Also no offense you can be a bit of a “scold” sometimes. I’d just say that not necessarily a bad thing, maybe just own it.
I do own that one. I do take some moral stands and stand by them, primarily because I feel like someone has to when it's so in vogue to be atomized and permissive about everything except showing care or concern about something, or expressing that society should be improved somewhat. :edgeworth-shrug:
IDK if YOU’RE personally guilty of this since I don’t usually keep track of user names but I have encountered people on this site where it feels like this is essentially what they want, they don’t out loud say it but surveying all of their media takes it just seems like the only conclusion of their logic.
I like some pretty dark stuff sometimes, like Moral Orel. I consider that one to be a masterpiece and it's a direct criticism of an actual morality play of a show. It has heart and sincerity and doesn't revel in cruelty and suffering the way some other shows do, though. There's an air of sympathy instead of spectacle throughout the suffering and misery presented, though the later seasons become less of a comedy and more a story of grim resilience and existential coping.
I don't need everything I enjoy to be a "morality play," not at all, though I take no pleasure from edginess for edginess' sake, cheap shock humor gimmicks that age badly, or grimdark gore/sexual violence spectacles presented for entertainment purposes while masquerading as "historical accuracy" as if full frontal titillation and making a spectacle of the victim is the only way to be that way.
Another example of grim done right is "Come and See." I don't think it'd be improved if Gambo's "historical accuracy" emphasis was put on it and the sexual violence victim in one notorious scene was focused on during the atrocity with titillating camera angles and gratuitous sensationalist emphasis, or if such a scene was repeated a few more times over and over throughout the run time while presented in such a way.
I know you weren't. I was just clarifying my position and where I stand.
I can't speak for everyone here. In fact, some banned people sometimes went further than I did, maybe even to the point of parody or deliberate exaggeration.
I did say that modern makers of satire should be more than aware by now that a lot of people are statistically likely to miss the satire and to take whatever's being satirized at face value, as what notoriously happened with Verhoven's Starship Troopers film, which was intended to dunk on Heinlein's novel (which Verhoven expressed personal dislike for, and didn't even finish reading), and the director himself expressed frustration and regret about how too many audience members took the film.
I didn't say it can't be done, but that at this point it really shouldn't be a surprise if the message of something goes over people's heads and something more crude and unintended is absorbed instead.
I honestly don't remember who or when those arguments were made, or by whom. Maybe I was too busy and distracted getting raged and insulted for what I myself said that stood differently than that.
I'm too lazy to look through my posts but yeah, there was some real "authors should control every didactic aspect of their art" posting a while back I was pushing against.
Sort of, except that Moral Orel doesn't pull a pop nihilistic take. In a way it is a morality story, but it's about the moral abomination of fundamentalist religious upbringing and what it takes for a kid to try to endure it long enough to escape it.
I'm not even arguing with you there. It dunks on a morality play, not on morality as a concept.
I don’t see how that makes it any different from any other story that criticizes or gives morals like quite literally Every Story Ever
I don't see the alternative to having at least some detectable moral point somewhere as an inevitability, except futile and hypocritical "NOTHING MATTERS LOL BE A SELFISH ASSHOLE" messaging which is still its own twisted sort of morality.
I'm not even sure you're arguing against something I was intending to say.
Moral Orel dunks on Davie and Goliath as a foundational purpose for the show's existence. Davie and Goliath was a claymation churchy show that was rather directly about promoting the ideology and lifestyle that is portrayed as an artificial and abusive hellscape in Moral Orel. It's not absent of morality, but it's fiercely against the morality of Davie and Goliath.
I may have worded that badly, then. We don't really disagree on much of anything here.
It's a good show, if pretty dark at times. The darkness has a point; it isn't misery porn but the dark humor turns into just grim perseverance over time and it eventually stops being a comedy altogether before it ends.
I do own that one. I do take some moral stands and stand by them, primarily because I feel like someone has to when it's so in vogue to be atomized and permissive about everything except showing care or concern about something, or expressing that society should be improved somewhat. :edgeworth-shrug:
I like some pretty dark stuff sometimes, like Moral Orel. I consider that one to be a masterpiece and it's a direct criticism of an actual morality play of a show. It has heart and sincerity and doesn't revel in cruelty and suffering the way some other shows do, though. There's an air of sympathy instead of spectacle throughout the suffering and misery presented, though the later seasons become less of a comedy and more a story of grim resilience and existential coping.
I don't need everything I enjoy to be a "morality play," not at all, though I take no pleasure from edginess for edginess' sake, cheap shock humor gimmicks that age badly, or grimdark gore/sexual violence spectacles presented for entertainment purposes while masquerading as "historical accuracy" as if full frontal titillation and making a spectacle of the victim is the only way to be that way.
Another example of grim done right is "Come and See." I don't think it'd be improved if Gambo's "historical accuracy" emphasis was put on it and the sexual violence victim in one notorious scene was focused on during the atrocity with titillating camera angles and gratuitous sensationalist emphasis, or if such a scene was repeated a few more times over and over throughout the run time while presented in such a way.
deleted by creator
I know you weren't. I was just clarifying my position and where I stand.
I can't speak for everyone here. In fact, some banned people sometimes went further than I did, maybe even to the point of parody or deliberate exaggeration.
deleted by creator
I did say that modern makers of satire should be more than aware by now that a lot of people are statistically likely to miss the satire and to take whatever's being satirized at face value, as what notoriously happened with Verhoven's Starship Troopers film, which was intended to dunk on Heinlein's novel (which Verhoven expressed personal dislike for, and didn't even finish reading), and the director himself expressed frustration and regret about how too many audience members took the film.
I didn't say it can't be done, but that at this point it really shouldn't be a surprise if the message of something goes over people's heads and something more crude and unintended is absorbed instead.
EDIT: Fixed a can/can't typo.
deleted by creator
I honestly don't remember who or when those arguments were made, or by whom. Maybe I was too busy and distracted getting raged and insulted for what I myself said that stood differently than that.
I'm too lazy to look through my posts but yeah, there was some real "authors should control every didactic aspect of their art" posting a while back I was pushing against.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Sort of, except that Moral Orel doesn't pull a pop nihilistic take. In a way it is a morality story, but it's about the moral abomination of fundamentalist religious upbringing and what it takes for a kid to try to endure it long enough to escape it.
deleted by creator
I'm not even arguing with you there. It dunks on a morality play, not on morality as a concept.
I don't see the alternative to having at least some detectable moral point somewhere as an inevitability, except futile and hypocritical "NOTHING MATTERS LOL BE A SELFISH ASSHOLE" messaging which is still its own twisted sort of morality.
deleted by creator
I'm not even sure you're arguing against something I was intending to say.
Moral Orel dunks on Davie and Goliath as a foundational purpose for the show's existence. Davie and Goliath was a claymation churchy show that was rather directly about promoting the ideology and lifestyle that is portrayed as an artificial and abusive hellscape in Moral Orel. It's not absent of morality, but it's fiercely against the morality of Davie and Goliath.
I don't know either. :edgeworth-shrug:
deleted by creator
I may have worded that badly, then. We don't really disagree on much of anything here.
It's a good show, if pretty dark at times. The darkness has a point; it isn't misery porn but the dark humor turns into just grim perseverance over time and it eventually stops being a comedy altogether before it ends.
deleted by creator
I'm sorry for the unclear earlier post. :rat-salute-2:
deleted by creator