This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Sure, but that's a miscalculation and a bad bet, not a nefarious scheme to deliberately lose money just to piss off people you hate.
They never seem to make the mistake of over-appealing to young males and thereby losing lots of money. So its pretty deliberate.
What's the counterfactual here? Michael Bay still makes four-quadrant films. Top Gun: Maverick is a four-quadrant film. The original Star Wars trilogy were four-quadrant films. I can think of far fewer big films that tried to go hard on the two female quadrants (e.g. Twilight) than went hard on the two male ones, especially now that we're out of the romcom era. Joker is a two-quadrant film on the other axis because of its rating, not deliberate alienation of women, where it hit broadly the same 60-40 splits as the typical comic-book movie (e.g. Captain Marvel, Spider-man Homecoming).
The counterfactual is some org taking an IP like Barbie and basically cutting the ending. The movie Barbie is accidentally based. Ken learns about the patriarchy, brings it to Barbieland and creates a utopia where everyone is happy except the weird Barbie. This is then destroyed by the MC and her new friend by a contrivance, but if you just left it at that and added some American flags and explosions, you'd have the counter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Michael Bay kept trying, but it turns out that it's REALLY HARD to lose money that way. Burr Steers finally managed by adapting a Jane Austen parody, zombie horror flick "Pride + Prejudice + Zombies".
When I think of teenage boys, I certainly always think slipping in a Jane Austen reference will get their juices flowing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You combine two things "lose money just to piss off people you hate" but this is wrong. Their intent wasn't to lose money. Their intent was to piss of the deplorables. Logically, they should have known by now it'll lose them money, because it already happened many times, but that's me trying to model what they should be thinking and not actually their thinking. They might have thought it'll be ok or that the "modern audience" will finally show up with piles of cash, or that their marketing is all-powerful, or they just didn't care and lived in denial. The point is they didn't have to have explicit intent to lose the money in order for their actions to lead to that. You can call it "bad bet", sure, but I think it's clear their primary motivations can be found elsewhere.
More options
Context Copy link
What do you call a person who continues to double down on bad bets?
You can argue that the people really in charge are primarily driven by profit. But then you need to explain why these same people are continuing to make the same money-losing mistake over and over and over and over.
Ya know, you're not wrong, but this is a thing that happens constantly, and it's not because of a dumb woke conspiracy to force humiliation rituals on us.
My comparison is the government: why do government officials and politicians make so many empirically bad decisions? Why do many of them seem to be very bad at their jobs? Most of them are not stupid, and at least some of them actually want to be successful in managing the government and the economy. You can say some of them really are ideologues and just want to hurt their enemies (probably more true in government than in Hollywood), but most don't actually set out to be villains or incompetent.
The simple answer is that there are no adults in charge, and most people are just... not good at what they do. Ego and ideology do get in the way, but I believe in both Hanlon's Razor and Clark's Law.
Principal-agent problem. It's not their money they're wasting and there are preciously little consequences for failing the public.
Their job is to get the job and keep the job. Sometimes that requires being good at their nominal duties. But especially in politics, that connection is often rather loose.
Sure, but in a non-dysfunctional ecosystem, that just means that these people will eventually be replaced by people who are. The question is: why is the entertainment ecosystem so dysfunctional?
Please tell me what non-dysfunctional ecosystem I can go live in where this happens.
My local bar? These places are not hard to find. Don't know how it would help to live there, though.
More options
Context Copy link
Best bet would be new frontiers that haven't yet been colonised by parasites.
Every system is dysfunctional. But they are dysfunctional in different ways and to different degrees. We are trying to figure out the nature and extent of the dysfunction of the entertainment industry and speculate about its causes. What I meant to say with that comment was that a system driven first and foremost by a profit motive would not give rise to the phenomena we observe: namely products that fail in the exact same way over and over again without anybody correcting course.
If that's the case, then they are obviously not failing and we have chosen the wrong lens to measure success. But what are these bombs succeeding at?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link