Yeah, not too many people are going to identify with a marriage in which the wife is her husband’s chattel and he could sell her if the price was right.
Well, my time machine lets you input whatever destination date you want. So, yeah. I ain’t wasting any time hanging around waiting for the action to start.
And even as a kid, I noticed that Ancient Romans sported crewcuts in the 50s, shaggier haircuts in the 60s, and even mullets in the 70s.
It’s like every single actor said “Okay, I’ll play Marcus Aurelius, but only if I can keep my hairdo.” Oh, and the women get to do their makeup to match the fashion of the present day, as well.
I didn’t see this one in this thread, but what about when the good guy and bad guy are alone in some remote place and the bad guy says “Join me or I’ll kill you!” and the good guy says “No way!” and they fight to the death or something.
Why doesn’t the good guy just agree, and then later say - “I’m going to get a Starbucks!” and then just walk away?
Whenever I watch a movie like that with my kids, that’s my advice to them - “If you are alone with someone who is going to kill you unless you agree with them, then just agree and get out of there. Then later, just walk away.”
Re-watching Titanic some years ago, I had the sense that, as hard as they tried to write young Rose as being very well read and sophisticated, she seemed more like a 90s girl who had read a lot of magazines.
The overall effect is to make the movie seem dated, and not in a good way for a historical epic. Same goes with the portrayals of ancient or classical cultures you mention. Having the characters seem “dated” in that they have very foreign (to me) sensibilities more suited to a bronze or Iron Age Mediterranean culture is one thing. Dated to the decade it was made is something else, and kind of kills the vibe.
What gave you that sense? It’s been [old Rose voice] 23 years[/old Rose voice] since I saw the movie, and I was a 90s girl myself at the time, so it might be interesting to rewatch through cynical 36-year-old/2020 eyes, but…3 hours and 15 minutes run time… :whimper:
There’s probably more that goes into the impression, but off the top of my head…
The way she name drops Freud and Picasso, signaling to the 90’s audience that she’s “ahead of her time” and “sophisticated.” It’d be one thing if she’d just name-dropped a couple of randos and went on to talk about how she admires and appreciates their work (even though nobody else does) to signal that she is well-read and opinionated, capable of thinking independently about things and taking a perhaps contrary view (as opposed to just spouting off received wisdom). But no: she had to drop names the audience would recognize. She can’t be smart unless she can make the butts-in-seats (and believe me, I was one of them at the time, no judgments) feel smart, too, for knowing who she’s talking about. And what are a couple of names, contemporary to Rose that a 90s audience might at least recognize and associate with some level of sophistication? Why, Sigmund Freud and Pablo Picasso, of course!
Because god forbid she be so sophisticated that she have her own, entirely localized to the period, tastes in art. No, she has to love Picasso, because “everyone [in the 90s] knows Picasso was a great artist” even he was still somewhat obscure in Rose’s time, and even if, as I suspect, most people couldn’t name a single work by Picasso today (FWIW, off the top of my head I can only recall one) and, on being presented with one of his works, would probably look at it and go “Meh,” unless of course you told them it was a Picasso, at which point they might just fall all over themselves saying how beautiful it is and how the man was clearly a master, and on and on. Okay, maybe I’m projecting, and maybe I’m channeling a bit too much of my inner Holden Caulfield. Still…
As to Freud, she gets bonus points (for pretentiousness) for mentioning him because, while the 90s audience probably recognizes the name and immediately thinks “brilliant psychiatrist/psychologist/therapist/neurologist/whatever,” the actual state of psychoanalysis and related fields had already (by the 90s) moved well beyond. So she sounds smart and witty to a 90s audience of laypeople whose knowledge of, say, psychiatry is limited to what they got watching episodes of MASH and Frasier (again, no judgements, I was once in that category), but probably not so much to anyone who has taken even an introductory course in psychology since the 1960s. So she offers up that narrow sliver of knowledge necessary to impress (but not overwhelm) a bunch of moviegoers in the 90s, and not much else. Just enough to get the widest possible segment of the theater going audience to think, “Wow, she knows as I do, and I know I’m pretty smart, so she must be, too!” That’s Rose in a nutshell to me.
The trope about being gifted and whining and moaning about how they wish they were normal and dull!
Every single time someone is gifted with a supernatural ability, they are a social outcast, a geeky pariah at school, or have some kind of hangup regarding their self esteem. And they always give this self deprecating speech about how they never asked for these amazing powers that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would love to have.
“I want to be like every other Joe Blow human. I never asked to have the power to fly, teleport, be irresistible to the opposite sex, make money with ease and travel through time fixing mistakes I’ve made. Oh woe, is me! I wish I never had these abilities!”
This trope makes me stabby! I want to punch this character in the gut for not looking at the bigger picture and seeing how good they have it and the world of opportunities those super duper gifts have to offer. Spare me your “my life is so hard” monologue.
That reminds me: the trope of “Children who have secret friends with actual fantastical powers abandon them when they grow up”. If I had a real dragon I would ride him every week. If I had someone who would let me fly I’d play with him every week.
Mistaken identity.
People who look alike trading places.
People who were framed and are on the run.
I would erase/burn every copy of every movie/TV show that had any of these themes.
I guess I haven’t seen it in awhile now, but it used to be fairly common: My family is coming to visit, and oh, no, I told them a bunch of lies about how I’m the boss of this company, when I’m really a lowly janitor. Maybe you can all just pretend I’m the boss for the week they’ll be here? Pretty please?
Related: My college pal is coming to visit, and oh, no, I told him a bunch of lies about how I’m married to the most attractive female member of the cast. Maybe we can just pretend to be married for the week he’ll be here? Pretty please?
It always amuses me that in the original Star Trek the women from different futuristic civilizations have 1960s hairstyles.
No doubt people in 50 years’ time will say the same about today’s SF movies and series.
Yeah, period pieces without cultural anachronisms, or at least make a sincere effort to avoid them, would be a very short list. I kind of enjoy spotting anachronisms in period movies and TV shows. And not just modernisms that take place in past fictional settings-- the various Star Trek incarnations are full of phrases and cultural references from the 20th century. It’s as if somebody today was constantly talking in Shakespeare-speak. Granted, it’s got to be difficult to imagine and create a futuristic type of dialogue without sounding a little silly, “Cloud Atlas” style.
On the other side of the coin, I like watching Western TV shows and movies because they are such fictional creations, viewing the mid-to-late 1800s through the lens of sensibilities 100 years later. Is there any Western that comes even remotely close to accurately portraying the Old West? I hear Tombstone comes pretty close.
If I come across a period piece movie I’m not familiar with while flipping channels, I play a little game with myself-- try to guess the year the movie was made, going by things like anachronistic speech patterns, cultural attitudes, and hairstyles. I can usually get within a year or two.
Which medieval civilization are you talking about where that was the case? It certainly wasn’t anywhere in medieval Europe.
Especially since it’s so easy to be a social outcast, a geeky pariah at school, or have some kind of hangup regarding their self esteem while having no extraordinary gifts at all.
Well, for the last part, there is wife selling although that was usually a figleaf for (mutually-agreed or not) divorce with a pre-arranged purchaser rather than actual commerce.
More recently there was Wife selling (English custom) - Wikipedia.
ETA: ninja’d by seconds!
That’s assuming the characters are using a time machine and aren’t just getting thrown back in time by some space monster or weird anomaly. And even with a time machine that allowed the user to input a destination date, in BTTF it was set to the date Doc Brown came up with the idea for the Flux Capacitor. That just coincidentally happened to also be the week Marty’s parents met, which coincidentally was the same day lightning struck the clock tower.
Come to think of it, Star Trek IV is a good example of a story that avoided the trope. Kirk and his crew just traveled back to a random date in the mid-1980s. The conflict comes from the fish out of water scenario of these people from hundreds of years in the future trying to navigate 1980s San Francisco. Maybe that’s another trope – if time travel doesn’t take the hero to a significant date, then it will take them to the “present day” whenever the story was written.
They could have made the movie about a self-fulfilling loop, so that it would be a coincidence that Marty’s parents met the same day (it would have been always the case that Marty a) gave Doc the idea for the flux capacitor and b) caused his parents to meet), but they didn’t.
In Scalzi’s Redshirts, a main character says (approximately) “When a show has character go back in time, it’s either to a significant date or to the time period the show was made” - STIV is the second case.
Cheaper that way. Which I believe was kind of the point with Star Trek IV. As an aside, I can forgive filmmakers for including “anachronistic” elements when traveling into the future because it seems kind of pointless to expend energy trying to predict how people will wear their hair a hundred or a thousand years from now. Whatever they choose, they’re bound to be wrong and (distant) future viewers, if there are any, are bound to notice.
But it doesn’t need to be that way—at least not to the same degree—with the past.