Your "agenda" comes from the beliefs that you ascribe to. It doesn't matter what art you create, your worldview is going to tattle on you, and your art will tell the truth about the artist. This is normal, but not the same as pushing an agenda: you're making a movie to get a point across, but not to tell a great story. Now that is truly pathetic. I think what he's saying here is that he wants moviemakers to actually focus on the story's narrative and strength of characters than getting the point across, because that is CLEARLY what is happening in modern storytelling.

Putting aside that media (not the news. All aspects of media) tries to train watchers to react passively. Which is an agenda. I still have to disagree. Completely. Storytelling has never been bereft of an agenda. Even around the campfires at the dawn of humanity. Every story has a purpose. It is literally why we tell them. I’m just going to reiterate that if you don’t see one you probably agree with it. Or haven’t been thinking about it critically. Also all this talk of “great storytelling”. Quality is subjective. It changes over time. What I think is great you may hate. And what you think is great I might hate. What everyone thought was great might be seen as boorish a few years later and what everyone hates now might become popular as hell in a few decades or centuries. Today will be another chapter in a history book tomorrow. Shakespeare is widely considered “great storytelling” today. He was just another writer during his time and if you pulled him from his grave he’d be mortified that we study him in schools. Most of his contemporaries that you likely don’t know at all were considered better. Do you think Willy Shakes had an agenda? [spoiler]He did.[/spoiler] For every thing he wrote. And it’s transparently weaved through everything if you bother to learn the history. Did Tolkien? C.S. Lewis? Star Trek? [spoiler]Yep. Nakedly. If you do some homework and listen to what the writers had to say on the subjects.[/spoiler] Hell, basically the entirety of the science fiction genre is built around a philosophical agenda. What about those fun action movies from the 80’s and 90’s. Mindless entertainment, right? Just for fun and goofs, right? Sorry. Rambo had an agenda too. But you still have Full Metal Jacket, at least that didn’t have anything critical to say. Blade runner was not exactly subtle either. But those stories were great! Right? That’s the difference! No one would argue that Blade Runner isn’t a great story!Except greatness is subjective. If you think they are, good. Watch them. Read them. Share them. Enjoy them. But understand those agendas were part of the concepts before the stories were written. Because the writers had a purpose for the story they wanted to tell. For an audience. And you were in that audience. Maybe you aren’t now. And that’s okay. Not everything has to be targeted to you. Or me. Maybe it’s someone else’s turn right now. If you don’t like the state of storytelling right now than become a writer and push the stories you want to tell. They’ll have an agenda too. But it will be yours. And you can target the audience you want to target. And maybe they’ll enjoy your stuff.

You're mistaking "pushing an agenda" with "worldview informing art". Many stories have a "point", but not all. I remember back in the days of 80s cartoons where you'd get your dose of morality at the end that made the whole story have it's own proper theme, be it "be safe with power tools" or "don't talk to strangers". This was good for kids and all, but we're adults. We don't need to be preached to about cleaning our rooms or be nice to our friends. Such a point is annoying. However, it depends on what the artist is intending. If the point of the story is to get a message across rather than focusing on narrative, you have a very preachy story. If the moral that "unlimited power is ultimately self-defeating" is gleaned but that wasn't the author's intent, they're not preaching. Pushing an agenda requires intent. Stories that are made to push an agenda are what we'd call preachy. They are focused on making a point (i.e., anything from "we must save the penguins" to "women are oppressed") rather than the actual narrative. If the story ACTUALLY focused on narrative it would be good. You see, I'm not making an argument that the author should be 100% unbiased, because that's not possible. The way you see the world, your belief systems, and your dogmas will all "tattle" on you through your writing (or moviemaking). In that way, all stories have a message: the message of the author. But let's circle back to intent. The fine line between a story that focuses on narrative and a story that focuses on making a point is the person who's directing said focus. What is the director's intent? Are they looking to illustrate how women are oppressed? Or are they focused on telling an interesting story, creating backstories, eliminating plot holes, and improving the narrative? Here we have our problem. While all stories have "a point", some stories stress on the point while others stress on the plot. If you don't see it, the author or director probably was more focused on the plot. If it's glaringly obvious, then it's not a hard guess to say that the director was probably focused on getting the point across. When you have a worldview that informs how you write or make movies, this is natural. If horses could draw their gods, they'd draw them as horses. All art tells you a bit about the artist. Again, there's no escaping this. This occurs in all stories, and I think this is what you refer to as "All stories having an agenda". But making a story just to make a point is preachy, as we just concluded. If the writer writes to make a point, they are preaching. That is annoying. If a writer harps on "their point" more so than they do on the narrative, odds are they've created a crummy piece of art. Enter, Tolkien. He was focused on creating a flawless narrative and a spectacular world. You know what he despised? Yup, that's right. He despised analogies. Tolkien wanted to write a story, and write it well. He wasn't focused on the "point" of the story, otherwise it would be obvious. Enter, modern media. The narrative is trash and they seed it with "morals" that tell you the ideologies of the progressives. They are very intent on getting a point across: and that is usually that they support queer people, liberate women, etc. As a result, the narrative flops flat on its face, the characters are poorly developed and even more poorly executed, and the whole thing is drowned in explosions as if that brings up its quality. Too much emphasis on preaching, not enough emphasis on plot and characters (i.e., actually telling a good story) I SAY ALL OF THIS TO SAY That preaching (which is what I mean by pushing an agenda) is annoying and damages storytelling, while pervading worldview (which can't be helped) usually does not.

I’d be happy to continue this conversation, but I’m not parsing that wall of text.

TL;DR: Preaching (which is what I mean by pushing an agenda) is annoying and damages storytelling, while worldview influencing art (which can't be helped) usually does not.

First off, a thanks to my phone for dropping that notification. And I appreciate the toned down version. I’m on a phone so the text brick isn’t something I can work through right now. I get what you are saying. But I don’t think the distinction is nearly as great as implied. And I would certainly argue that the worldview you infuse your writing with is the foundation of your agenda. Though I admit that makes it sound harsh. Most of us don’t want to think about our world view as trying to manipulate others. But we are fine describing it that way when it’s coming from a source we disagree with. And that’s kind of the point. I can find an audience that doesn’t find any of these movies being held up as “poor” storytelling as preaching at all. Because the story is for them. So they don’t see it. I can also see the inherent preaching in popular movies from a few decades ago. And we could go through those one at a time. But the moral of my piece here is, what anyone considers “great” or even just “good” storytelling isn’t objectively great or good at all. It’s all subjective. You enjoy it. Or are moved by it. And that’s great. It’s just a story that resonated with you. And that’s all it needs to be. You aren’t obligated to like everything. I barely like any movies at all. But I don’t look at the movies that I do like as superior. I just enjoy them.

If "agenda" is what you mean when you say "the way people view the world", then it is inaptly named. An agenda has to do with [i]doing[/i] things, and "pushing" that agenda means actively promoting it in stories. Hence, it implies a certain measure of focus. This focus means less focus on the narrative, which causes it to sag. You have a point when you say that whether or not you enjoy a movie or you are moved by it is a matter of taste and circumstance. This is true, but I'm purely examining the narrative: whether or not the characters have good motive for what they are doing, how robust are their character arcs, whether or not the plot holes have been resolved, and whether or not the whole thing is executed in a way that provides all of this information without a hitch. This is what makes good storytelling. Suffice to say, this is my problem with modern storytelling. I even have problems with preaching the point of which I actually agree with. For example, the indie movie [i]Beyond the Mask[/i] had Christian undertones throughout the movie, but it culminated in what essentially amounted to a sermon in a scene near the end of the movie. This annoyed me greatly. I am a Christian, but I still have a problem with this: when we watch movies, the moviemaker shouldn't have a point to make. (or should I say, shouldn't make the point with the story) While we can't blame moviemakers for their worldview influencing the story, we can blame them if we have reason to believe that they are focusing on making a point rather than the narrative.

That is true, but haven’t you noticed the best movies and books have only 1 agenda: entertainment. TopGun is a perfect example of that. If you are going to put an agenda in a movie or book, it’s got be to something that’s relevant to the story, and something everyone can agree on. I’m just saying to stop mixing current affairs with very single story these ppl come up with, it’s just going to tick off half of the audience and try to make the other half feel guilty for no reason.

You think Top Gun doesn’t have an agenda beyond entertainment? Top Gun is a movie long recruiting advertisement. Patriotism is an agenda. And no judgement from me. If that’s what you like. Stories are also subjective. And I admittedly, not a huge fan of the first Top Gun. Not a huge fan of movies in general. No drive to see the second.

My bad. When I used TopGun as an example, I meant the second one. I didn’t like the first one, but I recommend the second one. I don’t recall once, not once, the movie saying “join the military!” Don’t get me wrong, It inspired a lot of ppl to serve, but i also don’t think the creators went on social media and called everyone a bigot for not joining the military. I’m sure a lot of people thought that TopGun’s soul purpose was for entertainment, while some thought it was meant for military recruitment, it’s whatever the audience makes of it, that’s why i said that movies need compromise. Yes, Patriotism is an agenda, you are right. It’s fine to have an agenda if it doesn’t tick off half the audience.

I see where you are coming from. What you just described is an agenda though. It doesn’t have to say it. It’s also a very safe agenda. Which is fine. I’m not value judging any agenda here. Whether or not I support them. I’m just saying not only should we not pretend they don’t exist, we should also be cognizant of them.

I completely understand, and everyone’s opinion is valid no matter what. My main point is to focus more on the story.