Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
I mean, I liked the part where Hawki pretends that DH hadn't just been going down a rabbit hole of politicization, part of it including a video. But the standard is only applied to Absent. Perhaps you could lead with that.
(Mind you, this Robin Hood thing has been going on for 6 pages now... It's been an incredible ride)
As opposed to if someone created a historical drama about 14th century Mali and cast a white actor to play Mansa Musa?If the reasons are "OMG ROBIN HOOD IS A BISEXUAL BLACK WOMAN WOKE BULLSHIT!!!!!" then the response is more likely be "Grow the fuck up and deal with it".
Because doing that is exactly the sort of thing you're calling out here (aside from which character is being recast as which identity), aka them doing exactly the reverse of what I just described with Anne Boleyn. Which is of course acceptable and firmly in "Grow the fuck up" territory. But yet, I suspect a white Mansa Musa would have many of the same people explicitly supporting a black Anne Boleyn very angry.
More that I don't really feel more needed to be adding but felt I couldn't end the post just there.
Offended?
I'm laughing at this awful crap, best comedy adaptation of Robin Hood since Men In Tights............. shame it was meant to be a series one.
It's like the Wizard of Oz adaptation where they tried to make it Grim Dark game of thrones stuff.
The Wicked Witch of the West is an Opium dealer who runs a brothel.
Only Emerald City was well shot and clearly had a good budget and imaginative writing team.
Where's my Joan of Arc warrior maiden series?
Oh we're doing the everything comes from the hero with a thousand faces idea are we?
Yes things are inspired by others. The difference is wearing the other things face.
No it rather is, it points out the hollowness of the supposed support for said shows and how it only seems to matter that there's a recognisable name attached to try and change to "subvert" or whatever.
No, we're not. We're saying that specific stories have always been reinvented and retold with different ideas and different angles, as explicitly clear from that post.
It's an irrelevant non-sequitur. A straw man directed at a phantom opponent.
Firstly, who's this directed at? What progressives? It doesn't necessarily have any relevance to anyone you're talking to here: you might be discussing this topic with progressive Escapist users who watched Atomic Blonde where the comment becomes nonsensical. Are the "progressives" who wanted She-Ra continued the same ones as didn't watch Atomic Blonde? There's no real and identified opponent here you're criticising, it just seeme to be some fantasy amorphous blob of your own imagination.
Next, what's the logic? Progressives have to watch Atomic Blonde to put their money where their mouth is - what is the reason for this? Why Atomic Blonde - why not some other underperforming action movie with a female lead, and how do we then address well-performing action movies with a female lead? Are you arguing that progressives are obliged to watch every action movie with a female lead irrespective of any other quality, for instance, and if so what would be the sense in this argument? (I could go on, but I think you get the idea.)
There's just no substance to this, no discernable point. it's a wild swing at empty air and it has no merit as an argument.
Whataboutism and moving the goal post with nonsensical arguments that go nowhere, is this man's bread and butter. It's all he ever does.
Speaking of Atomic Blonde, good movie but the twist ending is stupid and unnecessary.
Speaking of race swapping, Saga Anderson from Quantum Break was originally white. She's now black in Alan Wake II. So far no one has complained, nor had any issues. Anderson was such a small and not an important character, that a majority of sensible people do not care. Most fans don't even know the character until now. Only the very few hardcore obsessed ever bother to remember this character, and they do not have any problem with the race change either.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if the parasitic right wing leech nuts jump onto this and claim to be Remedy "fans".
Last edited:
Because so far, they've been largely absent.
(No, that isn't a pun.)
MM is a historical figure, RH isn't. You have far more leeway with the latter than the former.
That, however, is somewhat valid, since both are historical figures.
And they don't wear the face of previous ones that's a key difference.
Actually it does because of all the things people are trying to defend here you're picking Robyn Hood?
As for "I might be talking to a user who watched it.............. chances are not due to how it unfortunately did.
Also as for Amorphous blob............. Oh dear it's not my fault you didn't actually support the actually progressive things that came out lol guess you should suck it up and stop playing the victim Will people realise I'm repeating others words here that have been directed at me before only time will tell......
Same reason anyone who didn't watch Selma was a racist years ago.
Same reason anyone who doesn't like x product is [insert some form of bigotry] according to many people.
I didn't make the rules. The self proclaimed "Progressives" did. Welcome to them being turned round.
Hey I didn't make the rules if you're refusing to watch Captain Charlie's Busters 2016 clearly you're a misogynist or something
But you did make the rules, because these are rules that exist only in your fevered imagination.
It's certainly not a "rule," but it is a claim that comes up from time to time.
Top of my head, the Charlie's Angels reboot bombed. The director attributed that to sexism. When it was pointed out that Captain Marvel made over 1 billion, her reasoning was that (paraphrased) that as a Marvel movie, men are already invested in it, whereas their sexism was keeping them away from her movie.
Then you get claims of sexism/racism that have an element of truth, but are used to account for any other reasoning. For instance, Ghostbusters 2016 and Last Jedi both had sexist/racist backlash, that's undeniable. However, you also had cases where people who had reasonable complaints were lumped in with the actual twats. Most infamously, James Rolfe gave his reasons for not wanting to see Ghostbusters 2016, none of which touched on gender or ethnicity, yet was smeared as a mysogonist by some outlets.
So, no, it's not a "rule" that someone has to like something OR ELSE, but these are demonstrable occurrences where the charge of bias is used to deflect/rationalize the failure of a piece of media.
Does it happen sometimes? Yes. Does it happen all of the time? No. That's where the problem with these claims is. You are basically saying, or at least seeming to say, that any time something bad is made that is seen as "woke", people complaining about its quality are inevitably going to be dismissed based on a few edge cases.
I apologize in advance if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. I just want to make my position clear: there are twats on either side of the argument, and neither should be used to dismiss the other side entirely. However, it is a lot easier for the side with, let's just say, 75% of the representation to "other" the remaining 25% than vice versa. In other words, for people looking for transgender representation, there are a lot fewer places they can find it, which makes it all the worse when what we (maybe) get is poor quality, and when we (maybe) are told to essentially "Shut up and take what you get, and stop trying to get more," defensiveness tends to come out. Which is not a good thing, by any means, but it's a natural reaction. Meanwhile, if you are looking for cisgender representation...there is a plethora of options.
No. I'm not. 95% of the time, people who treat a piece of media as "woke" are basing it on the presence of minorities, or inocuous themes that are barely worth discussing. I have no time for people who decry "woke" in media, because so often it's based on nothing but their own prejudices.
What I AM saying is that contrary to what Sil has said, there are demonstrable cases where people have tried to justify the failure of a piece of media based on supposed biases. So no, it's not a "rule" as dwarf has said, but it's not non-existent, as Sil has said. And look, I get the need to rationalize a negative response to something, especially if you poured your heart and soul into it (heck, I write stuff, I have to deal with duds a lot of the time), but sometimes, the work is just bad, or just didn't connect with audiences for whatever reason. The Creator isn't "woke" for trying to do a Vietnam War alagory for instance, it's just a lacklustre film that fails to deliver that allagory, or really, an allagory for anything.
Well, that's a separate issue, but I'd say our positions are pretty much the same. I don't have much sympathy for people decrying forced diversity or whatever. A few cases, yes, it would be if you're dealing with historical periods/figures, but that's a different kettle of fish from fictional characters in fictional settings.
Sure, there are such instances. But then you also have the fact that a big chunk of 'criticism' of such pieces really does boil down to 'they're girls lololol woke genderswap'.
I mean, that's what Dwarven does. He complains at length that media has girls and gay people in it, then when called out on it, insists that his legitimate criticisms of plot and writing are being deflected.
Could well be an element of truth to that. I mean, Charlie's Angels was hardly a great movie, but it wasn't as bad as Captain Marvel, and anything with the MCU logo on it is going to rake in the fans.
Unless she was saying that was the sole reason her film didn't do well, which is obviously untrue.
(I got the movie expecting it to have been a flop primarily because of sexism, was disappointed to find out there were legitimate reasons for not being well received. I still find it rewatchable...though the male characters tend to be more watchable than the female ones, which probably wasn't the intent.)
The director is full of shit. I'm not a big fan of CA in general, but if that was the case, then the last two movies from the early 2000s would have bombed.
I can vouch for Hawki on this one. I actually remember and was there to see it. I saw Rolfe's video first and some entertainment sites (video game news sites included) were already labeling him a villain, or taken his video out of context. Thankfully, most people could already smell bullshit.
Not really. I'm not a champion of CM, but it at least has some entertaining moments.
Basically her line of reasoning.
Yep.
Last edited:
Honestly, while i have seen some outlets claim Ghostbusters failed because of sexism (and others who blamed the flat humor and the bad acting), i haven't really seen that with Charlies Angels. Sure, director wants a scapegoat but i didn't have the impression she convinced a lot of people with it.
Just because someone claims something failed because sexism, that is not true.
But also : Just because someone claims that something failed because sexism and progressives should support it does not mean that "progressives" feel the same way about it.
There have been many many people trying to inject culture war nonsense into whatever to mobilize a side for support. They are often very load. But they don't actually speak for/or represent that side, just the opposite, they speak to this side and ask for agreement. Which might come but often very much does not.
Just because someone claims something failed because sexism, that is not true.
But also : Just because someone claims that something failed because sexism and progressives should support it does not mean that "progressives" feel the same way about it.
There have been many many people trying to inject culture war nonsense into whatever to mobilize a side for support. They are often very load. But they don't actually speak for/or represent that side, just the opposite, they speak to this side and ask for agreement. Which might come but often very much does not.