If someone recommends me a movie with a regressive subtext, I’ll either assume they agree with it or are media illiterate. I loved the look of realization on people’s faces when I explained that Kingsmen was a libertarian morality tale.
Kingsmen is supposed to be satire though. The whole thing is drenched in camp and hamminess, as a sort of riff on the old Bond flicks. You can practically feel the writer rolling his eyes ironically during parts of it. They had Samuel Jackson play a character who is almost the exact opposite of the kind of character he’s known for playing. It’s funny that you’d pick that example and then talk about your superior media literacy.
The satire stuff rides along side the issues I have with it. The villains of the first two movies are libertarian boogiemen and the finer aspects of how the MC rises to a higher standing also matches libertarian ideas.
The action is fun and the characters and the dialog are good. Maybe they didn’t need to remind the audience that this isn’t Bond so much, but what the villains represent sets off red flags for me.
I mean, I guess. Short story time: My mom can’t watch King of the Hill. She knows, on an intellectual level, that Hank is supposed to be the butt of the joke. It doesn’t matter. She still doesn’t enjoy watching it. She finds the experience to be unpleasant to watch. She has the same problem with Archer as well, but I haven’t seen as much of that.
More that I don’t trust Mark Millar and I’m sick of passive, bad ethics in main stream media. I’m sick of heroes that fight for the status quo and I’m especially sick of environmentalist villains. I can only imagine how pissed I would be if I was still watching Doctor Who when they aired their “The Interstellar Song Contest” episode.
First Kingsmen had a lot of boilerplate Hero’s Journey stuff in it, but the second one where the villain was anti-marijuana set a pattern with the villains.
When the world government spy agencies fail, it will take a private option one to save the day.
The main character is from a low social standing family, but is discovered by said “private option” and uplifted. Normally, this is just Hero’s Journey stuff, but it matches perfectly with libertarian ideas.
I side eyed the extremist environmentalist villain in the first movie, but making the second villain anti-marijuana is more libertarianism.
I don’t find Mark Millar very interesting, but when someone about him does come my way, he comes across as a very simple minded person.
I kind of hate watching movies with other people because they turn their interest in the film into a referendum on me as a human being.
it’s so fucking weird. it’s just a movie man, it exists whether we watch it or not. your massive insecurity about your identity is not my issue man.
If someone recommends me a movie with a regressive subtext, I’ll either assume they agree with it or are media illiterate. I loved the look of realization on people’s faces when I explained that Kingsmen was a libertarian morality tale.
Kingsmen is supposed to be satire though. The whole thing is drenched in camp and hamminess, as a sort of riff on the old Bond flicks. You can practically feel the writer rolling his eyes ironically during parts of it. They had Samuel Jackson play a character who is almost the exact opposite of the kind of character he’s known for playing. It’s funny that you’d pick that example and then talk about your superior media literacy.
The satire stuff rides along side the issues I have with it. The villains of the first two movies are libertarian boogiemen and the finer aspects of how the MC rises to a higher standing also matches libertarian ideas.
The action is fun and the characters and the dialog are good. Maybe they didn’t need to remind the audience that this isn’t Bond so much, but what the villains represent sets off red flags for me.
I mean, I guess. Short story time: My mom can’t watch King of the Hill. She knows, on an intellectual level, that Hank is supposed to be the butt of the joke. It doesn’t matter. She still doesn’t enjoy watching it. She finds the experience to be unpleasant to watch. She has the same problem with Archer as well, but I haven’t seen as much of that.
If it’s like that for you, then I fully get it.
More that I don’t trust Mark Millar and I’m sick of passive, bad ethics in main stream media. I’m sick of heroes that fight for the status quo and I’m especially sick of environmentalist villains. I can only imagine how pissed I would be if I was still watching Doctor Who when they aired their “The Interstellar Song Contest” episode.
I don’t really watch Doctor Who so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I probably would not recommend movies to you. Too dicey. Id love to hear your opinions on stuff but I woukd never attach my name to anything.
To me Kingsmen was just “dude, like, imagine James bond, but like, it isnt. And also the good guy from Bridget Jones totally murders a whole church.”
First Kingsmen had a lot of boilerplate Hero’s Journey stuff in it, but the second one where the villain was anti-marijuana set a pattern with the villains.
When the world government spy agencies fail, it will take a private option one to save the day.
The main character is from a low social standing family, but is discovered by said “private option” and uplifted. Normally, this is just Hero’s Journey stuff, but it matches perfectly with libertarian ideas.
I side eyed the extremist environmentalist villain in the first movie, but making the second villain anti-marijuana is more libertarianism.
I don’t find Mark Millar very interesting, but when someone about him does come my way, he comes across as a very simple minded person.