You must log in or register to comment.

CrassDemon t1_ja4f5j8 wrote

...I think it's time for me to unsubscribe from this sub.


njdevils901 t1_ja4n9gk wrote

I am starting to think people are posting bad posts on purpose, it does annoy me though how almost every post is terrible garbage, or it is just another "le hidden gem" post that is usually Event Horizon or Moon. You'd think a giant sub like this could maybe get interesting post, but goddamn. Also, how many times can we get a "what's a movie you like but everyone hates?" post because jeezus christ it happens every 12 hours


mailboxfacehugs t1_ja4s1u3 wrote

My guess was people are having ChatGPT write posts for them, using the most downvoted posts as input


NoHandBananaNo t1_ja56tb3 wrote

How DO you input into Chat GPT?

I was being lazy so I asked it to write an editorial for me, thinking it would be cool if I credited it to Chat GPT. But it wrote a manifesto on the staffing changes it wanted to see at the mag I was writing for.

It wasnt wrong per se but I will never get invited back if I use what it wrote. How do you get it to control tone and be more chill?


charleyismyhero t1_ja5cenm wrote

That’s weird. I can’t get ChatGPT to generate anything but peaches and roses on any topic.


NoHandBananaNo t1_ja5hxek wrote

Really? Peaches and roses is more what I had in mind but it went on a rant.


SaltySweetManDicks t1_ja5o121 wrote

It is about time for another post about the under appreciated comedic gem known as Tropic Thunder...

Or would you possibly settle for an appreciation post about John Carpenter's The Thing?


misterbobdobbalina t1_ja4mtmo wrote

It’s been coming for awhile now. I didn’t think there would be one moment that cemented it, but here we are.


DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja4o8fl wrote

I agree, if an original interpretation bugs you so much, you really should unsubscribe.


Huevos___Rancheros t1_ja506ih wrote

This is just fucking stupid. There’s nothing interesting or insightful about this post.


DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja50vs5 wrote

It's not stupid at all, it's an angle a lot of people probably haven't thought about as a reading even though it is quite literally what is happening.


warlordcs t1_ja4f5yt wrote

It's not like Christmas as we know it was original either. Almost like it was appropriated


bingybunny t1_ja4ogkh wrote

it was stolen from people that celebrated winter solstice whose culture included halloween


Sks44 t1_ja4prcu wrote

Halloween is from the Celts. Christmas wasn’t stolen from the Celts. Christmas wasn’t stolen from anyone. I wish people would actually read history rather than regurgitate what they see on YouTube and read on the internet.


DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja4o5jl wrote

For all the hate you get, i think this is an original pov and honestly fits quite well, thanks for that!


DrkTitan t1_ja4e7p2 wrote

Why would you say something so controversial yet so brave?


proxyla t1_ja4onlf wrote



SakuraSystem t1_ja4dehu wrote

this is not gonna go over well on this subreddit lmao but that’s a cool observation! I like that take


CalaveraPrimera t1_ja4fhc5 wrote

Yes tim Burton was totally concerned with cultural appropriation in the 90s brilliant take


cippopotomas t1_ja4jz7p wrote

Why does intent matter? Things exist as they are, not what they're meant to be.

We can't possibly know what the intent was, so the conversation of "was it supposed to be?" is incredibly fucking pointless imo. Whereas the conversation of "is it?" has substantially more value.

Side gripe: Who the fuck cares what Tim Burton thinks? Dude came up with a kernel that Henry Selick and Danny Elfman brought to life. If you're gonna obsess over intent, fixate on the right people.


SakuraSystem t1_ja5t0xp wrote

this post is such a shit show but thank you saying this haha, exactly how I feel about it!


Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4gfvq wrote

Death of the author is a thing.

The creator's view of their own work isn't one you have to live by, thankfully. Boring way to engage with art.


CalaveraPrimera t1_ja4gqmb wrote

So i can't look at someone's else's interpretation and disagree? Can't make my own inferences or conclusions?


DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja4ohzz wrote

Don't jump around, your argument was that it most likely wasn't burton's intent and thus it's a stupid take.
Own your comment, don't obfuscate with nonsense after that.


Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4i2c9 wrote


How did you....

I'm just saying just because that's not what he intended, doesn't mean people can't read this into it? Not at all saying you have to agree?


bingybunny t1_ja4omqp wrote

you're just being downvoted because they can't google 'death of the author'


Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4p93i wrote

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not assuming anything. :P

Well, except one thing. People love backing up what a creator says and claiming you can't deviate when it's how they think anyway.


Sks44 t1_ja4pz79 wrote

Bullshit. “Death of the Author” is the ultimate form of appropriation. You are eliminating the creator from their creation so you can repurpose it to something you prefer.


charleyismyhero t1_ja5d390 wrote

I hereby declare that appropriation only applies to you doing things I don’t agree with and not me doing things you don’t agree with. It’s my own interpretation of appropriation, which everybody now must hereby abide by.

*God, I hate the “Death of the Author” concept so much.


Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4s0r9 wrote

Why does their opinion take precedence just because they created it? Fiction doesn't belong to one person the way an entire culture's creations belong to that culture. Fiction is meant to be for the consumer's enjoyment, and if that enjoyment involves interpreting things the creator didn't explicitly mention....isn't that what art is all about?

People after all unconsciously incorporate tons of themes into their own work they're unaware of. As long as they can be backed up this is just more interesting to do than throwing up one's hands and saying, oof, tough luck, author says blue curtains are just blue and can't represent sadness, your interpretation is invalid. B o r i n g.


Sks44 t1_ja4sx8w wrote

“Why does their opinion take precedence just because they created it? “

Because they created it. If they create the characters and the storyline, they know both and can speak of meaning and intention. Denying that is an attempt to assert power and control over something you don’t deserve power or control over.

“Death of the Author” is the ultimate appropriation of the creative by the non-creative. It’s baby boomer bullshit.


DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja4ufhv wrote

Do you think intention is all there is to meaning? That doesn't seem to be true. If i write something which generally gets interpreted a certain way but i am unaware of it (some slang or whatever), then i might not have intended the meaning, but it still exists.
In the same way a piece of art can have meaning which is outside of the author's intent.


Sks44 t1_ja4vi2u wrote

“Do you think intention is all there is to meaning?”

I believe creative intent is the real thing and everything else brought to the table takes secondary position. Asserting that applied “meaning”, which is interchangeable depending on a myriad of things, takes precedence is to passively assert control over creative works. Which is bullshit.


DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja4yxrk wrote

I am not sure there has to be precedence per se (though that depends on context too). I tend to think that the work speaks for itself, and any rational person can look at the text (and potentially subtext) and derive the intended meaning from it, but also possibly add additional meaning which the work itself gives room for (my example was to showcases one reason why additional meaning can exist).
In my example i'd definitely go as far and say that the meaning of said slang takes a certain level of precedence over the intent, it doesn't matter if i didn't know about it, the meaning is established already.
Would you disagree with that?


Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4tq9x wrote

I guarantee you interpreted something into a story the author didn't think of themselves or outright disagrees with (Maybe they just didn't express this publicly if you're in the habit of checking). If not, you have no sense of imagination whatsoever.

Plenty of creatives have said once their work is out into the world, it no longer belongs to them. I enjoy writing and if I ever publish anything I'd feel the same. Writers who don't feel this way are selfish control freaks and have no business sharing their art with the world if their own interpretations are so much better and more interesting than the consumer's.


Sks44 t1_ja4uiyz wrote

“I guarantee you interpreted something into a story the author didn’t think of themselves or outright disagrees with (“

Sure. And if I read the author say that the interpretation was incorrect, I’d abandon it because that’s what you do when you acquire new knowledge that makes your previous position obsolete.

If the author says nothing, for example Tarantino in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, they want the reader/viewer to speculate.

“Writers who don’t feel this way are selfish control freaks and have no business sharing their art with the world if their own interpretations are so much better and more interesting than the consumer’s.”

You are calling someone a control freak for not allowing others to control their work. Pot/kettle and all that.

So, I assume you are a proponent of things like changing Ronald Dahl’s books, painting leaves on naked people in paintings, etc… because once the artist is done, fuck ‘em right? If you personally like something, it belongs to you. Like Annie Wilkes in Misery, the story belongs to you.


Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4vjwp wrote

Ugh. To me this is profoundly limiting and I'd be ashamed if as a creative I hampered people's imaginations and value they derive from my work just because my fragile ego demands it.

> So, I assume you are a proponent of things like changing Ronald Dahl’s books, painting leaves on naked people in paintings, etc… because once the artist is done, fuck ‘em right?

I find it abhorrent thank you very much. Censorship has nothing to do with the theory. You're out of line. I actually like knowing what the author thinks! I just don't take it as gospel.


Sks44 t1_ja4wnrk wrote

“To me this is profoundly limiting and I’d be ashamed if as a creative I hampered people’s imaginations and value they derive from my work just because my fragile ego demands it.”

Why does someone else’s imagination have power over another’s work? That work has been produced and established. And you believe, out of some idea of righteous subservience, that the creator should have no say once the statue is struck from the marble? It wasn’t a collaborative effort.

The artist created something. The artist knows what went into the work and why the curves and lines interact the way they do. To say that they have no say once the final stroke is struck is to disenfranchise them. “Death of the Author” is a theory that assets control over the creative by the non-creative. It says the consumer should have more say than the creator because the consumer consumes. I think a big reason so much storytelling sucks these days is because of academia pushing bullshit like “Death of the Author”.

“ Censorship has nothing to do with the theory. “

I don’t know how to break it to you but you are arguing from the censors position. A censor will say that they have the right to change and interpret a work as they see fit because the government/business gives them that power. You are just arguing from the position of a “fan” that wants the same power for different reasons.


Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4y3qv wrote

Suffice it to say interpretations/opinions don't impede someone's original vision or tamper with it, they exist independently of it. As art is not an objective field like science there's no "right" answer and thus the harm that's put out into the world when someone takes a Death of the Author stance is nil as I see it. And I don't think the theory does say the consumer has MORE say. Equal say more like. I wouldn't believe in it otherwise.

It's not the same as censorship because it's not altering anything whatsoever.


Sks44 t1_ja4zt5y wrote

“It’s not the same as censorship because it’s not altering anything whatsoever.”

Sure it is. Let’s say a person writes a story. The writer dies. Academia and such say the story is about X. People are taught that the story is about X. The author’s papers and such show the story isn’t about X at all. But Academia and people taught the story is about X aren’t going to stop. They will continue pushing that the story is about X. The “meaning” is now that the story is about X.

Tolkien said, multiple times, that he thinks allegory is bullshit. That hasn’t stopped people from reading all sorts of shit into his works and trying to paint him as things like racist because of it.

“Suffice it to say interpretations/opinions don’t impede someone’s original vision or tamper with it, they exist independently of it. “

I have no problem with that position. My issue is when people attempt to assert control over a work and think their position should overrule the position of the creator.


Typical_Humanoid t1_ja51kx9 wrote

We're talking about slightly different things is the problem I think.

I don't think academia gets to say what something is about either, that's just as bad if not worse. I believe them encouraging a belief in Death of the Author merely serves the end of people not believing something just because one person said it was the case, even as the creator, if they have evidence there's more to it than what they'd said. And if anything I found my high school classes had wanted you to take the author's word for it more than not, anyway. I'm not convinced this is just how the world of academics universally thinks.

To be 100% clear: I think it's very important to know what the author had actually intended. I don't think it's important to believe them over what your gut says. That's literally it. I know we still disagree fundamentally but I don't think this means what you think I think it means.


NoHandBananaNo t1_ja56bzh wrote

Im with you on this but youre not gonna change that guys mind.

People who are attached to authorial intent are usually that way because they crave the idea of access to a central truth.


Typical_Humanoid t1_ja5758c wrote

The thing is, I do get the impulse to think so.

I used to think adaptations would invariably be better the more they listened to the author but I realized the more movies I watched the ways movies are different from books A, exist, and B, aren't lesser. And authors don't always know these things and think everything they did can and will translate and will unreasonably hate the movies if they don't. I do still think they should have a say, just not the say, which informs my confidence in Death of the Author as a concept as well.


DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja4u67l wrote

> Fiction doesn't belong to one person the way an entire culture's creations belong to that culture

I don't think culture belongs to anyone either. Culture is just shared behavior and even within a cultural group there will be differences based on region, etc.
With that being said, i agree with your idea regarding the death of the author anyway, i just do not agree with cultural appropriation very much as a concept (though i found op's read interesting anyway)


Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4uuax wrote

I'd feel disrespectful if I wore a kimono and got it into my head it had any greater meaning to me than just wearing one. I don't agree you must be apart of the culture originally to partake, it will just never mean the same thing to you. That's what I mean by this.


DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja4vwuh wrote

I just don't think that 'cultural appropriation' is a useful concept per se. You talk about ownership, and people generally do, but i find that notion absurd. Some cultural ideas and behaviors come from certain people, but there is no ownership there. They have their meaning, and i honestly wish that they can keep it intact if they so desire (that is the biggest problem with the commodification of everything in a global consumerist society, criticism on that angle i can somewhat understand if it becomes too extreme), but the idea that wearing a kimono is disrespectful in itself if one doesn't take the time to 'appreciate' the culture it came from, that's inane to me.
Culture is always fluid and in exchange the moment two different 'cultures' interact in some way or form. People like some aspects, they adopt it, fuse it, do whatever. That's how it always was and it's how it always will be.


Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4x90p wrote

I do like the idea, but unlike my belief in Death of the Author, I think the culture itself gets the final say. If more people become lax on "outsiders" taking their own meaning that does or doesn't align with their own, that would be pretty wonderful. But it's not the consensus at this time and I understand why.

Thought-provoking reply though.


DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja4zkam wrote

I just wonder why people think that tbh, why has the 'culture' (who is that 'culture' to begin with? It's definitely not a monolith) the final say?
They didn't even create it, most people just adopt what their environment teaches them.
The thing is, there are many complexities to this which we probably don't wanna go into now, i can see certain aspects of it (say a dominant 'group' taking something from a less 'dominant' one and potentially monetizing it in ways the minority could not; but that speaks to my commodification angle too), but imo a lot of the talk about CA is a little silly these days too. Idk.
I agree though, it would be wonderful if it was less of an issue, i guess that is our common hope :D


Typical_Humanoid t1_ja50heo wrote

I think it's all traceable to the borrowers often being treated as having outdone what the originators ever did, because they're "unique" or some similar designation, which just spits in the face of people who have likely been less advantaged than the borrower's culture so it's just kicking people while they're down or who were down historically.

Things like CA would matter much less in a world without prejudice or unfair treatment based on race, religion, etc, but seeing as it does exist, I think it being seen as a no-no makes sense.


DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja51tid wrote

Sure, but not every instance is the same. If there is some white girl wanting to wear a kimono because she thinks it is beautiful, where is the harm? I don't really see it.
If there is some white celebrity who thinks they really should wear cornrows for their hip hop music video, then it becomes a little more interesting.
I tend to think in general there needs to be real harm being done, now the problem ofc arises when we think that someone being offended is already enough, which i generally do not agree with (i think it can be a good reason, but mostly when it correlates with other harm).
In any case, i think this is a highly nuanced topic and a lot depends on the specific case imo, which doesn't really seem to be the general opinion on it though, it feels more dogmatic than that and supposes some form of 'ownership' i just cannot agree with.

Sorry for this tangent, it was just one small part of your comment haha.


Typical_Humanoid t1_ja534ba wrote

I appreciate that first bit because I very much fall into that camp lol, but I never would because I don't want to step on any toes. Even if I don't think anyone's saying I can't, I just would fold in on myself nevertheless if it hurt someone in ways people borrowing something from my culture would never hurt me.

I think making it black and white is just easier because making exceptions for this and that means deciding what is or isn't okay will take over people's lives more than it already does when it's already pretty black and white as it is. Like the cornrows example may be more egregious because the tensions that exist across those communities are more extant than anything between white girls and Japanese girls lol (We've buried the hatchet since WWII I think it's safe to say), but isn't it just easier to say, just avoid as much as you possibly can? I think most feel it is on both sides, even if one side remains in longing to still adopt neat parts of other cultures secretly.


DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja54vrq wrote

That wasn't on purpose :D I mean, i think having personal doubt there is totally fine, though imo it speaks to the current climate mostly, i am just wondering if it should be like it is i guess.

Black and white is always easier, but i am not a fan of binary thinking or dogmatism, i think nuance is ultimately a lot more healthy. Power differences, unequality, all the things we'd ideally would not like to have in our world are important to keep in mind, but i also think we overcorrect a little much here and there at times, and for something like cultural ideas i find that to be the case too. The difference between appropriation and appreciation (these are the two ideas broadly speaking right) can be rather slim, and as i said before, i think fundamentally we exchange culture all the time anyway, gatekeeping it too much seems just not that useful to me.
There are exceptions and reasons to do so at times, but as i said, i think this has to be linked to harm (for example if people's 'appropriation' leads to clichés which harm the initial group).
I appreciate the conversation though, thanks for the little exchange here haha. (gonna have to emphasize once more, i agree with your death of the author idea for sure).


Typical_Humanoid t1_ja57uj6 wrote

I enjoyed it too and being an idealist I responded well to your ideas, I just don't want to force how I agree things should be with what people perceive is the fairer course. I notice something like overcorrection in society constantly though....I may be a self-proclaimed feminist but this has people thinking I have opinions I don't have about how we should repair ties with each other.

Take care. :D


cippopotomas t1_ja4fb8a wrote

I feel like it's too obvious an analogy to be controversial. If a town stealing another town's holiday doesn't qualify as cultural appropriation then what does?


NoHandBananaNo t1_ja5aniw wrote

Ok I'll be your Huckleberry. I can play this game.

Why not argue it's not just about cultural appropriation its about cultural violence akin to colonisation and invasion.

He doesn't think he can do it BETTER. He just wants to do it because he was bored and suffering burnout.

"And I, Jack, the Pumpkin King, Have grown so tired of the same old thing"

Then he "discovers" Christmas town and makes a whole lot of Anthropological observations about the inhabitants "theyre hanging mistletoe. They kiss. Why that looks so unique."

"I want it for my own" he concludes, showing the avarice of the coloniser.

Then he goes and manufactures consent by telling Halloween town a bunch of lies about Christmas town. He has the king of Christmas kidnapped on the pretext that he is villainous "when he sets out to slay with his rain gear on .... and they call him Sandy Claws" and lets not forget his henchkids also traumatise the Easter Bunny.

This kind of hints at colonial violence and avarice. "It's OURS this time" they sing. But the real invasion happens on earth when everyone's christmas gets invaded by scary violent halloween creatures who terrorise the locals, attempting to force Halloween town cultural norms on them.

The sirens and searchlights the town uses to defend themselves from Jack are a reference to western countries being attacked during the WW2 Blitz. Arguably Jacks mistake is the same as Hitlers, by invading western nations instead of colonising (Africa in Hitlers case, Christmas Town itself in Jacks case) he meets more resistance and overstretches.

However Jack makes amends by pinning his crimes on his outsourced labour, Oogie Boogie the "Boogey man" whose name as an imaginary figure people blame stuff on is a clear reference to the scapegoating process. Notably Oogie Boogie is voiced by Ken Page who has a recognisably Black voice. Jack punishes the Boogey man and reinstates the Christmas Town leader. The film glosses over the harm of colonisation by showing everything getting fixed quickly.

Jack thus profits from his attempted coup and invasion by being reinvigorated and having his own culture enriched by his violent cultural borrowings. "and I Jack the Pumpkin King.. .thats right, I AM the pumpkin king. And I just cant wait until next Halloween cos Ive got some new ideas that will really make them scream!"

Tldr for anyone who doesnt realise this is satire: when you have a hammer anything can be a nail lol 🤣


tahlyn t1_ja6577i wrote

No lie... I really enjoyed reading that even if you aren't being serious about it.

It reminds me of how teachers insist upon finding meaning and allegory and metaphor in literally every novel we ever read in school.


NoHandBananaNo t1_ja69rzn wrote

Yeah I think they find it easier than teaching about stuff like structure and technique in too much depth.

Surprises me how many lyrics I know from this movie though. Guess I used to play the soundtrack more often than I thought.


funkymunkPDX t1_ja4dvbh wrote

This seems fair, Jack liked the looks of Christmas but had no idea of any of the meaning behind it.


EvlSteveDave t1_ja5ol8y wrote

.... jesus fucking christ what a stupid thing to post.


PrecisionHat t1_ja58uas wrote

Omg please stop searching for things to be offended over. It's pathetic.


SakuraSystem t1_ja5ta7r wrote

who said they were offended?


PrecisionHat t1_ja7q2fv wrote

Why post if they aren't?


SakuraSystem t1_ja7vftd wrote

to share perspective and interpretation of the story, at least that's how I took it. I didn't read it as an offended rant, more an interesting way that the story fits socially relevant themes under a modern lens