With the exception of Knives Out 2, which used magic to dispose of the pandemic in the first act, nobody wants to relive some of the worst shit that happened!
Do you think these artists from the interwar period were trying to relive the great war, or were they simply trying to deal with the scars it left on society in their work?
As artists are apt to do.
the term *interwar* seems to be your answer here. they were processing the trauma inflicted on their generation after WWI, no?
that's a timescale of decades after the fact for that trauma processing, this guy seems to be demanding concurrent creation.
Putting aside for a moment how much work on the subject was done during the war let's hit the nail on the head.
The famous painting was done in response to the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic.
screenshot in OP is taking about mass media productions, which take months or years to make.
if you want examples of random but fairly influential people making things in 2020, those exist. I'm fond of the FoldingIdeas video about Pandemic, really captures how awful I felt.
It's not reliving it to acknowledge the reason many people don't want to sit in a dangerous movie theater, or a crowded concert is the ongoing pandemic. And the lack of it in art and culture is why you think it's "insane" to even mention it.
Hush, taboo, wouldn't want to spook the customer.
This part.
Yes, artists are not required to traumatize themselves! But also, it's WEIRD AF that so many shows and movies just...didn't acknowledge its existence at all. TV isn't reality, but it usually at least *tries* to pretend it happens in our world (unless outright fantasy/SF).
I have this guy blocked but iirc last summer he was predicting a surge beyond omicron based on extrapolating wastewater trends for three months and like... the guy doesn't have the background to be making those proclamations and was totally wrong.
i mean, he appears to have a phd in molecular biology from cambridge, but epidemiology forecasting is much closer to a dynamical systems problem. i *do* have a phd with an emphasis on dynamical systems, and even there i'm not really qualified to make sweeping pronouncements against what experts say.
The idea that some comic book characters could meaningfully change the trajectory of the pandemic after state and federal governments mostly left people to fend for themselves is outrageous
i've long thought this person, who I constantly see being RTed and shared on IG by my covid-cautious leftist friends, is completely bonkers and, even worse, frequently takes data that they don't know how to read and makes big sweeping statements the data doesnt support
The further you are from power, the more that consumption choices feel like power. But also? Just mad goofy to think that Dr. Strange helping first responders or Iron Man masking up would do anything for the causes you believe in.
Should the villains wear N95s to saturate the visual good example? Or should they explicitly*not* wear N95s so that readers make the association between not masking & villainy?
Dr. Ock was my question:
- doesn't already wear a face covering
- is a villain (so should largely be shown doing bad things)
- but, is also a scientist
Joker is hardcore anti-mask mandates. Sure, the masks don't do much to minimize the effects of his Joker Gas, but they do hide the hideous death rictus, which is the whole damn point of the stuff.
Masking *is* respecting the science for most people - M95s reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates dramatically - but in Wolverine's case he *can't* catch or transmit it.
Other hand, nobody bitches that the Iraq War and the Ukraine invasion aren't in comics. Why this?
It was an issue of Spider-Man. I still have it somewhere. Amazing stuff. Especially because it's John Romita Jr on art so it's really incredibly well done depictions of the cringiest stuff you've ever seen
