You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Protagoras comments on The 50 Shades of Grey Book Club - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: PhilGoetz 24 August 2013 08:55PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (60)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Protagoras 26 August 2013 12:24:25AM 2 points [-]

OK, I read the posts, and then rewatched one of the movies. I'm unconvinced. A heroic effort, though, and quite interesting!

Comment author: moridinamael 26 August 2013 01:03:41AM *  0 points [-]

I tend to agree that almost none of what the reviewer pointed out was put into the movies with the intent she suggests, but that begs the equally interesting question - how did all that stuff get in there? Did the filmmakers do certain this subconsciously? Is it really all in Terry's imagination?

Anyway, I'm much less quick to write things off as merely "bad," especially if I notice that my brain keeps returning to them later without any immediately obvious reason.

Comment author: philh 26 August 2013 10:40:54PM 0 points [-]

Anyway, I'm much less quick to write things off as merely "bad," especially if I notice that my brain keeps returning to them later without any immediately obvious reason.

On this note, I found the film Get Over It reasonably enjoyable but nothing special. But deliberately or not, the plot has some wonderful strange loops, including one which I've come to think of as a "strange moebius loop", and thinking about it after the fact has seriously increased the entertainmet factor.

Comment author: Protagoras 26 August 2013 02:27:29AM 0 points [-]

Well, I don't think she's completely wrong about everything, but I think the movies probably have a lot of uncritical borrowing from a wide variety source material. Some of what is uncritically borrowed may be better stuff, and may actually have had some of the subtle intentions she attributes to Bay and crew. And other uncritically borrowed elements are so bad that she can't imagine someone would borrow them uncritically, and so she assumes too charitably that the badness must be intentional for some subversive purpose. It may not help that she's not American, so she may not realize that some attitudes which seem extreme to her are common among Americans. I also think she's too quick to assume that inconsistencies between what Optimus Prime says at various points indicate dishonesty rather than simply sloppy continuity, especially as she herself admits and notes that the continuity is pretty sloppy. Widespread inconsistency certainly helps greatly when someone wants to read their own agenda into something; you can interpret the bits that support your interpretation straight, and then since the bits which don't support your interpretation can't be interpreted straight without inconsistency, you can argue that those inconsistent bits must involve some deception.