Are we allowed to Romanticize anything anymore?

[Gorrath]

I believe he is commenting on the backlash that romanticizing things tends to get these days.

I think thal's pointing out how inane and overly dramatic it is to go on about it as such. People railing against the cynics seem to make this out to be a level at which it's actually barred, even though the movies and books will still be made. It would be like people saying "are we allowed to make any action movies anymore?" Because people criticised the Star Wars prequels.

That may be true, and it does seem likely, but I'd not want to presume. In any case it didn't seem to address the OP's actual question as much as just mock his, as you say, overly dramatic tone. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[Eggsnham]

It's not a bad thing to do, a fluffy romance story taking place in the 1000 AD era probably can get away with making medieval European life a lot less dirty than it actually was. It's when the history of the era gets ignored in more dramatic pieces, and then the producers advertise it as realistic, or push the "based on a true story" moniker, that people start to get nit-picky. Hollywood seems to want to have its cake and eat it to, they want to be able to take whatever liberties with history they desire, then still try to sell us on its historical accuracy at times. Sometimes this works, but others it tends to strain the viewers suspension of disbelief to the breaking point.

Also interesting is that people tend to (in my experience) dislike films that stick too heavily to historical accuracy. Partially because it meant trying to understand something that we don't live with or have to understand, and partially because reality is usually not as exciting as fiction.

I remember watching a movie in high school about the crusades and I lost count of how many times people kept pointing out that everybody in the movie was generally unclean in appearance and used it as a reason to dislike the film.

Granted, it was in high school... so, you know.

 

[Riot3000]

I don't think Django or Captain America were really romanticized just really campy and fun. I never heard any criticism of captain america sucking america's dick for two hours but I think its a matter of context. Movies like Cap and Django can be campy all they want but if it is a period piece or historical movie then their is a fine line to balance.

I also don't we are living in a age of pure cynicism it just depends on the subject or the context of the conversation. I know it tends to be hyperbole but the PC boogeyman is really does not hold much sway.

 

[loc978]

Allowed is a funny word. Yes, anyone is allowed to romanticize anything they want... and anyone else is allowed to criticize said work. I see as much backlash for historically accurate portrayals as romanticized ones. People have different tastes, and tend to criticize things that don't cater to them... especially loudly, nowadays. We don't live in an age of cynicism as much as we live in an age of histrionics.

In short, Hollywood can't make anything without fear of backlash... romanticized or not (and yes, there was plenty for every Tarantino film, Basterds as well as Django).

 

[Tom_green_day]

People assume that for all tragic events that people didn't like them. For some this may be true but for example in WW1 lots of people wanted the war to continue longer than it did, there was no unified opinion either way. Due to this romanticising is fine in my books.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah, but didn't he actually fight, like, Nazis in the comic?

Keep in mind, I'm not a Captain America reader per se. I have a bunch of Cap comics from the 80s and 890s though, mostly where they tied in with other characters (Spider-Man, other primary Avengers like Iron Man, etc)

It is my understanding that he hasn't fought Nazis in a long time. The original comics are from a way different period, and heroes were different then even if one ignores the propaganda of punching Hitler. note that propaganda doesn't mean it's wrong, but Cap served as a propaganda piece either way. So yes, he used to fight Nazis. But this is a character we're bringing to the present, and while his attitude towards the modern world is important to his character, explicitly fighting the Nazis is more of an artifact of a bygone time. Changing it so Hydra is the major threat as far as Cap is concerned makes sense to me in the same sense that Tony Stark shouldn't be captured in Vietnam. Hell, the Taliban or whoever got him in afghanistan will become dated eventually, but Hydra? Well, cut off one head, two more...Oh, you've heard the slogan.

I'd also note that the more recent media I've seen has done this same retcon to the story. Hydra is a big player inmost versions of Steve's origin now.

Anyway, I'm not sure they feared romanticising the Nazis all that much. I just think Hydra makes a better segway than Hitler.

Steve Rogers is already a tough act to keep contemporary. That was even the reason they killed him off a couple years back. Or, the reason they gave. I buy it, though. I don't think there's nowhere for his character to go, I just think that it's probably difficult writing that guy in the modern era of comics. It doesn't hurt that people's idea of what Cap is and should be is heavily divided to begin with.

That may be true, and it does seem likely, but I'd not want to presume. In any case it didn't seem to address the OP's actual question as much as just mock his, as you say, overly dramatic tone. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Keep in mind that the original post complains about one line (okay, I think it was said a couple times) in a Nostalgia Critic review. One line in which he then immediately goes on to praise it. Doug talked about how the series (and to a lesser extent, the film) worked. Within context of the romanticised bit. This makes it come off as not just overly dramatic, but incredibly whiny. You know those people who get offended if someone says "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" when they're in earshot? AKA my family? Or those people who react to Anita Sarkeesian so reflexively that if you mentioned she tied her shoes, they would start a diatribe against her stance on shoelaces vs velcro?

It sounds like the OP heard the word "romanticised" and went off on a tirade, even though there was no contextual ground to do so.

Given the notion that we can't do something because someone doesn't like it does seem like grounds for the above response.

Though maybe it was just mockery. I can't say for sure it wasn't. I can, however, add context. The original post comes off as petulance, rather than a serious and legitimate gripe. Bringing up Captain America only solidifies that in my mind.

And, I mean, the only reason I watched the Disneycember video in the first place is because Blip's autoplay was on, I was washing dishes, and the Santa video had just ended. I mean, is Doug Walker anti-romanticisation? After his adulation of various Santa Clauses in movies, I sincerely doubt it. But this was the starting poiint for a rant about cynicism and political correctness.

I think the ultimate answer is that as long as there is no legal prohibition, there is no prohibition. Even if some people don't like it.

Now, my response probably would have been more to Twilight and Transformers (both chosen because there's a Cullen involved. >.>) and how they are franchises despite complaints and hate. And you know what? I'm decidedly against both series. Well, to clarify, I'm against Bayformers. And all the criticism, all the anger, all the hate that Bay has destroyed Transformers and Meyers has ruined vampires and Obama is stealing Christmas doesn't change that.

But I think both approaches are aimed at the same endgoal here.

And on my last tangent, I'm just going to say I don't think it's all or nothing anyway. There's nothing wrong with romanticised media, but you can go too far. just like everything else. It's a tool or a method. I hate overly grim and dark material, too. History can be dry, realistic can be boring, etc. etc.

 

[Gorrath]

That may be true, and it does seem likely, but I'd not want to presume. In any case it didn't seem to address the OP's actual question as much as just mock his, as you say, overly dramatic tone. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Keep in mind that the original post complains about one line (okay, I think it was said a couple times) in a Nostalgia Critic review. One line in which he then immediately goes on to praise it. Doug talked about how the series (and to a lesser extent, the film) worked. Within context of the romanticised bit. This makes it come off as not just overly dramatic, but incredibly whiny. You know those people who get offended if someone says "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" when they're in earshot? AKA my family? Or those people who react to Anita Sarkeesian so reflexively that if you mentioned she tied her shoes, they would start a diatribe against her stance on shoelaces vs velcro?

It sounds like the OP heard the word "romanticised" and went off on a tirade, even though there was no contextual ground to do so.

Given the notion that we can't do something because someone doesn't like it does seem like grounds for the above response.

Though maybe it was just mockery. I can't say for sure it wasn't. I can, however, add context. The original post comes off as petulance, rather than a serious and legitimate gripe. Bringing up Captain America only solidifies that in my mind.

And, I mean, the only reason I watched the Disneycember video in the first place is because Blip's autoplay was on, I was washing dishes, and the Santa video had just ended. I mean, is Doug Walker anti-romanticisation? After his adulation of various Santa Clauses in movies, I sincerely doubt it. But this was the starting poiint for a rant about cynicism and political correctness.

I think the ultimate answer is that as long as there is no legal prohibition, there is no prohibition. Even if some people don't like it.

Now, my response probably would have been more to Twilight and Transformers (both chosen because there's a Cullen involved. >.>) and how they are franchises despite complaints and hate. And you know what? I'm decidedly against both series. Well, to clarify, I'm against Bayformers. And all the criticism, all the anger, all the hate that Bay has destroyed Transformers and Meyers has ruined vampires and Obama is stealing Christmas doesn't change that.

But I think both approaches are aimed at the same endgoal here.

And on my last tangent, I'm just going to say I don't think it's all or nothing anyway. There's nothing wrong with romanticised media, but you can go too far. just like everything else. It's a tool or a method. I hate overly grim and dark material, too. History can be dry, realistic can be boring, etc. etc.

Firstly, allow me to express my appreciation that you took the time to respond in such detail, and mention that I largely agree with you. The OP's way of going about his question, and the examples provided do seem to be a bit shaky, but I think the over all question he seemed to be asking has some merit. Specifically, why does there seem to be a backlash against romanticism in favor of cynicism and dark themes? I responded to the question a bit already, in that I think it has to do with the general feeling of weakness and helplessness of the times, mixed with what seems like a never ending barrage of bad news about ways everyone's getting screwed. It's hard to appreciate the fanciful and romantic when one feels punished simply for existing.

But, while I do agree that the examples he picked might not be the best (I've no knowledge of Nostalgia Critic and didn't see any great backlash against Captain America) I can say that there does seem to be a tremendous movement in media in general away from the romantic and toward the cynical and dark. The Bayformers you and I seem to mutually despise are a good example of this, along with DCs myriad of films, dark and gritty sci-fi, dark and gritty war movies, dark and gritty dramas, dark and gritty fantasy. That's not to say there is no romantic media being produce, but the preponderance certainly seems askew.

I'm not against all the dark and gritty myself, as I do like "realistic" or at least cynical takes on things. I consider myself a cynic and a romantic (believing the first, hoping for the second), and find that both can be appealing when done well. Until the third Iron Man movie I thought Marvel was doing a fine job a being more romantic than cynical, and I find myself appreciating it. I liked Pacific Rim more than I should have because it's much more lighthearted and more heroic than so much else of what's out there, and it's a movie about aliens from another dimension trying to wipe out humanity!

As to you points about things not being banned if not banned legally and that a thing can be a franchise despite an outcry and hate, I agree on both counts. However, I would add that censorship does not just come from government, but can come from anyone in a position of authority and power. Critics, editors, movie execs and, perhaps to the greatest degree, the all mighty dollar can do a lot to affect what media makes it to our eyes and ears. I feel I can say with some certainty that the deluge of dark and gritty being produced isn't simply because no one's making anything romantic. But again, I think it's because of the mood of the culture.

Lastly, I agree that it is never all or nothing. The cynical or romantic can become trite when it begins to border on propaganda or crushes our suspense of disbelief.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I think people still like romanticizing the past. It seems that romanticization of the past could be dangerous, though. We don't want to romanticize the wrong things, like slavery and nazism, nor should we let our romanticization of the past interfere with the present, as many conservatives pining for the 50's do. We should also stay aware of the reality of the times we romanticize too, I think[footnote]for instance: the allies in WWII weren't squeaky clean good guys. They did terrible shit too, just nothing so bad as what the Nazis and Imperial Japan did.[/footnote].

 

[Vale]

You are perfectly allowed to practice hero-worship and romanticize whatever historical misunderstandings you wish. But you will be criticized for it. That is inevitable. Accept it or stop trying to romanticize things. It really is an awful practice.

 

[Poppy JR.]

Of course we can! Pirates of the Caribbean and the most recent Assassin's Creed game romanticized pirates, for instance. Romanticized, well, romance, is in just about every teen flick, romantic comedy, etc. Space travel is romanticized constantly (except maybe Gravity).

 

[Rariow]

It's not that we're allowed to, we're actively expected to. The whole point of fiction is romanticizing things - unless you're making a super-realistic piece of fiction, the version of the real world you're presenting in your work is going to be romanticized in some way. Fiction is never the same as what it portrays, and if it's "better", then someone, somewhere, will perceive that as romanticizing it.

The criticism you're talking about comes from romanticizing things that to this day are issues. Django arguably romanticized racism (whether it did or not is a whole other discussion. I personally don't agree that it did, but let's assume it did for argument's sake), which is still a problem. Captain America apparently romanticized American militaristic nationalism (I wouldn't know, haven't seen the film), which some would consider to be a problem (myself included). You're allowed and even expected to make things look better than they are/were in fiction as long as you're not portraying something that is commonly accepted as negative in the real-world in a positive light.

 

[Olas]

I don't find romanticism to be condemned nearly as much as it used to be. If anything people seem to want more of it. Man of Steel tried to de-romanticize Superman in many ways and got tons of flack for it. I think it's only ideas that we consider outdated or backwards in the first place that we dislike romanticizing.

Has Romanticising things been banned by the UN or your own government?

If not, you're allowed to do it. People are allowed to condemn you for romanticising things.

Perhaps you should read more than just the thread title before posting. OP clearly explains that he's talking about whether romanticism is allowed from acultural perspective not a legal one.

 

[FalloutJack]

Of course you can romanticise. That's what movies are FOR.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

I don't know how to put this without sounding like a right-wing nutjub shouting "Liberal hate America!", but yeah, the PC crowd do have a negative of opinion of America. As such, they lash out of any positive, or even non-critical, portrayal of America, American history, or American figures.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't find romanticism to be condemned nearly as much as it used to be. If anything people seem to want more of it. Man of Steel tried to de-romanticize Superman in many ways and got tons of flack for it.

Being shit might also be a reason there, though. A darker Superman might have sold to a modern audience. A brighter Superman might have been written off as cornball. I mean, honestly.

 

[Aaron Boyd]

So I was just watching one of Nostalgia Critic's latest videos. He is doing Disneycember and this year is focusing on the live action films. The one I just finished watching it that of Davy Crocket. In his review/summary he says repeatedly that it is a romanticized version of the historical figure. It got me to thinking. Are we allowed to romanticize anything anymore?

Yes and no. True, we do live in a cynical, post-Vietnam, post-Iraq, post-Wikileaks age, but this isn't the first time it's happened. People were pretty cynical during the Depression, two World Wars, Nehuchadnezzer's destruction of the Second Temple, the black death, and at least four or five other sad things that happened in human history. But things change. As a species, we're incapable of holding any mood for too long.

I'm an English major at one of the best schools on the planet, and I'll tell you right now that all these trends and fads move like a pendulum; if it swings too far in one direction, it will right itself and swing in the opposite. There's countless examples of this, even in recent history. Compare the "Aw shucks, gee maw, it sure is swell not to know any Jewish folk!" naivety of the 1950's with the angry rebellion on the 60's, and then compare THAT to the staid conservatism of the 80's. And the neo-conservatism of the 2000's, which lead to the progress liberalism of Barack Obama in 2008.

Basically, societies tend to lurch awkwardly from one extreme to the other, and in the process, they sort of accidentally find a middle ground. It's not as bad as it sounds. Honest.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't know how to put this without sounding like a right-wing nutjub shouting "Liberal hate America!", but yeah, the PC crowd do have a negative of opinion of America. As such, they lash out of any positive, or even non-critical, portrayal of America, American history, or American figures.

Are you being serious? Because that sounds largely made up. It's certainly not in keeping with the reality of the origins of this thread (Or do you think the Nostalgia Critic is 'PC'?)