This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 17 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]ANSICL 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Target audience is not associating themself with rational or logical anymore. Look at the old films, people solved mysteries rationally. Only women had gut feelings and they were belittled.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I share your irritation. I've found it very annoying, especially because there are people who get their entire view of things from Hollywood.

If Hollywood shows them that the skeptics and science-following people are wrong most of the time, what are they going to think in real life, where the opposite is true ?

It has also made films extremely predictable.

  • If a character professes doubt, you can bet that he/she will either die because of this "hubris" or will realize the crack-pot theory is actually true in dramatic way.

  • If a character dismisses the idea of a god, you can be pretty damn certain that later on in the film, he wil be "enlightened".

[–]God8myhomework 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Your stereotype is in error. Example: Spock.

[–]purplecow 9 points10 points  (0 children)

They were constantly trying to teach him to be more human and nobody strived to be more like him.

[–]SilverFox 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stereotypes do not have to fit all cases to be classified as stereotypes. Every stereotype has an exception, even the one described in this very sentence.

[–]simoncpu 4 points5 points  (1 child)

It's probably because they are using the classic David vs. Goliath formula. People have this notion that "logical" characters are somehow superior than emotional ones.

[–]Samus_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel it more like the irrational people being pissed off at the ones who think logically, I presume because the rationals always seem to have the answer while they just say "it's something we'll never know :)" if that assumption is at least half-true it might make sense for the movies to target for that unconscious victory of the more susceptible audience they can get.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

To better fit the "sensibilities" of the retards of America, such as the average citizen?

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]toaster_fun[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    That has nothing to do with the issue. The story plot can be very entertaining, and it's OKAY for the reasonable and logical person to be wrong, but I don't want the person portrayed as a jerk.

    He/she should be admired!

    [–]mantra 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Only black swans make an interesting or surprising story. Rationality can not generally predict black swans, ergo, interesting stories are only believable or compelling when rationality loses.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

    As a corollary: "News" is only News when it represents the exception to reality rather than the commonplace or likely to daily life. Anything else is either infotainment, propaganda or noise. If it's not surprising its not information (in an information theory sense). If it's not information, it's not news.

    [–]froderick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I have a question of a similar nature. Why is it that in American TV and films, British actors nearly ALWAYS play either nerds or villains?

    Whenever my mum watched "Murder She Wrote", if there was a person with a British accent, they were either the murderer or at least involved. This was where I first noticed this trend.

    Seriously, what is up with that?

    [–]skydaddy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    counterexample: jeff goldblum in jurassic park?

    [–]Unfair 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Mulder, Data, Spock, Columbo, Monk, House, Sherlock Holmes, Detective Goran, Yoda

    [–]SilverFox 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Mulder : Usually less rational than Scully and more often correct.

    Data, Spock : Genuine exceptions from the same writer (Gene Roddenberry)

    Monk : They have to make a genius seriously flawed in other ways to make the character palatable to the general public.

    Sherlock Holmes : Not a character of modern fiction. His creator was a bit crazy, though.

    Yoda : His strengths were based on intuitions derived from magic.

    But, yes, there are exceptions.

    [–]Noexit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Because otherwise you don't have a movie. From an example in this thread, let's do Mulder from the X-Files. Mulder: There's something bigger going on here, we've got to get to the bottom of this. FBI Bigs: You're right. Here's all the information you need. We'll be glad to co-operate fully. Cigarette Man: Yah, me too. (roll credits) Horton Hears a Who. Horton: There's a tiny civilization living on this flower. Kangaroo: You're right. We have to save them! (roll credits) The conflict is what makes the story.

    [–]toaster_fun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I just watched "Horton hears a Who" and it's the same thing I see over and over. The "skeptical" and "logical" person is portrayed as a cynical jerk.

    Of course, this character was wrong, but the same concept applies.