I just found your channel with the Falling Down video. It broadly mirrored my take on the film when it came out years ago. Since then, my opinion on the direction of the film has been bolstered by the dramatic change in society. I also appreciated a lot of the finer points you made in regard to the forced narrative changes in the, “lazy writing” section. The way in which the film ensured that the protagonist was ultimately wrong was poorly done and confusing. I enjoyed the analysis in this clip also. You mentioned so many things in these two videos that I’ve been harping about for decades. It’s crazy to me that so many don’t see how much the world has been socially engineered. Great work!
I too discovered the channel with the 'Falling Down' analysis,@@thebarkingyears . Hope to see many more. The recent controversy around Snow White and your video essay especially makes me want to see the 1930s classic again with fresh eyes.
People say they have had enough of silly love songs. But I look around me and see it isn't so. Love is poison to the feminist. I would like to new move to go more into depth of the prince being a representation of the grim reaper. The theory that it was the kiss of death checks out.
As an animator- the only thing that upsets me regarding feminism about Snow White is that it was NOT the first feature length animated film as we think. It was Lotte Reiniger’s (a woman) “The Adventures of Prince Achmed” done in 1926
Its very weird to include real world issues like stalking in a fantasy world like Snow White. In the real world everyone(I hope) knows that you can't actually wake someone up from a coma with a kiss. The 'problematic' elements don't exist in the real world. So trying to tie these two is weird. Someone that watches Snow White and concludes 'This is how I gotta act' probably has issues.
Fairy tales have to be analyzed in a psychological sense. They do serve as vectors to teach children life lessons. And waiting passively for good things to arrive is not a very good one.
This is definitely one of the reasons why I don't have a Disney collection or watch movies or have a Netflix account. If I want entertainment or informative videos to provide as pallet cleansers, I can always go on TH-cam for free. There are definitely content creators out there who deserve accolades for the work they do; and it is a diverse creator pool unlike the hollow, cynical facade of diversity that Hollywood pretends to extol. I just cannot see myself supporting shallow, naval-gazing celebrities like Rachel Zegler or Gal Gadot. No amount of beauty can hide a crappy, narcissistic personality.
I don't know if you meant it this way, but it sounds a lot like the entire idea of boundaries to you is bunk, that there can't be anything sacred to an individual, something that cannot be infringed. That doesn't seem right on the face of it, we all have things we need to keep for ourselves; the work in a relationship is establishing those things together and finding the common ground in between, and you do this because you love another person enough, you care about them and respect them and want to spend your life with with them enough to make that work worth it. That's why relationships are hard. Following from that, you say that the point about relationships in the past often being fraught with abuse and/or dysfunction is irrelevant, or more accurately you simply say, "No," but demonstrably many of them were. You could ask just about anyone who was alive back then about that and they'd probably tell you that the societal expectations for women were that they'd be housewives, emphasis on wives, expected to marry a good man to improve their station and bring children into the world, even if it made them horribly miserable and they didn't even care about that man or they were gay or whatever, which in turn can lead to resentment, and the societal expectations for men were to work a job, even if it made them horribly miserable, even if it turned them into a hollowed out shell, and to never ever express these emotions because that's a sign of weakness, which in turn also leads to resentment, and when you put it all together you end up with a bunch of unhappy people, anywhere from 0 to 2 per couple, who will probably lash out at their loved ones because they're so fucking fed up with the lives that they don't even want. You can say I'm projecting, but just as you say the past has a lot to teach about the present, I invite you to look at more introspective works from that time period and find that plenty of them talk about these exact problems. See "It's A Wonderful Life" or "The Stepford Wives" or even some episodes of Rod Serling's The Twilight Zone such as "Next Stop Willoughby"; stories like this didn't come out of a vacuum. So my broader point here is that at least some of that discrepancy you mentioned between then and now IS definitely caused by people just not needing to marry per societal norms anymore and, probably, the idea of there being real boundaries between two people has put extra strain on relationships where there previously wasn't any because to talk about one's boundaries in the past was to essentially put your social capital at risk. Basically, love is harder now than it was before specifically because people are more willing to put their feet down if their partner crosses a line they can't abide. This is a relatively new development so I can't really know if this will eventually even out into fewer but more meaningful long-lasting relationships-- the data doesn't really exist yet-- but from where I'm standing it sounds less like narcissism ruining the human relationship and more like bad relationships are failing earlier more often. This new Snow White movie still sucks, though. They should make a new story instead.
And before you maybe tell me "Next Stop Willoughby" involves a narcissistic wife who drove a man to the edge and so supports your point: She wasn't being narcissistic by establishing boundaries, she was doing so by treading on them. She was abusive and toxic and all of those other things you can call taking advantage of someone.
Very ignorant take, mainly due to the fact that it is readily apparent all your experience of the world comes from living in the West. Virtually everyone outside of that bubble, such as in East Asia, lives "like the 50s", and the happiness of people, politeness, quality of life, love of children, etc., is far greater. Go around the orient and ask them if they're miserable (except for communist China and North Korea, obviously).
@@iruleatgames That's a really weird thing to say because you are completely ignoring the fact that, even if what you're saying is true, those are entirely different cultures with radically different values generated by radically different histories and philosophies that shaped them. All of this informs what counts as an enjoyable life as a member of said culture. We are not talking about other countries. We are talking about the United States.
@@DarthKain0 No we're not. We are talking about love and the human experience. These things are universal. Our discussion is informed by the topic of the video. Even if your argument was to be taken at face value, the idea that people of the West were clinically unhappy until the last few decades, is utterly ludicrous.
For someone ostensibly well versed in psychology and philosophy, your definitive proclamations about ontological knowledge and human intelligence suggests that it might be YOU on the low end of the curve
are you a gatorade homie or a powerade dude? i personally prefer yellow sugar-free gatorade. i had it a lot as a kid. good video btw. really enjoyed it and the focus of love as a whole being devalued in modern society.
7:03 "this is 50% projection" You literally just affirmed their beliefs by saying 50% of people saying this had this exact family in other words this is all completely true
I still think dating apps alongside with the Starbucks menu have contributed a rise in information paralysis. People equate indecision or not deciding with maintaining one's freedom. The truth is that freedom lies in being able to decide how you engage with the world around you
@@thebarkingyears yes. look my critic is going to be made of a lot of "I'm not convinced". as far as I'm concerned Simba isn't responsible for squat, and even if he was , he is in no condition to lead anyone he is to far behind, he barely learned anything about leader as a child and he definitely learned nothing about it as an adult, so nala's attempts at bring him back seem to me like a waste of her valuable time. I have more complaint about every detail or plot point in the movie and why each and every goes against the themes and morals but I have to admit me bias and say that i saw madagascar 2 before the lion king, and that "movie" was basically systematic debunk of everything in the lion king. while beside the alex and zuba plot as a debunk for simba's responsibilities and the new-Yorkers as a take on the hyenas as non-villain the movie mostly uses strawman examples and frankly it is really that funny of a movie to begin with however, I still find the debunking itself to be admirable and a nice counterbalance to what I find to be a rushed and accidently a cruelly illogical movie.
@daninogil interesting. In what way is Simba not responsible? He is aware that his people are suffering, and he, by merit of his relation to the king, is in a position to be able to do something about it. How would refusing to do that be anything other than cowardice or callousness?
@@thebarkingyears simple, they are not "his" people anymore timon and pumba are "his" people snice the took care of him longer and nobody from his so called family came searching for him and believed the village loner scar for some reason (as far as I'm concerned this is a plot chasm) they certainly should not be in Simba's consideration. also his status as a prince becomes irrelevant the moment Mufasa dies (if the movie thinks that sarabi doesn't matter then i do to) snice there is no one left to show him ropes (and Mufasa did a bad job at it but that is for the next comment)
this movie have 3 problems: 1. the movie is incomplete and desperately needs another 20-30 minutes of context. 2. the movie is either confused about what is an instinct and what you can lean from experience or just malicious about it, . 3. the writing that is there makes everyone who isn't simba, nala and maybe timon and pumba look like dips$$$$#@ts. a good example for that is one of Mufasa's pass time, belittlement, i know that scar is guilty in Mufasa's murder but I'm sure that Mufasa talking behind scar's back and the ambiguity of scar status certainly didn't help matters. Mufasa is risking his pride safety with a bitter loner for... what exactly? because scar is "family"? then treat him as such and talk to him directly about you problems, for your amusement? you have a tribe to protect you don't have that privilege. but the key word is look like dip... not are dip... the reason for that is in point 1. this movie story foundation built with popsicle sticks and wish fulfilment covered with great visuals that do nothing for me other then reminding me of how ridiculously dogmatic and self serious this movie is.
@@thebarkingyears No one tabs like Gaston, no one dabs like Gaston, no one breaks Disney's guard and then stabs like Gaston Pretend this isn't cringe and that it's somehow a compliment to you on your video.
Oh interesting. What feels different to you? Often people are able to identify your stylistic choices and changes long before you, yourself, are aware of them. At least, that's how it's always been for me.
@@thebarkingyearsYour video on Boogie and Falling down had a sense of sympathy and a despondent tone. Here in this video you feel more aggressive, maybe because you feel disgusted that popular media idealizes selfish attainment of power and misconstrues it with social emancipation. Consequently they’ve demonized and stigmatized traditional views on “love” in media and perhaps in society at large. Personal Observation: My takeaway with this stigmatization of traditional views is that for some reason the civil rights movements of old, (BLM, feminism, etc.) went from connection communities together to promoting personal attainment of power and that the act of taking it is an act of emancipation. Maybe I’ve misunderstood your take on this whole thing and I’m probably just projecting. Apologies if that’s the case. Also keep up the great vids. Love how you sympathetic approaches in Falling Down and Boogie and you’re aggressive approach here is great too.
@@lukeamparo6586 Hey Luke, thanks for watching and for the kind words. I think your observation has a lot of merit. As I once heard a very wise man say, the idealism of an age is the cover story for its thefts. I think a great deal of the activism that you see today is narcissism and greed clothing itself in noble ideas. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I don't want to be hyperbolic, but I found the writing in this video to be structured in a really beautifully bittersweet way. I can't wait to see how your writing continues to grow.
wEiRd WeIrD, I just can't get over how cheap the remake looks. Walt Disney was a perfectionist, nearly bankrupting the company using only the best paints, overworking his staff (ofc not a good thing, but for art its like something that will be appreciated for the ages) and the movie nearly destroyed him. The remake? a cheap cashgrab with a culture war feminist gimmick to gain media attention.
As an animator, I can tell you the only difference is pretentiousness, and there is no real difference. But go off, I'm sure someone in the production offices would love to agree with you, and claim that paying animators what they're worth is as simple as calling the project a "cartoon" 😂Something they got away with for YEARS and is exactly the sort of thing Disney got sued over because cartoonists were being hired to make 400-800 frames a week, while never given credit for creating animated films. Snow White included! So guess what, it's not so crazy that anyone who isn't in the industry of animation, would still call it a cartoon, because that's EXACTLY what Disney DID TO US for YEARS. Why the $@$! would an ACTOR know that?
At the risk of sounding toxic; that's on woman. Romance is still huge and viewed as very important in video games which has historically always been a male dominated field and hobby. It's the woman glorifying the hookup culture and going after power. Men type movies still value romance; such as a huge side plot of Gardians of the galaxy 3 was quill still trying to get with a Gamora that not only doesn't want him, but opening dislikes him. Or the other huge games where romancing characters changes the game like mass effect, the witcher, dragon age, cyber punk... the list goes on and on. These females icons are only making it worse too by normalizing the destruction of love and family. Power means nothing if you have no family to share your success with. There's little other motivation besides building an empire for your children's children if you're seeking power. It's either for a family and life or just straight up ego.
Movies and games aimed at a male demographic don't usually give a very nuanced view of romance although they've gotten better as more women and queer perspectives are involved in the gaming community and the medium has matured. I think Guardians does a bit better with not automatically rewarding Quill but I think that's James Gunn writing a romance plotline because superhero-action movies are often studio mandated and he was able to do something more interesting with it. I'm gonna be honest that kind of just sounds like textbook incel projection of male insecurities and anxiety twisting things so women are ruining society because it's somehow less convenient for men. As if women exist to fulfill the economic and social role of a wife or mother in the family unit. No one brings this shit up for men about how they need to be a good father when they choose to be bachelors or have stories that have nothing to do with how they interact with women. A woman choosing other things doesn't mean she's egotistic she just cares about the things you don't.
Yeah this is nonsense. Movies targeted at women are still far more likely to center romance-the only difference between today and 30, 40 years ago is that not *all* movies targeted at women center romance, which has always been true of movies targeted at men. Consider romcoms-and entire genre dedicated to romance ... and overwhelmingly targeted towards women (unless you want to make the argument that movies like "The Kissing Booth 1/2/3" were made for male audiences and only happened to be overwhelmingly watched by women by some accident of the universe). "It's the woman glorifying the hookup culture and going after power." Men, historically and presently, have been far more likely to participate in "hook up culture" than women. To believe what you wrote, you'd have to imagine that male participation in hook up culture is somehow reluctant or solemn-as if the average guy reacts to hearing his male friend got laid the night before by meditating on the moral ambiguity of the situation. Again, the difference between now and the period Zeigler was referencing-the 30s/40s-is that, for most American women, there's no overwhelming social pressure to *not* participate in hook up culture (whereas men have, for decades, been encouraged to do so). (I'd also take issue with your claim that GoG3 is a "men type movie[]"-its opening audience was 60% male, which, sure, definitionally skews male ... but 40% female isn't nothing ... or that it centers romance in the way you're describing-the lesson Peter learns in the movie is that he has to let Gamora go.)
I agree with the other replies who are disagreeing with your points, but I understand where you're coming from. Even if what you said is fiction, it has a basis in truth. I view it like this: think of how long women were subjugated and treated as property. Hundreds, or even thousands of years, right? In some parts of the world, they still are to a large degree. That kind of imbalance doesn't just fix itself in the space of a few decades. It's only natural that we might see a bit of "over-correction," before landing on a more equitable state of affairs. Same with systemic racism. You don't just own people as slaves, deny their human rights for centuries, then suddenly change a few laws and expect everything to be fine. This kind of societal change is slow and messy, not quick and linear. Also, I can't say I'm on board with the statement that "Romance is very important in video games." I've been playing games my whole life, and can't think of many where romance was "important" at all. Sure, sometimes the protagonist has a love interest, but often they're just a McGuffin... someone for the player to rescue or avenge. Or worse, it's just fan service. Some games allow you to "romance" other characters, but it's a very minor part of the game, and doesn't really say much about romance. Even in the games you listed, it's just... pick a mate and give them the "romance" dialogue option. It's not like a rom-com that actually explores anything about romance (unless we're talking about dating sims). Usually it's just an extension of the "male power fantasy" where you get to be someone that can beat up every man and attract every woman.
It's tragic how people have so little awareness for the value that can be found in these old works. There is a steady process of robbing these stories of their richness to replace them with more monetizable sentiments. I tried to capture that in this essay but I'm not sure how successful I was.
Is there no possibility that the romance in these movies was problematic? I mean, Sleeping Beauty is, I think, the most obvious example of that ... but, even beyond SB, the female characters in these films were largely passive creatures that existed to look pretty and ultimately be won by a male. Snow White's 1937 story, from her perspective, is really hard to tell in the active voice. The stepmother sends Snow White to be a maid. The Huntsman, finding Snow White too pretty to kill, tells her of the witch's plot. The animals lead Snow White to a cottage in the forrest. The Queen feeds Snow White a poisoned apple, causing her to fall asleep. The prince wakes Snow White up by kissing her. ... I think there are two exceptions to this, and both just underscore my point further: Snow White ... sings, which (unbeknownst to her) helps make the prince fall in love with her ... and she cleans, cooks, and otherwise keeps house for the dwarves. That's it. Even now, you sometimes see characters-male or female-scrutinized as underdeveloped because they're just "someone that plots happen to," they don't exercise any real agency. (Occasionally that's an intentional and meaningful choice-usually in dystopia films or horror films, but these are the exception.) I think it makes sense to want a more developed character than that, and it also makes sense that an actor/actress would be excited about playing a character who is more than "person things happen to"
honestly kind of a weird video, its hard for me to pinpoint what your point even is. you said many interesting things I agree with but ... do you think your point about modern love has anything to do with why they are changing the plot of the remake or why they even remake old classics at all? Of course the "great leader" stuff is just purposefully misrepresented "girlboss feminism" but other then that, what was the take? (to be fair i watched this while working so maybe thats where my problems understanding stem from lmao)
I don’t know man. After watching a few of your videos, seems like you’ve got some weird hang ups with women and female empowerment. It’s not narcissism, maybe it’s just trying to teach women, and men, to love themselves.
@@thebarkingyears Loving yourself isn't narcissm. I was interested in this channel after the Falling Down breakdown although I felt like you made some leaps in logic and largely disregarding the main character's abusive nature before the events of the film (I watched that shit when I was a kid and even I remembered) but this has thoroughly put me off your content. You basically just said lead actress was dumb cause she was an actor (as if her even having a career in the arts makes her an idiot) and then pivoted to make a dig at Natalia Portman for owning up to a mistake she made over a decade ago when she was much younger when admitting to it would be career and social suicide. It's disappointing, but it's understandable. Not that I even give a shit about a Disney remake but getting hung up this hard on an actress saying she wanted the titular character to have a life outside of her romance arc is weird and speaks more to the insecurities of the people getting riled up about it than anything else. Loving yourself isn't vanity, smugly replying with a Wikipedia article is peak cringe. God forbid an actress wanting a role where she has more agency.
I'm not a feminist. However, you have to admit that history is full of female royal leaders, aka Queens. They were taught from a young age to rule. Their husband's were sperm donors for the most part, having very little or absolutely no power. Fairy tales have always pushed the narrative that princesses seek love and abandon their birthright to their husband. While the prince in such stories never gives his kingdom to his queen. The Prince of Cinderella didn't. Hell, if Disney did that, it would be blasphemous. I understand what this actress said. But the way she said it was wrong. If she had said there is nothing wrong with Snow White. This is just a more realistic take on the story. A princess wouldn't surrender her throne. The Queen wanted power and is referred to as evil. Snow White was the heir to the Kingdom. In real life she would have been trained for this role. The idea that a man with soft lips gives her a kiss and they get married right away is bad writing. Now you say most of us won't be a leader. True. But if your parents leave you a successful company. You are most likely going to run it. The Late Queen Elizabeth maintained her authority over her husband, as did many queens. But these fairytales were written by men. I seriously doubt this led to the current marriage statistics. More likely, it was that people were free to have sex without marriage now that led to this. I have hated on stories with a male fan base replacing men with girls. Girl bosses exist. In 1937 this animated film made sense. In 2024 not so much. But, that doesn't mean they won't continue to make versions of the original.
Congratulations on joining the dreaded alt-right conservative faction of TH-cam! Don't forget your Stormtrooper costume, with good content like this you will upgrade it to the Darth Vader one in no time.
@@thebarkingyears There are some comments from Critical Drinker/EFAP fans apparently thinking that this video places you in that camp... so, no, I don't think it's a joke... I certainly hope you're not in that camp, haven't gotten that vibe from your other videos... but yeah, I can see why some people got that feeling from this one. Most of your videos just seem thoughtful. This one is a bit more... angsty. Usually you're commenting on the media itself, not the drama around it or culture war BS.
@@neofromthewarnerbrothersic145anyone who talks about modern films/content will have to talk about culture wars at some point. They are inextricably linked.
@@marshall_zhukov Talking about it is one thing, participating is another. After this video and the more recent one about "toxic femininity," I'm out. Andrew Tate and "manosphere" content are all over the place... but sure, let's talk exclusively about "toxic femininity" lmao.
That movie would be far better if it where a sequel. Zeg-dog (the female verity) is Sandy Tan, the evil princess, reincarnated evil queen. And Wonder Woman is a now all grown up Snow White (she physically looks like her) who is the good queen, looking for an hair. The good Queen would then act as an antagonist to the evil princess and her dark ambitions.
First, I enjoy your channel. It's a fresh take and I love your content which is to be objective versus creating drama. Just one footnote. You did a part-to-whole fallacy which is that all actors are idiots. Granted you did not use those words, but picking Natalie Portman or any one actor as your argument doesn't creates a case. It's cherry picking. The media will tend to reflect on actors who create drama because it sells. I get that. The actors who don't, don't make the press so, of course, we don't see that side of acting. You can do that with any job. All lawyers are greedy and evil. It's just not reality. Don't get caught into that trap. Your channel, from what I've seen, provides objective observations. Again, not trying to start a flame war because we get enough rage on TH-cam.
Bro your channel is going to be huge. Keep it up
Hope so. Thanks man
I just found your channel with the Falling Down video. It broadly mirrored my take on the film when it came out years ago. Since then, my opinion on the direction of the film has been bolstered by the dramatic change in society. I also appreciated a lot of the finer points you made in regard to the forced narrative changes in the, “lazy writing” section. The way in which the film ensured that the protagonist was ultimately wrong was poorly done and confusing. I enjoyed the analysis in this clip also. You mentioned so many things in these two videos that I’ve been harping about for decades. It’s crazy to me that so many don’t see how much the world has been socially engineered. Great work!
Hey, thanks for watching, Brendon. I'm glad you liked it! Sounds like we think pretty similarly.
I too discovered the channel with the 'Falling Down' analysis,@@thebarkingyears . Hope to see many more. The recent controversy around Snow White and your video essay especially makes me want to see the 1930s classic again with fresh eyes.
People say they have had enough of silly love songs. But I look around me and see it isn't so. Love is poison to the feminist. I would like to new move to go more into depth of the prince being a representation of the grim reaper. The theory that it was the kiss of death checks out.
They may not like it when its real, but they are absolutely infatuated the concept of fake love.
As an animator- the only thing that upsets me regarding feminism about Snow White is that it was NOT the first feature length animated film as we think. It was Lotte Reiniger’s (a woman) “The Adventures of Prince Achmed” done in 1926
Apparently there were 2 (now lost) before even that one.
The cigarette sunt was also mentioned in the Century of the Self, right? I remember it distinctly.
Just like that, you earned yourself a subscriber.
Welcome aboard! Thanks for watching!
Found your channel advertised on the Distributionist. Seems good from first impressions. Nice way to end the monologue, 1937-style.
Well thanks for taking a look. I'm glad you enjoyed the essay. I was particularly pleased with the end, so it's nice to hear that it worked for you.
Its very weird to include real world issues like stalking in a fantasy world like Snow White. In the real world everyone(I hope) knows that you can't actually wake someone up from a coma with a kiss. The 'problematic' elements don't exist in the real world. So trying to tie these two is weird. Someone that watches Snow White and concludes 'This is how I gotta act' probably has issues.
Fairy tales have to be analyzed in a psychological sense. They do serve as vectors to teach children life lessons. And waiting passively for good things to arrive is not a very good one.
This is definitely one of the reasons why I don't have a Disney collection or watch movies or have a Netflix account. If I want entertainment or informative videos to provide as pallet cleansers, I can always go on TH-cam for free. There are definitely content creators out there who deserve accolades for the work they do; and it is a diverse creator pool unlike the hollow, cynical facade of diversity that Hollywood pretends to extol.
I just cannot see myself supporting shallow, naval-gazing celebrities like Rachel Zegler or Gal Gadot. No amount of beauty can hide a crappy, narcissistic personality.
I don't know if you meant it this way, but it sounds a lot like the entire idea of boundaries to you is bunk, that there can't be anything sacred to an individual, something that cannot be infringed. That doesn't seem right on the face of it, we all have things we need to keep for ourselves; the work in a relationship is establishing those things together and finding the common ground in between, and you do this because you love another person enough, you care about them and respect them and want to spend your life with with them enough to make that work worth it. That's why relationships are hard.
Following from that, you say that the point about relationships in the past often being fraught with abuse and/or dysfunction is irrelevant, or more accurately you simply say, "No," but demonstrably many of them were. You could ask just about anyone who was alive back then about that and they'd probably tell you that the societal expectations for women were that they'd be housewives, emphasis on wives, expected to marry a good man to improve their station and bring children into the world, even if it made them horribly miserable and they didn't even care about that man or they were gay or whatever, which in turn can lead to resentment, and the societal expectations for men were to work a job, even if it made them horribly miserable, even if it turned them into a hollowed out shell, and to never ever express these emotions because that's a sign of weakness, which in turn also leads to resentment, and when you put it all together you end up with a bunch of unhappy people, anywhere from 0 to 2 per couple, who will probably lash out at their loved ones because they're so fucking fed up with the lives that they don't even want.
You can say I'm projecting, but just as you say the past has a lot to teach about the present, I invite you to look at more introspective works from that time period and find that plenty of them talk about these exact problems. See "It's A Wonderful Life" or "The Stepford Wives" or even some episodes of Rod Serling's The Twilight Zone such as "Next Stop Willoughby"; stories like this didn't come out of a vacuum.
So my broader point here is that at least some of that discrepancy you mentioned between then and now IS definitely caused by people just not needing to marry per societal norms anymore and, probably, the idea of there being real boundaries between two people has put extra strain on relationships where there previously wasn't any because to talk about one's boundaries in the past was to essentially put your social capital at risk. Basically, love is harder now than it was before specifically because people are more willing to put their feet down if their partner crosses a line they can't abide. This is a relatively new development so I can't really know if this will eventually even out into fewer but more meaningful long-lasting relationships-- the data doesn't really exist yet-- but from where I'm standing it sounds less like narcissism ruining the human relationship and more like bad relationships are failing earlier more often.
This new Snow White movie still sucks, though. They should make a new story instead.
And before you maybe tell me "Next Stop Willoughby" involves a narcissistic wife who drove a man to the edge and so supports your point:
She wasn't being narcissistic by establishing boundaries, she was doing so by treading on them. She was abusive and toxic and all of those other things you can call taking advantage of someone.
100% this
Very ignorant take, mainly due to the fact that it is readily apparent all your experience of the world comes from living in the West. Virtually everyone outside of that bubble, such as in East Asia, lives "like the 50s", and the happiness of people, politeness, quality of life, love of children, etc., is far greater. Go around the orient and ask them if they're miserable (except for communist China and North Korea, obviously).
@@iruleatgames That's a really weird thing to say because you are completely ignoring the fact that, even if what you're saying is true, those are entirely different cultures with radically different values generated by radically different histories and philosophies that shaped them. All of this informs what counts as an enjoyable life as a member of said culture.
We are not talking about other countries. We are talking about the United States.
@@DarthKain0 No we're not. We are talking about love and the human experience. These things are universal. Our discussion is informed by the topic of the video. Even if your argument was to be taken at face value, the idea that people of the West were clinically unhappy until the last few decades, is utterly ludicrous.
This video just blew my mind. Suscribed
Great essay, I wish everyone can see this.
If you hate your character then DON'T PLAY THE ROLE THEN 😤🤬
Ah, but Miori, what about MONEY??
@@thebarkingyears oh yeah you're right
For someone ostensibly well versed in psychology and philosophy, your definitive proclamations about ontological knowledge and human intelligence suggests that it might be YOU on the low end of the curve
are you a gatorade homie or a powerade dude? i personally prefer yellow sugar-free gatorade. i had it a lot as a kid. good video btw. really enjoyed it and the focus of love as a whole being devalued in modern society.
Like your hawk eyes. Subbed 👍
I prefer "history was written by the butcher", kinda.... Cuts... to the point a little more
Another good one.
The kind of ppl the masses give their attention and allow to dictate their own actions and guide their moral compass... 🤔😢
7:03
"this is 50% projection"
You literally just affirmed their beliefs by saying 50% of people saying this had this exact family in other words this is all completely true
I still think dating apps alongside with the Starbucks menu have contributed a rise in information paralysis. People equate indecision or not deciding with maintaining one's freedom. The truth is that freedom lies in being able to decide how you engage with the world around you
12:41........... except me. saw when i was 14 or 16 and my mouth was on the floor from how bad it was.
...you're talking about the Lion King right now?
@@thebarkingyears yes. look my critic is going to be made of a lot of "I'm not convinced". as far as I'm concerned Simba isn't responsible for squat, and even if he was , he is in no condition to lead anyone he is to far behind, he barely learned anything about leader as a child and he definitely learned nothing about it as an adult, so nala's attempts at bring him back seem to me like a waste of her valuable time. I have more complaint about every detail or plot point in the movie and why each and every goes against the themes and morals but I have to admit me bias and say that i saw madagascar 2 before the lion king, and that "movie" was basically systematic debunk of everything in the lion king. while beside the alex and zuba plot as a debunk for simba's responsibilities and the new-Yorkers as a take on the hyenas as non-villain the movie mostly uses strawman examples and frankly it is really that funny of a movie to begin with however, I still find the debunking itself to be admirable and a nice counterbalance to what I find to be a rushed and accidently a cruelly illogical movie.
@daninogil interesting. In what way is Simba not responsible? He is aware that his people are suffering, and he, by merit of his relation to the king, is in a position to be able to do something about it. How would refusing to do that be anything other than cowardice or callousness?
@@thebarkingyears simple, they are not "his" people anymore timon and pumba are "his" people snice the took care of him longer and nobody from his so called family came searching for him and believed the village loner scar for some reason (as far as I'm concerned this is a plot chasm) they certainly should not be in Simba's consideration. also his status as a prince becomes irrelevant the moment Mufasa dies (if the movie thinks that sarabi doesn't matter then i do to) snice there is no one left to show him ropes (and Mufasa did a bad job at it but that is for the next comment)
this movie have 3 problems:
1. the movie is incomplete and desperately needs another 20-30 minutes of context.
2. the movie is either confused about what is an instinct and what you can lean from experience or just malicious about it, .
3. the writing that is there makes everyone who isn't simba, nala and maybe timon and pumba look like dips$$$$#@ts.
a good example for that is one of Mufasa's pass time, belittlement, i know that scar is guilty in Mufasa's murder but I'm sure that Mufasa talking behind scar's back and the ambiguity of scar status certainly didn't help matters. Mufasa is risking his pride safety with a bitter loner for... what exactly? because scar is "family"? then treat him as such and talk to him directly about you problems, for your amusement? you have a tribe to protect you don't have that privilege.
but the key word is look like dip... not are dip... the reason for that is in point 1.
this movie story foundation built with popsicle sticks and wish fulfilment covered with great visuals that do nothing for me other then reminding me of how ridiculously dogmatic and self serious this movie is.
Video description says Gal Gaston. Freudian slip? Or are you purposely burying nuggets of cleverness for earnest dwarves in your audience to mine?
Ha, I wish. More like me getting too friendly with the tab key.
@@thebarkingyears No one tabs like Gaston, no one dabs like Gaston, no one breaks Disney's guard and then stabs like Gaston
Pretend this isn't cringe and that it's somehow a compliment to you on your video.
This feels slightly like a different sort of style for your channel, but it doesn't stray so far that it feels at all out of place. I like it.
Oh interesting. What feels different to you? Often people are able to identify your stylistic choices and changes long before you, yourself, are aware of them. At least, that's how it's always been for me.
@@thebarkingyearsYour video on Boogie and Falling down had a sense of sympathy and a despondent tone.
Here in this video you feel more aggressive, maybe because you feel disgusted that popular media idealizes selfish attainment of power and misconstrues it with social emancipation. Consequently they’ve demonized and stigmatized traditional views on “love” in media and perhaps in society at large.
Personal Observation: My takeaway with this stigmatization of traditional views is that for some reason the civil rights movements of old, (BLM, feminism, etc.) went from connection communities together to promoting personal attainment of power and that the act of taking it is an act of emancipation. Maybe I’ve misunderstood your take on this whole thing and I’m probably just projecting. Apologies if that’s the case.
Also keep up the great vids. Love how you sympathetic approaches in Falling Down and Boogie and you’re aggressive approach here is great too.
@@lukeamparo6586 Hey Luke, thanks for watching and for the kind words. I think your observation has a lot of merit. As I once heard a very wise man say, the idealism of an age is the cover story for its thefts. I think a great deal of the activism that you see today is narcissism and greed clothing itself in noble ideas. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I don't want to be hyperbolic, but I found the writing in this video to be structured in a really beautifully bittersweet way. I can't wait to see how your writing continues to grow.
Thank you for watching! I'm glad you felt what I was going for.
wEiRd WeIrD, I just can't get over how cheap the remake looks. Walt Disney was a perfectionist, nearly bankrupting the company using only the best paints, overworking his staff (ofc not a good thing, but for art its like something that will be appreciated for the ages) and the movie nearly destroyed him. The remake? a cheap cashgrab with a culture war feminist gimmick to gain media attention.
Good shit bro 😁
Compared to Disney's upcoming remake even the Snow White and the Huntsman movie is better even though it is also a postmodern fantasy retelling.
Kind of a different vibe on this one than your usual. I like it.
Thank you being so king help me and these people to better understand you God amen
It’s not a cartoon, it’s an animated film. You would think an actor like Rachel Ziegler would know the difference.
As an animator, I can tell you the only difference is pretentiousness, and there is no real difference. But go off, I'm sure someone in the production offices would love to agree with you, and claim that paying animators what they're worth is as simple as calling the project a "cartoon" 😂Something they got away with for YEARS and is exactly the sort of thing Disney got sued over because cartoonists were being hired to make 400-800 frames a week, while never given credit for creating animated films. Snow White included!
So guess what, it's not so crazy that anyone who isn't in the industry of animation, would still call it a cartoon, because that's EXACTLY what Disney DID TO US for YEARS.
Why the $@$! would an ACTOR know that?
At the risk of sounding toxic; that's on woman. Romance is still huge and viewed as very important in video games which has historically always been a male dominated field and hobby. It's the woman glorifying the hookup culture and going after power. Men type movies still value romance; such as a huge side plot of Gardians of the galaxy 3 was quill still trying to get with a Gamora that not only doesn't want him, but opening dislikes him. Or the other huge games where romancing characters changes the game like mass effect, the witcher, dragon age, cyber punk... the list goes on and on. These females icons are only making it worse too by normalizing the destruction of love and family. Power means nothing if you have no family to share your success with. There's little other motivation besides building an empire for your children's children if you're seeking power. It's either for a family and life or just straight up ego.
Movies and games aimed at a male demographic don't usually give a very nuanced view of romance although they've gotten better as more women and queer perspectives are involved in the gaming community and the medium has matured. I think Guardians does a bit better with not automatically rewarding Quill but I think that's James Gunn writing a romance plotline because superhero-action movies are often studio mandated and he was able to do something more interesting with it.
I'm gonna be honest that kind of just sounds like textbook incel projection of male insecurities and anxiety twisting things so women are ruining society because it's somehow less convenient for men. As if women exist to fulfill the economic and social role of a wife or mother in the family unit. No one brings this shit up for men about how they need to be a good father when they choose to be bachelors or have stories that have nothing to do with how they interact with women. A woman choosing other things doesn't mean she's egotistic she just cares about the things you don't.
Yeah this is nonsense. Movies targeted at women are still far more likely to center romance-the only difference between today and 30, 40 years ago is that not *all* movies targeted at women center romance, which has always been true of movies targeted at men. Consider romcoms-and entire genre dedicated to romance ... and overwhelmingly targeted towards women (unless you want to make the argument that movies like "The Kissing Booth 1/2/3" were made for male audiences and only happened to be overwhelmingly watched by women by some accident of the universe).
"It's the woman glorifying the hookup culture and going after power." Men, historically and presently, have been far more likely to participate in "hook up culture" than women. To believe what you wrote, you'd have to imagine that male participation in hook up culture is somehow reluctant or solemn-as if the average guy reacts to hearing his male friend got laid the night before by meditating on the moral ambiguity of the situation. Again, the difference between now and the period Zeigler was referencing-the 30s/40s-is that, for most American women, there's no overwhelming social pressure to *not* participate in hook up culture (whereas men have, for decades, been encouraged to do so).
(I'd also take issue with your claim that GoG3 is a "men type movie[]"-its opening audience was 60% male, which, sure, definitionally skews male ... but 40% female isn't nothing ... or that it centers romance in the way you're describing-the lesson Peter learns in the movie is that he has to let Gamora go.)
I agree with the other replies who are disagreeing with your points, but I understand where you're coming from. Even if what you said is fiction, it has a basis in truth.
I view it like this: think of how long women were subjugated and treated as property. Hundreds, or even thousands of years, right? In some parts of the world, they still are to a large degree. That kind of imbalance doesn't just fix itself in the space of a few decades. It's only natural that we might see a bit of "over-correction," before landing on a more equitable state of affairs. Same with systemic racism. You don't just own people as slaves, deny their human rights for centuries, then suddenly change a few laws and expect everything to be fine. This kind of societal change is slow and messy, not quick and linear.
Also, I can't say I'm on board with the statement that "Romance is very important in video games." I've been playing games my whole life, and can't think of many where romance was "important" at all. Sure, sometimes the protagonist has a love interest, but often they're just a McGuffin... someone for the player to rescue or avenge. Or worse, it's just fan service. Some games allow you to "romance" other characters, but it's a very minor part of the game, and doesn't really say much about romance. Even in the games you listed, it's just... pick a mate and give them the "romance" dialogue option. It's not like a rom-com that actually explores anything about romance (unless we're talking about dating sims). Usually it's just an extension of the "male power fantasy" where you get to be someone that can beat up every man and attract every woman.
That was genuinely very good. Quite profound, actually.
*Finger snaps*
You should have a much larger voice my friend. You would work really well with The Critical Drinker
quick get him on EFAP
The oozing narcissism... The cringe hurts my soul, the disrespect for histories classics hurts me in general.
I'm not mad, I'm disappointed.
It's tragic how people have so little awareness for the value that can be found in these old works. There is a steady process of robbing these stories of their richness to replace them with more monetizable sentiments. I tried to capture that in this essay but I'm not sure how successful I was.
Dump her. Now.
@@marknewton6984 unlikely. These kinds of protests don't have much impact historically, at least not to my knowledge.
@@thebarkingyears Maybe this time will be different!
Is there no possibility that the romance in these movies was problematic? I mean, Sleeping Beauty is, I think, the most obvious example of that ... but, even beyond SB, the female characters in these films were largely passive creatures that existed to look pretty and ultimately be won by a male. Snow White's 1937 story, from her perspective, is really hard to tell in the active voice. The stepmother sends Snow White to be a maid. The Huntsman, finding Snow White too pretty to kill, tells her of the witch's plot. The animals lead Snow White to a cottage in the forrest. The Queen feeds Snow White a poisoned apple, causing her to fall asleep. The prince wakes Snow White up by kissing her. ... I think there are two exceptions to this, and both just underscore my point further: Snow White ... sings, which (unbeknownst to her) helps make the prince fall in love with her ... and she cleans, cooks, and otherwise keeps house for the dwarves. That's it. Even now, you sometimes see characters-male or female-scrutinized as underdeveloped because they're just "someone that plots happen to," they don't exercise any real agency. (Occasionally that's an intentional and meaningful choice-usually in dystopia films or horror films, but these are the exception.) I think it makes sense to want a more developed character than that, and it also makes sense that an actor/actress would be excited about playing a character who is more than "person things happen to"
honestly kind of a weird video, its hard for me to pinpoint what your point even is.
you said many interesting things I agree with but ... do you think your point about modern love has anything to do with why they are changing the plot of the remake or why they even remake old classics at all?
Of course the "great leader" stuff is just purposefully misrepresented "girlboss feminism" but other then that, what was the take?
(to be fair i watched this while working so maybe thats where my problems understanding stem from lmao)
Using feminism to sell women something that is ultimately harmful? Color me ***surprised***.
I don’t know man. After watching a few of your videos, seems like you’ve got some weird hang ups with women and female empowerment. It’s not narcissism, maybe it’s just trying to teach women, and men, to love themselves.
Yea this is super cringe. He probably identifies as “anti-woke” 😬
"It’s not narcissism, maybe it’s just trying to teach women, and men, to love themselves."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_(mythology)
I'm glad to read a comment with someone else saying this, I'm actually kind of sad TH-cam's algorithm thought I'd enjoy this.
@@thebarkingyears Loving yourself isn't narcissm.
I was interested in this channel after the Falling Down breakdown although I felt like you made some leaps in logic and largely disregarding the main character's abusive nature before the events of the film (I watched that shit when I was a kid and even I remembered) but this has thoroughly put me off your content.
You basically just said lead actress was dumb cause she was an actor (as if her even having a career in the arts makes her an idiot) and then pivoted to make a dig at Natalia Portman for owning up to a mistake she made over a decade ago when she was much younger when admitting to it would be career and social suicide. It's disappointing, but it's understandable. Not that I even give a shit about a Disney remake but getting hung up this hard on an actress saying she wanted the titular character to have a life outside of her romance arc is weird and speaks more to the insecurities of the people getting riled up about it than anything else.
Loving yourself isn't vanity, smugly replying with a Wikipedia article is peak cringe. God forbid an actress wanting a role where she has more agency.
@@yuza1032 "smugly replying with a Wikipedia article is peak cringe"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
I'm not a feminist. However, you have to admit that history is full of female royal leaders, aka Queens.
They were taught from a young age to rule. Their husband's were sperm donors for the most part, having very little or absolutely no power.
Fairy tales have always pushed the narrative that princesses seek love and abandon their birthright to their husband. While the prince in such stories never gives his kingdom to his queen. The Prince of Cinderella didn't. Hell, if Disney did that, it would be blasphemous.
I understand what this actress said. But the way she said it was wrong. If she had said there is nothing wrong with Snow White. This is just a more realistic take on the story. A princess wouldn't surrender her throne. The Queen wanted power and is referred to as evil. Snow White was the heir to the Kingdom. In real life she would have been trained for this role. The idea that a man with soft lips gives her a kiss and they get married right away is bad writing.
Now you say most of us won't be a leader. True. But if your parents leave you a successful company. You are most likely going to run it.
The Late Queen Elizabeth maintained her authority over her husband, as did many queens. But these fairytales were written by men.
I seriously doubt this led to the current marriage statistics. More likely, it was that people were free to have sex without marriage now that led to this.
I have hated on stories with a male fan base replacing men with girls. Girl bosses exist. In 1937 this animated film made sense. In 2024 not so much. But, that doesn't mean they won't continue to make versions of the original.
Wow, what a surface level and emotionally stunted pov.
I like the part where he says “cope!” You can really tell that he’s not projecting at all.
@jacobtheusch6159 totally, I'm sure you want walk down the streets of a city in the modern day without zero fear of crime. Unlike the 50s (sarcasm)
Congratulations on joining the dreaded alt-right conservative faction of TH-cam! Don't forget your Stormtrooper costume, with good content like this you will upgrade it to the Darth Vader one in no time.
Uh, is this a joke?
@@thebarkingyears There are some comments from Critical Drinker/EFAP fans apparently thinking that this video places you in that camp... so, no, I don't think it's a joke...
I certainly hope you're not in that camp, haven't gotten that vibe from your other videos... but yeah, I can see why some people got that feeling from this one. Most of your videos just seem thoughtful. This one is a bit more... angsty. Usually you're commenting on the media itself, not the drama around it or culture war BS.
@@neofromthewarnerbrothersic145anyone who talks about modern films/content will have to talk about culture wars at some point. They are inextricably linked.
@@marshall_zhukov Talking about it is one thing, participating is another.
After this video and the more recent one about "toxic femininity," I'm out. Andrew Tate and "manosphere" content are all over the place... but sure, let's talk exclusively about "toxic femininity" lmao.
That movie would be far better if it where a sequel. Zeg-dog (the female verity) is Sandy Tan, the evil princess, reincarnated evil queen. And Wonder Woman is a now all grown up Snow White (she physically looks like her) who is the good queen, looking for an hair. The good Queen would then act as an antagonist to the evil princess and her dark ambitions.
Your music is annoying and distracting. Nope
First, I enjoy your channel. It's a fresh take and I love your content which is to be objective versus creating drama.
Just one footnote. You did a part-to-whole fallacy which is that all actors are idiots. Granted you did not use those words, but picking Natalie Portman or any one actor as your argument doesn't creates a case. It's cherry picking. The media will tend to reflect on actors who create drama because it sells. I get that. The actors who don't, don't make the press so, of course, we don't see that side of acting. You can do that with any job. All lawyers are greedy and evil. It's just not reality. Don't get caught into that trap. Your channel, from what I've seen, provides objective observations.
Again, not trying to start a flame war because we get enough rage on TH-cam.
skinsuit / heart / agitprop = poetry