Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Buhos_En_Pantelones t1_j6l7fjv wrote

Pretty interesting article. This is a weird fucking topic. This idea that 'we can't upset anybody' is leading to some very strange shifts in artistic expression. I wonder if there will be some sort of major push-back in the near future in regards to this... I guess you could call it censorship at this point.

137

darkwizard42 t1_j6m22fy wrote

Self censorship is a thing. Fear of backlash leads to this outcome.

Creating non specific enemies like Top Gun Maverick or fictional enemies like Aliens, human invaders from another realm is another angle. Last you have some art where they make the bad guy just so bad emotionally/character wise and then bland their appearance/physical characteristics to make them inoffensive but often forgettable.

62

MrrrrNiceGuy t1_j6mskjp wrote

Always Sunny in Philadelphia did this in one of their latest seasons with them making Lethal Weapon 7 and trying not to be offensive.

So in LW 7, the bad guy ends up being a tidal wave but not a tsunami because that implies Asian tidal waves are bad, so it’s just a generic tidal wave. And it’s not an act of God but some “act of the universe, or whatever.”

In the end the gang just watches their movie with stoic faces realizing how shitty it is due to the excessive censorship.

40

Butch_Beth t1_j6mn434 wrote

The enemies in the original Top Gun are generic and non-specific.

25

SutterCane t1_j6mov9y wrote

It was the Soviets in the original.

−8

Butch_Beth t1_j6mppvd wrote

They never say it's the USSR in Top Gun.

19

SutterCane t1_j6mt2z0 wrote

Huh.

  1. takes place during the Cold War

  2. bad guys have MiGs

  3. everyone is following the rules of engagement between US and Soviet forces

But I guess you’re right. They don’t say it, which means it’s totally not the USSR.

10

The_Sundial_Man t1_j6mvktw wrote

Just like the enemy in Maverick is totally not North Korea.

16

kinglearthrowaway t1_j6n0qxi wrote

Lol it’s funny you say that bc I saw them as “totally not Iran”

16

Epyr t1_j6ncbzt wrote

It's Iran, not North Korea. They are trying to stop them from getting nukes. NK already has nukes.

11

PureLock33 t1_j6p9rst wrote

Plus Iran still fields F14 Tomcats. They literally make their own spare parts for them since the US stopped making replacement parts.

So much wink wink to the audience. Totally not Iran, guys.

1

Streets-Ahead- t1_j6ng1sn wrote

Tiem for history lesson

  1. Lots of counties had MiGs, the Soviets exported them.

  2. The battle at the end of Top Gun is loosely inspired by a real life incident in 80s where American Tomcats engaged Libyan fighters.

  3. An earlier draft of the script actually specified North Korean enemies.

  4. The insignia on the enemy fighters is fictional.

  5. Nobody at the end seems concerned at all that World War III may have just started.

Whoever they're fighting can be assumed to be a Soviet-aligned country, but it wasn't Big Red itself.

4

Butch_Beth t1_j6nfdy7 wrote

MIG's were sold to many communist nations and in the movie are actually repainted F5's, they don't say it's Iran in the new movie either, but everyone knows it's Operation Opera.

2

SwingJugend t1_j6mpcl5 wrote

>Self censorship is a thing.

Yes. For example, the Hays Code was not a government thing, it was an internal industry self-censorship that the major film companies worked out by themselves, yet it still got enforced pretty much like a law for over 30 years.

11

NeoNoireWerewolf t1_j6n7d03 wrote

That’s a bit different since it was a young, unregulated industry trying to avoid the government taking an interest in their hustle. The artists were not self-censoring out of fear of being deemed racist/sexist/insensitive/whatever, it was the studios saying you couldn’t have films be too violent/sexual/crass because then the government will come in and start telling them how they can run their business. Basically the same story for the Comics Code Authority. Today’s discussions about self-censorship are quite different, as they are linked more to things like representation and whether the content of the work is representative of who the creator is as a person. It is a fight about who has the right to tell what kind of stories and whether the art can actually be separated from the artist.

12

reckoner23 t1_j6nhic6 wrote

And thankfully it was ignored starting in the late 60s. Its a shame we seem to have reverted.

5

Butch_Beth t1_j6mon6w wrote

I think the problem we're facing is actually pretty simple, unlike TV or film or books, the internet isn't divided by age or isn't categorised by it. This means at any point you're at risk of reading the opinion of a 15 year old, or an 11 year old, or anywhere in between and younger. A lot of the terrible posts you see are from these people, children who don't have a lot of life experience and speak with the same apparent authority as you or I.

All of these twitter pile on's start this way, children have a lot of free time and they get hoovered up into discord groups and teach each other the most extreme opinions. Then they post about this stuff in those groups and come up with an insane puritanical ideology around it. Recently I saw someone on twitter say the first major news event they remembered was Trump getting elected, they had 10's of thousands of followers and they can't have been older than 12 or 13, they even framed it as 'their dad telling them'. This is a problem.

Regardless who said

>Why does your Latino lead have to bond with a white woman?

It was deeply influenced by that, film festivals are reading this stuff online and taking it to heart, but it's complete bullshit. You can have a transphobic subject in your documentary, I say that as a trans person. In The Lady and the Dale they have footage of jurors admitting they found the subject of the documentary guilty in part because she was trans, or it at least was a factor. Surely we have to want that out there? Not locked away because it's 'offensive'.

Everyone needs to stop listening to twitter and Facebook and social media in general. Have fun on it sure, but you have a bias, you assume that the person who wrote the post you're reading is about your age and about the same as you. That is rarely true.

37

trillyntruly t1_j6n56kp wrote

these 11 year olds are not just propping up arguments that adults take seriously and listen to, they're propping up arguments that adults internalize and move forward with. i maintain, the democratization of speech is cool, but it's hardly the ideal we all pretend it is. there's a certain value in the gatekeeping of voices. it may sound needlessly discriminatory to some, and i totally understand why, but as a general rule, not listening to children is a good idea. some of them are wise beyond their years, brilliant, smarter than most adults, no doubt. but the majority of them are just less experienced, less learned, less developed adults. having said that, i have no opinion on this particular film being left out of this festival. i don't know enough about it to form an opinion. i generally oppose censorship as well as self-imposed censorship as a result of a toxic environment, but i don't want to speak about specifics without knowing more details

11

reckoner23 t1_j6nj8fm wrote

If no one took anything on the internet/twitter seriously we probably wouldn't be in this mess.

8

reckoner23 t1_j6nhshu wrote

It gets worse when you have journalists/bloggers arguing this nonsense. But I think your right that some people like journalists/bloggers seem to be influenced by random 11 year olds on twitter.

5

Tacky-Terangreal t1_j6owix6 wrote

Couldn’t agree more. I believed in some really dumb shit when I was 16 simply because I was a kid and I didn’t know any better. It’s so easy for teenagers and children to get sucked into these mobs online

2

Vic_Hedges t1_j6mzrmy wrote

It's not "we cant upset anybody". It's "We can't upset this particular group who is influential in our community."

There are plenty of people they would be happy to upset.

24

Main_Tip112 t1_j6lcna3 wrote

I think censorship implies that a legal authority is determining what can or cannot be expressed. It's coming from above. This is way murkier, in that you have a wierd ass Twitter chorus expressing their anger (which ironically is probably a vocal minority and not necessarily representative of popular opinion) and artists/distributors are now learning to not to push boundaries for fear of the backlash.

Not thinking of any movie in particular when I say that, but yeah, it seems like a bummer. Then again, movies have always faced criticism and backlash, historically to the point of legal ramifications for creating smut and video nasties. So it sucks, but I wonder if it's a necessary part of the overall evolution of the industry. Racist and sexist shit was plenty pervasive in movies for a long time, so maybe the pendulum unfortunately needs to swing the other direction a bit before it settles into an ideal resting position.

Don't ask me. I'm stoned.

17

Gyaru_Molester t1_j6m0p3l wrote

This idea that something can only be censorship if it's a legal/government authority doing it is very odd and runs completely counter to history. This stuff is absolutely censorship.

18

Butch_Beth t1_j6n9fbn wrote

Relative to the Hays Code, or even the MPAA, we're in an era where organised concentrated media censorship is declining. If a film wouldn't be made a major studio it can happen elsewhere, if a film can't get a certificate, there's a chance you'll still get to see it somewhere. Also you can get films that have been banned or released with extensive edits, illegally or otherwise. As we've had more technology to copy and distribute media it's simply become harder and harder to restrict it, which is all that censorship is.

A few years ago I went to a festival where a film depicted the fictionalised murder of 3 real life police officers, it showed their crimes, then them getting off without consequence and then dramatisations of them being killed. That film was never going to show at Cannes, it was fantastic, but the subject matter was incompatible with their brand and the brands that pay for the festival. You can't play film with such a direct call to action at SXSW, they want to exist next year.

The sponsors associated with large film festivals will pull out if programmers get too controversial. It really sucks, but this is always what film festivals have been like. The answer is to go to more interesting smaller festivals, as when it comes down to it, none of this stuff is going on Netflix.

There's like a larger conversation to be had about how scared brands are of being abused or called out on twitter, but the reality of it is that while we have social media, people will continue to post stupid takes on it. And sometimes when someone posts 'TIL: Coke-a-cola supported this film where a dog is killed' you never get the context and coke never supports that festival again.

2

reckoner23 t1_j6njj36 wrote

So if you have a boss that's threatening to fire you unless you pull your movie sounds like censorship to me.

3

ACID_pixel t1_j6lmx7g wrote

I’m replying because I’m also stoned and it took me a minute to read this.

I agree.

−1

Embarrassed_Bat6101 t1_j6n54et wrote

> censorship

Yeah I think that’s exactly what it is. It’s self censorship or preemptive censorship. I recently watched Trading Places with Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd and realized a move like that would never be made today in a million years, which is a shame because it’s absolute comedy gold.

3

justavault t1_j6nnl95 wrote

Woke cultures impact.

Everybody afraid to do something that hurts some snowflake.

1

[deleted] t1_j6lmb8p wrote

I mean, the people that give in to making a “small vocal group” happy is their own fault. Why should they care? Just cause people bitch doesn’t mean they should cater to them? It makes the CEO of Sundance look incredibly weak and pathetic. Just like the small group that overtook the documentaries appraisal. These are not complicated times. They’re making it complicated themselves by paying attention.

54

Huevos___Rancheros t1_j6lwrnz wrote

What these ceos fail to realize is that these people bitch about everything and anything, they actively look for things to be upset about, there is nothing you can do to make them happy because they will always find something to be upset about.

44

hythloth t1_j6n0y1u wrote

Yeah and once you give them an inch, they are only emboldened.

9

_________FU_________ t1_j6mqel5 wrote

This is how I think it works.

  • news blogger needs content
  • searches Twitter for anyone complaining
  • find two and write article on how everyone feels the same

It’s why I quit watching the local news.

18

pleasereadthanks t1_j6lsay8 wrote

Jokes on them, even the most vanilla and safe movies people will find something to get "upset" about.

28

[deleted] t1_j6mnqut wrote

[removed]

24

[deleted] t1_j6nfn3t wrote

Who else had “outrage mob simping for literal jihadists” on their 2023 bingo card?

3

blanddedd t1_j6ldflm wrote

This is a great article. It is happening in the publishing industry as well. Very Fahrenheit 451 out there.

19

BluRayHooray t1_j6lzken wrote

You did not read the book if you think this is anything like Fahrenheit 451.

−30

Nick_The_Knight_ t1_j6mvn37 wrote

I feel that the film industry is going through another age of McCarthyism.

18

merrysociopath t1_j6nv77d wrote

Maybe a better way to put it would be going through another Hayes Code era?

7

TacticalTuchel t1_j6nn9lh wrote

Who are the communists and communist sympathizers in this scenario? Something about this does feel similar, but I'm not sure what because there are several groups they have to try to not offend.

2

SneezingRickshaw t1_j6n8vuu wrote

I think you need to read a bit more on the McCarthy era if that's seriously what you think. To me you sound like the people who compared mask mandates to the early stages of the holocaust.

I mean, just the fact that one is the result of public pressure and the other is a case of government tyranny puts them on different planets.

If you really want to compare our time to a past despicable episode in Hollywood history, the Hays code would be better. That was a case of self-censorship.

−7

Nick_The_Knight_ t1_j6navft wrote

Well yes and no. It’s not the anti-communism movement I realize but I feel like it’s suppressing artistic freedom. Also, I wore my mask proudly so no need to worry there. You don’t need to categorize people based of a single comment.

6

SneezingRickshaw t1_j6nrr9v wrote

Neither of those sentences are related to something I said. You should reread my comment.

What makes the McCarthy era different is not the target. I’m not talking about the target. I’m talking about the severity of the censorship and that State censorship is so much worse than simple public pressure.

And I didn’t call you anti-mask. I’m saying you’re exaggerating what’s happening now (or downplaying what happened then) because you’re comparing it to something incomparably worse. They’re not on the same level, you’re engaging in hyperbole.

But if you have so much trouble understanding such a simple comment, I don’t know how much good my advice on reading more about McCarthy would do, you need to dramatically improve your reading comprehension skills before that. Friendly advice.

0

Nick_The_Knight_ t1_j6nz6fu wrote

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement! I’m hooked on phonics as it is. I appreciate your concern!

1

reckoner23 t1_j6nitr5 wrote

This and McCarthyism has nothing to do with a race of people being mass exterminated by a government body.

1

thebeachboysloveyou t1_j6lhb1r wrote

I can’t wait to keep watching the same safe movies over and over.

10

Main_Tip112 t1_j6ljzrq wrote

So don't

−21

thebeachboysloveyou t1_j6lkafp wrote

Applaud the end of expression and variety.

8

iamstephano t1_j6lqj7v wrote

If you think this is the end of expression and variety, you are looking in the wrong places.

0

thebeachboysloveyou t1_j6nir3h wrote

I thought we were specifically talking about the films screened at festivals. You know, the topic at hand as per the article.

1

viginti_tres t1_j6mgtls wrote

Slamdance just finished and had a good message before every film, essentially saying that some of the film's may be challenging but they don't apologise for them and expect you to do your research before viewing them.

4

trolleyblue t1_j6nfuz0 wrote

This is sadly going to make film festivals even less relevant than they already are. Only screening stuff that won’t offend people is going to lead to boring movies that only a specific group of people want to see.

4

reckoner23 t1_j6nhz40 wrote

The problem is that some movies/shows seem to exist solely as a way to win a twitter argument.

4

Dopesmoker402 t1_j6muanl wrote

Yeah you see it online in those weird anti-woke mobs. Insane people often like wtf. Especially in the youtube environment

3

Jrubas t1_j6piwpi wrote

Freeddin of speech and expression are dying in front of our very eyes, killed by a small group of zealots and by the indifference of the spineless jellyfish who kiss their asses. As an artist myself, I'm pretty disgusted by all of this.

3

[deleted] t1_j6l8d98 wrote

Most films are controversial so it’s hard to

2

YourHeroIsAlive t1_j6ob49l wrote

I highly recommend listening to Sam Harris’s interview with the director of Jihad Rehab. These people, Sundance and the producers, are such cowards.

2

Bwills39 t1_j6mcpe5 wrote

I just finished watching Nan Goldin’s incredible documentary film about the pharmaceutical oligarchy known as the Sackler family “All the beauty and the bloodshed.” Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t it win the Golden Lion at Venice last year? It is full of controversial elements. Not that I’d dispute any of them tbh. The Sacklers are a scourge. Accessibility of crucial information such as the film elucidates seems like something that we should be striving towards in this life. Knowledge over subversion. Truth over profit. Wouldn’t that be something. But again it comes down to the wealthiest individuals in our society’s benefit over the rest of our collective well being.

0

Earthling7228320321 t1_j6l8r2z wrote

What a weird place we are in the culture wars. People are the bad guys now for not watching things they don't like. I'm having a deja vu of all those newspapers that claimed millennials were killing industries by not living the way they were supposed to according to coked up industry analysts from the 80s.

I mean the first thing they cite here is a movie about a transphobic gay guy. Big fat shock that nobody wanted to watch it. The anti gay people don't like the gayness and the pro gay people don't like the transphobia. Hey let's make a movie that nobody will like and then blame woke culture when it bombs, that's how to do ratings now, right? Pretty sure the reason it's bombing has nothing to do with the director being Hispanic. It sounds like a movie someone based off a trolls feed on Twitter. Then they go on to mention some movie about pedophiles where none of the child actors were properly prepared or supported for what they would encounter on set, whatever that means. Oh sure, who would ever find that big brain production controversial.

This is why AI generated movies are gonna explode in the future. People aren't even trying to make good movies anymore. At this point why not just crunch all the masterpieces into a data set so the mindless drivel we churn out is at least watchable.

−15

neverendingchalupas t1_j6lf2c4 wrote

>...the bad guys now for not watching things they don't like.

What does that have to do with the selection process? Films should be chosen based on their strength, is it good art or is it shit. I want to see good films, I dont care about the narrative the selection committee of a film festival is trying to push. The film should stand on its own merit.

Have you been to a film festival and had to sit through endless series of fucking terrible films. And then found out later through the discussion panel they were chosen specifically because of the filmmakers background. What happened to just picking films based on the work?

After awhile you begin to not go to film festivals and just watch only the things you want to watch online. Now it seems the only people who show up to film festivals are the filmmakers and their friends.

If the movie about the 'transphobic gay guy' is good, people are going to watch it, they are watching all the other bullshit, if its good they will probably even pay attention while its playing. It would be at a film festival not at your local theater or streaming on netflix.

8

Earthling7228320321 t1_j6miq66 wrote

I have never been to a film festival. I mostly watch sci fi, science documentaries and cartoons.

So really I guess my take on this stuff isn't relevant anyway lol

−2

Irichcrusader t1_j6mbc5l wrote

>I mean the first thing they cite here is a movie about a transphobic gay guy. Big fat shock that nobody wanted to watch it.

Haven't seen the movie myself, but based on what the article said about it, this character starts out initially as transphobic. By the sounds of it, the movie is an attempt to explore this idea of transphobia in the gay community, it's not necessarily endorsing it but asking the audience to reflect on it and, perhaps, come to terms with a difficult subject that not many people like to talk about. That's what any great work of art should aim to do, challenge the viewer by giving them a new perspective on something or bringing an important topic to their attention.

Let's take American History X as an example. It's a movie about a literal neo-nazi, showing his journey into hate and how any human heart can be corrupted by excessive anger and the need for easy answers. It then show's his journey out of that and his attempt to make things right. It's perhaps one of the most provocative and hard-hitting movies ever made, as it makes a viewer question whether there is anything in their own heart that is holding them back or making their life harder than it needs to be. Now, if someone doesn't want to watch this movie simply because of a gut-reaction to it's subject line, then that is their choice, but I also think they're being really foolish. They're judging the film without knowing anything about it, thinking it's endorsing neo-nazi beliefs when in actuality its demolishing them.

If we only ever made "safe" movies where no one's world views are ever questioned and no difficult or complex topics are ever tackled, then this would a very sterile world.

4

Earthling7228320321 t1_j6mh1ze wrote

Yeah that sounds great and all but in the real world bigots don't just magically change into better people. I mean if that's the movie people wanna watch that's fine. But clearly its not many people.

−10

Irichcrusader t1_j6nortu wrote

American History X isn't aimed at the worst sorts of bigots, from what I've heard a lot of them completely miss the point of it. Instead, it's aimed at non-extremist people who might find themselves slipping into hatred of some kind, be it against a minority for racist reasons, or a whole nation or culture due to nationalist reasons. Hate is something that only gets worse the more you feed it and that's what you see with Derick's character. He doesn't change until he finally comes to the realization that his hate has consumed him and destroyed his life and that of his family for no gain whatsoever. That's the central message of the movie, and you don't need to be a KKK member to get some value out of that message.

Similarly, I don't expect that the documentary Jihad Rehab will ever magically make a terrorist see the error of his ways, or that the movie Walking Up Dead will make a committed transphobe gay person see how wrong they've been. That's ok. But perhaps both films can ignite discussion among those who never knew of these issues or make them reflect on some of their own failings. Of course, no one has to watch these if they don't want to, but I find it a bit absurd if someone says they won't see it because they don't agree with the views of the protagonist.

2

[deleted] t1_j6ldcwy wrote

It’s the woke era. It has killed the honesty that films can bring. Studios walk on egg shells hoping to not offend anyone.

−20

bazzbj t1_j6lntze wrote

and yet when “woke” films are made, the anti-woke crowd gets so offended that they review bomb it

26

Knife2MeetYouToo t1_j6o8c4i wrote

> that they review bomb it

Maybe those movies just suck? Or do you always blame bad reviews on 'people offended by it'?

−3

Arumhal t1_j6mempi wrote

>Studios walk on egg shells hoping to not offend anyone.

You sure about that? I keep seeing conservatives be offended practically every time they see minorities on screen.

13

[deleted] t1_j6mu41v wrote

What does conservatives and minorities have to do with movies?

−8

Foxhound97_ t1_j6mxe8o wrote

Despite all the complaining about the "Woke era" you until relatively recent most minorities creatives are the ones who had walk on eggshells to not offended the studio.When you talk about honestly who are we talking about here because I feel what you describing is the fact if you not a guaranteed blockbuster you'll get taking out of cinema after three weeks.

7

Knife2MeetYouToo t1_j6o894g wrote

None of this was brought up, why are you inserting it into an argument when nobody is talking about it?

−1

Foxhound97_ t1_j6o8l1f wrote

Why are replying to me and not the person I'm responding to who originally put the topic ofcourse.But my point is when it comes creative control this idea of no studio oversight has never existed the only thing that changed are factors that they care and don't care about.

6

Knife2MeetYouToo t1_j6o8sex wrote

Because from a neutral perspective you are arguing against something nobody brought up.

You need to tone down your bias when having a discussion.

−2

Foxhound97_ t1_j6o944q wrote

So you can open a discussion with moaning about things being woke but if you respond to that you are the one showing bais.

5

Knife2MeetYouToo t1_j6o9zai wrote

> Despite all the complaining about the "Woke era" you until relatively recent most minorities creatives are the ones who had walk on eggshells to not offended the studio.

This is the part that makes no sense and wasn't brought up, it is mindbogglingly wrong.

That is where your bias is hurting you, because this just isn't a real thing in the film industry.

1

Foxhound97_ t1_j6oab5w wrote

I've enjoy listening to interviews with creatives behind the scenes who talked about compromises they had to make on certain subjects that are much more widespread now my point is he didn't have an opinion on it ten years ago.

3

Knife2MeetYouToo t1_j6oajvu wrote

Do you have any examples to share?

1

Foxhound97_ t1_j6ocr19 wrote

Spike Lee talked about it,David Simon (who is white but usually forces on race) who wrote the wire talked about how he only allowed to go to far with some of the race so not offend the white audaince members and I believe issa rea had similar issues getting her show made until it was on HBO because most studios were willing to make unless changes were made.

If I'm including ones that started production but were never made the Danny glover haitian revolution movie is a really interesting thing to read about.

2

Knife2MeetYouToo t1_j6oegy5 wrote

You kind of proved my point here, minorities have not had any issue in the last 20-30 years telling their stories. There has been almost no pushback to that from studios, in fact minorities are far, far over-represented in film and TV compared to the national demographics.

Some white people have gotten pushback for trying to tell black stories, but does that really surprise you?

1

Foxhound97_ t1_j6ogin7 wrote

I gave you an example from each decade and one of them is a white guy who had almost no black people critique his work negatively (although that's mostly because he's from a journalism background so he actually knows how to research properly).

I also don't think you understand what we're talking about I'm talking about writers and directors not actors.

2

iamstephano t1_j6lqefc wrote

Bro what? Last year the Palme D'Or winner was Titane, probably one of the most controversial films to ever win the award.

9

Tuxhorn t1_j6lrtt5 wrote

Was it that controversial? Or just fucking bonkers and weird.

5

iamstephano t1_j6ls9ee wrote

A lot of people weren't happy that it won or that it was even in competition.

2

LegalizeApartments t1_j6lmdl4 wrote

Lmao

4

Knife2MeetYouToo t1_j6o85i8 wrote

Great argument. Really persuasive.

1

LegalizeApartments t1_j6od3cl wrote

Define woke and I’ll make a better argument

3

Knife2MeetYouToo t1_j6oe2zt wrote

> It’s the woke era.

Funny because the person you responded to already did that.

> Studios walk on egg shells hoping to not offend anyone.

So you had the definition, you just ignored it because you don't have a response.

1

LegalizeApartments t1_j6oec30 wrote

Who are they trying not to offend?

What are the examples of them making a worse story in pursuit of a more “palatable” movie to this audience?

It wasn’t defined at all. “This thing is bad and that’s why things are bad” doesn’t define what “thing” is, only what it causes people to do

3

Knife2MeetYouToo t1_j6of1r6 wrote

> What are the examples of them making a worse story in pursuit of a more “palatable” movie to this audience?

Wait, seriously?

Oh boy...how many examples would you like?

Do I really have to bring up 'Velma' which did exactly that and failed horribly? Or I guess since we're talking about films how about the 2020 film 'The Hunt'?

Black Panther 2? Ghostbusters (2016)? They/Them? Nope?

Every Pixar film over the last few years?

Man there are HUNDREDS of examples, I'm barely scratching the surface.

0

LegalizeApartments t1_j6ogcn9 wrote

Lots of projects fail, that’s normal. Never heard of the hunt. Not sure what black panther 2 and ghost busters have in common, unless you just…see the number of women go up and get mad?

Nope was merely okay, a bit too heady for me but I get what they were trying to say. Not sure what part of it was woke tho, seemed self-indulgent story about the nature of filmmaking and entertainment. The type of stuff people in the industry enjoy more than normal people do

Like, given the earlier definition, what does a “non-woke” Nope look like? Or black panther 2? Specifically what would you change.

5

Knife2MeetYouToo t1_j6ohubp wrote

> Lots of projects fail, that’s normal.

These failed for all the same reason, which is NOT normal. Studios generally don't purposefully put out bad products, except over the last few years.

They choose to push a message instead of entertaining, and that is exactly what the problem is. It is as simple as that.

0

LegalizeApartments t1_j6oiqex wrote

everyone is pushing a message, like "spending 10x on police than you do on education is worthwhile" and "making everyone pay for healthcare separately is good"

why is that not woke?

6

bazzbj t1_j6ojla2 wrote

You just destroyed their entire argument 😂 we have seen conservative ideas being pushed on all sorts of shows/movies. Looks like we have shows for everyone? Idk why they are snowflakes about it

3

LegalizeApartments t1_j6ojy5c wrote

Wild to watch the safe space crowd be so mad about this. Like, movies are not representative of a society. If you don’t like something don’t watch it. The US is a huge place, lots to do here, make the most of it lmao

Or they can spend their time getting mad gay/black people and women exist. I’m not their boss

3

bazzbj t1_j6ok97b wrote

that last part is the real reason tbh they use the word "woke" to hide their real feelings

3

bazzbj t1_j6oif39 wrote

“Pushing a message” has been around for a loooooooooooooong time my friend. It’s just that you guys have now weaponized the word “woke” to go against anything that is non-traditional. Guess what? A majority of the population supports these “woke messages”. Before you give an example of Velma as “go woke go broke”, we think it sucks as well. Not for the same reasons though.

4