>>18414742>a possibility of a role model created by movies being betterYou see that kind of idealism with every new medium and it usually doesn't really work out that way. Vidya, in its early days, had all kinds of aspirations about what amazing teaching tools games could be - what we got in reality was gamification like lootboxes and the gay disco agenda being pushed down our throats.
But, yea, movies still and some do, for one Kurosawa does a great job of showing idealized, but realistic men.
The issue is that fundamentally, the risk/reward-payoffs in movies are more often than not manipulated to suit an agenda. F.i. when the military industrial complex of the US funds a movie like Top Gun, they want to motivate you to get recruited, while a young man might mainly walk away with the idea that acting charismatic and bold like Tom Cruise is the way to go. So, he subconsciously takes some pages from that without really thinking too hard about that fact that everything about Cruise's character was staged to make the guy look good.
Natually, this gets you a mismatch in reality where your newly learned act likely won't possibly meet the same rewards you saw in the movie, unless you're so attractive that you can actually pull it off.
At worst, this leads to a downward spiral because you emulate the wrong heros, you get rejected IRL and you start to fall behind. Suddenly you're a virgin at 20 with no idea how to act around women other than the fake memories you've borrowed from movies.
So, in short, yes, if you're smart you can pick up a lot from movies that will be useful to you, but for most people the mix of fabricated social proof via advertising (i.e. thinking a popular figure is one worth imitating) and the lack of a solid social foundation (so you can discern between useful and stupid) means it's mostly misleading.
Btw, by now one of the most desired jobs of your generation is "youtuber", so there's the role models of your generations.
