Quit It

[The Random One]

I usually don't comment much on Bob's articles because I know squat about movies, but I'll chime in on this one.

For the 'yellow spandex' joke: I knew an über nerdy guy (even for my standard) whose comment on the first X-man movie was essentially, 'it has this joke, and it's great'. The joke, not the movie. It's just a call-out, essentially standing by their idea that the movie doesn't need to take every little thing from the source material as gospel. And the X-man costumes are pretty ridiculous. X-man is a series with great characters and stories, that's where the respect should come from, not in Wolwerine's choice of underwear.

For the 'Oh god what has science done' thing: Seriously, what movies have been doing this? I remember watching a cool documentary on how the view has changed on science on movies, and how it reflects America's view on the world. Back in the 60's, when paranoia run rampant and everyone feared the bomb, the scientists were the bad guys. They were always 'this will do more good than it does harm!' then they were always 'don't kill the evil murderous beast, we must study it!' then they were like 'OH GOD I AM BEING KILLED BECAUSE OF MY OWN HUBRIS' and then the nice military folks would drop a bunch of bombs on the movie's monster and win. Now, in the technological utopia of the hipster age, the scientists are always like 'This is the way to kill the monster, I have discovered in on my Macbook because I am so smart' but the military is always like 'No let's bomb it!' then they are like 'BOMB IT NOW' then they are like 'THE BOMB AS ONLY MADE IT STRONGER WHY DIDN'T I LISTEN TO THE SCIENTIST ALSO I AM DYING' then the scientist is like 'We need to do it my way with a group of five to eight quirky people one of whom will die' and then they're like 'Once again science saves the day!' Seriously, I can't think of one movie since the eighties in which the evil comes from rampant science and in which the military aren't bumbling morons.

As for the last one... you know, if they named names in that movie, they'd harm their reputation not only with Republicans but also with Democrats. I mean, the Democrats are keeping the black man down! It reminded me of Warren Ellis' Transmetropolitan, in which there are two parties in American fashion, but they don't even have names, they're just 'the situation' and 'the opposition'. They don't even stand for anything any more. I'm not going to imply that a Christ Rock movie went through that kind of metaphor, but if we're doing an analysis of the larger metasituation, then parties don't have names because they don't - what's the difference anyway?

 

[kaizen2468]

i like reading these and never had any trouble following him, but this time i got lost in all the movie/people references he's making.

 

[Warachia]

Well this article was pathetic, but that's only because you do know Bob that you wrote this article in the past and also made more than one video talking about these issues right?

this doesn't come across as addressing clear issues, because you provide no alternative, instead it comes across as one man ordering Hollywood to change because he isn't happy.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Completely agree about the science gone wrong thing. Very annoying. Sad part is we'll be seeing more and more of it as genetic engineering advances more. You'd think that Liberal Hollywood would be for it, but it might remind them too much of Social Darwinism and the holocaust, which is completely unfair considering no one has to die for society to embrace genetic enhancement.

 

[leviadragon99]

I have to agree, many of these pointless, stupid and demeaning cliches were tired when they were first founded.

 

[Ashoten]

Not a bad list of overdone plots Bob but you forgot sports movies (reverb voice)BASED ON A TRUE STORY. I don't really care for sports movies, so I feel it's the job of Hollywood to try and make me care. Unfortunatly the only effort they put into this is to slap on a "Based on a true story" label and call it a day.

I get the feeling the label is suppose to galvanize the movie as being completly pure and honest because "hey it's about really people. what? are you one of those nerds who can't come to terms with how real men act in the real world?".

Why yes I am one of those nerds that can only appreciate sports as being an outlet for testosterone fueled and frustrated jocks. Jocks that live in a world where if you punch a man senseless for trying to steal your girl then you go to prison, but if you tackle a guy on the field then your a hero and get paid the big bucks.

The only sports based movie that I can really remember caring about is The Sand Lot which felt more real to me then a hundred "Based on a True Story" sports movies ever could.

Yes I know Bob already pointed this out in The Kings Speech but I've hated this cliche LOOOOONG before I even heard of MovieBob. Yes I also leaned over to my freinds in the theater while watching Avatar at the 5 min mark and said "I've seen this movie before. It was called Dances with wolves. Wait maybe I'm thinking of The Last Samurai".

While were talking about Avatar lets talk about the cliche I hate most of all. No not the whole thinly vein native americans dressed up as the oppressed. I'm talking about "The Hero whos only motivation is to F&^K the pretty girl".

Avatar is painfully guilty of this because the movie goes out of its way to show us that the "evil corporation" wants to negotiate with the natives, and send in the protagonist to do the talking. Well wouldn't you know it the self absorbed jerk off spends the whole time trying to impress the chiefs daughter and get into her pants. Of course he then acts shocked when the bulldozers roll up to knock over the trees.

We are suppose to be assumed that the corporation is SOOOOO evil that they would have knocked over the trees anyway but they don't have the option to continue negotiations because their negotiator was slacking off the whole time. Of course the hero only really tries to "save the day" after the sacred trees been uprooted. He was in a good position to try and work things out before everything got s#!t on. But it seems like he really doesn't care until he is forced to act for the sake of being able to continue porking the blue hotty.

Am I wrong for wanting a hero whos motivations are based on something a little bit more substantial then rescuing the fair maiden? I don't think so.

 

[Optimystic]

"He had to lose Everything to find the One thing that really matters."

I see where you're coming from, and that story would definitely be interesting if made carefully. But if it was just a story about a rich guy proving money CAN buy happiness then it's even more shallow than that particular clichée.

I don't think it's so much about "money CAN buy happiness!" as it is that "simpler is not always better." Some people are just not cut out for the banal life - they have talents and aspirations that are so much bigger.

There is an outlet for such movies, and it isn't shallow at all - the "Success story" genre, like Justin Bieber's flick, or The Social Network, or any other rags to riches "I-had-a-great-idea/talent-and-ran-with-it" type deal. What Bob is saying though, is that there are much smaller successes along these lines that happen much more frequently and are not explored. You don't have to invent Facebook to be a success, but it seems you do have to do that to be film-worthy. Where's the small-town guy that became a doctor, or the small-town girl that became a college professor, or the inner-city kid that joined a successful accounting firm? Do these people have to perform the world's first heart transplant or unravel pi to be remarkable?

 

[brazuca]

And let's not forget that James Cameron published his film by 20th Century Fox, whose owner is none less than Ruppert Murdoc an open Republican.

Hidig your orientation bob is an old tatic. It's made in a way that after you identify with your caracther you will search for an equivalent in the real world. Make no mistake no other industry carries more ideology than the movie one. As for Hollywood being democrat... Well actors and screen writers may be democrats, but producers and studio owners are republican to the bone.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

This was a decent article, but I don't think you really provided enough examples for me to really say, "Yeah, that happens way too much!" In fact, it seems like most of the things you pointed out are rather dated in their presentation to the audience, I can't think of a great deal of them that constantly pop up in the media.

 

[Silkavenger]

Second this motion. I mean when people were teenagers didn't we all look for all sorts of ways not to be normal? We wanted to be special, unique, awesome or at least cool. When did conformity to normality become cool? Answer: it did when we needed to find a job. And let me tell ya those corporations seem to frown on individual expression. I still think Beast Boy said it best, "Normal is highly overrated."

Hold on a sec, are you sure about that?

High school kids spend almost every waking moment try to copy those around them and live up to the expectations of others in order to gain acceptance. They copy how those around them dress, how they talk, the type of music they like, what lunch table they sit at: all copied in a perpetual dance of effort ti fit in. Even social "misfits" are merely copying other misfits around them, or those sold to them on tv. They seek approval from theier group the same way a Preppy golf player would from his.

Being cool or truly unique has nothing to do with it. Being afraid of being different and alone and cloning others successfully enough that you aren't the target of total ridicule is what highschool culture revolves around.

 

[TiefBlau]

A lot of this seems more spiteful than reasonable.

No, this does not mean I'm supposed to forever condemn MovieBob as an opinionated jerk incapable of saying anything logical. Piss off, hypothetical extrapolators.

You're particularly spiteful about comic book movies being "ashamed" of their roots, and while some of it rings true (Star Trek and Transformers much?), saying that this joke is a "fuck you" to anyone who likes X-Men is going a bit far. It's just a harmless joke that most people who know anything about X-Men would understand. But then again, most comic book fans are probably oversensitive enough about mainstream adaptations of their works, so I guess you can call this "cultural insensitivity"? I'd also like to say that sometimes, violent changes in adaptation works, and it doesn't have to be "ashamed" of its source material. It's great to have different interpretations of a work. Did C.S. Lewis read the bible, say "This shit is boring", and then write the Chronicles of Narnia to replace it and make it more culturally relevant? (Okay, maybe you could argue that, but my point still stands.) I don't consider Dark Knight to be an accurate depiction of Batman, but you don't expect it to be. It's something completely different. It's the Nolanverse. The Batmobile isn't sleek and sexy, the Joker looks more like a meth addict than a clown, and Batman is a chain smoker. It's not attempting to replace or represent the franchise any more than it's attempting to substitute Tim Burton's Batman.

You also have a lot of phlegm for a lot of people who disagree with your world view. Granted, it's often phlegm in response to phlegm, as in the whole "God's Domain" nonsense and your comment about hippies, but the whole midlife crisis thing seems awfully vitriolic. You're against people having depression when they're rich and irresponsible, because it's clearly made by people who hate rich people, and you're against people overcoming depression when they're middle class and settled down because it's clearly made by people who think they made the wrong choice in doing so themselves. So when are we allowed to be depressed and overcome it? When we're artsy? When we're nerds? I consider myself more closely related to the latter two demographics, but this "cliche" complaint of yours sounds like a personal issue and nothing else.

 

[PrinceofPersia]

Second this motion. I mean when people were teenagers didn't we all look for all sorts of ways not to be normal? We wanted to be special, unique, awesome or at least cool. When did conformity to normality become cool? Answer: it did when we needed to find a job. And let me tell ya those corporations seem to frown on individual expression. I still think Beast Boy said it best, "Normal is highly overrated."

Hold on a sec, are you sure about that?

High school kids spend almost every waking moment try to copy those around them and live up to the expectations of others in order to gain acceptance. They copy how those around them dress, how they talk, the type of music they like, what lunch table they sit at: all copied in a perpetual dance of effort ti fit in. Even social "misfits" are merely copying other misfits around them, or those sold to them on tv. They seek approval from theier group the same way a Preppy golf player would from his.

Being cool or truly unique has nothing to do with it. Being afraid of being different and alone and cloning others successfully enough that you aren't the target of total ridicule is what high school culture revolves around.

I always thought that the culture of HS seemed to revolve around the freaking jocks and cheerleaders, which would explain all those school spirit rallies I had to attend back then. Also my high school experience was a LOOOONG time ago, so from my point of view, yeah thats what being in my high school was like: you got popular by being good looking, talented at sports, dressing in the latest fashion or something not related to being smart, witty, or talented in a non-sport activity. I suppose in the end that is all subjective to the experiences you go threw in the meat grinder of American life.

 

[Mister Linton]

Sure Bob, being single at your age is MUCH better than being married and having a family (and it was a conscious choice of yours no doubt). Just keep tellin' yourself that.

 

[caladors]

Sure Bob, being single at your age is MUCH better than being married and having a family (and it was a conscious choice of yours no doubt). Just keep tellin' yourself that.

That is quite possibility the most deliberately hurtful comment I have ever seen on the internet.
And I have seen Atheist talking to Theists about Islamophobia....
Anyway.

He was not saying it sucks to have a family he was saying I am so over Hollywood.
Assuming that everyone has the same cookie cutter life.
Which is fair.
Your comment was designed to hurt and degrade.
What wonders anonymity brings.

 

[Nimcha]

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.

Only if you're ignorant, really. If this machine would've been made in the 70's when the media didn't have any influence on the public opinion of science, nobody would've been scared by this completely beningn piece of machinery.

 

[theevilsanta]

At first when he was talking about how a middle class person learns that their life is pretty good after all I thought it as going to be a commentary on how the working class (lower) life really wasn't that bad. I was wrong. Bob is such a middle class reaching for upper-middle class that getting any important viewpoints out of him on the subject is impossible. He's so mired in the "intellgencia" group think of the middle class that real, true thought and opinion is impossible.