A metaphor for what happened to Hollywood movies

Post Reply New Topic

Once, there was a famous restaurant called Hollywood that made all sorts of food. They made entrees that won important culinary awards, but what people really loved were their desserts. In particular, people of my generation were obsessed with their desserts because we were kids when the restaurant first made them available to buy in supermarkets. So now that we could have our favorites whenever we wanted, we could savor them and study what made them so delicious. We dreamed of being chefs someday and making such desserts ourselves.

But the only people who really got to voice their opinions on this food were the professional restaurant critics. That is, until the mid-90s, when the internet became popular. Suddenly, every random self-proclaimed dessert connoisseur with an internet connection could share their passionate opinions with the world.

In the 2000s, when these connoisseurs were entering adulthood, some of their favorite chefs came back to make new desserts based on everyone's favorite old recipes. But the connoisseurs got angry when the desserts didn't taste as good as when they were kids.

By the late 2000s, more and more people were eating at home. To lure people back to the restaurant, the chefs started preparing spectacular flambé desserts with flames that burst right in your face. The connoisseurs pointed out that, while the flames were very impressive, the actual dessert was often not cherries jubilee or baked Alaska, but a burnt fried Twinkie. Sometimes, the flambé didn't even light properly!

The health-conscious, meanwhile, pointed out that these desserts weren't really very good for you. There was some crossover between the two groups.

Ordinary restaurant-goers didn't understand why people wanted to discuss desserts at all. They thought the flames looked cool and they liked things that tasted sweet, and that was enough. They joined discussion groups in droves to tell people that discussing these things was silly.

Then, the restaurant found an old recipe that had been very popular in the 1980s. They knew that if they made a "new" dessert out of this, it could make them a fortune! They planned to start serving it in the year 2016. But some of the original ingredients were no longer available. No matter how it tasted, the connoisseurs would tear it apart online! And the health-conscious wouldn't even like the old recipe! But one of the restaurant managers came up with a plan: They would serve another fried Twinkie, but sprinkle vegetables on top to trick people into thinking it was health food. Then, the health-conscious would defend the dessert on the restaurant's behalf. It doesn't sound like this plan would work.

But it did.

The health-conscious rabidly defended the fried Twinkie.

When someone said, “A fried Twinkie?! That's not what the original recipe called for! I don't want to eat that!” the health-conscious would say, “WHY DO YOU HATE VEGETABLES?!?!?!?! THIS DESSERT PROMOTES HEALTHY LIVING!! ! WHY DO YOU WANT EVERYONE TO GET FAT AND DIE, YOU HEARTLESS MONSTER??!?!??!?!”

Further complicating this situation, there really were some people who thought there should never be any vegetables in desserts. When offered a delicious piece of pumpkin pie or carrot cake, they would cry, “NO! THOSE HAVE VEGETABLES IN THEM! THAT'S A HEALTHY LIVING AGENDA!! ! THE ONLY THING THAT BELONGS IN DESSERT IS SUGAR!! ! AND WE MEAN WHITE SUGAR!! ! DON'T YOU GO SUBSTITUTING THAT BROWN SUGAR!! !”

And the health-conscious would say, “SEE?! SEE?! THAT'S WHAT EVERYONE WHO HATES THIS DESSERT THINKS! YOU HEARTLESS MONSTERS!! !”

By the 2020s, the restaurant had gone all in on marketing desserts to the health-conscious. Many people now entering adulthood, who had grown up with social media, wanted to be seen that way online. The vegetables were put right into the Twinkie batter. People posted “IF IT'S HEALTHY, YOU WON'T GET WEALTHY!” hundreds of times a day. Other people defended the desserts as silly confections that weren't worth getting upset over and as the most important entrees ever served that would lead our society into a healthier future -- or both arguments at once.

Finally, the constant arguing started to get to everyone. And while the restaurant still occasionally served a dessert that made people's mouths water, more and more often, when somebody said, “Do you want to go out for dessert?” People would say, “Nah, I'll just wait and order the supermarket version online.” Or even, “No thanks, I'm full.”

[Just to be clear, everything in this post is really to do with movies, not food ]

Why can't we all just admit that the pretentious snobs in Hollowood quit being entertaining long before all the woke crap and that everything doesnt have to be about politics?

Well, I think that most movies and books have always sought to convey some sort of moral. From Birth of a Nation on down.

True but as Freud once said "Sometimes a cigar is JUST a cigar".

I think entertainment and religion both quit being fun once they become solely about politics.

Plus like I said, Hollowood quit being fun long before Trump became president or the Woke movement started. I think people seem to forget the fact that in the late 90's/early 2000's we were being subjected to nothing but mediocre remakes amd 5 million sequels.

Plus when it comes down to it the only color that has ever really mattered to Hollowood is the color of money. Plus we're talking about the entertainment industry that's notorious for treating aging female actresses like garbage and protecting rapists and pedophiles so I really find it ironic the way Hollowood think they have the authority to preach to their audiences about morals.

There was a cartoon in the mid 90s called The Critic. It was about a majorly disrespected film critic who was very critical of Hollywood movies for being generic unoriginal special effects. Jay had a very good point, Hollywood would change the type of movies they make if the masses quit watching Hollywood movies.

Full disclosure: I haven't seen “Birth of a Nation,” I only know it by reputation. I imagine the filmmakers thought they were teaching the audience an important moral at the time. However, today, the content of that film is generally considered morally repugnant and its technical achievements are viewed as its only positive legacy.

Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with a story having a moral/message. (I don't think every story needs one.) But if you're an entertainer and your only concern is conveying your important message, maybe consider being an essayist or a speech writer instead. Or, if your only concern with the dessert you make is how nutritious it is and not at all how it tastes, maybe consider being a nutritionist and not a pastry chef.

I also wrote into my metaphor that the restaurant makes many kinds of food. The “entrees” were supposed to be the serious, important Oscar-contenders. But some movies have always been more like desserts. And if there is some ingredient slipped into the dessert that's “good for you,” the whole idea is supposed to be that it's so tasty, you don't realize it until after you've eaten it.



Yes and sometimes art can exist for its own sake .



I used to find the former fun, never the latter . But politics is like arsenic to fun.



Low-effort movies ("Fried Twinkies") are nothing new. That's what the "dessert connoisseurs" were complaining about in the early days of the internet. It's the idea of them being sold and defended as a social cause that I think is fairly recent. I think it started with “Ghostbusters” (2016). Before that, I feel like the geeks and social cause people of the internet often complained about the same movies. And at least the people who went to see the "Fried Twinkie" movies did so because they actually enjoy Fried Twinkies.



I watched “The Critic” and I remember that episode.

“If the movie stinks...just don't go!”

That's exactly what I've been doing, though I don't believe it will directly impact Hollywood in any way. I just don't want to go. This year, I only went to see one movie in the theater: “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” mostly because I enjoyed the first one and I think the animation style is cool. I'm glad I saw it in the theater. Most of the recent movies I see on streaming are okay at best. Seldom anything that makes me sorry I missed the full theatrical experience. (Or “having dessert at the restaurant,” in my metaphor.)

I'm skeptical of the concept of “vote with your dollars/wallets.” It's used as a means to shut down criticism. (Not in your post, but elsewhere.) It's often phrased as “Instead of criticizing the movie, vote with your wallet and don't go! The only reason they make these movies is because YOU go to see them!” But I don't. For example, the Disney live-action remakes: I don't go see them in the theater, I don't buy or rent them and I don't even watch them on Disney+, yet they're still being made, because other people do. One person told me that simply by subscribing to Disney+ and giving views to their animated content, I'm still voting with my wallet “for the business model that makes the live-action remakes.”