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

[Putzfrau]

I declare this to be the theme song of 2022, at least for me personally if not for everyone.

Things seem slightly less bad. Pop culture is just one of the things that seems less bad now.

Maybe for the entertainment industry. But maybe not for the children in florida. Think that falls under one of the things that probalby doesn't seem "less bad now."

IMO "a multi billion dollar company likes money" isnt really the newsworthy part of whats being said there. It's the massive government overreach.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Sad. Ridiculous even.

They are so brave!

I would never have the guts to expose myself to such a ridicolousness.

Their audacity is matched only by their stupidity.

 

[Putzfrau]

Their audacity is matched only by their stupidity.

... and greed. It's not audacity to pay lip service to identity politics. It's greed.


They'd try harder at making actual good movies/shows or fresh stories that naturally include diverse casts if it was audacity. They don't, because at the end of the day their primary interest is netting a quick buck from an audience they thought was easy to appeal to.

They'll go back to pumping their base with the same rehashed garbage but the characters will be "historically accurate" and the stories will still suck and we'll still have the same problem.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[Putzfrau]

An interesting argument for a company who's stock price has gone up 30% in the last 5 years (and thats including the pretty big downswing everything is on right now).

Wish i was that broke

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

An interesting argument for a company who's stock price has gone up 30% in the last 5 years (and thats including the pretty big downswing everything is on right now).

Wish i was that broke

I almost got pulled back in.

I'm not interested in having this debate with you. To put it mildly, it was not particularly "fruitful" last time around. You are more than welcome to your view of the world. Believe whatever you wish.

That said, I politely ask that you refrain from tagging or quoting me. You are more than welcome to interact with the thread and others in it, but I respectfully request that you please leave me out of it.

 

[Putzfrau]

I almost got pulled back in.

I'm not interested in having this debate with you. To put it mildly, it was not particularly "fruitful" last time around. You are more than welcome to your view of the world. Believe whatever you wish.

That said, I politely ask that you refrain from tagging or quoting me. You are more than welcome to interact with the thread and others in it, but I respectfully request that you please leave me out of it.

Seems like an interesting stance to take when you are actually the OP of the thread. I wasn't aware the point wasn't to drive actual discussion... perhaps the thread title should be more clear? I'm not sure, but it just didn't come across to me as a "let me post my memes in peace" thread. If that was the intention, that's my bad.

I apologized for my previous crassness (something i never got), but regardless, if you don't want to see my posts there's an option built into the function of this forum to accomplish just that.

Since this is a public thread in a public forum and i've taken the previous comments about my actions seriously and have (at least in my opinion) not continued to be inflammatory... i'd like to interact with this thread in any manner I choose, assuming i'm following the rules. I don't believe i've been personal with any of my arguments and have kept the swearing to a minimum. If you disagree there's a report button for that exact situation.

I'd politely suggest not creating controversial topics on public forums if you aren't interested in having conversations (fruitful or not) with people who don't already agree with you.

Again, i apologized for my previous actions and gladly apologize again. The way i phrased my argumentation was obviously out of line.

 

[Scalenex]

An interesting argument for a company who's stock price has gone up 30% in the last 5 years (and thats including the pretty big downswing everything is on right now).

Wish i was that broke

I will debate you on this point.

First, "get woke, go broke" is not meant to be taken literally. Most slogans that rhyme are not literally true but "On the whole, media that puts a social justice agenda above storytelling tends to alienate mainstream audiences that the niche audiences that do vigorously support this agenda almost never financially contribute to the media enough to make up for the alienation of the mainstream audiences." is a lot clunkier to say than "get woke, go broke."


Disney is a very big company with a finger (or tentacle) in many different pies. Most of Disney revenue is from their theme parks and cruises. They also sell toys, video games, streaming services, they quietly have stock in other companies, they have restaurants, and things I probably haven't even heard of.

If you look at the microcosm of their recent woke tv shows and movies, they tend to lose money, a lot of it. The fact that Disney has deep enough pockets to cover these losses doesn't change

I've worked retail most of my adult life. If the store is making money on the whole but we have a specific product line that is collecting dust on the shelf, it doesn't matter that the store is not going broke, eventually the store decision makers will decide to pull the product that is not selling and use the shelf space for something more profitable.

Second, stock prices are not always indicative of profits. Especially now with world events in such a chaotic state. Stock prices are based on the the guesses of investors.

No one very few people expect to actually see Disney go bankrupt.

Maybe people want to see Disney go bankrupt. In the entertainment industry, I just want see public domain laws revised. I think a freer market will lead to better stories.

As for wokeness. I'd like to see an end to racism and homophobia and I'd like to see less poverty. I just think that the tactics used by Current Year SJWs are so bad that they are having the opposite effect that they claim to desire.

If Disney and are other companies are only pretending to care about social justice issues in a cynical attempt to make a buck, than they need to stop. Not because of moral reasons but because they are losing money.

Also, companies need to learn that pandering to the CCP will cause them to lose money in the long run.

 

[Putzfrau]

I will debate you on this point.

First, "get woke, go broke" is not meant to be taken literally. Most slogans that rhyme are not literally true but "On the whole, media that puts a social justice agenda above storytelling tends to alienate mainstream audiences that the niche audiences that do vigorously support this agenda almost never financially contribute to the media enough to make up for the alienation of the mainstream audiences." is a lot clunkier to say than "get woke, go broke."


Disney is a very big company with a finger (or tentacle) in many different pies. Most of Disney revenue is from their theme parks and cruises. They also sell toys, video games, streaming services, they quietly have stock in other companies, they have restaurants, and things I probably haven't even heard of.

If you look at the microcosm of their recent woke tv shows and movies, they tend to lose money, a lot of it. The fact that Disney has deep enough pockets to cover these losses doesn't change

I've worked retail most of my adult life. If the store is making money on the whole but we have a specific product line that is collecting dust on the shelf, it doesn't matter that the store is not going broke, eventually the store decision makers will decide to pull the product that is not selling and use the shelf space for something more profitable.

Second, stock prices are not always indicative of profits. Especially now with world events in such a chaotic state. Stock prices are based on the the guesses of investors.

No one very few people expect to actually see Disney go bankrupt.

Maybe people want to see Disney go bankrupt. In the entertainment industry, I just want see public domain laws revised. I think a freer market will lead to better stories.

As for wokeness. I'd like to see an end to racism and homophobia and I'd like to see less poverty. I just think that the tactics used by Current Year SJWs are so bad that they are having the opposite effect that they claim to desire.

If Disney and are other companies are only pretending to care about social justice issues in a cynical attempt to make a buck, than they need to stop. Not because of moral reasons but because they are losing money.

Also, companies need to learn that pandering to the CCP will cause them to lose money in the long run.

Totally hear you on the literalness of the slogan. I would be interested in any kind of analytical data that shows disney is indeed losing money (and substantially) with these types of "woke" investments.

If it hasn't been clear in my arguments, I don't necessarily like these shows/movies any more than anyone else here. I just attribute their failure to other things (namely poor writing) and when you look at disney more holistically, I think it becomes much harder to make the "they were morally interested in whatever social opinions are behind "going woke"' argument vs the "the consistently try to get the most with the least effort" one. Namely, because i don't think we are necessarily seeing a lot of truly meaningful choices or ideas in the "woke" space and everything comes off as this kind of token "oh we changed a character here" nonsense. And then you have executives that are still donating to politicians who are far from woke... which is kind of another argument entirely since often donations are given to both sides in the attempt to be in favor with whoever happens to be in power. I imagine they think that makes it easier to make money, but who knows!!

I'd be super interested to see if you've read anything or seen anything that indicates its specifically the "woke agenda" that is impacting their bottom line, even in this specific niche of their global enterprise. I always love looking at the data, and think it could paint a much clearer picture in this situation.

For example, the new star wars movies are often cited as part of this "woke" agenda but i dont think anyone is calling them a financial failure. A critical failure definitely (which i'd again attribute to piss poor writing), but each one made over a billion in international box office revenue.

I also think the woke argument tends to mask the real problem with modern entertainment, which does all of us a disservice. It's easy for the powers at be to wave away "oh these people were mad cause x, y, or z member was miscast" and a lot harder to argue around "well no one liked it cause the story was a trash heap."

And last on the stock prices, again, totally hear you. But its also hugely indicative of general investor sentiment... so if the stock prices are high it generally (again, super general high level stuff here) means investors think the direction of the company will continue to be more and more profitable. In some ways, that's almost a more meaningful piece of data than truly what the profits are. If investor sentiment is high, a company usually isn't making a ton of massive, million dollar mistakes.

Anyways, always appreciate the chat! I think maybe because i'm a professional writer i've narrowed in on poor writing being the key problem and i can kinda beat that drum a little too loud at times

edit: final piece! I'd also love to see public domain laws revisited! Really anything to get more new, interesting voices into the entertainment industry. movies have become such massive, multi-million dollar machines it seems like they are almost unwilling to "risk" that investment on something that doesn't already have some kind of preexisting fan base. Makes for some supremely boring entertainment IMO.

TLDR: I agree the slogan isn't meant to (and shouldn't be) taken literally. But i've also yet to see any truly substantial data showing that this type of general woke sentiment thats going on in entertainment has specifically had a noticeable impact on revenue or profits. I think a lot of the things that are often referred to as an argument could just as easily be (and sometimes more easily be) an argument for a general lack of quality writing and fresh storytelling, something i personally find to be a much, much larger problem.

 

[Scalenex]

There is a theory that it's not that wokeness leads to piss poor writing. The counter theory states that if someone realizes that they have piss poor writing, they will try insert wokeness into it as an act of desperation.

The theory is there is (metaphorical) 1% chance that SJW will prop up the film/book/TV shows sales a little bit whereas without the woke elements there is a 0% chance that anyone will come to their aid to bail out the crappy writing.

That is one theory.

Another theory is that it's a defense mechanism from the writer/direct/producer in a cynical effort to save his or her career. "It's not my fault this movie flopped, I was unfairly targeted by man baby/misogynist/homophobic/racist/Trump supporting/Brexit supporting trolls!"

To oversimplify it. Go Woke does not lead to going broke. Going broke leads to getting woke.

The theory is plausible, but I don't buy it. There is not enough evidence to prove or disprove it. For me to believe the counter theory that poor writing leads to wokeness as opposed to wokness leading to poorer writing, I would need to see a few pieces of media that are woke and well written.

I have yet to see this in the 21st century. I have seen 20th century media tell a good story and have a strong political message but not 21st century. Unless you count environmentalism as wokeness, which I don't. Wall-E was a good story despite having a very heavy handed environmentalism message baked into it. It wasn't Pixar's best film, but it wasn't their worst one either.

 

[Killer Angel]

For example, the new star wars movies are often cited as part of this "woke" agenda but i dont think anyone is calling them a financial failure. A critical failure definitely (which i'd again attribute to piss poor writing), but each one made over a billion in international box office revenue.

Well, Disney for sure made money out of them, but how much? weren't they hoping in some more?

given that we cannot really compare old movies and new ones, let's just look at the new saga.

Ep. VII was a success, but Ep. VIII was less of it, and Ep IX is the lowest of all 3. It's a degrading line, the opposite of what should be a successful media.
Link 1 and link 2

this was the box office: the domestic market follows the same trend, with each movie going lower. The overall net gain of Rogue One is greater than Rise of Skywalker.

so, was it a failure? nope. But probably the gain was half or less then half the expected. From that point of view it missed the mark

And this is STAR WARS. Ghostbusters 2016 just losed 70 millions.

 

[Putzfrau]

There is a theory that it's not that wokeness leads to piss poor writing. The counter theory states that if someone realizes that they have piss poor writing, they will try insert wokeness into it as an act of desperation.

The theory is there is (metaphorical) 1% chance that SJW will prop up the film/book/TV shows sales a little bit whereas without the woke elements there is a 0% chance that anyone will come to their aid to bail out the crappy writing.

That is one theory.

Another theory is that it's a defense mechanism from the writer/direct/producer in a cynical effort to save his or her career. "It's not my fault this movie flopped, I was unfairly targeted by man baby/misogynist/homophobic/racist/Trump supporting/Brexit supporting trolls!"

To oversimplify it. Go Woke does not lead to going broke. Going broke leads to getting woke.

That's super interesting. Is there any place I can read on this further? On the surface, i could definitely see people falling into that trap. I've worked with a lot of professionals that will do just about anything to cover up a lack of quality.

The theory is plausible, but I don't buy it. There is not enough evidence to prove or disprove it. For me to believe the counter theory that poor writing leads to wokeness as opposed to wokness leading to poorer writing, I would need to see a few pieces of media that are woke and well written.

I have yet to see this in the 21st century. I have seen 20th century media tell a good story and have a strong political message but not 21st century. Unless you count environmentalism as wokeness, which I don't. Wall-E was a good story despite having a very heavy handed environmentalism message baked into it. It wasn't Pixar's best film, but it wasn't their worst one either.

I haven't seen it, but from what I understand the new batman movie has had some moderate "woke" criticisms and it's been received pretty well.

But i guess a lot of that would just depend on what you do and do not qualify as a "woke" movie.

Well, Disney for sure made money out of them, but how much? weren't they hoping in some more?

given that we cannot really compare old movies and new ones, let's just look at the new saga.

Ep. VII was a success, but Ep. VIII was less of it, and Ep IX is the lowest of all 3. It's a degrading line, the opposite of what should be a successful media.
Link 1 and link 2

this was the box office: the domestic market follows the same trend, with each movie going lower. The overall net gain of Rogue One is greater than Rise of Skywalker.

so, was it a failure? nope. But probably the gain was half or less then half the expected. From that point of view it missed the mark

And this is STAR WARS. Ghostbusters 2016 just losed 70 millions.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the general writing and storytelling quality of the new trilogy also went downhill and ghostbusters 2016 was a dumpster fire from start to finish.

That's kind of where i'm coming from. If we can't pinpoint the "wokeness" as being the downfall of those movies, I personally have a hard time isolating the argument to just that.

I pointed out earlier in this thread that there was a lot of criticisms about the LOTR movies and how they were "unfaithful" to the original books and lore. If you go back through that 2000's era Tolkien forum, you'll see a lot of similar style comments pop up then as they are now. They weren't necessarily always of this type of "woke" nature, but there was a lot of anger over a lot of things and you generally don't see that sentiment now because the movies were well received and the quality of the movie overcame the fact that Orks grew in pods in the wall or whatever.

Denzel literally just played Macbeth to rave reviews. I don't know if anyone is criticizing that movie for being woke by "miscasting" one of the most famous characters in english literature. The rant a page or so back about Netflix new Vikings show basically argued that is problematic and "woke" so why isn't the criticism leveled equally at both instances?

I tend to believe that good storytelling, quality writing, and talented acting will overcome just about anything. I think that's a much easier trend to point to, personally.

edit: that Tolkien forum can be found in my post here:

Hopefully the end result sticks the landing. It has happened before...

https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/strutc/a_look_back_on_how_fans_in_2001_criticized_pjs/

The internet coming through with another dub.


edit: this one was my favorite:

"We (as a generic term) are in fact probably the best authorities on how these movies should be. The "normal person" might not see problems, but that is because the "normal person" does not understand."

https://www.thetolkienforum.com/thr...s-ticks-you-off-the-most.429/page-3#post-9376

 

[Scalenex]

That's super interesting. Is there any place I can read on this further? On the surface, i could definitely see people falling into that trap. I've worked with a lot of professionals that will do just about anything to cover up a lack of quality.

I haven't read an article on this. I listen to Clownfish TV as background noise a lot. Sadly, Clownfish TV is not succinct, but they have hit on the theory that bad writers cloak their failure in SJW politics. I'm sure they didn't invent that idea, they follow pop culture for a living.

It is especially common for failed comic book writers to hide behind their politics.

Denzel literally just played Macbeth to rave reviews. I don't know if anyone is criticizing that movie for being woke by "miscasting" one of the most famous characters in english literature. The rant a page or so back about Netflix new Vikings show basically argued that is problematic and "woke" so why isn't the criticism leveled equally at both instances?

Well one, MacBeth has seen many interpretations over the years and the Vikings movie pretends to be historically accurate. Shakespearean plays always have been about the acting not the accuracy.

More importantly Denzel Washington is one of the best actors alive.

Also, just about every famous actor plays Macbeth or some other iconic Shakespeare play and it's mostly watched by critics, but not by mass audiences.

But i guess a lot of that would just depend on what you do and do not qualify as a "woke" movie.

I hate to say it, but it's one of those "I cannot define it but I know it when I see it." things.

One woke element does not make a woke show or film. Nor does one casting choice.

I like Brooklyn 99. It's a very progressive show, but I wouldn't define it as a woke show until the last season when the focus of the show moved from "the wacky antics of a bunch of police officers trying to balance their professional and personal lives" to "a critique of the flaws of the NYC police department with a couple jokes here and there to lighten things up." In a comedy show about police officers, talking about systemic corruption and racism in the police force sucks the fun out of the show like a vacuum.

The closest thing I can find to to standard definition is when the politics become more talked about than the story or performance, a show is woke. The infamous fan panel video that Amazon pulled is a good example. They spent about 75% of the video talking about representation and whether anyone would want to have sex with Sauron more than they talked about anything else. Representation is their sole marketing push.

I never saw High Guardian Spice. Apparently the show was okay, not great but okay. But the only thing I heard about in the marketing was how representational it was. That put people off. Apparently the show itself wasn't as bad as the hype.

 

[Putzfrau]

I haven't read an article on this. I listen to Clownfish TV as background noise a lot. Sadly, Clownfish TV is not succinct, but they have hit on the theory that bad writers cloak their failure in SJW politics. I'm sure they didn't invent that idea, they follow pop culture for a living.

It is especially common for failed comic book writers to hide behind their politics.

Ah, fair enough. If i have time i might poke around and see if i can get the cliff notes of his argument.

Well one, MacBeth has seen many interpretations over the years and the Vikings movie pretends to be historically accurate. Shakespearean plays always have been about the acting not the accuracy.

More importantly Denzel Washington is one of the best actors alive.

Also, just about every famous actor plays Macbeth or some other iconic Shakespeare play and it's mostly watched by critics, but not by mass audiences.

Agree completely with Denzel being one of the best actors alive, and i think that kind of reiterates my larger point that quality tends to overcome all things. Also, it seems okay for a black actor to play MacBeth because we as a society have simply accepted its okay. Why is it okay to change the race of one of those most famous men in english literature, but not okay to change a dwarf from the lore of a fantasy book? Because its been done before? That means at some point, it had to be done first.

I can't help but feel like "historical" or "lore appropriate" accuracy is an argument for this type of woke agenda ruining things when its convenient and an easy punching bag. It's easy to criticize Netflix and it's generally lackluster writing/storytelling and much harder to criticize Denzel and literal MacBeth. It's easy to point at the trash heap that was Ghostbusters 2016 and much harder to point at The Batman.

I'll still go back to, it feels like a much more consistent argument is that when the quality is there, you don't see the criticism and when its not the criticism comes out in droves. And then when there's a reasonable situation of a quality film/show/whatever that does have a historically inaccurate casting or what have you, that situation doesn't count as "woke" for x, y, or z reason.

When trying to discuss this, it comes across as a bit of goalpost moving. It becomes very hard to argue against or even understand, the woke agenda ruining (or evening having a noticeable impact) on anything when anything with quality somehow avoids that tag. there might be very good reasons for that, but to someone who's not consuming every nugget of the argument and is only getting the broad strokes from something like this forum it feels like a pretty arbitrary distinction between why its okay for MacBeth or Batman or Peter's Lord of the Rings to having seemingly "woke" elements and why its not for Star Wars or Vikings.

I hate to say it, but it's one of those "I cannot define it but I know it when I see it." things.

One woke element does not make a woke show or film. Nor does one casting choice.

I like Brooklyn 99. It's a very progressive show, but I wouldn't define it as a woke show until the last season when the focus of the show moved from "the wacky antics of a bunch of police officers trying to balance their professional and personal lives" to "a critique of the flaws of the NYC police department with a couple jokes here and there to lighten things up." In a comedy show about police officers, talking about systemic corruption and racism in the police force sucks the fun out of the show like a vacuum.

The closest thing I can find to to standard definition is when the politics become more talked about than the story or performance, a show is woke. The infamous fan panel video that Amazon pulled is a good example. They spent about 75% of the video talking about representation and whether anyone would want to have sex with Sauron more than they talked about anything else. Representation is their sole marketing push.

I never saw High Guardian Spice. Apparently the show was okay, not great but okay. But the only thing I heard about in the marketing was how representational it was. That put people off. Apparently the show itself wasn't as bad as the hype.

I can definitely see where you're coming from, but i'd still argue that a show that puts politics (of any kind) before writing, acting, and storytelling is still inherently suffering from bad writing/acting/storytelling. The political nature wasn't its downfall, the lack of everything that needs to surround it is.

There are tons of extremely politically charged movies that are well written and deeply moving that don't face this type of woke criticism. Three Billboards is unquestionably a politically charged movie, one that also deals with the shortcomings and failures of a police system and was simply put, phenomenal. I'm sure i don't need to outline every example for you.

And if one character doesn't make a show woke, i'd still go back to the rant about the black woman playing a viking. It seems to have made that show woke, or at least get criticized for being it.

If the argument is as nuanced as you're saying, we should treat it that way. Which means this constant outrage cycle of "look at this new thing that has some kind of questionable casting, lets all laugh and point and hate on it" has also got to go.

I said it before, but it just feels like an unwinnable scenario. You can't miscast historical characters (vikings)... except when you can (macbeth). You can't miscast beloved fictional characters (lotr dwarf)... except when you can (catwomen). Don't co-opt existing characters, create "fresh" or "unexplored" characters from an LGBTQ perspective... but that's also problematic (son of superman). The argument that makes sense to me is "don't make poor quality entertainment... make good quality entertainment." Its consistent, and applies applicably to everything without a bunch of qualifiers.

At a certain point it feels like the argument isn't actually super nuanced and its just the most obvious criticism for a lot of small failings in quality... and what's easier and pithier to make a youtube video about? It isn't nuanced details about storytelling, thats for sure.

 

[Killer Angel]

I said it before, but it just feels like an unwinnable scenario. You can't make miscast historical characters (vikings)... except when you can (macbeth). You can't miscast beloved fictional characters (lotr dwarf)... except when you can (catwomen).

i'll throw my 2 cents here.

THere is a notable difference between your examples:

Macbeth - it's a theatrical work. We are used to see the same story played by very different kind of actors, in the past men played in the roles of women because women weren't allowed to do... in our mind it's a very clear distinction, theatre is a thing that focuses on the acting... the actor is merely the vector for it. In the same way you go to listen to opera. and the same when you see a theatre staged on cinema (ask Kenneth Branagh)

A show as Vikings, that portraits a historical character, is expected to respect what it represents. An historical white male king shouldn't be played by a black woman. Anna Bolena shouldn't be a black woman. Martin luther king shouldn't be played by an asian girl.

The 2 media are different: in a theatre we are always well aware that it's a fiction, in a movie we should forget about it (hence why one of the worst sin you can commit is to break the suspension of disbelief of your audience).


regarding lotr dwarfs and catwoman... well, catwoman is a comic character since 1940, so i don't see the issue.
Catwoman is canon, lotr dwarfs as represented in the new show aren't.

I still agree on your main point: the real difference is made by good / bad writing.
But the premises may be good or not.

 

[Putzfrau]

i'll throw my 2 cents here.

THere is a notable difference between your examples:

Macbeth - it's a theatrical work. We are used to see the same story played by very different kind of actors, in the past men played in the roles of women because women weren't allowed to do... in our mind it's a very clear distinction, theatre is a thing that focuses on the acting... the actor is merely the vector for it. In the same way you go to listen to opera. and the same when you see a theatre staged on cinema (ask Kenneth Branagh)

A show as Vikings, that portraits a historical character, is expected to respect what it represents. An historical white male king shouldn't be played by a black woman. Anna Bolena shouldn't be a black woman. Martin luther king shouldn't be played by an asian girl.

The 2 media are different: in a theatre we are always well aware that it's a fiction, in a movie we should forget about it (hence why one of the worse sin you can commit is to break the suspension of disbelief of your audience).


regarding lotr dwarfs and catwoman... well, catwoman is a comic character since 1940, so i don't see the issue.
Catwoman is canon, lotr dwarfs as represented in the new show aren't.

I still agree on your main point: the real difference is made by good / bad writing.
But the premises may be good or not.

I appreciate the clarification. I can definitely see the differences your explaining, but it still feels... a little arbitrary to me but only because of the context. When SO much of the argumentation seems to be around the casting and not the nuances of different types of media, it's easy to forget it exists. Ultimately, i agree that there's more importance on maintaining the historical accuracy of a character if the intent is to present a historically accurate story. Is that the intent of Vikings? I genuinely don't know, i've never seen it. I thought it was a work of fiction loosely based on a few key historical characters and their escapades.

If we focus on LOTR/Catwoman, it seems like the main difference is we're used to catwoman being cast differently. She's shown up in so many various forms over the years, its more accepted when a contemporary casting doesn't fit in with a historical one.

I'd still argue, that does mean at some point someone had to do it first. We're used to this diversification of catwoman because at one point someone wanted to do exactly that. Someone tweaked her "historical" character this way or that, until she was more of a construct of a character that can fit in and out of any batman story than a rigid one.

Is it unrealistic or wrong to assume the same can't be eventually said for LOTR? And i mean this genuinely, what is it specifically about that world that would make "looser" interpretations of how characters should be represented not okay?

As i pointed out before, Tolkien fans weren't exactly thrilled about how the movies represented their favorite characters but i think eventually those criticisms have drifted off because of the pure quality of those movies.

I don't think it's completely unreasonable to see if the same can't happen now?

edit: just wanted to say, hopefully this is an interesting discussion for people and doesn't feel unnecessarily argumentative. As i mentioned before, If this is more of a "lets post fun memes and videos" thread then i won't get in the way of that. It's just something that i find genuinely interesting and enjoy discussing. Just don't want my fun to come at everyone elses expense!

 

[Lizards of Renown]

I like Brooklyn 99. It's a very progressive show, but I wouldn't define it as a woke show until the last season when the focus of the show moved from "the wacky antics of a bunch of police officers trying to balance their professional and personal lives" to "a critique of the flaws of the NYC police department with a couple jokes here and there to lighten things up." In a comedy show about police officers, talking about systemic corruption and racism in the police force sucks the fun out of the show like a vacuum.

+1

Brooklyn 99 had a fantastic balance on integrating various gay, lesbian, etc. issues on the show without making it seem like it was just an info-mercial of some kind.

The crash came when they changed to NBC. But I don't know why that was exactly. I stopped watching after viewing the first couple of episodes.

Like so many things, to me it comes down to writing a good story. I've seen "woke" elements in stories and haven't blinked an eyelid as I don't have any issues with any individual point. It's when they either 1) have crap writers who just rely on whatever is the current public outrage point or 2) re-write something just to make it "modern" and insert a bunch of woke points in it.

I hate to say it, as I really like Will Smith, but I saw the trailer for Fresh Prince of Bel Air and it looks like he's done the same thing.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I almost got pulled back in.

Correction...

I almost got pulled back in.

i'm a professional writer

Unexpected.

Seems like an interesting stance to take when you are actually the OP of the thread. I wasn't aware the point wasn't to drive actual discussion... perhaps the thread title should be more clear? I'm not sure, but it just didn't come across to me as a "let me post my memes in peace" thread. If that was the intention, that's my bad.

I made a very simple and respectful request of you, to leave me out of it...

That said, I politely ask that you refrain from tagging or quoting me.

I respectfully request that you please leave me out of it.

You lasted 21 minutes before denying my peaceful attempt at bowing out. Much less even, when we factor in that it would have taken you a certain number of minutes to write your response. So be it.

With the my diplomatic attempt rejected, let's put our cards on the table more forcefully. No more hiding behind niceties and decorum. There are many reasons why I do not wish to engage with you on this topic.

Firstly, on the other thread you posted this:

You've somehow completely missed my point because you're so quick to defend some right vs left bullshit argument. You have no idea where i stand on the political spectrum

While it was not in direct reference to the discussion on this forum, it is most definitely inter-related. No offense, but I have an extremely good idea of where you lie. There are key markers that give away those that reside on that side of the aisle. While forum rules prevent me from placing a specific label such as SJW, liberal, left-leaning, extreme left, NPC or the like, I think it is fair to say that I know roughly where you fall.

How can I tell? The most obvious give away was the way in which you entered this discussion (way back in mid-February). Despite the trigger warning in the forum title, you instantly demonstrated that you entered the fray emotionally charged. Unprovoked, you immediately started throwing verbal punches at me. If you were strictly approaching the subject from a viewpoint that is free from political ideology, then you would have interacted with this topic with a more level-head (at least at the onset) rather than semi-aggressive instigation. It wasn't an intellectual disagreement that you had with the topic; instead it wounded you right from the start. The kind of wound that is political in nature. It wasn't in disagreement with some analytical viewpoint you held, but something with a deeper personal meaning. The second give away, is that the two sides differ on the importance placed upon facts versus feelings. I'll leave it at that.

With that said, here are the reasons why I don't want to engage with you on this topic:

1. Social Justice playbook: I've heard these arguments before countless times. You have presented nothing new. Depending on where one draws the line, you'd be the forum's 5th iteration of a person taking up that side of the argument. Others have already presented your arguments and have done so more effectively and with less unprovoked hostility. It's unstimulating, tiresome and a waste of my energy. No learning opportunities are granted by it and I stand to gain nothing.

2. It will only lead to arguments: I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you immediately proved to be unworthy of civil discourse. It's one thing to have a discussion slowly escalate, where each person builds upon the other, but you threw shots at me right away. If it turned nasty the first time (when everything was completely peaceful prior to your arrival) then it will probably turn nasty when we engage in the next round with prior animus from our last little verbal dance. The first time I engaged with you wishing to have a civil dialogue, and in all honesty, I don't have that same feeling this time around (which is why a tried to peacefully withdraw).

3. It's a pointless waste of time: The way I see it, there are only two reasons to have these kinds of discussions/debates. The first [and vastly more preferable option], is an honest exchange of ideas, where it is hoped that each person has the opportunity to learn, grown and become intellectually better for it. As I said before, there is nothing new being presented here and only one side is bolstering their side of the argument with any sort of factual support. The second reason is to verbally decapitate your opponent and throw their metaphorical severed head across the room for all to see; an aggressive win-at-all costs debate. In such a cutthroat debate, feelings are always vulnerable to being hurt and forum etiquette is quickly skirted, eroded and broken. So neither option is of particular interest and I can better spend my time elsewhere.

With all that said, is it simply too much that I ask to be left alone?

I apologized for my previous crassness (something i never got)

Something you never got? Why should you have? You instigated that entire episode. The discussion was perfectly peaceful before you interjected yourself into the thread. With all due respect, you were at fault and I was not. Why would I apologize for being transgressed against when you were the transgressor? Why would you even expect an apology in that instance? Please note however, that once you called off your attack, I immediately ceased all hostilities.

You pushed. I held my ground. I make no apologies for that.

i'd like to interact with this thread in any manner I choose

I have never expressed qualms about you engaging with the thread. If you read my post carefully (*bolded retroactively for emphasis*)....

You are more than welcome to interact with the thread and others in it, but I respectfully request that you please leave me out of it.

I view that to be pretty simple and reasonable.

I don't believe i've been personal with any of my arguments and have kept the swearing to a minimum. If you disagree there's a report button for that exact situation.

The day the NIGHTBRINGER needs a report button to deal with Putzfrau. Don't misconstrue my attempt to leave things be peacefully with an attempt to protect myself from you.

I'd politely suggest not creating controversial topics on public forums if you aren't interested in having conversations (fruitful or not) with people who don't already agree with you.

You realize that "fruitful" was just my polite and diplomatic way of saying a discussion where you broke all kinds of forum rules. I'd politely suggest that you don't politely suggest what topics or forums I should create. It was you that proved yourself emotionally incapable of handling the thread, not me.

Just because I create a thread, doesn't mean that I wish to interact with each and every person who joins it. If I were to host an astronomy conference, it wouldn't mean that I had a desire to debate the flat-earther who invited himself in. For clarity, I'm not implying that you are a flat-earther, I have no idea where you stand in regards to the oblate spheroid nature of our lovely planet.

Also, I remember you stating:

(hence this whole garbage heap of a thread)

You made that post way back on February 14; a full 23 days ago. Yet here you are still interacting with the thread. Not only interacting with the thread, but badgering another forumite for interaction after he politely asked that you leave him out of it.

Why waste so much of your time on a garbage heap of a thread? Were you initially being dishonest in your assessment, or do you legitimately have nothing better to do?



So where does that leave us? I guess I would reiterate my request that you leave me out of your discussions, especially seeing that there are others that are willing to engage with you. The way I see it, our little back and forth ends in one of three ways:

1. You respect my wishes, leave me alone and I in turn respectfully leave you alone. We go our separate ways. [NIGHTBRINGER's recommended option].
2. You disregard my wishes, this escalates to "mostly peaceful" (pun intended) and the mods intervene
3. The mods, upon reading this (admittedly "questionable", but provoked) counter, intervene right here and now [probably the most likely outcome, and I wouldn't blame them, but at least it is settled]

So what will it be? Are you willing to leave this amicably?


P.S. I was wrong about this being totally worthless and without merit. At some point in time, @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl will come by and state something along the lines of "I leave you guys alone for a couple of days and look what happens!" In all honesty, I'm looking forward to it, always a nice way to bring some levity into an otherwise tense situation. As long as he doesn't remind me that I could have spent this time on my Lore of Metal Deep Dive (and he wouldn't be wrong )

 

[Scalenex]

Which means this constant outrage cycle of "look at this new thing that has some kind of questionable casting, lets all laugh and point and hate on it" has also got to go.

If a person puts something in a high profile media outlet, that person must be willing to endure this kind of criticism. If they can't, they are in the wrong line of work.

I don't want to get into the weeds about why Denzel Washington can play Macbeth or why it's okay to make Selena Kyle/Catwoman black but not okay to make a Viking black.

That gets into Whataboutism. There is always an exception. Just because male sea horses carry their young to term does not mean the statement "females either lay eggs or carry or their young" is a false statement.

I wasn't aware the point wasn't to drive actual discussion... perhaps the thread title should be more clear?

I believe you were well aware that the point of this thread was not to drive actual discussion.

I think maybe because i'm a professional writer i've narrowed in on poor writing being the key problem and i can kinda beat that drum a little too loud at times

If you are a professional writer, you should be able to pick up nuance and subtext.

This thread from it's very inception till now, was not intended to be a debate on whether or not SJW politics should be included in mainstream media. This thread was created specifically for the audience that is already sympathetic to anti-wokeness.

This thread was created to point and laugh at failed attempts to promote woke ideology in media and to complain about how it led to a decline in modern media. By challenging the narrative of this thread, you are technically trolling it.

If you want to talk about what makes quality writing and what does not. We have a thread for that. If you want to create a thread where we debate politics, make a new thread for that. If you do, I might poke my head there and reply to you a few times, but don't expect the thread to draw a lot of eyeballs and responses on the whole here.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier, and I thought this minor kerfuffle was resolved and then you poked Nightbringer with a stick...again.

The fact that you poked him lightly does not excuse this.

I actually like discussing the craft of writing with you, but you keep sliding back into wanting to defend your political ideology. This thread is not the place for doing that. To continue trying looks like trolling. Relatively mild and polite trolling, but trolling nonetheless.

If you argue that it's not trolling, I will rephrase. "What is the point?"

I have never, ever ever seen anyone Right or Left change their core views because of a well written post on the internet.

Personal paradigm shifts generally occur when a person's life priorities change. I heard a joke once that "If you are not a Liberal by age 20 you have no soul. If you are not a Conservative by age 30 you have no brain." I have have met many people who still have the same ideology at age 50 that they did at age 20. I have also seen people switch from Conservative to Liberal, so it's not some inevitable progression from Liberal to Conservative.

I prefer the political triangle with three points rather than the Left-Right dichotomy with two points. There is also the quadrant method with four political viewpoints where there is social Left-Right and economic Left-Right. There is also the horseshoe theory which is a variation of the basic Left-Right theory.

I prefer the triangle because it has fewer moral arguments. If someone is at a different point in the triangle than you are it doesn't mean that person is stupid or morally inferior to you. Whereas in American political discourse there is the implied statement that "The people who do not hold my views on the Left-Right scale are either stupid or amoral,"

But we can go into the political triangle elsewhere if you want. The three points are Freedom, Order, and Equality. All three of these are good things, BUT if you total Freedom, total Order or total Equality the end result is a terrifying dystopia.

I want to see 20% Order, 20% Equality, 60% Freedom and if I was Ruler of Earth, that's what I would implement...before corruption set in because I shouldn't be given absolute power. Historically, there is a strong bias towards Order, but I'm going off on a tangent.

• You respect my wishes, leave me alone and I in turn respectfully leave you alone. We go our separate ways. [NIGHTBRINGER's recommended option].

• You disregard my wishes, this escalates to "mostly peaceful" (pun intended) and the mods intervene

• The mods, upon reading this (admittedly "questionable", but provoked) counter, intervene right here and now [probably the most likely outcome, and I wouldn't blame them, but at least it is settled]

I hate to say it because I like disagreeing with Nightbringer but Nightbringer is correct. One of these three things will happen.

My recommendation is to take option one. If you want to debate politics, I'm game. But make a different thread for that, don't do it here. By your own words Putzfrau, this is not a thread intended for debate and you are beating the drum too loud.

 

[Putzfrau]

this is not a thread intended for debate and you are beating the drum too loud.

My mistake, genuinely wasn't my intention troll. If the thread isnt for debate, it isnt for debate.

Sorry for disrupting the conversation.