Fascinating thing about apocalyptic films
-
Innocent User — 1 year ago(December 01, 2024 08:01 AM)
I guess Hollywood can't afford to go there, since it trades in escapist fantasies.
Hollywood goes there all the time in its award speeches and documentaries, and support for activism. Di Caprio has made it his life's work to preach about environmental issues while consuming as many single use 25 year olds as he can.
I should imagine that Hollywood steers clear of climate change as its trigger for apocalypse as it would affect us over time and, quite frankly, nobody seems to be able to agree on when it will actually begin to really impact. So, how could anybody do it justice in a movie? How would they capture the crisis accurately, in a way that wouldn't be contested by everyone everywhere? Science fiction movies tend to steer clear of real science because, ironically, that tends to jarr a modern, internet informed audience. Today, everyone is an expert on all things, ready to cry foul.
You know what Reddit is like. Those losers would be unlikely to forgive any movie that didn't conform to their brainwashed idea of what climate change will look like or when it will hit.
That author sounds like he needs to rethink his conclusion and stop seeing conspiracies where there are none.
This post was sponsored by
ChatGPT
. Boiling the frog one prompt at a time. -
dbentley666 — 1 year ago(December 01, 2024 04:01 PM)
I don't believe that the chief reason Hollywood avoids disaster films based on a realistic understanding of the causes is due to the anticipation of potential disagreement about the hows and whens and whys of environmental disaster. After all, all Hollywood movies are based on speculative scenarios. I think Wallace-Wells is right. Most film viewers are avid consumers (that includes me) and we don't want our lifestyles impacted by a message about austerity, and about producing fewer carbon emissions. We want scenarios in which clearly discerned forces of evil are overthrown by a clean-shaven fellow with blue eyes and a massive jaw (or whatever suitably curated minority figure takes his place). Movies are for low-level entertainment, not philosophical truths.
-
Innocent User — 1 year ago(December 01, 2024 04:13 PM)
Movies are for low-level entertainment, not philosophical truths.
Only a terrible movie would not contain philosophical truth. What may appear to the audience as low-level entertainment usually has something bubbling under the surface to appeal to our subconscious. A writer usually writes because they have something to say.
Does the logic of this WW person only apply to the climate crisis? How does he explain stories about slavery, racism, poverty, abuse, etc, if audiences don't want brutal truths?
This post was sponsored by
ChatGPT
. Boiling the frog one prompt at a time. -
dbentley666 — 1 year ago(December 01, 2024 04:29 PM)
Not sure what W-W would say, but I think it's an easy one. Environmental disaster targets us quite squarely–all us consumers. Movies about racism, sexism, slavery, etc allows us to say: hey that ain't me, babe. I'm sure many Germans don't want to see movies about how Germans were complcit in Nazi crimes, but enjoy movies about American racism.
-
Innocent User — 1 year ago(December 01, 2024 05:14 PM)
I think Hep's AI response summarizes the situation quite well. You can't write a story about a crisis that's a death by a thousand paper cuts.
We'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't think we're going to introduce anything new to the discussion to change either of our minds.
This post was sponsored by
ChatGPT
. Boiling the frog one prompt at a time. -
Professor Kirk — 1 year ago(December 01, 2024 04:19 PM)
Bents, your response raises an important critique of Hollywood’s approach to storytelling, especially in the context of disaster films. While I agree that Hollywood often leans toward speculative, visually extravagant narratives rather than nuanced depictions of reality, I think the dynamic you describe—audiences preferring escapism over introspection—reflects a deeper cultural tension.
Environmental disaster films, when grounded in realistic scenarios, inherently challenge the status quo by pointing to systemic issues—consumption, economic structures, and individual accountability. These are uncomfortable truths for a society heavily invested in convenience and growth. Hollywood, as both a cultural institution and an industry driven by profit, rarely takes the risk of alienating its audience with narratives that demand radical change or self-reflection.
Wallace-Wells’ perspective aligns with the idea that audiences resist messages about austerity, but this resistance may be more complex than a simple preference for “low-level entertainment.” It reflects our collective anxiety about change and guilt over complicity in environmental degradation. In that sense, disaster films featuring heroic figures overcoming externalized forces of evil serve as a form of psychological relief. They shift blame outward, allowing viewers to confront disaster without grappling with their own role in its creation.
However, reducing all film to mere entertainment may overlook its potential as a medium for cultural influence. Movies like Don’t Look Up or Snowpiercer have demonstrated that speculative scenarios can provoke thought and spark dialogue about systemic issues, even if they don’t always offer realistic solutions. While Hollywood does prioritize spectacle over subtlety, the tension you identify—between entertainment and philosophical truth—could be reframed as an opportunity. If storytellers were to balance escapism with meaningful critique, disaster films could transcend their usual tropes and engage audiences with deeper, more transformative narratives.
But I'm blethering. Let's get on to the nitty gritty: how deeply did Trump's victory **** you in the ass? -
-
Dr Kirk — 1 year ago(December 01, 2024 05:28 PM)
There is nobody lowlier than me. All I stole was a loaf of bread, Jean Valjean style.
Though I also have the PhD at Oxford and the other one at Cambridge, sweetie.
Just remember to call me by full title, Bents: Dr Dr Orsen.
