site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

24
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm still wondering what got Amazon hooked to a billion dollar disaster. After all initial (imo misplaced) optimism, analysts are finally coming out and saying the quiet part out loud: it is not the ground breaking masterpiece they need it to be. Even HoD is performing better and is better received. Both are prequels to very popular IPs, but Rings of Power should be pulling enormous numbers given how expensive it is, and how extensive its marketing was. Despite worsening performance with every episode, they just renewed it for season 2. This wasn't a small and calculated risk, they literally staked the future of their whole studio on this show. What made them think hiring subpar writers, rewriting lore, rewriting characters of one of the most popular fantasy IPs while simultaneously drafting off of the brand was a good idea? It feels like the motive isn't even to make money but solely to push an agenda, but who would do that? Given the sheer scale of the project, I just cannot believe any studio would be so careless as to commit such a serious misfire.

What made them think hiring subpar writers, rewriting lore, rewriting characters of one of the most popular fantasy IPs while simultaneously drafting off of the brand was a good idea?

Because some of these things - especially hiring the lower-ranked writers - are just common in development now.

Star Wars -for example - handed its main franchise to people who really didn't have that much experience with such huge projects, comparatively. Marvel has done the same and - allegedly - frightened off a director by waving off their inexperience by saying they'll just handle the action scenes

You would think it would be given to known and proven shepherds like Ridley Scott but you often end up with people like Josh Trank and Colin Trevorrow and D&D and such; people who have one (or even less) exciting movie or project.

Directors like Scott have explicitly theorized that it's cause they'll be more malleable in the face of corporate control.

A mainline MCU movie has a budget north of $100,000,000. How much do they save by going economy-size on the writers and directors?

talking completely out of my ass here, but maybe its the revenue and not the production cost that the bean counters are worried about. Big name directors may want a point from the end rather than an additional zero on the check up front or something.

They're closer to $200 million at this point.

There's two answers:

  1. They short everyone they can. Entry-level actors don't get paid that much iirc. The idea is that they'll happily work for the experience so they can end up with a good, steady gig that raises their profile like Hemsworth. VFX companies are constantly complaining about the tight timelines and pay Disney can impose upon them, despite them being central to these movies' success. So the logic isn't limited to just directors.

  2. IIRC the argument wasn't just about direct cost but control. These movies are pre-visualized long in advance so directors need to fit what has already been decided. Less experienced directors are presumably easier to control (using the same logic as stars in Point 1) and directors with enough cachet presumably won't sign on. As Patty Jenkins laid out when she explained why she left marvel

When asked about making movies with Marvel Studios (she was originally slated for Thor: The Dark World), Jenkins opened up about her frustrations with the creative process behind those films. She went on to explain why she likes what she's doing with DC, and that she was approached to take on Justice League at one point.

"I really like the people who work there, but they want full control over their movies. The director is under control," [Jenkins] said

Less experienced directors are presumably easier to control (using the same logic as stars in Point 1) and directors with enough cachet presumably won't sign on.

I can see the logic there; an established A-list director can always say "to hell with this" and walk off in the face of 'creative differences', and still be assured that their reputation isn't ruined and they are now unhireable. A starter or minor guy can't afford to piss off Marvel or Disney the same way.