No, it's not great - I don't think most movies change how you see things either. Part of the reason I review movies that aren't great and view-changing is because I think it's interesting to look at what Hollywood puts out with the intent of getting as many viewers as possible (as opposed to a prestige movie). And, because the trends in how SF/F/H gets translated to movies are interesting to me.
And the other reason is I don't put movies or books in either a "doesn't matter at all" category or a "this changed my views about life" category. There's a lot of in-between for me, and if I see something that's somewhat relevant to themes that I write about, but not necessarily revolutionary, I'll still make note of it - even if it's totally the opposite of what I would do, it still gets me thinking of how I would do it differently. And finally, because there are people on my f-list who also enjoy junk food movies and might care.
I don't mean better in the sense of innately superior or more correct - I mean I'm more interested in what people and thus stories do with heroes than antiheroes. The way I've seen antiheroes done usually makes a point of their being an individual separated from and in defiance of the status quo or the approval of their people, usually because they're mercenaries or whatever, but yet they're still "cool." I just don't know what to do with that as a trope, and I haven't read any that are any good. They strike me as a lot of style over substance, I guess, though I'm sure there are exceptions. I almost think there's more room for analysis and experimentation with the hero trope, maybe precisely because it's so rigid - there are no rules really in creating an antihero, so as symbols they feel kind of meaningless. Heroes and their cults matter to the people whose worlds they exist in, and know they matter. It's like, why legitimacy in politics is interesting to me - how people decide what's okay, who to follow, and what debt the leader has to the people that follow them. Plus, of course, the lesser heroes: soldiers. They don't even get followed, so how does that relationship work? My vocab here is probably all wrong, btw.
The concentrate on good leadership thing was actually more referencing starting at a later point in the mythology than the origin point, not on heroism vs. antiheroism.
no subject
And the other reason is I don't put movies or books in either a "doesn't matter at all" category or a "this changed my views about life" category. There's a lot of in-between for me, and if I see something that's somewhat relevant to themes that I write about, but not necessarily revolutionary, I'll still make note of it - even if it's totally the opposite of what I would do, it still gets me thinking of how I would do it differently. And finally, because there are people on my f-list who also enjoy junk food movies and might care.
I don't mean better in the sense of innately superior or more correct - I mean I'm more interested in what people and thus stories do with heroes than antiheroes. The way I've seen antiheroes done usually makes a point of their being an individual separated from and in defiance of the status quo or the approval of their people, usually because they're mercenaries or whatever, but yet they're still "cool." I just don't know what to do with that as a trope, and I haven't read any that are any good. They strike me as a lot of style over substance, I guess, though I'm sure there are exceptions. I almost think there's more room for analysis and experimentation with the hero trope, maybe precisely because it's so rigid - there are no rules really in creating an antihero, so as symbols they feel kind of meaningless. Heroes and their cults matter to the people whose worlds they exist in, and know they matter. It's like, why legitimacy in politics is interesting to me - how people decide what's okay, who to follow, and what debt the leader has to the people that follow them. Plus, of course, the lesser heroes: soldiers. They don't even get followed, so how does that relationship work? My vocab here is probably all wrong, btw.
The concentrate on good leadership thing was actually more referencing starting at a later point in the mythology than the origin point, not on heroism vs. antiheroism.