"Honestly, I don’t know who this guy is. Is he a character from the movies or is he an Original Character? Maybe he’s Santa Claus judging by his beard. It’s been a while since I watched the Home Alone movies so your guess is as good as mine."
In the film, it's Kevin's bearded, reclusive neighbor which does this deed, as payback for kindness given to him earlier. But he was thinner and didn't look like Santa.
I think part of it is the ongoing genre of 'grimdark' making its way through everything. I'm amazed it is still popular, yes I like some grimdark stuff, from 40K to Berserk to Red Rising to Black Company to Malazan to ASOIAF, but there's a lot more to read than violent, morally dubious stories, few of which have any hope. Some do, and those are much more successful stories.
Another aspect I imagine is fans of these films and stories growing up and wanting more "adult" content (not just sex and violence but also a more nihilistic view of the world) but from franchises they already know. For years there have been fans wanting a "dark" Star Wars, and a lot were satiated with Andor (I haven't watched it as I pretty much gave up on Star Wars years ago). It's hard to find a new series to like, it's easier to change one you know into what you want.
Or, what just came to mind, is the lack of reverence for anything. The lack of decorum and manners. Things have their proper place, their messages, their themes, and should be treated with the respect their original creator gave them. That is all dead and it started with the big names and now everyone and their mother thinks they can do it as if stories are just toys in a playground when really they are echoes of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. At least some are, lots are not.
As it happens, I watched the movie just last month for the first time in years. The old man with the shovel is a character in it, one that a lot of kids spin urban legends about. It's believed by the children of the neighborhood that he's a crazy old man who murdered his wife, and they believe that in no small part because he's a loner with an intense stare. Of course, it turns out none of this is true. He's actually quite kind, and he helps Kevin learn the film's primary moral lesson in the church scene near the start of the final, slapstick laden act.
Regarding the surge of rampant and over-the-top edginess we're seeing recently, this isn't new by any means. Rather we're witnessing the return of a very old trend, one that emerges every ten to twenty years as part of the deconstructionist periods that come in a time before we, hopefully, see a fresh resurgence of better quality entertainment. This kind of "edgification" always seem to come at the end of a particular cultural period. The exploitation films of the 60's and especially the 70's. The ever more gore reliant slashers of the late 80's. The cool, tough, and "relatable" gritty reboots of the late 90's through the mid 2000's. Now we're seeing it again, taking on a form akin to the exploitation films of the 70's, but suffuse with the nonsensical elements we come to expect of the Internet Age.
For a case in point, albeit a rather tame one in comparison to this supremely goofy example you've chosen, (and I say this as someone who's a big fan of the Baki the Grappler based spoofs of Breaking Bad,) take yourself down the rabbit hole - pun intended - of a failed show called Loonatics Unleashed from 2005. I'll give you a brief primer to entice you, and mind you, this actually existed. It aired on TV and Warner Bros execs genuinely thought it would be a hit with younger teen and preteen Millennials, and the oldest Zoomers when they were kids. It's the Looney Tunes - Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Taz, Tweety Bird, Sylvester the Cat, Pepe le Pew, etc - in a gritty superhero action reboot aimed at twelve year old boys. Yes, seriously. The Looney Toons already had this happen in a more kid friendly form twenty years ago, and it failed just as miserably as you'd expect it to.
This point in the cycle always fails eventually. In our time, it grabbed our interest with the likes of The Boys and Invincible, which took the superhero genre into a violent and edgy direction and in the former case lampooned it, while the latter treated its material more like the typical superhero fare, but with heavier leanings towards violence, family drama, and human cost. Now people are losing interest in those properties, just as they'll lose interest in these gritty horror reboots and anime spoofs. Not completely, there will always be some kind of audience for them, but we find ourselves in yet another age of lampoon. In time, it too shall pass.
Mixing and matching genres and inverting the entire tone of a story has been part of YouTube humor for many years now. I remember "Mary Poppins recut as horror" and "The Shining recut as a heartwarming family-friendly comedy" videos, and the "Inappropriate Soundtracks" series that had stuff like a Braveheart battle scene to the NFL theme.
Like all addictions, the addiction to "edginess" begins with seratonin flooding the brain. Stimulate the pleasure center of a bird's brain, and the bird will press the button for the stimulation, and ignore the food button and starve to death. Porn, violence, edginess, especially for men, is a combination of seratonin and testosterone ---an "adventure" cocktail. (No pun intended. Mental satyrism and nymphomania are two sides of the same coin.) An aspiring saint gets the same thrill ---ever been to a revival?
Part of the reason these public domain IPs are getting such lowbrow treatment is because of the way copyright still works in the U.S. (due to Disney's longtime lobbying and mishandling of it.)
For example, while creatives are just now finally allowed to use Popeye, they aren't allowed to use many of his recognizable traits such as "eating spinach to get strong", as I believe that won't join the public domain rights until the year 2039. Likewise, we're allowed to use "Steamboat Willie", but not Mickey Mouse as we know him.
If movie makers don't want to shell out for the IP rights to Popeye and don't want to get sued, about all they can get away with is something dumb, like a slasher movie.
Yeah, I read the way US copyright works when the slasher Popeye thing was buzzing in social media, and it's kind of dumb. Speaking as a creator myself (thus, someone with my own IPs), it makes me wonder if the idea of copyright is a mistake.
I agree with you that the constant exposure to pointless and hyper graphic violence cannot be good for one’s soul. As a related point, I’ve noticed a connection between people who seem slightly disturbed and their obsession with graphic horror movies. It’s hard to tell in terms of chicken and the egg, but it can’t be positive. And it seems to make everything else bland to them so they can only pursue the extreme violence. I’m not against the depiction of violence if it is done well and adds to the meaning. As a teenager, I vividly remember reading Frank Miller’s “Batman: Year One” comics. There is a scene with Bruce trying to stop a pimp only for the prostitute to stab Bruce in the thigh with a switchblade. It was gritty, dark, and shocking. But it gave the clear message of how depraved Gotham had become and how urgently a hero was needed. This slop like the killer Winnie the Pooh is nothing like that.
Ole Kevin would have been dead a minute and a half after the grownups threw their first punches. After all, he's not Naruto or the Crow. And you're right. Things have gotten dark and gory. That's no good for anyone.
I think a lot of this comes from our new culture of clicks. These independent animation studios will make this ultra edgy and Ultra Violent nostalgia bait content, but surprise surprise, if you approach them with money in hand they won't even talk to you about doing an independent project.
"Honestly, I don’t know who this guy is. Is he a character from the movies or is he an Original Character? Maybe he’s Santa Claus judging by his beard. It’s been a while since I watched the Home Alone movies so your guess is as good as mine."
In the film, it's Kevin's bearded, reclusive neighbor which does this deed, as payback for kindness given to him earlier. But he was thinner and didn't look like Santa.
Ah, okay. Thanks for the explanation.
I think part of it is the ongoing genre of 'grimdark' making its way through everything. I'm amazed it is still popular, yes I like some grimdark stuff, from 40K to Berserk to Red Rising to Black Company to Malazan to ASOIAF, but there's a lot more to read than violent, morally dubious stories, few of which have any hope. Some do, and those are much more successful stories.
Another aspect I imagine is fans of these films and stories growing up and wanting more "adult" content (not just sex and violence but also a more nihilistic view of the world) but from franchises they already know. For years there have been fans wanting a "dark" Star Wars, and a lot were satiated with Andor (I haven't watched it as I pretty much gave up on Star Wars years ago). It's hard to find a new series to like, it's easier to change one you know into what you want.
Or, what just came to mind, is the lack of reverence for anything. The lack of decorum and manners. Things have their proper place, their messages, their themes, and should be treated with the respect their original creator gave them. That is all dead and it started with the big names and now everyone and their mother thinks they can do it as if stories are just toys in a playground when really they are echoes of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. At least some are, lots are not.
As it happens, I watched the movie just last month for the first time in years. The old man with the shovel is a character in it, one that a lot of kids spin urban legends about. It's believed by the children of the neighborhood that he's a crazy old man who murdered his wife, and they believe that in no small part because he's a loner with an intense stare. Of course, it turns out none of this is true. He's actually quite kind, and he helps Kevin learn the film's primary moral lesson in the church scene near the start of the final, slapstick laden act.
Regarding the surge of rampant and over-the-top edginess we're seeing recently, this isn't new by any means. Rather we're witnessing the return of a very old trend, one that emerges every ten to twenty years as part of the deconstructionist periods that come in a time before we, hopefully, see a fresh resurgence of better quality entertainment. This kind of "edgification" always seem to come at the end of a particular cultural period. The exploitation films of the 60's and especially the 70's. The ever more gore reliant slashers of the late 80's. The cool, tough, and "relatable" gritty reboots of the late 90's through the mid 2000's. Now we're seeing it again, taking on a form akin to the exploitation films of the 70's, but suffuse with the nonsensical elements we come to expect of the Internet Age.
For a case in point, albeit a rather tame one in comparison to this supremely goofy example you've chosen, (and I say this as someone who's a big fan of the Baki the Grappler based spoofs of Breaking Bad,) take yourself down the rabbit hole - pun intended - of a failed show called Loonatics Unleashed from 2005. I'll give you a brief primer to entice you, and mind you, this actually existed. It aired on TV and Warner Bros execs genuinely thought it would be a hit with younger teen and preteen Millennials, and the oldest Zoomers when they were kids. It's the Looney Tunes - Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Taz, Tweety Bird, Sylvester the Cat, Pepe le Pew, etc - in a gritty superhero action reboot aimed at twelve year old boys. Yes, seriously. The Looney Toons already had this happen in a more kid friendly form twenty years ago, and it failed just as miserably as you'd expect it to.
This point in the cycle always fails eventually. In our time, it grabbed our interest with the likes of The Boys and Invincible, which took the superhero genre into a violent and edgy direction and in the former case lampooned it, while the latter treated its material more like the typical superhero fare, but with heavier leanings towards violence, family drama, and human cost. Now people are losing interest in those properties, just as they'll lose interest in these gritty horror reboots and anime spoofs. Not completely, there will always be some kind of audience for them, but we find ourselves in yet another age of lampoon. In time, it too shall pass.
Mixing and matching genres and inverting the entire tone of a story has been part of YouTube humor for many years now. I remember "Mary Poppins recut as horror" and "The Shining recut as a heartwarming family-friendly comedy" videos, and the "Inappropriate Soundtracks" series that had stuff like a Braveheart battle scene to the NFL theme.
Like all addictions, the addiction to "edginess" begins with seratonin flooding the brain. Stimulate the pleasure center of a bird's brain, and the bird will press the button for the stimulation, and ignore the food button and starve to death. Porn, violence, edginess, especially for men, is a combination of seratonin and testosterone ---an "adventure" cocktail. (No pun intended. Mental satyrism and nymphomania are two sides of the same coin.) An aspiring saint gets the same thrill ---ever been to a revival?
Thank you for this great post! I'm concerned about this trend, too.
You're welcome :)
Part of the reason these public domain IPs are getting such lowbrow treatment is because of the way copyright still works in the U.S. (due to Disney's longtime lobbying and mishandling of it.)
For example, while creatives are just now finally allowed to use Popeye, they aren't allowed to use many of his recognizable traits such as "eating spinach to get strong", as I believe that won't join the public domain rights until the year 2039. Likewise, we're allowed to use "Steamboat Willie", but not Mickey Mouse as we know him.
If movie makers don't want to shell out for the IP rights to Popeye and don't want to get sued, about all they can get away with is something dumb, like a slasher movie.
Yeah, I read the way US copyright works when the slasher Popeye thing was buzzing in social media, and it's kind of dumb. Speaking as a creator myself (thus, someone with my own IPs), it makes me wonder if the idea of copyright is a mistake.
I see part of it as a reaction against everything being safe and sterile-especially in animation.
I agree with you that the constant exposure to pointless and hyper graphic violence cannot be good for one’s soul. As a related point, I’ve noticed a connection between people who seem slightly disturbed and their obsession with graphic horror movies. It’s hard to tell in terms of chicken and the egg, but it can’t be positive. And it seems to make everything else bland to them so they can only pursue the extreme violence. I’m not against the depiction of violence if it is done well and adds to the meaning. As a teenager, I vividly remember reading Frank Miller’s “Batman: Year One” comics. There is a scene with Bruce trying to stop a pimp only for the prostitute to stab Bruce in the thigh with a switchblade. It was gritty, dark, and shocking. But it gave the clear message of how depraved Gotham had become and how urgently a hero was needed. This slop like the killer Winnie the Pooh is nothing like that.
Ole Kevin would have been dead a minute and a half after the grownups threw their first punches. After all, he's not Naruto or the Crow. And you're right. Things have gotten dark and gory. That's no good for anyone.
I think a lot of this comes from our new culture of clicks. These independent animation studios will make this ultra edgy and Ultra Violent nostalgia bait content, but surprise surprise, if you approach them with money in hand they won't even talk to you about doing an independent project.
That's disappointing. But yeah, I think you're right.