Ask HN: Is it wrong for Hollywood to make a WW3 movie based on current events?
3 comments
Moral wrongs are typically built from subjective moral frameworks and those frameworks IMO are more interesting than the conclusive wrong/right outcome they may yield.
Example: Getting a populace, which already thinks in extreme terms about the future, to view more extreme content about the future, is probably risky and downright unhealthy for a lot of those who will view & then feel increased stress or anxiety
Counterexample: Allowing the populace to exorcise its fear through an affecting viewing experience could be a really good outcome in terms of creating more careful discourse; see for example _Threads_ or _The Day After_
Personally I have to say I lean toward the counterexample, especially if a variety of filmmakers are making different films about the consequences of given timelines. In this case you get a dilution or diversion of energy through varying psychological perspectives, which is helpful in creating systems of nuanced thought.
You can also do this within a single film and this has become a more common way of handling narrative perspectives in modern cinema.
And more generally I lean toward "here's a good way to go about this process of thinking about X" rather than "should we do this X thing" because you can fill the judgment-vacuum with ideas that people can use, rather than simply creating a massive and risky judgment vacuum by casting perceptions of what may happen.
Interesting Q though, you got me thinking.
Example: Getting a populace, which already thinks in extreme terms about the future, to view more extreme content about the future, is probably risky and downright unhealthy for a lot of those who will view & then feel increased stress or anxiety
Counterexample: Allowing the populace to exorcise its fear through an affecting viewing experience could be a really good outcome in terms of creating more careful discourse; see for example _Threads_ or _The Day After_
Personally I have to say I lean toward the counterexample, especially if a variety of filmmakers are making different films about the consequences of given timelines. In this case you get a dilution or diversion of energy through varying psychological perspectives, which is helpful in creating systems of nuanced thought.
You can also do this within a single film and this has become a more common way of handling narrative perspectives in modern cinema.
And more generally I lean toward "here's a good way to go about this process of thinking about X" rather than "should we do this X thing" because you can fill the judgment-vacuum with ideas that people can use, rather than simply creating a massive and risky judgment vacuum by casting perceptions of what may happen.
Interesting Q though, you got me thinking.
Why would it be wrong?
It would be taking advantage of people losing their lives in a war to make money.
How do you feel about movies portraying settled wars or real life disasters? Or even movies about individuals that died?
What about hypothetical wars in general?
Or movies that bear a striking resemblence to current events?
Personally, I don't think there's any moral issue with making a film based on current events, although there may be some artistic issues. And sometimes there's issues around misrepresentation or use of likeness, which might have a moral component.
A hyptothetical WW3 movie might also have moral issues about glorifying violence or vilifying populations, depending on the film. But that's not an inherent problem with the setting, just a hazard to hopefully be avoided.
What about hypothetical wars in general?
Or movies that bear a striking resemblence to current events?
Personally, I don't think there's any moral issue with making a film based on current events, although there may be some artistic issues. And sometimes there's issues around misrepresentation or use of likeness, which might have a moral component.
A hyptothetical WW3 movie might also have moral issues about glorifying violence or vilifying populations, depending on the film. But that's not an inherent problem with the setting, just a hazard to hopefully be avoided.
But people would want to see it for the explosions and destruction worldwide, which seems wrong to me given that the movie would be partly based on current events.
I dunno, I don't see the moral wrong. I'm assuming the producers didn't whisper thoughts of invasion into Putin's ear to juice the numbers on their film. On an artistic level, I'd hope their process was more of 'hmmm I wonder how these current events might turn out, what stories can I tell' rather than the more cynical, 'wow, I bet I can sell a bunch of tickets it I make some cool explosions and milk this conflict', but either way it's a way for people to explore the conflict.
But how do you feel about Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor on a moral level? It was more or less a vehicle for explosions and destruction based on real events, they just weren't current.
But how do you feel about Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor on a moral level? It was more or less a vehicle for explosions and destruction based on real events, they just weren't current.
Who would be harmed? If there isn't anyone, it's not wrong.
Would it be morally wrong to make such a (mostly fictional) movie?