Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Academy Awards 2021


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Another question - do you guys run into this with TV Shows, or is this mainly a Hollywood/blockbusters thing?

Good question.  I honestly can't remember the last TV show I watched that had this problem.  I'm sure there are examples out there that I'll recall hours from now, but it seems to me that television programs generally do a better job of avoiding unnecessary political entanglements than movies.  (Again, TV shows that are expressly political and unapologetically marketed that way are fine -- I'm not worried about The West Wing).  

Then again, there's so much TV programming to choose from, I would never voluntarily bother to watch one that shoehorned politics into an otherwise non-political story.  Not sure if this is really accurate or not, but the TV market seems a lot more competitive than the feature film market, and that undoubtedly helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Good question.  I honestly can't remember the last TV show I watched that had this problem.  I'm sure there are examples out there that I'll recall hours from now, but it seems to me that television programs generally do a better job of avoiding unnecessary political entanglements than movies.  (Again, TV shows that are expressly political and unapologetically marketed that way are fine -- I'm not worried about The West Wing).  

Then again, there's so much TV programming to choose from, I would never voluntarily bother to watch one that shoehorned politics into an otherwise non-political story.  Not sure if this is really accurate or not, but the TV market seems a lot more competitive than the feature film market, and that undoubtedly helps.

do you have specific SW examples? 

I feel like I need to Disney+ it up this weekend and rewatch these SW movies.  

I guess shows that popped into mind would be The Mandalorian or Marvel shows since it seems like those franchises and Disney have been sticking points in this thread.  If not, I then wondering why it's in one form but not the other.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KarmaPolice said:

do you have specific SW examples? 

I feel like I need to Disney+ it up this weekend and rewatch these SW movies.  

I guess shows that popped into mind would be The Mandalorian or Marvel shows since it seems like those franchises and Disney have been sticking points in this thread.  If not, I then wondering why it's in one form but not the other.  

I don't think I've seen any of the Marvel movies.  Nothing against them, I'm not just the target audience.

I only saw season one of The Mandalorian before letting my Disney subscription lapse.  (It was an early-pandemic indulgence).  It was pretty good, but part of what made it good was that it stuck to telling a Star Wars story that fit nicely with the tone of the first trilogy, before the films got into identity politics.  Can't comment on season two.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catching up on this thread - a lot of all these complaints are just you people getting old and not being able to accept change.  Despite people not wanting to admit it, this is just a version of "GET OFF MY LAWN!".  I'm guilty of it all the time myself.  Young people would read this thread (if they even bothered to read a message board) and think we were all old geezers and out of touch with reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Just curious - but like what?    Like I said, I feel like I injest more movie crap than the normal person, but don't get this stuff.  

I admit to maybe being in the minority, but d-bag actors, athletes, etc.  don't bother me a ton - at least not enough to not watch a movie.  IMO too many people participate in the creation of this, so I don't give much consideration to Larson's politics, Cruise's religion, the Affleck brothers' pasts, etc, etc.   T

I'm in the same boat.  All this stuff being discussed has never hit my radar.  So I don't know where it comes up and am kind of mystified.  But several people seem very upset, so there must be something to it.

I did know about the big-name stuff with people like Cruise, Gibson, Eastwood, but that was when they were the biggest stars on the planet.  And it didn't stop me from seeing any of their movies.  If Mel Gibson suddenly decided to make his first good movie since 1995, I'd see it.  I do draw the line at supporting those against whom there are credible allegations of child abuse or the like, such as Woody Allen, but political activism on either side doesn't bother me.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

Catching up on this thread - a lot of all these complaints are just you people getting old and not being able to accept change.  Despite people not wanting to admit it, this is just a version of "GET OFF MY LAWN!".  I'm guilty of it all the time myself.  Young people would read this thread (if they even bothered to read a message board) and think we were all old geezers and out of touch with reality. 

The irony here is that woke media is essentially a bizarro version of Focus on the Family and/or The Hallmark Channel.  It's media made for people who need to have their particular worldview affirmed on a regular basis. 

I've never been into that sort of thing.  If that makes me old, oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The irony here is that woke media is essentially a bizarro version of Focus on the Family and/or The Hallmark Channel.  It's media made for people who need to have their particular worldview affirmed on a regular basis. 

I've never been into that sort of thing.  If that makes me old, oh well.

I think my point would be that kids aren't watching MSM, aren't watching a lot of movies, aren't paying attention to The Hallmark Channel (snicker, that makes you seem REALLY OLD).  All the things we complain about - none of this is even on most kids radar.  We are just old and set in our ways and don't like change.  I'm not saying there's probably valid points being made but I look at most of this and just think we are old farts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I think my point would be that kids aren't watching MSM, aren't watching a lot of movies, aren't paying attention to The Hallmark Channel (snicker, that makes you seem REALLY OLD).  All the things we complain about - none of this is even on most kids radar.  We are just old and set in our ways and don't like change.  I'm not saying there's probably valid points being made but I look at most of this and just think we are old farts.

That's what I mean.  Religious fundamentalists have always liked media that props up their own beliefs and have always avoided media that calls their beliefs into question.  This isn't a new thing, and many of us that find it distasteful or off-putting have always felt that way.  The only new development is that it's a different flavor of fundamentalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The irony here is that woke media is essentially a bizarro version of Focus on the Family and/or The Hallmark Channel.  It's media made for people who need to have their particular worldview affirmed on a regular basis. 

I've never been into that sort of thing.  If that makes me old, oh well.

 

How dare you. The Hallmark Channel is wonderful and Lacey Chabert is an American Treasure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Maybe if folks would keep their thoughts to themselves, and if folks would stop injecting ideology into movies where it doesn't belong (like Star Wars, for example), we would all be better off.  I'd really just as soon not know what actors, athletes, musicians, and other celebrities think about things.  

I like political movies.  Nobody ever accused Oliver Stone of subtlety, but films like Platoon and Wall Street are both overtly political and also have held their value wonderfully over the years.  I'm one of the few people who will admit to still liking American Beauty despite it being a little trite when it came out and a little cringey today.  Citizen Kane is heavily political.  And so on.  Those are all great because they have something to say and they make no pretense otherwise.  If you sit down to watch Crash, you know you're going to be presented with a particular POV and there should absolutely be lots of room for films like that.

To me, there's a sharp line between those sorts of films, and the modern practice of injecting politics into forms of escapism -- like sports, super hero movies, video games, and so on.  I'd like to have the option to unplug from that stuff while I watch something mindlessly entertaining, but the folks that AD mentions are all personally hell-bent on making sure I don't have possibility.  They can all get bent.  

I am all for anyone using their fame and popularity to try to impact the world in what they consider a positive way. Now maybe some are hypocritical or go about it the wrong way or have the wrong attitude, I don't care. I do appreciate people who try to stand for more than just money and consumerism . Give me Lebron despite all his faults over Jordan any day.  

2 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Just curious - but like what?    Like I said, I feel like I injest more movie crap than the normal person, but don't get this stuff.  

I admit to maybe being in the minority, but d-bag actors, athletes, etc.  don't bother me a ton - at least not enough to not watch a movie.  IMO too many people participate in the creation of this, so I don't give much consideration to Larson's politics, Cruise's religion, the Affleck brothers' pasts, etc, etc.   T

While I support them doing it as I said above, it doesn't mean I actually care about what they say. I just like the art and entertainment of movies. Whether it is a 2020 movie about time traveling transgendered refugees going back in time to assassinate George Washington or a movie from 1948 that is Gone with the Wind meets The Searchers featuring Mickey Rooney's character from Breakfast With Tiffanys. I even watch Woody Allen movies still. Not sure what that says about me, but none of my personal/political beliefs impact my enjoyment of movies, books, music. 

 

1 hour ago, AAABatteries said:

Catching up on this thread - a lot of all these complaints are just you people getting old and not being able to accept change.  Despite people not wanting to admit it, this is just a version of "GET OFF MY LAWN!".  I'm guilty of it all the time myself.  Young people would read this thread (if they even bothered to read a message board) and think we were all old geezers and out of touch with reality. 

I think some of it is just the climate we are in. Everything is perceived as hostile (and generally is hostile). Also what the content is will matter. People aren't offended because there is something socio-political in it. They are offended because it's something they don't like. Older popcorn movies had socio-political things too, they just went more under the radar in the Reagan America. 

Indiana Jones glorifies white people stealing art and artifacts from Native people. 

Arabs/Muslims were generally only in movies if they were a terrorist. 

Top Gun was the ultimate military propaganda vehicle. 

Blatant homophobia and it was nothing for a white person to say the N word. 

Even Ghostbusters takes a hilarious cheap shot at the EPA. 

IMO, the soci0-political content has always been there (maybe it's more now than before, I have no data to say) but IMO the issue most have is the nature of the content. I could be wrong (goes with out saying lol) but I don't think someone who was mad about a black character kneeling during the anthem in a movie would be upset if a black character in a movie was shown proudly standing for the anthem. 

Edited by Ilov80s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I think some of it is just the climate we are in. Everything is perceived as hostile (and generally is hostile). Also what the content is will matter. People aren't offended because there is something socio-political in it. They are offended because it's something they don't like. Older popcorn movies had socio-political things too, they just went more under the radar in the Reagan America. 

Indiana Jones glorifies white people stealing art and artifacts from Native people. 

Arabs/Muslims were generally only in movies if they were a terrorist. 

Top Gun was the ultimate military propaganda vehicle. 

Blatant homophobia and it was nothing for a white person to say the N word. 

Even Ghostbusters takes a hilarious cheap shot at the EPA. 

IMO, the soci0-political content has always been there (maybe it's more now than before, I have no data to say) but IMO the issue most have is the nature of the content. I could be wrong (goes with out saying lol) but I don't think someone who was mad about a black character kneeling during the anthem in a movie would be upset if a black character in a movie was shown proudly standing for the anthem. 

I wish had a snappy label for this argument like the No True Scotsman fallacy or the Motte and Bailey gambit, but this is an argument that comes up all the time.  It amounts to "Everything is ideological, so therefore I should abandon all pretense of being non-ideological."  Folks who employ this argument use it as excuse to not try, which is what makes it dangerous. 

If I were to say "Indiana Jones stole that idol from those Brazilians, so therefore I should write a trilogy based around a didactic Mary-Sue-type lead character in the name of gender equality," I would expect to get laughed out of the room.  But that's what this argument is trotted out to justify.

Edit: Technically, this is a motte and bailey.  The motte is "All of our thoughts have some connection to ideology if we dig deeply enough into them" and the bailey is "All of our thoughts are equally ideological."  People use the first to justify the second, because the second is obviously mistaken and can't be defended on its own merits.  

Edited by IvanKaramazov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, krista4 said:

I'm in the same boat.  All this stuff being discussed has never hit my radar.  So I don't know where it comes up and am kind of mystified.  But several people seem very upset, so there must be something to it.

I did know about the big-name stuff with people like Cruise, Gibson, Eastwood, but that was when they were the biggest stars on the planet.  And it didn't stop me from seeing any of their movies.  If Mel Gibson suddenly decided to make his first good movie since 1995, I'd see it.  I do draw the line at supporting those against whom there are credible allegations of child abuse or the like, such as Woody Allen, but political activism on either side doesn't bother me.

You didn't like Payback? Fun movie.

I agree with the politics stuff. It doesn't faze me one bit. I think it says more about the person getting upset than the person doing the preaching or whatnot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I wish had a snappy label for this argument like the No True Scotsman fallacy or the Motte and Bailey gambit, but this is an argument that comes up all the time.  It amounts to "Everything is ideological, so therefore I should abandon all pretense of being non-ideological."  Folks who employ this argument use it as excuse to not try, which is what makes it dangerous. 

If I were to say "Indiana Jones stole that idol from those Brazilians, so therefore I should write a trilogy based around a didactic Mary-Sue-type lead character in the name of gender equality," I would expect to get laughed out of the room.  But that's what this argument is trotted out to justify.

Many movies have things someone could be offended by or take as making a point they don't like.  Whether the filmmakers meant to make an ideological point or they were totally unaware of it doesn't matter IMO, they are there. I was also pretty clear in the other parts of my reply that I don't care about it. If someone is sick of movies because they feel LGTBQ characters are being forced on them, cool. If someone doesn't like to watch older movies that have homophobic elements, that is their prerogative. Neither of those things bother me in a movie. I am only concerned with being entertained, the quality of the craft or being provoked to think.  

Edited by Ilov80s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also we are saying art/entertainment is supposed to try and be non-ideological? I don't see that as the purpose of art and entertainment at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

Also we are saying art/entertainment is supposed to try and be non-ideological? I don't see that as the purpose of art and entertainment at all. 

 

Quote

I like political movies.  Nobody ever accused Oliver Stone of subtlety, but films like Platoon and Wall Street are both overtly political and also have held their value wonderfully over the years.  I'm one of the few people who will admit to still liking American Beauty despite it being a little trite when it came out and a little cringey today.  Citizen Kane is heavily political.  And so on.  Those are all great because they have something to say and they make no pretense otherwise.  If you sit down to watch Crash, you know you're going to be presented with a particular POV and there should absolutely be lots of room for films like that.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Many movies have things someone could be offended by or take as making a point they don't like.  

It's not about being offended by something or disliking the movie's message.  It's that didactically ideological art is usually pretty terrible.  (See 99% of programming expressly produced for Christian fundamentalists -- it's not that those sorts of shows are offensive or anything, they're just really bad).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

It's not about being offended by something or disliking the movie's message.  It's that didactically ideological art is usually pretty terrible.  (See 99% of programming expressly produced for Christian fundamentalists -- it's not that those sorts of shows are offensive or anything, they're just really bad).

I guess I am confused as to what we are even talking about. Are we saying the Avengers MCU movies and Star Wars are just high budget liberal propaganda with no message or purpose beyond spreading that agenda like a Christian Fundamentalist program? I thought the issue was having something fun and entertaining but it being ruined by little side plots or off hand comments that have a political angle that seems unnecessary to the story. I think this whole last few pages has been a lot of people kind of talking past each other honestly. Myself certainly included in that. 

Edited by Ilov80s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

If I were to say "Indiana Jones stole that idol from those Brazilians, so therefore I should write a trilogy based around a didactic Mary-Sue-type lead character in the name of gender equality," I would expect to get laughed out of the room.  But that's what this argument is trotted out to justify.

Yeah, I read this and no offense GB but I just laugh - who cares that the new Jedi was a girl?  She was as much of a badass as Luke ever was  (pre-Force) but was a girl.  The stories had holes and issues but at no point did it seem like GIRL POWER was being shoved down our throats.  Maybe you’d have an argument if Daisy was trans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

Yeah, I read this and no offense GB but I just laugh - who cares that the new Jedi was a girl?  She was as much of a badass as Luke ever was  (pre-Force) but was a girl.  The stories had holes and issues but at no point did it seem like GIRL POWER was being shoved down our throats.  Maybe you’d have an argument if Daisy was trans.

Fair enough.  I totally, 100% disagree that Rey is even in the same universe as Luke in terms of being a well-written, compelling character.  Good characters are vulnerable and have human weaknesses.  They lose from time to time.  Luke did, Indiana Jones did, Ripley did, Laura Croft does, etc.  Rey is a Mary Sue -- from the first hour our so of the first movie, she's a better fighter than a highly-trained stormtrooper, a better pilot than a highly-trained pilot, and a better Jedi than a highly-trained Sith lord, because GIRL POWER.  That's was the explicit point of the writers, and it makes for incredibly boring story telling.  

It's not about being a badass.  It's about becoming a badass.  Luke went from whiny farm kid to badass.  Rey was just a badass from day one, like she was playing on God mode or something.  I'm honestly kind of surprised that you weren't already familiar with that critique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Fair enough.  I totally, 100% disagree that Rey is even in the same universe as Luke in terms of being a well-written, compelling character.  Good characters are vulnerable and have human weaknesses.  They lose from time to time.  Luke did, Indiana Jones did, Ripley did, Laura Croft does, etc.  Rey is a Mary Sue -- from the first hour our so of the first movie, she's a better fighter than a highly-trained stormtrooper, a better pilot than a highly-trained pilot, and a better Jedi than a highly-trained Sith lord, because GIRL POWER.  That's was the explicit point of the writers, and it makes for incredibly boring story telling.  

It's not about being a badass.  It's about becoming a badass.  Luke went from whiny farm kid to badass.  Rey was just a badass from day one, like she was playing on God mode or something.  I'm honestly kind of surprised that you weren't already familiar with that critique.

I was just talking about pre-Force.  He lived with his uncle and she was on her own.  But I’m sidetracking for no really reason here so will stop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I was just talking about pre-Force.  He lived with his uncle and she was on her own.  But I’m sidetracking for no really reason here so will stop. 

It's not for no reason -- as far as I can tell, that's by far the #1 complaint about the sequel trilogy.  Rey was a fully maxed-out end game character by halfway through the very first movie.  By way of contrast, episode 5 ended with Luke totally defeated.  Those characters couldn't be more different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Fair enough.  I totally, 100% disagree that Rey is even in the same universe as Luke in terms of being a well-written, compelling character.  Good characters are vulnerable and have human weaknesses.  They lose from time to time.  Luke did, Indiana Jones did, Ripley did, Laura Croft does, etc.  Rey is a Mary Sue -- from the first hour our so of the first movie, she's a better fighter than a highly-trained stormtrooper, a better pilot than a highly-trained pilot, and a better Jedi than a highly-trained Sith lord, because GIRL POWER.  That's was the explicit point of the writers, and it makes for incredibly boring story telling.  

It's not about being a badass.  It's about becoming a badass.  Luke went from whiny farm kid to badass.  Rey was just a badass from day one, like she was playing on God mode or something.  I'm honestly kind of surprised that you weren't already familiar with that critique.

Honest question - have you seen articles or interviews with the writers/directors?  I get what you are saying, but to me the leap I am not getting with you guys is that = some nefarious political motive to force wokeness and/or "girl power" into the franchise.   

I guess my reaction when I read that is more on the lines of maybe they just had a crappy writing team.  I understand where you are coming from as far as it being a poorly written character, I am just not getting why that poorly written character is different from the other 100s of poorly written characters in blockbusters or that it points to this idea of politics being forced into these movies.  

ETA:  judging by the ending of the trilogy and the back and forth of the directors and plots, IMO it more means they really didn't think it through - they just wanted to start printing money after they shelled out 1B to Lucas.  

Edited by KarmaPolice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

Honest question - have you seen articles or interviews with the writers/directors?  

Sure.  Kathleen Kennedy was very open about wanting Rey to be a Strong Female Character.  That was a plainly stated, explicit aim of the new trilogy.  

There are lots of good, well-written female characters in media.  As @Andy Dufresne mentioned, Ripley is a great example.  So is Sarah Connor.  So are Laura Croft, Aloy, and Jill Valentine.  Those writers weren't blinded by ideology.  This trilogy is Exhibit A for why ideologues don't make good artists.  (You won't see me doing any better, in fairness).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey @KarmaPolice

howzabout the mother of them all, the putrid "Black Christmas" offering from 2019?

you telling me Sophia Takal wasn't grinding a Paul Bunyan sized axe? 

it was an absolutely ridiculous ####stain ... revenge porn run amok.  the only "horror" element to it was the fact that it was produced. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Sure.  Kathleen Kennedy was very open about wanting Rey to be a Strong Female Character.  That was a plainly stated, explicit aim of the new trilogy.  

There are lots of good, well-written female characters in media.  As @Andy Dufresne mentioned, Ripley is a great example.  So is Sarah Connor.  So are Laura Croft, Aloy, and Jill Valentine.  Those writers weren't blinded by ideology.  This trilogy is Exhibit A for why ideologues don't make good artists.  (You won't see me doing any better, in fairness).

Thanks.  

We will probably just not agree, but I still don't see how wanting a strong female character for the trilogy = infusing politics.  When you guys are talking about these movies doing just that, I was expecting something more overt than that.  :shrug:   Obviously the strong female characters isn't it, as you stated above.  I am just trying to wrap my head around why the push back with SW and the like - so much so that people are choosing to stop watching movies.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, otb_lifer said:

hey @KarmaPolice

howzabout the mother of them all, the putrid "Black Christmas" offering from 2019?

you telling me Sophia Takal wasn't grinding a Paul Bunyan sized axe? 

it was an absolutely ridiculous ####stain ... revenge porn run amok.  the only "horror" element to it was the fact that it was produced. 

 

I haven't seen it, and no nothing about it.   I just thought it was yet another remake of the 70s movie, and I already suffered through the 2006 one.  

I assume your point is that not only is it a bad remake, but the axe to grind is something overtly political.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I haven't seen it, and no nothing about it.   I just thought it was yet another remake of the 70s movie, and I already suffered through the 2006 one.  

I assume your point is that not only is it a bad remake, but the axe to grind is something overtly political.?

im'ma let this simmer if you haven't seen it - but it is far from a reboot - it bears no resemblance to the original, it just jacked the title. 

3 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Maybe I need a list of these offending movies so I have something to watch.

yep, condescension sure helps here ... 

nvm.  

#### it, actually ... you choose to be oblivious, even when given examples. 

 

Edited by otb_lifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, otb_lifer said:

im'ma let this simmer if you haven't seen it - but it is far from a reboot - it bears no resemblance to the original, it just jacked the title. 

yep, condescension sure helps here ... 

nvm.  

#### it, actually ... you choose to be oblivious, even when given examples. 

 

I was being serious.  I might fire Black Christmas up tonight.   

So far the examples specifically from movies are:  

1.  Black Christmas (I haven't seen, how can I comment if I haven't seen it?)

2.  Rey being too strong in SW.  

3.  Something about lines in Captain America?  (not sure about this one, I was trying to find AD's post). 

 

ETA:  I admit the post came off worse than intended. 

Edited by KarmaPolice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, KP isn’t the only one to notice that the specific complaints, when/if given, seem to have a common theme.  Hmmm.  What could it be?  Gosh.  Lemme worry my pretty little head about it.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing is, imo, "they" have won...

Those that would say, "See, there is an AGENDA!!!"

vs

Those that would say, "See, the AGENDA is needed!!!"

And normal people are divided.  Sucks.

I refuse to let "THEM" win.  I like/love most of you.  I will not go us vs them.  I'll have my opinion, and still not give in to the division.  Blessings on you friends.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

I was being serious.  I might fire Black Christmas up tonight.   

So far the examples specifically from movies are:  

1.  Black Christmas (I haven't seen, how can I comment if I haven't seen it?)

2.  Rey being too strong in SW.  

3.  Something about lines in Captain America?  (not sure about this one, I was trying to find AD's post). 

 

ETA:  I admit the post came off worse than intended. 

I just saw a movie on a flight, Tenet. It was nominated for a couple Oscars this year.

The movie had an African American CIA agent (Denzel’s kid), who worked with an Indian female arms trafficker and the wife of a Russian villain, to save the world from a time reversal scheme.

I suspect some of these guys might object to the cast, and portrayal of the white bad guy being outsmarted by chicks and a black dude.

I object to the reliance on special effects to force a contrived, pseudoscientific plot. Half the movie showed action sequence run in reverse, which I found spectacularly stupid. The director, Christopher Nolan, is the same guy who made Memento, which was much better.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the new SW but how do we know if the portrayal of the character in question was some kind political feminism run amok or just crappy writing? I just assumed the latter was the answer to any question someone had about all the new SW movies given what I saw from episodes 1 and 2. Seems like Lucas had a really good idea for episodes 4-6 and then there was a reason nobody touched the series for 15 years- there wasn't anything interesting left to say with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, otb_lifer said:

hey @KarmaPolice

howzabout the mother of them all, the putrid "Black Christmas" offering from 2019?

you telling me Sophia Takal wasn't grinding a Paul Bunyan sized axe? 

it was an absolutely ridiculous ####stain ... revenge porn run amok.  the only "horror" element to it was the fact that it was produced. 

 

Axe to grind for sure. My only question is what's the problem with that other than the movie was bad? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Axe to grind for sure. My only question is what's the problem with that other than the movie was bad? 

absolutely nothing .... ol' Ms. Takal conveyed a very lucid and responsible take - was mostly shocked she wasn't feted more, but we all know how the celluloid cognoscenti pshaw the "horror" genre. 

oh, it's a totally level headed treatment - nothing ham fisted whatsoever - guess the sledgehammer nuance clouded my judgement. 

yeah - that's definitely it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, otb_lifer said:

absolutely nothing .... ol' Ms. Takal conveyed a very lucid and responsible take - was mostly shocked she wasn't feted more, but we all know how the celluloid cognoscenti pshaw the "horror" genre. 

oh, it's a totally level headed treatment - nothing ham fisted whatsoever - guess the sledgehammer nuance clouded my judgement. 

yeah - that's definitely it. 

 

Wasn't the movie totally panned? 38% Critic and 31% audience scores. The reviews on RT are pretty harsh:

A failed remake, where the feminist plot prevents the one related to the slasher from flowing. Too many pretensions that end up leaving the fun of this genre on the way. (that critic was a woman)

I know how hard people work on films... [but] Lord it went downhill real fast. (also a woman)

Wrong-headed is an understatement in this new approach to the material and we are taken for a third act ride that is equal parts baffling and preposterous. (man)

The worst film of 2019. (man)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ilov80s - I am guessing no, but have you seen that movie?  It's on Max, I would be interested in your take, although I am not advocating watching the whole thing.  Probably could get the idea about 20-30mins in.  

I am trying to form my take on the movie, and as usual it just brings up more questions for me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

@Ilov80s - I am guessing no, but have you seen that movie?  It's on Max, I would be interested in your take, although I am not advocating watching the whole thing.  Probably could get the idea about 20-30mins in.  

I am trying to form my take on the movie, and as usual it just brings up more questions for me.  

The most recent Black Christmas movie? I have not and don't plan on. Any feminist message aside, I am not really a fan of the genre. I did watch the original Black Christmas movie this past holiday. It was pretty good but was still more of a thriller than full blown slasher. If I do watch a horror/slasher, its going to be a movie everyone loves not one that is universally considered trash. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, krista4 said:

By the way, KP isn’t the only one to notice that the specific complaints, when/if given, seem to have a common theme.  Hmmm.  What could it be?  Gosh.  Lemme worry my pretty little head about it.

That's nice, dear. Have you seen where i put my death ray?

Edited by wikkidpissah
  • Laughing 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

The most recent Black Christmas movie? I have not and don't plan on. Any feminist message aside, I am not really a fan of the genre. I did watch the original Black Christmas movie this past holiday. It was pretty good but was still more of a thriller than full blown slasher. If I do watch a horror/slasher, its going to be a movie everyone loves not one that is universally considered trash. 

Fair enough.  

I will say that otb is not wrong - pretty over the top with the hammering home what they were going for.  To the point that I found it funny, and honestly I wouldn't bat an eye if somebody told me it was somebody trying to poke fun at the overly-pc.  

That said, like I hinted at - it actually got my wheels turning and brought up more questions for me. Yes, it goes a bit too far, but it is that far from the offerings in the genre like Teeth, Last House on the Left, or the countless other rape/revenge movies?  Very common trope for the genre.   Why is this different in concept to people like Gibson, Stone, etc.. who are not shy about wearing their agenda on their sleeve?   Is it that hard to avoid a turd burger like this movie?    Etc, etc.  

I am not there, but I guess I could see people being annoyed with the blatant and specific speech and message in this movie if they are already at the breaking point for stuff like this in general.  I am still failing to see why people are writing off movies altogether because of some crappy movies.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Fair enough.  

I will say that otb is not wrong - pretty over the top with the hammering home what they were going for.  To the point that I found it funny, and honestly I wouldn't bat an eye if somebody told me it was somebody trying to poke fun at the overly-pc.  

That said, like I hinted at - it actually got my wheels turning and brought up more questions for me. Yes, it goes a bit too far, but it is that far from the offerings in the genre like Teeth, Last House on the Left, or the countless other rape/revenge movies?  Very common trope for the genre.   Why is this different in concept to people like Gibson, Stone, etc.. who are not shy about wearing their agenda on their sleeve?   Is it that hard to avoid a turd burger like this movie?    Etc, etc.  

I am not there, but I guess I could see people being annoyed with the blatant and specific speech and message in this movie if they are already at the breaking point for stuff like this in general.  I am still failing to see why people are writing off movies altogether because of some crappy movies.  

I get finding this movie annoying because it uses the Black Christmas name and then doesn't deliver what one would expect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I get finding this movie annoying because it uses the Black Christmas name and then doesn't deliver what one would expect. 

I mean, it has the loosest of ties.  It's a sorority, it's Christmas, somebody is killing women in said sorority.  

What I can't pretend to know is was this written specifically for a Black Christmas remake?  Was this written as it's own movie, but they owned the rights to BC and decided to repackage it like that?  Dunno.   

Basically think of  something like Get Out or Us  multiplied by 5 and with 0% of the subtlety of those movies.  :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give you another one:

Pedro Pascal, who plays the Mandalorian on Disney Plus, was not fired for this post on Instagram comparing Trump supporters to Nazis and Confederates, but Gina Carano is fired for saying, in effect, having a differing political view is like being a Jew in Nazi Germany.

What Carano said was pretty dumb, but that's not the point. That she was fired and Pascal wasn't for what each said betrays the double standard a lot of us are tired of. And many those that SAY they are on the "side of women" are really only on the side of women who are on their (political) side.

Again, any one thing is probably something you let slide. But small leaks sink big ships.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, but again that has 0 do with politics in actual movies, which was my point.  That example is not politics spilling over into The Mandalorian TV show, that's you being annoyed about politics IRL and somehow letting that kill the enjoyment of a movie when you sit down to watch it.   

How much of the choice of who to fire was one was the title character and one was not?  Maybe $ played as much of a part in that as politics.  

Also, what I am still trying to wrap my head around is why now?  How much money have we given to zealots, creeps, criminals, whatever over the years as we consume movies?   How many directors and writers have we let inject their politics and religion into their movies without stopping? (Stone and Gibson were brought up).     If in the past 30+ years we haven't let that change are movie habits I am not sure why do it now.  I think the only thing now is mostly the 24/7 news, our devices we are connected to, and a lot of people bombarded with who thinks what and said what, and now instead of just clicking off that movie and watching another it seems like it feels for you guys that one more thing out of 100 in your day that you encounter this stuff.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Great, but again that has 0 do with politics in actual movies, which was my point.  That example is not politics spilling over into The Mandalorian TV show, that's you being annoyed about politics IRL and somehow letting that kill the enjoyment of a movie when you sit down to watch it.   

I like you, but you seem to be willfully not understanding.

It's a combination of both - politics outside and inside of movies. 

And why now? Because it's worse than ever, and it's added up over time.

It's akin to why I've disengaged with politics in general. I don't like endorsing bad behavior. It's why I won't give my money to either political party and didn't vote for Donald Trump. 

I'm not saying one is unprincipled if all this stuff doesn't matter. I'm just saying for MY principles it all does. 

Edited by Andy Dufresne
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

I like you, but you seem to be willfully not understanding.

It's a combination of both - politics outside and inside of movies. 

And why now? Because it's worse than ever, and it's added up over time.

It's akin to why I've disengaged with politics in general. I don't like endorsing bad behavior. It's why I won't give my money to either political party and didn't vote for Donald Trump. 

I'm not saying one is unprincipled if all this stuff doesn't matter. I'm just saying for MY principles it all does. 

I am understanding, but IMO the examples been given by you are mostly stuff outside of what is actually on the screen.  I believe you when you say it's both, but it seems to be skewing more in the what these actors, directors, studio heads are saying IRL.    I guess my main thing I am curious about it why the line was drawn with this bad behavior vs. all the other bad behavior listed in the years previous.   To me it was an odd line, especially for people who really seemed to love the art of movies.    

I do appreciate the back and forth and discussion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/30/2021 at 7:32 AM, Terminalxylem said:

I just saw a movie on a flight, Tenet. It was nominated for a couple Oscars this year.

The movie had an African American CIA agent (Denzel’s kid), who worked with an Indian female arms trafficker and the wife of a Russian villain, to save the world from a time reversal scheme.

I suspect some of these guys might object to the cast, and portrayal of the white bad guy being outsmarted by chicks and a black dude.

I object to the reliance on special effects to force a contrived, pseudoscientific plot. Half the movie showed action sequence run in reverse, which I found spectacularly stupid. The director, Christopher Nolan, is the same guy who made Memento, which was much better.

 


Pretty sure that makes you a racist. What an odd line of thinking. 
 

The movie was a little hard to keep up with but I was just enjoying the movie, not keeping track of what race everyone was. 

Edited by STEADYMOBBIN 22
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...