I once read Baby Boomer culture described as an ugly toad squatting on the rest of society, holding it back. The truth turned out to be a bit different though. Even the younger generations still willingly embrace 20th century life (probably more than they realize).
I think social media will finally tip things over into a new era though. The narcissism that is its core feature is also an outgrowth of 20th century individualism and a quest for self actualization. Pushed to its limits, it destroys its participants and society at large.
For anyone interested in these topics, I highly recommend The Century Of The Self. It talks about the intersection of psychology, marketing, technology and the generation that grew up with them in the 20th century.
I think part of this isn't the selfishness of the new generation but because society hasn't really changed since 2001 and 2008 in terms of major problems. Children grew up in the rapid privacy and legal rights violations caused by the fallout of 9/11 are still dealing with it and nothing has been resolved regarding the erosion of consistutional and human rights. Global warming is still a major concern and that is also being exacerbated. Several places never recovered from 2008, and the younger generation is among the top in terms of disenfranchisement by being saddled with all this student debt- which also hasn't been resolved. Same for healthcare, income inequality, etc.
Arguably, all of society's problems are still the problems of 2001/2008. Doesn't it make sense that our culture has also somewhat been placed in amber within that generation?
I'm far from convinced that most millennials can be summed up with "like and subscribe," either, though. If anything, this seems to be an extremely politically engaged generation with an interest in radically reshaping their world. Which sounds, you know, an awful lot like the boomers, originally.
This is a generational conflict that happens with every generation. (Each generation has issues with the other) The whole ok boomer thing has me pretty concerned. It's a hostile dismissive attitude towards a previous generation. (That's a terrible thing)
> I think social media will finally tip things over into a new era though. The narcissism that is its core feature is also an outgrowth of 20th century individualism and a quest for self actualization. Pushed to its limits, it destroys its participants and society at large.
Unfortunately it hasn't. It's tied to the economy. I would agree that it actively destroys it's participants and society at large. (I don't even think this is an extreme case of it)
And I'm sure there are some who use the phrase to refer to every boomer, but I don't believe most do.
(Easy there downvoters, I'm demonstrating why 'ok <label>' is dismissive and hostile to others by showing a similar dismissal statement.. read and see below for the argument)
Or I could respond with why I believe what the other party's response is incorrect and understand that the other party may hold conflicting beliefs. What you're stating about the beliefs held by millennials about others view them. (It may or may not be correct.. media representation of the belief is there)
Are we embracing 20th century life by clinging on to old movie IPs, or are we just constantly being fed the same type of stuff by Studios who’ve found “their formula” for making content with a low risk of flopping, for example.
--
[0] - With the possible exception of Disney's Tommorowland, and of course DS9, VOY and ENT Star Trek series from the same universe as TNG.
If you can get past the somewhat juvenile humor in the early episodes it's surprisingly good.
I think it's a very interesting exercise in exploring the space of post-scarcity, and Banks does a good job of looking at those consequences. It's telling though how little of narrative interest happens within Culture borders.
EDIT: But you're not wrong that it's at the upper end of the optimism scale!
This makes perfect sense for a company (since they're almost always very risk adverse), but doesn't work so well if you want more original works or creativity. Entertainment requires outsiders, non corporations, etc to provide at least some of the works there, otherwise you'll get endless sequels, reboots and rehashes until they stop selling.
This sounds interesting, but I'm not sure I really understand what you mean. Could you elaborate on what embracing 21st century life would look like in your mind?
I actually think a lot of that was fueled by post-World War II prosperity in the US, and ultimately the rest of the west as the century got past its midway point. Globalization in a way is normalizing that "peak" and I suspect that, in addition to the corrosive effects of narcissism at scale will cause some sort of reaction that looks very different than 20th century teenage rebellion and extended adolescence.
For a theoretical example of 21st century life, I could imagine multiple generations sharing the same home, as is already the trend. That may seem very old fashioned but I see it as more post-modern as it will be mixed ad hoc with other more future forward conventions (for better or worse). Maybe some of those living in the household are gig economy workers enabled by technology for instance.
There's a reason the individual is the primary unit in western societies - we saw and can still see societies structured to put the group, the commons or the country first. They committed atrocities against masses of individuals in the name of the group. No thanks.
Nobody, but getting there by forcing everyone together because it's no longer possible to afford to do otherwise seems to be a good indicator that something has broken.
> It's only purely negative when viewed through the lens of individual economic achievement
I'm 41, I moved out of my folks place when I was 18. My life would have been quieter and poorer if I had had to stay in their house for the last 23 years, following their rules, and it would have driven me insane. I lived in shared houses for several years, then moved to my own place, now live with my partner.
It's not just about economic success, it's about having your own space to be yourself and live life the way you want it.
> (which may not be possible to the level seen post-WW II in the west).
Oh rubbish. Endless growth may not be possible or even desirable, but being able to make your own way in the world is not over, nor is it likely to be any time soon.
--edit-- I do understand that, for instance, owning property is much harder in many places now than ever before, I think we have work to do as a society to mitigate that. But I also think that perhaps we've over-centralised on a few desirable, expensive cities (in the UK, where I live, but also other western nations). A re-balance by distributing the wealth-generation around a bit more would help.
I am not surprised a reality escapism to simpler times culture effect was created. After all if future seems bleak looking back at simpler easier times might be only coping mechanism.
We are used to machines that we can replace like nothing. The truth is, things take time.
This is always the way, surely, by definition?
Here is a really good takedown of the superhero mass-produced trash and the cultural pit we find ourselves in:
[1]: https://www.indiewire.com/2019/04/pedro-almodovar-wants-sexi...
And also, part of audience are children.
Plus it is not like sex on screen in movies was typically an adult realistic depiction of how relationships go. So it is double fine.
Speaking of romance, I dont need romance in the movies. Not every movie needs it. Most relationships in real life are not romantic, most cooperating groups of people dont actually have couple in them. Repetitive same-stupid-hero-falls-in-love with girl that is there to be fallen in love with plus some excuse is worst then no romance.
The artistic taste, the aesthetics of personal tech blogs, even the aesthetic of this website itself. It's hyper-functionalist. It's all-about-the-business. Don't forget those with perceptual access needs.
And the colors, styles, and general artistic output of web media has been... all-about-the-business. Gone is the spirit of the Flash era. Tech is so business business business.
The web in general is hyperoptimized. Sites that do not fit all the requirements for showing on Google searches do not get visitors, and do not count over the overall web esthetic. If you look deeper, it's easy to notice that the all-about-business of the web is very different from the all-about-the-business of HN.
> Primarily, mass-market superhero movies seem to be abetting an audience who do not wish to relinquish their grip on (a) their relatively reassuring childhoods
It’s the exact opposite. Superhero movies speak most strongly to those whose childhoods were traumatizing. The misfits, the rejects, the nerds who were bullied and had no protector. These narratives are about downtrodden heroes discovering their inner strength and standing up to evil and abuse. Look at the archetype of the mild mannered geeky protagonist who hides his incredible abilities - Spider-Man, Superman with his Clark Kent glasses and persona.
The reason these movies are resonating so deeply in this cultural moment is we have an entire generation of traumatized kids, now adults, who are searching for stories to help them make sense of their reality. This is directly linked to the rise of so-called mental illness, aka trauma.
I’m not saying that all of these mass produced movies are works of art, but you need to understand where the appetite is coming from. The root is in collective trauma.
The only connection to DW Griffit’s racist film is surface level - literally just the fact that masks and capes are involved. Pointing to that film as a forerunner of superhero movies is frankly absurd.
What explains the desire to make a mini-series or spinoff franchise about every single character, if not the desire to cash in? A couple of years ago Netflix had Jessica Jones, Iron Fist and Luke Cage as standalone shows, and The Defenders as its own show. The Defenders had the exact same cast playing the same characters as on the standalone shows. What is the point of that? Certainly not to put traumatized adults at ease I imagine.
That's very common even outside of Christianity, greek/egyptian/nordic myths. It's more of a "human" thing than a "christian" thing.
It's really funny if you pay attention to villains in super-hero movies how often they're foreign or alien in origin with some environmental or grand agenda. Ra's al ghul is no different, and Bane of course who in Nolan's movie is the villian for bringing wall street down.
It's funny how loved these movies are usually by stereotypically 'woke' audiences when the moral of the story so often seems like something that could have come straight out of the 1950s.
Been a long time since I've seen a Chinese bad guy in an action movie. Funny, that.
And ironically a superhero radio serial helped seriously weaken the KKK in the 40s:
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/23157/how-superman-defea...
I heard elsewhere that, after the program aired, the children of KKK members were angry when they found their children playing "Superman vs. the Klan" and understanding the Klan to be the enemy.
I'm not defending the superhero genre targeted at adult audiences, and I think the movies tend to be boring and unimaginative.
And the last point seems to be being made quite ably by Lindelof in... Watchmen.
Netflix, HBO and the other streaming services are filling the void but artistically we definitely have gone back a bit.
What justification does he have to make this claim? Perhaps he thinks adults are taking these movies seriously? These movies have had about as much impact on my life as some of the stains on my carpet. I watch them for the same reason I eat cotton candy when I go to the fair..
"I think the impact of superheroes on popular culture is both tremendously embarrassing and not a little worrying,"
Again, what impact?
How many people are really enamored with the idea of super heroes, as opposed to just enjoying the spectacle of it?
Our side is good, the other side is evil. With us or against us.
Superhero movies tend to embody this simplistic view of a complicated world. We're the good side and we destroy the enemy who is irredeemable. Fin.
Even Thanos with his environmental message just ending up being treated as another villain to be defeated in Endgame.
I wonder whether that trend reflects our trends in psychological states or simply on our seemingly more complex, information overloaded world.
And don't forget that a lot of what is now considered cannon was considered trashy and Dickens that "penny a word hack" even worse.
All the classic writers fundamentally write about the human condition. They are not concerned with anything other than that. They are masterpieces that capture essential truths and have the power to transform human thought and civilization. Which is whey their works have endured the test of time for thousands of years.
Compared to the classics, modern superhero films are garbage. They are focus-grouped, market-tested, mass-produced filth aimed at "everybody" (a close approximation of Nietzsche's "last man" [1]) They possess no intelligence, do not want to make you think, rattle no cages and aim at nothing but pandering and exploitation.
Do you see the difference?
I am not saying there is no other art (movie/literatture) that makes you think more then these. But like, superheroes and hollywood are not that.
I'd like to think that at least some modern literature is thought-provoking; I'd even say that Hollywood sometimes makes films which are unexpectedly deep (though they tend to be smaller-budget than the superhero stuff). That said, given that billions of dollars go in, what comes out is... not very impressive.
I said "nuanced" and "better at making you think" which is something completely different. One big reason why it is better at making you think is that it is not having simplistic singular message I am supposed to learn so that I feel like the movie had proper message.
If anything, I would compare it to Westworld or game of thrones, neither of which is Hollywood and neither of which is super simple message of "violence is bad".
And in terms of filth (your bias is showing) presumably that makes deadpool a satyr play.
Greed was abhorred, it was taboo to snatch
Radish tops, aniseed, or parsley before your elders,
Or to nibble kickshaws and giggle and twine one's feet.
EDIT: The relevant quote (although the whole interview is pretty interesting):
"I think the impact of superheroes on popular culture is both tremendously embarrassing and not a little worrying. While these characters were originally perfectly suited to stimulating the imaginations of their twelve or thirteen year-old audience, today’s franchised übermenschen, aimed at a supposedly adult audience, seem to be serving some kind of different function, and fulfilling different needs. Primarily, mass-market superhero movies seem to be abetting an audience who do not wish to relinquish their grip on (a) their relatively reassuring childhoods, or (b) the relatively reassuring 20th century. The continuing popularity of these movies to me suggests some kind of deliberate, self-imposed state of emotional arrest, combined with an numbing condition of cultural stasis that can be witnessed in comics, movies, popular music and, indeed, right across the cultural spectrum. The superheroes themselves – largely written and drawn by creators who have never stood up for their own rights against the companies that employ them, much less the rights of a Jack Kirby or Jerry Siegel or Joe Schuster – would seem to be largely employed as cowardice compensators, perhaps a bit like the handgun on the nightstand. I would also remark that save for a smattering of non-white characters (and non-white creators) these books and these iconic characters are still very much white supremacist dreams of the master race. In fact, I think that a good argument can be made for D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation as the first American superhero movie, and the point of origin for all those capes and masks."