I agree 100%
I've said the same about Ring of Power, it is much better that we got a full woke disaster then a decent movie with a bit of race swap and a bit of feminism thrown in.
I would argue the boiling frog isn't working if you are aware the stove is on and even for normies they notice. My father is semi normie and even he didn't like what they did to star wars. He called it shit and he was fan for all his life. I obviously explained it to him but I don't know how aware he is of it all, I would have to ask.
It still works even if you notice, because for a lot of people if it isn't bad enough they will still want to enjoy it and even accept an X amount of wokeness just because the rest if good enough.
And in doing so, your barometer for "unacceptable" moves a little further out.
Thankfully for me I have some movie standards I hold modern movies to. Almost all don't even come close but you might be right that other people aren't holding movies to a standard.
The more older movies I see the higher my standard goes. Example: I never watched that many action movies(I am more a back to the future kinda guy), I recently watched a lot of the classics and can now hold them up as a standard. Nowadays action is either not a thing anymore or it's some girl boss shit. Thankfully, there's just too many old movies that are interesting.
The thing is, a vast majority of those old movies also have some trace amounts of it. The frog was just boiled that slowly, and our standards have changed that significantly.
Alien for example is such a girlboss movie it would be lambasted as a woke parody these days. With its strong wahmen who is somehow the only one able to use her brain and evil penis monsters killing people with their ultra penis mouths.
Even most action movies have an absurd "protect the womens at all costs, in the face of all logic, and for no reason" consistency. There is almost always one women, she is almost always the most morally innocent/righteous, and she will be put on a pedestal of value well above her actual worth. Predator for another example is one of the most manly man movies ever full of nothing but hardcore action, but for some reason the Commie Guerilla gets to survive because she is the woman and we can't have real bad things to happen to her.
You can say those are just basic tennants of life and weren't made with any political idea in mind, but those are the foundations all of this was built on.
Alien for example is such a girlboss movie it would be lambasted as a woke parody these days. With its strong wahmen who is somehow the only one able to use her brain and evil penis monsters killing people with their ultra penis mouths.
The antagonist being a literal rape monster isn't woke unless you make it so - if sexual horror was automatically woke then the wokists would celebrate stuff like Goblin Slayer rather than condemning it. And I disagree with the "strong wahmen" criticism when the weakest link was also a woman.
Predator for another example is one of the most manly man movies ever full of nothing but hardcore action, but for some reason the Commie Guerilla gets to survive because she is the woman and we can't have real bad things to happen to her.
The woman gets to survive because she's not worth killing. Being an impotent bystander who survives because she wasn't even in the running isn't a feminist message.
And so it can be argued that it is. Which means the frog went from neutral to a hair above neutral by creating a situation in which the barometer is moved ever so slightly that way and our perceptions of reality adjusted for it.
You seem to have missed the point. In which that things that were not necessarily woke in any form are still part of the march towards that wokeness. Because wokeness didn't just spring from nowhere, it was built upon hundreds of little steps and foundational pieces.
Rape monsters unquestionably bad/evil, women being dainty "not worth killing" targets, and all of that are tiny little preconceived notions we have that are exploited to create the emotional manipulations and loopholes in our minds that the Wokeness springs from.
I didn’t really hate Crystal Skull (I didn’t think aliens and flying saucers should be a bridge too far if one is cool with avenging angels and such from the other movies) so I’ll consider Indy as the star as a quadrilogy, but the main point stands, everyone gets to decide which movies “count” in their own mind because ultimately entertainment is in the eye of the beholder. You always have the right to reject a new franchise entry as far as you care.
It's not the aliens in Crystal Skull that bother me. Its the zany/cartoonish levels of danger and villains. Yes there was some of this in the previous 3, but it's just too much in 4. The refrigerator to survive a nuke. The overly sentient ants reacting instantly. The Keystone Cops style villains and chases. It just went full corny. If they had dialed things back just a little bit, I wouldn't 'hate' it. The tone. We accept Mola Ram in Temple of Doom ripping out hearts because it fits with the pulpy terror motif. Indy 4 is just ZaNy CrAzY man. If that makes sense.
It also started the 'bad dad' path for Indy. I get that they are trying to mirror his relationship with his own dad (Connery) but it was too heavy handed imo. Too disfunctional. Too finger wagging. I don't know, the movie has a weird ass vibe. Harrison Ford was already way too old in that one. Rickety and awkward. He should have played more of the Connery role to whomever they were going to pass the torch to. Shia was another failing in that sense. Though I don't overly hate the guy or his acting. He just wasn't a good fit for an Indy movie.
This. There's no one thing that sank Crystal Skull. The basic premise and setting were solid, Commies replacing Nazis and aliens replacing religion totally fits with the 1950's.
LeBouf was a poor casting choice, and the action bordered on slapstick at times.
I think it also suffered from not really having a moral element like the first three. Mola Ram and the Nazis ultimately failed because were evil- the Ark, Grail, and Sankara stones took them out.
I think the aliens killed the psychic Russian chick because she absorbed too much knowledge, but the ending wasn't really clear.
Read into Lucas's original cut of the OT. It was bad. He had 3PO pulling slapstick humor on stormtroopers in the middle of the Battle of Hoth. And remember the scene in ANH where the troopers walk by and the door in Mos Eisley opened and 3PO and R2 snuck out. Remember that tension? That scene was played in reverse. George's version was the droids walking into the closet, shutting the door, and then the troopers marching right by it with a wAcKy sOuNd EfFecT. The OT was basically saved by Lucas's ex-wife, who cut and rearranged the films to take out all of his stupid shit and treat the plot and characters more seriously/realistically. If you go through the changes and play it in your head the way George intended, IT ABSOLUTELY FEELS THE SAME AS THE PREQUELS. Like its startling how the tone feels.
I think he also had a rough cut screening with Spielberg and several other directors that proposed significant changes.
That's why we have those unused scenes with Biggs on tatooine and Jabba that cropped up in the special edition. Luke also had a whole gang of friends that got cut at their suggestion.
Luke's friends were named Camie and Fixer, and he had a nickname - "Wormie Luke." ANH was originally laid out much more like a Disney movie. The original was an intro with Luke going about his day, where we got to know about him and his shitty life and friends for about 15 minutes. Then he would see the space battle above the planet through his binocs, and then the camera would pan out to the opening space battle between the Devastator and the Tantive IV. Instead that whole opening section got cut and they gave us a "show, not tell" introduction to Luke, and well after the movie opened with that amazing pan out down the length of the star destroyer with the plot kicking off almost in media res.
Check this post out I made a while back, it’s exactly what you’re getting at here, a God-shaped and sized hole in people which they’re stuffing full of spider-verses and dreams of Q-anon draining the swamp
Great to see someone else share the same view of 'canon' that I hold, although it's something Doomcock has talked about too. Once a work has entered public consciousness and become loved by millions, it creates a mental image of a fictional world and people that you can't arbitrarily change - even if you're the author. It becomes part of our culture. Sorry George, Han shot first. No JKR, Hermione isn't black. Spock didn't learn everything he knows from his fabulous human sister Michael. Some things you don't get to retcon without our permission. It isn't like the US Constitution where you can amend parts of it away.
I'm not in the "Death of the Author" camp either. Obviously the intent is the intent, and we generally defer to their clarifications and revisions. But I do prefer authors and movie directors who don't ever tell us what some controversial plot point means and explicitly leave it up to the audience to decide.
Never made the connection to lack of faith in God but I see where you're coming from.
Official canon became meaningless once corporations, with no connection to the original creators, gained the rights to declare it. Official canon only made sense when it was the creator saying that one thing "happened," vs something else was just "for fun." Now it's a corporate hegemony trying to decide what stories matter for the whole world.
I'm not an anti-capitalist by any means, but I am disturbed to see pieces of culture commodified into mere products. I don't simply mean selling art; I believe that it is the purview of an artist to sell their work to make a living. Rather, I mean the monopoly rights of corporations to have total control of cultural icons. Even the language that we use commodifies our culture. The word "franchise" used to conjure thoughts of McDonald's restaurants.
I strongly believe that the cultural icons of: Superman, Batman, Luke Skywalker, James Kirk, Indiana Jones, etc, are greater than any corporate property. They have been referenced, lauded, and parodied across all artistic media. They represent the heroism and virtue that we should all aspire to in our own daily lives. Their impact is not substantially different from characters like: Dracula, Robin Hood, Cinderella, and King Arthur,. Stories are at the heart of our humanity. Every religion understands it; the modern psychotherapists, like Jung, understood it. It is unnatural for stories and characters to be for the exclusive use of one individual or group.
Copyright, like patent law, has long been seen as a necessary evil; a restriction on the free market, in exchange for fostering creativity and innovation. Now, it has become a tool to do the opposite. In fact, many of these characters are owned by entities that mean to destroy them. Copyright law is in dire need of reform, and if that cannot be accomplished; it would be better off abolished.
Star Trek and Star Wars turning to shit is one of the best things hollywood has done for me. I can't imagine how much more time and money I would have wasted with them if an ounce of talent had been poured into either.
The thing with Pierce Brosnan's Bond and M was there was a kind of rivalry where she wanted to show she earned her place and he wanted to show his way still worked but she always had his back when he needed it and he had hers. The later ones didn't have this same rivalry/partnership. Though that was secondary for me in Bond films as my main focus was how was the relationship between Q and Bond and best Bond for that, Timothy Dalton.
I'd agree but the main reason for this is years of exposure and the modern Western writers have nothing to fall back on anymore so even with legacy franchises (LotR) they have to actually have talent and it shows they don't have it anymore. Those that have any talent are independent and making their own stuff online.
It's why they're trying desperately to edit old media because it's so superior to current stuff, the Star Wars prequels shits on the Disney stuff, Indiana is a Trilogy and ghostbusters only had 1,2 then afterlife.
I think switching M to a woman was more excusable because at the time gender and race swaps were still a novelty. It doesn't hurt the Judi Dench is an excellent actress as well.
We're now so saturated with girl power messaging and racial politics that it would be a surprise if the next Bond movie didn't portray all of MI6 as women and minorities.
I just remember the scene that line was in, she was trying to distance herself from her predecessor and say while she was different that didn't mean she wouldn't risk Bond's life for the mission, just that she wouldn't do it on a whim so was a bit more cautious.
I'm just glad that Disney's losing streak will continue with no signs of it stopping anytime soon. Even after Dial of Destiny inevitably flops, Kennedy will still be employed and continue to be a money pit.
I bet five or six new disney+ shows would really dilute the original sliver of genuine talent and creativity completely to nothing. C'mon Disney, you know you wanna!
Woke Hollywood gave me a step back to really examine how much of my life I was wasting watching bullshit, thinking about bullshit, and talking about bullshit with other programmed people.
Snapped me into a reality where I realized I could pursue better things, like building, fixing, creative works, etc.
Most old school fans will ignore it too (mostly thanks to a combination of Crystal Skull and Disney Star Woke.) New people just won’t watch it as most Disney movies are just shit. It will fail.
I have so many things to watch, play, and rewatch/play that I appreciate when something immediately gives me the out to not even have to consider engaging with it.
You do know that Casino Royale is based on a novel right, the first story with James Bond at that.
And most of the things you call out (like the romance arc) are damn near verbatim from the novel? I don't think there's an attempt to undermine the character because at that point Bond is more inexperienced and the whole him being more dominant force in relationships is the result of Vesper's death and him becoming numb to relationships.
Like it's not subverting decades of established tropes when it's supposed to be the first Bond story. Even the shaken or stirred line has it's origin here and the "do I look like I give a damn" makes sense with the events of the movie at that point.
Very true its the slow boiling of the frog that tricks the normies into thinking "the hero has always been like this". A great example is spiderman and how his brand and name is slowly being eroded so its no longer synonymous with peter parker. He's still featured whenever they need to introduce spiderman in new media but you can bet your bottom dollar that characters like miles morales and spider gwen will somehow be tacked on to him since on their own they can't sell shit. Slowly but surely peter will be sidelined to make way for miles and this has been done for so long that people actually think miles is a well written character and not what he actually is, a leech to the spiderman name.
I agree 100% I've said the same about Ring of Power, it is much better that we got a full woke disaster then a decent movie with a bit of race swap and a bit of feminism thrown in.
Is the boiling frog.
I would argue the boiling frog isn't working if you are aware the stove is on and even for normies they notice. My father is semi normie and even he didn't like what they did to star wars. He called it shit and he was fan for all his life. I obviously explained it to him but I don't know how aware he is of it all, I would have to ask.
You didn't notice it...but your brain did.
How embarrassing!
It still works even if you notice, because for a lot of people if it isn't bad enough they will still want to enjoy it and even accept an X amount of wokeness just because the rest if good enough.
And in doing so, your barometer for "unacceptable" moves a little further out.
Thankfully for me I have some movie standards I hold modern movies to. Almost all don't even come close but you might be right that other people aren't holding movies to a standard.
The more older movies I see the higher my standard goes. Example: I never watched that many action movies(I am more a back to the future kinda guy), I recently watched a lot of the classics and can now hold them up as a standard. Nowadays action is either not a thing anymore or it's some girl boss shit. Thankfully, there's just too many old movies that are interesting.
The thing is, a vast majority of those old movies also have some trace amounts of it. The frog was just boiled that slowly, and our standards have changed that significantly.
Alien for example is such a girlboss movie it would be lambasted as a woke parody these days. With its strong wahmen who is somehow the only one able to use her brain and evil penis monsters killing people with their ultra penis mouths.
Even most action movies have an absurd "protect the womens at all costs, in the face of all logic, and for no reason" consistency. There is almost always one women, she is almost always the most morally innocent/righteous, and she will be put on a pedestal of value well above her actual worth. Predator for another example is one of the most manly man movies ever full of nothing but hardcore action, but for some reason the Commie Guerilla gets to survive because she is the woman and we can't have real bad things to happen to her.
You can say those are just basic tennants of life and weren't made with any political idea in mind, but those are the foundations all of this was built on.
The antagonist being a literal rape monster isn't woke unless you make it so - if sexual horror was automatically woke then the wokists would celebrate stuff like Goblin Slayer rather than condemning it. And I disagree with the "strong wahmen" criticism when the weakest link was also a woman.
The woman gets to survive because she's not worth killing. Being an impotent bystander who survives because she wasn't even in the running isn't a feminist message.
And so it can be argued that it is. Which means the frog went from neutral to a hair above neutral by creating a situation in which the barometer is moved ever so slightly that way and our perceptions of reality adjusted for it.
You seem to have missed the point. In which that things that were not necessarily woke in any form are still part of the march towards that wokeness. Because wokeness didn't just spring from nowhere, it was built upon hundreds of little steps and foundational pieces.
Rape monsters unquestionably bad/evil, women being dainty "not worth killing" targets, and all of that are tiny little preconceived notions we have that are exploited to create the emotional manipulations and loopholes in our minds that the Wokeness springs from.
I didn’t really hate Crystal Skull (I didn’t think aliens and flying saucers should be a bridge too far if one is cool with avenging angels and such from the other movies) so I’ll consider Indy as the star as a quadrilogy, but the main point stands, everyone gets to decide which movies “count” in their own mind because ultimately entertainment is in the eye of the beholder. You always have the right to reject a new franchise entry as far as you care.
It's not the aliens in Crystal Skull that bother me. Its the zany/cartoonish levels of danger and villains. Yes there was some of this in the previous 3, but it's just too much in 4. The refrigerator to survive a nuke. The overly sentient ants reacting instantly. The Keystone Cops style villains and chases. It just went full corny. If they had dialed things back just a little bit, I wouldn't 'hate' it. The tone. We accept Mola Ram in Temple of Doom ripping out hearts because it fits with the pulpy terror motif. Indy 4 is just ZaNy CrAzY man. If that makes sense.
It also started the 'bad dad' path for Indy. I get that they are trying to mirror his relationship with his own dad (Connery) but it was too heavy handed imo. Too disfunctional. Too finger wagging. I don't know, the movie has a weird ass vibe. Harrison Ford was already way too old in that one. Rickety and awkward. He should have played more of the Connery role to whomever they were going to pass the torch to. Shia was another failing in that sense. Though I don't overly hate the guy or his acting. He just wasn't a good fit for an Indy movie.
This. There's no one thing that sank Crystal Skull. The basic premise and setting were solid, Commies replacing Nazis and aliens replacing religion totally fits with the 1950's.
LeBouf was a poor casting choice, and the action bordered on slapstick at times.
I think it also suffered from not really having a moral element like the first three. Mola Ram and the Nazis ultimately failed because were evil- the Ark, Grail, and Sankara stones took them out.
I think the aliens killed the psychic Russian chick because she absorbed too much knowledge, but the ending wasn't really clear.
Read into Lucas's original cut of the OT. It was bad. He had 3PO pulling slapstick humor on stormtroopers in the middle of the Battle of Hoth. And remember the scene in ANH where the troopers walk by and the door in Mos Eisley opened and 3PO and R2 snuck out. Remember that tension? That scene was played in reverse. George's version was the droids walking into the closet, shutting the door, and then the troopers marching right by it with a wAcKy sOuNd EfFecT. The OT was basically saved by Lucas's ex-wife, who cut and rearranged the films to take out all of his stupid shit and treat the plot and characters more seriously/realistically. If you go through the changes and play it in your head the way George intended, IT ABSOLUTELY FEELS THE SAME AS THE PREQUELS. Like its startling how the tone feels.
I think he also had a rough cut screening with Spielberg and several other directors that proposed significant changes.
That's why we have those unused scenes with Biggs on tatooine and Jabba that cropped up in the special edition. Luke also had a whole gang of friends that got cut at their suggestion.
Luke's friends were named Camie and Fixer, and he had a nickname - "Wormie Luke." ANH was originally laid out much more like a Disney movie. The original was an intro with Luke going about his day, where we got to know about him and his shitty life and friends for about 15 minutes. Then he would see the space battle above the planet through his binocs, and then the camera would pan out to the opening space battle between the Devastator and the Tantive IV. Instead that whole opening section got cut and they gave us a "show, not tell" introduction to Luke, and well after the movie opened with that amazing pan out down the length of the star destroyer with the plot kicking off almost in media res.
Member when Shia was swinging through the trees on vines with the monkies? I sure do.
https://communities.win/c/KotakuInAction2/p/12jcci1stN/lore-canon-alternatereality-game/c
Check this post out I made a while back, it’s exactly what you’re getting at here, a God-shaped and sized hole in people which they’re stuffing full of spider-verses and dreams of Q-anon draining the swamp
Great to see someone else share the same view of 'canon' that I hold, although it's something Doomcock has talked about too. Once a work has entered public consciousness and become loved by millions, it creates a mental image of a fictional world and people that you can't arbitrarily change - even if you're the author. It becomes part of our culture. Sorry George, Han shot first. No JKR, Hermione isn't black. Spock didn't learn everything he knows from his fabulous human sister Michael. Some things you don't get to retcon without our permission. It isn't like the US Constitution where you can amend parts of it away.
I'm not in the "Death of the Author" camp either. Obviously the intent is the intent, and we generally defer to their clarifications and revisions. But I do prefer authors and movie directors who don't ever tell us what some controversial plot point means and explicitly leave it up to the audience to decide.
Never made the connection to lack of faith in God but I see where you're coming from.
Official canon became meaningless once corporations, with no connection to the original creators, gained the rights to declare it. Official canon only made sense when it was the creator saying that one thing "happened," vs something else was just "for fun." Now it's a corporate hegemony trying to decide what stories matter for the whole world.
I'm not an anti-capitalist by any means, but I am disturbed to see pieces of culture commodified into mere products. I don't simply mean selling art; I believe that it is the purview of an artist to sell their work to make a living. Rather, I mean the monopoly rights of corporations to have total control of cultural icons. Even the language that we use commodifies our culture. The word "franchise" used to conjure thoughts of McDonald's restaurants.
I strongly believe that the cultural icons of: Superman, Batman, Luke Skywalker, James Kirk, Indiana Jones, etc, are greater than any corporate property. They have been referenced, lauded, and parodied across all artistic media. They represent the heroism and virtue that we should all aspire to in our own daily lives. Their impact is not substantially different from characters like: Dracula, Robin Hood, Cinderella, and King Arthur,. Stories are at the heart of our humanity. Every religion understands it; the modern psychotherapists, like Jung, understood it. It is unnatural for stories and characters to be for the exclusive use of one individual or group.
Copyright, like patent law, has long been seen as a necessary evil; a restriction on the free market, in exchange for fostering creativity and innovation. Now, it has become a tool to do the opposite. In fact, many of these characters are owned by entities that mean to destroy them. Copyright law is in dire need of reform, and if that cannot be accomplished; it would be better off abolished.
Star Trek and Star Wars turning to shit is one of the best things hollywood has done for me. I can't imagine how much more time and money I would have wasted with them if an ounce of talent had been poured into either.
Similar, except now all goes into manga and books. Probably for the better.
The thing with Pierce Brosnan's Bond and M was there was a kind of rivalry where she wanted to show she earned her place and he wanted to show his way still worked but she always had his back when he needed it and he had hers. The later ones didn't have this same rivalry/partnership. Though that was secondary for me in Bond films as my main focus was how was the relationship between Q and Bond and best Bond for that, Timothy Dalton.
I'd agree but the main reason for this is years of exposure and the modern Western writers have nothing to fall back on anymore so even with legacy franchises (LotR) they have to actually have talent and it shows they don't have it anymore. Those that have any talent are independent and making their own stuff online.
It's why they're trying desperately to edit old media because it's so superior to current stuff, the Star Wars prequels shits on the Disney stuff, Indiana is a Trilogy and ghostbusters only had 1,2 then afterlife.
I think switching M to a woman was more excusable because at the time gender and race swaps were still a novelty. It doesn't hurt the Judi Dench is an excellent actress as well.
We're now so saturated with girl power messaging and racial politics that it would be a surprise if the next Bond movie didn't portray all of MI6 as women and minorities.
I just remember the scene that line was in, she was trying to distance herself from her predecessor and say while she was different that didn't mean she wouldn't risk Bond's life for the mission, just that she wouldn't do it on a whim so was a bit more cautious.
"Indy 5 proves wokeness sells big!"
"It's not FOR you."
"It's better than the originals/it redeems the old movies"
"Cry harder incels!"
"Why do you care??"
"This is the REAL Indy. If you're a series fan you HAVE to see it."
"This movie threatens weak men."
"Movie is bombing due to RACISM and HATE GROUPS."
"The failure of Indy 5 is proof we need MORE wokeness in film..."
I'm just glad that Disney's losing streak will continue with no signs of it stopping anytime soon. Even after Dial of Destiny inevitably flops, Kennedy will still be employed and continue to be a money pit.
I bet five or six new disney+ shows would really dilute the original sliver of genuine talent and creativity completely to nothing. C'mon Disney, you know you wanna!
Yes, but in more general terms.
Woke Hollywood gave me a step back to really examine how much of my life I was wasting watching bullshit, thinking about bullshit, and talking about bullshit with other programmed people.
Snapped me into a reality where I realized I could pursue better things, like building, fixing, creative works, etc.
Most old school fans will ignore it too (mostly thanks to a combination of Crystal Skull and Disney Star Woke.) New people just won’t watch it as most Disney movies are just shit. It will fail.
I am honestly glad Disney ruined the brand value of Indiana jones as that was the only other major Lucasfilm IP, now hopefully he can buy it back.
Yes I am fully aware it's being reported that doomcock is full of shit.
I just ignore all new offerings from these fuckers as a matter of course.
I can't wait for the point the movies are still being made and he's fighting off Nazis with a walker.
I have so many things to watch, play, and rewatch/play that I appreciate when something immediately gives me the out to not even have to consider engaging with it.
You do know that Casino Royale is based on a novel right, the first story with James Bond at that.
And most of the things you call out (like the romance arc) are damn near verbatim from the novel? I don't think there's an attempt to undermine the character because at that point Bond is more inexperienced and the whole him being more dominant force in relationships is the result of Vesper's death and him becoming numb to relationships.
Like it's not subverting decades of established tropes when it's supposed to be the first Bond story. Even the shaken or stirred line has it's origin here and the "do I look like I give a damn" makes sense with the events of the movie at that point.
Good points. I didn't quite see this but always felt like casino Royale was kinda weak. Add the ball busting scene and I don't really watch it
Very true its the slow boiling of the frog that tricks the normies into thinking "the hero has always been like this". A great example is spiderman and how his brand and name is slowly being eroded so its no longer synonymous with peter parker. He's still featured whenever they need to introduce spiderman in new media but you can bet your bottom dollar that characters like miles morales and spider gwen will somehow be tacked on to him since on their own they can't sell shit. Slowly but surely peter will be sidelined to make way for miles and this has been done for so long that people actually think miles is a well written character and not what he actually is, a leech to the spiderman name.