#it’s annoying because it’s just typical tumblr backlash at something popular

[alltingfinns]

I’ve said it before. CGI works best when it’s used to enhance practical effects. (Like Jurassic Park that did have CGI, but not like later movies that only used CGI.)

I wouldn’t blame Marvel movies though as 1) the increased reliance on CGI predates the MCU by a far bit (most infamously in the SW PT that came out 1999-2005 when IM came out 2008) and 2) the mcu still has used practical effects. You think the fake chest Tony asked Pepper to stick her hand in was digital?

It’s honestly annoying how everyone wants to blame “marvel movies” for the decline of western civilization or whatever. Just say that you don’t know that other movie franchises exist, and have no idea of the larger trends of the entertainment industry.

Besides, we all know the real blame lies with T2; Judgement Day.

Producers were always going to prefer cgi over practical as computing gets cheaper and cheaper. CGI effects don’t require storage or upkeep, and won’t break down on set.

But Terminator 2 made even less realistic usage of CGI look “cool”. (Though it’s worth pointing out that one of the more visually engaging effects, the drops combining to reconfigure the T-1000, is actually a practical effect.) Regardless of wether the CGI was good/bad/correctly implemented, the point is that this movie had some of the most obvious examples. And it was an absolute blockbuster.

The popularity of this movie with the audience would certainly have convinced the producers in Hollywood that movies made this way could still make money. And it was the early nineties so computers had started to become cheaper and cheaper.

You can see a pretty clear break between the eighties and nineties in terms of practical effects (including puppetry) being replaced by cgi. Nineties cgi is horribly dated now, but immensely popular at the time. Though even then, by the late nineties at least, people were getting sick of it.

But sure. “Marvel movies” are why people nowadays aren’t used to practical effects. They’re also why silent film stars can’t catch a break with the “talkies” and why everything is in color.

Marvel movies have completely eliminated the concept of practical effects from the movie-watching public’s consciousness

[lightsandlostbells]

Hi! This was prompted by people excusing the Williams’s behavior as “realistic,” but I really hate when the remakes do problematic things and people excuse it as “realism.” It’s like when Nico said the n word and people said “it’s realistic to Italy and that’s what Skam it all about. Skam is supposed to show people being problematic because it’s realistic.” While that’s true, the characters usually learn from their problematic behavior (sometimes they don’t, but that’s another story). (1)

Skam is supposed to educate and help teenagers. Also, as you’ve pointed out before, Skam is very idealistic and it annoys me to no end when people excuse problematic aspects of the remakes by saying “it’s realistic.” I’m telling you this because you’re one of the main accounts I know who understands this. I’m just tired of constantly seeing this excuse whenever there’s some kind of discourse about a remake. (2)

Agreed completely. I feel like it’s especially transparent when people are quick to use “realism” as a defense for criticisms of the show, like characters being racist or sexist, but will similarly downplay or tell you to get over the less “realistic” aspects of various remakes - things like casting actors well into their twenties to play teenagers, or Italian Sana’s casting, or scenes that simply feel more out of a dramatic Hollywood fantasy of high school rather than something that would actually happen to real teenagers. It’s also telling to me that people talking about Skam’s “realism” are usually referring to the negative features of the characters or show, the clips that spotlight anger and misery, the dialogue that shows off casual bigotry, as if reality is constant ugliness. Happiness and empathy and kindness are rarely lauded as “realistic” even though they do have a place in the world. 

I have seen people genuinely say things like “Skam isn’t supposed to be educational, it’s supposed to be realistic” and I have no idea what show people watched, because Skam has been educational from the beginning. It has been since the series was conceived. It may not always be successful at it but the educational aspects are baked into the characters, the dialogue, the stories Julie chose to tell. And Skam’s idealism is very, very clear. I could list tons of examples. I mean … listen to Jonas’ speech in the finale. The last words of the show are Fear spreads, but fortunately, love does too. How do you hear that and think the intended message of the show was anything but idealism? It acknowledges that things suck, but encourages viewers to strive for the best parts of reality.

I feel like we have to recognize that Skam meant a hell of a lot to many fans, not just as a piece of entertainment with twists and drama and copious amounts of people walking in slow motion, but as something personal and touching, and much of that impact came from its educational nature and idealism. Is it fair to ask that from the remakes, too? Well, I certainly don’t think it’s unfair. They are borrowing the Skam brand name, the stories, the characters, the dialogue. Of course it’s totally fine for them to adapt the shows to the different settings and to make changes big and small - but I have to ask: if the remakes were not interested in helping teenagers of their own cultures the same way that the original show was (no matter Skam’s flaws - I don’t want to put it on a pedestal) - then what’s the point? Why recreate Skam instead of coming up with their own juicy teen drama? You can’t help but think they’ve missed the heart of the original show and are just producing a shallow copy. Or you end up with a more cynical interpretation, that a remake uninterested in educating or helping youth is being made primarily to profit from an existing success - and honestly, all of the remakes were probably hoping to score some of Skam’s popularity, but at least you can hope that the production teams do have more benevolent intentions. Is that naive? I don’t think so. I think Skam, whatever its flaws, did have more clearly altruistic motivations behind its creation than the majority of television series (which also affects how people engage with it, but that’s perhaps another topic), so it is possible, and I definitely think that on the whole, there are a lot of people involved with the remakes who listen to teenagers and want to reach them and help them. But it’s OK to speak out when you think there’s been a misstep.

And I do get that a lot of backlash comes from clashes in an international fandom consuming multiple versions of the same stories from different cultures with different standards for what is or isn’t problematic, and I get that a lot of people really just want to have a good time with a TV show they enjoy and not be made to feel guilty about it or to wade through 1000 angry posts about a throwaway line that offended other people. I don’t know about everyone, but Tumblr is most definitely a Fun Time thing for me. When a fandom ceases to be fun and is just all rage and bitterness, I tend to dip out, because I don’t need to fill my free time with those negative emotions. But at the same time, I recognize that people can be hurt or angered by media and that it’s not my place to tell people to suck it up and stop complaining.

(Also, just because something is realistic does not mean you need to like it, either? Skam Austin could have been set instead in a very white area of the US, with all the characters written as Trump supporters. That would be very realistic for parts of the US. That doesn’t mean I have to be OK with that choice.)

(And … it’s not a documentary. Despite whatever research the teams have done, these aren’t real people. These are characters who have writers, directors, and actors putting words in their mouths. The writing can be technically “realistic” but still playing into tired, offensive tropes - if Even had killed himself at the end of S3, that would have been “realistic.” Depressed people can commit suicide. But should we have just accepted that? Should we have been OK with the typical tragic Bury Your Gays ending with the mentally ill person whose life ends in suffering? Or maybe, just maybe, there was a point to Julie Andem deliberately subverting those expectations, and maybe the intent was not just to create a TV series that would make the audience cry but to uplift and heal them?)

Anyway. I feel like we need to move beyond just using “it’s realistic” as a shield for criticism. Like if a character uses a racist, misogynistic, or homophobic slur - is there a point to it in the scene? Is it being called out? Is it being used to critique a racist/misogynistic/homophobic environment? Do we see how the slur affects the marginalized characters it refers to, or is it just tossed around by the privileged characters who are unaffected? Does anyone react to it at all? If the slur is presented without objection or commentary, does it come across as if the show is normalizing the word rather than condemning it? Could the scene have functioned just as well without the slur? And so on. Just stopping at “it’s realistic so people shouldn’t have a problem with it” is lazy and simplistic. We can ask better from our media, especially a show like Skam that is intended to not just to depict its target audience accurately, but to demonstrate positive messages and solutions for tough situations.