Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Breakdown]

Disagree in a number of areas:

-I disagree that the show isn't interested in the male characters. Rand, Perrin, Mat, Lan, all of them are fleshed out.

-I do feel sorry for Rand, but the show plays up the tragedy angle. I didn't really get the sense of the show shoving him aside. The five ta'varen get equal development.

-The "big moment" is as much Nynave's and Egwene's as the new character. Maybe it comes from Rand, but Rand's going through his own struggle with the Dark One at the time, which to be frank, is more compelling than a light show.

The series needed to do two things successfully to really kickstart the story arc. First off establish the backstory that the Dragon was incredibly powerful and went mad and killed a whole bunch of people (like maybe it would have been a good idea showing the prologue that was in the book). Secondly, establish that Rand is the Dragon Reborn and is incredibly powerful. That sets him as the timebomb - he could go crazy at any time and he's so powerful that when he does go crazy it's going to be bad news for everybody within a hundred mile radius. And you really need to see an example of his power, because television is a visual medium. It's not just the audience either, the other characters need to see his power as well, because that changes their relationship with him. He's not just a friend any more, he's an existential threat to the world. So we need to see Rand destroy that fucking army!

The thing with the Dark One is just completely underwhelming by comparison, and it's all just based on Egwene anyway. Rand likes Egwene but she's not that into him. That's the extent of his characterisation. Most of the other male characters are also defined by their relationships with the more important female characters.

 

[Breakdown]

How do you know the critic is alt right?

In before magical telepathy powers or "Because they dare be critical of certain things to begin with as anyone not alt-right knows not to criticise those things"

That reminds me of this article about the Northman.

" if the far right doesn’t hate your film, you might be doing something wrong"

 

[Buyetyen]

That reminds me of this article about the Northman.

" if the far right doesn’t hate your film, you might be doing something wrong"

Funny thing, the director has actually said that he wants to reclaim Nordic history and folklore from the white supremacists who have embraced a shitty version of the history as fact and use it as more excuses to be awful human beings to everyone not like them.

That said, the white supremacists are still going to dig this movie because all the message crafting is going right over their heads. It still has manly men with swords and spears, so the CHUDs will get what they want out of it. Unfortunately, no one can control how audiences will react to a piece of media once it's released.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Oh you mean like:

Atomic Blonde
Aeon Flux
The Tomb Raider films
The Underworld Franchise
Salt
Ultraviolet
Sicario
Charlie's Angels
Kick Ass
Mortal Engines
New Mutants
Alita
Happy Death Day 2 U
Wonder Woman
Jumanji Welcome to the Jungle & The Next Level
Suicide Squad & The Suicide Squad
The Villainess
The Courier
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
The Fifth Element
The Hunger Games Franchise
The Allegiant Franchise
Kill Bill
Live Die Repeat
Ghost in the Shell

Nice list, though some of those aren't male led action movies, and others are ensemble cast affairs. A better way to measure this contrast is to take all of the action stars (actors that routinely star in action movies) throughout movie history and see how many are men and how many are women. You won't be surprised to what side the pendulum heavily swings toward.

But then that post of mine you quoted wasn't even about that, it was about movies that make women be better than men as a supposed feminist agenda. And I'll admit there is some truth to that, but only in as much as that this is how dumb (usually) men write female characters by having them compete with the male leads for meager credibility points. And this has been around for years before the "woke" crowd supposedly took over Hollywood. They're cheap token moments to throw the women in the audience a bone and say 'see, we're letting the girls have their moment before the male lead eventually does all the real work and saves the day'.

Funny thing, the director has actually said that he wants to reclaim Nordic history and folklore from the white supremacists who have embraced a shitty version of the history as fact and use it as more excuses to be awful human beings to everyone not like them.

That said, the white supremacists are still going to dig this movie because all the message crafting is going right over their heads. It still has manly men with swords and spears, so the CHUDs will get what they want out of it. Unfortunately, no one can control how audiences will react to a piece of media once it's released.

I am honestly getting a bit tired of the chiseled uber man from ancient times, and considering how Robert Eggers wants to depict historical settings more earnestly, this feels bit dissapointing. I mean, I get it and I like some of these movies myself, but just once I'd like to see a movie like this (or Conan) where the hero doesn't look idealized but accurately fucked up by all the hardship. Like muscle toned, but with matchstick arms.

 

[Agema]

That cuts both ways though. There's a clear tendency in the media at the minute to silence criticism because these particular critics are alt right or far right or whatever. Don't like the Last Jedi? You're a nazi.

Yeah, but what do you call the legion of "critics" whose primary objections to TLJ were 1) purple-haired woman tells off neo-Han Solo and 2) Asian woman does stuff?

Because it doesn't sound to me like those critics are really concerned about the core, cinematic quality of the movie.

 

[Breakdown]

Yeah, but what do you call the legion of "critics" whose primary objections to TLJ were 1) purple-haired woman tells off neo-Han Solo and 2) Asian woman does stuff?

Because it doesn't sound to me like those critics are really concerned about the core, cinematic quality of the movie.

So, do I have to come up with a label that describes all the people who don't like the Last Jedi? Are all those people the same? Are there only two possible criticisms of TLJ - that there's a purple-haired woman who tells off neo-Han Solo and an Asian woman does stuff?

 

[Buyetyen]

Are there only possible criticisms of TLJ - that there's a purple-haired woman who tells off neo-Han Solo and an Asian woman does stuff?

No, but if those are what you lead with, you're probably full of shit.

 

[Trunkage]

So, do I have to come up with a label that describes all the people who don't like the Last Jedi? Are all those people the same? Are there only two possible criticisms of TLJ - that there's a purple-haired woman who tells off neo-Han Solo and an Asian woman does stuff?

There are plenty of criticism I've had of TLJ. Even on this site

I somehow navigated all those hundreds of conversations with being called sexist or whatever you think is going to happen

Actually, it was real easy. My suggestion - don't attack people based on their gender

 

[Breakdown]

There are plenty of criticism I've had of TLJ. Even on this site

I somehow navigated all those hundreds of conversations with being called sexist or whatever you think is going to happen

Actually, it was real easy. My suggestion - don't attack people based on their gender

So you're resorting to a blatant strawman argument here? When I did attack people based on their gender?

I don't even know why I'm bothering posting on the Escapist at this point. All the fun people left ages ago.

 

[Agema]

So, do I have to come up with a label that describes all the people who don't like the Last Jedi? Are all those people the same? Are there only two possible criticisms of TLJ - that there's a purple-haired woman who tells off neo-Han Solo and an Asian woman does stuff?

No, but when those barking neanderthals make so much of the noise and with so much entitled rage, they set the trend for how people perceive the criticism.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Because it then went into a sort o fantasy redemption story arc almost following what many veterans would probably like to be able to do where they go back and rescue their friends and feel they're useful again?

Um... no. I'm gonna go with "no".

 

[Hawki]

Amazon is not, and will never be "woke."

Doesn't stop its employees from trying to be.

is a word that is very hard to spell.

I woke up this morning with around eight 'bell alerts.' Yours was by far the most important.

I generally don't have an encyclopaedia knowledge of all such articles to pull up on demand so here's some

Cancelling ‘Vagrant Queen’ Flies in the Face of SYFY’s “Dedication” to Diversity & Representation

Canceling Vagrant Queen proves once again that SYFY doesn't truly care for diversity or representation. They're all talk and I've reached the end of my rope wit

fangirlish.com

10 Reasons to Watch Vagrant Queen’s Single Perfect Season - Reactor

The amount of shows with Black female leads are in the single digits. And the amount that are also sapphic? Could be counted on one hand. Vagrant Queen follows Elida/Eldaya, played by Adriyan Rae, a Black female alien queen who is on the run from her planet’s people after seeing revolutionaries...

www.tor.com

So you might also recall that I asked whether the 'wokeness' of Vagrant Queen was coming from the producers or the wider media. Based on those links, it appears that the latter is the case. If Vagrant Queen is perceived as 'woke,' then it seems it's an interpretation people have come up with.

That said, going through each of the articles, here's my thoughts on them:

First: Woke, riddled with identity politics

Second: Actually, this is a pretty decent article. It looks at the LGBT aspects, but also everything from the show's conception to the casting. I don't think I can cite this as an example of wokeness.

Third: Fairly woke. It's not as obnoxious as the first article, and look, if those are the ten most important things to the author, more power to them, but I don't think "watch X because it's got Y" in it is that compelling an argument.

Based on how the characters comic book run went and the attempts to dismiss dissenters. Yeh it's how it does seemingly go.

Sorry, what happened?

Because the easy move is to give a poorly written character a "diverse" background then easily dismiss anyone objecting to it.

It's forced diversity because it tries to force the conversation about the character being "Diverse" and not well written or not forcing that to the forefront of the character's identity quite often.

But you're essentially starting from a foregone conclusion - that if the characters are bad, then "forced diversity" is the reason why, whereas if they're good, then it's a non-issue. It also sets a double standard.

I mean, if we go back to Marvel for example, let's compare America Chavez with, say, Kamala Khan. Both are 'diverse' (frankly, I think that's a silly way of looking at media in general, but whatever), and let's say that America Chavez is poorly written (no idea if it is, let's just assume that). But on the other hand, there's Ms. Marvel/Kamala Khan, who's actually a pretty fun character (personal opinion) and generally well received by a wider audience (a somewhat objective statement). So, when A.C. fails, it's "forced diversity," but when Ms. Marvel succeeds, it's...unforced diversity?

I can apply this to Doctor Who as well. It's simply possible that the companions of Thirteen aren't well written, while prior companions were well written, because after all, none of the traits in Thirteen's fam were absent from past companions. We've had black companions (Martha, Bill), and LGBT companions (Captain Jack).

And to be frank, I haven't seen the BBC go down the route of "if you don't like DW, you're a bigot." In this case, it looks like you're projecting. And to be frank, I've made my distaste for Chibnall's run abundantly clear on these forums from the get-go (see my reviews on the "non-movies" thread), no-one's ever accused me of being a bigot for it.

Except that's kind of where part of the lazy writing comes in that the antagonist is always some dude deemed "Weird" who chooses to attack the characters for being weird. It's a proxy to show how said creators feel about certain groups and basically strawman their positions and mock said groups or people..

Supergirl Season 1 had it's moments like the alien early on who says something like "On my planet women serve their men like they're supposed to" but season 1 was heavily balanced out by Kat Grant basically being the mouthpiece for some-one of the writing staff who hated the latest wave of feminism and the bullshit with it and wanted to show why it was bad but previous waves were better.

Um, if an alien antagonist is saying that, maybe you're not meant to agree with it?

As for Kat Grant balancing things out, I don't really recall that. Though I'll take your word for it. I think the 'feminist scenes' in season 2 are fairly cringeworthy, but not as cringeworthy as the Flash's "hashtag feminism" moment with all th egirls fistbumping. (yes, for those of you at home, that's an actual line).

So the bioengineered virus reanimating the dead is fine but the tube top isn't?

Read what I said earlier in the thread where I explained the difference.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You're consistently intellectually insulting.

I base my response on the argument given. If you're going to make the same argument of someone that you made fun of for using the same argument, then I will call you on it. I only ever gotten reported once on the old and new forums.

 

[Hawki]

The series needed to do two things successfully to really kickstart the story arc. First off establish the backstory that the Dragon was incredibly powerful and went mad and killed a whole bunch of people (like maybe it would have been a good idea showing the prologue that was in the book). Secondly, establish that Rand is the Dragon Reborn and is incredibly powerful.

The show pretty much does that though. We see how powerful regular channeling is, and it's established that the Dragon Reborn will be much, MUCH more powerful. I think Logar's scene ("like a blazing sun") really encapsulates this. He thinks he's the Dragon, he's more powerful than most Aes Sedai, yet he's outclassed by Nynaeve, and even then, this is still a fraction of the power the Dragon can wield.

That sets him as the timebomb - he could go crazy at any time and he's so powerful that when he does go crazy it's going to be bad news for everybody within a hundred mile radius. And you really need to see an example of his power, because television is a visual medium. It's not just the audience either, the other characters need to see his power as well, because that changes their relationship with him. He's not just a friend any more, he's an existential threat to the world. So we need to see Rand destroy that fucking army!

So, I get what you're saying. Really. I think that's a reasonable argument. However, I disagree with it for the following reasons:

-I don't think the show is required to have Rand have a great display of power right from the start. First, if we get that display, then we can only go up from there. So if he's the one that does the lightning storm, what next? Bigger lightning storms with bigger armies?

-That Rand is a ticking time bomb IS established, and we're both told and shown this. Told, in the sense that it's established that men can't wield the One Power without going mad, and that the Dragon is destined to either save or destroy the world. Shown, in that we have Logar as an example. We see his power, as well as his madness. Logar is very much a case of what Rand could end up as, Dragon or no Dragon, and it's telling that he and Matt watch as he's paraded through Tar Vallon.

The thing with the Dark One is just completely underwhelming by comparison, and it's all just based on Egwene anyway. Rand likes Egwene but she's not that into him. That's the extent of his characterisation. Most of the other male characters are also defined by their relationships with the more important female characters.

So, again, I can see what you're getting at. I think it's fair to say that about the male characters to an extent. Rand pines for Egwene, Matt is devoted to his sisters, Perrin is torn up over his wife's death (while potentially having a thing for Egwene), Lan is Moiraine's warder, etc. I also agree that the Dark One is...iffy (why is he wearing a business suit?)

However, I disagree in a number of areas. First, I don't believe Rand pining for Egwene is the be all and end all of his characters. There's his friendship with Matt, there's his relationship with his father, there's the mystery of his heritage, there's his growing power that he hides from everyone, etc. Second, I don't think it's a bad thing with Rand pining for Egwene. YMMV, but for me, it's one of the most wholesome, yet tragic elements of the season. Rand's clearly in love with Egwene, and Egwene clearly has affection for him, just not to the same extent. So Rand giving that up, effectively sacrificing himself by going with Moraine into the Blight, saving the world (as far as he knows), but doomed to die alone, unremembered...there's a strong element of tragedy with Rand that I think the show really does well. And having him do a lightning storm would undermine that.

Basically, emotional depth comes before light shows. It's certainly possible to combine both elements (again, see Logain), so hypothetically, you could have Rand do the storm with everything else, but if it's a choice between one or the other, I prefer what we got to what you say should be there. To use another example, Goku becoming a super saiyan in DBZ is one of the best moments in the show for me, but the reasons for that go far beyond the 'cool factor,' given the emotional stakes (grief), and thematic undertones (Freeza's created the monster he always feared, the weakest, most compassionate saiyan is the strongest, etc.). Or if we're using Star Wars as an example (since it keeps coming up), Luke's actions in the Last Jedi against Kylo (deception, victory through non-violence, establishing a legacy) are far more interesting and emotionally resonant than the notion of Luke going berserk on the First Order and being a one man army, which is what some have called for.

But that's just me.

 

[Gergar12]

AOC got owned by the same tactics she used on Ben Shapiro.

 

[MrCalavera]

AOC got owned by the same tactics she used on Ben Shapiro.

"Owned" you say?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Yeah, but what do you call the legion of "critics" whose primary objections to TLJ were 1) purple-haired woman tells off neo-Han Solo and 2) Asian woman does stuff?

Because it doesn't sound to me like those critics are really concerned about the core, cinematic quality of the movie.

Except those weren't the entirety of the complaints with many of them elaborating to point out why it's a problem / doesn't make sense / makes the character awful and seems like poorly done writing because.

General refuses to trust her best troops to know a plan that seems initially suicidal leading to them taking it upon themselves to try and save the day fearing defeat due to the plan they got told not being the true plan.

Also Barely characterised Asian character saves hero with one that she's apparently been madly in love with but we've not really had much development of that or her as a character before that point.

It's easy to dismiss critics by framing things certain ways and being less than honest and using weighted words reliant on people not looking into actual complaints just going for soundbite moments on social media.

Bigots just hated the Diverse cast - Suicide Squad.

Sexists intimidated by good looking female lead - Alita Battle Angel

Homophobes slam movie due to black lesbian - Ready Player One

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Funny thing, the director has actually said that he wants to reclaim Nordic history and folklore from the white supremacists who have embraced a shitty version of the history as fact and use it as more excuses to be awful human beings to everyone not like them.

That said, the white supremacists are still going to dig this movie because all the message crafting is going right over their heads. It still has manly men with swords and spears, so the CHUDs will get what they want out of it. Unfortunately, no one can control how audiences will react to a piece of media once it's released.

The funny thing is I've seen a few takes knocking round about how the film is alt-right or is bad to not working harder to stick it to said groups.

It's hilarious in how terrible an idea it is really when you think about it because people are mad that a piece of art isn't "message mongering" enough for their taste and isn't making itself into some film that is just about strawmanning and "Owning" some group.

Again I go back to Black Sails Season 2 where there was a clear moment in the series with little going on because the creator expected the audience to be shocked by a revelation and for me at least it didn't work because it was a case of "And? Wait that's the big reveal? That's it?" The only shocking part is apparently they thought that reveal would be some big shocking twist to people such that they'd need some time before the story carried on.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Nice list, though some of those aren't male led action movies, and others are ensemble cast affairs. A better way to measure this contrast is to take all of the action stars (actors that routinely star in action movies) throughout movie history and see how many are men and how many are women. You won't be surprised to what side the pendulum heavily swings toward.

I think you might end up surprised actually but how that pendulum isn't actually that far to one side than you think if you add in all the "Grindhouse" and lower budget action films like:

Golden Temple of the Amazons
Panther Squad
Galaxina
Mankillers
Silk

and others in said vein.

But then that post of mine you quoted wasn't even about that, it was about movies that make women be better than men as a supposed feminist agenda. And I'll admit there is some truth to that, but only in as much as that this is how dumb (usually) men write female characters by having them compete with the male leads for meager credibility points. And this has been around for years before the "woke" crowd supposedly took over Hollywood. They're cheap token moments to throw the women in the audience a bone and say 'see, we're letting the girls have their moment before the male lead eventually does all the real work and saves the day'.

Except now they've kept that level of writing but the male character never gets a moment. The female character just saves the day while the male character I dunno falls over his shoelaces and faceplants the floor or something.

Often with added film dialogue about how men are bad or how the future is female or something like that.

I am honestly getting a bit tired of the chiseled uber man from ancient times, and considering how Robert Eggers wants to depict historical settings more earnestly, this feels bit dissapointing. I mean, I get it and I like some of these movies myself, but just once I'd like to see a movie like this (or Conan) where the hero doesn't look idealized but accurately fucked up by all the hardship. Like muscle toned, but with matchstick arms.

but reality is often brutal and boring.

 

[Hawki]

Except those weren't the entirety of the complaints with many of them elaborating to point out why it's a problem / doesn't make sense / makes the character awful and seems like poorly done writing because.

General refuses to trust her best troops to know a plan that seems initially suicidal leading to them taking it upon themselves to try and save the day fearing defeat due to the plan they got told not being the true plan.

Also Barely characterised Asian character saves hero with one that she's apparently been madly in love with but we've not really had much development of that or her as a character before that point.

Okay, in isolation, those are reasonable criticisms. However, the thing is, a lot of the time, those criticisms weren't made in isolation.

Holdo wasn't criticized just for poor command decisions, she was called "Admiral Gender Studies," and it was seen as an attack on men because she lectured Poe.

Rose wasn't criticized for being a lacklustre character, she was criticized for being an example of "forced diversity" and "pandering to the Chinese audience" (the fact that Tran is Vietnamese notwithstanding). Even your own analogy conveys this bias when you call her "Asian character."

It's easy to dismiss critics by framing things certain ways and being less than honest and using weighted words reliant on people not looking into actual complaints just going for soundbite moments on social media.

Bigots just hated the Diverse cast - Suicide Squad.

Sexists intimidated by good looking female lead - Alita Battle Angel

Homophobes slam movie due to black lesbian - Ready Player One

You're right, it easy to frame those things, but for the Last Jedi, those framings weren't required, they were verifiable. I had the misfortune of seeing it with my own eyes on Wookiepedia, as I reverted people's edits to Rose and/or Tran's pages, calling the character/actress a "*****." If people are acting like assholes, and are displaying their assholery, it isn't some media conspiracy to treat assholes like assholes.

Also, your hypothetical equivalents don't work as:

-Suicide Squad: The film wasn't even diverse in any meaningful manner, and none of the criticism levied against it really touched on the issue. People generally agree that Katana was terrible, but also generally agree that Will Smith and Margot Robbie did as good a job as the material allowed.

-Alita: You mean the film that got drawn into a culture war as some kind of stupid rivalry between it and Captain Marvel, because Brie Larson said some mean things?

-Ready Player One: The film wasn't slammed (it was generally well received), and I've never seen anyone focus on film!Ache (I will say Ache is handled better in the film than in the book, but that's another matter).

You're comparing hypothetical criticism and hypothetical reactions against verified criticism.

And yes, I can fully admit that what you described can happen - see the excuse for the Charlie's Angels reboot, where the director blamed males/boys for see Marvel movies instead of her movie or something. But I don't recall Disney/Johnson doing that, and even if they did, it doesn't change the fact that a lot of criticism WAS sexist/racist.

Oh, and are we forgotting how Disney reacted to it? You know, a piece of drek called Rise of Skywalker, that no-one seems to like in any part of the fandom? Where Rose is effectively written out of the film, among other things? Remember that?!

Except now they've kept that level of writing but the male character never gets a moment. The female character just saves the day while the male character I dunno falls over his shoelaces and faceplants the floor or something.

Often with added film dialogue about how men are bad or how the future is female or something like that.

What the hell are you talking about?

Okay, maybe there's some film that does that somewhere, but this is hardly some kind of trend. Look at any major film franchise, and male characters are still dominant. DCEU, MCU, Wizarding World, Star Wars, James Bond, etc. Look at the highest grossing film franchises, and you'll find that there's far more male roles than female ones.

In fact, I challenge you to name a film that waxes lyrical on how men are evil. Because while those sentiments do exist in the depths of the Internet, and even on published sites such as Medium (which is filled with that kind of stuff), the idea that films are these bastions of wokeness? Not really. Crazy as some feminists are, I disagree with the notion that they've got this supposed mega level of control over the arts.