 9/11) for some of the shape the modern Internet has taken. Super-hyped movies playing on nostalgia, that turned out to be disappointing for most and where the hate quickly shot to super-histrionic levels, right in the days of the early Internet. How much did they do to set the template for modern fandom?

I think less than you'd think. Fans feeling ownership of something and gauging their dedication through the accumulation of trivial knowledge of that fandom has really always been a thing. Comic Book Guy has been a part of the Simpsons since 1991 after all. Sherlock Holmes continued beyond his death in the Final Problem due to fan outrage a century prior. There have always been people like this; its widely believed that Jason Todd was killed by someone with an auto-dialer. The main difference is just that the internet is a perfect place to find like minded people to form an echo chamber around and the comments section is a perfect recipe for dedicated people with too much time on their hands to police the thoughts of others. The latter Web 2.0 is when I saw things shift from an annoyance to a real problem. It was one thing when this kind of behavior was limited to heated debates about trivial content, but adding the comments to every article meant this extended to every topic you could hope to find.

 Frazzled wrote:

The difference is that people are now praising the MCU as amazing cinema and those films are doing gangbusters.

Wait, who's "that people?" 17 year old males? anyone praising comic movies as amazing cinema are either doing it for the money or ignorant.

Are you being facetious or willfully ignorant?

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The difference is that people are now praising the MCU as amazing cinema and those films are doing gangbusters.

Wait, who's "that people?" 17 year old males? anyone praising comic movies as amazing cinema are either doing it for the money or ignorant.

Are you being facetious or willfully ignorant?

I don't know what you're talking about either. I think everyone can agree they do a great job at making fun popcorn films that make a lot of money. Nothing wrong with that at all...it's been part of what Hollywood has done since the beginning. The popcorn films are often what pays for the high art. But Marvel films as high art?



By choosing the words "amazing cinema" you really kind of are suggesting high art. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, which would make your comment potentially make more sense.

Being MCU and good art are not mutually exclusive.
to continue the western allegory, just because something isnt a wester didnt meant is was bad.
like "The Searchers" or lotsa others

Shows today really do hit it out of the park with quality. Just because something is an adaptation doesnt make it bad or good, that is irrelevent when you have to look at the product itself.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

I do sometimes wonder if the Star Wars prequels are responsible (alongside 9/11) for some of the shape the modern Internet has taken. Super-hyped movies playing on nostalgia, that turned out to be disappointing for most and where the hate quickly shot to super-histrionic levels, right in the days of the early Internet. How much did they do to set the template for modern fandom?

I think less than you'd think. Fans feeling ownership of something and gauging their dedication through the accumulation of trivial knowledge of that fandom has really always been a thing. Comic Book Guy has been a part of the Simpsons since 1991 after all. Sherlock Holmes continued beyond his death in the Final Problem due to fan outrage a century prior. There have always been people like this; its widely believed that Jason Todd was killed by someone with an auto-dialer. The main difference is just that the internet is a perfect place to find like minded people to form an echo chamber around and the comments section is a perfect recipe for dedicated people with too much time on their hands to police the thoughts of others. The latter Web 2.0 is when I saw things shift from an annoyance to a real problem. It was one thing when this kind of behavior was limited to heated debates about trivial content, but adding the comments to every article meant this extended to every topic you could hope to find.

I think that the internet echo chambers combined with targeted 'news' (which is almost never news but instead usually inflammatory/opinion-reinforcing opinion pieces) to create the monsters we're seeing in everything from entertainment to politics. If it was just one's peers reinforcing one's opinions, it'd be one thing. But to then have more reinforcement coming from "authorities" is what leads to dangerously siloed people. Keeping this conversation to entertainment, even the biggest fan sites do a ton of opinion pile-jumping to get clicks. I don't think they'd really have a viable business if they were strictly reporting geek entertainment news.

I always thought this stuff would resolve itself as people got more sophisticated and learned what was happening to them. Similar to what happened with banner ads after internet newbies grew up and stopped clicking on all of them to see where they led, lol. I have grown more skeptical of that, however.

How does "amazing cinema" become "high art" in your mind? Those two descriptions hardly mean the same thing. It's not even close. You're quite literally tilting at windmills in order to fight against some argument that only exists for you.

The MCU has made over $23B. Nearly every film has 85% on RT. It's the most successful film franchise ever. That doesn't happen when the only fans you have are "17 year old males".

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Being MCU and good art are not mutually exclusive.
to continue the western allegory, just because something isnt a wester didnt meant is was bad.
like "The Searchers" or lotsa others

Shows today really do hit it out of the park with quality. Just because something is an adaptation doesnt make it bad or good, that is irrelevent when you have to look at the product itself.

Very true. Occasionally a movie will break out of the assembly line into greatness. After all, the genre has to have some good works or else it goes away.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 trexmeyer wrote:
How does "amazing cinema" become "high art" in your mind?

Probably because thats what you wrote. Words have meaning.

The MCU has made over $23B. Nearly every film has 85% on RT. It's the most successful film franchise ever. That doesn't happen when the only fans you have are "17 year old males".

You can be a fan and not think of them as great films. African Queen is a great film. The Long Riders is a great film.
Blade was fun, but not a great film. GOTG was fun, but not a great film.

General advice to the OP on media: What you're describing here is the curse of being high-budget; there are people in suits who insist on making things a) completely inoffensive (therefore taking only the most bland and unarguable positions like "murder bad!"), and b) broadly appealing (therefore telling only stories that are relatable to anyone, regardless of culture, age, etc.), before they'll release the hundred million dollars or whatever you need to make your superhero movie or your AAA video game. If you want to find creativity you need to look for small budgets, indie projects, and things where the creative people aren't getting hamstrung by the marketing machine. Try reading more books; novels aren't expensive to produce, tend to have a single cohesive creative vision rather than a hodgepodge of different interests tugging them in different directions, and they're not so terrified of the social-media outrage machine because the social media outrage machine doesn't have the attention span to read more than 140 characters at a time.

And more Bollywood!

Amazing:

causing great surprise or wonder; astonishing.

Explain how that word is related to High Art. Do you even know the definition of High Art? You say "words have meaning", but you apparently don't even know what they mean.

You reduce the fans of the MCU to being 17 year old-males and fail to realize that you made a sexist statement.

 gorgon wrote:

I always thought this stuff would resolve itself as people got more sophisticated and learned what was happening to them. Similar to what happened with banner ads after internet newbies grew up and stopped clicking on all of them to see where they led, lol. I have grown more skeptical of that, however.

It would naturally, but...

 trexmeyer wrote:
How does "amazing cinema" become "high art" in your mind? Those two descriptions hardly mean the same thing. It's not even close. You're quite literally tilting at windmills in order to fight against some argument that only exists for you.

The MCU has made over $23B. Nearly every film has 85% on RT. It's the most successful film franchise ever. That doesn't happen when the only fans you have are "17 year old males".

So we're in agreement then. The Marvel films are an extremely successful, fun, popcorn film series. I don't know who would argue against that. Although your quote was:

That might be true in broad strokes, but it's also a bit of a strawman. Who is going around saying that every generic western made was good? Who is holding up Elvis films as high cinema?

The difference is that people are now praising the MCU as amazing cinema and those films are doing gangbusters

So it did seem as though you were saying that the MCU was in fact high cinema/art...contrasting it against Elvis films. I guess it's now clear that you weren't...? But I don't think any of this is on topic anyway, so I'm going to let this rest.

You reduce the fans of the MCU to being 17 year old-males and fail to realize that you made a sexist statement.

I didn't. Thats your statement, not mine. A refresher:

The difference is that people are now praising the MCU as amazing cinema and those films are doing gangbusters.

Wait, who's "that people?" 17 year old males? anyone praising comic movies as amazing cinema are either doing it for the money or ignorant.

Fans does not equal praising. Again, you're misreading, but my apologies if you are ESL, as that would explain the problem.
How old are you by the way? I say that as this seems new to you and an older person would see this is not a new phenomenon, as they would have lived through the cycles.

 gorgon wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
How does "amazing cinema" become "high art" in your mind? Those two descriptions hardly mean the same thing. It's not even close. You're quite literally tilting at windmills in order to fight against some argument that only exists for you.

The MCU has made over $23B. Nearly every film has 85% on RT. It's the most successful film franchise ever. That doesn't happen when the only fans you have are "17 year old males".

So we're in agreement then. The Marvel films are an extremely successful, fun, popcorn film series. I don't know who would argue against that. Although your quote was:

That might be true in broad strokes, but it's also a bit of a strawman. Who is going around saying that every generic western made was good? Who is holding up Elvis films as high cinema?

The difference is that people are now praising the MCU as amazing cinema and those films are doing gangbusters

So it did seem as though you were saying that the MCU was in fact high cinema/art...contrasting it against Elvis films. I guess it's now clear that you weren't...? But I don't think any of this is on topic anyway, so I'm going to let this rest.

What he said.

Resorting to personal attacks is very mature.

 gorgon wrote:
Hollywood has never not been about making money, LOL. And actually, studios used to be vertically integrated and MORE powerful, not less. It's far easier for indy studios now than when the big 5 controlled all the theaters. The studios used to own the actors also, and the moguls that sat atop those studios controlled everything.

Totally agree!

 gorgon wrote:
There's never been more -- and more independent -- content than right now. There have never been more 'voices' and 'visions' being heard and created. And if you point to the most commercial stuff...it's not even that different.

Also dead on.

 gorgon wrote:
As Frazz pointed out, superhero films are just Westerns with bigger budgets. Churned out factory-style just the same. And what, formula films are something new? LOL. They go back decades and decades. What do you think all those Elvis movies were? Just a marketable star with a bunch of formula written around him. Easy, quick bucks. Cha-ching.

Not true at all. A western was a single genre with set conventions. Super-hero flicks now-a-days are using a variety of genre conventions. There success is based partly on the fact that they do NOT use a super-hero genre convention all the time. They lean heavily on Origin story conventions, BUT they implant these into different genres such as Heist flicks, Ensemble Team genres, Buddy Cop, Wuxia, Political Thriller, Espionage, etc.

 gorgon wrote:
If there's a problem with entertainment today, it's in the sheer volume of it. It's overwhelming, but also leads us to think our entertainment needs to be "perfect" and tailored for us just like our news and virtual world has become. I've certainly found myself spending half my evening navigating my streaming services to find *just* the right scratch for my itch. In that instance, I've found it's best to just pick SOMETHING and watch it. Sometimes you'll be disappointed, but sometimes you'll be surprised.

Yes, even our entertainment needs have become "entitled" and "privileged". All media should be made for me, or it is crap; or worse "woke".

FWIW, I do think people are a little quick to defend the Marvel films by dismissing them. I get it, a lot of the criticisms of the films are totally valid. Their plots aren't particularly noteworthy and often driven by weak and forgettable villains. Truth be told though, that's the case for quite a few great films because its not really what theater is all about.

What Marvel does right is write characters that people connect to and actors that sell those characters exceedingly well. What happens really doesn't matter at any point, its about who it happens to and how they react. It's the details of Tony agonizing over losing his son that idolized him but he never really heard how proud he was or characters like Thor losing the things they took for granted as being eternal. These are the mechanics of the film, but they're why people care and that's where so many franchise sequels have forgotten what truly made the originals great.

That's not to say that everyone is going to enjoy them. It'd be really weird if they did. There have been plenty of films that didn't connect with me simply because I wasn't emotionally in a place to connect with them. Some of which I love now. There are films that I used to love that I no longer connect with because I've changed. That said, there's way more that's endured audiences to the MCU than it's false sense of continuity and ability to make monkey brain like shiny thing.

I’m moreso observing this conversation rather than participating, but is the MCU the only example that can be used for this discussion?

I think we can all agree that the MCU is one of the big franchises today, but would observing this issue through the lens of another perspective (ex. The recent surge of reboots) offer additional factors for consideration?