@mechajutaro said:

Here in '21, lots of those episodes would be deemed "problematic", and everyone in the cast and crew+their families would become targets for cancellation. Which is pretty astounding, when one recognizes that the early 2000s weren't that long ago, in the grand scheme of things. Of course, this was also a point in time in which it was impossible to express skepticism about the invasion of Iraq or this absurd notion of a war on Terror, without then being labeled a fifth column jihadi, by the self-appointed champions of liberty. Perhaps all that's changed has been the subject our hysteria

Out of curiosity, which episodes do you think would be problematic is today's social climate? I personally do not think "cancel culture" actually exists to the degree most espouse. Most of the people who cry about cancel culture are usually crying about how they were cancelled on their prime time, ratings leading show 🤨. OR they have actually outted themselves for being the repugnant human pieces of filth that they are and now want to cry that no one wants to tune into them any more because of "cancel culture" .

@mechajutaro said:

Of course, this was also a point in time in which it was impossible to express skepticism about the invasion of Iraq or this absurd notion of a war on Terror, without then being labeled a fifth column jihadi, by the self-appointed champions of liberty.

I don't think that's true. Back then People protested the war all the time. This was the period Team America was released. Many political anti war/government films and music were being released. Bush was consistently portrayed as an assclown. His "watch this drive" video being a well known source of ridicule that is an example of the general attitude towards his gung ho tendencies. Michael Moore's career exploded.

I see what your saying that there is always something going on that engulfs the public into a righteous, one sided rage. But if anything back then it was anti war rather than pro war. And I think back then it was different. It felt more like healthy protest. Celebrities didn't lose their careers if they supported the war. You probably wouldn't even know what their views were. The thing is today they all have social media as an outlet. And they do not hesitate to use that outlet. So we hear every celebrity's thoughts and everything about them. There's no mystery to them. When you don't know much about them it's hard to disagree and criticize. Wheras now all we do hear is disagreements and criticisms.

Anti war protest back then was aimed at the government. Today outrage culture is aimed at society. It's aimed at everyone in some way. It feels way more intense and all consuming.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@mechajutaro said:

Of course, this was also a point in time in which it was impossible to express skepticism about the invasion of Iraq or this absurd notion of a war on Terror, without then being labeled a fifth column jihadi, by the self-appointed champions of liberty.

I don't think that's true. Back then People protested the war all the time. This was the period Team America was released. Many political anti war/government films and music were being released. Bush was consistently portrayed as an assclown. His "watch this drive" video being a well known source of ridicule that is an example of the general attitude towards his gung ho tendencies. Michael Moore's career exploded.

I see what your saying that there is always something going on that engulfs the public into a righteous, one sided rage. But if anything back then it was anti war rather than pro war. And I think back then it was different. It felt more like healthy protest. Celebrities didn't lose their careers if they supported the war. You probably wouldn't even know what their views were. The thing is today they all have social media as an outlet. And they do not hesitate to use that outlet. So we hear every celebrity's thoughts and everything about them. There's no mystery to them. When you don't know much about them it's hard to disagree and criticize. Wheras now all we do hear is disagreements and criticisms.

Anti war protest back then was aimed at the government. Today outrage culture is aimed at society. It's aimed at everyone in some way. It feels way more intense and all consuming.

Granted, there were people against the war but the general consensus was that you were a "freedom fries" eating, lilly livered, pussy if you were. Even Donahue lost his show for openly opposing the war. I believe there was only a single person in the house of representatives who voted against the war. CNN and MSNBC, which are considered by some "liberal" news stations, were running pro war crap ALL day. And Michael Moore was generally despised as you can see in his speech at the Oscars were he was booed off stage in "pussy lefty liberal" Hollywood. So yeah, of course you had some outliers who were against the war and did speak out against it but the overwhelming consensus at the time was pro war, no question.

@mechajutaro said:

Out of curiosity, which episodes do you think would be problematic is today's social climate?

For starters:

The one which starred Billy Drago, and which took place in Japan. Hell, even back then, Showtime chose not to release this one on their channel. Today, it probably would've been strangled to death in pre-production

Right To Die would've been accused of promoting right wing values, and also of catering to the male gaze, by having it's lead actress frequently bare her stupendous breasts

Incident On And Off Mountain road would've been excoriated by feminists as "promoting violence against women", and also by MRAs/generically Red Pill folks for perpetuating negative stereotypes about men

I actually just watched Imprint with Billy Drago. I think his horrendous over acting is the biggest offense of that episode and he was grossly miscast IMO (too old). As far as it getting crucified in today's (lets be nice) social climate, it may get a pass since it is a period piece. I honestly did not like that episode. I felt the torture scene was extremely gratuitous and in true Miike fashion was just over the top for over the top sake. There was a time when I woulda dug shit like this because I got a kick out of testing people's tolerance for such unltraviolence but nowadays I just find it trite.

I have to go back and watch Right to Die as I do not remember the plot. But Incident On And Off a Mountain Road I would think would be classified as a girl power/U go girl episode having quite the opposite reaction that you state. We have a woman, deeply in love with a man (ugh!) who bullies her and impresses on her this wacko survivalist shit to which she learns to do better than him (of course she is a woman after all) and then has the strength to leave him (U go girl!) and then is assaulted by another man(ugh, men!) and uses the skills she learns from grody man in typical forced upon her in typical fascist patriarchy and uses it to turn the tables on another grody man.

@movie_nazi said:

Granted, there were people against the war but the general consensus was that you were a "freedom fries" eating, lilly livered, pussy if you were. Even Donahue lost his show for openly opposing the war. I believe there was only a single person in the house of representatives who voted against the war. CNN and MSNBC, which are considered by some "liberal" news stations, were running pro war crap ALL day. And Michael Moore was generally despised as you can see in his speech at the Oscars were he was booed off stage in "pussy lefty liberal" Hollywood. So yeah, of course you had some outliers who were against the war and did speak out against it but the overwhelming consensus at the time was pro war, no question.

My memories of back then are very different. And that may be because I live outside the US. And I will confess that back then I didn't follow politics and didn't watch the news. I was admittedly very naive in that regard. So maybe they were all pro war. Outside of those two spheres however, the only thing I ever heard from people in real life was anti war and especially anti Bush. Bush was actually seen as a giant joke over here. And maybe this is something that Americans were completely oblivious to and he was generally considered an awesome president over there. But he was constantly and mercilessly being ripped the piss out of here. I remember one of my teachers coming in to college and telling us of how Bush had just met Charlotte Church. He had asked her where she was from, she told him Cardiff and he then asked what state that was in (the joke being that over here we don't have states, we have counties.) And we all laughed. But this was normal. This was the general attitude to Bush and we heard these kind of stories all the time. I never ever heard anyone mention Bush or the war in a positive light in real life. I even remember daft conspiracy theories going around about how he was behind 9/11.

Post 9/11 was also the period we saw a massive jump in the quality of film, tv and music as shows like The Wire started, The Strokes and The Libertines kicked off the indie boom and films suddenly had more effort put into them with more depth and often a political slant. Blockbusters changed from the empty noise of Roland Emerich's Godzilla to the gritty likes of The Bourne Supremacy. A series which portrays a government organization as the villains. This change is because of what was going on at the time. People suddenly woke up and became more aware, free thinking. They got used to using their brains and challenging themselves and most importantly- questioning the government.

We'd have anti war films like Jarhead, films criticizing interrogation like Rendition and of course Borat was so massively popular because it satirized american attitudes towards people from that part of the world. While whatever your opinion of Michael Moore is, there is no way he would have become so massively popular if there weren't so many people of that sentiment. He got booed by Hollywood? Of course he did. Hollywood isn't all lefty liberal. This is something we hear so much from certain people on the anti-woke side of outrage culture that it's like it's become almost universally believed. Hollywood is full of lots of people who have lots of money and want to make lots more money. Many of the artists may be liberal, but the producers are gonna mostly be intensely capitalist. You may get liberal films, but that's because they are trying to cater to an audience. Liberal messages make money. Maybe not now, but they did back then. So there would be plenty of people to boo Monsieur Moore.

That "lilly livered pussy" insult also does sound like it comes from a very specific kind of American. The kind of character that back then would have just been laughed at or ignored. I can imagine it getting thrown around. But only in certain circles.

Alas, we are extremely dumb in my country. But I think Bush's approval rating between 9/11 and the invasion 3/03 was something along the lines of 80%. That's no exaggeration. Of course by the time he left office it was in the lower 20s. And Michael Moore indeed laughed last as most of what he espoused in Fahrenheit 9/11 turned out to be true. Remember, at the time, the weapons of mass destruction line was bought hook, line, and sinker by the American people. You may be more enlightened in your country but I am here to tell you, here in the States, people are DUH-UH-UMB. I mean, really fkn dumb. They eat up that "Murica #1!" and "Kick ass and take names" and "Kill 'em all! Let god sort'em out" shit All. Day. Long. A buffoon like Trump got elected. Need I say more? And yes, Hollywood is full of what I like to call "limousine liberals" who love to preach all day about equality, diversity, and inclusion but when it comes to raising their taxes for social programs thats when they'll go, "Whoa whoa whoa! Slow your roll there, chief!" . So yeah, they are capitalist in this sense but rarely pro war. But the fervor created because of what happened on 9/11 even whipped up some of these usually anti war cats into a frenzy. You think if Michael Moore went on stage at the Oscars in 2019 year and went "Shame on you President Trump! For facilitating the genocide in Yemen! Shame on you!" That he woulda got a single boo? Doubtful.

The indie boom started more so in the 90s I would say although it did spill over into the early aughts.

@mechajutaro said:

OR they have actually outted themselves for being the repugnant human pieces of filth that they are and now want to cry that no one wants to tune into them any more because of "cancel culture" .

The moral panic we've been in the midst of has blurred distinctions between a genuine monster like Harvey Weinstein(who everyone in Tinseltown knew about anyway. Not one of these schmucks did a damn thing about him though, until social media forced their hand), and someone who's simply a f-cking weirdo, like Louis CK. Or someone like Roseanne, who's simply not the brightest crayon in the box/most likely mentally ill, and not surprisingly says strange things on Twitter. Approve or disapprove of the actions of someone like CK or Roseanne; there's no comparing them to a fella who's been recorded trying to black mail women into having sex with him. This is where the problem is

I love Louis CK's comedy but come on on dude, Fuckin' pulling out your pud and yankin' it in a professional meeting is a bit beyond eccentric or being a "weirdo" . And Roseanne Barr isn't any crazier than some elected officials (ahem Marjorie Taylor Greene)but that doesn't mean we should reward them for their behavior. The fact of the matter is that when you are a public figure, the public is your boss. So you have to behave around your boss or get fired.

@movie_nazi said:

Alas, we are extremely dumb in my country. But I think Bush's approval rating between 9/11 and the invasion 3/03 was something along the lines of 80%. That's no exaggeration. Of course by the time he left office it was in the lower 20s. And Michael Moore indeed laughed last as most of what he espoused in Fahrenheit 9/11 turned out to be true. Remember, at the time, the weapons of mass destruction line was bought hook, line, and sinker by the American people. You may be more enlightened in your country but I am here to tell you, here in the States, people are DUH-UH-UMB. I mean, really fkn dumb. They eat up that "Murica #1!" and "Kick ass and take names" and "Kill 'em all! Let god sort'em out" shit All. Day. Long. A buffoon like Trump got elected. Need I say more? And yes, Hollywood is full of what I like to call "limousine liberals" who love to preach all day about equality, diversity, and inclusion but when it comes to raising their taxes for social programs thats when they'll go, "Whoa whoa whoa! Slow your roll there, chief!" . So yeah, they are capitalist in this sense but rarely pro war. But the fervor created because of what happened on 9/11 even whipped up some of these usually anti war cats into a frenzy. You think if Michael Moore went on stage at the Oscars in 2019 year and went "Shame on you President Trump! For facilitating the genocide in Yemen! Shame on you!" That he woulda got a single boo? Doubtful.

Well, that explains why he got re elected. I remember being baffled at that at the time because it seemed everyone hated him.

The weird thing is that I hear about people liking Trump all the time. Yet he didn't get re elected. I didn't hear anyone praise Bush, but he did. I'd say Trump was definitely the worse of the two.

The indie boom started more so in the 90s I would say although it did spill over into the early aughts.

I know what you mean, you're talking about the era of Oasis, Blur, Pulp and that sort of thing in the 90s. And I'm not sure I'd call it a boom in quite the same way. And yeah, that phase did kind of ebb out a while before 9/11. Pre 9/11 was mainly a period of bubble gum pop, eminem and skater rock like Blink 182 and Avril Lavigne. Little indie in site. The indie boom I'm talking about started after 9/11 and was a pretty big thing that lasted quite a while and really influenced the culture, changing fashion and whatnot. I beleive it was The Strokes that made skinny jeans a thing. There was like a million new bands coming out every week and it started to become a lot more common for the youth to start bands and learn instruments. This period is probably responsible for the existence of the hipster in modern culture. Maybe alternative music boom might be more accurate perhaps to differentiate it from that 90s era.

I love Louis CK's comedy but come on on dude, Fuckin' pulling out your pud and yankin' it in a professional meeting is a bit beyond eccentric or being a "weirdo" .

I don't believe CK was doing that in a meeting. I haven't heard anything like that. Unless this is a new thing that's just recently come out. He was doing it in his hotel room after inviting women back. And Joe Rogan says that CK claims he wasn't stood in the way of the door stopping them leave or anything like that. Not that I'm excusing his behavior. But I think a big problem with this cancel culture thing is that stories change through the chinese whispers of the media. Which may be where this meeting thing came from. But that or nay, you probably never get the real story. And unfortunately the public is judging based on the story they get. Or the myriad versions of the stories they get.

@JustinJackFlash said:

The weird thing is that I hear about people liking Trump all the time. Yet he didn't get re elected. I didn't hear anyone praise Bush, but he did. I'd say Trump was definitely the worse of the two.

This is a tough one for me because on the surface, Trump absolutely seems worse. He comes off as such a pompous ass who is a complete clueless tool. Granted, he is. But Trump was not responsible for lying us into war where by some estimates 500,000 people lost their lives. Bush and half his administration belong in prison for war crimes. Trump may have been the most slimiest guy to ever grace the oval office but Bush has a lot of blood on his hands. Not to mention the economy crashed under his watch which might have happened if Trump got another 4 years. But I have to painfully say that Trump was the lesser asshole of the two (God it pains me to say anything remotely positive about him ).

I love Louis CK's comedy but come on on dude, Fuckin' pulling out your pud and yankin' it in a professional meeting is a bit beyond eccentric or being a "weirdo" .

I don't believe CK was doing that in a meeting. I haven't heard anything like that. Unless this is a new thing that's just recently come out. He was doing it in his hotel room after inviting women back. And Joe Rogan says that CK claims he wasn't stood in the way of the door stopping them leave or anything like that. Not that I'm excusing his behavior. But I think a big problem with this cancel culture thing is that stories change through the chinese whispers of the media. Which may be where this meeting thing came from. But that or nay, you probably never get the real story. And unfortunately the public is judging based on the story they get. Or the myriad versions of the stories they get.

Hmm, I thought I heard one of the women say that they were discussing lines over going over something about either a TV show or a movie when he started doing this. I know that it was in a work capacity that they were meeting. I don't want to give the impression that they were in a board meeting in business attire but more along the lines as they were casually hanging out and discussing their work possibly over some drinks.

@movie_nazi said:

This is a tough one for me because on the surface, Trump absolutely seems worse. He comes off as such a pompous ass who is a complete clueless tool. Granted, he is. But Trump was not responsible for lying us into war where by some estimates 500,000 people lost their lives. Bush and half his administration belong in prison for war crimes. Trump may have been the most slimiest guy to ever grace the oval office but Bush has a lot of blood on his hands. Not to mention the economy crashed under his watch which might have happened if Trump got another 4 years. But I have to painfully say that Trump was the lesser asshole of the two (God it pains me to say anything remotely positive about him ).

Well, when you put it like that, I guess he is worse. Though I wonder if that would be different if it was Trump who was president during 9/11. And Trump did only get one term. If he did get two he may well have caused some shit to rival Bush.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@movie_nazi said:

This is a tough one for me because on the surface, Trump absolutely seems worse. He comes off as such a pompous ass who is a complete clueless tool. Granted, he is. But Trump was not responsible for lying us into war where by some estimates 500,000 people lost their lives. Bush and half his administration belong in prison for war crimes. Trump may have been the most slimiest guy to ever grace the oval office but Bush has a lot of blood on his hands. Not to mention the economy crashed under his watch which might have happened if Trump got another 4 years. But I have to painfully say that Trump was the lesser asshole of the two (God it pains me to say anything remotely positive about him ).

Well, when you put it like that, I guess he is worse. Though I wonder if that would be different if it was Trump who was president during 9/11. And Trump did only get one term. If he did get two he may well have caused some shit to rival Bush.

He didn't because lack of trying. He tried his darndest to start a war with Iran. I think another 4 years would have definitely given him the opportunity to start some shit. The thought he had the nuclear codes gives me shivers.

@mechajutaro said:

The Wire criticized the war on drugs, while assiduously avoiding much critique of the war on terror. And it's always been more of a niche show, than it has something that's enjoyed mass appeal. Most TV viewers at the time were far more well-versed in what happened on American Idol or that show with Jessica Simpson than they were with the machinations of Stringer Bell, or the personal struggles of Jimmy McNulty. Even today, The Wire's primary audience consists of the sort of folks who you'll regularly find sipping coffee at Barnes And Noble

Well, I mentioned The Wire as an example of the changing TV landscape, it's more intellectual and auteuristic approach rather than the subject matter. But The Wire was anti-authoritarian. It exposed broken systems and explored compromised and/or manipulative power structures. And it did deal with the government. Maybe not as high up as Washington but it did portray the mayors office. It didn't deal with terrorism, no. But then a realistic police show probably isn't going to seen as that kind of stuff is prob more of a CIA thing.

Alongside The Bourne Supremacy, you also had Raimi's Spiderman, The Star Wars prequels, The Fast And Furious movies, etc. While the mainstream market definitely had more variety than it's had in the past few years, the 2000s were laying the groundwork for what came to be in the mid-10s, up till today

SW and F & F? I never claimed dumb movies disappeared. I can't imagine that will ever happen. And in all honesty, I hope it doesn't. Sometimes I do just wanna watch something dumb. But Spiderman? It's no secret that you're no fan of superhero films, but Spiderman is the perfect example of what I'm saying. Compare it to superhero films before 9/11. Yeah, Blade and X men were ok, nothing special. But the approach to these films back then generally led to the likes of Batman and Robin, Spawn and Judge Dredd. But with Spiderman the whole approach suddenly changed. The genre may have childish connotations. But more care was being put into these films. The way Raimi embraced the properties 60s roots and respected it's characters. There was character development rather than Bam, Bam, Bam. Whatever you may think of Ang Lee's arty take on The Hulk, there's no way a studio would have ever taken a chance on that sort of approach to a blockbuster before 9/11 and before Spiderman. I'm not saying we're not currently living in a world with too many super hero movies. But Spiderman 1 and 2 were great.

Bourne was the exception here though, rather than the rule. By and large, Western Intelligence services were depicted in an unfailingly heroic light during this period, in shows like 24 and even The Craig era Bond films

Not sure it was the exception, but no I'm not denying things like 24 didn't exist. Of course there was a fear of terrorism at the time and yeah we enjoyed seeing Jack Bauer catch them. But (spoiler warning) Bauer too went up against a corrupt president. The government wasn't always the good guys.

Very few folks turned out to see Jarhead, which isn't even an anti-war film. Even fewer saw Rendition. Borat does satirize American attitudes towards foreigners, while also exploiting stereotypes about both Eastern Europeans and Muslims; remember. Borat hails from Kazahkstan. Baron Cohen's work from this period wouldn't have been successful, without playing to the prejudices which are rampant in our culture

Jarhead was an anti war film. It was showing what military training can do to the human psych. Borat is satirizing those stereotypes. The reason it's often so funny is because he is exposing those prejudices that are rampant in our culture. It's mocking them, certainly not celebrating them.

The finical success of F9/11 didn't stop Bush II from being re-elected, and public approval for our adventure in Iraq remained high for several years afterwards. Clearly, whatever sentiment MM had, it wasn't deeply shared by the rest of the public

It may not have stopped Bushy. But it existed. I heard people talking about it. When did documentaries get cinema releases before 9/11? Rarely. Documentaries suddenly became a big thing and the presence of Docs like F9/11 in the cultural zeitgeist showed an interest in such things when there had been little before.

@mechajutaro said:

I agree that The Wire is more well-thought out than the typical sitcom or police procedural. Again, the majority of it's audience was and remains the sort of folk you'll find sipping coffee at Barnes And Noble. Not the typical TV viewer, and I don't even say this as a criticism, not being a coffee drinker myself

Whatever it's audience may be, it had one. This kind of show was now made and it had an audience whereas pre-9/11 that wasn't the case. And I'm just using The Wire as an example. We also had shows like Six Feet Under, Deadwood, The Shield and Arrested Development. The aesthetic was changing. This was what led us to the tv show landscape we have today. This was when it started. Yes, The Sopranos started previously but it all started to become the trend right after 9/11.

That's great that The Wire cast a critical eye on local government, especially given that this is where many of the nation's most serious problems lie. That's also not the subject of this conversation though, Flash..... We're discussing Tinseltown and the media more generally's approach to The War On Terror and the people who masterminded this debacle. Overwhelmingly, they served as cheerleaders, and not hard nosed skeptics.

It's not specifically the subject, no. But I see it as relevant. I'm bringing to light the changing aesthetic of the time and linking this to what I saw as changing attitudes. A greater tendency to question authority, whatever it may be and that includes Bush and The War On Terror.

But maybe things weren't as one sided as either of us perceived them to be. Maybe we both just noticed certain things more than others. Perhaps you're only going to get a particular narrative depending on where you look and things were maybe more fractured and all over the place.

I would;'t call SW dumb so much as I would infantile, and the Fast And Furious movies(of which I'm a fan)aren't really dumb either, so much as they are unabashed comfort food. I don't envision nor desire a world in which these movies go away. The point was though that cinema really didn't get sharper intellectually during this period. Yes, there was more variety in a way that there hasn't been in the past few years, where cape movies and tentpole films have a near-stranglehold on the mainstream market.

But for a second just try forgetting about what these films are about, I'm not saying the variety was greater, no. But just look at the approach. As an example look at the differences between the two US versions of Godzilla in 1998 and 2014. And for the record I don't really like either of these films but I've chosen them as an example of the differing approach. The 1998 version was just passionless noise. The 2014 version was directed by Gareth Edwards and you can see a clear difference. You can see an attempt to make it carefully and artistically. I don't think it worked but I do feel the intention was to show more respect to the audience.

You can see the same difference of intention if you compare Batman and Robin to Batman Begins. Again, not asking you to like these films but just to look at the approach. Judge Dredd (1995) and Dredd (2012). And we don't have to do reboots, how about Event Horizon and Soderbergh's Solaris? Lost in Space with the great Matt LeBlanc and Interstellar?

It's not like there was any great variety pre 9/11. We were overwhelmed with sequels like Speed 2 and updates of old tv shows like Mask of Zorro and The Saint. And films were generally obsessed with spectacle and little else. I confess I was a fan of Mission Impossible 2 back then because I was a big John Woo fan and loved the action. But the film was nothing, empty. And the general quality of blockbusters was so low that films like The Fifth Element became celebrated. And I liked The Fifth Element, it's good. But it's empty spectacle. Personally I'd enjoy something like Captain America: The Winter Soldier more.

Never said nor implied that I'm averse to superhero movie altogether. Expressing unease over the fact that they've oversatuared the market though has now automatically been confused with "hating", in the minds of many anyway.

I'm not jumping to that conclusion. I can easily see the difference and believe the market to be oversaturated too. But you have many a time claimed that people who watch and enjoy superhero films are overgrown children. That does suggest you might not be too keen on the genre regardless of how many entrees it may have.

But can anyone honestly imagine the MCU putting out a movie with as morally grey a protagonist as Blade today,

Was he? I found him quite 2 dimensional in the first film to be honest. In the sequel it was suggested that he was fighting his true nature which made him more interesting and gave him a bit more depth. But the sequel came out after 9/11.

much less any character that displays anywhere near that level of aggression and unmitigated rage?

Did he? I think Wolverine seems a lot more savage and raw. Blade actually seems quite controlled with stylized martial arts and brooding. You don't necessarily need blood and gore to make something more raw. It's in the film making and the acting.

I thought Blade was quite good, nothing more. I thought Blade 2 was pretty damn good. But there does often seem to be a misapprehension that something that has a dark and/or violent aesthetic is automatically better than something that is bright and breezy. But it's more about how well these films are made. I'd much rather see a bright and breezy film that is well made than a dark film that is just farted out. Sam Raimi's first two bright and breezy Spider Man films are way better than Spawn. And I'm sorry to say I think they're better than Blade as well. The very violent Robocop is better than all of them. As is the very dark The Terminator. Though the bright and breezy Back to the Future does give them a run for their money.

Spawn was an assassin who went to Hell after himself being murdered, returned as some sort of devil warrior. then gunned down humans and sliced the heads off of monsters. Judge Dredd is, quite literally, a Dirty Harry-esque lawman from the distant future, who's racked up a body count the likes of which makes AIDs look like an amateur. Whatever one wants to say about the film adaptations of these properties, or their source comics, they never had childish connotations

Again I'm referring to what you have previously said about superhero films when I say childish connotations. And something being dark and violent doesn't mean it can't be childish or immature. And I'm not criticizing immaturity. I think that immaturity in films can be a sign of maturity. The fact that it can be mature enough to let it's hair down and be a bit silly and not take things too seriously is a good thing.

Spiderman was already in the works pre-9/11. So much so that the original trailer had to be recut, to exclude scenes of The WTC. The financial success of Spiderman, and the accolades that Lee had justifiable received for Crouching, Tiger Hidden Dragon may very well have prompted the studio to roll the dice on Hulk all the same

It did, but it was released and it's audience reception happened after 9/11. Possibly it might not have been such a hit if 9/11 hadn't happened. Who knows?

@mechajutaro said:

I remember those episodes of 24. Hell, in Season 2 the heroes actually STOPPED a war from happening, upon discovering that the allegations against the nation The US was about to invade were false. Note though that Bauer and the gang are themselves government operatives, who are-for the most part-unhesitant to hold their own people accountable. The message conveyed here to the viewing public was "You can just Big Brother to police itself. If The White House and The Pentagon try to pull the wool over our eyes, there's a sh-tload of people on Uncle Sam's payroll who will call them out before things get out of hand." This almost certainly contributed to the atmosphere of near-supplication to Bush II that we saw during that era

Not having seen JH in a minute, I'll take your word for being anti-war. Again though, relatively few people saw it. By contrast, several million were tuning into shows like 24, Alias, The Unit, JAG, and later on NCIS. All of which mostly paint The US government, the military, and the intelligence services in an unfailingly heroic light. The constant refrain in all of these productions goes something like this: "The events at Abu Ghraib, Guantoamo, however many CIA black sites are out there.... That's just a few bad apples. A few bad apples whom the military and intelligence services are themselves suck to get rid of, once we uncover them." This sort of messaging contributed to the idea that we needn't worry about what Uncle Sam is out there doing in our name, and that it was treasonous to critique or question anyone who were the mantle of "American Hero"

I've always barely heard of The Unit, JAG and NCIS and possibly this may demonstrate that there was a difference in attitudes outside the US. I've seen them pop up when I scroll through the Sky listings but I never realized you were actually supposed to watch these shows. I always thought they were just there to fill up the programming schedule. I've never heard anybody mention these shows in real life. Ever. From what I can see they're just tacky team shows going through the stereotypical motions. They may be talked about all the time in the US but here they're just ignored.

But anyway, all you say is based on how you perceive these shows. And I'm not saying you're perception is wrong. But it is a perception. These exposing of corrupt government individuals and blacksites may be exactly that. They are showing the wrong doing of the government. You see the heroes stop them because that's what you see heroes do. And 24 aside, you are watching a tacky 2 dimensional hero, stop the bad guys, save the day show. Showing the bad guys get away with it isn't what you tend to see in those more simple minded shows.

And they may be gung ho, kill the terrorist shows, but they are also admitting these kind of bad government activities happen. So perhaps demonstrating both our arguments.

The idea that Baron Cohen was deliberately exposing the prejudices of everyday Americans might hold up had he actually put forth a convincing portrayal of a man from Kazakhstan, and worked in lots of references to Kazakh culture. By Baron Cohen's own admission though, that ain't what he did...... He based the character of off a Russian doctor that he once met, gave Borat a generic Eastern European accent, and spoke his non-English lines in Hebrew, rather than Kazakh. I'm not denying that I found a lot of that s-it funny back when I first saw it, but let's not pretend that his portrayal of Kazakhstan was any less ignorant and gruesome than Stepinfetchi's portrayal of Black Americans was

The point was that he was portraying what the western world assume poor middle eastern countries to be like and what they assume middle eastern people to be like. The fact that he can go up to people and be so outrageous and these people will believe it's real is because they genuinely believe middle eastern people to be like that. That's the joke.

Look up Gimme Shelter, Woodstock, and Monterry Pop,

Ok, when I say pre 9/11 I'm talking like the several years before 9/11. The 60s and 70s is probably going a little far. And those docs being released in another time of great political unrest probably helps to serve my point here.

if we're talking about documentaries which received both wide release and earned a fair amount of money pre-2000. Bowling For Columbine and Roger And Me both got wide releases, won awards, and did well financially.

Bowling for Columbine came out after 9/11 and Roger and Me came out in 1989 and is one of the few big documentaries that I've heard of in the couple of decades before 9/11. In the years after they became a fairly big thing. People talked about documentaries a lot more. They would get a bigger push, wider releases, highly positive reviews and prominent features in film magazines. I'd suddenly heard of loads. Touching the Void, Capturing the Friedmans, The Corporation, Super Size Me, Dig!, Farenheit 9/11, Grizzly Man, Enron, The Aristocrats, The March of the Penguins, The Devil and Daniel Johnston.

And we haven't yet mentioned that huge upsurge of interest in foreign cinema during this time either. The stigma of subtitles suddenly fading.

We can all name a handful of documentaries post-9/11 which earned wide release or/and raked in the dough. The Notorious RBG and I Am Not Your Negro being two such films. They're still rarities though, with most documentaries now going straight to streaming

They do now because streaming is a big thing now and obviously a very convenient platform for documentaries. And documentaries still are very popular. Streaming wasn't a big thing for many years after 9/11, during which time many were released in cinemas.

@mechajutaro said:

But you have many a time claimed that people who watch and enjoy superhero films are overgrown children. That does suggest you might not be too keen on the genre regardless of how many entrees it may have.

No; if that were the case, we'd all be overgrown children, given that most of us do enjoy cape movies from time to time. Among those who watch these flicks religiously and heavily though, can you honestly say that they're not more often than not stuck in middle school psychologically? Inevitably, they're the sort of folk who will spend months triggered over Brie Larson's brain dead and tone deaf comments during the promotional tour for Captain Marvel, rather than simply saying their piece once, and then getting on with life. We participate in that which we consume, after all. This isn't too different from the sort of fellas who watch almost nothing except Fast&Furious flicks or the like. They more often than not end up being basic bros

Yes, there are people who have a tendency to take theme too seriously.