The never-ending battle against woke Hollywood and SJW infused entertainment media [trigger warning]

Three points (and a bonus one):

1. I genuinely chuckled out loud upon reading this.
2. By the default nature of the universe means that you would nearly always be in perfect alignment with @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl
3. Spoiler

   

Poor narcissistic NIGHTBRINGER didn't even have is name capitalized (by which I mean all the letters, not just the first one)

 

And you're wrong, pal, I'm not going to say "I leave you guys alone for a couple of days and look what happens!"...

Spoiler: I'm going to say...

I leave you lot after less than a month since I commented on the last shitstorm, and you're at it again - I might have to follow you all to make sure I get leads on what you're up to and can check you all are behaving!

I don't need to do that, @Lizards of Renown has done it for me on the appropriate thread


Personally I agree that Netflix deliberately altering an actual historical character for their Vikings sequel to fit political agenda is BS, and am surprised given that another Netflix (originally BBC) Dark Ages series, The Last Kingdom, has been exceptionally good and avoided sacrificing believable characters and historical accuracy to satisfy the Extreme Left thus far. I believe I've advocated it before as a top-quality historical series, but it's also worth a watch if you simply want to watch a series without forced identity politics, because there is none. There are some good female characters with varying degrees of strength and independence, who have been included purely to serve as different characters (that Mr. Cornwell wrote into his books for one) and not as agents of female supremacism.

And given that Shakespeare's MacBeth was based on a real-life Scottish king, who can certainly be considered a white male, personally I think Denzel Washington's turnout as him smells almost as much of PC-ness as the Vikings example. Note that if he had been cast as a purely fictional character from Shakespeare's plays such as the Merchant of Venice, I wouldn't have any objection, given that he is entirely fictional and can be interpreted to be of any race. Indeed this particular character would be a good choice for a culturally-diverse lead role because, as a merchant, he could have any number of backstories involving travelling from his own country to Venice to sell stuff. That can be incorporated very nicely into the casting without it looking forced and not injecting politics into the story in any way. However, reinventing historical characters of any form to suit political agenda is repulsive, as people have quite rightly stated with their boycott of Channel 5's black Anne Boleyn and the mutiny we've just seen toward the black female Jarl Haakon. Of course the critics have different views to me on Denzel's MacBeth, but I've never listened to critics' views even before the woke crisis emerged.

Disney actively supporting an American political bill that is derided by left-wingers like Grandpa Joe is a surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one (I personally think it's a good thing, young children shouldn't have their innocent minds melted by that sort of stuff). If they've finally realised that storytelling without politics sells a lot more than storytelling with politics and are aiming to recover their income by reverting to non-PC content, then they have my support with that. Unfortunately it's still profit that has motivated this decision rather than a direct change in conscience, but at least it has been made in the first place. Maybe this will bode well for upcoming Star Wars series like Kenobi and Andor. However, a lot of work still needs to be done when giants like Netflix and Amazon are still clearly suffering from the after-effects of the Woke Bug's caustic venom.

Is the silent majority winning? Only time will tell.

 

a bit woke a lot funny.

 

the thing is it's not making fun of them, this is a legitimate DC comic page. batcow is a real character who lives in a barn out back of Wayne manor and Damián actually became (and still is) a vegetarian.

 

As the OP and creator of this thread, I'm the only one that can sidestep guesswork and speak to actual intent of its design. @Scalenex is correct in his assessment. This thread was created to serve as a collection of material, updates and discussion AGAINST woke bull*#$% in Hollywood. There are already a large number of debate-orientated threads available, or a new one can be fashioned (I fail to believe that I'm the only one who can create a thread with any sort of traction).

Thread title: "The never-ending battle against woke Hollywood and SJW infused entertainment media [trigger warning]". In orders words, thread versus woke. That was the original intended design of the thread, and this is evidenced by the first half of the thread before all this fiasco was initiated. The thread was not crafted with the intent to debate the merits of woke inclusion or exclusion in Hollywood media or anything of the like.

That said, sometimes threads do deviate from their original indented purpose (i.e. the Star Wars vs. Star Trek thread). However, changing this thread to a never-ending battle between the opposing sides of Hollywood wokeness (a.k.a. normal people versus woke SJWs) does change its complexion to one with a far darker potential. Such a change takes us from forumites battling woke Hollywood to forumites battling forumites. And the purpose of battle is to slay, break or utterly destroy your opponent (in this case verbally). In such a contest, at least historically, forum etiquette universally fails (we've already seen that once in this very thread). Now if we're talking a no-holds barred contest, where forum rules are suspended... I'm game . It would be glorious in its aggression and debauchery! But since I know that is never going to be put on the table, can't we just have thread free of pseudo-fights?

 

man Hollywood really hates gingers for some reason

 

An interesting take and a surprising one. You feel like you can precisely define what a thread is or isn't...

...but the creator of the thread can't? Nobody "owns" a thread, but forum practice has historically revolved around staying somewhat true to the original intent/design of the thread, especially at the request of the person who set up the thread. In this case, I was only doing it to try to keep the peace. That said, I like Chaos!

The implications of that stance is that anyone is free to hijack and divert any thread at their whim. Fair enough, as long as we all abide by that stance across the board. That favors those with the loudest voices, the greatest posting frequency and a propensity to troll.

For the record, it would be no different than a person hijacking a thread about what is best about AoS to completely rip on AoS.

Call this a social experiment. My original hypothesis was true.

I retract my former call for peace and replace it with: If you come at the king, you best not miss!

 

Funny... this is playing out in real-time in a completely unrelated thread...


https://www.lustria-online.com/threads/two-idiots-printing-service-tips.25396/page-2#post-401191

 

Different initial underlying cause, in that we fully agree, but just as vulnerable to the proposed precedent that threads can be hijacked at will.

In the end, I suppose I don't really care, the rule stands to benefit me the most!

 

With most of Hollywood going down the self-destructive path of wokeness, it's nice to see comedians fighting back. You've got to respect those that stand up against the leftist push, plus it is entertaining as hell.

Despite Netflix's push towards wokeness and identity politics (Cuties, Master's of the Universe, Cowboy Bebop, Hannah Gadsby, etc.), it is only fair to point out that they also have anti-woke content as well (someone has to pay the bills). We've talked a great deal about Dave Chappelle previously, but there are others too. This is an older clip (2019) from Bill Burr's Paper Tiger special...