The Content That Merely Entertain Vs The Content That Impact You - A Response to @vieira
@vieira had left an excellent comment on my post Let's Discuss on The Content You Consume and it was too good to be left in a comment section. I fully agree wit its content and I even think many of the problems of the society we face today are very much related to this simple difference in content consumption.
More than the difference between the quality of what is consumed, because the one who has good eyes can see the good in any place he look, the effective difference would come to be; if you consume as a means or as an end.
If the end is in itself to consume, then you will not get anything useful from it, on the contrary, you will lose time. The people who consume as an end only seek a rest from their lives, set aside for a moment to rest, which means that they are not really interested in changing their reality but in ignoring it.
If consumption is a means to an end, then it means that a change is sought, and as such, the action of consuming is significant. The fact that it is significant does not mean that it is positive, but that it can be both positive and beneficial, as well as negative and harmful. But at the end of the day, it will end up having a meaning and it will not be dead time.
The above two points are 2 things that I've held through for as long as I can remember. I tend to content as a means to an end (with few exceptions like when I'm tired or in need of some relaxation). So by default I tend to look no further than the quality of the content. This had made me feel like an alien when browsing the internet and I generally tend to be against the critical consensus when it comes to my favorite works. It has been like that since my childhood. There are rare times where critics, fans and I are around the same page like Arthur C. Clarke, The first Matrix movie, Many Stanley Kubrick movies, Mad Max: Fury Road etc.
Entertainment Via Vanity
The best contemporary example I can come up with is MCU movies. It's extremely visible when fans are debating why MCU movies are better than DCEU. First of all let me tell you that WB has ruined every single DCEU movie and Watchmen (2009) was the only one that fully delivered its full potential. But flawed execution isn't bad, It's simply not good enough.
If fun is the only thing to be had with a movie, it's not a real movie at all. At least it is not a worthwhile movie. It's just a parade. There is a special kind of value in a work that affect a person's life.
Some YouTube Comments
I'm picking some quotes on Man of Steel (2013) because unlike most deep and philosophical movies of recent times, the Zack Snyder movies have broken into the mainstream for both better and worse which has even sort of become a curse. Man of Steel (2013) is the one that seriously started it because Watchmen (2009) sort of flopped even though the DVD sales were some of the highest for any movie at the time.
It's not even remotely close to a "bad" movie. It's a misunderstood movie. You can dislike the themes or how it deals with them but the cinematography, VFX, score, acting all top notch.
The DCEU is currently in disarray because they listened to people like you mate. You probably think WW and JL were steps in the right direction... to me both of those are cynical attempts to copy the MCU and pander to the masses. WW less so but it still had that feel. I understand Snyder's point of view. THAT is the difference in our world views. We simply like and value different perspectives.
Yes, plenty are not able to engage with art in a non-passive way. That is a major problem that has been growing over the last decade. Thank you for bringing it up. The only issue with Snyder is that he gives too much credit to the audience's intelligence. Watchmen is one of the best CBM's yet made. It was a masterpiece ahead of its time. Snyder did not "misunderstand" it by taking out the squid. 300 is a near panel for panel remake.
He understands the core of both Superman and Batman. What actually makes them tick. As people. To deconstruct is to test their ideals to their extreme. If the ideals of a hero are never tested, and those tests overcome, how can I respect or idealize them? Batman's arc in BvS was to start similar to TDKR Batman and end up closer to the animated series Batman. Deconstructed to be built back up again. He was the villain in BvS. He was wrong... Superman inspired him to change.
- paulpesci1
The next one very well captures the Randian (therefore realistic) take on the world around us. I don't think anybody except Snyder has even come close to representing how things would work for real if Superman was real. Howard Roark was actually Ayn Rand's superman.
Actually Jonathan Kent dies because he is scared of what could happen to his son if he is exposed to the world.
The choice that Jonathan makes cements the fact that he is willing to die so that his son lives free of any persecution.
The fact that Clark dies 18 months after exposing himself to the world further proves that Jonathan was right in his fears.
And without that sacrifice, his son would have lasted even less time on this Earth.
Jonathan is a man scared that what makes his son different is going to be exactly why people might try to manipulate, use or assassinate his kid.
Which is a far more powerful message to our world than people might think at first.
The last shot of Jonathan Kent on Man of Steel also displays that, it is not supposed to be interpreted literally, it's not something that actually happened, rather it's Jonathan Kent looking down on his kid and, while worried about his fate, his expression also shows curiosity and hope that everything goes right for his son, now that he is exposed to the world.
The kid wearing the cape is how Jonathan sees his son, still his kid, and he still cares for him deeply.
Martha Kent is also on that scene and she is hopeful about all of this, maybe because Clark is also hopeful about it, but Jonathan has a wider view on things, which is why he doesn't smile when his kid wears the cape (aka become Superman).
Jonathan Kent in Man of Steel is the best father I have seen on any movie by far, and I recognize that easily because my father was the complete opposite.
- Mandy's Mashups
i went into to this film at age 13, not caring about Superman (whether as a character or a superhero) at all. Yet i walked out of the theater caring. And i haven’t been able to get the film out of my head since then. I’ve figured it was several factors that made it strike me so hard 1. the cinematography, 2. the score by Hans Zimmer (one of his best ever in my opinion) and 3. the character of Superman. I haven’t seen it since that first showing 5 years ago but I’m curious to watch it again and see if it still strikes me the same way it did. Because, honesty, I’m a little confused as to why I liked it so much.
- rj covey
I'm in the same boat, dude. I grew up hating Superman, but Man of Steel changed my entire perception of the character. It's one of my favorite science fiction films of all time. Great video.
- MysticalGreenBeanie
I too have to admit that I was never a Superman fan until Man of Steel. I just loved Spider-Man, X-Men and anime for the most part. I did think of Watchmen as a perfect masterpiece. There is an excellent review/analysis by @d-zero you should all check out: https://steemit.com/entertainment/@d-zero/watchmen-2009-review-the-perfect-comic-book-movie-from-zack-snyder-who-could-be-the-stanley-kubrick-of-our-generation
You Can Have Your Cake and Eat it Too (Sort of)
The cost of this is that you have to make 2 short movies and mash them together or have some genius writing skills.3 Idiots (2009) and PK (2014) are some of the funniest and most entertaining movies ever made. I consider them to be funnier than Deadpool and they are totally family friendly. Above all they have some serious deep messages about education, competition, religion, faith, passion and many more.
The other route is make a campy cringe educing musical comedy and mix it up with an R rated action crime story and sell it as a family movie which is a regular thing (at least when it comes to the popular ones) in Tamil cinema.
The above movie is sort of a cross between Death Wish and David Ayer's Street Kings(2008) made for the families. Now try the next one:
Libertarians might really enjoy the ending of the movie where the corrupt government actually restrict the police from doing anything against the criminals and ........ the entire Mumbai police force (40,000 police officers) take off their uniforms and beat up the bad guys and tell the politicians to do what they can about it.
Some might just laugh it off. but for a kid it could really be inspiring. After all it's better to make a campy version of a great movie that look like just fun than to make a movie like Free State of Jones (2016) and flop miserably and have no one watch it.
The only Snyder movie that (as far as I remember now) I have seen is 300, and it was, according to my perception, quite good, it certainly did not have a historical rigor, so it was often criticized, but that was not the objective of the movie (if you want to learn from history you should take a book, not see a Hollywood movie).
Its objective was to show the first soldiers of Europe in a heroic and warlike way, and one can perfectly understand the inherent idealism of its actions, even from a non-Eurocentric vision (what is currently difficult with the political climate, and the ease that some have in modernity to be offended by everything that has to do with the West). It would be for my similar to see a film that shows the Spartans in an idealistic way, as it is one that does the same with the samurai, like The Last Samurai by Edward Zwick.
But reading the descriptions about Man of Steel and Watchmen that you mentioned, in addition to the post of @d-zero, I get more attention, which had not done the other superhero movies that, as far as I could see, has a really poor message and a lot of action, sincerand I've only liked the Batman trilogy by Christopher Nolan.
Thanks for the mention, and for the elaborate response, which btw was not a "trouble". Regards!
If we really look at the historical consequences, The Persians were the more civilized ones and their victories were a gain for the progress of humanity. But what Frank Miller and Zack Snyder made was not a movie about history. It was movie about dying on feet than living on knees. The historical setting and characters was mostly just a backdrop. Even a based on a true story masterpiece like The Imitation Game (2014) is full of historical inaccuracies. But The Founder (2016) was extremely factually accurate.
The 300 pre-sequal (starts before 300 and ends after 300) perfectly copied Snyder's style and it was a different but (IMO) better movie.
It is sad too see what PC culture is doing. Luckily Japan isn't afraid of doing the offensive stuff. They just lack the budget. Hellsing Ulimate manga/anime actually had a Last Nazi battalion of 1000 Vampires attacking London and DC while The Church starts The 9th crusade against Protestants.
But it's not a story about Vampires, England, Vatican, Nazi, Religion or any such thing. It's simply a dressing they made to tell a story about the war and lust for war and just that. Hellsing is just war.
It's basically about this:
But the story is better with Nazi Vampires and Vatican army committing genocide on Protestants.