6 ms·

I encourage everyone to watch Don't Look Up. In many ways it struck me as the spiritual successor to Idiocracy. I needed to watch it in chunks, because of how

by chrsig 5y ago

I encourage everyone to watch Don't Look Up. In many ways it struck me as the spiritual successor to Idiocracy. I needed to watch it in chunks, because of how viscerally real it is. It is funny, in that it's ostensibly comedy, and the actors all have great comedic timing...but it's also a very very honest appraisal of where we're at as a society.

alpha_squared 5y ago
The really sad part is the script was originally written before the pandemic and wasn't at all meant to be about the current crisis, but about climate change. Then the pandemic happened and the director was surprised at how the script didn't go far enough and had to make it, "20% crazier."
mullingitover 5y ago
I know Don't Look Up was supposed to spur people into action, but I came away feeling hopeless, like the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
- scollet 5y ago
  I don't know that it's a disaster necessarily. I think people aren't prepared or don't want to pay the debt we took.
YinglingLight 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Ottolay 5y ago
Saw this movie last night. One of the tougher movies I have watched. Being a satire, it exaggerates a bit, but still hits pretty close to home.
opwieurposiu 5y ago
Don't Look Up Was a the funniest thing I have seen all year. Imagine the fall of rome, but with twitter. Perfect acting all around, with a script so gin clear in it's portrayal of human nature you can see all the way to the bottom.
NovaS1X 5y ago
Don't Look Up was fantastic. I don't think there's another movie that more accurately portrays the absurdity of modern society.
999900000999 5y ago
Don't look up falls flat, in my opinion because you have too many superstars in a movie that should not be about star power. Netflix has this weird habit where it's like they can't budget well. I imagine they spent so much money hiring Leonardo DiCaprio they didn't have enough to write good scriptwriters. I really wanted to like the movie, but why would you cram so many high power celebrities in one film. Film. Idiocracy is amazing because outside of Booker T, and Scareface's cameo I had no idea who these actors were. Plus I'd argue the plot is much easier to follow. Mike Judge is a genius. If anything Don't Look Up ends up being a demonstration of the celebrity worship it mocks.
- chrsig 5y ago
  > Idiocracy is amazing because outside of Booker T, and Scareface's cameo I had no idea who these actors were I can understand where you're coming from. I'm a marvel fan and I'm disappointed that they went with so many celbreties for Eternals -- I haven't seen it yet, but they were really more distracting than anything in the trailers. I didn't mind the actors in Don't Look Up though, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, and Jennifer Lawrence had some good chemistry. It did feel like Jonah Hill's character was literally the same character from Wolf of Wallstreet. My guess is that netflix was hoping that it'd garnish more attention having many big name actors. It's also possible those actors _wanted_ to do it as a form of expression. > If anything Don't Look Up ends up being a demonstration of the celebrity worship it mocks. I don't really think it mocked celebrity worship. Maybe to some degree with the tech ceo (I can certainly amuse myself with how HN would probably react to some of it's hivemind's idols like Jobs or PG in that situation.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    > HN would probably react to some of it's hivemind's idols like Jobs or PG in that situation. Or Elon Musk. I can almost imagine the following comment on HN: "The asteroid has enough lithium to make batteries for everyone alive for the next 200 years! Anyone who supports diverting it supports government dysfunction and unmitigated destruction of wealth. This is our one shot to jumpstart space manufacturing - humans have a chance of becoming a Type II civilization, the risk is negligible and well worth it"
BrandoElFollito 5y ago
I started to watch that movie but had to stop (for a moment) because it described precisely a fear I had for some time: that we would not able to work together even in case of a deadly event that would be within our lifetime. If we had a meteor expected to hit Earth in 10 years I am sure we would not start to work on a plan to protect ourselves as THE only thing to care about. There would always be discussions about budget, China/Russia/US/[pick your country] being the villains, etc. Covid hit us very mildly and it was (and still is) a shitshow. A global disaster coming in x years (within our lifetime but not tomorrow either) wild be the end of humanity. We know that climate changes will be terrible and we simply do not care at all, as a species.
nickpp 5y ago
Seemed less like Idiocracy (smart comedy pointing out a real issue in a funny way) and much more like Dr Strangelove - a nihilistic crazy comedy showing how the way the system is setup is dooming us all. The main difference from both is that Don’t Look Up is completely implausible. Also, it isn’t very funny. But I guess people are eager to overlook that if it validates their political biases. Anyway, since Idiocracy couldn’t be made today due to the PC crowd yelling "eugenics", it is in a way a modern replacement, made straight for the woke crowd with pronouns in their Twitter bio.
Emma_Goldman 5y ago
I have to disagree. It attempts to satirise today's mass media by exaggerating its influence on politics to the point at which it revolves around little else, succumbing to what it is supposed to be objecting to: the idea of politics and politicians as trivial. The plotline was so wildly implausible that it ended up saying little about the real world. Also, the asteroid threat is not a good analogy for climate change, as it is supposed to be. Climate change is so difficult to deal with because its effects are uncertain, long-term and unevenly felt. None of those issues hold for an asteroid that will, per the plot, destroy the whole of human civilization in 6 months with 99.9% certainty absent intervention.
- chrsig 5y ago
  We do indeed disagree! I don't think it was saying that politics and politicians as trivial -- I think it was saying that they're not necessarily smart people, and they're certainly not necessarily acting in the best interests of the people they serve. I think they were also saying that the media serves to reinforce denial in the general population. The asteroid is just a plot device -- the message is that in the face of mortal danger, huge chunks of the population refuse to even acknowledge the danger so that any intervention can be made. And those in power will exploit that for their own enrichment. We don't just see this with climate change -- we've observed it with the previous administration...some hits: - "Lock her up" -- yes, let's just start imprisoning political rivals and see what that does for us as a society) - "Covid will go away by april" - I suppose they didn't say which april. - Hydroxychloroquine/Ivermectin/Vitamin C - Vaccines have microchips - Masks don't do anything The list goes on -- We've seen that the population is perfectly willing to disregard any science that threatens their way of life. It's easier to dismiss than to adjust.
  - Emma_Goldman 5y ago
    Let me take a couple of specific examples. Upon being told that an asteroid large enough to destroy human civilization was on course to hit the earth in 6 months, the President decided that it would make strategic sense to delay announcing or acting on the threat until after the midterms - a month or so later. This was conspicuous for the fact no reason was given, which had to be the case as it makes no sense. Collective threats of this kind have historically created a rally-around-the-flag effect the helps incumbents. Even a venal politician would not assist in the imminent destruction of the planet from which they themselves could not escape. Obviously information of that magnitude of importance would leak, as it did in the film. Meaning its only effect would be to crater the President's support when it became clear they hid the truth. Even an amaetuer political observer would understand all this, let alone a Whitehouse team that won a Presidential election. Or how about the manner in which the astronomers announced their discovery? They went to the NYT, who inexplicably decided that they would forego running the biggest story in human history. Instead, they helped arrange for the astronomers to announce their discovery in a 2-minute segment on an infotainment news show. Neither the NYT, nor the astronomers, nor anyone would think that was a good idea. It would never, ever happen. During the interview, one of the astronomers got upset because the talk show hosts were nonchalant about the news of the possible end of civilization (!?). Returning to the NYT offices, they're told that the journalists were able to confirm their findings with well-respected third party scientists, but that because one of the astronomers got upset in air, they weren't going to run the story - again, easily the biggest story in human history, which anyone could appreciate at such. The upshot of this never-ending string of implausible plot points is that the film ends up obfuscating how real politics works. It dumbs politics down and makes it trivial to make an easy joke, making it part of the problem that it ostensibly satirises.

by chrsig 5y ago

alpha_squared 5y ago

The really sad part is the script was originally written before the pandemic and wasn't at all meant to be about the current crisis, but about climate change. Then the pandemic happened and the director was surprised at how the script didn't go far enough and had to make it, "20% crazier."

mullingitover 5y ago

I know Don't Look Up was supposed to spur people into action, but I came away feeling hopeless, like the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

scollet 5y ago
I don't know that it's a disaster necessarily. I think people aren't prepared or don't want to pay the debt we took.

YinglingLight 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Ottolay 5y ago

Saw this movie last night. One of the tougher movies I have watched. Being a satire, it exaggerates a bit, but still hits pretty close to home.

opwieurposiu 5y ago

Don't Look Up Was a the funniest thing I have seen all year. Imagine the fall of rome, but with twitter. Perfect acting all around, with a script so gin clear in it's portrayal of human nature you can see all the way to the bottom.

NovaS1X 5y ago

Don't Look Up was fantastic. I don't think there's another movie that more accurately portrays the absurdity of modern society.

999900000999 5y ago

Don't look up falls flat, in my opinion because you have too many superstars in a movie that should not be about star power. Netflix has this weird habit where it's like they can't budget well. I imagine they spent so much money hiring Leonardo DiCaprio they didn't have enough to write good scriptwriters. I really wanted to like the movie, but why would you cram so many high power celebrities in one film. Film. Idiocracy is amazing because outside of Booker T, and Scareface's cameo I had no idea who these actors were. Plus I'd argue the plot is much easier to follow. Mike Judge is a genius. If anything Don't Look Up ends up being a demonstration of the celebrity worship it mocks.

chrsig 5y ago
> Idiocracy is amazing because outside of Booker T, and Scareface's cameo I had no idea who these actors were I can understand where you're coming from. I'm a marvel fan and I'm disappointed that they went with so many celbreties for Eternals -- I haven't seen it yet, but they were really more distracting than anything in the trailers. I didn't mind the actors in Don't Look Up though, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, and Jennifer Lawrence had some good chemistry. It did feel like Jonah Hill's character was literally the same character from Wolf of Wallstreet. My guess is that netflix was hoping that it'd garnish more attention having many big name actors. It's also possible those actors _wanted_ to do it as a form of expression. > If anything Don't Look Up ends up being a demonstration of the celebrity worship it mocks. I don't really think it mocked celebrity worship. Maybe to some degree with the tech ceo (I can certainly amuse myself with how HN would probably react to some of it's hivemind's idols like Jobs or PG in that situation.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > HN would probably react to some of it's hivemind's idols like Jobs or PG in that situation. Or Elon Musk. I can almost imagine the following comment on HN: "The asteroid has enough lithium to make batteries for everyone alive for the next 200 years! Anyone who supports diverting it supports government dysfunction and unmitigated destruction of wealth. This is our one shot to jumpstart space manufacturing - humans have a chance of becoming a Type II civilization, the risk is negligible and well worth it"

BrandoElFollito 5y ago

I started to watch that movie but had to stop (for a moment) because it described precisely a fear I had for some time: that we would not able to work together even in case of a deadly event that would be within our lifetime. If we had a meteor expected to hit Earth in 10 years I am sure we would not start to work on a plan to protect ourselves as THE only thing to care about. There would always be discussions about budget, China/Russia/US/[pick your country] being the villains, etc. Covid hit us very mildly and it was (and still is) a shitshow. A global disaster coming in x years (within our lifetime but not tomorrow either) wild be the end of humanity. We know that climate changes will be terrible and we simply do not care at all, as a species.

nickpp 5y ago

Seemed less like Idiocracy (smart comedy pointing out a real issue in a funny way) and much more like Dr Strangelove - a nihilistic crazy comedy showing how the way the system is setup is dooming us all. The main difference from both is that Don’t Look Up is completely implausible. Also, it isn’t very funny. But I guess people are eager to overlook that if it validates their political biases. Anyway, since Idiocracy couldn’t be made today due to the PC crowd yelling "eugenics", it is in a way a modern replacement, made straight for the woke crowd with pronouns in their Twitter bio.

Emma_Goldman 5y ago

I have to disagree. It attempts to satirise today's mass media by exaggerating its influence on politics to the point at which it revolves around little else, succumbing to what it is supposed to be objecting to: the idea of politics and politicians as trivial. The plotline was so wildly implausible that it ended up saying little about the real world. Also, the asteroid threat is not a good analogy for climate change, as it is supposed to be. Climate change is so difficult to deal with because its effects are uncertain, long-term and unevenly felt. None of those issues hold for an asteroid that will, per the plot, destroy the whole of human civilization in 6 months with 99.9% certainty absent intervention.

chrsig 5y ago
We do indeed disagree! I don't think it was saying that politics and politicians as trivial -- I think it was saying that they're not necessarily smart people, and they're certainly not necessarily acting in the best interests of the people they serve. I think they were also saying that the media serves to reinforce denial in the general population. The asteroid is just a plot device -- the message is that in the face of mortal danger, huge chunks of the population refuse to even acknowledge the danger so that any intervention can be made. And those in power will exploit that for their own enrichment. We don't just see this with climate change -- we've observed it with the previous administration...some hits: - "Lock her up" -- yes, let's just start imprisoning political rivals and see what that does for us as a society) - "Covid will go away by april" - I suppose they didn't say which april. - Hydroxychloroquine/Ivermectin/Vitamin C - Vaccines have microchips - Masks don't do anything The list goes on -- We've seen that the population is perfectly willing to disregard any science that threatens their way of life. It's easier to dismiss than to adjust.
- Emma_Goldman 5y ago
  Let me take a couple of specific examples. Upon being told that an asteroid large enough to destroy human civilization was on course to hit the earth in 6 months, the President decided that it would make strategic sense to delay announcing or acting on the threat until after the midterms - a month or so later. This was conspicuous for the fact no reason was given, which had to be the case as it makes no sense. Collective threats of this kind have historically created a rally-around-the-flag effect the helps incumbents. Even a venal politician would not assist in the imminent destruction of the planet from which they themselves could not escape. Obviously information of that magnitude of importance would leak, as it did in the film. Meaning its only effect would be to crater the President's support when it became clear they hid the truth. Even an amaetuer political observer would understand all this, let alone a Whitehouse team that won a Presidential election. Or how about the manner in which the astronomers announced their discovery? They went to the NYT, who inexplicably decided that they would forego running the biggest story in human history. Instead, they helped arrange for the astronomers to announce their discovery in a 2-minute segment on an infotainment news show. Neither the NYT, nor the astronomers, nor anyone would think that was a good idea. It would never, ever happen. During the interview, one of the astronomers got upset because the talk show hosts were nonchalant about the news of the possible end of civilization (!?). Returning to the NYT offices, they're told that the journalists were able to confirm their findings with well-respected third party scientists, but that because one of the astronomers got upset in air, they weren't going to run the story - again, easily the biggest story in human history, which anyone could appreciate at such. The upshot of this never-ending string of implausible plot points is that the film ends up obfuscating how real politics works. It dumbs politics down and makes it trivial to make an easy joke, making it part of the problem that it ostensibly satirises.