I guess there is nuance here? I mean- we aren’t talking about the great literature of our time we we are talking about “Avengers 14” or whatever. We are talking about commercial product. Modern films put both a stunning lack of attention and a paradoxically extreme amount t of attention into details beyond story or art- marketability. How various things down to individual words or colors used play with key audiences, with globalization more attention or effort are placed into attempting to create products that can appeal to and be relatable or digested by people across languages and cultures. Poetry in writing tends to suffer- as many multi lingual folks or those dealing with translations can attest- things like common sayings and various other phrases can lose impact or change meaning or become puzzling when they are rooted very specifically to any language or cultural group/demographic.
In that sense the “story” is often not what is pushing a work along- stories are often kept simple or “broad” and modern works often attempt to do more with action and easily understood or non nuanced scenes and characters because of this.
So it is generally true that when something is crafted well to the exacting tastes of a narrow group it will tend to be well received by that specific group and ignored or not as well received by others.
When something is crafted, even well, to appeal to as many people is possible it will not generally be particularly to the tastes of any one person or group. Chain restaurants generally aren’t know for “great food” or “pushing the arts of cuisine” but they also generally aren’t known as inedible food. Some minority will love them and some will hate them but most will consider them largely “ok” or “acceptable” for a given circumstance.
Of course people are free to dislike things for whatever reason- and it’s perfectly justifiable to have issue with mass media films that are seemingly increasingly generic and simple to cater to the widest audiences possible without focusing on art or on creating a work that any one group can enjoy or connect to deeply.
Not everyone who is upset that XYZ recent film which features some sort of “representation” etc. are racist or bigots or whatever else- that’s silly. That’s like saying that anyone who doesn’t like the Shaquille O’Neil film “Steel” is a racist since it’s a film about a black hero, or that anyone who likes Schindler’s List is a Nazi because the film has prominent Nazi imagery and themes.
BUT- well… when you lead into your complaints on the new little mermaid with a complaint about the mermaid being black… yeah…. That’s at least gonna sound bigoted. I mean- if the doctor comes in to your biopsy drunk and you the first thing you bring up is that you are worried the quality of their work might be worse because they are a “diversity hire”- it maybe comes off as disingenuous to then say it’s not about race but about quality or tradition etc. or perhaps compounds it.
It certainly doesn’t help the case when so many movies and shows are pumped out each year which put their focus outside of masterful story telling; and while some like perhaps “transformers” etc. may get their share of hate- most of the hate at transformers had far less to do with the colors of the robots or models of the cars being off from the original.
deleted
· 1 year ago
If she was a blonde haired girl I still wouldn't like her. But I honestly wouldn't go see the movie if it was a 1-to-1 exact replica of the original. I feel like they should play around more with the idea of it being a live action, don't try to immitate the abimated movie because this isn't cartoons. Make use if the live action.
Also, Disney is nobody's friend, I feel that the biggest reason they look for different looking actors is to spark outrage and conflict between two sides that will never give. Can you imagine an actually good movie with a nice script and excelent writting without the free publicity? Nobody would care
So that probably doesn’t help. Of course on the internet- people don’t know you generally. They don’t know where you’re coming from or what movies you’ve trashed or why- so that doesn’t help.
So sure, we can talk about how this film or that film has its failings because of the story or this or that- but maybe lead on that?
And… maybe when a movie hasn’t even come out, or when you haven’t seen it yet, or when some huge polling or popular opinion shows a lot of people like the film… maybe like… before we declare the “all female remake of Godzilla” or whatever is trash- maybe we wait to actually see it? That might help to get people not to assume bias. It also might help to apply some introspection. I mean- I was a huge fan of “Lost in Space,” the original show. Any show they make that doesn’t use the original cast and props isn’t going to “be true to the original” most likely.
So when Netflix announced a new lost in space- where the iconic robot looked NOTHING like his original form and the preview made clear there were vast changes in casting and plot and design- would it be fair at that point to say that the new one was going to suck? Would it be reasonable to expect they would bring back the cast of the original or people who were near doppelgängers and use the original plots and story…? And… who would that be for…? The original still exists. If you want to see it and haven’t, nothing is stopping you. We have to assume anyone who hasn’t watched the original after being aware it exists and 50+ years probably isn’t interested or has other reasons not to watch it. A new one doesn’t stop re watching the old one of what you want to see is the same old thing- and for original series fans like me- why would I enjoy them remaking the show I already watched? It still wouldn’t be the same show and the world isn’t the same, the people watching aren’t the same-
The experience wouldn’t be the same. So that doesn’t really serve new audiences who haven’t watched the original and likely don’t want to, or series fans who have no reason to watch the same exact thing with new actors and some changes. Spoiler- the show MASH was HUGE- do you think if it had never been made that in 2022 a “family friendly” network censored drama-dy about the Korean War would hit quite the same? The times were different. MASH captured sentiments about the fresh Vietnam war and spoke to the culture and mindset of it’s time. Rick and Morty blew up- do you think it would be a pop culture phenomenon with merchandise you can buy at chain stores if it dropped right after Back to The Future in the 80’s or early 90’s? Probably not.
So of course they’re going to change things. Of course they generally aren’t going to “stay true” to the original in every detail and will seek ways to create a new story and an experience more in line to the times. Derp. I ended up loving the new Lost in Space and I even have some fondness for the horrible 2000’s film through all its perceived failings. It has some moments etc.
was the 2000’s film so bad because it sought to add “girl power” through giving more focus and autonomy and depth to the females of the story? No. It was off in so many details from the spirit of the original and the overall story was not great- though it had elements that could be made into a good film. So maybe that’s a good example. If you watch the 2000’s lost in space and you don’t think it is great and your notes hinge on “why’d they make the eye candy so smarty and girl bossy?” Or some such- yeah. People might think you are just a troll with a chip on your shoulder- because they could have kept those..
deleted
· 1 year ago
That was never my point. The point is that we don't KNOW if it's good or not. What we know is how much attention is getting. Regardless if you think it's good or bad or whatever, it makes you have an opinion, it makes you want to share that opinion.
I mean, look at me, I don't really care what they do with their characters, I'm just commenting because of the meme.
They like doing this because they like people talking about their movies, and it's not bad either, that's how they get away with it. But remember, Disney is not your friend, they don't care about representation, they don't care about the product, they don't care about me and you; what do they care about then? Money.
Also, I said I'd LIKE to see them change:"But I honestly wouldn't go see the movie if it was a 1-to-1 exact replica of the original. I feel like they should play around more with the idea of it being a live action, don't try to immitate the abimated movie because this isn't cartoons. Make use if the live action."
2
deleted
· 1 year ago
Though that might just be me, I hate seeing the same movie twice. I'd love a re-telling instead lf an adaptation. But I guess remake means very little nowdays
Sorry to have “talked over you,” I was writing all that in one go so wasn’t aware of your replies until I came back in.
I largely agree with you. I think that it is important to look at the discreet parts of the whole however when we start with the “they’s.”
That is to say that the creative minds behind a project may make the choice to change a character BECAUSE it will allow them to explore a story through a different lens or because they want to represent that character or even just change the aesthetic for their version.
It’s usually the “money folks” who’s job is to try and find the profit in the art, or change the art to serve profit. Content mills create content because it makes money and if they could make more money for less risk or effort would make pizza or sell vacuums instead. Then there are the people who make art for love of art but to make art must be in business to make art and so they compromise. There are the “pure” artists out there- but they rarely make…
.. enough or posses the stability to get their vision in front of mass audiences or keep solvent to do so over long periods.
In the modern world the “money” people and the “artist” are a bit blurred usually as well- it isn’t JUST the “wicked executive” who approaches art with an eye for commercialism- yo have a place to pursue and show their art many artists must create with a mind to commerce. You don’t necessarily write a script for a film about bowling because you are inspired to write this story about bowling of you want to pay your bills or have a career- as many “darling artists if the people”, creators lived by fans for “pushing the suits” with their art, tell in interviews- they often have a project they want to work on that sits for years or decades because they are pursuing work to pay the bills and make a name. Those that make it might one day find themselves able to pursue their “dream project” or even pursue it relatively free of interference- but most who make it..
.. must first “pay their dues” and ghost write for projects they are too embarrassed to put their names on or that they spend their careers insulting. Ryan Reynolds did an almost universally loved job at making Deadpool- a film that spits right into the face of the “machine” and “suits” while paying them at the same time. To get there he had to make Green Lantern and is well known lore- he had to knowingly play a complete and total insult to the character in the X-men films to get the “juice” to be free to finally make HIS Deadpool. It becomes especially true as budgets and costs balloon and margins slip that “taking a chance” isn’t something studios want to do so much. This means that yes- artists in the industry have always had to some degree to be mindful of the market ans “meta politics” of the industry- but now more projects are centered on profit from the early creative phase than ever.
Your odds aren’t great of getting that kid/family film made if the core concept doesn’t lead to merchandising or evokes the sort of controversy that destroys a film Vs. Generating buzz. Your big budget blockbuster generally needs to, down to the conceptual level, be something that is going to appeal to international markets or at least not be inherently taboo (unless the zeitgeist is such..) in those markets. So I will say that when we say “they” speaking of the industry we have to be careful. When “they” as in the writers and stars say down to make a female main cast ghost busters those people probably weren’t trying to be controversial so much as they liked ghost busters and liked comedy and wanted to be part of the history of the franchise and bring all the little girls and such that the first films essentially left with the parts at play time of “love interest in de stress” or “sarcastic secretary.”
When “they” in the board room or marketing department heard the pitch- their minds maybe went there. When the concept was first Thought up- maybe the minds at work thought about that aspect and that it could give them a financial edge in the pitch or maybe they just thought it would be cool or a way to be different. Often with these works that are re made or reimagined etc. that’s a valid concern too- big shows to fill. It may be some time if ever before you can “reboot” Indiana Jones or Star Wars without Harrison Ford as Indy and not have every little thing compared to the original actor. People will say: “Tom Hardy” or “Chris Pratt”(sp) or whoever and many within think it’s peer t and others will call it blasphemy. So it might be appealing to instead of trying to out Ford the Ford- make Indy a woman or make Indy Asian etc. now you aren’t trying to carry on as “Ford’s Jones.” There isn’t a question wether Hardy has the “iconic chin” or the “reserved masculinity” or whatever if you…
cast a woman. You’d have to be a bit brain dead to think that Niki Minaj or whatever was supposed to be a stand in for Harrison Ford- what you have is obviously a “parallel universe” sort of deal- a place where Dr. Jones was born under a different star. Which sort of makes sense especially when we shift things around- Breakfast Club is aclassic film as is Ferris Bueller or Fast Times- and they have timeless elements but they were made by and for a different time. While CG and such mean we can more easily keep setting future films in the past without worrying as props become process antiques and locations vanish from the earth- to keep things relatable or somewhat relevant they tend to move the time periods and lexicons etc a bit.
Terminator as a franchise is a great example. In the first film- skynet is a “computer” they “smash” and then it is just done. Not only was the technology and thusly what was “futuristic” different when the first film was made- the ability of the general audience to understand even concepts was different. So in later films we start to see the capabilities and particulars change. Skynet becomes a “networked intelligence” and destroying just one computer doesn’t make sense- largely because the audience of the newer films is familiar with the internet and modern tech enough to ask why skynet would be limited to a single computer. Later skynet becomes a sort of program in the cloud- because duh. Why wouldn’t it make sense for skynet to exist across whatever systems it wanted globally? Especially since its design sort of implies it would interface various computers and imbedded systems?
So when we look at a film made when the idea of black guy or a woman being able to do business and live and work where the other characters and the action occur would be like the idea of internet or the cloud to many audiences- let alone being the president of the hero or the love interest that female (or other male attracted) viewers are supposed to swoon over. When we look at films of that age and they come up to be revisited again- it’s like- why not change something like that which was a matter of what the audience or studio were ready or able to accept so that it matches the modern sensibility and understanding? That’s sort of the thing. Of course people can have opinions before a thing comes out. All I’m saying is that if the core, the center of that opinion comes back to a belief a thing will be bad because they added a woman or LGBTQ+ or whatever change like that… wether it is bigoted or not it is going to look that way.
You might have 1000 good reasons why you don’t want to date this person who might be of an ancestry that is Irish or Jamaican or Mexican or Dutch or whatever- but if you get a “trailer” or a few details and photos about them and say: “this date won’t go well…” and someone asks why you think that, and whatever reason you give basically circles back to their ancestry- it doesn’t look good. If it comes back to an assumed stereotype based on their ancestry it doesn’t look good. Here’s the thing- stereotypes can be true. They aren’t always true and sometimes they apply to more people than the group they are associated with- but if you meet enough Irish people odds are at least one will be a ginger and love to drink.
So if you see an Catholic person and don’t think they’ll make a good date because they’ll try to convert you and they’ll want kids and you don’t- maybe yeah. Also maybe no though.
In summation- opinions are like assholes- everyone has them but we don’t have to show them to the world.
An opinion doesn’t require fact. I can have opinions about Ben 10- a show I’ve never seen and only know from memes and toys at the store. Those opinions are of course ignorant and because I know nothing about the show or property.
So having an opinion based on nothing at the least shows a level of ignorance- vocal ignorance. Willful vocal Ignorance and bigotry are kissing cousins, so in context to the matter- one with ignorant opinions may not be a bigot and not all bigots are ignorant of a matter- but the factors all line up to create a situation where the bias suggests ignorance and/or bigotry and when you throw in a reasoning in a void based around issues of protected class we now have the only reason being such aspects… it comes off poorly.
*I want to be 100000% clear I am not taking about @ignorance and using the phrase ignorant earlier wasnt shade- that’s just the word. lol. I find ignorance to be well spoken and even keeled on the matter thus far and upvoted multiple of their replies.
Comments
So it is generally true that when something is crafted well to the exacting tastes of a narrow group it will tend to be well received by that specific group and ignored or not as well received by others.
When something is crafted, even well, to appeal to as many people is possible it will not generally be particularly to the tastes of any one person or group. Chain restaurants generally aren’t know for “great food” or “pushing the arts of cuisine” but they also generally aren’t known as inedible food. Some minority will love them and some will hate them but most will consider them largely “ok” or “acceptable” for a given circumstance.
Not everyone who is upset that XYZ recent film which features some sort of “representation” etc. are racist or bigots or whatever else- that’s silly. That’s like saying that anyone who doesn’t like the Shaquille O’Neil film “Steel” is a racist since it’s a film about a black hero, or that anyone who likes Schindler’s List is a Nazi because the film has prominent Nazi imagery and themes.
It certainly doesn’t help the case when so many movies and shows are pumped out each year which put their focus outside of masterful story telling; and while some like perhaps “transformers” etc. may get their share of hate- most of the hate at transformers had far less to do with the colors of the robots or models of the cars being off from the original.
Also, Disney is nobody's friend, I feel that the biggest reason they look for different looking actors is to spark outrage and conflict between two sides that will never give. Can you imagine an actually good movie with a nice script and excelent writting without the free publicity? Nobody would care
So sure, we can talk about how this film or that film has its failings because of the story or this or that- but maybe lead on that?
And… maybe when a movie hasn’t even come out, or when you haven’t seen it yet, or when some huge polling or popular opinion shows a lot of people like the film… maybe like… before we declare the “all female remake of Godzilla” or whatever is trash- maybe we wait to actually see it? That might help to get people not to assume bias. It also might help to apply some introspection. I mean- I was a huge fan of “Lost in Space,” the original show. Any show they make that doesn’t use the original cast and props isn’t going to “be true to the original” most likely.
was the 2000’s film so bad because it sought to add “girl power” through giving more focus and autonomy and depth to the females of the story? No. It was off in so many details from the spirit of the original and the overall story was not great- though it had elements that could be made into a good film. So maybe that’s a good example. If you watch the 2000’s lost in space and you don’t think it is great and your notes hinge on “why’d they make the eye candy so smarty and girl bossy?” Or some such- yeah. People might think you are just a troll with a chip on your shoulder- because they could have kept those..
I mean, look at me, I don't really care what they do with their characters, I'm just commenting because of the meme.
They like doing this because they like people talking about their movies, and it's not bad either, that's how they get away with it. But remember, Disney is not your friend, they don't care about representation, they don't care about the product, they don't care about me and you; what do they care about then? Money.
Also, I said I'd LIKE to see them change:"But I honestly wouldn't go see the movie if it was a 1-to-1 exact replica of the original. I feel like they should play around more with the idea of it being a live action, don't try to immitate the abimated movie because this isn't cartoons. Make use if the live action."
I largely agree with you. I think that it is important to look at the discreet parts of the whole however when we start with the “they’s.”
That is to say that the creative minds behind a project may make the choice to change a character BECAUSE it will allow them to explore a story through a different lens or because they want to represent that character or even just change the aesthetic for their version.
It’s usually the “money folks” who’s job is to try and find the profit in the art, or change the art to serve profit. Content mills create content because it makes money and if they could make more money for less risk or effort would make pizza or sell vacuums instead. Then there are the people who make art for love of art but to make art must be in business to make art and so they compromise. There are the “pure” artists out there- but they rarely make…
In the modern world the “money” people and the “artist” are a bit blurred usually as well- it isn’t JUST the “wicked executive” who approaches art with an eye for commercialism- yo have a place to pursue and show their art many artists must create with a mind to commerce. You don’t necessarily write a script for a film about bowling because you are inspired to write this story about bowling of you want to pay your bills or have a career- as many “darling artists if the people”, creators lived by fans for “pushing the suits” with their art, tell in interviews- they often have a project they want to work on that sits for years or decades because they are pursuing work to pay the bills and make a name. Those that make it might one day find themselves able to pursue their “dream project” or even pursue it relatively free of interference- but most who make it..
So if you see an Catholic person and don’t think they’ll make a good date because they’ll try to convert you and they’ll want kids and you don’t- maybe yeah. Also maybe no though.
An opinion doesn’t require fact. I can have opinions about Ben 10- a show I’ve never seen and only know from memes and toys at the store. Those opinions are of course ignorant and because I know nothing about the show or property.
So having an opinion based on nothing at the least shows a level of ignorance- vocal ignorance. Willful vocal Ignorance and bigotry are kissing cousins, so in context to the matter- one with ignorant opinions may not be a bigot and not all bigots are ignorant of a matter- but the factors all line up to create a situation where the bias suggests ignorance and/or bigotry and when you throw in a reasoning in a void based around issues of protected class we now have the only reason being such aspects… it comes off poorly.