and this is where a lot of your arguments fall apart because anyone can see it is clearly very easy for directors and writers to get a few subtle and not so subtle jabs.TCTTS said:
And just for the record, the only thing I've ever hardcore "defended" about Hollywood here is the misconception that it's easy for liberal filmmakers to inject their politics into their work. Because it's not. It's EXTREMELY hard to get something made - harder than anyone here can know - and the sheer logistics of producing an agenda-driven project simply aren't worth the added effort for most filmmakers, other than the super powerful/influential. That, and I've said this dozens of times before, but I'm not the pro-Hollywood liberal so many here want me to be. Some people here are so blind with bias, and enjoy drawing lines in the sand so much, that they can't see things for what they are half the time, which is yet another reason we want all of their rhetoric kept off this board. Because quite often, it's nothing more than uniformed, rage-filled nonsense. Of course there's a modicum of truth in the hate - and we'd love to unpack that truth and have a constructive conversation about it - but the initial presentation is almost always the antithesis of discussion. Hence why, despite that truth, we'd rather not discuss it at all.
This really isn't that complicated.
Well said. This, as well as what TCTTS has already stated, are the main issues here.Quote:
Here on the non-Politics board we've got a generally respectful ongoing dialogue on a variety of topics and all get along pretty well. You and others are welcome to post however you like, but don't expect others to engage in meaningful dialogue with you (which isn't what most of you want anyway).
Everyone writes from their own worldview. That's a lot different than having a political agenda.Furlock Bones said:and this is where a lot of your arguments fall apart because anyone can see it is clearly very easy for directors and writers to get a few subtle and not so subtle jabs.TCTTS said:
And just for the record, the only thing I've ever hardcore "defended" about Hollywood here is the misconception that it's easy for liberal filmmakers to inject their politics into their work. Because it's not. It's EXTREMELY hard to get something made - harder than anyone here can know - and the sheer logistics of producing an agenda-driven project simply aren't worth the added effort for most filmmakers, other than the super powerful/influential. That, and I've said this dozens of times before, but I'm not the pro-Hollywood liberal so many here want me to be. Some people here are so blind with bias, and enjoy drawing lines in the sand so much, that they can't see things for what they are half the time, which is yet another reason we want all of their rhetoric kept off this board. Because quite often, it's nothing more than uniformed, rage-filled nonsense. Of course there's a modicum of truth in the hate - and we'd love to unpack that truth and have a constructive conversation about it - but the initial presentation is almost always the antithesis of discussion. Hence why, despite that truth, we'd rather not discuss it at all.
This really isn't that complicated.
Sounds about right.littlebitofhifi said:
As someone who works in the industry and also lives and breathes this everyday, I'm with TCTTS on this one. Except for the super powerful/influential as mentioned, directors & writers just aren't rogue and free to inject what they like. There are writers rooms, script editors, studio reviews, network notes, rewrites, punch-ups, and scrutiny along every step of the way.
I'm not saying that what you feel are "subtle and not so subtle jabs" don't exist. I'm just saying that they've been thoroughly vetted and all of those people I've mentioned believe it's in line with the script they want produced. At that point it's up to the audience to accept or reject it, either of which is fine.
G Martin 87 said:
Sooooo ... back to Weinstein? Staff did a great job defining the boundaries for the thread, and it's about to go off the rails again. If Weinstein is guilty, what happens in Hollywood? I don't know, I have no expertise or informed opinion about this. Hoping that those who do will feel free to say what they think.
bobbranco said:Bruce Almighty said:
I don't mind discussing politics in movies, but I would hate to see this board turn the way of the politics board. The politics board trashes views that oppose the majority. Liberals are branded as idiots, tards, communists and having a mental disease. The forum 16 posters will say things like opposing views should be allowed on this board, yet they don't listen to their own advice. If they had their way, every liberal poster would be banned. And I realize that not everyone feels that way, but when I see things like Matt Damon should go die in a fire with 80 blue stars, it does make it feel that way. TCTTS does get a little too defensive at times, but it probably gets old seeing the industry that he works in constantly getting bashed.
Can we say bad things about Matthew McConaughey? Or is he off limits same as Matt Damon?
I think you and TCTTS hear the phrase "filmmakers insert political bias into their films" and interpret it as if they are able to sneak something into the final product with no else noticing. Since that would be nearly impossible for someone to sneak it past the entire film crew, you scoff at the idea of bias affecting the film.littlebitofhifi said:
As someone who works in the industry and also lives and breathes this everyday, I'm with TCTTS on this one. Except for the super powerful/influential as mentioned, directors & writers just aren't rogue and free to inject what they like. There are writers rooms, script editors, studio reviews, network notes, rewrites, punch-ups, and scrutiny along every step of the way.
I'm not saying that what you feel are "subtle and not so subtle jabs" don't exist. I'm just saying that they've been thoroughly vetted and all of those people I've mentioned believe it's in line with the script they want produced. At that point it's up to the audience to accept or reject it, either of which is fine.
Agenda or not, we viewers like to comment on what they write. Both political and non-political. Intentional and unintentional.fig96 said:Everyone writes from their own worldview. That's a lot different than having a political agenda.Furlock Bones said:and this is where a lot of your arguments fall apart because anyone can see it is clearly very easy for directors and writers to get a few subtle and not so subtle jabs.TCTTS said:
And just for the record, the only thing I've ever hardcore "defended" about Hollywood here is the misconception that it's easy for liberal filmmakers to inject their politics into their work. Because it's not. It's EXTREMELY hard to get something made - harder than anyone here can know - and the sheer logistics of producing an agenda-driven project simply aren't worth the added effort for most filmmakers, other than the super powerful/influential. That, and I've said this dozens of times before, but I'm not the pro-Hollywood liberal so many here want me to be. Some people here are so blind with bias, and enjoy drawing lines in the sand so much, that they can't see things for what they are half the time, which is yet another reason we want all of their rhetoric kept off this board. Because quite often, it's nothing more than uniformed, rage-filled nonsense. Of course there's a modicum of truth in the hate - and we'd love to unpack that truth and have a constructive conversation about it - but the initial presentation is almost always the antithesis of discussion. Hence why, despite that truth, we'd rather not discuss it at all.
This really isn't that complicated.
If I had to guess this is how it works....Brian Earl Spilner said:
I don't think anyone is immune at this point.
That said, I hope more focus is placed on the actual abusers (Weinstein, Spacey, Singer, etc.) than on the people who may or may not have been "protecting them". At that point, it becomes mostly hearsay and some innocent (or at least less guilty) parties may be brought down or slandered to the point that it kills their career.
As an example, the vitriol that's been thrown at Meryl Streep is pretty ridiculous, given that there is zero evidence she had any knowledge about Weinstein's behavior. Nor was it ever her responsibility to lead the crusade against him.
Now, there are certainly degrees of culpability, of course. For example, the agents who were told about Harvey's behavior and were allowing it to happen to their clients? They should definitely be outed and fired. Similarly, you'd have to assume Bob Weinstein was well aware of what was going on. He probably should not get to keep his job. But the danger here is that it becomes a slippery slope.
Bringing it back to Damon. He might have heard "rumors" or knew of the reputation surrounding Weinstein, and continued to work with him. Does that make him culpable?
aTmAg said:
[Both of you stop cluttering this thread up. -Staff]
Movies, and especially scifi, have always been political. The Matrix, Blade Runner, even Wall-e, all pretty directly address social and political issues. Lucas himself said Vietnam was present in A New Hope.Bobcat06 said:I think you and TCTTS hear the phrase "filmmakers insert political bias into their films" and interpret it as if they are able to sneak something into the final product with no else noticing. Since that would be nearly impossible for someone to sneak it past the entire film crew, you scoff at the idea of bias affecting the film.littlebitofhifi said:
As someone who works in the industry and also lives and breathes this everyday, I'm with TCTTS on this one. Except for the super powerful/influential as mentioned, directors & writers just aren't rogue and free to inject what they like. There are writers rooms, script editors, studio reviews, network notes, rewrites, punch-ups, and scrutiny along every step of the way.
I'm not saying that what you feel are "subtle and not so subtle jabs" don't exist. I'm just saying that they've been thoroughly vetted and all of those people I've mentioned believe it's in line with the script they want produced. At that point it's up to the audience to accept or reject it, either of which is fine.
For us non-Hollywood folk, we go to a movie as an escape from reality. We want spend a couple hours not to worry about our jobs, mortgage, kid's school or North Korea. We just want to watch Luke and Rey in a lightsaber fight. Instead we get a thinly veiled political propaganda about wealth inequality, which ruins our escapism and therefore the movie.
I don't care how it got there, if it was the decision of one director or a team of 1000 people. I just want clumsily inserted political messages to stop ruining the escapism.
Ulrich said:
I don't remember which thread I'm in anymore, so apologies if I got off topic. Is it the Weinstein one? **** WEINSTEIN M***********S! Ok, here we go.
Regarding politics in entertainment, I think there's a vast difference between thematic allegory (the original trilogy) and, for example, GoT putting W's head on a pike.
The former can be timeless. It can be interpreted different ways and apply to many situations. It can tell a story that the creator didn't even mean. Because of all that, it's more likely to make people think and less likely to p*** them off. Even a Republican agrees that evil dictators are a bad thing.
All the latter does is tell you that the creator hates W. It's not thought provoking or clever, and in fact it's not really even political. It's intended to antagonize roughly half of your potential viewers. Now, for the most part commentary in movies isn't quite that bald-faced, but it's also often reinforced by remarks to the press or on social media.
It may be a small proportion of actors and directors (plus all comedians and talk show hosts) who are able to insert an explicit agenda, but the ones with the clout to do it are also disproportionately visible: they have that power because they are making blockbusters and have millions of followers and regular talk show appearances.
So, that's my two cents.
