I hate this shit so much. We went through this same bad faith argument with the last Godzilla movie: critics give it shit for focusing on boring human characters with bad dialogue and morons who can only read headlines think the critics are mad that it focuses too much on Godzilla somehow. It's especially nauseating since Godzilla and King Kong were originally ABOUT things. Godzilla was about the consequences of nuclear war, King Kong was about the evils of colonialism, but now they are just IP that smash into each other in boring military propaganda movies.
Idk, it's often the same critics who praise the MCU movies, which are also poorly written military propaganda. So it's not like them disliking monke vs lizard is some anti-imperalist stance.
Kong represents the slave trade, and is exploited by the white people and revolts. He's the hero of the film and the people who kidnap and abuse him are the bad guys.
It's not super coherent, but it's definitely at least marginally anti-colonial.
Kong is the hero, and Kong is meant to represent slavery and breaking free of the chains of colonial oppression. The trade itself would be the white guys who put him in a cage and brought him to New York.
It's not a perfect analogy, but the film is definitely sympathetic to Kong and his struggle with being imprisoned and shipped across an ocean by white people.
It's not like 1:1, but the movie gets people to feel bad about Kong being chained up and get them mad at the people who did it. The idea is that you leave the theater and think "why the fuck am I concerned about a clay monkey being chained and not the 13 million people that actually were chained".
I added an edit that tries to clear it up, but basically yeah. It gets you to sympathize with slavery by subverting it and not letting you get your defenses up first. The absurdity is that people would be upset about a claymation monkey being chained then go out and be racist to people who's ancestors actually were.
Yeah, every time a blockbuster gets shitty reviews there are people who try to conjure this stereotype of a snooty film critic who just doesn't understand fun. Then you look up "Superhero sequel number 42069" on Rotten Tomatoes and it has like 98%. What gives? Where are my pretentious film snobs?
Kind of reminds me about the discourse around Pacific Rim. People were criticizing the bland romance plot that dominated the screen (and got immediately dumped in the sequel, to add) but there was a narrative about anyone who didn't like PR was just a pretentious snob who can't enjoy a movie about robots and monsters.
I hate this shit so much. We went through this same bad faith argument with the last Godzilla movie: critics give it shit for focusing on boring human characters with bad dialogue and morons who can only read headlines think the critics are mad that it focuses too much on Godzilla somehow. It's especially nauseating since Godzilla and King Kong were originally ABOUT things. Godzilla was about the consequences of nuclear war, King Kong was about the evils of colonialism, but now they are just IP that smash into each other in boring military propaganda movies.
Idk, it's often the same critics who praise the MCU movies, which are also poorly written military propaganda. So it's not like them disliking monke vs lizard is some anti-imperalist stance.
the main problem with MCU movies though is that they're just dull, nothing ever happens in them
deleted by creator
You forgot “Iron man makes a witty comment”
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Spider Man 2 was a goddamned masterpiece.
deleted by creator
It's not banter unless you get incredibly personal and way over the line
deleted by creator
Wow. You could have just not posted this, you know.
The most recent King Kong was still about this. Monke absolutely massacreing American marines just after they got their asses beat by the VC.
King Kong is based???
The theme of the Skull Island was definitely "indigenous have the right to defend their land" and it wasn't subtle.
I've never heard this interpretation of King Kong, can you elaborate?
Kong represents the slave trade, and is exploited by the white people and revolts. He's the hero of the film and the people who kidnap and abuse him are the bad guys.
It's not super coherent, but it's definitely at least marginally anti-colonial.
deleted by creator
Kong is the hero, and Kong is meant to represent slavery and breaking free of the chains of colonial oppression. The trade itself would be the white guys who put him in a cage and brought him to New York.
It's not a perfect analogy, but the film is definitely sympathetic to Kong and his struggle with being imprisoned and shipped across an ocean by white people.
It's not like 1:1, but the movie gets people to feel bad about Kong being chained up and get them mad at the people who did it. The idea is that you leave the theater and think "why the fuck am I concerned about a clay monkey being chained and not the 13 million people that actually were chained".
deleted by creator
I added an edit that tries to clear it up, but basically yeah. It gets you to sympathize with slavery by subverting it and not letting you get your defenses up first. The absurdity is that people would be upset about a claymation monkey being chained then go out and be racist to people who's ancestors actually were.
Yeah, every time a blockbuster gets shitty reviews there are people who try to conjure this stereotype of a snooty film critic who just doesn't understand fun. Then you look up "Superhero sequel number 42069" on Rotten Tomatoes and it has like 98%. What gives? Where are my pretentious film snobs?
This monkey movie seems well-reviewed thought.
Kind of reminds me about the discourse around Pacific Rim. People were criticizing the bland romance plot that dominated the screen (and got immediately dumped in the sequel, to add) but there was a narrative about anyone who didn't like PR was just a pretentious snob who can't enjoy a movie about robots and monsters.