The Big Picture: A Guy Named Joe
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I really liked the points made in the show, finding your place in the world isn't as easy as it used to be, but you now have the more freedom to choose who you want to be. There is however one tiny bit is nagging me.
Vlad Tepes: not a conqueror, not a dictator, not evil. Just really bad PR and a hole lot of rich people that hated his guts.
Vlad Tepes: not a conqueror, not a dictator, not evil. Just really bad PR and a hole lot of rich people that hated his guts.
I've been increasingly critical of The Big Picture as many of them don't have anything to do with the "big picture" and often feels more like "some comic book facts off of wikipedia". But this one completely changed my view. It was well thought out, relevant, and interesting. It tackled real "big picture" issues while entertainingly tying them to relatable geek media. I enjoyed it a lot. My hat is off to you.
As always: great movie, Bob. It sparks for discussion as it should.
One thing, though: when referring to male workers, don't use a bee in the picture. Worker bees are considered female.
One thing, though: when referring to male workers, don't use a bee in the picture. Worker bees are considered female.
I thought you weren't going to mention The Expendables again?
Ahh, well... this series had a rough start (invoking Godwin's Law on Halo? Really?), but it's only been getting better.
Ahh, well... this series had a rough start (invoking Godwin's Law on Halo? Really?), but it's only been getting better.
I honestly dont think we will ever here the end of the Expendables and Scott Pilgrim, but thats an unimportant issue, his video was still hitting a major point. Good show, old boy, good show...MowDownJoe said:
This was great episode, in fact some points felt inspiring.
I just thought of something interesting though. You mention each generation's version of G.I. Joe and I though "whats this generation's version?" The first thing that came to mind was military FPS like CoD, and how popular it was for both men and boys. Its like the old G.I. Joe what with being about real life soldiers and special forces except its an interactive game. Maybe thats one of the reasons its so popular.(besides being a great game)
Try not to take most of this seriously. Like I said its just an interesting thought I had.
I just thought of something interesting though. You mention each generation's version of G.I. Joe and I though "whats this generation's version?" The first thing that came to mind was military FPS like CoD, and how popular it was for both men and boys. Its like the old G.I. Joe what with being about real life soldiers and special forces except its an interactive game. Maybe thats one of the reasons its so popular.(besides being a great game)
Try not to take most of this seriously. Like I said its just an interesting thought I had.
Scott Pilgrim from a different angle! Interestingly, you've hit the nail on what I feel is the main difference between the movie and the comic. While the movie was religiously faithful to a lot of scenes and events from the comics, it's fascinating that in the film, Scott mans up to beat up his girlfriend's exes and become a hero in the process, while in the comic, Scott and Ramona come to the realization that the world doesn't revolve around them, and they've both been jerks in their previous relationships so they're probably meant for each other. Not something easily done in a 2 hour movie while working in seven video game-esque fight scenes, so I don't blame the film for not going that route.
Yeah, there's a whole debate in psychology about this whole thing and how my generation (20's) are taking longer to be independent and stable. They're calling it 'emerging adolescence.' Life isn't as cut and dried and people don't step out of the house at 18 to become carbon-copies of their parents.
Anyway, great video.
Anyway, great video.
But do the kids who play the game aspire to be those soldiers? Does playing the game make them want to be one when they grow up? That is why I don't think it holds the same kind of place as the other G.I. Joes. It's easier to pwn n00bs in COD than it is to become a real, honest to God soldier or member of the special forces. And that's why most people would rather just play the game.Armored Prayer said:
An interesting watch with a much broader feel than a lot of the niche topics you've chosen in the past. This one gets a double high five from me.
As an aside, I thoroughly enjoyed "Scott", and only watched it at your recommendation. Thanks for pointing me in its direction.
As an aside, I thoroughly enjoyed "Scott", and only watched it at your recommendation. Thanks for pointing me in its direction.
great video
finally somebody addresses the whole Problem with the decreasing necessity for traditional manly things without either crying about it or saying that we should synthetic sperm, box human males and be done with it(and make the blur screen pink)
finally somebody addresses the whole Problem with the decreasing necessity for traditional manly things without either crying about it or saying that we should synthetic sperm, box human males and be done with it(and make the blur screen pink)
I'd say you're probably correct in saying that CoD is pretty much the modern version of GI Joe. Modern GI Joe isn't nearly as popular as it used to be, and seems to be completely irrelevant, as pointed out by Bob. Call of Duty (the first modern warfare at least) talks about the plights of the modern soldier, and demonstrates in more than one way that war is still hell. I really do think the mission where you live out the last moments of a dying soldier after the nuclear blast is one of the greatest gaming moments of the decade, just because it perfectly demonstrates our greatest fears in terms of the war on terror from the eyes of those most likely to experience it.Armored Prayer said:
Skips around the actual issue.
The problem is the rise of liberalism from the 1960s. A lot of the guys calling the shots nowadays are the same guys who were doing the anti-war crusades for Veitnam and Korea and have gotten to define morality and history according to what they wanted.
The thing is that when the boomers were rising into power in the 1980s, it was the birth of Political Correctness. The idea that we could have no bad guys, no matter what they said or did. The USSR was to be presented as a potential group of friends and allies, as opposed to a giant enemy, and you saw this in children's media with a "get them young" attitude. Understand that while the primary enemy was fictional, groups like the Russians WERE present in the form of a USSR version of GI Joe, who despite tensions GI Joe ultimatly wound up teaming up with in most cases to fight a common enemy.
This kind of mentality has given birth to a situation today where we can't clearly identify a culture like that of The Middle East as an enemy, rather we need to take a reactive perspective and only target very specific individuals like those ACTIVELY engaged in terrorism rather than the core issues. The same could be said about China, or anyone else. Unlike previous generations where the media was making no bones about treating our enemies as enemies, and suggestiong violence and military action as a method of dealing with them, today the message is a naive one where violence is always wrong, there are always magical solutions that will arrive to avoid large scale violence, and worst of all is identifying an entire broad group of people as the enemy.
Today's mentality is one where we would not go to war against "Nazism" if it was to rise the same way. Rather we'd make a big deal about only opposing those guys at the top of the food chain, and misunderstanding the huge, international culture, with the fanatical millions behind it, we would of course wind up getting our tails kicked. It says a lot when you consider that people have made arguements that Patton was unworthy to wear a US uniform by modern standards because you know... he made no bones about wanting to destroy the enemy.
The point is a society that won't let you identify the bad guys as bad guys, and does everything in it's power to avoid confrontation, or at least confrontation on the level of a "total war", "us or them" level which would actually see a resolution.
On a lot of levels the problem is your dad's day (so to speak) rather than your grandfather's day. His toys were pretty much made by his grand-dad's generation. Consider that "Dad's" generation were the "make love, not war" generation, who had no sense of national duty, dodged the draft (as opposed to seeing it as a responsibility), and even if the wars at the time were a mess took things to an absolutly ridiculous level in opposition because none of them wanted to get shot at. "Dad's Generation" pretty much defined itself by tearing down society in favor of what it wanted at the moment, and while some good did come of it, a lot more problems occured. There are a lot of sociologists who believe we pretty much face the task of needing to rebuild our society after the US Baby Boomers, and it remains to be seen if the current, indoctrinated generations (given how long they lived, there is more than one, Gen X and Gen Y) can throw off a lot of the propaganda and get things back on track.
Such are my thoughts.
The problem is the rise of liberalism from the 1960s. A lot of the guys calling the shots nowadays are the same guys who were doing the anti-war crusades for Veitnam and Korea and have gotten to define morality and history according to what they wanted.
The thing is that when the boomers were rising into power in the 1980s, it was the birth of Political Correctness. The idea that we could have no bad guys, no matter what they said or did. The USSR was to be presented as a potential group of friends and allies, as opposed to a giant enemy, and you saw this in children's media with a "get them young" attitude. Understand that while the primary enemy was fictional, groups like the Russians WERE present in the form of a USSR version of GI Joe, who despite tensions GI Joe ultimatly wound up teaming up with in most cases to fight a common enemy.
This kind of mentality has given birth to a situation today where we can't clearly identify a culture like that of The Middle East as an enemy, rather we need to take a reactive perspective and only target very specific individuals like those ACTIVELY engaged in terrorism rather than the core issues. The same could be said about China, or anyone else. Unlike previous generations where the media was making no bones about treating our enemies as enemies, and suggestiong violence and military action as a method of dealing with them, today the message is a naive one where violence is always wrong, there are always magical solutions that will arrive to avoid large scale violence, and worst of all is identifying an entire broad group of people as the enemy.
Today's mentality is one where we would not go to war against "Nazism" if it was to rise the same way. Rather we'd make a big deal about only opposing those guys at the top of the food chain, and misunderstanding the huge, international culture, with the fanatical millions behind it, we would of course wind up getting our tails kicked. It says a lot when you consider that people have made arguements that Patton was unworthy to wear a US uniform by modern standards because you know... he made no bones about wanting to destroy the enemy.
The point is a society that won't let you identify the bad guys as bad guys, and does everything in it's power to avoid confrontation, or at least confrontation on the level of a "total war", "us or them" level which would actually see a resolution.
On a lot of levels the problem is your dad's day (so to speak) rather than your grandfather's day. His toys were pretty much made by his grand-dad's generation. Consider that "Dad's" generation were the "make love, not war" generation, who had no sense of national duty, dodged the draft (as opposed to seeing it as a responsibility), and even if the wars at the time were a mess took things to an absolutly ridiculous level in opposition because none of them wanted to get shot at. "Dad's Generation" pretty much defined itself by tearing down society in favor of what it wanted at the moment, and while some good did come of it, a lot more problems occured. There are a lot of sociologists who believe we pretty much face the task of needing to rebuild our society after the US Baby Boomers, and it remains to be seen if the current, indoctrinated generations (given how long they lived, there is more than one, Gen X and Gen Y) can throw off a lot of the propaganda and get things back on track.
Such are my thoughts.
Hey Bob! As much as I am a fan of yours this was the first big picture I really enjoyed and took something away from. Makes me hopeful that this series will come in to its own!