I agree. I also look at how the zombies themselves have changed. Different decades have different types of zombies which were made in different ways.
Night of the Living Dead (1968) had slow moving zombies, and we never fully learned the reason for their change. It may have been Venusian radioactivity.
In 28 Days Later (2002) we get “rage zombies” and we know that the cause is a virus.
Different times. Different scares.
(I also don’t think it’s off-topic. Morality stories are supposed to keep us in-line. That’s why the couple having sex always got killed first in the 80s.)
I think popular horror movies (and TV shows, and books) can tell you a LOT about the current culture in which it was filmed, more than maybe any other genre, particularly since there tend to be a lot of indie horror movies, and because horror is such a subversive genre in general. More so than sci-fi, I think.
I think that in order to fully understand the moral implications of movies you would have to look at the Production Code, pre-Code movies, as well as international cinema produced under both different and similar movies, and see how they have shaped depictions of morality in cinema.
Obviously in pre-Code cinema there was a more naturalistic and realistic portrayal of public morality, while under the Code content that was considered amoral was effectively banned. Couples weren’t allowed to sleep—or even lie—on the same bed (there was the one-foot-on-the-floor rule), criminals had to get their just deserts, promiscuity was shunned, etc. In authoritarian and communist regimes the moralizing propaganda was even more heavy handed, but in other societies morality was treated in a much more nuanced way (Italian Neorealism and lots of Japanese cinema, for example). So while I think it’s true that many artists have seen movies as a way to convey moral messages, much of US cinema has been essentially propagandistic in nature with a necessarily limited view or morality. The irony is that movies that acknowledge the complex and difficult issues that people have to face in real life are, in my opinion, much more effective instruments of social morality than the sanitized productions of the Production-Code era.
I was just pointing out you were being a jerk, and one who was poking a bear of your own in an apparent fit of pique.
Obviously you’re just trying to start a fight about a subject you probably don’t really understand (oppressed groups always getting talked over about shit we actually do understand very well, and which point the person to whom I was talking to you (which wasn’t you!) actually seemed to immediately understand and so responded accordingly…I would take the cue from him and shush on this subject, okay? We get it. I was being a bit sensitive because I constantly get that shit all the time about subjects which personally effect me (this isn’t a hypothetical game for me; this is my real life!). But obviously you’re superior to me because you’re an ever-so-calm reasonable person and why don’t the oppressed just calm down already about sensitive topics?!).
Anyway. On to the topic at hand (I won’t be commenting any further on the above, even if you do, so keep that in mind. ).
So while I think it’s true that many artists have seen movies as a way to convey moral messages, much of US cinema has been essentially propagandistic in nature with a necessarily limited view or morality.
This is why the internet and net centrality is so important and why HBO, Showtime, and FX have been such leaders in entertainment (they have less stringent codes to follow), and why Netflix and online streaming of TV shows that don’t air first on actual TV are so important.
And the internet has been VITAL to the advancement of progressive causes. Another reason why net nuetrality is SO IMPORTANT – it’s one of the few places where you can get around the propagandistic bullshit (not completely, though, as we’re all subject to society and the cultures we live in).
Again, I agree. Because horror is still so low budget, they operate on the fringe. Sci-fi and horror both serve as warped mirrors of society, emphasizing (among other things) our current and future fears. I think this is true whether they’re produced for film, TV, book, or magazine. For TV think about The Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Fiction allows us to examine our culture.
The problem with MODERN Sci-Fi is that no one will touch it unless they have a big, huge budget, even TV and online shows – unlike horror – so I actually don’t think it’s nearly as subservience or influential as horror can be.
If only movies wouldn’t also teach us so many BAD morals.
I agree that cinema has helped with social acceptance of things that should be accepted and has in a way made the world smaller.
Unfortunately with the short timeline movies also often have some really contrived plots where people have to go out of their way to make bad decisions and create conflict to keep the plot going, I’ve heard people refer back to failed ideas in movies when saying that some perfectly rational approach couldn’t work because they’d never seen a vision where it did.
They also teach us that only a tiny number of people are important and it’s completely okay if somebody else dies because they’re largely irrelevant. Heck, in lots of our shows our hero kills all kinds of nameless guards and such and it’s totally okay because they took a job with the wrong company or lived in the wrong country.
I’m not sure if the net is positive or negative, but there are definitely some negatives in there too.
Well, yeah. That’s a side effect of CG. People falsely believe that CG makes it really inexpensive to make something spectacular inexpensively - audience expectation makes sci-fi really expensive. The reality is that nowadays people will blow their wads on an effects budget, and have little else to shoot with.
Here’s Forbes’ take on low budget sci-fi. Their claim is that serious is a hard draw, so an ensemble comedy is the best for a low budget winner.
It’s important to always remember that the movie industry is an industry. People pay to make films.
More than likely, the producer of any film you watch wants to know what the message is that the film has to say. If they don’t approve of it, it’ll get changed. If you have a child, or just want to find films that are less conflict-oriented, there are several sites that cater to supplying parents with reviews of current films.
I also recommend hunting down “art” theaters to find independent cinema. Often independent releases tell different stories than those you’ll find in the mainstream.
That is truly an issue. An example I originally chose not to include in my first post was Red Dawn. In the first film (1984), the enemy invading the midwest was the USSR (1984 = Cold War). In the remake, (2012) suddenly we’re being attacked by North Korea.
Someone should really be ashamed of themselves for that kind of rehashed propagandized trash aimed at America’s midwestern teens.
Yup. I mean, like you said, it’s an industry . . . but that doesn’t make it a positive thing.
Look at the top box office movies in any year and you’ll see a massive number where people are dehumanized and essentially exterminated without anybody blinking an eye. Even movies that I LIKE (like the various super hero movies) have massive body counts and even more massive ones implied in what is often an effort to raise the stakes with bigger explosions. . and nobody cares about them or the families they leave behind.
And of course we have the huge number disaster/plague/etc. movies where the population of the world is down to a plucky few survivors. I understand the science behind the appeal to it (Dunbar’s number rears its ugly head again) but so often it seems like our only solution to having too many people to deal with and influence is to just murder all the rest of the planet for our entertainment.
And even when you get to the main plot the deliberately bad decision making in order to create or maximize the conflict is pretty blatant. Very rarely do we see people treating others like human beings and coming to a rational conclusion . . . the only time enemies become ‘friends’ is in the face of a common enemy, and that’s often just a set-up for a future betrayal.
Picking Amazing Spider Man 2 at semi-random there . . . I mean . . . holy crap. Peter Parker is a horrible person! He’s largely responsible for the creation of the super villains he’s fighting. He only gives not fighting Electro (who was an uber-fanboy) a half-hearted chance before going full fight-mode on him and he refuses to help his dying friend for reasons that the plot conveniently was contrived to justify. Also, way to not share the ultimate non-lethal weapon with the world, Peter! How many people die every year because he keeps web slingers secret?
I was half hoping that Rhino stomped his butt at the end and the sequel is the ‘Sinister Six realizes that now that Spider Man is gone they might as well do something useful’
So sure. .movies can help in some ways. . . but they also hurt in others. I’m leaning towards ‘net negative’ at this point.
There was nothing in your initial post to indicate that you had any special perspective on the issue, and for all anyone else knew, brainspore had exactly the same perspective as you. I’m still not sure why someone echoing your comments is reason for you to attack them, even on the assumption they are not a member of your community.
Yes, but the problem remains that all modern US cinematic/television media are based on a decades-long foundation of Production-Code morality and conventions. Much of our understanding of what media should be is based upon a fundamental internalization and propagation of these conventions. I mean, in Baby Face Barbara Stanwyck played a social-climber who slept her way to the top… and she’s the heroine. Can you imagine how the very fabric of society and our concepts of morality might have changed had films like this continued to be made? Strong females? An acknowledgment of real and institutionalized power differentials? Black characters that aren’t bumbling sidekicks and servants? What if these issues hadn’t been successfully marginalized to mataphor-rich horror and sci-fi genres, but could instead be depicted more-or-less naturalistically?
Never said it was a positive thing. In fact, I said the opposite.
To be more clear, there are a lot of positive things about film. However, no matter how much I love film, the fact that people consume popular cinema without thinking makes doing so one step away from TV, and that’s a problem for both the people watching and the quality of the media.
You’re talking about about an indie sci-fi comedy. TV movies (and direct to video) are backed differently from theatrical releases. In SyFy’s case, the channel used their name clout to get local backing in the form of tax grants and incentives to shoot in certain locations (which is the same as most movies). In addition, Sharknado was an 18-day shoot. It shot like an indie. Standard feature shoot for a big budget can be about three months to over a year. Post production can last another year.
Sharknado did a “camped” TV version of a full production, because to make that movie at full budget wouldn’t have been the $1.5M they spent - it would have been more like $50M.
As to Moon and Her, you already know why those are different. (You just didn’t say it.) They don’t rely heavily on CG, which a lot of sci-fi incorporates. Both those stories are hybrid dramas that are also sci-fi. Moon is a mystery thriller that takes place in space. Her is a romance that focuses on love between human and computer.
).
