That's my entire point, though; you don't have to make a choice between movies being entertaining and socially relevant in a positive way,
The more you make it "socially relevant" according to
norms you want to foist on the audience, sure
it's great for you.
What you're not getting is that the more you code for what you think is is morally right, the more you're irritating people who aren't in your club. People don't want norms pushed on them when they watch a killer spy quip, kill, and kiss the girls.
They don't want Kombucha. They didn't order it. They don't care how good it is for you. They wanted a hero-Martini, slumbering not woke. They didn't order a Kombucha Martini or a Martini with a "hint" Kombucha (which to them is a hint of "ass"). Would you like a drink with a hint of "ass"? I wouldn't.
And again, let's put the shoe on the other foot. Let's make Bond a born again Christian. Let's have him drive home the socially relevant message of salvation, forgiveness, and compassion. Let's do just enough to keep it fun, but also let the audience know they need Jesus. Who is with me? Can I get an Amen?
because the two qualities aren't automatically are in opposition to one another,
So long as the audience was fairly warned, fine. If, for example, I make my Godsploitation Spy movie, I am sure you're fine with it, just so long as you know what I am up to before you've paid the price of admission.
And no, "It's 2021" is not fair warning (hint, that's why people are complaining).
there are plenty of examples (Fury Road, DTRT, Parasite, etc.)
I am not enamored of your examples here (I am not familiar with Parasite and will leave off commenting on it).
As for Do the Right Thing, it has strengths besides the typical kinda-racist Spike Lee preachy-B.S. and
Fury Road is pretty good despite the shoe-horned feminism.
for me that show movies are better able to deliver big social messages
And for me
Jesus Bond, License to Save is better because it can deliver my tidings of comfort and joy to the world with a catchphrase and a PPK. And who are you to complain about getting the masses just a little bit closer to eternal life?
the sugarcoating that helps audiences swallow the bitter medicine inside the pill easier.
We know. The coding is blatant. But we didn't ask for the medicine. When we're talking about a long-standing franchise, we know what we're asking for and we know what we want. And what we want is NOT a lecture from an amateur grievance studies Tumblr prof. giving us "just the tip" of the ideology, or just getting a sweaty gropey hand on our knee or shoulder.
The writers who are now ruining and tilting storied franchises left and right are not the saviors of society. They're not even good writers, for the most part. Good writers are walking on egg-shells with the sensitivity editors deployed by publishers. Good God, even J.K. Rowling is not left-wing enough anymore.
A healthy filmic environment is one of actual diversity (
intellectual diversity), and increasingly we find the monocrop of your budding ideological hegemony in every film. It's become a checklist (can't do this, must do that, choose from these items for elective bonus points). Film is supposed to be a cultural conversation, NOT a struggle session, not a perpetual task of one-way programming the apes who just want to watch things go boom.
Of course the first priority should be to just make a good movie in general,
And I promise that
Jesus Bond will be high-quality family edu-tainment! You'll be glad that you spent the time and money for the homily. We'll even have well-endowed (but modestly dressed!) women there to distract you.
Were you listening to me Stu, or were you looking at the nun with the super-hot ankles?
and not every movie will need to be as socially relevant as the next,
Of course, we cannot indoctrinate heavily in every film, but we will do what we can to raise the conscience of the workers with regard to sexual and racial inequity and capitalist pollution of the environment.
You are so deep into this that you take it for granted that a major purpose of the arts is to code the public to take their medicine which is discretely sugar-coated. They don't want it, but you know best, and it is for their own good. You assume, therefore, that you are morally and intellectually superior to your audience. You assume the position of a parent to oversee their training. This is elitism. This is infantilization. This not dialogue, but programming. This is bad.