This. Hollywood actors have always been subversive commies. It’s just that the subversion pre-2012 seems tame in comparison to the current year insanity.
Star Trek was a communist utopia.
The Terminator franchise centered around a stronk wymyn.
Star Wars was tamer, but still followed the oppressed vs oppressor (space nazis) trope.
The Matrix had snippets of woke messages that got worse every sequel.
Regarding Star Wars, I unironically like the prequel trilogy more (despite its issues), because the analogy of the Roman Republic turning into the Roman Empire works out better than the lazy anti-nazi portrayal of the OT.
Star Wars is a conservative fantasy fable, much like all classic fantasy (LotR).
It's a world where progress is bad, the past is a source of wisdom and purity, the future is darkness and oppression. The heroes are heroic because of their special blood and divine gifts, not because of their beliefs. They win by trying to restore the world to its past state, violence is not only okay but morally necessary. The villains are evil because of supernatural forces; there is no compromise, no way to solve all the problems of the world. The heroes have to remain vigilant and keep using righteous violence to thrash evil every generation or so. The heroes rule through divine right and their inherent superior gifts, the only people who are upset by this are wicked and evil.
Compare it to Star Trek, the progressive fantasy. In Star Trek the heroes aren't special, they're the most educated. Violence is seen as an inherent failure state, something that should be avoided at all costs. The past is a source of barbarism and ignorance, the future is abundance, enlightenment, and utopia. The heroes win by educating everyone and freeing them from the oppression of the past. Religious beliefs are seen as defacto bad. All problems are solvable, all conflicts are the result of resource shortfall or prejudice. The heroes rule through consensus and democracy, never by fiat.
People like classic Fantasy because it's conservative, and that's why hollywood keeps trying to destroy it. Consider Dune vs. Foundation; similar issue. Dune is the anti-Foundation, and it's a damn sight more popular. Dune is the argument that the galaxy is better off ruled by the violent warlord than the scientific consensus.
Foundation is pretty crazy. It's about a pre-plan to manage the collapse and Build Back Better.
The Foundation comes under threat by someone that is born with special blood and divine gift. He is described as vile and reprehensible, but that's just from the perspective of the Foundation framing their opposition. They can't simply refute his means or his talents, they have to call him ugly.
It's not really trying to manage the collapse, it just acknowledges that the collapse is inevitable. From there, it tries to figure out how to bring things back to proper civilization as quickly as possible. It's been a while since I read it though, and I don't properly remember how they dealt with the Mule.
They can't even if they wanted to. The script is liable to change half way after they signed the contract and then the whole plot of the film can change radically on the editing room floor long after they've stopped filming. Actors have no say in what finished product comes out of their work.
Because they made "the deal" to get famous in the first place.
They are owned.
This. Hollywood actors have always been subversive commies. It’s just that the subversion pre-2012 seems tame in comparison to the current year insanity.
Star Trek was a communist utopia.
The Terminator franchise centered around a stronk wymyn.
Star Wars was tamer, but still followed the oppressed vs oppressor (space nazis) trope.
The Matrix had snippets of woke messages that got worse every sequel.
Regarding Star Wars, I unironically like the prequel trilogy more (despite its issues), because the analogy of the Roman Republic turning into the Roman Empire works out better than the lazy anti-nazi portrayal of the OT.
Star Wars is a conservative fantasy fable, much like all classic fantasy (LotR).
It's a world where progress is bad, the past is a source of wisdom and purity, the future is darkness and oppression. The heroes are heroic because of their special blood and divine gifts, not because of their beliefs. They win by trying to restore the world to its past state, violence is not only okay but morally necessary. The villains are evil because of supernatural forces; there is no compromise, no way to solve all the problems of the world. The heroes have to remain vigilant and keep using righteous violence to thrash evil every generation or so. The heroes rule through divine right and their inherent superior gifts, the only people who are upset by this are wicked and evil.
Compare it to Star Trek, the progressive fantasy. In Star Trek the heroes aren't special, they're the most educated. Violence is seen as an inherent failure state, something that should be avoided at all costs. The past is a source of barbarism and ignorance, the future is abundance, enlightenment, and utopia. The heroes win by educating everyone and freeing them from the oppression of the past. Religious beliefs are seen as defacto bad. All problems are solvable, all conflicts are the result of resource shortfall or prejudice. The heroes rule through consensus and democracy, never by fiat.
People like classic Fantasy because it's conservative, and that's why hollywood keeps trying to destroy it. Consider Dune vs. Foundation; similar issue. Dune is the anti-Foundation, and it's a damn sight more popular. Dune is the argument that the galaxy is better off ruled by the violent warlord than the scientific consensus.
Foundation is pretty crazy. It's about a pre-plan to manage the collapse and Build Back Better.
The Foundation comes under threat by someone that is born with special blood and divine gift. He is described as vile and reprehensible, but that's just from the perspective of the Foundation framing their opposition. They can't simply refute his means or his talents, they have to call him ugly.
It's not really trying to manage the collapse, it just acknowledges that the collapse is inevitable. From there, it tries to figure out how to bring things back to proper civilization as quickly as possible. It's been a while since I read it though, and I don't properly remember how they dealt with the Mule.
Speaking of prequels, I recently got the novelization of episode 3 and I hear it’s really good. Haven’t read it yet
It's possibly cope, but The Matrix Resurrections may have been intentionally bad
Most actors are super dumb. They just read the lines and collect the paycheck, and give no thought to any of it.
They can't even if they wanted to. The script is liable to change half way after they signed the contract and then the whole plot of the film can change radically on the editing room floor long after they've stopped filming. Actors have no say in what finished product comes out of their work.
Once you take the ticket, your legacy isn't yours anymore.