It genuinely disturbs me that having a gory torture scene at the start of a new "prestige" TV series is seem as "mature" instead of some grindhouse horror movie gimmick that used to be primarily aimed at teenagers. It disturbs me further when the absence of said gory torture scene is actually noted and seen as a negative mark against a show, like it's a lack of maturity or it damns the show to being a "morality play" to not use that gimmick.
A more specific example (without naming the show) is the difference between the "maturity" of showing a full frontal gratuitious rape scene under pretense of "maturity" and pretending it wasn't filmed for titillation purposes and by contrast criticizing a different rape in a different fiction being mentioned and talked about instead of shown as if that was a failure of cinematic prestige.
Jesus Christ, yeah that's a good one. What show is that even?
I've been spending a lot of time deconstructing my surroundings and the media I consume in general, and given any amount of historical context, it's wild that this is just accepted.
It really is possible to enjoy something while also allowing it to be criticized. It was something said near the start of the Gamergate era, causing reactionary rage across the western world, and it saddens me that it is still good advice not really heeded much.
I won't confirm or deny but it is remarkable how that show you mentioned turned a lot of strategic sleeping around in the books into rape scenes for the show and turned a lot of female characters that had non-prostitute or non-victim roles into prostitutes or victims.
The kneejerk statement is "just because I saw a murder on TV doesn't mean I'm going to be a murderer" as if it's a binary on/off switch between media having no effect and media mind controlling someone into a specific action.
Commercials wouldn't exist if they didn't work; why is entertainment media believed to be magically lacking any such ability to influence?
Why yes, I'd love to see a character scream as someone pulls out their eye while they're wide awake. Really want to see that on Star Trek. That's what the whimsical sci-fi show was missing.
What's worse is that they already had a torture episode in TNG and it actually dealt with it in a mature manner, like actually showing torture as the useless intelligence extractor it is and just done for the pleasure of the torturer.
I feel :jokerfied: when any criticism of such cheap sensationalist "prestige" gimmicks gets a defensive fandom response like "not everything has to be a morality play" as if there's no other way to tell a story other than the camera focusing on Icheb getting his eye ripped out of his head.
I remember when Man of Steel came out and a lot of the criticism around that was the senseless destruction in the last part of the movie.
It was almost always met with the response "well, that's what would happen if two superheroes fought in real life" which I always thought was strange. Art is not real life. It never can be real. At its closest, it is an interpretation of reality through whatever mechanism you use. Hundreds of people all collaborated to show 9/11 times a thousand happen on-screen with the colour palette grimmer than Schindler's List.
You can say "sometimes people die violently in real life" and okay? But it was someone's artistic choice to portray that. It didn't just happen, the person making the art chose to portray torture, murder, rape etc.
If you're going to show something like that, then you have to accept the incredible weight that comes with those actions. If your character dies violently on-screen it better be for a better reason than "gotta give Seven of Nine something to do, like revenge or something idk".
I hated that Nolan take that Superman would "realistically" be feared and hated.
He was projecting his own Randian nonsense onto the general population.
One of the basic foundational things about Superman was that he was supposed to be INSPIRATIONAL. People literally looked up, cheered, were thrilled by his feats.
Just a little hot take, as a treat.
It genuinely disturbs me that having a gory torture scene at the start of a new "prestige" TV series is seem as "mature" instead of some grindhouse horror movie gimmick that used to be primarily aimed at teenagers. It disturbs me further when the absence of said gory torture scene is actually noted and seen as a negative mark against a show, like it's a lack of maturity or it damns the show to being a "morality play" to not use that gimmick.
A more specific example (without naming the show) is the difference between the "maturity" of showing a full frontal gratuitious rape scene under pretense of "maturity" and pretending it wasn't filmed for titillation purposes and by contrast criticizing a different rape in a different fiction being mentioned and talked about instead of shown as if that was a failure of cinematic prestige.
Jesus Christ, yeah that's a good one. What show is that even?
I've been spending a lot of time deconstructing my surroundings and the media I consume in general, and given any amount of historical context, it's wild that this is just accepted.
As much as I want to, I absolutely will not name specific names.
Fans of any specific treat might and often do take it personally if their favorite treat is called out.
Ah loyalty, the stupidest fucking thing people have. Loyalty to their damn treats, but fine with people wallowing in abject poverty the world over.
It really is possible to enjoy something while also allowing it to be criticized. It was something said near the start of the Gamergate era, causing reactionary rage across the western world, and it saddens me that it is still good advice not really heeded much.
deleted by creator
I won't confirm or deny but it is remarkable how that show you mentioned turned a lot of strategic sleeping around in the books into rape scenes for the show and turned a lot of female characters that had non-prostitute or non-victim roles into prostitutes or victims.
M A T U R E :so-true:
The kneejerk statement is "just because I saw a murder on TV doesn't mean I'm going to be a murderer" as if it's a binary on/off switch between media having no effect and media mind controlling someone into a specific action.
Commercials wouldn't exist if they didn't work; why is entertainment media believed to be magically lacking any such ability to influence?
They had this in Star Trek: Picard.
Why yes, I'd love to see a character scream as someone pulls out their eye while they're wide awake. Really want to see that on Star Trek. That's what the whimsical sci-fi show was missing.
What's worse is that they already had a torture episode in TNG and it actually dealt with it in a mature manner, like actually showing torture as the useless intelligence extractor it is and just done for the pleasure of the torturer.
Now it's reduced to shock value nonsense.
I feel :jokerfied: when any criticism of such cheap sensationalist "prestige" gimmicks gets a defensive fandom response like "not everything has to be a morality play" as if there's no other way to tell a story other than the camera focusing on Icheb getting his eye ripped out of his head.
I remember when Man of Steel came out and a lot of the criticism around that was the senseless destruction in the last part of the movie.
It was almost always met with the response "well, that's what would happen if two superheroes fought in real life" which I always thought was strange. Art is not real life. It never can be real. At its closest, it is an interpretation of reality through whatever mechanism you use. Hundreds of people all collaborated to show 9/11 times a thousand happen on-screen with the colour palette grimmer than Schindler's List.
You can say "sometimes people die violently in real life" and okay? But it was someone's artistic choice to portray that. It didn't just happen, the person making the art chose to portray torture, murder, rape etc.
If you're going to show something like that, then you have to accept the incredible weight that comes with those actions. If your character dies violently on-screen it better be for a better reason than "gotta give Seven of Nine something to do, like revenge or something idk".
I hated that Nolan take that Superman would "realistically" be feared and hated.
He was projecting his own Randian nonsense onto the general population.
One of the basic foundational things about Superman was that he was supposed to be INSPIRATIONAL. People literally looked up, cheered, were thrilled by his feats.
Fuck Nolan.
Nolan was just a producer. Snyder was the director.
But he definitely had an influence, especially after his "realistic" Dark Knight trilogy.
it's the sheen of modern cinematography that makes it perceived as less gauche