Why are today's cartoons more lighthearted?

Arnoxthe1

New member
Dec 25, 2010
3,374
0
0
> Rick and Morty
> "lighthearted"

If anything, I think cartoons are getting more bleak.

Addendum_Forthcoming said:
the realities of the alienation of one person's work through systems of capitalist production and what you might have to potentially sacrifice if you want to save some of your soul in the process. How it destroys not only the worker, but inspiration and artistry on its own ...
Ah yes. Capitalism. Everyone's favorite whipping boy.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Altanese said:
Samtemdo8 said:
Regardless, show isn't for me. Too girly. And this is a shock because I like Powerpuff Girls. But something about Steven Universe doesn't click with me.
If you don't mind my asking, girly in what way?
The main character is a boy who wears pink, has purely defensive and restorative abilities, and is mature and open with his emotions. Hes defeated more villains by befriending them than by fighting. Hell, at one point he inherited a sword from his mother, and he gave it to his girlfriend because she's a better sword fighter than him and he's proud of that fact

Steven is the anti toxic masculinity.

This is in contrast to the powerpuff girls, who while girls wearing feminine colors, are still strong and solve all their problems with violence and power. It's a power fantasy that Sam can get behind, while being an emotionally stable boy not afraid to cry, that helps his team by shielding and healing them isn't.
Just so you know, I do have moments where I tear up like One Piece in general, and Hook, that movie to this day makes me tear up sometimes:

 

Spade Lead

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,042
0
0
CaptJohnSheridan said:
Nothing wrong with today's cartoons but I was wondering. Back in the 2000s we had shows like Samurai Jack, Avatar, and Clone Wars.

I am curious why is there less cartoons that are as serious as those old shows.

Are today's parents more protective? Are today's animators and producers less interested in serious themes? Is it culture? Since the world is becoming scarier people want more escapist lighthearted entertainment? Or do people watch a lot less TV? Are young people who would be the target demographic of this type of show spending time playing video games instead of TV?

Should Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network make something to compete with Star Wars Rebels and Voltron?
Having watched through almost the entirety of Regular Show, there are great cartoons that you have to search for. Steven Universe is weird in a very dark way that I am not sure I could ever sit down and watch, just from when it would be on in the background while I was doing other shit, and Steven Spielberg is intending to bring Animaniacs back, and while that show wasn't extrememly dark, it was from that golden era of dark TV, the 90s, so it is much less fluff than you seem to be seeing. Hell, Adventure Time is pretty dark, with one of the first episodes being a Zombie Apocalypse episode. Maybe you are just jaded in your old age?
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Ah yes. Capitalism. Everyone's favorite whipping boy.
It's pretty easy to whip. I mean, I make a living on the market purely from the marketplace existing. It's a bit hard to say making monery off basically how much additional money companies are skimming off the productiuvity of their workers or the consumr is somehow a bad idea to prop up.

Naturally regardless of the economic and political system, that is going to happen. But when I can literally make 450K after capital gains, not even including the div yields I was being offered through that ownership, in a year through simply holding onto my shares in a handful of companies is somehow me being a wonderful capitalist is justifiable takes a stretch.

After all, that's the depiction of a wonderful capitalist. Me having stellar performance owning parts of one company and riding that performance while it makes me ever more money.

I didn't do anything to earn it beyond have enough money to make those profit margins in the firstplace.

After all ... being a capitalist isn't simply believing in the marketplace. None of that retarded nonsense of 'pull yourself up by the bootlaces' tripe. Because clearly that isn't anywhere near as well rewarded as me simply having a lot of money to throw into the marketplace that makes me massive amounts more money than I could earn doing any paid job. Clearly you don't pull yourself up by your boot string. Clearly an unwinning strategy. Clearly the winning strategy is simply have enough money to throw into the marketplace, retire by the time you're 30.

Beyond being a high ranking corporate officer of a major company, I can't think of any job that will pay me as much money as me trading. I don't cure the sick, I don't teach kids, I don't fix sewer pipes, I don't collect your trash and I don't fix railway lines and electricity services. You know ... all those non-essential things ... I don't do any of that. I'm a capitalist, and I make money off capitalist systems solely because I can.

Also keep in mind, this is the same show that gave us a critique of pony Stalinism... it's a fun episode, and with a antag/reformed villain character who is one of my growing favourites in the series thus far.

And yeah ... I was surprised Hasbro and the showrunners let the episode I was speaking of before past because the specific episode I'm talking about is almost as if the writers and artists behind the show were screaming at Hasbro about just how much creative licence they had ... even to be able to make episodes that people won't necessarily like, but ones that felt natural to artistic expression to make as part of a series.

And yeah ... kind of a problem.
 

Arnoxthe1

New member
Dec 25, 2010
3,374
0
0
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
It's pretty easy to whip. I mean, I make a living on the market purely from the marketplace existing. It's a bit hard to say making monery off basically how much additional money companies are skimming off the productiuvity of their workers or the consumr is somehow a bad idea to prop up.

Naturally regardless of the economic and political system, that is going to happen. But when I can literally make 450K after capital gains, not even including the div yields I was being offered through that ownership, in a year through simply holding onto my shares in a handful of companies is somehow me being a wonderful capitalist is justifiable takes a stretch.

After all, that's the depiction of a wonderful capitalist. Me having stellar performance owning parts of one company and riding that performance while it makes me ever more money.

I didn't do anything to earn it beyond have enough money to make those profit margins in the firstplace.

After all ... being a capitalist isn't simply believing in the marketplace. None of that retarded nonsense of 'pull yourself up by the bootlaces' tripe. Because clearly that isn't anywhere near as well rewarded as me simply having a lot of money to throw into the marketplace that makes me massive amounts more money than I could earn doing any paid job. Clearly you don't pull yourself up by your boot string. Clearly an unwinning strategy. Clearly the winning strategy is simply have enough money to throw into the marketplace, retire by the time you're 30.

Beyond being a high ranking corporate officer of a major company, I can't think of any job that will pay me as much money as me trading. I don't cure the sick, I don't teach kids, I don't fix sewer pipes, I don't collect your trash and I don't fix railway lines and electricity services. You know ... all those non-essential things ... I don't do any of that. I'm a capitalist, and I make money off capitalist systems solely because I can.

Also keep in mind, this is the same show that gave us a critique of pony Stalinism... it's a fun episode, and with a antag/reformed villain character who is one of my growing favourites in the series thus far.
I don't know or care what makes someone a "true capitalist". That doesn't concern me. What I do want to state though right off the bat is simply that a HUGE TON of problems that we have right now with businesses being greedy and shady has a LOT to do with the fact that the US government no longer cuts down monopolies as it should. When monopolies exist, power is almost absolute and stifles competition. And without competition, what motive do companies have of keeping themselves competitive? There is no motive. So they just stagnate and get lazy and greedy.

Capitalism is incredibly effective because it weaponizes the cold efficiency of corporations to get things done in a fast and satisfactory manner for everyone while still giving people the opportunity to do their own thing and to make a ton of money doing it. Capitalism is one of the main factors that allowed the US in the past to excel and become a leading world power and what's allowed you the time and the money to sit around and comment about little girl's cartoons. But that's the thing, if the government isn't there to keep the corporations in line, they start getting absolutely ridiculous. And that is the state we're in now. The state of unregulated monopolies.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
I don't know or care what makes someone a "true capitalist".
You should, because it's the definition. Also the definition of its derivative.

You working really hard to become a pharmacological researcher isn't capitalism. Me owning shares in the company you do pharmacological research, earning money off your productivity alone, makes one a capitalist. No one who works for a living is a true and proper capitalist. If you don't own the means of production, you do not know true freedom.

Very basic, and very easy to understand.

WalMart does not pay its employees $5/hour because that's all their productivity is worth. If one were to real value their productivity and reward them fairly.

Australian CEOs earn 78 times that of their average entry-level worker. Is that CEO being 78 times more productive? Pffh ... no. In fact it's a rare day you see them in their offices or in presentations all day. What shareholders want to see in corporate officers of industry is ever creative new means to bolster productivity and skim more of it for investors in the form of div yields and greater market performance.

What corporate officers are meant to do is find creative ways to make their workforce more efficient, more productive, and ever less compensated despite as such. If a business can deliver that, they will perform well ... it's not about them having magical talents of industry or whatever nonsense you might dream up.

If capitalism was about workers and 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps', they'd tax the shit out of people like me and set up an enterprise fund with the money sequestrated that workers can use to set up co-operative industries and actually pursue at the lowest possible buy in their own means to be rewarded their time spent and be freed of the shackles of simply earning others more money than they will ever likely receive.

You know ... promoting competition and self-empowerment through one's labour? Not merely wage slavery?

It's not like we give these people multimillion dollar bonuses simply because they have mastered the arcane of industry that we somehow can't know unless we're one of those rare few with that magical power.

No, we tolerate their inflated egos and pay cheques simply because they're really, really good at skimming off the productivity of others.
 

Arnoxthe1

New member
Dec 25, 2010
3,374
0
0
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
You should, because it's the definition. Also the definition of its derivative.

You working really hard to become a pharmacological researcher isn't capitalism. Me owning shares in the company you do pharmacological research, earning money off your productivity alone, makes one a capitalist. No one who works for a living is a true and proper capitalist. If you don't own the means of production, you do not know true freedom.

Very basic, and very easy to understand.

WalMart does not pay its employees $5/hour because that's all their productivity is worth. If one were to real value their productivity and reward them fairly.

Australian CEOs earn 78 times that of their average entry-level worker. Is that CEO being 78 times more productive? Pffh ... no. In fact it's a rare day you see them in their offices or in presentations all day. What shareholders want to see in corporate officers of industry is ever creative new means to bolster productivity and skim more of it for investors in the form of div yields and greater market performance.

What corporate officers are meant to do is find creative ways to make their workforce more efficient, more productive, and ever less compensated despite as such. If a business can deliver that, they will perform well ... it's not about them having magical talents of industry or whatever nonsense you might dream up.

If capitalism was about workers and 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps', they'd tax the shit out of people like me and set up an enterprise fund with the money sequestrated that workers can use to set up co-operative industries and actually pursue at the lowest possible buy in their own means to be rewarded their time spent and be freed of the shackles of simply earning others more money than they will ever likely receive.

You know ... promoting competition and self-empowerment through one's labour? Not merely wage slavery?

It's not like we give these people multimillion dollar bonuses simply because they have mastered the arcane of industry that we somehow can't know unless we're one of those rare few with that magical power.

No, we tolerate their inflated egos and pay cheques simply because they're really, really good at skimming off the productivity of others.
You seem to be really hung up on the wrong things. For one, Walmart pays minimum wage for entry-level jobs. It doesn't just pay $5/hr. Just like a ton of other businesses. Are they all just as bad as Walmart? Secondly, you seem to have a problem with the very idea of investing. This is honestly kind of silly. Business is mostly about investment after all. You invest money into something you think will profit you and hope for nice returns. And finally, you got this idea that even though you start a business and put your hard work into it to make it hugely profitable for you, that money still doesn't belong to you. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

"But Arnox," you ask, "Isn't an entry-level worker in a company just as entitled to the sweat of his brow, if not moreso, than some executive or shareholder?" In which case, I'd say yes with a few caveats. For starters, it's an entry-level position. And furthermore, it's unskilled labor. Labor anybody with a pulse and some strength can do. Therefore, due to high supply, it pays low.

It's also not something you're supposed to stick with. You're expected to move on to... Something. Something that will earn you more money at least as you gain more experience and/or education. You are paid according to your economic value. And if you sit at the bottom your whole life, you can't expect to live like an executive. That's just how it is. Demonizing the upper class just because they're upper class is childish. And I get that some executives these days are total douches, but we're talking about a properly functioning capitalist society. Not a poorly functioning one that we're living in now.

And finally, but just as importantly, employment is AT WILL. You're not forced to work at Walmart. There's a lot of other companies you can work for, and just as proper competition in the marketplace weeds out most economic problems, competition in the labor market weeds out most labor problems. Labor laws though may not entirely be a bad idea so the quality of the workplace meets a minimum standard, but that's another topic for another time.

So am I mad that some people invest a ton of money and get a bunch of money back? Not really.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
You seem to be really hung up on the wrong things. For one, Walmart pays minimum wage for entry-level jobs. It doesn't just pay $5/hr. Just like a ton of other businesses. Are they all just as bad as Walmart?
Given that so many of them live on food stamps (taxpayer funded, by the by) inspite of their efforts? Yeah. You'd need to ask those who suffer it, of course... but I would say being a wage slave is pretty awful.

Hence why I did everything to stop working and never have to worry about being thrown on the street, or getting a bad case of the flu, or struggling to feed myself. Been there, done that. Once was enough. Fortune, not skill, allowed me to crawl myself up the social ladder.

When you have people for whom only luck can save them from eminently avoidable hardship you have to question whether the system isn't rotten to the core.




Secondly, you seem to have a problem with the very idea of investing. This is honestly kind of silly. Business is mostly about investment after all. You invest money into something you think will profit you and hope for nice returns. And finally, you got this idea that even though you start a business and put your hard work into it to make it hugely profitable for you, that money still doesn't belong to you. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
I have no problems with enterprise. But the fact remains no one buys liberty with only sweat. They do so with blood, money, or another's bent back. Pick one. That's observed in any culture on this planet, observable throughout history.

Enterprise is not merely money. That's idiotic.

Corporations do not often pay taxes because they don't leave money made just sitting there. If they did, they would pay taxes... instead they spend as much as possible back into the firm and giving out more generous div yields, or expanding their public presence to generate further interest of their growth. Either that or they pull out the 'depreciation clause' in Australia, writing off gains to historical losses (even if responsible for said losses) when they also, back then, axed thousands of jobs. Like Qantas...

By the by, Alan Joyce still kept his pay cheque...

Your vaguely alien idea of the value of sweat withstanding, if one's sweat was truly cherished those who sweat wouldn't need welfare.

It's also not something you're supposed to stick with. You're expected to move on to... Something. Something that will earn you more money at least as you gain more experience and/or education. You are paid according to your economic value. And if you sit at the bottom your whole life, you can't expect to live like an executive. That's just how it is. Demonizing the upper class just because they're upper class is childish. And I get that some executives these days are total douches, but we're talking about a properly functioning capitalist society. Not a poorly functioning one that we're living in now.
So all those people who can't move on?

Taking care of a sick family member? Left with a bad debt? A criminal record? Mental health problems? Disabled or psychologically damaged from a war without end in the Middle East or beyond that you can't function in civil society?

Can happen to anyone.

And finally, but just as importantly, employment is AT WILL. You're not forced to work at Walmart.
Yeah... they can be homeless, go without medicine ... seriously, "freedom". Just like all those POWs ... I mean they could go to the camps, or they could have picked up a brick, taken out a guard, tried to get their gun, and be shot in the attempt.

Technically no one is *forced* to do anything. Any type of labour requires some degree of at least complicity.

It's merely a question of how much you actually ransom to coerce and how stupid people are to believe that simply being able to starve your pride or that magically life problems won't ever chain people to a job where they still need welfare to survive and give them little other ways to excel or achieve more somehow represents one's acceptable liberty.

To flip it around ... there are better ways. No one should feel compelled to give of themselves and receive less than their productivity *without* the option of profitting directly through control over what that labour should look like.

Hence why workers should receive shares AND a pay cheque so that they can collectively vote for change at AGMs. Seems far more "freedom" and "democratic" to me. If you're going to rip off people's productivity, give them a reward based on how well the company is ripping them off, at least.

Should make capitalists happy, surely? After all... everybody starts looking like a real one this way. Yay capitalism, right? Who could object to more capitalists? Can't possibly see what might happen to a capitalist system where workers get an equal volume of shares as to any other interests...
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Samtemdo8 said:
undeadsuitor said:
Altanese said:
Samtemdo8 said:
Regardless, show isn't for me. Too girly. And this is a shock because I like Powerpuff Girls. But something about Steven Universe doesn't click with me.
If you don't mind my asking, girly in what way?
The main character is a boy who wears pink, has purely defensive and restorative abilities, and is mature and open with his emotions. Hes defeated more villains by befriending them than by fighting. Hell, at one point he inherited a sword from his mother, and he gave it to his girlfriend because she's a better sword fighter than him and he's proud of that fact

Steven is the anti toxic masculinity.

This is in contrast to the powerpuff girls, who while girls wearing feminine colors, are still strong and solve all their problems with violence and power. It's a power fantasy that Sam can get behind, while being an emotionally stable boy not afraid to cry, that helps his team by shielding and healing them isn't.
Just so you know, I do have moments where I tear up like One Piece in general, and Hook, that movie to this day makes me tear up sometimes:
That's...nice? Wasn't my point though.
Steven Universe is anti toxic masculinity than?

On what grounds is masculinity toxic?
 

lionsprey

New member
Sep 20, 2010
430
0
0
Samtemdo8 said:
undeadsuitor said:
Samtemdo8 said:
undeadsuitor said:
Altanese said:
Samtemdo8 said:
Regardless, show isn't for me. Too girly. And this is a shock because I like Powerpuff Girls. But something about Steven Universe doesn't click with me.
If you don't mind my asking, girly in what way?
The main character is a boy who wears pink, has purely defensive and restorative abilities, and is mature and open with his emotions. Hes defeated more villains by befriending them than by fighting. Hell, at one point he inherited a sword from his mother, and he gave it to his girlfriend because she's a better sword fighter than him and he's proud of that fact

Steven is the anti toxic masculinity.

This is in contrast to the powerpuff girls, who while girls wearing feminine colors, are still strong and solve all their problems with violence and power. It's a power fantasy that Sam can get behind, while being an emotionally stable boy not afraid to cry, that helps his team by shielding and healing them isn't.
Just so you know, I do have moments where I tear up like One Piece in general, and Hook, that movie to this day makes me tear up sometimes:
That's...nice? Wasn't my point though.
Steven Universe is anti toxic masculinity than?

On what grounds is masculinity toxic?
masculinity and toxic masculinity aren't the same things.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
lionsprey said:
Samtemdo8 said:
undeadsuitor said:
Samtemdo8 said:
undeadsuitor said:
Altanese said:
Samtemdo8 said:
Regardless, show isn't for me. Too girly. And this is a shock because I like Powerpuff Girls. But something about Steven Universe doesn't click with me.
If you don't mind my asking, girly in what way?
The main character is a boy who wears pink, has purely defensive and restorative abilities, and is mature and open with his emotions. Hes defeated more villains by befriending them than by fighting. Hell, at one point he inherited a sword from his mother, and he gave it to his girlfriend because she's a better sword fighter than him and he's proud of that fact

Steven is the anti toxic masculinity.

This is in contrast to the powerpuff girls, who while girls wearing feminine colors, are still strong and solve all their problems with violence and power. It's a power fantasy that Sam can get behind, while being an emotionally stable boy not afraid to cry, that helps his team by shielding and healing them isn't.
Just so you know, I do have moments where I tear up like One Piece in general, and Hook, that movie to this day makes me tear up sometimes:
That's...nice? Wasn't my point though.
Steven Universe is anti toxic masculinity than?

On what grounds is masculinity toxic?
masculinity and toxic masculinity aren't the same things.
Let me rephrase it than, it what was can masculinity become toxic?

Because all I can think of in my head is Masculinity in its entirty is toxic because I never think of a positive example of masculinity.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Samtemdo8 said:
undeadsuitor said:
Samtemdo8 said:
undeadsuitor said:
Altanese said:
Samtemdo8 said:
Regardless, show isn't for me. Too girly. And this is a shock because I like Powerpuff Girls. But something about Steven Universe doesn't click with me.
If you don't mind my asking, girly in what way?
The main character is a boy who wears pink, has purely defensive and restorative abilities, and is mature and open with his emotions. Hes defeated more villains by befriending them than by fighting. Hell, at one point he inherited a sword from his mother, and he gave it to his girlfriend because she's a better sword fighter than him and he's proud of that fact

Steven is the anti toxic masculinity.

This is in contrast to the powerpuff girls, who while girls wearing feminine colors, are still strong and solve all their problems with violence and power. It's a power fantasy that Sam can get behind, while being an emotionally stable boy not afraid to cry, that helps his team by shielding and healing them isn't.
Just so you know, I do have moments where I tear up like One Piece in general, and Hook, that movie to this day makes me tear up sometimes:
That's...nice? Wasn't my point though.
Steven Universe is anti toxic masculinity than?

On what grounds is masculinity toxic?
My overall point to my post was that I've seen you idolize the Zac Snyder Superman films because you prefer a superman who punches and fights over a superman who talks through his problems (similar to your thread about 'whats the point of super heroes without super powers' )

so I expanded that by pointing out the difference between Powerpuff Girls and Steven Universe is that, even though they are both superficially girly on the outside, one is more focused on the types of heroics you admire (ie, the powerpuff girls punching and beating up the bad guys), while one you've shown disinterest in (Steven Universe solving conflicts through talking with his enemies)

and that's why you think SU is too girly, but PPG is not.

Also, in regards to Toxic Masculinity, there's a wiki page on it

tldr its the expression and over reliance on traditional 'male' expressions such as extreme self reliance (men suffer because they're taught not to ask for help) extreme suppression of emotions (men don't cry) and the admiration of dominance above all else (men have to be in control of the situation at all times)

Steven Universe is the anti-thesis to that because it's a male character who requires help from his friends and support group (hes a healer, he relies on stronger people to win fights while supporting them), he's open with his emotions (and no, that's not just "crying during a sad part in a movie" ) and etc etc etc

I mean I'm just typing words at this point, I already know you read the first sentence in this post and are already replying to it with some one sentence rebuttal about Superman or something. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris placerat nunc nulla, porta ullamcorper nisl interdum non. Donec molestie cursus purus accumsan congue. Etiam tempus sem in fermentum convallis. Morbi mattis tristique velit, ac placerat arcu ullamcorper sit amet. Morbi ac lectus quam. Vivamus vel molestie augue. Duis bibendum, metus elementum cursus pharetra, orci massa viverra purus, in aliquam quam dui blandit purus. Vivamus metus nisi, rutrum a urna ut, ornare viverra risus. Donec vitae auctor purus. Vivamus luctus nulla et magna luctus finibus. Nam auctor tincidunt lacus non aliquet. Donec nec lobortis leo, et gravida tellus. Maecenas lobortis ut est sed tincidunt. Quisque interdum, sem in consequat ultricies, nibh purus hendrerit est, nec feugiat sem nibh vel magna.
No I am not talking about Supes and stuff because I am sick and tired of debating about Snyder DC movies, the movies have long sinced passed me.

Regarding the first idea of Men must be reliant upon themselves to be a Man. The idea of that is because Grown Men should not be acting like children constantly asking for help and solve their problems by themselves, unless of course it is a problem that absolutely requires aid.

The second idea is Men must not cry or show emoton to be seen as men, I feel people greatly underappreciates internally venting one's emotions, to me emotional scenes like this is much more powerful when the man doesn't break into tears, look at one example of the Sopranos, despite all the conflicts they had Tony deeply still cares about his Uncle Junior who raised him as a son since his father got arrested, and he was on the verge of crying when Junior's Alzheimers completely consumed him:


And the dominance one, meaning only Men should be in positions of power and have the privilage to do things? Well I am incapable of debtating because I somewhat believe in a meritocracy or only the worthy should be in such positions and have privaliages.

And what the fuck is with the Latin text?
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
7,708
2,231
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Smithnikov said:
Pssshh. 2000's dark, you say? My generation had THIS...



This show as pretty dark too


Also, I started watching Teen Titans with my daughter. The second episode has cannibalism - even some of the superheroes get eaten. Even though the show feels like a neon sign when watching it, it goes full dark all the time
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,042
3,484
118
Country
United Kingdom
Samtemdo8 said:
The second idea is Men must not cry or show emoton to be seen as men, I feel people greatly underappreciates internally venting one's emotions, to me emotional scenes like this is much more powerful when the man doesn't break into tears, look at one example of the Sopranos, despite all the conflicts they had Tony deeply still cares about his Uncle Junior who raised him as a son since his father got arrested, and he was on the verge of crying when Junior's Alzheimers completely consumed him:

I hope you realise that Tony Soprano's inability (or unwillingness) to connect with his emotions and express himself is a major theme throughout the show. It's portrayed as extremely damaging and poisonous to his mental health.

That's a very powerful scene, but not because Tony's stoicism is good. That's almost the very opposite of the message. Tony has bottled up his rage and his frustration, refused to discuss it even when it effects his family, and it's made him into a resentful, violent wreck. He swings from sympathising with Junior to dismissing him out of hand, because he is not emotionally mature and cannot reconcile his anger over Junior's attempt to kill him with his sorrow over Junior's current state.

If you watched The Sopranos and thought Tony's stoicism was in any way a good thing, you've not properly understood one of the main themes of the show.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
Silvanus said:
Samtemdo8 said:
The second idea is Men must not cry or show emoton to be seen as men, I feel people greatly underappreciates internally venting one's emotions, to me emotional scenes like this is much more powerful when the man doesn't break into tears, look at one example of the Sopranos, despite all the conflicts they had Tony deeply still cares about his Uncle Junior who raised him as a son since his father got arrested, and he was on the verge of crying when Junior's Alzheimers completely consumed him:

I hope you realise that Tony Soprano's inability (or unwillingness) to connect with his emotions and express himself is a major theme throughout the show. It's portrayed as extremely damaging and poisonous to his mental health.

That's a very powerful scene, but not because Tony's stoicism is good. That's almost the very opposite of the message. Tony has bottled up his rage and his frustration, refused to discuss it even when it effects his family, and it's made him into a resentful, violent wreck. He swings from sympathising with Junior to dismissing him out of hand, because he is not emotionally mature and cannot reconcile his anger over Junior's attempt to kill him with his sorrow over Junior's current state.

If you watched The Sopranos and thought Tony's stoicism was in any way a good thing, you've not properly understood one of the main themes of the show.
Regretfully I never watched the Sopranos, at least not every single episode in their entirety, just clips here and there on youtube (still contemplating on buying the whole DVD sets)

And I know a good number of the charcaters well (especially Phil Leotardo) but the main man himself Tony to this day is a big mystery to me.

Regardless I just trying to point out that men internalizing their emotions is underappreciated.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,042
3,484
118
Country
United Kingdom
Samtemdo8 said:
Regretfully I never watched the Sopranos, at least not every single episode in their entirety, just clips here and there on youtube (still contemplating on buying the whole DVD sets)

And I know a good number of the charcaters well (especially Phil Leotardo) but the main man himself Tony to this day is a big mystery to me.

Regardless I just trying to point out that men internalizing their emotions is underappreciated.
In what sense?

Men have been encouraged to internalise their emotions-- and not to express them-- for centuries. That can lead to shoddy emotional maturity, poor communication with loved ones, and bottled-up frustrations and rage going unaddressed.

Worst of all, the idea that stoicism is an essential part of masculinity-- the idea that men shouldn't express themselves, and should "suck it up"-- can cause bloody turmoil for the men themselves, who are then stuck with the inner misery, because they cannot get the emotional support they want or need.

Tony Soprano's feelings towards his uncle Junior swing wildly between near-violent fury and self-destructive guilt, precisely because he never came to terms with the terrible impact his uncle had on him, and Tony batted away his therapist's attempts to talk to him about it. He couldn't open up, and it caused him pain, and damaged any future relationship he might have had with his uncle.