Quit It

[Callmeindy]

You seem to be having a problem with Hollywood for pushing the narrative of the goodness of marriage but that's just part of a society-wide push for things that help society. It?s not just normal for Hollywood to push for marriage as winning in the end, it?s _normative_.

Societies _want_ to encourage marriage because, like capitalism, it fucking works bitches. The standard monogamous marriage is simply put the best system for making stable kids to grow up to be the next generation of society. Sure, you can get individual successes who weren't raised in that matrix, but in group terms not so much.

Google the statistics on married people vs non-married people (and their kids!) and there are tons of benefits besides the obvious ones.

"From the work of Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially has become the go-to reference for information.

They argue that ?permanency? is the foundation for all the good things that result. Once people feel secure, they are free to develop themselves, as well as divide the responsibilities of daily living.
* The National Center for Health Statistics conducted a survey of 127,545 people. Results? ?Married people reported better overall health, less low back pain, fewer headaches and less stress than singles. They were also less likely to drink and smoke, and were more physically active.?
* In the money arena, married folks fare much better than their single counterparts. Two incomes, shared expenses, and the ability to provide healthcare at better rates are obvious. The National Institute on Aging found people (age 51-61) had twice as much money as Singles! Married men, in particular, seem to earn more, too. When combined with the higher education?and subsequent salaries?of married women, the economics of matrimony are hard to dispute. (Pew Research Center)
* Let?s talk about sex. Waite and Gallagher report that a University of Chicago National Sex Survey shows that marriage facilitates sexual activity: ?Sex is easier in marriage? it costs less time, money, and psychic energy. It?s easy to arrange and so compatible with the rest of their day to day life.? Waite found that married people had sex twice as often as singles. She also interpreted studies to say that married sex is more satisfying, but this finding is seen as subjective.
* Geez, even sleep is better! I was surprised to learn this?I?d expected restlessness and blanket battles to give Singles the edge in the slumber department. Not so, according to several studies, including the University of Arizona, and an eight-year study presented at the Associated Sleep Professional Societies meeting."

Also there are some dark sides to not being married like, women who are shacking up are four times as likely as wives to become victims of violence, and their children are 40 times as likely to be abused by live-in boyfriends as by their own parents.

The kids are 40 times more likely to be abused. Geeze, I don't know about you but that scares me.

Here's some notes I took on a good book on the subject;
http://mikesbooknotes.blogspot.com/2007/03/marriage-and-caste-in-america-separate.html

Oh, and as always, Cracked rocks;

http://www.cracked.com/article_17063_5-reasons-being-single-sucks-even-more-than-you-thought.html

So yea, you're never going to see tons of movies on how non-traditional relationships (from the hooking up culture to polyamory) are just great because while they can work for individuals they just don't work very well on a society-wise basis.

Hollywood shows happily in love monogamous couples for the same reason it shows in-shape fit attractive people: in their hearts that is what most people want to be.

 

[Gindil]

Why not take a few ideas from Bollywood. They sure seem to come up with a lot more than the ones in the West.

 

[omicron1]

Snip.

I agree I want all my films devoid of any personal opinion.

"/sarcasm"

Personal opinion and commercial products make strange bedfellows, good sir. In much the same way that a democrat might complain about or publicly boycott Decision Points or Going Rogue, I have issues with being fed a heaping helping of Liberal Politics in my movies.

This would be just fine, I suppose, if there were a substantial counter market that catered to me. Goodness knows there are enough books that indict Palin or Bush to counteract the right-leaning stance of their personal biographies. Sadly, as MovieBob noted, Hollywood leans left, and with that angle comes an overwhelming balance of movies which seem determined either to convert me or ridicule me - and which, as a result, I would have no overwhelming desire to see, were there suitable alternatives.
This is a monopoly of ideas, where one ethical standpoint, one view of the world, has both dominant control and no real competition in its market. And that, as may be easily surmised, is a Bad Thing(tm).

But all this doesn't really get at the other side of the issue, which is "Why are political views cropping up in nonpolitical movies?" Why do Prince Dastan's brothers make thinly-veiled references to the War in Iraq? Why is the bad guy in Avatar a copy-and-paste of the worst caricatures of George W. Bush? Why are all the Christians in Kingdom of Heaven evil, all the Muslims sympathetic, and all the atheists Mary Sues? If you go to a Michael Moore film, you expect political ranting. If I go to see a period drama or a historical epic, or an action film, I don't - and especially not ridiculous politically motivated caricatures of me, the audience member!

 

[Casual Shinji]

Your comments on that last cliché didn't make a lick of sense; Hollywood does take a very clear stance in regards to democrats and rebuplicans. So much so that it's making me fucking sick.

If there's a movie about American politics, you can bet your ass it's showning poor, unfortunate democrats opposing the evil, oppressive republicans. Hmmm, I wonder you will win?

The fact that Avatar has that oh-so-topical Bush quote, just goes to show what a shallow piece of tree-hugging drivel it is. Just as in Revenge of the Sith when Padme makes that little comment about democracy dying. *ugh*

If there's one Hollywood cliché I wish we could get rid of, it's the stereotypical evil, conniving republican.

 

[Squarez]

Snip.

I agree I want all my films devoid of any personal opinion.

"/sarcasm"

Personal opinion and commercial products make strange bedfellows, good sir. In much the same way that a democrat might complain about or publicly boycott Decision Points or Going Rogue, I have issues with being fed a heaping helping of Liberal Politics in my movies.

This would be just fine, I suppose, if there were a substantial counter market that catered to me. Goodness knows there are enough books that indict Palin or Bush to counteract the right-leaning stance of their personal biographies. Sadly, as MovieBob noted, Hollywood leans left, and with that angle comes an overwhelming balance of movies which seem determined either to convert me or ridicule me - and which, as a result, I would have no overwhelming desire to see, were there suitable alternatives.
This is a monopoly of ideas, where one ethical standpoint, one view of the world, has both dominant control and no real competition in its market. And that, as may be easily surmised, is a Bad Thing(tm).

But all this doesn't really get at the other side of the issue, which is "Why are political views cropping up in nonpolitical movies?" Why do Prince Dastan's brothers make thinly-veiled references to the War in Iraq? Why is the bad guy in Avatar a copy-and-paste of the worst caricatures of George W. Bush? Why are all the Christians in Kingdom of Heaven evil, all the Muslims sympathetic, and all the atheists Mary Sues? If you go to a Michael Moore film, you expect political ranting. If I go to see a period drama or a historical epic, or an action film, I don't - and especially not ridiculous politically motivated caricatures of me, the audience member!

Fair enough that there are films with mis-handled, heavy handed or just plain out of place political bias. But that doesn't mean that films should stop putting political messages in their films.

Also, "Personal opinion and commercial products make strange bedfellows". Implying that most movies are made with the single intent of making money.

 

[rsvp42]

One additional archetype I'd like to add to this mix:
"Insert Cause Here" is obviously right!
This is basically a propaganda structure, designed as a vehicle for a particular worldview, with the protagonist having Mary Sue tendencies and the antagonist being an over-the-top straw man. If you agree with the movie's message you may enjoy it (although it's not exactly a message film then, is it?); if not, you will probably revile the experience (something about being represented by an over-the-top evil straw man doesn't fit well with many people), assuming you even see it in the first place. It may have an actual plot to go along with its message, or the message may play second-fiddle to whatever else the film is up to, but the subtext is always there, always pushing its viewpoint at anyone watching the movie.

[...]

Half your potential audience is conservative, Hollywood. You do yourself no favors by making fun of us in your movies.

Then perhaps more "conservative" film-makers should be putting forth similarly-veiled messages to balance things out. I don't think directors or story-writers should neuter their films' messages because some folks might take offense to them. And actually, the fact that people take offense to them is probably a good thing. Part of the problem is that people have labeled things like environmentalism and conservation as being "liberal" agendas, when they should be basic human agendas. And V For Vendetta's message of questioning the government and ensuring that power is in the hands of the people is actually really compatible with the conservative ideal of smaller federal influence. V For Vendetta came at a time when loss of freedom for the sake of safety was on a lot of people's minds. This is not a purely "liberal" concern and people should be wary of that regardless of who's in power.

 

[WaderiAAA]

It really bugs me when a political movie is set in the real world and clearly draws paralels to existing political partys but doesn't mention it. It isn't just in the US either. I saw a crime movie where the bad guys were from a fictional party known as "the people party" whose policies and way of communicating them (though hopefully not the crimes) were exactly the same as an existing party named the progress party.

 

[JackieTreehornJr]

Nice article except for opne point.

He tampered in God's Domain!!!
In real life, scientists do some of the most important and far-reaching good of any vocation on the planet Earth. They cure disease, revolutionize industry, clean the air and water, solve pressing global concerns and invent the technology by which our better-publicized do-gooders, er... do their good. It's one of the noblest and most tangibly-worthy professions one could possibly pursue.

In the movies? Not so much. Science is BAD. It unleashes monsters, provides fodder for sinister conspiracies and changes society is scaaaaary ways. And the scientists who carry it out? Awful, awful human beings, shirking their responsibility to maintain the status quo and choosing the unclean path of knowledge over the pristine, flower-strewn road of blind faith and unquestioning loyalty to tradition and "the norm."

"There are things man wasn't MEANT to know!," goes the saying... presumably, one of those things is how such an insipid sentiment has survived all the way into the 21st Century.

Now I want to preface this by saying that I'm pro-science and I aknowledge that the only way I'm able to even say this is the result of thouisands of lives dedicated to scientific research and I hate the wjole Rousseauian idea of the natural state being perfect. But that doesn't change the fact that "Technology is dangerous!" totally has real world precidence. The most important scientific development of the 20th centuary was first used to kill 250,000 people and then began a political situation where the whole world was under constant threat of annhilation that lasted for almost 45 years. You say that scientific advance allows us to save lives and that's true, but it has allowed us to take them far more effciently.

This is very much true. Explain to me Bob, why we NEED to replicate the conditions of the origin of the universe in the coming years. Whatever reassurances anyone gives, The Large Hadron Collider creating millions of miniature black holes on Earth for the purposes of studying what particles existed back then does kind of scare me. Seems there is a precedent in the 21st century for people to still be fearful of potentially dangerous scientific discoveries.

 

[MovieBob]

Why not take a few ideas from Bollywood. They sure seem to come up with a lot more than the ones in the West.

I promise you, that's not even the nuttiest parts of that movie

This is everything you need to know about "Endhiran" - other than that it's kind of awesome: The Good Robot, the Evil-Version of the Good Robot, ALL of the Evil-Version's Henchmen and the scientist who built the Robot are ALL played by the SAME actor; who is apparently so important in India his onscreen credit calls him "Superstar." And if Mike Meyers finds out you can do this, we are all doomed...

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

man the villains in Avatar were horribly written, though at least they were so bad they were HILARIOUS. Anyway, interesting article about cliches in Hollywood. I'm not gonna rag on people for writing something archetypal, but the cliches Bob mentioned are REALLY getting on my nerves. The whole "simple life is underrated" idea comes off to me like people want to think that being a drone is somehow fulfilling. I know SOMEONE has to do office jobs and be the janitors of the world (in the words of Frank Fontaine "somebody's gotta scrub the toilets") but saying that mundanity is great is foolish

 

[Fleaman]

Nice article except for opne point.

He tampered in God's Domain!!!
In real life, scientists do some of the most important and far-reaching good of any vocation on the planet Earth. They cure disease, revolutionize industry, clean the air and water, solve pressing global concerns and invent the technology by which our better-publicized do-gooders, er... do their good. It's one of the noblest and most tangibly-worthy professions one could possibly pursue.

In the movies? Not so much. Science is BAD. It unleashes monsters, provides fodder for sinister conspiracies and changes society is scaaaaary ways. And the scientists who carry it out? Awful, awful human beings, shirking their responsibility to maintain the status quo and choosing the unclean path of knowledge over the pristine, flower-strewn road of blind faith and unquestioning loyalty to tradition and "the norm."

"There are things man wasn't MEANT to know!," goes the saying... presumably, one of those things is how such an insipid sentiment has survived all the way into the 21st Century.

Now I want to preface this by saying that I'm pro-science and I aknowledge that the only way I'm able to even say this is the result of thouisands of lives dedicated to scientific research and I hate the wjole Rousseauian idea of the natural state being perfect. But that doesn't change the fact that "Technology is dangerous!" totally has real world precidence. The most important scientific development of the 20th centuary was first used to kill 250,000 people and then began a political situation where the whole world was under constant threat of annhilation that lasted for almost 45 years. You say that scientific advance allows us to save lives and that's true, but it has allowed us to take them far more effciently.

The Internet was the most important scientific development of the 20th century.

But atomic weapons were pretty good too. Nothing puts responsibility into you like knowing that the decision you make could cause your everything in your country to stop existing. Peace exists either when nobody in the room can kill each other, or when everyone can.

 

[Axolotl]

The Internet was the most important scientific development of the 20th century.

Not even close, yes the internet as changed the way we live our lives and willl continue to do so it's ultimately just a platform for sharing information. Nuclear power on the other hand, even ignoring it use as an energy source, nuclear weapons defined the political situation for the entire world for 45 years just from the possiblity of their use.

But atomic weapons were pretty good too. Nothing puts responsibility into you like knowing that the decision you make could cause your everything in your country to stop existing. Peace exists either when nobody in the room can kill each other, or when everyone can.

Yes but look at the ammount of times during the cold war where technical errors almost caused people to fire them. Now I'm not anti science, I'm not even anti-nuclear weapons all I'm saying is that the "science has doomed us all!" cliche does have real world grounding.

 

[Echo136]

The "lose everything to find the one thing that mattered" cliche crept up in Megamind, as well as the midlife crisis, in a way. Everything about that movie was tired and predictable.

 

[irani_che]

when the first pics of the movie came out with wolverine and co. in black, there was a huge fan backlash (myself included) over the lack of yellow in his costume.
I thought the yellow spandex was a good in-joke.

Also, there can never be too much being harsh on hippies, arts students, slackers and people who waste everyones time in a coffee shop. bee this in a movie or on the pavement

 

[A Gray Phantom]

Things I learned from movies that are totally true:

#1). All cops are bad and should never be trusted. Unless you live in Detroit, where cops are the good guys and one of them is a cyborg.

#2). The clergy are all evil and want to rape your babies. Unless you are a swashbuckling masked vigilante with a penchant for vandalizing walls with your initial.

#3). Robots are evil and are plotting to replace mankind. Unless you live on the moon.

#4). Explosions don't actually kill people, they only push you around. Also, falling off cliffs won't kill you either. In fact, if you find yourself shot to hell and re surely to bleed to death, then your only option is to throw yourself from the highest point so your body will never be recovered and you can come back in the sequel.

#5). You and your best friend from the sandbox are going to throwdown in a knife-edge deathmatch.

#6). That boy kicked sand in your face because he really really likes you. BULL! Seriously what the heck are we teaching kids? Abuse=love? And how about the natural conditioning that young women receive from various media that raises them to be competitive and non-supportive of their fellow female peers? It reinforces a "Mean Girl" stereotype. What is up with that? Who writes that sort of stuff?

Okay, so number six was more rantitude than the former ones. Anyone else have things that they learned from movies?

 

[SanguineSymphony]

The reverse of the First entry ( He had to lose Everything to find the One thing that really matters) reminded me of One Life Furnished in Early Poverty. It was filmed as an episode of the 80s TZ.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

"There are things man wasn't MEANT to know!," goes the saying... presumably, one of those things is how such an insipid sentiment has survived all the way into the 21st Century.

Hollywood hates science and logic. They get in the way of their movies' plots (re: The Core).

As long as science continues to make sense, movies wont.

 

[Elexia]

I'm an Australian and recently undertook a Hollywood-based screen writing course. It's interesting because we get taught to make 'familiar' and 'safe' ideas in order to sell them. Producers need to be guaranteed audiences. But I'd think the more 'familiar' and 'common' an idea, the more likely audiences will tire of them. How hard is it to pitch a really new idea?

Anyway, in this course, everyone is writing predictable drama or comedy while I've got a character-driven story, ambiguous antagonist and poignant yet unpredictable ending. But I feel I've really shot myself in the foot because I can't pitch my idea as 'Godfather 2 meets Shrek' or something. I need more to sum it up, because there's nothing to compare it to.

I'm not afraid to write a totally unusual story. My biggest fear is hearing the words "it's been done before", but sadly, in Hollywood, the unfamiliar isn't a recipe for success.

 

[iamjonah]

From the article:
Y'know what I'd like to see? A movie about a rich, powerful talented/creative type who wigs out and decides he needs to "get back to what's important" by going back to whatever Nowheresville "good ol' fashioned community" he came from... only to rediscover what a soul-crushing existence it really is, and how fortunate he was to get out. Y'know, just for some balance if nothing else.

This made me think of the movie "Trading Places". Dan Aykroyd's character ends up being forced to live the poor life - and he hates it. Similarly, Eddie Murphy's character is introduced to the rich life after living the poor life - and swears that he'll never be poor again. They both spend the 2nd half of the movie both becoming rich (yes, I realize that this isn't the complete plot - but it's still one of the main points).

Now that I think about it, I miss alot of the 80's movies where the poor but creative/hardworking/talanted main character becomes rich (and never looks back). Much more interesting, and IMO, a much more positive message than "be happy being mediocre".