Get Woke, Go Broke

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

We've all been on the internet. We've probably heard something similar.

I tried to find some data and this is what I found. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-ucla-diversity-report-20180227-story.html

TLDR the report implies the opposite is true.

So, what's your stance

I personally think that slogan is moronic, especially when applied to companies like EA who are sitting on a massive pile of money.

trunkage:
We've all been on the internet. We've probably heard something similar.

Only ever seen that here.

Honestly, there seems to be a lot of stupid stuff going "on the internet" that people here assume to be everpresent.

The internet is huge. What you see on the internet is most likely not what anyone else sees. That is especially true with how search engines and advertising work.

Outrage produces clicks. If the google algorithm thinks you might be upset about something you can suddenly encounter it everywhere. But other people might never see it at all.

Well, "mainstream" Hollywood movies that actually commit to progressive or even anticapitalist themes like Jupiter Ascending, Batman v Superman or Star Wars: Last Jedi do tend to get torpedoed for it but I think it's less so because noone wants to see them and more because there's a deliberate effort to keep them down.

Whenever I browse a large, anonymous site like 4chan, even when it's just for movie discussion, I do so fully aware that a large segment of the posters there consists of people on the payroll for various flavors of American, Russian and Chinese alphabet soup, shady think tanks and more than a few large, competing marketing agencies.

However, there's sort of a growing scene of socially conscious independent movies that seems to be finding it's nich?. "Sorry to Bother You" was a great one, Blackkklansman, while having been made by a fairly established and acclaimed director, went some places I didn't expect it to go to, Assassination Nation wasn't all that good but still had some positive messages and Revenge, from 2017 was a great female led revenge movie.

So I wouldn't exclusively look at big, dumb franchise movies when trying to determine if there's an audience for themes of emancipation and class consciousness in media, I'd look at movies targeted at a more, let's say discerning, audience.

I still hope Rian Johnson will get his own Star Wars trilogy. Last Jedi was flawed to be sure but it had a lot of stuff that had me surprised that a company as conservative as Disney let him get away with it. The only person playing looser with their properties is Tetsuya Nomura, bless his heart.

trunkage:

So, what's your stance

First of all, you missed a question mark. Naughty.

Second of all, I really hate this concept, because what counts as "woke" is so nebulous that it's a term that really lacks any meaning. The positive definition is "having social awareness," the negative definition is "putting politics before quality," but even that aside, "woke" has been used so liberally it's pointless to debate.

Third, there's probably examples of being "woke" that have cost studios/creators - BF5 was deemed "woke" for its female soldiers, and however you feel about that, one can't deny that the game suffered at least in part due to the controversy (similar to Ghostbusters 2016). On the other hand, stuff like Overwatch has been accused of "pandering" to "SJWs" since even before it launched, and so far it's done well.

So, I guess my stane is that "woke" is a meaningless term, and that creators will go where the money is. If the money comes from more diverse representation, they'll go that route. If it doesn't, they won't.

Also, this* happened, so, um, yeah. That's a plus a I guess.

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIVRWNXmZFk

PsychedelicDiamond:
Well, "mainstream" Hollywood movies that actually commit to progressive or even anticapitalist themes like Jupiter Ascending, Batman v Superman

Where was BvS anti-capitalist?

Hawki:

Where was BvS anti-capitalist?

The main Antagonist was an insane billionaire who financed mercenaries in Africa, controlled large parts of the media, had politicians literally eat out of his hands and, in the end, created an uncontrollable monster, just to kill an immigrant.

PsychedelicDiamond:

The main Antagonist was an insane billionaire who financed mercenaries in Africa, controlled large parts of the media, had politicians literally eat out of his hands and, in the end, created an uncontrollable monster, just to kill an immigrant.

None of his actions are motivated by greed though. Lex has power, but the film doesn't draw attention to any wealth he might have. Lex is framed as an extreme humanist rather than a repugnant capitalist.

Also, one of the film's titular characters is a billionaire who uses his wealth to acquire material that will help him in attempted murder (or in some cases, actual murder), and the film itself apparently has no qualms about that.

trunkage:
We've all been on the internet. We've probably heard something similar.

I tried to find some data and this is what I found. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-ucla-diversity-report-20180227-story.html

TLDR the report implies the opposite is true.

So, what's your stance

That like anything, its possible to over-egg the pudding and make something that's just insultingly smug or twee.

Honestly all I felt was wrong with Battlefield V (as the latest whipping boy for this inane saying) was that it was just over the top enough to get people to cry foul on historical revisionism but if along with prosthetic machine gun lady they'd had a massive, cigar chomping dude who's using a BAR like a pistol everyone would have said "Oh, okay. They're doing that".

I dunno, every time I hear about a game being socially conscious in anyway it tends to be small indie games, subtext in more niche or offbeat titles or David Cage games.

Like the last 'big one' I remember getting flack for something that would fall under this banner was Mass Effect and Dragon Age 3. ME3 cos it had Steve and Traynor in it. And DA3 because of Dorian's character quest, Sera as a whole and I swear there was also a minority going off about Vivienne.

I mean even as someone who adores both of those games, there was plenty of bigger reasons to be made at them both. So I don't get why those were zeroed in on.

trunkage:
So, what's your stance

Ultimately, the amount of people who are intrinsically bothered about work being "woke" is pretty small.

Consequently, the only real decider of whether something will be successful is its overall quality - plot, characterisation, action, gameplay (for games) etc. "Woke" is only going to be a problem when these core qualities of the work is sacrificed for it. Whilst this certainly can occur, I suspect it's far rarer than social conservatives make out.

In many cases, quality may be lower than expected for the normal reasons that often occur irrespective of political leanings - diminishing returns of sequels, declining innovation, development teams that have lost their edge, etc. However, for the usual social conservative brigade, when a work isn't quite up to expected standards in the core, they almost certainly will blame it on the "woke", because it helps push their ideology.

Alright, clearly you guys visit vastly different parts of the internet than me.

Agema:

trunkage:
So, what's your stance

Ultimately, the amount of people who are intrinsically bothered about work being "woke" is pretty small.

Consequently, the only real decider of whether something will be successful is its overall quality - plot, characterisation, action, gameplay (for games) etc. "Woke" is only going to be a problem when these core qualities of the work is sacrificed for it. Whilst this certainly can occur, I suspect it's far rarer than social conservatives make out.

In many cases, quality may be lower than expected for the normal reasons that often occur irrespective of political leanings - diminishing returns of sequels, declining innovation, development teams that have lost their edge, etc. However, for the usual social conservative brigade, when a work isn't quite up to expected standards in the core, they almost certainly will blame it on the "woke", because it helps push their ideology.

Well, here is my problem. Many characters are pretty trash. But the only ones that get pointed out and a big controversy is generated is over 'diverse' characters

I mean, when was the last time a white hetero male character that was poorly written was used to attack the whole idea of any white hetero male characters being in movies.

Hawki:

PsychedelicDiamond:

The main Antagonist was an insane billionaire who financed mercenaries in Africa, controlled large parts of the media, had politicians literally eat out of his hands and, in the end, created an uncontrollable monster, just to kill an immigrant.

None of his actions are motivated by greed though. Lex has power, but the film doesn't draw attention to any wealth he might have. Lex is framed as an extreme humanist rather than a repugnant capitalist.

Also, one of the film's titular characters is a billionaire who uses his wealth to acquire material that will help him in attempted murder (or in some cases, actual murder), and the film itself apparently has no qualms about that.

Come on, Lex was an embodiment of practically all Silicone Valley stereotypes to the point of being played by an actor who most notably portrayed Mark Zuckerberg. It's true that greed isn't his motivation but being a powerful oligarch is what most of his actions are based on.

Also, the movie played Batman as an Antagonist up to his redemption in, like, the last quarter. A redemption that was pretty rushed for sure, like most of the movies last act, but up to that point he was a decidedly unsympathetic portrayal of Batman. He kills recklessly, he ignores actual crime to aquire weapons to kill Superman (who did absolutely nothing to him), he lies to Alfred who's clearly losing faith in him, the viewer's meant to see that he's gotten paranoid and excessively violent.

There's a scene where he's rattling of thinly veiled aproximations of anti-immigrant rhetoric ("They brought their war to us!" "How many more people have to die?") to Alfred, all in the aftermath of the fight between Superman and Zod that was framed in a way that's obviously meant to remind viewers of the 9/11 terrorist attack, pretty much the origin of the current brand of western Islamophobia. For most of the movie Batman was an antihero, if not a bad guy, at best.

What is it with right-wing slogans firmly believing that making them rhyme will negate any potential desire for critical thought?

"Clean for the queen!" (This one a Tory attempt at crowdsourcing labour they don't want to pay for)
"If you want a'jihadi' [or any racially charged label] for a neighbour, vote labour!"
"Better dead than red!"
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"
"Jobs not mobs!"

How patronising for their audience. Is all just cute little fishy baits to reel in those needing to affirm flakey biases. Oh well, as I'm here, might as well try some suggestions;

"Higher tax for rich old twats"
"Borders are for hoarders"
"Legalise drugs, reduce street thugs"
"Late stage capitalism is high paid cannibalism"
"Draining the swamp? More like straining for a dump" (half rhyme still counts. Probably a sign I should stop though).
"Pro-lifers, fuck you" (oops, yep, definitely time to stop)

The whole concept of confirmation bias in 4 words.

Neurotic Void Melody:
"Late stage capitalism is high paid cannibalism"

That genuinely made me laugh...

Capitalism is not incompatible with "wokeness". In fact, quite the opposite, as the economy continues to evolve and industries are forced to find new markets in order to make even more money. It is more than happy to offer a superficial view of "equality" if it gets more people to buy more products.

This is the kind of thing where people cherrypick too much. EA's recent stock performance has been the worst in 20 years due to Battlefield 5 so that'd be one example of going broke. The failures of the Solo movie and of Ghostbusters would be others. Meanwhile, other things have been less unfortunate.

Ultimately I think it's too soon to tell whether there's any credence to this type of rhetoric.

My take on it is that in a vacuum "woke" content has an advantage because by being more inclusive it has a wider appeal base. This is the first layer, however. It does NOT account for creating a faithful hardcore fanbase of adoring fans, it's just like getting your foot through the door with more people, if your content SOLELY focuses on being woke the door will get slammed shut anyways. Too many things seem to believe that just being woke will suffice to make people like them. They make lazy work and just slap in some token minorities and call it a day. How could you not go broke that way lol.

Where the backlash occurs is not when one goes to make this "woke" media but rather when one CHANGES established series to make it woker. An example of this would be the recent Voltron reboot as well as the Sheera reboot. When you do that, you're invading the houses of people who had opened their door to someone else and you will be met with a befitting reaction for your transgression, which is encapsulated in the get woke go broke sentiment.

Just make original content like Yuuri on Ice or something, that thing won a gajillion anime awards a few years back.

trunkage:

I mean, when was the last time a white hetero male character that was poorly written was used to attack the whole idea of any white hetero male characters being in movies.

Is the reverse actually happening to any significant extent?

I mean, it must be true. Look at how poorly Marvel's Spider-Man did...

Oh,. but that SJW God of War game tanked....

Oh, but the two Star Wars starring a woman didn't sell and the one with the straight white dude did....

But Call of Duty....

Or those SJW CW shows that keep getting renewed year after year....

Well, shoot, those are all bad examples, but look at how poorly movies that pass the Bechdel test are doing...oh....

BreakfastMan:
Capitalism is not incompatible with "wokeness". In fact, quite the opposite, as the economy continues to evolve and industries are forced to find new markets in order to make even more money. It is more than happy to offer a superficial view of "equality" if it gets more people to buy more products.

Capitalism is generally a lagging indicator of equality, because if the corporations are mebracing us, it's a good sign we've gained enough traction to be deemed consumers. I man, you're right. It is quite the opposite. The idea that corporations are just pushing an agenda, rather than cynically crunching the numbers and calculating potential gains is a conspiracy. It's part of the thought process that reality has a known, liberal bias. It's the nature of capitalism to seek out new sources of revenue, but it's antithetical to the notion certain people have built up about their worth in a capitalist society that used to tell them the world revolved around them.

The reality seems to be, all in all, that most people don't care. That the alt-right doesn't understand the Streisand Effect, and that potential losses are generally outweighed by the gains.

The irony is that they are quite literally doing the opposite of pushing a "woke" agenda. They are virtue signaling. I mean, in the real sense of the word, not the one used by every angry 13 year old who doesn't like hearing something they disagree with on the internet.

Something Amyss:

The irony is that they are quite literally doing the opposite of pushing a "woke" agenda. They are virtue signaling. I mean, in the real sense of the word, not the one used by every angry 13 year old who doesn't like hearing something they disagree with on the internet.

Yeah, pretty much. Like, they will put a trans character or a black character in a movie or commercial, no problem, but they are never going to push for an end to housing discrimination or police brutality.

Dreiko:
The failures of the Solo movie

what exactly was woke about solo?

it seems to me you're simply cherrypicking failures and attaching the reasons after the fact.

undeadsuitor:

Dreiko:
The failures of the Solo movie

what exactly was woke about solo?

it seems to me you're simply cherrypicking failures and attaching the reasons after the fact.

I was thinking the same. If anything Solo was the least "woke" of the new Star Wars movies. White, male lead and it had a character dedicated solely to making fun of civil rights activism. Which I found pretty distasteful, tbh.

The change of the known character of Solo to one of the style of a beta male, in stark contrast with his established model, is the main reason why the Solo movie is colloquially referred to as Soylo. Saying it's less woke than the others doesn't mean it isn't woke, it just means that the others are even more woke. Especially the last jedi.

But yes the first thing I said is that this entire thing is cherrypicking and that ultimately you need more time to decide this. How was that part not comprehended when it was the literal initial sentence of my post?

PsychedelicDiamond:

undeadsuitor:

Dreiko:
The failures of the Solo movie

what exactly was woke about solo?

it seems to me you're simply cherrypicking failures and attaching the reasons after the fact.

I was thinking the same. If anything Solo was the least "woke" of the new Star Wars movies. White, male lead and it had a character dedicated solely to making fun of civil rights activism. Which I found pretty distasteful, tbh.

Oh god I forgot about the robot. You know, for all the whining I was honestly shocked when I finally got around to watching it and found out she has 2 whole scenes for a combined total of 8 minutes of screen time.

The real enemy of that movie was a weak script and haphazard post production editing.

PsychedelicDiamond:

Come on, Lex was an embodiment of practically all Silicone Valley stereotypes to the point of being played by an actor who most notably portrayed Mark Zuckerberg. It's true that greed isn't his motivation but being a powerful oligarch is what most of his actions are based on.

He may embody the stereotype physically, but none of his actions stem from the stereotype. None of his actions are driven by motivation for profit.

Also, the movie played Batman as an Antagonist up to his redemption in, like, the last quarter. A redemption that was pretty rushed for sure, like most of the movies last act, but up to that point he was a decidedly unsympathetic portrayal of Batman. He kills recklessly, he ignores actual crime to aquire weapons to kill Superman (who did absolutely nothing to him), he lies to Alfred who's clearly losing faith in him, the viewer's meant to see that he's gotten paranoid and excessively violent.

I'd say more anti-hero than antagonist. The majority of the film's runtime is dedicated to Bruce. He's the one that gets a character arc. He's the first character we see at the start of the movie, and the one that delivers the closing monologue. But while you're right in the above, none of that is a critique on his status as a billionaire.

There's a scene where he's rattling of thinly veiled aproximations of anti-immigrant rhetoric ("They brought their war to us!" "How many more people have to die?") to Alfred, all in the aftermath of the fight between Superman and Zod that was framed in a way that's obviously meant to remind viewers of the 9/11 terrorist attack, pretty much the origin of the current brand of western Islamophobia.

I don't see that as being anti-immigrant, nor the Metropolis battle as a reference to 9/11. Some people have certainly claimed the latter, but by those standards, any movie with a city being devastated could be framed as a reference. Both exist within the confines of the film itself - Bruce has every reason to be resentful of Supes and Zod after Metropolis. That's what you get from an alien invasion that has collateral damage, where in 9/11, destruction was the goal in of itself.

Something Amyss:
I mean, it must be true. Look at how poorly Marvel's Spider-Man did...

Oh,. but that SJW God of War game tanked....

But Call of Duty....

Um, where were those three accused of being "woke?" I thought CoD would be as far from "woke" as it was possible to get.

There might be some truth to it, to the extent that when "Ah! They're trying to impose their political stance upon us!" becomes the dominant narrative surrounding an expensive piece of media that needs to sell to a either a broad audience or an existing, niche one... it rarely seems to be a predictor of financial success.

On one hand, "Black Panther", a movie that made a significant stance of portraying an African Nation and people of African descent as powerful, intelligent, sophisticated, and self-determining probably did better than even its creators could have hoped.

On the other, the Ta-Neshi Coates-authored "Black Panther" comic was cancelled.

Perhaps the slogan is a leeetle too simplistic. Big surprise: it's a slogan.

I think there will always be a market for entertainment media that makes the consumer of it feel good about themselves. If you can feel like you're a bit more enlightened than the Average Jo[e] for going to see "Black Panther" in a theater, that's helpful to its success.

If you feel like that media is attacking you... Well, for a start, in a significant way it's failing in its task as an entertainment product.

That you're paying for.

Even most tragedies are working to entertain the audience. You may not come out of them feeling good, but you still feel like you're in sync with its creators. "I wish it could have turned out some other way, but in the protagonist's shoes, I would have come to that same result." "The author is right- we should be mindful of letting our pride get in the way of our better judgment." "I echo the creators' sympathy for people in this plight, and feel affirmed."

It's becoming increasingly and visibly common for creators to attack segments of the public- sometimes large segments of the public- that express disapproval of an upcoming product. From a bottom-line perspective, this is almost always a bad strategy. Trying to make people define themselves by their position on your product is a great way to make them resent you and everything associated with you. The people who are already with you don't care about the disapproval, the people who disapprove dig in their heels when they discover you're not only the creator of something they don't like but apparently a jerk, and many who haven't made up their mind decide the better part of valor is not to allow themselves to be defined by a petty squabble and don't consume the product either.

Short version:

If your product is going to make significant portions of your audience feel bad- judged, trivialized, vilified, scolded, talked-down-to, marginalized, stereotyped- especially if that is the thing people are talking about, even if a portion of said audience would like those so affected to feel that way- you're going to take it in the shorts.

If your product is going to make the vast majority of your audience feel good- empowered, amused, thrilled, energized, respected, admired, appreciated- entertained!- there's a good chance you're going to come out all right.

It is worth noting that it is usually entirely possible to make a product with the same salient point(s) of the first case while using the methods of the second one. Sometimes, this comes in the form of "Yes, there are bad people like this, but you are (or at least could be) one of the good people- see how much you have in common with them? See how much more you are like that, than like them?"

...Or you can get bogged down in self-righteousness and arrogance, and rather than creating a tragedy about the error of pride, you can become one.

Tangentially, living in a world of Trump, Putin, Erdoğan, Bolsonaro, Duterte, etc., etc... I think it would be wise to get the message that if you believe that conveying your message in a way that people want to hear is somehow beneath you, you need to stop pushing to lead your side.

"Get woke, go broke" may not be true in the movies, but it appears to be true in Congress. (Relatively speaking.)

Of course, one should naturally expect capitalism to exploit the desire for mainstream representation of marginalized groups. One should also naturally expect capitalism to do so poorly because representation, while certainly valuable, is not everything-- capitalists will try to sell you any crap they think you'll buy if they can produce it cheaply. "Wokeness" will thus be commodified and transformed into shallow affirmations of the justice of the status quo dressed up in a critical/cynical tone (see The West Wing or The Newsroom, Aaron Sorkin) or a less usual skin color or gender. This also means that they'll shovel shit at you that's deliberately anti-woke to pander to the 'politically incorrect' market, producing many, many more terrible films.

This also leads to the handy side effect that people associate 'wokeness' not with accurately understanding history or the power relations of the current system, but just being polite and inoffensive or engaging in tokenism.

BreakfastMan:

Something Amyss:

The irony is that they are quite literally doing the opposite of pushing a "woke" agenda. They are virtue signaling. I mean, in the real sense of the word, not the one used by every angry 13 year old who doesn't like hearing something they disagree with on the internet.

Yeah, pretty much. Like, they will put a trans character or a black character in a movie or commercial, no problem, but they are never going to push for an end to housing discrimination or police brutality.

I wouldn't say "never," but they will not bite the hand that feeds them. Remember, Rage Against the Machine were signed to a major label, because youthful rebellion is good marketing. Those social issues bands tend to get causeheads more than actual activism, though.

Blackish is a show that I was initially semi-surprised got made, specifically because it tackles issues white people might not be exposed to. Then the episode about kneeling wouldn't get aired and it seemed a bit easier to believe. They'll talk about issues as long as it doesn't coincide with their own interests.

I mean, most stuff doesn't do that much even, so yeah. Marvel's Spider-Man had this chanted at it because MJ and Sable weren't as hot as the people complaining demanded. Apparently, the only possible reason my expectations are not met is "the SJWs".

God of War? Not even sure how "woke" the game is, but this was the saying when they found out Kratos was a daddy. To be fair, this could be the most "SJW game ever, but the reaction was there before anyone had ever played it.

undeadsuitor:
it seems to me you're simply cherrypicking failures and attaching the reasons after the fact.

Oh, no/ no no no. This was brilliant. You see, the last two tentpole movies featured a white woman and a black man, so logically, the people mad with this were determined to make the movie starring a heterosexual white dude tank in revenge, which will totally prove that women and black people don't sell in movies!

...I'm not joking here.

I mean, ignore the numerous reasons it might have failed; a change in creative team that required heavy reshoots, a release date burial, failure to promote, etc. It failed because people boycotted it for Disney being too "woke" and why are you laughing! This is super serious!

Also, ignore the fact that the last two tentpole movies were also boycotted (I'm leaving out Rogue One: a Makeup Story because I can't remember if it was boycotted or not), this one succeeded, so it's a victory. Finally we won--what's that? They cancelled the Obi-Wan project but Finn and Rey are still around? Ha! Checkmate, athei--I mean, SJWs!

Dreiko is retconning tings in one sense, though: the notion that the boycott had anything to do Han as "beta male" because this boycott started long before we had a look at Not-Harrison Ford or the script or the movie, or the Social Justice Droid or anything else. Tough the Soylo thing did give me a chuckle, because it amuses me greatly how real, alpha men not only believe in discredited social models but are so terrified of soy despite the heaps of scientific evidence to the contrary.

But I digress, back to wokeness, soy lattes, and Call of Duty!

We're all cherry-picking. Except one side has aggregates and the other doesn't. Hm.

Hawki:
Um, where were those three accused of being "woke?" I thought CoD would be as far from "woke" as it was possible to get.

Tackled the first two already, but COD? Oh, honey, this was going to tank the minute they put girls in co-op. And then the minute black people were in WW2 MP.

It's an older example, though. Call of Duty became the "good one" the minute BFV announced a girl would be one of the playable characters in their fragmented story mode.

Come to think of it, it's sort of funny the way the people who always quote George Orwell seem to have an "always at war with Eastasia" mentality.

Women in COD? The series is doomed! Doomed!
Black guys in WW1? The series is doomed! Doomed!
Woman in Battlefield V? Screw that, I'm going back to Call of Duty!

In terms of "wokeness", COD4 and the subsequent MW series at least started off about as subversive as you could get to the "murrica fuck yeah" crowd people tend to think of the series as. My recollection of the first two Black OPs games is hazy, but it seems to me they did the same. It's the same sort of vibe that got people to demand Ubisoft cancel Far Cry 5 because it was an insult to Americans.

Over 2,500 people were triggered enough by FC5 they signed a Change.org petition I'd never even heard of. That's hilarious, and it was one of the first hits I got when searching for the game. And that was before it was released.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if those games could come out without controversy if they were freshly made today. They'd be seen as a shot at Trump, yadda yadda, whatever.

I'm not saying the games were ever like, brilliant indictments or anything. I'm just saying that as far as being "unwoke", a condemnation of the military-industrial complex and the usual cowboy attitude of America in a modern military shooter is probably going to count as "woke" by the same ambiguous standards that consider a lot of these other examples woke.

Callate:

I think there will always be a market for entertainment media that makes the consumer of it feel good about themselves. If you can feel like you're a bit more enlightened than the Average Jo[e] for going to see "Black Panther" in a theater, that's helpful to its success.

If you feel like that media is attacking you... Well, for a start, in a significant way it's failing in its task as an entertainment product.

That you're paying for.

But...and Black Panther is a great example of this...even with that positive message that made people feel good, other people felt attacked, and that's going to be an extant problem ion media. Saying "black people can invent thins and be cool" is immediately going to trigger an "you're tearing white people down!" response.

In fact, this model literally has to ignore that this is where a lot of the "get woke, go broke" mentality comes from. Including women. Including black people. Doing things to make gay people or trans people feel good gives me the sads because I feel attacked! Mary Jane isn't hot enough! #triggered! The new character in Assassin's Creed is a Muslim! #triggered! They said something nice about a bisexual! #triggered.

I forget who originally said the quote, but I heard it from Seth Andrews: to the advantaged, equality feels like oppression. While this isn't about oppression, the same is true here: consideration for others feels like it's attacking me.

I'm a fan of the Arroverse shows, and I don't think anyone here is shocked by this at this point, because I mention them a lot. A lot of people are really angry at the "SJW" agenda being pushed by all the shows of late, and part of the problem is...it's not really all that different from before.

They did an ad campaign recently celebrating civersity, and there has been a significant outcry from people who are so pissed that they're being attacked. "you are welcome here" means, to them, "I am not."

It is literally impossible to celebrate another group without triggering hissy fits from people who "feel" attacked.

There are people holding a grudge because XS said one flirty thing about a chick in the first couple of episodes. They are under attack by this LGBT agenda that is so in your face it was never mentioned again!

Kwak:

trunkage:

I mean, when was the last time a white hetero male character that was poorly written was used to attack the whole idea of any white hetero male characters being in movies.

Is the reverse actually happening to any significant extent?

The reverse? Like any diversity being used as a club to get rid of the diversity? From parts of the audience, Yes. Disney is apparently going broke with all its SJWness. While I can agree that Rey is not a great character, that fact that she's female, and a strong one at that, is being used as a reason why Star Wars is destroyed. Holds is called Captain Evening Dress, which I do agree is silly. Generals usually have a certain attire, and usually not a dres. But then the choice of a female general is seen as a diversity hire and thus would always be useless and she is the one who destroyed the rebellion.

Ghostbusters is destroyed. Captain Marvel is destroyed (a lot of comic book guys absolutely hate her, especially cause she lead the teams.). Women are ruining Warhammer 40k becuase they've asked for female Space Marines. Even though I wouldn't mind a set of female space marine, they still blame this idea on women. Mass Effect 3 and Andromeda were ruined (not just by the endings.) Dragon Age Imquistion and 2's failure was blamed on SJW characters as Sera and Dorian were pretty much evil incarnate. Miles Morales destroyed Spider-Man (but maybe that has been rectified since Into the Spiderverse).

trunkage:

Ghostbusters is destroyed.

Don't worry, that new title that is probably going to be Scooby Doo with an Ecto 1 and may or may not feature any original Ghostbusters is totally going to save the franchise from the great shame of having girls.

Miles Morales destroyed Spider-Man (but maybe that has been rectified since Into the Spiderverse).

Mile moved into the Overton Window of acceptable for most people years ago, though. He's now used as a counter to more recent characters, like Black Captain America and Muslim Girl Marvel and Gay Iceman (who is just regular Iceman but out of the closet). It's almost funny how fast these things become normal and an excuse to attack the new thing.

I think it gets misapplied and many people don't know what 'social justice' really is. Like take the Battlefield 5 controversy. Its a historical game, aiming for gritty realism. And they added a bionic woman and a Japanese-British samurai to a combat squad.
If it was historical fantasy one could argue the 'inclusive' angle, but its not fantasy. Its straight historical, aiming for realistic.
So its not 'inclusive' to have women and samurai, its just wrong. EA failed the history test. It'd be like if the next Battlefield, to be 'inclusive' EA has trans soldiers, from Mars, fighting in the Pacific theater. Its just wrong. That's not inclusive if you're aiming for historical, but historically humanity has not be inclusive.

So people went 'AH SJW!' to a game that didn't really do that. It was just a dumb game with a bad marketing idea. So it didn't really 'Get woke'. So when the devs said don't like it, don't buy it, and people didn't buy it, and it only sold 7 million copies, if that means it 'went broke' then 'getting woke' was not the reason.
Because it wasn't woke. It was dumb.

Like I'm not trans or gay or black or a ladytype, but I would guess historical revisionism for the sake of inclusive is more insulting than appreciated. If Ubisoft did another Ass Creed game set in, I dunno, ancient Rome, and to be 'inclusive' they made Julius Caesar a post-op trans and Nero a black lady and the gladiator Captain Argentius Marius Tritus into a Native American suffragette, they're not being 'inclusive' they're being dumb and frankly insulting to any of those communities. 'Look! we set our game in a time period and geographical location that doesn't allow for the inclusion of every gender/sexuality/race we have in current year, so we just added them in to make you feel better! Look Latino Americans, Latino Romans! Now you can play the game!'
Yeah more insulting than appreciated.

Silentpony:
And they added a bionic woman

Thw woman who was so bionic she was using a prosthetic that looked relatively standard for WW2.

The complainers had such a good case, they've been repeating the same lie since the picure dropped because they needed to drum something up.

Something Amyss:

Silentpony:
And they added a bionic woman

Thw woman who was so bionic she was using a prosthetic that looked relatively standard for WW2.

The complainers had such a good case, they've been repeating the same lie since the picure dropped because they needed to drum something up.

Yes but A. British women didn't see frontline duties, and B. anyone with a fake limb wasn't seeing frontline either.
So it was 0/2 for 'realism'

Silentpony:
Yes but A. British women didn't see frontline duties, and B. anyone with a fake limb wasn't seeing frontline either.
So it was 0/2 for 'realism'

That's a partial truth at best. Women didn't officially serve in frontline roles, but the same was true in America until 2012 (and we're still seeing integration problems) and women could easily find themselves in frontline positions evenm thogh they weren't explicitly allowed. This sort of thing was kind of common in a war like WW2, though less so with women explicitly. It's weird, it's like when you're holding a line with an advancig front, you don't always get to dictate where the frontline is or something.

You can google the articles about women in position, these were mentioned repeatedly after the image came out and the kiddies started screaming MUH REALIZMZ but they ignored it and complained anyway.

It also doesn't change the fact that you included the cyborg bit, which is still a lie. A lie you're admitting is a lie, but you included it to drum up your case.

When you dial back the theatrics, it looks like what it is histrionics over the historicity of a game with an already dubious historical past in the franchise. I wonder what the "British Samurai" claim looks like once you dust the theatrics off.

By the way, there were female Samurai in everything but name who are colloquially referred to as "Samurai," so you'd need a very specific set of circumstances for that example to be true.

Why is it the people who understand history aren't the ones complaining?

I'll save you the time: it's because history is rarely as black and white as ": there were no women in frontline combat in Britain in WW2." There is a version of that statement which is accurate, but it doesn't help the histrionic case. Nor does, you know...the history of Battlefield as a franchise. "I was cool with anachronistic weapons and vehicles, but women is where I draw the line" is basically what this argument comes down to.

Now if you'll excuse me, my two flamethrower buddies need a third to ride horseback.

Silentpony:
I think it gets misapplied and many people don't know what 'social justice' really is. Like take the Battlefield 5 controversy. Its a historical game, aiming for gritty realism. And they added a bionic woman and a Japanese-British samurai to a combat squad.
If it was historical fantasy one could argue the 'inclusive' angle, but its not fantasy. Its straight historical, aiming for realistic.
So its not 'inclusive' to have women and samurai, its just wrong. EA failed the history test. It'd be like if the next Battlefield, to be 'inclusive' EA has trans soldiers, from Mars, fighting in the Pacific theater. Its just wrong. That's not inclusive if you're aiming for historical, but historically humanity has not be inclusive.

So people went 'AH SJW!' to a game that didn't really do that. It was just a dumb game with a bad marketing idea. So it didn't really 'Get woke'. So when the devs said don't like it, don't buy it, and people didn't buy it, and it only sold 7 million copies, if that means it 'went broke' then 'getting woke' was not the reason.
Because it wasn't woke. It was dumb.

Like I'm not trans or gay or black or a ladytype, but I would guess historical revisionism for the sake of inclusive is more insulting than appreciated. If Ubisoft did another Ass Creed game set in, I dunno, ancient Rome, and to be 'inclusive' they made Julius Caesar a post-op trans and Nero a black lady and the gladiator Captain Argentius Marius Tritus into a Native American suffragette, they're not being 'inclusive' they're being dumb and frankly insulting to any of those communities. 'Look! we set our game in a time period and geographical location that doesn't allow for the inclusion of every gender/sexuality/race we have in current year, so we just added them in to make you feel better! Look Latino Americans, Latino Romans! Now you can play the game!'
Yeah more insulting than appreciated.

The problem is if the lack of realism is the problem, then there is a lot more wrong with every 'historical shooter' ever besides women and blacks. It just shows that sexism and racism are their line for unacceptable, not every other thing that is hindering the realism of games like Battlefield 5.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here