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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Can we talk about how good Puss in Boots: The last wish is? It is culture war topic because unlike big projects from Disney, Marvel, Amazon and generally speaking Hollywood that underperformed (or flopped if you are into schadenfreude) it came out of nowhere, the reviews are off the scale and the movie itself is unapologetically culture war free. Simple story, tight writing, tight movie - there is barely anything to cut. Relatable and sympathetic characters you care about. Surprising depth and darkness for the more mature audience. A villain that is for the ages. Brilliant voice acting.
The message is about friendship family and trust - shave the heads of every male in the movie and it could be part from the Fast and Furious franchise.
It was a pleasant surprise and a datapoint for the theory that much of the DEI in Hollywood is defensive - to deflect criticisms.
I felt the same about Top Gun Maverick. It was good because it lacked any DEI not despite it.
It's hardly rocket science, "making good movie" at the top of the priority list produces better movies than any list where it isn't at the top.
Weasel phrase. Just talk about it. No need to ask for permission.
TG:M was decent at best.
I have no nostalgia for the original film, mainstream action blockbusters aren't really my thing, and a 'nostalgia sequel' several decades since is usually an instant write-off. I'm also very cynical of the modern Hollywood landscape and its output.
So I did raise my eyebrow at all the positive word of mouth for Maverick. I figured I'd sign myself up for an experiment and see what all the fuss was about, expecting to be pleasantly surprised by the movie being fine, but that's about it. So I can't overstate the level of shock I experienced when I left the theatre liking it. Like, really liking it to the point where it was my film of the year; painfully but decisively edging out Northman and Everything Everywhere (both films I loved and am more likely to rewatch). Those are certainly more 'interesting' films with stuff to chew on. But the sheer triumph of Maverick's execution felt anomalous and worthy of attention.
The plot was predictable, and I could see all the the filmmaker tricks for setting up drama, humor, and romance getting telegraphed in realtime... but by god, it worked on me. And I'm not sure I can tell you exactly why it worked on me, despite all my intellectual defenses manning the barricades. I'll admit that time and place probably have something to do with it. Maverick wouldn't have been notable to me ten years ago, whereas my experience at the cinema last year felt like an oasis in a desert of films compromising themselves one way or another for 'modern audiences' or tinsel town sensibilities.
One consequence of seeing Maverick is that I am now more askance towards films attempting to be 'clever', 'heady', 'subversive', or 'topical'. These are not bad things to aspire to be, but I lately feel like so much of the conventional wisdom for making good characters, tone-appropriate humor, and satisfying narratives has been sacrificed for those things. Like a film or show isn't really legit or worthy of one's attention outside of a lazy weekend afternoon unless it's busting tropes, sending up conventions, or lampshading itself with a too-proud self-awareness.
Then Maverick comes along and reminds me that films are experiences, not masturbatory intellectual exercises. And if the experience worked for you, questioning how it works is like questioning a magic spell. As Mr Plinkett said, 'you may not have noticed, but your brain did'. Maverick felt scientifically designed to positively engage my senses with such satisfaction that my cynical brain was effectively being told to STFU, and that can really only happen to me if it's doing its job well.
(Additionally, all my friends who saw it have had similarly glowing reactions. I took my grandfather to see it as well, and the level of enoyment he had would seemingly indicate this man hard been starved of films he likes for decades.)
I'm not writing from the perspective that only movies doing "unique" or subversive things are worthwhile or good. I think the movie is also decent at worst. It's competent enough because they had a simple plot and didn't take any bold directions. Not necessarily a problem, mind you, I thought the conflict between Maverick and his friend's son was interesting to start with.
But the film doesn't do anything with it because the romance subplot gets in the way. Scenes that could have been for delivering on the conflict between the two aren't delivered because the film is also trying to get Maverick back with that woman who owns the bar.
Had the film stuck with one or the other subplot, they would have the ability to explore the conflict or romance in more depth. But they didn't, so they lost out on the potential to invest audiences more. There's no guarantee it would have been done well, but we're then left with, as I said, just a decent movie.
More options
Context Copy link
The only thing that felt a bit off for the film as a product was the middle-aged, divorced with a teenager romance subplot that seemed almost beat and bit copied from romcoms targeted at 30+ women. Weirdly wholesome and acknowledges the difficulties of relationships complicated by military service but a big tonal shift that absolutely leaned into the fact that neither of the leads of the subplot were in their 20s (or 30s for that matter).
More options
Context Copy link
It's a simple formula, and the movie stuck to it: cool planes go whoosh! very fast and acrobatic.
I saw the first Top Gun movie and thought it was dumb. But cool planes go whoosh! very fast and acrobatic, and that part made me happy.
I haven't seen Maverick, except for clips here and there online, but the bits I saw were cool planes go whoosh! very fast and acrobatic, and that looked fine to me.
There is nothing wrong with a popcorn for the brain movie that is made without laughing up its sleeve or mocking the genre or undermining the premises of the movie. Cool planes go whoosh! very fast and acrobatic is all people wanted, and they got it, and there was no 'message' other than "sit back and enjoy the ride, and we won't laugh at you as a bunch of rubes who don't know any better".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your opinion is in the minority across critics/audiences and different levels of "film enthusiasts." It's quite rare for that to happen.
Not that rare, I've found several films which score poorly with critics, excellently with audiences, and my own rating in the middle. Regardless, I stand by my opinion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Movies can be great even if they go heavy on the DEI side of things: see Everything, Everywhere All At Once, which, although polarizing, definitely stands out in good ways.
I think there's pretty much no DEI -> bad quality relationship. It's more that, if a movie or show flops, there's a bunch of buck passing; gesticulating wildly at racist chuds is a useful strategy because it allows everyone involved to point to someone without implicating each other. So RoP gets to have lots of good press about how it's failing because of racism, while HotD is quietly stuck with people who want to watch it.
Everything Everywhere All At Once didn't go heavy on DEI, though. At best, it went somewhat light with some promotion highlighting the Asian/middle-aged woman/gay representation. For it to go heavy on DEI would require something more overt, like the Asian protagonist's daughter being inexplicably black or the protagonist being humiliated over her homophobia regarding her daughter's sexuality. A film that happens to feature minorities as the protagonists isn't one that's going DEI, heavily or otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
Well said.
I’m sure that someone on the Internet was bemoaning the nationalist racist propagandist whateverist style of Top Gun: Maverick. That got completely drowned out by the people excited about good art. Not high art, good art.
There’s less attack surface when something can stand on its own merits. Conversely, a design-by-committee show without vision is more likely to reach for a fig leaf because it’s more likely to need one.
More options
Context Copy link
The point is that "being great" is no longer the top priority. Sure, it can still happen when it's a lesser priority, but it's going to be less likely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link