It's hard to disagree, fiction is made-up stuff having only so much in common with actual reality. And sure there's good and not-so-good fiction and the movies show it. When he brought up the possibility of a great story not based on idiotic behavior I too immediately thought of Apollo 13, truly spellbinding in its entirety.
Then again, if idiocy sells, it's natural that producers will make idiotic plots a priority, though if only limited to movies, there wouldn't be much to write about. The bigger thing it points to is the way really important discourse has increasingly become infested with the very same attribute.
After all, in recent years TV news has become more or less devoid of authentic news reports. Calling TV news "sensationalistic" is hard new, not only failing to qualify as factual, but even if intended as entertainment, it's lousy fiction every bit as idiotic as a B-movie. People do watch it though, and that what counts.
To the extent idiot plots are the standard in national and local politics, it's far more damaging than the movies, but perhaps the point is the same roots underlie a whole gamut of idiotic forms. But where are the rest of us who are not idiots? What trouble do we go to express our non-idiotic ideas where it does some good? (I suspect posting here is more or less like preaching to the choir.)
Ultimately fiction is so much less compelling than real life. I love a good story well told, but it pales next to the meaning of actual experience, provided one is tuned in to experience as it is. The article hints at something not quite said. We humans so often accept fiction and discard reality, we don't or even refuse to see what we are seeing. Maybe that's the definition of real-time "idiot plots" playing out all around us.
Easy enough with movies to know fiction when we hear it, the trick is to hear our own inner voice, and make that distinction within.
A related problem in society is the assumption of ignorance; if someone expresses a passionate opinion and you demur, it seems more and more common for your interlocutor to assume you don't know some key fact in their worldview rather than solicit the basis of your disagreement. Of course you can use this to your advantage, insofar as it's easier to get people to give you information by expressing disagreement than by asking questions.
Then again, if idiocy sells, it's natural that producers will make idiotic plots a priority
But on the other hand, the phenomenon doesn't seem to have nearly the same effect on a much more commercial platform that films: TV, which is filled to the brim with shows showing teams of cops, medics, etc working hard and unbelievably competently to "save the day" again and again.
That used to be the case. Nowadays you have teams of two or three, which are at the same time up against the external threat and the institution within which they work. Lone heroes saving the day in spite of the incompetence (or corruption) of their colleagues.
And then there's this recent influx of zombie movies - the libertarian paradise, where no one tells you what to do, there is perfect free trade facilitated by the proliferation of firearms within general population, and where everything that moves in a group larger than 20 is a mindless mass trying to kill you.
Nowadays you have teams of two or three, which are at the same time up against the external threat and the institution within which they work. Lone heroes saving the day in spite of the incompetence (or corruption) of their colleagues.
While they are small teams (were they ever big?), with regard to "fighting the institution", frankly, that's not the impression they leave me.
They have their moments of rogue colleagues or corrupt departments, but for the most part, what I see is a small team backed up by a larger institution fighting Evil (criminals, terrorists, etc).
I'm talking about the mass market, mind you, not The Wire but NCIS, CSI, Law & Order, Hawai Five-o, Criminal Minds and all that crap.
And then there's this recent influx of zombie movies - the libertarian paradise, where no one tells you what to do, there is perfect free trade facilitated by the proliferation of firearms within general population, and where everything that moves in a group larger than 20 is a mindless mass trying to kill you.
Which movies? I had to admit I haven't watched recent zombie flicks, but The Walking Dead has been the most successful show, and it's pretty much the opposite of that description. It's constantly reinforcing how much the breakdown of The System sucks and gets people to kill each other.
TBH, I now realize that wasn't a very thoughtful comment on my part.
> While they are small teams (were they ever big?), with regard to "fighting the institution", frankly, that's not the impression they leave me.
I was thinking more in line of House M.D., where from what I recall everyone in the hospital except the protagonists were portrayed as mostly harmless morons.
After going through your list of criminal movies and all the series I've been watching recently and thinking on it for few minutes, I'm willing to partially retract my claim about how every series portrays organizations where protagonists work as broken.
> but The Walking Dead has been the most successful show, and it's pretty much the opposite of that description. It's constantly reinforcing how much the breakdown of The System sucks and gets people to kill each other.
But it also reinforces how small groups with lots of guns are the way to go; every time they tried to stick in bigger groups, it all quickly and tragically fell apart.. Maybe I'm reading a different message from this series than you (but TBH, I gave up after season 3; unfortunately, my favourite plot arc ended with the season 1, and after that, I just couldn't see the point of what they were all doing).
I'll also admit that the "libertarian paradise" was a potshot; it just popped to my mind that the kind of things my more "freedom-oriented" friends say wrt. to policy and gun control would fit perfectly to a zombie apocalypse. The most (self-labeled) libertarian friend of mine being a huge fan of Walking Dead didn't help to avoid forming this association.
> I was thinking more in line of House M.D., where from what I recall everyone in the hospital except the protagonists were portrayed as mostly harmless morons.
That's just the POV of the protagonist (House), he doesn't discriminate people, he thinks everyone's an idiot. Character trait, and an entertaining one for that matter. House M.D.'s protagonists only deal with the most difficult or vague cases, often coming into play when the general staff doesn't have a clue anymore (and probably ruled out lupus themselves already).
I love(d) House btw, it's often much broader than mystery-of-the-week as it often seems superficially.
But it also reinforces how small groups with lots of guns are the way to go; every time they tried to stick in bigger groups, it all quickly and tragically fell apart..
Yes, it says that in a place where the whole society, law enforcement and government has broken down, a small group fares better. But both are portrayed as hell compared to a large society, i.e. the status quo. And hey, the main character is even a cop!
Then again, if idiocy sells, it's natural that producers will make idiotic plots a priority, though if only limited to movies, there wouldn't be much to write about. The bigger thing it points to is the way really important discourse has increasingly become infested with the very same attribute.
After all, in recent years TV news has become more or less devoid of authentic news reports. Calling TV news "sensationalistic" is hard new, not only failing to qualify as factual, but even if intended as entertainment, it's lousy fiction every bit as idiotic as a B-movie. People do watch it though, and that what counts.
To the extent idiot plots are the standard in national and local politics, it's far more damaging than the movies, but perhaps the point is the same roots underlie a whole gamut of idiotic forms. But where are the rest of us who are not idiots? What trouble do we go to express our non-idiotic ideas where it does some good? (I suspect posting here is more or less like preaching to the choir.)
Ultimately fiction is so much less compelling than real life. I love a good story well told, but it pales next to the meaning of actual experience, provided one is tuned in to experience as it is. The article hints at something not quite said. We humans so often accept fiction and discard reality, we don't or even refuse to see what we are seeing. Maybe that's the definition of real-time "idiot plots" playing out all around us.
Easy enough with movies to know fiction when we hear it, the trick is to hear our own inner voice, and make that distinction within.