Welcome to the Tiki Central 2.0 Beta. Read the announcement
Celebrating classic and modern Polynesian Pop

Beyond Tiki, Bilge, and Test / Beyond Tiki / The Stepford Wives

Post #90199 by Geeky Tiki on Fri, May 7, 2004 11:00 AM

You are viewing a single post. Click here to view the post in context.

On 2004-05-07 09:56, donhonyc wrote:
On the subject of disaster movies like the one mentioned about frozen New York, and past examples like the one not too long ago with Ben Affleck and a nuclear bomb in Baltimore, and the one a few years ago ( can't remember the name) where the White House gets blown up...in this post 9/11 world, do we really need this stuff. I mean... a frozen New York City and all that. Isn't the politics of fear umbrella that we all live under nowadays enough.? Are disaster movies really necessary?

I don't really think of them so much as glorifying disaster as (vapid) stories of humans overcoming daunting (contrived) obstacles.

Maybe these movies help people feel like what's facing them isn't as big for a few hours. Maybe redemption of a flawed character (they almost always have those) as a motif? I don't really know the appeal, but it sure must be there for the studios to keep cranking out those things.

Also, if we eliminated all the flicks that reflect modern angst, all we'd have left is Merchant Ivory films. Now, THAT would be a disaster!

Hmmmmm, if we were to get rid of diaster stories altogether, we'd pretty much have to lose the whole first half of that certain book that many people use as a factual history of humankind, eh?