Your Daily Cuckstorm: Effeminate, Emasculated Twitter Soyboys Are On, Get This, Twitter, Shrieking About, Get This, How Dumb Conservatives Are and How Much Smarter Than Conservatives They Are

I know, I know. You just can't believe it, right.

Oh, and they're talking about -- get this -- movies.

Talking about movies on Twitter? It's a day of Firsts for the cucks.

This is about The Most Deplorable Game movie, aka The Hunt.

So, they're shrieking that conservatives are stupid for daring to imagine that a Hollywood movie about Deplorables might actually depict Deplorables in a bad light.

Can you imagine Those Stupid, Stupid Inbred Conservatives suspecting that liberal Hollywood elites might have it in for them?

I'll quote the stupid cucks below.

For now, I want to make a general point about the Very Online Twitter Addicted Virtue Signalling Never-Silent Cucks.

Every tweet from these people is either 1, We're Better! or 2, "See, we were right about Trump!"

You know -- exactly like hysterical leftwingers, who, you know, they have absolutely no points of commonality or community with.

That's why they go hysterical over every Trump tweet -- everything with them is about salving their wounded ego.

Every morning is a new chance on twitter to seize on the SJW narrative of the day and shriek in triumph, "See? We were right about Trump, ALL ALONG! Now you see! Now you see! Now you see! We're not the dumb ones, we're the smart ones! YOU'RE the dumb ones! See?! See?! See?!"

(Thanks to moviegique for that clip.)

This is literally every fucking morning.

Every morning.

Every day.

Every hour of every day.

This isn't even subtext. This is text.

Now, what these geniuses are claiming, I'll put in posts below.

If you've seen my comments the last few days, I myself have told people that the sense I got from the trailer was that it was a Most Dangerous Game variation, and that the quarry in a Most Dangerous Game variation is the hero, not the hunter. The hunter is the villain.

So I think, yeah, the "deplorables" -- or at least one likable deplorable -- is the hero. Or becomes the hero.

But that doesn't mean "The Deplorables" are the good guys. Not at all.

There's a difference between being half-smart, like these fucking idiots are, and all-the-way smart, as we are.

See, I understand screenplay tropes and structure beyond the crude "Who are the bad guys and who is the good guy?" level these morons think is the sum and entirety of a movie.

I've also seen a very similar movie, so I know this micro-genre.

And I'm afraid that I know too much to be as confident and crude in my pronouncements as these dolts and imbeciles who have mistaken themselves, as mediocre intellects often do, for being clever.

I don't know which way this movie is going to propagandize, if at all. There is actually some chance it has a "right-wing valence," because it's a horror movie, and horror movies are all about just turning a buck and admirably unconcerned with respectability.

So that's... possible. They could be trying to make some money off a MAGA Exploitation play.

But it's nothing to be so cocksure about.

I'll elaborate below. But first, the cucks' gloating, "See, we're better, AGAIN!" tweets.

Here's the post that sparked the cuckstorm:

That post isn't objectionable -- Markey is right, as far as it goes. If we're only looking for Bad Guy/Good Guy stuff in the trailer, yeah, the basics -- the hunters are the bad guys, the quarry are the good guys -- is right.

That's the way it worked in The Most Dangerous Game and that's the way it's going to work in every ripoff of The Most Dangerous Game.

But now begin the stupid Virtue Signalling idiocies, with half-smart dummies showing why it's always dangerous to think you're smart, when you're actually pretty stupid:

Probably a right-wing "valence," you say, Movie Critic?

Let's take a look at that claim.

Okay, so this Twitter Brain Trust, these experts in screenplays and dramas, have figured out that on their crudest level, movies are about conflict, and this conflict usually opposes people you're supposed to sympathize with (the "good guys") and people you're not intended to sympathize with (the "bad guys").

Bravo, fellas.

Bra.

Vo.

You nailed that one. Well-played.

However, they've forgotten a few more subtle points -- barely more subtle points, but still more subtle than "I CAN TELL WHO THE BAD GUYS ARE!!!!" -- that movies almost always have.

First of all, in any group of 6-10 characters -- the quarry group, here -- the screenwriter will have to, get this, differentiate them from their fellows.

Hey Cucks -- get this, the group of Deplorables can't all be an undifferentiated mob of Virtuous People. Even if you were writing pure Red State propagaganda, you wouldn't make them all the same.

In this sort of movie, which is hot-button political provocation and social critique, you'd do is make some of them politically and morally bad and some of them politically and morally good, or at least good-ish, and redeemable.

So the point is: The fact that the main heroine will almost certainly be a "Good Guy" is hardly a guarantee that the rest of the Deplorables will be Good Guys.

The rest of the Deplorables might very well be depicted as the racist, uneducated, irredeemable hillbilly bigots taht conservatives fear this movie will depict them as.

Now, if I had to guess, this movie will follow the standard ingredient list for the Deplorables, and you'll have one Hero, one or two sympathetic but non-heroic characters, one more sympathetic character who exists entirely to be killed and thus provoke our outrage, and the others will range from morally neutral to despicable.

Why?

Because this is also a horror movie.

If the Super Screenwriting Brigade knew anything about movies besides "ORANGE MAN BAD," they might have picked up on the fact that in a horror movie, in the group of Victims, several or even many of the Victims are depicted as annoying or loathesome people who deserve to be killed.

Why? Well, there are two reasons people watch horror movies:

To experience the tension and fear while hoping that the likable character does not get murdered,

and to experience the sneaky, mean joy of seeing characters they don't like murdered in gruesome fashion.

So yeah: In horror movies, you have the Whores who must die and the Virgin who must (or may) live.

You have a hero, a couple of innocent yet ineffectual people (who you just also want to die because they're not proactive or effectual), a very sympathetic person to get killed and make the audience hate the villain, and Deserving Victims, so that the audience can say "Ooooh! Nice!" when they get axes through their heads.

Now, granted, the "Deplorable" heroine will be virtuous. But she might be virtuous because she is not conservative nor deplorable, just poor and maybe manipulated by toxic racist propaganda.

Meanwhile, the Deserving Victims might be -- will be, I'd wager -- portrayed as the racist, homophobic hicks that the "Stupid Conservatives" are expecting.

And another point. I can't guarantee this, but I'd bet on this one too:

In a movie, and especially one intended as political/social satire or critique, there must be an internal struggle in the main character, in addition to the external struggle (escape or be killed) you see in the trailer.

Is this necessary? Well, many trash movies dispose of this, but movies that hit hot-button topics like this will usually insert that sort of thing into their garbage exploitation movie to make it seem more thoughtful and less exploitation-y.

So, what evolution will the main character undergo? What realization will she have?

How will she end the movie as a changed person? Sure, if she just survives this trauma, she'll be emotionally scarred; but that's not the sort of character-arc change we mean.

Could it be that, while she's overall a likable character, we find out later that she has in fact suspected, say, Hispanics of crimes they were not guilty of? Supported deporting them? Took out her own anger at the world at a scapegoat group?

And could she experience a moment of redemption near the end of the movie? Say, when she's fleeing the hunters -- receiving aid from a family of Hispanic Immigrants who have gained the skills of evading implacable and evil pursuers due to their own perilous situation?

In short: Will the anti-immigrant Deplorables realize that their being hunted by elitist thrill-killers is very much like immigrants being hunted by ICE?

Anyone want to bet against me on that? I'm not sure of that, but.... seems... pretty... likely, no?

So my point is: Yes, Geniuses, you've correctly deduced that the Quarry in a Most Dangerous Game movie is the hero, and the predator the villain.

But every single concern that conservatives might have about this movie painting them in a very negative light, and depicting their concern over open borders as evil and racist, could still be 100%, absolutely right.

Now about that similar movie I've already seen:

It's called The Last Supper. Check the trailer out to get a sense of it.

It's pretty good. Great cast. It features this killer pop song prominently.

The plot is that a group of very liberal, very elitist graduate students encounter a racist, sexist hillbilly deplorable and accidentally murder him in self defense. If that sounds confused -- well, it's ambiguous if they had to kill him or just wanted to.

After that, they decide to start inviting "guests" to dinner -- conservatives -- and quiz them about their beliefs. If the "guests" admit that their views are horrible and join the liberal cause, they will be permitted to live.

Otherwise, they will be secretly poisoned, murdered, and buried out in the tomato garden.

They murder Bill Paxton, a racist, southern-coded truckdriver. Though they didn't plan this murder, they're happy to have done it, and prononce that they have done a good thing by giving him justice.

They murder Jason Alexander, a smug feminist-criticizing fat guy who denies that women are equal to men. They smugly smile as he drinks their poison.

They murder, IIRC, Wallace Shawn playing a conservative (obviously!) priest who says the Bible says homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals will burn in hell if they don't repent. Again, they take pleasure in the murder, and call themselves good people for doing so.

Now, at about the halfway point, the group begins to bicker about whether they're going too far. Whether they're being properly selective about who to murder. Whether they're giving their "guests" enough of a chance to repent before passing (silent) judgment with the poison-laced wine.

One of their members goes way too far and nominates a 14 year old girl, shy and stuttering, for the Last Supper. Her only crime is that she believes that sex should wait until marriage, and she is part of a group that encourages chastity vows.

At this point, the main character (Cameron Diaz) intervenes and rushes the girl out of the death house before her more murderous friend can poison her.

Now, there is a chiding lesson in all of this for liberals: That they are prone to be intolerant of dissent and so mesmerized with their assumed ethical perfection that they can justify any level of cruelty by just thinking about how righteous they are.

Sure -- good point.

But on the other hand, every conservative, except the little girl (who is depicted as simply too young to understand that Bitches Need the D) and except the last guest (a radio show host who actually says he's not a conservative, not really, he just thinks that there should be dissent and debate, and takes a position contrary to the left in hopes that a moderate middle path will emerge) is depicted as hateful, stupid, physically ugly, morally toxic, uneducated, monstrous, and quite deserving of their own murders.

So is this "balanced"? Well, the lesson to conservatives is, "Everything you think and believe and say and are is rotten and stupid and ugly and toxic."

The message to liberals is: "You're right about everything, just be cautious about being too arrogant about being right about everything, and don't be too self-righteous about it. Talk to conservatives to convince them of the error of their ways, but, if you can avoid it, don't actually murder them for being wrong."

Balanced?

I'm not sure it's balanced if you criticize real conservatives (or conservatives as routinely portrayed by the media) and equally criticize fantasy liberals who arrange dinners to murder people.

As the Very Online Twitter Cucks say -- see, that last thing? It's not really a thing. So it's not really a criticism of liberals to criticize serial murder liberals.

And it won't be balanced if The Most Deplorable Game attacks conservatives for traits the media routinely claims they really have (racism, stupidity, etc.) while criticizing "The elites" for a trait they don't actually have -- hunting humans for sport.

Yeah, in the Last Supper, the liberals do turn out to be the "bad guys," but only because they've taken their justifiably self-righteous feelings too far. Had they just dialed that back before the serial murders started, they'd've been just fine.

Simiarly, in this Most Deplorable Game movie, it could well be that the hunters are depicted as the bad guys, but mostly because they've gone too far, and that the deplorables being hunted still kinda of deserve it, mostly. Maybe it's not right to hunt and kill them, necessarily, but come on, you know they deserve it.

One last point: in any kind of political hot-button movie, they're going to try for something that looks like balance. But usually this "balance" will be weighted in favor of liberals, as it was in The Last Supper.

So I just do not expect some kind of propaganda piece in which The Deplorables are actually the virtuous good guys.

They just wouldn't do that. They wouldn't stack the deck like that, and surely not on the side of conservatives.

Generally a political movie -- even a schlock exploitation movie -- is going to feature some good among the bad and some bad among the good. There will likely be a Hunter who decides "This is sick, this is Not Who We Are" and walks away from the hunt.

Even if I, an Extremist Trumpalo, were writing this movie, I would still put some stinkers in among The Deplorables, because naked open propaganda makes for, get this, bad movies.
Even propaganda I approve of.

And there will likely be racists and White Supremacists -- in other words, people who oppose Open Borders Forever -- among the hunted.

And audiences will be expected to say "Nice arrow through the throat!" when they get their just desserts.

But do keep on lecturing us, Half-Smart Cucked-Out Tucked-Under Never Trump liberals.

You all know so much.

Except you don't.

And thinking you know everything while knowing only a tiny, stupid little bit is what makes you both comical and dangerous.

PS, despite the Last Supper being, on the whole, a nasty little movie overall and especially nasty with respect to conservatives, I'd still recommend it. As long as you can pretend the grotesque caricatures are merely grotesque caricatures for purposes of dark comedy, you can enjoy this mean little immorality play.

posted by Ace of Spades at 04:44 PM

| Access Comments