CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media - Page 40

post #1951 of 4834
I'll stick to my boiled EVERYTHING then! British heritage, British food! Staying in my lane.
post #1952 of 4834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post
 

I really have to wonder what kind of paranoid, segregated world the anti-cultural appropriation crowd are advocating for.

 

 

No shit. I'm reading a nf book on history and basically ALL great empires where "this is a great idea, DNGAF where it came from" - be it food or writing or art or whatever. 

post #1953 of 4834
IMPERIALIST SCUM!!!
post #1954 of 4834
Thread Starter 
If all marginalized people had realized earlier that not eating at Taco Bell was the height of civil disobedience, we'd live in a better world today.
post #1955 of 4834
It's hard to argue with that.
post #1956 of 4834
I don't understand? She's speaking out against the fact all cafeteria food sucks? How bold.

Yes, yes, I know. I'm being insensitive to the banh mi. Wait, am I doing this right?
post #1957 of 4834
Yeah, if she'd just taken a stand against terrible food-service shit there wouldn't even be a controversy here.
post #1958 of 4834

I like banh mi. Speaking of Vietnamese sandwiches, is it cultural appropriation that my flyover state "Chinese" restaurants serve Thai, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and occasionally Mongolian, but normally the proprietors are often only of a single nationality (Depending on the restaurant, most are Chinese run, but one is definitely Japanese run and another is Korean run. None of them are Thai owned, but all serve Thai curry dishes.) The local old school Chinese restaurant, opened in the 70s, is owned by an old Chinese couple, but their head server is Korean and that is the only restaurant I know like that in my area. I like Asian food. I spent my formative years in Guam, and rice is one of my staple foods, and I can cook a Chamorro dish or two.  I go a lot to Chinese restaurants and chat up my servers. So, how much of that is cultural appropriation?

 

I am all for recognizing and understanding ways in which the majority culture will appropriate and reform minority cultural into a mainstream product to be served to an audience who doesn't care about its origins. But for fuck's sake. We KNOW sushi is appropriated. The name is still there. I have made tuna sushi before, but as man of mostly English/Welsh ancestory from Georgia, am I not allowed to make spaghetti, etoufee, or a nice bratwurst? Mashed peas are for infants, beef wellington is just a more complicated Hot Pocket, and I don't like making love to sheep (Just kidding Welsh chewers!). I eat my American heritage dishes. I made cornbread last week and, honest to God, had fried chicken, collard greens, mac and cheese, and watermelon for desert at the beginning of the month.  Despite what some Chewers may think, that isn't a racial stereotype, but a geographical one.

 

At what point do we, as a society, stop having to footnote food origins when cooking the food we like? 

 

 

I have no idea why this got me wound up enough to post this much, this late. Maybe its because all my friends kept telling me to watch Girls and then chastised me when I didn't like it.

post #1959 of 4834

Not to rehash the whole yoga discussion, but I think there are a lot of factors that contribute, such as:

 

1. Is it something spiritual/religious?

 

2. Is it only being presented in a form divorced from its origins, or is there still a strong representation of the original form and do people have a basic understanding of its history?

 

3. Are people enjoying aspects of a culture while simultaneously deriding/shaming it? (i.e. talking about building a wall while enjoying a taco).

 

Obviously the sushi thing doesn't meet any of those criteria and to me seems silly, but I'm not sure "that sure is a dumb example, let's never talk about this issue again!" is the correct response either. It's a difficult, case by case thing but again going back to the yoga thing, for me at least the discussion itself was an interesting one and forced me to address ideas and viewpoints I might not have otherwise. 


Edited by Splatoon - 7/19/16 at 1:05am
post #1960 of 4834
Hold fast, Tyres! Girls is fucking terrible.
post #1961 of 4834

Maybe this is some Joaquin Phoenix performance art shit. She has created a character, let's call it myopic whining millenial....let's see what she does with it. 

post #1962 of 4834
I'm not sure this is the place to ask this but why are celebrities on Facebook always reposting links to obscure websites about random topics? "He found a five dollar bill in the street. When he turned it over you won't believe his reaction!" etc, etc

Are they paid shills for these sites. I know when actors do a movie or TV show they're often contractually obligated to tweet a certain number of times about the sho- er...product.
post #1963 of 4834

Ok, now for something a bit less complex than post structuralist revisions of the power dynamic.  Or is it more complex?  There's maths, so that might be the tipping point.

 

Anyway, did y'all notice that the Earth is Flat again?!  This has probably come up before in recent times around here, but it seems to have actually grown since.

I'm still not sure it's serious, entirely.  I'm pretty confident there's a lot of people who promote this stuff, in comments and elsewhere, who just love this extreme contrarianism .  Trolls in other words.  But others I'm not so sure.

There's always been these guys knocking around in the background (trolls and flat earthers) but this time it has developed an interesting wrinkle. It's recent time in the (not all that far away) sun is basically because rapper BnB (eggs bennedict I hope),  no wait,  BoB!,  has been banging away about it on twitter for some time.  In doing so he has gradually garnered some adherents and it's sort of grown into a bit of a hip hop ... thing.  Fringe hip hop thing perhaps, but it's got hip artists talking and sometimes rapping about it.  And then naturally Neil deGrasse Tyson gets dragged into it.  Who doesn't seem quite able to slow it down, but it's hard to tell.  (and then you get this other thing about how moonlight is supposed to cool things down, which means nothing we think about the world is therefore the true case  )

 

Here's where I might be off on one a bit, as is my wont, but in my vague and very foreign sense about hip-hop culture I was thinking that it's actually more fertile ground for this kind of thing than some other places.  All the 'peace' and 'respect' is actually taken very seriously and if you want things to stay civil you really don't want to directly contradict what someone else is saying like that.

As I said, maybe I'm off on one.  There's an aspect of New Age thinking though which prizes 'open minded ness' and that as a sort of social ethic is pretty entrenched in places you find 'alternative' theories of reality and grand conspiracies.  This results in a lot of wildly contradictory ideas holding equal footing in discussions essentially, it would seem, because it is anathema to correct or contradict anyone else's ideas too strongly.  To do so would be 'closed minded' and that's the worst thing there is.  Watching flat earth discussions among hip-hop types had a similar ring to it, but with a reluctance to 'disrespect' holding back most strong disagreement.  Or so it seemed anyway

 

And then there's the thing of this kind of notion kicking around again being, as politics has shown us about internet life quite often really, a reminder of some unfortunate things about humans and knowledge and information.  Remember when people thought the 'net would finally truly give us the informed electorate and the educated mass culture and all that?  Cut through superstition and misinformation etc?  It's been said before, but while that was certainly a bit pie in the sky I think so much that is the total opposite appearing like this is still somewhat surprising to even abject cynics.

post #1964 of 4834
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splatoon View Post
 

Not to rehash the whole yoga discussion, but I think there are a lot of factors that contribute, such as:

 

1. Is it something spiritual/religious?

 

2. Is it only being presented in a form divorced from its origins, or is there still a strong representation of the original form and do people have a basic understanding of its history?

 

3. Are people enjoying aspects of a culture while simultaneously deriding/shaming it? (i.e. talking about building a wall while enjoying a taco).

 

Obviously the sushi thing doesn't meet any of those criteria and to me seems silly, but I'm not sure "that sure is a dumb example, let's never talk about this issue again!" is the correct response either. It's a difficult, case by case thing but again going back to the yoga thing, for me at least the discussion itself was an interesting one and forced me to address ideas and viewpoints I might not have otherwise. 

 

 

It was sold commercially to the West. Once it enters the commercial market, whatever happens, happens. "Croissant" to "Croissan'wich". That's how it goes.

post #1965 of 4834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

I'm not sure this is the place to ask this but why are celebrities on Facebook always reposting links to obscure websites about random topics? "He found a five dollar bill in the street. When he turned it over you won't believe his reaction!" etc, etc

Are they paid shills for these sites. I know when actors do a movie or TV show they're often contractually obligated to tweet a certain number of times about the sho- er...product.

There was that Frontline documentary, GENERATION LIKE, that had a part that went into people who curate a celebrity's social media presence.  I'm assuming it's these people who post this kind of stuff to keep up the metrics with visits, likes and comments.  To what end?  Who knows????

 

But these celebrity accounts are rarely run by the actual person.  Except maybe Vin Diesel's... hahahaha

post #1966 of 4834

Yeah remember that weirdo who curated Christian Bale's Social Media presence? I'm sure he collected all kinds of cash on the side by having "Christian Bale" promote crap online. And Bale couldn't call him on it because he could totally kick Bale's ass. 

post #1967 of 4834

Huh, I've never heard ANYTHING about that.  Who was the guy?

post #1968 of 4834
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

Huh, I've never heard ANYTHING about that.  Who was the guy?

Yes who is that genius?

post #1969 of 4834
post #1970 of 4834

OH YEAH!

 

I think the claim about him being able to kick Bale's ass threw me off.  I just imagined a bigger version of Bale.  Hahahaha

 

I just didn't think of a stocky Asian guy at all!  HAHAHAHAHAH YOU SEE, I DO IT TOO


THIS IS WHY REPRESENTATION IS IMPORTANT UNGH UNGH


Edited by mcnooj82 - 7/24/16 at 2:58pm
post #1971 of 4834
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

There was that Frontline documentary, GENERATION LIKE, that had a part that went into people who curate a celebrity's social media presence.  I'm assuming it's these people who post this kind of stuff to keep up the metrics with visits, likes and comments.  To what end?  Who knows????

But these celebrity accounts are rarely run by the actual person.  Except maybe Vin Diesel's... hahahaha

Makes sense. Stupid as it is. I wonder what the fallout would be if people found out their favorite celebrity isn't actually facebooking/tweeting with them. Hilarious. But it does fall perfectly in line with Hollywood being a phony place.
post #1972 of 4834

I don't think there would be much fallout over it at all.  I think most people would shrug and go, "Yeah, that makes sense."  The only one that would hurt to learn that about would be VIN DIESEL's (which I'm sure someone else is in charge of maintaining, to be sure).  Diesel's Facebook page just feels so perfectly HIM.  Pure aspirational earnest lunkheaded cheese!  The best.

 

You should check out that documentary!  I think it might still be on Netflix...

 

edit: Not on Netflix anymore.  But maybe you can watch it here:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/generation-like/

post #1973 of 4834

It'd be awesome if some Celebrity Surrogate went off the the rails, like somebody posting for Samuel L Jackson suddenly promoting Trump or something...Ambler! Your next movie idea! Right here!

post #1974 of 4834

I'm sure there are all sorts of legal constraints to prevent that very thing.

 

BUT THAT ISN'T FOOLPROOF IF THE PERSON IS JUST CRAAAAAZYYYY!!!

post #1975 of 4834
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

I'm sure there are all sorts of legal constraints to prevent that very thing.

 

BUT THAT ISN'T FOOLPROOF IF THE PERSON IS JUST CRAAAAAZYYY

But it would provide the perfect scapegoat for something awful being said.  I wonder how much someone would have to pay to be blamed for a racist tirade.

post #1976 of 4834

oh man, GENIUS!

 

GET ON IT, AMBLER!

 

BOOM

 

'SOCIAL MANIA'

 

DIRECTED BY
AMBLER

post #1977 of 4834
The only celebrity I follow on Facebook is Jessica Chastain. Every single photo she posts is flooded with "is it really you???" posts. Repeatedly, she's responded with a "yes".

Given the nature of her posts (the usual glamorous-Instagram type of stuff that most people of means post), I see no reason to doubt her. Granted, she's not a DiCaprio/JLaw level megastar, so there.

I think the only celebrities who actually are themselves on social media are the ones with likeable, innocuous posts (like Chastain, or Chris Pratt, for another example), or the ones who relentlessly find themselves either with their digital feet in their mouth or childishly starting shit with other famous people, like Chrissy Teigen, Taylor Swift, the entire Kardashian/Jenner collective, the current republican candidate, et al.
post #1978 of 4834
Thread Starter 
I would have thought that Max Landis, with his high SM presence, would have burnt more bridges than there are available, but he seems to keep failing upwards. I suspect it's because he's probably wildly persuasive in pitch meetings - until someone with a track record like Paul Feig comes in and Landis gets dropped like a hot rock.
post #1979 of 4834
I seem to remember it coming out that George Takei's curiously popular Facebook page was not only run by staff, but they actually purchased other people's jokes to publish on there.

Re: Max Landis, the old Neil Gaiman "two out of three things" law probably applies:

Quote:
You get work however you get work, but keep people keep working in a freelance world (and more and more of todays world is freelance), because their work is good, because they are easy to get along with and because they deliver the work on time. And you don’t even need all three! Two out of three is fine. People will tolerate how unpleasant you are if your work is good and you deliver it on time. People will forgive the lateness of your work if it is good and they like you. And you don’t have to be as good as everyone else if you’re on time and it’s always a pleasure to hear from you.

Landis himself once said something on Twitter to the effect that no matter what he personally says or does, people still like working with him because he can give them workable drafts quickly and on time.
post #1980 of 4834
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

I would have thought that Max Landis, with his high SM presence, would have burnt more bridges than there are available, but he seems to keep failing upwards. I suspect it's because he's probably wildly persuasive in pitch meetings

He really is good at that.

post #1981 of 4834
I watched that Frontline documentary. Disturbing stuff. The tentacles of Cthulhu are wrapped tight indeed. People have always been brainwashed in a sense, but the level of pod-person-like lack of self awareness was chilling. People have effectively sold their souls for ego gratification in a way that's beyond the pale.
post #1982 of 4834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

I watched that Frontline documentary. Disturbing stuff. 

heheheh oh man, isn't it?

 

It makes me feel even older than I usually do!

 

 

"Selling out?  What's selling out?  Like when a store runs out of stuff????"

post #1983 of 4834
There's nothing inherently wrong with technology or social media but they're meant to be used in an augmented way, to facilitate physical social structures, not become the bedrock of self worth...it is meant to enhance your existence not validate it.

And advertisers are the absolute worst. These smug, predatory, hijackers of integrity. Promoting products is necessary, but the variety of fifteen different laundry detergents and cereals is grossly out of whack. The way companies force their way into your subconscious is just wrong. They want to make money and the excuse is, "well its capitalism" doesn't fly anymore. Its like throwing people into a lions den and calling it sport. Sure it can be defined as sport the way surprise butt sex can be defined as not-rape.
post #1984 of 4834
Quote:

Social media can be a pretty ugly and unpredictable place when you have 2.3 million followers.

And as such, Daisy Ridley has deleted her Instagram account following a barrage of abuse over comments she made about gun violence.

The ‘Force Awakens’ star had remarked how a section during the Teen Choice Awards on Sunday, in which tributes were paid to the victims of violent, gun-related attacks, had affected her.

“[As] I sat in the audience yesterday tears were streaming down my face at the tribute to those that have been lost to gun violence,” she wrote.

“I didn’t get a great picture of the incredible group that came on stage but they were so brave. It was a true moment of togetherness. We must #stoptheviolence.”

As innocuous a comment as it was, she was soon met with abuse from followers.

“You have just lost a fan. With the utter lack of research, and an obvious zero knowledge on the subject, this is probably something you should not be talking about,” one wrote.

Another added: “Says the woman who kills people with guns in movies. Such hypocrisy in Hollywood. Just shut up, Ridley and make another Star Wars movie.”

“Please do not start with any liberal statements or movements. We are all against violence. People kill people guns don’t. Don’t ruin Star Wars for any of us,” said another.

“I know how we stop the violence Daisy Ridley. We arm ourselves just like you did in Star Wars. When evil people inflict death and destruction upon you, righteous violence IS the answer. (I would like to add that a Jedi uses the force for knowledge and defense. Never attack.),” wrote another.

After deleting her account, Ridley briefly reinstated it, appearing to distance her choice from the backlash, before deactivating it again.

“I just want to be on my phone less! Trying to be more present and all that and got a busy few months ahead so wanted less distractions… It’s all good 🙂 I always appreciate the support and love and Instagram community! X,” she wrote.

Some even began lobbying ‘Star Wars’ co-star John Boyega to get her back online.

“She’s doing what’s best for her. I won’t be advising my friend to come back. Sorry,” he wrote, adding, ‘Can’t do that. She make her own decisions and as a friend I support her right to’.

post #1985 of 4834

Brb, buying a ticket to Canada so me and Freeman can track these guys down and recreate this scene.

 


 

post #1986 of 4834
Thread Starter 
Spoilers for the upcoming WESTWORLD series on HBO, but...
Quote:
At Saturday’s Television Critics Association press tour, HBO’s new president of programming Casey Bloys and Westworld executive producer Lisa Joy both faced questions about the sexualized violence against women in their upcoming TV adaptation of Michael Crichton’s 1973 film. Their answers didn’t seem to satisfy the assembled critics, particularly after they’d seen the show’s first episode, which reportedly opens with the off-screen rape of a robot played by Evan Rachel Wood. Audiences won’t have the chance to judge for themselves whether HBO has made yet another show that fetishizes violence against women
...does anyone spot the same problem that I do?


This is from an article published in Slate that mentions this series and scene as an aside. Now, here's the problem as I see it. One, the rape is off-screen, so it's difficult to "fetishize" something you don't show. Two, without any real context, one can reasonably assume that since the show is about androids, consciousness and sentience, it's possible that the scene is rather specifically about the objectification and dehumanization that is a part of sexual violence. Three, critics seem to have chosen useless knee-jerk asshole as a default mode.
post #1987 of 4834
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
Two, without any real context, one can reasonably assume that since the show is about androids, consciousness and sentience, it's possible that the scene is rather specifically about the objectification and dehumanization that is a part of sexual violence. 

 

This. Obviously, we haven't seen the show so we don't know what, if any, themes or ideas it pursues. But the above seems one rip for a show ostensibly about androids created with the sole purpose of entertaining and pleasing humans.

post #1988 of 4834
.
Edited by Agentsands77 - 5/10/17 at 6:21pm
post #1989 of 4834
Thread Starter 
In entertainment media, there is a hostile subset of people who now only react to optics as opposed to the idea behind them. I can't remember where I saw this, but a filmmaker recalled David Fincher telling him that after seeing SEVEN, a test screening audience member commented that "The people who made this movie should be killed".

The person who said that is an idiot, but now they'd be on Twitter or working for a film site or something and be espousing their intellectually suspect point of view with an expanded vocabulary that would obscure how plainly obtuse, sophistic and censorious they're being.

Critics talking out their ass and completely displacing intent is nothing new, but the sheer quantity of voices and the means by which they travel has made things substantially worse in my mind.
post #1990 of 4834
There's no distinction now between depiction and endorsement, as far as critics are concerned, unless it's something truly black and white like "12 Years a Slave".

It's as if people are so used to living on social media alone that they think what's in the movies is real, hence people coming to the defence of Black Widow or Harley Quinn as if those two were real people who had gone through real abuse.

In short, people are idiots who have retired the concept of critical thinking because it doesn't lend itself to give them a soapbox and a bullhorn.
post #1991 of 4834
On mobile, so: "Audiences won’t have the chance to judge for themselves..."

Oh don't worry, people don't need to see something in order to judge and be outraged by anymore.
post #1992 of 4834

I could understand making the argument that "prestige tv" goes a bit too much to the rape well for drama/female character building, but it seems odd to make that point with a show no one has seen and one in which the robots lack of agency is one of the primary drivers of the source text. Perhaps the show will totally bungle these ideas in its execution, but it would seem like it would be prudent to wait for the thing to actually be released before making that judgement. 

 

Internet going to internet, though. 

post #1993 of 4834
I don't get the last sentence. What does it mean by 'audiences won't have a chance to judge for themselves?'

Did something get cut out or altered?
post #1994 of 4834
Fortunately, before the internet, people's stupidity was fairly limited to their own social circle, or misplaced uproar about controversial elements in a movie or show gained little traction as talking points. Unfortunately we don't live in that world anymore.

I'm still trying to figure out what gains the internet's emergence have been worth the Mt Everest sized pile of shit that's followed it. People say social media, and I say "nonsense"...as I don't see much benefit to social media besides making it easier for people to be lazy and judgemental on a larger scale. Having virtual connections with profile pages has made us more lonely and cut off from each other than at any other point in human history...instead of picking up the phone and conversing, we text and emoji. Instead of meeting for coffee, we Skype.

Being able to look anything up on google? It's created a world of armchair quarterbacks who think they're experts because they read something on wikipedia. Are there now more geniuses in the world because of convenience? I seriously doubt it. Fact checking and accountability are becoming ancient relics. Bullshit memes featuring "facts" being spread like viruses on facebook is pretty much a running gag at this point.

More choices for leisure and entertainment? More opportunities for parasitic advertisers to stalk you via every mouse click and key stroke.

YouTube democratizes media? Just more unwatchable garbage to sift through. Instead of a hundred worthless channels, now there's literally thousands if not millions. Any moron can be a movie critic, and the only way most of them rise above the noise is by being the loudest and most obnoxious...and to keep the attention of people who now have the attention span of a gnat, you have to continually pump out "content", which means quality takes a nosedive. These people aren't Colbert and his Late Show writing staff. The side effect of this endless stream of content is Hollywood movies becoming bigger, louder and dumber in order to compete, not to mention a legion of social media infused chatterboxes and texters...making going to the cinema about as appealing as a trip to the dentist.

Spread whatever linguistic diarrhea bubbles up from your subconscious and it's called "having a voice". It all just adds to the Mt Everest shitpile I mentioned earlier and only reinforces the idea of selective breeding. Nobody wants to hear their opinion is not only worthless, but dangerous, but it must be said. And self worth now boils down to how many "likes" you have.

Hashtags have replaced activism. Vitally important social issues get buried in the facebook/twitter/insta feed, committing the sin of trivializing human lives. Since nothing sticks...nothing sticks, including human value.

Yes, the internet has given us countless benefits. But its a bit like getting new furniture in a dirty, smelly, crumbling house.
post #1995 of 4834
I assume because it's off screen, audiences won't be able to visually confirm the tone and intent of the scene.

Didn't Ex-Machina go even further with that concept? I don't remember any outrage over that.

Also, on the Daisy Ridley thing. HOLY SHIT, who knew that gun nuts were the ones that needed safe spaces?
post #1996 of 4834

I like the internet. It's got naked people.

post #1997 of 4834
Preach it, Ambler.
post #1998 of 4834

congratulations

post #1999 of 4834
.
Edited by Agentsands77 - 5/10/17 at 6:21pm
post #2000 of 4834
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media