>

“I’m tired of all art involving the communication of ideas to those who view it.”
Honestly,  I think this is starting to becoming a popular opinion.
It think it is fine when done well but most writters don't have the talent to pull it off or do it too much too often. >

God I hope so, so tired of being lectured at via movies. You wanna have a political message in your movie? Fine, do it. But do it like Starship Troopers anti war message, make a decent movie with bits of the message sprinkled about that takes a bit of paying attention >

Ah i also see you are a gentlehuman with immaculate taste in cinematography. 🍷🧐 >

Indubitably 🍷🧐 >

YOU WANNA LIVE FOREVER!? >

Famously, action films have never had any meaningful or significant social commentary.
Starship Troopers, Aliens, Saving Private Ryan, They Live, The Matrix, Jurassic Park, Battle Royale, Upgrade, Robocop, First Blood, any Mad Max film, Terminator films, fucking Die Hard. 
Pretty much every genre, from children's animation to sci-fi cult horror, has had meaningful social commentary in its genre at some point. In fact, the social commentary is more effective when placed into a film's narrative and weaved directly into it.
I think what you dislike is that films with poor writing tend to be bad at doing this weaving, and since production studios want to just push out things for mass consumption, they're getting writers to work overtime, and the product is being made worse by that motive.
The reality is you've always been moralised to. That's not new. If you think it is, that's actually an indicator of the skill of the writers who have being doing it. 
Is a film like Black Adam going to be as good at conveying a message as All Quiet on the Western Front? It's not unheard of, but probably not. I can tell you that the one that was doing more of the moralising was much more well received. 
In fact, I'd usually argue that a film without any message is usually pretty boring, save for absurdist films which are very much an acquired taste. >

You have to have done really poorly in English class to be unable to understand that the whole point of media is moralisation.
Like... You can't write a story without themes and ideas that are subjective?
The closest you could come is a pure survival film about a single character in nature, but even then that'd likely be interpretable as a commentary on our modern view of nature as relaxing and fun... >

Right? All media or art contains implicit and explicit value judgments. They are in everything we do. People don’t like hearing about stuff they don’t feel is important. >

I am not sure about this take without an example. 
I will say, I do like when you can see philosophies influence things in a movie. Like, sometimes you can completely miss something if you don’t know context around the person saying it. The speaker can change things sometimes. 
My favorite example of this is the song writer for a lot of music in beauty and the beast. I’m the song where they hunt the beast on beauty in the beast the villagers sing “we don’t like what we don’t understand — in fact, it scares us!” This line on its own is pretty easy to read within the context of the movie, but I think it’s really cool how you get another layer when you recognize the writer of this line was a gay man who societally would have faced a lot of scrutiny in the 80s and 90s especially with the aids pandemic. (Which he did unfortunately pass away from. They dedicated the movie to him in the credits. ) >

Everything Disney does in the past 5 years. >

Lauren Hissrich & Season 2 of the Witcher >

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. >

Show us where the bad movie touched your heart in a way you did not want to be touched. 
Asking artists to not have a point of view is unrealistic and frankly, sounds a little butthurt. >

That’s what writers have always done, though. Hansel and Gretel is a warning about trusting strangers, Pinocchio is about a lying disobedient brat… the list is endless.
All written works have either been about presenting a certain moral, presenting/recording information, or to convince readers on something.
Writers don’t waste their time. If they’re going to tell a story or list something down, there’s going to be a point to it, and that point is called the theme. In fact, writers are taught to put a clear theme in their works 1) so that their work doesn’t get muddled, and 2) so they don’t seem like they’re rambling.
TLDR: this isn’t new- writers have always and always will include morality into their works. >

The  two examples about trusting strangers and a lying disobedient brat feel very different than what I think OP is talking about..
Like the story OP is talking about would be about a POC MtF trans queen who proved to an Arab misogynistic despot that she can belly-dance as good as any female in his harem. >

That isn’t social commentary, it’s bourgeoisie garbage disguised as political empowerment >

Can you give some examples of movies where I can look out for this? >

I'm not sure if it's exactly what OP was talking about, but I really liked some of the philosophies expressed in Everything Everywhere All at Once. It was very pro-kindness and using compassion to solve problems, as well as being ultimately absurdist in it's take on existence and living through life. >

No good deed goes unpunished… >

I'm sorry, I think I'm missing what you mean by this. Which good deed are you referring to? Or are you disagreeing with the idea of using compassion to solve problems? >

I was being cynical. Not serious. >

Sure, but I was being genuine when I said I wasn't sure what you meant by it. Maybe just a lapse on my end. >

No, not really. Your fine. I may want to look at that movie you referenced though. >

It's a neat one. Very creative. >

Where did you see it, Netflix, Amazon Prime? >

Hmm, well I saw it in theaters, but this might help you find it. >

I am a Christian, but I rarely watch Christian movies. They are bad, because they so often out message above story. Modern secular movies are becoming the same; so han fisted with the message that they don't pay attention to the story or characters. The funny thing is, subtlety is usually a way better method of getting a point across. >

Prince of Egypt on top babyyyyyy >

Most of the good Christian movies are Biblical stories. The original material is not so good. >

You mean like the stories from the Hebrew Bible? >

Both Old and New Testament stories >

I think there is a line between good social political commentary and bad social political commentary and it’s typically expressed in the quality of the writing in a movie 
if the movie is really good at making you think and ask complex questions then it’s both good writing and it’s ripe for interesting and engaging discourse over social and political topics while also allowing writers to express themselves and their beliefs and overall create and experience that’s enriching and engaging all round
On the other hand you can have writers who are either overworked or lazy just shoehorning some political or social issues into a peice of media so they can hide from actual criticism of their shite work then you don’t only have bad writing and a cheaply made message but you also run the risk of oversimplifying or even trivializing the issues you’re trying to bring light to by misrepresenting them >

Filmmaking has ALWAYS included social commentary, moral personal dilemmas, a POV regarding current social issues and politics, etc. This is nothing new, and wont ever stop, because thats what makes conflict interesting. Arguably its impossible to write a story without including one own's views on these issues in one way or another. >

Agreed. I lean conservative, and I don't mind social commentary in my films--even progressive social commentary. 
One of my favorite films is Predestination, which has a very progressive message cloaked in a time loop sci-fi film. The progressive message is there, you just have to dig to reach it.
And that's my only complaint about modern popular films: they don't give us anything to "dig" for. Not all are so shallow, of course, but many. >

What progressive message did you find in Predestination? >

People use art as a means of expression. It's kind of the core of art. Sometimes a screenwriter just wants to entertain, sometimes not, but in every instance they're purring a piece of themselves and how they view the world into their art. >

OP, would you please tell me some movies that fit what you're saying? >

Comparing the Charlie’s Angel movies is probably a good example.
The 2000 one is about how women, when utilising their feminine wiles and individual skills, can accomplish anything.
The 2019 one is about how men are either useless or evil and women are better than men.
At least, that’s the message I took from them. >

That's interesting - I definitely feel like the 2000 one has a message of "even super competent action hero women are silly, clumsy, boy-obsessed teenagers when it comes down to it". It never felt very empowering at all. >

How do you write any media without making it meaningful by philosophy? The only reason anything is actually interesting to watch is because of the social commentary behind the work. >

I disagree. Action scenes are often entertaining even if you have 0 context >

I can't think of anything terribly good that doesn't provide context for action scenes. At least, not ones that are longer than a couple minutes at most. >

Ever try hardcore henry? It’s my favourite movie and gives nearly no context >

I've never heard of it, but the trailer suggests a story. Memory loss, some kind of surgery leading to a robotic or cyborg body, a romance plot... The action seems  to be because the bad guys want the tech that made his cyborg body. (Ooo, Tim Roth is in it).
Just a guess, but it seems like it probably depicts hurting innocent people for the sake of being able to do violence better as a bad thing, right? >

Nope you don’t really get any context of what’s going on till the end.  I mean sure it shows you he’s a cyborg but you’ll have to watch it to understand >

Did the trailer pull from the end? Or did the end just re-contextualize things? From the trailer I feel like I have a firm idea of what the character is fighting for, or at least what the audience is supposed to think the character is fighting for. >

The entire movie is pretty much just him killing things, He can’t even talk. Again I highly recommend giving it a watch >

Sure, but I don't think that answered my question... Am I right about what the audience is supposed to think is going on through the action? >

I suppose there is the barest outline of a motivation but it’s at the absolute minimum >

“I’m tired of all art involving the communication of ideas to those who view it.” >

The road to fascism, ladies and gentlemen, cloaked by the "freedom of speech" party. >

Generalization: writing has become super accessible, and people that have not developed their skills thoroughly are getting opportunities they are not ready for >

Big "they made Metal Gear Solid political" vibes, NGL. >

What is the purpose of art if not as an expression of one's beliefs? >

> Because you can't make any insightful meaningful social commentary in a fucking action movie, so stop it.
Really, because A History of Violence did. >

So did Rambo. >

Almost the entirety of sci-fi/action also. >

You realize that all writing for all of history targeted at an adult audience has pushed a political or social view.
Good writing does this because it makes the story more complicated. >

Fairytales would like to remind you they also target kids with it. >

Yes I excludes them because there's alot of examples where childrens stories didn't not because every children's story didn't. >

So…get rid of theme. 😂 >

So many people seem to equate theme to agenda. >

Even the Transformers movies or Top Gun have politics in them. They're just less noticeable if they agree with you. >

Or if you're already super used to the message. I suspect you're thinking about the military propaganda in both of those, and I think we're just so inundated with it that it hardly registers, whether we agree or not. >

Any film that has a protagonist and antagonist has to moralize something or there is literally no reason to route for the protagonist. It doesn't even have to be compelx just something to allow the characters to do anything.
Imagine if the next superman movie was just Clark and Lex fighting for 2 hours. With no explanation of why Superman is good or why Lex is bad. No character development because the characters can't learn anything if there's no moral lessons. That would be incredibly boring. >

They've been doing it for hundred years. >

Are you sick of entertainment reflecting the writer ideology, or are you sick of it not reflecting YOUR ideology? >

Stop watching all that Fox news and get outside and breathe. Everything, even before visual media was social commentary. You think Shakespeare and Grimms were just there for the pure sake of? Every story has social and moral stories taught, even inadvertently. Stop buying into the hatred of being "woke". Stop believing that everyone is trying to just preach to you. Get out of that information vacuum. Jesus christ >

No, they shouldn't. An artist should be allowed to express themselves and their views in their art, same as musicians with their rebellious statements and political messages in their lyrics. Having opinions is what made Punk, Rock and Metal so great during the cultural revolutions of Gen X. I personally love a movie with a punch on social norms and politics.
The best type of comedy is potitical satire and sarcasm. Not everyone finds slapstick, shallow or otherwise simplistic humour funny. >

Hard to believe there used to be a time when movies actually entertained you instead of telling you what to think >

You must watch only one genre of movie because movies have always been "preachy" >

You're free to dislike or not like something, but telling what other people what they shouldn't and should write is stupid. Writers should write whatever they want. You're free to think it's moralizing crap and judge it for what you think it is. >

Yeah, movies...historically known for never having a message. Ever. Not one movie. >

Do you have any examples? 
Cause right now I'm just imagining you getting really upset when people of color are included in movies, calling them woke and attempted social commentary. >

And that's another thing, whenever you voice an opinion like this, it takes all of a minute for someone to come out and pull the race card trying to dismiss criticism under a veneer of someone else being hateful. 
Not everyone on Reddit is an American. We generally don't care what race the actors are here in Denmark.
I just want my action movies to be about action without trite dialog that come from left field completely irrelevant to the plot to make some asinine point relating to the current zeitgeist. >

OK but....do you have an example? 
I used race because as you said, it's a very common complaint from some people that races are cast as other than the original. 
So dialog is the issue, specifically in action movies, that's a start. Now use a specific example so anyone reading the nothing sandwich you wrote has a clue what you're talking about. >

Agreed completely.
Though I'm actually kind of cracking up at OP's choice to post on an opinion sub and actively refuse to give even a single example of what on earth they're on about to illustrate their opinion. I guess it's easier to get defensive and rant then provide a few words to clarify the point they are (failing at) making? Lmao 
.... Admittedly,I 'm very medicated and sleep deprived, which may be contributing to the cracking up, but.. really? Wouldn't you want to back up your opinion? Unless there's no backup, I suppose. >

Well I may be biased towards thinking I'm correct but his immediate defensiveness makes me think I hit it right on the head with changing the races of characters and him calling it woke >

Oh I definitely think that's possible, sorry if it seemed otherwise. I noticed that defensiveness too and the phrasing in particular seemed odd - like if it's happening all the time to you then even if it's not the race/woke thing it's .. something that is still an issue, lol.
The refusal to give a single example is what has me cracking up, but mainly because it's just so dumb and obvious. Your guess on why is better than any I have - other than they can't defend the point, which isn't exactly a reason. Who knows, I'm just going to go back to cackling in the corner.
(Definitely a good guess on your part regardless, as shown by the ridiculous defensiveness, lmao). >

Both sides of this argument are wrong. Art has always reflected the artist's beliefs. But it has normally done so in complex ways, with the ideas translated into story. Now there is a tendency for moralistic preaching, simply inserting political or cultural ideas without the process of transformation. >

Eh, the good stuff has mostly stood the test of time, so you won't see most of the crappy stuff. Still, there are examples that are certainly preachy that are less contemporary. A Christmas Carol is very heavy handed, as is T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land (talk about overt moralistic preaching) >

All of the best movies have messaging and commentary in them. Stop malding cause you think an action movie without action man is “forcing a message” >

so writers should style and cater their writing to what you want, not what they want. got it. >

Art is art and has always been a form of social commentary Karen >

When you insert random names like Karen or Kyle your comment becomes 50% funny >

Whatever you say, Todd. >

Art is inherently tied to the artists inherent feelings/biases. If you don’t Like that writers/musicians/painters/sculptors/etc… put what they believe into their work then don’t consume art. This is a dumb opinion though. >

Every media could be a social commentary on some level >

Ok I agree, but also disagree. I agree because yes, every movie production team goes far and beyond outta their way today to get some stupid political agenda point across. And most of the time, its as stupid as “this character can also be black, white, yellow, green, purple, male or female, LGBTQ - Z etc blah blah.” I get it, its exhausting. 
But i disagree because most of these “writers” (if i dare to give them that much credit) do that shit because they droll over the hype and approval of the pathetic audience they cater to, that doesn’t care to see anything original and desperately accepts this regurgitated bull shit over and over. They don’t do it to “inspire” like the messages they convey may suggest in a different context. They’re whores. It would probably be less annoying and repulsive if their motives were actually to inspire or simply be original >

That's why I love the show Avatar: The Last Airbender. Lessons were just part of the plot, not the plot. >

This has always been done but it used to be done well and the messages used to be more insightful and impactful, nowadays movie quality has gone down so much it's sad.  Technology has advanced so much you would think the movies would only get better but It's like the industry has been overrun by the talentless and uninspired. >

You have seen… a movie… before right? Or seen some art? Or read a book? >

Not only unpopular, but also an extremely dumb and poorly thought out opinion.  
Why don't you also tell a painter to paint portraits instead of paintings of cars or sheep? Why don't you tell musicians what lyrics to put in their songs next? >

The Expanse did a great job with this. For instance there was some flooded areas like the Statue of Liberty and they show it so you're obviously supposed to get the point but they don't launch into a sermon about how horrible humans are and how terrible global warming was they just show you the aftermath and expect you to draw your own conclusions. >

If your talking about every Sci fi and Superhero movie being about what we are doing to our planet then ok? >

This is popular.  I agree with it wholeheartedly.  Nothing is fucking worse than a science fiction or fantasy movie that has a point to make about contemporary American politics - which usually means contemporary American ID politics >

All stories have an underpinning moral philosophy. It's inescapable. Some are simply more overt than others. But by the very nature of what the hero stands for and what they are fighting against produces a worldview that says x is good, but y is bad. There is no such thing as an 'amoral' or 'apolitical' story. Just ones you're not examining closely enough. >

Got any examples of what you’re say? >

Wow why are you against free speech? >

Saying “don’t do this” is different than saying “you can’t do this and if you do you’ll receive legal action” >

/s >

Yes. Piss-poor writing quality, writers with zero foundation in the classics, writers who derive their copywriting ability from mimicking social media, woke culture, Hollywood executive obsession mass market appeal instead instead of quality films, etc.
Instead of subtle, elegant treatments on ideology, we get thrown propaganda in the face. >

This is exactly the way Snowpiercer was fucked up. Great movie. Horrible series. >

Can you give an example of what you mean? >

Hasnt this been going on for centuries but with novels instead? >

The new Candyman, that movie The Invitation, Bodies Bodies Bodies, Black Christmas remake, and Smile are the types of movies being referenced. They see a what the trending ideology is and then ham fist it into a movie where it feels out of place. Then you have properties like he Chucky tv series that sees what the issues of today are and organically work it into the show. >

I feel like if you're going to pick one, picking Candyman is an odd one, considering the original overtly had plots about slavery, civil rights injustices and was set in Cabrini-Green Homes. >

Again, this isn’t about whether or not a movie’s plot has social or political commentary in it, it’s nuanced vs pandering. So I think Candyman fits perfectly. >

Why is the new one pandering and the old one not? They're both very overtly about the racial overtones of the films, they just focus on the issues of their time. >

If you can’t tell the difference between sincerity and opportunism, I can’t help with that >

Well that's a bit of a cop out response. >

Absolutely!  I think Disney is pretty shameless when it comes to this.  I can't watch a story about scary witches that like to eat children. Somehow those scary witches became misunderstood girl bosses who occasionally eat children and I have to feel bad about mischaracterizing them, despite their obvious consumption of children. >

This is a popular opinion. Go woke go broke is real. >

This is an opinion I can 100% get behind. It’s gotten to the point that whenever a movie or show is announced, if the cast and director go on about diversity, representation or other issues rather than talking about their movie or show, then I’ll pass on giving it a try.
This issue has only gotten more prominent in recent years. Rings of Power is probably the most recent example of his issue. Cast emphasizing diversity and inclusion over respecting Tolkiens world. Inserting modern day politics into a story related to Lord of the Rings just doesn’t work.
If it’s a modern political film sure, discussing modern political issues is fine. But it takes very talented writers to pull this off without alienating half the audience. >

You're right. Tolkien famously didn't draw anything from contemporary geopolitics and issues of the time.
Famously, Mordor and Sauron drew nothing from the clash of an urbanising Midlands and from the brutality of the First World War.
Inserting politics from one's current period is truly a silly idea. >

See: Avatar 2 >

Haven’t seen the movie yet but i remember the first one. Pretty sure it had social commentary from the beginning. As in don’t exploit people, respect nature ect. >

Yeah, and the first one should’ve been more subtle as well but it’s not nearly, NEARLY as egregious as the second. I enjoyed the film, it was gorgeous, but it feels like now an increasing focus is on what message you drive home, and build the plot around that, rather than the other way home. I don’t want to spoil the second one but there are GAPING plot holes that make no sense except for Cameron to drive a random point home about over hunting/whaling that’s already a pretty common feeling. I just wish a more primary focus was on plot first, then sprinkle in your subtle messages in clever ways instead of bashing you on the head with it assuming I’d be too dumb to otherwise notice >

Like Olivia wilds new movie? Don’t worry darling? Tried way too hard. >

am i the only who never notices the social commentary? >

There are people that came out of games like Bioshock thinking it was just pure entertainment with no social or political commentary. No, you're not the only one. >

that makes me feel better >

Definitely agree, movie have become more politicized in the last few years then they have ever been. 
If they arent politicized, people are trying to make political criticisms of them. 
Like for example some film critic was crying out about cultural appropriation in avatar 2; which is ridiculous. Considering that the main water tribe dude is a new Zealand guy 😅. >

I think it’s great when artists try to say something about the world or their experience of it. It doesn’t matter to me that sometimes it is clumsy. Not everything is going to be good or work for everyone.
What are your examples of this? >

Filmmaking is a form of media similar to actual literature. That's the point. You can make shallow books aimed at teens like Harry Potter or Twilight (while shallow still have depth), or you can write something deeper like Jane Eyre or Lord of the Flies. The EXACT same applied to movies. This is prevalent is every form of media. South Park is funny af and extremely popular. It is 100% nothing but social commentary through satire. Every episode from start to finish is social commentary. What you are describing as wanting to watch is basically generic boring movies that provide nothing but jump scares, explosions, and boring tropes. You want to watch an hour and a half of Tom and Jerry.
If you don't like it then don't watch it. It wasn't made with you in mind. >

Even something like Harry Potter is fairly political. It included things like corrupt politicians or politicians ignoring eminent threats for the sake of maintaining the status quo, bigotry being weaponized, etc. The bad guys (Voldemort and Grindlewald) were both stylized around Nazism in particular and fascism in general.
There's also areas that are more debatable, like the issue of slavery and how that's handled. I don't think Rowling meant to suggest that slavery=OK, but with the idea that the author's intention doesn't necessarily matter in media interpretation, that's certainly in there too. >

What about Django though? >

It can be good if the same characters and stories are good without any kind of social stuff, and the social stuff is a quirk or actually adds to the characters/stories >

And they let people like you (and me) on the internet... >

I like how Jordan Peele does his work. Us had plenty of social commentary without it feeling like it was force fed to the audience. >

Could I ask for examples? >

Maybe, but I suppose it depends on what ideology is being presented. >

Off buttons exist.
What you are describing has always been true. Always will be. >

This is a popular opinion >

This is a popuoar opinion and it shows the intellectual degradation of society >

Any examples? >

That's why I'm really excited about Bob Iger taking over Disney again. >

Every movie is social commentary, but I guess the ones you don't bitch about either you agree with or they fly above your head. >

That would be boring as hell. >

Cinematography is one of the most powerful and influential forms of art that can be used. That person is not really making this movie for you, or for me. I believe that mostly, he does it for him(if he enjoys his job) >

Ideology in entertainment media is nothing new. The stories we told around camp fires were often allegory and ways to teach lessons to the next generation.
You don't have a problem with ideology in your entertainment or you wouldn't enjoy any entertainment. You have a problem with unsubtle ideology that has become blatant. It should be subtle and smart but in the current time it's like a sledgehammer been swung by a child having a tantrum because society isn't progressing fast enough for them. >

There's a reason why movies are used in this role
As Lenin said, Film is the greatest tool of propaganda.
Film is simply more efficient at advocating an ideology >


You dumb dumb audience you. You simply won't *GET IT* unless I show you what's what.

You're mistaken.
I'm an author.  It is the publisher that is sending you this message, not writers.  If our stories don't contain any of the things that you've mentioned here, in a *palatable way, then we don't get published.
"What is the point" is a common question asked of stories that are being reviewed.  If it's not obvious to a 5 year old, they'll reject it.  *Which is where palatable comes into play.  You have to incorporate a message.  There's an old publishing adage that covers it:  not all stories are worth telling.
Point being, you want writers to cover different things, you better launch your own media empire of pointless stories.  Otherwise, you're stuck with the offerings of Murdock, Turner and their ilk. >

Well said. ‘Alleged entertainment’ cracked me up 😂 >

I would love any single specific example.
ITT: Literally not one actual example of what everybody seems to be complaining about lol. >

Reading this, the first thought that comes to mind is 2014s "Noah". It was basically.. very lightly based on the story of Noah's Ark, except they added action, badass CGI monsters, and they somehow turned the entire narrative to be about saving wildlife and how terrible humans are. At one point he's ready to kill Emma Watsons babies and only the animals are allowed to survive lol >

I'm not sure what your problem is. Your title is whining about social commentary but your content is actually complaining that film makers aren't subtle enough. 
Look, films are a medium of art, they are going to reflect on the human condition and comment on society. That's a fact, and I defy you to find a single movie that doesn't contain social commentary. All films normalize to some degree. I'm not sure what you think a film with none of this would look like. 
Typically, when people say these things it is because they disagree with the commentary or messaging in the film. I've been there too - and there isn't much in terms of learning how to have a healthy response to this. You just have to learn to shrug it off when the film is clearly lacking in accurate social analysis and try to either enjoy the other parts of the film or mock it. I've had plenty of fun shredding shitty movies with my partner. >

I just don’t understand. Why would anyone tell a story make a movie that purposely has no reason to exist? That’s what you want? God sounds boring. The entire reason humans tell stories going back thousands of years is to make a point to the audience. >

Moralization has always been part of action and sci fi genres. I can list the many examples but I see a lot of redditors already have. 
I believe the key issue is that the message uses to further the plot, now, often, it’s just there, not furthering the story, just nagging at you. >

OP: “Art shouldn’t be expressive. Give me my brain rot!!!” >

Has anyone ever told you “art is a form of expression” because basically just that. >

I think OP is really saying he doesn’t like poorly executed “moralization,” which does indeed seem to be the norm these days. >

It's only going to get worse. Enjoy the random films that turn up like nobody. There are still decent movies out there, but what were once undertones for the audience to contemplate if they wished are now not even overtones, they're shoved in your face. >

Crazy to think art includes the views of those who have made it >

It might be hard to think of multimillionaire blockbuster directors as artists, but that's the realm they work in. Artists using their medium for social commentary is pretty much their MO. 
And even if an artist's work is itself not a piece of commentary, artists are notoriously political and often focused on social justice. 
I think a lot of entertainment doesn't have the same edge when it's not driven by purpose, by a set of values. 
Terry Pratchett and Jose Saramago were brilliant authors and they also very clearly had a few things to say about society in their books. I read a good amount of LitRPG - mostly whatever is free on kindle unlimited. The stories can be a lot of fun, but even the ones that are well written (many aren't) aren't as engaging because they don't really have anything to say about life or about society. They focus on world building and the mechanics of character growth, but with nothing to say. >

Id argue it’s Normal that almost every piece of media conveys some sort of ideas one way or another. It’s just another thing whether it’s forced or not. It’s the quality of the writing that’s tanking sometimes which is why you have developed that attitude. You are probably also annoyed by the cheap and obviously superficial SJW activism in every media. Rightfully so but it can and has been done right before and doesn’t feel as bad when it is done right. >

The problem is that people on both sides of almost every debate lack nuance. People want to get mad so its not enough to have lessons or subtlety have messages the movie must be about politics. It all apart of the "culture war". >

I heard something once, it said, "Film is an art form, not a classroom."
Van Gogh's starry night says no more anything meaningful about politics, social issues, racism, sexism than any film will ever be able to. Sure some films may do a very good job at one or the other, but it's a lot harder than many film makers have the talent or ability to do. >

Ehhhhh thing is, movies don’t go straight from writer to screen. There’s a lot that gets cut and rewritten by marketing and the like. If a certain message is selling, it’s gonna get shoehorned into a movie. Or a writer knows this message is what’s selling so they write it to get their stuff on the screen. 
But in the cases where someone is just expressing their ideals, when it’s not just this thing being churned out for profit, then I’d argue that you just gotta deal with it. It’s like bitching about an artist for drawing things they’re passionate about. It’s their work, their medium. Don’t like it don’t watch it. >

I’m pleasantly oblivious to this because I’ve stopped watching. It’s a total bore. >

Did you really just come in here and say "unpopular opinion: badly written movies are bad" ? >

Messages/themes/commentary were always there since the beginning of storytelling. These days, you just have to try harder to ignore them, as they are getting more overt. But it is still possible to enjoy a story for its escapism value without caring for the boring and mundane BS in it. >

I t is practically impossible to tell a story without thereby revealing, at least in part, one's ideology. Even media reports are always ideologically coloured.The fallacy of "freedom of ideology" is often held by people who are unable to understand that they themselves represent an ideology (e.g. the ideology that films should not contain (obvious) social criticism). >

Lol local man realizes all art is political and is mad about it. More at 11. >

I'd never thought I'd see the day where someone would openly say "I think art should be meaningless" 
I promise you don't actually want this. You don't want action movies that are solet about blowing shit up and driving fast. Characters need motivations and morals to make them interesting. Imagine how dull the fast and furious franchise would be if it was literally just a bunch of dudes who liked driving fast instead of a chosen family working together to achieve common goals? If the transformers and autobots didn't have moral codes there wouldn't be a movie! 
Even comedies and horror movies need to have something bigger to say than jokes and spooks. Take napoleon dynamite. One of the most popular comdies of my generation it isnt just about some dude running for class president it's about accepting yourself and uplifting those around you, that's what makes the movie memorable and why all those funny buts stick with us after we leave the theater. 
And I realize that you probably mean you don't like it when a movie seemingly supports things like being gay or taking care of the environment but it's all the same. If you want more art that benefits your morals and values, make it. >

People should stop selling Bibles that have moral agendas in it.  I’m just there for the whores, witchcraft and table flipping, dammit. >

It’s okay not to like the message of a movie. You can always wait until a number of reviews about the movies come out, including what people you know thought about it. 
You may then decide if you want to spend your money on the movie or not. Another option is to learn to screenwrite yourself, and write the movies you want to see. Of course that will subject your work to the same criticism from others you have levied. >

Just like "There's Someone Inside Your House." >

Soundike you are asking major producers to produce good movies. But they keep making money not doing that. So… >

One of the reasons the 80s are known to have the best movies. They aren't about anything but pure entertainment. >

I mean that’s kinda most movies from the start of time. Some are just…where there themes on their chest in a way. But every movie is an expression of how the person who created the story and directed see the world. Unless it’s a film made by committee to make the most money possible. Even Rocky is Stallone’s belief in the every man’s ability to achieve great things and pretty broadly beats you over the head with that message that Rocky is considered a bum but he keeps getting up.
I guess you mean when they “beat you over the head with it” sort of speak. In those cases that’s kinda what the movie was supposed to be. Like Everything, Everywhere, All at Once was overly philosophical cause that’s the story. It’s saying skyrim would be better if it wasn’t open world, there weren’t dragons, the whole game took place underground, no magic and the introduced all new gods. That’s just a different game entirely at that point.
That’s what those movies are. Overly philosophical or ideological tales. I hate art house movies so I don’t watch them. I like Wes Anderson films cause the stories are simple. Sometimes we just gotta except when it’s not for us. There’s plenty of movies for us, I do wanna end the trend of movies over two hours though. If it’s over two hours, the editor didn’t push hard enough. >

To me this is ridiculous.
The writers do not control the tone of the movie, the producers and directors choose the the writers and the rewriters to push the movie to what their vision is. >

Do you not know what stories are? They have a moral/point to it. Wether that is social commentary or not isn’t important. >

Isn't that what is done for century's? First with books, than with movies.
"Woman have to be married. Any female character hat to get married" "no showing that man had naughtys off marriage" is what was told to authors in the past. Even Romeo married Juliette even if that would not have happend. He would have banged her, Ruined and left her. 
Autors, either of book, films or series, always give their agenda to the watchers. >

Name a single genre that doesn’t have a message. Hell name a single movie that doesn’t. >

Lol nobody is obligated to write a movie how you want it to be written.
"We've got genres for a reason."
Whatever you think that reason is, it doesn't obligate screenwriters to cater to what you want in a movie.  You want movies to be what you want them to be?  Pay for all of the costs involved in writing / producing them. >

Lol “I don’t like art” >

Avatar 2 >

Honestly,  I think this is starting to becoming a popular opinion.
It think it is fine when done well but most writters don't have the talent to pull it off or do it too much too often. >

God I hope so, so tired of being lectured at via movies. You wanna have a political message in your movie? Fine, do it. But do it like Starship Troopers anti war message, make a decent movie with bits of the message sprinkled about that takes a bit of paying attention >

Ah i also see you are a gentlehuman with immaculate taste in cinematography. 🍷🧐 >

Indubitably 🍷🧐 >

YOU WANNA LIVE FOREVER!? >

Famously, action films have never had any meaningful or significant social commentary.
Starship Troopers, Aliens, Saving Private Ryan, They Live, The Matrix, Jurassic Park, Battle Royale, Upgrade, Robocop, First Blood, any Mad Max film, Terminator films, fucking Die Hard. 
Pretty much every genre, from children's animation to sci-fi cult horror, has had meaningful social commentary in its genre at some point. In fact, the social commentary is more effective when placed into a film's narrative and weaved directly into it.
I think what you dislike is that films with poor writing tend to be bad at doing this weaving, and since production studios want to just push out things for mass consumption, they're getting writers to work overtime, and the product is being made worse by that motive.
The reality is you've always been moralised to. That's not new. If you think it is, that's actually an indicator of the skill of the writers who have being doing it. 
Is a film like Black Adam going to be as good at conveying a message as All Quiet on the Western Front? It's not unheard of, but probably not. I can tell you that the one that was doing more of the moralising was much more well received. 
In fact, I'd usually argue that a film without any message is usually pretty boring, save for absurdist films which are very much an acquired taste. >

You have to have done really poorly in English class to be unable to understand that the whole point of media is moralisation.
Like... You can't write a story without themes and ideas that are subjective?
The closest you could come is a pure survival film about a single character in nature, but even then that'd likely be interpretable as a commentary on our modern view of nature as relaxing and fun... >

Right? All media or art contains implicit and explicit value judgments. They are in everything we do. People don’t like hearing about stuff they don’t feel is important. >

I am not sure about this take without an example. 
I will say, I do like when you can see philosophies influence things in a movie. Like, sometimes you can completely miss something if you don’t know context around the person saying it. The speaker can change things sometimes. 
My favorite example of this is the song writer for a lot of music in beauty and the beast. I’m the song where they hunt the beast on beauty in the beast the villagers sing “we don’t like what we don’t understand — in fact, it scares us!” This line on its own is pretty easy to read within the context of the movie, but I think it’s really cool how you get another layer when you recognize the writer of this line was a gay man who societally would have faced a lot of scrutiny in the 80s and 90s especially with the aids pandemic. (Which he did unfortunately pass away from. They dedicated the movie to him in the credits. ) >

Everything Disney does in the past 5 years. >

Lauren Hissrich & Season 2 of the Witcher >

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. >

That’s what writers have always done, though. Hansel and Gretel is a warning about trusting strangers, Pinocchio is about a lying disobedient brat… the list is endless.
All written works have either been about presenting a certain moral, presenting/recording information, or to convince readers on something.
Writers don’t waste their time. If they’re going to tell a story or list something down, there’s going to be a point to it, and that point is called the theme. In fact, writers are taught to put a clear theme in their works 1) so that their work doesn’t get muddled, and 2) so they don’t seem like they’re rambling.
TLDR: this isn’t new- writers have always and always will include morality into their works. >

The  two examples about trusting strangers and a lying disobedient brat feel very different than what I think OP is talking about..
Like the story OP is talking about would be about a POC MtF trans queen who proved to an Arab misogynistic despot that she can belly-dance as good as any female in his harem. >

So it's just the message he (and I assume you too) disagree with? >

Generally yes. Most people seem to be fine when a story pushes an agenda that they agree with. >

Show us where the bad movie touched your heart in a way you did not want to be touched. 
Asking artists to not have a point of view is unrealistic and frankly, sounds a little butthurt. >

Can you give some examples of movies where I can look out for this? >

I'm not sure if it's exactly what OP was talking about, but I really liked some of the philosophies expressed in Everything Everywhere All at Once. It was very pro-kindness and using compassion to solve problems, as well as being ultimately absurdist in it's take on existence and living through life. >

No good deed goes unpunished… >

I'm sorry, I think I'm missing what you mean by this. Which good deed are you referring to? Or are you disagreeing with the idea of using compassion to solve problems? >

I was being cynical. Not serious. >

Sure, but I was being genuine when I said I wasn't sure what you meant by it. Maybe just a lapse on my end. >

No, not really. Your fine. I may want to look at that movie you referenced though. >

It's a neat one. Very creative. >

Where did you see it, Netflix, Amazon Prime? >

Hmm, well I saw it in theaters, but this might help you find it. >

I am a Christian, but I rarely watch Christian movies. They are bad, because they so often out message above story. Modern secular movies are becoming the same; so han fisted with the message that they don't pay attention to the story or characters. The funny thing is, subtlety is usually a way better method of getting a point across. >

Prince of Egypt on top babyyyyyy >

Most of the good Christian movies are Biblical stories. The original material is not so good. >

You mean like the stories from the Hebrew Bible? >

Both Old and New Testament stories >

Calling the “Old Testament” is a term of erasure. It’s the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible. It’s a bid look to appropriate someone’s religious text and change the name and meaning. >

I think there is a line between good social political commentary and bad social political commentary and it’s typically expressed in the quality of the writing in a movie 
if the movie is really good at making you think and ask complex questions then it’s both good writing and it’s ripe for interesting and engaging discourse over social and political topics while also allowing writers to express themselves and their beliefs and overall create and experience that’s enriching and engaging all round
On the other hand you can have writers who are either overworked or lazy just shoehorning some political or social issues into a peice of media so they can hide from actual criticism of their shite work then you don’t only have bad writing and a cheaply made message but you also run the risk of oversimplifying or even trivializing the issues you’re trying to bring light to by misrepresenting them >

People use art as a means of expression. It's kind of the core of art. Sometimes a screenwriter just wants to entertain, sometimes not, but in every instance they're purring a piece of themselves and how they view the world into their art. >

Filmmaking has ALWAYS included social commentary, moral personal dilemmas, a POV regarding current social issues and politics, etc. This is nothing new, and wont ever stop, because thats what makes conflict interesting. Arguably its impossible to write a story without including one own's views on these issues in one way or another. >

Agreed. I lean conservative, and I don't mind social commentary in my films--even progressive social commentary. 
One of my favorite films is Predestination, which has a very progressive message cloaked in a time loop sci-fi film. The progressive message is there, you just have to dig to reach it.
And that's my only complaint about modern popular films: they don't give us anything to "dig" for. Not all are so shallow, of course, but many. >

What progressive message did you find in Predestination? >

OP, would you please tell me some movies that fit what you're saying? >

Comparing the Charlie’s Angel movies is probably a good example.
The 2000 one is about how women, when utilising their feminine wiles and individual skills, can accomplish anything.
The 2019 one is about how men are either useless or evil and women are better than men.
At least, that’s the message I took from them. >

That's interesting - I definitely feel like the 2000 one has a message of "even super competent action hero women are silly, clumsy, boy-obsessed teenagers when it comes down to it". It never felt very empowering at all. >

How do you write any media without making it meaningful by philosophy? The only reason anything is actually interesting to watch is because of the social commentary behind the work. >

I disagree. Action scenes are often entertaining even if you have 0 context >

I can't think of anything terribly good that doesn't provide context for action scenes. At least, not ones that are longer than a couple minutes at most. >

Ever try hardcore henry? It’s my favourite movie and gives nearly no context >

I've never heard of it, but the trailer suggests a story. Memory loss, some kind of surgery leading to a robotic or cyborg body, a romance plot... The action seems  to be because the bad guys want the tech that made his cyborg body. (Ooo, Tim Roth is in it).
Just a guess, but it seems like it probably depicts hurting innocent people for the sake of being able to do violence better as a bad thing, right? >

Nope you don’t really get any context of what’s going on till the end.  I mean sure it shows you he’s a cyborg but you’ll have to watch it to understand >

Did the trailer pull from the end? Or did the end just re-contextualize things? From the trailer I feel like I have a firm idea of what the character is fighting for, or at least what the audience is supposed to think the character is fighting for. >

The entire movie is pretty much just him killing things, He can’t even talk. Again I highly recommend giving it a watch >

Sure, but I don't think that answered my question... Am I right about what the audience is supposed to think is going on through the action? >

I suppose there is the barest outline of a motivation but it’s at the absolute minimum