95th Academy Awards (2023 ceremony for 2022 films)

[HunterTech 684]

1 hour ago, King Mark said:

It's when everything is viewed through the prism of race, gender and sexual orientation, sucking the fun out of everything like a gigantic black hole.

 

That's my primary definition

 

From @mstrox's own words:

Quote

Woke was a Black term for decades that meant being aware of the ways society is stacked against them and how authority propagates and enforces that. Once it went mainstream a few years ago, it just became the latest righty buzz word like “political correctness” that doesn’t mean anything at all except “that liberal bullshit I hate”

 

That definition of yours doesn't even begin to work, because it implies looking things through purely the lens of a minority is inherently a dour experience. Does it look like a movie like Nope is dragging me through the mud due to its cast and crew? Are some of the latest DLCs from Guilty Gear Strive talking down to me just because they happened to feature trans/nonbinary characters? I wouldn't think so, so you're dangerously close to just admitting the mere existence of these particular groups bother you (which I will stress I don't think you're intending to do, because I lack the awareness to understand how this can come across to the uninformed).

 

I would actually argue the Oscars used to be much closer to the proper definition of woke, simply because the historical/regular dramas that we made fun of for being the easy ticket to a nomination were much more about those subjects than what gets nominated now, which often tends to superficially resemble what people ask for, just for the sake of the higher ups hoping the masses shut up afterwards (instead of making truthfully meaningful choices).

 

I never liked these particular discussions much, because it's ultimately a very meaningless critique to anyone that isn't a select few trying to subconsciously create the notion that these concepts are an issue in the first place. I get told it wouldn't matter if the characters were white or straight in regards to criticizing a shallow product, yet even the small differences in how I see someone perceive two aesthetically different but ultimately similar in feel projects is astounding. I recognize there is an issue of "new" things feeling so sudden and front loaded (to which I'll admit a few in these spheres don't always do a good job at priming a casual viewer for), but there's just so much one can do before they eventually go "it's all here to stay, so you might as well get used to it."

[King Mark 3182]

1 hour ago, HunterTech said:

I wouldn't think so, so you're dangerously close to just admitting the mere existence of these particular groups bother you (which I will stress I don't think you're intending to do, because I lack the awareness to understand how this can come across to the uninformed).

Are you trying to say the word "woke" as I interpret it is "hate speech" ?

 

 I think a lot of people get the gist of what I tried to say and agree with me, so trying to pass me off as either a hateful bigot or an ignorant, uneducated person and trying to interpret a general statement about how I feel about the current state of pop culture as "denying the existence" of certain groups is taking it a bit too far.

 

 

[HunterTech 684]

44 minutes ago, King Mark said:

 I think a lot of people get the gist of what I tried to say and agree with me, so trying to pass me off as either a hateful bigot or an out of touch, ignorant, uneducated person and trying to interpret a general statement about how I feel about the current state of pop culture with "denying the existence" of certain groups is pretty uncalled for.

You either ignored or misinterpreted the second half of what I wrote there, because I made sure to state that I do not think that's what you're trying to even unintentionally imply (even personally making sure to say that on some level, I lack understanding in a few areas). I know based on past interactions that it's primarily an aesthetic thing that is the issue, which can be a tough sell depending on the person and where they came from. It's just that for me, being uninformed can mean a lot of things, so to immediately assume it's supposed to be me saying that you're a generally clueless person on these type of matters is a bit confounding. Granted, I did water down some of what I wrote for the sake of respecting the rules (despite being unsure of what counts as breaking them anymore), but by all accounts I don't ultimately think anyone here qualifies as the "select few" I'm referring to (despite some occasional concerns).

 

I hate that I feel like I have to judge some people because I generally want to see the bright side in a lot of humanity, yet cases like these have me straddling the line because I know there are many layers present. Art has been uniformly focused on a select few things for so long that it's easy for a lot of people to just not get why some would want to shake it up in the manner that has been recently suggested. Because of how the modern internet age functions, it's all too easy to see the clout chasers and "wokescolds" on social media to actually find the select few that make these counter arguments properly. So on that respect, I get the very basic gist of what you and others have expressed recently, even if there's ultimately much more to it than what appears on the surface.

So I don't know, maybe read everything else that I wrote, and try and guide me towards why you still feel justified in critiques that I find tell me little about the product in most cases. Because if one can criticize a thing without having to rely on what are just buzzwords at the end of the day, then that'll only leave me (perhaps pointlessly) wondering why others can't.

[King Mark 3182]

it's ok, no problem. I just feel some my points are valid (to at least a portion of the members here) but lately I think I was dangerously close to getting banned from the Message Board a few times (got a moderator warning for commenting the toxic Hogwarts Legacy boycott campaign for example),  so that's why sometimes I feel more on the defensive and answered you like that.

 

I'm really trying to avoid being directly political, but also trying express that some things bother me in the current state of the entertainment industry, so it's like walking in a mine field.

 

I'm also unsure of what topics directly or indirectly break the MB rules these days either or what's political and what's not. It used to be pretty clear that starting a thread on the elections or gun control is not allowed, but now pointing out stuff that bothers you in a movie or even award shows can be seen as "political views", which is a bit odd in a message board dedicated to discuss movies (outside of John Williams and film scores)

[HunterTech 684]

It's all good. I'll admit that it's easy for me to forget the consequences of appearing so forceful to others, as ultimately you don't want to be pressuring people into changing their beliefs, which only happens if the interest is there to do so. I think because I've seen the life stories of a few people that I wouldn't consider dissimilar to me, it inherently makes me very sympathetic, perhaps to a detriment (given times when I made some very rash decisions as a result of poor assessment). It's all a matter of having to remind myself that people of certain upbringings are going to think differently, and that I need to be careful in how I perceive that. I am at least grateful that I've been this controlled so far, as I'm always concerned I'll seem too aggressive and unsure of what I'm saying.

[mstrox 5673]

It’s an honor just to be nominated

[Mephariel 309]

On 25/01/2023 at 9:00 AM, Nick1Ø66 said:

Clearly, this slate of best pic noms is a signal that Hollywood wants to drag the Oscar ratings & buzz out of the ditch they've been in. Good. It's time for films like Braveheart, Titanic, Gladiator & Return of the King to start dominating awards season & winning across the board again.

 

Dreary, depressing dreck like Nomadland has its place, but if Hollywood truly wants to get people back in the cinema and excited about movies again, promoting and rewarding the films that actually do that is a good place to start.

 

I never understood this argument. What blockbuster film in the last 10 years is good as the ones you listed? The Oscars is not to blame. Marvel is. Marvel basically made studios stop making films like Gladiator and Return of the King. Instead, everything needs to be layers and layers of special effects and jokes. 

 

Top Gun: Maverick and Avatar got nominated because they weren't Marvel film #56. As I said in another thread, if Marvel made Top Gun, it would have been Maverick vs 50 fifth gen fighters with him doing barrel roll and screaming like fan girl. Nothing would have looked real.

 

If you want the Academy to nominate a film like Return of the King, then make a film like Return of the King. 

21 hours ago, King Mark said:

It's when everything is viewed through the prism of race, gender and sexual orientation, sucking the fun out of everything like a gigantic black hole.

 

That's my primary definition

 

That sounds more like a personal problem. I am playing through The Last of Us Part II right now. The main character is a lesbian. The two support characters are Jewish and east Asian. One of the villain is black, and the other playable character is a man-like woman with huge muscles. To you, this is woke game with no fun. To me, it is fun as hell. You know why? Because race, gender and sexual orientation doesn't suck the fun out of a game. Inability to get past race, gender, and sexual orientation sucks the fun of a game. 

[King Mark 3182]

2 hours ago, Mephariel said:

 

That sounds more like a personal problem. I am playing through The Last of Us Part II right now. The main character is a lesbian. The two support characters are Jewish and east Asian. One of the villain is black, and the other playable character is a man-like woman with huge muscles. To you, this is woke game with no fun. To me, it is fun as hell. You know why? Because race, gender and sexual orientation doesn't suck the fun out of a game. Inability to get past race, gender, and sexual orientation sucks the fun of a game. 

 This is not at all what I'm talking about. I'm fine with movies and games having a multiracial cast and different sexual orientations. It's virtue signaling and forced diversity quotas I have a problem with, like nominating someone for an award because of their race or gender.  Maybe I should just use the term political correctness because woke means different things to different people.

 

And I also plan to play The Last of Us Part 2, in fact I have a physical copy of it. I never made one bad comment on that game and I don't have a problem with it's subject matter.

 

[Nick1Ø66 3405]

3 hours ago, Mephariel said:

I never understood this argument. What blockbuster film in the last 10 years is good as the ones you listed? The Oscars is not to blame. Marvel is. Marvel basically made studios stop making films like Gladiator and Return of the King. Instead, everything needs to be layers and layers of special effects and jokes. 

 

Top Gun: Maverick and Avatar got nominated because they weren't Marvel film #56. As I said in another thread, if Marvel made Top Gun, it would have been Maverick vs 50 fifth gen fighters with him doing barrel roll and screaming like fan girl. Nothing would have looked real.

 

If you want the Academy to nominate a film like Return of the King, then make a film like Return of the King. 

 

I don't disagree with any of this. Hollywood has to first make award-worthy blockbusters before they can be award-winning blockbusters.

Doesn't mean they have to keep throwing awards at preachy, dreary, forgettable mediocrities every year. I can think of a film for each of the past 10 years that was not only better than the eventual winner, but would have generated much more excitement for the Oscars.

 

[Mephariel 309]

50 minutes ago, King Mark said:

 This is not at all what I'm talking about. I'm fine with movies and games having a multiracial cast and different sexual orientations. It's virtue signaling and forced diversity quotas I have a problem with, like nominating someone for an award because of their race or gender.  Maybe I should just use the term political correctness because woke means different things to different people.

.

And I also plan to play The Last of Us Part 2, in fact I have a physical copy of it. I never made one bad comment on that game and I don't have a problem with it's subject matter.

 

 

Has anyone got nominated just because of race or gender? Who were you thinking about when you made this comment? Not to say race and gender didn't play a part, but almost all the people nominated were excellent in their craft.

[King Mark 3182]

Yeah right not just because, but I do think it plays a part now, and even more who wins.

[HunterTech 684]

1 hour ago, King Mark said:

This is not at all what I'm talking about. I'm fine with movies and games having a multiracial cast and different sexual orientations. It's virtue signaling and forced diversity quotas I have a problem with, like nominating someone for an award because of their race or gender.  Maybe I should just use the term political correctness because woke means different things to different people.

These subjects are very tricky for me to navigate, because we ultimately don't know what the actual behind the scenes decisions are in cases where a thing appears to be superficial representation. I know that a few Pixar employees recently complained about how much the company downplayed any genuine attempts at progressive storytelling, purely for the sake of pleasing investors who care more about attracting every possible market they can (and sure enough, the whole Lightyear situation ended up being messy because of the exact choices the higher ups made). It's cases like these where I find it very difficult to lash out at the focused on concepts in specific, and more just the companies that calculate every possible choice in the name of profit. So things like the constant reboots and sequels are a given in this climate, yet curiously it's when we pander elsewhere that things supposedly get taken a step too far. Just why is that, exactly?

I would think of it as a part of corporation misappropriation, which is a term I coined in a different thread about a similar subject. I feel like so often, I find that the real gist of the argument is that these things are ultimately pointless (which is fair if you're someone who's lucky enough to have managed to think one's personal identity just ain't that special to you), but the manner in which they're expressed has some seeming bitterness attached to the words. Why that is can depend on the person, but it's certainly the common emotion I pick up on with these cases. Going to stress extra hard that I'm not accusing you of falling even close into this mindset, but I still discuss these things because the language is a bit concerning.

(I had a partly different post written, but I picked up on your habit of editing after posting, so I waited for you to clarify yourself. I respect that a lot, since one of my main goals is to understand every kind of person, even when I'm told what to expect in a few cases. I always find there to be surprises when doing so.)

 

15 minutes ago, Mephariel said:

Has anyone got nominated just because of race or gender? Who were you thinking about when you made this comment? Not to say race and gender didn't play a part, but almost all the people nominated were excellent in their craft.

This is exactly why I find these particular arguments confusing, because the implication my mind goes to is that we're genuinely picking people off the street because they fulfilled some visual quota. Have we forgotten how vigorous the hiring process is? Especially with so many people lamenting how getting a job is incredibly tough these days? I just don't comprehend, especially when studios can mass manufacture so much now that we have movies with different casts and crews that turn out functionally the same. So again: we can agree there are key big issues in Hollywood, but what exactly makes the fresh blood special in their alleged superficialities?

[Mephariel 309]

13 minutes ago, King Mark said:

Yeah right not just because, but I do think it plays a part now.

 

It always did. Since when did race, gender, looks, NOT play a part? Not just in awards, but in life. For years, people say that there aren't that many black NBA coaches because white coaches were just better. Nothing to do with race. Now half of the teams are coached by black coaches, and in 2021, the two teams that made the Finals had black coaches. Do you think all of a sudden, black coaches just got better? Maybe some of those teams were pressured to hire black coaches, but you got to wonder, if there are that many black coaches that can coach, why weren't they hired before?

 

In many ways, you are right. Quotas shouldn't exist. But I am also not dumb enough to think that without quotas, people would be picking without bias. 

[King Mark 3182]

This message board has also changed over the last few years. 

 

I remember a few years back it was fine to make fun or make snarky comments on the cringy political correctness of the Oscars ruining John Williams chances of winning and 95% of the members here were on the same page. Now it just feels I'm painting myself into a corner trying to explain that I'm not a bigot or whatever.

[HunterTech 684]

Geez, the last thing I want to do is put someone in a corner, cause it's never a pleasant feeling to have. And yet I do have to remind you that despite everything, you're still here. The mods aren't ones for permabanning normally, and by all accounts a few folks still back you up. It remains an open forum, yet I guess more outsiders have invaded (especially after the rule change unintentionally weeded out some of the more troubling folks). So I don't know. You make of this what you will. I just wanted to understand your logic was all, because making assumptions never pans out well.

[King Mark 3182]

It's not you, I can see your making an effort to understand what I'm trying to say

 

It's just the the general vibe about what you can say and can't say is not the same anymore.

 

The older members that left probably think their opinions weren't tolerated anymore. I don't think many people were actually banned.  I'm still around because I'm primarily a John Williams fan and my main interest is getting a hold of whatever new piece of music he composed or discussing his new scores or expanded releases. But straying into the general discussion forum and talking about movies and even video games is getting a bit more dicey.

[HunterTech 684]

I was gonna make a point earlier about how that should probably invite a bit of self-reflection over what this stuff exactly means to you if they have "suddenly" been considered uncool to do/say, but that would get very close to asking someone to change, which as I've stated isn't something someone should be doing depending on the situation.

[Nick1Ø66 3405]

53 minutes ago, King Mark said:

This message board has also changed over the last few years. 

This much is certain.

[King Mark 3182]

 I'm generally liberal in my values but I don't think that's incompatible with being against political correctness.

[Nick1Ø66 3405]

Do you prefer the term “Oscar” or the more formal “Academy Awards”?

[King Mark 3182]

Oscar!

 

[Edmilson 4497]

Jay on his way to closing the thread after reading all this political discussion:

 

 

(I just hope my poor, innocent meme survives the inevitable purge by the mods)

[King Mark 3182]

I don't really see what's so political about this discussion. Some other threads like the Natalie Holt Tweet  is in the same line of thought.

[HunterTech 684]

That's my main frustration. These subjects shouldn't be controversial, yet are such because of factors way too complex for a forum that's supposed to just discuss our favorite film composers. I personally would rather we not be so disparaging about a product in key ways because of culture war nonsense perpetuated by groups that benefit from the world being a specific way, but alas terrible timing has made it to where more casual audiences are led to think it's a legitimate framing for criticism. That's nothing me or anyone else can really control, so in that respect I understand the lax moderation lately. Because really, how could you moderate/address something that is further becoming intertwined in our lives and our interests?

[King Mark 3182]

I agree that we should be able to discuss these things because it's become too intrinsically linked to the main subjects we discuss here.

[Sweeping Strings 1566]

I feel like some sort of line was definitely crossed when the UK's Channel 5 broadcast a dramatisation of the life of Anne Boleyn with a black actress playing the lead. 

Changes to fictional characters are hotly debated (see HBO's Velma for a current example, in which the to-be-future member of Scooby's gang has changed ethnicity and has LBGTQ sexuality because 2023, apparently) but when the ethnicity of actual historical figures is being changed ... haven't things maybe gone just a BIT crazy?   

[HunterTech 684]

55 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

I feel like some sort of line was definitely crossed when the UK's Channel 5 broadcast a dramatisation of the life of Anne Boleyn with a black actress playing the lead. 

Changes to fictional characters are hotly debated (see HBO's Velma for a current example, in which the to-be-future member of Scooby's gang has changed ethnicity and has LBGTQ sexuality because 2023, apparently) but when the ethnicity of actual historical figures is being changed ... haven't things maybe gone just a BIT crazy?   

 

Once again, it's hard to say for certain why key choices were made without much behind the scenes info to go off of. Given what I currently know, the example you mention just makes me think of all the various Shakespeare productions where the cast comprise of very diverse actors because the material effectively transcends boundaries as is (plus there's what's been said about young boys being hired to play the women of the stories in their original time of production, so there's sort of a precedent there in spite of how unintentional it is). And William did write about real historical figures also, yes?

 

So I guess it's more a matter of how television usually approaches things compared to theater, since there's something of an expectation to make a product that generally represents the truth. And yet it seems to matter less in a stage setting, because it's always something you can perform at anytime and with any actor. Whereas on film, because a lot more resources and time is being put onto it, there's the expectation that these particular adaptations are something of a definitive authority on the subjects at hand (regardless of if that's the intent or not).

 

And yet, you do use a key term there: dramatization. If I am to take you at your word, then it is fully admitting that it isn't depicting an aggressively accurate portrait of this figure's life (if still wanting to be decently representative, of course). Which yet again begs the question: why would it be a problem for someone who doesn't fully match the picture take the role? I thought we encouraged it even, because looking like the famous person doesn't guarantee you're actually a good actor (the two Steve Jobs movies come to mind with this). You didn't say anything about the actresses performance being appalling or anything similar, so what's the fuss really? Hell, Blonde is infamous for a lot of things, yet people weren't particularly mindful of Ana de Armas playing this Caucasian woman when it came time to actually dish out the complaints. So is it only an issue if the actors aren't famous then? It sure is easier to dogpile if it's nobody the public would know yet.

 

The Scooby Doo thing makes me laugh, because the franchise is no stranger to reinvention as a result of so many years of basically doing the same schtick, in the times when something related to the property needs to be on air. Mystery Incorporated is a great example of what one can do new with the property while respecting the legacy, which Velma absolutely failed in achieving (assuming it was even meant to be a spin off originally instead of a repurposed isolated concept). And that particular show was so close at doing the "Velma is a lesbian" thing before 2010s censorship got in the way, so of course it's a good reminder that deciding to focus on these key things isn't the issue really. It's the end result that matters, which I think some just forget about subconsciously.

[Sweeping Strings 1566]

1 hour ago, HunterTech said:

 

Once again, it's hard to say for certain why key choices were made without much behind the scenes info to go off of. Given what I currently know, the example you mention just makes me think of all the various Shakespeare productions where the cast comprise of very diverse actors because the material effectively transcends boundaries as is (plus there's what's been said about young boys being hired to play the women of the stories in their original time of production, so there's sort of a precedent there in spite of how unintentional it is). And William did write about real historical figures also, yes?

 

So I guess it's more a matter of how television usually approaches things compared to theater, since there's something of an expectation to make a product that generally represents the truth. And yet it seems to matter less in a stage setting, because it's always something you can perform at anytime and with any actor. Whereas on film, because a lot more resources and time is being put onto it, there's the expectation that these particular adaptations are something of a definitive authority on the subjects at hand (regardless of if that's the intent or not).

 

And yet, you do use a key term there: dramatization. If I am to take you at your word, then it is fully admitting that it isn't depicting an aggressively accurate portrait of this figure's life (if still wanting to be decently representative, of course). Which yet again begs the question: why would it be a problem for someone who doesn't fully match the picture take the role? I thought we encouraged it even, because looking like the famous person doesn't guarantee you're actually a good actor (the two Steve Jobs movies come to mind with this). You didn't say anything about the actresses performance being appalling or anything similar, so what's the fuss really? Hell, Blonde is infamous for a lot of things, yet people weren't particularly mindful of Ana de Armas playing this Caucasian woman when it came time to actually dish out the complaints. So is it only an issue if the actors aren't famous then? It sure is easier to dogpile if it's nobody the public would know yet.

 

The Scooby Doo thing makes me laugh, because the franchise is no stranger to reinvention as a result of so many years of basically doing the same schtick, in the times when something related to the property needs to be on air. Mystery Incorporated is a great example of what one can do new with the property while respecting the legacy, which Velma absolutely failed in achieving (assuming it was even meant to be a spin off originally instead of a repurposed isolated concept). And that particular show was so close at doing the "Velma is a lesbian" thing before 2010s censorship got in the way, so of course it's a good reminder that deciding to focus on these key things isn't the issue really. It's the end result that matters, which I think some just forget about subconsciously.

Its Wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Boleyn_(TV_series)

Intended as a 'feminist psychological thriller' take on Boleyn, it seems. 

I do like 'The Great' a lot, but it makes abundantly clear it's only on nodding terms with the actual historical events. When it was airing, it was the funniest thing on TV for my money. 

[Richard Penna 2504]

4 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

when the ethnicity of actual historical figures is being changed ... haven't things maybe gone just a BIT crazy?   

 

I don't see an issue with that. Many actors have been cast in roles where their look, figure, or whatever, clearly don't match what the real figure would've been like. The guy who played Henry in The Tudors looks nothing remotely like Henry did as portrayed in portraits, but dramatically he was what they wanted for the part.

 

I won't go further with my response here as I can picture Jay with his finger over 'lock'.

[mstrox 5673]

I think real film connoisseurs prefer the Movies for Grownups Awards anyway.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARP_Movies_for_Grownups_Awards

[Richard Penna 2504]

On 26/01/2023 at 2:29 AM, King Mark said:

It's when everything is viewed through the prism of race, gender and sexual orientation, sucking the fun out of everything like a gigantic black hole.

 

That's my primary definition

 

I'd probably suggest a variation on that - if a particular production/project had a certain number of minorities and the PR surrounding it was focused overly on 'hey, look how many black actors we've hired', instead of just getting on with it.

 

A friend of mine used the term once, and I don't know what his precise meaning of the term was.

[Sweeping Strings 1566]

2 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

 

I don't see an issue with that. Many actors have been cast in roles where their look, figure, or whatever, clearly don't match what the real figure would've been like. The guy who played Henry in The Tudors looks nothing remotely like Henry did as portrayed in portraits, but dramatically he was what they wanted for the part.

 

I won't go further with my response here as I can picture Jay with his finger over 'lock'.

Think that was Johnathon Rhys-Meyers, playing a young Henry (before he was a lardass).  

[Disco Stu 15468]

5 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

lardass

 

please be sensitive

 

person experiencing enhanced circumference

[King Mark 3182]

17 minutes ago, Richard Penna said:

 

I'd probably suggest a variation on that - if a particular production/project had a certain number of minorities and the PR surrounding it was focused overly on 'hey, look how many black actors we've hired', instead of just getting on with it.

 

A friend of mine used the term once, and I don't know what his precise meaning of the term was.

 I admit I should use a different term, because I assumed  people "get" what I'm saying ,especially the older more cynical members here.

 

[JNHFan2000 1365]

 

[Richard Penna 2504]

And what are the rules around sending e-mails to build buzz, in lieu of a major studio's resources?

[King Mark 3182]

7 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

I feel like some sort of line was definitely crossed when the UK's Channel 5 broadcast a dramatisation of the life of Anne Boleyn with a black actress playing the lead. 

Changes to fictional characters are hotly debated (see HBO's Velma for a current example, in which the to-be-future member of Scooby's gang has changed ethnicity and has LBGTQ sexuality because 2023, apparently) but when the ethnicity of actual historical figures is being changed ... haven't things maybe gone just a BIT crazy?   

 

This is exactly they type of changes that's made to appease activists and virtue signalers and alienate the original fan base that made these characters popular in the first place. Geeks have a certain mindset and don't like it when you completely change a character. And I'm not buying into the "if you don't like it your racist" argument. Like I said I'm liberal but this type of stuff  is past my limit.

[Bespin 6820]

Is there a physical CD for Carter Burwell's The Banshees of Inisherin?

[Disco Stu 15468]

10 minutes ago, JNHFan2000 said:

 

 

That Till director is such a whiny loser

[Sweeping Strings 1566]

40 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

please be sensitive

 

person experiencing enhanced circumference

Maybe 'differently girthed'. 

The world's gone mental (sorry, 'neurodivergent'). 

[HunterTech 684]

6 hours ago, King Mark said:

 

This is exactly they type of changes that's made to appease activists and virtue signalers and alienate the original fan base that made these characters popular in the first place. Geeks have a certain mindset and don't like it when you completely change a character. And I'm not buying into the "if you don't like it your racist" argument. Like I said I'm liberal but this type of stuff  is past my limit.

 

This is exactly the framing problem I was referring to. Studios don't actually care about how well received the products are to the markets they're appealing to, as long as it makes money. It's why we've gotten countless throwaway action flicks, romantic comedies, and actor vehicles each decade. And yet the moment certain groups rise to prominence, it's the current demographic that's suddenly the issue? We've even acknowledged elsewhere here recently that it's the masses that give us the countless superhero movies now, but that's treated more with a sigh instead of as a sign that society is going to worrying places that these specific subjects weirdly bring. Once more I have to ask why that is to someone who insists it has nothing to do with the groups these products focus on. They're all superficial entertainment, but some are inherently worse somehow?

 

And honestly: before recently, when was the last time people widely discussed Scooby Doo? It's obviously a famous enough property still that it'll keep making money, but WB's last attempt at making something big with the franchise (Scoob!) led to them canning a finished prequel after it underperformed (despite it being an early victim of COVID). It's not exactly what you would've considered being on people's minds. And yet once again, this other attempt at revitalizing a franchise is ignored because it aesthetically wasn't as mock worthy in it trying too hard to be modern. I can understand geeks finding a particular product lacking what makes the franchise appealing, but you can't earnestly tell me that every single critique is in good faith if this other failed shake up got little traction for some of the same reasons.

 

5 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Maybe 'differently girthed'. 

The world's gone mental (sorry, 'neurodivergent'). 

 

I haven't heard anyone sincerely use the term 'differently abled' at any point in my time being alive. I only know it because of that George Carlin bit, and it clearly was in reference of 90s culture that did more resemble the crazy lefty fear mongering I'm told still happens (yet rarely see because other types tend to overwhelm in online conversations more). I would like to think marginalized groups are in a better position now about how they like to be referred to as.

 

So maybe get new material at this point if your only frame of reference was stuff from decades ago.

[Disco Stu 15468]

Come see the violence inherent in the system!  Help, I'm being marginalized!

[Nick1Ø66 3405]

Good grief. Forget the acrimony, politics should continue to be banned on this forum simply because of the tedium.

[HunterTech 684]

So instead of actually addressing the points at hand, you insist the ban be as strict as it was initially when the new rules were implemented. Now that it's gotten to the point any pushback is involved.

 

It's childish for me to do, yet the urge to go "I didn't start it!" is quite strong if I am annoying some currently. Going on about how it's tedious doesn't help if you don't have anything to actually say.

 

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

Come see the violence inherent in the system!  Help, I'm being marginalized!

 

If this is supposed to be making fun of movies today, then why do you folks like some of Spielberg's more serious movies again?

[mstrox 5673]

Race has been a factor in every major awards nomination since the start of the Oscars!  There has always been some party or other favored.  This is why it’s best to focus on the awards that matter, the AARP Movies for Grownups Awards.

 

[Disco Stu 15468]

It’s the backbone of the modern liberal worldview: absolutely nothing about you is more important than the color of your skin, and we must focus on each others’ to the point of mania

[HunterTech 684]

2 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

It’s the backbone of the modern liberal worldview: absolutely nothing about you is more important than the color of your skin, and we must focus on each others’ to the point of mania

 

Too vague and easy of a statement to misuse, given the recent crimes that we've just had here with yet more cases of police brutality and targeted mass shootings. One of them happened very close to where we live, so while the Hispanic community here would be too big to target in a similar manner, that obviously is going to make public travel a serious risk if this keeps happening.

 

Of course, you only say this in regards to online discussion, where we're far more likely to discuss these things as if they're nothing. And maybe that's the big divide here: the subject of race should be nothing much to discuss, but because of the continued systemic abuse that occurs, our response to double down in our pride for our own kin eventually ruffles the feathers of those who are lucky enough to remain comfortable all this time.

 

Does it look like I'm happy to be discussing these topics? Absolutely not, but of course that won't matter to the few that have managed to live their lives much more worry free. And in that sense, I envy them, because I too want to live in the incredibly idealized world where these tensions could never apply to me. And yet I can't guarantee that, so it'll just now be a matter of me having to stand my ground while you and others (most likely unintentionally, to remain charitable) mock the suffering of those I admire greatly who still have a long way to just be allowed to simply live.

 

This will absolutely be what gets me warned, but I kind of don't care. I'm just as likely to leave as you are if I don't get banned, so make of that what you will.

[Not Mr. Big 4047]

I love The Movies!!

[Edmilson 4497]

We should all stop discussing Oscar politics and focus on hating Velma, the newly released HBOMax adult animation starring characters from Scooby-Doo that has been getting hate from leftists and right-wings. 

 

It's a remarkable feat to create something that was hated by both sides!

[HunterTech 684]

This video I think gets across everything that's actually wrong with it: