Well, it's quite difficult to make a similar comparison because entertainment media grew exponentially after the war. But there were a lot of violent silent movies during the two World Wars.
Wonder Woman (2017)
- Thread starter M.A.C.O.
- Start date
Like I said, it's a given that violent stories existed; it's a question of whether the proportion or extent of them have changed, and that's too complex a question to resolve in this forum, since it would take a pretty extensive overview and statistical analysis.
Still, you do make a good point that a lot of what we see in Japanese entertainment today is a continuation of pre-war tropes and traditions, as one would expect. Come to think of it, Japan in the late 19th and early 20th century was a pretty martially oriented culture, embracing imperialism and militarism as a good thing, and I'm sure a lot of the entertainment of the era was meant as propaganda to promote that mentality. But that mentality was itself a reaction to American imperialism, as I recall from studying the 1904-5 Russo-Japanese War back when I was a history major. Basically, after America forced Japan to open its borders, the Japanese decided to emulate Western industrialization and imperialism and try to match or exceed the West at its own game, rather than be overwhelmed and reduced to a colony. And, ironically, the Americans were emphatically in favor of this at the time of the R-J War, taking pride in the Japanese as proteges who'd embraced the American example and wanted to grow up to be just like us. (My research paper on US/British coverage of the R-J War was titled "Patting Japan on the Head.") Although there was some ambivalence about where imperial Japan might turn its attentions in the future.
So that muddies the issue. I'd been thinking of American influence on Japanese culture as something dating primarily from 1945 onward. I'd forgotten what I already knew from studying history, that American culture has been influencing Japanese culture, for better or worse, since the mid-19th century. And that makes it hard to separate out one influence from the other.
Anyway, this is drifting pretty far off topic. How about that Wonder Woman?
It's more prevalent with Justice League due to that film's trailers emphasizing humor, but I know there's a feeling out there that WW marks some kind of 'shift' in the BtS trajectory of the DCEU in response to the negative critical reaction to MoS, BvS, and SS, but such a notion really isn't supported by the facts as we know them to be, given that the trailers for WW demonstrate that it is very much maintaining and building upon the tonal and aesthetic foundation of MoS, BvS, and SS, and given that we know Patty Jenkins worked in concert with Zack Snyder to ensure that things remained tonally and aesthetically consistent even as she brought her own individualistic approach to the story of the film.
Because the quality of the film is ultimately irrelevant in the broader context of its place in the DCEU and how the critical response to it factors into public response to the DCEU as a whole, particularly given the fact that critical response has had no noticeable effect on either the commercial success of the DCEU thus far or its overall BtS trajectory in terms of tone and aesthetic.
I'm with Tosk -- who cares? We don't work for Warner Bros, so the profits and larger corporate strategy of the studio aren't what worry us. We're audience members and fans, so we just want a good DC movie.
^ Myself and many others could easily and justifiably contend that all 3 of the DCEU movies have been "good".
And a lot of people could easily contend that all three were terrible (although I personally like Suicide Squad if I pretend it has no connection to the comics). Opinions are great, aren't they?
^ The difference between asserting that Mos, BvS, and SS are good and asserting that those same films are bad is that the former assertion is supported by Box Office success.
I'm speaking as someone who was very happy with BvS and Suicide Squad when I say this is a bullshit argument.
That's a complete non sequitur. Countless bad movies have been financially successful and countless good ones have failed. Citizen Kane was a box-office flop, and now it's considered the greatest movie ever made. Other classic movies that were box-office flops include The Wizard of Oz, Vertigo, Raging Bull, Blade Runner, Brazil, and Fight Club, among others. And it's not hard to find incredibly bad movies that were box-office hits.
I believe there are no measurements, charts, flows,surveys, film review, box office performances, etc. that can really determine how good a movie is. I don't care if more people like one movie over the other. For me, it's all based upon personal preference. Even if you like a movie that others dislike, does not mean that the movie in question is terrible . . . or good. I believe it's all a crap shoot. Yet, many people refuse to believe this, because they seem to feel that either their opinion of a movie is fact, or they will judge a movie based upon box office performance or critical assessment. Movie critics are no more the last word on the quality of a movie than box office performance is. I had learned this lesson a long time ago, when I found myself longing to see a movie, because most of the critics loved it. When I finally saw the movie, it bored the hell out of me. Years later, I had seen a handful of movies that the critics simply hated. I went to see them anyway, because I was curious. I loved them. I still do. It was then I realized that only my opinion mattered to me. Not to anyone else, but me.
For me the quality of the film is a way more important than it's place in the DCEU. I just want a good Wonder Woman movie and I couldn't care less if the DCEU crashes and burns around it. Diana has been hugely neglected outside of the comics, and she deserves time in the spotlight. She's the third member of DC's trinity, but yet all she's ever gotten to herself was one campy live action TV series and an animated movie. That's just sad.
Not according to the logic espoused by those who cite MoS, BvS, and SS's poor critical reception as empirical proof that they're bad.
The same basic principle underlies both notions, but the countering argument is that Box Office success outweighs critical opinion because it indicates that majority audience opinion was positive because it translated into and directly contributed to BO success for the films in question.
This argument falls apart because movies that aren't liked generally aren't BO successes because negative word of mouth 'sinks' their extended BO performance, which clearly didn't happen with MoS, BvS, or SS.
If "negative word of mouth" had had any significant effect on the overall BO performance of any of the those films, their overall BO take would have been significantly lower.
I digress, though, as we're getting way off-topic.
It's not only a bullshit argument, as @Christopher cared to explain (but should be obvious), it is also a self-defeating argument, as many Marvel movies have had as much or more Box Office success with far less famous characters.
Part of the problem was that there used to be a policy that wouldn't allow any film or TV production to use her unless she were a lead character -- which is why she was the only Justice League core member who never made a guest appearance on Static Shock. She could be a solo star or one of the stars of an ensemble, but not a guest star. The intent was to encourage her prominence by making sure she was always a starring character, but the unintended result was to make her less prominent by limiting her appearances overall. If she'd been allowed to appear as a guest star in other shows, it could've boosted her profile overall and maybe helped lead to more starring appearances.
I think Wonder Woman's last onscreen guest appearance before this policy was in the 1988 Superman animated series, and her first guest appearance after it lapsed was in Batman: The Brave and the Bold.