Oh yeah JK rowlings sin was saying trans women should not be in women's toilets due to so called trans women raping real women and being able to have easier access to women. All in all she said that women should have a safe space away from biological men for things like toilets and changing rooms
It is unfortunate that money seems to be not only the only value of business but a lot of people. People don't care about other people very much either. If you ain't pushing their money agenda, they're not interested.
I really, really want to like your videos, but you keep making them political. Defending JK Rowling, who's made awful tweets against trans people, constantly attacking the "woke" crowd...you can do whatever you like of course, but it is frustrating as somemone who agrees with your central premise but takes serious issue with these comments you keep making.
Great video, I am new to your channel. I like your sober takes. I do wonder what they will do with these employees who are true believers. 3 Months on from when you first made this, Disney has fired 7,000 workers, but Universities are graduating true believers everyday. So what kind of atmosphere are we going to see emerge, when corporate wants to make money and the employees want to change the world?
Hopefully that day is near. A diverse cast is great, I just don't want the characters to be Blackson Blackman, GArY Gayman, and Gal Woman. Please just make them real people!
But the point made, and it is a good one, is that the Studios don't do anything "for the sake of it." They do it if they think it will ultimately be profitable. So, even if they return to "normal" representation and series that follow canon, I wouldn't get too comfortable, because that WILL change if they feel that it is profitable to do so..
@@drbryant23 that’s true, apparently they are loosing money and ratings. Saw in another video can’t remember which link I’d clicked on. Because these WOKE people while seem like they’re everywhere really only represent a very tiny persentage of people.
Oh well, there goes my idea for a retelling of 'Beowulf' , where Beowulf is a strong black lesbian female, and she's a better warrior than any man on the planet, just because.
I couldn't agree more. I thought we were supposed to be moving beyond petty race disputes. Now we're going back to caring about skin color? This doesn't feel like progress
I am so tired of them sacrificing good story lines just to push an obvious agenda. Ugh... like we get enough agenda pushing from news and social networks, leave our entertainment alone.
You're so straight and true about things. There are a few things I'd like to add: The "representation" in hollywood is also so lazy. Their solution on lack of diversity is making a white character colored. Its just like remaking Rambo with the same script and dialogue but casting a woman as a lead. It actually feels more racists that they won't take efforts to make a new character and a new story which also acknowledges the cultural and other aspects of a person of color. I mean, it simply feels like they have a tool in their editing software similar to color grading which can change race of a character. Every character feels the same race with same background if you ignore the actors playing the role. You can have diversity in your cast if you write your story that way. But if your story doesnt need it. Why add it. Forced diversity seems rude. It seems like you represented my people just to trick me into buying tickets. Feels like a clickbait.
That's a great point. I'm working on a couple videos for those points, actually. One is why I don't like "Allies" because they are just reducing a person down to superficial qualities. How insulting. The other is about how Disney wants to represent, but they have never explored African folk lore! There is a whole continent of mythology and stories!
@@gregowen2022 When they started talking about "diverse live action The Little Mermaid" all I could think was, why can't we get a whole new interpretation of the original story that's integrated with African folklore? I wanna see mermaids that look different. I wanna see another The Little Mermaid movie. But can we try something new, please?
It's pretty obvious to anyone not drunk on Kool-aid. Same reason Bros bombed so hard, the audience they are aiming for is so small they can't profit from them. Most of the people demanding all this nonsense don't see the movies, buy the merch or anything, they just like to complain and feel special.
You're absolutely right, and I think it's all about to come crashing down. Recession is inbound and companies won't be able to afford to pander when things are tight
When asked how does racial Justice fit into Star Wars George had a pretty interesting answer: Student:"The world has changed so much since the first Star Wars movie. How do you think the change in the fights for racial justice will impact the Star Wars universe going forward?" George Lucas responds with the following: "Uh, I don't know. I mean, I've kind of lost control of Star Wars, so it's going off in a different path than what I intended. But the first six are very much mine, and my philosophy. And I think that philosophy sort of, goes beyond any particular time, because it's based on history, it's based on philosophy, it's based on a lot of things. And, you know, the first three basically tell you how democracy turns into a dictatorship and you end up with a tyrant, the Emperor. It's very important now, where we are now in our political history." He continues to talk about his take on Star Wars: “All of the various colors and shapes of the aliens and everything, that live in that world, it's a normal situation, there's no real discrimination. The only discrimination is against robots, and we haven't really reached that period yet, and I'm sure the robots will be able to overcome it because they dont have the same feelings. But it really shows you in terms of the way the politics are and the way things are and how to fight those ideas. Anda lot of it really has to do with overcoming fear.” So by George’s view Star Wars is timeless and doesn’t completely represent any particular time period but reflects the cycle of human history and within his Galaxy & Universe Of Star Wars there isn’t any real discrimination or racism between the species. STARLOG: We all noticed the lack of women in the Star Wars trilogy. Are you go- ing to bring more women in for future Star Wars films? LUCAS: Well, what of Princess Leia? When you're making a war film, how are you going to put women in it? Think of other war films, think of The Longest Day, those films. Well, it's your galaxy; I have to go with the rest of the world. And still make it believable. I'm not sure how many women will be in the rest of the films; that's the kind of thing that plots dictate. What would Star Wars have been like if Han Solo had been a woman? So George also didn’t care to introduce new characters just to appeal to modern audiences with social controversies like the amount of women in a film without first creating a character that works specifically for the plot. George essentially made characters regardless of race, & gender that would fit the plots he wrote instead of just adding them for no reason other then being politically correct. That is very interesting.
I was able to tell the companies where loyal to the brand of wokeism instead of the ideology way before. It’s like how advertising will try to “keep with the times” in order to appeal with young audiences.
Thanks for watching! Hopefully people will wake up from thinking companies really care. Business is about money, and that's perfectly fine so long as we're all being honest about it
I don't think any rational person ever thought these companies were loyal. I was just astounded it was talking them as long as it has to reverse course.
Wokeness to the eyes of entertainment businesses is an exploitative trend, however they end up putting the social movements in a wrong light (and I mean twisting the motives).
I do NOT want companies to be loyal to ME. I DO want them to be loyal to my MONEY. If they are loyal to my money, they will want to provide me with the things I want in order to GET my money. Capitalism.
That is why capitalism is superior. Barring a few famous exceptions, it's the most honest system. Everyone is up front that it's all about money and value.
@@gregowen2022 Capitalism isn't perfect, but ti's the best we've ever discovered. IMO, the biggest problem with it... is not with capitalism itself, but short-sighted PEOPLE... meaning the short-sighted people in charge of some of these companies. Maximizing short-term profits has a downside. This is the reason that Iger was dead-WRONG about removing controls from "the creatives" and Chapek was RIGHT about putting controls ON them (which Iger had removed). Iger allowed people like KK, Rian Johnson, etc., to RUIN "the brand".
I love that disclaimer that you gave regarding companies not caring about the views they are trying to push not matter what side you actually support. It seems to me that recently many "anti-wokeism" channels are just expressing "anti-leftism" in general, using these shitty woke shows and movies as a way to push their own agenda. It's very refreshing to see someone that isn't against "wokeism" for political motivations but because of the constant decline of quality that comes for caring more for the message than the story
You’re right. Don’t get me wrong, I do lean far-left and believe minorities need more representation in general, but companies are designed for greed not morals. It isn’t that you can’t be “woke” but you can’t be fake/ have oversaturation of “woke views” a good show for example is the Loki tv show. Loki is agendered but it isn’t his whole personality or one of the main points of the show. Looking at endgame, in contrast, the fight scene with all the female hero’s protecting the gauntlet is trying to pander to a woke audience instead of incorporating them and it ultimately makes a poorer scene for it. You can have strong women and not have their whole arc be “ I can do anything a man can do”
You're totally right, and it has been proven that it can be done. Loki is a good one, and another example I like is Brooklyn 99. On paper, you might think it's the wokest show on the planet. In execution, it's fantastic because they wrote a great story with diversity in mind, but not as the main goal.
IMO, that scene in Endgame, the "girl power" scene, would have been better if it had included "the guys" working WITH "the girls". Of course, then it wouldn't have stuck out from the rest of the movie with the team BEING a team... which is REAL diversity... "gender diversity" in this case.
As an asian American who grew up in the 90s and faced insane amount of racism from both whites and blacks I roll my eyes into the back of my head when I hear the word “woke”. It makes me angry.
Corporations aren't loyal to shareholders or the bottom line, or they wouldn't be doubling down on losing money like crazy and watching their stock prices crater.
I agree they usually don't lose on purpose, but I think they thought they were getting ahead of the public trend. People like to say "you're going to be on the wrong side of history!" and these companies probably just figured they were getting in on the ground floor of the social justice movement.
Can you please discuss whether or not it's healthy for people to be so focused on being validated by being "represented" by the most fake and greed/power imbalance driven entities in the world, possibly in history? I get the feeling you would do a good job with that.
I'm laughing at this sad reality that there are people who consider bare bones representation on screen to be "woke". This sort of public outcry has been happening since Franklin joined the Peanuts. Like honestly, whose losing sleep over this? That said I think there's a difference between the inclusion we bring in front of the camera and the diversity in the actual stories we tell. Yes these are products but it's the stories that audiences are buying into. We are living in a divided time and these companies are navigating neutrality as opposed to heralding unity or showing anyone's reality. Realities like say, a gay kid and their republican father. They are perpetuating IPs that were made successful in other eras. The only reason it's worked so well up until now is because in a rapidly changing culture people tend to grip to nostalgia. I think they'll have more success when they invest in smaller projects that'll make more of their audience feel seen. Only time will tell.
I think the bare bones representation is exactly why people call it woke. It's soulless and just meant to get headlines and praise because they were brave enough to allude to the shopkeeper in Frozen being gay. That scene was less than a second long. When they actually make a movie centering around gay characters, like Strange World, they don't promote it because they know it doesn't appeal to larger audiences. I think you are right that smaller projects would be a good idea because some audiences are smaller, like the gay audience.
@@gregowen2022 The funny thing is I don’t think the gay audience is smaller, it’s just oppressed by governments and culture to the fault that it keeps it’s audiences away from screens. Aka gay content won’t be accepted into certain countries which is why they make it so easy to cut these characters out. The corporations are so obsessed with creating global cultural phenomena that they fail to see the power in domestic phenomena. Ergo, too much of queerness won’t get accepted into China or whatever country so they decide not to include it at all. You’re talking to a guy who craved this representation as a kid and has made it my career to put stories like these on screen. That said even when we do get quality representation it’s either incredibly hetero normalized or so radical that it’s no longer playing to the truth of its characters (or worse tokenizes by trying to do too much). For me both outcomes don’t come close to reflecting my personal gay experience or my colleagues. That said the playbook I mentioned in the last comment is what Hollywood has defaulted to every 30 years or so since the 1930s. If you look at the correlation historically with how culture shifts and how cinema has to reinvent itself to meet that it usually means less blockbusters should play in the market.
i agree with you on general premise of this, but few things i am not sure about. the message like wokeness or diversity was never popular to begin with, at least when overly done. the reason those types of movies were doing well when they first came out was not that audience enjoyed them. they were giving them chances. people just flocked together on them to see some good films out of popular franchises. when they found out that those were not as good as they expected, they simply tried to enjoy the novelty of it or gave them another chance saying, "well, many good movies and show, so few of them have to be bad." after they see more and more of this stuff being way out of the tangent, they started to call the companies out. another thing is that i think the companies were pushing these agenda despite losing money. they either believe that they were in some kind of holy mission worth losing money for, or flat-out didn't care. they now are coming back from it because it came to the point of unsustainable.
Yeah, I think you're right. The audience at first liked the taboo and shock nature of this stuff. I think the companies thought it was the future and they were getting in on the ground floor. Now Hollywood and FTX investors have learned the same lesson
I think it depends on the company. Adidas for example will continue. They've had so many conservatives burning their shoes and talking about boycotting, etc, but they didn't care because they will continue to sell. Nor is diversity and stuff necessarily bad, just depends on if it's tastefully executed since companies always want to expand their customer base.
You're right and tasteful is the key difference. Serving a customer base who truly wants to be represented is plain smart business. Pandering to people with hollow virtue signals, that's woke and it's gross.
Because to burn a pair of shoes you have to buy one. You can't sway a corporate by consuming _more_ of their product. Between people wearing their shoes as intended and burning them they really prefer burning. Those people could wear their boots for years without giving the company a single dime, but now they're shoeless - and many of them will crawl back to buy the same pair for higher price.
Great storytelling is what’s important. The Stories that aren’t political at all and are based on good writing, good characters , deeper lessons, morals and entertainment as well as the stories that do have political elements but are more focused on an engaging story,a well thought out lesson or idea behind it and interesting characters are the stories that make great entertainment. As my film teacher taught me Art before politics, always. The story & characters comes first whether the politics are subtle, secondary or completely non existent. There are two types of great stories when it comes to this method: stories that are apolitical with great characters, writing & moral lessons or none, and then there are stories that have political elements but put the quality of the writing and characters, & moral lessons first. Whether either type of story is apolitical or has political elements deep philosophy, morality, & mythology can often play a role in sharpening the story, once you form your morals for a story into ideas over just using them for government or social policy statements you can grab anyone within an audience no matter who they are or what they believe that is the gift of good storytelling Modern SJW’s unfortunately don’t have that gift because for them there is nothing deeper then the physical realm they see and often hate so instead of forming deep intelligent universal themes or ideas through the magic of storytelling they try to bend those themes or ideas to their will ,thoughts and beliefs. They can’t form their morals into ideas so often they come off as just government or policy statements without the feeling of anything deeper to an audience turning most people off whether they do or don’t agree with them or are indifferent to begin with.
Those are excellent points. I don't advocate for completely non-political movies, but as you say some philosophy needs to be woven in. Good art should ask questions, even if they are leading questions because you do have a message in mind. Modern media is all about what to think instead of how to think
The current pace of social politics is funny. One day you're a hero and the next you're a monster and you didn't change at all. I hope some of the proponents of current social politics see that they might be called far right extremist monsters soon, even though they haven't changed a thing
Screwing up the WoT series really confuses me because the canon already had the two things modern Hollywood loves - girl bosses and diversity. It's natural diversity that makes sense, not the downtown LA version showrunners think they must have (although the Seanchan empire could be portrayed like that) and the female leads are mostly likeable. In fact two of my three favorite characters are Aviendha and Tuon (Matt's the other) just portray them like they are in the book. I know the series hasn't gotten that far yet but you know they'll screw it up. I guess I'm like you, every time I think about the Amazon abomination I have to vent.
Let it out, because I fully understand and agree. Usually, I know that a book adaptation is going to be screwed up, but as you said, WoT is ready to go and still fits in with "modern audiences". I really let myself believe that it was going to be done well. I have basically zero hopes for the second season or anything else because they've already screwed up a bunch of lore and contradicted their own story.
@@gregowen2022 When you hear the term "modern audience" you know that project is DOA. Ironically if a show had the mindset of appealing to a "1980s audience" it would probably be huge.
There's actually a difference between mainstream liberal and woke ideologies. Woke is basically the left-wing extremists, just like MAGA represents the right-wing extremists. I believe in a lot of liberal values, including equal rights for all races, genders, religions, etc. But woke entertainment goes way beyond that. Forcing LGBT content into mainstream films and TV shows, race-swapping or gender-swapping already established characters and focusing entertainment media on messaging, instead of entertainment is the real problem. Entertainment should be politically neutral. Representation is fine, but it should be done by creating new characters who act like real people. Female empowerment does not mean female characters who act like men. Racial diversity shouldn't be achieved by race-swapping Captain America, Ariel or Tinkerbell. Make new characters. People of color don't want to be handed leftovers, and fans of the original characters don't want their favorites to be changed.
I'm starting to feel really bad for the everyday liberals. The right lumps them in with the insane fringe left, and that fringe treats them like nazis if they don't affirm all 71 genders. It's gotta be a tough time to be a regular liberal
Online slacktivist social justice warrior here! The answer to why we're not turning out in droves to support this stuff is actually option D: we don't want this shitty pandering either. (And we tend to dislike like big corporations.) What we're asking for is genuine representation, where stories are told from perspectives that actually reflect marginalized people's experiences. So less stuff like She-Hulk and more stuff like Coco. The whole *concept* of diversity is tied to the idea of just how many different ways there are to experience life. So why would we want lazy palette swaps of stuff that's already been done with straight white guys? I'm currently writing a story about a trans character with superpowers, and it's honestly been fascinating to explore how her specific arc with her gender shapes how she reacts to gaining powers. In her life a trans woman she's always been challenged on who she says she is, which has seriously damaged her self-esteem, and she's ended up with a fear of being seen as different, or as an outsider. And so when she suddenly becomes much more powerful, that's a terrifying experience for her, because suddenly all eyes are on her, and she knows that society will be afraid of her no matter how she acts-which makes it much easier for her to be manipulated into using her newfound powers in ways she'll regret. This is exactly the sort of thing major studios don't seem to have the guts to do: this is a story where a character's experience with her diverse identity is deeply intertwined with her arc but isn't even close to the entirety of her arc. And this plot would be incredibly hard for a non-trans writer to pull off, because it requires a deep intuition for what life as a trans person can actually be like. And Hollywood's still pretty hostile towards trans writers. So when the MCU finally introduces their first trans superhero, I'm sure they'll probably have a tragic backstory involving transphobia, and yet their actual characterization probably won't go beyond the standard-issue quips, snark, and confidence.
It sounds like your story is already different from main stream, since your trans character makes mistakes. Right now trans characters are on a pedestal because they are the preferred token symbol of virtue, so they never make mistakes. I hope your book is successful!
All I can focus on is the vase on the D&D books but I don't care too much cause I'm a 3.5 guy. P.S. corporations don't give a shit about your feelings.
I wonder how many modern progressives would flip from quotes like this: "I did not want to put boy's clothes on a woman. I wanted a woman who was a woman, who was very strong, wise, and a leader." - George Lucas (George describing the designs of Princess Leia’s clothes.) But Lucas hit back in an interview with Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark - and blamed fans on the Internet who took an instant dislike to the new character. He said: "Those criticisms are made by people who've obviously never met a Jamaican, because it's definitely not Jamaican and if you were to say those lines in Jamaican they wouldn't be anything like the way Jar Jar Binks George Lucas:”it’s completely absurd - Jar Jar was not drawn from a Jamaican" says them. “They're basing a whole issue of racism on an accent, an accent that they don't understand. Therefore if they don't understand it, it must be bad. "How in the world you could take an orange amphibian and say that he's a Jamaican? It's completely absurd. Believe me, Jar Jar was not drawn from a Jamaican, from any stretch of the imagination." He said the allegations said more about the people Jar Jar Binks: Has come under fire for alleged racial stereotyping making the claims than they did about his film. "There is a group of fans for the films that doesn't like comic sidekicks. They want the films to be tough like Terminator, and they get very upset and opinionated about anything that has anything to do with being childlike. "The movies are for children but they don't want to admit that. In the first film they absolutely hated R2 and C3-PO. In the second film they didn't like Yoda and in the third one they hated the Ewoks... and now Jar Jar is getting accused of the same thing." Internet fascination. He believes the US media's fascination with the Internet Created the controversy "The American press uses the internet as their source for everything, so when people were creating Websites saying. 'Let's get rid of Jar Jar Binks, he's terrible' and some of the critics were describing him as a comic sidekick, they came in and they started calling the film racist." Lucas with Jake Lloyd on the set of the film, He added: "It started out as a way of just selling newspapers and then other people have sort of picked it up. But it really reflects more the racism of the people who are making the comments than it does the movie." Well there you have it folks George calling out Media Wokeness before a lot of people online and tv. So George has his political views but he is a master storyteller for many reasons and one of them is putting the story and characters essentially The Art Before The Politics. He’s not the only one though: "So social issues I try to get in in the background, or underlying a plot, but never to the point of letting interfere with a story or hitting the reader over the head. - STAN LEE GROTH: How did you feel about the Senate Subcommittee Hearings? Did you think that was a witch-hunt, or did you think there was any validity to the public's concern? KIRBY: I didn't feel one way or another about it. I was only hoping that it would come out well enough to continue comics, that it wouldn't damage comics in anyway, so I could continue Working. I was a young man. I was still growing out of the East Side. The only real politics I knew was that if a guy liked Hitler, I'd beat the stuffing out of him and that would be it. GROTH: Were you very political? KIRBY:I wasn't then. I was very concerned with comics. I'm political now. I knew this much - that everybody voted Democrat down my way. If you were poor, you voted Democrat and if you were rich you voted Republican. Power doesn't corrupt. It's neutral. Someone always wants to corrupt power. It's the way a shotgun is not a deadly weapon until someone chooses to use it irrationally. STEVE DITKO Prolific Batman writer and the creator of the villain Bane, Chuck Dixon, recently explained why politics do not belong in superhero comics. Dixon shared his thoughts in his most recent episode of Ask Chuck Dixon where he was asked by Chris Cueva, “Are you against politics in comics completely?” Dixon answered the question stating, “Absolutely not. I’ve written political books. I did The Forgotten Man, a history of the Great Depression, adapting Amity Shlaes epic, epic history of some of the darkest years in American history.” He continued, “I don’t think it’s political, but it is because it’s seen to have a conservative viewpoint, it’s very down on the New Deal, which I don’t think history is going to judge well in the end. So I’ve done that.” “Clinton Cash a far more political book. An adaptation of Peter Schweizer’s exposure of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s rather tawdry work with their foundation and how basically they used it to enrich themselves. It’s purely political. So I’m not against politics in comics. I’m not against anybody’s politics in comics,” he detailed. Dixon then went on to discuss that he read Spain Rodriguez’s Trashman series. He said, “Back in the underground days I used to read Trashman by Spain Rodriguez. It basically calls for Marxist revolution in the United States, bloody Marxist revolution. It’s very anti-American. Very anti-white when you get right down to it. He elaborated, “I dug the energy of it. I didn’t believe in any of it. I didn’t agree with any of it, but I certainly respected Spain Rodriguez’s right to make any comic book he wants.” Dixon then transitioned to explain why he believes politics doesn’t belong in superhero comics. He explained, “My problem with politics in comics is when you mix it with mainstream comics. When superheroes take a side, decide that they’re Democrat or Republican. And 99.99% of the time they are going to side with the Democrat. Where one president is seen as a hero and the other one is seen as an ogre or a coward or whatever depending on their party line. Now, like the old Mad Magazine, if comics were to either elevate or mock each president with the same severity to the same level I’d be fine with it. But this is politics being put into a place it does not belong. Politics does not belong in superhero comics,” Dixon declared. He explained, “My problem with politics in comics is when you mix it with mainstream comics. When superheroes take a side, decide that they’re Democrat or Republican. And 99.99% of the time they are going to side with the Democrat. Where one president is seen as a hero and the other one is seen as an ogre or a coward or whatever depending on their party line.” “Now, like the old Mad Magazine, if comics were to either elevate or mock each president with the same severity to the same level I’d be fine with it. But this is politics being put into a place it does not belong. Politics does not belong in superhero comics,” Dixon declared. He then asserted, “I’ve said it before, I’ve said it again. I’m a comics fan, you’re a comics fan, but let’s face it these characters were created to entertain children. They were never meant to be political. They were never meant to be literature. They were never meant to be meaningful. They were just meant to be good solid American red-blooded entertainment. And putting politics into it, ruins it. It ruins anything.” “If you made a political Kung Fu movie, I would say the same thing. Get off it. Stop doing that,” he concluded. What do you make of Dixon’s explanation about why politics do not belong in superhero comics?” As the indefatigable 92-year-old superhero conjurer and Marvel Comics chairman emeritus sees it, fan backlash up until this point hasn't so much been spurred on by racism as much as unyielding fealty to the source material. "They're outraged not because of any personal prejudice, Lee says. "They're outraged because they hate to see any change made on a series and characters they had gotten familiar with. In Spider- Man, when they got a new actor, that bothered them, even though it was a white actor. I don't think it had to do with racial prejudice as much as they don't like things changed." - STAN LEE I wouldn't mind. if Peter Parker had originally been black. a Latino, an lndian or anything else.That he stay that way. But we originally made him white. I dont see any reason to change that. It has nothing to do with being anti-gay, or anti-black, or anti-Latino, or anything like that. Latino characters should stay Latino. The Black Panther should certainly not be Swiss. I just see no reason to change that which has already been established when it's so easy to add new characters. I say create new characters the way you want to. -STAN LEE
He's definitely got his work cut out for him, but based on the few interviews I could find he seems genuinely excited about it. Fingers crossed, indeed
This issue has been around for a long time fans older or younger that prefer the original or Iconic characters have complained about them being replaced this often happens with mantle legacy storylines. Now you can do a good legacy storyline with a mantle but often it doesn’t last that long. This isn’t an issue of racism because when new characters would take up the mantle of big time heroes people complained. Many Fans didn’t like Dick Grayson becoming Nightwing and Jason Todd being The New Robin when that started. Fans were interested Dick Grayson becoming Batman but didn’t want that storyline to remain permanent eventually wanting Bruce Wayne to come back as Batman. Fans were excited to see John Stewart introduced as another Green Lantern fighting along side Hal Jordan but fans weren’t happy when John Stewart eventually replacing Hal Jordan as Green Lantern of earth. Fans didn’t want Superboy Conner Kent or Johnathan Kent taking Clark’s place as Superman at least not permanently. Miles Morales was popular at the start of his initial run but eventually fans just wanted to see Peter Parker again and many storylines of Peter & Miles teaming up were accepted while stories focusing on Miles on his own whether they were good or bad were heavily criticized. Fans generally don’t like change especially when the legacy character no matter how well written they are can’t match up to The Iconic or Original version in terms of quality. The main issue with legacy characters is while they can get very good stories with the effort put in eventually some level of the status Quo has to return to satisfy audiences. This is why most legacy stories that are final out comes to a long running franchise as usually if not always are what if multiverse stories when it comes to comics or anything else. You can write a great legacy story or you can completely screw it up but often regardless those legacy characters can’t replace the originals or Iconic versions for good because many fans will want the original back at some point this is the reality of any legacy character regardless of their race and gender. Kyle & Guy got flak for not being Hal Jordan. Hal Jordan was criticized at times for not being Alan. Accusing fans of racism for not liking changes like this will often lead to fans getting pissed off and no longer supporting the story as Customers this often the problem with current media and society. Another flaw is when legacy stories are attempted with bad quality in an attempt to grab the current generation and be PC often not just leading to the main audience no longer supporting the franchise and new audiences not being interested that’s when things fall apart. The lesson we can learn here is that legacy stories can be well made and legacy characters can be interesting with hard work and good writing put in but eventually they’ll have to be sidekicks, partners basically secondary characters to the original or iconic versions that came before because they can never truly replace them for people this is why Gohan could never take Goku’s place at the end of Dragon Ball like Akira wanted originally after The Cell Saga or why Anakin wasn’t Luke for some fans during the original trilogy despite being a prequel character. For a new character that you want to have their own status has to always be original because while legacy characters can be well made they’ll always just be legacy characters to people which is just another version. Batman Beyond despite how well made he is still Batman Beyond not Batman even if he’s called that in universe. No one ever truly replaces Bruce Wayne for people just like no one ever truly replaces Steve Rogers or Peter Parker. Further evidence of this is people getting pissed that T’Challa was replaced by his sister as Black Panther people didn’t like that either and The Black Panther comics were going downhill at that point anyway. Don’t call fans racist because they prefer what came before it’s just normal for humans. As the indefatigable 92-year-old superhero conjurer and Marvel Comics chairman emeritus sees it, fan backlash up until this point hasn't so much been spurred on by racism as much as unyielding fealty to the source material. "They're outraged not because of any personal prejudice, Lee says. "They're outraged because they hate to see any change made on a series and characters they had gotten familiar with. In Spider- Man, when they got a new actor, that bothered them, even though it was a white actor. I don't think it had to do with racial prejudice as much as they don't like things changed. I wouldn't mind. if Peter Parker had originally been black. a Latino, an lndian or anything else that he stay that way. But we originally made him white. I dont see any reason to change that. It has nothing to do with being anti-gay, or anti-black, or anti-Latino, or anything like that. Latino characters should stay Latino. The Black Panther should certainly not be Swiss. I just see no reason to change that which has already been established when it's so easy to add new characters. I say create new characters the way you want to.-Stan Lee All Marvel had to do in the comics & MCU was give Jane another name like Spennende, Astrape or Brontë instead of Thor’s literal name when using his powers, have her go through a great worthy storyline to gain the power as only Thor & those worthy can wield his power like Beta Ray Bill, And give her a better reason to have this power outside of not wanting to die from cancer, also make her a more heroic kind hearted soul like Jane Foster often is instead of warping her character to an arrogant modern feminist in the comics, she was fine personality wise in the film but the origin written around her is so bad it’s hard to take seriously. The only aspect me and some other fans liked about Ms.Marvel was her fan girl energy within the Marvel universe but all the sjw stuff and the fact that her character was just made for that is honestly what did her character in, if she was written better from the start like many other legacy characters she could’ve been a great addition.
The reason why "wokeness" isn't selling anymore is because these show writers think that representation and diversity alone will carry a show when it just doesn't. To be fair, I don't watch a lot of shows in general, but I'm specifically thinking of shows like Velma and High Guardian Spice when I say this. Like, ok cool, you put minorities in lead roles, now make an actual good show that makes you care about these characters, and it feels like the writers are just responding like "What? Them being diverse minorities isn't enough to make you care about them?" Wha- no NO! I don't think race swapping is even inherently a problem if it was done right, but when the straight white version of a character is way more developed and likable then the gay black version, you're really not doing anyone any favours and if anything you're doing or harm than good, making minorities look like bitter assholes that no one wants to be around. Or like, what good is it to have a trans character when being trans is their only defining characteristic? Madeline from Celeste is a perfect example of a trans character done right! It's actually never even mentioned in the game that she's trans and it really doesn't effect the story at all, she just IS trans. It contextualizes some of her struggles more, all the dark stuff she deals with mentally and constantly fighting against herself, but it's never made to be a commentary on her transness, or blaming others like "If white men weren't so oppressive Madeline wouldn't be so depressed" like no, she's just a girl (that happens to be trans) on a journey to claim a mountain out of frustration that she's depressed and can't escape herself. She's a likable and relatable character, and being trans is just WHAT she is, not WHO she is. Celeste is just a good game with a great story and fun gameplay without Madeline even being trans, the fact that she is trans is just the strawberry on top! As long as companies keep making shows were a character being of color or gay or trans is their defining characteristic with no redeeming qualities aside from that, then of course "wokeness" isn't going to sell anymore, these shows are just trash with unlikable characters. It has nothing to do with "woke people" not having the money to buy these products or there not being enough "woke people" to make "woke" shows profitable enough. It's that these, as you say, disloyal companies that just want a quick buck just throw all this stuff into a dumpster fire of show thinking that it's what people want, not understanding at all what progressive people actually want: GOOD shows that just happen to be more diverse and show minorities in a positive light. That's not what we're getting though and people are just getting sick of it and not buying it anymore
First of all, nowadays companies or rather big shots of companies does not care about profits like before they more care for stock prices. And stock prices are set by big players in the market. Just like company executives, big players doesn't concern about E/Ps anymore. They make decisions based on metrics like ESG. Higher the ESG hooch the price of stocks, higher the net worth of comping execs. And to be honest it's virtually impossible for likes of Disney to go green or change governance, thus they go the Social way, AKA wokeness. As long as a company can cope with the losses of wokeness they continue their path. Companies need to create several woke shows to fix their ESG knowing that those shows are nothing but loss.
I like progressive representation but yeah it is expected, companies don't listen to what is considered good for the art, they listen to the money (even though I argue that Disney's way of implementing progressive values actually makes the LGBT+ community disengaged compared to other stuff like Our Flag Means Death or Good Omens. The shows LGBT+ people actually like as their representation.) Just look at how Sonic was being handled, they overlook their value of having stories for a long time until Forces bombed critically and having sucky sales compared to actual good Sonic games that either have good gameplay or story.
I have zero issue with introducing more female characters. The problem is they are written so poorly. Tony stark grew over several movies and went through many ups and downs. These women characters are instantly great and do no wrong. It’s just not fun or interesting to watch…
It really isn't fun. They can yell at the audience all they want, but the ticket sales show that people aren't connecting with these characters or plots
Rowling Said something to the effect of she was worried about men changing into females who then get access to safe spaces for biological women such as bathrooms or locker rooms or safe houses for mistreated women I believe. While I don’t think that worry has some huge merit, I also believe at the same time that demonizing her plus harassing streamers who play Hogwarts Legacy is plain dumb and not better at all. Paying someone back doesn’t make you morally superior. It just makes you mean and evil. No matter what marginalized group you may belong to otherwise.
GROTH: How did you feel about communism then? KIRBY: Oh, communism! That was a burning issue. It was an outrageous issue. To be termed a communist would damage your whole family, damage your whole world- your friends wouldn't talk to you. I'm talking about other people -because I wouldn't go near the stuff. Sure, I was against the reds. I became a witch hunter. My enemies were the commies -I called them commies. In fact, Granny Goodness was a commie, Doubleheader was a commie. "Today's flawed superheroes are superior in physical strength but common, average, ordinary in mental strength and rich in super-powers but bankrupt in reasoning powers." -Steve Ditko (1987) "The Masters of Comic Book Art" documentary "Comic book fans who later became editors, writers, wanted flawed heroes, anti-heroes to suit their own unwillingness to seek higher standards. It seems comic book companies, publishers, editors, too many writers and artists, all want the comfort of the anti-hero, where we're ALL grey, so no one can judge anyone or anything." - STEVE DITKO (2014) E 23 318 STAN'S SOAPBOX This month we're gonna yak about something that has nothing to do with our mags! Over the years we've re ceived a zillion letters asking for the Builpen's opinion about such diverse subjects as Viet Nam, civil rights, the war on poverty, and the upcoming elec tion. We're fantasmagorically fiattered that our opinion wouid matter to you, but here's the hang-up: there ISN'T any unanimous Bullpen opinion about any thing. except possibly mother Iove and apple pie! Take the election, for exam ple. Soine of us are staunch Demo- crats. and others dyed-in-the-wool publicans. As for Yours Truly and a few others, we prefer to judge the person, rather than the party line. That's why we seek to avoid editorializing about controversial issues not because we haven't our opinions, but rather be cause we share the same diversity of opinion as Americans everywhere. But. we'd like to go on record about one vital issue we believe that Man has a divine destiny, and an awesome re sponsibility the responsibility of treating all who share this wondrous world of ours with tolerance and re spect judging each fellow human on his own merit, regardless of race, creed, or color. That we agree on and we'll never rest until it, becomes a fact, rather than just a cherished dream. Excelsior, Smiley. Great storytelling is what’s important. The Stories that aren’t political at all and are based on good writing, good characters , deeper lessons, morals and entertainment as well as the stories that do have political elements but are more focused on an engaging story,a well thought out lesson or idea behind it and interesting characters are the stories that make great entertainment. As my film teacher taught me Art before politics, always. The story & characters comes first whether the politics are subtle, secondary or completely non existent. There is all kinds of art not all art is political, you have a lot of art that is apolitical, you have a lot of art that is connected to politics in some way but very often this identity politics method has been the focus of the art instead of the art itself. This is what is pushing audiences away. Whether Art is completely apolitical or has political elements in it the Art itself always comes first, as one of my film teachers taught me Art before politics. The Art itself always comes first before anything else or it isn’t successful When you push identity politics or any kind of politics before the art itself people aren’t entertained. When people aren’t entertained they cease to enjoy the product and that’s why these franchises are loosing more and more money compared to before. Also whether Art is completely apolitical or has a form of a connection to politics there is always a certain level of escapism in most art, when that escapism is completely erased and any political connection if they was any originally is cranked up people see past the illusion. One of the key things that makes great stories successful compared to a lot of stories now that are often controversial is the fact that those successful stories have a lot of deep ideas & morals that can’t be simply chalked down to a specific political or apolitical view. A lot of bad stories today just tell you what to think when good stories back then just told you to think. Great stories convinced their audiences to ask questions they didn’t just tell their audiences what to think or believe.
What Rowling did was being transphobic. I dont remeber all the controversies she got herself into but i think the most prominent one was that her “pen name” for some of her books was the name of a conversion therapy guy or something. And Also some transphobic tweet apparently I mostly hate her for what shes doing with the Harry Potter IP (wasting potential, ect.), but ive heard some pretty questinable stuff about her identity politics opinions I hope she will come back with something from the Harry Potter universe, but i REALLY hope everyone leaves identity politics behind the door (including her)
I don't know if you were joking but Rowling basically said something about women being women and a trans woman will never be a real woman if I'm remembering correctly
I figured it had to be something like that, but I couldn't find the actual quote. My guess is that it was too long for a tweet or headline, so they call her a -phobe for short
Despite what Disney, CNN, and WB have said about trying to main neutral it is too late for me. They should have never attacked fans and made shitty woke content in the first place. If you want a female lead in the new Star Wars sequels fine, but don't make the film blatant propaganda for twitter users and attack fans when they point out how bad The Last Jedi is.
I can't blame you for feeling that way. If these companies want to see a bright future, it might be time to publicly shun the Twitter crowd and completely get out of any kind of social politics. The longer they go, the less they'll be trusted
I see the merit of woke politics it’s just the people implementing it kinda suck as story tellers cause they are just political they aren’t writers or story tells they just want to tell everyone how to be moral not realizing that nobody is perfect and that expectation is unfair and unrealistic. I will always lean left but I will bitch to high heaven if they screw up Superman one more time
Yeah I don’t trust the US entertainment industry as far as I can throw it in turns I don’t trust them at all even if Hollywood does go back to where they were normal I guess I am still not going to forget and I’m not going to just let it go and I’m most likely not going to watch any more American films except maybe for a very few which I can count them on one hand with two fingers and other than that most of my entertainment come from Japan
@@gregowen2022 in my opinion you really should do a video on anime or how manga is kicking the American entertainment industries ass it’s just a thought
@@gregowen2022 OK I was not expecting a reply this quick but here are some high recommendations from me anything from Kyoto animation then there’s a Monogatari Series and then there’s Summer wars wolf children and a boy and his beast everything I listed on here is all fantastic but more than anything I highly recommend Violet Evergarden that is a absolute beautiful series and when I comes with a high recommendation
You must have not looked very hard for the JK Rowling statements. The interviews was all over the BBC, The Guardian, and even the New York Times. She said she did not support Trans rights because they may undermine the plight for equality of cis women. Make of her opinion what you will.
I got the impression it was something like that, but I couldn't find the exact quote. Perhaps it was too long to fit in a headline or tweet, which is why it didn't appear in much print. I just found plenty of assertions that she was a transphobe
The first layer is the basic premise to a heroes journey or three point perspective and the deeper layers are the logical writing and emotions that fuel that basic premise, for me stories with political elements whether subtle or secondary have those political elements at a lower layer then all of that add extra flavor or show an interesting parallel for example in Star Wars Many people in the modern era who cite George being afraid of America becoming like Authoritarian Empires believed he strictly blamed The Rightwing side of politics for a possibility of this happening and that he promoted socialism or something modern. They of course didn’t pay attention. George didn’t blame one group or side when it came to politics for the risk of authoritarianism he blamed all sides of politics for that risk. Any society begins by realizing that together, by helping each other, you can survive better than if you fight each other and compete with each other. GEORGE LUCAS He even has a deleted scene in A New Hope of Biggs warning Luke that The Empire would Nationalize commerce. (ruclips.net/video/LMu0CAWOxHQ/видео.html) “Nationalization By WILL KENTON Updated November 29, 2020 Reviewed by ERIC ESTEVEZ Fact checked by MARCUS REEVES What Is Nationalization? Nationalization refers to the action of a government taking control of a company or industry, which generally occurs without compensation for the loss of the net worth of seized assets and potential income. The action may be the result of a nation's attempt to consolidate power, resentment of foreign ownership of industries representing significant importance to local economies or to prop up failing industries. KEY TAKEAWAYS: Nationalization is the process of taking privately-controlled companies, industries, or assets and putting them under the control of the government. Nationalization often happens in developing countries and can reflect a nation's desire to control assets or to assert its dominance over foreign-owned industries. Often, the companies or assets are taken over and little to no compensation is provided to the previous owners. Nationalization is different from privatization, in which government-run companies are moved into the private business sector. Understanding Nationalization Nationalization is more common in developing countries. Privatization, which is the transfer of government-run operations into the private business sector, occurs more frequently in developed countries. Nationalization is one of the primary risks for companies doing business in foreign countries due to the potential of having significant assets seized without compensation. This risk is magnified in countries with unstable political leadership and stagnant or contracting economies. The key outcome of nationalization is the redirection of revenues to the country’s government instead of private operators who may export funds with no benefit to the host country. Nationalization and Oil , The oil industry has experienced nationalization actions for decades, dating back to Mexico’s nationalization of the assets of foreign producers such as Royal Dutch and Standard Oil in 1938 and Iran's nationalization of the assets of Anglo-Iranian 1951. The result of Mexico's nationalization of foreigners’ oil assets was the creation of PEMEX, which is one of the largest oil producers in the world. After the nationalization of Anglo-Iranian, Iran's economy fell into disarray, and Britain was allowed back in as a 50% partner a few years later. In 1954, Anglo-Iranian was renamed the British Petroleum Company. In 2007, Venezuela nationalized Exxon Mobil’s Cerro Negro Project and other assets. Seeking $16.6 billion in compensation, Exxon Mobil was awarded approximately 10% of that amount by a World Bank arbitration panel in 2014. Nationalization in the United States. The United States has technically nationalized several companies, usually in the form of a bailout in which the government owns a controlling interest. The bailouts of AIG in 2008 and General Motors Company in 2009 amounted to nationalization, but the U.S. government exerted very little control over these companies. The government also nationalized the failing Continental Illinois Bank and Trust in 1984, finally selling it to Bank of America in 1994. Despite the temporary nature of most nationalization actions in the United States, there are exceptions. Amtrak was transferred to government ownership after several railroad companies failed in 1971. After the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the airport security industry was nationalized under the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).” George was Anti Nationalizing The Economy especially Businesses and preferred that free trade remain private. He wanted to keep Government & Businesses separate from each other so people weren’t slave like tenants with the fruits of their individual labor being given to a big collective Government. “What good is all your uncle's work if its taken over by the Empire?...You know they re starting to nationalize commerce in the central systems..it won't be long before your uncle is merely a tenant, slaving for the greater glory of the Empire."- Biggs. George also wanted to keep Government and Business spectate to stop it from corrupting democracy which we briefly see in The Prequels. George was a 60’s Liberal, he wasn’t pro socialist and he didn’t blame one side when it came to politics. He blamed all sides for not compromising to work with each other which in his opinion often hurt democracies. The Galactic Empire Really represented all big powerful Government Empires including Nazi Germany, The British Empire, The Soviet Union, & The American Empire, etc. This can be seen in the aesthetic of The Empire and how they’re based on all authoritarian Governments but it is also confirmed during George’s interview with James Cameron. ( ruclips.net/video/fv9Jq_mCJEo/видео.html ) Where they criticized humanity for building these powerful Republics through human history only for them to eventually become giant Empires . George was against authoritarianism as a whole he didn’t care what side an Empire leaned politics or economics wise, but despite all of this that scene with Biggs is still deleted because George wanted a better introduction for Luke’s character preferring to start off his film with The Droids, R2-D2 & C3PO he felt not just would it work for a perspective method to filmmaking but it would also make tatooine look mysterious and alien before we see the human side of it with Luke’s introduction. Despite George having his political views he was willing to cut that scene for a better introduction to the characters. George put the quality of The story and characters before his Politics. For the it was always political crowd with the stupid idea that everything is political the fact is Star Wars was always deeper then politics, the main focuses of Star Wars was philosophy, spirituality, psychology, & mythology. His lesson was to be more selfless and to be less selfish valuing giving more then taking in life to feel an immense joy instead of trying to get another big high from to match your best experiences in life. Giving over Taking essentially. (ruclips.net/video/rePgwJWg7cw/видео.html) George put a heavy focus on family and social symbiotic circles between all life, along with space adventure and The Journey & trials of fathers & sons. Despite SJW’s in the everything is political crowd not understanding Star Wars beyond politics or the illusion of their politics their is absolute proof of George putting the story and characters first while keeping the political elements subtle or secondary by his own acknowledgment and they’re everywhere in his conversations about Star Wars Plain as day. “Still others picked up on Lucas's Vietnam allegory, though Lucas, wary of politics, publicly disavowed any and all sociopolitical theories and quashed speculation on the deeper meaning of his film. For Lucas, it was enough that Star Wars could be merely entertaining-and entirely the point.” ROSE: Could I show you a list of the 100 best films (LAUGH) and how many of 'em are made by George Lucas? LUCAS: Yeah, but they're not made to -- they -- yes, they have a political undertone. I mean, especially "Star Wars" has got a very, very elaborate social, emotional, political context that it rests in. But of course, nobody was aware of that. Nobody says, "Oh my gosh." But if you actually watch the movies, it's there. And you subliminally get the fact of what happens to you if you've got a dysfunctional government that's corrupt and doesn't work. Let’s repeat LUCAS: Yeah, but they're not made to -- they -- yes, they have a political undertone. I mean, especially "Star Wars" has got a very, very elaborate social, emotional, political context that it rests in. Undertone - A subdued or muted tone of sound or color. So by George’s view the political elements and context are an undertone within his films And of course we have the quote by Joseph Campbell George’s mentor when it came to heroes and myth making who the media claimed was right wing during his time. "Star Wars deals with the essential problem: Is the machine going to control humanity, or is the machine going to serve humanity? Darth Vader is a man taken over by a machine, he becomes a machine, and the state itself is a machine. There is no humanity in the state. What runs the world is economics and politics, and they have nothing to do with the spiritual life." - Joseph Campbel From "PW Interviews Joseph Campbell, by Chris Goodrich" Publisher's Weekly (August 23, 1985, p.74-75)
So I got my companies confused and talked about Warner Brothers/Disney. It's Warner Brothers Discovery and HBO Max is Merging with Discovery+.
Oh yeah JK rowlings sin was saying trans women should not be in women's toilets due to so called trans women raping real women and being able to have easier access to women. All in all she said that women should have a safe space away from biological men for things like toilets and changing rooms
It is unfortunate that money seems to be not only the only value of business but a lot of people. People don't care about other people very much either. If you ain't pushing their money agenda, they're not interested.
I really, really want to like your videos, but you keep making them political. Defending JK Rowling, who's made awful tweets against trans people, constantly attacking the "woke" crowd...you can do whatever you like of course, but it is frustrating as somemone who agrees with your central premise but takes serious issue with these comments you keep making.
Great video, I am new to your channel. I like your sober takes. I do wonder what they will do with these employees who are true believers. 3 Months on from when you first made this, Disney has fired 7,000 workers, but Universities are graduating true believers everyday. So what kind of atmosphere are we going to see emerge, when corporate wants to make money and the employees want to change the world?
I just want a "normal" representation and movies and series follow canon. No more gender/race bending just for the sake of it
Hopefully that day is near. A diverse cast is great, I just don't want the characters to be Blackson Blackman, GArY Gayman, and Gal Woman. Please just make them real people!
Same, audience can feel how forceful it is and inauthentic it is. Takes away from the escapist story we really want
But the point made, and it is a good one, is that the Studios don't do anything "for the sake of it." They do it if they think it will ultimately be profitable. So, even if they return to "normal" representation and series that follow canon, I wouldn't get too comfortable, because that WILL change if they feel that it is profitable to do so..
@@drbryant23 that’s true, apparently they are loosing money and ratings. Saw in another video can’t remember which link I’d clicked on.
Because these WOKE people while seem like they’re everywhere really only represent a very tiny persentage of people.
Oh well, there goes my idea for a retelling of 'Beowulf' , where Beowulf is a strong black lesbian female, and she's a better warrior than any man on the planet, just because.
I feel like society has regressed so much because of this wokeness mentality and i for one,cant wait for it to be over and done with.
I couldn't agree more. I thought we were supposed to be moving beyond petty race disputes. Now we're going back to caring about skin color? This doesn't feel like progress
@@gregowen2022 That's because this so called "progress",is in name only and nothing else in my opinion.
@@gregowen2022 Well stated, Greg.
Ironically society got so tolerant that it started to regress. We went from Whites only to everyone is welcome to Coloreds only lol.
I used to pray for times like these, go woke go broke. Say the line Chris
Your prayers might be getting answered. I hate to get overly excited, but it definitely seems like the tides are going out on this stuff
It's GET woke, go broke.
I am so tired of them sacrificing good story lines just to push an obvious agenda. Ugh... like we get enough agenda pushing from news and social networks, leave our entertainment alone.
Couldn't agree more. Everything is an agenda. I just want some peace, quiet, and entertainment sometimes
Big Business companies don't ACTUALLY care about us?! *gasp*
JK Rowling said women don’t have 🍆
The absolute monster
Worse than Hitler, clearly!
You're so straight and true about things.
There are a few things I'd like to add:
The "representation" in hollywood is also so lazy. Their solution on lack of diversity is making a white character colored. Its just like remaking Rambo with the same script and dialogue but casting a woman as a lead. It actually feels more racists that they won't take efforts to make a new character and a new story which also acknowledges the cultural and other aspects of a person of color. I mean, it simply feels like they have a tool in their editing software similar to color grading which can change race of a character. Every character feels the same race with same background if you ignore the actors playing the role.
You can have diversity in your cast if you write your story that way. But if your story doesnt need it. Why add it. Forced diversity seems rude. It seems like you represented my people just to trick me into buying tickets. Feels like a clickbait.
That's a great point. I'm working on a couple videos for those points, actually. One is why I don't like "Allies" because they are just reducing a person down to superficial qualities. How insulting. The other is about how Disney wants to represent, but they have never explored African folk lore! There is a whole continent of mythology and stories!
@@gregowen2022 When they started talking about "diverse live action The Little Mermaid" all I could think was, why can't we get a whole new interpretation of the original story that's integrated with African folklore? I wanna see mermaids that look different. I wanna see another The Little Mermaid movie. But can we try something new, please?
@@TentenchiAMVs That would be so cool! There's SO much to be done with that
It's pretty obvious to anyone not drunk on Kool-aid. Same reason Bros bombed so hard, the audience they are aiming for is so small they can't profit from them. Most of the people demanding all this nonsense don't see the movies, buy the merch or anything, they just like to complain and feel special.
You're absolutely right, and I think it's all about to come crashing down. Recession is inbound and companies won't be able to afford to pander when things are tight
When asked how does racial Justice fit into Star Wars George had a pretty interesting answer: Student:"The world has changed so much since the first Star Wars movie.
How do you think the change in the
fights for racial justice will impact
the Star Wars universe going
forward?"
George Lucas responds with the following:
"Uh, I don't know. I mean, I've kind of
lost control of Star Wars, so it's
going off in a different path than
what I intended. But the first six are
very much mine, and my
philosophy. And I think that
philosophy sort of, goes beyond
any particular time, because it's
based on history, it's based on
philosophy, it's based on a lot of
things. And, you know, the first three
basically tell you how democracy
turns into a dictatorship and you
end up with a tyrant, the Emperor.
It's very important now, where we
are now in our political history."
He continues to talk about his take on Star
Wars: “All of the various colors and
shapes of the aliens and
everything, that live in that world, it's
a normal situation, there's no real
discrimination. The only
discrimination is against robots,
and we haven't really reached that
period yet, and I'm sure the robots
will be able to overcome it because
they dont have the same feelings.
But it really shows you in terms of
the way the politics are and the
way things are and how to fight
those ideas. Anda lot of it really has
to do with overcoming fear.”
So by George’s view Star Wars is timeless and doesn’t completely represent any particular time period but reflects the cycle of human history and within his Galaxy & Universe Of Star Wars there isn’t any real discrimination or racism between the species.
STARLOG: We all noticed the lack of
women in the Star Wars trilogy. Are you go-
ing to bring more women in for future Star
Wars films?
LUCAS: Well, what of Princess Leia?
When you're making a war film, how are
you going to put women in it? Think of
other war films, think of The Longest Day,
those films. Well, it's your galaxy; I have to
go with the rest of the world. And still make
it believable. I'm not sure how many women
will be in the rest of the films; that's the kind
of thing that plots dictate. What would Star
Wars have been like if Han Solo had been a
woman?
So George also didn’t care to introduce new characters just to appeal to modern audiences with social controversies like the amount of women in a film without first creating a character that works specifically for the plot. George essentially made characters regardless of race, & gender that would fit the plots he wrote instead of just adding them for no reason other then being politically correct. That is very interesting.
Appointing Kathleen was really his greatest mistake
@@gregowen2022 indeed
I was able to tell the companies where loyal to the brand of wokeism instead of the ideology way before. It’s like how advertising will try to “keep with the times” in order to appeal with young audiences.
They are always chasing the brand, that's a great way to put it
it was odvious
Commercials are the worst in this regard.
"In a twist that only *everybody* saw coming..."
.
XD Nice!
Great video and agree completely. Thats why people need to stop giving these companies any credit when they do these fake pandering in entertainment.
Thanks for watching! Hopefully people will wake up from thinking companies really care. Business is about money, and that's perfectly fine so long as we're all being honest about it
Nobodys going for woke. Thank the lord
Well said.
I don't think any rational person ever thought these companies were loyal. I was just astounded it was talking them as long as it has to reverse course.
THANK YOU
Wokeness to the eyes of entertainment businesses is an exploitative trend, however they end up putting the social movements in a wrong light (and I mean twisting the motives).
I hope these companies have hemorrhaged enough money to say, F this crap. We like money.
Right? Please learn the lesson and get back to good entertainment!
Bob Iger is the definition of woke.
It will be interesting to see if he can prioritize the health of the company(and his legacy) over his own feelings
I do NOT want companies to be loyal to ME.
I DO want them to be loyal to my MONEY.
If they are loyal to my money, they will want to provide me with the things I want in order to GET my money.
Capitalism.
That is why capitalism is superior. Barring a few famous exceptions, it's the most honest system. Everyone is up front that it's all about money and value.
@@gregowen2022 Capitalism isn't perfect, but ti's the best we've ever discovered.
IMO, the biggest problem with it... is not with capitalism itself, but short-sighted PEOPLE... meaning the short-sighted people in charge of some of these companies.
Maximizing short-term profits has a downside.
This is the reason that Iger was dead-WRONG about removing controls from "the creatives" and Chapek was RIGHT about putting controls ON them (which Iger had removed).
Iger allowed people like KK, Rian Johnson, etc., to RUIN "the brand".
Well, they have lost my suppport forever. They can stop being woke but I will still not buy their product.
Yeah, you gotta vote with your wallet
I love that disclaimer that you gave regarding companies not caring about the views they are trying to push not matter what side you actually support. It seems to me that recently many "anti-wokeism" channels are just expressing "anti-leftism" in general, using these shitty woke shows and movies as a way to push their own agenda. It's very refreshing to see someone that isn't against "wokeism" for political motivations but because of the constant decline of quality that comes for caring more for the message than the story
I knew what was coming when I read the first few articles about the WOT series-no plans to watch a second of that series.
It was criminal what they did. Even worse is that it'll probably be a decade before someone tries it again after this one fails
Love the "I got a bridge to sell you" reference!!!!
You’re right. Don’t get me wrong, I do lean far-left and believe minorities need more representation in general, but companies are designed for greed not morals. It isn’t that you can’t be “woke” but you can’t be fake/ have oversaturation of “woke views” a good show for example is the Loki tv show. Loki is agendered but it isn’t his whole personality or one of the main points of the show. Looking at endgame, in contrast, the fight scene with all the female hero’s protecting the gauntlet is trying to pander to a woke audience instead of incorporating them and it ultimately makes a poorer scene for it. You can have strong women and not have their whole arc be “ I can do anything a man can do”
You're totally right, and it has been proven that it can be done. Loki is a good one, and another example I like is Brooklyn 99. On paper, you might think it's the wokest show on the planet. In execution, it's fantastic because they wrote a great story with diversity in mind, but not as the main goal.
IMO, that scene in Endgame, the "girl power" scene, would have been better if it had included "the guys" working WITH "the girls".
Of course, then it wouldn't have stuck out from the rest of the movie with the team BEING a team... which is REAL diversity... "gender diversity" in this case.
That scene was just laughably bad. I'm not sure there is any way to improve on contrivance like that, haha
Leaning far ANYTHING is the problem...try bring moderate sometime instead of a sychophant...
As an asian American who grew up in the 90s and faced insane amount of racism from both whites and blacks I roll my eyes into the back of my head when I hear the word “woke”. It makes me angry.
It was hilarious to see someone actually thank Disney for Black Panther 2. Disney...
Woke has no value whatsoever...
I definitely cackled at your succinct attempt at explaining the JK Rowling hate.
Corporations aren't loyal to shareholders or the bottom line, or they wouldn't be doubling down on losing money like crazy and watching their stock prices crater.
I agree they usually don't lose on purpose, but I think they thought they were getting ahead of the public trend. People like to say "you're going to be on the wrong side of history!" and these companies probably just figured they were getting in on the ground floor of the social justice movement.
Can you please discuss whether or not it's healthy for people to be so focused on being validated by being "represented" by the most fake and greed/power imbalance driven entities in the world, possibly in history? I get the feeling you would do a good job with that.
I'm laughing at this sad reality that there are people who consider bare bones representation on screen to be "woke". This sort of public outcry has been happening since Franklin joined the Peanuts. Like honestly, whose losing sleep over this? That said I think there's a difference between the inclusion we bring in front of the camera and the diversity in the actual stories we tell. Yes these are products but it's the stories that audiences are buying into. We are living in a divided time and these companies are navigating neutrality as opposed to heralding unity or showing anyone's reality. Realities like say, a gay kid and their republican father. They are perpetuating IPs that were made successful in other eras. The only reason it's worked so well up until now is because in a rapidly changing culture people tend to grip to nostalgia. I think they'll have more success when they invest in smaller projects that'll make more of their audience feel seen. Only time will tell.
I think the bare bones representation is exactly why people call it woke. It's soulless and just meant to get headlines and praise because they were brave enough to allude to the shopkeeper in Frozen being gay. That scene was less than a second long. When they actually make a movie centering around gay characters, like Strange World, they don't promote it because they know it doesn't appeal to larger audiences. I think you are right that smaller projects would be a good idea because some audiences are smaller, like the gay audience.
@@gregowen2022 The funny thing is I don’t think the gay audience is smaller, it’s just oppressed by governments and culture to the fault that it keeps it’s audiences away from screens. Aka gay content won’t be accepted into certain countries which is why they make it so easy to cut these characters out. The corporations are so obsessed with creating global cultural phenomena that they fail to see the power in domestic phenomena. Ergo, too much of queerness won’t get accepted into China or whatever country so they decide not to include it at all. You’re talking to a guy who craved this representation as a kid and has made it my career to put stories like these on screen. That said even when we do get quality representation it’s either incredibly hetero normalized or so radical that it’s no longer playing to the truth of its characters (or worse tokenizes by trying to do too much). For me both outcomes don’t come close to reflecting my personal gay experience or my colleagues. That said the playbook I mentioned in the last comment is what Hollywood has defaulted to every 30 years or so since the 1930s. If you look at the correlation historically with how culture shifts and how cinema has to reinvent itself to meet that it usually means less blockbusters should play in the market.
i agree with you on general premise of this, but few things i am not sure about.
the message like wokeness or diversity was never popular to begin with, at least when overly done. the reason those types of movies were doing well when they first came out was not that audience enjoyed them. they were giving them chances.
people just flocked together on them to see some good films out of popular franchises. when they found out that those were not as good as they expected, they simply tried to enjoy the novelty of it or gave them another chance saying, "well, many good movies and show, so few of them have to be bad." after they see more and more of this stuff being way out of the tangent, they started to call the companies out.
another thing is that i think the companies were pushing these agenda despite losing money. they either believe that they were in some kind of holy mission worth losing money for, or flat-out didn't care. they now are coming back from it because it came to the point of unsustainable.
Yeah, I think you're right. The audience at first liked the taboo and shock nature of this stuff.
I think the companies thought it was the future and they were getting in on the ground floor. Now Hollywood and FTX investors have learned the same lesson
I think it depends on the company. Adidas for example will continue. They've had so many conservatives burning their shoes and talking about boycotting, etc, but they didn't care because they will continue to sell. Nor is diversity and stuff necessarily bad, just depends on if it's tastefully executed since companies always want to expand their customer base.
You're right and tasteful is the key difference. Serving a customer base who truly wants to be represented is plain smart business. Pandering to people with hollow virtue signals, that's woke and it's gross.
Because to burn a pair of shoes you have to buy one. You can't sway a corporate by consuming _more_ of their product. Between people wearing their shoes as intended and burning them they really prefer burning. Those people could wear their boots for years without giving the company a single dime, but now they're shoeless - and many of them will crawl back to buy the same pair for higher price.
Well thank you for giving me the music I'm going to be popping this weekend I forgot about Chris Brown's these h*** ain't loyal 🎵🎵🎵
It'll be stuck there all weekend! It's so damn catchy
Just found your stream. Great content and approach. I’m rooting for you.
Thank you so much, I really appreciate it!
When was it ever profitable?
Wow. And before Bud Lite.
Fingers crossed
They were given the best stories and all they hand to do was not fck it up.
They fckd up
Right? How could they miss?!
You hit the nail on the head! WOKE & TRANS/LGBT ∞ Is just a FAD! And Marketing Gimmick
Me bi guy with a boyfriend: guess I'm a fad kek
It was taboo and interesting for a while, but the dollars are drying up now. Good luck to those groups who were formerly being 'represented'.
@@gregowen2022 wait I'm retarded so are we sexual degenerates or not?
Just found your channel and am binging my ass off
I'm so glad you're enjoying it!
Great storytelling is what’s important.
The Stories that aren’t political at all and are based on good writing, good characters , deeper lessons, morals and entertainment
as well as the stories that do have political elements but are more focused on an engaging story,a well thought out lesson or idea behind it and interesting characters are the stories that make great entertainment. As my film teacher taught me Art before politics, always. The story & characters comes first whether the politics are subtle, secondary or completely non existent.
There are two types of great stories when it comes to this method: stories that are apolitical with great characters, writing & moral lessons or none, and then there are stories that have political elements but put the quality of the writing and characters, & moral lessons first. Whether either type of story is apolitical or has political elements deep philosophy, morality, & mythology can often play a role in sharpening the story, once you form your morals for a story into ideas over just using them for government or social policy statements you can grab anyone within an audience no matter who they are or what they believe that is the gift of good storytelling
Modern SJW’s unfortunately don’t have that gift because for them there is nothing deeper then the physical realm they see and often hate so instead of forming deep intelligent universal themes or ideas through the magic of storytelling they try to bend those themes or ideas to their will ,thoughts and beliefs.
They can’t form their morals into ideas so often they come off as just government or policy statements without the feeling of anything deeper to an audience turning most people off whether they do or don’t agree with them or are indifferent to begin with.
Those are excellent points. I don't advocate for completely non-political movies, but as you say some philosophy needs to be woven in. Good art should ask questions, even if they are leading questions because you do have a message in mind. Modern media is all about what to think instead of how to think
@@gregowen2022 Indeed
Rowling was woke for 2005 but now that isn't woke enough.
The current pace of social politics is funny. One day you're a hero and the next you're a monster and you didn't change at all. I hope some of the proponents of current social politics see that they might be called far right extremist monsters soon, even though they haven't changed a thing
Go woke go broke :)
Screwing up the WoT series really confuses me because the canon already had the two things modern Hollywood loves - girl bosses and diversity. It's natural diversity that makes sense, not the downtown LA version showrunners think they must have (although the Seanchan empire could be portrayed like that) and the female leads are mostly likeable. In fact two of my three favorite characters are Aviendha and Tuon (Matt's the other) just portray them like they are in the book. I know the series hasn't gotten that far yet but you know they'll screw it up. I guess I'm like you, every time I think about the Amazon abomination I have to vent.
Let it out, because I fully understand and agree. Usually, I know that a book adaptation is going to be screwed up, but as you said, WoT is ready to go and still fits in with "modern audiences". I really let myself believe that it was going to be done well. I have basically zero hopes for the second season or anything else because they've already screwed up a bunch of lore and contradicted their own story.
@@gregowen2022 When you hear the term "modern audience" you know that project is DOA. Ironically if a show had the mindset of appealing to a "1980s audience" it would probably be huge.
Yeah, that term is just cryptonite now. The modern audience they speak of is actually just Twitter and we all know that Twitter is not real.
Just tell stories authentically and the rest will fall into place
There's actually a difference between mainstream liberal and woke ideologies. Woke is basically the left-wing extremists, just like MAGA represents the right-wing extremists. I believe in a lot of liberal values, including equal rights for all races, genders, religions, etc. But woke entertainment goes way beyond that. Forcing LGBT content into mainstream films and TV shows, race-swapping or gender-swapping already established characters and focusing entertainment media on messaging, instead of entertainment is the real problem. Entertainment should be politically neutral. Representation is fine, but it should be done by creating new characters who act like real people. Female empowerment does not mean female characters who act like men. Racial diversity shouldn't be achieved by race-swapping Captain America, Ariel or Tinkerbell. Make new characters. People of color don't want to be handed leftovers, and fans of the original characters don't want their favorites to be changed.
I'm starting to feel really bad for the everyday liberals. The right lumps them in with the insane fringe left, and that fringe treats them like nazis if they don't affirm all 71 genders. It's gotta be a tough time to be a regular liberal
In turning red they had diabetes representation.
Online slacktivist social justice warrior here! The answer to why we're not turning out in droves to support this stuff is actually option D: we don't want this shitty pandering either. (And we tend to dislike like big corporations.) What we're asking for is genuine representation, where stories are told from perspectives that actually reflect marginalized people's experiences. So less stuff like She-Hulk and more stuff like Coco. The whole *concept* of diversity is tied to the idea of just how many different ways there are to experience life. So why would we want lazy palette swaps of stuff that's already been done with straight white guys?
I'm currently writing a story about a trans character with superpowers, and it's honestly been fascinating to explore how her specific arc with her gender shapes how she reacts to gaining powers. In her life a trans woman she's always been challenged on who she says she is, which has seriously damaged her self-esteem, and she's ended up with a fear of being seen as different, or as an outsider. And so when she suddenly becomes much more powerful, that's a terrifying experience for her, because suddenly all eyes are on her, and she knows that society will be afraid of her no matter how she acts-which makes it much easier for her to be manipulated into using her newfound powers in ways she'll regret.
This is exactly the sort of thing major studios don't seem to have the guts to do: this is a story where a character's experience with her diverse identity is deeply intertwined with her arc but isn't even close to the entirety of her arc. And this plot would be incredibly hard for a non-trans writer to pull off, because it requires a deep intuition for what life as a trans person can actually be like. And Hollywood's still pretty hostile towards trans writers. So when the MCU finally introduces their first trans superhero, I'm sure they'll probably have a tragic backstory involving transphobia, and yet their actual characterization probably won't go beyond the standard-issue quips, snark, and confidence.
It sounds like your story is already different from main stream, since your trans character makes mistakes. Right now trans characters are on a pedestal because they are the preferred token symbol of virtue, so they never make mistakes.
I hope your book is successful!
All I can focus on is the vase on the D&D books but I don't care too much cause I'm a 3.5 guy. P.S. corporations don't give a shit about your feelings.
I completely agree and have been saying this for years....but not ONCE...did you take a sip of what's in your mug..
So...wtf is up with THAT, Greg?
As penance, not only will I take a sip just for you in the next video, I'll also be sure to state the contents of the cup
I wonder how many modern progressives would flip from quotes like this:
"I did not want to put boy's clothes
on a woman. I wanted a woman
who was a woman, who was very
strong, wise, and a leader." -
George Lucas
(George describing the designs of Princess Leia’s clothes.)
But Lucas hit back in an interview with Newsnight
presenter Kirsty Wark - and blamed fans on the Internet who took an instant dislike to the new character. He said: "Those criticisms are made
by people who've obviously never met
a Jamaican, because it's definitely not
Jamaican and if you were to say
those lines in Jamaican they wouldn't
be anything like the way Jar Jar Binks
George Lucas:”it’s completely absurd - Jar Jar was not drawn from a Jamaican" says them.
“They're basing a whole issue of racism on an accent, an accent that they don't understand. Therefore if they don't understand it, it must be bad.
"How in the world you could
take an orange amphibian
and say that he's a
Jamaican? It's completely
absurd. Believe me, Jar Jar
was not drawn from a
Jamaican, from any stretch
of the imagination."
He said the allegations said
more about the people
Jar Jar Binks: Has come under
fire for alleged racial stereotyping making the claims than they did about his film.
"There is a group of fans for the films that doesn't like comic sidekicks. They want the films to be tough like Terminator, and they get very upset and opinionated about anything that has anything to do with being childlike.
"The movies are for children but they don't want to admit that. In the first film they absolutely hated R2 and C3-PO. In the second film they didn't like Yoda and in the third one they hated the Ewoks... and now Jar Jar is getting accused of the same thing."
Internet fascination. He believes the US media's fascination with the Internet
Created the controversy "The American press uses the internet as their source
for everything, so when
people were creating
Websites saying. 'Let's get
rid of Jar Jar Binks, he's
terrible' and some of the
critics were describing him
as a comic sidekick, they
came in and they started
calling the film racist."
Lucas with Jake Lloyd on the set
of the film, He added: "It started out as a way of just selling newspapers and then other people have sort of picked it up. But it really reflects more the racism of the people who are making the comments than it does the movie." Well there you have it folks George calling out Media Wokeness before a lot of people online and tv.
So George has his political views but he is a master storyteller for many reasons and one of them is putting the story and characters essentially The Art Before The Politics.
He’s not the only one though:
"So social issues I try to get
in in the background, or
underlying a plot, but never to
the point of letting interfere
with a story or hitting the
reader over the head.
- STAN LEE
GROTH: How did you feel about the Senate
Subcommittee Hearings? Did you think that
was a witch-hunt, or did you think there was
any validity to the public's concern?
KIRBY: I didn't feel one way or another about it. I was only hoping that it would come out well enough to continue comics, that it wouldn't damage comics in anyway, so I could continue Working. I was a young man. I was still growing out of the East Side. The only real politics I knew was that if a guy liked Hitler, I'd beat the stuffing out of him and that would be it.
GROTH: Were you very political?
KIRBY:I wasn't then. I was very concerned with comics. I'm political now. I knew this much - that everybody voted Democrat down my way. If you were poor, you voted Democrat and if you were rich you voted Republican.
Power doesn't corrupt. It's neutral.
Someone always wants to corrupt
power. It's the way a shotgun is not
a deadly weapon until someone
chooses to use it irrationally.
STEVE DITKO
Prolific Batman writer and the creator of the villain Bane, Chuck Dixon, recently explained why politics do not belong in superhero comics.
Dixon shared his thoughts in his most recent episode of Ask Chuck Dixon where he was asked by Chris Cueva, “Are you against politics in comics completely?”
Dixon answered the question stating, “Absolutely not. I’ve written political books. I did The Forgotten Man, a history of the Great Depression, adapting Amity Shlaes epic, epic history of some of the darkest years in American history.”
He continued, “I don’t think it’s political, but it is because it’s seen to have a conservative viewpoint, it’s very down on the New Deal, which I don’t think history is going to judge well in the end. So I’ve done that.”
“Clinton Cash a far more political book. An adaptation of Peter Schweizer’s exposure of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s rather tawdry work with their foundation and how basically they used it to enrich themselves. It’s purely political. So I’m not against politics in comics. I’m not against anybody’s politics in comics,” he detailed. Dixon then went on to discuss that he read Spain Rodriguez’s Trashman series. He said, “Back in the underground days I used to read Trashman by Spain Rodriguez. It basically calls for Marxist revolution in the United States, bloody Marxist revolution. It’s very anti-American. Very anti-white when you get right down to it.
He elaborated, “I dug the energy of it. I didn’t believe in any of it. I didn’t agree with any of it, but I certainly respected Spain Rodriguez’s right to make any comic book he wants.”
Dixon then transitioned to explain why he believes politics doesn’t belong in superhero comics.
He explained, “My problem with politics in comics is when you mix it with mainstream comics. When superheroes take a side, decide that they’re Democrat or Republican. And 99.99% of the time they are going to side with the Democrat. Where one president is seen as a hero and the other one is seen as an ogre or a coward or whatever depending on their party line. Now, like the old Mad Magazine, if comics were to either elevate or mock each president with the same severity to the same level I’d be fine with it. But this is politics being put into a place it does not belong. Politics does not belong in superhero comics,” Dixon declared. He explained, “My problem with politics in comics is when you mix it with mainstream comics. When superheroes take a side, decide that they’re Democrat or Republican. And 99.99% of the time they are going to side with the Democrat. Where one president is seen as a hero and the other one is seen as an ogre or a coward or whatever depending on their party line.” “Now, like the old Mad Magazine, if comics were to either elevate or mock each president with the same severity to the same level I’d be fine with it. But this is politics being put into a place it does not belong. Politics does not belong in superhero comics,” Dixon declared. He then asserted, “I’ve said it before, I’ve said it again. I’m a comics fan, you’re a comics fan, but let’s face it these characters were created to entertain children. They were never meant to be political. They were never meant to be literature. They were never meant to be meaningful. They were just meant to be good solid American red-blooded entertainment. And putting politics into it, ruins it. It ruins anything.” “If you made a political Kung Fu movie, I would say the same thing. Get off it. Stop doing that,” he concluded. What do you make of Dixon’s explanation about why politics do not belong in superhero comics?”
As the indefatigable 92-year-old
superhero conjurer and Marvel Comics
chairman emeritus sees it, fan backlash
up until this point hasn't so much been
spurred on by racism as much as
unyielding fealty to the source material.
"They're outraged not because of any
personal prejudice, Lee says. "They're
outraged because they hate to see any
change made on a series and characters
they had gotten familiar with. In Spider-
Man, when they got a new actor, that
bothered them, even though it was a
white actor. I don't think it had to do with
racial prejudice as much as they don't like
things changed." - STAN LEE
I wouldn't mind. if Peter Parker had originally
been black. a Latino, an lndian or anything else.That he stay that way. But we originally made him white. I dont see any reason to change that. It has nothing to do with being anti-gay, or anti-black, or anti-Latino, or anything like that. Latino characters should stay Latino. The Black Panther should certainly not be Swiss. I just see no reason to change that which has already been established when it's so easy to add new characters. I say create new characters the way you want to. -STAN LEE
David Zaslav is fixing Warner Brothers or at least what's left of it
He's definitely got his work cut out for him, but based on the few interviews I could find he seems genuinely excited about it. Fingers crossed, indeed
@@gregowen2022 good point
This issue has been around for a long time fans older or younger that prefer the original or Iconic characters have complained about them being replaced this often happens with mantle legacy storylines. Now you can do a good legacy storyline with a mantle but often it doesn’t last that long. This isn’t an issue of racism because when new characters would take up the mantle of big time heroes people complained. Many Fans didn’t like Dick Grayson becoming Nightwing and Jason Todd being The New Robin when that started. Fans were interested Dick Grayson becoming Batman but didn’t want that storyline to remain permanent eventually wanting Bruce Wayne to come back as Batman. Fans were excited to see John Stewart introduced as another Green Lantern fighting along side Hal Jordan but fans weren’t happy when John Stewart eventually replacing Hal Jordan as Green Lantern of earth. Fans didn’t want Superboy Conner Kent or Johnathan Kent taking Clark’s place as Superman at least not permanently. Miles Morales was popular at the start of his initial run but eventually fans just wanted to see Peter Parker again and many storylines of Peter & Miles teaming up were accepted while stories focusing on Miles on his own whether they were good or bad were heavily criticized. Fans generally don’t like change especially when the legacy character no matter how well written they are can’t match up to The Iconic or Original version in terms of quality. The main issue with legacy characters is while they can get very good stories with the effort put in eventually some level of the status Quo has to return to satisfy audiences. This is why most legacy stories that are final out comes to a long running franchise as usually if not always are what if multiverse stories when it comes to comics or anything else. You can write a great legacy story or you can completely screw it up but often regardless those legacy characters can’t replace the originals or Iconic versions for good because many fans will want the original back at some point this is the reality of any legacy character regardless of their race and gender. Kyle & Guy got flak for not being Hal Jordan.
Hal Jordan was criticized at times for not being Alan. Accusing fans of racism for not liking changes like this will often lead to fans getting pissed off and no longer supporting the story as Customers this often the problem with current media and society.
Another flaw is when legacy stories are attempted with bad quality in an attempt to grab the current generation and be PC often not just leading to the main audience no longer supporting the franchise and new audiences not being interested that’s when things fall apart.
The lesson we can learn here is that legacy stories can be well made and legacy characters can be interesting with hard work and good writing put in but eventually they’ll have to be sidekicks, partners basically secondary characters to the original or iconic versions that came before because they can never truly replace them for people this is why Gohan could never take Goku’s place at the end of Dragon Ball like Akira wanted originally after The Cell Saga or why Anakin wasn’t Luke for some fans during the original trilogy despite being a prequel character. For a new character that you want to have their own status has to always be original because while legacy characters can be well made they’ll always just be legacy characters to people which is just another version. Batman Beyond despite how well made he is still Batman Beyond not Batman even if he’s called that in universe. No one ever truly replaces Bruce Wayne for people just like no one ever truly replaces Steve Rogers or Peter Parker. Further evidence of this is people getting pissed that T’Challa was replaced by his sister as Black Panther people didn’t like that either and The Black Panther comics were going downhill at that point anyway.
Don’t call fans racist because they prefer what came before it’s just normal for humans.
As the indefatigable 92-year-old
superhero conjurer and Marvel Comics
chairman emeritus sees it, fan backlash
up until this point hasn't so much been
spurred on by racism as much as
unyielding fealty to the source material.
"They're outraged not because of any
personal prejudice, Lee says. "They're
outraged because they hate to see any
change made on a series and characters
they had gotten familiar with. In Spider-
Man, when they got a new actor, that
bothered them, even though it was a
white actor. I don't think it had to do with
racial prejudice as much as they don't like
things changed.
I wouldn't mind. if Peter Parker had originally
been black. a Latino, an lndian or anything else that he stay that way. But we originally made him white. I dont see any reason to change that. It has nothing to do with being anti-gay, or anti-black, or anti-Latino, or anything like that. Latino characters should stay Latino. The Black Panther should certainly not be Swiss. I just see no reason to change that which has already been established when it's so easy to add new characters. I say create new characters the way you want to.-Stan Lee
All Marvel had to do in the comics & MCU was give Jane another name like Spennende, Astrape or Brontë instead of Thor’s literal name when using his powers, have her go through a great worthy storyline to gain the power as only Thor & those worthy can wield his power like Beta Ray Bill,
And give her a better reason to have this power outside of not wanting to die from cancer, also make her a more heroic kind hearted soul like Jane Foster often is instead of warping her character to an arrogant modern feminist in the comics, she was fine personality wise in the film but the origin written around her is so bad it’s hard to take seriously.
The only aspect me and some other fans liked about Ms.Marvel was her fan girl energy within the Marvel universe but all the sjw stuff and the fact that her character was just made for that is honestly what did her character in, if she was written better from the start like many other legacy characters she could’ve been a great addition.
5:40 Warner Brothers Disney? HBO Max combing with Disney +? Dude, what are you talking about? Disney doesn't own WB.
Hahaha, should be Discovery. What's wild is that after editing the video for several hours, I still didn't hear that. Thanks for the catch
Disney owns everything
The reason why "wokeness" isn't selling anymore is because these show writers think that representation and diversity alone will carry a show when it just doesn't. To be fair, I don't watch a lot of shows in general, but I'm specifically thinking of shows like Velma and High Guardian Spice when I say this. Like, ok cool, you put minorities in lead roles, now make an actual good show that makes you care about these characters, and it feels like the writers are just responding like "What? Them being diverse minorities isn't enough to make you care about them?" Wha- no NO! I don't think race swapping is even inherently a problem if it was done right, but when the straight white version of a character is way more developed and likable then the gay black version, you're really not doing anyone any favours and if anything you're doing or harm than good, making minorities look like bitter assholes that no one wants to be around. Or like, what good is it to have a trans character when being trans is their only defining characteristic? Madeline from Celeste is a perfect example of a trans character done right! It's actually never even mentioned in the game that she's trans and it really doesn't effect the story at all, she just IS trans. It contextualizes some of her struggles more, all the dark stuff she deals with mentally and constantly fighting against herself, but it's never made to be a commentary on her transness, or blaming others like "If white men weren't so oppressive Madeline wouldn't be so depressed" like no, she's just a girl (that happens to be trans) on a journey to claim a mountain out of frustration that she's depressed and can't escape herself. She's a likable and relatable character, and being trans is just WHAT she is, not WHO she is. Celeste is just a good game with a great story and fun gameplay without Madeline even being trans, the fact that she is trans is just the strawberry on top! As long as companies keep making shows were a character being of color or gay or trans is their defining characteristic with no redeeming qualities aside from that, then of course "wokeness" isn't going to sell anymore, these shows are just trash with unlikable characters. It has nothing to do with "woke people" not having the money to buy these products or there not being enough "woke people" to make "woke" shows profitable enough. It's that these, as you say, disloyal companies that just want a quick buck just throw all this stuff into a dumpster fire of show thinking that it's what people want, not understanding at all what progressive people actually want: GOOD shows that just happen to be more diverse and show minorities in a positive light. That's not what we're getting though and people are just getting sick of it and not buying it anymore
This is excellent news
Agreed!
Movies are gonna get good again
I totally agree, I really think they will, but first the studios are obviously going to have to lose some money to learn that we want quality
i want a bridge
First of all, nowadays companies or rather big shots of companies does not care about profits like before they more care for stock prices. And stock prices are set by big players in the market. Just like company executives, big players doesn't concern about E/Ps anymore. They make decisions based on metrics like ESG. Higher the ESG hooch the price of stocks, higher the net worth of comping execs.
And to be honest it's virtually impossible for likes of Disney to go green or change governance, thus they go the Social way, AKA wokeness.
As long as a company can cope with the losses of wokeness they continue their path.
Companies need to create several woke shows to fix their ESG knowing that those shows are nothing but loss.
Igor started disneys woke agenda why would he suddenly clear house now....when the stonk price is down and they can't make money 😂
He did, but in the end, money always speaks louder than anything else
I like progressive representation but yeah it is expected, companies don't listen to what is considered good for the art, they listen to the money (even though I argue that Disney's way of implementing progressive values actually makes the LGBT+ community disengaged compared to other stuff like Our Flag Means Death or Good Omens. The shows LGBT+ people actually like as their representation.)
Just look at how Sonic was being handled, they overlook their value of having stories for a long time until Forces bombed critically and having sucky sales compared to actual good Sonic games that either have good gameplay or story.
I have zero issue with introducing more female characters. The problem is they are written so poorly. Tony stark grew over several movies and went through many ups and downs. These women characters are instantly great and do no wrong. It’s just not fun or interesting to watch…
It really isn't fun. They can yell at the audience all they want, but the ticket sales show that people aren't connecting with these characters or plots
Dude you completely rock. The truth is the truth. Testify.
Thank you so much! I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Rowling Said something to the effect of she was worried about men changing into females who then get access to safe spaces for biological women such as bathrooms or locker rooms or safe houses for mistreated women I believe.
While I don’t think that worry has some huge merit, I also believe at the same time that demonizing her plus harassing streamers who play Hogwarts Legacy is plain dumb and not better at all. Paying someone back doesn’t make you morally superior. It just makes you mean and evil. No matter what marginalized group you may belong to otherwise.
If you watch it, you want ten more just like it.
That is extremely flattering, thank you so much!
@@gregowen2022 great breakdown of the state of things 👍
I clicked for Ice Spice, where is ice spice?? 🤤
Yes, sex sells! I guess I'm putting women on all my thumbnails now
@@gregowen2022 I def was scrubbing the video to find her, didn't see her, kept it moving lmao
GROTH: How did you feel about communism
then?
KIRBY: Oh, communism! That was a burning
issue. It was an outrageous issue. To be termed a communist would damage your whole family, damage your whole world- your friends wouldn't talk to you. I'm talking about other people -because I wouldn't go near the stuff. Sure, I was against the reds. I became a witch hunter. My enemies were the commies -I called them commies. In fact, Granny Goodness was a commie, Doubleheader was a commie.
"Today's flawed superheroes are superior in physical strength but common, average, ordinary in mental strength and rich in super-powers but bankrupt in reasoning powers."
-Steve Ditko (1987) "The Masters of Comic Book Art" documentary
"Comic book fans who later became editors, writers, wanted flawed heroes, anti-heroes to suit their own unwillingness to seek higher standards. It seems comic book companies, publishers, editors, too many writers and artists, all want the comfort of the anti-hero, where we're ALL grey, so no one can judge anyone or anything."
- STEVE DITKO (2014) E 23 318
STAN'S SOAPBOX
This month we're gonna yak about
something that has nothing to do with
our mags! Over the years we've re
ceived a zillion letters asking for the
Builpen's opinion about such diverse
subjects as Viet Nam, civil rights, the
war on poverty, and the upcoming elec
tion. We're fantasmagorically fiattered
that our opinion wouid matter to you,
but here's the hang-up: there ISN'T any
unanimous Bullpen opinion about any
thing. except possibly mother Iove and
apple pie! Take the election, for exam
ple. Soine of us are staunch Demo-
crats. and others dyed-in-the-wool
publicans. As for Yours Truly and a few
others, we prefer to judge the person,
rather than the party line. That's why
we seek to avoid editorializing about
controversial issues not because we
haven't our opinions, but rather be
cause we share the same diversity of
opinion as Americans everywhere. But.
we'd like to go on record about one
vital issue we believe that Man has
a divine destiny, and an awesome re
sponsibility the responsibility of
treating all who share this wondrous
world of ours with tolerance and re
spect judging each fellow human on
his own merit, regardless of race,
creed, or color. That we agree on
and we'll never rest until it, becomes
a fact, rather than just a cherished
dream. Excelsior, Smiley.
Great storytelling is what’s important.
The Stories that aren’t political at all and are based on good writing, good characters , deeper lessons, morals and entertainment
as well as the stories that do have political elements but are more focused on an engaging story,a well thought out lesson or idea behind it and interesting characters are the stories that make great entertainment. As my film teacher taught me Art before politics, always. The story & characters comes first whether the politics are subtle, secondary or completely non existent.
There is all kinds of art not all art is political, you have a lot of art that is apolitical, you have a lot of art that is connected to politics in some way but very often this identity politics method has been the focus of the art instead of the art itself. This is what is pushing audiences away. Whether Art is completely apolitical or has political elements in it the Art itself always comes first, as one of my film teachers taught me Art before politics. The Art itself always comes first before anything else or it isn’t successful
When you push identity politics or any kind of politics before the art itself people aren’t entertained. When people aren’t entertained they cease to enjoy the product and that’s why these franchises are loosing more and more money compared to before. Also whether Art is completely apolitical or has a form of a connection to politics there is always a certain level of escapism in most art, when that escapism is completely erased and any political connection if they was any originally is cranked up people see past the illusion. One of the key things that makes great stories successful compared to a lot of stories now that are often controversial is the fact that those successful stories have a lot of deep ideas & morals that can’t be simply chalked down to a specific political or apolitical view. A lot of bad stories today just tell you what to think when good stories back then just told you to think. Great stories convinced their audiences to ask questions they didn’t just tell their audiences what to think or believe.
You're editing is so cool. Do you do it yourself? If yes what program you're using. CHAPEK was a sacrificial lamb, for Iger covering his ass.
What Rowling did was being transphobic. I dont remeber all the controversies she got herself into but i think the most prominent one was that her “pen name” for some of her books was the name of a conversion therapy guy or something. And Also some transphobic tweet apparently
I mostly hate her for what shes doing with the Harry Potter IP (wasting potential, ect.), but ive heard some pretty questinable stuff about her identity politics opinions
I hope she will come back with something from the Harry Potter universe, but i REALLY hope everyone leaves identity politics behind the door (including her)
2:40 I've been saying that for so long. "Strong female lead" i.e. A cocky woman with no feminine traits. Basically a man
I don't know if you were joking but Rowling basically said something about women being women and a trans woman will never be a real woman if I'm remembering correctly
I figured it had to be something like that, but I couldn't find the actual quote. My guess is that it was too long for a tweet or headline, so they call her a -phobe for short
@@gregowen2022 I think you're correct on that one sir
I hate Ben Shapiro.
oo
Chris Brown is the Goat.
He's so catchy! Having edited this, I now have that song stuck in my head
Despite what Disney, CNN, and WB have said about trying to main neutral it is too late for me. They should have never attacked fans and made shitty woke content in the first place. If you want a female lead in the new Star Wars sequels fine, but don't make the film blatant propaganda for twitter users and attack fans when they point out how bad The Last Jedi is.
I can't blame you for feeling that way. If these companies want to see a bright future, it might be time to publicly shun the Twitter crowd and completely get out of any kind of social politics. The longer they go, the less they'll be trusted
I see the merit of woke politics it’s just the people implementing it kinda suck as story tellers cause they are just political they aren’t writers or story tells they just want to tell everyone how to be moral not realizing that nobody is perfect and that expectation is unfair and unrealistic. I will always lean left but I will bitch to high heaven if they screw up Superman one more time
Yeah I don’t trust the US entertainment industry as far as I can throw it in turns I don’t trust them at all even if Hollywood does go back to where they were normal I guess I am still not going to forget and I’m not going to just let it go and I’m most likely not going to watch any more American films except maybe for a very few which I can count them on one hand with two fingers and other than that most of my entertainment come from Japan
I think that's the right move. These folks need to earn back some trust before they earn back my money
@@gregowen2022 in my opinion you really should do a video on anime or how manga is kicking the American entertainment industries ass it’s just a thought
Great idea, that is now officially on the video list. Might take a minute though, because the last anime I watched was DBZ. Gotta go some research
@@gregowen2022 OK I was not expecting a reply this quick but here are some high recommendations from me anything from Kyoto animation then there’s a Monogatari Series and then there’s Summer wars wolf children and a boy and his beast everything I listed on here is all fantastic but more than anything I highly recommend Violet Evergarden that is a absolute beautiful series and when I comes with a high recommendation
Awesome! Thanks for the recommendations
subscribe 251 here, i think i just found a golden channel.
I appreciate you being here! Thanks for the kind words
You must have not looked very hard for the JK Rowling statements. The interviews was all over the BBC, The Guardian, and even the New York Times. She said she did not support Trans rights because they may undermine the plight for equality of cis women. Make of her opinion what you will.
I got the impression it was something like that, but I couldn't find the exact quote. Perhaps it was too long to fit in a headline or tweet, which is why it didn't appear in much print. I just found plenty of assertions that she was a transphobe
The first layer is the basic premise to a heroes journey or three point perspective and the deeper layers are the logical writing and emotions that fuel that basic premise, for me stories with political elements whether subtle or secondary have those political elements at a lower layer then all of that add extra flavor or show an interesting parallel for example in Star Wars
Many people in the modern era who cite George being afraid of America becoming like Authoritarian Empires believed he strictly blamed The Rightwing side of politics for a possibility of this happening and that he promoted socialism or something modern. They of course didn’t pay attention. George didn’t blame one group or side when it came to politics for the risk of authoritarianism he blamed all sides of politics for that risk.
Any society begins by
realizing that together,
by helping each other,
you can survive better
than if you fight each
other and compete with
each other.
GEORGE LUCAS
He even has a deleted scene in A New Hope of Biggs warning Luke that The Empire would Nationalize commerce. (ruclips.net/video/LMu0CAWOxHQ/видео.html) “Nationalization
By WILL KENTON Updated November 29, 2020 Reviewed by ERIC ESTEVEZ
Fact checked by MARCUS REEVES
What Is Nationalization? Nationalization refers to the action of a government taking control of a company or industry, which generally occurs without compensation for the loss of the net worth of seized assets and potential income. The action may be the result of a nation's attempt to consolidate power, resentment of foreign ownership of industries representing significant importance to local economies or to prop up failing industries. KEY TAKEAWAYS:
Nationalization is the process of taking privately-controlled companies, industries, or assets and putting them under the control of the government. Nationalization often happens in developing countries and can reflect a nation's desire to control assets or to assert its dominance over foreign-owned industries. Often, the companies or assets are taken over and little to no compensation is provided to the previous owners.
Nationalization is different from privatization, in which government-run companies are moved into the private business sector.
Understanding Nationalization
Nationalization is more common in developing countries. Privatization, which is the transfer of government-run operations into the private business sector, occurs more frequently in developed countries.
Nationalization is one of the primary risks for companies doing business in foreign countries due to the potential of having significant assets seized without compensation. This risk is magnified in countries with unstable political leadership and stagnant or contracting economies. The key outcome of nationalization is the redirection of revenues to the country’s government instead of private operators who may export funds with no benefit to the host country. Nationalization and Oil , The oil industry has experienced nationalization actions for decades, dating back to Mexico’s nationalization of the assets of foreign producers such as Royal Dutch and Standard Oil in 1938 and Iran's nationalization of the assets of Anglo-Iranian 1951. The result of Mexico's nationalization of foreigners’ oil assets was the creation of PEMEX, which is one of the largest oil producers in the world. After the nationalization of Anglo-Iranian, Iran's economy fell into disarray, and Britain was allowed back in as a 50% partner a few years later. In 1954, Anglo-Iranian was renamed the British Petroleum Company.
In 2007, Venezuela nationalized Exxon Mobil’s Cerro Negro Project and other assets. Seeking $16.6 billion in compensation, Exxon Mobil was awarded approximately 10% of that amount by a World Bank arbitration panel in 2014. Nationalization in the United States. The United States has technically nationalized several companies, usually in the form of a bailout in which the government owns a controlling interest. The bailouts of AIG in 2008 and General Motors Company in 2009 amounted to nationalization, but the U.S. government exerted very little control over these companies. The government also nationalized the failing Continental Illinois Bank and Trust in 1984, finally selling it to Bank of America in 1994. Despite the temporary nature of most nationalization actions in the United States, there are exceptions. Amtrak was transferred to government ownership after several railroad companies failed in 1971. After the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the airport security industry was nationalized under the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).” George was Anti Nationalizing The Economy especially Businesses and preferred that free trade remain private.
He wanted to keep Government & Businesses separate from each other so people weren’t slave like tenants with the fruits of their individual labor being given to a big collective Government. “What good is all your uncle's work if its taken over by the Empire?...You know they re starting to nationalize commerce in the central systems..it won't be long before your uncle is merely a tenant, slaving for the greater glory of the Empire."- Biggs. George also wanted to keep Government and Business spectate to stop it from corrupting democracy which we briefly see in The Prequels. George was a 60’s Liberal, he wasn’t pro socialist and he didn’t blame one side when it came to politics. He blamed all sides for not compromising to work with each other which in his opinion often hurt democracies. The Galactic Empire Really represented all big powerful Government Empires including Nazi Germany, The British Empire, The Soviet Union, & The American Empire, etc. This can be seen in the aesthetic of The Empire and how they’re based on all authoritarian Governments but it is also confirmed during George’s interview with James Cameron.
( ruclips.net/video/fv9Jq_mCJEo/видео.html )
Where they criticized humanity for building these powerful Republics through human history only for them to eventually become giant Empires . George was against authoritarianism as a whole he didn’t care what side an Empire leaned politics or economics wise, but despite all of this that scene with Biggs is still deleted because George wanted a better introduction for Luke’s character preferring to start off his film with The Droids, R2-D2 & C3PO he felt not just would it work for a perspective method to filmmaking but it would also make tatooine look mysterious and alien before we see the human side of it with Luke’s introduction. Despite George having his political views he was willing to cut that scene for a better introduction to the characters. George put the quality of The story and characters before his Politics.
For the it was always political crowd with the stupid idea that everything is political the fact is Star Wars was always deeper then politics, the main focuses of Star Wars was philosophy, spirituality, psychology, & mythology. His lesson was to be more selfless and to be less selfish valuing giving more then taking in life to feel an immense joy instead of trying to get another big high from to match your best experiences in life.
Giving over Taking essentially.
(ruclips.net/video/rePgwJWg7cw/видео.html) George put a heavy focus on family and social symbiotic circles between all life, along with space adventure and The Journey & trials of fathers & sons. Despite SJW’s in the everything is political crowd not understanding Star Wars beyond politics or the illusion of their politics their is absolute proof of George putting the story and characters first while keeping the political elements subtle or secondary by his own acknowledgment and they’re everywhere in his conversations about Star Wars Plain as day.
“Still others picked up on Lucas's
Vietnam allegory, though Lucas, wary of politics, publicly disavowed any and all sociopolitical theories and quashed speculation on the deeper meaning of his film. For Lucas, it was enough that Star Wars could be merely entertaining-and entirely the point.”
ROSE: Could I show you a list of the 100
best films (LAUGH) and how many of 'em
are made by George Lucas?
LUCAS: Yeah, but they're not made to --
they -- yes, they have a political
undertone. I mean, especially "Star
Wars" has got a very, very elaborate
social, emotional, political context that it
rests in. But of course, nobody was
aware of that. Nobody says, "Oh my
gosh." But if you actually watch the
movies, it's there. And you subliminally
get the fact of what happens to you if
you've got a dysfunctional government
that's corrupt and doesn't work.
Let’s repeat
LUCAS: Yeah, but they're not made to --
they -- yes, they have a political
undertone. I mean, especially "Star
Wars" has got a very, very elaborate
social, emotional, political context that it
rests in.
Undertone - A subdued or muted tone of sound or color.
So by George’s view the political elements and context are an undertone within his films
And of course we have the quote by Joseph Campbell George’s mentor when it came to heroes and myth making who the media claimed was right wing during his time.
"Star Wars deals with the essential
problem: Is the machine going to
control humanity, or is the machine
going to serve humanity? Darth Vader
is a man taken over by a machine, he
becomes a machine, and the state
itself is a machine. There is no
humanity in the state. What runs the
world is economics and politics, and
they have nothing to do with
the spiritual life."
- Joseph Campbel
From "PW Interviews Joseph Campbell, by Chris Goodrich"
Publisher's Weekly (August 23, 1985, p.74-75)