Does today's generation "see/understand" TV and movies differently?

[Psab keel]

Making a general observation about the culture, they need defending, yet when posts like this are made, that's okay?

 

[Paul Andrew]

As I've said, I'm an artist and a designer, and I RARELY consider the design work I do "art". Sometimes, when I'm given creative freedom, I surprise myself and create something I really like. But I'm well aware that most of what I produce is crap. The customer has a vision, and no matter how stupid or lame it is, it's my job to give him what he wants.
I imagine there's a lot of people in Hollywood doing whatever dumb crap they have to do to collect a paycheck. And if they're any kind of "artist", they know darn well they're making garbage.
It's the compromise all artists make in order to have a career doing what we love. We're art prostitutes. We know it. We're not suffering any delusions to the contrary.

Crap art is still art. Back when I was drawing regularly even my drabbest unimaginative scribble I would have classified as art, even if it were bad. Art doesn't need to be inspired to be art.

And the art angle is still a strawman, frankly I regret even making the point to begin with. Screw me for thinking a board full of craftspeople would lean into art just being art, regardless of origin or their thoughts on its quality.

 

[Axlotl]

Crap art is still art. Back when I was drawing regularly even my drabbest unimaginative scribble I would have classified as art, even if it were bad. Art doesn't need to be inspired to be art.

And the art angle is still a strawman, frankly I regret even making the point to begin with. Screw me for thinking a board full of craftspeople would lean into art just being art, regardless of origin or their thoughts on its quality.

According to your definition, everything is art. Is there anything NOT art?
And how is talking about it a strawman?
This is a thread about how different people view movies. By your definition all movies are art. So how can a discussion of movies divorce itself from discussion of art? Does it not logically boil down to art appreciation, based on your own definition?

 

[Paul Andrew]

According to your definition, everything is art. Is there anything NOT art?
And how is talking about it a strawman?
This is a thread about how different people view movies. By your definition all movies are art. So how can a discussion of movies divorce itself from discussion of art? Does it not logically boil down to art appreciation, based on your own definition?

According to my definition, everything that is designed to elicit an emotional response from the consumer is art. Ironically, this is also pretty close to the very first definition that google provides:

"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

In that fashion, I suppose you could call everything art to one degree or another. And honestly, I'm down for it. Cobblers, haberdashers, writers, sculpters, coders... every single one of them an artist in their own right.

The strawman is the diverting of the discussion to a place where we are debating if a thing is or isn't art, to avoid the discussion that art is - at least on some level - intended to be regarded for the emotions it engenders, because relating to things based on our fee-fees is apparently not allowed in "serious critique." Rather than actually talk about that, some of us have dissembled, deciding that its easier to disqualify things as not art and therefore not worthy of relating to in any manner.

 

[Axlotl]

According to my definition, everything that is designed to elicit an emotional response from the consumer is art. Ironically, this is also pretty close to the very first definition that google provides:

"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

In that fashion, I suppose you could call everything art to one degree or another. And honestly, I'm down for it. Cobblers, haberdashers, writers, sculpters, coders... every single one of them an artist in their own right.

The strawman is the diverting of the discussion to a place where we are debating if a thing is or isn't art, to avoid the discussion that art is - at least on some level - intended to be regarded for the emotions it engenders, because relating to things based on our fee-fees is apparently not allowed in "serious critique." Rather than actually talk about that, some of us have dissembled, deciding that its easier to disqualify things as not art and therefore not worthy of relating to in any manner.

Okay, I'll answer the question at hand, then.

Does today's generation "see/understand" TV and movies differently?​

Yes. Today's generation is unable to distinguish art from rubbish.

 

[Master Boda]

first definition that google provides:
"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

I reject to a degree the google definition of art.A chimp,elephant,and various other animals can paint on a canvas creating “art”.If you put those paintings on display and did not tell the public who painted it would they guess it was made by a different animal besides man.A weaver bird has some of the most intricate nests(buildings if you will) that put what we humans make to shame.Think of a spider web,most people could not duplicate that. I appreciate them for beauty and emotional power yet they are not from human skill or imagination.

Out of left field but I find sunrises,landscapes and other sights from the planet and the universe to cause me to have a emotional response greater than a movie or painting.I enjoy “art” from something that is not a artist.

 

[ScourgiousJinx]

I come at it from the direction of thinking maybe we shouldn't be putting people in a place where they need to be defended for how they watch things. There's a lot of room for disagreement without making one group out to be deficient.

The people are really putting themselves in that place by posting in a public forum that's designed for discussion when they can't or won't be able to discuss their opinions and then get angry/offended that others disagree. "That's just how I feel" is not valid in terms of discussion unless one can explain their feelings. Everyone is free to feel however they want but if you can't discuss those feelings, don't. Or at least let everyone know that you're not willing to.

 

[Paul Andrew]

The people are really putting themselves in that place by posting in a public forum that's designed for discussion when they can't or won't be able to discuss their opinions and then get angry/offended that others disagree. "That's just how I feel" is not valid in terms of discussion unless one can explain their feelings. Everyone is free to feel however they want but if you can't discuss those feelings, don't.

I really hate catching that I missed a word after being quoted

 

[ScourgiousJinx]

I really hate catching that I missed a word after being quoted

That happens to me too. Fixed.

 

[Picard102]

The people are really putting themselves in that place by posting in a public forum that's designed for discussion when they can't or won't be able to discuss their opinions and then get angry/offended that others disagree. "That's just how I feel" is not valid in terms of discussion unless one can explain their feelings. Everyone is free to feel however they want but if you can't discuss those feelings, don't. Or at least let everyone know that you're not willing to.

The problem is that feelings are being asserted as facts, and if you disagree with them, or identify that they are feelings not facts, you are labeled as intellectually deficient.

 

[Psab keel]

And yet here we have board members YET AGAIN, coming to the unasked for mind you, defense of total strangers. When I posted a screencap of a board member openly, and very rudely insulting other board members, what do we get?

Crickets.

I'm no saint. Far from it. But it strikes me as pretty insincere to see these defenses of the culture at large, or the toy companies, or the movie studios, or the directors, or the actors, or social media personalities, or anyone other than their fellow RPF members. You will defend their honor as if your life depends on it, but sit idly by when people here in this community get roasted.

Why is that? They complain that all we do is complain. They say we whine. That we don't like new things and that our view of older properties is too biased to be credible. They say we're not really fans or that our interpretations of previous works were incorrect. They say we assert our opinions as facts, and in the same breath opine that their perspective is somehow more worldly than ours because us old grumpy guys are stuck in the past. They say all kinds of things that paint us in a light that dismisses nearly any point we make, no matter how valid, because it's "negative". They rudely tell us we should leave the discussion if we don't like it. Or that we simply shouldn't watch the content if we dislike it, despite having invested years into the property. The worst yet though is they often play the victim, as if discussing the failures of certain stories is a personal attack on THEM, when we're simply discussing the writing.

I've had many PM's with people after a blow out over the years because it actually bothers me when I get into a heated discussion. Even if we don't come to an agreement in the end, I recognize that they're still people. I haven't always reached out in every instance, but I did in many cases. I reached out, and I've done so on many occassions. I posted a DIRECT example of one of the members of this forum doing the same thing you're accusing us of, and you say nothing to call his actions out. No comment. No acknowledgement that his behavior is equally as bad. Nothing.

I've couched so many of my responses to show courtesy, even when I don't want to, because I know I'm not always right. I can admit that. Yes, I'm not always right. I almost never see that same courtesy or respect given back. I'm frankly, sick of it.

 

[ScourgiousJinx]

The problem is that feelings are being asserted as facts, and if you disagree with them, or identify that they are feelings not facts, you are labeled as intellectually deficient.

Labelling other members themselves as intellectually deficient is not a good move. It turns things into an elementary school recess fight, makes people completely unreceptive to others ideas and isn't right. I strongly favor discussing/attacking ideas over attacking individuals.

The problem is that there is no absolute consensus on whether or not these are facts or feelings. This is a huge part of the reasons there's a lot of head butting.

 

[Paul Andrew]

And yet here we have board members YET AGAIN, coming to the unasked for mind you, defense of total strangers. When I posted a screencap of a board member openly, and very rudely insulting other board members, what do we get?

Crickets.

I'm no saint. Far from it. But it strikes me as pretty insincere to see these defenses of the culture at large, or the toy companies, or the movie studios, or the directors, or the actors, or social media personalities, or anyone other than their fellow RPF members. You will defend their honor as if your life depends on it, but sit idly by when people here in this community get roasted.

There's kind of a lot here, but I'm not sure I'm getting where you're coming from. I have never been under the impression that I was or have been defending anything, let alone any specific aspect of culture, or any corporate entity. I don't usually try to say one thing is right, or wrong, as much as I try to express that there can be multiple viewpoints regarding most of these topics, and saying that the upcoming generation is somehow less than us because they may not look at things the same way folks our age do is one of the most tired clichés in the world, next to threatening to close the community center or outlawing dance. We were that generation to our parents at one point too.

I try to keep my general outlook pretty open-minded, and I'm more interested in where people are coming from in order to get to the opinion they're at than anything else. More often than not, personally I lean toward the mindset that I don't know anything until I do, and I try to take other people's lived experiences as just as valid as my own. So, when someone comes away from a movie with ideas about problematic portrayals or a lack of diversity or whatever, I'm more inclined to listen to them than I am to just shut them down and tell them to suck up their fee-fees.

As far as the strangers vs board members stuff, I got nothing. I really don't jive with that kind of tribalism. All I can say is that if I feel like someone on the board is way out of line, not just heated, but openly mean or vicious, I would sooner report it than make a big deal of it with a public call out. Beyond that, I have always felt that less is more as far as moderation goes. Theoretically we're mostly adults here. We represent a wide and diverse set of backgrounds and ideas, and we're bound to disagree on things often. It is what it is. For what it's worth, I got nothing against any of you that disagree with me on these topics, but I do find the denigration of the upcoming generation for having what amounts to a different set of priorities in their entertainment awfully tiresome.

 

[pengbuzz]

And yet here we have board members YET AGAIN, coming to the unasked for mind you, defense of total strangers. When I posted a screencap of a board member openly, and very rudely insulting other board members, what do we get?

Crickets.

I'm no saint. Far from it. But it strikes me as pretty insincere to see these defenses of the culture at large, or the toy companies, or the movie studios, or the directors, or the actors, or social media personalities, or anyone other than their fellow RPF members. You will defend their honor as if your life depends on it, but sit idly by when people here in this community get roasted.

Why is that? They complain that all we do is complain. They say we whine. That we don't like new things and that our view of older properties is too biased to be credible. They say we're not really fans or that our interpretations of previous works were incorrect. They say we assert our opinions as facts, and in the same breath opine that their perspective is somehow more worldly than ours because us old grumpy guys are stuck in the past. They say all kinds of things that paint us in a light that dismisses nearly any point we make, no matter how valid, because it's "negative". They rudely tell us we should leave the discussion if we don't like it. Or that we simply shouldn't watch the content if we dislike it, despite having invested years into the property. The worst yet though is they often play the victim, as if discussing the failures of certain stories is a personal attack on THEM, when we're simply discussing the writing.

I've had many PM's with people after a blow out over the years because it actually bothers me when I get into a heated discussion. Even if we don't come to an agreement in the end, I recognize that they're still people. I haven't always reached out in every instance, but I did in many cases. I reached out, and I've done so on many occassions. I posted a DIRECT example of one of the members of this forum doing the same thing you're accusing us of, and you say nothing to call his actions out. No comment. No acknowledgement that his behavior is equally as bad. Nothing.

I've couched so many of my responses to show courtesy, even when I don't want to, because I know I'm not always right. I can admit that. Yes, I'm not always right. I almost never see that same courtesy or respect given back. I'm frankly, sick of it.

I've seen what you're describing here happen far too many times: first is the "I'm my argument" mentality, where if a position or point is connoted negatively, it is treated as an ad hominem attack. But the reply in kind is an actual ad hominem attack that is designed to injure, insult and psychologically/ emotionally maim the other party in the discussion.

This then leads to transference: the act of accusing others of what they themselves are actually doing. Rather than admit on their end that they
are acting in aggression, they instead seek to point the finger at their chosen target(s) and claim they are the ones causing the problem. In doing so, they appoint themselves the judge of those they disdain for the high crime of having a viewpoint that assails their "sacred cow", and seek to destroy them if they can. If they cannot, they elect to harry and harass in order to cause palpable harm.

Finally, there is The Law of the Grand Exception™. Basically, it's those same individuals assuming that everyone else as well as those topics they prefer are subject to those individuals own scathing scrutiny, but that the topics they cherish and hold as sacred tenets should not be subject to any scrutiny whatsoever, and that their behavior is somehow sacrosanct. The matter becomes about the who rather than the what; the end result is that those objecting to any sort of critique of the material at hand "hold court" over what may and may not be discussed.

All of this results from one basic source: emotion. The person becomes so enthralled with the ideas they hold to that they fuse with them at the emotional level. Reason becomes a tertiary issue (if at all), and any discussion on a subject, franchise, show, topic or otherwise quickly devolves into the "You speak against what I love so I shall DESTROY YOU" stance. No objective discussion can be held with them at this juncture because anything other than emotional affirmation and "head patting" will be seen as an act of war. No act of appeasement will suffice for them (short of utter humiliation and public "groveling" for their disdainful approval), and any effort to ignore them they will see as an insult for "daring to exclude them from 'their rightful domain'".

What is the answer then?

When those that practice these socially sadistic acts behave in such a manner as to prevent the discourse/ critique of ideas, topics, subjects or franchises, the only avenue remaining is unfortunately ignoring them. This means even blocking any attempt by them to make their presence known (blocking/ ignoring emojis and the like). When reason and calm discussion is refused and replaced with the shrill screech of emotionalism, the only recourse is to not acknowledge their presence. It most likely will not change their views, but until they are able to exchange differences of opinion without resorting to namecalling, emotional blackmail, verbal sadism and childish accusations based on transference, they should not have a voice amongst those simply seeking to examine these issues in a reasonable, amicable manner.

 

[Solo4114]

In my perception, almost every American TV-show targeting young people back in the early '90s used to have at least one or two episodes with a message. That is not new. It is just back in an updated form.

It's been going on longer than that. There's plenty of politics going on in Star Trek TOS, old black and white Doctor Who, etc. There've always been "messages." It's nothing new.

Telling a story with a moral is one thing, being relentlessly bashed in the face from every direction with political correctness and virtue signaling is something else entirely.
I'm over it.

Eh, there's good versions of it and bad, ham-fisted versions of it. Much of the stuff in, say, the CW superhero shows trended towards the bad end of it. That's mostly because there was no subtlety to it, it didn't always seem to fit organically into the story (which is kinda the same thing), and it felt artificial and contrived. That wasn't always the case on those shows, but in their bad moments, it was. I'm not remotely bothered by "woke" stuff, but my wife and I both just got kinda tired of the "MESSAGE INCOMING" vibe of those shows and eventually tuned out altogether.

That said, there are lot of people online who get ticked about all manner of representation and treat having a character who is representative as if it's all of a sudden a "very special episode of [show]."

Legitimate flaws aside, a high percentage of complaints about the prequels boil down to “they weren’t what I wanted/expected”. They’ve aged well, and people still discuss and debate them.

For me, I still very much dislike the prequels overall. I think they're a story that (a) wasn't really effectively told, and (b) isn't a story I find especially interesting. What I've come to appreciate about them, however, is that they are very clearly the vision of a given artist who wanted to tell his story. Good or bad, you gotta respect that, and I do. I'd actually say that it's the Clone Wars cartoon that ultimately got me to really enjoy ROTS, because it creates such a richer backdrop to that film than the previous two films did. But it's still remarkable how...off...a lot of the acting is in those films from some incredibly talented actors.

On the other hand, people did not “expect” the Disney Trilogy to completely destroy the characters, themes, and plot points of the previous six films with extreme prejudice. They already haven’t aged well, and no one will be talking about them, a few years down the road.

People are free to like what they like, but I would say that the people who enjoy the latter-day trilogy for their first-time reaction videos are apparently lacking critical thinking skills, or enjoy shiny new things. They simply don’t know any better, and don’t have the accumulated understanding of the franchise and its lore as it existed prior to The Mouse.

And they’re poorer for it.

I think what holds back the sequels is basically two core flaws, both kind of stemming from the "committee-esque" approach to creating them. First, there was the decision to include the old heroes. Right off the bat, that sets you up with a REALLY difficult position. How do you make a story about the breakdown in the galaxy that doesn't undo the very-clearly-"Happily-Ever-After" vibe of ROTJ? How do you not rob the OT heroes of their victory? You don't have a story if they succeeded and peace reigned forever. And if you include them in the films, then either they have to be weakened versions of themselves, or they can end up overshadowing the new heroes. It's a really tough line to walk. It's doable, but this crew didn't do it. The other issue was that they very clearly did not have any real plan for the three films. There was no thru-line. So you get narrative and stylistic whiplash between the three films and it just never really finds its feet.

I mean, they're still enjoyable as popcorn rollercoaster ride films, but as stories...the sequel trilogy just ain't it.

I am almost 40. I'm not particularly "young" by society's standards but I grew up watching the same movies on VHS, and late 80's and 90's television. But I would probably disagree with the assertions that a lot of the media now is dreck. So maybe you need to have grown up watching 60's and 70's TV and film to not have an appreciation for media today? I know I find a lot of TV and Film from that era to be borderline unwatchable, and don't have as much of an issue with modern TV and film as others seem too who may have grown up with that content.


This thread is a good example of that. We are one page in and we have people calling others names for not agreeing with their opinion.

Eh, I'm not quite 45 and I grew up watching all kinds of stuff. Black and white TV and movies that my folks showed me from their youth, other films and media throughout the years, in addition to those 80s and 90s shows and movies. And I think that the general assessment of "The old world wasn't better, we've just discarded and forgotten the crap from that era." I mean, I can think back to the 80s and oh my god there were TONS of garbage films and TV shows. I mean, stuff that was just...not good. We might remember it affectionately if we saw it as kids, but if you look back on it with critical eyes...yeah, not great, Bob. Likewise, there's plenty of stuff from the 90s. And the 70s. And the 60s. Lots of good, lots of crap if you're exposed to it or seek it out.

I mean, MST3K wouldn't exist if none of this was true. There's always been crap and there's always been more crap than gold. But we keep the gold and flush the crap down the memory hole (until folks like the gang at MST3K unearth it and riff it).

All that said, I think one can get an appreciation of film, television, and storytelling generally by looking at older material and looking past the things that we find jarring. Slower pacing, static cameras, flat angles, wobbly sets, etc. That can be hard to get past, though, if you don't have any grounding in it from the outset. I think there's a version of enjoying entertainment that can often involve approaching it from a detached, intellectual stance first, and only after that getting into the "how's it make me feel" stance. Or at least you have to keep both tracks running in your brain while watching. Like, old Doctor Who can be tough to watch. It's slow, the camera work is very basic and not dynamic most times, the sets are wobbly, the masks are very clearly rubber, etc. That said, I appreciate the core ideas of the stories and how they managed to tell them with almost no rehearsal and a shoestring budget. But appreciating that requires me to consciously choose to look past the otherwise pretty obvious deficiencies.

I think a lot of people -- and it's not tied to generation -- just don't do that. They watch stuff for pure immediate entertainment. Does it immediately entertain me or am I knocked out of it by some aspect of the production that I see as deficient? That doesn't make them dumber necessarily, but it does mean that (in my opinion) they miss out on being able to enjoy a broader range of experiences. It's kinda like picky eaters, really. On the other hand, outside of one or two dishes, I can't stand eggplant, so...

Every story now has to be a 12 part epic too. That will certainly dumb down the quality with enough time. How many incredible stories were a single film that didn't demand a sequel or spin off or reboot.l? Tell a great story, but equally important, know when to end it!

I disagree. If anything, I think having more time to tell a story leans towards telling much more fleshed out, compelling tales because you have the time to build characters up and make people care about them. Not every undertaking will succeed in that, but I genuinely enjoy longer-form storytelling these days. That's not to say you can't make a cracking good film that tells a concise story in anywhere from 90 to 140 minutes. Obviously you can. I just think it's easier to tell more compelling stories when you have more room to breathe.

I think part of the issue is that, within certain genres, some filmmakers are making films that try to operate within that 90-140min framework, and they just can't pull it off for whatever reason.

Disagree. The problem that we see is that a lot of people lack the capacity to watch things IN THE CONTEXT of the time they were made. I just rewatched both Six Million Dollar Man and Bionic Woman and, IN THE CONTEXT of their time, both are still very enjoyable. You can't compare the writing or the effects to modern efforts because they weren't made in the modern era. They are 50 year old shows. You have to be able to look at them with 50 year old eyes and they're just as good as they ever were.

In another 50 years, people are going to look at what is considered good today and not be very appreciative. Just taking these shows and looking at the structure, they just don't stand up. "I like it now" isn't the same thing as "it's objectively good".

That gets back at what I was talking about above with the sort of two-track thinking about shows. Like you, I appreciate certain things in the context of their time. I recognize what the cultural milieu was for that era, I go in knowing that and understanding it, and then I watch the story from that perspective. As a result, I find a lot more stuff out there that I can enjoy, so...uh....yay for me.

The flipside, though, is that for a lot of people, looking past the older context can be harder for any number of reasons. And a LOT of older entertainment just...wasn't really made for them. It's there, it's available for them to enjoy, but it's not really for them as the primary target audience. My wife doesn't really dig the old James Bond films from the Connery era. Or at least, she can kind of take or leave them. It doesn't really interest her. There's the underlying misogyny of the era (to say nothing of the campiness of some of the latter Connery entries, which I don't think anyone could deny -- sorry, but Diamonds Are Forever is...pretty over-the-top ridiculous), the fact that there are no characters that she really relates to or cares to relate to, and then separate from that all of the pacing, camera-work, rear-projection-looks-fakey-now issues, etc. She likes the newer ones ok, but the old stuff...eh, she'll surf her phone if it's on, but it's never something she's like "Ooh, yeah, let's put on Thunderball!"

I think that kind of attitude is present pretty broadly in society. It's not people trying to "cancel" this or that, as much as it is people saying "This offers nothing for me, really. I'm not interested in it. It's a relic of a bygone age." And I suspect that, at least for me, part of why I can appreciate a broader swath of stuff is because...I'm a straight, white dude. I don't think it's either controversial or political to simply state the fact that there is a TON of entertainment in the latter half of the 20th century that is targeted directly at guys like me, and which kind of ignores....everyone else. In the past, folks maybe took what they could get because there weren't really even options for entertainment for them, but that's not true anymore, so why would they spend their time watching stuff that just isn't really for them? Like, I don't spend a ton of time watching romcoms or dramas like Steel Magnolias. I'm sure Steel Magnolias is a terrific film, well acted, well put together, too. I just...eh...I have no real desire to spend my time watching it because it's not really for me. It's available to me to watch if I want, but I'm definitely not the target audience, ya know?

Okay, I'll answer the question at hand, then.

Does today's generation "see/understand" TV and movies differently?​

Yes. Today's generation is unable to distinguish art from rubbish.

Oh, I don't think so. I think a big issue here is one's definition of the term "art," which is something often debated and which has been debated for ages. Is art an intellectual experience? Is it an emotional one? Is it a cross between the two? Is something art if it doesn't move you but it makes you think? Is something art if it does move you, but offers nothing intellectual to it? Is art based on the intent of the creator or the reception by the audience?

At the local art museum, there is (or was -- I haven't been in a while) a piece hanging on the wall that is, quite literally, a plastic snow shovel with the shaft of the shovel sawn in half. One half -- the part with the handle -- is stuck up on the wall. The other half -- with the blade -- is resting partially against the wall on the floor. This is....apparently...."art." I mean, it's in an art museum, after all, right? I think it's nonsense. But I suspect someone else could argue that it's some transformative commentary on blah blah blah blah, and could -- through their intellectual process -- create an emotional response when they explained how the piece represents this or that. Or maybe it's just all trolling and the emotional experience is meant to be "Can you believe I conned these suckers into putting this in their museum?!"

Anyway, my point is really that I think "art" can mean a lot of things to different people. Something that's "rubbish" might be intentional rubbish. I mean, take the movie Turbo Kid. I think it's a FANTASTIC film. But that's partially because I get the intellectual thing it's trying to recreate -- a modern take on the kind of film you'd have grabbed off a VHS shelf at your local video store. It's intentionally "bad." So...is it still rubbish if they meant for the plot to be hokey and silly? Or is it an exceptionally well done homage to a specific style of film? I also think it's really interesting that one's analysis of the filmmakers' intent could alter one's perception of whether something is "art" or even just well done. The film Grindhouse (I mean, both Rodriguez and Tarantino's contributions, plus all the "trailers" in between) is a modern (post-modern?) spin on the garbage films that would run at driveins and grindhouse cinemas of the 70s. But those original grindhouse films are crap. I think Black Dynamite is one of the most hilarious comedies and dead-on reproductions of blaxploitation you could ask for. It's incredibly well done. But the original blaxploitation films were garbage. So...one becomes "art" because it's a comedic reproduction of serious-but-crap films? That's...kinda wild, no?

Art's weird like that.

 

[joberg]

A lot of famous art was commissioned. Are we saying the Mona Lisa isn't art because he was paid to paint it?

Lots of famous Art was commissioned...as we know; being an Artist doesn't always pays the bills...and LDV was never paid for the painting, while the merchant who commissioned the work didn't get the Mia Donna Lisa either!
Whether done without the thought of getting money for it or commissioned; Art is Art...as paying those wonderful Artists on a movie payroll

Nature is our Muse, our Truth, our Universal and our Model! Art is the interpretation of those four major movers!

 

[JPH]

I've seen what you're describing here happen far too many times: first is the "I'm my argument" mentality, where if a position or point is connoted negatively, it is treated as an ad hominem attack. But the reply in kind is an actual ad hominem attack that is designed to injure, insult and psychologically/ emotionally maim the other party in the discussion.

This then leads to transference: the act of accusing others of what they themselves are actually doing. Rather than admit on their end that they
are acting in aggression, they instead seek to point the finger at their chosen target(s) and claim they are the ones causing the problem. In doing so, they appoint themselves the judge of those they disdain for the high crime of having a viewpoint that assails their "sacred cow", and seek to destroy them if they can. If they cannot, they elect to harry and harass in order to cause palpable harm.

Finally, there is The Law of the Grand Exception™. Basically, it's those same individuals assuming that everyone else as well as their own topics are subject to their own scathing scrutiny, but that the topics they cherish and hold as sacred tenets should not be subject to any scrutiny whatsoever, and that their behavior is somehow sacrosanct. The matter becomes about the who rather than the what; the end result is that those objecting to any sort of critique of the material at hand "hold court" over what may and may not be discussed.

All of this results from one basic source: emotion. The person becomes so enthralled with the ideas they hold to that they fuse with them at the emotional level. Reason becomes a tertiary issue (if at all), and any discussion on a subject, franchise, show, topic or otherwise quickly devolves into the "You speak against what I love so I shall DESTROY YOU" stance. No objective discussion can be held with them at this juncture because anything other than emotional affirmation and "head patting" will be seen as an act of war. No act of appeasement will suffice for them (short of utter humiliation and public "groveling" for their disdainful approval), and any effort to ignore them they will see as an insult for "daring to exclude them from 'their rightful domain'".

What is the answer then?

When those that practice these socially sadistic acts behave in such a manner as to prevent the discourse/ critique of ideas, topics, subjects or franchises, the only avenue remaining is unfortunately ignoring them. This means even blocking any attempt by them to make their presence known (blocking/ ignoring emojis and the like). When reason and calm discussion is refused and replaced with the shrill screech of emotionalism, the only recourse is to not acknowledge their presence. It most likely will not change their views, but until they are able to exchange differences of opinion without resorting to namecalling, emotional blackmail, verbal sadism and childish accusations based on transference, they should not have a voice amongst those simply seeking to examine these issues in a reasonable, amicable manner.

one of the first steps towards *political system that grants equal rewards* is to devalue the professional class. - paraphrasing Marx.

Some people formulate their opinions through a collection of facts, gathering relevant data and then draw a conclusion. Ultimately, it is a scientific method.

Others seem to draw opinions from from emotion, sometimes even liking something before experiencing it.
...but an opinion is an opinion, so my opinion cancels out yours. ;P

Suddenly, we are all on equal ground, despite proficiency, experiences, etc..

Tell that to your auto insurance, cuz they sure do seem to hate young people.

Who is more susceptible to hype? Does anyone get *less* proficient at a process the *MORE* they do it? Do you make better choices now than 5, 10,20 years ago?

The longer you are alive, the more chance to learn and experience. And I do realize there are exceptions, but that is a tangent, a marginal argument to avoid the real issue.

Devaluing experience and education is a common theme in movies as well. The awkward, less-educated noob saves the tribe, despite the cranky, old get-off-my-lawners who have imprisoned everyone in *THEIR* past. And to further entrench my point, even the noobs who accomplish great things, did so on the backs/shoulder of those old farts who built the world they live in.


Anyone go to college as a PhD on day one, they knew everything at the start, then learned *less* and experienced *less* as time went on?

Let's start a Dungeons and Dragons game, we all start at level 20, working our way to level 1. Watch as your Magic User goes from Wish spell and Power Word Kill to Magic Missile.

That's not how time works, that's not how any of this works. The longer you are on the planet, (HOPEFULLY) the more you learn, the smarter you get, the wiser your decision.

Who wants their brain from 5, 10, twenty years ago in TODAY's body?

Who would love to have their current brain in their body from 5, 10, 20 years ago?


The debate tactic is leading with the most damning argument against your case, as if it is a strength.
It is becoming more and more popular as people get challenged on social media, don't like the outcome, then reset their debate for the next forum or post. If that doesn't work, just be offended. Meanwhile, the people who are providing a seasoned opinion aren't allowed to (EDIT) voice how as--backwards it is. "Ohhhh,, you're so mean!"


Well, I still welcome other people's input. You might have a good idea. I might have a terrible one, but someone who has been doing anything proficiently for a while is usually more reliable than someone who hasn't...that's just common sense.

When you ask someone for help on RPF, do you go to the person who has done it before, successfully, many times, or do you focus in on the "I've never done this before but have you tried..." and spend your time and money there?

 

[Cephus]

That gets back at what I was talking about above with the sort of two-track thinking about shows. Like you, I appreciate certain things in the context of their time. I recognize what the cultural milieu was for that era, I go in knowing that and understanding it, and then I watch the story from that perspective. As a result, I find a lot more stuff out there that I can enjoy, so...uh....yay for me.

As I said, I just watched through the entire Bionic Woman series. The way that a lot of women were treated in the 70s doesn't mesh well with modern views. It wasn't abusive, but it was certainly "she needs a man" and "she's going to get manhandled and treated in a sexist manner by most of the men in the show". That's just how it was back then. My wife and I recently got the first season of Charlie's Angels on DVD and that's how that show is too. You just have to deal with it and learn to look past it. You don't have to like the context but you have to accept that it was there. By the same token, I can go back and watch the 30s and 40s Charlie Chan movies, which starred white actors Warner Oland and Sidney Toler as Chan. Lots of people would consider that racist and the like today, but too bad. That's how it was done back then. You deal with it. You have to accept the context of the time in which the films were made, not the context in which they're being watched. If you can't, you've got some problems and a lot of people have problems these days.

The flipside, though, is that for a lot of people, looking past the older context can be harder for any number of reasons. And a LOT of older entertainment just...wasn't really made for them. It's there, it's available for them to enjoy, but it's not really for them as the primary target audience. My wife doesn't really dig the old James Bond films from the Connery era. Or at least, she can kind of take or leave them. It doesn't really interest her. There's the underlying misogyny of the era (to say nothing of the campiness of some of the latter Connery entries, which I don't think anyone could deny -- sorry, but Diamonds Are Forever is...pretty over-the-top ridiculous), the fact that there are no characters that she really relates to or cares to relate to, and then separate from that all of the pacing, camera-work, rear-projection-looks-fakey-now issues, etc. She likes the newer ones ok, but the old stuff...eh, she'll surf her phone if it's on, but it's never something she's like "Ooh, yeah, let's put on Thunderball!"

Films aren't made "for" anyone. They are a product. You either want to consume said product or you don't. Films and TV shows are made to make money. If you're not interested, keep your money. It's not that hard to understand. There are entire genres of films, books, TV shows, etc. that I have absolutely zero interest in consuming. So what? I just don't consume them. I don't sit around and insult anyone who does or declare said genres to be evil, as we see a lot of people doing today. Live and let live. That's fine. But at least have a reason WHY you like or don't like a thing. If it's just that you don't care for it, fine. Then you're not part of the conversation any longer. Go find something else to do. There's no place for anyone who has no definable thoughts about any media property in a group set up for talking about them. "I like it" or "I don't like it" doesn't really mean anything. If you can't articulate why you like it or why you don't like it, then no conversation can take place. It's just expressing an opinion without nuance and what's the point of that?

I think that kind of attitude is present pretty broadly in society. It's not people trying to "cancel" this or that, as much as it is people saying "This offers nothing for me, really. I'm not interested in it. It's a relic of a bygone age." And I suspect that, at least for me, part of why I can appreciate a broader swath of stuff is because...I'm a straight, white dude. I don't think it's either controversial or political to simply state the fact that there is a TON of entertainment in the latter half of the 20th century that is targeted directly at guys like me, and which kind of ignores....everyone else. In the past, folks maybe took what they could get because there weren't really even options for entertainment for them, but that's not true anymore, so why would they spend their time watching stuff that just isn't really for them? Like, I don't spend a ton of time watching romcoms or dramas like Steel Magnolias. I'm sure Steel Magnolias is a terrific film, well acted, well put together, too. I just...eh...I have no real desire to spend my time watching it because it's not really for me. It's available to me to watch if I want, but I'm definitely not the target audience, ya know?

It actually is today. You get people deciding, reasonably arbitrarily, that some things are "bad" and that, because they don't personally approve, not only will they not partake, which is certainly their right, but no one has a right to partake. It's one thing to say you don't want to see it, that's up to you. You just don't have any right to tell others that they can't see it. You don't have a right to blindly insult the audience because you don't like the property. It's bad enough when people can't even clearly communicate why they don't like a thing, but they think that gives them a right to demand that others can't like that thing either. Unless a coherent conversation can be had where each side lays out their arguments, then nothing ever gets accomplished. You don't get to declare, by fiat, that you're right, everyone else is wrong, so there. That's not how reality works.

I'm a white guy too but I don't give a crap that I'm a white guy. I don't look at anyone that way. I don't care what your race, gender, sexual orientation or anything else is and, here's the shock, I don't think anyone else should too. The only way to get rid of racism is to get rid of race. Stop caring. Don't make movies for black people or white people or green people or blue people. Just make good movies. I think Idris Elba would have made a fantastic Bond when he was younger, but that's not because he's a black actor and "we need a black Bond!" It's because he's a damn good actor with zero regard for his skin color. It shouldn't matter at all. It's like having a female Doctor. I have nothing against Jodie Whittaker. I think she's a fine actress. If they wanted to hire her, as the best available candidate for Doctor Who, more power to them. However, that's not why they did it. They did it to promote an agenda. There's no more reason for "it's time for a female Doctor" than there is "it's tine for a black Bond". Race and gender don't matter. Just hire the best people that you can! You don't need to "see yourself on screen". That's positively childish. How far does that go? Demanding only blue-eyed actors and actresses? Hire Boban Marjanović as an actor because somehow, NBA players need representation too? Where does the insanity end and people just say "who cares? Make a good movie!" Because the people who are really racist here, the people who are proudly promoting one skin color over another, those are the ones running around calling everyone else racist.

The rest of us just don't give a damn.

 

[Picard102]

If you can't, you've got some problems and a lot of people have problems these days.

There is a difference between being able to recognize that it was "how it was" at the time, and being required to like it still.
No one has to appreciate the Bionic Woman despite it's sexism. That doesn't mean they have a problem.

Films aren't made "for" anyone.

They absolutely are. Every film has a target audience.

You don't have a right to blindly insult the audience because you don't like the property. You don't get to declare, by fiat, that you're right, everyone else is wrong, so there. That's not how reality works.

Like saying that people under a certain age can't have intelligent conversations? That people are lazy, or pathetic? That because their opinion isn't defined by yours that it's wrong?

They did it to promote an agenda.

This is the real crux of it, and has been danced around in this thread. Many of the issues come down to political ideologies. One side see's purposely casting XYZ as some sort of societal malaise. The other sees it as opening up the franchise to other experiences and story opportunities. Casting XYZ specifically for their gender or race happened for decades, but it benefited mostly one race and gender.

 

[Psab keel]

We're told constantly that our opinions are wrong or unwanted. I fail to see this moral posturing as even remotely genuine when you won't say dick about the behavior of some of your peers. Get your own house in order.