|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Wokism
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 12:27:45 pm EDT (Viewed 129 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Wokism
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2022 at 06:37:47 pm EDT (Viewed 140 times)
Quote:To me, at least part of it, stems from hyperawareness within the culture. In many respects people wanting to be offended by something so they find a way and will read that into everything.
Quote:That happens on everyside. Right-wingers looks for the woke leftsts to insert their message everywhere to indoctrine everyone. Leftists call anything that critizies their work or disagree with in the slightest as racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever. I think both though are very vocal minorities on both sides.
I am not sure that it is a minority or not. I mean the war against being woke is sort of a common issue in conservative circles. And given the vague definition it can mean whatever you want.
Quote:Oh, I can as well. I just find it to be overused and mostly useless as a criticism tool because of that. And because it seems to be fairly broad in what it means.
Quote:Sure, I am curious how much of that was intentional and just bad film making though. It is not like the female leads are written particularly well, the comedy is far too ad lib for a movie to focus on tecno babble, one does not believe they are scientists because the dialogue is pretty bad and they are not established believably and the story is utter garbage masked with bright colors.
Quote:I think the film is overall bad for the reasons you have stated or more. The way males are portrayed in it just gives it the feel that that particular message was more important than making a good film. Or that it was designed to promote a particular message than just be entertainin like other ghostbuster films.
Quote:Nothing to do with men or women as such but it went from a comedy that got more and more overty crazy to one that started out crazy and had noplace left to go. And had maybe one joke that I found to be somewhat funny.
Quote:That was a big problem with the 2016 version. Other ones take the absurd and play it straight with their humor. The 2016 took the absurd and tried making it even more absurd.
Quote:The reverse is also going to true but it makes it impossible to fairly judge legit criticism of something if one is judging it based on their own political perspective. Or at least primarily through that lens.
Quote:Among the arguments I have seen though seem to indicate that pointing out problems women may specifically face is woke. As some do not believe them true. This might be the work of trolls I guess, but it is more out there than one would like. A show with a female lead would be expected to deal with at least some issues that women deal with more often than men.
Quote:To some that is all it takes. To me is isn't. Media has always been used to educated and push agends. The main one for me is whether it feels forced or not. Zootopia is designed to address racism. Incredibles 2 had the Mom and Dad switch roles. But both did so in entertainable ways without demeaning anyone or group or violate storytelling logic. The characters remain understandable and likable. Some shows nowdays push an agenda by demeaning a group, violate internal logic, or make characters unlikable all the while trying to tell the audience to like them.
I think it is mostly down to writing though. Good writers can do it in subtext or do it in a way that you may not get until later. I mean there were whole genres in the past of film that pretty much treated classes of people one way or another.
I am just not sure if it is entirely a modern problem. There is more of it, but that is the way of modern things. I mean sometimes a show does not have a shot even if it is well written because the pitch forks are out before it starts.
I am not saying you are wrong with the agenda aspect of it, merely that we also have more ways to hear about things than any other times before.
I will say that there is a fair bit of confusion with screen writters and execs about how people often act.
Quote:I would agree with the males, but I would argue that the female leads are also badly written characters for the most part. And overall not funny. Scientists making queef jokes is the best that they had in there? It was a pathetic effort all around.
Quote:I think Ghostbusters 2016 is just badly written and acted in general. The treatment of males is just one of the most stand out reasons.
Sure, I have seen it like one time I think. I remember Hemsworth's character being really dumb and played up to that point. The others I do not remember too well other than just being there either for a joke or to be a jerk I guess.
Which I would again put towards writing. There was not a focus on putting them in anything near a real world. One of the strong suits of the original film is it very much feels like zanny things happening within the larger context of reality. And outside of this group of odd balls people acted like people. Although Peck was over the top stereotype government official. One could make it a case for conservative wokeness in terms of that agenda pushing. That said, it is one of my favorites despite that.
I would say that while I agree this film is bad and the treatment of men in it is bad. It is also the case that women's roles in various media over the decades have also been pretty bad with them being little more than eye candy. Not saying you mean otherwise, but just highlighting that certain things I think we often accept as a default. I still enjoy many of those films but it does happen.
Quote:I enjoyed this one ok, but I would agree based on the marketing lead in. I will admit to loving it as a kid but not remembering everything in terms of cannon though. I thought it was fun enough but did wish it would have more He-man in it, but it was good when he was. Really I thought it was fine when he was not as well. I just considered it false advertising.
Quote:I didn't care much for the first half due to the way Teela acted, lack of He-Man and few other reasons. I have yet to see the second half, but reviews I read and spoilers were not promising.
I liked the second half more than the first but I did not hate either half as much. That said, I do not have the attachment either that some have held onto.
I had a problem with the trailer showing He-man so much and then he was like in the first episode and then not again until the second half of the show. But making a Masters of the Universe spin off without He man would not have whatever popularity that property would have.
It was an odd choice. I think it could have worked a bit better if they had He-man in it more and feature Teela more prominently.
Quote:You are referring to Aaron run? Sure. Between Jane and particularly the treatment of the original Thor it was pretty bad.
Quote:To me the problem is not addressing issues that women face in particular, it is not giving good characters to do it. Women are just as complex as men are with all sorts of struggle in their lives. Give that complexity and struggle and the idea of being in a large shadow sort of thing and it may have been interesting. Some may still hate it but I would have been more in on it.
Quote:Aaron's issue is he took short cuts. He cut long-time characters down to make Jane look good. He portrayed characters like Odin and gods in general as characters of their worst traits to get the readers to hate them. He makes the opposing side so ugly that the reader has no choice but to agree with his own views. I have seen it before and understand if if you are writing for a young audience or have limited space. Aaron though had plenty of room to address the opposing side and make fair arguments. As far as I know he didn't. He wrote a story to try and give it the illusion of depth and complexity when it is really shallow. The best he did was the occassional linne or scene to show something different.
The sad part of it all is that I think it could have been done well. I am not sure why he made some of the choices that he did in that one at all. Treatment of the real Thor, the conflict with Jane and cancer and so on all could have been dealt with easily enough. Even respecting other characters is not hard but is something that JA had trouble with in Thor. Hell Cates and other writers have been terrible at it too.
Quote:I was unaware there was another He-man.
Quote:Likely due to their being much less backlash. The CGI series from the start promoted itself as a reboot for a younger audience. This gives it much greater freedom than Revelations which advertised itself as a continuation aimed at the older audience. This not only binds it more to the preexisting lore of the 1983 canon and expectations, but said older fans are the ones more likely to go online and complain.
Fair enough. I was a little confused by that one. Seemed to me that making a show aimed at a younger audience would be the way to go. If you are aiming for nolstalgia and that sort of thing than having a sort of animate movie may have been better although maybe not if the story was still bad.
Quote:That and I think the CGI was is better written. It is a fun series meant to entertain. While it does have progressive elements it feels less forced and just more fun. Revelations came across as dark for the sake of dark
I am not sure that there is anything wrong with what some see as progressive elements. It just depends on what angle you are coming from and what one considers progressive vs conservative and how into that fight one wants to get.
To me the nature of shows aimed at kids should probably focus on inclusion and that sort of thing which is considered progressive in most respects.
Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 104.0.5112.102 on Windows 10
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|