Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Throwaway_Codex t1_iy9d4ge wrote

Reply to comment by doobur in I got Glass Onioned {Spoilers} by doobur

No, it has a crystal clear racial/social agenda, as did the first movie and most movies today, for that matter. This is just shouting it at you with the glass onion metaphor. The obvious thing, the center of the onion, was Bron being the bad guy. Johnson is saying "Of course he is the killer" and dumping in tired racial victimhood tropes as well. It is not clever. It's a dreadful movie just like the first. I wonder what Johnson could do with the third movie. Now that he has followed the exact same pattern, it would be easy to figure out his plots.

The current stranglehold that racial politics have on movies means that murder mysteries or any movie with a surprise villain almost can't be done. Movies of the past few years have "diverse" cast quotas by mandate (i.e., putting Whites in the minority in ensemble casts), and anybody with sense knows that the makers will not make a minority truly evil. So in Scream 2022 for instance, they had I believe four White people in the new cast. Two were killed early and the other two were the killers.


poop-ball t1_iy9doob wrote

The only thing I’ve seen you say to back up its “racial agenda” is that the villain is white. Lmao OK. Maybe do some self-reflection if this raises your hackles so easily.


Throwaway_Codex t1_iy9e8ln wrote

Do you understand what optics in film are? The purpose of the film is to show a rich White man shutting out from his company and eventually killing a black woman who is depicted as more intelligent. Those are the racial optics that Johnson wishes to convey. Same thing with the first movie - a rich White family is dismissive of the poor hispanic nurse who is shown to be superior/cartoonishly honest. She ends up being gifted their house and fortune.

Did you even pay attention to these movies?


poop-ball t1_iy9enc6 wrote

You’re upset that minorities are portrayed in a positive light, understood.


Throwaway_Codex t1_iy9f7uc wrote

Do you think that this type of predictable "woke" racial formula is a quality base upon which to make movies?


poop-ball t1_iy9g13k wrote

I don’t know what “woke racial formula” you’re talking about. You could swap Edward Norton with Idris Elba and it wouldn’t affect the plot in any way.


Throwaway_Codex t1_iy9gldu wrote

Then you truly don't pay attention. The purpose of both movies is to show rich White people in a bad light. Do you honestly think that making Idris Elba the Miles character and, say, Matt Damon the Andi/Helen character who is portrayed as smarter than Idris would be what Johnson wants to convey?


poop-ball t1_iy9i6vu wrote

The point of the movie is that many “creative geniuses” are charlatans and that often people with exorbitant wealth didn’t earn it. So yes, I think you could make the same movie with Idris Elba and Matt Damon lmao. The fact that Helen is black and Miles is white adds subtext but it’s not the point of the film.


Throwaway_Codex t1_iy9lqww wrote

Incorrect. The racial aspect is indelible to what Johnson is doing with these movies. The idea of creative geniuses being charlatans doesn't even have a real-world reference. What super rich White techno dude is a charlatan? People jump on stupid bandwagon hate for Musk, but he's not a charlatan.

With the first one, he wanted to show White people being replaced in their home/standing by a hispanic alien, a metaphor for the larger immigration issue.


poop-ball t1_iy9qdne wrote

If you don’t think Musk both A) takes credit for creating things he didn’t create and B) attempts to manipulate society and the market for his own prosperity, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you. And it really doesn’t take much searching at all to read a litany of articles about similar charlatans. I mean, for fuck’s sake, even ignoring the Musk thing, the downfall of fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried literally just happened.

I agree the first movie clearly deals with the plight of immigrants in the United States. The threat of deportation, which is explicit in the film, is a daily real world concern for many people. But again, more than race, it’s also very clearly about the dynamics between labor and inherited wealth.


Throwaway_Codex t1_iy9vuwl wrote

At least you acknowledge the agenda of the first film (except illegal aliens should be deported, not welcomed as they currently are; it is the country that is in a plight). Maybe it'll take time for folks to recognize and call out the agenda of this latest even though it is plain as day.


poop-ball t1_iy9xuw4 wrote

You can have the last word, if you wish. But I’m asking you to really think about what it takes for someone to uproot their life and leave their home to come here. Would we not try to provide for our families if we were in their shoes? Look into the histories of the countries people are emigrating from, and specifically look at how the United States has interfered with their self-governance. I think it’s ignorant and disrespectful to dig our fingers in their proverbial pie and then swat them away when they look for crumbs.


Throwaway_Codex t1_iyaletr wrote

Tough shit. The U.S. is allowed to have a border and a culture, and cannot support this. They are being encouraged to come by not being stopped. They should be immediately turned around and those currently squatting should be removed. If they truly need to leave their country, they can go to another country that fits their culture more; the U.S. should not be the default.


poop-ball t1_iyalmqk wrote

Well, at the end of the day, at least we can both agree that you’re a fucking moron.


doobur OP t1_iy9mlr8 wrote

Yeah but... I kinda think that was the point. They're doing all of those things to rustle your jimmies. It's literally a joke on you haha