It’s like in a music video when the artist suddenly pulls out the new Samsung explosive device, and your heart sinks a little.

Not only is it necessary for even decent movies to be packaged within some IP, they also seem to rely on selling ad space within the movie itself.

Very bleak.

  • GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.deOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This critique irks me for some reason. Consider this: Imagine the latest Top Gun had some scene where Tom Cruise literally high fives Uncle Sam, then slowly whispers “Freedom” and winks into the camera. You’d rightfully find this jarring, a poor aesthetic choice, weird.

    But then someone online tells you why you’d expect anything else from a franchise that’s heavily subsidized and supported by the military industrial complex, and demanding a sort of artistic consistency from such a franchise is pointless to begin with.

    Tldr: I think you can critique the art even if you’re aware of it’s ideological confines.

    (This reply hinges on such a scene not being in the latest Top Gun movie, which I haven’t see yet to be honest)

    • Gaybees@artemis.camp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It might not be as obvious as literally winking into the camera, but Top Gun had substantial monetary investment from the U.S. military, and they definitely tried to make being in the military look cool and fun and attractive.

      They definitely don’t show what it’s really like to be a service member, and that’s for good reason.

      • GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.deOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah that’s kind of my point. Even knowing it’s partial propaganda, you’d know when something is “off”. Just like even knowing that Barbie is partially a branding campaign, You know how the car comercial scene is “off”.