The Gaming Den

I pretty much refuse to watch anything where the hero knocks out mooks and somehow never accidentally kills those same mooks or causes brain damage.

I also avoid anything where torture doesn't produce consistent misinformation, where cops are allowed to make deals with criminals, or where the criminal always confesses immediately rather than calling for a lawyer or lying or shutting up.

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:Question: Where does Robocop fit into all this?

Sign me up with Honest Trailers on that. "The king of having his cake and eating it too."

Robocop has a bunch of trappings of satire, but the climax is one guy in the boardroom realizing how to manipulate the corporate rules now hardcoded into Murphy's brain to thwart the even worse guys in the boardroom

.

I see... are you saying it isn't really a satirical movie, then?

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:I see... are you saying it isn't really a satirical movie, then?

It's as much satire as Konosuba is.

Protagonist privilege allows for a lot of shitty messages to slip through to impressionable minds.

Hot Fuzz is a great cop movie

Mask_De_H wrote:

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:I see... are you saying it isn't really a satirical movie, then?

It's as much satire as Konosuba is.

Protagonist privilege allows for a lot of shitty messages to slip through to impressionable minds.

I still don't follow. What kind of shitty messages?

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:

Mask_De_H wrote:

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:I see... are you saying it isn't really a satirical movie, then?

It's as much satire as Konosuba is.

Protagonist privilege allows for a lot of shitty messages to slip through to impressionable minds.

I still don't follow. What kind of shitty messages?

The good guys do good things because they're the good guys. If they decide that they think someone looks suspicious, they follow that person, they ignore the rule of law, they catch them doing the bad thing that they never would have if they had followed the rules.

In the real world, you follow someone because they look suspicious, ignoring the rule of law, and they're probably NOT doing anything bad. You are the bad guy because you did bad things and it couldn't be justified as some greater good when they weren't doing anything bad to begin with.

If you follow the heroes in any story, you ultimately end up doing some morally questionable things. So you and I aren't supposed to act like the heroes. But that's one of those 'do what I say, not what I do' things.

Since I just watched what amounts to a parody of Lethal Weapon, let me use one of them as an example. The South African ambassador is selling drugs in the United States, using that money to fund a brutal regime of apartheid. As a diplomat, he is protected by diplomatic immunity. Even if he does illegal things the consequence to him, personally, is supposed to be deportation. The rules that protect diplomats are mutually agreed to by nations. Sergeant Murtaugh knows that the guy is scummy and killed a lot of people, and he has reasonably good belief that this will continue if he takes no action. The scummy villain taunts him saying 'I have Diplomatic Immunity'. Murtaugh shoots him in the head and deadpans, "It's just been revoked".

It's an awesome scene - as the audience you cheer the death of the villain and the triumph of the hero. But in real life? What street-cop do you want to trust with high-level international diplomacy?

Wouldn't this be where suspension of disbelief would come in? I think most people recognize that the behaviors shown in fiction don't really relect how the real world work.

deaddmwalking wrote:Since I just watched what amounts to a parody of Lethal Weapon, let me use one of them as an example. The South African ambassador is selling drugs in the United States, using that money to fund a brutal regime of apartheid. As a diplomat, he is protected by diplomatic immunity. Even if he does illegal things the consequence to him, personally, is supposed to be deportation. The rules that protect diplomats are mutually agreed to by nations. Sergeant Murtaugh knows that the guy is scummy and killed a lot of people, and he has reasonably good belief that this will continue if he takes no action. The scummy villain taunts him saying 'I have Diplomatic Immunity'. Murtaugh shoots him in the head and deadpans, "It's just been revoked".

It's an awesome scene - as the audience you cheer the death of the villain and the triumph of the hero. But in real life? What street-cop do you want to trust with high-level international diplomacy?

In that scene the guy had just shot Riggs in the back 30 seconds ago and had previously gotten the bomb in Murtaugh's toilet (as an aside, spraying it with liquid nitrogen might delay the reaction a bit, but if it's an electrical system you probably don't want condensation forming all over it), so strong element of self preservation there.

They also pretended they were going to murder a civilian for annoying them when they didn't know how to deal with the jay walking, and Riggs pins a civilian down and slap him until he promises not to fire Murtaugh's daughter. Also:

Shrapnel wrote:Wouldn't this be where suspension of disbelief would come in? I think most people recognize that the behaviors shown in fiction don't really relect how the real world work.

In the next film they hold a suspect down and convince him they will run his face over with their car if he doesn't talk. A lot of people in real life think this sort of thing is a good idea.

Hell, in Australia a politician used Dirty Harry as an example of when torturing prisoners is ok (the bit where the murderer has kidnapped a little girl and Harry forces him to reveal where she is).

Shrapnel wrote:Wouldn't this be where suspension of disbelief would come in? I think most people recognize that the behaviors shown in fiction don't really reflect how the real world work.

You think too much of most people.

For stuff people don't really get, fiction may be their only frame of reference. Even if it isn't, most people aren't trained to think very hard about fiction. They just absorb the morals and lessons and start thinking a fey, quirky girl will save them, or hackers are magic, or torture always works.

Shrapnel wrote:Wouldn't this be where suspension of disbelief would come in? I think most people recognize that the behaviors shown in fiction don't really relect how the real world work.

In real life a big problem with criminal trials is that everyone always believes the cops but also everyone believes that DNA is magic but also everyone believes that it is really easy to get DNA evidence that tests what you want.

Also people believe torture works.

The thing here is that none of these people have personal experience that would lead them to any of these conclusions so where on earth are they getting them?

The media. People internalize the stuff that fictional media tells them.

Shrapnel wrote:Wouldn't this be where suspension of disbelief would come in? I think most people recognize that the behaviors shown in fiction don't really relect how the real world work.

The human brain is really, really bad at distinguishing between fiction and reality. In the moment, you know that it's fiction, and if you consciously think back to it, you know that it was fiction, but while it's churning around in your subconscious, there is no distinction.

Shrapnel wrote:Wouldn't this be where suspension of disbelief would come in? I think most people recognize that the behaviors shown in fiction don't really relect how the real world work.

Additionally to what Kaelik and Mask_De_H said (and I agree with them), I also think you are misusing the term.

Suspension of disbeliefe, is: I don't belief that, but I will suspend my disbelief to try to enjoiy the story
It is not: That looks beliefable, now I do research to see if it is true.


And without reasearching it or having prior exeriences, many things will not trigger your disbelief.

Shrapnel wrote:Wouldn't this be where suspension of disbelief would come in? I think most people recognize that the behaviors shown in fiction don't really relect how the real world work.

On a related note, it's these scenarios from the films that libertarians use to fuel their paranoia that drives their need to have guns for protection.

I play poker with a guy who has a shirt that lists a bunch of gun calibers numerically (0.22, 0.380, 9mm, etc), followed by "all faster than 911"

I think a lot of people think that shit is real life. More importantly, they know they're the good guy, so they get those good guy privileges. Their literal talking point is "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun".

RobbyPants wrote:I think a lot of people think that shit is real life.

And a lot of other people who realise it's fiction and not terribly representative of reality, but think it's rather closer to reality than it really is.

Kaelik wrote:The thing here is that none of these people have personal experience that would lead them to any of these conclusions so where on earth are they getting them?

The media plays a huge role, but don't underestimate simple deference to authority figures.

A lot of media goes out of its way to be (or at least seem) realistic in terms of things like uniform design, weapon specs, vehicle speeds and durability, etc., and shows like 24 try to maintain a "ripped from the headlines" "this didn't actually happen but it could've" sort of vibe. Absent any other research, a naive but otherwise reasonable person might see all that and conclude that the primary embellishment of the story is that the good guys always win in the end because no one wants to hear a story about the villains getting away with it.

The US military basically loans for free all their equipment if they get veto rights on film and TV production. Presumably they don't do that shit because they just have good hearts. I bet Jack Ryan has a bunch of US military equipment in it and US military consultants telling them how the US military really works and shit like that, so I guess you know that the Pentagon thinks it will be good for the countries jingoism meter.

crackpot plan: pitch movie that requires a ridiculous amount of military hardware, get it into production. Get as much military hardware at once as you can, then destroy it. Claim you lost it.

Should probably get a fall guy for this, tbh.

Are you attempting to "commit suicide"?

I did say "crackpot plan"

Sounds like could be the premise for a decent comedy wherein foolish criminals plot to steal military hardware as movie props and succeed.

Imagine pitching that to the military: "So, hey, we've got this movie we want to make, and we'll need a lot of military hardware for it. See, the idea is that some filmmakers pitch a movie to the military in order to get a lot of military hardware, and then they just run off with it. The movie they're pitching is about some filmmakers who pitch a movie to the military in order to get a lot of military hardware, and then they just run off with it. So... yeah... we'll be needing as much military hardware as you're willing to let us use."

Whipstitch wrote:What's even more insidious is the fact that virtually every modern procedural has episodes that turn into an infomercial about the amazing benefits of the surveillance state. Every once in a while a show will feature authorities who are unambiguous villains but even those shows are fond of tying up loose ends by having the resident quirky nerd clack away at a keyboard and pull a name out of the National Registry Of Bad Crazies. It's the best kind of propaganda in the sense that it's quick and about as viscerally offensive as pulling up a wikipedia entry.

I will never forget the moment in which Law & Order beat me over the head with the fact that it is fear porn for boomers. I couldn't possibly remember which particular episode it was because they all sort of melt into each other; you know how TNT used to do (still does?) all-day Sunday marathons of various L&O series.

One of the attractive lady ADs was discussing a difficult suspect with the police detectives & captain. At some point the AD very seriously said "too bad we don't have the death penalty in New York or you could get him to talk." They kept the conversation moving and came up with some other strategy for coercing a confession, not dwelling on the death penalty thing, but I was floored. The way the scene was set up and the line was delivered, she might as well have looked directly at the camera and said "THE DEATH PENALTY IS GOOD AND EFFECTIVE AT DETERRING CRIME AND SOLVING CASES. ENDING THE DEATH PENALTY IS BAD. VOTE GOP." At least, that's how I saw it.

Since then I have not been able to enjoy L&O in its traditional role as "vapid weekend morning trash TV." Ever since Lenny died and took his deadpan snark with him, L&O Classic hasn't been worth watching anyway, not to mention that SVU without Stabler is just a sad farce.

Maj wrote:(The top complaint: It's not a socialist hell-hole. It's a right-wing hellhole that's trying to be being saved by a left-wing female.)

I had actually flashed passed this when you posted it, but was looking into the show again, and wholly shit!

They actually have a right wing government (that is CLEARLY modeled on Maduro still) being couped by a left wing opposition supported by the CIA!

As if the US would ever fucking coup a right win government!