[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
I didn’t understand your post d1chet but what I meant is that there’s already a witch hunt on big people and what X said meant it would only get worse.[/quote]
…which is the main point we should be concerned with. Let’s face it, there are quotes from the first two movies that people will be saying into the next 50 years even after they forget what movie they came from. That means any negative commentary about the lifestyle of bodybuilding will be written in PEN with a movie that effects pop culture that much.
[/quote]
Agreed. I find it pathetic that so many people can be influenced by movies.
We can hope people will man up in the future and the anti-big guy trend dies, and I quote that thingy that says most trends walk in circles.
But that’s probably a pipe dream.
[/quote]
People aren’t influenced by movies. It’s a political parlor trick. What’s pathetic is that people allow themselves to be influenced. If movies appear to influence people, you’ll usually find that something has already happened in real life to prompt the making of a movie. Most people can’t tear themselves away from their mobile phone or internet long enough to be influenced by them anyway.
Natural Born Killers? For its time, it was highly controversial and blamed for a spate of high-profile copy cat killings. Now, we hardly hear anything about it.
Edit: NBK is a good example of what I’m talking about because it’s a far more intelligent movie than people give it credit for. Critics in politics and the media at the time derided it for needlessly glamorizing violence, but that’s exactly what they do when they blame movies for influencing things like Columbine.
NBK is unique in that held a mirror up to the media: they acted more or less exactly like their movie counterparts. It’s very easy to blame movies because it’s comforting to most of the world to know that a murder can be traced back to a movie…even if it’s not true.
The truth is, nobody wants to believe that evil shit happens in the world, sometimes for no reason. They need a reason to make sense of it all. That’s what civilization is all about. Movies are a very convenient scapegoat. Acts of brutality can be just explained away.
People are increasingly reliant on the media to give them an opinion on what they’re seeing. That influences the votes of the modern generation.
To paraphrase Karl Marx : “The media is the new opiate of the people”.
I say this here because Christopher Nolan is probably the least likely director to pander to expectations. Ledger’s Joker was unpredictable because he had no motivation. He was, in Nolan’s words “an absolute”. Nobody could predict what he did with The Joker. Why would Bane be any different?
I don’t think he’d include Bane if he didn’t already have some kind of fresh take on the character. I’m confident that Nolan will not play up the steroid angle. He is too smart to allow people to exploit it and it would cheapen what he did with the first two movies. [/quote]
Good/interesting post.[/quote]
Thanks. I overshot the mark by saying that movies don’t influence people (that would imply that they don’t have influence at all), but I feel like they don’t have anywhere near the negative impact that people believe. The NBK example only occurred to me recently: it’s a movie about serial killers being hounded and exploited by the media, that stirred up a hornet’s nest of controversy which was exploited by the real media (and politicians) as a way to excuse real murders. Clue is in the title: Natural Born Killers….
Again, the media & politics, for a host of reasons, blamed the movie for a run of real murders. If that were true, we’d still be hearing about it today - like we still hear about the Manson murders for example. We dostill hear about it, but not to the extent that we did. The media and the public have long since moved on, so there wasn’t any substance there to begin with.
