= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on January 2016 Media Thread - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (48)
Yes, if one takes the setting seriously. I think one of the reasons why I'm so disappointed with it is that it gets the causality wrong on an important story--the move from collectivist duty to individual autonomy did not happen because people asked for it, but because people became wealthy enough to afford it.
I must have lower expectations than you -- it's a Hollywood cartoon movie aimed at small kids, probably not even preteens. "Getting causality right on an important story" is nowhere near its goals.
I didn't like it much, but that's just because it wasn't particularly emotionally engaging or funny (e.g. in the way Shrek has a lot of for-adults jokes liberally sprinkled through the whole thing).
I'm a Copybook Headings kind of guy when it comes to stories for children.
How NRx of you :-)
The problem with Shrek is that its jokes are too pop-culture-conscious, and will soon become dated. Your grandkids will miss most of the jokes in it.
It had never occurred to me to see Brave as a collectivism vs. individualism story; to me it was obviously a woman-as-object vs. woman-as-subject story.
Collectivism vs. individualism seems very similar to person-as-object vs. person-as-subject. It's magnified here because it's specifically queen/princess instead of simply mother/daughter. The analogous story that drops the princess/queen dynamic is making the family the exact same people, except they're all peasants. Merida's betrothal has been bought by a neighboring peasant man through gifts to her family, but she doesn't want to marry him. She runs away to Paisley, earns enough money working in a textile mill to pay the man back (obviating her social obligation to marry him), and then she's free to live her life as an Independent Career Woman.
That's OK, I'm not putting it up as a classic that will survive the ages. I'm sure my grandkids will have better things to watch.
Wasn't it obviously a woman-as-bear story? :-P
Kids still watch Disney movies from 1940s and Disney still profits from them. Making a timeless story can be done in animation, Dreamworks simply chooses not to for the sake of short term profitability.