For Fun - Wokeness in Entertainment [Staff Edit- 6/24/24]
13,678 Views |
106 Replies |
Last: 7 mo ago by Wolfpac 08
Since this is already off the rails, let's go back to this for a minute.Rex Racer said:Watch the procedural tv show, "Alert: Missing Persons Unit", and then tell me it doesn't exist to the scale F16 people believe.AggieOO said:i'm not saying that some of this doesn't stuff exist. I believe it absolutely does, but nowhere near the scale you F16 people believe. But its absolutely hilarious to see the anti-woke/F16 crowd asking people to be more open-minded.El Gallo Blanco said:Possibly...there are some "woke-deniers" out there who insist that we are crazy and that none of this is happening, but hopefully some of the material on this thread influences them to be a bit more open minded.Cliff.Booth said:
This thread is going to be frontally assaulted by the wokeism isn't real gaslighting brigade and then napalm struck off of the board by mods. Better luck in the politics board.
Regardless, this is very "Entertainment" related imo.
The show features a police officer who uses voodoo (numerous episodes in season one using eggs in different ways) and talks about past lives routinely.
In season two, they added a police woman in a wheelchair, but all she does is have one line saying, "So and so is on the phone" or "so and so is waiting in the interview room", etc. Literally ONE LINE per episode. Then she turns around and wheels away.
In the finale of season two, two of the lead characters get married, and as soon as the groom kisses the bride, he says he needs to make an announcement, at which time he whips out his cell phone, starts playing a pop song, and a drag queen we have never seen before comes bursting in singing, and they all start dancing. There was absolutely NO lead up to it in the story. Just completely out of the blue.
let's pretend the police woman in the wheelchair is a straight, white male not in a wheelchair. Do you still have an issue with the character?
If so, then you have a problem with them writing a dumbass character into the show, not a woke character.
If you no longer have an issue b/c its a white male, then you have some bigger issues you need to tackle.
I think the biggest issue is that you watched a terrible show. I've never even heard of this show, but if any of the described premise is accurate, it sounds horrific. Worse writing than the Acolyte.
AggieOO said:Since this is already off the rails, let's go back to this for a minute.Rex Racer said:Watch the procedural tv show, "Alert: Missing Persons Unit", and then tell me it doesn't exist to the scale F16 people believe.AggieOO said:i'm not saying that some of this doesn't stuff exist. I believe it absolutely does, but nowhere near the scale you F16 people believe. But its absolutely hilarious to see the anti-woke/F16 crowd asking people to be more open-minded.El Gallo Blanco said:Possibly...there are some "woke-deniers" out there who insist that we are crazy and that none of this is happening, but hopefully some of the material on this thread influences them to be a bit more open minded.Cliff.Booth said:
This thread is going to be frontally assaulted by the wokeism isn't real gaslighting brigade and then napalm struck off of the board by mods. Better luck in the politics board.
Regardless, this is very "Entertainment" related imo.
The show features a police officer who uses voodoo (numerous episodes in season one using eggs in different ways) and talks about past lives routinely.
In season two, they added a police woman in a wheelchair, but all she does is have one line saying, "So and so is on the phone" or "so and so is waiting in the interview room", etc. Literally ONE LINE per episode. Then she turns around and wheels away.
In the finale of season two, two of the lead characters get married, and as soon as the groom kisses the bride, he says he needs to make an announcement, at which time he whips out his cell phone, starts playing a pop song, and a drag queen we have never seen before comes bursting in singing, and they all start dancing. There was absolutely NO lead up to it in the story. Just completely out of the blue.
let's pretend the police woman in the wheelchair is a straight, white male not in a wheelchair. Do you still have an issue with the character?
If so, then you have a problem with them writing a dumbass character into the show, not a woke character.
If you no longer have an issue b/c its a white male, then you have some bigger issues you need to tackle.
I think the biggest issue is that you watched a terrible show. I've never even heard of this show, but if any of the described premise is accurate, it sounds horrific. Worse writing than the Acolyte.
[Banned until tomorrow for thread derailing. -Staff]
Ok I'll restate an unnecessary deviation from source material to film: Liet in Dune.
The casting of Liet as a woman in Dune is woke for prioritizing diversity over source material fidelity, resulting in an unmemorable performance for cost-saving reasons.
The casting of Liet as a woman in Dune is woke for prioritizing diversity over source material fidelity, resulting in an unmemorable performance for cost-saving reasons.
Rex Racer said:
In season two, they added a police woman in a wheelchair, but all she does is have one line saying, "So and so is on the phone" or "so and so is waiting in the interview room", etc. Literally ONE LINE per episode. Then she turns around and wheels away.
It sounds like they just hired an actress in a wheelchair to play a secretary. I don't see the issue with that. What would be woke is if every episode had a scene where the wheelchair officer uses the wheelchair ramp to launch herself and land on the fleeing criminal... Actually, as I type that, it would actually be kind of awesome. At the end of every episode, the suspect tries to flee but Officer Wheels come flying in the tackle them. One week Wheels launches themselves off the handicap ramp, the next week she comes flying out a window.
As long as we can have an episode that includes the clip Paul Rudd always took on Conan and then the wheelchair lady falls on the suspect.
AustinAg2K said:Rex Racer said:
In season two, they added a police woman in a wheelchair, but all she does is have one line saying, "So and so is on the phone" or "so and so is waiting in the interview room", etc. Literally ONE LINE per episode. Then she turns around and wheels away.
It sounds like they just hired an actress in a wheelchair to play a secretary. I don't see the issue with that. What would be woke is if every episode had a scene where the wheelchair officer uses the wheelchair ramp to launch herself and land on the fleeing criminal... Actually, as I type that, it would actually be kind of awesome. At the end of every episode, the suspect tries to flee but Officer Wheels come flying in the tackle them. One week Wheels launches themselves off the handicap ramp, the next week she comes flying out a window.
Family Guy has a character like that
Al Bula said:
Ok I'll restate an unnecessary deviation from source material to film: Liet in Dune.
The casting of Liet as a woman in Dune is woke for prioritizing diversity over source material fidelity, resulting in an unmemorable performance for cost-saving reasons.
Look, I will absolutely admit that the two examples in the OP are, indeed, blatant, agenda-driven, bat**** insane instances of "woke" in entertainment. I maintain that a lot that crap is finally starting to die down, but will agree 100% that those two examples are objectively nuts.
That said, what I push back on is stuff like this Kynes thing, which isn't a push for "diversity" in a culture war sense, nor is it in any way "woke" (not your word, I know, but I've seen numerous people frame it as such).
Case in point, without her, just look at this primary cast…
- Timothee Chalamet
- Oscar Isaac
- Josh Brolin
- Jason Momoa
- Stephen McKinley Henderson
- Chang Chen
- Stellan Skarsfard
- Dave Bautista
- Javier Bardem
- Babs Olusanmoken
See how much testosterone that is?
By comparison, there's ONE primary female character in Rebecca Ferguson, with sparse appearances by Charlotte Rampling and of course Zendaya.
The thing is, for movies this big, and this expensive, they HAVE to put as many butts in seats as possible. Which means trying to "pander" to as many different demographics as possible, but not to score social media points/praise from the left. Rather, in hope that more females in the cast = more females paying for movie tickets.
It's that simple.
(And that stupid, depending on how you look at it.)
In other words, Villeneuve/Warner Bros simply looked at the roster and pinpointed the one character they felt they could gender swap, in nothing more than an effort to try and level out the gender distribution among the cast. In hope that some dude's girlfriend would be more inclined to go with him to the movie if she saw more women in a commercial for it on Bravo.
That's not "woke," nor is it diversity just for diversity sake. Rather, that's doing every last thing the filmmakers can to try and increase the chances of earning a profit. And as long as those efforts don't affect the quality of the movie, I don't see what the issue is. Especially when, personally, I disagree that her performance was "unmemorable," or that a male would have automatically made the role any more memorable.
I just see this a lot, where people cry "woke," when, in reality, risk management, profit, capitalism, and/or greed are to blame, in the form of attempting to reach the widest audience possible, as misguided as those efforts can be at times. When 99% of these suits aren't sitting around thinking, "How can we score culture war points," nor do they give two ****s about pushing a liberal "agenda." They just want to keep their jobs and their houses, or, in some instances, their mansions and their yachts.
TCTTS said:Al Bula said:
Ok I'll restate an unnecessary deviation from source material to film: Liet in Dune.
The casting of Liet as a woman in Dune is woke for prioritizing diversity over source material fidelity, resulting in an unmemorable performance for cost-saving reasons.
Look, I will absolutely admit that the two examples in the OP are, indeed, blatant, agenda-driven, bat**** insane instances of "woke" in entertainment. I maintain that a lot that crap is finally starting to die down, but will agree 100% that those two examples are objectively nuts.
That said, what I push back on is stuff like this Kynes thing, which isn't a push for "diversity" in a culture war sense, nor is it in any way "woke" (not your word, I know, but I've seen numerous people frame it as such).
Case in point, without her, just look at this primary cast…
- Timothee Chalamet
- Oscar Isaac
- Josh Brolin
- Jason Momoa
- Stephen McKinley Henderson
- Chang Chen
- Stellan Skarsfard
- Dave Bautista
- Javier Bardem
- Babs Olusanmoken
See how much testosterone that is?
By comparison, there's ONE primary female character in Rebecca Ferguson, with sparse appearances by Charlotte Rampling and of course Zendaya.
The thing is, though, for movies this big, and this expensive, they HAVE to put as many butts in seats as possible. Which means trying to "pander" to as many different demographics as possible, but not to score social media points or praise from the left. Rather, it's in hope that more females in the cast = more females paying for movie tickets.
It's that simple.
(And that stupid, depending on how you look at it.)
In other words, Villeneuve/Warner Bros simply looked at the roster and pinpointed the one character they felt they could gender swap, in nothing more than an effort to try and level out the gender distribution among the cast. In hopes that some dude's girlfriend would be more inclined to go with him to the movie if she saw more women in a commercial for it on Bravo.
That's not "woke," nor is it diversity just for diversity sake. Rather, that's doing every last thing the filmmakers can to try and increase the chances of earning a profit. And as long as those efforts don't affect the quality of the movie, I don't see what the issue is. Especially when, personally, I disagree that her performance was "unmemorable," or that a male would have automatically made the role any more memorable.
I don't know, I just see this a lot, where people cry "woke," when, in reality, risk management, profit, capitalism, and/or greed are to blame, as misguided as those efforts can be at times. When 99% of these suits aren't sitting around thinking, "How can we score culture war points," nor do they give two ****s about pushing a liberal "agenda." They just want to keep their jobs and their houses, or, in some instances, their mansions and their yachts.
Wait what? That change put more butts in seats? Who actually believes this?
Zendaya's role in the second half of the movie explains the change far more: the fremen had to change for modern day sensibilities. Patriarchal cultures are not acceptable and it needed a modern woman to stand up to a man. But we're kinda back at square one: bad writing in your mind rather than diversity hire in ours.
Where did I say that it actually put more butts in seats? Rather, I said it's their rationale, and their attempt to put more butts in seats. While I clearly made a point to say how stupid and fruitless that rationale and those attempts can be at times. That said, the studios have all kinds of data telling them they should do these things. It might very well be flawed, and the juice might not ultimately be worth the squeeze, but they're not completely grasping at straws either.
As for Zendaya's role in the second movie, Villeneuve has addressed this multiple times. It's not that "patriarchal cultures are not acceptable" (their culture was ultimately run/manipulated by a women, btw, in the form of the Bene Gesserit) nor did the story "need a modern woman to stand up to a man." You're only trying to convince yourself and others of these things. Rather, unlike even Frank Herbert, Villeneuve had the advantage of knowing the story of Messiah as he was adapting/crafting the story for Part Two. And because Herbert wrote Messiah in order to underline the warning-against-messiah-figures theme of the first book, considering an alarming number of readers (according to Herbet) didn't pick up on it in the first book, with 20/20 hindsight Villeneuve was able to better-imbue Part Two with that message.
That's where those changes come from.
My point is, some of you often go out of your way to actively try and ID "woke" in every last thing you can, instead of first asking yourselves if there are other explanations at play, and what those explanations might be.
As for Zendaya's role in the second movie, Villeneuve has addressed this multiple times. It's not that "patriarchal cultures are not acceptable" (their culture was ultimately run/manipulated by a women, btw, in the form of the Bene Gesserit) nor did the story "need a modern woman to stand up to a man." You're only trying to convince yourself and others of these things. Rather, unlike even Frank Herbert, Villeneuve had the advantage of knowing the story of Messiah as he was adapting/crafting the story for Part Two. And because Herbert wrote Messiah in order to underline the warning-against-messiah-figures theme of the first book, considering an alarming number of readers (according to Herbet) didn't pick up on it in the first book, with 20/20 hindsight Villeneuve was able to better-imbue Part Two with that message.
That's where those changes come from.
My point is, some of you often go out of your way to actively try and ID "woke" in every last thing you can, instead of first asking yourselves if there are other explanations at play, and what those explanations might be.
I've posted twice calling the original Star Trek "woke" for it's diversity. My point is that this kind of stuff has always existed. Whatever the definition of"woke" is there has always been forced diversity, allegory to real life controversy, and social commentary. I think people are trying to profit off it more now than ever. That profit can come from extra eyeballs loving or hating the messaging. There's probably some executive loving that their shows are being discussed here, "there no such thing as bad publicity." Or the profit is coming from the talking heads riling anger by highlighting something that has always existed.
A big part also is the constant online society we live in now. If a transexual "woke" episode of the Love Boat was on TV in 1982, then it just disappeared after airing and there was no machine to point it out positively or negatively and discuss it non-stop
A big part also is the constant online society we live in now. If a transexual "woke" episode of the Love Boat was on TV in 1982, then it just disappeared after airing and there was no machine to point it out positively or negatively and discuss it non-stop
it's just bad writing! it's just bad writing! It's just bad writing!
I heard if you look in the mirror and say this 3 times, it becomes actually true and not because people with ******ed world views are hired for DEI reasons.
I heard if you look in the mirror and say this 3 times, it becomes actually true and not because people with ******ed world views are hired for DEI reasons.
AustinAg2K said:Rex Racer said:
In season two, they added a police woman in a wheelchair, but all she does is have one line saying, "So and so is on the phone" or "so and so is waiting in the interview room", etc. Literally ONE LINE per episode. Then she turns around and wheels away.
It sounds like they just hired an actress in a wheelchair to play a secretary. I don't see the issue with that. What would be woke is if every episode had a scene where the wheelchair officer uses the wheelchair ramp to launch herself and land on the fleeing criminal... Actually, as I type that, it would actually be kind of awesome. At the end of every episode, the suspect tries to flee but Officer Wheels come flying in the tackle them. One week Wheels launches themselves off the handicap ramp, the next week she comes flying out a window.
We had "Ironside" in the early 1970's. It wasn't woke. Loved that show.
She's not a secretary in "Alert". She's a uniformed police officer.
The Porkchop Express said:
[Banned until tomorrow for thread derailing. -Staff]
[Posters will pay attention to the warnings or keep getting banned. -Staff]
Are we still talking about Dune (which is phenomenal writing, btw)? Or are you just squealing nonsense in the midst of a conversation that's far more nuanced than that?
Chani's changes however are going to make some events from Messaiah seem forced or at least less impactful. I can accept DVs explanation but you have to admit it had a secondary benefit of putting Zendaya in a more modern strong independent woman type role and you know that was part of the equation when they discussed it.
EtA: for clarity, I was responding specifically to the "internalized racism caused your sons cancer" episode -- a plot line that Matt Stone and Trey Parker are kicking themselves for not creating.
I've never seen dune nor participated in any discussion around dune.
It's just when there are people that get a little to literal in their politics and injecting it into their writing, we are always told that it was not on purpose, it's just "bad writing".
The counterargument is that the "bad writing" is caused by "bad writers" being hired for reasons other than being good at writing.
Just like the smooth brain that made an episode about racism causing cancer. I dont see any reason to defend this. It's a complete joke. We can argue about when it does and doesnt happen, but in this case, I think it speaks for itself.
I've never seen dune nor participated in any discussion around dune.
It's just when there are people that get a little to literal in their politics and injecting it into their writing, we are always told that it was not on purpose, it's just "bad writing".
The counterargument is that the "bad writing" is caused by "bad writers" being hired for reasons other than being good at writing.
Just like the smooth brain that made an episode about racism causing cancer. I dont see any reason to defend this. It's a complete joke. We can argue about when it does and doesnt happen, but in this case, I think it speaks for itself.
Whelp….id say this qualifies for this thread….this has came out in the last one or two days and once it hits mainstream gonna be curious to see the response….
Basically confirms what a lot of us have known…
For summary, this is an undercover interview with a Disney employee discussing how Disney chooses hires and promotions based on race and how they've said they don't want to hire white males for certain roles
Basically confirms what a lot of us have known…
For summary, this is an undercover interview with a Disney employee discussing how Disney chooses hires and promotions based on race and how they've said they don't want to hire white males for certain roles
This is the "other reasons" I alluded to.
People on this board defend this as an unfortunate accident, when the studio execs know exactly what they are doing.
People on this board defend this as an unfortunate accident, when the studio execs know exactly what they are doing.
I would like to know who these "people" are. You make it seem like it's the majority of the posters on here that feel this way.BadMoonRisin said:
This is the "other reasons" I alluded to.
People on this board defend this as an unfortunate accident, when the studio execs know exactly what they are doing.
Unemployed said:I would like to know who these "people" are. You make it seem like it's the majority of the posters on here that feel this way.BadMoonRisin said:
This is the "other reasons" I alluded to.
People on this board defend this as an unfortunate accident, when the studio execs know exactly what they are doing.
You already know.
Yep ... "New Amsterdam" started off innocuous, but quickly devolved into a hot mess. It was such a weird -- pardon the word -- transition.Wolfpac 08 said:El Gallo Blanco said:It's so incredible, it would almost be over-the-top ridiculous as a satirical skit designed specifically to make fun of such absudity.G.I.Bro said:
I kinda want to buy a star to access the laughing/crying emoticon for that scene from new Amsterdam. HFS
My wife and I were looking for a new show to watch and landed on New Amsterdam. Throughout the entirety of the first season, every episode had a slight woke agenda, but it was never so bad that you couldn't ignore it and the show was entertaining enough.
Until that clip.
It's early in season two and when he delivered the line I picked up the remote and turned off the show. I have no idea what was said after that, bc it was a full stop.
Think what you want, have whatever political beliefs you want, but that was too much for me.
One of these is not like the others.TCTTS said:
Case in point, without her, just look at this primary cast…
- Timothee Chalamet
See how much testosterone that is?
It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to believe that the people making commercials and entertainment today don't have an agenda.
I don't mean that all of them do. I mean that some of them do, and everyone else goes along to get along. What minion -- or for that matter, executive -- is going to complain that a commercial or television show has too much weird diversity? They would be drummed out of the business and lose their livelihood.
But to believe it's all done on the up-and-up for legitimate business purposes is willful blindness.
I don't mean that all of them do. I mean that some of them do, and everyone else goes along to get along. What minion -- or for that matter, executive -- is going to complain that a commercial or television show has too much weird diversity? They would be drummed out of the business and lose their livelihood.
But to believe it's all done on the up-and-up for legitimate business purposes is willful blindness.
One of my favorite commercials (meaning, despised and cringe-inducing every time I hear it to the point I have to put it on mute when it comes on, which is literally every commercial break on BBC with directv stream) is a mental health commercial for youth. One black kid criticizes another black kid for taking meds for depression, saying "why are you taking meds? that's a white person thing." Why the hell do you have to inject race into a commercial about depression in kids??? Why is this necessary or in any way helpful? In fact, it's just another way to instill racial divide in this country, and aimed at kids. Not just depressed kids, but all kids of all races hear that and it reinforces that races are different, and if you are black and try a method used by white kids then it is bad. It's not even casually placed, but clearly targeting a racial aspect in something where there should be no distinction. If a kid is depressed, and you want to talk about it and address it, leave race out of it. It is only in there because they insist on racism to be an issue, and in this society we live in right now it is completely against whitey. But aiming at white KIDS is an interesting approach, intentionally telling them just another way that they are different and should be seen in a negative light. But of all things to do this, criticizing how mental health is approached in one race vs another is despicable. I assume (and hope) that they are not intentionally saying that kids taking meds for depression is bad, but by presenting it in this way, white kids hearing this are basically being told they're different than black kids, and not in a good way. As if theyre weak for taking meds to help with a problem they're going through. Blanket statements (almost exclusively anti-white) around race are made all the time in contexts where it has no place or relevance.
(Of course, race should be left out of everything, but it is shoved down our throats these days so that it remains in the front of everyone minds, as if there's an effort to keep the division in place or make it worse, for some reason...)
Talking about, and addressing, mental health and depression in kids is very important, and it's good that there are efforts to help, but shoving race into it, while clearly demeaning white kids (and in the end, any kids who aren't white as well) for using medications to assist (regardless of if it's the best approach for an individual or not), is completely unnecessary to this effort. Unless it's intentionally placed there for some reason, perhaps...? Just like most efforts to specifically point out and bring up race in media, it is not intended to bridge the divide, and improve things in any way, but is clearly there to perpetuate the division around race in this country. We wouldn't want to actually improve racial issues in this country, not when it is such a useful tool...
(Of course, race should be left out of everything, but it is shoved down our throats these days so that it remains in the front of everyone minds, as if there's an effort to keep the division in place or make it worse, for some reason...)
Talking about, and addressing, mental health and depression in kids is very important, and it's good that there are efforts to help, but shoving race into it, while clearly demeaning white kids (and in the end, any kids who aren't white as well) for using medications to assist (regardless of if it's the best approach for an individual or not), is completely unnecessary to this effort. Unless it's intentionally placed there for some reason, perhaps...? Just like most efforts to specifically point out and bring up race in media, it is not intended to bridge the divide, and improve things in any way, but is clearly there to perpetuate the division around race in this country. We wouldn't want to actually improve racial issues in this country, not when it is such a useful tool...
But Brinks hasn't transgressed the Bud Light red line otherwise I'd be more alarmed.
Never seen this commercial so can't speak to the quality or specific messaging, but I'll bite.Quote:
One black kid criticizes another black kid for taking meds for depression, saying "why are you taking meds? that's a white person thing." Why the hell do you have to inject race into a commercial about depression in kids??? Why is this necessary or in any way helpful? In fact, it's just another way to instill racial divide in this country, and aimed at kids. Not just depressed kids, but all kids of all races hear that and it reinforces that races are different, and if you are black and try a method used by white kids then it is bad.
I'd imagine it's because mental health treatment is much more stigmatized in the black community whereas it's generally accepted in the white community, so it's an attempt to highlight that there's nothing wrong with mental health treatment.
It's not trying to divide anyone, it's an ad targeted at a certain demographic.
This is at least being directed by the same director as the original animated films, but I'm with you. I'm assuming it's Dreamworks attempt to cash in on a popular property like Disney has, though the Disney remakes have been pretty hit or miss.Al Bula said:But why?! The animated movie is about as good as you're gonna find in modern family animated cinema.Mayor West said:
Live action How to Train You Dragon casting…
https://thedirect.com/article/how-to-train-your-dragon-live-action-cast-movie-actors-characters-appear
A live action remake is absolutely unnecessary.
But so were the Disney live action films that were originally animated.
I don't think there is anyone who would argue that art/entertainment has had an agenda since we started painting animals in caves.
This includes art being completely intertwined with political speech since animal paintings in caves.
What is being debated here in my mind:
Does modern America TV/Film/Commercials place political speech above all other concerns including economic concerns?
The biggest problem with answering yes in my mind, is there always seems an economic explanation. Even if the economic rationale may be proven to be wrong.
For example that New Amsterdam clip is from 2020, during the heights of racial strife in this country with it getting pumped everywhere.
So it easy to imagine to some executive saying to the show, "do something with race in an upcoming episode because we want to capitalize on the ongoing public debate on the issue story so we can get 0.1 more eyeballs on this show, so we can justify the cost of selling ads or sell more ads. Plus we can cross market the episode with our news shows and day time talk shows. And some writer came up with this completely idiotic scene because they didn't want to make the main characters be racist or deal with racism in any meaningful way, so why not just put into the heath emergency of the week and the writer didn't have to research a new off the wall illness to create an episode.
Or maybe in 2020, a writer just said it. "Hey guys, I am going to do an episode on how racism causes cancer" and everyone went with it because they are all are pushing the same agenda.
I don't know which of these scenarios happened in 2020 or if something else drove it.
This scene is not defensible and it is very poor writing.
Often times the difference between acceptable and unacceptable politics in Film/TV/Art is good writing. That has been true from at least Shakespeare's time and it is true today.
That is why Star Trek, All in the Family, MASH, and the Mary Tyler Moore Show (Is Ted Baxter not the patron saint of the comically overblown incompetent white man?) are classics and New Amsterdam, Alert, and that Rob Lowe 911 show are destined to be forgotten for the rubbish that they are. That is why anti-war war films (Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, All Quiet on the Western Front, A Bridge too Far, maybe Saving Private Ryan?) are beloved classics, good writing and compelling narratives tend to override disagreeable politics on either side.
Network TV has always had a weird interplay between politics, advertising, and writers. In the 60's there was a feud between creatives and advertisers over whether Mary Tyler Moore could wear pants.
https://www.wvxu.org/media/2023-12-20/dick-van-dyke-show-pg-procter-gamble-mary-tyler-moore-carl-reiner-tvkiese
Which leads me to my final thought on this particular topic. A big part of the issue people have with TV/Film/Commercials today is due to the increased liberalization of Corporate America. I think TV/Film/Commercials are a reflection of the issues and societal trends and not the primary driver, big business is the driver. This isn't to let the entertainment industry off the hook, the fact that the New Amsterdam clip was allowed to be filmed and not laughed away as too stupid to film is an issue. But what is happening in Hollywood is happening with the blessing of big business through ads and media ownership.
On to gender/race swapping. This has been happening for a long time.
Here is a partial list of entertainment that has gendered/race swapped in case people want more examples:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenderFlip
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/RaceLift/DiversifyingACast
There does seem to be a marked increase in recent times, but how much of that is attributable to trying to capture younger audiences?
One that caught my interest was switching Ripley from male to female during the production of Alien. Here is a write up:
https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/roby-to-ripley/comment-page-1/
Once again swapping gender/race works when the work is good. See Morgan Freeman in Shawshank. See Ripley in Alien above. See Starbuck in New Battlestar Galactica (personally, I like Dirk Benedict's Starbuck better, but Katie Sackoff did an excellent job growing the character differently).
So to completely dismiss the quality of the work in terms of acceptance of the political message of the work, seems to be the harder position to take.
This includes art being completely intertwined with political speech since animal paintings in caves.
What is being debated here in my mind:
Does modern America TV/Film/Commercials place political speech above all other concerns including economic concerns?
The biggest problem with answering yes in my mind, is there always seems an economic explanation. Even if the economic rationale may be proven to be wrong.
For example that New Amsterdam clip is from 2020, during the heights of racial strife in this country with it getting pumped everywhere.
So it easy to imagine to some executive saying to the show, "do something with race in an upcoming episode because we want to capitalize on the ongoing public debate on the issue story so we can get 0.1 more eyeballs on this show, so we can justify the cost of selling ads or sell more ads. Plus we can cross market the episode with our news shows and day time talk shows. And some writer came up with this completely idiotic scene because they didn't want to make the main characters be racist or deal with racism in any meaningful way, so why not just put into the heath emergency of the week and the writer didn't have to research a new off the wall illness to create an episode.
Or maybe in 2020, a writer just said it. "Hey guys, I am going to do an episode on how racism causes cancer" and everyone went with it because they are all are pushing the same agenda.
I don't know which of these scenarios happened in 2020 or if something else drove it.
This scene is not defensible and it is very poor writing.
Often times the difference between acceptable and unacceptable politics in Film/TV/Art is good writing. That has been true from at least Shakespeare's time and it is true today.
That is why Star Trek, All in the Family, MASH, and the Mary Tyler Moore Show (Is Ted Baxter not the patron saint of the comically overblown incompetent white man?) are classics and New Amsterdam, Alert, and that Rob Lowe 911 show are destined to be forgotten for the rubbish that they are. That is why anti-war war films (Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, All Quiet on the Western Front, A Bridge too Far, maybe Saving Private Ryan?) are beloved classics, good writing and compelling narratives tend to override disagreeable politics on either side.
Network TV has always had a weird interplay between politics, advertising, and writers. In the 60's there was a feud between creatives and advertisers over whether Mary Tyler Moore could wear pants.
https://www.wvxu.org/media/2023-12-20/dick-van-dyke-show-pg-procter-gamble-mary-tyler-moore-carl-reiner-tvkiese
Which leads me to my final thought on this particular topic. A big part of the issue people have with TV/Film/Commercials today is due to the increased liberalization of Corporate America. I think TV/Film/Commercials are a reflection of the issues and societal trends and not the primary driver, big business is the driver. This isn't to let the entertainment industry off the hook, the fact that the New Amsterdam clip was allowed to be filmed and not laughed away as too stupid to film is an issue. But what is happening in Hollywood is happening with the blessing of big business through ads and media ownership.
On to gender/race swapping. This has been happening for a long time.
Here is a partial list of entertainment that has gendered/race swapped in case people want more examples:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenderFlip
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/RaceLift/DiversifyingACast
There does seem to be a marked increase in recent times, but how much of that is attributable to trying to capture younger audiences?
One that caught my interest was switching Ripley from male to female during the production of Alien. Here is a write up:
https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/roby-to-ripley/comment-page-1/
Once again swapping gender/race works when the work is good. See Morgan Freeman in Shawshank. See Ripley in Alien above. See Starbuck in New Battlestar Galactica (personally, I like Dirk Benedict's Starbuck better, but Katie Sackoff did an excellent job growing the character differently).
So to completely dismiss the quality of the work in terms of acceptance of the political message of the work, seems to be the harder position to take.
TCTTS said:
Where did I say that it actually put more butts in seats? Rather, I said it's their rationale, and their attempt to put more butts in seats. While I clearly made a point to say how stupid and fruitless that rationale and those attempts can be at times. That said, the studios have all kinds of data telling them they should do these things. It might very well be flawed, and the juice might not ultimately be worth the squeeze, but they're not completely grasping at straws either.
As for Zendaya's role in the second movie, Villeneuve has addressed this multiple times. It's not that "patriarchal cultures are not acceptable" (their culture was ultimately run/manipulated by a women, btw, in the form of the Bene Gesserit) nor did the story "need a modern woman to stand up to a man." You're only trying to convince yourself and others of these things. Rather, unlike even Frank Herbert, Villeneuve had the advantage of knowing the story of Messiah as he was adapting/crafting the story for Part Two. And because Herbert wrote Messiah in order to underline the warning-against-messiah-figures theme of the first book, considering an alarming number of readers (according to Herbet) didn't pick up on it in the first book, with 20/20 hindsight Villeneuve was able to better-imbue Part Two with that message.
That's where those changes come from.
My point is, some of you often go out of your way to actively try and ID "woke" in every last thing you can, instead of first asking yourselves if there are other explanations at play, and what those explanations might be.
I'm sorry did you just imply that because the bene gesserit manipulate the fremen that they're not patriarchal? That example is so poor that it would seem to obliterate any distinction between culture that exists in that universe, since they manipulate them all for bloodlines. In fact even the concept of the bene gesserit as a separate group is dissolved if that's how far you'll go to try to make a point. I'd back off that one instead of going for broke.
Denis making his own narrative of the story sure, happens all the time. Like leaving out Tom bombadil in fellowship, you leave out Jamis' wives but then you have to find a way for Paul to prove his love differently and it's not quite the same level of devotion or type. Zendaya just comes off like a whiny b instead of a devoted wife who can influence the affections of her husband. Did kynes have to change for that? No. There's no additional tickets sold, no bigger audience, no furthering of plot or narrative, just an unimportant figure referenced here and there. It was entirely throwaway which is why it stands out. Kynes became the HR lady we all avoid at work.
No he's accurately stating that that the Bene Gesserit are controlling the empire and have been for tens of thousands of years.
Definitely Not A Cop said:
No he's accurately stating that that the Bene Gesserit are controlling the empire and have been for tens of thousands of years.
Those nasty, nasty women
Definitely Not A Cop said:
No he's accurately stating that that the Bene Gesserit are controlling the empire and have been for tens of thousands of years.
Which means nothing in the argument of culture. It's simply a throwaway thought in an attempt to pile things on. Planets all have distinct cultures and societies even inside of that. Kynes as a woman in that culture is an entirely different thing.
Featured Stories
See All
Keys to the Game: No. 10 Texas A&M at No. 15 Missouri
by Luke Evangelist
Scouting Report: No. 10 Texas A&M at No. 15 Missouri
by Tom Schuberth
FINAL from Davis: No. 7 Texas A&M 10, No. 19 Baylor 7 (Aggie Classic)
by Mathias Cubillan
AggieCrew44
Indiana Head Coaching Search (Buzz mentioned as one of top)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
178
KillerAg21
Indiana Head Coaching Search (Buzz mentioned as one of top)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
66
aginlakeway
Indiana Head Coaching Search (Buzz mentioned as one of top)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
60
Capitol Ag
Indiana Head Coaching Search (Buzz mentioned as one of top)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
45
KillerAg21
Indiana Head Coaching Search (Buzz mentioned as one of top)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
41