Comment by FirmwareBurner
1 year ago
>Antman, Indiana Jones, Wish, all had white main characters,
DEI doesn't just affect main characters. See who were tasked to write and direct those movies and the DEI agendas they're forced to push. Clueless people with other flops under their belt, who got the projects out of DEI so Disney can look inclusive on social media.
And speaking of Indiana Jones, that flopped because they shoved a strong independent Girl Boss™ with an annoying personality to replace the beloved Indie as the main character who got sidelined in his own movie. It flopped because people go to an Indian Jones film to see Indie, not Fleabag. If you disrespect the fans they won't watch your movie.
Same stuff with Star Wars where Disney shoved Rey the super-powerful Girl Boss™ to replace Luke Skywalker the old and useless CIS white Jedi, and defeat all other evil white men in the movie by herself with her magic powers. Same with Marvel, Snow White, Little Mermaid and every other of Disneys trash remakes that are all about DEI instead of entertainment.
People go to see movies to get entertained. If you fail to entertain them because you wish instead to push DEI agendas on them, they won't pay for your content and you will lose money and ultimately your shareholders won't be happy and the free market will eventually correct this, so at least capitalism has some upsides.
Fleabag is not a strong independent Girl Boss either, the problem is bad writing and poor characterization which has a lot of broader industry factors. Gig-style inconsistent writer employment, lack of streaming royalties, shorter seasons, shutting writers out of film shoots, they all screw up the junior -> veteran pipeline and produce more immature and unpolished writing.
Today, bad writing manifests as bad expressions of today's predominant values because that's what people grow up with, just as bad writing in the past would badly express the past's predominant values.
Also 90% of stuff is crap and we only remember the good stuff from the past.
Feels like we’re pushing 99% now.
Nah, Luke's story in the TLJ was actually interesting; he lost his faith, and had to be reminded of it by the next generation. It kind of mirrors Obi-Wan's story in the original 6 movies, where he no longer believed that Anakin Skywalker could be redeemed. It's the pointless side quest to space vegas, and Holdo's pointless refusal to tell anyone her plan that made the movie crap.
Of all people to loose faith it would be Luke? Riiiight.
And Han and Leia just have to be divorced? Ok.
And their son just has to be evil. ... Ok.
I didn't even bother watching the last film so I don't know if Kylo has his own fun little redemption arc too or not, but no thank you.
> Of all people to loose faith it would be Luke? Riiiight.
Yes; Luke never really dealt with betrayal. He only ever knew Darth Vader, so he wasn't betrayed by Anakin the way Obi-wan and Yoda were.
> And Han and Leia just have to be divorced? Ok.
Your son switching over to the side of the people who blew up your home planet would put a strain on any marriage.
> And their son just has to be evil. ... Ok. I'm actually with you on this one; Anakin's final transformation to Darth Vader was rushed, but at least the seeds were there from episode 1. As far as I remember, Kylo just turned evil because the Force wanted him to.
1 reply →
> Same stuff with Star Wars where Disney shoved Rey the super-powerful Girl Boss™ to replace Luke Skywalker the old and useless CIS white Jedi, and defeat all other evil white men in the movie by herself with her magic powers. Same with Marvel, Snow White, Little Mermaid and every other of Disneys trash remakes that are all about DEI instead of entertainment.
I don't see how this was a flop given they grossed more $ than their predecessors, so people actually do pay more money to have better representation? https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Wars#tab=s...
Did the previous movies have similar marketing spend? Apparently they spent over $350 million marketing The Force Awakens: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/12/star-wars-force...
How much of that money the sequels earned was simply because it was piggybacking on the established decades old Star Wars IP, even though the movies were crap? But that train already lost all of its inertia. People don't go to se Star Wars IP anymore.
I also went to see some of them and was disappointed and gave up on Star Wars.
You fool me once shame on you. You fool me twice shame on me.
> You fool me once shame on you. You fool me twice shame on me.
Dude. You watched the first six.
1 reply →
Hollywood milking things for so long that the entire thing resembles anaemic dogshit is as old as Hollywood. Big budget films with stupid stuff because tons of people are involved is also as old as Hollywood. Dune, Alien >=3, Æon Flux, etc. etc.
Sometimes a bad film is just a bad film for all the reasons bad films have been around for 100 years, and that's it. This entire "zomg bad film + female character = woke mind virus!!11" is just silly.
Also Harrison Ford is 81. He's old. Almost old enough to run for presidency. It's physically impossible to make films with Indie like it's 1982. They tried that with Robert DeNiro and unintentional comedy ensued.
Oh, and I heard all of this bollocks with Mad Max too, and that did well enough. Again, sometimes a bad film is just a bad film.
>This entire "zomg bad film + female character = woke mind virus!!11" is just silly.
Nobody is saying this. (Strong) Female main characters have been in many successful movies and video games before and nobody bat an eye, quite the contrary, they loved them: Sarah Connor - Terminator, Trinity - Matrix, Ripley - Aliens, Lara Croft - Tomb Raider, Blood Rayne, Salt, Black Widow, Lucy, Charlie's Angles, etc, I could go on and on, and I'm no movie/video games enthusiast to know all movies with female leads.
The big difference is that those females were always written as the main characters in their own stories from the start, whereas what Disney is doing, along with Gemini and other woke corporations, is they try to replace established male characters of beloved IPs with female leads in the worst way possible, by disrespecting the original character that made the franchise popular and shoehorning a fake Strong Girl Boss™ stereotype with no personality and no character arc in his place, and then when the movie inevitably flops they blame the CIS white male audience for being incels "unable to handle strong females".
Do you think people would go to see James Bond or Top Gun Maverick if they replaced the male lead with some female actress that's trendy right now? Or would they see Tomb Raider if they replaced Lara Croft with Tom Holland? You can try for diversity's sake of course, but the audience and bean counters might stop you.
> Salt, Black Widow, Lucy,
Salt was not that good (backpedaling from trash -- it wasn't that bad), but the lead was for a man, if that contributes to the conversation...
Lucy was trash, and I wont relent from that without hard evidence.
Not because of the cast or other movie related things, but because it would have been better as a sentence.
No one got replaced in these films; additional characters got added.
A sequel or remake doesn't need to be exactly the same as what came 40 years prior.
Back in 1995 Star Trek Voyager added a female captain and a black Vulcan (a first, as far as I know), which passed with little to no comment. Voyager was also widely criticized, but that was just because the writing wasn't very good. Tim Russ' portrayal of Tuvok is generally praised.
Why did they hire a black guy for the role Tuvok even though Vulcans had previously always been portrayed as (very) white? Probably because he was the best actor to audition for the role.
Today I'm 100% sure people would be shouting about "DEI" and whatnot and that Voyager is bad because woke this or that.
Of course, Star Trek also very explicitly did DEI right from the start in the 60s.
1 reply →
1. Most of the writers and directors on those movies were white men. 2. The notion that every time someone who isn’t a white man is hired to do something it’s an example of DEI is profoundly evil and stupid.
Fair enough, but is the notion that some of the time, in a company that explicitly promotes DEI, that a person is there not entirely based on merit, evil and stupid?
Serious question.
So is DEI a vast conspiracy on the parts of these studios to make less money and disappoint shareholders?
[flagged]
Yes, I've talked with my coworkers about the annoying girlboss character trope in recent films.
For my part, certainly. It's an important part of how I keep emotional liabilities out of the company.
What was racist about what they said?
"Would you say that in person" is a terrible standard. Imagine a gay person beong confronted by a homophobe. "I dare you to come up to me and kiss your boyfriend right in front of my face where I can see it."