Why do movies spontaneously alternate between "trashy pop fiction" and "culturally deep epic" among some groups in film discourse nowadays? - Or: Schrodinger's Movie Depth

[Iwasamwillbe]

I have noticed that over the past few years, discussions in movies have had this weird effect to them. This effect was strongest in discussions about Star Wars: The Last Jedi, so I'll use that as an example.

When certain groups of people wanted to defend it from those who hated it, the arguments of those who hated the movie, no matter how legitimate were dismissed as "manbaby crying", because Star Wars as a whole is just pulp fiction nonsense for children, and therefore any flaws in any of its movies could be handwaved and dismissed summarily. However, when those same people wanted to expound how good the Last Jedi was, primarily amongst themselves, it suddenly became this super-deep film that gave the fans not what they wanted, but what they needed by "subverting their expectations", and expanded the greater lore of the complex multilayered, and culturally important Star Wars universe, oh and by the way how dare J.J. Abrams retcon Rian Johnson's masterpiece of a film with Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

The best example of this kind of mental oscillation is Patrick H Willems of "Shut Up About Plot Holes" fame, who literally held up a sign saying "Star Wars is a movie about space wizards for children" when arguing why Star Wars: The Last Jedi's flaws don't really matter, only to cry on Twitter about J.J. Abrams retconning the whole thing.

Why is it that these people constantly alternate being calling a movie "pulp fiction"/"children's movie"/etc. so its flaws don't matter when passively defending it, then call it a shining example of cinematic greatness when actively extolling its quality?

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

It's the logical conclusion when talking about culture becomes a political game, the only important thing is to score points against the other side. The quality of the movie is completely secondary.

 

[Boris Blank's glass eye]

Moving goalposts, gaslighting, fishing for clout, trying to be hip, toeing the current purity line, "if they didn't have double standards they wouldn't have standards at all", et cetera.

These fucks want to control the narrative and the zeitgeist, for money, for control, to stay relevant, whatever.
And then there are those who do it for free, who drink the flavor-aid, but they are probably re.tarded anyway.

 

[Slap47]

People are hypocrites. Lets use the example of war. Some liberals have become extremely pro-war since Trump made non-intervention a US policy. They have no positions - just sides.

I think the big thing of note here is the idea that depth automatically means good. A shallow movie that is all fun can be good.

An absolutely dogshit movie can force you to tackle serious themes. A masterpiece can be shallow as a puddle and simply tell you to be a good person.

Being logically consistent and keeping your story straight has nothing to do with depth - that is just something more serious films should be expected to do right with few fuckups.

Side note:

Star Wars is an interesting case. The main series is a silly space wizards series but just under the surface was an interesting space opera with a giant pool of canon... that has since been retconned. I can see veteran fans trying to hold the silly action show to the standards of a space opera... however, I can also see these silly action movies just being shit.

 

[no_mad_johnny]

People use entertainment products (even the most bland corporate junk) as a political statement. It's childish and dumb if “they” (whatever group is being argued against) like it but it's deep and revolutionary if “we” like it.

This happens because modernism (and its children) promoted the idea of critical analysis that analyses the “sociopolitical” influences/effects of entertainment products.

The critic is encouraged to insert ideology in his own critique instead of just viewing the entertainment product in its own merits/in isolation.

That's why the concept of “death of the author” is so popular in academy nowadays.

Personally, I rather see analysis of the technical merits (cinematography, internal consistency of script) of a given product than think of its “sociopolitical” merits.

The “sociopolitical” type of criticism has its space but it shouldn't be the major aspect determining if a film is decent or not.

Spoiler: SW/film sperging

The first nu-wars is a technically competent film but I couldn't bear 30 minutes of it. I wasn't engrossed in the story and failed to care about the characters.

The old trilogy was a straight forward story that was a bit unfocused at times (most old sci fi is like that tbh) but made up for its flaws by hitting all the right “film-spots” with its characters (clear archetypes that are easy to remember and relate to), creative cinematography (everyone remembers scenes from these films for a reason) and pacing.

The original Star Wars films are great popcorn flicks. I am sure you can make an essay about their “sociopolitical” themes but it's obvious that the films weren't too concerned with any specific ideological statement.

Compare it with Total Recall or RoboCop (especially RoboCop) with their obvious anti-corporatism (you could even say anti-capitalist) themes.

Films don't need to be deep to be fun. I would even say that as long as they're technically competent and bring something new, memorable or charming to the table they are worth watching.

Spoiler: TL,DR

> Nuwars is bland corporate junk
> OT was a fun popcorn flick
> sjws need to chill and have fun
> cyberpunk is deeper than space monks anyway

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Star Wars is an interesting case. The main series is a silly space wizards series but just under the surface was an interesting space opera with a giant pool of canon... that has since been retconned. I can see veteran fans trying to hold the silly action show to the standards of a space opera... however, I can also see these silly action movies just being shit.

Some would argue (and in my opinion, rightfully so) that the Star Wars movies proper were never meant to be just this "silly space wizards action movie series", but a legitimate space opera epic, as originally conceived by George Lucas. At least, until the sequel trilogy came about and wrecked everything.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

I assumed this was going to be about non-political stuff like how Christopher Nolan's films are either plebeian trash or just accessible art depending on who you talk to. I'm somehow disappointed.

 

[ColdOnes]

It's just insecurity. A lot of people don't like to admit that the things they love aren't that thematically deep, which is why they come up with reasons to justify their love for it (nevermind that people only care if you revolve your lives around pop culture).

 

[King Ghidorah]

The way critics flip flopped on Godzilla king of the monsters is emblematic of this given how everyone complained about there not being enough Godzilla in the 2014 version and then suddenly bitched about "muh human element" despite the human parts being universally considered that part you tolerate between monster action in literally every Godzilla movie it's especially obnoxious when they seem to pretend the 1954 film is the only one that exists and railed on KOTM for not matching its "deep and serious themes" as if there wasn't decades of precedent of Godzilla mainly being campy popcorn entertainment

 

[swiv]

I assumed this was going to be about non-political stuff like how Christopher Nolan's films are either plebeian trash or just accessible art depending on who you talk to. I'm somehow disappointed.

But we already know what the answer to that is :^)

 

[Biden's Chosen]

I think the more important question is why the fuck does anyone care what consoomers cry about?

 

[Webby's Boyfriend]

I'm a Star Wars nerd*, so:
*only with the old "Legends" Expanded Universe, Disney Nu Wars really is for speds

Star Wars is a bunch of pulp fiction action flicks. The entire setting is build around coolness and adventure, not political sperging.

I know that politics is a part of the setting, but if you are deeper into its lore, you'll see that the politics of Star Wars doesn't make sense anyways. Neither does it work like something in our world (e.g. LOTR) nor does it explore something new (like The Hunger Games), usually, it's just not thought through in any way. This starts with The Phantom Menace where Padme holds the title of Queen of Naboo even though was elected for a limited timespan by the populace, and it ends with the name of the Galactic Federation of Free Alliances in the NJO novels being just a pun.

 

[Not Really Here]

If a person says that Star Wars is for children they should be shunned for their ignorance and make sure they are never allowed to supervise children. Billions dying when a planet is destroyed? Greedo getting blasted because he took the wrong contract? Luke getting his arm cut off by his own father?
None of that is appropriate for children.

TFA was a poor remake of ANH (JJ is a bad TV writer), TLJ was deconstruction combined with masturbatory edging, and TROS was a tarded example of an attempt to combine two films into one and at the same time retcon a THIRD film, in under 3 hours.
This trilogy is what happens when you use TV creator/show runner to sandwich a film writer. JJ decided an overall arc (not his job and never had that power) Johnson ignored JJ because he didn't work for JJ, then JJ freaked out and ended up with a trilogy where the evil emperor won.

TL : DR Dunning Kruger and denial are real nibba.