Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Modern movies teach us awful lessons [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 414 posts

Re: Modern movies teach us awful lessons [video]

#401

Post by nanomonkey »

School-Cotton wrote: post #379
nanomonkey wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I didn't specify that perfectly. I wasn't saying English is poor in vowels, I'm saying that it is flexible in how you use them. Khmer has 22 specific vowel letters, each letter that indicates exactly how the sound is made, even the differences that of how the previous letter will effect the sound. English has 5, and no real consensus on how they are used, let alone the tone of voice that you need to use to in…

“Letters” are irrelevant. We are talking about the spoken language, not the writing system. American English has 15 or 16 vowels, and (not counting tone) the distinctions between them are just as meaningful as in Khmer or any other language. “Bit” and “beet”, or “but” and “boot” are different words, after all. Where are you seeing “flexibility” in the use of vowels? Again, we are not talking about “letters” or the wr…

There are tons of examples, take "no" for example, you can pronounce it 'nooh', 'nah', 'nuh', 'neh', and yet it will be transcribed as "no". That one could be dismissed as negating is a pretty primitive concept.

My previous example of how to pronounce 'button' varies depending upon where you're from...but is still recognized by the most English speakers. Some folks pronounce it but-ton, others but'n.

Water can be pronounce in a variety of ways. Actually the list is endless...I'm surprised you're arguing the opposite. Compared to Spanish, or any number of languages where the vowels are very specific (disregarding the Castilian ascent), English is very forgiving. Bringing up Khmer's letters was to show that the vowel sounds have been formalized in that language, where English allows for much more variance.

Listen to any non-native English speaker, they can be all over the place and still understood.

Re: Modern movies teach us awful lessons [video]

#402

Post by wolverine876 »

nullc wrote: post #348
darkerside wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes https://bechdeltest.com/view/6242/mad_max:_fury_road/ Also, the Bechdel Test is incredibly misleading and distracts from the actual problem IMO, which is simple underrepresentation of women in movies. If only 20% of movie characters are women, probably 4% of dialogue (20% of 20%) would end up being women talking to each other. Solve representation, not content.

It's informative to realize that a substantial portion of movies also fail a gender reversed version of the Bechdel test (though sure, smaller than the original test)... Not only does it reflect the representation in main roles, it also counts films which are about men and women interacting as fails.

> a substantial portion of movies also fail a gender reversed version of the Bechdel test

Which movies? Go down the top movies of any year and count them. It's not even close to true.

Re: Modern movies teach us awful lessons [video]

#403

Post by wolverine876 »

darkerside wrote: post #339
wolverine876 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it pass the Bechdel Test? I don't remember it well enough: 1. There are at least two women characters, with names and their own personalities (i.e., they aren't extras) 2. The women talk to each other 3. They talk to each other about something besides men. (If you aren't familiar, an incredible number of films fail - and yes, the 'reverse Bechdel Test' (substituting men for women) is passed by almost every film.…

Yes https://bechdeltest.com/view/6242/mad_max:_fury_road/ Also, the Bechdel Test is incredibly misleading and distracts from the actual problem IMO, which is simple underrepresentation of women in movies. If only 20% of movie characters are women, probably 4% of dialogue (20% of 20%) would end up being women talking to each other. Solve representation, not content.

> the Bechdel Test is incredibly misleading and distracts from the actual problem IMO, which is simple underrepresentation of women in movies

The first question of the Bechdel Test addresses that directly: Are there at least two female characters (not extras)?

Re: Modern movies teach us awful lessons [video]

#404

Post by wolverine876 »

smegsicle wrote: post #344
wolverine876 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares what you think - or what I think? Who are you or anyone to define what these women do or want - and then weakly try to appeal to authority by assigning your opinions the words "actual feminine virtues"? Many men used to define those 'virtues' as not working, voting, having an opinion, and as being obedient, sexy, and sexually available to them (but not to other men!) - how convenient! > sexualized female bo…

re-framing traditional feminine virtues (those things that most women are good at and enjoy, and which make families stronger and society flourish) as worth less than traditional masculine virtues is offensive to a lot of people, and is itself an appeal to an extremist ideology

> re-framing traditional feminine virtues (those things that most women are good at and enjoy, and which make families stronger and society flourish) as worth less than traditional masculine virtues is offensive to a lot of people, and is itself an appeal to an extremist ideology

Which people? And so what if they are offended? These women should change what they do because you don't like it? Again, who are you (or I) or these putative offended people to tell these women what to do?

> traditional feminine virtues

Which don't exist, except in the minds of the people who want to control what other people do.

> worth less than traditional masculine virtues

Who compared anything between whatever you think masculine and feminine are?

> an appeal to an extremist ideology

So women working, getting educations, living independently of men, living their lives they way they please - that is extremist?

Re: Modern movies teach us awful lessons [video]

#405

Post by wolverine876 »

vannevar wrote: post #345
smegsicle wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

showcasing female heroes as displaying exaggerated masculine abilities (in a sexualized female body) is belittling to actual feminine virtues

Right, though I think I'd maybe use the term "values" rather than "virtues." The underlying message of these movies is that everyone---women included---should be judged by masculine standards (plus a traditional notion of female beauty). But a pseudo-feminism that imagines a world where women succeed only through a combination of feats of strength and hotness is not feminism in any meaningful sense and serves to main…

> change the stories to put feminine values on par with masculine values

That's important too - and male characters should have those values - but no reason we can't do both.

Stop trying to put women in whatever box you like. They can have whatever values/virtues/etc that they please. Women serve regularly in militaries around the world, for example, and have for awhile. What do say to women who are fighter pilots?

Re: Modern movies teach us awful lessons [video]

#406

Post by distances »

darkerside wrote: post #380
distances wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One best example is Breaking Bad Breaking Bad is my usual example of bad plot building. I'm sure I haven't given it a fair chance as it's universally so highly liked, but the plot events were very much built up so that you could see what's coming. You are already anticipating some events, or they feel predictable and made up, as if precisely to serve the show. They don't come through as authentic. I stopped watchin…

Well, if you only watched 1.5 seasons and you have this strong an opinion about it, you deserve the downvotes. Like any good story, the ending is completely inevitable from the outset, when if you don't always see it coming. I hate when stories are unpredictable in an unearned way, just to be surprising, particularly when it betrays who the characters actually are.

I didn't quite get what you're saying here.

I'm not claiming I got the overarching plot or character development of the series. It was the small plot hooks during the episodes that I found poor enough to make the show unwatchable. I've stopped watching a bunch of other shows for the same reason so it's not exclusive to Breaking Bad, it's just the most popular show to suffer from this style of writing.

Re: Modern movies teach us awful lessons [video]

#407

Post by AckmanDESU »

baking wrote: post #158

For anyone not familiar with The Critical Drinker's work, this should be considered to be part of an ongoing series: Why Modern Movies Suck - Setup And Payoff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmOZgSyQjtA Why Modern Movies Suck - They're Destroying Our Heroes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY-GLeHS0Ik Why Modern Movies Suck - The Soft Reboot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyU63LJV3AE Why Modern Movies Suck - They Tea…

Because of this comment I went ahead and watched all of these videos as well as some more that were popular.

While I agree with some of his points about modern movies I feel like he has a huge issue with cherry picking old classic movies and comparing them against new movies with generally bad reviews. If you ignore good movies just to make a point then you’re not being genuine.

If that was my only gripe with his content then I’d probably watch it some more but I’m blocking his channel instead.

He tries to come off as an objective reviewer but he’s actually a sexist, antiSJW asshole. He’s basically thunderf00t if al he did was talk about movies. Not every video of his is biased against women and “woke” people but when he does mention the topic you quickly see his real colours. Some of his videos are completely mask off but in most of them it’s just a sentence or two, which is why at first I kept watching just in case.

But at this point I can’t tolerate him tbh.

I recommend anyone who is a legit fan of his to take a step back and analyze what this guy is saying on his videos and why. If he aligns with your political views that is fine but I can legit see a regular person being sucked into the alt right side of Youtube using this channel as a gateway for it. It starts with a few comments on how woke feminists are ruining movies and you slowly desensitize yourself and start agreeing with this bs.

Re: Modern movies teach us awful lessons [video]

#408

Post by splintercell »

wolverine876 wrote: post #336
smegsicle wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

showcasing female heroes as displaying exaggerated masculine abilities (in a sexualized female body) is belittling to actual feminine virtues

Who cares what you think - or what I think? Who are you or anyone to define what these women do or want - and then weakly try to appeal to authority by assigning your opinions the words "actual feminine virtues"? Many men used to define those 'virtues' as not working, voting, having an opinion, and as being obedient, sexy, and sexually available to them (but not to other men!) - how convenient! > sexualized female bo…

> So? Does it intimidate you? Should they hide or show their bodies based on what you prefer, or on what you think is right?

Millions of years of evolution went in to get them that body, and similar number of years of evolution for me to have that reaction seeing that body.

No, I am not going to join in the collective delusion that this stuff isn't real, or socially created or can be turned off at will.

Re: Modern movies teach us awful lessons [video]

#409

Post by School-Cotton »

nanomonkey wrote: post #401
School-Cotton wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Letters” are irrelevant. We are talking about the spoken language, not the writing system. American English has 15 or 16 vowels, and (not counting tone) the distinctions between them are just as meaningful as in Khmer or any other language. “Bit” and “beet”, or “but” and “boot” are different words, after all. Where are you seeing “flexibility” in the use of vowels? Again, we are not talking about “letters” or the wr…

There are tons of examples, take "no" for example, you can pronounce it 'nooh', 'nah', 'nuh', 'neh', and yet it will be transcribed as "no". That one could be dismissed as negating is a pretty primitive concept. My previous example of how to pronounce 'button' varies depending upon where you're from...but is still recognized by the most English speakers. Some folks pronounce it but-ton, others but'n. Water can be pro…

> Some folks pronounce it but-ton, others but'n.

This is a distinction in consonants! Different realizations of the /t/ phoneme. The whole claim that started this thread was that English expresses information almost exclusively in consonants, not vowels. Your example directly contradicts that very claim.

Anyway, English is _far_ from the only language where different dialects have a different set of vowels. Quebec French for example has completely different ones from French French.

Re: Modern movies teach us awful lessons [video]

#410

Post by nullc »

wolverine876 wrote: post #402
nullc wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's informative to realize that a substantial portion of movies also fail a gender reversed version of the Bechdel test (though sure, smaller than the original test)... Not only does it reflect the representation in main roles, it also counts films which are about men and women interacting as fails.

> a substantial portion of movies also fail a gender reversed version of the Bechdel test Which movies? Go down the top movies of any year and count them. It's not even close to true.

Lets see, last night while you were sending the comment I was watching "turning red" -- AFAICT it fails it: There was no scene where two men talked to each other about something other than a woman.

Most movies have most or all of their dialog about the important characters. When the important characters are disproportionately men then thats what the dialog will be about. When the subject is about the interactions of some differently gendered characters, then the dialog will often be about a different gender than the character talking.

The prior posters point was that it reflects the under-representation of women as substantial characters more than anything else-- I'd also add that it also reflect the further under-representation of women in movies that aren't about relationships. We don't need to invoke a complicated test to observe that women are underrepresented in serious roles and stereotyped into certain kinds of plots when they do have significant roles.

Post reply on HN