It is absolutely VITAL that we call out news media that are supposedly neutral like the BBC. If they accept fascist talking point as a valid opinion in discussion, we have already lost.
Again - this is netural reporting. The “fascists” won the election with a majority in Zegler’s country. The first step towards dealing with this societal problem is accepting that is not just some tiny fringe movement that will disappear if you close your eyes hard enough.
But the BBC calling her comments “controversial”? That’s problematic at least. She opposed genocide and illegal occupation and opposed an authoritarian strongman gaining power. That is not a controversial comment in a liberal democracy and the founding values of the western democracy. That BBC article is garbage.
They are objectively controversial positions, though. It doesn’t matter how much you agree with them, others clearly do not and it has led to heated public debate. That is literally the definition of controversial:
The so-called “liberal democracy” in which she lives is currently being run by the “authoritarian strongman” whose mission is seemingly to disrupt and dismantle many of those “founding values”. So again, reality is quite different to how you are presenting it. Calling the article garbage because it stated basic facts instead of subscribing to your fantasy land interpretation of current events is very silly.
I’d argue that it’s not really Zegler’s fault… Not that there’s anything special about her performance, but there isn’t really anything wrong with it, either.
What’s not her fault? The article isn’t about her performance in the film, it’s about the pushback and resulting pile-on from conservatives to her casting and public comments prior to release.
I watched ‘Internal Affairs’ (1990). Quite a strange film that seems to be following some pretty typical story beats for the first half but gets weirder and less coherent as it goes on. Richard Gere always struck me as a somewhat unlikeable actor because he played these really smarmy leading man roles but after watching this I realised that his inability to deliver convincing emotions actually works perfectly when he is playing a villain. I really liked Andy García in this too, he comes across as a lot more genuine and emotionally sincere which further enhances Gere’s performance.
This article is not actually suggesting Gen Z find YouTubers or whatever more entertaining than films and TV series, as the replies seem to have (mis)understood. This is about Gen Z finding social media figures more trustworthy and relatable than Hollywood stars and social media advertising being more influential than advertising on TV, which are not particularly surprising or interesting insights. Similarly, social media being a more affordable form of entertainment compared to streaming is not a new talking point.
Not sure why you’re being mass downvoted, this is objectively true. Making even slightly controversial public statements in today’s world, particularly within the entertainment industry, makes it very easy for people to publish ragebait articles and videos about you and your work. Algorithmic social media rewards anger and hate, so there is a clear financial incentive driving this. If you are a professional working in this industry you owe it to yourself and your work to not rock the boat unless you have a very good reason to do so. Not everything has to be some kind of deep cultural moment with an inspiring social message behind it.
But many people don’t want to have everything completely public
This isn’t true at all. Most people do not care about privacy; those that do are an extreme minority. You (presumably) and I are part of that minority yet even we still comment here, in a public space. The issue with forums has never been about privacy because most are content with pseudonymity. It is a big mistake to think we need to cater to the extreme minority in the privacy space when tackling big issues that involve a majority who do not care.
Discord is far worse in this context, though. Much of reddit is still publicly visible and is still indexed by some search engines, even if it could be better. Discussions from years ago are still visible and provide useful information to many (this is part of the reason “search term + reddit” became such a popular query template). When communities move to Discord, many of their conversations become completely private to anyone who isn’t a member. The conversations move quickly and there is no easy way for people to reference past information. I get that people on Lemmy hate reddit and it’s popular to circlejerk about it, but forums being replaced by things like Discord and Telegram that aren’t equivalents at all has been much more damaging.
My problem isn’t that rhetoric targeting anti-Trump Americans is mean but that it’s counterproductive.
Typing this after you’ve just whined about “Europeans” is peak irony. You guys are so fucking clueless.
Many of your examples are just the US fucking up the lives of citizens in other countries. The average American at home does not give a fuck about the people being murdered by his government, he isn’t going to skip a day of work to protest against that. I think maybe you are forgetting how much Americans loved the idea of invading Iraq, for instance. It took a long time for support to decrease, and even then it was only to like 50/50 levels. Americans weren’t the ones protesting against that war, it was the rest of the world who saw it for what it was. When it comes to foreign affairs the American citizen has consistently been blinded by a mixture of patriotism, ignorance and the myth of American exceptionalism.
Why shouldn’t they be? Americans have long had a superiority complex, always confidently mocking the problems of others around the world as if they were immune to them. It may feel bad for you now but the schadenfreude the rest of the world feels is completely justified. Frankly, the way some of you are suddenly crying about the rest of the world being mean to you is only further contributing to this image of Americans thinking they are above everyone else.
You’ll realise pretty quickly if you watch the film. Ruffalo’s character definitely makes some unflattering allusions to a certain US political figure, and many people are very easily triggered these days by any form of political satire.
I would not be surprised at all if a large portion of the negative reviews are from right wingers who took offence to the Ruffalo character.
Yes, I 100% agree about that bug execution scene. That was the “riot” scene I referred to, where her little character arc seemed to peak like there was about to be this big mask-off Starship Troopers moment. And then they just did nothing with it. So weird.
Yes I think it’s a much more impactful film if you watch it totally blind. It’s a shame you didn’t get to experience that.
The biggest flaw was how underdeveloped Kai was. She was set up in act 1, had a lot of screen time in act 2, then completely disappeared from existence for the entire last act except for one brief “oh yeah, here’s Kai” shot at the end.
I totally forgot about this! I completely agree, it was so bizarre how much screen time and development her character received in the middle of the film for it to ultimately lead nowhere. I thought for sure she was going to be setup as either a new love interest (with a twist where his previous lover turns on him) or setup as a new villain but they did neither. She didn’t even influence the plot in a sidekick role, she was just totally absent following the riot scene. I wonder if something was cut because it seemed like big inconsistency.
The only thing there I’d really agree with is the pacing, which is only an issue in the final third of the film. Your other complaints are sort of just about Bong Joon-ho’s style, most of his films are like that. I’m surprised you found them problematic considering he was one of the reasons why you went to see the film.
And to be honest I’m not really interested in watching someone else’s review of the film. If you want to discuss it then you should put the effort into articulating your thoughts here.
I agree with the others, I think this is a unusually negative take. However, the fact that you haven’t really explained your criticisms in any sort of detail makes it very difficult to determine whether you actually have a point or if you are the stereotypical 1 star rage reviewer on IMDB. I thought the film had its flaws, so I would be willing to hear more detailed reasoning from you.
Wow, I looked this up after reading your comment. What a sad situation.
It is objectively controversial. People were offended by the things Zegler said - the film was being relentlessly mocked online years before its release. The backlash to the film isn’t just about it being Disney live action remake slop and you haven’t been paying attention at all if you think this is the case.