The Big Picture: In Defense of Nostalgia

[Saioon]

They re-designed the Thundercats!!?

I have given up caring about films that try the nostalgia, the A-Team really killed that for me if nothing else before, if I see something that looks a good film on its merits I'll go for it.

I think nostalgia has been a political tool long before anyone thought of constitutions. Magna Carta was about the way Kings "used to" rule.

 

[Blind Sight]

Moviebob, follower of Alvin Toffler, but apparently not Edmund Burke.

I consider myself a failure, if a Liberal isn't calling me a racist nazi. >D

It's good to know that it's not just the conservative-minded people in my personal life that are backward-thinking, morally superior jerks. The ones on the internet are the same way! Reading forum posts makes me feel so much less guilty when I make sweeping generalizations about entire ways of thought.

Good to know that you counter their moral superiority complex with another moral superiority complex.

 

[Jennacide]

Best Big Picture to date, for numerous reasons.

I tend to be in the group same as Bob, that retreading properties is in general a bad idea, but doesn't mean good can't come from it. Trying to rebuild the old Baldur's Gate style of games gave us Dragon Age Origins, which was great. Bringing back the A-Team for a movie seemed like a bad idea, but the movie was actually fairly entertaining in how bombastic it got.

I don't like that all we tend to see is old properties being resurrected from the dead, but in media in general, there are so many things that have to be addressed first like the aforementioned Activision issue. They wouldn't do it if people weren't handing them buckets of cash for doing it. When shows like Hawaii 5-0 are getting good ratings, this is not a good sign. Especially when shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad are critically acclaimed, but far lower ratings thing generic shit on public TV.

And of course not gonna touch the whole Tea Party thing, it speaks for itself. I washed my hands over listening to those idiots when they started to claim they were Libertarians. That is the biggest insult Libertarians have ever recieved.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

So your argument for nostalgia in popular medium is that it isn't as bad as nostalgia in politics.... could you have picked two things that relate to each other less?

So, by your logic. I argue that companies churning out the same basic game every 2 years (ala CoD) isn't as bad as someone churning out the same bad rhetoric about immigrants and the youth of today.

I like this logical fallacy thing, I might just use it to win my arguments.

/sarcasm

No Bob. When we talk about nostalgia and your insufferable radiating of it on this website, we're talking about games and maybe films. We're not talking about politics, so drawing a parallel to it and linking it by a theme to shift the focus off what we're talking about isn't going to cut it.

Did you honestly think anyone here was actually going to let you shimmy off topic so much? I'm actually pretty shocked Bob.

The entire time he went off his political tangent I was wondering what this had to do with nostalgia in regards to geekdom, and to my surprise it didn't. <== last bit sarcasm. Honestly, I just rolled my eyes at his little political tangent, even though it had some points -like two- and I don't see how politics even relates to our nostalgia in movies and games. I must be an idiot, but I don't.

I think the last half should've been a part two of nostalgia, one part being movies and games, and the second part being politics and culture, not both of them together. Yes, one isn't as world shattering as the other, but really, we know that, we're not idiots, and I think it's a bit ridiculous to compare the two like that.

 

[Lex Hornman]

I really find it odd that every time an political opinion is given in The United States of America it's always Republican or Democrat. We have So many damn political movements it's just freaky I think we have 7 and that for a country with just 17 million people.

Well the Republicans and Democrats aren't 'movements' they're 'parties'. The difference being that movements are organizations promoting ideas and ideals while parties are organizations promoting people for political office. That the Democratic and Republican parties seem to be promoting agendas is really only a mean to the end of getting their candidates elected.

As to why there are only two parties in US politics... well, that's a bit more complicated and still not completely understood. The best explanation I've come across is the 'monopoly on the opposition' theory. You see, in many modern democracies the powers of government are typically concentrated into one organization called a parliament (which is roughly equivalent to Congress). When an election occurs the various parties group together to form a coalition which then chooses a Prime Minister (a position really more equivalent to the Speaker of the House but in practice is roughly equivalent to a US president). In the US on the other hand the people elect both the members of parliament (Congress) and the Prime Minister (President). Because the whole country is voting for the office of the President the presidential candidates don't have the luxury of appealing to only a single constituency like they would in a parliamentary republic but instead must appeal to the entire country. Which means that in order to appeal to the most people possible the parties adopt as many movements as possible. That's why there isn't a viable third party. Because every time a party forms with a cause which resonates with voters one of the two major parties adopts that cause and undermines that party's foundation. The Green Party supports broad environmental protection but you'd be 'throwing you vote away' to vote for Ralph Nader (usually their candidate) because the Democrats also supports environmental policy. The same would go for the Republicans and the Tea Party if the Tea Party ever fielded a candidate. So why is virtually every elected official either a Democrat or a Republican? Because the Democrats and Republicans control vast resources to help other candidates get elected which helps to create a monopoly on political power.

Not sure if that was clear: in short we only have two parties because we have a political office (President) elected by the entire country.

I actually know that I don't get why someone who has certain views has to be labelled Democrat/Republican. Basing an entire political standpoint over a single issue.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Yeah, his points about political nostalgia might make sense (I'm not American, so I wouldn't know), but throwing that in a discussion about popular culture to distract people from the whatever rebukes they may have, and pad out your show, isn't good debate. It's like in the middle of a discussion about the London riots, I bring up the war in the Middle-East for no reason, just to make the other thing seem small in comparison. Bob, people don't complain about nostalgia when something gets the reboot, people complain about nostalgia when someone's an annoying stick-in-the-mud, who refuses to criticize anything from times when they were happier, and hate on everything new/ different. Your argument is invalid.

 

[Blind Sight]

And of course not gonna touch the whole Tea Party thing, it speaks for itself. I washed my hands over listening to those idiots when they started to claim they were Libertarians. That is the biggest insult Libertarians have ever recieved.

Well, next to Bill Maher claiming he's a libertarian haha (could make the 'left-leaning' argument though).

Best part about the Tea Party leadership is how many of them accepted farm subsidies, which just shows you how 'libertarian' they really are. Always a shame when a grassroots political movement gets hijacked by wackos (I know a bunch of libertarians who try to work through the Tea Party and are completely frustrated by the leadership).

 

[The Philistine]

Sweet! A big picture episode that actually looks at the big picture. I like it. Not that I don't like the other episodes; I just like the ones that make me think more so.

And if my history class taught me anything its that people died of starvation from the potato's failing. And then getting stuffed on boats to countries that didn't want them.

If English class has taught me anything, its that people survived that <a href=http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html>by eating babies[footnote]You smart kids out there will notice if I actually think that, then I learned nothing in English class[/footnote].

While I do get the book I never know why people associate it with the Potatoe Famine. The book was published for over 100 years before the event.

Probably because it's a pretty good real world example of what the book discusses satirically. A starving, oppressed population of Ireland.

 

[Bad Jim]

So, reboot of Back to the Future. Let's do it.

Not a reboot. Reshoot the scenes in the original trilogy with the original cast and merge them into the original footage. So you have Jennifer meeting her actual 30 years older self and fainting. That would be amazing.

 

[The Philistine]

I actually know that I don't get why someone who has certain views has to be labelled Democrat/Republican. Basing an entire political standpoint over a single issue.

Sadly, that's the state of American politics right now. Pretty much nothing can be rationally discussed without dredging partisanship into it.

 

[Yankeedoodles]

I really find it odd that every time an political opinion is given in The United States of America it's always Republican or Democrat. We have So many damn political movements it's just freaky I think we have 7 and that for a country with just 17 million people.

Well the Republicans and Democrats aren't 'movements' they're 'parties'. The difference being that movements are organizations promoting ideas and ideals while parties are organizations promoting people for political office. That the Democratic and Republican parties seem to be promoting agendas is really only a mean to the end of getting their candidates elected.

As to why there are only two parties in US politics... well, that's a bit more complicated and still not completely understood. The best explanation I've come across is the 'monopoly on the opposition' theory. You see, in many modern democracies the powers of government are typically concentrated into one organization called a parliament (which is roughly equivalent to Congress). When an election occurs the various parties group together to form a coalition which then chooses a Prime Minister (a position really more equivalent to the Speaker of the House but in practice is roughly equivalent to a US president). In the US on the other hand the people elect both the members of parliament (Congress) and the Prime Minister (President). Because the whole country is voting for the office of the President the presidential candidates don't have the luxury of appealing to only a single constituency like they would in a parliamentary republic but instead must appeal to the entire country. Which means that in order to appeal to the most people possible the parties adopt as many movements as possible. That's why there isn't a viable third party. Because every time a party forms with a cause which resonates with voters one of the two major parties adopts that cause and undermines that party's foundation. The Green Party supports broad environmental protection but you'd be 'throwing you vote away' to vote for Ralph Nader (usually their candidate) because the Democrats also supports environmental policy. The same would go for the Republicans and the Tea Party if the Tea Party ever fielded a candidate. So why is virtually every elected official either a Democrat or a Republican? Because the Democrats and Republicans control vast resources to help other candidates get elected which helps to create a monopoly on political power.

Not sure if that was clear: in short we only have two parties because we have a political office (President) elected by the entire country.

I actually know that I don't get why someone who has certain views has to be labelled Democrat/Republican. Basing an entire political standpoint over a single issue.

That's a good point. Like all forms of stereotyping I guess it's just convenient. If you know a person's stance on an issue you can often (but not always) make a fairly accurate guess as to their party affiliation.

 

[mptothedc]

What Movie Bob is trying to say is that he wants the Escapist to be about politics and not video games

jk

 

[ecoho]

In Defense of Nostalgia

Are the rose tinted glasses always so bad?

Watch Video

im sorry bob but unless you can be objective you should never talk about politics otherwise you are no better then the right wing people you bash. i mean lets look at the other side for a second. Obama ram rods a healthcare system WE CANNOT SUPPORT!!!! into being against the majority of people's wishes, then we have Biden saying that the one birth law in china is a good idea........ personally i think both parties should be dissolved so people will actually have to vote for the man/woman instead of what party they are.

 

[Blind Sight]

In Defense of Nostalgia

Are the rose tinted glasses always so bad?

Watch Video

im sorry bob but unless you can be objective you should never talk about politics otherwise you are no better then the right wing people you bash. i mean lets look at the other side for a second. Obama ram rods a healthcare system WE CANNOT SUPPORT!!!! into being against the majority of people's wishes, then we have Biden saying that the one birth law in china is a good idea........ personally i think both parties should be dissolved so people will actually have to vote for the man/woman instead of what party they are.

Not a fan of party politics myself, but I ask you this question: without the parties, how would you suggest a political hierarchy is formed in the United States? Their structure is largely based on the bi-partisan system.

 

[Aulleas123]

In seeing that opening "white on black text" I thought I'd have to prepare to get offended (I would say that I'm a libertarian conservative). However Bob has a point. True conservatism shouldn't really work to turn the clock back. Instead, we (as conservatives) should ensure that when change occurs (which it's going to do) is procedural and useful to society. In my opinion, conservatives really shouldn't have a problem with gay-marriage, it's going to happen so let it happen (in my opinion). This is what made leaders like Disraeli and Reagan so great, they could keep the big picture while keeping us moving forward.

So yeah, I have the feeling that Bob was trying to offend me, but it really didn't work since I kinda agree with him.

Oh, and yes, Beck is pretty crazy.

 

[crudus]

While I do get the book I never know why people associate it with the Potatoe Famine. The book was published for over 100 years before the event.

I don't see how that makes it apply less. The same can be said for any time period, even more so during a famine.

 

[corneth]

The Comments on this video are even more ignorant than usual, as everyone seems to be saying either
"Fuck these liberal Nazi Marxist fascists USA USA USA"
or
"this episode was awesome because I agreed with it."

In my opinion Bob brought up some good points, but the way he brought them up was a little unexpected, and even a little jarring. I really Appreciate that Bob has the guts to talk about Politics, at a time where talking about politics on the internet is seen as futile, or even idiotic. I'm tired of all the idiocy I see on internet forums, I'm tired of all right wing jerks being oblivious and dismissive to all criticism, and I'm tired of seeing left wing commenters make themselves look like Morons by only saying anything good about opinions that are exactly like theirs. This may actually be the last time I comment on something like this, because the discussion is completely insufferable.

 

[tigermilk]

Enjoyed the video, but a couple of problems:

Saying Tron Legacy is more innovative than [insert any example you wish to reinforce a point] seems slightly unfair. It would be much like saying Tron Legacy is less innovative than [insert favourite innovative film]. surely innovation compared to the original is the only fair comparison or with similar original IP's and similar sequels/remakes.

A lot of people I am sure are pissed about the He Man and the Masters of the Universe film. I am sure many of those peoples hold opinions about gay marriage (hopefully in favour) and deem that opinion far more strongly. Just because people complain about one thing does not mean they cannot hold other opinions.

I could be wrong but I would have thought a large, nay dominant proportion ofthemarket for remakes/reimaginings etc are in fact new audiences. I grew up with Transformers/He Man/Thundercats/My Little Pony and that is why I have no interest in remakes. The originals can't compare to my memories so why would I want versions "tainted" by contemporary trends?

Perhaps it is because I have watched Movie Bob back to back with Jimquisition (Angry Birds) but The Escapist featured content is increasingly feeling like a series of rants. I appreciatte one author/voice will only offer one perspecitive but these perspectives increasingly feel like rants aimed at mythic trolls who I for one thought existed more in the collective consciousness than in reality.

 

[head desk tricycle]

I find it funny that this is how Bob understands politics. It's pretty obvious that he blindly accepts biased second-hand accounts of opposing viewpoints at face value.

 

[Varanfan9]

I'm glad you defended Nintendo people here. I am one of those looking forward to those games (especially Kirby) and was happy to see you were on my side.
Anyways great episode by you Bob. Keep up the good works.