r/flicks • u/KPWHiggins • 8d ago
What are some of the weirdest film revisionist history you've heard?
I have heard a concerning amount of people say that "Norbit couldn't be made today because people would be offended"...
As if people weren't offended by it in 2007...even though I am old enough to remember people absolutely WERE offended by its portrayal of black women, asians, and, well, everyone!
It was a very controversial movie, it wasn't just criticized for being Murphy's follow up project to Dreamgirls
If anything I think it would have less controversy nowadays because it probably wouldn't go to theaters if it came out now; it probably would've been dumped straight onto Netflix, people would complain when they see the trailer, and move on the next day and not even notice when it actually comes out
It would've gone the way of Loqueesha and Sextuplets!
23
u/Mahaloth 7d ago
I saw Blazing Saddles in the late 80's and my Dad said, "Man, they could never make this today!"
People have always said that.
13
u/Alive_Ice7937 7d ago
"You couldn't make it back then"
- Mel Brooks when being asked if it could be made today
4
u/Mahaloth 6d ago
That's the reality of how it was made. It was shocking back then and somehow, he just decided to risk quite a bit and see what happened. Good thing it is funny. Much like Huck Finn from 100 years earlier, the more you look at it and you realize it is mocking the stupid White people, not the Black character(s).
52
u/RunDNA 8d ago edited 8d ago
Years later some people try and deny that certain examples of fan toxicity happened. I've seen people say that the contemporary fan reaction to the Star Wars prequels was largely positive and others say that there was not much negativity from hardcore Tolkien fans to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Although people who were around then in fan circles vividly remember all the toxicity, it can actually be tricky to prove to modern deniers, because the most convincing way is to track down contemporary evidence such as a good selection of old forum posts from decades ago to demonstrate it, which can be a difficult chore.
17
u/Due-Lingonberry-1929 8d ago
It happens all the time, the Beatles were called trash back in the day too
20
u/the_guynecologist 8d ago
My dear girl there are some things that just aren't done. Such as drinking Dom Pérignon 53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit. That's as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs.
James Bond in Goldfinger, 1964
9
u/AntiqueFigure6 8d ago
If he means attending a Beatles concert in 1964 he probably had a point between terrible sound system and screaming teenagers.
30
u/dnjprod 8d ago
No toxicity in Star Wars prequels? They bullied Jake Lloyd into schizophrenia for fuck sake.
Obviously I'm being hyperbolic, but still. They destroyed that poor kid
12
u/Mr_Badger1138 8d ago
He already had a family history of schizophrenia so that was going to happen anyway. But the bullying was still unacceptable. They bullied Ahmed Best so badly too that he nearly killed himself. Star Wars fandoms are insanely toxic and I say that as a fan.
8
u/Supervisor-194 8d ago
As a dyed in the wool Trekkie, I can attest it's little, if any, better in our collective fandom.
1
u/hubby1080 7d ago
Do the hard core like strange new worlds? I love it, but only got into Star Trek when the new movies came out. I love a show about discovering cool new worlds and all that comes with that.
-1
u/LividLife5541 7d ago
No. The series should have ended with TNG, you know, since Roddenberry had died. They should not have made the TNG movies either. DS9 ("Deep Space Whine" as it was called) was well written but not Star Trek -- note "Trek" implies the characters are on a journey. Not sitting around a bunch of ugly weirdos and their stupid gods.
There's a reason TNG got a gorgeous blu ray remaster and DS9 did not.
3
u/Dogbin005 7d ago
Also, Jake Lloyd's mum is on record saying she shielded him from criticism. (as much as possible at least)
1
u/ratcake6 6d ago
They bullied Jake Lloyd into schizophrenia for fuck sake.
He said that was school bullies, not "fans", didn't he?
7
u/scallycap94 7d ago
A related phenomenon that I'm absolutely sick of is every time a new version of an IP movie comes out, now the previous version that nobody liked has to be reappraised as some secret masterpiece. Happened with the Star Wars prequels, happened with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The latest one is the 2000s Fantastic Four movies.
1
u/demonoddy 6d ago
Yes ! I hate that so much. Rise of the silver surfer is a masterpiece now lol be for real
1
5
u/Son_of_Kong 7d ago
not much negativity from hardcore Tolkien fans
"Elrond is too old. Haldir is too fat. Frodo is too pretty. Arwen isn't pretty enough."
That's just sample, off the top of my memory.
5
2
u/RogerClyneIsAGod2 7d ago
Why did they leave out Faramir? Or was it "Why did they combine Faramir in with another character?"
I don't recall & don't care. I just wanted to see hot dudes, some with elf ears, fighting.
4
u/Son_of_Kong 7d ago
With Faramir, it was more like, "Why did they make him a jerk?"
In the books, he doesn't try to capture the Hobbits before letting them go, he helps them right away.
3
u/LividLife5541 7d ago
"contemporary fan reaction to the Star Wars prequels was largely positive"
"not much negativity from hardcore Tolkien fans to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy"
As someone who was a full-grown adult when these things came out:
- People were mostly perplexed by The Phantom Menace. Like, they made excuses like, this is a setup movie we can't expect it to be amazing, or we just remember Star Wars being better because we loved it as a kid. People didn't actively hate it. It looked amazing, especially the Jar Jar CGI. I don't remember anyone actually loving it at the time. BUT people did buy their tickets in advance. People hoped to have their minds shattered by excellence but they got the equivalent of a McDonalds cheeseburger. It was "fine."
- Phanton Menace was overshadowed by other 1999 releases - The Matrix, Sixth Sense, American Pie, Fight Club -- those got talked about a lot more.
- Now I don't know what "hardcore Tolkien fan groups" you hung out in, but the people I knew were amazed and excited that these formerly popular books were getting a new life and a new adapation. The previous film adaptations had been ... interesting but nobody would call them "good." There's just so much in the books that it's nice to see someone fully conceptualize what's in there.
- I don't think anyone was expecting that the movies would be so successful that they pretty much redefined what "LOTR" meant to people. THAT was the problem. In hindsight I completely agree with Christopher Tolkien that the movies were blasphemy, turned into action-adventure slop. As long as they were of secondary importance I didn't care.
Now as for the HOBBIT yes pretty much everyone I knew (people who could quote Tolkien at will) knew from the time the project was announced that it would be terrible and wished they had not tried to make it. And I literally do not know anyone who watched Rings of Power.
2
u/RogerClyneIsAGod2 7d ago
...hardcore Tolkien fans to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy.
OMG there most definitely was blowback to the LOTR trilogy from the hardcore fans. I experienced it first hand at a party.
I enjoyed all the films but I was nowhere near being a hardcore fan. I think I stopped reading the books in the middle of the second one.
But my husband & his cousin, both hardcore fans that hated most of the trilogy for various hardcore fanboy reasons, were about to take on another party guest over "then go back & read the books" sort of comment.
3
u/138pumpkin 5d ago
When I went to go see the first one of the LoTR movies on opening night, there was a small group of people outside the theater holding huge signs to protest the movie! 4 or 5 people each holding a sign almost as big as themselves that, combined, said "Read The Books"
But they're were written in Elvish or one of Tolkiens made-up runic languages so I don't know how effective they were to people who hadn't read the books.
2
2
u/Johnny_Radar 6d ago
There was a movie called “the people vs George Lucas” back in the day by the kind of people who thought the prequels “raped their childhood”. Yes, that was an actual phrase by prequel haters.
1
u/Strict_Jeweler8234 2d ago
I've seen people say that the contemporary fan reaction to the Star Wars prequels was largely positive and others say that there was not much negativity from hardcore Tolkien fans to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy.
I hate this lie so much.
16
u/Mahaloth 7d ago
I'd say: The prequels were appreciated at the time and only internet people mocked them.
Man, we all hated them, especially the first two. I was widespread.
I re-watched them a few years ago. Revenge of the Sith is adequate, but the first two really are more boring and terrible than I remembered.
2
u/KPWHiggins 7d ago
I remember as a kid going to a family's house and a guy saying they wish they let Jar Jar be killed when The Phantom Menace came out
1
u/Mahaloth 7d ago
I was 20 when it released. We did like parts and even today, I admit there is about 40 minutes of quality content in Phantom Menace.
But, uh, the remaining hour+ is just terrible.
I will admit, Episode IX is probably worse in terms of plot, but Phantom Menace is just atrocious.
I was actually OK watching Episode IX until.....well, the final 30 minutes or so. Just awful.
1
u/Thamnophis660 5d ago
There's at least more practical effects and an effort to have a classic Star Wars feel in the beginning of Phantom Menace. It does lose a lot of that around the 40 minute mark, I agree.
1
u/Mahaloth 5d ago
I don't mean the 40 minute mark. I mean 40 minutes of the total running time is good. It's not all in a row.
Pod Race? Neat.
Lightsaber battle? Neat
Gungan battle? Silly, but fun
Most of it was just sitting around and talking, though.
1
u/Thamnophis660 5d ago
Oh right. A total 40 minutes yeah, I can see that. My memory is the pacing and tone never quite gets as good again at around when the first third of the film is finished. Been a while since I watched it though.
1
u/Thamnophis660 5d ago
I'll concur, they weren't appreciated at the time, not widely anyway. Some people were surprised that Episode 3 wasn't the worst thing ever, but Phantom Menace was widely regarded as a disappointing movie. Same with Attack of the Clones, which I will argue is an even worse film than Phantom Menace.
The hype leading up to the Phantom Menace was incredible though. I miss the amount of excitement it created. There was little cynicism, just lots of "look at this cool new thing." It was also the first Star Wars film I saw in theatres (I was born in 1983, and I didn't see Jedi as a newborn) so I have good memories of the summer of 1999 and going and seeing the movie, even though it wasn't good. So I think nostalgia plus dislike for the new Disney films is to blame for this misconception.
1
u/Mahaloth 5d ago
I was 4 1/2 when Jedi came out and my parents took our family(I think they just really wanted to see it). I only remember Jabba's palace and my Dad nudging me when Luke took Vader's helmet off.
I saw Phantom Menace at a midnight screening. I mean, those 40 or so minutes are amazing, but the other 65% or so is super dull.
1
u/Thamnophis660 5d ago
Yeah the first 40 i would argue still has "that magic" feel, at least a little. I don't remember when Jar-Jar appears, and it's cliche to say this, but the movie gets annoying and just never recovers.
1
u/Mahaloth 5d ago
That's about 15 minutes in. After they use lightsabers to fight the gas in their room.
1
1
u/Strict_Jeweler8234 2d ago
I'd say: The prequels were appreciated at the time and only internet people mocked them.
Man, we all hated them, especially the first two. I was widespread.
I re-watched them a few years ago. Revenge of the Sith is adequate, but the first two really are more boring and terrible than I remembered.
I hate that people lie about history especially recent history.
47
u/Dan_Q2 8d ago
I get annoyed when people talk about 'Falling Down' as if it's about a guy who's finally had enough of all the assholes in life and decides to teach them a lesson. And they think he's a hero.
Completely ignoring the fact that his family already have a restraining order on him and he's been sacked from his job for improper conduct. He's the villain, not the hero.
15
u/PippyHooligan 8d ago
I absolutely, 100% agree he's not any kind of hero, but the film playfully (and maybe a bit too well) muddies the water and it's not quite as clear cut: it's the Judge - not the wife- who puts a restraining order in place (she thinks its excessive) and he was simply laid off, not sacked for misconduct.
The film gives an illusion of ambiguity about D-Fens' motivations, but does make it clear by the end that he's a terminally nostalgic guy whose sense of entitlement has bubbled over into psychosis. Absolutely not someone to admire or aspire to, no.
One thing that people who interpret the film wrong always miss/wilfully ignore is that D-Fens shoots Rachel Ticotin's good, hardworking cop at the end - all she does is get in his way. It happens off camera and it's a very quick scene, but I think it's important in dispelling the 'D-Fens doesn't hurt those who don't deserve it' bullshit.
12
1
u/Strict_Jeweler8234 2d ago
I get annoyed when people talk about 'Falling Down' as if it's about a guy who's finally had enough of all the assholes in life and decides to teach them a lesson. And they think he's a hero.
Completely ignoring the fact that his family already have a restraining order on him and he's been sacked from his job for improper conduct. He's the villain, not the hero.
Thank you.
-9
u/gillyweed79 8d ago
To be fair, that was a way more empathetic portrayal than Republicans usually get in Hollywood.
6
u/Bluest_waters 7d ago
The movie goes out of its way to show that the protaganist was NOT homophobic which the majority of Republicans were in the 90s
not sure why you think this guy was a Republican.
3
u/gillyweed79 7d ago
You're right that he wasn't overtly Republican. But come on, he's a very buttoned-down, uptight defense contractor who clearly isn't that comfortable with minorities. He certainly leans conservative in many ways.
Also, Republicans were not the only homophobes in the early nineties. Things had become more PC for sure, but I'm frequently astounded by some of the homophobic content from movies of that era. Foster probably aligned most closely with Teamster-type Democrats that there were still a lot of at the time. Very pro-labor, but certainly not a social progressive.
And that's why I think the movie works so well. It doesn't spoon-feed you. I took the fact that he wasn't homophobic as a layer of complexity. He was genuinely shocked at the end to learn he was the bad guy.
1
0
u/mootallica 8d ago
Republicans in the 90s could be more easily empathised with. It was a different world with different rules.
2
18
u/PippyHooligan 8d ago
People treat The Fast and the Furious like it was some stellar, classic movie. The first F&F wasn't particularly great, it just seems to be put on a pedestal given how different it is from the rest of the franchise. It was a lightweight Point Break rip off with non of the sexiness or charm and the franchise would have died a death if it hadn't all been cranked up to 11.
Personally I enjoy the later films a lot more: batshit, high camp soap operas, where Vin Diesel seems to be the only one taking it seriously (which is endlessly funny). Much better than the dull films at the start of the franchise.
2
u/ISuckAtFallout4 6d ago
I’m still amazed at all the fucking dorks who still try to be all fast & furious.
2
u/Nicobade 4d ago
I find it so strange when people evangelise the early Fast and Furious films like it wasn't a C list franchise hanging by a thread with most of the cast being changed out everytime and bringing in a new setting and director because they weren't sure what audiences wanted and the cast cost too much money. The later films actually built a style and continuity in character and plot to follow, and it shows in the much more successful box office returns
9
u/vemmahouxbois 8d ago
i guess the whole thing about steven spielberg taking poltergeist over from tobe hooper.
3
u/Reasonable-Coconut15 8d ago
My grandmother was convinced Steven Spielberg made and directed it, and had never heard of Tobe Hooper, which is how I ended up being taken to see that movie at 5 years old.
2
u/NoHoliday1387 7d ago
Yeah. Unfortunately, the industry had been gunning for that revisionist history since the moment the film was released... even before (they hated Hooper, loved Spielberg).
2
u/Reasonable-Coconut15 7d ago
Yeah they must have been, because she was positive it was basically a follow up to E.T.
And the movie was rated PG when it came out, because PG13 didn't exist and someone was asleep that day at the MPAA.
1
u/NoHoliday1387 6d ago
And you turned out fine!
People - young people - are convinced Poltergeist isn't scary anymore... but even if it isn't, it does have that feeling of danger that is a distinctly Hooper talent. I also feel like the MPAA actually were just about to give it an R, and Spielberg talked them down from it. This also may have just been an elaborate PR stunt (but then parents wouldn't be inclined to bring kids to it, so maybe it was a real story).
8
u/DudebroggieHouser 7d ago edited 7d ago
“Adam Sandler proved he could be serious when he made Uncut Gems!”
They’re acting like Punch Drunk Love, Reign Over Me, Funny People, and about half of The Wedding Singer & Big Daddy never happened.
1
1
u/Strict_Jeweler8234 2d ago
“Adam Sandler proved he could be serious when he made Uncut Gems!”
They’re acting like Punch Drunk Love, Reign Over Me, Funny People, and about half of The Wedding Singer & Big Daddy never happened.
Usually when people say this. They use movies which are flops or independent. You used mainstream hits. Thank you. Your point is not "this indie bullshit you never heard of".
16
u/Anooj4021 8d ago edited 8d ago
The claim that the ”Transatlantic” accent was invented for Hollywood movies, that it was ”half-British/half-American”, and that everyone was forced to speak it in 1930s-40s movies.
In reality, it was a codification/distillation of the already existing old money Northeastern Elite accents, something directly stated in contemporary speech guides of the time. People like Margaret McLean or Edith Skinner did not claim to be inventing some new accent for acting purposes in their writings, and Northeastern aristocrats can be heard speaking such accents in audio recordings that pre-date Hollywood sound pictures by many decades. It also heavily resembled upper class UK speech, so the ”half-British/half-American” part is myth as well (and those speech guides never refer to such an idea). In reality, it was known by names like Eastern Standard, Good American Speech, Standard American, or colloquially The Eastern Accent.
While some actors indeed spoke it (Katherine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Grace Kelly), there was actually a wide variety of accents in older Hollywood movies. If I had to make a guesstimate, only some 15-20% spoke Eastern Standard, 50-60% spoke something close to General American (obviously in a more conservative form than ours), and the rest were regional accents (such as the New York accents of Humphrey Bogart or Edward G. Robinson, or the upper class Virginian accent of Randolph Scott), or even foreign-tinted (e.g. Ingrid Bergman and Yul Brynner had noticeable traces of Swedish and Russian, respectively).
This debunking by linguist Dr. Geoff Lindsey is well worth watching: https://youtu.be/9xoDsZFwF-c?si=LoChrFHTIdjoIDRj
1
u/Strict_Berry7446 4d ago
Just asking cause I’m curious. Have you heard anything about the New Punk accent that is said to only exist for the genre
6
u/aleister94 7d ago
Most of the criticisms of the Star Wars sequels, I mean there’s some thing to criticize sure but people were literally just making up stuff that never happened
4
u/JonathanStat 7d ago
There’s this weird subset of Prometheus fandom whom I see online from time to time who are convinced that Prometheus is actually a beloved classic. They’re certain that people are afraid to declare their love for the movie out loud because they’ll get bullied by the Internet.
3
u/Son_of_Kong 7d ago
"Ghostbusters isn't a comedy, it's a supernatural action/horror movie with good jokes."
3
u/Strict_Berry7446 4d ago
“Nobody understood Robocop was a satire back in the day”
Dawg, you think we all saw the SUX 2000 and thought they were being serious?
1
u/Strict_Jeweler8234 2d ago
“Nobody understood Robocop was a satire back in the day”
Dawg, you think we all saw the SUX 2000 and thought they were being serious?
Yes. There are literally millions of people that dumb then and now.
1
u/Strict_Berry7446 2d ago
What a pointless things to say. Nobody uses the words “everybody and nobody” literally and everybody knows that
0
u/Strict_Jeweler8234 2d ago
What a pointless things to say. Nobody uses the words “everybody and nobody” literally and everybody knows that
I wasn't saying "not literally everybody". I was attacking the core of what you said because I understood you perfectly the first time: you believe only a small fringe didn't get the satire.
But the vast majority of people didn't. Those who got it are actively the fringe.
If I tell you believe the opposite of the truth that isn't the same thing as "not literally everybody".
I have a feeling you knew this and you're lying trying to antagonize people.
1
u/Strict_Berry7446 2d ago
Okay, I was there, and I disagree with the premise. That’s less fun to say, but I hope you enjoy it
9
u/Appdownyourthroat 8d ago
Anything could be made today. Literally anything. It will just fly under the radar until it gets a cult following or is forgotten. Nobody cares anymore.
3
u/gnilradleahcim 7d ago
I think it's more in reference to "it would never get made AND RELEASED by the same people/funded by the same people/studios."
Sure, anyone can guerilla/zero budget make anything you want, but good luck releasing it anywhere that will ever gets eyes on it. Even YouTube will happily take stuff down if it gets enough negative attention in regards to politics and social issues.
All you have to do is look at well known examples of studios burying old stuff they made IE Disney to know that what you're saying isn't true. You aren't going to get a modern day $200m budget $200m advertising Disney/Pixar animated Song of the South.
No doubt, some rando can spend 6 years making a blender remake of it, but they can't release it anywhere for $ and certainly nobody will see it.
4
u/KPWHiggins 8d ago
People confuse criticism with not being allowed to be made. Just look at Shane Gillis.
2
u/mormonbatman_ 6d ago
I'm really interested in how kids these days dismiss some films and elevate others.
Ex:
I see a recurrent critique of, say, the Dark knight and an elevation of, say, the Star wars prequels.
I suspect I will live long enough for audiences to turn on something like Avengers 4.
5
u/lets_shake_hands 8d ago
After that description of Norbit, I have to see it now.
No movie should ever be censored or edited for being "offensive" to someone. Doesn't matter when it was made, it is a time capsule.
The new 4K edition of Australia's classic 1986 movie Crocodile Dundee - The encore cut has 2 scenes removed from the original for being "offensive" today. Absolutely ridiculous.
3
u/dnjprod 8d ago
The encore cut has 2 scenes removed from the original for being "offensive" today. Absolutely ridiculous.
Yo, what? Bullshit
6
u/lets_shake_hands 8d ago edited 8d ago
100%. They removed the scene where he grabs the transvestites crotch and says "that's a man" and when he grabs the old lady's crotch thinking it was a man.
ETA - not sure why this comment is getting down voted. This is the scenes that they actually cut from the new 4K release.
Seems facts don't matter.
3
u/cp5184 8d ago
Is that what austin powers was spoofing?
2
u/lets_shake_hands 8d ago
No, I think he says "that's a guy or a bloke" in the movie. The joke was the character Crocodile Dundee was a guy from Central Australia who is naive to the world but goes to New York and is in a bar and gets hit on by a transvestite. He doesn't know what one is.
-1
8d ago
[deleted]
4
u/dnjprod 8d ago
Crocodile Dundee absolutely didn't come out after Austin Powers...
-6
8d ago
[deleted]
7
u/dnjprod 8d ago
I'm not sure you nderstand how Reddit works. You see, there is a general topic, and a sometimes, a question. Sometimes, that question gives an example to show what they mean by the question. Then, people give their own examples of what they think answers the question being asked.
Specifically, the question was: "What are some of the weirdest film revisionist history you've heard?" As part of their explanation for the question was the example of Norbit.
Now, a commenter gave their own example "Crocodile Dundee." Another person(me) responded to that comment. The Original commenter responded to me and someone else mentioned Austin Powers. That is who you responded to. I responded to you.
So, no. I didn't bring up Crocodile Dundee, and we definitely weren't talking about Norbit. But thanks for incorrecting me..
1
u/ML_120 8d ago
I remember people whining about a short infoscreen that ran for a couple of seconds before an older comedy film.
Nothing in the film was changed, they just had what boils down to a "viewers discretion" message before it.
1
u/lets_shake_hands 8d ago
The movie Blink Twice from last year I saw at the cinema and it had a warning like that before it started. I thought WTF. This is an R rated movie. I am paying to see this. I don't need a warning. That is the only time I have ever seen one at the cinema.
93
u/Pjoernrachzarck 8d ago edited 8d ago
This whole weird reddit circlejerky “Audiences back then missed the point of Fight Club / Starship Troopers” thing.
Nobody ( * ) missed the fact that Tyler Durden was an antagonist. Nobody ( * ) missed Doogie Houser walking around in a literal SS uniform killing cows and torturing the puppy-eyed brain bug. You, modern audience, are not better at recognizing satire than audiences in 97/99. In fact you might be a little worse, because audiences today expect things to be morality plays in a way that just wasn’t fashionable in the 90s.
Because even though Tyler Durden was an antagonist, of course you were meant to find him alluring. Of course you were meant to consider his arguments. Of course some part of you was meant to want to be more like him. Tyler Durden was the personification of late-90s-business-work fatigue (as seen in office space, the matrix, american beauty, etc), of course his plan of bringing it all down in a crash was meant to tap into the zeitgeist. Durden’s critique was genuine, his sex appeal sincere. That doesn’t mean it can’t also be an ironic deconstruction. In fact that made the ironic deconstruction interesting. Audiences picked up on that in a way modern audiences seem not to.
Fincher doesn’t say “you are wrong for finding a lot of what this man does and says attractive”. He says ‘be aware of what you wish for here. Know the violence and fruitlessness within this fantasy.’ Walking out of the theatre wishing to quit your job and start a fight club wasn’t ‘missing the point’. It was an intended effect as much as the opposite was the intended effect. It was missing, at most, half the point.
Starship Troopers, and all Verhoeven films, is the same story. Verhoeven absolutely wants you to enjoy the plastic gory cartoon on a surface level as well as on the satire level. And likewise invites you to enjoy the ridiculousness of your own monkey brain, as much as he himself enjoys it. The fascism satire was unmissable to anyone but the blindest audience member, but there was no paradox in enjoying, in equal parts, the heroic antics of our protagonists. You weren’t expected to dislike what the movie criticises. You were invited to investigate why these flawed systems and rethorics appeal to you. That was the point. Not leaving the theatre proudly declaring that you correctly identified who the bad guys are.
Modern TV/movies predominantly operate on clear moral boundaries. Characters are moral and therefore meant to be identified with, or they are not and therefore they are the ‘other’. But the 90s was a space where this was just not true. That vague space between appeal and disgust was the proverbial point. People loved going to that point. They had absolutely no problem identifying and recognizing that point. Nobody back then missed that Starship Troopers was All Quiet On The Western Front With Ken Dolls. But that didn’t stop anybody from also enjoying the dolls.
That’s the whole reason these movies feel a little odd now, and the contemporary audience’s enthusiasm for their hero/antagonists feels a little dated. The conversations that Fight Club and Starship Troopers wanted to make happen, happened.
( * ) of course there is no such thing as Nobody and Everybody. A part of your audience will always be irredeemably idiotic