| |
| ▲ | nothrabannosir 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Being preached at about science by a population of people who probably mostly failed high school science is not a good time. I agree with the part about preaching, but fair is fair: they were preaching scientific consensus. They preach what is said by the overwhelming majority of active scientific researchers in this field. You didn’t say they were wrong I agree, but still .. they were (/ are) right. And why should they be perfect, anyway? They are who they are, flawed and all, but they are right about this and they were right to make that movie and they were right about people being selfish. Ironically you could say that we are now basically reenacting the movie, proving its point. There’s an asteroid heading for us and here we are, judging the high school grades of the people telling us about its trajectory. I thought it was very depressing and surprisingly self reflective and poignant in that sense. | | |
| ▲ | timr a day ago | parent [-] | | So? There’s more to a movie than being right. It wasn’t a documentary, and even if it were a documentary, a dreadful, preachy, insipid movie that is technically right is still bad. (I say “technically right”, because let’s not forget that this film was supposed to be a satire.) |
| |
| ▲ | p1necone 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | People who complain about being "preached" at while the world burns behind them are exactly the kind of people the movie is poking fun at | | |
| ▲ | spankibalt a day ago | parent [-] | | Precisely. But just as scientific literacy, media literacy always was, and still is, a huge problem. |
| |
| ▲ | yongjik a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think the movie was snobby: it was full of over-the-top gags, and it was clear to me that the movie was never taking itself too seriously. The main character (played by DiCaprio) is also depicted as a quite flawed and vain human being as well. Also honestly, who doesn't feel frustration at the whole real-world situation the movie is actually about? | |
| ▲ | triceratops 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Actors act, writers write. You seem to be confused about who was "preaching". I've confirmed that both writers of the movie graduated high school, and one of them even graduated college. | | | |
| ▲ | dspillett a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > about science by a population of people who probably mostly failed high school science Your assumption that actors (and writers, those where the ones “preaching” more than the people on screen) have failed highschool at a higher rate than the general population is, I think, rather flawed¹. There are some very bright people in the entertainment industries for one reason or another (doing what they enjoy, and presumably are good at, instead of something else they are good at, being a common situation, there being more money in stardom being another). Hence a number successful stand-ups who have degrees (in the sciences, not necessarily “media studies” before someone pipe up with that), PhDs, law certifications, and such. Hedy Lamarr is the best known poster child for this, but too many think she is a singleton exception rather than an indicator that we shouldn't make too many assumptions about what acting talent might imply about other mental abilities. ---- [1] And, in fact, more snobby than the film you are critiquing as being snobby! | |
| ▲ | barbecue_sauce 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why would you assume people that went on to have successful film careers failed high school science? Just because someone doesn't pursue science as a career doesn't mean they received bad grades in it, especially at a high school level. | | |
| ▲ | bee_rider 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Without regard to the broader point* in the particular case of Leo, I’d be surprised if he had great k-12 science education. He was a child star already at that point, right? Only so many hours in the day. Of course, it isn’t a universal rule, see Dolph Lundgren, etc etc. * I don’t care if the actor delivering an environmentalist message in a movie is actually good at science for the same reason I don’t care if Keanu Reaves knows king fu. | |
| ▲ | timr 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m not assuming anything - this is why I used words like “probably” and “mostly” - but let’s just say that I’ve known my share of actors, and I’m willing to take the odds. | | |
| ▲ | jahsome 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's so funny to me you'd whine about "preaching" and then take such a needlessly judgemental and demonstrably false stance, and then double down and lie when it's pointed out. Truly, a person of science. | | |
| ▲ | timr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | jahsome 2 days ago | parent [-] | | C'mon bud, you've got a PhD. You don't really need some uneducated filth to point out how you were disengenous. But just in case: you made a prejudiced assumption and then boldly claimed you didn't. And you didn't state an opinion, you presented it as (probable) fact. You can couch it with all the adverbs you want, your own snobby disdain shines right through. | | |
| ▲ | timr a day ago | parent [-] | | I said a movie was bad because I don’t enjoy being lectured about science by actors, many (if not most) of whom have only the most tenuous grasp of science. I wasn’t being “disingenuous”. I meant every word. It’s fine if you think I’m a snob, but I’m not “lying”. Y’all seem to have a hard time accepting that some people might not like propaganda, even if it is propaganda for things you support. | | |
| ▲ | jahsome 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your still lying. Saying you didn't say something which you very much did, and then claiming you said something completely different are forms of lying. It's not the opposition to propaganda folks bristle with, it's the self-important passive aggressive elitism. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
