It doesn’t even have to be that the message is bad or completely objective and propaganda fuelled, it could just be its often incredibly recited, copied and pasted or just a blatantly obvious good lesson that you are completely aware of.
The power of love saves the day
I may be biased since im ace
“This character is a freak, let’s make fun of them for being different, even run them out of town.” Character saves their lives, usually using the thing that makes them different “Hey everyone, this character is the best, we love them!”
Acceptable theoretical moral: Love everyone. Actual implied moral: Love everyone because you’ll never know when they might be useful to you.
Or worse only love them after they proved helpful
when the “villain” is objectively correct, pointing out the failure of the establishment and that change is necessary, and then also skins puppies alive for no reason, and then the points they bring up are never addressed again
Literally this:
The most interesting villains are objectively correct in their reason for acting but their methods are monstrous because they lost perspective.
A good example is the military antagonists in The Rock, where the military guys have decided that threatening terrorism is the only way to get benefits for vets and some of them decide to actually follow through with it. They were justifiably angry about something valid, but went too far.
Evil just to be evil is rarely engaging.
deleted by creator
“I can’t believe you convinced me that we shouldn’t be letting corporations pollute the planet! I’m never falling for that again!”
I hate it when they come up with something to help with someone’s disability, but it’s thrown out because the disability “is what makes them special”
Anytime the moral is to not get angry about something that’s perfectly reasonable to be angry about
The inciting incident in Elmo in Grouchland will forever be scarred into my brain.
So tired of seeing revenge killing movies in Hollywood. As long as someone is truly evil and does something unforgivable in the 1st act, the “hero” is then justified in slaughtering like 100+ random people in a dark hallway in the 2nd act. I think it’s the only sort of violence we’re okay with anymore. Any other type of violence people might have a problem, but because it’s done in the name of revenge for a dead wife/dog/kidnapped daughter, that’s now been whitewashed as “good wholesome revenge killing.” Or something.
Kind of related, the stories where the protagonist slaughters dozens of people just to get to the antagonist and then let them live because they had a change of heart.
Like bro, you just killed 50 people to get to this guy and now you’re just gonna change your mind at the last minute?!? The proles can’t even catch a break in hero stories.
Is it better when the hero decides at the last minute to spare the life of the villain so they “don’t become like them” or is it worse?
If the hero also spares the life of the 100+ randoms, it’s better.
But killing them and sparing the life of the super evil villain, is much much worse.
At least in my opinion.
I wouldn’t mind seeing a take on it, where the 100+ are at least arguably spared and the villain is actually killed at the end, completing the revenge. At least once.
Thank you! Henching is an undeservedly maligned profession.
I hate when media tells us that men should always agree with their wives even when the wife is clearly wrong and irrational. And I’m a woman. If I ever get married, I want a husband who will tell me when I’m wrong. Nobody should have to just put up with their partner behaving like an irrational lunatic without saying something.
I legitimately want to see a movie about a husband/wife couple that gets along the whole movie. It’s not that there can’t be conflict, just have it come from outside the relationship.
There might be one somewhere, but I’m having trouble thinking of one
It’s even harder when you’re gay
They’ve got money for war, but can’t feed the poor. Best they can do is spend ten times what they would spend to feed them to torture the poor more.
I mean the worst thing you could do with poor people is feed them. Why would you want to perpetuate their suffering?
Now unless you’re ALSO talking about housing them, giving them healthcare and education? Okay, let’s do it.
Let’s not be like a guy named Dennis or Fadi on the YouTube who go out and exploit homeless for clicks and merch sales by giving them 10 star buffets y’all… maybe once a week.
I don’t know if this is still a thing, but I feel there was a surge of media in the 90s and 00s telling us:
If you’re not popular at school, all you have to do is cut your hair, get contacts, and buy the same expensive clothes as everyone else, THEN you’ll finally be happy.
She’s soooo ugly, she has glasses and a pony tail!
She has paint on her overalls!
Character who hates being X suddenly realizes being X is helpful actually when something very contrived and unlikely happens.
“We are not so different, you and I,” soliloquies the villain.
The moral of every Hollywood Racism Movie^TM ends up boiling down to “We could eliminate racism if only every racist met a person of [RACE] that they actually liked.”
They’re correct that this creates cognitive dissonance. The racist, upon meeting a minority member that doesn’t uphold the stereotype, has two contradictory facts in their head:
-
All members of a minority group are bad.
-
This member of that minority group isn’t bad.
This is cognitive dissonance. Both of these cannot be true at the same time. One of these premises must be wrong.
Hollywood imagines the bigot will treat this like a physicist disproving a theory by finding a counterexample. But bigotry is anyhing but scientific. You can’t reason your way out of a place reason did not lead you to. Instead, they adjust their premises to:
-
Most members of a minority group are bad.
-
This member of that minority group is one of the few good ones.
Exactly.
-
I mean, that is actually the most successful way of countering racism in real life. Not 100% successful, but better than just trying to talk someone out of racist views.
I don’t mind specific morals I think I mind the way they’re told or if they’re pushed down our throats in ways that don’t feel genuine.
But any time media portrays war as good or cool or badass or necessary. Basically every movie from the 2000s carries a secret pro War message.
From the 2000s
Wait till you get to movies from the 50a
I feel as though most war movies, especially the famous ones, the moral is always “war is horrible.” The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) is about how hard it is to come back from war and resume life.
With the exceptions of Top Gun, Act of Valor (2012), Lone Survivor (2013), etc. Sands of Iwo Jima (1949) sticks out as propaganda-ish.
The ones I would actually call “war movies” and not propaganda. Like The Longest Day (1962), Tora Tora Tora (1970) are obsessed with their historical accuracy. Hard to call those pro-war.
There are a lot of movies in the 50s and 60s that werent so much war propaganda as they were soldier’s experience. Since their audience was people who’d been through war already. You see a certain style of humor of soldiers not heroically leaping into battle, but desperatwly trying to avoid fighting entirely, and when their is fighting trying as hard as they can to survive more than amything else. Certainly there were propaganda films then that did treat soldiers as heroes, also fuck john wayne, but its in the 70s and 80s that those types of movies disappeared and all war movies became heroic, and even non-war action movies became pro-war.
There’s an argument that there’s no such thing as an anti war movie. Basically, movies are a recreative art medium. As such, any movie that intends to hold the attention of the audience all the way through, will make aesthetic or narrative concessions that will accidentally glorify war in turn. Some even go as far as claiming that any portrayal of war, even if negative, is promoting war.
It reminds me of Come and See (1985), which is a great horrible movie. But often some of the things being portrayed are so well framed and filmed that it is truly beautiful at times. Even if the subject material is extremely horrifying. And the hook to keep the audience watching wanders into morbidity.
In contrast with 20 days in Mariupol (2023), which I almost didn’t finish. Because it was true documented horror without any sort of grand narrative. A documentary doesn’t have to tell you war is hell. Movies, however, tend to wax poetic about it and end up romanticizing even the worst parts.
There’s an argument that there’s no such thing as an anti war movie.
Some arguments are stupid and that certainly is one of them. It can be difficult to make a movie about war that involves combat not lean into glorifying the violence, but there are movies that only show the horrible side of war without even risking the chance of glorifying violence.
Grave of the Fireflies just off the top of my head.
Or watch American Football.
Love/friendship/family/moral high ground/any virtue/you name it always wins and is the solution for all your problems.
Reality is never that simple. So there’s nothing to take away from such a lesson except for false hopes.
The “We know this is a silly action movie, we’re not taking it seriously ourselves, wink wink!” thing that some action movies do. If I thought action movies were cringe, I wouldn’t be watching the movie in the first place. Can the folks making it please make a movie that they aren’t themselves embarrassed of?
They fly now!?
